Murrieta City Council
May 20, 2025

kimley-horn.com 1100 W. Town and Country Road, Suite 700, Orange, CA 92868 714 939 1030

MEMORANDUM
To: Dana Privitt, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

From: Danielle Millar, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Date: November 20, 2023
Subject:

Clinton Keith Road and Mitchell Road Shopping Center Project – Murrieta , CA – Air Quality Analysis

Purpose

The purpose of this memorandum is to identify the air quality emissions associated with construction and operations of the proposed Clinton Keith Road and M itchell Road Shopping Center Project (Project), located in the City of Murrieta, California.

Project Location

The Project site is generally located north of Clin ton Keith Road and east of Mitchell Road in the Cit y of Murrieta, County of Riverside. The Project site enc ompasses approximately 5.24 acres and is currently vacant. The Project site is approximately 0.3 mile west of Interstate 215 (I-215) and approximately 2. 7 miles northeast of Interstate 15 (I-15).

Project Description

The proposed Project assumes the subdivision of approximately 5.24 acres into three parcels to allow for the development of the two southernmost parcels for commercial uses. Therefore, the development area assumed in this analysis is 2.3 acres. The proposed Project is a commercial development composed of a convenience store and gasoline station, automated car wash, and drive-thru coffee store; refer to Exhibit 1: Site Plan .

Convenience Store and Gasoline Station

The convenience store would consist of approximatel y 3,700 square feet (sf), generally located on the northwestern portion of the Project site. The gas s tation would include 12 fueling pumps, located to t he south of the convenience store.

Car Wash

The approximate 1,458-sf automated drive-thru car w ash would be located directly north of the convenience store. The car wash would include a con veyor wash tunnel with one vacuum and one dryer system. Overall, the car wash is anticipated to consume approximately 150,000 gallons of water per year.

kimley-horn.com 1100 W. Town and Country Road, Suite 700, Orange, CA 92868 714 939 1030

Drive-thru Coffee Store

The proposed drive-thru coffee store would consist of approximately 886 square feet. The coffee store would be located on the southeastern portion of the Project site. The drive-thru entrance would be located to the northeast of the building and the dr ive-thru exit would be located on the western side of the building. An approximate 336 square foot outdoo r seating area would be situated to the east of the coffee store.

Project Parking and Circulation

The Project would provide 33 parking stalls, with vehicle parking located throughout the Project site. The property owner has an existing reciprocal access ag reement with the property owner to the east of the project site (the location of the Del Taco restaura nt). Vehicular access for the project site would be provided via one existing driveway on Clinton Keith Road associated with the Del Taco restaurant east of the project site that would continue to be a right- in-right-out only driveway; one proposed driveway o n Clinton Keith Road; one proposed driveway on Mitchell Road; and one proposed driveway on Sierra Lane.

The proposed driveway on Clinton Keith Road would b e an “Entrance Only” driveway. The proposed driveways on Mitchell Road and Sierra Lane would be full access driveways. All proposed driveways would be unsignalized.

Project Construction

Construction of the proposed Project is expected to commence in 2024 with a construction duration of approximately 12 months and would be completed in o ne phase. Total grading for the proposed Project is estimated to require approximately 12,252 cubic yards of cut and approximately 12,252 cubic yards of fill; earthwork is expected to be balance on site.

kimley-horn.com 1100 W. Town and Country Road, Suite 700, Orange, CA 92868 714 939 1030

Exhibit 1: Site Plan

kimley-horn.com 1100 W. Town and Country Road, Suite 700, Orange, CA 92868 714 939 1030

Air Quality Impacts

South Coast Air Quality Management District Thresholds

The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SC AQMD) CEQA Air Quality Handbook provides significance thresholds for volatile organic compou nds (VOC) (also referred to as reactive organic gas es [ROG]), nitrogen oxides (NO
X), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur oxides (SO X), particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter (PM 10 ), and particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in di ameter (PM 2.5 ). The thresholds apply to both project construction and operation wi thin the SCAQMD jurisdictional boundaries. If the SCAQMD thresholds are exceeded, a potentially signi ficant impact could result. However, ultimately the lead agency determines the thresholds of significan ce for impacts. If a project proposes development i n excess of the established thresholds, as outlined in Table 1: South Coast Air Quality Management District Significance Thresholds , a significant air quality impact may occur, and additional analysis is warranted to fully assess the significance of impacts.

Table 1: South Coast Air Quality Management District Significance Thresholds Pollutant Mass Daily Thresholds (pounds per day)
Construction Operations
Nitrogen Oxides (NO X) 100 55
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 1 75 55
Particulate Matter up to 10 Microns (PM 10 ) 150 150
Particulate Matter up to 2.5 Microns (PM 2.5 ) 55 55
Sulphur Oxides (SO X) 150 150
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 550

1. VOCs and reactive organic gases (ROGs) are subse ts of organic gases that are emitted from the incom plete combustion of hydrocarbons or other carbon-based fuels. Although they represent slightly different subsets of organi c gases, they are used interchangeably for the purposes of this analysis.

Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds , March 2023.

Potential Impacts

Plan Consistency

Under the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA), the U.S. En vironmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires each state with nonattainment areas to prepare and submi t a State Implementation Plan that demonstrates the means to attain the federal standards. The Stat e Implementation Plan must integrate federal, state , and local plan components and regulations to identi fy specific measures to reduce pollution in nonattainment areas, using a combination of perform ance standards and market-based programs.

Similarly, under State law, the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) requires an air quality attainment plan to be prepared for areas designated as nonattainment rega rding the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Air quality attainment plans outline emissions limits and control measures to achieve an d maintain these standards by the earliest practica l date.

The Project is located within the South Coast Air B asin (Basin), which is under the jurisdiction of th e SCAQMD. The SCAQMD is required, pursuant to the FCA A, to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants for

kimley-horn.com 1100 W. Town and Country Road, Suite 700, Orange, CA 92868 714 939 1030

which the Basin is in nonattainment. To reduce such emissions, the SCAQMD drafted the 2022 Air Quality Management Plan (2022 AQMP). The 2022 AQMP establishes a program of rules and regulations directed at reducing air pollutant emissions and achieving C AAQS and NAAQS. The 2022 AQMP is a regional and multi-agency effort including the SCAQMD, the Calif ornia Air Resources Board (CARB), the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and the EPA. The AQMP’s pollutant control strategies are based on the latest scientific and technical information and planning assumptions, including SCAG’s 2020 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communitie s Strategy (RTP/SCS) (Connect SoCal), updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories, and SCAG’s latest growth forecasts.

SCAG’s latest growth forecasts were defined in cons ultation with local governments and with reference to local general plans. The Project is subject to the SCAQMD’s AQMP.

Criteria for determining consistency with the AQMP are defined by the following indicators:

• Consistency Criterion No. 1 : The 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.
• Consistency Criterion No. 2 : The project will not exceed the assumptions in th e AQMP or increments based on the years of the project build-out phase.

According to the SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook , the purpose of the consistency finding is to determine if a project is inconsistent with the assumptions and objectives of the regional air quality plans, and thus if it would interfere with the region’s ab ility to comply with California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).

The violations to which Consistency Criterion No. 1 refers are CAAQS and NAAQS. As shown in Table 2:

Project Construction Emissions and Table 3: Operational Emissions , the Project would not exceed construction or operational emission standards. Therefore, the Project would not contribute to an existing air quality violation. Thus, the Project is consistent with the first criterion.

Concerning Consistency Criterion No. 2, the AQMP co ntains air pollutant reduction strategies based on SCAG’s latest growth forecasts, and SCAG’s growth f orecasts were defined in consultation with local governments and with reference to local general plans. The site has a Commercial Retail General Plan land use designation and is in the Neighborhood Commerci al zoning district. Car wash uses are conditionally permitted. The Project is consistent with the land use designation and development density presented in the City’s General Plan and therefore would not exceed the population or job growth projections used by the SCAQMD to develop the AQMP. Thus, the Project is consistent with the second criterion.

Based on these criteria, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP and impacts would be less than significant.

kimley-horn.com 1100 W. Town and Country Road, Suite 700, Orange, CA 92868 714 939 1030

Construction Emissions

Construction associated with the proposed Project w ould generate short-term emissions of criteria air pollutants. The criteria pollutants of primary conc ern within the Project area include ozone-precursor pollutants (i.e., ROG and NO
X), PM 10 , and PM 2.5 . Construction-generated emissions are short term and of temporary duration, lasting only as long as constru ction activities occur, but would be considered a significant air quality impact if the volume of pol lutants generated exceeds the SCAQMD’s thresholds o f significance.

Construction results in the temporary generation of emissions resulting from demolition, site preparation, site grading, road paving, motor vehicle exhaust associated with construction equipment and worker trips, and the movement of construction equipment, especia lly on unpaved surfaces. Emissions of airborne particulate matter are largely dependent on the amo unt of ground disturbance associated with site preparation activities as well as weather conditions and the appropriate application of water.

The duration of construction activities for the Pro ject is estimated to be approximately 12 months, beginning in early 2024.
1 Construction-generated emissions associated with t he proposed Project were calculated using the CARB-approved California Emiss ions Estimator Model version 2022 (CalEEMod), which is designed to model emissions for land use d evelopment projects, based on typical construction requirements. See Appendix A: Air Quality Data for more information regarding the construction assumptions used in this analysis. Predicted maximu m daily construction-generated emissions for the proposed Project are identified in Table 2: Project Construction Emissions .

Table 2: Project Construction Emissions
Construction Year Emissions (pounds per day) 1
ROG NO X CO SO 2 PM 10 PM 2.5
2024 9.32 17.81 21.30 0.04 2.72 1.60
SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
SCAQMD Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
ROG = Reactive Organic Gases; NO X = Nitrogen Oxides; CO = Carbon Monoxide; SO 2 = Sulfur Dioxide; PM 10 = Particulate Matter 10 microns in diameter or less; PM 2.5 = Particulate Matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less

1. SCAQMD Rule 403 Fugitive Dust applied. The Rule 4 03 reduction/credits include the following: properl y maintain mobile and other construction equipment; replace ground co ver in disturbed areas quickly; water exposed surfa ces three times daily; water all haul roads twice daily; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. Reduc tions percentages from the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook (Tables XI-A through X I-E) were applied. No mitigation was applied to con struction equipment. Refer to Appendix A for Model Data Outputs.

Source: CalEEMod version 2022. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs.

1 The earliest feasible construction start date has been modeled. Emissions in future years (i.e., due to a later construction start date or operational opening year) would be lo wer due to phased-in emissions standards, inspection and maintenance requirements, and fleet turnover). Specifically, pr oject construction was modeled to start in 2024. If construction commences at a later date, construction impacts would be less than those analyzed due to the use of more energy-efficient and cleaner burning construction vehicle fleet mix, pursuant to state regulations that require vehicle fleet operators to phase-in less polluting heavy-duty equipment. For e missions modeling purposes, conservatively analyzin g the emissions using the earliest feasible construction start date (i.e., 2024), provides for a worst-case analysis a nd full disclosure of potential air quality impacts, as required by CEQA.

kimley-horn.com 1100 W. Town and Country Road, Suite 700, Orange, CA 92868 714 939 1030

Table 2 shows that construction pollutant emissions would remain below their respective thresholds with implementation of SCAQMD Rule 403 (required for all projects). The Project would also be required to comply with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 1113, which prohib it nuisances and limit VOC content in paints, respectively. Compliance with SCAQMD rules 402 and 1113 would further reduce specific construction- related emissions. As shown above, all criteria pol lutant emissions would be below their respective thresholds and impacts would be less than significant.

Cumulative Construction Emissions

The South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) is designated nona ttainment for ozone (O 3), PM 10 , and PM 2.5 for State
standards, partial nonattainment for lead, and nonattainment for O 3 and PM 2.5 for Federal standards. As discussed above, the Project’s construction-related emissions by themselves would not exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds for criteria polluta nts. Appendix D of the SCAQMD White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution (2003) notes that projec ts that result in emissions that do not exceed the pro ject-specific SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance should result in a less than significa nt impact on a cumulative basis unless there is oth er pertinent information to the contrary. Therefore, i f a project is estimated to result in emissions tha t do not exceed the thresholds, the project’s contribution to the cumulative impact on air quality in the SCAB would not be cumulatively considerable. Table 2 shows that Project construction-related emissions by themselves would not exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds for criteria pollutants. Since these thresholds indicate whether individual Project emissions have the potential to affect cumulative regional air quality, Project-related construction emissions would not be cumulatively considerable.

The SCAQMD has developed strategies to reduce crite ria pollutant emissions outlined in the AQMP pursuant to the FCAA mandates. The analysis assumed fugitive dust controls would be utilized during construction, including frequent water applications . SCAQMD rules, mandates, and compliance with adopted AQMP emissions control measures would also be imposed on construction projects throughout SCAB, which would include related cumulative projec ts. As concluded above, the Project’s construction- related impacts would be less than significant. Com pliance with SCAQMD rules and regulations would further minimize the proposed Project’s constructio n-related emissions. Therefore, Project-related construction emissions, in combination with those from other projects in the area, would not substantially deteriorate the local air quality. The Project’s co nstruction-related emissions would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative air quality impacts.

Operational Emissions

The Project’s operational emissions would be associated with area sources (e.g., landscape maintenance equipment, architectural coatings, consumer products, etc.), energy sources, mobile sources (i.e., motor vehicle use), and off-road equipment. Primary sourc es of operational criteria pollutants are from moto r vehicle use. Long-term operational emissions attrib utable to the Project are summarized in Table 3:

Operational Emissions . The operational emissions sources are described below.

• Area Source Emissions. Area source emissions would be generated due to consumer products (e.g., fertilizers/pesticides, detergents; cleaning compounds; polishes; floor finishes; cosmetics; personal care products; home, lawn, and garden products; disinfectants;

kimley-horn.com 1100 W. Town and Country Road, Suite 700, Orange, CA 92868 714 939 1030

sanitizers; aerosol paints, etc.), architectural co ating, and gasoline-powered landscaping equipment.

• Energy Source Emissions. Energy source emissions would be generated due to electricity and natural gas usage associated with the Project. Prim ary uses of electricity and natural gas by the Project would be for space heating and cooling, water heating, ventilation, lighting, appliances, and electronics.

• Mobile Source. Mobile sources are emissions from motor vehicles, i ncluding tailpipe and evaporative emissions. Depending upon the pollutant being discussed, the potential air quality impact may be of either regional or local c oncern. For example, ROG, NO X, PM 10 , and PM 2.5 are all pollutants of regional concern. NO X and ROG react with sunlight to form O 3, known as photochemical smog. Additionally, wind currents readily transport PM 10 and PM 2.5 .

However, CO tends to be a localized pollutant, dispersing rapidly at the source.

Project-generated vehicle emissions are based on th e trip generation within the Focused Traffic Analysis for the Proposed Clinton Keith Roa d Project (Traffic Analysis), prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (dated October 11, 2022) and incorporated into CalEEMod as recommended by the SCAQMD. Per the Project Traffic Analysis, the Project would generate 3,525 daily vehicle trips when accounting for internal capture and pass-by reduction factors.

Table 3 shows that operational emissions would remain below the SCAQMD criteria pollutant thresholds.

All criteria pollutant emissions would remain below their respective thresholds during Project operations.

Therefore, the Project would result in a less than significant impact.

Table 3: Operational Emissions
Source Emissions (pounds per day) 1, 2
ROG NO X CO SO 2 PM 10 PM 2.5
Mobile Emissions 16.16 18.90 162.82 0.42 34.99 9.09 Area Source Emissions 0.22 0.00 0.28 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Energy Emissions <0.01 0.06 0.05 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Drive Thru Idling Emissions <0.01 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Gasoline VOC Emissions 3 7.15 - - - - -
Total 23.53 16.93 145.62 0.36 31.22 8.11
SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
SCAQMD Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
ROG = Reactive Organic Gases; NO X = Nitrogen Oxides; CO = Carbon Monoxide; SO 2 = Sulfur Dioxide; PM 10 = Particulate Matter 10 microns in diameter or less; PM 2.5 = Particulate Matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less

1. Emissions were calculated using the California Emis sions Estimator Model version 2022 (CalEEMod), as rec ommended by the SCAQMD. Summer and winter maximum daily emissions are reported.

2. On-site drive through idling emissions were calculated with emissions factors from EMFAC2021.

3. Gasoline VOC emissions calculated using the Environ mental Protection Agency’s Potential to Emit Calculator for Gasoline Dispensing Facilities , 2015.

Source: CalEEMod version 2022. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs.

Additionally, the proposed gasoline station would b e required to incorporate controls to limit gasolin e emissions. In May 1988, CARB adopted the Airborne T oxic Control Measure (ATCM) for Emissions of

kimley-horn.com 1100 W. Town and Country Road, Suite 700, Orange, CA 92868 714 939 1030

Benzene from Retail Service Stations. The ATCM refl ects the use of best available control technology which requires the installation of CARB-certified P hase I and II vapor recovery control equipment at a ll retail service stations. The ATCM is designed to re duce benzene and total hydrocarbon emissions from uncontrolled stations by 95 percent. All tanks and dispensers shall be equipped with the latest Phase I and Phase II Enhanced Vapor Recovery (EVR) air pollutio n control equipment technology per the CARB regulations.

Criteria Pollutant Health Impacts

On December 24, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued an opinion identifying the need to provide sufficient information connecting a project’s air e missions to health impacts or explain why such information could not be ascertained ( Sierra Club v. County of Fresno [Friant Ranch, L.P.] [2018] Cal.5 th ,
Case No. S219783). The Friant Ranch project was a 9 42-acre Specific Plan that involved a commercial master planned community of approximately 2,500 dwe lling units and extensive commercial supporting development. The anticipated air quality impacts resulting from this development included significant and unavoidable emissions of multiple criteria pollutan ts (including significant emissions of both primary O 3 precursors [NO X and ROGs]) at levels that exceeded the daily thresholds of significance.

The SCAQMD has set its CEQA significance thresholds based on the FCAA, which defines a major stationary source (in extreme ozone nonattainment areas such a s the SCAB) as emitting 10 tons per year. The thresholds correlate with the trigger levels for th e federal New Source Review (NSR) Program and SCAQMD Rule 1303 for new or modified sources. The N SR Program 2 was created by the FCAA to ensure
that stationary sources of air pollution are constr ucted or modified in a manner that is consistent wi th attainment of health-based NAAQS. The NAAQS establi sh the levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public he alth. Therefore, projects that do not exceed the SCAQMD’s LSTs and mass emissions thresholds would n ot violate any air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation and no criteria pollutant health impacts would occur.

As noted above and shown in Table 3, the Project’s operational emissions are below SCAQMD’s significance thresholds, resulting in a less than s ignificant impact. Project-related emissions would not exceed the regional thresholds and therefore would not exceed the ambient air quality standards or cause an increase in the frequency or severity of existing violations of air quality standards. Therefore, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to criteria pollutan t levels in excess of the health-based ambient air quality standards.

Cumulative Operational Impacts

The SCAQMD has not established separate significance thresholds for cumulative operational emissions.

The nature of air emissions is largely a cumulative impact. As a result, no single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, individual project emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adv erse air quality impacts. The SCAQMD developed the

2 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) [i.e., PSD (40 CF R 52.21, 40 CFR 51.166, 40 CFR 51.165 (b)), Non-att ainment NSR (40 CFR

52.24, 40 CFR 51.165, 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S)

kimley-horn.com 1100 W. Town and Country Road, Suite 700, Orange, CA 92868 714 939 1030

operational thresholds of significance based on the level above which individual project emissions would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to SCAB’s existing air quality conditions. Therefor e, a project that exceeds the SCAQMD operational thresho lds would also be a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact and , inversely, emission volumes below the SCAQMD operational thresholds are not cumulatively considerable.

Table 3 shows that the Project’s operational emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds. As a result, the Project’s operational emissions would not resul t in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative air quality impacts. Additio nally, adherence to SCAQMD rules and regulations would alleviate potential impacts related to cumula tive conditions on a project-by-project basis. Proj ect operations would not contribute a cumulatively cons iderable net increase of any nonattainment criteria pollutant.

Localized Construction Impacts

The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project site are multi-family residential uses located approximately 95 feet (29 meters) to the west of the Project site . Additional sensitive receptors include single fam ily residences located 132 feet to the south, a future childcare facility located 360 feet to the northeas t, multi-family residences located 375 feet to the nor th, Antelope Hills Elementary School located 470 fe et to the south, and the Linden at Murrieta Assisted Living facility located 1,780 feet to the west. To identify impacts to sensitive receptors, the SCAQMD recommen ds addressing Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) for construction. LSTs were developed in res ponse to SCAQMD Governing Boards' Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative (I-4). The SCAQMD pr ovided the Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (dated June 2003 [revised 2008]) for guidance. The LST methodology assists lead agencies in analyzing localized impacts associated with project-specific level proposed projects.

Since CalEEMod calculates construction emissions ba sed on the number of equipment hours and the maximum daily soil disturbance activity possible for each piece of equipment, Table 4: Equipment-Specific Grading Rates is used to determine the maximum daily disturbed acreage for comparison to LSTs. For this Project, the appropriate source receptor area (SRA) for the localized significance thresholds is the Temecula Valley (SRA 26) area since this area inclu des the Project site. LSTs apply to NO X, CO, PM 10 , and
PM 2.5 . The SCAQMD produced look-up tables for projects t hat disturb areas less than or equal to 5 acres in size. Based on the daily equipment modeled in CalEEMod, Project construction is anticipated to disturb approximately 2 acres in a single day.

The SCAQMD’s methodology indicates that “off-site m obile emissions from the Project should not be included in the emissions compared to LSTs.” Theref ore, for purposes of the construction LST analysis, only emissions included in the CalEEMod “on-site” emissions outputs were considered. LST thresholds are provided for distances to sensitive receptors of 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 meters. SCAQMD’s LST guidance recommends using the 25-meter threshold for receptors located 25 meters or less from the Project site.

The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project site are residential units located approximately 95 feet (29 meters) to the west of the Project site. Therefore, the LSTs for 2 acres at 25 meters were conservativ ely used for the construction analysis which is consistent with the SCAQMD LST methodology.

kimley-horn.com 1100 W. Town and Country Road, Suite 700, Orange, CA 92868 714 939 1030

Table 4: Equipment-Specific Grading Rates
Construction
Phase Equipment Type Equipment
Quantity
Acres Graded
per 8-Hour
Day
Operating
Hours per
Day
Acres Graded per
Day
Grading
Tractor 2 0.5 8 1
Graders 1 0.5 8 0.5
Dozers 1 0.5 8 0.5
Scrapers 0 1 8 0
Total Acres Graded per Day 2
Source: CalEEMod version 2022.

Table 5: Localized Significance of Construction Emi ssions , presents the results of localized emissions during construction activity. Table 5 shows that the emissions of these pollutants on the peak day of construction would not result in significant concen trations of pollutants at nearby sensitive receptor s.

Therefore, localized emissions during construction activities would be less than significant.

Table 5: Localized Significance of Construction Emis sions Source/Activity Emissions (pounds per day) 1,2
NO X CO PM 10 PM 2.5
Grading/Infrastructure Improvements 15.88 15.42 2.58 1.57 Building Construction 11.23 11.94 0.46 0.42
Paving 6.44 8.26 0.31 0.29
Architectural Coating 0.91 1.15 0.03 0.03
Building Construction/Paving (Worst-Case
Overlapping Phases) 17.68 20.20 0.77 0.71
Maximum Daily Emissions 17.68 20.20 2.58 1.57
SCAQMD LST (for 2 acres at 25 meters) 234 1,100 7 4
Maximum Daily Emissions Exceed
SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No
NO X = Nitrogen Oxides; CO = Carbon Monoxide; PM 10 = Particulate Matter 10 microns in diameter or less ; PM 2.5 = Particulate Matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less

1. CalEEMod version 2022. Worst-case seasonal maximum daily emissions are reported.

2. SCAQMD Rule 403 Fugitive Dust applied for construction emissions. The Rule 403 reduction/credits include the following:
properly maintain mobile and other construction equ ipment; replace ground cover in disturbed areas qui ckly; water exposed surfaces three times daily; water all haul roads twice daily; and limit speeds on unpaved road s to 15 miles per hour. Reductions percentages from the SCAQMD CEQA Ha ndbook (Tables XI-A through XI-E) were applied. No mitigation was applied to construction equipment. Refer to Appendix A for Model Data Outputs.

Source: CalEEMod version 2022. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs.

Localized Operational Impacts

According to the SCAQMD localized significance threshold methodology, operational LSTs apply to on-site sources. LSTs for receptors located at 25 meters fo r SRA 26 were utilized in this analysis. The 2-acre LST threshold was conservatively used for the 2.3-acre Project site. The on-site operational emissions wer e calculated using CalEEMod and are compared to the L ST thresholds in Table 6: Localized Significance of Operational Emissions .

kimley-horn.com 1100 W. Town and Country Road, Suite 700, Orange, CA 92868 714 939 1030

Table 6: Localized Significance of Operational Emissi ons Activity Emissions (pounds per day) 1, 2
NO X CO PM 10 PM 2.5
On-Site Emissions (Area and Energy Sources) 0.06 0.33 0.01 0.00 Mobile (On-Site Drive-Thru) <0.01 0.02 <0.01 <0.01
Total 0.06 0.35 0.01 <0.01
SCAQMD Localized Screening Threshold
(adjusted for 2 acres at 25 meters) 234 1,100 2 1
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No
NO X = Nitrogen Oxides; CO = Carbon Monoxide; PM 10 = Particulate Matter 10 microns in diameter or less ; PM 2.5 = Particulate Matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less

1. Emissions were calculated using the California Emis sions Estimator Model version 2022 (CalEEMod), as rec ommended by the SCAQMD. Worst-case seasonal maximum daily emissions are reported.

2. On-site drive through idling emissions were calculated with emissions factors from EMFAC2021.

Source: CalEEMod version 2022. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs.

The operational emissions shown in Table 6 include all on-site Project-related stationary sour ces (i.e., area, energy, and on-site drive-through sources). Table 6 shows that the Project would not generate localized emissions during Project operations. Therefore, the Project would result in a less than significant impact concerning LSTs during operational activities.

Carbon Monoxide Hotspots

An analysis of CO “hot spots” is needed to determin e whether the change in the level of service (LOS) of an intersection from the proposed Project would have the potential to result in exceedances of the CAAQS or NAAQS. It has long been recognized that CO exceedances are caused by vehicular emissions, primarily when vehicles are idling at intersections. Vehicle emissions standards have become increasingly stringent in the last 20 years. Currently, the CO standard in California is a maximum of 3.4 grams per mile for passenger cars (requirements for certain vehicles are more stringent). With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation o f control technology on industrial facilities, CO concentrations have steadily declined.

Accordingly, with the steadily decreasing CO emissions from vehicles, even very busy intersections do not result in exceedances of the CO standard. An analys is prepared for CO attainment in the South Coast Ai r Basin by the SCAQMD can assist in evaluating the po tential for CO exceedances. CO attainment was thoroughly analyzed as part of the SCAQMD’s 2003 Air Quality Management Plan . The Basin was re- designated as attainment in 2007 and is no longer a ddressed in the SCAQMD’s Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP).

The 2003 Air Quality Management Plan is the most recent AQMP that addresses CO concentra tions. As part of the SCAQMD CO Hotspot analysis, the Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue intersection, one of the most congested intersections in Southern California with an average daily traffic (ADT) volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day, was modeled for CO concentrations. This modeling effort identified a CO concentration high of 4.6 parts per million (ppm), which is well below the 35-ppm federal standard. The proposed Project considered herein wo uld not produce the volume of traffic required to

kimley-horn.com 1100 W. Town and Country Road, Suite 700, Orange, CA 92868 714 939 1030

generate a CO hot spot in the context of SCAQMD’s 2 003 CO hot-spot analysis. As the CO hotspots were not experienced at the Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue intersection even as it accommodates 100,000 vehicles daily, it can be reasonably inferred that CO hotspots would not be experienced at any vicinit y intersections from 3,392 daily vehicle trips attrib utable to the Project. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Odors

Construction

Odors that could be generated by construction activ ities are required to follow SCAQMD Rule 402 to prevent odor nuisances on sensitive land uses. SCAQMD Rule 402, Nuisance, states:

A person shall not discharge from any source whatso ever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the pub lic, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.

During construction, emissions from construction equipment, such as diesel exhaust, and volatile organic compounds from architectural coatings and paving activities may generate odors. However, these odors would be temporary, are not expected to affect a su bstantial number of people and would disperse rapidly. Therefore, impacts related to odors associ ated with the Project’s construction-related activi ties would be less than significant and no design features or control mechanisms to reduce construction odors are necessary.

Operations

The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook identifies certain land uses as sources of odors. These land uses include agriculture (farming and livestock), wastew ater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting facilities, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The Pr oject would not include any of the land uses that have be en identified by the SCAQMD as odor sources.

Therefore, the Project would not create objectionable odors.

Conclusion

Project implementation would result in less than si gnificant construction and operational air quality impacts. No mitigation measures would be required. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in significant effects.

Appendix A
Air Quality Data

Clinton Keith and Mitchell Detailed Report, 10/30/2023
1 / 47
Clinton Keith and Mitchell 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. Grading/Infrastructure Improvements (2024) - Unmitigated

3.3. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated

3.5. Paving (2024) - Unmitigated

3.7. Architectural Coating (2024) - Unmitigated
Clinton Keith and Mitchell Detailed Report, 10/30/2023
2 / 47

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
Clinton Keith and Mitchell Detailed Report, 10/30/2023
3 / 47

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation
Clinton Keith and Mitchell Detailed Report, 10/30/2023
4 / 47

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Clinton Keith and Mitchell Detailed Report, 10/30/2023
5 / 47

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

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Clinton Keith and Mitchell Detailed Report, 10/30/2023
6 / 47

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
Clinton Keith and Mitchell Detailed Report, 10/30/2023
7 / 47

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Clinton Keith and Mitchell
Construction Start Date 1/1/2024
Operational Y ear 2025
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.50
Precipitation (days) 18.6
Location 33.598182640995105, -117.18112500145702
County Riverside-South Coast
City Murrieta
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 5536
EDFZ 11
Electric Utility Southern California Edison
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.20

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
Clinton Keith and Mitchell Detailed Report, 10/30/2023
8 / 47
Convenience Market
with Gas Pumps

5.16 1000sqft 0.12 5,158 0.00 — — —
Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru

1.22 1000sqft 0.03 1,222 0.00 — — —
City Park 0.55 Acre 0.55 0.00 23,958 23,958 — —
Parking Lot 35.0 Space 1.60 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. 2.02 1.70 15.9 16.3 0.02 0.74 1.97 2.72 0.68 0.92 1.60 — Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.56 9.32 17.8 21.3 0.04 0.77 1.97 2.72 0.71 0.92 1.60 — Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.28 1.30 9.43 9.94 0.02 0.41 0.49 0.90 0.37 0.23 0.60 — Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.23 0.24 1.72 1.81 < 0.005 0.07 0.09 0.16 0.07 0.04 0.11 — Clinton Keith and Mitchell Detailed Report, 10/30/2023
9 / 47

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 Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 2.02 1.70 15.9 16.3 0.02 0.74 1.97 2.72 0.68 0.92 1.60 — Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 2.56 9.32 17.8 21.3 0.04 0.77 1.97 2.72 0.71 0.92 1.60 — Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 1.28 1.30 9.43 9.94 0.02 0.41 0.49 0.90 0.37 0.23 0.60 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.23 0.24 1.72 1.81 < 0.005 0.07 0.09 0.16 0.07 0.04 0.11 —

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. 17.9 16.4 17.7 163 0.41 0.31 34.7 35.0 0.29 8.80 9.09 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 16.8 15.3 19.0 135 0.38 0.31 34.7 35.0 0.29 8.80 9.09 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Clinton Keith and Mitchell Detailed Report, 10/30/2023
10 / 47
Unmit. 16.7 15.2 19.3 140 0.38 0.31 34.3 34.6 0.29 8.70 8.99 17.7 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.05 2.77 3.53 25.6 0.07 0.06 6.25 6.31 0.05 1.59 1.64 2.93

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 17.8 16.2 17.6 163 0.41 0.30 34.7 35.0 0.28 8.80 9.09 — Area 0.05 0.22 < 0.005 0.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — Energy 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — Water — — — — — — — — — — —
Waste — — — — — — — — — — —
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 17.9 16.4 17.7 163 0.41 0.31 34.7 35.0 0.29 8.80 9.09 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 16.8 15.1 18.9 135 0.38 0.30 34.7 35.0 0.28 8.80 9.09 — Area — 0.18 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — Water — — — — — — — — — — —
Waste — — — — — — — — — — —
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 16.8 15.3 19.0 135 0.38 0.31 34.7 35.0 0.29 8.80 9.09 Clinton Keith and Mitchell Detailed Report, 10/30/2023
11 / 47
——————————————————Average
Daily
Mobile 16.6 15.0 19.3 140 0.38 0.30 34.3 34.6 0.28 8.70 8.98 — Area 0.03 0.21 < 0.005 0.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — Energy 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — Water — — — — — — — — — — —
Waste — — — — — — — — — — —
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 16.7 15.2 19.3 140 0.38 0.31 34.3 34.6 0.29 8.70 8.99 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 3.04 2.73 3.52 25.5 0.07 0.06 6.25 6.31 0.05 1.59 1.64 — Area 0.01 0.04 < 0.005 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — Energy < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — Water — — — — — — — — — — —
Waste — — — — — — — — — — —
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 3.05 2.77 3.53 25.6 0.07 0.06 6.25 6.31 0.05 1.59 1.64

3. Construction Emissions Details

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

1.96 1.65 15.9 15.4 0.02 0.74 — 0.74 0.68 — 0.68 —
Clinton Keith and Mitchell Detailed Report, 10/30/2023
12 / 47
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 1.84 1.84 — 0.89 0.89 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

1.96 1.65 15.9 15.4 0.02 0.74 — 0.74 0.68 — 0.68 —
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 1.84 1.84 — 0.89 0.89 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.47 0.39 3.79 3.67 0.01 0.18 — 0.18 0.16 — 0.16 —
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.44 0.44 — 0.21 0.21 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.09 0.07 0.69 0.67 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 —
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.08 0.08 — 0.04 0.04 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Clinton Keith and Mitchell Detailed Report, 10/30/2023
13 / 47
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — Vendor 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 — Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — Vendor 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 — Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — Vendor 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 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 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 —

3.3. 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Clinton Keith and Mitchell Detailed Report, 10/30/2023
14 / 47
Off-Road
Equipment

1.58 1.32 11.2 11.9 0.02 0.46 — 0.46 0.42 — 0.42 —
Onsite
truck

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

1.58 1.32 11.2 11.9 0.02 0.46 — 0.46 0.42 — 0.42 —
Onsite
truck

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

0.76 0.63 5.39 5.72 0.01 0.22 — 0.22 0.20 — 0.20 —
Onsite
truck

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

0.14 0.12 0.98 1.04 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — Clinton Keith and Mitchell Detailed Report, 10/30/2023
15 / 47
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Hauling 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 < 0.005 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

3.5. 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

0.89 0.75 6.44 8.26 0.01 0.31 — 0.31 0.29 — 0.29 —
Paving — 0.38 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Clinton Keith and Mitchell Detailed Report, 10/30/2023
16 / 47
—0.01—0.010.01—0.01< 0.0050.250.190.020.03Off-Road
Equipment
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 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — Paving — < 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 — Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.09 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — Vendor 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 — Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 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 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 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 — Clinton Keith and Mitchell Detailed Report, 10/30/2023
17 / 47

3.7. 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.17 0.14 0.91 1.15 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 7.85 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.22 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.04 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Clinton Keith and Mitchell Detailed Report, 10/30/2023
18 / 4

0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Onsite
truck
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 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 — Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 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 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 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 —

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 Clinton Keith and Mitchell Detailed Report, 10/30/2023
19 / 47
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Convenie
nce
Market
with Gas
Pumps

14.9 13.5 14.7 136 0.34 0.25 29.0 29.2 0.24 7.36 7.60 — Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru

2.93 2.65 2.89 26.7 0.07 0.05 5.70 5.75 0.05 1.45 1.49 — City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Total 17.8 16.2 17.6 163 0.41 0.30 34.7 35.0 0.28 8.80 9.09 — Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Convenie
nce
Market
with Gas
Pumps

14.0 12.6 15.8 113 0.32 0.25 29.0 29.2 0.24 7.36 7.60 — Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru

2.75 2.48 3.10 22.1 0.06 0.05 5.70 5.75 0.05 1.45 1.49 — City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Total 16.8 15.1 18.9 135 0.38 0.30 34.7 35.0 0.28 8.80 9.09 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Clinton Keith and Mitchell Detailed Report, 10/30/2023
20 / 47
—1.371.330.045.275.230.050.0621.42.942.282.54Convenie
nce
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru

0.50 0.45 0.58 4.20 0.01 0.01 1.03 1.04 0.01 0.26 0.27 — City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Total 3.04 2.73 3.52 25.5 0.07 0.06 6.25 6.31 0.05 1.59 1.64 —

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Convenie
nce
Market
with Gas
Pumps
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — —
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Clinton Keith and Mitchell Detailed Report, 10/30/2023
21 / 47
Total — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Convenie
nce
Market
with Gas
Pumps
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — —
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Convenie
nce
Market
with Gas
Pumps
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — —
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Clinton Keith and Mitchell Detailed Report, 10/30/2023
22 / 47
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Convenie
nce
Market
with Gas
Pumps
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 —
Total 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Convenie
nce
Market
with Gas
Pumps
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 —
Clinton Keith and Mitchell Detailed Report, 10/30/2023
23 / 47
Total 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Convenie
nce
Market
with Gas
Pumps
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 —
Total < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 —

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 0.16 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Clinton Keith and Mitchell Detailed Report, 10/30/2023
24 / 47
—< 0.005—< 0.005< 0.005—< 0.005< 0.0050.28< 0.0050.050.05Landsca pe
Equipme
nt
Total 0.05 0.22 < 0.005 0.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 0.16 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — 0.18 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 0.03 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — Total 0.01 0.04 < 0.005 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 —

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Clinton Keith and Mitchell Detailed Report, 10/30/2023
25 / 47
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Convenie
nce
Market
with Gas
Pumps
— — — — — — — — — — —
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — —
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Convenie
nce
Market
with Gas
Pumps
— — — — — — — — — — —
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — —
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Clinton Keith and Mitchell Detailed Report, 10/30/2023
26 / 47
———————————Convenie
nce
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — —
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Convenie
nce
Market
with Gas
Pumps
— — — — — — — — — — —
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — —
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — —
Clinton Keith and Mitchell Detailed Report, 10/30/2023
27 / 47
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Convenie
nce
Market
with Gas
Pumps
— — — — — — — — — — —
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — —
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Convenie
nce
Market
with Gas
Pumps
— — — — — — — — — — —
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — —
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Clinton Keith and Mitchell Detailed Report, 10/30/2023
28 / 47

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Convenie
nce
Market
with Gas
Pumps
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Convenie
nce
Market
with Gas
Pumps
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Clinton Keith and Mitchell Detailed Report, 10/30/2023
29 / 47
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Convenie
nce
Market
with Gas
Pumps
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Clinton Keith and Mitchell Detailed Report, 10/30/2023
30 / 47

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Clinton Keith and Mitchell Detailed Report, 10/30/2023
31 / 47
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Clinton Keith and Mitchell Detailed Report, 10/30/2023
32 / 47
——————————————————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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Clinton Keith and Mitchell Detailed Report, 10/30/2023
33 / 47
——————————————————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 Grading/Infrastructure
Improvements
Grading 1/1/2024 4/30/2024 5.00 87.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 5/1/2024 12/31/2024 5.00 175 — Paving Paving 11/1/2024 11/17/2024 5.00 11.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 12/18/2024 12/31/2024 5.00 10.0 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Clinton Keith and Mitchell Detailed Report, 10/30/2023
34 / 47
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Grading/Infrastructure
Improvements
Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading/Infrastructure
Improvements
Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40
Grading/Infrastructure
Improvements
Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 2.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 2.00 7.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 10.0 0.56
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Grading/Infrastructure Improvements — — — —
Grading/Infrastructure Improvements Worker 10.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Grading/Infrastructure Improvements Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT Clinton Keith and Mitchell Detailed Report, 10/30/2023
35 / 47
Grading/Infrastructure Improvements Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT Grading/Infrastructure Improvements Onsite truck — — HHDT Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 2.16 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 1.05 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 0.43 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
Control Strategies Applied PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Sweep paved roads once per month 9% 9%

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)
Clinton Keith and Mitchell Detailed Report, 10/30/2023
36 / 47
Architectural Coating 0.00 0.00 9,570 3,190 4,182

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (Cubic Y ards) Material Exported (Cubic Y ards) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) Grading/Infrastructure
Improvements

0.00 0.00 87.0 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.30

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 3 74% 74%

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Convenience Market with Gas Pumps 0.70 0%
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 0.00 0%
City Park 0.00 0%
Parking Lot 1.60 100%

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
Clinton Keith and Mitchell Detailed Report, 10/30/2023
37 / 47

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 Convenience Market
with Gas Pumps
2,946 2,946 2,946 1,075,346 40,911 40,911 40,911 14,932,496 Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru
579 579 579 211,353 8,041 8,041 8,041 2,934,891
City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
0 0.00 9,570 3,190 4,182

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 250
Clinton Keith and Mitchell Detailed Report, 10/30/2023
38 / 47

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Convenience Market with Gas
Pumps
165,467 349 0.0330 0.0040 86,576
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive
Thru
42,910 349 0.0330 0.0040 139,380
City Park 0.00 349 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Parking Lot 61,054 349 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) Convenience Market with Gas Pumps 532,214 0.00
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 370,311 0.00
City Park 0.00 844,158
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Convenience Market with Gas Pumps 15.5 —
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 14.1 —
City Park 0.05 —
Clinton Keith and Mitchell Detailed Report, 10/30/2023
39 / 47
Parking Lot 0.00 —

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Convenience Market
with Gas Pumps
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Convenience Market
with Gas Pumps
Supermarket
refrigeration and
condensing units
R-404A 3,922 26.5 16.5 16.5 18.0
Fast Food Restaurant
with Drive Thru
Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.00 0.60 0.00 1.00
Fast Food Restaurant
with Drive Thru
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 1.80 4.00 4.00 18.0
Fast Food Restaurant
with Drive Thru
Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0
City Park Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
City Park Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 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
Clinton Keith and Mitchell Detailed Report, 10/30/2023
40 / 47

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)

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) Clinton Keith and Mitchell Detailed Report, 10/30/2023
41 / 47

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 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 (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events.

Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A 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
Clinton Keith and Mitchell Detailed Report, 10/30/2023
42 / 47
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A 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 N/A N/A N/A 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 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 —
Clinton Keith and Mitchell Detailed Report, 10/30/2023
43 / 47
AQ-Ozone 80.0
AQ-PM 41.2
AQ-DPM 56.1
Drinking Water 69.2
Lead Risk Housing 8.91
Pesticides 62.6
Toxic Releases 13.5
Traffic 75.6
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 0.00
Groundwater 0.00
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 43.3
Impaired Water Bodies 0.00
Solid Waste 0.00
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 31.3
Cardio-vascular 83.9
Low Birth Weights 48.8
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 26.4
Housing 2.79
Linguistic 34.6
Poverty 14.0
Unemployment 61.5

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.

Clinton Keith and Mitchell Detailed Report, 10/30/2023
44 / 47
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 77.08199666
Employed 47.36301809
Median HI 86.97549083
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 58.10342615
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 44.5528038
Transportation —
Auto Access 97.49775439
Active commuting 3.746952393
Social —
2-parent households 62.11985115
Voting 63.64686257
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 80.6236366
Park access 16.45066085
Retail density 10.56075966
Supermarket access 24.88130373
Tree canopy 11.62581804
Housing —
Homeownership 83.7931477
Housing habitability 86.93699474
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 86.93699474 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 45.78467856
Uncrowded housing 88.2586937
Clinton Keith and Mitchell Detailed Report, 10/30/2023
45 / 47
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 66.95752598
Arthritis 57.9
Asthma ER Admissions 80.6
High Blood Pressure 59.0
Cancer (excluding skin) 42.8
Asthma 51.9
Coronary Heart Disease 81.5
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 71.2
Diagnosed Diabetes 86.4
Life Expectancy at Birth 85.9
Cognitively Disabled 74.6
Physically Disabled 73.0
Heart Attack ER Admissions 44.7
Mental Health Not Good 63.6
Chronic Kidney Disease 85.5
Obesity 49.6
Pedestrian Injuries 19.6
Physical Health Not Good 74.9
Stroke 84.7
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 10.6
Current Smoker 56.8
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 73.6
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 87.7
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Clinton Keith and Mitchell Detailed Report, 10/30/2023
46 / 47
Children 25.4
Elderly 78.6
English Speaking 86.3
Foreign-born 8.8
Outdoor Workers 58.7
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 79.8
Traffic Density 64.7
Traffic Access 23.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 35.1
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 72.0

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 36.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 68.0 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
Clinton Keith and Mitchell Detailed Report, 10/30/2023
47 / 47
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use Car wash included in Convenience Market with Gas Pumps area. Paved area included in Parking Lot area.

Construction: Construction Phases Schedule per applicant input. Site is vacant, no demo or site prep required.

Operations: Vehicle Data Trips account for internal capture and pass-by.

Operations: Water and Waste Water Convenience Market with Gas Station outdoor water use includes car wash water consumption of 150,000 gallons per year.

Construction: Dust From Material Movement —
Construction: Paving additional paved area included
Drum - Prod.Crit - 10/30/2023
HD truck diesel refueling positions 0
Automotive dispensers with gasoline
or diesel 0
Automotive/Nonroad Diesel Refueling
Positions 0
Gasoline Vehicle Refueling Positions 12
Location - Ozone Attainment Status
Max. Gasoline Throughput If No
Automotive/nonroad Diesel 3,000,000 gallons/year 0 gallons/year Max. Combined Automotive plus HD
Truck Diesel Throughput 0 gallons/year 0 gallons/year
Internally fixed values in calculation -- gasoline and automotive/nonroad diesel Internally fixed values -- HD truck diesel

0.25 hours 0.33 hours
24 hours/day 24 hours/day
365 days/year 365 days/year
7 gal/refueling event 110 gal/refueling event
5 %/year
Gasoline VOC Emissions -- apply these values to GDFs using USTs or ASTs7 Diesel VOC Emissions -- apply these values to GDFs using USTs or ASTs Description 4
VOC Emission
factor
(lb/1,000 gal)
Potential to Emit
VOC (tons/yr)
VOC Emission
factor5 Potential to Emit VOC
Add'l Emissions for Small Volume GDFs 6 12.0 0.000 17.925 (lb/1,000 gal) (ton/yr) Storage Tank Filling 1 0.30 0.450 0.040 0.000
Storage Tank Breathing Losses 2 0.25 0.375 0.028 0.000
Dispensing 3 0.32 0.480 0.040 0.000
Totals 0.870 1.305 0.108 0.000
Methodology
Notes:

Emission factors are from AP 42, Chapter 5.2, Transportation and Marketing of Petroleum Liquids, Table 5.2-7, (June 2008), except where noted. 7 Using these values for an AST assumes a 45% average ullage in a 2000 gal AST

Number of gallons per refueling event
Max. Automotive/Nonroad Diesel
Throughput
Max. HD Truck Diesel
Potential To Emit Calculator for Gasoline Dispensing Facilities 1 Assume Stage 1 controls are in place. 40 CFR 63, Subpart CCCCCC requires that new or modified gasoline dispensing facilities with a monthly throughput greater than 100,000 gallons per month install Stage 1 vapor balance system that achieves a 90% emissions reduction.

Nonattainment Area
Maximum Throughput (gal/yr) = vehicle refueling positions / refueling event time (hrs) x hours of operation (hr/yr) x fuel dispensed (gal/refueling event) Potential to Emit of VOC (tons/yr) = Maximum Throughput (gal/yr) x VOC Emission Factor (lb/1,000 gal) x 1 ton/2,000 lbs Average time between start of refueling events
Number of hours of GDF operation per day
Number of days per year open for business
Number of gallons per refueling event
Storage Tank Filling
Storage Tank Breathing Losses
Dispensing
This sheet calculates the maximum fuel throughput, based on the number of vehicle refueling positions at your GDF. The calculations use fixed values for hours of operation, the time required for each refueling event, and the average amount of fuel dispensed per refueling event.

The sheet than calculates the emissions of VOC from your GDF, based on emissions factors and the attainment status of your location. Note that while this calculator is designed primarily to address emissions of gasoline vapor, it includes algorithms to account for diesel fuel vapor as well and could even be used if the sole fuel dispensed was diesel.

Average time between start of refueling events
Number of hours of GDF operation per day
Number of days per year open for business
3/23/2015
6 GDFs with a gasoline throughput of < 10,000 gallons per month have higher storage tank filling and breathing loss emissions because they are not required to install Stage I vapor recovery controls under 40 CFR 63 CCCCCC.
5 Diesel emission factors were derived using the no.2 diesel true vapor pressure and vapor molecular weight from AP-42 Table 7.1-2 at 70F and equation 1 of section 5.2.2 with an S factor value of 1.45 for storage tank and vehicle tank filling and an S factor of 1.0 for breathing losses.

Percent of refueling events which use automotive diesel dispensers
Totals
4 Even though spillage is a specific category of emissions related to fuel dispensing in AP-42, it is considered a fugitive emission for purposes of NSR permits and thus is not included here.
2 40 CFR 63, Subpart CCCCCC requires that new or modified gasoline dispensing facilities with a monthly throughput greater than 100,000 gallons per month install pressure/vacuum (PV) vent valves on the storage tank vent pipes. This model uses a 75 percent efficiency for PV valves in reducing breathing losses. 3 The displacement VOC emission rate in lbs/1000 gallons depends on the gasoline Reid Vapor Pressure, the dispensed fuel temperature, and the difference between the temperature of the fuel in the tank and the dispensed fuel. For these purposes EPA calculated the uncontrolled displacement VOC emission rate in lbs/1000 gallons. EPA has used 10 psi RVP and national average summer-time temperatures for ozone attainment areas. This yields a value of about 10.8 lbs/1000 gallons. EPA has used 7 psi RVP and temperatures representative of the summer-time western US for ozone non-attainment areas. This yields a value of about 7.5 lbs/1000 gallons. In 76 FR 41723, EPA determined that 80% of the vehicle fleet will have ORVR installed as of 2014, and widespread use will be achieved on a national basis on June 30, 2013. Therefore, this value has been reduced by 80% for 2014 and increases each year subsequent to 2014 as fleet turnover occurs.

See memorandum to Public Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076, Updated Data for ORVR Widespread Use Assessment, Glenn Passavant, OTAQ, 2012 and U.S.EPA, Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor Control Programs from State Implementation Plans and Assessing Comparable Measures, EPA-457/B-12-001, August 7, 2012.

Description 4
Drive-Thru On-Site Emissions
Total Trips/Day for Project 3,382
Percent Drive-thru Trips1 0.97
Drive-Thru Trips 3,289
Minutes/Trip 5
Distance (miles/trip) 0.1
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
EMFAC Emissions Rate (g/mi) 0.0195110.0235780.3399570.0013710.0017720.001634 Pounds/Day 1.18E-031.42E-032.05E-028.29E-051.07E-049.88E-05 CO2 CH4 N2O CO 2e
EMFAC Emissions Rate (g/mi) 138.77260.0044550.002195 -- MT/year 1.39 0.00 0.00 1.396127
Source: EMFAC2021 (v1.0.2) Emission Rates, Riverside (SC) Sub-Area, Year 2024, Annual.

Note:

1. Percent drive-thru trips based on Dutch Bros Drive Thru Survey, dated February 1, 2022.