Addendum
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project December 2023 4.21-2 References
Files/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/Land%20Use/Figure%20LU03%20Future%20Buildout%20Table_5.pdf City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050, Environmental Resources Element. Retrieved from:
https://www.ontarioca.gov/about-ontario-ontario-plan-policy-plan/environmental-resources. (Accessed August 2023).
City of Ontario. 2021. The Ontario Plan 2050 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. Figure
5.17-3. Retrieved from: https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/EIR/Final_DraftSEIR_TOP2050.pdf. (Accessed September 2023).
City of Ontario. 2022. Ontario Community Climate Action Plan. Retrieved from:
https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/CCAP/Ontario-CCAP_Adopted_20220816.pdf. (Accessed August 2023).
City of Ontario. Ontario Community Climate Action Plan: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Screening Tables, Table 3. Retrieved from: https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/CCAP/Screening%20Table/Ontario-CCAP_Screening-Tables-MARCH%202023.pdf. (Accessed August 2023).
City of Ontario, The Ontario Plan 2050, Safety Element, S-4 Noises Hazards. Figure S-06c Airport Noise Contours, 2020.
Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) [i.e., PSD (40 CFR 52.21, 40 CFR 51.166, 40 CFR 51.165 (b)), Nonattainment NSR (40 CFR 52.24, 40 CFR 51.165, 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S) Elliott H. Berger, Rick Neitzel, and Cynthia A. Kladden, Noise Navigator Sound Level Database with Over 1700 Measurement Values, July 6, 2010.
Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018.
FEMA’s National Flood Hazard Layer. 06071C8608H. Retrieved from: https://hazardsfema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b5529aa 9cd. (Accessed July 2023).
GeoKinetics. 2022. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Ontario Plaza 1000 – 1060 West Fourth Street & 1118 – 1126 North Mountain Avenue Ontario, California. Irvine, CA: GeoKinetics Inland Empire Utilities Agency. 2023. Explanation of Fees. Retrieved from: https://www.ieua.org/viewffees-rates/. (Accessed September 2023).
Kariel, H. G., Noise in Rural Recreational Environments, Canadian Acoustics 19(5), 3-10, 1991. 628
Addendum
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project December 2023 4.21-3 References
Ontario Airport Planning. 2018. Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, Map 2-1:
Compatibility Policy Map: Airport Influence Area. Retrieved from: https://www.ont-iac.com/wpcontent/uploads/2019/02/ONT-AIA-policy-map-2-1.pdf. (Accessed September 2023).
Ontario Airport Planning. 2018. Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, Map 2-2:
Compatibility Policy Map: Safety Zones. Retrieved from: https://www.ont-iac.com/wpcontent/uploads/2019/02/ONT-AIA-policy-map-2-2.pdf. (Accessed September 2023).
SB 100. 2023. 100% Clean Energy FAQs. Retrieved from: https://focus.senate.ca.gov/sb100/faqs. (Accessed August 2023).
Southern California Association of Governments, Connect SoCal (2020 - 2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, 2020.
Southern California Association of Governments. 2001. Employment Density Study Summary Report.
Retrieved from:
https://www.mwcog.org/file.aspx?A=QTTlTR24POOOUIw5mPNzK8F4d8djdJe4LF9Exj6lXOU%3D (Accessed September 2023).
Southern California Edison. 2023. Carbon Neutrality by 2045. Retrieved from:
https://www.edison.com/our-perspective/pathway-2045. (Accessed August 2023).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment and Home Appliances, NTID300.1, December 31, 1971.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Protective Noise Levels (EPA 550/9-79-100), 1979. 629
Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project
City of Ontario Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Repor December 2023
APPENDIX A – MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM
630
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project 1 Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Impact Report The Following Mitigation Measures from The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report have been included in the Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project (Project) Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Addendum EIR).
Table A-1: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measures Responsibility for
Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
AIR QUALITY
MM 3-1: Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Ontario for development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., nonexempt projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project construction-related air quality impacts to the City of Ontario Planning Department for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) methodology for assessing air quality impacts. If construction-related criteria air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the South Coast AQMD–adopted thresholds of significance, the City of Ontario Building Department shall require feasible mitigation measures to reduce air quality emissions. Potential measures shall be incorporated as conditions of approval for a project and may include:
Requiring fugitive dust control measures that exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Rule 403, such as:
Requiring use of nontoxic soil stabilizers to reduce wind erosion.
Applying water every four hours to active soil disturbing activities.
Tarping and/or maintaining a minimum of 24 inches of
freeboard on trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials.
Using construction equipment rated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as having Tier 3 or higher exhaust emission limits.
Ensuring construction equipment is properly serviced and maintained to the manufacturer’s standards.
Project Applicant Prior to individual
project approvals
and during
construction
activities
City of Ontario
Planning/Building Department
631
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project 2 Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Impact Report Mitigation Measures Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
Limiting nonessential idling of construction equipment to no more than five consecutive minutes.
Using Super-Compliant VOC paints for coating of architectural surfaces whenever possible. A list of Super-Compliant architectural coating manufactures can be found on the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s website at: http://www.aqmd.gov/
prdas/brochures/Super-Compliant_AIM.pdf.
These identified measures shall be incorporated into all appropriate construction documents (e.g., construction management plans) submitted to the City and shall be verified by the City’s Planning Department.
MM 3-2: The City of Ontario shall evaluate new development proposals within the City and require all developments to include access or linkages to alternative modes of transportation, such as transit stops, bike paths, and/or pedestrian paths (e.g., sidewalks).
Project Applicant Prior to individual
project approvals
City of Ontario Building
Department
AQ-1: Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Ontario for development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., nonexempt projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project operation-phase-related air quality impacts to the City of Ontario Planning Department for review and approval.
The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) methodology in assessing air quality impacts. If operation-related air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the South Coast AQMD–adopted thresholds of significance, the City of Ontario Planning Department shall require that applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during operational activities. The identified measures shall be included as part of the conditions of approval. Possible mitigation measures to reduce long-term emissions could include, but are not limited to the following:
For site-specific development that requires refrigerated vehicles, the construction documents shall demonstrate an adequate number of electrical service connections at loading docks for plugin of the anticipated number of refrigerated trailers to reduce idling time and emissions.
Applicants for manufacturing and light industrial uses shall consider energy storage and combined heat and power in appropriate Project Applicant Prior to individual
project approvals
City of Ontario Building
Department
632
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project 3 Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Impact Report Mitigation Measures Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
applications to optimize renewable energy generation systems and avoid peak energy use.
Site-specific developments with truck delivery and loading areas and truck parking spaces shall include signage as a reminder to limit idling of vehicles while parked for loading/unloading in accordance with California Air Resources Board Rule 2845 (13 CCR Chapter 10 sec. 2485).
Provide changing/shower facilities as specified in Section A5.106.4.3 of CALGreen (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures). Provide bicycle parking facilities per Section A4.106.9 of CALGreen (Residential Voluntary Measures).
Provide preferential parking spaces for low-emitting, fuel-efficient, and carpool/van vehicles per Section A5.106.5.1 of CALGreen (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures).
Provide facilities to support electric charging stations per Section A5.106.5.3 and Section A5.106.8.2 of CALGreen (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures; Residential Voluntary Measures).
Applicant-provided appliances shall be Energy Star–certified appliances or appliances of equivalent energy efficiency (e.g., dishwashers, refrigerators, clothes washers, and dryers).
Installation of Energy Star–certified or equivalent appliances shall be verified by the City during plan check.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
MM 5-1: Historic or potentially historic resources in the City shall be evaluated for historic significance through the City’s tier system prior to the issuance of plan or development approval. Pursuant to City’s Development Code (Chapter 4, Permit, Actions, and Decisions, and Chapter 7, Historic Preservation), mitigation measures for all Tier III Historic Resources shall include the following:
a) Each historic resource shall be fully documented and cataloged pursuant to Historic American Building Survey/Historic American Engineering Record (HABS/HAER) standards, to provide a record of the resource, including, but not limited to: [i] the preparation of site plans, floor plans, exterior and interior elevations, and detail drawings of character defining features (such as moldings, stairs, Project Applicant Prior to individual
project approvals.
City of Ontario Building
Department
633
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project 4 Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Impact Report Mitigation Measures Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
etc.); and [ii] photographs of the resource, including the exterior, interior, and interior and exterior character defining features (such as moldings, light fixtures, trim patterns, etc.).
b) A mitigation fee established pursuant to Section 7.01.030 (Historic Preservation Mitigation Fee) shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for Tier III historic resources. Fees for Tier I and II historic resources shall be determined during the Environmental Impact Report process. The fees established for Tier III will be used as a reference point for establishing fees for Tier I and II historic resources.
c) A Certificate of Appropriateness shall not be issued for the demolition of an historic resource, either in whole or in part, until such time that a demolition permit application and a replacement structure has been approved by the City, and appropriate permits have been issued for its construction, unless: [i] a waiver is granted pursuant to Subsection H (Replacement Structure Waiver for Historic Resources Located within Industrial Zoning Districts) of Section 4.02.050; [ii] a deferral of the replacement structure requirement is granted pursuant to Subsection G (Replacement Structure Deferral) of Section 4.02.050; or [iii] demolition is required pursuant to Section 7.01.050 (Unsafe or Dangerous Conditions) of this Development Code.
d) In an effort to preserve features and artifacts from historic resources, a determination whether items within or on the resource should be salvaged must be made by the Planning Department and may include the local historical society prior to the issuance of the demolition permit. The applicant shall be responsible for the removal, relocation, storage, and donation of such items selected for salvaging. The applicant shall provide an inventory of salvaged items to the Planning Department, and shall include a list of each item name, description, and dimension (as necessary), and the location of each item on a floor plan.
MM 5-2: In areas of documented or inferred from evident archaeological and/or paleontological resource presence, City staff shall require applicants for development permits to provide studies to document the presence/absence of such resources. On properties where resources are identified, such studies shall provide a detailed mitigation plan, including a monitoring program and recovery and/or in situ preservation plan, based on the recommendations of a qualified cultural preservation expert. The mitigation plan shall include the following requirements:
Project Applicant Prior to individual
project approvals
and during ground
disturbing activities
City of Ontario Planning
Department
634
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project 5 Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Impact Report Mitigation Measures Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
a) Archaeologists and/or paleontologist shall be retained for the project and will be on call during grading and other significant ground-disturbing activities.
b) Should any cultural resources be discovered, no further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Planning Director or designee is satisfied that adequate provisions are in place to protect these resources.
c) Unanticipated discoveries shall be evaluated for significance by a San Bernardino County Certified Professional
Archaeologist/Paleontologist. If significance criteria are met, then the project shall be required to perform data recovery, professional identification, radiocarbon dates, and other special studies; submit materials to a museum for permanent curation; and provide a comprehensive final report including catalog with museum numbers.
NOISE
MM 12-1: Prior to the issuance of building permits for any project that involves a noise-sensitive use within the 65 dBA CNEL contour of the Ontario International Airport, the Project property owner/developers shall retain an acoustical engineer to conduct an acoustic analysis and identify, where appropriate, site design features and/or required building acoustical improvements (e.g., sound transmission class rated windows, doors, and attic baffling), to ensure compliance with the City’s Noise Compatibility Criteria and the California State Building Code and California Noise Insulation Standards (Titles 24 and 21 of the California Code of Regulations Project Applicant Prior to issuance of
building permits
City of Ontario Planning
Department
MM 12-2: Prior to issuance of a building permit, individual projects that involve vibration-intensive construction activities, such as pile drivers, jack hammers, and vibratory rollers occurring near sensitive receptors shall be evaluated for potential vibration impacts. For construction within 135 feet of fragile structures, such as historical resources, within 100 feet of nonengineered timber and masonry buildings (e.g., most residential buildings), or within 75 feet of engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster); or a vibratory roller within 25 feet of any structure, the project applicant shall prepare a noise and vibration analysis to assess and mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts related to these activities. This noise and vibration analysis shall be conducted by a qualified and experienced acoustical consultant or engineer. The vibration levels shall not exceed Federal Transit Administration (FTA) architectural damage thresholds (e.g., 0.12 inches per second [in/sec] peak particle velocity [PPV] for fragile or historical resources,
0.2 in/sec PPV for nonengineered timber and masonry buildings, and 0.3 in/sec PPV for engineered concrete and masonry). If vibration levels would Project Applicant Prior and during
construction
City of Ontario Planning
Department
635
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project 6 Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Impact Report Mitigation Measures Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
exceed this threshold, alternative uses shall be used, such as drilling piles as opposed to pile driving and static rollers as opposed to vibratory rollers. If necessary, construction vibration monitoring shall be conducted to ensure vibration thresholds are not exceeded.
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 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.
Project Applicant Prior and during
construction
City of Ontario Planning
Department
636
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project 7 Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Impact Report Mitigation Measures Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
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 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.
TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
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, Project Applicant Prior to issuance of
grading permit(s)
City of Ontario Planning
Department
637
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project 8 Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Impact Report Mitigation Measures Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
and participation of tribal monitors during grading, excavation, and grounddisturbing 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.
TRC-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 resources evaluation.
At least 30 days prior to application for a grading permit and before any brush clearance, grading, excavation, and/or ground disturbing activities on the site, the developer shall retain a tribal cultural monitor to monitor all grounddisturbing 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.
Project Applicant Prior to and during
construction
City of Ontario Planning
Department
638
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project 9 Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Impact Report Mitigation Measures Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
TRC-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 Project Applicant During construction City of Ontario Planning Department
639
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project 10 Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Impact Report Mitigation Measures Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
and cannot come to an agreement as to the disposition of cultural materials, materials shall be curated at the San Bernardino County Museum by default;
d. At the completion of grading, excavation, and grounddisturbing 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.
640
Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project
City of Ontario Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report December 2023
APPENDIX B – AIR QUALTIY AND GREENHOUSE GAS
ASSESSMENTS
641
Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project
City of Ontario Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report December 2023
APPENDIX B1 – AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT
642
Air Quality Assessment
Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project
City of Ontario, California
Prepared by:
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
3801 University Ave Suite. 300
Riverside, California 92501
Contact: Mr. Alex Pohlman
951.543.9868
August 2023
643
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Air Quality Assessment
August 2023
Page | ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Location ....................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Project Description ................................................................................................................................... 1 2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
2.1 Climate and Meterology........................................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Air Pollutants of Concern ......................................................................................................................... 6
2.3 Sensitive Receptors .................................................................................................................................. 9 3 REGULATORY SETTING
3.1 Federal ................................................................................................................................................... 10
3.2 State of California ................................................................................................................................... 11
3.3 Regional .................................................................................................................................................. 13
3.4 Local ....................................................................................................................................................... 15 4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY
4.1 Air Quality Thresholds ............................................................................................................................ 17
4.2 Plans, Programs, and Policies ................................................................................................................. 18
4.3 Methodology .......................................................................................................................................... 19 5 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
5.1 Air Quality Analysis................................................................................................................................. 21 6 REFERENCES
References .............................................................................................................................................. 35 TABLES
Table 1 Air Contaminants and Associated Public Health Concerns ...................................................................... 6 Table 2 Ambient Air Quality Data ......................................................................................................................... 8 Table 3 Sensitive Receptors .................................................................................................................................. 9 Table 4 State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards ................................................................................. 12 Table 5 South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status ............................................................................................... 14 Table 6 South Coast Air Quality Management District Emissions Thresholds .................................................... 17 Table 7 Local Significance Thresholds for Construction/Operations .................................................................. 18 Table 8 Construction-Related Emissions ............................................................................................................. 23 Table 9 Operational Emissions ............................................................................................................................ 24 Table 10 Equipment-Specific Grading Rates ......................................................................................................... 28 Table 11 Localized Significance of Construction Emissions .................................................................................. 29 Table 12 Localized Significance of Operational Emissions .................................................................................... 29
EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1 Regional Location Map ............................................................................................................................. 2 Exhibit 2 Project Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................................. 3 Exhibit 3 Conceptual Site Plan ................................................................................................................................ 4
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Air Quality Modeling Data
644
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Air Quality Assessment
August 2023
Page | iii
LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS
AQMP air quality management plan
AB Assembly Bill
ADT average daily traffic
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CARB California Air Resources Board
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CCAA California Clean Air Act
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CO carbon monoxide
cy cubic yards
C2H3Cl vinyl chloride
DPM diesel particulate matter
FCAA Federal Clean Air Act
H2S hydrogen sulfide
Pb lead
LST local significance threshold
µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
mg/m3 milligrams per cubic meter
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOx nitrogen oxide
O3 ozone
PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter ppm parts per million
ROG reactive organic gases
RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy SB Senate Bill
SRA source receptor area
SCAB South Coast Air Basin
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
sf square foot
SO4-2 sulfates
SO2 sulfur dioxide
TAC toxic air contaminant
U.S. EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
VOC volatile organic compound
645
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Air Quality Assessment
August 2023
Page | 1
1 INTRODUCTION
This report documents the results of an Air Quality Assessment completed for Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project (Project). The purpose of this Air Quality Assessment is to evaluate the potential construction and operational emissions associated with the Project and determine the level of impact the Project would have on the environment.
This analysis has been undertaken to analyze whether the proposed Project would result in any new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts as compared to the conclusions discussed in The Ontario Plan 2050, certified Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (General Plan EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364). The purpose of this analysis is to support an Addendum EIR that will document whether any new air quality-related impacts would occur from the Project (described below) compared to the level of significance that was identified in the General Plan EIR pursuant to State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15162 (et seq.).
1.1 Project Location
The project site is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Mountain Avenue and 4th Street.
The project site currently consists of a United States Post Office building and a commercial building with various retail uses. The City of Ontario is located in the San Bernardino Valley within San Bernardino County approximately 60 miles east of Los Angeles, California; see Exhibit 1: Regional Location Map and Exhibit 2: Project Vicinity Map.
1.2 Project Description
The applicant proposes to demolish the existing uses and proposes the development of a four-story Type V warp building containing multifamily residential and retail uses as well as a six level Type III above grade parking structure. The Project would include the development of 357 multi-family dwelling units, approximately 2,700 square feet (sf) of leasing, 5,700 sf of amenity space, and 3,800 sf of retail on 5.8 acres; refer to Exhibit 3: Conceptual Site Plan.
646
Source: ArcGIS Pro World Street Map
Not to scale
Exhibit 1: Regional Locaon Map
Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project, City of Ontario
PROJECT
LOCATION
647
Source: Google Earth
Not to scale
Exhibit 2: Project Vicinity Map
Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project, City of Ontario 4th Street
Harvard Place
Rosewood Court
J Street J Street
Princeton Street
Yale Street
Mountain Avenue
Azalea Avenue
Palmetto Avenue
Boulder Avenue
Boulder Avenue
648
Source: TCA Architects
Not to scale
Exhibit 3: Conceptual Site Plan
Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project, City of Ontario 649 City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Air Quality Assessment
August 2023
Page | 5
2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
2.1 Climate and Meteorology
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) divides the State into 15 air basins that share similar meteorological and topographical features. The Project is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which includes the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties, as well as all of Orange County. The SCAB is on a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills, bounded by the Pacific Ocean on the southwest and high mountains forming the remainder of the perimeter1. Air quality in this area is determined by such natural factors as topography, meteorology, and climate, in addition to the presence of existing air pollution sources and ambient conditions. These factors along with applicable regulations are discussed below.
The SCAB is part of a semi-permanent high-pressure zone in the eastern Pacific. As a result, the climate is mild and tempered by cool sea breezes. This usually mild weather pattern is occasionally interrupted by periods of extreme heat, winter storms, and Santa Ana winds. The annual average temperature throughout the 6,645-square-mile SCAB ranges from low 60 to high 80 degrees Fahrenheit with little variance. With more oceanic influence, coastal areas show less variability in annual minimum and maximum temperatures than inland areas.
Contrasting the steady pattern of temperature, rainfall is seasonally and annually highly variable. Almost all annual rainfall occurs between the months of November and April. Summer rainfall is reduced to widely scattered thundershowers near the coast, with slightly heavier activity in the east and over the mountains.
Although the SCAB has a semiarid climate, the air closer to the Earth’s surface is typically moist because of the presence of a shallow marine layer. Except for occasional periods when dry, continental air is brought into the SCAB by offshore winds, the “ocean effect” is dominant. Periods of heavy fog are frequent and low clouds known as high fog are characteristic climatic features, especially along the coast.
Annual average humidity is 70 percent at the coast and 57 percent in the eastern portions of the SCAB.
Wind patterns across the SCAB are characterized by westerly or southwesterly on-shore winds during the day and easterly or northeasterly breezes at night. Wind speed is typically higher during the dry summer months than during the rainy winter. Between periods of wind, air stagnation may occur in both the morning and evening hours. Air stagnation is one of the critical determinants of air quality conditions on any given day. During winter and fall, surface high-pressure systems over the SCAB, combined with other meteorological conditions, result in very strong, downslope Santa Ana winds. These winds normally continue for a few days before predominant meteorological conditions are re-established.
The mountain ranges to the east affect the diffusion of pollutants by inhibiting the eastward transport of pollutants. Air quality in the SCAB generally ranges from fair to poor and is similar to air quality in most of coastal Southern California. The entire region experiences heavy concentrations of air pollutants during prolonged periods of stable atmospheric conditions.
In addition to the characteristic wind patterns that affect the rate and orientation of horizontal pollutant transport, two distinct types of temperature inversions control the vertical depth through which air pollutants are mixed. These inversions are the marine inversion and the radiation inversion. The height of 1 South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993. 650
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Air Quality Assessment
August 2023
Page | 6
the base of the inversion at any given time is called the “mixing height.” The combination of winds and inversions is a critical determinant leading to highly degraded air quality for the SCAB in the summer and generally good air quality in the winter.
2.2 Air Pollutants of Concern
The air pollutants emitted into the ambient air by stationary and mobile sources are regulated by state and federal laws. These regulated air pollutants are known as “criteria air pollutants” and are categorized into primary and secondary pollutants.
Primary air pollutants are emitted directly from sources. Carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxide (NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), coarse particulate matter (PM10), fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and lead are primary air pollutants. Of these, CO, NOX, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 are criteria pollutants.
ROG and NOX are criteria pollutant precursors and form secondary criteria pollutants through chemical and photochemical reactions in the atmosphere. For example, the criteria pollutant ozone (O3) is formed by a chemical reaction between ROG and NOX in the presence of sunlight. O3 and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) are the principal secondary pollutants. Sources and health effects commonly associated with criteria pollutants are summarized in Table 1: Air Contaminants and Associated Public Health Concerns.
Table 1: Air Contaminants and Associated Public Health Concerns Pollutant Major Man-Made Sources Human Health Effects
Particulate Matter
(PM10 and PM2.5)
Power plants, steel mills, chemical plants,
unpaved roads and parking lots, woodburning stoves and fireplaces, automobiles and others.
Increased respiratory symptoms, such as
irritation of the airways, coughing, or difficulty
breathing; asthma; chronic bronchitis; irregular
heartbeat; nonfatal heart attacks; and
premature death in people with heart or lung
disease. Impairs visibility.
Ozone (O3) Formed by a chemical reaction between
reactive organic gases/volatile organic
compounds (ROG or VOC)1
and nitrogen
oxides (NOX) in the presence of sunlight.
Motor vehicle exhaust industrial emissions,
gasoline storage and transport, solvents,
paints and landfills.
Irritates and causes inflammation of the
mucous membranes and lung airways; causes
wheezing, coughing, and pain when inhaling
deeply; decreases lung capacity; aggravates
lung and heart problems. Damages plants;
reduces crop yield.
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) A colorless gas formed when fuel containing sulfur is burned and when gasoline is
extracted from oil. Examples are petroleum
refineries, cement manufacturing, metal
processing facilities, locomotives, and ships.
Respiratory irritant. Aggravates lung and heart
problems. In the presence of moisture and
oxygen, sulfur dioxide converts to sulfuric acid
which can damage marble, iron and steel.
Damages crops and natural vegetation. Impairs
visibility. Precursor to acid rain.
Carbon Monoxide (CO) An odorless, colorless gas formed when carbon in fuel is not burned completely; a
component of motor vehicle exhaust.
Reduces the ability of blood to deliver oxygen
to vital tissues, affecting the cardiovascular and
nervous system. Impairs vision, causes
dizziness, and can lead to unconsciousness or
death.
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) A reddish-brown gas formed during fuel combustion for motor vehicles and
industrial sources. Sources include motor
vehicles, electric utilities, and other sources
that burn fuel.
Respiratory irritant; aggravates lung and heart
problems. Precursor to O3. Contributes to
global warming and nutrient overloading which
deteriorates water quality. Causes brown
discoloration of the atmosphere.
Lead (Pb) Lead is a metal found naturally in the
environment as well as in manufactured
products. The major sources of lead
Exposure to lead occurs mainly through
inhalation of air and ingestion of lead in food,
water, soil, or dust. It accumulates in the blood,
651
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Air Quality Assessment
August 2023
Page | 7
Table 1: Air Contaminants and Associated Public Health Concerns Pollutant Major Man-Made Sources Human Health Effects
emissions have historically been motor
vehicles (such as cars and trucks) and
industrial sources. Due to the phase out of
leaded gasoline, metals processing is the
major source of lead emissions to the air
today. The highest levels of lead in air are
generally found near lead smelters. Other
stationary sources are waste incinerators,
utilities, and lead-acid battery
manufacturers.
bones, and soft tissues and can adversely affect
the kidneys, liver, nervous system, and other
organs. Excessive exposure to lead may cause
neurological impairments such as seizures,
mental retardation, and behavioral disorders.
Even at low doses, lead exposure is associated
with damage to the nervous systems of fetuses
and young children, resulting in learning
deficits and lowered IQ.
1 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs or Reactive Organic Gases [ROG]) are hydrocarbons/organic gases that are formed solely of hydrogen and carbon. There are several subsets of organic gases including ROGs and VOCs. Both ROGs and VOCs are emitted from the incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons or other carbon-based fuels. The major sources of hydrocarbons are combustion engine exhaust, oil refineries, and oil-fueled power plants; other common sources are petroleum fuels, solvents, dry cleaning solutions, and paint (via evaporation).
Source: California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), Health Effects, http://www.capcoa.org/health-effects/, Accessed June 2023.
Toxic Air Contaminants
Toxic air contaminants (TACs) are airborne substances that can cause short-term (acute) or long-term (i.e. chronic, carcinogenic or cancer causing) adverse human health effects (i.e. injury or illness). TACs include both organic and inorganic chemical substances. They may be emitted from a variety of common sources including gasoline stations, automobiles, dry cleaners, industrial operations, and painting operations. The current California list of TACs includes more than 200 compounds, including particulate emissions from diesel-fueled engines.
CARB identified diesel particulate matter (DPM) as a toxic air contaminant. DPM differs from other TACs in that it is not a single substance but rather a complex mixture of hundreds of substances. Diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of particles and gases produced when an engine burns diesel fuel. DPM is a concern because it causes lung cancer; many compounds found in diesel exhaust are carcinogenic. DPM includes the particle-phase constituents in diesel exhaust. The chemical composition and particle sizes of DPM vary between different engine types (heavy-duty, light-duty), engine operating conditions (idle, accelerate, decelerate), fuel formulations (high/low sulfur fuel), and the year of the engine. Some short-term (acute) effects of diesel exhaust include eye, nose, throat, and lung irritation, and diesel exhaust can cause coughs, headaches, light-headedness, and nausea. DPM poses the greatest health risk among the TACs.
Almost all diesel exhaust particle mass is 10 microns or less in diameter. Due to their extremely small size, these particles can be inhaled and eventually trapped in the bronchial and alveolar regions of the lung.
Ambient Air Quality
CARB monitors ambient air quality at approximately 250 air monitoring stations across the State. These stations usually measure pollutant concentrations ten feet above ground level; therefore, air quality is often referred to in terms of ground-level concentrations. Existing levels of ambient air quality, historical trends, and projections near the Project are documented by measurements made by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), the air pollution regulatory agency in the SCAB that maintains air quality monitoring stations which process ambient air quality measurements.
Pollutants of concern in the SCAB include O3, PM10, and PM2.5. The closest air monitoring station to the Project that monitors ambient concentrations of these pollutants is the Mira Loma Van Buren Monitoring 652
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Air Quality Assessment
August 2023
Page | 8
Station (located approximately 9 miles from the Project site). Local air quality data from 2019 to 2021 are provided in Table 2: Ambient Air Quality Data, which lists the monitored maximum concentrations and number of exceedances of state or federal air quality standards for each year.
Table 2: Ambient Air Quality Data
Criteria Pollutant 2019 2020 2021
Ozone (O3)
1 1-hour Maximum Concentration (ppm) 0.131 0.158 0.124
8-hour Maximum Concentration (ppm) 0.107 0.123 0.100
Number of Days Standard Exceeded
CAAQS 1-hour (>0.09 ppm) 31 82 42
NAAQS 8-hour (>0.070 ppm) 52 116 78
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 1
1-hour Maximum Concentration (ppm) 1.45 1.54 0.89
Number of Days Standard Exceeded
NAAQS 1-hour (>35 ppm) 0 0 0
CAAQS 1-hour (>20 ppm) 0 0 0
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
1 1-hour Maximum Concentration (ppm) 0.0579 0.0554 0.0646 Number of Days Standard Exceeded
NAAQS 1-hour (>0.100 ppm) 0 0 0
CAAQS 1-hour (>0.18 ppm) 0 0 0
Particulate Matter Less Than 10 Microns (PM10)
1 National 24-hour Maximum Concentration 125.9 174.8 124.3 State 24-hour Maximum Concentration — — —
State Annual Average Concentration (CAAQS=20 µg/m3) — — — Number of Days Standard Exceeded
NAAQS 24-hour (>150 µg/m3) 0 1 0
CAAQS 24-hour (>50 µg/m3) 0 0 0
Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Microns (PM2.5)
1 National 24-hour Maximum Concentration — — —
State 24-hour Maximum Concentration 91.1 74.0 83.8
Number of Days Standard Exceeded
NAAQS 24-hour (>35 µg/m3) — — —
NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standards; CAAQS = California Ambient Air Quality Standards; ppm = parts per million. µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; – = not measured
1 Measurements taken at the Upland Monitoring Station at 1350 San Bernardino Road, Upland, California 91730 (CARB# 060711004) Source: All pollutant measurements are from the CARB Aerometric Data Analysis and Management system database (https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam) except for CO, which were retrieved from the CARB Air Quality and Meteorological Information System (https://www.arb.ca.gov/aqmis2/aqdselect.php).
653
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Air Quality Assessment
August 2023
Page | 9
2.3 Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive populations are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than is the general population.
Sensitive receptors that are in proximity to localized sources of toxics are of particular concern. Land uses considered sensitive receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes. The Project site is mainly surrounded by residential land uses to the north and east, commercial land uses south and west, and a future church (under construction) to the north. Sensitive land uses nearest to the Project are shown in Table 3: Sensitive Receptors.
Table 3: Sensitive Receptors
Receptor Description Distance and Direction from the Project Single-family Residences Adjacent to the east
Single-family Residences Adjacent to the north
Church 23 feet to the north
Anthony Munoz Park 869 feet to the northwest
Elderberry Elementary School 1,101 feet to the southwest Hawthorne Elementary School 1,820 feet to the northeast Chaffey High School 2,869 feet to the east
Source: Google Earth
654
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Air Quality Assessment
August 2023
Page | 10
3 REGULATORY SETTING
3.1 Federal
Federal Clean Air Act
Air quality is federally protected by the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) and its amendments. Under the FCAA, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) developed the primary and secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the criteria air pollutants including O3, NO2, CO, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and lead. Proposed projects in or near nonattainment areas could be subject to more stringent airpermitting requirements. The FCAA requires each state to prepare a State Implementation Plan to demonstrate how it will attain the NAAQS within the federally imposed deadlines.
The EPA can withhold certain transportation funds from states that fail to comply with the planning requirements of the FCAA. If a state fails to correct these planning deficiencies within two years of Federal notification, the EPA is required to develop a Federal implementation plan for the identified nonattainment area or areas. The provisions of 40 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 51 and 93 apply in all nonattainment and maintenance areas for transportation-related criteria pollutants for which the area is designated nonattainment or has a maintenance plan. Applicable federal standards are summarized in Table 4: State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards.
The FCAA was amended in 1990 to address the numerous air pollutants that are known to cause or may reasonably be anticipated to cause adverse effects to human health or adverse environmental effects. 188 specific pollutants and chemical groups were initially identified as hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), and the list has been modified over time. The FCAA Amendments included new regulatory programs to control acid deposition and for the issuance of stationary source operating permits.
In 2001, the U.S. EPA issued its first Mobile Source Air Toxics Rule, which identified 21 mobile source air toxic (MSAT) compounds as being HAPs that required regulation. A subset of six of these MSAT compounds were identified as having the greatest influence on health and included benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, acrolein, acetaldehyde, and DPM. More recently, the U.S. EPA issued a second MSAT Rule in February 2007, which generally supported the findings in the first rule and provided additional recommendations of compounds having the greatest impact on health. The rule also identified several engine emission certification standards that must be implemented. Unlike the criteria pollutants, toxics do not have NAAQS making evaluation of their impacts more subjective.
National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) were incorporated into a greatly expanded program for controlling toxic air pollutants. The provisions for the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS were substantially modified and expanded. Other revisions included provisions regarding stratospheric O3 protection, increased enforcement authority, and expanded research programs.
Section 112 of the FCAA Amendments governs the federal control program for HAPs. NESHAPs are issued to limit the release of specified HAPs from specific industrial sectors. These standards are technologybased, meaning that they represent the best available control technology an industrial sector could afford.
The level of emissions controls required by NESHAPs are not based on health risk considerations because allowable releases and resulting concentrations have not been determined to be safe for the general 655
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Air Quality Assessment
August 2023
Page | 11
public. The FCAA does not establish air quality standards for HAPs that define legally acceptable concentrations of these pollutants in ambient air.
3.2 State of California
California Air Resources Board
CARB administers the air quality policy in California. The California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) were established in 1969 pursuant to the Mulford-Carrell Act. These standards, included with the NAAQS in Table 4, are generally more stringent and apply to more pollutants than the NAAQS. In addition to the criteria pollutants, CAAQS have been established for visibility reducing particulates, hydrogen sulfide, and sulfates.
The California Clean Air Act (CCAA), requires that each local air district prepare and maintain an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) to achieve compliance with CAAQS. These AQMPs also serve as the basis for the preparation of the State Implementation Plan for meeting federal clean air standards for the State of California. Like the EPA, CARB also designates areas within California as either attainment or nonattainment for each criteria pollutant based on whether the CAAQS have been achieved. Under the CCAA, areas are designated as nonattainment for a pollutant if air quality data shows that a state standard for the pollutant was violated at least once during the previous three calendar years. Exceedances that are affected by highly irregular or infrequent events such as wildfires, volcanoes, etc. are not considered violations of a state standard, and are not used as a basis for designating areas as nonattainment. The applicable State standards are summarized in Table 4.
656
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Air Quality Assessment
August 2023
Page | 12
Table 4: State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging Time State Standards1 Federal Standards2 Ozone (O3) 2, 5, 7
8 Hour 0.070 ppm (137 µg/m3) 0.070 ppm
1 Hour 0.09 ppm (180 µg/m3) NA
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 8 Hour 9.0 ppm (10 mg/m3
) 9 ppm (10 mg/m3)
1 Hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m3) 35 ppm (40 mg/m3)
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 1 Hour 0.18 ppm (339 µg/m3
) 0.10 ppm11
Annual Arithmetic Mean 0.030 ppm (57 µg/m3) 0.053 ppm (100 µg/m3) Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 8
24 Hour 0.04 ppm (105 µg/m3) 0.14 ppm (365 µg/m3)
1 Hour 0.25 ppm (655 µg/m3) 0.075 ppm (196 µg/m3)
Annual Arithmetic Mean NA 0.03 ppm (80 µg/m3)
Particulate Matter (PM10) 1, 3, 6 24-Hour 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3 Annual Arithmetic Mean 20 µg/m3 NA
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
3, 4, 6, 9 24-Hour NA 35 µg/m3
Annual Arithmetic Mean 12 µg/m3 12 µg/m3
Sulfates (SO4-2) 24 Hour 25 µg/m3 NA
Lead (Pb) 10, 11
30-Day Average 1.5 µg/m3 NA
Calendar Quarter NA 1.5 µg/m3
Rolling 3-Month Average NA 0.15 µg/m3
Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) 1 Hour 0.03 ppm (42 µg/m3) NA
Vinyl Chloride (C2H3CI) 10 24 Hour 0.01 ppm (26 µg/m3) NA Notes:
ppm = parts per million; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter; – = no information available. 1 California standards for O3, carbon monoxide (except Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1-hour and 24-hour), nitrogen dioxide, suspended particulate matter - PM10, and visibility reducing particles are values that are not to be exceeded. The standards for sulfates, Lake Tahoe carbon monoxide, lead, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride are not to be equaled or exceeded. If the standard is for a 1-hour, 8-hour or 24-hour average (i.e. all standards except for lead and the PM10 annual standard), then some measurements may be excluded.
Measurements are excluded that CARB determines would occur less than once per year on the average. The Lake Tahoe carbon monoxide standard is 6.0 ppm, a level one-half the national standard and two-thirds the State standard. 2 National standards shown are the "primary standards" designed to protect public health. National standards other than for O3, particulates and those based on annual averages are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The 1-hour O3 standard is attained if, during the most recent three-year period, the average number of days per year with maximum hourly concentrations above the standard is equal to or less than one. The 8-hour O3 standard is attained when the 3-year average of the 4th highest daily concentrations is 0.070 ppm or less. The 24-hour PM10 standard is attained when the 3-year average of the 99th percentile of monitored concentrations is less than 150 µg/m3. The 24-hour PM2.5 standard is attained when the 3-year average of 98th percentiles is less than 35 µg/m3. 3 Except for the national particulate standards, annual standards are met if the annual average falls below the standard at every site. The national annual particulate standard for PM10 is met if the 3-year average falls below the standard at every site. The annual PM2.5 standard is met if the 3-year average of annual averages spatially-averaged across officially designed clusters of sites falls below the standard.
NAAQS are set by the EPA at levels determined to be protective of public health with an adequate margin of safety. 4 On October 1, 2015, the national 8-hour O3 primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075 to 0.070 ppm. An area will meet the standard if the fourth-highest maximum daily 8-hour O3 concentration per year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than
0.070 ppm. EPA will make recommendations on attainment designations by October 1, 2016, and issue final designations October 1, 2017.
Nonattainment areas will have until 2020 to late 2037 to meet the health standard, with attainment dates varying based on the O3 level in the area.
5 The national 1-hour O3 standard was revoked by the EPA on June 15, 2005. 6 In June 2002, CARB established new annual standards for PM2.5 and PM10. 7 The 8-hour California O3 standard was approved by the CARB on April 28, 2005 and became effective on May 17, 2006. 8 On June 2, 2010, the EPA established a new 1-hour SO2 standard, effective August 23, 2010, which is based on the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. The existing 0.030 ppm annual and 0.14 ppm 24-hour SO2 NAAQS however must continue to be used until one year following EPA initial designations of the new 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. 9 In December 2012, EPA strengthened the annual PM2.5 NAAQS from 15.0 to 12.0 μg/m3. In December 2014, the EPA issued final area designations for the 2012 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Areas designated “unclassifiable/attainment” must continue to take steps to prevent their air quality from deteriorating to unhealthy levels. The effective date of this standard is April 15, 2015. 10 CARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as ‘toxic air contaminants’ with no threshold level of exposure below which there are no adverse health effects determined.
11 National lead standards, rolling 3-month average: final rule signed October 15, 2008. Final designations effective December 31, 2011.
Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan, 2022; California Air Resources Board, Ambient Air Quality Standards, May 6, 2016.
657
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Air Quality Assessment
August 2023
Page | 13
3.3 Regional
South Coast Air Quality Management District
The SCAQMD is the air pollution control agency for Orange County and the urban portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. The agency’s primary responsibility is ensuring that state and federal ambient air quality standards are attained and maintained in the SCAB. The SCAQMD is also responsible for adopting and enforcing rules and regulations concerning air pollutant sources, issuing permits for stationary sources of air pollutants, inspecting stationary sources of air pollutants, responding to citizen complaints, monitoring ambient air quality and meteorological conditions, awarding grants to reduce motor vehicle emissions, conducting public education campaigns, and many other activities. All projects are subject to SCAQMD rules and regulations in effect at the time of construction.
The SCAQMD is also the lead agency in charge of developing the AQMP, with input from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and CARB. The AQMP is a comprehensive plan that includes control strategies for stationary and area sources, as well as for on-road and off-road mobile sources.
SCAG has the primary responsibility for providing future growth projections and the development and implementation of transportation control measures. CARB, in coordination with federal agencies, provides the control element for mobile sources.
The 2016 AQMP was adopted by the SCAQMD Governing Board on March 3, 2017. The purpose of the AQMP is to set forth a comprehensive and integrated program that would lead the SCAB into compliance with the federal 24-hour PM2.5 air quality standard, and to provide an update to the SCAQMD’s commitments towards meeting the federal 8-hour O3 standards. Specifically, the 2016 AQMP covers the following federal standards: 1979 1-hour O3 NAAQS, 1997 8-hour O3 NAAQS, 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, 2008 8-hour O3 NAAQS, and the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
On October 1, 2015, the U.S. EPA strengthened the NAAQS for ground-level O3. The 2022 AQMP, adopted by the SCAQMD Governing Board on December 2, 2022, was developed to address the requirements for meeting the 2015 8-hour O3 standard. The 2022 AQMP builds upon measures already in place from previous AQMPs. It also includes a variety of additional strategies such as regulation, accelerated deployment of available cleaner technologies (e.g., zero emissions technologies, when cost-effective and feasible, and low NOX technologies in other applications), best management practices, co-benefits from existing programs (e.g., climate and energy efficiency), incentives, and other FCAA measures to achieve the 2015 8-hour ozone standard. The 2022 AQMP incorporates the latest scientific and technological information and planning assumptions, including the 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) and updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories. The 2022 AQMP requires CARB’s adoption before submittal for the U.S. EPA’s final approval, which is expected to occur sometime in 2023.
The SCAQMD has published the CEQA Air Quality Handbook (approved by the SCAQMD Governing Board in 1993 and augmented with guidance for Local Significance Thresholds [LST] in 2008). The SCAQMD guidance helps local government agencies and consultants to develop environmental documents required by California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and provides identification of suggested thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants for both construction and operation (see discussion of thresholds below). With the help of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook and associated guidance, local land use planners and consultants are able to analyze and document how proposed and existing projects affect air quality 658
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Air Quality Assessment
August 2023
Page | 14
in order to meet the requirements of the CEQA review process. The SCAQMD periodically provides supplemental guidance and updates to the handbook on their website.
The SCAG is the regional planning agency for Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Imperial Counties and serves as a forum for regional issues relating to transportation, the economy, community development, and the environment. Under federal law, SCAG is designated as a Metropolitan Planning Organization and under State law as a Regional Transportation Planning Agency and a Council of Governments.
The state and federal attainment status designations for the SCAB are summarized in Table 5: South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status. The SCAB is currently designated as a nonattainment area with respect to the State O3, PM10, and PM2.5 standards, as well as the federal 8-hour O3 and PM2.5 standards. The SCAB is designated as attainment or unclassified for the remaining state and federal standards.
Table 5: South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status
Pollutant State Federal
Ozone (O3)
(1 Hour Standard) Non-Attainment Non-Attainment (Extreme) Ozone (O3)
(8 Hour Standard) Non-Attainment Non-Attainment (Extreme) Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
(24 Hour Standard) – Non-Attainment (Serious)
Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
(Annual Standard) Non-Attainment Non-Attainment (Moderate) Particulate Matter (PM10)
(24 Hour Standard) Non-Attainment Attainment (Maintenance) Particulate Matter (PM10)
(Annual Standard) Non-Attainment –
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
(1 Hour Standard) Attainment Attainment (Maintenance)
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
(8 Hour Standard) Attainment Attainment (Maintenance)
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
(1 Hour Standard) Attainment Unclassifiable/Attainment
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
(Annual Standard) Attainment Attainment (Maintenance)
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
(1 Hour Standard) Attainment Unclassifiable/Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
(24 Hour Standard) Attainment –
Lead (Pb)
(30 Day Standard) – Unclassifiable/Attainment
Lead (Pb)
(3 Month Standard) Attainment –
Sulfates (SO4-2)
(24 Hour Standard) Attainment –
Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S)
(1 Hour Standard) Unclassified –
Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan, 2022; United States Environmental Protection Agency, Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants (Green Book), 2022.
The following is a list of SCAQMD rules that are required of construction activities associated with the Project:
659
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Air Quality Assessment
August 2023
Page | 15
• Rule 402 (Nuisance) – This rule prohibits the discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. This rule does not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals.
• Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) – This rule requires fugitive dust sources to implement best available control measures for all sources, and all forms of visible particulate matter are prohibited from crossing any property line. 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.
a) 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. b) All on-site roads will be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or chemically stabilized.
c) All material transported off-site will be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
d) The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations will be minimized at all times.
e) 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 work day to remove soil tracked onto the paved surface.
• Rule 445, Wood Burning – Rule 445 prohibits permanently installed wood-burning devices into any new development. A wood-burning device means any fireplace, wood burning heater, or pellet-fueled wood heater, or any similarly enclosed, permanently installed, indoor or outdoor device burning any solid fuel for aesthetic or space-heating purposes, which has a heat input of less than one million British thermal units per hour.
• Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings) – This rule requires manufacturers, distributors, and end users of architectural and industrial maintenance coatings to reduce ROG emissions from the use of these coatings, primarily by placing limits on the ROG content of various coating categories.
3.4 Local
The Ontario Plan 2050 (City of Ontario General Plan)
The Ontario Plan 2050 contains the following goals and policies that address air quality:
The Ontario Plan 2050, Environmental Resources Element
Goal ER-4 Improved indoor and outdoor air quality and reduced locally generated pollutant emissions.
660
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Air Quality Assessment
August 2023
Page | 16
Policy ER-4.1 Land Use. We reduce GHG and other local pollutant emissions through compact, mixed use, and transit-oriented development and development that improves the regional jobshousing balance.
Policy ER-4.2 Sensitive Land Uses. We prohibit the future siting of sensitive land uses within the distances defined by the California Air Resources Board for specific source categories, without sufficient mitigation.
Policy ER-4.4 Indoor Air Quality. We will comply with State Green Building Codes relative to indoor air quality. We seek funding to improve indoor air quality for households with poor indoor air quality, with priority for lower income households in environmental justice areas.
Policy ER-4.6 Particulate Matter. We support efforts to reduce particulate matter to meet State and Federal Clean Air Standards.
Policy ER-4.7 Other Agency Collaboration. We collaborate with other agencies within the South Coast Air Basin to improve regional air quality at the emission source, with a particular focus on sources that affect environmental justice areas in Ontario. 661
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Air Quality Assessment
August 2023
Page | 17
4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY
4.1 Air Quality Thresholds
Based upon the criteria derived from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a Project normally would have a significant effect on the environment if it would:
• Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. • Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is in nonattainment under an applicable state or federal ambient air quality standard. • Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. • Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.
• Exceed SCAQMD Thresholds
SCAQMD Thresholds
The significance criteria established by SCAQMD may be relied upon to make the above determinations.
According to the SCAQMD, an air quality impact is considered significant if the Project would violate any ambient air quality standard, contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The SCAQMD has established thresholds of significance for air quality during construction and operational activities of land use development projects, as shown in Table 6: South Coast Air Quality Management District Emissions Thresholds.
Table 6: South Coast Air Quality Management District Emissions Thresholds Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors
Construction-Related Operational-Related
(Maximum Pounds Per Day)
Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) 75 55
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 550
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) 100 55
Sulfur Oxides (SOX) 150 150
Coarse Particulates (PM10) 150 150
Fine Particulates (PM2.5) 55 55
Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds.
Localized Carbon Monoxide
In addition to the daily thresholds listed above, development associated with the Project would also be subject to the ambient air quality standards. These are addressed though an analysis of localized CO impacts. The significance of localized impacts depends on whether ambient CO levels near the Project site are above state and federal CO standards (the more stringent California standards are 20 ppm for 1-hour and 9 ppm for 8-hour). The SCAB has been designated as attainment under the 1-hour and 8-hour standards.
662
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Air Quality Assessment
August 2023
Page | 18
Localized Significance Thresholds
In addition to the CO hotspot analysis, the SCAQMD developed LSTs in response to SCAQMD Governing Boards' Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative (I-4). The SCAQMD provided the Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (dated June 2003 [revised 2008]) for guidance. The LST methodology assists lead agencies in analyzing localized impacts associated with Project-specific emissions. The SCAQMD developed LSTs for emissions of NO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 generated at new development sites (off-site mobile source emissions are not included in the LST analysis). LSTs represent the maximum emissions that can be generated at a project without expecting to cause or substantially contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent state or federal ambient air quality standards. LSTs are based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant within the Project source receptor area (SRA), as demarcated by the SCAQMD, and the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. LST analysis for construction is applicable for all projects that disturb 5 acres or less on a single day. The City of Ontario is located within SCAQMD SRA 33, Southwest San Bernardino Valley. Table 7: Local Significance Thresholds for Construction/Operations shows the LSTs for a 1-acre, 2-acre, 3.5-acre (interpolated), and 5-acre project in SRA 34. Because the nearest sensitive receptors are adjacent to the east of the Project site, the thresholds for distances of 25 meters or less are listed below.
Table 7: Local Significance Thresholds for Construction/Operations Project Size
(Maximum Pounds Per Day)
Nitrogen Oxide
(NOX)
Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
Coarse Particulates
(PM10)
Fine Particulates
(PM2.5)
1 Acre 118/118 863/863 5/2 4/1
2 Acres 170/170 1,232/1,232 6/2 5/2
3.5 Acres 220/220 1,713/1,713 11/3 7/2
5 Acres 270/270 2,193/2,193 16/4 9/2
Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, July 2008.
LSTs associated with all acreage categories are provided in Table 7 for informational purposes. Table 7 shows that the LSTs increase as acreages increase. It should be noted that LSTs are screening thresholds and are therefore conservative. The construction LST acreage is determined based daily acreage disturbed. The operational LST acreage is based on the total area of the Project site. Although the Project site is greater than five acres, the 5-acre operational LSTs are conservatively used to evaluate the Project.
4.2 Plans, Programs, and Policies
Plans, programs, and policies (PPP) are based on local, state, or federal requirements that are frequently independent of CEQA review and typically include compliance with the provisions of the Building Code, SCAQMD Rules, etc. The City may impose additional requirements during the approval process, as appropriate. Because PPPs are neither Project specific nor a result of development of the Project, they are not considered to be either project design features or mitigation measures.
PPP AIR-1 New buildings are required to achieve the current California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6) and California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) (Title 24, Part 11). The 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards became Effective January 1, 2023. The Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen are updated triennially with a goal to achieve zero net energy for residential buildings and nonresidential buildings in the future.
663
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Air Quality Assessment
August 2023
Page | 19
PPP AIR-2 New buildings are required to adhere to the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) requirement to provide bicycle parking for new non-residential buildings, or meet local bicycle parking ordinances, whichever is stricter (CALGreen Section
5.106.4.1, 14.106.4.1, and Section 5.106.4.1.2).
PPP AIR-3 Construction activities will be conducted in compliance with 13 California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 2499, which requires that nonessential idling of construction equipment is restricted to five minutes or less.
PPP AIR-4 Construction activities will be conducted in compliance with any applicable SCAQMD rules and regulations, including but not limited to the following:
Rule 403, Fugitive Dust, for controlling fugitive dust and avoiding nuisance. Rule 402, Nuisance, which states that a project shall not “discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.”
Rule 1113, which limits the volatile organic compound content of architectural coatings.
4.3 Methodology
This air quality impact analysis considers construction and operational impacts associated with the Project. Where criteria air pollutant quantification was required, emissions were modeled using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) 2022. CalEEMod is a Statewide land use emissions computer model designed to quantify potential criteria pollutant emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects. Air quality impacts were assessed according to methodologies recommended by CARB and the SCAQMD.
Construction
Construction equipment, trucks, worker vehicles, and ground-disturbing activities associated with Project construction would generate emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors. Daily regional construction emissions are estimated by assuming construction occurs at the earliest feasible date (i.e., a conservative estimate of construction activities) and applying off-road, fugitive dust, and on-road emissions factors in CalEEMod. For the purpose of this analysis, the Project is anticipated to commence construction in June 2024 and continue over 30 months.
Operations
Project operations would result in emissions of area sources (consumer products, architectural coating, and landscape equipment), energy sources (natural gas usage), mobile sources (motor vehicles from Project generated vehicle trips), and off-road equipment. Project-generated operational emissions would 664
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Air Quality Assessment
August 2023
Page | 20
be predominantly associated with motor vehicle use. Emissions from each of these categories are discussed below.
• Area Sources. Area source emissions would be generated due to consumer products, on-site equipment, architectural coating, and landscaping. Consumer products are various solvents used in non-industrial applications, which emit VOCs during product use. These typically include cleaning supplies, kitchen aerosols, cosmetics, and toiletries. It should be noted that the default area source VOC emission factor developed for CalEEMod is based on a statewide factor. The CalEEMod default emissions rates were used.
• Energy Sources. Energy source emissions would be generated due to electricity and natural gas usage associated with the Project. Primary uses of electricity and natural gas by the Project would be from space heating and cooling, water heating, ventilation, lighting, appliances, and electronics. Energy source emissions were calculated in CalEEMod. • Mobile Sources. Mobile sources are emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions. Depending upon the pollutant being discussed, the potential air quality impact may be of either regional or local concern. For example, ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 are all pollutants of regional concern. NOX and ROG react with sunlight to form O3, known as photochemical smog. Additionally, wind currents readily transport PM10 and PM2.5. However, CO tends to be a localized pollutant, dispersing rapidly at the source.
Project-generated vehicle emissions are based on the trip generation within the Traffic Scoping Agreement for the Proposed Watermarke Ontario Project in the City of Ontario, California and incorporated into CalEEMod as recommended by the SCAQMD. Project trip generation from the Traffic Scoping Agreement is based on the following Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) land use categories:
• ITE Land Use 220: Multifamily Housing (Low-rise) (357 dwelling units). • ITE Land Use 822: Strip Retail Plaza (3.8 thousand square feet).
The Project would generate a total of 2,603 daily trips. When accounting for pass-by trips and trips from the existing uses, the Project would generate 1,269 new daily trips.
As discussed above, the SCAQMD provides significance thresholds for emissions associated with proposed Project construction and operations. The proposed Project’s construction and operational emissions are compared to the daily criteria pollutant emissions significance thresholds in order to determine the significance of a Project’s impact on regional air quality.
Localized Significance Thresholds
The localized effects from the Project’s on-site emissions were evaluated in accordance with the SCAQMD’s LST methodology, which uses on-site mass emissions rate look-up tables and Project-specific modeling. LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards and are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each source receptor area and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor.
665
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Air Quality Assessment
August 2023
Page | 21
5 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
5.1 Air Quality Analysis
Previous Significance Determination
The 2022 Final Supplemental EIR for The Ontario Plan 2050 concluded that implementation of The Ontario Plan would result in significant and unavoidable impacts relative to air quality. The EIR determined that the that General Plan would be inconsistent with the AQMP because buildout under the General Plan would contribute to nonattainment of criteria pollutants in the SCAB. Implementation of MM 3-2 and AQ1 would reduce emissions; however, no additional mitigation measures are available that would reduce impacts below SCAQMD thresholds, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact.
The Certified EIR also determined General Plan would generate construction and operational emissions that would exceed SCAQMD’s significance thresholds. MM 3-1 would reduce construction related emissions to the extent feasible, however individual projects accommodated under the General Plan may exceed SCAQMD construction thresholds resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact. MM 3-2 and AQ-1 would reduce operational emissions to the extent feasible, however operational impacts would remain significant and unavoidable impact due to the increase in VOCs from residential development.
Threshold 5.1 Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
As part of its enforcement responsibilities, the EPA requires each state with nonattainment areas to prepare and submit a State Implementation Plan that demonstrates the means to attain the federal standards. The State Implementation Plan must integrate federal, state, and local plan components and regulations to identify specific measures to reduce pollution in nonattainment areas, using a combination of performance standards and market-based programs. Similarly, under State law, the CCAA requires an air quality attainment plan to be prepared for areas designated as nonattainment regarding the state and federal ambient air quality standards. Air quality attainment plans outline emissions limits and control measures to achieve and maintain these standards by the earliest practical date.
The Project is located within the SCAB, which is under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. The SCAQMD is required, pursuant to the FCAA, to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants for which the SCAB is in nonattainment. To reduce such emissions, the SCAQMD drafted the 2016 AQMP and 2022 AQMP. The 2016 AQMP establishes a program of rules and regulations directed at reducing air pollutant emissions and achieving CAAQS and NAAQS. The primary purpose of the 2022 AQMP is to identify, develop, and implement strategies and control measures to meet the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Air quality management planning is a regional and multi-agency effort including the SCAQMD, the CARB, the SCAG, and the EPA. The plan’s pollutant control strategies are based on the latest scientific and technical information and planning assumptions, including SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories, and SCAG’s latest growth forecasts. SCAG’s latest growth forecasts were defined in consultation with local governments and with reference to local general plans. The Project is subject to the SCAQMD’s AQMP.
Criteria for determining consistency with the AQMP are defined by the following indicators:
• Consistency Criterion No. 1: The Project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP. 666
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Air Quality Assessment
August 2023
Page | 22
• Consistency Criterion No. 2: The Project will not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP or increments based on the years of the Project build-out phase.
According to the SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the purpose of the consistency finding is to determine if a project is inconsistent with the assumptions and objectives of the regional air quality plans, and thus if it would interfere with the region’s ability to comply with CAAQS and NAAQS.
The violations to which Consistency Criterion No. 1 refers are exceedances of CAAQS and NAAQS. As shown in Table 8 and Table 9, the Project would not exceed construction or operation emission standards.
Therefore, the Project would not contribute to an existing air quality violation. Thus, the Project is consistent with the first criterion.
Concerning Consistency Criterion No. 2, the AQMP contains air pollutant reduction strategies based on SCAG’s latest growth forecasts, and SCAG’s growth forecasts were defined in consultation with local governments and with reference to local general plans.
The Project site is currently designated as Mixed Use Neighborhood Activity Hub (MU-NH) which allows for 20 to 75 dwelling units per acre and 1.0 FAR for retail uses. Therefore, the Project is assumed to be consistent with the current AQMP regional emissions inventory for the SCAB. Thus, the Project is consistent with the second criterion. As noted above (and discussed further in Threshold 5.2, below), Project implementation would not result in air pollutant emissions that exceed SCAQMD’s construction and operational emission thresholds. In addition, the Project would also not delay timely attainment of air quality standards or interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with the AQMP, resulting in a less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures: refer to mitigation measures 3-2 and AQ-1 from The Ontario Plan 2050 Final EIR, discussed below under Threshold 5.2.
Level of Significance: Less than significant impact.
Conclusion
Air quality impacts related to the proposed Project are less than the significant and unavoidable impacts identified in The Ontario Plan 2050 Final EIR. No new impact relative to air quality or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the Final EIR would occur.
Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the Final EIR was certified is available that would alter the Final EIR’s significance finding.
Threshold 5.2 Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable state or federal ambient air quality standard?
Construction Emissions
Construction associated with the Project would generate short-term emissions of criteria air pollutants.
The criteria pollutants of primary concern within the Project area include O3-precursor pollutants (i.e. ROG and NOX) and PM10 and PM2.5. Construction-generated emissions are short term and of temporary 667
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Air Quality Assessment
August 2023
Page | 23
duration, lasting only as long as construction activities occur, but would be considered a significant air quality impact if the volume of pollutants generated exceeds the SCAQMD’s thresholds of significance.
Construction results in the temporary generation of emissions resulting from site grading, road paving, motor vehicle exhaust associated with construction equipment and worker trips, and the movement of construction equipment, especially on unpaved surfaces. Emissions of airborne particulate matter are largely dependent on the amount of ground disturbance associated with site preparation activities as well as weather conditions and the appropriate application of water. Fugitive dust emissions may have a substantial, temporary impact on local air quality. In addition, fugitive dust may be a nuisance to those living and working in the Project vicinity. Uncontrolled dust from construction can become a nuisance and potential health hazard to those living and working nearby.
The Project’s construction emissions were calculated using the CARB-approved CalEEMod computer program, which is designed to model emissions for land use development projects, based on typical construction requirements. See Appendix A: Air Quality for more information regarding the construction assumptions used in this analysis. Predicted maximum daily construction-generated emissions for the Project are summarized in in Table 8: Construction-Related Emissions.
Table 8: Construction-Related Emissions
Construction Year
Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day) 1
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Year 2024 8.48 83.3 79.7 0.13 13.0 7.3
Year 2024 33.0 22.8 54.7 0.06 7.03 2.14
Year 2026 2.73 14.3 41.2 0.04 5.98 1.72
SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? Yes No No No No No
ROG = Reactive Organic Gases; NOX = Nitrogen Oxides; CO = Carbon Monoxide; SO2 = Sulfur Dioxide; PM10 = Particulate Matter 10 microns in diameter or less; PM2.5 = Particulate Matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less
1. SCAQMD Rule 403 Fugitive Dust applied. The Rule 403 reduction/credits include the following: properly maintain mobile and other construction equipment; water exposed surfaces three times daily; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. Reductions percentages from the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook (Tables XI-A through XI-E) were applied. No mitigation was applied to construction equipment. Refer to Appendix A for Model Data Outputs.
Source: CalEEMod version 2022.1.1.14. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs.
As shown in Table 8, all criteria pollutant emissions would remain below their respective thresholds.
Operational Emissions
Project-generated emissions would be primarily associated with motor vehicle use and area sources, such as the use of landscape maintenance equipment and architectural coatings. Long-term operational emissions attributable to the Project are summarized in Table 9: Operational Emissions.
No
668
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Air Quality Assessment
August 2023
Page | 24
Table 9: Operational Emissions
Source
Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day)
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Mobile 4.63 3.84 33.3 0.08 6.82 1.77
Area Source Emissions 11.0 5.33 34.3 0.03 0.43 0.44
Energy Emissions 0.06 1.01 0.44 0.01 0.08 0.08
Total Emissions 15.69 10.18 68.04 0.12 7.33 2.29
SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
ROG = Reactive Organic Gases; NOX = Nitrogen Oxides; CO = Carbon Monoxide; SO2 = Sulfur Dioxide; PM10 = Particulate Matter 10 microns in diameter or less; PM2.5 = Particulate Matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less Source: CalEEMod version 2020.4.0. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs.
As shown in Table 9, all criteria pollutant emissions would remain below their respective thresholds.
Cumulative Short-Term Emissions
The SCAB is designated nonattainment for O3, PM10, and PM2.5 for State standards and nonattainment for O3 and PM2.5 for Federal standards. Appendix D of the SCAQMD White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution (2003) notes that projects that result in emissions that do not exceed the project-specific SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance should result in a less than significant impact on a cumulative basis unless there is other pertinent information to the contrary. Therefore, if a project is estimated to result in emissions that do not exceed the thresholds, the project’s contribution to the cumulative impact on air quality in the SCAB would not be cumulatively considerable. As shown in Table 8, construction emissions of the Project would not exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds, and the construction impacts would be less than significant levels. Therefore, the proposed Project would not generate a cumulatively considerable contribution to air pollutant emissions during construction.
Cumulative Long-Term Impacts
The SCAQMD has not established separate significance thresholds for cumulative operational emissions.
The nature of air emissions is largely a cumulative impact. As a result, no single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, individual project emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. The SCAQMD developed the operational thresholds of significance based on the level above which individual project emissions would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the SCAB’s existing air quality conditions. Therefore, a project that exceeds the SCAQMD operational thresholds would also be a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact.
As shown in Table 9, the Project operational emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds. As a result, operational emissions associated with the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative air quality impacts. Additionally, adherence to SCAQMD rules and regulations would alleviate potential impacts related to cumulative conditions on a project-by-project basis. Project operations would not contribute a cumulatively considerable net increase of any nonattainment criteria pollutant.
669
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Air Quality Assessment
August 2023
Page | 25
Plans, Programs, and Policies:
The following includes existing requirements that are based on local, State, or federal regulations or laws that are frequently required independent of CEQA review. Typical standard conditions and requirements include compliance with the provisions of the Building Code, SCAQMD Rules, etc. The City may impose additional conditions during the approval process, as appropriate. Because these requirements are neither project specific nor a result of project development, they are not Mitigation Measures.
PPP AIR-1 New buildings are required to achieve the current California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6) and California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) (Title 24, Part 11).
PPP AIR-2 Construction activities will be conducted in compliance with 13 California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 2499, which requires that nonessential idling of construction equipment is restricted to five minutes or less.
PPP AIR-3 Construction activities will be conducted in compliance with any applicable SCAQMD rules and regulations, including but not limited to the following:
• Rule 403, Fugitive Dust, for controlling fugitive dust and avoiding nuisance. • Rule 402, Nuisance, which states that a project shall not “discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.” • Rule 1113, which limits the volatile organic compound content of architectural coatings.
2022 The Ontario Plan 2050 FEIR Mitigation Measures. The FEIR includes measures to reduce potential impacts associated with the implementation of The Ontario Plan 2050. The following measures from the FEIR are applicable to the proposed Project:
MM 3-1 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Ontario for development projects subject to CEQA review (i.e., nonexempt projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project construction-related air quality impacts to the City of Ontario Planning Department for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with SCAQMD methodology for assessing air quality impacts.
If construction-related criteria air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the SCAQMD adopted thresholds of significance, the City of Ontario Building Department shall feasible mitigation measures to reduce air quality emissions. Potential measures shall be incorporated as conditions of approval for a project and may include:
• Require fugitive dust control measures that exceed SCAQMD ‘s Rule 403, such as:
o Requiring use of nontoxic soil stabilizers to reduce wind erosion o Applying water every four hours to active soil disturbing activities 670
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Air Quality Assessment
August 2023
Page | 26
o Tarping and/or maintaining a minimum of 24 inches of freeboard on trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials.
• Using construction equipment rated by U.S. EPA as having Tier 4 interim or higher exhaust emission limits.
• Ensuring construction equipment is properly serviced and maintained to the manufacturer’s standards.
• Limiting nonessential idling of construction equipment to no more than five consecutive minutes.
• Using Super-Compliant VOC paints for coating of architectural surfaces whenever possible. A list of Super-Compliant architectural coating manufactures can be found on the SCAQMD’s website.
These identified measures shall be incorporated into all appropriate construction documents (e.g., construction management plans) submitted to the City and shall be verified by the City’s Planning Department.
MM 3-2 The City of Ontario shall evaluate new development proposals within the City and require all developments to include access or linkages to alternative modes of transportation, such as transit stops, bike paths, and/or pedestrian paths (e.g., sidewalks).
MM AQ-1 The Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Ontario for development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., nonexempt projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project operation-phase-related air quality impacts to the City of Ontario Planning Department for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with SCAQMD methodology in assessing air quality impacts. If operation-related air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the SCAQMD–adopted thresholds of significance, the City of Ontario Planning Department shall require that applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during operational activities. The identified measures shall be included as part of the conditions of approval. Possible mitigation measures to reduce long-term emissions could include, but are not limited to the following:
• For site-specific development that requires refrigerated vehicles, the construction documents shall demonstrate an adequate number of electrical service connections at loading docks for plug-in of the anticipated number of refrigerated trailers to reduce idling time and emissions.
• Applicants for manufacturing and light industrial uses shall consider energy storage and combined heat and power in appropriate applications to optimize renewable energy generation systems and avoid peak energy use.
671
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Air Quality Assessment
August 2023
Page | 27
• Site-specific developments with truck delivery and loading areas and truck parking spaces shall include signage as a reminder to limit idling of vehicles while parked for loading/unloading in accordance with California Air Resources Board Rule 2845 (13 CCR Chapter 10 sec. 2485).
• Provide changing/shower facilities as specified in Section A5.106.4.3 of CALGreen (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures).
• Provide bicycle parking facilities per Section A4.106.9 of CALGreen (Residential Voluntary Measures).
• Provide preferential parking spaces for low-emitting, fuel-efficient, and carpool/van vehicles per Section A5.106.5.1 of CALGreen (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures). • Provide facilities to support electric charging stations per Section A5.106.5.3 and Section A5.106.8.2 of CALGreen (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures; Residential Voluntary Measures).
• Applicant-provided appliances shall be Energy Star–certified appliances or appliances of equivalent energy efficiency (e.g., dishwashers, refrigerators, clothes washers, and dryers). Installation of Energy Star– certified or equivalent appliances shall be verified by the City during plan check.
Level of Significance: Less than significant impact.
Conclusion
The Project’s emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds during both construction and operations. Thus, the impact would not be cumulatively considerable. Air quality impacts related to the proposed Project are less than the significant and unavoidable impacts identified in The Ontario Plan 2050 Final EIR. No new impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the Final EIR would occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the Final EIR was certified is available that would alter the Final EIR’s significance finding.
Threshold 5.3 Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Localized Construction Significance Analysis
The nearest sensitive receptors are single-family residential dwellings located adjacent to the north and east of the Project site. To identify impacts to sensitive receptors, the SCAQMD recommends addressing LSTs for construction. LSTs were developed in response to SCAQMD Governing Boards' Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative (I-4). The SCAQMD provided the Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (dated June 2003 [revised 2008]) for guidance. The LST methodology assists lead agencies in analyzing localized impacts associated with Project-specific emissions.
Since CalEEMod calculates construction emissions based on the number of equipment hours and the maximum daily soil disturbance activity possible for each piece of equipment, Table 10, Equipment672 City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Air Quality Assessment
August 2023
Page | 28
Specific Grading Rates is used to determine the maximum daily disturbed acreage for comparison to LSTs.
The appropriate SRA for the localized significance thresholds is the Southwest San Bernardino Valley (SRA 33) since this area includes the Project. LSTs apply to NO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. The SCAQMD produced look-up tables for projects that disturb areas less than or equal to five acres in size. Project construction is anticipated to disturb a maximum of four acres in a single day. As the LST guidance provides thresholds for projects disturbing 1-, 2-, and 5-acres in size and the thresholds increase with size of the site, the LSTs for a 3.5-acre threshold were interpolated and utilized for this analysis.
Table 10: Equipment-Specific Grading Rates
Construction Phase Equipment
Type
Equipment
Quantity
Acres Graded
per 8-Hour Day
Operating Hours
per Day
Acres Graded
per Day
Site Preparation
Tractors 4 0.5 8 2.0
Graders 0 0.5 8 0.0
Dozers 3 0.5 8 1.5
Scrapers 0 1 8 0.0
Total Acres Graded per Day 3.5
Source: CalEEMod version 2022.1.1.14. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs.
The SCAQMD’s methodology states that “off-site mobile emissions from the Project should not be included in the emissions compared to LSTs.” Therefore, only emissions included in the CalEEMod “onsite” emissions outputs were considered. LST thresholds are provided for distances to sensitive receptors of 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 meters. SCAQMD’s LST guidance recommends using the 25-meter threshold for receptors located 25 meters or less from the project site. Therefore, the LSTs for 3.5 acres at 25 meters were used for the construction analysis which is consistent with the SCAQMD LST methodology. Table 11, Localized Significance of Construction Emissions presents the results of unmitigated localized emissions during each construction activity. Table 11 shows that emissions of these pollutants on the peak day of construction would not result in significant concentrations of pollutants at nearby sensitive receptors.
673
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Air Quality Assessment
August 2023
Page | 29
Table 11: Localized Significance of Construction Emissions Construction Activity
Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day)1
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Demolition (2024) 24.9 21.7 2.1 1.2
Site Preparation (2024) 36.0 32.9 6.7 4.1
Grading (2024) 18.2 18.8 3.7 1.7
Building Construction (2024) 11.2 13.1 0.5 0.5
Building Construction (2025) 10.4 13.0 0.4 0.4
Paving (2025) 7.5 10.0 0.4 0.3
Architectural Coating (2025) 0.9 1.1 0.03 0.03
Combined Building Construction / Paving (2025) 17.9 23 0.8 0.7 Combined Building Construction / Architectural
Coating (2025) 11.3 14.1 0.4 0.4
Building Construction (2026) 9.9 13.0 0.4 0.4
Maximum Daily Emissions 36.0 32.9 6.7 4.1
SCAQMD Localized Screening Threshold
(adjusted for 3.5 acres at 25 meters) 220 1,713 11 7
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No
NOX = Nitrogen Oxides; CO = Carbon Monoxide; PM10 = Particulate Matter 10 microns in diameter or less; PM2.5 = Particulate Matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less
1. SCAQMD Rule 403 Fugitive Dust applied. The Rule 403 reduction/credits include the following: properly maintain mobile and other construction equipment; water exposed surfaces three times daily; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. Reductions percentages from the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook (Tables XI-A through XI-E) were applied. No mitigation was applied to construction equipment. Refer to Appendix A for Model Data Outputs.
Source: CalEEMod version 2022.1.1.14. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs.
Localized Operational Significance Analysis
The operational phase LST protocol applies to on-site emissions sources (area and energy sources). It is noted that the SCAQMD’s LSTs are screening thresholds for localized emissions based on location, distance, and site size. LSTs thresholds for receptors located at 25 meters or less in SRA 33 were utilized in this analysis because the closest receptor is located adjacent to the east. Although the Project site is approximately 5.8 acres, the 5-acre LST threshold was also conservatively used for the Project, as the LSTs increase with the size of the site. Table 12, Localized Significance of Operational Emissions shows that the maximum daily emissions of these pollutants during operations would not result in significant concentrations of pollutants at nearby sensitive receptors.
Table 12: Localized Significance of Operational Emissions Activity
Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
On-Site Emissions 6.3 34.7 0.5 0.5
SCAQMD Localized Screening Threshold
(adjusted for 5 acres at 25 meters) 220 1,713 3 2
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No
NOX = Nitrogen Oxides; CO = Carbon Monoxide; PM10 = Particulate Matter 10 microns in diameter or less; PM2.5 = Particulate Matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less
Source: CalEEMod version 2022.1.1.14. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs.
674
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Air Quality Assessment
August 2023
Page | 30
Criteria Pollutant Health Impacts
On December 24, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued an opinion identifying the need to provide sufficient information connecting a project’s air emissions to health impacts or explain why such information could not be ascertained (Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502). The SCAQMD has set its CEQA significance thresholds based on the FCAA, which defines a major stationary source (in extreme O3 nonattainment areas such as the SCAB) as emitting 10 tons per year. The thresholds correlate with the trigger levels for the federal New Source Review (NSR) Program and SCAQMD Rule 1303 for new or modified sources. The NSR Program2 was created by the FCAA to ensure that stationary sources of air pollution are constructed or modified in a manner that is consistent with attainment of health-based federal ambient air quality standards. The federal ambient air quality standards establish the levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health. Therefore, projects that do not exceed the SCAQMD’s LSTs and mass emissions thresholds would not violate any air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation and no criteria pollutant health impacts.
NOX and ROG are precursor emissions that form O3 in the atmosphere in the presence of sunlight where the pollutants undergo complex chemical reactions. It takes time and the influence of meteorological conditions for these reactions to occur, so O3 may be formed at a distance downwind from the sources.
Breathing ground-level O3 can result health effects that include reduced lung function, inflammation of airways, throat irritation, pain, burning, or discomfort in the chest when taking a deep breath, chest tightness, wheezing, or shortness of breath. In addition to these effects, evidence from observational studies strongly indicates that higher daily O3 concentrations are associated with increased asthma attacks, increased hospital admissions, increased daily mortality, and other markers of morbidity. The consistency and coherence of the evidence for effects upon asthmatics suggests that O3 can make asthma symptoms worse and can increase sensitivity to asthma triggers.
The SCAQMD’s 2022 AQMP focuses on the 2015 8-hour ozone standard with achieving attainment in 2037. The largest source of NOX emissions (an O3 precursor) in 2018 were related to on-road sources. The 2022 AQMP also emphasizes a shift in focus beyond on-road emissions to off-road sources. The 2022 AQMP identifies a 67 percent NOX reduction beyond what we would achieve through current programs by 2037 and about 83 percent below current levels. In order to achieve this, the SCAQMD identifies the need for widespread adoption of zero emissions (ZE) technologies across all mobile sectors and stationary sources.
The control strategy for the 2022 AQMP includes aggressive new regulations and the development of incentive programs to support early deployment of advanced technologies. The two key areas for incentive programs are (1) promoting widespread deployment of available ZE and low NOX technologies and (2) developing new ZE and ultra-low NOX technologies for use in cases where the technology is not currently available. SCAQMD will prioritize distribution of incentive funding in environmental justice (EJ) areas and seek opportunities to focus benefits on the most disadvantaged communities. The 2022 AQMP includes a total of 49 control measures. In addition to the NOX measures, the 2022 AQMP relies on cobenefits from climate and energy efficiency programs for further reductions, limited strategic measures for VOC reductions, and other actions.
2 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) [i.e. PSD (40 CFR 52.21, 40 CFR 51.166, 40 CFR 51.165 (b)), Non-attainment NSR (40 CFR 52.24, 40 CFR 51.165, 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S)
675
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Air Quality Assessment
August 2023
Page | 31
The SCAQMD’s air quality modeling demonstrates that NOX reductions prove to be much more effective in reducing O3 levels and will also lead to significant improvement in PM2.5 concentrations. NOX-emitting stationary sources regulated by the SCAQMD include Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM) facilities (e.g., refineries, power plants, etc.), natural gas combustion equipment (e.g., boilers, heaters, engines, burners, flares) and other combustion sources that burn wood or propane.
There are significant challenges with correlating specific health effects that will occur as a result of a project’s significant criteria air pollutant emissions. Generally, models that correlate criteria air pollutant concentrations with specific health effects focus on regulatory decision-making that will apply throughout an entire air basin or region. These models focus on the region-wide health effects of pollutants so that regulators can assess the costs and benefits of adopting a proposed regulation that applies to an entire category of air pollutant sources, rather than the health effects related to emissions from a specific proposed project or source. Because of the scale of these analyses, any one project is likely to have only very small incremental effects which may be difficult to differentiate from the effects of air pollutant concentrations in an entire air basin. In addition, such modeling efforts are costly, and the value of a project-specific analysis may be modest in relation to that cost. Furthermore, the results, while costly to produce, may not be particularly useful. For regional pollutants, it is difficult to trace a particular project’s criteria air pollutant emissions to a specific health effect. Moreover, the modeled results may be misleading because the margin of error in such modeling is large enough that, even if the modeled results report a given health effect, the model is sufficiently imprecise that the actual effect may differ from the reported results; that is, the modeled results suggest precision, when in fact available models cannot be that precise on a project level.
As discussed above, the mass emissions thresholds developed by SCAQMD and used by CEQA lead agencies throughout southern California to determine potential significance of project-related regional changes in the environment are not directly indicative of exceedances of applicable ambient air standards.
Meteorology, the presence of sunlight, and other complex chemical factors all combine to determine the ultimate concentration and location of O3 or PM. The effects on ground-level ambient concentrations of pollutants that may be breathed by people are also influenced by the spatial and temporal patterns of the emission sources. In other words, the effect on O3 and PM concentrations from a given mass of pollutants emitted in one location may vary from the effect if that same mass of pollutants was emitted in an entirely different location in the SCAB. The same effect may be observed when the daily and seasonal variation of emissions is taken into account. Regional-scale photochemical modeling, typically performed only for NAAQS attainment demonstration and rule promulgation, account for these changes in the spatial, temporal, and chemical nature of regional emissions.
Emissions from the construction and operation of the Project would vary by time of day, month, and season, and the majority of Project-related emissions, being generated by mobile sources driving to and from the site, would be emitted throughout a wide area defined by the origins and destinations of people traveling to and from the Project. As SCAQMD has stated, “it takes a large amount of additional precursor emissions to cause a modeled increase in ambient ozone levels over an entire region.”3 Specifically, for extremely large regional projects, the SCAQMD states that it has been able to correlate potential health outcomes for very large emissions sources – as part of their rulemaking activity, specifically 6,620 pounds per day of NOX and 89,180 pounds per day of VOC were expected to result in approximately 20 premature deaths per year and 89,947 school absences due to O3. Based on its recent 3 Ibid. Page 34.
676
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Air Quality Assessment
August 2023
Page | 32
experiences applying regional scale models to relatively small increase in emissions, SCAQMD’s Amicus Brief in the Friant Ranch case stated: “[A] project emitting only 10 tons per year of NOX or VOC is small enough that its regional impact on ambient ozone levels may not be detected in the regional air quality models that are currently used to determine ozone levels.”4 The Brief makes it clear that SCAQMD does not believe that there must be a quantification of a project's health risks in CEQA documents prepared for individual projects since it would be difficult to quantify health impacts for criteria pollutants. Also, the Project does not generate anywhere near 6,620 pounds per day of NOX or 89,190 pounds per day of ROG (VOC) emissions, which SCAQMD stated was a large enough emission to quantify O3-related health impacts. Therefore, the Project’s emissions are not sufficiently high enough to use a regional modeling program to correlate health effects on a basin-wide level.
As previously discussed, localized effects of on-site Project emissions on nearby receptors for the Project would be less than significant (refer to Table 11 and Table 12). The LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable state or federal ambient air quality standard. The LSTs were developed by the SCAQMD based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each SRA and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. The ambient air quality standards establish the levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect public health, including protecting the health of sensitive populations.
However, as discussed above, neither the SCAQMD nor any other air district currently have methodologies that would provide Lead Agencies and CEQA practitioners with a consistent, reliable, and meaningful analysis to correlate specific health impacts that may result from a proposed project’s mass emissions.
Information on health impacts related to exposure to ozone and particulate matter emissions published by the U.S. EPA and CARB have been summarized above and discussed in the Regulatory Framework section. Health studies are used by these agencies to set the NAAQS and CAAQS.
Although it may be misleading and unreliable to attempt to specifically and numerically quantify the Project’s health risks, this analysis provides extensive information concerning the Project's potential health risks. While the Project is expected to exceed the SCAQMD’s numeric regional mass daily thresholds for ROG and NOX, this does not in itself constitute a significant health impact to the population adjacent to the Project and within the SCAB. The reason for this is that the mass daily thresholds are in pounds per day emitted into the air whereas health effects are determined based on the concentration of emissions in the air at particular receptor (e.g., parts per million by volume of air, or micrograms per cubic meter of air).
The NAAQS and CAAQS were developed to protect the most susceptible population groups from adverse health effects and were established in terms of parts per million or micrograms per cubic meter for the applicable emissions. As stated earlier, the mass emission thresholds were established primarily in conjunction with federal permitting “major source” thresholds. If emissions were below these “de minimis” emission rates, then the proposed Project is presumed to conform with the NAAQS.5 While based on the status of an air basin level of attainment of the health-based NAAQS, emissions in excess of the mass emission thresholds from one project does not mean the air basin would experience measurably higher ground level concentrations, or more frequent occurrences of ground level concentrations in exceedance of standards, or delay timely attainment of a particular NAAQS. 4 Ibid. Page 34.
5 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Frequent Questions about General Conformity. Available:
https://www.epa.gov/general-conformity/frequent-questions-about-general-conformity. Accessed August 2023. 677
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Air Quality Assessment
August 2023
Page | 33
Ozone concentrations are dependent upon a variety of complex factors, including the presence of sunlight and precursor pollutants, natural topography, nearby structures that cause building downwash, atmospheric stability, and wind patterns. Because of the complexities of predicting ground-level ozone concentrations in relation to the NAAQS and CAAQS, none of the health-related information can be directly correlated to the pounds/day or tons/year of emissions estimated from a single, proposed project.
Therefore, it is impossible to correlate significant criteria pollutants from an individual project to health risk. Table 1 includes a list of criteria pollutants and summarizes common sources and effects. Thus, this analysis is reasonable and intended to foster informed decision making. Due to the uncertainty in the relationship between project-level mass emissions and regional ozone formation as well as limitations with currently available technical tools, the resulting health effects associated with the Project cannot be identified. Given this is speculative, no meaningful conclusion can be drawn with respect to potential health effects from the criteria pollutant emissions of the proposed Project.
Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
An analysis of CO “hot spots” is needed to determine whether the change in the level of service of an intersection resulting from the Project would have the potential to result in exceedances of the CAAQS or NAAQS. It has long been recognized that CO exceedances are caused by vehicular emissions, primarily when vehicles are idling at intersections. Vehicle emissions standards have become increasingly stringent in the last 20 years. Currently, the CO standard in California is a maximum of 3.4 grams per mile for passenger cars (requirements for certain vehicles are more stringent). With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of control technology on industrial facilities, CO concentrations have steadily declined. Accordingly, with the steadily decreasing CO emissions from vehicles, even very busy intersections do not result in exceedances of the CO standard.
The SCAB was re-designated as attainment in 2007 and is no longer addressed in the SCAQMD’s AQMP. The 2003 AQMP is the most recent version that addresses CO concentrations. As part of the SCAQMD CO Hotspot Analysis, the Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue intersection, one of the most congested intersections in Southern California with an average daily traffic (ADT) volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day, was modeled for CO concentrations. This modeling effort identified a CO concentration high of 4.6 ppm, which is well below the 35-ppm Federal standard. The Project considered herein would not produce the volume of traffic required to generate a CO hot spot in the context of SCAQMD’s CO Hotspot Analysis. As the CO hotspots were not experienced at the Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue intersection even as it accommodates 100,000 vehicles daily, it can be reasonably inferred that CO hotspots would not be experienced at any vicinity intersections resulting from 1,269 additional total vehicle trips attributable to the Project and distributed throughout the roadway network. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: refer to mitigation measures 3-1 and AQ-1 from The Ontario Plan 2050 Final EIR, discussed above under Threshold 5.2.
Level of Significance: Less than significant impact.
Conclusion
Air quality impacts related to the proposed Project are less than the significant and unavoidable impacts identified in The Ontario Plan 2050 Final EIR. No new impact relative to air quality or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the Final EIR would occur. 678
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Air Quality Assessment
August 2023
Page | 34
Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the Final EIR was certified is available that would alter the Final EIR’s significance finding.
Threshold 5.4 Would the Project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Construction
Odors that could be generated by construction activities are required to follow SCAQMD Rule 402 to prevent odor nuisances on sensitive land uses. SCAQMD Rule 402, Nuisance, states:
A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.
During construction, emissions from construction equipment, such as diesel exhaust, and volatile organic compounds from architectural coatings and paving activities may generate odors. However, these odors would be temporary, are not expected to affect a substantial number of people and would disperse rapidly. Therefore, impacts related to odors associated with the Project’s construction-related activities would be less than significant.
Operations
The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook identifies certain land uses as sources of odors. These land uses include agriculture (farming and livestock), wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting facilities, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The Project would not include any of the land uses that have been identified by the SCAQMD as odor sources.
Therefore, the Project would not create objectionable odors.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Level of Significance: Less than significant impact.
Conclusion
Odors and other emissions related to the proposed Project are similar to the less than significant impacts identified in The Ontario Plan 2050 Final EIR. No new impact relative to air quality or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the Final EIR would occur.
Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the Final EIR was certified is available that would alter the Final EIR’s significance finding.
679
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Air Quality Assessment
August 2023
Page | 35
6 REFERENCES
1. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), Health Effects, 2018.
2. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects, 2009.
3. California Air Resources Board, Aerometric Data Analysis and Measurement System (ADAM) Top Four Summaries from 2019 to 2021, 2023.
4. California Air Resources Board, Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective, 2005.
5. California Air Resources Board, Current Air Quality Standards, 2016.
6. California Air Resources Board, Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles, 2000.
7. City of Ontario, The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050, 2022.
8. Federal Highway Administration, Interim Guidance on Mobile Source Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents, January 18, 2023.
9. Kimley-Horn, Traffic Scoping Agreement for the Proposed Watermarke Ontario Project in the City of Ontario, California, 2023.
10. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, 2015.
11. 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.
12. Southern California Association of Governments, 2020 - 2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (Connect SoCal), 2020.
13. South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2016 Air Quality Management Plan, March 2017.
14. South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993.
15. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, 2009.
16. South Coast Air Quality Management District, The Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study IV, 2015.
17. United States Environmental Protection Agency, National Ambient Air Quality Standards Table, 2016.
18. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants, 2019.
19. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Policy Assessment for the Review of the Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 2013.
680
Appendix A
Air Quality Modeling Data
681
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
1 / 94
Watermarke 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
2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Demolition (2024) - Unmitigated
3.2. Demolition (2024) - Mitigated
682
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
2 / 94
3.3. Site Preparation (2024) - Unmitigated
3.4. Site Preparation (2024) - Mitigated
3.5. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated
3.6. Grading (2024) - Mitigated
3.7. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated
3.8. Building Construction (2024) - Mitigated
3.9. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
3.10. Building Construction (2025) - Mitigated
3.11. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
3.12. Building Construction (2026) - Mitigated
3.13. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated
3.14. Paving (2025) - Mitigated
3.15. Architectural Coating (2025) - Unmitigated
3.16. Architectural Coating (2025) - Mitigated
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
683
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
3 / 94
4.1.2. Mitigated
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.2. Unmitigated
4.3.1. Mitigated
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.2. Unmitigated
4.4.1. Mitigated
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.2. Unmitigated
4.5.1. Mitigated
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
684
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
4 / 94
4.6.2. Mitigated
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
4.7.2. Mitigated
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
4.8.2. Mitigated
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
4.9.2. Mitigated
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
4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated
4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated
4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated 685
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
5 / 94
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
5.2.2. Mitigated
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
5.3.2. Mitigated
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
5.5. Architectural Coatings
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
5.7. Construction Paving
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
686
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
6 / 94
5.9.1. Unmitigated
5.9.2. Mitigated
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
5.10.1.2. Mitigated
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
5.11.2. Mitigated
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
5.12.2. Mitigated
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
687
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
7 / 94
5.13.2. Mitigated
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
5.14.2. Mitigated
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
5.15.2. Mitigated
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
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
688
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
8 / 94
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
5.18.2.2. Mitigated
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
689
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
9 / 94
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Watermarke
Construction Start Date 6/1/2024
Operational Year 2026
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.80
Precipitation (days) 2.40
Location 34.07832560287942, -117.66957162919645
County San Bernardino-South Coast
City Ontario
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 5235
EDFZ 10
Electric Utility Southern California Edison
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.14
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
690
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
10 / 94
Apartments Mid Rise 357 Dwelling Unit 2.43 286,994 0.00 0.00 1,182 — Strip Mall 12.2 1000sqft 0.14 12,200 0.00 0.00 — retail/lease/amenities Unenclosed Parking
with Elevator
657 Space 1.59 262,800 0.00 0.00 — —
City Park 1.62 Acre 1.62 0.00 70,558 0.00 — —
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
55.1 1000sqft 1.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 — paving and off-site improvements
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title
Construction C-10-A Water Exposed Surfaces
Construction C-10-C Water Unpaved Construction Roads
Construction C-11 Limit Vehicle Speeds on Unpaved Roads Construction C-12 Sweep Paved Roads
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. 10.4 33.0 83.3 79.7 0.13 3.56 29.2 32.8 3.26 14.1 17.3 — 15,575 15,575 0.86 0.64 30.5 15,795 Mit. 10.4 33.0 83.3 79.7 0.13 3.56 9.43 13.0 3.26 4.05 7.31 — 15,575 15,575 0.86 0.64 30.5 15,795 %
Reduced
— — — — — — 68% 60% — 71% 58% — — — — — — —
691
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
11 / 94
Daily,——————————————————
Winter
(Max)
Unmit. 4.40 3.88 22.8 47.2 0.06 0.82 5.76 6.58 0.76 1.38 2.14— 11,469 11,469 0.59 0.61 0.74 11,667 Mit. 4.40 3.88 22.8 47.2 0.06 0.82 5.76 6.58 0.76 1.38 2.14— 11,469 11,469 0.59 0.61 0.74 11,667 %
Reduced
——————————————————
Average
Daily
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit. 2.58 7.35 11.9 28.8 0.03 0.40 4.16 4.53 0.36 1.42 1.79— 7,370 7,370 0.39 0.43 8.55 7,517 Mit. 2.58 7.35 11.9 28.8 0.03 0.40 4.16 4.53 0.36 1.00 1.34— 7,370 7,370 0.39 0.43 8.55 7,517 %
Reduced
————————— 30% 25%———————
Annual
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit. 0.47 1.34 2.17 5.26 0.01 0.07 0.76 0.83 0.07 0.26 0.33— 1,220 1,220 0.06 0.07 1.42 1,245 Mit. 0.47 1.34 2.17 5.26 0.01 0.07 0.76 0.83 0.07 0.18 0.24— 1,220 1,220 0.06 0.07 1.42 1,245 %
Reduced
————————— 30% 25%———————
Exceeds
(Daily
Max)
——————————————————
Threshol d— 75.0 100 550 150—— 150—— 55.0—————— 3,000
Unmit.— No No No No—— No—— No—————— Yes
Mit.— No No No No—— No—— No—————— Yes
Exceeds
(Average
Daily)
——————————————————
Threshol d— 75.0 100 550 150—— 150—— 55.0—————— 3,000
Unmit.— No No No No—— No—— No—————— Yes692
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
12 / 94
Mit. — No No No No — — No — — No — — — — — — Yes
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 10.4 8.48 83.3 79.7 0.13 3.56 29.2 32.8 3.26 14.1 17.3 — 15,575 15,575 0.86 0.64 28.7 15,795 2025 4.52 33.0 22.4 54.7 0.06 0.82 6.54 7.03 0.76 1.56 2.14 — 11,920 11,920 0.58 0.63 30.5 12,145 2026 3.31 2.73 14.0 41.2 0.04 0.42 5.57 5.98 0.39 1.33 1.72 — 10,047 10,047 0.49 0.58 24.2 10,258 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 3.73 3.10 16.5 38.5 0.04 0.54 5.57 6.10 0.50 1.33 1.83 — 9,908 9,908 0.53 0.59 0.74 10,099 2025 4.40 3.88 22.8 47.2 0.06 0.82 5.76 6.58 0.76 1.38 2.14 — 11,469 11,469 0.59 0.61 0.71 11,667 2026 3.21 2.62 14.3 34.7 0.04 0.42 5.57 5.98 0.39 1.33 1.72 — 9,624 9,624 0.35 0.59 0.63 9,810 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 1.62 1.32 10.2 14.8 0.02 0.40 3.57 3.97 0.36 1.42 1.79 — 3,481 3,481 0.20 0.20 3.04 3,548 2025 2.58 7.35 11.9 28.8 0.03 0.37 4.16 4.53 0.34 1.00 1.34 — 7,370 7,370 0.39 0.43 8.55 7,517 2026 2.19 1.79 9.90 24.4 0.03 0.28 3.80 4.08 0.26 0.91 1.17 — 6,617 6,617 0.24 0.40 7.13 6,751 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.29 0.24 1.86 2.70 < 0.005 0.07 0.65 0.72 0.07 0.26 0.33 — 576 576 0.03 0.03 0.50 587 2025 0.47 1.34 2.17 5.26 0.01 0.07 0.76 0.83 0.06 0.18 0.24 — 1,220 1,220 0.06 0.07 1.42 1,245 2026 0.40 0.33 1.81 4.45 0.01 0.05 0.69 0.74 0.05 0.17 0.21 — 1,096 1,096 0.04 0.07 1.18 1,118
2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 693 Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
13 / 94
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 10.4 8.48 83.3 79.7 0.13 3.56 9.43 13.0 3.26 4.05 7.31 — 15,575 15,575 0.86 0.64 28.7 15,795 2025 4.52 33.0 22.4 54.7 0.06 0.82 6.54 7.03 0.76 1.56 2.14 — 11,920 11,920 0.58 0.63 30.5 12,145 2026 3.31 2.73 14.0 41.2 0.04 0.42 5.57 5.98 0.39 1.33 1.72 — 10,047 10,047 0.49 0.58 24.2 10,258 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 3.73 3.10 16.5 38.5 0.04 0.54 5.57 6.10 0.50 1.33 1.83 — 9,908 9,908 0.53 0.59 0.74 10,099 2025 4.40 3.88 22.8 47.2 0.06 0.82 5.76 6.58 0.76 1.38 2.14 — 11,469 11,469 0.59 0.61 0.71 11,667 2026 3.21 2.62 14.3 34.7 0.04 0.42 5.57 5.98 0.39 1.33 1.72 — 9,624 9,624 0.35 0.59 0.63 9,810 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 1.62 1.32 10.2 14.8 0.02 0.40 1.94 2.34 0.36 0.61 0.98 — 3,481 3,481 0.20 0.20 3.04 3,548 2025 2.58 7.35 11.9 28.8 0.03 0.37 4.16 4.53 0.34 1.00 1.34 — 7,370 7,370 0.39 0.43 8.55 7,517 2026 2.19 1.79 9.90 24.4 0.03 0.28 3.80 4.08 0.26 0.91 1.17 — 6,617 6,617 0.24 0.40 7.13 6,751 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.29 0.24 1.86 2.70 < 0.005 0.07 0.35 0.43 0.07 0.11 0.18 — 576 576 0.03 0.03 0.50 587 2025 0.47 1.34 2.17 5.26 0.01 0.07 0.76 0.83 0.06 0.18 0.24 — 1,220 1,220 0.06 0.07 1.42 1,245 2026 0.40 0.33 1.81 4.45 0.01 0.05 0.69 0.74 0.05 0.17 0.21 — 1,096 1,096 0.04 0.07 1.18 1,118
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. 9.75 15.7 9.93 68.1 0.12 0.57 6.76 7.33 0.57 1.72 2.29 180 18,200 18,379 18.9 0.50 29.3 19,031 694 Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
14 / 94
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 5.40 11.6 9.89 31.1 0.11 0.54 6.76 7.30 0.54 1.72 2.26 180 17,599 17,779 18.9 0.51 2.84 18,408 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 7.57 13.9 5.46 52.2 0.08 0.18 6.76 6.94 0.18 1.72 1.90 180 11,796 11,975 18.8 0.50 13.9 12,610 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.38 2.53 1.00 9.52 0.02 0.03 1.23 1.27 0.03 0.31 0.35 29.7 1,953 1,983 3.11 0.08 2.30 2,088 Exceeds
(Daily
Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Threshol
d
— 55.0 55.0 550 150 — — 150 — — 55.0 — — — — — — 3,000
Unmit. — No No No No — — No — — No — — — — — — Yes
Exceeds
(Average
Daily)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Threshol
d
— 55.0 55.0 550 150 — — 150 — — 55.0 — — — — — — 3,000
Unmit. — No No No No — — No — — No — — — — — — Yes
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 5.02 4.63 3.58 33.3 0.08 0.05 6.76 6.82 0.05 1.72 1.77 — 8,037 8,037 0.41 0.38 27.2 8,189 Area 4.61 11.0 5.33 34.3 0.03 0.43 — 0.43 0.44 — 0.44 0.00 6,493 6,493 0.12 0.01 — 6,500 695
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
15 / 94
Energy 0.12 0.06 1.01 0.44 0.01 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 3,562 3,562 0.33 0.03 — 3,579 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 30.2 108 138 3.11 0.07 — 238 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 149 0.00 149 14.9 0.00 — 522 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.13 2.13
Total 9.75 15.7 9.93 68.1 0.12 0.57 6.76 7.33 0.57 1.72 2.29 180 18,200 18,379 18.9 0.50 29.3 19,031 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 4.69 4.29 3.84 28.5 0.07 0.05 6.76 6.82 0.05 1.72 1.77 — 7,540 7,540 0.43 0.40 0.70 7,670 Area 0.59 7.27 5.03 2.14 0.03 0.41 — 0.41 0.41 — 0.41 0.00 6,389 6,389 0.12 0.01 — 6,396 Energy 0.12 0.06 1.01 0.44 0.01 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 3,562 3,562 0.33 0.03 — 3,579 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 30.2 108 138 3.11 0.07 — 238 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 149 0.00 149 14.9 0.00 — 522 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.13 2.13
Total 5.40 11.6 9.89 31.1 0.11 0.54 6.76 7.30 0.54 1.72 2.26 180 17,599 17,779 18.9 0.51 2.84 18,408 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 4.66 4.26 3.90 29.5 0.07 0.05 6.76 6.82 0.05 1.72 1.77 — 7,617 7,617 0.43 0.40 11.7 7,759 Area 2.80 9.57 0.55 22.2 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.05 — 0.05 0.00 508 508 0.01 < 0.005 — 509 Energy 0.12 0.06 1.01 0.44 0.01 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 3,562 3,562 0.33 0.03 — 3,579 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 30.2 108 138 3.11 0.07 — 238 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 149 0.00 149 14.9 0.00 — 522 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.13 2.13
Total 7.57 13.9 5.46 52.2 0.08 0.18 6.76 6.94 0.18 1.72 1.90 180 11,796 11,975 18.8 0.50 13.9 12,610 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.85 0.78 0.71 5.39 0.01 0.01 1.23 1.24 0.01 0.31 0.32 — 1,261 1,261 0.07 0.07 1.94 1,285 Area 0.51 1.75 0.10 4.05 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.00 84.2 84.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 84.3 Energy 0.02 0.01 0.19 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 590 590 0.05 < 0.005 — 593 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 5.01 17.8 22.8 0.52 0.01 — 39.4696 Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
16 / 94
Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 24.7 0.00 24.7 2.47 0.00 — 86.5 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.35 0.35
Total 1.38 2.53 1.00 9.52 0.02 0.03 1.23 1.27 0.03 0.31 0.35 29.7 1,953 1,983 3.11 0.08 2.30 2,088
2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
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 5.02 4.63 3.58 33.3 0.08 0.05 6.76 6.82 0.05 1.72 1.77 — 8,037 8,037 0.41 0.38 27.2 8,189 Area 4.61 11.0 5.33 34.3 0.03 0.43 — 0.43 0.44 — 0.44 0.00 6,493 6,493 0.12 0.01 — 6,500 Energy 0.12 0.06 1.01 0.44 0.01 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 3,562 3,562 0.33 0.03 — 3,579 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 30.2 108 138 3.11 0.07 — 238 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 149 0.00 149 14.9 0.00 — 522 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.13 2.13
Total 9.75 15.7 9.93 68.1 0.12 0.57 6.76 7.33 0.57 1.72 2.29 180 18,200 18,379 18.9 0.50 29.3 19,031 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 4.69 4.29 3.84 28.5 0.07 0.05 6.76 6.82 0.05 1.72 1.77 — 7,540 7,540 0.43 0.40 0.70 7,670 Area 0.59 7.27 5.03 2.14 0.03 0.41 — 0.41 0.41 — 0.41 0.00 6,389 6,389 0.12 0.01 — 6,396 Energy 0.12 0.06 1.01 0.44 0.01 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 3,562 3,562 0.33 0.03 — 3,579 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 30.2 108 138 3.11 0.07 — 238 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 149 0.00 149 14.9 0.00 — 522 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.13 2.13
Total 5.40 11.6 9.89 31.1 0.11 0.54 6.76 7.30 0.54 1.72 2.26 180 17,599 17,779 18.9 0.51 2.84 18,408 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
697
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
17 / 94
Mobile 4.66 4.26 3.90 29.5 0.07 0.05 6.76 6.82 0.05 1.72 1.77 — 7,617 7,617 0.43 0.40 11.7 7,759 Area 2.80 9.57 0.55 22.2 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.05 — 0.05 0.00 508 508 0.01 < 0.005 — 509 Energy 0.12 0.06 1.01 0.44 0.01 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 3,562 3,562 0.33 0.03 — 3,579 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 30.2 108 138 3.11 0.07 — 238 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 149 0.00 149 14.9 0.00 — 522 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.13 2.13
Total 7.57 13.9 5.46 52.2 0.08 0.18 6.76 6.94 0.18 1.72 1.90 180 11,796 11,975 18.8 0.50 13.9 12,610 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.85 0.78 0.71 5.39 0.01 0.01 1.23 1.24 0.01 0.31 0.32 — 1,261 1,261 0.07 0.07 1.94 1,285 Area 0.51 1.75 0.10 4.05 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.00 84.2 84.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 84.3 Energy 0.02 0.01 0.19 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 590 590 0.05 < 0.005 — 593 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 5.01 17.8 22.8 0.52 0.01 — 39.4 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 24.7 0.00 24.7 2.47 0.00 — 86.5 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.35 0.35
Total 1.38 2.53 1.00 9.52 0.02 0.03 1.23 1.27 0.03 0.31 0.35 29.7 1,953 1,983 3.11 0.08 2.30 2,088
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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
— — — — — — 1.00 1.00 — 0.15 0.15 — — — — — — —
698
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
18 / 94
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
0.18 0.15 1.43 1.25 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 197 197 0.01 < 0.005 — 198 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 0.06 0.06 — 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 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.03 0.03 0.26 0.23 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 32.6 32.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 32.7 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.11 0.02 1.00 0.56 0.01 0.02 0.21 0.23 0.01 0.06 0.07 — 811 811 0.09 0.13 1.71 854 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.5 11.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 11.7 699
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
19 / 94
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 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 46.7 46.7 0.01 0.01 0.04 49.1 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.91 1.91 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.94 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 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.73 7.73 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 8.13
3.2. Demolition (2024) - Mitigated
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
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
— — — — — — 1.00 1.00 — 0.15 0.15 — — — — — — —
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
0.18 0.15 1.43 1.25 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 197 197 0.01 < 0.005 — 198 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 0.06 0.06 — 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 0.00 700
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
20 / 94
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.03 0.03 0.26 0.23 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 32.6 32.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 32.7 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.11 0.02 1.00 0.56 0.01 0.02 0.21 0.23 0.01 0.06 0.07 — 811 811 0.09 0.13 1.71 854 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.5 11.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 11.7 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 46.7 46.7 0.01 0.01 0.04 49.1 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.91 1.91 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.94 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 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.73 7.73 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 8.13
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 701
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
21 / 94
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
— — — — — — 19.7 19.7 — 10.1 10.1 — — — — — — —
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
0.25 0.21 2.07 1.89 < 0.005 0.09 — 0.09 0.08 — 0.08 — 305 305 0.01 < 0.005 — 306 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 1.13 1.13 — 0.58 0.58 — — — — — — —
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 0.38 0.35 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 50.4 50.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 50.6 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.21 0.21 — 0.11 0.11 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
702
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
22 / 94
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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 < 0.005 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.5 13.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 13.7 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.23 2.23 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.26 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.4. Site Preparation (2024) - Mitigated
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 — 5,314 703
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
23 / 94
Dust — — — — — — 5.11 5.11 — 2.63 2.63 — — — — — — —
From
Material
Movement
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
0.25 0.21 2.07 1.89 < 0.005 0.09 — 0.09 0.08 — 0.08 — 305 305 0.01 < 0.005 — 306 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.29 0.29 — 0.15 0.15 — — — — — — —
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 0.38 0.35 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 50.4 50.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 50.6 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.05 0.05 — 0.03 0.03 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.00704 Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
24 / 94
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.5 13.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 13.7 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.23 2.23 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.26 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
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
2.26 1.90 18.2 18.8 0.03 0.84 — 0.84 0.77 — 0.77 — 2,958 2,958 0.12 0.02 — 2,969 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 7.10 7.10 — 3.43 3.43 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
705
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
25 / 94
Average — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily
Off-Road
Equipment
0.34 0.29 2.75 2.84 < 0.005 0.13 — 0.13 0.12 — 0.12 — 446 446 0.02 < 0.005 — 447 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 1.07 1.07 — 0.52 0.52 — — — — — — —
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
0.06 0.05 0.50 0.52 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 73.8 73.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 74.1 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.20 0.20 — 0.09 0.09 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.32 0.05 2.95 1.65 0.02 0.05 0.63 0.68 0.03 0.17 0.20 — 2,400 2,400 0.26 0.39 5.05 2,527 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 — 30.2 30.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 30.7 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 706
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
26 / 94
Hauling 0.05 0.01 0.47 0.25 < 0.005 0.01 0.10 0.10 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 — 362 362 0.04 0.06 0.33 380 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.01 5.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.08 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 0.01 < 0.005 0.09 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 59.9 59.9 0.01 0.01 0.05 63.0
3.6. Grading (2024) - Mitigated
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
2.26 1.90 18.2 18.8 0.03 0.84 — 0.84 0.77 — 0.77 — 2,958 2,958 0.12 0.02 — 2,969 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 1.85 1.85 — 0.89 0.89 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.34 0.29 2.75 2.84 < 0.005 0.13 — 0.13 0.12 — 0.12 — 446 446 0.02 < 0.005 — 447 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.28 0.28 — 0.13 0.13 — — — — — — —
707
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
27 / 94
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
0.06 0.05 0.50 0.52 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 73.8 73.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 74.1 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.05 0.05 — 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.32 0.05 2.95 1.65 0.02 0.05 0.63 0.68 0.03 0.17 0.20 — 2,400 2,400 0.26 0.39 5.05 2,527 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 — 30.2 30.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 30.7 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.05 0.01 0.47 0.25 < 0.005 0.01 0.10 0.10 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 — 362 362 0.04 0.06 0.33 380 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.01 5.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.08 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 0.01 < 0.005 0.09 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 59.9 59.9 0.01 0.01 0.05 63.0 708
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
28 / 94
3.7. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.44 1.20 11.2 13.1 0.02 0.50 — 0.50 0.46 — 0.46 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.44 1.20 11.2 13.1 0.02 0.50 — 0.50 0.46 — 0.46 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.30 0.25 2.33 2.72 < 0.005 0.10 — 0.10 0.09 — 0.09 — 497 497 0.02 < 0.005 — 499 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 0.05 0.42 0.50 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 82.3 82.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 82.6 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
709
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
29 / 94
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Worker 2.13 1.94 1.80 31.4 0.00 0.00 4.85 4.85 0.00 1.14 1.14 — 5,346 5,346 0.23 0.18 21.4 5,428 Vendor 0.28 0.07 2.99 1.60 0.02 0.04 0.71 0.75 0.04 0.20 0.23 — 2,610 2,610 0.20 0.39 7.28 2,738 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 2.02 1.83 2.12 23.7 0.00 0.00 4.85 4.85 0.00 1.14 1.14 — 4,900 4,900 0.23 0.18 0.55 4,961 Vendor 0.27 0.07 3.12 1.63 0.02 0.04 0.71 0.75 0.04 0.20 0.23 — 2,611 2,611 0.20 0.39 0.19 2,732 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 0.42 0.38 0.44 5.17 0.00 0.00 1.01 1.01 0.00 0.24 0.24 — 1,031 1,031 0.05 0.04 1.91 1,045 Vendor 0.06 0.01 0.65 0.34 < 0.005 0.01 0.15 0.16 0.01 0.04 0.05 — 541 541 0.04 0.08 0.65 567 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 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.94 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 171 171 0.01 0.01 0.32 173 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.12 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 89.6 89.6 0.01 0.01 0.11 93.9 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.8. Building Construction (2024) - Mitigated
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
710
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
30 / 94
Off-Road 1.44 1.20 11.2 13.1 0.02 0.50 — 0.50 0.46 — 0.46 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Equipment
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
1.44 1.20 11.2 13.1 0.02 0.50 — 0.50 0.46 — 0.46 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.30 0.25 2.33 2.72 < 0.005 0.10 — 0.10 0.09 — 0.09 — 497 497 0.02 < 0.005 — 499 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 0.05 0.42 0.50 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 82.3 82.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 82.6 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 2.13 1.94 1.80 31.4 0.00 0.00 4.85 4.85 0.00 1.14 1.14 — 5,346 5,346 0.23 0.18 21.4 5,428 Vendor 0.28 0.07 2.99 1.60 0.02 0.04 0.71 0.75 0.04 0.20 0.23 — 2,610 2,610 0.20 0.39 7.28 2,738 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 2.02 1.83 2.12 23.7 0.00 0.00 4.85 4.85 0.00 1.14 1.14 — 4,900 4,900 0.23 0.18 0.55 4,961 711
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
31 / 94
Vendor 0.27 0.07 3.12 1.63 0.02 0.04 0.71 0.75 0.04 0.20 0.23 — 2,611 2,611 0.20 0.39 0.19 2,732 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 0.42 0.38 0.44 5.17 0.00 0.00 1.01 1.01 0.00 0.24 0.24 — 1,031 1,031 0.05 0.04 1.91 1,045 Vendor 0.06 0.01 0.65 0.34 < 0.005 0.01 0.15 0.16 0.01 0.04 0.05 — 541 541 0.04 0.08 0.65 567 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 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.94 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 171 171 0.01 0.01 0.32 173 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.12 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 89.6 89.6 0.01 0.01 0.11 93.9 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.35 1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.35 1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 712
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
32 / 94
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.96 0.80 7.46 9.31 0.02 0.31 — 0.31 0.28 — 0.28 — 1,713 1,713 0.07 0.01 — 1,719 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
0.18 0.15 1.36 1.70 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.05 — 0.05 — 284 284 0.01 < 0.005 — 285 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.89 1.70 1.63 28.9 0.00 0.00 4.85 4.85 0.00 1.14 1.14 — 5,232 5,232 0.22 0.18 19.4 5,312 Vendor 0.25 0.07 2.85 1.54 0.02 0.04 0.71 0.75 0.04 0.20 0.23 — 2,568 2,568 0.20 0.39 7.23 2,696 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.78 1.60 1.80 21.8 0.00 0.00 4.85 4.85 0.00 1.14 1.14 — 4,797 4,797 0.23 0.18 0.50 4,858 Vendor 0.25 0.07 2.98 1.55 0.02 0.04 0.71 0.75 0.04 0.20 0.23 — 2,569 2,569 0.20 0.39 0.19 2,690 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 1.26 1.12 1.39 16.4 0.00 0.00 3.46 3.46 0.00 0.81 0.81 — 3,475 3,475 0.16 0.13 5.99 3,524 Vendor 0.18 0.05 2.14 1.10 0.01 0.03 0.51 0.53 0.03 0.14 0.17 — 1,835 1,835 0.14 0.28 2.24 1,923 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 0.23 0.20 0.25 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.63 0.00 0.15 0.15 — 575 575 0.03 0.02 0.99 583 713
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
33 / 94
Vendor 0.03 0.01 0.39 0.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.10 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 — 304 304 0.02 0.05 0.37 318 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
3.10. Building Construction (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.35 1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.35 1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.96 0.80 7.46 9.31 0.02 0.31 — 0.31 0.28 — 0.28 — 1,713 1,713 0.07 0.01 — 1,719 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
0.18 0.15 1.36 1.70 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.05 — 0.05 — 284 284 0.01 < 0.005 — 285 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 0.00 714
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
34 / 94
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.89 1.70 1.63 28.9 0.00 0.00 4.85 4.85 0.00 1.14 1.14 — 5,232 5,232 0.22 0.18 19.4 5,312 Vendor 0.25 0.07 2.85 1.54 0.02 0.04 0.71 0.75 0.04 0.20 0.23 — 2,568 2,568 0.20 0.39 7.23 2,696 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.78 1.60 1.80 21.8 0.00 0.00 4.85 4.85 0.00 1.14 1.14 — 4,797 4,797 0.23 0.18 0.50 4,858 Vendor 0.25 0.07 2.98 1.55 0.02 0.04 0.71 0.75 0.04 0.20 0.23 — 2,569 2,569 0.20 0.39 0.19 2,690 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 1.26 1.12 1.39 16.4 0.00 0.00 3.46 3.46 0.00 0.81 0.81 — 3,475 3,475 0.16 0.13 5.99 3,524 Vendor 0.18 0.05 2.14 1.10 0.01 0.03 0.51 0.53 0.03 0.14 0.17 — 1,835 1,835 0.14 0.28 2.24 1,923 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 0.23 0.20 0.25 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.63 0.00 0.15 0.15 — 575 575 0.03 0.02 0.99 583 Vendor 0.03 0.01 0.39 0.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.10 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 — 304 304 0.02 0.05 0.37 318 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. Building Construction (2026) - 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
715
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
35 / 94
Off-Road
Equipment
1.28 1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38— 0.38 0.35— 0.35— 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02— 2,405 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
1.28 1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38— 0.38 0.35— 0.35— 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02— 2,405 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
0.87 0.73 6.73 8.86 0.02 0.26— 0.26 0.24— 0.24— 1,637 1,637 0.07 0.01— 1,643 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
0.16 0.13 1.23 1.62 < 0.005 0.05— 0.05 0.04— 0.04— 271 271 0.01 < 0.005— 272 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 1.78 1.60 1.47 26.7 0.00 0.00 4.85 4.85 0.00 1.14 1.14— 5,125 5,125 0.22 0.18 17.5 5,201 Vendor 0.25 0.05 2.73 1.48 0.02 0.04 0.71 0.75 0.04 0.20 0.23— 2,525 2,525 0.18 0.39 6.66 2,652 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 1.68 1.50 1.63 20.2 0.00 0.00 4.85 4.85 0.00 1.14 1.14— 4,700 4,700 0.07 0.18 0.45 4,757 716
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
36 / 94
Vendor 0.25 0.05 2.84 1.50 0.02 0.04 0.71 0.75 0.04 0.20 0.23 — 2,526 2,526 0.18 0.39 0.17 2,647 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 1.15 1.02 1.22 14.5 0.00 0.00 3.31 3.31 0.00 0.78 0.78 — 3,255 3,255 0.05 0.13 5.18 3,299 Vendor 0.17 0.03 1.95 1.02 0.01 0.03 0.49 0.51 0.03 0.13 0.16 — 1,725 1,725 0.12 0.27 1.96 1,809 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 0.21 0.19 0.22 2.65 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.60 0.00 0.14 0.14 — 539 539 0.01 0.02 0.86 546 Vendor 0.03 0.01 0.36 0.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.09 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 — 286 286 0.02 0.04 0.32 299 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
3.12. Building Construction (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.28 1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38 — 0.38 0.35 — 0.35 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 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
1.28 1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38 — 0.38 0.35 — 0.35 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 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 0.00 717
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
37 / 94
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.87 0.73 6.73 8.86 0.02 0.26 — 0.26 0.24 — 0.24 — 1,637 1,637 0.07 0.01 — 1,643 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
0.16 0.13 1.23 1.62 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.04 — 0.04 — 271 271 0.01 < 0.005 — 272 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.78 1.60 1.47 26.7 0.00 0.00 4.85 4.85 0.00 1.14 1.14 — 5,125 5,125 0.22 0.18 17.5 5,201 Vendor 0.25 0.05 2.73 1.48 0.02 0.04 0.71 0.75 0.04 0.20 0.23 — 2,525 2,525 0.18 0.39 6.66 2,652 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.68 1.50 1.63 20.2 0.00 0.00 4.85 4.85 0.00 1.14 1.14 — 4,700 4,700 0.07 0.18 0.45 4,757 Vendor 0.25 0.05 2.84 1.50 0.02 0.04 0.71 0.75 0.04 0.20 0.23 — 2,526 2,526 0.18 0.39 0.17 2,647 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 1.15 1.02 1.22 14.5 0.00 0.00 3.31 3.31 0.00 0.78 0.78 — 3,255 3,255 0.05 0.13 5.18 3,299 Vendor 0.17 0.03 1.95 1.02 0.01 0.03 0.49 0.51 0.03 0.13 0.16 — 1,725 1,725 0.12 0.27 1.96 1,809 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 0.21 0.19 0.22 2.65 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.60 0.00 0.14 0.14 — 539 539 0.01 0.02 0.86 546 718
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
38 / 94
Vendor 0.03 0.01 0.36 0.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.09 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 — 286 286 0.02 0.04 0.32 299 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. 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 — 0.23 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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
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 — 0.23 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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
0.09 0.07 0.67 0.90 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 137 137 0.01 < 0.005 — 137 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
719
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
39 / 94
Off-Road
Equipment
0.02 0.01 0.12 0.16 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 22.6 22.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 22.7 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.88 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 194 194 0.01 0.01 0.02 196 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 17.8 17.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 18.0 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.94 2.94 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 2.98 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
3.14. Paving (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 720 Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
40 / 94
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 — 0.23 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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
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 — 0.23 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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
0.09 0.07 0.67 0.90 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 137 137 0.01 < 0.005 — 137 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
0.02 0.01 0.12 0.16 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 22.6 22.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 22.7 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
721
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
41 / 94
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.88 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 194 194 0.01 0.01 0.02 196 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 17.8 17.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 18.0 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.94 2.94 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 2.98 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
3.15. 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
722
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
42 / 94
Off-Road 0.15 0.13 0.88 1.14 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Equipment
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 29.6 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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
0.03 0.02 0.15 0.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 23.4 23.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 23.5 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 5.19 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 3.88 3.88 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.89 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.95 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 0.38 0.34 0.33 5.78 0.00 0.00 0.97 0.97 0.00 0.23 0.23 — 1,046 1,046 0.04 0.04 3.88 1,062 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 0.00723 Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
43 / 94
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 171 171 0.01 0.01 0.29 173 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 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 28.2 28.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 28.6 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
3.16. Architectural Coating (2025) - Mitigated
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
0.15 0.13 0.88 1.14 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 29.6 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
724
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
44 / 94
Off-Road
Equipment
0.03 0.02 0.15 0.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 23.4 23.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 23.5 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 5.19 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 3.88 3.88 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.89 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.95 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 0.38 0.34 0.33 5.78 0.00 0.00 0.97 0.97 0.00 0.23 0.23 — 1,046 1,046 0.04 0.04 3.88 1,062 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 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 171 171 0.01 0.01 0.29 173 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 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 28.2 28.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 28.6 725
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
45 / 94
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
4.23 3.90 2.99 27.7 0.06 0.04 5.61 5.65 0.04 1.42 1.47 — 6,669 6,669 0.35 0.32 22.5 6,796 Strip Mall 0.80 0.73 0.59 5.58 0.01 0.01 1.15 1.16 0.01 0.29 0.30 — 1,368 1,368 0.07 0.06 4.64 1,394 Unenclos
ed
Parking
with
Elevator
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 5.02 4.63 3.58 33.3 0.08 0.05 6.76 6.82 0.05 1.72 1.77 — 8,037 8,037 0.41 0.38 27.2 8,189 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
726
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
46 / 94
Apartme 3.95 3.61 3.20 23.8 0.06 0.04 5.61 5.65 0.04 1.42 1.47 — 6,257 6,257 0.36 0.33 0.58 6,365 nts
Mid Rise
Strip Mall 0.74 0.68 0.64 4.74 0.01 0.01 1.15 1.16 0.01 0.29 0.30 — 1,283 1,283 0.07 0.07 0.12 1,305 Unenclos
ed
Parking
with
Elevator
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 4.69 4.29 3.84 28.5 0.07 0.05 6.76 6.82 0.05 1.72 1.77 — 7,540 7,540 0.43 0.40 0.70 7,670 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
0.72 0.65 0.59 4.49 0.01 0.01 1.02 1.03 0.01 0.26 0.27 — 1,046 1,046 0.06 0.06 1.61 1,066 Strip Mall 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.90 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.21 0.21 < 0.005 0.05 0.06 — 215 215 0.01 0.01 0.33 219 Unenclos
ed
Parking
with
Elevator
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.85 0.78 0.71 5.39 0.01 0.01 1.23 1.24 0.01 0.31 0.32 — 1,261 1,261 0.07 0.07 1.94 1,285
4.1.2. Mitigated
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 727
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
47 / 94
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
4.23 3.90 2.99 27.7 0.06 0.04 5.61 5.65 0.04 1.42 1.47— 6,669 6,669 0.35 0.32 22.5 6,796 Strip Mall 0.80 0.73 0.59 5.58 0.01 0.01 1.15 1.16 0.01 0.29 0.30— 1,368 1,368 0.07 0.06 4.64 1,394 Unenclos
ed
Parking
with
Elevator
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 5.02 4.63 3.58 33.3 0.08 0.05 6.76 6.82 0.05 1.72 1.77— 8,037 8,037 0.41 0.38 27.2 8,189 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
3.95 3.61 3.20 23.8 0.06 0.04 5.61 5.65 0.04 1.42 1.47— 6,257 6,257 0.36 0.33 0.58 6,365 Strip Mall 0.74 0.68 0.64 4.74 0.01 0.01 1.15 1.16 0.01 0.29 0.30— 1,283 1,283 0.07 0.07 0.12 1,305 Unenclos
ed
Parking
with
Elevator
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 4.69 4.29 3.84 28.5 0.07 0.05 6.76 6.82 0.05 1.72 1.77— 7,540 7,540 0.43 0.40 0.70 7,670 Annual——————————————————
728
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
48 / 94
Apartme
Mid Rise
0.72 0.65 0.59 4.49 0.01 0.01 1.02 1.03 0.01 0.26 0.27 — 1,046 1,046 0.06 0.06 1.61 1,066 Strip Mall 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.90 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.21 0.21 < 0.005 0.05 0.06 — 215 215 0.01 0.01 0.33 219 Unenclos
ed
Parking
with
Elevator
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.85 0.78 0.71 5.39 0.01 0.01 1.23 1.24 0.01 0.31 0.32 — 1,261 1,261 0.07 0.07 1.94 1,285
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,461 1,461 0.14 0.02 — 1,470
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — — 113 113 0.01 < 0.005 — 113 Unenclos
ed
Parking
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — — — 702 702 0.07 0.01 — 707
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 729
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
49 / 94
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
———————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Total———————————— 2,276 2,276 0.22 0.03— 2,290
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
———————————— 1,461 1,461 0.14 0.02— 1,470
Strip Mall———————————— 113 113 0.01 < 0.005— 113
Unenclos
ed
Parking
with
Elevator
———————————— 702 702 0.07 0.01— 707
City Park———————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
———————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Total———————————— 2,276 2,276 0.22 0.03— 2,290
Annual——————————————————
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
———————————— 242 242 0.02< 0.005
— 243
Strip Mall———————————— 18.6 18.6 < 0.005 < 0.005— 18.7
Unenclos
ed
Parking
with
Elevator
———————————— 116 116 0.01 < 0.005— 117
City Park———————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
———————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
730
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
50 / 94
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 377 377 0.04 < 0.005 — 379
4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,461 1,461 0.14 0.02 — 1,470
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — — 113 113 0.01 < 0.005 — 113 Unenclos
ed
Parking
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — — — 702 702 0.07 0.01 — 707
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 2,276 2,276 0.22 0.03 — 2,290 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,461 1,461 0.14 0.02 — 1,470
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — — 113 113 0.01 < 0.005 — 113 731
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
51 / 94
Unenclos — — — — — — — — — — — — 702 702 0.07 0.01 — 707 ed
Parking
with
Elevator
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 2,276 2,276 0.22 0.03 — 2,290 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 242 242 0.02 < 0.005 — 243
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — — 18.6 18.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 18.7 Unenclos
ed
Parking
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — — — 116 116 0.01 < 0.005 — 117
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 377 377 0.04 < 0.005 — 379
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
732
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
52 / 94
Apartme 0.12 0.06 0.99 0.42 0.01 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 1,263 1,263 0.11 < 0.005 — 1,266 nts
Strip Mall < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 23.1 23.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 23.1 Unenclos
ed
Parking
with
Elevator
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.12 0.06 1.01 0.44 0.01 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 1,286 1,286 0.11 < 0.005 — 1,289 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
0.12 0.06 0.99 0.42 0.01 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 1,263 1,263 0.11 < 0.005 — 1,266 Strip Mall < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 23.1 23.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 23.1 Unenclos
ed
Parking
with
Elevator
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.12 0.06 1.01 0.44 0.01 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 1,286 1,286 0.11 < 0.005 — 1,289 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
0.02 0.01 0.18 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 209 209 0.02 < 0.005 — 210 Strip Mall < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 3.82 3.82 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.83733 Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
53 / 94
Unenclos
Parking
with
Elevator
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.02 0.01 0.19 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 213 213 0.02 < 0.005 — 213
4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
0.12 0.06 0.99 0.42 0.01 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 1,263 1,263 0.11 < 0.005 — 1,266 Strip Mall < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 23.1 23.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 23.1 Unenclos
ed
Parking
with
Elevator
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.12 0.06 1.01 0.44 0.01 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 1,286 1,286 0.11 < 0.005 — 1,289 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
734
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
54 / 94
Apartme
Mid Rise
0.12 0.06 0.99 0.42 0.01 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 1,263 1,263 0.11 < 0.005 — 1,266 Strip Mall < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 23.1 23.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 23.1 Unenclos
ed
Parking
with
Elevator
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.12 0.06 1.01 0.44 0.01 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 1,286 1,286 0.11 < 0.005 — 1,289 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
0.02 0.01 0.18 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 209 209 0.02 < 0.005 — 210 Strip Mall < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 3.82 3.82 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.83 Unenclos
ed
Parking
with
Elevator
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.02 0.01 0.19 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 213 213 0.02 < 0.005 — 213
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) 735
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
55 / 94
Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.59 0.29 5.03 2.14 0.03 0.41 — 0.41 0.41 — 0.41 0.00 6,389 6,389 0.12 0.01 — 6,396 Consum
er
Products
— 6.45 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.52 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt
4.02 3.76 0.30 32.2 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.03 — 0.03 — 103 103 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 104 Total 4.61 11.0 5.33 34.3 0.03 0.43 — 0.43 0.44 — 0.44 0.00 6,493 6,493 0.12 0.01 — 6,500 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.59 0.29 5.03 2.14 0.03 0.41 — 0.41 0.41 — 0.41 0.00 6,389 6,389 0.12 0.01 — 6,396 Consum
er
Products
— 6.45 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.52 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 0.59 7.27 5.03 2.14 0.03 0.41 — 0.41 0.41 — 0.41 0.00 6,389 6,389 0.12 0.01 — 6,396 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.00 72.5 72.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 72.5 Consum
er
Products
— 1.18 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
736
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
56 / 94
Architect — 0.09 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ural
Coatings
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt
0.50 0.47 0.04 4.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 11.7 11.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.8 Total 0.51 1.75 0.10 4.05 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.00 84.2 84.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 84.3
4.3.1. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.59 0.29 5.03 2.14 0.03 0.41 — 0.41 0.41 — 0.41 0.00 6,389 6,389 0.12 0.01 — 6,396 Consum
er
Products
— 6.45 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.52 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt
4.02 3.76 0.30 32.2 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.03 — 0.03 — 103 103 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 104 Total 4.61 11.0 5.33 34.3 0.03 0.43 — 0.43 0.44 — 0.44 0.00 6,493 6,493 0.12 0.01 — 6,500 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.59 0.29 5.03 2.14 0.03 0.41 — 0.41 0.41 — 0.41 0.00 6,389 6,389 0.12 0.01 — 6,396 Consum
er
Products
— 6.45 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
737
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
57 / 94
Architect
Coatings
— 0.52 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 0.59 7.27 5.03 2.14 0.03 0.41 — 0.41 0.41 — 0.41 0.00 6,389 6,389 0.12 0.01 — 6,396 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.00 72.5 72.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 72.5 Consum
er
Products
— 1.18 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.09 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt
0.50 0.47 0.04 4.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 11.7 11.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.8 Total 0.51 1.75 0.10 4.05 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.00 84.2 84.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 84.3
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 28.5 96.1 125 2.93 0.07 — 219
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — 1.73 5.83 7.57 0.18 < 0.005 — 13.3 738
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
58 / 94
Unenclos——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
ed
Parking
with
Elevator
City Park——————————— 0.00 5.70 5.70 < 0.005 < 0.005— 5.74 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Total——————————— 30.2 108 138 3.11 0.07— 238
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
——————————— 28.5 96.1 125 2.93 0.07— 219
Strip Mall——————————— 1.73 5.83 7.57 0.18 < 0.005— 13.3 Unenclos
ed
Parking
with
Elevator
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
City Park——————————— 0.00 5.70 5.70 < 0.005 < 0.005— 5.74 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Total——————————— 30.2 108 138 3.11 0.07— 238
Annual——————————————————
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
——————————— 4.72 15.9 20.6 0.49 0.01— 36.2
Strip Mall——————————— 0.29 0.97 1.25 0.03 < 0.005— 2.20 739
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
59 / 94
Unenclos — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 ed
Parking
with
Elevator
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.94 0.94 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.95 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 5.01 17.8 22.8 0.52 0.01 — 39.4
4.4.1. Mitigated
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 28.5 96.1 125 2.93 0.07 — 219
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — 1.73 5.83 7.57 0.18 < 0.005 — 13.3 Unenclos
ed
Parking
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 5.70 5.70 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.74 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 30.2 108 138 3.11 0.07 — 238 740
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
60 / 94
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 28.5 96.1 125 2.93 0.07 — 219
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — 1.73 5.83 7.57 0.18 < 0.005 — 13.3 Unenclos
ed
Parking
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 5.70 5.70 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.74 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 30.2 108 138 3.11 0.07 — 238 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 4.72 15.9 20.6 0.49 0.01 — 36.2
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — 0.29 0.97 1.25 0.03 < 0.005 — 2.20 Unenclos
ed
Parking
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.94 0.94 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.95 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 5.01 17.8 22.8 0.52 0.01 — 39.4
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
741
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
61 / 94
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 142 0.00 142 14.2 0.00 — 498
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — 6.90 0.00 6.90 0.69 0.00 — 24.2 Unenclos
ed
Parking
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.01 0.00 — 0.26 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 149 0.00 149 14.9 0.00 — 522 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 142 0.00 142 14.2 0.00 — 498
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — 6.90 0.00 6.90 0.69 0.00 — 24.2 Unenclos
ed
Parking
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.01 0.00 — 0.26 742
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
62 / 94
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 149 0.00 149 14.9 0.00 — 522 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 23.6 0.00 23.6 2.35 0.00 — 82.4
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — 1.14 0.00 1.14 0.11 0.00 — 4.00 Unenclos
ed
Parking
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.00 0.01 < 0.005 0.00 — 0.04 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 24.7 0.00 24.7 2.47 0.00 — 86.5
4.5.1. Mitigated
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 142 0.00 142 14.2 0.00 — 498
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — 6.90 0.00 6.90 0.69 0.00 — 24.2 743
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
63 / 94
Unenclos——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
ed
Parking
with
Elevator
City Park——————————— 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.01 0.00— 0.26
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Total——————————— 149 0.00 149 14.9 0.00— 522
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
——————————— 142 0.00 142 14.2 0.00— 498
Strip Mall——————————— 6.90 0.00 6.90 0.69 0.00— 24.2
Unenclos
ed
Parking
with
Elevator
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
City Park——————————— 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.01 0.00— 0.26
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Total——————————— 149 0.00 149 14.9 0.00— 522
Annual——————————————————
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
——————————— 23.6 0.00 23.6 2.35 0.00— 82.4
Strip Mall——————————— 1.14 0.00 1.14 0.11 0.00— 4.00
744
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
64 / 94
Unenclos — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 ed
Parking
with
Elevator
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.00 0.01 < 0.005 0.00 — 0.04 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 24.7 0.00 24.7 2.47 0.00 — 86.5
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.06 2.06
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.08 0.08
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.13 2.13
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.06 2.06
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.08 0.08
745
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
65 / 94
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.13 2.13
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.34 0.34
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.01
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.35 0.35
4.6.2. Mitigated
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.06 2.06
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.08 0.08
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.13 2.13
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.06 2.06
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.08 0.08
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
746
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
66 / 94
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.13 2.13
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.34 0.34
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.01
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.35 0.35
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.7.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 747
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
67 / 94
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.8. 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
748
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
68 / 94
4.8.2. Mitigated
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
749
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
69 / 94
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.9.2. Mitigated
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
750
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
70 / 94
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
751
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
71 / 94
Sequest — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated 752
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
72 / 94
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 753 Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
73 / 94
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
754
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
74 / 94
Remove — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 6/1/2024 7/1/2024 5.00 21.0 —
Site Preparation Site Preparation 6/1/2024 7/1/2024 5.00 21.0 — Grading Grading 7/1/2024 9/15/2024 5.00 55.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 9/17/2024 12/15/2026 5.00 586 — Paving Paving 9/1/2025 10/15/2025 5.00 33.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 6/3/2025 8/29/2025 5.00 64.0 —
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor 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 Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
755
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
75 / 94
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 Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48
5.2.2. Mitigated
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 Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 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 Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
756
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
76 / 94
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48
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 — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 11.5 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT 757
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
77 / 94
Grading Hauling 34.1 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 371 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 83.2 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 74.3 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
5.3.2. Mitigated
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 — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 11.5 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
758
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
78 / 94
Site Preparation Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 34.1 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 371 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 83.2 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 74.3 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. 759 Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
79 / 94
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 581,163 193,721 21,417 6,446 7,462
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 21,000 —
Site Preparation — — 31.5 0.00 —
Grading — 15,000 55.0 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.86
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.
5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Apartments Mid Rise — 0%
Strip Mall 0.00 0%
Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 1.59 100%
City Park 0.00 0%
Other Asphalt Surfaces 1.27 100%
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors 760
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
80 / 94
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
2026 0.00 346 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 Apartments Mid Rise 1,072 1,072 1,072 391,280 7,906 7,906 7,906 2,885,597 Strip Mall 197 197 197 71,905 1,627 1,627 1,627 593,941 Unenclosed Parking
with Elevator
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5.9.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Apartments Mid Rise 1,072 1,072 1,072 391,280 7,906 7,906 7,906 2,885,597 Strip Mall 197 197 197 71,905 1,627 1,627 1,627 593,941 Unenclosed Parking
with Elevator
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
761
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
81 / 94
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Apartments Mid Rise—
Wood Fireplaces0
Gas Fireplaces 303
Propane Fireplaces0
Electric Fireplaces0
No Fireplaces 36
Conventional Wood Stoves0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 18
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 18
Pellet Wood Stoves0
5.10.1.2. Mitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Apartments Mid Rise—
Wood Fireplaces0
Gas Fireplaces 303
Propane Fireplaces0
Electric Fireplaces0
No Fireplaces 36
Conventional Wood Stoves0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 18
762
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
82 / 94
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 18
Pellet Wood Stoves 0
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)
581162.85 193,721 21,417 6,446 7,462
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 250
5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
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) Apartments Mid Rise 1,540,870 346 0.0330 0.0040 3,940,273 Strip Mall 118,686 346 0.0330 0.0040 71,925
Unenclosed Parking with
Elevator
740,570 346 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
763
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
83 / 94
City Park 0.00 346 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 346 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
5.11.2. Mitigated
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) Apartments Mid Rise 1,540,870 346 0.0330 0.0040 3,940,273 Strip Mall 118,686 346 0.0330 0.0040 71,925
Unenclosed Parking with
Elevator
740,570 346 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
City Park 0.00 346 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 346 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Apartments Mid Rise 14,880,179 0.00
Strip Mall 903,685 0.00
Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00
City Park 0.00 1,133,100
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00
5.12.2. Mitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Apartments Mid Rise 14,880,179 0.00
Strip Mall 903,685 0.00
764
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
84 / 94
Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00
City Park 0.00 1,133,100
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Apartments Mid Rise 264 —
Strip Mall 12.8 —
Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 —
City Park 0.14 —
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 —
5.13.2. Mitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Apartments Mid Rise 264 —
Strip Mall 12.8 —
Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 —
City Park 0.14 —
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 —
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced 765
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
85 / 94
Apartments Mid Rise Average room A/C & R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0 Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
Apartments Mid Rise Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
Strip Mall Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Strip Mall Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
Strip Mall Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0
City Park Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
City Park Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
5.14.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Apartments Mid Rise Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Apartments Mid Rise Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
Strip Mall Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Strip Mall Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
Strip Mall Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0
City Park Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
766
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
86 / 94
City Park Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
5.15.2. Mitigated
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
767
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
87 / 94
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
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
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
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)
5.18.2.2. Mitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
768
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
88 / 94
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 19.6 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 6.05 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise 0.00 meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 0.00 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 50 meters (m) by 50 m, or about 164 feet (ft) by 164 ft.
Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 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
769
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
89 / 94
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
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 84.6
770
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
90 / 94
AQ-PM 97.7
AQ-DPM 54.7
Drinking Water 93.3
Lead Risk Housing 82.3
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 60.0
Traffic 89.5
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 73.6
Groundwater 0.00
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 64.6
Impaired Water Bodies 0.00
Solid Waste 22.1
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 77.7
Cardio-vascular 87.7
Low Birth Weights 95.2
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 65.5
Housing 46.5
Linguistic 59.4
Poverty 56.8
Unemployment 22.6
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
771
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
91 / 94
Economic—
Above Poverty 46.09264725
Employed 44.86077249
Median HI 46.77274477
Education—
Bachelor's or higher 19.11972283
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 9.547029385
Transportation—
Auto Access 33.77389965
Active commuting 66.17477223
Social—
2-parent households 52.59848582
Voting 57.37200051
Neighborhood—
Alcohol availability 45.87450276
Park access 43.62889773
Retail density 51.59758758
Supermarket access 83.71615552
Tree canopy 44.87360452
Housing—
Homeownership 43.98819453
Housing habitability 38.5730784
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 39.45848839 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 9.239060695
Uncrowded housing 52.3675093
Health Outcomes—
772
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
92 / 94
Insured adults 38.07262928
Arthritis 17.5
Asthma ER Admissions 22.1
High Blood Pressure 30.8
Cancer (excluding skin) 25.9
Asthma 49.0
Coronary Heart Disease 17.4
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 31.1
Diagnosed Diabetes 33.2
Life Expectancy at Birth 43.7
Cognitively Disabled 50.3
Physically Disabled 78.7
Heart Attack ER Admissions 7.9
Mental Health Not Good 47.3
Chronic Kidney Disease 20.1
Obesity 38.0
Pedestrian Injuries 48.5
Physical Health Not Good 38.5
Stroke 26.0
Health Risk Behaviors—
Binge Drinking 43.3
Current Smoker 55.2
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 46.8
Climate Change Exposures—
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 19.0
773
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
93 / 94
Elderly 45.2
English Speaking 31.2
Foreign-born 38.7
Outdoor Workers 22.6
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 60.4
Traffic Density 94.6
Traffic Access 50.1
Other Indices —
Hardship 53.6
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 61.4
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 88.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 39.0 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.
774
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
94 / 94
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.
8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use Project specific details, site plan
Construction: Construction Phases applicant construction questionnaire Construction: Architectural Coatings SCAQMD Rule 1113
Operations: Hearths SCAQMD wood burning fireplace/stove prohibited Operations: Architectural Coatings SCAQMD RULE 1113
Operations: Vehicle Data TIA Scoping Plan
775
Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project
City of Ontario Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report December 2023
APPENDIX B2 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
ASSESSMENT
776
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project
City of Ontario, California
Prepared by:
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
3801 University Ave Suite. 300
Riverside, California 92501
Contact: Mr. Alex Pohlman
951.543.9868
August 2023
777
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
August 2023
Page | ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Location ....................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Project Description ................................................................................................................................... 1 2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
2.1 Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change ................................................................................... 5 3 REGULATORY SETTING
3.1 Federal ....................................................................................................................................... 7
3.2 State of California ...................................................................................................................... 8
3.3 Regional ................................................................................................................................... 16
3.4 Local ......................................................................................................................................... 18 4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY
4.1 CEQA Thresholds and Significant Criteria ................................................................................ 20
4.2 Plans, Programs, and Policies .................................................................................................. 20
4.3 Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 21 5 POTENTIAL GREENHOUSE GAS IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
5.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ..................................................................................................... 24
5.2 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan Compliance ......................................................................... 27
5.3 Cumulative Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures ......................................................... 36 6 REFERENCES
References ............................................................................................................................... 38 TABLES
Table 1 Description of Greenhouse Gases ............................................................................................................ 6 Table 2 Project Size Thresholds for Land Use Development .............................................................................. 19 Table 3 Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................. 24 Table 4 Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................ 25 Table 5 Example of GHG Performance Standards for Multi-Family Development ............................................. 26 Table 6 Community Climate Action Plan Consistency ........................................................................................ 28 Table 7 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Consistency .................................... 32
EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1 Regional Vicinity Map ............................................................................................................................... 2 Exhibit 2 Project Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................................. 3 Exhibit 3 Conceptual Site Plan ................................................................................................................................ 4
APPENDIX
Appendix A: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data
778
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
August 2023
Page | iii
LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS
AB Assembly Bill
CARB California Air Resource Board
CCR California Code of Regulations
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CALGreen Code California Green Building Standards Code
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
CFC Chlorofluorocarbon
CCAP Community Climate Action Plan
cy cubic yard
FCAA Federal Clean Air Act
FR Federal Register
GHG greenhouse gas
HCFC Hydrochlorofluorocarbon
HFC Hydrofluorocarbon
LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard
CH4 Methane
MMTCO2e million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent MTCO2e metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NF3 nitrogen trifluoride
N2O nitrous oxide
PFC Perfluorocarbon
RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy SB Senate Bill
SCAB South Coast Air Basin
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCAG Southern California Association of Government
Sf square foot
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
TAC toxic air contaminants
U.S. EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
779
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
August 2023
Page | 1
1 INTRODUCTION
This report documents the results of a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Assessment completed for Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project (Project). The purpose of this GHG Emissions Assessment is to evaluate the potential construction and operational emissions associated with the Project and determine the level of impact the Project would have on the environment.
This analysis has been undertaken to analyze whether the proposed Project would result in any new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts as compared to the conclusions discussed in The Ontario Plan 2050, certified Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (General Plan EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364). The purpose of this analysis is to support a Addendum EIR that will document whether any new air quality-related impacts would occur from the Project (described below) compared to the level of significance that was identified in the General Plan EIR pursuant to State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15162 (et seq.).
1.1 Project Location
The project site is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Mountain Avenue and 4th Street.
The project site currently consists of a United States Post Office building and a commercial building with various retail uses. The City of Ontario is located in the San Bernardino Valley within San Bernardino County approximately 60 miles east of Los Angeles, California; see Exhibit 1: Regional Location Map and Exhibit 2: Project Vicinity Map.
1.2 Project Description
The applicant proposes to demolish the existing uses and proposes the development of a four-story Type V warp building containing multifamily residential and retail uses as well as a six level Type III above grade parking structure. The Project would include the development of 357 multi-family dwelling units, approximately 2,700 square feet (sf) of leasing, 5,700 sf of amenity space, and 3,800 sf of retail on 5.8 acres; refer to Exhibit 3: Conceptual Site Plan.
780
Source: ArcGIS Pro World Street Map
Not to scale
Exhibit 1: Regional Locaon Map
Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project, City of Ontario
PROJECT
LOCATION
781
Source: Google Earth
Not to scale
Exhibit 2: Project Vicinity Map
Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project, City of Ontario 4th Street
Harvard Place
Rosewood Court
J Street J Street
Princeton Street
Yale Street
Mountain Avenue
Azalea Avenue
Palmetto Avenue
Boulder Avenue
Boulder Avenue
782
Source: TCA Architects
Not to scale
Exhibit 3: Conceptual Site Plan
Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project, City of Ontario 783 City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
August 2023
Page | 5
2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
2.1 Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change
Certain gases in the earth’s atmosphere classified as GHGs, play a critical role in determining the earth’s surface temperature. Solar radiation enters the earth’s atmosphere from space. A portion of the radiation is absorbed by the earth’s surface and a smaller portion of this radiation is reflected back toward space.
This absorbed radiation is then emitted from the earth as low-frequency infrared radiation. The frequencies at which bodies emit radiation are proportional to temperature. Because the earth has a much lower temperature than the sun, it emits lower-frequency radiation. Most solar radiation passes through GHGs; however, infrared radiation is absorbed by these gases. As a result, radiation that otherwise would have escaped back into space is instead “trapped,” resulting in a warming of the atmosphere. This phenomenon, known as the greenhouse effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate on earth.
The primary GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). Fluorinated gases also make up a small fraction of the GHGs that contribute to climate change. Examples of fluorinated gases include chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3); however, it is noted that these gases are not associated with typical land use development. Human-caused emissions of GHGs exceeding natural ambient concentrations are believed to be responsible for intensifying the greenhouse effect and leading to a trend of unnatural warming of the Earth’s climate, known as global climate change or global warming.
GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants (TACs), which are pollutants of regional and local concern. Whereas pollutants with localized air quality effects have relatively short atmospheric lifetimes (about one day), GHGs have long atmospheric lifetimes (one to several thousand years). GHGs persist in the atmosphere for long enough time periods to be dispersed around the globe. Although the exact lifetime of a GHG molecule is dependent on multiple variables and cannot be pinpointed, more CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere than is sequestered by ocean uptake, vegetation, or other forms of carbon sequestration. Of the total annual human-caused CO2 emissions, approximately 55 percent is sequestered through ocean and land uptakes every year, averaged over the last 50 years, whereas the remaining 45 percent of human-caused CO2 emissions remains stored in the atmosphere1
. Table 1: Description of Greenhouse Gases describes the primary GHGs attributed to global climate change, including their physical properties.
1 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2013. http://www.climatechange2013.org/ images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf. 784
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
August 2023
Page | 6
Table 1: Description of Greenhouse Gases
Greenhouse Gas Description
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) CO2 is a colorless, odorless gas that is emitted naturally and through human activities. Natural sources include decomposition of dead organic matter; respiration of bacteria, plants, animals, and fungus; evaporation from oceans; and volcanic outgassing. Anthropogenic sources are from burning coal, oil, natural gas, and wood. The largest source of CO2 emissions globally is the combustion of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and gas in power plants, automobiles, and industrial facilities. The atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is variable because it is readily exchanged in the atmosphere. CO2 is the most widely emitted GHG and is the reference gas (Global Warming Potential of 1) for determining Global Warming Potentials for other GHGs.
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) N2O is largely attributable to agricultural practices and soil management. Primary human-related sources of N2O include agricultural soil management, sewage treatment, combustion of fossil fuels, and adipic and nitric acid production. N2O is produced from biological sources in soil and water, particularly microbial action in wet tropical forests. The atmospheric lifetime of N2O is approximately 120 years. The Global Warming Potential of N2O is 298.
Methane (CH4) CH4, a highly potent GHG, primarily results from off-gassing (the release of chemicals from nonmetallic substances under ambient or greater pressure conditions) and is largely associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Methane is the major component of natural gas, about 87 percent by volume. Human-related sources include fossil fuel production, animal husbandry, rice cultivation, biomass burning, and waste management. Natural sources of CH4 include wetlands, gas hydrates, termites, oceans, freshwater bodies, non-wetland soils, and wildfires. The atmospheric lifetime of CH4 is about 12 years and the Global Warming Potential is 25.
Hydrofluorocarbons
(HFCs)
HFCs are typically used as refrigerants for both stationary refrigeration and mobile air conditioning.
The use of HFCs for cooling and foam blowing is increasing, as the continued phase out of CFCs and HCFCs gains momentum. The 100-year Global Warming Potential of HFCs range from 124 for HFC152 to 14,800 for HFC-23.
Perfluorocarbons
(PFCs)
PFCs have stable molecular structures and only break down by ultraviolet rays about 60 kilometers above Earth’s surface. Because of this, they have long lifetimes, between 10,000 and 50,000 years.
Two main sources of PFCs are primary aluminum production and semiconductor manufacturing.
Global Warming Potentials range from 6,500 to 9,200.
Chlorofluorocarbons
(CFCs)
CFCs are gases formed synthetically by replacing all hydrogen atoms in methane or ethane with chlorine and/or fluorine atoms. They are nontoxic, nonflammable, insoluble, and chemically unreactive in the troposphere (the level of air at the earth’s surface). CFCs were synthesized in 1928 for use as refrigerants, aerosol propellants, and cleaning solvents. The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer prohibited their production in 1987. Global Warming Potentials for CFCs range from 3,800 to 14,400.
Sulfur Hexafluoride
(SF6)
SF6 is an inorganic, odorless, colorless, and nontoxic, nonflammable gas. It has a lifetime of 3,200 years. This gas is manmade and used for insulation in electric power transmission equipment, in the magnesium industry, in semiconductor manufacturing, and as a tracer gas. The Global Warming Potential of SF6 is 23,900.
Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) HCFCs are solvents, similar in use and chemical composition to CFCs. The main uses of HCFCs are for refrigerant products and air conditioning systems. As part of the Montreal Protocol, HCFCs are subject to a consumption cap and gradual phase out. The United States is scheduled to achieve a 100 percent reduction to the cap by 2030. The 100-year Global Warming Potentials of HCFCs range from 90 for HCFC-123 to 1,800 for HCFC-142b.
Nitrogen Trifluoride
(NF3)
NF3 was added to Health and Safety Code section 38505(g)(7) as a GHG of concern. This gas is used in electronics manufacture for semiconductors and liquid crystal displays. It has a high global warming potential of 17,200.
Source: Compiled from U.S. EPA, Overview of Greenhouse Gases, (https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases), accessed 2-5-2020; U.S. EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2016, 2018; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, 2007; National Research Council, Advancing the Science of Climate Change, 2010; U.S. EPA, Methane and Nitrous Oxide Emission from Natural Sources, April 2010. 785
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
August 2023
Page | 7
3 REGULATORY SETTING
3.1 Federal
To date, national standards have not been established for nationwide GHG reduction targets, nor have any regulations or legislation been enacted specifically to address climate change and GHG emissions reduction at the project level. Various efforts have been promulgated at the federal level to improve fuel economy and energy efficiency to address climate change and its associated effects.
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (December 2007), among other key measures, requires the following, which would aid in the reduction of national GHG emissions:
• Increase the supply of alternative fuel sources by setting a mandatory Renewable Fuel Standard requiring fuel producers to use at least 36 billion gallons of biofuel in 2022. • Set a target of 35 miles per gallon for the combined fleet of cars and light trucks by model year 2020 and direct the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to establish a fuel economy program for medium- and heavy-duty trucks and create a separate fuel economy standard for work trucks.
• Prescribe or revise standards affecting regional efficiency for heating and cooling products and procedures for new or amended standards, energy conservation, energy efficiency labeling for consumer electronic products, residential boiler efficiency, electric motor efficiency, and home appliances.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Endangerment Finding The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) authority to regulate GHG emissions stems from the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007). The Supreme Court ruled that GHGs meet the definition of air pollutants under the existing Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) and must be regulated if these gases could be reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Responding to the Court’s ruling, the U.S. EPA finalized an endangerment finding in December 2009. Based on scientific evidence it found that six GHGs (CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6) constitute a threat to public health and welfare. Thus, it is the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the existing FCAA and the U.S. EPA’s assessment of the scientific evidence that form the basis for the U.S. EPA’s regulatory actions.
Federal Vehicle Standards
In response to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling discussed above, Executive Order 13432 was issued in 2007 directing the U.S. EPA, the Department of Transportation, and the Department of Energy to establish regulations that reduce GHG emissions from motor vehicles, non-road vehicles, and non-road engines by 2008. In 2009, the NHTSA issued a final rule regulating fuel efficiency and GHG emissions from cars and light-duty trucks for model year 2011, and in 2010, the U.S. EPA and NHTSA issued a final rule regulating cars and light-duty trucks for model years 2012–2016.
In 2010, an Executive Memorandum was issued directing the Department of Transportation, Department of Energy, U.S. EPA, and NHTSA to establish additional standards regarding fuel efficiency and GHG 786
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
August 2023
Page | 8
reduction, clean fuels, and advanced vehicle infrastructure. In response to this directive, the U.S. EPA and NHTSA proposed stringent, coordinated federal GHG and fuel economy standards for model years 2017– 2025 light-duty vehicles. The proposed standards projected to achieve 163 grams per mile of CO2 in model year 2025, on an average industry fleet-wide basis, which is equivalent to 54.5 miles per gallon if this level were achieved solely through fuel efficiency. The final rule was adopted in 2012 for model years 2017– 2021, and NHTSA intends to set standards for model years 2022–2025 in a future rulemaking. On January 12, 2017, the U.S. EPA finalized its decision to maintain the current GHG emissions standards for model years 2022–2025 cars and light trucks. It should be noted that the U.S. EPA is currently proposing to freeze the vehicle fuel efficiency standards at their planned 2020 level (37 mpg), canceling any future strengthening (currently 54.5 mpg by 2026).
In addition to the regulations applicable to cars and light-duty trucks described above, in 2011, the U.S.
EPA and NHTSA announced fuel economy and GHG standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks for model years 2014–2018. The standards for CO2 emissions and fuel consumption are tailored to three main vehicle categories: combination tractors, heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans, and vocational vehicles.
According to the U.S. EPA, this regulatory program will reduce GHG emissions and fuel consumption for the affected vehicles by 6 to 23 percent over the 2010 baselines.
In August 2016, the U.S. EPA and NHTSA announced the adoption of the phase two program related to the fuel economy and GHG standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks. The phase two program will apply to vehicles with model year 2018 through 2027 for certain trailers, and model years 2021 through 2027 for semi-trucks, large pickup trucks, vans, and all types and sizes of buses and work trucks. The final standards are expected to lower CO2 emissions by approximately 1.1 billion metric tons and reduce oil consumption by up to 2 billion barrels over the lifetime of the vehicles sold under the program.
In December 2021, the U.S. EPA finalized federal GHG emissions standards for passenger cars and light trucks for Model Years 2023 through 2026. These standards are the strongest vehicle emissions standards ever established for the light-duty vehicle sector and are based on an assessment of current and future technologies. The updated standards will result in avoiding more than 3 billion tons of GHG emissions through 20502 and are on track for the launch the U.S. EPA’s next phase of standards for Model Years 2027 and beyond.
3.2 State of California
California Air Resources Board
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is responsible for the coordination and oversight of State and local air pollution control programs in California. Various statewide and local initiatives to reduce California’s contribution to GHG emissions have raised awareness about climate change and its potential for severe long-term adverse environmental, social, and economic effects. California is a significant emitter of CO2 equivalents (CO2e) in the world and produced 369 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e) in 2020.3 The transportation sector is the State’s largest emitter of GHGs, followed by industrial operations such as manufacturing and oil and gas extraction. 2 U.S. EPA, Final Rule to Revise Existing National GHG Emissions Standards for Passenger Cars and Light Trucks Through Model Year 2026, 2021. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/final-rule-revise-existingnational-ghg-emissions, accessed August 2022. 3 California Air Resources Board, Current California GHG Emissions Inventory Data, 2000-2020 GHG inventory (2022 Edition), https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-data, accessed December 2022. 787
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
August 2023
Page | 9
The State of California legislature has enacted a series of bills that constitute the most aggressive program to reduce GHGs of any state in the nation. Some legislation, such as the landmark Assembly Bill (AB) 32, California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, was specifically enacted to address GHG emissions.
Other legislation, such as Title 24 building efficiency standards and Title 20 appliance energy standards, were originally adopted for other purposes such as energy and water conservation, but also provide GHG reductions. This section describes the major provisions of the legislation.
Assembly Bill 32 (California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006) AB 32 instructs the CARB to develop and enforce regulations for the reporting and verification of statewide GHG emissions. AB 32 also directed CARB to set a GHG emissions limit based on 1990 levels, to be achieved by 2020. It set a timeline for adopting a scoping plan for achieving GHG reductions in a technologically and economically feasible manner.
California Air Resource Board Scoping Plan
CARB adopted the 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan) to achieve the goals of AB 32. The Scoping Plan establishes an overall framework for the measures that would be adopted to reduce California’s GHG emissions. CARB determined that achieving the 1990 emissions level would require a reduction of GHG emissions of approximately 29 percent below what would otherwise occur in 2020 in the absence of new laws and regulations (referred to as “business-as-usual”)4. The Scoping Plan evaluates opportunities for sector-specific reductions, integrates early actions and additional GHG reduction measures by both CARB and the State’s Climate Action Team, identifies additional measures to be pursued as regulations, and outlines the adopted role of a cap-and-trade program5. Additional development of these measures and adoption of the appropriate regulations occurred through the end of 2013. Key elements of the Scoping Plan include:
• Expanding and strengthening existing energy efficiency programs, as well as building and appliance standards.
• Achieving a statewide renewables energy mix of 33 percent by 2020. • Developing a California cap-and-trade program that links with other programs to create a regional market system and caps sources contributing 85 percent of California’s GHG emissions (adopted in 2011).
• Establishing targets for transportation-related GHG emissions for regions throughout California and pursuing policies and incentives to achieve those targets (several sustainable community strategies have been adopted).
• Adopting and implementing measures pursuant to existing State laws and policies, including California’s clean car standards, heavy-duty truck measures, the Low Carbon Fuel Standard 4 CARB defines business-as-usual (BAU) in its Scoping Plan as emissions levels that would occur if California continued to grow and add new GHG emissions but did not adopt any measures to reduce emissions. Projections for each emission-generating sector were compiled and used to estimate emissions for 2020 based on 2002–2004 emissions intensities. Under CARB’s definition of BAU, new growth is assumed to have the same carbon intensities as was typical from 2002 through 2004. 5 The Climate Action Team, led by the secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency, is a group of State agency secretaries and heads of agencies, boards, and departments. Team members work to coordinate statewide efforts to implement global warming emissions reduction programs and the State’s Climate Adaptation Strategy. 788
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
August 2023
Page | 10
(amendments to the Pavley Standard adopted 2009; Advanced Clean Car standard adopted 2012), goods movement measures, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (adopted 2009). • Creating targeted fees, including a public goods charge on water use, fees on gasses with high global warming potential, and a fee to fund the administrative costs of the State of California’s long-term commitment to AB 32 implementation.
• The California Sustainable Freight Action Plan was developed in 2016 and provides a vision for California’s transition to a more efficient, more economically competitive, and less polluting freight transport system. This transition of California’s freight transport system is essential to supporting the State’s economic development in coming decades while reducing pollution. • CARB’s Mobile Source Strategy demonstrates how the State can simultaneously meet air quality standards, achieve GHG emission reduction targets, decrease health risk from transportation emissions, and reduce petroleum consumption over the next fifteen years. The mobile Source Strategy includes increasing ZEV buses and trucks.
In 2012, CARB released revised estimates of the expected 2020 emissions reductions. The revised analysis relied on emissions projections updated in light of current economic forecasts that accounted for the economic downturn since 2008, reduction measures already approved and put in place relating to future fuel and energy demand, and other factors. This update reduced the projected 2020 emissions from 596 MMTCO2e to 545 MMTCO2e. The reduction in forecasted 2020 emissions means that the revised businessas-usual reduction necessary to achieve AB 32’s goal of reaching 1990 levels by 2020 is now 21.7 percent, down from 29 percent. CARB also provided a lower 2020 inventory forecast that incorporated State-led GHG emissions reduction measures already in place. When this lower forecast is considered, the necessary reduction from business-as-usual needed to achieve the goals of AB 32 is approximately 16 percent.
Scoping Plan Update. CARB adopted the first major update to the Scoping Plan on May 22, 2014. The updated Scoping Plan summarizes the most recent science related to climate change, including anticipated impacts to California and the levels of GHG emissions reductions necessary to likely avoid risking irreparable damage. It identifies the actions California has already taken to reduce GHG emissions and focuses on areas where further reductions could be achieved to help meet the 2020 target established by AB 32. By 2016, California had reduced GHG emissions below 1990 levels, achieving AB 32’s 2020 goal four years ahead of schedule.
2017 Scoping Plan. In 2016, the Legislature passed Senate Bill (SB) 32, which codifies a 2030 GHG emissions reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels. With SB 32, the Legislature passed companion legislation, AB 197, which provides additional direction for developing the Scoping Plan. On December 14, 2017 CARB adopted a second update to the Scoping Plan6. The 2017 Scoping Plan details how the State will reduce GHG emissions to meet the 2030 target set by Executive Order B-30-15 and codified by SB 32.
Other objectives listed in the 2017 Scoping plan are to provide direct GHG emissions reductions; support climate investment in disadvantaged communities; and support the Clean Power Plan and other Federal actions.
2022 Scoping Plan. Adopted December 15, 2022, CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan sets a path to achieve targets for carbon neutrality and reduce anthropogenic GHG emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045 6 California Air Resources Board, California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf. Accessed May 9, 2018. 789
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
August 2023
Page | 11
in accordance with AB 1279. To achieve the targets of AB 1279, the 2022 Scoping Plan relies on existing and emerging fossil fuel alternatives and clean technologies, as well as carbon capture and storage.
Specifically, the 2022 Scoping Plan focuses on zero-emission transportation; phasing out use of fossil gas use for heating homes and buildings; reducing chemical and refrigerants with high GWP; providing communities with sustainable options for walking, biking, and public transit; displacement of fossil-fuel fired electrical generation through use of renewable energy alternatives (e.g., solar arrays and wind turbines); and scaling up new options such as green hydrogen. The 2022 Scoping Plan sets one of the most aggressive approaches to reach carbon neutrality in the world. Unlike the 2017 Scoping Plan, CARB no longer includes a numeric per capita threshold and instead advocates for compliance with a local GHG reduction strategy (i.e., Climate Action Plan) consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15183.5.
The key elements of the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan focus on transportation. Specifically, the 2022 Scoping Plan aims to rapidly move towards zero-emission transportation (i.e., electrifying cars, buses, trains, and trucks), which constitutes California’s single largest source of GHGs. The regulations that impact the transportation sector are adopted and enforced by CARB on vehicle manufacturers and are outside the jurisdiction and control of local governments. The 2022 Scoping Plan accelerates development of new regulations as well as amendments to strengthen regulations and programs already in place.
Included in the 2022 Scoping Plan is a set of Local Actions (2022 Scoping Plan Appendix D) aimed at providing local jurisdictions with tools to reduce GHGs and assist the state in meeting the ambitious targets set forth in the 2022 Scoping Plan. Appendix D to the 2022 Scoping Plan includes a section on evaluating plan-level and project-level alignment with the State’s Climate Goals in CEQA GHG analyses. In this section, CARB identifies several recommendations and strategies that should be considered for new development in order to determine consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan. Notably, this section is focused on Residential and Mixed-Use Projects.7 CARB specifically states that Appendix D does not address other land uses (e.g., industrial).8
However, CARB plans to explore new approaches for other land use types in the future.9
As such, it would be inappropriate to apply the requirements contained in Appendix D of the 2022 Scoping Plan to any land use types other than residential or mixed-use residential development. Therefore, Appendix D only applies to the residential portion of the Project as the Project proposes commercial, residential, public utilities, public park, and open space uses.
Senate Bill 32 (California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: Emissions Limit) Signed into law in September 2016, SB 32 codifies the 2030 GHG reduction target in Executive Order B30-15 (40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030). The bill authorizes CARB to adopt an interim GHG emissions level target to be achieved by 2030. CARB also must adopt rules and regulations in an open public process to achieve the maximum, technologically feasible, and cost-effective GHG reductions.
SB 375 (The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008) Signed into law on September 30, 2008, SB 375 provides a process to coordinate land use planning, regional transportation plans, and funding priorities to help California meet the GHG reduction goals 7 California Air Resources Board. (2022). 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality, Appendix D: Local Actions, Page 21. Available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/ab-32-climate-change-scoping-plan/2022-scoping-plan-documents (accessed August 2023). 8 California Air Resources Board, 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality, Appendix D: Local Actions, Page 4, November 2022. 9 California Air Resources Board, 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality, Appendix D: Local Actions, Page 21, November 2022. 790
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
August 2023
Page | 12
established by AB 32. SB 375 requires metropolitan planning organizations to include sustainable community strategies in their regional transportation plans for reducing GHG emissions, aligns planning for transportation and housing, and creates specified incentives for the implementation of the strategies.
AB 1493 (Pavley Regulations and Fuel Efficiency Standards) AB 1493, enacted on July 22, 2002, required CARB to develop and adopt regulations that reduce GHGs emitted by passenger vehicles and light duty trucks. Implementation of the regulation was delayed by lawsuits filed by automakers and by the EPA’s denial of an implementation waiver. The EPA subsequently granted the requested waiver in 2009, which was upheld by the by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in 2011. The regulations establish one set of emission standards for model years 2009–2016 and a second set of emissions standards for model years 2017 to 2025. By 2025, when all rules will be fully implemented, new automobiles will emit 34 percent fewer CO2e emissions and 75 percent fewer smogforming emissions.
SB 1368 (Emission Performance Standards)
SB 1368 is the companion bill of AB 32, which directs the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to adopt a performance standard for GHG emissions for the future power purchases of California utilities. SB 1368 limits carbon emissions associated with electrical energy consumed in California by forbidding procurement arrangements for energy longer than 5 years from resources that exceed the emissions of a relatively clean, combined cycle natural gas power plant. The new law effectively prevents California’s utilities from investing in, otherwise financially supporting, or purchasing power from new coal plants located in or out of the State. The CPUC adopted the regulations required by SB 1368 on August 29, 2007.
The regulations implementing SB 1368 establish a standard for baseload generation owned by, or under long-term contract to publicly owned utilities, for 1,100 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour.
SB 1078, SB 107, and SBX1-2 (Renewable Electricity Standards) SB 1078 (2002) required California to generate 20 percent of its electricity from renewable energy by 2017. SB 107 (2006) changed the due date to 2010 instead of 2017. On November 17, 2008, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-14-08, which established a Renewable Portfolio Standard target for California requiring that all retail sellers of electricity serve 33 percent of their load with renewable energy by 2020. Executive Order S-21-09 also directed CARB to adopt a regulation by July 31, 2010, requiring the State’s load serving entities to meet a 33 percent renewable energy target by 2020.
CARB approved the Renewable Electricity Standard on September 23, 2010 by Resolution 10-23. SBX1-2, which codified the 33 percent by 2020 goal.
SB 350 (Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015) Signed into law on October 7, 2015, SB 350 implements the goals of Executive Order B-30-15. The objectives of SB 350 are to increase the procurement of electricity from renewable sources from 33 percent to 50 percent (with interim targets of 40 percent by 2024, and 25 percent by 2027) and to double the energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas end uses of retail customers through energy efficiency and conservation. SB 350 also reorganizes the Independent System Operator to develop more regional electricity transmission markets and improve accessibility in these markets, which will facilitate the growth of renewable energy markets in the western United States. 791
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
August 2023
Page | 13
AB 398 (Market-Based Compliance Mechanisms)
Signed on July 25, 2017, AB 398 extended the duration of the Cap-and-Trade program from 2020 to 2030.
AB 398 required CARB to update the Scoping Plan and for all GHG rules and regulations adopted by the State. It also designated CARB as the statewide regulatory body responsible for ensuring that California meets its statewide carbon pollution reduction targets, while retaining local air districts’ responsibility and authority to curb toxic air contaminants and criteria pollutants from local sources that severely impact public health. AB 398 also decreased free carbon allowances over 40 percent by 2030 and prioritized Capand-Trade spending to various programs including reducing diesel emissions in impacted communities.
SB 150 (Regional Transportation Plans)
Signed on October 10, 2017, SB 150 aligns local and regional GHG reduction targets with State targets (i.e., 40 percent below their 1990 levels by 2030). SB 150 creates a process to include communities in discussions on how to monitor their regions’ progress on meeting these goals. The bill also requires the CARB to regularly report on that progress, as well as on the successes and the challenges regions experience associated with achieving their targets. SB 150 provides for accounting of climate change efforts and GHG reductions and identify effective reduction strategies.
SB 100 (California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program: Emissions of Greenhouse Gases) Signed into law in September 2018, SB 100 increased California’s renewable electricity portfolio from 50 to 60 percent by 2030. SB 100 also established a further goal to have an electric grid that is entirely powered by clean energy by 2045.
AB 1346 (Air Pollution: Small Off-Road Engines)
Signed into Law in October 2021, AB 1346 requires CARB, to adopt cost-effective and technologically feasible regulations to prohibit engine exhaust and evaporative emissions from new small off-road engines, consistent with federal law, by July 1, 2022. The bill requires CARB to identify and, to the extent feasible, make available funding for commercial rebates or similar incentive funding as part of any updates to existing applicable funding program guidelines to local air pollution control districts and air quality management districts to implement to support the transition to zero-emission small off-road equipment operations.
AB 1279 (The California Climate Crisis Act)
AB 1279 establishes the policy of the State to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, but no later than 2045; to maintain net negative GHG emissions thereafter; and to ensure that by 2045 statewide anthropogenic GHG emissions are reduced at least 85 percent below 1990 levels. The bill requires CARB to ensure that Scoping Plan updates identify and recommend measures to achieve carbon neutrality, and to identify and implement policies and strategies that enable CO2 removal solutions and carbon capture, utilization, and storage technologies.
792
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
August 2023
Page | 14
SB 1020 (100 Percent Clean Electric Grid)
Signed on September 16, 2022, SB 1020 provides additional goals for the path to the 2045 goal of 100 percent clean electricity retail sales. It creates a target of 90 percent clean electricity retail sales by 2035 and 95 percent clean electricity retail sales by 2040.
SB 905 (Carbon Sequestration Program)
Signed on September 16, 2022, SB 905 establishes regulatory framework and policies that involve carbon removal, carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration. It also prohibits the injecting of concentrated carbon dioxide fluid into a Class II injection well for the purpose of enhanced oil recovery.
AB 1757 (Nature-Based Solutions)
Signed on September 16, 2022, AB 1757 requires State agencies to develop a range of targets for natural carbon sequestration and nature-based climate solutions that reduce GHG emissions to meet the 2030, 2038, and 2045 goals which would be integrated into a scoping plan addressing natural and working lands Executive Orders Related to GHG Emissions
California’s Executive Branch has taken several actions to reduce GHGs using executive orders. Although not regulatory, they set the tone for the State and guide the actions of state agencies.
Executive Order S-3-05. Executive Order S-3-05 was issued on June 1, 2005, which established the following GHG emissions reduction targets:
• By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels.
• By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels.
• By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent 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.
Executive Order S-01-07. Issued on January 18, 2007, Executive Order S 01-07 mandates that a statewide goal shall be established to reduce the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by at least 10 percent by 2020. The executive order established a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) and directed the Secretary for Environmental Protection to coordinate the actions of the California Energy Commission, CARB, the University of California, and other agencies to develop and propose protocols for measuring the “life-cycle carbon intensity” of transportation fuels. CARB adopted the LCFS on April 23, 2009.
Executive Order S-13-08. Issued on November 14, 2008, Executive Order S-13-08 facilitated the California Natural Resources Agency development of the 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy. Objectives include analyzing risks of climate change in California, identifying and exploring strategies to adapt to climate change, and specifying a direction for future research. 793
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
August 2023
Page | 15
Executive Order S-14-08. Issued on November 17, 2008, Executive Order S-14-08 expands the State’s Renewable Energy Standard to 33 percent renewable power by 2020. Additionally, Executive Order S-21- 09 (signed on September 15, 2009) directs CARB to adopt regulations requiring 33 percent of electricity sold in the State come from renewable energy by 2020. CARB adopted the Renewable Electricity Standard on September 23, 2010, which requires 33 percent renewable energy by 2020 for most publicly owned electricity retailers.
Executive Order S-21-09. Issued on July 17, 2009, Executive Order S-21-09 directs CARB to adopt regulations to increase California's Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to 33 percent by 2020. This builds upon SB 1078 (2002), which established the California RPS program, requiring 20 percent renewable energy by 2017, and SB 107 (2006), which advanced the 20 percent deadline to 2010, a goal which was expanded to 33 percent by 2020 in the 2005 Energy Action Plan II.
Executive Order B-30-15. Issued on April 29, 2015, Executive Order B-30-15 established a California GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and directs CARB to update the Climate Change Scoping Plan to express the 2030 target in terms of MMTCO2e. The 2030 target acts as an interim goal on the way to achieving reductions of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, a goal set by Executive Order S3-05. The executive order also requires the State’s climate adaptation plan to be updated every three years and for the State to continue its climate change research program, among other provisions. With the enactment of SB 32 in 2016, the Legislature codified the goal of reducing GHG emissions by 2030 to 40 percent below 1990 levels.
Executive Order B-55-18. Issued on September 10, 2018, Executive Order B-55-18 establishes a goal to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, and no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net negative emissions thereafter. This goal is in addition to the existing statewide targets of reducing GHG emissions. The executive order requires CARB to work with relevant state agencies to develop a framework for implementing this goal. It also requires CARB to update the Scoping Plan to identify and recommend measures to achieve carbon neutrality. The executive order also requires state agencies to develop sequestration targets in the Natural and Working Lands Climate Change Implementation Plan.
Executive Order N-79-20. Signed in September 2020, Executive Order N-79-20 establishes as a goal that where feasible, all new passenger cars and trucks, as well as all drayage/cargo trucks and off-road vehicles and equipment, sold in California, will be zero-emission by 2035. The executive order sets a similar goal requiring that all medium and heavy-duty vehicles will be zero-emission by 2045 where feasible. It also directs CARB to develop and propose rulemaking for passenger vehicles and trucks, medium-and heavyduty fleets where feasible, drayage trucks, and off-road vehicles and equipment “requiring increasing volumes” of new zero emission vehicles (ZEVs) “towards the target of 100 percent.” The executive order directs the California Environmental Protection Agency, the California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM), and the California Natural Resources Agency to transition and repurpose oil production facilities with a goal toward meeting carbon neutrality by 2045. Executive Order N-79-20 builds upon the CARB Advanced Clean Trucks regulation, which was adopted by CARB in July 2020.
California Regulations and Building Codes
California has a long history of adopting regulations to improve energy efficiency in new and remodeled buildings. These regulations have kept California’s energy consumption relatively flat even with rapid population growth.
794
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
August 2023
Page | 16
Title 20 Appliance Efficiency Regulations. The appliance efficiency regulations (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 20, Sections 1601-1608) include standards for new appliances. Twenty-three categories of appliances are included in the scope of these regulations. These standards include minimum levels of operating efficiency, and other cost-effective measures, to promote the use of energy- and water-efficient appliances.
Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (CCR Title 24, Part 6) 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. Energy efficient buildings require less electricity; therefore, increased energy efficiency reduces fossil fuel consumption and decreases GHG emissions. The CEC adopted the 2022 Energy Code on August 11, 2021, which was subsequently approved by the California Building Standards Commission for inclusion into the California Building Standards Code. The 2022 Energy Code encourages efficient electric heat pumps, establishes electric-ready requirements for new homes, expands solar photovoltaic and battery storage standards, strengthens ventilation standards, and more. Buildings whose permit applications are applied for on or after January 1, 2023, must comply with the 2022 Energy Code.
Title 24 California Green Building Standards Code. The California Green Building Standards Code (CCR Title 24, Part 11 code) commonly referred to as the CALGreen Code, is a statewide mandatory construction code developed and adopted by the California Building Standards Commission and the Department of Housing and Community Development. The CALGreen standards require new residential and commercial buildings to comply with mandatory measures under the topics of planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency/conservation, material conservation and resource efficiency, and environmental quality.
CALGreen also provides voluntary tiers and measures that local governments may adopt that encourage or require additional measures in the five green building topics. The CEC adopted the 2022 CALGreen Code, which went into effect on January 1, 2023. The 2022 CALGreen Code includes voluntary Tier 2 standards, which exceed energy efficiency requirements by 15 percent. CALGreen voluntary Tier 2 standards are met through a variety of energy efficiency measures (e.g., on-site renewable energy, green power, bio-based construction materials, and reduced parking capacity) that exceed the mandatory CALGreen requirements.
3.3 Regional
South Coast Air Quality Management District Thresholds
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) formed a GHG California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Significance Threshold Working Group to provide guidance to local lead agencies on determining significance for GHG emissions in their CEQA documents. This working group was formed to assist SCAQMD’s efforts to develop a GHG significance threshold and is composed of a wide variety of stakeholders including the State Office of Planning and Research, CARB, the Attorney General’s Office, a variety of city and county planning departments in the SCAB, various utilities such as sanitation and power companies throughout the SCAB, industry groups, and environmental and professional organizations. The Working Group has proposed a tiered approach to evaluating GHG emissions for development projects where SCAQMD is not the lead agency, wherein projects are evaluated sequentially through a series of “tiers” to determine whether the project is likely to result in a potentially significant impact due to GHG emissions.
795
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
August 2023
Page | 17
With the tiered approach, a project is compared against the requirements of each tier sequentially and would not result in a significant impact if it complies with any tier. Tier 1 excludes projects that are specifically exempt from SB 97 from resulting in a significant impact. Tier 2 excludes projects that are consistent with a GHG reduction plan that has a certified final CEQA document and complies with AB 32 GHG reduction goals. Tier 3 excludes projects with annual emissions lower than a screening threshold.
The SCAQMD has adopted a threshold of 10,000 metric tons of CO2e (MTCO2e) per year for industrial projects and a 3,000 MTCO2e threshold was proposed for non-industrial projects but has not been adopted. The SCAQMD concluded that projects with emissions less than the screening threshold would not result in a significant cumulative impact.
Tier 4 consists of three decision tree options. Under the Tier 4 first option, SCAQMD initially outlined that a project would be excluded if design features and/or mitigation measures resulted in emissions 30 percent lower than business as usual emissions. However, the Working Group did not provide a recommendation for this approach. The Working Group folded the Tier 4 second option into the third option. Under the Tier 4 third option, a project would be excluded if it was below an efficiency-based threshold of 4.8 MTCO2e per service population per year. Tier 5 would exclude projects that implement offsite mitigation (GHG reduction projects) or purchase offsets to reduce GHG emission impacts to less than the proposed screening level.
Tier 3 Screening Thresholds
When the tiered approach is applied to a proposed project, and the project is found not to comply with Tier 1 or Tier 2, the project’s emissions are compared against a screening threshold, as described above, for Tier 3. The screening threshold formally adopted by SCAQMD is an “interim” screening threshold for stationary source industrial projects where the SCAQMD is the lead agency under CEQA. The threshold was termed “interim” because, at the time, SCAQMD anticipated that CARB would be adopting a statewide significance threshold that would inform and provide guidance to SCAQMD in its adoption of a final threshold. However, no statewide threshold was ever adopted, and the interim threshold remains in effect.
For projects for which SCAQMD is not a lead agency, no screening thresholds have been formally adopted.
However, the SCAQMD Working Group has recommended a threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e/year for industrial projects and 3,000 MTCO2e/year for residential and commercial projects. SCAQMD determined that these thresholds would “capture” 90 percent of GHG emissions from these sectors, “capture” meaning that 90 percent of total emissions from all new projects would be subject to some type of CEQA analysis (i.e., found potentially significant).10
Southern California Association of Governments
On September 3, 2020, SCAG’s Regional Council adopted Connect SoCal (2020 - 2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy [2020 RTP/SCS]). The RTP/SCS charts a course for closely integrating land use and transportation so that the region can grow smartly and sustainably. The strategy was prepared through a collaborative, continuous, and comprehensive process with input from local governments, county transportation commissions, tribal governments, non-profit organizations, 10 SCAQMD, “Staff Report: Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans,” December 5, 2008, Attachment E: “Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold,” October 2008, p. 3-
2. 796
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
August 2023
Page | 18
businesses and local stakeholders within the counties of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura. The RTP/SCS is a long-range vision plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental, and public health goals. The SCAG region strives toward sustainability through integrated land use and transportation planning. The SCAG region must achieve specific federal air quality standards and is required by state law to lower regional GHG emissions.
3.4 Local
City of Ontario Community Climate Action Plan
The City of Ontario initially adopted its Climate Action Plan on December 16, 2014 (2014 CAP). The 2014 CAP provided guidance on the City of Ontario’s GHG Inventory reduction goals, policies, guidelines, and implementation programs. As part of the 2014 CAP, the City of Ontario published a guidance document titled “Greenhouse Gas Emissions, CEQA Thresholds and Screening Tables” (December 2014). Under this guidance, Projects that garner at least 100 points will be consistent with the reduction quantities in the City’s CAP and are considered less than significant for GHG emissions.
The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 includes an update to the 2014 CAP, referred to as the 2022 Community Climate Action Plan Update (2022 CCAP Update). The 2022 CCAP Update furthers the City efforts to reduce GHG emissions and improve community resilience to hazardous conditions associated with climate change. The 2022 CCAP Update includes updated emissions inventories; updated emissions forecasts; identifies GHG emissions reduction targets to achieve the GHG reduction goals of the City of Ontario consistent with Senate Bill 32, Executive Order S-03-05, and substantial progress toward the State’s carbon neutrality goals of Executive Order B-55-18; and measures, that when quantified, achieve the GHG reduction targets for the City.
Under the 2022 CCAP Update, projects that are subject to the City’s Development Plan Review are required to show consistency with the 2022 CCAP. Table 2: Project Size Thresholds for Land Use Development identifies the maximum project size thresholds for new developments that are exempt from the City’s Development Plan Review process. Projects that exceed this project size threshold must show consistency with the 2022 CCAP by showing that annual GHG emissions meet the CCAP reduction targets and reduction strategies through (1) GHG emission calculations or (2) by using Screening Tables. 797
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
August 2023
Page | 19
Table 2: Project Size Thresholds for Land Use Development Project Type Project Size Threshold
Single Family Residential (Single Family Detached) 60 Units Apartments / Condominiums / Townhouse 20 Units
General Commercial / Retail / Office 20,000 square feet Supermarket / Grocery / Discount Club 36,000 square feet Restaurants (sit down) 8,200 square feet
Fast-Food Restaurants (with or without drive thru) 5,300 square feet Gas Station 4,200 square feet
Logistics / Warehouse 45,000 square feet
Passive Park 200 acres
Active Park 60 acres
Source: City of Ontario, Ontario Community Climate Action Plan; Greenhouse Gas Emissions Screening Tables, 2023. Table 1. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Planning/CCAP/Screening%20Table/Ontario-CCAP_Screening-TablesMARCH%202023.pdf Accessed 7-27-2023.
GHG Emission Calculations
The 2022 CCAP Update includes GHG emission targets for residential and nonresidential developments, there are also separate targets for projects completed by 2030, and those completed between 2031 and 2050. Projects that do not use the Screening Tables will need to demonstrate that they will generate annual GHG emissions that do not exceed the following thresholds:
• For residential development completed between 2020 and 2030, the project shall not produce GHG emissions greater than 5.85 MTCO2e/dwelling unit.
• For residential development completed after 2030, the project shall not produce GHG emissions greater than 1.53 MTCO2e/dwelling unit.
• For nonresidential developments of all types completed between 2020 and 2030, the project shall not produce GHG emissions greater than 8.84 MTCO2e/2,500 square feet of conditioned space. • For nonresidential developments of all types completed after 2030, the project shall not produce GHG emissions greater than 3.61 MTCO2e/2,500 square feet of conditioned space.
Screening Tables
The Projects can also show consistency with 2022 CCAP Update by using the Screening Tables. Projects using this method must show that the Project shall include selected Screening Table Measures that achieve a minimum of 100 points. For mixed-use projects, measures can be used from more than one Screening Table as appropriate to reflect the Project’s mix of uses. 798
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
August 2023
Page | 20
4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY
4.1 CEQA Thresholds and Significance Criteria
Based upon the criteria derived from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project normally would have a significant effect on the environment if it would:
• Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, based on any applicable threshold of significance; or • Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.
The Appendix G thresholds for GHG emissions do not prescribe specific methodologies for performing an assessment, do not establish specific thresholds of significance, and do not mandate specific mitigation measures. Rather, the CEQA Guidelines emphasize the lead agency’s discretion to determine the appropriate methodologies and thresholds of significance consistent with the manner in which other impact areas are handled in CEQA.
Addressing GHG emissions generation impacts requires an agency to determine what constitutes a significant impact. The amendments to the CEQA Guidelines specifically allow lead agencies to determine thresholds of significance that illustrate the extent of an impact and are a basis from which to apply mitigation measures. This means that each agency is left to determine whether a project’s GHG emissions will have a “significant” impact on the environment. The guidelines direct that agencies are to use “careful judgment” and “make a good-faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate” the project’s GHG emissions11.
GHG Thresholds
To address the State’s requirement to reduce GHG emissions, the City adopted the 2022 CCAP with citywide GHG emission reduction targets of 40 percent below 1990 levels of emissions by 2030 and 80 percent below 1990 levels of emissions by 2050. Ontario’s targets are consistent with State laws in effect at the time of the adoption, including SB 32, and ensure that the City is providing GHG reductions locally that will complement State and international efforts of stabilizing climate change.
GHG emission analysis of a nonexempt residential development project in the City of Ontario, completed between 2020 and 2030, requires the project demonstrate that it would not generate annual GHG emissions that exceed 5.85 MTCO2e/dwelling unit or demonstrate that it will achieve a minimum of 100 Screening Table points in order to show consistency with the 2022 CCAP Update.
4.2 Plans, Programs, and Policies
Plans, programs, and policies (PPP) are based on local, state, or federal requirements that are frequently independent of CEQA review and typically include compliance with the provisions of the Building Code, SCAQMD Rules, etc. The City may impose additional requirements during the approval process, as 11 14 California Code of Regulations, Section 15064.4a
799
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
August 2023
Page | 21
appropriate. Because PPPs are neither Project specific nor a result of development of the Project, they are not considered to be either project design features or mitigation measures.
PPP GHG-1 New buildings are required to achieve the current California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6) and the CALGreen Code. The 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards become effective on January 1, 2023. The Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen Code are updated triannually with a goal to achieve 100 percent clean carbon neutrality by 2050 within the State.
PPP GHG-2 New buildings are required to adhere to the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code) requirement to provide bicycle parking for new non-residential buildings, or meet local bicycle parking ordinances, whichever is stricter (CALGreen Code Sections 5.106.4.1).
PPP GHG-3 California’s Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code) requires the recycling and/or salvaging for reuse at minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste generated during most “new construction” projects (CALGreen Code Sections 4.408 and 5.408). Construction contractors are required to submit a construction waste management plan that identifies the construction and demolition waste materials to be diverted from disposal by recycling, reuse on the project, or salvaged for future use or sale and the amount (by weight or volume).
PPP GHG-4 Construction activities are required to adhere to Title 13 CCR 2499, which requires that nonessential idling of construction equipment is restricted to five minutes or less.
PPP GHG-5 New buildings are required to adhere to the CALGreen Code and Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance requirements to increase water efficiency and reduce urban per capita water demand.
4.3 Methodology
Global climate change is, by definition, a cumulative impact of GHG emissions. Therefore, there is no project-level analysis. The baseline against which to compare potential impacts of the project includes the natural and anthropogenic drivers of global climate change, including world-wide GHG emissions from human activities which almost doubled between 1970 and 2010 from approximately 27 gigatonnes (Gt) of CO2/year to nearly 49 GtCO2/year.12 As such, the geographic extent of climate change and GHG emissions cumulative impact discussion is worldwide.
The Project will include 357 multi-family dwelling units which exceeds the maximum size threshold of 20 dwelling units listed in Table 2, therefore the Project must show consistency with the 2022 CCAP Update.
The Project’s construction and operational emissions were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model version 2022.1.1.14 (CalEEMod). Details of the modeling assumptions and emission factors are provided in Appendix A: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data. If GHG annual GHG emissions exceed 12 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2014 Mitigation of Climate Change Working Group III Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2014. 800
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
August 2023
Page | 22
GHG emission thresholds the Project will be required to achieve 100 points using the 2022 CCAP Update Screening Tables.
Construction
CalEEMod calculates emissions from off-road equipment usage and on-road vehicle travel associated with haul, delivery, and construction worker trips. GHG emissions during construction were forecasted based on the proposed construction schedule and applying the mobile-source and fugitive dust emissions factors derived from CalEEMod. The Project’s construction-related GHG emissions would be generated from offroad construction equipment, on-road hauling and vendor (material delivery) trucks, and worker vehicles.
Operations
The Project’s operational GHG emissions would be generated by vehicular traffic, off-road equipment, area sources (e.g., landscaping maintenance, consumer products), electrical generation, natural gas consumption, water supply and wastewater treatment, solid waste, air conditioning and refrigeration.
These emissions categories are discussed below.
• Area Sources. Area source emissions occur from hearths, architectural coatings, landscaping equipment, and consumer products. The Project involves residential and commercial uses and would not include hearths.13 Landscaping and consumer products (i.e., personal care products, home, lawn, and garden products, disinfectants, sanitizers, polishes, cosmetics, and floor finishes) would be part of the emissions from area sources. Additionally, the primary emissions from architectural coatings are volatile organic compounds, which are relatively insignificant as direct GHG emissions.
• Energy Consumption. Energy consumption consists of emissions from project consumption of electricity and natural gas. Primary uses of electricity and natural gas by the Project would be for miscellaneous residential appliances; space heating and cooling, water heating, ventilation, lighting, appliances, and electronics. Energy emissions are calculated based on consumption rates and emissions factors in CalEEMod. No changes were made to the default energy usage consumption rates or emissions factors.
• Solid Waste. Solid waste releases GHG emissions in the form of methane when these materials decompose. Solid waste emissions are calculated based on generation rates and emissions factors in CalEEMod.
• Water and Wastewater. Project GHG emissions would be generated from energy consumption associated with water and wastewater conveyance and treatment. No changes were made to the default water usage consumption rates or emissions factors. • Refrigerants. Project refrigerants includes fugitive GHG emissions associated with building air conditioning and refrigeration equipment. Different types of refrigeration equipment are used by different types of land uses. For example, an office may use various types of air conditioning equipment, while a supermarket may use both air conditioning equipment and refrigeration 13 South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 445 prohibits the installation of wood burning devices in new developments. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/rule-iv/rule-445.pdf 801
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
August 2023
Page | 23
equipment. CalEEMod automatically generates a default air conditioning and refrigeration equipment inventory for each project land use subtype based on industry data from the USEPA.14 • Mobile Sources. Mobile sources are emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions. Depending upon the pollutant being discussed, the potential air quality impact may be of either regional or local concern. For example, ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 are all pollutants of regional concern. NOX and ROG react with sunlight to form O3, known as photochemical smog. Additionally, wind currents readily transport PM10 and PM2.5. However, CO tends to be a localized pollutant, dispersing rapidly at the source.
Project-generated vehicle emissions are based on the trip generation within the Traffic Study for the Proposed Watermarke Ontario Project in the City of Ontario (Traffic Study) prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates (July 2023) and incorporated into CalEEMod as recommended by the SCAQMD. Project trip generation is based on the following Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) land use categories:
• ITE Land Use 220: Multifamily Housing (Low Rise)
• ITE Land Use 822: Strip Retail Plaza (<40K)
The Project would generate 1,269 daily trips, or 463,185 trips per year. Trip lengths use CalEEMod default lengths for projects located in San Bernardino County. Based on these estimates the Project is anticipated to generate 3,479,538 VMT per year. 14 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Accounting Tool to Support Federal Reporting of Hydrofluorocarbon Emissions:
Supporting Documentation, October 2016.
802
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
August 2023
Page | 24
5 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
5.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Previous Significance Determination
The 2022 Final Supplemental EIR for The Ontario Plan 2050 concluded that implementation of The Ontario Plan would reduce GHG emissions to a less than significant level. The General Plan includes implementation of the Community Climate Action Plan update which reduces GHG emissions and is consistent with CARB’s Scoping Plan and SCAG’s Connect SoCal regional transportation plan.
Threshold 5.1 Would the Project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that could have a significant impact on the environment?
Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Project would result in direct emissions of CO2, N2O, and CH4 from construction equipment and the transport of materials and construction workers to and from the Project site. The GHG emissions only occur during temporary construction activities and would be cease once construction is complete. The total GHG emissions (in CO2e) generated during construction are shown in Table 3: Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
Table 3: Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Category MTCO2e 30-Year Amortized MTCO2e
Construction Year 2024 587 19.57
Construction Year 2025 1,245 41.50
Construction Year 2026 1,118 37.27
Total Construction Emissions 2,950 98.33 1
Note: Total does not sum due to rounding.
Source: CalEEMod version 2020.4.0. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs.
As shown in Table 3, the Project would result in the generation of approximately 2,950 MTCO2e over the course of construction. Construction GHG emissions are typically summed and amortized over a 30-year period and then added to the operational emissions15. The amortized Project construction emissions would be 98.33 MTCO2e per year. Once construction is complete, the generation of these GHG emissions would cease.
Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Operational emissions occur over the life of the Project. GHG emissions would result from direct emission sources such as Project generated vehicular traffic, on-site combustion of natural gas, and operation of any landscaping equipment. Operational GHG emissions would also result from indirect sources, such as off-site generation of electrical power, the energy required to convey water to, and wastewater from the 15 The standard 30-year amortization period is based on the South Coast Air Quality Management District GHG CEQA Significance Thresholds Working Group (South Coast Air Quality Management District, Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #13, August 26, 2009).
803
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
August 2023
Page | 25
Project, the emissions associated with solid waste generated from the Project, and any fugitive refrigerants from air conditioning or refrigerators.
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the City of Ontario would review and verify that future development plans within the Project area demonstrate compliance with the current version of the Building and Energy Efficiency Standards. Development would also be required to adhere to the provisions of CALGreen, which establishes planning and design standards for sustainable site development, and energy efficiency.
Construction activities would be required to monitor air quality emissions using applicable regulatory guidance such as the SCAQMD Rules.
GHG emissions associated with the Project are summarized in Table 4: Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions. As shown in Table 4, the Project’s emissions would be 2,186.85 MTCO2e annually from both construction and operations.
Table 4: Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Emissions Source
Annual Emissions
MTCO2e per Year
Total Construction Emissions Amortized Over 30 Years 98.3 Area Source 84.3
Energy 593.0
Mobile 1,285.0
Waste 86.5
Water and Wastewater 39.4
Refrigerants 0.35
Total 2,186.85
Emissions per Dwelling Unit 6.13
2022 CCAP Update Threshold for residential
developments completed between 2020 and 2030,
emissions per Dwelling Unit
5.85 Exceeds Threshold? Yes
Source: CalEEMod version 2020.4.0. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs.
The Project includes 357 dwelling units; therefore, annual GHG emissions would equal 6.13 MTCO2e per unit, exceeding the 5.85 MTCO2e per unit threshold for residential projects completed before 2030. As such, the Project must achieve a minimum of 100 points on the Screening Table to show consistency with the 2022 CCAP Update.
Screening Table
To show consistency with 2022 CCAP Update the Project shall include selected Screening Table Measures that achieve a minimum of 100 points. The City shall verify that Screening Table Measures achieving a minimum of 100 points are incorporated in development plans prior to the issuance of building permit(s) and/or site plans. The City shall also verify implementation of the selected Screening Table Measures prior 804
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
August 2023
Page | 26
to the issuance of Certificate(s) of Occupancy. By achieving the 100-point minimum, the Project would be consistent with the 2022 CCAP Update and thus the Project is considered to have a less than significant individual and cumulatively considerable impact on GHG emissions. An example of how the proposed Project could achieve a minimum of 100 Screening Table Points is provided in Table 5: Example of GHG Performance Standards for Multi-Family Development.
Table 5: Example of GHG Performance Standards for Multi-Family Development Reduction Measure Description Feature Points
Measure 1: Building Electrification Replacement of gas appliance with efficient electric appliance
Electric Space Heater
Electric Water Heater
Electric Stove
Electric Dryer
6 8
5 1
Total for measure 20
Measure 4: Transit Oriented
Communities
New development is located in a
transit-oriented community
Development site is located within
½ mile radius of one or more of the
following: a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
stop, bus transit center, light rail
station, the intersection of two or
more major bus routes with a
frequency of service interval of 15
minutes or less during the morning
and afternoon peak commute
periods, and/or High Quality Transit
Corridor defined as a corridor with
fixed route bus service with service
intervals no longer than 15 minutes
during peak commute hours.
10 Total for measure 10
Measure 6: Vehicle Electrification Installation of EV charging stations for resident vehicle parking space
Installation of Level 2 EV or higher
charging stations at a rate of 5-10%
of required vehicle parking spaces.
10 Total for measure 10
Measure 7: Active Transportation Installation or improvement of bicycle facilities
Bicycle parking facilities with 1:1
ratio of bicycle parking to guest
vehicle parking space.
3 Installation or improvement of
pedestrian facilities
Two or three pedestrian
infrastructure improvements to
street design on private streets,
including, but not limited to curb
extensions, raised crosswalks,
speed humps/bumps, street tree
plantings in parkways or street
medians, and elevated pavement
markings.
3 Total for measure 6
Measure 10: Waste Diversion
Design and plan multi-family housing
developments to include onsite areas
for municipal compost/green waste and
recycling bins/containers
Site design allocates sufficient space
for storage and collection of green
waste, organic waste, and
recyclables.
33 805
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
August 2023
Page | 27
Table 5: Example of GHG Performance Standards for Multi-Family Development Reduction Measure Description Feature Points
Total for measure 33
Measure 11: Water Conservation
Implement indoor water efficiency
measures
Implement water efficient
showerheads and faucets.
Install on-demand water circulators
on all showers/baths
1 2
Incorporate outdoor water efficiency
measures
Design and plan outdoor landscapes
planted with drought-tolerant, low
maintenance plants with a 1) drip
irrigation system or 2) sprinkler
irrigation system with a weatherbased irrigation controller. 4 Total for measure 7
Additional Measures
AR-1: Meet CalGreen CalGreen Tier 2 Compliance 10
AR-2: Generate energy from on-site
solar PV
Solar PV that generates 30%-49% of
residential energy needs on
multifamily residential buildings
that are 4 stories in height or taller.
5 Total for measure 15
TOTAL POINTS 101
Source: City of Ontario, Ontario Community Climate Action Plan: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Screening Tables, Table 3, page 10. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Planning/CCAP/Screening%20Table/Ontario-CCAP_Screening-Tables-MARCH%202023.pdf Accessed August 2023.
Conclusion
GHG emission impacts related to the proposed Project are similar to the less than significant impacts identified in The Ontario Plan 2050 Final EIR. No new impact relative to GHG emissions or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the Final EIR would occur.
Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the Final EIR was certified is available that would alter the Final EIR’s significance finding.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Level of Significance: Less than significant impact. Compliance with the CCAP will ensure that Project related GHG emissions remain less than significant.
5.2 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan Compliance
Threshold 5.2 Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions?
806
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
August 2023
Page | 28
City of Ontario Community Climate Action Plan Consistency The primary purpose of the City’s CCAP is to design a feasible strategy to reduce GHG emissions generated by community activities that is consistent with statewide Scoping Plan GHG reduction efforts. The City has identified a series of reduction measures to be implemented by the City. These reduction measures include programs that improve building energy efficiency, increase use of public and active transit, and decrease VMT, increase use of alternative-fueled vehicles, increase use of renewable energy, reduce water consumption, and reduce waste.
Table 6: Community Climate Action Plan Consistency, evaluates the consistency of the proposed Project to the applicable measures of the CCAP. As discussed in the table, the proposed Project would be consistent with all applicable measures. By using energy more efficiently, harnessing renewable energy to power buildings, recycling waste, and enhancing access to sustainable transportation modes, the City can keep dollars in local economy, create new green jobs, and improve community quality of life. As shown in Table 6, the Project would not conflict with the goals of the CCAP.
Table 6: Community Climate Action Plan Consistency
CCAP
Measure Name Measure Description Consistency
Energy
Energy –
Strategy 1
Building electrification. Promote and
incentivize the phase-out of gas appliances in
new and existing homes and businesses
throughout the community to advance GHG
reductions, increase energy efficiency, and
protect public safety and environmental health.
N/A:
This measure is to be taken at the
City level. However, implementation
of the Project would not conflict with
this strategy.
Energy –
Strategy 2
Onsite solar energy for existing residential
development. Continue to support and
facilitate installation of rooftop solar
photovoltaic and onsite solar energy systems in
existing residential development.
N/A: This measure only applies to existing
residential development.
Energy –
Strategy 3
Onsite Solar Energy Systems for Nonresidential
Development: Ensure new large non-residential
development, including City facilities, includes
onsite renewable energy to support the site's
energy needs by requiring solar photovoltaic
panels or other appropriate onsite renewable
energy generation systems for the following
types of projects:
• New commercial and office buildings, or
existing commercial and office building
expansions greater or equal to 45,000
square feet in size.
• New industrial or existing industrial
buildings expansions greater or equal to
100,000 square feet in size.
Consistent:
The proposed Project would
promote renewable energy sources
including passive solar collection,
subject to the City of Ontario policies
and development regulations.
Energy –
Strategy 4
Green roofs. Promote and incentivize residents
and business owners to install green roofs to
conserve energy and reduce surface water
runoff.
N/A:
This measure is to be taken at the
City level. However, implementation
of the Project would not conflict with
this strategy.
807
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
August 2023
Page | 29
Table 6: Community Climate Action Plan Consistency
CCAP
Measure Name Measure Description Consistency
Energy –
Strategy 5
Urban Cooling: Maintain and expand the City's
existing tree canopy, with a goal of planting 500
trees annually through 2050 and promote the
use of pervious concrete and cool pavement for
pavement projects.
Consistent:
The Proposed project would include
landscape installation and pervious
concrete pavement.
Energy –
Strategy 6
Energy efficiency retrofits for low-income
households. Promote and incentivize voluntary
energy efficiency retrofits of homes to reduce
natural gas and electricity usage, with the goal
of retrofitting 9,000 low-income homes by
2050. Partner with community services agencies
to fund energy efficiency projects, including
heating, ventilation, air conditioning, indoor
lighting, water heating equipment, insulation,
and weatherization for low-income residents.
N/A:
This measure is not applicable to the
proposed Project, as retrofits only
apply to existing structures.
Energy –
Strategy 7
Energy efficiency retrofits. Promote and
incentivize voluntary energy efficiency retrofits
to reduce in natural gas and electricity usage.
Partner with regional agencies to expand access
to existing energy efficiency and conservation
opportunities, incentives, and technical
assistance for residents and businesses.
N/A:
This measure is not applicable to the
proposed Project, as retrofits only
apply to existing structures.
Energy –
Strategy 8
Smart Growth and Infill. Encourage
revitalization of neighborhoods through higherdensity, mixed-use, infill development and creative reuse of underutilized sites within the
urban core.
Consistent:
The Project would construct
multifamily residential and
commercial retail land uses on an
underutilized site in Ontario, CA.
Transportation
Transportation –
Strategy 9
Transit-Oriented Development: Encourage
development of compact, mixed-use, and
transit-oriented development to improve the
regional jobs-housing balance, especially on
corridors served by high-ridership transit and
bus rapid transit, such as Holt Avenue.
Consistent:
The proposed Project would provide
a mixed-use development along a
Mountain Avenue, a high-volume
corridor with existing public transit.
Transportation –
Strategy 10
Increase Transportation Ridership. Ensure a
reliable and responsive transit system with
dedicated and secure funding and resources to
support increased ridership.
N/A:
This measure is to be taken at a City
level. However, implementation of
the Project would not conflict with
this strategy.
Transportation –
Strategy 11
Traffic signal synchronization and roadway
management. Implement traffic and roadway
management strategies to improve mobility and
efficiency and reduce associated emissions.
N/A:
This measure is to be taken at the
City level. However, implementation
of the Project would not conflict with
this strategy.
Transportation –
Strategy 12
Community vehicle electrification. Promote
and incentivize the adoption of electric vehicles
(EV) citywide, including light-duty and heavyduty vehicles, for municipal, commercial, and residential uses.
N/A:
This measure is to be taken at the
City level. However, implementation
of the Project would not conflict with
this strategy.
808
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
August 2023
Page | 30
Table 6: Community Climate Action Plan Consistency
CCAP
Measure Name Measure Description Consistency
Transportation –
Strategy 13
Active Transportation Networks: Work with
transit agencies, school districts, and employers
to facilitate an interconnected transportation
system that allows a shift in travel from private
passenger vehicles to alternative modes,
including public transit, ride sharing, car sharing,
bicycling, and walking.
Consistent:
The proposed Project would develop
multifamily residential units near
public transportation proved by
OmniTrans.
Transportation –
Strategy 14
Vehicle Idling: Limit idling of heavy-duty trucks.
Support the SCAMQD and CARB anti-idling
requirements and provide signage in key areas
where idling that is not consistent with
SCAMQD or CARB requirements might occur.
Consistent:
Commercial motor vehicles are
required to comply with California
Code of Regulations Section 2485
which would limit the idling of Diesel
fueled vehicles to no more than five
minutes.
Transportation –
Strategy 15
Parking policy and event parking. Adopt a
comprehensive parking policy that encourages
carpooling and the use of alternative
transportation, including providing parking
spaces for car-share vehicles at convenient
locations with access to public transportation.
N/A:
This measure is to be taken at a City
level. However, implementation of
the Project would not conflict with
this strategy.
Off-road Equipment
Off-Road
Equipment –
Strategy 16
Electrification of construction and landscaping
equipment. Promote and incentivize the
transition to electric construction and
landscaping equipment.
N/A:
This measure is to be taken at the
City level. However, implementation
of the Project would not conflict with
this strategy.
Off-Road
Equipment –
Strategy 17
Idling Ordinance for Construction Equipment:
Limit idling of heavy-duty off-road construction
equipment to reduce air pollution and GHG
emissions from construction activity.
Consistent:
Construction would be required to
comply with California Code of
Regulations Section 2485 and 2499
which would limit the idling of heavyduty construction equipment to no more than five minutes.
Waste
Waste –
Strategy 18
Methane capture at landfills. Support efforts to
reduce methane emissions from regional
landfills.
N/A: This measure is not applicable to the
proposed Project.
Waste –
Strategy 19
Waste Diversion: Exceed waste diversion goals
recommended by AB 939 and CALGreen by
adopting a citywide diversion target of at least
75 percent of waste.
Consistent:
The proposed Project would be
subject to all applicable local, State,
and federal waste diversion
requirement.
Waste –
Strategy 20
Construction and Demolition Waste Recovery
Ordinance: Increase the amount of waste
recycled during construction and demolition of
buildings.
Consistent:
Contractors are required to comply
with CALGreen Code Sections 4.408
and 5.408, requiring the recycling of
a minimum of 65 percent of
construction and demolition waste,
refer to PPP GHG-3.
Water
Water –
Strategy 21
Indoor water efficiency. Encourage waterefficient retrofits of new and existing buildings Consistent: The Project would comply with CALGreen Code Section 4.303 and
809
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
August 2023
Page | 31
Table 6: Community Climate Action Plan Consistency
CCAP
Measure Name Measure Description Consistency
by working with water providers and regional
agencies.
require the installation of low flow
fixtures.
Water –
Strategy 22
Water Efficient Landscapes and Water
Recycling: Promote drought-tolerant and firewise landscaping. Encourage increased use of reclaimed water for landscape irrigation,
agricultural, and industrial use.
Consistent:
The proposed Project plans to
incorporate native drought tolerant
landscaping and would use recycled
water to irrigate landscape areas as
required by the City of Ontario
Recycled Water Master Plan.
Water –
Strategy 23
Water system and wastewater operations
efficiency. Maximize efficiency at drinking water
treatment, pumping, and distribution facilities,
including development of off-peak demand
schedules for heavy commercial and industrial
users.
N/A: This measure is not applicable to the
proposed Project.
Water –
Strategy 24
Methane capture for wastewater treatment.
Work with Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA),
the local wastewater treatment provider, to
increase methane capture rate.
N/A: This measure is not applicable to the
proposed Project.
Other
Strategy 25
Methane capture for dairy operations.
Encourage and incentivize local dairy operations
to reduce methane emissions through methane
capture technology.
N/A: This measure is not applicable to the
proposed Project.
Strategy 26
Climate change awareness and education.
Promote climate change awareness and GHG
reduction community-wide through a variety of
mechanisms, including through support of
climate change education in schools or
community colleges.
N/A: This measure is to be taken at the
City level.
Strategy 27
Carbon sequestration. Establish a citywide
carbon sequestration project and sequestration
goal of 5,000 MT CO2 per year.
N/A: This measure is to be taken at the
City level.
Strategy 28
Green jobs. Support green job trainings and
opportunities to create sustainable, living wage,
quality employment opportunities.
N/A: This measure is to be taken at the
City level.
Source: City of Ontario, 2022. Ontario Community Climate Action Plan. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/CCAP/Ontario-CCAP_Adopted_20220816.pdf. (accessed August 2023).
SCAG’s Connect SoCal
On September 3, 2020, SCAG’s Regional Council adopted Connect SoCal (2020 - 2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy [2020 RTP/SCS]). The RTP/SCS is a long-range visioning plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental, and public health goals. The RTP/SCS embodies a collective vision for the region’s future and is developed with input from local governments, county transportation commissions, tribal governments, nonprofit organizations, businesses, and local stakeholders in the counties of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San 810
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
August 2023
Page | 32
Bernardino, and Ventura. SCAG’s RTP/SCS establishes GHG emissions goals for automobiles and light-duty trucks for 2020 and 2035 as well as an overall GHG target for the Project region consistent with both the target date of AB 32 and the post-2020 GHG reduction goals of Executive Orders 5-03-05 and B-30-15.
The RTP/SCS contains over 4,000 transportation projects, ranging from highway improvements, railroad grade separations, bicycle lanes, new transit hubs and replacement bridges. These future investments were included in county plans developed by the six county transportation commissions and seek to reduce traffic bottlenecks, improve the efficiency of the region’s network, and expand mobility choices for everyone. The RTP/SCS is an important planning document for the region, allowing project sponsors to qualify for federal funding.
The plan accounts for operations and maintenance costs to ensure reliability, longevity, and cost effectiveness. The RTP/SCS is also supported by a combination of transportation and land use strategies that help the region achieve state GHG emissions reduction goals and Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) requirements, preserve open space areas, improve public health and roadway safety, support our vital goods movement industry, and utilize resources more efficiently. GHG emissions resulting from development-related mobile sources are the most potent source of emissions, and therefore Project comparison to the RTP/SCS is an appropriate indicator of whether the Project would inhibit the post-2020 GHG reduction goals promulgated by the state. The Project’s consistency with the RTP/SCS goals is analyzed in detail in Table 7: Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Consistency.
Table 7: Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Consistency SCAG Goals Compliance
GOAL 1: Encourage regional economic prosperity
and global competitiveness.
Consistent: The Project would draw new residents and retail businesses to the area, contributing to regional
economic prosperity.
GOAL 2: Improve mobility, accessibility, reliability,
and travel safety for people and goods.
Consistent: Although this Project is not a transportation improvement project, the Project is located near an
existing transit route along I-10.
GOAL 3: Enhance the preservation, security, and
resilience of the regional transportation
system.
N/A: This is not a transportation improvement project and is therefore not applicable.
GOAL 4: Increase person and goods movement and
travel choices within the transportation
system.
N/A: This is not a transportation improvement project and is therefore not applicable. However,
implementation of the Project would not conflict
with this goal.
GOAL 5: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and
improve air quality.
Consistent: The Project is located within an urban area in proximity to existing transportation routes and
freeways. Location of the project within a developed
area would reduce trip lengths, which would reduce
GHG and air quality emissions. Additionally, the
Project would achieve a minimum of 100 points on
the City GHG Screening Table, thereby reducing GHG
emission impacts to less than significant levels.
GOAL 6: Support healthy and equitable communities Consistent: The Project includes a mix of uses including housing and neighborhood-serving retail proximate to
employment, reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT),
promoting walkability, and contributing to a
jobs/housing balance.
811
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
August 2023
Page | 33
Table 7: Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Consistency SCAG Goals Compliance
GOAL 7: Adapt to a changing climate and support an
integrated regional development pattern
and transportation network.
Consistent: The Project would be an infill development in an underutilized area which will provide housing in
close proximity to designated public transit facilities and routes.
GOAL 8: Leverage new transportation technologies
and data-driven solutions that result in
more efficient travel.
N/A: This is not a transportation improvement project and is therefore not applicable. However,
implementation of the Project would not conflict
with this goal.
GOAL 9: Encourage development of diverse housing
types in areas that are supported by
multiple transportation options.
Consistent: The Project involves development of a mix of uses (residential and commercial) that would provide
diverse housing options that would be served by
OmniTrans bus sevice.
GOAL
10:
Promote conservation of natural and
agricultural lands and restoration of
habitats.
Consistent: The Project proposes a mix of residential and commercial land uses in an urbanized area and
would therefore not interfere with conservation of
natural or agricultural lands. The Project site is not
considered vital habitat land and therefore would
not conflict with restoration of habitats.
Source: Southern California Association of Governments, Connect SoCal (2020 - 2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, 2020.
The goals stated in the RTP/SCS were used to determine consistency with the planning efforts previously stated. As shown in Table 7, the Project would be consistent with the stated goals of the RTP/SCS.
Therefore, the Project would not result in any significant impacts or interfere with SCAG’s ability to achieve the region’s post-2020 mobile source GHG reduction targets.
California Air Resource Board Scoping Plan Consistency
Adopted December 15, 2022, CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan) sets a path to achieve targets for carbon neutrality and reduce anthropogenic GHG emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045 in accordance with AB 1279. To achieve the targets of AB 1279, the 2022 Scoping Plan relies on existing and emerging fossil fuel alternatives and clean technologies, as well as carbon capture and storage. Specifically, the 2022 Scoping Plan focuses on zero-emission transportation; phasing out use of fossil gas use for heating homes and buildings; reducing chemical and refrigerants with high GWP; providing communities with sustainable options for walking, biking, and public transit; displacement of fossil-fuel fired electrical generation through use of renewable energy alternatives (e.g., solar arrays and wind turbines); and scaling up new options such as green hydrogen.
The 2022 Scoping Plan sets one of the most aggressive approaches to reach carbon neutrality in the world.
Unlike the 2017 Scoping Plan, CARB no longer includes a numeric per capita threshold and instead advocates for compliance with a local GHG reduction strategy (i.e., Climate Action Plan) consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15183.5.
The key elements of the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan focus on transportation. Specifically, the 2022 Scoping Plan aims to rapidly move towards zero-emission (ZE) transportation (i.e., electrifying cars, buses, trains, and trucks), which constitutes California’s single largest source of GHGs. The regulations that impact the transportation sector are adopted and enforced by CARB on vehicle manufacturers and are outside the 812
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
August 2023
Page | 34
jurisdiction and control of local governments. The 2022 Scoping Plan accelerates development of new regulations as well as amendments to strengthen regulations and programs already in place. Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions in the latest 2022 Scoping Plan include:
• Implementing SB 100 (achieve 100 percent clean electricity by 2045); • Achieving 100 percent zero emission vehicle sales in 2035 through Advanced Clean Cars II; and • Implementing the Advanced Clean Fleets regulation to deploy zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) buses and trucks.
Additional transportation policies include the Off-Road Zero-Emission Targeted Manufacturer rule, Clean Off-Road Fleet Recognition Program, In-use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation, Clean Off-Road Fleet Recognition Program, and Amendments to the In-use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation. The 2022 Scoping Plan would continue to implement SB 375. GHGs would be further reduced through the Capand-Trade Program carbon pricing and SB 905. SB 905 requires CARB to create the Carbon Capture, Removal, Utilization, and Storage Program to evaluate, demonstrate, and regulate carbon dioxide removal projects and technology.
As indicated above, GHG reductions are also achieved as a result of State of California energy and water efficiency requirements for new residential developments. These efficiency improvements correspond to reductions in secondary GHG emissions. For example, in 2021 approximately 38 percent of the total electricity net generation in California was derived from natural gas combustion. Therefore, energy saving measures, such as Title 24, reduces GHG emissions from the power generation facilities by reducing load demand.
Scoping Plan Appendix D, Local Actions
Included in the 2022 Scoping Plan is a set of Local Actions (2022 Scoping Plan Appendix D) aimed at providing local jurisdictions without a CEQA-qualified CAP with the tools needed to reduce GHGs and assist the state in meeting the ambitious targets set forth in the 2022 Scoping Plan. CARB Scoping Plan Appendix D includes a section on evaluating plan-level and project-level alignment with the State’s Climate Goals in CEQA GHG analyses. In this section, CARB identifies several recommendations and strategies that should be considered for new development in order to determine consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan. Notably, this section is focused on Residential and Mixed-Use Projects.16 CARB specifically states that Appendix D does not address other land uses (e.g., industrial).17 However, CARB plans to explore new approaches for other land use types in the future.18 CARB Scoping Plan Appendix D lists potential actions that support the State’s climate goals. However, the Scoping Plan notes that the applicability and performance of the actions may vary across the regions. The document is organized into two categories (A) examples of plan-level GHG reduction actions that could be implemented by local governments and (B) examples of on-site project design features, mitigation measures, that could be required of individual projects under CEQA, if feasible, when the local jurisdiction is the lead agency.
16 California Air Resources Board, 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality, Appendix D: Local Actions, Page 21, November 2022.
17 California Air Resources Board, 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality, Appendix D: Local Actions, Page 4, November 2022.
18 California Air Resources Board, 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality, Appendix D: Local Actions, Page 21, November 2022.
813
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
August 2023
Page | 35
Appendix D notes that project consistency with the Scoping Plan can be determined through consistency with a qualified CAP, and absent consistency with a qualified CAP the State recommends that residential and mixed-use projects meet the following three priority areas will reduce GHG emissions and should accommodate growth in a manner consistent with State GHG reduction and equity prioritization goals.
These project attributes are intended to help local jurisdictions qualitatively identify projects that are clearly consistent with the Scoping Plan. Appendix D also notes that lead agencies may determine, with adequate additional supporting evidence, that projects that incorporate some, but not all, of the key project attributes are consistent with the State’s climate goals.19 • Transportation Electrification. Table 3 in the 2022 Scoping Plan, Appendix D, notes that to be clearly consistent with the State’s goals, projects should provide EV charging infrastructure that, at minimum, meets the most ambitious voluntary standard in the CALGreen code. • VMT Reduction. The Scoping Plan notes that to be consistent with the VMT reduction attribute, projects should be located on sites that are surrounded by existing urban uses and reuses or redevelops previously undeveloped or underutilized land; do not result in the loss or conversion of natural and working lands; and consist of transit-supportive densities (minimum of 20 residential dwelling units per acre).
• Building Decarbonization. Building decarbonization involves maximizing energy efficiency and reducing the use of fossil fuel energy.
However, as discussed previously, the City of Ontario has adopted a CEQA-qualified CAP and as shown in Table 6, the Project is consistent with the Ontario CCAP. As noted in Scoping Plan Appendix D, consistency with a qualified CAP ensures consistency with the Scoping Plan. Therefore, the Project is consistent with 2022 Scoping Plan and would comply with all applicable regulatory requirements.
Conclusion
The proposed Project would be consistent with the Ontario CCAP, SCAG’s RTP/SCS, and the CARB Scoping Plan. The Project would be required to comply with all existing regulations, including applicable measures from the City’s General Plan.
As shown in Table 4, approximately 86 percent of the Project Total GHG emissions are from energy and mobile sources which would be further reduced by the 2022 Scoping Plan goals (including achieve 100 percent clean electricity by 2045 [SB 100], achieving 100 percent zero emission vehicle sales in 2035 [Advanced Clean Cars II], and implementing the Advanced Clean Fleets regulation [ZEV buses and trucks]).
Mobile source emissions would further decline in the future due to statewide measures discussed above (including the reduction in fuels’ carbon content, CARB’s Advanced Clean Car Program, CARB’s Mobile Source Strategy, fuel efficiency standards, etc.), as well as cleaner technology and fleet turnover. SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS is also expected to help California reach its GHG reduction goals, with reductions in per capita transportation emissions of 19 percent by 2035.20 The Project includes a mix of a residential and 19 California Air Resources Board, 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality, Appendix D: Local Actions, Page 23, November 2022.
20 California Air Resources Board, SB 375 Regional Plan Climate Targets, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ourwork/programs/sustainable-communities-program/regional-plan-targets. 814
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
August 2023
Page | 36
commercial land uses that would potentially reduce the need to travel long distances for some residents and reduce associated GHG emissions.
At this time, it is not possible to quantify the emissions savings from future regulatory measures that have not yet been developed; nevertheless, it can be anticipated that Project operations would benefit from applicable measures are enacted to meet State GHG reduction goals. The Project would not impede the State’s progress towards carbon neutrality by 2045 under the 2022 Scoping Plan. The Project would be required to comply with applicable current and future regulatory requirements promulgated through the 2022 Scoping Plan.
In addition, the Ontario CCAP establishes a city points system that assigns values for each GHG emissions mitigation design element or operational program feature incorporated into a given development project.
The CCAP Screening Tables point values correspond to the minimum GHG emissions reduction expected from each feature. Projects with features that yield at least 100 Screening Table points are considered consistent with the reduction quantities anticipated in the City’s CCAP. Such projects would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative GHG emissions impact. Achieving 100 points ensures that the Project would not impede California’s statewide GHG reduction goals for 2030 and 2050.
In conclusion, the Project does not conflict with the applicable plans that are discussed above and therefore, the Project does not have a significant impact.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Level of Significance: Less than significant impact.
Conclusion
The Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation; GHG impacts related to the proposed Project are similar to the less than significant impacts identified in The Ontario Plan 2050 Final EIR. No new impact relative to GHG emissions or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the Final EIR would occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the Final EIR was certified is available that would alter the Final EIR’s significance finding.
5.3 Cumulative Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Cumulative Setting
Climate change is a global problem. GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria air pollutants and TACs, which are pollutants of regional and local concern. Whereas pollutants with localized air quality effects have relatively short atmospheric lifetimes (about 1 day), GHGs have much longer atmospheric lifetimes of 1 year to several thousand years that allow them to be dispersed around the globe.
Cumulative Impacts
Project-related GHG emissions are not confined to a particular air basin but are dispersed worldwide.
Therefore, impacts under Impact Threshold 5.1 are not Project-specific impacts, but the proposed 815
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
August 2023
Page | 37
Project’s contribution to cumulative GHG impact. As discussed previously, the Project would achieve a minimum of 100 points on the 2022 CCAP Screening Tables. Projects with features that yield at least 100 Screening Table points are considered consistent with the reduction quantities anticipated in the City’s CCAP and are determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative GHG emissions impact.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Level of Significance: Less than significant impact.
Conclusion
Cumulative GHG emission impacts related to the proposed Project are similar to the less than cumulatively considerable impacts identified in The Ontario Plan 2050 Final EIR. Consistency with the 2022 CCAP Update would achieve the state’s GHG emissions efficiency target without implementation of additional local GHG reduction measures. No new impact relative to air quality or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the Final EIR would occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the Final EIR was certified is available that would alter the Final EIR’s significance finding. 816
City of Ontario Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
August 2023
Page | 38
6 REFERENCES
1. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), CalEEMod User Guide Appendix A:
Calculation Details, Section 5.2 Methodology for Converting EMFAC2017 Emission Rates into CalEEMod Vehicle Emission Factors, May 2021.
2. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures, August 2010.
3. California Air Resources Board, California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, 2017.
4. California Air Resources Board, 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality, November 2022.
5. California Air Resources Board, Current California GHG Emissions Inventory Data, 2000-2020 GHG inventory (2022 Edition), 2022.
6. California Air Resources Board, EMFAC2021 Volume III Technical Document, March 21, 2021.
7. City of Ontario. Ontario Community Climate Action Plan, 2022
8. City of Ontario. Ontario Community Climate Action Plan: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Screening Tables, 2023
9. City of Ontario. The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050, 2022
10. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, 2007.
11. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2013.
12. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Traffic Study for the Proposed Watermarke Ontario Project in the City of Ontario, July 2023.
13. National Research Council, Advancing the Science of Climate Change, 2010.
14. State of California, Code of Regulations Section 15065.5a, 2018.
15. Southern California Association of Governments, Connect SoCal (2020 - 2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, 2020.
16. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold, October 2008.
17. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #8, 2009.
18. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #13, 2009.
19. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #15, 2010.
20. U.S. Energy Information Administration, Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey. Table PBA4. Electricity consumption totals and conditional intensities by building activity subcategories, 2012.
21. U.S. EPA, Final Rule to Revise Existing National GHG Emissions Standards for Passenger Cars and Light Trucks Through Model Year 2026, 2021.
22. U.S. EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2016, 2018.
23. U.S. EPA, Methane and Nitrous Oxide Emission from Natural Sources, 2010.
24. U.S. EPA, Overview of Greenhouse Gases, 2018.
817
Appendix A
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data
818
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
1 / 94
Watermarke 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
2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Demolition (2024) - Unmitigated
3.2. Demolition (2024) - Mitigated
819
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
2 / 94
3.3. Site Preparation (2024) - Unmitigated
3.4. Site Preparation (2024) - Mitigated
3.5. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated
3.6. Grading (2024) - Mitigated
3.7. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated
3.8. Building Construction (2024) - Mitigated
3.9. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
3.10. Building Construction (2025) - Mitigated
3.11. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
3.12. Building Construction (2026) - Mitigated
3.13. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated
3.14. Paving (2025) - Mitigated
3.15. Architectural Coating (2025) - Unmitigated
3.16. Architectural Coating (2025) - Mitigated
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
820
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
3 / 94
4.1.2. Mitigated
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.2. Unmitigated
4.3.1. Mitigated
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.2. Unmitigated
4.4.1. Mitigated
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.2. Unmitigated
4.5.1. Mitigated
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
821
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
4 / 94
4.6.2. Mitigated
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
4.7.2. Mitigated
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
4.8.2. Mitigated
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
4.9.2. Mitigated
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
4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated
4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated
4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated 822
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
5 / 94
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
5.2.2. Mitigated
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
5.3.2. Mitigated
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
5.5. Architectural Coatings
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
5.7. Construction Paving
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
823
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
6 / 94
5.9.1. Unmitigated
5.9.2. Mitigated
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
5.10.1.2. Mitigated
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
5.11.2. Mitigated
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
5.12.2. Mitigated
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
824
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
7 / 94
5.13.2. Mitigated
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
5.14.2. Mitigated
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
5.15.2. Mitigated
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
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
825
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
8 / 94
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
5.18.2.2. Mitigated
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
826
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
9 / 94
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Watermarke
Construction Start Date 6/1/2024
Operational Year 2026
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.80
Precipitation (days) 2.40
Location 34.07832560287942, -117.66957162919645
County San Bernardino-South Coast
City Ontario
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 5235
EDFZ 10
Electric Utility Southern California Edison
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.14
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
827
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
10 / 94
Apartments Mid Rise 357 Dwelling Unit 2.43 286,994 0.00 0.00 1,182 — Strip Mall 12.2 1000sqft 0.14 12,200 0.00 0.00 — retail/lease/amenities Unenclosed Parking
with Elevator
657 Space 1.59 262,800 0.00 0.00 — —
City Park 1.62 Acre 1.62 0.00 70,558 0.00 — —
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
55.1 1000sqft 1.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 — paving and off-site improvements
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title
Construction C-10-A Water Exposed Surfaces
Construction C-10-C Water Unpaved Construction Roads
Construction C-11 Limit Vehicle Speeds on Unpaved Roads Construction C-12 Sweep Paved Roads
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. 10.4 33.0 83.3 79.7 0.13 3.56 29.2 32.8 3.26 14.1 17.3 — 15,575 15,575 0.86 0.64 30.5 15,795 Mit. 10.4 33.0 83.3 79.7 0.13 3.56 9.43 13.0 3.26 4.05 7.31 — 15,575 15,575 0.86 0.64 30.5 15,795 %
Reduced
— — — — — — 68% 60% — 71% 58% — — — — — — —
828
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
11 / 94
Daily,——————————————————
Winter
(Max)
Unmit. 4.40 3.88 22.8 47.2 0.06 0.82 5.76 6.58 0.76 1.38 2.14— 11,469 11,469 0.59 0.61 0.74 11,667 Mit. 4.40 3.88 22.8 47.2 0.06 0.82 5.76 6.58 0.76 1.38 2.14— 11,469 11,469 0.59 0.61 0.74 11,667 %
Reduced
——————————————————
Average
Daily
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit. 2.58 7.35 11.9 28.8 0.03 0.40 4.16 4.53 0.36 1.42 1.79— 7,370 7,370 0.39 0.43 8.55 7,517 Mit. 2.58 7.35 11.9 28.8 0.03 0.40 4.16 4.53 0.36 1.00 1.34— 7,370 7,370 0.39 0.43 8.55 7,517 %
Reduced
————————— 30% 25%———————
Annual
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit. 0.47 1.34 2.17 5.26 0.01 0.07 0.76 0.83 0.07 0.26 0.33— 1,220 1,220 0.06 0.07 1.42 1,245 Mit. 0.47 1.34 2.17 5.26 0.01 0.07 0.76 0.83 0.07 0.18 0.24— 1,220 1,220 0.06 0.07 1.42 1,245 %
Reduced
————————— 30% 25%———————
Exceeds
(Daily
Max)
——————————————————
Threshol d— 75.0 100 550 150—— 150—— 55.0—————— 3,000
Unmit.— No No No No—— No—— No—————— Yes
Mit.— No No No No—— No—— No—————— Yes
Exceeds
(Average
Daily)
——————————————————
Threshol d— 75.0 100 550 150—— 150—— 55.0—————— 3,000
Unmit.— No No No No—— No—— No—————— Yes829
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
12 / 94
Mit. — No No No No — — No — — No — — — — — — Yes
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 10.4 8.48 83.3 79.7 0.13 3.56 29.2 32.8 3.26 14.1 17.3 — 15,575 15,575 0.86 0.64 28.7 15,795 2025 4.52 33.0 22.4 54.7 0.06 0.82 6.54 7.03 0.76 1.56 2.14 — 11,920 11,920 0.58 0.63 30.5 12,145 2026 3.31 2.73 14.0 41.2 0.04 0.42 5.57 5.98 0.39 1.33 1.72 — 10,047 10,047 0.49 0.58 24.2 10,258 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 3.73 3.10 16.5 38.5 0.04 0.54 5.57 6.10 0.50 1.33 1.83 — 9,908 9,908 0.53 0.59 0.74 10,099 2025 4.40 3.88 22.8 47.2 0.06 0.82 5.76 6.58 0.76 1.38 2.14 — 11,469 11,469 0.59 0.61 0.71 11,667 2026 3.21 2.62 14.3 34.7 0.04 0.42 5.57 5.98 0.39 1.33 1.72 — 9,624 9,624 0.35 0.59 0.63 9,810 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 1.62 1.32 10.2 14.8 0.02 0.40 3.57 3.97 0.36 1.42 1.79 — 3,481 3,481 0.20 0.20 3.04 3,548 2025 2.58 7.35 11.9 28.8 0.03 0.37 4.16 4.53 0.34 1.00 1.34 — 7,370 7,370 0.39 0.43 8.55 7,517 2026 2.19 1.79 9.90 24.4 0.03 0.28 3.80 4.08 0.26 0.91 1.17 — 6,617 6,617 0.24 0.40 7.13 6,751 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.29 0.24 1.86 2.70 < 0.005 0.07 0.65 0.72 0.07 0.26 0.33 — 576 576 0.03 0.03 0.50 587 2025 0.47 1.34 2.17 5.26 0.01 0.07 0.76 0.83 0.06 0.18 0.24 — 1,220 1,220 0.06 0.07 1.42 1,245 2026 0.40 0.33 1.81 4.45 0.01 0.05 0.69 0.74 0.05 0.17 0.21 — 1,096 1,096 0.04 0.07 1.18 1,118
2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 830 Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
13 / 94
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 10.4 8.48 83.3 79.7 0.13 3.56 9.43 13.0 3.26 4.05 7.31 — 15,575 15,575 0.86 0.64 28.7 15,795 2025 4.52 33.0 22.4 54.7 0.06 0.82 6.54 7.03 0.76 1.56 2.14 — 11,920 11,920 0.58 0.63 30.5 12,145 2026 3.31 2.73 14.0 41.2 0.04 0.42 5.57 5.98 0.39 1.33 1.72 — 10,047 10,047 0.49 0.58 24.2 10,258 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 3.73 3.10 16.5 38.5 0.04 0.54 5.57 6.10 0.50 1.33 1.83 — 9,908 9,908 0.53 0.59 0.74 10,099 2025 4.40 3.88 22.8 47.2 0.06 0.82 5.76 6.58 0.76 1.38 2.14 — 11,469 11,469 0.59 0.61 0.71 11,667 2026 3.21 2.62 14.3 34.7 0.04 0.42 5.57 5.98 0.39 1.33 1.72 — 9,624 9,624 0.35 0.59 0.63 9,810 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 1.62 1.32 10.2 14.8 0.02 0.40 1.94 2.34 0.36 0.61 0.98 — 3,481 3,481 0.20 0.20 3.04 3,548 2025 2.58 7.35 11.9 28.8 0.03 0.37 4.16 4.53 0.34 1.00 1.34 — 7,370 7,370 0.39 0.43 8.55 7,517 2026 2.19 1.79 9.90 24.4 0.03 0.28 3.80 4.08 0.26 0.91 1.17 — 6,617 6,617 0.24 0.40 7.13 6,751 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.29 0.24 1.86 2.70 < 0.005 0.07 0.35 0.43 0.07 0.11 0.18 — 576 576 0.03 0.03 0.50 587 2025 0.47 1.34 2.17 5.26 0.01 0.07 0.76 0.83 0.06 0.18 0.24 — 1,220 1,220 0.06 0.07 1.42 1,245 2026 0.40 0.33 1.81 4.45 0.01 0.05 0.69 0.74 0.05 0.17 0.21 — 1,096 1,096 0.04 0.07 1.18 1,118
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. 9.75 15.7 9.93 68.1 0.12 0.57 6.76 7.33 0.57 1.72 2.29 180 18,200 18,379 18.9 0.50 29.3 19,031 831 Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
14 / 94
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 5.40 11.6 9.89 31.1 0.11 0.54 6.76 7.30 0.54 1.72 2.26 180 17,599 17,779 18.9 0.51 2.84 18,408 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 7.57 13.9 5.46 52.2 0.08 0.18 6.76 6.94 0.18 1.72 1.90 180 11,796 11,975 18.8 0.50 13.9 12,610 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.38 2.53 1.00 9.52 0.02 0.03 1.23 1.27 0.03 0.31 0.35 29.7 1,953 1,983 3.11 0.08 2.30 2,088 Exceeds
(Daily
Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Threshol
d
— 55.0 55.0 550 150 — — 150 — — 55.0 — — — — — — 3,000
Unmit. — No No No No — — No — — No — — — — — — Yes
Exceeds
(Average
Daily)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Threshol
d
— 55.0 55.0 550 150 — — 150 — — 55.0 — — — — — — 3,000
Unmit. — No No No No — — No — — No — — — — — — Yes
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 5.02 4.63 3.58 33.3 0.08 0.05 6.76 6.82 0.05 1.72 1.77 — 8,037 8,037 0.41 0.38 27.2 8,189 Area 4.61 11.0 5.33 34.3 0.03 0.43 — 0.43 0.44 — 0.44 0.00 6,493 6,493 0.12 0.01 — 6,500 832
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
15 / 94
Energy 0.12 0.06 1.01 0.44 0.01 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 3,562 3,562 0.33 0.03 — 3,579 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 30.2 108 138 3.11 0.07 — 238 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 149 0.00 149 14.9 0.00 — 522 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.13 2.13
Total 9.75 15.7 9.93 68.1 0.12 0.57 6.76 7.33 0.57 1.72 2.29 180 18,200 18,379 18.9 0.50 29.3 19,031 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 4.69 4.29 3.84 28.5 0.07 0.05 6.76 6.82 0.05 1.72 1.77 — 7,540 7,540 0.43 0.40 0.70 7,670 Area 0.59 7.27 5.03 2.14 0.03 0.41 — 0.41 0.41 — 0.41 0.00 6,389 6,389 0.12 0.01 — 6,396 Energy 0.12 0.06 1.01 0.44 0.01 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 3,562 3,562 0.33 0.03 — 3,579 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 30.2 108 138 3.11 0.07 — 238 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 149 0.00 149 14.9 0.00 — 522 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.13 2.13
Total 5.40 11.6 9.89 31.1 0.11 0.54 6.76 7.30 0.54 1.72 2.26 180 17,599 17,779 18.9 0.51 2.84 18,408 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 4.66 4.26 3.90 29.5 0.07 0.05 6.76 6.82 0.05 1.72 1.77 — 7,617 7,617 0.43 0.40 11.7 7,759 Area 2.80 9.57 0.55 22.2 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.05 — 0.05 0.00 508 508 0.01 < 0.005 — 509 Energy 0.12 0.06 1.01 0.44 0.01 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 3,562 3,562 0.33 0.03 — 3,579 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 30.2 108 138 3.11 0.07 — 238 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 149 0.00 149 14.9 0.00 — 522 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.13 2.13
Total 7.57 13.9 5.46 52.2 0.08 0.18 6.76 6.94 0.18 1.72 1.90 180 11,796 11,975 18.8 0.50 13.9 12,610 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.85 0.78 0.71 5.39 0.01 0.01 1.23 1.24 0.01 0.31 0.32 — 1,261 1,261 0.07 0.07 1.94 1,285 Area 0.51 1.75 0.10 4.05 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.00 84.2 84.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 84.3 Energy 0.02 0.01 0.19 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 590 590 0.05 < 0.005 — 593 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 5.01 17.8 22.8 0.52 0.01 — 39.4833 Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
16 / 94
Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 24.7 0.00 24.7 2.47 0.00 — 86.5 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.35 0.35
Total 1.38 2.53 1.00 9.52 0.02 0.03 1.23 1.27 0.03 0.31 0.35 29.7 1,953 1,983 3.11 0.08 2.30 2,088
2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
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 5.02 4.63 3.58 33.3 0.08 0.05 6.76 6.82 0.05 1.72 1.77 — 8,037 8,037 0.41 0.38 27.2 8,189 Area 4.61 11.0 5.33 34.3 0.03 0.43 — 0.43 0.44 — 0.44 0.00 6,493 6,493 0.12 0.01 — 6,500 Energy 0.12 0.06 1.01 0.44 0.01 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 3,562 3,562 0.33 0.03 — 3,579 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 30.2 108 138 3.11 0.07 — 238 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 149 0.00 149 14.9 0.00 — 522 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.13 2.13
Total 9.75 15.7 9.93 68.1 0.12 0.57 6.76 7.33 0.57 1.72 2.29 180 18,200 18,379 18.9 0.50 29.3 19,031 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 4.69 4.29 3.84 28.5 0.07 0.05 6.76 6.82 0.05 1.72 1.77 — 7,540 7,540 0.43 0.40 0.70 7,670 Area 0.59 7.27 5.03 2.14 0.03 0.41 — 0.41 0.41 — 0.41 0.00 6,389 6,389 0.12 0.01 — 6,396 Energy 0.12 0.06 1.01 0.44 0.01 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 3,562 3,562 0.33 0.03 — 3,579 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 30.2 108 138 3.11 0.07 — 238 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 149 0.00 149 14.9 0.00 — 522 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.13 2.13
Total 5.40 11.6 9.89 31.1 0.11 0.54 6.76 7.30 0.54 1.72 2.26 180 17,599 17,779 18.9 0.51 2.84 18,408 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
834
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
17 / 94
Mobile 4.66 4.26 3.90 29.5 0.07 0.05 6.76 6.82 0.05 1.72 1.77 — 7,617 7,617 0.43 0.40 11.7 7,759 Area 2.80 9.57 0.55 22.2 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.05 — 0.05 0.00 508 508 0.01 < 0.005 — 509 Energy 0.12 0.06 1.01 0.44 0.01 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 3,562 3,562 0.33 0.03 — 3,579 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 30.2 108 138 3.11 0.07 — 238 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 149 0.00 149 14.9 0.00 — 522 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.13 2.13
Total 7.57 13.9 5.46 52.2 0.08 0.18 6.76 6.94 0.18 1.72 1.90 180 11,796 11,975 18.8 0.50 13.9 12,610 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.85 0.78 0.71 5.39 0.01 0.01 1.23 1.24 0.01 0.31 0.32 — 1,261 1,261 0.07 0.07 1.94 1,285 Area 0.51 1.75 0.10 4.05 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.00 84.2 84.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 84.3 Energy 0.02 0.01 0.19 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 590 590 0.05 < 0.005 — 593 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 5.01 17.8 22.8 0.52 0.01 — 39.4 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 24.7 0.00 24.7 2.47 0.00 — 86.5 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.35 0.35
Total 1.38 2.53 1.00 9.52 0.02 0.03 1.23 1.27 0.03 0.31 0.35 29.7 1,953 1,983 3.11 0.08 2.30 2,088
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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
— — — — — — 1.00 1.00 — 0.15 0.15 — — — — — — —
835
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
18 / 94
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
0.18 0.15 1.43 1.25 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 197 197 0.01 < 0.005 — 198 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 0.06 0.06 — 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 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.03 0.03 0.26 0.23 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 32.6 32.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 32.7 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.11 0.02 1.00 0.56 0.01 0.02 0.21 0.23 0.01 0.06 0.07 — 811 811 0.09 0.13 1.71 854 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.5 11.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 11.7 836
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
19 / 94
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 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 46.7 46.7 0.01 0.01 0.04 49.1 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.91 1.91 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.94 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 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.73 7.73 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 8.13
3.2. Demolition (2024) - Mitigated
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
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
— — — — — — 1.00 1.00 — 0.15 0.15 — — — — — — —
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
0.18 0.15 1.43 1.25 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 197 197 0.01 < 0.005 — 198 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 0.06 0.06 — 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 0.00 837
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
20 / 94
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.03 0.03 0.26 0.23 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 32.6 32.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 32.7 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.11 0.02 1.00 0.56 0.01 0.02 0.21 0.23 0.01 0.06 0.07 — 811 811 0.09 0.13 1.71 854 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.5 11.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 11.7 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 46.7 46.7 0.01 0.01 0.04 49.1 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.91 1.91 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.94 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 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.73 7.73 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 8.13
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 838
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
21 / 94
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
— — — — — — 19.7 19.7 — 10.1 10.1 — — — — — — —
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
0.25 0.21 2.07 1.89 < 0.005 0.09 — 0.09 0.08 — 0.08 — 305 305 0.01 < 0.005 — 306 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 1.13 1.13 — 0.58 0.58 — — — — — — —
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 0.38 0.35 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 50.4 50.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 50.6 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.21 0.21 — 0.11 0.11 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
839
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
22 / 94
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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 < 0.005 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.5 13.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 13.7 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.23 2.23 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.26 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.4. Site Preparation (2024) - Mitigated
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 — 5,314 840
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
23 / 94
Dust — — — — — — 5.11 5.11 — 2.63 2.63 — — — — — — —
From
Material
Movement
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
0.25 0.21 2.07 1.89 < 0.005 0.09 — 0.09 0.08 — 0.08 — 305 305 0.01 < 0.005 — 306 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.29 0.29 — 0.15 0.15 — — — — — — —
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 0.38 0.35 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 50.4 50.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 50.6 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.05 0.05 — 0.03 0.03 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.00841 Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
24 / 94
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.5 13.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 13.7 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.23 2.23 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.26 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
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
2.26 1.90 18.2 18.8 0.03 0.84 — 0.84 0.77 — 0.77 — 2,958 2,958 0.12 0.02 — 2,969 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 7.10 7.10 — 3.43 3.43 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
842
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
25 / 94
Average — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily
Off-Road
Equipment
0.34 0.29 2.75 2.84 < 0.005 0.13 — 0.13 0.12 — 0.12 — 446 446 0.02 < 0.005 — 447 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 1.07 1.07 — 0.52 0.52 — — — — — — —
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
0.06 0.05 0.50 0.52 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 73.8 73.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 74.1 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.20 0.20 — 0.09 0.09 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.32 0.05 2.95 1.65 0.02 0.05 0.63 0.68 0.03 0.17 0.20 — 2,400 2,400 0.26 0.39 5.05 2,527 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 — 30.2 30.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 30.7 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 843
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
26 / 94
Hauling 0.05 0.01 0.47 0.25 < 0.005 0.01 0.10 0.10 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 — 362 362 0.04 0.06 0.33 380 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.01 5.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.08 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 0.01 < 0.005 0.09 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 59.9 59.9 0.01 0.01 0.05 63.0
3.6. Grading (2024) - Mitigated
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
2.26 1.90 18.2 18.8 0.03 0.84 — 0.84 0.77 — 0.77 — 2,958 2,958 0.12 0.02 — 2,969 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 1.85 1.85 — 0.89 0.89 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.34 0.29 2.75 2.84 < 0.005 0.13 — 0.13 0.12 — 0.12 — 446 446 0.02 < 0.005 — 447 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.28 0.28 — 0.13 0.13 — — — — — — —
844
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
27 / 94
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
0.06 0.05 0.50 0.52 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 73.8 73.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 74.1 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.05 0.05 — 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.32 0.05 2.95 1.65 0.02 0.05 0.63 0.68 0.03 0.17 0.20 — 2,400 2,400 0.26 0.39 5.05 2,527 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 — 30.2 30.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 30.7 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.05 0.01 0.47 0.25 < 0.005 0.01 0.10 0.10 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 — 362 362 0.04 0.06 0.33 380 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.01 5.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.08 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 0.01 < 0.005 0.09 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 59.9 59.9 0.01 0.01 0.05 63.0 845
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
28 / 94
3.7. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.44 1.20 11.2 13.1 0.02 0.50 — 0.50 0.46 — 0.46 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.44 1.20 11.2 13.1 0.02 0.50 — 0.50 0.46 — 0.46 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.30 0.25 2.33 2.72 < 0.005 0.10 — 0.10 0.09 — 0.09 — 497 497 0.02 < 0.005 — 499 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 0.05 0.42 0.50 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 82.3 82.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 82.6 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
846
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
29 / 94
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Worker 2.13 1.94 1.80 31.4 0.00 0.00 4.85 4.85 0.00 1.14 1.14 — 5,346 5,346 0.23 0.18 21.4 5,428 Vendor 0.28 0.07 2.99 1.60 0.02 0.04 0.71 0.75 0.04 0.20 0.23 — 2,610 2,610 0.20 0.39 7.28 2,738 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 2.02 1.83 2.12 23.7 0.00 0.00 4.85 4.85 0.00 1.14 1.14 — 4,900 4,900 0.23 0.18 0.55 4,961 Vendor 0.27 0.07 3.12 1.63 0.02 0.04 0.71 0.75 0.04 0.20 0.23 — 2,611 2,611 0.20 0.39 0.19 2,732 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 0.42 0.38 0.44 5.17 0.00 0.00 1.01 1.01 0.00 0.24 0.24 — 1,031 1,031 0.05 0.04 1.91 1,045 Vendor 0.06 0.01 0.65 0.34 < 0.005 0.01 0.15 0.16 0.01 0.04 0.05 — 541 541 0.04 0.08 0.65 567 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 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.94 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 171 171 0.01 0.01 0.32 173 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.12 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 89.6 89.6 0.01 0.01 0.11 93.9 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.8. Building Construction (2024) - Mitigated
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
847
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
30 / 94
Off-Road 1.44 1.20 11.2 13.1 0.02 0.50— 0.50 0.46— 0.46— 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02— 2,406 Equipment
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
1.44 1.20 11.2 13.1 0.02 0.50— 0.50 0.46— 0.46— 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02— 2,406 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.30 0.25 2.33 2.72 < 0.005 0.10— 0.10 0.09— 0.09— 497 497 0.02 < 0.005— 499 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 0.05 0.42 0.50 < 0.005 0.02— 0.02 0.02— 0.02— 82.3 82.3 < 0.005 < 0.005— 82.6 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 2.13 1.94 1.80 31.4 0.00 0.00 4.85 4.85 0.00 1.14 1.14— 5,346 5,346 0.23 0.18 21.4 5,428 Vendor 0.28 0.07 2.99 1.60 0.02 0.04 0.71 0.75 0.04 0.20 0.23— 2,610 2,610 0.20 0.39 7.28 2,738 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 2.02 1.83 2.12 23.7 0.00 0.00 4.85 4.85 0.00 1.14 1.14— 4,900 4,900 0.23 0.18 0.55 4,961 848
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
31 / 94
Vendor 0.27 0.07 3.12 1.63 0.02 0.04 0.71 0.75 0.04 0.20 0.23 — 2,611 2,611 0.20 0.39 0.19 2,732 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 0.42 0.38 0.44 5.17 0.00 0.00 1.01 1.01 0.00 0.24 0.24 — 1,031 1,031 0.05 0.04 1.91 1,045 Vendor 0.06 0.01 0.65 0.34 < 0.005 0.01 0.15 0.16 0.01 0.04 0.05 — 541 541 0.04 0.08 0.65 567 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 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.94 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 171 171 0.01 0.01 0.32 173 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.12 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 89.6 89.6 0.01 0.01 0.11 93.9 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.35 1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.35 1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 849
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
32 / 94
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.96 0.80 7.46 9.31 0.02 0.31 — 0.31 0.28 — 0.28 — 1,713 1,713 0.07 0.01 — 1,719 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
0.18 0.15 1.36 1.70 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.05 — 0.05 — 284 284 0.01 < 0.005 — 285 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.89 1.70 1.63 28.9 0.00 0.00 4.85 4.85 0.00 1.14 1.14 — 5,232 5,232 0.22 0.18 19.4 5,312 Vendor 0.25 0.07 2.85 1.54 0.02 0.04 0.71 0.75 0.04 0.20 0.23 — 2,568 2,568 0.20 0.39 7.23 2,696 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.78 1.60 1.80 21.8 0.00 0.00 4.85 4.85 0.00 1.14 1.14 — 4,797 4,797 0.23 0.18 0.50 4,858 Vendor 0.25 0.07 2.98 1.55 0.02 0.04 0.71 0.75 0.04 0.20 0.23 — 2,569 2,569 0.20 0.39 0.19 2,690 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 1.26 1.12 1.39 16.4 0.00 0.00 3.46 3.46 0.00 0.81 0.81 — 3,475 3,475 0.16 0.13 5.99 3,524 Vendor 0.18 0.05 2.14 1.10 0.01 0.03 0.51 0.53 0.03 0.14 0.17 — 1,835 1,835 0.14 0.28 2.24 1,923 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 0.23 0.20 0.25 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.63 0.00 0.15 0.15 — 575 575 0.03 0.02 0.99 583 850
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
33 / 94
Vendor 0.03 0.01 0.39 0.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.10 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 — 304 304 0.02 0.05 0.37 318 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
3.10. Building Construction (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.35 1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.35 1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.96 0.80 7.46 9.31 0.02 0.31 — 0.31 0.28 — 0.28 — 1,713 1,713 0.07 0.01 — 1,719 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
0.18 0.15 1.36 1.70 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.05 — 0.05 — 284 284 0.01 < 0.005 — 285 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 0.00 851
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
34 / 94
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.89 1.70 1.63 28.9 0.00 0.00 4.85 4.85 0.00 1.14 1.14 — 5,232 5,232 0.22 0.18 19.4 5,312 Vendor 0.25 0.07 2.85 1.54 0.02 0.04 0.71 0.75 0.04 0.20 0.23 — 2,568 2,568 0.20 0.39 7.23 2,696 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.78 1.60 1.80 21.8 0.00 0.00 4.85 4.85 0.00 1.14 1.14 — 4,797 4,797 0.23 0.18 0.50 4,858 Vendor 0.25 0.07 2.98 1.55 0.02 0.04 0.71 0.75 0.04 0.20 0.23 — 2,569 2,569 0.20 0.39 0.19 2,690 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 1.26 1.12 1.39 16.4 0.00 0.00 3.46 3.46 0.00 0.81 0.81 — 3,475 3,475 0.16 0.13 5.99 3,524 Vendor 0.18 0.05 2.14 1.10 0.01 0.03 0.51 0.53 0.03 0.14 0.17 — 1,835 1,835 0.14 0.28 2.24 1,923 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 0.23 0.20 0.25 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.63 0.00 0.15 0.15 — 575 575 0.03 0.02 0.99 583 Vendor 0.03 0.01 0.39 0.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.10 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 — 304 304 0.02 0.05 0.37 318 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. Building Construction (2026) - 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
852
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
35 / 94
Off-Road
Equipment
1.28 1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38— 0.38 0.35— 0.35— 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02— 2,405 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
1.28 1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38— 0.38 0.35— 0.35— 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02— 2,405 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
0.87 0.73 6.73 8.86 0.02 0.26— 0.26 0.24— 0.24— 1,637 1,637 0.07 0.01— 1,643 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
0.16 0.13 1.23 1.62 < 0.005 0.05— 0.05 0.04— 0.04— 271 271 0.01 < 0.005— 272 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 1.78 1.60 1.47 26.7 0.00 0.00 4.85 4.85 0.00 1.14 1.14— 5,125 5,125 0.22 0.18 17.5 5,201 Vendor 0.25 0.05 2.73 1.48 0.02 0.04 0.71 0.75 0.04 0.20 0.23— 2,525 2,525 0.18 0.39 6.66 2,652 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 1.68 1.50 1.63 20.2 0.00 0.00 4.85 4.85 0.00 1.14 1.14— 4,700 4,700 0.07 0.18 0.45 4,757 853
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
36 / 94
Vendor 0.25 0.05 2.84 1.50 0.02 0.04 0.71 0.75 0.04 0.20 0.23 — 2,526 2,526 0.18 0.39 0.17 2,647 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 1.15 1.02 1.22 14.5 0.00 0.00 3.31 3.31 0.00 0.78 0.78 — 3,255 3,255 0.05 0.13 5.18 3,299 Vendor 0.17 0.03 1.95 1.02 0.01 0.03 0.49 0.51 0.03 0.13 0.16 — 1,725 1,725 0.12 0.27 1.96 1,809 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 0.21 0.19 0.22 2.65 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.60 0.00 0.14 0.14 — 539 539 0.01 0.02 0.86 546 Vendor 0.03 0.01 0.36 0.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.09 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 — 286 286 0.02 0.04 0.32 299 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
3.12. Building Construction (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.28 1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38 — 0.38 0.35 — 0.35 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 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
1.28 1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38 — 0.38 0.35 — 0.35 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 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 0.00 854
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
37 / 94
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.87 0.73 6.73 8.86 0.02 0.26 — 0.26 0.24 — 0.24 — 1,637 1,637 0.07 0.01 — 1,643 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
0.16 0.13 1.23 1.62 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.04 — 0.04 — 271 271 0.01 < 0.005 — 272 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.78 1.60 1.47 26.7 0.00 0.00 4.85 4.85 0.00 1.14 1.14 — 5,125 5,125 0.22 0.18 17.5 5,201 Vendor 0.25 0.05 2.73 1.48 0.02 0.04 0.71 0.75 0.04 0.20 0.23 — 2,525 2,525 0.18 0.39 6.66 2,652 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.68 1.50 1.63 20.2 0.00 0.00 4.85 4.85 0.00 1.14 1.14 — 4,700 4,700 0.07 0.18 0.45 4,757 Vendor 0.25 0.05 2.84 1.50 0.02 0.04 0.71 0.75 0.04 0.20 0.23 — 2,526 2,526 0.18 0.39 0.17 2,647 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 1.15 1.02 1.22 14.5 0.00 0.00 3.31 3.31 0.00 0.78 0.78 — 3,255 3,255 0.05 0.13 5.18 3,299 Vendor 0.17 0.03 1.95 1.02 0.01 0.03 0.49 0.51 0.03 0.13 0.16 — 1,725 1,725 0.12 0.27 1.96 1,809 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 0.21 0.19 0.22 2.65 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.60 0.00 0.14 0.14 — 539 539 0.01 0.02 0.86 546 855
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
38 / 94
Vendor 0.03 0.01 0.36 0.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.09 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 — 286 286 0.02 0.04 0.32 299 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. 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 — 0.23 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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
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 — 0.23 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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
0.09 0.07 0.67 0.90 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 137 137 0.01 < 0.005 — 137 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
856
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
39 / 94
Off-Road
Equipment
0.02 0.01 0.12 0.16 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 22.6 22.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 22.7 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.88 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 194 194 0.01 0.01 0.02 196 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 17.8 17.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 18.0 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.94 2.94 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 2.98 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
3.14. Paving (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 857 Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
40 / 94
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 — 0.23 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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
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 — 0.23 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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
0.09 0.07 0.67 0.90 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 137 137 0.01 < 0.005 — 137 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
0.02 0.01 0.12 0.16 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 22.6 22.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 22.7 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
858
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
41 / 94
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.88 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 194 194 0.01 0.01 0.02 196 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 17.8 17.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 18.0 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.94 2.94 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 2.98 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
3.15. 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
859
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
42 / 94
Off-Road 0.15 0.13 0.88 1.14 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Equipment
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 29.6 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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
0.03 0.02 0.15 0.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 23.4 23.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 23.5 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 5.19 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 3.88 3.88 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.89 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.95 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 0.38 0.34 0.33 5.78 0.00 0.00 0.97 0.97 0.00 0.23 0.23 — 1,046 1,046 0.04 0.04 3.88 1,062 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 0.00860 Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
43 / 94
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 171 171 0.01 0.01 0.29 173 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 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 28.2 28.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 28.6 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
3.16. Architectural Coating (2025) - Mitigated
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
0.15 0.13 0.88 1.14 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 29.6 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
861
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
44 / 94
Off-Road
Equipment
0.03 0.02 0.15 0.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 23.4 23.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 23.5 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 5.19 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 3.88 3.88 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.89 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.95 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 0.38 0.34 0.33 5.78 0.00 0.00 0.97 0.97 0.00 0.23 0.23 — 1,046 1,046 0.04 0.04 3.88 1,062 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 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 171 171 0.01 0.01 0.29 173 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 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 28.2 28.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 28.6 862
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
45 / 94
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
4.23 3.90 2.99 27.7 0.06 0.04 5.61 5.65 0.04 1.42 1.47 — 6,669 6,669 0.35 0.32 22.5 6,796 Strip Mall 0.80 0.73 0.59 5.58 0.01 0.01 1.15 1.16 0.01 0.29 0.30 — 1,368 1,368 0.07 0.06 4.64 1,394 Unenclos
ed
Parking
with
Elevator
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 5.02 4.63 3.58 33.3 0.08 0.05 6.76 6.82 0.05 1.72 1.77 — 8,037 8,037 0.41 0.38 27.2 8,189 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
863
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
46 / 94
Apartme 3.95 3.61 3.20 23.8 0.06 0.04 5.61 5.65 0.04 1.42 1.47 — 6,257 6,257 0.36 0.33 0.58 6,365 nts
Mid Rise
Strip Mall 0.74 0.68 0.64 4.74 0.01 0.01 1.15 1.16 0.01 0.29 0.30 — 1,283 1,283 0.07 0.07 0.12 1,305 Unenclos
ed
Parking
with
Elevator
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 4.69 4.29 3.84 28.5 0.07 0.05 6.76 6.82 0.05 1.72 1.77 — 7,540 7,540 0.43 0.40 0.70 7,670 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
0.72 0.65 0.59 4.49 0.01 0.01 1.02 1.03 0.01 0.26 0.27 — 1,046 1,046 0.06 0.06 1.61 1,066 Strip Mall 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.90 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.21 0.21 < 0.005 0.05 0.06 — 215 215 0.01 0.01 0.33 219 Unenclos
ed
Parking
with
Elevator
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.85 0.78 0.71 5.39 0.01 0.01 1.23 1.24 0.01 0.31 0.32 — 1,261 1,261 0.07 0.07 1.94 1,285
4.1.2. Mitigated
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 864
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
47 / 94
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
4.23 3.90 2.99 27.7 0.06 0.04 5.61 5.65 0.04 1.42 1.47— 6,669 6,669 0.35 0.32 22.5 6,796 Strip Mall 0.80 0.73 0.59 5.58 0.01 0.01 1.15 1.16 0.01 0.29 0.30— 1,368 1,368 0.07 0.06 4.64 1,394 Unenclos
ed
Parking
with
Elevator
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 5.02 4.63 3.58 33.3 0.08 0.05 6.76 6.82 0.05 1.72 1.77— 8,037 8,037 0.41 0.38 27.2 8,189 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
3.95 3.61 3.20 23.8 0.06 0.04 5.61 5.65 0.04 1.42 1.47— 6,257 6,257 0.36 0.33 0.58 6,365 Strip Mall 0.74 0.68 0.64 4.74 0.01 0.01 1.15 1.16 0.01 0.29 0.30— 1,283 1,283 0.07 0.07 0.12 1,305 Unenclos
ed
Parking
with
Elevator
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 4.69 4.29 3.84 28.5 0.07 0.05 6.76 6.82 0.05 1.72 1.77— 7,540 7,540 0.43 0.40 0.70 7,670 Annual——————————————————
865
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
48 / 94
Apartme
Mid Rise
0.72 0.65 0.59 4.49 0.01 0.01 1.02 1.03 0.01 0.26 0.27 — 1,046 1,046 0.06 0.06 1.61 1,066 Strip Mall 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.90 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.21 0.21 < 0.005 0.05 0.06 — 215 215 0.01 0.01 0.33 219 Unenclos
ed
Parking
with
Elevator
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.85 0.78 0.71 5.39 0.01 0.01 1.23 1.24 0.01 0.31 0.32 — 1,261 1,261 0.07 0.07 1.94 1,285
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,461 1,461 0.14 0.02 — 1,470
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — — 113 113 0.01 < 0.005 — 113 Unenclos
ed
Parking
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — — — 702 702 0.07 0.01 — 707
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 866
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
49 / 94
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
———————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Total———————————— 2,276 2,276 0.22 0.03— 2,290
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
———————————— 1,461 1,461 0.14 0.02— 1,470
Strip Mall———————————— 113 113 0.01 < 0.005— 113
Unenclos
ed
Parking
with
Elevator
———————————— 702 702 0.07 0.01— 707
City Park———————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
———————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Total———————————— 2,276 2,276 0.22 0.03— 2,290
Annual——————————————————
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
———————————— 242 242 0.02< 0.005
— 243
Strip Mall———————————— 18.6 18.6 < 0.005 < 0.005— 18.7
Unenclos
ed
Parking
with
Elevator
———————————— 116 116 0.01 < 0.005— 117
City Park———————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
———————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
867
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
50 / 94
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 377 377 0.04 < 0.005 — 379
4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,461 1,461 0.14 0.02 — 1,470
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — — 113 113 0.01 < 0.005 — 113 Unenclos
ed
Parking
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — — — 702 702 0.07 0.01 — 707
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 2,276 2,276 0.22 0.03 — 2,290 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,461 1,461 0.14 0.02 — 1,470
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — — 113 113 0.01 < 0.005 — 113 868
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
51 / 94
Unenclos — — — — — — — — — — — — 702 702 0.07 0.01 — 707 ed
Parking
with
Elevator
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 2,276 2,276 0.22 0.03 — 2,290 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 242 242 0.02 < 0.005 — 243
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — — 18.6 18.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 18.7 Unenclos
ed
Parking
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — — — 116 116 0.01 < 0.005 — 117
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 377 377 0.04 < 0.005 — 379
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
869
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
52 / 94
Apartme 0.12 0.06 0.99 0.42 0.01 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 1,263 1,263 0.11 < 0.005 — 1,266 nts
Strip Mall < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 23.1 23.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 23.1 Unenclos
ed
Parking
with
Elevator
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.12 0.06 1.01 0.44 0.01 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 1,286 1,286 0.11 < 0.005 — 1,289 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
0.12 0.06 0.99 0.42 0.01 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 1,263 1,263 0.11 < 0.005 — 1,266 Strip Mall < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 23.1 23.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 23.1 Unenclos
ed
Parking
with
Elevator
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.12 0.06 1.01 0.44 0.01 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 1,286 1,286 0.11 < 0.005 — 1,289 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
0.02 0.01 0.18 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 209 209 0.02 < 0.005 — 210 Strip Mall < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 3.82 3.82 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.83870 Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
53 / 94
Unenclos
Parking
with
Elevator
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.02 0.01 0.19 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 213 213 0.02 < 0.005 — 213
4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
0.12 0.06 0.99 0.42 0.01 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 1,263 1,263 0.11 < 0.005 — 1,266 Strip Mall < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 23.1 23.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 23.1 Unenclos
ed
Parking
with
Elevator
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.12 0.06 1.01 0.44 0.01 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 1,286 1,286 0.11 < 0.005 — 1,289 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
871
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
54 / 94
Apartme
Mid Rise
0.12 0.06 0.99 0.42 0.01 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 1,263 1,263 0.11 < 0.005 — 1,266 Strip Mall < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 23.1 23.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 23.1 Unenclos
ed
Parking
with
Elevator
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.12 0.06 1.01 0.44 0.01 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 1,286 1,286 0.11 < 0.005 — 1,289 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
0.02 0.01 0.18 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 209 209 0.02 < 0.005 — 210 Strip Mall < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 3.82 3.82 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.83 Unenclos
ed
Parking
with
Elevator
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.02 0.01 0.19 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 213 213 0.02 < 0.005 — 213
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) 872
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
55 / 94
Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.59 0.29 5.03 2.14 0.03 0.41 — 0.41 0.41 — 0.41 0.00 6,389 6,389 0.12 0.01 — 6,396 Consum
er
Products
— 6.45 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.52 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt
4.02 3.76 0.30 32.2 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.03 — 0.03 — 103 103 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 104 Total 4.61 11.0 5.33 34.3 0.03 0.43 — 0.43 0.44 — 0.44 0.00 6,493 6,493 0.12 0.01 — 6,500 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.59 0.29 5.03 2.14 0.03 0.41 — 0.41 0.41 — 0.41 0.00 6,389 6,389 0.12 0.01 — 6,396 Consum
er
Products
— 6.45 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.52 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 0.59 7.27 5.03 2.14 0.03 0.41 — 0.41 0.41 — 0.41 0.00 6,389 6,389 0.12 0.01 — 6,396 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.00 72.5 72.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 72.5 Consum
er
Products
— 1.18 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
873
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
56 / 94
Architect — 0.09 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ural
Coatings
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt
0.50 0.47 0.04 4.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 11.7 11.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.8 Total 0.51 1.75 0.10 4.05 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.00 84.2 84.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 84.3
4.3.1. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.59 0.29 5.03 2.14 0.03 0.41 — 0.41 0.41 — 0.41 0.00 6,389 6,389 0.12 0.01 — 6,396 Consum
er
Products
— 6.45 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.52 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt
4.02 3.76 0.30 32.2 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.03 — 0.03 — 103 103 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 104 Total 4.61 11.0 5.33 34.3 0.03 0.43 — 0.43 0.44 — 0.44 0.00 6,493 6,493 0.12 0.01 — 6,500 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.59 0.29 5.03 2.14 0.03 0.41 — 0.41 0.41 — 0.41 0.00 6,389 6,389 0.12 0.01 — 6,396 Consum
er
Products
— 6.45 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
874
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
57 / 94
Architect
Coatings
— 0.52 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 0.59 7.27 5.03 2.14 0.03 0.41 — 0.41 0.41 — 0.41 0.00 6,389 6,389 0.12 0.01 — 6,396 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.00 72.5 72.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 72.5 Consum
er
Products
— 1.18 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.09 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt
0.50 0.47 0.04 4.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 11.7 11.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.8 Total 0.51 1.75 0.10 4.05 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.00 84.2 84.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 84.3
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 28.5 96.1 125 2.93 0.07 — 219
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — 1.73 5.83 7.57 0.18 < 0.005 — 13.3 875
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
58 / 94
Unenclos——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
ed
Parking
with
Elevator
City Park——————————— 0.00 5.70 5.70 < 0.005 < 0.005— 5.74 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Total——————————— 30.2 108 138 3.11 0.07— 238
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
——————————— 28.5 96.1 125 2.93 0.07— 219
Strip Mall——————————— 1.73 5.83 7.57 0.18 < 0.005— 13.3 Unenclos
ed
Parking
with
Elevator
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
City Park——————————— 0.00 5.70 5.70 < 0.005 < 0.005— 5.74 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Total——————————— 30.2 108 138 3.11 0.07— 238
Annual——————————————————
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
——————————— 4.72 15.9 20.6 0.49 0.01— 36.2
Strip Mall——————————— 0.29 0.97 1.25 0.03 < 0.005— 2.20 876
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
59 / 94
Unenclos — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 ed
Parking
with
Elevator
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.94 0.94 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.95 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 5.01 17.8 22.8 0.52 0.01 — 39.4
4.4.1. Mitigated
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 28.5 96.1 125 2.93 0.07 — 219
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — 1.73 5.83 7.57 0.18 < 0.005 — 13.3 Unenclos
ed
Parking
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 5.70 5.70 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.74 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 30.2 108 138 3.11 0.07 — 238 877
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
60 / 94
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 28.5 96.1 125 2.93 0.07 — 219
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — 1.73 5.83 7.57 0.18 < 0.005 — 13.3 Unenclos
ed
Parking
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 5.70 5.70 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.74 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 30.2 108 138 3.11 0.07 — 238 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 4.72 15.9 20.6 0.49 0.01 — 36.2
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — 0.29 0.97 1.25 0.03 < 0.005 — 2.20 Unenclos
ed
Parking
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.94 0.94 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.95 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 5.01 17.8 22.8 0.52 0.01 — 39.4
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
878
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
61 / 94
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 142 0.00 142 14.2 0.00 — 498
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — 6.90 0.00 6.90 0.69 0.00 — 24.2 Unenclos
ed
Parking
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.01 0.00 — 0.26 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 149 0.00 149 14.9 0.00 — 522 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 142 0.00 142 14.2 0.00 — 498
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — 6.90 0.00 6.90 0.69 0.00 — 24.2 Unenclos
ed
Parking
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.01 0.00 — 0.26 879
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
62 / 94
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 149 0.00 149 14.9 0.00 — 522 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 23.6 0.00 23.6 2.35 0.00 — 82.4
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — 1.14 0.00 1.14 0.11 0.00 — 4.00 Unenclos
ed
Parking
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.00 0.01 < 0.005 0.00 — 0.04 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 24.7 0.00 24.7 2.47 0.00 — 86.5
4.5.1. Mitigated
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 142 0.00 142 14.2 0.00 — 498
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — 6.90 0.00 6.90 0.69 0.00 — 24.2 880
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
63 / 94
Unenclos——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
ed
Parking
with
Elevator
City Park——————————— 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.01 0.00— 0.26
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Total——————————— 149 0.00 149 14.9 0.00— 522
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
——————————— 142 0.00 142 14.2 0.00— 498
Strip Mall——————————— 6.90 0.00 6.90 0.69 0.00— 24.2
Unenclos
ed
Parking
with
Elevator
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
City Park——————————— 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.01 0.00— 0.26
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Total——————————— 149 0.00 149 14.9 0.00— 522
Annual——————————————————
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
——————————— 23.6 0.00 23.6 2.35 0.00— 82.4
Strip Mall——————————— 1.14 0.00 1.14 0.11 0.00— 4.00
881
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
64 / 94
Unenclos — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 ed
Parking
with
Elevator
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.00 0.01 < 0.005 0.00 — 0.04 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 24.7 0.00 24.7 2.47 0.00 — 86.5
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.06 2.06
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.08 0.08
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.13 2.13
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.06 2.06
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.08 0.08
882
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
65 / 94
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.13 2.13
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.34 0.34
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.01
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.35 0.35
4.6.2. Mitigated
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.06 2.06
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.08 0.08
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.13 2.13
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.06 2.06
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.08 0.08
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
883
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
66 / 94
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.13 2.13
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.34 0.34
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.01
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.35 0.35
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.7.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 884
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
67 / 94
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.8. 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
885
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
68 / 94
4.8.2. Mitigated
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
886
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
69 / 94
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.9.2. Mitigated
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
887
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
70 / 94
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
888
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
71 / 94
Sequest — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated 889
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
72 / 94
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 890 Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
73 / 94
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
891
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
74 / 94
Remove — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 6/1/2024 7/1/2024 5.00 21.0 —
Site Preparation Site Preparation 6/1/2024 7/1/2024 5.00 21.0 — Grading Grading 7/1/2024 9/15/2024 5.00 55.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 9/17/2024 12/15/2026 5.00 586 — Paving Paving 9/1/2025 10/15/2025 5.00 33.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 6/3/2025 8/29/2025 5.00 64.0 —
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor 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 Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
892
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
75 / 94
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 Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48
5.2.2. Mitigated
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 Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 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 Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
893
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
76 / 94
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48
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 — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 11.5 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT 894
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
77 / 94
Grading Hauling 34.1 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 371 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 83.2 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 74.3 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
5.3.2. Mitigated
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 — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 11.5 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
895
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
78 / 94
Site Preparation Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 34.1 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 371 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 83.2 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 74.3 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. 896 Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
79 / 94
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 581,163 193,721 21,417 6,446 7,462
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 21,000 —
Site Preparation — — 31.5 0.00 —
Grading — 15,000 55.0 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.86
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.
5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Apartments Mid Rise — 0%
Strip Mall 0.00 0%
Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 1.59 100%
City Park 0.00 0%
Other Asphalt Surfaces 1.27 100%
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors 897
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
80 / 94
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
2026 0.00 346 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 Apartments Mid Rise 1,072 1,072 1,072 391,280 7,906 7,906 7,906 2,885,597 Strip Mall 197 197 197 71,905 1,627 1,627 1,627 593,941 Unenclosed Parking
with Elevator
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5.9.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Apartments Mid Rise 1,072 1,072 1,072 391,280 7,906 7,906 7,906 2,885,597 Strip Mall 197 197 197 71,905 1,627 1,627 1,627 593,941 Unenclosed Parking
with Elevator
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
898
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
81 / 94
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Apartments Mid Rise—
Wood Fireplaces0
Gas Fireplaces 303
Propane Fireplaces0
Electric Fireplaces0
No Fireplaces 36
Conventional Wood Stoves0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 18
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 18
Pellet Wood Stoves0
5.10.1.2. Mitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Apartments Mid Rise—
Wood Fireplaces0
Gas Fireplaces 303
Propane Fireplaces0
Electric Fireplaces0
No Fireplaces 36
Conventional Wood Stoves0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 18
899
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
82 / 94
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 18
Pellet Wood Stoves 0
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)
581162.85 193,721 21,417 6,446 7,462
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 250
5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
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) Apartments Mid Rise 1,540,870 346 0.0330 0.0040 3,940,273 Strip Mall 118,686 346 0.0330 0.0040 71,925
Unenclosed Parking with
Elevator
740,570 346 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
900
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
83 / 94
City Park 0.00 346 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 346 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
5.11.2. Mitigated
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) Apartments Mid Rise 1,540,870 346 0.0330 0.0040 3,940,273 Strip Mall 118,686 346 0.0330 0.0040 71,925
Unenclosed Parking with
Elevator
740,570 346 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
City Park 0.00 346 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 346 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Apartments Mid Rise 14,880,179 0.00
Strip Mall 903,685 0.00
Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00
City Park 0.00 1,133,100
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00
5.12.2. Mitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Apartments Mid Rise 14,880,179 0.00
Strip Mall 903,685 0.00
901
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
84 / 94
Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00
City Park 0.00 1,133,100
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Apartments Mid Rise 264 —
Strip Mall 12.8 —
Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 —
City Park 0.14 —
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 —
5.13.2. Mitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Apartments Mid Rise 264 —
Strip Mall 12.8 —
Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 —
City Park 0.14 —
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 —
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced 902
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
85 / 94
Apartments Mid Rise Average room A/C & R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0 Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
Apartments Mid Rise Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
Strip Mall Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Strip Mall Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
Strip Mall Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0
City Park Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
City Park Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
5.14.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Apartments Mid Rise Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Apartments Mid Rise Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
Strip Mall Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Strip Mall Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
Strip Mall Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0
City Park Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
903
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
86 / 94
City Park Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
5.15.2. Mitigated
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
904
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
87 / 94
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
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
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
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)
5.18.2.2. Mitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
905
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
88 / 94
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 19.6 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 6.05 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise 0.00 meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 0.00 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 50 meters (m) by 50 m, or about 164 feet (ft) by 164 ft.
Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 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
906
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
89 / 94
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
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 84.6
907
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
90 / 94
AQ-PM 97.7
AQ-DPM 54.7
Drinking Water 93.3
Lead Risk Housing 82.3
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 60.0
Traffic 89.5
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 73.6
Groundwater 0.00
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 64.6
Impaired Water Bodies 0.00
Solid Waste 22.1
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 77.7
Cardio-vascular 87.7
Low Birth Weights 95.2
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 65.5
Housing 46.5
Linguistic 59.4
Poverty 56.8
Unemployment 22.6
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
908
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
91 / 94
Economic—
Above Poverty 46.09264725
Employed 44.86077249
Median HI 46.77274477
Education—
Bachelor's or higher 19.11972283
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 9.547029385
Transportation—
Auto Access 33.77389965
Active commuting 66.17477223
Social—
2-parent households 52.59848582
Voting 57.37200051
Neighborhood—
Alcohol availability 45.87450276
Park access 43.62889773
Retail density 51.59758758
Supermarket access 83.71615552
Tree canopy 44.87360452
Housing—
Homeownership 43.98819453
Housing habitability 38.5730784
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 39.45848839 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 9.239060695
Uncrowded housing 52.3675093
Health Outcomes—
909
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
92 / 94
Insured adults 38.07262928
Arthritis 17.5
Asthma ER Admissions 22.1
High Blood Pressure 30.8
Cancer (excluding skin) 25.9
Asthma 49.0
Coronary Heart Disease 17.4
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 31.1
Diagnosed Diabetes 33.2
Life Expectancy at Birth 43.7
Cognitively Disabled 50.3
Physically Disabled 78.7
Heart Attack ER Admissions 7.9
Mental Health Not Good 47.3
Chronic Kidney Disease 20.1
Obesity 38.0
Pedestrian Injuries 48.5
Physical Health Not Good 38.5
Stroke 26.0
Health Risk Behaviors—
Binge Drinking 43.3
Current Smoker 55.2
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 46.8
Climate Change Exposures—
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 19.0
910
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
93 / 94
Elderly 45.2
English Speaking 31.2
Foreign-born 38.7
Outdoor Workers 22.6
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 60.4
Traffic Density 94.6
Traffic Access 50.1
Other Indices —
Hardship 53.6
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 61.4
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 88.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 39.0 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.
911
Watermarke Detailed Report, 6/27/2023
94 / 94
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.
8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use Project specific details, site plan
Construction: Construction Phases applicant construction questionnaire Construction: Architectural Coatings SCAQMD Rule 1113
Operations: Hearths SCAQMD wood burning fireplace/stove prohibited Operations: Architectural Coatings SCAQMD RULE 1113
Operations: Vehicle Data TIA Scoping Plan
912
Watermarke Ontario Planned Unit Development Project
City of Ontario Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report December 2023
APPENDIX C – CULTURAL STUDY
913
C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California
Prepared for:
John Nsofor, CEP-IT
Kimley-Horn
3801 University Avenue, Suite 300
Riverside, California 92501
Prepared by:
David Brunzell, M.A., RPA
Contributions by Kara Brunzell, M.A., Joseph Orozco, M.A., RPA and Doug Kazmier, B.A.
BCR Consulting LLC
Claremont, California 91711
Project No. KIM2306
Data Base Information:
Type of Study: Intensive Survey
Resources Recorded: 1126 North Mountain Avenue, 1028-1044 W 4th Street, Ontario, CA Keywords: Historic-Period Buildings
USGS Quadrangle: 7.5-minute Ontario (1981); California
October 13, 2023
914
O C T O B E R 1 3 , 2 0 2 3 B C R C O N S U L T I N G
C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
W A T E R M A R K E P R O J E C T
ii
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
BCR Consulting LLC (BCR Consulting) is under contract to Kimley-Horn to complete a Cultural Resources Assessment of the proposed Watermarke Project in the City of Ontario (City), San Bernardino County, California. A cultural resources records search, additional research, intensive-level pedestrian field survey, and California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) eligibility evaluations were conducted for the project in partial fulfillment of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The records search has revealed that six previous cultural resources studies have taken place, within one half-mile of the project site, but none have assessed the project area. No archaeological resources have been previously recorded within one half-mile of the project location. During the research and field survey, two resources were identified, recorded, and evaluated for California Register listing eligibility (i.e. significance under CEQA). These include the historic-period post office at 1126 North Mountain Avenue, and a commercial retail building comprising 1028 through 1044 West 4th Street. California Register listing eligibility recommendations are summarized in the below table.
Non-Significant Properties. The historic-period post office at 1126 North Mountain Avenue and a commercial retail property comprised of and 1028 through 1044 West 4th Street have been evaluated and are recommended not eligible for California Register eligibility. They do not warrant further consideration.
Accidental Discoveries. If previously undocumented cultural resources are identified during earthmoving activities associated with development of the project site, a qualified archaeologist should be contacted to assess the nature and significance of the find, diverting construction excavation if necessary. The current study attempted to determine whether significant archaeological deposits were present on the proposed project site.
Although none were yielded during the records search and field survey, ground-disturbing activities have the potential to reveal buried deposits not observed on the surface. Prior to the initiation of ground-disturbing activities, field personnel should be alerted to the possibility of buried prehistoric or historic cultural deposits. In the event that field personnel encounter buried cultural materials, work in the immediate vicinity of the find should cease and a qualified archaeologist should be retained to assess the significance of the find. The qualified archaeologist should have the authority to stop or divert construction excavation as necessary. If the qualified archaeologist finds that any cultural resources present meet eligibility requirements for listing on the California Register or the National Register of Historic Places (National Register), plans for the treatment, evaluation, and mitigation of impacts to the find will need to be developed. Prehistoric or historic cultural materials that may be encountered during ground-disturbing activities include:
• Historic-period artifacts such as glass bottles and fragments, cans, nails, ceramic and pottery fragments, and other metal objects;
• Historic-period structural or building foundations, walkways, cisterns, pipes, privies, and other structural elements;
• Prehistoric flaked-stone artifacts and debitage (waste material), consisting of obsidian, basalt, and or cryptocrystalline silicates;
• Groundstone artifacts, including mortars, pestles, and grinding slabs; • Dark, greasy soil that may be associated with charcoal, ash, bone, shell, flaked stone, groundstone, and fire affected rocks;
915
O C T O B E R 1 3 , 2 0 2 3 B C R C O N S U L T I N G
C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
W A T E R M A R K E P R O J E C T
iii
• Human remains.
Human Remains. If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the NAHC to determine a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC.
916
O C T O B E R 1 3 , 2 0 2 3 B C R C O N S U L T I N G
C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
W A T E R M A R K E P R O J E C T
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY................................................................................................... ii INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................1 REGULATORY SETTING…………………………… .....................................………………….1 NATURAL SETTING...............................................................................................................4 CULTURAL SETTING.............................................................................................................5 PREHISTORIC CONTEXT ...............................................................................................5 HISTORY ......................................................................................................................... 5 PERSONNEL..........................................................................................................................7 METHODS ..............................................................................................................................7 RESEARCH ......................................................................................................................8 FIELD SURVEY ................................................................................................................8 RESULTS................................................................................................................................8 RESEARCH ......................................................................................................................8 FIELD SURVEY ............................................................................................................. 10 SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATIONS ..........................................................................................10 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA.............................................................................................10 EVALUATIONS...............................................................................................................11 RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................................................................................13 REFERENCES......................................................................................................................15
FIGURES
1: Project Location Map ........................................................................................................2 TABLES
A: Cultural Resources and Reports Within One Half-Mile of the Project Site........................9
APPENDICES
A: RECORD SEARCH BIBLIOGRAPHY
B: DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION 523 FORMS
C: PROJECT PHOTOGRAPHS
917
O C T O B E R 1 3 , 2 0 2 3 BCR C O N S U L T I N G
C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
W A T E R M A R K E P R O J E C T
1 INTRODUCTION
BCR Consulting LLC (BCR Consulting) is under contract to Kimley-Horn to complete a Cultural Resources Assessment of the proposed Watermarke Project in the City of Ontario (City), San Bernardino County, California. The project is located at the northeast intersection of north Mountain Avenue and West 4th Street and occupies approximately 0.97 acres. It is bounded by commercial properties to the west and south, and residential units to the north and east. A cultural resources records search, additional research, intensive-level pedestrian field survey, and California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) eligibility evaluations were conducted for the project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The project site is located in Section 13, Township 1 South, Range 8 West, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian. It is depicted on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Ontario, California (1981) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles (Figure 1).
Regulatory Setting
The California Environmental Quality Act. CEQA applies to all discretionary projects undertaken or subject to approval by the state’s public agencies (California Code of Regulations 14(3), § 15002(i)). Under CEQA, “A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment” (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14(3), § 15064.5(b)).
State CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(a) defines a “historical resource” as a resource that meets one or more of the following criteria:
• Listed in, or eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register)
• Listed in a local register of historical resources (as defined at Cal. Public Res. Code § 5020.1(k))
• Identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of § 5024.1(g) of the Cal. Public Res. Code
• Determined to be a historical resource by a project's lead agency (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14(3), § 15064.5(a))
A historical resource consists of “Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California…Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be ‘historically significant’ if the resource meets the criteria for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources” (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14(3), § 15064.5(a)(3)).
The significance of a historical resource is impaired when a project demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for the California Register. If an impact on a historical or archaeological resource is significant, CEQA requires feasible measures to minimize the impact (State CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4 (a)(1)). Mitigation of 918
919
O C T O B E R 1 3 , 2 0 2 3 BCR C O N S U L T I N G
C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
W A T E R M A R K E P R O J E C T
3 significant impacts must lessen or eliminate the physical impact that the project will have on the resource. Section 5024.1 of the Cal. Public Res. Code established the California Register. Generally, a resource is considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing in the California Register (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14(3), § 15064.5(a)(3)). The eligibility criteria for the California Register are similar to those of the National Register of Historic Places (National Register), and a resource that meets one or more of the eligibility criteria of the National Register will be eligible for the California Register. The California Register program encourages public recognition and protection of resources of architectural, historical, archaeological, and cultural significance, identifies historical resources for state and local planning purposes, determines eligibility for state historic preservation grant funding and affords certain protections under CEQA.
Criteria for Designation:
1. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States.
2. Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history.
3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values.
4. Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation.
In addition to meeting one or more of the above criteria, the California Register requires that sufficient time has passed since a resource’s period of significance to “obtain a scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resources.” (CCR 4852 [d][2]).
Fifty years is normally considered sufficient time for a potential historical resource, and in order that the evaluation remain valid for a minimum of five years after the date of this report, all resources older than 45 years (i.e. resources from the “historic-period”) will be evaluated for California Register listing eligibility, or CEQA significance. The California Register also requires that a resource possess integrity. This is defined as the ability for the resource to convey its significance through seven aspects: location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
Finally, CEQA requires that significant effects on unique archaeological resources be considered and addressed. CEQA defines a unique archaeological resource as any archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:
1. Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and there is a demonstrable public interest in that information.
2. Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type.
3. Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.
920
O C T O B E R 1 3 , 2 0 2 3 BCR C O N S U L T I N G
C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
W A T E R M A R K E P R O J E C T
4 CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 Appendix G includes significance criteria relative to archaeological and historical resources. These have been utilized as thresholds of significance here, and a project would have a significant environmental impact if it would:
a) cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in section 10564.5;
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 10564.5;
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.
City of Ontario Designation Criteria. In addition to evaluation for California Register listing eligibility, the City of Ontario Development Code Article 26: Historic Preservation (Section 9-
1.2615) provides the following designation criteria for a property to qualify as a City Historic Landmark:
a. It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City’s history; b. It is identified with persons or events significant in local, state, or national history; c. It is representative of the work of a notable builder, designer, architect, or artist; d. It embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics of a style, type, period, or method of construction;
e. It is a noteworthy example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship; f. It embodies elements that represent a significant structural, engineering, or architectural achievement or innovation;
g. It has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the City; or h. It is one of the few remaining examples in the City, region, state, or nation possessing distinguishing characteristics of an architectural or historical type or specimen.
Cultural resources would be subject to evaluation for the above City Historic Landmark designation criteria.
NATURAL SETTING
The project is located in the Chino Valley, which is bounded on the west by the San Jose Hills, on the south by the Chino Hills, on the north by the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains, and on the east by La Sierra and the Jurupa Mountains (USGS 1981). Local rainfall ranges from 5 to 15 inches annually (Jaeger and Smith 1971:36-37). The area containing the project site exhibits a gradual southerly slope, and lies on a flood plain that feeds the Santa Ana River approximately five miles to the south (USGS 1981). The native biology of the region is difficult to reconstruct due to recent and historical agricultural, municipal, and industrial impacts. However, the project site is situated in the Upper Sonoran Life Zone, which is locally present between approximately 500 and 5,000 feet AMSL. This 921
O C T O B E R 1 3 , 2 0 2 3 BCR C O N S U L T I N G
C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
W A T E R M A R K E P R O J E C T
5 zone typically comprises cismontane valleys and low mountain slopes dominated by mixed coastal sage scrub and chaparral vegetation communities (Williams 2008).
CULTURAL SETTING
Prehistoric Context
The project site is located within the traditional boundaries of the Gabrielino (Bean and Smith 1978; Kroeber 1925). The Gabrielino probably first encountered Europeans when Spanish explorers reached California's southern coast during the 15th and 16th centuries (Bean and Smith 1978; Kroeber 1925). The first documented encounter, however, occurred in 1769 when Gaspar de Portola's expedition crossed Gabrielino territory (Bean and Smith 1978). Other brief encounters took place over the years and are documented in McCawley 1996 (citing numerous sources). The Gabrielino name has been attributed by association with the Spanish mission of San Gabriel, and refers to a subset of people sharing speech and customs with other Cupan speakers (such as the Juaneño/Luiseño/Ajachemem) from the greater Takic branch of the Uto-Aztecan language family (Bean and Smith 1978).
Gabrielino villages occupied the watersheds of various rivers (locally including the Santa Ana) and intermittent streams. Chiefs were usually descended through the male line and often administered several villages. Gabrielino society was somewhat stratified and is thought to have contained three hierarchically ordered social classes which dictated ownership rights and social status and obligations (Bean and Smith 1978:540-546). Plants utilized for food were heavily relied upon and included acorn-producing oaks, as well as seed-producing grasses and sage. Animal protein was commonly derived from rabbits and deer in inland regions, while coastal populations supplemented their diets with fish, shellfish, and marine mammals (Boscana 1933, Heizer 1968, Johnston 1962, McCawley 1996). Dog, coyote, bear, tree squirrel, pigeon, dove, mud hen, eagle, buzzard, raven, lizards, frogs, and turtles were specifically not utilized as a food source (Kroeber 1925:652).
History
Historic-era California is generally divided into three periods: the Spanish or Mission Period (1769 to 1821), the Mexican or Rancho Period (1821 to 1848), and the American Period (1848 to present).
Spanish Period. The first European to pass through the area is thought to be a Spaniard called Father Francisco Garces. Having become familiar with the area, Garces acted as a guide to Juan Bautista de Anza, who had been commissioned to lead a group across the desert from a Spanish outpost in Arizona to set up quarters at the Mission San Gabriel in 1771 near what today is Pasadena (Beck and Haase 1974). Garces was followed by Alta California Governor Pedro Fages, who briefly explored the region in 1772. Searching for San Diego Presidio deserters, Fages had traveled through Riverside to San Bernardino, crossed over the mountains into the Mojave Desert, and then journeyed westward to the San Joaquin Valley (Beck and Haase 1974).
Mexican Period. In 1821, Mexico overthrew Spanish rule and the missions began to decline. By 1833, the Mexican government passed the Secularization Act, and the missions, 922
O C T O B E R 1 3 , 2 0 2 3 BCR C O N S U L T I N G
C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
W A T E R M A R K E P R O J E C T
6 reorganized as parish churches, lost their vast land holdings, and released their neophytes (Beattie and Beattie 1974).
American Period. The American Period, 1848–Present, began with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. In 1850, California was accepted into the Union of the United States primarily due to the population increase created by the Gold Rush of 1849. The cattle industry reached its greatest prosperity during the first years of the American Period.
Mexican Period land grants had created large pastoral estates in California, and demand for beef during the Gold Rush led to a cattle boom that lasted from 1849–1855. However, beginning about 1855, the demand for beef began to decline due to imports of sheep from New Mexico and cattle from the Mississippi and Missouri Valleys. When the beef market collapsed, many California ranchers lost their ranchos through foreclosure. A series of disastrous floods in 1861–1862, followed by a significant drought further diminished the economic impact of local ranching. This decline combined with ubiquitous agricultural and real estate developments of the late 19th century, set the stage for diversified economic pursuits that continue to this day (Beattie and Beattie 1974; Cleland 1941).
Ontario (see also Appendix B for references). In 1839, after Mexico gained independence from Spain, the Mexican government granted the 12,000-acre Rancho de Cucamonga to Tiburcio Tapia. Americans began settling in California in large numbers during the Gold Rush in the 1840s, and California statehood in 1850 accelerated the process statewide. In 1881, George and William Chaffey purchased part of Rancho Cucamonga in order to develop Etiwanda, where they tested their ground-breaking irrigation and town planning ideas. That same year, the brothers purchased 6,000 acres (along with water rights) west of Etiwanda, which became the cities of Ontario and Upland. In 1883, the Chaffeys added the Kincaid Ranch at the mouth of San Antonio Canyon to their holdings. They established the Ontario Land Company and subdivided the land into 10-acre farm lots, all of which had street frontage (Emick 2011:17, 20; Clucas 2009:7).
The Chaffeys set aside a town site for Ontario as well as land for an agricultural college, making water available to each parcel in order to encourage farmers to settle there. George Chaffey laid out a boulevard named Euclid, which stretched from the Southern Pacific Depot to the mesa at the north end of their holdings. The Chaffey brothers sold off their acreage and left California for Australia in 1886. Charles Frankish had moved to Ontario from Riverside that year to participate in the Chaffeys’ “Model Colony,” and invested in undeveloped land along Euclid Avenue. He recruited a group of investors and formed the Ontario Land and Improvement Company, which bought the Chaffey brothers’ land holdings in 1886. Frankish acted as Manager and later President, and actively participated in the sale of real estate as well as planning and developing Ontario. Frankish carried out many of the Chaffey brothers’ ideas. He extended Euclid past the depot to the south end of the company’s holdings, platting the street grid and planting trees. In 1887, he organized the Ontario and San Antonio Heights Railroad Company (O&SA) as a subsidiary of the land company. In the 1890s, the O&SA constructed a hydro-electric plant at the mouth of San Antonio Canyon and electrified the system, making it the first electrified trolley west of Chicago. Ontario was officially incorporated as a city in 1891. In 1912, Frankish bought the land company’s Ontario-area assets and formed the Frankish Company. Frankish installed electric streetlights in Ontario, established its first bank, and was involved in nearly every 923
O C T O B E R 1 3 , 2 0 2 3 BCR C O N S U L T I N G
C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
W A T E R M A R K E P R O J E C T
7 aspect of local commerce and planning until his abrupt departure from the area in 1927 (Ontario City Library 2014:7, 8, 17, 18; Swett 1969:13, 19).
Aviation interests were introduced to Ontario in 1923 when Waldo Waterman and Archie Mitchell established Latimer Field in the city limits. As more people moved to Ontario, its urban growth forced aviators eastward until they established an airport at the current location of Ontario International Airport. During World War II, Ontario’s airport brought many to the area for its pilot training facilities. It was about this time that the citrus industry that had contributed to Ontario’s nascent years of growth started to experience a broad decline.
Land values increased as more and more Americans began moving westward and settling in the area. In subsequent years and decades, farmers sold their land to incoming residential developers. The population of Ontario swelled, and by the late 1950s, the city’s residential area had expanded south and east. Manufacturing, defense, and dairy industries began to take the place of citrus as the local economic staples drawing in new residents. By the late twentieth century, manufacturing had waned and was replaced by service industries and warehousing. Today, the city has expanded to a population of more than 166,000 people living within a 50 square-mile area. The city’s economic base is now heavily dependent on industrial and manufacturing, and with three freeways, three major railroads, and Ontario International Airport, the region is rich in transportation resources (City of Ontario; Galvin & Associates 2004:40-41).
PERSONNEL
David Brunzell, M.A., RPA acted as the Project Manager and Principal Investigator for the current study. Mr. Brunzell meets the United States Secretary of the Interior Professional Qualification Standards for Archaeology and Architectural History. Mr. Brunzell wrote the technical report with contributions from Principal Architectural Historian, Kara Brunzell, M.A., BCR Consulting Archaeological Project Manager, Joseph Orozco, M.A, RPA. BCR Consulting Staff Archaeologist Doug Kazmier, B.A. completed the pedestrian survey. Ms.
Brunzell completed the Department of Park and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms. Ms. Brunzell completed additional research, architectural descriptions, and historic-period built environment eligibility evaluations.
METHODS
This work was completed pursuant to CEQA, the Public Resources Code (PRC) Chapter
2.6, Section 21083.2, and California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 14, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15064.5. The work is also completed pursuant to City Development Code Article 26: Historic Preservation. The pedestrian cultural resources survey was intended to locate and document previously recorded or new cultural resources, including archaeological sites, features, isolates, and historic-period buildings, that exceed 45 years in age within defined project boundaries. The project site was examined using 15-meter transect intervals, where accessible. This study is intended to determine whether cultural resources are located within the project boundaries, whether any cultural resources are significant pursuant to the abovereferenced regulations and standards, and to develop specific mitigation measures that will address potential impacts to existing or potential resources. Tasks pursued to achieve that end include:
924
O C T O B E R 1 3 , 2 0 2 3 BCR C O N S U L T I N G
C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
W A T E R M A R K E P R O J E C T
8 • Cultural resources records search to review the results of any studies conducted within a half-mile radius of the project boundaries;
• Additional research through various local and regional resources; • Systematic pedestrian survey of the entire accessible project site; • California Register eligibility evaluation for resources identified; • Development of recommendations and mitigation measures for cultural resources documented within the project boundaries, following CEQA; • Completion of DPR 523 forms for any discovered cultural resources.
Research
Records Search. On April 17th, 2023 a records search was conducted at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at California State University, Fullerton. This archival research reviewed the status of all recorded historic and prehistoric cultural resources, and survey and excavation reports completed within one half-mile of the project site. Additional resources reviewed included the National Register, the California Register, and documents and inventories published by the California Office of Historic Preservation. These resources include the lists of California Historical Landmarks, California Points of Historical Interest, Listing of National Register Properties, and the Inventory of Historic Structures.
Additional Research. BCR Consulting performed additional research through City of Ontario permit records, the Robert E. Ellingwood Model Colony History Room of the Ontario Library, the San Bernardino County Historical Archives, and through various internet resources. The research focused on consulting primary and secondary sources such as building permits, property title documents, newspaper articles, scholarly journal articles, and biographical sources.
Field Survey
An intensive-level cultural resources field survey of the project site was conducted on April 24, 2023 and May 15, 2023. The survey was conducted by walking parallel transects spaced approximately 15 meters apart across the accessible project site in areas that exhibited visible surface sediment. The historic-period buildings were recorded on DPR 523 forms. Digital photographs were taken at various points within the project. These included overviews as well as detail photographs of the buildings. Cultural resources were recorded per the California OHP Instructions for Recording Historical Resources in the field using:
• Detailed note taking for entry on DPR Forms (see Appendix B) • Hand-held Garmin Global Positioning systems for mapping purposes • Digital overviews and photographs of cultural resources (see Appendix B and C).
RESULTS
Research
Records Search. Data from the SCCIC revealed that six previous cultural resources studies have taken place within one half-mile of the project site. No cultural resources have been recorded within one half-mile of the project site. Records search results are summarized in Table A, and a records search bibliography is provided in Appendix A. 925
O C T O B E R 1 3 , 2 0 2 3 BCR C O N S U L T I N G
C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
W A T E R M A R K E P R O J E C T
9 Table A. Cultural Resources and Reports Within One Half-Mile of the Project Site USGS 7.5 Min
Quad
Cultural Resources Within One Half-Mile of
Project Site
Studies Within One Half-Mile of
the Project Site
Ontario (1981),
California
None SB-02722, 03906, 04099, 05876,
06666, 06667
Additional Research. Additional research was performed for the project site to provide the background for the historic-period cultural properties within its boundaries (see also Field Survey Results, below). Please note that references and figures for this section are provided in Appendix B.
1126 N Mountain Avenue. The Plaza Center Station Post Office of Ontario building located at 1126 N Mountain Ave was built in 1956 and dedicated by the regional transportation manager of the U.S. Post Office, John E. Painter (San Bernardino County Sun 1956). The developer and first owner of the Plaza Center Station was Danelco Development Company (San Bernardino County Sun 1955). The Danelco Development Co. was started in 1955 by CEO William H. Oldknow and dissolved in 1988 (Bizapedia 2023). John F. Anderson, who lived in Ontario, was Danelco’s President and publicly represented its local projects. William Oldknow was the owner of several California drive-in movie theaters; Anderson also had a background in theater management (Fresno Bee Republican 1951). Parcel ownership passed to Newdan Inc. at some point between 1957 and 1985 before ownership passed to the current owner, Jafam Corporation, in 1985. Jafam Corp. is a real estate company based in Ontario. The first postmaster of the Plaza Center Station was Charles F. Linck Junior (San Bernardino County Sun 1956). In 1965, mail vehicles referred to as “Mailsters” replaced foot carriers at the Ontario post offices (San Bernardino County Sun 1965). In the 1960s, Thomas G. Black worked as the window clerk for years before being promoted to foreman at the Plaza Center Station (San Bernardino County Sun 1967). In 1970, two of the Plaza Center Station postal carriers, Milton Powers and Duane Palmer, received national awards for eleven years of safe driving (The Daily Report 1970). When the main Ontario Post Office was replaced with a large new building in 1976 the Plaza Center Station stopped delivering mail; the location continued to offer post office boxes and stamps. Between 2014 and 2016, the Ontario Plaza Shopping Center was partially demolished, including the portion directly adjacent to the Plaza Center Station. In 2023, the USPS Plaza Center Station was still in use as a post office.
1028-1044 W 4th Street. The existing commercial complex, located at 1028-1044 W 4th St was constructed about 1959. The first known owner of the associated parcels was Danelco Development Co. The Danelco Development Co. was started in 1955 by CEO William H.
Oldknow and dissolved in 1988 (Bizapedia 2023). John F. Anderson, who lived in Ontario, was Danelco’s President and publicly represented its local projects. William Oldknow was the owner of several California drive-in movie theaters; Anderson also had a background in theater management (Fresno Bee Republican 1951). Parcel ownership passed to Newdan Inc. at some point between 1957 and 1985 before ownership passed to the current owner, Jafam Corporation in 1985 (San Bernardino County Assessor). Jafam Corp. is a real estate company based in Ontario.
926
O C T O B E R 1 3 , 2 0 2 3 BCR C O N S U L T I N G
C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
W A T E R M A R K E P R O J E C T
10 The first Ontario Plaza Center buildings were originally constructed in 1956 along with the adjoining post office and bank (Progress Bulletin 1956). The Laundramatic laundromat was the original business between the bank and post office. In 1957, Bank of America opened at the southwestern corner of the property. Beginning in 1958, Danelco undertook a major expansion of Ontario Plaza, constructing several large adjoining stores on a larger parcel across 4th Street to the south. The extant section of the subject property (which faces 4th Street rather than Mountain Avenue) was constructed about 1959. Commercial space was leased to various vendors who formed the Ontario Plaza Merchants Association (San Bernardino County Sun 1961). In the 1960s and 1970s, the space at 1030 W 4th Street was leased as a reading room for Bible study with the First Church of Christ, Scientist on Euclid Avenue in Ontario (Daily Report 1970). In 1968, 1040 W 4th Street was Hazel’s Fashions clothing store and 1038 W 4th Street was Ontario Beauty Supply (Upland News 1968; Montclair Tribune 1968). In 1969, 1034 W 4th Street housed Stella’s Italian Kitchen (Montclair Tribune 1969). In 1975, 1038 W 4th Street housed Complete Office Outfitters (Montclair Tribune 1975). In 1986, 1044 W 4th Street was home to the Foot Clinic (Chino Champion 1986). From 1960 through the 1990s, 1058 W Fourth Street was home to the Household Finance Corporation (South Ontario News 1991). From 1990 until 2023, Cork and Can Liquor Store occupied 1040 W 4th Street (Daily Press 1990). In 2001, Quality Drinking Water was located at 1034 W 4th Street (Chino Champion 2001). The stores facing Mountain Avenue were demolished about 2015.
Field Survey
BCR Consulting Staff Archaeologist Doug Kazmier, B.A. completed the field survey on April 24, 2023 and a follow up survey was conducted by BCR Consulting Staff Historian George Brentner, B.A. on May 15, 2023. Surface visibility was approximately 5 percent as most of the project area was paved over apart from grass adjacent the sidewalk on 4th Street, and seasonal grasses and weeds protruding through pavement. One historic-period post office and one historic-period commercial retail building were recorded during the survey and are described in detail below.
SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATIONS
During the field survey, one historic-period Post Office, and one historic-period commercial retail building were identified. CEQA calls for the evaluation and recordation of historic and archaeological resources. The criteria for determining the significance of impacts to cultural resources are based on Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and Guidelines for the Nomination of Properties to the California Register. Properties eligible for listing in the California Register and subject to review under CEQA are those meeting the criteria for listing in the California Register, or designation under a local ordinance. The post office and commercial retail properties are evaluated for significance below.
Significance Criteria
California Register of Historical Resources. The California Register criteria are based on National Register criteria. For a property to be eligible for inclusion on the California Register or as a City Landmark, one or more of the following criteria must be met:
927
O C T O B E R 1 3 , 2 0 2 3 BCR C O N S U L T I N G
C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
W A T E R M A R K E P R O J E C T
11 1. It is associated with the events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the U.S.;
2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or U.S. history;
3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, represents the work of a master, possesses high artistic values; and/or
4. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.
In addition to meeting one or more of the above criteria, the California Register requires that sufficient time has passed since a resource’s period of significance to “obtain a scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resources.” (CCR 4852 [d][2]).
The California Register also requires that a resource possess integrity. This is defined as the ability for the resource to convey its significance through seven aspects: location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
City of Ontario Designation Criteria. In addition to evaluation for California Register listing eligibility, the City of Ontario Development Code Article 26: Historic Preservation (Section 9-
1.2615) provides the following designation criteria for a property to qualify as a City Historic Landmark:
a. It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City’s history; b. It is identified with persons or events significant in local, state, or national history; c. It is representative of the work of a notable builder, designer, architect, or artist; d. It embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics of a style, type, period, or method of construction;
e. It is a noteworthy example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship; f. It embodies elements that represent a significant structural, engineering, or architectural achievement or innovation;
g. It has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the City; or h. It is one of the few remaining examples in the City, region, state, or nation possessing distinguishing characteristics of an architectural or historical type or specimen.
Evaluations
1126 N Mountain Avenue California Register Evaluation. Criterion 1: The Post Office at 1126 N Mountain Avenue was constructed within the general context of mid-century population expansion and civic/commercial development in Ontario. However, it was a secondary post office established long after the original main post office, and thus was not integral to the formation of the City. Research has revealed no significant association with important events related to the growth of that municipality, with development of the region, 928
O C T O B E R 1 3 , 2 0 2 3 BCR C O N S U L T I N G
C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
W A T E R M A R K E P R O J E C T
12 postwar commercial development, or with any other important historic context. It is therefore recommended not eligible for the California Register under Criterion 1.
Criterion 2: Substantial research has not linked the subject property with individuals who have been notable in local, state, or national history; it lacks association with the lives of important persons in our history. For these reasons, it is recommended not eligible for the California Register under Criterion 2.
Criterion 3: The building is a rather handsome but simple example of a mid-century post office; its only decorative feature is the zigzag-patterned concrete masonry units on the north end of the main façade. Nor does the building feature the dramatic roof forms, blending of exterior with interior, lavish landscaping, or other elements that characterize architecturally significant mid-century buildings. Exterior materials such as aluminum and concrete as well as low-cost interior fixtures reflect cost-consciousness rather than design distinction. Research did not reveal an architect or important builder associated with its construction. The property does not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represent the work of an important creative individual or possess high artistic values. It is a fairly utilitarian example of mid-century modern postal architecture, similar to hundreds of other post offices constructed in the 1950s and 1960s.
Therefore, it is recommended not eligible for the California Register under Criterion 3.
Criterion 4: The building is a well understood building type, and as such the resource has not and is not likely to yield information important in prehistory or history. It is therefore recommended not eligible for the California Register under Criterion 4.
The subject property and its constituent historic-age building is therefore recommended not eligible under any of the four criteria for listing on the California Register, and as such does not qualify as a historical resource under the CEQA.
1126 N Mountain Avenue City of Ontario Designation Criteria. The property does not meet any of the eight City Designation Criteria, and as such does not qualify as a City Historic Landmark.
1028-1044 W 4th Street California Register Evaluation. Criterion 1: The Ontario Plaza Shopping Center at 1028-1044 W 4th Street was constructed within the general context of mid-century commercial development in Ontario, however, research has revealed no significant association with important events related to the founding of that municipality, with development of the region, postwar commercial development, or with any other important historic context. It is therefore recommended not eligible for the California Register under Criterion 1.
Criterion 2: Substantial research has not linked the subject property with individuals who have been notable in local, state, or national history. Its owners were ordinary businesspeople who leased the property to commercial businesses. Therefore, it lacks association with the lives of important persons in our history. It is recommended not eligible for the California Register under Criterion 2.
929
O C T O B E R 1 3 , 2 0 2 3 BCR C O N S U L T I N G
C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
W A T E R M A R K E P R O J E C T
13 Criterion 3: The building is a simple example of a mid-century commercial property.
Research did not reveal an important builder associated with its construction. Although research has not revealed historic photos of the extant section of the building, its details and materials do not match the associated buildings facing Mountain Avenue that were constructed around the same time, and it appears to have been altered outside the historic era. The property does not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represent the work of an important creative individual or possess high artistic values. It is an ordinary commercial building and lacks architectural distinction.
Therefore, it is recommended not eligible for the California Register under Criterion 3.
Criterion 4: The building is a well understood building type, and as such the resource has not and is not likely to yield information important in prehistory or history. It is therefore recommended not eligible for the California Register under Criterion 4.
The subject property and its constituent historic-age building is therefore recommended not eligible under any of the four criteria for listing on the National Register or the California Register, and as such does not qualify as a historical resource under CEQA. 1126 N Mountain Avenue City of Ontario Designation Criteria. The property does not meet any of the eight City Designation Criteria, and as such does not qualify as a City Historic Landmark.
RECOMMENDATIONS
BCR Consulting conducted a cultural resources assessment of the Watermarke Project in the City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California. During the research and field survey, two resources were identified, recorded, and evaluated for California Register listing eligibility (i.e. significance under CEQA). These include the historic-period post office at 1126 N Mountain Avenue and a historic-period retail building at 1028-1044 W 4 th Street.
Non-Significant Properties. The historic-period post office comprising 1126 North Mountain Avenue and the historic-period commercial retail building comprising 1028 through 1044 West 4th Street have been evaluated and are recommended not eligible for California Register eligibility. They do not not warrant further consideration.
Accidental Discoveries. If previously undocumented cultural resources are identified during earthmoving activities associated with development of the project site, a qualified archaeologist should be contacted to assess the nature and significance of the find, diverting construction excavation if necessary. The current study attempted to determine whether significant archaeological deposits were present on the proposed project site.
Although none were yielded during the records search and field survey, ground-disturbing activities have the potential to reveal buried deposits not observed on the surface. Prior to the initiation of ground-disturbing activities, field personnel should be alerted to the possibility of buried prehistoric or historic cultural deposits. In the event that field personnel encounter buried cultural materials, work in the immediate vicinity of the find should cease and a qualified archaeologist should be retained to assess the significance of the find. The qualified archaeologist should have the authority to stop or divert construction excavation as necessary. If the qualified archaeologist finds that any cultural resources present meet eligibility requirements for listing on the California Register or the National Register of 930
O C T O B E R 1 3 , 2 0 2 3 BCR C O N S U L T I N G
C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
W A T E R M A R K E P R O J E C T
14 Historic Places (National Register), plans for the treatment, evaluation, and mitigation of impacts to the find will need to be developed. Prehistoric or historic cultural materials that may be encountered during ground-disturbing activities include:
• Historic-period artifacts such as glass bottles and fragments, cans, nails, ceramic and pottery fragments, and other metal objects;
• Historic-period structural or building foundations, walkways, cisterns, pipes, privies, and other structural elements;
• Prehistoric flaked-stone artifacts and debitage (waste material), consisting of obsidian, basalt, and or cryptocrystalline silicates;
• Groundstone artifacts, including mortars, pestles, and grinding slabs; • Dark, greasy soil that may be associated with charcoal, ash, bone, shell, flaked stone, groundstone, and fire affected rocks;
• Human remains.
Human Remains. If human remains are encountered during any project activities, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the NAHC, which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC.
931
O C T O B E R 1 3 , 2 0 2 3 BCR C O N S U L T I N G
C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
W A T E R M A R K E P R O J E C T
15 REFERENCES
Bean, Lowell John, and Charles Smith
1978 California, edited by R.F. Heizer. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, W.C.
Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution. Washington, D.C.
Beattie, George W., and Helen P. Beattie
1974 Heritage of the Valley: San Bernardino’s First Century. Biobooks: Oakland.
Beck, Warren A., and Ynez D. Haase
1974 Historical Atlas of California. Oklahoma City: University of Oklahoma Press.
Bizapedia
2023 Danelco Development Company. Electronic Document:
https://www.bizapedia.com/ca/danelco-development-company.html Accessed Multiple Dates.
Boscana, Father Geronimo
1933 Chinigchinich: Alfred Robinson's Translation of Father Geronimo Boscana's Historic Account of the Belief, Usages, Customs and Extravagancies of the Indians of this Mission of San Juan Capistrano Called the Acagchemem Tribe. Fine Arts Press, Santa Ana.
Chino Champion (Chino, California)
1986 “[Assorted articles and editorials].” Chino, California. Electronic Database
via newspapers.com. Accessed multiple dates.
City of Ontario
2018 Ontario’s History. Electronic Document: https://www.ontarioca.gov/planning/ historic-preservation/ontarios-history. Accessed December 21, 2018.
Cleland, Robert Glass
1941 The Cattle on a Thousand Hills—Southern California, 1850-80. San Marino, California: Huntington Library.
The Daily Report (City of Ontario)
1970 “Christian Church Services.” Ontario, California. Electronic Database via newspapers.com. Accessed multiple dates.
Dice, Michael
2006 Rich Haven Specific Plan City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California.
Heizer, Robert F.
1968 Introduction and Notes: The Indians of Los Angeles County: Hugo Reid's Letters of 1852, edited and annotated by Robert F. Heizer. SW Museum, Los Angeles. 932
O C T O B E R 1 3 , 2 0 2 3 BCR C O N S U L T I N G
C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
W A T E R M A R K E P R O J E C T
16 Jaeger, Edmund C., and Arthur C. Smith
1971 Introduction to the Natural History of Southern California. California Natural History Guides: 13. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Johnston, B.E.
1962 California's Gabrielino Indians. Southwest Museum, Los Angeles.
Kroeber, Alfred L.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin No. 78.
Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. Reprinted 1976, Dover Publications.
McCawley, William
1996 The First Angelinos, The Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles. Malki Museum Press/Ballena Press Cooperative Publication. Banning/Novato, California.
Montclair Tribune (Montclair, California)
1968 “[Assorted articles and editorials].” Montclair, California. Electronic Database
via newspapers.com. Accessed multiple dates.
Rounds, Michael
1999 Ontario: The Gem of the Foothills. Heritage Media Corp.
Progress Bulletin (Pomona, California)
1956 “Construction Started on New Bank Branch.” Pomona, California. Electronic Database
via newspapers.com. Accessed multiple dates.
San Bernardino County
2023 Property Management Information System (PIMS). Electronic document. Accessed Multiple dates.
San Bernardino County Sun (San Bernardino, California)
Multiple Dates “[Assorted articles and editorials].” San Bernardino, California. Electronic Database
via newspapers.com. Accessed multiple dates.
South Ontario News (Ontario, California)
1991 “Household Finance Corp.” Ontario, California. Electronic Database via newspapers.com. Accessed multiple dates.
The Fresno Bee Republican (Fresno, California)
1951 “The Theater Man.” Fresno, California. Electronic Database via newspapers.com. Accessed multiple dates.
United States Department of Agriculture
2016 Aerial Photos of San Bernardino County. Electronic Document: historicaerials.com. 933
O C T O B E R 1 3 , 2 0 2 3 BCR C O N S U L T I N G
C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
W A T E R M A R K E P R O J E C T
17 Accessed Multiple Dates.
1972 Aerial Photos of San Bernardino County. Electronic Document: historicaerials.com.
Accessed Multiple Dates.
1966 Aerial Photos of San Bernardino County. Electronic Document: historicaerials.com.
Accessed Multiple Dates.
1959 Aerial Photos of San Bernardino County. Electronic Document: historicaerials.com.
Accessed Multiple Dates.
1938 Aerial Photos of San Bernardino County. Electronic Document: historicaerials.com.
Accessed Multiple Dates.
United States Geological Survey
1981 Ontario, California 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map.
Upland News (Upland, California)
1968 “Hazel’s Fashions.” Upland, California. Electronic Database via newspapers.com. Accessed multiple dates.
Williams, Patricia, Leah Messinger, Sarah Johnson
2008 Habitats Alive! An Ecological Guide to California's Diverse Habitats. California Institute for Biodiversity, Claremont, California.
(see also Appendix B)
934
O C T O B E R 1 3 , 2 0 2 3 BCR C O N S U L T I N G
C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
W A T E R M A R K E P R O J E C T
APPENDIX A
RECORD SEARCH BIBLIOGRAPHY
935
Report List
Report No. Other IDs Year Author(s) Title Affiliation Resources KIM2306
SB-02722 1992 CABIN #3, LYTLE CREEK SUMMER HOME
TRACT
NADB-R - 1062722 MLAZOVSKY, MARILYN
SB-03906 2002 4TH AND MOUNTAIN, CA-6698B,
ONTARIO, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY,
CA. 5PP
NADB-R - 1063906 BILLAT, LORNA EARTHTOUCH, LLC
SB-04099 2003 RECORDS SEARCH RESULTS & SITE
VISIT FOR SPRINT TELECOMMUNICATION
FACILITY SB57XC008A (CALVARY
BAPTIST CHURCH), 730 MOUNTAIN AVE,
ONTARIO, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY,
CA. 11PP
MICHAEL BRANDMAN
ASSOCIATES
NADB-R - 1064099 DICE, MICHAEL
SB-05876 2007 Identification and Evaluation of Historic Properties: San Antonio Channel (West
Edison) Recycled Water Pipeline Project
Addiction in the Cities of Ontario and
Montclair, San Bernardino County, California.
Bodmer, Clarence, CRM Tech
Daniel Ballester, and
Melissa Hernandez
NADB-R - 1065876
SB-06666 2009 Identification and Evaluation of Historic Properties: Northwest Recycled Water
System Project, Cities of Rancho
Cucamonga, Upland and Ontario, San
Bernardino County, California.
NADB-R - 1066666 Encarnacion, Deirdre
SB-06667 2009 Identification and Evaluation of Historic Properties: Northwest Recycled Water
System Project, Cities of Rancho
Cucamonga, Upland and Ontario, San
Bernardino County, California.
NADB-R - 1066667 Encarnacion, Deirdre CRM TECH