HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix A - Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Anaylsis Report
Rome Hill Commercial Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact
Study
County of Riverside, CA
Prepared for:
Mr. Guy Selleck
Builder’s Max
31938 Temecula Parkway Ste A369
Temecula, CA 92592
Prepared by:
MD Acoustics, LLC
Tyler Klassen, EIT
1197 Los Angeles Ave, Ste C-256
Simi Valley, CA 93065
Date: 1/28/2025
Rome Hill Commercial Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
County of Riverside, CA TABLE OF CONTENTS
MD Acoustics, LLC ii
JN: 09112102_Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Purpose of Analysis and Study Objectives 1
1.2 Project Summary 1
1.2.1 Site Location 1
1.2.2 Project Description 1
1.2.3 Sensitive Receptors 1
1.3 Executive Summary of Findings and Mitigation Measures 2
2.0 Regulatory Framework and Background ................................................................................. 6
2.1 Air Quality Regulatory Setting 6
2.1.1 National and State 6
2.1.2 South Coast Air Quality Management District 8
2.1.3 Local 11
2.2 Greenhouse Gas Regulatory Setting 15
2.2.1 International 15
2.2.2 National 15
2.2.3 California 16
2.2.4 South Coast Air Quality Management District 23
2.2.5 Local 25
3.0 Setting ................................................................................................................................. 28
3.1 Existing Physical Setting 28
3.1.1 Local Climate and Meteorology 28
3.1.2 Local Air Quality 29
3.1.3 Attainment Status 32
3.2 Greenhouse Gases 33
4.0 Modeling Parameters and Assumptions ............................................................................... 35
4.1 Construction 35
4.2 Operations 35
4.3 Localized Construction Analysis 36
4.4 Localized Operational Analysis 37
5.0 Thresholds of Significance .................................................................................................... 38
5.1 Air Quality Thresholds of Significance 38
5.1.1 CEQA Guidelines for Air Quality 38
5.1.2 Regional Significance Thresholds for Construction Emissions 38
5.1.3 Regional Significance Thresholds for Operational Emissions 39
5.1.4 Thresholds for Localized Significance 39
5.2 Greenhouse Gas Thresholds of Significance 39
5.2.1 CEQA Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas 39
Rome Hill Commercial Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
County of Riverside, CA TABLE OF CONTENTS
MD Acoustics, LLC iii
JN: 09112102_Report
6.0 Air Quality Emissions Impact ................................................................................................ 41
6.1 Construction Air Quality Emissions Impact 41
6.1.1 Regional Construction Emissions 41
6.1.2 Localized Construction Emissions 42
6.1.3 Odors 42
6.1.4 Construction-Related Toxic Air Contaminant Impact 43
6.2 Operational Air Quality Emissions Impact 43
6.2.1 Regional Operational Emissions 43
6.2.2 Localized Operational Emissions 44
6.3 CO Hot Spot Emissions 44
6.4 Cumulative Regional Air Quality Impacts 45
6.5 Air Quality Compliance 45
7.0 Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis .......................................................................................... 48
7.1 Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact 48
7.2 Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact 48
7.3 Greenhouse Gas Plan Consistency 49
8.0 Energy Analysis .................................................................................................................... 55
8.1 Construction Energy Demand 55
8.1.1 Construction Equipment Electricity Usage Estimates 55
8.1.2 Construction Equipment Fuel Estimates 56
8.1.3 Construction Worker Fuel Estimates 56
8.1.4 Construction Vendor/Hauling Fuel Estimates 57
8.1.5 Construction Energy Efficiency/Conservation Measures 58
8.2 Operational Energy Demand 59
8.2.1 Transportation Fuel Consumption 59
8.2.2 Facility Energy Demands (Electricity and Natural Gas) 60
8.3 Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Plan Consistency 60
9.0 References ........................................................................................................................... 62
Rome Hill Commercial Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
County of Riverside, CA TABLE OF CONTENTS
MD Acoustics, LLC iv
JN: 09112102_Report
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A:
CalEEMod Emission Output
Appendix B:
EMFAC2021 Output
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit A ........................................................................................................................................... 4
Location Map 4
Exhibit B ........................................................................................................................................... 5
Site Plan 5
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Land Use Summary ........................................................................................................................ 1
Table 2: Ambient Air Quality Standards ..................................................................................................... 7
Table 3: Meteorological Summary ............................................................................................................ 29
Table 4: Local Area Air Quality Levels from the Lake Elsinore Monitoring Stations ................................ 30
Table 5: South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status .................................................................................... 32
Table 6: Description of Greenhouse Gases ............................................................................................... 34
Table 7: Construction Equipment Assumptions ....................................................................................... 37
Table 8: Regional Significance - Construction Emissions (pounds/day) ................................................... 41
Table 9: Localized Significance – Construction ......................................................................................... 42
Table 10: Regional Significance - Unmitigated Operational Emissions (lbs/day) ..................................... 43
Table 11: Localized Significance – Unmitigated Operational Emissions ................................................... 44
Table 12: Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................. 48
Table 13: Opening Year Unmitigated Project-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................. 49
Table 14: City of Lake Elsinore CAP GHG Reduction Measures for Commercial Development and Project
Consistency ............................................................................................................................................... 52
Table 14: Project Construction Power Cost and Electricity Usage ........................................................... 55
Table 15: Construction Equipment Fuel Consumption Estimates ............................................................ 56
Table 16: Construction Worker Fuel Consumption Estimates ................................................................. 57
Table 17: Construction Vendor Fuel Consumption Estimates (MHD Trucks) ........................................... 58
Rome Hill Commercial Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
County of Riverside, CA TABLE OF CONTENTS
MD Acoustics, LLC v
JN: 09112102_Report
Table 18: Construction Hauling Fuel Consumption Estimates (HHD Trucks) ........................................... 58
Table 19: Estimated Vehicle Operations Fuel Consumption .................................................................... 59
Table 20: Project Unmitigated Annual Operational Energy Demand Summary ...................................... 60
Rome Hill Commercial Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
County of Riverside, CA TABLE OF CONTENTS
MD Acoustics, LLC vi
JN: 09112102_Report
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CARB California Air Resources Board
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFCs Chlorofluorocarbons
CH4 Methane
CNG Compressed natural gas
CO Carbon monoxide
CO2 Carbon dioxide
CO2e Carbon dioxide equivalent
DPM Diesel particulate matter
GHG Greenhouse gas
HFCs Hydrofluorocarbons
LST Localized Significant Thresholds
MTCO2e Metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
MMTCO2e Million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NOx Nitrogen Oxides
NO2 Nitrogen dioxide
N2O Nitrous oxide
O3 Ozone
PFCs Perfluorocarbons
PM Particle matter
PM10 Particles that are less than 10 micrometers in diameter
PM2.5 Particles that are less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter
PMI Point of maximum impact
PPM Parts per million
PPB Parts per billion
RTIP Regional Transportation Improvement Plan
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
SCAB South Coast Air Basin
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SF6 Sulfur hexafluoride
SIP State Implementation Plan
SOx Sulfur Oxides
SRA Source/Receptor Area
TAC Toxic air contaminants
VOC Volatile organic compounds
WRCC Western Regional Climate Center
Rome Hill Commercial Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
County of Riverside, CA Introduction
1
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Purpose of Analysis and Study Objectives
This air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) analysis was prepared to evaluate whether the estimated
criteria pollutants and GHG emissions generated from the project would cause a significant impact to
the air resources in the project area. This assessment was conducted within the context of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, California Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq.).
The assessment is consistent with the methodology and emission factors endorsed by South Coast Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD), California Air Resource Board (CARB), and the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA).
1.2 Project Summary
1.2.1 Site Location
The project site is located across two parcels (371-150-001 & 371-150-002) in the City of Lake Elsinore,
California, as shown in Exhibit A. The project is seeking to merge the two parcels into one and rezone
the land from the current designation of R-2 Light-Medium Residential to C-M Commercial-
Manufacturing. The proposed use is commercial. Land uses surrounding the site include vacant land to
the northwest and northeast, Grand Avenue to the southwest with commercial uses further, and
single-family residential uses to the southeast.
1.2.2 Project Description
The Project proposes to develop the site with two buildings consisting of 121,490 square feet of
warehouse space with mezzanines included in each building, covering a total of 6.77 acres for the
entire site. The site is also to include a parking lot with 180 parking stalls. Exhibit B demonstrates the
site plan for the project.
Construction activities within the Project area will consist of site preparation, on-site grading, building,
paving, and architectural coating. Table 1 summarizes the land use description for the Project Site.
Table 1: Land Use Summary
Land Use Unit Amount Size Metric
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail1 107.79 1000sqft
Parking Lot2 189 Space
1.2.3 Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive receptors are considered land uses or other types of population groups that are more
sensitive to air pollution than others due to their exposure. Sensitive population groups include
children, the elderly, the acutely and chronically ill, and those with cardio -respiratory diseases. For
Rome Hill Commercial Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
County of Riverside, CA Introduction
2
CEQA purposes, a sensitive receptor would be a location where a sensitive individual could remain for
24-hours or longer, such as residencies, hospitals, and schools (etc).
The closest existing sensitive receptors (to the site area) are the residential land uses located
approximately 185 feet to the southeast of the project site.
1.3 Executive Summary of Findings and Mitigation Measures
The following is a summary of the analysis results:
Construction-Source Emissions
Project construction-source emissions would not exceed applicable regional thresholds of significance
established by the SCAQMD. For localized emissions, the project will not exceed applicable Localized
Significance Thresholds (LSTs) established by the SCAQMD.
Project construction-source emissions would not conflict with the Basin Air Quality Management Plan
(AQMP). As discussed herein, the project will comply with all applicable SCAQMD construction-source
emission reduction rules and guidelines. Project construction source emissions would not cause or
substantively contribute to violation of the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) or
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
Established requirements addressing construction equipment operations, and construction material
use, storage, and disposal requirements act to minimize odor impacts that may result from
construction activities. Moreover, construction-source odor emissions would be temporary, short-
term, and intermittent in nature and would not result in persistent impacts that would affect
substantial numbers of people. Potential construction -source odor impacts are therefore considered
less-than-significant.
Operational-Source Emissions
The project operational-sourced emissions would not exceed applicable regional thresholds of
significance established by the SCAQMD. Project operational-source emissions would not result in or
cause a significant localized air quality impact as discussed in the Operations -Related Local Air Quality
Impacts section of this report. Additionally, project-related traffic will not cause or result in CO
concentrations exceeding applicable state and/or federal standards (CO “hotspots). Project
operational-source emissions would therefore not adversely affect sensitive receptors within the
vicinity of the project.
Project operational-source emissions would not conflict with the Basin Air Quality Management Plan
(AQMP). The project's emissions meet SCAQMD regional thresholds and will not result in a significant
cumulative impact. The project does not propose any such uses or activities that would result in
potentially significant operational-source odor impacts. Potential operational-source odor impacts are
therefore considered less-than significant.
Project-related GHG emissions meet the County of Riverside Climate Action Plan (CAP) Update
screening threshold of 3,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MTCO2e) per year and are also
Rome Hill Commercial Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
County of Riverside, CA Introduction
3
considered to be less than significant. The project also complies with the goals of the City of Lake
Elsinore Climate Action Plan, CARB Scoping Plan, AB-32, and SB-32.
Mitigation Measures
A. Construction Measures
Adherence to SCAQMD Rule 403 is required.
No construction mitigation required.
B. Operational Measures to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions
No operational mitigation required.
Rome Hill Commercial Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Study
City of Lake Elsinore, CA
Exhibit A
Location Map
4
Site
Rome Hill Commercial Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Study
City of Lake Elsinore, CA
Exhibit B
Site Plan
5
Rome Hill Commercial Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
County of Riverside, CA Regulatory Framework and Background
6
2.0 Regulatory Framework and Background
2.1 Air Quality Regulatory Setting
Air pollutants are regulated at the national, state, and air basin level; each agency has a different level
of regulatory responsibility. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates at the
national level. The California Air Resources Board (ARB) regulates at the state level. The South Coast Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD) regulates at the air basin level.
2.1.1 National and State
The EPA is responsible for global, international, and interstate air pollution issues and policies. The EPA
sets national vehicle and stationary source emission standards, oversees approval of all State
Implementation Plans, provides research and guidance for air pollution programs, and sets National Air
Quality Standards, also known as federal standards. There are six common air pollutants, called criteria
pollutants, which were identified from the provisions of the Clean Air Act of 1970.
• Ozone
• Nitrogen Dioxide
• Lead
• Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5)
• Carbon Monoxide
• Particulate Matter
• Sulfur Dioxide
The federal standards were set to protect public health, including that of sensitive individuals; thus, the
standards continue to change as more medical research is available regarding the health effects of the
criteria pollutants. Primary federal standards are the levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate
margin of safety, to project the public health.
A State Implementation Plan is a document prepared by each state describing existing air quality
conditions and measures that will be followed to attain and maintain federal standards. The State
Implementation Plan for the State of California is administered by the ARB, which has overall
responsibility for statewide air quality maintenance and air pollution prevention. California’s State
Implementation Plan incorporates individual federal attainment plans for regional air districts —air
district prepares their federal attainment plan, which sent to ARB to be approved and incorporated
into the California State Implementation Plan. Federal attainment plans include the technical
foundation for understanding air quality (e.g., emission inventories and air quality monitoring), control
measures and strategies, and enforcement mechanisms. See
http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs.htm for additional information on criteria pollutants and
air quality standards.
The federal and state ambient air quality standards are summarized in Table 2 and can also be found at
http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf.
Rome Hill Commercial Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
County of Riverside, CA Regulatory Framework and Background
7
Table 2: Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant Averaging Time California Standards1 National Standards2
Concentrations3 Method4 Primary3,5 Secondary3,6 Method7
Ozone (O3) 1-Hour 0.09 ppm Ultraviolet
Photometry
- - Same as Primary
Standard
Ultraviolet
Photometry 8-Hour 0.070 ppm 0.070 ppm (147 μg/m3)
Respirable
Particulate Matter
(PM10)8
24-Hour 50 μg/m3 Gravimetric or Beta
Attenuation
150 μ/m3 Same as Primary
Standard
Inertial Separation
and Gravimetric
Analysis Annual Arithmetic Mean 20 μg/m3 - -
Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)8
24-Hour - - - - 35 μg/m3 Same as Primary
Standard Inertial Separation
and Gravimetric
Analysis Annual Arithmetic Mean 12 μg/m3 Gravimetric or Beta
Attenuation 12 μg/m3 15 μg/m3
Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
1-Hour 20 ppm (23 μg/m3) Non-Dispersive
Infrared Photometry
(NDIR)
35 ppm (40 μg/m3) - - Non-Dispersive
Infrared
Photometry (NDIR)
8-Hour 9.0 ppm (10 μg/m3) 9 ppm (10 μg/m3) - -
8-Hour
(Lake Tahoe) 6 ppm (7 μg/m3) - - - -
Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2)9
1-Hour 0.18 ppm (339 μg/m3) Gas Phase
Chemiluminescence
100 ppb (188 μg/m3) - - Gas Phase
Chemiluminescence Annual Arithmetic Mean 0.030 ppm (357 μg/m3) 0.053 ppm (100 μg/m3) Same as Primary
Standard
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)10
1-Hour 0.25 ppm (655 μg/m3)
Ultraviolet
Fluorescence
75 ppb (196 μg/m3) - -
Ultraviolet
Fluorescence;
Spectrophotometry
(Pararosaniline
Method)
3-Hour - - - - 0.5 ppm
(1300 mg/m3)
24-Hour 0.04 ppm (105 μg/m3) 0.14 ppm
(for certain areas)10 - -
Annual Arithmetic Mean - - 0.130ppm
(for certain areas)10 - -
Lead11,12
30 Day Average 1.5 μg/m3
Atomic Absorption
- -
Calendar Qrtr - - 1.5 μg/m3
(for certain areas)12 Same as Primary
Standard
High Volume
Sampler and Atomic
Absorption Rolling 3-Month Average - - 0.15 μg/m3
Visibility Reducing
Particles13 8-Hour See footnote 13
Beta Attenuation and
Transmittance
through Filter Tape No
National
Standards
Sulfates 24-Hour 25 μg/m3 Ion Chromatography
Hydrogen Sulfide 1-Hour 0.03 ppm (42 μg/m3) Ultraviolet
Fluorescence
Vinyl Chloride11 24-Hour 0.01 ppm (26 μg/m3) Gas Chromatography
Notes:
1. California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except 8-hour Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1 and 24 hour), nitrogen dioxide, and particulate matter
(PM10, PM2.5, and visibility reducing particles), are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California
ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations.
2. National standards (other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded m ore than once a
year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration measured at each site in a year, averaged over three years, is
equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24 hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour
average concentration above 150 μg/m3 is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24 hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily
concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard. Contact the U.S. EPA for further clarification and current national
policies.
3. Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based upon a reference temperature of
25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr. Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference
pressure of 760 torr; ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas.
4. Any equivalent measurement method which can be shown to the satisfaction of the ARB to give equivalent results at or near the level of the air
quality standard may be used.
5. National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health.
6. National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a
pollutant.
7. Reference method as described by the U.S. EPA. An “equivalent method” of measurement may be used but must have a “consistent relationship to
the reference method” and must be approved by the U.S. EPA.
Rome Hill Commercial Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
County of Riverside, CA Regulatory Framework and Background
8
8. On December 14, 2012, the national annual PM2.5 primary standard was lowered from 15 μg/m3 to 12.0 μg/m3. The existing national 24-hour PM2.5
standards (primary and secondary) were retained at 35 μg/m3, as was the annual secondary standard of 15 μg/m3. The existing 24-hour PM10
standards (primary and secondary) of 150 μg/m3 also were retained. The form of the annual primary and secondary standards is the annual mean,
averaged over 3 years.
9. To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site
must not exceed 100 ppb. Note that the national 1-hour standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per
million (ppm). To directly compare the national 1-hour standard to the California standards the units can be converted from ppb to ppm. In this case,
the national standard of 100 ppb is identical to 0.100 ppm.
10. On June 2, 2010, a new 1-hour SO2 standard was established and the existing 24-hour and annual primary standards were revoked. To attain the 1-
hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed
75 ppb. The 1971 SO2 national standards (24-hour and annual) remain in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard,
except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1971 standards, the 1971 standards remain in effect until implementation plans to attain or
maintain the 2010 standards are approved.
Note that the 1-hour national standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly
compare the 1-hour national standard to the California standard the units can be converted to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 75 ppb is
identical to 0.075 ppm.
11. The ARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as 'toxic air contaminants' with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects determined.
These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants.
12. The national standard for lead was revised on October 15, 2008 to a rolling 3-month average. The 1978 lead standard (1.5 μg/m3 as a quarterly
average) remains in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2008 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the
1978 standard, the 1978 standard remains in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2008 standard are approved.
13. In 1989, the ARB converted both the general statewide 10-mile visibility standard and the Lake Tahoe 30-mile visibility standard to instrumental
equivalents, which are "extinction of 0.23 per kilometer" and "extinction of 0.07 per kilometer" for the statewide and Lake Tahoe Air Basin standards,
respectively.
Several pollutants listed in Table 2 are not addressed in this analysis. Analysis of lead is not included in
this report because the project is not anticipated to emit lead. Visibility -reducing particles are not
explicitly addressed in this analysis because particulate matter is addressed. The project is not
expected to generate or be exposed to vinyl chloride because proposed project uses do not utilize the
chemical processes that create this pollutant and there are no such uses in the project vicinity. The
proposed project is not expected to cause exposure to hydrogen sulfide because it would not generate
hydrogen sulfide in any substantial quantity.
2.1.2 South Coast Air Quality Management District
The agency for air pollution control for the South Coast Air Basin (basin) is the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD). SCAQMD is responsible for controlling emissions primarily from
stationary sources. SCAQMD maintains air quality monitoring stations throughout the basin. SCAQMD,
in coordination with the Southern California Association of Governments, is also responsible for
developing, updating, and implementing the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the basin. An
AQMP is a plan prepared and implemented by an air pollution district for a county or region designated
as nonattainment of the federal and/or California ambient air quality standards. The term
nonattainment area is used to refer to an air basin where one or more ambient air quality standards
are exceeded.
Every three (3) years the SCAQMD prepares a new AQMP, updating the previous plan and having a 20 -
year horizon.
Rome Hill Commercial Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
County of Riverside, CA Regulatory Framework and Background
9
On March 23, 2017 CARB approved the 2016 AQMP. The 2016 AQMP is a regional blueprint for
achieving the federal air quality standards and healthful air.
The 2016 AQMP includes both stationary and mobile source strategies to ensure that rapidly
approaching attainment deadlines are met, that public health is protected to the maximum extent
feasible, and that the region is not faced with burdensome sanctions if the Plan is not approved or if
the NAAQS are not met on time. As with every AQMP, a comprehensive analysis of emissions,
meteorology, atmospheric chemistry, regional growth projections, and the impact of existing control
measures is updated with the latest data and methods. The most significant air quality challenge in the
Basin is to reduce nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions sufficiently to meet the upcoming ozone standard
deadlines. The primary goal of this Air Quality Management Plan is to meet clean air standards and
protect public health, including ensuring benefits to environmental justice and disadvantaged
communities. Now that the plan has been approved by CARB, it has been forwarded to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency for its review. If approved by EPA, the plan becomes federally
enforceable
The 2012 AQMP built upon the approaches taken in the 2007 AQMP for the attainment of federal PM
and ozone standards, and highlights the significant amount of reductions needed and the need to
engage in interagency coordinated planning of mobile sources to meet all of the federal criteria
pollutant standards. Compared with the 2007 AQMP, the 2012 AQMP utilize d revised emissions
inventory projections that use 2008 as the base year. On -road emissions are calculated using CARB
EMFAC2021 emission factors and the transportation activity data provided by SCAG from their 2012
Regional Transportation Plan (2012 RTP). Off-road emissions were updated using CARB’s 2011 In-Use
Off-Road Fleet Inventory Model. Since the 2007 AQMP was finalized new area source categories such
as liquid propane gas (LPG) transmission losses, storage tank and pipeline cleaning and degassing, and
architectural colorants, were created and included in the emissions inventories. The 2012 AQMP also
includes analysis of several additional sources of GHG emissions such as landfills and could also assist in
reaching the GHG target goals in the AB32 Scoping Plan.
South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules
The AQMP for the basin establishes a program of rules and regulations administered by SCAQMD to
obtain attainment of the state and federal standards. Some of the rules and regulations that apply to
this Project include, but are not limited to, the following:
SCAQMD Rule 402 prohibits a person from discharging from any source whatsoever such quantities of
air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any
considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or
safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or
damage to business or property.
SCAQMD Rule 403 governs emissions of fugitive dust during construction and operation activities.
Compliance with this rule is achieved through application of standard Best Management Practices,
such as application of water or chemical stabilizers to disturbed soils, covering haul vehicles, restricting
vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour, sweeping loose dirt from paved site access
Rome Hill Commercial Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
County of Riverside, CA Regulatory Framework and Background
10
roadways, cessation of construction activity when winds exceed 25 mph, and establishing a permanent
ground cover on finished sites.
Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with best available control measures so that the
presence of such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the
emission source. In addition, Rule 403 requires implementation of dust suppression techniques to
prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance off site. Applicable suppression techniques are indicated
below and include but are not limited to the following:
• Apply nontoxic chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturers’ specifications to all inactive
construction areas (previously graded areas in active for 10 days or more).
• Water active sites at least three times daily.
• Cover all trucks hauling dirt, san, soil, or other loose materials, or maintain at least 2 feet of
freeboard in accordance with the requirements of California Vehicle Code (CVC) section 23114.
• Pave construction access roads at least 100 feet onto the site from the main road.
• Reduce traffic speeds on all unpaved roads to 15 mph or less.
• Suspension of all grading activities when wind speeds (including instantaneous wind gusts)
exceed 25 mph.
• Bumper strips or similar best management practices shall be provided where vehicles enter and
exit the construction site onto paved roads or wash off trucks and any equipment leaving the
site each trip.
• Replanting disturbed areas as soon as practical.
• During all construction activities, construction contractors shall sweep on -site and off-iste
streets if silt is carried to adjacent public thoroughfares, to reduce the amount of particulate
matter on public streets.
SCAQMD Rule 1113 governs the sale, use, and manufacturing of architectural coating and limits the
VOC content in paints and paint solvents. This rule regulates the VOC content of paints available during
construction. Therefore, all paints and solvents used during construction and operation of project must
comply with Rule 1113.
Idling Diesel Vehicle Trucks – Idling for more than 5 minutes in any one location is prohibited within
California borders.
Rule 2702. The SCAQMD adopted Rule 2702 on February 6, 2009, which establishes a voluntary air
quality investment program from which SCAQMD can collect funds from parties that desire certified
GHG emission reductions, pool those funds, and use them to purchase or fund GHG emission reduction
projects within two years, unless extended by the Governing Board. Priority will be given to projects
that result in co-benefit emission reductions of GHG emissions and criteria or toxic air pollutants within
environmental justice areas. Further, this voluntary program may compete with the cap -and-trade
program identified for implementation in CARB’s Scoping Plan, or a Federal cap and trade program.
Rome Hill Commercial Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
County of Riverside, CA Regulatory Framework and Background
11
2.1.3 Local
Local jurisdictions, such as the County of Riverside and City of Lake Elsinore, have the authority and
responsibility to reduce air pollution through their police power and decision-making authority. Specifically, the
County and City are responsible for the assessment and mitigation of air emissions resulting from its land use
decisions. The County and City are also responsible for the implementation of transportation control measures
as outlined in the 2016 AQMP. Examples of such measures include bus turnouts, energy-efficient streetlights,
and synchronized traffic signals. In accordance with CEQA requirements and the CEQA review process, the
County and City assesses the air quality impacts of new development projects, requires mitigation of potentially
significant air quality impacts by conditioning discretionary permits, and monitors and enforces implementation
of such mitigation.
The County and City rely on the expertise of the SCAQMD and utilizes the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook
as the guidance document for the environmental review of plans and development proposals within its
jurisdiction.
County of Riverside General Plan
The Air Quality Element of the County of Riverside General Plan summarizes air quality issues in the
Basin, air quality-related plans and programs administered by federal, state, and special purpose
agencies, and establishes goals and policies to improve air quality. These goals and policies in the Air
Quality Element that relate to the proposed project include:
Multi-jurisdictional Cooperation:
AQ 1.1 Promote and participate with regional and local agencies, both public and private, to
protect and improve air quality.
AQ 1.2 Support the Southern California Association of Government's (SCAG) Regional Growth
Management Plan by developing intergovernmental agreements with appropriate
governmental entities such as the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG),
the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG), sanitation districts, water
districts, and those subregional entities identified in the Regional Growth Management
Plan.
AQ 1.3 Participate in the development and update of those regional air quality management
plans required under federal and state law, and meet all standards established for clean
air in these plans.
AQ 1.4 Coordinate with the SCAQMD and MDAQMD to ensure that all elements of air quality
plans regarding reduction of air pollutant emissions are being enforced.
AQ 1.5 Establish and implement air quality, land use and circulation measures that improve not
only the County's environment but the entire regions.
Rome Hill Commercial Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
County of Riverside, CA Regulatory Framework and Background
12
AQ 1.6 Establish a level playing field by working with local jurisdictions to simultaneously adopt
policies similar to those in this Air Quality Element.
AQ 1.7 Support legislation which promotes cleaner industry, clean fuel vehicles and more
efficient burning engines and fuels.
AQ 1.8 Support the introduction of federal, state or regional enabling legislation to permit the
County to promote inventive air quality programs, which other wise could not be
implemented.
AQ 1.9 Encourage, publicly recognize and reward innovative approaches that improve air
quality.
AQ 1.10 Work with regional and local agencies to evaluate the feasibility of implementing a
system of charges (e.g., pollution charges, user fees, congestion pricing and toll roads)
that requires individuals who undertake polluting activities to bear the economic cost of
their actions where possible.
AQ 1.11 Involve environmental groups, the business community, special interests, and the
general public in the formulation and implementation of programs that effectively
reduce airborne pollutants.
Sensitive Receptors:
AQ 2.1 The County land use planning efforts shall assure that sensitive receptors are separated
and protected from polluting point sources to the greatest extent possible.
AQ 2.2 Require site plan designs to protect people and land uses sensitive to air pollution
through the use of barriers and/or distance from emissions sources when possible.
AQ 2.3 Encourage the use of pollution control measures such as landscaping, vegetation and
other materials, which trap particulate matter or control pollution.
Stationary Pollution Sources:
AQ 4.1 Encourage the use of building materials/methods which reduce emissions.
AQ 4.2 Require the use of all feasible efficient heating equipment and other appliances, such as
water heaters, swimming pool heaters, cooking equipment, refrigerators, furnaces and
boiler units.
AQ 4.3 Require centrally heated facilities to utilize automated time clocks or occupant sensors
to control heating where feasible.
AQ 4.5 Require stationary pollution sources to minimize the release of toxic pollutants through:
Rome Hill Commercial Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
County of Riverside, CA Regulatory Framework and Background
13
• Design features;
• Operating procedures;
• Preventive maintenance;
• Operator training; and
• Emergency response planning
AQ 4.6 Require stationary air pollution sources to comply with applicable air district rules and
control measures.
AQ 4.7 To the greatest extent possible, require every project to mitigate any of its anticipated
emissions which exceed allowable emissions as established by the SCAQMD, MDAQMD,
SOCAB, the Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board.
AQ 4.8 Expand, as appropriate, measures contained in the County's Fugitive Dust Reduction
Program for the Coachella Valley to the entire County.
AQ 4.9 Require compliance with SCAQMD Rules 403 and 403.1, and support appropriate future
measures to reduce fugitive dust emanating from construction sites.
AQ 4.10 Coordinate with the SCAQMD and MDAQMD to create a communications plan to alert
those conducting grading operations in the County of first, second, and third stage smog
alerts, and when wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hour. During these instances all
grading operations should be suspended.
Energy Efficiency and Conservation:
AQ 5.1 Utilize source reduction, recycling and other appropriate measures to reduce the
amount of solid waste disposed of in landfills.
AQ 5.4 Encourage the incorporation of energy-efficient design elements, including appropriate
site orientation and the use of shade and windbreak trees to reduce fuel consumption
for heating and cooling.
Particulate Matter:
AQ 15.1 Identify and monitor sources, enforce existing regulations, and promote stronger
controls to reduce particulate matter.
Multi-jurisdictional Cooperation:
AQ 16.1 Cooperate with local, regional, state and federal jurisdictions to better control
particulate matter.
Control Measures:
Rome Hill Commercial Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
County of Riverside, CA Regulatory Framework and Background
14
AQ 17.1 Reduce particulate matter from agriculture, construction, demolition, debris hauling,
street cleaning, utility maintenance, railroad rights-of-way, and off-road vehicles to the
extent possible.
AQ 17.3 Identify and create a control plan for areas within the County prone to wind erosion of
soil.
AQ 17.4 Adopt incentives, regulations and/or procedures to manage paved and unpaved roads
and parking lots so they produce the minimum practicable level of particulates.
AQ 17.5 Adopt incentives and/or procedures to limit dust from agricultural lands and operations,
where applicable.
AQ 17.6 Reduce emissions from building materials and methods that generate excessive
pollutants, through incentives and/or regulations.
City of Lake Elsinore General Plan
The City of Lake Elsinore adopted their General Plan in December 2011. The Public Safety and Welfare
Element in the General Plan, contains the following air quality -related goals and policies that are
applicable to the proposed project:
Goal 1 Continue to coordinate with the Air Quality Management District and the City’s Building
Department to reduce the amount of fugitive dust that is emitted into the atmosphere
from unpaved areas, parking lots, and construction sites.
Policy 1.1 Continue to implement requirements identified in the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES).
Goal 2 Work with regional and state governments to develop effective mitigation measures to
improve air quality.
Policy 2.1 Support the SCAQMD in its development of improved ambient air quality monitoring
capabilities and establishment of standards, thresholds, and rules to address, and where
necessary mitigate, the air quality impacts of new development.
Policy 2.2 Support programs that educate the public about regional air quality issues,
opportunities and solutions.
Policy 2.3 Evaluate the purchase of alternative fuel vehicles for official City vehicles.
Rome Hill Commercial Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
County of Riverside, CA Regulatory Framework and Background
15
2.2 Greenhouse Gas Regulatory Setting
2.2.1 International
Many countries around the globe have made an effort to reduce GHGs since climate change is a global
issue.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In 1988, the United Nations and the World
Meteorological Organization established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to assess the
scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of
risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts, and options for adaptation and mitigation.
United Nations. The United States participates in the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC) (signed on March 21, 1994). Under the Convention, governments gather and
share information on greenhouse gas emissions, national policies, and best practices; launch national
strategies for addressing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to expected impacts, including the
provision of financial and technological support to developing countries; and cooperate in preparing
for adaptation to the impacts of climate change.
The 2014 UN Climate Change Conference in Lima Peru provided a unique opportunity to engage all
countries to assess how developed countries are implementing actions to reduce emissions.
Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol is a treaty made under the UNFCCC and was the first international
agreement to regulate GHG emissions. It has been estimated that if the commitments outlined in the
Kyoto Protocol are met, global GHG emissions could be reduced by an estimated 5 percent from 1990
levels during the first commitment period of 2008 – 2012 (UNFCCC 1997). On December 8, 2012, the
Doha Amendment to the Kyoto Protocol was adopted. The amendment includes: New commitments
for Annex I Parties to the Kyoto Protocol who agreed to take on commitments in a second commitment
period from 2013 – 2020; a revised list of greenhouse gases (GHG) to be reported on by Parties in the
second commitment period; and Amendments to several articles of the Kyoto Protocol which
specifically referenced issues pertaining to the first commitment period and which needed to be
updated for the second commitment period.
2.2.2 National
Greenhouse Gas Endangerment. On December 2, 2009, the EPA announced that GHGs threaten the
public health and welfare of the American people. The EPA also states that GHG emissions from on -
road vehicles contribute to that threat. The decision was based on Massachusetts v. EPA (Supreme
Court Case 05-1120) which argued that GHGs are air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act and that
the EPA has authority to regulate those emissions.
Clean Vehicles. Congress first passed the Corporate Average Fuel Economy law in 1975 to increase the
fuel economy of cars and light duty trucks. The law has become more stringent over time. On May 19,
2009, President Obama put in motion a new national policy to increase fuel economy for all new cars
and trucks sold in the United States. On April 1, 2010, the EPA and the Department of Transportation’s
Rome Hill Commercial Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
County of Riverside, CA Regulatory Framework and Background
16
National Highway Safety Administration announced a joint final rule establishing a national program
that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve fuel economy for new cars and trucks sold in
the United States.
The first phase of the national program would apply to passenger cars, light -duty trucks, and medium-
duty passenger vehicles, covering model years 2012 through 2016. They require these vehicles to
meet an estimated combined average emissions level of 250 grams of carbon dioxide per mile,
equivalent to 35.5 miles per gallon if the automobile industry were to meet this carbon dioxide level
solely through fuel economy improvements. Together, these standards would cut carbon dioxide
emissions by an estimated 960 million metric tons and 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of the
vehicles sold under the program (model years 2012-2016). The second phase of the national program
would involve proposing new fuel economy and greenhouse gas standards for model years 2017 –
2025 by September 1, 2011.
On October 25, 2010, the EPA and the U.S. Department of Transportation proposed the first national
standards to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve fuel efficiency of heavy-duty trucks and
buses. For combination tractors, the agencies are proposing engine and vehicle standards that begin in
the 2014 model year and achieve up to a 20 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions and fuel
consumption by the 2018 model year. For heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans, the agencies are
proposing separate gasoline and diesel truck standards, which phase in starting in the 2014 model year
and achieve up to a 10 percent reduction for gasoline vehicles and 15 percent reduction for diesel
vehicles by 2018 model year (12 and 17 percent respectively if accounting for air conditioning leakage).
Lastly, for vocational vehicles, the agencies are proposing engine and vehicle standards starting in the
2014 model year which would achieve up to a 10 percent reduction in fuel consumption and carbon
dioxide emissions by 2018 model year.
Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases. On January 1, 2010, the EPA started requiring large
emitters of heat-trapping emissions to begin collecting GHG data under a new reporting system. Under
the rule, suppliers of fossil fuels or industrial greenhouse gases, manufacturers of vehicles and engines,
and facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more per year of greenhouse gas emissions are required
to submit annual reports to the EPA.
Climate Adaption Plan. The EPA Plan identifies priority actions the Agency will take to incorporate
considerations of climate change into its programs, policies, rules and operations to ensure they are
effective under future climatic conditions. The following link provides more information on the EPA
Plan: https://www.epa.gov/arc-x/planning-climate-change-adaptation
2.2.3 California
California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24, Part 6 . CCR Title 24, Part 6: California’s Energy Efficiency
Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (Title 24) were first established in 1978 in
response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. The standards are
updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency
technologies and methods. Although it was not originally intended to reduce GHG emissions,
Rome Hill Commercial Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
County of Riverside, CA Regulatory Framework and Background
17
electricity production by fossil fuels results in GHG emissions and energy efficient buildings require less
electricity. Therefore, increased energy efficiency results in decreased GHG emissions.
The Energy Commission adopted 2008 Standards on April 23, 2008 and Building Standards Commission
approved them for publication on September 11, 2008. These updates became effective on August 1,
2009. 2013 and 2016 standards have been approved and became effective July 1, 2014 and January 1,
2016, respectively.
California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24, Part 11 . All buildings for which an application for a
building permit is submitted on or after January 1, 2020 must follow the 2019 standards.. Energy
efficient buildings require less electricity; therefore, increased energy efficiency reduces fossil fuel
consumption and decreases greenhouse gas emissions. The following links provide more information
on Title 24, Part 11:
https://www.dgs.ca.gov/BSC/Codes
https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-03/Title_24_2019_Building_Standards_FAQ_ada.pdf
California Green Building Standards . On January 12, 2010, the State Building Standards Commission
unanimously adopted updates to the California Green Building Standards Code, which went into effect
on January 1, 2011. The Housing and Community Development (HCD) updated CALGreen through the
2015 Triennial Code Adoption Cycle, during the 2016 to 2017 fiscal year. During the 2019-2020 fiscal
year, the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) updated CALGreen through the
2019 Triennial Code Adoption Cycle.
The Code is a comprehensive and uniform regulatory code for all residential, commercial and school
buildings. CCR Title 24, Part 11: California Green Building Standards (Title 24) became effective in 2001
in response to continued efforts to reduce GHG emissions associated with energy consumption. CCR
Title 24, Part 11 now require that new buildings reduce water consumption, employ building
commissioning to increase building system efficiencies, divert construction waste from landfills, and
install low pollutant-emitting finish materials. One focus of CCR Title 24, Part 11 is water conservation
measures, which reduce GHG emissions by reducing electrical consumption associated with pumping
and treating water. CCR Title 24, Part 11 has approximately 52 nonresidential mandatory measures
and an additional 130 provisions for optional use. Some key mandatory measures for commercial
occupancies include specified parking for clean air vehicles, a 20 percent reduction of potable water
use within buildings, a 50 percent construction waste diversion from landfills, use of building finish
materials that emit low levels of volatile organic compounds, and commissioning for new,
nonresidential buildings over 10,000 square feet.
The 2019 CalGreen Code includes the following changes and/or additional regulations:
Single-family homes built with the 2019 standards will use about 7 percent less energy due to energy
efficiency measures versus those built under the 2016 standards. Once rooftop solar electricity
generation is factored in, homes built under the 2019 standards will use about 53 percent less energy
Rome Hill Commercial Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
County of Riverside, CA Regulatory Framework and Background
18
than those under the 2016 standards. Nonresidential buildings will use about 30 percent less energy
due mainly to lighting upgrades1.
HCD modified the best management practices for stormwater pollution prevention adding Section
5.106.2 for projects that disturb one or more acres of land. This section requires projects that disturb
one acre or more of land or less than one acre of land but are part of a larger common plan of
development or sale must comply with the post-construction requirement detailed in the applicable
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges
Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities issued by the State Water Resources
Control Board. The NPDES permits require post-construction runoff (post-project hydrology) to match
the preconstruction runoff pre-project hydrology) with installation of post-construction stormwater
management measures.
HCD added sections 5.106.4.1.3 and 5.106.4.1.5 in regards to bicycle parking. Section 5.106.4.1.3
requires new buildings with tenant spaces that have 10 or more tenant -occupants, provide secure
bicycle parking for 5 percent of the tenant-occupant vehicular parking spaces with a minimum of one
bicycle parking facility. In addition, Section 5.106.4.1.5 states that acceptable bicycle parking facility for
Sections 5.106.4.1.2 through 5.106.4.1.4 shall be convenient from the street and shall meeting one of
the following: (1) covered, lockable enclosures with permanently anchored racks for bicycles; (2)
lockable bicycle rooms with permanently anchored racks; or (3) lockable, permanently anchored
bicycle lockers.
HCD amended section 5.106.5.3.5 allowing future charging spaces to qualify as designated parking for
clean air vehicles.
HCD updated section 5.303.3.3 in regards to showerhead flow rates. This update reduced the flow rate
to 1.8 GPM.
HCD amended section 5.304.1 for outdoor potable water use in landscape areas and repealed sections
5.304.2 and 5.304.3. The update requires nonresidential developments to comply with a local water
efficient landscape ordinance or the current California Department of Water Resource’s’ Model Water
Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO), whichever is more stringent. Some updates were also made
in regards to the outdoor potable water use in landscape areas for public schools and community
colleges.
HCD updated Section 5.504.5.3 in regards to the use of MERV filters in mechanically ventilated
buildings. This update changed the filter use from MERV 8 to MERV 13.
1 https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/title24/2019standards/documents/2018_Title_24_2019_Building_Standards_FAQ.pdf
Rome Hill Commercial Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
County of Riverside, CA Regulatory Framework and Background
19
The California Green Building Standards Code does not prevent a local jurisdiction from adopting a
more stringent code as state law provides methods for local enhancements. The Code recognizes that
many jurisdictions have developed existing construction and demolition ordinances, and defers to
them as the ruling guidance provided they provide a minimum 50 -percent diversion requirement. The
code also provides exemptions for areas not served by construction and demolition recycling
infrastructure. State building code provides the minimum standard that buildings need to meet in
order to be certified for occupancy. Enforcement is generally through the local building official. The
following link provides more on CalGreen Building Standards:
http://www.bsc.ca.gov/Home/CALGreen.aspx
Executive Order S-3-05. California Governor issued Executive Order S-3-05, GHG Emission, in June
2005, which established the following targets:
• By 2010, California shall reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels;
• By 2020, California shall reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels.
• By 2050, California shall reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.
The executive order directed the secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA)
to coordinate a multi-agency effort to reduce GHG emissions to the target levels. To comply with the
Executive Order, the secretary of CalEPA created the California Climate Action Team (CAT), made up of
members from various state agencies and commissions. The team released its first report in March
2006. The report proposed to achieve the targets by building on the voluntary actions of businesses,
local governments, and communities and through State incentive and regulatory programs.
Executive Order S-01-07. Executive Order S-1-07 was issued in 2007 and proclaims that the
transportation sector is the main source of GHG emissions in the State, since it generates more than 40
percent of the State’s GHG emissions. It establishes a goal to reduce the carbon intensity of
transportation fuels sold in the State by at least ten percent by 2020. This Order also directs CARB to
determine whether this Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) could be adopted as a discrete early -action
measure as part of the effort to meet the mandates in AB 32.
On April 23, 2009 CARB approved the proposed regulation to implement the low carbon fuel standard.
The low carbon fuel standard is anticipated to reduce GHG emissions by about 16 MMT per year by
2020. The low carbon fuel standard is designed to provide a framework that uses market mechanisms
to spur the steady introduction of lower carbon fuels. The framework establishes performance
standards that fuel producers and importers must meet each year beginning in 2011. Separate
standards are established for gasoline and diesel fuels and the alternative fuels that can replace each.
The standards are “back-loaded”, with more reductions required in the last five years, than the first
five years. This schedule allows for the development of advanced fuels that are lower in carbon than
today’s fuels and the market penetration of plug -in hybrid electric vehicles, battery electric vehicles,
fuel cell vehicles, and flexible fuel vehicles. It is anticipated that compliance with the low carbon fuel
standard will be based on a combination of both lower carbon fuels and more efficient vehicles.
Rome Hill Commercial Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
County of Riverside, CA Regulatory Framework and Background
20
Reformulated gasoline mixed with corn-derived ethanol at ten percent by volume and low sulfur diesel
fuel represent the baseline fuels. Lower carbon fuels may be ethanol, biodiesel, renewable diesel, or
blends of these fuels with gasoline or diesel as appropriate. Compressed natural gas and liquefied
natural gas also may be low carbon fuels. Hydrogen and electricity, when used in fuel cells or electric
vehicles are also considered as low carbon fuels for the low carbon fuel standard.
SB 97. Senate Bill 97 (SB 97) was adopted August 2007 and acknowledges that climate change is a
prominent environmental issue that requires analysis under CEQA. SB 97 directed the Governor’s
Office of Planning and Research (OPR), which is part of the State Resource Agency, to prepare, develop,
and transmit to CARB guidelines for the feasible mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG
emissions, as required by CEQA, by July 1, 2009. The Resources Agency was required to certify and
adopt those guidelines by January 1, 2010.
Pursuant to the requirements of SB 97 as stated above, on December 30, 2009 the Natural Resources
Agency adopted amendments to the state CEQA guidelines that address GHG emissions. The CEQA
Guidelines Amendments changed 14 sections of the CEQA Guidelines and incorporate GHG language
throughout the Guidelines. However, no GHG emissions thresholds of significance are provided and no
specific mitigation measures are identified. The GHG emission reduction amendments went into effect
on March 18, 2010 and are summarized below:
• Climate action plans and other greenhouse gas reduction plans can be used to determine whether
a project has significant impacts, based upon its compliance with the plan.
• Local governments are encouraged to quantify the greenhouse gas emissions of proposed projects,
noting that they have the freedom to select the models and methodologies that best meet their
needs and circumstances. The section also recommends consideration of several qualitative
factors that may be used in the determination of significance, such as the extent to which the given
project complies with state, regional, or local GHG reduction plans and policies. OPR does not set
or dictate specific thresholds of significance. Consistent with existing CEQA Guidelines, OPR
encourages local governments to develop and publish their own thresholds of significance for GHG
impacts assessment.
• When creating their own thresholds of significance, local governments may consider the thresholds
of significance adopted or recommended by other public agencies, or recommended by experts.
• New amendments include guidelines for determining methods to mitigate the effects of
greenhouse gas emissions in Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines.
• OPR is clear to state that “to qualify as mitigation, specific measures from an existing plan must be
identified and incorporated into the project; general compliance with a plan, by itself, is not
mitigation.”
• OPR’s emphasizes the advantages of analyzing GHG impacts on an institutional, programmatic
level. OPR therefore approves tiering of environmental analyses and highlights some benefits of
such an approach.
• Environmental impact reports (EIRs) must specifically consider a project's energy use and energy
efficiency potential.
Rome Hill Commercial Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
County of Riverside, CA Regulatory Framework and Background
21
AB 32. The California State Legislature enacted AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of
2006. AB 32 requires that greenhouse gases emitted in California be reduced to 1990 levels by the year
2020. “Greenhouse gases” as defined under AB 32 include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide,
hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. ARB is the state agency charged with
monitoring and regulating sources of greenhouse gases. AB 32 states the following:
Global warming poses a serious threat to the economic well -being, public health, natural resources,
and the environment of California. The potential adverse impacts of global warming include the
exacerbation of air quality problems, a reduction in the quality and supply of water to the state from
the Sierra snowpack, a rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of thousands of coastal
businesses and residences, damage to marine ecosystems and the natural environment, and an
increase in the incidences of infectious diseases, asthma, and other human health -related problems.
The ARB Board approved the 1990 greenhouse gas emissions level of 427 million metric tons of carbon
dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e) on December 6, 2007 (California Air Resources Board 2007).
Therefore, emissions generated in California in 2020 are required to be equal to or less than 427
MMTCO2e. Emissions in 2020 in a “business as usual” scenario are estimated to be 596 MMTCO2e.
Under AB 32, the ARB published its Final Expanded List of Early Action Measures to Reduce
Greenhouse Gas Emissions in California. Discrete early action measures are currently underway or are
enforceable by January 1, 2010. The ARB has 44 early action measures that apply to the
transportation, commercial, forestry, agriculture, cement, oil and gas, fire suppression, fuels,
education, energy efficiency, electricity, and waste sectors. Of these early action measures, nine are
considered discrete early action measures, as they are regulatory and enforceable by January 1, 2010.
The ARB estimates that the 44 recommendations are expected to result in reductions of at least 42
MMTCO2e by 2020, representing approximately 25 percent of the 2020 target.
The ARB’s Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) contains measures designed to reduce the
State’s emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020 (California Air Resources Board 2008). The Scoping
Plan identifies recommended measures for multiple greenhouse gas emission sectors and the
associated emission reductions needed to achieve the year 2020 emissions target —each sector has a
different emission reduction target. Most of the measures target the transportation and electricity
sectors. As stated in the Scoping Plan, the key elements of the strategy for achieving the 2020
greenhouse gas target include:
• Expanding and strengthening existing energy efficiency programs as well as building and appliance
standards;
• Achieving a statewide renewables energy mix of 33 percent;
• Developing a California cap-and-trade program that links with other Western Climate Initiative
partner programs to create a regional market system;
• Establishing targets for transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions for regions throughout
California and pursuing policies and incentives to achieve those targets;
Rome Hill Commercial Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
County of Riverside, CA Regulatory Framework and Background
22
• Adopting and implementing measures pursuant to existing State laws and policies, Including
California’s clean car standards, goods movement measures, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard;
and
• Creating targeted fees, including a public goods charge on water use, fees on high global warming
potential gases, and a fee to fund the administrative costs of the State’s long-term commitment to
AB 32 implementation.
In addition, the Scoping Plan differentiates between “capped” and “uncapped” strategies. “Capped”
strategies are subject to the proposed cap-and-trade program. The Scoping Plan states that the
inclusion of these emissions within the cap-and trade program will help ensure that the year 2020
emission targets are met despite some degree of uncertainty in the emission reduction estimates for
any individual measure. Implementation of the capped strategies is calculated to achieve a sufficient
amount of reductions by 2020 to achieve the emission target contained in AB 32. “Uncapped”
strategies that will not be subject to the cap -and-trade emissions caps and requirements are provided
as a margin of safety by accounting for additional greenhouse gas emission reductions.4
Senate Bill 100. Senate Bill 100 (SB 100) requires 100 percent of total retail sales of electricity in
California to come from eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources by December
31, 2045. SB 100 was adopted September 2018.
The interim thresholds from prior Senate Bills and Executive Orders would also remain in effect. These
include Senate Bill 1078 (SB 1078), which requires retail sellers of electricity, including investor -owned
utilities and community choice aggregators, to provide at least 20 percent of their supply from
renewable sources by 2017. Senate Bill 107 (SB 107) which changed the target date to 2010. Executive
Order S-14-08, which was signed on November 2008 and expanded the State’s Renewable Energy
Standard to 33 percent renewable energy by 2020. Executive Order S-21-09 directed the CARB to
adopt regulations by July 31, 2010 to enforce S-14-08. Senate Bill X1-2 codifies the 33 percent
renewable energy requirement by 2020.
SB 375. Senate Bill 375 (SB 375) was adopted September 2008 and aligns regional transportation
planning efforts, regional GHG emission reduction targets, and land use and housing allocation. SB 375
requires Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) to adopt a sustainable communities strategy (SCS)
or alternate planning strategy (APS) that will prescribe land use allocation in that MPOs Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP). CARB, in consultation with each MPO, will provide each affected region
with reduction targets for GHGs emitted by passenger cars and light trucks in the region for the years
2020 and 2035. These reduction targets will be updated every eight years but can be updated every
four years if advancements in emissions technologies affect the reduction strategies to achieve the
targets. CARB is also charged with reviewing each MPO’s sustainable communities strategy or
alternate planning strategy for consistency with its assigned targets.
The proposed project is located within the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG),
which has authority to develop the SCS or APS. For the SCAG region, the targets set by CARB are at
eight percent below 2005 per capita GHG emissions levels by 2020 and 13 percent below 2005 per
Rome Hill Commercial Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
County of Riverside, CA Regulatory Framework and Background
23
capita GHG emissions levels by 2035. On April 4, 2012, SCAG adopted the 2012-2035 Regional
Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), which meets the CARB emission
reduction requirements. The Housing Element Update is required by the State to be completed within
18 months after RTP/SCS adoption or by October 2013.
City and County land use policies, including General Plans, are not required to be consistent with the
RTP and associated SCS or APS. However, new provisions of CEQA would incentivize, through
streamlining and other provisions, qualified projects that are consistent with an approved SCS or APS
and categorized as “transit priority projects.”
Assembly Bill 939 and Senate Bill 1374. Assembly Bill 939 (AB 939) requires that each jurisdiction in
California to divert at least 50 percent of its waste away from landfills, whether through waste
reduction, recycling or other means. Senate Bill 1374 (SB 1374) requires the California Integrated
Waste Management Board to adopt a model ordinance by March 1, 2004 suitable for adoption by any
local agency to require 50 to 75 percent diversion of construction and demolition of waste materials
from landfills.
Executive Order S-13-08. Executive Order S-13-08 indicates that “climate change in California during
the next century is expected to shift precipitation patterns, accelerate sea level rise and increase
temperatures, thereby posing a serious threat to California’s economy, to the health and welfare of its
population and to its natural resources.” Pursuant to the requirements in the order, the 2009 California
Climate Adaptation Strategy (California Natural Resource Agency 2009) was adopted, which is the “…
first statewide, multi-sector, region-specific, and information-based climate change in California,
identifying and exploring strategies to adapt to climate change, and specifying a direction for future
research.
Executive Order B-30-15. Executive Order B-30-15, establishing a new interim statewide greenhouse
gas emission reduction target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by
2030, was signed by Governor Brown in April 2015.
Executive Order B-29-15. Executive Order B-29-15, mandates a statewide 25% reduction in potable
water usage and was signed into law on April 1, 2015.
Executive Order B-37-16. Executive Order B-37-16, continuing the State’s adopted water reduction,
was signed into law on May 9, 2016. The water reduction builds off the mandatory 25% reduction
called for in EO B-29-15.
2.2.4 South Coast Air Quality Management District
The Project is within the South Coast Air Basin, which is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD). SCAQMD Regulation XXVII currently includes three rules:
• The purpose of Rule 2700 is to define terms and post global warming potentials.
Rome Hill Commercial Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
County of Riverside, CA Regulatory Framework and Background
24
• The purpose of Rule 2701, SoCal Climate Solutions Exchange, is to establish a voluntary program to
encourage, quantify, and certify voluntary, high quality certified greenhouse gas emission
reductions in the SCAQMD.
• Rule 2702, Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program, was adopted on February 6, 2009. The purpose of
this rule is to create a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program for greenhouse gas emission reductions
in the SCAQMD. The SCAQMD will fund projects through contracts in response to requests for
proposals or purchase reductions from other parties.
SCAQMD Threshold Development
The SCAQMD has established recommended significance thresholds for greenhouse gases for local lead
agency consideration (“SCAQMD draft local agency threshold”). SCAQMD has published a five -tiered
draft GHG threshold which includes a 10,000 metric ton of CO2e per year for stationary/industrial
sources and 3,000 metric tons of CO2e per year significance threshold for residential/commercial
projects (South Coast Air Quality Management District 2010c). Tier 3 is anticipated to be the primary
tier by which the SCAQMD will determine significance for projects. The Tier 3 screening level for
stationary sources is based on an emission capture rate of 90 percent for all new or modified projects.
A 90-precent emission capture rate means that 90 percent of total emissions from all new or modified
stationary source projects would be subject to CEQA analysis. The 90 -percent capture rate GHG
significance screening level in Tier 3 for stationary sources was derived using the SCAQMD’s annual
Emissions Reporting Program.
The current draft thresholds consist of the following tiered approach:
• Tier 1 consists of evaluating whether or not the project qualifies for any applicable exemption
under CEQA.
• Tier 2 consists of determining whether or not the project is consistent with a greenhouse gas
reduction plan. If a project is consistent with a qualifying local greenhouse gas reduction plan, it
does not have significant greenhouse gas emissions.
• Tier 3 consists of screening values, which the lead agency can choose but must be consistent. A
project’s construction emissions are averaged over 30 years and are added to a project’s
operational emissions. If a project’s emissions are under one of the following screening thresholds,
then the project is less than significant:
- All land use types: 3,000 MTCO2e per year
- Based on land use types: residential is 3,500 MTCO2e per year; commercial is 1,400 MTCO2e
per year; and mixed use is 3,000 MTCO2e per year
• Tier 4 has the following options:
- Option 1: Reduce emissions from business as usual by a certain percentage; this percentage is
currently undefined
- Option 2: Early implementation of applicable AB 32 Scoping Plan measures
- Option 3: Year 2020 target for service populations (SP), which includes residents and
employees: 4.8 MTCO2e/SP/year for projects and 6.6 MTCO2e/SP/year for plans;
Rome Hill Commercial Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
County of Riverside, CA Regulatory Framework and Background
25
- Option 3, 2035 target: 3.0 MTCO2e/SP/year for projects and 4.1 MTCO2e/SP/year for plans
• Tier 5 involves mitigation offsets to achieve target significance threshold.
2.2.5 Local
County of Riverside Climate Action Plan
The County of Riverside’s Climate Action Plan Update (CAP) was completed in November 2019. The
CAP Update describes Riverside County’s GHG emissions for the year 2017, projects how these
emissions will increase into 2020, 2030, and 2050, and includes strategies to reduce emissions to a
level consistent with the State of California’s emissions reduction targets. The CAP Update sets a target
to reduce community-wide GHG emission emissions by 15 percent from 2008 levels by 2020, 49
percent by 2030, and 83 percent by 2050.
Appendix D of the Riverside County CAP Update also states that project's that do not exceed the CAP's
screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year are considered to have less than significant GHG
emissions and are in compliance with the County's CAP Update. Therefore, to determine whether the
project's GHG emissions are significant, this analysis uses the County of Riverside CAP Update
screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year for all land use types. Projects that do not exceed
emissions of 3,000 MTCO2e per year are also required to include the following efficiency measures:
• Energy efficiency matching or exceeding the Title 24 requirements in effect as of January 2017,
and
• Water conservation measures that matches the California Green Building Code in effect as of
January 2017.
Projects that exceed emissions of 3,000 MTCO2e per year are also required to use Screening Tables.
Projects that garner at least 100 points will be consistent with the reduction quantities anticipated in
the County’s CAP Update. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines, such projects would be determined to
have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG emissions. Those projects that do
not garner 100 points using the Screening Tables will need to provide additional analysis to determine
the significance of GHG emissions.
City of Lake Elsinore Climate Action Plan
In compliance with State Assembly Bill AB32 and Executive Order S-3-05, the City of Lake Elsinore
adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) on December 13, 2011. The City’s CAP is a long range plan
designed to reduce community-wide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from activities within the City
limits. Specifically, the CAP is designed to:
• Benchmark Lake Elsinore’s existing (2008) GHG emissions and projected emissions relative to
state-wide emissions targets;
Rome Hill Commercial Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
County of Riverside, CA Regulatory Framework and Background
26
• Establish GHG emissions reduction strategies and measures to reduce the City’s proportionate
share of emissions to meet the state-wide targets identified in Assembly Bill 32 (AB32), and
Executive Order S-3-05;
• Set forth procedures to monitor and verify the effectiveness of the CAP and require
amendment if the CAP is not achieving targeted levels of emissions;
• Mitigate Lake Elsinore’s GHG emissions impacts (by reducing GHG emissions consistent with the
State of California via the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, AB32, and
Executive Order S-3-05). The CEQA Guidelines encourage the adoption of plans or mitigation
programs as a means of comprehensively addressing the cumulative impacts of projects (see
CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15064(h)(3) and 15130(c); and,
• Serve as the programmatic tiering document for the purposes of CEQA within the City of Lake
Elsinore for GHG emissions, and what applicable projects will be reviewed. If a proposed
development project can demonstrate it is consistent with the applicable emissions reduction
measures included in the CAP, the programs and standards that would be imp lemented as a
result of the CAP, and the General Plan Update growth projections, the project’s environmental
review pertaining to GHG impacts may be streamlined as allowed by CEQA Guidelines Sections
15152 and 15183.5.
The CAP is not intended to limit future development or economic growth within Lake Elsinore; rather,
by adopting a CAP, the City has established the compliance and performance standards that a project is
to meet in order to satisfy State mandates. Discussions of the Project’s consistency with the CAP’s
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures are discussed in Section 7.3.
The City of Lake Elsinore’s CAP has a GHG emissions target that is specifically intended for use in
evaluating the significance of GHG emissions from community-wide emissions. The City selected
efficiency-based targets for the years governed by the General Plan to reduce community -wide
emissions to 6.6 MT CO2e per service population per year by 2020 (a 22.3% reduction from the 2008
rate of 8.5 MT CO2e/SP) and to 4.4 MT CO2e per service population per year by 2030 (a 48.2%
reduction from the 2008 rate of 8.5 MT CO2e/SP). These efficiency based targets represent the AB 32
and Executive Order S-3-05 targeted emissions levels for 2020 and 2030 on a per service population
basis and they were derived by dividing the state -wide AB 32 targeted emissions level for 2020 and
statewide Executive Order S-3-05 targeted emissions level for 2030 by the 2020 and 2030 state-wide
service population respectively. Therefore, these targets represent the maximum quantity of emissions
each resident and employee in the State of California could emit in 2020 and 2030 based on emissions
levels necessary to achieve the state-wide AB 32 and Executive Order S-3- 05 GHG emissions reduction
goals.
In order to meet the state-wide efficiency metric targets, the CAP must demonstrate that it can reduce
community-wide emissions to 6.6 MT CO2e/SP (or 944,737 MT CO2e total based on an estimated 2020
service population of 143,142) by 2020 and 4.4 MT CO2e/SP (or 1,334,243 MT CO2e based on an
estimated 2030 service population of 303,237) by 2030.
Rome Hill Commercial Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
County of Riverside, CA Regulatory Framework and Background
27
Therefore, to determine whether the project's GHG emissions are significant, this analysis uses the
County of Riverside CAP Update and SCAQMD draft local agency tier 3 screening threshold of 3,000
MTCO2e.
The project will be subject to the latest requirements of the California Green Building and Title 24
Energy Efficiency Standards (currently 2022) which would reduce project-related greenhouse gas
emissions.
Rome Hill Commercial Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
County of Riverside, CA Setting
28
3.0 Setting
3.1 Existing Physical Setting
The project site is located in an unincorporated portion of the County of Riverside within the sphere of
influence of the City of Lake Elsinore, which is part of the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) that includes all
of Orange County as well as the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino
Counties. The South Coast Air Basin is located on a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low
hills to the east. Regionally, the South Coast Air Basin is bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the southwest
and high mountains to the east forming the inland perimeter.
3.1.1 Local Climate and Meteorology
Dominant airflows provide the driving mechanism for transport and dispersion of air pollution. The
mountains surrounding the region form natural horizontal barriers to the dispersion of air
contaminants. Air pollution created in the coastal areas and around the Los Angeles area is
transported inland until it reaches the mountains where the combination of mountains and inversion
layers generally prevent further dispersion. This poor ventilation results in a gradual degradation of air
quality from the coastal areas to inland areas. Air stagnation may occur during the early evening and
early morning periods of transition between day and nighttime flows. The region also experiences
periods of hot, dry winds from the desert, known as Santa Ana winds. If the Santa Ana winds are
strong, they can surpass the sea breeze, which blows from the ocean to the land, and carry the
suspended dust and pollutants out to the ocean. If the winds are weak, they are opposed by the sea
breeze and cause stagnation, resulting in high pollution events.
The annual average temperature varies little throughout much of the basin, ranging from the low to
middle 60s, measured in degrees Fahrenheit (°F). With more pronounced oceanic influence, coastal
areas show less variability in annual minimum and maximum temperatures than inland areas where
the project site is located. The majority of the annual rainfall in the basin occurs between November
and April. Summer rainfall is minimal and is generally limited to scattered thunderstorms in the coastal
regions and slightly heavier showers in the eastern portion of the basin along the coastal side of the
mountains. Year-to-year patterns in rainfall are unpredictable because of fluctuations in the weather.
Temperature inversions limit the vertical depth through which pollution can be mixed. Among the
most common temperature inversions in the basin are radiation inversions, which form on clear winter
nights when cold air off mountains sink to the valley floor while the air aloft over the valley remains
warm. These inversions, in conjunction with calm winds, trap pollutants near the source. Other types
of temperature inversions that affect the basin include marine, subsidence, and high -pressure
inversions.
Summers are often periods of hazy visibility and occasionally unhealthful air. Strong temperature
inversions may occur that limit the vertical depth through which air pollution can be dispersed. Air
pollutants concentrate because they cannot rise through the inversion layer and disperse. These
inversions are more common and persistent during the summer months. Over time, sunlight produces
Rome Hill Commercial Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
County of Riverside, CA Setting
29
photochemical reactions within this inversion layer that creates ozone, a particularly harmful air
pollutant. Occasionally, strong thermal convections occur which allows the air pollutants to rise high
enough to pass over the mountains and ultimately dilute the smog cloud trap pollutants such as
automobile exhaust near their source. While these inversions may lead to air pollution “hot spots” in
heavily developed coastal areas of the basin, there is not enough traffic in inland valleys to cause any
winter air pollution problems. Despite light wind conditions, especially at night and in the early
morning, winter is generally a period of good air quality in the project vicinity.
In the winter, light nocturnal winds result mainly from the drainage of cool air off of the mountains
toward the valley floor while the air aloft over the valley remains warm. This forms a type of inversion
known as a radiation inversion. Such winds are characterized by stagnation and poor local mixing and
trap pollutants such as automobile exhaust near their source. While these inversions may lead to air
pollution “hot spots” in heavily developed coastal areas of the basin, there is not enough traffic to
cause any winter air pollution problems. Despite light wind conditions, especially at night and in the
early morning, winter is generally a period of good air quality in the project vicinity.
The temperature and precipitation levels for the City of Lake Elsinore are in Table 3. Table 3 shows that
August is typically the warmest month and December is typically the coolest month. Rainfall in the
project area varies considerably in both time and space. Almost all the annual rainfall comes from the
fringes of mid-latitude storms from late November to early April, with summers being almost
completely dry.
Table 3: Meteorological Summary
Month Temperature (˚F) Average Precipitation
(inches) Average High Average Low
January 66.0 38.9 2.56
February 67.7 40.9 2.68
March 72.3 43.4 1.77
April 77.7 47.0 0.67
May 83.8 52.5 0.20
June 91.0 56.5 0.05
July 97.7 61.0 0.16
August 98.6 62.5 0.05
September 93.4 58.9 0.17
October 83.4 52.0 0.59
November 70.4 42.1 0.90
December 65.8 38.5 2.11
Annual Average 80.9 49.7 11.9
Notes:
1 Source: https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca2805
3.1.2 Local Air Quality
The SCAQMD has divided the South Coast Air Basin into 38 air-monitoring areas with a designated
ambient air monitoring station representative of each area. The project site is located in an
Rome Hill Commercial Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
County of Riverside, CA Setting
30
unincorporated portion of the County of Riverside within the sphere of influence of the City of Lake
Elsinore in the Lake Elsinore (Area 25). The nearest air monitoring station to the project site is the Lake
Elsinore – W Flint Street Station (Lake Elsinore Station). The Lake Elsinore Station is located
approximately 1.6 miles southeast of the project site, at 506 W Flint Street, Lake Elsinore; however this
location does not provide all ambient weather data. Therefore, additional data was pulled from the
SCAQMD historical data for the Lake Elsinore Area (Area 25) for both sulfur dioxide and carbon
monoxide to provide the existing levels. Table 4 presents the monitored pollutant levels within the
vicinity. However, it should be noted that due to the air monitoring station distance from the project
site, recorded air pollution levels at the air monitoring station reflect with varying degrees of accuracy,
local air quality conditions at the project site.
Table 4: Local Area Air Quality Levels from the Lake Elsinore Monitoring Stations
Year
Pollutant (Standard)2 2021 2022 2023
Ozone:
Maximum 1-Hour Concentration (ppm) 0.118 0.121 0.120
Days > CAAQS (0.09 ppm) 18 17 10
Maximum 8-Hour Concentration (ppm) 0.097 0.091 0.103
Days > NAAQS (0.07 ppm) 44 37 31
Days > CAAQS (0.070 ppm) 46 37 35
Carbon Monoxide:
Maximum 1-Hour Concentration (ppm) - - -
Days > NAAQS (20 ppm) - - -
Maximum 8-Hour Concentration (ppm) - - -
Days > NAAQS (9 ppm) - - -
Nitrogen Dioxide:
Maximum 1-Hour Concentration (ppm) 0.044 0.037 0.042
Days > NAAQS (0.25 ppm) 0 0 0
Sulfur Dioxide:
Maximum 1-Hour Concentration (ppm) - - -
Days > CAAQS (0.25 ppm) - - -
Inhalable Particulates (PM10):
Maximum 24-Hour Concentration (ug/m3) 90.0 91.8 187.0
Days > NAAQS (150 ug/m3) 0 0 1
Days > CAAQS (50 ug/m3) * * *
Annual Average (ug/m3) 22.4 20.3 21.8
Annual > NAAQS (50 ug/m3) No No No
Annual > CAAQS (20 ug/m3) Yes Yes Yes
Ultra-Fine Particulates (PM2.5):
Maximum 24-Hour Concentration (ug/m3) 28.3 16.2 19.9
Days > NAAQS (35 ug/m3) * * *
Annual Average (ug/m3) 6.9 5.8 5.9
Annual > NAAQS (15 ug/m3) No No No
Annual > CAAQS (12 ug/m3) No No No
1. Source: obtained from https://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/air-quality-data-studies/historical-data-by-year and /or
https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php
2 CAAQS = California Ambient Air Quality Standard; NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standard; ppm = parts per million
3 No data available.
Rome Hill Commercial Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
County of Riverside, CA Setting
31
The monitoring data presented in Table 4 shows that ozone and particulate matter (PM10) are the air
pollutants of primary concern in the project area, which are detailed below.
Ozone
During the 2021 to 2023 monitoring period, the State 1-hour concentration standard for ozone has
been exceeded between 10 and 18 days each year at the Lake Elsinore Station. The State 8-hour ozone
standard has been exceeded between 35 and 46 days each year over the past three years at the Lake
Elsinore Station. The Federal 8-hour ozone standard has been exceeded between 31 and 44 days each
year over the past three years at the Lake Elsinore Station.
Ozone is a secondary pollutant as it is not directly emitted. Ozone is the result of chemical reactions
between other pollutants, most importantly hydrocarbons and NO2, which occur only in the presence
of bright sunlight. Pollutants emitted from upwind cities react during transport downwind to produce
the oxidant concentrations experienced in the area. Many areas of the SCAQMD contribute to the
ozone levels experienced at the monitoring station, with the more significant areas being those directly
upwind.
Carbon Monoxide
CO is another important pollutant that is due mainly to motor vehicles. The Elsinore Area did not
record an exceedance of the state or federal 1-hour or 8-hour CO standards for the last three years.
Nitrogen Dioxide
The Lake Elsinore Station did not record an exceedance of the State or Federal NO2 standards for the
last three years.
Sulfur Dioxide
The Elsinore Area did not record an exceedance of the State SO2 standards for the last three years.
Particulate Matter
During the 2021 to 2023 monitoring period, there was insufficient data for the State 24-hour
concentration standard for PM10 at the Lake Elsinore Station. Over the same time period, the Federal
24-hour standard for PM10 was exceeded once in 2023 and the Federal annual standard was not
exceeded at the Lake Elsinore Station.
During the 2021 to 2023 monitoring period, there was insufficient data for the Federal 24-hour
standard for PM2.5 at the Lake Elsinore Station.
According to the EPA, some people are much more sensitive than others to breathing fine particles
(PM10 and PM2.5). People with influenza, chronic respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, and the
elderly may suffer worsening illness and premature death due to breathing these fine particles. People
with bronchitis can expect aggravated symptoms from breathing in fine particles. Children may
experience decline in lung function due to breathing in PM10 and PM2.5. Other groups considered
Rome Hill Commercial Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
County of Riverside, CA Setting
32
sensitive are smokers and people who cannot breathe well through their noses. Exercising athletes are
also considered sensitive, because many breathe through their mouths during exercise.
3.1.3 Attainment Status
The EPA and the ARB designate air basins where ambient air quality standards are exceeded as
“nonattainment” areas. If standards are met, the area is designated as an “attainment” area. If there is
inadequate or inconclusive data to make a definitive attainment designation, they are considered
“unclassified.” National nonattainment areas are further designated as marginal, moderate, serious,
severe, or extreme as a function of deviation from standards. Each standard has a different definition,
or ‘form’ of what constitutes attainment, based on specific air quality statistics. For example, the
Federal 8-hour CO standard is not to be exceeded more than once per year; therefore, an area is in
attainment of the CO standard if no more than one 8-hour ambient air monitoring values exceeds the
threshold per year. In contrast, the federal annual PM 2.5 standard is met if the three-year average of
the annual average PM2.5 concentration is less than or equal to the standard. Table 5 lists the
attainment status for the criteria pollutants in the basin.
Table 5: South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status
Pollutant Averaging Time National Standards1 Attainment Date2 California Standards3
1979
1-Hour Ozone4
1-Hour
(0.12 ppm)
Nonattainment
(Extreme)
11/15/2010
(Not attained4)
Extreme
Nonattainment
1997
8-Hour Ozone5
8-Hour
(0.08 ppm)
Nonattainment
(Extreme) 6/15/2024
Nonattainment 2008
8-Hour Ozone
8-Hour
(0.075 ppm)
Nonattainment
(Extreme) 12/31/2032
2015
8-Hour Ozone
8-Hour
(0.070 ppm) Designations Pending ~2037
CO 1-Hour (35 ppm)
8-Hour (9 ppm)
Attainment
(Maintenance)
6/11/2007
(Attained) Maintenance
NO26 1-Hour (100 ppb)
Annual (0.053 ppm)
Attainment
(Maintenance)
9/22/1998
(Attained) Attainment
SO27
1-Hour (75 ppb) Designations Pending Pending
Attainment 24-Hour (0.14 ppm)
Annual (0.03 ppm)
Unclassifiable/
Attainment
3/19/1979
(Attained)
PM10 24-Hour
(150 µg/m3)
Nonattainment
(Serious)8
12/31/2006
(Redesignation request
submitted)8
Nonattainment
PM2.5 24-Hour (35 µg/m3) Nonattainment
12/31/2006
(Redesignation request
submitted)8
Unclassified
Lead 3-Months Rolling
(0.15 µg/m3)
Nonattainment
(Partial)9 12/31/2015 Nonattainment
(Partial)9
Notes:
1 Obtained from Draft 2012 AQMP, SCAQMD, 2012. EPA often only declares Nonattainment areas; everywhere else is listed as Unclas sified/Attainment or Unclassifiable.
2 A design value below the NAAQS for data through the full year or smog season prior to the attainment date is typically required for attainment demonstration.
3 Obtained from http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm.
4 1-hour O3 standard (0.13 ppm) was revoked, effective June 15, 2005; however, the Basin has not attained this standard based on 2008-2010 data has some continuing obligations under the former
standard.
5 1997 8-hour O3 standard (0.08 ppm) was reduced (0.075 ppm), effective May 27, 2008; the 1997 O3 standard and most related implementation rules remain in place until the 1997 standard is revoked
by U.S. EPA.
6 New NO2 1-hour standard, effective August 2, 2010; attainment designations June, 2013; annual NO2 standard retained.
7 The 1971 annual and 24-hour SO2 standards were revoked, effective August 23, 2010; however, these 1971 standards will remain in effect until one year after U.S. EPA promulgates area designations
for the 2010 SO2 1-hour standard. Area designations expected in 2012, with SSAB designated Unclassifiable/Attainment.
8 Annual PM10 standard was revoked, effective December 18, 2006; redesignation request to Attainment of the 24-hour PM10 standard is pending with U.S. EPA
9 Partial Nonattainment designation - Los Angeles County portion of Basin only.
Rome Hill Commercial Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
County of Riverside, CA Setting
33
3.2 Greenhouse Gases
Constituent gases of the Earth’s atmosphere, called atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHG), play a
critical role in the Earth’s radiation amount by trapping infrared radiation emitted from the Earth’s
surface, which otherwise would have escaped to space. Prominent greenhouse gases contributing to
this process include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), ozone, water vapor, nitrous oxide (N2O), and
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). This phenomenon, known as the Greenhouse Effect, is responsible for
maintaining a habitable climate. Anthropogenic (caused or produced by humans) emissions of these
greenhouse gases in excess of natural ambient concentrations are responsible for the enhancement of
the Greenhouse Effect and have led to a trend of unnatural warming of the Earth’s natural climate,
known as global warming or climate change. Emissions of gases that induce global warming are
attributable to human activities associated with industrial/manufacturing, agriculture, utilities,
transportation, and residential land uses. Transportation is responsible for 41 percent of the State’s
greenhouse gas emissions, followed by electricity generation. Emissions of CO2 and nitrous oxide (NO2)
are byproducts of fossil fuel combustion. Methane, a potent greenhouse gas, results from off -gassing
associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Sinks of CO 2, where CO2 is stored outside of the
atmosphere, include uptake by vegetation and dissolution into the ocean. Table 6 provides a
description of each of the greenhouse gases and their global warming potential.
Additional information is available: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm
<Table 6 on next page>
Rome Hill Commercial Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
County of Riverside, CA Setting
34
Table 6: Description of Greenhouse Gases
Greenhouse Gas Description and Physical Properties Sources
Nitrous oxide
Nitrous oxide (N20),also known as laughing gas is a
colorless gas. It has a lifetime of 114 years. Its global
warming potential is 298.
Microbial processes in soil and water,
fuel combustion, and industrial
processes. In addition to agricultural
sources, some industrial processes
(nylon production, nitric acid
production) also emit N20.
Methane
Methane (CH4) is a flammable gas and is the main
component of natural gas. It has a lifetime of 12 years.
Its global warming potential is 25.
A natural source of CH4 is from the
decay of organic matter. Methane is
extracted from geological deposits
(natural gas fields). Other sources are
from the decay of organic material in
landfills, fermentation of manure, and
cattle farming.
Carbon dioxide
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an odorless, colorless, natural
greenhouse gas. Carbon dioxide’s global warming
potential is 1. The concentration in 2005 was 379 parts
per million (ppm), which is an increase of about 1.4
ppm per year since 1960.
Natural sources include decomposition
of dead organic matter; respiration of
bacteria, plants, animals, and fungus;
evaporation from oceans; and volcanic
outgassing. Anthropogenic sources are
from burning coal, oil, natural gas, and
wood.
Chlorofluorocarbons
CFCs are nontoxic, nonflammable, insoluble, and
chemically unreactive in the troposphere (the level of
air at the earth’s surface). They are gases formed
synthetically by replacing all hydrogen atoms in
methane or methane with chlorine and/or fluorine
atoms. Global warming potentials range from 3,800 to
8,100.
Chlorofluorocarbons were synthesized
in 1928 for use as refrigerants, aerosol
propellants, and cleaning solvents. They
destroy stratospheric ozone, therefore
their production was stopped as
required by the Montreal Protocol.
Hydrofluorocarbons
Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are a group of greenhouse
gases containing carbon, chlorine, and at least one
hydrogen atom. Global warming potentials range from
140 to 11,700.
Hydrofluorocarbons are synthetic
manmade chemicals used as a
substitute for chlorofluorocarbons in
applications such as automobile air
conditioners and refrigerants.
Perfluorocarbons
Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) have stable molecular
structures and only break down by ultraviolet rays
about 60 kilometers above the Earth's surface. They
have a lifetime 10,000 to 50,000 years. They have a
global warming potential range of 6,200 to 9,500.
Two main sources of perfluorocarbons
are primary aluminum production and
semiconductor manufacturing.
Sulfur
hexafluoride
Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) is an inorganic, odorless,
colorless, and nontoxic, nonflammable gas. It has a
lifetime of 3,200 years. It has a high global warming
potential, 23,900.
This gas is manmade and used for
insulation in electric power transmission
equipment, in the magnesium industry,
in semiconductor manufacturing, and as
a tracer gas for leak detection.
Notes:
1. Sources: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2014a and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2014b.
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-10-2.html
Rome Hill Commercial Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
County of Riverside, CA Modeling Parameters and Assumptions
35
4.0 Modeling Parameters and Assumptions
4.1 Construction
Typical emission rates from construction activities were obtained from CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.29
CalEEMod is a computer model published by the SCAQMD for estimating air pollutant emissions. The
CalEEMod program uses the EMFAC2021 computer program to calculate the emission rates specific for
the southwestern portion of Riverside County for construction-related employee vehicle trips and the
OFFROAD2017 computer program to calculate emission rates for heavy truck operations. EMFAC2021
and OFFROAD2017 are computer programs generated by CARB that calculates composite emission
rates for vehicles. Emission rates are reported by the program in grams per trip and grams per mile or
grams per running hour. Using CalEEMod, the peak daily air pollutant emissions were calculated and
presented below. These emissions represent the highest level of emissions for each of the construction
phases in terms of air pollutant emissions.
The analysis assesses the emissions associated with the construction of the proposed project as
indicated in Table 1. Per the project applicant, the proposed project is to be operational in 2026;
therefore, for modeling purposes, construction is estimated to start no sooner than third quarter of
2025 and end by mid 2026. The phases of the construction activities which have been analyzed below
are: 1) site preparation, 2) grading, 3) building, 4) paving, and 5) architectural coating. For details on
construction modeling and construction equipment for each phase, please see Appendix A.
The project will be required to comply with existing SCAQMD rules for the reduction of fugitive dust
emissions. SCAQMD Rule 403 establishes these procedures. Compliance with this rule is achieved
through application of standard best management practices in construction and operation activities,
such as application of water or chemical stabilizers to disturbed soils, managing haul road dust by
application of water, covering haul vehicles, restricting vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph,
sweeping loose dirt from paved site access roadways, cessation of construction activity when winds
exceed 25 mph and establishing a permanent, stabilizing ground cover on finished sites. In addition,
projects that disturb 50 acres or more of soil or move 5,000 cubic yards of materials per day are
required to submit a Fugitive Dust Control Plan or a Large Operation Notification Form to SCAQMD.
Based on the size of the Project area (disturbance area of approximately 1.27 acres) and the fact that
the project won’t export more than 5,000 cubic yards of material a day a Fugitive Dust Control Plan or
Large Operation Notification would not be required.
SCAQMD’s Rule 403 minimum requirements require that the application of the best available dust
control measures are used for all grading operations and include the application of water or other soil
stabilizers in sufficient quantity to prevent the generation of visible dust plumes. Compliance with Rule
403 would require the use of water trucks during all phases where earth moving operations would
occur. Compliance with Rule 403 is required.
4.2 Operations
Operational or long-term emissions occur over the life of the Project. Both mobile and area sources
generate operational emissions. Area source emissions arise from consumer product usage, heaters
Rome Hill Commercial Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
County of Riverside, CA Modeling Parameters and Assumptions
36
that consume natural gas, gasoline-powered landscape equipment, and architectural coatings
(painting). Mobile source emissions from motor vehicles are the largest single long-term source of air
pollutants from the operation of the Project . Small amounts of emissions would also occur from area
sources such as the consumption of natural gas for heating, hearths, from landscaping emissions, and
consumer product usage. The operational emissions were estimated using the latest version of
CalEEMod.
Mobile Sources
Mobile sources include emissions from the additional vehicle miles generated from the proposed
project. The vehicle trips associated with the proposed project are based upon the trip generation
rates give in the project-specific traffic impact analysis (TJW Engineering, 2025) which uses the ITE 11th
Trip Generation Manual. The scoping agreement shows a trip generation rate of 1.71 trips per
thousand square foot per day for warehousing.
The program then applies the emission factors for each trip which is provided by the EMFAC20 21
model to determine the vehicular traffic pollutant emissions. The CalEEMod default trip lengths were
used in this analysis. Please see CalEEMod output comments sections in Appendix A for details.
Area Sources
Area sources include emissions from consumer products, landscape equipment and architectural
coatings. Landscape maintenance includes fuel combustion emissions from equipment such as lawn
mowers, rototillers, shredders/grinders, blowers, trimmers, chain saws, and hedge trimmers, as well as
air compressors, generators, and pumps. As specifics were not known about the landscaping
equipment fleet, CalEEMod defaults were used to estimate emissions from landscaping equipment.
Per SCAQMD Rule 1113 as amended on June 3, 2011, the architectural coatings that would be applied
after January 1, 2014 will be limited to an average of 50 grams per liter or less and the CalEEMod
model default was utilized as the new model takes this rule into account.
Energy Usage
2022.1.1.29 CalEEMod defaults were utilized.
4.3 Localized Construction Analysis
The SCAQMD has published a “Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds”
(South Coast Air Quality Management District 2011b). CalEEMod calculates construction emissions
based on the number of equipment hours and the maximum daily disturbance activity possible for
each piece of equipment. In order to compare CalEEMod reported emissions against the localized
significance threshold lookup tables, the CEQA document should contain in its project design features
or its mitigation measures the following parameters:
1. The off-road equipment list (including type of equipment, horsepower, and hours of operation)
assumed for the day of construction activity with maximum emissions.
2. The maximum number of acres disturbed on the peak day.
3. Any emission control devices added onto off-road equipment.
Rome Hill Commercial Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
County of Riverside, CA Modeling Parameters and Assumptions
37
4. Specific dust suppression techniques used on the day of construction activity with maximum
emissions.
The construction equipment showing the equipment associated with the maximum area of disturbance
is shown in Table 7.
Table 7: Construction Equipment Assumptions1
Activity Equipment Number Acres/8hr-day Total Acres
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 0.5 1.5
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 0.5 2.0
Total Per Phase 1.5
Grading
Excavators 1 0.5 0.5
Graders 1 0.5 0.5
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 0.5 0.5
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 0.5 1.5
Total Per Phase 3.0
Notes:
1. Source: South Coast AQMD, Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/caleemod-guidance.pdf?sfvrsn=2
As shown in Table 7, the maximum number of acres disturbed in a day would be 3.0 acres during
grading.
The local air quality emissions from construction were analyzed using the SCAQMD’s Mass Rate
Localized Significant Threshold Look-up Tables and the methodology described in Localized Significance
Threshold Methodology, prepared by SCAQMD, revised July 2008. The Look-up Tables were developed
by the SCAQMD in order to readily determine if the daily emissions of CO, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 from
the proposed project could result in a significant impact to the local air quality. The emission
thresholds were based on the Elsinore source receptor area (SRA 25) and a disturbance of 2 acres per
day, to be conservative, at a distance of 50 meters (164 feet). The closest receptors are located 56
meters to the southeast of the site; therefore, to be conservative, the 50 meters threshold was used.
4.4 Localized Operational Analysis
For operational emissions, the screening tables for a disturbance area of 2 acres per day, to be
conservative, and a distance of 50 meters were used to determine significance. The tables were
compared to the project’s onsite operational emissions.
Rome Hill Commercial Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
County of Riverside, CA Thresholds of Significance
38
5.0 Thresholds of Significance
5.1 Air Quality Thresholds of Significance
5.1.1 CEQA Guidelines for Air Quality
The CEQA Guidelines define a significant effect on the environment as “a substantial, or potentially
substantial, adverse change in the environment.” To determine if a project would have a significant
impact on air quality, the type, level, and impact of emissions generated by the project must be
evaluated.
The following air quality significance thresholds are contained in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. A
significant impact would occur if the project would:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan;
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is nonattainment under an applicable national or state ambient air quality standard ;
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial
number of people.
While the final determination of whether a project is significant is within the purview of the Lead
Agency pursuant to Section 15064(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, SCAQMD recommends that its
quantitative air pollution thresholds be used to determine the significance of project emissions. If the
Lead Agency finds that the project has the potential to exceed these air pollution thresholds, the
project should be considered to have significant air quality impacts. There are daily emission
thresholds for construction and operation of a proposed project in the basin.
5.1.2 Regional Significance Thresholds for Construction Emissions
The following CEQA significance thresholds for construction emissions are established for the Basin:
• 75 pounds per day (lbs/day) of VOC
• 100 lbs/day of NOx
• 550 lbs/day of CO
• 150 lbs/day of PM10
• 55 lbs/day of PM2.5
• 150 lbs/day of SO2
Projects in the basin with construction-related emissions that exceed any of the emission thresholds
are considered to be significant under SCAQMD guidelines.
Rome Hill Commercial Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
County of Riverside, CA Thresholds of Significance
39
5.1.3 Regional Significance Thresholds for Operational Emissions
The daily operational emissions significance thresholds for the basin are as follows:
• 55 pounds per day (lbs/day) of VOC
• 55 lbs/day of NOx
• 550 lbs/day of CO
• 150 lbs/day of PM10
• 55 lbs/day of PM2.5
• 150 lbs/day of SO2
Local Microscale Concentration Standards The significance of localized project impacts under CEQA
depends on whether ambient CO levels in the vicinity of the project are above or below State and
federal CO standards. If ambient levels are below the standards, a project is considered to have a
significant impact if project emissions result in an exceedance of one or more of these standards. If
ambient levels already exceed a State or federal standard, project emissions are considered significant
if they increase 1-hour CO concentrations by 1.0 ppm or more or 8-hour CO concentrations by 0.45
ppm or more. The following are applicable local emission concentration standards for CO:
• California State 1-hour CO standard of 20.0 ppm
• California State 8-hour CO standard of 9.0 ppm
5.1.4 Thresholds for Localized Significance
Project-related construction air emissions may have the potential to exceed the State and Federal air
quality standards in the project vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant
enough to create a regional impact to the South Coast Air Basin. In order to assess local air quality
impacts the SCAQMD has developed Localized Significant Thresholds (LSTs) to assess the project -
related air emissions in the project vicinity. The SCAQMD has also provided Final Localized Significant
Threshold Methodology (LST Methodology), June 2003, which details the methodology to analyze local
air emission impacts. The Localized Significant Threshold Methodology found that the primary
emissions of concern are NO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5.
The emission thresholds were calculated based on the Elsinore source receptor area (SRA 25) and a
disturbance of 2 acres per day, to be conservative, at a distance of 50 meters (164 feet), for
construction and 2 acres a day, to be conservative, for screening of localized operational emissions.
5.2 Greenhouse Gas Thresholds of Significance
5.2.1 CEQA Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas
CEQA Guidelines define a significant effect on the environment as “a substantial, or potentially
substantial, adverse change in the environment.” To determine if a project would have a significant
impact on greenhouse gases, the type, level, and impact of emissions generated by the project must be
evaluated.
Rome Hill Commercial Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
County of Riverside, CA Thresholds of Significance
40
The following greenhouse gas significance thresholds are contained in Appendix G
of the CEQA Guidelines, which were amendments adopted into the Guidelines on
March 18, 2010, pursuant to SB 97. A significant impact would occur if the project would:
(a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment; or
(b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
However, despite this, currently neither the CEQA statutes, OPR guidelines, nor the draft proposed
changes to the CEQA Guidelines prescribe thresholds of significance or a particular methodology for
performing an impact analysis; as with most environmental topics, significance criteria are left to the
judgment and discretion of the Lead Agency. As previously discussed (Section 2.2.4 of this report),
SCAQMD has drafted interim thresholds. The screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year for all
land uses was used in this analysis.
Rome Hill Commercial Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
County of Riverside, CA Air Quality Emissions Impact
41
6.0 Air Quality Emissions Impact
6.1 Construction Air Quality Emissions Impact
The latest version of CalEEMod was used to estimate the onsite and offsite construction emissions. The
emissions incorporate Rule 402 and 403. Rule 402 and 403 (fugitive dust) are not considered mitigation
measures as the project by default is required to incorporate these rules during construction.
6.1.1 Regional Construction Emissions
The construction emissions for the project would not exceed the SCAQMD’s daily emission thresholds
at the regional level as demonstrated in Table 8, and therefore would be considered less than
significant.
Table 8: Regional Significance - Construction Emissions (pounds/day)
Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)
Activity VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Site Preparation
On-Site2 3.31 31.60 30.20 0.05 9.04 5.20
Off-Site3 0.08 0.08 1.35 0.00 0.23 0.05
Total 3.39 31.68 31.55 0.05 9.27 5.25
Grading
On-Site2 1.74 16.30 17.90 0.03 3.49 2.00
Off-Site3 0.14 4.85 2.33 0.03 1.41 0.45
Total 1.88 21.15 20.23 0.06 4.90 2.45
Building Construction
On-Site2 1.13 10.40 13.00 0.02 0.43 0.40
Off-Site3 0.24 0.95 4.15 0.00 0.85 0.22
Total 1.37 11.35 17.15 0.02 1.28 0.62
Paving
On-Site2 1.28 7.12 9.94 0.01 0.32 0.29
Off-Site3 0.06 0.22 1.13 0.00 0.25 0.06
Total 1.34 7.34 11.07 0.01 0.57 0.35
Architectural Coating
On-Site2 58.82 0.86 1.13 0.00 0.02 0.02
Off-Site3 0.04 0.04 0.73 0.00 0.13 0.03
Total 58.86 0.90 1.86 0.00 0.15 0.05
Total of overlapping phases4 61.57 19.59 30.08 0.03 2.00 1.02
SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Thresholds No No No No No No
Notes:
1 Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.29
2 On-site emissions from equipment operated on-site that is not operated on public roads.
3 Off-site emissions from equipment operated on public roads.
4 Construction, architectural coatings and paving phases may overlap.
Rome Hill Commercial Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
County of Riverside, CA Air Quality Emissions Impact
42
6.1.2 Localized Construction Emissions
The data provided in Table 9 shows that none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed the local
emissions thresholds at the nearest sensitive receptors. Therefore, a less than significant local air
quality impact would occur from construction of the proposed project.
Table 9: Localized Significance – Construction
Phase
On-Site Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)1
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Site Preparation 31.60 30.20 9.04 5.20
Grading 16.30 17.90 3.49 2.00
Building Construction 10.40 13.00 0.43 0.40
Paving 7.12 9.94 0.32 0.29
Architectural Coating 0.86 1.13 0.02 0.02
Total of overlapping phases 18.38 24.07 0.77 0.71
SCAQMD Threshold for 50 meters (164 feet) or less2 275 1,572 20 6
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No
Notes:
1 Source: Calculated from CalEEMod and SCAQMD’s Mass Rate Look-up Tables for two acres, to be conservative, in Perris Valley Source Receptor Area
(SRA 24). Project will disturb a maximum of 4.0 acres per day (see Table 7).
2 The nearest sensitive receptor is located 56 meters southeast; therefore, the 50-meter threshold has been used.
6.1.3 Odors
Potential sources that may emit odors during construction activities include the application of
materials such as asphalt pavement. The objectionable odors that may be produced during the
construction process are of short-term in nature and the odor emissions are expected cease upon the
drying or hardening of the odor producing materials. Diesel exhaust and VOCs would be emitted
during construction of the project, which are objectionable to some; however, emissions would
disperse rapidly from the project site and therefore should not reach an objectionable level at the
nearest sensitive receptors. Due to the short-term nature and limited amounts of odor producing
materials being utilized, no significant impact related to odors would occur during construction of the
proposed project.
The SCAQMD recommends that odor impacts be addressed in a qualitative manner. Such an analysis
shall determine whether the project would result in excessive nuisance odors, as defined under the
California Code of Regulations and Section 41700 of the California Health and Safety Code, and thus
would constitute a public nuisance related to air quality.
Potential sources that may emit odors during the on-going operations of the proposed project would
include odor emissions from the trash storage areas. Due to the distance of the nearest receptors
from the project site and through compliance with SCAQMD’s Rule 402 no significant impact related to
odors would occur during the on-going operations of the proposed project.
Rome Hill Commercial Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
County of Riverside, CA Air Quality Emissions Impact
43
6.1.4 Construction-Related Toxic Air Contaminant Impact
The greatest potential for toxic air contaminant emissions would be related to diesel particulate
emissions associated with heavy equipment operations during construction of the proposed project.
The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has issued the Air Toxic Hot Spots
Program Risk Assessment Guidelines and Guidance Manual for the Preparation of Health Risk
Assessments, February 2015 to provide a description of the algorithms, recommended exposure
variates, cancer and noncancer health values, and the air modeling protocols needed to perform a
health risk assessment (HRA) under the Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act of 1987.
Hazard identification includes identifying all substances that are evaluated for cancer risk and/or non -
cancer acute, 8-hour, and chronic health impacts. In addition, identifying any multi -pathway
substances that present a cancer risk or chronic non -cancer hazard via non-inhalation routes of
exposure.
Given the relatively limited number of heavy-duty construction equipment and construction schedule,
the proposed project would not result in a long-term substantial source of toxic air containment
emissions and corresponding individual cancer risk. Furthermore, construction-based particulate
matter (PM) emissions (including diesel exhaust emissions) do not exceed any local or regional
thresholds. Therefore, no significant short -term toxic air contaminant impacts would occur during
construction of the proposed project.
6.2 Operational Air Quality Emissions Impact
6.2.1 Regional Operational Emissions
The operations-related criteria air quality impacts created by the proposed project have been analyzed
through the use of CalEEMod model. The operating emissions were based on year 2026, which is the
anticipated opening year for the project per the project applicant. The summer and winter emissions
created by the proposed project’s long-term operations were calculated and the highest emissions
from either summer or winter are summarized in Table 10.
Table 10: Regional Significance - Unmitigated Operational Emissions (lbs/day)
Activity
Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)1
VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Area Sources2 3.80 0.04 5.28 0.00 0.01 0.01
Energy Usage3 0.03 0.62 0.52 0.00 0.05 0.05
Mobile Sources4 1.00 4.40 12.60 0.06 3.45 0.94
Total Emissions 4.83 5.06 18.40 0.06 3.51 1.00
SCAQMD Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Notes:
1 Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.29
2 Area sources consist of emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscaping equipment.
3 Energy usage consists of emissions from on-site natural gas usage.
4 Mobile sources consist of emissions from vehicles and road dust.
Rome Hill Commercial Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
County of Riverside, CA Air Quality Emissions Impact
44
Table 10 provides the project's unmitigated operational emissions. Table 10 shows that the project
does not exceed the SCAQMD daily emission threshold and regional operational emissions are
considered to be less than significant.
6.2.2 Localized Operational Emissions
Table 11 shows the calculated emissions for the proposed operational activities compared with
appropriate LSTs. The LST analysis only includes on-site sources; however, the CalEEMod software
outputs do not separate on-site and off-site emissions for mobile sources. For a worst-case scenario
assessment, the emissions shown in Table 11 include all on-site project-related stationary sources and
10% of the project-related new mobile sources. This percentage is an estimate of the amount of
project-related new vehicle traffic that will occur on -site.
Table 11: Localized Significance – Unmitigated Operational Emissions
On-Site Emission Source
On-Site Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)1
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Area Sources2 0.04 5.28 0.01 0.01
Energy Usage3 0.62 0.52 0.05 0.05
On-Site Vehicle Emissions4 0.44 1.26 0.35 0.09
Total Emissions 1.10 7.06 0.41 0.15
SCAQMD Threshold for 50 meters (164 feet)5 275 1,572 5 2
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No
Notes:
1 Source: Calculated from CalEEMod and SCAQMD’s Mass Rate Look-up Tables for two acres, to be conservative, in Lake Elsinore Source Receptor
Area (SRA 25).
2 Area sources consist of emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscaping equipment.
3 Energy usage consists of emissions from generation of electricity and on-site natural gas usage.
4 On-site vehicular emissions based on 1/10 of the gross vehicular emissions and road dust.
5 The nearest sensitive receptor is located 56 meters southeast; therefore, the 50-meter threshold has been used.
Table 11 indicates that the local operational emission would not exceed the LST thresholds at the
nearest sensitive receptors, located adjacent to the project. Therefore, the project will not result in
significant Localized Operational emissions.
6.3 CO Hot Spot Emissions
CO is the pollutant of major concern along roadways because the most notable source of CO is motor
vehicles. For this reason, CO concentrations are usually indicative of the local air quality generated by a
roadway network and are used as an indicator of potential local air quality impacts. Local air quality
impacts can be assessed by comparing future without and with project CO levels to the State and
Federal CO standards which were presented in above in Section 5.0.
To determine if the proposed project could cause emission levels in excess of the CO standards
discussed above in Section 5.0, a sensitivity analysis is typically conducted to determine the potential
for CO “hot spots” at a number of intersections in the general project vicinity. Because of reduced
speeds and vehicle queuing, “hot spots” potentially can occur at high traffic volume intersections with
a Level of Service E or worse.
Rome Hill Commercial Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
County of Riverside, CA Air Quality Emissions Impact
45
Micro-scale air quality emissions have traditionally been analyzed in environmental documents where
the air basin was a non-attainment area for CO. However, the SCAQMD has demonstrated in the CO
attainment redesignation request to EPA that there are no “hot spots” anywhere in the air basin, even
at intersections with much higher volumes, much worse congestion, and much higher background CO
levels than anywhere in Riverside County. If the worst-case intersections in the air basin have no “hot
spot” potential, any local impacts will be below thresholds.
The traffic impact analysis showed that the project would generate 208 trips per day. The 1992 Federal
Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide (1992 CO Plan) showed that an intersection which has a daily
traffic volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day would not violate the CO standard. The
volume of traffic at project buildout would be well below 100,000 vehicles and below the necessary
volume to even get close to causing a violation of the CO standard. Therefore no CO “hot spot”
modeling was performed and no significant long-term air quality impact is anticipated to local air
quality with the on-going use of the proposed project.
6.4 Cumulative Regional Air Quality Impacts
Cumulative projects include local development as well as general growth within the project area.
However, as with most development, the greatest source of emissions is from mobile sources, which
travel well out of the local area. Therefore, from an air quality standpoint, the cumulative analysis
would extend beyond any local projects and when wind patterns are considered, would cover an even
larger area. Accordingly, the cumulative analysis for the project’s air quality must be generic by nature.
The project area is out of attainment for both ozone and PM10 particulate matter. Construction and
operation of cumulative projects will further degrade the local air quality, as well as the air quality of
the South Coast Air Basin. The greatest cumulative impact on the quality of regional air cell will be the
incremental addition of pollutants mainly from increased traffic from residential, commercial, and
industrial development and the use of heavy equipment and trucks associated with the construction of
these projects. Air quality will be temporarily degraded during construction activities that occur
separately or simultaneously. However, in accordance with the SCAQMD methodology, projects that
do not exceed the SCAQMD criteria or can be mitigated to less than criteria levels are not significant
and do not add to the overall cumulative impact. The project does not exceed any of the thresholds of
significance and therefore is considered less than significant.
6.5 Air Quality Compliance
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a discussion of any inconsistencies between a
proposed project and applicable General Plans and Regional Plans (CEQA Guidelines Section 15125).
The regional plan that applies to the proposed project includes the SCAQMD Air Quality Management
Plan (AQMP). Therefore, this section discusses any potential inconsistencies of the proposed project
with the AQMP.
The purpose of this discussion is to set forth the issues regarding consistency with the assumptions and
objectives of the AQMP and discuss whether the proposed project would interfere with the region’s
ability to comply with Federal and State air quality standards. If the decision -makers determine that
Rome Hill Commercial Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
County of Riverside, CA Air Quality Emissions Impact
46
the proposed project is inconsistent, the lead agency may consider project modifications or inclusion of
mitigation to eliminate the inconsistency.
The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook states that "New or amended General Plan Elements (including land use
zoning and density amendments), Specific Plans, and significant projects must be analyzed for
consistency with the AQMP." Strict consistency with all aspects of the plan is usually not required A
proposed project should be considered to be consistent with the AQMP if it furthers one or more
policies and does not obstruct other policies. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook identifies two key
indicators of consistency:
(1) Whether the project will result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air
quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of
air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP.
(2) Whether the project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP in 2016 or increments
based on the year of project buildout and phase.
Both of these criteria are evaluated in the following sections.
A. Criterion 1 - Increase in the Frequency or Severity of Violations
Based on the air quality modeling analysis contained in this Air Analysis, short -term construction
impacts will not result in significant impacts based on the SCAQMD regional and local thresholds of
significance. This Air Analysis also found that, long-term operations impacts will not result in
significant impacts based on the SCAQMD local and regional thresholds of significance.
Therefore, the proposed project is not projected to contribute to the exceedance of any air pollutant
concentration standards and is found to be consistent with the AQMP for the first criterion.
B. Criterion 2 - Exceed Assumptions in the AQMP?
Consistency with the AQMP assumptions is determined by performing an analysis of the proposed
project with the assumptions in the AQMP. The emphasis of this criterion is to ensure that the
analyses conducted for the proposed project are based on the same forecasts as the AQMP. The 2016-
2040 Regional Transportation/Sustainable Communities Strategy, prepared by SCAG, 2016, includes
chapters on: the challenges in a changing region, creating a plan for our future, and the road to greater
mobility and sustainable growth. These chapters currently respond directly to federal and state
requirements placed on SCAG. Local governments are required to use these as the basis of their plans
for purposes of consistency with applicable regional plans under CEQA. For this project, the County of
Riverside and City of Lake Elsinore Land Use Plans define the assumptions that are represented in the
AQMP.
The County of Riverside Elsinore Area Plan identifies the land use designation of the site as Business
Park. Furthermore, the project site has a current land use classification of Business Professional and
the current zoning is Scenic Highway Commercial (C-P-S) according to the City of Lake Elsinore North
Central Sphere Specific Plan Land Use Plan. An application for Change of Zone No. 2000009 is in
process, which includes a change of zone from Scenic Highway Commercial (C-P-S) to Industrial Park (I-
Rome Hill Commercial Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
County of Riverside, CA Air Quality Emissions Impact
47
P). The current zone (C-P-S) allows the proposed uses and the I-P zone will also allow the proposed
uses. Therefore, the Change of Zone does not affect the proposed uses or buildings.
The proposed project is to develop the site with two commercial/industrial buildings. Therefore, the
proposed project would not result in an inconsistency with the land use designation in either the
County or City’s General Plans. Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to exceed the AQMP
assumptions for the project site and is found to be consistent with the AQMP for the second criterion.
Based on the above, the proposed project will not result in an inconsistency with the SCAQMD AQMP.
Therefore, a less than significant impact will occur.
Rome Hill Commercial Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
County of Riverside, CA Error! Reference source not found.
48
7.0 Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis
7.1 Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact
The greenhouse gas emissions from project construction equipment and worker vehicles are shown in
Table 12. The emissions are from all phases of construction. The total construction emissions
amortized over a period of 30 years are estimated at 16.75 metric tons of CO2e per year. Annual
CalEEMod output calculations are provided in Appendix A.
Table 12: Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Activity Emissions (MTCO2e)1
Onsite Offsite Total
Site Preparation 24.10 1.06 25.16
Grading 26.90 42.81 69.71
Building Construction 252.00 136.30 388.30
Paving 13.80 3.20 17.00
Coating 1.22 1.20 2.42
Total 318.02 184.57 502.59
Averaged over 30 years2 10.60 6.15 16.75
Notes:
1. MTCO2e=metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (includes carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide).
2. The emissions are averaged over 30 years because the average is added to the operational emissions, pursuant to SCAQMD.
* CalEEMod output (Appendix A)
7.2 Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact
Operational emissions occur over the life of the project. The operational emissions for the project are
1,441.32 metric tons of CO2e per year as shown in Table 13. These emissions do not exceed the
County of Riverside CAP Update and SCAQMD screening threshold of 3,000 metric tons of CO2e per
year. Therefore, the project's GHG emissions are considered to be less than significant .
<Table 13 next page>
Rome Hill Commercial Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
County of Riverside, CA Error! Reference source not found.
49
Table 13: Opening Year Unmitigated Project-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Category
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Metric Tons/Year)1
Bio-CO2 NonBio-CO2 CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Area Sources2 0.00 2.46 2.46 0.00 0.00 2.47
Energy Usage3 0.00 295.00 295.00 0.02 0.00 296.00
Mobile Sources4 0.00 973.00 973.00 0.03 0.10 1,004.00
Solid Waste5 10.20 0.00 10.20 1.02 0.00 35.70
Water6 8.91 48.00 56.90 0.92 0.02 86.40
Construction7 0.00 16.53 16.53 0.00 0.00 16.75
Total Emissions 19.11 1,334.99 1,354.09 1.99 0.12 1,441.32
County of Riverside CAP and SCAQMD Draft Screening Threshold 3,000
Exceeds Threshold? No
Notes:
1 Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.29
2 Area sources consist of GHG emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscape equipment.
3 Energy usage consist of GHG emissions from electricity and natural gas usage.
4 Mobile sources consist of GHG emissions from vehicles.
5 Solid waste includes the CO2 and CH4 emissions created from the solid waste placed in landfills.
6 Water includes GHG emissions from electricity used for transport of water and processing of wastewater.
7 Construction GHG emissions based on a 30-year amortization rate.
7.3 Greenhouse Gas Plan Consistency
The proposed project would have the potential to conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation
of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. As stated previously, both
the County of Riverside and the City of Lake Elsinore have adopted Climate Action Plans ; therefore, the
project and its GHG emissions have been compared to the goals of both the County of Riverside CAP
Update as well as the City of Lake Elsinore CAP.
Consistency with the County of Riverside CAP Update
Per the County’s CAP Update, the County adopted its first CAP in 2015 which set a target to reduce
emissions back to 1990 levels by the year 2020 as recommended in the AB 32 Scoping Plan.
Furthermore, the goals and supporting measures within the County’s CAP Update are proposed to
reflect and ensure compliance with changes in the local and State policies and regulations such as SB
32 and California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. Therefore, compliance with the County’s CAP in
turn reflects consistency with the goals of the CARB Scoping Plan, Assembly Bill (AB) 32 and Senate Bill
(SB) 32.
Appendix D of the Riverside County CAP Update also states that project's that do not exceed the CAP's
screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year are considered to have less than significant GHG
emissions and are in compliance with the County's CAP Update. According to the County's CAP Update,
projects that do not exceed emissions of 3,000 MTCO2e per year are also required to include the
following efficiency measures:
• Energy efficiency matching or exceeding the Title 24 requirements in effect as of January 2017,
and
Rome Hill Commercial Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
County of Riverside, CA Error! Reference source not found.
50
• Water conservation measures that matches the California Green Building Code in effect as of
January 2017.
As stated above, the GHG emissions generated by the proposed project would not exceed the County
of Riverside CAP Update screening threshold of 3,000 metric tons per year of CO2e.
Consistency with the City of Lake Elsinore CAP
The City of Lake Elsinore adopted the City of Lake Elsinore CAP, on December 13, 2011. The Climate
Action Plan provides specific measures to be implemented in new developments to reduce GHG
emissions as well as a GHG emissions reduction target based on a community-wide emissions
reduction to 6.6 MTCO2e per service population per year by 2020 and 4.4 MTCO2e per service
population per year by 2030.
Appendix D of the CAP contains a project level worksheet that an applicant may use to demonstrate
consistency with the General Plan growth potential and CAP. The following are the criteria for
determining consistency with the CAP:
1. Is the project consistent with the General Plan land use designation?
The proposed project site is currently zoned as R-2 Light-Medium Residential, but the project is
seeking to rezone as C-M Commercial-Manufacturing in the City of Lake Elsinore North Central
Sphere Specific Plan Land Use Plan.
The proposed project is to develop the site with multiple commercial warehouse buildings.
Therefore, the proposed project is anticipated to be consistent with the updated zoning and
land uses specified in the City of Lake Elsinore's General Plan. Therefore, the project meets this
criterion.
2. Is the project consistent with the General Plan population and employment projections for the
site, upon which the CAP modeling is based?
The City of Lake Elsinore General Plan's build-out of population, housing and employment have
anticipated the development of the Project site as a commercial area with a land use of
Business Professional. Therefore, this buildout projection was used in the preparation of the
CAP. Therefore, the project meets this criterion.
3. Does the project incorporate the following CAP measures as binding and enforceable
components of the project? Until these measures have been formally adopted by the City and
incorporated in to applicable codes, the requirements must be incorporated as mitigation
measures applicable to the project (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15183.5(b)(2)).
Table 14 provides a list of the reduction measures for new non-residential developments
included in CAP Appendix D. Table 14 also provides a project consistency analysis of each
measure. Per Table 14, the Project meets this criterion.
Rome Hill Commercial Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
County of Riverside, CA Error! Reference source not found.
51
Based on the analysis above, the project will be consistent with the goals, policies and implementation
programs contained in the adopted City of Lake Elsinore CAP.
Therefore, as the project would comply with the goals of both the County of Riverside CAP Update and
the City of Lake Elsinore CAP, the project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or
regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.
<Table 14, next page>
Rome Hill Commercial Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
County of Riverside, CA Error! Reference source not found.
52
Table 14: City of Lake Elsinore CAP GHG Reduction Measures for Commercial Development and
Project Consistency1
Local Measure Measure Description Project Consistency
T-1.2
Pedestrian
Infrastructure
Through the development review process, require the
installation of sidewalks along new and reconstructed
streets. Also require new subdivisions and large
developments to provide sidewalks or paths to
internally link all uses where applicable and provide
connections to neighborhood activity centers, major
destinations, and transit facilities contiguous with the
project site; implement through conditions of
approval.
Consistent. The proposed project does
not include any new or reconstructed
streets and sidewalks/pathways are
provided within the project site.
T-1.4 Bicycle
Infrastructure
Through the development review process, require
new development, as applicable, to implement and
connect to the network of Class I, II and III bikeways,
trails and safety features identified in the General
Plan, Bike Lane Master Plan, Trails Master Plan and
Western Riverside County Non-Motorized
Transportation plan; implement through conditions of
approval. The City will also continue to pursue and
utilize funding when needed to implement portions of
these plans.
Not Applicable. Per the Lake Elsinore
General Plan Circulation Element, Figure
2.5 Bikeway Plan there are no bikeways
or trails located adjacent to the proposed
project site.
T-1.5 Bicycle
Parking
Through the development review process, enforce the
following short-term and long-term bicycle parking
standards for new non-residential development
(consistent with 2010 California Green Building Code
[CalGreen], Section 5.106.4), and implement through
conditions of approval:
Short-Term Bicycle Parking: If the project is
anticipated to generate visitor traffic, provide
permanently anchored bicycle racks within 200
feet of the visitor entrance, readily visible to passers-
by, for 5% of visitor motorized vehicle parking
capacity, with a minimum of one two-bike capacity
rack.
Long-Term Bicycle Parking: For buildings with over 10
tenant occupants, provide secure bicycle parking for
5% of tenant-occupied motorized vehicle parking
capacity, with a minimum of one space.
Not Applicable. The project is not
anticipated to generate visitor traffic and
the project will not have more than 10
tennants.
T-2.1
Desginated
Parking for
Fuel-Efficient
Vehicles
Amend the Municipal Code to require that new non-
residential development designate 10% of total
parking spaces for any combination of low-emitting,
fuel-efficient and carpool/vanpool vehicles (consistent
with CalGreen Tier 1, Sections A5.106.5.1 and
A5.106.5.3), and implement through conditions of
approval. Parking stalls shall be marked ―Clean Air
Vehicle.
Consistent. As shown on the project site
plan, the project is consistent with
Section 17.18.045 of the County of
Riverside Municipal Code and Table
5.106.5.3.3 of CalGreen in regards to the
number of electric vehicle/vanpool
parking spaces required. The site includes
a total of 180 parking spaces and nine of
those parking spaces are to be electric
vehicle charging stations.
Rome Hill Commercial Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
County of Riverside, CA Error! Reference source not found.
53
E-1.1 Tree
Planting
Through the development review process, require
new development to plant at minimum one 15-gallon
nondeciduous, umbrella-form tree per 30 linear feet
of boundary length near buildings, per the Municipal
Code. Trees shall be planted in strategic locations
around buildings or to shade pavement in parking lots
and streets.
Consistent. This measure is implemented
by the Departments of Planning, Public
Works, and Parks and Recreation through
City ordinance, development review
process, and conditions of approval. The
proposed project elements would be
required to comply with the City
ordinances and conditions of approval, if
applicable.
E-1.2 Cool Roof
Requirements
Amend the City Municipal Code to require new non -
residential development to use roofing materials
having solar reflectance, thermal emittance or Solar
Reflectance Index (SRI)3 consistent with CalGreen Tier
1 values (Table A5.106.11.2.1), and implement
through conditions of approval.
Consistent. This measure is implemented
by the Departments of Planning and
Building through City ordinance,
development review process, and
conditions of approval. The proposed
Project elements would be required to
comply with the City ordinances and
conditions of approval, if applicable.
E-1.3 Energy
Efficient
Building
Standards
Adopt an ordinance requiring that all new
construction exceed the California Energy Code
requirements, based on the 2008 Energy Efficiency
Standards by 15% (consistent with CalGreen Tier 1),
through either the performance based or prescriptive
approach described in the California Green Building
Code; implement through conditions of approval.
Alternately, a solar photovoltaic system and/or solar
water heating may be used to assist in meeting all or a
portion of the 15% requirement.
Consistent. The California Green Building
Standards Code (proposed Part 11, Title
24) was adopted as part of the California
Building Standards Code in the CCR. Part
11 establishes voluntary standards, that
are mandatory in the 2022 edition of the
Code, on planning and design for
sustainable site development, energy
efficiency (in excess of the California
Energy Code requirements), water
conservation, material conservation, and
internal air contaminants. The proposed
project will be subject to these
mandatory standards.
E-4.1
Landscaping
Through the development review process, enforce the
City’s Assembly Bill 1881 Landscaping Ordinance;
implement through conditions of approval.
Consistent. AB 1881 Landscaping
Ordinance requires that landscaping be
water efficient, thereby consuming less
energy and reducing emissions. The
proposed project elements would be
required to comply with these landscape
requirements.
E-4.2 Indoor
Water
Conservation
Requirements
Amend the City's Uniform Building Code to require
development projects to reduce indoor water
consumption by 30% (consistent with CalGreen Tier 1,
Section A5.303.2.3.1), and implement through
conditions of approval.
Consistent. The proposed project will
utilize water fixtures that are sold in
California that are required to meet CCR
Title 20, Sections 1601 – 1608 that
require all water fixtures to be low flow
and provide an average water use
reduction of 30%.
S-1.4
Construction
and
Demolition
Waste
Diversion
Amend the Municipal Code to require development
projects to divert, recycle or salvage at least 65% of
nonhazardous construction and demolition debris
generated at the site by 2020 (consistent with
CalGreen Tier 1, Section A5.408.3.1). Require all
construction and demolition projects to be
accompanied by a waste management plan for the
Consistent. The California Green Building
Standards Code (proposed Part 11, Title
24) was adopted as part of the California
Building Standards Code in the CCR. Part
11 establishes voluntary standards, that
are mandatory in the 2022 edition of the
Code. Section 5.408 requires the
Rome Hill Commercial Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
County of Riverside, CA Error! Reference source not found.
54
project and a copy of the completed waste
management report shall be provided upon
completion.
recycling and/or salvaging for reuse of a
minimum of 65 percent of the
nonhazardous construction and
demolition waste. The proposed project
will be subject to these mandatory
standards.
Notes:
1 Source: City of Lake Elsinore Climate Action Plan
Rome Hill Commercial Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
County of Riverside, CA Energy Analysis
55
8.0 Energy Analysis
Information from the CalEEMod 2022.1.1.29 Daily and Annual Outputs contained in the air quality and
greenhouse gas analyses above was utilized for this analysis. The CalEEMod outputs detail project
related construction equipment, transportation energy demands, and facility energy demands.
8.1 Construction Energy Demand
8.1.1 Construction Equipment Electricity Usage Estimates
Electrical service will be provided by Southern California Edison (SCE). Based on the 2017 National
Construction Estimator, Richard Pray (2017)2, the typical power cost per 1,000 square feet of building
construction per month is estimated to be $2.32. The project plans to develop the site with 121,490
square feet of new warehouse space over the course of approximately 14 months.3 Based on Table 14,
the total power cost of the on-site electricity usage during the construction of the proposed project is
estimated to be approximately $3,946. As shown in Table 14, the total electricity usage from Project
construction related activities is estimated to be approximately 71,745 kWh.4
Table 14: Project Construction Power Cost and Electricity Usage
Power Cost (per 1,000 square
foot of building per month of
construction)
Total Building
Size (1,000
Square Foot)1
Construction
Duration
(months)
Total Project
Construction
Power Cost
$2.32 121.49 14 $3,946.00
Cost per kWh
Total Project Construction
Electricity Usage (kWh)
$0.06 71,745
* Assumes the project will be under the GS-1 General Service rate under SCE.
2 Pray, Richard. 2017 National Construction Estimator. Carlsbad: Craftsman Book Company, 2017.
3 As stated in the project description, the project involves the demolition of approximately 70,000 square feet of existing residences .
4 LADWP’s Small Commercial & Multi -Family Service (A -1) is approximately $0.06 per kWh of electricity Southern California Edison
(SCE). Rates & Pricing Choices: General Service/Industrial Rates. https://library.sce.com/content/dam/sce -
doclib/public/regulatory/historical/electric/2020/schedules/general -service -&-industrial -rates/ELECTRIC_SCHEDULES_GS -1_2020.pdf
Rome Hill Commercial Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
County of Riverside, CA Energy Analysis
56
8.1.2 Construction Equipment Fuel Estimates
Using the CalEEMod data input, the project’s construction phase would consume electricity and fossil
fuels as a single energy demand, that is, once construction is completed their use would cease. CARB’s
2017 Emissions Factors Tables show that on average aggregate fuel consumption (gasoline and diesel
fuel) would be approximately 18.5 hp-hr-gal.5 As presented in Table 15 below, project construction
activities would consume an estimated 32,015 gallons of diesel fuel.
Table 15: Construction Equipment Fuel Consumption Estimates
Phase
Number
of Days Offroad Equipment Type Amount
Usage
Hours
Horse
Power
Load
Factor
HP
hrs/
day
Total Fuel
Consumption
(gal diesel fuel)1
Site
Preparation
10 Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8 367 0.4 3523 1904
10 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8 84 0.37 995 538
Grading
30 Excavators 1 8 36 0.38 109 118
30 Graders 1 8 148 0.41 485 525
30 Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 367 0.4 1,174 1,270
30 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8 84 0.37 746 806
Building
Construction
300 Cranes 1 7 367 0.29 745 9,262
300 Forklifts 3 8 82 0.2 394 4,893
300 Generator Sets 1 8 14 0.74 83 1,030
300 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7 84 0.37 653 8,114
300 Welders 1 8 46 0.45 166 2,059
Paving
20 Pavers 2 8 81 0.42 544 588
20 Paving Equipment 2 8 89 0.36 513 554
20 Rollers 2 8 36 0.38 219 237
Architectural
Coating 20 Air Compressors 1 6 37 0.48 107 115
CONSTRUCTION FUEL DEMAND (gallons of diesel fuel) 32,015
Notes:
1Using Carl Moyer Guidelines Table D-21 Fuel consumption rate factors (bhp-hr/gal) for engines less than 750 hp.
(Source: https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/moyer/guidelines/2017gl/2017_gl_appendix_d.pdf)
8.1.3 Construction Worker Fuel Estimates
It is assumed that all construction worker trips are from light duty autos (LDA) along area roadways.
With respect to estimated VMT, the construction worker trips would generate an estimated 235,117
5 Aggregate fuel consumption rate for all equipment was estimated at 18.5 hp -hr/day (from CARB’s 2017 Emissions Factors Tables and
fuel consumption rate factors as shown in Table D -21 of the Moyer Guidelines:
(https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/moyer/guidelines/2017gl/2017_gl_appendix_d.pdf ).
Rome Hill Commercial Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
County of Riverside, CA Energy Analysis
57
VMT. Vehicle fuel efficiencies for construction workers were estimated in the air quality and
greenhouse gas analysis using information generated using CARB’s EMFAC model (see Appendix B for
details). Table 16 shows that an estimated 7,600 gallons of fuel would be consumed for construction
worker trips.
Table 16: Construction Worker Fuel Consumption Estimates
Phase
Number of
Days
Worker
Trips/Day
Trip Length
(miles)
Vehicle
Miles
Traveled
Average
Vehicle Fuel
Economy
(mpg)
Estimated Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Site Preparation 10 17.5 18.5 3237.5 30.94 105
Grading 20 15 18.5 5,550 30.94 179
Building Construction 230 51 18.5 217,005 30.94 7,015
Paving 20 15 18.5 5,550 30.94 179
Architectural Coating 20 10.2 18.5 3,774 30.94 122
Total Construction Worker Fuel Consumption 7,600
Notes:
1Assumptions for the worker trip length and vehicle miles traveled are consistent with CalEEMod 2022.1.1.29 defaults.
8.1.4 Construction Vendor/Hauling Fuel Estimates
Tables 17 and 18 show the estimated fuel consumption for vendor and hauling during building
construction and architectural coating. With respect to estimated VMT, the vendor and hauling trips
would generate an estimated 71,685 VMT. For the architectural coatings it is assumed that the
contractors would be responsible for bringing coatings and equipment with them in their light duty
vehicles.6 Tables 17 and 18 show that an estimated 9,558 gallons of fuel would be consumed for
vendor and hauling trips.
<Table 17, next page>
6 Vendors delivering construction material or hauling debris from the site during grading would use medium to heavy duty vehicl es
with an average fuel consumption of 9.22 mpg for medium heavy -duty trucks and 6.74 mpg for heavy heavy -duty trucks (see Appendix
B for details).
Rome Hill Commercial Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
County of Riverside, CA Energy Analysis
58
Table 17: Construction Vendor Fuel Consumption Estimates (MHD Trucks)1
Phase
Number of
Days
Vendor
Trips/Day
Trip Length
(miles)
Vehicle
Miles
Traveled
Average
Vehicle Fuel
Economy
(mpg)
Estimated Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Site Preparation 10 0 10.2 0 8.57 0
Grading 20 0 10.2 0 8.57 0
Building Construction 230 19.9 10.2 46,685 8.57 5,448
Paving 20 5 10.2 1,020 8.57 119
Architectural Coating 20 0 10.2 0 8.57 0
Total Vendor Fuel Consumption 5,567
Notes:
1 Assumptions for the vendor trip length and vehicle miles traveled are consistent with CalEEMod 2022.1.1.29 defaults.
Table 18: Construction Hauling Fuel Consumption Estimates (HHD Trucks)1
Phase
Number of
Days
Hauling
Trips/Day
Trip Length
(miles)
Vehicle
Miles
Traveled
Average
Vehicle Fuel
Economy
(mpg)
Estimated Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Site Preparation 10 0 20 0 6.26 0
Grading 20 62.5 20 25,000 6.26 3,991
Building Construction 230 0 20 0 6.26 0
Paving 20 0 20 0 6.26 0
Architectural Coating 20 0 20 0 6.26 0
Total Construction Hauling Fuel Consumption 3,991
Notes:
1Assumptions for the hauling trip length and vehicle miles traveled are consistent with CalEEMod 2020.40 defaults.
8.1.5 Construction Energy Efficiency/Conservation Measures
Construction equipment used over the approximately 14-month construction phase would conform to
CARB regulations and California emissions standards and is evidence of related fuel efficiencies. In
addition, the CARB Airborne Toxic Control Measure limits idling times of construction vehicles to no
more than five minutes, thereby minimizing unnecessary and wasteful consumption of fuel due to
unproductive idling of construction equipment. Furthermore, the project has been designed in
compliance with California’s Energy Efficiency Standards and 2022 CALGreen Standards.
Construction of the proposed warehouse development would require the typical use of energy
resources. There are no unusual project characteristics or construction processes that would require
the use of equipment that would be more energy intensive than is used for comparable activities; or
equipment that would not conform to current emissions standards (and related fuel efficiencies).
Equipment employed in construction of the project would therefore not result in inefficient wasteful,
or unnecessary consumption of fuel.
Rome Hill Commercial Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
County of Riverside, CA Energy Analysis
59
8.2 Operational Energy Demand
Energy consumption in support of or related to project operations would include transportation energy
demands (energy consumed by employee and patron vehicles accessing the project site) and facilities
energy demands (energy consumed by building operations and site maintenance activities).
8.2.1 Transportation Fuel Consumption
The largest source of operational energy use would be vehicle operation of customers. The site is
located in an urbanized area just in close proximity to transit stops. Using the CalEEMod output, an
average trip length for all vehicles was assumed to be 21.774 miles. To show a worst-case analysis, as
the proposed project is an office project, it was assumed that vehicles would operate 365 days per
year. Table 19 shows the worst-case estimated annual fuel consumption for all classes of vehicles from
autos to heavy-heavy trucks.7 Table 19 shows that an estimated 106,511 gallons of fuel would be
consumed per year for the operation of the proposed project.
Table 19: Estimated Vehicle Operations Fuel Consumption
Vehicle Type Vehicle Mix
Number
of
Vehicles
Average
Trip
(miles)1
Daily
VMT
Average
Fuel
Economy
(mpg)
Total
Gallons
per Day
Total Annual
Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Light Auto Automobile 75.5 21.774 1,644 30.94 53.15 19,401
Light Truck Automobile 13.2 21.774 287 25.55 11.24 4,104
Light Truck Automobile 39.7 21.774 864 25.60 33.75 12,318
Medium Truck Automobile 27.7 21.774 602 20.47 29.42 10,739
Light Heavy Truck 2-Axle Truck 5.1 21.774 111 16.63 6.69 2,442
Light Heavy Truck 10,000 lbs + 2-Axle Truck 1.4 21.774 30 15.79 1.90 695
Medium Heavy Truck 3-Axle Truck 2.6 21.774 56 8.57 6.52 2,379
Heavy Heavy Truck 4-Axle Truck 42.9 21.774 934 6.26 149.13 54,433
Total 208 -- 4,529 -- 291.81 --
Total Annual Fuel Consumption 106,511
Notes:
'1 The trip generation assessment, the project is to generate 208 total net new trips after reduction of existing uses. Default CalEEMod vehicle fleet mix utilized.
1Based on the size of the site and relative location, trips were assumed to be local rather than regional.
Trip generation generated by the proposed project are consistent with other similar industrial uses of
similar scale and configuration as reflected in the Trip Generation Assessment (TJW Engineering, 2025).
That is, the proposed project does not propose uses or operations that would inherently result in
excessive and wasteful vehicle trips, nor associated excess and wasteful vehicle energy consumption.
Therefore, project transportation energy consumption would not be considered inefficient, wasteful,
or otherwise unnecessary.
7 Average fuel economy based on aggregate mileage calculated in EMFAC 2021 for opening year (2026). See Appendix B for EMFAC output.
Rome Hill Commercial Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
County of Riverside, CA Energy Analysis
60
8.2.2 Facility Energy Demands (Electricity and Natural Gas)
The annual natural gas and electricity demands were provided per the CalEEMod output and are
provided in Table 20.
Table 20: Project Unmitigated Annual Operational Energy Demand Summary1
Natural Gas Demand kBTU/year
Unrefrigerated Warehouse 2,319,509
Total 2,319,509
Electricity Demand kWh/year
Unrefrigerated Warehouse 559,140
Parking Lot 152,253
Total 711,393
Notes:
1Taken from the CalEEMod 2022.1.1.29 annual output.
As shown in Table 20, the estimated electricity demand for the proposed project is approximately
711,393 kWh per year. In 2022, the non-residential sector of the County of Riverside consumed
approximately 8,720 million kWh of electricity.8 In addition, the estimated natural gas consumption for
the proposed project is approximately 2,319,509 kBTU per year. In 2022, the non-residential sector of
the County of Riverside consumed approximately 146.9 million therms of gas, or 14.69 billion kBTU.9
Therefore, the increase in both electricity and natural gas demand from the proposed project is
insignificant compared to the County’s 2022 demand.
8.3 Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Plan Consistency
Regarding federal transportation regulations, the project site is located in an already developed area.
Access to/from the project site is from existing roads. These roads are already in place so the project
would not interfere with, nor otherwise obstruct intermodal transportation plans or projects that may
be proposed pursuant to the ISTEA because SCAG is not planning for intermodal facilities in the project
area.
Regarding the State’s Energy Plan and compliance with Title 24 CCR energy efficiency standards, the
applicant is required to comply with the California Green Building Standard Code requirements for
energy efficient buildings and appliances as well as utility energy efficiency programs implemented by
the SCE and Southern California Gas Company.
Regarding the State’s Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards, the project would be required to meet or
exceed the energy standards established in the California Green Building Standards Code, Title 24, Part
8 California Energy Commission, Electricity Consumption by County. https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx
9 California Energy Commission, Gas Consumption by County. http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx
Rome Hill Commercial Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
County of Riverside, CA Energy Analysis
61
11 (CALGreen). CalGreen Standards require that new buildings reduce water consumption, employ
building commissioning to increase building system efficiencies, divert construction waste from
landfills, and install low pollutant-emitting finish materials.
Rome Hill Commercial Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
County of Riverside, CA References
62
9.0 References
The following references were used in the preparing this analysis.
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association
2009 Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects
California Air Resources Board
2008 Resolution 08-43
2008 Recommended Approaches for Setting Interim Significance Thresholds for Greenhouse
Gases under the California Environmental Quality Act
2008 ARB Recommended Interim Risk Management Policy for Inhalation-Based Residential Cancer
Risk – Frequently Asked Questions
2008 Climate Change Scoping Plan, a framework for change.
2011 Supplement to the AB 32 Scoping Plan Functional Equivalent Document
2013 Revised Emission Factors for Gasoline Marketing Operations at California Gasoline
Dispensing Facilities
2014 First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan, Building on the Framework Pursuant to
AB32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. May.
2018 Historical Air Quality, Top 4 Summary
City of Lake Elsinore
2011 City of Lake Elsinore General Plan. December 13.
2013 City of Lake Elsinore North Central Sphere District
County of Riverside
2015 County of Riverside General Plan. December 8.
2020 Elsinore Area Plan. Revised August 4.
2019 County of Riverside Climate Action Plan Update. November.
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
2008 CEQA and Climate: Addressing Climate Change Through California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Review
Rome Hill Commercial Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
County of Riverside, CA References
63
2009 CEQA Guideline Sections to be Added or Amended
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
2015 Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines
South Coast Air Quality Management District
1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook
2005 Rule 403 Fugitive Dust
2007 2007 Air Quality Management Plan
2008 Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, Revised
2011 Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod
2012 Final 2012 Air Quality Management Plan
2016 Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan
TJW Engineering Group
2025 Rome Hill Commercial Trip Generation Analysis and VMT Screening, City of Lake
Elsinore. January 27.
Appendix A:
CalEEMod Emission Output
Rome Hill Commercial Detailed Report, 1/27/2025
1 / 43
Rome Hill Commercial Detailed Report
Table of Contents
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
1.2. Land Use Types
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated
3.3. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated
3.5. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
3.7. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
3.9. Paving (2026) - Unmitigated
Rome Hill Commercial Detailed Report, 1/27/2025
2 / 43
3.11. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
Rome Hill Commercial Detailed Report, 1/27/2025
3 / 43
4.8.1. Unmitigated
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
5.5. Architectural Coatings
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Rome Hill Commercial Detailed Report, 1/27/2025
4 / 43
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
5.7. Construction Paving
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
Rome Hill Commercial Detailed Report, 1/27/2025
5 / 43
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
5.16.2. Process Boilers
5.17. User Defined
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
Rome Hill Commercial Detailed Report, 1/27/2025
6 / 43
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
8. User Changes to Default Data
Rome Hill Commercial Detailed Report, 1/27/2025
7 / 43
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Rome Hill Commercial
Construction Start Date 6/1/2025
Operational Year 2026
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s)2.50
Precipitation (days)9.20
Location 18282 Grand Ave, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530, USA
County Riverside-South Coast
City Unincorporated
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 5521
EDFZ 11
Electric Utility Southern California Edison
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.29
1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft)Landscape Area (sq
ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
121 1000sqft 2.79 121,490 0.00 ———
Rome Hill Commercial Detailed Report, 1/27/2025
8 / 43
Parking Lot 180 Space 3.99 0.00 89,525 ———
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
No measures selected
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Un/Mit.ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
—————————————————
Unmit.58.9 31.7 31.5 0.06 1.37 7.89 9.26 1.26 3.99 5.25 —7,478 7,478 0.23 0.71 9.96 7,704
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—————————————————
Unmit.1.35 11.4 16.2 0.03 0.44 0.84 1.28 0.41 0.20 0.61 —3,668 3,668 0.14 0.14 0.11 3,713
Average
Daily
(Max)
—————————————————
Unmit.3.76 5.19 6.48 0.01 0.20 0.67 0.87 0.19 0.26 0.45 —1,575 1,575 0.06 0.08 0.77 1,600
Annual
(Max)
—————————————————
Unmit.0.69 0.95 1.18 < 0.005 0.04 0.12 0.16 0.03 0.05 0.08 —261 261 0.01 0.01 0.13 265
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily -
Summer
(Max)
—————————————————
Rome Hill Commercial Detailed Report, 1/27/2025
9 / 43
2025 3.39 31.7 31.5 0.06 1.37 7.89 9.26 1.26 3.99 5.25 —7,478 7,478 0.23 0.71 9.96 7,704
2026 58.9 10.7 16.8 0.03 0.39 0.84 1.22 0.36 0.20 0.56 —3,700 3,700 0.14 0.14 4.02 3,748
Daily -
Winter
(Max)
—————————————————
2025 1.35 11.4 16.2 0.03 0.44 0.84 1.28 0.41 0.20 0.61 —3,668 3,668 0.14 0.14 0.11 3,713
2026 1.29 10.7 15.9 0.03 0.39 0.84 1.22 0.36 0.20 0.56 —3,644 3,644 0.12 0.14 0.10 3,688
Average
Daily
—————————————————
2025 0.57 5.19 6.48 0.01 0.20 0.67 0.87 0.19 0.26 0.45 —1,575 1,575 0.06 0.08 0.77 1,600
2026 3.76 4.29 6.41 0.01 0.16 0.32 0.47 0.14 0.08 0.22 —1,417 1,417 0.05 0.05 0.66 1,434
Annual —————————————————
2025 0.10 0.95 1.18 < 0.005 0.04 0.12 0.16 0.03 0.05 0.08 —261 261 0.01 0.01 0.13 265
2026 0.69 0.78 1.17 < 0.005 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.03 0.01 0.04 —235 235 0.01 0.01 0.11 237
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Un/Mit.ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
—————————————————
Unmit.4.84 5.07 18.4 0.06 0.13 3.38 3.51 0.12 0.87 0.99 115 8,126 8,241 12.0 0.73 16.9 8,776
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—————————————————
Unmit.3.92 5.26 11.0 0.06 0.12 3.38 3.50 0.12 0.87 0.99 115 7,922 8,037 12.0 0.74 0.44 8,556
Average
Daily
(Max)
—————————————————
Unmit.4.51 5.34 15.0 0.06 0.13 3.36 3.49 0.12 0.87 0.99 115 7,962 8,078 12.0 0.74 7.30 8,604
Annual
(Max)
—————————————————
Rome Hill Commercial Detailed Report, 1/27/2025
10 / 43
Unmit.0.82 0.98 2.74 0.01 0.02 0.61 0.64 0.02 0.16 0.18 19.1 1,318 1,337 1.99 0.12 1.21 1,425
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Sector ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
—————————————————
Mobile 1.00 4.40 12.6 0.06 0.07 3.38 3.45 0.07 0.87 0.94 —6,034 6,034 0.17 0.59 16.9 6,231
Area 3.80 0.04 5.28 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —21.7 21.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 —21.8
Energy 0.03 0.62 0.52 < 0.005 0.05 —0.05 0.05 —0.05 —1,780 1,780 0.13 0.01 —1,786
Water ——————————53.8 290 344 5.54 0.13 —522
Waste ——————————61.5 0.00 61.5 6.15 0.00 —215
Total 4.84 5.07 18.4 0.06 0.13 3.38 3.51 0.12 0.87 0.99 115 8,126 8,241 12.0 0.73 16.9 8,776
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—————————————————
Mobile 0.95 4.64 10.5 0.06 0.07 3.38 3.45 0.07 0.87 0.94 —5,852 5,852 0.17 0.59 0.44 6,033
Area 2.94 ————————————————
Energy 0.03 0.62 0.52 < 0.005 0.05 —0.05 0.05 —0.05 —1,780 1,780 0.13 0.01 —1,786
Water ——————————53.8 290 344 5.54 0.13 —522
Waste ——————————61.5 0.00 61.5 6.15 0.00 —215
Total 3.92 5.26 11.0 0.06 0.12 3.38 3.50 0.12 0.87 0.99 115 7,922 8,037 12.0 0.74 0.44 8,556
Average
Daily
—————————————————
Mobile 0.94 4.69 10.9 0.06 0.07 3.36 3.44 0.07 0.87 0.93 —5,878 5,878 0.17 0.59 7.30 6,066
Area 3.53 0.03 3.62 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —14.9 14.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 —14.9
Energy 0.03 0.62 0.52 < 0.005 0.05 —0.05 0.05 —0.05 —1,780 1,780 0.13 0.01 —1,786
Water ——————————53.8 290 344 5.54 0.13 —522
Waste ——————————61.5 0.00 61.5 6.15 0.00 —215
Rome Hill Commercial Detailed Report, 1/27/2025
11 / 43
Total 4.51 5.34 15.0 0.06 0.13 3.36 3.49 0.12 0.87 0.99 115 7,962 8,078 12.0 0.74 7.30 8,604
Annual —————————————————
Mobile 0.17 0.86 1.99 0.01 0.01 0.61 0.63 0.01 0.16 0.17 —973 973 0.03 0.10 1.21 1,004
Area 0.64 0.01 0.66 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —2.46 2.46 < 0.005 < 0.005 —2.47
Energy 0.01 0.11 0.10 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —295 295 0.02 < 0.005 —296
Water ——————————8.91 48.0 56.9 0.92 0.02 —86.4
Waste ——————————10.2 0.00 10.2 1.02 0.00 —35.7
Total 0.82 0.98 2.74 0.01 0.02 0.61 0.64 0.02 0.16 0.18 19.1 1,318 1,337 1.99 0.12 1.21 1,425
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite —————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
—————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
3.31 31.6 30.2 0.05 1.37 —1.37 1.26 —1.26 —5,295 5,295 0.21 0.04 —5,314
Dust
From
Material
Movement
—————7.67 7.67 —3.94 3.94 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—————————————————
Average
Daily
—————————————————
Rome Hill Commercial Detailed Report, 1/27/2025
12 / 43
146—< 0.0050.01145145—0.03—0.030.04—0.04< 0.0050.830.870.09Off-Road
Equipment
Dust
From
Material
Movement
—————0.21 0.21 —0.11 0.11 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual —————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.02 0.16 0.15 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —24.0 24.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 —24.1
Dust
From
Material
Movement
—————0.04 0.04 —0.02 0.02 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite —————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
—————————————————
Worker 0.08 0.08 1.35 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.05 0.05 —247 247 0.01 0.01 0.91 250
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—————————————————
Average
Daily
—————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —6.29 6.29 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.38
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual —————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.04 1.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.06
Rome Hill Commercial Detailed Report, 1/27/2025
13 / 43
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.3. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite —————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
—————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
1.74 16.3 17.9 0.03 0.72 —0.72 0.66 —0.66 —2,959 2,959 0.12 0.02 —2,970
Dust
From
Material
Movement
—————2.77 2.77 —1.34 1.34 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—————————————————
Average
Daily
—————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.10 0.89 0.98 < 0.005 0.04 —0.04 0.04 —0.04 —162 162 0.01 < 0.005 —163
Dust
From
Material
Movement
—————0.15 0.15 —0.07 0.07 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual —————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.02 0.16 0.18 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —26.8 26.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 —26.9
Rome Hill Commercial Detailed Report, 1/27/2025
14 / 43
Dust
From
Material
Movement
—————0.03 0.03 —0.01 0.01 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite —————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
—————————————————
Worker 0.07 0.07 1.16 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 —211 211 0.01 0.01 0.78 215
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.07 4.78 1.17 0.03 0.08 1.13 1.21 0.08 0.32 0.40 —4,307 4,307 0.08 0.68 9.18 4,520
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—————————————————
Average
Daily
—————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —10.8 10.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 10.9
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling < 0.005 0.28 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 —236 236 < 0.005 0.04 0.22 247
Annual —————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.79 1.79 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.81
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling < 0.005 0.05 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —39.1 39.1 < 0.005 0.01 0.04 41.0
3.5. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite —————————————————
Rome Hill Commercial Detailed Report, 1/27/2025
15 / 43
—————————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Off-Road
Equipment
1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 —0.43 0.40 —0.40 —2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 —2,406
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 —0.43 0.40 —0.40 —2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 —2,406
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average
Daily
—————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.31 2.88 3.60 0.01 0.12 —0.12 0.11 —0.11 —662 662 0.03 0.01 —664
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual —————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.06 0.53 0.66 < 0.005 0.02 —0.02 0.02 —0.02 —110 110 < 0.005 < 0.005 —110
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite —————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
—————————————————
Worker 0.23 0.22 3.94 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.67 0.00 0.16 0.16 —719 719 0.03 0.03 2.64 730
Vendor 0.01 0.67 0.21 < 0.005 0.01 0.17 0.18 0.01 0.05 0.06 —609 609 0.01 0.09 1.73 639
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—————————————————
Rome Hill Commercial Detailed Report, 1/27/2025
16 / 43
Worker 0.21 0.25 2.98 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.67 0.00 0.16 0.16 —661 661 0.03 0.03 0.07 669
Vendor 0.01 0.70 0.21 < 0.005 0.01 0.17 0.18 0.01 0.05 0.06 —610 610 0.01 0.09 0.04 638
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average
Daily
—————————————————
Worker 0.06 0.07 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.04 0.04 —185 185 0.01 0.01 0.31 187
Vendor < 0.005 0.19 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 —168 168 < 0.005 0.03 0.21 176
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual —————————————————
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 —30.6 30.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 31.0
Vendor < 0.005 0.04 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —27.8 27.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 29.1
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.7. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite —————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
—————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38 —0.38 0.35 —0.35 —2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 —2,405
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38 —0.38 0.35 —0.35 —2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 —2,405
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Rome Hill Commercial Detailed Report, 1/27/2025
17 / 43
Average
Daily
—————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.38 3.51 4.62 0.01 0.13 —0.13 0.12 —0.12 —854 854 0.03 0.01 —857
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual —————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.07 0.64 0.84 < 0.005 0.02 —0.02 0.02 —0.02 —141 141 0.01 < 0.005 —142
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite —————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
—————————————————
Worker 0.22 0.20 3.66 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.67 0.00 0.16 0.16 —704 704 0.03 0.02 2.38 714
Vendor 0.01 0.64 0.20 < 0.005 0.01 0.17 0.18 0.01 0.05 0.06 —599 599 0.01 0.09 1.64 629
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—————————————————
Worker 0.20 0.22 2.78 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.67 0.00 0.16 0.16 —647 647 0.01 0.03 0.06 655
Vendor 0.01 0.67 0.20 < 0.005 0.01 0.17 0.18 0.01 0.05 0.06 —600 600 0.01 0.09 0.04 628
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average
Daily
—————————————————
Worker 0.07 0.09 1.04 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.06 0.06 —233 233 < 0.005 0.01 0.37 237
Vendor < 0.005 0.24 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 —214 214 < 0.005 0.03 0.25 224
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual —————————————————
Worker 0.01 0.02 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 —38.6 38.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 39.2
Vendor < 0.005 0.04 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —35.4 35.4 < 0.005 0.01 0.04 37.0
Rome Hill Commercial Detailed Report, 1/27/2025
18 / 43
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.9. Paving (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite —————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
—————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.76 7.12 9.94 0.01 0.32 —0.32 0.29 —0.29 —1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 —1,516
Paving 0.52 ————————————————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—————————————————
Average
Daily
—————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.04 0.39 0.54 < 0.005 0.02 —0.02 0.02 —0.02 —82.8 82.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 —83.1
Paving 0.03 ————————————————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual —————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 0.07 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —13.7 13.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 —13.8
Paving 0.01 ————————————————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite —————————————————
Rome Hill Commercial Detailed Report, 1/27/2025
19 / 43
—————————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Worker 0.06 0.06 1.08 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 —207 207 0.01 0.01 0.70 210
Vendor < 0.005 0.16 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 —151 151 < 0.005 0.02 0.41 158
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—————————————————
Average
Daily
—————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —10.6 10.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 10.7
Vendor < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —8.25 8.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 8.64
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual —————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.75 1.75 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.77
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.37 1.37 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.43
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.11. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite —————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
—————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.12 0.86 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 —0.02 0.02 —0.02 —134 134 0.01 < 0.005 —134
Architect
ural
Coatings
58.7 ————————————————
Rome Hill Commercial Detailed Report, 1/27/2025
20 / 43
0.000.000.000.000.000.00—0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Onsite
truck
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—————————————————
Average
Daily
—————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —7.32 7.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 —7.34
Architect
ural
Coatings
3.22 ————————————————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual —————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —1.21 1.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.22
Architect
ural
Coatings
0.59 ————————————————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite —————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
—————————————————
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.73 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 —141 141 0.01 < 0.005 0.48 143
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—————————————————
Average
Daily
—————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —7.18 7.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.28
Rome Hill Commercial Detailed Report, 1/27/2025
21 / 43
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual —————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.19 1.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.20
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
Mobile source emissions results are presented in Sections 2.6. No further detailed breakdown of emissions is available.
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
—————————————————
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
———————————815 815 0.05 0.01 —818
Parking
Lot
———————————222 222 0.01 < 0.005 —223
Total ———————————1,037 1,037 0.06 0.01 —1,041
Rome Hill Commercial Detailed Report, 1/27/2025
22 / 43
—————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
———————————815 815 0.05 0.01 —818
Parking
Lot
———————————222 222 0.01 < 0.005 —223
Total ———————————1,037 1,037 0.06 0.01 —1,041
Annual —————————————————
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
———————————135 135 0.01 < 0.005 —135
Parking
Lot
———————————36.7 36.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 —36.9
Total ———————————172 172 0.01 < 0.005 —172
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
—————————————————
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
0.03 0.62 0.52 < 0.005 0.05 —0.05 0.05 —0.05 —743 743 0.07 < 0.005 —745
Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Total 0.03 0.62 0.52 < 0.005 0.05 —0.05 0.05 —0.05 —743 743 0.07 < 0.005 —745
Rome Hill Commercial Detailed Report, 1/27/2025
23 / 43
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—————————————————
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
0.03 0.62 0.52 < 0.005 0.05 —0.05 0.05 —0.05 —743 743 0.07 < 0.005 —745
Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Total 0.03 0.62 0.52 < 0.005 0.05 —0.05 0.05 —0.05 —743 743 0.07 < 0.005 —745
Annual —————————————————
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
0.01 0.11 0.10 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —123 123 0.01 < 0.005 —123
Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Total 0.01 0.11 0.10 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —123 123 0.01 < 0.005 —123
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
—————————————————
Consum
er
Products
2.61 ————————————————
Architect
ural
Coatings
0.32 ————————————————
Rome Hill Commercial Detailed Report, 1/27/2025
24 / 43
Landsca
Equipment
0.87 0.04 5.28 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —21.7 21.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 —21.8
Total 3.80 0.04 5.28 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —21.7 21.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 —21.8
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—————————————————
Consum
er
Products
2.61 ————————————————
Architect
ural
Coatings
0.32 ————————————————
Total 2.94 ————————————————
Annual —————————————————
Consum
er
Products
0.48 ————————————————
Architect
ural
Coatings
0.06 ————————————————
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt
0.11 0.01 0.66 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —2.46 2.46 < 0.005 < 0.005 —2.47
Total 0.64 0.01 0.66 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —2.46 2.46 < 0.005 < 0.005 —2.47
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
—————————————————
Rome Hill Commercial Detailed Report, 1/27/2025
25 / 43
Unrefrige
Warehouse-No
Rail
——————————53.8 279 333 5.54 0.13 —511
Parking
Lot
——————————0.00 11.0 11.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 —11.0
Total ——————————53.8 290 344 5.54 0.13 —522
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—————————————————
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
——————————53.8 279 333 5.54 0.13 —511
Parking
Lot
——————————0.00 11.0 11.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 —11.0
Total ——————————53.8 290 344 5.54 0.13 —522
Annual —————————————————
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
——————————8.91 46.1 55.1 0.92 0.02 —84.6
Parking
Lot
——————————0.00 1.82 1.82 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.82
Total ——————————8.91 48.0 56.9 0.92 0.02 —86.4
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Rome Hill Commercial Detailed Report, 1/27/2025
26 / 43
—————————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
——————————61.5 0.00 61.5 6.15 0.00 —215
Parking
Lot
——————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Total ——————————61.5 0.00 61.5 6.15 0.00 —215
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—————————————————
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
——————————61.5 0.00 61.5 6.15 0.00 —215
Parking
Lot
——————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Total ——————————61.5 0.00 61.5 6.15 0.00 —215
Annual —————————————————
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
——————————10.2 0.00 10.2 1.02 0.00 —35.7
Parking
Lot
——————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Total ——————————10.2 0.00 10.2 1.02 0.00 —35.7
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
Rome Hill Commercial Detailed Report, 1/27/2025
27 / 43
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
—————————————————
Total —————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—————————————————
Total —————————————————
Annual —————————————————
Total —————————————————
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Equipme
nt
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
—————————————————
Total —————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—————————————————
Total —————————————————
Annual —————————————————
Total —————————————————
Rome Hill Commercial Detailed Report, 1/27/2025
28 / 43
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Equipme
nt
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
—————————————————
Total —————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—————————————————
Total —————————————————
Annual —————————————————
Total —————————————————
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Equipme
nt
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
—————————————————
Total —————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—————————————————
Total —————————————————
Rome Hill Commercial Detailed Report, 1/27/2025
29 / 43
Annual —————————————————
Total —————————————————
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Vegetatio
n
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
—————————————————
Total —————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—————————————————
Total —————————————————
Annual —————————————————
Total —————————————————
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
—————————————————
Total —————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—————————————————
Total —————————————————
Rome Hill Commercial Detailed Report, 1/27/2025
30 / 43
Annual —————————————————
Total —————————————————
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Species ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
—————————————————
Avoided —————————————————
Subtotal —————————————————
Sequest
ered
—————————————————
Subtotal —————————————————
Remove
d
—————————————————
Subtotal —————————————————
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—————————————————
Avoided —————————————————
Subtotal —————————————————
Sequest
ered
—————————————————
Subtotal —————————————————
Remove
d
—————————————————
Subtotal —————————————————
——————————————————
Annual —————————————————
Rome Hill Commercial Detailed Report, 1/27/2025
31 / 43
Avoided —————————————————
Subtotal —————————————————
Sequest
ered
—————————————————
Subtotal —————————————————
Remove
d
—————————————————
Subtotal —————————————————
——————————————————
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description
Site Preparation Site Preparation 6/30/2025 7/14/2025 5.00 10.0 —
Grading Grading 7/15/2025 8/12/2025 5.00 20.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 8/13/2025 7/1/2026 5.00 230 —
Paving Paving 7/2/2026 7/30/2026 5.00 20.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 7/31/2026 8/28/2026 5.00 20.0 —
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Rome Hill Commercial Detailed Report, 1/27/2025
32 / 43
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36
Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix
Site Preparation ————
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor —10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck ——HHDT
Grading ————
Grading Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor —10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 62.5 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck ——HHDT
Building Construction ————
Rome Hill Commercial Detailed Report, 1/27/2025
33 / 43
Building Construction Worker 51.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 19.9 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck ——HHDT
Paving ————
Paving Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor 5.00 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck ——HHDT
Architectural Coating ————
Architectural Coating Worker 10.2 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor —10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck ——HHDT
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.
5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 0.00 0.00 182,235 60,745 10,428
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy)Material Exported (cy)Acres Graded (acres)Material Demolished (sq. ft.)Acres Paved (acres)
Rome Hill Commercial Detailed Report, 1/27/2025
34 / 43
Site Preparation ——15.0 0.00 —
Grading —10,000 20.0 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.99
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day)PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction
Water Exposed Area 2 61%61%
5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres)% Asphalt
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 0.00 0%
Parking Lot 3.99 100%
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors
kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2025 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005
2026 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year
Total all Land Uses 208 208 208 75,920 4,529 4,529 4,529 1,653,090
5.10. Operational Area Sources
Rome Hill Commercial Detailed Report, 1/27/2025
35 / 43
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
0 0.00 182,235 60,745 10,428
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 250
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr)
Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr)CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr)
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No
Rail
559,140 532 0.0330 0.0040 2,319,509
Parking Lot 152,253 532 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year)Outdoor Water (gal/year)
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 28,094,563 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 1,419,483
Rome Hill Commercial Detailed Report, 1/27/2025
36 / 43
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year)Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 114 —
Parking Lot 0.00 —
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg)Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor
5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr)Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day)Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)
5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type
Rome Hill Commercial Detailed Report, 1/27/2025
37 / 43
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year)Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which
assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.
Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 27.9 annual days of extreme heat
Extreme Precipitation 4.25 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm
Sea Level Rise —meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 16.6 annual hectares burned
Rome Hill Commercial Detailed Report, 1/27/2025
38 / 43
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from
observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if
received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and
consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with
extreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters
Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data
of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The
four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of
different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score
Temperature and Extreme Heat 3 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 0 0 N/A
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the
greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5
representing the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction
measures.
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score
Temperature and Extreme Heat 3 1 1 3
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
Rome Hill Commercial Detailed Report, 1/27/2025
39 / 43
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the
greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5
representing the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction
measures.
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 76.9
AQ-PM 49.6
AQ-DPM 3.87
Drinking Water 31.7
Lead Risk Housing 73.2
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 23.3
Traffic 26.9
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 2.07
Groundwater 47.4
Rome Hill Commercial Detailed Report, 1/27/2025
40 / 43
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 0.00
Impaired Water Bodies 51.2
Solid Waste 75.7
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 66.7
Cardio-vascular 98.8
Low Birth Weights 27.9
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 58.9
Housing 88.9
Linguistic 43.3
Poverty 86.1
Unemployment 66.6
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 17.09226229
Employed 8.417810856
Median HI 20.60823816
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 2.053124599
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 57.52598486
Transportation —
Auto Access 83.51084306
Active commuting 21.50648017
Rome Hill Commercial Detailed Report, 1/27/2025
41 / 43
Social —
2-parent households 70.49916592
Voting 15.86038753
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 51.31528295
Park access 58.24457847
Retail density 10.38111125
Supermarket access 2.399589375
Tree canopy 40.97266778
Housing —
Homeownership 41.48594893
Housing habitability 15.62941101
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 8.943924034
Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 8.700115488
Uncrowded housing 41.84524573
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 16.52765302
Arthritis 0.0
Asthma ER Admissions 50.4
High Blood Pressure 0.0
Cancer (excluding skin)0.0
Asthma 0.0
Coronary Heart Disease 0.0
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 6.2
Cognitively Disabled 12.5
Physically Disabled 49.3
Rome Hill Commercial Detailed Report, 1/27/2025
42 / 43
Heart Attack ER Admissions 3.3
Mental Health Not Good 0.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0
Obesity 0.0
Pedestrian Injuries 77.8
Physical Health Not Good 0.0
Stroke 0.0
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 0.0
Current Smoker 0.0
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 72.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 33.8
Elderly 76.6
English Speaking 51.7
Foreign-born 32.3
Outdoor Workers 10.5
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 82.5
Traffic Density 10.5
Traffic Access 23.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 80.0
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 32.6
Rome Hill Commercial Detailed Report, 1/27/2025
43 / 43
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a)59.0
Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b)19.0
Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535)No
Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550)Yes
Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617)No
a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.
b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.
8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use Per site plan, the project is 6.77 acres
Construction: Construction Phases No demolition required
Operations: Fleet Mix Adjusted for industrial use
Appendix B:
EMFAC2021 Output
Source: EMFAC2021 (v1.0.2) Emissions Inventory
Region Type: Sub-Area
Region: Riverside (SC)
Calendar Year: 2026
Season: Annual
Vehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 Categories
Units: miles/day for CVMT and EVMT, trips/day for Trips, kWh/day for Energy Consumption, tons/day for Emissions, 1000 gallons/day for Fuel Consumption
Region Calendar Year Vehicle Category Model Year Speed Fuel Total VMT Fuel Consumption Mileage
Riverside (SC) 2026 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 269.8155783 0.068469804 6.263701
Riverside (SC) 2026 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1988453.103 317.4311809
Riverside (SC) 2026 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 20338993.18 657.9019755 30.93522
Riverside (SC) 2026 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 45656.81459 1.04446634
Riverside (SC) 2026 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 1475770.596 57.77065353 25.54519
Riverside (SC) 2026 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 246.3725383 0.009960174
Riverside (SC) 2026 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 9189016.153 359.2463978 25.60133
Riverside (SC) 2026 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 31821.71127 0.923868936
Riverside (SC) 2026 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 648258.6134 45.43230342 16.63017
Riverside (SC) 2026 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 538771.2685 25.94580105
Riverside (SC) 2026 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 87077.56554 6.894650038 15.7911
Riverside (SC) 2026 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 246178.6334 14.20940258
Riverside (SC) 2026 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 6425602.492 314.7102388 20.46787
Riverside (SC) 2026 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 96875.32958 3.958815392
Riverside (SC) 2026 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 49534.83957 9.263997368 8.569708
Riverside (SC) 2026 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 577213.7586 63.87135704