Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05. Exhibit D.1 - Response to Comments and Comment Letters2-1 2.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Eight comment letters were received by the City during the Draft EIR public review period. Responses to the comments provided are included in this section of the Final EIR. Comments that do not require a response, pursuant to Section 15088(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, include those that (1) do not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; (2) do not raise environmental issues; or (3) do request the incorporation of additional information not relevant to environmental issues. Section 15088 of the State CEQA Guidelines, Evaluation of and Response to Comments, states: a)The lead agency shall evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the draft EIR and shall prepare a written response. The lead agency shall respond to comments raising significant environmental issues received during the noticed comment period and any extensions and may respond to late comments. b)The lead agency shall provide a written proposed response, either in a printed copy or in an electronic format, to a public agency on comments made by that public agency at least 10 days prior to certifying an environmental impact report. c)The written responses shall describe the disposition of significant environmental issues raised (e.g., revisions to the proposed project to mitigate anticipated impacts or objections). In particular, the major environmental issues raised when the lead agency’s position is at variance with recommendations and objections raised in the comments must be addressed in detail, giving the reasons that specific comments and suggestions were not accepted. There must be good faith, reasoned analysis in the responses. Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice. The level of detail contained in the response, however, may correspond to the level of detail provided in the comment (i.e., responses to general comments may be general). A general response may be appropriate when a comment does not contain or specifically refers to readily available information, or does not explain the relevance of evidence submitted with the comment. d)The responses to comments may take the form of a revision to the draft EIR or may be a separate section in the final EIR. Where the responses to comments make important changes in the information contained in the text of the draft EIR, the lead agency should either: 1.Revise the text in the body of the EIR; or 2.Include marginal notes showing that the information is revised in the responses to comments. Exhibit D.1 2 – Response to Comments 2-2 2.1 LIST OF PERSONS, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PUBLIC AGENCIES COMMENTING ON THE DRAFT EIR In accordance with Section 15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the agencies and organizations that submitted comments regarding the Draft EIR through the end of the public review period (January 25, 2024) are listed below: Comment Letter Name/Agency Date 1 Teamsters Local 396 Union 1/3/2024 2 Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy (CARE CA) 1/3/2024 3 CARE CA 1/3/2024 4 CARE CA 1/3/2024 5 California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) 1/9/2024 6 Caltrans District 7 1/19/2024 7 Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance 1/24/2024 8 Teamsters Local 396 Union 1/25/2024 2.2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Aside from courtesy statements, introductions, and closings, individual comments within the body of the comment letter have been identified and numbered. The table below includes five columns: letter number, comment number, name of the commenter, comment, and response. Responses to the comments are provided directly in the table. Copies of the full commenter letters are included in the Final EIR as Appendix A: Public Comment Letters. This appendix shows the letters in full, along with brackets and numbers in the margin to identify the corresponding comment number in the table. Exhibit D.1 Responses to Comments 2-3 Letter Number Comment Number Commenter Comment Response 1 1 Andy Lee, Teamsters Local 396 I’m emailing regarding the Prologis warehouse project at Stewart and Gray Road, which we communicated about last year. I understand that the Draft EIR was submitted on 12/12/23 and the review period extends to 1/25/24. At this point, is there any more information about the tenant or lessee or end user? I didn’t see anything specific in the publicly available information. Please let me know if you’re aware of what company will ultimately use the property, or if there are multiple companies in consideration for the property. Thank you. The City of Downey replied to this letter on January 3, 2024 with the following response: “Currently, we have not yet received any information regarding the future tenant, lessee, or end user.” As of the writing of this response, no additional information is available. As this comment does not raise any specific environmental issues with respect to the adequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), no further response is required. 2 1 Alisa Pember, Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo on behalf of Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy (CARE CA) We are writing on behalf of Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy (“CARE CA”) to request mailed notice of the availability of any environmental review document, prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, related to the Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project (SCH No. 2022030738), proposed by Prologis, Inc. (“Applicant”), as well as a copy of the environmental review document when it is made available for public review. The Project proposes the demolition of existing five buildings totaling approximately 433,000 square feet (SF) and the construction of an approximately 535,685-square-foot industrial concrete tilt-up building for warehouse/logistics uses. The Project would include 683 auto parking spaces, 255 trailer and/or container parking spaces and 109 dock loading doors. The new industrial building would be used for logistics and distribution purposes, and specifically as a fulfillment center and for cold storage. Approximately 95 percent of the warehouse (508,900 SF) would be high cube fulfillment and the remaining 5 percent (26,785 SF) would be for cold storage (i.e., refrigerated warehouse space). The facility would also include 20,000 SF of office area and 25,000 SF of mezzanine area within the 535,685-SF building. The Project would be located on an approximately 29.16-acre site in the southeastern portion of the City Downey, Los Angeles County, California. The Project site is bounded by Hall Road on the north, Woodruff Road on the east, Stewart and Gray Road on the south, and an industrial building on the west. The Project site is comprised of Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 6284- 019-013 through 017. We also request mailed notice of any and all hearings and/or actions related to the Project. These requests are made pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 21092.2, 21080.4, 21083.9, 21092, 21108, 21152, and 21167(f) and Government Code Section 65092, which require local agencies to mail such notices to any person who has filed a written request for them with the clerk of the agency’s governing body. The commenter’s interest in the proposed Project has been noted and they have been added to the distribution list for future notifications regarding the Project. The remainder of this comment restates information about the Project that was included in the Project Description. Exhibit D.1 Responses to Comments RTC-4 Letter Number Comment Number Commenter Comment Response 3 1 Sheila M. Sannadan, Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, on behalf of Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy (CARE CA) We are writing on behalf of Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy (“CARE CA”) to request immediate access to any and all documents referenced, incorporated by reference, and relied upon in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) prepared for the Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project (SCH No. 2022030738), proposed by Prologis, Inc. (“Applicant”). This request excludes a copy of the DEIR and its appendices. This request also excludes any documents that are currently available on the City of Downey website. The Project proposes the demolition of existing five buildings totaling approximately 433,000 square feet (SF) and the construction of an approximately 535,685-square-foot industrial concrete tilt-up building for warehouse/logistics uses. The Project would include 683 auto parking spaces, 255 trailer and/or container parking spaces and 109 dock loading doors. The new industrial building would be used for logistics and distribution purposes, and specifically as a fulfillment center and for cold storage. Approximately 95 percent of the warehouse (508,900 SF) would be high cube fulfillment and the remaining 5 percent (26,785 SF) would be for cold storage (i.e., refrigerated warehouse space). The facility would also include 20,000 SF of office area and 25,000 SF of mezzanine area within the 535,685-SF building. The Project would be located on an approximately 29.16-acre site in the southeastern portion of the City Downey, Los Angeles County, California. The Project site is bounded by Hall Road on the north, Woodruff Road on the east, Stewart and Gray Road on the south, and an industrial building on the west. The Project site is comprised of Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 6284-019-013 through 017. Our request for immediate access to all documents referenced in the DEIR is made pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), which requires that all documents referenced, incorporated by reference, and relied upon in an environmental review document be made available to the public for the entire comment period. The City provided the requested documents to the commenter on January 16, 2024. The remainder of this comment restates information about the Project that was included in the Project Description. 4 1 Sheila M. Sannadan, Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, on behalf of Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy (CARE CA) We are writing on behalf of Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy (“CARE CA”) to request immediate access to any and all public records in the City of Downey’s possession referring or related to the Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project (SCH No. 2022030738), proposed by Prologis, Inc. (“Applicant”). This request includes, but is not limited to, any and all file materials, applications, correspondence, resolutions, memos, notes, analysis, email messages, files, maps, charts, and any other documents related to the Project. This request does not include the Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) or documents referenced or relied upon in the DEIR, which we have requested in a separate letter pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. The commenter replied to the City and withdrew this request on January 23, 2024. Because of this withdrawal, no further action is needed by the City in response to this comment. Exhibit D.1 Responses to Comments RTC-5 Letter Number Comment Number Commenter Comment Response The Project proposes the demolition of existing five buildings totaling approximately 433,000 square feet (SF) and the construction of an approximately 535,685-square-foot industrial concrete tilt-up building for warehouse/logistics uses. The Project would include 683 auto parking spaces, 255 trailer and/or container parking spaces and 109 dock loading doors. The new industrial building would be used for logistics and distribution purposes, and specifically as a fulfillment center and for cold storage. Approximately 95 percent of the warehouse (508,900 SF) would be high cube fulfillment and the remaining 5 percent (26,785 SF) would be for cold storage (i.e., refrigerated warehouse space). The facility would also include 20,000 SF of office area and 25,000 SF of mezzanine area within the 535,685-SF building. The Project would be located on an approximately 29.16-acre site in the southeastern portion of the City Downey, Los Angeles County, California. The Project site is bounded by Hall Road on the north, Woodruff Road on the east, Stewart and Gray Road on the south, and an industrial building on the west. The Project site is comprised of Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 6284-019-013 through 017. This request is made pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Government Code §§7920.000, et seq.). This request is also made pursuant to Article I, section 3(b) of the California Constitution, which provides a Constitutional right of access to information concerning the conduct of government. Article I, section 3(b) provides that any statutory right to information shall be broadly construed to provide the greatest access to government information and further requires that any statute that limits the right of access to information shall be narrowly construed. We request immediate access to review the above documents pursuant to section 7922.525 of the Public Records Act, which requires public records to be “open to inspection at all times during the office hours of a state or local agency” and provides that “every person has a right to inspect any public record.” Therefore, the 10-day response period applicable to a “request for a copy of records” under Section 7922.535(a) does not apply to this request. We request access to the above records in their original form, as maintained by the agency. Pursuant to Government Code Section 7922.570, if the requested documents are in electronic format, please upload them to a file hosting program such as Dropbox, NextRequest or a similar program. Alternatively, if the electronic documents are 10 MB or less (or can be easily broken into sections of 10 MB or less), they may be emailed to me as attachments. We will pay for any direct costs of duplication associated with filling this request up to $200. However, please contact me at (650) 589-1660 with a cost estimate before copying/scanning the materials. Exhibit D.1 Responses to Comments RTC-6 Letter Number Comment Number Commenter Comment Response 5 1 Tamara Purvis, Department of Toxic Substances Control The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) received a DEIR for the Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project (Project). The proposed Project would include the demolition of the existing buildings totaling approximately 433,000 square feet (SF) and the construction of an approximately 535,685-SF industrial concrete tilt up building for warehouse/logistics uses. The Project would include 683 automobile parking spaces, 255 trailer and/or container parking spaces, and 109 dock loading doors. The new industrial building would be used for logistics and distribution purposes, and specifically as a fulfillment center and for cold storage. Approximately 95 percent of the warehouse (508,900 SF) would be high cube fulfillment and the remaining 5 percent (26,785 SF) would be for cold storage (i.e., refrigerated warehouse space). The facility would also include 20,000 SF of office area and 25,000 SF of mezzanine area within the 535,685 SF building. On-site activities would include storage, distribution, and/or consolidation of manufactured goods, and last-mile fulfillment and delivery; and general industrial/warehouse with refrigeration and cold storage component for the purposes of receiving, storing, shipping of food and/or beverage products. The office space would be used for office uses ancillary to the warehouse operations. Based on our Project review, DTSC requests consideration of the following comments. The commenter has provided an introduction to their comments and a summary of the project description. No environmental issues related to the analysis presented in the DEIR are raised, and therefore no further response is necessary. 5 2 Tamara Purvis, Department of Toxic Substances Control DTSC recommends the City of Downey enter into DTSC’s Standard Voluntary Agreement (SVA) program so a proper evaluation of the Project can be reviewed by designated DTSC technical staff. The Fluxx portal link is provided and the page also has a link to the Fluxx User Guide that can help you navigate the system. You will need to create a new profile and once in the system, click “Start a Request for Lead Agency Oversight Application.” DTSC recommends that once the SVA is signed, a Preliminary Endangerment Assessment Report (PEA Report) be submitted for DTSC review. The PEA Report shall summarize all existing data and provide an evaluation of the possible risk to current and future users of the site. If you have any questions about the application portal, please contact the DTSC Brownfield Coordinator Gregory Shaffer or contact the Application Portal Inbox. The commenter has recommended that the City enter into the DTSC’s Standard Voluntary Agreement program and provided information about the program. However, the City elected to not participate in the program due to the voluntary nature of the program and the City’s confidence that Hazards and Hazardous materials have been accurately and completely evaluated in the EIR. The potential impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials have been evaluated in Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials of this EIR. The Project is currently undergoing regulatory oversight in compliance with the applicable requirements and laws described in Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the DEIR. Both a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) and Phase II ESA have been prepared for the Project and are included as Appendix F and Appendix G, respectively, of the DEIR. Exhibit D.1 Responses to Comments RTC-7 Letter Number Comment Number Commenter Comment Response 5 3 Tamara Purvis, Department of Toxic Substances Control If buildings or other structures are to be demolished on any project sites included in the proposed project, surveys should be conducted for the presence of lead-based paints or products, mercury, asbestos containing materials, and polychlorinated biphenyl caulk. Removal, demolition, and disposal of any of the above-mentioned chemicals should be conducted in compliance with California environmental regulations and policies. In addition, sampling near current and/or former buildings should be conducted in accordance with DTSC’s 2006 Interim Guidance Evaluation of School Sites with Potential Contamination from Lead Based Paint, Termiticides, and Electrical Transformers. Mitigation Measures HAZ-2 and HAZ-3 in Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, ensure that any materials containing asbestos and lead-based paints would be removed from the property prior to the issuance of demolition permits. Please see Section 4.7.6 of the EIR for additional information. As described in Appendix H of the DEIR, sampling has been conducted at the Project site to determine the presence or absence of asbestos, lead-based paint, and lead in the drinking water. Both asbestos and lead-based paint were found in some materials present on the Project site; please see Section 4.7.2.5 Asbestos, Lead-Based Paint, and Drinking Water Sampling for additional information about the types of samples taken and the locations in which these materials were found. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-2 and HAZ-3 would ensure that materials containing asbestos or lead-based paint would be removed from the site prior to demolition. 5 4 Tamara Purvis, Department of Toxic Substances Control DTSC recommends that all imported soil and fill material should be tested to ensure any contaminants of concern are within approved screening levels for the intended land use. To minimize the possibility of introducing contaminated soil and fill material there should be documentation of the origins of the soil or fill material and, if applicable, sampling be conducted to ensure that the imported soil and fill material meets screening levels for the intended land use. The soil sampling should include analysis based on the source of the fill and knowledge of the prior land use. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 in Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, describes how soil will be handled during construction in order to minimize the potential impact of contaminated soil. This measure includes procedures for soil handling, fugitive dust and vapor control, soil excavation and stockpiling, air and soil monitoring, sampling, and testing. This mitigation measure also includes specific protocols for the testing and handling of imported soils, including a requirement that the soils be tested in general conformance with the DTSC Information Advisory Clean Imported Fill Material document (2001). Please see Section 4.7.6 of the EIR for additional information. 5 5 Tamara Purvis, Department of Toxic Substances Control DTSC appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project. Thank you for your assistance in protecting California’s people and environment from the harmful effects of toxic substances. If you have any questions or would like any clarification on DTSC’s comments, please respond to this letter or via email for additional guidance. The commenter has provided a summary statement concluding their comment letter. No environmental issues related to the analysis presented in the DEIR are raised, and therefore no further response is necessary. Exhibit D.1 Responses to Comments RTC-8 Letter Number Comment Number Commenter Comment Response 6 1 Frances Duong, Caltrans District 7 Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the review process for the above referenced project. The Project proposes to demolish the existing five buildings totaling approximately 433,000 square feet (SF) and construction of an approximately 535,685-square-foot industrial concrete tilt-up building for warehouse/logistics uses. The Project would include 683 auto parking spaces, 255 trailer and/or container parking spaces and 109 dock loading doors. Regional access is provided via the following freeways: the Santa Ana Freeway (Interstate 5 [I-5]), the San Gabriel Freeway (I-605), the Century Freeway (I-105), and the Long Beach Freeway (I-710). Primary vehicular access to the Project site is provided by Stewart and Gray Road and Hall Road. The proposed facility would operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week. After reviewing the DEIR, Caltrans has the following comments: The commenter has provided an introduction to their comments and a summary of the project description. No environmental issues related to the analysis presented in the DEIR are raised, and therefore no further response is necessary. 6 2 Frances Duong, Caltrans District 7 With 535,685 square feet of new warehouse use, 683 car parking spaces, 109 loading dock doors, and stalls for 255 trailer stalls, the Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project will induce demand for a consequential number of additional vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Caltrans recommends the following: • Reducing the amount of parking whenever possible. Research looking at the relationship between land-use, parking, and transportation indicates that the amount of car parking supplied can undermine a project’s ability to encourage public transit and active modes of transportation. • Invest in alternative modes of freight movement, such as rail, which is not only more efficient but also more easily converted to carbon neutral energy sources in the future. • Due to the increased volume of truck trips, a substantial contribution should be made to a city fund that will build safer infrastructure for people walking, riding bikes, and taking transit throughout the city. The most effective methods to reduce pedestrian and bicyclist exposure to cars and trucks is through physical design and geometrics. These methods include the construction of physically separated facilities such as Class IV bike lanes, wide sidewalks, pedestrian refuge islands, landscaping, street furniture, and reductions in crossing distances through roadway narrowing. Following construction, a study needs to be conducted to confirm that the proposed mitigation measures are sufficiently offsetting the Project generated VMT. If not, new and/or additional mitigation measures need to be implemented. The commenter has provided recommendations to reduce the VMT associated with the proposed P roject. Some of the recommendations, such as investment in alternative modes of freight movement including rail, are beyond the scope of the proposed P roject. Measures the P roject has taken to reduce VMT are described in Section 4.11, Transportation, of the EIR. These include P roject design features such as increasing job density, as well as the Transportation Demand Management Plan described in Mitigation Measure TR-1. The Transportation Demand Management Plan would include both physical measures and programmatic measures to reduce the total VMT associated with the P roject below a level of significance. Project Design Features are calculated to result in a 9.9-percent reduction in VMT per employee and Mitigation Measure TR-1 is calculated to result in an 11.9-percent reduction in VMT per employee, based on equations presented in the California Air Pollution Control Officer’s Association (CAPCOA) 2021 Handbook, as detailed in Appendix B of the Transportation Impact Study (TIS; EIR Appendix L). Because these measures would reduce the VMT impact below a level of significance based on accepted methodologies, no additional measures or documentation are required. Exhibit D.1 Responses to Comments RTC-9 Letter Number Comment Number Commenter Comment Response 6 3 Frances Duong, Caltrans District 7 Additionally, an encroachment permit will be required for any project work proposed near Caltrans Right of Way and all environmental concerns must be adequately addressed. Please note that any modifications to the State facilities will be subject to additional review by the Office of Permits prior to issuance of the permit. The Project would occur outside of the Caltrans right-of-way and would not result in direct impacts to facilities, infrastructure, or resources within the Caltrans right-of-way. No modifications to S tate facilities are proposed. Therefore, an encroachment permit is not required. 6 4 Frances Duong, Caltrans District 7 Finally, construction of the proposed project would involve deliveries of materials, components, and supplies to the various sites, and will involve oversized trucks. As a result, prior to issuance of building or grading permits for the project site, the applicant shall prepare a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) for review and approval by City staff to reduce any impacts to less than significant levels. The CTMP needs to specify the duration of construction period and provide construction analysis on significant impacts due to increase in construction truck traffic on highways not designated as truck routes. It should also specify any work that would affect the freeways and its facilities, and that Caltrans has the jurisdiction for review and approval. Transportation of heavy construction equipment and/or materials, which requires the use of oversized transport vehicles on State highways, will require a transportation permit from Caltrans. A Construction Traffic Management Plan will be prepared for the Project and submitted to City staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of building and grading permits for construction. A reference to the Construction Traffic Management Plan has been added to Section 2.8, Necessary Approvals, of the EIR; please see Section 3: Clarifications and Revisions of the Final EIR for additional information. In addition, the project shall incorporate a condition of approval requiring the applicant to submit such information prior to receiving building permits. 7 1 Gary Ho, Blum, Collins & Ho LLP, on behalf of Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project. Please accept and consider these comments on behalf of Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance. Also, Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance formally requests to be added to the public interest list regarding any subsequent environmental documents, public notices, public hearings, and notices of determination for this project. Send all communications to Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance P.O. Box 79222 Corona, CA 92877. The commenter has provided an introduction to their comments. The commenter’s interest in the proposed Project has been noted and they will be added to the distribution list for future notifications regarding the Project. No environmental issues related to the analysis presented in the DEIR are raised, and therefore no further response is necessary. 7 2 Gary Ho, Blum, Collins & Ho LLP, on behalf of Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance 1.0 Summary The project proposes the demolition of all existing onsite buildings totaling approximately 433,000 square feet (sf) and the construction of an approximately 535,685 sf industrial building to be used as a fulfillment center warehouse on a 29.16-acre site. The proposed building includes approximately 490,685 of fulfillment center/warehouse area, 20,000 sf of ground floor office area, and 25,000 sf of mezzanine office area. The project site provides 683 passenger car parking spaces, 255 trailer and/or container parking spaces, and 109 truck/trailer dock loading doors dispersed on three sides of the building. The building has a proposed height of 55 feet. While the tenant of the building is unknown, operation of the proposed project is assumed to be 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The commenter has provided a summary of the project description. No environmental issues related to the analysis presented in the DEIR are raised, and therefore no further response is necessary. Exhibit D.1 Responses to Comments RTC-10 Letter Number Comment Number Commenter Comment Response 7 3 Gary Ho, Blum, Collins & Ho LLP, on behalf of Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance 2.0 Project Description The EIR describes the environmental setting in stating that at the date the Notice of Preparation was published (March 25, 2022), “the site was fully occupied and operational by industrial use tenants; however, the tenants have since vacated the buildings and ceased operations at the request of the property owner (Project applicant) in anticipation of implementing the proposed Project.” The EIR claims that the site was occupied and actively used for business operations at the time the NOP was published, but has not provided any meaningful evidence to support the claim that the existing onsite buildings were occupied and operational at that time. The EIR has not presented any meaningful evidence to demonstrate that businesses were legally established and operational on March 25, 2022. Notably, Appendix L: Transportation Impact Study provided trip generation calculations for the “existing” onsite uses utilizing ITE trip generation average rates instead of conducting onsite traffic counts at the project driveways, which demonstrates that the onsite uses had ceased operating by March 25, 2022. CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(a)(1) states that, “Where existing conditions change or fluctuate over time, and where necessary to provide the most accurate picture practically possible of the project’s impacts, The text of the CEQA Guidelines Section cited by the commenter is only part of the guideline. The cited text is preceded by the following guidance: “Generally, the lead agency should describe the physical environmental conditions as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time the environmental analysis is commenced, from both a local and regional perspective.” The above portion of the CEQA guidelines states that generally, an EIR should consider the physical conditions as they exist at the time that the Notice of P reparation was published to be the baseline for analysis. The environmental analysis contained in the EIR was based on a comparison of the proposed Project with the conditions on the site on March 25, 2022 when the environmental baseline was established. As described in Section 2.3 of the EIR, at the time the NOP was released the site was fully occupied and in use by industrial use tenants. These tenants have since vacated the buildings and ceased operations at the request of the property owner. a lead agency may define existing conditions by referencing historic conditions, or conditions expected when the project becomes operational, or both, that are supported with substantial evidence,” and CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(a)(3) states that, “An existing conditions baseline shall not include hypothetical conditions, such as those that might be allowed, but have never actually occurred, under existing permits or plans, as the baseline.” The EIR and its appendices model the existing site as fully operational utilizing default software trip rates and emissions rates for uses that do not exist on the project site. The physical conditions and actual emissions/vehicle traffic counts that existed at the time of analysis are not described or discussed with meaningful supporting evidence in the EIR. Utilizing emissions default rates/average rates/rates derived from other properties instead of actual traffic counts and emissions analysis at the project site during business operations serves to artificially reduce the project’s significant environmental impacts by modeling the alleged businesses onsite as more intensive than they actually were and presenting the impacts of the proposed project as “net new”. The tenants vacated the site between December of 2022 and January of 2023. The TIS for the proposed Project, included with the DEIR as Appendix L, was prepared in September 2023 after the existing tenants had ceased operations. Calculations of trip generation from the existing operations on the Project site were completed by a traffic engineer and documented in the TIS. Because the Project site was fully occupied with industrial tenants at the time of the NOP but was no longer occupied by the time the TIS was prepared, it was not possible to collect traffic counts that represented the existing uses at the time of the NOP. Therefore, ITE Land Use Code 110 (General Light Industrial) trip generation average rates were used to model the expected traffic generation for the land uses at the time of the NOP. Analysis of mobile source emissions in the air quality (AQ) and greenhouse gas (GHG) impact analysis used trip generation assumptions consistent with the trip generation reported in the TIS, as discussed in DEIR Section 4.2.5.3. This modeling reflected existing conditions at the time of the NOP, which were then compared to the modeled impacts of the Project. severe than concluded in the DEIR. As such, the claim that the Project’s impacts were artificially reduced is unfounded and not supported by substantial evidence. No revisions to the EIR are required. Exhibit D.1 Responses to Comments RTC-11 Letter Number Comment Number Commenter Comment Response At the time the analysis was performed, the use of modeling was the most accurate method available to compare the existing conditions at the time of the NOP with the forecasted conditions of the Project. This methodology for calculating trips and associated emissions for the previous on-site uses is appropriate and supported by substantial evidence as the data was derived using current, industry-accepted modeling software by technical experts. Moreover, the commenter has not provided any substantial evidence that air quality and GHG emissions impacts would be more 7 4 Gary Ho, Blum, Collins & Ho LLP, on behalf of Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance Additionally, nearly every area of environmental analysis credits the project with various VMT, trip generation, and emissions reductions based on existing trips at the site based on emissions default rates/average rates/rates derived from other properties “existing uses” at the site the EIR has not proven to exist. Per Appendix L, “ITE Land Use Code 110 (General Light Industrial) trip generation average rates were used to forecast the expected traffic generation for the existing uses.” It is nonsensical to utilize ITE average/default rates to calculate trip generation for “existing uses” instead of taking trip counts at the project site, particularly if the site were actually operational with tenants conducting business. This does not comply with CEQA Guidelines Section 15125. The EIR overstates the existing operations at the project site to artificially inflate “existing” emissions, trip generation, and VMT, which subsequently reduces the “net new” quantity of emissions, trip generation, and VMT generated by the proposed project t and skews impacts downwards. A revised EIR must be prepared to remove any credit given for the “existing” operations in all areas of analysis in order to accurately and adequately analyze the project’s significant impacts in accordance in order to provide an adequate and accurate environmental analysis. Please see response to comment #3 of Letter #7. Exhibit D.1 Responses to Comments RTC-12 Letter Number Comment Number Commenter Comment Response 7 5 Gary Ho, Blum, Collins & Ho LLP, on behalf of Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance 4.2 Air Quality, 4.4 Energy, and 4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Please refer to attachments from SWAPE for a complete technical commentary and analysis. The EIR does not include for analysis relevant environmental justice issues in reviewing potential impacts, including cumulative impacts from the proposed project. This is especially significant as the surrounding community is highly burdened by pollution. According to CalEnviroScreen 4.0, CalEPA’s screening tool that ranks each census tract in the state for pollution and socioeconomic vulnerability. The proposed project’s census tract (6037551102) and surrounding community, including residences to the north and east, bears the impact of multiple sources of pollution and is more polluted than average on several pollution indicators measured by CalEnviroScreen. For example, the project census tract ranks in the 88th percentile for particulate matter (PM) 2.5 burden, 86th percentile for diesel particulate matter burden, and 66th percentile for traffic burdens. All of these environmental factors are typically attributed to heavy truck activity in the area. The very small particles of diesel PM can reach deep into the lung, where they can contribute to a range of health problems. These include irritation to the eyes, throat and nose, heart and lung disease, and lung cancer. The census tract ranks in the 92nd percentile for toxic releases. People living near facilities that emit toxic releases may breathe contaminated air regularly or if contaminants are released during an accident. The census tract also ranks in the 78th percentile for solid waste facility impacts and 89th percentile for hazardous waste facility impacts. Solid waste facilities can expose people to hazardous chemicals, release toxic gases into the air (even after these faciliti es are closed), and chemicals can leach into soil around the facility and pose a health risk to nearby populations. Hazardous waste generators and facilities contribute to the contamination of air, water and soil near waste generators and facilities can harm the environment as well as people. The census tract also bears more impacts from cleanup sites than 61% of the state. Chemicals in the buildings, soil, or water at cleanup sites can move into nearby communities through the air or movement of water. There are currently no formal requirements, procedures, or standards of significance to evaluate potential environmental justice impacts under CEQA. DEIR Section 4.2.2 disclosed carcinogenic risk from exposure to existing air toxics in the P roject area, as reported by the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQM D’s) Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study V (MATES V). A Health Risk Assessment has been prepared for this P roject and is included in the DEIR as part of Appendix B. The Health Risk Assessment evaluated potential community health risks from exposure to diesel particulate matter emitted by off-road construction equipment, construction haul trucks, and trucks related to operation of the proposed warehouse. The assessment found that community cancer risk, chronic health risk, and cancer burden would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds. Please see DEIR Section 4.2.2 and DEIR Appendix B for additional information about the Health Risk Assessment performed for this P roject. For information about hazardous materials, please see DEIR Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Exhibit D.1 Responses to Comments RTC-13 Letter Number Comment Number Commenter Comment Response Further, the census tract is a diverse community including 81% Hispanic, 6% African-American and 6% Asian-American residents, who are especially vulnerable to the impacts of pollution. The community has a high rate of low educational attainment, meaning 70% of the census tract over age 25 has not attained a high school diploma, which is an indication that they may lack health insurance or access to medical care. The community also has a high rate of poverty, meaning 71% of the households in the census tract have a total income before taxes that is less than the poverty level. Income can affect health when people cannot afford healthy living and working conditions, nutritious food and necessary medical care. Poor communities are often located in areas with high levels of pollution. Poverty can cause stress that weakens the immune system and causes people to become ill from pollution. Living in poverty is an indication that residents may lack health insurance or access to medical care. Medical care is vital for this census tract as it ranks in the 77th percentile for incidence of low birth weights and 59th percentile for cardiovascular disease. Additionally, the project census tract (6037551102 ) and the census tracts adjacent to the project site (6037550300 (east), 6037551101 (west), 6037551800 (northwest), and 6037551800 (south)) are identified as SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities. This indicates that cumulative impacts of development and environmental impacts in the area are disproportionately impacting these communities. The negative environmental, health, and quality of life impacts resulting from a saturation of the industrial, warehousing, and logistics industry in the City have become distinctly inequitable. The severity of significant and unavoidable impacts particularly on these Disadvantaged Communities must be included for analysis as part of a revised EIR. Each section of the revised EIR must include the specific analysis of each environmental impact on the Disadvantaged Communities, including cumulative analysis and irreversible environmental effects. 7 6 Gary Ho, Blum, Collins & Ho LLP, on behalf of Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance The State of California lists three approved compliance modeling softwares for non-residential buildings: CBECC-Com, EnergyPro, and IES VE. CalEEMod is not listed as an approved software. The CalEEMod modeling does not comply with the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and under- reports the project’s significant Energy impacts and fuel consumption to the public and decision makers. Since the EIR did not accurately or adequately model the energy impacts in compliance with Title 24, a finding of significance must be made. A revised EIR with modeling using one of the approved software types must be prepared and circulated for public review in order to adequately analyze the project’s significant environmental impacts. This is vital as the EIR utilizes CalEEMod as a source in its methodology and analysis, which is clearly not an approved software. Quantification of building energy use is not a CEQA requirement, it is a statutory requirement to be completed prior to issuing P roject building permits. Title 24 analysis is required pursuant to the California Energy Code. A condition of approval is proposed for the project requiring compliance with said code. As discussed in DEIR Section 4.4.4, the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G significance criteria for CEQA analysis of a land use development project energy impact are: Would the project: a) Result in potentially significance environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during Project construction or operation; and/or b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Exhibit D.1 Responses to Comments RTC-14 Letter Number Comment Number Commenter Comment Response Nowhere in the DEIR is CalEEMod utilized as a source for methodology or analysis of energy impacts. A mention of CalEEMod does not appear anywhere in the DEIR Section 4.4, Energy. CalEEMod was appropriately used as an approved model for estimating the Project emissions of criteria pollutants, criteria pollutant precursors, and GHGs for the purpose of evaluating the Project’s potential air quality and GHG emissions impacts. No revisions to the EIR are required based on this comment. 7 7 Gary Ho, Blum, Collins & Ho LLP, on behalf of Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance The EIR does not provide any information regarding the buildout conditions of the City’s General Plan. Notably, the horizon year of the City’s General Plan and its associated EIR is 2025. The project is proposed within one year of the horizon and buildout timeline of the prior environmental analysis. The EIR must be revised to provide a cumulative analysis discussion of projects approved since General Plan adoption and projects “in the pipeline” to determine if the project will exceed the City’s General Plan b uildout scenario. As of the writing of this Final EIR, Vision 2025 General Plan is the current general plan approved by the City of Downey. The analysis contained in this EIR considers the requirements and planned buildout described in the City’s adopted General Plan. Potential cumulative impacts, including projects in and adjacent to the City of Downey that are “in the pipeline” are evaluated throughout Chapter 4 of the DEIR at the end of each resource section. The list of cumulative projects evaluated in the EIR can be found in Chapter 3.0, Basis for Cumulative Analysis. No revisions to the EIR are required based on this comment. 7 8 Gary Ho, Blum, Collins & Ho LLP, on behalf of Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance Additionally, the inadequate and inaccurate trip generation analysis also impacts the project’s LOS analysis and compliance with the General Plan. The EIR has not demonstrated the project’s compliance or conflicts with the General Plan LOS requirements and other items that impact the circulation system, including queuing and trip distribution. A revised EIR must be prepared to include impacts to the circulation system as a cumulatively considerable significant impact as the Project conflicts with Transportation Impact Threshold A and Land Use and Planning Impact Threshold B because it is has not adequately or accurately demonstrated that the project is consistent with the following General Plan threshold: Circulation Element Page 2-6: The General Plan advances programs to reduce congestion to provide acceptable LOS, defined as “A”, “B”, “C”, or “D”. Please see response to comment #3 of Letter #7 above, which explains why modeling was used for existing trip calculations. The proposed Project’s potential impacts related to Level of Service (LOS) requirements are evaluated in the DEIR in Section 4.9, Land Use and Planning, as well as Section 4.11, Transportation. Both sections conclude that the proposed Project would be consistent with the General Plan Circulation Element’s requirements for an acceptable LOS. Additional information about the modeling used to calculate LOS can be found in DEIR Appendix L, Transportation Impact Study. Trip generation and distribution is also evaluated in Section 5.0, Non-CEQA Analysis, of Appendix L Transportation Impact Study. The trips generated by the Project would not conflict with the requirements of the General Plan in such a way as to create a significant impact. The D EIR has disclosed potential environmental impacts with supporting evidence for these conclusions. No revisions to the EIR are necessary based on this comment, and preparation and recirculation of a revised EIR is not required. Exhibit D.1 Responses to Comments RTC-15 Letter Number Comment Number Commenter Comment Response 7 9 Gary Ho, Blum, Collins & Ho LLP, on behalf of Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance 4.11 Transportation Table 2-1: Project Trip Generation within Appendix L: Transportation Impact Study provides trip generation reduction credits for “existing uses.” It is not appropriate to model the existing vacant site as fully operational utilizing ITE default rates/average rates and provide VMT and emission reduction credits based on “existing uses” that do not actually exist (and default ITE trip rates that do not accurately demonstrate what, if any traffic was generated on the site on March 25, 2022 instead of vehicle trip counts at the project site) and does not provide the most accurate picture practically possible of the project’s impacts pursuant to CEQA Section 15125. Further, CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(a)(1) states that, “Where existing conditions change or fluctuate over time, and where necessary to provide the most accurate picture practically possible of the project’s impacts, a lead agency may define existing conditions by referencing historic conditions, or conditions expected when the project becomes operational, or both, that are supported with substantial evidence,” and CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(a)(3) states that, “An existing conditions baseline shall not include hypothetical conditions, such as those that might be allowed, but have never actually occurred, under existing permits or plans, as the baseline.” The EIR and its appendices model the existing site as fully operational utilizing trip rates and modeling derived from offsite locations and uses that do not exist on the project site. The physical conditions and actual emissions/vehicle traffic counts that existed on March 25, 2022 are not described or discussed with meaningful supporting evidence in the EIR. Utilizing emissions default rates/average rates/rates derived from other properties instead of actual traffic counts and emissions analysis at the project site during business operations serves to artificially reduce the project’s significant environmental impacts by modeling the alleged businesses onsite as more intensive than they actually were. Please see response to comment #3 of Letter #7. Exhibit D.1 Responses to Comments RTC-16 Letter Number Comment Number Commenter Comment Response 7 10 Gary Ho, Blum, Collins & Ho LLP, on behalf of Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance Additionally, nearly every area of environmental analysis credits the project with various VMT, trip generation, and emissions reductions based on existing trips at the site utilizing a prior study at a different property. As noted above in the Environmental Setting discussion, the EIR has not provided any meaningful evidence that the project site is occupied by any operational tenant and all comments regarding the Environmental Setting above are hereby reincorporated. Per Appendix L, “ITE Land Use Code 110 (General Light Industrial) trip generation average rates were used to forecast the expected traffic generation for the existing uses.” It is nonsensical to utilize ITE average/default rates to calculate trip generation for “existing uses” instead of taking trip counts at the project site, particularly if the site were actually operational with tenants conducting business. This does not comply with CEQA Guidelines Section 15125. The EIR overstates the existing operations at the project site to artificially inflate “existing” emissions, trip generation, and VMT, which subsequently reduces the “net new” quantity of emissions, trip generation, and VMT generated by the proposed project and skews impacts downwards. A revised EIR must be prepared to remove any credit given for the “existing” operations in all areas of analysis in order to accurately and adequately analyze the project’s significant impacts in accordance in order to provide an adequate and accurate environmental analysis. The inadequate and inaccurate trip generation analysis also impacts the project’s LOS analysis. The Transportation Impact Study (TIS) prepared for the proposed Project, included as Appendix L in the DEI R, modeled the proposed Project’s projected VMT impacts relative to the existing conditions at the time the NOP was released. Additional information about how VMT impacts were calculated can be found in Section 4.11, Transportation and Appendix L, Transportation Impact Study, of the DEIR. As described in Section 2.3 of the EIR, at the time the NOP was released the site was fully occupied and in use by industrial use tenants. These tenants have since vacated the buildings and ceased operations at the request of the property owner. The tenants vacated the site in December of 2022 and January of 2023. The TIS for the proposed Project, included with the DEIR as Appendix L, was prepared in September 2023 after the existing tenants had ceased operations. Because the project site was fully occupied with industrial tenants at the time of the NOP but was no longer occupied by the time the TIS was prepared, it was not possible to collect traffic counts that represented the existing uses at the time of the NOP. Please see response to comment #3 of Letter #7 above which explains why modeling was used for existing trip calculations. The DEIR has disclosed potential environmental impacts with supporting evidence for these conclusions. No revisions to the EIR are necessary based on this comment, and preparation of a revised EIR is not required. 7 11 Gary Ho, Blum, Collins & Ho LLP, on behalf of Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance The EIR has not demonstrated the project’s compliance or conflicts with the General Plan LOS requirements and other items that impact the circulation system, including queuing and trip distribution. A revised EIR must be prepared to include impacts to the circulation system as a cumulatively considerable significant impact as the project conflicts with Transportation Impact Threshold A and Land Use and Planning Impact Threshold B because it is has not adequately or accurately demonstrated that the project is consistent with the following General Plan threshold: 1. Circulation Element Page 2-6: The General Plan advances programs to reduce congestion to provide acceptable LOS, defined as “A”, “B”, “C”, or “D”. Please see response to comment #8 of Letter #7 above. The DEIR has disclosed potential environmental impacts with supporting evidence for these conclusions. No revisions to the EIR are necessary based on this comment, and preparation and recirculation of a revised EIR is not required. Exhibit D.1 Responses to Comments RTC-17 Letter Number Comment Number Commenter Comment Response 7 12 Gary Ho, Blum, Collins & Ho LLP, on behalf of Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance The EIR concludes that, “Based on the SCAG RTDM model output for TAZ 21791300, the proposed Project is forecast to generate a baseline employment VMT of 19.2 VMT per employee, which exceeds the County Guidelines threshold of 15.3 VMT.” The EIR includes a combination of Project Design Feature T-2: Increase Job Density and Mitigation Measure TR-1: Transportation Demand Management Plan, including T-7: Implement Commute Trip Reduction Marketing, T-8: Provide Ridesharing Program, and T-10: Provide End-of-Trip Bicycle Facilities to achieve a “11.9 percent VMT reduction would result in 15.2 VMT per employee. This is below the significance threshold of 15.3 VMT.” However, the EIR has not provided meaningful evidence to support the conclusion that Project Design Feature T-2, Mitigation Measure TR-1, T- 7, T-8, and T-10 will reduce project generated VMT to below the significance threshold of 15.3 VMT per employee continuously for the life of the project. Since future building tenants are unknown, implementation of trip reduction measures cannot be guaranteed to reduce Project generated VMT to a level of less than significant. The calculations used to support the conclusion that these measures would result in an 11.9 percent reduction in VMT are presented in Appendix L, Transportation Impact Study and its attachments. These calculations are based on methodology presented in the CAPCOA Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity. Use of the CAPCOA Handbook for VMT analysis complies with the City of Downey requirements for analyzing VMT, which, since the City has not adopted their own VMT thresholds, are the Los Angeles County Public Works Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines for calculating VMT impacts. Estimates of VMT reduction are based on CAPCOA methodology, which is consistent with City of Downey requirements and the CEQA Guidelines. The Project applicant would require that tenants enact the policies and programs identified as mitigation measures in order to ensure a reduction in VMT through preparation and implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan/program. It is not possible for the City to ensure that Project Design Feature T-2, Mitigation Measure TR-1, T-7, T-8, and T-10 will result in reduced VMT by project employees and be implemented continuously, at all times, throughout the life of the project and maintain a VMT reduction to less than significant levels at all times. The efficacy of the proposed mitigation measures and reduction of VMT impacts below the applicable thresholds cannot be assured and the project’s VMT impact is therefore considered significant and unavoidable. A revised EIR must be prepared to include a finding of significance because there is no possible assurance of the percentage of project employees that would utilize non-automobile travel associated with implementation of Project Design Feature T-2, Mitigation Measure TR-1, T-7, T-8, and T-10 and mitigation of the project’s VMT impact to less than significant is not feasible. Mitigation Measure TRA-1 includes a provision that if new TDM measures are proposed by the site owner or tenant after City approval of the TDM plan, a new TDM plan shall be submitted for review and approval and shall include analysis that demonstrates that the selected measures are expected to achieve the same or greater trip and VMT reductions as demonstrated by the Project- specific analysis conducted in the DEIR. The DEIR has disclosed potential environmental impacts with supporting evidence for these conclusions. No revisions to the EIR are necessary based on this comment, and preparation and recirculation of a revised EIR is not required. Exhibit D.1 Responses to Comments RTC-18 Letter Number Comment Number Commenter Comment Response 7 13 Gary Ho, Blum, Collins & Ho LLP, on behalf of Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance Further, the EIR has underreported the quantity VMT generated by the proposed project operations. The operational nature of industrial/warehouse uses involves high rates of truck/trailer/delivery van VMT due to traveling from large import hubs to regional distribution centers to smaller industrial parks and then to their final delivery d estinations. Once employees arrive at work at the proposed project, they will conduct their jobs by driving delivery vans across the region as part of the daily operations as a fulfillment center, which will drastically increase project-generated VMT. The project’s truck/trailer and delivery van activity is unable to utilize public transit or active transportation and it is misleading to the public and decision makers to exclude this activity from VMT analysis. The project’s total operational VMT generated is not consistent with the significance threshold and legislative intent of SB 743 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing VMT. A revised EIR must be prepared to reflect a quantified VMT analysis that includes all truck/trailer and delivery van activity. The VMT per employee for the Project, as well as the Project’s total VMT, was calculated using the Southern California Association of Governments Regional Travel Demand Model (SCAG RTDM). The Project is located within Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) 21791300 and the existing land uses within the TAZ include a mix of residential, commercial, and industrial uses. The proposed Project is consistent with the land uses within the TAZ and thus, existing VMT per employee for the TAZ is an adequate proxy for the VMT per employee expected to be generated by the proposed Project. The City of Downey has not formally adopted VMT guidelines, but instead follows the methodology set forth in the Los Angeles County Public Works Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines. These guidelines provide that VMT per employee is calculated based on trips between an employee’s home and their workplace. The method of forecasting VMT used for this Project is consistent with the County guidelines. For additional discussion of how VMT was calculated for this Project, please see Appendix L Transportation Impact Study and Section 4.11 Transportation Impacts of the DEIR. The DEIR has disclosed potential environmental impacts with supporting evidence for these conclusions. No revisions to the EIR are necessary based on this comment, and preparation and recirculation of a revised EIR is not required. 7 14 Gary Ho, Blum, Collins & Ho LLP, on behalf of Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance The EIR has not adequately analyzed the project’s potential to substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses; or the project’s potential to result in inadequate emergency access. There are no exhibits adequately depicting the available maneuvering and queueing space for trucks/trailers at the intersection of the project driveways and the adjacent streets. There are also no exhibits adequately depicting the onsite turning radius available for trucks maneuvering throughout the site. Notably, passenger car parking stalls are located immediately adjacent to the truck/trailer loading dock court on each side of the building. These parking stalls may be in use at any time and further restrict truck/trailer movement on the site and present a safety hazard with potential for conflicts between passenger cars and trucks/trailers. Additionally, all proposed driveways on the project site will be utilized for access by both truck/trailers and passenger cars. The overall site design presents several potential conflicts in maneuvering area for both passenger cars and trucks/trailers that have not been analyzed. Hazards due to geometric design of the Project and emergency access are both evaluated in Section 4.11.6 of the DEIR. The Project has been designed in such a way that would not create geometric hazards. As shown on Figure 2-6, Project Site Plan, of the DEIR, four 26-foot-wide fire lanes are included in the Project design in order to ensure adequate emergency access throughout Project operations. The site plan has been developed to allow for adequate space for trucks to safely maneuver around the site during Project operations. Four driveways are located on the site, two on Hall Road and two on Stewart and Gray Road. The location of the driveways has been designed to provide adequate spacing from intersections in compliance with applicable engineering design standards. The site plans have been reviewed by City engineers and the Fire Department to identify and address any traffic hazard issues. For additional information please see Section 4.11, Transportation, of the DEIR. Exhibit D.1 Responses to Comments RTC-19 Letter Number Comment Number Commenter Comment Response 7 15 Gary Ho, Blum, Collins & Ho LLP, on behalf of Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance The EIR also states that, “The design of improvements at the Project site would be required to conform with applicable City and Downey Fire Department design criteria which contain provisions to minimize transportation hazards and provide emergency access. Based on compliance with City and Downey Fire Department design criteria, and the City’s review process for approval of Project design and plans, impacts associated with hazards due to geometric design would be less than significant.” This does not comply with CEQA’s requirements for adequate informational documents and meaningful disclosure (CEQA § 15121 and 21003(b)). Deferring this environmental analysis required by CEQA to the construction permitting phase is improper mitigation and does not comply with CEQA’s requirement for meaningful disclosure and adequate informational documents. A revised EIR must be prepared to include the City determination/review of the project and the Site Plan for review, analysis, and comment by the public and decision makers in order to provide an adequate and accurate environmental analysis. The site plan for the Project was included in the DEIR as Figure 2-6 , Project Site Plan, in Chapter 2, Project Description. An analysis of the P roject’s potential hazards due to geometric design is included in Section 4.11.6 of the DEIR. Please refer to the site plan and Section 4.11 Transportation for additional information. The Project has undergone multiple plan checks as part of the entitlement process and the design has accounted for City review regarding potential transportation hazards. This is not deferral of analysis of the potential for hazards, but rather part of the entitlement and design process. The DEIR has disclosed potential environmental impacts with supporting evidence for these conclusions. No revisions to the EIR are necessary based on this comment, and preparation and recirculation of a revised EIR is not required. 7 16 Gary Ho, Blum, Collins & Ho LLP, on behalf of Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance Additionally, the EIR has not provided any analysis of the available horizontal and vertical sight distance at the intersection of the project driveways and adjacent streets. The EIR states that, “The Project site access points from Stewart and Gray Road and Hall Road would be designed in accordance with City standards to consider adequate sight distances for both directions,” without providing any analysis or exhibits demonstrating compliance with these standards or describing what the City standards r equire. Sight distance is the continuous length of street ahead visible to the driver. At unsignalized intersections, corner sight distance must provide a substantially clear line of sight between the driver of the vehicle waiting on the minor road (driveway) and the driver of an approaching vehicle. A revised EIR must be prepared with this analysis based on the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Stopping Sight Distance requirements. Adequate site distances for Project operations would be provided based on compliance with applicable City engineering standards. S ight distances have been reviewed by City engineering staff as part of the City’s plan checks associated with the discretionary approvals of the ongoing entitlement process. The DEIR has disclosed potential environmental impacts with supporting evidence for these conclusions. No revisions to the EIR are necessary based on this comment, and preparation and recirculation of a revised EIR is not required. Exhibit D.1 Responses to Comments RTC-20 Letter Number Comment Number Commenter Comment Response 7 17 Gary Ho, Blum, Collins & Ho LLP, on behalf of Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance 5.0 Alternatives The EIR is required to evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project which will avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project (CEQA § 15126.6.). The alternatives chosen for analysis include the CEQA required “No Project” alternative and only three others - Reuse of Existing Buildings, Reduced Building Height, and Reduced Project. The EIR does not evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives as only three alternatives beyond the required No Project alternative are analyzed. The EIR does not include an alternative that meets the project objectives and also eliminates all of the project’s significant and unavoidable impacts. The EIR must be revised to include analysis of a reasonable range of alternatives and foster informed decision making (CEQA § 15126.6). This could include alternatives such as development of the site with a project that reduces all of the proposed project’s significant and unavoidable impacts to less than significant levels while meeting all project objectives, and/or a mixed-use project that provides affordable housing and local-serving commercial uses that may reduce VMT, GHG emissions, and improve Air Quality. CEQA does not require an EIR to evaluate a certain number of alternatives, nor does it require an EIR to identify an alternative that completely avoids all significant impacts and meets all project objectives. Chapter 5.0, Alternatives, of the DEIR discusses the alternatives analyzed for this Project. As stated by the commenter, this chapter identifies four alternatives to the proposed P roject: a No Project alternative, a Reuse of Existing Buildings Alternative, a Reduced Building Height alternative, and a Reduced Project alternative. These four alternatives represent a reasonable range of alternatives as described by the CEQA Guidelines. Section 5.2 describes alternatives that were considered but not carried forward for further analysis, including an alternative site location and alternatives to reduce potential VMT impacts. These alternatives were considered because of their potential to lessen significant impacts identified in the DEIR; however, they were ultimately not carried forward for further analysis because they did not meet the P roject O bjectives or were infeasible. The four alternatives carried forward for further analysis in Chapter 5.0 Alternatives represent a reasonable range of alternatives. The City was not able to identify any alternatives in which both the Project Objectives were met and all of the significant impacts were avoided, and therefore no such alternative could be evaluated. The DEIR has disclosed potential environmental impacts with supporting evidence for these conclusions. No revisions to the EIR are necessary based on this comment, and preparation and recirculation of a revised EIR is not required. 7 18 Gary Ho, Blum, Collins & Ho LLP, on behalf of Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance 6.2 Significant Irreversible Environmental Effects and 6.3 Growth Inducing Impacts The EIR has improperly credited the project with emissions reductions for “existing uses” that do not comply with CEQA, which has resulted in unduly low impacts and this section of analysis must be updated in accordance with revised modeling as part of a revised EIR. As discussed above, nearly every area of environmental analysis credits the project with various VMT, trip generation, and emissions reductions based on existing trips at the site based on emissions default rates/average rates/rates derived from other properties “existing uses” at the site the EIR has not proven to exist. For example, Appendix L states that “ITE Land Use Code 110 (General Light Industrial) trip generation average rates were used to forecast the expected traffic generation for the existing uses.” It is nonsensical to utilize ITE average/default rates to calculate trip generation for “existing uses” instead of taking trip counts at the project site, particularly if the site were actually operational with tenants conducting business. This does not comply with CEQA Guidelines Section 15125. The EIR overstates the existing operations at the project site to artificially inflate “existing” emissions, trip generation, and VMT, which subsequently reduces the “net new” quantity of emissions, trip generation, and VMT generated by the proposed project Please see response to comment #3 of letter #7 above which explains why modeling was used for existing trip calculations. Please see response to comment #8 of letter #7 above regarding LOS analysis in the DEIR. Please see response to comment #13 of letter #7 above regarding the VMT analysis in the DEIR. Please see response to comment #7 of letter #7 above regarding the City’s current General Plan and the cumulative analysis in the DEIR. The commenter has stated that the DEIR tiers from the General Plan EIR are incorrect. The DEIR prepared for this Project does not tier from any other EIR. The DEIR has disclosed potential environmental impacts with supporting evidence for these conclusions. No revisions to the EIR are necessary based on this comment, and preparation and recirculation of a revised EIR is not required. Exhibit D.1 Responses to Comments RTC-21 Letter Number Comment Number Commenter Comment Response and skews impacts downwards. A revised EIR must be prepared to remove any credit given for the “existing” operations in all areas of analysis in order to accurately and adequately analyze the project’s significant impacts in accordance in order to provide an adequate and accurate environmental analysis. A revised EIR must be prepared to include a cumulative analysis discussion here to demonstrate the impact of the proposed project in a cumulative setting. The EIR does not include any information regarding the buildout conditions of the City’s General Plan in order to provide an adequate and accurate cumulative analysis. The revised EIR must provide the horizon year of the City’s current adopted General Plan, the total developable building floor area analyzed within the General Manufacturing land use designation, and cumulative development since adoption of the General Plan to ensure that the proposed project is within the General Plan EIR’s analysis, particularly since the EIR tiers from the General Plan EIR. 7 19 Gary Ho, Blum, Collins & Ho LLP, on behalf of Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance The EIR relies upon erroneous Energy modeling to determine that the project will meet sustainability requirements. As noted above, the EIR did not model the project’s energy consumption in compliance with Title 24 modeling software. The EIR must be revised to include a finding of significance as it has not adequately or accurately analyzed the project’s commitment of resources. As discussed in the response to comment #6 of letter #7, above, a quantitative analysis of P roject Title 24 building energy use is not a CEQA requirement, it is a statutory requirement to be completed prior to issuing P roject building permits. The DEIR has disclosed potential environmental impacts with supporting evidence for these conclusions. No revisions to the EIR are necessary based on this comment, and preparation and recirculation of a revised EIR is not required. 7 20 Gary Ho, Blum, Collins & Ho LLP, on behalf of Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance The EIR does not adequately discuss or and analyze the commitment of resources is not consistent with regional and local growth forecasts. As noted throughout this comment letter, the project represents a significant amount of growth in the City and accounts for a significant amount of the City’s employment growth over 29 years (SCAG) and through the City’s General Plan horizon year of 2025. The EIR has not provided an adequate or accurate cumulative analysis discussion here to demonstrate the impact of the proposed project in a cumulative setting. The EIR must be revised to include this information for analysis and also include a cumulative development analysis of projects approved since General Plan adoption, 2016 (SCAG), and projects “in the pipeline” to determine if the proposed project exceeds the General Plan buildout scenario and/or SCAG’s growth forecasts. Please see response to comment #7 of letter #7 above regarding the City’s current General Plan and the cumulative analysis in the DEIR. The DEIR has disclosed potential environmental impacts with supporting evidence for these conclusions. No revisions to the EIR are necessary based on this comment, and preparation and recirculation of a revised EIR is not required. Exhibit D.1 Responses to Comments RTC-22 Letter Number Comment Number Commenter Comment Response 7 21 Gary Ho, Blum, Collins & Ho LLP, on behalf of Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance Effects Found Not to be Significant: Population and Housing The EIR states that “It is anticipated that the proposed Project will generate approximately 300 construction jobs and approximately 250 permanent jobs.” However, the source of this calculation is not included. There are no methods for the public to verify that the project would only generate approximately 300 construction jobs and approximately 250 permanent jobs. The EIR utilizes uncertain and misleading language in stating that, “During both construction and operations, the Project is expected to hire from the existing population in the area,” which does not provide any meaningful analysis or calculation of the project’s population and employment (construction and operational) generation. Additionally, the geographic boundaries of the “area” of the project site are undefined. Relying on the entire labor force within Los Angeles County to fill the project’s construction and operational jobs will increase VMT and emissions during all phases of construction and operations and a revised EIR must be prepared to account for longer worker trip distances. In order to comply with CEQA’s requirements for meaningful disclosure and adequate informational documents, a revised EIR must be prepared to provide an accurate estimate of employees generated by all uses of the proposed project. It must also provide demographic and geographic information on the location of qualified workers to fill these positions. The EIR has not accurately provided a calculation of the project’s operational employees that accounts for all onsite uses, including proposed office areas. SCAG’s Employment Density Study provides the following applicable average employment generation rates for Los Angeles County: Warehouse: 1 employee per 1,518 square feet Office: 1 employee per 319 square feet Applying these ratios results in the following calculation: Warehouse: 490,685 sf / 1,518 = 324 employees Office: 45,000 sf/ 319 = 142 employees Total: 466 employees Estimates of Project construction jobs and permanent jobs during Project operations come from the Project Applicant and reflect the anticipated operations of the Project based on their similar facilities. As noted in Section 2.5.1, Proposed Land Uses and Operations, of the EIR, the proposed office space would be used for office uses ancillary to the warehouse operations and would not represent a stand-alone land use. Due to the population density in and around the City of Downey, as well as the availability of skilled workers in the area, it is not anticipated that additional workers will need to move to the City in order to fill either the jobs available during e ither construction or operations of the Project. Please see Section 4.11, Transportation, and Appendix L, Transportation Impact Study, for information about how VMT was calculated, as well as response to comment #13 of Letter #7 above. The DEIR has provided meaningful disclosure of potential environmental impacts with supporting evidence for these conclusions. Demographic and geographic information on the location of qualified workers to fill the construction and operation roles of the Project would be too speculative to provide at this time and is therefore not necessary. No revisions to the EIR are necessary based on this comment, and preparation of a revised EIR is not required. Exhibit D.1 Responses to Comments RTC-23 Letter Number Comment Number Commenter Comment Response 7 22 Gary Ho, Blum, Collins & Ho LLP, on behalf of Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance Utilizing SCAG’s Employment Density Study ratios and accounting for all proposed uses, the proposed project will generate 466 employees. The EIR utilizes uncertain and misleading language which does not provide any meaningful analysis of the project’s population and employment generation. In order to comply with CEQA’s requirements for meaningful disclosure, a revised EIR must be prepared to provide an accurate estimate of employees generated by all uses of the proposed project. It must also provide demographic and geographic information on the location of qualified workers to fill these positions. A construction worker employment analysis must also be included to analyze all potentially significant environmental impacts adequately and accurately. The EIR does not provide any information regarding the buildout conditions of the City’s General Plan. Table 3.3-1: Housing/Population/Employment Projections of the General Plan Downey Vision 2025 EIR notes that the City’s employment population would increase by 4,900 jobs through the horizon year of 2025. The proposed project accounts for 9.5% of employees through the entire General Plan buildout/horizon year of 2025, which has not been presented for analysis. SCAG’s Connect SoCal Demographics and Growth Forecast states that the City will add 2,900 jobs between 2016 - 2045. Utilizing the SCAG Employment Density Study calculation of 466 employees, the project represents 16% of the City’s employment growth from 2016 - 2045. A single project accounting for this amount of growth within the City over 29 years represents a significant amount of growth. A revised EIR must be prepared to include this analysis, and also provide a cumulative analysis discussion of projects approved since 2016 and projects “i n the pipeline” to determine if the project will exceed the City’s General Plan employment projections or SCAG’s employment growth forecast. Please see response to comment #21 of Letter #7 above regarding projected employment. A construction worker employment analysis would be too speculative at this point in time and is not required. Section 15145 of the CEQA Guidelines states that a Lead Agency is not required to evaluate speculative impacts. Please see response to comment #7 of Letter #7 above regarding the City’s current General Plan and the cumulative analysis in the DEIR. The DEIR has disclosed potential environmental impacts with supporting evidence for these conclusions. No revisions to the EIR are necessary based on this comment, and preparation and recirculation of a revised EIR is not required. 7 23 Gary Ho, Blum, Collins & Ho LLP, on behalf of Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance For the foregoing reasons, GSEJA believes the EIR is flawed and a revised EIR must be prepared for the proposed project and circulated for public review. Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance requests to be added to the public interest list regarding any subsequent environmental documents, public notices, public hearings, and notices of determination for this project. Send all communications to Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance P.O. Box 79222 Corona, CA 92877 The commenter’s interest in the proposed Project has been noted and they will be added to the distribution list for future notifications regarding the Project. The DEIR has disclosed potential environmental impacts with supporting evidence for these conclusions. Specific issues raised by the commenter have been addressed in responses to comments #1-22 of Letter #7 above. Specific issues raised by the commenter in the attached letter from SWAPE have bee n addressed below in responses to comments #24-35 of Letter #7. No revisions to the EIR are necessary based on these comments , and preparation and recirculation of a revised EIR is not required. Exhibit D.1 Responses to Comments RTC-24 Letter Number Comment Number Commenter Comment Response 7 24 Attachment: SWAPE We have reviewed the December 2023 Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) for the Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project (“Project”) located in the City of Downey (“City”). The Project proposes to demolish the existing buildings and construct a 535,685-square-foot (“SF”) industrial building, 20,000-SF of office space, 255 trailer parking spaces, and 683 auto parking spaces on the 29.16- acre site. Our review concludes that the DEIR fails to adequately evaluate the Project’s air quality, and health risk impacts. As a result, emissions and health risk impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project may be underestimated and inadequately addressed. A revised Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential air quality, and health risk impacts that the project may have on the environment. The commenter presents an introduction to their comments and presents a summary of the P roject. Their comments related to air quality and health risk impacts are addressed in responses to comments #25 through #33 of Letter #7. The DEIR has disclosed potential environmental impacts with supporting evidence for these conclusions. No revisions to the EIR are necessary based on this comment, and preparation and recirculation of a revised EIR is not required. 7 25 Attachment: SWAPE Air Quality Failure to Provide Complete CalEEMod Output Files Land use development projects under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) typically evaluate air quality impacts and calculate potential criteria air pollutant emissions using the California Emissions Estimator Model (“CalEEMod”). CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on site-specific information, such as land use type, meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type and typical equipment associated with project type. If more specific project information is known, the user can change the default values and input project-specific values, but CEQA requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence. Once all of the values are inputted into the model, the Project’s construction and operational emissions are calculated, and “output files” are generated. These output files disclose to the reader what parameters are used in calculating the Project’s air pollutant emissions and demonstrate which default values are changed. Justifications are provided for the selected values. According to the DEIR, CalEEMod Version 2022 is relied upon to estimate Project emissions (p. 4.2-13). However, this poses a problem as the version of CalEEMod 2022.1 currently available is described as a “soft release” which fails to provide complete output files. Specifically, the “User Changes to Default Data” table no longer provides the quantitative counterparts to the changes to the default values (see excerpt below) (Appendix B, pp. 476): [see PDF of original comment letter] However, previous CalEEMod Versions, such as 2020.4.0, include the specific numeric changes to the model’s default values (see example excerpt below): The commenter is mistaken concerning the status of CalEEMod version 2022.1 used to evaluate P roject air quality and GHG emissions impact. As shown in the CalEEMod Downey Prologis Project Detailed Report (the CalEEMod output report included in Appendix B to the DEIR), CalEEMod version 2022.1.1.19 was used for P roject analysis and analysis of the existing land use on the project site. Version 2022.1.1.19, released on September 6, 2023, was the most current version of CalEEMod available at the time of the analysis. All CalEEMod versions from 2022.1.13 (released December 21, 2022) onward are approved models, not “soft release”. The “.JSON” files mentioned by the commenter are not “output” file, they are data files read by the web-based CalEEMod program. These data files are not printable files that are typically included with P roject public review DEIR files. However, the P roject “.JSON” files could be requested from the City. The commenter made no such request for P roject modeling files. The CalEEMod detailed report output files included in Appendix B to the DEIR contain all parameters to enable someone knowledgeable in the use of CalEEEMod and air quality analysis to recreate the model on the CalEEMod website. The commenter has not provided any substantial evidence in this comment or related preceding comments that air quality emissions impacts would be more severe than concluded in the DEIR. No revisions to the EIR are required. Exhibit D.1 Responses to Comments RTC-25 Letter Number Comment Number Commenter Comment Response [see PDF of original comment letter] The output files associated with CalEEMod Version 2022.1 fail to present the exact parameters used to calculate Project emissions. To remedy this issue, the DEIR should have provided access to the model’s “.JSON” output files, which allow third parties to review the model’s revised input parameters. Without access to the complete output files, including the specific numeric changes to the default values, we cannot verify that the DEIR’s air modeling and subsequent analysis is an accurate reflection of the p roposed Project. As a result, a revised EIR should be prepared to include an updated air quality analysis that correctly provides the complete output files for CalEEMod Version 2022.1, or includes an updated air model using an older release of CalEEMod. 7 26 Attachment: SWAPE Unsubstantiated Input Parameters Used to Estimate Project Emissions As previously discussed, the DEIR relies on CalEEMod Version 2022.1 to estimate the Project’s air quality emissions and fails to provide the complete output files required to adequately evaluate model’s analysis (p. 4.2-13). Regardless, when reviewing the Project’s CalEEMod output files, provided in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report (“AQ & GHG Report”) as Appendix B to the DEIR, we were able to identify several model inputs that are inconsistent with information disclosed in the DEIR. As such, the Project’s construction and operational emissions may be underestimated. A revised EIR should be prepared to include an updated air quality analysis that adequately evaluates the impacts that construction and operation of the Project will have on local and regional air quality. See the response to comment #25 of Letter #7, above, concerning the model selected for air quality and GHG emissions impact analysis and the supporting evidence provided in Appendix B to the DEIR. The commenter does not specify what “model inputs that are inconsistent with information disclosed in the DEIR” are referred to. The commenter has not provided any substantial evidence in this comment or related following comments that air quality and GHG emissions impacts would be more severe than concluded in the DEIR. No revisions to the EIR are required. 7 27 Attachment: SWAPE Unsubstantiated Changes to Architectural Coating Emission Factors Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Downey Prologis Project R2” model includes changes to the default architectural coating emission factors (see excerpt below) (Appendix B, pp. 476). As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified. As demonstrated above in the “User Changes to Default Data” table, the justification provided for these changes is: “Building envelope and flat coating VOC limit 50 g/l per SCAQMD Rule 1113” (Appendix B, pp. 476). However, the reductions to the architectural coating emission factors remain unsubstantiated for three reasons. First, these changes remain unsubstantiated as the AQ & GHG Report fails to include the abovementioned project design feature (“PDF”) as a formal mitigation measure. This is incorrect, as according to the Association of Environmental Professionals’ (“AEP”) CEQA Portal Topic Paper on Mitigation Measures: The volatile organic compound (VOC) content for the P roject building exterior and interior coatings was changed from the CalEEMod default of 100 g/L to 50 g/L in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 1113, as discussed in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report Section 4.1.2.1 and as noted in Section 8 of the P roject CalEEMod Detailed Report, included in Appendix B to the DEIR. SCAQMD Rule 1113 specifies a maximum VOC content limit for standards paints anticipated to be used for the P roject building: 50 g/L for exterior surfaces (“Building Envelope Coatings”), and 50 g/L for interior surfaces (“Flat Coatings” and/or “Nonflat Coatings”). CEQA case law establishes that P roject impact analysis is not required to evaluate speculative worst-case scenarios and analysis should include reasonably foreseeable conditions (High Sierra Rural Alliance v County of Plumas, 2018 5th District Court of Appeal). There is no P roject-specific reasonably foreseeable condition which would require a specialty coating with a higher VOC content limit than 50 g/L to be used for P roject building interior or exterior surfaces painting. The commenter has not provided any substantial evidence that a coating with a higher VOC content than 50 g/L would be used during P roject construction or operation in sufficient quantity to result in a significant Exhibit D.1 Responses to Comments RTC-26 Letter Number Comment Number Commenter Comment Response “While not ‘mitigation’, a good practice is to include those project design feature(s) that address environmental impacts in the mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP). Often the MMRP is all that accompanies building and construction plans through the permit process. If the design features are not listed as important to addressing an environmental impact, it is easy for someone not involved in the original environmental process to approve a change to the project that could eliminate one or more of the design features without understanding the resulting environmental impact.” As demonstrated above, PDFs that are not formally included as mitigation measures may be eliminated from the Project’s design altogether. Until the DEIR and associated documents incorporate a formal mitigation measure that requires the Project to use low-v olatile organic compound (“VOC”) coatings, we cannot verify that the above changes are accurate. impact. VOC limits for building coatings are regulated by the SCAQMD and no Project design feature or mitigation measure would be required to ensure compliance. 7 28 Attachment: SWAPE Second, we cannot verify the accuracy of the revised architectural coating emission factors based on SCAQMD Rule 1113 alone. The SCAQMD Rule 1113 Table of Standards provides the required VOC limits (grams of VOC per liter of coating) for 57 different coating categories. The VOC limits for each coating varies from a minimum value of 50 g/L to a maximum value of 730 g/L. As such, we cannot verify that SCAQMD Rule 1113 substantiates reductions to the default coating values without more information regarding what category of coating will be used. As the DEIR fails to explicitly require the use of a specific type of coating which would adhere to a specific VOC limit, we are unable to verify the model’s revised coating emission factors. As discussed in the response to comment #27 of l etter #7, above, CEQA case law establishes that P roject impact analysis is required to evaluate reasonably foreseeable conditions, not speculative worst-case scenarios. There is no P roject-specific reasonably foreseeable condition which would require a specialty coating with a higher VOC content limit than 50 g/L to be used for project building interior or exterior surfaces painting. Citing the number of coating categories and the range of VOC content for those categories in the SCAQMD Rule1113 does not constitute substantial evidence of reasonably foreseeable conditions that the P roject building would be painted with coatings with higher VOC contents than 50 g/L. As discussed in the response to comment #27 of l etter #7, above, the modeling input concerning architectural coating VOC content was disclosed in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report Section 4.1.2.1 and as noted in Section 8 of the P roject CalEEMod Detailed Report, included in Appendix B to the DEIR. The commenter’s inability to verify P roject modeling does not constitute substantial evidence of a more severe impact than concluded in the DEIR. Exhibit D.1 Responses to Comments RTC-27 Letter Number Comment Number Commenter Comment Response 7 29 Attachment: SWAPE Third, as previously discussed, the output files for CalEEMod 2022.1 do not present the numeric changes to any model defaults. Upon further review of the output files, Table 5.5 contains the only mention of architectural coatings (see excerpt below) (Appendix B, pp. 464): However, as demonstrated above, Table 5.5 only provides the square footage of area to be coated. Since the output files fail to demonstrate the architectural coating emission factors that the model relies on, we cannot verify that the values included in the model are accurate. These unsubstantiated reductions present an issue, as CalEEMod uses the architectural coating emission factors to calculate the Project’s volatile organic compounds (“VOC”) emissions. By including unsubstantiated reductions to the default architectural coating emission factors, the model may underestimate the Project’s construction-related VOC emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. As discussed in responses to comments #27 and #28 of l etter #7, above, in the P roject air quality impact analysis, changes made to CalEEMod defaults for architectural coatings VOC content are substantiated by SCAQMD Rule 1113, as described in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report Section 4.1.2.1 and as noted in Section 8 of the P roject CalEEMod Detailed Report, included in Appendix B to the DEIR. The analysis correctly analyzed reasonably foreseeable conditions concerning the VOC content of paint to be used on the P roject buildings, based on compliance with SCAQMD regulations. The resulting P roject VOC emissions reported on the DEIR are not underestimated. The methodology used in the Project air quality impact analysis was adequately documented and can be relied on in the assessment of potential impacts. 7 30 Attachment: SWAPE Unsubstantiated Changes to Fleet Mix Values Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Downey Prologis Project R2” model includes changes to the default operational vehicle fleet mix percentages (see excerpt below) (Appendix B, pp. 476). However, these changes remain unsubstantiated. As previously discussed, the output files for CalEEMod 2022.1 do not present the numeric changes to any model defaults. Upon further review of the output files, changes to fleet mix percentages are not mentioned outside of the “User Changes to Default Data” table. Until the DEIR verifies the breakdown of heavy-heavy duty (“HHD”), medium-heavy duty (“MHD”), light heavy duty (“LHD1, LDH2”), trucks used by the Project, we cannot verify that the values included in the model are accurate. These unsubstantiated changes present an issue, as CalEEMod uses operational vehicle fleet mix percentages to calculate the Project’s operational emissions associated with on-road vehicles. By including several unsubstantiated changes to the default operational vehicle fleet mix percentages, the model may underestimate the Project’s mobile-source operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Changes were made to the CalEEMod default fleet mix to ensure the air quality and GHG impact analysis was consistent with the analysis in the TIS prepared for the P roject, in which a traffic engineer calculated P roject-specific truck trips. These changes are fully described in Section 4.1.2.3 of the P roject Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report included in Appendix B to the DEIR. As described in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report, the P roject-specific changes to model defaults for mobile sources are fully substantiated by the TIS (LLG 2023), the High-Cube Warehouse Vehicle Trip Generation Analysis report (Institute of Transportation Engineers 2016), and the SCAQMD Warehouse Indirect Source Rule Staff Report (SCAQMD 2021). The analysis correctly evaluated reasonably foreseeable conditions of P roject truck trips and passenger vehicle trips, based on the substantial evidence described above. The resulting P roject criteria pollutant and precursor emissions reported on the DEIR are not underestimated. The m ethodology used in the Project air quality impact analysis was adequately documented and can be relied on in the assessment of potential impacts. Exhibit D.1 Responses to Comments RTC-28 Letter Number Comment Number Commenter Comment Response 7 31 Attachment: SWAPE Updated Analysis Indicates a Potentially Significant Air Quality Impact In an effort to more accurately estimate the Project’s construction-related and operational emissions, we used CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0, as well as the Project-specific information provided by the DEIR. Consistent with the DEIR’s models, we included 488,900-SF of “Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail,” 26,785-SF of “Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail,” 20,000-SF of “General Office Building,” 15.7-acres (zero SF) of “Parking Lot,” and 12,360-SF of “Other Asphalt Surfaces.” Additionally, we omitted the unsubstantiated changes to the architectural coating emission factors and operational vehicle fleet mix. Our updated analysis estimates that the Project’s construction-related VOC emissions would exceed the applicable South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”) threshold of 75-pounds per day (“lbs/day”), as referenced by the DEIR (p. 4.2-12, Table 4.2-6) (see table below). As demonstrated in the table above, the Project’s construction-related VOC emissions, as estimated by SWAPE, increase by approximately 78% and exceed the applicable SCAQMD significance threshold. Our updated model demonstrates that the Project would result in a potentially significant air quality impact that was not previously identified or addressed in the DEIR. A revised EIR should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential air quality impacts that the Project may have on the surrounding environment. The commenter’s analysis is without merit and uses CalEEMod version 2020.4.0 which was superseded by CalEEMod Version 2022.1, which was the version approved for use in P roject impact analysis at the time that the DEIR was prepared. The defaults for CalEEMod versions 2020.4.0 utilize outdated model defaults, such as EMFAC2017 (which has been superseded by EMFAC2021) and does not include data from the Southern California Association of Governments’ regional travel demand model. In addition, the commenter’s model does not include the P roject-specific changes to model defaults identified in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report included in Appendix B to the DEIR. The commenter’s argument that the P roject air quality and GHG emissions modeling changes to CalEEMod defaults are unsubstantiated is without merit, as discussed in the response to comments #27 through #30 of l etter #7 above. The DEIR has disclosed potential environmental impacts with supporting evidence for these conclusions. No revisions to the EIR are necessary based on this comment, and preparation and recirculation of a revised EIR is not required. 7 32 Attachment: SWAPE Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions Inadequately Evaluated The DEIR concludes that the proposed Project would result in a less-than significant health risk impact based on a quantified construction and mobile-source operational health risk assessment (“HRA”). Specifically, the DEIR estimates that the maximum incremental cancer risk posed to nearby, existing residential sensitive receptors associated with exposure to diesel particulate matter (“DPM”) emissions during Project construction and operation would be 5.3 in one million, which would not exceed the SCAQMD significance threshold of 10 in one million (p. 4.2-29, Table 4.2-13). As demonstrated above, the DEIR indicates that the maximum incremental cancer risk would be 5.3 chance per million over a 30-year period. However, the DEIR’s evaluation of the Project’s potential health risk impacts, as well as the subsequent less-than-significant impact conclusion, is incorrect for two reasons. First, the DEIR’s construction HRA is incorrect, as it relies upon emissions estimates from an unsubstantiated air model, as discussed above in section of this letter titled “Unsubstantiated Input Parameters Used to Estimate Project Emissions.” As a result, the HRA may rely on an underestimated The commenter is mistaken; the model used to quantify P roject construction- equipment diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions was CalEEMod 2022.1.1.19, which was the most current approved and recommended model for quantifying emissions for use in CEQA impact analysis in California at the time of the analysis. The CalEEMod methodology and default data sources are substantiated in the CalEEMod Version 2022.1 User’s Guide, and appendices C, D, and G to the User’s Guide. All changes to CalEEMod defaults with P roject specific assumptions were substantiated in Section 4.1 of the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report included in Appendix B to the DEIR, and as discussed in the responses to comments #27 through #31 of l etter #7, above. As described in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report, Section 4.1.4, P roject construction and operational truck DPM emissions were calculated using truck trips estimates from the P roject TIS (LLG 2023) the High-Cube Warehouse Vehicle Trip Generation Analysis report (Institute of Transportation Engineers 2016), and emissions factors from the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB’s) EMFAC2021 version 1.0.2 online database. Exhibit D.1 Responses to Comments RTC-29 Letter Number Comment Number Commenter Comment Response DPM concentration to calculate the health risk associated with Project construction. The DEIR’s construction HRA and the resulting cancer risk should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Second, the DEIR fails to mention the exposure assumptions for the construction-related and operational HRAs, such as age sensitivity factors (“ASF”) or fraction of time at home (“FAH”) values whatsoever. Until the DEIR substantiates the use of correct exposure assumptions, the HRAs may underestimate the cancer risk posed to nearby, existing sensitive receptors due to Project construction and operation. Furthermore, according to the Risk Assessment Guidelines provided by the Office of Environmental Health H azard Assessment (OEHHA), the organization responsible for providing guidance on conducting HRAs in California, the DEIR’s HRA should have used the following equation: [see full letter included in attachment] However, the DEIR fails to mention or provide a dose and risk equation to calculate the Project’s construction and operational cancer risks. As such, we cannot verify that the DEIR’s HRA is accurate, and the Project’s cancer risks may be underestimated. The commenter is also mistaken about age sensitivity factors and fraction of time at home. As described in Section 4.1 in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report, included in Appendix B to the DEIR, Project health risks were determined using CARB’s Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP) Air Dispersion Modeling and Risk Tool (ADMRT) version 22118. The ADMRT automatically applies age sensitivity factors based on the age bins included in the model. As described in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report, for residential health risks, the model assumed 30 years of exposure, starting with infants in utero in the third trimester of pregnancy. Therefore, all age sensitivity factors are accounted for in the Project health risk assessment. For the fraction of time at home, because there are no schools near the modeled receptors, fraction of time at home adjustments were applied to age bins 3-years and older using the ADMRT selectable option. The fraction of time at home selected options can be verified in the HRA output included in Appendix B to the DEIR: in the Residential Cancer Risk ADMRT output summary sheets, the modeled scenario is listed as “30YrCancerRMP_Inh_FAH3to70.” This scenario means: 30 years total exposure, risk management policy (RMP) intake rate percentile, inhalation only, and fraction of time at home (FAH) selected for age bins 3 through 70 years old. The equation shown in the comment would be applicable if health risks were calculated off-model. However, the health risks results shown in the DEIR Section 4.2 were calculated using the CARB’s ADMRT which automates the risk calculation. The model and the methodology used by the ADMRT is publicly available on CARB’s website at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/harp-air-dispersion- modeling-and-risk-tool. There is no requirement to “mention or provide a dose and risk equation” in the documentation of the health risk assessment methodology. Potential cancer risks resulting from Project-related DPM emissions, as reported in the DEIR, were not underestimated. The commenter’s inability to verify Project modeling does not constitute substantial evidence of a more severe impact than concluded in the DEIR. Exhibit D.1 Responses to Comments RTC-30 Letter Number Comment Number Commenter Comment Response 7 33 Attachment: SWAPE Mitigation Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions Our analysis demonstrates that the Project would result in potentially significant air quality and health impacts that should be mitigated further. In an effort to reduce emissions, the Project should consider the implementation of the following mitigation measures found in the California Department of Justice Warehouse Project Best Practices document. • Requiring off-road construction equipment to be hybrid electric- diesel or zero emission, where available, and all diesel-fueled off- road construction equipment to be equipped with CARB Tier IV- compliant engines or better, and including this requirement in applicable bid documents, purchase orders, and contracts, with successful contractors demonstrating the ability to supply the compliant construction equipment for use prior to any ground- disturbing and construction activities. • Prohibiting off-road diesel-powered equipment from being in the “on” position for more than 10 hours per day. • Using electric-powered hand tools, forklifts, and pressure washers, and providing electrical hook ups to the power grid rather than use of diesel-fueled generators to supply their power. • Designating an area in the construction site where electric-powered construction vehicles and equipment can charge. Limiting the amount of daily grading disturbance area. The commenter is mistaken; no information or analysis was provided in the comment letter which demonstrates air quality or health impacts would be potentially significant and would require mitigation. As discussed in the responses to comments #27 through #32 of Letter #7, above, the commenter’s argument that the modeling used was unsubstantiated and that P roject-specific changes to model defaults were unsubstantiated is without merit. As discussed in the DEIR S ection 4.2, the P roject would not result in any potentially significant air quality impacts, and no mitigation measures would be required. • Prohibiting grading on days with an Air Quality Index forecast of greater than 100 for particulates or ozone for the project area. • Forbidding idling of heavy equipment for more than three minutes. • Keeping onsite and furnishing to the lead agency or other regulators upon request, all equipment maintenance records and data sheets, including design specifications and emission control tier classifications. • Conducting an on-site inspection to verify compliance with construction mitigation and to identify other opportunities to further reduce construction impacts. • Using paints, architectural coatings, and industrial maintenance coatings that have volatile organic compound levels of less than 10 g/L. • Providing information on transit and ridesharing programs and services to construction employees. Exhibit D.1 Responses to Comments RTC-31 Letter Number Comment Number Commenter Comment Response • Providing meal options onsite or shuttles between the facility and nearby meal destinations for construction employees. • Requiring all heavy-duty vehicles engaged in drayage to or from the project site to be zero emission beginning in 2030. • Requiring all on-site motorized operational equipment, such as forklifts and yard trucks, to be zero-emission with the necessary charging or fueling stations provided. • Requiring tenants to use zero-emission light- and medium-duty vehicles as part of business operations. • Forbidding trucks from idling for more than three minutes and requiring operators to turn off engines when not in use. • Posting both interior- and exterior-facing signs, including signs directed at all dock and delivery areas, identifying idling restrictions and contact information to report violations to CARB, the local air district, and the building manager. • Installing solar photovoltaic systems on the project site of a specified electrical generation capacity that is equal to or greater than the building’s projected energy needs, including all electrical chargers. • Designing all project building roofs to accommodate the maximum future coverage of solar panels and installing the maximum solar power generation capacity feasible. • Constructing zero-emission truck charging/fueling stations proportional to the number of dock doors at the project. • Running conduit to designated locations for future electric truck charging stations. • Unless the owner of the facility records a covenant on the title of the underlying property ensuring that the property cannot be used to provide refrigerated warehouse space, constructing electric plugs for electric transport refrigeration units at every dock door and requiring truck operators with transport refrigeration units to use the electric plugs when at loading docks. Exhibit D.1 Responses to Comments RTC-32 Letter Number Comment Number Commenter Comment Response • Oversizing electrical rooms by 25 percent or providing a secondary electrical room to accommodate future expansion of electric vehicle charging capability. • Constructing and maintaining electric light-duty vehicle charging stations proportional to the number of employee parking spaces (for example, requiring at least 10% of all employee parking spaces to be equipped with electric vehicle charging stations of at least Level 2 charging performance) • Running conduit to an additional proportion of employee parking spaces for a future increase in the number of electric light-duty charging stations. • Installing and maintaining, at the manufacturer’s recommended maintenance intervals, air filtration systems at sensitive receptors within a certain radius of facility for the life of the project. • Installing and maintaining, at the manufacturer’s recommended maintenance intervals, an air monitoring station proximate to sensitive receptors and the facility for the life of the project, and making the resulting data publicly available in real time. While air monitoring does not mitigate the air quality or greenhouse gas impacts of a facility, it nonetheless benefits the affected community by providing information that can be used to improve air quality or avoid exposure to unhealthy air. • Requiring all stand-by emergency generators to be powered by a non-diesel fuel. • Requiring facility operators to train managers and employees on efficient scheduling and load management to eliminate unnecessary queuing and idling of trucks. • Requiring operators to establish and promote a rideshare program that discourages single occupancy vehicle trips and provides financial incentives for alternate modes of transportation, including carpooling, public transit, and biking. • Meeting CalGreen Tier 2 green building standards, including all provisions related to designated parking for clean air vehicles, electric vehicle charging, and bicycle parking. • Designing to LEED green building certification standards. • Providing meal options onsite or shuttles between the facility and nearby meal destinations. • Posting signs at every truck exit driveway providing directional information to the truck route. Exhibit D.1 Responses to Comments RTC-33 Letter Number Comment Number Commenter Comment Response • Improving and maintaining vegetation and tree canopy for residents in and around the project area. • Requiring that every tenant train its staff in charge of keeping vehicle records in diesel technologies and compliance with CARB regulations, by attending CARB-approved courses. Also require facility operators to maintain records on-site demonstrating compliance and make records available for inspection by the local jurisdiction, air district, and state upon request. • Requiring tenants to enroll in the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s SmartWay program, and requiring tenants who own, operate, or hire trucking carriers with more than 100 trucks to use carriers that are SmartWay carriers. • Providing tenants with information on incentive programs, such as the Carl Moyer Program and Voucher Incentive Program, to upgrade their fleets. These measures offer a cost-effective, feasible way to incorporate lower- emitting design features into the proposed Project, which subsequently, reduce emissions released during Project construction and operation. 7 34 Attachment: SWAPE Furthermore, as it is policy of the State that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100% of retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers by December 31, 2045, we emphasize the applicability of incorporating solar power system into the Project design. Until the feasibility of incorporating on-site renewable energy production is considered, the Project should not be approved. A revised EIR should be prepared to include all feasible mitigation measures, as well as include updated air quality and health risk analyses to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are implemented to reduce emissions to below thresholds. The revised EIR should also demonstrate a commitment to the implementation of these measures prior to Project approval, to ensure that the Project’s significant emissions are reduced to the maximum extent possible. As described in Section 2.5.4, Sustainability Features, of the DEIR, solar panels are included as part of the P roject design. The Project would include a solar-ready roof structure, with an 80 mil Thermoplastic Polyolefin Cool Roof and 5 pounds per square foot on roof structure to accommodate solar loads. Solar panels would be installed with a capability to generate a minimum of 3.13 watts per square foot of office space. The DEIR has disclosed potential environmental impacts with supporting evidence for these conclusions. As no significant impacts related to air quality or health risk are identified, no mitigation measures are required. No revisions to the EIR are necessary based on this comment, and preparation and recirculation of a revised EIR is not required. Exhibit D.1 Responses to Comments RTC-34 Letter Number Comment Number Commenter Comment Response 7 35 Attachment: SWAPE Disclaimer SWAPE has received limited discovery regarding this project. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties. This comment provides a disclaimer related to the above comments. No environmental issues related to the analysis presented in the DEIR are raised, and therefore no further response is necessary. 8 1 Victor Mineros, Teamsters Local 396 This letter is submitted on behalf of the members of Teamsters Local 396 and their families, who live and work in Downey and throughout the Los Angeles metropolitan area. The Teamsters represent hundreds of thousands of workers in the logistics industry. These members not only work in the logistics industry, but very often live in communities impacted by this industry. The Teamsters membership has committed to actively improving the industry not only through improved working conditions, wages, benefits and safety, but also by mitigating and eventually eliminating its negative impacts on the quality of life of our members, their families, and their communities. Teamsters are committed to making sure their workplace is safe and healthy not only for themselves, but for their families and neighbors. Prologis (the Applicant) is proposing demolishing five buildings, approximately 433,000 square feet of floor area, to construct a 510,110 sq. ft. industrial, concrete tilt-up logistics facility and approximately 25,000 additional square feet of ancillary uses (collectively the Project). The property, at the northwest corner of Stewart and Gray Road and Woodruff Avenue (the Site), sits approximately 700 feet from a fairly dense residential neighborhood to the west, beginning on the east side of Coldbrook Avenue. The facility would include cold-storage capacity, allowing for delivery of groceries and other fresh and frozen foodstuffs. The commenter has provided an introduction to their comments and a summary of the P roject D escription. No environmental issues related to the analysis presented in the DEIR are raised, and therefore no further response is necessary. Exhibit D.1 Responses to Comments RTC-35 Letter Number Comment Number Commenter Comment Response 8 2 Victor Mineros, Teamsters Local 396 Purpose of CEQA and EIR CEQA is designed to inform decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of a project. 14 Cal. Code Regs. (“Guidelines”) § 15002(a)(1). Its purpose is to “inform the public and its responsible officials” of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made. Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564. CEQA also requires public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage when “feasible” by requiring implementation of “environmentally superior” alternatives and all feasible mitigation measures. Guidelines § 15002(a)(2) and (3); Citizens of Goleta Valley, 52 Cal.3d at 564. If the project will have a significant effect on the environment, the agency may approve the project only if it finds that it has “eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible” and that any unavoidable significant effects on the environment are “acceptable due to overriding concerns.” Pub. Res. Code § 21081; Guidelines § 15092(b)(2)(A) and (B). CEQA requires that the “rationale for government approval” be disclosed to the public. California Building Industry Assn. v. Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 382. The commenter has provided a summary of CEQA requirements as an introduction to their comments. No environmental issues related to the analysis presented in the DEIR are raised, and therefore no further response is necessary. 8 3 Victor Mineros, Teamsters Local 396 Economic Impact/Urban Decay In our comment submitted in response to the Initial Study, we recommended conducting some degree of study to see what, if any, impacts would result from development of high-intensity retail delivery facilities, specifically with regards to existing brick-a nd-mortar retail (including big box stores) in Downey. This is an increasingly important area of study because of the potential for long-term commercial vacancies as a result of home delivery. Long-term vacancies can result in urban decay, and therefore degradation of the built environment, a change in driving and transit patterns, and other impacts that are properly subjects of CEQA review. The degradation of the built environment and changes in land use patterns must be reviewed before a final EIR is certified. Section 4.9, Land Use and Planning, of the DEIR evaluated the potential effects related to the built environment and land use patterns as required by CEQA. Chapter 6, Other CEQA Considerations, of the DEIR evaluated the P roject’s potential for growth inducement and found that the Project would not remove barriers to population growth or create growth that would overwhelm or exceed existing services. Please see Section 4.9 and Section 6.3 of the DEIR for additional information related to these topics. CEQA does not require analysis of economic effects pursuant to Section 15131 of the State CEQA Guidelines unless they can be tied to direct physical changes in the market area (i.e., physical deterioration of existing retail centers/facilities). If existing retail uses are adversely affected by competition, declines in sales could directly result in and/or lead to disinvestment, business closures, abandonment, and physical deterioration indicative of urban decay. Urban decay is the physical manifestation of a project’s potential to trigger a chain reaction of store closures and long-term vacancies ultimately destroying existing neighborhoods. In this context, urban decay would result only if all of the following causal chain of events occurs: Exhibit D.1 Responses to Comments RTC-36 Letter Number Comment Number Commenter Comment Response • The project results in an economic impact so severe that stores might close as a result; • Buildings and/or properties, rather than being reused within a reasonable time, would remain vacant for an extended period of time; and • Such vacancies would be substantial enough in scale (in terms of square footage affected and/or the loss of key “anchor” tenants) to affect the viability of existing shopping centers or districts. It is speculative to assume that the Project would result in store closures or vacancies. Moreover, store closures and vacancies, in and of themselves, do not meet the above criteria. Any retail market is likely to have a certain amount of vacant space due to normal turnover and changes in retailing, and vacancies alone do not necessarily indicate urban decay or physical deterioration. While the closure of a business is clearly a hardship to the owner and its employees, it is only significant within the context of CEQA if it results in sustained vacancies which in turn result in deterioration of the physical condition of the vacant buildings and neighborhoods. The Project would not result in physical changes or deterioration at existing commercial retail uses in the City. 8 4 Victor Mineros, Teamsters Local 396 Transportation Patterns and Local Hiring The DEIR does not seem to properly or fully address the concerns raised by the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (SRCC). The Draft EIR acknowledges that adhering to the requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is a necessary element of avoiding significant impacts from, especially indirect sources and vehicle emissions. The DEIR does not seem to adequately address the SCAQMD’s finding that “[u]se of a local state-certified apprenticeship program or a skilled and trained workforce with a local hire component” can significantly reduce vehicle miles traveled and, therefore, vehicle emissions. Given that the proposed project is designed to accommodate some variety of logistics uses, the DEIR should address the relative impacts of the Project with local hiring mitigations versus the absence of those mitigations. Given the SCAQMD’s expertise in the area and that the issue was raised before the local agency prior to preparation of the DEIR, and the substantial likelihood that this type of mitigation would result in significant reduction of vehicle miles traveled, the DEIR should have considered these impacts. During the NOP comment period on April 27, 2022, a representative for the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters submitted comments encouraging the City to “consider utilizing skilled and trained workforce policies and requirements to benefit the local area economically and mitigate greenhouse gas, air quality, and transportation impacts”. CEQA does not require that hiring practices be evaluated in an EIR. Evaluations of potential impacts related to a ir q uality, g reenhouse g as emissions, and VMT can be found in the DEIR in Sections 4.2, 4.6, and 4.11, respectively. Because air quality and greenhouse gas emissions impacts would be less than significant, and VMT impacts would be less than significant with implementation of the mitigation measures already identified, no further mitigation is required. Exhibit D.1 Responses to Comments RTC-37 Letter Number Comment Number Commenter Comment Response 8 5 Victor Mineros, Teamsters Local 396 Inadequate Study of Cumulative Transport Refrigeration Units (TRUs) The nature of the Project as a “speculative” logistics hub raises the potential for a significant number of Transport Refrigeration Units (TRUs) not only at the site but as part of larger logistical networks in and around Downey. The scope of an EIR does not end at a city’s borders, but should consider the reasonable context of a project. This is particularly true of logistics projects, which are inherently parts of integrated logistical systems. The use of TRUs has serious implications for the health of residents and workers because of the significant diesel emissions. This is of course of considerable concern to employees at the facility. The DEIR’s health risk assessment does not include a substantive study of the specific impacts of TRU emissions on workers who will be directly exposed to it over given periods of time, specifically over work days, work weeks, and years. This would require some study be conducted of the likely workforce and the day-to-day exposure to intensive TRU emissions and how that exposure aggregates over time. Relatedly, the use of TRUs in an integrated logistical system, and the growth of retail sales delivery in the region, requires that a health risk assessment look at cumulative exposure. As shown in Figure 4 in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report (included in Appendix B to the DEIR), seven off-site worker locations were analyzed for potential health risks from exposure to localized concentrations of DPM, including DPM from P roject-related TRUs. The SCAQMD has not adopted any cumulative health risk thresholds. The SCAQMD’s thresholds (10 in 1 million cancer risk, non-cancer hazard index of 1) are used for evaluating the impact from a single P roject’s incremental increase in health risks. The SCAQMD considers that, if a P roject’s emissions do not result in incremental health risks exceeding the thresholds, then the P roject’s cumulative health risk impact would be less than cumulatively considerable. As discussed in the DEIR, the maximally exposed individual worker would be receptor W4, located outside the commercial building on the northeast side of the P roject site, and would have an incremental increased cancer risk of 0.3 in 1 million, far below the threshold of 10 in 1 million. The impact of existing DPM concentrations in the P roject area, and in the greater Los Angeles regional area, on project workers would be considered an effect of the environment on the P roject and, as such, is not a CEQA issue (commonly referred to as “reverse CEQA” pursuant to California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District [2015] 62 Cal.4th 369). 8 6 Victor Mineros, Teamsters Local 396 Conclusion We urge the City to consider the above issues and direct the agency to conduct more complete study prior to certification of the DEIR. This comment concludes the commenter’s letter. Please see responses to comments #1 through #5 of Letter #8 above. Exhibit D.1 Appendix A Public Comment Letters Exhibit D.1 A-1 1-1 Exhibit D.1 A-2 2-1 Exhibit D.1 A-3 2-1 Cont. Exhibit D.1 A-4 3-1 Exhibit D.1 A-5 3-1 Cont. Exhibit D.1 A-6 3-1 Cont. Exhibit D.1 A-7 4-1 Exhibit D.1 A-8 4-1 Cont. Exhibit D.1 A-9 4-1 Cont. Exhibit D.1 A-10 5-1 Exhibit D.1 A-11 5-1 Cont. 5-2 5-3 Exhibit D.1 A-12 5-4 5-5 Exhibit D.1 A-13 Exhibit D.1 A-14 6-1 6-2 Exhibit D.1 A-15 6-2 Cont. 6-3 6-4 Exhibit D.1 A-16 Exhibit D.1 A-17 7-1 7-2 Exhibit D.1 A-18 7-3 7-4 Exhibit D.1 A-19 7-4 Cont. 7-5 Exhibit D.1 A-20 7-5 Cont. Exhibit D.1 A-21 7-5 Cont. 7-6 7-7 7-8 Exhibit D.1 A-22 7-9 7-10 Exhibit D.1 A-23 7-10 Cont. 7-11 7-12 Exhibit D.1 A-24 7-13 7-14 7-15 Exhibit D.1 A-25 7-15 Cont. 7-16 7-17 7-18 Exhibit D.1 A-26 7-18 Cont. 7-19 7-20 Exhibit D.1 A-27 7-20 Cont. 7-21 Exhibit D.1 A-28 7-22 7-23 Exhibit D.1 A-29 Exhibit D.1 A-30 7-24 7-25 Exhibit D.1 A-31 7-25 Cont. Exhibit D.1 A-32 7-25 Cont. 7-26 7-27 Exhibit D.1 A-33 7-27 Cont. 7-28 Exhibit D.1 A-34 7-29 7-30 Exhibit D.1 A-35 7-30 Cont. 7-31 Exhibit D.1 A-36 7-31 Cont. 7-32 Exhibit D.1 A-37 7-32 Cont. Exhibit D.1 A-38 7-32 Cont. 7-33 Exhibit D.1 A-39 7-33 Cont. Exhibit D.1 A-40 7-33 Cont. Exhibit D.1 A-41 7-34 7-35 Exhibit D.1 Downey Prologis Project R2 Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model. Land Use - Consistent with the DEIR's model. Construction Phase - Consistent with the DEIR's model. Off-road Equipment - Consistent with the DEIR's model. Off-road Equipment - Consistent with the DEIR's model. Off-road Equipment - Consistent with the DEIR's model. Off-road Equipment - Consistent with the DEIR's model. Off-road Equipment - Consistent with the DEIR's model. 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 20.00 1000sqft 0.46 20,000.00 0 Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 26.79 1000sqft 0.61 26,785.00 0 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 488.90 1000sqft 11.22 488,900.00 0 Parking Lot 682.00 1000sqft 15.70 0.00 0 Other Asphalt Surfaces 12.36 1000sqft 0.28 12,360.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Climate Zone Urban 7 Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.3 8 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data 1.0 Project Characteristics Utility Company Southern California Edison 2026Operational Year CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 390.98 0.033CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.004N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:30 PMPage 1 of 40 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 Off-road Equipment - Consistent with the DEIR's model. Off-road Equipment - Consistent with the DEIR's model. Trips and VMT - Consistent with the DEIR's model. Architectural Coating - See SWAPE's comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Architectural Coating Emission Factors". Vehicle Trips - Consistent with the DEIR's model. Fleet Mix - See SWAPE's comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Fleet Mix Values". Demolition - Consistent with the DEIR's model. Grading - Consistent with the DEIR's model. Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblConstructionPhase NumDays 35.00 45.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 440.00 182.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 30.00 75.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 45.00 40.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 35.00 20.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 45.00 37.00 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 7/9/2026 3/31/2025 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 4/2/2026 3/31/2025 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 3/21/2024 5/23/2024 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 5/23/2024 7/18/2024 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 5/21/2026 3/7/2025 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 7/25/2024 12/12/2024 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 7/25/2024 10/18/2024 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 5/22/2026 1/28/2025 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 7/26/2024 7/19/2024 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 3/22/2024 5/24/2024 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 4/3/2026 2/9/2025 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 5/24/2024 10/23/2024 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 7/26/2024 6/3/2024 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:30 PMPage 2 of 40 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 tblGrading AcresOfGrading 20.00 18.50 tblGrading AcresOfGrading 111.00 120.00 tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 460.00 tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 75,000.00 tblGrading MaterialImported 0.00 460.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 682,000.00 0.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 15.66 15.70 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 78.00 37.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 81.00 33.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 231.00 367.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 158.00 36.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 158.00 36.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 89.00 82.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 84.00 14.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 402.00 376.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 130.00 81.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 132.00 89.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 80.00 36.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 247.00 367.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 247.00 367.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 247.00 367.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 158.00 36.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 97.00 84.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 97.00 84.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 97.00 84.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 158.00 36.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 187.00 148.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 367.00 423.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 402.00 376.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:30 PMPage 3 of 40 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 97.00 84.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 402.00 376.00 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.38 0.38 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.38 0.38 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Off-Highway Trucks tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Excavators tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Off-Highway Trucks tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Off-Highway Trucks tblProjectCharacteristics PrecipitationFrequency 33 8 tblProjectCharacteristics WindSpeed 2.2 2.3 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripLength 6.90 10.20 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripLength 6.90 10.20 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripLength 6.90 10.20 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripLength 6.90 10.20 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripLength 6.90 10.20 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripLength 6.90 10.20 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripLength 6.90 10.20 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 90.00 89.80 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 18.50 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 18.50 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 18.50 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 18.50 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 18.50 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 18.50 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 18.50 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 18.00 17.50 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 23.00 22.50 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 13.00 12.50 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:30 PMPage 4 of 40 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 2.0 Emissions Summary tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 46.00 45.60 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.21 160.55 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.12 0.93 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.74 0.20 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 0.70 160.55 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 2.12 0.93 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.74 0.20 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 9.74 160.55 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 2.12 0.93 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 1.74 0.20 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:30 PMPage 5 of 40 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 2.1 Overall Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2024 0.3981 4.0955 3.9134 0.0117 0.8869 0.1357 1.0226 0.2669 0.1256 0.3924 0.0000 1,083.850 4 1,083.850 4 0.1687 0.0757 1,110.629 3 2025 2.5959 0.6720 0.9598 2.8100e- 003 0.1457 0.0228 0.1685 0.0393 0.0213 0.0605 0.0000 255.5212 255.5212 0.0327 0.0125 260.0495 Maximum 2.5959 4.0955 3.9134 0.0117 0.8869 0.1357 1.0226 0.2669 0.1256 0.3924 0.0000 1,083.850 4 1,083.850 4 0.1687 0.0757 1,110.629 3 Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2024 0.3981 4.0955 3.9134 0.0117 0.8869 0.1357 1.0226 0.2669 0.1256 0.3924 0.0000 1,083.849 9 1,083.849 9 0.1687 0.0757 1,110.628 8 2025 2.5959 0.6720 0.9598 2.8100e- 003 0.1457 0.0228 0.1685 0.0393 0.0213 0.0605 0.0000 255.5211 255.5211 0.0327 0.0125 260.0494 Maximum 2.5959 4.0955 3.9134 0.0117 0.8869 0.1357 1.0226 0.2669 0.1256 0.3924 0.0000 1,083.849 9 1,083.849 9 0.1687 0.0757 1,110.628 8 Mitigated Construction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:30 PMPage 6 of 40 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 2-9-2024 5-8-2024 1.0656 1.0656 2 5-9-2024 8-8-2024 0.7782 0.7782 3 8-9-2024 11-8-2024 1.2791 1.2791 4 11-9-2024 2-8-2025 2.0912 2.0912 5 2-9-2025 5-8-2025 2.5098 2.5098 Highest 2.5098 2.5098 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area 2.1864 1.4000e- 004 0.0157 0.0000 6.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0305 0.0305 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0325 Energy 6.9700e- 003 0.0633 0.0532 3.8000e- 004 4.8100e- 003 4.8100e- 003 4.8100e- 003 4.8100e- 003 0.0000 520.4118 520.4118 0.0394 5.8800e- 003 523.1505 Mobile 1.6264 1.7776 16.4623 0.0363 4.1460 0.0263 4.1723 1.1049 0.0244 1.1293 0.0000 3,361.938 8 3,361.938 8 0.2336 0.1464 3,411.390 8 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 102.1755 0.0000 102.1755 6.0384 0.0000 253.1355 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 38.9613 287.8829 326.8442 4.0260 0.0974 456.5295 Total 3.8198 1.8410 16.5312 0.0367 4.1460 0.0312 4.1772 1.1049 0.0293 1.1342 141.1368 4,170.263 9 4,311.400 8 10.3375 0.2497 4,644.238 8 Unmitigated Operational CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:30 PMPage 7 of 40 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area 2.1864 1.4000e- 004 0.0157 0.0000 6.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0305 0.0305 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0325 Energy 6.9700e- 003 0.0633 0.0532 3.8000e- 004 4.8100e- 003 4.8100e- 003 4.8100e- 003 4.8100e- 003 0.0000 520.4118 520.4118 0.0394 5.8800e- 003 523.1505 Mobile 1.6264 1.7776 16.4623 0.0363 4.1460 0.0263 4.1723 1.1049 0.0244 1.1293 0.0000 3,361.938 8 3,361.938 8 0.2336 0.1464 3,411.390 8 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 102.1755 0.0000 102.1755 6.0384 0.0000 253.1355 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 38.9613 287.8829 326.8442 4.0260 0.0974 456.5295 Total 3.8198 1.8410 16.5312 0.0367 4.1460 0.0312 4.1772 1.1049 0.0293 1.1342 141.1368 4,170.263 9 4,311.400 8 10.3375 0.2497 4,644.238 8 Mitigated Operational 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Demolition/Site Preparation Demolition 2/9/2024 5/23/2024 5 75 2 Off-Site Driveways & Sidewalks Grading 5/24/2024 7/18/2024 5 40 3 Grading/Undergroud Utilities Grading 10/23/2024 12/12/2024 5 37 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:30 PMPage 8 of 40 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 4 Off-Site Street Utilites Trenching 6/3/2024 10/18/2024 5 100 5 Building Construction Building Construction 7/19/2024 3/31/2025 5 182 6 Paving Paving 2/9/2025 3/7/2025 5 20 7 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/28/2025 3/31/2025 5 45 OffRoad Equipment Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 37 0.48 Demolition/Site Preparation Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 33 0.73 Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 367 0.29 Demolition/Site Preparation Excavators 3 8.00 36 0.38 Off-Site Driveways & Sidewalks Excavators 2 8.00 36 0.38 Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 82 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 14 0.74 Grading/Undergroud Utilities Off-Highway Trucks 1 4.00 376 0.38 Paving Pavers 2 8.00 81 0.42 Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 89 0.36 Paving Rollers 2 8.00 36 0.38 Demolition/Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 367 0.40 Off-Site Driveways & Sidewalks Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 367 0.40 Grading/Undergroud Utilities Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 367 0.40 Off-Site Street Utilites Excavators 2 8.00 36 0.38 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 84 0.37 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 803,528; Non-Residential Outdoor: 267,843; Striped Parking Area: 742 (Architectural Coating – sqft) Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 18.5 Acres of Paving: 15.98 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:30 PMPage 9 of 40 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Off-Site Driveways & Sidewalks Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 84 0.37 Grading/Undergroud Utilities Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 84 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45 Grading/Undergroud Utilities Excavators 2 8.00 36 0.38 Grading/Undergroud Utilities Graders 1 8.00 148 0.41 Grading/Undergroud Utilities Scrapers 2 8.00 423 0.48 Demolition/Site Preparation Off-Highway Trucks 1 4.00 376 0.38 Off-Site Street Utilites Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 84 0.37 Building Construction Off-Highway Trucks 1 4.00 376 0.38 Trips and VMT Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Demolition/Site Preparation 7 17.50 0.00 1,969.00 18.50 10.20 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading/Undergroud Utilities 9 22.50 0.00 9,375.00 18.50 10.20 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Off-Site Driveways & Sidewalks 5 12.50 0.00 91.00 18.50 10.20 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 10 228.00 89.80 0.00 18.50 10.20 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 18.50 10.20 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 45.60 0.00 0.00 18.50 10.20 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Off-Site Street Utilites 4 10.00 0.00 0.00 18.50 10.20 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:30 PMPage 10 of 40 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 3.2 Demolition/Site Preparation - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.2138 0.0000 0.2138 0.0324 0.0000 0.0324 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1099 0.9952 0.9115 1.4500e- 003 0.0426 0.0426 0.0393 0.0393 0.0000 125.9858 125.9858 0.0388 0.0000 126.9561 Total 0.1099 0.9952 0.9115 1.4500e- 003 0.2138 0.0426 0.2563 0.0324 0.0393 0.0717 0.0000 125.9858 125.9858 0.0388 0.0000 126.9561 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 2.0600e- 003 0.1357 0.0351 5.7000e- 004 0.0172 8.2000e- 004 0.0180 4.7100e- 003 7.8000e- 004 5.4900e- 003 0.0000 56.6101 56.6101 3.1900e- 003 8.9900e- 003 59.3698 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.2700e- 003 1.7800e- 003 0.0253 8.0000e- 005 9.1900e- 003 5.0000e- 005 9.2400e- 003 2.4400e- 003 5.0000e- 005 2.4900e- 003 0.0000 6.9716 6.9716 1.6000e- 004 1.7000e- 004 7.0249 Total 4.3300e- 003 0.1375 0.0604 6.5000e- 004 0.0264 8.7000e- 004 0.0272 7.1500e- 003 8.3000e- 004 7.9800e- 003 0.0000 63.5817 63.5817 3.3500e- 003 9.1600e- 003 66.3947 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:30 PMPage 11 of 40 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 3.2 Demolition/Site Preparation - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.2138 0.0000 0.2138 0.0324 0.0000 0.0324 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1099 0.9952 0.9115 1.4500e- 003 0.0426 0.0426 0.0393 0.0393 0.0000 125.9856 125.9856 0.0388 0.0000 126.9559 Total 0.1099 0.9952 0.9115 1.4500e- 003 0.2138 0.0426 0.2563 0.0324 0.0393 0.0717 0.0000 125.9856 125.9856 0.0388 0.0000 126.9559 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 2.0600e- 003 0.1357 0.0351 5.7000e- 004 0.0172 8.2000e- 004 0.0180 4.7100e- 003 7.8000e- 004 5.4900e- 003 0.0000 56.6101 56.6101 3.1900e- 003 8.9900e- 003 59.3698 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.2700e- 003 1.7800e- 003 0.0253 8.0000e- 005 9.1900e- 003 5.0000e- 005 9.2400e- 003 2.4400e- 003 5.0000e- 005 2.4900e- 003 0.0000 6.9716 6.9716 1.6000e- 004 1.7000e- 004 7.0249 Total 4.3300e- 003 0.1375 0.0604 6.5000e- 004 0.0264 8.7000e- 004 0.0272 7.1500e- 003 8.3000e- 004 7.9800e- 003 0.0000 63.5817 63.5817 3.3500e- 003 9.1600e- 003 66.3947 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:30 PMPage 12 of 40 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 3.3 Off-Site Driveways & Sidewalks - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.1303 0.0000 0.1303 0.0673 0.0000 0.0673 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0306 0.2927 0.2971 4.2000e- 004 0.0129 0.0129 0.0119 0.0119 0.0000 36.6078 36.6078 0.0118 0.0000 36.9038 Total 0.0306 0.2927 0.2971 4.2000e- 004 0.1303 0.0129 0.1432 0.0673 0.0119 0.0791 0.0000 36.6078 36.6078 0.0118 0.0000 36.9038 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 1.0000e- 004 6.2700e- 003 1.6200e- 003 3.0000e- 005 7.9000e- 004 4.0000e- 005 8.3000e- 004 2.2000e- 004 4.0000e- 005 2.5000e- 004 0.0000 2.6163 2.6163 1.5000e- 004 4.2000e- 004 2.7439 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 8.6000e- 004 6.8000e- 004 9.6500e- 003 3.0000e- 005 3.5000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 3.5200e- 003 9.3000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 9.5000e- 004 0.0000 2.6559 2.6559 6.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 2.6762 Total 9.6000e- 004 6.9500e- 003 0.0113 6.0000e- 005 4.2900e- 003 6.0000e- 005 4.3500e- 003 1.1500e- 003 6.0000e- 005 1.2000e- 003 0.0000 5.2722 5.2722 2.1000e- 004 4.8000e- 004 5.4200 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:30 PMPage 13 of 40 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 3.3 Off-Site Driveways & Sidewalks - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.1303 0.0000 0.1303 0.0673 0.0000 0.0673 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0306 0.2927 0.2971 4.2000e- 004 0.0129 0.0129 0.0119 0.0119 0.0000 36.6078 36.6078 0.0118 0.0000 36.9038 Total 0.0306 0.2927 0.2971 4.2000e- 004 0.1303 0.0129 0.1432 0.0673 0.0119 0.0791 0.0000 36.6078 36.6078 0.0118 0.0000 36.9038 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 1.0000e- 004 6.2700e- 003 1.6200e- 003 3.0000e- 005 7.9000e- 004 4.0000e- 005 8.3000e- 004 2.2000e- 004 4.0000e- 005 2.5000e- 004 0.0000 2.6163 2.6163 1.5000e- 004 4.2000e- 004 2.7439 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 8.6000e- 004 6.8000e- 004 9.6500e- 003 3.0000e- 005 3.5000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 3.5200e- 003 9.3000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 9.5000e- 004 0.0000 2.6559 2.6559 6.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 2.6762 Total 9.6000e- 004 6.9500e- 003 0.0113 6.0000e- 005 4.2900e- 003 6.0000e- 005 4.3500e- 003 1.1500e- 003 6.0000e- 005 1.2000e- 003 0.0000 5.2722 5.2722 2.1000e- 004 4.8000e- 004 5.4200 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:30 PMPage 14 of 40 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 3.4 Grading/Undergroud Utilities - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.1795 0.0000 0.1795 0.0688 0.0000 0.0688 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0722 0.6913 0.6255 1.2500e- 003 0.0294 0.0294 0.0271 0.0271 0.0000 109.3919 109.3919 0.0354 0.0000 110.2764 Total 0.0722 0.6913 0.6255 1.2500e- 003 0.1795 0.0294 0.2090 0.0688 0.0271 0.0959 0.0000 109.3919 109.3919 0.0354 0.0000 110.2764 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 9.8200e- 003 0.6463 0.1670 2.7000e- 003 0.0817 3.8900e- 003 0.0856 0.0224 3.7200e- 003 0.0261 0.0000 269.5375 269.5375 0.0152 0.0428 282.6774 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.4400e- 003 1.1300e- 003 0.0161 5.0000e- 005 5.8300e- 003 3.0000e- 005 5.8600e- 003 1.5500e- 003 3.0000e- 005 1.5800e- 003 0.0000 4.4220 4.4220 1.0000e- 004 1.1000e- 004 4.4558 Total 0.0113 0.6474 0.1831 2.7500e- 003 0.0875 3.9200e- 003 0.0915 0.0240 3.7500e- 003 0.0277 0.0000 273.9595 273.9595 0.0153 0.0429 287.1332 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:30 PMPage 15 of 40 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 3.4 Grading/Undergroud Utilities - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.1795 0.0000 0.1795 0.0688 0.0000 0.0688 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0722 0.6913 0.6255 1.2500e- 003 0.0294 0.0294 0.0271 0.0271 0.0000 109.3918 109.3918 0.0354 0.0000 110.2762 Total 0.0722 0.6913 0.6255 1.2500e- 003 0.1795 0.0294 0.2090 0.0688 0.0271 0.0959 0.0000 109.3918 109.3918 0.0354 0.0000 110.2762 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 9.8200e- 003 0.6463 0.1670 2.7000e- 003 0.0817 3.8900e- 003 0.0856 0.0224 3.7200e- 003 0.0261 0.0000 269.5375 269.5375 0.0152 0.0428 282.6774 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.4400e- 003 1.1300e- 003 0.0161 5.0000e- 005 5.8300e- 003 3.0000e- 005 5.8600e- 003 1.5500e- 003 3.0000e- 005 1.5800e- 003 0.0000 4.4220 4.4220 1.0000e- 004 1.1000e- 004 4.4558 Total 0.0113 0.6474 0.1831 2.7500e- 003 0.0875 3.9200e- 003 0.0915 0.0240 3.7500e- 003 0.0277 0.0000 273.9595 273.9595 0.0153 0.0429 287.1332 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:30 PMPage 16 of 40 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 3.5 Off-Site Street Utilites - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0225 0.2101 0.2951 4.0000e- 004 8.6400e- 003 8.6400e- 003 7.9500e- 003 7.9500e- 003 0.0000 35.2195 35.2195 0.0114 0.0000 35.5043 Total 0.0225 0.2101 0.2951 4.0000e- 004 8.6400e- 003 8.6400e- 003 7.9500e- 003 7.9500e- 003 0.0000 35.2195 35.2195 0.0114 0.0000 35.5043 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.7300e- 003 1.3600e- 003 0.0193 6.0000e- 005 7.0000e- 003 4.0000e- 005 7.0400e- 003 1.8600e- 003 4.0000e- 005 1.8900e- 003 0.0000 5.3117 5.3117 1.2000e- 004 1.3000e- 004 5.3523 Total 1.7300e- 003 1.3600e- 003 0.0193 6.0000e- 005 7.0000e- 003 4.0000e- 005 7.0400e- 003 1.8600e- 003 4.0000e- 005 1.8900e- 003 0.0000 5.3117 5.3117 1.2000e- 004 1.3000e- 004 5.3523 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:30 PMPage 17 of 40 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 3.5 Off-Site Street Utilites - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0225 0.2101 0.2951 4.0000e- 004 8.6400e- 003 8.6400e- 003 7.9500e- 003 7.9500e- 003 0.0000 35.2195 35.2195 0.0114 0.0000 35.5043 Total 0.0225 0.2101 0.2951 4.0000e- 004 8.6400e- 003 8.6400e- 003 7.9500e- 003 7.9500e- 003 0.0000 35.2195 35.2195 0.0114 0.0000 35.5043 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.7300e- 003 1.3600e- 003 0.0193 6.0000e- 005 7.0000e- 003 4.0000e- 005 7.0400e- 003 1.8600e- 003 4.0000e- 005 1.8900e- 003 0.0000 5.3117 5.3117 1.2000e- 004 1.3000e- 004 5.3523 Total 1.7300e- 003 1.3600e- 003 0.0193 6.0000e- 005 7.0000e- 003 4.0000e- 005 7.0400e- 003 1.8600e- 003 4.0000e- 005 1.8900e- 003 0.0000 5.3117 5.3117 1.2000e- 004 1.3000e- 004 5.3523 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:30 PMPage 18 of 40 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 3.6 Building Construction - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0913 0.7894 0.8989 1.7400e- 003 0.0346 0.0346 0.0323 0.0323 0.0000 148.9877 148.9877 0.0445 0.0000 150.0994 Total 0.0913 0.7894 0.8989 1.7400e- 003 0.0346 0.0346 0.0323 0.0323 0.0000 148.9877 148.9877 0.0445 0.0000 150.0994 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 6.9800e- 003 0.2871 0.0918 1.4000e- 003 0.0499 1.5100e- 003 0.0514 0.0144 1.4400e- 003 0.0158 0.0000 136.6267 136.6267 4.6500e- 003 0.0196 142.5912 Worker 0.0464 0.0365 0.5195 1.5600e- 003 0.1883 1.0700e- 003 0.1894 0.0500 9.9000e- 004 0.0509 0.0000 142.9061 142.9061 3.2000e- 003 3.4000e- 003 143.9980 Total 0.0534 0.3236 0.6113 2.9600e- 003 0.2382 2.5800e- 003 0.2408 0.0643 2.4300e- 003 0.0668 0.0000 279.5328 279.5328 7.8500e- 003 0.0230 286.5892 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:30 PMPage 19 of 40 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 3.6 Building Construction - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0913 0.7894 0.8989 1.7400e- 003 0.0346 0.0346 0.0323 0.0323 0.0000 148.9875 148.9875 0.0445 0.0000 150.0992 Total 0.0913 0.7894 0.8989 1.7400e- 003 0.0346 0.0346 0.0323 0.0323 0.0000 148.9875 148.9875 0.0445 0.0000 150.0992 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 6.9800e- 003 0.2871 0.0918 1.4000e- 003 0.0499 1.5100e- 003 0.0514 0.0144 1.4400e- 003 0.0158 0.0000 136.6267 136.6267 4.6500e- 003 0.0196 142.5912 Worker 0.0464 0.0365 0.5195 1.5600e- 003 0.1883 1.0700e- 003 0.1894 0.0500 9.9000e- 004 0.0509 0.0000 142.9061 142.9061 3.2000e- 003 3.4000e- 003 143.9980 Total 0.0534 0.3236 0.6113 2.9600e- 003 0.2382 2.5800e- 003 0.2408 0.0643 2.4300e- 003 0.0668 0.0000 279.5328 279.5328 7.8500e- 003 0.0230 286.5892 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:30 PMPage 20 of 40 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 3.6 Building Construction - 2025 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0465 0.3938 0.4800 9.5000e- 004 0.0163 0.0163 0.0152 0.0152 0.0000 80.8120 80.8120 0.0241 0.0000 81.4138 Total 0.0465 0.3938 0.4800 9.5000e- 004 0.0163 0.0163 0.0152 0.0152 0.0000 80.8120 80.8120 0.0241 0.0000 81.4138 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 3.6600e- 003 0.1550 0.0488 7.4000e- 004 0.0271 8.2000e- 004 0.0279 7.7900e- 003 7.9000e- 004 8.5800e- 003 0.0000 72.7683 72.7683 2.5400e- 003 0.0105 75.9486 Worker 0.0236 0.0178 0.2620 8.2000e- 004 0.1021 5.5000e- 004 0.1027 0.0271 5.1000e- 004 0.0276 0.0000 74.8746 74.8746 1.5600e- 003 1.7200e- 003 75.4256 Total 0.0273 0.1727 0.3108 1.5600e- 003 0.1292 1.3700e- 003 0.1306 0.0349 1.3000e- 003 0.0362 0.0000 147.6428 147.6428 4.1000e- 003 0.0122 151.3742 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:30 PMPage 21 of 40 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 3.6 Building Construction - 2025 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0465 0.3938 0.4800 9.5000e- 004 0.0163 0.0163 0.0152 0.0152 0.0000 80.8119 80.8119 0.0241 0.0000 81.4137 Total 0.0465 0.3938 0.4800 9.5000e- 004 0.0163 0.0163 0.0152 0.0152 0.0000 80.8119 80.8119 0.0241 0.0000 81.4137 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 3.6600e- 003 0.1550 0.0488 7.4000e- 004 0.0271 8.2000e- 004 0.0279 7.7900e- 003 7.9000e- 004 8.5800e- 003 0.0000 72.7683 72.7683 2.5400e- 003 0.0105 75.9486 Worker 0.0236 0.0178 0.2620 8.2000e- 004 0.1021 5.5000e- 004 0.1027 0.0271 5.1000e- 004 0.0276 0.0000 74.8746 74.8746 1.5600e- 003 1.7200e- 003 75.4256 Total 0.0273 0.1727 0.3108 1.5600e- 003 0.1292 1.3700e- 003 0.1306 0.0349 1.3000e- 003 0.0362 0.0000 147.6428 147.6428 4.1000e- 003 0.0122 151.3742 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:30 PMPage 22 of 40 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 3.7 Paving - 2025 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 9.2400e- 003 0.0828 0.1012 1.4000e- 004 4.4200e- 003 4.4200e- 003 4.0700e- 003 4.0700e- 003 0.0000 12.2727 12.2727 3.9700e- 003 0.0000 12.3719 Paving 0.0209 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0302 0.0828 0.1012 1.4000e- 004 4.4200e- 003 4.4200e- 003 4.0700e- 003 4.0700e- 003 0.0000 12.2727 12.2727 3.9700e- 003 0.0000 12.3719 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 4.8000e- 004 3.7000e- 004 5.3900e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.1000e- 003 1.0000e- 005 2.1100e- 003 5.6000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 5.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.5394 1.5394 3.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 1.5507 Total 4.8000e- 004 3.7000e- 004 5.3900e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.1000e- 003 1.0000e- 005 2.1100e- 003 5.6000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 5.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.5394 1.5394 3.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 1.5507 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:30 PMPage 23 of 40 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 3.7 Paving - 2025 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 9.2400e- 003 0.0828 0.1012 1.4000e- 004 4.4200e- 003 4.4200e- 003 4.0700e- 003 4.0700e- 003 0.0000 12.2727 12.2727 3.9700e- 003 0.0000 12.3719 Paving 0.0209 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0302 0.0828 0.1012 1.4000e- 004 4.4200e- 003 4.4200e- 003 4.0700e- 003 4.0700e- 003 0.0000 12.2727 12.2727 3.9700e- 003 0.0000 12.3719 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 4.8000e- 004 3.7000e- 004 5.3900e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.1000e- 003 1.0000e- 005 2.1100e- 003 5.6000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 5.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.5394 1.5394 3.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 1.5507 Total 4.8000e- 004 3.7000e- 004 5.3900e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.1000e- 003 1.0000e- 005 2.1100e- 003 5.6000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 5.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.5394 1.5394 3.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 1.5507 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:30 PMPage 24 of 40 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 3.8 Architectural Coating - 2025 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit. Coating 2.4846 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.4800e- 003 0.0199 0.0256 4.0000e- 005 6.1000e- 004 6.1000e- 004 6.1000e- 004 6.1000e- 004 0.0000 2.7251 2.7251 2.8000e- 004 0.0000 2.7322 Total 2.4881 0.0199 0.0256 4.0000e- 005 6.1000e- 004 6.1000e- 004 6.1000e- 004 6.1000e- 004 0.0000 2.7251 2.7251 2.8000e- 004 0.0000 2.7322 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.3200e- 003 2.5000e- 003 0.0368 1.1000e- 004 0.0144 8.0000e- 005 0.0144 3.8100e- 003 7.0000e- 005 3.8800e- 003 0.0000 10.5292 10.5292 2.2000e- 004 2.4000e- 004 10.6067 Total 3.3200e- 003 2.5000e- 003 0.0368 1.1000e- 004 0.0144 8.0000e- 005 0.0144 3.8100e- 003 7.0000e- 005 3.8800e- 003 0.0000 10.5292 10.5292 2.2000e- 004 2.4000e- 004 10.6067 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:30 PMPage 25 of 40 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 3.8 Architectural Coating - 2025 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit. Coating 2.4846 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.4800e- 003 0.0199 0.0256 4.0000e- 005 6.1000e- 004 6.1000e- 004 6.1000e- 004 6.1000e- 004 0.0000 2.7251 2.7251 2.8000e- 004 0.0000 2.7322 Total 2.4881 0.0199 0.0256 4.0000e- 005 6.1000e- 004 6.1000e- 004 6.1000e- 004 6.1000e- 004 0.0000 2.7251 2.7251 2.8000e- 004 0.0000 2.7322 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.3200e- 003 2.5000e- 003 0.0368 1.1000e- 004 0.0144 8.0000e- 005 0.0144 3.8100e- 003 7.0000e- 005 3.8800e- 003 0.0000 10.5292 10.5292 2.2000e- 004 2.4000e- 004 10.6067 Total 3.3200e- 003 2.5000e- 003 0.0368 1.1000e- 004 0.0144 8.0000e- 005 0.0144 3.8100e- 003 7.0000e- 005 3.8800e- 003 0.0000 10.5292 10.5292 2.2000e- 004 2.4000e- 004 10.6067 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:30 PMPage 26 of 40 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 1.6264 1.7776 16.4623 0.0363 4.1460 0.0263 4.1723 1.1049 0.0244 1.1293 0.0000 3,361.938 8 3,361.938 8 0.2336 0.1464 3,411.390 8 Unmitigated 1.6264 1.7776 16.4623 0.0363 4.1460 0.0263 4.1723 1.1049 0.0244 1.1293 0.0000 3,361.938 8 3,361.938 8 0.2336 0.1464 3,411.390 8 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 4.2 Trip Summary Information 4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT General Office Building 3,211.00 3,211.00 3211.00 10,344,111 10,344,111 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 24.90 24.90 24.90 106,712 106,712 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 97.78 97.78 97.78 419,057 419,057 Total 3,333.68 3,333.68 3,333.68 10,869,880 10,869,880 Miles Trip %Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4 Other Asphalt Surfaces 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:30 PMPage 27 of 40 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 Miles Trip %Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Parking Lot 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 16.60 8.40 6.90 59.00 0.00 41.00 92 5 3 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 16.60 8.40 6.90 59.00 0.00 41.00 92 5 3 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH General Office Building 0.537891 0.065289 0.189998 0.126515 0.023567 0.006518 0.011114 0.008084 0.000933 0.000591 0.025474 0.000708 0.003318 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.537891 0.065289 0.189998 0.126515 0.023567 0.006518 0.011114 0.008084 0.000933 0.000591 0.025474 0.000708 0.003318 Parking Lot 0.537891 0.065289 0.189998 0.126515 0.023567 0.006518 0.011114 0.008084 0.000933 0.000591 0.025474 0.000708 0.003318 Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 0.537891 0.065289 0.189998 0.126515 0.023567 0.006518 0.011114 0.008084 0.000933 0.000591 0.025474 0.000708 0.003318 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 0.537891 0.065289 0.189998 0.126515 0.023567 0.006518 0.011114 0.008084 0.000933 0.000591 0.025474 0.000708 0.003318 5.0 Energy Detail 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:30 PMPage 28 of 40 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Electricity Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 451.4561 451.4561 0.0381 4.6200e- 003 453.7851 Electricity Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 451.4561 451.4561 0.0381 4.6200e- 003 453.7851 NaturalGas Mitigated 6.9700e- 003 0.0633 0.0532 3.8000e- 004 4.8100e- 003 4.8100e- 003 4.8100e- 003 4.8100e- 003 0.0000 68.9557 68.9557 1.3200e- 003 1.2600e- 003 69.3654 NaturalGas Unmitigated 6.9700e- 003 0.0633 0.0532 3.8000e- 004 4.8100e- 003 4.8100e- 003 4.8100e- 003 4.8100e- 003 0.0000 68.9557 68.9557 1.3200e- 003 1.2600e- 003 69.3654 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:30 PMPage 29 of 40 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr General Office Building 340600 1.8400e- 003 0.0167 0.0140 1.0000e- 004 1.2700e- 003 1.2700e- 003 1.2700e- 003 1.2700e- 003 0.0000 18.1757 18.1757 3.5000e- 004 3.3000e- 004 18.2837 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 223119 1.2000e- 003 0.0109 9.1900e- 003 7.0000e- 005 8.3000e- 004 8.3000e- 004 8.3000e- 004 8.3000e- 004 0.0000 11.9065 11.9065 2.3000e- 004 2.2000e- 004 11.9772 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 728461 3.9300e- 003 0.0357 0.0300 2.1000e- 004 2.7100e- 003 2.7100e- 003 2.7100e- 003 2.7100e- 003 0.0000 38.8735 38.8735 7.5000e- 004 7.1000e- 004 39.1045 Total 6.9700e- 003 0.0634 0.0532 3.8000e- 004 4.8100e- 003 4.8100e- 003 4.8100e- 003 4.8100e- 003 0.0000 68.9556 68.9556 1.3300e- 003 1.2600e- 003 69.3654 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:30 PMPage 30 of 40 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr General Office Building 340600 1.8400e- 003 0.0167 0.0140 1.0000e- 004 1.2700e- 003 1.2700e- 003 1.2700e- 003 1.2700e- 003 0.0000 18.1757 18.1757 3.5000e- 004 3.3000e- 004 18.2837 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 223119 1.2000e- 003 0.0109 9.1900e- 003 7.0000e- 005 8.3000e- 004 8.3000e- 004 8.3000e- 004 8.3000e- 004 0.0000 11.9065 11.9065 2.3000e- 004 2.2000e- 004 11.9772 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 728461 3.9300e- 003 0.0357 0.0300 2.1000e- 004 2.7100e- 003 2.7100e- 003 2.7100e- 003 2.7100e- 003 0.0000 38.8735 38.8735 7.5000e- 004 7.1000e- 004 39.1045 Total 6.9700e- 003 0.0634 0.0532 3.8000e- 004 4.8100e- 003 4.8100e- 003 4.8100e- 003 4.8100e- 003 0.0000 68.9556 68.9556 1.3300e- 003 1.2600e- 003 69.3654 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:30 PMPage 31 of 40 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr General Office Building 193200 34.2632 2.8900e- 003 3.5000e- 004 34.4399 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 773283 137.1383 0.0116 1.4000e- 003 137.8458 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 1.57915e +006 280.0547 0.0236 2.8700e- 003 281.4994 Total 451.4561 0.0381 4.6200e- 003 453.7851 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:30 PMPage 32 of 40 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 6.0 Area Detail 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr General Office Building 193200 34.2632 2.8900e- 003 3.5000e- 004 34.4399 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 773283 137.1383 0.0116 1.4000e- 003 137.8458 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 1.57915e +006 280.0547 0.0236 2.8700e- 003 281.4994 Total 451.4561 0.0381 4.6200e- 003 453.7851 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:30 PMPage 33 of 40 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 2.1864 1.4000e- 004 0.0157 0.0000 6.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0305 0.0305 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0325 Unmitigated 2.1864 1.4000e- 004 0.0157 0.0000 6.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0305 0.0305 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0325 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural Coating 0.2485 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 1.9365 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 1.4400e- 003 1.4000e- 004 0.0157 0.0000 6.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0305 0.0305 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0325 Total 2.1864 1.4000e- 004 0.0157 0.0000 6.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0305 0.0305 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0325 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:30 PMPage 34 of 40 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 7.0 Water Detail 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural Coating 0.2485 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 1.9365 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 1.4400e- 003 1.4000e- 004 0.0157 0.0000 6.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0305 0.0305 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0325 Total 2.1864 1.4000e- 004 0.0157 0.0000 6.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0305 0.0305 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0325 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:30 PMPage 35 of 40 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category MT/yr Mitigated 326.8442 4.0260 0.0974 456.5295 Unmitigated 326.8442 4.0260 0.0974 456.5295 7.2 Water by Land Use Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use Mgal MT/yr General Office Building 3.55467 / 2.17867 13.6289 0.1169 2.8600e- 003 17.4042 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 6.19519 / 0 16.2715 0.2031 4.9100e- 003 22.8125 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 113.058 / 0 296.9438 3.7060 0.0897 416.3129 Total 326.8442 4.0260 0.0974 456.5295 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:30 PMPage 36 of 40 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 7.2 Water by Land Use Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use Mgal MT/yr General Office Building 3.55467 / 2.17867 13.6289 0.1169 2.8600e- 003 17.4042 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 6.19519 / 0 16.2715 0.2031 4.9100e- 003 22.8125 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 113.058 / 0 296.9438 3.7060 0.0897 416.3129 Total 326.8442 4.0260 0.0974 456.5295 Mitigated 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 8.0 Waste Detail CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:30 PMPage 37 of 40 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e MT/yr Mitigated 102.1755 6.0384 0.0000 253.1355 Unmitigated 102.1755 6.0384 0.0000 253.1355 Category/Year 8.2 Waste by Land Use Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use tons MT/yr General Office Building 18.6 3.7756 0.2231 0.0000 9.3540 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 25.18 5.1113 0.3021 0.0000 12.6631 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 459.57 93.2886 5.5132 0.0000 231.1185 Total 102.1755 6.0384 0.0000 253.1355 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:30 PMPage 38 of 40 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 8.2 Waste by Land Use Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use tons MT/yr General Office Building 18.6 3.7756 0.2231 0.0000 9.3540 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 25.18 5.1113 0.3021 0.0000 12.6631 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 459.57 93.2886 5.5132 0.0000 231.1185 Total 102.1755 6.0384 0.0000 253.1355 Mitigated 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:30 PMPage 39 of 40 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 11.0 Vegetation User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:30 PMPage 40 of 40 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 Downey Prologis Project R2 Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model. Land Use - Consistent with the DEIR's model. Construction Phase - Consistent with the DEIR's model. Off-road Equipment - Consistent with the DEIR's model. Off-road Equipment - Consistent with the DEIR's model. Off-road Equipment - Consistent with the DEIR's model. Off-road Equipment - Consistent with the DEIR's model. Off-road Equipment - Consistent with the DEIR's model. 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 20.00 1000sqft 0.46 20,000.00 0 Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 26.79 1000sqft 0.61 26,785.00 0 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 488.90 1000sqft 11.22 488,900.00 0 Parking Lot 682.00 1000sqft 15.70 0.00 0 Other Asphalt Surfaces 12.36 1000sqft 0.28 12,360.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Climate Zone Urban 7 Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.3 8 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data 1.0 Project Characteristics Utility Company Southern California Edison 2026Operational Year CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 390.98 0.033CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.004N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:29 PMPage 1 of 34 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 Off-road Equipment - Consistent with the DEIR's model. Off-road Equipment - Consistent with the DEIR's model. Trips and VMT - Consistent with the DEIR's model. Architectural Coating - See SWAPE's comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Architectural Coating Emission Factors". Vehicle Trips - Consistent with the DEIR's model. Fleet Mix - See SWAPE's comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Fleet Mix Values". Demolition - Consistent with the DEIR's model. Grading - Consistent with the DEIR's model. Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblConstructionPhase NumDays 35.00 45.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 440.00 182.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 30.00 75.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 45.00 40.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 35.00 20.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 45.00 37.00 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 7/9/2026 3/31/2025 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 4/2/2026 3/31/2025 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 3/21/2024 5/23/2024 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 5/23/2024 7/18/2024 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 5/21/2026 3/7/2025 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 7/25/2024 12/12/2024 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 7/25/2024 10/18/2024 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 5/22/2026 1/28/2025 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 7/26/2024 7/19/2024 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 3/22/2024 5/24/2024 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 4/3/2026 2/9/2025 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 5/24/2024 10/23/2024 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 7/26/2024 6/3/2024 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:29 PMPage 2 of 34 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 tblGrading AcresOfGrading 20.00 18.50 tblGrading AcresOfGrading 111.00 120.00 tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 460.00 tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 75,000.00 tblGrading MaterialImported 0.00 460.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 682,000.00 0.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 15.66 15.70 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 78.00 37.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 81.00 33.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 231.00 367.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 158.00 36.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 158.00 36.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 89.00 82.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 84.00 14.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 402.00 376.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 130.00 81.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 132.00 89.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 80.00 36.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 247.00 367.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 247.00 367.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 247.00 367.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 158.00 36.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 97.00 84.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 97.00 84.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 97.00 84.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 158.00 36.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 187.00 148.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 367.00 423.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 402.00 376.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:29 PMPage 3 of 34 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 97.00 84.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 402.00 376.00 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.38 0.38 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.38 0.38 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Off-Highway Trucks tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Excavators tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Off-Highway Trucks tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Off-Highway Trucks tblProjectCharacteristics PrecipitationFrequency 33 8 tblProjectCharacteristics WindSpeed 2.2 2.3 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripLength 6.90 10.20 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripLength 6.90 10.20 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripLength 6.90 10.20 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripLength 6.90 10.20 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripLength 6.90 10.20 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripLength 6.90 10.20 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripLength 6.90 10.20 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 90.00 89.80 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 18.50 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 18.50 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 18.50 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 18.50 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 18.50 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 18.50 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 18.50 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 18.00 17.50 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 23.00 22.50 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 13.00 12.50 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:29 PMPage 4 of 34 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 2.0 Emissions Summary tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 46.00 45.60 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.21 160.55 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.12 0.93 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.74 0.20 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 0.70 160.55 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 2.12 0.93 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.74 0.20 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 9.74 160.55 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 2.12 0.93 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 1.74 0.20 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:29 PMPage 5 of 34 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2024 6.9828 89.1219 69.8804 0.2966 18.5121 2.4344 20.9465 6.1131 2.2548 8.3679 0.0000 30,957.35 02 30,957.35 02 3.9969 2.9805 31,945.45 87 2025 116.1034 26.6942 38.8110 0.1020 4.9082 1.0272 5.9354 1.3208 0.9540 2.2748 0.0000 10,171.16 19 10,171.16 19 1.4360 0.4288 10,334.85 23 Maximum 116.1034 89.1219 69.8804 0.2966 18.5121 2.4344 20.9465 6.1131 2.2548 8.3679 0.0000 30,957.35 02 30,957.35 02 3.9969 2.9805 31,945.45 87 Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2024 6.9828 89.1219 69.8804 0.2966 18.5121 2.4344 20.9465 6.1131 2.2548 8.3679 0.0000 30,957.35 02 30,957.35 02 3.9969 2.9805 31,945.45 87 2025 116.1034 26.6942 38.8110 0.1020 4.9082 1.0272 5.9354 1.3208 0.9540 2.2748 0.0000 10,171.16 19 10,171.16 19 1.4360 0.4288 10,334.85 23 Maximum 116.1034 89.1219 69.8804 0.2966 18.5121 2.4344 20.9465 6.1131 2.2548 8.3679 0.0000 30,957.35 02 30,957.35 02 3.9969 2.9805 31,945.45 87 Mitigated Construction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:29 PMPage 6 of 34 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:29 PMPage 7 of 34 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area 11.9839 1.1400e- 003 0.1253 1.0000e- 005 4.5000e- 004 4.5000e- 004 4.5000e- 004 4.5000e- 004 0.2692 0.2692 7.0000e- 004 0.2867 Energy 0.0382 0.3471 0.2916 2.0800e- 003 0.0264 0.0264 0.0264 0.0264 416.4964 416.4964 7.9800e- 003 7.6400e- 003 418.9714 Mobile 9.2573 8.9322 91.3131 0.2062 22.8883 0.1446 23.0329 6.0973 0.1343 6.2316 21,028.28 07 21,028.28 07 1.3834 0.8453 21,314.77 89 Total 21.2794 9.2804 91.7299 0.2083 22.8883 0.1714 23.0597 6.0973 0.1611 6.2584 21,445.04 63 21,445.04 63 1.3921 0.8530 21,734.03 70 Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area 11.9839 1.1400e- 003 0.1253 1.0000e- 005 4.5000e- 004 4.5000e- 004 4.5000e- 004 4.5000e- 004 0.2692 0.2692 7.0000e- 004 0.2867 Energy 0.0382 0.3471 0.2916 2.0800e- 003 0.0264 0.0264 0.0264 0.0264 416.4964 416.4964 7.9800e- 003 7.6400e- 003 418.9714 Mobile 9.2573 8.9322 91.3131 0.2062 22.8883 0.1446 23.0329 6.0973 0.1343 6.2316 21,028.28 07 21,028.28 07 1.3834 0.8453 21,314.77 89 Total 21.2794 9.2804 91.7299 0.2083 22.8883 0.1714 23.0597 6.0973 0.1611 6.2584 21,445.04 63 21,445.04 63 1.3921 0.8530 21,734.03 70 Mitigated Operational CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:29 PMPage 8 of 34 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Demolition/Site Preparation Demolition 2/9/2024 5/23/2024 5 75 2 Off-Site Driveways & Sidewalks Grading 5/24/2024 7/18/2024 5 40 3 Grading/Undergroud Utilities Grading 10/23/2024 12/12/2024 5 37 4 Off-Site Street Utilites Trenching 6/3/2024 10/18/2024 5 100 5 Building Construction Building Construction 7/19/2024 3/31/2025 5 182 6 Paving Paving 2/9/2025 3/7/2025 5 20 7 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/28/2025 3/31/2025 5 45 OffRoad Equipment Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 37 0.48 Demolition/Site Preparation Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 33 0.73 Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 367 0.29 Demolition/Site Preparation Excavators 3 8.00 36 0.38 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 803,528; Non-Residential Outdoor: 267,843; Striped Parking Area: 742 (Architectural Coating – sqft) Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 18.5 Acres of Paving: 15.98 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:29 PMPage 9 of 34 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 Off-Site Driveways & Sidewalks Excavators 2 8.00 36 0.38 Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 82 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 14 0.74 Grading/Undergroud Utilities Off-Highway Trucks 1 4.00 376 0.38 Paving Pavers 2 8.00 81 0.42 Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 89 0.36 Paving Rollers 2 8.00 36 0.38 Demolition/Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 367 0.40 Off-Site Driveways & Sidewalks Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 367 0.40 Grading/Undergroud Utilities Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 367 0.40 Off-Site Street Utilites Excavators 2 8.00 36 0.38 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 84 0.37 Off-Site Driveways & Sidewalks Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 84 0.37 Grading/Undergroud Utilities Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 84 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45 Grading/Undergroud Utilities Excavators 2 8.00 36 0.38 Grading/Undergroud Utilities Graders 1 8.00 148 0.41 Grading/Undergroud Utilities Scrapers 2 8.00 423 0.48 Demolition/Site Preparation Off-Highway Trucks 1 4.00 376 0.38 Off-Site Street Utilites Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 84 0.37 Building Construction Off-Highway Trucks 1 4.00 376 0.38 Trips and VMT Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Demolition/Site Preparation 7 17.50 0.00 1,969.00 18.50 10.20 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading/Undergroud Utilities 9 22.50 0.00 9,375.00 18.50 10.20 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Off-Site Driveways & Sidewalks 5 12.50 0.00 91.00 18.50 10.20 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:29 PMPage 10 of 34 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 3.2 Demolition/Site Preparation - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 5.7003 0.0000 5.7003 0.8631 0.0000 0.8631 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.9292 26.5386 24.3071 0.0387 1.1355 1.1355 1.0486 1.0486 3,703.347 5 3,703.347 5 1.1409 3,731.869 7 Total 2.9292 26.5386 24.3071 0.0387 5.7003 1.1355 6.8358 0.8631 1.0486 1.9117 3,703.347 5 3,703.347 5 1.1409 3,731.869 7 Unmitigated Construction On-Site 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Building Construction 10 228.00 89.80 0.00 18.50 10.20 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 18.50 10.20 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 45.60 0.00 0.00 18.50 10.20 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Off-Site Street Utilites 4 10.00 0.00 0.00 18.50 10.20 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:29 PMPage 11 of 34 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 3.2 Demolition/Site Preparation - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0566 3.4346 0.9305 0.0151 0.4596 0.0218 0.4813 0.1260 0.0208 0.1468 1,663.304 7 1,663.304 7 0.0938 0.2642 1,744.390 8 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0605 0.0420 0.7207 2.1100e- 003 0.2461 1.4000e- 003 0.2475 0.0653 1.2900e- 003 0.0666 213.1685 213.1685 4.5700e- 003 4.4800e- 003 214.6190 Total 0.1170 3.4766 1.6512 0.0172 0.7057 0.0232 0.7289 0.1913 0.0221 0.2134 1,876.473 2 1,876.473 2 0.0984 0.2687 1,959.009 8 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 5.7003 0.0000 5.7003 0.8631 0.0000 0.8631 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.9292 26.5386 24.3071 0.0387 1.1355 1.1355 1.0486 1.0486 0.0000 3,703.347 5 3,703.347 5 1.1409 3,731.869 7 Total 2.9292 26.5386 24.3071 0.0387 5.7003 1.1355 6.8358 0.8631 1.0486 1.9117 0.0000 3,703.347 5 3,703.347 5 1.1409 3,731.869 7 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:29 PMPage 12 of 34 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 3.2 Demolition/Site Preparation - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0566 3.4346 0.9305 0.0151 0.4596 0.0218 0.4813 0.1260 0.0208 0.1468 1,663.304 7 1,663.304 7 0.0938 0.2642 1,744.390 8 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0605 0.0420 0.7207 2.1100e- 003 0.2461 1.4000e- 003 0.2475 0.0653 1.2900e- 003 0.0666 213.1685 213.1685 4.5700e- 003 4.4800e- 003 214.6190 Total 0.1170 3.4766 1.6512 0.0172 0.7057 0.0232 0.7289 0.1913 0.0221 0.2134 1,876.473 2 1,876.473 2 0.0984 0.2687 1,959.009 8 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.3 Off-Site Driveways & Sidewalks - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 6.5126 0.0000 6.5126 3.3632 0.0000 3.3632 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.5287 14.6365 14.8530 0.0208 0.6448 0.6448 0.5933 0.5933 2,017.660 2 2,017.660 2 0.6526 2,033.974 0 Total 1.5287 14.6365 14.8530 0.0208 6.5126 0.6448 7.1574 3.3632 0.5933 3.9564 2,017.660 2 2,017.660 2 0.6526 2,033.974 0 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:29 PMPage 13 of 34 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 3.3 Off-Site Driveways & Sidewalks - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 4.9000e- 003 0.2976 0.0806 1.3100e- 003 0.0398 1.8900e- 003 0.0417 0.0109 1.8100e- 003 0.0127 144.1348 144.1348 8.1300e- 003 0.0229 151.1613 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0432 0.0300 0.5148 1.5100e- 003 0.1758 1.0000e- 003 0.1768 0.0466 9.2000e- 004 0.0475 152.2632 152.2632 3.2600e- 003 3.2000e- 003 153.2993 Total 0.0481 0.3277 0.5954 2.8200e- 003 0.2156 2.8900e- 003 0.2185 0.0575 2.7300e- 003 0.0603 296.3980 296.3980 0.0114 0.0261 304.4606 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 6.5126 0.0000 6.5126 3.3632 0.0000 3.3632 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.5287 14.6365 14.8530 0.0208 0.6448 0.6448 0.5933 0.5933 0.0000 2,017.660 2 2,017.660 2 0.6526 2,033.974 0 Total 1.5287 14.6365 14.8530 0.0208 6.5126 0.6448 7.1574 3.3632 0.5933 3.9564 0.0000 2,017.660 2 2,017.660 2 0.6526 2,033.974 0 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:29 PMPage 14 of 34 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 3.3 Off-Site Driveways & Sidewalks - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 4.9000e- 003 0.2976 0.0806 1.3100e- 003 0.0398 1.8900e- 003 0.0417 0.0109 1.8100e- 003 0.0127 144.1348 144.1348 8.1300e- 003 0.0229 151.1613 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0432 0.0300 0.5148 1.5100e- 003 0.1758 1.0000e- 003 0.1768 0.0466 9.2000e- 004 0.0475 152.2632 152.2632 3.2600e- 003 3.2000e- 003 153.2993 Total 0.0481 0.3277 0.5954 2.8200e- 003 0.2156 2.8900e- 003 0.2185 0.0575 2.7300e- 003 0.0603 296.3980 296.3980 0.0114 0.0261 304.4606 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Grading/Undergroud Utilities - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 9.7044 0.0000 9.7044 3.7184 0.0000 3.7184 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.9038 37.3675 33.8090 0.0673 1.5915 1.5915 1.4642 1.4642 6,518.048 7 6,518.048 7 2.1081 6,570.750 5 Total 3.9038 37.3675 33.8090 0.0673 9.7044 1.5915 11.2959 3.7184 1.4642 5.1826 6,518.048 7 6,518.048 7 2.1081 6,570.750 5 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:29 PMPage 15 of 34 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 3.4 Grading/Undergroud Utilities - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.5459 33.1483 8.9808 0.1459 4.4353 0.2102 4.6455 1.2161 0.2011 1.4172 16,053.02 62 16,053.02 62 0.9056 2.5502 16,835.61 08 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0778 0.0540 0.9266 2.7100e- 003 0.3165 1.8000e- 003 0.3183 0.0839 1.6500e- 003 0.0856 274.0737 274.0737 5.8700e- 003 5.7700e- 003 275.9387 Total 0.6237 33.2023 9.9074 0.1486 4.7518 0.2120 4.9638 1.3000 0.2028 1.5028 16,327.09 99 16,327.09 99 0.9115 2.5559 17,111.54 95 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 9.7044 0.0000 9.7044 3.7184 0.0000 3.7184 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.9038 37.3675 33.8090 0.0673 1.5915 1.5915 1.4642 1.4642 0.0000 6,518.048 7 6,518.048 7 2.1081 6,570.750 5 Total 3.9038 37.3675 33.8090 0.0673 9.7044 1.5915 11.2959 3.7184 1.4642 5.1826 0.0000 6,518.048 7 6,518.048 7 2.1081 6,570.750 5 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:29 PMPage 16 of 34 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 3.4 Grading/Undergroud Utilities - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.5459 33.1483 8.9808 0.1459 4.4353 0.2102 4.6455 1.2161 0.2011 1.4172 16,053.02 62 16,053.02 62 0.9056 2.5502 16,835.61 08 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0778 0.0540 0.9266 2.7100e- 003 0.3165 1.8000e- 003 0.3183 0.0839 1.6500e- 003 0.0856 274.0737 274.0737 5.8700e- 003 5.7700e- 003 275.9387 Total 0.6237 33.2023 9.9074 0.1486 4.7518 0.2120 4.9638 1.3000 0.2028 1.5028 16,327.09 99 16,327.09 99 0.9115 2.5559 17,111.54 95 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Off-Site Street Utilites - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.4502 4.2012 5.9012 8.0200e- 003 0.1728 0.1728 0.1590 0.1590 776.4576 776.4576 0.2511 782.7356 Total 0.4502 4.2012 5.9012 8.0200e- 003 0.1728 0.1728 0.1590 0.1590 776.4576 776.4576 0.2511 782.7356 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:29 PMPage 17 of 34 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 3.5 Off-Site Street Utilites - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0346 0.0240 0.4118 1.2100e- 003 0.1407 8.0000e- 004 0.1414 0.0373 7.4000e- 004 0.0380 121.8105 121.8105 2.6100e- 003 2.5600e- 003 122.6394 Total 0.0346 0.0240 0.4118 1.2100e- 003 0.1407 8.0000e- 004 0.1414 0.0373 7.4000e- 004 0.0380 121.8105 121.8105 2.6100e- 003 2.5600e- 003 122.6394 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.4502 4.2012 5.9012 8.0200e- 003 0.1728 0.1728 0.1590 0.1590 0.0000 776.4576 776.4576 0.2511 782.7356 Total 0.4502 4.2012 5.9012 8.0200e- 003 0.1728 0.1728 0.1590 0.1590 0.0000 776.4576 776.4576 0.2511 782.7356 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:29 PMPage 18 of 34 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 3.5 Off-Site Street Utilites - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0346 0.0240 0.4118 1.2100e- 003 0.1407 8.0000e- 004 0.1414 0.0373 7.4000e- 004 0.0380 121.8105 121.8105 2.6100e- 003 2.5600e- 003 122.6394 Total 0.0346 0.0240 0.4118 1.2100e- 003 0.1407 8.0000e- 004 0.1414 0.0373 7.4000e- 004 0.0380 121.8105 121.8105 2.6100e- 003 2.5600e- 003 122.6394 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.6 Building Construction - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.5474 13.3795 15.2360 0.0296 0.5872 0.5872 0.5466 0.5466 2,783.573 2 2,783.573 2 0.8308 2,804.343 3 Total 1.5474 13.3795 15.2360 0.0296 0.5872 0.5872 0.5466 0.5466 2,783.573 2 2,783.573 2 0.8308 2,804.343 3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:29 PMPage 19 of 34 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 3.6 Building Construction - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.1201 4.6250 1.5386 0.0237 0.8492 0.0255 0.8747 0.2444 0.0244 0.2688 2,551.347 9 2,551.347 9 0.0870 0.3662 2,662.636 4 Worker 0.7879 0.5475 9.3895 0.0275 3.2067 0.0182 3.2249 0.8504 0.0168 0.8671 2,777.280 4 2,777.280 4 0.0595 0.0584 2,796.179 1 Total 0.9079 5.1725 10.9281 0.0512 4.0559 0.0437 4.0996 1.0948 0.0412 1.1359 5,328.628 4 5,328.628 4 0.1465 0.4246 5,458.815 5 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.5474 13.3795 15.2360 0.0296 0.5872 0.5872 0.5466 0.5466 0.0000 2,783.573 2 2,783.573 2 0.8308 2,804.343 3 Total 1.5474 13.3795 15.2360 0.0296 0.5872 0.5872 0.5466 0.5466 0.0000 2,783.573 2 2,783.573 2 0.8308 2,804.343 3 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:29 PMPage 20 of 34 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 3.6 Building Construction - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.1201 4.6250 1.5386 0.0237 0.8492 0.0255 0.8747 0.2444 0.0244 0.2688 2,551.347 9 2,551.347 9 0.0870 0.3662 2,662.636 4 Worker 0.7879 0.5475 9.3895 0.0275 3.2067 0.0182 3.2249 0.8504 0.0168 0.8671 2,777.280 4 2,777.280 4 0.0595 0.0584 2,796.179 1 Total 0.9079 5.1725 10.9281 0.0512 4.0559 0.0437 4.0996 1.0948 0.0412 1.1359 5,328.628 4 5,328.628 4 0.1465 0.4246 5,458.815 5 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.6 Building Construction - 2025 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.4544 12.3048 15.0006 0.0296 0.5100 0.5100 0.4751 0.4751 2,783.750 1 2,783.750 1 0.8292 2,804.480 5 Total 1.4544 12.3048 15.0006 0.0296 0.5100 0.5100 0.4751 0.4751 2,783.750 1 2,783.750 1 0.8292 2,804.480 5 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:29 PMPage 21 of 34 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 3.6 Building Construction - 2025 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.1163 4.6029 1.5075 0.0232 0.8492 0.0256 0.8748 0.2444 0.0245 0.2689 2,505.383 2 2,505.383 2 0.0876 0.3598 2,614.799 4 Worker 0.7370 0.4910 8.7259 0.0265 3.2067 0.0173 3.2241 0.8504 0.0160 0.8663 2,682.667 3 2,682.667 3 0.0536 0.0545 2,700.252 4 Total 0.8532 5.0939 10.2334 0.0498 4.0559 0.0429 4.0989 1.0948 0.0405 1.1352 5,188.050 5 5,188.050 5 0.1412 0.4143 5,315.051 8 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.4544 12.3048 15.0006 0.0296 0.5100 0.5100 0.4751 0.4751 0.0000 2,783.750 1 2,783.750 1 0.8292 2,804.480 5 Total 1.4544 12.3048 15.0006 0.0296 0.5100 0.5100 0.4751 0.4751 0.0000 2,783.750 1 2,783.750 1 0.8292 2,804.480 5 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:29 PMPage 22 of 34 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 3.6 Building Construction - 2025 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.1163 4.6029 1.5075 0.0232 0.8492 0.0256 0.8748 0.2444 0.0245 0.2689 2,505.383 2 2,505.383 2 0.0876 0.3598 2,614.799 4 Worker 0.7370 0.4910 8.7259 0.0265 3.2067 0.0173 3.2241 0.8504 0.0160 0.8663 2,682.667 3 2,682.667 3 0.0536 0.0545 2,700.252 4 Total 0.8532 5.0939 10.2334 0.0498 4.0559 0.0429 4.0989 1.0948 0.0405 1.1352 5,188.050 5 5,188.050 5 0.1412 0.4143 5,315.051 8 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.7 Paving - 2025 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.9241 8.2829 10.1181 0.0140 0.4424 0.4424 0.4070 0.4070 1,352.829 2 1,352.829 2 0.4375 1,363.767 5 Paving 2.0934 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 3.0174 8.2829 10.1181 0.0140 0.4424 0.4424 0.4070 0.4070 1,352.829 2 1,352.829 2 0.4375 1,363.767 5 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:29 PMPage 23 of 34 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 3.7 Paving - 2025 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0485 0.0323 0.5741 1.7500e- 003 0.2110 1.1400e- 003 0.2121 0.0559 1.0500e- 003 0.0570 176.4913 176.4913 3.5200e- 003 3.5900e- 003 177.6482 Total 0.0485 0.0323 0.5741 1.7500e- 003 0.2110 1.1400e- 003 0.2121 0.0559 1.0500e- 003 0.0570 176.4913 176.4913 3.5200e- 003 3.5900e- 003 177.6482 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.9241 8.2829 10.1181 0.0140 0.4424 0.4424 0.4070 0.4070 0.0000 1,352.829 2 1,352.829 2 0.4375 1,363.767 5 Paving 2.0934 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 3.0174 8.2829 10.1181 0.0140 0.4424 0.4424 0.4070 0.4070 0.0000 1,352.829 2 1,352.829 2 0.4375 1,363.767 5 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:29 PMPage 24 of 34 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 3.7 Paving - 2025 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0485 0.0323 0.5741 1.7500e- 003 0.2110 1.1400e- 003 0.2121 0.0559 1.0500e- 003 0.0570 176.4913 176.4913 3.5200e- 003 3.5900e- 003 177.6482 Total 0.0485 0.0323 0.5741 1.7500e- 003 0.2110 1.1400e- 003 0.2121 0.0559 1.0500e- 003 0.0570 176.4913 176.4913 3.5200e- 003 3.5900e- 003 177.6482 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.8 Architectural Coating - 2025 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating 110.4276 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1548 0.8821 1.1396 1.6400e- 003 0.0273 0.0273 0.0273 0.0273 133.5074 133.5074 0.0139 133.8539 Total 110.5825 0.8821 1.1396 1.6400e- 003 0.0273 0.0273 0.0273 0.0273 133.5074 133.5074 0.0139 133.8539 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:29 PMPage 25 of 34 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 3.8 Architectural Coating - 2025 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1474 0.0982 1.7452 5.3100e- 003 0.6413 3.4700e- 003 0.6448 0.1701 3.1900e- 003 0.1733 536.5335 536.5335 0.0107 0.0109 540.0505 Total 0.1474 0.0982 1.7452 5.3100e- 003 0.6413 3.4700e- 003 0.6448 0.1701 3.1900e- 003 0.1733 536.5335 536.5335 0.0107 0.0109 540.0505 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating 110.4276 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1548 0.8821 1.1396 1.6400e- 003 0.0273 0.0273 0.0273 0.0273 0.0000 133.5074 133.5074 0.0139 133.8539 Total 110.5825 0.8821 1.1396 1.6400e- 003 0.0273 0.0273 0.0273 0.0273 0.0000 133.5074 133.5074 0.0139 133.8539 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:29 PMPage 26 of 34 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 3.8 Architectural Coating - 2025 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1474 0.0982 1.7452 5.3100e- 003 0.6413 3.4700e- 003 0.6448 0.1701 3.1900e- 003 0.1733 536.5335 536.5335 0.0107 0.0109 540.0505 Total 0.1474 0.0982 1.7452 5.3100e- 003 0.6413 3.4700e- 003 0.6448 0.1701 3.1900e- 003 0.1733 536.5335 536.5335 0.0107 0.0109 540.0505 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:29 PMPage 27 of 34 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 9.2573 8.9322 91.3131 0.2062 22.8883 0.1446 23.0329 6.0973 0.1343 6.2316 21,028.28 07 21,028.28 07 1.3834 0.8453 21,314.77 89 Unmitigated 9.2573 8.9322 91.3131 0.2062 22.8883 0.1446 23.0329 6.0973 0.1343 6.2316 21,028.28 07 21,028.28 07 1.3834 0.8453 21,314.77 89 4.2 Trip Summary Information 4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT General Office Building 3,211.00 3,211.00 3211.00 10,344,111 10,344,111 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 24.90 24.90 24.90 106,712 106,712 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 97.78 97.78 97.78 419,057 419,057 Total 3,333.68 3,333.68 3,333.68 10,869,880 10,869,880 Miles Trip %Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4 Other Asphalt Surfaces 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 Parking Lot 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 16.60 8.40 6.90 59.00 0.00 41.00 92 5 3 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 16.60 8.40 6.90 59.00 0.00 41.00 92 5 3 4.4 Fleet Mix CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:29 PMPage 28 of 34 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH General Office Building 0.537891 0.065289 0.189998 0.126515 0.023567 0.006518 0.011114 0.008084 0.000933 0.000591 0.025474 0.000708 0.003318 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.537891 0.065289 0.189998 0.126515 0.023567 0.006518 0.011114 0.008084 0.000933 0.000591 0.025474 0.000708 0.003318 Parking Lot 0.537891 0.065289 0.189998 0.126515 0.023567 0.006518 0.011114 0.008084 0.000933 0.000591 0.025474 0.000708 0.003318 Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 0.537891 0.065289 0.189998 0.126515 0.023567 0.006518 0.011114 0.008084 0.000933 0.000591 0.025474 0.000708 0.003318 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 0.537891 0.065289 0.189998 0.126515 0.023567 0.006518 0.011114 0.008084 0.000933 0.000591 0.025474 0.000708 0.003318 5.0 Energy Detail ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day NaturalGas Mitigated 0.0382 0.3471 0.2916 2.0800e- 003 0.0264 0.0264 0.0264 0.0264 416.4964 416.4964 7.9800e- 003 7.6400e- 003 418.9714 NaturalGas Unmitigated 0.0382 0.3471 0.2916 2.0800e- 003 0.0264 0.0264 0.0264 0.0264 416.4964 416.4964 7.9800e- 003 7.6400e- 003 418.9714 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:29 PMPage 29 of 34 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day General Office Building 933.151 0.0101 0.0915 0.0769 5.5000e- 004 6.9500e- 003 6.9500e- 003 6.9500e- 003 6.9500e- 003 109.7824 109.7824 2.1000e- 003 2.0100e- 003 110.4348 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 611.285 6.5900e- 003 0.0599 0.0503 3.6000e- 004 4.5500e- 003 4.5500e- 003 4.5500e- 003 4.5500e- 003 71.9159 71.9159 1.3800e- 003 1.3200e- 003 72.3433 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 1995.78 0.0215 0.1957 0.1644 1.1700e- 003 0.0149 0.0149 0.0149 0.0149 234.7981 234.7981 4.5000e- 003 4.3000e- 003 236.1934 Total 0.0382 0.3471 0.2916 2.0800e- 003 0.0264 0.0264 0.0264 0.0264 416.4964 416.4964 7.9800e- 003 7.6300e- 003 418.9714 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:29 PMPage 30 of 34 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 6.0 Area Detail 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day General Office Building 0.933151 0.0101 0.0915 0.0769 5.5000e- 004 6.9500e- 003 6.9500e- 003 6.9500e- 003 6.9500e- 003 109.7824 109.7824 2.1000e- 003 2.0100e- 003 110.4348 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 0.611285 6.5900e- 003 0.0599 0.0503 3.6000e- 004 4.5500e- 003 4.5500e- 003 4.5500e- 003 4.5500e- 003 71.9159 71.9159 1.3800e- 003 1.3200e- 003 72.3433 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 1.99578 0.0215 0.1957 0.1644 1.1700e- 003 0.0149 0.0149 0.0149 0.0149 234.7981 234.7981 4.5000e- 003 4.3000e- 003 236.1934 Total 0.0382 0.3471 0.2916 2.0800e- 003 0.0264 0.0264 0.0264 0.0264 416.4964 416.4964 7.9800e- 003 7.6300e- 003 418.9714 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:29 PMPage 31 of 34 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 11.9839 1.1400e- 003 0.1253 1.0000e- 005 4.5000e- 004 4.5000e- 004 4.5000e- 004 4.5000e- 004 0.2692 0.2692 7.0000e- 004 0.2867 Unmitigated 11.9839 1.1400e- 003 0.1253 1.0000e- 005 4.5000e- 004 4.5000e- 004 4.5000e- 004 4.5000e- 004 0.2692 0.2692 7.0000e- 004 0.2867 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural Coating 1.3614 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 10.6109 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 0.0115 1.1400e- 003 0.1253 1.0000e- 005 4.5000e- 004 4.5000e- 004 4.5000e- 004 4.5000e- 004 0.2692 0.2692 7.0000e- 004 0.2867 Total 11.9839 1.1400e- 003 0.1253 1.0000e- 005 4.5000e- 004 4.5000e- 004 4.5000e- 004 4.5000e- 004 0.2692 0.2692 7.0000e- 004 0.2867 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:29 PMPage 32 of 34 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 7.0 Water Detail 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural Coating 1.3614 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 10.6109 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 0.0115 1.1400e- 003 0.1253 1.0000e- 005 4.5000e- 004 4.5000e- 004 4.5000e- 004 4.5000e- 004 0.2692 0.2692 7.0000e- 004 0.2867 Total 11.9839 1.1400e- 003 0.1253 1.0000e- 005 4.5000e- 004 4.5000e- 004 4.5000e- 004 4.5000e- 004 0.2692 0.2692 7.0000e- 004 0.2867 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:29 PMPage 33 of 34 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 11.0 Vegetation 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 8.0 Waste Detail 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:29 PMPage 34 of 34 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 Downey Prologis Project R2 Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model. Land Use - Consistent with the DEIR's model. Construction Phase - Consistent with the DEIR's model. Off-road Equipment - Consistent with the DEIR's model. Off-road Equipment - Consistent with the DEIR's model. Off-road Equipment - Consistent with the DEIR's model. Off-road Equipment - Consistent with the DEIR's model. Off-road Equipment - Consistent with the DEIR's model. 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 20.00 1000sqft 0.46 20,000.00 0 Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 26.79 1000sqft 0.61 26,785.00 0 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 488.90 1000sqft 11.22 488,900.00 0 Parking Lot 682.00 1000sqft 15.70 0.00 0 Other Asphalt Surfaces 12.36 1000sqft 0.28 12,360.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Climate Zone Urban 7 Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.3 8 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data 1.0 Project Characteristics Utility Company Southern California Edison 2026Operational Year CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 390.98 0.033CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.004N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:28 PMPage 1 of 34 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 Off-road Equipment - Consistent with the DEIR's model. Off-road Equipment - Consistent with the DEIR's model. Trips and VMT - Consistent with the DEIR's model. Architectural Coating - See SWAPE's comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Architectural Coating Emission Factors". Vehicle Trips - Consistent with the DEIR's model. Fleet Mix - See SWAPE's comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Fleet Mix Values". Demolition - Consistent with the DEIR's model. Grading - Consistent with the DEIR's model. Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblConstructionPhase NumDays 35.00 45.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 440.00 182.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 30.00 75.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 45.00 40.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 35.00 20.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 45.00 37.00 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 7/9/2026 3/31/2025 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 4/2/2026 3/31/2025 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 3/21/2024 5/23/2024 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 5/23/2024 7/18/2024 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 5/21/2026 3/7/2025 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 7/25/2024 12/12/2024 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 7/25/2024 10/18/2024 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 5/22/2026 1/28/2025 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 7/26/2024 7/19/2024 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 3/22/2024 5/24/2024 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 4/3/2026 2/9/2025 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 5/24/2024 10/23/2024 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 7/26/2024 6/3/2024 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:28 PMPage 2 of 34 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 tblGrading AcresOfGrading 20.00 18.50 tblGrading AcresOfGrading 111.00 120.00 tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 460.00 tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 75,000.00 tblGrading MaterialImported 0.00 460.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 682,000.00 0.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 15.66 15.70 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 78.00 37.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 81.00 33.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 231.00 367.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 158.00 36.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 158.00 36.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 89.00 82.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 84.00 14.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 402.00 376.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 130.00 81.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 132.00 89.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 80.00 36.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 247.00 367.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 247.00 367.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 247.00 367.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 158.00 36.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 97.00 84.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 97.00 84.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 97.00 84.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 158.00 36.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 187.00 148.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 367.00 423.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 402.00 376.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:28 PMPage 3 of 34 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 97.00 84.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 402.00 376.00 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.38 0.38 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.38 0.38 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Off-Highway Trucks tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Excavators tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Off-Highway Trucks tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Off-Highway Trucks tblProjectCharacteristics PrecipitationFrequency 33 8 tblProjectCharacteristics WindSpeed 2.2 2.3 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripLength 6.90 10.20 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripLength 6.90 10.20 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripLength 6.90 10.20 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripLength 6.90 10.20 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripLength 6.90 10.20 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripLength 6.90 10.20 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripLength 6.90 10.20 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 90.00 89.80 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 18.50 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 18.50 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 18.50 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 18.50 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 18.50 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 18.50 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 18.50 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 18.00 17.50 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 23.00 22.50 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 13.00 12.50 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:28 PMPage 4 of 34 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 2.0 Emissions Summary tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 46.00 45.60 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.21 160.55 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.12 0.93 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.74 0.20 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 0.70 160.55 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 2.12 0.93 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.74 0.20 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 9.74 160.55 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 2.12 0.93 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 1.74 0.20 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:28 PMPage 5 of 34 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2024 7.0221 90.8570 69.1400 0.2952 18.5121 2.4351 20.9471 6.1131 2.2554 8.3685 0.0000 30,816.45 29 30,816.45 29 3.9949 2.9884 31,806.86 20 2025 116.1878 26.9673 37.8925 0.1003 4.9082 1.0273 5.9355 1.3208 0.9541 2.2749 0.0000 9,995.328 6 9,995.328 6 1.4360 0.4342 10,160.62 13 Maximum 116.1878 90.8570 69.1400 0.2952 18.5121 2.4351 20.9471 6.1131 2.2554 8.3685 0.0000 30,816.45 29 30,816.45 29 3.9949 2.9884 31,806.86 20 Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2024 7.0221 90.8570 69.1400 0.2952 18.5121 2.4351 20.9471 6.1131 2.2554 8.3685 0.0000 30,816.45 29 30,816.45 29 3.9949 2.9884 31,806.86 20 2025 116.1878 26.9673 37.8925 0.1003 4.9082 1.0273 5.9355 1.3208 0.9541 2.2749 0.0000 9,995.328 6 9,995.328 6 1.4360 0.4342 10,160.62 13 Maximum 116.1878 90.8570 69.1400 0.2952 18.5121 2.4351 20.9471 6.1131 2.2554 8.3685 0.0000 30,816.45 29 30,816.45 29 3.9949 2.9884 31,806.86 20 Mitigated Construction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:28 PMPage 6 of 34 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:28 PMPage 7 of 34 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area 11.9839 1.1400e- 003 0.1253 1.0000e- 005 4.5000e- 004 4.5000e- 004 4.5000e- 004 4.5000e- 004 0.2692 0.2692 7.0000e- 004 0.2867 Energy 0.0382 0.3471 0.2916 2.0800e- 003 0.0264 0.0264 0.0264 0.0264 416.4964 416.4964 7.9800e- 003 7.6400e- 003 418.9714 Mobile 9.0854 9.6371 89.7542 0.1975 22.8883 0.1446 23.0330 6.0973 0.1343 6.2316 20,151.45 75 20,151.45 75 1.4217 0.8814 20,449.66 32 Total 21.1074 9.9853 90.1711 0.1996 22.8883 0.1715 23.0598 6.0973 0.1612 6.2584 20,568.22 31 20,568.22 31 1.4304 0.8891 20,868.92 13 Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area 11.9839 1.1400e- 003 0.1253 1.0000e- 005 4.5000e- 004 4.5000e- 004 4.5000e- 004 4.5000e- 004 0.2692 0.2692 7.0000e- 004 0.2867 Energy 0.0382 0.3471 0.2916 2.0800e- 003 0.0264 0.0264 0.0264 0.0264 416.4964 416.4964 7.9800e- 003 7.6400e- 003 418.9714 Mobile 9.0854 9.6371 89.7542 0.1975 22.8883 0.1446 23.0330 6.0973 0.1343 6.2316 20,151.45 75 20,151.45 75 1.4217 0.8814 20,449.66 32 Total 21.1074 9.9853 90.1711 0.1996 22.8883 0.1715 23.0598 6.0973 0.1612 6.2584 20,568.22 31 20,568.22 31 1.4304 0.8891 20,868.92 13 Mitigated Operational CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:28 PMPage 8 of 34 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Demolition/Site Preparation Demolition 2/9/2024 5/23/2024 5 75 2 Off-Site Driveways & Sidewalks Grading 5/24/2024 7/18/2024 5 40 3 Grading/Undergroud Utilities Grading 10/23/2024 12/12/2024 5 37 4 Off-Site Street Utilites Trenching 6/3/2024 10/18/2024 5 100 5 Building Construction Building Construction 7/19/2024 3/31/2025 5 182 6 Paving Paving 2/9/2025 3/7/2025 5 20 7 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/28/2025 3/31/2025 5 45 OffRoad Equipment Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 37 0.48 Demolition/Site Preparation Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 33 0.73 Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 367 0.29 Demolition/Site Preparation Excavators 3 8.00 36 0.38 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 803,528; Non-Residential Outdoor: 267,843; Striped Parking Area: 742 (Architectural Coating – sqft) Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 18.5 Acres of Paving: 15.98 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:28 PMPage 9 of 34 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 Off-Site Driveways & Sidewalks Excavators 2 8.00 36 0.38 Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 82 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 14 0.74 Grading/Undergroud Utilities Off-Highway Trucks 1 4.00 376 0.38 Paving Pavers 2 8.00 81 0.42 Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 89 0.36 Paving Rollers 2 8.00 36 0.38 Demolition/Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 367 0.40 Off-Site Driveways & Sidewalks Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 367 0.40 Grading/Undergroud Utilities Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 367 0.40 Off-Site Street Utilites Excavators 2 8.00 36 0.38 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 84 0.37 Off-Site Driveways & Sidewalks Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 84 0.37 Grading/Undergroud Utilities Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 84 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45 Grading/Undergroud Utilities Excavators 2 8.00 36 0.38 Grading/Undergroud Utilities Graders 1 8.00 148 0.41 Grading/Undergroud Utilities Scrapers 2 8.00 423 0.48 Demolition/Site Preparation Off-Highway Trucks 1 4.00 376 0.38 Off-Site Street Utilites Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 84 0.37 Building Construction Off-Highway Trucks 1 4.00 376 0.38 Trips and VMT Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Demolition/Site Preparation 7 17.50 0.00 1,969.00 18.50 10.20 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading/Undergroud Utilities 9 22.50 0.00 9,375.00 18.50 10.20 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Off-Site Driveways & Sidewalks 5 12.50 0.00 91.00 18.50 10.20 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:28 PMPage 10 of 34 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 3.2 Demolition/Site Preparation - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 5.7003 0.0000 5.7003 0.8631 0.0000 0.8631 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.9292 26.5386 24.3071 0.0387 1.1355 1.1355 1.0486 1.0486 3,703.347 5 3,703.347 5 1.1409 3,731.869 7 Total 2.9292 26.5386 24.3071 0.0387 5.7003 1.1355 6.8358 0.8631 1.0486 1.9117 3,703.347 5 3,703.347 5 1.1409 3,731.869 7 Unmitigated Construction On-Site 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Building Construction 10 228.00 89.80 0.00 18.50 10.20 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 18.50 10.20 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 45.60 0.00 0.00 18.50 10.20 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Off-Site Street Utilites 4 10.00 0.00 0.00 18.50 10.20 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:28 PMPage 11 of 34 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 3.2 Demolition/Site Preparation - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0529 3.5862 0.9430 0.0151 0.4596 0.0218 0.4814 0.1260 0.0209 0.1469 1,665.082 2 1,665.082 2 0.0936 0.2645 1,746.249 4 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0659 0.0464 0.6578 2.0000e- 003 0.2461 1.4000e- 003 0.2475 0.0653 1.2900e- 003 0.0666 201.9140 201.9140 4.5800e- 003 4.7900e- 003 203.4555 Total 0.1188 3.6326 1.6008 0.0171 0.7057 0.0232 0.7289 0.1913 0.0222 0.2135 1,866.996 2 1,866.996 2 0.0982 0.2693 1,949.705 0 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 5.7003 0.0000 5.7003 0.8631 0.0000 0.8631 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.9292 26.5386 24.3071 0.0387 1.1355 1.1355 1.0486 1.0486 0.0000 3,703.347 5 3,703.347 5 1.1409 3,731.869 7 Total 2.9292 26.5386 24.3071 0.0387 5.7003 1.1355 6.8358 0.8631 1.0486 1.9117 0.0000 3,703.347 5 3,703.347 5 1.1409 3,731.869 7 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:28 PMPage 12 of 34 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 3.2 Demolition/Site Preparation - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0529 3.5862 0.9430 0.0151 0.4596 0.0218 0.4814 0.1260 0.0209 0.1469 1,665.082 2 1,665.082 2 0.0936 0.2645 1,746.249 4 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0659 0.0464 0.6578 2.0000e- 003 0.2461 1.4000e- 003 0.2475 0.0653 1.2900e- 003 0.0666 201.9140 201.9140 4.5800e- 003 4.7900e- 003 203.4555 Total 0.1188 3.6326 1.6008 0.0171 0.7057 0.0232 0.7289 0.1913 0.0222 0.2135 1,866.996 2 1,866.996 2 0.0982 0.2693 1,949.705 0 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.3 Off-Site Driveways & Sidewalks - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 6.5126 0.0000 6.5126 3.3632 0.0000 3.3632 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.5287 14.6365 14.8530 0.0208 0.6448 0.6448 0.5933 0.5933 2,017.660 2 2,017.660 2 0.6526 2,033.974 0 Total 1.5287 14.6365 14.8530 0.0208 6.5126 0.6448 7.1574 3.3632 0.5933 3.9564 2,017.660 2 2,017.660 2 0.6526 2,033.974 0 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:28 PMPage 13 of 34 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 3.3 Off-Site Driveways & Sidewalks - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 4.5800e- 003 0.3108 0.0817 1.3100e- 003 0.0398 1.8900e- 003 0.0417 0.0109 1.8100e- 003 0.0127 144.2888 144.2888 8.1100e- 003 0.0229 151.3224 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0471 0.0332 0.4699 1.4300e- 003 0.1758 1.0000e- 003 0.1768 0.0466 9.2000e- 004 0.0475 144.2243 144.2243 3.2700e- 003 3.4200e- 003 145.3254 Total 0.0516 0.3439 0.5516 2.7400e- 003 0.2156 2.8900e- 003 0.2185 0.0575 2.7300e- 003 0.0603 288.5131 288.5131 0.0114 0.0263 296.6478 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 6.5126 0.0000 6.5126 3.3632 0.0000 3.3632 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.5287 14.6365 14.8530 0.0208 0.6448 0.6448 0.5933 0.5933 0.0000 2,017.660 2 2,017.660 2 0.6526 2,033.974 0 Total 1.5287 14.6365 14.8530 0.0208 6.5126 0.6448 7.1574 3.3632 0.5933 3.9564 0.0000 2,017.660 2 2,017.660 2 0.6526 2,033.974 0 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:28 PMPage 14 of 34 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 3.3 Off-Site Driveways & Sidewalks - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 4.5800e- 003 0.3108 0.0817 1.3100e- 003 0.0398 1.8900e- 003 0.0417 0.0109 1.8100e- 003 0.0127 144.2888 144.2888 8.1100e- 003 0.0229 151.3224 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0471 0.0332 0.4699 1.4300e- 003 0.1758 1.0000e- 003 0.1768 0.0466 9.2000e- 004 0.0475 144.2243 144.2243 3.2700e- 003 3.4200e- 003 145.3254 Total 0.0516 0.3439 0.5516 2.7400e- 003 0.2156 2.8900e- 003 0.2185 0.0575 2.7300e- 003 0.0603 288.5131 288.5131 0.0114 0.0263 296.6478 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Grading/Undergroud Utilities - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 9.7044 0.0000 9.7044 3.7184 0.0000 3.7184 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.9038 37.3675 33.8090 0.0673 1.5915 1.5915 1.4642 1.4642 6,518.048 7 6,518.048 7 2.1081 6,570.750 5 Total 3.9038 37.3675 33.8090 0.0673 9.7044 1.5915 11.2959 3.7184 1.4642 5.1826 6,518.048 7 6,518.048 7 2.1081 6,570.750 5 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:28 PMPage 15 of 34 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 3.4 Grading/Undergroud Utilities - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.5105 34.6113 9.1010 0.1461 4.4353 0.2108 4.6461 1.2161 0.2016 1.4177 16,070.18 10 16,070.18 10 0.9037 2.5529 16,853.54 93 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0847 0.0597 0.8458 2.5700e- 003 0.3165 1.8000e- 003 0.3183 0.0839 1.6500e- 003 0.0856 259.6037 259.6037 5.8900e- 003 6.1600e- 003 261.5857 Total 0.5952 34.6710 9.9467 0.1486 4.7518 0.2126 4.9643 1.3000 0.2033 1.5033 16,329.78 47 16,329.78 47 0.9096 2.5591 17,115.13 50 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 9.7044 0.0000 9.7044 3.7184 0.0000 3.7184 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.9038 37.3675 33.8090 0.0673 1.5915 1.5915 1.4642 1.4642 0.0000 6,518.048 7 6,518.048 7 2.1081 6,570.750 5 Total 3.9038 37.3675 33.8090 0.0673 9.7044 1.5915 11.2959 3.7184 1.4642 5.1826 0.0000 6,518.048 7 6,518.048 7 2.1081 6,570.750 5 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:28 PMPage 16 of 34 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 3.4 Grading/Undergroud Utilities - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.5105 34.6113 9.1010 0.1461 4.4353 0.2108 4.6461 1.2161 0.2016 1.4177 16,070.18 10 16,070.18 10 0.9037 2.5529 16,853.54 93 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0847 0.0597 0.8458 2.5700e- 003 0.3165 1.8000e- 003 0.3183 0.0839 1.6500e- 003 0.0856 259.6037 259.6037 5.8900e- 003 6.1600e- 003 261.5857 Total 0.5952 34.6710 9.9467 0.1486 4.7518 0.2126 4.9643 1.3000 0.2033 1.5033 16,329.78 47 16,329.78 47 0.9096 2.5591 17,115.13 50 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Off-Site Street Utilites - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.4502 4.2012 5.9012 8.0200e- 003 0.1728 0.1728 0.1590 0.1590 776.4576 776.4576 0.2511 782.7356 Total 0.4502 4.2012 5.9012 8.0200e- 003 0.1728 0.1728 0.1590 0.1590 776.4576 776.4576 0.2511 782.7356 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:28 PMPage 17 of 34 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 3.5 Off-Site Street Utilites - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0377 0.0265 0.3759 1.1400e- 003 0.1407 8.0000e- 004 0.1414 0.0373 7.4000e- 004 0.0380 115.3794 115.3794 2.6200e- 003 2.7400e- 003 116.2603 Total 0.0377 0.0265 0.3759 1.1400e- 003 0.1407 8.0000e- 004 0.1414 0.0373 7.4000e- 004 0.0380 115.3794 115.3794 2.6200e- 003 2.7400e- 003 116.2603 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.4502 4.2012 5.9012 8.0200e- 003 0.1728 0.1728 0.1590 0.1590 0.0000 776.4576 776.4576 0.2511 782.7356 Total 0.4502 4.2012 5.9012 8.0200e- 003 0.1728 0.1728 0.1590 0.1590 0.0000 776.4576 776.4576 0.2511 782.7356 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:28 PMPage 18 of 34 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 3.5 Off-Site Street Utilites - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0377 0.0265 0.3759 1.1400e- 003 0.1407 8.0000e- 004 0.1414 0.0373 7.4000e- 004 0.0380 115.3794 115.3794 2.6200e- 003 2.7400e- 003 116.2603 Total 0.0377 0.0265 0.3759 1.1400e- 003 0.1407 8.0000e- 004 0.1414 0.0373 7.4000e- 004 0.0380 115.3794 115.3794 2.6200e- 003 2.7400e- 003 116.2603 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.6 Building Construction - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.5474 13.3795 15.2360 0.0296 0.5872 0.5872 0.5466 0.5466 2,783.573 2 2,783.573 2 0.8308 2,804.343 3 Total 1.5474 13.3795 15.2360 0.0296 0.5872 0.5872 0.5466 0.5466 2,783.573 2 2,783.573 2 0.8308 2,804.343 3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:28 PMPage 19 of 34 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 3.6 Building Construction - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.1173 4.8342 1.5782 0.0237 0.8492 0.0256 0.8748 0.2444 0.0245 0.2689 2,554.395 5 2,554.395 5 0.0867 0.3669 2,665.898 2 Worker 0.8584 0.6048 8.5702 0.0260 3.2067 0.0182 3.2249 0.8504 0.0168 0.8671 2,630.650 8 2,630.650 8 0.0597 0.0624 2,650.735 0 Total 0.9757 5.4390 10.1484 0.0498 4.0559 0.0438 4.0997 1.0948 0.0413 1.1360 5,185.046 3 5,185.046 3 0.1464 0.4293 5,316.633 2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.5474 13.3795 15.2360 0.0296 0.5872 0.5872 0.5466 0.5466 0.0000 2,783.573 2 2,783.573 2 0.8308 2,804.343 3 Total 1.5474 13.3795 15.2360 0.0296 0.5872 0.5872 0.5466 0.5466 0.0000 2,783.573 2 2,783.573 2 0.8308 2,804.343 3 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:28 PMPage 20 of 34 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 3.6 Building Construction - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.1173 4.8342 1.5782 0.0237 0.8492 0.0256 0.8748 0.2444 0.0245 0.2689 2,554.395 5 2,554.395 5 0.0867 0.3669 2,665.898 2 Worker 0.8584 0.6048 8.5702 0.0260 3.2067 0.0182 3.2249 0.8504 0.0168 0.8671 2,630.650 8 2,630.650 8 0.0597 0.0624 2,650.735 0 Total 0.9757 5.4390 10.1484 0.0498 4.0559 0.0438 4.0997 1.0948 0.0413 1.1360 5,185.046 3 5,185.046 3 0.1464 0.4293 5,316.633 2 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.6 Building Construction - 2025 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.4544 12.3048 15.0006 0.0296 0.5100 0.5100 0.4751 0.4751 2,783.750 1 2,783.750 1 0.8292 2,804.480 5 Total 1.4544 12.3048 15.0006 0.0296 0.5100 0.5100 0.4751 0.4751 2,783.750 1 2,783.750 1 0.8292 2,804.480 5 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:28 PMPage 21 of 34 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 3.6 Building Construction - 2025 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.1133 4.8112 1.5470 0.0233 0.8492 0.0257 0.8749 0.2444 0.0246 0.2690 2,508.430 1 2,508.430 1 0.0874 0.3605 2,618.053 0 Worker 0.8059 0.5422 7.9690 0.0251 3.2067 0.0173 3.2241 0.8504 0.0160 0.8663 2,541.348 2 2,541.348 2 0.0538 0.0582 2,560.035 8 Total 0.9193 5.3534 9.5161 0.0484 4.0559 0.0430 4.0990 1.0948 0.0405 1.1353 5,049.778 3 5,049.778 3 0.1411 0.4187 5,178.088 8 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.4544 12.3048 15.0006 0.0296 0.5100 0.5100 0.4751 0.4751 0.0000 2,783.750 1 2,783.750 1 0.8292 2,804.480 5 Total 1.4544 12.3048 15.0006 0.0296 0.5100 0.5100 0.4751 0.4751 0.0000 2,783.750 1 2,783.750 1 0.8292 2,804.480 5 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:28 PMPage 22 of 34 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 3.6 Building Construction - 2025 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.1133 4.8112 1.5470 0.0233 0.8492 0.0257 0.8749 0.2444 0.0246 0.2690 2,508.430 1 2,508.430 1 0.0874 0.3605 2,618.053 0 Worker 0.8059 0.5422 7.9690 0.0251 3.2067 0.0173 3.2241 0.8504 0.0160 0.8663 2,541.348 2 2,541.348 2 0.0538 0.0582 2,560.035 8 Total 0.9193 5.3534 9.5161 0.0484 4.0559 0.0430 4.0990 1.0948 0.0405 1.1353 5,049.778 3 5,049.778 3 0.1411 0.4187 5,178.088 8 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.7 Paving - 2025 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.9241 8.2829 10.1181 0.0140 0.4424 0.4424 0.4070 0.4070 1,352.829 2 1,352.829 2 0.4375 1,363.767 5 Paving 2.0934 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 3.0174 8.2829 10.1181 0.0140 0.4424 0.4424 0.4070 0.4070 1,352.829 2 1,352.829 2 0.4375 1,363.767 5 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:28 PMPage 23 of 34 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 3.7 Paving - 2025 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0530 0.0357 0.5243 1.6500e- 003 0.2110 1.1400e- 003 0.2121 0.0559 1.0500e- 003 0.0570 167.1940 167.1940 3.5400e- 003 3.8300e- 003 168.4234 Total 0.0530 0.0357 0.5243 1.6500e- 003 0.2110 1.1400e- 003 0.2121 0.0559 1.0500e- 003 0.0570 167.1940 167.1940 3.5400e- 003 3.8300e- 003 168.4234 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.9241 8.2829 10.1181 0.0140 0.4424 0.4424 0.4070 0.4070 0.0000 1,352.829 2 1,352.829 2 0.4375 1,363.767 5 Paving 2.0934 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 3.0174 8.2829 10.1181 0.0140 0.4424 0.4424 0.4070 0.4070 0.0000 1,352.829 2 1,352.829 2 0.4375 1,363.767 5 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:28 PMPage 24 of 34 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 3.7 Paving - 2025 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0530 0.0357 0.5243 1.6500e- 003 0.2110 1.1400e- 003 0.2121 0.0559 1.0500e- 003 0.0570 167.1940 167.1940 3.5400e- 003 3.8300e- 003 168.4234 Total 0.0530 0.0357 0.5243 1.6500e- 003 0.2110 1.1400e- 003 0.2121 0.0559 1.0500e- 003 0.0570 167.1940 167.1940 3.5400e- 003 3.8300e- 003 168.4234 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.8 Architectural Coating - 2025 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating 110.4276 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1548 0.8821 1.1396 1.6400e- 003 0.0273 0.0273 0.0273 0.0273 133.5074 133.5074 0.0139 133.8539 Total 110.5825 0.8821 1.1396 1.6400e- 003 0.0273 0.0273 0.0273 0.0273 133.5074 133.5074 0.0139 133.8539 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:28 PMPage 25 of 34 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 3.8 Architectural Coating - 2025 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1612 0.1084 1.5938 5.0300e- 003 0.6413 3.4700e- 003 0.6448 0.1701 3.1900e- 003 0.1733 508.2696 508.2696 0.0108 0.0116 512.0072 Total 0.1612 0.1084 1.5938 5.0300e- 003 0.6413 3.4700e- 003 0.6448 0.1701 3.1900e- 003 0.1733 508.2696 508.2696 0.0108 0.0116 512.0072 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating 110.4276 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1548 0.8821 1.1396 1.6400e- 003 0.0273 0.0273 0.0273 0.0273 0.0000 133.5074 133.5074 0.0139 133.8539 Total 110.5825 0.8821 1.1396 1.6400e- 003 0.0273 0.0273 0.0273 0.0273 0.0000 133.5074 133.5074 0.0139 133.8539 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:28 PMPage 26 of 34 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 3.8 Architectural Coating - 2025 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1612 0.1084 1.5938 5.0300e- 003 0.6413 3.4700e- 003 0.6448 0.1701 3.1900e- 003 0.1733 508.2696 508.2696 0.0108 0.0116 512.0072 Total 0.1612 0.1084 1.5938 5.0300e- 003 0.6413 3.4700e- 003 0.6448 0.1701 3.1900e- 003 0.1733 508.2696 508.2696 0.0108 0.0116 512.0072 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:28 PMPage 27 of 34 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 9.0854 9.6371 89.7542 0.1975 22.8883 0.1446 23.0330 6.0973 0.1343 6.2316 20,151.45 75 20,151.45 75 1.4217 0.8814 20,449.66 32 Unmitigated 9.0854 9.6371 89.7542 0.1975 22.8883 0.1446 23.0330 6.0973 0.1343 6.2316 20,151.45 75 20,151.45 75 1.4217 0.8814 20,449.66 32 4.2 Trip Summary Information 4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT General Office Building 3,211.00 3,211.00 3211.00 10,344,111 10,344,111 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 24.90 24.90 24.90 106,712 106,712 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 97.78 97.78 97.78 419,057 419,057 Total 3,333.68 3,333.68 3,333.68 10,869,880 10,869,880 Miles Trip %Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4 Other Asphalt Surfaces 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 Parking Lot 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 16.60 8.40 6.90 59.00 0.00 41.00 92 5 3 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 16.60 8.40 6.90 59.00 0.00 41.00 92 5 3 4.4 Fleet Mix CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:28 PMPage 28 of 34 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH General Office Building 0.537891 0.065289 0.189998 0.126515 0.023567 0.006518 0.011114 0.008084 0.000933 0.000591 0.025474 0.000708 0.003318 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.537891 0.065289 0.189998 0.126515 0.023567 0.006518 0.011114 0.008084 0.000933 0.000591 0.025474 0.000708 0.003318 Parking Lot 0.537891 0.065289 0.189998 0.126515 0.023567 0.006518 0.011114 0.008084 0.000933 0.000591 0.025474 0.000708 0.003318 Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 0.537891 0.065289 0.189998 0.126515 0.023567 0.006518 0.011114 0.008084 0.000933 0.000591 0.025474 0.000708 0.003318 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 0.537891 0.065289 0.189998 0.126515 0.023567 0.006518 0.011114 0.008084 0.000933 0.000591 0.025474 0.000708 0.003318 5.0 Energy Detail ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day NaturalGas Mitigated 0.0382 0.3471 0.2916 2.0800e- 003 0.0264 0.0264 0.0264 0.0264 416.4964 416.4964 7.9800e- 003 7.6400e- 003 418.9714 NaturalGas Unmitigated 0.0382 0.3471 0.2916 2.0800e- 003 0.0264 0.0264 0.0264 0.0264 416.4964 416.4964 7.9800e- 003 7.6400e- 003 418.9714 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:28 PMPage 29 of 34 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day General Office Building 933.151 0.0101 0.0915 0.0769 5.5000e- 004 6.9500e- 003 6.9500e- 003 6.9500e- 003 6.9500e- 003 109.7824 109.7824 2.1000e- 003 2.0100e- 003 110.4348 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 611.285 6.5900e- 003 0.0599 0.0503 3.6000e- 004 4.5500e- 003 4.5500e- 003 4.5500e- 003 4.5500e- 003 71.9159 71.9159 1.3800e- 003 1.3200e- 003 72.3433 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 1995.78 0.0215 0.1957 0.1644 1.1700e- 003 0.0149 0.0149 0.0149 0.0149 234.7981 234.7981 4.5000e- 003 4.3000e- 003 236.1934 Total 0.0382 0.3471 0.2916 2.0800e- 003 0.0264 0.0264 0.0264 0.0264 416.4964 416.4964 7.9800e- 003 7.6300e- 003 418.9714 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:28 PMPage 30 of 34 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 6.0 Area Detail 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day General Office Building 0.933151 0.0101 0.0915 0.0769 5.5000e- 004 6.9500e- 003 6.9500e- 003 6.9500e- 003 6.9500e- 003 109.7824 109.7824 2.1000e- 003 2.0100e- 003 110.4348 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 0.611285 6.5900e- 003 0.0599 0.0503 3.6000e- 004 4.5500e- 003 4.5500e- 003 4.5500e- 003 4.5500e- 003 71.9159 71.9159 1.3800e- 003 1.3200e- 003 72.3433 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 1.99578 0.0215 0.1957 0.1644 1.1700e- 003 0.0149 0.0149 0.0149 0.0149 234.7981 234.7981 4.5000e- 003 4.3000e- 003 236.1934 Total 0.0382 0.3471 0.2916 2.0800e- 003 0.0264 0.0264 0.0264 0.0264 416.4964 416.4964 7.9800e- 003 7.6300e- 003 418.9714 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:28 PMPage 31 of 34 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 11.9839 1.1400e- 003 0.1253 1.0000e- 005 4.5000e- 004 4.5000e- 004 4.5000e- 004 4.5000e- 004 0.2692 0.2692 7.0000e- 004 0.2867 Unmitigated 11.9839 1.1400e- 003 0.1253 1.0000e- 005 4.5000e- 004 4.5000e- 004 4.5000e- 004 4.5000e- 004 0.2692 0.2692 7.0000e- 004 0.2867 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural Coating 1.3614 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 10.6109 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 0.0115 1.1400e- 003 0.1253 1.0000e- 005 4.5000e- 004 4.5000e- 004 4.5000e- 004 4.5000e- 004 0.2692 0.2692 7.0000e- 004 0.2867 Total 11.9839 1.1400e- 003 0.1253 1.0000e- 005 4.5000e- 004 4.5000e- 004 4.5000e- 004 4.5000e- 004 0.2692 0.2692 7.0000e- 004 0.2867 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:28 PMPage 32 of 34 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 7.0 Water Detail 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural Coating 1.3614 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 10.6109 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 0.0115 1.1400e- 003 0.1253 1.0000e- 005 4.5000e- 004 4.5000e- 004 4.5000e- 004 4.5000e- 004 0.2692 0.2692 7.0000e- 004 0.2867 Total 11.9839 1.1400e- 003 0.1253 1.0000e- 005 4.5000e- 004 4.5000e- 004 4.5000e- 004 4.5000e- 004 0.2692 0.2692 7.0000e- 004 0.2867 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:28 PMPage 33 of 34 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 11.0 Vegetation 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 8.0 Waste Detail 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 1/19/2024 12:28 PMPage 34 of 34 Downey Prologis Project R2 - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit D.1 2656 29th Street, Suite 201 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg. (949) 887-9013 mhagemann@swape.com Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization Investigation and Remediation Strategies Litigation Support and Testifying Expert Industrial Stormwater Compliance CEQA Review Education: M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984. B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982. Professional Certifications: California Professional Geologist California Certified Hydrogeologist Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner Professional Experience: Matt has 30 years of experience in environmental policy, contaminant assessment and remediation, stormwater compliance, and CEQA review. He spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and directed efforts to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring. For the past 15 years, as a founding partner with SWAPE, Matt has developed extensive client relationships and has managed complex projects that include consultation as an expert witness and a regulatory specialist, and a manager of projects ranging from industrial stormwater compliance to CEQA review of impacts from hazardous waste, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. Positions Matt has held include: •Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present); •Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2104, 2017; •Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 ‐‐ 2003); Attachment BExhibit D.1 2 •Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004); •Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989– 1998); •Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000); •Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 – 1998); •Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995); •Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998); and •Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986). Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst: With SWAPE, Matt’s responsibilities have included: •Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 300 environmental impact reports and negative declarations since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins and Valley Fever. •Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at more than 100 industrial facilities. •Expert witness on numerous cases including, for example, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) contamination of groundwater, MTBE litigation, air toxins at hazards at a school, CERCLA compliance in assessment and remediation, and industrial stormwater contamination. •Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns. •Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. •Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. •Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern California drinking water wells. •Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations throughout California. With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt’s duties included the following: •Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel. •Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation. •Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use, research, and regulation. •Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. •Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York. Exhibit D.1 3 •Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production‐related contamination in Mississippi. •Lead author for a multi‐volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines. •Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and regulators. Executive Director: As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business institutions including the Orange County Business Council. Hydrogeology: As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows: •Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater. •Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases. •Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum. At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui. As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following: •Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water. •Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted Exhibit D.1 4 public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation. •Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer. Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows: •Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C requirements. •Reviewed and wrote ʺpart Bʺ permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. •Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S. EPA legal counsel. •Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites. With the National Park Service, Matt directed service‐wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks: •Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants. •Conducted watershed‐scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park. •Identified high‐levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. •Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup. •Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup. •Co‐authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation‐ wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks. •Contributed to the Federal Multi‐Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan. Policy: Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9. Activities included the following: •Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies. •Shaped EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water: Critical Information and Research Needs. •Improved the technical training of EPAʹs scientific and engineering staff. •Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific Exhibit D.1 5 principles into the policy‐making process. •Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents. Geology: With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows: •Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability. •Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource protection. •Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of Medford, Oregon. As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following: •Supervised year‐long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. •Conducted aquifer tests. •Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal. Teaching: From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels: •At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination. •Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. •Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin. Matt is currently a part time geology instructor at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California where he taught from 2010 to 2014 and in 2017. Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations: Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon. Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S. EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California. Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao. Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee). Exhibit D.1 6 Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California, Los Angeles. Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee). Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter‐Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant. Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater (and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers. Exhibit D.1 7 Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report. Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water. Unpublished report. Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Unpublished report. Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential W a t e r Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report. VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report. Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina. Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada. Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City. Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui, October 1996. Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air and Waste Management Association Publication VIP‐61. Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Ch ar ac te r i z a t i o n and Cl ean up a t Closing Military Bases in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater. Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL‐ contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. Exhibit D.1 8 Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35. Other Experience: Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examinations, 2009‐2011. Exhibit D.1 SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE 2656 29th Street, Suite 201 Santa Monica, California 90405 Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Mobil: (310) 795-2335 Office: (310) 452-5555 Fax: (310) 452-5550 Email: prosenfeld@swape.com Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 12 October 2022 Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist Education Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration. M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics. B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Focus on wastewater treatment. Professional Experience Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years of experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr. Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from oil spills, landfills, boilers and incinerators, process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, industrial, military and agricultural sources, unconventional oil drilling operations, and locomotive and construction engines. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources to evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities. Dr. Rosenfeld has also successfully modeled exposure to contaminants distributed by water systems and via vapor intrusion. Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, creosote, perchlorate, asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTBE), among other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at sites and has testified as an expert witness on numerous cases involving exposure to soil, water and air contaminants from industrial, railroad, agricultural, and military sources. Attachment CExhibit D.1 Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 12 October 2022 Professional History: Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher) UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 – 2000; Risk Assessor King County, Seattle, 1996 – 1999; Scientist James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist Publications: Rosenfeld P. E., Spaeth K., Hallman R., Bressler R., Smith, G., (2022) Cancer Risk and Diesel Exhaust Exposure Among Railroad Workers. Water Air Soil Pollution. 233, 171. Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48 Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342 Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C., (2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science, 8(6), 622-632. Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL. Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113–125. Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46. Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. Exhibit D.1 Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 12 October 2022 Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327. Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255. Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 000527- 000530. Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197. Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357. Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water, Wastewater, Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344. Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food, Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science and Technology. 49(9),171-178. Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor-Quality-Wheel Classification Scheme For The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation’s Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC) 2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004. Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities, and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199. Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science and Technology, 49( 9), 171-178. Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315. Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS–6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008. Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191. Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367. Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393. Exhibit D.1 Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 12 October 2022 Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor. Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262. Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. (1998). Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State. Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2). Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users Network, 7(1). Rosenfeld, P. E. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources. Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Masters thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California. Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third World. Bachelors Thesis. University of California. Presentations: Rosenfeld, P.E., "The science for Perfluorinated Chemicals (PFAS): What makes remediation so hard?" Law Seminars International, (May 9-10, 2018) 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 101 Seattle, WA. Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA. Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA. Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis, Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA. Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS) Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting , Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ. Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United States” Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting . Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ. Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (20-22 July, 2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air Pollution XVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia. Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing Facility. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA. Exhibit D.1 Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 12 October 2022 Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA. Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment Facility Emissions. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA. Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3- Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA. Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala, Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA. Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 – 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006. Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway. Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. APHA 134 Annual Meeting & Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals. Mealey’s C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia, PA. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel, Irvine California. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey’s Groundwater Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals. International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference . Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois. Exhibit D.1 Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 12 October 2022 Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust. Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona. Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners. Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association. Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento, California. Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants.. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California. Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain. Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association . Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain. Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration. Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington.. Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Lecture conducted from Indianapolis, Maryland. Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California. Rosenfeld. P.E. (October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Ocean Shores, California. Rosenfeld, P.E. (2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington. Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah. Exhibit D.1 Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 12 October 2022 Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington. Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California. Teaching Experience: UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science 100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focused on the health effects of environmental contaminants. National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage tanks. National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites. California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May, 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design. UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation. University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including: Soil Chemistry, Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability. U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10. Academic Grants Awarded: California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment. Goal: To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001. Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University. Goal: investigate effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000. King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions. 1998. Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997. Exhibit D.1 Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 12 October 2022 James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996. United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the Tahoe National Forest. 1995. Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts in West Indies. 1993 Deposition and/or Trial Testimony: In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Billy Wildrick, Plaintiff vs. BNSF Railway Company Case No. CIVDS1711810 Rosenfeld Deposition 10-17-2022 In the State Court of Bibb County, State of Georgia Richard Hutcherson, Plaintiff vs Norfolk Southern Railway Company Case No. 10-SCCV-092007 Rosenfeld Deposition 10-6-2022 In the Civil District Court of the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana Millard Clark, Plaintiff vs. Dixie Carriers, Inc. et al. Case No. 2020-03891 Rosenfeld Deposition 9-15-2022 In The Circuit Court of Livingston County, State of Missouri, Circuit Civil Division Shirley Ralls, Plaintiff vs. Canadian Pacific Railway and Soo Line Railroad Case No. 18-LV-CC0020 Rosenfeld Deposition 9-7-2022 In The Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Florida Civil Division Jonny C. Daniels, Plaintiff vs. CSX Transportation Inc. Case No. 20-CA-5502 Rosenfeld Deposition 9-1-2022 In The Circuit Court of St. Louis County, State of Missouri Kieth Luke et. al. Plaintiff vs. Monsanto Company et. al. Case No. 19SL-CC03191 Rosenfeld Deposition 8-25-2022 In The Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Florida Civil Division Jeffery S. Lamotte, Plaintiff vs. CSX Transportation Inc. Case No. NO. 20-CA-0049 Rosenfeld Deposition 8-22-2022 In State of Minnesota District Court, County of St. Louis Sixth Judicial District Greg Bean, Plaintiff vs. Soo Line Railroad Company Case No. 69-DU-CV-21-760 Rosenfeld Deposition 8-17-2022 In United States District Court Western District of Washington at Tacoma, Washington John D. Fitzgerald Plaintiff vs. BNSF Case No. 3:21-cv-05288-RJB Rosenfeld Deposition 8-11-2022 Exhibit D.1 Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 12 October 2022 In Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Macon Illinois Rocky Bennyhoff Plaintiff vs. Norfolk Southern Case No. 20-L-56 Rosenfeld Deposition 8-3-2022 In Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton County Ohio Joe Briggins Plaintiff vs. CSX Case No. A2004464 Rosenfeld Deposition 6-17-2022 In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Kern George LaFazia vs. BNSF Railway Company. Case No. BCV-19-103087 Rosenfeld Deposition 5-17-2022 In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois Bobby Earles vs. Penn Central et. al. Case No. 2020-L-000550 Rosenfeld Deposition 4-16-2022 In United States District Court Easter District of Florida Albert Hartman Plaintiff vs. Illinois Central Case No. 2:20-cv-1633 Rosenfeld Deposition 4-4-2022 In the Circuit Court of the 4th Judicial Circuit, in and For Duval County, Florida Barbara Steele vs. CSX Transportation Case No.16-219-Ca-008796 Rosenfeld Deposition 3-15-2022 In United States District Court Easter District of New York Romano et al. vs. Northrup Grumman Corporation Case No. 16-cv-5760 Rosenfeld Deposition 3-10-2022 In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois Linda Benjamin vs. Illinois Central Case No. No. 2019 L 007599 Rosenfeld Deposition 1-26-2022 In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois Donald Smith vs. Illinois Central Case No. No. 2019 L 003426 Rosenfeld Deposition 1-24-2022 In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois Jan Holeman vs. BNSF Case No. 2019 L 000675 Rosenfeld Deposition 1-18-2022 In the State Court of Bibb County State of Georgia Dwayne B. Garrett vs. Norfolk Southern Case No. 20-SCCV-091232 Rosenfeld Deposition 11-10-2021 Exhibit D.1 Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 12 October 2022 In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois Joseph Ruepke vs. BNSF Case No. 2019 L 007730 Rosenfeld Deposition 11-5-2021 In the United States District Court For the District of Nebraska Steven Gillett vs. BNSF Case No. 4:20-cv-03120 Rosenfeld Deposition 10-28-2021 In the Montana Thirteenth District Court of Yellowstone County James Eadus vs. Soo Line Railroad and BNSF Case No. DV 19-1056 Rosenfeld Deposition 10-21-2021 In the Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al.cvs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc. Case No. 0i9-L-2295 Rosenfeld Deposition 5-14-2021 Trial October 8-4-2021 In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois Joseph Rafferty vs. Consolidated Rail Corporation and National Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a AMTRAK, Case No. 18-L-6845 Rosenfeld Deposition 6-28-2021 In the United States District Court For the Northern District of Illinois Theresa Romcoe vs. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation d/b/a METRA Rail Case No. 17-cv-8517 Rosenfeld Deposition 5-25-2021 In the Superior Court of the State of Arizona In and For the Cunty of Maricopa Mary Tryon et al. vs. The City of Pheonix v. Cox Cactus Farm, L.L.C., Utah Shelter Systems, Inc. Case No. CV20127-094749 Rosenfeld Deposition 5-7-2021 In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Beaumont Division Robinson, Jeremy et al vs. CNA Insurance Company et al. Case No. 1:17-cv-000508 Rosenfeld Deposition 3-25-2021 In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Gary Garner, Personal Representative for the Estate of Melvin Garner vs. BNSF Railway Company. Case No. 1720288 Rosenfeld Deposition 2-23-2021 In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Spring Street Courthouse Benny M Rodriguez vs. Union Pacific Railroad, A Corporation, et al. Case No. 18STCV01162 Rosenfeld Deposition 12-23-2020 In the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri Karen Cornwell, Plaintiff, vs. Marathon Petroleum, LP, Defendant. Case No. 1716-CV10006 Rosenfeld Deposition 8-30-2019 Exhibit D.1 Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 11 of 12 October 2022 In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant. Case No. 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM Rosenfeld Deposition 6-7-2019 In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division M/T Carla Maersk vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS “Conti Perdido” Defendant. Case No. 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237 Rosenfeld Deposition 5-9-2019 In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants Case No. BC615636 Rosenfeld Deposition 1-26-2019 In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants Case No. BC646857 Rosenfeld Deposition 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19 In United States District Court For The District of Colorado Bells et al. Plaintiffs vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants Case No. 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ Rosenfeld Deposition 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018 In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112th Judicial District Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants Cause No. 1923 Rosenfeld Deposition 11-17-2017 In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa Simons et al., Plaintifs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants Cause No. C12-01481 Rosenfeld Deposition 11-20-2017 In The Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295 Rosenfeld Deposition 8-23-2017 In United States District Court For The Southern District of Mississippi Guy Manuel vs. The BP Exploration et al., Defendants Case No. 1:19-cv-00315-RHW Rosenfeld Deposition 4-22-2020 In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles Warrn Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC Case No. LC102019 (c/w BC582154) Rosenfeld Deposition 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018 In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants Case No. 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM Rosenfeld Deposition July 2017 Exhibit D.1 Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 12 of 12 October 2022 In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants Case No. 13-2-03987-5 Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017 Trial March 2017 In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants Case No. RG14711115 Rosenfeld Deposition September 2015 In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants Case No. LALA002187 Rosenfeld Deposition August 2015 In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al. Civil Action No. 14-C-30000 Rosenfeld Deposition June 2015 In The Iowa District Court for Muscatine County Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant Case No. 4980 Rosenfeld Deposition May 2015 In the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant. Case No. CACE07030358 (26) Rosenfeld Deposition December 2014 In the County Court of Dallas County Texas Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant. Case No. cc-11-01650-E Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013 Rosenfeld Trial April 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants Case No. 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987) Rosenfeld Deposition October 2012 In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division James K. Benefield, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. International Paper Company, Defendant. Civil Action No. 2:09-cv-232-WHA-TFM Rosenfeld Deposition July 2010, June 2011 In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama Jaeanette Moss Anthony, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Drummond Company Inc., et al., Defendants Civil Action No. CV 2008-2076 Rosenfeld Deposition September 2010 In the United States District Court, Western District Lafayette Division Ackle et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Citgo Petroleum Corporation, et al., Defendants. Case No. 2:07CV1052 Rosenfeld Deposition July 2009 Exhibit D.1 A-43 8-1 8-2 8-3 Exhibit D.1 A-44 8-3 Cont. 8-4 8-5 8-6 Exhibit D.1