Exhibit N - Environmental Assessment No. P21-05778P21-05870P23-00149 [5-22-2025] — Fresno City Council, August 14, 2025 (part 1 of 4)

Exhibit N
.2026/0000/27

CITY OF FRESNO

NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
APPLICANT:

FlLED
MAY 2 2 2025 TIME
FRESNO
By.

DEPUTY
PROJECT LOCATION:

The full Initial Study is on file in the Planning and Development Department, Fresno City Hall, 3 rd Floor,
Room 3043, 2600 Fresno Street, Fresno, CA 93721.

Site Latitude: 36
041’16.2168” N
Site Longitude: 119°46’55.47” WMount Diablo Base & Meridian, Township 14S, Range 20E, Section 27
Located on the west side of South Cherry Avenue between East North and East Central Avenues in the City and County of Fresno, California (See Exhibit A - Vicinity Map)
APN(s): 329-100-52, 329-100-01 (Project development
area)
329-100-51 329-100-52,329-100-51, 329-100-01, 329-080-
28,329-080-11, 329-080-10 , 329-180-19, 329-180-18, 329- 180-12, 329-180-09, 329-180-07,329-180-33, 329-180-28,
329-180-30, 329-180-32,329-080-30, 329-180-16, 329-1 DO44, and 329-100-03 (Within annexation boundary, outside of development area)
Bonique Emerson Precision Civil Engineering
1234 O Street
Fresno, CA 93721
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR P21-05778/P21-
05870/P23-00149
Filed with the

FRESNO COUNTY CLERK
2220 Tulare Street, Fresno, CA 93721
2270
ERK
E2025/00/2-
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

With mitigation imposed under the Project Specific Mitigation Measure Checklist, there is no substantial All new development activity and many non-physical projects contribute directly or indirectly toward cumulative impacts on the physical environment. It has been determined that the incremental effect contributed by this project toward cumulative impacts is not considered substantial or significant in itself and/or that cumulative impacts accruing from this project may be mitigated to less than significant with application of feasible mitigation measures.

The completed Appendix G/Initial Study Checklist, its associated narrative, technical studies and mitigation measures reflect applicable comments of responsible and trustee agencies and research and analyses conducted to examine the interrelationship between the proposed project and the physical environment. The information contained in the project application and its related environmental assessment application, responses to requests for comment, checklist, Initial Study narrative, and any attachments thereto, combine to form a record indicating that an Initial Study has been completed in compliance with the State CEQA Guidelines and the CEQA.

Pursuant to the California Public Resources Code (PRC) §§ 21093 and 21094 and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines §§ 15070 to 15075, 15150, and 15152, this project has been evaluated with respect to each item on the attached Appendix G/Initial Study Checklist to determine whether this project may cause any additional significant effect on the environment. After conducting a review of the adequacy of the Project Specific Mitigation Measure Checklist and CEQA Guidelines §§ 15151 and 15179(b), the Planning and Development Department, as lead agency, finds that no substantial changes have occurred and that no new information has become available.

The City of Fresno has prepared an Initial Study of the above-described project and proposes to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration.

Bonique Emerson of Precision Civil Engineering, on behalf of Daniel Onifer of Crown Enterprises, has filed Annexation Application No. P21-05778, Pre-zone Application No. P21-05870, and Development Permit Application No. P23-00149 pertaining to approximately 80.91 acres of property located on the west side of South Cherry Avenue between East North and East Central Avenues.

Annexation Application No. P21-05778 (for the North-Cherry No. 3b Reorganization) proposes detachment from the Kings River Conservation District and Fresno County Fire Protection District and annexation to the City of Fresno of approximately 80.91 acres.

Pre-zone Application No. P21-05870 proposing to pre-zone: approximately 15.95 acres of the subject property from the County of Fresno AL 20 (Limited Agricultural) zone district to the City of Fresno IH (Heavy Industrial) zone district; and approximately 35.77 acres of the subject property from the County AL 20 (Limited Agricultural) zone district to the City of Fresno IH/ANX (Heavy Industrial/Annexed Rural Residential Transitional Overly) zone district.

Development Permit Application No. P23-00149 proposing to construct a long-term regional facility for the purpose of providing less-than-truckload (LTL) freight services on approximately 15.95 acres of property.
22025/0000/27
8039 or via email at [email protected] for more information.

INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY: SUBMITTED BY:

Juan Lara, Planner III
Juan Lara, Planner III
DATE: 5/22/2025

CITY OF FRESNO
Attachments: Exhibit A - Vicinity Map
Additional information on the proposed project, including the Project Specific Mitigation Measure Checklist, proposed environmental finding of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Initial Study may be obtained from the Planning and Development Department, Fresno City Hall, 2600 Fresno Street, 3rd Floor, Room 3043, Fresno, California 93721 3604. Please contact Juan Lara at (559) 621- evidence in the record that this project may have additional significant, direct, indirect or cumulative effects on the environment that are significant. The Planning and Development Department, as lead agency, finds that no substantial changes have occurred and that no new information has become available.

Public notice has been provided regarding staff’s finding in the manner prescribed by § 15072 of the CEQA Guidelines and by § 21092 of the PRC Code (CEQA provisions).

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

DEPARTMENT
The Initial Study has concluded that the proposed project will not result in any adverse effects, which fall within the "Mandatory Findings of Significance" contained in § 15065 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The finding is, therefore, made that the proposed project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment.

ANY INTERESTED PERSON may comment on the proposed environmental finding. Comments must be in writing and must state (1) the commentor's name and address; (2) the commentor's interest in, or relationship to, the project; (3) the environmental determination being commented upon; and (4) the specific reason(s) why the proposed environmental determination should or should not be made. Any comments may be submitted at any time between the publication date of this notice and close of business on June 13, 2025. Please direct comments to Juan Lara, Planner III, City of Fresno Planning and Development Department, City Hall, 2600 Fresno Street, Room 3043, Fresno, California, 93721- 3604; or by email to [email protected].

Based upon the evaluation guided by the Appendix G/Initial Study Checklist, it was determined that there are project specific foreseeable impacts which reguire project level mitigation measures.

E2025/00002
Exhibit A - Vicinity Map
E North Ave
L
‘E North Ave T,—=past - E North Ave
i
I
® (41] f J
2 0

Q VALLLY IRON INC
>
41] E3
1 £1O
I
I
l o
G3 41]I
North Central I
N
NW NE
Legend
W E
----- 1
I Annexation Area SW SE
S
““I
I
j Project Development Area

UEUVIRANC TEMPLE
CURG

GUADWARA NANAKSAR
SAHIS
____ 3

APPENDIX G/INITIAL STUDY FOR A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Environmental Checklist Form for:

Environmental Assessment Application No. P21-05778/P21-05870/P23-00149

1. Project title:

Environmental Assessment Application No. P21-05778/P21-05870/P23-00149.

2. Lead agency name and address:

City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721

3. Contact person and phone number:

Juan Lara
Planner III
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
(559) 621-8039

4. Project location:
3253 S. Cherry Avenue, west side of South Cherry Avenue between East North and East Central Avenues, in Fresno, CA.
(APN: 329-100-52 & 329-100-01)

5. Project sponsor's name and address:

Crown Enterprises LLC
Attn: Andrew Falzarano
12225 Stephens Road
Warren, MI 48089

6. General & Community plan land use designation:

General Plan: Current, Employment – Heavy Industrial. Proposed, no change.

Specific Plan: North Avenue Industrial Triangle Specific Plan

7. Zoning:

Current: AL-20 (Limited Agricultural, Fresno County).

Proposed: IH (Heavy Industrial, City of Fresno).

8. Description of project:

The proposed Project site is currently located in the unincorporated Fresno County, but within the Sphere of Influence (SOI) of City of Fresno. To accommodate the proposed Project, an Annexation approval, Pre-zone approval, and a Development Permit Application approval will be needed.

Annexation Application No. P21-05778 requests authorization to initiate annexation proceedings for the North-Cherry No. 3b Reorganization proposing the incorporation of the subject property within the City of Fresno; and detachment from the Kings River Conservation District and the Fresno County Fire Protection District. The 80.91-acre annexation site also includes a portion of Highway 41 and the following APNs:
• 329-100-44, -03, -51, -52, -01
• 329-080-28, -11, -10
• 329-180-19, -18, -12, -09, -16, -30, 28, -33, -07, -32 • 329-90-30
Pre-zone Application No. P21-05870 requests authorization to pre-zone approximately

51.72 acres of the subject property from the Fresno County AL 20 (Limited Agricultural) zone district to the City of Fresno HI (Heavy Industrial) zone district. APNs to be prezoned include:
• 329-100-52, -51, 01, -44
• 329-080-28, -11, -10, -30
• 329-180-19, -18, 12, -09, -07, -33, -28, -30, -32, -16, Development Permit Application No. P23-00149 requests authorization to construct a long-term regional facility for the purpose of providing less-than-truckload (LTL) freight services on a 15.95-acre portion of the 80.91-acre annexation site (APNs 329-100-52 & -01). The development will consist of an approximately 3,200 square foot administrative office, approximately 68,570 square foot cross-dock transfer platform, approximately 11,880 square foot fleet maintenance shop, 3,494 square foot office, parking for up to 29 fleet tractors, up to 150 fleet trailers, up to 84 automobiles, and a diesel fuel system for fleet equipment. No development is proposed for the remaining

64.96 acres.

The fuel system includes two dial sided fuel lanes with two single hose dispensers on each and one dual hose dispenser in the middle, for a total of three pumps. The system also has the following safety monitoring system:
• Veeder Root Continuous Statistical Leak Detection (Csld) For Tls-450Plus • Veeder Root Risk Management: Digital Line Leak Detection For Tls-450Plus • Veeder Root Digital Pressurized Line Leak Detector Without Swiftcheck Valve, Ul
• Veeder Root Overfill Alarm Box
The Project construction will also include street lighting,landscaping, and connecting to the existing water and sewer main in South Cherry Avenue.

Central Transport will operate 24 hours per day, Monday through Friday. Saturday operations are limited to night drivers returning (~7:00AM) from their Friday night shift).

The facility will consist of approximately 90 employees. The Project includes a total of approximately 84 truck trips per day (42 entering and 42 exiting) and 120 passenger vehicle trips per day (60 entering and 60 exiting)
Central Transport’s activities at this site will involve the unloading and transfer of freight, (such as retail, automotive, consumer good and industrial supply) from trailers incoming to the facility, and direct loading to trailers outbound to their destination. No outside storage of material will be required with this operation.

15.95 9. Surrounding land uses and setting:

Planned Land Use Existing Zoning Existing Land Use
North
Heavy Industrial
(City of Fresno)
AL-20 – Limited Agricultural
(Fresno County)
Heavy Industrial
East Heavy Industrial
(City of Fresno)
IH - Heavy Industrial (City of
Fresno)
Agricultural row
crops
South Heavy Industrial
(City of Fresno)
AL-20 – Limited Agricultural
(Fresno County)
Rural residence,
Agricultural Land
West
State Hwy 41,
Regional Business
Park, Ponding
Basin (City of
Fresno)
AL-20 – Limited Agricultural
(Fresno County)
State Hwy, Heavy
Industrial

10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement):

Planning and Development Department, Building and Safety Services Division, Department of Public Works, Department of Public Utilities, Fire Department, Fresno Irrigation District, Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District, County of Fresno Department of Community Health, County of Fresno Department of Public Works and Planning, and San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.

11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21080.3.1? If so, has consultation begun? The State requires lead agencies to consider the potential effects of proposed projects and consult with California Native American tribes during the local planning process for the purpose of protecting Traditional Tribal Cultural Resources through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Pursuant to PRC Section 21080.3.1, the lead agency shall begin consultation with the California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographical area of the proposed project. Such significant cultural resources are either sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a tribe which is either on or eligible for inclusion in the California Historic Register or local historic register, or, the lead agency, at its discretion, and support by substantial evidence, choose to treat the resources as a Tribal Cultural Resources (PRC Section 21074(a)(1-2)). According to the most recent census data, California is home to 109 currently recognized Indian tribes. Tribes in California currently have nearly 100 separate reservations or Rancherias. Fresno County has a number of Rancherias such as Table Mountain Rancheria, Millerton Rancheria, Big Sandy Rancheria, Cold Springs Rancheria, and Squaw Valley Rancheria. These Rancherias are not located within the city limits.

Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process (See PRC Section 21083.3.2.). Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per PRC Section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that PRC Section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.

Currently, the Table Mountain Rancheria Tribe and the Dumna Wo Wah Tribe are required to be notified pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52). A certified letter was mailed to the above-mentioned tribes on March 3, 2023. The 30-day comment period ended on April 3, 2023. Neither tribe requested consultation.

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
☒ Aesthetics ☐ Agriculture and Forestry Resources
☐ Air Quality ☐ Biological Resources
☐ Cultural Resources ☐ Energy
☐ Geology/Soils ☐ Greenhouse Gas Emissions
☐ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ☐ Hydrology/Water Quality ☐ Land Use/Planning ☐ Mineral Resources
☐ Noise ☐ Population/Housing
☐ Public Services ☐ Recreation
☐ Transportation ☐ Tribal Cultural Resources
☐ Utilities/Service Systems ☐ Wildfire
☐ Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
__ _
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. _X_
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
___
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) is required.
___
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An EIR is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
___
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

____________________________________________May 22, 2025_____ Juan Lara, Planner III Date
City of Fresno, Planning and Development Department
EVALUATION OF ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:

1. For purposes of this Initial Study, the following answers have the corresponding meanings:
a. “No Impact” means the specific impact category does not apply to the project, or that the record sufficiently demonstrates that project specific factors or general standards applicable to the project will result in no impact for the threshold under consideration.
b. “Less Than Significant Impact” means there is an impact related to the threshold under consideration, but that impact is less than significant. c. “Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation” means there is a potentially significant impact related to the threshold under consideration, however, with the mitigation incorporated into the project, the impact is less than significant. d. “Potentially Significant Impact” means there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant related to the threshold under consideration.

2. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

3. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well A0A—
as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

4. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant.

If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

5. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from, "Earlier Analyses," as described in (6) below, may be cross-referenced).

6. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, Program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the PEIR or another earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

7. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances).

Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

8. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

9. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a. The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b. The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.

This completed environmental impact checklist form and its associated narrative reflect applicable comments of responsible and trustee agencies and research and analysis conducted to examine the interrelationship between the proposed project and the physical environment. The information contained in the Project application and its related environmental assessment application, responses to requests for comment, checklist, initial study narrative, and any attachments thereto, combine to form a record indicating that an initial study has been completed in compliance with the State CEQA Guidelines and the CEQA.

All new development activity and many non-physical projects contribute directly or indirectly toward cumulative impacts on the physical environment. It has been determined that the incremental effect contributed by this Project toward cumulative impacts is not considered substantial or significant in itself, and/or that cumulative impacts accruing from this Project may be mitigated to less than significant with application of feasible mitigation measures.

For some categories of potential impacts, the checklist may indicate that a specific adverse environmental effect has been identified which is of sufficient magnitude to be of concern. Such an effect may be inherent in the nature and magnitude of the Project or may be related to the design and characteristics of the individual project. Effects so rated are not sufficient in themselves to require the preparation of an EIR and have been mitigated to the extent feasible.

The Initial Study has concluded that the Project will not result in any adverse effects which fall within the "Mandatory Findings of Significance" contained in Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines. The finding is, therefore, made that the Project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. AESTHETICS – Except as provided in PRC Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse
effect on a scenic vista?
X
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
X
c) In non-urbanized areas,
substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality public
views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are
those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage point).

If the project is in an urbanized
area, would the project conflict
with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic
quality?
X
d) Create a new source of
substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
X

DISCUSSION
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact. A scenic vista is defined as a viewpoint that provides expansive views of highly valued landscape for the benefit of the general public. The Sierra Nevada Mountains are the only natural and visual resource in the Project area. Views of these distant mountains are afforded only during clear conditions due to poor air quality in the valley. The City of Fresno does not identify views of these features as required to be “protected”.

The Project site is in an industrialized area of the City of Fresno. There are no scenic vistas or other protected scenic resources on or near the site. The nearest scenic resource would be Sierra Nevada mountains, located approximately 50 miles to the east. Views to the Sierra Nevada will not be obstructed as the proposed development does not consist of visually imposing structures. Visual character of the site is addressed further in Response c) below.

Therefore, the Project has no impact on scenic vistas or designated scenic resources or highways.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. The Project site is in an industrialized area of the City of Fresno and there are no scenic vistas or other protected scenic resources on or near the site. There are no scenic highways near the proposed site. The nearest designated State Scenic Highway is Hwy 180 located approximately 18.4 miles east of the site.1 As such, there is no impact.
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would alter the existing visual character of public views of the site from vacant land to fully developed with a longterm regional facility for less-than-truckload (LTL) freight services. The development will consist of approximately 3,200 square foot administrative office, approximately 68,570 square foot cross-dock transfer platform, approximately 11,880 square foot 1 State Scenic Highway Map, Caltrans.
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa. Accessed February 2024. fleet maintenance shop, 3,494 square foot office parking for up to 29 fleet tractors, up to 150 fleet trailers, up to 84 automobiles, and a diesel fuel system for fleet equipment.

The proposed site is located in an industrialized area, within and adjacent to the City, surrounded primarily by commercial logistics, warehouses, and auto repair businesses, such as the proposed Project. The Project design is subject to the City’s Design Guidelines adopted for the City’s General Plan which apply to site layout, building design, landscaping, interior street design, lighting, parking and signage.

Detailed architectural plans, color palettes and building materials as well as landscaping plans will be submitted by the Project developer to the City of Fresno Planning and Development Department. The plans shall be required prior to issuance of any building permits.

The proposed Project will require removal of minimal vegetation in the vacant lot. Curb and gutters, gates, electrical panels and pedestrian sidewalks are incorporated into the project design, along with site landscaping, including trees such as pistachio and elm trees, and perennials and grasses such as reed grass, lantana and landscape rose, which will provide visual screening of the proposed site from vehicles along Cherry Avenue.

Developments such as those proposed by the Project are typical of large city industrialized areas and are generally expected from residents of the City. These developments would not substantially degrade the visual character of the area and would not diminish the visual quality of the area, as they would be consistent with the existing visual setting. The existing buildings in the Project area consist of one- to twostory warehouses and commercial buildings. The proposed Project itself is not visually imposing against the scale of the existing adjacent industrial buildings and nature of the surrounding area.

Therefore, the Project would have less than significant impacts on the visual character of the area.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less Than Significant Impact. The subject site currently has no on-site sources of lighting. The proposed Project will introduce new lighting that will be typical of commercial or industrial developments, such as security lights, parking lot lights and vehicle lights. Additional night lighting sources on the proposed site, especially any unshielded light, could result in spillover light that could impact surrounding adjacent residential uses. This would create new sources of light that could potentially have a significant impact on nighttime light levels in the area. During the entitlement process, staff will ensure that lights are located in areas that will minimize light sources to the neighboring properties, in accordance with Section 15-2015 (Outdoor Lighting and Illumination) of the City’s Municipal Code, which requires lighting be used for illumination purposes only and pointed downward to avoid light spillover to surrounding land uses.

Compliance with California Building Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations) standards and the City’s Municipal Code would ensure impacts would be less than significant. As a result, the proposed Project will implement the necessary mitigation measures and will have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated with regards to light and glare.

Mitigation Measures
None Required.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES – In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland,
Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract?
X
c) Conflict with existing zoning for,
or cause rezoning of, forest land
(as defined in Public Resources
Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or
timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by
Government Code section
51104(g))?
X
d) Result in the loss of forest land
or conversion of forest land to
non-forest use?
X

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
e) Involve other changes in the
existing environment which, due
to their location or nature, could
result in conversion of Farmland,
to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to nonforest use?
X

DISCUSSION
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
No Impact. The California Department of Conservation, Important Farmland Finder Program considers the Project site to be Farmland of Local Importance; however, the site is within the City of Fresno’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) and is designated and zoned for urban uses by the City’s General Plan. The site is currently undeveloped and vacant, and there are no existing agricultural uses or operations within the Project boundaries. The proposed Project would not convert prime farmland, conflict with an existing agricultural use, or result in the conversion of existing farmland. Additionally, no Williamson Act contracted lands would be impacted due to the Project.

Therefore, the Project has no impact on agricultural and forest resources. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The proposed Project site is currently located in the unincorporated Fresno County, but within the Sphere of Influence (SOI) of City of Fresno. To accommodate the proposed Project, a Pre-zone, AL-20 (Limited Agriculture, Fresno County) to IH (Heavy Industrial, City of Fresno), approval and an Annexation Approval will be needed and are part of the proposed Project. Once the zone change has been approved, the proposed Project will not conflict with the zoning. There is no impact. c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
No Impact. As the site is on the Valley floor and in a developed urban area, there is no forest or timberland on the proposed Project site. The proposed development will not Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g). There is no impact. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. As described in Impact c) above, there is no forest land on the Project site. There is no impact.
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact. The Project does not consist of farmland or forest land. The proposed Project will not involve other changes in the existing environment that could result in conversion of Farmland. There is no impact.

Mitigation Measures
None are required.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
III. AIR QUALITY – Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable
air quality plan (e.g., by having
potential emissions of regulated
criterion pollutants which exceed
the San Joaquin Valley Air
Pollution Control Districts
(SJVAPCD) adopted thresholds
for these pollutants)?
X
b) Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment
under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions
which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
X
c) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations?
X
d) Result in other emissions (such
as those leading to odors)
adversely affecting a substantial
number of people?
X
The analysis in the Air Quality Resource section is based on the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Technical Memorandum (Memo) prepared by Johnson Johnson and Miller Air Quality Consulting Services in May 2023. The Memo is provided in its entirety in Appendix A.

DISCUSSION
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less Than Significant Impact. Air Quality Plans (AQPs) are plans for reaching attainment of air quality standards. The assumptions, inputs, and control measures are analyzed to determine if the Air Basin can reach attainment for the ambient air quality standards. The proposed Project site is located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the SJVAPCD. To show attainment of the standards, the SJVAPCD analyzes the growth projections in the Valley, contributing factors in air pollutant emissions and formations, and existing and adopted emissions controls. The SJVAPCD then formulates a control strategy to reach attainment that includes both State and SJVAPCD regulations and other local programs and measures. For projects that include stationary sources of emissions, the SJVAPCD relies on project compliance with Rule 2201—New and Modified Stationary Source Review to ensure that growth in stationary source emissions would not interfere with the applicable AQP.

Projects exceeding the offset thresholds included in the rule are required to purchase offsets in the form of Emission Reduction Credits (ERCs).

An additional criterion regarding the project’s implementation of control measures was assessed to provide further evidence of the project’s consistency with current AQPs.

This document proposes the following criteria for determining project consistency with the current AQPs:

1. Will the project result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQPs? This measure is determined by comparison to the regional and localized thresholds identified by the District for Regional and Local Air Pollutants.

2. Will the project comply with applicable control measures in the AQPs? The use of the criteria listed above is a standard approach for CEQA analysis of projects in the SJVAPCD’s jurisdiction, as well as within other air districts, for the following reasons:
• Significant contribution to existing or new exceedances of the air quality standards would be inconsistent with the goal of attaining the air quality standards.
• AQP emissions inventories and attainment modeling are based on growth assumptions for the area within the air district’s jurisdiction. • AQPs rely on a set of air district-initiated control measures as well as implementation of federal and state measures to reduce emissions within their jurisdictions, with the goal of attaining the air quality standards.

Contribution to Air Quality Violations
As discussed in Impact b) below, emissions of ROG, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5 associated with the proposed Project would not exceed the SJVAPCD’s significance thresholds during the construction phase (see Table ) or emissions of ROG, NOX, CO, SOX, PM2.5 or PM10 during operations (see Table 2).

Therefore, the Project would not exceed the SJVAPCD’s regional thresholds of significance for any pollutant of concern and would be considered consistent with the existing AQPs. The Project would comply with all applicable CARB and SJVAPCD rules and regulations. Therefore, the Project complies with this criterion and would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality attainment plan with regards to this criterion. The impact would be less than significant. b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Less Than Significant Impact. To result in a less than significant impact, emissions of nonattainment pollutants must be below the SJVAPCD’s regional significance thresholds. This is an approach recommended by the SJVAPCD’s in its GAMAQI. The SJVAB is in nonattainment for ozone, PM10 (State only), and PM2.5. Ozone is a secondary pollutant that can be formed miles from the source of emissions, through reactions of ROG and NOX emissions in the presence of sunlight. Therefore, ROG and NOX are termed ozone precursors. As such, the primary pollutants of concern during project construction and operation are ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5. The air quality standards were set to protect public health, including the health of sensitive individuals (such as children, the elderly, and the infirm). Therefore, when the concentration of those pollutants exceeds the standard, it is likely that some sensitive individuals in the population would experience adverse experience health effects.

However, the health effects are a factor of the dose-response curve. Concentration of the pollutant in the air (dose), the length of time exposed, and the response of the individual are factors involved in the severity and nature of health impacts. If a significant health impact results from project emissions, it does not mean that 100 percent of the population would experience health effects.

Since the SJVAB is nonattainment for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5, it is considered to have an existing significant cumulative health impact without the Project. When this occurs, the analysis considers whether the project’s contribution to the existing violation of air quality standards is cumulatively considerable. The SJVAPCD regional thresholds for NOX, ROG/VOC, PM10, or PM2.5 are applied as cumulative contribution thresholds.

Projects that exceed the regional thresholds would have a cumulatively considerable health impact.

The SJVAPCD GAMAQI adopted in 2015 contains thresholds for CO, NOX, ROG, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5. Air pollutant emissions have both regional and localized effects.

The Project’s regional emissions are compared to the applicable SJVAPCD below.

Criteria Pollutant Emission Estimates
Construction Emissions (Regional)
Construction emissions associated with the development envisioned for the proposed Project are shown in Table 1 prior to the incorporation of any mitigation.

Table 1
Summary of Construction-Generated Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants – Unmitigated Emissions Source
Emissions (Tons/Year)
ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Project Construction (2023) 0.19 1.62 1.66 < 0.005 0.28 0.15 Project Construction (2024) 0.38 0.79 0.99 < 0.005 0.06 0.04 Total Construction Duration
Project Total 0.57 2.41 2.65 < 0.005 0.34 0.19
Significance Thresholds 10 10 100 27 15 15
Exceed Significance
Thresholds? No No No No No No
Notes:

PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are from the mitigated output to reflect compliance with Regulation VIII—Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions.

Source of Emissions: CalEEMod Output and Additional Supporting Information (Attachment A).

Totals may not appear to sum exactly due to rounding.

Source of Thresholds: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2015. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. February 19. Website: https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI-2015/FINAL-DRAFT-GAMAQI.PDF. Accessed May 24, 2023.

As shown in Table 1 above, construction activities associated with implementation of the proposed rezone Project are estimated to fall below the significance thresholds.

Therefore, regional and cumulative impacts associated with construction of development contemplated under the proposed rezone project are less than significant on a Project basis.

Operational Emissions (Regional)—Non-Permitted
Operational emissions occur over the lifetime of the project. The SJVAPCD considers permitted (stationary sources) and non-permitted (mobile) emission sources separately when making significance determinations. In addition, the annual operational emissions are also considered separately from construction emissions.

Operational emissions associated with the proposed Project are shown in Table 2.

Operational emissions were estimated using a full buildout scenario in the earliest year of operations (2024), which provides a conservative estimate of emissions and resulting potential impacts.

Table 2
Summary of Operational Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants – Unmitigated Source
Emissions (tons/year)
ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Area 0.44 < 0.005 0.34 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005
Energy < 0.005 0.06 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005
Off-road Equipment 0.05 0.51 0.88 < 0.005 0.02 0.02
Mobile (Passenger
Vehicles) 0.12 0.14 1.19 0.00 0.26 0.07
Mobile (Trucks) 0.06 4.65 0.80 0.04 1.11 0.35
Annual Total (2024) 0.67 5.36 3.26 0.04 1.39 0.44
Significance
Thresholds 10 10 100 27 15 15
Exceed Significance
Thresholds? No No No No No No
Notes:

Emissions were quantified using CalEEMod based on project details and earliest operational year for the proposed project. Totals may not sum exactly due to rounding.

Source: CalEEMod Output and Additional Supporting Information (Attachment A).

As shown in Table 2, operational emissions would not exceed the applicable SJVAPCD thresholds of significance for ROG, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, or PM2.5. The Project’s long-term operational emissions would not exceed any of the SJVAPCD’s project-level regional thresholds of significance. Therefore, the impact from operations of the Project would be less than significant.

Operational Emissions (Regional)—Permitted
The SJVAPCD GAMAQI recommends assessing the emissions from permitted sources of emissions separate from non-permitted sources. The SJVAPCD’s permitting process ensures that emissions of criteria pollutants from permitted equipment and activities at stationary sources are reduced or mitigated to below the SJVAPCD’s thresholds of significance. SJVAPCD implementation of New Source Review (NSR) ensures that there is no net increase in emissions above specified thresholds from new and modified Stationary Sources subject to the rule for all nonattainment pollutants and their precursors. Permitted sources emitting more than the NSR Offset Thresholds for any criteria pollutant must, in general, offset all emission increases in excess of the thresholds.

In the event that stationary sources are proposed in the future, the SJVAPCD will prepare an engineering evaluation of all permitted equipment to determine the controls required to achieve best available control technology (BACT) requirements. The permitted emissions are dependent on the control technology selected and any process limits included in the permit conditions.

Permitted sources will be required to comply with SJVAPCD BACT requirements.

Compliance with regulations would ensure that the project’s stationary sources would not exceed SJVAPCD thresholds of significance; therefore, the Project’s estimated permitted emissions would be less than significant.

As shown in Table , the Project’s regional emissions resulting from construction, operations and mobile sources, would not exceed the applicable regional criteria pollutant emissions quantitative thresholds during Project construction. During operations, the Project would not exceed the applicable regional criteria pollutant emissions quantitative thresholds (see Table 2). Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact. Emissions occurring at or near the proposed Project have the potential to create a localized impact that could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Sensitive receptors are considered land uses or other types of population groups that are more sensitive to air pollution than others due to their exposure. Sensitive population groups include children, the elderly, the acutely and chronically ill, and those with cardio-respiratory diseases. The SJVAPCD considers a sensitive receptor to be a location that houses or attracts children, the elderly, people with illnesses, or others who are especially sensitive to the effects of air pollutants. Examples of sensitive receptors include hospitals, residences, convalescent facilities, and schools.

The only sensitive receptors within 0.25 miles of the Project are residences. There are no schools, hospitals, convalescent facilities or other sensitive receptors in this primarily rural agricultural and industrial area. However, it should be noted that there is an Elementary School just over 0.27 miles to the Southeast of the Project, (Orange Center Elementary). To the north is farmland with eight scattered residences, one church and a few businesses including Valley Iron. Zacky Farms and Julians Window Tinting. To the west are two trucking companies, K&S Services and Herlan Brothers and a small Auto Wrecking Yard. To the south is primarily farmland with seven scattered residences. To the east is Farmland, four residences, and part of Valley Iron’s yard and buildings.

Localized Impacts
Emissions occurring at or near the project have the potential to create a localized impact also referred to as an air pollutant hotspot. Localized emissions are considered significant if or when combined with background emissions, they would result in exceedance of any health-based air quality standard. In locations that already exceed standards for these pollutants, significance is based on a significant impact level (SIL) that represents the amount that is considered a cumulatively considerable contribution to an existing violation of an air quality standard. The pollutants of concern for localized impact in the SJVAB are NO2, SOX, and CO.

The SJVAPCD has provided guidance for screening localized impacts in the GAMAQI that establishes a screening threshold of 100 pounds per day of any criteria pollutant.

If a project exceeds 100 pounds per day of any criteria pollutant, then ambient air quality modeling would be necessary. If the project does not exceed 100 pounds per day of any criteria pollutant, then it can be assumed that it would not cause a violation of an ambient air quality standard.

Construction: Localized Concentrations of PM10, PM2.5, CO, SOX, and NOX Local construction impacts would be short-term in nature lasting only during the duration of construction. As shown in Table 3 below, on-site construction emissions would be less than 100 pounds per day for each of the criteria pollutants. To present a conservative estimate, on-site emissions for on-road construction vehicles were included in the localized analysis. Based on the SJVAPCD’s guidance, the construction emissions would not cause an ambient air quality standard violation.

Table 3
Localized Concentrations of PM10, PM2.5, CO, and NOX for Construction – Unmitigated Emission Source
On-site Emissions (pounds per day)
ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
On-site Daily Construction
(Highest in 2023) 4.15 40.42 38.69 0.07 10.16 5.67
On-site Daily Construction
(Highest in 2024) 29.11 11.44 13.75 0.02 0.52 0.46
Total Construction Duration
Highest Daily Maximum 29.11 40.42 38.69 0.07 10.16 5.67 Significance Thresholds — 100 100 100 100 100
Exceed Significance
Thresholds? — No No No No No
Note: Overlap of construction activities is based on the construction schedule shown in Table 2 and Attachment A.

Source of Emissions: CalEEMod Output and Additional Supporting Information (Attachment A). Maximum daily emissions represent the maximum daily emissions between the Summer and Winter scenarios.

Accessed May 24, 2023.

Operational emissions include those generated on-site by area sources such as consumer products (spray paints, insecticides, etc.), and landscape maintenance, such as gas-powered lawn mowers), and motor vehicles operation at the Project site.

Motor vehicle emissions are estimated for on-site operations using trip lengths for onsite travel and 0.25-mile of off-site emissions.

As shown in Table 4 below, operational modeling of on-site emissions for the Project indicate that the project would not exceed 100 pounds per day for each of the criteria pollutants. Therefore, based on the SJVAPCD’s guidance, the operational emissions would not cause an ambient air quality standard violation. As such, impacts would be less than significant.

Table 4
Localized Concentrations of PM10, PM2.5, CO, and NOX for Operations Source
On-site Emissions (pounds per day)
ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Area 2.71 0.03 3.81 < 0.01 0.01 0.01
Energy 0.02 0.30 0.25 < 0.01 0.02 0.02
Off-Road 0.36 3.90 6.74 0.01 0.15 0.13
Mobile -
Passenger
Vehicles Trips

0.65 0.25 1.51 < 0.01 0.07 0.02
Mobile - Truck
Trips 0.10 2.30 1.46 <0.01 0.06 0.02
Total 3.84 6.78 13.77 0.01 0.31 0.20
Significance
Thresholds — 100 100 100 100 100
Exceed
Significance
Thresholds?
— No No No No No
Source of Emissions: CalEEMod Output and Additional Supporting Information (Attachment A).

Accessed May 24, 2023.

Toxic Air Contaminants
Construction
Project construction would involve the use of diesel-fueled vehicles and equipment that emit DPM, which is considered a TAC. The SJVAPCD’s current threshold of significance for TAC emissions is an increase in cancer risk for the maximally exposed individual of 20 in a million (formerly 10 in a million). The SJVAPCD’s 2015 GAMAQI does not currently recommend analysis of TAC emissions from project construction activities, but instead focuses on projects with operational emissions that would expose sensitive receptors over a typical lifetime of 70 years. In addition, the most intense construction activities of the Project’s construction would occur during site preparation and grading phases over a short period. There are no conditions unique to the Project site that would require more intense construction activity compared to typical development. Examples of situations that would warrant closer scrutiny may include sites that would require extensive excavation and hauling due to existing site conditions. Building construction typically requires limited amounts of diesel equipment relative to site clearing activities. Nonetheless, a construction HRA was prepared as part of this analysis. In addition, the analysis includes an evaluation of potential health impacts from construction and operations of the Project considered together, over a 70-year exposure scenario.

Health Risk Assessment (HRA)
The results of the HRA prepared for Project construction for cancer risk and long-term chronic cancer risk are summarized below. Construction emissions were estimated assuming adherence to all applicable rules, regulations, and project design features.

The construction emissions were assumed to be distributed over the project area with a working schedule of eight hours per day and five days per week. Emissions were adjusted by a factor of 4.2 to convert for use with a 24-hour-per-day, 365 day-per-year averaging period. Health risk calculations were completed using HARP2. Detailed parameters and complete calculations are included in Attachment B.

The estimated health and hazard impacts at the Maximally Exposed Receptor (MER) from the Project’s construction emissions are provided in Table 5.

Table 5
Summary of the Health Impacts from Unmitigated Construction of the Project Exposure Scenario
Maximum Cancer
Risk
(Risk per Million)
Chronic
Non-Cancer
Hazard Index
Acute
Non-Cancer
Hazard Index
Risks and Hazards at the Construction MER
Risks and Hazards at the MER (construction
only)

9.90 0.0076 0.000
Risks and Hazards at the MER (construction
plus operations)

20.49 0.0103 0.0000
Significance Threshold 20 1 1
Threshold Exceeded in Any Scenario? Yes No No
Notes:

MER = Maximally Exposed Receptor
DPM = Diesel Particulate Matter
Central Transport Regional Facility Project Unmitigated Construction MER UTM: (251417.25, 4063705.56) Source: Attachment B of Appendix A.

As shown in Table 5, estimated health risks from elevated DPM concentrations during construction of the proposed Project would not exceed the applicable health risk significance thresholds when construction is considered alone; however, construction and operational emissions combined would exceed the applicable cancer risk threshold. This represents a potentially significant construction TAC exposure impact.

Therefore, mitigation is required to reduce the impact during the construction period to below a level of significance.

MM AIR-1 requires the project applicant, project sponsor, or construction contractor to provide documentation to the City of Fresno that all off-road diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 75 horsepower meet EPA or CARB Tier 4 offroad emissions standards or utilize Level 3 filters. Error! Reference source not f ound. shows the health risks and non-cancer hazard index for construction with implementation of MM AIR-1.

Table 6
Summary of the Health Impacts from Unmitigated Construction of the Project Exposure Scenario
Maximum
Cancer Risk
(Risk per
Million)
Chronic
Non-Cancer
Hazard Index
Acute NonCancer
Hazard Index
Risks and Hazards at the Construction MER—Tier 4 Equipment Scenario Risks and Hazards at the MER
(Construction Only)

1.64 0.0013 0.0000
Risks and Hazards at the MER
(Construction Plus Operations)

12.23 0.0040 0.0000
Risks and Hazards at the Construction MER—Level 3 Filters Scenario Risks and Hazards at the MER
(Construction Only)

2.19 0.0017 0.0000
Risks and Hazards at the MER
(Construction Plus Operations)

12.78 0.0044 0.0000
Highest Risks and Hazards at the Construction MER after Incorporation of MM AIR-1 Risks and Hazards at the MER 12.78 0.0044 0.0000
Significance Threshold 20 1 1
Threshold Exceeded in Any Scenario? No No No
Exposure Scenario
Maximum
Cancer Risk
(Risk per
Million)
Chronic
Non-Cancer
Hazard Index
Acute NonCancer
Hazard Index
MER = Maximally Exposed Receptor
Central Transport Regional Facility Project Construction MER: Receptor #26 (UTM 251417.25, 4063705.56) Source: Attachment B of Appendix A.

As noted in Error! Reference source not found., calculated health metrics from the p roposed project’s construction DPM emissions would not exceed the cancer risk significance threshold or non-cancer hazard index significance threshold at the MER with incorporation of MM AIR-1. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in a significant impact on nearby sensitive receptors from TACs during construction.

Table 7
Summary of the Health Impacts from Operations of the Proposed Project (70-year Scenario)
Exposure Scenario
Maximum Cancer
Risk
(Risk per Million)
Chronic
Non-Cancer Hazard
Index
Acute
Non-Cancer
Hazard Index
70-Year Exposure at the MER (from DPM
Emissions) 15.04 0.0029 0.0000
Combined 70-Year Exposure Scenario for
Mitigated Construction + Operations at the
Construction MER

12.78 0.0044 0.0000
Combined 70-Year Exposure Scenario for
Mitigated Construction + Operations at the
Operational MER

13.30 0.0044 0.0000
Applicable Threshold of Significance 20 1 1
Threshold Exceeded in Any Scenario? No No No
Notes:

MER = Maximally Exposed Receptor
DPM = Diesel Particulate Matter
Operational MER: Receptor #88 (see Attachment B)
Construction MER: Receptor #26 (see Attachment B)
Source: Attachment B of Appendix A.

As shown in Table 7, the Project would not exceed the cancer risk, chronic risk, or acute risk threshold levels in any scenario analysis after the incorporation of MM AIR1. The primary source of the emissions responsible for chronic risk are from diesel trucks during operations and off-road diesel equipment during construction. DPM does not have an acute risk factor, resulting in an acute non-cancer hazard index of zero (0) for all receptors. Since the project does not exceed the applicable SJVAPCD thresholds for cancer risk, acute risk, or chronic risk, the impact related to the Project’s potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations would be less than significant.

Valley Fever
Valley fever, or coccidioidomycosis, is an infection caused by inhalation of the spores of the fungus, Coccidioides immitis (C. immitis). The spores live in soil and can live for an extended time in harsh environmental conditions. Activities or conditions that increase the amount of fugitive dust contribute to greater exposure, and they include dust storms, grading, and recreational off-road activities.

1.1 in Northern and Eastern California to 90.6 in the Southern San Joaquin Valley, with the largest increase (15‐fold) occurring in the Northern San Joaquin Valley.

Incidence has been consistently high in six counties in the Southern San Joaquin Valley (Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Tulare, and Merced counties) and Central Coast (San Luis Obispo County) regions.2 California experienced 7,962 new probable or confirmed cases of Valley fever in 2021. A total of 408 suspect, probable, and confirmed Valley fever cases were reported in Fresno County in 2021.3 The distribution of C. immitis within endemic areas is not uniform and growth sites are commonly small (a few tens of meters) and widely scattered. Known sites appear to have some ecological factors in common suggesting that certain physical, chemical, and biological conditions are more favorable for C. immitis growth. Avoidance, when 2 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2020. Regional Analysis of Coccidioidomycosis Incidence—California, 2000–2018. Website: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6948a4.htm?s_cid=mm6948a4_e. Accessed April 10, 2023.
3 California Department of Public Health (CDPH). 2021. Coccidioidomycosis in California Provisional Monthly Report January 2021. Website: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/CDPH%20Document%20Library/CocciinCA ProvisionalMonthlyReport.pdf. Accessed April 10, 2023.
possible, of sites favorable for the occurrence of C. immitis is a prudent risk management strategy. Listed below are ecologic factors and sites favorable for the occurrence of C. immitis:
1) Rodent burrows (often a favorable site for C. immitis, perhaps because temperatures are more moderate and humidity higher than on the ground surface) 2) Old (prehistoric) Indian campsites near fire pits
3) Areas with sparse vegetation and alkaline soils
4) Areas with high salinity soils
5) Areas adjacent to arroyos (where residual moisture may be available) 6) Packrat middens
7) Upper 30 centimeters of the soil horizon, especially in virgin undisturbed soils 8) Sandy, well-aerated soil with relatively high water-holding capacities Sites within endemic areas less favorable for the occurrence of C. immitis include:
1) Cultivated fields
2) Heavily vegetated areas (e.g., grassy lawns)
3) Higher elevations (above 7,000 feet)
4) Areas where commercial fertilizers (e.g., ammonium sulfate) have been applied 5) Areas that are continually wet
6) Paved (asphalt or concrete) or oiled areas
7) Soils containing abundant microorganisms
8) Heavily urbanized areas where there is little undisturbed virgin soil.4 The Project is situated on a site previously disturbed that does not provide a suitable habitat for spores. Specifically, the Project site is primarily covered with vegetation in the form of grass and shrubbery. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would have a low probability of the site having C. immitis growth sites and exposure to the spores from disturbed soil.

Although conditions are not favorable, construction activities could generate fugitive dust that contain C. immitis spores. The Project will minimize the generation of fugitive dust during construction activities by complying with SJVAPCD’s Regulation VIII. 4 United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2000. Operational Guidelines (Version 1.0) for Geological Fieldwork in Areas Endemic for Coccidioidomycosis (Valley Fever), 2000, Open-File Report 2000-348. Website:
https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2000/0348/pdf/of00-348.pdf. Accessed April 24, 2023.

Therefore, this regulation, combined with the relatively low probability of the presence of C. immitis spores would reduce Valley fever impacts to less than significant.

During operations, dust emissions are anticipated to be relatively small, because most of the project area where operational activities would occur would be occupied by the proposed cross-dock and related buildings and pavement. This condition would lessen the possibility of the Project site from providing habitat suitable for C. immitis spores and for generating fugitive dust that may contribute to Valley fever exposure. Impacts would be less than significant.

Naturally Occurring Asbestos
Review of the map of areas where naturally occurring asbestos in California are likely to occur found no such areas in the immediate project area. Therefore, development of the Project is not anticipated to expose receptors to naturally occurring asbestos.5 Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact Analysis Summary
In summary, the proposed Project would not exceed SJVAPCD localized emission daily screening levels for any criteria pollutant. The Project is not a significant source of TAC emissions during construction or operation after incorporation of MM AIR-1.

The Project is not in an area with suitable habitat for Valley fever spores and is not in area known to have naturally occurring asbestos. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts to sensitive receptors after incorporation of mitigation.
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact. Two situations are recognized to create a potential for odor impact. The first occurs when a new odor source is located near an existing sensitive receptor. The second occurs when a new sensitive receptor locates near an existing source of odor. The proposed Project is of the first type only since it involves a potential new odor source and would not be considered a sensitive receptors land use.

Odor impacts on residential areas and other sensitive receptors, such as hospitals, day-care centers, schools, etc. warrant the closest scrutiny, but consideration should 5 U.S. Geological Survey. 2011. Van Gosen, B.S., and Clinkenbeard, J.P. California Geological Survey Map Sheet 59. Reported Historic Asbestos Mines, Historic Asbestos Prospects, and Other Natural Occurrences of Asbestos in California. Open-File Report 2011-1188 Website: https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2011/1188/. Accessed April 24, 2023. also be given to other land uses where people may congregate, such as recreational facilities, worksites, and commercial areas.

Although the the nearest sensitive receptor are residences approximately 0.25 miles away, the project is not expected to be a significant source of odors. The screening levels for these land use types are shown in Error! Reference source not found.8.

Construction
During construction, various diesel-powered vehicles and equipment in use on-site would create localized odors. These odors would be temporary and intermittent, which would decrease the likelihood of the odors concentrating in a single area or lingering for any notable period of time. As such, these odors would likely not be noticeable for extended periods of time beyond the Project’s site boundaries. The potential for odor impacts from construction of the proposed Project would, therefore, be less than significant.

Table 8
Screening Levels for Potential Odor Sources
Odor Generator Screening Distance
Wastewater Treatment Facilities 2 miles
Sanitary Landfill 1 mile
Transfer Station 1 mile
Composting Facility 1 mile
Petroleum Refinery 2 miles
Asphalt Batch Plant 1 mile
Chemical Manufacturing 1 mile
Fiberglass Manufacturing 1 mile
Painting/Coating Operations (e.g., auto body shop) 1 mile Food Processing Facility 1 mile
Feed Lot/Dairy 1 mile
Rendering Plant 1 mile
Wastewater Treatment Facilities 2 miles
Source of Thresholds: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2015.

Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. February 19. Website:
https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI-2015/FINAL-DRAFT-GAMAQI.PDF. Accessed May 24, 2023.

Operations
The development of the proposed Project would not substantially increase objectionable odors in the area and would not introduce any new sensitive receptors to the area that could be affected by any existing objectionable odor sources in the area. Land uses that are typically identified as sources of objectionable odors include landfills, transfer stations, sewage treatment plants, wastewater pump stations, composting facilities, asphalt batch plants, rendering plants, and other land uses outlined in Error! Reference source not found.8. The proposed Project would not e ngage in any of these activities. Minor sources of odors that would be associated with uses typical of warehouse and distribution facilities, such as exhaust from mobile sources (including diesel-fueled heavy trucks), are known to have temporary and less concentrated odors. Considering the low intensity of potential odor emissions, the proposed Project’s operational activities would not expose receptors to objectionable odor emissions. Therefore, the proposed Project would not be considered to be a generator of objectionable odors during operations. As such, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
MM AIR-1 Before a construction permit is issued for the proposed project, the project applicant, project sponsor, or construction contractor shall submit documentation demonstrating reasonably detailed compliance with the following requirements to the City of Fresno:

Tier 4 Interim engines shall, at a minimum, meet EPA or CARB particulate matter emissions standards for Tier 4 Interim engines. Alternatively, use of CARB-certified Level 3 diesel particulate filters on off-road equipment with engines greater than 75 horsepower can be used in lieu of Tier 4 Interim engines or in combination with Tier 4 Interim or better engines. The construction contractor shall maintain records documenting its efforts to comply with this requirement, including equipment lists. Off-road equipment descriptions and information shall include, but are not limited to, equipment type, equipment manufacturer, equipment identification number, engine model year, engine certification (Tier rating), horsepower, and engine serial number. The project applicant and/or construction contractor shall submit the construction operations plan and records of compliance to the City of Fresno.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse
effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
X
b) Have a substantial adverse
effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by
the California Department of Fish
and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
X
c) Have a substantial adverse
effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section
404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other
means?
X

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident
or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
X
e) Conflict with any local policies
or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
X
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
X
The analysis in the Biological Resource section is based on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared by Krzan & Associates in January 2023. The Memo is provided in its entirety in Appendix B.

DISCUSSION
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than Significant Impact. The site is currently vacant land with minimal vegetation and was historically used for agricultural purposes. It has been regularly disked and cultivated. The immediate vicinity consists of land developed with for industrial purposes, roadways, rural residential, and agriculture. The highly disturbed nature of the area suggests that the vegetation on site is unlikely to follow natural vegetation patterns, and thus unlikely to support native wildlife.

The City of Fresno Program Environmental Impact Report defines the Project area as Heavy Industrial6; industrial land is developed and considered to provide poor quality habitat for any special status species. No special status species are expected to occur in this area. Potential impacts are less than significant. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact. An east-west trending irrigation canal referred to as Central Canal is present on/near the southern boundary of the subject site. The irrigation canal was dry at the time of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) (Appendix B, pg 16). There are no natural waterways or sensitive natural communities on the subject site. As such, there is no impact.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. According to the National Wetlands Inventory of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, there are no protected wetlands on the subject site.7 As such, there is no impact.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Less Than Significant Impact. An east-west trending irrigation canal referred to as Central Canal is present on/near the southern boundary of the proposed site. The irrigation canal was dry at the time of Phase I ESA site reconnaissance. There are no natural waterways or natural vegetation on the subject site8. It is unlikely that the site is used for movement of wildlife species, for a migratory wildlife corridor, or for native 6 Figure 3-3, Planned Land Use, City of Fresno General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report. Accessed February 2023. 7 National Wetlands Inventory, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper/. Accessed February 2024.
8 Ibid.
wildlife nursery sites due to the highly disturbed nature of the surrounding area and the proximity to noise and vibrations of the adjacent State Route 41. The site is highly disturbed and surrounded by urban uses such as commercial and industrial uses.

There would be a less than significant impact to native species movement. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City’s General Plan Parks, Open Space, and Schools Element contains several objectives and policies pertaining to the protection of biological resources. Most of the policies pertain to general long-term protection and preservation of biological resources including providing buffers for natural areas, implementing habitat restoration where applicable, protection/enhancement of the San Joaquin River area, and other similar policies. The Project is not located near the San Joaquin River area. The General Plan notes that aside from the San Joaquin River, there are several canals that traverse the Planning Area that provide opportunities for both vegetation and wildlife; however, such opportunities are limited.9 As noted above, the Central Canal, present on/near the southern boundary of the proposed site, was dry at the time of Phase I ESA. Additionally, since the Project is located in a highly disturbed area with minimal biological resources and does not include significant impacts to protected plant or animal species, the Project does not conflict with any adopted policies pertaining to biological resources. The Project is also required to implement Municipal Code Chapter 13 Article 3 – Street Trees and Parkways pertaining to tree removal and replacement.10Therefore, there is a less than significant impact.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No Impact. The Project site is not subject to any adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan or other conservation plan, as there are no adopted plans. Therefore, there is no impact.

Mitigation Measures
None are required.
9 Ch 5 Parks, Open Space, and Schools Element, Fresno General Plan. Pg 5-31. Accessed February 2024. 10 Article 3, Chapter 13, City of Fresno Municipal Code. https://library.municode.com/ca/fresno/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=MUCOFR_CH13SISTPAUNUTDI_ART3STTRPA. Accessed February 2024.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in
Section 15064.5?
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant
to Section 15064.5?
X
c) Disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
X

DISCUSSION
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. A prehistoric and historic site records and literature search was conducted for the Project area through the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System on February 6, 2023 (File RS#23-029) and is provided in Appendix C. There have been no previous cultural resource studies performed in the Project area; however, four cultural resource studies fall in the one-half mile radius, FR-00053, 00151, 01738, and 01739. Records indicated that there are no recorded resources within the Project area. There have been 26 recorded resources within the one-half mile radius: P-10-004648, 004649, 004651, 004677, 006761, 006763, 006764, 006765, 006766, 006767, 006768, 006769, 006770, 006775, 006776, 006777, 006778, 006779, 006780, 006781, 006782, 006783, 006784, 006785, 006786, and 006787. These resources consist of historic era buildings and structures, most of which are single family homes.

Although no cultural or archaeological resources, paleontological resources or human remains have been identified in the project area, the possibility exists that such resources or remains may be discovered during Project site preparation, excavation and/or grading activities. Mitigation Measure CUL-1 and CUL-2 of the General Plan Program EIR, which requires construction activities to stop if unknown cultural resources are discovered during land moving activities, shall be implemented to reduce potential impacts to less than significant.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in Impact a) above, no surface or recorded evidence of sensitive cultural resources were evident on the Project site. However, the possibility exists that such resources or remains may be discovered during Project site preparation, excavation and/or grading activities.

Mitigation Measure CUL-1 and CUL-2 which requires construction activities to stop if unknown cultural resources are discovered during land moving activities, shall be implemented to reduce potential impacts to less than significant. c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Although no cultural or archaeological resources, paleontological resources or human remains have been identified in the project area, the possibility exists that such resources or remains may be discovered during Project site preparation, excavation and/or grading activities.

Mitigation Measure CUL-3, which requires construction activities to stop if human remains are unearthed during land moving activities, shall be implemented to reduce potential impacts to less than significant.

Mitigation Measures

1. The proposed project shall implement and incorporate, as applicable, the cultural resource related mitigation measures as identified in the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program dated May 22, 2025.

If the resources are determined to be unique historical resources as defined under Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, measures shall be identified by the monitor and recommended to the Lead Agency. Appropriate measures for significant resources could include avoidance or capping, incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or open space, or data recovery excavations of the finds.

No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Lead Agency approves the measures to protect these. Any historical artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation shall be provided to a City-approved institution or person who is capable of providing long-term preservation to allow future scientific study.

CUL-2: Subsequent to a preliminary City review of the project grading plans, if there is evidence that a project will include excavation or construction activities within previously undisturbed soils, a field survey and literature search for prehistoric archaeological resources shall be conducted. The following procedures shall be followed.

If prehistoric resources are not found during either the field survey or literature search, excavation and/or construction activities can commence. In the event that buried prehistoric archaeological resources are discovered during excavation and/or construction activities, construction shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the find and a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted to determine whether the resource requires further study. The qualified archaeologist shall make recommendations to the City on the measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources, including but not limited to excavation of the finds and evaluation of the finds in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.

If the resources are determined to be unique prehistoric archaeological resources as defined under Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, mitigation measures shall be identified by the monitor and recommended to the Lead Agency. Appropriate measures for significant resources could include avoidance or capping, incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or open space, or data recovery excavations of the finds. No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Lead Agency approves the measures to protect these resources. Any prehistoric archaeological artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation shall be provided to a City approved institution or person who is capable of providing long term preservation to allow future scientific study.

If prehistoric resources are found during the field survey or literature review, the resources shall be inventoried using appropriate State record forms and submit the forms to the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center. The resources shall be evaluated for significance. If the resources are found to be significant, measures shall be identified by the qualified archaeologist. Similar to above, appropriate mitigation measures for significant resources could include avoidance or capping, incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or open space, or data recovery excavations of the finds.

In addition, appropriate mitigation for excavation and construction activities in the vicinity of the resources found during the field survey or literature review shall include an archaeological monitor. The monitoring period shall be determined by the qualified archaeologist. If additional prehistoric archaeological resources are found during excavation and/or construction activities, the procedure identified above for the discovery of unknown resources shall be followed.

CUL-3: In the event that human remains are unearthed during excavation and grading activities of any future development project, all activity shall cease immediately. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 7050.5, no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98(a). If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner shall within 24 hours notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC shall then contact the most likely descendent of the deceased Native American, who shall then serve as the consultant on how to proceed with the remains.

Pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98(b), upon the discovery of Native American remains, the landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity, according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices, where the Native American human remains are located is not damaged or disturbed by further development activity until the landowner has discussed and conferred with the most likely descendants regarding their recommendations, if applicable, taking into account the possibility of multiple human remains. The landowner shall discuss and confer with the descendants all reasonable options regarding the descendants' preferences for treatment.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VI. ENERGY – Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
X

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state
or local plan for renewable energy
or energy efficiency?
X
Pacific Gas and Electric Company provides electricity and natural gas service to the County of Fresno and to the City of Fresno. Upon buildout of the project site, electricity to the project site would be provided by PG&E. All electricity infrastructure would be located underground and would tie-in to existing infrastructure.

According to the U.S. Energy Administration, 1,494.9 Trillion Btu of energy were consumed by motor gasoline excluding ethanol in California in 2021.11 California is the second-largest consumer of motor gasoline among the 50 states.12 According to the Board of Equalization (BOE), it is estimated that 371 gallons of gasoline and 85 million galls of diesel were sold in Fresno County in 2022.13

DISCUSSION
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Less Than Significant Impact. The energy requirements for the proposed project were determined using the construction and operational estimates generated from the Air Quality Analysis (refer to Attachment A of Appendix A for related CalEEMod output files). The calculation worksheets for diesel fuel consumption rates for off-road construction equipment and on-road vehicles are provided in Attachment C of Appendix A. Short-term construction energy consumption is discussed below.

Short-Term Construction
11 U.S. Energy Information Administration, California State Profile and Energy Estimates. https://www.eia.gov/state/print.php?sid=CA. Accessed May 2024.
e Ibid.
13 California Energy Commission. California Retail Fuel Outlet Annual Reporting (CEC-A15) Results. https://www.energy.ca.gov/media/3874 Accessed May 2024.

Off-Road Equipment
Table 9 provides estimates of the Project’s construction fuel consumption from offroad construction equipment for the entire Project, categorized by construction activity.

Table 9
Construction Off-Road Fuel Consumption
Project Component Construction Activity Fuel Consumption (gallons) Home Avenue Warehouse
Project (On-site, Off-road
Equipment Use)
Site Preparation 2,728
Grading 4,489
Building Construction 7,194
Paving 843
Architectural Coating 59
Total 15,313
Note: Totals may not appear to sum correctly due to rounding Source: Energy Consumption Calculations (Attachment C of Appendix A).

As shown in Table 9, use of off-road equipment associated with construction of the proposed project is estimated to consume approximately 15,313 gallons of diesel fuel over the entire construction duration. There are no unusual project characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy efficient than at comparable construction sites in the Fresno County region or other parts of California. Therefore, it is expected that construction fuel consumption associated with the proposed Project would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than at other construction sites in the region.

On-Road Vehicles
On-road vehicles for construction workers, vendors, and haulers would require fuel for travel to and from the site during construction. Table 10 provides an estimate of the total on-road vehicle fuel usage during construction. There are no unusual Project characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy efficient than at comparable construction sites in other parts of the state. Therefore, it is expected that construction fuel consumption associated with the proposed Project would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than at other construction sites in the region.

Table 10
Construction On-Road Fuel Consumption
Project Component Total Annual Fuel Consumption (gallons) Site Preparation 220
Grading 343
Building Construction 5,283
Paving 206
Architectural Coating 59
Total 6,111
Note: Totals may not appear to sum correctly due to rounding Source: Energy Consumption Calculations (Attachment C).

Other Energy Consumption Anticipated During Project Construction Other equipment could include construction lighting, field services (office trailers), and electrically driven equipment such as pumps and other tools. The Project site is located in Fresno County, within the City of Fresno’s sphere of influence. Section 10- 109 of the Fresno Municipal Code defines permissible hours of construction as between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. 14 As construction activities would occur during daylight hours; it is anticipated that the use of construction lighting would be minimal. Singlewide mobile office trailers, which are commonly used in construction staging areas, generally range in size from 160 square feet to 720 square feet. A typical 720-square-foot office trailer would consume approximately 16,881 kWh during the approximate 1.1-year construction phase (Attachment C of Appendix A).

Long-Term Operations
Transportation Energy Demand
Table 11 provides an estimate of the daily and annual fuel consumed by vehicles traveling to and from the proposed Project. These estimates were derived using the same assumptions used in the operational air quality analysis for the proposed Project.

Table 11
Long-Term Operational Vehicle Fuel Consumption
Vehicle Type Daily VMT Annual VMT
Average Fuel
Economy
(miles/
gallon)
Total Daily
Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Total Annual
Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Passenger Vehicles 2,081 759,468 22.301 93.3 34,061
14 City of Fresno. 2020. Fresno Municipal Code, Section 10-105. Website:
https://library.municode.com/ca/fresno/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=MUCOFR_CH10REREPUNUREPRCOUS_ART1N ORE_S10-109EX. Accessed May 1, 2023.

Vehicle Type Daily VMT Annual VMT
Average Fuel
Economy
(miles/
gallon)
Total Daily
Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Total Annual
Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Heavy-Heavy Trucks
(HHDT) 6,300 2,299,500 6.01 1,048.4 382,655
Total 8,381 3,058,968 — 1,142 416,716
Notes:
1 This value represents the average fuel economy for light-duty autos. The calculations were completed with the average fuel consumption values for the various vehicle types included in the passenger vehicle fleet (see Attachment C).

Percent of Vehicle Trips and VMT provided by CalEEMod.

VMT = vehicle miles traveled
Source: Energy Consumption Calculations (Attachment C of Appendix A).

As shown above, daily vehicular fuel consumption is estimated to be 1,142 gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel combined, with 93.3 gallons from passenger vehicles and 1,048.4 gallons from heavy-duty trucks. Annual consumption is estimated at 416,716 gallons (with 34,061 gallons from passenger vehicles and 382,655 from heavy-duty trucks).

In addition, the proposed Project would constitute development within an established community and would not be opening a new geographical area for development. As such, the proposed Project would not result in unusually long trip lengths for future employees, vendors, or visitors. in an Industrial area of south Fresno just off the east side of Highway 41 and south of Highway 99 in Fresno County. Specifically, the Project site is on the west side of S. Cherry Avenue and south of East North Avenue.

The proposed Project would be well-positioned to accommodate an existing community. Vehicles accessing the site would be typical of vehicles accessing similar warehouse-type uses in the Fresno region and surrounding areas. For these reasons, it would be expected that vehicular fuel consumption associated with the proposed Project would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than for any other similar land use activities in the region, and impacts would be less than significant.

Building Energy Demand
As shown in Table 12 and Table 13 the proposed Project is estimated to demand 1,544,583 kilowatt-hours (KWhr) of electricity and 1,127,316 1,000-British Thermal Units (KBTU) of natural gas, respectively, on an annual basis.

Table 12
Long-Term Electricity Usage
Land Use
Total Electricity Demand
(KWhr/year)
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 741,047
General Office Building 157,091
Automobile Care Center 142,370
Parking Lot 504,075
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0
Total 1,544,583
Source: Energy Consumption Calculations (Attachment C of Appendix A).

Table 13
Long-Term Natural Gas Usage
Land Use
Total Natural Gas Demand
(KBTU/year)
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 368,056
General Office Building 267,592
Automobile Care Center 491,668
Parking Lot 0
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0
Total 1,127,316
Source: Energy Consumption Calculations (Attachment C of Appendix A).

As the Project site is currently undeveloped, this would represent an increase in demand for electricity and natural gas.

It would be expected that building energy consumption associated with the proposed Project would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than for any other similar buildings in the region. Current state regulatory requirements for new building construction contained in the 2022 CALGreen and Title 24 standards would increase energy efficiency and reduce energy demand in comparison to existing commercial structures, and therefore would reduce actual environmental effects associated with energy use from the proposed Project. Additionally, the CALGreen and Title 24 standards have increased efficiency standards through each update.

Therefore, while the proposed Project would result in increased electricity and natural gas demand, the electricity and natural gas would be consumed more efficiently and would be typical of existing industrial development.

Based on the above information, the proposed Project would not result in the inefficient or wasteful consumption of electricity or natural gas, and impacts would be less than significant.
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Less Than Significant Impact. The approximately 15.95-acre project site is located in Fresno County. The Project site is located within the City of Fresno’s sphere of influence and its planned land use designation is Employment – Heavy Industrial. A Pre-zone Application and Annexation Application are being submitted concurrently with the Development Application. The Fresno General Plan contains the following implementing policies related to energy conservation that are relevant to the proposed Project.15
RC-5-b Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan. As is consistent with State law, prepare and adopt a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan as part of the Master Environmental Impact Report to be concurrently approved with the Fresno General Plan in order to achieve compliance with State mandates, assist development by streamlining the approval process, and focus on feasible actions the City can take to minimize the adverse impacts of growth and development on global climate change. The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan shall include, but not be limited to:
• A baseline inventory of all known or reasonably discoverable sources of GHGs that currently exist in the city and sources that existed in 1990. • A projected inventory of the GHGs that can reasonably be expected to be emitted from those sources in the year 2035 with implementation of this General Plan and foreseeable communitywide and municipal operations. • A target for the reduction of emissions from those identified sources. • A list of feasible GHG reduction measures to meet the reduction target, including energy conservation and “green building” requirements in municipal buildings and private development.
• Periodically update municipal and community-wide GHG emissions inventories to determine the efficacy of adopted measures and to guide 15 City of Fresno. 2014. City of Fresno General Plan. December. Website: https://www.fresno.gov/darm/general-plandevelopment-code/. Accessed May 1, 2023. future policy formulation needed to achieve and maintain GHG emissions reduction targets.

These certification programs and scoring systems may include public agency “Green” and conservation criteria, Energy Star™ certification, CALGreen Tier 1 or Tier 2, Leadership in Energy Efficient Design (LEED™) certification, etc.
• Promote appropriate energy and water conservation standards and facilitate mixed-use projects, new incentives for infill development, and the incorporation of mass transit, bicycle and pedestrian amenities into public and private projects.
• Require energy and water audits and upgrades for water conservation, energy efficiency, and mass transit, pedestrian, and bicycle amenities at the time of renovation, change in use, change in occupancy, and change in ownership for major projects meeting review thresholds specified in an implementing ordinance.
• Incorporate the City’s “Guidelines for Ponding Basin/Pond Construction and Management to Control Mosquito Breeding” as conditions of approval for any project using an on-site stormwater basin to prevent possible increases in vector-borne illnesses associated with global climate change.
• Periodically evaluate the City’s facility maintenance practices to determine whether there are additional opportunities to reduce GHGs through facility cleaning and painting, parks maintenance, road maintenance, and utility system maintenance.
• Periodically evaluate standards and mitigation strategies for highly vehicle-dependent land uses and facilities, such as drive-through facilities and auto-oriented development.

RC-5-f Toolkit. Provide residents and project applicants with a “toolkit” of generally feasible measures that can be used to reduce GHG emissions, including educational materials on energy-efficient and “climate-friendly” products.

RC-8-a Existing Standards and Programs. Continue existing beneficial energy conservation programs, including adhering to the California Energy Code in new construction and major renovations.

RC-8-b Energy Reduction Targets. Strive to reduce per capita residential electricity use to 1,800 kWh per year and non-residential electricity use to 2,700 kWh per year per capita by developing and implementing incentives, design and operation standards, promoting alternative energy sources, and cost-effective savings.

RC-8-c Energy Conservation in New Development. Consider providing an incentive program for new buildings that exceed California Energy Code requirements by fifteen percent.

RC-8-e Energy Use Disclosure. Promote compliance with State law mandating disclosure of a building’s energy data and rating of the previous year to prospective buyers and lessees of the entire building or lenders financing the entire building.

While several of these policies are voluntary or cannot be implemented by an individual development project, compliance with Title 24 standards would ensure that the proposed Project would not conflict with any of the General Plan energy conservation policies related to the proposed project’s building envelope, mechanical systems, and indoor and outdoor lighting. In addition, the proposed Project would constitute development within an established community and would not be opening a new geographical area for development such that it would not result in unusually long trip lengths for future employees or vendors. The property is located just off the east side of Highway 41 and south of Highway 99 in Fresno County and is located near simar industrial uses. The development proposed by Crown Enterprises, Inc. will serve as the long-term regional facility for Central Transport for the purpose of providing less-than-truckload freight services for local and nationally based businesses.

For the above reasons, the proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None are required.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS – Would the project:
a) Directly or Indirectly cause
potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer
to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.

X
ii) Strong seismic ground
shaking? X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction? X
iv) Landslides? X
b) Result in substantial soil
erosion or the loss of topsoil? X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or
soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in
on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
X

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) Be located on expansive soil,
as defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or
property?
X
e) Have soils incapable of
adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste
water disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
X
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature?
X

DISCUSSION
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project site is not located in an earthquake fault zone as delineated by the 1972 Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map Act. The nearest known potentially active fault is the Clovis Fault, located about 15 miles east of the site. No active faults have been mapped within the Project boundaries, so there is no potential for fault rupture. Any impacts would be less than significant.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less Than Significant Impact. It is anticipated that the proposed Project site would be subject to some ground acceleration and ground shaking associated with seismic activity during its design life. The Project site is engineered and constructed in strict accordance with the earthquake resistant design requirements contained in the latest edition of the California Building Code (CBC) for seismic zone III, as well as Title 24 of the California Administrative Code, and therefore would avoid potential seismically induced hazards on planned structures. The impact of strong seismic ground shaking on the Project would be less than significant.
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact. According to the USGS, liquefaction takes place when loosely packed, water-logged sediments at or near the ground surface lose their strength in response to strong ground shaking.16 The potential for soil liquefaction within the City of Fresno ranges from very low to moderate due to the variable density of the subsurface soils and the presence of shallow groundwater. The soil in the proposed area consists primarily of Hesperia fine sandy loam and some Hanford sandy loam. These soils are considered welldrained and having very low to negligible runoff. These soil types are typically not associated with seismic-related ground failure or liquefaction. 17 The proposed Project is subject the California Building Code, as well as the City’s General Plan Policies NS-2-a through NS-2-d and to policies in the Fresno Municipal Code, including Sections 11-101, 12-1022 and 12-1023, which reduce potential settlement and lateral spread impacts to less than significant levels. iv. Landslides?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site is flat and located on the Valley floor in an urbanized part of the city which precludes the possibility of landslides in the area. The proposed Project site is not located in an earthquake fault zone as delineated by the 1972 Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map Act. The nearest known potentially active fault is the Clovis Fault, located approximately 15 miles east of the site. No active faults have been mapped within the Project boundaries, so there is no potential for fault rupture. It is anticipated that the 16 USGS: https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/what-liquefaction. Accessed February 2024. 17 Web Soil Survey, USDA. https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed February 2024. proposed Project site would be subject to some ground acceleration and ground shaking associated with seismic activity during its design life; however, the industrial building has been engineered and constructed in strict accordance with the earthquake resistant design requirements contained in the latest edition of the California Building Code (CBC) for seismic zone III, as well as Title 24 of the California Administrative Code, and therefore would avoid potential seismically induced hazards on planned structures. The impact of seismic hazards on the Project would be less than significant.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact. Construction activities associated with the Project involve ground preparation work for the transfer platform, maintenance shop, parking, two office spaces and associated improvements related to the less-than-truckload freight services facility. These activities could expose barren soils to sources of wind or water, resulting in the potential for erosion and sedimentation on and off the Project site. During construction, nuisance flow caused by minor rain could flow off-site. The City and/or contractor would be required to employ appropriate sediment and erosion control BMPs as part of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that would be required in the California National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). In addition, soil erosion and loss of topsoil would be minimized through implementation of the SJVAPCD fugitive dust control measures (See Section III).

Once construction is complete, the Project would not result in soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Adherence to local and state requirements will ensure that any impacts are less than significant.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Impact a) above, the site is not at significant risk from earthquakes, ground shaking, liquefaction, or landslide and is otherwise considered geologically stable. Subsidence is typically related to overextraction of groundwater from certain types of geologic formations where the water is partly responsible for supporting the ground surface. however, the City of Fresno is not recognized by the U.S. Geological Service as being in an area of subsidence.18 Impacts are considered less than significant.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994, as updated), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
Less Than Significant Impact. The soil on the proposed Project site is comprised primarily of Hesperia fine sandy loam deep (86.1%) and deep saline-sodic (10%), and Hanford sandy loam (3.9%). These soil types are considered well drained with a low ability for water storage, which means they are unlikely to expand.19 Any impacts are less than significant.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
No Impact. The proposed Project does not include the construction, replacement, or disturbance of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. The Project will be required to tie into existing sewer services (See Utilities section for more details). Therefore, there is no impact.
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As identified in the cultural resources records search performed for the Project site (see Appendix C), there are no known paleontological resources on or near the site. (See Section V. for more details). Mitigation measures CUL-1, CUL-2 and CUL-3 have been added that will protect unknown (buried) resources, including paleontological resources, uncovered during construction by necessitating consultation with a specialist of Native Tribes as required. There are no unique geological features on site or in the area.

Therefore, there is a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measures
18 U.S. Geological Service. Areas of Land Subsidence in California. https://ca.water.usgs.gov/land_subsidence/californiasubsidence-areas.html. Accessed February 2023. 19 USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. Custom Soil Resource Report for Eastern Fresno Area, California.

CUL-1: If previously unknown resources are encountered before or during grading activities, construction shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the find and a qualified historical resources specialist shall be consulted to determine whether the resource requires further study. The qualified historical resources specialist shall make recommendations to the City on the measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources, including but not limited to excavation of the finds and evaluation of the finds in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance. If the resources are determined to be unique historical resources as defined under Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, measures shall be identified by the monitor and recommended to the Lead Agency. Appropriate measures for significant resources could include avoidance or capping, incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or open space, or data recovery excavations of the finds. No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Lead Agency approves the measures to protect these resources. Any historical artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation shall be provided to a City-approved institution or person who is capable of providing long-term preservation to allow future scientific study.

CUL-3: In the event that human remains are unearthed during excavation and grading activities of any future development project, all activity shall cease immediately.

Pursuant to Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 7050.5, no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98(a). If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner shall within 24 hours notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC shall then contact the most likely descendent of the deceased Native American, who shall then serve as the consultant on how to proceed with the remains. Pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98(b), upon the discovery of Native American remains, the landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity, according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices, where the Native American human remains are located is not damaged or disturbed by further development activity until the landowner has discussed and conferred with the most likely descendants regarding their recommendations, if applicable, taking into account the possibility of multiple human remains. The landowner shall discuss and confer with the descendants all reasonable options regarding the descendants' preferences for treatment.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the
environment?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan,
policy or regulation adopted for
the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
X

DISCUSSION
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project is in unincorporated Fresno County; however, a Pre-Zone/Rezone Application and Annexation Application are being submitted concurrently to the City of Fresno with the Development Application. The City of Fresno does not have a GHG reduction plan that can be relied upon for making significance determinations. . The County of Fresno has not adopted a GHG reduction plan. In addition, Fresno County has not completed the GHG inventory, benchmarking, or goal‐setting process required to identify a reduction target and take advantage of the streamlining provisions contained in the CEQA Guidelines amendments adopted for SB 97 and clarifications provided in the CEQA Guidelines amendments adopted on December 28, 2018. The SJVAPCD has adopted a Climate Action Plan, but it does not contain measures that are applicable to the Project.

Therefore, the SJVAPCD Climate Action Plan cannot be applied to the Project. Since no other local or regional Climate Action Plan is in place, the Project is assessed for its consistency with CARB’s adopted Scoping Plans.

The combined effect of this successful effort is that the State now projects that it will meet the 2020 target and achieve continued progress toward meeting post-2020 targets. Governor Brown, in the introduction to Executive Order B-30-15, stated “California is on track to meet or exceed the current target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, as established in the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32).”
Consistency with SB 32 and the 2017 Scoping Plan
The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update (2017 Scoping Plan) includes the strategy that the State intends to pursue to achieve the 2030 targets of Executive Order S‐3‐05 and SB 32. Table 14 provides an analysis of the project’s consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan Update measures.

Table 14
Consistency with SB 32 2017 Scoping Plan Update
Scoping Plan Measure Project Consistency
SB 350 50% Renewable Mandate. Utilities subject
to the legislation will be required to increase their
renewable energy mix from 33% in 2020 to 50% in
2030 (now 60% under SB 100).

Consistent: The project will purchase electricity from a utility subject to the SB 350 Renewable Mandate. The
specific provider for this project is Pacific Gas and
Electric Company (PG&E). In February 2018, PG&E
announced that it had reached California's 2020
renewable energy goal 3 years ahead of schedule and
delivers nearly 80 percent of its electricity from GHG-free resources.1
SB 350 Double Building Energy Efficiency by
2030. This is equivalent to a 20 percent reduction
from 2014 building energy usage compared to
current projected 2030 levels.

Not Applicable. This measure applies to existing
buildings. New structures are required to comply with
Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards that are expected to increase in stringency over time. New buildings
constructed as part of the proposed project would comply with the applicable Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards in effect at the time building permits are received. The current Title 24 regulations are the 2022 Title 24
standards, which become effective January 1, 2023.

Low Carbon Fuel Standard. This measure
requires fuel providers to meet an 18 percent
reduction in carbon content by 2030.

Consistent. This is a Statewide measure that cannot be
implemented by a project applicant or lead agency.

However, vehicles accessing the project site would be
subject to the standards. Vehicles accessing the project Scoping Plan Measure Project Consistency
site will use fuel containing lower carbon content as the fuel standard is implemented.

Mobile Source Strategy (Cleaner Technology
and Fuels Scenario). Vehicle manufacturers will be
required to meet existing regulations mandated by
the LEV III and Heavy‐Duty Vehicle programs. The
strategy includes a goal of having 4.2 million ZEVs
on the road by 2030 and increasing numbers of ZEV
trucks and buses.

Consistent. Future employees and visitors can be
expected to purchase increasing numbers of more fuelefficient and zero emission cars and trucks each year.

Sustainable Freight Action Plan. The plan’s target
is to improve freight system efficiency 25 percent by
increasing the value of goods and services
produced from the freight sector, relative to the
amount of carbon that it produces by 2030. This
would be achieved by deploying over 100,000
freight vehicles and equipment capable of zero
emission operation and maximize near‐zero
emission freight vehicles and equipment powered
by renewable energy by 2030.

Consistent. The measure applies to owners and
operators of trucks and freight operations. The proposed project is industrial in nature and would support truck and freight operations. The project operator(s) and truck
owners that would service future operations can
participate in incentives programs on electric vehicles and charging equipment for trucks once a final project
has been identified. Deliveries and freight operations are expected to be made by increasing number of ZEV trucks
as a result of more stringent regulations, incentive
programs, infrastructure developments, and increased
access/availability of relevant technology.

Short‐Lived Climate Pollutant (SLCP) Reduction
Strategy. The strategy requires the reduction of
SLCPs by 40 percent from 2013 levels by 2030 and
the reduction of black carbon by 50 percent from
2013 levels by 2030.

SB 375 Sustainable Communities Strategies.

Requires Regional Transportation Plans to include
a sustainable communities strategy for reduction of
per capita vehicle miles traveled.

Consistent. The project is not within an SCS priority area and so is not subject to requirements applicable to those areas.

Post‐2020 Cap‐and‐Trade Program. The Post
2020 Cap‐and‐Trade Program continues the
existing program for another 10 years. The Cap‐
and‐Trade Program applies to large industrial
sources such as power plants, refineries, and
cement manufacturers.

Consistent. The post‐2020 Cap‐and‐Trade Program
indirectly affects people who use the products and
services produced by the regulated industrial sources
when increased cost of products or services (such as
electricity and fuel) are transferred to the consumers. The Cap‐and‐Trade Program covers the GHG emissions
associated with electricity consumed in California,
whether generated in‐state or imported. Accordingly,
GHG emissions associated with CEQA projects’
electricity usage are indirectly covered by the Cap-and‐ Trade Program. The Cap‐and‐Trade Program also
covers fuel suppliers (natural gas and propane fuel
providers and transportation fuel providers) to address emissions from such fuels and from combustion of other
fossil fuels not directly covered at large sources in the program’s first compliance period.

Natural and Working Lands Action Plan. CARB
is working in coordination with several other
agencies at the federal, state, and local levels,
stakeholders, and with the public, to develop
measures as outlined in the Scoping Plan Update
and the governor’s Executive Order B‐30‐15 to
reduce GHG emissions and to cultivate net carbon
sequestration potential for California’s natural and
working land.

Not Applicable. The project site is approximately 15.95 acres in size and will change the land use from
Agricultural to Heavy Industrial. The 15.95-acre project site is located in an industrial area, just off the east side of Highway 41 and south of Highway 99 in Fresno County
and would not be considered a significant source of
carbon sequestration. Once operational, the project
would not be considered working lands.

Source: California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2017. The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update. January 20. Website:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2030sp_pp_final.pdf. Accessed April 24, 2023. 1 Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). 2018. PG&E Clean Energy Deliveries Already Meet Future Goals.

Website: www.pge.com/en/about/newsroom/newsdetails/index.page?title=20180220_pge_clean_energy_deliveries_alread y_meet_future_goals. Accessed April 24, 2023.

As described in Table 14, the proposed Project would be consistent with applicable 2017 Scoping Plan Update measures and would not obstruct the implementation of others that are not applicable. The State’s regulatory program is able to target both new and existing development because the two most important strategies, motor vehicle fuel efficiency and emissions from electricity generation, obtain reductions equally from existing sources and new sources. This is because all vehicle operators use cleaner low carbon fuels and buy vehicles subject to the fuel efficiency regulations and all building owners or operators purchase cleaner energy from the grid that is produced by increasing percentages of renewable fuels. This includes regulations on mobile sources such as the Pavley standards that apply to all vehicles purchased in California, the LCFS (Low Carbon Fuel Standard) that applies to all fuel sold in California, and the Renewable Portfolio Standard and Renewable Energy Standard under SB 100 that apply to utilities providing electricity to all California end users.

The proposed Project’s operational GHG emissions would principally be generated from electricity consumption and vehicle use (including heavy trucks), which are directly under the purview of the Scoping Plan strategy and have experienced reductions above the State average reduction. Considering the information summarized above, the proposed Project would be consistent with the State’s AB 32 and SB 32 GHG reduction goals.

Consistency Regarding GHG Reduction Goals for 2050 under Executive Order S‐3‐ 05 and GHG Reduction Goals for 2045 under the 2022 Scoping Plan Regarding goals for 2050 under Executive Order S‐3‐05, at this time it is not possible to quantify the emissions savings from future regulatory measures, as they have not yet been developed; nevertheless, it can be anticipated that operation of the proposed project would comply with whatever measures are enacted that State lawmakers decide would lead to an 80 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2050. In its 2008 Scoping Plan, CARB acknowledged that the “measures needed to meet the 2050 are too far in the future to define in detail”. In the First Scoping Plan Update; however, CARB generally described the type of activities required to achieve the 2050 target:
“energy demand reduction through efficiency and activity changes; large scale electrification of on‐road vehicles, buildings, and industrial machinery; decarbonizing electricity and fuel supplies; and rapid market penetration of efficiency and clean energy technologies that requires significant efforts to deploy and scale markets for the cleanest technologies immediately.” The 2017 Scoping Plan provides an intermediate target that is intended to achieve reasonable progress toward the 2050 target. In addition, the 2022 Scoping Plan outlines objectives, regulations, planning efforts, and investments in clean technologies and infrastructure that outlines how the State can achieve carbon-neutrality by 2045.

CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality was approved in December 2022 and expands on prior Scoping Plans and legislations-such as AB 1279-by outlining a technologically feasible, cost-effective, and equity-focused path to achieve the State’s climate target of reducing anthropogenic GHG emissions to 85 percent below 1990 levels and achieving carbon neutrality by 2045 or earlier.20 The 2022 Scoping Plan has a two-prong approach to decarbonization: (1) managing existing energy sources and technology and (2) developing and deploying alternative clean energy sources and technology over time.21 Key actions to support success of the 2022 Scoping Plan include, but are not limited to, reductions in the energy and transportation sectors:
• Energy Sector: Long-term planning to support grid reliability and expansion of renewable and zero-carbon resource and infrastructure deployment; completing systemwide and local reliability assessments; facilitating resource development such as long-duration energy storage and hydrogen production; maximizing opportunities for demand response; enhancing decarbonization, reliability, and affordability in regional markets; addressing resource build-out challenges; and doubling statewide energy efficiency savings in electricity and fossil gas end uses by 2030; achieving 90 percent, 95 percent, and 100 percent renewable and zerocarbon retail sales by 2035, 2040, and 2045, respectively • Transportation Sector:
o Decarbonizing the transportation sector, including transitioning to 100 percent sales of light-duty zero emission vehicles (ZEVs) by 2035 and medium- and heavy-duty vehicles by 2040; achieving a 20 percent zero emission target for the aviation sector, and developing a rapid and robust network of ZEV refueling infrastructure.
o Ensuring that an adequate supply of zero-carbon alternative fuel which will require building the production and distribution network for zerocarbon fuels; strengthening the Cap-and-Trade Program; and increasing the stringency and scope of the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS). 20 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2022. Final 2022 Scoping Plan Update and Appendices. December. Website:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/ab-32-climate-change-scoping-plan/2022-scoping-plan-documents. Accessed April 9, 2024.
21 California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2022. 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan).

Website: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/2022-scoping-plan-documents. Accessed March 5, 2024. o Achieving a per capita VMT reduction of at least 25 percent below 2019 levels by 2030 and 30 percent below 2019 levels by 2045 by reimagining roadway projects to decrease VMT, investing in public transit, implementing equitable roadway pricing; expanding and completing planned networks of high-quality active transportation infrastructure; deploying autonomous vehicles, ride-hailing services, and other options which have higher occupancy and low VMT; streamlining access to public transportation; and ensuring alignment of land use, housing, transportation; conservation and planning in adopted regional plans and accelerating infill development and housing production in transportation efficient places.

To achieve carbon neutrality by 2045, the 2022 Scoping Plan contains GHG reductions, technology, and clean energy mandated by statutes, reduction of shortlived climate pollutants, and mechanical carbon dioxide capture and sequestration actions. Table 16 contains a list of key GHG emission reduction actions and strategies from the 2022 Scoping Plan and assesses the project’s consistency with these actions and strategies.

Table 16
Project Consistency with 2022 Scoping Plan
2022 Scoping Plan Actions and Strategies
Responsible
Parties Project Consistency
Transportation Technology
• Achieve 100 percent ZEV sales of light duty
vehicles by 2035 and medium heavy-duty
vehicles by 2040.
• Achieve 20 percent zero-emission target for the
aviation sector.
• Develop a rapid and robust network of ZEV
refueling infrastructure to support needed
transition to ZEVs.
• Ensure that the transition of ZEV technology is
affordable for low-income households and
communities of color and meets the needs of
communities and small business.
• Prioritize incentive funding for heavy-duty ZEV
technology deployment in regions of the state
with the highest concentrations of harmful
criteria and toxic air contaminant emissions.

State agencies
and local
agencies
No Conflict: Vehicles must transition to zeroemission technology to decarbonize the transportation sector. Executive Order N-79-20
reflects the urgency of transitioning to zero emission
vehicles (ZEVs) by establishing target dates for
reaching 100 percent ZEV sales or fleet transitions
to ZEV technology. EO N-79-20 calls for 100
percent ZEV sales of new light-duty vehicles by
2035. The Advanced Clean Cars II regulation fulfills
this goal and serves as the primary mechanism to
help deploy ZEVs. A number of existing incentive
programs also support this transition, including the
Clean Cars 4 All Program. EO N-79-20 also sets
targets for transitioning the medium- and heavy-duty
fleet to zero emissions: by 2035 for drayage trucks
and by 2045 for buses and heavy-duty long-haul
trucks where feasible. Replacing heavy-duty
vehicles with ZEV technology will substantially
reduce GHG emissions and diesel PM emissions in
communities adjacent to ports, distribution centers,
and highways.
2022 Scoping Plan Actions and Strategies
Responsible
Parties Project Consistency
• Promote private investment in the transition to
ZEV technology, undergirded by regulatory
certainty such as infrastructure credits in the Low
Carbon Fuel Standard for hydrogen and
electricity and hydrogen station grants from the
CEC’s Clean Transportation Program pursuant
to Executive Order B-48-18.
• Evaluate and continue to offer incentives similar
to those through FARMER, Carl Moyer, the
Clean Fuel Reward Program, the Community Air
Protection Program, the Low Carbon
Transportation, including CORE. Where
feasible, prioritize and increase funding for clean
transportation equity programs.
• Continue and accelerate funding support for zero
emission vehicles and refueling infrastructure
through 2030 to ensure the rapid transformation
of the transportation sector.

Refueling infrastructure is a crucial component of
transforming transportation technology. Electric
vehicle chargers and hydrogen refueling stations
must become easily accessible for all drivers to
support a wholesale transition to ZEV technology.

Deployment of ZEV refueling infrastructure is
currently supported by a number of existing State
public funding mechanisms.

Intrastate aviation relies on internal combustion
engine technology today, but battery-electric and
hydrogen fuel cell aviation applications are in
development, along with sustainable aviation fuel.

Additionally, the project would include EV charging
infrastructure in accordance with regulations which
would support the transition to EV technology.

Thus, the project would not conflict with actions
under the transportation technology sector.

Transportation Fuels
• Accelerate the reduction and replacement of
fossil fuel production and consumption in
California.
• Incentivize private investment in new zerocarbon fuel production in California. • Incentivize the transition of existing fuel
production and distribution assets to support
deployment of low- and zero-carbon fuels while
protecting public health and the environment.

State and Local
agencies
No Conflict: Mobile source emissions generated
by the project would be reduced with
implementation of the wider use of zero-carbon
fuels consistent with reduction of GHG emissions
under AB 1279. Additionally, (as applicable) the
project would utilize energy efficiency appliances
and equipment and will meet the applicable energy
standards in the Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency
Standards and CALGreen Code, which will limit the
amount of fossil fuel use and GHG emissions. The
project would comply with local building codes and
incorporating paved areas and landscaping.

Considering the relevant actions and strategies
require action by the state and local agencies,
project consistency is determined by assessing
2022 Scoping Plan Actions and Strategies
Responsible
Parties Project Consistency
• Invest in the infrastructure to support reliable
refueling for transportation such as electricity
and hydrogen refueling.
• Evaluate and propose, as needed, changes to
strengthen the Cap-and-Trade Program.
• Initiate a public process focused on options to
increase the stringency and scope of the LCFS:
- Evaluate and propose accelerated carbon
intensity targets pre-2030 for LCFS.
- Evaluate and propose further declines in
LCFS post-2030 carbon intensity targets to
align with this 2022 Scoping Plan.
- Consider integrating opt-in sectors into the
program.
- Provide capacity credits for hydrogen and
electricity for heavy-duty fueling.
• Monitor for and ensure that raw materials used
to produce low-carbon fuels or technologies do
not result in unintended consequences.
whether the project would conflict with the actions
needed in the transportation fuels sector. As
supported by the information provided above, the
project would not conflict with actions in the
transportation fuels sector.

State agencies
and local
agencies
No Conflict: VMT reductions will play a crucial role
in reducing overall transportation energy demand
and achieving California’s climate, air quality, and
equity goals. CARB did not set regulatory limits on
VMT in the 2022 Scoping Plan because the
authority to reduce VMT largely lies with state,
regional, and local transportation, land use, and
housing agencies, along with the Legislature and its
budgeting choices.

The project-specific traffic report includes a VMT
analysis for the project.22 As noted in the traffic
report, the City of Fresno VMT guidelines specify
that VMT analysis only includes passenger vehicles.

The project would generate approximately 180
passenger vehicle trips per day, which is fewer than
the 500-average-daily-trip level that would trigger
the need for a more detailed VMT analysis based on
City of Fresno VMT guidelines. As such, the project
would not result in a significant VMT impact and the
22 Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers. 2023. Crown Central Transport Regional Facility Traffic Study – Fresno, CA.

August.
2022 Scoping Plan Actions and Strategies
Responsible
Parties Project Consistency
• Expand and complete planned networks of highquality active transportation infrastructure. • Channel the deployment of autonomous
vehicles, ride-hailing services, and other new
mobility options toward high passengeroccupancy and low VMT-impact service models that complement transit and ensure equitable
access or priority populations.
• Streamline access to public transportation
through programs such as the California
Integrated Travel Project.
• Ensure alignment of land use, housing,
transportation, and conservation planning in
adopted regional plans and local plans (e.g.,
general plans, zoning, and local transportation
plans), and develop tools to support
implementation of these plans.
• Accelerate infill development and housing
production at all affordability levels in
transportation-efficient places, with a focus on
housing for lower income residents.
project would not conflict with actions in the vehicle
miles traveled sector.

Clean Electricity Grid
• Per SB 350, double statewide energy efficiency
savings in electricity and fossil gas end uses by
2030, through a combination of energy efficiency
and fuel substitution actions.
• Use long-term planning processes to support
grid reliability and expansion of renewable and
zero-carbon resource and infrastructure
deployment.
• Complete systemwide and local reliability
assessments. Such assessments should be
completed before state agencies update their
electricity sector GHG targets.
• Prioritize actions to mitigate impacts to electricity reliability and affordability and provide sufficient
flexibility in the state’s decarbonization roadmap
for adjustments as may be needed.
• Facilitate long lead-time resource development.

State agencies
and local
agencies
No Conflict: Decarbonizing the electricity sector
depends on both using energy more efficiently and
replacing fossil-fueled generation with renewable
and zero carbon resources, including solar, wind,
energy storage, geothermal, biomass, and
hydroelectric power. The RPS Program and the
Cap-and-Trade Program continue to incentivize
dispatch of renewables over fossil generation to
serve state demand.

SB 100 increased RPS stringency to require 60
percent renewables by 2030 and for California to
provide 100 percent of its retail sales of electricity
from renewable and zero-carbon resources by
2045. Furthermore, SB 1020 has added interim
targets to SB 100’s policy framework to require
renewable and zero-carbon resources to supply 90
percent of all retail electricity sales by 2035 and 95
percent of all electricity retail sales by 2040;
establish a planning goal of at least 20 GW of
offshore wind by 2045; and that state agencies
plan for an energy transition that avoids the need
2022 Scoping Plan Actions and Strategies
Responsible
Parties Project Consistency
• Continue coordination between energy agencies
and energy proceedings to maximize
opportunities for demand response.
• Continue to explore the benefits of regional
markets to enhance decarbonization, reliability,
and affordability.
• Address resource build-out challenges, including
permitting, interconnection, and transmission
network upgrades.
• Explore new financing mechanisms and rate
designs to address affordability.
• Per SB 100 and SB 1020, achieve 90 percent,
95 percent, and 100 percent renewable and
zero-carbon retail sales by 2035, 2040, and
2045, respectively.
• Evaluate and propose, as needed, changes to
strengthen the Cap-and-Trade Program.
• Target programs and incentives to support and
improve access to renewable and zero-carbon
energy projects (e.g., rooftop solar, community
owned or controlled solar or wind, battery
storage, and microgrids) for communities most at
need, including frontline, low-income, rural, and
indigenous communities.
• Prioritize public investments in zero-carbon
energy projects to first benefit the most overly
burdened communities affected by pollution,
climate impacts, and poverty.
for new fossil gas capacity to meet California’s
long-term energy goals.

California also continues to advance its appliance
and building energy efficiency standards to reduce
growth in electricity consumption and meet the SB
350 goal to double statewide energy efficiency
savings in electricity and fossil gas end uses by
2030. Increased transportation and building
electrification and continued policy commitment to
behind-the-meter solar and storage will continue to
drive growth of microgrids and other distributed
energy resources.

Continued transition to renewable and zero-carbon
electricity resources will enable electricity to
become a zero-carbon substitute for fossil fuels.

This transformation will drive investments in a large
fleet of generation and storage resources but will
also require significant transmission to
accommodate these new capacity additions.

Resources such as storage and demand-side
management are essential to maintain reliability
with high concentrations of renewables. Hydrogen
produced from renewable resources and
renewable feedstocks can serve a dual role as a
low-carbon fuel for existing combustion turbines or
fuel cells, and as energy storage for later use.

As applicable, the proposed project would utilize
energy efficiency appliances (such as in the office
space) and equipment and will meet the applicable
energy standards in the Title 24 Building Energy
Efficiency Standards and CALGreen Code. As
such, the project would not conflict with actions
under the clean electricity grid sector.

Sustainable Manufacturing and Buildings
• Maximize air quality benefits using the best
available control technologies for stationary
sources in communities most in need.
• Implement SB 905, which requires CARB to
create the Carbon Capture, Removal, Utilization,
and Storage Program to evaluate, demonstrate,
and regulate carbon capture, utilization, and
sequestration and carbon dioxide removal
projects and technology.

Decarbonizing industrial facilities depends upon
displacing fossil fuel use with a mix of
electrification, solar thermal heat, biomethane,
2022 Scoping Plan Actions and Strategies
Responsible
Parties Project Consistency
• End fossil gas infrastructure expansion for newly
constructed buildings.
• Develop a net-zero cement strategy to meet SB
956 targets for the GHG intensity of cement use.
• Leverage energy efficiency and low carbon
hydrogen programs.
• Prioritize most vulnerable residents with the
majority of funds in the new $922 million
Equitable Building Decarbonization program.
• Achieve three million all-electric and electricready homes by 2030 and seven million by 2035 with six million heat pumps installed by 2030.
• Adopt a zero-emission standard for new space
and water heaters sold in California beginning in
2030.
• Implement biomethane procurement targets for
investor-owned utilities as specified in SB 1440.
low- or zero-carbon hydrogen, and other lowcarbon fuels to provide energy for heat and reduce combustion emissions. Emissions also can be
reduced by implementing energy efficiency
measures and using substitute raw materials that
can reduce energy demand and some process
emissions. Some remaining combustion emissions
and some non-combustion CO2 emissions can be
captured and sequestered. This sector has a
continuing demand for fossil gas due to lack of
non-combustion technologically feasible or costeffective alternatives for certain industrial sectors.

Microgrids powered by renewable resources and
with battery storage are emerging as a key enabler
of electrification and decarbonization at industrial
facilities.

The proposed project will serve as the long-term
regional facility for Central Transport for the
purpose of providing less-than-truckload freight
services for local and nationally based businesses.

No manufacturing activities are proposed at the
project site. The project will utilize energy efficient appliances for the office space and as applicable
within the project. The project would also meet the
applicable energy standards in the Title 24 Building
Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen Code.

During operations, the project would have a lessthan-significant VMT impact. As such, the project would not conflict with sustainable manufacturing
buildings industry sector.

Carbon Dioxide Removal and Capture Sector
• Implement SB 905.
• Achieve the 85 percent reduction in
anthropogenic sources below 1990 levels per AB
1279 by incorporating Carbon Capture and
Storage (CCS) into sectors and programs
beyond transportation.
• Evaluate and propose the role for CCS in cement
decarbonization and as part of hydrogen
peroxide pathways.
• Explore carbon capture application for zerocarbon power for reliability needs per SB 100.

State agencies
and local
agencies
No Conflict: CARB has acknowledged that the
deployment of carbon dioxide removal to
counterbalance hard-to-abate residual emissions
is needed to achieve net zero GHG emissions.

Modeling shows that emissions from the AB 32
GHG Inventory sources will continue to persist
even if all fossil related combustion emissions are
phased out. Carbon dioxide removal includes both
sequestration in natural and working lands and
mechanical approaches such as: direct air capture,
CCS (which is carbon capture from anthropogenic
point sources involves capturing carbon from a
smokestack of an emitting facility), or direct air
capture (which captures carbon directly from the
atmosphere).
2022 Scoping Plan Actions and Strategies
Responsible
Parties Project Consistency
The project would not conflict with measures to
increase carbon dioxide removal and capture. As
such, the project would not conflict with action
under the carbon dioxide removal and capture
sector.

Short-Lived Climate Pollutants (Non- Combustion
Gases)
• Install anaerobic digesters to maximize air and
water quality protection, maximize biomethane
capture, and direct biomethane to specific
sectors.
• Increase alternative manure management
projects.
• Expand markets for products made from organic
waste.
• Pursuant to SB 1137, develop leak detection and
repair plans for facilities in health protection
zones, implement emission detection system
standards, and provide public access to
emissions data.
• Convert large HFC emitters to the lowest
practical global warming potential (GWP)
technologies.

State agencies
and local
agencies
No Conflict: SLCPs include black carbon,
methane, and fluorinated gases. Dairy and
livestock are the largest source of methane
emissions followed by landfills. Black Carbon
(soot) comes primarily from transportation,
specifically heavy-duty vehicles followed by fuel
combustion for residential, commercial, and
industrial uses.

The project would not conflict with SLCP dairy and
livestock methane sector actions in the 2022
Scoping Plan. The project is a less-than-truckload
freight services development and does not include
dairy or livestock. Furthermore, the project does
not include a new landfill or any oil or gas
production, processing, or storage facilities. The
project would comply with the 2022 CalGreen
Code for energy efficiency and use of high-GWP
refrigerants and would not conflict with these
policies or actions. The project is a less-thantruckload freight services development that would not include fireplaces and would not result in a
significant VMT impact; lower VMT results in a
reduction of fuel combustion. Considering the
information presented above, the project would not
conflict with SLCP sector actions in the 2022
Scoping Plan.

Natural and Working Lands
• Implement AB 1757 and SB 27.
• Implement the Climate Smart Strategy.
• Accelerate the pace and scale of climate smart
forest management to at least 2.3 million acres
annually by 2025.
• Accelerate the pace and scale of healthy soils
practices to 80,000 acres annually by 2025,
conserve at least 8,000 acres of annual crops
annually, and increase organic agriculture to 20
percent of all cultivated acres by 2045.

State agencies
and local
agencies
No Conflict: AB 1757 requires state agencies to
set targets for natural carbon removal and
emissions reductions on natural and working
lands. AB 1757 is expected to catalyze natural
carbon sequestration in California by: requiring
California Natural Resources Agency and CARB to
establish targets for sequestration on natural and
working lands for 2030, 2038, and 2045; ensuring
that natural sequestration projects have rigorous
measurement and verification; and establishing an
expert committee to advise state agencies on
modeling and implementation.

SB 27 is designed to accelerate the removal of
carbon from the atmosphere by expanding
2022 Scoping Plan Actions and Strategies
Responsible
Parties Project Consistency
• Restore 60,000 acres of Delta wetlands annually
by 2045.
• Increase urban forestry investment annually by
200 percent, relative to business as usual.

California’s carbon removal capability (i.e.
sequestration) and improve the carbon retention of
the state’s natural and working lands.

The project is a less-than-truckload freight services
development and would not include natural
working lands. As such, the project would not
conflict with natural and working strategies under
the 2022 Scoping Plan.

Source: California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2022. 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. November 16.

Website: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-12/2022-sp_1.pdf. Accessed November 11, 2024.

As shown above in Table 16, the proposed Project would not conflict with relevant 2022 Scoping Plan actions or strategies that aim to achieve the State’s climate target of reducing anthropogenic emissions to 85 percent below 1990 levels and achieving carbon neutrality by 2045.

Impact Analysis Summary
As described above, the proposed Project would be consistent with State GHG Plans and would not obstruct the State’s ability to meet its goals of reducing GHG emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, carbon neutral by 2045, and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Therefore, the Project’s generation of GHG emissions would result in a less than significant impact on the environment. b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project is in unincorporated Fresno County; however, a Pre-Zone/Rezone Application and Annexation Application are being submitted concurrently to the City of Fresno with the Development Application.

The City of Fresno does not have a GHG reduction plan that can be relied upon for making significance determinations. The County of Fresno has not adopted a GHG reduction plan. In addition, the County has not completed the GHG inventory, benchmarking, or goal‐setting process required to identify a reduction target and take advantage of the streamlining provisions contained in the CEQA Guidelines amendments adopted for SB 97 and clarifications provided in the CEQA Guidelines.

The SJVAPCD has adopted a Climate Action Plan, but it does not contain measures that are applicable to the Project. Therefore, the SJVAPCD Climate Action Plan cannot be applied to the Project. Since no other local or regional Climate Action Plan is in place, the Project is assessed for its consistency with CARB’s adopted Scoping Plans. This assessment is included under Impact GHG-A above. As demonstrated in the analysis contained under Impact GHG-A, the Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases. This impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None are required.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL – Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous
materials?
X
b) Create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or
handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within one-quarter mile of
an existing or proposed school?
X

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) Be located on a site which is
included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
X
e) For a project located within an
airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the
project area?
X
f) Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
X
g) Expose people or structures,
either directly or indirectly, to a
significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires?
X

DISCUSSION
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project consists of approximately 3,200 square foot administrative office, approximately 68,570 square foot cross-dock transfer platform, approximately 11,880 square foot fleet maintenance shop, 3,494 square foot office, parking for up to 29 fleet tractors, up to 150 fleet trailers, up to 84 automobiles, and a diesel fuel system for fleet equipment, which includes two dual sided fuel lanes; two single hose dispensers on each end and one dual hose disperser in the middle for a total of three pumps. The system also has the following safety monitoring system to minimize fuels and/or leaks:
• Veeder Root Continuous Statistical Leak Detection (Csld) For Tls-450Plus • Veeder Root Risk Management: Digital Line Leak Detection For Tls-450Plus • Veeder Root Digital Pressurized Line Leak Detector Without Swiftcheck Valve, Ul • Veeder Root Overfill Alarm Box
Project operations would include unloading and transfer of freight from trailers incoming to the facility, and direct loading to trailers outbound to their destination. No outside storage of material will be required with this operation. Approximately 84 truck trips per day (42 entering and 42 exiting) and 120 passenger vehicle trips per day (60 entering and 60 exiting) will be generated.

Construction of the Project would require the use and transport of hazardous materials, including fuels, oils, and other chemicals (e.g., paints, lead, adhesives, etc.) typically used during construction. It is likely that these hazardous materials and vehicles would be stored by the contractor(s) on-site during construction activities.

Improper use and transportation of hazardous materials could result in accidental releases or spills, potentially posing health risks to workers, the public, and the environment. However, all materials stored and shipped on-site would be contained, stored, and handled in compliance with applicable standards and regulations established by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). In addition, as discussed previously, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required for the Project and shall include emergency procedures for incidental hazardous materials releases. The SWPPP also includes Best Management Practices which includes requirements for hazardous materials storage. Therefore, there will be less than significant impacts. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Less Than Significant. As discussed in Impact a) above, the use of hazardous materials would be primarily confined to the Project construction period and those materials would be contained, stored, and handled in compliance with applicable standards and regulations. Also as discussed in Impact a) above, the fueling system includes a safety monitoring system to detect and stop hazardous leaks. As such, there are less than significant impacts regarding the release of hazardous materials into the environment.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
No Impact. No schools are located within 0.25 miles of the proposed Project site. The nearest school is Orange Center Elementary School, located approximately 0.27 miles south of the proposed site. The proposed Project consists of construction of a longterm regional facility for the purpose of providing less-than-truckload (LTL) freight services. The development will consist of an administrative office, a cross-dock transfer platform, a fleet maintenance shop, an office, parking for fleet tractors, fleet trailers, automobiles, and a diesel fuel system for fleet equipment. The Project construction will also include street lighting and landscaping. Activities at this site will involve the unloading and transfer of freight from trailers incoming to the facility, and direct loading to trailers outbound to their destination. No outside storage of material will be required with this operation. It is unlikely that these operations will emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials.

This condition precludes the possibility of activities associated with the proposed Project exposing schools within a 0.25‐mile radius of the project site to hazardous materials. The area surrounding the proposed site is primarily comprised of industrial and commercial purposes, similar to the proposed less-than-truckload freight facility.

There is no impact.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project site is not located on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (Geotracker23 and Envirostor24 databases – accessed in March 2023). There are no hazardous materials sites in the vicinity that impact the proposed Project. As such, 23 California State Water Resources Control Board, GeoTracker Database. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=fresno. Accessed March 2023. 24 Department of Toxic Substances Control, EnviroStor Database. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/. Accessed March 2023.
any impacts would remain less than significant.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
Less than Significant Impact. The nearest airport to the Project site is FresnoChandler Executive Airport, which lies approximately 3.3 miles to the northwest; however, the proposed Project site is outside of the Fresno-Chandler Executive Airport Influence Area.25 Any impacts are considered less than significant. f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact. The City’s Police and Fire Departments are the lead agencies for all local emergency response efforts. The City of Fresno has consulted with its police, fire and ambulance service providers to determine that the proposed Project provides adequate emergency access to the Project site and surrounding areas. Objective NS6 and Policies NS-6-a through NS-6-g of the approved General Plan would reduce potential impacts to emergency response and evacuation. • Objective NS-6: Foster an efficient and coordinated response to emergencies and natural disasters.
o Policy NS-6-a: County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan.

Adopt and implement the Fresno County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan and City of Fresno Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex. o Policy NS-6-b: Disaster Response Coordination. Maintain coordination with other local, State, and Federal agencies to provide coordinated disaster response.
o Policy NS-6-c: Emergency Operations Plan. Update the City’s Emergency Operations Plan periodically, using a whole community approach which integrates considerations for People with access and functional needs in all aspects of planning.
o Policy NS-6-d: Evacuation Planning. Maintain an emergency evacuation plan in consultation with the Police and Fire Departments and other emergency service providers, which shows potential 25 Exhibit C6-C7, Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, Fresno Council of Governments. 2018. Accessed February 2024. evacuation routes and a list of emergency shelters to be used in case of catastrophic emergencies.
o Policy NS-6-e: Critical Use Facilities. Ensure critical use facilities (e.g.

City Hall, police and fire stations, schools, hospitals, public assembly facilities, transportation services) and other structures that are important to protecting health and safety in the community remain operational during an emergency.
▪ Site and design these facilities to minimize their exposure and susceptibility to flooding, seismic and geological effects, fire and explosions.
▪ Work with the owners and operators of critical use facilities to ensure they can provide alternate sources of electricity, water, and sewerage in the event that regular utilities are interrupted in a disaster.
o Policy NS-6-f: Emergency Vehicle Access. Require adequate access for emergency vehicles in all new development, including adequate widths, turning radii, hard standing areas, and vertical clearance. o Policy NS-6-g: Emergency Preparedness Public Awareness Programs. Continue to conduct programs to inform the general public, including people with access and functional needs, of the City’s emergency preparedness and disaster response procedures.

As the proposed Project is subject to compliance with applicable standards for on-site emergency access including turn radii and fire access, the proposed Project would have no impact.
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
Less than Significant Impact. According to the Fresno General Plan, wildfire threats to Fresno are minimal because the city is largely urbanized or working agricultural land and lacks steep topographies. The proposed Project site is not identified by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) to be in a Moderate, High, or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ). Therefore, there will be less than significant impacts.

Mitigation Measures
None are required.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY – Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or
ground water quality?
X
b) Substantially decrease
groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project
may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the
basin?
X
c) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the
alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in
a manner which would:
i) Result in a substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site; X
ii) Substantially increase the rate
or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site:

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
iii) create or contribute runoff
water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff; or
X
iv) impede or redirect flood flows? X
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or
seiche zones, risk release of
pollutants due to project
inundation?
X
e) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
X

DISCUSSION
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project has the potential to impact water quality standards and/or waste discharge requirements during construction (temporary impacts) and operation. Impacts are discussed below.

Construction
Grading, excavation and loading activities associated with construction activities could temporarily increase runoff, erosion, and sedimentation. Construction activities also could result in soil compaction and wind erosion effects that could adversely affect soils and reduce the revegetation potential at construction sites and staging areas.

Three general sources of potential short-term construction-related stormwater pollution associated with the proposed Project are: 1) the handling, storage, and disposal of construction materials containing pollutants; 2) the maintenance and operation of construction equipment; and 3) earth moving activities which, when not controlled, may generate soil erosion and transportation, via storm runoff or mechanical equipment. Generally, routine safety precautions for handling and storing construction materials may effectively mitigate the potential pollution of stormwater by these materials. These same types of common sense, “good housekeeping” procedures can be extended to non-hazardous stormwater pollutants such as sawdust and other solid wastes.

Poorly maintained vehicles and heavy equipment leaking fuel, oil, antifreeze, or other fluids on the construction site are also common sources of stormwater pollution and soil contamination. In addition, grading activities can greatly increase erosion processes. Two general strategies are recommended to prevent construction silt from entering local storm drains. First, erosion control procedures should be implemented for those areas that must be exposed. Secondly, the area should be secured to control offsite migration of pollutants. These Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be required in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to be prepared prior to commencement of proposed Project construction. When properly designed and implemented, these “good-housekeeping” practices are expected to reduce shortterm construction-related impacts to less than significant.

In accordance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Program, the proposed Project will be required to comply with existing regulatory requirements to prepare a SWPPP designed to control erosion and the loss of topsoil to the extent practicable using BMPs that the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has deemed effective in controlling erosion, sedimentation, runoff during construction activities. The specific controls are subject to the review and approval by the RWQCB and are an existing regulatory requirement.

Operational
The proposed Project consists of construction of a long-term regional facility for the purpose of providing less-than-truckload (LTL) freight services. The development will consist of an administrative office, a cross-dock transfer platform, a fleet maintenance shop, an office, parking for fleet tractors, fleet trailers, automobiles, and a diesel fuel system for fleet equipment. Activities at this site will involve the unloading and transfer of freight from trailers incoming to the facility, and direct loading to trailers outbound to their destination. Upon completion, the Project will tie into city’s existing stormwater drainage system. These Project operations are not anticipated to violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality.

Therefore, any impacts are less than significant.
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project consists of construction of a long-term regional facility for the purpose of providing less-than-truckload (LTL) freight services. The development will consist of an administrative office, a cross-dock transfer platform, a fleet maintenance shop, parking for up to 29 fleet tractors, up to 150 fleet trailers, up to 84 automobiles, and a diesel fuel system for fleet equipment.

The administrative offices will be equipped with restroom facilities.

The Project site is within the city’s Sphere of Influence, and designated for industrial uses by the City’s General Plan. Accordingly, industrial water at the usage at the site has been accounted for in the City’s infrastructure planning documents. Water service would be provided to the Project by the City of Fresno Department of Public Utilities (DPU) Water and Wastewater Management Divisions. The City receives all of its water supply from groundwater. One of the primary objectives of Fresno’s future water supply plans detailed in Fresno’s current Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) is to balance groundwater operations through a host of strategies.26 Through careful planning, Fresno has designed a comprehensive plan to accomplish this objective by increasing surface water supplies and surface water treatment facilities, intentional recharge, and conservation, thereby reducing groundwater pumping. The proposed Project would be consistent with water management strategies from both the UWMP and the Metropolitan Water Resources Management Plan. Furthermore, the applicant would be required to comply with water management requirements and recommendations of the City DPU, which would reduce potential Project impacts to groundwater supply to less than significant.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? 26 City of Fresno 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. chromeextension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.fresno.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Fresno-2020- UWMP_Final_2021-07-21-1.pdf. Accessed 12/2024.

Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project includes changes to the existing stormwater drainage pattern of the area through the installation of asphalt concrete, administrative buildings, docking platform, maintenance shop, parking, driveways, curb, gutter and sidewalks. The proposed Project has been reviewed by the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District and conditions and requirements of the proposed development pertaining to storm drain facilities have been provided to the proposed Project developer. Additionally, a drainage and grading plan will be required as part of the submittal package to the City of Fresno, which will ensure stormwater will drain to the appropriate drainage inlet. As such, the proposed Project will have a less than significant impact. ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Impact c)i. above, the proposed Project developer will be required to prepare a drainage/grading plan as part of the permit process. Potential impacts from surface runoff will be less than significant.
iii. Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Less Than Significant Impact. As analyzed above, the Project site is designated by the General Plan for industrial uses, and upon approval of annexation and zone change, will be consistent with the zoning laws. As such, the site has been planned for urban development, and site development has been included in the City’s infrastructure planning documents. The proposed Project will connect to the City of Fresno’s existing storm-drain system and pay drainage fees pursuant to the Drainage Fee Ordinance. Impacts resulting from polluted runoff will be less than significant.
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
Less Than Significant Impact. An east-west trending irrigation canal referred to as Central Canal is present on/near the southern boundary of the subject site.

The irrigation canal was dry at the time of the Phase I ESA site reconnaissance.

As described in Impact c)ii and c)iii above, the proposed Project developer will be required to prepare a drainage/grading plan and will connect to the City of Fresno’s existing storm-drain system. Both of those items will ensure that the proposed Project will have less than significant impacts regarding impeding or redirecting flood flows.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project is outside of any Special Flood Hazard Areas, as identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Map 06019C2110H, effective 2/18/2009. There are no bodies of water near the site that would create a potential risk of hazards from seiche, tsunami or mudflow. The proposed Project will not conflict with any water quality control plans or sustainable groundwater management plan. As mentioned in Impact c) above, all new development within the City of Fresno Planning Area must conform to standards and plans detailed by the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District. By conforming to all standards and policies as outlined, any impacts will remain less than significant. e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project will be in compliance with all water quality control plans and other hydrological requirements set forth by the City of Fresno. Any impacts are less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None are required.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING – Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
community?
X
b) Cause a significant
environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for
the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental
effect?
X

DISCUSSION
a) Physically divide an established community?
Less Than Significant Impact. The immediate vicinity of the proposed Project site is comprised of industrial businesses, agriculture, and roadways. The proposed Project includes development of a long-term regional facility for less-than-truckload (LTL) freight services, including an administrative office, a cross-dock transfer platform, a fleet maintenance shop, parking for fleet tractors, fleet trailers, and automobiles, and a diesel fuel system. The proposed Project will not divide an existing community.

There are less than significant impacts associated with the proposed Project. b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Less Than Significant Impact. Based upon compliance with the goals, objectives and policies referenced herein below, the proposed Project is determined to be consistent with the Fresno General Plan goals and objectives related to land use and the urban form:

Goal No. 1 of the Fresno General Plan: Increase opportunity, economic development, business and job creation.

The proposed Project will ultimately provide approximately four to ten long-term jobs for the growing local work force.

Goal No. 7 of the Fresno General Plan: Provide for a diversity of districts, neighborhoods, housing types (including affordable housing), residential densities, job opportunities, recreation, open space, and educational venues that appeal to a broad range of people throughout the City.

This Goal contributes to the establishment of a comprehensive city-wide land use planning strategy to meet economic development objectives, achieve efficient and equitable use of resources and infrastructure, and create an attractive living environment in accordance with Objective LU-1 of the Fresno General Plan.

Goal No. 12 of the Fresno General Plan: Resolve existing public infrastructure and service deficiencies, make full use of existing infrastructure, and invest in improvements to increase competitiveness and promote economic growth.

The proposed Project will tie into existing infrastructure as necessary (water, sewer and storm water) located in the Project vicinity.

Fresno County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan: On December 3, 2018, the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) adopted the Fresno County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. The proposed Project is not within the Airport Influence Area of the nearest airport, Fresno-Chandler Executive Airport. As such, no impacts related to airport and land use is anticipated.

Implementing Policies LU-1-a and LU-2-a of the Fresno General Plan: promote development of vacant, underdeveloped, and re-developable land within the Existing City Limits as of December 31, 2012 where urban services are available.

The proposed Project will be constructed in an area planned for industrial development where infrastructure services are available.

Implementing Policy LU-7-c – Efficiency of Industrial Uses. Promote industrial land use clusters to maximize the operational efficiency of similar activities.

The proposed site is located in an area surrounded by businesses such as freight services, truck and trailer repair, warehouses, and other industrial businesses.

Therefore, it is determined that the proposed Project is consistent with respective general plan objectives and policies and will not significantly conflict with applicable land use plans, policies or regulations of the City of Fresno. Furthermore, the proposed Project, including the design and improvement of the subject property, is found; (1) To be consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the applicable Fresno General Plan; (2) To be suitable for the type and density of development; (3) To be safe from potential cause or introduction of serious public health problems; and, (4) To not conflict with any public interests in the subject property or adjacent lands.

The authorization request for the proposed plan amendments regarding re-zoning is expected to be approved.

Thus, the proposed Project would have less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
None are required.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability
of a known mineral resource that
would be of value to the region
and the residents of the state?
X
b) Result in the loss of availability
of a locally-important mineral
resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?
X

DISCUSSION
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
No Impact. The City’s General Plan notes that most of the area outside of the San Joaquin and Kings River Resource Areas has a Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ)-3 designation, with potential, but presently unproven, mineral resource areas. 27 The
27 Ch. 7 Resource Conservation and Resilience, Fresno General Plan. December 2014. Pg 7-45. Accessed February 2024.

Project site is not located in or near these resource areas or mines.28 There are no known mineral resources in the proposed Project area and none are identified in the City’s General Plan near the proposed site. Therefore, there is no impact. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? No Impact. As discussed in Impact a) above, there are no known mineral resources identified in the City’s General Plan in the proposed Project area. There is no impact.

Mitigation Measures
None are required.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIII. NOISE – Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial
temporary or permanent increase
in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of
standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance,
or applicable standards of other
agencies?
X
b) Generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
X
28 Mines Online, Department of Conservation. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/mol/index.html. Accessed February 2024.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) For a project located within the
vicinity of a private airstrip or an
airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or
working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
X
The analysis in the Noise section is based on the Acoustical Analysis Report prepared by WJV Acoustics in August 2023. The report is provided in its entirety in Appendix D.

DISCUSSION
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in other applicable local, state, or federal standards?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site is located along the west side of S.

Cherry Avenue, approximately 1,500 feet south of E. North Avenue, in Fresno, California. The Project site is generally bounded by an existing trucking facility to the north, industrial and rural residential land uses to the east, agricultural, industrial, and rural residential land uses to the south, and State Route 41 (SR 41) to the west.

Existing sources of noise within and adjacent to the Project site are dominated by traffic noise associated with vehicles on S. Cherry Avenue, E. North Avenue and SR

41. Additional sources of noise observed during a site visit include noise associated with existing industrial agricultural activities, and occasional aircraft overflights.

The Project is the development of a long‐term regional facility for Central Transport that will provide for less‐than‐truckload (LTL) freight services. The development will consist of an approximately 3,294 square foot administrative office, 68,570 square foot cross‐ dock transfer platform, 11,880 square foot fleet maintenance shop, parking for fleet tractors (26), fleet trailers (137), and automobiles (84), and a diesel fuel system for fleet equipment. Central Transport will operate 24 hours per day, Monday through Friday, and Saturday mornings, and will consist of approximately 90 employees.

Project-Related Increases in Traffic Noise Exposure
The City’s exterior noise level standard for residential land uses is 65 dB Ldn.

Existing Conditions
Table 17 provides existing traffic noise exposure levels at the seven analyzed representative receptor locations, and provides what the Project contribution would be to existing traffic conditions.

Table 17
Project Contribution To Future Traffic Noise
Existing Traffic Conditions
Modeled
Receptor
Existing Without Project
Contribution
Existing Plus
Project
Project
Contribution
Significant
Impact?
R‐1 56 56 0 No
R‐2 58 58 0 No
R‐3 55 58 0 No
R‐4 59 59 0 No
R‐5 55 56 +1 No
R‐6 54 54 0 No
R‐7 58 58 0 No
2043 Cumulative Conditions
Table 18 provides 2043 Cumulative traffic noise exposure levels at the seven analyzed representative receptor locations and provides what the Project contribution would be to 2043 Cumulative traffic conditions.

Table 18
Project Contribution To Future Traffic Noise
2043 Cumulative Traffic Conditions
Modeled
Receptor
2043 Conditions Without
Project Contribution
2043 Conditions
Plus Project
Project
Contribution
Significant
Impact?
R‐1 59 59 0 No
R‐2 62 62 0 No
R‐3 59 59 0 No
R‐4 63 63 0 No
R‐5 57 58 +1 No
R‐6 56 56 0 No
R‐7 59 59 0 No
Based on Table 18, the Project’s contribution would not result in an increase in traffic noise exposure at six of the seven modeled receptor locations, and would result in an increase of approximately 1 dB at receptor location R‐5, for both existing and 2043 traffic conditions. The Project would not result in traffic noise levels that exceed the City’s 65 dB Ldn exterior noise level standard at any of the seven modeled traffic noise receptors. As such, Project‐related increases in traffic noise exposure would not be considered a significant impact at any nearby sensitive receptor location.

Fleet Maintenance Shop
The Project would include a fleet maintenance facility, to be located along the northern portion of the Project site. Sensitive receptors are located within ¼ mile of the Project site, with residences to the south and southeast. There are no schools, hospitals, convalescent facilities or other sensitive receptors in this primarily rural agricultural and industrial area within this ¼ mile; however, it should be noted that there is an Elementary School just over ¼ mile (0.27 of a mile), to the Southeast of the Project, (Orange Center Elementary).

The City’s maximum daytime noise level standard is 70 dB and maximum nighttime noise level standard is 60 dB. Taking into account the standard rate of attenuation of noise with increased distance from a point source (‐6 dB/doubling of distance), noise levels would not exceed 60 dB at setback distances of 250 feet or greater from the source. The proposed fleet maintenance shop would not be located within 250 feet of any noise‐sensitive receptor locations, as such, noise levels associated with the proposed fleet maintenance would not be expected to result in noise levels exceeding any City of Fresno noise level standards. It should be noted, the noise levels described in the Acoustical Analysis were measured outdoors, with no acoustic shielding. Fleet maintenance activities would likely occur indoor, where noise would be attenuated by the building itself. Therefore, the fleet maintenance shop noise levels should be considered a worst‐case assessment of noise levels associated with the fleet maintenance shop.

Truck Movements
The Project would include a cross‐dock transfer platform for loading/unloading, as well truck and trailer parking. Trucks would enter and exit the project site via S. Cherry Avenue, as needed. The facility is accessible 24 hours per day, Monday through Friday as well as Saturday mornings.

Noise associated with truck movements are generally limited to noise associated with on‐site vehicle movements as well as the release of air brakes. The closest sensitive receptor (residential land uses) to the proposed truck storage and parking areas are located at a setback distance of approximately 350 feet to the south/southeast. At this setback distance noise levels associated with truck movements would be in the range of approximately 44‐60 dB and noise levels associated with the release of air brakes would be in the range of approximately 61‐63 dB.

The City of Fresno maximum (Lmax) noise level standard is 70 dB during the daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and 60 dB during the nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). However, the City of Fresno Municipal Code states that the standards of the noise ordinance may be adjusted upward (made less restrictive) if existing ambient noise levels without the source of concern already exceed the noise ordinance standards. The municipal code states that, in such siutations, the applicable noise standard becomes the existing ambient noise level, plus 5 dB. Measured noise levels in the Project vicinity (Table IV, Appendix D) indicate that maximum nighttime noise levels averaged approximately 80 dB. Therefore, noise levels associated with truck movement activities would not exceed City of Fresno daytime or nighttime noise level standards.

Loading Dock Activities
The Project would include cross‐dock loading platforms, where various materials would be unloaded and loaded into truck trailers for transport. Noise sources typically associated with loading dock activities include truck engines, the operation of truck‐ mounted refrigeration units, forklifts, the banging of hand carts and roll‐up doors, noise from P.A. systems, and the voices of truck drivers and store employees.

Loading dock noise levels would be expected to be in the range of approximately 65 to 83 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. The closest existing sensitive receptors (residential land uses) to the proposed dock facility are located at distances of approximately 700 feet to the south/southeast. At such distances noise levels associated with loading dock activities would be in the range of approximately 42‐60 dB. Such levels do not exceed applicable City of Fresno daytime or nighttime noise level standards.

Summary
Ambient noise levels measured in the Project vicinity indicate that existing ambient noise levels are already relatively high, as a result of vehicle traffic along S. Cherry Avenue, E. North Avenue, SR 41 as well as existing industrial land uses in the Project vicinity. The noise level measurement data (as analyzed in Appendix D) demonstrate that the Project would not be expected to exceed any applicable daytime or nighttime City of Fresno noise level standards at nearby sensitive receptor locations (residential land uses). This determination considers the existing elevated ambient noise levels measured near these residential land uses. Noise levels associated with all Project operations would be below existing ambient noise levels measured in the Project vicinity, and mitigation measures are therefore not required for Project noise compliance. Therefore, the impact is considered less than significant. b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. The dominant sources of man‐made vibration are sonic booms, blasting, pile driving, pavement breaking, demolition, diesel locomotives, and rail‐car coupling. None of these activities are anticipated to occur with construction or operation of the proposed Project.

Vibration from construction activities could be detected at the closest sensitive land uses, especially during movements by heavy equipment or loaded trucks and during some paving activities (if they were to occur). Typical vibration levels at distances of 100 feet and 300 feet are summarized by Table 19. These levels would not be expected to exceed any significant threshold levels for annoyance or damage.

Table 19
Typical Vibration Levels During Construction
Equipment PPV (in/sec)
@100’ @300’
Bulldozer (Large) 0.011 0.006
Bulldozer (Small) 0.0004 0.00019
Loaded Truck 0.01 0.005
Jackhammer 0.005 0.002
Vibratory Roller 0.03 0.013
Caisson Drilling 0.01 0.006
Source: Caltrans
After full Project build out, it is not expected that ongoing operational activities will result in any vibration impacts at nearby sensitive uses. Additional mitigation is not required. There are no aspects of construction or daily operations that would create groundborne vibration. As such, any impacts would be less than significant. c. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Less Than Significant Impact. There are no private airstrips in the proposed Project vicinity. The proposed Project site is not located within the boundaries of the Fresno County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, adopted in 2018 and amended in 2023.29 As such, impacts will remain less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None are required.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING – Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned
population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers
of existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
X
29 Fresno County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Exhibit C8. https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/clh8iltq4f3eb10qyp93i/Fresno-Updated-ALUCP-Amended-Oct2023.pdf?rlkey=e4ao8oy6ifk2btgzci95szb0u&e=1&dl=0.

DISCUSSION
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Less Than Significant Impact. There are no new homes associated with the proposed Project and there are no residential structures currently on-site. The proposed Project includes development of a long-term regional facility for less-thantruckload (LTL) freight services, including an administrative office, a cross-dock transfer platform, a fleet maintenance shop, parking for fleet tractors, fleet trailers, and automobiles, and a diesel fuel system. The Project would temporarily provide construction jobs in the City of Fresno area, which could be readily filled by the existing employment base. Approximately 90 long-term employees are expected at Project build-out. The proposed Project will not affect any regional population, housing or employment projections anticipated by City policy documents. Potential impacts are less than significant.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. There are currently no residential units on-site, thus no people or existing housing will be displaced. There is no impact.

Mitigation Measures
None are required.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES – Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for
any of the public services:

Fire protection?
X
Police protection?
X
Schools? X
Parks?
X
Other public facilities? X

DISCUSSION
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i. Fire protection?
Less Than Significant. The proposed Project includes development of a long-term regional facility for less-than-truckload (LTL) freight services, including an administrative office, a cross-dock transfer platform, a fleet maintenance shop, parking for fleet tractors, fleet trailers, and automobiles, and a diesel fuel system.

The City of Fresno Fire Department (Fire Department) offers a full range of services including fire prevention, suppression, emergency medical care, hazardous materials, urban search and rescue response, as well as emergency preparedness planning and public education coordination within the Fresno City limit, in addition to having mutual aid agreements with the Fresno County Fire Protection District, and the City of Clovis Fire Departments.

The City of Fresno Fire Department operates its facilities under the guidance set by the National Fire Protection Association in NFPA 1710, the Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operation to the Public by Career Fire Departments. NFPA 1710 sets standards for turnout time, travel time, and total response time for fire and emergency medical incidents, as well as other standards for operation and fire service. The Fire Department has established the objectives set forth in NFPA 1710 as department objectives to ensure the public health, safety, and welfare.

According to the City of Fresno Fire Department, the proposed Project would be served by Station 7, which is located at 2571 South Cherry Avenue, Fresno, approximately 1.3 miles north of the proposed Project site. After reviewing the Project, the Fire Department has determined that the Project can be adequately serviced by the current local Fire Facilities and Personnel, consistent with National Fire Protection Association 1710 Objectives.

The Fresno General Plan contains the following objectives and policies:

Objective PU-3: Enhance the level of fire protection to meet the increasing demand for services from an increasing population.

Implementing Policies:
• PU-3-a Fire Prevention Inspections. Develop strategies to Fire Prevention Inspections. Enable the performance of annual fire and life safety inspection of all industrial, commercial, institutional, and multi-family residential buildings, in accordance with nationally recognized standards for the level of service necessary for a large Metropolitan Area, including a self-certification program.
• PU-3-b Reduction Strategies. Develop community risk Reduction Strategies, such as strategies that target high service demand areas, vulnerable populations (e.g. young children, older adults, non-English speaking residents, persons with disabilities, etc.), and high life hazard occupancies. • PU-3-c Public Education Strategies. Develop strategies to Public Education Strategies. re-establish and enhance routine public education outreach to all sectors of the community.
• PU-3-d Review Development Application Review Development Application Applications. Continue Fire Department review of development applications, provide comments and recommend conditions of approval that will ensure adequate on-site and off-site fire protection systems and features are provided.
• PU-3-e Building Codes. Adopt and enforce amendments to construction and fire codes, as determined appropriate, to systematically reduce the level of risk to life and property from fire, commensurate with the City’s fire suppression capabilities.
• PU-3-f Adequate Infrastructure. Continue to pursue the provision of adequate water supplies, hydrants, and appropriate property access to allow for adequate fire suppression throughout the City.
• PU-3-g Cost Recovery. Continue to evaluate appropriate codes, policies, and methods to generate fees or other sources of revenue to offset the ongoing personnel and maintenance costs of providing fire prevention and response services.

The proposed Project would be required to comply with all applicable fire and building safety codes (California Building Code and Uniform Fire Code) to ensure fire safety elements are incorporated into the final Project design. As a result, appropriate fire safety considerations have been included as part of the final design of the Project. Project implementation will result in less than significant impacts. ii. Police protection?
Less Than Significant. Police protection services closest to the proposed Project site are located at the existing Southwest District Station at 1211 Fresno Street, approximately 3.1 miles north of the site. The Fresno Police Department provides a full range of police services including uniformed patrol response to calls for service, crime prevention, tactical crime and enforcement (including gang and violent crime suppression), and traffic enforcement/accident prevention. The proposed Project is located within the adopted City of Fresno Sphere of Influence and the site is designated Heavy Industrial by the General Plan. The site has been planned for development and is located in an area currently served by the Police Department.

The Project applicant would be required to pay standard development impact fees as determined by the City. Any impacts are considered less than significant. iii. Schools?
Less Than Significant. The proposed Project includes development of a long-term regional facility for less-than-truckload (LTL) freight services, including an administrative office, a cross-dock transfer platform, a fleet maintenance shop, parking for fleet tractors, fleet trailers, and automobiles, and a diesel fuel system.

Upon approval of annexation, the site will fall under Washington Unified School District; however, the proposed Project does not contain any residential uses. The proposed Project, therefore, would not result in an influx of new students in the Project area and is not expected to result in an increased demand upon District resources and would not require the construction of new facilities. Any impacts are considered less than significant.
iv. Parks?
Less Than Significant. The proposed Project includes development of a long-term regional facility for less-than-truckload (LTL) freight services, including an administrative office, a cross-dock transfer platform, a fleet maintenance shop, parking for fleet tractors, fleet trailers, and automobiles, and a diesel fuel system.

The Project would not result in an increase in demand for parks and recreation facilities because it would not result in an increase in population. Impacts are considered less than significant.
v. Other public facilities?
Less Than Significant. The proposed Project includes development of a long-term regional facility for less-than-truckload (LTL) freight services, including an administrative office, a cross-dock transfer platform, a fleet maintenance shop, parking for fleet tractors, fleet trailers, and automobiles, and a diesel fuel system.

The Project does not include any residences and, therefore, would not result in increased demand for, or impacts on, other public facilities such as library services.

Development of the Project will not require construction of additional public facilities.

Impacts are less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None are required.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVI. RECREATION - Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such
that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
X
b) Does the project include
recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect
on the environment?
X

DISCUSSION
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
No Impact. The proposed Project includes development of a long-term regional facility for less-than-truckload (LTL) freight services, including an administrative office, a cross-dock transfer platform, a fleet maintenance shop, parking for fleet tractors, fleet trailers, and automobiles, and a diesel fuel system. The Project does not include the construction of residential uses and would not directly or indirectly induce population growth. Therefore, the proposed Project would not cause physical deterioration of existing recreational facilities from increased usage. There would be no impact. b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
No Impact. As discussed above, the proposed Project includes development of a long-term regional facility for less-than-truckload (LTL) freight services, including two offices, a cross-dock transfer platform, a fleet maintenance shop, parking for fleet tractors, fleet trailers, and automobiles, and a diesel fuel system. The Project does not include development of residential uses and therefore, the proposed Project would not result in the need for new or expanded recreational facilities. No impacts are expected.

Mitigation Measures
None are required.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVII. TRANSPORTATION – Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan,
ordinance or policy addressing the
circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
X
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
X
c) Substantially increase hazards
due to a geometric design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
X
d) Result in inadequate
emergency access?
X
The analysis in the Transportation section is based on the Traffic Study Report prepared by Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers in August 2023. The report is provided in its entirety in Appendix E. The scope of the study was developed in association with the City of Fresno. The scope is based on the guidelines contained in the City of Fresno’s “Traffic Impact Study Guidelines Update 2-2- 2009 for Fresno.” The scoping memo is included in the appendix.

DISCUSSION
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The proposed development will include a 68,570 square foot cross-dock transfer platform, a 3,294 square foot administrative office, an 11,880 square foot fleet maintenance shop, and parking for fleet tractors, fleet trailers, and automobiles along with a diesel fuel system.

The study area is generally bounded by Cherry Avenue and State Route 41. The site is currently vacant land. Site access is proposed along Cherry Avenue at the driveway locations as shown in Appendix E. The Project will construct frontage improvements, including sidewalk, curb ramps, and bike lanes. The construction of the sidewalk and bike lanes will close gaps in pedestrian and bicycle access and will allow access to the site for all users. Existing land uses in the vicinity of the proposed development are generally industrial and commercial land uses with residential further west and north of the Project site.

Trip Generation
Trip rates, equations and directional splits for ITE Land Use Code 30 (Intermodal Truck Terminal) were used to estimate Project trips for weekday peak hour of adjacent street traffic based on information provided by the Project applicant. The ITE Land Use Code 30 does not currently have data regarding average daily traffic. Therefore, calculations were done based on information provided by the applicant. There will be 63 heavy trucks entering and exiting the Project daily; therefore, there will be approximately 126 heavy truck trips per day. The Project will have 90 employees entering and exiting the Project daily; therefore, there will be approximately 180 passenger vehicle trips per day. The total heavy truck and vehicle trips were calculated to be approximately 306 daily trips.

Table 20
Trip Generation
Land Use AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips ADT
ITE Rate IN Variable OUT Rate IN OUT
Code
30 83.744 1.97 eq
lOOOsqftGFA 306
TOTAL 306 165 54
Split
Trips
Split
Trips
Split
Trips
Split
Trips
52%
28 48%
26 47%
78 Development
Type
53%
87 Intermodal Truck
Terminal
Intersection Analysis
A capacity analysis of the study intersections was performed for the following AM and PM Peak Hour traffic scenarios:
• Existing (2023)
• Existing (2023) + Project
• Existing Cumulative (2023) + Project
• Future Cumulative (2043)
• Future Cumulative (2043) + Project
• Future Cumulative (2043) + Project with Mitigation
Criteria for intersection level of service (LOS) are shown in the tables below.

Table 21
Level of Service Criteria - Unsignalized Intersection
Level of Service Average Control Delay
(sec/veh)
Expected Delay to Minor
Street Traffic
A ≤ 10 Little or no delay
B > 10 and ≤ 15 Short delays
C > 15 and ≤ 25 Average delays
D > 25 and ≤ 35 Long delays
E > 35 and ≤ 50 Very long delays
F > 50 Extreme delays
Table 22
Level of Service Criteria - Signalized Intersections
Level of Service Average Control Delay
(sec/veh)
Volume-to-Capacity
Ratio
A ≤ 10 < 0.60
B > 10 and ≤ 20 0.61 - 0.70
C > 20 and ≤ 35 0.71 - 0.80
D > 35 and ≤ 55 0.81 - 0.90
E > 55 and ≤ 80 0.91 - 1.00
F > 80 > 1.00
The level of service threshold for requiring mitigation is if the facility operates below an LOS of “D”. The level of service for the study intersections is presented in Tables 23 and 24.

Table 23
Intersection Level of Service - Weekday AM Peak Hour
Table 24
Intersection Level of Service - PM Peak Hour
Roadway Analysis
The City of Fresno Traffic Impact Study Guidelines states that the peak hour level of service for roadways shall be no lower than LOS “D” for urban areas. The analysis # Intersection 2023
Signal1
2 Signal
3 Signal
Signal4
Signal5
6 AWSC
# Intersection 2023
1 Signal
2 Signal
3 Signal
4 Signal
Signal5
6 AWSC
Elm Ave &
North Ave
Elm Ave &
North Ave
SR 41 SB
Ramps &
North Ave
B
(18.2)
B
(10.6)
D
(52.6)
D
(37.8)
D
(37.9)
D
(50.0)
A
(3.3)
B
(18.8)
F
(94.8)
D
(44.7)
D
(52.7)
D
(42.0)
SR 41 SB
Ramps &
North Ave
F
(84.2)
E
(58.7)
E
(66.4)
F
(95.1)
F
(87.8)
D
(46.1)
B
(2.6)
E
(76-4)
Control
Type
A
(5-2)
A
(8.3)
2023+
Project
F
(85.5)
E
(63.6)
B
(2-7)
F
(88.0)
B
(18.5)
A
(9.0)
A
(9.0)
2023+
Project
B
(2-7)
A
(6.0)
2043+
Project
Cumulative
C
(31-7)
B
(18.2)
2023+
Project
Cumulative
2043+
Project
Cumulative
Mitigation
2023+
Project
Cumulative
Control
Type
A
(7.6)
C
(25.0)
A
(2.5)
A
(4-8)
C
(18.3)
C
(33.4)
C
(21.4)
2043+
Project
Cumulative
Mitigation
C
(27.5)
A
(10.0)
A
(9.6)
A
(8.4)
A
(10.0)
C
(29.8)
C
(30.2)
C
(18.4)
2043+
Project
Cumulative
C
(31-9)
C
(33.9)
C
(23.5)
C
(33.7)
C
(33.2)
C
(32.5)
C
(27.6)
C
(34.1)
C
(34.9)
C
(34.9)
A
(8.4)
C
(33.2)
C
(22.2)
C
(32.2)
C
(22.6)
C
(34.3)
C
(32.2)
C
(22.4)
SR 41 NB
Ramps &
North Ave
Cherry Ave
&
North Ave
East Ave &
North Ave
Cherry Ave
&
Cental Ave
SR 41 NB
Ramps &
North Ave
Cherry Ave
&
North Ave
East Ave &
North Ave
Cherry Ave
&
Cental Ave
2043
Cumulative
2043
Cumulative
was performed for the following AM and PM traffic scenarios:
• Existing (2023)
• Existing (2023) + Project
• Existing Cumulative (2023) + Project
• Future Cumulative (2043)
• Future Cumulative (2043) + Project
Table 25
Existing AM Roadway Level of Service
Table 26
Future AM Roadway Level of Service
Table 27
Existing PM Roadway Level of Service
Street

VOL LOS VOL LOS VOL LOS
660 C 680 C 860 C
842 C 910 C 1028 C
908 C 1021 C 1173 C
766 C 810 C 996 C
Street

VOL LOS VOL LOS
1822 D 1882 D
2152 D 2169 D
2372 C 2373 C
1942 C 1996 C
2023+Project
Two-Wav LOS
2043+Project
Cumulative
Two-Wav LOS
2023+Project
Cumulative
Two-Way LOS
North Avenue: Elm Avenue to SR 41
Southbound Ramps______________
North Avenue: SR 41 Southbound
Ramps to SR 41 Northbound Ramps
North Avenue: SR 41 Northbound
Ramps to Chen~\r Avenue_________
North Avenue: Cherry Avenue to East
Avenue
North Avenue: Elm Avenue to SR 41
Southbound Ramps
North Avenue: SR 41 Southbound
Ramps to SR 41 Northbound Ramps
North Avenue: SR 41 Northbound
Ramps to Cherry7 Avenue
North Avenue: Cherry Avenue to East
Avenue
2043
Cumulative
Two-Wav LOS
2023
Two-Way LOS
Table 27
Future PM Roadway Level of Service
Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis
Traffic signal warrants 1, 2, and 3 were evaluated for each of the unsignalized intersections within the study based on the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). AM and PM peak hour volume data and daily traffic volume data were collected for all approaches at the analyzed intersections.

Table 29
Warrant 1 & Warrant 2 Analysis
Table 30
Street

VOL LOS VOL LOS VOL LOS
671 C 638 C 798 C
732 C 746 C 824 C
907 C 954 C 1070 C
746 C 751 C 878 C
Street

VOL LOS VOL LOS
1943 D 1980 D
2051 D 2054 D
2087 C 2114 C
1844 C 1872 C
Existing Existing+Proj ect
Intersection

NO NO NO NO
2023+Project
Cumulative
Two-Wav LOS
2023+Project
Two-Wav LOS
2043+Project
Cumulative
Two-Way LOS
Cherry Ave &
Central Ave
2 Four
2 Four
North Avenue: Elin Avenue to SR 41
Southbound Ramps________________
North Avenue: SR 41 Southbound
Ramps to SR 41 Northbound Ramps
North Avenue: SR 41 Northbound
Ramps to Cherry Avenue___________
North Avenue: Cherry Avenue to East
Avenue
1 Eight
North Avenue: Elm Avenue to SR 41
Southbound Ramps______________
North Avenue: SR 41 Southbound
Ramps to SR 41 Northbound Ramps
North Avenue: SR 41 Northbound
Ramps to Cherry Avenue
North Avenue: Cherry Avenue to East
Avenue
1 Eight
2043
Two-Way LOS
2023
Two-Wav LOS
Warrant 3 Analysis
Accident Investigation
Accident data was requested from SWITRS for the previous year. Upon review of the data provided, it was determined there were 46 accidents at the study intersections from July 2018 to July 2023. The accidents occurred at the following intersections:
• 21 accidents occurred at North Avenue & State Route 41 Ramps • 15 accidents occurred at North Avenue & Elm Avenue
• 5 accidents occurred at North Avenue & East Avenue
• 5 accidents occurred at North Avenue & Cherry Avenue
Queue Length Analysis
A queue length analysis was conducted at all stop-controlled freeway off ramps within the study area to evaluate the adequacy of the existing storage lengths. Tables 31 and 32 below show the existing storage lengths, as well as the 95th percentile queue length determined for each traffic scenario analyzed.

Table 31
AM Queue Analysis
Table 32
PM Queue Analysis
Intersection 2023 2023+Project

AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
Intersection
Movement EBR WBL SBR EBL WBR NBR
150 240 140 250 150
10 65 9 79 20 49
15 80 11 101 18 50
20 86 16 108 23 51
2043 Cumulative 138 210 39 167 118 135
146 232 42 178 120 141 2043+Project
Cumulative
2023+Project
Cumulative
2043+Project
Cumulative
Cherry Ave &
Central Ave
2043
Cumulative
SR 41 SB Ramps &
North Ave
SR 41 NB Ramps &
North Ave
Storage Capacity
2023
2023+Project
2023+Project
Cumulative
As shown in the tables, the storage lengths are adequate for existing and future queue lengths.

Intersection Improvements
Upon review of intersection and roadway level of service, it is determined that the intersections of Elm Avenue & North Avenue, SR 41 Southbound Ramps & North Avenue, and SR 41 Northbound Ramps & North Avenue will require improvements by the year 2043.

It is determined that none of the unsignalized intersections meet the signal warrant criteria. With the addition of the mitigation measure identified in TRA-1 below and Table 33, all intersections will operate at acceptable levels.

Table 33
Future Intersection Improvements
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Intersection
Movement EBR WBL SBR EBL WBR NBR
Storage Capacity 150 240 140 250 150
7 54 122 80 15 42
8 59 125 125 22 62
8 60 126 130 27 64
82 147 135 240 130 77
95 167 138 247 147 88
# Intersection Improvements Required by 2043
Change NBTR to NBT, add NBR1 0.14%
2 Change EBR to EBTR 0.95%
Add EBT3 3.7%
Ehn Ave &
North Ave
Percent
Share
2043+Project
Cumulative
SR 41 SB Ramps &
North Ave
SR 41 NB Ramps &
North Ave
SR 41 SB Ramps &
North Ave
SR 41 NB Ramps &
North Ave
2023
2023+Project
2023+Project
Cumulative
2043 Cumulative
Less Than Significant Impact. Senate Bill (SB) 743 requires that relevant CEQA analysis of transportation impacts be conducted using a metric known as vehicle miles traveled (VMT) instead of Level of Service (LOS). VMT measures how much actual auto travel (additional miles driven) a proposed project would create on California roads. If the project adds excessive car travel onto our roads, the project may cause a significant transportation impact.

The State CEQA Guidelines were amended to implement SB 743, by adding Section 15064.3. Among its provisions, Section 15064.3 confirms that, except with respect to transportation projects, a project’s effect on automobile delay shall not constitute a significant environmental impact. Therefore, LOS measures of impacts on traffic facilities is no longer a relevant CEQA criteria for transportation impacts.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(4) states that “[a] lead agency has discretion to evaluate a project’s vehicle miles traveled, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household or in any other measure. A lead agency may use models to estimate a project’s vehicle miles traveled, and may revise those estimates to reflect professional judgment based on substantial evidence. Any assumptions used to estimate used to estimate vehicle miles traveled and any revision to model outputs should be documented and explained in the environmental document prepared for the project. The standard of adequacy in Section 15151 shall apply to the analysis described in this section.”
On June 25, 2020, the City of Fresno adopted CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds, dated June 25, 2020, pursuant to Senate Bill 743 to be effective of July 1, 2020. The thresholds described therein are referred to herein as the City of Fresno VMT Thresholds. The City of Fresno VMT Thresholds document was prepared and adopted consistent with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.3 and 15064.7. The December 2018 Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (Technical Advisory) published by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), was utilized as a reference and guidance document in the preparation of the Fresno VMT Thresholds.

The City of Fresno VMT Thresholds adopted a screening standard and criteria that can be used to screen out qualified projects that meet the adopted criteria from needing to prepare a detailed VMT analysis.

The City of Fresno VMT Thresholds Section 3.0 regarding Project Screening discusses a variety of projects that may be screened out of a VMT analysis including specific development and transportation projects. For development projects, conditions may exist that would presume that a development project has a less than significant impact. These may be size, location, proximity to transit, or trip‐making potential. For transportation projects, the primary attribute to consider with transportation projects is the potential to increase vehicle travel, sometimes referred to as “induced travel.”
The Project will generate approximately 306 Average Daily Trips, as demonstrated in Table 20. According to the City of Fresno VMT guidelines, facilities that generate fewer than 500 average daily trips are accounted for in the existing regional average.

Therefore, no VMT analysis is necessary. In conclusion, the Project will result in a less than significant VMT impact and is consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(b).

In conclusion, the Project will result in a less than significant VMT impact and is consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(b).
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project has been designed for ease of access, adequate circulation/movement, and is typical of industrial developments in the City of Fresno. On-site circulation patterns do not involve high speeds, sharp curves or dangerous intersections. Although Project implementation will generate additional traffic in the area (see Table 20), there are no aspects of the Project that will increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses. Any impacts are considered less than significant.
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project does not involve a change to any emergency response plan. Access points to the Project site will remain accessible to emergency vehicles of all sizes. As such, potential impacts are less than significant.

Mitigation Measures:

1. The proposed project shall implement and incorporate the transportation related mitigation measures as identified in the attached Project Specific Mitigation Monitoring Checklist dated May 22, 2025.

TRA-1: The Applicant shall pay the City of Fresno for their Fair Share Portion of the intersection improvements described in Table 33, in order to maintain or improve the operational level of service of the street system in the Project vicinity.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project:

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a
tribal cultural resource, defined in
PRC section 21074 as either a
site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically
defined in terms of the size and
scope of the landscape, sacred
place, or object with cultural value
to a California Native American
tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in
PRC section 5020.1(k), or,
X
ii) A resource determined by the
lead agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision
(c) of PRC section 5024.1. In
applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of PRC section
5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native
American tribe.

DISCUSSION
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Section V, Cultural Resources, Impact c), a prehistoric and historic site records and literature search was conducted for the Project area through the Southern San Joaquin Valley Archaeological Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System on February 6, 2023 (File RS#23-029). There have been no previous cultural resource studies performed in the Project area; however, four cultural resource studies fall in the one-half mile radius, FR-00053, 00151, 01738, and 01739. Records indicated that there are no recorded resources within the Project area. There have been 26 recorded resources within the one-half mile radius: P-10-004648, 004649, 004651, 004677, 006761, 006763, 006764, 006765, 006766, 006767, 006768, 006769, 006770, 006775, 006776, 006777, 006778, 006779, 006780, 006781, 006782, 006783, 006784, 006785, 006786, and 006787. These resources consist of historic era buildings and structures, most of which are single family homes.

There are no recorded cultural resources within the project area or radius that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, the California Points of Historical Interest, California Inventory of Historic Resources, for the California State Historic Landmarks. A review of the Sacred Lands Inventory by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was also performed, and the results were negative.

As discussed under criterion (b) implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1, CUL-2 and CUL-3 would reduce impacts to unknown archaeological deposits, including TCRs, to a less than significant level. As discussed under criterion (d), compliance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 would reduce the likelihood of disturbing or discovering human remains, including those of Native Americans. Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 (b) and (c) establishes the authority of the county coroner regarding the inadvertent discovery of human remains outside of a dedicated cemetery and the roll of the NAHC if the coroner determines that the remains are that of a Native American. Any impacts will remain less than significant.
ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Less Than Significant Impact. In accordance with Assembly Bill (AB) 52 and Senate Bill (SB) 18, potentially affected Tribes were formally notified of this Project and were given the opportunity to request consultation on the Project. The City contacted the Native American Heritage Commission, requesting a contact list of applicable Native American Tribes, which was provided to the City. The City provided letters to the listed Tribes on March 3, 2023 notifying them of the Project and requesting consultation within a 30-day comment period that ended on April 3, 2023, if desired. The City did not receive any responses from the tribes contacted. Therefore, there is a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures

2. The proposed project shall implement and incorporate the tribal cultural resource related mitigation measures as identified in the attached Project Specific Mitigation Monitoring Checklist dated May 22, 2025.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS – Would the project:
a) Require or result in the
relocation or construction of new
or expanded water, wastewater
treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural
gas, or telecommunications
facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause
significant environmental effect?
X
b) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry
and multiple dry years?
X
c) Result in a determination by the
waste water treatment provider,
which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing
commitments?
X
d) Generate solid waste in excess
of state or local standards, or in
excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair
the attainment of solid waste
reduction goals?
X

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
e) Comply with federal, state, and
local management and reduction
statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
X

DISCUSSION
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project will require construction of new infrastructure to connect to the existing utility infrastructure. This will include water, wastewater, and storm water drainage connections. Additionally, the Project will include connections for electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities. The installation of this infrastructure will not require any major upsizing or other offsite construction activities that would cause a significant impact. The new infrastructure would be connected to the existing infrastructure that is adjacent to the Project site.

Impacts to storm drainage facilities have been previously discussed under the Hydrology and Water Quality section included within this analysis herein above. As described in Section VII, Geology and Soils, and in compliance with NPDES General Construction Permit requirements, the proposed Project would design and submit a site-specific SWPPP to minimize the discharge of wastewater during construction and a Water Quality Management Plan that includes best management practices (BMPs) for runoff control as required. Therefore, the proposed Project would not require new stormwater drainage facilities to manage stormwater runoff during construction or operation.

The proposed Project would be subject to the payment of any applicable connection charges and/or fees and extension of services in a manner that is compliant with the Department of Public Utilities standards, specifications, and policies.

Sanitary sewer and water service under City of Fresno jurisdiction, delivery is also subject to payment of applicable connection charges and/or fees; compliance with the Department of Public Utilities standards, specifications, and policies; the rules and regulations of the California Public Utilities Commission and California Health Services; and, implementation of the City- wide program for the completion of incremental expansions to facilities for planned water supply, treatment, and storage.. Impacts would be less than significant.
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed under the Section VII Hydrology and Water Quality section of this Initial Study, the Fresno General Plan recognizes regional water resource planning efforts, such as, the Kings Basin’s Integrated Regional Water Management Plan, the Fresno- Area Regional Groundwater Management Plan, and City of Fresno Metropolitan Water Resource Management Plan and cites the findings of the City of Fresno 2020 UWMP. The purpose of these management plans is to provide safe, adequate, and dependable water supplies in order to adequately meet existing and future needs of the Kings Basin regions and the Fresno-Clovis metropolitan area in an economical manner; protect groundwater quality from further degradation and overdraft; and provide a plan of reasonably implementable measures and facilities. Through routing to the applicable departments and agencies, the City has determined that adequate water supply exists to serve the proposed Project. Additionally, the applicant will be required to comply with all requirements of the City of Fresno Department of Public Utilities to reduce the Project’s water impacts to less than significant. c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Less Than Significant Impact. The Project will result in wastewater from restroom and kitchen facilities that will be discharged into the City’s existing wastewater treatment system. The wastewater will be typical of other urban development consisting of a bathrooms and other similar features. The City of Fresno Public Works Department has previously reviewed the Project site and determined that it can accommodate the wastewater generated from the Project. Therefore, the impact of the Project on wastewater treatment is less than significant. d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Fresno Department of Public Utilities, Solid Waste Division has reviewed the Project for compliance with any federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

Garbage disposed of in the City of Fresno is taken to Cedar Avenue Recycling and Transfer Station. Once the trash has been off‐loaded at the transfer station, it is sorted, and non‐recyclable solid waste is loaded onto large trucks and taken to the American Avenue Landfill located approximately six miles southwest of Kerman.

American Avenue Landfill is owned and operated by Fresno County and began operations in 1992 for both public and commercial solid waste haulers. The American Avenue Landfill is a sanitary landfill, meaning that it is a disposal site for a nonhazardous solid waste spread in layers, compacted to the smallest practical volume, and covered by material applied at the end of each operating day.

The American Avenue Landfill (i.e., American Avenue Disposal Site 10‐AA‐0009) has a maximum permitted capacity of 32,700,000 cubic yards and a remaining capacity of 29,358,535 cubic yards, with an estimated closure date of August 31, 2031. The maximum permitted throughput is 2,200 tons per day. Other landfills within the County of Fresno include the Clovis Landfill, with a maximum remaining permitted capacity of 7,740,000 cubic yards, a maximum permitted throughput of 2,000 tons per day, and an estimated closure date of 2047. There is also the Coalinga Landfill, with a maximum remaining capacity of 1,930,062 cubic yards, a maximum permitted throughput of 200 tons per day, and an estimated closure date of 2029. As noted above, the estimated closure date of the American Avenue Landfill is 2031. Additional capacity also exists at the Clovis Landfill and Coalinga Landfill. The 200 tons per year would not result in exceedance of the local capacity infrastructure.

It is anticipated the Project would generate minimal amounts of waste during construction and operation. Any Hazardous waste generated during construction would be disposed of at an approved location, and construction activities are not expected to exceed the capacity of these landfills.

The Project will comply with any statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in any waste related environmental impacts, and impacts would be less than significant.
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less Than Significant Impact. Project construction and operational activities that generate solid waste will be handled, transported, and disposed of in accordance with applicable federal, State, and local regulations pertaining to municipal waste. The City currently has a number of provisions that require or promote recycling and waste reduction. As an example, the City has the Construction and Demolition Recycling Ordinance that requires contractors to recycle construction and demolition debris.The Project will be in compliance with existing statues and regulations related to solid waste, and a less than significant impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
None are required.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XX. WILDFIRE – If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
X
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds,
and other factors, exacerbate
wildfire risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire?
X

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Require the installation or
maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines or other
utilities) that may exacerbate fire
risk or that may result in temporary
or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
X
d) Expose people or structures to
significant risks, including
downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result
of runoff, post-fire slope instability,
or drainage changes?
X
Setting
There are no State Responsibility Areas (SRAs) within the vicinity of the Project site. The Project site is not categorized as a "Very High" Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) by CalFire. Although this CEQA topic only applies to areas within an SRA or Very High FHSZ, out of an abundance of caution, these checklist questions are analyzed below.

DISCUSSION
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact. The City of Fresno Fire Department is in charge of emergency response and preparedness. The Project site will connect to an existing network of City streets.

The Project site is located in an area with several alternative access roads allowing access in the event of an emergency. Access to the alternative access roads would be maintained throughout construction, and appropriate detours would be provided in the event of potential road closures. Therefore, no significant impacts related to the impairment of the implementation of or physical interference with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan would occur. Impacts will be less than significant.
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project is located in a flat area developed with industrial land uses, which precludes the risk of wildfire. The area is flat in nature which would limit the risk of downslope flooding and landslides, and limit any wildfire spread. As such, any wildfire risk to the project structures or people would be less than significant.
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
No Impact. The proposed Project is located in an area developed with urban uses, with access to existing facilities and infrastructure. The Project buildings and site will be designed in accordance with City of Fresno municipal codes, ordinances, and fire codes which regulate access to emergency water source and other utilities. There are no aspects of this proposed Project that would exacerbate fire risk. There is no impact. d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
No Impact. As discussed in Impact b) above, the proposed Project is located in an area dominated by urban uses and is relatively flat, which precludes the risk of downslope or downstream flooding. There is no impact.

Mitigation Measures
None are required.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIX. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the
potential to degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
X
b) Does the project have impacts
that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental
effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
X

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Does the project have
environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly
or indirectly?
X

DISCUSSION
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. As evaluated in this IS/MND, the proposed Project would not substantially degrade the quality of the environment; substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species; or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Mitigation measures have been included to lessen the significance of potential impacts. Similar mitigation measures would be expected of other projects in the surrounding area, most of which share a similar cultural paleontological and biological resources. Consequently, the incremental effects of the proposed project, after mitigation, would not contribute to an adverse cumulative impact on these resources. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
Less than Significant Impact. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(i) states that a Lead Agency shall consider whether the cumulative impact of a project is significant and whether the effects of the project are cumulatively considerable. The assessment of the significance of the cumulative effects of a project must, therefore, be conducted in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects. Due to the nature of the Project and consistency with environmental policies, incremental contributions to impacts are considered less than cumulatively considerable. All Project- related impacts were determined to be less than significant.

The proposed Project would not contribute substantially to adverse cumulative conditions, or create any substantial indirect impacts (i.e., increase in population could lead to an increase need for housing, increase in traffic, air pollutants, etc.).

Due to buildout of the area and existing land constraints, it is not anticipated that further substantial commercial or residential development will occur in the area in the foreseeable future. As such, Project impacts are not considered to be cumulatively considerable given the lack of proposed new development in the area and the insignificance of Project-induced impacts. The impact is therefore less than significant.
c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less than Significant Impact. The analyses of environmental issues contained in this Initial Study indicate that the Project is not expected to have substantial impact on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Projec t- specif ic mitigation measures have been incorporated as described in each specific impact area which will reduce all potentially significant impacts to less than significant.

Appendix A – Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse
Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum
Central Transport Regional Facility
Crown Enterprises, Inc. Relocation and Annexation Project Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum To: Emily Bowen, LEED AP, Principal
Environmental Planner
Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.
113 N. Church Street, Suite 310
Visalia, CA 93291
[email protected]
Prepared
By:

Johnson Johnson and Miller Air Quality
Consulting Services
Contact: Richard Miller, Air Quality and
Climate Change Specialist
[email protected]
Central Transport Regional Facility Project
Report Date: November 13, 2024
Subject: Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum This Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum was prepared to evaluate whether the estimated criteria air pollutant, ozone precursor, toxic air contaminant (TAC), and/or greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions generated from construction and/or operation of the Central Transport Regional Facility Project (proposed project or project) would cause significant impacts to air quality, GHG, or energy resources. The methodology follows the Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI) prepared by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) for the quantification of emissions and evaluation of potential impacts to air resources.1 The GHG Analysis follows and the SJVAPCD’s Guidance for Valley Land-Use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).2 Project Location and Description
The Central Transport Regional Facility will be located on 15.22 acres in an industrial area of south Fresno just off the east side of Highway 41 and south of Highway 99 in Fresno County. Specifically, the Project site is on the west side of S. Cherry Avenue and south of East North Avenue. The Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) associated with the project site is 329-100-52. The site is located within the City of Fresno’s sphere of influence and its planned land use designation is Employment – Heavy Industrial. A Pre-Zone/Rezone Application and Annexation Application are being submitted concurrently with the Development Application.

The development proposed by Crown Enterprises, Inc. will serve as the long-term regional facility for Central Transport for the purpose of providing less-than-truckload freight services for local and nationally based businesses.

The proposed scope of the initial development will consist of:

15.22 Total Acres of jobsite area
1 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2015. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. February 19. Website: https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI-2015/FINAL-DRAFT-GAMAQI.PDF.

Accessed May 5, 2023.
2 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2009. Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA. December 17. Website: https://www.valleyair.org/Programs/CCAP/12- 17-09/3%20CCAP%20-%20FINAL%20LU%20Guidance%20-%20Dec%2017%202009.pdf. Accessed May 5, 2023. 1 Central Transport Regional Facility
Crown Enterprises, Inc. Relocation and Annexation Project Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum Approximately 3,200 sf of administrative office
3,494 square-foot office
68,570 square-foot Cross-Dock Transfer Platform
11,880 square-foot Maintenance Shop
Diesel Fuel System for fleet equipment
Proposed paved area
Parking for approximately 29 fleet tractors
Parking for approximately 150 fleet trailers
Parking for approximately 84 automobiles
For the purposes of estimating emissions, the following land uses were used in the modeling to represent the project:

Office space totaling 6,700 square feet
Unrefrigerated warehouse totaling 69,000 square feet
Maintenance shop totaling 12,000 square feet
Parking lot totaling 13.2 acres
One (1) additional acre of asphalt surfaces to represent off-site improvements (such as frontage improvements)
Central Transport will operate 24 hours per day, Monday through Friday, and Saturday mornings, and will have up to 90 employees entering and existing the project site daily.

Central Transport’s activities at this site will involve the unloading and transfer of freight from trailers incoming to the facility, and direct loading to trailers outbound to their destination. No outside storage of material will be required with this operation.

Project Traffic Information:3
• 126 truck trips per day (63 entering and 63 exiting)
• 180 passenger vehicle trips per day (90 entering and 90 exiting) 3 Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers. 2023. Crown Central Transport Regional Facility Traffic Study – Fresno, CA. August. 2 Central Transport Regional Facility
Crown Enterprises, Inc. Relocation and Annexation Project Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum Summary of Analysis Results
As previously noted, the proposed project would include a rezone from AL-20 to IH. The project site is on approximately 15.22 acres. As detailed above, this analysis assumes that distribution facility structures totaling up to 87,700 square feet could be constructed on the project site. As such, this evaluation includes the maximum developable building and area for the project site.

The following is a summary of the analysis results. As shown below, the proposed project (analyzed as maximum buildout for the proposed rezoning) would result in less than significant impacts to GHG and energy resources and would result in less significant impacts to air quality resources after the incorporation of mitigation.

Impact AIR-A: The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Less than significant impact.

Impact AIR-B: The proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less than significant impact.

Impact AIR-C: The proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Less than significant impact with incorporation of mitigation.

Impact AIR-D: The proposed project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Less than significant impact.

Impact GHG-A: The proposed project would not generate direct or indirect greenhouse gas emissions that would result in a significant impact on the environment. Less than significant impact.

Impact GHG-B: The proposed project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Less than significant impact.

Impact Energy-A: The proposed project would not result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation. Less than significant impact.

Impact Energy-B: The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Less than significant impact.

Air Quality Mitigation Measures
MM AIR-1 is required to reduce the project’s potential impacts during construction to less than significant (see Impact AIR-C).

MM AIR-1 Before a construction permit is issued for the proposed project, the project applicant, project sponsor, or construction contractor shall submit documentation demonstrating reasonably detailed compliance with the following requirements to the City of Fresno:
3 Central Transport Regional Facility
Crown Enterprises, Inc. Relocation and Annexation Project Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum Where portable diesel engines are used during construction, all off-road equipment with engines greater than 75 horsepower shall have engines that meet or exceed either United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or California Air Resources Board (CARB) Tier 4 Interim off-road emission standards or be equipped with Level 3 diesel particulate filters. Tier 4 Interim engines shall, at a minimum, meet EPA or CARB particulate matter emissions standards for Tier 4 Interim engines. Alternatively, use of CARB-certified Level 3 diesel particulate filters on off-road equipment with engines greater than 75 horsepower can be used in lieu of Tier 4 Interim engines or in combination with Tier 4 Interim or better engines. The construction contractor shall maintain records documenting its efforts to comply with this requirement, including equipment lists. Off-road equipment descriptions and information shall include, but are not limited to, equipment type, equipment manufacturer, equipment identification number, engine model year, engine certification (Tier rating), horsepower, and engine serial number. The project applicant and/or construction contractor shall submit the construction operations plan and records of compliance to the City of Fresno. 4 Central Transport Regional Facility
Crown Enterprises, Inc. Relocation and Annexation Project Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum Modeling Parameters and Assumptions
The following modeling parameters and assumptions were used to generate criteria air pollutant, GHG, and TAC emissions for the proposed project.

Air Pollutants and GHGs Assessed
Criteria Pollutants Assessed
The following criteria air pollutants were assessed in this analysis: reactive organic gases (ROG),4 oxides of nitrogen (NOX), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10), and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5). Note that the proposed project would emit ozone precursors ROG and NOX. However, the proposed project would not directly emit ozone since it is formed in the atmosphere during the photochemical reaction of ozone precursors.

General descriptions and most relevant effects from pollutant exposure of the criteria pollutants of concern are listed below.

Table 1: Descriptions of Criteria Pollutants of Concern Criteria
Pollutant
Physical Description and
Properties Sources
Most Relevant Effects from
Pollutant Exposure
Ozone Ozone is a photochemical
pollutant as it is not emitted
directly into the atmosphere,
but is formed by a complex
series of chemical reactions
between volatile organic
compounds (VOC), nitrous
oxides (NOX), and sunlight.

Ozone is a regional pollutant
that is generated over a large
area and is transported and
spread by the wind.

Ozone is a secondary
pollutant; thus, it is not
emitted directly into the
lower level of the
atmosphere. The
primary sources of
ozone precursors (VOC
and NOX) are mobile
sources (on-road and
off-road vehicle
exhaust).

Irritate respiratory system;
reduce lung function; breathing
pattern changes; reduction of
breathing capacity; inflame and
damage cells that line the lungs;
make lungs more susceptible to
infection; aggravate asthma;
aggravate other chronic lung
diseases; cause permanent lung
damage; some immunological
changes; increased mortality
risk; vegetation and property
damage.

Particulate matter
(PM10)
Suspended particulate matter
is a mixture of small particles
that consist of dry solid
fragments, droplets of water, or
solid cores with liquid coatings.

The particles vary in shape,
size, and composition. PM10
refers to particulate matter that
is between 2.5 and 10 microns
in diameter, (one micron is
one-millionth of a meter). PM2.5
refers to particulate matter that
is 2.5 microns or less in
diameter, about one-thirtieth
the size of the average human
hair.

Stationary sources
include fuel or wood
combustion for electrical
utilities, residential
space heating, and
industrial processes;
construction and
demolition; metals,
minerals, and
petrochemicals; wood
products processing;
mills and elevators used
in agriculture; erosion
from tilled lands; waste
disposal, and recycling.

Mobile or transportation
related sources are from
vehicle exhaust and
• Short-term exposure
(hours/days): irritation of the
eyes, nose, throat; coughing;
phlegm; chest tightness;
shortness of breath;
aggravate existing lung
disease, causing asthma
attacks and acute bronchitis;
those with heart disease can
suffer heart attacks and
arrhythmias.
• Long-term exposure: reduced
lung function; chronic
bronchitis; changes in lung
morphology; death.

Particulate matter
(PM2.5)
4 Note: Although there are slight differences in the definition of ROGs and VOCs, the two terms are often used interchangeably.

VOC = volatile organic compounds
5 Central Transport Regional Facility
Crown Enterprises, Inc. Relocation and Annexation Project Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum Criteria
Pollutant
Physical Description and
Properties Sources
Most Relevant Effects from
Pollutant Exposure
road dust. Secondary
particles form from
reactions in the
atmosphere.

Nitrogen dioxide
(NO2)
During combustion of fossil
fuels, oxygen reacts with
nitrogen to produce nitrogen
oxides—NOX (NO, NO2, NO3,
N2O, N2O3, N2O4, and N2O5).

NOX is a precursor to ozone,
PM10, and PM2.5 formation.

NOX can react with compounds
to form nitric acid and related
small particles and result in
particulate matter (PM) related
health effects.

NOX is produced in
motor vehicle internal
combustion engines and
fossil fuel-fired electric
utility and industrial
boilers. Nitrogen dioxide
forms quickly from NOX
emissions. NO2
concentrations near
major roads can be 30 to
100 percent higher than
those at monitoring
stations.

Potential to aggravate chronic
respiratory disease and
respiratory symptoms in
sensitive groups; risk to public
health implied by pulmonary and
extra-pulmonary biochemical
and cellular changes and
pulmonary structural changes;
contributions to atmospheric
discoloration; increased visits to
hospital for respiratory illnesses.

Carbon monoxide
(CO)
CO is a colorless, odorless,
toxic gas. CO is somewhat
soluble in water; therefore,
rainfall and fog can suppress
CO conditions. CO enters the
body through the lungs,
dissolves in the blood, replaces
oxygen as an attachment to
hemoglobin, and reduces
available oxygen in the blood.

CO is produced by
incomplete combustion
of carbon-containing
fuels (e.g., gasoline,
diesel fuel, and
biomass). Sources
include motor vehicle
exhaust, industrial
processes (metals
processing and chemical
manufacturing),
residential wood
burning, and natural
sources.

Ranges depending on
exposure: slight headaches;
nausea; aggravation of angina
pectoris (chest pain) and other
aspects of coronary heart
disease; decreased exercise
tolerance in persons with
peripheral vascular disease and
lung disease; impairment of
central nervous system
functions; possible increased
risk to fetuses; death.

Sulfur dioxide
(SO2)
Sulfur dioxide is a colorless,
pungent gas. At levels greater
than 0.5 parts per million
(ppm), the gas has a strong
odor, similar to rotten eggs.

Sulfur oxides (SOX) include
sulfur dioxide and sulfur
trioxide. Sulfuric acid is formed
from sulfur dioxide, which can
lead to acid deposition and can
harm natural resources and
materials. Although sulfur
dioxide concentrations have
been reduced to levels well
below state and federal
standards, further reductions
are desirable because sulfur
dioxide is a precursor to sulfate
and PM10.

Human caused sources
include fossil-fuel
combustion, mineral ore
processing, and
chemical manufacturing.

Volcanic emissions are a
natural source of sulfur
dioxide. The gas can
also be produced in the
air by dimethyl sulfide
and hydrogen sulfide.

Sulfur dioxide is
removed from the air by
dissolution in water,
chemical reactions, and
transfer to soils and ice
caps. The sulfur dioxide
levels in the State are
well below the maximum
standards.

Bronchoconstriction
accompanied by symptoms
which may include wheezing,
shortness of breath and chest
tightness, during exercise or
physical activity in persons with
asthma. Some population-based
studies indicate that the
mortality and morbidity effects
associated with fine particles
show a similar association with
ambient sulfur dioxide levels. It
is not clear whether the two
pollutants act synergistically or
one pollutant alone is the
predominant factor.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Criteria Air Pollutants. Website: https://www.epa.gov/criteria-airpollutants. Accessed April 24, 2023. 6 Central Transport Regional Facility
Crown Enterprises, Inc. Relocation and Annexation Project Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum GHGs Assessed
This analysis was restricted to GHGs identified by AB 32, which include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3). The proposed project would generate a variety of GHGs, including several defined by AB 32 such as CO2, CH4, and N2O.

Water vapor could be emitted from evaporated water used for landscaping and other uses, but this is not a significant impact because water vapor concentrations in the upper atmosphere are primarily due to climate feedbacks rather than emissions from project-related activities.

Ozone is a GHG; however, unlike the other GHGs, ozone in the troposphere is relatively short-lived and can be reduced in the troposphere on a daily basis. Stratospheric ozone can be reduced through reactions with other pollutants.

Certain GHGs defined by AB 32 would not be emitted by the project. Perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride are typically used in industrial applications, none of which would be used by the project.

Therefore, it is not anticipated that the project would emit perfluorocarbons or sulfur hexafluoride.

GHG emissions associated with the proposed project construction as well as future operations were estimated using CO2 equivalent (CO2e) emissions as a proxy for all GHG emissions. In order to obtain the CO2e, an individual GHG is multiplied by its Global Warming Potential (GWP). The GWP designates on a pound for pound basis the potency of the specific GHG compared to CO2.

Toxic Air Contaminants Assessed
Toxic Air Contaminants
A TAC is defined as an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or serious illness, or that may pose a hazard to human health. TACs are usually present in minute quantities in the ambient air; however, their high toxicity or health risk may pose a threat to public health even at low concentrations.

The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality—2009 Edition presents the relevant concentration and cancer risk data for the ten TACs that pose the most substantial health risk in California based on available data.5 The ten TACs are acetaldehyde, benzene, 1.3-butadiene, carbon tetrachloride, hexavalent chromium, para-dichlorobenzene, formaldehyde, methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, and diesel particulate matter (DPM).

Some studies indicate that DPM poses the greatest health risk among the TACs listed above. A 10-year research program demonstrated that DPM from diesel-fueled engines is a human carcinogen and that chronic (long-term) inhalation exposure to DPM poses a chronic health risk.6In addition to increasing the risk of lung cancer, exposure to diesel exhaust can have other health effects. Diesel exhaust can irritate the eyes, nose, throat, and lungs, and it can cause coughs, headaches, lightheadedness, and nausea.

Diesel exhaust is a major source of fine particulate pollution as well, and studies have linked elevated particle levels in the air to increased hospital admissions, emergency room visits, asthma attacks, and premature deaths among those suffering from respiratory problems. 5 California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2009. The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality—2009 Edition. Website:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/aqd/almanac/almanac09/almanac2009 all.pdf. 6 California Air Resources Board (CARB). 1998. The Toxic Air Contaminant Identification Process: Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions from Diesel-fueled Engines. Website: www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/dieseltac/factsht1.pdf. 7 Central Transport Regional Facility
Crown Enterprises, Inc. Relocation and Annexation Project Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum DPM
For purposes of this study, DPM exhaust emissions are represented as exhaust PM10. The project would generate passenger vehicle and truck trips from employees, visitors, deliveries, and service vehicles traveling to and from the project site. The main source of DPM from the long-term operations of the proposed project would be from combustion of diesel fuel in diesel-powered engines in on-road trucks, while additional DPM would be emitted from on-site equipment. On-site motor vehicle emissions refer to DPM exhaust emissions from the motor vehicle traffic that would travel and idle within the project site each day.

Asbestos
Asbestos is the name given to a number of naturally occurring fibrous silicate minerals that have been mined for their useful properties such as thermal insulation, chemical and thermal stability, and high tensile strength. The three most common types of asbestos are chrysotile, amosite, and crocidolite.

Chrysotile, also known as white asbestos, is the most common type of asbestos found in buildings.

Chrysotile makes up approximately 90 to 95 percent of all asbestos contained in buildings in the United States. Exposure to asbestos is a health threat; exposure to asbestos fibers may result in health issues such as lung cancer, mesothelioma (a rare cancer of the thin membranes lining the lungs, chest, and abdominal cavity), and asbestosis (a non-cancerous lung disease that causes scarring of the lungs).

Exposure to asbestos can occur during demolition or remodeling of buildings that were constructed prior to the 1977 ban on asbestos for use in buildings. Exposure to naturally occurring asbestos can occur during soil-disturbing activities in areas with deposits present.

Model Selection
Air pollutant emissions can be estimated by using emission factors and a level of activity. Emission factors are the emission rate of a pollutant given the activity over time; for example, grams of NOX per horsepower-hour. CARB has published emission factors for on-road mobile vehicles/trucks in the EMFAC mobile source emissions model and emission factors for off-road equipment and vehicles in the OFFROAD emissions model. An air emissions model (or calculator) combines the emission factors and the various levels of activity and outputs the emissions for the various pieces of equipment.

The project is located in Fresno County and within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. The modeling follows SJVAPCD guidance where applicable from its GAMAQI. The models used in this analysis are summarized as follows:
● Construction emissions: CalEEMod, version 2022.1
● Operational emissions: CalEEMod, version 2022.1
● Operational TAC emissions: EMission FACtor (EMFAC) 2021 ● Dispersion Model: American Meteorological Society/ Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model (AERMOD), version 22112
● Health Risk Metric Calculations: Hot Spots Analysis & Reporting Program 2 (HARP2) Criteria Pollutants and GHG Emissions
The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and GHG emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects. CalEEMod quantifies direct emissions from construction and operation activities (including vehicle use), as well as indirect emissions, such as GHG emissions from energy use, solid waste disposal, vegetation planting and/or removal, and 8 Central Transport Regional Facility
Crown Enterprises, Inc. Relocation and Annexation Project Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum water use. Further, CalEEMod identifies mitigation measures to reduce criteria pollutant and GHG emissions along with calculating the benefits achieved from measures chosen by the user.

CalEEMod was developed for the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) in collaboration with the California Air Districts. Default data (e.g., emission factors, trip lengths, meteorology, source inventory, etc.) have been provided by the various California Air Districts to account for local requirements and conditions.

CalEEMod is a comprehensive tool for quantifying air quality impacts from land use projects located throughout California. The model can be used for a variety of situations where an air quality analysis is necessary or desirable such as preparing CEQA or National Environmental Policy Act documents, conducting pre-project planning, and verifying compliance with local air quality rules and regulations, etc.

CalEEMod version CalEEMod 2022.1 was used to estimate construction and operational impacts of the proposed project. CalEEMod version 2022.1 was the most recent version of CalEEMod at the time emissions were estimated in May 2023.

Assumptions
Construction Modeling Assumptions
Construction emissions can vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity, the specific type of operation, and prevailing weather conditions. Construction emissions result from on-site and off-site activities. On-site emissions principally consist of exhaust emissions from the activity levels of heavy-duty construction equipment, motor vehicle operation, and fugitive dust (mainly PM10) from disturbed soil. Additionally, paving operations and application of architectural coatings would release VOC emissions. Off-site emissions are caused by motor vehicle exhaust from delivery vehicles, worker traffic, and road dust (PM10 and PM2.5).

Schedule
CalEEMod includes default equipment lists and construction schedules. Where project-specific information was unknown, CalEEMod default values were used.

Table 2 shows the conceptual construction schedule for the proposed project. The construction schedule utilized in the analysis represents a “worst-case” analysis scenario, since emission factors for construction equipment decrease as the analysis year increases due to improvements in technology and more stringent regulatory requirements. Therefore, construction emission estimates would decrease if the construction schedule moved to later years. The duration of construction activity and associated equipment represent a reasonable approximation of the expected construction fleet as required per CEQA guidelines. The site-specific construction fleet may vary due to specific project needs at the time of construction.

Table 2: Project Construction Schedule
Construction Activity Start Date End Date Workdays Notes Site Preparation 7/1/2023 8/13/2023 30
Grading 8/14/2023 9/25/2023 30
Building Construction 10/24/2023 7/3/2024 182 Adjusted to match applicantprovided schedule Paving 9/26/2023 10/23/2023 20
9 Central Transport Regional Facility
Crown Enterprises, Inc. Relocation and Annexation Project Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum Construction Activity Start Date End Date Workdays Notes Architectural Coating 7/4/2024 7/31/2024 20
Site Preparation 7/1/2023 8/13/2023 30
Note: The construction schedule utilized in the analysis represents a “worst-case” analysis scenario since emission factors for construction equipment decrease as the analysis year increases, due to improvements in technology and more stringent regulatory requirements. Therefore, construction emissions would decrease if the construction schedule moved to later years.

Source: CalEEMod Output and Additional Supporting Information (Attachment A).

Equipment
Construction equipment for each construction activity is shown in Table 3. Where the construction schedule was adjusted to match the applicant-provided schedule, construction equipment was increased to retain the CalEEMod-default construction HP-hours.

Table 3: Project Construction Equipment
Construction Activity Equipment Type
Pieces of
Equipment
Usage
(hours/day) Horsepower
Load
Factor Fuel Type
Site Preparation
Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8 367 0.40 Diesel
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8 84 0.37 Diesel
Grading
Excavators 2 8 158 0.38 Diesel
Graders 1 8 148 0.41 Diesel
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 367 0.40 Diesel
Scrapers 2 8 423 0.48 Diesel
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.8 84 0.37 Diesel
Building Construction1
Cranes 1 7 367 0.29 Diesel
Forklifts 3 8 82 0.20 Diesel
Generator Sets 1 8 14 0.74 Diesel
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7 84 0.37 Diesel
Welders 1 8 46 0.45 Diesel
Paving
Pavers 2 8 130 0.42 Diesel
Paving Equipment 2 8 132 0.36 Diesel
Rollers 2 8 80 0.38 Diesel
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6 37 0.48 Diesel Notes: 1 The equipment for the building construction phase was doubled to retain the overall CalEEMod HP-hours.

Source: CalEEMod Output and Additional Supporting Information (Attachment A).

Vehicles Trips
Table 4 provides a summary of the construction-related vehicle trips. CalEEMod default values were used to estimate the number of construction-related vehicle trips. Additional haul trips were added to each construction activity to account for the mobilization of off-road equipment. 10 Central Transport Regional Facility
Crown Enterprises, Inc. Relocation and Annexation Project Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum The default values for hauling trips are based on the assumption that a truck can haul 20 tons (or 16 cubic yards) of material per load. If one load of material is delivered, CalEEMod assumes that one haul truck importing material will also have a return trip with an empty truck (e.g., 2 one-way trips).

The fleet mix for worker trips is light-duty passenger vehicles to light-duty trucks. The vendor trips fleet mix is composed of a mixture of medium and heavy-duty diesel trucks. The hauling trips were assumed to be 100 percent heavy-duty diesel truck trips. CalEEMod default trip lengths for a project in Fresno County were used for the construction trips.

Table 4: Construction Vehicle Trips
Construction Task Worker Trips per Day Vendor Trips per Day Haul Trips per Day Site Preparation 17.50 0.00 0.00
Grading 22.50 2.00 0.00
Building Construction 34.96 14.37 0.00
Paving 15.00 4.00 0.00
Architectural Coating 6.99 0.00 0.00
Notes:

Additional vendor trips were added to the grading and paving phases to account for delivery of materials.

Source: CalEEMod Output and Additional Supporting Information (Attachment A).

Operational Modeling Assumptions
Operational emissions are those emissions that would occur during long-term operations of the proposed project.

Motor Vehicles
Motor vehicle emissions refer to exhaust and road dust emissions from the automobiles that would travel to and from the proposed project site. Project-specific trip rates were used in the analysis. The project’s daily trips were split into passenger vehicle and truck trips to estimate emissions. The project-specific estimates presented in the traffic study prepared for the project7 were applied to calculate the daily truck trips and daily passenger vehicle trips in the emissions modeling. The analysis used a trip length of 50 miles for primary truck trips generated by the project. Furthermore, all truck trip types were set to 100 percent primary trips, which removes all reductions to emissions that the model applied by default from pass-by and diverted trips. Table 5 presents trip generation characteristics for projected trips for the project.

Table 5: Project Trip Generation Calculations used to Estimate Project Emissions Description Passenger Vehicles Trucks
Weekday Trips
(trips per day)
180 passenger vehicle trips per day
(90 entering and 90 exiting)
126 truck trips per day (63
entering and 63 exiting)
Saturday Trips
(trips per day)
180 passenger vehicle trips per day
(90 entering and 90 exiting)
126 truck trips per day (63
entering and 63 exiting)
7 Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers. 2023. Crown Central Transport Regional Facility Traffic Study – Fresno, CA. August. 11 Central Transport Regional Facility
Crown Enterprises, Inc. Relocation and Annexation Project Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum Sunday Trips
(trips per day)

4.69 passenger vehicle trips per day
(based on CalEEMod default value)
126 truck trips per day (63
entering and 63 exiting)
Note: Daily trips used to estimate emissions were selected using trip generation estimates provided in the projectspecific traffic analysis. These daily values were applied to weekdays and Saturday for passenger vehicles (based on the operating hours of the project provided in the project description) and were applied to all seven days a week for truck trips. Default values were applied to passenger vehicles for Sunday.

Source: Attachment A.

Vehicle Fleet Mix
Trip lengths are for primary trips. Trip purposes are primary, diverted, and pass-by trips. Diverted trips take a slightly different path than a primary trip. The CalEEMod default rates for percentages of primary, diverted, and pass-by trips were used for the passenger vehicle run.

The vehicle fleet mix is defined as the mix of motor vehicle classes active during the operation of the proposed project. Emission factors are assigned to the expected vehicle mix as a function of vehicle class, speed, and fuel use (gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles).

Modeling of the project’s operations was split into two separate CalEEMod runs: (1) area-source emissions, energy-source emissions, and passenger vehicle mobile-source emissions; and (2) truck mobile-source emissions. The vehicle types in the first operational run were based on the default values for Fresno County, while the second run included trucks only.

Transportation Refrigeration Units
Cold storage is not included as part of the proposed project; therefore, it is not anticipated that trucks making trips to and from the project site would be equipped with Transportation Refrigeration Units (TRUs).

Area Sources
Consumer Products
Consumer products are various solvents used in non-industrial applications, which emit VOCs during their product use. “Consumer Product” means a chemically formulated product used by household and institutional consumers, including but not limited to: detergents; cleaning compounds; polishes; floor finishes; cosmetics; personal care products; home, lawn, and garden products; disinfectants; sanitizers; aerosol paints; and automotive specialty products. It does not include other paint products, furniture coatings, or architectural coatings. CalEEMod includes default consumer product use rates based on building square footage. The default emission factors developed for CalEEMod were used for consumer products associated with parking uses and the general consumer product category.

Architectural Coatings (Painting)
Paints release VOC emissions during application and drying. The buildings in the project would be repainted on occasion. The project is required to comply with the SJVAPCD Rule 4601—Architectural Coatings. The rule required flat paints to meet a standard of 50 grams per liter (g/l) and gloss paints 100 g/l by 2012 for an average rate of 65 g/l. Effective January 1, 2022, nonflat gloss and semigloss paints are also required to meet the 50 g/l standard, providing lower VOC emissions for buildings constructed after that date. Therefore, the analysis uses the 50 g/l emission factor for the analysis.

Landscaping Emissions
12 Central Transport Regional Facility
Crown Enterprises, Inc. Relocation and Annexation Project Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum CalEEMod can generate landscaping emissions based on statewide average equipment emission intensities for the number of snow and summer days for the project location. CalEEMod estimated 180 days for which landscaping equipment would be used to estimate potential emissions for the proposed project. To generate emissions, CalEEMod applies the number of days to a statewide average weighted landscape equipment emission factor derived from CARB’s Small Off-Road Engines Model v1.1 (SORE2020).8
Indirect Emissions
For GHG emissions, CalEEMod contains calculations to estimate indirect GHG emissions. Indirect emissions are emissions where the location of consumption or activity is different from where actual emissions are generated. For example, electricity would be consumed at the proposed project site; however, emissions associated with producing that electricity are generated off-site at a power plant.

Since the electricity can vary greatly based on locations, the user should override these values if they have more specific information regarding their specific water supply and treatment.

Energy Use
Electricity used by the project (for lighting, etc.) would result in emissions from the power plants that would generate electricity distributed on the electrical power grid. Electricity emissions estimates are only used in the GHG analysis.

The project would generate emissions from the combustion of natural gas for water heaters, heat, etc.

CalEEMod has two categories for natural gas consumption: Title 24 and non-Title 24.

The emissions associated with the building electricity and natural gas usage (non-hearth) were estimated based on the land use type and size. Values for a project served by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) were used in the analysis.

The Renewable Electricity Standards took effect in 2020. The Renewable Electricity Standard requires that electricity providers include a minimum of 33 percent renewable energy in their portfolios by the year 2020. PG&E provides estimates of its emission factor per megawatt hour of electricity delivered to its customers. The utilities in California will be required to increase the use of renewable energy sources to 60 percent by 2030.

Other Indirect Emissions (Water Use, Wastewater Use, and Solid Waste) CalEEMod includes calculations for indirect GHG emissions for electricity consumption, water consumption, and solid waste disposal. For water consumption, CalEEMod calculates embedded energy (e.g., treatment, conveyance, distribution) associated with providing each gallon of potable water to the project. For solid waste disposal, GHG emissions are associated with the disposal of solid waste generated by the proposed project into landfills. CalEEMod default data were used for inputs associated with solid waste.

Offroad Equipment
Stationary Sources
Proposed or future stationary sources would require permits from the SJVAPCD prior to their installation or operation. Examples of permitted sources include commercial organic material composting operations, 8 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2022. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) User Guide Version 2022.1. April. Website: https://caleemod.com/documents/userguide/01_User%20Guide.pdf. Accessed March 5, 2024. 13 Central Transport Regional Facility
Crown Enterprises, Inc. Relocation and Annexation Project Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum glass melting furnaces, boilers, steam generators, glass coating operations, and fuel burning equipment.

Any future equipment that would be considered a stationary source would need to meet SJVAPCD emission limits for regulated pollutants pursuant to Rule 2201. The equipment will also meet SJVAPCD BPS for GHG emissions.

Vegetation
There is currently limited carbon sequestration occurring on-site in the form of existing shrubbery and grassland. The proposed project would meet any requirements set forth by the City of Fresno, as the lead agency, in regard to landscaping/open space that may result in the inclusion of vegetation. For this analysis, it was assumed that the loss and addition of carbon sequestration that are due to the proposed project would be balanced; therefore, emissions due to carbon sequestration were not included.

Refrigerants
Buildings requiring cold storage are not included as part of the proposed project.

Health Risk Assessment Assumptions
A Health Risk Assessment (HRA) was completed to evaluate potential health risks associated with the generation of TACs during construction and operational activities associated with the proposed project.

Assumptions used in the HRA are summarized below, while complete calculations parameters are provided as part of Attachment B.

Model Selection and Parameters
An air dispersion model is a mathematical formulation used to estimate the air quality impacts at specific locations (receptors) surrounding a source of emissions given the rate of emissions and prevailing meteorological conditions. The air dispersion model applied in this assessment was the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) AERMOD (version 22112) air dispersion model. Specifically, AERMOD was used to estimate levels of air emissions at sensitive receptor locations from potential sources of project-generated TACs. The use of AERMOD provides a refined methodology for estimating construction impacts by utilizing long-term, measured representative meteorological data for the project site and a representative operational schedule.

The modeling analysis also considered the spatial distribution and elevation of each emitting source in relation to the sensitive receptors. Direction-dependent calculations were obtained by identifying the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates for each source location. Terrain elevations were obtained for the project site using the AERMAP model, the AERMOD terrain data pre-processor.

Elevation data for the area were obtained and included in the model runs to account for complex terrain.

The air dispersion model assessment used meteorological data from the Fresno Station (Station #93193).

The meteorological data used was preprocessed for use with AERMOD by the SJVAPCD and included data for the years 2010 to 2014; all years were used in the assessment. All receptors were placed within the breathing zone, at 1.2 meters above ground level.

Emissions were assumed to occur over a 24-hour-per-day, 365 day-per-year averaging period. It is anticipated that operational times will be typical of the regional facility being replaced, with truck deliveries that could occur any time in a 24-hour period. Detailed parameters and complete calculations are contained in Attachment B. Attachment B also includes a representation of the DPM modeling parameters, including modeled on-site vehicle travel, vehicle idling locations, and locations of sensitive receptors within approximately ¼-mile (1,320 feet) of the project boundary.

Air Toxics Generated during Operations—DPM
14 Central Transport Regional Facility
Crown Enterprises, Inc. Relocation and Annexation Project Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum The project would generate passenger vehicle and truck trips from visitors, vendors, and employees traveling to and from the project site. Customer visits to the property are expected to be limited, since the proposed operations are expected to involve industrial uses. The main source of DPM from the long-term operations of the proposed project would be from combustion of diesel fuel in diesel-powered engines in on-road trucks. On-site motor vehicle emissions refer to DPM exhaust emissions from the motor vehicle traffic that would travel and idle within the project site each day.

The truck vehicle fleet mix was represented with 100 percent Heavy-Heavy-Duty trucks (HHDT).

Emission factors are assigned to the expected vehicle mix as a function of vehicle age, vehicle class, speed, and fuel type. The operational fleet mix and daily diesel truck trips used to assess emissions from the proposed project are summarized below; the full calculations are included as part of Attachments A and B.

Table 6: Truck Vehicle Type Classification used to Estimate Emissions Vehicle
Type Classification Truck Fleet Mix Daily Trips Number of Daily Diesel Trips HHDT (4+ axle truck) 100% 126 126
Truck Totals 100.0% 126 126
Notes:

HHDT = heavy-heavy duty trucks
Sources: Attachments A and B.

Each operational emission source to be evaluated requires geometrical and emission release specifications for use in the air dispersion model. The emission source configurations applied in this assessment of operational DPM emissions are shown in Table 7.

Table 7: Summary of Select Operational Emission Source Configurations Emission
Source Type Relevant Assumptions
On-site Truck
Traffic
● Configuration: One (1) line volume source
● Release height: 10.2 feet (3.1 meters)
● Vehicle Speed: 5 mph
● Vehicle types: heavy-heavy duty trucks (HHDT)
● Emission factors: EMFAC 2021
● Daily Diesel Truck Trips per day: 126 daily trips
On-site Truck
Idling
● Configuration: A total of four (4) line volume sources, covering the loading dock areas. Line volume sources were used, as a line volume source is composed of a series of point sources and the potential idling areas covered a large area rather than a few discrete points.
● Release height: 10.2 feet (3.1 meters)
● Vehicle type: Heavy-duty diesel trucks (HHDT)
● Emission factors: EMFAC 2021
● Number of diesel truck idling instances per day: 126 (based on one occurrence of idling per truck trip, and idling emissions calculated for diesel truck trucks only)
15 Central Transport Regional Facility
Crown Enterprises, Inc. Relocation and Annexation Project Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum Emission
Source Type Relevant Assumptions
Off-site Truck
Traffic
● Configuration: One (1) line volume source
● The travel route was used to represent off-site emissions in the immediate project vicinity (truck travel paths within
approximately 1,000 feet of the project boundary)
● Vehicle speeds: aggregated emission factors for 5 MPH to 25 MPH speed bins
● Vehicle type: Heavy-heavy-duty diesel trucks (HHDT)
● Emission factors: EMFAC 2021
Facility
Operations
● 365 days per year, 24 hours per day
Source: Attachment B.

Operational emissions for the proposed project were assessed assuming the first year of operations would occur in 2024. Exhaust emissions of DPM (as PM10 exhaust) were estimated using EMFAC 2021.

It was assumed that emission factors were constant for the years beyond 2024, which provides a conservative estimate of DPM emissions and associated health risks. DPM emissions are expected to decline as older, higher polluting vehicles continue to be replaced by newer cleaner vehicles. This decline is not fully accounted for in the HRA completed for the proposed project. The emission factors, AERMOD data, and emission estimation spreadsheets used to estimate motor vehicle DPM emissions during project operations are provided in Attachment B.

Cancer Risk
The model was run to obtain annual average concentration in micrograms per cubic meter [μg/m³] at sensitive receptor locations. Receptor were placed at sensitive receptors locations with ¼-mile (1,32 feet) of the project site and in the closest receptor locations in each direction from the project site. Consistent with SJVAPCD guidance, a health risk computation was performed to determine the risk of developing an excess cancer risk calculated on a 70-year exposure scenario. Cancer risk and non-cancer hazard calculations were completed using HARP2. The chronic and carcinogenic health risk calculations are based on the standardized equations contained in the U.S. EPA Human Health Evaluation Manual (1991) and OEHHA’s 2015 Guidance Manual.9,10
Based on the OEHHA methodology, the residential inhalation cancer risk from the annual average DPM concentrations is calculated by multiplying the daily inhalation or oral dose, by a cancer potency factor, the age sensitivity factor (ASF), the frequency of time spent at home (for residents only), and the exposure duration divided by averaging time, to yield the excess cancer risk. These factors are discussed in more detail below. Cancer risk must be separately calculated for specified age groups, because of age differences in sensitivity to carcinogens and age differences in intake rates (per kg body weight). Separate risk estimates for these age groups provide a health-protective estimate of cancer risk by accounting for greater susceptibility in early life, including both age-related sensitivity and amount of exposure.
9 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1991. Human Health Evaluation Manual. Website:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-11/documents/defaultExposureParams.pdf. Accessed April 10, 2023. 10 California Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment (OEHHA). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. February. Website:
http://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. Accessed April 10, 2023. 16 Central Transport Regional Facility
Crown Enterprises, Inc. Relocation and Annexation Project Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum Exposure through inhalation (Dose-air) is a function of the breathing rate, the exposure frequency, and the concentration of a substance in the air. For residential exposure, the breathing rates are determined for specific age groups, so Dose-air is calculated for each of these age groups, 3rd trimester, 0<2, 2<9, 2<16, 16<30 and 16-70 years. To estimate cancer risk, the dose was estimated by applying the following formula to each ground-level concentration:

Dose-air = (Cair * {BR/BW} * A * EF * 10-6)
Where:

Dose-air = dose through inhalation (mg/kg/day)
Cair = air concentration (μg/m³) from air dispersion model {BR/BW} = daily breathing rate normalized to body weight (L/kg body weight – day) (361 L\kg BW-day for 3rd Trimester, 1,090 L/kg BW-day for 0<2 years, 861 L/kg BWday for 2<9 years, 745 L/kg BW-day for 2<16 years, 335 L/kg BW-day for 16<30 years, and 290 L/kg BW-day 30<70 years)
A = Inhalation absorption factor (unitless [1])
EF = exposure frequency (unitless), days/365 days (0.96 [approximately 350 days per year])
10-6 = conversion factor (micrograms to milligrams, liters to cubic meters) OEHHA developed ASFs to take into account the increased sensitivity to carcinogens during early-in-life exposure. In the absence of chemical-specific data, OEHHA recommends a default ASF of 10 for the third trimester to age 2 years, an ASF of 3 for ages 2 through 15 years to account for potential increased sensitivity to carcinogens during childhood and an ASF of 1 for ages 16 through 70 years.

Fraction of time at home (FAH) during the day is used to adjust exposure duration and cancer risk from a specific facility’s emissions, based on the assumption that exposure to the facility’s emissions are not occurring away from home. The following FAH values were used in this assessment:
● From the third trimester to age <2 years: 100 percent (the OEHHA-recommended value is 85 percent of time is spent at home; however, 100 percent was assumed in order to present a conservative analysis and to be consistent with SJVAPCD guidance); ● From age 2 through <16 years: 100 percent (the OEHHA-recommended value is 72 percent of time is spent at home; however, 100 percent was assumed in order to present a conservative analysis and to be consistent with SJVAPCD guidance); and ● From age 16 years and greater: 73 percent (the OEHHA-recommended value is 73 percent of time is spent at home and to be consistent with SJVAPCD guidance).

To estimate the cancer risk, the dose is multiplied by the cancer potency factor, the ASF, the exposure duration divided by averaging time, and the frequency of time spent at home (for residents only):

Riskinh-res = (Doseair * CPH * ASF * ED/AT * FAH)
Where:

Riskinh-res = residential inhalation cancer risk (potential chances per million) 17 Central Transport Regional Facility
Crown Enterprises, Inc. Relocation and Annexation Project Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum Doseair = daily dose through inhalation (mg/kg-day)
CPF = inhalation cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day-1)
ASF = age sensitivity factor for a specified age group (unitless) ED = exposure duration (in years) for a specified age group AT = averaging time of lifetime cancer risk (years)
FAH = fraction of time spent at home (unitless)
Chronic Non-Cancer Hazard
Non-cancer chronic impacts are calculated by dividing the annual average concentration by the Reference Exposure Level (REL) for that substance. The REL is defined as the concentration at which no adverse non-cancer health effects are anticipated. The following equation was used to determine the noncancer risk:

Hazard Quotient = Ci/RELi
Where:

Ci = Concentration in the air of substance i (annual average concentration in μg/m3)
RELi = Chronic noncancer Reference Exposure Level for substance i (μg/m3) The non-cancer chronic hazard index was calculated in HARP2. The primary source of the emissions responsible for chronic risk are from diesel trucks. DPM does not have an acute risk factor; however, HARP2 was run to obtain the following for each modeled receptor: cancer risk, chronic hazard index, and acuate hazard index.

Thresholds
Air pollutant emissions have regional effects and localized effects. This analysis assesses the regional effects of the project’s criteria pollutant emissions in comparison to SJVAPCD thresholds of significance for short-term construction activities and long-term operation of the project. Localized emissions from project construction and operation are also assessed using concentration-based thresholds that determine if the project would result in a localized exceedance of any ambient air quality standards or would make a cumulatively considerable contribution to an existing exceedance.

The primary pollutants of concern during project construction and operation are ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5. The SJVAPCD GAMAQI adopted in 2015 contains thresholds for ROG and NOX; SOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5.

Ozone is a secondary pollutant that can be formed miles away from the source of emissions through reactions of ROG and NOX emissions in the presence of sunlight. Therefore, ROG and NOX are termed ozone precursors. The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB) often exceeds the state and national ozone standards. Therefore, if the project emits a substantial quantity of ozone precursors, the project may contribute to an exceedance of the ozone standard. The SJVAB also exceeds air quality standards for 18 Central Transport Regional Facility
Crown Enterprises, Inc. Relocation and Annexation Project Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum PM10, and PM2.5; therefore, substantial project emissions may contribute to an exceedance for these pollutants.

The SJVAPCD adopted significance thresholds for regional construction-related and operational ROG, NOX, PM, CO, and SOX, these thresholds are included in Table 8.

Table 8: SJVAPCD Proposed Project-Level Air Quality CEQA Thresholds of Significance Pollutant
Significance Threshold
Construction Emissions
(tons/year) Operational Emission (tons/year)
CO 100 100
NOX 10 10
ROG 10 10
SOX 27 27
PM10 15 15
PM2.5 15 15
Source: SJVAPCD. 2015. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. Website:
https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI-2015/FINAL-DRAFT-GAMAQI.PDF. Accessed April 10, 2023.

Table 9: Health Risk Assessment Thresholds
Health Risk Metric
Applicable Threshold of
Significance
Maximum Cancer Risk (Risk per Million) 20
Chronic Non-Cancer Hazard Index 1
Source of Thresholds: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2015.

Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. February 19. Website:
https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI-2015/FINAL-DRAFT-GAMAQI.PDF. Accessed April 10, 2023.

Additional thresholds of significance are discussed, where applicable, in the appropriate impact analysis.

Fugitive Dust
Construction
Fugitive dust would be generated from site grading and other earth-moving activities. Most of this fugitive dust would remain localized and would be deposited near the project site. However, the potential for impacts from fugitive dust exists unless control measures are implemented to reduce the emissions from the project site. Therefore, adherence to Regulation VIII would be required during construction of the proposed project. Regulation VIII would require fugitive dust control measures that are consistent with best management practices (BMPs) established by the SJVAPCD to reduce the proposed project’s construction-generated fugitive dust impacts to a less than significant level.

The SJVAPCD (SJVAPCD or District) adopted Regulation VIII in 1993 and its most recent amendments became effective on October 1, 2004. This is a basic summary of the regulation’s requirements as they 19 Central Transport Regional Facility
Crown Enterprises, Inc. Relocation and Annexation Project Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum apply to construction sites. These regulations affect all workers at a regulated construction site, including everyone from the landowner to the subcontractors. Violations of Regulation VIII are subject to enforcement action including fines.11
Visible Dust Emissions may not exceed 20 percent opacity during periods when soil is being disturbed by equipment or by wind at any time. Visible Dust Emissions opacity of 20 percent means dust that would obstruct an observer’s view of an object by 20 percent. District inspectors are state certified to evaluate visible emissions. Dust control may be achieved by applying water before/during earthwork and onto unpaved traffic areas, phasing work to limit dust, and setting up wind fences to limit windblown dust.

Soil Stabilization is required at regulated construction sites after normal working hours and on weekends and holidays. This requirement also applies to inactive construction areas such as phased projects where disturbed land is left unattended. Applying water to form a visible crust on the soil and restricting vehicle access are often effective for short-term stabilization of disturbed surface areas. Long-term methods including applying dust suppressants and establishing vegetative cover.

Carryout and Trackout occur when materials from emptied or loaded vehicles falls onto a paved surface or shoulder of a public road or when materials adhere to vehicle tires and are deposited onto a paved surface or shoulder of a public road. Should either occur, the material must be cleaned up at least daily, and immediately if it extends more than 50 feet from the exit point onto a paved road. The appropriate clean-up methods require the complete removal and cleanup of mud and dirt from the paved surface and shoulder. Using a blower device or dry sweeping with any mechanical device other than a PM10-efficient street sweeper is a violation. Larger construction sites, or sites with a high amount of traffic on one or more days, must prevent carryout and trackout from occurring by installing gravel pads, grizzlies, wheel washers, paved interior roads, or a combination thereof at each exit point from the site. In many cases, cleaning up trackout with water is also prohibited as it may lead to plugged storm drains. Prevention is the best method.

Unpaved Access and Haul Roads, as well as unpaved vehicle and equipment traffic areas at construction sites must have dust control. Speed limit signs limiting vehicle speed to 15 mph or less at construction sites must be posted every 500 feet on uncontrolled and unpaved roads.

Storage Piles and Bulk Materials have handling, storage, and transportation requirements that include applying water when handling materials, wetting or covering stored materials, and installing wind barriers to limit visible dust emissions. Also, limiting vehicle speeds, loading haul trucks with a freeboard of six inches or greater along with applying water to the top of the load, and covering the cargo compartments are effective measures for reducing visible dust emissions and carryout from vehicles transporting bulk materials.

Dust Control Plans identify the dust sources and describe the dust control measures that will be implemented before, during, and after any dust generating activity for the duration of the project. Owners or operators are required to submit plans to the SJVAPCD at least 30 days prior to commencing the work for the following:
• Residential developments of ten or more acres of disturbed surface area. • Non-residential developments of five or more acres of disturbed surface area. • The relocation of more than 2,500 cubic yards per day of materials on at least three days. 11 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2007. Compliance Assistance Bulletin. Website:
http://www.valleyair.org/busind/comply/pm10/forms/RegVIIICAB.pdf. Accessed April 10, 2023. 20 Central Transport Regional Facility
Crown Enterprises, Inc. Relocation and Annexation Project Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum Operations may not commence until the SJAVPCD has approved the Dust Control Plan. A copy of the plan must be on site and available to workers and District employees. All work on the site is subject to the requirements of the approved dust control plan. A failure to abide by the plan by anyone on site may be subject to enforcement action. Owners or operators of construction projects that are at least one acre in size and where a Dust Control Plan is not required, must provide written notification to the SJVAPCD at least 48 hours in advance of any earthmoving activity.

Record Keeping is required to document compliance with the rules and must be kept for each day any dust control measure is used. The SJVAPCD has developed record forms for water application, street sweeping, and “permanent” controls such as applying long term dust palliatives, vegetation, ground cover materials, paving, or other durable materials. Records must be kept for one year after the end of dust generating activities (Title V sources must keep records for five years).

Exemptions exist for several activities. Those occurring above 3,000 feet in elevation are exempt from all Regulation VIII requirements. Further, Rule 8021 – Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities exempts the following construction and earthmoving activities:
• Blasting activities permitted by California Division of Industrial Safety. • Maintenance or remodeling of existing buildings provided the addition is less than 50% of the size of the existing building or less than 10,000 square feet (due to asbestos concerns, contact the SJVAPCD at least two weeks ahead of time).
• Additions to single family dwellings.
• The disking of weeds and vegetation for fire prevention on sites smaller than ½ acre. • Spreading of daily landfill cover to preserve public health and safety and to comply with California Integrated Waste Management Board requirements.

Nuisances are prohibited at all times because District Rule 4102 – Nuisance applies to all construction sources of fugitive dust, whether or not they are exempt from Regulation VIII. It is important to monitor dust-generating activities and implement appropriate dust control measures to limit the public’s exposure to fugitive dust.
21 Central Transport Regional Facility
Crown Enterprises, Inc. Relocation and Annexation Project Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum Addressing Air Quality CEQA Impact Questions
Table 10: Summary of Air Quality Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

Would the project: Significance Finding
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less than Significant Impact b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard?
Less than Significant Impact
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors or) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Less than Significant Impact Air Quality Mitigation Measures
MM AIR-1 is required to reduce the project’s potential impacts during construction to less than significant (see Impact AIR-C).

Where portable diesel engines are used during construction, all off-road equipment with engines greater than 75 horsepower shall have engines that meet or exceed either United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or California Air Resources Board (CARB) Tier 4 Interim off-road emission standards or be equipped with Level 3 diesel particulate filters. Tier 4 Interim engines shall, at a minimum, meet EPA or CARB particulate matter emissions standards for Tier 4 Interim engines. Alternatively, use of CARB-certified Level 3 diesel particulate filters on off-road equipment with engines greater than 75 horsepower can be used in lieu of Tier 4 Interim engines or in combination with Tier 4 Interim or better engines. The construction contractor shall maintain records documenting its efforts to comply with this requirement, including equipment lists. Off-road equipment descriptions and information shall include, but are not limited to, equipment type, equipment manufacturer, equipment identification number, engine model year, engine certification (Tier rating), horsepower, and engine serial number. The project applicant and/or construction contractor shall submit the construction operations plan and records of compliance to the City of Fresno. a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less Than Significant Impact.

Air Quality Plans (AQPs) are plans for reaching attainment of air quality standards. The assumptions, inputs, and control measures are analyzed to determine if the Air Basin can reach attainment for the ambient air quality standards. The proposed project site is located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the SJVAPCD. To show attainment of the standards, the SJVAPCD analyzes the growth projections in 22 Central Transport Regional Facility
Crown Enterprises, Inc. Relocation and Annexation Project Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum the Valley, contributing factors in air pollutant emissions and formations, and existing and adopted emissions controls. The SJVAPCD then formulates a control strategy to reach attainment that includes both State and SJVAPCD regulations and other local programs and measures. For projects that include stationary sources of emissions, the SJVAPCD relies on project compliance with Rule 2201—New and Modified Stationary Source Review to ensure that growth in stationary source emissions would not interfere with the applicable AQP. Projects exceeding the offset thresholds included in the rule are required to purchase offsets in the form of Emission Reduction Credits (ERCs).

The CEQA Guidelines indicate that a significant impact would occur if the project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. The GAMAQI indicates that projects that do not exceed SJVAPCD regional criteria pollutant emissions quantitative thresholds would not conflict with or obstruct the applicable AQP. An additional criterion regarding the project’s implementation of control measures was assessed to provide further evidence of the project’s consistency with current AQPs. This document proposes the following criteria for determining project consistency with the current AQPs:

2. Will the project comply with applicable control measures in the AQPs? The use of the criteria listed above is a standard approach for CEQA analysis of projects in the SJVAPCD’s jurisdiction, as well as within other air districts, for the following reasons:
● Significant contribution to existing or new exceedances of the air quality standards would be inconsistent with the goal of attaining the air quality standards. ● AQP emissions inventories and attainment modeling are based on growth assumptions for the area within the air district’s jurisdiction.
● AQPs rely on a set of air district-initiated control measures as well as implementation of federal and state measures to reduce emissions within their jurisdictions, with the goal of attaining the air quality standards.

Contribution to Air Quality Violations
As discussed in Impact AIR‐B below, emissions of ROG, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5 associated with the proposed project would not exceed the SJVAPCD’s significance thresholds during the construction phase (see Table 11) or emissions of ROG, NOX, CO, SOX, PM2.5 or PM10 during operations (see Table 12). Therefore, the project would not exceed the SJVAPCD’s regional thresholds of significance for any pollutant of concern and would be considered consistent with the existing AQPs. Regarding this criterion, the project would be considered less than significant.

Air Quality Plan Control Measures
The AQP contains a number of control measures that are enforceable requirements through the adoption of rules and regulations. The following rules and regulations are relevant to the project:
23 Central Transport Regional Facility
Crown Enterprises, Inc. Relocation and Annexation Project Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum Rule 2010—Permits Required. Rule 2010 requires operators of emission sources to obtain an authority to construct and permit to operate from the Valley Air District.

Rule 2201—New and Modified Stationary Source Review Rule. The review of new and modified Stationary Sources of air pollution and to provide mechanisms including emission trade-offs by which Authorities to Construct such sources may be granted, without interfering with the attainment or maintenance of Ambient Air Quality Standards.

Rule 4201—Particulate Matter Concentration. This rule shall apply to any source operation that emits or may emit dust, fumes, or total suspended particulate matter.

Rule 4309—Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters. The purpose of this rule is to limit emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and carbon monoxide (CO) from boilers, steam generators, and process heaters. This rule applies to any gaseous fuel or liquid fuel fired boiler, steam generator, or process heater with a total rated heat input greater than 5 million Btu per hour.

Rule 4601—Architectural Coatings. The purpose of this rule is to limit Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) emissions from architectural coatings. Emissions are reduced by limits on VOC content and providing requirements on coatings storage, cleanup, and labeling. Only compliant components are available for purchase in the San Joaquin Valley.

Rule 4641—Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations. The purpose of this rule is to limit VOC emissions from asphalt paving and maintenance operations. If asphalt paving will be used, then the paving operations will be subject to Rule 4641. This regulation is enforced on the asphalt provider.

Rule 4702—Internal Combustion Engines. The purpose of this rule is to limit the emissions of NOX, carbon monoxide (CO), VOC, and sulfur oxides (SOX) from internal combustion engines. If the project includes emergency generators, the equipment is required to comply with Rule 4702.

Regulation VIII—Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions. This regulation is a control measure that is one main strategies from the 2006 PM10 for reducing the PM10 emissions that are part of fugitive dust. Projects over 10 acres are required to file a Dust Control Plan (DCP) containing dust control practices sufficient to comply with Regulation VIII. Rule 8021 regulates construction and demolition activities, road construction, bulk materials storage, paved and unpaved roads, carryout and trackout, etc. All development projects that involve soil disturbance are subject to at least one provision of the Regulation VIII series of rules.

Rule 9410–Employer Based Trip Reduction. The purpose of this rule is reduce VMT from private vehicles used by employees to commute to and from their worksites to reduce emissions of NOX, VOC and PM. The rule would require larger employers (those with 100 or more eligible employees) to establish employee trip reduction programs to reduce VMT, reducing emissions associated with work commutes.

The rule uses a menu-based Employer Trip Reduction Implementation Plan and periodic reporting requirements to evaluate performance on a phased-in compliance schedule.

Rule 9510–Indirect Source Review. This rule reduces the impact of NOX and PM10 emissions from growth within the SJVAB. The rule places application and emission reduction requirements on development projects meeting applicability criteria in order to reduce emissions through on-site mitigation, off-site District-administered projects, or a combination of the two. 24 Central Transport Regional Facility
Crown Enterprises, Inc. Relocation and Annexation Project Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum Conclusion
The project would comply with all applicable CARB and SJVAPCD rules and regulations. Therefore, the project complies with this criterion and would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality attainment plan with regards to this criterion.

The project’s regional operational emissions would not exceed any applicable SJVAPCD threshold prior to the incorporation of mitigation measures (see Impact AIR-B). Therefore, the project would be considered consistent with the existing AQPs.

Based on the findings above, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. The impact would be less than significant. b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard? Less Than Significant Impact.

To result in a less than significant impact, emissions of nonattainment pollutants must be below the SJVAPCD’s regional significance thresholds. This is an approach recommended by the SJVAPCD’s in its GAMAQI. The SJVAB is in nonattainment for ozone, PM10 (State only), and PM2.5. Ozone is a secondary pollutant that can be formed miles from the source of emissions, through reactions of ROG and NOX emissions in the presence of sunlight. Therefore, ROG and NOX are termed ozone precursors. As such, the primary pollutants of concern during project construction and operation are ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5. The air quality standards were set to protect public health, including the health of sensitive individuals (such as children, the elderly, and the infirm). Therefore, when the concentration of those pollutants exceeds the standard, it is likely that some sensitive individuals in the population would experience adverse experience health effects. However, the health effects are a factor of the doseresponse curve. Concentration of the pollutant in the air (dose), the length of time exposed, and the response of the individual are factors involved in the severity and nature of health impacts. If a significant health impact results from project emissions, it does not mean that 100 percent of the population would experience health effects.

Since the SJVAB is nonattainment for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5, it is considered to have an existing significant cumulative health impact without the project. When this occurs, the analysis considers whether the project’s contribution to the existing violation of air quality standards is cumulatively considerable. The SJVAPCD regional thresholds for NOX, ROG/VOC, PM10, or PM2.5 are applied as cumulative contribution thresholds. Projects that exceed the regional thresholds would have a cumulatively considerable health impact.

The SJVAPCD GAMAQI adopted in 2015 contains thresholds for CO, NOX, ROG, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5.

Air pollutant emissions have both regional and localized effects. The project’s regional emissions are compared to the applicable SJVAPCD below.

Criteria Pollutant Emission Estimates
Construction Emissions (Regional)
Construction emissions associated with the development envisioned for the proposed project are shown in Table 11 prior to the incorporation of any mitigation. 25 Central Transport Regional Facility
Crown Enterprises, Inc. Relocation and Annexation Project Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum Table 11: Summary of Construction-Generated Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants – Unmitigated
Emissions Source
Emissions (Tons/Year)
ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Project Construction (2023) 0.19 1.62 1.66 < 0.005 0.28 0.15 Project Construction (2024) 0.38 0.79 0.99 < 0.005 0.06 0.04 Total Construction Duration
Project Total 0.57 2.41 2.65 < 0.005 0.34 0.19
Significance Thresholds 10 10 100 27 15 15
Exceed Significance
Thresholds? No No No No No No
Notes:

PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are from the mitigated output to reflect compliance with Regulation VIII—Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions.

Source of Emissions: CalEEMod Output and Additional Supporting Information (Attachment A).

Totals may not appear to sum exactly due to rounding.

As shown in Table 11 above, construction activities associated with implementation of the proposed rezone project are estimated to fall below the significance thresholds. Therefore, regional and cumulative impacts associated with construction of development contemplated under the proposed rezone project are less than significant on a project basis.

Operational Emissions (Regional)—Non-Permitted
Operational emissions occur over the lifetime of the project. The SJVAPCD considers permitted and nonpermitted emission sources12 separately when making significance determinations. In addition, the annual operational emissions are also considered separately from construction emissions. Non-permitted operational emissions associated with the proposed project include area, energy, off-road equipment, automobiles (passenger vehicles and heavy-duty trucks); these emissions are shown in Table 12.

Operational emissions were estimated using a full buildout scenario in the earliest year of operations (2024), which provides a conservative estimate of emissions and resulting potential impacts.

Table 12: Summary of Operational Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants – Unmitigated Source
Emissions (tons/year)
ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Area 0.44 < 0.005 0.34 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005
Energy < 0.005 0.06 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005
Off-road Equipment 0.05 0.51 0.88 < 0.005 0.02 0.02
12 Stationary sources (also known as permitted sources) would require permits from the SJVAPCD prior to their installation or operation. Examples of permitted sources include commercial organic material composting operations, glass melting furnaces, boilers, steam generators, glass coating operations, and fuel burning equipment. 26 Central Transport Regional Facility
Crown Enterprises, Inc. Relocation and Annexation Project Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum Mobile (Passenger
Vehicles) 0.12 0.14 1.19 0.00 0.26 0.07
Mobile (Trucks) 0.06 4.65 0.80 0.04 1.11 0.35
Annual Total (2024) 0.67 5.36 3.26 0.04 1.39 0.44
Significance
Thresholds 10 10 100 27 15 15
Exceed Significance
Thresholds? No No No No No No
Notes:

Emissions were quantified using CalEEMod based on project details and earliest operational year for the proposed project.

Totals may not sum exactly due to rounding.

Source: CalEEMod Output and Additional Supporting Information (Attachment A).

As shown in Table 12, operational emissions would not exceed the applicable SJVAPCD thresholds of significance for ROG, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, or PM2.5. The project’s long-term operational emissions would not exceed any of the SJVAPCD’s project-level regional thresholds of significance. Therefore, the impact from operations of the project would be less than significant with incorporation of mitigation.

Permitted sources emitting more than the NSR Offset Thresholds for any criteria pollutant must, in general, offset all emission increases in excess of the thresholds.

In the event that stationary sources are proposed in the future (such as boilers or steam generators), the SJVAPCD will prepare an engineering evaluation of all permitted equipment to determine the controls required to achieve best available control technology (BACT) requirements. The permitted emissions are dependent on the control technology selected and any process limits included in the permit conditions.

Permitted sources will be required to comply with SJVAPCD BACT requirements. Compliance with regulations would ensure that the project’s stationary sources would not exceed SJVAPCD thresholds of significance; therefore, the project’s estimated permitted emissions would be less than significant.

Conclusion
As shown in Table 11, the project’s regional emissions would not exceed the applicable regional criteria pollutant emissions quantitative thresholds during project construction. During operations, emissions from the project’s combined unpermitted sources would not exceed the applicable regional criteria pollutant emissions quantitative thresholds (see Table 12). Any permitted sources will be required to comply with SJVAPCD BACT requirements, which would ensure that related emissions would be less than significant. Considering project-generated regional operational emissions (permitted and unpermitted) would be considered less than significant, the impact would be less than significant. c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact with Incorporation of Mitigation. 27 Central Transport Regional Facility
Crown Enterprises, Inc. Relocation and Annexation Project Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum Emissions occurring at or near the project have the potential to create a localized impact that could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Sensitive receptors are considered land uses or other types of population groups that are more sensitive to air pollution than others due to their exposure. Sensitive population groups include children, the elderly, the acutely and chronically ill, and those with cardio-respiratory diseases. The SJVAPCD considers a sensitive receptor to be a location that houses or attracts children, the elderly, people with illnesses, or others who are especially sensitive to the effects of air pollutants. Examples of sensitive receptors include hospitals, residences, convalescent facilities, and schools.

The only sensitive receptors within ¼-mile of the project are residences. There are no schools, hospitals, convalescent facilities or other sensitive receptors in this primarily rural agricultural and industrial area.

However, it should be noted that there is an Elementary School just over ¼-mile (0.27 of a mile), to the Southeast of the Project, (Orange Center Elementary). To the north is farmland with eight (8) scattered residences, one church and a few businesses including Valley Iron. Zacky Farms and Julians Window Tinting. To the West are two (2) trucking companies, K&S Services and Herlan Brothers and a small Auto Wrecking Yard. To the South is primarily farmland with seven (7) scattered residences. To the East is Farmland, four (4) residences, and part of Valley Iron’s yard and buildings.

Localized Impacts
Emissions occurring at or near the project have the potential to create a localized impact also referred to as an air pollutant hotspot. Localized emissions are considered significant if, when combined with background emissions, they would result in exceedance of any health-based air quality standard. In locations that already exceed standards for these pollutants, significance is based on a significant impact level (SIL) that represents the amount that is considered a cumulatively considerable contribution to an existing violation of an air quality standard. The pollutants of concern for localized impact in the SJVAB are NO2, SOX, and CO.

The SJVAPCD has provided guidance for screening localized impacts in the GAMAQI that establishes a screening threshold of 100 pounds per day of any criteria pollutant. If a project exceeds 100 pounds per day of any criteria pollutant, then ambient air quality modeling would be necessary. If the project does not exceed 100 pounds per day of any criteria pollutant, then it can be assumed that it would not cause a violation of an ambient air quality standard.

Construction: Localized Concentrations of PM10, PM2.5, CO, SOX, and NOX Local construction impacts would be short-term in nature lasting only during the duration of construction.

As shown in Table 13 below, on-site construction emissions would be less than 100 pounds per day for each of the criteria pollutants. To present a conservative estimate, on-site emissions for on-road construction vehicles were included in the localized analysis. Based on the SJVAPCD’s guidance, the construction emissions would not cause an ambient air quality standard violation. 28 Central Transport Regional Facility
Crown Enterprises, Inc. Relocation and Annexation Project Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum Table 13: Localized Concentrations of PM10, PM2.5, CO, and NOX for Construction – Unmitigated
Emission Source
On-site Emissions (pounds per day)
ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
On-site Daily Construction
(Highest in 2023) 4.15 40.42 38.69 0.07 10.16 5.67
On-site Daily Construction
(Highest in 2024) 29.11 11.44 13.75 0.02 0.52 0.46
Total Construction Duration
Highest Daily Maximum 29.11 40.42 38.69 0.07 10.16 5.67 Significance Thresholds — 100 100 100 100 100
Exceed Significance
Thresholds? — No No No No No
Note: Overlap of construction activities is based on the construction schedule shown in Table 2 and Attachment A.

Source of Emissions: CalEEMod Output and Additional Supporting Information (Attachment A). Maximum daily emissions represent the maximum daily emissions between the Summer and Winter scenarios.

Accessed May 24, 2023.

Operation: Localized Concentrations of PM10, PM2.5, CO, SOX, and NOX Localized impacts could occur in areas with a single large source of emissions such as a power plant or with multiple sources concentrated in a small area such as a distribution center. The maximum daily operational emissions would occur at project buildout, which was assumed to occur in 2024 (the earliest year of operations). Operational emissions include those generated on-site by area sources (which can include consumer products, and landscape maintenance), energy use (which can include natural gas combustion for features such as space heating or water heating), and motor vehicles operation at the project site.13 Motor vehicle emissions are estimated for on-site operations using trip lengths for on-site travel and ¼-mile of off-site emissions.

As shown in Table 14 below, operational modeling of on-site emissions for the project indicate that the project would not exceed 100 pounds per day for each of the criteria pollutants. Therefore, based on the SJVAPCD’s guidance, the operational emissions would not cause an ambient air quality standard violation. As such, impacts would be less than significant. 13 More details regarding the operational sources are provided in the methodology section of this technical memorandum (see “Operational Modeling Assumptions”, starting on Page 10. 29 Central Transport Regional Facility
Crown Enterprises, Inc. Relocation and Annexation Project Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum Table 14: Localized Concentrations of PM10, PM2.5, CO, and NOX for Operations Source
On-site Emissions (pounds per day)
ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Area 2.71 0.03 3.81 < 0.01 0.01 0.01
Energy 0.02 0.30 0.25 < 0.01 0.02 0.02
Off-Road
Equipment 0.36 3.90 6.74 0.01 0.15 0.13
Mobile (Passenger
Vehicles) 0.65 0.25 1.51 < 0.01 0.07 0.02
Mobile (Trucks) 0.10 2.30 1.46 < 0.01 0.06 0.02
Total 3.84 6.78 13.77 0.01 0.31 0.20
Significance
Thresholds — 100 100 100 100 100
Exceed
Significance
Thresholds?
— No No No No No
Source of Emissions: CalEEMod Output and Additional Supporting Information (Attachment A).

Accessed May 24, 2023.

There are no conditions unique to the project site that would require more intense construction activity compared to typical development. Examples of situations that would warrant closer scrutiny may include sites that would require extensive excavation and hauling due to existing site conditions. Building construction typically requires limited amounts of diesel equipment relative to site clearing activities.

Nonetheless, a construction HRA was prepared as part of this analysis. In addition, the analysis includes an evaluation of potential health impacts from construction and operations of the project considered together, over a 70-year exposure scenario.

The results of the HRA prepared for project construction for cancer risk and long-term chronic cancer risk are summarized below. Construction emissions were estimated assuming adherence to all applicable rules, regulations, and project design features. The construction emissions were assumed to be distributed over the project area with a working schedule of eight hours per day and five days per week.

Emissions were adjusted by a factor of 4.2 to convert for use with a 24-hour-per-day, 365 day-per-year averaging period. Health risk calculations were completed using HARP2. Detailed parameters and complete calculations are included in Attachment B.
30 Central Transport Regional Facility
Crown Enterprises, Inc. Relocation and Annexation Project Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum The estimated health and hazard impacts at the Maximally Exposed Receptor (MER) from the project’s construction emissions are provided in Table 15.

Table 15: Summary of the Health Impacts from Unmitigated Construction of the Project Exposure Scenario
Maximum Cancer
Risk
(Risk per Million)
Chronic
Non-Cancer
Hazard Index
Acute
Non-Cancer
Hazard Index
Risks and Hazards at the Construction MER
Risks and Hazards at the MER
(Construction Only)

9.90 0.0076 0.0000
Risks and Hazards at the MER
(Construction Plus Operations)

20.49 0.0103 0.0000
Significance Threshold 20 1 1
Threshold Exceeded in Any Scenario? Yes No No
Notes:

MER = Maximally Exposed Receptor
DPM = Diesel Particulate Matter
Central Transport Regional Facility Project Construction MER: Receptor #26 (UTM 251417.25, 4063705.56) Source: Attachment B.

As shown in Table 15, estimated health risks from elevated DPM concentrations during construction of the proposed project would not exceed the applicable health risk significance thresholds when construction is considered alone; however, construction and operational emissions combined would exceed the applicable cancer risk threshold. This represents a potentially significant construction TAC exposure impact. Therefore, mitigation is required to reduce the impact during the construction period to below a level of significance.

MM AIR-1 requires the project applicant, project sponsor, or construction contractor to provide documentation to the City of Tulare that all off-road diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 75 horsepower meet EPA or CARB Tier 4 off-road emissions standards or utilize Level 3 filters. Table 16 shows the health risks and non-cancer hazard index for construction with implementation of MM AIR-1. 31 Central Transport Regional Facility
Crown Enterprises, Inc. Relocation and Annexation Project Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum Table 16: Summary of the Health Impacts from Mitigated Construction of the Project Exposure Scenario
Maximum Cancer
Risk
(Risk per Million)
Chronic
Non-Cancer
Hazard Index
Acute
Non-Cancer
Hazard Index
Risks and Hazards at the Construction MER—Tier 4 Equipment Scenario Risks and Hazards at the MER
(Construction Only)

1.64 0.0013 0.0000
Risks and Hazards at the MER
(Construction Plus Operations)

12.23 0.0040 0.0000
Risks and Hazards at the Construction MER—Level 3 Filters Scenario Risks and Hazards at the MER
(Construction Only)

2.19 0.0017 0.0000
Risks and Hazards at the MER
(Construction Plus Operations)

12.78 0.0044 0.0000
Highest Risks and Hazards at the Construction MER after Incorporation of MM AIR-1 Risks and Hazards at the MER 12.78 0.0044 0.0000
Significance Threshold 20 1 1
Threshold Exceeded in Any Scenario? No No No
MER = Maximally Exposed Receptor
Central Transport Regional Facility Project Construction MER: Receptor #26 (UTM 251417.25, 4063705.56) Source: Attachment B.

As noted in Table 16, calculated health metrics from the proposed project’s construction DPM emissions would not exceed the cancer risk significance threshold or non-cancer hazard index significance threshold at the MER with incorporation of MM AIR-1. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact on nearby sensitive receptors from TACs during construction.

Operations
For reasons previously discussed (see Modeling Parameters and Assumptions), an analysis of TACs (including DPM) was performed using the EPA-approved AERMOD model, which is an air dispersion model accepted by the SJVAPCD for preparing HRAs. AERMOD version 22112 was used for this analysis. Consistent with SJVAPCD guidance, the health risk computation was performed to determine the risk of developing an excess cancer risk calculated on a 70-year exposure scenario. Results of the HRA are summarized in Table 17. The complete HRA prepared for the proposed project, including calculations, AERMOD output data, and HARP2 files, are included in Attachment B. 32 Central Transport Regional Facility
Crown Enterprises, Inc. Relocation and Annexation Project Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum Table 17: Summary of the Health Impacts from Operations of the Proposed Project (70- year Scenario)
Exposure Scenario
Maximum Cancer
Risk
(Risk per Million)
Chronic
Non-Cancer Hazard
Index
Acute
Non-Cancer Hazard
Index
70-Year Exposure at the MER (from DPM
Emissions) 15.04 0.0029 0.0000
Combined 70-Year Exposure Scenario for
Mitigated Construction + Operations at the
Construction MER

12.78 0.0044 0.0000
Combined 70-Year Exposure Scenario for
Mitigated Construction + Operations at the
Operational MER

13.30 0.0044 0.0000
Applicable Threshold of Significance 20 1 1
Threshold Exceeded in Any Scenario? No No No
Notes:

MER = Maximally Exposed Receptor
DPM = Diesel Particulate Matter
Operational MER: Receptor #88 (see Attachment B)
Construction MER: Receptor #26 (see Attachment B)
Source: Attachment B.

As shown in Table 17, the project would not exceed the cancer risk, chronic risk, or acute risk threshold levels in any scenario analysis after the incorporation of MM AIR-1. The primary source of the emissions responsible for chronic risk are from diesel trucks during operations and off-road diesel equipment during construction. DPM does not have an acute risk factor, resulting in an acute non-cancer hazard index of zero (0) for all receptors. Since the project does not exceed the applicable SJVAPCD thresholds for cancer risk, acute risk, or chronic risk, the impact related to the project’s potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations would be less than significant.

The San Joaquin Valley is considered an endemic area for Valley fever. The San Joaquin Valley is considered an endemic area for Valley fever. During 2000–2018, a total of 65,438 coccidioidomycosis cases were reported in California; median statewide annual incidence was 7.9 per 100,000 population and varied by region from 1.1 in Northern and Eastern California to 90.6 in the Southern San Joaquin Valley, with the largest increase (15‐fold) occurring in the Northern San Joaquin Valley. Incidence has been consistently high in six counties in the Southern San Joaquin Valley (Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Tulare, and Merced counties) and Central Coast (San Luis Obispo County) regions.14 California 14 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2020. Regional Analysis of Coccidioidomycosis Incidence—California, 2000–2018. Website: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6948a4.htm?s_cid=mm6948a4_e. Accessed April 10, 2023.
33 Central Transport Regional Facility
Crown Enterprises, Inc. Relocation and Annexation Project Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum experienced 7,962 new probable or confirmed cases of Valley fever in 2021. A total of 408 suspect, probable, and confirmed Valley fever cases were reported in Fresno County in 2021.15 The distribution of C. immitis within endemic areas is not uniform and growth sites are commonly small (a few tens of meters) and widely scattered. Known sites appear to have some ecological factors in common suggesting that certain physical, chemical, and biological conditions are more favorable for C. immitis growth. Avoidance, when possible, of sites favorable for the occurrence of C. immitis is a prudent risk management strategy. Listed below are ecologic factors and sites favorable for the occurrence of C. immitis:
1) Rodent burrows (often a favorable site for C. immitis, perhaps because temperatures are more moderate and humidity higher than on the ground surface) 2) Old (prehistoric) Indian campsites near fire pits
3) Areas with sparse vegetation and alkaline soils
4) Areas with high salinity soils
5) Areas adjacent to arroyos (where residual moisture may be available) 6) Packrat middens
7) Upper 30 centimeters of the soil horizon, especially in virgin undisturbed soils 8) Sandy, well-aerated soil with relatively high water-holding capacities Sites within endemic areas less favorable for the occurrence of C. immitis include:
1) Cultivated fields
2) Heavily vegetated areas (e.g., grassy lawns)
3) Higher elevations (above 7,000 feet)
4) Areas where commercial fertilizers (e.g., ammonium sulfate) have been applied 5) Areas that are continually wet
6) Paved (asphalt or concrete) or oiled areas
7) Soils containing abundant microorganisms
8) Heavily urbanized areas where there is little undisturbed virgin soil.16 The project is situated on a site previously disturbed that does not provide a suitable habitat for spores.

Specifically, the project site is primarily covered with vegetation in the form of grass and shrubbery.

Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would have a low probability of the site having C. immitis growth sites and exposure to the spores from disturbed soil. 15 California Department of Public Health (CDPH). 2021. Coccidioidomycosis in California Provisional Monthly Report January 2021. Website: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/CDPH%20Document%20Library/CocciinCA ProvisionalMonthlyReport.pdf. Accessed April 10, 2023.
16 United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2000. Operational Guidelines (Version 1.0) for Geological Fieldwork in Areas Endemic for Coccidioidomycosis (Valley Fever), 2000, Open-File Report 2000-348. Website:
https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2000/0348/pdf/of00-348.pdf. Accessed April 24, 2023. 34 Central Transport Regional Facility
Crown Enterprises, Inc. Relocation and Annexation Project Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum Although conditions are not favorable, construction activities could generate fugitive dust that contain C. immitis spores. The project will minimize the generation of fugitive dust during construction activities by complying with SJVAPCD’s Regulation VIII. Therefore, this regulation, combined with the relatively low probability of the presence of C. immitis spores would reduce Valley fever impacts to less than significant.

During operations, dust emissions are anticipated to be relatively small, because most of the project area where operational activities would occur would be occupied by the proposed cross-dock and related buildings and pavement. This condition would lessen the possibility of the project site from providing habitat suitable for C. immitis spores and for generating fugitive dust that may contribute to Valley fever exposure. Impacts would be less than significant.

Naturally Occurring Asbestos
Review of the map of areas where naturally occurring asbestos in California are likely to occur found no such areas in the immediate project area. Therefore, development of the project is not anticipated to expose receptors to naturally occurring asbestos.17 Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact Analysis Summary
In summary, the project would not exceed SJVAPCD localized emission daily screening levels for any criteria pollutant. The project is not a significant source of TAC emissions during construction or operation after incorporation of MM AIR-1. The project is not in an area with suitable habitat for Valley fever spores and is not in an area known to have naturally occurring asbestos. Therefore, the project would not result in significant impacts to sensitive receptors after incorporation of mitigation. d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors or) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact.

Two situations are recognized to create potential for odor impact. The first occurs when a new odor source is located near an existing sensitive receptor. The second occurs when a new sensitive receptor locates near an existing source of odor. The proposed project is of the first type only since it involves a potential new odor source and would not be considered a sensitive receptor land use.

Odor impacts on residential areas and other sensitive receptors, such as hospitals, day-care centers, schools, etc. warrant the closest scrutiny, but consideration should also be given to other land uses where people may congregate, such as recreational facilities, worksites, and commercial areas.

Although the project is less than one mile from the nearest sensitive receptor, the project is not expected to be a significant source of odors. The screening levels for these land use types are shown in Table 18. 17 U.S. Geological Survey. 2011. Van Gosen, B.S., and Clinkenbeard, J.P. California Geological Survey Map Sheet 59.

Reported Historic Asbestos Mines, Historic Asbestos Prospects, and Other Natural Occurrences of Asbestos in California.

Open-File Report 2011-1188 Website: https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2011/1188/. Accessed April 24, 2023. 35 Central Transport Regional Facility
Crown Enterprises, Inc. Relocation and Annexation Project Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum Table 18: Screening Levels for Potential Odor Sources
Odor Generator Screening Distance
Wastewater Treatment Facilities 2 miles
Sanitary Landfill 1 mile
Transfer Station 1 mile
Composting Facility 1 mile
Petroleum Refinery 2 miles
Asphalt Batch Plant 1 mile
Chemical Manufacturing 1 mile
Fiberglass Manufacturing 1 mile
Painting/Coating Operations (e.g., auto body shop) 1 mile Food Processing Facility 1 mile
Feed Lot/Dairy 1 mile
Rendering Plant 1 mile
Wastewater Treatment Facilities 2 miles
Source of Thresholds: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2015. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. February 19. Website: https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI-2015/FINAL-DRAFT-GAMAQI.PDF.

Accessed May 24, 2023.

Construction
During construction, various diesel-powered vehicles and equipment in use on-site would create localized odors. These odors would be temporary and intermittent, which would decrease the likelihood of the odors concentrating in a single area or lingering for any notable period of time. As such, these odors would likely not be noticeable for extended periods of time beyond the project’s site boundaries. The potential for odor impacts from construction of the proposed project would, therefore, be less than significant.

Operations
The development of the proposed project would not substantially increase objectionable odors in the area and would not introduce any new sensitive receptors to the area that could be affected by any existing objectionable odor sources in the area. Land uses that are typically identified as sources of objectionable odors include landfills, transfer stations, sewage treatment plants, wastewater pump stations, composting facilities, asphalt batch plants, rendering plants, and other land uses outlined in Table 18. The proposed project would not engage in any of these activities. Minor sources of odors that would be associated with uses typical of warehouse and distribution facilities, such as exhaust from mobile sources (including diesel-fueled heavy trucks), are known to have temporary and less concentrated odors. Considering the low intensity of potential odor emissions, the proposed project’s operational activities would not expose receptors to objectionable odor emissions. Therefore, the proposed project would not be considered to be a generator of objectionable odors during operations. As such, impacts would be less than significant. 36 Central Transport Regional Facility
Crown Enterprises, Inc. Relocation and Annexation Project Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum Greenhouse Gas Emissions Estimation Summary and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis Thresholds of Significance
Section 15064.4(b) of the CEQA Guidelines’ 2018 amendments for GHG emissions states that a lead agency may take into account the following three considerations in assessing the significance of impacts from GHG emissions.
• Consideration #1: The extent to which the project may increase or reduce greenhouse gas emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting. • Consideration #2: Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project.
• Consideration #3: The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. Such regulations or requirements must be adopted by the relevant public agency through a public review process and must include specific requirements that reduce or mitigate the project’s incremental contribution of greenhouse gas emissions. If there is substantial evidence that the possible effects of a particular project are still cumulatively considerable notwithstanding compliance with the adopted regulations or requirements, an EIR must be prepared for the project. In determining the significance of impacts, the lead agency may consider a project’s consistency with the State’s long-term climate goals or strategies, provided that substantial evidence supports the agency’s analysis of how those goals or strategies address the project’s incremental contribution to climate change and its conclusion that the project’s incremental contribution is not cumulatively considerable.

The SJVAPCD’s Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA provides guidance for preparing a BAU analysis.18 Under the SJVAPCD guidance, projects meeting one of the following would have a less than significant impact on climate change:
• Exempt from CEQA;
• Complies with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or GHG mitigation program; • Project achieves 29 percent GHG reductions by using approved Best Performance Standards; and • Project achieves AB 32 targeted 29 percent GHG reductions compared with “business as usual.” The SJVAPCD has not yet adopted BPS for development projects. For development projects, BPS means, “Any combination of identified GHG emission reduction measures, including project design elements and land use decisions that reduce project-specific GHG emission reductions by at least 29 percent compared with business as usual.”
The 29 percent GHG reduction level is based on the target established by CARB’s AB 32 Scoping Plan, approved in 2008. The GHG reduction level for the State to reach 1990 emission levels by 2020 was reduced to 21.7 percent from BAU in 2020 in the 2014 First Update to the Scoping Plan to account for slower than projected growth after the 2008 recession.19 First occupancy at the project site is expected to 18 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2009. “Final Staff Report, Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act.” Website: http://www.valleyair.org/programs/CCAP/11-05- 09/1_CCAP_FINAL_CEQA_GHG_Draft_Staff_Report_Nov_05_2009.pdf. December 2009. Accessed May 15, 2023. 19 California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2014. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan. Website:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/updatedscopingplan2013.htm. Accessed May 15, 2023. 37 Central Transport Regional Facility
Crown Enterprises, Inc. Relocation and Annexation Project Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum occur in 2024, which is after the AB 32 target year. The SJVAPCD has not updated its guidance to address SB 32 2030 targets or AB 1279 2045 targets. Therefore, whether the project’s GHG emissions would result in a significant impact on the environment is determined by assessing consistency with relevant GHG reduction plans.

Quantification of Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Informational Purposes Construction
GHG emissions generated during all construction activities were combined and are shown in Table 19.

Table 19: Summary of Construction-Generated Greenhouse Gas Emissions Emissions Source MT CO2e per Year
Project Construction (2023) 279
Project Construction (2024) 188
Project Construction Total 467
Amortized over 30 Years 16
Notes:

MT CO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
Source: CalEEMod Output (Attachment A).

Operations
Operational or long-term emissions occur over the life of the project. Sources of emissions may include motor vehicles and trucks, energy usage, water usage, waste generation, and area sources, such as landscaping activities. Operational GHG emissions associated with the proposed project were estimated using CalEEMod 2022.1. Please see the “Assumptions” sections of this technical memorandum for details regarding assumptions and methodology used to estimate emissions. Operational GHG emissions in the buildout year are shown in Table 20. Complete CalEEMod output files and additional supporting information are also included in Attachment A.

Table 20: Unmitigated Project Operational GHG Emissions (Buildout Year Scenario) Emission Source
Buildout Year Total Emissions (MT CO2e
per year)
Area 1.29
Energy 204
Off-road Equipment 123
Mobile (Passenger Vehicles) 274
Mobile (Trucks) 3,840
Refrigerants 412
Water 31.8
Waste 36.5
Total (MT CO2e per year) 4,923
Source of Buildout Year Emissions: CalEEMod Output (Attachment A). 38 Central Transport Regional Facility
Crown Enterprises, Inc. Relocation and Annexation Project Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum Addressing Greenhouse Gas CEQA Impact Questions
Table 21: Summary of Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the project: Significance
Finding
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less than
Significant Impact
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less than
Significant Impact
Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact.

The following analysis assesses the project’s compliance with Consideration #3 regarding consistency with adopted plans to reduce GHG emissions. As detailed above under the “Thresholds of Significance” discussion, Consideration #3 is the extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions. The project is in unincorporated Fresno County; however, a Pre-Zone/Rezone Application and Annexation Application are being submitted concurrently to the City of Fresno with the Development Application. The City of Fresno does not have a GHG reduction plan that can be relied upon for making significance determinations. The County of Fresno has not adopted a GHG reduction plan. In addition, Fresno County has not completed the GHG inventory, benchmarking, or goal‐setting process required to identify a reduction target and take advantage of the streamlining provisions contained in the CEQA Guidelines amendments adopted for SB 97 and clarifications provided in the CEQA Guidelines amendments adopted on December 28, 2018. The SJVAPCD has adopted a Climate Action Plan, but it does not contain measures that are applicable to the project. Therefore, the SJVAPCD Climate Action Plan cannot be applied to the project. Since no other local or regional Climate Action Plan is in place, the project is assessed for its consistency with CARB’s adopted Scoping Plans.

Consistency with CARB’s Adopted Scoping Plans
The State’s regulatory program implementing the 2008 Scoping Plan is now fully mature. All regulations envisioned in the Scoping Plan have been adopted, and the effectiveness of those regulations has been estimated by the agencies during the adoption process and then tracked to verify their effectiveness after implementation. The combined effect of this successful effort is that the State now projects that it will meet the 2020 target and achieve continued progress toward meeting post-2020 targets. Governor Brown, in the introduction to Executive Order B-30-15, stated “California is on track to meet or exceed the current target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, as established in the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32).” Consistency with SB 32 and the 2017 Scoping Plan
39 Central Transport Regional Facility
Crown Enterprises, Inc. Relocation and Annexation Project Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update (2017 Scoping Plan) includes the strategy that the State intends to pursue to achieve the 2030 targets of Executive Order S‐3‐05 and SB 32. Table 22 provides an analysis of the project’s consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan Update measures.

Table 22: Consistency with SB 32 2017 Scoping Plan Update Scoping Plan Measure Project Consistency
SB 350 50% Renewable Mandate. Utilities subject
to the legislation will be required to increase their
renewable energy mix from 33% in 2020 to 50% in
2030 (now 60% under SB 100).

Consistent: The project will purchase electricity from a utility subject to the SB 350 Renewable Mandate. The
specific provider for this project is Pacific Gas and
Electric Company (PG&E). In February 2018, PG&E
announced that it had reached California's 2020
renewable energy goal 3 years ahead of schedule and
delivers nearly 80 percent of its electricity from GHGfree resources.1 SB 350 Double Building Energy Efficiency by
2030. This is equivalent to a 20 percent reduction
from 2014 building energy usage compared to
current projected 2030 levels.

Not Applicable. This measure applies to existing
buildings. New structures are required to comply with
Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards that are expected
to increase in stringency over time. New buildings
constructed as part of the proposed project would
comply with the applicable Title 24 Energy Efficiency
Standards in effect at the time building permits are
received. The current Title 24 regulations are the 2022 Title 24 standards, which become effective January 1,
2023.

Low Carbon Fuel Standard. This measure
requires fuel providers to meet an 18 percent
reduction in carbon content by 2030.

Consistent. This is a Statewide measure that cannot be
implemented by a project applicant or lead agency.

However, vehicles accessing the project site would be
subject to the standards. Vehicles accessing the project site will use fuel containing lower carbon content as the fuel standard is implemented.

Mobile Source Strategy (Cleaner Technology
and Fuels Scenario). Vehicle manufacturers will
be required to meet existing regulations mandated
by the LEV III and Heavy‐Duty Vehicle programs.

The strategy includes a goal of having 4.2 million
ZEVs on the road by 2030 and increasing numbers
of ZEV trucks and buses.

Consistent. Future employees and visitors can be
expected to purchase increasing numbers of more fuelefficient and zero emission cars and trucks each year as these vehicles become more widely available, in part,
due to the vehicle manufacturers meeting regulations
such as LEV III and Heavy-Duty Vehicle programs.

IsSustainable Freight Action Plan. The plan’s
target is to improve freight system efficiency 25
percent by increasing the value of goods and
services produced from the freight sector, relative
to the amount of carbon that it produces by 2030.

This would be achieved by deploying over 100,000
freight vehicles and equipment capable of zero
emission operation and maximize near‐zero
emission freight vehicles and equipment powered
by renewable energy by 2030.

Consistent. The measure applies to owners and
operators of trucks and freight operations. The
proposed project is industrial in nature and would
support truck and freight operations. The project
operator(s) and truck owners that would service future
operations can participate in incentives programs on
electric vehicles and charging equipment for trucks once a final project has been identified. Deliveries and freight operations are expected to be made by increasing
number of ZEV trucks as a result of more stringent
regulations, incentive programs, infrastructure
developments, and increased access/availability of
relevant technology.

Short‐Lived Climate Pollutant (SLCP)
Reduction Strategy. The strategy requires the
reduction of SLCPs by 40 percent from 2013 levels
by 2030 and the reduction of black carbon by 50
percent from 2013 levels by 2030.

Consistent. The project does not include sources that
produce significant quantities of methane or black
carbon. However, diesel trucks accessing the site will
achieve significant reductions in PM2.5 with adopted
regulations that will reduce this source of black carbon. 40 Central Transport Regional Facility
Crown Enterprises, Inc. Relocation and Annexation Project Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum Scoping Plan Measure Project Consistency
SB 375 Sustainable Communities Strategies.

Requires Regional Transportation Plans to include
a sustainable communities strategy for reduction of
per capita vehicle miles traveled.

Consistent. The project is not within an SCS priority
area and so is not subject to requirements applicable to those areas.

The Cap‐and‐Trade Program covers the GHG
emissions associated with electricity consumed in
California, whether generated in‐state or imported.

Accordingly, GHG emissions associated with CEQA
projects’ electricity usage are indirectly covered by the Cap-and‐Trade Program. The Cap‐and‐Trade Program
also covers fuel suppliers (natural gas and propane fuel providers and transportation fuel providers) to address emissions from such fuels and from combustion of other
fossil fuels not directly covered at large sources in the program’s first compliance period.

Not Applicable. The project site is approximately 15.22 acres in size and will change the land use from
Agricultural to Heavy Industrial. The 15.22-acre project site is located in an industrial area, just off the east side of Highway 41 and south of Highway 99 in Fresno
County and would not be considered a significant
source of carbon sequestration. Once operational, the
project would not be considered working lands.

Source: California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2017. The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update. January 20.

Website: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2030sp_pp_final.pdf. Accessed April 24, 2023. 1 Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). 2018. PG&E Clean Energy Deliveries Already Meet Future Goals.

Website: www.pge.com/en/about/newsroom/newsdetails/index.page?title=20180220_pge_clean_energy_deliveries_alread y_meet_future_goals. Accessed April 24, 2023.

As described in Table 22, the proposed project would be consistent with applicable 2017 Scoping Plan Update measures and would not obstruct the implementation of others that are not applicable. The State’s regulatory program is able to target both new and existing development because the two most important strategies, motor vehicle fuel efficiency and emissions from electricity generation, obtain reductions equally from existing sources and new sources. This is because all vehicle operators use cleaner low carbon fuels and buy vehicles subject to the fuel efficiency regulations and all building owners or operators purchase cleaner energy from the grid that is produced by increasing percentages of renewable fuels. This includes regulations on mobile sources such as the Pavley standards that apply to all vehicles purchased in California, the LCFS (Low Carbon Fuel Standard) that applies to all fuel sold in California, and the Renewable Portfolio Standard and Renewable Energy Standard under SB 100 that apply to utilities providing electricity to all California end users.

Moreover, the Scoping Plan strategy will achieve more than average reductions from energy and mobile source sectors that are the primary sources related to development projects and lower than average reductions from other sources such as agriculture. The proposed project’s operational GHG emissions would principally be generated from electricity consumption and vehicle use (including heavy trucks), which are directly under the purview of the Scoping Plan strategy and have experienced reductions above the State average reduction. Considering the information summarized above, the proposed project would be 41 Central Transport Regional Facility
Crown Enterprises, Inc. Relocation and Annexation Project Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum consistent with the State’s 2017 Scoping Plan Update and would not conflict with the State’s ability to achieve the SB 32 GHG reduction goal.
20 CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan Update “lays the foundation for establishing a broad framework for continued emission reductions beyond 2020, on the path to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050,” and many of the emission reduction strategies recommended by CARB would serve to reduce the proposed project’s post2020 emissions level to the extent applicable by law:
• Energy Sector: Continued improvements in California’s appliance and building energy efficiency programs and initiatives, such as the State’s zero net energy building goals, would serve to reduce the proposed project’s emissions level. Additionally, further additions to California’s renewable resource portfolio would favorably influence the project’s emissions level. • Transportation Sector: Anticipated deployment of improved vehicle efficiency, zero emission technologies, lower carbon fuels, and improvement of existing transportation systems all will serve to reduce the project’s emissions level.
• Water Sector: The project’s emissions level will be reduced as a result of further desired enhancements to water conservation technologies.
• Waste Management Sector: Plans to further improve recycling, reuse and reduction of solid waste will beneficially reduce the project’s emissions level.

For the reasons described above, the project’s post-2020 emissions trajectory is expected to follow a declining trend, consistent with the 2030 and 2050 targets. The trajectory required to achieve the post2020 targets is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: California’s Path to Achieving the 2050 Target Source: CARB 2017 Scoping Plan Update
20 The SB 32 GHG reduction goal is a statewide goal of 40 percent reduction below 1990 levels. 42 500
450 • 2020 Target
A
2030 Target o
250
200
( 150
100 J_________________________ ______
Q2050 Target *
50 0 T T T T 1
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Executive
Order S-3-05
Constant
Progress'1
41 o' 400
2 350 2
2 300
□
U
E
L
O
X
(D
□
E
<
Central Transport Regional Facility
Crown Enterprises, Inc. Relocation and Annexation Project Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum Consistency Regarding GHG Reduction Goals for 2050 under Executive Order S‐3‐05 and GHG Reduction Goals for 2045 under the 2022 Scoping Plan
Regarding goals for 2050 under Executive Order S‐3‐05, at this time it is not possible to quantify the emissions savings from future regulatory measures, as they have not yet been developed; nevertheless, it can be anticipated that operation of the proposed project would comply with whatever measures are enacted that State lawmakers decide would lead to an 80 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2050.

Specifically, the measures will be implemented through regulations as the regulatory initiatives identified by CARB in the 2022 Scoping Plan are implemented; see key actions to support the success of the 2022 Scoping Plan below. In its 2008 Scoping Plan, CARB acknowledged that the “measures needed to meet the 2050 are too far in the future to define in detail.” In the First Scoping Plan Update; however, CARB generally described the type of activities required to achieve the 2050 target: “energy demand reduction through efficiency and activity changes; large scale electrification of on‐road vehicles, buildings, and industrial machinery; decarbonizing electricity and fuel supplies; and rapid market penetration of efficiency and clean energy technologies that requires significant efforts to deploy and scale markets for the cleanest technologies immediately.” The 2017 Scoping Plan provides an intermediate target that is intended to achieve reasonable progress toward the 2050 target. In addition, the 2022 Scoping Plan outlines objectives, regulations, planning efforts, and investments in clean technologies and infrastructure that outlines how the State can achieve carbon-neutrality by 2045.

CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality was approved in December 2022 and expands on prior Scoping Plans and legislations-such as AB 1279-by outlining a technologically feasible, cost-effective, and equity-focused path to achieve the State’s climate target of reducing anthropogenic GHG emissions to 85 percent below 1990 levels and achieving carbon neutrality by 2045 or earlier.21 The 2022 Scoping Plan has a two-prong approach to decarbonization: (1) managing existing energy sources and technology and (2) developing and deploying alternative clean energy sources and technology over time.22 Key actions to support success of the 2022 Scoping Plan include, but are not limited to, reductions in the energy and transportation sectors:
• Energy Sector: Long-term planning to support grid reliability and expansion of renewable and zero-carbon resource and infrastructure deployment; completing systemwide and local reliability assessments; facilitating resource development such as long-duration energy storage and hydrogen production; maximizing opportunities for demand response; enhancing decarbonization, reliability, and affordability in regional markets; addressing resource build-out challenges; and doubling statewide energy efficiency savings in electricity and fossil gas end uses by 2030; achieving 90 percent, 95 percent, and 100 percent renewable and zero-carbon retail sales by 2035, 2040, and 2045, respectively
• Transportation Sector:
o Decarbonizing the transportation sector, including transitioning to 100 percent sales of lightduty zero emission vehicles (ZEVs) by 2035 and medium- and heavy-duty vehicles by 2040; achieving a 20 percent zero emission target for the aviation sector, and developing a rapid and robust network of ZEV refueling infrastructure.
21 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2022. Final 2022 Scoping Plan Update and Appendices. December. Website:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/ab-32-climate-change-scoping-plan/2022-scoping-plan-documents. Accessed April 9, 2024.
22 California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2022. 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan).

Website: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/2022-scoping-plan-documents. Accessed March 5, 2024. 43 Central Transport Regional Facility
Crown Enterprises, Inc. Relocation and Annexation Project Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum o ▪ Ensuring that an adequate supply of zero-carbon alternative fuel which will require building the production and distribution network for zero-carbon fuels; strengthening the Cap-andTrade Program; and increasing the stringency and scope of the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS).
o Achieving a per capita VMT reduction of at least 25 percent below 2019 levels by 2030 and 30 percent below 2019 levels by 2045 by reimagining roadway projects to decrease VMT, investing in public transit, implementing equitable roadway pricing; expanding and completing planned networks of high-quality active transportation infrastructure; deploying autonomous vehicles, ride-hailing services, and other options which have higher occupancy and low VMT; streamlining access to public transportation; and ensuring alignment of land use, housing, transportation; conservation and planning in adopted regional plans and accelerating infill development and housing production in transportation efficient places.

To achieve carbon neutrality by 2045, the 2022 Scoping Plan contains GHG reductions, technology, and clean energy mandated by statutes, reduction of short-lived climate pollutants, and mechanical carbon dioxide capture and sequestration actions. Table 23 contains a list of key GHG emission reduction actions and strategies from the 2022 Scoping Plan and assesses the project’s consistency with these actions and strategies.

Table 23: Project Consistency with 2022 Scoping Plan
2022 Scoping Plan Actions and Strategies
Responsible
Party(ies) Project Consistency
Transportation Technology
• Achieve 100 percent ZEV sales of light duty
vehicles by 2035 and medium heavy-duty vehicles
by 2040.
• Achieve 20 percent zero-emission target for the
aviation sector.
• Develop a rapid and robust network of ZEV
refueling infrastructure to support needed
transition to ZEVs.
• Ensure that the transition of ZEV technology is
affordable for low-income households and
communities of color and meets the needs of
communities and small business.
• Prioritize incentive funding for heavy-duty ZEV
technology deployment in regions of the state with
the highest concentrations of harmful criteria and
toxic air contaminant emissions.
• Promote private investment in the transition to
ZEV technology, undergirded by regulatory
certainty such as infrastructure credits in the Low
Carbon Fuel Standard for hydrogen and electricity
and hydrogen station grants from the CEC’s
Clean Transportation Program pursuant to
Executive Order B-48-18.
• Evaluate and continue to offer incentives similar to
those through FARMER, Carl Moyer, the Clean
Fuel Reward Program, the Community Air
Protection Program, the Low Carbon
Transportation, including CORE. Where feasible,
State
agencies and
local
agencies
No Conflict: Vehicles must transition to zeroemission technology to decarbonize the transportation sector. Executive Order N-79-20
reflects the urgency of transitioning to zero emission
vehicles (ZEVs) by establishing target dates for
reaching 100 percent ZEV sales or fleet transitions to
ZEV technology. EO N-79-20 calls for 100 percent
ZEV sales of new light-duty vehicles by 2035. The
Advanced Clean Cars II regulation fulfills this goal
and serves as the primary mechanism to help deploy
ZEVs. A number of existing incentive programs also
support this transition, including the Clean Cars 4 All Program. EO N-79-20 also sets targets for
transitioning the medium- and heavy-duty fleet to
zero emissions: by 2035 for drayage trucks and by
2045 for buses and heavy-duty long-haul trucks
where feasible. Replacing heavy-duty vehicles with
ZEV technology will substantially reduce GHG
emissions and diesel PM emissions in communities
adjacent to ports, distribution centers, and highways.

EO N-79-20 sets an off-road equipment target of
transitioning the entire fleet to ZEV technology by
2035, where feasible. There are a number of funding
sources available to support this transition, including FARMER, Carl Moyer, and Community Air Protection
Incentives; as well as Low Carbon Transportation
44 Central Transport Regional Facility
Crown Enterprises, Inc. Relocation and Annexation Project Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum 2022 Scoping Plan Actions and Strategies
Responsible
Party(ies) Project Consistency
prioritize and increase funding for clean
transportation equity programs.
• Continue and accelerate funding support for zero
emission vehicles and refueling infrastructure
through 2030 to ensure the rapid transformation of
the transportation sector.

Incentives, including the Clean Off-Road Equipment
program.

Deployment of ZEV refueling infrastructure is
currently supported by a number of existing State
public funding mechanisms.

Intrastate aviation relies on internal combustion
engine technology today, but battery-electric and
hydrogen fuel cell aviation applications are in
development, along with sustainable aviation fuel.

GHG emissions generated by project-related
passenger and truck vehicle travel would benefit from
the above regulations and programs, and mobile
source emissions generated by the proposed project
would be reduced as automobiles and truck fleets are
transitioned to ZEV technology. Additionally, the
project would include EV charging infrastructure in
accordance with regulations which would support the
transition to EV technology. Thus, the project would
not conflict with actions under the transportation
technology sector.

Transportation Fuels
• Accelerate the reduction and replacement of fossil
fuel production and consumption in California.
• Incentivize private investment in new zero-carbon
fuel production in California.
• Incentivize the transition of existing fuel
production and distribution assets to support
deployment of low- and zero-carbon fuels while
protecting public health and the environment.
• Invest in the infrastructure to support reliable
refueling for transportation such as electricity and
hydrogen refueling.
• Evaluate and propose, as needed, changes to
strengthen the Cap-and-Trade Program.
• Initiate a public process focused on options to
increase the stringency and scope of the LCFS:
- Evaluate and propose accelerated carbon
intensity targets pre-2030 for LCFS.
- Evaluate and propose further declines in
LCFS post-2030 carbon intensity targets to
align with this 2022 Scoping Plan.
- Consider integrating opt-in sectors into the
program.
- Provide capacity credits for hydrogen and
electricity for heavy-duty fueling.

State
agencies
and local
agencies
No Conflict: Mobile source emissions generated by
the project would be reduced with implementation of
the wider use of zero-carbon fuels consistent with
reduction of GHG emissions under AB 1279.

Additionally, (as applicable) the project would utilize energy efficiency appliances and equipment and will
meet the applicable energy standards in the Title 24
Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen
Code, which will limit the amount of fossil fuel use
and GHG emissions. The project would comply with
local building codes and incorporating paved areas
and landscaping. Considering the relevant actions
and strategies require action by the state and local
agencies, project consistency is determined by
assessing whether the project would conflict with the
actions needed in the transportation fuels sector. As
supported by the information provided above, the
project would not conflict with actions in the
transportation fuels sector.
45 Central Transport Regional Facility
Crown Enterprises, Inc. Relocation and Annexation Project Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum 2022 Scoping Plan Actions and Strategies
Responsible
Party(ies) Project Consistency
• Monitor for and ensure that raw materials used to
produce low-carbon fuels or technologies do not
result in unintended consequences.

Vehicles Miles Traveled
• Achieve a per capita VMT reduction of at least 25
percent below 2019 levels by 2030 and 30
percent below 2019 levels by 2045.
• Reimagine new roadway projects that decrease
VMT in a way that meets community needs and
reduces the need to drive.
• Invest in making public transit a viable alternative
to driving by increasing affordability, reliability,
coverage, service frequency, and consumer
experience.
• Implement equitable roadway pricing strategies
based on local context and need, reallocating
revenues to improve transit, bicycling, and other
sustainable transportation choices.
• Expand and complete planned networks of highquality active transportation infrastructure. • Channel the deployment of autonomous vehicles,
ride-hailing services, and other new mobility
options toward high passenger-occupancy and
low VMT-impact service models that complement
transit and ensure equitable access or priority
populations.
• Streamline access to public transportation through
programs such as the California Integrated Travel
Project.
• Ensure alignment of land use, housing,
transportation, and conservation planning in
adopted regional plans and local plans (e.g.,
general plans, zoning, and local transportation
plans), and develop tools to support
implementation of these plans.
• Accelerate infill development and housing
production at all affordability levels in
transportation-efficient places, with a focus on
housing for lower income residents.

State
agencies and
local
agencies
No Conflict: VMT reductions will play a crucial role in reducing overall transportation energy demand and
achieving California’s climate, air quality, and equity goals. CARB did not set regulatory limits on VMT in
the 2022 Scoping Plan because the authority to
reduce VMT largely lies with state, regional, and local transportation, land use, and housing agencies, along
with the Legislature and its budgeting choices.

The project-specific traffic report includes a VMT
analysis for the project.23 As noted in the traffic
report, the City of Fresno VMT guidelines specify that
VMT analysis only includes passenger vehicles. The
project would generate approximately 180 passenger
vehicle trips per day, which is fewer than the 500-
average-daily-trip level that would trigger the need for a more detailed VMT analysis based on City of
Fresno VMT guidelines. As such, the project would
not result in a significant VMT impact and the project
would not conflict with actions in the vehicle miles
traveled sector.

State
agencies and
local
agencies
No Conflict: Decarbonizing the electricity sector
depends on both using energy more efficiently and
replacing fossil-fueled generation with renewable and
zero carbon resources, including solar, wind, energy
storage, geothermal, biomass, and hydroelectric
power. The RPS Program and the Cap-and-Trade
Program continue to incentivize dispatch of
renewables over fossil generation to serve state
demand.

SB 100 increased RPS stringency to require 60
percent renewables by 2030 and for California to
provide 100 percent of its retail sales of electricity
23 Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers. 2023. Crown Central Transport Regional Facility Traffic Study – Fresno, CA. August. 46 Central Transport Regional Facility
Crown Enterprises, Inc. Relocation and Annexation Project Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum 2022 Scoping Plan Actions and Strategies
Responsible
Party(ies) Project Consistency
• Prioritize actions to mitigate impacts to electricity reliability and affordability and provide sufficient
flexibility in the state’s decarbonization roadmap
for adjustments as may be needed.
• Facilitate long lead-time resource development.
• Continue coordination between energy agencies
and energy proceedings to maximize
opportunities for demand response.
• Continue to explore the benefits of regional
markets to enhance decarbonization, reliability,
and affordability.
• Address resource build-out challenges, including
permitting, interconnection, and transmission
network upgrades.
• Explore new financing mechanisms and rate
designs to address affordability.
• Per SB 100 and SB 1020, achieve 90 percent, 95
percent, and 100 percent renewable and zerocarbon retail sales by 2035, 2040, and 2045, respectively.
• Evaluate and propose, as needed, changes to
strengthen the Cap-and-Trade Program.
• Target programs and incentives to support and
improve access to renewable and zero-carbon
energy projects (e.g., rooftop solar, community
owned or controlled solar or wind, battery storage,
and microgrids) for communities most at need,
including frontline, low-income, rural, and
indigenous communities.
• Prioritize public investments in zero-carbon
energy projects to first benefit the most overly
burdened communities affected by pollution,
climate impacts, and poverty.
from renewable and zero-carbon resources by 2045.

Furthermore, SB 1020 has added interim targets to
SB 100’s policy framework to require renewable and
zero-carbon resources to supply 90 percent of all
retail electricity sales by 2035 and 95 percent of all
electricity retail sales by 2040; establish a planning
goal of at least 20 GW of offshore wind by 2045; and
that state agencies plan for an energy transition that
avoids the need for new fossil gas capacity to meet
California’s long-term energy goals.

Increased transportation and building electrification
and continued policy commitment to behind-themeter solar and storage will continue to drive growth of microgrids and other distributed energy resources.

Continued transition to renewable and zero-carbon
electricity resources will enable electricity to become a zero-carbon substitute for fossil fuels. This
transformation will drive investments in a large fleet of generation and storage resources but will also require
significant transmission to accommodate these new
capacity additions. Resources such as storage and
demand-side management are essential to maintain
reliability with high concentrations of renewables.

Hydrogen produced from renewable resources and
renewable feedstocks can serve a dual role as a lowcarbon fuel for existing combustion turbines or fuel cells, and as energy storage for later use.

As applicable, the proposed project would utilize
energy efficiency appliances (such as in the office
space) and equipment and will meet the applicable
energy standards in the Title 24 Building Energy
Efficiency Standards and CALGreen Code. As such,
the project would not conflict with actions under the
clean electricity grid sector.

State
agencies and
local
agencies
No Conflict: The 2022 Scoping Plan reduces
dependence on fossil gas in the industrial and
building sectors by transitioning substantial energy
demand to alternative fuels. Combustion of fossil gas,
other gaseous fossil fuels, and solid fossil fuels
provide energy to meet three broad industry needs:
electricity, steam, and process heat. Non-combustion
emissions result from fugitive emissions and from the
chemical transformations inherent to some
manufacturing processes. Decarbonizing industrial
facilities depends upon displacing fossil fuel use with 47 Central Transport Regional Facility
Crown Enterprises, Inc. Relocation and Annexation Project Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum 2022 Scoping Plan Actions and Strategies
Responsible
Party(ies) Project Consistency
• End fossil gas infrastructure expansion for newly
constructed buildings.
• Develop a net-zero cement strategy to meet SB
956 targets for the GHG intensity of cement use.
• Leverage energy efficiency and low carbon
hydrogen programs.
• Prioritize most vulnerable residents with the
majority of funds in the new $922 million Equitable
Building Decarbonization program.
• Achieve three million all-electric and electric-ready homes by 2030 and seven million by 2035 with six
million heat pumps installed by 2030.
• Adopt a zero-emission standard for new space
and water heaters sold in California beginning in
2030.
• Implement biomethane procurement targets for
investor-owned utilities as specified in SB 1440.
a mix of electrification, solar thermal heat,
biomethane, low- or zero-carbon hydrogen, and other
low-carbon fuels to provide energy for heat and
reduce combustion emissions. Emissions also can be
reduced by implementing energy efficiency measures
and using substitute raw materials that can reduce
energy demand and some process emissions. Some
remaining combustion emissions and some noncombustion CO2 emissions can be captured and sequestered. This sector has a continuing demand
for fossil gas due to lack of non-combustion
technologically feasible or cost-effective alternatives for certain industrial sectors. Microgrids powered by
renewable resources and with battery storage are
emerging as a key enabler of electrification and
decarbonization at industrial facilities.

The proposed project will serve as the long-term
regional facility for Central Transport for the purpose of providing less-than-truckload freight services for
local and nationally based businesses. No
manufacturing activities are proposed at the project
site. The project will utilize energy efficient
appliances for the office space and as applicable
within the project. The project would also meet the
applicable energy standards in the Title 24 Building
Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen Code.

During operations, the project would have a lessthan-significant VMT impact. As such, the project would not conflict with sustainable manufacturing
buildings industry sector.

Carbon Dioxide Removal and Capture Sector
• Implement SB 905.
• Achieve the 85 percent reduction in anthropogenic
sources below 1990 levels per AB 1279 by
incorporating Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
into sectors and programs beyond transportation.
• Evaluate and propose the role for CCS in cement
decarbonization and as part of hydrogen peroxide
pathways.
• Explore carbon capture application for zerocarbon power for reliability needs per SB 100.

State
agencies
and local
agencies
No Conflict: CARB has acknowledged that the
deployment of carbon dioxide removal to
counterbalance hard-to-abate residual emissions is
needed to achieve net zero GHG emissions.

Modeling shows that emissions from the AB 32 GHG
Inventory sources will continue to persist even if all
fossil related combustion emissions are phased out.

Carbon dioxide removal includes both sequestration
in natural and working lands and mechanical
approaches such as: direct air capture, CCS (which is
carbon capture from anthropogenic point sources
involves capturing carbon from a smokestack of an
emitting facility), or direct air capture (which captures carbon directly from the atmosphere).

The project would not conflict with measures to
increase carbon dioxide removal and capture. As
such, the project would not conflict with action under
the carbon dioxide removal and capture sector.
48 Central Transport Regional Facility
Crown Enterprises, Inc. Relocation and Annexation Project Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum 2022 Scoping Plan Actions and Strategies
Responsible
Party(ies) Project Consistency
Short-Lived Climate Pollutants (Non- Combustion
Gases)
• Install anaerobic digesters to maximize air and
water quality protection, maximize biomethane
capture, and direct biomethane to specific sectors.
• Increase alternative manure management
projects.
• Expand markets for products made from organic
waste.
• Pursuant to SB 1137, develop leak detection and
repair plans for facilities in health protection
zones, implement emission detection system
standards, and provide public access to emissions
data.
• Convert large HFC emitters to the lowest practical
global warming potential (GWP) technologies.

State
agencies
and local
agencies
No Conflict: SLCPs include black carbon, methane,
and fluorinated gases. Dairy and livestock are the
largest source of methane emissions followed by
landfills. Black Carbon (soot) comes primarily from
transportation, specifically heavy-duty vehicles
followed by fuel combustion for residential,
commercial, and industrial uses.

The project would not conflict with SLCP dairy and
livestock methane sector actions in the 2022 Scoping
Plan. The project is a less-than-truckload freight
services development and does not include dairy or
livestock. Furthermore, the project does not include a
new landfill or any oil or gas production, processing,
or storage facilities. The project would comply with
the 2022 CalGreen Code for energy efficiency and
use of high-GWP refrigerants and would not conflict
with these policies or actions. The project is a lessthan-truckload freight services development that would not include fireplaces and would not result in a
significant VMT impact; lower VMT results in a
reduction of fuel combustion. Considering the
information presented above, the project would not
conflict with SLCP sector actions in the 2022 Scoping
Plan.

State
agencies
and local
agencies
No Conflict: AB 1757 requires state agencies to set
targets for natural carbon removal and emissions
reductions on natural and working lands. AB 1757 is
expected to catalyze natural carbon sequestration in
California by: requiring California Natural Resources
Agency and CARB to establish targets for
sequestration on natural and working lands for 2030,
2038, and 2045; ensuring that natural sequestration
projects have rigorous measurement and verification;
and establishing an expert committee to advise state
agencies on modeling and implementation.

SB 27 is designed to accelerate the removal of
carbon from the atmosphere by expanding
California’s carbon removal capability (i.e.
sequestration) and improve the carbon retention of
the state’s natural and working lands.

The project is a less-than-truckload freight services
development and would not include natural working
lands. As such, the project would not conflict with
natural and working strategies under the 2022
Scoping Plan.

Source: California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2022. 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. November 16. Website:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-12/2022-sp_1.pdf. Accessed November 11, 2024. 49 Central Transport Regional Facility
Crown Enterprises, Inc. Relocation and Annexation Project Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum As show above in Table 23, the project would not conflict with relevant 2022 Scoping Plan actions or strategies that aim to achieve the State’s climate target of reducing anthropogenic emissions to 85 percent below 1990 levels and achieving carbon neutrality by 2045.

Impact Analysis Summary
As described above, the proposed project would be consistent with State GHG Plans and would not obstruct the State’s ability to meet its goals of reducing GHG emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, carbon neutral by 2045, and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Therefore, the project’s generation of GHG emissions would not result in a significant impact on the environment. b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less Than Significant Impact.

The following analysis assesses the project’s compliance with Consideration #324 regarding consistency with adopted plans to reduce GHG emissions. The project is in unincorporated Fresno County; however, a Pre-Zone/Rezone Application and Annexation Application are being submitted concurrently to the City of Fresno with the Development Application. The City of Fresno does not have a GHG reduction plan that can be relied upon for making significance determinations. The County of Fresno has not adopted a GHG reduction plan. In addition, the County has not completed the GHG inventory, benchmarking, or goal‐ setting process required to identify a reduction target and take advantage of the streamlining provisions contained in the CEQA Guidelines amendments adopted for SB 97 and clarifications provided in the CEQA Guidelines. The SJVAPCD has adopted a Climate Action Plan, but it does not contain measures that are applicable to the project. Therefore, the SJVAPCD Climate Action Plan cannot be applied to the project. Since no other local or regional Climate Action Plan is in place, the project is assessed for its consistency with CARB’s adopted Scoping Plans. This assessment is included under Impact GHG-A above. As demonstrated in the analysis contained under Impact GHG-A, the project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases. This impact would be less than significant. 24 Consideration #3 is the extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions. 50 Central Transport Regional Facility
Crown Enterprises, Inc. Relocation and Annexation Project Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum Energy
Environmental Setting
Pacific Gas and Electric Company provides electricity and natural gas service to the County of Fresno and to the City of Fresno. Upon buildout of the project site, electricity to the project site would be provided by PG&E. All electricity infrastructure would be located underground and would tie-in to existing infrastructure.

Based on PG&E’s 2019 power content label, approximately 28.5 percent of PG&E’s electricity for its base plan came from eligible renewable resources including solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, and small hydroelectric sources. Additionally, a larger percent of PG&E's total electric power mix was from GHGfree sources including nuclear, large hydroelectric, and eligible renewable sources of energy.25 In 2020, approximately 85 percent of the electricity PG&E supplied was GHG free. PG&E reports that more than 35 percent of delivered electricity came from RPS-eligible sources in 2020, while PGE’s 2020 power content label reports 30.6 percent of PG&E’s retail sales were from eligible renewable sources.26 Methodology
The energy requirements for the proposed project were determined using the construction and operational estimates generated from the Air Quality Analysis (refer to Attachment A for related CalEEMod output files). The calculation worksheets for diesel fuel consumption rates for off-road construction equipment and on-road vehicles are provided in Attachment C. Short-term construction energy consumption is discussed below.

Short-Term Construction
Off-Road Equipment
Table 24 provides estimates of the project’s construction fuel consumption from off-road construction equipment for the entire project, categorized by construction activity.

Table 24: Construction Off-Road Fuel Consumption
Project Component Construction Activity Fuel Consumption (gallons) Home Avenue Warehouse
Project (On-site, Off-road
Equipment Use)
Site Preparation 2,728
Grading 4,489
Building Construction 7,194
Paving 843
Architectural Coating 59
Total 15,313
Note: Totals may not appear to sum correctly due to rounding Source: Energy Consumption Calculations (Attachment C).

As shown in Table 24, use of off-road equipment associated with construction of the proposed project is estimated to consume approximately 15,313 gallons of diesel fuel over the entire construction duration.

There are no unusual project characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy efficient than at comparable construction sites in the Fresno County region or other parts of California. Therefore, it is expected that construction fuel consumption associated with the 25 Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). 2020. 2019 Power Content Label. Website:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/filebrowser/download/3245. Accessed May 20, 2023. 26 Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). 2021. Corporate Sustainability Report 2021. Website:
https://www.pgecorp.com/corp_responsibility/reports/2021/pf04_renewable_energy.html. Accessed May 20, 2023. 51 Central Transport Regional Facility
Crown Enterprises, Inc. Relocation and Annexation Project Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum proposed project would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than at other construction sites in the region.

On-Road Vehicles
On-road vehicles for construction workers, vendors, and haulers would require fuel for travel to and from the site during construction. Table 25 provides an estimate of the total on-road vehicle fuel usage during construction. There are no unusual project characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy efficient than at comparable construction sites in other parts of the state. Therefore, it is expected that construction fuel consumption associated with the proposed project would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than at other construction sites in the region.

Table 25: Construction On-Road Fuel Consumption
Project Component Total Annual Fuel Consumption (gallons) Site Preparation 220
Grading 343
Building Construction 5,283
Paving 206
Architectural Coating 59
Total 6,111
Note: Totals may not appear to sum correctly due to rounding Source: Energy Consumption Calculations (Attachment C).

Other Energy Consumption Anticipated During Project Construction Other equipment could include construction lighting, field services (office trailers), and electrically driven equipment such as pumps and other tools. The project site is located in Fresno County, within the City of Fresno’s sphere of influence. Section 10-109 of the Fresno Municipal Code defines permissible hours of construction as between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday.27 As construction activities would occur during daylight hours; it is anticipated that the use of construction lighting would be minimal. Singlewide mobile office trailers, which are commonly used in construction staging areas, generally range in size from 160 square feet to 720 square feet. A typical 720-square-foot office trailer would consume approximately 16,881 kWh during the approximate 1.1-year construction phase (Attachment C).

Long-Term Operations
Transportation Energy Demand
Table 26 provides an estimate of the daily and annual fuel consumed by vehicles traveling to and from the proposed project. These estimates were derived using the same assumptions used in the operational air quality analysis for the proposed project.
27 City of Fresno. 2020. Fresno Municipal Code, Section 10-105. Website:
https://library.municode.com/ca/fresno/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=MUCOFR_CH10REREPUNUREPRCOUS_ART1 NORE_S10-109EX. Accessed May 1, 2023.
52 Central Transport Regional Facility
Crown Enterprises, Inc. Relocation and Annexation Project Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum Table 26: Long-Term Operational Vehicle Fuel Consumption Vehicle Type Daily VMT Annual VMT
Average Fuel
Economy
(miles/
gallon)
Total Daily
Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Total Annual
Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Passenger Vehicles 2,081 759,468 22.301 93.3 34,061
Heavy-Heavy Trucks
(HHDT) 6,300 2,299,500 6.01 1,048.4 382,655
Total 8,381 3,058,968 — 1,142 416,716
Notes:
1 This value represents the average fuel economy for light-duty autos. The calculations were completed with the average fuel consumption values for the various vehicle types included in the passenger vehicle fleet (see Attachment C).

Percent of Vehicle Trips and VMT provided by CalEEMod.

VMT = vehicle miles traveled
Source: Energy Consumption Calculations (Attachment C).

Annual consumption is estimated at 416,716 gallons (with 34,061 gallons from passenger vehicles and 382,655 from heavy-duty trucks).

Building Energy Demand
As shown in Table 27 and Table 28, the proposed project is estimated to demand 1,544,583 kilowatthours (KWhr) of electricity and 1,127,316 1,000-British Thermal Units (KBTU) of natural gas, respectively, on an annual basis.

Table 27: Long-Term Electricity Usage
Land Use
Total Electricity Demand
(KWhr/year)
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 741,047
General Office Building 157,091
Automobile Care Center 142,370
Parking Lot 504,075
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0
Total 1,544,583
Source: Energy Consumption Calculations (Attachment C). 53 Central Transport Regional Facility
Crown Enterprises, Inc. Relocation and Annexation Project Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum Table 28: Long-Term Natural Gas Usage
Land Use
Total Natural Gas Demand
(KBTU/year)
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 368,056
General Office Building 267,592
Automobile Care Center 491,668
Parking Lot 0
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0
Total 1,127,316
Source: Energy Consumption Calculations (Attachment C).

Addressing Energy CEQA Impact Questions
This section discusses potential energy impacts associated with the proposed project and provides mitigation measures where necessary.

Table 29: Summary of Energy Impact Analysis
Energy
Would the project: Significance
Finding
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less than
Significant Impact
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Less than Significant Impact
Energy Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less Than Significant Impact.

This impact addresses the energy consumption from both the short-term construction and long-term operations are discussed separately below.

Construction Energy Demand
As summarized in Table 24 and Table 25, the proposed project would require 15,313 gallons of diesel fuel for construction off-road equipment and 6,111 gallons of gasoline and diesel for on-road vehicles during construction. There are no unusual project characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy efficient than at comparable construction sites in the region or other parts of the state. In addition, the overall construction schedule and process is already designed to be efficient in order to avoid excess monetary costs. For example, equipment and fuel are not typically used wastefully due to the added expense associated with renting the equipment, maintaining it, 54 Central Transport Regional Facility
Crown Enterprises, Inc. Relocation and Annexation Project Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum and fueling it. Therefore, it is expected that construction fuel consumption associated with the proposed project would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than at other construction sites in the region, and as such, impacts would be less than significant.

Long-Term Energy Demand
Building Energy Demand
Buildings and infrastructure constructed pursuant to the proposed project would comply with the versions of CCR Titles 20 and 24, including California Green Building Standards (CALGreen), that are applicable at the time that building permits are issued. The proposed project is estimated to demand 1,544,582 KWhr of electricity per year and 1,127,316 KBTU of natural gas per year. As the project site is currently undeveloped, this would represent an increase in demand for electricity and natural gas.

It would be expected that building energy consumption associated with the proposed project would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than for any other similar buildings in the region. Current state regulatory requirements for new building construction contained in the 2022 CALGreen and Title 24 standards would increase energy efficiency and reduce energy demand in comparison to existing commercial structures, and therefore would reduce actual environmental effects associated with energy use from the proposed project. Additionally, the CALGreen and Title 24 standards have increased efficiency standards through each update.

Therefore, while the proposed project would result in increased electricity and natural gas demand, the electricity and natural gas would be consumed more efficiently and would be typical of existing industrial development.

Based on the above information, the proposed project would not result in the inefficient or wasteful consumption of electricity or natural gas, and impacts would be less than significant.

Transportation Energy Demands
The daily vehicular fuel consumption is estimated to be 1,142 gallons of both gasoline and diesel fuel (93.3 gallons from passenger vehicles and 1,048.4 gallons from heavy-duty trucks). Annual consumption is estimated at 416,716 gallons (34,061 gallons from passenger vehicles and 382,655 gallons from heavy-duty trucks). In addition, the proposed project would constitute development within an established community and would not be opening a new geographical area for development. As such, the proposed project would not result in unusually long trip lengths for future employees, vendors, or visitors. in an Industrial area of south Fresno just off the east side of Highway 41 and south of Highway 99 in Fresno County. Specifically, the Project site is on the west side of S. Cherry Avenue and south of East North Avenue. The proposed project would be well-positioned to accommodate an existing community. Vehicles accessing the site would be typical of vehicles accessing similar warehouse-type uses in the Fresno region and surrounding areas. For these reasons, it would be expected that vehicular fuel consumption associated with the proposed project would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary compared to other similar land use activities in the region, and impacts would be less than significant. b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Less Than Significant Impact.

The approximately 15.22-acre project site is located in Fresno County. The project site is located within the City of Fresno’s sphere of influence and its planned land use designation is Employment – Heavy Industrial. A Pre-Zone/Rezone Application and Annexation Application are being submitted concurrently 55 Central Transport Regional Facility
Crown Enterprises, Inc. Relocation and Annexation Project Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum with the Development Application. The Fresno General Plan contains the following implementing policies related to energy conservation that are relevant to the proposed project.28 RC-5-b Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan. As is consistent with State law, prepare and adopt a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan as part of the Master Environmental Impact Report to be concurrently approved with the Fresno General Plan in order to achieve compliance with State mandates, assist development by streamlining the approval process, and focus on feasible actions the City can take to minimize the adverse impacts of growth and development on global climate change. The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan shall include, but not be limited to:
• A baseline inventory of all known or reasonably discoverable sources of GHGs that currently exist in the city and sources that existed in 1990. • A projected inventory of the GHGs that can reasonably be expected to be emitted from those sources in the year 2035 with implementation of this General Plan and foreseeable communitywide and municipal operations.
• A target for the reduction of emissions from those identified sources. • A list of feasible GHG reduction measures to meet the reduction target, including energy conservation and “green building” requirements in municipal buildings and private development.
• Periodically update municipal and community-wide GHG emissions inventories to determine the efficacy of adopted measures and to guide future policy formulation needed to achieve and maintain GHG emissions reduction targets.

RC-5-c GHG Reduction through Design and Operations. Increase efforts to incorporate requirements for GHG emission reductions in land use entitlement decisions, facility design, and operational measures subject to City regulation through the following measures and strategies:
• Promote the expansion of incentive-based programs that involve certification of projects for energy and water efficiency and resiliency. These certification programs and scoring systems may include public agency “Green” and conservation criteria, Energy Star™ certification, CALGreen Tier 1 or Tier 2, Leadership in Energy Efficient Design (LEED™) certification, etc.
• Promote appropriate energy and water conservation standards and facilitate mixeduse projects, new incentives for infill development, and the incorporation of mass transit, bicycle and pedestrian amenities into public and private projects. • Require energy and water audits and upgrades for water conservation, energy efficiency, and mass transit, pedestrian, and bicycle amenities at the time of renovation, change in use, change in occupancy, and change in ownership for major projects meeting review thresholds specified in an implementing ordinance. • Incorporate the City’s “Guidelines for Ponding Basin/Pond Construction and Management to Control Mosquito Breeding” as conditions of approval for any project using an on-site stormwater basin to prevent possible increases in vector-borne illnesses associated with global climate change.
28 City of Fresno. 2014. City of Fresno General Plan. December. Website: https://www.fresno.gov/darm/general-plandevelopment-code/. Accessed May 1, 2023. 56 Central Transport Regional Facility
Crown Enterprises, Inc. Relocation and Annexation Project Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum • Periodically evaluate the City’s facility maintenance practices to determine whether there are additional opportunities to reduce GHGs through facility cleaning and painting, parks maintenance, road maintenance, and utility system maintenance. • Periodically evaluate standards and mitigation strategies for highly vehicle-dependent land uses and facilities, such as drive-through facilities and auto-oriented development.

RC-8-a Existing Standards and Programs. Continue existing beneficial energy conservation programs, including adhering to the California Energy Code in new construction and major renovations.

RC-8-c Energy Conservation in New Development. Consider providing an incentive program for new buildings that exceed California Energy Code requirements by fifteen percent.

While several of these policies are voluntary or cannot be implemented by an individual development project, compliance with Title 24 standards would ensure that the proposed project would not conflict with any of the General Plan energy conservation policies related to the proposed project’s building envelope, mechanical systems, and indoor and outdoor lighting. In addition, the proposed project would constitute development within an established community and would not be opening a new geographical area for development such that it would not result in unusually long trip lengths for future employees or vendors.

The property is located just off the east side of Highway 41 and south of Highway 99 in Fresno County and is located near simar industrial uses. The development proposed by Crown Enterprises, Inc. will serve as the long-term regional facility for Central Transport for the purpose of providing less-thantruckload freight services for local and nationally based businesses.

For the above reasons, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and impacts would be less than significant. 57 Central Transport Regional Facility
Crown Enterprises, Inc. Relocation and Annexation Project Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum Attachments
Attachment A – Modeling Assumptions and CalEEMod Output Files Attachment B – Health Risk Assessment
Attachment C – Energy Consumption Calculations
58 Central Transport Regional Facility
Crown Enterprises, Inc. Relocation and Annexation Project Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum

ATTACHMENT A
Modeling Assumptions and CalEEMod Output Files
59 Modeling Assumptions and CalEEMod Output Files
Table of Contents
Modeling Assumptions/Additional Supporting Information
• Site Plan Overlay Map
• Project Site Vicinity Map
• Project Site Plan
• Central Transport Regional Facility Project Construction Assumptions CalEEMod Output Files
• Unmitigated Construction & Project Buildout Operations (Passenger Vehicles, Building, and Area Sources) in the Earliest Operational Year (2024) o Annual
• Project Truck Operations in the Earliest Operational Year (2024) o Annual
• Maximum Daily On-site and Localized Construction and Operational Emissions o Summer
o Winter
• Mitigated Construction
o Tier 4 Equipment Scenario
o Level 3 Equipment Scenario
60 61
WXHMIILI EE"HMMTE .9
Central Transport Regional Facility Site Plan Overlay E. h- ‘S r f *■ ' s! 2
1 I
====== - " 1
* A 4
6 8 1
Mb
F J.

I
11 4
- 1 ■
wV 1 f
I
I
H
II | I
da 41
Wi II I 1
0ACC «
i
whe 4 f
l ! s 1- _ Bits I i __ —
i
r
I
I I
r
=
|
— 8
ulllilil ___________
I I
- J 1 — —
- teg? onnC
tut 4
" - .
*t I
■ 4 II
r
J
y de / G
Google Earth
T
1 00)
j
1 ith
4 • <I
61 I
' re te _
j
"i1
gu- TI1r I 1 ' । i l
a
AI
=
14 •55
fr
i Legend
Project Site
= U
' h
I I
ie
“—
...
— J Fs 1— wae
’ " -
e
I
■
e ailt hdeht eiel
+H|i
■
Cp
-e
l
ij
i. I
Irae (5
I
i
1 !
i
i
*
i, r as
7-
41 62
NI Central Transport Regional Facility Project Site
Dw
Uassadon. “hi *
|
3 r
=
- h i
i
- (D)
=
■
he wM. •I
. icl d
IN
7 NA.V A 1
■
19, I “1
WE
• S21e * -i SNY!
thL- ‘ iey -
I fir man awo nd I*
MePren *
if nEs. f
22) 41
Y I I :
(
J **endin mm • 2
p 5 ll igesvs c J
... i
l
I
JIEIE . I
f|
C
“ *1 3 r
3®
5 mi p|
deijls 3
Google Earth d
— i
g
3000 ft
1 3 I
on ‘ss
b
• *
da
-i^.l •
■
• w " PaE
die
-
Legend
I Project Site k
N
In I |i I
I
Hi
===== j
' J —
I, =—
359
aliG-
63 CROWN ENTERPRISES LOGISTICS FACILITY
CROWN ENTERPRISES, INC. RELOCATION AND
: o

ANNEXATION PROJECT
i
E. JENSEN AVE.
0 Q
99 E. ANNADALEAVE.

EAST NORTH AVE. O. PROJECT LOCATION
ui "2, %
uj 3 <
ui 8
0 SITE INFORMATION s 2 0 s 3
U
0) uj o s % oj
g
I
Ui - 0
CENTRAL AVE. s %
8 VICINITY MAP

NOT TO SCALE
Q
OQ %J7
s<
GENERAL NOTES: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Ir
LOT 35 Of CENTRAL CAUFORNIA COLOMY, ACCORDINS TO THE MAP THEREOF RECORDED N BOOK 2 PAGE I OF PLATS, FRESNO COUNTY RECORDS; EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE NORTH iso PEET or ne EAST 200 PEET THEREOF;

REVISIONS
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION THEREOF DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

THE CITY AS TO ANY FURTHER SITE IESTIGATON ।
THE MUSEUM Of PALEONTOLOGY, U.C. BERKELEY ; OBTAW A REFERRAL UST, Of RECOGNIZED PALEONTOLOGISTS. AN ASSESSMENT SHALL BE CONDUCTED BY A EONTOLOGIST DETERMINES THE MATERIAL TO BE . PRESERVED.

THE AREA OF CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE nessRVEO ' LICENSED TO PRACTICE LAND SURVEYING W THE STATE OF CALFORNIA ACCEPTED .

DRAWNBY:

CHECKED BY:
10/25/2022 J
1 ALL EXISTINC OVERHEAD UIILTES WITHIN IHE LIMITS OF IHS APPLICATION AS PER FRESNO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 15-2017 AND PUBLIC WORKS POLCY NO. 260.01.

APN: 329-100-52

SIGWNS ARE REQUIRED AT EACH DRIEWAY ENTRANCE
SHEETNUMBER:
1 L
6 J
8 ?
2 8
I
s
§
01 1
CALIFORMA ARCHAEOLOGICAL IWENTORY/SOUTHER SAN JOAQUIN VAIIEY IFORMATION CENTER (PHONE:

N ARCHEOLOGCAL ASSESSMENT SHALL BE CONDUCTEO FOR THE PROVECI, THE SITE SHALL BE FORMALLY RECORDED,

REAL PROPERTY IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF THE COUNTY OF FRESNO, STATE OF CALIFORNL, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

ALSO EXCEPTINC THEREFROM THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS FULLY DESCRIBED I GRANT DEED RECORDED MARCH 18, 1996 AS ISTRUMENT NO. 96-34963, OF OFFICML RECORDS.

COMMENCNG FOR REFERENCE AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 14 SOUTH, RANGE 20 EAST, MOUNT DBLO BASE AND MERIDMAN, SAD NORTHWEST CORNER BEINC AT COORDINATES Y=495 684.30 FEET AND X = 1768 436.10 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION, SOUTH 8941‘49"EAST 1324.35 FEET TO THE WEST UNE OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST OUARTER OF SAD SECTION; THENCE ALONG SAD WEST LINE, SOUTH 0 31‘ 20” WEST 1318.35 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT, LAST SAID NORTHWEST CORNER BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGWMING, THENCE ALOWG THE NORI UNE OF SAID LOT, SOUTH 89 42‘ 55" EAST 240.10 FEET; THEME SOUTH S 21' 5? WEST, A DISTANCE OF 541.92 FEET: THENCE ALONG A LINE PARALLEL WTHAND 97 FEET EASTERLY, MEASURED AT RIGHT AMLES FROU THE CEMTERUNE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLC WORKS SURVEY FROM THE KWGS COUNTY UNE TO "P" STREET W FRESNO, ROAD W-FRE-125-8 (NOW 06-FRE-41), SOUTH 0 29‘ 30° WEST 119.35 FEET TO THE SOUTH LNEOFSAID LOT; THENCE ALONG SAAD SOUTH LIE NORIH 89 43‘ 28" WEST, 194.40 FEET T0 THE WEST UNE OF SAID LOT; THENCE ALONG LAST SAD WEST LNE MORIH 0 31‘ 20" EAST 659.18 FEET T0 THE IRUE POIT OF BEGMNING. 0 Z
W
s DEPARTMENT, TRAFFIC ENCINEERINC AT (559)—621-8800, 10 WORKINC DAYS PRIOR TO ANY OFFSITE CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION. > ALL WEATHER FRE ACCESS SHALL BE W SERVICE PRIOR TO THE DELERY OF COMBUSTIBLE MATERIAL T0 THE JOBSITE.

ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF FRESNO, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AS FULLY DESCRIBED w GRANT DEED RECORDED APRI 18, 2007 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 07-77589, Of OFfICMAL RECORDS.
41 8

ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS
329-100-52 (£15.2 ACRES)

SITE LOCATION

EAST NORIH AVENUE & SOUTH CHERRY AVENUE
FRESNO, CA 93706
EXISTING ZONNG: AL-20 LIMITED AGRICULTURAL (COUNTY)
PROPOSED ZONNC: # HEAVY IDUSTRIL (CITY)
OWNER
CROWN ENTERPRISE, LLC.
12225 STEPHENS ROAD
WARREN, M 48089

PARKNG STALLS
TOTAL PROPOSED PARKNG SIALLS: 263
TRACTOR PARKINC STALLS: 29
TRAMER PARKING STALLS: 150 (INCLUDES 13 FUTURE STALLS)
AUTO PARKING STALLS: 84
BULONQ NFOFtMARON
PROPOSED NO. OF UMTS: 2
TOTAL SQFT. OF UMTS: 80,450 SQ.FT.= 1.85 AC
PAVNG
TOTAL PROPOSED PAVED AREA: 506,201 SQ. FT. = 11.62 AC

LANDSCAPNG
TOTAL PROPOSED LANDSCAPE AREA: 42,408 SO.F.= 0.97 AC
vuz 2so bzosiaws scczusemmees xuudewr waopeknas rok’zowetenez wuenzawo eenoEwr oncULanow. 4 Jowr accass covewwr sau & RzoURD 3 £/
8 8o
JOB NUMBER:
20-270
g
a
8 22. PROMDE A 4‘ MINMUM PATH OF TRAVEL ALONG THE PUBLC SIDEWALK DIRECTLY I FRONT OF PROPERTY, TO MEET CURRENT ACCESSIBILITY REGULATONS. A PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT MAY B REQUIRED IF REQUIREMENTS ARE

23. AL EXISTNG SIDEWALKS IN EXCESS OF 2% MaXIMUM CROSS SLOPE MUST BE BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE PRIOR To ACCEPTANCE BY PUBLIC WORKS:

TY PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY.
) TO PROVDE EASEMENTS TO THE CITY FOR REQUIRED PUBLIC MPROVEMENTS. THEY SHALL BE PREPARED BY THE OWeR/DEVELOPERS ENGINEER. EXECUTED COPES SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY ’ OWNERSHIP PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUEDING PERMITS.
9 ' THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT ENGINEER, PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY. *AY AND/OR onur EASEMENTS, ALL EXISTING UNDER-GROUND FACIUTES SHALL HAVE BEEN LOCATED BY UNDERGROUND NON (PHONE: (916)-653-4082) SHALL BE WMEDATELY CONTACTED, AND TH COWTACTED T0 OBTAIN A REFERRAL UST OF RECOGNIZED ARCHAEOLOGISTS.

OFF-GRADE CONCRETE STREET MPROVEMENTS AS DETERMINED .

MMENCWC EXCAVATON OPERATIONS WITHWN THE STREET RIGHT-Of 2 THE PUBLC WORKS OEPARTHENT.
; TO THE PUBLC WORKS DEPARTMENT.

YS 10 THE PVBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, COMPLY WTH THE CURRENI CALTRANS STANDARDS. 8 $
sX
8 8

12. ALL EXISTING DRNEWAY APPROACHES WHICH NO LONGER PROVDE ACCESS TO APPROVED VEHICLE PARKING AREAS SHALL BE REMOVED UNLESS OTHERMSE APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. SUCH AREAS SHALL BE RECONSTRUCTED WITH CURB, GUTTER, AND SIDEWALK TO MATCH EXISTING ADJACENT STREET IMPROVEMENTS. THIS WORK SHALL BE COMPLETED AND ACCEPTED BEFORE A PERMIT OF OCCUPANCY IS ISSUED OR THE BUILDINC OCCUPIED PER FMC 13-211.
%
8 I
!
i
i
IS
I
a
i
§
I
I
LANDSCAPING MUST BE I PLACE BEFORE ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. A HOLD ON OCCUPANCY SHALL BE PLACED ON THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT UNML SUcH TE THAT LANDSCAPING HAS BEEN APPROVED AND VERFFIED FOR PROPER WSTALLATNON BY THE CURRENT PLANNING DMSION.

PER CORRESPONDENCE WTH CITY OF FRESNO ARCHITECT, NO ACCESSIBLE STALLS REQUIRED W PARKING LOTS FOR THIS SITE. REFERENCE TOCBC11A&B.

SIGNS, OTHER THAN OIRECnONAL SIGNS. If APPLICABLE. ARE NOT APPROVED FOR INSTALLATION AS PART OF THIS SPECIAL PERMIT.

IF ARCHEOLOGICAL AND/OR ANMAL FOSSIL MATERIAL IS ENCOUNTERED DURNG PROJECT SURVEYING, GRADING, EXCAVATING, OR COWNSTRUCTIOWN, WORK SHALL STOP IMMEDIATELY.

I THERE ARE SUSPECTED HUMAN REMAINS, THE FRESNO COUNTY CORONER SHALL BE MMEDMATELY CONTACTED. IF THE REMAINS OR OTHER ARCHAEOLOGICAL MATER’AL IS POSSIBLE NATNE AMERICAN N ORIGN, THE NATNE SERVICES ALERT (USA). CALL 1800—642-2444.

10. THE PERFORMANCE OF ANY WORK WITHWN THE PUBLIC STREET RICHT-OF-WAY REQUIRES A STREET WORK PERMIT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. ALL REQUIRED STREET IMPROVEMENTS MUST BE COMPLETED AND i
64 I STATE HIGHWAY 41
I

VARIABLE WDTH PUBLC STREET
SCALE 1"=30‘ VARMBLE WIDTH ASPHALT/CONCRETE ROADWAY
-ABUTTERS RIGHTS REUINOUISHED
N“53S4f 455.86" O L
-EXISTING PROPERTY UNE
r
(I 8)
44 (8
I
1IFTr RXXDPOR999009990
1 (BASI BOTTOM VICINITY MAP
NOT To SCALE
t. I-HCHWATE
| J
% *
|

PROPOSED TEMPORARY BASIN
LEGEND: I T I

EXISTING PROPERTY BOUNDARY

EMSTINC PROPERTY UNE
e. EXISTING EASEMENT
------- EXISTING RIGHT Of WAY

PROPOSED FENCE

EXISTING CHAW LNK FENCE

PROPOSED CONCRETE
PROPOSED AC PAVING PER CITY OF FRESNO STDS. P-21, P-22, AND P-23. -TEMPORARY FENCE f

I PROPOSED LANDSCAPE AREA
0 I T
INDICATES NUMBER Of PARKING STALLS I DESIGNATED AREA
PROPOSED BUILDING 8
I

CURB AND GUTTER
- * 0
2 PROPOSED CONCRETE SIDEWALK
s 0
2 uj
-30,000 GALLON UST L
CONSTRUCTION NOTES:
1 PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN CROSS WALK STRIPING * % PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN CONCRETE CROSS WALK PROPOSED 6" CONCRETE CURB PER CITY Of FRESNO STD. P-5
I
PROPOSED 15‘ WROUGHT IRON DOUBLE SWING GATE

PROPOSED PAINTED DIRECTIONAL ARROWS Q
PROPOSED 12‘ CONCRETE WALKWAY PER CITY OF FRESNO STD. P-9 OC (24)
EXISTING CHAN LINK FENCE To REMAN AND BE PROTECTED 92
PROPOSED 6‘ CHAIN UNK FENCE TO BE INSTALLED

EXISTING WATER VALVE TO REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED
EXISTWG WATER METER TO BE RELOCATED BEHIND CURB $s< s
EXISTWG STAND PIPE TO REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED i
** NOT USED

EXISTINC BACK-FLOW PREVENTOR TO REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED EXISTING GUYWRE T0 REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED REVISIONS
s NOT USED

EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT TO BE RELOCATED BEHIND CURB AND GUTIER 8 EXISTWNG BOLLARDS TO BE REMOVED

EXISTWG BLOCK WALL TO REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED
PROPOSED RECYCLING COMPACTOR, SIZE 3l TYPE TO BE DETERMINED DRAWN BY: 2 PROPOSED 4 VALLEY GUTTER PER CITY OF FRESNO STD. P-10.
y 10/25/2022 I
PROPOSED CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER PERCIYOF FRESNO STD. P-5.

V
PROPOSED MODIFIED CURB RAMP PER CITY OF FRESNO STD. P-29

PROPOSED ACCESS GATE CONTROL PANEL
1 PROPOSED FUEL SYSTEM 20009990900000000 |
PROPOSED TRASH COMPACTOR, SIZE 3: TYPE TO BE DETERMINED 1 |.— SHEETNUMBER: L 3 OF
MA TCHLINE (SHEET 2)
JO5 NUMBER:
20-270

PROPOSED FUTURE

TRAILER PARKING
!
1 i
]
j
]
Q
U
8 s
!
!
!
i
6 1
(
R
I
!
Il
T
s
S
I
Si
I
8 t G
§
3&
I
4 3
I
I
i
U
Z
40 PROPOSED SHOP
11,880 SQ. FT.
*10

PROPOSED DOCK
68,570 SQ. FT.

Y106 OOORS@ 12 O.C.)
13 19/
!
!
1 i
i
i
i
!
!
!
0 Z
u
79 ©@
@
©
©
©
©
©
©
©
©
©
0 @
@
()
©
©
(9)
(0)
©
©
©
©
(
5 8
3 <
E

PROPOSED

TRAILER PARKING
I
!
!
i
i
i

PROPOSED

TRAILER PARKING

PROPOSED

TRAILER PARKING
. 18
i
!
| i
2‘
s
i
8©
0 ¥ 5
|
5 8
j
-HIGHWATER "I »
2 8
&
6 5
8 s
I
8 |
i
I
$g
8 2
3 65
MATCHLINE (SHEET 1)
e 22 2
E o.

I
* % I *, 2
PROPOSED _ Sooo0000000000000N 50d
-EXISTING PROPERTY LWE TRAILER PARKING
1 |
! 1 VICINITY MAP

NOT TO SME
0 % * LEGEND: *, *
s

EXISTING PROPERTY LINE
O i

EXISTNG EASEMENT

EXISIING RIGHT OF WAY
•x—x------------- PROPOSED FENCE

CHAN LINK FENCE

PROPOSED CONCRETE
(8 PROPOSED AC PAMNG PER CITY Of FRESNO STDS. P-21, P-22, AND P-23.

PROPOSED LANDSCAPE AREA
0 INDICATES NUMBER OF PARKINC STALLS IN DESIGNATED AREA L
PROPOSED BUILDING |
] i * *
PROPOSED CURB AND GUTTER %
E T
PROPOSED CONCRETE StOEKALK
I 8
T
HHLLS - 0)
P CONSTRUCTION NOTES: 1 PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN CROSS WALK STRIPING S00145*w 160.00’ Ui - 0
83 8PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN CONCRETE CROSS WALK s % (19) PROPOSED 6" CONCRETE CURB PER CITY OF FRESNO STD. P-5 8 (19) PROPOSED 15‘ WROUGHT IRON DOUBLE SWING GATE
a 1

PROPOSED PAINTED DRECTOWAL ARROWS
1___ (——** —0].? *, * % * PROPOSED 12‘ CONCRETE WALKWAY PER CITY Of FRESNO STD. P-9 JU-107 EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE TO REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED n -PROPOSED EASEMEMT, CANAL TO 8 PIPED
□8 E, PROPOSED 6‘ CHAIN LINK FENCE TO BE INSTALLED Q
F S00145"w 80.00* I I L O EXISTING WATER VALVE TO REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED Q 4 1 9
- I R 7
I
18) EXISTING WATER METER TO BE RELOCATED BEHIND CURB
I ®
009 EXISTING STAND PIPE To REMAN AND BE PROTECTED EXCEPTION AREA 1 0 NOT USED
8 s< T u
EXISTING 84CK-FLOW PREVENTOR TO REMAI AND BE PROTECTED
EXCEPTION AREA I $
I ..
i

EXISTING GUMMRE TO REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED
1 I --e= PROPOSED 40‘ FID EASEMENT- <
NOT USED 1, 1
40‘ FD EASEVENT- I
-16** -16‘- x. EXISTINC FIRE HYDRANT TO BE RELOCATED BEHIND CURB AND GUTTER I__
EXISTING 8OLLAROS T0 8 REMOVED REVISIONS 15‘ LANDSCAPE SETBACK LWE- 15* LANDSCAPE SETBACK UNE- s-if 1 14 EXISTING BLOCK WALL TO REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED PROPOSED 42‘ RIGHT Of WAYI *— PROPOSED RECYCLING COMPACTOR, SIZE & TYPE TO BE DETERMINED (18) PROPOSED 4‘ VALLEY GUTTER PER CITY Of FRESNO STD. P-10. 1 1. (10) (22) (10) (17) 0 PROPOSED CONCRETE CURB AND CUTTER PER CITY OF FRESNO STD. P-5. tS “At r PROPOSED MODIFIED CURB RANP PER CITY Of FRESNO STD. P-29 DRAWN BY:
5 EXISTING PRIVATE CANAL EASEMENT T0 BE- (20) CHECKED BY: — -- PIPED AND RELOCATED ON SITE' (21) 6 PROPOSED ACCESS GATE CONTROL PANEL ' 000145" t
(21) 10/25/2022 N PROPOSED FUEL SYSTEM
* 16) EXISTINC PROPERTY UNE-
-S001‘45"w 2S.B5'
BASIS Of BEARINGS S SOUTH CHERRY AVENUE PROPOSED TRASH COMPACTOR, SIZE & TYPE TO BE DETERUINED % *
*
SCALE f-30' SHEETNUMBER:
2 JOB NUMBER:
20-270
I
।
J
3 ?
|
1 ।
8 §
r Ui
|
3 2
u
Z
§
01 1
8 I
s
8 8
-EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY
& EASEMENT
s
-
1;
29 -EXISTNG SANITARY SEWER

MANHOLE
84 PROPOSED DOCK
68,570 SQ. FT.
tux DOORS @170 01
s
1 )
-
I
8 @@
@
®
()
0 ®
(9) ()@@@®
a
s
i
l @
4_____“Q,

PROPOSED
OFFICE
I
I

PROPOSED

TRAILER PARKING
I
I
sil
9 |

EXISTNC EDGE OF PAVEMENT
E
L

PROPOSED AUTO

PARKING
2 3
O
®
G
0 ®
©
©
0 PROPOSED TRACTOR

PARKING
8 8
§
I
I
8 3
□
i
—
DePROPOSED 42: RC"I of war .
a4%
|
I—3-
I
I
S
I
a
i
30‘ WDE PUBLIC STREET

VARMBLAWDTH ASPHALT ROADWAY
§
I
l
$ 3
8 s
s
Central Transport Regional Facility Project
Construction Assumptions
Construction Schedule
Phase Name Start Date End Date
Site Preparation 7/1/2023 8/13/2023 5 30
Grading 8/14/2023 9/25/2023 5 30
Building Construction 10/24/2023 7/3/2024 5 182
Paving 9/26/2023 10/23/2023 5 20
Architectural Coating 7/4/2024 7/31/2024 5 20
OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8 367 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8 84 0.37
Grading Excavators 2 8 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 367 0.40
Grading Scrapers 2 8 423 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.8 84 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 7 367 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8 82 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8 14 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7 84 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8 46 0.45
Paving Pavers 2 8 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8 80 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6 37 0.48
Construction Trips and VMT
Phase Name
Site Preparation 17.50 0.00 0.00 11.41 8.53 20.00
Grading 22.50 2.00 0.00 11.41 8.53 20.00
Building Construction 34.96 14.37 0.00 11.41 8.53 20.00 Paving 15.00 4.00 0.00 11.41 8.53 20.00
Architectural Coating 6.99 0.00 0.00 11.41 8.53 20.00
Hauling Trip
Length
Num Days
Week Num Days
Horse Power Load Factor
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
66 Central Transport - Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) Custom Report, 11/12/2024 1 / 44
Central Transport - Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) Custom 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

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Site Preparation (2023) - Unmitigated

3.3. Grading (2023) - Unmitigated

3.5. Building Construction (2023) - Unmitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated

3.9. Paving (2023) - Unmitigated

3.11. Architectural Coating (2024) - Unmitigated
67 Central Transport - Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) Custom Report, 11/12/2024 2 / 44

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated
68 Central Transport - Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) Custom Report, 11/12/2024 3 / 44

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

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

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
69 Central Transport - Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) Custom Report, 11/12/2024 4 / 44

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
70 Central Transport - Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) Custom Report, 11/12/2024 5 / 44

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

8. User Changes to Default Data
71 Central Transport - Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) Custom Report, 11/12/2024 6 / 44

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Central Transport - Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) Construction Start Date 7/1/2023
Operational Year 2024
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.70
Precipitation (days) 25.4
Location 36.687961, -119.784008
County Fresno
City Unincorporated
Air District San Joaquin Valley APCD
Air Basin San Joaquin Valley
TAZ 2490
EDFZ 5
Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Gas Utility Pacific Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.28

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail

69.0 1000sqft 1.58 69,000 8,280 — — Cross-dock transfer platform
72 Central Transport - Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) Custom Report, 11/12/2024 7 / 44
General Office
Building

6.70 1000sqft 0.15 6,700 804 — — 3,200
administrative office
+ 3,500 office
Automobile Care
Center

12.0 1000sqft 0.28 12,000 1,440 — — Maintenance shop
Parking Lot 13.2 Acre 13.2 0.00 69,051 — — Parking and site paving
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

1.00 Acre 1.00 0.00 0.00 — — One (1) additional
acre added to
account for off-site
improvements

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

2. Emissions Summary

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2023 4.95 4.17 40.5 39.8 0.07 1.81 8.54 10.3 1.66 4.05 5.71 — 8,081 8,081 0.33 0.08 1.06 8,114 2024 29.1 29.1 11.8 15.2 0.03 0.50 0.38 0.89 0.46 0.09 0.56 — 3,108 3,108 0.12 0.09 2.33 3,139 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2023 3.22 3.00 12.5 15.4 0.03 0.56 0.89 1.42 0.51 0.11 0.61 — 3,083 3,083 0.12 0.09 0.06 3,113 2024 1.62 1.36 11.9 14.8 0.03 0.50 0.38 0.89 0.46 0.09 0.56 — 3,072 3,072 0.11 0.09 0.06 3,101 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2023 1.21 1.03 8.88 9.11 0.01 0.40 1.16 1.56 0.37 0.48 0.84 — 1,677 1,677 0.07 0.03 0.23 1,686 73 Central Transport - Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) Custom Report, 11/12/2024 8 / 44
2024 2.18 2.09 4.35 5.45 0.01 0.18 0.14 0.32 0.17 0.03 0.20 — 1,126 1,126 0.04 0.03 0.37 1,137 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2023 0.22 0.19 1.62 1.66 < 0.005 0.07 0.21 0.28 0.07 0.09 0.15 — 278 278 0.01 < 0.005 0.04 279 2024 0.40 0.38 0.79 0.99 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.04 — 186 186 0.01 0.01 0.06 188

0.42 0.36 3.90 6.74 0.01 0.15 — 0.15 0.13 — 0.13 — 1,041 1,041 0.04 0.01 — 1,044 Total 4.17 3.95 5.29 20.0 0.03 0.19 1.71 1.90 0.18 0.43 0.61 98.0 4,529 4,627 10.2 0.21 2,497 7,441 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.86 0.78 1.21 7.41 0.02 0.02 1.71 1.73 0.02 0.43 0.45 — 2,018 2,018 0.08 0.11 0.23 2,052 Area 2.08 2.08 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.03 0.02 0.30 0.25 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 1,224 1,224 0.17 0.02 — 1,234 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 35.0 41.7 76.7 3.60 0.09 — 192 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 63.0 0.00 63.0 6.30 0.00 — 220 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2,488 2,488
74 Central Transport - Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) Custom Report, 11/12/2024 9 / 44
Off-Roa 0.42 0.36 3.90 6.74 0.01 0.15 — 0.15 0.13 — 0.13 — 1,041 1,041 0.04 0.01 — 1,044 d
Total 3.40 3.23 5.42 14.4 0.03 0.19 1.71 1.89 0.17 0.43 0.61 98.0 4,325 4,423 10.2 0.22 2,488 7,231 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.74 0.67 0.78 6.52 0.02 0.01 1.41 1.42 0.01 0.36 0.37 — 1,633 1,633 0.06 0.06 3.11 1,657 Area 2.42 2.39 0.02 1.88 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.73 7.73 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.76 Energy 0.03 0.02 0.30 0.25 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 1,224 1,224 0.17 0.02 — 1,234 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 35.0 41.7 76.7 3.60 0.09 — 192 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 63.0 0.00 63.0 6.30 0.00 — 220 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2,488 2,488
Off-Roa
d

0.30 0.25 2.78 4.80 0.01 0.10 — 0.10 0.10 — 0.10 — 741 741 0.03 0.01 — 744 Total 3.50 3.34 3.87 13.5 0.02 0.14 1.41 1.55 0.13 0.36 0.49 98.0 3,648 3,746 10.2 0.17 2,491 6,543 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.14 0.12 0.14 1.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.26 0.26 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 — 270 270 0.01 0.01 0.52 274 Area 0.44 0.44 < 0.005 0.34 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.28 1.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.29 Energy 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 203 203 0.03 < 0.005 — 204 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 5.80 6.91 12.7 0.60 0.01 — 31.8 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 10.4 0.00 10.4 1.04 0.00 — 36.5 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 412 412
Off-Roa
d

0.06 0.05 0.51 0.88 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 123 123 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 123 Total 0.64 0.61 0.71 2.46 < 0.005 0.03 0.26 0.28 0.02 0.07 0.09 16.2 604 620 1.68 0.03 412 1,083

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Site Preparation (2023) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 75 Central Transport - Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) Custom Report, 11/12/2024 10 / 44
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

4.70 3.95 39.7 35.5 0.05 1.81 — 1.81 1.66 — 1.66 — 5,295 5,295 0.21 0.04 — 5,314 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 7.67 7.67 — 3.94 3.94 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.74 0.74 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 — 5.51 5.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.79 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.39 0.32 3.27 2.92 < 0.005 0.15 — 0.15 0.14 — 0.14 — 435 435 0.02 < 0.005 — 437 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.63 0.63 — 0.32 0.32 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 0.46 0.46 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.48 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.07 0.06 0.60 0.53 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.02 — 0.02 — 72.1 72.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 72.3 76 Central Transport - Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) Custom Report, 11/12/2024 11 / 44
Dust — — — — — — 0.11 0.11 — 0.06 0.06 — — — — — — —
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.08 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.10 0.09 0.06 1.07 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 162 162 0.01 0.01 0.71 165 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 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 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12.3 12.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 12.4 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 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 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.03 2.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.06 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 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 0.00

3.3. Grading (2023) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
77 Central Transport - Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) Custom Report, 11/12/2024 12 / 44
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

4.81 4.05 40.3 38.4 0.07 1.76 — 1.76 1.62 — 1.62 — 7,811 7,811 0.32 0.06 — 7,838 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 3.59 3.59 — 1.42 1.42 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.74 0.74 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 — 5.51 5.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.79 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.40 0.33 3.32 3.15 0.01 0.14 — 0.14 0.13 — 0.13 — 642 642 0.03 0.01 — 644 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.30 0.30 — 0.12 0.12 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 0.46 0.46 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.48 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.07 0.06 0.61 0.58 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.02 — 0.02 — 106 106 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 107 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.05 0.05 — 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — —
78 Central Transport - Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) Custom Report, 11/12/2024 13 / 44
Onsite < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.08 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 truck
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.13 0.12 0.08 1.37 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 209 209 0.01 0.01 0.91 212 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 55.4 55.4 < 0.005 0.01 0.15 58.0 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.8 15.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 16.0 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.55 4.55 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.76 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.61 2.61 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 2.65 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.75 0.75 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.79 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.5. Building Construction (2023) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
79 Central Transport - Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) Custom Report, 11/12/2024 14 / 44
Off-Roa
Equipment

1.50 1.26 11.8 13.2 0.02 0.55 — 0.55 0.51 — 0.51 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.20 0.17 1.59 1.78 < 0.005 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 — 324 324 0.01 < 0.005 — 325 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.04 0.03 0.29 0.32 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 53.6 53.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 53.8 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.18 0.15 0.16 1.61 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.28 0.00 0.07 0.07 — 287 287 0.02 0.01 0.04 291 Vendor 0.02 0.02 0.56 0.20 < 0.005 0.01 0.10 0.11 0.01 0.03 0.03 — 398 398 0.01 0.06 0.03 416 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 40.2 40.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 40.8 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 53.7 53.7 < 0.005 0.01 0.06 56.2 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 80 Central Transport - Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) Custom Report, 11/12/2024 15 / 44
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.66 6.66 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.76 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.90 8.90 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 9.31 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.7. 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 TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.44 1.20 11.2 13.1 0.02 0.50 — 0.50 0.46 — 0.46 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.44 1.20 11.2 13.1 0.02 0.50 — 0.50 0.46 — 0.46 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.52 0.44 4.06 4.75 0.01 0.18 — 0.18 0.17 — 0.17 — 868 868 0.04 0.01 — 871 81 Central Transport - Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) Custom Report, 11/12/2024 16 / 44
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.09 0.08 0.74 0.87 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 144 144 0.01 < 0.005 — 144 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.18 0.17 0.12 1.95 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.28 0.00 0.07 0.07 — 318 318 0.02 0.01 1.28 323 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.50 0.18 < 0.005 0.01 0.10 0.11 0.01 0.03 0.03 — 392 392 0.01 0.06 1.05 410 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.16 0.14 0.15 1.47 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.28 0.00 0.07 0.07 — 282 282 0.01 0.01 0.03 285 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.53 0.19 < 0.005 0.01 0.10 0.11 0.01 0.03 0.03 — 392 392 0.01 0.06 0.03 409 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 106 106 0.01 < 0.005 0.20 107 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.19 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 142 142 < 0.005 0.02 0.16 148 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 17.5 17.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 17.8 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 23.5 23.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 24.6 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 82 Central Transport - Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) Custom Report, 11/12/2024 17 / 44

3.9. Paving (2023) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.27 1.07 10.5 14.7 0.02 0.54 — 0.54 0.49 — 0.49 — 2,468 2,468 0.10 0.02 — 2,476 Paving 1.86 1.86 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.74 0.74 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 — 5.51 5.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.79 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.27 1.07 10.5 14.7 0.02 0.54 — 0.54 0.49 — 0.49 — 2,468 2,468 0.10 0.02 — 2,476 Paving 1.86 1.86 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.74 0.74 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 — 5.60 5.60 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.88 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.07 0.06 0.57 0.80 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 135 135 0.01 < 0.005 — 136 Paving 0.10 0.10 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.30 0.30 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.32 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
83 Central Transport - Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) Custom Report, 11/12/2024 18 / 44
Off-Roa
Equipment

0.01 0.01 0.10 0.15 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 22.4 22.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 22.5 Paving 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.08 0.05 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 139 139 0.01 0.01 0.60 142 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.15 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 111 111 < 0.005 0.02 0.29 116 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.69 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 123 123 0.01 0.01 0.02 125 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.16 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 111 111 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 116 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.00 7.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.11 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.07 6.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.35 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.16 1.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.18 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.00 1.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.05 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.11. Architectural Coating (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 84 Central Transport - Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) Custom Report, 11/12/2024 19 / 44
Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.17 0.14 0.91 1.15 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coating
s

28.9 28.9 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01 0.01 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.32 7.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.34 Architect
ural
Coating
s

1.59 1.59 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.21 1.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.22 Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.29 0.29 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
85 Central Transport - Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) Custom Report, 11/12/2024 20 / 44
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 63.6 63.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.26 64.6 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 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 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.20 3.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.25 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 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 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.53 0.53 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.54 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 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 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
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 86 Central Transport - Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) Custom Report, 11/12/2024 21 / 44
Daily,——————————————————
Summer
(Max)
Unrefrig
erated
Wareho
use-No
Rail

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 General
Office
Building

0.95 0.87 1.05 9.20 0.02 0.02 1.71 1.73 0.02 0.43 0.45— 2,206 2,206 0.08 0.10 8.79 2,247 Automo
bile
Care
Center

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.00 Total 0.95 0.87 1.05 9.20 0.02 0.02 1.71 1.73 0.02 0.43 0.45— 2,206 2,206 0.08 0.10 8.79 2,247 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Unrefrig
erated
Wareho
use-No
Rail

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 General
Office
Building

0.86 0.78 1.21 7.41 0.02 0.02 1.71 1.73 0.02 0.43 0.45— 2,018 2,018 0.08 0.11 0.23 2,052 Automo
bile
Care
Center

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 87 Central Transport - Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) Custom Report, 11/12/2024 22 / 44
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 0.00 Total 0.86 0.78 1.21 7.41 0.02 0.02 1.71 1.73 0.02 0.43 0.45 — 2,018 2,018 0.08 0.11 0.23 2,052 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrig
erated
Wareho
use-No
Rail

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 General
Office
Building

0.14 0.12 0.14 1.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.26 0.26 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 — 270 270 0.01 0.01 0.52 274 Automo
bile
Care
Center

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.00 Total 0.14 0.12 0.14 1.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.26 0.26 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 — 270 270 0.01 0.01 0.52 274

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
88 Central Transport - Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) Custom Report, 11/12/2024 23 / 44
Unrefrig———————————— 414 414 0.07 0.01— 418
erated
Wareho
Rail
General
Office
Building
———————————— 87.8 87.8 0.01 < 0.005— 88.7
Automo
bile
Care
Center
———————————— 79.6 79.6 0.01 < 0.005— 80.4
Parking
Lot
———————————— 282 282 0.05 0.01— 284
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
———————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Total———————————— 863 863 0.14 0.02— 872
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Unrefrig
erated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
———————————— 414 414 0.07 0.01— 418
General
Office
Building
———————————— 87.8 87.8 0.01 < 0.005— 88.7
Automo
bile
Care
Center
———————————— 79.6 79.6 0.01 < 0.005— 80.4
Parking
Lot
———————————— 282 282 0.05 0.01— 284
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
———————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Total———————————— 863 863 0.14 0.02— 872
89 Central Transport - Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) Custom Report, 11/12/2024 24 / 44
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrig
erated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — 68.6 68.6 0.01 < 0.005 — 69.2
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — 14.5 14.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.7 Automo
bile
Care
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — — 13.2 13.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.3 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 46.6 46.6 0.01 < 0.005 — 47.1
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 143 143 0.02 < 0.005 — 144

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrig
erated
Wareho
use-No
Rail

0.01 0.01 0.10 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 118 118 0.01 < 0.005 — 118 General
Office
Building

0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 85.8 85.8 0.01 < 0.005 — 86.0 90 Central Transport - Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) Custom Report, 11/12/2024 25 / 44
Automo 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.11 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 158 158 0.01 < 0.005 — 158 bile
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 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 Total 0.03 0.02 0.30 0.25 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 361 361 0.03 < 0.005 — 362 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrig
erated
Wareho
use-No
Rail

0.01 0.01 0.10 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 118 118 0.01 < 0.005 — 118 General
Office
Building

0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 85.8 85.8 0.01 < 0.005 — 86.0 Automo
bile
Care
Center

0.01 0.01 0.13 0.11 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 158 158 0.01 < 0.005 — 158 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 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 Total 0.03 0.02 0.30 0.25 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 361 361 0.03 < 0.005 — 362 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrig
erated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 19.5 19.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 19.6 91 Central Transport - Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) Custom Report, 11/12/2024 26 / 44
General < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 14.2 14.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.2 Office
Building
Automo
bile
Care
Center
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 26.1 26.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 26.2 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 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 Total 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 59.8 59.8 0.01 < 0.005 — 60.0

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
Product
s

1.93 1.93 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.16 0.16 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

0.68 0.63 0.03 3.81 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 15.7 15.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.7 Total 2.76 2.71 0.03 3.81 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 15.7 15.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.7 92 Central Transport - Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) Custom Report, 11/12/2024 27 / 44
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s

1.93 1.93 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.16 0.16 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 2.08 2.08 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s

0.35 0.35 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.03 0.03 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.34 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.28 1.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.29 Total 0.44 0.44 < 0.005 0.34 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.28 1.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.29

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
93 Central Transport - Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) Custom Report, 11/12/2024 28 / 44
Unrefrig
Warehouse-No
Rail
——————————— 30.6 35.3 65.9 3.14 0.08— 167
General
Office
Building
——————————— 2.28 2.64 4.92 0.23 0.01— 12.5
Automo
bile
Care
Center
——————————— 2.16 2.51 4.68 0.22 0.01— 11.8
Parking
Lot
——————————— 0.00 1.28 1.28 < 0.005 < 0.005— 1.29
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Total——————————— 35.0 41.7 76.7 3.60 0.09— 192
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Unrefrig
erated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
——————————— 30.6 35.3 65.9 3.14 0.08— 167
General
Office
Building
——————————— 2.28 2.64 4.92 0.23 0.01— 12.5
Automo
bile
Care
Center
——————————— 2.16 2.51 4.68 0.22 0.01— 11.8
Parking
Lot
——————————— 0.00 1.28 1.28 < 0.005 < 0.005— 1.29
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Total——————————— 35.0 41.7 76.7 3.60 0.09— 192
94 Central Transport - Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) Custom Report, 11/12/2024 29 / 44
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrig
erated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 5.06 5.84 10.9 0.52 0.01 — 27.6
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.38 0.44 0.81 0.04 < 0.005 — 2.06 Automo
bile
Care
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.36 0.42 0.77 0.04 < 0.005 — 1.96 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.21 0.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.21 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 5.80 6.91 12.7 0.60 0.01 — 31.8

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrig
erated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 35.0 0.00 35.0 3.49 0.00 — 122
95 Central Transport - Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) Custom Report, 11/12/2024 30 / 44
General——————————— 3.36 0.00 3.36 0.34 0.00— 11.7
Office
Building
Automo
bile
Care
Center
——————————— 24.7 0.00 24.7 2.47 0.00— 86.4
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——————————— 63.0 0.00 63.0 6.30 0.00— 220
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Unrefrig
erated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
——————————— 35.0 0.00 35.0 3.49 0.00— 122
General
Office
Building
——————————— 3.36 0.00 3.36 0.34 0.00— 11.7
Automo
bile
Care
Center
——————————— 24.7 0.00 24.7 2.47 0.00— 86.4
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——————————— 63.0 0.00 63.0 6.30 0.00— 220
Annual——————————————————
96 Central Transport - Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) Custom Report, 11/12/2024 31 / 44
Unrefrig — — — — — — — — — — — 5.79 0.00 5.79 0.58 0.00 — 20.2 erated
Wareho
Rail
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.56 0.00 0.56 0.06 0.00 — 1.95
Automo
bile
Care
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — 4.09 0.00 4.09 0.41 0.00 — 14.3
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 — — — — — — — — — — — 10.4 0.00 10.4 1.04 0.00 — 36.5

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
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.02 0.02
Automo
bile
Care
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2,488 2,488
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2,488 2,488
97 Central Transport - Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) Custom Report, 11/12/2024 32 / 44
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.02 0.02
Automo
bile
Care
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2,488 2,488
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2,488 2,488
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005
Automo
bile
Care
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 412 412
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 412 412

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) Equipm
ent
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Other
Material
Handling
Equipment

0.42 0.36 3.90 6.74 0.01 0.15 — 0.15 0.13 — 0.13 — 1,041 1,041 0.04 0.01 — 1,044 98 Central Transport - Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) Custom Report, 11/12/2024 33 / 44
Total 0.42 0.36 3.90 6.74 0.01 0.15 — 0.15 0.13 — 0.13 — 1,041 1,041 0.04 0.01 — 1,044 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Other
Material
Handling
Equipment

0.42 0.36 3.90 6.74 0.01 0.15 — 0.15 0.13 — 0.13 — 1,041 1,041 0.04 0.01 — 1,044 Total 0.42 0.36 3.90 6.74 0.01 0.15 — 0.15 0.13 — 0.13 — 1,041 1,041 0.04 0.01 — 1,044 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Other
Material
Handling
Equipment

0.06 0.05 0.51 0.88 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 123 123 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 123 Total 0.06 0.05 0.51 0.88 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 123 123 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 123

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) Equipm
ent
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
99 Central Transport - Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) Custom Report, 11/12/2024 34 / 44

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

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati
on
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
100
Central Transport - Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) Custom Report, 11/12/2024 35 / 44
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
101
Central Transport - Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) Custom Report, 11/12/2024 36 / 44
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Site Preparation Site Preparation 7/1/2023 8/13/2023 5.00 30.0 — 102
Central Transport - Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) Custom Report, 11/12/2024 37 / 44
Grading Grading 8/14/2023 9/25/2023 5.00 30.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 10/24/2023 7/3/2024 5.00 182 — Paving Paving 9/26/2023 10/23/2023 5.00 20.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 7/4/2024 7/31/2024 5.00 20.0 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 423 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00 8.80 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 132 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 80.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48 103
Central Transport - Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) Custom Report, 11/12/2024 38 / 44

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 11.4 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 8.53 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck 2.00 0.25 HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 22.5 11.4 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor 2.00 8.53 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck 2.00 0.25 HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 35.0 11.4 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 14.4 8.53 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 11.4 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor 4.00 8.53 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck 2.00 0.25 HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 6.99 11.4 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 8.53 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
104
Central Transport - Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) Custom Report, 11/12/2024 39 / 44
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 0.00 0.00 131,550 43,850 37,139

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) Site Preparation — — 45.0 0.00 —
Grading — — 90.0 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.2

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 2 61% 61%

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 0.00 0%
General Office Building 0.00 0%
105
Central Transport - Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) Custom Report, 11/12/2024 40 / 44
Automobile Care Center 0.00 0%
Parking Lot 13.2 100%
Other Asphalt Surfaces 1.00 100%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2023 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2024 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
General Office
Building
180 180 4.69 56,559 2,417 2,417 63.0 759,468
Automobile Care
Center

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
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
106
Central Transport - Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) Custom Report, 11/12/2024 41 / 44

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 0.00 131,550 43,850 37,139

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No
Rail
741,047 204 0.0330 0.0040 368,056
General Office Building 157,091 204 0.0330 0.0040 267,592 Automobile Care Center 142,370 204 0.0330 0.0040 491,668 Parking Lot 504,075 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 15,956,250 113,661
General Office Building 1,190,816 11,037
107
Central Transport - Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) Custom Report, 11/12/2024 42 / 44
Automobile Care Center 1,128,973 19,767
Parking Lot 0.00 947,878
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 64.9 —
General Office Building 6.23 —
Automobile Care Center 45.8 —
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
Automobile Care
Center
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Automobile Care
Center
Supermarket
refrigeration and
condensing units
R-404A 3,922 26.5 16.5 16.5 18.0

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
108
Central Transport - Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) Custom Report, 11/12/2024 43 / 44

5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Other Material Handling
Equipment
Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 93.0 0.40

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor

5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type
— —

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
109
Central Transport - Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) Custom Report, 11/12/2024 44 / 44
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Construction: Construction Phases Earliest anticipated construction schedule per applicant: July 2023 – July 2024 Construction: Off-Road Equipment The horsepower hours for select pieces of equipment were increased to match the default values from CalEEMod 2020 to provide a conservative estimate of emissions.

Overall equipment HP usage hours for tractors/loaders/backhoes during the building construction phase were increased to match default usage hours, as the default construction schedule was reduced.

Operations: Vehicle Data 180 passenger vehicles weekdays and Saturday based on project-specific traffic data (90 entering and 90 exiting)
Operations: Fleet Mix Passenger vehicles only (trucks assessed in a separate run) 110
Central Transport - Truck Only Operations Custom Report, 11/12/2024 1 / 5
Central Transport - Truck Only Operations Custom 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

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

8. User Changes to Default Data
111
Central Transport - Truck Only Operations Custom Report, 11/12/2024 2 / 5

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Central Transport - Truck Only Operations
Construction Start Date 7/1/2023
Operational Year 2024
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.70
Precipitation (days) 25.4
Location 36.687961, -119.784008
County Fresno
City Unincorporated
Air District San Joaquin Valley APCD
Air Basin San Joaquin Valley
TAZ 2490
EDFZ 5
Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Gas Utility Pacific Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.28

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
User Defined
Industrial

1.00 User Defined Unit 0.00 0.00 0.00 — — Truck only run 112
Central Transport - Truck Only Operations Custom Report, 11/12/2024 3 / 5

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

2. Emissions Summary

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.78 0.32 24.3 4.39 0.21 0.40 5.75 6.14 0.38 1.54 1.92 — 22,117 22,117 0.43 3.50 54.0 23,224 Area 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.78 0.32 24.3 4.39 0.21 0.40 5.75 6.14 0.38 1.54 1.92 0.00 22,117 22,117 0.43 3.50 54.0 23,224 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.18 0.99 2.74 16.0 0.05 0.04 4.46 4.50 0.04 1.13 1.17 — 5,186 5,186 0.15 0.25 0.59 5,264 Area 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 1.18 0.99 2.74 16.0 0.05 0.04 4.46 4.50 0.04 1.13 1.17 0.00 5,186 5,186 0.15 0.25 0.59 5,264 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.77 0.31 25.5 4.41 0.21 0.40 5.67 6.07 0.38 1.53 1.91 — 22,120 22,120 0.43 3.50 23.3 23,196 Area 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 113
Central Transport - Truck Only Operations Custom Report, 11/12/2024 4 / 5
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.77 0.31 25.5 4.41 0.21 0.40 5.67 6.07 0.38 1.53 1.91 0.00 22,120 22,120 0.43 3.50 23.3 23,196 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.14 0.06 4.65 0.80 0.04 0.07 1.04 1.11 0.07 0.28 0.35 — 3,662 3,662 0.07 0.58 3.86 3,840 Area 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.14 0.06 4.65 0.80 0.04 0.07 1.04 1.11 0.07 0.28 0.35 0.00 3,662 3,662 0.07 0.58 3.86 3,840

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
User
Defined
Industrial

0.78 0.32 24.3 4.39 0.21 0.40 5.75 6.14 0.38 1.54 1.92 — 22,117 22,117 0.43 3.50 54.0 23,224 Total 0.78 0.32 24.3 4.39 0.21 0.40 5.75 6.14 0.38 1.54 1.92 — 22,117 22,117 0.43 3.50 54.0 23,224 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
114
Central Transport - Truck Only Operations Custom Report, 11/12/2024 5 / 5
User 1.18 0.99 2.74 16.0 0.05 0.04 4.46 4.50 0.04 1.13 1.17 — 5,186 5,186 0.15 0.25 0.59 5,264 Defined
Industrial
Total 1.18 0.99 2.74 16.0 0.05 0.04 4.46 4.50 0.04 1.13 1.17 — 5,186 5,186 0.15 0.25 0.59 5,264 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
User
Defined
Industrial

0.14 0.06 4.65 0.80 0.04 0.07 1.04 1.11 0.07 0.28 0.35 — 3,662 3,662 0.07 0.58 3.86 3,840 Total 0.14 0.06 4.65 0.80 0.04 0.07 1.04 1.11 0.07 0.28 0.35 — 3,662 3,662 0.07 0.58 3.86 3,840

5. Activity Data

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year User Defined
Industrial
126 126 126 45,990 6,300 6,300 6,300 2,299,500

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Construction: Construction Phases Truck only run – zeroed out construction only parameters Operations: Vehicle Data 126 truck trips per day (63 entering and 63 exiting) Truck trip length increased to 50 miles
Operations: Fleet Mix 100% HHD truck fleet for truck only run 115
Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) - Localized Analysis Custom Report, 11/12/2024 1 / 44
Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) - Localized Analysis Custom 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

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Site Preparation (2023) - Unmitigated

3.3. Grading (2023) - Unmitigated

3.5. Building Construction (2023) - Unmitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated

3.9. Paving (2023) - Unmitigated

3.11. Architectural Coating (2024) - Unmitigated
116
Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) - Localized Analysis Custom Report, 11/12/2024 2 / 44

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated
117
Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) - Localized Analysis Custom Report, 11/12/2024 3 / 44

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

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

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
118
Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) - Localized Analysis Custom Report, 11/12/2024 4 / 44

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
119
Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) - Localized Analysis Custom Report, 11/12/2024 5 / 44

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

8. User Changes to Default Data
120
Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) - Localized Analysis Custom Report, 11/12/2024 6 / 44

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) - Localized Analysis Construction Start Date 7/1/2023
Operational Year 2024
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.70
Precipitation (days) 25.4
Location 36.687961, -119.784008
County Fresno
City Unincorporated
Air District San Joaquin Valley APCD
Air Basin San Joaquin Valley
TAZ 2490
EDFZ 5
Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Gas Utility Pacific Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.28

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail

69.0 1000sqft 1.58 69,000 8,280 — — Cross-dock transfer platform
121
Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) - Localized Analysis Custom Report, 11/12/2024 7 / 44
General Office
Building

6.70 1000sqft 0.15 6,700 804 — — 3,200
administrative office
+ 3,500 office
Automobile Care
Center

12.0 1000sqft 0.28 12,000 1,440 — — Maintenance shop
Parking Lot 13.2 Acre 13.2 0.00 69,051 — — Parking and site paving
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

1.00 Acre 1.00 0.00 0.00 — — One (1) additional
acre added to
account for off-site
improvements

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

2. Emissions Summary

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2023 4.92 4.15 40.4 38.7 0.07 1.81 8.41 10.2 1.66 4.01 5.68 — 7,835 7,835 0.32 0.07 0.05 7,863 2024 29.1 29.1 11.4 13.6 0.02 0.50 0.02 0.52 0.46 < 0.005 0.46 — 2,456 2,456 0.11 0.03 0.12 2,467 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2023 3.20 2.99 12.0 15.0 0.02 0.55 0.74 1.28 0.51 0.08 0.57 — 2,492 2,492 0.11 0.03 < 0.005 2,502 2024 1.58 1.34 11.4 13.8 0.02 0.50 0.02 0.52 0.46 < 0.005 0.46 — 2,455 2,455 0.11 0.03 < 0.005 2,466 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2023 1.20 1.02 8.80 8.79 0.01 0.40 1.08 1.48 0.37 0.46 0.82 — 1,549 1,549 0.07 0.01 0.01 1,555 122
Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) - Localized Analysis Custom Report, 11/12/2024 8 / 44
2024 2.17 2.08 4.19 5.02 0.01 0.18 0.01 0.19 0.17 < 0.005 0.17 — 896 896 0.04 0.01 0.02 901 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2023 0.22 0.19 1.61 1.60 < 0.005 0.07 0.20 0.27 0.07 0.08 0.15 — 256 256 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 257 2024 0.40 0.38 0.76 0.92 < 0.005 0.03 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.03 — 148 148 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 149

0.42 0.36 3.90 6.74 0.01 0.15 — 0.15 0.13 — 0.13 — 1,041 1,041 0.04 0.01 — 1,044 Total 3.88 3.73 4.46 12.3 0.01 0.17 0.06 0.24 0.16 0.02 0.18 98.0 2,441 2,539 10.1 0.13 2,488 5,319 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.57 0.55 0.25 1.95 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 112 112 0.04 0.02 0.01 119 Area 2.08 2.08 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.03 0.02 0.30 0.25 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 1,224 1,224 0.17 0.02 — 1,234 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 35.0 41.7 76.7 3.60 0.09 — 192 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 63.0 0.00 63.0 6.30 0.00 — 220 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2,488 2,488
123
Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) - Localized Analysis Custom Report, 11/12/2024 9 / 44
Off-Roa 0.42 0.36 3.90 6.74 0.01 0.15 — 0.15 0.13 — 0.13 — 1,041 1,041 0.04 0.01 — 1,044 d
Total 3.12 3.01 4.46 8.95 0.01 0.17 0.06 0.23 0.16 0.02 0.17 98.0 2,419 2,517 10.1 0.13 2,488 5,298 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.50 0.49 0.15 1.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 86.9 86.9 0.03 0.01 0.12 91.8 Area 2.42 2.39 0.02 1.88 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.73 7.73 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.76 Energy 0.03 0.02 0.30 0.25 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 1,224 1,224 0.17 0.02 — 1,234 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 35.0 41.7 76.7 3.60 0.09 — 192 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 63.0 0.00 63.0 6.30 0.00 — 220 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2,488 2,488
Off-Roa
d

0.30 0.25 2.78 4.80 0.01 0.10 — 0.10 0.10 — 0.10 — 741 741 0.03 0.01 — 744 Total 3.25 3.15 3.25 8.34 0.01 0.13 0.05 0.18 0.12 0.01 0.14 98.0 2,102 2,200 10.1 0.12 2,488 4,978 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.09 0.09 0.03 0.26 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.4 14.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 15.2 Area 0.44 0.44 < 0.005 0.34 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.28 1.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.29 Energy 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 203 203 0.03 < 0.005 — 204 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 5.80 6.91 12.7 0.60 0.01 — 31.8 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 10.4 0.00 10.4 1.04 0.00 — 36.5 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 412 412
Off-Roa
d

0.06 0.05 0.51 0.88 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 123 123 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 123 Total 0.59 0.57 0.59 1.52 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 0.02 16.2 348 364 1.68 0.02 412 824

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Site Preparation (2023) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 124
Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) - Localized Analysis Custom Report, 11/12/2024 10 / 44
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.07 0.06 0.60 0.53 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.02 — 0.02 — 72.1 72.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 72.3 125
Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) - Localized Analysis Custom Report, 11/12/2024 11 / 44
Dust — — — — — — 0.11 0.11 — 0.06 0.06 — — — — — — —
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.08 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.08 0.02 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.2 10.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 10.9 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 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 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.80 0.80 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.85 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 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 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.13 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.14 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 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 0.00

3.3. Grading (2023) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
126
Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) - Localized Analysis Custom Report, 11/12/2024 12 / 44
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.07 0.06 0.61 0.58 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.02 — 0.02 — 106 106 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 107 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.05 0.05 — 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — —
127
Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) - Localized Analysis Custom Report, 11/12/2024 13 / 44
Onsite < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.08 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 truck
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.11 0.10 0.02 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.2 13.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 14.0 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.43 5.43 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.69 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.03 1.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.10 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.45 0.45 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.47 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.17 0.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.18 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.5. Building Construction (2023) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
128
Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) - Localized Analysis Custom Report, 11/12/2024 14 / 44
Off-Roa
Equipment

1.50 1.26 11.8 13.2 0.02 0.55 — 0.55 0.51 — 0.51 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.20 0.17 1.59 1.78 < 0.005 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 — 324 324 0.01 < 0.005 — 325 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.04 0.03 0.29 0.32 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 53.6 53.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 53.8 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.14 0.14 0.04 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 19.1 19.1 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 20.4 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.18 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 39.4 39.4 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 41.2 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.62 2.62 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.80 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.29 5.29 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.54 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 129
Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) - Localized Analysis Custom Report, 11/12/2024 15 / 44
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.43 0.43 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.46 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.88 0.88 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.92 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1.44 1.20 11.2 13.1 0.02 0.50 — 0.50 0.46 — 0.46 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.44 1.20 11.2 13.1 0.02 0.50 — 0.50 0.46 — 0.46 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.52 0.44 4.06 4.75 0.01 0.18 — 0.18 0.17 — 0.17 — 868 868 0.04 0.01 — 871 130
Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) - Localized Analysis Custom Report, 11/12/2024 16 / 44
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.09 0.08 0.74 0.87 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 144 144 0.01 < 0.005 — 144 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.15 0.15 0.03 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 20.0 20.0 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 21.3 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.17 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 38.4 38.4 < 0.005 0.01 0.06 40.2 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.13 0.13 0.04 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 18.7 18.7 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 20.0 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.18 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 38.8 38.8 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 40.5 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.16 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.88 6.88 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.34 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.0 14.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 14.6 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.14 1.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.22 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.31 2.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.42 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 131
Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) - Localized Analysis Custom Report, 11/12/2024 17 / 44

1.27 1.07 10.5 14.7 0.02 0.54 — 0.54 0.49 — 0.49 — 2,468 2,468 0.10 0.02 — 2,476 Paving 1.86 1.86 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.74 0.74 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 — 5.60 5.60 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.88 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.07 0.06 0.57 0.80 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 135 135 0.01 < 0.005 — 136 Paving 0.10 0.10 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.30 0.30 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.32 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
132
Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) - Localized Analysis Custom Report, 11/12/2024 18 / 44
Off-Roa
Equipment

0.01 0.01 0.10 0.15 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 22.4 22.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 22.5 Paving 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.07 0.01 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.78 8.78 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 9.33 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.9 10.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 11.4 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.02 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.21 8.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 8.77 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.0 11.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 11.5 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.46 0.46 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.49 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.60 0.60 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.63 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.08 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.10 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.10 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.11. Architectural Coating (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 133
Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) - Localized Analysis Custom Report, 11/12/2024 19 / 44
Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.17 0.14 0.91 1.15 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coating
s

28.9 28.9 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.01 0.01 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.32 7.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.34 Architect
ural
Coating
s

1.59 1.59 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.29 0.29 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
134
Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) - Localized Analysis Custom Report, 11/12/2024 20 / 44
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.01 4.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.26 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 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 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.21 0.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.22 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 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 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 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 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 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
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 135
Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) - Localized Analysis Custom Report, 11/12/2024 21 / 44
Daily,——————————————————
Summer
(Max)
Unrefrig
erated
Wareho
use-No
Rail

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 General
Office
Building

0.66 0.65 0.22 1.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02— 118 118 0.03 0.02 0.33 125 Automo
bile
Care
Center

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.00 Total 0.66 0.65 0.22 1.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02— 118 118 0.03 0.02 0.33 125 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Unrefrig
erated
Wareho
use-No
Rail

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 General
Office
Building

0.57 0.55 0.25 1.95 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02— 112 112 0.04 0.02 0.01 119 Automo
bile
Care
Center

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 136
Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) - Localized Analysis Custom Report, 11/12/2024 22 / 44
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 0.00 Total 0.57 0.55 0.25 1.95 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 112 112 0.04 0.02 0.01 119 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrig
erated
Wareho
use-No
Rail

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 General
Office
Building

0.09 0.09 0.03 0.26 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.4 14.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 15.2 Automo
bile
Care
Center

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.00 Total 0.09 0.09 0.03 0.26 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.4 14.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 15.2

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
137
Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) - Localized Analysis Custom Report, 11/12/2024 23 / 44
Unrefrig———————————— 414 414 0.07 0.01— 418
erated
Wareho
Rail
General
Office
Building
———————————— 87.8 87.8 0.01 < 0.005— 88.7
Automo
bile
Care
Center
———————————— 79.6 79.6 0.01 < 0.005— 80.4
Parking
Lot
———————————— 282 282 0.05 0.01— 284
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
———————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Total———————————— 863 863 0.14 0.02— 872
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Unrefrig
erated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
———————————— 414 414 0.07 0.01— 418
General
Office
Building
———————————— 87.8 87.8 0.01 < 0.005— 88.7
Automo
bile
Care
Center
———————————— 79.6 79.6 0.01 < 0.005— 80.4
Parking
Lot
———————————— 282 282 0.05 0.01— 284
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
———————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Total———————————— 863 863 0.14 0.02— 872
138
Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) - Localized Analysis Custom Report, 11/12/2024 24 / 44
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrig
erated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — 68.6 68.6 0.01 < 0.005 — 69.2
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — 14.5 14.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.7 Automo
bile
Care
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — — 13.2 13.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.3 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 46.6 46.6 0.01 < 0.005 — 47.1
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 143 143 0.02 < 0.005 — 144

0.01 0.01 0.10 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 118 118 0.01 < 0.005 — 118 General
Office
Building

0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 85.8 85.8 0.01 < 0.005 — 86.0 139
Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) - Localized Analysis Custom Report, 11/12/2024 25 / 44
Automo 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.11 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 158 158 0.01 < 0.005 — 158 bile
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 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.01 0.01 0.10 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 118 118 0.01 < 0.005 — 118 General
Office
Building

0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 85.8 85.8 0.01 < 0.005 — 86.0 Automo
bile
Care
Center

0.01 0.01 0.13 0.11 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 158 158 0.01 < 0.005 — 158 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 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 Total 0.03 0.02 0.30 0.25 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 361 361 0.03 < 0.005 — 362 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrig
erated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 19.5 19.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 19.6 140
Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) - Localized Analysis Custom Report, 11/12/2024 26 / 44
General < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 14.2 14.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.2 Office
Building
Automo
bile
Care
Center
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 26.1 26.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 26.2 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 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 Total 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 59.8 59.8 0.01 < 0.005 — 60.0

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

1.93 1.93 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.16 0.16 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

0.68 0.63 0.03 3.81 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 15.7 15.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.7 Total 2.76 2.71 0.03 3.81 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 15.7 15.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.7 141
Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) - Localized Analysis Custom Report, 11/12/2024 27 / 44
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s

1.93 1.93 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.35 0.35 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.03 0.03 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
142
Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) - Localized Analysis Custom Report, 11/12/2024 28 / 44
Unrefrig
Warehouse-No
Rail
——————————— 30.6 35.3 65.9 3.14 0.08— 167
General
Office
Building
——————————— 2.28 2.64 4.92 0.23 0.01— 12.5
Automo
bile
Care
Center
——————————— 2.16 2.51 4.68 0.22 0.01— 11.8
Parking
Lot
——————————— 0.00 1.28 1.28 < 0.005 < 0.005— 1.29
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Total——————————— 35.0 41.7 76.7 3.60 0.09— 192
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Unrefrig
erated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
——————————— 30.6 35.3 65.9 3.14 0.08— 167
General
Office
Building
——————————— 2.28 2.64 4.92 0.23 0.01— 12.5
Automo
bile
Care
Center
——————————— 2.16 2.51 4.68 0.22 0.01— 11.8
Parking
Lot
——————————— 0.00 1.28 1.28 < 0.005 < 0.005— 1.29
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Total——————————— 35.0 41.7 76.7 3.60 0.09— 192
143
Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) - Localized Analysis Custom Report, 11/12/2024 29 / 44
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrig
erated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 5.06 5.84 10.9 0.52 0.01 — 27.6
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.38 0.44 0.81 0.04 < 0.005 — 2.06 Automo
bile
Care
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.36 0.42 0.77 0.04 < 0.005 — 1.96 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.21 0.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.21 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 5.80 6.91 12.7 0.60 0.01 — 31.8

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrig
erated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 35.0 0.00 35.0 3.49 0.00 — 122
144
Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) - Localized Analysis Custom Report, 11/12/2024 30 / 44
General——————————— 3.36 0.00 3.36 0.34 0.00— 11.7
Office
Building
Automo
bile
Care
Center
——————————— 24.7 0.00 24.7 2.47 0.00— 86.4
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——————————— 63.0 0.00 63.0 6.30 0.00— 220
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Unrefrig
erated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
——————————— 35.0 0.00 35.0 3.49 0.00— 122
General
Office
Building
——————————— 3.36 0.00 3.36 0.34 0.00— 11.7
Automo
bile
Care
Center
——————————— 24.7 0.00 24.7 2.47 0.00— 86.4
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——————————— 63.0 0.00 63.0 6.30 0.00— 220
Annual——————————————————
145
Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) - Localized Analysis Custom Report, 11/12/2024 31 / 44
Unrefrig — — — — — — — — — — — 5.79 0.00 5.79 0.58 0.00 — 20.2 erated
Wareho
Rail
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.56 0.00 0.56 0.06 0.00 — 1.95
Automo
bile
Care
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — 4.09 0.00 4.09 0.41 0.00 — 14.3
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 — — — — — — — — — — — 10.4 0.00 10.4 1.04 0.00 — 36.5

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
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.02 0.02
Automo
bile
Care
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2,488 2,488
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2,488 2,488
146
Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) - Localized Analysis Custom Report, 11/12/2024 32 / 44
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.02 0.02
Automo
bile
Care
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2,488 2,488
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2,488 2,488
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005
Automo
bile
Care
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 412 412
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 412 412

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

0.42 0.36 3.90 6.74 0.01 0.15 — 0.15 0.13 — 0.13 — 1,041 1,041 0.04 0.01 — 1,044 147
Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) - Localized Analysis Custom Report, 11/12/2024 33 / 44
Total 0.42 0.36 3.90 6.74 0.01 0.15 — 0.15 0.13 — 0.13 — 1,041 1,041 0.04 0.01 — 1,044 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Other
Material
Handling
Equipment

0.06 0.05 0.51 0.88 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 123 123 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 123 Total 0.06 0.05 0.51 0.88 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 123 123 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 123

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) Equipm
ent
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
148
Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) - Localized Analysis Custom Report, 11/12/2024 34 / 44

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

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) Vegetati
on
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
149
Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) - Localized Analysis Custom Report, 11/12/2024 35 / 44
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
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
150
Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) - Localized Analysis Custom Report, 11/12/2024 36 / 44
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Site Preparation Site Preparation 7/1/2023 8/13/2023 5.00 30.0 — 151
Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) - Localized Analysis Custom Report, 11/12/2024 37 / 44
Grading Grading 8/14/2023 9/25/2023 5.00 30.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 10/24/2023 7/3/2024 5.00 182 — Paving Paving 9/26/2023 10/23/2023 5.00 20.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 7/4/2024 7/31/2024 5.00 20.0 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 423 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00 8.80 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 132 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 80.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48 152
Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) - Localized Analysis Custom Report, 11/12/2024 38 / 44

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 0.50 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 0.50 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 0.50 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck 2.00 0.25 HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 22.5 0.50 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor 2.00 0.50 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00 0.50 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck 2.00 0.25 HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 35.0 0.50 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 14.4 0.50 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 0.50 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 0.50 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor 4.00 0.50 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 0.50 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck 2.00 0.25 HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 6.99 0.50 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 0.50 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 0.50 HHDT
153
Construction and Operations (Passenger Vehicles + Building) - Localized Analysis Custom Report, 11/12/2024 39 / 44
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT

Fresno City CouncilAugust 14, 2025

Fresno City Council
August 14, 2025