Agenda packet — Cathedral City City Council, September 11, 2024 (part 3 of 5)

Mitigation
Biological Resources:

BIO-1: Nesting birds are protected pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code (Sections 3503, 3503.3, 3511, and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibit the take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests or eggs). In order to protect migratory bird species, a nesting bird clearance survey shall be conducted prior to any ground disturbance or vegetation removal activities that may disrupt the birds during the nesting season. Consequently, if avian nesting behaviors are disrupted, such as nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort, it is considered “take” and is potentially punishable by fines and/or imprisonment.

Cultural Resources:

CUL-1 Prior to grading disturbance activities, the City of Cathedral City Planning Department shall inform field personnel of the possibilities of a buried cultural resource find. A qualified archaeologist shall be made available by the applicant during all ground disturbing activities should any unknown cultural resource be uncovered. In addition, because the site is located within the boundaries of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI) Tribe’s Traditional Use Area, all ground disturbing activities shall be monitored by a qualified Native American monitor as requested by the ACBCI THPO. In the event that field personnel encounter buried cultural materials, work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall cease and the qualified archaeologist shall be retained by the applicant to assess the significance of the find. The qualified archaeologist/Tribal monitor shall have the authority to stop or divert construction excavation as necessary. If the qualified archaeologist finds that any cultural resources found meet eligibility requirements for listing on the California Register or the National Register, plans for the treatment, evaluation, and mitigation of impacts to the find shall be developed.

If it has been determined that the find, with concurrence of the archaeologist, and tribal monitor/THPO in the case of cultural resources, has significance, the final disposition of the find shall be determined with concurrence between the archaeologist, THPO (in the case of tribal cultural resources) and the City Planner.

Once the mitigation and disposition for the find has been determined, work in the vicinity of the find shall resume at the direction of the archaeologist.

TRAN-1 The Project will be conditioned to construct half-width roadway improvement along the property frontage on Rosemount Road including curb, gutter, sidewalk and paving. The proposed traffic signal at the new intersection of Date Palm Drive and Rosemount Road will be constructed by whichever project is constructed first between Date Palm Drive Mixed Use, the Wren Project, and the Vallarta Shopping Center.

Tribal Resources:

CUL-1 Prior to grading disturbance activities, the City of Cathedral City Planning Department shall inform field personnel of the possibilities of a buried cultural resource find. A qualified archaeologist shall be made available by the applicant during all ground disturbing activities should any unknown cultural resource be Rosemount Storage Project 141
4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
uncovered. In addition, because the site is located within the boundaries of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI) Tribe’s Traditional Use Area, all ground disturbing activities shall be monitored by a qualified Native American monitor as requested by the ACBCI THPO. In the event that field personnel encounter buried cultural materials, work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall cease and the qualified archaeologist shall be retained by the applicant to assess the significance of the find. The qualified archaeologist/Tribal monitor shall have the authority to stop or divert construction excavation as necessary. If the qualified archaeologist finds that any cultural resources found meet eligibility requirements for listing on the California Register or the National Register, plans for the treatment, evaluation and mitigation of impacts to the find shall be developed.

Once the mitigation and disposition for the find has been determined, work in the vicinity of the find shall resume at the direction of the archaeologist.

CUL-2: Should human remains be discovered on site during any ground disturbance activities, further ground disturbance activities shall be halted until processes governing an accidental discovery of any human remains have been initiated in accordance with Health and Safety Code 7050.5, CEQA 15064.5(e), and Public Resources Code 5097.98
Rosemount Storage Project 142
5 REPORT PREPARERS
Chapter 5 Report Preparers
City of Cathedral City
Andrew Firestein Director of Development Services: Building, Code Compliance, Planning Three Mile Hollow
Project Applicant
Jason Borg
The Altum Group
Anna Choudhuri
Madeline Luke
Environmental Planning Manager
Assistant Environmental Planner
Sub-Consultants
Travis McGill ELMT Consulting (Biological Resources)
Paleo West (Cultural Resources)
MD Acoustics (Air Quality; Energy; Greenhouse Gas; Noise) Integrated Engineering Group (Traffic)
Roberta Thomas
Mike Dickerson
George Ghossain
Rosemount Storage Project 143
6 REFERENCES
Chapter 6 References
City of Cathedral City (2021). Zoning Ordinance Zoning Map.

City of Cathedral City (2021). Imagine 2040 General Plan Update: Environmental Impact Report. City of Cathedral City (1996). Uptown Village Specific Plan 96-54.

California Department of Conservation (1975). Mineral Resources.

California Department of Conservation’s. Williamson Act Enrollment Finder (2022).

City of Cathedral City. (2021). Imagine 2040 General Plan Update: Environmental Impact Report. California Department of Conservation’s (2022). Williamson Act Enrollment Finder.

California Department of Conservation (1975). Mineral Resources. California Department of Toxic Substances Control (2022). Envirostor.

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (2009). Health Risk Assessment for proposed Land use Projects.

California Air Resources Board (2008). Resolution 08-43 California Air Resources Board (2008). Recommended Approaches or Setting Interim Significance Thresholds for Greenhouse Gases under the California Environmental Quality Act California Air Resources Board (2008). Climate Change and Scooping Plan; A Framework for Change.

California Air Resources Board (2011). Supplement to the AB 32 Scoping Plan Functional Equivalent Document.

California Air Resources Board (2014). First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan; Building a Framework Pursuant to AB32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. May.

California Air Resources Board (2018). Historical Air Quality; Top 4 Summary.

California Department of Transportation (CAL Trans) (2013). Transportation and Construction Induced Vibration Guidance Manual.

California Department of Transportation (CAL Trans) (2018). Technical Noise Supplement of the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. Sept.

City of Cathedral City (2019-2023) Cathedral City Fire Department Strategic Plan. City of Cathedral City (2015).

City of Cathedral City General Plan.

City of Cathedral City (2021). Municipal Code.

County of Riverside (2015). County of Riverside General Plan. December 8.

County of Riverside (2019). County of Riverside Climate Action Plan Update. November.

ELMT (2023). Habitat Assessment and Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) Consistency Analysis for the Proposed Date Palm and Rosemount Road Storage Project. Appendix B.

Federal Highway Administration (FWHA) (2006). Construction Noise Handbook.

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) (2018). Transit Noise Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.

Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (1998). State California General Plan Guidelines.

Governor’s Office of planning and Research (2008). CEQA and Climate : Addressing Climate Change Through Rosemount Storage Project 144
6 REFERENCES
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review.

Governor’s Office of planning and Research (2009). CEQA Guidelines to be added or Amended. Integrated Engineering Group (2023). Scoping Agreement for Date Palm Dr Mixed Use Project. March 20.

Integrated Engineering Group (2023). Date Plam Mixed Use Vehicle Miles Traveled Screening Assessment.

Appendix F.

MD Acoustics LLC (2023). Date Palm Mixed Use Project Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study.

Appendix A.

MD Acoustics LLC (2023). Dae Plam Mixed Use Project Noise Impact Study. Appendix D.

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (2015). Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines.

PaleoWest (2023). Paleontological Resource Assessment for the Date Palm and Rosemount Storage Project.

Appendix C.

Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (2022). Current Compatibility Plans. SoundPLAN International, LLC (2019). SoundPLAN Essential 8.1 Manual.

South Coast Air Quality Management District (1993) CEQA Air Quality Handbook South Coast Air Quality Management District (2015). Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines.

South Coast Air Quality Management District (2005). Rule 403 Fugitive Dust.

South Coast Air Quality Management District (2007). Air Quality Management Plan South Coast Air Quality Management District (2008). Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, Revised.

South Coast Air Quality Management District (2011). Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod. South Coast Air Quality Management District (2012). Final 2012 Air Quality Management Plan.

South Coast Air Quality Management District (2016). Final 2016 Quality Management Plan.

State of California (1973). California Fish and Game Code. Sections 3503, 3503.3, 3511, and 3513. State of California (1978). California code of regulations, Title 8 California §15000 Et seq.

State of California (1978). California Public Resource Code §21000 et seq. State of California (1978). California code of regulations Tittle 8 §15000 Et seq.

State of California (1978). California code of regulations, Tittle 14 §15000 et seq.

State of California (1978). California Public Resource Code, Title 14 §15063 and §21000 et seq.

State of California (2023). California Environmental Quality Act, Statute and Guidelines Section §15371. State of California (2023). California Environmental Quality Act, Statute and Guidelines Section §15371 (b). State of California (1978). California code of regulations, Tittle 14. §15000 et seq.

United States of America (1918). Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Government Code USC 703. United States Census Bureau (2021). QuickFacts: Coachella City, California.

United States Department of Transportation Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. 2022. National Hazardous Materials Route Registry by State
Rosemount Storage Project 145
6 REFERENCES
Websites
California Department of Transportation. California State Scenic Highway System Map, March 2023. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenichighways.

CalRecycle. Accessed March 2023. CalRecycle Home Page.

Envirostor. Accessed March 2023. EnviroStor (ca.gov).

Google Earth Pro. Accessed July 2023.Google Earth. Google Maps, Accessed July 2023. Google Maps National Ocean Services, 2023, NOAA's National Ocean Service. Office of the Fire Marshall, 2023. OSFM (ca.gov).

Palm Springs Unified School District. 1958. Palm Springs Unified School District School Directory. https://www.psusd.us/domain/196, (accessed March 2023)
United States Wastewater Generation Standards. Accessed April 2024. https://www.pollutioncontrolsystem.com/.

USDA NRCS, Web Soil Survey, Accessed July 2023. Web Soil Survey | Natural Resources Conservation Service (usda.gov).

Rosemount Storage Project 146
Administrative Draft
Rosemount Storage Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

APPENDICES
Lead Agency:

City of Cathedral City
68700 Avenida Lalo Guerrero
Cathedral City, CA 92234
Prepared by:

The Altum Group
44-600 Village Court, Suite 100
Palm Desert, CA 92260
June 2024

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents
Appendix A – Air Quality, GHG, and Energy Study
Appendix B – Habitat Assessment and CVMSHCP Consistency Analysis Appendix C – Cultural and Paleontological Resource Study Appendix D – Noise Study
Appendix E – Soils Report
Appendix F - Traffic Analysis
Rosemount Storage Project i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
This page intentionally left blank.

Rosemount Storage Project 2
Appendix A
Air Quality, GHG, and Energy Study
Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact
Study
City of Cathedral City, CA
Prepared for:

Mr. Stephen Nieto
The Altum Group
44-600 Village Court Suite 100
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Prepared by:

MD Acoustics, LLC
Tyler Klassen, EIT
1197 Los Angeles Ave, Ste C-256
Simi Valley, CA 93065
Date: 12/29/2023
Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1

1.1 1.2
Purpose of Analysis and Study Objectives
Project Summary

1.2.1 Site Location

1.2.2 Project Description

1.2.3 Sensitive Receptors
Executive Summary of Findings and Mitigation Measures
1 1
1 1
2 1.3 3

2.0 Regulatory Framework and Background.................................................................................8

2.1 Air Quality Regulatory Setting

2.1.1 National and State

2.1.2 South Coast Air Quality Management District

2.1.3 Local
Greenhouse Gas Regulatory Setting

2.2.1 International

2.2.2 National

2.2.3 California

2.2.4 South Coast Air Quality Management District

2.2.5 Local
8 8
10 13
14 14
15 16
24 25

2.2 3.0 Setting.................................................................................................................................28

3.1 Existing Physical Setting

3.1.1 Local Climate and Meteorology

3.1.2 Local Air Quality

3.1.3 Attainment Status
Greenhouse Gases
28 28
29 31

3.2 33

4.0 5.0
Modeling Parameters and Assumptions ...............................................................................35

4.1 4.2

4.3 4.4
Construction
Operations
Localized Construction Analysis
Localized Operational Analysis
35 36
36 37
Thresholds of Significance....................................................................................................38

5.1 Air Quality Thresholds of Significance

5.1.1 CEQA Guidelines for Air Quality
38 38
38 39
39 39
39 40

5.1.2 Regional Significance Thresholds for Construction Emissions

5.1.3 Regional Significance Thresholds for Operational Emissions

5.1.4 Thresholds for Localized Significance
Greenhouse Gas Thresholds of Significance

5.2.1 CEQA Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas
Toxic Air Contaminants

5.2 5.3

6.0 Air Quality Emissions Impact................................................................................................41 MD Acoustics, LLC
JN: 07412232_Date Palm Rosemount_AQ-GHG-Energy_Study_03.04.2024 ii
Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA TABLE OF CONTENTS

6.1 Construction Air Quality Emissions Impact 41
41 42
43 43
43 44
44 45
46 46
47 47

6.1.1 Regional Construction Emissions

6.1.2 Localized Construction Emissions

6.1.3 Construction-Related Human Health Impacts

6.1.4 Odors

6.1.5 Construction-Related Toxic Air Contaminant Impact Operational Air Quality Emissions Impact

6.2.1 Regional Operational Emissions

6.2.2 Localized Operational Emissions

6.2.3 Operations-Related Human Health Impacts
CO Hot Spot Emissions

6.2 6.3

6.4 6.5
Cumulative Regional Air Quality Impacts
Air Quality Compliance

7.0 8.0
Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis..........................................................................................49

7.1 7.2

7.3 Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact
Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact
Greenhouse Gas Plan Consistency
49 49
50 Consistency with SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS 56
Energy Analysis....................................................................................................................59

8.1 Construction Energy Demand 59
59 60
61 62
63 63
64 65
66 8.1.1 Construction Equipment Electricity Usage Estimates

8.1.2 Construction Equipment Fuel Estimates

8.1.3 Construction Worker Fuel Estimates

8.1.4 Construction Vendor/Hauling Fuel Estimates

8.1.5 Construction Energy Efficiency/Conservation Measures Operational Energy Demand

8.2.1 Transportation Fuel Consumption

8.2.2 Facility Energy Demands (Electricity and Natural Gas) Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Plan Consistency

8.2 8.3

9.0 CEQA Analysis......................................................................................................................67

10.0 References...........................................................................................................................70 MD Acoustics, LLC
JN: 07412232_Date Palm Rosemount_AQ-GHG-Energy_Study_03.04.2024 iii
Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A:

CalEEMod Output
Appendix B:

County of Riverside GHG Screening Tables
Appendix C:

EMFAC2017 Output

LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit A ...........................................................................................................................................5 Location Map 5
Exhibit B ...........................................................................................................................................6 Site Plan – Scenario 1 6
Exhibit C ...........................................................................................................................................7 Site Plan – Scenario 2 7

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Land Use Summary........................................................................................................................ 2 Table 2: Ambient Air Quality Standards ..................................................................................................... 9 Table 3: Meteorological Summary............................................................................................................ 29 Table 4: Local Area Air Quality Levels from Palm Springs Air Monitoring Station1.................................. 30 Table 5: Coachella Valley Portion of the Salton Sea Air Basin Attainment Status ................................... 32 Table 6: Description of Greenhouse Gases............................................................................................... 34 Table 7: Construction Equipment Assumptions1 ...................................................................................... 37 Table 8: Regional Significance – Unmitigated Construction Emissions (pounds/day) ............................. 41 Table 9: Localized Significance – Construction......................................................................................... 42 Table 10: Regional Significance - Unmitigated Operational Emissions (lbs/day)..................................... 44 Table 11: Localized Significance – Unmitigated Operational Emissions................................................... 45 Table 12: Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................. 49 Table 13: Opening Year Unmitigated Project-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................. 50 Table 14: City of Cathedral City CAP Applicable Measures Project Comparison ..................................... 52 Table 15: Project Consistency with CARB Scoping Plan Policies and Measures1 ..................................... 54 Table 16: Project Consistency with SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS1 ............................................................... 56 MD Acoustics, LLC
JN: 07412232_Date Palm Rosemount_AQ-GHG-Energy_Study_03.04.2024 iv
Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table 17: Project Construction Power Cost and Electricity Usage ........................................................... 59 Table 18: Construction Equipment Fuel Consumption Estimates............................................................ 60 Table 19: Construction Worker Fuel Consumption Estimates ................................................................. 61 Table 20: Construction Vendor Fuel Consumption Estimates (MHD Trucks)1 ......................................... 62 Table 21: Construction Hauling Fuel Consumption Estimates (HHD Trucks)1 .......................................... 63 Table 22: Estimated Vehicle Operations Fuel Consumption .................................................................... 64 Table 23: Project Unmitigated Annual Operational Energy Demand Summary1 ..................................... 65 MD Acoustics, LLC
JN: 07412232_Date Palm Rosemount_AQ-GHG-Energy_Study_03.04.2024 v
Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA TABLE OF CONTENTS

GLOSSARY OF TERMS
AQMP
CAAQS
CARB
CEQA
CFCs
CH4
Air Quality Management Plan
California Ambient Air Quality Standards
California Air Resources Board
California Environmental Quality Act
Chlorofluorocarbons
Methane
CNG
CO
CO2
Compressed natural gas
Carbon monoxide
Carbon dioxide
CO2e
DPM
GHG
HFCs
LST
MTCO2e
MMTCO2e
NAAQS
NOx
Carbon dioxide equivalent
Diesel particulate matter
Greenhouse gas
Hydrofluorocarbons
Localized Significant Thresholds
Metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
Million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Nitrogen Oxides
NO2
N2O
Nitrogen dioxide
Nitrous oxide
O3
PFCs
PM
Ozone
Perfluorocarbons
Particle matter
PM10
PM2.5
PMI
PPM
PPB
Particles that are less than 10 micrometers in diameter Particles that are less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter Point of maximum impact
Parts per million
Parts per billion
RTIP
RTP
SCAQMD
SF6
SIP
Regional Transportation Improvement Plan
Regional Transportation Plan
South Coast Air Quality Management District
Sulfur hexafluoride
State Implementation Plan
Sulfur Oxides
Source/Receptor Area
SOx
SRA
SSAB
TAC
Salton Sea Air Basin
Toxic air contaminants
VOC
WRCC
Volatile organic compounds
Western Regional Climate Center
MD Acoustics, LLC
JN: 07412232_Date Palm Rosemount_AQ-GHG-Energy_Study_03.04.2024 vi
Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Introduction

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 on the southeast corner of Date Palm Drive and Rosemount Road in the City of Cathedral City, as shown in Exhibit A. The site is currently zoned as Planned Community Commercial by the City of Cathedral City. The project borders multifamily residential uses to the east, commercial uses to the south, Date Palm Drive to the west with commercial uses further, and Rosemount Road to the north with vacant land further.

1.2.2 Project Description
The proposed Project includes the development of approximately seven (7) acres located in the city of Cathedral City, east of Date Palm Drive, between Rosemount Road to the north and McCallum Way to the south. The project will require a recommendation from the Planning Commission and for the City Council to take final action on an entitlement and legislative action for parcels including APN: 670-110- 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, & 56. The proposed project includes the below:

A Design Review and Lot Merger for the construction of a 2-story indoor mini-storage facility with a total area of 115,054 square feet at 57,527 square feet per floor. The current zoning of the site is Specific Plan No. 99-58 with the underlying zone of PCC (Planned Community Commercial) District.

A Specific Plan Amendment to create Planning Unit 4 which would allow the indoor mini-storage use and a 50,000 square foot grocery store as well as changes to the development code, new streamlined architectural standards, and updated list of permitted and conditional land uses.

The Mitigated Negative Declaration was processed at full buildout so that future entitlements would not have to obtain separate Mitigated Negative Declarations. At full buildout the project could include either of two scenarios: retail uses with a 2-story indoor mini-storage facility, or a grocery store up to 50,000 square feet, 2-story indoor mini-storage facility, and retail uses. The project is currently being proposed as a phased project and each future proposal would require its own entitlement consistent with the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Design Review only includes the indoor mini-storage facility, underground retention basin, and a minimum of 12 spaces for on-site parking. 1 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Introduction
With regard to CEQA, the proposed Project would be developed with phased construction which includes the operation of a 2-story 115,054 square foot (sf) indoor climate-controlled mini-storage facility with 57,527 square feet per floor. The indoor mini-storage facility includes climate-controlled self-storage, retail, office, and loading areas. The CEQA Analysis includes two scenarios, scenario one would include the first phase which would be an approximate two (2) story 115,054 square feet (sf) at 57,527 sf per floor, climate controlled self-storage facility with associated retail, office, and loading areas and Phase 2 would include one (1) retail building approximately 4,725 sf in size, two (2) drive through facilities with areas of 2,413 sf and 4,617 sf respectively, and two (2) retail buildings with areas of 3,217 sf each. Scenario two would include the two (2) story 115,054 square feet (sf) at 57,527 sf per floor, climate-controlled self-storage facility with associated retail, office, and loading Units and one (1) grocery store/big box building with a maximum Unit of 50,000 sf, and a retail building with a unit of 4,725 sf. Both alternatives will have on-site landscaping, on-site parking, signage, low walls, along frontage, and underground retention for on-site water retention.

Exhibits B and C demonstrate the site plans for the project.

Construction activities within the project area will consist of site preparation, 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
Scenario 1
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail
Strip Mall
115

11.2 7.0
Thousand Square Feet
Thousand Square Feet
Thousand Square Feet
Acres
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru
Parking Lot 4.8
Scenario 2
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail
Regional Shopping Center
Parking Lot
115

54.7 4.8
Thousand Square Feet
Thousand Square Feet
Acres

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 CEQA purposes, a sensitive receptor would be a location where a sensitive individual could remain for 24-hours or longer, such as residences, hospitals, and schools (etc.). 2 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Introduction
The closest existing sensitive receptors (to the site area) are multi-family residences 15 feet to the east of the project boundary.

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 regional thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD in either scenario. 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) in either scenario. 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, shortterm, 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 in either scenario. 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) in either scenario. 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 goals of the County of Riverside Climate Action Plan (CAP) Update screening tables and the goals of the City of Cathedral City CAP and are also considered to be less than significant in both scenarios. The project also complies with the goals of the CARB Scoping Plan, AB-32, and SB-32.
3 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Introduction
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.
4 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Introduction
Exhibit A
Location Map
Rosemount Road
SITE
5 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Introduction
Exhibit B
Site Plan – Scenario 1
6 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Introduction
Exhibit B
Site Plan – Scenario 2
7 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Regulatory Framework and Background

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 (SIP) 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 are 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.
8 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Regulatory Framework and Background Table 2: Ambient Air Quality Standards
California Standards1 National Standards2
Pollutant Averaging Time
Concentrations3 Method4 Primary3,5
- -
Secondary3,6 Method7
1-Hour
8-Hour
24-Hour

0.09 ppm

0.070 ppm
50 μg/m3
Ultraviolet
Photometry
Same as Primary
Standard
Ultraviolet
Photometry Ozone (O3) 0.070 ppm (147 μg/m3
)
150 μ/m3 Respirable
Particulate Matter
(PM10)8
Inertial Separation
and Gravimetric
Analysis
Gravimetric or Beta
Attenuation
Same as Primary
Annual Arithmetic Mean Standard
24-Hour
20 μg/m3
- -
- -
Same as Primary
Standard - - 35 μg/m3
12 μg/m3
Inertial Separation
and Gravimetric
Analysis
Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)8 Gravimetric or Beta
Attenuation Annual Arithmetic Mean 12 μg/m3 15 μg/m3
1-Hour
8-Hour
8-Hour
(Lake Tahoe)
1-Hour
20 ppm (23 μg/m3)

9.0 ppm (10 μg/m3)
35 ppm (40 μg/m3)
9 ppm (10 μg/m3)
- -
- -
Non-Dispersive
Infrared Photometry
(NDIR)
Non-Dispersive
Infrared
Photometry (NDIR)
Carbon Monoxide
(CO) 6 ppm (7 μg/m3
)

0.18 ppm (339 μg/m3)

0.030 ppm (357 μg/m3)

0.25 ppm (655 μg/m3)
- -
- - - -
100 ppb (188 μg/m3)

0.053 ppm (100 μg/m3)
75 ppb (196 μg/m3)
- -
- -
Same as Primary
Standard
- -
Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2)
9 Gas Phase
Chemiluminescence
Gas Phase
Annual Arithmetic Mean Chemiluminescence
1-Hour

0.5 ppm
(1300 mg/m3)
Ultraviolet
Fluorescence;
Spectrophotometry
(Pararosaniline
Method)
3-Hour
Ultraviolet
Fluorescence Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
10 0.14 ppm
(for certain areas)10

0.130ppm
(for certain areas)10
- -
24-Hour 0.04 ppm (105 μg/m3
) - -
Annual Arithmetic Mean - -
30 Day Average
- -

1.5 μg/m3
- -

1.5 μg/m3
(for certain areas)12

0.15 μg/m3
High Volume
Sampler and Atomic
Absorption
Lead11,12 Calendar Qrtr Atomic Absorption Same as Primary Standard Rolling 3-Month Average - -
Beta Attenuation and
Transmittance
through Filter Tape
Ion Chromatography
Ultraviolet
Visibility Reducing
Particles13 8-Hour See footnote 13
No
National
Standards
Sulfates 24-Hour
1-Hour
25 μg/m3
Hydrogen Sulfide
Vinyl Chloride11

0.03 ppm (42 μg/m3)

0.01 ppm (26 μg/m3)
Fluorescence
24-Hour 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 more 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. 9 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Regulatory Framework and Background

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 Salton Sea 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.
10 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Regulatory Framework and Background 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 the 2016 AQMP 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.

South Coast AQMD adopted the 2022 AQMP on December 2, 2022, to address the attainment of the 2015 8-hour ozone standard (70 ppb) for South Coast Air Basin and Coachella Valley. To meet this standard, the AQMP determined NOx emissions must be reduced by 67% percent more than is required by adopted rules and regulations by 2037. The control strategy for the 2022 AQMP includes aggressive new regulations and the development of incentive programs to support early deployment of advanced technologies. The two key areas for incentive programs are (1) promoting widespread deployment of available zero-emission (ZE) and low NOx technologies and (2) developing new ZE and ultra-low NOx technologies for use in cases where the technology is not currently available. South Coast AQMD will prioritize distribution of incentive funding in environmental justice areas and seek opportunities to focus benefits on the most disadvantaged communities. Cost-effectiveness and affordability will be further considered during the rulemaking or incentive program development process.

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 11 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Regulatory Framework and Background 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, sand, 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-site 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 SCAQMD 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.
12 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Regulatory Framework and Background

2.1.3 Local
Local jurisdictions, such as the City of Cathedral City, have the authority and responsibility to reduce air pollution through its police power and decision-making authority. It is the responsibility of the District, CVAG, and the City of Cathedral City to monitor pollutant levels and regulate air pollution sources.

With the installation of additional monitoring devices in the Whitewater River, the District is collecting data to establish a “naturally occurring” or “background” level for PM10 in the Coachella Valley. This data will allow a more meaningful estimate of manmade PM10 emissions.

City of Cathedral City General Plan
The City of Cathedral City updated their General Plan in July 2019. The 2019 General Plan Air Quality and Climate Stability Element contains the following goals and policies aimed at reducing air pollution:

Goal Preservation and enhancement of local and regional air quality to assure the long-term protection of the community’s health and welfare.

Policy 1
Policy 2
The City shall be proactive in regulating local pollutant emitters and shall cooperate with Coachella Valley Association of Governments and the South Coast Air Quality Management District to assure compliance with air quality standards.

The City shall fully implement dust control ordinances, and coordinate and cooperate with local, regional, and federal efforts to monitor, manage, and reduce the levels of major pollutants affecting the City and region, with particular emphasis on PM10 emissions.

Policy 3
Policy 4
City land use planning efforts shall assure that sensitive receptors are separated from polluting point sources, to the greatest extent practicable.

Development proposals brought before the City shall be reviewed for their potential to adversely impact local and regional air quality, and shall be required to mitigate any significant impacts.

Policy 5
Policy 6
The City shall encourage and promote the use of clean alternative energy sources for transportation, heating and cooling, lighting and other power needs.

The City shall encourage and support the development of facilities and projects that facilitate and enhance the use of alternative modes of transportation, including pedestrian-oriented retail and activity centers, dedicated bicycle and LSEV paths and lanes, and community-wide multi-use trails.

Policy 7 The City shall promote the expanded availability of mass transit services, coordinating with Sunline Transit Authority to link residential, commercial and resort businesses, and employment centers with the City’s residential neighborhoods and nearby communities. 13 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Regulatory Framework and Background Policy 8
Policy 9
Policy 10
The City shall continue to implement effective street sweeping and post-windstorm cleanup programs to reduce the cumulative impacts of blowsand and nuisance dust resulting from construction activities, natural processes, and other sources.

The City shall promote public educational programs that describe the causes of air pollution, encourage the use of alternative energy sources, and recommend methods for reducing the impacts of blowsand.

The City shall continue to implement and update policies, regulations, and action plans that promote climate stability and greenhouse gas emission reductions, including but not limited to the Climate Action Plan, Energy Action Plan, Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Green for Life program.

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 14 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Regulatory Framework and Background 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 onroad 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 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 mediumduty 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.

Issued by NHTSA and EPA in March 2020 (published on April 30, 2020 and effective after June 29, 2020), the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient Vehicles Rule would maintain the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) and CO2 standards applicable in model year 2020 for model years 2021 through 2026.

The estimated CAFE and CO2 standards for model year 2020 are 43.7 mpg and 204 grams of CO2 per 15 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Regulatory Framework and Background mile for passenger cars and 31.3 mpg and 284 grams of CO2 per mile for light trucks, projecting an overall industry average of 37 mpg, as compared to 46.7 mpg under the standards issued in 2012. This Rule also excludes CO2- equivalent emission improvements associated with air conditioning refrigerants and leakage (and, optionally, offsets for nitrous oxide and methane emissions) after model year 2020.
1 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, 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, 2016, and 2019 standards have been approved and became effective July 1, 2014, January 1, 2016, and January 1, 2020, 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 1 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2018. Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 165 / Friday, August 24, 2018 / Proposed Rules, The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021–2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks 2018. Available at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-08-24/pdf/2018-16820.pdf. 16 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Regulatory Framework and Background 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 than those under the 2016 standards. Nonresidential buildings will use about 30 percent less energy due mainly to lighting upgrades2.

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.
2 https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/title24/2019standards/documents/2018_Title_24_2019_Building_Standards_FAQ.pdf 17 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Regulatory Framework and Background 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.

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. 18 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Regulatory Framework and Background 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 and began implementation on January 1, 2011. The low carbon fuel standard is anticipated to reduce GHG emissions by about 16 MMT per year by 2020. CARB approved some amendments to the LCFS in December 2011, which were implemented on January 1, 2013. In September 2015, the Board approved the re-adoption of the LCFS, which became effective on January 1, 2016, to address procedural deficiencies in the way the original regulation was adopted. In 2018, the Board approved amendments to the regulation, which included strengthening and smoothing the carbon intensity benchmarks through 2030 in-line with California's 2030 GHG emission reduction target enacted through SB 32, adding new crediting opportunities to promote zero emission vehicle adoption, alternative jet fuel, carbon capture and sequestration, and advanced technologies to achieve deep decarbonization in the transportation sector.

The LCFS is designed to encourage the use of cleaner low-carbon transportation fuels in California, encourage the production of those fuels, and therefore, reduce GHG emissions and decrease petroleum dependence in the transportation sector. 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.

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. 19 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Regulatory Framework and Background 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.

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:
20 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Regulatory Framework and Background 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; 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.
21 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Regulatory Framework and Background 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 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.

On September 3, 2020, SCAG’s Regional Council approved and fully adopted the Connect SoCal (2020– 2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy), and the addendum to the Connect SoCal Program Environmental Impact Report. Connect SoCal is a long-range visioning plan that builds upon and expands land use and transportation strategies established over several planning 22 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Regulatory Framework and Background cycles to increase mobility options and achieve a more sustainable growth pattern. Connect SoCal outlines more than $638 billion in transportation system investments through 2045. Connect SoCal is supported by a combination of transportation and land use strategies that help the region achieve state greenhouse gas emission reduction goals and federal Clean Air Act requirements, preserve open space areas, improve public health and roadway safety, support our vital goods movement industry and utilize resources more efficiently. By integrating the Forecasted Development Pattern with a suite of financially constrained transportation investments, Connect SoCal can reach the regional target of reducing greenhouse gases, or GHGs, from autos and light-duty trucks by 8 percent per capita by 2020, and 19 percent by 2035 (compared to 2005 levels).

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, Assembly Bill 341, 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. AB 341 requires at least 75 percent of generated waste be source reduced, recycled, or composted by the year 2020. 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.
23 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Regulatory Framework and Background Executive Order N-79-20. Executive Order N-79-20 was signed into law on September 23, 2020 and mandates 100 percent of in-state sales of new passenger cars and trucks be zero-emission by 2035; 100 percent of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles in the state be zero-emission vehicles by 2045 for all operations where feasible and by 2035 for drayage trucks; and to transition to 100 percent zeroemission off-road vehicles and equipment by 2035 where feasible.

2.2.4 South Coast Air Quality Management District
The Project is within the Salton Sea 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.

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 24 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Regulatory Framework and Background 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; - 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.
25 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Regulatory Framework and Background 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.

Therefore, to determine whether the project's GHG emissions are significant, this analysis uses the County of Riverside CAP Update GHG Screening Tables.

The project will be subject to the latest requirements of the California Green Building and Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards (currently 2019) which would reduce project-related greenhouse gas emissions.

City of Cathedral City Climate Action Plan
A Climate Action Plan (CAP) was adopted by the City of Cathedral City in May of 2013. The City of Cathedral City Climate Action Plan was set in place to guide the City in decisions that lead to the largest and most cost-effective emissions reductions. This plan sets forth goals to reduce emissions to achieve the targets of AB 32. The Climate Action Plan identifies that the community will have to reach a 23.4% reduction from Year 2010 baseline emissions by the year 2020 in order to obtain the AB 32 target emissions. These CAP targets are based on a predicted population growth rate of 19 percent between 2010 and 2020. However, according to the Census Bureau
3 , the population of Cathedral City was
estimated to be 51,200 in April 2010 and 55,007 in July 2019; which shows a growth rate of only 7.4 percent.

The City of Cathedral City has identified 77 measures to be implemented over the course of an eightyear period, beginning in 2013, in order to achieve their emission reduction goals. The City promotes energy efficiency and conservation in all areas of community development, including transportation, development planning, and public and private sector construction and operation, as well as in the full range of residential and non-residential projects. The City supports public and private efforts to develop and operate alternative systems of solar and electric production that take advantage of local renewable resources. In addition, the Climate Action Plan discusses the ability to develop and implement a solar ready ordinance that would require all new buildings and homes to be prepared for solar install. The Climate Action Plan also promotes the use of drought tolerate desert landscaping for parks, recreational facilities and golf courses.

Therefore, to determine whether the project's GHG emissions are significant, this analysis uses the County of Riverside GHG Screening Tables.
3 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/cathedralcitycitycalifornia,US/PST045219 26 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Regulatory Framework and Background The project will be subject to the latest requirements of the California Green Building and Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards (currently 2019) which would reduce project-related greenhouse gas emissions.
27 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Setting

3.0 Setting

3.1 Existing Physical Setting
The project site is located in the City of Cathedral City within the County of Riverside, which is part of the Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB). The middle part of Riverside County (between San Gorgonio Pass and Joshua Tree National Monument), belongs in the Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB), along with Imperial County. The SSAB portion of Riverside County is separated from the South Coast Air Basin region by the San Jacinto Mountains and from the Mojave Desert Air Basin to the east by the Little San Bernardino Mountains.

3.1.1 Local Climate and Meteorology
During the summer, the SSAB is generally influenced by a Pacific Subtropical High Cell that sits off the coast, inhibiting cloud formation and encouraging daytime solar heating. The SSAB is rarely influenced by cold air masses moving south from Canada and Alaska, as these systems are weak and diffuse by the time they reach the desert. Most desert moisture arrives from infrequent warm, moist, and unstable air masses from the south. The SSAB averages between three and seven inches of precipitation per year.

The Coachella Valley is a geographically and meteorologically unique area wholly contained within the Salton Sea Air Basin. The region is currently impacted by significant air pollution levels caused by the transport of pollutants from coastal air basins to the west, primarily ozone, and locally generated PM10. The mountains surrounding the region isolate the Valley from coastal influences and create a hot and dry low-lying desert (see Table 3). As the desert heats up it draws cooler coastal air through the narrow San Gorgonio Pass, generating strong and sustained winds that cross the fluvial (water caused) and aeolian (wind) erosion zones in the Valley. These strong winds suspend and transport large quantities of sand and dust, reducing visibility, damaging property, and constituting a significant health threat.

The temperature and precipitation levels for the City of Palm Springs, closest monitoring station to the project site, are in Table 3. Table 3 shows that July 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, next page>
28 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Setting
Table 3: Meteorological Summary
Temperature (˚F) Average Precipitation
(inches) Month
Average High

69.6 73.6
Average Low

42.1 45.3

48.6 54
January 1.14

1.02 0.59

0.17 0.05

0.06 0.2
February
March
April

79.4 86.9
May
June

94.4 60.2

66.7 74.8

74.2 67.9

59.2 48.8

42.1 57
103.1
108.3
106.9
101.8

91.6 July
August
September
October
November
December

0.3 0.34

0.26 0.47

0.93 5.53

78.7 70.1
Annual Average 88.7
Notes:
1 Source: https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?caplms+sca

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 is within Source Receptor Area 30, Coachella Valley. SCAQMD operates the Palm Springs air monitoring station approximately 5.1 miles northwest of the project site. The Palm Springs monitoring station was used to collect monitoring data; however, these locations do not provide all ambient weather data. Therefore, additional data was pulled from the SCAQMD historical data for the Coachella Valley Area (Area 30) 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, next page>
29 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Setting
Table 4: Local Area Air Quality Levels from Palm Springs Air Monitoring Station1 Year
Pollutant (Standard) 2019 2
2018 2020
Ozone:

Maximum 1-Hour Concentration (ppm)
Days > CAAQS (0.09 ppm)

0.111
11 0.100
5 0.119
9 Maximum 8-Hour Concentration (ppm)
Days > NAAQS (0.07 ppm)

0.099
56 58

0.084
34 39

0.094
49 Days > CAAQS (0.070 ppm) 53
Carbon Monoxide:

Maximum 1-Hour Concentration (ppm)
Days > NAAQS (20 ppm)

1.1 0

1.3 0

0.8 0
Maximum 8-Hour Concentration (ppm)
Days > NAAQS (9 ppm)
Nitrogen Dioxide:

0.8 0

0.7 0

0.5 0
Maximum 1-Hour Concentration (ppm)
Days > NAAQS (0.25 ppm)

0.043
0 0.041
0 0.047
0 Sulfur Dioxide:3
Maximum 1-Hour Concentration (ppm)
Days > CAAQS (0.25 ppm)
-
-
-
-
-
-
Inhalable Particulates (PM10):

Maximum 24-Hour Concentration (ug/m3)
Days > NAAQS (150 ug/m3)
Days > CAAQS (50 ug/m3)
422.3
2 75.6
0 129.8
*
0 6 *
Annual Average (ug/m3) 22.9
No
Yes

20.7 No
Yes

23.2 No
Yes
Annual > NAAQS (50 ug/m3)
Annual > CAAQS (20 ug/m3)
Ultra-Fine Particulates (PM2.5):

Maximum 24-Hour Concentration (ug/m3)
Days > NAAQS (35 ug/m3)

30.2 0

15.5 0

23.9 0
Annual Average (ug/m3) 6 6 6.4
No
No
Annual > NAAQS (15 ug/m3)
Annual > CAAQS (12 ug/m3)
No
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.

The monitoring data presented in Table 4 shows that ozone is the air pollutant of primary concern in the project area, which are detailed below.

Ozone
During the 2018 to 2020 monitoring period, the State 1-hour concentration standard for ozone has been exceeded between five and eleven days each year at the Palm Springs Station. The State 8-hour ozone standard has been exceeded between 39 and 58 days each year over the past three years at the Palm Springs Station. The Federal 8-hour ozone standard has been exceeded between 34 and 56 days each year over the past three years at the Palm Springs Station. 30 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Setting
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. During the 2018 to 2020 monitoring period, the Federal 1-hour and 8-hour concentration standards for CO were not exceeded.

Nitrogen Dioxide
During the 2018 to 2020 monitoring period, the Federal 1-hour concentration standard for Nitrogen Dioazide has not been exceeded.

Sulfur Dioxide
The Coachella Valley Area did not have SO2 data available for the last three years.

Particulate Matter
During the 2018 to 2020 monitoring period, the Palm Springs Station recorded two days of exceedance of the Federal 24-hour PM10 concentration standard and an exceedance in the State PM10annual average standard.

During the same period, the Palm Springs Station did not record an exceedance of the Federal 24-hour standard for PM2.5.

According to the EPA, some people are much more sensitive than others to breathing fine particulate matter (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 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 31 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Setting
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 PM2.5 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: Coachella Valley Portion of the Salton Sea Air Basin Attainment Status National
Standards Pollutant Averaging Time 1 Attainment Date2 California Standards2 Nonattainment 1-Hour
(0.12 ppm)
11/15/2007
(Attained 12/31/2013)
-
1979
1-Hour Ozone3
Attainment
1-Hour (0.09 ppm)
8-Hour
- Nonattainment
2015
8-Hour Ozone4
2008
8-Hour Ozone4
1997
Pending - Expect
Nonattainment (Severe)
Nonattainment
(Severe-15)
Pending
7/20/2027
6/15/2019
-
Nonattainment (0.070 ppm)
8-Hour
(0.075 ppm) -
8-Hour
(0.08 ppm)
Nonattainment
(Severe-15) -
8-Hour Ozone4
1-Hour (20 ppm)
8-hour (9.0 ppm)
1-Hour (35 ppm)
8-Hour (9 ppm)
1-hour (0.18 ppm) Annual
(0.03 ppm)
- Attainment
CO Unclassifiable/
Attainment N/A (attained)
-
-
- Attainment
-
NO2
7 1-Hour (100 ppb)
Annual (0.053 ppm)
1-Hour (0.25 ppm)
24-Hour (0.04 ppm)
1-Hour (75 ppb)
24-Hour (0.14 ppm)
Annual (0.03 ppm)
24-Hour (50 µg/m3) Annual
(20 50 µg/m3)
Unclassifiable/
Attainment N/A (attained)
- -
N/A
Attainment
SO2
8 Designations Pending
Unclassifiable/
Attainment
-
Unclassifiable/Attainment
- - Nonattainment
PM106
PM2.55
24-Hour
(150 µg/m3)
Nonattainment
(Serious) 12/31/2006 -
Annual (12.0 µg/m3) - - Attainment
-
Unclassifiable/
Attainment
Unclassifiable/
Attainment
24-Hour (35 µg/m3) N/A (attained)
3-Months Rolling
(0.15 µg/m3)
Lead Unclassifiable/Attainment Attainment
Notes:
1 Obtained from 2022 AQMP, SCAQMD, 2022. EPA often only declares Nonattainment areas; everywhere else is listed as Unclassified/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 The 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS (0.12 ppm) was revoked, effective 6/15/05; the Southeast Desert Modified Air Quality Management Area, including the Coachella Valley, had not timely attained this standard by the 11/15/07 “severe-17” deadline, based on 2005-2007 data; on 8/25/14, U.S. EPA proposed a clean data finding based on 2011-2013 data and a determination of attainment for the former 1-hour ozone NAAQS for the Southeast Desert nonattainment area; this rule was finalized by U.S. EPA on 4/15/15, effective 5/15/15, and included preliminary 2014 data 4 The 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (0.075 ppm) was revised to 0.070 ppm, effective 12/28/15 with classifications and implementation goals to be finalized by 10/1/17; the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (0.08 ppm) was revoked in the 2008 ozone NAAQS implementation rule, effective 4/6/15; there are continuing obligations under the 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS until they are attained 5 The annual PM2.5 standard was revised on 1/15/13, effective 3/18/13, from 15 to 12 µg/m3 6 The annual PM10 standard was revoked, effective 12/18/06; the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS attainment deadline was 12/31/2006; the Coachella Valley Attainment Re-designation Request and PM10 Maintenance Plan was postponed by U.S. EPA pending additional monitoring and analysis in the southeastern Coachella Valley
7 New 1-hour NO2 NAAQS became effective 8/2/10; attainment designations 1/20/12; annual NO2 NAAQS retained 8 The 1971 Annual and 24-hour SO2 NAAQS were revoked, effective 8/23/10; 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; final area designations expected by 12/31/2020 with SSAB expected to be designated Unclassifiable/Attainment
32 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Setting

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 (CO ), methane (CH ), ozone, water vapor, nitrous oxide (N O), and 2 4 2 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, agricultural, 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 CO and nitrous oxide (NO ) 2 2 are byproducts of fossil fuel combustion. Methane, a potent greenhouse gas, results from off-gassing associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Sinks of CO , where CO is stored outside of the 2 2 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, next page>
33 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Setting
Table 6: Description of Greenhouse Gases
Greenhouse Gas Description and Physical Properties Sources Microbial processes in soil and water,
fuel combustion, and industrial
processes. In addition to agricultural
sources, some industrial processes
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.

Nitrous oxide
(nylon production,
production) also emit N20.
nitric acid
A natural source of CH4 is from the
decay of organic matter. Methane is
Methane (CH4) is a flammable gas and is the main extracted from geological deposits Methane component of natural gas. It has a lifetime of 12 years. (natural gas fields). Other sources are Its global warming potential is 25. from the decay of organic material in landfills, fermentation of manure, and
cattle farming.

Natural sources include decomposition
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an odorless, colorless, natural of dead organic matter; respiration of greenhouse gas. Carbon dioxide’s global warming bacteria, plants, animals, and fungus; potential is 1. The concentration in 2005 was 379 parts evaporation from oceans; and volcanic per million (ppm), which is an increase of about 1.4 outgassing. Anthropogenic sources are Carbon dioxide
ppm per year since 1960. from burning coal, oil, natural gas, and wood.

CFCs are nontoxic, nonflammable, insoluble, and
chemically unreactive in the troposphere (the level of
air at the earth’s surface). They are gases formed
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.

Chlorofluorocarbons 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.

Hydrofluorocarbons
manmade chemicals used as
substitute for chlorofluorocarbons in
applications such as automobile air
conditioners and refrigerants.
are synthetic
a
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
Perfluorocarbons
Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) have stable molecular
structures and only break down by ultraviolet rays Two main sources of perfluorocarbons about 60 kilometers above the Earth's surface. They are primary aluminum production and have a lifetime 10,000 to 50,000 years. They have a semiconductor manufacturing. global warming potential range of 6,200 to 9,500.

This gas is manmade and used for 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.
insulation in electric power transmission
equipment, in the magnesium industry,
in semiconductor manufacturing, and as
a tracer gas for leak detection.

Sulfur
hexafluoride
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 34 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Modeling Parameters and Assumptions

4.0 Modeling Parameters and Assumptions

4.1 Construction
Typical emission rates from construction activities were obtained from CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.21 CalEEMod is a computer model published by the SCAQMD for estimating air pollutant emissions. The CalEEMod program uses the EMFAC2017 computer program to calculate the emission rates specific for the southwestern portion of Riverside County for construction-related employee vehicle trips and the OFFROAD2011 computer program to calculate emission rates for heavy truck operations. EMFAC2017 and OFFROAD2011 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. The project was analyzed to be operational in 2025; therefore, construction is estimated to start no sooner than 2024. 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 (approximately 7 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.
35 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Modeling Parameters and Assumptions

4.2 Operations
Operational or long-term emissions will occur over the life of the project. Both mobile and area sources generate operational emissions. Area source emissions arise from consumer product usage, heaters 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 given in the Traffic Scoping Agreement (Integrated Engineering Group, 2023) which uses the ITE 10th Trip Generation Manual.

The program then applies the emission factors for each trip which is provided by the EMFAC2017 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 for buildings and 100 grams per liter or less for parking lot striping; however, no changes were made to the CalEEMod architectural coating default values.

Energy Usage
2022.1.1.21 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:
36 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Modeling Parameters and Assumptions

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.

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
Rubber Tired Dozers 2
2 0.5

0.5 1.0

1.0 2.0

0.5 0.5

1.5 2.5
Site Preparation
Total Per Phase
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
Graders 1
1 3

0.5 0.5

0.5 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
Total Per Phase
Notes:

1. Source: CalEEMod output and 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 2.5 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 Coachella Valley source receptor area (SRA 30) and a disturbance of 2.5 acres per day at a distance of 25 meters (82 feet). As there is no threshold for a 2.5-acre disturbance, interpolation can be used between the 2-acre and 5-acre thresholds.

4.4 Localized Operational Analysis
For operational emissions, the screening tables for a disturbance area of 2.5 acres per day and a distance of 25 meters were used to determine significance. The tables were compared to the project’s onsite operational emissions.
37 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Thresholds of Significance

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. 38 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Thresholds of Significance

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 Salton Sea Air Basin. In order to assess local air quality impacts the SCAQMD has developed Localized Significant Thresholds (LSTs) to assess the projectrelated 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 Coachella Valley source receptor area (SRA 30) and a disturbance of 4 acres per day at a distance of 25 meters (82 feet), for construction and 4 acres a day for screening of localized operational emissions. The 4-acre thresholds are interpolated from the 2- acre and 5-acre thresholds.

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.
39 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Thresholds of Significance
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 GHG thresholds and the County of Riverside CAP Update has adopted a GHG threshold and screening tables. The County of Riverside CAP Update screening tables were used in this analysis.

5.3 Toxic Air Contaminants
The threshold for toxic air contaminants (TACs) has a maximum incremental cancer risk of 10 per million and a non-cancer (acute and chronic) hazard index of 1.0 or greater. An exceedance to these values would be considered a significant impact.
40 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Air Quality Emissions Impact

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 both scenarios of 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. Scenario 2 would have slightly more VOC and CO emissions compared to Scenario 1.

Table 8: Regional Significance – Unmitigated Construction Emissions (pounds/day) Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)
Activity VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Scenario 1
Site Preparation
On-Site2
Off-Site3
Total

2.35 0.06

2.41 23.20

0.06 20.70

1.03 0.03

0.00 0.03

6.14 0.13

6.27 3.58

0.03 23.26 21.73 3.61
Grading
On-Site2
Off-Site3
Total

1.90 0.12

2.02 18.20

2.54 20.74

18.80 2.10

20.90 0.03

0.01 0.04

3.61 0.81

4.42 2.11

0.19 2.30
Building Construction
On-Site2
Off-Site3
Total

1.20 0.33

1.53 11.20

1.08 12.28

13.10 6.02

19.12 0.02

0.01 0.03

0.50 0.92

1.42 0.45

0.22 0.67
Paving
On-Site2
Off-Site3
Total

1.43 0.08

1.51 7.45

0.08 7.53

9.98 1.43

0.01 0.00

0.01 0.35

0.20 0.55

0.32 0.05

11.41 0.37
Architectural Coating
On-Site2
Off-Site3
Total
Total of overlapping phases4
SCAQMD Thresholds
Exceeds Thresholds

56.33 0.06

0.88 0.06

0.94 20.75
100

1.14 1.05

2.19 32.72
550

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.04
150
No

0.03 0.14

0.17 2.14
150
No

0.03 0.03

0.06 1.10
55 56.39

59.43 75
No No No No
Scenario 2
Site Preparation
On-Site2
Off-Site3

2.35 0.06

2.41 23.20

0.06 20.70

1.03 0.03

0.00 0.03

6.14 0.13

6.27 3.58

0.03 Total 23.26 21.73 3.61
41 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Air Quality Emissions Impact Grading
On-Site2
Off-Site3
Total

1.90 0.12

2.02 18.20

2.54 20.74

18.80 2.10

20.90 0.03

0.01 0.04

3.61 0.81

4.42 2.11

0.19 2.30
Building Construction
On-Site2
Off-Site3
Total

1.20 0.40

1.60 11.20

0.61 11.81

13.10 7.24

20.34 0.02

0.01 0.03

0.50 1.11

1.61 0.45

0.28 0.73
Paving
On-Site2
Off-Site3
Total

1.43 0.08

1.51 7.45

0.08 7.53

9.98 1.43

0.01 0.00

0.01 0.35

0.20 0.55

0.32 0.05

11.41 0.37
Architectural Coating
On-Site2
Off-Site3
Total
Total of overlapping phases4
SCAQMD Thresholds
Exceeds Thresholds
Difference (Scenario 2 - Scenario 1)

56.33 0.07

56.40 59.51
75 0.88

0.07 0.95

20.29 100

1.14 1.26

2.40 34.15
550

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.04
150
No

0.03 0.17

0.20 2.36
150
No

0.03 0.04

0.07 1.17
55 No No No No

0.08 0.00 1.43 0.00 0.00 0.00
Notes:
1 Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.21
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.

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 in either scenario. Therefore, a less than significant local air quality impact would occur from construction of the proposed project. There would be no difference in localized emissions between scenarios 1 and 2.

Table 9: Localized Significance – Construction
On-Site Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)1
Phase NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Scenario 1
Site Preparation
Grading

25.60 20.00

11.80 7.81

22.40 19.70

13.20 10.00

1.15 6.27

3.71 0.55

0.39 0.03

0.97 8.17
No

3.70 2.21

0.51 0.36

0.03 0.90

3.83 No
Building Construction
Paving
Architectural Coating
Total of overlapping phases
SCAQMD Threshold for 25 meters (82 feet) or less2

0.91 20.52
209.83
No

24.35 1,464.50
Exceeds Threshold? No
Scenario 2
Site Preparation
Grading
Building Construction

25.60 20.00

11.80 22.40

19.70 13.20

6.27 3.71

0.55 3.70

2.21 0.51
42 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Air Quality Emissions Impact Paving
Architectural Coating

7.81 0.91

10.00 1.15

0.39 0.03

0.97 8.17
No

0.36 0.03

0.90 3.83
No
Total of overlapping phases
SCAQMD Threshold for 25 meters (82 feet) or less2
Exceeds Threshold?

20.52 209.83
No

24.35 1,464.50
No
Difference (Scenario 2 - Scenario 1)
Notes:

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1 Source: Calculated from CalEEMod and SCAQMD’s Mass Rate Look-up Tables for 2.5 acres in Coachella Valley Source Receptor Area (SRA 30). Project will disturb a maximum of 2.5 acres per day (see Table 7). 2 The nearest sensitive receptor is located 15 meters to the east; therefore, the 25-meter threshold has been used.

6.1.3 Construction-Related Human Health Impacts
Regarding health effects related to criteria pollutant emissions, the applicable significance thresholds are established for regional compliance with the state and federal ambient air quality standards, which are intended to protect public health from both acute and long-term health impacts, depending on the potential effects of the pollutant. Because regional and local emissions of criteria pollutants during construction of the project would be below the applicable thresholds, it would not contribute to longterm health impacts related to nonattainment of the ambient air quality standards. Therefore, significant adverse acute health impacts as a result of project construction are not anticipated.

6.1.4 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 vehicle emissions. 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.

6.1.5 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. 43 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Air Quality Emissions Impact 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 noncancer 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 2025, which is the anticipated opening year for the project per the Traffic Scoping Agreement (Integrated Engineering Group). 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) Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)1
Activity VOC NOx
Scenario 1
CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Area Sources2
Energy Usage3
Mobile Sources4
Total Emissions

4.17 0.20

6.70 11.07
55 0.05

3.67 6.00

9.72 55

5.79 3.08

53.50 62.37
550

0.00 0.02

0.12 0.14
150
No

0.01 0.28

9.34 9.63
150
No

0.01 0.28

2.42 2.71
SCAQMD Thresholds 55
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No
Scenario 2
Area Sources2
Energy Usage3
Mobile Sources4
Total Emissions

5.31 0.04

14.00 19.35
55 0.06

0.68 12.50

13.24 55

7.38 0.57

0.00 0.00

0.24 0.24
150
No

0.01 0.05

19.50 19.56
150

0.01 0.05

5.06 5.12
55 112.00
119.95
SCAQMD Thresholds 550
Exceeds Threshold?
Difference (Scenario 2 - Scenario 1)
No No No No No

8.28 3.52 57.58 0.10 9.93 2.41
44 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Air Quality Emissions Impact Notes:
1 Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.21
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.

Table 10 provides the project's unmitigated operational emissions. Table 10 shows that both scenarios of the project do not exceed the SCAQMD daily emission threshold and regional operational emissions are considered to be less than significant. Scenario 2 would have higher emissions of all pollutants.

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.4 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 Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)1
On-Site Emission Source NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Scenario 1
Area Sources2
Energy Usage3
On-Site Vehicle Emissions4
Total Emissions
SCAQMD Threshold for 25 meters (82 feet)5
Exceeds Threshold?

0.05 3.67

0.60 4.32
247.5
No

5.79 3.08

0.01 0.28

0.93 1.22

3.0 0.01

0.28 0.24

0.53 1.5

5.35 14.22
1,795.5
No No No
Scenario 2
Area Sources2
Energy Usage3
On-Site Vehicle Emissions4
Total Emissions
SCAQMD Threshold for 25 meters (82 feet)5
Exceeds Threshold?

0.06 0.68

1.25 1.99
247.5
No

7.38 0.57

0.01 0.05

1.95 2.01

3.0 0.01

0.05 0.51

0.57 1.5

11.20 19.15
1,795.5
No No No
Difference (Scenario 2 - Scenario 1) -2.33 4.93 0.79 0.03 Notes:
1 Source: Calculated from CalEEMod and SCAQMD’s Mass Rate Look-up Tables for 2.5 acres in Coachella Valley Source Receptor Area (SRA 30). 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 The project site is approximately 0.2 miles in length at its longest point; therefore the on-site mobile source emissions represent approximately 1/34th of the shortest CalEEMod default distance of 6.9 miles. Therefore, to be conservative, 1/10th the distance (dividing the mobile source emissions by 10) was used to represent the portion of the overall mobile source emissions that would occur on-site. 45 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Air Quality Emissions Impact 4 On-site vehicular emissions based on 1/10 of the gross vehicular emissions and road dust. 5 The nearest sensitive receptor is located 15 meters to the east; therefore, the 25 meter threshold has been used.

Table 11 indicates that the local operational emissions from both scenarios would not exceed the LST thresholds at the nearest sensitive receptors, located adjacent to the project. Therefore, the project will result in less than significant Localized Operational emissions. Scenario 2 would have higher emissions of CO and PM.

6.2.3 Operations-Related Human Health Impacts
As stated previously, regarding health effects related to criteria pollutant emissions, the applicable significance thresholds are established for regional compliance with the state and federal ambient air quality standards, which are intended to protect public health from both acute and long-term health impacts, depending on the potential effects of the pollutant. Because regional and local emissions of criteria pollutants during operation of the project would be below the applicable thresholds, it would not contribute to long-term health impacts related to nonattainment of the ambient air quality standards. Therefore, less than significant adverse acute health impacts as a result of project operation are anticipated.

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.

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.

Traffic analysis from Integrated Engineering Group (2023) showed that the project would generate a maximum of 3,542 average daily trips. 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 46 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Air Quality Emissions Impact the CO standard. Therefore, no CO “hot spot” modeling was performed and less than significant longterm 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 Salton Sea 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 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:
47 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Air Quality Emissions Impact (1)
(2)
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.

Whether the project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP in 2022 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 in Tables 8 and 9, 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, shown in Tables 10 and 11.

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. Connect SoCal, the 2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy prepared by SCAG, includes chapters on: SoCal today, paying our way forward, and the path to greater mobility and sustainability. 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 City of Cathedral City defines the assumptions that are represented in the AQMP.

The proposed project has a current land use designation of General Commercial (CG) according to the City of Cathedral City Official General Plan and is zoned Planned Community Commercial (PCC) in the City of Cathedral City Code of Ordinances. The proposed project is to develop the site with commercial uses. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in an inconsistency with the land use designation in the City’s General Plan or Code of Ordinances. 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.
48 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis

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 16.93 metric tons of CO2e per year for Scenario 1 and 18.17 metric tons of CO2e per year for Scenario 2. Annual CalEEMod output calculations are provided in Appendix A.

Table 12: Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Emissions (MTCO2e)1
Scenario
Onsite
Scenario 1 508.00
Scenario 2 545.00

37.00 16.93

18.17 Difference (Scenario 2 - Scenario 1)
Scenario 1 Averaged over 30 years2
Scenario 2 Averaged over 30 years2
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. As shown in Table 13, the project’s total emissions (with incorporation of construction related GHG emissions) would be 3,004.38 metric tons of CO e per year in Scenario 1 and 4,476.96 metric tons of CO e per year in Scenario 2. These emissions 2 2 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 impact must be compared to the County of Riverside GHG Screening Tables for both scenarios. Scenario 2 would generate 1,472.57 metric tons of CO2e per year more than Scenario 1.
<Table 13, next page>
49 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis Table 13: Opening Year Unmitigated Project-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Metric Tons/Year)1
Category Bio-CO2 NonBio-CO2
Scenario 1
CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Area Sources2
Energy Usage3
Mobile Sources4
Solid Waste5
Water6

0.00 0.00

1.95 982.00
1,830.00

0.00 1.95
982.00
1,830.00

17.90 0.00

0.00 0.08

1.79 0.96

0.00 2.83

0.00 0.00

0.09 0.00

0.02 0.00

0.11 1.95
985.00
1,863.00

62.70 0.00

17.90 9.38

0.00 34.40

16.70 2,865.05

43.78 16.70
2,892.33

74.80 Construction 16.93 7
Total Emissions 27.28 3,004.38
3,000
Yes
County of Riverside CAP and SCAQMD Draft Screening Threshold Exceeds Threshold?
Scenario 2
Area Sources2
Energy Usage3
Mobile Sources4
Solid Waste5
Water6

0.00 0.00

2.48 435.00
3,823.00

0.00 2.48
435.00
3,823.00

14.80 0.00

0.03 0.17

1.48 1.00

0.00 2.68

0.00 0.00

0.19 0.00

0.02 0.00

0.21 2.49
436.00
3,891.00

51.70 0.00

14.80 9.73

0.00 35.70

17.90 4,314.08

45.43 17.90
4,338.61

77.60 Construction 18.17 7
Total Emissions 24.53 4,476.96
3,000
Yes
County of Riverside CAP and SCAQMD Draft Screening Threshold Exceeds Threshold?
Difference (Scenario 2 - Scenario 1)
Notes:
1,472.57
1 Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.21
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 CO and CH emissions created from the solid waste placed in landfills. 2 4 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, the County of Riverside has adopted a Climate Action Plan; therefore, the project and its GHG emissions have been compared to the goals of the County of Riverside CAP Update.

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 50 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis 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
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.

As stated above, the GHG emissions generated by the proposed project would exceed the County of Riverside CAP Update screening threshold of 3,000 metric tons per year of CO2e. Therefore, a completed screening table has been included in Appendix B, which shows the project design features that would allow the project to achieve 100 points. With implementation of the stated features, the project would be consistent with the County of Riverside CAP Update and have a less than significant impact.

City of Cathedral City Climate Action Plan
The City of Cathedral City CAP was adopted in May of 2013. The City of Cathedral City CAP was set in place to guide the City in decisions that lead to the largest and most cost-effective emissions reductions. This plan sets forth goals to reduce emissions to achieve the targets of AB 32. In order to achieve these targets, the CAP presents a number of GHG emissions-reducing programs and policies that are to be implemented by the City. These emissions-reducing measures have been provided for different sectors of the community including transportation, residential buildings, commercial buildings, government incentives, renewable energy, cross-cutting initiatives, solid waste, and water.

As specified in the CAP, these measures are to be implemented in a series of three phases over a course of eight years beginning in 2013. The proposed project would be expected to comply with all applicable emissions-reducing measures identified within the CAP.

Project consistency with applicable measures in the CAP has been assessed. As shown in Table 14, the project is consistent with the applicable measures identified in the CAP. In addition, the proposed 51 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis project is consistent with the GHG inventory and forecast prepared for the CAP as both the existing and the projected GHG inventories were derived based on the land use designations and associated densities defined in the City’s General Plan, and the proposed project is consistent with the existing General Plan land use designations. Therefore, since the proposed project is consistent with the City’s General Plan and 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 greenhouse gases. Impacts are considered to be less than significant.

Table 14: City of Cathedral City CAP Applicable Measures Project Comparison CAP Measures to Sector Project Compliance with Measure Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions Sphere - "Where We Live"
Solid Waste Diversion: Increase solid waste Consistent. The project will be required to comply with AB 341 which includes recycling programs that reduces
waste to landfills by up to 75% by 2020.
diversion rate by 55% to 68.1% by 2015
potentially through use of tiered rate
structure.

Solid Waste
Sphere - "Where We Work"
Peak Demand Reduction: Collaborate with SCE Consistent. This is a city-based measure. If the project and encourage 200 businesses to enroll in
Energy Efficiency and Demand Response
programs such as the Summer Discount
Program.
is mandated by the City to be one of the 200
businesses that are to enroll in an Energy Efficiency
and Demand Response program then the project will
comply as needed.

Commercial
Buildings
Energy-Efficient, Commercial-Sector Lighting:

Promote and leverage existing incentives for
efficient lighting and educate and locally incent efficient lighting. building owners to eliminate any remaining
T-12 lamps in commercial/industrial buildings.

Consistent. The project will comply with current 2022
Title 24 requirements for installation of energy- Commercial Buildings
Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance: Build
on and exceed current Water Efficient
Landscaping Ordinance in the
commercial/industrial sector by 20%
community-wide by 2020.

Consistent. The project’s landscape design complies
with the City’s landscaping standards as well as the
Mission Springs Water District's water efficient
landscaping guidelines (which encourages drought
tolerant groundcover).

Water
Sphere - " How We Build"
"Cool Roofs": Promote the installation of Consistent. The project will comply with current 2022 Title 24 prescriptive cool roof requirements to meet
energy compliance.

Commercial
Buildings
reflective roofing on commercial/industrial
properties in the community with recognition
for first ten early adopters.

Green Building Program: Promote the
voluntary Green Building Program to prepare
for enhanced Title 24 requirements and green
building standards.

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 became
Government mandatory in the 2010 edition of the Code, on Initiatives 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 would be subject to these mandatory
52 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis CAP Measures to
Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions Sector Project Compliance with Measure standards. The 2014 Title 24 Code contained
regulations that would be 25% more efficient than the
2010 edition of the Code, and the 2016 Title 24 Code is 5% more efficient than the 2014 edition of the Code in
terms of nonresidential buildings. The 2022 Title 24
Code builds on the 2016 Code.

Notes:
a. Source: City of Cathedral City Climate Action Plan (2013).

CARB Scoping Plan Consistency
The ARB Board approved a Climate Change Scoping Plan in December 2008. The Scoping Plan outlines the State’s strategy to achieve the 2020 greenhouse gas emissions limit. The Scoping Plan “proposes a comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions in California, improve our environment, reduce our dependence on oil, diversify our energy sources, save energy, create new jobs, and enhance public health” (California Air Resources Board 2008). The measures in the Scoping Plan have been in place since 2012.

In November 2017, CARB release the 2017 Scoping Plan. This Scoping Plan incorporates, coordinates, and leverages many existing and ongoing efforts and identifies new policies and actions to accomplish the State’s climate goals, and includes a description of a suite of specific actions to meet the State’s 2030 GHG limit. In addition, Chapter 4 provides a broader description of the many actions and proposals being explored across the sectors, including the natural resources sector, to achieve the State’s mid and long-term climate goals.

Guided by legislative direction, the actions identified in the 2017 Scoping Plan reduce overall GHG emissions in California and deliver policy signals that will continue to drive investment and certainty in a low carbon economy. The 2017 Scoping Plan builds upon the successful framework established by the Initial Scoping Plan and First Update, while identifying new, technologically feasible, and costeffective strategies to ensure that California meets its GHG reduction targets in a way that promotes and rewards innovation, continues to foster economic growth, and delivers improvements to the environment and public health, including in disadvantaged communities. The Plan includes policies to require direct GHG reductions at some of the State’s largest stationary sources and mobile sources.

These policies include the use of lower GHG fuels, efficiency regulations, and the Cap-and Trade Program, which constrains and reduces emissions at covered sources.

The 2022 Scoping Plan was adopted by CARB in November 2022 and expands upon earlier plans with a target of reducing GHG emissions to 85% below 1990 levels by 2045. As the latest 2022 Scoping Plan builds upon previous versions, project consistency with applicable strategies of both the 2008 and 2017 Plan are assessed in Table 15. As shown in Table 15, the project is consistent with the applicable strategies and would result in a less than significant impact. 53 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis Table 15: Project Consistency with CARB Scoping Plan Policies and Measures1 2008 Scoping Plan Measures to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions California Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Standards – Implement adopted standards and planned second phase of the Project Compliance with Measure
Consistent. These are CARB enforced standards;
vehicles that access the project that are
program. Align zero-emission vehicle, alternative and renewable fuel required to comply with the standards will and vehicle technology programs with long-term climate change goals.
comply with the strategy.

Energy Efficiency – Maximize energy efficiency building and appliance standards; pursue additional efficiency including new technologies, policy, and implementation mechanisms. Pursue comparable investment in energy efficiency from all retail providers of electricity in California.

Consistent. The project will be compliant with
the current Title 24 standards.

Low Carbon Fuel Standard – Develop and adopt the Low Carbon Fuel Consistent. These are CARB enforced standards; Standard. vehicles that access the project that are
required to comply with the standards will
comply with the strategy.

Vehicle Efficiency Measures – Implement light-duty vehicle efficiency measures.

Consistent. These are CARB enforced standards;
vehicles that access the project that are
required to comply with the standards will
comply with the strategy.

Medium/Heavy-Duty Vehicles – Adopt medium and heavy-duty vehicle efficiency measures.

Consistent. These are CARB enforced standards;
vehicles that access the project that are
required to comply with the standards will
comply with the strategy.

Green Building Strategy – Expand the use of green building practices Consistent. The California Green Building to reduce the carbon footprint of California’s new and existing inventory of buildings.

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
2019 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 project will be subject to
these mandatory standards.

High Global Warming Potential Gases – Adopt measures to reduce high global warming potential gases.

Consistent. CARB identified five measures that
reduce HFC emissions from vehicular and
commercial refrigeration systems; vehicles that
access the project that are required to comply
with the measures will comply with the
strategy.

Recycling and Waste – Reduce methane emissions at landfills.

Increase waste diversion, composting, and commercial recycling.

Move toward zero-waste.

Consistent. The state is currently developing a
regulation to reduce methane emissions from
municipal solid waste landfills. The project will
be required to comply with City programs, such
as any City recycling and waste reduction
programs, which comply, with the 75 percent
reduction required by 2020 per AB 341.
54 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis Water – Continue efficiency programs and use cleaner energy sources to move and treat water.

Consistent. The project will comply with all
applicable City ordinances and CAL Green
requirements.
2017 Scoping Plan Recommended Actions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Project Compliance with Recommended Action
Implement Mobile Source Strategy: Further increase GHG stringency Consistent. These are CARB enforced standards; on all light-duty vehicles beyond existing Advanced Clean Car regulations.
vehicles that access the project that are
required to comply with the standards will
comply with the strategy.

Implement Mobile Source Strategy: At least 1.5 million zero emission Consistent. These are CARB enforced standards; and plug-in hybrid light-duty electric vehicles by 2025 and at least

4.2 million zero emission and plug-in hybrid light-duty electric vehicles by 2030.
vehicles that access the project that are
required to comply with the standards will
comply with the strategy.

Implement Mobile Source Strategy: Innovative Clean Transit:

Transition to a suite of to-be-determined innovative clean transit options. Assumed 20 percent of new urban buses purchased beginning in 2018 will be zero emission buses with the penetration of zero-emission technology ramped up to 100 percent of new sales in 2030. Also, new natural gas buses, starting in 2018, and diesel buses, starting in 2020, meet the optional heavy-duty low-NOX standard.

Consistent. These are CARB enforced standards;
vehicles that access the project that are
required to comply with the standards will
comply with the strategy.

Implement Mobile Source Strategy: Last Mile Delivery: New Consistent. These are CARB enforced standards; regulation that would result in the use of low NOX or cleaner vehicles that access the project that are engines and the deployment of increasing numbers of zero-emission required to comply with the standards will trucks primarily for class 3-7 last mile delivery trucks in California.

This measure assumes ZEVs comprise 2.5 percent of new Class 3–7 truck sales in local fleets starting in 2020, increasing to 10 percent in 2025 and remaining flat through 2030.
comply with the strategy.

Implement SB 350 by 2030: Establish annual targets for statewide energy efficiency savings and demand reduction that will achieve a cumulative doubling of statewide energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas end uses by 2030.

Consistent. The project will be compliant with
the current Title 24 standards.

By 2019, develop regulations and programs to support organic waste Consistent. The project will be required to landfill reduction goals in the SLCP and SB 1383. comply with City programs, such as any City recycling and waste reduction programs, which
comply, with the 75 percent reduction required
by 2020 per AB 341.
2022 Scoping Plan Recommended Actions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Project Compliance with Recommended Action
Deploy ZEVs and reduce driving demand Consistent. The project will be in an urbanized area within a quarter mile of transit.

Coordinate supply of liquid fossil fuels with declining California fuel demand
Generate clean electricity
Consistent. The project will be compliant with
the current Title 24 standards.

Consistent. The project will be compliant with
the current Title 24 standards and would not
interfere with clean energy generation.

Consistent. The project will be compliant with
the current Title 24 standards and would be
commercial, therefore would not interfere with
Decarbonize industrial energy supply
55 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis this goal.

Consistent. The project will be compliant with
the current Title 24 standards.

Decarbonize buildings
Reduce non-combustion emissions Consistent. The project will be compliant with the current Title 24 standards.

Notes:
1 Source: CARB Scoping Plan (2008, 2017, and 2022)
Consistency with SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS
At the regional level, the 2020-2045 RTP and Sustainable Communities Strategy represent the region’s Climate Action Plan that defines strategies for reducing GHGs. In order to assess the project’s potential to conflict with the RTP/SCS, this section analyzes the project’s land use profile for consistency with those in the Sustainable Communities Strategy. Generally, projects are considered consistent with the provisions and general policies of applicable City and regional land use plans and regulations, such as SCAG’s Sustainable Communities Strategy, if they are compatible with the general intent of the plans and would not preclude the attainment of their primary goals.

Table 16 demonstrates the project’s consistency with the Actions and Strategies set forth in the 2020- 2045 RTP/SCS. As shown in Table 16, the project would be consistent with the GHG reduction related actions and strategies contained in the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS.

Table 16: Project Consistency with SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS1 Responsible
Actions and Strategies
Land Use Strategies
Reflect the changing population and demands,
including combating gentrification and displacement, Local Party(ies) Consistency Analysis
Consistent. The proposed project is a commercial
development on a currently vacant site; therefore,
it will not displace existing housing. by increasing housing supply at a variety of affordability levels.

Jurisdictions
Consistent. The proposed project is a commercial
development that would be consistent with the
2020 RTP/SCS focus on growing near transit
facilities.

Local
Jurisdictions Focus new growth around transit.

Consistent. The proposed project is a commercial
development that would be consistent with the
2020 RTP/SCS focus on growing along the 2,980
miles of Livable Corridors in the region.

Plan for growth around livable corridors, including
growth on the Livable Corridors network.

SCAG, Local
Jurisdictions
Consistent. The proposed project would help
further jobs/housing balance objectives. The
proposed project is also consistent with the
Complete Communities initiative that focuses on
creation of mixed-use districts in growth areas.

Not Applicable. This strategy calls on local
governments to adopt General Plan updates,
zoning codes, and Climate Action Plans to further
sustainable communities. The proposed project
would not interfere with such policymaking and
Provide more options for short trips through
Neighborhood Mobility Areas and Complete
Communities.

SCAG, Local
Jurisdictions
Support local sustainability planning, including
developing sustainable planning and design policies,
sustainable zoning codes, and Climate Action Plans.

Local
Jurisdictions
56 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis would be consistent with those policy objectives.

Consistent. The proposed project is a commercial
development in an existing urban community that
would help reduce demand for growth in
urbanizing areas that threaten green fields and
open spaces.

Protect natural and farmlands, including developing
conservation strategies.

SCAG, Local
Jurisdictions
Transportation Strategies
SCAG, County
Transportatio
n
Commissions,
Local
Not Applicable. This strategy calls on investing in
the maintenance of our existing transportation
system. The proposed project would not interfere
with such policymaking.

Preserve our existing transportation system.

Jurisdictions
County
Transportatio
n
Commissions,
Local
Jurisdictions
SCAG, County
Transportatio
n
Consistent. The proposed project is a commercial
development that will minimize congestion
impacts on the region because of its proximity to
public transit and general density of population
and jobs.

Manage congestion through programs like the
Congestion Management Program, Transportation
Demand Management, and Transportation Systems
Management strategies.

Not Applicable. This strategy aims to improve the
safety of the transportation system and protect
users from security threats. The proposed project
would not interfere with such policymaking.

Promote safety and security in the transportation
system. Commissions,
Local
Jurisdictions
Not Applicable. This strategy calls for
transportation planning partners to implement
major capital and operational projects that are
designed to address regional growth. The
proposed project would not interfere with this
larger goal of investing in the transportation
system.

SCAG, County
Transportatio
n
Commissions,
Local
Jurisdictions
Complete our transit, passenger rail, active
transportation, highways and arterials, regional
express lanes goods movement, and airport ground
transportation systems.

Technological Innovation and 21st Century Transportation Consistent. While this action/strategy is not
necessarily applicable on a project-specific basis,
the project will follow electric vehicle charging
guidance per the City's Building Code.

SCAG, Local
Jurisdictions Promote zero-emissions vehicles.

Consistent. While this action/strategy is not
necessarily applicable on a project-specific basis,
the project will follow electric vehicle charging
guidance per the City's Building Code.

SCAG, Local
Jurisdictions Promote neighborhood electric vehicles.

Not Applicable. This strategy is designed to
integrate new technologies for last-mile and
alternative transportation programs. The
proposed project would not interfere with these
emerging programs.

SCAG, Local
Jurisdictions Implement shared mobility programs.

Notes:
1 Source: Southern California Association of Governments; 2020–2045 RTP/SCS, May 2020. 57 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis Therefore, the project will not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Impacts are considered to be less than significant.
58 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Energy Analysis

8.0 Energy Analysis
Information from the CalEEMod 2022.1.1.21 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. As shown in this Section, the project will not result in wasteful or inefficient use of energy and will therefore have a less than significant impact in regards to energy usage.

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)5, the typical power cost per 1,000 square feet of building construction per month is estimated to be $2.32. Scenario 1 plans to develop the site with 133,243 square feet of new development over the course of approximately 15 months and Scenario 2 plans to develop the site with 169,779 square feet of new development over the course of approximately 15 months. Based on Table 17, the total power cost of the on-site electricity usage during the construction of the proposed project is estimated to be approximately $4,636,86 in Scenario 1 and $5,908.31 in Scenario 2. As shown in Table 17, the total electricity usage from Project construction related activities is estimated to be approximately 84,306 kWh in Scenario 1 and 107,424 kWh in Scenario 2. 6 Table 17: Project Construction Power Cost and Electricity Usage Scenario 1
Power Cost (per 1,000 square
foot of building per month of
construction)
Total Building Construction
Size (1,000 Duration
Square Foot)1 (months)
Total Project
Construction
Power Cost
$2.32 133.243 15 $4,636.86
Total Project Construction
Cost per kWh Electricity Usage (kWh)
$0.06 84,306
* Assumes the project will be under the GS-1 General Service rate under SCE. 5 Pray, Richard. 2017 National Construction Estimator. Carlsbad: Craftsman Book Company, 2017. 6 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 59 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Energy Analysis
Scenario 2
Power Cost (per 1,000 square
foot of building per month of
construction)
Total Building Construction
Size (1,000
Square Foot)1
Total Project
Construction
Power Cost
Duration
(months)
$2.32 169.779 15 $5,908.31
Total Project Construction
Cost per kWh Electricity Usage (kWh)
$0.06 107,424
* Assumes the project will be under the GS-1 General Service rate under SCE.

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.7 As presented in Table 18 below, project construction activities would consume an estimated 32,044 gallons of diesel fuel. Both Scenarios are anticipated to have the same construction schedule and equipment usage.

Table 18: Construction Equipment Fuel Consumption Estimates Total Fuel
HP
hrs/
day
1,762
497
109
485
1,174
746
745
394
83 Consumption
(gal diesel
fuel)1,2
1,904
538
Number
of Days
20 Usage
Amount Hours Power Factor
Horse Load
Phase Offroad Equipment Type
Rubber Tired Dozers
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
Excavators
Site
Preparation
2 2
1 1
1 3
1 3
1 6
8 8
8 8
8 7
8 8
367
84 0.4

0.37 0.38

0.41 0.4
20 20
20 36 118
Graders 148 525
367
84 Grading 20
20 Rubber Tired Dozers
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
Cranes
1,270

0.37 806

0.29 0.2
230
230
230
367
82 9,262
4,893
1,030
Building
Construction Forklifts
Generator Sets 14 0.74
7 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 ). 60 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Energy Analysis
230
230
20 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
Welders
Pavers
3 1
2 2
2 7
8 8
8 8
84 46
81 89
36 0.37

0.45 0.42

0.36 0.38
653
166
544
513
219
8,114
2,059
588
Paving 20
20 Paving Equipment
Rollers
554
237
Architectural
Coating 25 Air Compressors 1 6 37 0.48 107 144
CONSTRUCTION FUEL DEMAND (gallons of diesel fuel) 32,044 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) 2Discrepancies are due to rounding.

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 253,062 VMT in Scenario 1 and 300,884 in Scenario 2. 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 C for details). Table 19 shows that an estimated 8,176 gallons of fuel would be consumed for construction worker trips in Scenario 1 and 9,772 gallons of fuel in Scenario 2.

Table 19: Construction Worker Fuel Consumption Estimates Average
Vehicle
Miles
Traveled
Vehicle Fuel
Economy
(mpg)
Estimated Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)2
Number of
Days
Worker
Trips/Day
Trip Length
(miles)1
Scenario 1

18.5 Phase
Site Preparation
Grading
20 20
10 15
3,700
5,550

30.95 30.95

30.95 120

18.5 179
Building Construction 18.5
Paving
Architectural Coating
230
20 54.8
15 233,174
5,550
5,088
7,534
179
164

18.5 25 11 18.5
Total Construction Worker Fuel Consumption 8,176
Scenario 2

18.5 18.5
Site Preparation
Grading
20 20
10 15
3,700
5,550

30.95 30.95

30.95 120
179
Building Construction
Paving
Architectural Coating
230
20 65.8
15 18.5

18.5 279,979
5,550
6,105
9,046
179
25 13.2 18.5 197
Total Construction Worker Fuel Consumption 9,722
Difference (Scenario 2 - Scenario 1) 1,545
Notes:
1Assumptions for the worker trip length and vehicle miles traveled are consistent with CalEEMod 2022.1.1.21 defaults. 2Discrepancies are due to rounding.
61 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Energy Analysis

8.1.4 Construction Vendor/Hauling Fuel Estimates
Tables 20 and 21 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 51,143 VMT in Scenario 1 and 65,219 VMT in Scenario 2. 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.8 Tables 20 and 21 show that an estimated 7,405 gallons of fuel would be consumed for vendor and hauling trips in Scenario 1 and 8,931 gallon of fuel in Scenario 2.

Table 20: Construction Vendor Fuel Consumption Estimates (MHD Trucks)1 Vehicle
Miles
Traveled
Average Vehicle Estimated Fuel
Fuel Economy
(mpg)
Number of
Days
Vendor
Trips/Day
Trip Length
(miles)
Consumption
Phase (gallons)
Scenario 1
Site Preparation
Grading
20 20
0 0

10.2 10.2

10.2 0 9.22

9.22 9.22

9.22 9.22
0 0 0
Building Construction
Paving
230
20 21.8
0 51,143 5,547
0 0
Architectural Coating 25 0 0 0
Total Vendor Fuel Consumption 5,547
Scenario 2
Site Preparation 10.2
Grading
20 20
0 0
0 9.22

9.22 9.22

9.22 9.22
0 10.2 0 0
Building Construction
Paving
230
20 27.8
0 10.2 65,219 7,074

10.2 0 0
Architectural Coating 25 0 10.2 0 0
Total Vendor Fuel Consumption
Difference (Scenario 2 - Scenario 1)
Notes:
7,074
1,527
1 Assumptions for the vendor trip length and vehicle miles traveled are consistent with CalEEMod 2022.1.1.21 defaults. 8 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 D for details).
62 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Energy Analysis
Table 21: Construction Hauling Fuel Consumption Estimates (HHD Trucks)1 Vehicle
Miles
Traveled
Average Vehicle Estimated Fuel
Fuel Economy
(mpg)
Number of
Days
Hauling
Trips/Day
Trip Length
(miles)
Consumption
Phase (gallons)
Scenario 1
Site Preparation
Grading
20 20
0 31.3
0 20
20 20
20 20
0 6.74

6.74 6.74

6.74 6.74
0 1,858
0 12,520
Building Construction
Paving
230
20 0
0 0
0 0
Architectural Coating 25 0 0
Total Construction Hauling Fuel Consumption 1,858
Scenario 2
Site Preparation
Grading
20 20
0 31.3
0 20
20 20
20 20
0 6.74

6.74 6.74

6.74 6.74
0 12,520 1,858
Building Construction
Paving
230
20 0
0 0
0 0 0
Architectural Coating 25 0 0
Total Construction Hauling Fuel Consumption
Difference (Scenario 2 - Scenario 1)
Notes:
1,858
0 1Assumptions for the hauling trip length and vehicle miles traveled are consistent with CalEEMod 2022.1.1.21 defaults.

8.1.5 Construction Energy Efficiency/Conservation Measures Construction equipment used over the approximately 15-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 commercial 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 and a less than significant impact.

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). 63 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Energy Analysis

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, it is assumed that an average trip for autos were assumed to be 16.6 miles, light trucks were assumed to travel an average of 6.9 miles, and 3- 4-axle trucks were assumed to travel an average of 8.4 miles 9 . To
show a worst-case analysis, as the proposed project is a commercial project, it was assumed that vehicles would operate 365 days per year. Table 22 shows the worst-case estimated annual fuel consumption for all classes of vehicles from autos to heavy-heavy trucks.10 Table 22 shows that an estimated 280,596 gallons of fuel would be consumed per year for the operation of the Scenario 1 and 586,008 gallons of fuel in Scenario 2.

Table 22: Estimated Vehicle Operations Fuel Consumption Average
Fuel
Economy
(mpg)
Total Annual
Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Number
of
Vehicles
Average
Trip
(miles)1
Total
Gallons
per Day
Daily
Vehicle Type VMT
Light Auto
Light Truck
Vehicle Mix
Scenario 1
Automobile
Automobile
Automobile
Automobile
2-Axle Truck
2-Axle Truck
3-Axle Truck
4-Axle Truck
936.7

98.1 16.6

6.9 6.9

6.9 8.4

8.4 8.4

8.4 --
15,549
677

31.82 27.16

25.6 20.81

13.81 14.18

9.58 7.14
--
488.64

24.92 81.49

81.88 28.33

7.58 178,354
9,098
Light Truck
Medium Truck
302.3
246.9

46.6 2,086
1,704
391
29,744
29,886
10,341
2,768
Light Heavy Truck
Light Heavy Truck 10,000 lbs +
Medium Heavy Truck
Heavy Heavy Truck
Total

12.8 19.8
108
167 17.39

38.51 768.76
6,349
14,057
--

32.7 1,696
275
20,956
Total Annual Fuel Consumption 280,596
Scenario 2
Light Auto
Light Truck
Light Truck
Automobile
Automobile
Automobile
Automobile
2-Axle Truck
2-Axle Truck
3-Axle Truck
4-Axle Truck
1,956.2
204.9
631.4
515.7

97.3 16.6

6.9 6.9

6.9 8.4

8.4 8.4

8.4 --
32,472
1,414
4,357
3,558
817

31.82 27.16

25.6 20.81

13.81 14.18

9.58 7.14
--
1020.50

52.05 372,483
19,000
62,118
62,414
21,597
5,781
170.19
171.00

59.17 Medium Truck
Light Heavy Truck
Light Heavy Truck 10,000 lbs +
Medium Heavy Truck
Heavy Heavy Truck
Total

26.7 41.4
225
348

15.84 36.32 13,259
29,358
--

68.4 3,542
574
43,765

80.43 1605.50
Total Annual Fuel Consumption
Notes:
586,008
'1 The trip generation assessment, the project is to generate 1,696 total net new trips in Scenario 1 and 3,542 total net new trips in Scenario 2, after reduction of 9 CalEEMod default distance for H-W (home-work) or C-W (commercial-work) is 16.6 miles; 6.9 miles for H-S (home-shop) or C-C (commercial-customer); and 8.4 miles for H-O (home-other) or C-O (commercial-other). 10 Average fuel economy based on aggregate mileage calculated in EMFAC 2017 for opening year (2023). See Appendix D for EMFAC output. 64 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Energy Analysis
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 commercial uses of similar scale and configuration as reflected in the traffic analysis (Integrated Engineering Group, 2023). 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.

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 23.

Table 23: Project Unmitigated Annual Operational Energy Demand Summary1 Scenario 1
Natural Gas Demand
Unrefrigerated Warehouse - No Rail
Strip Mall
kBTU/year
2,196,632
66,086
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 801,834
Total 3,064,552
kWh/year
529,519
Electricity Demand
Unrefrigerated Warehouse - No Rail
Strip Mall 108,894
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru
Parking Lot
246,858
183,161
Total 1,068,432
Scenario 2
Natural Gas Demand
Unrefrigerated Warehouse - No Rail
Regional Shopping Center
kBTU/year
2,196,632
324,091
Total
Total
2,520,723
-543,829
kWh/year
529,519
Difference (Scenario 2 - Scenario 1)
Electricity Demand
Unrefrigerated Warehouse - No Rail
Strip Mall 50,139
Parking Lot 183,161
1,364,778
Difference (Scenario 2 - Scenario 1) 178,276
Notes:
1Taken from the CalEEMod 2022.1.1.21 annual output.

As shown in Table 23, the estimated electricity demand for the proposed project is approximately 1,068,432 kWh per year in Scenario 1 and 1,364,778 kWh per year in Scenario 2. In 2021, the nonresidential sector of the County of Riverside consumed approximately 8,257 million kWh of 65 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Energy Analysis
electricity.11 In addition, the estimated natural gas consumption for the proposed project is approximately 3,064,552 kBTU per year in Scenario 1 and 2,520,723 kBTU per year in Scenario 2. In 2021, the nonresidential sector of the County of Riverside consumed approximately 144 million therms of gas.12 Therefore, the increase in both electricity and natural gas demand from either scenario of the proposed project is insignificant compared to the County’s 2021 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 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.

The project will be consistent with all relevant renewable energy and energy efficiency plans and will therefore have a less than significant impact.
11 California Energy Commission, Electricity Consumption by County. https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx 12 California Energy Commission, Gas Consumption by County. http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx 66 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA CEQA Analysis

9.0 CEQA Analysis
The California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (Appendix D) establishes thresholds for air quality, greenhouse gas, and energy impact analyses as presented below:

Air Quality
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
(a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? The regional plan that applies to the proposed Project includes the SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). 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 2022 or increments based on the year of project buildout and phase.

This air quality analysis finds that neither short-term construction emissions nor long-term operational emissions would exceed any regional or local thresholds. The Project would also be consistent with the land use classification of Community Commercial from the City of Cathedral City General Plan, which defines the assumptions that are represented in the AQMP. Therefore, a less than significant impact will occur.
(b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? 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.
(c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? The Project would not exceed construction or operational localized emissions thresholds set by the SCAQMD and would therefore have a less than significant impact on sensitive receptors. 67 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA CEQA Analysis
(d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Potential sources that may emit odors during the on-going operations of the proposed Project would include odor emissions from vehicle emissions. 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. Furthermore, the Project would not be a significant source of toxic air contaminants during construction or operation.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Combined Project emissions from construction and operation would exceed the County of Riverside CAP Update and SCAQMD screening threshold of 3,000 metric tons of CO2e per year. Therefore, the impact has been determined through the County of Riverside GHG Screening Tables in Appendix B, which show the Project's GHG emissions impact with inclusion of the stated design features would achieve the minimum required points of 100 and be considered less than significant. b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Appendix D of the Riverside County CAP Update states that Project's that do not exceed the CAP's screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year or achieve a minimum of 100 points in the County of Riverside GHG Screening Tables are considered to have less than significant GHG emissions and are in compliance with the County's CAP Update. As stated above, the proposed Project would achieve 100 points in the GHG Screening Tables with inclusion of the design features stated in Appendix B.

Therefore, the Project would be consistent with the CAP and would have a less than significant impact.

Energy
Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Construction of the proposed commercial 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 and would have a less than significant impact. 68 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA CEQA Analysis
Trip generation generated by the proposed Project are consistent with other similar commercial uses of similar scale and configuration as reflected in the Transportation Analysis (Integrated Engineering Group, 2023). 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. Furthermore, the increase in both electricity and natural gas demand from the proposed Project is insignificant compared to the County’s 2021 demand.

Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact. b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? 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 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 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.

Therefore, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency and would therefore have a less than significant impact. 69 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA References

10.0 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
2008
Resolution 08-43
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
2011
2014
Climate Change Scoping Plan, a framework for change.

Supplement to the AB 32 Scoping Plan Functional Equivalent Document 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 Cathedral City
2013 City of Cathedral City General Plan.

County of Riverside
2015 County of Riverside General Plan. December 8.
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
2009 CEQA Guideline Sections to be Added or Amended
Integrated Engineering Group
2023 Date Palm Drive Mixed Use Transportation Analysis. December. 70 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA References
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
2015 Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines South Coast Air Quality Management District
1993
2005
2007
2008
2011
2012
2016
2022
CEQA Air Quality Handbook
Rule 403 Fugitive Dust
2007 Air Quality Management Plan
Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, Revised Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod
Final 2012 Air Quality Management Plan
Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan
Final 2022 Air Quality Management Plan
71 Appendix A:

CalEEMod Output
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Site Preparation (2024) - Unmitigated

3.2. Site Preparation (2024) - Mitigated
1 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023

3.3. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated

3.4. Grading (2024) - Mitigated

3.5. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated

3.6. Building Construction (2024) - Mitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated

3.8. Building Construction (2025) - Mitigated

3.9. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated

3.10. Paving (2025) - Mitigated

3.11. Architectural Coating (2025) - Unmitigated

3.12. Architectural Coating (2025) - Mitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.1.2. Mitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
2 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.3.2. Mitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.4.2. Mitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.5.2. Mitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.6.2. Mitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.7.2. Mitigated
3 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.8.2. Mitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.9.2. Mitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

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

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated

4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
4 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023

5.2.2. Mitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.3.2. Mitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.9.2. Mitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths
5 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.1.2. Mitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.11.2. Mitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.12.2. Mitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.13.2. Mitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.14.2. Mitigated
6 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.15.2. Mitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2.2. Mitigated
7 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data
8 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name
Construction Start Date
Operational Year
Lead Agency
Land Use Scale
Analysis Level for Defaults
Windspeed (m/s)
Precipitation (days)
Location
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1
4/1/2024
2025
—
Project/site
County

3.30 10.0

33.827226852362244, -116.45770401427775
County Riverside-Salton Sea
Cathedral City
South Coast AQMD
Salton Sea
City
Air District
Air Basin
TA Z 5673
EDFZ 11
Electric Utility
Gas Utility
Southern California Edison
Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.21

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq Special Landscape Population Description ft) Area (sq ft)
9 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Unrefrigerated 115 1000sqft 2.64 115,054 0.00 — — —
Warehouse-No Rail
Strip Mall 11.2

7.03 1000sqft
1000sqft

0.26 0.16
11,159
7,030

0.00 0.00
—
—
—
—
—
Fast Food —
Restaurant with
Drive Thru
Parking Lot 4.80 Acre 4.80 0.00 44,112 — — —

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title
Construction
Construction
C-10-A
C-11
Water Exposed Surfaces
Limit Vehicle Speeds on Unpaved Roads

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG
—
NOx
—
CO
—
SO2
—
PM10E
—
PM10D
—
PM10T
—
PM2.5E
—
PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2
—
NBCO2
—
CO2T
—
CH4
—
N2O
—
R CO2e
Daily, — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Unmit.

Mit.

56.4 56.4
—

23.2 23.2
—

21.7 21.7
—

0.04 0.04
—

1.03 1.03
—

13.2 5.24
60%

14.3 6.27
56%

0.95 0.95
—

6.77 2.66
61%

7.71 3.61
53%
—
—
—
5,357
5,357
—
5,357
5,357
—

0.15 0.15
—

0.37 0.37
—

5.48 5.48
—
5,477
5,477
% —
Reduced
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
—
— — — — — —
Unmit. 1.45 12.4 16.7 0.03 0.51 0.90 1.41 0.47 0.22 0.69 3,809 3,809 0.14 0.14 0.13 3,856 10 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Mit. 1.45
—

12.4 —

16.7 —

0.03 —

0.51 —

0.90 —

1.41 —

0.47 —

0.22 —

0.69 —
—
—
3,809
—
3,809
—

0.14 —

0.13 —
3,856
% —
Reduced
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
(Max)
Unmit.

Mit.

4.27 4.27
—

7.29 7.29
—

9.21 9.21
—

0.02 0.02
—

0.31 0.31
—

1.51 0.84
45%

1.82 1.14
37%

0.28 0.28
—

0.66 0.32
52%

0.94 0.60
36%
—
—
—
2,008
2,008
—
2,008
2,008
—

0.07 0.07
—

0.08 0.08
—

1.00 1.00
—
2,034
2,034
% —
Reduced
Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit.

Mit.

0.78 0.78
—

1.33 1.33
—

1.68 1.68
—
< 0.005
< 0.005
—

0.06 0.06
—

0.28 0.15
45%

0.33 0.21
37%

0.05 0.05
—

0.12 0.06
52%

0.17 0.11
36%
—
—
—
332
332
—
332
332
—

0.01 0.01
—

0.17 0.17
—
337
337
% —
Reduced

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)
— — —
2024
2025

2.41 56.4
—

23.2 11.5
—

21.7 18.6
—

0.04 0.03
—

1.03 0.44
—

13.2 0.90
—

14.3 1.35
—

0.95 0.41
—

6.77 0.22
—

7.71 0.63
—
—
—
—
5,357
3,903
—
5,357
3,903
—

0.15 0.14
—

0.37 0.14
—

5.48 4.72
—
5,477
3,953
Daily - —
Winter
(Max)
2024
2025

1.45 1.37

12.4 11.5

16.7 16.3

0.03 0.03

0.51 0.44

0.90 0.90

1.41 1.35

0.47 0.41

0.22 0.22

0.69 0.63
—
—
3,809
3,782
3,809
3,782

0.14 0.14

0.13 0.12
3,856
3,828
11 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024
2025
Annual
2024
2025

0.83 4.27
—

7.29 3.20
—

9.21 4.78
—

0.02 0.31

0.13 —

1.51 0.23
—

1.82 0.36
—

0.28 0.12
—

0.66 0.06
—

0.94 0.17
—
—
—
—
—
—
2,008
1,020
—
2,008
1,020
—

0.07 0.04
—

0.08 0.03
—

1.00 0.52
—
2,034
1,032
—

0.01 —

0.15 0.78

1.33 0.58

1.68 0.87
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.06 0.02

0.28 0.04

0.33 0.07

0.05 0.02

0.12 0.01

0.17 0.03
332 332 0.01

0.01 0.01

0.01 0.17

0.09 337
169 169 171

2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year ROG
—
NOx
—
CO
—
SO2
—
PM10E
—
PM10D
—
PM10T
—
PM2.5E
—
PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2
—
NBCO2
—
CO2T
—
CH4
—
N2O
—
R CO2e
Daily - —
Summer
(Max)
— — —
2024
2025

2.41 56.4
—

23.2 11.5
—

21.7 18.6
—

0.04 0.03
—

1.03 0.44
—

5.24 0.90
—

6.27 1.35
—

0.95 0.41
—

2.66 0.22
—

3.61 0.63
—
—
—
—
5,357
3,903
—
5,357
3,903
—

0.15 0.14
—

0.37 0.14
—

5.48 4.72
—
5,477
3,953
Daily - —
Winter
(Max)
2024
2025

1.45 1.37
—

12.4 11.5
—

16.7 16.3
—

0.03 0.03
—

0.51 0.44
—

0.90 0.90
—

1.41 1.35
—

0.47 0.41
—

0.22 0.22
—

0.69 0.63
—
—
—
—
3,809
3,782
—
3,809
3,782
—

0.14 0.14
—

0.13 0.12
—
3,856
3,828
Average —
Daily
2024
2025
Annual
2024
2025

0.83 4.27
—

7.29 3.20
—

9.21 4.78
—

0.02 0.31

0.13 —

0.84 0.23
—

1.14 0.36
—

0.28 0.12
—

0.32 0.06
—

0.60 0.17
—
—
—
—
—
—
2,008
1,020
—
2,008
1,020
—

0.07 0.04
—

0.08 0.03
—

1.00 0.52
—
2,034
1,032
—

0.01 —

0.15 0.78

1.33 0.58

1.68 0.87
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.06 0.02

0.15 0.04

0.21 0.07

0.05 0.02

0.06 0.01

0.11 0.03
332 332 0.01

0.01 0.01

0.01 0.17

0.09 337
169 169 171
12 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023

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. 11.1
—

9.26 —

62.4 —

0.14 —

0.37 —

9.25 —

9.63 —

0.37 —

2.35 —

2.71 —
165
—
18,018
—
18,183
—

17.6 —

0.72 —

50.7 —
18,889
Daily, —
Winter
(Max)
Unmit. 8.69
—

9.66 —

40.7 —

0.12 —

0.36 —

9.25 —

9.61 —

0.36 —

2.35 —

2.70 —
165
—
16,681
—
16,845
—

17.7 —

0.73 —

12.3 —
17,518
Average —
Daily
(Max)
Unmit. 9.55
—

9.44 —

47.9 —

0.13 —

0.37 —

9.19 —

9.56 —

0.36 —

2.33 —

2.69 —
165
—
17,209
—
17,374
—

17.6 —

0.72 —

28.3 —
18,057
Annual —
(Max)
Unmit. 1.74 1.72 8.75 0.02 0.07 1.68 1.74 0.07 0.43 0.49 27.3 2,849 2,876 2.92 0.12 4.68 2,990

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
Area

6.70 4.17

0.20 —

5.54 0.05

3.67 —

53.5 5.79

3.08 —

0.12 < 0.005

0.02 —

0.08 0.01

0.28 —

9.25 —

9.34 0.01

0.28 —

0.08 0.01

0.28 —

2.35 —

2.42 0.01

0.28 —
— 11,854

23.8 11,854

23.8 0.49 0.56 39.4
—
12,072
— < 0.005 23.9

0.48 < 0.005
Energy 0.02
Water
Waste
— — — 5,933
208
5,933
265
— 5,951
— — 56.7 452
108

5.82 0.14 —
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 108 10.8 0.00 — 379
13 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Refrig.

Total
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 11.2

50.7 —

11.2 18,889
—

11.1 —

9.26 —

62.4 —

0.14 —

0.37 —

9.25 —

9.63 —

0.37 —

2.35 —

2.71 —
165
—
18,018
—
18,183
—

17.6 —

0.72 Daily, —
Winter
(Max)
Mobile
Area

5.27 3.22

0.20 —

6.00 —

37.7 —

0.10 —

0.08 —

9.25 —

9.34 —

0.08 —

2.35 —

2.42 —
— 10,540
—
10,540
—

0.53 —

0.57 —

1.02 —
10,725
— —
Energy
Water
Waste
Refrig.

Total

3.67 —

3.08 —

0.02 —

0.28 —
— 0.28
—

0.28 —
— 0.28
—
— 5,933
208
5,933
265

0.48 5.82

10.8 —

0.02 0.14

0.00 —
— 5,951
— — 56.7 452
108
—
—
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00
—
108 — 379
— — — — — — — — — — — 11.2

12.3 —

11.2 17,518
—

8.69 —

9.66 —

40.7 —

0.12 —

0.36 —

9.25 —

9.61 —

0.36 —

2.35 —

2.70 —
165
—
16,681
—
16,845
—

17.7 —

0.73 Average —
Daily
Mobile
Area

5.66 3.69

0.20 —

5.74 0.02

3.67 —

42.0 2.86

3.08 —

0.11 < 0.005

0.02 —

0.08 0.01

0.28 —

9.19 —

9.28 0.01

0.28 —

0.08 < 0.005

0.28 —

2.33 —

2.41 < 0.005

0.28 —
— 11,056

11.8 5,933
208
11,056

11.8 5,933
265

0.50 < 0.005

0.48 5.82

10.8 —

0.56 < 0.005

0.02 0.14

0.00 —

17.0 —
11,253

11.8 5,951
452
—
Energy
Water
Waste
Refrig.

Total
— — — —
— — 56.7
108
—
—
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00
—
108 — 379
— — — — — — — — — — — 11.2

28.3 —

11.2 18,057
—

9.55 —

9.44 —

47.9 —

0.13 —

0.37 —

9.19 —

9.56 —

0.36 —

2.33 —

2.69 —
165
—
17,209
—
17,374
—

17.6 —

0.72 Annual —
Mobile
Area

1.03 0.67

0.04 —

1.05 < 0.005

0.67 —

7.66 0.52

0.56 —

0.02 < 0.005
< 0.005
—

0.02 < 0.005

0.05 —

1.68 —

1.69 < 0.005

0.05 —

0.01 < 0.005

0.05 —

0.43 —

0.44 < 0.005

0.05 —
— 1,830

1.95 982
1,830

1.95 982

0.08 < 0.005

0.08 0.96

1.79 —

0.09 < 0.005
< 0.005

0.02 0.00
—

2.82 —
1,863

1.95 985
—
Energy
Water
Waste
Refrig.

Total
— — — —
— — 9.38

17.9 —

34.4 0.00
—

43.8 17.9
—
— 74.8

62.7 1.86
2,990
— — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — 1.86

1.74 1.72 8.75 0.02 0.07 1.68 1.74 0.07 0.43 0.49 27.3 2,849 2,876 2.92 0.12 4.68 14 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector ROG
—
NOx
—
CO
—
SO2
—
PM10E
—
PM10D
—
PM10T
—
PM2.5E
—
PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2
—
NBCO2
—
CO2T
—
CH4
—
N2O
—
R CO2e
Daily, — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Mobile
Area

6.70 4.17

0.20 —

5.54 0.05

3.67 —

53.5 5.79

3.08 —

0.12 < 0.005

0.02 —

0.08 0.01

0.28 —

9.25 —

9.34 0.01

0.28 —

0.08 0.01

0.28 —

2.35 —

2.42 0.01

0.28 —
— 11,854

23.8 5,933
208
11,854

23.8 5,933
265

0.49 < 0.005

0.48 5.82

10.8 —

0.56 < 0.005

0.02 0.14

0.00 —

39.4 —
12,072

23.9 5,951
452
—
Energy
Water
Waste
Refrig.

Total
— — — —
— — 56.7
108
—
—
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00
—
108 — 379
— — — — — — — — — — — 11.2

50.7 —

11.2 18,889
—

11.1 —

9.26 —

62.4 —

0.14 —

0.37 —

9.25 —

9.63 —

0.37 —

2.35 —

2.71 —
165
—
18,018
—
18,183
—

17.6 —

0.72 Daily, —
Winter
(Max)
Mobile
Area

5.27 3.22

0.20 —

6.00 —

37.7 —

0.10 —

0.08 —

9.25 —

9.34 —

0.08 —

2.35 —

2.42 —
— 10,540
—
10,540
—

0.53 —

0.57 —

1.02 —
10,725
— —
Energy
Water
Waste
Refrig.

Total

3.67 —

3.08 —

0.02 —

0.28 —
— 0.28
—

0.28 —
— 0.28
—
— 5,933
208
5,933
265

0.48 5.82

10.8 —

0.02 0.14

0.00 —
— 5,951
— — 56.7 452
108
—
—
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00
—
108 — 379
— — — — — — — — — — — 11.2

12.3 —

11.2 17,518
—

8.69 —

9.66 —

40.7 —

0.12 —

0.36 —

9.25 —

9.61 —

0.36 —

2.35 —

2.70 —
165
—
16,681
—
16,845
—

17.7 —

0.73 Average —
Daily
Mobile
Area

5.66 3.69

0.20 —

5.74 0.02

3.67 —

42.0 2.86

3.08 —

0.11 < 0.005

0.02 —

0.08 0.01

0.28 —

9.19 —

9.28 0.01

0.28 —

0.08 < 0.005

0.28 —

2.33 —

2.41 < 0.005

0.28 —
— 11,056

11.8 11,056

11.8 0.50 0.56 17.0
—
11,253
— < 0.005 11.8

0.48 < 0.005
Energy 0.02
Water
— — — 5,933
208
5,933
265
— 5,951
— — 56.7 5.82 0.14 — 452
15 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Waste
Refrig.

Total
— — — — — — — — — — 108
—

0.00 —
108 10.8
—

0.00 —
— 379
— — — — — — — — — — — 11.2

28.3 —

11.2 18,057
—

9.55 —

9.44 —

47.9 —

0.13 —

0.37 —

9.19 —

9.56 —

0.36 —

2.33 —

2.69 —
165
—
17,209
—
17,374
—

17.6 —

0.72 Annual —
Mobile
Area

1.03 0.67

0.04 —

1.05 < 0.005

0.67 —

7.66 0.52

0.56 —

0.02 < 0.005
< 0.005
—

0.02 < 0.005

0.05 —

1.68 —

1.69 < 0.005

0.05 —

0.01 < 0.005

0.05 —

0.43 —

0.44 < 0.005

0.05 —
— 1,830

1.95 982
1,830

1.95 982

0.08 < 0.005

0.08 0.96

1.79 —

0.09 < 0.005
< 0.005

0.02 0.00
—

2.82 —
1,863

1.95 985
—
Energy
Water
Waste
Refrig.

Total
— — — —
— — 9.38

17.9 —

34.4 0.00
—

43.8 17.9
—
— 74.8

62.7 1.86
2,990
— — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — 1.86

1.74 1.72 8.75 0.02 0.07 1.68 1.74 0.07 0.43 0.49 27.3 2,849 2,876 2.92 0.12 4.68

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Site Preparation (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location 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 2.35
Equipment

23.2 —

20.7 —

0.03 —

1.03 —
— 1.03

13.1 0.95
—
— 0.95

6.73 —
—
3,337
—
3,337
—

0.14 —

0.03 —
—
—
3,348
Dust — 13.1 6.73 —
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—
—
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — —
—
—
— — — — —
—
—
—
Off-Road 0.13
Equipment

1.27 —

1.13 —
< 0.005
—

0.06 —
— 0.06

0.72 0.05
—
— 0.05

0.37 183
—
183
—

0.01 —
< 0.005
—
183
Dust — 0.72 0.37 —
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck

0.00 —

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — —
—
— — —
—
— —
—
— — — — —
—
—
Off-Road 0.02
Equipment

0.23 0.21 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 30.3 30.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 30.4 Dust — — — — — 0.13 0.13 — 0.07 0.07 — — — — — — —
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Daily, —
Summer
(Max)
Worker
Vendor
Hauling

0.06 0.00

0.00 —

0.06 0.00

0.00 —

1.03 0.00

0.00 —

0.00 0.00

0.00 —

0.00 0.00

0.00 —

0.13 0.00

0.00 —

0.13 0.00

0.00 —

0.00 0.00

0.00 —

0.03 0.00

0.00 —

0.03 0.00

0.00 —
—
—
—
—
152

0.00 0.00
—
152

0.00 0.00
—

0.01 0.00

0.00 —
< 0.005

0.00 0.00
—

0.57 0.00

0.00 —
154

0.00 0.00
Daily, —
Winter
(Max)
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
17 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Worker
Vendor
Hauling
Annual
Worker
Vendor
Hauling
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 0.04

0.00 0.00
—

0.00 0.00

0.00 —

0.00 0.00

0.00 —

0.01 0.00

0.00 —

0.01 0.00

0.00 —

0.00 0.00

0.00 —
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 —
—
—
—
—
—
—

7.56 0.00

0.00 —

7.56 0.00

0.00 —
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 0.01

0.00 0.00
—

7.67 0.00

0.00 —

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
— — — — — —
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 0.01

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
< 0.005

0.00 0.00

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 1.25

0.00 0.00

1.25 0.00

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 0.00

1.27 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.2. Site Preparation (2024) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location 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 2.35
Equipment

23.2 —

20.7 —

0.03 —

1.03 —
— 1.03

5.11 0.95
—
— 0.95

2.63 —
—
3,337
—
3,337
—

0.14 —

0.03 —
—
—
3,348
Dust — 5.11 2.63 —
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck

0.00 —

0.00 —
—
—

0.00 —

0.00 Daily, —
Winter
(Max)
Average
Daily
— — — — — —
—
— — —
—
— —
—
— — — — —
—
—
Off-Road 0.13
Equipment

1.27 1.13 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 183 183 0.01 < 0.005 183 18 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.28

0.00 0.28

0.00 — 0.14

0.00 0.14

0.00 —
—
— — — — — —
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
Annual — — — — —
—
— — —
—
— —
—
— — — — —
—
—
Off-Road 0.02
Equipment

0.23 0.21 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 30.3 30.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 30.4 Dust — — — — — 0.05 0.05 — 0.03 0.03 — — — — — — —
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck

0.06 0.00

0.00 —

0.06 0.00

0.00 —

1.03 0.00

0.00 —

0.00 0.00

0.00 —

0.00 0.00

0.00 —

0.13 0.00

0.00 —

0.13 0.00

0.00 —

0.00 0.00

0.00 —

0.03 0.00

0.00 —

0.03 0.00

0.00 —
—
—
—
—
152

0.00 0.00
—
152

0.00 0.00
—

0.01 0.00

0.00 —
< 0.005

0.00 0.00
—

0.57 0.00

0.00 —
154

0.00 0.00
Daily, —
Winter
(Max)
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker
Vendor
Hauling
Annual
Worker
Vendor
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 0.04

0.00 0.00
—

0.00 0.00

0.00 —

0.00 0.00

0.00 —

0.01 0.00

0.00 —

0.01 0.00

0.00 —

0.00 0.00

0.00 —
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 —
—
—
—
—
—

7.56 0.00

0.00 —

7.56 0.00

0.00 —
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 0.01

0.00 0.00
—

7.67 0.00

0.00 —

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
— — — — — —
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 0.01

0.00 0.00

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 0.00

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 1.25

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 1.27

0.00 19 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 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 (2024) - 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 1.90
Equipment

18.2 —

18.8 —

0.03 —

0.84 —
— 0.84

7.10 0.77
—
— 0.77

3.43 —
—
2,958
—
2,958
—

0.12 —

0.02 —
—
—
2,969
Dust — 7.10 3.43 —
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck

0.00 —

0.00 —
—
—

0.00 —

0.00 Daily, —
Winter
(Max)
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — —
—
—
— — — — —
—
—
—
Off-Road 0.10
Equipment

1.00 —

1.03 —
< 0.005
—

0.05 —
— 0.05

0.39 0.04
—
— 0.04

0.19 162
—
162
—

0.01 —
< 0.005
—
163
Dust — 0.39 0.19 —
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck

0.00 —

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — —
—
— — —
—
— —
—
— — — — —
—
—
Off-Road 0.02
Equipment

0.18 0.19 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 26.8 26.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 26.9 20 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.07

0.00 0.07

0.00 — 0.03

0.00 0.03

0.00 —
—
— — — — — —
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 Offsite —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Daily, —
Summer
(Max)
Worker
Vendor
Hauling

0.08 0.00

0.04 —

0.09 0.00

2.45 —

1.55 0.00

0.55 —

0.00 0.00

0.01 —

0.00 0.00

0.04 —

0.20 0.00

0.57 —

0.20 0.00

0.61 —

0.00 0.00

0.04 —

0.05 0.00

0.14 —

0.05 0.00

0.19 —
—
—
—
—
228

0.00 2,170
—
228

0.00 2,170
—

0.01 0.00

0.02 —

0.01 0.00

0.34 —

0.85 0.00

4.63 —
231

0.00 2,277
Daily, —
Winter
(Max)
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker
Vendor
Hauling
Annual
Worker
Vendor
Hauling
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 0.06

0.00 0.03
—

0.00 0.00 0.01

0.00 0.03
—

0.01 0.00

0.03 —

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 —
—
—
—
—
—
—

11.3 0.00
119
—

11.3 0.00
119
—
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 0.02

0.00 0.11
—

11.5 0.00
125
—

0.00 0.00 0.00
< 0.005
—

0.14 < 0.005
—
< 0.005
—
< 0.005
—

0.01 0.01 < 0.005
—

0.02 — — — —
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 0.01

0.00 0.00 < 0.005

0.00 0.01
< 0.005

0.00 0.01

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 1.88

0.00 19.7

1.88 0.00

19.7 < 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 0.02

1.90 0.00

20.6 0.00 0.00 0.00
< 0.005 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005

3.4. Grading (2024) - Mitigated
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 — — — — —
21 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Off-Road 1.90
Equipment

18.2 —

18.8 —

0.03 —

0.84 —
— 0.84

2.77 0.77
—
— 0.77

1.34 —
—
2,958
—
2,958
—

0.12 —

0.02 —
—
—
2,969
Dust — 2.77 1.34 —
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck

0.00 —

0.00 —
—
—

0.00 —

0.00 Daily, —
Winter
(Max)
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — —
—
—
— — — — —
—
—
—
Off-Road 0.10
Equipment

1.00 —

1.03 —
< 0.005
—

0.05 —
— 0.05

0.15 0.04
—
— 0.04

0.07 162
—
162
—

0.01 —
< 0.005
—
163
Dust — 0.15 0.07 —
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck

0.00 —

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — —
—
— — —
—
— —
—
— — — — —
—
—
Off-Road 0.02
Equipment

0.18 0.19 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 26.8 26.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 26.9 Dust — — — — — 0.03 0.03 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck

0.00 —

0.00 —
—
—

0.00 —

0.00 Offsite —
22 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Worker
Vendor
Hauling

0.08 0.00

0.04 —

0.09 0.00

2.45 —

1.55 0.00

0.55 —

0.00 0.00

0.01 —

0.00 0.00

0.04 —

0.20 0.00

0.57 —

0.20 0.00

0.61 —

0.00 0.00

0.04 —

0.05 0.00

0.14 —

0.05 0.00

0.19 —
—
—
—
—
228

0.00 2,170
—
228

0.00 2,170
—

0.01 0.00

0.02 —

0.01 0.00

0.34 —

0.85 0.00

4.63 —
231

0.00 2,277
Daily, —
Winter
(Max)
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker
Vendor
Hauling
Annual
Worker
Vendor
Hauling
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 0.06

0.00 0.03
—

0.00 0.00 0.01

0.00 0.03
—

0.01 0.00

0.03 —

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 —
—
—
—
—
—
—

11.3 0.00
119
—

11.3 0.00
119
—
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 0.02

0.00 0.11
—

11.5 0.00
125
—

0.00 0.00 0.00
< 0.005
—

0.14 < 0.005
—
< 0.005
—
< 0.005
—

0.01 0.01 < 0.005
—

0.02 — — — —
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 0.01

0.00 0.00 < 0.005

0.00 0.01
< 0.005

0.00 0.01

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 1.88

0.00 19.7

1.88 0.00

19.7 < 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 0.02

1.90 0.00

20.6 0.00 0.00 0.00
< 0.005 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005

3.5. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location 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 1.20
Equipment

11.2 0.00

13.1 0.00

0.02 0.00

0.50 0.00
— 0.50

0.00 0.46

0.00 — 0.46

0.00 —
—
2,398

0.00 2,398

0.00 0.10

0.00 0.02

0.00 — 2,406
Onsite 0.00
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
23 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road 1.20
Equipment

11.2 0.00
—

13.1 0.00
—

0.02 0.00
—

0.50 0.00
—
— 0.50

0.00 —

0.46 0.00
—
— 0.46

0.00 —
—
—
—
—
—
2,398

0.00 —
2,398

0.00 —

0.10 0.00
—

0.02 0.00
—
— 2,406

0.00 —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00
—

0.00 —

0.00 Average —
Daily
—
Off-Road 0.48
Equipment

4.44 0.00

5.18 0.00

0.01 0.00

0.20 0.00
— 0.20

0.00 0.18

0.00 — 0.18

0.00 948

0.00 0.04

0.00 0.01

0.00 — 951
Onsite 0.00
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — —
—
— — —
—
— —
—
— — — — —
—
—
Off-Road 0.09
Equipment

0.81 0.95 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 157 157 0.01 < 0.005 157 Onsite
truck

0.30 0.03

0.00 —

0.31 0.77

0.00 —

5.67 0.35

0.00 —

0.00 0.01

0.00 —

0.00 0.01

0.00 —

0.72 0.19

0.00 —

0.72 0.20

0.00 —

0.00 0.01

0.00 —

0.17 0.05

0.00 —

0.17 0.06

0.00 —
—
—
—
—
833
703

0.00 —
833
703

0.00 —

0.03 0.01

0.00 —

0.03 0.10

0.00 —

3.10 1.91

0.00 —
845
734

0.00 Daily, —
Winter
(Max)
Worker
Vendor
Hauling

0.23 0.02

0.00 —

0.33 0.82

0.00 —

3.23 0.35

0.00 —

0.00 0.01

0.00 —

0.00 0.01

0.00 —

0.72 0.19

0.00 —

0.72 0.20

0.00 —

0.00 0.01

0.00 —

0.17 0.05

0.00 —

0.17 0.06

0.00 —
—
—
—
—
708
703

0.00 —
708
703

0.00 —

0.03 0.01

0.00 —

0.03 0.10

0.00 —

0.08 0.05

0.00 —
717
733

0.00 Average —
Daily
24 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Worker
Vendor
Hauling
Annual
Worker
Vendor
Hauling

0.10 0.01

0.00 —

0.12 0.32

0.00 —

1.59 0.14

0.00 —

0.00 0.00 0.28

0.07 0.00
—

0.28 0.08

0.00 —

0.00 0.07

0.02 0.00
—

0.07 0.02

0.00 —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
299
278

0.00 —
299
278

0.00 —

0.01 0.01

0.04 0.00
—

0.53 0.32

0.00 —
303
290

0.00 —
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 — — — —

0.02 < 0.005

0.00 0.02

0.06 0.00

0.29 0.03

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05

0.01 0.00

0.05 0.01

0.00 0.00 0.01
< 0.005

0.00 0.01
< 0.005

0.00 49.5

46.0 0.00

49.5 46.0

0.00 < 0.005
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.01 0.00

0.09 0.05

0.00 50.2

48.0 0.00
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 3.6. Building Construction (2024) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location 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 1.20
Equipment

11.2 0.00
—

13.1 0.00
—

0.02 0.00
—

0.50 0.00
—
— 0.50

0.00 —

0.46 0.00
—
— 0.46

0.00 —
—
—
—
2,398

0.00 —
2,398

0.00 —

0.10 0.00
—

0.02 0.00
—
— 2,406

0.00 —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00
—

0.00 —

0.00 Daily, —
Winter
(Max)
—
Off-Road 1.20
Equipment

11.2 0.00
—

13.1 0.00
—

0.02 0.00
—

0.50 0.00
—
— 0.50

0.00 —

0.46 0.00
—
— 0.46

0.00 —
—
—
—
—
2,398

0.00 —
2,398

0.00 —

0.10 0.00
—

0.02 0.00
—
— 2,406

0.00 —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00
—

0.00 —

0.00 Average —
Daily
—
Off-Road 0.48
Equipment

4.44 5.18 0.01 0.20 — 0.20 0.18 — 0.18 948 948 0.04 0.01 — 951 25 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 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 0.09
Equipment

0.81 0.95 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 157 157 0.01 < 0.005 157 Onsite
truck

0.30 0.03

0.00 —

0.31 0.77

0.00 —

5.67 0.35

0.00 —

0.00 0.01

0.00 —

0.00 0.01

0.00 —

0.72 0.19

0.00 —

0.72 0.20

0.00 —

0.00 0.01

0.00 —

0.17 0.05

0.00 —

0.17 0.06

0.00 —
—
—
—
—
833
703

0.00 —
833
703

0.00 —

0.03 0.01

0.00 —

0.03 0.10

0.00 —

3.10 1.91

0.00 —
845
734

0.00 Daily, —
Winter
(Max)
Worker
Vendor
Hauling

0.23 0.02

0.00 —

0.33 0.82

0.00 —

3.23 0.35

0.00 —

0.00 0.01

0.00 —

0.00 0.01

0.00 —

0.72 0.19

0.00 —

0.72 0.20

0.00 —

0.00 0.01

0.00 —

0.17 0.05

0.00 —

0.17 0.06

0.00 —
—
—
—
—
708
703

0.00 —
708
703

0.00 —

0.03 0.01

0.00 —

0.03 0.10

0.00 —

0.08 0.05

0.00 —
717
733

0.00 Average —
Daily
Worker
Vendor
Hauling
Annual
Worker
Vendor
Hauling

0.10 0.01

0.00 —

0.12 0.32

0.00 —

1.59 0.14

0.00 —

0.00 0.00 0.28

0.07 0.00
—

0.28 0.08

0.00 —

0.00 0.07

0.02 0.00
—

0.07 0.02

0.00 —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
299
278

0.00 —
299
278

0.00 —

0.01 0.01

0.04 0.00
—

0.53 0.32

0.00 —
303
290

0.00 —
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 — — — —

0.02 < 0.005

0.00 0.02

0.06 0.00

0.29 0.03

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05

0.01 0.00

0.05 0.01

0.00 0.00 0.01
< 0.005

0.00 0.01
< 0.005

0.00 49.5

46.0 0.00

49.5 46.0

0.00 < 0.005
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.01 0.00

0.09 0.05

0.00 50.2

48.0 0.00
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 26 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023

3.7. 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 — —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Off-Road 1.13
Equipment

10.4 0.00
—

13.0 0.00
—

0.02 0.00
—

0.43 0.00
—
— 0.43

0.00 —

0.40 0.00
—
— 0.40

0.00 —
—
—
—
2,398

0.00 —
2,398

0.00 —

0.10 0.00
—

0.02 0.00
—
— 2,406

0.00 —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00
—

0.00 —

0.00 Daily, —
Winter
(Max)
—
Off-Road 1.13
Equipment

10.4 0.00
—

13.0 0.00
—

0.02 0.00
—

0.43 0.00
—
— 0.43

0.00 —

0.40 0.00
—
— 0.40

0.00 —
—
—
—
—
—
2,398

0.00 —
2,398

0.00 —

0.10 0.00
—

0.02 0.00
—
— 2,406

0.00 —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00
—

0.00 —

0.00 Average —
Daily
—
Off-Road 0.27
Equipment

2.47 0.00

3.09 0.00

0.01 0.00

0.10 0.00
— 0.10

0.00 0.09

0.00 — 0.09

0.00 568

0.00 0.02

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 — 570
Onsite 0.00
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — —
—
— — —
—
— —
—
— — — — —
—
—
Off-Road 0.05
Equipment

0.45 0.56 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 94.0 94.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 94.3 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00
—

0.00 —

0.00 —
—
—

0.00 —

0.00 Offsite — —
27 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Worker
Vendor
Hauling

0.29 0.03

0.00 —

0.29 0.73

0.00 —

5.23 0.32

0.00 —

0.00 0.01

0.00 —

0.00 0.01

0.00 —

0.72 0.19

0.00 —

0.72 0.20

0.00 —

0.00 0.01

0.00 —

0.17 0.05

0.00 —

0.17 0.06

0.00 —
—
—
—
—
814
691

0.00 —
814
691

0.00 —

0.03 0.01

0.00 —

0.03 0.09

0.00 —

2.82 1.90

0.00 —
826
721

0.00 Daily, —
Winter
(Max)
Worker
Vendor
Hauling

0.22 0.02

0.00 —

0.31 0.78

0.00 —

2.97 0.33

0.00 —

0.00 0.01

0.00 —

0.00 0.01

0.00 —

0.72 0.19

0.00 —

0.72 0.20

0.00 —

0.00 0.01

0.00 —

0.17 0.05

0.00 —

0.17 0.06

0.00 —
—
—
—
—
693
692

0.00 —
693
692

0.00 —

0.03 0.01

0.00 —

0.03 0.09

0.00 —

0.07 0.05

0.00 —
702
720

0.00 Average —
Daily
Worker
Vendor
Hauling
Annual
Worker
Vendor
Hauling

0.05 0.01

0.00 —

0.07 0.18

0.00 —

0.88 0.08

0.00 —

0.00 0.00 0.17

0.04 0.00
—

0.17 0.05

0.00 —

0.00 0.04

0.01 0.00
—

0.04 0.01

0.00 —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
175
164

0.00 —
175
164

0.00 —

0.01 0.01 0.29

0.19 0.00
—
178
171

0.00 —
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 0.02

0.00 — — — — —

0.01 < 0.005

0.00 0.01

0.03 0.00

0.16 0.01

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03

0.01 0.00

0.03 0.01

0.00 0.00 0.01
< 0.005

0.00 0.01
< 0.005

0.00 29.0

27.1 0.00

29.0 27.1

0.00 < 0.005
< 0.005

0.00 0.05

0.03 0.00

29.4 28.2

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 3.8. Building Construction (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx
—
CO
—
SO2
—
PM10E
—
PM10D
—
PM10T
—
PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2
—
NBCO2
—
CO2T
—
CH4
—
N2O
—
R CO2e
Onsite — —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
28 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Off-Road 1.13
Equipment

10.4 0.00
—

13.0 0.00
—

0.02 0.00
—

0.43 0.00
—
— 0.43

0.00 —

0.40 0.00
—
— 0.40

0.00 —
—
—
—
2,398

0.00 —
2,398

0.00 —

0.10 0.00
—

0.02 0.00
—
— 2,406

0.00 —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00
—

0.00 —

0.00 Daily, —
Winter
(Max)
—
Off-Road 1.13
Equipment

10.4 0.00
—

13.0 0.00
—

0.02 0.00
—

0.43 0.00
—
— 0.43

0.00 —

0.40 0.00
—
— 0.40

0.00 —
—
—
—
—
—
2,398

0.00 —
2,398

0.00 —

0.10 0.00
—

0.02 0.00
—
— 2,406

0.00 —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00
—

0.00 —

0.00 Average —
Daily
—
Off-Road 0.27
Equipment

2.47 0.00

3.09 0.00

0.01 0.00

0.10 0.00
— 0.10

0.00 0.09

0.00 — 0.09

0.00 568

0.00 0.02

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 — 570
Onsite 0.00
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — —
—
— — —
—
— —
—
— — — — —
—
—
Off-Road 0.05
Equipment

0.45 0.56 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 94.0 94.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 94.3 Onsite
truck

0.29 0.03

0.00 —

0.29 0.73

0.00 —

5.23 0.32

0.00 —

0.00 0.01

0.00 —

0.00 0.01

0.00 —

0.72 0.19

0.00 —

0.72 0.20

0.00 —

0.00 0.01

0.00 —

0.17 0.05

0.00 —

0.17 0.06

0.00 —
—
—
—
—
814
691

0.00 —
814
691

0.00 —

0.03 0.01

0.00 —

0.03 0.09

0.00 —

2.82 1.90

0.00 —
826
721

0.00 Daily, —
Winter
(Max)
Worker 0.22 0.31 2.97 0.00 0.00 0.72 0.72 0.00 0.17 0.17 — 693 693 0.03 0.03 0.07 702 29 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Vendor
Hauling

0.02 0.00
—

0.78 0.00
—

0.33 0.00
—

0.01 0.00
—

0.19 0.00
—

0.20 0.00
—

0.01 0.00
—

0.05 0.00
—

0.06 0.00
—
—
—
—
692

0.00 —
692

0.00 —

0.01 0.00
—

0.09 0.00
—

0.05 0.00
—
720

0.00 Average —
Daily
Worker
Vendor
Hauling
Annual
Worker
Vendor
Hauling

0.05 0.01

0.00 —

0.07 0.18

0.00 —

0.88 0.08

0.00 —

0.00 0.00 0.17

0.04 0.00
—

0.17 0.05

0.00 —

0.00 0.04

0.01 0.00
—

0.04 0.01

0.00 —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
175
164

0.00 —
175
164

0.00 —

0.01 0.01 0.29

0.19 0.00
—
178
171

0.00 —
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 0.02

0.00 — — — — —

0.01 < 0.005

0.00 0.01

0.03 0.00

0.16 0.01

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03

0.01 0.00

0.03 0.01

0.00 0.00 0.01
< 0.005

0.00 0.01
< 0.005

0.00 29.0

27.1 0.00

29.0 27.1

0.00 < 0.005
< 0.005

0.00 0.05

0.03 0.00

29.4 28.2

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 3.9. Paving (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 0.80
Equipment

7.45 9.98 0.01 0.35 — 0.35 0.32 — 0.32 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,517 Paving 0.63

0.00 — — — — — — — — — —
—
— — — — — —
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 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Average —
Daily
30 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Off-Road 0.04
Equipment

0.41 0.55 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 82.8 82.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 83.1 Paving 0.03

0.00 — — — — — — — — — —
—
— — — — — —
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 Annual — — — — — —
—
— — —
—
— —
—
— — — — —
—
—
Off-Road 0.01
Equipment

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

0.00 — — — — — — — — — —
—
— — — — — —
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 Offsite —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Daily, —
Summer
(Max)
Worker
Vendor
Hauling

0.08 0.00

0.00 —

0.08 0.00

0.00 —

1.43 0.00

0.00 —

0.00 0.00

0.00 —

0.00 0.00

0.00 —

0.20 0.00

0.00 —

0.20 0.00

0.00 —

0.00 0.00

0.00 —

0.05 0.00

0.00 —

0.05 0.00

0.00 —
—
—
—
—
223

0.00 0.00
—
223

0.00 0.00
—

0.01 0.00

0.00 —

0.01 0.00

0.00 —

0.77 0.00

0.00 —
226

0.00 0.00
Daily, —
Winter
(Max)
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker
Vendor
Hauling
Annual
Worker
Vendor
Hauling
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 0.06

0.00 0.00
—

0.00 0.00

0.00 —

0.00 0.00

0.00 —

0.01 0.00

0.00 —

0.01 0.00

0.00 —

0.00 0.00

0.00 —
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 —
—
—
—
—
—
—

11.1 0.00

0.00 —

11.1 0.00

0.00 —
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 0.02

0.00 0.00
—

11.2 0.00

0.00 —

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
— — — — — —
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 0.01

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
< 0.005

0.00 0.00

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 1.84

0.00 0.00

1.84 0.00

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 0.00

1.86 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
31 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023

3.10. Paving (2025) - Mitigated
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 0.80
Equipment

7.45 9.98 0.01 0.35 — 0.35 0.32 — 0.32 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,517 Paving 0.63

0.00 — — — — — — — — — —
—
— — — — — —
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 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—
—
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — —
—
— — —
—
— —
—
— — — — —
—
—
Off-Road 0.04
Equipment

0.41 0.55 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 82.8 82.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 83.1 Paving 0.03

0.00 — — — — — — — — — —
—
— — — — — —
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 Annual — — — — — —
—
— — —
—
— —
—
— — — — —
—
—
Off-Road 0.01
Equipment

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

0.00 — — — — — — — — — —
—
— — — — — —
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 Offsite —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Daily, —
Summer
(Max)
32 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Worker
Vendor
Hauling

0.08 0.00

0.00 —

0.08 0.00

0.00 —

1.43 0.00

0.00 —

0.00 0.00

0.00 —

0.00 0.00

0.00 —

0.20 0.00

0.00 —

0.20 0.00

0.00 —

0.00 0.00

0.00 —

0.05 0.00

0.00 —

0.05 0.00

0.00 —
—
—
—
—
223

0.00 0.00
—
223

0.00 0.00
—

0.01 0.00

0.00 —

0.01 0.00

0.00 —

0.77 0.00

0.00 —
226

0.00 0.00
Daily, —
Winter
(Max)
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker
Vendor
Hauling
Annual
Worker
Vendor
Hauling
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 0.06

0.00 0.00
—

0.00 0.00

0.00 —

0.00 0.00

0.00 —

0.01 0.00

0.00 —

0.01 0.00

0.00 —

0.00 0.00

0.00 —
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 —
—
—
—
—
—
—

11.1 0.00

0.00 —

11.1 0.00

0.00 —
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 0.02

0.00 0.00
—

11.2 0.00

0.00 —

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
— — — — — —
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 0.01

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
< 0.005

0.00 0.00

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 1.84

0.00 0.00

1.84 0.00

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 0.00

1.86 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.11. Architectural Coating (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location 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 0.13
Equipment

0.88 —

1.14 —
< 0.005
—

0.03 —
—
—

0.03 —

0.03 —
—
—

0.03 —
—
—
134
—
134
—

0.01 —
< 0.005
—
—
—
134
Architectu 56.2 —
ral
Coatings
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 33 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—
—
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — —
—
—
— — —
—
—
— —
—
—
— — — — —
—
—
—
Off-Road 0.01
Equipment

0.06 —

0.08 —
< 0.005
—
< 0.005
—
< 0.005
—
< 0.005
—
< 0.005
—

9.15 —

9.15 —
< 0.005
—
< 0.005
—

9.18 Architectu 3.85 —
ral
Coatings
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 < 0.005
Equipment

0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.51 1.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.52 Architectu 0.70
ral
Coatings
— — — — — — — — — —
—
— — — — — —
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
Vendor
Hauling

0.06 0.00

0.00 —

0.06 0.00

0.00 —

1.05 0.00

0.00 —

0.00 0.00

0.00 —

0.00 0.00

0.00 —

0.14 0.00

0.00 —

0.14 0.00

0.00 —

0.00 0.00

0.00 —

0.03 0.00

0.00 —

0.03 0.00

0.00 —
—
—
—
—
163

0.00 0.00
—
163

0.00 0.00
—

0.01 0.00

0.00 —

0.01 0.00

0.00 —

0.56 0.00

0.00 —
165

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 10.1 10.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 10.3 34 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Vendor
Hauling
Annual
Worker
Vendor
Hauling

0.00 0.00
—

0.00 0.00
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

0.00 0.00
—

0.00 0.00
—
< 0.005

0.00 0.00
< 0.005

0.00 0.00

0.01 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 0.00
< 0.005

0.00 0.00

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 0.00
< 0.005

0.00 0.00

1.68 0.00

0.00 1.68

0.00 0.00
< 0.005

0.00 0.00

1.70 0.00

0.00 3.12. Architectural Coating (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location 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 0.13
Equipment

0.88 —

1.14 —
< 0.005
—

0.03 —
—
—

0.03 —

0.03 —
—
—

0.03 —
—
—
134
—
134
—

0.01 —
< 0.005
—
—
—
134
Architectu 56.2 —
ral
Coatings
Onsite
truck

0.00 —

0.00 —
—
—

0.00 —

0.00 Daily, —
Winter
(Max)
Average
Daily
— — — — — —
—
—
— — —
—
—
— —
—
—
— — — — —
—
—
—
Off-Road 0.01
Equipment

0.06 —

0.08 —
< 0.005
—
< 0.005
—
< 0.005
—
< 0.005
—
< 0.005
—

9.15 —

9.15 —
< 0.005
—
< 0.005
—

9.18 Architectu 3.85 —
ral
Coatings
35 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 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 < 0.005
Equipment

0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.51 1.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.52 Architectu 0.70
ral
Coatings
— — — — — — — — — —
—
— — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.06 0.00

0.00 —

0.06 0.00

0.00 —

1.05 0.00

0.00 —

0.00 0.00

0.00 —

0.00 0.00

0.00 —

0.14 0.00

0.00 —

0.14 0.00

0.00 —

0.00 0.00

0.00 —

0.03 0.00

0.00 —

0.03 0.00

0.00 —
—
—
—
—
163

0.00 0.00
—
163

0.00 0.00
—

0.01 0.00

0.00 —

0.01 0.00

0.00 —

0.56 0.00

0.00 —
165

0.00 0.00
Daily, —
Winter
(Max)
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker
Vendor
Hauling
Annual
Worker
Vendor
Hauling
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 0.05

0.00 0.00
—

0.00 0.00

0.00 —

0.00 0.00

0.00 —

0.01 0.00

0.00 —

0.01 0.00

0.00 —

0.00 0.00

0.00 —
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 —
—
—
—
—
—
—

10.1 0.00

0.00 —

10.1 0.00

0.00 —
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 0.02

0.00 0.00
—

10.3 0.00

0.00 —

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
— — — — — —
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 0.01

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
< 0.005

0.00 0.00

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 1.68

0.00 0.00

1.68 0.00

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 0.00

1.70 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
36 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023

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.

4.1.2. Mitigated
Mobile source emissions results are presented in Sections 2.5. 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)
Unrefriger —
ated
— — — — — — — — — — 772 772 0.05 0.01 — 775
Warehou
se-No
Rail
Strip Mall — —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
159
360
159
360

0.01 0.02
< 0.005
< 0.005
—
—
159
Fast Food — 361
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 267 267 0.02 < 0.005 — 268
Total —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1,557
—
1,557
—

0.10 —

0.01 —
—
—
1,563
Daily, —
Winter
(Max)
37 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Unrefriger —
Warehouse-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — 772 772 0.05 0.01 — 775
Strip Mall — —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
159
360
159
360

0.01 0.02
< 0.005
< 0.005
—
—
159
Fast Food — 361
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 267 267 0.02 < 0.005 — 268
Total —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1,557
—
1,557
—

0.10 —

0.01 —
—
—
—
1,563
Annual —
Unrefriger —
ated
128 128 0.01 < 0.005 128
Warehou
se-No
Rail
Strip Mall — —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

26.3 59.6

26.3 59.6
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
—
—

26.4 Fast Food — 59.8
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
Parking
Lot
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

44.2 258

44.2 258
< 0.005

0.02 < 0.005
< 0.005
—
—

44.4 Total — 259

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx
—
CO
—
SO2
—
PM10E
—
PM10D
—
PM10T
—
PM2.5E
—
PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2
—
NBCO2
—
CO2T
—
CH4
—
N2O
—
R CO2e
Daily, — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
38 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Unrefriger —
ated
— — — — — — — — — — 772 772 0.05 0.01 — 775
Warehou
Rail
Strip Mall — —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
159
360
159
360

0.10 —

0.01 —
—
—
1,563
Daily, —
Winter
(Max)
Unrefriger —
ated
— — — — — — — — — — 772 772 0.05 0.01 — 775
Warehou
se-No
Rail
Strip Mall — —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
159
360
159
360

0.10 —

0.01 —
—
—
—
1,563
Annual —
Unrefriger —
ated
128 128 0.01 < 0.005 128
Warehou
se-No
Rail
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — 26.3 26.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 26.4 39 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Fast Food —
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — 59.6 59.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 59.8
Parking
Lot
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

44.2 258

44.2 258
< 0.005

0.02 < 0.005
< 0.005
—
—

44.4 Total — 259

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)
Unrefriger 0.16
ated

2.95 2.48 0.02 0.22 — 0.22 0.22 — 0.22 — 3,520 3,520 0.31 0.01 — 3,530 Warehou
se-No
Rail
Strip Mall < 0.005 0.07

0.65 0.06

0.54 < 0.005
< 0.005

0.01 0.05
—
—

0.01 0.05

0.01 0.05
—
—

84.7 771

0.01 0.07
< 0.005
< 0.005
—
—

85.0 Fast Food 0.04 773
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
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 0.20
—

3.67 —

3.08 —

0.02 —

0.28 —
—
—

0.28 —

0.28 —
—
—

0.28 —
—
—
4,376
—
4,376
—

0.39 —

0.01 —
—
—
4,388
Daily, —
Winter
(Max)
Unrefriger 0.16
ated

2.95 2.48 0.02 0.22 — 0.22 0.22 — 0.22 — 3,520 3,520 0.31 0.01 — 3,530 Warehou
se-No
Rail
40 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Strip Mall < 0.005 0.07

0.65 0.06

0.54 < 0.005
< 0.005

0.01 0.05
—
—

0.01 0.05

0.01 0.05
—
—

84.7 771

0.01 0.07
< 0.005
< 0.005
—
—

85.0 Fast Food 0.04 773
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
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 0.20
—

3.67 —

3.08 —

0.02 —

0.28 —
—
—
—

0.28 —

0.28 —
—
—
—

0.28 —
—
—
—
4,376
—
4,376
—

0.39 —

0.01 —
—
—
—
4,388
Annual —
Unrefriger 0.03
ated

0.54 0.45 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 583 583 0.05 < 0.005 584 Warehou
se-No
Rail
Strip Mall < 0.005 0.01

0.12 0.01

0.10 < 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.01 —
—
< 0.005

0.01 < 0.005

0.01 —
—
< 0.005

0.01 —
—

14.0 128

14.0 128
< 0.005

0.01 < 0.005
< 0.005
—
—

14.1 Fast Food 0.01 128
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00

0.67 0.00

0.56 0.00 0.00

0.05 —
—

0.00 0.05

0.00 0.05
—
—

0.00 724

0.00 0.06

0.00 —
—

0.00 Total 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 726

4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx
—
CO
—
SO2
—
PM10E
—
PM10D
—
PM10T
—
PM2.5E
—
PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2
—
NBCO2
—
CO2T
—
CH4
—
N2O
—
R CO2e
Daily, — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Unrefriger 0.16
ated

2.95 2.48 0.02 0.22 — 0.22 0.22 — 0.22 — 3,520 3,520 0.31 0.01 — 3,530 Warehou
se-No
Rail
41 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Strip Mall < 0.005 0.07

0.65 0.06

0.54 < 0.005
< 0.005

0.01 0.05
—
—

0.01 0.05

0.01 0.05
—
—

84.7 771

0.01 0.07
< 0.005
< 0.005
—
—

85.0 Fast Food 0.04 773
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
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 0.20
—

3.67 —

3.08 —

0.02 —

0.28 —
—
—

0.28 —

0.28 —
—
—

0.28 —
—
—
4,376
—
4,376
—

0.39 —

0.01 —
—
—
4,388
Daily, —
Winter
(Max)
Unrefriger 0.16
ated

2.95 2.48 0.02 0.22 — 0.22 0.22 — 0.22 — 3,520 3,520 0.31 0.01 — 3,530 Warehou
se-No
Rail
Strip Mall < 0.005 0.07

0.65 0.06

0.54 < 0.005
< 0.005

0.01 0.05
—
—

0.01 0.05

0.01 0.05
—
—

84.7 771

0.01 0.07
< 0.005
< 0.005
—
—

85.0 Fast Food 0.04 773
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
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 0.20
—

3.67 —

3.08 —

0.02 —

0.28 —
—
—
—

0.28 —

0.28 —
—
—
—

0.28 —
—
—
—
4,376
—
4,376
—

0.39 —

0.01 —
—
—
—
4,388
Annual —
Unrefriger 0.03
ated

0.54 0.45 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 583 583 0.05 < 0.005 584 Warehou
se-No
Rail
Strip Mall < 0.005 0.01

0.12 0.01

0.10 < 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.01 —
—
< 0.005

0.01 < 0.005

0.01 —
—
< 0.005

0.01 —
—

14.0 128

14.0 128
< 0.005

0.01 < 0.005
< 0.005
—
—

14.1 Fast Food 0.01 128
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
42 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.04

0.00 0.67

0.00 0.56

0.00 0.00

0.05 —
—

0.00 0.05

0.00 0.05
—
—

0.00 724

0.00 0.06

0.00 —
—

0.00 Total < 0.005 < 0.005 726

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)
—
—
—
—
— —
Consume 2.87
r
Products
— — — — —
—
—
— — — —
—
—
— — — — —
—
—
—
Architectu 0.35
ral
Coatings
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Landscap 0.95 0.05 5.79 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 23.8 23.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 23.9 e
Equipme
nt
Total 4.17
—

0.05 —

5.79 —
< 0.005
—

0.01 —
—
—

0.01 —

0.01 —
—
—

23.8 —

23.8 —
< 0.005
—
< 0.005
—
—
—

23.9 Daily, —
Winter
(Max)
Consume 2.87
r
Products
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Architectu 0.35
ral
Coatings
Total 3.22
43 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Annual — —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Consume 0.52 —
r
Products
Architectu 0.06
ral
Coatings
— — — — —
—
— — —
—
— —
—
— — — — —
—
—
Landscap 0.09 < 0.005 0.52 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.95 1.95 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.95 e
Equipme
nt
Total 0.67 < 0.005 0.52 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.95 1.95 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.95

4.3.2. Mitigated
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)
—
—
—
—
— —
Consume 2.87
r
Products
— — — — —
—
—
— — — —
—
—
— — — — —
—
—
—
Architectu 0.35
ral
Coatings
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Landscap 0.95 0.05 5.79 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 23.8 23.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 23.9 e
Equipme
nt
Total 4.17
—

0.05 —

5.79 —
< 0.005
—

0.01 —
—
—

0.01 —

0.01 —
—
—

23.8 —

23.8 —
< 0.005
—
< 0.005
—
—
—

23.9 Daily, —
Winter
(Max)
44 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Consume 2.87
r
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Architectu 0.35 —
ral
Coatings
Total 3.22
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Annual
Consume 0.52
r
Products
Architectu 0.06
ral
Coatings
— — — — —
—
— — —
—
— —
—
— — — — —
—
—
Landscap 0.09 < 0.005 0.52 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.95 1.95 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.95 e
Equipme
nt
Total 0.67 < 0.005 0.52 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.95 1.95 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.95

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)
Unrefriger —
ated
Warehou
se-No
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
— — 51.0

1.58 184 235 5.24

0.16 0.13 —
—
403
Rail
Strip Mall — — — 5.71 7.29 < 0.005 12.5
45 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Fast Food —
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

4.09 14.7 18.8 0.42 0.01 — 32.3
Parking
Lot
— 0.00 3.88 3.88 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.90
Total —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

56.7 —
208
—
265
—

5.82 —

0.14 —
—
—
452
Daily, —
Winter
(Max)
Unrefriger —
ated
— — — — — — — — — 51.0 184 235 5.24 0.13 — 403
Warehou
se-No
Rail
Strip Mall — —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

1.58 4.09

5.71 14.7

7.29 18.8

0.16 0.42
< 0.005

0.01 —
—

12.5 Fast Food — 32.3
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 3.88 3.88 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.90 Total —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

56.7 —
208
—
265
—

5.82 —

0.14 —
—
—
—
452
Annual —
Unrefriger —
ated

8.44 30.4 38.9 0.87 0.02 66.7
Warehou
se-No
Rail
Strip Mall — —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

0.26 0.68

0.94 2.44

1.21 3.12

0.03 0.07
< 0.005
< 0.005
—
—

2.07 Fast Food — 5.35
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.64 0.64 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.65 46 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Total — — — — — — — — — — 9.38 34.4 43.8 0.96 0.02 — 74.8

4.4.2. Mitigated
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)
Unrefriger —
ated
— — — — — — — — — 51.0 184 235 5.24 0.13 — 403
Warehou
se-No
Rail
Strip Mall — —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

1.58 4.09

5.71 14.7

7.29 18.8

0.16 0.42
< 0.005

0.01 —
—

12.5 Fast Food — 32.3
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 3.88 3.88 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.90 Total —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

56.7 —
208
—
265
—

5.82 —

1.58 4.09

5.71 14.7

7.29 18.8

0.16 0.42
< 0.005

0.01 —
—

12.5 Fast Food — 32.3
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
47 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 3.88 3.88 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.90 Total —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

56.7 —
208
—
265
—

5.82 —

0.14 —
—
—
—
452
Annual —
Unrefriger —
ated

8.44 30.4 38.9 0.87 0.02 66.7
Warehou
se-No
Rail
Strip Mall — —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

0.26 0.68

0.94 2.44

1.21 3.12

0.03 0.07
< 0.005
< 0.005
—
—

2.07 Fast Food — 5.35
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
Parking
Lot
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

0.00 9.38

0.64 34.4

0.64 43.8
< 0.005

0.96 < 0.005

0.02 —
—

0.65 Total — 74.8

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
Daily, — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Unrefriger —
ated
Warehou
se-No
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
— — 58.3

6.31 0.00

0.00 58.3

6.31 5.83

0.63 0.00

0.00 —
—
204
Rail
Strip Mall — — — 22.1
48 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Fast Food —
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

43.6 0.00 43.6 4.36 0.00 — 153
Parking
Lot
— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
108
—

0.00 —
108
—

10.8 —

0.00 —
—
—
379
Daily, —
Winter
(Max)
Unrefriger —
ated
— — — — — — — — — 58.3 0.00 58.3 5.83 0.00 — 204
Warehou
se-No
Rail
Strip Mall — —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

6.31 43.6

0.00 0.00

6.31 43.6

0.63 4.36

0.00 0.00
—
—

22.1 Fast Food — 153
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
108
—

0.00 —
108
—

10.8 —

0.00 —
—
—
—
379
Annual —
Unrefriger —
ated

9.65 0.00 9.65 0.96 0.00 33.8
Warehou
se-No
Rail
Strip Mall — —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

1.05 7.23

0.00 0.00

1.05 7.23

0.10 0.72

0.00 0.00
—
—

3.66 Fast Food — 25.3
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
49 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Total — — — — — — — — — — 17.9 0.00 17.9 1.79 0.00 — 62.7

4.5.2. Mitigated
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)
Unrefriger —
ated
— — — — — — — — — 58.3 0.00 58.3 5.83 0.00 — 204
Warehou
se-No
Rail
Strip Mall — —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

6.31 43.6

0.00 0.00

6.31 43.6

0.63 4.36

0.00 0.00
—
—

22.1 Fast Food — 153
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
108
—

0.00 —
108
—

10.8 —

6.31 43.6

0.00 0.00

6.31 43.6

0.63 4.36

0.00 0.00
—
—

22.1 Fast Food — 153
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
50 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
108
—

0.00 —
108
—

10.8 —

0.00 —
—
—
—
379
Annual —
Unrefriger —
ated

9.65 0.00 9.65 0.96 0.00 33.8
Warehou
se-No
Rail
Strip Mall — —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

1.05 7.23

0.00 0.00

1.05 7.23

0.10 0.72

0.00 0.00
—
—

3.66 Fast Food — 25.3
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
Parking
Lot
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

0.00 17.9

0.00 0.00

0.00 17.9

0.00 1.79

0.00 0.00
—
—

0.00 Total — 62.7

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx
—
CO
—
SO2
—
PM10E
—
PM10D
—
PM10T
—
PM2.5E
—
PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2
—
NBCO2
—
CO2T
—
CH4
—
N2O
—
R CO2e
Daily, — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Strip Mall — —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

0.07 11.0

0.07 Fast Food — 11.0
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
51 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Unrefriger —
ated
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.18 0.18
Warehou
Rail
Total —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

11.2 —

11.2 Daily, —
Winter
(Max)
Strip Mall — —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

0.07 11.0

0.07 Fast Food — 11.0
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
Unrefriger —
ated
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.18 0.18
Warehou
se-No
Rail
Total —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

11.2 —

11.2 Annual —
Strip Mall — 0.01

1.82 0.01
Fast Food — 1.82
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
Unrefriger —
ated
Warehou
se-No
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

0.03 1.86

0.03 1.86
Rail
Total —

4.6.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 52 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 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)
Strip Mall — —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

0.07 11.0

0.07 Fast Food — 11.0
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
Unrefriger —
ated
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.18 0.18
Warehou
se-No
Rail
Total —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

11.2 —

11.2 Daily, —
Winter
(Max)
Strip Mall — —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

0.07 11.0

11.2 —

11.2 Annual —
Strip Mall — 0.01

1.82 0.01
Fast Food — 1.82
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
53 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Unrefriger —
Warehouse-No
Rail
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

0.03 1.86

0.03 Total — 1.86

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 ROG
nt
Type
NOx
—
CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 —
CO2T
—
CH4
—
N2O
—
R CO2e
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Total —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Daily, —
Winter
(Max)
Total —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Annual
Total

4.7.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme ROG
nt
Type
NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 —
CO2T
—
CH4
—
N2O
—
R CO2e
Daily, —
Summer
(Max)
—
—
— — — — — — —
—
—
—
—
—
— —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — —
54 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Annual
Total

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

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

4.8.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e nt
Type
55 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 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 ROG
nt
Type
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

4.9.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 56 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Equipme ROG
Type
NOx
—
CO
—
SO2
—
PM10E
—
PM10D
—
PM10T
—
PM2.5E
—
PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2
—
NBCO2
—
CO2T
—
CH4
—
N2O
—
R CO2e
Daily, — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Total —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Daily, —
Winter
(Max)
Total —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Annual
Total

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio ROG
n
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 57 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 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

4.10.3. 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
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Sequeste — —
red
Subtotal — —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Removed —
Subtotal
—
—
—
Daily, —
Winter
(Max)
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
58 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Subtotal — —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Sequeste — —
red
Subtotal — —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Removed —
Subtotal
—
—
—
—
—
—
Annual
Avoided
Subtotal
Sequeste —
red
Subtotal — —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Removed —
Subtotal
—
—
—

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio ROG
n
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 —
59 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

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

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 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
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Sequeste — —
red
Subtotal — —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Removed —
Subtotal
—
—
—
60 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided
Subtotal
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Sequeste — —
red
Subtotal — —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Removed —
Subtotal
—
—
—
—
—
—
Annual
Avoided
Subtotal
Sequeste —
red
Subtotal — —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Removed —
Subtotal
—
—
—

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type
Site Preparation
Grading
Start Date End Date
5/14/2024
6/12/2024
5/1/2025
Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description
Site Preparation
Grading
4/17/2024
5/15/2024
6/13/2024

5.00 5.00

5.00 20.0

20.0 230
—
—
Building Construction Building Construction —
61 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Paving Paving 5/2/2025 5/30/2025
7/5/2025

5.00 5.00

20.0 25.0
—
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 5/31/2025 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type
Diesel
Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day

8.00 Horsepower
367
Load Factor
Site Preparation 0.40
Site Preparation
Rubber Tired Dozers Average
Average

2.00 Tractors/Loaders/Backh Diesel 2.00
oes

8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading
Grading
Grading
Grading
Excavators Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Average
Average
Average
Average

1.00 1.00

1.00 3.00

8.00 8.00

36.0 148
367

84.0 0.38

0.41 0.40

0.37 Graders
Rubber Tired Dozers
Tractors/Loaders/Backh Diesel
oes
Building Construction
Building Construction
Building Construction
Building Construction
Cranes Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Average
Average
Average
Average

1.00 3.00

7.00 8.00

8.00 7.00
367 0.29

0.20 0.74

0.37 Forklifts 82.0

14.0 84.0
Generator Sets
Tractors/Loaders/Backh Diesel
oes
Building Construction
Paving
Welders Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average

1.00 2.00

2.00 2.00

1.00 8.00

8.00 8.00

8.00 6.00

46.0 81.0

89.0 36.0

37.0 0.45

0.42 0.36

0.38 0.48
Pavers
Paving Paving Equipment
Paving Rollers
Architectural Coating Air Compressors

5.2.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor 62 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Site Preparation
Site Preparation
Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average
Average

2.00 2.00

8.00 8.00
367 0.40
Tractors/Loaders/Backh Diesel 0.37
oes

84.0 Grading
Grading
Grading
Grading
Excavators Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Average
Average
Average
Average

1.00 1.00

1.00 3.00

8.00 8.00

36.0 148
367

84.0 0.38

0.41 0.40

1.00 3.00

7.00 8.00

8.00 7.00
367 0.29

0.20 0.74

0.37 Forklifts 82.0

14.0 84.0
Generator Sets
Tractors/Loaders/Backh Diesel
oes
Building Construction
Paving
Welders Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average

1.00 2.00

2.00 2.00

1.00 8.00

8.00 8.00

8.00 6.00

46.0 81.0

89.0 36.0

37.0 0.45

0.42 0.36

0.38 0.48
Pavers
Paving Paving Equipment
Paving Rollers
Architectural Coating Air Compressors

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
Site Preparation
Site Preparation
Site Preparation
— —
Worker
Vendor
Hauling

10.0 —

18.5 10.2

20.0 —
LDA,LDT1,LDT2

HHDT,MHDT

0.00 HHDT
Onsite truck — HHDT
63 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Grading — — — —
Grading Worker
Vendor
Hauling
Onsite truck
—

15.0 —

18.5 10.2

20.0 —
LDA,LDT1,LDT2

HHDT,MHDT
HHDT
Grading
Grading 31.3
Grading — HHDT
Building Construction
Building Construction
Building Construction
Building Construction
Building Construction
Paving
— — —
Worker
Vendor
Hauling
Onsite truck
—

54.8 21.8

0.00 —

18.5 10.2

20.0 —
LDA,LDT1,LDT2

HHDT,MHDT
HHDT
HHDT
— — —
Paving Worker
Vendor
Hauling
Onsite truck
—

15.0 —

18.5 10.2

20.0 —
LDA,LDT1,LDT2

HHDT,MHDT
HHDT
Paving
Paving 0.00
Paving — HHDT
Architectural Coating
Architectural Coating
Architectural Coating
Architectural Coating
Architectural Coating
— — —
Worker
Vendor
Hauling
Onsite truck

11.0 —

18.5 10.2

20.0 —
LDA,LDT1,LDT2

HHDT,MHDT

0.00 HHDT
— HHDT

5.3.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Trip Type
—
One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix
Site Preparation —
Site Preparation
Site Preparation
Site Preparation
— —
Worker
Vendor
Hauling

10.0 —

18.5 10.2

20.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2

HHDT,MHDT

0.00 HHDT
64 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Site Preparation
Grading
Onsite truck
—
— — HHDT
— — —
Grading Worker
Vendor
Hauling
Onsite truck
—

15.0 —

18.5 10.2

20.0 —
LDA,LDT1,LDT2

54.8 21.8

0.00 —

18.5 10.2

20.0 —
LDA,LDT1,LDT2

HHDT,MHDT
HHDT
HHDT
— — —
Paving Worker
Vendor
Hauling
Onsite truck
—

15.0 —

18.5 10.2

20.0 —
LDA,LDT1,LDT2

11.0 —

18.5 10.2

20.0 —
LDA,LDT1,LDT2

HHDT,MHDT

0.00 HHDT
— HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.5. Architectural Coatings
65 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated Residential Exterior Area Coated Non-Residential Interior Area Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
13,301
(sq ft) (sq ft) Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 0.00 0.00 217,206 72,402

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name
Site Preparation
Grading
Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) — — 20.0

40.0 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 —
— 5,000

0.00 —
Paving 0.00 4.80

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 0%
Strip Mall

0.00 0.00

0.00 4.80
0%
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru
Parking Lot
0%
100%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year
2024
2025
kWh per Year

0.00 CO2
532
532
CH4 N2O

0.03 0.03
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005
66 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday
1,696
Trips/Saturday
1,696
Trips/Sunday
1,696
Trips/Year
619,040
VMT/Weekday
13,089
VMT/Saturday
13,089
VMT/Sunday
13,089
VMT/Year
Total all Land Uses 4,777,449

5.9.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday
1,696
Trips/Saturday
1,696
Trips/Sunday
1,696
Trips/Year
619,040
VMT/Weekday
13,089
VMT/Saturday
13,089
VMT/Sunday
13,089
VMT/Year
Total all Land Uses 4,777,449

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.1.2. Mitigated

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 Parking Area Coated (sq ft) (sq ft)
0 0.00 199,865 66,622 12,545

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value

0.00 180
Snow Days
Summer Days
day/yr
day/yr
67 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
Season Unit Value

0.00 180
Snow Days
Summer Days
day/yr
day/yr

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)
529,519
CO2
532
CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr)
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No 2,196,632
Rail

0.0330 0.0040
Strip Mall 108,894 532
532

0.0330

0.0040

0.0040
66,086
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive 246,858
Thru
801,834
Parking Lot 183,161 532 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.11.2. Mitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr)
529,519
CO2
532
CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr)
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No 2,196,632
Rail

0.0330 0.0040
Strip Mall 108,894 532
532

0.0330

0.0040

0.0040
66,086
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive 246,858
Thru
801,834
Parking Lot 183,161 532 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
68 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year)
26,606,238
826,575
Outdoor Water (gal/year)
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail
Strip Mall

0.00 0.00
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru
Parking Lot
2,133,842 0.00

0.00 827,789

5.12.2. Mitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year)
26,606,238
826,575
Outdoor Water (gal/year)
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail
Strip Mall

0.00 0.00
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru
Parking Lot
2,133,842 0.00

0.00 827,789

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail
Strip Mall
108 —
—
—
—

11.7 81.0

0.00 Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru
Parking Lot

5.13.2. Mitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year)
108
Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail —
69 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Strip Mall 11.7

81.0 0.00
—
—
—
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru
Parking Lot

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type
Strip Mall
Equipment Type Refrigerant
R-410A
GWP
2,088
Quantity (kg)
< 0.005
Operations Leak Rate

4.00 Service Leak Rate

4.00 Times Serviced
Other commercial A/C 18.0
and heat pumps
Strip Mall
Strip Mall
Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a
R-404A
1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
3,922
1,430
2,088
3,922
2,088
< 0.005

0.00 7.50

0.60 4.00

7.50 4.00

7.50 0.00

4.00 7.50

4.00 20.0

1.00 18.0

20.0 18.0
Fast Food Restaurant
with Drive Thru
Household refrigerators R-134a
and/or freezers
Fast Food Restaurant
with Drive Thru
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A
R-404A
R-410A

1.80 Fast Food Restaurant
with Drive Thru
Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
< 0.005
Unrefrigerated < 0.005
Warehouse-No Rail
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps

5.14.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type
Strip Mall
Equipment Type Refrigerant
R-410A
GWP
2,088
Quantity (kg)
< 0.005
Operations Leak Rate

4.00 Service Leak Rate

4.00 Times Serviced
Other commercial A/C 18.0
and heat pumps
Strip Mall Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
70 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Strip Mall Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922
1,430
2,088
3,922
2,088
< 0.005

0.00 7.50

0.60 4.00

7.50 4.00

7.50 0.00

4.00 7.50

4.00 20.0

1.00 18.0

20.0 18.0
Fast Food Restaurant
with Drive Thru
Household refrigerators R-134a
and/or freezers
Fast Food Restaurant
with Drive Thru
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A
R-404A
R-410A

1.80 Fast Food Restaurant
with Drive Thru
Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
< 0.005
Unrefrigerated < 0.005
Warehouse-No Rail
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

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

5.15.2. Mitigated
Equipment Type Number per Day

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
71 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Equipment Type
—
Fuel Type
—

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

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

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
Final Acres

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year) 72 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023

5.18.2.2. Mitigated
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
Extreme Precipitation
Sea Level Rise

20.5 0.90

0.00 0.90
annual days of extreme heat
annual days with precipitation above 20 mm
meters of inundation depth
Wildfire annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (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
Extreme Precipitation
Sea Level Rise
1 0 0 N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Wildfire N/A
73 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Flooding N/A
0 N/A
0 N/A
0 N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Drought
Snowpack Reduction
Air Quality Degradation
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest 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
Temperature and Extreme Heat
Extreme Precipitation
Sea Level Rise
Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score 1 1 1 2
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1 N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1 N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1 N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2 Wildfire
Flooding
Drought
Snowpack Reduction
Air Quality Degradation
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

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
74 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023

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
—

88.7 6.42

23.3 45.4

3.36 0.00

2.28 54.3
—
AQ-PM
AQ-DPM
Drinking Water
Lead Risk Housing
Pesticides
Toxic Releases
Traffic
Effect Indicators
CleanUp Sites
Groundwater

0.00 2.11

7.35 0.00

52.9 —
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators
Impaired Water Bodies
Solid Waste
Sensitive Population
Asthma 43.8

62.4 3.57
—
Cardio-vascular
Low Birth Weights
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators
Education 51.0

37.5 61.5

50.0 Housing
Linguistic
Poverty
75 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Unemployment 37.7

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
Employed

59.36096497

95.85525472

46.91389709
—
Median HI
Education
Bachelor's or higher
High school enrollment
Preschool enrollment
Transportation
Auto Access

61.85037854
100

32.38804055
—

53.75336841

19.15821891
—
Active commuting
Social
2-parent households
Voting

45.32272552

33.11946619
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability
Park access

73.47619659

29.10304119

42.35852688

61.22160914

1.360195047
—
Retail density
Supermarket access
Tree canopy
Housing
Homeownership 67.59912742
76 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Housing habitability 42.70499166
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden
Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden
Uncrowded housing
Health Outcomes

8.879763891

54.20248941

81.14974978
—
Insured adults 36.50712178
Arthritis 0.0
Asthma ER Admissions
High Blood Pressure
Cancer (excluding skin)
Asthma

53.3 0.0

0.0 0.0
Coronary Heart Disease
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Diagnosed Diabetes
Life Expectancy at Birth
Cognitively Disabled
Physically Disabled
Heart Attack ER Admissions
Mental Health Not Good
Chronic Kidney Disease
Obesity

0.0 0.0

0.0 32.9

74.6 38.4

34.7 0.0

0.0 0.0
Pedestrian Injuries 19.6
Physical Health Not Good 0.0
Stroke 0.0
Health Risk Behaviors
Binge Drinking
—

0.0 Current Smoker 0.0
77 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 No Leisure Time for Physical Activity
Climate Change Exposures
Wildfire Risk

0.0 —

0.0 SLR Inundation Area
Children

0.0 89.4

50.2 74.2

36.8 62.3
—
Elderly
English Speaking
Foreign-born
Outdoor Workers
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity
Impervious Surface Cover
Traffic Density

54.4 19.9

23.0 —
Traffic Access
Other Indices
Hardship 25.0
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 55.9

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 18.0

56.0 No
Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b)
Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No
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. 78 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023

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
Construction: Construction Phases
Operations: Vehicle Data
Construction: Off-Road Equipment
Operations: Refrigerants
No demolition required
Approx. 3,743 trips per day per IEG traffic assessment. All trips applied to fast-food for simplicity.

Adjusted per construction timeline
A/C added for self-storage unit
79 / 79
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Site Preparation (2024) - Unmitigated

3.2. Site Preparation (2024) - Mitigated
1 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023

3.3. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated

3.4. Grading (2024) - Mitigated

3.5. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated

3.6. Building Construction (2024) - Mitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated

3.8. Building Construction (2025) - Mitigated

3.9. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated

3.10. Paving (2025) - Mitigated

3.11. Architectural Coating (2025) - Unmitigated

3.12. Architectural Coating (2025) - Mitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.1.2. Mitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
2 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.3.2. Mitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.4.2. Mitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.5.2. Mitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.6.2. Mitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.7.2. Mitigated
3 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.8.2. Mitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.9.2. Mitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

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

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated

4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
4 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023

5.2.2. Mitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.3.2. Mitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.9.2. Mitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths
5 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.1.2. Mitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.11.2. Mitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.12.2. Mitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.13.2. Mitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.14.2. Mitigated
6 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.15.2. Mitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2.2. Mitigated
7 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data
8 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023

1. Basic Project Information

3.30 10.0

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq Special Landscape Population Description ft) Area (sq ft)
9 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
115 1000sqft
1000sqft
Acre

2.64 1.26

4.80 115,054
54,725

0.00 0.00 —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Regional Shopping
Center

54.7 4.80

0.00 Parking Lot 44,112

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title
Construction
Construction
C-10-A
C-11
Water Exposed Surfaces
Limit Vehicle Speeds on Unpaved Roads

2. Emissions Summary

Mit.

56.4 56.4
—

23.2 23.2
—

21.7 21.7
—

0.04 0.04
—

1.03 1.03
—

13.2 5.24
60%

14.3 6.27
56%

0.95 0.95
—

6.77 2.66
61%

7.71 3.61
53%
—
—
—
5,357
5,357
—
5,357
5,357
—

0.15 0.15
—

0.37 0.37
—

6.16 6.16
—
5,477
5,477
% —
Reduced
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit.

Mit.

1.50 1.50

12.7 12.7

17.4 17.4

0.03 0.03

0.51 0.51

1.10 1.10

1.61 1.61

0.47 0.47

0.27 0.27

0.74 0.74
—
—
4,144
4,144
4,144
4,144

0.15 0.15

0.18 0.18

0.16 0.16
4,200
4,200
10 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 % —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Reduced
Average
Daily
(Max)
Unmit.

Mit.

4.28 4.28
—

7.41 7.41
—

9.56 9.56
—

0.02 0.02
—

0.31 0.31
—

1.59 0.91
43%

1.89 1.22
36%

0.28 0.28
—

0.67 0.33
50%

0.96 0.62
36%
—
—
—
2,144
2,144
—
2,144
2,144
—

0.07 0.07
—

0.09 0.09
—

1.19 1.19
—
2,174
2,174
% —
Reduced
Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit.

Mit.

0.78 0.78
—

1.35 1.35
—

1.75 1.75
—
< 0.005
< 0.005
—

0.06 0.06
—

0.29 0.17
43%

0.35 0.22
36%

0.05 0.05
—

0.12 0.06
50%

0.17 0.11
36%
—
—
—
355
355
—
355
355
—

0.01 0.01
—

0.02 0.02
—

0.20 0.20
—
360
360
% —
Reduced

2.41 56.4
—

23.2 11.7
—

21.7 19.7
—

0.04 0.03
—

1.03 0.44
—

13.2 1.10
—

14.3 1.54
—

0.95 0.41
—

6.77 0.27
—

7.71 0.68
—
—
—
—
5,357
4,256
—
5,357
4,256
—

0.15 0.15
—

0.37 0.17
—

6.16 5.81
—
5,477
4,316
Daily - —
Winter
(Max)
2024
2025

1.50 1.42
—

12.7 11.8
—

17.4 17.0
—

0.03 0.03
—

0.51 0.44
—

1.10 1.10
—

1.61 1.54
—

0.47 0.41
—

0.27 0.27
—

0.74 0.68
—
—
—
—
4,144
4,111
—
4,144
4,111
—

0.15 0.15
—

0.18 0.17
—

0.16 0.15
—
4,200
4,166
Average —
Daily
11 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 2024
2025
Annual
2024
2025

0.86 4.28
—

7.41 3.26
—

9.56 4.99
—

0.02 0.31

0.13 —

1.59 0.28
—

1.89 0.41
—

0.28 0.12
—

0.67 0.07
—

0.96 0.18
—
—
—
—
—
—
2,144
1,102
—
2,144
1,102
—

0.07 0.04
—

0.09 0.04
—

1.19 0.63
—
2,174
1,116
—

0.01 —

0.16 0.78

1.35 0.60

1.75 0.91
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.06 0.02

0.29 0.05

0.35 0.07

0.05 0.02

0.12 0.01

0.17 0.03
355 355 0.01

0.01 0.02

0.01 0.20

0.10 360
182 182 185

2.41 56.4
—

23.2 11.7
—

21.7 19.7
—

0.04 0.03
—

1.03 0.44
—

5.24 1.10
—

6.27 1.54
—

0.95 0.41
—

2.66 0.27
—

3.61 0.68
—
—
—
—
5,357
4,256
—
5,357
4,256
—

0.15 0.15
—

0.37 0.17
—

6.16 5.81
—
5,477
4,316
Daily - —
Winter
(Max)
2024
2025

1.50 1.42
—

12.7 11.8
—

17.4 17.0
—

0.03 0.03
—

0.51 0.44
—

1.10 1.10
—

1.61 1.54
—

0.47 0.41
—

0.27 0.27
—

0.74 0.68
—
—
—
—
4,144
4,111
—
4,144
4,111
—

0.15 0.15
—

0.18 0.17
—

0.16 0.15
—
4,200
4,166
Average —
Daily
2024
2025
Annual
2024
2025

0.86 4.28
—

7.41 3.26
—

9.56 4.99
—

0.02 0.31

0.13 —

0.91 0.28
—

1.22 0.41
—

0.28 0.12
—

0.33 0.07
—

0.62 0.18
—
—
—
—
—
—
2,144
1,102
—
2,144
1,102
—

0.07 0.04
—

0.09 0.04
—

1.19 0.63
—
2,174
1,116
—

0.01 —

0.16 0.78

1.35 0.60

1.75 0.91
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.06 0.02

0.17 0.05

0.22 0.07

0.05 0.02

0.06 0.01

0.11 0.03
355 355 0.01

0.01 0.02

0.01 0.20

0.10 360
182 182 185

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) 12 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 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. 19.3
—

12.3 —
120
—

0.25 —

0.24 —

19.3 —

19.6 —

0.23 —

4.90 —

5.13 —
148
—
27,627
—
27,775
—

16.2 —

1.33 —

82.8 —
28,657
Daily, —
Winter
(Max)
Unmit. 15.1
—

13.2 —

79.2 —

0.22 —

0.23 —

19.3 —

19.5 —

0.22 —

4.90 —

5.12 —
148
—
24,852
—
25,000
—

16.2 —

1.36 —

2.58 —
25,814
Average —
Daily
(Max)
Unmit. 16.5
—

12.7 —

91.9 —

0.23 —

19.2 —

19.4 —

0.22 —

4.87 —

5.09 —
148
—
25,946
—
26,094
—

16.2 —

1.33 —

36.0 —
26,931
Annual —
(Max)
Unmit. 3.02 2.32 16.8 0.04 0.04 3.50 3.55 0.04 0.89 0.93 24.5 4,296 4,320 2.68 0.22 5.96 4,459

14.0 5.31

0.04 —

11.6 0.06

0.68 —
112

7.38 0.57
—

0.24 < 0.005
< 0.005
—

0.18 0.01

0.05 —

19.3 —

19.5 0.01

0.05 —

0.16 0.01

0.05 —

4.90 —

5.06 0.01

0.05 —
— 24,756

30.4 24,756

30.4 1.03
< 0.005

0.18 6.04

8.92 —

1.17 < 0.005

0.02 0.14

0.00 —

82.3 —
25,212
— 30.5
Energy
Water
Waste
Refrig.

Total
— — — 2,625
216
2,625
274
— 2,634
— — 58.8 468

89.3 —
—
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 89.3 — 312
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.44

82.8 0.44

19.3 12.3 120 0.25 0.24 19.3 19.6 0.23 4.90 5.13 148 27,627 27,775 16.2 1.33 28,657 13 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile
Area

11.0 4.10

0.04 —

12.5 —

78.6 —

0.21 —

0.18 —

19.3 —

19.5 —

0.16 —

4.90 —

5.06 —
— 22,011
—
22,011
—

1.10 —

1.20 —

2.13 —
22,399
— —
Energy
Water
Waste
Refrig.

Total

0.68 —

0.57 —
< 0.005
—

0.05 —
— 0.05
—

0.05 —
— 0.05
—
— 2,625
216
2,625
274

0.18 6.04

8.92 —

0.02 0.14

0.00 —
— 2,634
— — 58.8 468

89.3 —
—
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00
—

89.3 —
— 312
— — — — — — — — — — 0.44

2.58 —

0.44 25,814
—

15.1 —

13.2 —

79.2 —

0.22 —

0.23 —

19.3 —

19.5 —

0.22 —

4.90 —

5.12 —
148
—
24,852
—
25,000
—

16.2 —

1.36 Average —
Daily
Mobile
Area

11.8 4.69

0.04 —

12.0 0.03

0.68 —

87.7 3.64

0.57 —

0.23 < 0.005
< 0.005
—

0.18 0.01

0.05 —

19.2 —

19.4 0.01

0.05 —

0.16 < 0.005

0.05 —

4.87 —

5.03 < 0.005

0.05 —
— 23,090

15.0 2,625
216
23,090

15.0 2,625
274

1.05 < 0.005

0.18 6.04

8.92 —

1.17 < 0.005

0.02 0.14

0.00 —

35.5 —
23,501

15.0 2,634
468
—
Energy
Water
Waste
Refrig.

Total
— — — —
— — 58.8

89.3 —
—
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00
—

89.3 —
— 312
— — — — — — — — — — 0.44

36.0 —

0.44 26,931
—

16.5 —

12.7 —

91.9 —

0.23 —

19.2 —

19.4 —

0.22 —

4.87 —

5.09 —
148
—
25,946
—
26,094
—

16.2 —

1.33 Annual —
Mobile
Area

2.16 0.86

0.01 —

2.19 0.01

0.12 —

16.0 0.66

0.10 —

0.04 < 0.005
< 0.005
—

0.03 < 0.005

0.01 —

3.50 —

3.54 < 0.005

0.01 —

0.03 < 0.005

0.01 —

0.89 —

0.92 < 0.005

0.01 —
— 3,823

2.48 435
3,823

2.48 435

0.17 < 0.005

0.03 1.00

1.48 —

0.19 < 0.005
< 0.005

0.02 0.00
—

5.89 —
3,891

2.49 436
—
Energy
Water
Waste
Refrig.

Total
— — — —
— — 9.73

14.8 —

35.7 0.00
—

45.4 14.8
—
— 77.6

51.7 0.07
4,459
— — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — 0.07

3.02 2.32 16.8 0.04 0.04 3.50 3.55 0.04 0.89 0.93 24.5 4,296 4,320 2.68 0.22 5.96 14 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023

14.0 5.31

0.04 —

11.6 0.06

0.68 —
112

7.38 0.57
—

0.24 < 0.005
< 0.005
—

0.18 0.01

0.05 —

19.3 —

19.5 0.01

0.05 —

0.16 0.01

0.05 —

4.90 —

5.06 0.01

0.05 —
— 24,756

30.4 2,625
216
24,756

30.4 2,625
274

1.03 < 0.005

0.18 6.04

8.92 —

1.17 < 0.005

0.02 0.14

0.00 —

82.3 —
25,212

30.5 2,634
468
—
Energy
Water
Waste
Refrig.

Total
— — — —
— — 58.8

89.3 —
—
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00
—

89.3 —
— 312
— — — — — — — — — — 0.44

82.8 —

0.44 28,657
—

19.3 —

12.3 —
120
—

0.25 —

0.24 —

19.3 —

19.6 —

0.23 —

4.90 —

5.13 —
148
—
27,627
—
27,775
—

16.2 —

1.33 Daily, —
Winter
(Max)
Mobile
Area

11.0 4.10

0.04 —

12.5 —

78.6 —

0.21 —

0.18 —

19.3 —

19.5 —

0.16 —

4.90 —

5.06 —
— 22,011
—
22,011
—

1.10 —

1.20 —

2.13 —
22,399
— —
Energy
Water
Waste
Refrig.

Total

0.68 —

0.57 —
< 0.005
—

0.05 —
— 0.05
—

0.05 —
— 0.05
—
— 2,625
216
2,625
274

0.18 6.04

8.92 —

0.02 0.14

0.00 —
— 2,634
— — 58.8 468

89.3 —
—
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00
—

89.3 —
— 312
— — — — — — — — — — 0.44

2.58 —

0.44 25,814
—

15.1 —

13.2 —

79.2 —

0.22 —

0.23 —

19.3 —

19.5 —

0.22 —

4.90 —

5.12 —
148
—
24,852
—
25,000
—

16.2 —

1.36 Average —
Daily
Mobile
Area

11.8 4.69

0.04 —

12.0 0.03

0.68 —

87.7 3.64

0.57 —

0.23 0.18

0.01 0.05
—

19.2 —

19.4 0.01

0.05 —

0.16 < 0.005

0.05 —

4.87 —

5.03 < 0.005

0.05 —
— 23,090

15.0 23,090

15.0 1.05 1.17 35.5
—
23,501
< 0.005 15.0
< 0.005
—
— < 0.005

0.18 < 0.005
Energy 0.02
Water
— — — 2,625
216
2,625
274
— 2,634
— — 58.8 6.04 0.14 — 468
15 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Waste
Refrig.

Total
— — — — — — — — — — 89.3
—

0.00 —

89.3 —

8.92 —

0.00 —
— 312
— — — — — — — — — — 0.44

36.0 —

0.44 26,931
—

16.5 —

12.7 —

91.9 —

0.23 —

19.2 —

19.4 —

0.22 —

4.87 —

5.09 —
148
—
25,946
—
26,094
—

16.2 —

1.33 Annual —
Mobile
Area

2.16 0.86

0.01 —

2.19 0.01

0.12 —

16.0 0.66

0.10 —

0.04 < 0.005
< 0.005
—

0.03 < 0.005

0.01 —

3.50 —

3.54 < 0.005

0.01 —

0.03 < 0.005

0.01 —

0.89 —

0.92 < 0.005

0.01 —
— 3,823

2.48 435
3,823

2.48 435

0.17 < 0.005

0.03 1.00

1.48 —

0.19 < 0.005
< 0.005

0.02 0.00
—

5.89 —
3,891

2.49 436
—
Energy
Water
Waste
Refrig.

Total
— — — —
— — 9.73

14.8 —

35.7 0.00
—

45.4 14.8
—
— 77.6

51.7 0.07
4,459
— — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — 0.07

3.02 2.32 16.8 0.04 0.04 3.50 3.55 0.04 0.89 0.93 24.5 4,296 4,320 2.68 0.22 5.96

3. Construction Emissions Details

23.2 —

20.7 —

0.03 —

1.03 —
— 1.03

13.1 0.95
—
— 0.95

6.73 —
—
3,337
—
3,337
—

0.14 —

0.03 —
—
—
3,348
Dust — 13.1 6.73 —
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—
—
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — —
—
—
— — — — —
—
—
—
Off-Road 0.13
Equipment

1.27 —

1.13 —
< 0.005
—

0.06 —
— 0.06

0.72 0.05
—
— 0.05

0.37 183
—
183
—

0.01 —
< 0.005
—
183
Dust — 0.72 0.37 —
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck

0.00 —

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — —
—
— — —
—
— —
—
— — — — —
—
—
Off-Road 0.02
Equipment

0.23 0.21 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 30.3 30.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 30.4 Dust — — — — — 0.13 0.13 — 0.07 0.07 — — — — — — —
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck

0.06 0.00

0.00 —

0.06 0.00

0.00 —

1.03 0.00

0.00 —

0.00 0.00

0.00 —

0.00 0.00

0.00 —

0.13 0.00

0.00 —

0.13 0.00

0.00 —

0.00 0.00

0.00 —

0.03 0.00

0.00 —

0.03 0.00

0.00 —
—
—
—
—
152

0.00 0.00
—
152

0.00 0.00
—

0.01 0.00

0.00 —
< 0.005

0.00 0.00
—

0.57 0.00

0.00 —
154

0.00 0.00
Daily, —
Winter
(Max)
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
17 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Worker
Vendor
Hauling
Annual
Worker
Vendor
Hauling
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 0.04

0.00 0.00
—

0.00 0.00

0.00 —

0.00 0.00

0.00 —

0.01 0.00

0.00 —

0.01 0.00

0.00 —

0.00 0.00

0.00 —
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 —
—
—
—
—
—
—

7.56 0.00

0.00 —

7.56 0.00

0.00 —
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 0.01

0.00 0.00
—

7.67 0.00

0.00 —

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
— — — — — —
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 0.01

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
< 0.005

0.00 0.00

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 1.25

0.00 0.00

1.25 0.00

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 0.00

1.27 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

23.2 —

20.7 —

0.03 —

1.03 —
— 1.03

5.11 0.95
—
— 0.95

2.63 —
—
3,337
—
3,337
—

0.14 —

0.03 —
—
—
3,348
Dust — 5.11 2.63 —
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck

0.00 —

0.00 —
—
—

0.00 —

0.00 Daily, —
Winter
(Max)
Average
Daily
— — — — — —
—
— — —
—
— —
—
— — — — —
—
—
Off-Road 0.13
Equipment

1.27 1.13 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 183 183 0.01 < 0.005 183 18 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.28

0.00 0.28

0.00 — 0.14

0.00 0.14

0.00 —
—
— — — — — —
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
Annual — — — — —
—
— — —
—
— —
—
— — — — —
—
—
Off-Road 0.02
Equipment

0.23 0.21 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 30.3 30.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 30.4 Dust — — — — — 0.05 0.05 — 0.03 0.03 — — — — — — —
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck

0.06 0.00

0.00 —

0.06 0.00

0.00 —

1.03 0.00

0.00 —

0.00 0.00

0.00 —

0.00 0.00

0.00 —

0.13 0.00

0.00 —

0.13 0.00

0.00 —

0.00 0.00

0.00 —

0.03 0.00

0.00 —

0.03 0.00

0.00 —
—
—
—
—
152

0.00 0.00
—
152

0.00 0.00
—

0.01 0.00

0.00 —
< 0.005

0.00 0.00
—

0.57 0.00

0.00 —
154

0.00 0.00
Daily, —
Winter
(Max)
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker
Vendor
Hauling
Annual
Worker
Vendor
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 0.04

0.00 0.00
—

0.00 0.00

0.00 —

0.00 0.00

0.00 —

0.01 0.00

0.00 —

0.01 0.00

0.00 —

0.00 0.00

0.00 —
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 —
—
—
—
—
—

7.56 0.00

0.00 —

7.56 0.00

0.00 —
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 0.01

0.00 0.00
—

7.67 0.00

0.00 —

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
— — — — — —
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 0.01

0.00 0.00

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 0.00

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 1.25

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 1.27

0.00 19 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 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

18.2 —

18.8 —

0.03 —

0.84 —
— 0.84

7.10 0.77
—
— 0.77

3.43 —
—
2,958
—
2,958
—

0.12 —

0.02 —
—
—
2,969
Dust — 7.10 3.43 —
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck

0.00 —

0.00 —
—
—

0.00 —

0.00 Daily, —
Winter
(Max)
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — —
—
—
— — — — —
—
—
—
Off-Road 0.10
Equipment

1.00 —

1.03 —
< 0.005
—

0.05 —
— 0.05

0.39 0.04
—
— 0.04

0.19 162
—
162
—

0.01 —
< 0.005
—
163
Dust — 0.39 0.19 —
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck

0.00 —

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — —
—
— — —
—
— —
—
— — — — —
—
—
Off-Road 0.02
Equipment

0.18 0.19 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 26.8 26.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 26.9 20 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.07

0.00 0.07

0.00 — 0.03

0.00 0.03

0.00 —
—
— — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.08 0.00

0.04 —

0.09 0.00

2.45 —

1.55 0.00

0.55 —

0.00 0.00

0.01 —

0.00 0.00

0.04 —

0.20 0.00

0.57 —

0.20 0.00

0.61 —

0.00 0.00

0.04 —

0.05 0.00

0.14 —

0.05 0.00

0.19 —
—
—
—
—
228

0.00 2,170
—
228

0.00 2,170
—

0.01 0.00

0.02 —

0.01 0.00

0.34 —

0.85 0.00

4.63 —
231

0.00 2,277
Daily, —
Winter
(Max)
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker
Vendor
Hauling
Annual
Worker
Vendor
Hauling
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 0.06

0.00 0.03
—

0.00 0.00 0.01

0.00 0.03
—

0.01 0.00

0.03 —

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 —
—
—
—
—
—
—

11.3 0.00
119
—

11.3 0.00
119
—
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 0.02

0.00 0.11
—

11.5 0.00
125
—

0.00 0.00 0.00
< 0.005
—

0.14 < 0.005
—
< 0.005
—
< 0.005
—

0.01 0.01 < 0.005
—

0.02 — — — —
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 0.01

0.00 0.00 < 0.005

0.00 0.01
< 0.005

0.00 0.01

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 1.88

0.00 19.7

1.88 0.00

19.7 < 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 0.02

1.90 0.00

20.6 0.00 0.00 0.00
< 0.005 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005

3.4. Grading (2024) - Mitigated
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 — — — — —
21 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Off-Road 1.90
Equipment

18.2 —

18.8 —

0.03 —

0.84 —
— 0.84

2.77 0.77
—
— 0.77

1.34 —
—
2,958
—
2,958
—

0.12 —

0.02 —
—
—
2,969
Dust — 2.77 1.34 —
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck

0.00 —

0.00 —
—
—

0.00 —

0.00 Daily, —
Winter
(Max)
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — —
—
—
— — — — —
—
—
—
Off-Road 0.10
Equipment

1.00 —

1.03 —
< 0.005
—

0.05 —
— 0.05

0.15 0.04
—
— 0.04

0.07 162
—
162
—

0.01 —
< 0.005
—
163
Dust — 0.15 0.07 —
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck

0.00 —

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — —
—
— — —
—
— —
—
— — — — —
—
—
Off-Road 0.02
Equipment

0.18 0.19 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 26.8 26.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 26.9 Dust — — — — — 0.03 0.03 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck

0.00 —

0.00 —
—
—

0.00 —

0.00 Offsite —
22 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Worker
Vendor
Hauling

0.08 0.00

0.04 —

0.09 0.00

2.45 —

1.55 0.00

0.55 —

0.00 0.00

0.01 —

0.00 0.00

0.04 —

0.20 0.00

0.57 —

0.20 0.00

0.61 —

0.00 0.00

0.04 —

0.05 0.00

0.14 —

0.05 0.00

0.19 —
—
—
—
—
228

0.00 2,170
—
228

0.00 2,170
—

0.01 0.00

0.02 —

0.01 0.00

0.34 —

0.85 0.00

4.63 —
231

0.00 2,277
Daily, —
Winter
(Max)
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker
Vendor
Hauling
Annual
Worker
Vendor
Hauling
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 0.06

0.00 0.03
—

0.00 0.00 0.01

0.00 0.03
—

0.01 0.00

0.03 —

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 —
—
—
—
—
—
—

11.3 0.00
119
—

11.3 0.00
119
—
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 0.02

0.00 0.11
—

11.5 0.00
125
—

0.00 0.00 0.00
< 0.005
—

0.14 < 0.005
—
< 0.005
—
< 0.005
—

0.01 0.01 < 0.005
—

0.02 — — — —
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 0.01

0.00 0.00 < 0.005

0.00 0.01
< 0.005

0.00 0.01

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 1.88

0.00 19.7

1.88 0.00

19.7 < 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 0.02

1.90 0.00

20.6 0.00 0.00 0.00
< 0.005 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005

11.2 0.00

13.1 0.00

0.02 0.00

0.50 0.00
— 0.50

0.00 0.46

0.00 — 0.46

0.00 —
—
2,398

0.00 2,398

0.00 0.10

0.00 0.02

0.00 — 2,406
Onsite 0.00
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
23 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road 1.20
Equipment

11.2 0.00
—

13.1 0.00
—

0.02 0.00
—

0.50 0.00
—
— 0.50

0.00 —

0.46 0.00
—
— 0.46

0.00 —
—
—
—
—
—
2,398

0.00 —
2,398

0.00 —

0.10 0.00
—

0.02 0.00
—
— 2,406

0.00 —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00
—

0.00 —

0.00 Average —
Daily
—
Off-Road 0.48
Equipment

4.44 0.00

5.18 0.00

0.01 0.00

0.20 0.00
— 0.20

0.00 0.18

0.00 — 0.18

0.00 948

0.00 0.04

0.00 0.01

0.00 — 951
Onsite 0.00
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — —
—
— — —
—
— —
—
— — — — —
—
—
Off-Road 0.09
Equipment

0.81 0.95 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 157 157 0.01 < 0.005 157 Onsite
truck

0.37 0.03

0.00 —

0.37 0.98

0.00 —

6.80 0.44

0.00 —

0.00 0.01

0.00 —

0.00 0.01

0.00 —

0.86 0.24

0.00 —

0.86 0.25

0.00 —

0.00 0.01

0.00 —

0.20 0.07

0.00 —

0.20 0.08

0.00 —
—
—
—
—
999
896

0.00 —
999
896

0.00 —

0.04 0.01

0.00 —

0.03 0.12

0.00 —

3.72 2.43

0.00 —
1,014
935

0.00 Daily, —
Winter
(Max)
Worker
Vendor
Hauling

0.27 0.03

0.00 —

0.40 1.05

0.00 —

3.88 0.45

0.00 —

0.00 0.01

0.00 —

0.00 0.01

0.00 —

0.86 0.24

0.00 —

0.86 0.25

0.00 —

0.00 0.01

0.00 —

0.20 0.07

0.00 —

0.20 0.08

0.00 —
—
—
—
—
850
896

0.00 —
850
896

0.00 —

0.04 0.01

0.00 —

0.03 0.12

0.00 —

0.10 0.06

0.00 —
861
934

0.00 Average —
Daily
24 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Worker
Vendor
Hauling
Annual
Worker
Vendor
Hauling

0.13 0.01

0.00 —

0.15 0.41

0.00 —

1.91 0.18

0.00 —

0.00 0.00 0.34

0.09 0.00
—

0.34 0.10

0.00 —

0.00 0.08

0.03 0.00
—

0.08 0.03

0.00 —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
359
354

0.00 —
359
354

0.00 —

0.02 0.01

0.05 0.00
—

0.64 0.41

0.00 —
364
369

0.00 —
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 — — — —

0.02 < 0.005

0.00 0.03

0.07 0.00

0.35 0.03

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06

0.02 0.00

0.06 0.02

0.00 0.00 0.01
< 0.005

0.00 0.01

0.01 0.00

59.5 58.6

0.00 59.5

58.6 0.00
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.01 0.00

0.11 0.07

0.00 60.3

61.1 0.00
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

11.2 0.00
—

13.1 0.00
—

0.02 0.00
—

0.50 0.00
—
— 0.50

0.00 —

0.46 0.00
—
— 0.46

0.00 —
—
—
—
2,398

0.00 —
2,398

0.00 —

0.10 0.00
—

0.02 0.00
—
— 2,406

0.00 —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00
—

0.00 —

0.00 Daily, —
Winter
(Max)
—
Off-Road 1.20
Equipment

11.2 0.00
—

13.1 0.00
—

0.02 0.00
—

0.50 0.00
—
— 0.50

0.00 —

0.46 0.00
—
— 0.46

0.00 —
—
—
—
—
2,398

0.00 —
2,398

0.00 —

0.10 0.00
—

0.02 0.00
—
— 2,406

0.00 —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00
—

0.00 —

0.00 Average —
Daily
—
Off-Road 0.48
Equipment

4.44 5.18 0.01 0.20 — 0.20 0.18 — 0.18 948 948 0.04 0.01 — 951 25 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 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 0.09
Equipment

0.81 0.95 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 157 157 0.01 < 0.005 157 Onsite
truck

0.37 0.03

0.00 —

0.37 0.98

0.00 —

6.80 0.44

0.00 —

0.00 0.01

0.00 —

0.00 0.01

0.00 —

0.86 0.24

0.00 —

0.86 0.25

0.00 —

0.00 0.01

0.00 —

0.20 0.07

0.00 —

0.20 0.08

0.00 —
—
—
—
—
999
896

0.00 —
999
896

0.00 —

0.04 0.01

0.00 —

0.03 0.12

0.00 —

3.72 2.43

0.00 —
1,014
935

0.00 Daily, —
Winter
(Max)
Worker
Vendor
Hauling

0.27 0.03

0.00 —

0.40 1.05

0.00 —

3.88 0.45

0.00 —

0.00 0.01

0.00 —

0.00 0.01

0.00 —

0.86 0.24

0.00 —

0.86 0.25

0.00 —

0.00 0.01

0.00 —

0.20 0.07

0.00 —

0.20 0.08

0.00 —
—
—
—
—
850
896

0.00 —
850
896

0.00 —

0.04 0.01

0.00 —

0.03 0.12

0.00 —

0.10 0.06

0.00 —
861
934

0.00 Average —
Daily
Worker
Vendor
Hauling
Annual
Worker
Vendor
Hauling

0.13 0.01

0.00 —

0.15 0.41

0.00 —

1.91 0.18

0.00 —

0.00 0.00 0.34

0.09 0.00
—

0.34 0.10

0.00 —

0.00 0.08

0.03 0.00
—

0.08 0.03

0.00 —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
359
354

0.00 —
359
354

0.00 —

0.02 0.01

0.05 0.00
—

0.64 0.41

0.00 —
364
369

0.00 —
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 — — — —

0.02 < 0.005

0.00 0.03

0.07 0.00

0.35 0.03

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06

0.02 0.00

0.06 0.02

0.00 0.00 0.01
< 0.005

0.00 0.01

0.01 0.00

59.5 58.6

0.00 59.5

58.6 0.00
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.01 0.00

0.11 0.07

0.00 60.3

61.1 0.00
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 26 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023

10.4 0.00
—

13.0 0.00
—

0.02 0.00
—

0.43 0.00
—
— 0.43

0.00 —

0.40 0.00
—
— 0.40

0.00 —
—
—
—
2,398

0.00 —
2,398

0.00 —

0.10 0.00
—

0.02 0.00
—
— 2,406

0.00 —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00
—

0.00 —

0.00 Daily, —
Winter
(Max)
—
Off-Road 1.13
Equipment

10.4 0.00
—

13.0 0.00
—

0.02 0.00
—

0.43 0.00
—
— 0.43

0.00 —

0.40 0.00
—
— 0.40

0.00 —
—
—
—
—
—
2,398

0.00 —
2,398

0.00 —

0.10 0.00
—

0.02 0.00
—
— 2,406

0.00 —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00
—

0.00 —

0.00 Average —
Daily
—
Off-Road 0.27
Equipment

2.47 0.00

3.09 0.00

0.01 0.00

0.10 0.00
— 0.10

0.00 0.09

0.00 — 0.09

0.00 568

0.00 0.02

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 — 570
Onsite 0.00
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — —
—
— — —
—
— —
—
— — — — —
—
—
Off-Road 0.05
Equipment

0.45 0.56 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 94.0 94.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 94.3 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00
—

0.00 —

0.00 —
—
—

0.00 —

0.00 Offsite — —
27 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Worker
Vendor
Hauling

0.35 0.03

0.00 —

0.34 0.93

0.00 —

6.28 0.41

0.00 —

0.00 0.01

0.00 —

0.00 0.01

0.00 —

0.86 0.24

0.00 —

0.86 0.25

0.00 —

0.00 0.01

0.00 —

0.20 0.07

0.00 —

0.20 0.08

0.00 —
—
—
—
—
978
881

0.00 —
978
881

0.00 —

0.04 0.01

0.00 —

0.03 0.12

0.00 —

3.38 2.42

0.00 —
992
919

0.00 Daily, —
Winter
(Max)
Worker
Vendor
Hauling

0.26 0.03

0.00 —

0.37 1.00

0.00 —

3.57 0.42

0.00 —

0.00 0.01

0.00 —

0.00 0.01

0.00 —

0.86 0.24

0.00 —

0.86 0.25

0.00 —

0.00 0.01

0.00 —

0.20 0.07

0.00 —

0.20 0.08

0.00 —
—
—
—
—
832
882

0.00 —
832
882

0.00 —

0.04 0.01

0.00 —

0.03 0.12

0.00 —

0.09 0.06

0.00 —
843
917

0.00 Average —
Daily
Worker
Vendor
Hauling
Annual
Worker
Vendor
Hauling

0.06 0.01

0.00 —

0.08 0.23

0.00 —

1.06 0.10

0.00 —

0.00 0.00 0.20

0.06 0.00
—

0.20 0.06

0.00 —

0.00 0.05

0.02 0.00
—

0.05 0.02

0.00 —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
211
209

0.00 —
211
209

0.00 —

0.01 0.01 0.35

0.25 0.00
—
213
217

0.00 —
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 0.03

0.00 — — — — —

0.01 < 0.005

0.00 0.01

0.04 0.00

0.19 0.02

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04

0.01 0.00

0.04 0.01

0.00 0.00 0.01
< 0.005

0.00 0.01
< 0.005

0.00 34.9

34.5 0.00

34.9 34.5

0.00 < 0.005
< 0.005

0.00 0.06

0.04 0.00

35.3 36.0

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 3.8. Building Construction (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx
—
CO
—
SO2
—
PM10E
—
PM10D
—
PM10T
—
PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2
—
NBCO2
—
CO2T
—
CH4
—
N2O
—
R CO2e
Onsite — —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
28 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Off-Road 1.13
Equipment

10.4 0.00
—

13.0 0.00
—

0.02 0.00
—

0.43 0.00
—
— 0.43

0.00 —

0.40 0.00
—
— 0.40

0.00 —
—
—
—
2,398

0.00 —
2,398

0.00 —

0.10 0.00
—

0.02 0.00
—
— 2,406

0.00 —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00
—

0.00 —

0.00 Daily, —
Winter
(Max)
—
Off-Road 1.13
Equipment

10.4 0.00
—

13.0 0.00
—

0.02 0.00
—

0.43 0.00
—
— 0.43

0.00 —

0.40 0.00
—
— 0.40

0.00 —
—
—
—
—
—
2,398

0.00 —
2,398

0.00 —

0.10 0.00
—

0.02 0.00
—
— 2,406

0.00 —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00
—

0.00 —

0.00 Average —
Daily
—
Off-Road 0.27
Equipment

2.47 0.00

3.09 0.00

0.01 0.00

0.10 0.00
— 0.10

0.00 0.09

0.00 — 0.09

0.00 568

0.00 0.02

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 — 570
Onsite 0.00
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — —
—
— — —
—
— —
—
— — — — —
—
—
Off-Road 0.05
Equipment

0.45 0.56 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 94.0 94.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 94.3 Onsite
truck

0.35 0.03

0.00 —

0.34 0.93

0.00 —

6.28 0.41

0.00 —

0.00 0.01

0.00 —

0.00 0.01

0.00 —

0.86 0.24

0.00 —

0.86 0.25

0.00 —

0.00 0.01

0.00 —

0.20 0.07

0.00 —

0.20 0.08

0.00 —
—
—
—
—
978
881

0.00 —
978
881

0.00 —

0.04 0.01

0.00 —

0.03 0.12

0.00 —

3.38 2.42

0.00 —
992
919

0.00 Daily, —
Winter
(Max)
Worker 0.26 0.37 3.57 0.00 0.00 0.86 0.86 0.00 0.20 0.20 — 832 832 0.04 0.03 0.09 843 29 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Vendor
Hauling

0.03 0.00
—

1.00 0.00
—

0.42 0.00
—

0.01 0.00
—

0.24 0.00
—

0.25 0.00
—

0.01 0.00
—

0.07 0.00
—

0.08 0.00
—
—
—
—
882

0.00 —
882

0.00 —

0.01 0.00
—

0.12 0.00
—

0.06 0.00
—
917

0.00 Average —
Daily
Worker
Vendor
Hauling
Annual
Worker
Vendor
Hauling

0.06 0.01

0.00 —

0.08 0.23

0.00 —

1.06 0.10

0.00 —

0.00 0.00 0.20

0.06 0.00
—

0.20 0.06

0.00 —

0.00 0.05

0.02 0.00
—

0.05 0.02

0.00 —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
211
209

0.00 —
211
209

0.00 —

0.01 0.01 0.35

0.25 0.00
—
213
217

0.00 —
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 0.03

0.00 — — — — —

0.01 < 0.005

0.00 0.01

0.04 0.00

0.19 0.02

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04

0.01 0.00

0.04 0.01

0.00 0.00 0.01
< 0.005

0.00 0.01
< 0.005

0.00 34.9

34.5 0.00

34.9 34.5

0.00 < 0.005
< 0.005

0.00 0.06

0.04 0.00

35.3 36.0

0.00 < 0.005

7.45 9.98 0.01 0.35 — 0.35 0.32 — 0.32 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,517 Paving 0.63

0.00 — — — — — — — — — —
—
— — — — — —
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 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Average —
Daily
30 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Off-Road 0.04
Equipment

0.41 0.55 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 82.8 82.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 83.1 Paving 0.03

0.00 — — — — — — — — — —
—
— — — — — —
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 Annual — — — — — —
—
— — —
—
— —
—
— — — — —
—
—
Off-Road 0.01
Equipment

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

0.00 — — — — — — — — — —
—
— — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.08 0.00

0.00 —

0.08 0.00

0.00 —

1.43 0.00

0.00 —

0.00 0.00

0.00 —

0.00 0.00

0.00 —

0.20 0.00

0.00 —

0.20 0.00

0.00 —

0.00 0.00

0.00 —

0.05 0.00

0.00 —

0.05 0.00

0.00 —
—
—
—
—
223

0.00 0.00
—
223

0.00 0.00
—

0.01 0.00

0.00 —

0.01 0.00

0.00 —

0.77 0.00

0.00 —
226

0.00 0.00
Daily, —
Winter
(Max)
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker
Vendor
Hauling
Annual
Worker
Vendor
Hauling
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 0.06

0.00 0.00
—

0.00 0.00

0.00 —

0.00 0.00

0.00 —

0.01 0.00

0.00 —

0.01 0.00

0.00 —

0.00 0.00

0.00 —
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 —
—
—
—
—
—
—

11.1 0.00

0.00 —

11.1 0.00

0.00 —
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 0.02

0.00 0.00
—

11.2 0.00

0.00 —

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
— — — — — —
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 0.01

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
< 0.005

0.00 0.00

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 1.84

0.00 0.00

1.84 0.00

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 0.00

1.86 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
31 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023

7.45 9.98 0.01 0.35 — 0.35 0.32 — 0.32 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,517 Paving 0.63

0.00 — — — — — — — — — —
—
— — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.41 0.55 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 82.8 82.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 83.1 Paving 0.03

0.00 — — — — — — — — — —
—
— — — — — —
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 Annual — — — — — —
—
— — —
—
— —
—
— — — — —
—
—
Off-Road 0.01
Equipment

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

0.00 — — — — — — — — — —
—
— — — — — —
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 Offsite —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Daily, —
Summer
(Max)
32 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Worker
Vendor
Hauling

0.08 0.00

0.00 —

0.08 0.00

0.00 —

1.43 0.00

0.00 —

0.00 0.00

0.00 —

0.00 0.00

0.00 —

0.20 0.00

0.00 —

0.20 0.00

0.00 —

0.00 0.00

0.00 —

0.05 0.00

0.00 —

0.05 0.00

0.00 —
—
—
—
—
223

0.00 0.00
—
223

0.00 0.00
—

0.01 0.00

0.00 —

0.01 0.00

0.00 —

0.77 0.00

0.00 —
226

0.00 0.00
Daily, —
Winter
(Max)
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker
Vendor
Hauling
Annual
Worker
Vendor
Hauling
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 0.06

0.00 0.00
—

0.00 0.00

0.00 —

0.00 0.00

0.00 —

0.01 0.00

0.00 —

0.01 0.00

0.00 —

0.00 0.00

0.00 —
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 —
—
—
—
—
—
—

11.1 0.00

0.00 —

11.1 0.00

0.00 —
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 0.02

0.00 0.00
—

11.2 0.00

0.00 —

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
— — — — — —
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 0.01

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
< 0.005

0.00 0.00

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 1.84

0.00 0.00

1.84 0.00

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 0.00

1.86 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.88 —

1.14 —
< 0.005
—

0.03 —
—
—

0.03 —

0.03 —
—
—

0.03 —
—
—
134
—
134
—

0.01 —
< 0.005
—
—
—
134
Architectu 56.2 —
ral
Coatings
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 33 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—
—
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — —
—
—
— — —
—
—
— —
—
—
— — — — —
—
—
—
Off-Road 0.01
Equipment

0.06 —

0.08 —
< 0.005
—
< 0.005
—
< 0.005
—
< 0.005
—
< 0.005
—

9.15 —

9.15 —
< 0.005
—
< 0.005
—

9.18 Architectu 3.85 —
ral
Coatings
Onsite
truck

0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.51 1.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.52 Architectu 0.70
ral
Coatings
— — — — — — — — — —
—
— — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.07 0.00

0.00 —

0.07 0.00

0.00 —

1.26 0.00

0.00 —

0.00 0.00

0.00 —

0.00 0.00

0.00 —

0.17 0.00

0.00 —

0.17 0.00

0.00 —

0.00 0.00

0.00 —

0.04 0.00

0.00 —

0.04 0.00

0.00 —
—
—
—
—
196

0.00 0.00
—
196

0.00 0.00
—

0.01 0.00

0.00 —

0.01 0.00

0.00 —

0.68 0.00

0.00 —
198

0.00 0.00
Daily, —
Winter
(Max)
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — —
—
— — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 12.2 12.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 12.3 34 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Vendor
Hauling
Annual
Worker
Vendor
Hauling

0.00 0.00
—

0.00 0.00
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

0.00 0.00
—

0.00 0.00
—
< 0.005

0.00 0.00
< 0.005

0.00 0.00

0.01 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 0.00
< 0.005

0.00 0.00

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 0.00
< 0.005

0.00 0.00

2.02 0.00

0.00 2.02

0.00 0.00
< 0.005

0.00 0.00

2.04 0.00

0.88 —

1.14 —
< 0.005
—

0.03 —
—
—

0.03 —

0.03 —
—
—

0.03 —
—
—
134
—
134
—

0.01 —
< 0.005
—
—
—
134
Architectu 56.2 —
ral
Coatings
Onsite
truck

0.00 —

0.00 —
—
—

0.00 —

0.00 Daily, —
Winter
(Max)
Average
Daily
— — — — — —
—
—
— — —
—
—
— —
—
—
— — — — —
—
—
—
Off-Road 0.01
Equipment

0.06 —

0.08 —
< 0.005
—
< 0.005
—
< 0.005
—
< 0.005
—
< 0.005
—

9.15 —

9.15 —
< 0.005
—
< 0.005
—

9.18 Architectu 3.85 —
ral
Coatings
35 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 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 < 0.005
Equipment

0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.51 1.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.52 Architectu 0.70
ral
Coatings
— — — — — — — — — —
—
— — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.07 0.00

0.00 —

0.07 0.00

0.00 —

1.26 0.00

0.00 —

0.00 0.00

0.00 —

0.00 0.00

0.00 —

0.17 0.00

0.00 —

0.17 0.00

0.00 —

0.00 0.00

0.00 —

0.04 0.00

0.00 —

0.04 0.00

0.00 —
—
—
—
—
196

0.00 0.00
—
196

0.00 0.00
—

0.01 0.00

0.00 —

0.01 0.00

0.00 —

0.68 0.00

0.00 —
198

0.00 0.00
Daily, —
Winter
(Max)
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker
Vendor
Hauling
Annual
Worker
Vendor
Hauling
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 0.06

0.00 0.00
—

0.00 0.00

0.00 —

0.00 0.00

0.00 —

0.01 0.00

0.00 —

0.01 0.00

0.00 —

0.00 0.00

0.00 —
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 —
—
—
—
—
—
—

12.2 0.00

0.00 —

12.2 0.00

0.00 —
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 0.02

0.00 0.00
—

12.3 0.00

0.00 —

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
— — — — — —
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 0.01

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
< 0.005

0.00 0.00

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 2.02

0.00 0.00

2.02 0.00

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 0.00

2.04 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
36 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023

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.

4.1.2. Mitigated
Mobile source emissions results are presented in Sections 2.5. 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)
Unrefriger —
ated
— — — — — — — — — — 772 772 0.05 0.01 — 775
Warehou
se-No
Rail
Regional
Shopping
Center
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
778
267
778
267

0.05 0.02

0.01 —
—
781
Parking 268
Lot
< 0.005
Total —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1,817
—
1,817
—

0.11 —

0.01 —
—
—
1,824
Daily, —
Winter
(Max)
37 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Unrefriger —
ated
— — — — — — — — — — 772 772 0.05 0.01 — 775
Warehou
Rail
Regional
Shopping
Center
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
778
267
778
267

0.05 0.02

0.01 —
—
781
Parking 268
Lot
< 0.005
Total —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1,817
—
1,817
—

0.11 —

0.01 —
—
—
—
1,824
Annual —
Unrefriger —
ated
128 128 0.01 < 0.005 128
Warehou
se-No
Rail
Regional
Shopping
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — 129 129 0.01 < 0.005 — 129
Parking
Lot
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

44.2 301

44.2 301
< 0.005

0.02 < 0.005
< 0.005
—
—

44.4 Total 302

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx
—
CO
—
SO2
—
PM10E
—
PM10D
—
PM10T
—
PM2.5E
—
PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2
—
NBCO2
—
CO2T
—
CH4
—
N2O
—
R CO2e
Daily, — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Unrefriger —
ated
— — — — — — — — — — 772 772 0.05 0.01 — 775
Warehou
se-No
Rail
38 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Regional
Shopping
Center
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
778
267
778
267

0.05 0.02

0.01 —
—
781
Parking 268
Lot
< 0.005
Total —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1,817
—
1,817
—

0.11 —

0.01 —
—
—
1,824
Daily, —
Winter
(Max)
Unrefriger —
ated
— — — — — — — — — — 772 772 0.05 0.01 — 775
Warehou
se-No
Rail
Regional
Shopping
Center
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
778
267
778
267

0.05 0.02

0.01 —
—
781
Parking 268
Lot
< 0.005
Total —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1,817
—
1,817
—

0.11 —

44.2 301

44.2 301
< 0.005

0.02 < 0.005
< 0.005
—
—

44.4 Total 302

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
39 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 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)
Unrefriger 0.03
ated

0.59 0.50 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 704 704 0.06 < 0.005 — 706 Warehou
se-No
Rail
Regional < 0.005
Shopping
Center

0.09 0.00

0.07 0.00
< 0.005

0.00 0.01

0.00 —
—

0.01 0.00

0.01 0.00
—
—

0.01 0.00
—
—
104 104 0.01

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 —
—
104
Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.04
—

0.68 —

0.57 —
< 0.005
—

0.05 —
—
—

0.05 —

0.05 —
—
—

0.05 —
—
—
808
—
808
—

0.07 —
< 0.005
—
—
—
810
Daily, —
Winter
(Max)
Unrefriger 0.03
ated

0.59 0.50 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 704 704 0.06 < 0.005 — 706 Warehou
se-No
Rail
Regional < 0.005
Shopping
Center

0.09 0.00

0.07 0.00
< 0.005

0.00 0.01

0.00 —
—

0.01 0.00

0.01 0.00
—
—

0.01 0.00
—
—
104 104 0.01

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 —
—
104
Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.04
—

0.68 —

0.57 —
< 0.005
—

0.05 —
—
—
—

0.05 —

0.05 —
—
—
—

0.05 —
—
—
—
808
—
808
—

0.07 —
< 0.005
—
—
—
—
810
Annual —
Unrefriger 0.01
ated

0.11 0.09 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 117 117 0.01 < 0.005 117 Warehou
se-No
Rail
40 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Regional < 0.005
Shopping

0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 17.2 17.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 17.2 Center
Parking
Lot

0.00 0.01

0.00 0.12

0.00 0.10

0.00 0.00

0.01 —
—

0.00 0.01

0.00 0.01
—
—

0.00 134

0.00 0.01

0.00 —
—

0.00 Total < 0.005 < 0.005 134

0.59 0.50 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 704 704 0.06 < 0.005 — 706 Warehou
se-No
Rail
Regional < 0.005
Shopping
Center

0.09 0.00

0.07 0.00
< 0.005

0.00 0.01

0.00 —
—

0.01 0.00

0.01 0.00
—
—

0.01 0.00
—
—
104 104 0.01

0.00 < 0.005

0.00 —
—
104
Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.04
—

0.68 —

0.57 —
< 0.005
—

0.05 —
—
—

0.05 —

0.05 —
—
—

0.05 —
—
—
808
—
808
—

0.07 —
< 0.005
—
—
—
810
Daily, —
Winter
(Max)
Unrefriger 0.03
ated
Warehou
se-No

0.59 0.09

0.50 0.07
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.04 0.01
—
—

0.04 0.01

0.04 0.01
—
—

0.04 0.01
—
—
704
104
704
104

0.06 0.01
< 0.005
< 0.005
—
—
706
104
Rail
Regional < 0.005
Shopping
Center
41 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 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 0.04
—

0.68 —

0.57 —
< 0.005
—

0.05 —
—
—
—

0.05 —

0.05 —
—
—
—

0.05 —
—
—
—
808
—
808
—

0.07 —
< 0.005
—
—
—
—
810
Annual —
Unrefriger 0.01
ated

0.11 0.09 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 117 117 0.01 < 0.005 117 Warehou
se-No
Rail
Regional < 0.005
Shopping

0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 17.2 17.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 17.2 Center
Parking
Lot

0.00 0.01

0.00 0.12

0.00 0.10

0.00 0.00

0.01 —
—

0.00 0.01

0.00 0.01
—
—

0.00 134

0.00 0.01

0.00 —
—

0.00 Total < 0.005 < 0.005 134

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)
—
—
—
—
— —
Consume 3.65
r
Products
— — — — —
—
—
— — — —
—
—
— — — — —
—
—
—
Architectu 0.45
ral
Coatings
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Landscap 1.21 0.06 7.38 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 30.4 30.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 30.5 e
Equipme
nt
42 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Total 5.31
—

0.06 —

7.38 —
< 0.005
—

0.01 —
—
—

0.01 —

0.01 —
—
—

30.4 —

30.4 —
< 0.005
—
< 0.005
—
—
—

30.5 Daily, —
Winter
(Max)
Consume 3.65
r
Products
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Architectu 0.45 —
ral
Coatings
Total 4.10
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Annual
Consume 0.67
r
Products
Architectu 0.08
ral
Coatings
— — — — —
—
— — —
—
— —
—
— — — — —
—
—
Landscap 0.11 0.01 0.66 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.48 2.48 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.49 e
Equipme
nt
Total 0.86 0.01 0.66 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.48 2.48 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.49

4.3.2. Mitigated
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)
Consume 3.65 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
r
Products
43 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Architectu 0.45
ral
— — — — —
—
— — —
—
— —
—
— — — — —
—
—
Landscap 1.21 0.06 7.38 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 30.4 30.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 30.5 e
Equipme
nt
Total 5.31
—

0.06 —

7.38 —
< 0.005
—

0.01 —
—
—

0.01 —

0.01 —
—
—

30.4 —

30.4 —
< 0.005
—
< 0.005
—
—
—

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) 44 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 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)
Unrefriger —
ated
— — — — — — — — — 51.0 184 235 5.24 0.13 — 403
Warehou
se-No
Rail
Regional
Shopping
Center
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

7.77 0.00

28.0 3.88

35.8 3.88

0.80 0.02 —
—

61.4 Parking 3.90
Lot
< 0.005 < 0.005
Total —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

58.8 —
216
—
274
—

6.04 —

0.14 —
—
—
468
Daily, —
Winter
(Max)
Unrefriger —
ated
— — — — — — — — — 51.0 184 235 5.24 0.13 — 403
Warehou
se-No
Rail
Regional
Shopping
Center
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

7.77 0.00

28.0 3.88

35.8 3.88

0.80 0.02 —
—

61.4 Parking 3.90
Lot
< 0.005 < 0.005
Total —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

58.8 —
216
—
274
—

6.04 —

0.14 —
—
—
—
468
Annual —
Unrefriger —
ated

8.44 30.4 38.9 0.87 0.02 66.7
Warehou
se-No
Rail
45 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Regional
Shopping
Center
— — — — — — — — — — 1.29 4.63 5.92 0.13 < 0.005 — 10.2
Parking
Lot
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

0.00 9.73

0.64 35.7

0.64 45.4
< 0.005

1.00 < 0.005

0.02 —
—

0.65 Total 77.6

4.4.2. Mitigated
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)
Unrefriger —
ated
— — — — — — — — — 51.0 184 235 5.24 0.13 — 403
Warehou
se-No
Rail
Regional
Shopping
Center
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

7.77 0.00

28.0 3.88

35.8 3.88

0.80 0.02 —
—

61.4 Parking 3.90
Lot
< 0.005 < 0.005
Total —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

58.8 —
216
—
274
—

6.04 —

0.14 —
—
—
468
Daily, —
Winter
(Max)
Unrefriger —
ated
Warehou
se-No
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

51.0 7.77
184 235 5.24

0.80 0.13

0.02 —
—
403
Rail
Regional
Shopping
Center
— 28.0 35.8 61.4
46 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 3.88 3.88 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.90 Total —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

58.8 —
216
—
274
—

6.04 —

0.14 —
—
—
—
468
Annual —
Unrefriger —
ated

8.44 30.4 38.9 0.87 0.02 66.7
Warehou
se-No
Rail
Regional
Shopping
Center
— — — — — — — — — — 1.29 4.63 5.92 0.13 < 0.005 — 10.2
Parking
Lot
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

0.00 9.73

0.64 35.7

0.64 45.4
< 0.005

1.00 < 0.005

0.02 —
—

0.65 Total 77.6

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
Daily, — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Unrefriger —
ated
— — — — — — — — — 58.3 0.00 58.3 5.83 0.00 — 204
Warehou
se-No
Rail
Regional
Shopping
Center
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

31.0 0.00

0.00 0.00

31.0 0.00

3.10 0.00

0.00 0.00
—
—
108
Parking
Lot

0.00 47 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Total —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

89.3 —

0.00 —

89.3 —

8.92 —

0.00 —
—
—
312
Daily, —
Winter
(Max)
Unrefriger —
ated
— — — — — — — — — 58.3 0.00 58.3 5.83 0.00 — 204
Warehou
se-No
Rail
Regional
Shopping
Center
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

31.0 0.00

0.00 0.00

31.0 0.00

3.10 0.00

0.00 0.00
—
—
108
Parking
Lot

0.00 Total —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

89.3 —

0.00 —

89.3 —

8.92 —

0.00 —
—
—
—
312
Annual —
Unrefriger —
ated

9.65 0.00 9.65 0.96 0.00 33.8
Warehou
se-No
Rail
Regional
Shopping
Center
— — — — — — — — — — 5.13 0.00 5.13 0.51 0.00 — 17.9
Parking
Lot
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

0.00 14.8

0.00 0.00

0.00 14.8

0.00 1.48

0.00 0.00
—
—

0.00 Total 51.7

4.5.2. Mitigated
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)
48 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Unrefriger —
Warehouse-No
Rail
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

58.3 31.0

0.00 0.00

58.3 31.0

0.00 5.83

3.10 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 —
—
—
204
108

0.00 Regional
Shopping
Center
—
Parking
Lot
—
Total —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

89.3 —

0.00 —

89.3 —

8.92 —

31.0 0.00

0.00 0.00

31.0 0.00

3.10 0.00

0.00 0.00
—
—
108
Parking
Lot

0.00 Total —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

89.3 —

0.00 —

89.3 —

8.92 —

0.00 —
—
—
—
312
Annual —
Unrefriger —
ated

9.65 0.00 9.65 0.96 0.00 33.8
Warehou
se-No
Rail
Regional
Shopping
Center
— — — — — — — — —
—
— 5.13 0.00 5.13 0.51 0.00 — 17.9
Parking
Lot
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

0.00 14.8

0.00 0.00

0.00 14.8

0.00 1.48

0.00 0.00
—
—

0.00 Total — 51.7
49 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx
—
CO
—
SO2
—
PM10E
—
PM10D
—
PM10T
—
PM2.5E
—
PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2
—
NBCO2
—
CO2T
—
CH4
—
N2O
—
R CO2e
Daily, — — —
—
—
—
—
—
—
Summer
(Max)
Regional
Shopping
Center
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

0.26 0.18

0.26 Unrefriger — 0.18
ated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
Total —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

0.44 —

0.44 Daily, —
Winter
(Max)
Regional
Shopping
Center
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

0.26 0.18

0.26 Unrefriger — 0.18
ated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
Total —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

0.44 —

0.44 Annual —
Regional
Shopping
Center

0.04 0.04
50 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Unrefriger —
ated
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

0.03 0.07

0.03 Total — 0.07

4.6.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx
—
CO
—
SO2
—
PM10E
—
PM10D
—
PM10T
—
PM2.5E
—
PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2
—
NBCO2
—
CO2T
—
CH4
—
N2O
—
R CO2e
Daily, — — —
—
—
—
—
—
—
Summer
(Max)
Regional
Shopping
Center
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

0.26 0.18

0.26 Unrefriger — 0.18
ated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
Total —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

0.44 —

0.44 Daily, —
Winter
(Max)
Regional
Shopping
Center
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

0.26 0.18

0.26 Unrefriger — 0.18
ated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
Total —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

0.44 —

0.44 Annual —
51 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Regional
Shopping
Center
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

0.04 0.03

0.04 Unrefriger — 0.03
ated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.07 0.07

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 52 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Equipme ROG
nt
Type
NOx
—
CO
—
SO2
—
PM10E
—
PM10D
—
PM10T
—
PM2.5E
—
PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2
—
NBCO2
—
CO2T
—
CH4
—
N2O
—
R CO2e
Daily, — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Total —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Daily, —
Winter
(Max)
Total —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Annual
Total

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme ROG
nt
Type
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 ROG
nt
Type
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
54 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Annual
Total
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

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

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio ROG
n
NOx
—
CO
—
SO2
—
PM10E
—
PM10D
—
PM10T
—
PM2.5E
—
PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2
—
NBCO2
—
CO2T
—
CH4
—
N2O
—
R CO2e
Daily, — — —
—
—
—
—
Summer
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
55 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 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 —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
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
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
56 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Sequeste —
red
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Removed —
Subtotal
—
—
—
Daily, —
Winter
(Max)
Avoided
Subtotal
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Sequeste — —
red
Subtotal — —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Removed —
Subtotal
—
—
—
—
—
—
Annual
Avoided
Subtotal
Sequeste —
red
Subtotal — —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Removed —
Subtotal
—
—
—

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 57 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Vegetatio ROG NOx
—
CO
—
SO2
—
PM10E
—
PM10D
—
PM10T
—
PM2.5E
—
PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2
—
NBCO2
—
CO2T
—
CH4
—
N2O
—
R CO2e
Daily, — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Total —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Daily, —
Winter
(Max)
Total —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Annual
Total

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 58 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Avoided
Subtotal
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Sequeste — —
red
Subtotal — —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Removed —
Subtotal
—
—
—
Daily, —
Winter
(Max)
Avoided
Subtotal
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Sequeste — —
red
Subtotal — —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Removed —
Subtotal
—
—
—
—
—
—
Annual
Avoided
Subtotal
Sequeste —
red
Subtotal
Removed —
Subtotal
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
59 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type
Site Preparation
Grading
Start Date End Date
5/14/2024
6/12/2024
5/1/2025
5/30/2025
7/5/2025
Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description
Site Preparation
Grading
4/17/2024
5/15/2024
6/13/2024
5/2/2025

5.00 5.00

5.00 20.0

20.0 230
—
—
—
—
—
Building Construction
Paving
Building Construction
Paving 20.0
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 5/31/2025 25.0

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type
Diesel
Engine Tier
Average
Number per Day Hours Per Day

8.00 Horsepower
367
Load Factor
Site Preparation 0.40
Site Preparation
Rubber Tired Dozers 2.00
Tractors/Loaders/Backh Diesel 2.00
oes
Average 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading
Grading
Grading
Grading
Excavators Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Average
Average
Average
Average

1.00 1.00

1.00 3.00

8.00 8.00

36.0 148
367

84.0 0.38

0.41 0.40

0.37 Graders
Rubber Tired Dozers
Tractors/Loaders/Backh Diesel
oes
Building Construction
Building Construction
Building Construction
Cranes Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Average
Average
Average

1.00 3.00

1.00 7.00

8.00 8.00
367 0.29

0.20 0.74
Forklifts 82.0
Generator Sets 14.0
60 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Building Construction
Building Construction
Paving
Tractors/Loaders/Backh Diesel Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average

3.00 1.00

2.00 2.00

2.00 1.00

7.00 8.00

8.00 8.00

8.00 6.00

84.0 46.0

81.0 89.0

36.0 37.0

0.37 0.45

0.42 0.36

0.38 0.48
Welders Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Pavers
Paving Paving Equipment
Paving Rollers
Architectural Coating Air Compressors

5.2.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type
Diesel
Engine Tier
Average
Number per Day Hours Per Day

1.00 1.00

1.00 3.00

8.00 8.00

36.0 148
367

84.0 0.38

0.41 0.40

1.00 3.00

7.00 8.00

8.00 7.00
367 0.29

0.20 0.74

0.37 Forklifts 82.0

14.0 84.0
Generator Sets
Tractors/Loaders/Backh Diesel
oes
Building Construction
Paving
Welders Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average

1.00 2.00

2.00 2.00

1.00 8.00

8.00 8.00

8.00 6.00

46.0 81.0

89.0 36.0

37.0 0.45

0.42 0.36

0.38 0.48
Pavers
Paving Paving Equipment
Paving Rollers
Architectural Coating Air Compressors
61 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name
Site Preparation
Site Preparation
Site Preparation
Site Preparation
Site Preparation
Grading
Trip Type
—
One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix
— — —
Worker
Vendor
Hauling
Onsite truck
—

10.0 —

18.5 10.2

20.0 —
LDA,LDT1,LDT2

HHDT,MHDT

0.00 HHDT
— HHDT
— — —
Grading Worker
Vendor
Hauling
Onsite truck
—

15.0 —

18.5 10.2

20.0 —
LDA,LDT1,LDT2

65.8 27.8

0.00 —

18.5 10.2

20.0 —
LDA,LDT1,LDT2

HHDT,MHDT
HHDT
HHDT
— — —
Paving Worker
Vendor
Hauling
Onsite truck
—

15.0 —

18.5 10.2

20.0 —
LDA,LDT1,LDT2

HHDT,MHDT
HHDT
Paving
Paving 0.00
Paving — HHDT
Architectural Coating
Architectural Coating
Architectural Coating
— — —
Worker
Vendor

13.2 —

18.5 10.2
LDA,LDT1,LDT2

HHDT,MHDT
62 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Architectural Coating
Architectural Coating
Hauling 0.00
—

20.0 —
HHDT
Onsite truck HHDT

5.3.2. Mitigated
Phase Name
Site Preparation
Site Preparation
Site Preparation
Site Preparation
Site Preparation
Grading
Trip Type
—
One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip
—
Vehicle Mix
— —
Worker
Vendor
Hauling
Onsite truck
—

10.0 —

18.5 10.2

20.0 —
LDA,LDT1,LDT2

HHDT,MHDT

0.00 HHDT
— HHDT
— — —
Grading Worker
Vendor
Hauling
Onsite truck
—

15.0 —

18.5 10.2

20.0 —
LDA,LDT1,LDT2

65.8 27.8

0.00 —

18.5 10.2

20.0 —
LDA,LDT1,LDT2

HHDT,MHDT
HHDT
HHDT
— — —
Paving Worker
Vendor
Hauling
Onsite truck
—

15.0 —

18.5 10.2

20.0 —
LDA,LDT1,LDT2

HHDT,MHDT
HHDT
Paving
Paving 0.00
Paving — HHDT
Architectural Coating
Architectural Coating
— — —
Worker 13.2 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
63 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Architectural Coating
Architectural Coating
Architectural Coating
Vendor — 10.2

20.0 —

HHDT,MHDT
Hauling 0.00 HHDT
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 Residential Exterior Area Coated Non-Residential Interior Area Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
13,301
(sq ft) (sq ft) Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 0.00 0.00 217,206 72,402

5.6. Dust Mitigation

40.0 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 —
— 5,000

0.00 —
Paving 0.00 4.80

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres)

0.00 % Asphalt
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 0%
64 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Regional Shopping Center
Parking Lot

0.00 4.80
0%
100%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year
2024
2025
kWh per Year

0.00 CO2
532
532
CH4

0.03 0.03
N2O
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday
3,542
Trips/Saturday
3,542
Trips/Sunday
3,542
Trips/Year
1,292,830
VMT/Weekday
27,335
VMT/Saturday
27,335
VMT/Sunday
27,335
VMT/Year
Total all Land Uses 9,977,421

5.9.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday
NaN
Trips/Saturday
NaN
Trips/Sunday
NaN
Trips/Year
NaN
VMT/Weekday
NaN
VMT/Saturday
NaN
VMT/Sunday
NaN
VMT/Year
Total all Land Uses NaN

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.1.2. Mitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
65 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated Parking Area Coated (sq ft) (sq ft)
0 0.00 254,669 84,890 12,545

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value

0.00 180
Snow Days
Summer Days
day/yr
day/yr

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
Season Unit Value

0.00 180
Snow Days
Summer Days
day/yr
day/yr

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

0.0330 0.0040
Regional Shopping Center
Parking Lot
534,028
183,161
532
532

0.0330

0.0040

0.0040
324,091

0.00 5.11.2. Mitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) 66 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No
Rail
529,519 532 0.0330 0.0040 2,196,632
Regional Shopping Center
Parking Lot
534,028
183,161
532
532

0.0330

0.0040

0.0040
324,091

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
Regional Shopping Center
Parking Lot
26,606,238
4,053,619

0.00 0.00

0.00 827,789

5.12.2. Mitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year)
26,606,238
4,053,619
Outdoor Water (gal/year)
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail
Regional Shopping Center
Parking Lot

0.00 0.00

0.00 827,789

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail
Regional Shopping Center
Parking Lot
108 —
—
—

57.5 0.00
67 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023

5.13.2. Mitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail
Regional Shopping Center
Parking Lot
108 —
—
—

57.5 0.00

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant
R-410A
GWP
2,088
Quantity (kg)
< 0.005
Operations Leak Rate

4.00 Service Leak Rate

4.00 Times Serviced
Regional Shopping 18.0
Center
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
Regional Shopping
Center
Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a
R-410A
1,430
2,088

0.04 1.00

4.00 0.00

4.00 1.00
Unrefrigerated 18.0
Warehouse-No Rail
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
< 0.005

5.14.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant
R-410A
GWP
2,088
Quantity (kg)
< 0.005
Operations Leak Rate

4.00 Service Leak Rate

4.00 Times Serviced
Regional Shopping 18.0
Center
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
Regional Shopping
Center
Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a
R-410A
1,430
2,088

0.04 1.00

4.00 0.00

4.00 1.00
Unrefrigerated 18.0
Warehouse-No Rail
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
< 0.005

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
68 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023

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

5.15.2. Mitigated
Equipment Type

5.16. Stationary Sources

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

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

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type
—
Fuel Type
—

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres 69 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
Final Acres

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

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

5.18.2.2. Mitigated
Tree Type

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location

20.5 Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat annual days of extreme heat 70 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Extreme Precipitation
Sea Level Rise
Wildfire

0.90 0.00

0.90 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm
meters of inundation depth
annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

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

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
71 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Climate Hazard
Temperature and Extreme Heat
Extreme Precipitation
Sea Level Rise
Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score 1 1 1 2
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1 N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1 N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1 N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2 Wildfire
Flooding
Drought
Snowpack Reduction
Air Quality Degradation
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

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
—

88.7 6.42

23.3 45.4

3.36 0.00
AQ-PM
AQ-DPM
Drinking Water
Lead Risk Housing
Pesticides
72 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Toxic Releases
Traffic

2.28 54.3
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites
Groundwater

0.00 2.11

7.35 0.00

52.9 —
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators
Impaired Water Bodies
Solid Waste
Sensitive Population
Asthma 43.8

62.4 3.57
—
Cardio-vascular
Low Birth Weights
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators
Education 51.0

37.5 61.5

50.0 37.7
Housing
Linguistic
Poverty
Unemployment

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic
Above Poverty
Employed
Median HI
Education
—

59.36096497

95.85525472

46.91389709
—
73 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Bachelor's or higher
High school enrollment
Preschool enrollment
Transportation

61.85037854
100

32.38804055
—
Auto Access 53.75336841

19.15821891
—
Active commuting
Social
2-parent households
Voting

45.32272552

33.11946619
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability
Park access

73.47619659

29.10304119

42.35852688

61.22160914

1.360195047
—
Retail density
Supermarket access
Tree canopy
Housing
Homeownership 67.59912742

42.70499166

8.879763891

54.20248941

81.14974978
—
Housing habitability
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden
Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden
Uncrowded housing
Health Outcomes
Insured adults 36.50712178
Arthritis 0.0
Asthma ER Admissions
High Blood Pressure
Cancer (excluding skin)

53.3 0.0

0.0 74 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Asthma 0.0
Coronary Heart Disease
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Diagnosed Diabetes
Life Expectancy at Birth
Cognitively Disabled
Physically Disabled
Heart Attack ER Admissions
Mental Health Not Good
Chronic Kidney Disease
Obesity

0.0 0.0

0.0 32.9

74.6 38.4

34.7 0.0

0.0 0.0
Pedestrian Injuries
Physical Health Not Good
Stroke

19.6 0.0

0.0 Health Risk Behaviors
Binge Drinking
—

0.0 Current Smoker 0.0
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity
Climate Change Exposures
Wildfire Risk

0.0 —

0.0 SLR Inundation Area
Children

0.0 89.4

50.2 74.2

36.8 62.3
—
Elderly
English Speaking
Foreign-born
Outdoor Workers
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity
75 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Impervious Surface Cover
Traffic Density

54.4 19.9

23.0 —
Traffic Access
Other Indices
Hardship 25.0
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 55.9

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 18.0

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
76 / 77
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 Land Use Per site plan
Construction: Construction Phases
Operations: Vehicle Data
Construction: Off-Road Equipment
Operations: Refrigerants
No demolition required
Approx. 3,743 trips per day per IEG traffic assessment. All trips applied to fast-food for simplicity.

Adjusted per construction timeline
A/C added for self-storage unit
77 / 77
Appendix B:

County of Riverside GHG Screening Tables
County of Riverside Screening Table for Implementation of GHG Reduction Measures for Commercial Development Assigned Point
Feature Description Project Points
Values
Building Envelope
2017 Title 24 Requirements (walls R-13; roof/attic R-30) 0 Modestly Enhanced Insulation (walls R-13, roof/attic R-38)) 9 Insultation
Windows
12 5
Enhanced Insulation (rigid wall insulation R-13, roof/attic R-38) 11 12 0
Greatly Enhanced Insulation (spray foam insulated walls R-15 or higher, roof/attic R-38 or higher) 2016 Title 24 Windows (0.57 U-factor, 0.4 solar heat gain coefficient [SHGC}) Modestly Enhanced Window Insulation (0.4 U-factor, 0.32 SHGC) 4 Enhanced Window Insulation (0.32 U-factor, 0.25 SHGC) 5 Greatly Enhanced Window Insulation (0.28 or less U-factor, 0.22 or less SHGC) Modest Cool Roof (CRRC Rated 0.15 aged solar reflectance, 0.75 thermal emittance) Enhanced Cool Roof (CRRC Rated 0.2 aged solar reflectance, 0.75 thermal emittance) Greatly Enhanced Cool Roof ( CRRC Rated 0.35 aged solar reflectance, 0.75 thermal emittance) Air barrier applied to exterior walls, calking, and visual inspection such as the HERS Verified Quality Insulation Installation (QII or equivalent)
7 7
Cool Roof 8 8
7 10
7 6
Air Filtration
Blower Door HERS Verified Envelope Leakage or equivalent Modest Thermal Mass (10% of floor or 10% of walls 12” or more thick exposed concrete or masonry with no permanently installed floor covering such as carpet, linoleum, wood or other insulating materials) 2 4 Enhanced Thermal Mass (20% of floor or 20% of walls 12” or more thick exposed concrete or masonry with no permanently installed floor covering such as carpet, linoleum, wood or other insulating materials) Thermal Storage of Building 4
Enhanced Thermal Mass (80% of floor or 80% of walls 12” or more thick exposed concrete or masonry with no permanently installed floor covering such as carpet, linoleum, wood or other insulating materials) 14 Indoor Space Efficiencies
Minimum Duct Insulation (R-4.2 required) 0
5 6
8 0
4 5
7 Heating/Cooling Modest Duct insulation (R-6) 6
5 Distribution System Enhanced Duct Insulation (R-8)
Distribution loss reduction with inspection (HERS Verified Duct Leakage or equivalent) 2016 Title 24 Minimum HVAC Efficiency (EER 13/75% AFUE or 7.7 HSPF) Improved Efficiency HVAC (EER 14/78% AFUE or 8 HSPF)
High Efficiency HVAC (EER 15/80% AFUE or 8.5 HSPF)
Very High Efficiency HVAC (EER 16/82% AFUE or 9 HSPF)
Space Heating/Cooling
Equipment
Heat recovery strategies employed with commercial laundry, cooking equipment, and other commercial heat sources for reuse in HVAC air intake or other appropriate heat recovery technology. Point values for these types of systems will be determined based upon design and engineering data documenting the energy savings.

Commercial Heat Recovery
Systems
TBD
2016 Title 24 Minimum Efficiency (0.57 Energy Factor)
Improved Efficiency Water Heater (0.675 Energy Factor)
High Efficiency Water Heater (0.72 Energy Factor)
0 8
10 10
11 2
Water Heaters
Very High Efficiency Water Heater (0.92 Energy Factor)
Solar Pre-heat System (0.2 Net Solar Fraction)
Enhanced Solar Pre-heat System (0.35 Net Solar Fraction) All peripheral rooms within building have at least one window or skylight All rooms within building have daylight (through use of windows, solar tubes, skylights, etc.) All rooms daylighted
5 0
Daylighting 1
1 Efficient Lights (25% of in-unit fixtures considered high efficacy. High efficacy is defined as 40 lumens/watt for 15 watt or less fixtures; 50 lumens/watt for 15-40 watt fixtures, 60 lumens/watt for fixtures >40watt) 5 Artificial Lighting
Appliances
7 High Efficiency Lights (50% of in-unit fixtures are high efficacy) Very High Efficiency Lights (100% of in-unit fixtures are high efficacy) Star Commercial Refrigerator (new)
7 8
2 2
2 2
Energy Star Commercial Dish Washer (new) 2
Energy Star Commercial Cloths Washing
Miscellaneous Commercial/Industrial Building Efficiencies North/South alignment of building or other building placement such that the orientation of the buildings Building Placement
Shading
4 6
optimizes conditions for natural heating, cooling, and lighting.

At least 90% of south-facing glazing will be shaded by vegetation or overhangs at noon on Jun 21st.

This allows innovation by the applicant to provide design features that increase the energy efficiency of the project not provided in the table. Note that engineering data will be required documenting the energy efficiency of innovative designs and point values given based upon the proven efficiency beyond Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards.

Other TBD
Renewable Energy
30 percent of the power needs of the project
40 percent of the power needs of the project
50 percent of the power needs of the project
60 percent of the power needs of the project
70 percent of the power needs of the project
80 percent of the power needs of the project
90 percent of the power needs of the project
100 percent of the power needs of the project
30 percent of the power needs of the project
40 percent of the power needs of the project
50 percent of the power needs of the project
60 percent of the power needs of the project
70 percent of the power needs of the project
80 percent of the power needs of the project
90 percent of the power needs of the project
100 percent of the power needs of the project
8 12
16 19
23 26
30 34
8 Photovoltaic
12 16
19 23
26 30
34 Wind Turbines
Irrigation and Landscaping
Eliminate conventional turf from landscaping
Only moderate water using plants
0 2
3 5
1 Water Efficient Landscaping 5
1 Only low water using plants
Only California Native landscape that requires no or only supplemental irrigation Low precipitation spray heads< .75”/hr or drip irrigation Water Efficient Irrigation Systems Weather based irrigation control systems combined with drip irrigation (demonstrate 20% reduced water use) 3 Innovative on-site stormwater collection, filtration, and reuse systems are being developed that provide supplemental irrigation water and provide vector control. These systems can greatly reduce the irrigation needs of a project. Point values for these types of systems will be determined based upon design and engineering data documenting the water savings.

Stormwater
TBD
5 Reuse Systems
Recycled Water
Potable Water
Showers
Graywater (purple pipe) irrigation system on site 5
6 Water Efficient Showerheads (2.0 gpm) 2
Water Efficient Toilets/Urinals (1.5gpm) 3
Toilets Waterless Urinals (note that commercial buildings having both waterless urinals and high efficiency toilets will have a combined point value of 6 points)
3 3
2 Faucets Water Efficient faucets (1.28gpm) 3
Commercial Dishwashers Water Efficient dishwashers (20% water savings) 2 Commercial Laundry
Washers
Water Efficient laundry (15% water savings) 2
High Efficiency laundry Equipment that captures and reuses rinse water (30% water savings) 4 Employment Based Trip and VMT Reduction Policy
Provide flexibility in scheduling such that at least 30% of employees participate in 9/80 work week, 4-day/40- Alternative Scheduling 5
hour work week, or telecommuting 1.5 days/week.

Car/vanpool program 1
2 3
5 1
1 1
2 3
1 3
5 1
2 Car/vanpool program with preferred parking
Car/vanpool with guaranteed ride home program
Subsidized employee incentive car/vanpool program
Complete sidewalk to residential within ½ mile
Complete bike path to residential within 3 miles
Bike lockers and secure racks
Car/Vanpools
1 1
Employee
Bicycle/Pedestrian
Programs Showers and changing facilities
Subsidized employee walk/bike program
Local transit within ¼ mile 1
Light rail transit within ½ mile
Shuttle/Transit Programs
Commute Trip Reduction
Shuttle service to light rail transit station
Guaranteed ride home program
Subsidized Transit passes
Employer based Commute Trip Reduction (CTR). CTRs apply to commercial, offices, or industrial projects that include a reduction of vehicle trip or VMT goal using a variety of employee commutes trip reduction methods.

The point value will be determined based upon a TIA that demonstrates the trip/VMT reductions. Suggested point ranges: Incentive based CTR Programs (1–8 points), Mandatory CTR programs (5–20 points) Point values for other trip or VMT reduction measures not listed above may be calculated based on a TIA and/or other traffic data supporting the trip and/or VMT reductions TBD
TBD
Other Trip Reduction
Measures
Mixed-Use Development
Mixes of land uses that complement one another in a way that reduces the need for vehicle trips can greatly reduce GHG emissions. The point value of mixed-use projects will be determined based upon traffic studies that demonstrate trip reductions and/or reductions in vehicle miles traveled.

Mixed-Use TBD
TBD
Having residential developments within walking and biking distance of local retail helps to reduce vehicle trips Local Retail Near Residential and/or vehicle miles traveled. The point value of residential projects in close proximity to local retail will be (Commercial only Projects) determined based upon traffic studies that demonstrate trip reductions and/or reductions in vehicle miles traveled.

Preferential Parking
1 1
Provide reserved preferential parking spaces for car-share, carpool, and ultra-low or zero emission vehicles.

Provide larger parking spaces that can accommodate vans used for ridesharing programs and reserve them for vanpools and include adequate passenger waiting/loading areas.

Signal Improvements
Signial Synchronization and Intelligent Traffic Systems Signal synchronization 1 point/signal
3 points/signal Signal Improvements
Traffic signals connected to ITS
Increase Public Transit
The point value of a projects ability to increase public transit use will be determined based upon a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) demonstrating decreased use of private vehicles and increased use of public transportation. Increased transit accessibility (1-15 points) Public Transit TBD
Adopt and Implement a Bicycle Master Plan to Expand Bike Routes around the County Provide sidewalks on one side of the street (required) 0 1 3
Sidewalks Provide sidewalks on both sides of the street Provide pedestrian linkage between commercial and residential land uses within 1 mile Electrifying the Fleet
2 points/area Electric Vehicle Recharging Provide circuit and capacity in garages/parking areas for installation of electric vehicle charging stations.

Install electric vehicle charging stations in garages/parking areas 8 points/station Neighborhood Electric Provide NEV safe routes within the project site 3 Vehicle (NEV) Infrastructure Provide NEV safe routes between the project site and other land uses. 5 Reduce Waste to Landfills
Provide separated recycling bins within each commercial building/floor and provide large external recycling 2 5
2 5
collection bins at central location for collection truck pick-up Recycling Provide commercial/industrial recycling programs that fulfills an on-site goal of 80% diversion of solid waste Other GHG Reduction Feature Implementation
This allows innovation by the applicant to provide commercial design features that the GHG emissions from Other GHG Reduction
Features
construction and/or operation of the project not provided in the table. Note that engineering data will be required documenting the GHG reduction amount and point values given based upon emission reductions calculations using approved models, methods, and protocols.

TBD
Total Points 100
Minimum Required Points 100
Source: County of Riverside Climate Action Plan Update. November 2019.

Appendix C:

EMFAC2017 Output
Source: EMFAC2017 (v1.0.3) Emissions Inventory
Region Type: Air District
Region: South Coast AQMD
Calendar Year: 2023
Season: Annual
Vehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 Categories
Units: miles/day for VMT, trips/day for Trips, tons/day for Emissions, 1000 gallons/day for Fuel Consumption Region Calendar YeVehicle CateModel Year Speed Fuel Population VMT Trips Fuel Consumption

1.936286145
Fuel Consumption
1936.286145
Total Fuel Consumption VMT Total VMT Miles Per Gallon Vehicle Class South Coas 7.14 HHD
South Coas
South Coas
South Coas
South Coas
South Coas
South Coas
South Coas
South Coas
South Coas
South Coas
South Coas
South Coas
South Coas
South Coas
South Coas
South Coas
South Coas
South Coas
South Coas
South Coas
South Coas
South Coas
South Coas
South Coas
South Coas
South Coas
South Coas
South Coas
South Coas
2023 HHDT
2023 HHDT
2023 LDA
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Gasoline
Diesel

75.10442936 8265.097 1502.689
109818.6753 13648008 1133618
6635002.295 2.53E+08 31352477
62492.97958 2469816 297086.6
1913466.474 8265.097 13656273.03
1911.530188
7971.24403

49.3916685
0 1911530.188
7971244.03
49391.6685
0 13648008
Gasoline
Diesel
8020635.698 2.53E+08 255180358.3 31.82 LDA

27.16 LDT1

25.60 LDT2
2023 LDA 2469816
2023 LDA Electricity 150700.3971 6237106 751566 6237106 2023 LDT1
2023 LDT1
2023 LDT1
2023 LDT2
2023 LDT2
2023 LDT2
2023 LHDT1
2023 LHDT1
2023 LHDT2
2023 LHDT2
2023 MCY
2023 MDV
2023 MDV
2023 MDV
2023 MH
Gasoline
Diesel
758467.6481 27812996 3504563
360.7799144 8408.618 1256.88
7122.93373 303507.5 35798.19
2285150.139 85272416 10723315
15594.68309 650362.8 76635.83
1023.913006

0.366459477
0 1023913.006
366.4594769
0 1024279.466 27812996 27821405.09
8408.618
Electricity
Gasoline
Diesel
303507.5
3356536.438 85272416 85922778.34
650362.8
3338.798312

17.73812611
0 3338798.312
17738.12611
Electricity 28809.63735 917592.8 145405.4 0 917592.8
Gasoline
Diesel
174910.3847 6216643 2605904
125545.0822 4994753 1579199
30102.75324 1034569 448486.2
50003.13116 1935030 628976.5
583.3851736
228.1779285
111.5753864

97.84811618

57.849018
2693.883526

50.65281491
0 583385.1736
228177.9285
111575.3864
97848.11618
57849.018
2693883.526
50652.81491
0 811563.1022 6216643 11211395.79
4994753

13.81 LHDT1
Gasoline 14.18 LHDT2
Diesel
209423.5025 1034569 2969599.008
1935030
Gasoline
Gasoline
Diesel
305044.5141 2104624 610089 57849.018 2104624 2104623.657 2744536.341 55684188 57109879.73
1425691

36.38 MCY
1589862.703 55684188 7354860 20.81 MDV
36128.1019 1425691 176566.9
Electricity 16376.67653 537591.7 83475.95 537591.7
Gasoline
Diesel
34679.50542 330042.9 3469.338
13122.69387 124302 1312.269

63.26295123

11.63031832
265.2060557
724.7695868

48.07750689

38.18838072

12.19474692

27.44411242

17.62416327

0.239500509
0 63262.95123
11630.31832
265206.0557
724769.5868
48077.50689
38188.38072
12194.74692
27444.11242
17624.16327
239.5005093
74893.26955 330042.9 454344.9436
124302

6.07 MH
2023 MH
2023 MHDT
2023 MHDT
2023 OBUS
2023 OBUS
2023 SBUS
2023 SBUS
2023 UBUS
2023 UBUS
2023 UBUS
Gasoline
Diesel
25624.3151 1363694 512691.3
122124.488 8120623 1221858
989975.6425 1363694 9484317.768
8120623

9.58 MHDT

6.72 OBUS

8.15 SBUS

5.11 UBUS
Gasoline
Diesel
5955.291639 245774 119153.5 86265.88761 245774 579743.8353 4286.940093 333969.8 41558.29 333969.8
2783.643068 112189.6 11134.57
6671.825716 210853.9 76991.94
957.7686184 89782.63 3831.074

13.00046095 1416.622 52.00184
Gasoline
Diesel
39638.85935 112189.6 323043.5203
210853.9
Gasoline
Diesel
17863.66378 89782.63
1416.622
91199.2533
Electricity 16.11693886 1320.163 64.46776 1320.163
Appendix B
Habitat Assessment and CVMSHCP Consistency Analysis
March 7, 2024

THE ALTUM GROUP
Attention: Stephen Nieto
44-600 Village Court, Suite 100
Palm Desert, California 92260
SUBJECT: Habitat Assessment and Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) Consistency Analysis for the Proposed Date Palm and Rosemount Road Storage Project Located in the City of Cathedral City, Riverside County, California.

Introduction
This report contains the findings of ELMT Consulting’s biological resources investigation for the proposed Date Palm and Rosemount Storage Project (project site, site) located in the City of Cathedral City, Riverside County, California. ELMT biologist Jacob H. Lloyd Davies conducted a field survey and evaluated the condition of the habitat within the proposed project site on February 9, 2023. The literature review and field investigation were conducted to characterize existing site conditions and assess the probability of occurrence of special-status1 plant and wildlife species that could pose a constraint to implementation of the project. This report provides a detailed assessment of the suitability of the on-site habitat to support special-status plant and wildlife species that were identified by the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and other electronic databases as potentially occurring in the vicinity of the proposed project site. Special attention was given to the suitability of the on-site habitat to support species protected under the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP), and potential jurisdictional drainage features.

Project Location
The proposed project site is generally located south and west of Interstate 10 and north and east of State Route 111 in the City of Cathedral City, Riverside County, California. The site is depicted on the Cathedral City quadrangle of the United States Geological Survey’s (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic map series within Section 15 of Township 4 South, Range 6 East. Specifically, the project site is bounded to the west by Date Palm Drive and to the north by the planned extension of Rosemount Road within Assessor Parcel Numbers 670-110-048, -049, -050, -051, -052, -053, and -056. Refer to Exhibits 1-3 in Attachment A.

Project Description
The project proposes to construct a self-storage facility and retail area with associated landscaping and improvements. Refer to Attachment B, Site Plan.
1 As used in this report, “special-status” refers to plant and wildlife species that are federally or State listed, proposed, or candidates; CVMSHCP listed species; plant species that have been designated a CNPS Rare Plant Rank; and wildlife species that are designated by the CDFW as fully protected, species of special concern, or watch list species. 2201 N. Grand Avenue #10098 | Santa Ana, CA 92711-0098 | (714) 716-5050 www.ELMTConsulting.com
Mrach 7, 2024

Page 2 ends

Cathedral City City CouncilSeptember 11, 2024

Cathedral City City Council
September 11, 2024