Project: 22-124 Armorlite Lofts 225 GHG
GREENHOUSE GAS ASSESSMENT
Armorlite Lofts Residential Development
GPA23-0002, R23-0001
SDP23-0003, CUP23-0002
City of San Marcos, CA
Prepared for:
City of San Marcos
1 Civic Center Drive
San Marcos, CA 92069
Prepared By:
23811 Washington Ave, C110-333
Murrieta, California 92562
November 4, 2024
Ldn Consulting, Inc.
ii
Ldn Consulting, Inc. 11/4/24 22-124 Armorlite Lofts 225 GHG
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................. ............................. II LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................................ III LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................................................. III ATTACHMENTS ................................................................................................................... .............................. III LIST OF COMMON ACRONYMS ....................................................................................................... ................... IV
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. .................. 1
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 PROJECT LOCATION ......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT ................................................................................................................................. 1
2.0 BACKGROUND AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING .................................................................................... 5
2.1 UNDERSTANDING CLIMATE CHANGE AND GREENHOUSE GASES ................................................................................ 5
2.2 CLIMATE AND METEOROLOGY ........................................................................................................................... 6
3.0 CLIMATE CHANGE REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT ................................................................................... 8
3.1 STATE ........................................................................................................................................................... 8
3.2 GHG THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE ................................................................................................................ 20
4.0 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................... 23
4.1 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE OF THE SITE .............................................................................................................. 23
4.2 CONSTRUCTION CO2E EMISSIONS CALCULATION METHODOLOGY ........................................................................... 23
4.3 OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS CALCULATION METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................... 25
5.0 FINDINGS....................................................................................................................... ...................... 26
5.1 PROJECT RELATED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS .................................................................................................... 26
5.2 PROPOSED PROJECT OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ................................................................................................... 26
5.3 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (DATA CENTER) CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS ................................................................... 28
5.4 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (DATA CENTER) SCENARIO OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ...................................................... 28
5.5 CEQA COMPLIANCE ...................................................................................................................................... 29
6.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... .................... 30
iii
Ldn Consulting, Inc. 11/4/24 22-124 Armorlite Lofts 225 GHG List of Figures
FIGURE 1-A: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT DETAILS ............................................................................................. 3 FIGURE 1-B: PROJECT VICINITY MAP ................................................................................................................... 4 FIGURE 2-A: EXISTING SITE LAYOUT .................................................................................................................... 7
List of Tables
TABLE 4.1: EXPECTED CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT .......................................................................................... 24 TABLE 5.1: MODELED ANNUAL CONSTRUCTION CO2E EMISSIONS SUMMARY (MT CO2E/YEAR) ......................... 26 TABLE 5.2: EXPECTED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS SUMMARY MT/YEAR ............................................................. 27
Attachments
CALEEMOD EMISSION MODEL – PROPOSED PROJECT .................................................................................... .... 33 CALEEMOD EMISSION MODEL – 160,000 SF DATA CENTER GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT SCENARIO ....................... 81 TEREX 4242SR 310 HP SPECIFICATION SHEET ....................................................................................... ............ 113 CAP CHECKLIST – PROJECT SPECIFIC ................................................................................................................. 123
iv
Ldn Consulting, Inc. 11/4/24 22-124 Armorlite Lofts 225 GHG
LIST OF COMMON ACRONYMS
Assembly Bill 32 (AB32)
Business as Usual (BAU)
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s (CAPCOA) California Air Resource Board (CARB)
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
Climate Action Plan (CAP)
Cubic Yards (CY)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Electric Vehicle (EV)
Greenhouse Gas (GHG)
International Residential Code (IRC)
Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS)
Methane (CH4)
Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (MT CO2e)
Nitrous Oxide (N2O)
San Diego Air Basin (SDAB)
San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD)
Senate Bill 97 (SB97)
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
1 Ldn Consulting, Inc. 11/4/24 22-124 Armorlite Lofts 225 GHG
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description
The project proposes up to 165 multi-family residential units within a five-story building situated on approximately 2.44 acres. The project would also include up to 5,600 square feet (SF) of retail/flex use. Additionally, the Project proposes as many as 254 parking spaces which includes Level 2 Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSM) at 13 parking spaces, 62 Electric Vehicle (EV) ready 1 spaces, and 25 EV capable 2 spaces. The project seeks a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and to rezone the property from Public-Institutional (P-I) to Specific Plan Area (SPA). The project is estimated to generate 1,214 trips per day. Construction would be expected to start early 2026 and be completed in about one year. The project would be designed without hearth options within any of the proposed multi-family units. The proposed Project development plan is provided in Figures 1-A below.
The project would start grading sometime in 2026 with construction to start shortly thereafter.
Grading would consist of approximately 6,950 cubic yards (CY) of cut material and 4,400 CY of fill material. Based on discussions with th e applicant, shrinkage and swelling would be expected and the total export expected would be approximately 2,250 CY of material. During grading, blasting may be required and if blasting is required, a standalone rock crusher similar to a Terex 4242SR 310 horsepower (HP)+/- will be utilized.
1.2 Project Location
The vacant 2.4-acre project site (Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 219-612-62-00) is located along Armorlite Drive in the City of San Marcos. Specifically, the project site is located north of State Route 78 (SR-78) and east of Las Po sas Road between Mission Road and Armorlite Drive. A project vicinity map is shown in Figure 1-B.
1.3 Purpose of this Report
The purpose of this Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Assessment is to analyze the project’s GHG emissions and evaluate its conformance with the City of San Marcos’ Climate Action Plan (CAP). As described in the City’s CAP, there is an existing framework of federal, State, regional, and local policies and regulations that identify GHG reduction requirements. The CAP
1 EV Ready means a designated parking space which is provided with one 40-ampere, 208/240 Volt dedicated branch circuit for future dedicated Level 2 EVSE. 2 EV Capable means that dedicated electrical panel capacity and raceway infrastructure is provided to support a future 40-ampere, 208/240-volt branch circuit for a future dedicated Level 2 EVSE.
2 Ldn Consulting, Inc. 11/4/24 22-124 Armorlite Lofts 225 GHG provides a plan for the City to meet these requirements and achieve local reduction requirements outlined in the CAP. In addition, as identified in the CAP, showing consistency with the CAP would also demonstrate that the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (City of San Marcos, 2020).
This analysis has been completed in order to compare GHG emissions from both the proposed Project and the General Plan Buildout (Data Center) Scenario.
3 Ldn Consulting, Inc. 11/4/24 22-124 Armorlite Lofts 225 GHG Figure 1-A: Residential Development Details
Source: (Summa Architecture, 2024)
4 Ldn Consulting, Inc. 11/4/24 22-124 Armorlite Lofts 225 GHG Figure 1-B: Project Vicinity Map
Source: (Google, 2023)
Project
Location
5 Ldn Consulting, Inc. 11/4/24 22-124 Armorlite Lofts 225 GHG
2.0 BACKGROUND AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
2.1 Understanding Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases
Climate change refers to any significant change in measures of climate, such as temperature, precipitation, or wind patterns, lasting for an extended period of time (decades or longer).
The Earth’s temperature depends on the balance between energy entering and leaving the planet’s system. Many factors, both natura l and human, can cause changes in the Earth’s energy balance, including variations in the sun's energy reaching Earth, changes in the reflectivity of Earth’s atmosphere and surface, and changes in the greenhouse effect, which affects the amount of heat retained by Eart h’s atmosphere. The greenhouse effect is the trapping and build-up of heat in the atmosphere (troposphere) near the Earth’s surface. The greenhouse effect traps heat in the troposphere through a threefold process as follows:
Short-wave radiation emitted by the sun is absorbed by the Earth. The Earth emits a portion of this energy in the form of long-wave radiation and GHGs in the upper atmosphere absorb this long-wave radiation and emit it into space and toward the Earth.
The greenhouse effect is a natural process that contributes to regulating the Earth’s temperature and creates a pleasant, livable environment on the Earth. Human activities that emit additional GHGs to the atmosphere increase the amount of infrared radiation that gets absorbed before escaping into space, thus enhancing the greenhouse effect and causing the Earth’s surface temperature to rise.
Some greenhouse gases are emitted exclusively from human activities (e.g., synthetic halocarbons). Others occur naturally but are fo und at elevated levels due to human inputs (e.g., carbon dioxide). Anthropogenic sources result from energy-related activities (e.g., combustion of fossil fuels in th e electric utility and transportation sectors), agriculture, land- use change, waste management and treatment activities, and various industrial processes.
Major greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and various synthetic chemicals (EPA, 2023).
The GHGs typically analyzed in a greenhouse gas study are Carbon Dioxide (CO 2), Methane
(CH4), and Nitrous Oxide (N 2O) because they are emitted in the greatest quantities from human activities. A brief description of each GHG follows:
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is widely reported as the most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas because it currently accounts for the grea test portion of the warming associated with human activities. Carbon dioxide occurs naturally as part of the global carbon cycle, but human activities have increased atmospheric loadings through combustion of fossil fuels and
6 Ldn Consulting, Inc. 11/4/24 22-124 Armorlite Lofts 225 GHG other emissions sources. Natural sinks that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere (e.g., oceans, plants) help regulate carbon dioxide concentrations, but human activities can disturb these processes (e.g., deforestation) or enhance them (EPA, 2023).
Methane comes from many sources, including human activities such as coal mining, natural gas production and distribution, waste decompos ition in landfills, and digestive processes in livestock and agriculture. Natural sources of methane include wetlands and termite mounds (EPA, 2023).
Nitrous Oxide is emitted during agricultural and indu strial activities, as well as during combustion of solid waste and fossil fuels (EPA, 2023).
To simplify greenhouse gas calculations, both CH 4 and N 2O are converted to an equivalent amount of carbon dioxide, or CO2e. CO2e is calculated by multiplying the calculated levels of CH4 and N2O by a Global Warming Potential (GWP). GWPs for both CH4 and N2 are presented within the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Cl imate Change (IPCC) report as being 25 and 298, respectively (IPCC, 2007). The IPCC 2007 report was updated in 2021 and now recommends adding a 100-year timeline to the GWP discussions (GWP-100). For CH4 the GWP is between 27-30 and the GWP for N2O is 273 (USEPA, 2023). Since CalEEMod is the adopted computer model for calculating GHGs, the earlier GWPs within CalEEMod were utilized.
2.2 Climate and Meteorology
Climate within the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB) area often varies dramatically over short geographical distances with cooler temperatures on the western coast gradually warming to the east as prevailing winds from the west heats up. Most of southern California is dominated by high-pressure systems for much of the year, which keeps San Diego mostly sunny and warm. Typically, during the winter months, the high-pressure system drops to the south and brings cooler, moister weather from the north. It is common for inversion layers to develop within high-pressure areas, which mostly define pressure patterns over the SDAB. These inversions are caused when a thin layer of the atmosphere increases in temperature with height. An inversion acts like a lid preventing v e r t i c a l m i x i n g o f a i r t h r o u g h c o n v e c t i v e overturning. The City of San Marcos is within the SDAB so the same generalizations are true for the City.
Meteorological trends within the area generally show daytime highs ranging between 64ºF in the winter to approximately 88ºF in the summer with August usually being the hottest month.
Daytime Low temperatures range from approximately 37ºF in the winter to approximately 59ºF in the summer. Precipitation is generally about 16.2 inches per year (WRCC, 2021).
Prevailing wind patterns for the area vary duri ng any given month during the year and also
7 Ldn Consulting, Inc. 11/4/24 22-124 Armorlite Lofts 225 GHG vary depending on the time of day or night. The predominant pattern though throughout the year is usually from the west or westerly (WRCC, 2018). The existing site aerial map is shown in Figure 2-A.
Figure 2-A: Existing Site Layout
Project Site
Source: (Google Earth Pro, 2021)
8 Ldn Consulting, Inc. 11/4/24 22-124 Armorlite Lofts 225 GHG
3.0 CLIMATE CHANGE REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT
3.1 State
State Greenhouse Gas Targets
Executive Order S-3-05
EO S-3-05 (June 2005) established the following statewide goals: GHG emissions should be reduced to 2000 levels by 2010, 1990 levels by 2020, and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
AB 32 and CARB’s Climate Change Scoping Plan
In furtherance of the goals es tablished in EO S-3-05, the Le gislature enacted Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 re quires California to reduce its GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
Under AB 32, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) is responsible for and is recognized as having the expertise to carry out and deve lop the programs and regulations necessary to achieve the GHG emissions reduction mandate of AB 32. Therefore, in furtherance of AB 32, CARB adopted regulations requiring the reporting and verification of GHG emissions from specified sources, such as industrial facilities, fuel suppliers and electricity importers (see Health & Safety Code Section 35830; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 17, §§95100 et seq.). CARB is also required to adopt rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG emission reductions. AB 32 authorized CARB to adopt market-based compliance mechanisms to meet the specified requirements. Finally, CARB is ultimately responsible for monitoring compliance and enfo rcing any rule, regulation, order, emission limitation, emission reduction measure, or market-based compliance mechanism adopted.
In 2007, CARB approved a limit on the statewide GHG emissions level for year 2020 consistent with the determined 1990 baseline (427 million metric tons (MMT) CO 2E). CARB’s adoption of
this limit is in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 38550.
Further, in 2008, CARB adopted the
Climate Change Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change
(2008 Scoping Plan ) in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 38561. The 2008 Scoping Plan established an overall framework for the measures to be implemented to reduce California’s GHG emissions for various emission sources/sectors to 1990 levels by 2020. The 2008 Scoping Plan evaluated opportunities for sector-specific reductions,
9 Ldn Consulting, Inc. 11/4/24 22-124 Armorlite Lofts 225 GHG integrated all CARB and Climate Action Team 3 early actions and additional GHG reduction features by both entities, identi fied additional measures to be pursued as regulations, and outlined the role of a cap-and-trade program.
In the 2008 Scoping Plan, CARB determined that achieving the 1990 emissions level in 2020 would require a reduction in GHG emissions of approximately 28.5 percent from the otherwise projected 2020 emissions level; i.e., those emissions that would occur in 2020, absent GHG- reducing laws and regulations (referred to as “Business-As-Usual” [BAU]). For purposes of calculating this percent reduction, CARB assumed that all new electricity generation would be supplied by natural gas plants, no further regulatory action would impact vehicle fuel efficiency, and building energy efficiency codes would be held at 2005 standards.
In the 2011 Final Supplement to the
2008 Scoping Plan’s Functional Equivalent Document,
CARB revised its estimates of the projected 2020 emissions level in light of the economic recession and the availability of updated information about GHG reduction regulations. Based on the new economic data, CARB determined that achieving the 1990 emissions level by 2020 would require a reduction in GHG emissions of 21.7 percent (down from 28.5 percent) from the BAU conditions. When the 2020 emissions level projection was updated to account for newly implemented regulatory measures, incl uding Pavley I (model years 2009–2016) and the Renewables Portfolio Standard (12 percent to 20 percent), CARB determined that achieving the 1990 emissions level in 2020 would require a reduction in GHG emissions of 16 percent (down from 28.5 percent) from the BAU conditions.
In 2014, CARB adopted the First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan: Building on the Framework (First Update). The stated purpose of the First Update was to “highlight California’s success to date in reducing its GHG emissions and lay the foundation for establishing a broad framework for continued emission reductions beyond 2020, on the path to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.” The First Update found that California was on track to meet the 2020 emissions reduction mandate established by AB 32, noted that Cali fornia could reduce emissions further by 2030 to leve ls squarely in line with those needed to stay on track to reduce emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 if the state realizes the expected benefits of existing policy goals.
EO B-30-15
EO B-30-15 (April 2015) identified an interim GHG reduction target in support of targets previously identified under S-3-05 and AB 32. EO B-30-15 set an interim goal of reducing
3 The Climate Action Team is comprised of state ag ency secretaries and heads of state agencies, boards and departments; these members work to coor dinate statewide efforts to implement GHG emissions reduction programs and adaptation programs.
10 Ldn Consulting, Inc. 11/4/24 22-124 Armorlite Lofts 225 GHG statewide GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1 990 levels by 2030 to keep California on its trajectory toward meeting or exceeding the long-term goal of reducing statewide GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 as set forth in S-3-05. To facilitate achievement of this goal, EO B-30-15 calls for an update to CARB’s Scoping Plan to express the 2030 target in terms of MMT CO 2e. The EO also calls for state agencies to continue to develop and implement GHG emission reductio n programs in support of the reduction targets. Sector-specific agencies in transportation, energy, water, and forestry were required to prepare GHG reduction plans by September 2015, followed by a report on action taken in relation to these plans in June 2016.
SB 32 and AB 197
SB 32 and AB 197 (enacted in 2016) are companion bills that set a new statewide GHG reduction target; make changes to CARB’s membership and increase legislative oversight of CARB’s climate change-based activities; and expand dissemination of GHG and other air quality-related emissions data to enhance transparency and accountability. More specifically, SB 32 codified the 2030 emissions reduction goal of EO B-30-15 by requiring CARB to ensure that statewide GHG emissions are reduced to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. AB 197 established the Joint Legislative Committee on Climate Change Policies, consisting of at least three members of the Senate and three members of the Assembly, in order to provide ongoing oversight over implementation of the state’s climate policies. AB 197 also added two members of the Legislature to CARB as nonvoting member s. The legislation further requires CARB to make available and update (at least annually via its website) emissions data for GHGs, criteria air pollutants, and TACs from reporting facilitie s; and identify specific information for GHG emissions reduction measures when updating the scoping plan, including information regarding the range of projected GHG emissions and air pollution reductions that result from each measure and the cost-effectiveness (including avoided social costs) of each measure (see Health & Safety Code Section 38562.7).
2017 and 2022 Scoping Plan
In November 2017, CARB released California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan for public review and comment (CARB, 2017). This update includes CARB’s strategy for achieving the state’s 2030 GHG target as established in Senate Bill (SB) 32 (discussed below). The strategy includes continuing the Cap-and-Trade Program through 2030, 4 inclusive policies and broad support for clean technologies, enhanced industrial efficiency and competitiveness, prioritization of transportation sustainability, continued leadership on clean energy, putting
4 In July 2017, AB 398 was enacted into law, thereb y extending the legislatively-authorized lifetime of the Cap-and-Trade Program to December 31, 2030.
11 Ldn Consulting, Inc. 11/4/24 22-124 Armorlite Lofts 225 GHG waste resources to beneficial use, supporting resilient agricultural and rural economics and natural and working lands, securing California’s water supplies, and cleaning the air and public health. When discussing project-level GHG emissions reduction action s and thresholds, the 2017 Scoping Plan states “[a]chieving no net additional increase in GHG emissions, resulting in no contribution to GHG impacts, is an appropriate overall objective for new development.” However, the 2017 Scoping Plan also recognizes that such an achievement “may not be feasible or appropriate for every project … and the inability of a project to mitigate its GHG emissions to net zero does not imply the projec t results in a substantial contribution to the cumulatively significant environmental impact of climate change under CEQA.” CARB’s Governing Board adopted the 2017 Scoping Plan in December 2017.
In 2022 California released the latest scoping plan update which lays out the sector-by-sector roadmap for California to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. This plan, addressing recent legislation and direction from Governor News om, extends and expands upon these earlier plans with a target of reducing anthropogenic emissions to 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045 (CARB, 2022). The plan suggests that bold steps are required by the State and calls for the need of vast research and development with respect to methods of capturing CO2. The plan call for a need to take an unprecedented transformation and aggressively seek reductions to reduce the need of fossil fuels by moving to zero emission transportation, electrifying the cars, buses, trucks and trains. The plan relays on external controls and requires partnership and collaboration with the federal government, other U.S. states, and other jurisdictions around the world for California to succeed in achieving its climate targets.
Assembly Bill 1279
In 2022, the Governor approved Assembly Bill 1279 (AB 1279) (State of California, 2022) which requires the state board to prepare and approve a scoping plan for achieving the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and to update the scoping plan at least once every 5 years. This bill, the California Climate Crisis Act, would declare the policy of the state both to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible, but no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net negative greenhouse gas emissions thereafter, and to ensure that by 2045, statewide anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to at least 85 percent below the 1990 levels.
California Building Standards
Title 24, Part 6
Part 6 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations was established in 1978 and serves to enhance and regulate California’s building standards. While not initially promulgated to reduce
12 Ldn Consulting, Inc. 11/4/24 22-124 Armorlite Lofts 225 GHG GHG emissions, Part 6 of Title 24 specifically establishes Building Energy Efficiency Standards that are designed to ensure new buildings and alterations or additions to existing buildings in California achieve energy efficiency and preserve outdoor and indoor environmental quality.
The California Energy Commission (CEC) is required by law to adopt standards every 3 years that are cost effective for homeowners over the 30-year lifespan of a building. These standards are updated to consider and incorporate new energy efficient technologies and construction methods. As a result, these stan dards save energy, increase electricity supply reliability, increase indoor comfort, avoid the need to construct new power plants, and help preserve the environment.
The current code requirement is based on th e 2022 standards, as those standards went into effect on January 1, 2023. The 2022 standards have mandatory requirements to reduce building envelope air leakage, improve roofing through Solar Reflectance and Thermal Emittance, improve on insulation, im prove on space conditioning, water heating and plumbing, improve on lighting efficiency re quirements to name a few. The project will be required to implem ent Title 24 2022.
Title 24, Part 11
In addition to the CEC’s efforts, in 2008, the California Building Standards Commission adopted the nation’s first green building standards. The California Green Building Standards Code (Part 11 of Title 24) is commonly referred to as CALGreen and establishes minimum mandatory standards as well as voluntary standa rds pertaining to the planning and design of sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and interior air quality. The CALGreen standards initially took effect in January 2011 and instituted mandatory minimum environmental performance standards for all ground-up, new construction of commercial, low-rise residential and state-owned buildings and schools and hospitals. The CALGreen 2016 standards became effective on January 1, 2017. The mandatory standards require the following (24 CCR Part 11):
• Mandatory reduction in indoor water use through compliance with specified flow rates for plumbing fixtures and fittings.
• Mandatory reduction in outdoor water use through compliance with a local water efficient landscaping ordinance or the California Department of Water Resources’ Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.
• Sixty-five (65) percent of construction an d demolition waste must be diverted from landfills.
• Mandatory inspections of energy systems to ensure optimal working efficiency. • I n c l u s i o n o f E V c h a r g i n g s t a t i o n s o r d e s i g n a t e d s p a c e s c a p a b l e o f s u p p o r t i n g f u t u r e charging stations.
13 Ldn Consulting, Inc. 11/4/24 22-124 Armorlite Lofts 225 GHG • Low-pollutant emitting exterior and interior finish materials, such as paints, carpets, vinyl flooring, and particle boards.
The CALGreen standards also include voluntary efficiency measures that are provided at two separate tiers and implemented at the discretion of local agencies and applicants. CALGreen’s Tier 1 standards call for a 15 percent improv ement in energy requirements; stricter water conservation, 10 percent recycled content in building materials, 20 percent permeable paving, 20 percent cement reduction, and cool/solar-reflective roofs. CALGreen’s more rigorous Tier 2 standards call for a 30 percent improvement in energy requirements, stricter water conservation, 75 percent diversion of construction and demolition waste, 15 percent recycled content in building materials, 30 percent permeable paving, 25 percent cement reduction, and cool/solar-reflective roofs.
The newest CALGreen Standards were updated in 2022 and beca me effective on January 1, 2023. The updated Code includes modifications to current codes and will be a requirement to the Project. Mandatory requirements include many updated Electric Vehicle Charging requirements for multi and single family developments (California Title 24, Part 11, 2022).
Title 20
Title 20 of the California Code of Regulations requires manufacturers of appliances to meet state and federal standards for energy and water efficiency. Performance of appliances must be certified through the CEC to demonstrat e compliance with standa rds. New appliances regulated under Title 20 include: refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers and freezers; room air conditioners and room air-conditioning heat pumps; central air conditioners; spot air conditioners; vented gas space heaters; gas pool heaters; plumbing fittings and plumbing fixtures; fluorescent lamp ballasts; lamps; emergency lighting; traffic signal modules; dishwaters; clothes washers and dryers; cookin g products; electric motors; low voltage dry- type distribution transformers; power supplie s; televisions and consumer audio and video equipment; and battery charger systems.
Title 20 presents protocols for testing for each type of appliance covered under the regulations and appliances must meet the standards for energy performance, energy design, water performance and water design. Title 20 contains three types of stan dards for appliances:
federal and state standards for federally regulated appliances, state standards for federally regulated appliances, and state standards for non-federally regulated appliances.
14 Ldn Consulting, Inc. 11/4/24 22-124 Armorlite Lofts 225 GHG Mobile Sources
AB 1493
In response to the transportation sector accounting for more than half of California’s CO 2 emissions, AB 1493 was enacted in July 2002 . AB 1493 required CARB to set GHG emission standards for passenger vehicles, light-duty truc ks, and other vehicles determined by CARB to be vehicles that are primarily used for noncommercial personal transportation in the state.
The bill required that CARB set GHG emission standards for motor vehi cles manufactured in 2009 and all subsequent model years. CARB adopted the standards in September 2004. When fully phased in, the near-term (2009–2012) standards will result in a reduction of about 22 percent in GHG emissions compared to the emissions from the 2002 fleet, while the mid-term (2013–2016) standards will result in a reduction of about 30 percent (CARB, 2017).
EO S-1-07
Issued in January 2007, EO S-1-07 sets a de clining Low Carbon Fuel Standard for GHG emissions measured in CO 2e grams per unit of fuel energy sold in California. The carbon intensity measures the amount of GHG emissi ons in the lifecycle of a fuel, including extraction/feedstock production, processing, transportation, and final consumption, per unit of energy delivered. CARB adopted the implementing regulation in April 2009 and began implementation in 2011. The LCFS is designed to encourage the use of cleaner low-carbon transportation fuels in California, encourage the production of those fuels, and therefore, reduce GHG emissions and decrease petroleum dependence in the transportation sector.
The latest amendment to LCFS implementation regulations was in 2018 and CARB approved amendments which included strengthening and smoothing the carbon intensity benchmarks through 2030 in-line with California's 2030 GHG emission reduction target enacted through SB 32 (CARB, 2018).
SB 375
SB 375 (2008) addresses GHG emissions associ ated with the transportation sector through regional transportation and sustainability plans. SB 375 required CARB to adopt regional GHG reduction targets for the auto mobile and light-truck sector for 2020 and 2035. Regional metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) are then responsible for preparing a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) within their Regional Transportation Plan. The goal of the SCS is to establish a forecasted development patt ern for the region that, after considering transportation measures and policies, will achiev e, if feasible and if implemented, the GHG reduction targets. If a SCS is unable to achieve the GHG reduction target, an MPO must
15 Ldn Consulting, Inc. 11/4/24 22-124 Armorlite Lofts 225 GHG prepare an Alternative Planning Strategy demonstrating how the GHG reduction target would be achieved through alternative development patterns, infrastructure, or additional transportation measures or policies.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65080(b)(2 )(K), a SCS does not: (i) regulate the use of land; (ii) supersede the land use authority of cities and counties; or (iii) require that a cities or counties land use policies and regulations, including those in a general plan, be consistent with it. Nonetheless, SB 375 makes regional and local planning agencies responsible for developing those strategies as part of the federally required metropolitan transportation planning process and the state-mandated housing element process.
In 2010, CARB adopted the SB 375 targets for the regional metr opolitan planning organizations. The targets for SANDAG adopted in 2010 are a 7 percent reduction in emissions per capita by 2020 and a 13 percent reduction by 2035; the targets are expressed as a percent change in per capita passenger vehicle GHG emissions relative to 2005.
In October 2015, SANDAG adopted San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan . In December 2015, CARB, by resolution, accepted SANDAG’s GHG emissions quantification analysis and determination that, if implemented, the SCS would achieve CARB’s 2020 and 2035 GHG emissions reduction targets for the region. More specifically, as set forth in CARB Executive Order G-15-075, CARB determined that SANDAG’s SCS would achieve a 15 percent per capita reduction by 2020 and a 21 percent per capita reduction by 2035.
In 2018, CARB updated the SB 375 targets. For purposes of SANDAG, the updated targets include a 15 percent reduction in emissions per capita by 2020 and a 19 percent reduction by 2035 (CARB, 2018). SANDAG is in the process of preparing its next SCS, which will consider whether and how the region could attain these reduction targets.
SANDAG approved the 2021 Regional Plan in December 2021. The Plan provides a big picture vision for how the San Diego region will grow through 2050 and beyond with an implementation program to help make the plan a reality. Within the Draft Plan, SANDAG introduced a transformative vision for transportation in San Diego County that completely reimagines how people and goods could move throughout the region in the 21st century. The plan outlines the “5 Big Moves” which are: Complete Corridors, Transit Leap, Mobility Hubs, Flexible Fleets, and the Next OS. This plan is the region’s long-term plan which will be implemented incrementally through the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) (SANDAG, 2021).
In September 2022, the SANDAG Board directed staff to prepare an amendment to the 2021 Regional Plan without the regional road us age charge. In developing the amendment,
16 Ldn Consulting, Inc. 11/4/24 22-124 Armorlite Lofts 225 GHG SANDAG will refine the financial strategies used in the 2021 Regional Plan to achieve the region's greenhouse gas emissions target set by CARB, without the road usage charge.
SANDAG will also assess the region's continue d ability to meet air qu ality standards. An Amendment to the 2021 Regional Plan removing the regional road user charge was adopted by SANDAG in October 2023. The 2025 Regional Plan is currently in development and also will not include a regional road user charge.
Advanced Clean Cars Program
In January 2012, CARB approved the Advanced Clean Cars program, a new emissions-control program for model years 2015 through 2025. The program combines the control of smog- and soot-causing pollutants and GHG emission s into a single coor dinated package. The package includes elements to reduce smog-forming pollution, reduce GHG emissions, promote clean cars, and provide the fuels for clean cars (CARB, 2017). To improve air quality, CARB also has implemented new emission standards to reduce smog-forming emissions beginning with 2015 model year vehicles. It is estimated that, in 2025, cars will emit 75 percent less smog-forming pollution than the average new car sold today. To reduce GHG emissions, CARB, in conjunction with the EPA and the NHTSA, also has adopted new GHG standards for model year 2017 to 2025 vehicles; the new standards are estimated to reduce GHG emissions by 34 percent in 2025 (California Air Resources Board, 2012).
This program was recently updated and is kn own as the Advanced Clean Cars II (ACC II) Program which continues the concept of increasing stringency for fuel-efficiency standards and increasing the number of zero emission vehicles (ZEVs) (CARB, 2023). The regulations are two-pronged. First, it amends the Zero-emission Vehicle (ZEV) Regulation to require an increasing number of ZEVs, and relies on curre ntly available advanced vehicle technologies, including battery-electric, hydrog en fuel cell electric and plug-i n hybrid electric-vehicles, to meet air quality and climate change emissions standards. These amendments support Governor Newsom’s 2020 Executive Order N-79-20 that requires all new passenger vehicles sold in California to be zero emissions by 2035. Second, the Low-emission Vehicle Regulations were amended to include increasingly stringent standards for gasoli ne cars and heavier passenger trucks to continue to reduce smog-forming emissions.
In October 2023, staff launche d a new effort to consider potential amendments to the Advanced Clean Cars II regulations, including updates to the tailpipe greenhouse gas emission standard and limited revisions to the Low-emission Vehicle and ZEV regulations.
EO N-79-20, Zero Emission by 2035, calls for elimination of new internal combustion passenger vehicles by 2035 (CARB, 2023). By setting a course to end sales of internal combustion passenger vehicles by 2035, the Governor’s Executive Order establishes a target
17 Ldn Consulting, Inc. 11/4/24 22-124 Armorlite Lofts 225 GHG for the transportation sector that helps put the state on a path to carbon neutrality by 2045.
It is important to note that the Executive Order focuses on new vehicle sales for automakers, and therefore does not require Californians to give up the existing cars and trucks they already own. The primary mechanism for achieving the ZEV target for passenger cars and light trucks is the Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) II Program.
As part of the Executive Order, the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development (GO-Biz) was tasked with preparing a ZEV Market Development Strategy along with the accompanying California State agency ZEV Action Plans.
In addition to ACC II, the Clean Miles Standard regulation will also help enable the goal of 100% ZEV sales in 2035 by creating demand fo r ZEVs. This regulation will have aggressive requirements for electric mile s that will transition ride-ha iling fleets to zero-emission operations starting in 2023 and ramping up through 2030. This regulation was approved by the CARB Board in 2021.
EO B-16-12
EO B-16-12 (March 2012) directs state entities under the Governor’s direction and control to support and facilitate developmen t and distribution of ZEVs. This EO also sets a long-term target of reaching 1.5 million zero-emission vehi cles on California’s roadways by 2025. On a statewide basis, EO B-16-12 also establishe s a GHG emissions reduction target from the transportation sector equaling 80 percent less than 1990 levels by 2050. In furtherance of this EO, the Governor convened an Interagency Working Group on Zero-Emission Vehicles that has published multiple reports regarding the progress made on the penetration of ZEVs in the statewide vehicle fleet.
SB 350
In 2015, SB 350 – the Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act – was enacted into law. As one of its elements, SB 350 establishes a statewide policy for widespread electrification of the transportation sector, recognizing that such electrification is required for achievement of the state’s 2030 and 2050 reduction targets (see Public Utilities Code Section 740.12).
Renewable Energy Procurement
SB 1078
SB 1078 (2002) established the Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) program, which requires an annual increase in renewable generation by the utilities equivalent to at least 1 percent of sales, with an aggregate goal of 20 percent by 2017. This goal was subsequently accelerated, requiring utilities to obtain 20 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2010.
18 Ldn Consulting, Inc. 11/4/24 22-124 Armorlite Lofts 225 GHG SB X1 2
SB X1 2 (2011) expanded the RPS by establishing that 20 percent of the total electricity sold to retail customers in California per year by December 31, 2013, and 33 percent by December 31, 2020, and in subsequent years be secured from qualifying renewable energy sources. Under the bill, a renewable electrical generation facility is one that uses biomass, solar thermal, photovoltaic, wind, geothermal, fuel cells using renewable fuels, small hydroelectric generation of 30 megawatts or less, digester gas, municipal solid waste conversion, landfill gas, ocean wave, ocean th ermal, or tidal current, and that meets other specified requirements with respect to its location. In addition to the retail sellers previously covered by the RPS, SB X1 2 added local, publ icly owned electric utilities to the RPS.
SB 350
SB 350 (2015) further expanded the RPS by establishing that 50 percent of the total electricity sold to retail customers in California per year by December 31, 2030 be secured from qualifying renewable energy sources. In addition, SB 350 includes the goal to double the energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas final end uses (such as heating, cooling, lighting, or class of energy uses on which an energy-efficiency program is focused) of retail customers through energy conservation and efficiency.
SB 100
SB 100 (2018) has further accelerated and expanded the RPS, requiring achievement of a 50 percent RPS by December 31, 2026 and a 60 percent RPS by December 31, 2030. SB 100 also established a new statewide policy goal that calls for eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources to supply 100 percent of electricity retail sales within the State of California by December 31, 2045.
SB 1020
In 2022, the Governor approved SB 1020 (State of California, 2022). This bill requires the state board to conduct a series of public workshops to give interested parties an opportunity to comment on the plan and requires a portion of those workshops to be conducted in regions of the state that have the most significant exposure to pollutants. This bill includes as regions for these workshops federal extreme nonattainment areas that have communities with minority populations, communities with low-income populations, or both.
Under existing law, it was the policy of the state that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100 percent of all retail sales of electricity to California end-use
19 Ldn Consulting, Inc. 11/4/24 22-124 Armorlite Lofts 225 GHG customers and 100 percent of electricity procur ed to serve all state agencies by December 31, 2045.
This bill revised the state policy to instead prov ide that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 90 percent of all retail sales of electricity to California end- use customers by December 31, 2035, 95 percent of all retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers by December 31, 2040, 100 perc ent of all retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers by December 31, 2045, and 100 percent of electricity procured to serve all state agencies by December 31, 2035, as specified.
Water
EO B-29-15
In response to drought-related concerns, EO B-29-15 (April 2015) set a goal of achieving a statewide reduction in potable urban water usage of 25 percent relative to water use in 2013.
The term of the EO extended through February 28, 2016, although many of the directives have since become permanent water-efficiency standards and requirements. The EO includes specific directives that set strict limits on wa ter usage in the state. In response to EO B-29- 15, the California Department of Water Resources has modified and adopted a revised version of the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance that, among other changes, significantly increases the requirements for landscape water use efficiency and broadens its applicability to include new development projects with smaller landscape areas.
Solid Waste
AB 939 and AB 341
AB 939 (1989), known as the Integrated Waste Management Act (Public Resources Code Sections 40000 et seq.), was passed becaus e of the increase in waste stream and the decrease in landfill capacity. The statute established the Califor nia Integrated Waste Management Board, which oversees a disp osal reporting system. AB 939 mandated a reduction of waste being disposed where jurisdictions were required to meet diversion goals of all solid waste through source reduction, recycling, and composting activities of 25 percent by 1995 and 50 percent by the year 2000.
AB 341 (2011) amended the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 to include a provision declaring that it is the policy goal of the state that not less than 75 percent of solid waste generated be sour ce-reduced, recycled, or comp osted by the year 2020, and annually thereafter. In addition, AB 341 required the California Department of Resources
20 Ldn Consulting, Inc. 11/4/24 22-124 Armorlite Lofts 225 GHG Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) to develop strategies to achieve the state’s policy goal.
CalRecycle has conducted multiple workshops and published documents that identify priority strategies that CalRecycle believes would assist the state in reaching the 75 percent goal by 2020.
Increasing the amount of commercial solid wast e that is recycled, reused, or composted will reduce GHG emissions primarily by 1) reducing the energy requirements associated with the extraction, harvest, and processing of raw materials and 2) using recyclable materials that require less energy than raw materials to manufacture finished products (CalRecycle, 2020) Increased diversion of organic materials (gr een and food waste) will also reduce GHG emissions (CO2 and CH4) resulting from decomposition in landfills by redirecting this material to processes that use the solid waste material to produce vehicle fuels, heat, electricity, or compost.
AB 1826 (2014)
In October 2014 Governor Brown signed AB 18 26 which requires businesses to recycle their organic waste as of April 1, 2016. The law also required that after January 1, 2016, local jurisdictions across the state were required to implement an organic waste recycling program to divert organic waste genera ted by businesses, including mult ifamily residential dwellings that consist of five or more units. This requir es business generating over 8 cubic yards (CY) of waste per week to arrange organic waste recycling services. The law also contained a trigger that allowed for increased implementation. For example, in 2019 CalRecycle changed the 8 CY threshold to 4 CY and then in 2020 to CY for business to implement organic recycling programs (CalRecycle, 2023).
Senate Bill 1383
Short-Lived Climate Pollutants: Organic (2016) is a statewide effort to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants (SLCP) (CalRe cycle, 2016). Specifically, the law sets the following targets: 1) Reduce statewide disposal of organic waste by 50% by January 1, 2020 and by 75% by January 1, 2025 (based on 20 14 levels), and 2) rescue at least 20% of currently disposed of edible food for human consumption by 2025.
3.2 GHG Thresholds of Significance
The City of San Marcos (City) adopted an updated Climate Action Plan (CAP) on December 8, 2020. The CAP outlines strategies and measures that the City will undertake to achieve its proportional share of State GHG emissions reduction targets. The CAP is a plan for the reduction of GHG emissions in accordance wit h (CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5. Pursuant
21 Ldn Consulting, Inc. 11/4/24 22-124 Armorlite Lofts 225 GHG to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(h)(3), 15130(d), and 15183(b), a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative GHG emissions effect may be determined not to be cumulatively considerable if it is consistent with the City’s CAP. The CAP set the following citywide targets (City of San Marcos, 2020).
• 4 percent below 2012 levels (575,000 MT CO
2e) by 2020
• 42 percent below 2012 levels (347,000 MT CO2e) by 2030
The City has also developed a Climate Action Plan Consistency Review Checklist (CAP Consistency Checklist), in conjunction with the CAP, to provide a streamlined review process for proposed new development projects that ar e subject to discretionary review and trigger environmental review pursuant to CEQA. The CAP Consistency Guidance Memo dated July 15, 2020 summarizes the methodology and application of a GHG screening threshold which is set at 500 metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent [MT CO
2e] per year as outlined in the CAP
(Ascent, 2020). Projects that are pr ojected to emit fewer than 500 MT CO 2e annually would not make a considerable contribution to the cu mulative impact of climate change and would not need to provide additional analysis to demonstrate consistency with the CAP. It should be noted that this screening threshold is for new development projects consistent with the City’s General Plan. When such a project exceeds the screening threshold, the project would be required to demonstrate consistency with the CAP through the CAP Consistency Checklist.
In most cases, compliance with the CAP Cons istency Checklist would provide the CEQA streamlining path to allow project specific enviro nmental documents, if eligible, to tier from and/or incorporate by reference the CAP’s programmatic review of GHG impacts. Projects that are consistent with the General Plan and implement CAP GHG reduction measures may incorporate by reference the CAP’s cumulative GHG analysis. The City’s CAP meets the requirements under Section 15183.5 of the CEQA Guidelines as a qualified plan for the reduction of GHG emissions for use in cumulative impact analysis pertaining to development projects. The CAP Consistency Checklist provid es a streamlined review process for the GHG emissions analysis of proposed new developmen t projects that are subject to discretionary review and trigger environmental review pursuant to CEQA.
If a project is consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation(s), it can be determined to be consistent with the CAP projections and can move forward to Step 2 of the CAP Consistency Checklist.
In addition, some projects may seek a General Plan amendment. For these projects, the CAP Consistency Checklist requires a determination on whether the amendment would result in an equivalent or less GHG-intensive project when compared to the existing land use designations.
In addition to providing evidence to support the conclusion that the project would generate
22 Ldn Consulting, Inc. 11/4/24 22-124 Armorlite Lofts 225 GHG fewer emissions than existing land use desi gnations, these projects would demonstrate consistency with the CAP through completion of Step 2 of the CAP Consistency Checklist.
If a land use designation amendment results in a more GHG-intensive project, the project is required to prepare a quantitative GHG analysis based on applicable sections of the CEQA Guidelines.
23 Ldn Consulting, Inc. 11/4/24 22-124 Armorlite Lofts 225 GHG
4.0 METHODOLOGY
4.1 General Plan Land Use of the Site
The project seeks a GPA and to rezone the property from P-I to a SPA for the intended mixed use development. The P-I land use is typically used for any public type of use, including schools, hospitals, civic centers, telecommunication data centers, etc. The allowable use onsite per the zoning could have a floor area ratio (FAR) of 3. 0. Based on this, any facility which could be constructed onsite would be limited to approx imately 318,000 SF. Vehicular trip generation of public institutions like schools or hospitals would result in significantly more traffic than the 1,214 trips that the proposed project would generate and would therefore generate larger quantities of operational GHG emissions. Based on SANDAG’s trip generation guide a hospital can generate as many as 25 trips per 1,000 SF or over 7,000 trips for a project of this size (SANDAG, 2002).
One other approved use for the site and perhaps a more likely scenario, would be to install a 160,000 SF data center or larger if multip le stories are constructed. Data centers are recognized as very high consumers of electrical energy. For example, a 413,000 SF data center in Santa Clara was found to consume 665,750 megawatt hours (MWh) or 1.61 MWh/SF/year (Ramboll Environ, 2016). Based on this, a 160,000 SF building would require at least 257,600 MWh.
4.2 Construction CO 2e Emissions Calculation Methodology
GHGs related to construction and daily operations were calculated using the latest CalEEMod 2022.1 GHG model. The purpose of this analys is is to show compliance with CEQA through analysis using the City’s CAP. This analysis focuses on the relative comparison between what is Proposed and the General Plan Buildout (Data Center) scenario. The construction module in CalEEMod is used to calculate the emissions associated with the construction of the project.
The CalEEMod input/output model is shown in Attachment A for the Proposed Project and Attachment B for the General Plan Buildout (Data Center) scenario. As noted, under the current P-I designation, the site could be utilized for many various uses, though the most probable use would be a 160,000 SF data center even though a larger facility size could be justified.
The project would start grading sometime in 2026 with mixed use construction to start shortly thereafter. Grading would consist of approximately 6,950 CY of cut material and 4,400 CY of fill material requiring an export of approximat ely 2,250 CY of material. The export material was manually added to CalEEMod. During gr ading, blasting and rock crushing may be required and was manually added to CalEEMod. For this analysis it was assumed both blasting and crushing would be required. The rock crusher assumed to be used during blasting would
24 Ldn Consulting, Inc. 11/4/24 22-124 Armorlite Lofts 225 GHG be similar to the Terex 4242SR 310 HP unit and is further specified in Attachment C to this report.
Earthwork associated with grading within Ca lEEMod uses a “Grading Equipment Passes” methodology which has been approved by SCAQMD in consultation with building estimator references and is used as the basis of emissi on generation (CAPCOA, 2021). As a design feature, the project’s construc tion contractor will utilize Tier IV rated diesel construction equipment to minimize diesel particulates from construction equipment which was manually updated in CalEEMod. Table 4.1 below describes the construction equipment and durations.
Table 4.1: Expected Construction Equipment
Equipment Identification Proposed Start Proposed Complete Quantity Site Preparation 1/1/2026 1/5/2026
Graders 1
Scrapers 1
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1
Grading 1/4/2026 2/1/2026
Graders 1
Rubber Tired Dozers 1
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2
Rock Crusher 1
Building Construction 2/2/2026 12/4/2026
Cranes 1
Forklifts 2
Generator Sets 1
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1
Welders 3
Paving 11/14/2026 11/27/2026
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1
Pavers 1
Paving Equipment 1
Rollers 2
Cement and Mortar Mixers 1
Architectural Coating 8/15/2026 12/4/2026
Air Compressors 1
This equipment list is based upon equipment inventory within CalEEMod. The quantity and types are based upon assumptions provided by the project applicant.
25 Ldn Consulting, Inc. 11/4/24 22-124 Armorlite Lofts 225 GHG
4.3 Operational Emissions Calculation Methodology
Once construction is complete, the proposed project would generate GHG emissions from daily operations which would include sources such as energy usage from electricity and natural gas, mobile sources from vehicular traffic, municipal waste, water uses, and area sources such as emissions generated from onsite landscaping. Emissions resulting from all of these sources are calculated within CalEEMod. Also, per the architectural design review, no hearth options were identified and were therefore removed from the default modeling settings.
CalEEMod utilizes 2019 Title 24 building standard efficiencies as defaults, though the project will need to comply with the latest Title 24 stan dards in effect at the time building permits are issued. Since the current 2022 Title 24 bu ilding standards increase efficiencies, this analysis based on 2019 building standards is conservative.
Solid municipal waste generated in the form of trash is also considered within this analysis as the decomposition of organic material breaks down to form GHGs. GHGs from water are also indirectly generated th rough the conveyance of the reso urce via pumping throughout the state and as necessary for wastewater treatment.
The Project traffic engineer estimated that the project would generate 1,214 daily trips (LL&G Engineers, 2023). These traffic numbers were utilized within the CalEEMod analysis. This analysis essentially is based on a comparison approach between the Project and the General Plan Buildout (Data Center) scenario. The data center could be constructed onsite and operated per existing zoning without any amendments to the General Plan. Because of this, the comparison would be based on construction and operations starting and completing at essentially the same time and fully operational in 2027. Mostly default settings were utilized for the construction of the data center scenario.
The operational modeling results for the proposed development and the General Plan Buildout (Data Center) scenario can also be seen in
Attachments A and -B respectively. The key
assumption modified in the Data Center scenario is the electrical use which would require at least 257,600 MWh annually. Therefore, the energy usage was updated within CalEEMod. In addition to emissions from energy use, a 160,000 SF data center would also generate emissions from vehicular trips, area sources such as landsc aping, and waste management.
However, because CalEEMod does not include data center as a land use, an unrefrigerated warehouse was used for the model and defaults were assumed.
26 Ldn Consulting, Inc. 11/4/24 22-124 Armorlite Lofts 225 GHG
5.0 FINDINGS
5.1 Project Related Construction Emissions
Utilizing the CALEEMOD 2022.1 construction inpu ts as shown in Table 4.1, we find that construction of the project will produce approximately 494 MT of CO2e over the construction life of the project. Given the fact that the total emissions would ultimately contribute to cumulative levels, construction emissions of GH Gs were annualized to allow for inclusion in operational emissions estimate s, consistent with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) recommendations for construction GHG emissions (SCAQMD, 2008).
Construction emissions were annualized over a 30-year period, per SCAQMD recommendations, to account for emissions ge nerated over the assumed project lifetime.
Given this, the Project would add approximately 16.46 MT CO 2e per year from construction
which were added to annual operational emissions estimates as can be seen in Table 5.1.
Table 5.1: Modeled Annual Construction CO2e Emissions Summary (MT CO2e/year) Year Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
2026 487 0.02 0.02 494
Yearly Average Construction Emissions (Metric Tons/year over 30 years) 16.46
5.2 Proposed Project Operational Emissions
Once construction is completed the proposed project would generate GHG emissions from daily operations which would include sources su ch as area, energy, mobile, solid waste and water uses, which are calculated within CalEEMod. Area Sources include consumer products, landscaping and architectural coatings as part of regular maintenance. Energy sources would be from electricity usage and natural gas. Solid waste generated in the form of trash is also considered as decomposition of organic materi al breaks down to form GHGs. Water sources include standard residential uses including landscaping activities.
This analysis is driven by the CAP and since this Project seeks a General Plan Amendment, the proposed Project is analyzed in comparis on with the existing la nd use designation to determine if it would be less intense than what would otherwise be approved under the existing General Plan. If a project’s proposed amendment to the General Plan results in lower GHG emissions than development under the Gene ral Plan, the project would be required to implement the applicable CAP Measures identified in Step 2 of the CAP Consistency Checklist.
27 Ldn Consulting, Inc. 11/4/24 22-124 Armorlite Lofts 225 GHG Based on this, quantifiable measures such as EV Chargers are provided. The CAP Checklist is provided as Attachment D to this report.
The proposed project has up to 254 parking spaces and would include 13 Level 2 electric vehicle (EV) spaces, 62 EV ready spaces, and 25 EV capable spaces. The project has been designed to meet the requirements of CAP Meas ure T-2 (Electric Vehicle Charging Stations), which requires the project to install EV charging stations (Level 2 or better) in at least five percent of the total parking spaces provided onsite. The City’s CAP estimated that in the year 2030, 363 MT CO 2e will be reduced from 220 installed El ectric Vehicle chargers or 1.65 MT CO2e per charger (San Marcos, 2020). Based on the City’s CAP, each multi-family EV charging station would reduce GHG emissions by 1.65 MT CO2e per charger or 21.45 MT CO2e reduction from the 13 proposed EV chargers.
Proposed Project Findings
Table 5.2 indicates that the Project operations after construction and calculated CAP measures would generate 1,322.06 MT CO2e per year. As noted, the emissions presented include CAP Measures T-2 which requires the Project to in stall 13 Level 2 EV Chargers which would be expected to reduce emissions by 21.45 MT CO2e. The Project would be required to implement all CAP measures for this Project type which would further reduce GHG emissions. Since the intent of this analysis is to compare the proposed Project with the likely General Plan Buildout (Data Center) scenario, not all CAP measures were calculated for the comparison.
Table 5.2: Expected Operational Emissions Summary MT/Year Source Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
(MT/Yr)
Mobile 1,149.00 0.06 0.05 1,166.00
Area 3.23 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.24
Energy 81.80 0.02 < 0.005 82.80
Water 2.84 0.20 < 0.005 9.36
Waste 12.6 1.26 0 44.20
Operations Total 1,305.60
Construction Emissions (See Table 5.1 above) 16.46
Construction and Operations 1,322.06
CAP Measure T-2: EV Charger Reduction -21.45
Project GHG Emissions 1,300.61
Data is presented in decimal format and may have rounding errors. * No Data Provided
28 Ldn Consulting, Inc. 11/4/24 22-124 Armorlite Lofts 225 GHG
5.3 General Plan Buildout (Data Center) Construction Emissions
The General Plan Buildout (Data Center) scenario is assumed to have a similar duration and intensity and would essentially generate the same or less GHG emission during construction.
For this reason, GHG emissions for construction were not estimated in this analysis. Instead, they are assumed to be 16.46 MT CO2e annually over a 30 year duration.
5.4 General Plan Buildout (Data Cent er) Scenario Operational Emissions
The project site has an existing General Plan Land Use designation of Public/ Institutional (PI), which has a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 3.0. The P-I land use is typically used for any type of public land use, including school s, hospitals, civic centers, telecommunication centers, etc.
Based on the City’s CAP, the total cumulative PV system in San Marcos was 10.3 megawatts direct current (MWdc), which generated 17,585 MWh or 1,707.28 MWh per MWdc installed.
Based on the CAP, a building of 160,000 SF would be required to install 0.322 MWdc (2 watts dc per SF * 160,000 SF / (1 million watts per megawatt) of solar which would generate 553 MWh of electricity per year. The data center would consume 257,600 MWh annually so the solar would provide less than one percent of the total energy required. Based on CalEEMod, the data center would generate 5,505 MT CO
2e just from electrical consumption alone (See
Attachment B). As noted, the required solar would no t reduce emissions sufficiently to reduce this alternative scenario to less than what would be expected by the proposed Project.
Emissions from all sources such as area, mobile , water, and waste were not included in the 5,505 MT CO
2e estimate, since this was from energy use alone.
Comparison of the Proposed Project and a General Plan Buildout (Data Center) Scenario
When the proposed Project’s GHG emissions (1,300.61 MT CO 2e) are compared to the GHG
emissions estimated under the General Plan Buildout (Data Center) scenario (5,505 MT CO2e), the Project would have an estimated 77 percent less intense carbon footprint than would otherwise be assumed in the City’s General Plan based on an allowable 160,000 SF data center. As explained above, this is driven almost entirely by the reduced energy consumption of the Project compared to a data center. Emis sions from all sources such as area, mobile, water, and waste were not included in the 5,505 MT CO2e estimate since this was from energy alone. Given this, this comparison is worst case.
29 Ldn Consulting, Inc. 11/4/24 22-124 Armorlite Lofts 225 GHG
5.5 CEQA Compliance
SB 97 directed amendments to the CEQA statute to specifically establish that GHG emissions and their impacts are appropriate subjects for CEQA analysis. Under SB 97 the project should be able to answer the following questions for CEQA compliance.
1. Will the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
The City is committed to reducing its GHG em issions consistent with SB 32. Based on this requirement, the City’s CAP concludes that proposed General Plan amendments would be consistent with the CAP so long as the GHG emission generated by the amendment are less than would otherwise be produced by a consistent General Plan buildout scenario.
The proposed project was found to emit 1,301 MT CO
2e per year and the General Plan Buildout
(Data Center) scenario was estimate d to generate at least 5,505 MT CO 2e per year (from energy usage alone). The Project would therefore have a less intense carbon footprint by an estimated 76 percent when compared to what could otherwise be assumed as allowed under the City’s General Plan. Given this the Project as proposed would be less than significant in terms of GHG intensity. In addition, it should be noted, the project would be required to implement CAP measures applicable to the project. Based on the fact the Project will be both less intense in terms of GHG emissions and would be required to be consistent with the CAP, a less than significant impact would be expected on the environment with respect to GHG emissions from the project. The CAP Consistency Checklist is provided as Attachment D to
this report.
2. Will the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
The proposed project was found to emit 1,301 MT CO
2e per year and the General Plan Buildout
(Data Center) scenario as analyzed would gene rate at least 5,505 MT CO2e per year. The Project would therefore result in a less intense carbon footprint by 76 percent when compared to what could otherwise be assumed in the City’s General Plan. CAP consistency can be assumed as long as the amendment results in an equivalent or less GHG-intensive project when compared to the existing land use designation. In addition to providing evidence to support the conclusion that the project would generate fewer emissions than existing designations, the project would demonstrate consistency with the CAP through completion of Step 2 of the CAP Consistency Checklist. Based on this, a less than significant impact would be expected by the project through the implementation of CAP measures by the Project.
30 Ldn Consulting, Inc. 11/4/24 22-124 Armorlite Lofts 225 GHG
6.0 REFERENCES
Ascent. (2020). CAP Consistency Guidance Memo.
California Air Resources Board. (2012).
www.arb.ca.gov. Retrieved from California Air
Resources Board Approves Advanced Clean Car Rules:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/california-air-resources-board-approves-advanced- clean-car-rules
California Title 24, Part 11. (2022). Retrieved from
https://www.dgs.ca.gov/BSC/Resources/2022-Title-24-California-Code-Changes CalRecycle. (2016). California’s Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy. Retrieved from https://calrecycle.ca.gov/organics/slcp/#
CalRecycle. (2020). https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov. Retrieved from https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Climate/
CAPCOA. (2021). CalEEMod Verision 2020.4.0 Calcuation Details (Appendix A). Retrieved from http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/user-guide- 2021/appendix-a2020-4-0.pdf?sfvrsn=6
CARB. (2017). California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. Retrieved from https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf CARB. (2017). Clean Car Standards - Pavley, Assembly Bill 1493. Retrieved from https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ccms/ccms.htm
CARB. (2017). The Advanced Clean Cars Program. Retrieved from https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/acc/acc_conceptdraft.htm
CARB. (2018). https://ww2.arb.ca.gov. Retrieved 2021, from https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our- work/programs/sustainable-communities-program/regional-plan-targets:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov
CARB. (2018). ww2.arb.ca.gov. Retrieved 2021, from
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/lcfs-basics:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/low-carbon-fuel-standard/about CARB. (2022). 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. Retrieved from https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-04/2022-sp.pdf CARB. (2023). https://ww2.arb.ca.gov. Retrieved from Advanced Clean Cars Program:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/advanced-clean-cars-program CARB. (2023). https://ww2.arb.ca.gov. Retrieved from California moves to accelerate to 100% new zero-emission vehicle sales by 2035:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/california-moves-accelerate-100-new-zero- emission-vehicle-sales-
2035#:~:text=General%20requirements,and%20reach%20100%25%20in%202 035.
City of San Marcos. (2020). Appendix D - Guidance to Demonstrating Consistency with the City of San Marcos Climate tion Plan for Discretionary Projects Subject to CEQA and City of San Marcos Climate Action Plan Consistency Review Checklist.
31 Ldn Consulting, Inc. 11/4/24 22-124 Armorlite Lofts 225 GHG Retrieved from https://www.san-
marcos.net/home/showpublisheddocument?id=25086
City of San Marcos. (2020). Final Climate Action Plan. Retrieved from https://www.san- marcos.net/home/showpublisheddocument/25084/637435406644270000 EPA. (2023). https://www.epa.gov. Retrieved from Greenhouse Gases:
https://www.epa.gov/report-environment/greenhouse-gases Google. (2023). Retrieved 2022, from maps.google.com
Google Earth Pro. (2021).
IPCC. (2007).
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 : Working Group I:
The Physical Science Basis. Retrieved from
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-10-2.html LL&G Engineers. (2023). LOCAL TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS - ARMORLITE LOFTS.
Ramboll Environ. (2016). Air Qulaity and Greenhouse Gas Techical Report - Vantage Data Centers. Retrieved from
https://www.santaclaraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/51024/636228593 762170000
San Marcos. (2020). CAP Appendix B - Methods for Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions in the San Marcos Climate Action Plan.
SANDAG. (2002). (Not So) Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region. Retrieved from
https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/pds/ceqa/LehmanTPM/38%2 0Appendix%20T9_SANDAG%20Trip%20Generation%20Rates.pdf
SANDAG. (2021). 2021 Regional Plan. Retrieved from https://www.sandag.org/- /media/SANDAG/Documents/PDF/regional-plan/2021-regional-plan/final-2021- regional-plan/final-2021-regional-plan-flipbook.pdf
SANDAG. (2021). Draft 2021 Regional Plan. Retrieved from https://sdforward.com/mobility- planning/2021-regional-plan-draft
SCAQMD. (2008). Retrieved 2018, from http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-significance- thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-6/ghg-meeting-6-guidance-document- discussion.pdf
State of California. (2022). Assembly Bill No. 1279. Retrieved from https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB1 279
State of California. (2022). Senate Bill No. 1020. Retrieved from https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB1 020
Summa Architecture. (2024). Conceptual Site Plan.
USEPA. (2023). Understanding Global Warming Potentials. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-potentials
32 Ldn Consulting, Inc. 11/4/24 22-124 Armorlite Lofts 225 GHG WRCC. (2018). Retrieved from
https://wrcc.dri.edu/Climate/comp_table_show.php?stype=wind_dir_avg WRCC. (2021). Retrieved from https://wrcc.dri.edu/summary/Climsmsca.html:
https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca2862
ATTACHMENT A
CalEEMod Emission Model – Proposed Project
Armorlite Lofts Detailed Report, 3/1/2024
1 / 47
Armorlite Lofts Detailed Report
Table of Contents
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
1.2. Land Use Types
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Site Preparation (2026) - Unmitigated
3.3. Grading (2026) - Unmitigated
3.5. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
3.7. Paving (2026) - Unmitigated
Armorlite Lofts Detailed Report, 3/1/2024
2 / 47
3.9. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
Armorlite Lofts Detailed Report, 3/1/2024
3 / 47
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
5.5. Architectural Coatings
Armorlite Lofts Detailed Report, 3/1/2024
4 / 47
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
5.7. Construction Paving
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
Armorlite Lofts Detailed Report, 3/1/2024
5 / 47
5.13.1. Unmitigated
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
5.16.2. Process Boilers
5.17. User Defined
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
Armorlite Lofts Detailed Report, 3/1/2024
6 / 47
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
Armorlite Lofts Detailed Report, 3/1/2024
7 / 47
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Armorlite Lofts
Construction Start Date 1/1/2025
Operational Y ear 2027
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.20
Precipitation (days) 20.4
Location 225 N Las Posas Rd, San Marcos, CA 92069, USA
County San Diego
City San Marcos
Air District San Diego County APCD
Air Basin San Diego
TAZ 6297
EDFZ 12
Electric Utility San Diego Gas & Electric
Gas Utility San Diego Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.21
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
Armorlite Lofts Detailed Report, 3/1/2024
8 / 47
Apartments Mid Rise 165 Dwelling Unit 1.00 158,400 0.25 — 512 — Strip Mall 5.60 1000sqft 0.44 5,600 0.25 — — —
Enclosed Parking
with
Elevator
189 Space 0.50 75,600 0.25 — — —
Parking Lot 65.0 Space 0.50 0.00 0.25 — — —
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 13.8 6.29 22.1 0.03 0.08 1.74 1.82 0.08 0.42 0.49 — 4,794 4,794 0.20 0.19 4,863 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 14.3 8.22 31.8 0.07 0.16 9.78 9.94 0.14 3.89 4.03 — 8,831 8,831 0.39 0.61 9,022 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.37 3.60 13.2 0.02 0.04 1.37 1.41 0.04 0.42 0.46 — 2,942 2,942 0.13 0.12 2,984 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.61 0.66 2.41 < 0.005 0.01 0.25 0.26 0.01 0.08 0.08 — 487 487 0.02 0.02 494 Armorlite Lofts Detailed Report, 3/1/2024
9 / 47
2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Y ear ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 13.8 6.29 22.1 0.03 0.08 1.74 1.82 0.08 0.42 0.49 — 4,794 4,794 0.20 0.19 4,863 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 14.3 8.22 31.8 0.07 0.16 9.78 9.94 0.14 3.89 4.03 — 8,831 8,831 0.39 0.61 9,022 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 3.37 3.60 13.2 0.02 0.04 1.37 1.41 0.04 0.42 0.46 — 2,942 2,942 0.13 0.12 2,984 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.61 0.66 2.41 < 0.005 0.01 0.25 0.26 0.01 0.08 0.08 — 487 487 0.02 0.02 494
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. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 9.73 3.24 42.7 0.07 0.09 6.25 6.34 0.08 1.58 1.67 88.2 7,746 7,834 9.32 0.32 8,186 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 8.24 3.40 28.5 0.07 0.08 6.25 6.33 0.07 1.58 1.66 88.2 7,389 7,477 9.34 0.34 7,814 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Armorlite Lofts Detailed Report, 3/1/2024
10 / 47
Unmit. 8.87 3.41 34.7 0.07 0.08 6.17 6.25 0.08 1.56 1.64 88.2 7,456 7,544 9.34 0.34 7,889 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.62 0.62 6.34 0.01 0.02 1.13 1.14 0.01 0.29 0.30 14.6 1,234 1,249 1.55 0.06 1,306
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 ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 4.52 2.82 29.7 0.07 0.05 6.25 6.30 0.05 1.58 1.63 — 7,207 7,207 0.35 0.28 7,322 Area 5.20 0.12 12.9 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.00 39.6 39.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 39.7 Energy 0.02 0.30 0.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 494 494 0.12 0.01 500 Water — — — — — — — — — — 11.9 5.22 17.1 1.22 0.03 56.5 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 76.3 0.00 76.3 7.63 0.00 267
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.17
Total 9.73 3.24 42.7 0.07 0.09 6.25 6.34 0.08 1.58 1.67 88.2 7,746 7,834 9.32 0.32 8,186 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 4.42 3.10 28.4 0.07 0.05 6.25 6.30 0.05 1.58 1.63 — 6,889 6,889 0.38 0.30 6,989 Area 3.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Energy 0.02 0.30 0.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 494 494 0.12 0.01 500 Water — — — — — — — — — — 11.9 5.22 17.1 1.22 0.03 56.5 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 76.3 0.00 76.3 7.63 0.00 267
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.17
Total 8.24 3.40 28.5 0.07 0.08 6.25 6.33 0.07 1.58 1.66 88.2 7,389 7,477 9.34 0.34 7,814 Armorlite Lofts Detailed Report, 3/1/2024
11 / 47
————————————————Average
Daily
Mobile 4.37 3.05 28.2 0.07 0.05 6.17 6.22 0.05 1.56 1.61 — 6,937 6,937 0.37 0.30 7,044 Area 4.49 0.06 6.36 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 19.5 19.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 19.6 Energy 0.02 0.30 0.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 494 494 0.12 0.01 500 Water — — — — — — — — — — 11.9 5.22 17.1 1.22 0.03 56.5 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 76.3 0.00 76.3 7.63 0.00 267
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.17
Total 8.87 3.41 34.7 0.07 0.08 6.17 6.25 0.08 1.56 1.64 88.2 7,456 7,544 9.34 0.34 7,889 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.80 0.56 5.15 0.01 0.01 1.13 1.14 0.01 0.29 0.29 — 1,149 1,149 0.06 0.05 1,166 Area 0.82 0.01 1.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 3.23 3.23 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.24 Energy < 0.005 0.06 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 81.8 81.8 0.02 < 0.005 82.8 Water — — — — — — — — — — 1.97 0.87 2.84 0.20 < 0.005 9.36 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 12.6 0.00 12.6 1.26 0.00 44.2 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.19
Total 1.62 0.62 6.34 0.01 0.02 1.13 1.14 0.01 0.29 0.30 14.6 1,234 1,249 1.55 0.06 1,306
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Site Preparation (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Armorlite Lofts Detailed Report, 3/1/2024
12 / 47
————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Off-Road
Equipment
0.26 1.33 15.0 0.03 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 2,716 2,716 0.11 0.02 2,725 Dust From
Mater
ial
Movement
— — — — — 1.61 1.61 — 0.17 0.17 — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 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
< 0.005 0.01 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 22.3 22.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 22.4 Dust From
Mater
ial
Movement
— — — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 3.70 3.70 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.71 Dust From
Mater
ial
Movement
— — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.02 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 65.8 65.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 66.7 Armorlite Lofts Detailed Report, 3/1/2024
13 / 47
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 Hauling 0.06 3.92 1.46 0.02 0.06 0.77 0.83 0.04 0.21 0.25 — 2,932 2,932 0.15 0.47 3,076 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.55 0.55 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.55 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 Hauling < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 24.1 24.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 25.3 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.09 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 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 Hauling < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.99 3.99 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.19
3.3. Grading (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.23 1.20 14.2 0.02 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 2,455 2,455 0.10 0.02 2,463 Dust From
Mater
ial
Movement
— — — — — 7.09 7.09 — 3.43 3.43 — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 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
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Armorlite Lofts Detailed Report, 3/1/2024
14 / 47
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 0.07 0.78 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 135 135 0.01 < 0.005 135 Dust From
Mater
ial
Movement
— — — — — 0.39 0.39 — 0.19 0.19 — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.01 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 22.3 22.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 22.3 Dust From
Mater
ial
Movement
— — — — — 0.07 0.07 — 0.03 0.03 — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 110 110 0.01 < 0.005 111 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 Hauling 0.01 0.74 0.28 < 0.005 0.01 0.15 0.16 0.01 0.04 0.05 — 552 552 0.03 0.09 580 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.07 6.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 6.16 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 Hauling < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 30.3 30.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 31.8 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.00 1.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.02 Armorlite Lofts Detailed Report, 3/1/2024
15 / 47
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 Hauling < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.01 5.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.26
3.5. 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 ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.24 3.74 12.8 0.02 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 2,201 2,201 0.09 0.02 2,208 Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 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
0.24 3.74 12.8 0.02 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 2,201 2,201 0.09 0.02 2,208 Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 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
0.14 2.25 7.69 0.01 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 1,327 1,327 0.05 0.01 1,331 Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.41 1.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 220 220 0.01 < 0.005 220 Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Armorlite Lofts Detailed Report, 3/1/2024
16 / 47
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.55 0.42 6.59 0.00 0.00 1.29 1.29 0.00 0.30 0.30 — 1,416 1,416 0.07 0.05 1,438 Vendor 0.03 0.98 0.46 0.01 0.01 0.20 0.21 0.01 0.05 0.07 — 760 760 0.03 0.11 795 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 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.54 0.48 5.81 0.00 0.00 1.29 1.29 0.00 0.30 0.30 — 1,337 1,337 0.07 0.05 1,355 Vendor 0.02 1.02 0.47 0.01 0.01 0.20 0.21 0.01 0.05 0.07 — 761 761 0.03 0.11 794 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 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.32 0.28 3.54 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.77 0.00 0.18 0.18 — 813 813 0.04 0.03 825 Vendor 0.02 0.61 0.28 < 0.005 0.01 0.12 0.12 0.01 0.03 0.04 — 458 458 0.02 0.07 479 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 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.05 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 135 135 0.01 0.01 137 Vendor < 0.005 0.11 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 75.9 75.9 < 0.005 0.01 79.3 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.7. Paving (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Armorlite Lofts Detailed Report, 3/1/2024
17 / 47
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.13 1.77 8.32 0.01 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 1,244 1,244 0.05 0.01 1,248 Paving 0.26 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 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
< 0.005 0.05 0.23 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 34.1 34.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 34.2 Paving 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.01 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 5.64 5.64 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.66 Paving < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 132 132 0.01 0.01 133 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 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 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Armorlite Lofts Detailed Report, 3/1/2024
18 / 47
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.64 3.64 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.69 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 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 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.60 0.60 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.61 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 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
3.9. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.02 1.07 0.96 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 134 Architectu
r
al
Coatings
12.9 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 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
0.02 1.07 0.96 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 134 Architectu
r
al
Coatings
12.9 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Armorlite Lofts Detailed Report, 3/1/2024
19 / 47
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.23 0.21 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 29.3 29.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 29.4 Architectu
r
al
Coatings
2.83 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 4.84 4.84 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.86 Architectu
r
al
Coatings
0.52 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.11 0.08 1.32 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 283 283 0.01 0.01 288 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 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 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.11 0.10 1.16 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 267 267 0.01 0.01 271 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 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 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 59.1 59.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 60.0 Armorlite Lofts Detailed Report, 3/1/2024
20 / 47
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 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 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.79 9.79 < 0.005 < 0.005 9.94 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 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
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 ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartment
s
Mid
Rise
3.65 2.23 23.4 0.06 0.04 4.88 4.93 0.04 1.24 1.28 — 5,642 5,642 0.28 0.22 5,732 Strip Mall 0.87 0.59 6.26 0.02 0.01 1.36 1.37 0.01 0.35 0.36 — 1,565 1,565 0.07 0.06 1,590 Enclosed
P
arking
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 Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 4.52 2.82 29.7 0.07 0.05 6.25 6.30 0.05 1.58 1.63 — 7,207 7,207 0.35 0.28 7,322 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Armorlite Lofts Detailed Report, 3/1/2024
21 / 47
Apartment
Mid
Rise
3.57 2.45 22.4 0.05 0.04 4.88 4.93 0.04 1.24 1.28 — 5,393 5,393 0.30 0.24 5,472 Strip Mall 0.85 0.65 5.91 0.01 0.01 1.36 1.37 0.01 0.35 0.36 — 1,496 1,496 0.08 0.06 1,517 Enclosed
P
arking
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 Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 4.42 3.10 28.4 0.07 0.05 6.25 6.30 0.05 1.58 1.63 — 6,889 6,889 0.38 0.30 6,989 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartment
s
Mid
Rise
0.64 0.44 4.08 0.01 0.01 0.88 0.89 0.01 0.22 0.23 — 899 899 0.05 0.04 913 Strip Mall 0.15 0.12 1.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.25 0.25 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 — 249 249 0.01 0.01 253 Enclosed
P
arking
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 Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.80 0.56 5.15 0.01 0.01 1.13 1.14 0.01 0.29 0.29 — 1,149 1,149 0.06 0.05 1,166
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 ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Armorlite Lofts Detailed Report, 3/1/2024
22 / 47
72.20.010.0569.169.1———————————Apartment
s
Mid Rise
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — 6.10 6.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 6.37 Enclosed
P
arking
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — — 34.5 34.5 0.03 < 0.005 36.0
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 2.36 2.36 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.46
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 112 112 0.08 0.01 117
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartment
s
Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 69.1 69.1 0.05 0.01 72.2
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — 6.10 6.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 6.37 Enclosed
P
arking
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — — 34.5 34.5 0.03 < 0.005 36.0
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 2.36 2.36 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.46
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 112 112 0.08 0.01 117
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartment
s
Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 11.4 11.4 0.01 < 0.005 12.0
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — 1.01 1.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.05 Enclosed
P
arking
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — — 5.71 5.71 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.96
Armorlite Lofts Detailed Report, 3/1/2024
23 / 47
0.41< 0.005< 0.0050.390.39———————————Parking
Lot
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 18.6 18.6 0.01 < 0.005 19.4
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 ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartment
s
Mid
Rise
0.02 0.29 0.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 374 374 0.03 < 0.005 375 Strip Mall < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.77 7.77 < 0.005 < 0.005 7.79 Enclosed
P
arking
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 Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.02 0.30 0.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 382 382 0.03 < 0.005 383 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartment
s
Mid
Rise
0.02 0.29 0.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 374 374 0.03 < 0.005 375 Strip Mall < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.77 7.77 < 0.005 < 0.005 7.79 Enclosed
P
arking
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 Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Armorlite Lofts Detailed Report, 3/1/2024
24 / 47
Total 0.02 0.30 0.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 382 382 0.03 < 0.005 383 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartment
s
Mid
Rise
< 0.005 0.05 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 62.0 62.0 0.01 < 0.005 62.1 Strip Mall < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.29 1.29 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.29 Enclosed
P
arking
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 Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total < 0.005 0.06 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 63.3 63.3 0.01 < 0.005 63.4
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Consumer
Products
3.51 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architectu
r
al
Coatings
0.28 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landscap
e
Equipmen
t
1.40 0.12 12.9 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 39.6 39.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 39.7 Total 5.20 0.12 12.9 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.00 39.6 39.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 39.7 Armorlite Lofts Detailed Report, 3/1/2024
25 / 47
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Consumer
Products
3.51 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architectu
r
al
Coatings
0.28 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 3.80 0.00 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Consumer
Products
0.64 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architectu
r
al
Coatings
0.05 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landscap
e
Equipmen
t
0.13 0.01 1.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 3.23 3.23 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.24 Total 0.82 0.01 1.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 3.23 3.23 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.24
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Armorlite Lofts Detailed Report, 3/1/2024
26 / 47
52.70.031.1416.04.8811.1——————————Apartment
s
Mid Rise
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — 0.79 0.35 1.14 0.08 < 0.005 3.77 Enclosed
P
arking
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 Total — — — — — — — — — — 11.9 5.22 17.1 1.22 0.03 56.5 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartment
s
Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 11.1 4.88 16.0 1.14 0.03 52.7
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — 0.79 0.35 1.14 0.08 < 0.005 3.77 Enclosed
P
arking
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 Total — — — — — — — — — — 11.9 5.22 17.1 1.22 0.03 56.5 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartment
s
Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 1.84 0.81 2.65 0.19 < 0.005 8.73
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — 0.13 0.06 0.19 0.01 < 0.005 0.62 Enclosed
P
arking
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 Armorlite Lofts Detailed Report, 3/1/2024
27 / 47
< 0.005< 0.005< 0.005< 0.005< 0.0050.00——————————Parking Lot
Total — — — — — — — — — — 1.97 0.87 2.84 0.20 < 0.005 9.36
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartment
s
Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 73.1 0.00 73.1 7.31 0.00 256
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — 3.17 0.00 3.17 0.32 0.00 11.1 Enclosed
P
arking
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 76.3 0.00 76.3 7.63 0.00 267
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartment
s
Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 73.1 0.00 73.1 7.31 0.00 256
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — 3.17 0.00 3.17 0.32 0.00 11.1 Armorlite Lofts Detailed Report, 3/1/2024
28 / 47
0.000.000.000.000.000.00——————————Enclosed
P
arking
with
Elevator
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 76.3 0.00 76.3 7.63 0.00 267
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartment
s
Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 12.1 0.00 12.1 1.21 0.00 42.4
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — 0.52 0.00 0.52 0.05 0.00 1.84 Enclosed
P
arking
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 12.6 0.00 12.6 1.26 0.00 44.2
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 ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartment
s
Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.13
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.03
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.17
Armorlite Lofts Detailed Report, 3/1/2024
29 / 47
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartment
s
Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.13
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.03
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.17
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartment
s
Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.19
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.19
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) Equipmen
t
T
ype
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Armorlite Lofts Detailed Report, 3/1/2024
30 / 47
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipmen
t
T
ype
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O 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) Equipmen
t
T
ype
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Armorlite Lofts Detailed Report, 3/1/2024
31 / 47
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetation ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Armorlite Lofts Detailed Report, 3/1/2024
32 / 47
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 ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequester
ed
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequester
ed
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Armorlite Lofts Detailed Report, 3/1/2024
33 / 47
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequester
ed
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/1/2026 1/5/2026 5.00 3.00 — Grading Grading 1/4/2026 2/1/2026 5.00 20.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 2/2/2026 12/4/2026 5.00 220 — Paving Paving 11/14/2026 11/27/2026 5.00 10.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 8/15/2026 12/04/2026 5.00 80.0 —
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Site Preparation Graders Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 Site Preparation Scrapers Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 423 0.48 Armorlite Lofts Detailed Report, 3/1/2024
34 / 47
0.3784.07.001.00Tier 4 FinalDieselSite Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh oes
Grading Graders Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Tier 4 Final 2.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Crushing/Proc.
Equipment
Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 6.00 310 0.41
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Tier 4 Final 2.00 7.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 6.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Tier 4 Final 3.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Paving Pavers Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Tier 4 Final 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Paving Cement and Mortar
Mix
ers
Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 10.0 0.56
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Tier 4 Interim 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 Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 7.50 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Armorlite Lofts Detailed Report, 3/1/2024
35 / 47
Site Preparation Hauling 41.7 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 12.5 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 7.85 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 152 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 30.9 7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 30.5 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 7.63 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.
Armorlite Lofts Detailed Report, 3/1/2024
36 / 47
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 320,760 106,920 9,380 2,909 2,614
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (Cubic Y ards) Material Exported (Cubic Y ards) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) Site Preparation — 1,000 4.50 0.00 —
Grading — 1,250 5.00 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
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%
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.50 100%
Parking Lot 0.50 100%
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Y ear and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Y ear kWh per Y ear CO2 CH4 N2O
2026 0.00 45.1 0.03 < 0.005
Armorlite Lofts Detailed Report, 3/1/2024
37 / 47
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Y ear VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Y ear Apartments Mid Rise 990 990 990 361,350 6,916 6,916 6,916 2,524,178 Strip Mall 224 224 224 81,760 1,930 1,930 1,930 704,309 Enclosed Parking
with
Elevator
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Apartments Mid Rise —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 0
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 165
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0
Armorlite Lofts Detailed Report, 3/1/2024
38 / 47
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)
320760 106,920 9,380 2,909 2,614
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Apartments Mid Rise 559,494 45.1 0.0330 0.0040 1,167,942 Strip Mall 49,362 45.1 0.0330 0.0040 24,234
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 279,072 45.1 0.0330 0.0040 0.00 Parking Lot 19,079 45.1 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 5,796,957 4.57
Strip Mall 414,806 3.74
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 3.74
Armorlite Lofts Detailed Report, 3/1/2024
39 / 47
Parking Lot 0.00 3.74
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Apartments Mid Rise 136 —
Strip Mall 5.88 —
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 —
Parking Lot 0.00 —
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced 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
refr
igerators 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
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
Armorlite Lofts Detailed Report, 3/1/2024
40 / 47
5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Y ear Horsepower Load Factor
5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)
5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
Armorlite Lofts Detailed Report, 3/1/2024
41 / 47
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions
will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.
Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 11.0 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 3.95 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 7.44 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 histor
ical 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 da
y or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider in
undation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events.
Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, v
egetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Armorlite Lofts Detailed Report, 3/1/2024
42 / 47
Sea Level Rise 1 0 0 N/A
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding 0 0 0 N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest e
xposure.
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 g
reatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding 1 1 1 2
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest e
xposure.
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 g
reatest 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
Armorlite Lofts Detailed Report, 3/1/2024
43 / 47
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 42.6
AQ-PM 28.1
AQ-DPM 76.8
Drinking Water 24.2
Lead Risk Housing 39.5
Pesticides 35.7
Toxic Releases 27.8
Traffic 61.5
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 78.6
Groundwater 67.5
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 82.7
Impaired Water Bodies 43.8
Solid Waste 96.6
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 3.22
Cardio-vascular 14.1
Low Birth Weights 40.5
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 78.3
Housing 82.8
Armorlite Lofts Detailed Report, 3/1/2024
44 / 47
Linguistic 77.9
Poverty 78.2
Unemployment 36.4
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 14.57718465
Employed 17.95200821
Median HI 15.05196972
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 34.96727833
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 1.873476197
Transportation —
Auto Access 7.878865649
Active commuting 68.52303349
Social —
2-parent households 81.04709355
Voting 41.66559733
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 17.16925446
Park access 56.96137559
Retail density 84.51174131
Supermarket access 77.74926216
Tree canopy 38.40626203
Armorlite Lofts Detailed Report, 3/1/2024
45 / 47
Housing —
Homeownership 8.623123316
Housing habitability 19.36353137
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 79.81521879 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 64.18580778
Uncrowded housing 31.19466188
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 5.902733222
Arthritis 9.2
Asthma ER Admissions 99.1
High Blood Pressure 21.8
Cancer (excluding skin) 21.2
Asthma 30.0
Coronary Heart Disease 3.1
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 5.5
Diagnosed Diabetes 18.3
Life Expectancy at Birth 13.9
Cognitively Disabled 11.9
Physically Disabled 7.5
Heart Attack ER Admissions 99.6
Mental Health Not Good 25.4
Chronic Kidney Disease 2.7
Obesity 34.9
Pedestrian Injuries 81.7
Physical Health Not Good 17.6
Stroke 5.6
Health Risk Behaviors —
Armorlite Lofts Detailed Report, 3/1/2024
46 / 47
Binge Drinking 68.3
Current Smoker 35.6
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 16.4
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 16.3
Elderly 23.2
English Speaking 15.1
Foreign-born 80.3
Outdoor Workers 11.8
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 47.4
Traffic Density 77.2
Traffic Access 23.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 72.9
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 49.7
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 59.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 15.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) Y es Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No Armorlite Lofts Detailed Report, 3/1/2024
47 / 47
a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.
8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use Total Area is 2.44 acres - 254 Parking Spaces
Construction: Construction Phases Estimated Construction Schedule Construction: Off-Road Equipment Design Feature to use Tier 4 final equipment Operations: Vehicle Data Updated to reflect the TS
Operations: Hearths no hearth options installed
Construction: Off-Road Equipment EF crusher equipment similar to scraper equipment and was updated since no defaults were provided by CalEEMod
Construction: Dust From Material Movement Updated to reflect PD
ATTACHMENT B
CalEEMod Emission Model – 160,000 SF Data Center General Plan Buildout Scenario
data center scenario v2 Detailed Report, 3/3/2024
1 / 31
data center scenario v2 Detailed Report
Table of Contents
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
1.2. Land Use Types
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
3. Construction Emissions Details
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
4.2. Energy
data center scenario v2 Detailed Report, 3/3/2024
2 / 31
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
data center scenario v2 Detailed Report, 3/3/2024
3 / 31
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
5.5. Architectural Coatings
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
5.7. Construction Paving
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors data center scenario v2 Detailed Report, 3/3/2024
4 / 31
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
data center scenario v2 Detailed Report, 3/3/2024
5 / 31
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
5.16.2. Process Boilers
5.17. User Defined
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
data center scenario v2 Detailed Report, 3/3/2024
6 / 31
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
data center scenario v2 Detailed Report, 3/3/2024
7 / 31
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name data center scenario v2
Construction Start Date 1/1/2026
Operational Y ear 2026
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.20
Precipitation (days) 9.80
Location San Marcos, CA, USA
County San Diego
City San Marcos
Air District San Diego County APCD
Air Basin San Diego
TAZ 6215
EDFZ 12
Electric Utility San Diego Gas & Electric
Gas Utility San Diego Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.21
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
data center scenario v2 Detailed Report, 3/3/2024
8 / 31
Unrefrigerated
W
arehouse-Rail
160 1000sqft 3.67 160,000 1,000 — — —
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Y ear TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.94 5.41 0.51 11.6 0.01 0.02 0.97 0.99 0.02 0.25 0.26 152 33,023 33,175 38.7 3.04 35,054 data center scenario v2 Detailed Report, 3/3/2024
9 / 31
—————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Unmit. 0.69 4.26 0.49 4.39 0.01 0.01 0.97 0.98 0.01 0.25 0.25 152 32,944 33,096 38.7 3.04 34,972 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.29 4.81 0.51 7.81 0.01 0.01 0.96 0.98 0.01 0.24 0.26 152 32,966 33,118 38.7 3.04 34,995 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.24 0.88 0.09 1.43 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.18 0.18 < 0.005 0.04 0.05 25.2 5,458 5,483 6.41 0.50 5,794
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 CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.70 0.64 0.45 4.64 0.01 0.01 0.97 0.98 0.01 0.25 0.25 — 1,134 1,134 0.05 0.04 1,152 Area 1.24 4.77 0.06 6.96 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 28.6 28.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 28.7 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 31,829 31,829 23.3 2.82 33,252 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 70.9 31.1 102 7.29 0.18 337 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 81.1 0.00 81.1 8.10 0.00 284 Total 1.94 5.41 0.51 11.6 0.01 0.02 0.97 0.99 0.02 0.25 0.26 152 33,023 33,175 38.7 3.04 35,054 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.69 0.63 0.49 4.39 0.01 0.01 0.97 0.98 0.01 0.25 0.25 — 1,084 1,084 0.06 0.05 1,099 Area — 3.63 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 31,829 31,829 23.3 2.82 33,252 data center scenario v2 Detailed Report, 3/3/2024
10 / 31
Water — — — — — — — — — — — 70.9 31.1 102 7.29 0.18 337 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 81.1 0.00 81.1 8.10 0.00 284 Total 0.69 4.26 0.49 4.39 0.01 0.01 0.97 0.98 0.01 0.25 0.25 152 32,944 33,096 38.7 3.04 34,972 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.68 0.62 0.49 4.38 0.01 0.01 0.96 0.97 0.01 0.24 0.25 — 1,092 1,092 0.06 0.05 1,108 Area 0.61 4.19 0.03 3.43 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 14.1 14.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 14.2 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 31,829 31,829 23.3 2.82 33,252 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 70.9 31.1 102 7.29 0.18 337 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 81.1 0.00 81.1 8.10 0.00 284 Total 1.29 4.81 0.51 7.81 0.01 0.01 0.96 0.98 0.01 0.24 0.26 152 32,966 33,118 38.7 3.04 34,995 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.12 0.11 0.09 0.80 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.18 0.18 < 0.005 0.04 0.05 — 181 181 0.01 0.01 183 Area 0.11 0.76 0.01 0.63 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.34 2.34 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.34 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 5,270 5,270 3.86 0.47 5,505 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 11.7 5.15 16.9 1.21 0.03 55.7 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 13.4 0.00 13.4 1.34 0.00 47.0 Total 0.24 0.88 0.09 1.43 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.18 0.18 < 0.005 0.04 0.05 25.2 5,458 5,483 6.41 0.50 5,794
3. Construction Emissions Details
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 CO2e data center scenario v2 Detailed Report, 3/3/2024
11 / 31
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefriger
ated
W
arehou
se-Rail
0.70 0.64 0.45 4.64 0.01 0.01 0.97 0.98 0.01 0.25 0.25 — 1,134 1,134 0.05 0.04 1,152 Total 0.70 0.64 0.45 4.64 0.01 0.01 0.97 0.98 0.01 0.25 0.25 — 1,134 1,134 0.05 0.04 1,152 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefriger
ated
W
arehou
se-Rail
0.69 0.63 0.49 4.39 0.01 0.01 0.97 0.98 0.01 0.25 0.25 — 1,084 1,084 0.06 0.05 1,099 Total 0.69 0.63 0.49 4.39 0.01 0.01 0.97 0.98 0.01 0.25 0.25 — 1,084 1,084 0.06 0.05 1,099 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefriger
ated
W
arehou
se-Rail
0.12 0.11 0.09 0.80 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.18 0.18 < 0.005 0.04 0.05 — 181 181 0.01 0.01 183 Total 0.12 0.11 0.09 0.80 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.18 0.18 < 0.005 0.04 0.05 — 181 181 0.01 0.01 183
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 CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
data center scenario v2 Detailed Report, 3/3/2024
12 / 31
33,2522.8223.331,82931,829————————————Unrefriger
ated
W
arehou
se-Rail
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 31,829 31,829 23.3 2.82 33,252 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefriger
ated
W
arehou
se-Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — 31,829 31,829 23.3 2.82 33,252
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 31,829 31,829 23.3 2.82 33,252 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefriger
ated
W
arehou
se-Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — 5,270 5,270 3.86 0.47 5,505
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 5,270 5,270 3.86 0.47 5,505
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 CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefriger
ated
W
arehou
se-Rail
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
data center scenario v2 Detailed Report, 3/3/2024
13 / 31
Unrefriger
W
arehouse-Rail
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefriger
ated
W
arehou
se-Rail
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consume
r
Products
— 3.42 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architectu
r
al
Coatings
— 0.20 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landscap
e
Equipme
nt
1.24 1.14 0.06 6.96 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 28.6 28.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 28.7 Total 1.24 4.77 0.06 6.96 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 28.6 28.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 28.7 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
data center scenario v2 Detailed Report, 3/3/2024
14 / 31
———————————————3.42—Consume
r
Architectu
r
al
Coatings
— 0.20 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — 3.63 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consume
r
Products
— 0.62 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architectu
r
al
Coatings
— 0.04 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landscap
e
Equipme
nt
0.11 0.10 0.01 0.63 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.34 2.34 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.34 Total 0.11 0.76 0.01 0.63 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.34 2.34 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.34
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefriger
ated
W
arehou
se-Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 70.9 31.1 102 7.29 0.18 337
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 70.9 31.1 102 7.29 0.18 337 data center scenario v2 Detailed Report, 3/3/2024
15 / 31
—————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Unrefriger
ated
W
arehou
se-Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 70.9 31.1 102 7.29 0.18 337
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 70.9 31.1 102 7.29 0.18 337 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefriger
ated
W
arehou
se-Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 11.7 5.15 16.9 1.21 0.03 55.7
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 11.7 5.15 16.9 1.21 0.03 55.7
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefriger
ated
W
arehou
se-Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 81.1 0.00 81.1 8.10 0.00 284
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 81.1 0.00 81.1 8.10 0.00 284 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
data center scenario v2 Detailed Report, 3/3/2024
16 / 31
2840.008.1081.10.0081.1———————————Unrefriger
ated
W
arehou
se-Rail
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 81.1 0.00 81.1 8.10 0.00 284 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefriger
ated
W
arehou
se-Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 13.4 0.00 13.4 1.34 0.00 47.0
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 13.4 0.00 13.4 1.34 0.00 47.0
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 CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
data center scenario v2 Detailed Report, 3/3/2024
17 / 31
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
T
ype
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
T
ype
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
data center scenario v2 Detailed Report, 3/3/2024
18 / 31
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
T
ype
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O 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 CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
data center scenario v2 Detailed Report, 3/3/2024
19 / 31
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 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 CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequeste
red
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
data center scenario v2 Detailed Report, 3/3/2024
20 / 31
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequeste
red
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequeste
red
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 data center scenario v2 Detailed Report, 3/3/2024
21 / 31
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
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.
5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq
ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq
ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated
(sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres)
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
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-Rail 0.00 0%
data center scenario v2 Detailed Report, 3/3/2024
22 / 31
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Y ear and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Y ear kWh per Y ear CO2 CH4 N2O
2026 0.00 45.1 0.03 < 0.005
2027 0.00 45.1 0.03 < 0.005
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Y ear VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Y ear Unrefrigerated
W
arehouse-Rail
160 160 160 58,400 1,371 1,371 1,371 500,443
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Interior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq
ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
0 0.00 240,000 80,000 —
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180
data center scenario v2 Detailed Report, 3/3/2024
23 / 31
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Unrefrigerated Warehouse-Rail 257,600,000 45.1 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Unrefrigerated Warehouse-Rail 37,000,000 14,944
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-Rail 150 —
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
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
data center scenario v2 Detailed Report, 3/3/2024
24 / 31
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Y ear Horsepower Load Factor
5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)
5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.2. Sequestration
data center scenario v2 Detailed Report, 3/3/2024
25 / 31
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions
will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.
Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 14.7 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 5.15 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 10.5 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed histor
ical 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 da
y or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider in
undation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events.
Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, v
egetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 0 0 N/A
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
data center scenario v2 Detailed Report, 3/3/2024
26 / 31
Flooding 0 0 0 N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest e
xposure.
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 g
reatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding 1 1 1 2
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest e
xposure.
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 g
reatest 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
data center scenario v2 Detailed Report, 3/3/2024
27 / 31
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 42.6
AQ-PM 25.1
AQ-DPM 62.8
Drinking Water 24.2
Lead Risk Housing 31.0
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 23.5
Traffic 24.5
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 50.3
Groundwater 6.97
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 38.7
Impaired Water Bodies 0.00
Solid Waste 60.9
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 14.9
Cardio-vascular 52.6
Low Birth Weights 72.3
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 78.5
Housing 29.2
Linguistic 71.4
Poverty 65.8
data center scenario v2 Detailed Report, 3/3/2024
28 / 31
Unemployment 1.90
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 29.79597074
Employed 56.3839343
Median HI 37.66200436
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 34.03054023
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 48.82586937
Transportation —
Auto Access 74.57975106
Active commuting 48.22276402
Social —
2-parent households 73.83549339
Voting 52.16219684
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 51.58475555
Park access 81.35506224
Retail density 88.27152573
Supermarket access 54.40780187
Tree canopy 13.31964584
Housing —
Homeownership 34.36417298
data center scenario v2 Detailed Report, 3/3/2024
29 / 31
Housing habitability 46.83690491
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 20.80071859 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 83.10021814
Uncrowded housing 32.9013217
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 12.87052483
Arthritis 86.1
Asthma ER Admissions 84.0
High Blood Pressure 92.6
Cancer (excluding skin) 91.6
Asthma 34.7
Coronary Heart Disease 85.5
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 50.7
Diagnosed Diabetes 57.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 79.9
Cognitively Disabled 52.2
Physically Disabled 90.7
Heart Attack ER Admissions 72.6
Mental Health Not Good 24.7
Chronic Kidney Disease 64.9
Obesity 38.6
Pedestrian Injuries 43.8
Physical Health Not Good 37.9
Stroke 75.8
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 22.7
Current Smoker 25.4
data center scenario v2 Detailed Report, 3/3/2024
30 / 31
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 30.6
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 66.2
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 39.2
Elderly 95.5
English Speaking 5.0
Foreign-born 84.6
Outdoor Workers 8.6
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 61.0
Traffic Density 49.3
Traffic Access 23.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 71.4
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 71.1
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 33.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 46.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) Y es 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. data center scenario v2 Detailed Report, 3/3/2024
31 / 31
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.
8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Operations: Energy Use per data center
Operations: Vehicle Data Data Center Trip Generation based on 413,000 SF Data Center (Romboll Environ, 2016) See Source in
Report
Construction: Construction Phases construction emission not calculated
ATTACHMENT C
Terex 4242SR 310 HP Specification Sheet
ATTACHMENT D
CAP Checklist – Project Specific
1 In this context, a project is any action that meets the definition of a “Project” in Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelin es.
Application Information
Step 1: Land Use Consistency
☐ ☐
☐ ☐
☐ ☐
Step 2: CAP Measures Consistency
Checklist Item
(Check the appropriate box and provide an explanation for your answer. Please use additional sheets if necessary)
Yes No N/A
☐ ☐ ☐
☐ ☐ ☐
Step 2: CAP Measures Consistency
Checklist Item
(Check the appropriate box and provide an explanation for your answer. Please use additional sheets if necessary)
Yes No N/A
☐ ☐ ☐
2 The designated number of car -share, carpool, vanpool, and/or park -and-ride parking spaces provided at a rate equal to or greater than CALGreen minimum requirements.
3 Measure T -10 requires projects to increase alternative mode share by seven percent. Th e baseline mode share for alternative transportation (i.e. carpool, public transit, bicycle, walk, and telecommute) is 22 percent based on 2010 Census Data.
Step 2: CAP Measures Consistency
Checklist Item
(Check the appropriate box and provide an explanation for your answer. Please use additional sheets if necessary)
Yes No N/A
☐ ☐ ☐
☐ ☐ ☐
4 Major transit stop is defined as a bus or light -rail station with fixed service and 10 -minute min imum headways during peak hours.
Project applicants should confirm with City staff if the project site would fall within this proximity tot a major transit st op.
Step 2: CAP Measures Consistency
Checklist Item
(Check the appropriate box and provide an explanation for your answer. Please use additional sheets if necessary)
Yes No N/A
☐ ☐ ☐
☐ ☐ ☐
5 City of San Marcos Landscape Manual: https://www.san -marcos.net/home/showdocument?id=13984 Step 2: CAP Measures Consistency
Checklist Item
(Check the appropriate box and provide an explanation for your answer. Please use additional sheets if necessary)
Yes No N/A
☐ ☐ ☐