DATE: February 29, 2024
TO: Adam Smith, Sancerra Communities – Whitewood, LLC FROM: Haseeb Qureshi
Ali Dadabhoy
JOB NO: 14984-06 AQ & EA Assesment
WHITEWOOD I AIR QUALITY & ENERGY ASSESSMENT
Adam Smith,
Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to provide the following Air Quality & Energy Assessment for the Whitewood I (Project), which is located on the north east corner of Whitewood Road and Clinton Keith Road in the City of Murrieta.
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Project consists of a Development Plan Permit and Tentative Tract Map for a
17.26-acre site. The Project would provide for the development of 243 multi-family residential homes at a density of 15.1 dwelling units per acre. The Project also includes construction of a recreational pool area with a ±900sf restroom and pool equipment building, tot lot and 65,120 SF of total common open space areas throughout the site (see Exhibit 1). The proposed 243 dwelling units comprise 2 - and 3-story townhomes. A total of 629 parking spaces would be provided with 10% of spaces designated as future electric vehicle (EV) spaces. Access to the Project would be provided by two (2) full access driveways, one located on Arendt Lane, and the other located on Whitewood Road.
Grading proposed by the Project would result in disturbance to 16.64 acres of the Project with the balance of the site remaining undisturbed. The project will preserve 0.62 acres of sensitive area including 33 mature Oaks and 0.35 acres of County of Riverside riparian/riverine features.
The project will construct a ±12” offsite EMWD master plan sewer line within Arendt Lane, continuing easterly within Clinton Keith Road and terminating near the northwest corner of Clinton Keith Road and Menifee Road.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Results of the assessment indicate that the Project would result in a less than significant impact and would not have impacts beyond what was studied in the City of Murrieta General Plan EIR with respect to air quality and energy and no mitigation is required.
Adam Smith, Sancerra Communities – Whitewood, LLC
February 29, 2024
14984-06 AQ & EA Assessment
EXHIBIT 1: PROJECT’S TENTATIVE TRACT MAP1
1 It should be noted, since the time this air quality & energy assessment has been prepared, the site plan has been updated: the single family attached residential dwelling units has been reduced from 257 dwelling units to 243 dwelling units. In an effort to provide flexibility for minor changes to the site plan during final preparation, the Whitewood I Traffic Analysis evaluated the higher single family attached residential dwelling units in an effort to provide a conservative analysis. As such, the emissio ns presented in this air quality & energy assessment as well represent a conservative analysis and may overstate emissions.
Adam Smith, Sancerra Communities – Whitewood, LLC
February 29, 2024
14984-06 AQ & EA Assessment
PROJECT AIR QUALITY IMPACTS
AIR QUALITY SETTING
SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN (SCAB)
The Project site is located in the SCAB within the jurisdiction of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) (3). The SCAQMD was created by the 1977 Lewis- Presley Air Quality Management Act, which merged four county air pollution control bodies into one regional district. Under the Act, the SCAQMD is responsible for bringing air quality in areas under its jurisdiction into conformity with federal and state air quality standards. As previously stated, the Project site is located within the SCAB, a 6,745 -square mile subregio n of the SCAQMD, which includes portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties, and all of Orange County.
The SCAB is bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east. The Los Angeles County portion of the Mojave Desert Air Basin is bounded by the San Gabriel Mountains to the south and west, the Los Angeles / Kern County border to the north, and the Los Angeles / San Bernardino County border to the east. The Riverside County portion of the Salton Sea Air Basin is bounded by the San Jacinto Mountains in the west and spans eastward up to the Palo Verde Valley.
Regional Climate
The regional climate has a substantial influence on air quality in the SCAB. In addition, the temperature, wind, humidity, precipitation, and amount of sunshine influence the air quality.
The annual average temperatures throughout the SCAB vary from the low to middle 60s degrees Fahrenheit (°F). Due to a decreased marine influence, the eastern portion of the SCAB shows greater variability in average annual minimum and maximum temperatures. January is the coldest month throughout the SCAB, with average minimum temperatures of 47°F in downtown Los Angeles and 36°F in San Bernardino. All portions of the SCAB have recorded maximum temperatures above 100°F.
Although the climate of the SCAB can be characterized as semi-arid, the air near the land surface is quite moist on most days because of the presence of a marine layer. This shallow layer of sea air is an important modifier of SCAB climate. Humidity restricts visibility in the SCAB, and the conversion of sulfur dioxide (SO
2) to sulfates (SO4) is heightened in air with high relative humidity.
The marine layer provides an environment for that conversion process, especially during the spring and summer months. The annual average relative humidity within the SCAB is 71 percent (%) along the coast and 59% inland. Since the ocean effect is dominant, periods of heavy early morning fog are frequent and low stratus clouds are a characteristic feature. These effects decrease with distance from the coast.
More than 90% of the SCAB’s rainfall occurs from November through April. The annual average rainfall varies from approximately nine inches in Riverside to fourteen inches in downtown Los Angeles. Monthly and yearly rainfall totals are extremely variable. Summer rainfall usually consists of widely scattered thunderstorms near the coast and slightly heavier shower activity in the eastern portion of the SCAB with frequency being higher near the coast.
Adam Smith, Sancerra Communities – Whitewood, LLC
February 29, 2024
14984-06 AQ & EA Assessment
Due to its generally clear weather, about three -quarters of available sunshine is received in the SCAB. The remaining one-quarter is absorbed by clouds. The ultraviolet portion of this abundant radiation is a key factor in photochemical reactions. On th e shortest day of the year there are approximately 10 hours of possible sunshine, and on the longest day of the year there are approximately 14½ hours of possible sunshine.
The importance of wind to air pollution is considerable. The direction and speed of the wind determines the horizontal dispersion and transport of the air pollutants. During the late autumn to early spring rainy season, the SCAB is subjected to wind flow s associated with the traveling storms moving through the region from the northwest. This period also brings five to ten periods of strong, dry offshore winds, locally termed “Santa Anas” each year. During the dry season, which coincides with the months of maximum photochemical smog concentrations, the wind flow is bimodal, typified by a daytime onshore sea breeze and a nighttime offshore drainage wind.
Summer wind flows are created by the pressure differences between the relatively cold ocean and the unevenly heated and cooled land surfaces that modify the general northwesterly wind circulation over southern California. Nighttime drainage begins with the radiational cooling of the mountain slopes. Heavy, cool air descends the slopes and flows through the mountain passes and canyons as it follows the lowering terrain toward the ocean. Another characteristic wind regime in the SCAB is the “Catalina Eddy,” a low level cyclonic (counterclockwise) flow centered over Santa Catalina Island which results in an offshore flow to the southwest. On most spring and summer days, some indication of an eddy is apparent in coastal sections.
In the SCAB, there are two distinct temperature inversion structures that control vertical mixing of air pollution. During the summer, warm high-pressure descending (subsiding) air is undercut by a shallow layer of cool marine air. The boundary between these two layers of air is a persistent marine subsidence/inversion. This boundary prevents vertical mixing which effectively acts as an impervious lid to pollutants over the entire SCAB. The mixing height for the inversion structure is normally situated 1,000 to 1,500 feet above mean sea level.
A second inversion-type forms in conjunction with the drainage of cool air off the surrounding mountains at night followed by the seaward drift of this pool of cool air. The top of this layer forms a sharp boundary with the warmer air aloft and creates nocturnal radiation inversions.
These inversions occur primarily in the winter when nights are longer and onshore flow is weakest. They are typically only a few hundred feet above mean sea level. These inversions effectively trap pollutants, such as nitroge n oxides (NO X) and carbon monoxide (CO) from
vehicles, as the pool of cool air drifts seaward. Winter is therefore a period of high levels of primary pollutants along the coastline.
Wind Patterns and Project Location
The distinctive climate of the Project area and the SCAB is determined by its terrain and geographical location. The SCAB is located in a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills, bounded by the Pacific Ocean in the southwest quadrant with high mountains forming the remainder of the perimeter.
Wind patterns across the south coastal region are characterized by westerly and southwesterly onshore winds during the day and easterly or northeasterly breezes at night. Winds are characteristically light although the speed is somewhat greater during the dry summer months than during the rainy winter season.
Adam Smith, Sancerra Communities – Whitewood, LLC
February 29, 2024
14984-06 AQ & EA Assessment
Criteria Pollutants
Both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants. These ambient air quality standards are levels of contaminants representing safe levels that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant. The ambient air quality standards cover what are called “criteria” pollutants because the health and other effects of each pollutant are described in criteria documents. The six criteria pollutants are ozone (O 3) (precursor emissions include NOX
and reactive organic gases (ROG), CO, particulate matter (PM), nitrogen dioxide (NO 2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead. Areas that meet ambient air quality standards are classified as attainment areas, while areas that do not meet these standards are classified as nonattainment areas. The Riverside County portion of the SCAB is designated as a nonattainment area for the federal O 3 and PM2.5 standards and is also a nonattainment area for the state standards for O 3, PM10, and PM2.5.
Sensitive Receptor Locations
Some people are especially sensitive to air pollution and are given special consideration when evaluating air quality impacts from projects. These groups of people include children, the elderly, and individuals with pre-existing respiratory or cardiovascular illness. Structures that house these persons or places where they gather are defined as “sensitive receptors”. These structures typically include uses such as residences, hotels, and hospitals where an individual can remain for 24 hours. Consistent with the LST Methodology, the nearest land use where an individual could remain for 24 hours to the Project site has been used to determine construction and operational air quality impacts for emissions of PM
10 and PM2.5, since PM10 and PM2.5 thresholds
are based on a 24-hour averaging time.
Receptors in the Project study area are described below. All distances are measured from the Project site boundary to the outdoor living areas (e.g., backyards) or at the building façade, whichever is closer to the Project site. Receptors in the Project study area are shown on Exhibit 2 under the Localized Construction Emissions section later in the report. • Receptor R1 represents t he existing residence at 35960 Lindstrand Avenue , approximately 130 feet west of the Project site. Receptor R1 is placed near the private outdoor living area (backyard) adjacent to Whitewood Road facing the Project site. • Receptor R2 represents the residence at 35842 Meadowlark Lane, approximately 59 feet north of the Project site . Receptor R2 is placed near the private outdoor living area (backyard).
• Receptor R3 represents t he existing residence at 35815 Arendt Lane , approximately 64 feet north of the Project site. Receptor R3 is placed near the private outdoor living area (backyard) facing the Project site.
• Receptor R4 represents the existing residence at 35820 Arendt Lane, approximately 114 feet northeast of the Project site. Receptor R4 is placed near the private outdoor living area (backyard) facing the Project site.
Adam Smith, Sancerra Communities – Whitewood, LLC
February 29, 2024
14984-06 AQ & EA Assessment
• Receptor R5 represents the existing residence at 35960 Arendt Lane, approximately 122 feet east of the Project site. Receptor R5 is placed near the private outdoor living area (backyard) facing the Project site.
• Receptor R6 represents th e Vista Murrieta High School at 28251 Clinton Keith Road , approximately 551 feet southwest of the Project site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the Project site, receptor R6 is placed at the building façade.
REGULATORY BACKGROUND
FEDERAL REGULATIONS
The EPA is responsible for setting and enforcing the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for O 3, CO, NO X, SO2, PM10, and lead (Pb) (5). The EPA has jurisdiction over emissions sources that are under the authority of the federal government including aircraft, locomotives, and emissions sources outside state waters (Outer Continental Shelf). The EPA also establishes emission standards for vehicles sold in states other than California. Automobiles sold in California must meet the stricter emission requirements of CARB.
The Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) was first enacted in 1955 and has been amended numerous times in subsequent years (1963, 1965, 1967, 1970, 1977, and 1990). The CAA establishes the federal air quality standards, the NAAQS, and specifies future dates for ach ieving compliance (6). The CAA also mandates that each state submit and implement state implementation plans (SIPs) for local areas not meeting these standards. These plans must include pollution control measures that demonstrate how the standards will be met.
The 1990 amendments to the CAA that identify specific emission reduction goals for areas not meeting the NAAQS require a demonstration of reasonable further progress toward attainment and incorporate additional sanctions for failure to attain or to meet in terim milestones. The sections of the CAA most directly applicable to the development of the Project site include Title I (Non-Attainment Provisions) and Title II (Mobile Source Provisions) (7) (8). Title I provisions were established with the goal of attaining the NAAQS for the following criteria pollutants O 3, NO2, SO2,
PM10, CO, PM2.5, and Pb. The NAAQS were amended in July 1997 to include an additional standard for O3 and to adopt a NAAQS for PM2.5.
Mobile source emissions are regulated in accordance with Title II provisions. These provisions require the use of cleaner burning gasoline and other cleaner burning fuels such as methanol and natural gas. Automobile manufacturers are also required to reduce tailpipe emissions of hydrocarbons and NO
X. NOX is a collective term that includes all forms of NOX which are emitted as byproducts of the combustion process.
CALIFORNIA REGULATIONS
CARB
The CARB, which became part of the California EPA (CalEPA) in 1991, is responsible for ensuring implementation of the California Clean Air Act (AB 2595), responding to the federal CAA, and for regulating emissions from consumer products and motor vehicles. AB 2595 mandates achievement of the maximum degree of emissions reductions possible from vehicular and other Adam Smith, Sancerra Communities – Whitewood, LLC
February 29, 2024
14984-06 AQ & EA Assessment
mobile sources in order to attain the state ambient air quality standards by the earliest practical date. The CARB established the California ambient air quality standards (CAAQS) for all pollutants for which the federal government has NAAQS and, in addit ion, establishes standards for SO 4, visibility, hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and vinyl chloride (C2H3Cl). However, at this time, H2S and C2H3Cl are not measured at any monitoring stations in the SCAB because they are not considered to be a regional air quality problem. Generally, the CAAQS are more stringent than the NAAQS (1) (2).
Local air quality management districts, such as the SCAQMD, regulate air emissions from stationary sources such as commercial and industrial facilities. All air pollution control districts have been formally designated as attainment or non-attainment for each CAAQS.
Serious non-attainment areas are required to prepare Air Quality Management Plans (AQMP) that include specified emission reduction strategies in an effort to meet clean air goals. These plans are required to include:
• Application of Best Available Retrofit Control Technology to existing sources; • Developing control programs for area sources (e.g., architectural coatings and solvents) and indirect sources (e.g. motor vehicle use generated by residential and commercial development);
• A District permitting system designed to allow no net increase in emissions from any new or modified permitted sources of emissions;
• Implementing reasonably available transportation control measures and assuring a substantial reduction in growth rate of vehicle trips and miles traveled; • Significant use of low emissions vehicles by fleet operators; • Sufficient control strategies to achieve a 5% or more annual reduction in emissions or 15% or more in a period of three years for ROGs, NO
X, CO and PM10. However, air basins
may use alternative emission reduction strategy that achieves a reduction of less than 5% per year under certain circumstances.
AQMP
Currently, the NAAQS and CAAQS are exceeded in most parts of the SCAB. In response, the SCAQMD has adopted a series of AQMP to meet the state and federal ambient air quality standards (10). AQMPs are updated regularly in order to more effectively reduce emissions, accommodate growth, and to minimize any negative fiscal impacts of air pollution control on the economy.
APPLICABLE REGULATORY REQUIRMENTS
SCAQMD Rules that are currently applicable during construction activity for this Project include but are not limited to Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust), Rule 445 (Wood Burning Devices), and Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings) (3) (4) (5).
SCAQMD Rule 403
This rule is intended to reduce the amount of particulate matter entrained in the ambient air as a result of anthropogenic (human- made) fugitive dust sources by requiring actions to prevent Adam Smith, Sancerra Communities – Whitewood, LLC
February 29, 2024
14984-06 AQ & EA Assessment
and reduce fugitive dust emissions. Rule 403 applies to any activity or human -made condition capable of generating fugitive dust and requires best available control measures to be applied to earth moving and grading activities. This rule is intended to red uce PM10 emissions from any transportation, handling, construction, or storage activity that has the potential to generate fugitive dust. PM
10 suppression techniques are summarized below.
• Portions of a construction site to remain inactive longer than a period of three months will be seeded and watered until grass cover is grown or otherwise stabilized. • All onsite roads will be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or chemically stabilized.
• All material transported offsite will be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
• The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations will be minimized at all times.
• Where vehicles leave a construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the streets will be swept daily or washed down at the end of the workday to remove soil tracked onto the paved surface.
SCAQMD Rule 445
This rule is intended to reduce the emission of particulate matter from wood -burning devices.
The Project is required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 445, which prohibits the use of wood burning stoves and fireplaces in new development.
SCAQMD Rule 1113
This rule serves to limit the volatile organic compound (VOC) content of architectural coatings used on projects in the SCAQMD. Any person who supplies, sells, offers for sale, or manufactures any architectural coating for use on projects in the SCAQMD mus t comply with the current VOC standards set in this rule.
METHODOLOGY
In May 2022, the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) in conjunction with other California air districts, including SCAQMD, released the latest version of the CalEEMod Version 2022.1. The purpose of this model is to calculate cons truction-source and operational- source criteria pollutant (VOCs, NO
X, SOX, CO, PM 10, and PM 2.5) and GHG emissions from direct and indirect sources; and quantify applicable air quality and GHG reductions achieved from mitigation measures (6). Accordingly, the latest version of CalEEMod has been used for this Project to determine construction and operational air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.
Standards of Significance
The criteria used to determine the significance of potential Project-related air quality impacts are taken from the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines ( CEQA Guidelines ) (14 CCR §§15000, et seq.). Based on these thresholds, a project would result in a significant impact related to air quality if it would (7):
• Threshold 1: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
Adam Smith, Sancerra Communities – Whitewood, LLC
February 29, 2024
14984-06 AQ & EA Assessment
• Threshold 2: Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.
• Threshold 3: Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. • Threshold 4: Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.
AIR QUALITY REGIONAL EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS
The SCAQMD has developed regional significance thresholds for criteria pollutants, as summarized at Table 1 (8). The SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Significance Thresholds ( April 2019) indicate that any projects in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) with daily emissions that exceed any of the indicated thresholds should be considered as having an individually and cumulatively significant air quality impact.
TABLE 1: MAXIMUM DAILY REGIONAL EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS
Pollutant Construction Operations
NOX 100 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
VOC 75 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
PM10 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day
PM2.5 55 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
SOX 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day
CO 550 lbs/day 550 lbs/day
lbs/day – Pounds Per Day
AIR QUALITY LOCALIZED EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS
For this Project, the appropriate SRA for the LST analysis is the SCAQMD Temecula Valley monitoring station (SRA 26). LSTs apply to CO, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5. The SCAQMD produced look- up tables for projects less than or equal to 5 acres in size. The SCAQMD’s screening look-up tables are utilized in determining localized impacts. It should be noted that since the look -up tables identify thresholds at only 1 acre, 2 acres, and 5 acres, linear regression has been utilized to determine localized significance thresholds. Consistent with SCAQMD guidance, the thresholds presented in Table 2 were calculated by interpolating the threshold values for the Project’s disturbed acreage.
The acres disturbed is based on the equipment list and days in the site preparation and grading phase according to the anticipated maximum number of acres a given piece of equipment can pass over in an 8 -hour workday. The equipment -specific grading rates are summarized in the CalEEMod user’s guide, Appendix A: Calculation Details for CalEEMod (9). It should be noted that the disturbed area per day is representative of a piece of equipment making multiple passes over the same land area. In other words, one Rubber Tired Dozer can make multiple passes over the same land area totaling 0.5 acres in a given 8-hour day. Appendix A of the CalEEMod User Manual only identifies equipment -specific grading rates for Crawler Tractors, Graders, Rubber Tired Adam Smith, Sancerra Communities – Whitewood, LLC
February 29, 2024
14984-06 AQ & EA Assessment
Dozers, and Scrapers; therefore, Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes equipment that was included in the site preparation and grading phase was replaced with crawler tractors. For analytical purposes, emissions associated with peak demolition, site preparation and grading activities are considered for purposes of localized significance thresholds (LSTs) since this phase represents the maximum localized emissions that would occur. The Project’s construction activities could disturb a maximum of approximately 1 acre per day for demolition, 3.5 acres per day for site preparation and 4 acres per day for grading activities. Any other construction phases of development would result in lesser emissions and consequently lesser impacts than what is disclosed herein. As such, Table 2 presents thresholds for localized construction and operational emissions.
TABLE 2: MAXIMUM DAILY LOCALIZED EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS
Source Activity
Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX PM10 PM2.5
Construction
Demolition 162 lbs/day 750 lbs/day 4 lbs/day 3 lbs/day
Site Preparation 303 lbs/day 1,533 lbs/day 10 lbs/day 6 lbs/day Grading 325 lbs/day 1,677 lbs/day 11 lbs/day 7 lbs/day
1Source of localized significance threshold (LSTs) is provided on page 8.
REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS SUMMARY
The estimated maximum daily construction emissions without mitigation are summarized on Table 3. Detailed construction model outputs are presented in Attachment A. Under the assumed scenarios, emissions resulting from the Project construction will not exceed thresholds established by the SCAQMD for emissions of any criteria pollutant and no mitigation is required.
TABLE 3 OVERALL REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS SUMMARY Source
Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Summer
2024 2.28 13.90 30.20 0.03 3.21 1.14
Winter
2024 69.60 42.60 41.30 0.06 8.15 4.81
Maximum Daily Emissions 69.60 42.60 41.30 0.06 8.15 4.81 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
1PM10 and PM2.5 source emissions reflect 3x daily watering per SCAQMD Rule 403 for fugitive dust.
Adam Smith, Sancerra Communities – Whitewood, LLC
February 29, 2024
14984-06 AQ & EA Assessment
REGIONAL OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Operational activities associated with the Project would result in emissions of CO, VOCs, NOX, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5. Operational related emissions are expected from the following primary sources:
area source emissions, energy source emissions, and mobile source emissions, The Project related operational air quality impacts derive primarily from vehicle trips generated by the Project. Trip characteristics available from the Whitewood I Traffic Analysis were utilized in this analysis (10).
The estimated operation-source emissions from the Project are summarized on Table 4. Detailed operation model outputs are presented in Attachment A. As shown on Table 4, operational - source emissions would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds for emissions of any criteria pollutant and no mitigation is required.
TABLE 4: TOTAL PROJECT REGIONAL OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Source
Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Summer
Mobile Source 9.17 8.64 77.80 0.18 6.01 1.17
Area Source 11.30 4.06 16.50 0.03 0.32 0.32
Energy Source 0.07 1.25 0.53 0.01 0.10 0.10
Total Maximum Daily Emissions 20.54 13.95 94.83 0.22 6.43 1.59 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
Winter
Mobile Source 8.50 9.27 65.40 0.17 6.01 1.17
Area Source 9.95 3.91 1.66 0.02 0.32 0.32
Energy Source 0.07 1.25 0.53 0.01 0.10 0.10
Total Maximum Daily Emissions 18.52 14.43 67.59 0.20 6.43 1.59 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
The analysis uses the methodology included in the SCAQMD Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (LST Methodology) (11). The SCAQMD has established that impacts to air quality are significant if there is a potential to contribute or cause localized exceedances of the federal and/or state ambient air quality standards (NAAQS/CAAQS). Collectively, these are referred to as Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs). The SCAQMD established LSTs in response to the Adam Smith, Sancerra Communities – Whitewood, LLC
February 29, 2024
14984-06 AQ & EA Assessment
SCAQMD Governing Board’s Environmental Justice Initiative I -42. LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard at the sensitive receptor. The SCAQMD states that lead agencies can use the LSTs as another indicator of significance in its air quality impact analyses. It should be noted that SCAQMD also states that projects that are statutorily or categorically exempt under CEQA would not be subject to LST analyses. Projects exempt from CEQA also include infill projects that meet the H&S Code provisions. As such, although not required for this Project, LST analysis is presented to further underscore that there are in fact no significant impacts associated with the Project.
The SCAQMD recommends that the nearest sensitive receptor be considered when determining the Project’s potential to cause an individual or cumulatively significant impact. The nearest land use where an individual could remain for 24 hours to the Project site has been used to determine localized construction and operational air quality impacts for emissions of PM 10 and PM2.5 (since
PM10 and PM2.5 thresholds are based on a 24-hour averaging time). The nearest receptor used for evaluation of localized impacts of PM 10 and PM 2.5 is location R2 represented by the existing residence at 35842 Meadowlark Lane, approximately 59 feet (18 meters) north of the Project site.
As such, for evaluation of localized PM10 and PM2.5, a 25-meter distance will be used. Receptors in the Project study area shown on Exhibit 2.
As previously stated, and consistent with LST Methodology, the nearest industrial/commercial use to the Project site is used to determine construction and operational LST air impacts for emissions of NO
X and CO as the averaging periods for these pollutants are shorter (8 hours or less) and it is reasonable to assume that an individual could be present at these sites for periods of one to 8 hours. It should be noted that the existing residence (R2) is located at a closer distance than the nearest industrial/ commercial use. As such, the same receptor will be used for evaluation of localized NOX and CO.
It should be noted that the LST Methodology explicitly states that “It is possible that a project may have receptors closer than 25 meters. Projects with boundaries located closer than 25 meters to the nearest receptor should use the LSTs for receptors loc ated at 25 meters (11).” As such a 25- meter receptor distance would be used for evaluation of localized PM10, PM2.5, NOX, and CO.
2 The purpose of SCAQMD’s Environmental Justice program is to ensure that everyone has the right to equal protection from air pollution and fair access to the decision-making process that works to improve the quality of air within their communities. Further, the SCAQMD defines Environmental Justice as “…equitable environmental policymaking and enforcement to protect the health of all residents, regardless of age, culture, ethnicity, gender, race, socioeconomic status, or geographic location, from the health effects of air pollution.” Adam Smith, Sancerra Communities – Whitewood, LLC
February 29, 2024
14984-06 AQ & EA Assessment
EXHIBIT 2: SENSITIVE RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
Adam Smith, Sancerra Communities – Whitewood, LLC
February 29, 2024
14984-06 AQ & EA Assessment
LOCALIZED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Table 5 identifies the localized impacts at the nearest receptor location in the vicinity of the Project. Outputs from the model runs for construction LSTs are provided in Attachment A. For analytical purposes, emissions associated with peak site preparation and grading activities are considered for purposes of LSTs since these phases represents the maximum localized emissions that would occur. Any other construction phases of development that overlap would result in lesser emissions and consequently lesser impacts than what is disclosed herein. As shown in Table 5, emissions resulting from the construction will not exceed the numerical thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD for any criteria pollutant . Thus, a less than significant impact would occur for localized Project-related construction-source emissions and no mitigation is required.
LOCALIZED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
The Project consists of a Development Plan Permit and Tentative Tract Map for a 17.26-acre site.
The Project would provide for the development of 243 multi-family residential homes at a density of 15.1 dwelling units per acre. The Project also includes construction of a recreational pool area with a ±900sf restroom and pool equipment building, tot lot and 65,120 SF of total common open space areas throughout the site . According to SCAQMD LST methodology, LSTs would apply to the operational phase of a proposed project, if the project includes stationary sources, or attracts mobile sources that may spend long periods queuing and idling at the site (e.g., transfer facilities and warehouse buildings). The proposed project does not include such uses, and thus, due to the lack of significant stationary source emissions, no LST analysis is needed for operations.
TABLE 5: PROJECT LOCALIZED CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
On-Site Emissions
Emissions (lbs/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Demolition
Maximum Daily Emissions 24.90 21.70 1.26 1.01
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 162 750 4 3
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Site Preparation
Maximum Daily Emissions 42.50 35.30 7.91 4.76
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 303 1,533 10 6
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Grading
Maximum Daily Emissions 37.60 31.40 4.44 2.61
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 325 1,677 11 7
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Adam Smith, Sancerra Communities – Whitewood, LLC
February 29, 2024
14984-06 AQ & EA Assessment
AIR QUALITY IMPACTS – CONSISTENCY WITH THRESHOLD NO. 1
Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? The Project site is located within the SCAB, which is characterized by relatively poor air quality.
The SCAQMD has jurisdiction over an approximately 10,743 square -mile area consisting of the four-county Basin and the Los Angeles County and Riverside Coun ty portions of what use to be referred to as the Southeast Desert Air Basin. In these areas, the SCAQMD is principally responsible for air pollution control, and works directly with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), county transportation commissions, local governments, as well as state and federal agencies to reduce emissions from stationary, mobile, and indirect sources to meet state and federal ambient air quality standards.
Currently, these state and federal air quality standards are exceeded in most parts of the SCAB.
In response, the SCAQMD has adopted a series of AQMPs to meet the state and federal ambient air quality standards. AQMPs are updated regularly in order to more effectively reduce emissions, accommodate growth, and to minimize any negative fiscal impacts of air pollution control on the economy.
In December 2022, the SCAQMD released the Final 2022 AQMP (2022 AQMP). The 2022 AQMP continues to evaluate current integrated strategies and control measures to meet the CAAQS, as well as explore new and innovative methods to reach its goals. Some of these approaches include utilizing incentive programs, recognizing existing co -benefit programs from other sectors, and developing a strategy with fair-share reductions at the federal, state, and local levels (12). Similar to the 201 6 AQMP, the 2022 AQMP incorporates scientific and technological information and planning assumptions, including the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, a planning document that supports the integration of land use and transportation to help the region meet the federal CAA requirements (13). The Project’s consistency with the AQMP will be determined using the 2022 AQMP as discussed below.
Criteria for determining consistency with the AQMP are defined in Chapter 12, Section 12.2 and Section 12.3 of the 1993 CEQA Handbook (18). These indicators are discussed below.
The proposed Project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP.
The violations under this criterion refer to the CAAQS and NAAQS. CAAQS and NAAQS violations would occur if regional or localized significance thresholds were exceeded.
CAAQS and NAAQS violations would occur if regional or localized significance thresholds were exceeded. As evaluated, the Project’s regional and localized construction and operational-source emissions would not exceed applicable regional significance thresholds. As such, a less than significant impact is expected.
On the basis of the preceding discussion, the Project is determined to be consistent with the first criterion.
The Project will not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP based on the years of Project build - out phase.
Adam Smith, Sancerra Communities – Whitewood, LLC
February 29, 2024
14984-06 AQ & EA Assessment
The 2022 AQMP demonstrates that the applicable ambient air quality standards can be achieved within the timeframes required under federal law. Growth projections from local general plans adopted by cities in the district are provided to the SCAG, which develops re gional growth forecasts, which are then used to develop future air quality forecasts for the AQMP. Development consistent with the growth projections in City of Murrieta General Plan is considered to be consistent with the AQMP.
Peak day emissions generated by construction activities are largely independent of land use assignments, but rather are a function of development scope and maximum area of disturbance.
Irrespective of the site’s land use designation, development of the site to its maximum potential would likely occur, with disturbance of the entire site occurring during construction activities. As such, when considering that no emissions thresholds will be exceeded, a less than significant impact would result.
The City of Murrieta General Plan designates the Project site as “Multiple-Family Residential 2” (MF-2) uses. The MF-2 designation allows for up to 10.1 – 30 du/ac dwelling units per acre. This land use allows for attached and detached apartments and condominiums. Allowed development includes townhomes, condominiums, apartment senior housing, and stacked flats (14).
The Project consists of a Development Plan Permit and Tentative Tract Map for a 17.26-acre site.
The Project would provide for the development of 243 multi-family residential homes at a density of 15.1 dwelling units per acre. The Project also includes construction of a recreational pool area with a ±900sf restroom and pool equipment building, tot lot and 65,120 SF of total common open space areas throughout the site. The Project’s proposed uses and density are consistent with the site’s land use designations, and a general plan amendment will not be required.
On the basis of the preceding discussion, the Project is determined to be consistent with the second criterion.
As the proposed Project is consistent with site’s land use designation, would not exceed any applicable regional or local thresholds, and would not result in or cause NAAQS or CAAQS violations, the Project is therefore considered to be consistent with the AQMP and would not have impacts beyond what was studied in the City of Murrieta General Plan EIR, as such, a less than significant impact is expected.
AIR QUALITY IMPACTS – CONSISTENCY WITH THRESHOLD NO. 2
Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
The CAAQS designate the Project site as nonattainment for O3, PM10, and PM2.5 while the NAAQS designates the Project site as nonattainment for O3 and PM2.5.
The SCAQMD has published a report on how to address cumulative impacts from air pollution:
White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution (15). In this report the SCAQMD clearly states (Page D-3):
“…the SCAQMD uses the same significance thresholds for project specific and cumulative impacts for all environmental topics analyzed in an Environmental Assessment or EIR. The only Adam Smith, Sancerra Communities – Whitewood, LLC
February 29, 2024
14984-06 AQ & EA Assessment
case where the significance thresholds for project specific and cumulative impacts differ is the Hazard Index (HI) significance threshold for TAC emissions. The project specific (project increment) significance threshold is HI > 1.0 while the cumulative (facility -wide) is HI > 3.0. It should be noted that the HI is only one of three TAC emission significance thresholds considered (when applicable) in a CEQA analysis. The other two are the maximum individual cancer risk (MICR) and the cancer burden, both of which use the same significance thresholds (MICR of 10 in 1 million and cancer burden of 0.5) for project specific and cumulative impacts.
Projects that exceed the project-specific significance thresholds are considered by the SCAQMD to be cumulatively considerable. This is the reason project-specific and cumulative significance thresholds are the same. Conversely, projects that do not exceed the project-specific thresholds are generally not considered to be cumulatively significant.” Therefore, this analysis assumes that individual projects that do not generate operational or construction emissions that exceed the SCAQMD’s recommended daily thresholds for project - specific impacts would also not cause a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for those pollutants for which SCAB is in nonattainment, and, therefore, would not be considered to have a significant, adverse air quality impact. Alternatively, individual project-related construction and operational emissions that exceed SCAQMD thresholds for project -specific impacts would be considered cumulatively considerable.
Construction Impacts
The Project‐specific evaluation of emissions presented in the preceding analysis demonstrates that proposed Project construction -source air pollutant emissions would not result in exceedances of regional thresholds. Therefore, the proposed Project construction- source emissions would be considered less than significant on a project -specific and cumulative basis.
Additionally, the Project does not have impacts beyond what was studied in the City of Murrieta General Plan EIR.
Operational Impacts
The Project‐specific evaluation of emissions presented in the preceding analysis demonstrates that proposed Project operational-source air pollutant emissions would not result in exceedances of regional thresholds. Therefore, the proposed Project operational-source emissions would be considered less than significant on a project -specific and cumulative basis . Additionally, the Project does not have impacts beyond what was studied in the City of Murrieta General Plan EIR.
AIR QUALITY IMPACTS – CONSISTENCY WITH THRESHOLD NO. 3
Would the expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? The potential impact of Project-generated air pollutant emissions at sensitive receptors has also been considered. Results of the LST analysis indicate that the Project will not exceed the SCAQMD localized significance thresholds during construction. Therefore, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations during Project construction.
Additionally, the Project will not exceed the SCAQMD localized significance thresholds during operational activity. Therefore, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations as the result of Project operations.
Adam Smith, Sancerra Communities – Whitewood, LLC
February 29, 2024
14984-06 AQ & EA Assessment
CO “HOT SPOT” ANALYSIS
As discussed below, the Project would not result in potentially adverse CO concentrations or “hot spots.” Further, detailed modeling of Project -specific CO “hot spots” is not needed to reach this conclusion. An adverse CO concentration, known as a “hot spo t”, would occur if an exceedance of the state one-hour standard of 20 parts per million (ppm) or the eight-hour standard of 9 ppm were to occur.
It has long been recognized that CO hotspots are caused by vehicular emissions, primarily when idling at congested intersections. In response, vehicle emissions standards have become increasingly stringent in the last twenty years. Currently, the allowable CO emissions standard in California is a maximum of 3.4 grams/mile for passenger cars (there are requirements for certain vehicles that are more stringent). With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of increasi ngly sophisticated and efficient emissions control technologies, CO concentration in the SCAB is now designated as attainment. To establish a more accurate record of baseline CO concentrations affecting the SCAB, a CO “hot spot” analysis was conducted in 2003 for four busy intersections in Los Angeles at the peak morning and afternoon time periods. This “hot spot” analysis did not predict any violation of CO standards, as shown on Table 6.
TABLE 6: CO MODEL RESULTS
Intersection Location
CO Concentrations (ppm)
Morning 1-hour Afternoon 1-hour 8-hour
Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue 4.6 3.5 3.7
Sunset Boulevard/Highland Avenue 4 4.5 3.5
La Cienega Boulevard/Century Boulevard 3.7 3.1 5.2
Long Beach Boulevard/Imperial Highway 3 3.1 8.4
Notes: Federal 1-hour standard is 35 ppm and the deferral 8-hour standard is 9.0 ppm.
Based on the SCAQMD's 2003 AQMP and the 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide (1992 CO Plan), peak carbon monoxide concentrations in the SCAB were a result of unusual meteorological and topographical conditions and not a result of traffic volume s and congestion at a particular intersection. As evidence of this, for example, 8.4 ppm 8- hr CO concentration measured at the Long Beach Blvd. and Imperial Hwy. intersection (highest CO generating intersection within the “hot spot” analysis), only 0.7 ppm was attributable to the traffic volumes and congestion at this intersection; the remaining 7.7 ppm were due to the ambient air measurements at the time the 2003 AQMP was prepared (20). In contrast, an adverse CO concentration, known as a “hot spot”, would occur if an exceedance of the state one -hour standard of 20 parts per million (ppm) or the eight-hour standard of 9 ppm were to occur.
Similar considerations are also employed by other Air Districts when evaluating potential CO concentration impacts. More specifically, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) concludes that under existing and future vehicle emission rates, a given project would have to increase traffic volumes at a single intersection by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour Adam Smith, Sancerra Communities – Whitewood, LLC
February 29, 2024
14984-06 AQ & EA Assessment
(vph)—or 24,000 vph where vertical and/or horizontal air does not mix —in order to generate a significant CO impact (21). Traffic volumes generating the CO concentrations for the “hot spot” analysis is shown on Table 7. The busiest intersection evaluated was that at Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue, which has a daily traffic volume of approximately 100,000 vph and AM/PM traffic volumes of 8,062 vph and 7,719 vph respectively (20). The 2003 AQMP estimated that the 1-hour concentration for this intersection was 4.6 ppm; this indicates that, should the daily traffic volume increase four times to 400,000 vehicles per day, CO concentrations (4.6 ppm x 4= 18.4 ppm) would still not likely exceed the most stringent 1-hour CO standard (20.0 ppm).
TABLE 7: CO MODEL RESULTS
Intersection Location
Peak Traffic Volumes (vph)
Eastbound
(AM/PM)
Westbound
(AM/PM)
Southbound
(AM/PM)
Northbound
(AM/PM)
Total
(AM/PM)
Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue 4,954/2,069 1,830/3,317 721/1,400 560/933 8,062/7,719 Sunset Boulevard/Highland Avenue 1,417/1,764 1,342/1,540 2,304/1,832 1,551/2,238 6,614/5,374 La Cienega Boulevard/Century Boulevard 2,540/2,243 1,890/2,728 1,384/2,029 821/1,674 6,634/8,674 Long Beach Boulevard/Imperial Highway 1,217/2,020 1,760/1,400 479/944 756/1,150 4,212/5,514 As shown on Table 8, the intersection of Whitewood Rd. & Clinton Keith Rd. would have the highest AM traffic volumes of 5,840 vph. Additionally, the I-215 NB Ramps & Clinton Keith Rd. would have the highest PM traffic volumes of 7,451 vph (10). As such, Project -related traffic volumes are less than the traffic volumes identified in the 2003 AQMP. The Project considered herein would not produce the volume of traffic required to generate a CO “hot spot” either in the context of the 2003 Los Angel es hot spot study or based on representative BAAQMD CO threshold considerations. Therefore, CO “hot spots” are not an environmental impact of concern for the Project. Localized air quality impacts related to mobile-source emissions would therefore be less than significant and would not have impacts beyond what was studied in the City of Murrieta General Plan EIR.
TABLE 8: PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Intersection Location
Peak Traffic Volumes (vph)
Eastbound
(AM/PM)
Westbound
(AM/PM)
Southbound
(AM/PM)
Northbound
(AM/PM)
Total
(AM/PM)
I-215 SB Ramps & Clinton Keith Rd. 0/0 1224/1378 2274/2962 2255/2877 5752/7217 I-215 NB Ramps & Clinton Keith Rd. 1083/1375 0/0 2082/3051 2380/3025 5545/7451 Warm Springs Rd. & Clinton Keith Rd. 35/12 458/675 1856/2603 2350/2489 4699/5780 Whitewood Rd. & Clinton Keith Rd. 538/1109 1362/1448 1830/2616 2110/1622 5840/6795
Adam Smith, Sancerra Communities – Whitewood, LLC
February 29, 2024
14984-06 AQ & EA Assessment
AIR QUALITY IMPACTS – CONSISTENCY WITH THRESHOLD NO. 4
Would the Project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
The potential for the Project to generate objectionable odors has also been considered. Land uses generally associated with odor complaints include:
• Agricultural uses (livestock and farming)
• Wastewater treatment plants
• Food processing plants
• Chemical plants
• Composting operations
• Refineries
• Landfills
• Dairies
• Fiberglass molding facilities
The Project does not contain land uses typically associated with emitting objectionable odors.
Potential odor sources associated with the proposed Project may result from construction equipment exhaust and the application of asphalt and architectural coatings during construction activities and the temporary storage of typical solid waste (refuse) associated with the proposed Project’s (long-term operational) uses. Standard construction requirements would minimize odor impacts from construct ion. The constr uction odor emissions would be temporary, short -term, and intermittent in nature and would cease upon completion of the respective phase of construction and is thus considered less than significant. It is expected that Project -generated refuse would be sto red in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with the solid waste regulations. The proposed Project would also be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 to prevent occurrences of public nuisances. Therefore, odors associated with the proposed Project construction and operations would be less than significant and would not have impacts beyond what was studied in the City of Murrieta General Plan EIR, as such, no mitigation is required (16).
Adam Smith, Sancerra Communities – Whitewood, LLC
February 29, 2024
14984-06 AQ & EA Assessment
PROJECT ENERGY ANALYSIS
Standards of Significance
Appendix F of the State CEQA Guidelines (17), states that the means of achieving the goal of energy conservation includes the following:
• Decreasing overall per capita energy consumption;
• Decreasing reliance on fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas, and oil; and • Increasing reliance on renewable energy sources.
According to Appendix F, the analysis should include a description of energy conservation measures included as part of the project and should consider whether a project would result in inefficient, wasteful and unnecessary consumption of energy. In compliance with Appendix F and Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines (18), this report analyzes the project’s anticipated energy use during construction and operations to determine if the Project would:
• Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation; or
• Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency Emission Factors Model
Vehicle fuel efficiencies for light-duty-auto vehicles (LDA), light-duty-trucks (LDT1), and light-duty- trucks (LDT2) were estimated using information generated within the 2021 version of the EMFAC developed by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). EMF AC2021 is a mathematical model that was developed to calculate emission rates, fuel consumption, and VMT from motor vehicles that operate on highways, freeways, and local roads in California and is commonly used by CARB to project changes in future emissions from on-road mobile sources (9). EMFAC2021 was run for the LDA, LDT1, and LDT2 vehicle class within the California Riverside South-Coast sub-area for the 2024 calendar year. Data from EMFAC2021 is shown in Attachment B.
CONSTRUCTION ENERGY DEMANDS
CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ELECTRICITY USAGE ESTIMATES
The 2022 National Construction Estimator identifies a typical power cost per 1,000 sf of construction per month of $2.41, which was used to calculate the Project’s total construction power cost (19).
Based on Table 9, the total power cost of the on-site electricity usage during the construction of the Project is estimated to be approximately $ 11,084.52. As shown on Table 10, the total electricity usage from on -site Project construction related activities is estimated to be approximately 84,152 kWh.
Adam Smith, Sancerra Communities – Whitewood, LLC
February 29, 2024
14984-06 AQ & EA Assessment
TABLE 9: PROJECT CONSTRUCTION POWER COST
Land Use
Power Cost
(per 1,000 SF of
building per
month of
construction)
Total
Building
Size
(1,000 SF)
Construction
Duration
(months)
Project
Construction
Power Cost
Condo/Townhouse $2.41 223.690 11 $5,930.02
Apartments Low Rise $2.41 194.436 11 $5,154.50
Parking Lot $2.41 109.820 11 $2,911.33
Other Asphalt Surfaces $2.41 253.522 11 $6,720.87
TOTAL PROJECT CONSTRUCTION POWER COST $11,084.52
TABLE 10: PROJECT CONSTRUCTION ELECTRICITY USAGE
Land Use Cost per kWh1 Project Construction
Electricity Usage (kWh)
Condo/Townhouse $0.13 45,020
Apartments Low Rise $0.13 39,132
Parking Lot $0.13 22,102
Other Asphalt Surfaces $0.13 51,024
TOTAL PROJECT CONSTURCTION ELECTRICTY USAGE (kWh) 84,152 1Assumes the Project will be under the GS-1 General Service Rate under Southern California Edison
CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT FUEL ESTIMATES
As presented in Table 1 1, Project construction activities would consume an estimated 38,750 gallons of diesel fuel. Project construction would represent a “single ‐event” diesel fuel demand and would not require on ‐going or permanent commitment of diesel fuel resources for this purpose.
CONSTRUCTION WORKER FUEL ESTIMATES
With respect to estimated VMT, the construction worker trips would generate an estimated 813,667 VMT. Based on CalEEMod methodology, it is assumed that 50% of all vendor trips are from LDA, 25% are from LDT1, and 25% are from LDT2. Data regarding Project related construction worker trips were based on CalEEMod defaults for the land use type and projec t location which are also utilized within the air quality assessment and CalEEMod outputs contained herein.
As shown on Table 1 2, it is estimated that 29,779 gallons of fuel will be consumed related to construction worker trips during full construction of the proposed Project. Project construction worker trips would represent a “single ‐event” gasoline fuel demand and would not require on ‐ going or permanent commitment of fuel resources for this purpose.
Adam Smith, Sancerra Communities – Whitewood, LLC
February 29, 2024
14984-06 AQ & EA Assessment
TABLE 11: PROJECT CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT FUEL CONSUMPTIONS ESTIMATES Activity/Duration Duration
(Days) Equipment HP Rating Quantity Usage Hours Load Factor HP-hrs/day Total Fuel
Consumption
(gal. diesel
fuel)
15 Rubber Tired Dozers 367 2 8 0.4 2,349 1,904
Excavators 36 3 8 0.38 328 266
Concrete/Industrial Saws 33 1 8 0.73 193 156
Site Preparation 8
Rubber Tired Dozers 367 3 8 0.4 3,523 1,524
Crawler Tractors 87 4 8 0.43 1,197 518
Grading 22
Graders 148 1 8 0.41 485 577
Excavators 36 2 8 0.38 219 260
Crawler Tractors 87 2 8 0.43 599 712
Scrapers 423 2 8 0.48 3,249 3,863
Rubber Tired Dozers 367 1 8 0.4 1,174 1,397
Building Construction 216
Forklifts 82 3 8 0.2 394 4,596
Generator Sets 14 1 8 0.74 83 968
Cranes 367 1 8 0.29 851 9,941
Welders 46 1 8 0.45 166 1,933
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 84 3 8 0.37 746 8,709
Paving 16
Pavers 81 2 8 0.42 544 471
Paving Equipment 89 2 8 0.36 513 443
Rollers 36 2 8 0.38 219 189
Architectural Coating 42 Air Compressors 37 1 8 0.48 142 323 CONSTRUCTION FUEL DEMAND (GALLONS DIESEL FUEL) 38,750
Adam Smith, Sancerra Communities – Whitewood, LLC
February 29, 2024
14984-06 AQ & EA Assessment
TABLE 12: CONSTRUCTION WORKER FUEL CONSUMPTION ESTIMATES (1 OF 2) Year Construction Activity Duration
(Days)
Worker
Trips/Day
Trip
Length
(miles)
VMT
Average
Vehicle Fuel
Economy (mpg)
Estimated
Fuel
Consumption
2024
LDA
Demolition 15 8 18.5 2,220 31.51 70
Site Preparation 8 9 18.5 1,332 31.51 42
Grading 22 10 18.5 4,070 31.51 129
Building Construction 216 95 18.5 379,620 31.51 12,049
Paving 16 8 18.5 2,368 31.51 75
Architectural Coating 42 19 18.5 14,763 31.51 469
LDT1
Demolition 15 4 18.5 1,110 24.62 45
Site Preparation 8 5 18.5 740 24.62 30
Grading 22 5 18.5 2,035 24.62 83
Building Construction 216 48 18.5 191,808 24.62 7,790
Paving 16 4 18.5 1,184 24.62 48
Architectural Coating 42 10 18.5 7,770 24.62 316
LDT2
Demolition 15 4 18.5 1,110 24.57 45
Site Preparation 8 5 18.5 740 24.57 30
Grading 22 5 18.5 2,035 24.57 83
Building Construction 216 48 18.5 191,808 24.57 7,806
Paving 16 4 18.5 1,184 24.57 48
Architectural Coating 42 10 18.5 7,770 24.57 316
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION WORKER FUEL CONSUMPTION 29,779
CONSTRUCTION VENDOR/HAULING FUEL ESTIMATES
With respect to estimated VMT, the construction vendor trips would generate an estimated 54,844 VMT. It is assumed that 50% of all vendor trips are from medium-heavy duty trucks (MHDT) and 50% of vendor trips are from heavy -heavy duty trucks (HHDT ). As shown on Table 13 , it is estimated that 7,722 gallons of fuel will be consumed related to construction vendor trips (medium duty trucks) during full construction of the Project. Project construction vendor trips would represent a “single‐ event” diesel fuel d emand and would not require on ‐going or permanent commitment of diesel fuel resources for this purpose.
Adam Smith, Sancerra Communities – Whitewood, LLC
February 29, 2024
14984-06 AQ & EA Assessment
TABLE 13: CONSTRUCTION VENDOR FUEL CONSUMPTION ESTIMATES (TRUCKS) Year Construction Activity Duration
(Days)
Worker
Trips/Day
Trip
Length
(miles)
VMT
Average
Vehicle Fuel
Economy
Estimated
Fuel
Consumptio
2024
MHDT
Demolition 15 1 10.2 153 8.49 18
Site Preparation 8 1 10.2 82 8.49 10
Grading 22 2 10.2 449 8.49 53
Building Construction 216 12 10.2 26,438 8.49 3,113
HHDT (Vendor)
Demolition 15 1 10.2 153 6.12 25
Site Preparation 8 1 10.2 82 6.12 13
Grading 22 2 10.2 449 6.12 73
Building Construction 216 12 10.2 26,438 6.12 4,319
HHDT (Hauling)
Demolition 15 2 20 600 6.12 98
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION WORKER FUEL CONSUMPTION 7,722
CONSTRUCTION ENERGY DEMANDS SUMMARY
Construction equipment use of fuel would not be atypical for the type of construction proposed because there are no aspects of the Project’s proposed construction process that are unusual or energy-intensive, and Project construction equipment would confor m to the applicable CARB emissions standards, acting to promote equipment fuel efficiencies.
CCR Title 13, Title 13, Motor Vehicles, section 2449(d)(3) Idling, limits idling times of construction vehicles to no more than 5 minutes, thereby precluding unnecessary and wasteful consumption of fuel due to unproductive idling of construction equipment. Best Available Control Measures (BACMs) inform construction equipment operators of this requirement.
With regard to construction worker trips, the 2021 IEPR released by the CEC has shown that fuel efficiencies are getting better within on and off -road vehicle engines due to more stringent government requirements. As supported by the preceding discussions, Project construction energy consumption would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary.
OPERATIONAL ENERGY DEMANDS
TRANSPORTATION ENERGY DEMANDS
Energy that would be consumed by Project ‐generated traffic is a function of total VMT and estimated vehicle fuel economies of vehicles accessing the Project site. The VMT per vehicle class can be determined by the vehicle fleet mix and the total VMT. As with worker and vendors trips, Adam Smith, Sancerra Communities – Whitewood, LLC
February 29, 2024
14984-06 AQ & EA Assessment
operational vehicle fuel efficiencies were estimated using information generated within EMFAC2021 developed by CARB (20) . As summarized on Table 1 4 the Project will result in 6,686,638 annual VMT and an estimated annual fuel consumption of 284,258 gallons of fuel.
OPERATIONAL ENERGY DEMANDS SUMMARY
The Project proposes conventional residential uses reflecting contemporary energy efficient/energy conserving designs and operational programs. The Project does not propose uses that are inherently energy intensive and the energy demands in total would be comparable to other residential land use projects of similar scale and configuration.
The Project will comply with the applicable Title 24 standards which will ensure that the Project energy demands would not be inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary.
The Project would not cause or result in the need for additional energy producing or transmission facilities. The Project would not engage in wasteful or inefficient uses of energy and aims to achieve energy conservations goals within the State of California. As supported by the preceding analyses, Project operations would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy.
TABLE 14: PROJECT-GENERATED VEHICLE TRAFFIC ANNUAL FUEL CONSUMPTION Vehicle Type Average Vehicle Fuel
Economy (mpg) Annual VMT Estimated Annual Fuel
Consumption (gallons)
LDA 31.51 3,321,174 105,413
LDT1 24.62 268,986 10,924
LDT2 24.57 1,320,709 53,748
MDV 19.79 1,078,111 54,487
LHDT1 16.16 218,553 13,523
LHDT2 15.52 61,704 3,977
MHDT 8.49 94,935 11,177
HHDT 6.12 102,830 16,800
OBUS 6.45 4,152 643
UBUS 4.49 2,631 586
MCY 41.75 158,833 3,804
SBUS 6.41 8,978 1,402
MH 5.79 45,042 7,774
TOTAL (ALL VEHICLES) 6,686,638 284,258
PROJECT ENERGY DEMANDS
As shown on Table 1 5, the Project operational energy demands are estimated to result in a 4,950,657 kBTU/year of natural gas; and 1,952,724 kWh/year of electricity. Natural gas would be supplied to the Project by Southern California Gas; electricity would be supplied by Southern California Edison.
Adam Smith, Sancerra Communities – Whitewood, LLC
February 29, 2024
14984-06 AQ & EA Assessment
TABLE 15: PROJECT ANNUAL OPERATIONAL ENERGY DEMAND SUMMARY Land Use Natural Gas Demand
(kBTU/year)
Electricity Demand
(kWh/year)
Condo/Townhouse 2,710,588 952,788
Apartments Low Rise 2,240,069 903,776
Parking Lot 0 96,160
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0 0
TOTAL PROJECT ENERGY DEMAND 4,950,657 1,952,724
ENERGY IMPACT 1
Would the Project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
As supported by the preceding analyses, Project construction and operations would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy. In fact, the Project proposes to develop one warehouse building and associated parking and landscaping, consistent with the land use designation and zoning identified for the project site. Project facility operational energy demands are estimated to result in 4,950,657 kBTU/year of natural gas; and 1,952,724 kWh/year of electricity. The total electricity usage from on-site project construction activities is estimated to be approximately 84,152 kWh. Electrical energy would be available for use during construction from existing power lines and connections, precluding the use of less -efficient generators. The Project would therefore not cause or result in the need for additional energy producing or transmission facilities. The Project would not engage in wasteful or inefficient uses of energy and aims to achieve energy conservations goals within the Sta te of California. Furthermore, the Project does not have impacts beyond what was studied in the City of Murrieta General Plan EIR.
ENERGY IMPACT 2
Would the Project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
The Project will not conflict with any applicable state or local plans. The Project proposes conventional industrial uses reflecting contemporary energy efficient/energy conserving designs and operational programs. The Project does not propose uses that are inherently energy intensive and the energy demands in total would be c omparable to other industrial land use projects of similar scale and configuration.
The Project will comply with the applicable Title 24 standards which will ensure that the Project energy demands would not be inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary.
The existing buildings use electricity for uses including heating, cooling, and ventilation of buildings; water heating; operation of electrical systems; lighting; and on -site equipment and appliances. The proposed project would replace three older buildin gs with a new building that would comply with the most current Building Energy Efficiency Standards, including the California Adam Smith, Sancerra Communities – Whitewood, LLC
February 29, 2024
14984-06 AQ & EA Assessment
Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24, Part 11: California Green Building Standards. The project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources and would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for energy efficiency and would not have impacts beyond what was studied in the City of Murrieta General Plan EIR . As such, the impacts would be less than significant.
AIR QUALITY & ENERGY CONCLUSION
Results of the assessment indicate that the Project is not anticipated to result in a significant impact and would not have impacts beyond what was studied in the City of Murrieta General Plan EIR during construction or operational activities associated with air quality and energy and no mitigation is required.
14984-06 AQ & EA Assessment
REFERENCES
1. Air Resources Board. California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). [Online] 2009. [Cited:
April 16, 2018.] http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/caaqs/caaqs.htm.
2. Environmental Protection Agency. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). [Online] 1990. https://www.epa.gov/environmental-topics/air-topics.
3. South Coast Air Quality Management District. RULE 403. FUGITIVE DUST. [Online] https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/rule-iv/rule-403.pdf?sfvrsn=4.
4. —. RULE 445. Wood-Burning Devices. [Online] http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule- book/rule-iv/rule-445.pdf.
5. —. RULE 1113. Architectural Coatings. [Online] http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default - source/rule-book/reg-xi/r1113.pdf.
6. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). [Online] May 2022. www.caleemod.com.
7. State of California. 2020 CEQA California Environmental Quality Act. 2020.
8. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. [Online] http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default - source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=2.
9. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). Appendix A: Calculation Details for CalEEMod. CalEEMod. [Online] http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default - source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6.
10. Urban Crossroads, Inc. Whitewood I Traffic Analysis. 2022.
11. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Localized Significance Thresholds Methodology. s.l. : South Coast Air Quality Managment District, 2003.
12. —. Final 2022 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). [Online] December 2022. chrome - extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-plans/2022-air-quality-management- plan/final-2022-aqmp/final-2022-aqmp.pdf?sfvrsn=16.
13. Southern California Association of Governments. 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. [Online] September 2020. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal- plan_0.pdf?1606001176.
14. City of Murrieta 2035. City of Murrieta General Plan 2035. [Online] 2011. https://www.murrietaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/4370/03---Land-Use-Element-A- textpdf.
15. Goss, Tracy A and Kroeger, Amy. White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution. [Online] South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2003. http://www.aqmd.gov/rules/ciwg/final_white_paper.pdf.
14984-06 AQ & EA Assessment
16. South Coast Air Quality Management District. RULE 402 NUISANCE. [Online] http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/rule-iv/rule-402.pdf.
17. State of California. California Environmental Quality Act Guideline, California Public Resources Code, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3,.
18. Association of Environmental Professionals. 2019 CEQA California Environmental Quality Act. 2019.
19. Pray, Richard. 2022 National Construction Estimator. Carlsbad : Craftsman Book Company, 2022.
20. California Department of Transportation. EMFAC Software. [Online] http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/air/pages/emfac.htm.
14984-06 AQ & EA Assessment
ATTACHMENT A
CALEEMOD PROPOSED PROJECT EMISSIONS MODEL OUTPUTS
14984 - Whitewood Detailed Report, 12/8/2022
1 / 50
14984 - Whitewood Detailed Report
Table of Contents
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
1.2. Land Use Types
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Demolition (2024) - Unmitigated
3.3. Site Preparation (2024) - Unmitigated
3.5. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated
3.7. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated
14984 - Whitewood Detailed Report, 12/8/2022
2 / 50
3.9. Paving (2024) - Unmitigated
3.11. Architectural Coating (2024) - Unmitigated
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.2. Unmitigated
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.2. Unmitigated
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.2. Unmitigated
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
14984 - Whitewood Detailed Report, 12/8/2022
3 / 50
4.7.1. Unmitigated
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
14984 - Whitewood Detailed Report, 12/8/2022
4 / 50
5.5. Architectural Coatings
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
5.7. Construction Paving
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
14984 - Whitewood Detailed Report, 12/8/2022
5 / 50
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
5.16.2. Process Boilers
5.17. User Defined
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
14984 - Whitewood Detailed Report, 12/8/2022
6 / 50
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
8. User Changes to Default Data
14984 - Whitewood Detailed Report, 12/8/2022
7 / 50
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name 14984 - Whitewood
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.50
Precipitation (days) 18.6
Location 33.598655677467576, -117.16191006740195
County Riverside-South Coast
City Murrieta
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 5545
EDFZ 11
Electric Utility Southern California Edison
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
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
Condo/Townhouse 130 Dwelling Unit 5.14 223,690 0.00 — 420 — Apartments Low
Rise
132 Dwelling Unit 4.46 194,436 0.00 — 426 —
Parking Lot 680 Space 2.52 0.00 0.00 — — —
14984 - Whitewood Detailed Report, 12/8/2022
8 / 50
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
5.82 Acre 5.82 0.00 0.00 — — —
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.64 2.28 13.9 30.2 0.03 0.55 2.66 3.21 0.51 0.63 1.14 — 6,065 6,065 0.24 0.22 12.8 6,150 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 5.44 69.6 42.6 41.3 0.06 2.25 5.90 8.15 2.07 2.74 4.81 — 8,233 8,233 0.34 0.26 0.41 8,320 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.16 9.36 13.1 20.6 0.03 0.55 1.95 2.49 0.50 0.51 1.02 — 4,342 4,342 0.18 0.14 3.46 4,392 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.40 1.71 2.39 3.77 < 0.005 0.10 0.36 0.46 0.09 0.09 0.19 — 719 719 0.03 0.02 0.57 727
2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Y ear TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 14984 - Whitewood Detailed Report, 12/8/2022
9 / 50
Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 2.64 2.28 13.9 30.2 0.03 0.55 2.66 3.21 0.51 0.63 1.14 — 6,065 6,065 0.24 0.22 12.8 6,150 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 5.44 69.6 42.6 41.3 0.06 2.25 5.90 8.15 2.07 2.74 4.81 — 8,233 8,233 0.34 0.26 0.41 8,320 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 2.16 9.36 13.1 20.6 0.03 0.55 1.95 2.49 0.50 0.51 1.02 — 4,342 4,342 0.18 0.14 3.46 4,392 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.40 1.71 2.39 3.77 < 0.005 0.10 0.36 0.46 0.09 0.09 0.19 — 719 719 0.03 0.02 0.57 727
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 12.0 20.5 14.0 94.8 0.21 0.56 5.88 6.44 0.56 1.04 1.60 125 26,925 27,050 13.7 0.91 77.2 27,740 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 9.91 18.5 14.4 67.6 0.20 0.56 5.88 6.43 0.55 1.04 1.59 125 25,762 25,887 13.7 0.94 4.92 26,514 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 9.17 18.1 9.81 69.6 0.16 0.25 5.09 5.34 0.24 0.91 1.15 125 19,006 19,131 13.6 0.82 30.8 19,745 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.67 3.29 1.79 12.7 0.03 0.05 0.93 0.97 0.04 0.17 0.21 20.7 3,147 3,167 2.24 0.14 5.09 3,269 14984 - Whitewood Detailed Report, 12/8/2022
10 / 50
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 9.96 9.17 8.64 77.8 0.18 0.14 5.88 6.01 0.13 1.04 1.17 — 18,399 18,399 0.77 0.82 74.2 18,738 Area 1.89 11.3 4.06 16.5 0.03 0.32 — 0.32 0.32 — 0.32 0.00 5,005 5,005 0.10 0.01 — 5,010 Energy 0.15 0.07 1.25 0.53 0.01 0.10 — 0.10 0.10 — 0.10 — 3,452 3,452 0.32 0.02 — 3,467 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 20.4 69.3 89.7 2.10 0.05 — 157 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 104 0.00 104 10.4 0.00 — 365 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.99 2.99
Total 12.0 20.5 14.0 94.8 0.21 0.56 5.88 6.44 0.56 1.04 1.60 125 26,925 27,050 13.7 0.91 77.2 27,740 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 9.30 8.50 9.27 65.4 0.17 0.14 5.88 6.01 0.13 1.04 1.17 — 17,276 17,276 0.80 0.85 1.92 17,552 Area 0.46 9.95 3.91 1.66 0.02 0.32 — 0.32 0.32 — 0.32 0.00 4,965 4,965 0.09 0.01 — 4,970 Energy 0.15 0.07 1.25 0.53 0.01 0.10 — 0.10 0.10 — 0.10 — 3,452 3,452 0.32 0.02 — 3,467 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 20.4 69.3 89.7 2.10 0.05 — 157 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 104 0.00 104 10.4 0.00 — 365 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.99 2.99
Total 9.91 18.5 14.4 67.6 0.20 0.56 5.88 6.43 0.55 1.04 1.59 125 25,762 25,887 13.7 0.94 4.92 26,514 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 8.01 7.31 8.20 58.8 0.15 0.12 5.09 5.21 0.11 0.91 1.02 — 15,118 15,118 0.69 0.75 27.8 15,385 Area 1.01 10.7 0.37 10.3 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 0.00 367 367 0.01 < 0.005 — 368 Energy 0.15 0.07 1.25 0.53 0.01 0.10 — 0.10 0.10 — 0.10 — 3,452 3,452 0.32 0.02 — 3,467 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 20.4 69.3 89.7 2.10 0.05 — 157 14984 - Whitewood Detailed Report, 12/8/2022
11 / 50
Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 104 0.00 104 10.4 0.00 — 365 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.99 2.99
Total 9.17 18.1 9.81 69.6 0.16 0.25 5.09 5.34 0.24 0.91 1.15 125 19,006 19,131 13.6 0.82 30.8 19,745 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.46 1.33 1.50 10.7 0.03 0.02 0.93 0.95 0.02 0.17 0.19 — 2,503 2,503 0.11 0.12 4.60 2,547 Area 0.18 1.95 0.07 1.87 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 60.8 60.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 60.9 Energy 0.03 0.01 0.23 0.10 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 571 571 0.05 < 0.005 — 574 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 3.38 11.5 14.9 0.35 0.01 — 26.0 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 17.3 0.00 17.3 1.73 0.00 — 60.5 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.50 0.50
Total 1.67 3.29 1.79 12.7 0.03 0.05 0.93 0.97 0.04 0.17 0.21 20.7 3,147 3,167 2.24 0.14 5.09 3,269
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Demolition (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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
3.12 2.62 24.9 21.7 0.03 1.06 — 1.06 0.98 — 0.98 — 3,425 3,425 0.14 0.03 — 3,437 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 0.20 0.20 — 0.03 0.03 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14984 - Whitewood Detailed Report, 12/8/2022
12 / 50
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.13 0.11 1.02 0.89 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 141 141 0.01 < 0.005 — 141 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.02 0.02 0.19 0.16 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 23.3 23.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 23.4 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — 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 0.08 0.07 0.09 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 198 198 0.01 0.01 0.02 201 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 50.0 50.0 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 52.3 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.19 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 164 164 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 171 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 8.26 8.26 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 8.37 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.05 2.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.15 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.72 6.72 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.05 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 1.37 1.37 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.39 14984 - Whitewood Detailed Report, 12/8/2022
13 / 50
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.34 0.34 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.36 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.11 1.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.17
3.3. Site Preparation (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
5.35 4.49 42.5 35.3 0.05 2.25 — 2.25 2.07 — 2.07 — 5,529 5,529 0.22 0.04 — 5,548 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 5.66 5.66 — 2.69 2.69 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.12 0.10 0.93 0.77 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 121 121 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 122 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.12 0.12 — 0.06 0.06 — — — — — — —
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
14984 - Whitewood Detailed Report, 12/8/2022
14 / 50
20.1—< 0.005< 0.00520.120.1—0.01—0.010.01—0.01< 0.0050.140.170.020.02Off-Road Equipment
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.02 0.02 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09 0.08 0.10 1.10 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 231 231 0.01 0.01 0.03 234 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 26.7 26.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 27.9 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 5.14 5.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.21 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.59 0.59 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.61 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 0.00 0.00 — 0.85 0.85 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.86 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
3.5. Grading (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 14984 - Whitewood Detailed Report, 12/8/2022
15 / 50
Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
4.69 3.94 37.6 31.4 0.06 1.77 — 1.77 1.63 — 1.63 — 6,715 6,715 0.27 0.05 — 6,738 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 2.67 2.67 — 0.98 0.98 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.28 0.24 2.26 1.89 < 0.005 0.11 — 0.11 0.10 — 0.10 — 405 405 0.02 < 0.005 — 406 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.16 0.16 — 0.06 0.06 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.05 0.04 0.41 0.35 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 67.0 67.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 67.2 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.03 0.03 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
14984 - Whitewood Detailed Report, 12/8/2022
16 / 50
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.11 0.10 0.11 1.26 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 265 265 0.01 0.01 0.03 268 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 73.3 73.3 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 76.7 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 16.1 16.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 16.4 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.42 4.42 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.62 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 0.00 0.00 — 2.67 2.67 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.71 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.73 0.73 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.77 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-Road
Equipment
1.55 1.30 12.2 14.2 0.03 0.54 — 0.54 0.49 — 0.49 — 2,630 2,630 0.11 0.02 — 2,639 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 14984 - Whitewood Detailed Report, 12/8/2022
17 / 50
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.55 1.30 12.2 14.2 0.03 0.54 — 0.54 0.49 — 0.49 — 2,630 2,630 0.11 0.02 — 2,639 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.92 0.77 7.20 8.42 0.02 0.32 — 0.32 0.29 — 0.29 — 1,557 1,557 0.06 0.01 — 1,562 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.17 0.14 1.31 1.54 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.05 — 0.05 — 258 258 0.01 < 0.005 — 259 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 1.06 0.97 0.91 15.7 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 2,715 2,715 0.11 0.09 10.8 2,757 Vendor 0.03 0.02 0.82 0.25 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.01 0.02 0.03 — 719 719 0.02 0.11 2.03 754 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 1.01 0.91 1.07 11.9 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 2,495 2,495 0.12 0.09 0.28 2,526 Vendor 0.03 0.02 0.85 0.26 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.01 0.02 0.03 — 720 720 0.02 0.11 0.05 753 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
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
14984 - Whitewood Detailed Report, 12/8/2022
18 / 50
Worker 0.59 0.54 0.63 7.42 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 1,496 1,496 0.07 0.06 2.75 1,517 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.50 0.15 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.02 — 426 426 0.01 0.06 0.52 446 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 0.11 0.10 0.12 1.35 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 248 248 0.01 0.01 0.46 251 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 70.5 70.5 < 0.005 0.01 0.09 73.8 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.9. Paving (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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.01 0.85 7.81 10.0 0.01 0.39 — 0.39 0.36 — 0.36 — 1,512 1,512 0.06 0.01 — 1,517 Paving — 1.37 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.04 0.04 0.34 0.44 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 66.3 66.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 66.5 Paving — 0.06 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 14984 - Whitewood Detailed Report, 12/8/2022
19 / 50
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 0.01 0.06 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 11.0 11.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.0 Paving — 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.09 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 198 198 0.01 0.01 0.02 201 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 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 8.81 8.81 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 8.93 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 0.00 0.00 — 1.46 1.46 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.48 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
3.11. 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 Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
14984 - Whitewood Detailed Report, 12/8/2022
20 / 50
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.22 0.18 1.21 1.53 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 178 178 0.01 < 0.005 — 179 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 64.7 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.03 0.02 0.14 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 20.5 20.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 20.6 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 7.45 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 3.39 3.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.40 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 1.36 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
14984 - Whitewood Detailed Report, 12/8/2022
21 / 50
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Worker 0.20 0.18 0.21 2.38 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 499 499 0.02 0.02 0.06 505 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 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.29 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 58.2 58.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.11 59.0 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 0.05 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 9.63 9.63 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 9.76 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 Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhous
e
5.59 5.15 4.85 43.7 0.10 0.08 3.30 3.38 0.07 0.59 0.66 — 10,329 10,329 0.43 0.46 41.7 10,519 14984 - Whitewood Detailed Report, 12/8/2022
22 / 50
Apartme
Low Rise
4.37 4.02 3.79 34.1 0.08 0.06 2.58 2.64 0.06 0.46 0.51 — 8,070 8,070 0.34 0.36 32.5 8,218 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 9.96 9.17 8.64 77.8 0.18 0.14 5.88 6.01 0.13 1.04 1.17 — 18,399 18,399 0.77 0.82 74.2 18,738 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhous
e
5.22 4.77 5.21 36.7 0.09 0.08 3.30 3.38 0.07 0.59 0.66 — 9,699 9,699 0.45 0.48 1.08 9,854 Apartme
nts
Low Rise
4.08 3.73 4.07 28.7 0.07 0.06 2.58 2.64 0.06 0.46 0.51 — 7,577 7,577 0.35 0.37 0.84 7,698 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 9.30 8.50 9.27 65.4 0.17 0.14 5.88 6.01 0.13 1.04 1.17 — 17,276 17,276 0.80 0.85 1.92 17,552 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhous
e
0.80 0.73 0.82 5.88 0.01 0.01 0.51 0.52 0.01 0.09 0.10 — 1,373 1,373 0.06 0.07 2.52 1,397 Apartme
nts
Low Rise
0.66 0.60 0.68 4.84 0.01 0.01 0.42 0.43 0.01 0.07 0.08 — 1,130 1,130 0.05 0.06 2.08 1,150 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 14984 - Whitewood Detailed Report, 12/8/2022
23 / 50
Total 1.46 1.33 1.50 10.7 0.03 0.02 0.93 0.95 0.02 0.17 0.19 — 2,503 2,503 0.11 0.12 4.60 2,547
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhous
e
— — — — — — — — — — — — 910 910 0.09 0.01 — 915
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 863 863 0.08 0.01 — 868
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 91.8 91.8 0.01 < 0.005 — 92.4
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,865 1,865 0.18 0.02 — 1,876 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhous
e
— — — — — — — — — — — — 910 910 0.09 0.01 — 915
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 863 863 0.08 0.01 — 868
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 91.8 91.8 0.01 < 0.005 — 92.4
14984 - Whitewood Detailed Report, 12/8/2022
24 / 50
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,865 1,865 0.18 0.02 — 1,876 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhous
e
— — — — — — — — — — — — 151 151 0.01 < 0.005 — 152
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 143 143 0.01 < 0.005 — 144
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 15.2 15.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.3 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 309 309 0.03 < 0.005 — 311
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhous
e
0.08 0.04 0.68 0.29 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 869 869 0.08 < 0.005 — 871 Apartme
nts
Low Rise
0.07 0.03 0.57 0.24 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 718 718 0.06 < 0.005 — 720 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 14984 - Whitewood Detailed Report, 12/8/2022
25 / 50
0.00—0.000.000.000.00—0.00—0.000.00—0.000.000.000.000.000.00Other Asphalt
Surfaces
Total 0.15 0.07 1.25 0.53 0.01 0.10 — 0.10 0.10 — 0.10 — 1,587 1,587 0.14 < 0.005 — 1,591 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhous
e
0.08 0.04 0.68 0.29 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 869 869 0.08 < 0.005 — 871 Apartme
nts
Low Rise
0.07 0.03 0.57 0.24 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 718 718 0.06 < 0.005 — 720 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 0.15 0.07 1.25 0.53 0.01 0.10 — 0.10 0.10 — 0.10 — 1,587 1,587 0.14 < 0.005 — 1,591 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhous
e
0.01 0.01 0.12 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 144 144 0.01 < 0.005 — 144 Apartme
nts
Low Rise
0.01 0.01 0.10 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 119 119 0.01 < 0.005 — 119 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 0.01 0.23 0.10 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 263 263 0.02 < 0.005 — 263
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
14984 - Whitewood Detailed Report, 12/8/2022
26 / 50
4.3.2. 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.46 0.23 3.91 1.66 0.02 0.32 — 0.32 0.32 — 0.32 0.00 4,965 4,965 0.09 0.01 — 4,970 Consum
er
Products
— 8.98 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.74 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt
1.43 1.36 0.15 14.8 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 39.7 39.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 39.9 Total 1.89 11.3 4.06 16.5 0.03 0.32 — 0.32 0.32 — 0.32 0.00 5,005 5,005 0.10 0.01 — 5,010 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.46 0.23 3.91 1.66 0.02 0.32 — 0.32 0.32 — 0.32 0.00 4,965 4,965 0.09 0.01 — 4,970 Consum
er
Products
— 8.98 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.74 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 0.46 9.95 3.91 1.66 0.02 0.32 — 0.32 0.32 — 0.32 0.00 4,965 4,965 0.09 0.01 — 4,970 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.01 < 0.005 0.05 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 56.3 56.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 56.4 14984 - Whitewood Detailed Report, 12/8/2022
27 / 50
————————————————1.64—Consum
er
Products
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.14 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt
0.18 0.17 0.02 1.85 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 4.51 4.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.52 Total 0.18 1.95 0.07 1.87 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 60.8 60.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 60.9
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.2. 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhous
e
— — — — — — — — — — — 10.1 34.4 44.5 1.04 0.03 — 78.0
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 10.3 34.9 45.2 1.06 0.03 — 79.2
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 — — — — — — — — — — — 20.4 69.3 89.7 2.10 0.05 — 157 14984 - Whitewood Detailed Report, 12/8/2022
28 / 50
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Condo/T
ownhous
e
— — — — — — — — — — — 10.1 34.4 44.5 1.04 0.03 — 78.0
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 10.3 34.9 45.2 1.06 0.03 — 79.2
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 — — — — — — — — — — — 20.4 69.3 89.7 2.10 0.05 — 157 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhous
e
— — — — — — — — — — — 1.68 5.69 7.37 0.17 < 0.005 — 12.9 Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 1.70 5.78 7.48 0.18 < 0.005 — 13.1 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 — — — — — — — — — — — 3.38 11.5 14.9 0.35 0.01 — 26.0
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 14984 - Whitewood Detailed Report, 12/8/2022
29 / 50
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhous
e
— — — — — — — — — — — 51.8 0.00 51.8 5.18 0.00 — 181
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 52.6 0.00 52.6 5.25 0.00 — 184
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 — — — — — — — — — — — 104 0.00 104 10.4 0.00 — 365 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhous
e
— — — — — — — — — — — 51.8 0.00 51.8 5.18 0.00 — 181
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 52.6 0.00 52.6 5.25 0.00 — 184
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 — — — — — — — — — — — 104 0.00 104 10.4 0.00 — 365 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
14984 - Whitewood Detailed Report, 12/8/2022
30 / 50
30.0—0.000.868.580.008.58———————————Condo/T
ownhous
e
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 8.70 0.00 8.70 0.87 0.00 — 30.4
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 — — — — — — — — — — — 17.3 0.00 17.3 1.73 0.00 — 60.5
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhous
e
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.60 1.60
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.39 1.39
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.99 2.99
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
14984 - Whitewood Detailed Report, 12/8/2022
31 / 50
1.601.60————————————————Condo/T
ownhous
e
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.39 1.39
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.99 2.99
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhous
e
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.27 0.27
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.23 0.23
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.50 0.50
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
14984 - Whitewood Detailed Report, 12/8/2022
32 / 50
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
14984 - Whitewood Detailed Report, 12/8/2022
33 / 50
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
14984 - Whitewood Detailed Report, 12/8/2022
34 / 50
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
14984 - Whitewood Detailed Report, 12/8/2022
35 / 50
——————————————————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 Demolition Demolition 1/1/2024 1/19/2024 5.00 15.0 —
Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/22/2024 1/31/2024 5.00 8.00 — Grading Grading 2/1/2024 3/1/2024 5.00 22.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 3/4/2024 12/30/2024 5.00 216 — Paving Paving 12/9/2024 12/30/2024 5.00 16.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 11/1/2024 12/30/2024 5.00 42.0 —
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
14984 - Whitewood Detailed Report, 12/8/2022
36 / 50
5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 367 0.40 Demolition Excavators Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Crawler Tractors Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 87.0 0.43 Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Crawler Tractors Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 87.0 0.43 Grading Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 423 0.48
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 37.0 0.48
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
14984 - Whitewood Detailed Report, 12/8/2022
37 / 50
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor 1.61 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 2.33 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor 0.86 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 20.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor 2.36 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 189 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 23.2 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
14984 - Whitewood Detailed Report, 12/8/2022
38 / 50
Architectural Coating Worker 37.7 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT
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 846,705 282,235 0.00 0.00 21,797
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (Building Square Footage)
Acres Paved (acres)
Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,976 —
Site Preparation — — 28.0 0.00 —
Grading — — 88.0 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.34
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 3 74% 74%
14984 - Whitewood Detailed Report, 12/8/2022
39 / 50
5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Condo/Townhouse — 0%
Apartments Low Rise — 0%
Parking Lot 2.52 100%
Other Asphalt Surfaces 5.82 100%
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Y ear and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Y ear kWh per Y ear CO2 CH4 N2O
2024 0.00 349 0.03 < 0.005
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Y ear VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Y ear Condo/Townhouse 936 1,139 932 352,011 9,751 11,864 9,710 3,667,177 Apartments Low
Rise
890 601 510 289,837 9,268 6,257 5,308 3,019,461
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
14984 - Whitewood Detailed Report, 12/8/2022
40 / 50
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Condo/Townhouse —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 117
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 13
Apartments Low Rise —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 119
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 13
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)
846705.1499999999 282,235 0.00 0.00 21,797
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 250
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
14984 - Whitewood Detailed Report, 12/8/2022
41 / 50
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) Condo/Townhouse 952,788 349 0.0330 0.0040 2,710,588
Apartments Low Rise 903,776 349 0.0330 0.0040 2,240,069 Parking Lot 96,160 349 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 349 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) Condo/Townhouse 5,287,591 0.00
Apartments Low Rise 5,368,938 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Condo/Townhouse 29.8 0.00
Apartments Low Rise 30.2 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00
14984 - Whitewood Detailed Report, 12/8/2022
42 / 50
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 Condo/Townhouse Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Condo/Townhouse Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
Apartments Low Rise Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Apartments Low Rise Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Y ear Horsepower Load Factor
5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr) 14984 - Whitewood Detailed Report, 12/8/2022
43 / 50
5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type
— —
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.
Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
14984 - Whitewood Detailed Report, 12/8/2022
44 / 50
Temperature and Extreme Heat 28.6 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 3.45 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise 0.00 meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 16.5 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 50 meters (m) by 50 m, or about 164 feet (ft) by 164 ft.
Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 3 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 0 0 N/A
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures. 14984 - Whitewood Detailed Report, 12/8/2022
45 / 50
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 3 1 1 3
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 80.0
AQ-PM 40.4
AQ-DPM 31.3
Drinking Water 11.0
Lead Risk Housing 4.06
14984 - Whitewood Detailed Report, 12/8/2022
46 / 50
Pesticides 13.6
Toxic Releases 14.3
Traffic 81.3
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 0.00
Groundwater 0.00
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 73.6
Impaired Water Bodies 58.7
Solid Waste 0.00
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 31.6
Cardio-vascular 76.0
Low Birth Weights 56.6
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 40.1
Housing 12.8
Linguistic 8.49
Poverty 34.9
Unemployment 48.3
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 70.31951752
Employed 39.30450404
Median HI 80.88027717
14984 - Whitewood Detailed Report, 12/8/2022
47 / 50
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 58.29590658
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 64.72475298
Transportation —
Auto Access 89.83703323
Active commuting 12.60105223
Social —
2-parent households 73.95098165
Voting 49.22366226
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 89.3750802
Park access 2.194276915
Retail density 10.31695111
Supermarket access 18.61927371
Tree canopy 4.38855383
Housing —
Homeownership 67.93276017
Housing habitability 86.16707301
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 69.34428333 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 80.27717182
Uncrowded housing 68.66418581
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 89.59322469
Arthritis 10.7
Asthma ER Admissions 78.7
High Blood Pressure 18.2
14984 - Whitewood Detailed Report, 12/8/2022
48 / 50
Cancer (excluding skin) 10.4
Asthma 46.1
Coronary Heart Disease 23.5
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 33.2
Diagnosed Diabetes 68.9
Life Expectancy at Birth 83.5
Cognitively Disabled 29.3
Physically Disabled 73.0
Heart Attack ER Admissions 38.4
Mental Health Not Good 64.8
Chronic Kidney Disease 45.1
Obesity 48.4
Pedestrian Injuries 39.7
Physical Health Not Good 61.7
Stroke 51.7
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 19.3
Current Smoker 59.6
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 72.6
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 18.1
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 5.7
Elderly 87.4
English Speaking 95.5
Foreign-born 16.2
Outdoor Workers 58.6
14984 - Whitewood Detailed Report, 12/8/2022
49 / 50
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 74.9
Traffic Density 62.3
Traffic Access 23.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 29.8
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 55.2
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 30.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 67.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.
8. User Changes to Default Data
14984 - Whitewood Detailed Report, 12/8/2022
50 / 50
Screen Justification
Land Use Taken from site plan
Construction: Construction Phases Building, Paving, and Architectural Coating overlap to present a conservative analysis Construction schedule compressed to account for 2024 Opening Y ear Construction: Off-Road Equipment T/L/B replaced with Crawler Tractor to accurately calculate disturbance for Site Preparation and Grading phases
Standard 8 hours work days
Operations: Vehicle Data Trip Characteristics based on information provided in the Traffic Analysis Operations: Hearths SCAQMD Rule 445 no wood burning devices, Wood burning devices added to gas devices Construction: Trips and VMT Vendor Trips adjusted based on CalEEMod defaults for Building Construction and number of days for Demolition, Site Preparation, Grading, and Building Construction
14984-06 AQ & EA Assessment
ATTACHMENT B
EMFAC2021
Source: EMFAC2021 (v1.0.2) Emissions Inventory
Region Type: Sub-Area
Region: Riverside (SC)
Calendar Year: 2024
Season: Annual
Vehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 Categories
Units: miles/day for CVMT and EVMT, trips/day for Trips, kWh/day for Energy Consumption, tons/day for Emissions, 1000 gallons/day for Fuel Consumption Region CalYr VehClass MdlYr Speed Fuel Population VMT Fuel_Consumption Fuel_Consumption Total Fuel VMT Total VMT Miles per Gallon Vehicle Class Riverside (SC) 2024 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 7.589475903 347.9694468 0.092180823 92.18082291 321404.9638 347.9694468 1967302.751 6.12 HHDT Riverside (SC) 2024 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 14792.02338 1911347.779 313.0439759 313043.9759 1911347.779 Riverside (SC) 2024 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 47.99547895 5148.201829 0 0 5148.201829 Riverside (SC) 2024 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 740.0705237 50458.80082 8.268807048 8268.807048 50458.80082 Riverside (SC) 2024 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 469145.3818 20418129.53 688.4836596 688483.6596 700469.6115 20418129.53 22069128.65 31.51 LDA Riverside (SC) 2024 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1473.049219 54327.45303 1.267188759 1267.188759 54327.45303 Riverside (SC) 2024 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 19934.69439 945704.6798 0 0 945704.6798 Riverside (SC) 2024 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Plug-in Hybrid 12893.65575 650966.9876 10.71876311 10718.76311 650966.9876 Riverside (SC) 2024 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 40643.24621 1523061.246 62.04624692 62046.24692 62104.32538 1523061.246 1529163.988 24.62 LDT1 Riverside (SC) 2024 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 18.16927182 339.6979643 0.013831102 13.83110227 339.6979643 Riverside (SC) 2024 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 60.98632141 2789.967089 0 0 2789.967089 Riverside (SC) 2024 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Plug-in Hybrid 52.35545177 2973.077776 0.044247357 44.24735695 2973.077776 Riverside (SC) 2024 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 196761.1569 8732860.794 359.674683 359674.683 361927.3798 8732860.794 8893408.735 24.57 LDT2 Riverside (SC) 2024 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 611.2140627 29007.74721 0.880423066 880.4230662 29007.74721 Riverside (SC) 2024 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 1212.721837 43455.52608 0 0 43455.52608 Riverside (SC) 2024 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Plug-in Hybrid 1617.209463 88084.6679 1.372273758 1372.273758 88084.6679 Riverside (SC) 2024 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 17828.73734 656766.0119 48.36247552 48362.47552 75554.20605 656766.0119 1221087.42 16.16 LHDT1 Riverside (SC) 2024 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 15247.60565 560367.9206 27.19173053 27191.73053 560367.9206 Riverside (SC) 2024 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 53.50587181 3953.487241 0 0 3953.487241 Riverside (SC) 2024 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 2494.679179 89754.81853 7.38743171 7387.43171 22224.411 89754.81853 344827.7113 15.52 LHDT2 Riverside (SC) 2024 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 6844.928194 254103.3578 14.83697929 14836.97929 254103.3578 Riverside (SC) 2024 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 13.8489928 969.5349487 0 0 969.5349487 Riverside (SC) 2024 MCY Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 24077.0623 140258.0803 3.359217865 3359.217865 3359.217865 140258.0803 140258.0803 41.75 MCY Riverside (SC) 2024 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 158529.7591 6468418.76 332.0736912 332073.6912 337278.1883 6468418.76 6673535.232 19.79 MDV Riverside (SC) 2024 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 2456.219583 102039.6434 4.306633032 4306.633032 102039.6434 Riverside (SC) 2024 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 1347.135818 48185.7285 0 0 48185.7285 Riverside (SC) 2024 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Plug-in Hybrid 1094.492843 54891.09982 0.897864131 897.864131 54891.09982 Riverside (SC) 2024 MH Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 4781.777946 41623.53594 8.518926412 8518.926412 10212.97469 41623.53594 59176.14669 5.79 MH Riverside (SC) 2024 MH Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 2046.063726 17552.61075 1.694048275 1694.048275 17552.61075 Riverside (SC) 2024 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 1238.0029 49965.95549 9.588666638 9588.666638 73502.73221 49965.95549 624307.4842 8.49 MHDT Riverside (SC) 2024 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 12954.3675 564761.4751 63.06414519 63064.14519 564761.4751 Riverside (SC) 2024 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 40.46425607 2074.722372 0 0 2074.722372 Riverside (SC) 2024 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 158.0466253 7505.331205 0.849920382 849.9203818 7505.331205 Riverside (SC) 2024 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 374.6153087 12781.812 2.496601383 2496.601383 4662.380277 12781.812 30088.9967 6.45 OBUS Riverside (SC) 2024 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 219.2789175 15140.91273 1.951181612 1951.181612 15140.91273 Riverside (SC) 2024 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 0.821516166 55.60331633 0 0 55.60331633 Riverside (SC) 2024 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 34.6553722 2110.668656 0.214597282 214.5972817 2110.668656 Riverside (SC) 2024 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 423.5817437 16753.46749 1.914821769 1914.821769 5918.221943 16753.46749 37909.3201 6.41 SBUS Riverside (SC) 2024 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 491.8063992 10225.99182 1.394925642 1394.925642 10225.99182 Riverside (SC) 2024 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 2.445505521 61.99924762 0 0 61.99924762 Riverside (SC) 2024 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 443.1589434 10867.86154 2.608474532 2608.474532 10867.86154 Riverside (SC) 2024 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 146.2127201 18511.1132 3.282633075 3282.633075 11054.35384 18511.1132 49631.8201 4.49 UBUS Riverside (SC) 2024 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 0.3117338 30.10971099 0.002675115 2.675115035 30.10971099 Riverside (SC) 2024 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 0.120004951 18.36371585 0 0 18.36371585 Riverside (SC) 2024 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 252.109466 31072.23347 7.769045647 7769.045647 31072.23347