Ontario City Council
November 21, 2023

construction phase would also be implemented during the operational phase. For the operational phase, both the federal government and the State of California (Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.95, §§ 25500–25520; 19 CCR, Chapter 2, Subchapter 3, Article 4, §§ 2729–2734) require all businesses that handle more than a specified amount of hazardous materials or extremely hazardous materials, termed a reporting quantity, to submit a hazardous materials emergency/contingency plan (also known as a hazardous materials business plan) to their local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). These requirements would ensure that all potentially hazardous materials are handled in an appropriate manner and would minimize the potential for safety impacts. Consistent with the findings of the Certified SEIR, with mandatory regulatory compliance, the Project would not increase the potential for accident conditions which could result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR did not identify any specific constraints regarding hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school and analysis were combined with threshold a and b which concluded less than significant impacts.

Discussion of Effects: The Project site is not within 0.25 mile of the existing or proposed school. The closest school to the Project site is the Ontario Center School, located approximately

2.17 miles to the northwest of the Project site. Implementation of the Project would not have the potential to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 miles of an existing or proposed school. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that development in accordance with TOP 2050 would involve redevelopment and reuse of some sites listed as hazardous materials sites on environmental databases. Redevelopment of these sites could potentially expose future residents and workers to hazards from known hazardous materials releases on and near the sites. Site assessments for hazardous materials and remediation of hazardous materials releases would be required for redevelopment projects developed in accordance with TOP 2050 and the regulations and policies of the agency assigned to the site.

TOP 2050 include policies that address development on and around known hazardous waste sites.

Compared to TOP, TOP 2050 would have similar impacts because TOP 2050 would result in an increase in land use intensity rather than development of new, previously undeveloped areas of the City that would require substantial landform modification. Therefore, buildout of TOP 2050 would not expose people to substantial hazards from hazardous materials sites listed on environmental databases and would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of 1307
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: The Citrus Motors building is listed in the California Environmental Protection Agency Regulated Site Portal (CERS) HAZ WASTE, CERS TANKS, Aboveground Storage Tank (AST), Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) small quantity generator (SQG), and San Bernardino County Permit (San Bern Co Permit) databases. However, listings on these databases, by themselves, are not necessarily indicative of contamination and these listings are not considered to represent a significant environmental concern. (Ramboll, 2021) Based on the review of the available regulatory information, the Project site is located in an area of historic industrial operations. As discussed in Response 9.a, the Project site does not contain any RECs, HRECs, or CRECs, nor is the Project site affected by any off-site hazards or hazardous materials. Therefore, the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that the consistency determination analysis for the Ontario International Airport (ONT), prepared by the City and submitted to Ontario International Airport – Inter Agency Collaborative (ONT-IAC), found that TOP 2050 is consistent with ALUCP for ONT. Additionally, buildout of TOP 2050 would involve development within the Chino Airport influence area. Projects accommodating TOP 2050 in this area would be required to meet the conditions of the Chino Airport Authority and the 2011 Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, including those determining appropriate land uses, maximum population density, maximum site coverage, height restrictions, and required notification/disclosure areas based on the noise contours and runway protection, approach, and Part 77 zones of the adopted Chino Airport Master Plan. The Airport Planning section of TOP 2050 Land Use Element includes policies that would ensure airport planning compatibility and consistency. Therefore, TOP 2050 ensures compatibility with both ONT and Chino Airport. Impacts related to airport safety hazards would be less than significant and would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: According to the Land Use Element (Exhibit LU-06 Airport Safety Zones and Influence Areas) of TOP 2050, the Project site is not located within the Chino Airport Influence Area (City of Ontario, 2022a). According to the ONT Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), the Project site is located within the ONT Airport Influence Area (City of Ontario, 2011). Specifically, the Project site is located within the 65-70 CNEL noise impact zone and is subject to the Noise Criteria established on Table 2-3 in the ONT ALUCP. According to Table 2-3 of the ONT ALUCP, the Project’s industrial warehouse is considered normally compatible land use with exterior noise levels ranging from 65-70 dBA CNEL. For normally compatible land uses, activities associated with the land use may be carried out with minimal interference from aircraft noise. Therefore, the Project would not result in excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area.

Moreover, according to the Land Use Element (Exhibit LU-06 Airport Safety Zones and Influence Areas) of TOP 2050, the Project site is not located within the ONT safety zones. Therefore, the Project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area.

The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than 1308
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that the threat of flood is Ontario’s greatest hazard as large portions of the City are within the flood zone, according to the Vulnerability Analysis conducted as part of TOP 2050. There are also substantial improvements in transportation infrastructure planned to accommodate the increase in population in the City in the event of an emergency. Additionally, the Ontario Fire Department reviews development applications to ensure that adequate emergency accessibility is provided based on local and state guidance. Therefore, implementation of TOP 2050 would not Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan. Impacts would be less than significant and TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: The City's Safety Element includes policies and procedures to be administered in the event of a disaster. The City seeks interdepartmental and inter-jurisdictional coordination and collaboration to be prepared for, respond to and recover from every day and disaster emergencies. The City manages disaster preparedness through the Technical Services Bureau of the Ontario Fire Department. This bureau is responsible for the preparation of the community for disasters and the organization of recovery efforts. The City updated a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LMHP) prepared by the Office of Emergency Services of the Ontario Fire Department in 2018. Because the Project site has been historically used for industrial/commercial uses, it is not identified in any of these plans as being an evacuation area.

According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood map No. 06071C8641J, the Project site is located within Zone X, an area of minimal flood hazard (FEMA, 2016). Furthermore, construction of the Project would be generally confined to the Project site and would not physically impair access to the site or the Project area. During both construction and long-term operation, the Project would be required to maintain adequate emergency access for emergency vehicles as required by the City and the Ontario Fire Department. In addition, the Project will comply with the requirements of the Ontario Fire Department and all City requirements for fire and other emergency access. As concluded in the Certified SEIR, the Ontario Fire Department reviews development applications to ensure that adequate emergency accessibility is provided based on local and state guidance. Therefore, the Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
g. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that the there are many resources available to address wildland fires should they arise, including the CAL FIRE 2019 Strategic Fire Plan for California, the California Fire Code, County of San Bernardino Multi1309 Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

jurisdiction Hazard Management Plan, the Ontario LHMP, and fire services from the Ontario Fire Department. With adherence to these building practices, development and infrastructure associated with TOP 2050 would not exacerbate risk or result in post-wildfire hazards (e.g., landslides, mudflows, and flooding). Impacts would be less than significant and TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: The Project site is fully developed and is within a completely urbanized area that is void of any wildland areas. Additionally, according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire), the Project site is not within a very high fire hazard severity zone (CAL FIRE, 2008). Implementation of the Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk involving wildland fires and would not exacerbate the risk or result in post-wildfire hazards (e.g., landslides, mudflows, and flooding). The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.

10. HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY. Would the project:

The analysis in this section is based on the Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan and Preliminary Hydrology Study prepared by Thienes Engineering (Thienes) dated June 2022 and is provided in their entirety as Appendices E.1 and E.2 of this Addendum. a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that clearing, grading, excavation, and construction activities associated with TOP 2050 have the potential to impact water quality through soil erosion and increasing the amount of silt and debris carried in runoff. To minimize these potential impacts, future development associated with TOP 2050 would require compliance with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Construction General Permit (CGP) Water Quality Order 2009-0009-DWQ as amended by Order No. 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012- 006-DWQ. The CGP also requires that prior to the start of construction activities, the project applicant must file permit registration documents (PRD) with the SWRCB prior to the start of construction. The PRDs include a Notice of Intent, risk assessment, site map, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), annual fee, and a signed certification statement. In addition, the City of Ontario requires that an erosion and sediment control plan be submitted prior to grading plan approval and the issuance of a grading permit. Submittal of the PRDs and implementation of the SWPPP and the erosion control plan throughout the construction phase of the Proposed Project would address anticipated and expected pollutants of concern as a result of construction activities.

Pollutants from the post-construction phases of projects include sediment, metals, nutrients, pesticides, and hydrocarbons. TOP 2050 includes policies that direct the City to reduce pollutants in the City’s stormwater system. Projects approved under TOP 2050 would be required to control pollutants in discharges of stormwater from postconstruction activities under National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit through preparation of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) identifying BMPs for prevention of stormwater pollution during the postconstruction phase, including site-design, source-control, and/or treatment BMPs. Therefore, water quality standards and waste discharge requirements would not be exceeded, and surface water and groundwater quality would not be degraded. Impacts would be less than significant 1310
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

and TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: As demonstrated in the analysis below, the Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Temporary Construction-Related Activities
Construction of the Project would involve demolition, clearing, grading, paving, utility installation, construction, and landscaping activities. Construction activities would result in the generation of potential water quality pollutants such as silt, debris, chemicals, paints and solvents, and other chemicals with the potential to adversely affect water quality. As such, short-term water quality impacts have the potential to occur during construction of the Project in the absence of protective or avoidance measures.

Construction activities would disturb the 16.65-acre site; therefore, the Project is subject to the requirements of the SWRCB GCP, as previously analyzed in the Certified SEIR. Mandatory adherence to the CGP and implementation of measures outlined in the SWPPP would ensure that the Project does not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during construction activities. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Post-Development Water Quality Impacts
The site would be developed with a building up to 344,110 s.f. and associated parking and landscaping. To meet the requirements of the NPDES permit, the Project Applicant would be required to prepare and implement a WQMP. Implementation of the WQMP ensures on-going, long-term protection of the watershed basin.

According to the Project’s Preliminary WQMP, included as Appendix E.1, the Project is designed to include on-site structural source control BMPs consisting of subsurface system and catch basins. In addition, operation source control BMPs would be implemented, including but not limited to, minimizing non-stormwater site runoff through efficient irrigation system design and controllers, providing proper covers/roofs and secondary containment for outside material storage & work areas, providing solid roofs over all trash enclosures, and providing education/training of site occupants and employees on stormwater BMPs (Thienes, 2022b).

Compliance with the Preliminary WQMP and long-term maintenance of proposed on-site water quality control features would be required by the City to ensure the long-term effectiveness of all on-site water quality features.

In addition to the WQMP, the NPDES program also requires certain land uses, including the industrial land use proposed by the Project, to prepare a SWPPP for operational activities and to implement a long-term water quality sampling and monitoring program, unless an exemption is granted. Because the permit is dependent upon the operational activities of the building and the tenants are not known at this time, details of the SWPPP (including BMPs) or potential exemption to the SWPPP operational activities requirement cannot be determined at this time. However, based on the requirements of the NPDES Industrial General Permit, the Project’s mandatory compliance with all applicable regulations would further reduce potential water quality impacts during long-term operation.
1311
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

Implementation of the Project would have a beneficial impact on water quality because it would capture all on-site flows and treat flows prior to being discharged into the City’s storm drainage system. Based on the foregoing analysis, the Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality or result in potential discharge of stormwater to affect beneficial uses of receiving waters. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin)?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that future development would increase the amount of impermeable surfaces in the City and reduce the amount of permeable surfaces available for groundwater recharge. Most of the increase in impermeable surfaces in the City would result from development of the Ontario Ranch in accordance with land use designations in TOP 2050. Future urban development in Ontario Ranch would be served by domestic water provided by the City. Approximately 46 percent of the City’s water supply is groundwater pumped by the City from the Chino Groundwater Basin; groundwater pumping is managed by OMUC so that domestic demands do not exceed the safe yield for the basin. With the implementation of City policies that promote Low Impact Development (LID) and infiltration for new development projects and compliance with the Chino Basin Watermaster’s safe yield restrictions, the potential for the project to substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin would be less than significant. Therefore, TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: Water supply to the Project would be provided by OMUC and would not require the direct use of groundwater at the Project site. Therefore, the Project would not require direct additions or withdrawals of groundwater. Excavation that would result in the interception of existing aquifers or penetration of the existing water table is not proposed or anticipated. In addition, since the existing Project site is mostly impervious, the Project would not reduce any existing percolation of surface water into the groundwater table. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would?
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that future development associated with TOP 2050 would involve site improvements that require grading, excavation, and soil exposure during construction, with the potential for erosion or siltation to occur. If not controlled, the transport of these materials to local waterways could temporarily increase 1312
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

suspended sediment concentrations and release pollutants attached to sediment particles. To minimize this impact, the project would be required to comply with the requirements in the State’s CGP, including preparation of a notice of intent and SWPPP prior to the start of construction activities. In addition, the City of Ontario requires preparation of an erosion and sediment control plan and implementation of BMPs to control erosion, debris, and construction-related pollutants.

For post-construction, projects approved under TOP 2050 would be required to control stormwater discharges under NPDES Permit through preparation of a WQMP identifying BMPs for reducing or eliminating runoff. Collectively, implementation of BMPs outlined in SWPPPs, erosion and sediment control plans, WQMPs, and TOP 2050 policies would address anticipated erosion and siltation impacts. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: Under existing conditions, the Project site does not contain a stream or river; therefore, the Project does not have the potential to alter the course of a stream or river.

No impacts would occur in this regard. Refer to Response 10a. Project construction would temporarily expose on-site soils to surface water runoff. However, consistent with the findings of the Certified SEIR, compliance with construction-related BMPs and/or the SWPPP would control and minimize erosion and siltation, resulting in a less than significant impact. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off-site;
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that future development would increase the amount of impermeable surfaces in the City, which could result in future onand off-site flooding. The City’s standard conditions of approval for new development also require the preparation of hydrology studies and drainage analyses that document the peak runoff rates from the developed site and evaluate the capacity of the storm drain system to accept these flow rates. Additionally, TOP 2050 policies would direct the City to incorporate strategies to capture, slow, or treat run-off and to reduce the flooding potential down-gradient of new development. These policies would reduce the potential for on- and off-site flooding during the operational phase of future development projects. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: The Project site is currently developed; redevelopment of the site would not increase impervious surfaces. According to the Preliminary Hydrology Report prepared by Thienes Engineering, Inc., included as Appendix E.2, a storm drain system would be installed in both east and west side of the proposed building conveying the runoff southerly that ultimately drains to the existing 96-inch storm drain system located along East Jurupa Street. The westerly half of the site will drain from north to south via a proposed storm drain system that connects to an existing 27-inch storm drain downstream at Woodruff Way that ultimately discharge the existing storm drain system located along East Jurupa Street.

Runoff from the northeasterly area including the easterly half of the site will drain southwesterly to a series of catch basins and conveyed south via proposed storm drain line that connects to an existing 27-inch storm drain downstream south of the Project site. The northerly landscaped area adjacent to Wanamaker Avenue will sheet flow west to an existing street catch 1313
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

basin northwest of the site. The remaining westerly landscaped area adjacent to South Rockefeller Avenue will drain east to an existing street catch basin at the intersection northeast of East Jurupa Street and South Rockefeller Avenue.

Moreover, the total 100-year peak flow rate tributary to the Project site at proposed condition is approximately 52.8 cfs, which is slightly less than the existing condition of 54.1 cfs. (Thienes, 2022b). Therefore, runoff discharge from the Project site would not have an adverse effect to the existing storm drain system downstream. The Project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off-site. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity or existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff;
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that projects considered for approval under TOP 2050 would be required to prepare project-specific hydrology and hydraulic studies as required by the City. In compliance with the MS4 Permit and San Bernardino County Stormwater Program, new development projects would also be mandated to install stormwater treatment BMPs that retain the 2-year, 24-hour rainfall event. Because new development in the City would be required to prepare a hydrology study and drainage analysis in accordance with the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual, no significant impacts would occur. Therefore, TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: As stated above, according to the Project’s Preliminary Hydrology Report, included as Appendix E.2, runoff from the implementation of the Project would be less compared to existing conditions. Accordingly, the Project would not create or contribute runoff that would exceed the capacity of any existing stormwater drainage system. Consistent with the finding of the Certified SEIR, stormwater generated by the Project will be discharged in compliance with the statewide NPDES General Construction Activities Stormwater Permit and San Bernardino County MS4 permit requirements. With the full implementation of a SWPPP developed in compliance with the General Construction Activities Permit requirements, the BMPs included in the SWPPP, and a stormwater monitoring program would reduce any impacts to below a level of significance. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that only small portions of the City adjacent to flood control channels, detention basins, and creeks are in the 100-year floodplain. The western portion of Ontario Ranch is labeled Zone D—undetermined flood hazard— and no hazard analysis has been completed for this area. TOP 2050 include policies to reduce impacts of potential development within 100-year flood zones. Additionally, Chapter 13 of the Ontario Municipal Code requires that a development permit be obtained prior to development 1314
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

in a special flood hazard area to ensure that the site is reasonably safe from flooding and flood hazards. With implementation of existing policies, the potential for the project to impede or redirect flood flows is considered less than significant. Therefore, TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood map No. 06071C8641J, the Project site is located within Zone X, an area of minimal flood hazard (FEMA, 2016). Therefore, the Project would not impede or redirect flood flows and no impact would occur. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that the western and southern portions of the City are in the dam inundation zone of San Antonio Dam. The probability of dam failure is very low, and Ontario has never been impacted by a major dam failure. In addition, dam owners are required to maintain emergency action plans that include procedures for damage assessment and emergency warnings. Because the likelihood of catastrophic failure of the San Antonio Dam is very low and the City has emergency action plan (EAP) notification procedures, impacts of release of pollutants due to dam inundation are considered less than significant. The City is inland and approximately 30 miles from the ocean and is not at risk of flooding due to tsunamis. Therefore, impacts associated with the release of pollutants due to inundation would be less than significant and TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: As discussed above, the Project site is not in a FEMA flood zone.

Additionally, consistent with the findings of the Certified SEIR, there are no large water bodies in the area that could impact the Project site and the Project site is outside of any tsunami hazard zone. Therefore, the Project would not result in a risk of pollutant release due to inundation from a flooding event, tsunami, or seiche zones. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that the City’s groundwater supplies are from the Chino Groundwater Basin, which is adjudicated and managed by the Chino Basin Watermaster. The Chino Basin is exempt from legislative requirements under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) because it is an adjudicated basin and is not required to prepare a groundwater sustainability plan. As discussed above, implementation of the SWPPP, and adherence to the City’s Erosion and Sediment Control Plan requirements would ensure that surface and groundwater quality are not adversely impacted during construction.

Additionally, projects approved under TOP 2050 would be required to comply with the Santa Ana River Basin Plan and to control pollutants in discharges of stormwater from postconstruction activities under NPDES Permit. Therefore, implementation of TOP 2050 would not obstruct or 1315
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

conflict with the RWQCB’s Basin Plan or any groundwater management plan, and impacts would be less than significant. TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: As discussed under Response 10a, the Project site is within the Santa Ana River Basin; therefore, Project-related construction and operational activities would be required to comply with the Santa Ana RWQCB’s Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan by preparing and adhering to an SWPPP and WQMP. Additionally, as discussed previously, implementation of the Project would not conflict with or obstruct the Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan.

The Project site is located within the Chino Groundwater Basin. Upon development, the Project site will be connected to the City’s public water supply and there will be no onsite wells for use of groundwater. The City manages both the potable and non-potable supplies to ensure withdrawals from the Chino Groundwater Basin do not exceed the safe yield for the Basin, as per the Chino Basin Watermaster's Optimum Basin Management Program (OBMP). Therefore, the Project would not obstruct or conflict with the OBMP. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.

11. LAND USE & PLANNING. Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established community?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that the changes in land use that would occur upon the implementation of TOP 2050 Land Use Plan would not result in the physical division of an established community. The Land Use Element of TOP 2050 contains policies and programs that encourage the preservation or enhancement of the existing, primarily residential community through infill development, open space opportunities, and development of compatible uses that would reduce the amount of conflict between contradicting land uses and enhance the existing character of Ontario. TOP 2050 would avoid conflicting land uses and would not divide an established community. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: The Project site is located in an area that is currently developed with urban land uses. Existing industrial development borders the site to the north, south, west, and east.

The Project Applicant would redevelop the site with industrial use with associated parking and landscaping improvements, consistent with the TOP 2050 land use plan. The Project will be of similar design and size to surrounding development. The Project would not have the potential to physically divide an established community. No adverse impacts are anticipated. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 1316
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that TOP 2050 is consistent with the majority of Connect SoCal’s goals. Additionally, the Airport Planning section of the TOP 2050 Land Use and Mobility Elements includes policies that would ensure airport planning compatibility and consistency. Therefore, TOP 2050 ensures compatibility with ONT and Chino Airport. Impacts would be less than significant and TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: The Project site is designated for Industrial by the TOP 2050 Land Use Plan. The Project Applicant would redevelop the Project site in accordance with the adopted land use designation. The Project would require a Specific Plan Amendment to the California Commerce Center Specific Plan (CCCSP) to change the land use designation of 8.4 acres of land from Commercial/Food/Hotel to Light Industrial. The Specific Plan Amendment would bring the land use under the CCCSP for the Project site into conformance with the TOP 2050 Land Use Plan, which lists the Project site as Industrial (0.55 FAR). Design standards applicable to the Light Industrial zone under the CCCSP would remain the same under the Project. The Project is consistent with the Policy Plan and does not interfere with any policies for environmental protection. As such, no impacts are anticipated. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.

12. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that there are two areas in Ontario that are designated MRZ-2, where significant mineral resources are known or are likely.

The remainder of the City is designated MRZ-3, where the significance of mineral deposits is unknown. Development in an MRZ-3 area would not result in significant impacts because mineral resources of statewide or local importance are not identified on the California Geological Survey’s P-C maps. Implementation of TOP 2050 would not result in changes to the existing land use designation or existing conditions of the MRZ-2 areas. Therefore, TOP 2050 would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource in Ontario, and impacts to mineral resources would be less than significant.

Discussion of Effects: The Project site is located within a mostly developed area surrounded by urban land uses. As shown in Figure 5.12-1 of the Ontario Plan 2050 Draft SEIR, the Project site is designated as MRZ-3 (City of Ontario, 2022b). As concluded in the TOP 2050 EIR, development in an MRZ-3 area would not result in significant impacts. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: As discussed above, the Certified SEIR concluded that implementation of TOP 2050 would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral 1317
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

resource recovery site. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: As discussed in Response 12a above, there are no known mineral resources in the area. The Project would not result in the loss of availability of locally-important mineral resources. No impacts are anticipated. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.

13. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that construction activities associated with buildout of TOP 2050 would result in temporary noise increases at sensitive receptors. Mitigation Measure 12-4 would reduce potential impacts associated with construction from individual development projects to the extent feasible. However, due to the potential for proximity of construction activities to sensitive uses, the number of construction projects occurring simultaneously, and the potential duration of construction activities, construction activities could still result in a temporary substantial increase in noise levels above ambient conditions and exceedance of the 80 dBA Leq threshold. Therefore, construction noise impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. It should be noted that the identification of this program level impact does not preclude the finding of less-than-significant impacts for subsequent projects analyzed at the project level.

Moreover, TOP 2050 would not result in new type of stationary noise sources than those under TOP; therefore, stationary noise impacts would be less than significant. Additionally, traffic noise level increase would be below the significant threshold and TOP 2050 include policies that would minimize traffic noise impacts. Therefore, operational noise impacts would be less than significant and TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: A Project-specific Noise Assessment has been prepared by Urban Crossroads for the Project and is included as Appendix F. Redevelopment of the Project site with a new building and associated improvement has the potential to generate elevated noise levels during both near-term construction activities and under long-term operational conditions. Nearterm (i.e., temporary) and long-term (i.e., permanent) noise level increases that would be associated with the Project are described below. To assess the potential short-term construction and long-term operational noise impacts, Urban Crossroads identified 5 representative noisesensitive receiver locations at which the Project’s anticipated noise generation was compared against as shown in Figure 9, Receiver Locations.
1318
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

Figure 9: Receiver Locations
1319
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

Construction Noise Impact
The Project’s only potential to cause a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels would occur during the construction phase. Construction activities on the Project site, especially those involving the use of heavy equipment, would create intermittent, temporary increases in ambient noise However, although periodic and temporary construction noise has the potential to be substantial compared to existing ambient noise levels. The Project’s construction-related activities are required to comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 5-29.09).

The City of Ontario has set restrictions to control noise impacts associated with construction. Section 5-29.09 of the Municipal Code states: No person, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition or any other related building activity, shall operate any tool, equipment or machine in a manner that produces loud noise that disturbs a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, or a Police or Code Enforcement Officer, on any weekday except between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. or on Saturday or Sunday between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. While the City establishes limits to the hours during which construction activity may take place, it does not identify specific noise level limits for construction noise levels at potentially affected receiver locations for CEQA analysis purposes.

Therefore, a numerical construction threshold of 80 decibels (dBA) equivalent sound level (Leq) based on Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual is used for analysis of daytime construction impacts. As shown in Table 13-1, Construction Noise Level Compliance, the Project’s construction-related noise at the off-site receiver locations will satisfy the 80 dBA Leq significance threshold (Urban Crossroads, 2023b). Therefore, construction noise impacts would be less than significant.

Table 13-1 Construction Noise Level Compliance
Receiver
Location1
Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Highest Construction
Noise Levels2 Threshold3 Threshold Exceeded?4
R1 38.1 80 No
R2 42.1 80 No
R3 30.3 80 No
R4 35.5 80 No
R5 35.7 80 No
1 Noise receiver locations are shown on Figure 9. 2 Highest construction noise level calculations based on distance from the construction noise source activity to the nearest receiver locations as shown on Table 8-2 of the Noise Impact Analysis.
3 Construction noise level thresholds as shown on Table 4-1 of the Noise Impact Analysis. 4 Do the estimated Project construction noise levels exceed the construction noise level threshold? Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2023b , Table 2)
Operational Noise Impact
Future users of the proposed Project are currently unknown. Therefore, this analysis presents worst-case scenario noise conditions for typical warehouse space activities, assuming that the Project would be operational 24-hours per day, 7 days per week. The Project’s proposed business operations would primarily be conducted within the enclosed building, except for traffic movement, parking, and loading/unloading of trucks at designated loading bays. The on-site 1320
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

Project-related noise-sources are anticipated to include loading dock activity, truck movements, roof-top, air-conditioning units, parking lot vehicle movements, and trash enclosure activity.

To estimate the Project’s operational noise impacts, reference noise level measurements were collected from similar types of activities to represent the noise levels anticipated with the development of the Project. To demonstrate compliance with local noise regulations, the Projectonly operational noise levels are evaluated against exterior noise level thresholds based on the City of Ontario exterior noise level standards at nearby noise-sensitive receiver locations. Section 5-29.04(a) identifies the allowable daytime and nighttime ambient exterior noise standards for each land use type. For residential land uses (Noise Zone I), ambient exterior noise levels may not exceed 65 dBA Leq during the daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and may not exceed 45 dBA Leq during the nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). Table 13-2, Operational Noise Level Compliance, shows the operational noise levels associated with the Project will satisfy the City of Ontario exterior noise level standards adjusted to reflect the ambient noise conditions (Urban Crossroads, 2023b). Therefore, operational noise impacts would be less than significant.

Table 13-2 Operational Noise Level Compliance
Receiver
Location1
Project Operational
Noise Levels (dBA Leq)2
Noise Level Standards
(dBA Leq)3
Noise Level Standards
Exceeded?4
Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime
R1 21.9 21.8 65.0 71.9 No No
R2 24.4 24.3 65.0 74.2 No No
R3 20.1 20.1 65.0 66.8 No No
R4 25.4 25.4 65.0 75.4 No No
R5 25.5 25.5 65.0 76.0 No No
1 See Figure 9 for the receiver locations. 2 Proposed Project operational noise levels as shown on Appendix of the Noise Impact Analysis. 3 Section 5-29.04 of the City of Ontario Municipal Code. 4 Do the estimated Project operational noise source activities exceed the noise level standards? "Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m.

Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2023b , Table 1)
Therefore, the Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The following mitigation measure from the Certified SEIR is applicable to the Project:

MM 12-4 Construction activities associated with new development that occurs near sensitive receptors shall be evaluated for potential noise impacts.

Construction contractors shall implement the following measures for construction activities in the City of Ontario. Construction plans submitted to the City shall identify these measures on demolition, grading, and construction plans. The City of Ontario Planning and Building Departments shall verify that grading, demolition, and/or construction plans submitted include these notations prior to issuance of demolition, grading, and/or building permits.
• Construction activity is limited to the hours between 7:00 am and 1321
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

6:00 pm Monday through Friday and 9:00 am to 6:00 pm Saturdays and Sundays, as prescribed in Municipal Code Section 5-29.09. • During the entire active construction period, equipment and trucks used for project construction shall use the best-available noise control techniques wherever feasible (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment re-design, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds). • Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers and hoe rams) shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible. Where the use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used along with external noise jackets on the tools.
• Stationary equipment such as generators and air compressors shall be located as far as feasible from nearby noise-sensitive uses. • Stockpiling shall be located as far as feasible from nearby noisesensitive receptors. • Construction traffic shall be limited, to the extent feasible, to approved haul routes established by the City’s Engineering Department.
• At least 10 days prior to the start of construction activities, a sign shall be posted at the entrance(s) to the job site, clearly visible to the public, that includes permitted construction days and hours as well as the telephone numbers of the City’s and contractor’s authorized representatives that are assigned to respond in the event of a noise or vibration complaint. If the authorized contractor’s representative receives a complaint, he/she shall investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the action to the City.
• Signs shall be posted at the job site entrance(s), within the on-site construction zones, and along queueing lanes (if any) to reinforce the prohibition of unnecessary engine idling. All other equipment shall be turned off if not in use for more than 5 minutes. • During the entire active construction period and to the extent feasible, the use of noise producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells, shall be for safety warning purposes only. The construction manager shall use smart back-up alarms, which automatically adjust the alarm level based on the background noise level or switch off back-up alarms and replace with human spotters in compliance with all safety requirements and laws. • Erect temporary noise barriers (at least as high as the exhaust of equipment and breaking line-of-sight between noise sources and sensitive receptors), as necessary and feasible, to maintain construction noise levels at or below the performance standard of 80 dBA Leq. Barriers shall be constructed with a solid material that 1322
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

has a density of at least 1.5 pounds per square foot with no gaps from the ground to the top of the barrier and may be lined on the construction side with an acoustical blanket, curtain, or equivalent absorptive material.
b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that construction activity at projects within TOP 2050 plan area would generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the construction procedures and equipment. TOP 2050 would have similar impacts as the TOP because specific project-level data for individual developments for TOP 2050 (such as construction equipment) are not available, and construction could generate excessive vibration levels at sensitive receptor locations. Vibration-related noise impacts during construction that would accommodate buildout of TOP 2050 would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measure 12-2 would reduce potential impacts associated with construction vibration from individual development projects to the extent feasible. However, due to the potential for proximity of construction activities to sensitive uses, the number of construction projects occurring simultaneously, and the potential duration of construction activities, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable and would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR. It should be noted that the identification of this programlevel impact does not preclude the finding of less-than-significant impacts for subsequent projects analyzed at the project level.

Commercial and industrial operations would generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the operational procedures and equipment. The Certified EIR found that the majority of industrial uses would not be immediately adjacent to vibration-sensitive uses, the use of heavy equipment associated with industrial activities would occur indoors, and no significant vibration impacts would occur from vibration generated by industrial uses. TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to that of TOP. Therefore, vibration impacts during operation would be less than significant and would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: The Project site was previously analyzed as industrial uses in the Certified SEIR. The Project would be developed consistent with the Industrial land use designation of the site as the site was analyzed in the Certified SEIR. As discussed above, the Project proposes a development of an approximately 344,110 s.f. logistics center. The proposed building would be approximately 54,791 s.f. less than the maximum allowed under TOP 2050. As concluded in the Certified SEIR, industrial uses do not normally induce significant groundborne vibrations because they do not typically involve equipment or activities which result in large vibrations. Therefore, the Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that implementation of TOP 2050 could expose noise sensitive uses to excessive noise levels from the Ontario International Airport. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure 12-1, impacts to future sensitive receptors 1323
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

from excessive airport-related noise would be reduced to interior noise levels of 45 dBA CNEL or less. While interior noise levels are required to achieve the interior noise limits of Title 24 and Title 25, exterior noise levels may continue to exceed the noise compatibility criteria for the City.

Consequently, airport noise compatibility impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, and would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: According to the Ontario International Airport (ONT) Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), the Project site is located within the ONT Airport Influence Area (City of Ontario, 2011). Moreover, the Project site is located within the 65-70 CNEL noise impact zone and is subject to the Noise Criteria established on Table 2-3 in the ONT ALUCP. According to Table 2-3 of the ONT ALUCP, the Project’s industrial warehouse is considered normally compatible land use with exterior noise levels ranging from 65-70 dBA CNEL. For normally compatible land use, activities associated with the land use may be carried out with minimal interference from aircraft noise. Moreover, as discussed under Response 13a, the Project would not result in a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established. Therefore, the Project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels and impacts would be less than significant. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.

14. POPULATION & HOUSING. Would the project:
a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of road or other infrastructure)?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that implementation of TOP 2050 accommodates population growth through land use designations, goals, and policies that provide a vision and guide growth in the City. TOP 2050 would increase population, dwelling units, and nonresidential buildings but would result in a small decrease in employment. Although the increase in population, housing, and employment under TOP 2050 would exceed SCAG’s regional forecasts for the City of Ontario, TOP 2050 would improve the job-housing balance.

Consequently, impacts would be less than significant, and TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: The Project would result in the development of an approximately 344,110 s.f. warehouse facility and does not include a residential component. Based on the Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG) Employment Density Study of 1 employee per 1,195 square feet for warehouse use, the Project would generate approximately 288 direct jobs. According to the California Employment Development Department (EDD), as of March 2023, the City of Ontario has a labor force of 93,500 persons and of that labor force, 3,800 are unemployed (unemployment rate of 4.1 percent) (EDD, 2023). According to SCAG’s 2020- 2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, the City of Ontario is anticipated to employ approximately 169,300 persons by 2045 (SCAG, 2020). Additionally, the TOP 2050 projected 296,002 employees in 2050. Therefore, the Project is consistent with both the SCAG’s 2045 and TOP 2050 employment projections for the City. Project-generated jobs are well within the employment projections for the City of Ontario. Operation of the Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the Project area, either directly or indirectly 1324
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

and would not exceed regional or local growth projections. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that land use changes under TOP 2050 would increase opportunities for housing in the City—for example, by converting shopping centers to mixed-use and increasing residential density in existing residential areas and religious properties. The TOP 2050 Land Use Plan would provide land use designations for a variety of housing types and provide for additional residential opportunities throughout Ontario. TOP 2050 includes the following policies supporting an increase in the provision of housing and diversity of housing opportunities in the City. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: The Project site does not contain any housing and there are no people living at the Project site that would be displaced by the Project. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.

15. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project:
a. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i. Fire protection?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: Fire prevention services are provided by the Ontario Fire Department (OFD). The Certified SEIR concluded that based on correspondence with the OFD, existing conditions would not be adequate to meet such increased demands from the implementation of TOP 2050. The OFD’s recommendation is that three additional fire stations would be needed in the Ontario Ranch to meet projected needs. While the construction of future facilities could result in potential environmental impacts, future environmental review would occur once specific locations have been determined. Without a definitive location for the development of future facilities, the analysis of potential impacts is too speculative to conduct. Future projects would be reviewed by the City and the OFD on an individual basis and would be required to comply with requirements in effect at the time building permits are issued, including the payment of development impact fees (DIF) that contribute to funding for additional staffing, facilities, and equipment. Therefore, impacts to fire protection services would be less than significant and implementation of TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.
1325
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

Discussion of Effects: The Project Applicant would develop the Project site in accordance with TOP 2050 land use plan. Accordingly, the development activities proposed by the Project were planned by TOP 2050 and, thus, the Project’s demand for fire protection services was anticipated by the Certified SEIR. Additionally, the Project site is not located within the Ontario Ranch area. The proposed building would be in accordance with the applicable provisions of the adopted California Fire Code (CFC) and the City’s Municipal Code Section 4-4.01, ordinances, and standard conditions regarding fire prevention and suppression measures related to water improvement plans, fire hydrants, fire access, and water availability. The Project will not require the construction of any new fire protection facilities or alteration of any existing fire protection facilities or cause a decline in the levels of service, which could cause the need to construct new fire protection facilities. Consistent with the findings of the Certified SEIR, DIF would also be collected in order to build and supply necessary infrastructure for fire protection services, as necessary. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
ii. Police protection?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: Police protection services are provided by the Ontario Police Department (OPD). The Certified SEIR concluded that according to correspondence with the OPD as part of this project, the OPD currently has enough staffing to meet current demands but would require additional staffing as population increases to accommodate buildout of TOP 2050. There are current plans for adding a substation in Downtown Ontario and Ontario Ranch.

While the construction of future facilities could result in potential environmental impacts, future environmental review would occur once specific locations have been determined. Without a definitive location for the development of future facilities, the analysis of potential impacts is too speculative to conduct. Future development would also be subject to development impact fees which pay for police services. Therefore, impacts to police protection services would be less than significant and implementation of TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: The Project Applicant would develop the Project site in accordance with TOP 2050 land use plan. Accordingly, the development activities proposed by the Project were planned by TOP 2050 and, thus, the Project’s demand for police protection services was anticipated by the Certified SEIR. Additionally, the Project is not located within the Downtown Ontario and Ontario Ranch areas. The Project plans would be reviewed and approved by the City’s Building and Police Departments, which would ensure that adequate safety and crime prevention measures are provided within the Project’s design. The Project will not require the construction of any new police protection facilities or alteration of any existing police protection facilities or cause a decline in the levels of service, which could cause the need to construct new police protection facilities. Consistent with the findings of the Certified SEIR, DIF would also be collected in order to build and supply necessary infrastructure for police protection services, as necessary. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
1326
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

iii. Schools?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: As part of the development of the Certified SEIR, the City reached out to the five school districts that serve residents of Ontario to obtain existing conditions information and information on potential impacts. Current enrollment for all three of these school districts is below capacity and the capacity of the schools in addition to any already planned construction projects would be able to accommodate the increased population due to the implementation of TOP 2050. However, it is possible that Ontario-Montclair School District and Cucamonga School District would need additional facilities. Developers would be required to pay the impact fees levied by each school district, set within the limits of SB 50. The Certified SEIR concluded that although the increased demand on school facilities would have the potential to impact one or more of the school districts that serve Ontario, payment of impact fees in compliance with SB 50 would reduce the impacts to an acceptable level. Therefore, impacts to school services would be less than significant and implementation of TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: The Project site is within the school boundary of the Cucamonga School District. The Project Applicant proposes to demolish the existing industrial buildings and redevelop the site with a single industrial building. Implementation of the Project does not have the potential to result in substantial direct growth in the population, nor an increase in student population. The Project Applicant would develop the Project site in accordance with TOP 2050 land use plan and, thus, the Project’s indirect demand for public school services was anticipated by the Certified SEIR. The Project would be required to pay school fees as prescribed by state law prior to the issuance of building permits. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
iv. Parks?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: Park service were discussed under the Recreation section of the Certified SEIR. The Certified SEIR concluded that impacts to recreation would be less than significant and implementation of TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR. Details on the summary findings are discussed below in Section 16.

Discussion of Effects: The Project would develop the Project site in accordance with TOP 2050 land use plan and would not introduce new residents to the City necessitating the need for additional parks. The Project will not require the construction of any new parks or alteration of any existing parks or cause a decline in the levels of service, which could cause the need to construct new park facilities. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
v. Other public facilities?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that the Ontario library system is currently not meeting the goal of 0.6 square feet of library facilities per capita. Buildout of TOP 2050 would result in an increase in demand for library services in the City of Ontario based 1327
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

on an increase in population. Environmental impacts could result from the construction of future facilities; however, the location and size of potential future facilities is currently unknown, and each project would have to complete applicable environmental review under CEQA when it is determined. Future projects would be reviewed by the City of Ontario on an individual basis and would be required to comply with requirements in effect at the time building permits are issued (i.e., payment of development impact fees). Since adequate services would be provided and payment of development impact fees would offset the costs associated with library services, impacts on library services would be less than significant. Therefore, implementation of TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: The Project would develop the Project site in accordance with TOP 2050 land use and would not introduce new residents to the City necessitating the need for additional public facilities. The Project will not require the construction of any new public facilities or alteration of any existing public facilities or cause a decline in the levels of service, which could cause the need to construct new public facilities. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.

16. RECREATION. Would the project:
a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that future growth in the City in accordance with buildout of TOP 2050 would increase the demand for parks and increase existing park usage. TOP 2050 would designate approximately 900 acres for recreational uses under the Open Space – Recreation (OS-R) land use designation. Additionally, new development in Ontario Ranch provides an additional two acres per 1,000 residents for private parks in addition to the City’s three acres per 1,000 residents for public parks. There are also at least 180 acres of regional recreational facilities, joint-use agreements with school districts, and private recreational opportunities providing services that cannot be accommodated by existing facilities. As a result, development of park facilities would keep pace with the anticipated increase in population from buildout of TOP 2050. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and implementation of TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: The Project would develop the Project site in accordance with the TOP 2050 land use plan. Accordingly, the development activities proposed by the Project were planned by TOP 2050 and, thus, the Project’s indirect demand for parks was anticipated by the Certified SEIR. The Project is not proposing any significant new housing or large employment generator that would cause an increase in the use of neighborhood parks or other recreational facilities. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of 1328
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

recreational facilities that have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that TOP 2050 includes planned park facilities; however, it is speculative to determine the location of proposed park facilities in the City and impacts arising from development of individual park projects. Existing federal, state, and local regulations as well as goals, policies, and actions in TOP 2050 would mitigate potential adverse impacts to the environment that may result from buildout of TOP 2050, including expansion of parks, recreational facilities, and multiuse trails. Furthermore, subsequent environmental review would be required for development of park projects under the TOP 2050 Land Use Plan. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and implementation of TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: The Project does not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Implementation of the Project would not result in any adverse physical effects on the environment due to the construction of recreational facilities. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.

17. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that TOP 2050 includes policies to encourage and provide access to the regional transit network, to enhance connectivity to the City’s nonmotorized transportation network, and proposes the changes to the Mobility Element that have the potential to affect infrastructure projects identified in the Regional Transportation Plan. Therefore, TOP 2050 would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities and implementation of TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects:

Project Trip Generation
Trip generation represents the amount of traffic that is attracted to and produced by a development project. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (2021) includes a trip generation rate for high-cube fulfillment center warehouse uses (ITE land use code 155) and high-cube cold storage warehouse uses (ITE land use code 157). According to the Project’s Trip Generation Assessment, included as Appendix G.1, the Project is evaluated as a mix of the following uses: 85% high-cube fulfillment center warehouse and 15% high-cube cold storage warehouse. Based on the assumptions described above, the Project is anticipated to generate a total of 812 two-way trips per day with 62 Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE) AM peak hour trips and 59 PCE PM peak hour trips. However, when accounting for existing conditions, the Project is anticipated to generate 770 fewer two-way trips per day with 79 fewer AM peak hour trips and 68 fewer PM peak hour trips in comparison to the existing uses (in PCE). Per the City’s Guidelines, the trip generation comparison is based on PCE as the existing and proposed uses are truck-intensive 1329
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

uses and any operations analysis performed (if necessary) would utilize PCE values. Additionally, when comparing to the maximum allowed under TOP 2050, the Project is anticipated to generate 1,288 fewer two-way trips per day with 239 fewer AM peak hour trips and 206 fewer PM peak hour trips.

The City of Ontario adheres to the County’s Transportation Impact Study Guidelines which has been used to determine whether additional traffic analysis is necessary for the proposed Project. The County’s Guidelines indicates that development projects that generate a net increase of 100 or more peak hour vehicle trips (without pass-by reductions) would require the preparation and submittal of a Transportation Impact Analysis. The Project is anticipated to generate fewer than 50 net new peak hour trips during the morning and evening peak hours. The Project on its own, without taking any credit for existing uses, also generates fewer than 100 new peak hour trips (both in actual vehicles and PCE). Lastly, the proposed Project uses are anticipated to generate fewer trips than the adopted TOP 2050 land use (Industrial). As such, additional peak hour traffic operations analysis is not necessary based on the thresholds and standards included in the County’s Guidelines (Urban Crossroads, 2022c). Therefore, the Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
The Project site is not located along a bikeway. The closest bikeway to the Project site is located at East Inland Empire Boulevard. The Project would be confined to the Project site and would not conflict within the existing bikeways. In addition, the Project would provide bike racks to accommodate bicycle access to the Project stie.

The Project site features (buildings, parking areas, etc.) would be connected by ADA compliant sidewalks and striped crosswalks within the parking areas to the existing ensure pedestrian access throughout Project site. Additionally, the Project would install sidewalk on South Rockefeller Avenue, Woodruff Way, and Wanamaker Avenue. Implementation of the Project would not interfere with the City’s Active Transportation Plan. No impacts would occur.

Transit
Transit service to the City is provided by OmniTrans. The closest bus route to the Project site is Route 82 with a bus stop located at the intersection of South Rockefeller Avenue and East Jurupa Street, approximately 0.07 mile south of the Project site. The City of Ontario strives to provide a transit system that serves as a viable alternative to automobile travel. The Project would support transit use by improving existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the Project area. The Project would not introduce new features to any public road that would affect transit in the Project area.

As such, a less than significant impact would occur.

As demonstrated, the Project would not conflict with the City’s Mobility Element, and impacts associated with conflict of an applicable program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities would be less than significant. Therefore, the Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
1330
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that there is a net increase in citywide Boundary VMT primarily due to the increase in population accommodated by TOP 2050. Mitigation Measure T-1 would reduce potential impacts for future development projects to the extent feasible. Future development projects consistent with TOP 2050 would need to consider transportation demand management (TDM) measures consistent with those identified in the Mobility Element. TDM techniques include incentives to use transit; incentives to form carpools rather than drive alone; and making home, work, and shopping closer together to shorten travel distances. Because the VMT impact is citywide, mitigation measures to reduce VMT would need to focus on changing or improving the citywide travel patterns, transportation network, or infrastructure. Given the uncertainty of the effectiveness of implementing these types of mitigation measures at a citywide level and of their effectiveness at reducing citywide VMT, VMT impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

Discussion of Effects: The City Guidelines lists standardized screening methods for project level VMT analysis that can be used to identify when a proposed land use development project is anticipated to result in a less than significant impact, thereby eliminating the need to conduct a full VMT analysis. The City of Ontario VMT screening criteria, as described within the City Guidelines, are listed below:
• Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening
• Low VMT Area Screening
• Project Type Screening
A land use project need only meet one of the above screening criteria to result in a less than significant impact.

TPA Screening
Consistent with guidance identified in the City Guidelines, projects located within a Transit Priority Area (TPA) (i.e., within ½ mile of an existing “major transit stop” or an existing stop along a “high-quality transit corridor” 1) may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. However, the presumption may not be appropriate if a project:
• Has a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of less than 0.75;
• Includes more parking for use by residents, customers, or employees of the project than required by the jurisdiction (if the jurisdiction requires the project to supply parking); • Is inconsistent with the applicable Sustainable Communities Strategy (as determined by the lead agency, with input from the Metropolitan Planning Organization); or • Replaces affordable residential units with a smaller number of moderate or high-income residential units.
1 Pub. Resources Code, § 21155 (“For purposes of this section, a high-quality transit corridor means a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours.”).
1331
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

Based on the secondary criteria outlined in the City Guidelines, the Project does not meet the secondary criteria of having an FAR at or above 0.75, regardless of the Project being physically located in a TPA.

Low VMT Area Screening
City Guidelines state that projects may be presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact if located in an already low VMT generating traffic analysis zone (TAZ). City Guidelines recognize low VMT areas as those that generate a VMT per service population (i.e., population and employment) that is 15% below County of San Bernardino Baseline VMT per service population. The San Bernardino Transportation Analysis Model (SBTAM) is used to measure VMT performance in individual TAZs within the region. The Project’s physical location was identified in the SBTAM model to determine the TAZ where the Project is located. The Project TAZ 53687401 is then calculated using Origin-Destination (OD) trip matrices to obtain total OD VMT. The resulting total OD VMT is divided by the Project TAZ’s service population. The Project TAZ 53687401 has a VMT per service population of 55.8, which was compared to 15% below County of San Bernardino baseline or 28.41 VMT per service population (33.42 x 0.85= 28.41). As a result, the Project is not located within a low VMT generating zone. Therefore, the Project would not meet the Low VMT Area Screening threshold.

Project Type Screening
The City Guidelines identify that local serving retail less than 50,000 square feet or other local serving essential services (e.g., day care centers, public schools, medical/dental office buildings, etc.) are presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. The Project as intended does not contain any local serving uses. Additionally, the City Guidelines state that small projects generating fewer than 110 daily vehicle trips or less may be presumed to have a less than significant impact. The Project is anticipated to generate 899 fewer two-way trips per day as compared to the existing use and 1,302 fewer two-way trips per day as compared to the adopted TOP 2050 in actual vehicles. Therefore, the Project’s estimated trips will not exceed the City’s 110 net new daily vehicle trip threshold and the Project would meet the Project Type Screening threshold. (Urban Crossroads, 2023d) The Project VMT impact would be less than significant and would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e. g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that majority of the population growth associated with TOP 2050 would occur in Ontario Ranch and there are substantial improvements in transportation infrastructure planned to accommodate the increase in population in the City in the event of an emergency. Additionally, the City has adopted roadway classification standards in Policy M-1.1 that include roadway design standards as part of TOP 2050, precluding the construction of any unsafe features. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and implementation of TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.
1332
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

Discussion of Effects: The Project’s potential to increase hazards as a result of a geometric design feature has been assessed to provide adequate truck access/circulation. The Project’s circulation plan has been designed to be compatible with all foreseeable vehicles. Vehicular access will be provided via 5 driveways on Wanamaker Avenue, South Rockefeller Avenue, and Woodruff Way. The driveway on Woodruff Way would be restricted to truck only and the northern driveway on South Rockefeller Avenue and western driveway on Wanamaker Avenue would be restricted to passenger vehicles only. The driveways on Wanamaker Avenue, South Rockefeller Avenue, and Woodruff Way for trucks are 40 feet wide and designed to accommodate the wide turning radius of the heavy trucks. Additionally, the Project proposes to modified Woodruff Way to a cul-de-sac and it would no longer be connected to Wanamaker Avenue. As a result of the vacation, vehicles previously using Woodruff Way to access Wanamaker Avenue will be using Jurupa Street to Rockefeller Avenue. Redistribution of trips is not expected to result in an increase of hazards as the existing and future westbound right turn volume at the intersection of Rockefeller Avenue and Jurupa Street is less than 300 vehicles per hour during the peak hours. (Urban Crossroads, 2023e)
The Project area is generally characterized by industrial uses. Traffic generated by the Project would be typical of a warehouse and be compatible with the type of traffic generated by the existing and surrounding development. In addition, all proposed improvements within the public right-of-way would be installed in conformance with City design standards. The City of Ontario Engineering Department reviewed the Project’s application materials and determined that no hazardous transportation design features would be introduced by the Project. At the time of final grading, landscape, and street improvement plans, the City will further review project access points to ensure adequate sight distance. Accordingly, the Project would not create or substantially increase safety hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use and impacts would be a less than significant. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
d. Result in inadequate emergency access?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that a review of emergency access is included as part of the City’s Design Review process. According to the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, interstate highways would serve as major emergency response and evacuation routes. Additionally, the Ontario Fire Department reviews development applications to ensure that adequate emergency accessibility is provided based on local and state guidance.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and implementation of TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: The Project will be designed to provide access for all emergency vehicles and meet all applicable City of Ontario Fire and Police Department access requirements to ensure that adequate access would be provided for emergency vehicles at Project build out.

During construction activities that include road and sidewalk improvements, the Project would provide adequate emergency access along abutting roadways during temporary construction activities within the public right-of-way. As concluded in the Certified SEIR, the Ontario Fire Department reviews development applications to ensure that adequate emergency accessibility is provided based on local and state guidance. As a result, the Project would not a less than significant impact to emergency access. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary. 1333
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.

18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that result of the Sacred Lands File (SLF) check conducted through the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was negative. In accordance with AB 52 and SB 18 requirements, the City sent invitation letters to the Native American contacts provided by the NAHC. Grading and construction activities in undeveloped areas or redevelopment that requires deeper soil excavation than in the past have the potential to disturb tribal cultural resources. Mitigation Measures 5-3 and 5-4 and new Mitigation Measures TCR-1 and TCR-2 would reduce potential impacts associated with tribal cultural resources to a level that is less than significant. Therefore, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts relating to tribal cultural resources remain. a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? Discussion of Effects: As analyzed in Response 5.a, there are no resources on the Project site that are eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or in a local register of historical resources as defined by Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k). Implementation of the Project would not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a listed historical resource. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision(c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision(c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Discussion of Effects: As discussed in Response 5.a, no resources were recorded in the Project site or within one mile of the Project site. However, since the Project would require excavation for construction into previously undisturbed soils, there is a potential to uncover undiscovered prehistoric artifacts or tribal cultural resources during excavation. Therefore, while unlikely, the presence of subsurface tribal cultural resources on the Project site remains possible, and these could be affected by ground-disturbing activities associated with grading and construction at the Project site. As a result, consistent with the findings of the Certified SEIR, implementation of Mitigation Measures 5-3, 5-4, TCR-1, and TCR-2 would ensure preclude potential impacts to tribal cultural resources as defined in Public Resources Code 5024.1(c). Therefore, the Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The following mitigation measure from the Certified SEIR is applicable to the Project:
1334
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

MM 5-2 Upon receipt of an application for a proposed project subject to CEQA and within the City’s jurisdiction, the City’s representative shall consult with the relevant tribe(s)’ representative(s) to determine if the proposed project is within a culturally sensitive area to the tribe. If sufficient evidence is provided to reasonably ascertain that the site is within a tribal culturally sensitive area, an archaeologist shall prepare then a cultural resources assessment. The findings of the cultural resources assessment shall be incorporated into the CEQA documentation. A copy of the report shall be forwarded to the tribe(s). If mitigation is recommended in the CEQA document, the procedure described in Mitigation Measure 5-4 shall be followed.

MM 5-4 Prior to the issuance of grading permits for a proposed project for which the CEQA document defines cultural resource mitigation for potential tribal resources, the project applicant shall contact the designated tribe(s) to notify them of the grading, excavation, and monitoring program. The applicant shall coordinate with the City of Ontario and the tribal representative(s) to develop mitigation measures that address the designation, responsibilities, and participation of tribal monitors during grading, excavation, and ground-disturbing activities; scheduling; terms of compensation; and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains discovered on the site. The City of Ontario shall be the final arbiter of the conditions for projects within the City’s jurisdiction.

TCR-1 Tribal Cultural Resources Monitoring. The project archaeologist, in consultation with interested tribes, the developer, and the City of Ontario, shall develop an archaeological monitoring plan (AMP) to address the details, timing, and responsibility of archaeological and cultural activities that will occur on the project site. Details in the AMP shall include:

1. Project-related ground disturbance (including, but not limited to, brush clearing, grading, trenching, etc.) and development scheduling;

2. The development of a rotating or simultaneous schedule in coordination with the developer and the project archeologist for designated Native American Tribal Monitors from the consulting tribes during grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities on the site:
including the scheduling, safety requirements, duties, scope of work, and Native American Tribal Monitors’ authority to stop and redirect grading activities in coordination with all project archaeologists (if the tribes cannot come to an agreement on the rotating or simultaneous schedule of tribal monitoring, the Native American Heritage Commission shall designate the schedule for the onsite Native American Tribal Monitor for the proposed project);

3. The protocols and stipulations that the developer, City, Tribes, and project archaeologist will follow in the event of inadvertent cultural resources discoveries, including any newly discovered cultural resource deposits that shall be subject to a cultural resource’s evaluation.

At least 30 days prior to application for a grading permit and before any 1335
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

brush clearance, grading, excavation, and/or ground disturbing activities on the site, the developer shall retain a tribal cultural monitor to monitor all ground-disturbing activities in an effort to identify any unknown archaeological resources.

Pursuant to the AMP, a tribal monitor from the consulting tribe shall be present during the initial grading activities. If tribal resources are found during grubbing activities, the tribal monitoring shall be present during site grading activities.

TCR-2 Treatment and Disposition of Cultural Resources. In the event that Native American cultural resources are inadvertently discovered during the course of any ground-disturbing activities, including but not limited to brush clearance, grading, trenching, etc., for the proposed project, the following procedures will be carried out for treatment and disposition of the discoveries:

1. Temporary Curation and Storage: During the course of construction, all discovered resources shall be temporarily curated in a secure location on-site or at the offices of the project archaeologist. The removal of any artifacts from the project site will need to be thoroughly inventoried with tribal monitor oversight of the process;

2. Treatment and Final Disposition: The landowner(s) shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including sacred items, burial goods, and all archaeological artifacts and nonhuman remains as part of the required mitigation for impacts to cultural resources. The applicant shall relinquish the artifacts through one or more of the following methods and provide the City of Ontario with evidence of same:
a. Accommodate the process for on-site reburial of the discovered items with the consulting Native American tribes or bands. This shall include measures and provisions to protect the future reburial area from any future impacts. Reburial shall not occur until all cataloging, basic analysis, other analyses as recommended by the project archaeologist and approved by consulting tribes, and basic recordation have been completed; all documentation should be at a level of standard professional practice to allow the writing of a report of professional quality;
b. A curation agreement with an appropriate qualified repository in San Bernardino County that meets federal standards per 36 CFR Part 79, and therefore the resource would be professionally curated and made available to other archaeologists/researchers for further study. The collections and associated records shall be transferred, including title, to an appropriate curation facility in San Bernardino County, to be accompanied by payment of the fees necessary for permanent curation;
c. For purposes of conflict resolution, if more than one Native American tribe or band is involved with the project and cannot come to an agreement as to the disposition of cultural materials, 1336
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

materials shall be curated at the San Bernardino County Museum by default;
d. At the completion of grading, excavation, and ground-disturbing activities on the site, a Phase IV Monitoring Report shall be submitted to the City documenting monitoring activities conducted by the project archaeologist and Native Tribal Monitors within 60 days of completion of grading. This report shall document the impacts to the known resources on the property; describe how each mitigation measure was fulfilled; document the type of cultural resources recovered and the disposition of such resources; provide evidence of the required cultural sensitivity training for the construction staff held during the required pregrade meeting; and, in a confidential appendix, include the daily/weekly monitoring notes from the archaeologist. All reports produced will be submitted to the City, County Museum, and consulting tribes.

2. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that TOP 2050 would result in an overall increase in the number of residential dwellings and nonresidential square footage.

The TOP 2050 has policies in place to require improvements to sewer infrastructure as part of new development and redevelopment projects and has processes in place to ensure that any sewer improvement projects are implemented prior to or during new development. With funding from sewer connection/usage fees and the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) budget, the City would continue to expand and improve the sewer infrastructure to accommodate new development and future growth. Therefore, there would be no significant impacts on wastewater infrastructure.

Due to the increase in demand for potable and recycled water, the City and the IEUA have made plans for infrastructure expansion and improvement. As part of the land development approval process, the City determines a project’s fair-share costs and connection fees. Through the use of connection fees and agreements, the City maintains and expands its water distribution system as necessary and is able to ensure that new developments pay their fair-share costs.

Therefore, impacts related to water infrastructure expansion and improvement caused by the implementation of TOP 2050 would be less than significant.

Potential future development and the change in land uses could result in an increase in impervious surfaces. Future developments would be required to comply with the City’s storm drain policies and the MS4 permit, which would require the preparation of hydrology reports and drainage plans for review and approval by the City to ensure that there are no adverse impacts to the City’s storm drain system. Also, the developers would need to prepare a WQMP that addresses stormwater runoff and requires the construction of stormwater treatment facilities for temporary on-site retention of stormwater runoff. These requirements would minimize the amount of stormwater runoff from potential future development. Compliance with the City’s policies and programs that ensure adequate infrastructure and the regulatory provisions in the MS4 permit that limit runoff from new development would ensure that implementation of TOP 2050 would not result in significant increases in runoff that would contribute to the construction or expansion of new 1337
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

storm drains beyond what is already planned. Therefore, impacts with respect to stormwater infrastructure would be less than significant.

Discussion of Effects:

Water and Wastewater
The Project would include the installation of water and wastewater lines within the Project site. Water would be accommodated via proposed water lines that would extend from the northeastern corner of the building to an existing 12-inch water main on Wanamaker Avenue.

Additionally, portion (from the Project’s driveway on Woodruff Way to the proposed fire line along the northern side of the proposed building) of the existing 12-inch water main along Woodruff Way would be removed. Sewer would be accommodated via proposed sewer lines that would extend from the northwestern and northeastern corners of the building to an existing 8-inch sewer main on Woodruff Way at the Project’s driveway. Additionally, portion of the existing 8-inch sewer main on Woodruff Way that run through the proposed building would be removed.

Although the Project would result in new water and wastewater line connections, these connections would occur on-site and would be part of the Project’s construction phase, which is evaluated throughout this Addendum. The construction of the Project’s water and wastewater lines necessary to serve the Project would not result in any significant physical effects on the environment that are not already identified and disclosed as part of this Addendum. Impacts would be less than significant.

Stormwater Drainage
A storm drain system would be installed in both east and west side of the proposed building conveying the runoff southerly that ultimately drains to the existing 96-inch storm drain system located along East Jurupa Street. The westerly half of the site will drain from north to south via a proposed storm drain system that connects to an existing 27-inch storm drain downstream at Woodruff Way that ultimately discharge the existing storm drain system located along East Jurupa Street.

Runoff from the northeasterly area including the easterly half of the site will drain southwesterly to a series of catch basins and conveyed south via proposed storm drain line that connects to an existing 27-inch storm drain downstream south of the Project site. The northerly landscaped area adjacent to Wanamaker Avenue will sheet flow west to an existing street catch basin northwest of the site. The remaining westerly landscaped area adjacent to South Rockefeller Avenue will drain east to an existing street catch basin at the intersection northeast of East Jurupa Street and South Rockefeller Avenue.

Refer to the analysis under Section 10, Hydrology and Water Quality, Threshold c.ii, above.

As discussed, stormwater runoff would be treated on site and would not require relocation or construction of new or expanded storm water drainage infrastructure which could cause significant environmental effects. Impacts would be less than significant.

Dry Utilities
Electricity will be provided by the Southern California Edison. Additionally, two fiber optic lines will be constructed: one from the western boundary of the Project site to the existing handhole at South Rockefeller Avenue with two handholes at the northern and southern ends and one along the northern boundary of the Project site to the with two handhole in the middle and 1338
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

at the eastern end. Connections to the existing utility networks are available in the Project area and any offsite improvements would occur within improved rights-of-way, which are inherent to the Project’s construction phase and have been evaluated throughout this Addendum. Because the Project site has been previously developed with commercial uses that requires electric power and telecommunication services, implementation of the Project is not anticipated to limit the ability of service providers to provide service to Project. Therefore, the Project would not require or result in the construction or expansion of new facilities, and impacts would be less than significant.

Based on the preceding, the Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that total water demand associated with TOP 2050 would result in an increase of approximately 6 percent compared to the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). The 2020 UWMP states that there are sufficient water supplies through 2045 to meet projected demands in normal years, single dry years, and multiple dry years through 2045. Although TOP 2050 at buildout is estimated to generate a 6 percent increase in water demand using conservative water demand factors, new State requirements and City policies and code requirements would result in enhanced water efficiency and conservation. Applying these measures would result in total water demand below the projections in the 2020 UWMP for year 2045. Therefore, there would be sufficient water supplies to meet the demand for TOP 2050 buildout. Impacts would be less than significant and TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: OMUC is responsible for supplying potable water to the Project site.

The UWMP includes an analysis of water supply reliability projected through 2045 under normal years, single dry year, and multiple dry years. OMUC’s total water demand for 2020 was approximately 32,109 AF (OMUC, 2021). As stated above, the City is anticipated to have adequate water supplies to meet all its demands from the implementation of TOP 2050 at buildout until the year 2045 under a normal year, single dry year, and multiple dry years. The Project Applicant would demolish the existing structures and redevelop the site with an approximately 344,110 s.f. building. The proposed building would be approximately 54,791 s.f. less than the maximum allowed under TOP 2050. Therefore, the Project will result in less development of the site than the Certified SEIR analyzed at buildout (i.e., 398,901 s.f. vs. 344,110 s.f.). Because the Project Applicant would redevelop the site with a use permitted under the Industrial land use designation, the Project would be consistent with TOP 2050 and, therefore, the water demand associated with the Project was considered in the demand anticipated by the Certified SEIR and impacts would be less than significant. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
1339
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

c. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that IEUA has two facilities that serve the City of Ontario: RP-1 and RP-5. The current combined capacity of these two facilities is 60.3 mgd and would increase to 66.5 mgd once the expansion project that is currently under construction at RP-5 is completed. The additional flow rate from implementation of TOP 2050 would not exceed the capacity of the wastewater treatment providers. Therefore, there would be no significant impacts on wastewater collection and treatment. Impacts would be less than significant and TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: The Project site is developed with approximately 161,320 s.f. of existing commercial buildings that requires wastewater treatment services. The Project Applicant would demolish the existing structures and redevelop the site with an approximately 344,110 s.f. building.

The proposed building would be approximately 54,791 s.f. less than the maximum allowed under TOP 2050. Therefore, the Project will result in less development of the site than the Certified SEIR analyzed at buildout (i.e., 398,901 s.f. vs. 344,110 s.f.) The Project Applicant would redevelop the Project site with a use that is consistent with the site’s underlying land use designation; therefore, the wastewater generation associated with the Project was considered in the demand anticipated by the Certified SEIR and the City’s Sewer Master Plan and analyzed therein. As such, the IEUA’s existing wastewater treatment facilities are anticipated to have adequate capacity to serve the Project’s project demand in addition to its existing commitments. Impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that the increase in population under the TOP 2050 would result in more solid waste generation and could impact the capacity of the receiving landfills. TOP 2050 would result in a net increase in solid waste generation at buildout of 45,204 tons/year. This net increase is about 2 percent of the Badlands Sanitary Landfill and the El Sobrante Landfill’s excess capacity. Therefore, there is sufficient landfill capacity to serve future development pursuant to the TOP 2050. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: Solid waste generated during the operation of the Project is anticipated to be collected by the City of Ontario and is anticipated to be hauled to Badlands Sanitary Landfill or El Sobrante Landfill. The Badlands Sanitary Landfill has a permitted disposal capacity of 5,000 tons per day with a remaining capacity of 7,800,000 cubic yards. The Badlands Sanitary Landfill is estimated to reach capacity, at the earliest time, in the year 2059. (CalRecycle, 2023a) The El Sobrante Landfill is permitted to received 16,054 tons of solid waste per day with a remaining capacity of 143,977,170 tons. The El Sobrante Landfill is estimated to reach capacity, at the earliest time, in the year 2051 (CalRecycle, 2023b).

Based on the generation rate of 1.42 pounds per 100 s.f. per day, the proposed 344,110 s.f. 1340
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

building would result in approximately 4,886 pounds per day (2.44 tons per day). As previously stated, the Badlands Sanitary Landfill has a permitted disposal capacity of 5,000 tons per day and the El Sobrante Landfill has a permitted disposal capacity of 16,054 tons per day. The Project generated solid waste represents a nominal portion of the landfill’s capacity and would not contribute significantly to the daily landfill capacity, and the landfill facilities are sufficient.

Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
e. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that future development pursuant to TOP 2050 would comply with Section 4.408 of the 2019 CALGreen building code, which requires that at least 65 percent of nonhazardous construction and demolition waste from nonresidential construction operations be recycled and/or salvaged for reuse. Development would also comply with AB 341, which mandates recycling for commercial and multifamily residential land uses. Additionally, future businesses that generate organic waste in amounts over a certain threshold would be mandated to recycle organic matter in accordance with AB 1826.

In addition, TOP 2050 policies ER-2.1, ER-2.2, and ER-2.3 describe waste diversion requirements, hazardous and electronic waste disposal, and purchasing of products made from recycled materials that would ensure that the City has a cost effective integrated waste management system that meets or exceeds state and federal recycling and waste diversion mandates.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: The following federal and state laws and regulations govern solid waste disposal:
• AB 939 (Chapter 1095, Statutes of 1989), the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 required each city, county, and regional agency to develop a source reduction and recycling element of an integrated waste management plan that contained specified components, including a source reduction component, a recycling component, and a composting component.

With certain exceptions, the source reduction and recycling components were required to divert 50 percent of all solid waste from landfill disposal or transformation by January 1, 2000, through source reduction, recycling, and composting activities.
• AB 32 (Chapter 488, Statutes of 2006), the California Global Warming Solutions Act, established mandatory recycling as one of the measures to reduce GHG emissions adopted in the Scoping Plan by the California Air Resources Board. • AB 341 (Chapter 476, Statutes of 2011) requires that all “commercial” generators of solid waste (businesses, institutions, and multifamily dwellings) establish recycling and/or composting programs. AB 341 goes beyond AB 939 and establishes the new recycling goal of 75 percent by 2020.

The Project would implement the requirements of the City’s Integrated Waste 1341
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

Department’s Refuse & Recycling Planning Manual on refuse and recycling storage and access for service, as well as addressing the City's recycling goals. The requirements of Chapter 3, Integrated Waste Management, of the Municipal Code will also be implemented to ensure that the Project complies with all applicable state and federal laws. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.

3. WILDFIRE.

If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that substantial improvements in transportation infrastructure planned to accommodate the increase in population in the City in the event of an emergency. Additionally, a review of emergency access is included as part of the City’s Design Review process. According to the City’s LHMP, interstate highways would serve as major emergency response and evacuation routes. Additionally, the Ontario Fire Department reviews development applications to ensure that adequate emergency accessibility is provided based on local and state guidance. Therefore, impacts related to emergency access would be less than significant.

Moreover, the City is located outside of a State Responsibility Area (SRA) and California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) has determined that the City contains no areas subject to very high wildfire risk. However, the City recognizes that even though fuel loading is light in Ontario and fire risk comes primarily from urban fires, not wildfires, there is some risk related to wildfires. With adherence to the building practices in the CAL FIRE’s 2019 Strategic Fire Plan for California, the California Fire Code, County of San Bernardino Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, and City’s LHMP, development and infrastructure associated with TOP 2050 would not exacerbate risk or result in post-wildfire hazards.

Discussion of Effects: As concluded in the Certified SEIR, the City is not located with a SRA.

According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’s fire hazard map for the Local Responsibility Area (LRA), the Project site is not within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (CAL FIRE, 2008). Therefore, no impact would occur. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and 1342
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.

4. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat or a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that TOP 2050 would result in less-than-significant impacts to sensitive plant and animal species as well as habitats.

Additionally, the Certified SEIR concluded that, with mitigation, TOP 2050 would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to Tier III historical resources.

Discussion of Effects: The Project site is in a highly urbanized area of the City that is already developed with industrial uses. As discussed in Biological Resources Section of the Addendum, potentially significant biological impacts are not anticipated because the Project site is developed and there are no rare or endangered plants or animal species within the Project site.

Additionally, as indicated in the Cultural Resources Section, the Project site is not included on the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources, or a local register of historical resources, nor is it eligible for listing. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current project, and the effects of probable future projects.) Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR addressed cumulative impacts for each of the environmental topics evaluated. The Certified SEIR concluded that TOP 2050 would result in significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts regarding air quality, cultural resources (Historic), noise, and transportation (VMT).

Discussion of Effects: As identified through the analysis presented in this Addendum, with the implementation of Project-specific mitigation measures identified herein, the Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary. Therefore, there is no potential for the Project to result in cumulatively considerable effects to the environment beyond those previously disclosed in the Certified SEIR (and already disclosed throughout this analysis), and instead, the Project’s impacts are generally less than the impacts assumed and analyzed in the Certified SEIR.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
1343
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

c. Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that with the implementation of the recommended TOP Mitigation Measures, compliance with existing laws, plans and regulations, and the various TOP Implementation Actions outlined in the Project Description, TOP 2050 does not have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

Discussion of Effects: The Project’s potential to result in environmental effects that could adversely affect human beings, either directly or indirectly, has been discussed throughout this Addendum. The Project would result in less than significant impacts related to air quality and associated effects on human health from air pollutants, GHG emissions, and construction-related noise and potential effects on hearing impairment. Implementation of the Project would not result in environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, beyond those disclosed in the Certified SEIR, and instead, the Project’s impacts are generally less than the impacts assumed by the Certified SEIR.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.

EARLIER ANALYZES
(Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration.

Section 15063(c)(3)(D)):
1) Earlier Analyzes Used. Identify earlier analyzes used and state where they are available for review.
a) The Ontario Plan Final Environmental Impact Report
b) The Ontario Plan/Policy Plan
c) City of Ontario Zoning
All documents listed above are on file with the City of Ontario Planning Department, 303 East “B” Street, Ontario, California 91764, (909) 395-2036.
2) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of, and adequately analyzed in, an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards.

REFERENCES
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. (BFSA), 2023a. Cultural Resources Records Search Results for the Woodruff Logistics Center Project, Ontario, California. February 23, 2023. Technical Appendix B.

BFSA, 2023b. Paleontological Assessment for the Woodruff Logistics Center Project. February 23, 2023. Technical Appendix C.2.
1344
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), 2008. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. November 13, 2008. Retrieved from https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6783/fhszl_map62.pdf
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), 2023a. SWIS Facility Detail - Badlands Sanitary Landfill. Retrieved from
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/2245?siteID=2367 CalRecycle, 2023b. SWIS Facility Detail - El Sobrante Landfill. Retrieved from https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/2280?siteID=2402 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2022. California Road System - Functional Classification. Retrieved from
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=026e830c914c495 797c969a3e5668538
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), 2019. California Natural Community Conservation Plans. April, 2019. Retrieved from
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=68626&inline City of Ontario, 1983. California Commerce Center Specific Plan. May 17, 1983. Retrieved from https://www.ontarioca.gov/planning/maps/specific-plan-land-use-mapsdocument/california-commerce-center City of Ontario, 2011. Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. April 19, 2011.

Retrieved from https://www.ontarioplan.org/wpcontent/uploads/sites/4/pdfs/ALUCP_FULL.pdf City of Ontario, 2022a. City of Ontario Policy Plan. August 2022. Retrieved from https://www.ontarioca.gov/Ontarioplan/Policyplan
City of Ontario, 2022b. The Ontario Plan 2050 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report.

August 2022. Retrieved from https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/EIR/Final_DraftSEIR_TOP2050.pdf California Department of Conservation (DOC), 2018. California Important Farmland Finder.

Retrieved from https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ Employment Development Department (EDD), 2023. Labor Force and Unemployment Rate for Cities and Census Designated Places. March, 2023. Retrieved from https://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/data/labor-force-and-unemployment-forcities-and-census-areas.html Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2016. FEMA Flood Map Service Center:

Search by Address. Retrieved from
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search#searchresultsanchor
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company (OMUC), 2021. 2020 UWMP. June 2021. Retrieved from https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Municipal-UtilitiesCompany/Final%20Draft%20Ontario%202020%20Ontario%20UWMP.pdf Ramboll US Consulting, Inc. (Ramboll), 2021. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. October 1345
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

2021. Technical Appendix D.

Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), 2020. Demographics and Growth Forecast. Retrieved from https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics-and-growth-forecast.pdf?1606001579 Southern California Geotechnical, Inc. (SoCal Geo), 2021. Geotechnical Investigation.

November 1, 2021. Technical Appendix C.1.

Thienes Engineering, 2022a. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan. June 22, 2022.

Technical Appendix E.1.

Thienes Engineering, 2022b. Preliminary Hydrology Study. June 23, 2022. Technical Appendix E.2.

Urban Crossroads, 2022a. Woodruff Logistics Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment. April 26, 2023. Technical Appendix A.

Urban Crossroads, 2022b. Woodruff Logistics Noise Assessment. April 21, 2023. Technical Appendix F.

Urban Crossroads, 2023c. Woodruff Logistics Center Trip Generation Assessment. February 21, 2023. Technical Appendix G.1.

Urban Crossroads, 2023d. Woodruff Way Logistics Center Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Evaluation. February 23, 2023. Technical Appendix G.2.

Urban Crossroads, 2023e. Woodruff Way Logistics Center Focused Traffic Assessment. May 11, 2023. Technical Appendix G.3.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2020. National Wetlands Inventory. October 1, 2020.

Retrieved from https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html 1346
DATE: June 6, 2023
TO: Tom Cruikshank, Link Logistics Real Estate
FROM: Haseeb Qureshi
Ali Dadabhoy
Shannon Wong
JOB NO: 15364-03 AQ & GHG Assesment

WOODRUFF LOGISTICS AIR QUALITY & GREENHOUSE GAS

ASSESSMENT
Tom Cruikshank,
Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to provide the following Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment for the Woodruff Logistics (Project), which is located northeast of Jurupa Street and Rockefeller Avenue, south of Wanamaker Avenue, and straddling the existing Woodruff Way in the City of Ontario.

PROJECT OVERVIEW
It is our understanding that the Project is to consist of a 344,1101 square foot industrial warehouse building (see Exhibit 1).

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Results of the assessment indicate that the Project would result in a less than significant with respect to air quality, and greenhouse gases. 1 It should be noted that this analysis is based on a previous site plan which assumed slightly larger building square footages. As such, the emissions analyzed in this report may be slightly overstated. 1347
Tom Cruikshank, Link Logistics Real Estate
June 6, 2023

15364-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
EXHIBIT 1: PROJECT’S SITE PLAN

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) (1). 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 subregion 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 1348
Tom Cruikshank, Link Logistics Real Estate
June 6, 2023

15364-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
/ 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 (SO2) 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.

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 the 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 flows 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 1349
Tom Cruikshank, Link Logistics Real Estate
June 6, 2023

15364-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
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 nitrogen oxides (NOX) 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.

Criteria Pollutants
Both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants. These ambient air quality standards are levels of contaminants representing safe levels that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant. The ambient air quality standards cover what are called “criteria” pollutants because the health and other effects of each pollutant are described in criteria documents. The six criteria pollutants are ozone (O3) (precursor emissions include NOX and reactive organic gases (ROG), CO, particulate matter (PM), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead. Areas that meet ambient air quality standards are classified as attainment areas, while areas that do not meet these standards are classified as nonattainment areas. The Riverside County portion of the SCAB is designated as a nonattainment area for the federal O3 and PM2.5 standards and is also a nonattainment area for the state standards for O3, PM10, and PM2.5.
1350
Tom Cruikshank, Link Logistics Real Estate
June 6, 2023

15364-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC) Trend
In 1984, as a result of public concern for exposure to airborne carcinogens, CARB adopted regulations to reduce the amount of TAC emissions resulting from mobile and area sources, such as cars, trucks, stationary products, and consumer products. According to the Ambient and Emission Trends of Toxic Air Contaminants in California journal article (2) which was prepared for CARB, results show that between 1990-2012, ambient concentration and emission trends for the seven TACs responsible for most of the known cancer risk associated with airborne exposure in California have declined significantly (between 1990 and 2012). The seven TACs studied include those that are derived from mobile sources: diesel particulate matter (DPM), benzene (C6H6), and 1,3-butadiene (C4H6); those that are derived from stationary sources: perchloroethylene (C2Cl4) and hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)); and those derived from photochemical reactions of emitted VOCs: formaldehyde (CH2O) and acetaldehyde (C2H4O)2. The decline in ambient concentration and emission trends of these TACs are a result of various regulations CARB has implemented to address cancer risk.

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

Receptors in the Project study area are described below. All distances are measured from the Project site boundary to the outdoor living areas (e.g., backyards) or at the building façade, 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 the Nexen Tire Distribution Center at 4305 E Jurupa St, approximately 183 feet west of the Project site.
• Receptor R2 represents Converse Inc. at 4450 E Lowell St, approximately 180 feet west of the Project site.
• Receptor R3 represents Chinese Laundry DC at 1251 S Rockefeller, approximately 144 feet north of the Project site.
• Receptor R4 represents Ace Calendering Enterprises at 1311 Wanamaker Ave, adjacent east of the Project site.
• Receptor R5 represents Rodeway Inn Ontario Mills Mall at 4075 E Guasti Rd, approximately 5,587 feet northwest of the Project site. 2 It should be noted that ambient DPM concentrations are not measured directly. Rather, a surrogate method using the coefficient of haze (COH) and elemental carbon (EC) is used to estimate DPM concentrations. 1351
Tom Cruikshank, Link Logistics Real Estate
June 6, 2023

15364-03 AQ & GHG Assessment

REGULATORY BACKGROUND

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

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

The 1990 amendments to the CAA that identify specific emission reduction goals for areas not meeting the NAAQS require a demonstration of reasonable further progress toward attainment and incorporate additional sanctions for failure to attain or to meet interim milestones. The sections of the CAA most directly applicable to the development of the Project site include Title I (Non-Attainment Provisions) and Title II (Mobile Source Provisions) (5) (6). Title I provisions were established with the goal of attaining the NAAQS for the following criteria pollutants O3, NO2, SO2, PM10, CO, PM2.5, and Pb. The NAAQS were amended in July 1997 to include an additional standard for O3 and to adopt a NAAQS for PM2.5.

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

CALIFORNIA REGULATIONS
CARB
The CARB, which became part of the California EPA (CalEPA) in 1991, is responsible for ensuring implementation of the California Clean Air Act (AB 2595), responding to the federal CAA, and for regulating emissions from consumer products and motor vehicles. AB 2595 mandates achievement of the maximum degree of emissions reductions possible from vehicular and other mobile sources in order to attain the state ambient air quality standards by the earliest practical date. The CARB established the California ambient air quality standards (CAAQS) for all pollutants for which the federal government has NAAQS and, in addition, establishes standards for SO4, visibility, hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and vinyl chloride (C2H3Cl). However, at this time, H2S and C2H3Cl are not measured at any monitoring stations in the SCAB because they are not considered to be a regional air quality problem. Generally, the CAAQS are more stringent than the NAAQS (7) (8). 1352
Tom Cruikshank, Link Logistics Real Estate
June 6, 2023

15364-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
Local air quality management districts, such as the SCAQMD, regulate air emissions from stationary sources such as commercial and industrial facilities. All air pollution control districts have been formally designated as attainment or non-attainment for each CAAQS.

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

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

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

SCAQMD Rule 403
This rule is intended to reduce the amount of particulate matter entrained in the ambient air as a result of anthropogenic (human-made) fugitive dust sources by requiring actions to prevent and reduce fugitive dust emissions. Rule 403 applies to any activity or human-made condition capable of generating fugitive dust and requires best available control measures to be applied to earth moving and grading activities. This rule is intended to reduce PM10 emissions from any transportation, handling, construction, or storage activity that has the potential to generate fugitive dust. PM10 suppression techniques are summarized below. • Portions of a construction site to remain inactive longer than a period of three months will be seeded and watered until grass cover is grown or otherwise stabilized. 1353
Tom Cruikshank, Link Logistics Real Estate
June 6, 2023

15364-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
• All onsite roads will be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or chemically stabilized.
• All material transported offsite will be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
• The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations will be minimized at all times.
• Where vehicles leave a construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the streets will be swept daily or washed down at the end of the workday to remove soil tracked onto the paved surface.

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

METHODOLOGY
In 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 construction-source and operationalsource criteria pollutant (VOCs, NOX, SOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5) and GHG emissions from direct and indirect sources; and quantify applicable air quality and GHG reductions achieved from mitigation measures (12). Accordingly, the latest version of CalEEMod has been used for this Project to determine construction and operational air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.

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

AIR QUALITY REGIONAL EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS
The SCAQMD has developed regional significance thresholds for criteria pollutants, as summarized at Table 1 (14). The SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Significance Thresholds (April 2019) indicate that any projects in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) with daily emissions that exceed 1354
Tom Cruikshank, Link Logistics Real Estate
June 6, 2023

15364-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
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 South San Gabriel Valley Area monitoring station (SRA 11). 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 demolition, 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 (15). It should be noted that the disturbed area per day is representative of a piece of equipment making multiple passes over the same land area. In other words, one Rubber Tired Dozer can make multiple passes over the same land area totaling 0.5 acres in a given 8-hour day. Appendix A of the CalEEMod User Manual only identifies equipment-specific grading rates for Crawler Tractors, Graders, Rubber Tired Dozers, and Scrapers; therefore, Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes equipment that was included in the demolition, site preparation and grading phase was replaced with Crawler Tractors. For analytical purposes, emissions associated with peak site demolition, 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.
1355
Tom Cruikshank, Link Logistics Real Estate
June 6, 2023

15364-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
TABLE 2: MAXIMUM DAILY LOCALIZED EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS
Source Activity
Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX PM10 PM2.5
Construction
Demolition 118 lbs/day 869 lbs/day 990 lbs/day 578 lbs/day Site Preparation 220 lbs/day 1,721 lbs/day 794 lbs/day 639 lbs/day Grading 237 lbs/day 1,881 lbs/day 880 lbs/day 650 lbs/day Operations N/A 270 lbs/day 1,754 lbs/day 254 lbs/day 161 lbs/day 1 Source of localized significance threshold (LSTs) is provided on page 20.

CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
Construction activities associated with the Project would result in emissions of VOCs, NOX, SOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. Construction related emissions are expected from the following construction activities:
• Demolition
• Site Preparation
• Grading (Import/Export)
• Building Construction
• Paving
• Architectural Coating

DEMOLITION ACTIVITIES
The Project site is currently existing uses that are currently active, specifically the Citrus Motors Ford and Citrus Motors Kia auto dealership buildings which will be demolished, resulting in approximately 161,692 square feet of demolished material.

GRADING ACTIVITIES
Dust is typically a major concern during grading activities. Because such emissions are not amenable to collection and discharge through a controlled source, they are called “fugitive emissions”. Fugitive dust emissions rates vary as a function of many parameters (soil silt, soil moisture, wind speed, area disturbed, number of vehicles, depth of disturbance or excavation, etc.). CalEEMod was utilized to calculate fugitive dust emissions resulting from this phase of activity. Per client provided data, the Project is expected to balance, and import/export would be required. The CalEEMod default trip length of 20-miles will be used to analyze the emissions associated with export activities.
1356
Tom Cruikshank, Link Logistics Real Estate
June 6, 2023

15364-03 AQ & GHG Assessment

ON-ROAD TRIPS
Construction generates on-road vehicle emissions from vehicle usage for workers, vendors, and haul trucks commuting to and from the site. Worker and hauling trips are based on CalEEMod defaults. It should be noted that for vendor trips, specifically, CalEEMod only assigns vendor trips to the Building Construction phase. Vendor trips would likely occur during all phases of construction. As such, the CalEEMod defaults for vendor trips have been adjusted based on a ratio of the total vendor trips to the number of days of each subphase of activity.

CONSTRUCTION DURATION
For purposes of analysis, construction of Project is expected to commence in August 2024 and would last through August 2025. The construction schedule utilized in the analysis represents a “worst-case” analysis scenario should construction occur any time after the respective dates since emission factors for construction decrease as time passes and the analysis year increases due to emission regulations becoming more stringent3. The duration of construction activity and associated equipment represents a reasonable approximation of the expected construction fleet as required per CEQA Guidelines (16).

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

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

Detailed Construction model outputs are presented in Attachment A. 3 As shown in the CalEEMod User’s Guide Version 2022.1, Section 4.3 “Off-Road Equipment” as the analysis year increases, emission factors for the same equipment pieces decrease due to the natural turnover of older equipment being replaced by newer less polluting equipment and new regulatory requirements. 1357
Tom Cruikshank, Link Logistics Real Estate
June 6, 2023

15364-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
TABLE 3: REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Source
Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Summer
2024 3.74 36.10 34.40 0.06 6.80 4.22
2025 60.20 22.30 41.20 0.05 2.84 1.49
Winter
2024 3.62 34.50 31.50 0.06 4.41 2.38
2025 1.87 13.60 23.50 0.04 2.75 1.00
Maximum Daily Emissions 60.20 36.10 41.20 0.06 6.80 4.22 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
1 PM10 and PM2.5 source emissions reflect 3x daily watering per SCAQMD Rule 403 for fugitive dust.

REGIONAL OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Operational activities associated with the Project would result in emissions of VOCs, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5. Operational related emissions are expected from the following primary sources:
area source emissions, energy source emissions, 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 Woodruff Logistics Trip Generation Assessment were utilized in this analysis (17).

To determine emissions from trucks for the proposed industrial uses, the analysis incorporated the SCAQMD recommended truck trip length 15.3 miles for 2-axle (LHDT1, LHDT2) trucks, 14.2 miles 3-axle (MHDT) trucks and 39.9 miles for 4+-axle (HHDT) trucks and weighting the average trip lengths using the following SCAQMD recommended truck mix: 2-Axle = 16.7%; 3-Axle = 20.7%; 4+-Axle = 62.6%. The trip length function for trucks in CalEEMod has been revised to 29.69 miles, with an assumption of 100% primary trips for the proposed industrial land uses.

In order to account for the possibility of refrigerated uses, trucks associated with the cold-storage land use are assumed to also have TRUs. Therefore, for modeling purposes 20 trucks have the potential to include TRUs. TRUs are accounted for during on-site and off-site travel. The TRU calculations are based on EMissions FACtor Model version 2021 (EMFAC2021), developed by the CARB. EMFAC2021 does not provide emission rates per hour or mile as with the on-road emission model and only provides emission inventories. Emission results are produced in tons per day while all activity, fuel consumption and horsepower hours were reported at annual levels. The emission inventory is based on specific assumptions including the average horsepower rating of specific types of equipment and the hours of operation annually. These assumptions are not always consistent with assumptions used in the modeling of project level emissions. Therefore, the emissions inventory was converted into emission rates to accurately calculate emissions from 1358
Tom Cruikshank, Link Logistics Real Estate
June 6, 2023

15364-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
TRU operation associated with project level details. This was accomplished by converting the annual horsepower hours to daily operational characteristics and converting the daily emission levels into hourly emission rates based on the total emission of each criteria pollutant by equipment type and the average daily hours of operation.

It is common for warehouse buildings to require the operation of exterior yard trucks or cargo handling equipment (CHE) to move empty containers and empty chassis in the building’s truck court areas. The cargo handling equipment is assumed to have a horsepower (hp) range of approximately 175 hp to 200 hp. Based on the latest available information from SCAQMD (18); for example, warehouse projects typically have 3.6-yard trucks/CHE per million square feet of building space. For this Project, on-site modeled operational equipment conservatively includes up to one (2) 200 horsepower (hp), compressed natural gas or gasoline-powered tractors/loaders/backhoes operating at 4 hours a day4 for 365 days of the year.

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

TABLE 4: TOTAL PROJECT REGIONAL OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Source Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Summer
Mobile Source 2.68 9.18 38.20 0.13 4.19 0.92
Area Source 10.30 0.13 15.00 < 0.005 0.02 0.03
Energy Source 0.10 1.86 1.56 0.01 0.14 0.14
On-site Equipment Source 0.23 0.75 32.89 0.00 0.06 0.05 TRU Source 1.58 1.72 0.19 0.00 0.07 0.07
Total Maximum Daily Emissions 14.89 13.64 87.84 0.14 4.48 1.21 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
4 Based on Table II-3, Port and Rail Cargo Handling Equipment Demographics by Type, from CARB’s Technology Assessment: Mobile Cargo Handling Equipment document, a single piece of equipment could operate up to 2 hours per day (Total Average Annual Activity divided by Total Number Pieces of Equipment). As such, the analysis conservatively assumes that the tractor/loader/backhoes would operate up to 4 hours per day. 1359
Tom Cruikshank, Link Logistics Real Estate
June 6, 2023

15364-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
Source Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Winter
Mobile Source 2.56 9.70 31.70 0.13 4.19 0.92
Area Source 7.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy Source 0.10 1.86 1.56 0.01 0.14 0.14
On-site Equipment Source 0.23 0.75 32.89 0.00 0.06 0.05 TRU Source 1.58 1.72 0.19 0.00 0.07 0.07
Total Maximum Daily Emissions 12.34 14.03 66.34 0.14 4.46 1.18 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
THE ONTARIO PLAN (TOP) 2050
The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (August 2022) designates the Project site with industrial development. Per the adopted TOP 2050, the Project site could be developed with up to 398,901 square feet of industrial use (assuming a 16.65-acre site and a floor-to-area-ratio of 0.55). The estimated operation-source emissions based on the TOP 2050 adopted Industrial land use designation are summarized on Table 5. Detailed operation model outputs for the TOP 2050 adopted Industrial land use designation are presented in Attachment D.

The Project related operational air quality impacts derive primarily from vehicle trips generated by the Project. Trip characteristics available from the Woodruff Logistics Trip Generation Assessment were utilized in this analysis (19).

It is common for warehouse buildings to require the operation of exterior yard trucks or cargo handling equipment (CHE) to move empty containers and empty chassis in the building’s truck court areas. The cargo handling equipment is assumed to have a horsepower (hp) range of approximately 175 hp to 200 hp. Based on the latest available information from SCAQMD (18); for example, warehouse projects typically have 3.6-yard trucks/CHE per million square feet of building space. For this Project, on-site modeled operational equipment conservatively includes up to one (2) 200 horsepower (hp), compressed natural gas or gasoline-powered tractors/loaders/backhoes operating at 4 hours a day5 for 365 days of the year.

To determine emissions from trucks for the TOP 2050 adopted Industrial land use designation, the analysis incorporated the SCAQMD recommended truck trip length 15.3 miles for 2-axle (LHDT1, LHDT2) trucks, 14.2 miles 3-axle (MHDT) trucks and 39.9 miles for 4+-axle (HHDT) trucks and weighting the average trip lengths using the following SCAQMD recommended truck mix: 2- 5 Based on Table II-3, Port and Rail Cargo Handling Equipment Demographics by Type, from CARB’s Technology Assessment: Mobile Cargo Handling Equipment document, a single piece of equipment could operate up to 2 hours per day (Total Average Annual Activity divided by Total Number Pieces of Equipment). As such, the analysis conservatively assumes that the tractor/loader/backhoes would operate up to 4 hours per day. 1360
Tom Cruikshank, Link Logistics Real Estate
June 6, 2023

15364-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
Axle = 16.7%; 3-Axle = 20.7%; 4+-Axle = 62.6%. The trip length function for trucks in CalEEMod has been revised to 30.02 miles, with an assumption of 100% primary trips for the existing land uses.

TABLE 5: TOP 2050 REGIONAL OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Source
Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Summer
Mobile Source 9.33 17.30 139.00 0.35 10.90 2.16
Area Source 12.40 0.15 17.30 < 0.005 0.02 0.03
Energy Source 0.11 2.04 1.71 0.01 0.15 0.15
On-site Equipment Source 0.23 0.75 32.89 0.00 0.06 0.05 Total Maximum Daily Emissions 22.07 20.24 190.90 0.36 11.13 2.39 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
Winter
Mobile Source 8.87 18.50 112.00 0.32 10.90 2.16
Area Source 9.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy Source 0.11 2.04 1.71 0.01 0.15 0.15
On-site Equipment Source 0.23 0.75 32.89 0.00 0.06 0.05 Total Maximum Daily Emissions 18.76 21.29 146.60 0.33 11.11 2.36 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
PROJECT NET NEW OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS – COMPARISON TO TOP 2050 As shown in Table 6, the proposed Project is anticipated to generate less emissions per day for pollutants of VOC, NOX, CO, SOX, and PM2.5 as compared to emissions generated by the TOP 2050 adopted Industrial land use designation, and operational-source emissions would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds.
1361
Tom Cruikshank, Link Logistics Real Estate
June 6, 2023

15364-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
TABLE 6: PROJECT NET NEW REGIONAL OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS Source Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Summer
Proposed Project 14.89 13.64 87.84 0.14 4.48 1.21
TOP 2050 22.07 20.24 190.90 0.36 11.13 2.39
Net Emissions (Proposed – TOP 2050) -7.18 -6.60 -103.06 -0.22 -6.65 -1.18 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
Winter
Proposed Project 12.34 14.03 66.34 0.14 4.46 1.18
TOP 2050 18.76 21.29 146.60 0.33 11.11 2.36
Net Emissions (Proposed – TOP 2050) -6.42 -7.26 -80.26 -0.19 -6.65 -1.18 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO

EXISTING BUILDING OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
The site is occupied by existing uses that are currently active, specifically the Citrus Motors Ford and Citrus Motors Kia auto dealership buildings, which are approximately 161,692 square feet combined. The estimated operation-source emissions from the existing building are summarized on Table 7. Detailed operation model outputs for the existing use are presented in Attachment C.

The Project related operational air quality impacts derive primarily from vehicle trips generated by the Project. Trip characteristics available from the Woodruff Logistics Trip Generation Assessment were utilized in this analysis (17).

To determine emissions from trucks for the existing industrial uses, the analysis incorporated the SCAQMD recommended truck trip length 15.3 miles for 2-axle (LHDT1, LHDT2) trucks, 14.2 miles 3-axle (MHDT) trucks and 39.9 miles for 4+-axle (HHDT) trucks and weighting the average trip lengths using the following SCAQMD recommended truck mix: 2-Axle = 16.7%; 3-Axle = 20.7%; 4+-Axle = 62.6%. The trip length function for trucks in CalEEMod has been revised to 15.30 miles, with an assumption of 100% primary trips for the existing land uses. 1362
Tom Cruikshank, Link Logistics Real Estate
June 6, 2023

15364-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
TABLE 7: EXISTING BUILDING REGIONAL OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS Source
Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Summer
Mobile Source 6.20 5.58 63.20 0.13 4.51 0.87
Area Source 4.82 0.06 7.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01
Energy Source 0.10 1.86 1.56 0.01 0.14 0.14
Total Maximum Daily Emissions 11.12 7.50 71.79 0.14 4.66 1.02 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
Winter
Mobile Source 5.86 6.05 52.60 0.12 4.51 0.87
Area Source 3.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy Source 0.10 1.86 1.56 0.01 0.14 0.14
Total Maximum Daily Emissions 9.63 7.91 54.16 0.13 4.65 1.01 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
PROJECT NET NEW OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS – COMPARISON EXISTING LAND USE As shown in Table 8, the proposed Project is anticipated to generate less emissions per day for pollutants of VOC, NOX, CO, and PM2.5 as compared to emissions generated by the existing buildings and operational-source emissions would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds.
1363
Tom Cruikshank, Link Logistics Real Estate
June 6, 2023

15364-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
TABLE 8: PROJECT NET NEW REGIONAL OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS Source Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Summer
Proposed Project 14.89 13.64 87.84 0.14 4.48 1.21
Existing Building 11.12 7.50 71.79 0.14 4.66 1.02
Net Emissions (Proposed – Existing) 3.77 6.14 16.05 0.00 -0.18 0.19 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
Winter
Proposed Project 12.34 14.03 66.34 0.14 4.46 1.18
Existing Building 9.63 7.91 54.16 0.13 4.65 1.01
Net Emissions (Proposed – Existing) 2.71 6.12 12.18 0.01 -0.19 0.17 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO

LOCALIZED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
The analysis makes use of methodology included in the SCAQMD Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (LST Methodology) (20). The SCAQMD has established that impacts to air quality are significant if there is a potential to contribute or cause localized exceedances of the federal and/or state ambient air quality standards (NAAQS/CAAQS). Collectively, these are referred to as Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs). The SCAQMD established LSTs in response to the SCAQMD Governing Board’s Environmental Justice Initiative I-46. 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. 6 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.” 1364
Tom Cruikshank, Link Logistics Real Estate
June 6, 2023

15364-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
The SCAQMD recommends that the nearest sensitive receptor be considered when determining the Project’s potential to cause an individual or cumulatively significant impact. The nearest land use where an individual could remain for 24 hours to the Project site has been used to determine localized construction and operational air quality impacts for emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 (since PM10 and PM2.5 thresholds are based on a 24-hour averaging time). The nearest receptor used for evaluation of localized impacts of PM10 and PM2.5 is location R5, represented by the Rodeway Inn Ontario Mills Mall at 4075 E Guasti Rd, approximately 5,587 feet (1,703 meters) northwest of the Project site. 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 NOX and CO as the averaging periods for these pollutants are shorter (8 hours or less) and it is reasonable to assume that an individual could be present at these sites for periods of one to 8 hours. The nearest receptor used for evaluation of localized impacts of NOX and CO is location R4, represented by Ace Calendering Enterprises at 1311 Wanamaker Ave, adjacent east of the Project site.

It should be noted that the LST Methodology explicitly states that “It is possible that a project may have receptors closer than 25 meters. Projects with boundaries located closer than 25 meters to the nearest receptor should use the LSTs for receptors located at 25 meters (20).” As such, for evaluation of localized NOx and CO, a 25-meter distance will be used. 1365
Tom Cruikshank, Link Logistics Real Estate
June 6, 2023

15364-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
EXHIBIT 2: SENSITIVE RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
1366
Tom Cruikshank, Link Logistics Real Estate
June 6, 2023

15364-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
Table 7 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 demolition, 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 9, emissions resulting from the Project construction will not exceed the numerical thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD for any criteria pollutant.

Thus, a less than significant impact would occur for localized Project-related constructionsource emissions and no mitigation is required.

TABLE 9: PROJECT LOCALIZED CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
On-Site Emissions Emissions (lbs/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Demolition
Maximum Daily Emissions 24.90 21.70 6.47 1.80
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 118 869 990 578
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Site Preparation
Maximum Daily Emissions 36.00 32.90 7.26 4.16
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 220 1,721 794 639
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Grading
Maximum Daily Emissions 34.30 30.20 4.12 2.31
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 237 1,881 880 650
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO

LOCALIZED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Table 10 identifies the localized operational impacts at the nearest receptor location in the vicinity of the Project. In an effort to establish a maximum potential impact scenario for analytical purposes, the emissions shown on Table 10 represent all on-site Project-related stationary (area) sources and on-site mobile source emissions. It should be noted that the longest on-site distance is roughly 0.23 miles for both trucks and passenger vehicles. As such, a separate CalEEMod run for operational LSTs has been prepared which accounts for the 0.23-mile on-site travel distance.

Outputs from the model runs for operational LSTs are provided in Attachment B. As shown in Table 10, emissions resulting from the Project operation will not exceed the numerical localized thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD for any criteria pollutant. Thus, a less than significant impact would occur for localized Project-related operational-source emissions and no mitigation is required.
1367
Tom Cruikshank, Link Logistics Real Estate
June 6, 2023

15364-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
TABLE 10: PROJECT LOCALIZED OPERATIONAL IMPACTS
On-Site Emissions Emissions (lbs/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Daily Emissions 3.72 53.69 0.27 0.23
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 270 1,754 254 161
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
AIR QUALITY IMPACTS – CONSISTENCY WITH THRESHOLD NO. 1
Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? The Project site is located within the SCAB, which is characterized by relatively poor air quality.

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

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

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

In December 2022, the SCAQMD released the Final 2022 AQMP (2022 AQMP). The 2022 AQMP continues to evaluate current integrated strategies and control measures to meet the CAAQS, as well as explore new and innovative methods to reach its goals. Some of these approaches include utilizing incentive programs, recognizing existing co-benefit programs from other sectors, and developing a strategy with fair-share reductions at the federal, state, and local levels (21). Similar to the 2016 AQMP, the 2022 AQMP incorporates scientific and technological information and planning assumptions, including the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, a planning document that supports the integration of land use and transportation to help the region meet the federal CAA requirements (22). 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 (23). These indicators are discussed below.

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

The violations that under this criterion refer to are the CAAQS and NAAQS. CAAQS and NAAQS violations would occur if regional or localized significance thresholds were exceeded. 1368
Tom Cruikshank, Link Logistics Real Estate
June 6, 2023

15364-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
CAAQS and NAAQS violations would occur if regional or localized significance thresholds were exceeded. As evaluated, the Project’s regional and localized construction and operational-source emissions would not exceed applicable regional significance thresholds. As such, a less than significant impact is expected.

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

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

The 2022 AQMP demonstrates that the applicable ambient air quality standards can be achieved within the timeframes required under federal law. Growth projections from local general plans adopted by cities in the district are provided to the SCAG, which develops regional growth forecasts, which are then used to develop future air quality forecasts for the AQMP. Development consistent with the growth projections in City of Ontario 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 TOP 2050 adopted by the City in August 2022, designates the Project site as “Industrial” land uses. The “Industrial” designation allows for a wide range of light industrial uses, including warehousing/distribution, assembly, light manufacturing, research and development, storage, repair facilities, and supporting retail and professional office uses. This designation also accommodates activities that could potentially generate impacts, such as noise, dust, and other nuisances. (24).

The proposed Project includes the development of 344,110 square foot industrial warehouse building. As previously stated, the Project is consistent with the current land use and zoning designation. As such, the proposed Project would not conflict with the goals and objectives of the AQMP. Furthermore, the Project, as evaluated herein would not exceed the regional or localized air quality significance thresholds.

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

AIR QUALITY IMPACTS – CONSISTENCY WITH THRESHOLD NO. 2
Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
The CAAQS 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. 1369
Tom Cruikshank, Link Logistics Real Estate
June 6, 2023

15364-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
The SCAQMD has published a report on how to address cumulative impacts from air pollution:

White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution (25). In this report the SCAQMD clearly states (Page D-3):
“…the SCAQMD uses the same significance thresholds for project specific and cumulative impacts for all environmental topics analyzed in an Environmental Assessment or EIR. The only case where the significance thresholds for project specific and cumulative impacts differ is the Hazard Index (HI) significance threshold for TAC emissions. The project specific (project increment) significance threshold is HI > 1.0 while the cumulative (facility-wide) is HI > 3.0. It should be noted that the HI is only one of three TAC emission significance thresholds considered (when applicable) in a CEQA analysis. The other two are the maximum individual cancer risk (MICR) and the cancer burden, both of which use the same significance thresholds (MICR of 10 in 1 million and cancer burden of 0.5) for project specific and cumulative impacts.

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

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

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

AIR QUALITY IMPACTS – CONSISTENCY WITH THRESHOLD NO. 3
Would the expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? The potential impact of Project-generated air pollutant emissions at sensitive receptors has also been considered. Results of the LST analysis indicate that the Project will not exceed the SCAQMD localized significance thresholds during construction. Therefore, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations during Project construction. 1370
Tom Cruikshank, Link Logistics Real Estate
June 6, 2023

15364-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
Additionally, the Project will not exceed the SCAQMD localized significance thresholds during operational activity. Therefore, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations as the result of Project operations.

CO “HOT SPOT” ANALYSIS
As discussed below, the Project would not result in potentially adverse CO concentrations or “hot spots.” Further, detailed modeling of Project-specific CO “hot spots” is not needed to reach this conclusion. 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.

It has long been recognized that CO hotspots are caused by vehicular emissions, primarily when idling at congested intersections. In response, vehicle emissions standards have become increasingly stringent in the last twenty years. Currently, the allowable CO emissions standard in California is a maximum of 3.4 grams/mile for passenger cars (there are requirements for certain vehicles that are more stringent). With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of increasingly sophisticated and efficient emissions control technologies, CO concentration in the SCAB is now designated as attainment. To establish a more accurate record of baseline CO concentrations affecting the SCAB, a CO “hot spot” analysis was conducted in 2003 for four busy intersections in Los Angeles at the peak morning and afternoon time periods. This “hot spot” analysis did not predict any violation of CO standards, as shown on Table 11.

TABLE 11: CO MODEL RESULTS
Intersection Location
CO Concentrations (ppm)
Morning 1-hour Afternoon 1-hour 8-hour
Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue 4.6 3.5 3.7
Sunset Boulevard/Highland Avenue 4 4.5 3.5
La Cienega Boulevard/Century Boulevard 3.7 3.1 5.2
Long Beach Boulevard/Imperial Highway 3 3.1 8.4
Notes: Federal 1-hour standard is 35 ppm and the deferral 8-hour standard is 9.0 ppm.

Based on the SCAQMD's 2003 AQMP and the 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide (1992 CO Plan), peak carbon monoxide concentrations in the SCAB were a result of unusual meteorological and topographical conditions and not a result of traffic volumes and congestion at a particular intersection. As evidence of this, for example, 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 (26). 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. 1371
Tom Cruikshank, Link Logistics Real Estate
June 6, 2023

15364-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
Similar considerations are also employed by other Air Districts when evaluating potential CO concentration impacts. More specifically, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) concludes that under existing and future vehicle emission rates, a given project would have to increase traffic volumes at a single intersection by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour (vph)—or 24,000 vph where vertical and/or horizontal air does not mix—in order to generate a significant CO impact (27). Traffic volumes generating the CO concentrations for the “hot spot” analysis is shown on Table 12. 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 (28). 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). Since the Project will generate a reduction in approximately -770 net ADT, the Project would not generate sufficient ADT to cause a CO hotspot.

TABLE 12: CO MODEL RESULTS
Intersection Location
Peak Traffic Volumes (vph)
Eastbound
(AM/PM)
Westbound
(AM/PM)
Southbound
(AM/PM)
Northbound
(AM/PM)
Total
(AM/PM)
Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue 4,954/2,069 1,830/3,317 721/1,400 560/933 8,062/7,719 Sunset Boulevard/Highland Avenue 1,417/1,764 1,342/1,540 2,304/1,832 1,551/2,238 6,614/5,374 La Cienega Boulevard/Century Boulevard 2,540/2,243 1,890/2,728 1,384/2,029 821/1,674 6,634/8,674 Long Beach Boulevard/Imperial Highway 1,217/2,020 1,760/1,400 479/944 756/1,150 4,212/5,514 AIR QUALITY IMPACTS – CONSISTENCY WITH THRESHOLD NO. 4
Would the Project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
The potential for the Project to generate objectionable odors has also been considered. Land uses generally associated with odor complaints include:
• Agricultural uses (livestock and farming)
• Wastewater treatment plants
• Food processing plants
• Chemical plants
• Composting operations
• Refineries
• Landfills
• Dairies
• Fiberglass molding facilities
1372
Tom Cruikshank, Link Logistics Real Estate
June 6, 2023

15364-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
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 construction odor emissions would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature and would cease upon completion of the respective phase of construction and is thus considered less than significant. It is expected that Project-generated refuse would be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with the solid waste regulations. The proposed Project would also be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 to prevent occurrences of public nuisances. Therefore, odors associated with the proposed Project construction and operations would be less than significant and no mitigation is required (29).

PROJECT GHG ANALYSIS

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

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

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

Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are often referred to as GHGs. GHGs are released into the atmosphere by both natural and anthropogenic activity. Without the natural GHG effect, the earth’s average temperature would be approximately 61 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) cooler than it is 1373
Tom Cruikshank, Link Logistics Real Estate
June 6, 2023

15364-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
currently. The cumulative accumulation of these gases in the earth’s atmosphere is considered to be the cause for the observed increase in the earth’s temperature.

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

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

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

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

CARB is the state agency charged with monitoring and regulating sources of GHGs. Pursuant to AB 32, CARB adopted regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and costeffective GHG emission reductions. AB 32 states the following:
“Global warming poses a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California. The potential adverse impacts of global warming include the exacerbation of air quality problems, a reduction in the quality and supply of water to the state from the Sierra snowpack, a rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of thousands of coastal businesses and residences, damage to marine ecosystems and the natural environment, and an increase in the incidences of infectious diseases, asthma, and other human health-related problems.”
CARB approved the 1990 GHG emissions level of 427 million metric ton of CO2 equivalent per year (MMTCO2e) on December 6, 2007 (30). Therefore, emissions generated in California in 2020 are required to be equal to or less than 427 MMTCO2e. Emissions in 2020 in a “business as usual” (BAU) scenario were estimated to be 596 MMTCO2e, which do not account for reductions from AB 32 regulations (31). At that level, a 28.4% reduction was required to achieve the 427 MMTCO2e 1990 inventory. In October 2010, CARB prepared an updated BAU 2020 forecast to account for the recession and slower forecasted growth. The forecasted inventory without the benefits of 1374
Tom Cruikshank, Link Logistics Real Estate
June 6, 2023

15364-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
adopted regulation is now estimated at 545 MMTCO2e. Therefore, under the updated forecast, a

21.7% reduction from BAU is required to achieve 1990 levels (32).

Progress in Achieving AB 32 Targets and Remaining Reductions Required The State has made steady progress in implementing AB 32 and achieving targets included in Executive Order S-3-05. The progress is shown in updated emission inventories prepared by CARB for 2000 through 2012 (33). The State has achieved the Executive Order S-3-05 target for 2010 of reducing GHG emissions to 2000 levels. As shown below, the 2010 emission inventory achieved this target.
• 1990: 427 MMTCO2e (AB 32 2020 target)
• 2000: 463 MMTCO2e (an average 8% reduction needed to achieve 1990 base) • 2010: 450 MMTCO2e (an average 5% reduction needed to achieve 1990 base) CARB has also made substantial progress in achieving its goal of achieving 1990 emissions levels by 2020. As described earlier in this section, CARB revised the 2020 BAU inventory forecast to account for new lower growth projections, which resulted in a new lower reduction from BAU to achieve the 1990 base. The previous reduction from 2020 BAU needed to achieve 1990 levels was 28.4% and the latest reduction from 2020 BAU is 21.7%. • 2020: 545 MMTCO2e BAU (an average 21.7% reduction from BAU needed to achieve 1990 base)
Senate Bill (SB) 32
On September 8, 2016, Governor Jerry Brown signed the SB 32 and its companion bill, AB 197. SB 32 requires the state to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030, a reduction target that was first introduced in Executive Order B-30-15. The new legislation builds upon the AB 32 goal of 1990 levels by 2020 and provides an intermediate goal to achieving S-3- 05, which sets a statewide GHG reduction target of 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. AB 197 creates a legislative committee to oversee regulators to ensure that CARB not only responds to the Governor, but also the Legislature (34).

AB 197
A condition of approval for SB 32 was the passage of AB 197. AB 197 requires that CARB consider the social costs of GHG emissions and prioritize direct reductions in GHG emissions at mobile sources and large stationary sources. AB 197 also gives the California legislature more oversight over CARB through the addition of two legislatively appointed members to the CARB Board and the establishment a legislative committee to make recommendations about CARB programs to the legislature.

Executive Order B-55-18 and SB 100
Executive Order B-55-18 and SB 100. SB 100 and Executive Order B-55-18 were signed by Governor Brown on September 10, 2018. Under the existing RPS, 25% of retail sales are required to be from renewable sources by December 31, 2016, 33% by December 31, 2020, 40% by December 31, 2024, 45% by December 31, 2027, and 50% by December 31, 2030. SB 100 raises California’s RPS requirement to 50% renewable resources target by December 31, 2026, and to achieve a 60% target by December 31, 2030. SB 100 also requires that retail sellers and local 1375
Tom Cruikshank, Link Logistics Real Estate
June 6, 2023

15364-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
publicly owned electric utilities procure a minimum quantity of electricity products from eligible renewable energy resources so that the total kilowatt hours of those products sold to their retail end-use customers achieve 44% of retail sales by December 31, 2024, 52% by December 31, 2027, and 60% by December 31, 2030. In addition to targets under AB 32 and SB 32, Executive Order B55-18 establishes a carbon neutrality goal for the state of California by 2045; and sets a goal to maintain net negative emissions thereafter. The Executive Order directs the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA), California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), the Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), and CARB to include sequestration targets in the Natural and Working Lands Climate Change Implementation Plan consistent with the carbon neutrality goal.

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

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

CALGreen is updated on a regular basis, with the most recent approved update consisting of the 2022 California Green Building Code Standards that was effective on January 1, 20237. As construction of the Project is anticipated to be completed in 2025, the Project would be required to comply with the Title 24 standards in place at that time.

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

In 2008, SCAQMD formed a Working Group to identify GHG emissions thresholds for land use projects that could be used by local lead agencies in the SCAB. The Working Group developed several different options that are contained in the SCAQMD Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold, that could be applied by lead agencies. The working group has not provided additional guidance since release of the interim guidance in 2008. The SCAQMD Board has not approved the thresholds; however, the Guidance Document provides substantial evidence supporting the approaches to significance of GHG emissions that can be considered by the lead agency in adopting its own threshold. The current interim thresholds consist of the following tiered approach:
7 The 2022 California Green Building Standard Code will be published July 1, 2022. 1376
Tom Cruikshank, Link Logistics Real Estate
June 6, 2023

15364-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
• Tier 1 consists of evaluating whether or not the project qualifies for any applicable exemption under CEQA.
• Tier 2 consists of determining whether the project is consistent with a GHG reduction plan. If a project is consistent with a qualifying local GHG reduction plan, it does not have significant GHG emissions.
• Tier 3 consists of screening values, which the lead agency can choose, but must be consistent with all projects within its jurisdiction. A project’s construction emissions are averaged over 30 years and are added to the project’s operational emissions. If a project’s emissions are below one of the following screening thresholds, then the project is less than significant:
o Residential and commercial land use: 3,000 metric ton of CO2 equivalent (MTCO2e/yr)
o Industrial land use: 10,000 MTCO2e/yr
o Based on land use type: residential: 3,500 MTCO2e/yr; commercial: 1,400 MTCO2e/yr; or mixed use: 3,000 MTCO2e/yr
• Tier 4 has the following options:
o Option 1: Reduce Business-as-Usual (BAU) emissions by a certain percentage; this percentage is currently undefined.
o Option 2: Early implementation of applicable AB 32 Scoping Plan measures o Option 3: 2020 target for service populations (SP), which includes residents and employees: 4.8 MTCO2e per SP per year for projects and 6.6 MTCO2e per SP per year for plans;
o Option 3, 2035 target: 3.0 MTCO2e per SP per year for projects and 4.1 MTCO2e per SP per year for plans
• Tier 5 involves mitigation offsets to achieve target significance threshold.

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

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

SCAQMD Regulation XXVII, adopted in 2009 includes the following rules:
• Rule 2700 defines terms and post global warming potentials. • Rule 2701, Southern California (SoCal) Climate Solutions Exchange, establishes a voluntary program to encourage, quantify, and certify voluntary, high quality certified GHG emission reductions in the SCAQMD.
1377
Tom Cruikshank, Link Logistics Real Estate
June 6, 2023

15364-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
• Rule 2702, GHG Reduction Program created a program to produce GHG emission reductions within the SCAQMD. The SCAQMD will fund projects through contracts in response to requests for proposals or purchase reductions from other parties.

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

City of Ontario Community Climate Action Plan (CCAP)
The Community Climate Action Plan (CCAP) contains further guidance on the City of Ontario’s GHG Inventory reduction goals, policies, guidelines, and implementation programs. The purpose of the CCAP is to provide guidance on how to analyze GHG emissions and determine significance during the CEQA review of proposed development projects within the City of Ontario (35). The CCAP builds upon the Reduction Plan to address City-specific information and City-specific GHG reduction measures. To address the state’s requirement to reduce GHG emissions, the CCAP was prepared with the goal of reducing GHG emissions within the City by 15% below 2008 levels by the year 2020. The City’s target is consistent with the AB 32 target and ensures that the City of Ontario achieves GHG reductions locally that complement and are consistent with state efforts to reduce GHG emissions.

As part of the CCAP, the City of Ontario published a guidance document titled “Greenhouse Gas Emissions, CEQA Thresholds and Screening Tables” (December 2014). As part of this guidance, the CCAP determined that if GHG emissions of a given project exceeds 3,000 MTCO2e/yr, then project emissions would need to be reduced by 25 percent when compared to year 2008 emissions levels. Alternatively, the project would need to achieve a minimum of 100 points pursuant to measures identified in the Screening Tables.

The 2022 update to the Ontario Plan includes an update to the City’s CCAP which was originally adopted on December 16, 2014. As stated in The Ontario Plan 2050 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR), the measures included in the 2022 update to the CCAP are not substantially different than that of the 2014 CCAP and therefore there is no change in the environmental impacts associated with the CCAP (36).

GHG IMPACTS
Standards of Significance
According to the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G thresholds, to determine whether impacts from GHG emissions are significant. Would the project:
• Threshold 1: Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
• Threshold 2: Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs?
1378
Tom Cruikshank, Link Logistics Real Estate
June 6, 2023

15364-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
The evaluation of an impact under CEQA requires measuring data from a project against both existing conditions and a “threshold of significance.” For establishing significance thresholds, the Office of Planning and Research’s amendments to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7(c) state “[w]hen adopting thresholds of significance, a lead agency may consider thresholds of significance previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies, or recommended by experts, provided the decision of the lead agency to adopt such thresholds is supported by substantial evidence.”
Discussion on Establishment of Significance Thresholds
As previously stated, SEIR identifies that the measures included in the 2022 update to the CCAP are not substantially different than that of the 2014 CCAP and therefore there is no change in the environmental impacts associated with the CCAP. As such, and consistent with the 2014 CCAP, this analysis relies on the annual screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/yr to define small projects that are considered less than significant and do not require further GHG emissions calculations or analysis. Projects that do not exceed an annual 3,000 MTCO2e/yr are therefore considered less than significant and would not require further analysis or mitigation.

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

PROJECT GHG EMISSIONS
The estimated GHG emissions for the Project land use are summarized on Table 13. The estimated GHG emission include emissions from Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4), Nitrous Oxide (N2O), and Refrigerants (R). As shown on Table 13, the Project would generate a total of approximately 3,557.75 MTCO2e/yr. Detailed operation model outputs for the proposed Project are presented in Attachment A.

TABLE 13: TOTAL PROJECT GHG EMISSIONS
Source
Emission (lbs/day)
CO2 CH4 N2O R Total CO2e
Annual construction-related emissions
amortized over 30 years 27.07 1.33E-03 1.33E-03 1.93E-02 27.53 Mobile Source 1,927.00 0.09 0.15 3.62 1,978.00
Area Source 6.99 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 7.02
Energy Source 775.00 0.07 0.01 0.00 779.00
Water Source 113.00 2.60 0.06 0.00 196.00
Waste Source 28.90 2.89 0.00 0.00 101.00
Refrigerants Source 0.00 0.00 0.00 58.20 58.20
On-Site Equipment Source 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 94.73
TRU Source 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 316.27
Total CO2e (All Sources) 3,557.75
1379
Tom Cruikshank, Link Logistics Real Estate
June 6, 2023

15364-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
TOP 2050 GHG EMISSIONS
The estimated GHG emissions from the TOP 2050 adopted Industrial land use designation are summarized on Table 14. Detailed operation model outputs for the TOP 2050 adopted Industrial land use designation are presented in Attachment D.

TABLE 14: TOP 2050 GHG EMISSIONS
Source Emission (lbs/day)
CO2 CH4 N2O R Total CO2e
Mobile Source 4,830.00 0.24 0.30 8.66 4,933.00
Area Source 8.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 8.33
Energy Source 694.00 0.06 < 0.005 0.00 697.00
Water 129.00 3.01 0.07 0.00 225.00
Waste 33.50 3.34 0.00 0.00 117.00
Refrigerants 0.00 0.00 0.00 67.30 67.30
Total CO2e (All Sources) 6,047.63
PROJECT NET NEW GHG EMISSIONS – COMPARISON TO TOP 2050
Table 15 shows the Project is anticipated to generate less GHG emissions per day as compared to emissions generated by the TOP 2050 adopted Industrial land use designation.

TABLE 15: PROJECT NET NEW GHG EMISSIONS
Emission Source Total CO2e
Proposed Project 3,557.75
TOP 2050 6,047.63
Net Emissions (Proposed – TOP 2050) -2,489.88
1380
Tom Cruikshank, Link Logistics Real Estate
June 6, 2023

15364-03 AQ & GHG Assessment

EXISTING BUILDING GHG EMISSIONS
The estimated GHG emissions from the existing buildings are summarized on Table 16. Detailed operation model outputs for the existing buildings are presented in Attachment C.

TABLE 16: EXISTING BUILDING GHG EMISSIONS
Source Emission (lbs/day)
CO2 CH4 N2O R Total CO2e
Mobile Source 1,445.00 0.06 0.06 3.22 1,467.00
Area Source 3.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 3.37
Energy Source 612.00 0.06 < 0.005 0.00 614.00
Water 21.20 0.50 0.01 0.00 37.20
Waste 55.10 5.51 0.00 0.00 193.00
Refrigerants 0.00 0.00 0.00 212.00 212.00
On-Site Cargo Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 94.73
Total CO2e (All Sources) 2,621.30
PROJECT NET NEW GHG EMISSIONS – COMPARISON TO EXISTING BUILDING Table 17 shows the Project is anticipated to generate more GHG emissions per day as compared to emissions generated by the existing building, additionally; the proposed Projects emissions would still be less than the applicable thresholds.

TABLE 17: PROJECT NET NEW GHG EMISSIONS
Emission Source Total CO2e
Proposed Project 3,557.75
Existing Building 2,621.30
Net Emissions (Proposed – Existing) 936.45
As discussed within the CCAP, projects that generate less than 3,000 MTCO2e/yr would have a less-than-significant GHG emissions impact. As shown on Table 17, the proposed Project would generate a total of 936.45 MTCO2e/yr and would therefore not exceed the 3,000 MTCO2e/yr significance threshold and a less than significant impact is expected.

GHG IMPACTS – CONSISTENCY WITH THRESHOLD NO. 2
Would the Project have the potential to conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs? Pursuant to 15604.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency may rely on qualitative analysis or performance-based standards to determine the significance of impacts from GHG emissions (37). 1381
Tom Cruikshank, Link Logistics Real Estate
June 6, 2023

15364-03 AQ & GHG Assessment
The 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan) lays out a path to achieve targets for carbon neutrality and reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels no later than 2045, as directed by Assembly Bill 1279. The actions and outcomes in the plan will achieve significant reductions in fossil fuel combustion by deploying clean technologies and fuels, further reductions in short-lived climate pollutants, support for sustainable development, increased action on natural and working lands to reduce emissions and sequester carbon, and the capture and storage of carbon (38).

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

CONCLUSION
Results of the assessment indicate that the Project is not anticipated to result in a significant impact during construction or operational activities associated with air quality and GHG. 1382
15364-03 AQ & GHG Assessment

REFERENCES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

14. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. [Online] http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=2.

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

16. State of California. 2020 CEQA California Environmental Quality Act. 2020. 1383
15364-03 AQ & GHG Assessment

17. Urban Crossroads, Inc. Woodruff Logistics Trip Generation Assessment . 2023.

18. South Coast Air Quality Management District. SCAQMD High Cube Warehouse Truck Trip Study White Paper Summary of Busniess Survey Results. 2014.

19. Urban Crossroads, Inc. Paladin Ontario Trip Generation Letter. 2022.

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

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

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

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

24. City of Ontario. TOP 2050. [Online] 2022.
https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/Land%20Use/Figure%20LU02%20%20Land%20Use%20Designations%20Summary%20Table_1.pdf.

25. 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.

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

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

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

29. —. RULE 402 NUISANCE. [Online] http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rulebook/rule-iv/rule-402.pdf.

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

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

32. —. STATUS OF SCOPING PLAN RECOMMENDED MEASURES. [Online] [Cited: September 19, 2019.]
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/status_of_scoping_plan_measures.pdf. 1384
15364-03 AQ & GHG Assessment

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

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

2. 35. City of Ontario. City of Ontario Climate Action Plan. 2014.

36. —. TOP 2050 SEIR. 2022.

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

38. California Air Resources Board. 2022 Scopuing Plan Documents. [Online] https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/ab-32-climate-change-scopingplan/2022-scoping-plan-documents. 1385
15364-03 AQ & GHG Assessment

ATTACHMENT A

CALEEMOD PROPOSED PROJECT EMISSIONS MODEL OUTPUTS
1386
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 1 / 55
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2024) - Unmitigated

3.3. Site Preparation (2024) - Unmitigated

3.5. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated
1387
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 2 / 55

3.9. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated

3.11. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated

3.13. Architectural Coating (2025) - 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
1388
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 3 / 55

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

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

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.4. Vehicles
1389
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 4 / 55

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
1390
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 5 / 55

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration
1391
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 6 / 55

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data
1392
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 7 / 55

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name 15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.80
Precipitation (days) 20.8
Location 34.049207, -117.552997
County San Bernardino-South Coast
City Ontario
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 5284
EDFZ 10
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
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
293 1000sqft 6.73 292,976 110,740 — — —
Refrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail

51.7 1000sqft 1.19 51,702 0.00 — — —
1393
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 8 / 55
Parking Lot 264 Space 2.38 0.00 0.00 — — —
Other Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

6.46 Acre 6.46 0.00 0.00 — — —
User Defined
Industrial
345 User Defined Unit 0.00 0.00 0.00 — — —

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

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 4.45 60.2 36.1 41.2 0.06 1.60 6.80 7.95 1.47 2.74 4.22 — 8,336 8,336 0.64 0.77 13.7 8,459 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 4.30 3.62 34.5 31.5 0.06 1.45 2.96 4.41 1.33 1.05 2.38 — 6,956 6,956 0.30 0.30 0.32 6,987 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.15 5.63 7.40 12.1 0.02 0.29 1.18 1.48 0.27 0.30 0.57 — 2,892 2,892 0.15 0.14 2.37 2,940 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.21 1.03 1.35 2.20 < 0.005 0.05 0.22 0.27 0.05 0.06 0.10 — 479 479 0.02 0.02 0.39 487

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
1394
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 9 / 55
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 4.45 3.74 36.1 34.4 0.06 1.60 6.80 7.95 1.47 2.74 4.22 — 8,194 8,194 0.64 0.77 10.6 8,449 2025 3.70 60.2 22.3 41.2 0.05 0.87 2.84 3.71 0.80 0.68 1.49 — 8,336 8,336 0.39 0.33 13.7 8,459 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 4.30 3.62 34.5 31.5 0.06 1.45 2.96 4.41 1.33 1.05 2.38 — 6,956 6,956 0.30 0.30 0.32 6,987 2025 2.28 1.87 13.6 23.5 0.04 0.49 2.27 2.75 0.45 0.55 1.00 — 5,859 5,859 0.30 0.30 0.30 5,955 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 1.00 0.80 7.40 8.14 0.01 0.29 1.18 1.48 0.27 0.30 0.57 — 2,010 2,010 0.12 0.11 1.13 2,047 2025 1.15 5.63 6.91 12.1 0.02 0.25 1.09 1.34 0.23 0.26 0.49 — 2,892 2,892 0.15 0.14 2.37 2,940 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.18 0.15 1.35 1.49 < 0.005 0.05 0.22 0.27 0.05 0.06 0.10 — 333 333 0.02 0.02 0.19 339 2025 0.21 1.03 1.26 2.20 < 0.005 0.05 0.20 0.24 0.04 0.05 0.09 — 479 479 0.02 0.02 0.39 487

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. 6.25 13.1 11.2 54.8 0.14 0.31 4.04 4.35 0.30 0.79 1.09 327 19,173 19,500 34.2 1.44 410 21,194 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.46 10.5 11.6 33.2 0.14 0.29 4.04 4.33 0.28 0.79 1.06 327 18,539 18,867 34.2 1.45 353 20,508 1395 15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 10 / 55
Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 4.86 11.9 10.4 40.6 0.12 0.28 3.52 3.80 0.28 0.68 0.96 327 16,893 17,221 34.1 1.31 373 18,838 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.89 2.17 1.90 7.40 0.02 0.05 0.64 0.69 0.05 0.12 0.18 54.2 2,797 2,851 5.65 0.22 61.8 3,119

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 3.38 2.68 9.18 38.2 0.13 0.14 4.04 4.19 0.14 0.79 0.92 — 13,902 13,902 0.63 1.03 58.5 14,282 Area 2.67 10.3 0.13 15.0 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.03 — 0.03 — 61.6 61.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 61.9 Energy 0.20 0.10 1.86 1.56 0.01 0.14 — 0.14 0.14 — 0.14 — 4,682 4,682 0.43 0.03 — 4,702 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 153 527 680 15.7 0.38 — 1,185 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 175 0.00 175 17.5 0.00 — 611 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 351 351
Total 6.25 13.1 11.2 54.8 0.14 0.31 4.04 4.35 0.30 0.79 1.09 327 19,173 19,500 34.2 1.44 410 21,194 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 3.25 2.56 9.70 31.7 0.13 0.14 4.04 4.19 0.14 0.79 0.92 — 13,330 13,330 0.64 1.04 1.52 13,658 Area — 7.87 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.20 0.10 1.86 1.56 0.01 0.14 — 0.14 0.14 — 0.14 — 4,682 4,682 0.43 0.03 — 4,702 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 153 527 680 15.7 0.38 — 1,185 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 175 0.00 175 17.5 0.00 — 611 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 351 3511396
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 11 / 55
Total 3.46 10.5 11.6 33.2 0.14 0.29 4.04 4.33 0.28 0.79 1.06 327 18,539 18,867 34.2 1.45 353 20,508 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 2.83 2.23 8.48 28.7 0.11 0.12 3.52 3.65 0.12 0.68 0.80 — 11,642 11,642 0.55 0.90 21.9 11,945 Area 1.83 9.56 0.09 10.3 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.02 — 0.02 — 42.2 42.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 42.4 Energy 0.20 0.10 1.86 1.56 0.01 0.14 — 0.14 0.14 — 0.14 — 4,682 4,682 0.43 0.03 — 4,702 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 153 527 680 15.7 0.38 — 1,185 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 175 0.00 175 17.5 0.00 — 611 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 351 351
Total 4.86 11.9 10.4 40.6 0.12 0.28 3.52 3.80 0.28 0.68 0.96 327 16,893 17,221 34.1 1.31 373 18,838 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.52 0.41 1.55 5.24 0.02 0.02 0.64 0.67 0.02 0.12 0.15 — 1,927 1,927 0.09 0.15 3.62 1,978 Area 0.33 1.74 0.02 1.87 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 6.99 6.99 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.02 Energy 0.04 0.02 0.34 0.29 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 775 775 0.07 0.01 — 779 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 25.3 87.3 113 2.60 0.06 — 196 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 28.9 0.00 28.9 2.89 0.00 — 101 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 58.2 58.2
Total 0.89 2.17 1.90 7.40 0.02 0.05 0.64 0.69 0.05 0.12 0.18 54.2 2,797 2,851 5.65 0.22 61.8 3,119

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1397
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 12 / 55
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
— — — — — — 5.41 5.41 — 0.82 0.82 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.26 0.22 2.05 1.79 < 0.005 0.09 — 0.09 0.08 — 0.08 — 282 282 0.01 < 0.005 — 282 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 0.44 0.44 — 0.07 0.07 — — — — — — —
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 0.37 0.33 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.01 — 0.01 — 46.6 46.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 46.8 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 0.08 0.08 — 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09 0.08 0.07 1.27 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 216 216 0.01 0.01 0.86 219 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.22 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 — 188 188 0.01 0.03 0.52 197 Hauling 0.58 0.09 5.36 3.00 0.03 0.08 1.15 1.23 0.05 0.31 0.37 — 4,365 4,365 0.48 0.70 9.19 4,596 1398
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 13 / 55
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.5 16.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 16.7 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.5 15.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 16.2 Hauling 0.05 0.01 0.46 0.25 < 0.005 0.01 0.09 0.10 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 — 359 359 0.04 0.06 0.32 377 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.73 2.73 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 2.77 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.56 2.56 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.68 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.08 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 59.4 59.4 0.01 0.01 0.05 62.5

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

4.34 3.65 36.0 32.9 0.05 1.60 — 1.60 1.47 — 1.47 — 5,296 5,296 0.21 0.04 — 5,314 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 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1399
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 14 / 55
Average — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily
Off-Road
Equipment

0.12 0.10 0.99 0.90 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 145 145 0.01 < 0.005 — 146 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.16 0.16 — 0.07 0.07 — — — — — — —
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 0.18 0.16 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 24.0 24.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 24.1 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.10 0.09 0.08 1.48 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 252 252 0.01 0.01 1.01 256 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 62.7 62.7 < 0.005 0.01 0.17 65.8 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 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 — 6.42 6.42 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.51 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.72 1.72 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.80 1400
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 15 / 55
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.06 1.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.08 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.28 0.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.30 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 Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

4.19 3.52 34.3 30.2 0.06 1.45 — 1.45 1.33 — 1.33 — 6,598 6,598 0.27 0.05 — 6,621 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 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

4.19 3.52 34.3 30.2 0.06 1.45 — 1.45 1.33 — 1.33 — 6,598 6,598 0.27 0.05 — 6,621 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 1401
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 16 / 55
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.23 0.19 1.88 1.65 < 0.005 0.08 — 0.08 0.07 — 0.07 — 362 362 0.01 < 0.005 — 363 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.15 0.15 — 0.05 0.05 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.04 0.04 0.34 0.30 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 59.9 59.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 60.1 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.11 0.10 0.10 1.69 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 288 288 0.01 0.01 1.15 292 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.11 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 94.1 94.1 0.01 0.01 0.26 98.7 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 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.11 0.10 0.11 1.28 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 264 264 0.01 0.01 0.03 267 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.11 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 94.1 94.1 0.01 0.01 0.01 98.5 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1402
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 17 / 55
Average — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.7 14.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 14.9 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.15 5.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.40 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.43 2.43 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.46 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.85 0.85 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.89 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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

0.21 0.18 1.64 1.92 < 0.005 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 — 355 355 0.01 < 0.005 — 356 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1403
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 18 / 55
Off-Road
Equipment

0.04 0.03 0.30 0.35 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 58.8 58.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 59.0 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 0.79 0.71 0.83 9.25 0.00 0.00 1.89 1.89 0.00 0.44 0.44 — 1,910 1,910 0.09 0.07 0.22 1,934 Vendor 0.14 0.04 1.65 0.86 0.01 0.02 0.38 0.40 0.02 0.10 0.12 — 1,380 1,380 0.11 0.21 0.10 1,444 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 0.11 0.10 0.11 1.31 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 262 262 0.01 0.01 0.49 265 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.22 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 — 186 186 0.01 0.03 0.22 195 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 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 43.3 43.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 43.9 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 30.8 30.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 32.3 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. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1404
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 19 / 55
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Off-Road
Equipment

1.45 1.21 11.3 14.1 0.03 0.47 — 0.47 0.43 — 0.43 — 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 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.45 1.21 11.3 14.1 0.03 0.47 — 0.47 0.43 — 0.43 — 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

0.68 0.57 5.29 6.62 0.01 0.22 — 0.22 0.20 — 0.20 — 1,230 1,230 0.05 0.01 — 1,234 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

0.12 0.10 0.97 1.21 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 204 204 0.01 < 0.005 — 204 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.74 0.66 0.64 11.3 0.00 0.00 1.89 1.89 0.00 0.44 0.44 — 2,040 2,040 0.08 0.07 7.57 2,071 Vendor 0.13 0.04 1.51 0.82 0.01 0.02 0.38 0.40 0.02 0.10 0.12 — 1,357 1,357 0.11 0.21 3.82 1,425 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 1405
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 20 / 55
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Worker 0.69 0.62 0.70 8.50 0.00 0.00 1.89 1.89 0.00 0.44 0.44 — 1,870 1,870 0.09 0.07 0.20 1,894 Vendor 0.13 0.04 1.57 0.82 0.01 0.02 0.38 0.40 0.02 0.10 0.12 — 1,358 1,358 0.11 0.21 0.10 1,422 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 0.32 0.29 0.36 4.19 0.00 0.00 0.87 0.87 0.00 0.20 0.20 — 887 887 0.04 0.03 1.53 900 Vendor 0.06 0.02 0.74 0.38 < 0.005 0.01 0.17 0.18 0.01 0.05 0.06 — 635 635 0.05 0.10 0.77 666 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 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 147 147 0.01 0.01 0.25 149 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.14 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 105 105 0.01 0.02 0.13 110 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. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.95 0.80 7.45 9.98 0.01 0.35 — 0.35 0.32 — 0.32 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,517 Paving — 0.31 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1406
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 21 / 55
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.05 0.04 0.41 0.55 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 82.8 82.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 83.1 Paving — 0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.01 0.01 0.07 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 13.7 13.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.8 Paving — < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.07 1.17 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 211 211 0.01 0.01 0.78 215 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.8 10.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 10.9 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1407
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 22 / 55
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.78 1.78 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.81 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

3.13. Architectural Coating (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location 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

0.21 0.17 1.18 1.52 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.03 — 0.03 — 178 178 0.01 < 0.005 — 179 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 56.8 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.02 0.01 0.10 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 14.6 14.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.7 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 4.67 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1408
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 23 / 55
Off-Road < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.42 2.42 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.43 Equipment
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.85 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.15 0.13 0.13 2.25 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.38 0.00 0.09 0.09 — 408 408 0.02 0.01 1.51 414 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 31.2 31.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 31.6 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.16 5.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.23 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
1409
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 24 / 55

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail

2.23 2.01 1.37 28.4 0.06 0.03 2.27 2.29 0.02 0.39 0.41 — 6,215 6,215 0.19 0.14 22.4 6,284 Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail

0.35 0.31 0.21 4.40 0.01 < 0.005 0.35 0.36 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 — 965 965 0.03 0.02 3.48 975 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
Non-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 User
Defined
Industrial

0.80 0.35 7.59 5.46 0.06 0.11 1.42 1.54 0.11 0.34 0.45 — 6,722 6,722 0.41 0.87 32.6 7,023 Total 3.38 2.68 9.18 38.2 0.13 0.14 4.04 4.19 0.14 0.79 0.92 — 13,902 13,902 0.63 1.03 58.5 14,282 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail

2.13 1.91 1.53 22.7 0.06 0.03 2.27 2.29 0.02 0.39 0.41 — 5,720 5,720 0.20 0.15 0.58 5,769 1410
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 25 / 55
Refrigera 0.33 0.30 0.24 3.52 0.01 < 0.005 0.35 0.36 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 — 888 888 0.03 0.02 0.09 895 ted
Warehou
Rail
Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other
Non-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 User
Defined
Industrial

0.79 0.34 7.93 5.43 0.06 0.11 1.42 1.54 0.11 0.34 0.45 — 6,723 6,723 0.41 0.87 0.84 6,993 Total 3.25 2.56 9.70 31.7 0.13 0.14 4.04 4.19 0.14 0.79 0.92 — 13,330 13,330 0.64 1.04 1.52 13,658 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail

0.34 0.31 0.25 3.81 0.01 < 0.005 0.36 0.37 < 0.005 0.06 0.07 — 844 844 0.03 0.02 1.41 853 Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail

0.05 0.05 0.04 0.59 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 130 130 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.22 132 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
Non-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 User
Defined
Industrial

0.12 0.05 1.26 0.85 0.01 0.02 0.22 0.24 0.02 0.05 0.07 — 953 953 0.06 0.12 1.99 993 Total 0.52 0.41 1.55 5.24 0.02 0.02 0.64 0.67 0.02 0.12 0.15 — 1,927 1,927 0.09 0.15 3.62 1,978

4.2. Energy
1411
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 26 / 55

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,293 1,293 0.12 0.01 — 1,300
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,081 1,081 0.10 0.01 — 1,088
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 86.6 86.6 0.01 < 0.005 — 87.1
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
User
Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 2,460 2,460 0.23 0.03 — 2,475 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,293 1,293 0.12 0.01 — 1,300
1412
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 27 / 55
Refrigera — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,081 1,081 0.10 0.01 — 1,088 ted
Warehou
Rail
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 86.6 86.6 0.01 < 0.005 — 87.1
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
User
Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 2,460 2,460 0.23 0.03 — 2,475 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — 214 214 0.02 < 0.005 — 215
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — 179 179 0.02 < 0.005 — 180
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 14.3 14.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.4 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
User
Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 407 407 0.04 < 0.005 — 410

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
1413
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 28 / 55
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail

0.16 0.08 1.50 1.26 0.01 0.11 — 0.11 0.11 — 0.11 — 1,785 1,785 0.16 < 0.005 — 1,790 Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail

0.04 0.02 0.37 0.31 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 437 437 0.04 < 0.005 — 438 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
Non-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 User
Defined
Industrial

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.20 0.10 1.86 1.56 0.01 0.14 — 0.14 0.14 — 0.14 — 2,222 2,222 0.20 < 0.005 — 2,228 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail

0.16 0.08 1.50 1.26 0.01 0.11 — 0.11 0.11 — 0.11 — 1,785 1,785 0.16 < 0.005 — 1,790 1414
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 29 / 55
Refrigera 0.04 0.02 0.37 0.31 < 0.005 0.03— 0.03 0.03— 0.03— 437 437 0.04 < 0.005— 438 ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail
Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00— 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 Other
Non-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 User
Defined
Industrial

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00— 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 Total 0.20 0.10 1.86 1.56 0.01 0.14— 0.14 0.14— 0.14— 2,222 2,222 0.20 < 0.005— 2,228 Annual——————————————————
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail

0.03 0.02 0.27 0.23 < 0.005 0.02— 0.02 0.02— 0.02— 296 296 0.03 < 0.005— 296 Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail

0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.06 < 0.005 0.01— 0.01 0.01— 0.01— 72.3 72.3 0.01 < 0.005— 72.5 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
Non-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 User
Defined
Industrial

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00— 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 Total 0.04 0.02 0.34 0.29 < 0.005 0.03— 0.03 0.03— 0.03— 368 368 0.03 < 0.005— 369 1415
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 30 / 55

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 7.41 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.47 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

2.67 2.46 0.13 15.0 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.03 — 0.03 — 61.6 61.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 61.9 Total 2.67 10.3 0.13 15.0 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.03 — 0.03 — 61.6 61.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 61.9 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 7.41 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.47 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — 7.87 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 1.35 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1416
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 31 / 55
Architect — 0.09 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ural
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

0.33 0.31 0.02 1.87 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 6.99 6.99 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.02 Total 0.33 1.74 0.02 1.87 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 6.99 6.99 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.02

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 130 450 579 13.4 0.32 — 1,009
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 22.9 77.7 101 2.36 0.06 — 176
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
User
Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
1417
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 32 / 55
Total——————————— 153 527 680 15.7 0.38— 1,185
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
——————————— 130 450 579 13.4 0.32— 1,009
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail
——————————— 22.9 77.7 101 2.36 0.06— 176
Parking
Lot
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
User
Defined
Industrial
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Total——————————— 153 527 680 15.7 0.38— 1,185
Annual——————————————————
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
——————————— 21.5 74.4 95.9 2.21 0.05— 167
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail
——————————— 3.79 12.9 16.7 0.39 0.01— 29.2
Parking
Lot
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
1418
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 33 / 55
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
User
Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 25.3 87.3 113 2.60 0.06 — 196

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) 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 148 0.00 148 14.8 0.00 — 519
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 26.2 0.00 26.2 2.62 0.00 — 91.6
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
User
Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
1419
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 34 / 55
Total——————————— 175 0.00 175 17.5 0.00— 611
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
——————————— 148 0.00 148 14.8 0.00— 519
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail
——————————— 26.2 0.00 26.2 2.62 0.00— 91.6
Parking
Lot
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
User
Defined
Industrial
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Total——————————— 175 0.00 175 17.5 0.00— 611
Annual——————————————————
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
——————————— 24.6 0.00 24.6 2.46 0.00— 86.0
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail
——————————— 4.34 0.00 4.34 0.43 0.00— 15.2
Parking
Lot
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
1420
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 35 / 55
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
User
Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 28.9 0.00 28.9 2.89 0.00 — 101

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 299 299
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 52.7 52.7
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 351 351
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1421
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 36 / 55
Unrefrige — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 299 299
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 52.7 52.7
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 351 351
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 49.4 49.4
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 8.72 8.72
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 58.2 58.2

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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1422
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 37 / 55
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
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) 1423
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 38 / 55
Equipme TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e nt
Type
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1424
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 39 / 55

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1425
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 40 / 55
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demolition Demolition 8/1/2024 9/11/2024 5.00 30.0 20
Site Preparation Site Preparation 9/12/2024 9/25/2024 5.00 10.0 10 1426
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 41 / 55
Grading Grading 9/26/2024 10/23/2024 5.00 20.0 30
Building Construction Building Construction 10/24/2024 8/27/2025 5.00 220 300 Paving Paving 7/31/2025 8/27/2025 5.00 20.0 20
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 7/17/2025 8/27/2025 5.00 30.0 20

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Demolition Excavators Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Crawler Tractors Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37 Grading Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 423 0.48
Grading Crawler Tractors Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37 Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 1427
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 42 / 55
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
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 6.00 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 62.0 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor 2.00 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 3.00 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 145 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 44.0 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
1428
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 43 / 55
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 29.0 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 0.00 0.00 517,017 172,339 23,094

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 0.00 161,692 —
Site Preparation — — 35.0 0.00 —
Grading — — 80.0 0.00 — 1429
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 44 / 55
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.84

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
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 0.00 0%
Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 0.00 0%
Parking Lot 2.38 100%
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 6.46 0%
User Defined Industrial 0.00 0%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2024 0.00 349 0.03 < 0.005
2025 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/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
464 230 307 148,977 8,506 4,215 5,622 2,730,636
1430
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 45 / 55
Refrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail

72.0 41.6 39.9 23,023 1,320 762 731 421,991
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
User Defined
Industrial
108 55.1 52.0 33,716 3,203 1,637 1,545 1,001,040

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 0.00 517,017 172,339 23,094

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 250

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) 1431
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 46 / 55
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No
Rail
1,353,169 349 0.0330 0.0040 5,569,673
Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 1,132,038 349 0.0330 0.0040 1,362,050 Parking Lot 90,665 349 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 349 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
User Defined Industrial 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) Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 67,750,700 1,778,387
Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 11,956,088 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00
User Defined Industrial 0.00 0.00

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 275 0.00
Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 48.6 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00
User Defined Industrial 0.00 0.00
1432
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 47 / 55

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 Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
Cold storage User Defined 150 7.50 7.50 7.50 25.0
Refrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
Cold storage User Defined 150 7.50 7.50 7.50 25.0

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor

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
— —
1433
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 48 / 55

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

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

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 20.2 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 3.05 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise 0.00 meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 4.39 annual hectares burned
1434
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 49 / 55
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 2 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 0 0 N/A
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

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

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

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 2 1 1 3
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
1435
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 50 / 55
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 91.1
AQ-PM 95.7
AQ-DPM 96.6
Drinking Water 93.3
Lead Risk Housing 8.61
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 78.9
Traffic 89.1
Effect Indicators —
1436
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 51 / 55
CleanUp Sites 0.00
Groundwater 30.9
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 78.8
Impaired Water Bodies 0.00
Solid Waste 70.4
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 47.3
Cardio-vascular 67.3
Low Birth Weights 57.1
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 40.5
Housing 32.3
Linguistic 18.1
Poverty 23.9
Unemployment 53.9

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 76.78686
Employed 63.51854228
Median HI 68.57436161
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 44.59129988
High school enrollment 3.977928911
Preschool enrollment 15.60374695
1437
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 52 / 55
Transportation—
Auto Access 88.68215065
Active commuting 10.11163865
Social—
2-parent households 11.86962659
Voting 50.91749006
Neighborhood—
Alcohol availability 69.3314513
Park access 61.63223406
Retail density 69.31861927
Supermarket access 2.399589375
Tree canopy 29.69331451
Housing—
Homeownership 78.81432054
Housing habitability 80.20017965
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 88.74631079 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 37.86731682
Uncrowded housing 60.77248813
Health Outcomes—
Insured adults 67.2783267
Arthritis 74.6
Asthma ER Admissions 54.3
High Blood Pressure 79.9
Cancer (excluding skin) 68.9
Asthma 49.0
Coronary Heart Disease 85.5
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 74.0
1438
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 53 / 55
Diagnosed Diabetes 64.3
Life Expectancy at Birth 52.5
Cognitively Disabled 87.2
Physically Disabled 77.4
Heart Attack ER Admissions 10.4
Mental Health Not Good 50.5
Chronic Kidney Disease 79.8
Obesity 43.5
Pedestrian Injuries 99.0
Physical Health Not Good 58.2
Stroke 80.6
Health Risk Behaviors—
Binge Drinking 19.3
Current Smoker 53.5
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 61.3
Climate Change Exposures—
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 32.5
Elderly 84.2
English Speaking 91.4
Foreign-born 35.9
Outdoor Workers 45.5
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity—
Impervious Surface Cover 76.5
Traffic Density 89.2
Traffic Access 46.3
1439
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 54 / 55
Other Indices —
Hardship 44.0
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 74.5

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 65.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 42.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) Yes 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
Screen Justification
Construction: Construction Phases Taken from client data Building, Paving, and Architectural Coating overlap to present a conservative analysis 1440
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 55 / 55
Construction: Off-Road Equipment T/L/Bs replaced with Crawler Tractor to accurately calculate disturbance for Site Preparation and Grading phases Standard 8 hours work days
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 Construction: Architectural Coatings SCAQMD Rule 1113
Operations: Vehicle Data Trip characteristics based on information provided in the Traffic Analysis Operations: Fleet Mix Passenger Car Mix estimated based on CalEEMod default fleet mix and the ratio of the vehicle classes (LDA, LDT1, LDT2, MDV, MCY).

Truck Fleet Mix based on 2, 3 and 4 axle trucks
Operations: Architectural Coatings SCAQMD Rule 1113
Operations: Refrigerants As of 1 January 2022, new commercial refrigeration equipment may not use refrigerants with a GWP of 150 or greater. Further, R-404A (the CalEEMod default) is unacceptable for new supermarket and cold storage systems as of 1 January 2019 and 2023, respectively. 1441
15364-03 AQ & GHG Assessment

ATTACHMENT B

CALEEMOD PROPOSED PROJECT OPERATIONAL LST EMISSIONS

MODEL OUTPUTS
1442
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center (Operational LSTs) Detailed Report, 3/29/2023 1 / 36
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center (Operational LSTs) Detailed Report Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source
1443
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center (Operational LSTs) Detailed Report, 3/29/2023 2 / 36

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

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 1444
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center (Operational LSTs) Detailed Report, 3/29/2023 3 / 36

5. Activity Data

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
1445
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center (Operational LSTs) Detailed Report, 3/29/2023 4 / 36

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
1446
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center (Operational LSTs) Detailed Report, 3/29/2023 5 / 36

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
1447
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center (Operational LSTs) Detailed Report, 3/29/2023 6 / 36

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name 15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center (Operational LSTs) Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.80
Precipitation (days) 20.8
Location 34.049207, -117.552997
County San Bernardino-South Coast
City Ontario
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 5284
EDFZ 10
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
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
293 1000sqft 6.73 292,976 110,740 — — —
Refrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail

51.7 1000sqft 1.19 51,702 0.00 — — —
1448
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center (Operational LSTs) Detailed Report, 3/29/2023 7 / 36
Parking Lot 264 Space 2.38 0.00 0.00 — — —
Other Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

6.46 Acre 6.46 0.00 0.00 — — —
User Defined
Industrial
345 User Defined Unit 0.00 0.00 0.00 — — —

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

2. Emissions Summary

2.4. 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. 4.60 12.1 2.97 20.8 0.01 0.17 0.04 0.21 0.17 0.01 0.18 327 5,572 5,899 33.7 0.47 352 7,235 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.83 9.51 2.89 6.37 0.01 0.15 0.04 0.19 0.15 0.01 0.15 327 5,505 5,833 33.7 0.47 351 7,168 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.44 11.0 2.83 16.0 0.01 0.16 0.04 0.20 0.16 0.01 0.17 327 5,509 5,837 33.7 0.47 352 7,170 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.63 2.01 0.52 2.93 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 0.04 0.03 < 0.005 0.03 54.2 912 966 5.58 0.08 58.2 1,187

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
1449
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center (Operational LSTs) Detailed Report, 3/29/2023 8 / 36
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 1.73 1.64 0.98 4.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 301 301 0.13 0.06 0.58 323 Area 2.67 10.3 0.13 15.0 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.03 — 0.03 — 61.6 61.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 61.9 Energy 0.20 0.10 1.86 1.56 0.01 0.14 — 0.14 0.14 — 0.14 — 4,682 4,682 0.43 0.03 — 4,702 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 153 527 680 15.7 0.38 — 1,185 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 175 0.00 175 17.5 0.00 — 611 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 351 351
Total 4.60 12.1 2.97 20.8 0.01 0.17 0.04 0.21 0.17 0.01 0.18 327 5,572 5,899 33.7 0.47 352 7,235 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.62 1.53 1.03 4.81 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 296 296 0.14 0.06 0.01 318 Area — 7.87 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.20 0.10 1.86 1.56 0.01 0.14 — 0.14 0.14 — 0.14 — 4,682 4,682 0.43 0.03 — 4,702 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 153 527 680 15.7 0.38 — 1,185 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 175 0.00 175 17.5 0.00 — 611 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 351 351
Total 1.83 9.51 2.89 6.37 0.01 0.15 0.04 0.19 0.15 0.01 0.15 327 5,505 5,833 33.7 0.47 351 7,168 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.41 1.33 0.88 4.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 258 258 0.12 0.05 0.22 277 Area 1.83 9.56 0.09 10.3 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.02 — 0.02 — 42.2 42.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 42.4 Energy 0.20 0.10 1.86 1.56 0.01 0.14 — 0.14 0.14 — 0.14 — 4,682 4,682 0.43 0.03 — 4,702 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 153 527 680 15.7 0.38 — 1,185 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 175 0.00 175 17.5 0.00 — 611 1450
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center (Operational LSTs) Detailed Report, 3/29/2023 9 / 36
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 351 351
Total 3.44 11.0 2.83 16.0 0.01 0.16 0.04 0.20 0.16 0.01 0.17 327 5,509 5,837 33.7 0.47 352 7,170 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.26 0.24 0.16 0.77 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 42.7 42.7 0.02 0.01 0.04 45.9 Area 0.33 1.74 0.02 1.87 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 6.99 6.99 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.02 Energy 0.04 0.02 0.34 0.29 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 775 775 0.07 0.01 — 779 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 25.3 87.3 113 2.60 0.06 — 196 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 28.9 0.00 28.9 2.89 0.00 — 101 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 58.2 58.2
Total 0.63 2.01 0.52 2.93 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 0.04 0.03 < 0.005 0.03 54.2 912 966 5.58 0.08 58.2 1,187

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail

1.38 1.35 0.28 3.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 154 154 0.07 0.03 0.28 166 Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail

0.21 0.21 0.04 0.48 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 23.9 23.9 0.01 0.01 0.04 25.8 1451
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center (Operational LSTs) Detailed Report, 3/29/2023 10 / 36
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
Non-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 User
Defined
Industrial

0.13 0.08 0.66 0.74 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 123 123 0.05 0.02 0.25 131 Total 1.73 1.64 0.98 4.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 301 301 0.13 0.06 0.58 323 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail

1.30 1.26 0.30 3.50 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 149 149 0.08 0.03 0.01 161 Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail

0.20 0.20 0.05 0.54 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 23.1 23.1 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 25.1 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
Non-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 User
Defined
Industrial

0.12 0.07 0.69 0.76 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 124 124 0.05 0.02 0.01 132 Total 1.62 1.53 1.03 4.81 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 296 296 0.14 0.06 0.01 318 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1452
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center (Operational LSTs) Detailed Report, 3/29/2023 11 / 36
Unrefrige 0.21 0.20 0.05 0.56 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 21.8 21.8 0.01 0.01 0.02 23.7 rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail

0.03 0.03 0.01 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.38 3.38 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.66 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
Non-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 User
Defined
Industrial

0.02 0.01 0.11 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 17.5 17.5 0.01 < 0.005 0.02 18.6 Total 0.26 0.24 0.16 0.77 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 42.7 42.7 0.02 0.01 0.04 45.9

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,293 1,293 0.12 0.01 — 1,300
1453
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center (Operational LSTs) Detailed Report, 3/29/2023 12 / 36
Refrigera———————————— 1,081 1,081 0.10 0.01— 1,088
ted
Parking
Lot
———————————— 86.6 86.6 0.01 < 0.005— 87.1
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
———————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
User
Defined
Industrial
———————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Total———————————— 2,460 2,460 0.23 0.03— 2,475
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
———————————— 1,293 1,293 0.12 0.01— 1,300
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail
———————————— 1,081 1,081 0.10 0.01— 1,088
Parking
Lot
———————————— 86.6 86.6 0.01 < 0.005— 87.1
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
———————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
User
Defined
Industrial
———————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Total———————————— 2,460 2,460 0.23 0.03— 2,475
Annual——————————————————
1454
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center (Operational LSTs) Detailed Report, 3/29/2023 13 / 36
Unrefrige — — — — — — — — — — — — 214 214 0.02 < 0.005 — 215 rated
Warehou
Rail
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — 179 179 0.02 < 0.005 — 180
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 14.3 14.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.4 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
User
Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 407 407 0.04 < 0.005 — 410

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail

0.16 0.08 1.50 1.26 0.01 0.11 — 0.11 0.11 — 0.11 — 1,785 1,785 0.16 < 0.005 — 1,790 Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail

0.04 0.02 0.37 0.31 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 437 437 0.04 < 0.005 — 438 1455
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center (Operational LSTs) Detailed Report, 3/29/2023 14 / 36
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
Non-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 User
Defined
Industrial

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00— 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 Total 0.20 0.10 1.86 1.56 0.01 0.14— 0.14 0.14— 0.14— 2,222 2,222 0.20 < 0.005— 2,228 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail

0.16 0.08 1.50 1.26 0.01 0.11— 0.11 0.11— 0.11— 1,785 1,785 0.16 < 0.005— 1,790 Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail

0.04 0.02 0.37 0.31 < 0.005 0.03— 0.03 0.03— 0.03— 437 437 0.04 < 0.005— 438 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
Non-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 User
Defined
Industrial

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00— 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 Total 0.20 0.10 1.86 1.56 0.01 0.14— 0.14 0.14— 0.14— 2,222 2,222 0.20 < 0.005— 2,228 Annual——————————————————
1456
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center (Operational LSTs) Detailed Report, 3/29/2023 15 / 36
Unrefrige 0.03 0.02 0.27 0.23 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 296 296 0.03 < 0.005 — 296 rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail

0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 72.3 72.3 0.01 < 0.005 — 72.5 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
Non-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 User
Defined
Industrial

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.04 0.02 0.34 0.29 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 368 368 0.03 < 0.005 — 369

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 7.41 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.47 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1457
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center (Operational LSTs) Detailed Report, 3/29/2023 16 / 36
Landsca 2.67 2.46 0.13 15.0 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.03 — 0.03 — 61.6 61.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 61.9 pe
Total 2.67 10.3 0.13 15.0 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.03 — 0.03 — 61.6 61.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 61.9 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 7.41 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.47 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — 7.87 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 1.35 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.09 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

0.33 0.31 0.02 1.87 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 6.99 6.99 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.02 Total 0.33 1.74 0.02 1.87 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 6.99 6.99 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.02

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 1458
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center (Operational LSTs) Detailed Report, 3/29/2023 17 / 36
Daily,——————————————————
Summer
(Max)
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
——————————— 130 450 579 13.4 0.32— 1,009
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail
——————————— 22.9 77.7 101 2.36 0.06— 176
Parking
Lot
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
User
Defined
Industrial
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Total——————————— 153 527 680 15.7 0.38— 1,185
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
——————————— 130 450 579 13.4 0.32— 1,009
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail
——————————— 22.9 77.7 101 2.36 0.06— 176
Parking
Lot
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
1459
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center (Operational LSTs) Detailed Report, 3/29/2023 18 / 36
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
User
Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 153 527 680 15.7 0.38 — 1,185 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 21.5 74.4 95.9 2.21 0.05 — 167
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 3.79 12.9 16.7 0.39 0.01 — 29.2
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
User
Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 25.3 87.3 113 2.60 0.06 — 196

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) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 1460
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center (Operational LSTs) Detailed Report, 3/29/2023 19 / 36
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
——————————— 148 0.00 148 14.8 0.00— 519
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail
——————————— 26.2 0.00 26.2 2.62 0.00— 91.6
Parking
Lot
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
User
Defined
Industrial
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Total——————————— 175 0.00 175 17.5 0.00— 611
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
——————————— 148 0.00 148 14.8 0.00— 519
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail
——————————— 26.2 0.00 26.2 2.62 0.00— 91.6
Parking
Lot
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
1461
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center (Operational LSTs) Detailed Report, 3/29/2023 20 / 36
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
User
Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 175 0.00 175 17.5 0.00 — 611 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 24.6 0.00 24.6 2.46 0.00 — 86.0
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 4.34 0.00 4.34 0.43 0.00 — 15.2
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
User
Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 28.9 0.00 28.9 2.89 0.00 — 101

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 1462
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center (Operational LSTs) Detailed Report, 3/29/2023 21 / 36
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
———————————————— 299 299
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail
———————————————— 52.7 52.7
Total———————————————— 351 351
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
———————————————— 299 299
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail
———————————————— 52.7 52.7
Total———————————————— 351 351
Annual——————————————————
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
———————————————— 49.4 49.4
1463
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center (Operational LSTs) Detailed Report, 3/29/2023 22 / 36
Refrigera — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 8.72 8.72
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 58.2 58.2

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

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

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 1464
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center (Operational LSTs) Detailed Report, 3/29/2023 23 / 36
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
1465
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center (Operational LSTs) Detailed Report, 3/29/2023 24 / 36

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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1466
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center (Operational LSTs) Detailed Report, 3/29/2023 25 / 36

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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1467
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center (Operational LSTs) Detailed Report, 3/29/2023 26 / 36
Sequest — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
464 230 307 148,977 107 52.9 70.6 34,265
Refrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail

72.0 41.6 39.9 23,023 16.6 9.56 9.17 5,295
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
User Defined
Industrial
108 55.1 52.0 33,716 24.8 12.7 12.0 7,755

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
1468
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center (Operational LSTs) Detailed Report, 3/29/2023 27 / 36
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 0.00 517,017 172,339 23,094

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 250

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No
Rail
1,353,169 349 0.0330 0.0040 5,569,673
Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 1,132,038 349 0.0330 0.0040 1,362,050 Parking Lot 90,665 349 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 349 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
User Defined Industrial 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) Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 67,750,700 1,778,387
Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 11,956,088 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 1469
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center (Operational LSTs) Detailed Report, 3/29/2023 28 / 36
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00
User Defined Industrial 0.00 0.00

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 275 0.00
Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 48.6 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00
User Defined Industrial 0.00 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 Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
Cold storage User Defined 150 7.50 7.50 7.50 25.0
Refrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
Cold storage User Defined 150 7.50 7.50 7.50 25.0

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor 1470
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center (Operational LSTs) Detailed Report, 3/29/2023 29 / 36

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor

5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type
— —

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration
1471
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center (Operational LSTs) Detailed Report, 3/29/2023 30 / 36

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

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

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 20.2 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 3.05 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise 0.00 meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 4.39 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 2 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 0 0 N/A
1472
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center (Operational LSTs) Detailed Report, 3/29/2023 31 / 36
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

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

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

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 2 1 1 3
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

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

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details
1473
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center (Operational LSTs) Detailed Report, 3/29/2023 32 / 36

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 91.1
AQ-PM 95.7
AQ-DPM 96.6
Drinking Water 93.3
Lead Risk Housing 8.61
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 78.9
Traffic 89.1
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 0.00
Groundwater 30.9
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 78.8
Impaired Water Bodies 0.00
Solid Waste 70.4
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 47.3
Cardio-vascular 67.3
Low Birth Weights 57.1
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 40.5
Housing 32.3
Linguistic 18.1
Poverty 23.9
1474
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center (Operational LSTs) Detailed Report, 3/29/2023 33 / 36
Unemployment 53.9

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 76.78686
Employed 63.51854228
Median HI 68.57436161
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 44.59129988
High school enrollment 3.977928911
Preschool enrollment 15.60374695
Transportation —
Auto Access 88.68215065
Active commuting 10.11163865
Social —
2-parent households 11.86962659
Voting 50.91749006
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 69.3314513
Park access 61.63223406
Retail density 69.31861927
Supermarket access 2.399589375
Tree canopy 29.69331451
Housing —
Homeownership 78.81432054
1475
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center (Operational LSTs) Detailed Report, 3/29/2023 34 / 36
Housing habitability 80.20017965
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 88.74631079 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 37.86731682
Uncrowded housing 60.77248813
Health Outcomes—
Insured adults 67.2783267
Arthritis 74.6
Asthma ER Admissions 54.3
High Blood Pressure 79.9
Cancer (excluding skin) 68.9
Asthma 49.0
Coronary Heart Disease 85.5
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 74.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 64.3
Life Expectancy at Birth 52.5
Cognitively Disabled 87.2
Physically Disabled 77.4
Heart Attack ER Admissions 10.4
Mental Health Not Good 50.5
Chronic Kidney Disease 79.8
Obesity 43.5
Pedestrian Injuries 99.0
Physical Health Not Good 58.2
Stroke 80.6
Health Risk Behaviors—
Binge Drinking 19.3
Current Smoker 53.5
1476
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center (Operational LSTs) Detailed Report, 3/29/2023 35 / 36
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 61.3
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 32.5
Elderly 84.2
English Speaking 91.4
Foreign-born 35.9
Outdoor Workers 45.5
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 76.5
Traffic Density 89.2
Traffic Access 46.3
Other Indices —
Hardship 44.0
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 74.5

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 65.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 42.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) Yes 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. 1477 15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center (Operational LSTs) Detailed Report, 3/29/2023 36 / 36

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

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

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Construction: Construction Phases Taken from client data Building, Paving, and Architectural Coating overlap to present a conservative analysis Construction: Off-Road Equipment T/L/Bs replaced with Crawler Tractor to accurately calculate disturbance for Site Preparation and Grading phases
Standard 8 hours work days
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 Construction: Architectural Coatings SCAQMD Rule 1113
Operations: Vehicle Data Trip characteristics based on information provided in the Traffic Analysis Operations: Fleet Mix Passenger Car Mix estimated based on CalEEMod default fleet mix and the ratio of the vehicle classes (LDA, LDT1, LDT2, MDV, MCY).

Truck Fleet Mix based on 2, 3 and 4 axle trucks
Operations: Architectural Coatings SCAQMD Rule 1113
Operations: Refrigerants As of 1 January 2022, new commercial refrigeration equipment may not use refrigerants with a GWP of 150 or greater. Further, R-404A (the CalEEMod default) is unacceptable for new supermarket and cold storage systems as of 1 January 2019 and 2023, respectively. 1478
15364-03 AQ & GHG Assessment

ATTACHMENT C

CALEEMOD EXISTING OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS MODEL

OUTPUTS
1479
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center (Existing) Detailed Report, 3/29/2023 1 / 30
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center (Existing) Detailed Report Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source
1480
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center (Existing) Detailed Report, 3/29/2023 2 / 30

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

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 1481
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center (Existing) Detailed Report, 3/29/2023 3 / 30

5. Activity Data

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
1482
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center (Existing) Detailed Report, 3/29/2023 4 / 30

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
1483
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center (Existing) Detailed Report, 3/29/2023 5 / 30

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data
1484
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center (Existing) Detailed Report, 3/29/2023 6 / 30

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name 15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center (Existing) Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.80
Precipitation (days) 20.8
Location 1350 S Woodruff Way, Ontario, CA 91761, USA
County San Bernardino-South Coast
City Ontario
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 5284
EDFZ 10
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
Automobile Care
Center
162 1000sqft 16.1 161,692 0.00 — — —
User Defined Retail 162 User Defined Unit 0.00 0.00 0.00 — — — 1485
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center (Existing) Detailed Report, 3/29/2023 7 / 30

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

2. Emissions Summary

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 8.18 11.1 7.50 71.8 0.14 0.24 4.42 4.66 0.24 0.79 1.03 362 16,718 17,080 37.1 0.53 1,345 19,511 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 6.60 9.63 7.91 54.1 0.13 0.23 4.42 4.65 0.22 0.79 1.01 362 15,784 16,146 37.1 0.55 1,284 18,523 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 5.62 8.73 6.35 45.7 0.10 0.21 3.18 3.40 0.21 0.57 0.78 362 12,544 12,906 37.0 0.43 1,302 15,261 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.03 1.59 1.16 8.33 0.02 0.04 0.58 0.62 0.04 0.10 0.14 59.9 2,077 2,137 6.12 0.07 216 2,527

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1486
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center (Existing) Detailed Report, 3/29/2023 8 / 30
Mobile 6.73 6.20 5.58 63.2 0.13 0.09 4.42 4.51 0.08 0.79 0.87 — 12,895 12,895 0.51 0.43 62.6 13,099 Area 1.25 4.82 0.06 7.03 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 28.9 28.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 29.8 Energy 0.20 0.10 1.86 1.56 0.01 0.14 — 0.14 0.14 — 0.14 — 3,695 3,695 0.34 0.02 — 3,710 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 29.2 98.9 128 3.00 0.07 — 225 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 333 0.00 333 33.3 0.00 — 1,165 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,282 1,282
Total 8.18 11.1 7.50 71.8 0.14 0.24 4.42 4.66 0.24 0.79 1.03 362 16,718 17,080 37.1 0.53 1,345 19,511 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 6.39 5.86 6.05 52.6 0.12 0.09 4.42 4.51 0.08 0.79 0.87 — 11,990 11,990 0.53 0.46 1.62 12,142 Area — 3.67 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.20 0.10 1.86 1.56 0.01 0.14 — 0.14 0.14 — 0.14 — 3,695 3,695 0.34 0.02 — 3,710 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 29.2 98.9 128 3.00 0.07 — 225 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 333 0.00 333 33.3 0.00 — 1,165 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,282 1,282
Total 6.60 9.63 7.91 54.1 0.13 0.23 4.42 4.65 0.22 0.79 1.01 362 15,784 16,146 37.1 0.55 1,284 18,523 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 4.56 4.17 4.44 39.3 0.09 0.06 3.18 3.25 0.06 0.57 0.63 — 8,730 8,730 0.38 0.33 19.4 8,859 Area 0.86 4.46 0.04 4.81 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 19.8 19.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 20.4 Energy 0.20 0.10 1.86 1.56 0.01 0.14 — 0.14 0.14 — 0.14 — 3,695 3,695 0.34 0.02 — 3,710 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 29.2 98.9 128 3.00 0.07 — 225 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 333 0.00 333 33.3 0.00 — 1,165 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,282 1,282
Total 5.62 8.73 6.35 45.7 0.10 0.21 3.18 3.40 0.21 0.57 0.78 362 12,544 12,906 37.0 0.43 1,302 15,261 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.83 0.76 0.81 7.17 0.02 0.01 0.58 0.59 0.01 0.10 0.11 — 1,445 1,445 0.06 0.06 3.22 1,467 Area 0.16 0.81 0.01 0.88 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 3.28 3.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.371487 15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center (Existing) Detailed Report, 3/29/2023 9 / 30
Energy 0.04 0.02 0.34 0.29 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 612 612 0.06 < 0.005 — 614 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 4.83 16.4 21.2 0.50 0.01 — 37.2 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 55.1 0.00 55.1 5.51 0.00 — 193 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 212 212
Total 1.03 1.59 1.16 8.33 0.02 0.04 0.58 0.62 0.04 0.10 0.14 59.9 2,077 2,137 6.12 0.07 216 2,527

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Automob
ile
Care
Center

6.45 5.96 3.33 60.9 0.11 0.05 3.93 3.98 0.05 0.67 0.72 — 11,398 11,398 0.49 0.32 48.5 11,554 User
Defined
Retail

0.28 0.24 2.25 2.28 0.01 0.03 0.50 0.53 0.03 0.12 0.15 — 1,497 1,497 0.02 0.11 14.1 1,545 Total 6.73 6.20 5.58 63.2 0.13 0.09 4.42 4.51 0.08 0.79 0.87 — 12,895 12,895 0.51 0.43 62.6 13,099 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Automob
ile
Care
Center

6.12 5.62 3.69 50.3 0.10 0.05 3.93 3.98 0.05 0.67 0.72 — 10,493 10,493 0.52 0.34 1.26 10,610 1488
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center (Existing) Detailed Report, 3/29/2023 10 / 30
User
Defined
Retail

0.28 0.24 2.36 2.26 0.01 0.03 0.50 0.53 0.03 0.12 0.15 — 1,497 1,497 0.02 0.11 0.37 1,532 Total 6.39 5.86 6.05 52.6 0.12 0.09 4.42 4.51 0.08 0.79 0.87 — 11,990 11,990 0.53 0.46 1.62 12,142 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Automob
ile
Care
Center

0.80 0.73 0.50 6.88 0.01 0.01 0.52 0.52 0.01 0.09 0.09 — 1,268 1,268 0.06 0.04 2.50 1,284 User
Defined
Retail

0.04 0.03 0.31 0.30 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 178 178 < 0.005 0.01 0.72 183 Total 0.83 0.76 0.81 7.17 0.02 0.01 0.58 0.59 0.01 0.10 0.11 — 1,445 1,445 0.06 0.06 3.22 1,467

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Automob
ile
Care
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,473 1,473 0.14 0.02 — 1,482
User
Defined
Retail
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,473 1,473 0.14 0.02 — 1,482 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1489
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center (Existing) Detailed Report, 3/29/2023 11 / 30
Automob
Care
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,473 1,473 0.14 0.02 — 1,482
User
Defined
Retail
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,473 1,473 0.14 0.02 — 1,482 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Automob
ile
Care
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — — 244 244 0.02 < 0.005 — 245
User
Defined
Retail
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 244 244 0.02 < 0.005 — 245

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Automob
ile
Care
Center

0.20 0.10 1.86 1.56 0.01 0.14 — 0.14 0.14 — 0.14 — 2,222 2,222 0.20 < 0.005 — 2,229 User
Defined
Retail

0.00 0.00 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 0.20 0.10 1.86 1.56 0.01 0.14 — 0.14 0.14 — 0.14 — 2,222 2,222 0.20 < 0.005 — 2,229 1490
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center (Existing) Detailed Report, 3/29/2023 12 / 30
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Automob
ile
Care
Center

0.20 0.10 1.86 1.56 0.01 0.14 — 0.14 0.14 — 0.14 — 2,222 2,222 0.20 < 0.005 — 2,229 User
Defined
Retail

0.00 0.00 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 0.20 0.10 1.86 1.56 0.01 0.14 — 0.14 0.14 — 0.14 — 2,222 2,222 0.20 < 0.005 — 2,229 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Automob
ile
Care
Center

0.04 0.02 0.34 0.29 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 368 368 0.03 < 0.005 — 369 User
Defined
Retail

0.00 0.00 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 0.04 0.02 0.34 0.29 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 368 368 0.03 < 0.005 — 369

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 3.46 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1491
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center (Existing) Detailed Report, 3/29/2023 13 / 30
Architect — 0.21 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ural
Coatings
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

1.25 1.15 0.06 7.03 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 28.9 28.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 29.8 Total 1.25 4.82 0.06 7.03 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 28.9 28.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 29.8 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 3.46 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.21 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — 3.67 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 0.63 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.04 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

0.16 0.14 0.01 0.88 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 3.28 3.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.37 Total 0.16 0.81 0.01 0.88 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 3.28 3.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.37

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.2. Unmitigated
1492
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center (Existing) Detailed Report, 3/29/2023 14 / 30
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Automob
ile
Care
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — 29.2 98.9 128 3.00 0.07 — 225
User
Defined
Retail
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 29.2 98.9 128 3.00 0.07 — 225 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Automob
ile
Care
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — 29.2 98.9 128 3.00 0.07 — 225
User
Defined
Retail
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 29.2 98.9 128 3.00 0.07 — 225 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Automob
ile
Care
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — 4.83 16.4 21.2 0.50 0.01 — 37.2
User
Defined
Retail
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 4.83 16.4 21.2 0.50 0.01 — 37.2 1493
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center (Existing) Detailed Report, 3/29/2023 15 / 30

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) 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Automob
ile
Care
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — 333 0.00 333 33.3 0.00 — 1,165
User
Defined
Retail
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 333 0.00 333 33.3 0.00 — 1,165 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Automob
ile
Care
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — 333 0.00 333 33.3 0.00 — 1,165
User
Defined
Retail
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 333 0.00 333 33.3 0.00 — 1,165 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Automob
ile
Care
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — 55.1 0.00 55.1 5.51 0.00 — 193
1494
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center (Existing) Detailed Report, 3/29/2023 16 / 30
User — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Defined
Retail
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 55.1 0.00 55.1 5.51 0.00 — 193

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Automob
ile
Care
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,282 1,282
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,282 1,282
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Automob
ile
Care
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,282 1,282
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,282 1,282
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Automob
ile
Care
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 212 212
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 212 212
1495
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center (Existing) Detailed Report, 3/29/2023 17 / 30

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

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

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1496
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center (Existing) Detailed Report, 3/29/2023 18 / 30
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1497
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center (Existing) Detailed Report, 3/29/2023 19 / 30
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1498
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center (Existing) Detailed Report, 3/29/2023 20 / 30
Subtotal——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Remove d——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
———————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Avoided——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Remove d——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
———————————————————
Annual——————————————————
Avoided——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Remove d——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
———————————————————
1499
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center (Existing) Detailed Report, 3/29/2023 21 / 30

5. Activity Data

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Automobile Care
Center
1,468 23.1 9.22 384,415 14,723 424 169 3,869,280
User Defined Retail 75.0 1.13 0.49 19,644 1,148 17.3 7.42 300,560

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 0.00 242,538 80,846 —

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 250

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
1500
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center (Existing) Detailed Report, 3/29/2023 22 / 30

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) Automobile Care Center 1,542,173 349 0.0330 0.0040 6,934,341 User Defined Retail 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) Automobile Care Center 15,212,162 0.00
User Defined Retail 0.00 0.00

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Automobile Care Center 618 0.00
User Defined Retail 0.00 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 Automobile Care Center Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
1501
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center (Existing) Detailed Report, 3/29/2023 23 / 30
Automobile Care Center Supermarket User Defined 150 26.5 16.5 16.5 18.0 refrigeration and
condensing units

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor

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 1502
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center (Existing) Detailed Report, 3/29/2023 24 / 30

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

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

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 20.2 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 3.05 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise 0.00 meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 4.39 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. 1503
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center (Existing) Detailed Report, 3/29/2023 25 / 30
Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 2 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 0 0 N/A
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

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

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

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 2 1 1 3
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
1504
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center (Existing) Detailed Report, 3/29/2023 26 / 30
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 91.1
AQ-PM 95.7
AQ-DPM 96.6
Drinking Water 93.3
Lead Risk Housing 8.61
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 78.9
Traffic 89.1
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 0.00
Groundwater 30.9
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 78.8
Impaired Water Bodies 0.00
Solid Waste 70.4
1505
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center (Existing) Detailed Report, 3/29/2023 27 / 30
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 47.3
Cardio-vascular 67.3
Low Birth Weights 57.1
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 40.5
Housing 32.3
Linguistic 18.1
Poverty 23.9
Unemployment 53.9

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 76.78686
Employed 63.51854228
Median HI 68.57436161
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 44.59129988
High school enrollment 3.977928911
Preschool enrollment 15.60374695
Transportation —
Auto Access 88.68215065
Active commuting 10.11163865
Social —
2-parent households 11.86962659
1506
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center (Existing) Detailed Report, 3/29/2023 28 / 30
Voting 50.91749006
Neighborhood—
Alcohol availability 69.3314513
Park access 61.63223406
Retail density 69.31861927
Supermarket access 2.399589375
Tree canopy 29.69331451
Housing—
Homeownership 78.81432054
Housing habitability 80.20017965
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 88.74631079 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 37.86731682
Uncrowded housing 60.77248813
Health Outcomes—
Insured adults 67.2783267
Arthritis 74.6
Asthma ER Admissions 54.3
High Blood Pressure 79.9
Cancer (excluding skin) 68.9
Asthma 49.0
Coronary Heart Disease 85.5
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 74.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 64.3
Life Expectancy at Birth 52.5
Cognitively Disabled 87.2
Physically Disabled 77.4
Heart Attack ER Admissions 10.4
1507
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center (Existing) Detailed Report, 3/29/2023 29 / 30
Mental Health Not Good 50.5
Chronic Kidney Disease 79.8
Obesity 43.5
Pedestrian Injuries 99.0
Physical Health Not Good 58.2
Stroke 80.6
Health Risk Behaviors—
Binge Drinking 19.3
Current Smoker 53.5
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 61.3
Climate Change Exposures—
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 32.5
Elderly 84.2
English Speaking 91.4
Foreign-born 35.9
Outdoor Workers 45.5
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity—
Impervious Surface Cover 76.5
Traffic Density 89.2
Traffic Access 46.3
Other Indices—
Hardship 44.0
Other Decision Support—
2016 Voting 74.5
1508
15364 - Woodruff Way Logistics Center (Existing) Detailed Report, 3/29/2023 30 / 30

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 65.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 42.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) Yes 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
Screen Justification
Land Use Taken from client data
Operations: Vehicle Data Trip characteristics taken from Trip Generation Assessment Operations: Fleet Mix Passenger Car Mix estimated based on CalEEMod default fleet mix and the ratio of the vehicle classes (LDA, LDT1, LDT2, MDV, MCY).

Truck Fleet Mix based on 2, 3 and 4 axle trucks
Operations: Architectural Coatings SCAQMD Rule 1113
Operations: Refrigerants As of 1 January 2022, new commercial refrigeration equipment may not use refrigerants with a GWP of 150 or greater. Further, R-404A (the CalEEMod default) is unacceptable for new supermarket and cold storage systems as of 1 January 2019 and 2023, respectively. 1509
15364-03 AQ & GHG Assessment

ATTACHMENT D
CALEEMOD TOP 2050 OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS MODEL

OUTPUTS
1510
15364 Woodruff Logistics TOP 2050 Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 1 / 31
15364 Woodruff Logistics TOP 2050 Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source
1511
15364 Woodruff Logistics TOP 2050 Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 2 / 31

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

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 1512
15364 Woodruff Logistics TOP 2050 Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 3 / 31

5. Activity Data

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
1513
15364 Woodruff Logistics TOP 2050 Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 4 / 31

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
1514
15364 Woodruff Logistics TOP 2050 Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 5 / 31

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
1515
15364 Woodruff Logistics TOP 2050 Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 6 / 31

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name 15364 Woodruff Logistics TOP 2050
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.80
Precipitation (days) 20.8
Location 1350 S Woodruff Way, Ontario, CA 91761, USA
County San Bernardino-South Coast
City Ontario
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 5284
EDFZ 10
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
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
399 1000sqft 9.16 398,901 0.00 — — —
User Defined
Industrial
399 User Defined Unit 0.00 0.00 0.00 — — —
1516
15364 Woodruff Logistics TOP 2050 Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 7 / 31

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

2. Emissions Summary

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 14.5 21.8 19.5 158 0.36 0.43 10.7 11.1 0.42 1.92 2.34 379 40,594 40,973 40.4 2.48 547 43,269 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 10.9 18.5 20.6 114 0.34 0.41 10.7 11.1 0.39 1.92 2.31 379 38,391 38,770 40.5 2.52 410 40,943 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 11.5 19.2 18.4 114 0.29 0.39 9.17 9.56 0.38 1.65 2.03 379 34,012 34,391 40.2 2.25 459 36,526 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.10 3.50 3.35 20.8 0.05 0.07 1.67 1.75 0.07 0.30 0.37 62.7 5,631 5,694 6.66 0.37 76.0 6,047

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1517
15364 Woodruff Logistics TOP 2050 Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 8 / 31
Mobile 11.2 9.33 17.3 139 0.35 0.25 10.7 10.9 0.24 1.92 2.16 — 35,732 35,732 1.67 2.01 141 36,513 Area 3.08 12.4 0.15 17.3 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.03 — 0.03 — 71.3 71.3 < 0.005 0.01 — 73.4 Energy 0.22 0.11 2.04 1.71 0.01 0.15 — 0.15 0.15 — 0.15 — 4,190 4,190 0.38 0.02 — 4,207 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 177 600 777 18.2 0.44 — 1,361 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 202 0.00 202 20.2 0.00 — 707 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 407 407
Total 14.5 21.8 19.5 158 0.36 0.43 10.7 11.1 0.42 1.92 2.34 379 40,594 40,973 40.4 2.48 547 43,269 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 10.7 8.87 18.5 112 0.32 0.25 10.7 10.9 0.24 1.92 2.16 — 33,602 33,602 1.70 2.06 3.65 34,261 Area — 9.55 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.22 0.11 2.04 1.71 0.01 0.15 — 0.15 0.15 — 0.15 — 4,190 4,190 0.38 0.02 — 4,207 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 177 600 777 18.2 0.44 — 1,361 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 202 0.00 202 20.2 0.00 — 707 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 407 407
Total 10.9 18.5 20.6 114 0.34 0.41 10.7 11.1 0.39 1.92 2.31 379 38,391 38,770 40.5 2.52 410 40,943 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 9.17 7.58 16.2 100 0.28 0.22 9.17 9.39 0.21 1.65 1.85 — 29,173 29,173 1.46 1.78 52.3 29,793 Area 2.11 11.5 0.10 11.9 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 48.9 48.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 50.3 Energy 0.22 0.11 2.04 1.71 0.01 0.15 — 0.15 0.15 — 0.15 — 4,190 4,190 0.38 0.02 — 4,207 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 177 600 777 18.2 0.44 — 1,361 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 202 0.00 202 20.2 0.00 — 707 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 407 407
Total 11.5 19.2 18.4 114 0.29 0.39 9.17 9.56 0.38 1.65 2.03 379 34,012 34,391 40.2 2.25 459 36,526 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.67 1.38 2.96 18.3 0.05 0.04 1.67 1.71 0.04 0.30 0.34 — 4,830 4,830 0.24 0.30 8.66 4,933 Area 0.39 2.10 0.02 2.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 8.09 8.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.331518 15364 Woodruff Logistics TOP 2050 Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 9 / 31
Energy 0.04 0.02 0.37 0.31 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 694 694 0.06 < 0.005 — 697 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 29.3 99.3 129 3.01 0.07 — 225 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 33.5 0.00 33.5 3.34 0.00 — 117 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 67.3 67.3
Total 2.10 3.50 3.35 20.8 0.05 0.07 1.67 1.75 0.07 0.30 0.37 62.7 5,631 5,694 6.66 0.37 76.0 6,047

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail

10.1 9.08 6.81 133 0.26 0.12 9.25 9.36 0.11 1.58 1.69 — 26,546 26,546 0.89 0.64 114 26,872 User
Defined
Industrial

1.06 0.25 10.5 5.93 0.08 0.14 1.42 1.56 0.13 0.34 0.47 — 9,187 9,187 0.78 1.37 26.8 9,641 Total 11.2 9.33 17.3 139 0.35 0.25 10.7 10.9 0.24 1.92 2.16 — 35,732 35,732 1.67 2.01 141 36,513 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1519
15364 Woodruff Logistics TOP 2050 Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 10 / 31
Unrefrige 9.66 8.63 7.60 106 0.24 0.12 9.25 9.36 0.11 1.58 1.69 — 24,413 24,413 0.92 0.69 2.96 24,644 rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
User
Defined
Industrial

1.05 0.24 10.9 5.93 0.08 0.14 1.42 1.56 0.13 0.34 0.47 — 9,188 9,188 0.78 1.37 0.69 9,617 Total 10.7 8.87 18.5 112 0.32 0.25 10.7 10.9 0.24 1.92 2.16 — 33,602 33,602 1.70 2.06 3.65 34,261 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail

1.51 1.35 1.23 17.4 0.04 0.02 1.45 1.47 0.02 0.25 0.26 — 3,521 3,521 0.13 0.10 7.01 3,561 User
Defined
Industrial

0.16 0.04 1.73 0.93 0.01 0.02 0.22 0.25 0.02 0.05 0.07 — 1,309 1,309 0.11 0.20 1.65 1,371 Total 1.67 1.38 2.96 18.3 0.05 0.04 1.67 1.71 0.04 0.30 0.34 — 4,830 4,830 0.24 0.30 8.66 4,933

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,760 1,760 0.17 0.02 — 1,770
1520
15364 Woodruff Logistics TOP 2050 Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 11 / 31
User — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Defined
Industrial
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,760 1,760 0.17 0.02 — 1,770 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,760 1,760 0.17 0.02 — 1,770
User
Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,760 1,760 0.17 0.02 — 1,770 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — 291 291 0.03 < 0.005 — 293
User
Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 291 291 0.03 < 0.005 — 293

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1521
15364 Woodruff Logistics TOP 2050 Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 12 / 31
Unrefrige
Warehouse-No
Rail

0.22 0.11 2.04 1.71 0.01 0.15 — 0.15 0.15 — 0.15 — 2,430 2,430 0.22 < 0.005 — 2,437 User
Defined
Industrial

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.22 0.11 2.04 1.71 0.01 0.15 — 0.15 0.15 — 0.15 — 2,430 2,430 0.22 < 0.005 — 2,437 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail

0.22 0.11 2.04 1.71 0.01 0.15 — 0.15 0.15 — 0.15 — 2,430 2,430 0.22 < 0.005 — 2,437 User
Defined
Industrial

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.22 0.11 2.04 1.71 0.01 0.15 — 0.15 0.15 — 0.15 — 2,430 2,430 0.22 < 0.005 — 2,437 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail

0.04 0.02 0.37 0.31 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 402 402 0.04 < 0.005 — 403 User
Defined
Industrial

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.04 0.02 0.37 0.31 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 402 402 0.04 < 0.005 — 403

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 1522
15364 Woodruff Logistics TOP 2050 Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 13 / 31
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
— 8.54 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 1.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

3.08 2.84 0.15 17.3 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.03 — 0.03 — 71.3 71.3 < 0.005 0.01 — 73.4 Total 3.08 12.4 0.15 17.3 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.03 — 0.03 — 71.3 71.3 < 0.005 0.01 — 73.4 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 8.54 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 1.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — 9.55 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 1.56 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.18 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

0.39 0.36 0.02 2.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 8.09 8.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.33 1523
15364 Woodruff Logistics TOP 2050 Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 14 / 31
Total 0.39 2.10 0.02 2.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 8.09 8.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.33

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 177 600 777 18.2 0.44 — 1,361
User
Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 177 600 777 18.2 0.44 — 1,361 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 177 600 777 18.2 0.44 — 1,361
User
Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 177 600 777 18.2 0.44 — 1,361 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1524
15364 Woodruff Logistics TOP 2050 Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 15 / 31
Unrefrige — — — — — — — — — — — 29.3 99.3 129 3.01 0.07 — 225 rated
User
Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 29.3 99.3 129 3.01 0.07 — 225

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) 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 202 0.00 202 20.2 0.00 — 707
User
Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 202 0.00 202 20.2 0.00 — 707 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 202 0.00 202 20.2 0.00 — 707
1525
15364 Woodruff Logistics TOP 2050 Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 16 / 31
User — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Defined
Industrial
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 202 0.00 202 20.2 0.00 — 707 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 33.5 0.00 33.5 3.34 0.00 — 117
User
Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 33.5 0.00 33.5 3.34 0.00 — 117

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 407 407
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 407 407
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1526
15364 Woodruff Logistics TOP 2050 Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 17 / 31
Unrefrige — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 407 407
rated
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 407 407
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 67.3 67.3
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 67.3 67.3

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

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

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
1527
15364 Woodruff Logistics TOP 2050 Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 18 / 31

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1528
15364 Woodruff Logistics TOP 2050 Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 19 / 31
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1529
15364 Woodruff Logistics TOP 2050 Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 20 / 31
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1530
15364 Woodruff Logistics TOP 2050 Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 21 / 31
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
1,844 261 1,890 592,910 33,799 4,782 34,642 10,867,554
User Defined
Industrial
102 14.4 105 32,822 3,066 431 3,137 985,321

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
1531
15364 Woodruff Logistics TOP 2050 Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 22 / 31
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 0.00 598,352 199,451 —

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 250

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No
Rail
1,842,405 349 0.0330 0.0040 7,583,379
User Defined Industrial 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) Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 92,245,856 0.00
User Defined Industrial 0.00 0.00

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
1532
15364 Woodruff Logistics TOP 2050 Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 23 / 31
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 375 0.00
User Defined Industrial 0.00 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 Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
Cold storage User Defined 150 7.50 7.50 7.50 25.0

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor

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
1533
15364 Woodruff Logistics TOP 2050 Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 24 / 31
— —

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

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

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 20.2 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 3.05 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise 0.00 meters of inundation depth
1534
15364 Woodruff Logistics TOP 2050 Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 25 / 31
Wildfire 4.39 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 2 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 0 0 N/A
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

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

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

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 2 1 1 3
1535
15364 Woodruff Logistics TOP 2050 Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 26 / 31
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 91.1
AQ-PM 95.7
AQ-DPM 96.6
Drinking Water 93.3
Lead Risk Housing 8.61
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 78.9
Traffic 89.1
1536
15364 Woodruff Logistics TOP 2050 Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 27 / 31
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 0.00
Groundwater 30.9
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 78.8
Impaired Water Bodies 0.00
Solid Waste 70.4
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 47.3
Cardio-vascular 67.3
Low Birth Weights 57.1
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 40.5
Housing 32.3
Linguistic 18.1
Poverty 23.9
Unemployment 53.9

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 76.78686
Employed 63.51854228
Median HI 68.57436161
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 44.59129988
High school enrollment 3.977928911
1537
15364 Woodruff Logistics TOP 2050 Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 28 / 31
Preschool enrollment 15.60374695
Transportation—
Auto Access 88.68215065
Active commuting 10.11163865
Social—
2-parent households 11.86962659
Voting 50.91749006
Neighborhood—
Alcohol availability 69.3314513
Park access 61.63223406
Retail density 69.31861927
Supermarket access 2.399589375
Tree canopy 29.69331451
Housing—
Homeownership 78.81432054
Housing habitability 80.20017965
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 88.74631079 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 37.86731682
Uncrowded housing 60.77248813
Health Outcomes—
Insured adults 67.2783267
Arthritis 74.6
Asthma ER Admissions 54.3
High Blood Pressure 79.9
Cancer (excluding skin) 68.9
Asthma 49.0
Coronary Heart Disease 85.5
1538
15364 Woodruff Logistics TOP 2050 Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 29 / 31
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 74.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 64.3
Life Expectancy at Birth 52.5
Cognitively Disabled 87.2
Physically Disabled 77.4
Heart Attack ER Admissions 10.4
Mental Health Not Good 50.5
Chronic Kidney Disease 79.8
Obesity 43.5
Pedestrian Injuries 99.0
Physical Health Not Good 58.2
Stroke 80.6
Health Risk Behaviors—
Binge Drinking 19.3
Current Smoker 53.5
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 61.3
Climate Change Exposures—
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 32.5
Elderly 84.2
English Speaking 91.4
Foreign-born 35.9
Outdoor Workers 45.5
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity—
Impervious Surface Cover 76.5
Traffic Density 89.2
1539
15364 Woodruff Logistics TOP 2050 Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 30 / 31
Traffic Access 46.3
Other Indices —
Hardship 44.0
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 74.5

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 65.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 42.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) Yes 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
Screen Justification
Operations: Vehicle Data Trip Characteristics based on information provided in the Traffic Analysis 1540
15364 Woodruff Logistics TOP 2050 Detailed Report, 3/30/2023 31 / 31
Operations: Fleet Mix Passenger Car Mix estimated based on CalEEMod default fleet mix and the ratio of the vehicle classes (LDA, LDT1, LDT2, MDV, MCY). Truck Fleet Mix based on 2, 3 and 4 axle trucks Operations: Refrigerants Per 17 CCR 95371, new refrigeration equipment containing >50 lbs of refrigerant in new facilities is prohibited from utilizing refrigerants with a GWP of 150 or greater as of 1 Jan 2022. 1541
14010 Poway Road, Suite A, Poway, California 92064; Phone 858-484-0915 February 23, 2023
Tracy Chu
T&B Planning, Inc.
3200 El Camino Real, Suite 100
Irvine, California 92602
RE: Cultural Resources Records Search Results for the Woodruff Logistics Center Project, Ontario, California
Dear Ms. Chu:

An archaeological records search has been completed for the Woodruff Logistics Center Project located at 1350 and 1375 South Woodruff Way, in the city of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California. The project includes the proposed construction of an industrial structure within Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 238-221-22 and 238-201-41. As part of the environmental review process, BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company (BFSA), reviewed the results of the records search from the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton. The records search, which was completed on January 18, 2023, encompassed an area of one mile surrounding the project.

Based upon the records search results, one resource has been recorded within one mile of the project, which is not within the project boundaries. The resource is a historic railroad.

The records search results also indicate that 18 previous studies have been conducted within one mile of the project, one of which overlaps the entire subject property (Smith and Lerch 1981). This study was conducted in 1981 for the construction of the proposed Ontario Industrial Park. It found no cultural resources in the study area. One study is directly adjacent to the subject property (Davis 1988). Conducted in 1988 in anticipation of development, the survey found no cultural resources.

BFSA requested a review of the Sacred Lands Files(SLF) by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on January 16, 2023, to determine if any recorded Native American sacred sites or locations of religious or ceremonial importance are present within one mile of the project.

The NAHC SLF search did not indicate the presence of sacred sites or locations of religious or ceremonial importance within the search radius. This request is not part of any Assembly Bill 52 Native American consultation.
1542
BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company — Page 2 The full results of the completed records search are attached to this letter report (Attachments A and B). Please contact us should you have any questions or require additional studies for this project.

Regards,
Brian F. Smith
BFS:es
Attachments:

Attachment A – Archaeological Records Search Results
Attachment B – NAHC Sacred Lands File Search Results
1543
The Woodruff Logistics Center Project
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

ATTACHMENT A
Archaeological Records Search Results
1544
BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company

CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL RESOURCES INFORMATION SYSTEMS

RECORDS SEARCH
Company: BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company Processed By: Emily T. Soong
Date Processed: January 18, 2023
Project Identification: Woodruff Logistics Center
Information Center: South Central Coastal Information Center Search Radius: 1 Mile Buffer
Historical Resources:

Trinomial and Primary site maps have been reviewed. All sites within the project boundaries and the specified radius of the project area have been plotted. Copies of the site record forms have been reviewed for all recorded sites.

There is one resources located within a mile radius of the current project area, which is not located within the subject property.

Previous Survey Report Boundaries:

Project boundary maps have been reviewed. National Archaeological Database (NADB) citations for reports within the project boundaries and within the specified radius of the project area have been reviewed.

There are 18 reports within a mile radius of the current project area, one of which overlaps with the property (SB-01180) and is one directly adjacent to the property (SB02194). 1545
1546
Primary No. Trinomial
Resource List
Other IDs Type Age Attribute codes Recorded by Reports
P-36-010330 CA-SBR-010330H Resource Name - Union Pacific Railroad;
Other - Southern Pacific Railroad;
Other - West Line Basin
Alignment;
Other - Union Pacific Railroad
Crossing at Anderson Street;
Other - 19-186112
SB-04335, SB05495, SB-05614,
SB-06291, SB06720, SB-07451,
SB-07666, SB-07955
Structure,
Object
Historic AH07; HP39 1999 (S. Ashkar, Jones & Stokes
Associates, Inc.);
2002 (Goodwin, R., LSA Associates,
Inc.);
2008 (Harper, C.D., SWCA);
2010 (Tibbet, C., LSA Associates,
Inc.);
2012 (Paul, Daniel D., ICF
International)