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
Rosemount Storage Project i
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
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Rosemount Storage Project 2
This page intentionally left blank.
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
MD Acoustics, LLC ii
JN: 07412232_Date Palm Rosemount_AQ-GHG-Energy_Study_03.04.2024
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Purpose of Analysis and Study Objectives 1
1.2 Project Summary 1
1.2.1 Site Location 1
1.2.2 Project Description 1
1.2.3 Sensitive Receptors 2
1.3 Executive Summary of Findings and Mitigation Measures 3
2.0 Regulatory Framework and Background ................................................................................. 8
2.1 Air Quality Regulatory Setting 8
2.1.1 National and State 8
2.1.2 South Coast Air Quality Management District 10
2.1.3 Local 13
2.2 Greenhouse Gas Regulatory Setting 14
2.2.1 International 14
2.2.2 National 15
2.2.3 California 16
2.2.4 South Coast Air Quality Management District 24
2.2.5 Local 25
3.0 Setting ................................................................................................................................. 28
3.1 Existing Physical Setting 28
3.1.1 Local Climate and Meteorology 28
3.1.2 Local Air Quality 29
3.1.3 Attainment Status 31
3.2 Greenhouse Gases 33
4.0 Modeling Parameters and Assumptions ............................................................................... 35
4.1 Construction 35
4.2 Operations 36
4.3 Localized Construction Analysis 36
4.4 Localized Operational Analysis 37
5.0 Thresholds of Significance .................................................................................................... 38
5.1 Air Quality Thresholds of Significance 38
5.1.1 CEQA Guidelines for Air Quality 38
5.1.2 Regional Significance Thresholds for Construction Emissions 38
5.1.3 Regional Significance Thresholds for Operational Emissions 39
5.1.4 Thresholds for Localized Significance 39
5.2 Greenhouse Gas Thresholds of Significance 39
5.2.1 CEQA Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas 39
5.3 Toxic Air Contaminants 40
6.0 Air Quality Emissions Impact ................................................................................................ 41 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA TABLE OF CONTENTS
MD Acoustics, LLC iii
JN: 07412232_Date Palm Rosemount_AQ-GHG-Energy_Study_03.04.2024
6.1 Construction Air Quality Emissions Impact 41
6.1.1 Regional Construction Emissions 41
6.1.2 Localized Construction Emissions 42
6.1.3 Construction-Related Human Health Impacts 43
6.1.4 Odors 43
6.1.5 Construction-Related Toxic Air Contaminant Impact 43
6.2 Operational Air Quality Emissions Impact 44
6.2.1 Regional Operational Emissions 44
6.2.2 Localized Operational Emissions 45
6.2.3 Operations-Related Human Health Impacts 46
6.3 CO Hot Spot Emissions 46
6.4 Cumulative Regional Air Quality Impacts 47
6.5 Air Quality Compliance 47
7.0 Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis .......................................................................................... 49
7.1 Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact 49
7.2 Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact 49
7.3 Greenhouse Gas Plan Consistency 50
Consistency with SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS 56
8.0 Energy Analysis .................................................................................................................... 59
8.1 Construction Energy Demand 59
8.1.1 Construction Equipment Electricity Usage Estimates 59
8.1.2 Construction Equipment Fuel Estimates 60
8.1.3 Construction Worker Fuel Estimates 61
8.1.4 Construction Vendor/Hauling Fuel Estimates 62
8.1.5 Construction Energy Efficiency/Conservation Measures 63
8.2 Operational Energy Demand 63
8.2.1 Transportation Fuel Consumption 64
8.2.2 Facility Energy Demands (Electricity and Natural Gas) 65
8.3 Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Plan Consistency 66
9.0 CEQA Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 67
10.0 References ........................................................................................................................... 70
Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA TABLE OF CONTENTS
MD Acoustics, LLC iv
JN: 07412232_Date Palm Rosemount_AQ-GHG-Energy_Study_03.04.2024
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 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA TABLE OF CONTENTS
MD Acoustics, LLC v
JN: 07412232_Date Palm Rosemount_AQ-GHG-Energy_Study_03.04.2024
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
Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA TABLE OF CONTENTS
MD Acoustics, LLC vi
JN: 07412232_Date Palm Rosemount_AQ-GHG-Energy_Study_03.04.2024
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CARB California Air Resources Board
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFCs Chlorofluorocarbons
CH4 Methane
CNG Compressed natural gas
CO Carbon monoxide
CO2 Carbon dioxide
CO2e Carbon dioxide equivalent
DPM Diesel particulate matter
GHG Greenhouse gas
HFCs Hydrofluorocarbons
LST Localized Significant Thresholds
MTCO2e Metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
MMTCO2e Million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NOx Nitrogen Oxides
NO2 Nitrogen dioxide
N2O Nitrous oxide
O3 Ozone
PFCs Perfluorocarbons
PM Particle matter
PM10 Particles that are less than 10 micrometers in diameter PM2.5 Particles that are less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter PMI Point of maximum impact
PPM Parts per million
PPB Parts per billion
RTIP Regional Transportation Improvement Plan
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SF6 Sulfur hexafluoride
SIP State Implementation Plan
SOx Sulfur Oxides
SRA Source/Receptor Area
SSAB Salton Sea Air Basin
TAC Toxic air contaminants
VOC Volatile organic compounds
WRCC Western Regional Climate Center
Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Introduction
1 1.0 Introduction
1.1 Purpose of Analysis and Study Objectives
This air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) analysis was prepared to evaluate whether the estimated criteria pollutants and GHG emissions generated from the project would cause a significant impact to the air resources in the project area . This assessment was conducted within the context of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, California Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq.).
The assessment is consistent with the methodology and emission factors endorsed by South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), California Air Resource Board (CARB), and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA).
1.2 Project Summary
1.2.1 Site Location
The project site is located 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.
Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Introduction
2 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 115 Thousand Square Feet Strip Mall 11.2 Thousand Square Feet
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 7.0 Thousand Square Feet Parking Lot 4.8 Acres
Scenario 2
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 115 Thousand Square Feet Regional Shopping Center 54.7 Thousand Square Feet
Parking Lot 4.8 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.).
Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Introduction
3 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 excee d 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, short - term, and intermittent in nature and would not result in persistent impacts that would affect substantial numbers of people. Potential construction -source odor impacts are therefore considered less-than-significant.
Operational-Source Emissions
The project operational -sourced emissions would not exceed applicable regional thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD 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.
Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Introduction
4 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.
Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA
Exhibit A
Location Map
5 Introduction
SITE
Rosemount Road
Date Palm Drive
Exhibit B
Site Plan – Scenario 1
6 Introduction
Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA
Exhibit B
Site Plan – Scenario 2
7 Introduction
Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA
Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Regulatory Framework and Background
8 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.
Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Regulatory Framework and Background
9 Table 2: Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant Averaging Time California Standards1 National Standards2 Concentrations3 Method4 Primary3,5 Secondary3,6 Method7 Ozone (O3) 1-Hour 0.09 ppm Ultraviolet
Photometry
- - Same as Primary
Standard
Ultraviolet
Photometry 8-Hour 0.070 ppm 0.070 ppm (147 μg/m3)
Respirable
Particulate Matter
(PM10)8
24-Hour 50 μg/m3 Gravimetric or Beta
Attenuation
150 μ/m3 Same as Primary
Standard
Inertial Separation
and Gravimetric
Analysis Annual Arithmetic Mean 20 μg/m3 - -
Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)8
24-Hour - - - - 35 μg/m3 Same as Primary
Standard Inertial Separation
and Gravimetric
Analysis Annual Arithmetic Mean 12 μg/m3 Gravimetric or Beta Attenuation 12 μg/m3 15 μg/m3
Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
1-Hour 20 ppm (23 μg/m3) Non-Dispersive
Infrared Photometry
(NDIR)
35 ppm (40 μg/m3) - - Non-Dispersive
Infrared
Photometry (NDIR)
8-Hour 9.0 ppm (10 μg/m3) 9 ppm (10 μg/m3) - -
8-Hour
(Lake Tahoe) 6 ppm (7 μg/m3) - - - -
Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2)9
1-Hour 0.18 ppm (339 μg/m3) Gas Phase
Chemiluminescence
100 ppb (188 μg/m3) - - Gas Phase
Chemiluminescence Annual Arithmetic Mean 0.030 ppm (357 μg/m3) 0.053 ppm (100 μg/m3) Same as Primary Standard
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)10
1-Hour 0.25 ppm (655 μg/m3)
Ultraviolet
Fluorescence
75 ppb (196 μg/m3) - -
Ultraviolet
Fluorescence;
Spectrophotometry
(Pararosaniline
Method)
3-Hour - - - - 0.5 ppm
(1300 mg/m3)
24-Hour 0.04 ppm (105 μg/m3) 0.14 ppm
(for certain areas)10 - -
Annual Arithmetic Mean - - 0.130ppm
(for certain areas)10 - -
Lead11,12
30 Day Average 1.5 μg/m3
Atomic Absorption
- -
Calendar Qrtr - - 1.5 μg/m3
(for certain areas)12 Same as Primary
Standard
High Volume
Sampler and Atomic
Absorption Rolling 3-Month Average - - 0.15 μg/m3
Visibility Reducing
Particles13 8-Hour See footnote 13
Beta Attenuation and
Transmittance
through Filter Tape No
National
Standards
Sulfates 24-Hour 25 μg/m3 Ion Chromatography
Hydrogen Sulfide 1-Hour 0.03 ppm (42 μg/m3) Ultraviolet Fluorescence
Vinyl Chloride11 24-Hour 0.01 ppm (26 μg/m3) Gas Chromatography
Notes:
1. California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except 8-hour Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1 and 24 hour), nitrogen dioxide, and particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5, and visibility reducing particles), are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations.
2. National standards (other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded m ore than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest 8 -hour concentration measured at each site in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24 hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 μg/m 3 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 clarifica tion 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.
Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Regulatory Framework and Background
10 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.
Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Regulatory Framework and Background
11 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 t he 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 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Regulatory Framework and Background
12 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.
Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Regulatory Framework and Background
13 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 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.
Policy 2 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 City land use planning efforts shall assure that sensitive receptors are separated from polluting point sources, to the greatest extent practicable.
Policy 4 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 The City shall encourage and promote the use of clean alternative energy sources for transportation, heating and cooling, lighting and other power needs.
Policy 6 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.
Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Regulatory Framework and Background
14 Policy 8 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.
Policy 9 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.
Policy 10 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 provide d 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 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Regulatory Framework and Background
15 specifically referenced issues pertaining to the first commitment period and which needed to be updated for the second commitment period.
2.2.2 National
Greenhouse Gas Endangerment. On December 2, 2009, the EPA announced that GHGs threaten the public health and welfare of the American people. The EPA also states that GHG emissions from on - road vehicles contribute to that threat. The decision was based on Massachusetts v. EPA (Supreme Court Case 05 -1120) which argued that GHGs are air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act and that the EPA has authority to regulate those emissions.
Clean Vehicles. Congress first passed the Corporate Average Fuel Economy law in 1975 to increase the fuel economy of cars and light duty trucks. The law has become more stringent over time. On May 19, 2009, President Obama put in motion a new national policy to increase fuel economy for all new cars and trucks sold in the United States. On April 1, 2010, the EPA and the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Safety Administration announced a joint final rule establishing a national program that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve fuel economy for new cars and trucks sold in the United States.
The first phase of the national program would apply to passenger cars, light -duty trucks, and medium - duty passenger vehicles, covering model years 2012 through 2016. They require these vehicles to meet an estimated combined average emissions level of 250 grams of carbon dioxide per mile, equivalent to 35.5 miles per gallon if the automobile industry were to meet this carbon dioxide level solely through fuel economy improvements. Together, these standards would cut carbon dioxide emissions by an estimated 960 million metric tons and 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of the vehicles sold under the program (model years 2012 -2016). The second phase of the national program would involve proposing new fuel economy and greenhouse gas standards for model years 2017 – 2025 by September 1, 2011.
On October 25, 2010, the EPA and the U.S. Department of Transportation proposed the first national standards to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve fuel efficiency of heavy -duty trucks and buses. For combination tractors, the agencies are proposing engine and vehicle standards that begin in the 2014 model year and achieve up to a 20 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions and fuel consumption by the 2018 model year. For heavy -duty pickup trucks and vans, the agencies are proposing separate gasoline and diesel truck standards, which phase in starting in the 2014 model year and achieve up to a 10 percent reduction for gasoline vehicles and 15 percent reduction for diesel vehicles by 2018 model year (12 and 17 percent respectively if accounting for air conditioning leakage).
Lastly, for vocational vehicles, the agencies are proposing engine and vehicle standards starting in the 2014 model year which would achieve up to a 10 percent reduction in fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions by 2018 model year.
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 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Regulatory Framework and Background
16 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.
Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Regulatory Framework and Background
17 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 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Regulatory Framework and Background
18 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.
Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Regulatory Framework and Background
19 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.
Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Regulatory Framework and Background
20 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:
Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Regulatory Framework and Background
21 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.
Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Regulatory Framework and Background
22 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 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Regulatory Framework and Background
23 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, mult i-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.
Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Regulatory Framework and Background
24 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 zero - emission off-road vehicles and equipment by 2035 where feasible.
2.2.4 South Coast Air Quality Management District
The Project is within the S alton 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 CO 2e per year for stationary/industrial sources and 3,000 metric tons of CO 2e 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 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Regulatory Framework and Background
25 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.
Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Regulatory Framework and Background
26 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 201 9; 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 eight - year 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 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Regulatory Framework and Background
27 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.
Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Setting
28 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>
Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Setting
29 Table 3: Meteorological Summary
Month Temperature (˚F) Average Precipitation
(inches) Average High Average Low
January 69.6 42.1 1.14
February 73.6 45.3 1.02
March 79.4 48.6 0.59
April 86.9 54 0.17
May 94.4 60.2 0.05
June 103.1 66.7 0.06
July 108.3 74.8 0.2
August 106.9 74.2 0.3
September 101.8 67.9 0.34
October 91.6 59.2 0.26
November 78.7 48.8 0.47
December 70.1 42.1 0.93
Annual Average 88.7 57 5.53
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>
Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Setting
30 Table 4: Local Area Air Quality Levels from Palm Springs Air Monitoring Station1
Year
Pollutant (Standard)2 2018 2019 2020
Ozone:
Maximum 1-Hour Concentration (ppm) 0.111 0.100 0.119
Days > CAAQS (0.09 ppm) 11 5 9
Maximum 8-Hour Concentration (ppm) 0.099 0.084 0.094
Days > NAAQS (0.07 ppm) 56 34 49
Days > CAAQS (0.070 ppm) 58 39 53
Carbon Monoxide:
Maximum 1-Hour Concentration (ppm) 1.1 1.3 0.8
Days > NAAQS (20 ppm) 0 0 0
Maximum 8-Hour Concentration (ppm) 0.8 0.7 0.5
Days > NAAQS (9 ppm) 0 0 0
Nitrogen Dioxide:
Maximum 1-Hour Concentration (ppm) 0.043 0.041 0.047
Days > NAAQS (0.25 ppm) 0 0 0
Sulfur Dioxide:3
Maximum 1-Hour Concentration (ppm) - - -
Days > CAAQS (0.25 ppm) - - -
Inhalable Particulates (PM10):
Maximum 24-Hour Concentration (ug/m3) 422.3 75.6 129.8
Days > NAAQS (150 ug/m3) 2 0 *
Days > CAAQS (50 ug/m3) 0 6 *
Annual Average (ug/m3) 22.9 20.7 23.2
Annual > NAAQS (50 ug/m3) No No No
Annual > CAAQS (20 ug/m3) Yes Yes Yes
Ultra-Fine Particulates (PM2.5):
Maximum 24-Hour Concentration (ug/m3) 30.2 15.5 23.9
Days > NAAQS (35 ug/m3) 0 0 0
Annual Average (ug/m3) 6 6 6.4
Annual > NAAQS (15 ug/m3) No No No
Annual > CAAQS (12 ug/m3) No No No
1. Source: obtained from https://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/air-quality-data-studies/historical-data-by-year and /or https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php.
2 CAAQS = California Ambient Air Quality Standard; NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standard; ppm = parts per million 3 No data available.
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.
Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Setting
31 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 NO 2, 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 20 18 to 20 20 monitoring period, the Federal 1-hour and 8-hour concentration standards for CO were not exceeded.
Nitrogen Dioxide
During the 20 18 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 partic ulate 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 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Setting
32 attainment of the CO standard if no more than one 8 -hour ambient air monitoring values exceeds the threshold per year. In contrast, the federal annual PM 2.5 standard is met if the three -year average of the annual average PM 2.5 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
Pollutant Averaging Time National
Standards1 Attainment Date2 California Standards2
1979
1-Hour Ozone3
1-Hour
(0.12 ppm) Attainment 11/15/2007
(Attained 12/31/2013) Nonattainment
1-Hour (0.09 ppm) - - Nonattainment
2015
8-Hour Ozone4
8-Hour
(0.070 ppm)
Pending - Expect
Nonattainment (Severe) Pending Nonattainment
2008
8-Hour Ozone4
8-Hour
(0.075 ppm)
Nonattainment
(Severe-15) 7/20/2027 -
1997
8-Hour Ozone4
8-Hour
(0.08 ppm)
Nonattainment
(Severe-15) 6/15/2019 -
CO
1-Hour (20 ppm)
8-hour (9.0 ppm) - - Attainment
1-Hour (35 ppm)
8-Hour (9 ppm)
Unclassifiable/
Attainment N/A (attained) -
NO27
1-hour (0.18 ppm) Annual
(0.03 ppm) - - Attainment
1-Hour (100 ppb)
Annual (0.053 ppm)
Unclassifiable/
Attainment N/A (attained) -
SO28
1-Hour (0.25 ppm)
24-Hour (0.04 ppm) - - Attainment
1-Hour (75 ppb) Designations Pending N/A
- 24-Hour (0.14 ppm)
Annual (0.03 ppm)
Unclassifiable/
Attainment Unclassifiable/Attainment
PM106
24-Hour (50 µg/m3) Annual
(20 50 µg/m3) - - Nonattainment
24-Hour
(150 µg/m3)
Nonattainment
(Serious) 12/31/2006 -
PM2.55
Annual (12.0 µg/m3) - - Attainment
24-Hour (35 µg/m3) Unclassifiable/
Attainment N/A (attained) -
Lead 3-Months Rolling
(0.15 µg/m3)
Unclassifiable/
Attainment 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 requir ed 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
Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Setting
33 3.2 Greenhouse Gases
Constituent gases of the Earth’s atmosphere, called atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHG), play a critical role in the Earth’s radiation amount by trapping infrared radiation emitted from the Earth’s surface, which otherwise would have escaped to space. Prominent greenhouse gases contributing to this process include carbon dioxide (CO 2), methane (CH4), ozone, water vapor, nitrous oxide (N 2O), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). This phenomenon, known as the Greenhouse Effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate. Anthropogenic (caused or produced by humans) emissions of these greenhouse gases in excess of natural ambient concentrations are responsible for the enhancement of the Greenhouse Effect and have led to a trend of unnatural warming of the Earth’s natural climate, known as global warming or climate change. Emissions of gases that induce global warming are attributable to human activities associated with industrial/manufacturing, agricultur al, utilities, transportation, and residential land uses. Transportation is responsible for 41 percent of the State’s greenhouse gas emissions, followed by electricity generation. Emissions of CO2 and nitrous oxide (NO2) are byproducts of fossil fuel combustion. Methane, a potent greenhouse gas, results from off -gassing associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Sinks of CO 2, where CO 2 is stored outside of the atmosphere, include uptake by vegetation and dissolution into the ocean. Table 6 provides a description of each of the greenhouse gases and their global warming potential.
Additional information is available: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm
<Table 6, next page>
Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Setting
34 Table 6: Description of Greenhouse Gases
Greenhouse Gas Description and Physical Properties Sources Nitrous oxide
Nitrous oxide (N 20),also known as laughing gas is a
colorless gas. It has a lifetime of 114 years. Its global warming potential is 298.
Microbial processes in soil and water,
fuel combustion, and industrial
processes. In addition to agricultural
sources, some industrial processes
(nylon production, nitric acid
production) also emit N20.
Methane
Methane (CH 4) is a flammable gas and is the main
component of natural gas. It has a lifetime of 12 years.
Its global warming potential is 25.
A natural source of CH 4 is from the
decay of organic matter. Methane is
extracted from geological deposits
(natural gas fields). Other sources are
from the decay of organic material in
landfills, fermentation of manure, and
cattle farming.
Carbon dioxide
Carbon dioxide (CO 2) is an odorless, colorless, natural greenhouse gas. Carbon dioxide’s global warming
potential is 1. The concentration in 2005 was 379 parts per million (ppm), which is an increase of about 1.4
ppm per year since 1960.
Natural sources include decomposition
of dead organic matter; respiration of
bacteria, plants, animals, and fungus;
evaporation from oceans; and volcanic
outgassing. Anthropogenic sources are
from burning coal, oil, natural gas, and
wood.
Chlorofluorocarbons
CFCs are nontoxic, nonflammable, insoluble, and
chemically unreactive in the troposphere (the level of
air at the earth’s surface). They are gases formed
synthetically by replacing all hydrogen atoms in
methane or methane with chlorine and/or fluorine
atoms. Global warming potentials range from 3,800 to
8,100.
Chlorofluorocarbons were synthesized
in 1928 for use as refrigerants, aerosol
propellants, and cleaning solvents. They
destroy stratospheric ozone, therefore
their production was stopped as
required by the Montreal Protocol.
Hydrofluorocarbons
Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are a group of greenhouse
gases containing carbon, chlorine, and at least one
hydrogen atom. Global warming potentials range from
140 to 11,700.
Hydrofluorocarbons are synthetic
manmade chemicals used as a
substitute for chlorofluorocarbons in
applications such as automobile air
conditioners and refrigerants.
Perfluorocarbons
Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) have stable molecular
structures and only break down by ultraviolet rays
about 60 kilometers above the Earth's surface. They
have a lifetime 10,000 to 50,000 years. They have a
global warming potential range of 6,200 to 9,500.
Two main sources of perfluorocarbons
are primary aluminum production and
semiconductor manufacturing.
Sulfur
hexafluoride
Sulfur hexafluoride (SF 6) is an inorganic, odorless,
colorless, and nontoxic, nonflammable gas. It has a
lifetime of 3,200 years. It has a high global warming
potential, 23,900.
This gas is manmade and used for
insulation in electric power transmission
equipment, in the magnesium industry,
in semiconductor manufacturing, and as
a tracer gas for leak detection.
Notes:
1. Sources: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2014a and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2014b. https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-10-2.html Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Modeling Parameters and Assumptions
35 4.0 Modeling Parameters and Assumptions
4.1 Construction
Typical emission rates from construction activities were obtained from CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.21 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. EMFAC201 7 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, c onstruction 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.
Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Modeling Parameters and Assumptions
36 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 vehic le 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 EMFAC201 7 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:
Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Modeling Parameters and Assumptions
37 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
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 2 0.5 1.0
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 0.5 1.0
Total Per Phase 2.0
Grading
Graders 1 0.5 0.5
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 0.5 0.5
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 0.5 1.5
Total Per Phase 2.5
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.
Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Thresholds of Significance
38 5.0 Thresholds of Significance
5.1 Air Quality Thresholds of Significance
5.1.1 CEQA Guidelines for Air Quality
The CEQA Guidelines define a significant effect on the environment as “a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment.” To determine if a project would have a significant impact on air quality, the type, level, and impact of emissions generated by the project must be evaluated.
The following air quality significance thresholds are contained in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. A significant impact would occur if the project would:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable national or state ambient air quality standard; c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.
While the final determination of whether a project is significant is within the purview of the Lead Agency pursuant to Section 15064(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, SCAQMD recommends that its quantitative air pollution thresholds be used to determine the significance of project emissions. If the Lead Agency finds that the project has the potential to exceed these air pollution thresholds, the project should be considered to have significant air quality impacts. There are daily emission thresholds for construction and operation of a proposed project in the basin.
5.1.2 Regional Significance Thresholds for Construction Emissions The following CEQA significance thresholds for construction emissions are established for the Basin:
• 75 pounds per day (lbs/day) of VOC
• 100 lbs/day of NOx
• 550 lbs/day of CO
• 150 lbs/day of PM10
• 55 lbs/day of PM2.5
• 150 lbs/day of SO2
Projects in the basin with construction -related emissions that exceed any of the emission thresholds are considered to be significant under SCAQMD guidelines.
Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Thresholds of Significance
39 5.1.3 Regional Significance Thresholds for Operational Emissions The daily operational emissions significance thresholds for the basin are as follows:
• 55 pounds per day (lbs/day) of VOC
• 55 lbs/day of NOx
• 550 lbs/day of CO
• 150 lbs/day of PM10
• 55 lbs/day of PM2.5
• 150 lbs/day of SO2
Local Microscale Concentration Standards The significance of localized project impacts under CEQA depends on whether ambient CO levels in the vicinity of the project are above or below State and federal CO standards. If ambient levels are below the standards, a project is considered to have a significant impact if project emissions result in an exceedance of one or more of these standards. If ambient levels already exceed a State or federal standard, project emissions are considered significant if they increase 1 -hour CO concentrations by 1.0 ppm or more or 8 -hour CO concentrations by 0.45 ppm or more. The following are applicable local emission concentration standards for CO:
• California State 1-hour CO standard of 20.0 ppm
• California State 8-hour CO standard of 9.0 ppm
5.1.4 Thresholds for Localized Significance
Project-related construction air emissions may have the potential to exceed the State and Federal air quality standards in the project vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the Salton Sea Air Basin. In order to assess local air quality impacts the SCAQMD has developed Localized Significant Thresholds (LSTs) to assess the project - related air emissions in the project vicinity. The SCAQMD has also provided Final Localized Significant Threshold Methodology (LST Methodology), June 2003, which details the methodology to analyze local air emission impacts. The Localized Significant Threshold Methodology found that the primary emissions of concern are NO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5.
The emission thresholds were calculated based on the 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.
Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Thresholds of Significance
40 The following greenhouse gas significance thresholds are contained in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, which were amendments adopted into the Guidelines on March 18, 2010, pursuant to SB 97. A significant impact would occur if the project would:
(a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or
(b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
However, despite this, currently neither the CEQA statutes, OPR guidelines, nor the draft proposed changes to the CEQA Guidelines prescribe thresholds of significance or a particular methodology for performing an impact analysis; as with most environmental topics, significance criteria are left to the judgment and discretion of the Lead Agency. As previously discussed (Section 2.2.4 of this report), SCAQMD has drafted interim 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.
Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Air Quality Emissions Impact
41 6.0 Air Quality Emissions Impact
6.1 Construction Air Quality Emissions Impact
The latest version of CalEEMod was used to estimate the onsite and offsite construction emissions. The emissions incorporate Rule 402 and 403. Rule 402 and 403 (fugitive dust) are not considered mitigation measures as the project by default is required to incorporate these rules during construction.
6.1.1 Regional Construction Emissions
The construction emissions for 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 2.35 23.20 20.70 0.03 6.14 3.58
Off-Site3 0.06 0.06 1.03 0.00 0.13 0.03
Total 2.41 23.26 21.73 0.03 6.27 3.61
Grading
On-Site2 1.90 18.20 18.80 0.03 3.61 2.11
Off-Site3 0.12 2.54 2.10 0.01 0.81 0.19
Total 2.02 20.74 20.90 0.04 4.42 2.30
Building Construction
On-Site2 1.20 11.20 13.10 0.02 0.50 0.45
Off-Site3 0.33 1.08 6.02 0.01 0.92 0.22
Total 1.53 12.28 19.12 0.03 1.42 0.67
Paving
On-Site2 1.43 7.45 9.98 0.01 0.35 0.32
Off-Site3 0.08 0.08 1.43 0.00 0.20 0.05
Total 1.51 7.53 11.41 0.01 0.55 0.37
Architectural Coating
On-Site2 56.33 0.88 1.14 0.00 0.03 0.03
Off-Site3 0.06 0.06 1.05 0.00 0.14 0.03
Total 56.39 0.94 2.19 0.00 0.17 0.06
Total of overlapping phases4 59.43 20.75 32.72 0.04 2.14 1.10 SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Thresholds No No No No No No
Scenario 2
Site Preparation
On-Site2 2.35 23.20 20.70 0.03 6.14 3.58
Off-Site3 0.06 0.06 1.03 0.00 0.13 0.03
Total 2.41 23.26 21.73 0.03 6.27 3.61
Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Air Quality Emissions Impact
42 Grading
On-Site2 1.90 18.20 18.80 0.03 3.61 2.11
Off-Site3 0.12 2.54 2.10 0.01 0.81 0.19
Total 2.02 20.74 20.90 0.04 4.42 2.30
Building Construction
On-Site2 1.20 11.20 13.10 0.02 0.50 0.45
Off-Site3 0.40 0.61 7.24 0.01 1.11 0.28
Total 1.60 11.81 20.34 0.03 1.61 0.73
Paving
On-Site2 1.43 7.45 9.98 0.01 0.35 0.32
Off-Site3 0.08 0.08 1.43 0.00 0.20 0.05
Total 1.51 7.53 11.41 0.01 0.55 0.37
Architectural Coating
On-Site2 56.33 0.88 1.14 0.00 0.03 0.03
Off-Site3 0.07 0.07 1.26 0.00 0.17 0.04
Total 56.40 0.95 2.40 0.00 0.20 0.07
Total of overlapping phases4 59.51 20.29 34.15 0.04 2.36 1.17 SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Thresholds No No No No No No
Difference (Scenario 2 - Scenario 1) 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
Phase
On-Site Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)1
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Scenario 1
Site Preparation 25.60 22.40 6.27 3.70
Grading 20.00 19.70 3.71 2.21
Building Construction 11.80 13.20 0.55 0.51
Paving 7.81 10.00 0.39 0.36
Architectural Coating 0.91 1.15 0.03 0.03
Total of overlapping phases 20.52 24.35 0.97 0.90
SCAQMD Threshold for 25 meters (82 feet) or less 2 209.83 1,464.50 8.17 3.83 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No
Scenario 2
Site Preparation 25.60 22.40 6.27 3.70
Grading 20.00 19.70 3.71 2.21
Building Construction 11.80 13.20 0.55 0.51
Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Air Quality Emissions Impact
43 Paving 7.81 10.00 0.39 0.36
Architectural Coating 0.91 1.15 0.03 0.03
Total of overlapping phases 20.52 24.35 0.97 0.90
SCAQMD Threshold for 25 meters (82 feet) or less 2 209.83 1,464.50 8.17 3.83 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No
Difference (Scenario 2 - Scenario 1) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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). 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 long - term 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.
Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Air Quality Emissions Impact
44 The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has issued the Air Toxic Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines and Guidance Manual for the Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, February 2015 to provide a description of the algorithms, recommended exposure variates, cancer and noncancer health values, and the air modeling protocols needed to perform a health risk assessment (HRA) under the Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act of 1987.
Hazard identification includes identifying all substances that are evaluated for cancer risk and/or non - cancer acute, 8 -hour, and chronic health impacts. In addition, identifying any multi -pathway substances that present a cancer risk or chronic non -cancer hazard via non -inhalation routes of exposure.
Given the relatively limited number of heavy -duty construction equipment and construction schedule, the proposed project would not result in a long -term substantial source of toxic air containment emissions and corresponding individual cancer risk. Furthermore, construction -based particulate matter (PM) emissions (including diesel exhaust emissions) do not exceed any local or regional thresholds. Therefore, no significant short -term toxic air contaminant impacts would occur during construction of the proposed project.
6.2 Operational Air Quality Emissions Impact
6.2.1 Regional Operational Emissions
The operations-related criteria air quality impacts created by the proposed project have been analyzed through the use of CalE EMod 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)
Activity
Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)1
VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Scenario 1
Area Sources2 4.17 0.05 5.79 0.00 0.01 0.01
Energy Usage3 0.20 3.67 3.08 0.02 0.28 0.28
Mobile Sources4 6.70 6.00 53.50 0.12 9.34 2.42
Total Emissions 11.07 9.72 62.37 0.14 9.63 2.71
SCAQMD Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Scenario 2
Area Sources2 5.31 0.06 7.38 0.00 0.01 0.01
Energy Usage3 0.04 0.68 0.57 0.00 0.05 0.05
Mobile Sources4 14.00 12.50 112.00 0.24 19.50 5.06
Total Emissions 19.35 13.24 119.95 0.24 19.56 5.12
SCAQMD Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Difference (Scenario 2 - Scenario 1) 8.28 3.52 57.58 0.10 9.93 2.41 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Air Quality Emissions Impact
45 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 t he 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 Emission Source
On-Site Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)1
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Scenario 1
Area Sources2 0.05 5.79 0.01 0.01
Energy Usage3 3.67 3.08 0.28 0.28
On-Site Vehicle Emissions4 0.60 5.35 0.93 0.24
Total Emissions 4.32 14.22 1.22 0.53
SCAQMD Threshold for 25 meters (82 feet) 5 247.5 1,795.5 3.0 1.5 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No
Scenario 2
Area Sources2 0.06 7.38 0.01 0.01
Energy Usage3 0.68 0.57 0.05 0.05
On-Site Vehicle Emissions4 1.25 11.20 1.95 0.51
Total Emissions 1.99 19.15 2.01 0.57
SCAQMD Threshold for 25 meters (82 feet) 5 247.5 1,795.5 3.0 1.5 Exceeds Threshold? No 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.
Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Air Quality Emissions Impact
46 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 Engi neering Group (202 3) 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 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Air Quality Emissions Impact
47 the CO standard. Therefore , no CO “hot spot” modeling was performed and less than significant long- term air quality impact is anticipated to local air quality with the on-going use of the proposed project.
6.4 Cumulative Regional Air Quality Impacts
Cumulative projects include local development as well as general growth within the project area.
However, as with most development, the greatest source of emissions is from mobile sources, which travel well out of the local area. Therefore, from an air quality standpoint, the cumulative analysis would extend beyond any local projects and when wind patterns are considered, would cover an even larger area. Accordingly, the cumulative analysis for the project’s air quality must be generic by nature.
The project area is out of attainment for both ozone and PM10 particulate matter. Construction and operation of cumulative projects will further degrade the local air quality, as well as the air quality of the 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:
Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Air Quality Emissions Impact
48 (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.
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 em phasis of this criterion is to e nsure 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.
Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis
49 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 CO 2e per year for Scenario 2 . Annual CalEEMod output calculations are provided in Appendix A.
Table 12: Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Scenario
Emissions (MTCO2e)1
Onsite
Scenario 1 508.00
Scenario 2 545.00
Difference (Scenario 2 - Scenario 1) 37.00
Scenario 1 Averaged over 30 years2 16.93
Scenario 2 Averaged over 30 years2 18.17
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 CO2e per year in Scenario 1 and 4,476.96 metric tons of CO 2e per year in Scenario 2. These emissions 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>
Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis
50 Table 13: Opening Year Unmitigated Project-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Category
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Metric Tons/Year)1
Bio-CO2 NonBio-CO2 CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Scenario 1
Area Sources2 0.00 1.95 1.95 0.00 0.00 1.95
Energy Usage3 0.00 982.00 982.00 0.00 0.00 985.00
Mobile Sources4 0.00 1,830.00 1,830.00 0.08 0.09 1,863.00 Solid Waste5 17.90 0.00 17.90 1.79 0.00 62.70
Water6 9.38 34.40 43.78 0.96 0.02 74.80
Construction7 0.00 16.70 16.70 0.00 0.00 16.93
Total Emissions 27.28 2,865.05 2,892.33 2.83 0.11 3,004.38 County of Riverside CAP and SCAQMD Draft Screening Threshold 3,000 Exceeds Threshold? Yes
Scenario 2
Area Sources2 0.00 2.48 2.48 0.00 0.00 2.49
Energy Usage3 0.00 435.00 435.00 0.03 0.00 436.00
Mobile Sources4 0.00 3,823.00 3,823.00 0.17 0.19 3,891.00 Solid Waste5 14.80 0.00 14.80 1.48 0.00 51.70
Water6 9.73 35.70 45.43 1.00 0.02 77.60
Construction7 0.00 17.90 17.90 0.00 0.00 18.17
Total Emissions 24.53 4,314.08 4,338.61 2.68 0.21 4,476.96 County of Riverside CAP and SCAQMD Draft Screening Threshold 3,000 Exceeds Threshold? Yes
Difference (Scenario 2 - Scenario 1) 1,472.57
Notes:
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 CO2 and CH4 emissions created from the solid waste placed in landfills. 6 Water includes GHG emissions from electricity used for transport of water and processing of wastewater. 7 Construction GHG emissions based on a 30 year amortization rate.
7.3 Greenhouse Gas Plan Consistency
The proposed project would have the potential to conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. As stated previously, 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 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis
51 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.
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.
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 emission s‐reducing measures have been provided for different sectors of the community including transportation, residential buildings, commercial buildings, government incentives, renewable energy, cro ss‐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 1 4, the project is consistent with the applicable measures identified in the CAP. In addition, the proposed Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis
52 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
Sector CAP Measures to
Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions Project Compliance with Measure Sphere - "Where We Live"
Solid Waste
Solid Waste Diversion: Increase solid waste
diversion rate by 55% to 68.1% by 2015
potentially through use of tiered rate
structure.
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.
Sphere - "Where We Work"
Commercial
Buildings
Peak Demand Reduction: Collaborate with SCE
and encourage 200 businesses to enroll in
Energy Efficiency and Demand Response
programs such as the Summer Discount
Program.
Consistent. This is a city-based measure. If the project 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
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-
efficient lighting.
Water
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).
Sphere - " How We Build"
Commercial
Buildings
"Cool Roofs": Promote the installation of
reflective roofing on commercial/industrial
properties in the community with recognition
for first ten early adopters.
Consistent. The project will comply with current 2022
Title 24 prescriptive cool roof requirements to meet
energy compliance.
Government
Initiatives
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
mandatory in the 2010 edition of the Code, on
planning and design for sustainable site development,
energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy
Code requirements), water conservation, material
conservation, and internal air contaminants. The
Proposed Project would be subject to these mandatory
Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis
53 Sector CAP Measures to
Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions 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 cost - effective 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 1 5. As shown in Table 1 5, the project is consistent with the applicable strategies and would result in a less than significant impact.
Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis
54 Table 15: Project Consistency with CARB Scoping Plan Policies and Measures1
2008 Scoping Plan Measures to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions Project Compliance with Measure California Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Standards – Implement adopted standards and planned second phase of the program. Align zero-emission vehicle, alternative and renewable fuel and vehicle technology programs with long-term climate change goals.
Consistent. These are CARB enforced standards;
vehicles that access the project that are
required to comply with the standards will
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 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.
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 to reduce the carbon footprint of California’s new and existing inventory of buildings.
Consistent. The California Green Building
Standards Code (proposed Part 11, Title 24) was
adopted as part of the California Building
Standards Code in the CCR. Part 11 establishes
voluntary standards, that are mandatory in the
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.
Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis
55 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 on all light-duty vehicles beyond existing Advanced Clean Car regulations.
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: At least 1.5 million zero emission 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.
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: 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 regulation that would result in the use of low NOX or cleaner engines and the deployment of increasing numbers of zero-emission 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.
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 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 landfill reduction goals in the SLCP and SB 1383.
Consistent. 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.
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
Consistent. The project will be compliant with
the current Title 24 standards.
Generate clean electricity Consistent. The project will be compliant with the current Title 24 standards and would not
interfere with clean energy generation.
Decarbonize industrial energy supply Consistent. The project will be compliant with the current Title 24 standards and would be
commercial, therefore would not interfere with
Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis
56 this goal.
Decarbonize buildings Consistent. The project will be compliant with the current Title 24 standards.
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 20 20-2045 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 20 20- 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 Actions and Strategies
Responsible
Party(ies) Consistency Analysis
Land Use Strategies
Reflect the changing population and demands,
including combating gentrification and displacement,
by increasing housing supply at a variety of
affordability levels.
Local
Jurisdictions
Consistent. The proposed project is a commercial
development on a currently vacant site; therefore,
it will not displace existing housing.
Focus new growth around transit. Local
Jurisdictions
Consistent. The proposed project is a commercial
development that would be consistent with the
2020 RTP/SCS focus on growing near transit
facilities.
Plan for growth around livable corridors, including
growth on the Livable Corridors network.
SCAG, Local
Jurisdictions
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.
Provide more options for short trips through
Neighborhood Mobility Areas and Complete
Communities.
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.
Support local sustainability planning, including
developing sustainable planning and design policies,
sustainable zoning codes, and Climate Action Plans.
Local
Jurisdictions
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
Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis
57 would be consistent with those policy objectives.
Protect natural and farmlands, including developing
conservation strategies.
SCAG, Local
Jurisdictions
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.
Transportation Strategies
Preserve our existing transportation system.
SCAG, County
Transportatio
n
Commissions,
Local
Jurisdictions
Not Applicable. This strategy calls on investing in
the maintenance of our existing transportation
system. The proposed project would not interfere
with such policymaking.
Manage congestion through programs like the
Congestion Management Program, Transportation
Demand Management, and Transportation Systems
Management strategies.
County
Transportatio
n
Commissions,
Local
Jurisdictions
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.
Promote safety and security in the transportation
system.
SCAG, County
Transportatio
n
Commissions,
Local
Jurisdictions
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.
Complete our transit, passenger rail, active
transportation, highways and arterials, regional
express lanes goods movement, and airport ground
transportation systems.
SCAG, County
Transportatio
n
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.
Technological Innovation and 21st Century Transportation Promote zero-emissions vehicles. SCAG, Local
Jurisdictions
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.
Promote neighborhood electric vehicles. SCAG, Local
Jurisdictions
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.
Implement shared mobility programs. SCAG, Local
Jurisdictions
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.
Notes:
1 Source: Southern California Association of Governments; 2020–2045 RTP/SCS, May 2020.
Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis
58 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.
Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Energy Analysis
59 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
Size (1,000
Square Foot)1
Construction
Duration
(months)
Total Project
Construction
Power Cost
$2.32 133.243 15 $4,636.86
Cost per kWh
Total Project Construction
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
Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Energy Analysis
60 Scenario 2
Power Cost (per 1,000 square
foot of building per month of
construction)
Total Building
Size (1,000
Square Foot)1
Construction
Duration
(months)
Total Project
Construction
Power Cost
$2.32 169.779 15 $5,908.31
Cost per kWh
Total Project Construction
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
Phase
Number
of Days Offroad Equipment Type Amount
Usage
Hours
Horse
Power
Load
Factor
HP
hrs/
day
Total Fuel
Consumption
(gal diesel
fuel)1,2
Site
Preparation
20 Rubber Tired Dozers 2 6 367 0.4 1,762 1,904
20 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 84 0.37 497 538
Grading
20 Excavators 1 8 36 0.38 109 118
20 Graders 1 8 148 0.41 485 525
20 Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 367 0.4 1,174 1,270
20 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8 84 0.37 746 806
Building
Construction
230 Cranes 1 7 367 0.29 745 9,262
230 Forklifts 3 8 82 0.2 394 4,893
230 Generator Sets 1 8 14 0.74 83 1,030
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 ).
Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Energy Analysis
61 230 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7 84 0.37 653 8,114
230 Welders 1 8 46 0.45 166 2,059
Paving
20 Pavers 2 8 81 0.42 544 588
20 Paving Equipment 2 8 89 0.36 513 554
20 Rollers 2 8 36 0.38 219 237
Architectural
Coating 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
Phase
Number of
Days
Worker
Trips/Day
Trip Length
(miles)1
Vehicle
Miles
Traveled
Average
Vehicle Fuel
Economy
(mpg)
Estimated Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)2
Scenario 1
Site Preparation 20 10 18.5 3,700 30.95 120
Grading 20 15 18.5 5,550 30.95 179
Building Construction 230 54.8 18.5 233,174 30.95 7,534 Paving 20 15 18.5 5,550 30.95 179
Architectural Coating 25 11 18.5 5,088 30.95 164
Total Construction Worker Fuel Consumption 8,176
Scenario 2
Site Preparation 20 10 18.5 3,700 30.95 120
Grading 20 15 18.5 5,550 30.95 179
Building Construction 230 65.8 18.5 279,979 30.95 9,046 Paving 20 15 18.5 5,550 30.95 179
Architectural Coating 25 13.2 18.5 6,105 30.95 197
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.
Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Energy Analysis
62 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
Phase
Number of
Days
Vendor
Trips/Day
Trip Length
(miles)
Vehicle
Miles
Traveled
Average Vehicle
Fuel Economy
(mpg)
Estimated Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Scenario 1
Site Preparation 20 0 10.2 0 9.22 0
Grading 20 0 10.2 0 9.22 0
Building Construction 230 21.8 10.2 51,143 9.22 5,547
Paving 20 0 10.2 0 9.22 0
Architectural Coating 25 0 10.2 0 9.22 0
Total Vendor Fuel Consumption 5,547
Scenario 2
Site Preparation 20 0 10.2 0 9.22 0
Grading 20 0 10.2 0 9.22 0
Building Construction 230 27.8 10.2 65,219 9.22 7,074
Paving 20 0 10.2 0 9.22 0
Architectural Coating 25 0 10.2 0 9.22 0
Total Vendor Fuel Consumption 7,074
Difference (Scenario 2 - Scenario 1) 1,527
Notes:
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).
Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Energy Analysis
63 Table 21: Construction Hauling Fuel Consumption Estimates (HHD Trucks)1
Phase
Number of
Days
Hauling
Trips/Day
Trip Length
(miles)
Vehicle
Miles
Traveled
Average Vehicle
Fuel Economy
(mpg)
Estimated Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Scenario 1
Site Preparation 20 0 20 0 6.74 0
Grading 20 31.3 20 12,520 6.74 1,858
Building Construction 230 0 20 0 6.74 0
Paving 20 0 20 0 6.74 0
Architectural Coating 25 0 20 0 6.74 0
Total Construction Hauling Fuel Consumption 1,858
Scenario 2
Site Preparation 20 0 20 0 6.74 0
Grading 20 31.3 20 12,520 6.74 1,858
Building Construction 230 0 20 0 6.74 0
Paving 20 0 20 0 6.74 0
Architectural Coating 25 0 20 0 6.74 0
Total Construction Hauling Fuel Consumption 1,858
Difference (Scenario 2 - Scenario 1) 0
Notes:
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).
Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Energy Analysis
64 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
Vehicle Type Vehicle Mix
Number
of
Vehicles
Average
Trip
(miles)1
Daily
VMT
Average
Fuel
Economy
(mpg)
Total
Gallons
per Day
Total Annual
Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Scenario 1
Light Auto Automobile 936.7 16.6 15,549 31.82 488.64 178,354 Light Truck Automobile 98.1 6.9 677 27.16 24.92 9,098
Light Truck Automobile 302.3 6.9 2,086 25.6 81.49 29,744 Medium Truck Automobile 246.9 6.9 1,704 20.81 81.88 29,886 Light Heavy Truck 2-Axle Truck 46.6 8.4 391 13.81 28.33 10,341 Light Heavy Truck 10,000 lbs + 2-Axle Truck 12.8 8.4 108 14.18 7.58 2,768 Medium Heavy Truck 3-Axle Truck 19.8 8.4 167 9.58 17.39 6,349 Heavy Heavy Truck 4-Axle Truck 32.7 8.4 275 7.14 38.51 14,057 Total 1,696 -- 20,956 -- 768.76 --
Total Annual Fuel Consumption 280,596
Scenario 2
Light Auto Automobile 1,956.2 16.6 32,472 31.82 1020.50 372,483 Light Truck Automobile 204.9 6.9 1,414 27.16 52.05 19,000 Light Truck Automobile 631.4 6.9 4,357 25.6 170.19 62,118 Medium Truck Automobile 515.7 6.9 3,558 20.81 171.00 62,414 Light Heavy Truck 2-Axle Truck 97.3 8.4 817 13.81 59.17 21,597 Light Heavy Truck 10,000 lbs + 2-Axle Truck 26.7 8.4 225 14.18 15.84 5,781 Medium Heavy Truck 3-Axle Truck 41.4 8.4 348 9.58 36.32 13,259 Heavy Heavy Truck 4-Axle Truck 68.4 8.4 574 7.14 80.43 29,358 Total 3,542 -- 43,765 -- 1605.50 --
Total Annual Fuel Consumption 586,008
Notes:
'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.
Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Energy Analysis
65 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 kBTU/year
Unrefrigerated Warehouse - No Rail 2,196,632
Strip Mall 66,086
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 801,834
Total 3,064,552
Electricity Demand kWh/year
Unrefrigerated Warehouse - No Rail 529,519
Strip Mall 108,894
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 246,858
Parking Lot 183,161
Total 1,068,432
Scenario 2
Natural Gas Demand kBTU/year
Unrefrigerated Warehouse - No Rail 2,196,632
Regional Shopping Center 324,091
Total 2,520,723
Difference (Scenario 2 - Scenario 1) -543,829
Electricity Demand kWh/year
Unrefrigerated Warehouse - No Rail 529,519
Strip Mall 50,139
Parking Lot 183,161
Total 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 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Energy Analysis
66 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 plan s 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 Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA CEQA Analysis
67 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.
Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA CEQA Analysis
68 (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 CO 2e 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.
Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA CEQA Analysis
69 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 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.
Therefore, the Project would not c onflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency and would therefore have a less than significant impact.
Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA References
70 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 Resolution 08-43
2008 Recommended Approaches for Setting Interim Significance Thresholds for Greenhouse Gases under the California Environmental Quality Act
2008 ARB Recommended Interim Risk Management Policy for Inhalation -Based Residential Cancer Risk – Frequently Asked Questions
2008 Climate Change Scoping Plan, a framework for change.
2011 Supplement to the AB 32 Scoping Plan Functional Equivalent Document
2014 First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan, Building on the Framework Pursuant to AB32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. May.
2018 Historical Air Quality, Top 4 Summary
City of 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.
Date Palm Mixed Use Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA References
71 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
2015 Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines
South Coast Air Quality Management District
1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook
2005 Rule 403 Fugitive Dust
2007 2007 Air Quality Management Plan
2008 Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, Revised
2011 Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod
2012 Final 2012 Air Quality Management Plan
2016 Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan
2022 Final 2022 Air Quality Management Plan
Appendix A:
CalEEMod Output
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 1 / 79
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 Y ear, Unmitigated
2.3. Construction Emissions by Y ear, 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
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 2 / 79
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
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 3 / 79
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
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 4 / 79
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
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 5 / 79
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
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 6 / 79
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
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 7 / 79
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
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 8 / 79
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
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 9 / 79
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1
Construction Start Date 4/1/2024
Operational Y ear 2025
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 3.30
Precipitation (days) 10.0
Location 33.827226852362244, -116.45770401427775
County Riverside-Salton Sea
City Cathedral City
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin Salton Sea
TAZ 5673
EDFZ 11
Electric Utility Southern California Edison
Gas Utility 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 ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 10 / 79
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
115 1000sqft 2.64 115,054 0.00 — — —
Strip Mall 11.2 1000sqft 0.26 11,159 0.00 — — —
Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thr
u
7.03 1000sqft 0.16 7,030 0.00 — — —
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 C-10-A Water Exposed Surfaces
Construction C-11 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. 56.4 23.2 21.7 0.04 1.03 13.2 14.3 0.95 6.77 7.71 — 5,357 5,357 0.15 0.37 5.48 5,477 Mit. 56.4 23.2 21.7 0.04 1.03 5.24 6.27 0.95 2.66 3.61 — 5,357 5,357 0.15 0.37 5.48 5,477 %
Reduced
— — — — — 60% 56% — 61% 53% — — — — — — —
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 Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 11 / 79
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 0.14 0.13 3,856 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 4.27 7.29 9.21 0.02 0.31 1.51 1.82 0.28 0.66 0.94 — 2,008 2,008 0.07 0.08 1.00 2,034 Mit. 4.27 7.29 9.21 0.02 0.31 0.84 1.14 0.28 0.32 0.60 — 2,008 2,008 0.07 0.08 1.00 2,034 %
Reduced
— — — — — 45% 37% — 52% 36% — — — — — — —
Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.78 1.33 1.68 < 0.005 0.06 0.28 0.33 0.05 0.12 0.17 — 332 332 0.01 0.01 0.17 337 Mit. 0.78 1.33 1.68 < 0.005 0.06 0.15 0.21 0.05 0.06 0.11 — 332 332 0.01 0.01 0.17 337 %
Reduced
— — — — — 45% 37% — 52% 36% — — — — — — —
2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Y ear ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 2.41 23.2 21.7 0.04 1.03 13.2 14.3 0.95 6.77 7.71 — 5,357 5,357 0.15 0.37 5.48 5,477 2025 56.4 11.5 18.6 0.03 0.44 0.90 1.35 0.41 0.22 0.63 — 3,903 3,903 0.14 0.14 4.72 3,953 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 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 2025 1.37 11.5 16.3 0.03 0.44 0.90 1.35 0.41 0.22 0.63 — 3,782 3,782 0.14 0.14 0.12 3,828 Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 12 / 79
—————————————————Average
Daily
2024 0.83 7.29 9.21 0.02 0.31 1.51 1.82 0.28 0.66 0.94 — 2,008 2,008 0.07 0.08 1.00 2,034 2025 4.27 3.20 4.78 0.01 0.13 0.23 0.36 0.12 0.06 0.17 — 1,020 1,020 0.04 0.03 0.52 1,032 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.15 1.33 1.68 < 0.005 0.06 0.28 0.33 0.05 0.12 0.17 — 332 332 0.01 0.01 0.17 337 2025 0.78 0.58 0.87 < 0.005 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.02 0.01 0.03 — 169 169 0.01 0.01 0.09 171
2.3. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Y ear ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 2.41 23.2 21.7 0.04 1.03 5.24 6.27 0.95 2.66 3.61 — 5,357 5,357 0.15 0.37 5.48 5,477 2025 56.4 11.5 18.6 0.03 0.44 0.90 1.35 0.41 0.22 0.63 — 3,903 3,903 0.14 0.14 4.72 3,953 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 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 2025 1.37 11.5 16.3 0.03 0.44 0.90 1.35 0.41 0.22 0.63 — 3,782 3,782 0.14 0.14 0.12 3,828 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.83 7.29 9.21 0.02 0.31 0.84 1.14 0.28 0.32 0.60 — 2,008 2,008 0.07 0.08 1.00 2,034 2025 4.27 3.20 4.78 0.01 0.13 0.23 0.36 0.12 0.06 0.17 — 1,020 1,020 0.04 0.03 0.52 1,032 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.15 1.33 1.68 < 0.005 0.06 0.15 0.21 0.05 0.06 0.11 — 332 332 0.01 0.01 0.17 337 2025 0.78 0.58 0.87 < 0.005 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.02 0.01 0.03 — 169 169 0.01 0.01 0.09 171 Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 13 / 79
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 6.70 5.54 53.5 0.12 0.08 9.25 9.34 0.08 2.35 2.42 — 11,854 11,854 0.49 0.56 39.4 12,072 Area 4.17 0.05 5.79 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 23.8 23.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 23.9 Energy 0.20 3.67 3.08 0.02 0.28 — 0.28 0.28 — 0.28 — 5,933 5,933 0.48 0.02 — 5,951 Water — — — — — — — — — — 56.7 208 265 5.82 0.14 — 452
Waste — — — — — — — — — — 108 0.00 108 10.8 0.00 — 379
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 14 / 79
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 11.2 11.2
Total 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 5.27 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 Area 3.22 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.20 3.67 3.08 0.02 0.28 — 0.28 0.28 — 0.28 — 5,933 5,933 0.48 0.02 — 5,951 Water — — — — — — — — — — 56.7 208 265 5.82 0.14 — 452
Waste — — — — — — — — — — 108 0.00 108 10.8 0.00 — 379
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 11.2 11.2
Total 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
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 5.66 5.74 42.0 0.11 0.08 9.19 9.28 0.08 2.33 2.41 — 11,056 11,056 0.50 0.56 17.0 11,253 Area 3.69 0.02 2.86 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 11.8 11.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.8 Energy 0.20 3.67 3.08 0.02 0.28 — 0.28 0.28 — 0.28 — 5,933 5,933 0.48 0.02 — 5,951 Water — — — — — — — — — — 56.7 208 265 5.82 0.14 — 452
Waste — — — — — — — — — — 108 0.00 108 10.8 0.00 — 379
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 11.2 11.2
Total 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.03 1.05 7.66 0.02 0.02 1.68 1.69 0.01 0.43 0.44 — 1,830 1,830 0.08 0.09 2.82 1,863 Area 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 Energy 0.04 0.67 0.56 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 982 982 0.08 < 0.005 — 985 Water — — — — — — — — — — 9.38 34.4 43.8 0.96 0.02 — 74.8 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 17.9 0.00 17.9 1.79 0.00 — 62.7 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.86 1.86
Total 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 Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 15 / 79
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 6.70 5.54 53.5 0.12 0.08 9.25 9.34 0.08 2.35 2.42 — 11,854 11,854 0.49 0.56 39.4 12,072 Area 4.17 0.05 5.79 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 23.8 23.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 23.9 Energy 0.20 3.67 3.08 0.02 0.28 — 0.28 0.28 — 0.28 — 5,933 5,933 0.48 0.02 — 5,951 Water — — — — — — — — — — 56.7 208 265 5.82 0.14 — 452
Waste — — — — — — — — — — 108 0.00 108 10.8 0.00 — 379
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 11.2 11.2
Total 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 5.27 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 Area 3.22 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.20 3.67 3.08 0.02 0.28 — 0.28 0.28 — 0.28 — 5,933 5,933 0.48 0.02 — 5,951 Water — — — — — — — — — — 56.7 208 265 5.82 0.14 — 452
Waste — — — — — — — — — — 108 0.00 108 10.8 0.00 — 379
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 11.2 11.2
Total 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
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 5.66 5.74 42.0 0.11 0.08 9.19 9.28 0.08 2.33 2.41 — 11,056 11,056 0.50 0.56 17.0 11,253 Area 3.69 0.02 2.86 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 11.8 11.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.8 Energy 0.20 3.67 3.08 0.02 0.28 — 0.28 0.28 — 0.28 — 5,933 5,933 0.48 0.02 — 5,951 Water — — — — — — — — — — 56.7 208 265 5.82 0.14 — 452
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 16 / 79
Waste — — — — — — — — — — 108 0.00 108 10.8 0.00 — 379
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 11.2 11.2
Total 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.03 1.05 7.66 0.02 0.02 1.68 1.69 0.01 0.43 0.44 — 1,830 1,830 0.08 0.09 2.82 1,863 Area 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 Energy 0.04 0.67 0.56 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 982 982 0.08 < 0.005 — 985 Water — — — — — — — — — — 9.38 34.4 43.8 0.96 0.02 — 74.8 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 17.9 0.00 17.9 1.79 0.00 — 62.7 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.86 1.86
Total 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
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
Equipment
2.35 23.2 20.7 0.03 1.03 — 1.03 0.95 — 0.95 — 3,337 3,337 0.14 0.03 — 3,348 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— —
— — — 13.1 13.1 — 6.73 6.73 — — — — — — —
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 Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 17 / 79
—————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.13 1.27 1.13 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.05 — 0.05 — 183 183 0.01 < 0.005 — 183 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— —
— — — 0.72 0.72 — 0.37 0.37 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.02 0.23 0.21 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 30.3 30.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 30.4 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— —
— — — 0.13 0.13 — 0.07 0.07 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 1.03 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 152 152 0.01 < 0.005 0.57 154 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 18 / 79
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.56 7.56 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.67 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.25 1.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.27 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.2. 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
Equipment
2.35 23.2 20.7 0.03 1.03 — 1.03 0.95 — 0.95 — 3,337 3,337 0.14 0.03 — 3,348 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— —
— — — 5.11 5.11 — 2.63 2.63 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.13 1.27 1.13 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.05 — 0.05 — 183 183 0.01 < 0.005 — 183 Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 19 / 79
———————0.140.14—0.280.28—————Dust
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
Equipment
0.02 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
From
Material
Movement
— —
— — — 0.05 0.05 — 0.03 0.03 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 1.03 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 152 152 0.01 < 0.005 0.57 154 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.56 7.56 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.67 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.25 1.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.27 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 20 / 79
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
Equipment
1.90 18.2 18.8 0.03 0.84 — 0.84 0.77 — 0.77 — 2,958 2,958 0.12 0.02 — 2,969 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— —
— — — 7.10 7.10 — 3.43 3.43 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.10 1.00 1.03 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.04 — 0.04 — 162 162 0.01 < 0.005 — 163 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— —
— — — 0.39 0.39 — 0.19 0.19 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.02 0.18 0.19 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 26.8 26.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 26.9 Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 21 / 79
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— —
— — — 0.07 0.07 — 0.03 0.03 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.09 1.55 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 228 228 0.01 0.01 0.85 231 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.04 2.45 0.55 0.01 0.04 0.57 0.61 0.04 0.14 0.19 — 2,170 2,170 0.02 0.34 4.63 2,277 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 — 11.3 11.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 11.5 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.14 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 119 119 < 0.005 0.02 0.11 125 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.88 1.88 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.90 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 19.7 19.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 20.6
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 22 / 79
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.90 18.2 18.8 0.03 0.84 — 0.84 0.77 — 0.77 — 2,958 2,958 0.12 0.02 — 2,969 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— —
— — — 2.77 2.77 — 1.34 1.34 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.10 1.00 1.03 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.04 — 0.04 — 162 162 0.01 < 0.005 — 163 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— —
— — — 0.15 0.15 — 0.07 0.07 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.02 0.18 0.19 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 26.8 26.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 26.9 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— —
— — — 0.03 0.03 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 23 / 79
—————————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Worker 0.08 0.09 1.55 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 228 228 0.01 0.01 0.85 231 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.04 2.45 0.55 0.01 0.04 0.57 0.61 0.04 0.14 0.19 — 2,170 2,170 0.02 0.34 4.63 2,277 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 — 11.3 11.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 11.5 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.14 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 119 119 < 0.005 0.02 0.11 125 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.88 1.88 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.90 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 19.7 19.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 20.6
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
Equipment
1.20 11.2 13.1 0.02 0.50 — 0.50 0.46 — 0.46 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 24 / 79
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.20 11.2 13.1 0.02 0.50 — 0.50 0.46 — 0.46 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.48 4.44 5.18 0.01 0.20 — 0.20 0.18 — 0.18 — 948 948 0.04 0.01 — 951 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.09 0.81 0.95 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.03 — 0.03 — 157 157 0.01 < 0.005 — 157 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.30 0.31 5.67 0.00 0.00 0.72 0.72 0.00 0.17 0.17 — 833 833 0.03 0.03 3.10 845 Vendor 0.03 0.77 0.35 0.01 0.01 0.19 0.20 0.01 0.05 0.06 — 703 703 0.01 0.10 1.91 734 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.23 0.33 3.23 0.00 0.00 0.72 0.72 0.00 0.17 0.17 — 708 708 0.03 0.03 0.08 717 Vendor 0.02 0.82 0.35 0.01 0.01 0.19 0.20 0.01 0.05 0.06 — 703 703 0.01 0.10 0.05 733 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 25 / 79
Worker 0.10 0.12 1.59 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.28 0.00 0.07 0.07 — 299 299 0.01 0.01 0.53 303 Vendor 0.01 0.32 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 278 278 < 0.005 0.04 0.32 290 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 49.5 49.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 50.2 Vendor < 0.005 0.06 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 46.0 46.0 < 0.005 0.01 0.05 48.0 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
3.6. 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
Equipment
1.20 11.2 13.1 0.02 0.50 — 0.50 0.46 — 0.46 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.20 11.2 13.1 0.02 0.50 — 0.50 0.46 — 0.46 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.48 4.44 5.18 0.01 0.20 — 0.20 0.18 — 0.18 — 948 948 0.04 0.01 — 951 Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 26 / 79
0.000.000.000.000.000.00—0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Onsite truck
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.09 0.81 0.95 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.03 — 0.03 — 157 157 0.01 < 0.005 — 157 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.30 0.31 5.67 0.00 0.00 0.72 0.72 0.00 0.17 0.17 — 833 833 0.03 0.03 3.10 845 Vendor 0.03 0.77 0.35 0.01 0.01 0.19 0.20 0.01 0.05 0.06 — 703 703 0.01 0.10 1.91 734 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.23 0.33 3.23 0.00 0.00 0.72 0.72 0.00 0.17 0.17 — 708 708 0.03 0.03 0.08 717 Vendor 0.02 0.82 0.35 0.01 0.01 0.19 0.20 0.01 0.05 0.06 — 703 703 0.01 0.10 0.05 733 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.10 0.12 1.59 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.28 0.00 0.07 0.07 — 299 299 0.01 0.01 0.53 303 Vendor 0.01 0.32 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 278 278 < 0.005 0.04 0.32 290 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 49.5 49.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 50.2 Vendor < 0.005 0.06 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 46.0 46.0 < 0.005 0.01 0.05 48.0 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 Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 27 / 79
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
Equipment
1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.27 2.47 3.09 0.01 0.10 — 0.10 0.09 — 0.09 — 568 568 0.02 < 0.005 — 570 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.05 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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 28 / 79
—————————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Worker 0.29 0.29 5.23 0.00 0.00 0.72 0.72 0.00 0.17 0.17 — 814 814 0.03 0.03 2.82 826 Vendor 0.03 0.73 0.32 0.01 0.01 0.19 0.20 0.01 0.05 0.06 — 691 691 0.01 0.09 1.90 721 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.22 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 Vendor 0.02 0.78 0.33 0.01 0.01 0.19 0.20 0.01 0.05 0.06 — 692 692 0.01 0.09 0.05 720 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.07 0.88 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 175 175 0.01 0.01 0.29 178 Vendor 0.01 0.18 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 164 164 < 0.005 0.02 0.19 171 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 29.0 29.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 29.4 Vendor < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.1 27.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 28.2 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
3.8. 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 29 / 79
2,406—0.020.102,3982,398—0.40—0.400.43—0.430.0213.010.41.13Off-Road Equipment
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.27 2.47 3.09 0.01 0.10 — 0.10 0.09 — 0.09 — 568 568 0.02 < 0.005 — 570 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.05 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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.29 0.29 5.23 0.00 0.00 0.72 0.72 0.00 0.17 0.17 — 814 814 0.03 0.03 2.82 826 Vendor 0.03 0.73 0.32 0.01 0.01 0.19 0.20 0.01 0.05 0.06 — 691 691 0.01 0.09 1.90 721 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.22 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 Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 30 / 79
Vendor 0.02 0.78 0.33 0.01 0.01 0.19 0.20 0.01 0.05 0.06 — 692 692 0.01 0.09 0.05 720 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.07 0.88 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 175 175 0.01 0.01 0.29 178 Vendor 0.01 0.18 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 164 164 < 0.005 0.02 0.19 171 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 29.0 29.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 29.4 Vendor < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.1 27.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 28.2 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.9. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.80 7.45 9.98 0.01 0.35 — 0.35 0.32 — 0.32 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,517 Paving 0.63 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 31 / 79
83.1—< 0.005< 0.00582.882.8—0.02—0.020.02—0.02< 0.0050.550.410.04Off-Road Equipment
Paving 0.03 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 0.07 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 13.7 13.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.8 Paving 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.08 1.43 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 223 223 0.01 0.01 0.77 226 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.1 11.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 11.2 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.84 1.84 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.86 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 32 / 79
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
Equipment
0.80 7.45 9.98 0.01 0.35 — 0.35 0.32 — 0.32 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,517 Paving 0.63 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.04 0.41 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 0.07 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 13.7 13.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.8 Paving 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 33 / 79
Worker 0.08 0.08 1.43 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 223 223 0.01 0.01 0.77 226 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.1 11.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 11.2 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.84 1.84 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.86 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.11. 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
Equipment
0.13 0.88 1.14 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architectu
ral
Coatings
56.2 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 34 / 79
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 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
ral
Coatings
3.85 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.51 1.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.52 Architectu
ral
Coatings
0.70 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 1.05 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 163 163 0.01 0.01 0.56 165 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 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 Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 35 / 79
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.68 1.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.70 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.12. 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
Equipment
0.13 0.88 1.14 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architectu
ral
Coatings
56.2 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 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
ral
Coatings
3.85 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 36 / 79
0.000.000.000.000.000.00—0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Onsite truck
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 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
ral
Coatings
0.70 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 1.05 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 163 163 0.01 0.01 0.56 165 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 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 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.68 1.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.70 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 37 / 79
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
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 772 772 0.05 0.01 — 775
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — 159 159 0.01 < 0.005 — 159 Fast Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
—
— — — — — — — — — — 360 360 0.02 < 0.005 — 361
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 267 267 0.02 < 0.005 — 268
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 1,557 1,557 0.10 0.01 — 1,563 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 38 / 79
Unrefriger
Warehouse-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 772 772 0.05 0.01 — 775
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — 159 159 0.01 < 0.005 — 159 Fast Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
—
— — — — — — — — — — 360 360 0.02 < 0.005 — 361
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 267 267 0.02 < 0.005 — 268
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 1,557 1,557 0.10 0.01 — 1,563 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefriger
ated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 128 128 0.01 < 0.005 — 128
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — 26.3 26.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 26.4 Fast Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
—
— — — — — — — — — — 59.6 59.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 59.8
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 44.2 44.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 44.4
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 258 258 0.02 < 0.005 — 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 39 / 79
775—0.010.05772772———————————Unrefriger
ated
Warehou
Rail
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — 159 159 0.01 < 0.005 — 159 Fast Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
—
— — — — — — — — — — 360 360 0.02 < 0.005 — 361
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 267 267 0.02 < 0.005 — 268
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 1,557 1,557 0.10 0.01 — 1,563 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefriger
ated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 772 772 0.05 0.01 — 775
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — 159 159 0.01 < 0.005 — 159 Fast Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
—
— — — — — — — — — — 360 360 0.02 < 0.005 — 361
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 267 267 0.02 < 0.005 — 268
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 1,557 1,557 0.10 0.01 — 1,563 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefriger
ated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 128 128 0.01 < 0.005 — 128
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — 26.3 26.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 26.4 Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 40 / 79
Fast Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
—
— — — — — — — — — — 59.6 59.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 59.8
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 44.2 44.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 44.4
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 258 258 0.02 < 0.005 — 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
ated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
0.16 2.95 2.48 0.02 0.22 — 0.22 0.22 — 0.22 — 3,520 3,520 0.31 0.01 — 3,530 Strip Mall < 0.005 0.07 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 84.7 84.7 0.01 < 0.005 — 85.0 Fast Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
0.04 0.65 0.54 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 771 771 0.07 < 0.005 — 773 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
ated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
0.16 2.95 2.48 0.02 0.22 — 0.22 0.22 — 0.22 — 3,520 3,520 0.31 0.01 — 3,530 Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 41 / 79
Strip Mall < 0.005 0.07 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 84.7 84.7 0.01 < 0.005 — 85.0 Fast Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
0.04 0.65 0.54 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 771 771 0.07 < 0.005 — 773 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
ated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
0.03 0.54 0.45 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 583 583 0.05 < 0.005 — 584 Strip Mall < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 14.0 14.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.1 Fast Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
0.01 0.12 0.10 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 128 128 0.01 < 0.005 — 128 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 0.67 0.56 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 724 724 0.06 < 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
ated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
0.16 2.95 2.48 0.02 0.22 — 0.22 0.22 — 0.22 — 3,520 3,520 0.31 0.01 — 3,530 Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 42 / 79
Strip Mall < 0.005 0.07 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 84.7 84.7 0.01 < 0.005 — 85.0 Fast Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
0.04 0.65 0.54 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 771 771 0.07 < 0.005 — 773 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
ated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
0.16 2.95 2.48 0.02 0.22 — 0.22 0.22 — 0.22 — 3,520 3,520 0.31 0.01 — 3,530 Strip Mall < 0.005 0.07 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 84.7 84.7 0.01 < 0.005 — 85.0 Fast Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
0.04 0.65 0.54 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 771 771 0.07 < 0.005 — 773 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
ated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
0.03 0.54 0.45 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 583 583 0.05 < 0.005 — 584 Strip Mall < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 14.0 14.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.1 Fast Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
0.01 0.12 0.10 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 128 128 0.01 < 0.005 — 128 Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 43 / 79
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 0.67 0.56 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 724 724 0.06 < 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
r
Products
2.87 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architectu
ral
Coatings
0.35 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landscap
e
Equipme
nt
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 Total 4.17 0.05 5.79 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 23.8 23.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 23.9 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consume
r
Products
2.87 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architectu
ral
Coatings
0.35 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 3.22 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 44 / 79
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consume
r
Products
0.52 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architectu
ral
Coatings
0.06 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landscap
e
Equipme
nt
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 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
r
Products
2.87 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architectu
ral
Coatings
0.35 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landscap
e
Equipme
nt
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 Total 4.17 0.05 5.79 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 23.8 23.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 23.9 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 45 / 79
————————————————2.87Consume
r
Architectu
ral
Coatings
0.35 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 3.22 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consume
r
Products
0.52 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architectu
ral
Coatings
0.06 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landscap
e
Equipme
nt
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 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
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — 51.0 184 235 5.24 0.13 — 403
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — 1.58 5.71 7.29 0.16 < 0.005 — 12.5 Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 46 / 79
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
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — 51.0 184 235 5.24 0.13 — 403
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — 1.58 5.71 7.29 0.16 < 0.005 — 12.5 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
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefriger
ated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — 8.44 30.4 38.9 0.87 0.02 — 66.7
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — 0.26 0.94 1.21 0.03 < 0.005 — 2.07 Fast Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
—
— — — — — — — — — 0.68 2.44 3.12 0.07 < 0.005 — 5.35
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.64 0.64 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.65 Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 47 / 79
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
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — 51.0 184 235 5.24 0.13 — 403
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — 1.58 5.71 7.29 0.16 < 0.005 — 12.5 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
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — 51.0 184 235 5.24 0.13 — 403
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — 1.58 5.71 7.29 0.16 < 0.005 — 12.5 Fast Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
—
— — — — — — — — — 4.09 14.7 18.8 0.42 0.01 — 32.3
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 48 / 79
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
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — 8.44 30.4 38.9 0.87 0.02 — 66.7
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — 0.26 0.94 1.21 0.03 < 0.005 — 2.07 Fast Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
—
— — — — — — — — — 0.68 2.44 3.12 0.07 < 0.005 — 5.35
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.64 0.64 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.65 Total — — — — — — — — — — 9.38 34.4 43.8 0.96 0.02 — 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
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — 58.3 0.00 58.3 5.83 0.00 — 204
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — 6.31 0.00 6.31 0.63 0.00 — 22.1 Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 49 / 79
153—0.004.3643.60.0043.6——————————Fast Food
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
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefriger
ated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — 58.3 0.00 58.3 5.83 0.00 — 204
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — 6.31 0.00 6.31 0.63 0.00 — 22.1 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
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefriger
ated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — 9.65 0.00 9.65 0.96 0.00 — 33.8
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — 1.05 0.00 1.05 0.10 0.00 — 3.66 Fast Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
—
— — — — — — — — — 7.23 0.00 7.23 0.72 0.00 — 25.3
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 50 / 79
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
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — 58.3 0.00 58.3 5.83 0.00 — 204
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — 6.31 0.00 6.31 0.63 0.00 — 22.1 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
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — 58.3 0.00 58.3 5.83 0.00 — 204
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — 6.31 0.00 6.31 0.63 0.00 — 22.1 Fast Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
—
— — — — — — — — — 43.6 0.00 43.6 4.36 0.00 — 153
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 51 / 79
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
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — 9.65 0.00 9.65 0.96 0.00 — 33.8
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — 1.05 0.00 1.05 0.10 0.00 — 3.66 Fast Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
—
— — — — — — — — — 7.23 0.00 7.23 0.72 0.00 — 25.3
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 17.9 0.00 17.9 1.79 0.00 — 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 0.07
Fast Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
—
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — 11.0 11.0
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 52 / 79
0.180.18———————————————Unrefriger
ated
Warehou
Rail
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 11.2 11.2
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.07 0.07
Fast Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
—
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — 11.0 11.0
Unrefriger
ated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.18 0.18
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 11.2 11.2
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.01
Fast Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
—
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.82 1.82
Unrefriger
ated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.03 0.03
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.86 1.86
4.6.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 53 / 79
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 0.07
Fast Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
—
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — 11.0 11.0
Unrefriger
ated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.18 0.18
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 11.2 11.2
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.07 0.07
Fast Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
—
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — 11.0 11.0
Unrefriger
ated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.18 0.18
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 11.2 11.2
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.01
Fast Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
—
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.82 1.82
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 54 / 79
Unrefriger
Warehouse-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.03 0.03
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.86 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
nt
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.7.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 55 / 79
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.8.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 56 / 79
—————————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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) Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 57 / 79
Equipme
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 58 / 79
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 59 / 79
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
n
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 60 / 79
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 61 / 79
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequeste
red
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequeste
red
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Site Preparation Site Preparation 4/17/2024 5/14/2024 5.00 20.0 — Grading Grading 5/15/2024 6/12/2024 5.00 20.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 6/13/2024 5/1/2025 5.00 230 — Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 62 / 79
Paving Paving 5/2/2025 5/30/2025 5.00 20.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 5/31/2025 7/5/2025 5.00 25.0 —
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48
5.2.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 63 / 79
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 10.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 64 / 79
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 31.3 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 54.8 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 21.8 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 11.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT
5.3.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 10.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 65 / 79
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 31.3 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 54.8 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 21.8 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 11.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.
5.5. Architectural Coatings
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 66 / 79
Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq
ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq
ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated
(sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 0.00 0.00 217,206 72,402 13,301
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) Site Preparation — — 20.0 0.00 —
Grading — 5,000 40.0 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.00 0%
Strip Mall 0.00 0%
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 0.00 0%
Parking Lot 4.80 100%
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Y ear and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Y ear kWh per Y ear CO2 CH4 N2O
2024 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005
2025 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 67 / 79
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Y ear VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Y ear Total all Land Uses 1,696 1,696 1,696 619,040 13,089 13,089 13,089 4,777,449
5.9.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Y ear VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Y ear Total all Land Uses 1,696 1,696 1,696 619,040 13,089 13,089 13,089 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
(sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
0 0.00 199,865 66,622 12,545
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 68 / 79
5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No
Rail
529,519 532 0.0330 0.0040 2,196,632
Strip Mall 108,894 532 0.0330 0.0040 66,086
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive
Thru
246,858 532 0.0330 0.0040 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) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No
Rail
529,519 532 0.0330 0.0040 2,196,632
Strip Mall 108,894 532 0.0330 0.0040 66,086
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive
Thru
246,858 532 0.0330 0.0040 801,834
Parking Lot 183,161 532 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 69 / 79
5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 26,606,238 0.00
Strip Mall 826,575 0.00
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 2,133,842 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 827,789
5.12.2. Mitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 26,606,238 0.00
Strip Mall 826,575 0.00
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 2,133,842 0.00
Parking Lot 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 108 —
Strip Mall 11.7 —
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 81.0 —
Parking Lot 0.00 —
5.13.2. Mitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 108 —
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 70 / 79
Strip Mall 11.7 —
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 81.0 —
Parking Lot 0.00 —
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Strip Mall Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Strip Mall Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
Strip Mall Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0
Fast Food Restaurant
with Drive Thru
Household
refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.00 0.60 0.00 1.00
Fast Food Restaurant
with Drive Thru
Other
commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 1.80 4.00 4.00 18.0
Fast Food Restaurant
with Drive Thru
W
alk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
Other commercial A/C
and heat
pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
5.14.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Strip Mall Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Strip Mall Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 71 / 79
Strip Mall Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0
Fast Food Restaurant
with Drive Thru
Household
refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.00 0.60 0.00 1.00
Fast Food Restaurant
with Drive Thru
Other
commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 1.80 4.00 4.00 18.0
Fast Food Restaurant
with Drive Thru
W
alk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
Other commercial A/C
and heat
pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
5.15.2. Mitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Y ear Horsepower Load Factor
5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)
5.17. User Defined
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 72 / 79
Equipment Type Fuel Type
— —
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year) Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 73 / 79
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 r
ise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.
Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 20.5 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 0.90 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise 0.00 meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 0.90 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 r
ain 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 f
or 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 1 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 74 / 79
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought 0 0 0 N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest 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 o
verall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 1 1 1 2
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought 1 1 1 2
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest 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 o
verall 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
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 75 / 79
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
AQ-PM 6.42
AQ-DPM 23.3
Drinking Water 45.4
Lead Risk Housing 3.36
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 2.28
Traffic 54.3
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 0.00
Groundwater 2.11
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 7.35
Impaired Water Bodies 0.00
Solid Waste 52.9
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 43.8
Cardio-vascular 62.4
Low Birth Weights 3.57
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 51.0
Housing 37.5
Linguistic 61.5
Poverty 50.0
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 76 / 79
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 59.36096497
Employed 95.85525472
Median HI 46.91389709
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 61.85037854
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 32.38804055
Transportation —
Auto Access 53.75336841
Active commuting 19.15821891
Social —
2-parent households 45.32272552
Voting 33.11946619
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 73.47619659
Park access 29.10304119
Retail density 42.35852688
Supermarket access 61.22160914
Tree canopy 1.360195047
Housing —
Homeownership 67.59912742
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 77 / 79
Housing habitability 42.70499166
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 8.879763891 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 54.20248941
Uncrowded housing 81.14974978
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 36.50712178
Arthritis 0.0
Asthma ER Admissions 53.3
High Blood Pressure 0.0
Cancer (excluding skin) 0.0
Asthma 0.0
Coronary Heart Disease 0.0
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 32.9
Cognitively Disabled 74.6
Physically Disabled 38.4
Heart Attack ER Admissions 34.7
Mental Health Not Good 0.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0
Obesity 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
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 78 / 79
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 89.4
Elderly 50.2
English Speaking 74.2
Foreign-born 36.8
Outdoor Workers 62.3
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 54.4
Traffic Density 19.9
Traffic Access 23.0
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 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 56.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 1 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 79 / 79
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 No demolition required Operations: Vehicle Data Approx. 3,743 trips per day per IEG traffic assessment. All trips applied to fast-food for simplicity.
Construction: Off-Road Equipment Adjusted per construction timeline Operations: Refrigerants A/C added for self-storage unit Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 1 / 77
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 Y ear, Unmitigated
2.3. Construction Emissions by Y ear, 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
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 2 / 77
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
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 3 / 77
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
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 4 / 77
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
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 5 / 77
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
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 6 / 77
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
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 7 / 77
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
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 8 / 77
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
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 9 / 77
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2
Construction Start Date 4/1/2024
Operational Y ear 2025
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 3.30
Precipitation (days) 10.0
Location 33.827226852362244, -116.45770401427775
County Riverside-Salton Sea
City Cathedral City
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin Salton Sea
TAZ 5673
EDFZ 11
Electric Utility Southern California Edison
Gas Utility 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 ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 10 / 77
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
115 1000sqft 2.64 115,054 0.00 — — —
Regional Shopping
Center
54.7 1000sqft 1.26 54,725 0.00 — — —
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 C-10-A Water Exposed Surfaces
Construction C-11 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. 56.4 23.2 21.7 0.04 1.03 13.2 14.3 0.95 6.77 7.71 — 5,357 5,357 0.15 0.37 6.16 5,477 Mit. 56.4 23.2 21.7 0.04 1.03 5.24 6.27 0.95 2.66 3.61 — 5,357 5,357 0.15 0.37 6.16 5,477 %
Reduced
— — — — — 60% 56% — 61% 53% — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.50 12.7 17.4 0.03 0.51 1.10 1.61 0.47 0.27 0.74 — 4,144 4,144 0.15 0.18 0.16 4,200 Mit. 1.50 12.7 17.4 0.03 0.51 1.10 1.61 0.47 0.27 0.74 — 4,144 4,144 0.15 0.18 0.16 4,200 Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 11 / 77
—————————————————%
Reduced
Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 4.28 7.41 9.56 0.02 0.31 1.59 1.89 0.28 0.67 0.96 — 2,144 2,144 0.07 0.09 1.19 2,174 Mit. 4.28 7.41 9.56 0.02 0.31 0.91 1.22 0.28 0.33 0.62 — 2,144 2,144 0.07 0.09 1.19 2,174 %
Reduced
— — — — — 43% 36% — 50% 36% — — — — — — —
Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.78 1.35 1.75 < 0.005 0.06 0.29 0.35 0.05 0.12 0.17 — 355 355 0.01 0.02 0.20 360 Mit. 0.78 1.35 1.75 < 0.005 0.06 0.17 0.22 0.05 0.06 0.11 — 355 355 0.01 0.02 0.20 360 %
Reduced
— — — — — 43% 36% — 50% 36% — — — — — — —
2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Y ear ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 2.41 23.2 21.7 0.04 1.03 13.2 14.3 0.95 6.77 7.71 — 5,357 5,357 0.15 0.37 6.16 5,477 2025 56.4 11.7 19.7 0.03 0.44 1.10 1.54 0.41 0.27 0.68 — 4,256 4,256 0.15 0.17 5.81 4,316 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 1.50 12.7 17.4 0.03 0.51 1.10 1.61 0.47 0.27 0.74 — 4,144 4,144 0.15 0.18 0.16 4,200 2025 1.42 11.8 17.0 0.03 0.44 1.10 1.54 0.41 0.27 0.68 — 4,111 4,111 0.15 0.17 0.15 4,166 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 12 / 77
2024 0.86 7.41 9.56 0.02 0.31 1.59 1.89 0.28 0.67 0.96 — 2,144 2,144 0.07 0.09 1.19 2,174 2025 4.28 3.26 4.99 0.01 0.13 0.28 0.41 0.12 0.07 0.18 — 1,102 1,102 0.04 0.04 0.63 1,116 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.16 1.35 1.75 < 0.005 0.06 0.29 0.35 0.05 0.12 0.17 — 355 355 0.01 0.02 0.20 360 2025 0.78 0.60 0.91 < 0.005 0.02 0.05 0.07 0.02 0.01 0.03 — 182 182 0.01 0.01 0.10 185
2.3. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Y ear ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 2.41 23.2 21.7 0.04 1.03 5.24 6.27 0.95 2.66 3.61 — 5,357 5,357 0.15 0.37 6.16 5,477 2025 56.4 11.7 19.7 0.03 0.44 1.10 1.54 0.41 0.27 0.68 — 4,256 4,256 0.15 0.17 5.81 4,316 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 1.50 12.7 17.4 0.03 0.51 1.10 1.61 0.47 0.27 0.74 — 4,144 4,144 0.15 0.18 0.16 4,200 2025 1.42 11.8 17.0 0.03 0.44 1.10 1.54 0.41 0.27 0.68 — 4,111 4,111 0.15 0.17 0.15 4,166 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.86 7.41 9.56 0.02 0.31 0.91 1.22 0.28 0.33 0.62 — 2,144 2,144 0.07 0.09 1.19 2,174 2025 4.28 3.26 4.99 0.01 0.13 0.28 0.41 0.12 0.07 0.18 — 1,102 1,102 0.04 0.04 0.63 1,116 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.16 1.35 1.75 < 0.005 0.06 0.17 0.22 0.05 0.06 0.11 — 355 355 0.01 0.02 0.20 360 2025 0.78 0.60 0.91 < 0.005 0.02 0.05 0.07 0.02 0.01 0.03 — 182 182 0.01 0.01 0.10 185
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) Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 13 / 77
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 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
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 14.0 11.6 112 0.24 0.18 19.3 19.5 0.16 4.90 5.06 — 24,756 24,756 1.03 1.17 82.3 25,212 Area 5.31 0.06 7.38 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 30.4 30.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 30.5 Energy 0.04 0.68 0.57 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 2,625 2,625 0.18 0.02 — 2,634 Water — — — — — — — — — — 58.8 216 274 6.04 0.14 — 468
Waste — — — — — — — — — — 89.3 0.00 89.3 8.92 0.00 — 312 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.44 0.44
Total 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 Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 14 / 77
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 11.0 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 Area 4.10 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.04 0.68 0.57 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 2,625 2,625 0.18 0.02 — 2,634 Water — — — — — — — — — — 58.8 216 274 6.04 0.14 — 468
Waste — — — — — — — — — — 89.3 0.00 89.3 8.92 0.00 — 312 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.44 0.44
Total 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
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 11.8 12.0 87.7 0.23 0.18 19.2 19.4 0.16 4.87 5.03 — 23,090 23,090 1.05 1.17 35.5 23,501 Area 4.69 0.03 3.64 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 15.0 15.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.0 Energy 0.04 0.68 0.57 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 2,625 2,625 0.18 0.02 — 2,634 Water — — — — — — — — — — 58.8 216 274 6.04 0.14 — 468
Waste — — — — — — — — — — 89.3 0.00 89.3 8.92 0.00 — 312 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.44 0.44
Total 16.5 12.7 91.9 0.23 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 2.16 2.19 16.0 0.04 0.03 3.50 3.54 0.03 0.89 0.92 — 3,823 3,823 0.17 0.19 5.89 3,891 Area 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 Energy 0.01 0.12 0.10 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 435 435 0.03 < 0.005 — 436 Water — — — — — — — — — — 9.73 35.7 45.4 1.00 0.02 — 77.6 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 14.8 0.00 14.8 1.48 0.00 — 51.7 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.07 0.07
Total 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 Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 15 / 77
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 14.0 11.6 112 0.24 0.18 19.3 19.5 0.16 4.90 5.06 — 24,756 24,756 1.03 1.17 82.3 25,212 Area 5.31 0.06 7.38 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 30.4 30.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 30.5 Energy 0.04 0.68 0.57 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 2,625 2,625 0.18 0.02 — 2,634 Water — — — — — — — — — — 58.8 216 274 6.04 0.14 — 468
Waste — — — — — — — — — — 89.3 0.00 89.3 8.92 0.00 — 312 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.44 0.44
Total 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 11.0 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 Area 4.10 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.04 0.68 0.57 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 2,625 2,625 0.18 0.02 — 2,634 Water — — — — — — — — — — 58.8 216 274 6.04 0.14 — 468
Waste — — — — — — — — — — 89.3 0.00 89.3 8.92 0.00 — 312 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.44 0.44
Total 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
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 11.8 12.0 87.7 0.23 0.18 19.2 19.4 0.16 4.87 5.03 — 23,090 23,090 1.05 1.17 35.5 23,501 Area 4.69 0.03 3.64 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 15.0 15.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.0 Energy 0.04 0.68 0.57 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 2,625 2,625 0.18 0.02 — 2,634 Water — — — — — — — — — — 58.8 216 274 6.04 0.14 — 468
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 16 / 77
Waste — — — — — — — — — — 89.3 0.00 89.3 8.92 0.00 — 312 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.44 0.44
Total 16.5 12.7 91.9 0.23 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 2.16 2.19 16.0 0.04 0.03 3.50 3.54 0.03 0.89 0.92 — 3,823 3,823 0.17 0.19 5.89 3,891 Area 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 Energy 0.01 0.12 0.10 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 435 435 0.03 < 0.005 — 436 Water — — — — — — — — — — 9.73 35.7 45.4 1.00 0.02 — 77.6 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 14.8 0.00 14.8 1.48 0.00 — 51.7 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.07 0.07
Total 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
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
Equipment
2.35 23.2 20.7 0.03 1.03 — 1.03 0.95 — 0.95 — 3,337 3,337 0.14 0.03 — 3,348 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— —
— — — 13.1 13.1 — 6.73 6.73 — — — — — — —
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 Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 17 / 77
—————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.13 1.27 1.13 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.05 — 0.05 — 183 183 0.01 < 0.005 — 183 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— —
— — — 0.72 0.72 — 0.37 0.37 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.02 0.23 0.21 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 30.3 30.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 30.4 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— —
— — — 0.13 0.13 — 0.07 0.07 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 1.03 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 152 152 0.01 < 0.005 0.57 154 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 18 / 77
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.56 7.56 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.67 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.25 1.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.27 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.2. 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
Equipment
2.35 23.2 20.7 0.03 1.03 — 1.03 0.95 — 0.95 — 3,337 3,337 0.14 0.03 — 3,348 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— —
— — — 5.11 5.11 — 2.63 2.63 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.13 1.27 1.13 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.05 — 0.05 — 183 183 0.01 < 0.005 — 183 Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 19 / 77
———————0.140.14—0.280.28—————Dust
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
Equipment
0.02 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
From
Material
Movement
— —
— — — 0.05 0.05 — 0.03 0.03 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 1.03 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 152 152 0.01 < 0.005 0.57 154 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.56 7.56 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.67 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.25 1.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.27 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 20 / 77
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
Equipment
1.90 18.2 18.8 0.03 0.84 — 0.84 0.77 — 0.77 — 2,958 2,958 0.12 0.02 — 2,969 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— —
— — — 7.10 7.10 — 3.43 3.43 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.10 1.00 1.03 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.04 — 0.04 — 162 162 0.01 < 0.005 — 163 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— —
— — — 0.39 0.39 — 0.19 0.19 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.02 0.18 0.19 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 26.8 26.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 26.9 Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 21 / 77
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— —
— — — 0.07 0.07 — 0.03 0.03 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.09 1.55 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 228 228 0.01 0.01 0.85 231 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.04 2.45 0.55 0.01 0.04 0.57 0.61 0.04 0.14 0.19 — 2,170 2,170 0.02 0.34 4.63 2,277 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 — 11.3 11.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 11.5 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.14 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 119 119 < 0.005 0.02 0.11 125 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.88 1.88 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.90 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 19.7 19.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 20.6
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 22 / 77
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.90 18.2 18.8 0.03 0.84 — 0.84 0.77 — 0.77 — 2,958 2,958 0.12 0.02 — 2,969 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— —
— — — 2.77 2.77 — 1.34 1.34 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.10 1.00 1.03 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.04 — 0.04 — 162 162 0.01 < 0.005 — 163 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— —
— — — 0.15 0.15 — 0.07 0.07 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.02 0.18 0.19 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 26.8 26.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 26.9 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— —
— — — 0.03 0.03 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 23 / 77
—————————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Worker 0.08 0.09 1.55 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 228 228 0.01 0.01 0.85 231 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.04 2.45 0.55 0.01 0.04 0.57 0.61 0.04 0.14 0.19 — 2,170 2,170 0.02 0.34 4.63 2,277 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 — 11.3 11.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 11.5 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.14 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 119 119 < 0.005 0.02 0.11 125 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.88 1.88 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.90 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 19.7 19.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 20.6
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
Equipment
1.20 11.2 13.1 0.02 0.50 — 0.50 0.46 — 0.46 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 24 / 77
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.20 11.2 13.1 0.02 0.50 — 0.50 0.46 — 0.46 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.48 4.44 5.18 0.01 0.20 — 0.20 0.18 — 0.18 — 948 948 0.04 0.01 — 951 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.09 0.81 0.95 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.03 — 0.03 — 157 157 0.01 < 0.005 — 157 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.37 0.37 6.80 0.00 0.00 0.86 0.86 0.00 0.20 0.20 — 999 999 0.04 0.03 3.72 1,014 Vendor 0.03 0.98 0.44 0.01 0.01 0.24 0.25 0.01 0.07 0.08 — 896 896 0.01 0.12 2.43 935 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.27 0.40 3.88 0.00 0.00 0.86 0.86 0.00 0.20 0.20 — 850 850 0.04 0.03 0.10 861 Vendor 0.03 1.05 0.45 0.01 0.01 0.24 0.25 0.01 0.07 0.08 — 896 896 0.01 0.12 0.06 934 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 25 / 77
Worker 0.13 0.15 1.91 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.34 0.00 0.08 0.08 — 359 359 0.02 0.01 0.64 364 Vendor 0.01 0.41 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.10 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 — 354 354 < 0.005 0.05 0.41 369 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.03 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 59.5 59.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.11 60.3 Vendor < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 58.6 58.6 < 0.005 0.01 0.07 61.1 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.6. 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
Equipment
1.20 11.2 13.1 0.02 0.50 — 0.50 0.46 — 0.46 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.20 11.2 13.1 0.02 0.50 — 0.50 0.46 — 0.46 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.48 4.44 5.18 0.01 0.20 — 0.20 0.18 — 0.18 — 948 948 0.04 0.01 — 951 Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 26 / 77
0.000.000.000.000.000.00—0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Onsite truck
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.09 0.81 0.95 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.03 — 0.03 — 157 157 0.01 < 0.005 — 157 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.37 0.37 6.80 0.00 0.00 0.86 0.86 0.00 0.20 0.20 — 999 999 0.04 0.03 3.72 1,014 Vendor 0.03 0.98 0.44 0.01 0.01 0.24 0.25 0.01 0.07 0.08 — 896 896 0.01 0.12 2.43 935 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.27 0.40 3.88 0.00 0.00 0.86 0.86 0.00 0.20 0.20 — 850 850 0.04 0.03 0.10 861 Vendor 0.03 1.05 0.45 0.01 0.01 0.24 0.25 0.01 0.07 0.08 — 896 896 0.01 0.12 0.06 934 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.13 0.15 1.91 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.34 0.00 0.08 0.08 — 359 359 0.02 0.01 0.64 364 Vendor 0.01 0.41 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.10 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 — 354 354 < 0.005 0.05 0.41 369 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.03 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 59.5 59.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.11 60.3 Vendor < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 58.6 58.6 < 0.005 0.01 0.07 61.1 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 27 / 77
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
Equipment
1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.27 2.47 3.09 0.01 0.10 — 0.10 0.09 — 0.09 — 568 568 0.02 < 0.005 — 570 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.05 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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 28 / 77
—————————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Worker 0.35 0.34 6.28 0.00 0.00 0.86 0.86 0.00 0.20 0.20 — 978 978 0.04 0.03 3.38 992 Vendor 0.03 0.93 0.41 0.01 0.01 0.24 0.25 0.01 0.07 0.08 — 881 881 0.01 0.12 2.42 919 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.26 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 Vendor 0.03 1.00 0.42 0.01 0.01 0.24 0.25 0.01 0.07 0.08 — 882 882 0.01 0.12 0.06 917 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.08 1.06 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 211 211 0.01 0.01 0.35 213 Vendor 0.01 0.23 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 209 209 < 0.005 0.03 0.25 217 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 34.9 34.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 35.3 Vendor < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 34.5 34.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 36.0 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
3.8. 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 29 / 77
2,406—0.020.102,3982,398—0.40—0.400.43—0.430.0213.010.41.13Off-Road Equipment
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.27 2.47 3.09 0.01 0.10 — 0.10 0.09 — 0.09 — 568 568 0.02 < 0.005 — 570 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.05 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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.35 0.34 6.28 0.00 0.00 0.86 0.86 0.00 0.20 0.20 — 978 978 0.04 0.03 3.38 992 Vendor 0.03 0.93 0.41 0.01 0.01 0.24 0.25 0.01 0.07 0.08 — 881 881 0.01 0.12 2.42 919 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.26 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 Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 30 / 77
Vendor 0.03 1.00 0.42 0.01 0.01 0.24 0.25 0.01 0.07 0.08 — 882 882 0.01 0.12 0.06 917 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.08 1.06 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 211 211 0.01 0.01 0.35 213 Vendor 0.01 0.23 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 209 209 < 0.005 0.03 0.25 217 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 34.9 34.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 35.3 Vendor < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 34.5 34.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 36.0 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.9. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.80 7.45 9.98 0.01 0.35 — 0.35 0.32 — 0.32 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,517 Paving 0.63 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 31 / 77
83.1—< 0.005< 0.00582.882.8—0.02—0.020.02—0.02< 0.0050.550.410.04Off-Road Equipment
Paving 0.03 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 0.07 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 13.7 13.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.8 Paving 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.08 1.43 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 223 223 0.01 0.01 0.77 226 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.1 11.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 11.2 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.84 1.84 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.86 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 32 / 77
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
Equipment
0.80 7.45 9.98 0.01 0.35 — 0.35 0.32 — 0.32 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,517 Paving 0.63 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.04 0.41 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 0.07 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 13.7 13.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.8 Paving 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 33 / 77
Worker 0.08 0.08 1.43 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 223 223 0.01 0.01 0.77 226 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.1 11.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 11.2 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.84 1.84 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.86 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.11. 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
Equipment
0.13 0.88 1.14 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architectu
ral
Coatings
56.2 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 34 / 77
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 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
ral
Coatings
3.85 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.51 1.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.52 Architectu
ral
Coatings
0.70 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.07 1.26 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 196 196 0.01 0.01 0.68 198 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 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 Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 35 / 77
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.02 2.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.04 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.12. 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
Equipment
0.13 0.88 1.14 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architectu
ral
Coatings
56.2 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 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
ral
Coatings
3.85 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 36 / 77
0.000.000.000.000.000.00—0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Onsite truck
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 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
ral
Coatings
0.70 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.07 1.26 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 196 196 0.01 0.01 0.68 198 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 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 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.02 2.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.04 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 37 / 77
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
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 772 772 0.05 0.01 — 775
Regional
Shopping
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — 778 778 0.05 0.01 — 781
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 267 267 0.02 < 0.005 — 268
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 1,817 1,817 0.11 0.01 — 1,824 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 38 / 77
775—0.010.05772772———————————Unrefriger
ated
Warehou
Rail
Regional
Shopping
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — 778 778 0.05 0.01 — 781
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 267 267 0.02 < 0.005 — 268
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 1,817 1,817 0.11 0.01 — 1,824 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefriger
ated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 128 128 0.01 < 0.005 — 128
Regional
Shopping
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — 129 129 0.01 < 0.005 — 129
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 44.2 44.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 44.4
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 301 301 0.02 < 0.005 — 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
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 772 772 0.05 0.01 — 775
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 39 / 77
Regional
Shopping
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — 778 778 0.05 0.01 — 781
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 267 267 0.02 < 0.005 — 268
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 1,817 1,817 0.11 0.01 — 1,824 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefriger
ated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 772 772 0.05 0.01 — 775
Regional
Shopping
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — 778 778 0.05 0.01 — 781
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 267 267 0.02 < 0.005 — 268
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 1,817 1,817 0.11 0.01 — 1,824 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefriger
ated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 128 128 0.01 < 0.005 — 128
Regional
Shopping
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — 129 129 0.01 < 0.005 — 129
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 44.2 44.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 44.4
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 301 301 0.02 < 0.005 — 302
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 40 / 77
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
Rail
0.03 0.59 0.50 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 704 704 0.06 < 0.005 — 706 Regional
Shopping
Center
< 0.005 0.09 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 104 104 0.01 < 0.005 — 104 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 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefriger
ated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
0.03 0.59 0.50 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 704 704 0.06 < 0.005 — 706 Regional
Shopping
Center
< 0.005 0.09 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 104 104 0.01 < 0.005 — 104 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
ated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
0.01 0.11 0.09 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 117 117 0.01 < 0.005 — 117 Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 41 / 77
Regional
Shopping
Center
< 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 17.2 17.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 17.2 Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.01 0.12 0.10 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134
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
ated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
0.03 0.59 0.50 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 704 704 0.06 < 0.005 — 706 Regional
Shopping
Center
< 0.005 0.09 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 104 104 0.01 < 0.005 — 104 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 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefriger
ated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
0.03 0.59 0.50 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 704 704 0.06 < 0.005 — 706 Regional
Shopping
Center
< 0.005 0.09 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 104 104 0.01 < 0.005 — 104 Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 42 / 77
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
ated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
0.01 0.11 0.09 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 117 117 0.01 < 0.005 — 117 Regional
Shopping
Center
< 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 17.2 17.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 17.2 Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.01 0.12 0.10 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 134 134 0.01 < 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
r
Products
3.65 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architectu
ral
Coatings
0.45 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landscap
e
Equipme
nt
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 Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 43 / 77
Total 5.31 0.06 7.38 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 30.4 30.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 30.5 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consume
r
Products
3.65 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architectu
ral
Coatings
0.45 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 4.10 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consume
r
Products
0.67 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architectu
ral
Coatings
0.08 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landscap
e
Equipme
nt
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 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
r
Products
3.65 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 44 / 77
————————————————0.45Architectu
ral
Landscap
e
Equipme
nt
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 Total 5.31 0.06 7.38 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 30.4 30.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 30.5 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consume
r
Products
3.65 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architectu
ral
Coatings
0.45 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 4.10 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consume
r
Products
0.67 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architectu
ral
Coatings
0.08 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landscap
e
Equipme
nt
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 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
4.4. 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) Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 45 / 77
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
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — 51.0 184 235 5.24 0.13 — 403
Regional
Shopping
Center
— — — — — — — — — — 7.77 28.0 35.8 0.80 0.02 — 61.4
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 3.88 3.88 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.90 Total — — — — — — — — — — 58.8 216 274 6.04 0.14 — 468
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefriger
ated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — 51.0 184 235 5.24 0.13 — 403
Regional
Shopping
Center
— — — — — — — — — — 7.77 28.0 35.8 0.80 0.02 — 61.4
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
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — 8.44 30.4 38.9 0.87 0.02 — 66.7
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 46 / 77
10.2—< 0.0050.135.924.631.29——————————Regional
Shopping
Center
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.64 0.64 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.65 Total — — — — — — — — — — 9.73 35.7 45.4 1.00 0.02 — 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
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — 51.0 184 235 5.24 0.13 — 403
Regional
Shopping
Center
— — — — — — — — — — 7.77 28.0 35.8 0.80 0.02 — 61.4
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 3.88 3.88 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.90 Total — — — — — — — — — — 58.8 216 274 6.04 0.14 — 468
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefriger
ated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — 51.0 184 235 5.24 0.13 — 403
Regional
Shopping
Center
— — — — — — — — — — 7.77 28.0 35.8 0.80 0.02 — 61.4
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 47 / 77
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
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — 8.44 30.4 38.9 0.87 0.02 — 66.7
Regional
Shopping
Center
— — — — — — — — — — 1.29 4.63 5.92 0.13 < 0.005 — 10.2
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.64 0.64 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.65 Total — — — — — — — — — — 9.73 35.7 45.4 1.00 0.02 — 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
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — 58.3 0.00 58.3 5.83 0.00 — 204
Regional
Shopping
Center
— — — — — — — — — — 31.0 0.00 31.0 3.10 0.00 — 108
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 48 / 77
Total — — — — — — — — — — 89.3 0.00 89.3 8.92 0.00 — 312 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefriger
ated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — 58.3 0.00 58.3 5.83 0.00 — 204
Regional
Shopping
Center
— — — — — — — — — — 31.0 0.00 31.0 3.10 0.00 — 108
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 89.3 0.00 89.3 8.92 0.00 — 312 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefriger
ated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — 9.65 0.00 9.65 0.96 0.00 — 33.8
Regional
Shopping
Center
— — — — — — — — — — 5.13 0.00 5.13 0.51 0.00 — 17.9
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 14.8 0.00 14.8 1.48 0.00 — 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 49 / 77
Unrefriger
Warehouse-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — 58.3 0.00 58.3 5.83 0.00 — 204
Regional
Shopping
Center
— — — — — — — — — — 31.0 0.00 31.0 3.10 0.00 — 108
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 89.3 0.00 89.3 8.92 0.00 — 312 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefriger
ated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — 58.3 0.00 58.3 5.83 0.00 — 204
Regional
Shopping
Center
— — — — — — — — — — 31.0 0.00 31.0 3.10 0.00 — 108
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 89.3 0.00 89.3 8.92 0.00 — 312 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefriger
ated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — 9.65 0.00 9.65 0.96 0.00 — 33.8
Regional
Shopping
Center
— — — — — — — — — — 5.13 0.00 5.13 0.51 0.00 — 17.9
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 14.8 0.00 14.8 1.48 0.00 — 51.7 Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 50 / 77
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 0.26
Unrefriger
ated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.18 0.18
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.44 0.44
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Regional
Shopping
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.26 0.26
Unrefriger
ated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.18 0.18
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.44 0.44
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Regional
Shopping
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.04 0.04
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 51 / 77
0.030.03———————————————Unrefriger
ated
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.07 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 0.26
Unrefriger
ated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.18 0.18
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.44 0.44
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Regional
Shopping
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.26 0.26
Unrefriger
ated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.18 0.18
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.44 0.44
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 52 / 77
0.040.04———————————————Regional
Shopping
Center
Unrefriger
ated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.03 0.03
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.07 0.07
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.7.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 53 / 77
CO2eRN2OCH4CO2TNBCO2BCO2PM2.5TPM2.5DPM2.5EPM10TPM10DPM10ESO2CONOxROGEquipme nt
Type
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 54 / 77
4.8.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 55 / 77
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.9.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 56 / 77
—————————————————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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 57 / 77
—————————————————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) Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 58 / 77
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.5. 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 Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 59 / 77
—————————————————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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 60 / 77
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Site Preparation Site Preparation 4/17/2024 5/14/2024 5.00 20.0 — Grading Grading 5/15/2024 6/12/2024 5.00 20.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 6/13/2024 5/1/2025 5.00 230 — Paving Paving 5/2/2025 5/30/2025 5.00 20.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 5/31/2025 7/5/2025 5.00 25.0 —
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 61 / 77
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37 Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48
5.2.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48 Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 62 / 77
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 10.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 31.3 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 65.8 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 27.8 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 13.2 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 63 / 77
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT
5.3.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 10.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 31.3 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 65.8 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 27.8 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 13.2 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 64 / 77
Architectural Coating Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.
5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 0.00 0.00 217,206 72,402 13,301
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) Site Preparation — — 20.0 0.00 —
Grading — 5,000 40.0 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.00 0%
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 65 / 77
Regional Shopping Center 0.00 0%
Parking Lot 4.80 100%
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Y ear and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Y ear kWh per Y ear CO2 CH4 N2O
2024 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005
2025 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Y ear VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Y ear Total all Land Uses 3,542 3,542 3,542 1,292,830 27,335 27,335 27,335 9,977,421
5.9.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Y ear VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Y ear Total all Land Uses NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN 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
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 66 / 77
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq
ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
0 0.00 254,669 84,890 12,545
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180
5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No
Rail
529,519 532 0.0330 0.0040 2,196,632
Regional Shopping Center 534,028 532 0.0330 0.0040 324,091 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) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 67 / 77
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No
Rail
529,519 532 0.0330 0.0040 2,196,632
Regional Shopping Center 534,028 532 0.0330 0.0040 324,091 Parking Lot 183,161 532 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 26,606,238 0.00
Regional Shopping Center 4,053,619 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 827,789
5.12.2. Mitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 26,606,238 0.00
Regional Shopping Center 4,053,619 0.00
Parking Lot 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 108 —
Regional Shopping Center 57.5 —
Parking Lot 0.00 —
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 68 / 77
5.13.2. Mitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 108 —
Regional Shopping Center 57.5 —
Parking Lot 0.00 —
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Regional Shopping
Center
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Regional Shopping
Center
Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
Other commercial A/C
and heat
pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
5.14.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Regional Shopping
Center
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Regional Shopping
Center
Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
Other commercial A/C
and heat
pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 69 / 77
5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
5.15.2. Mitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Y ear Horsepower Load Factor
5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)
5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type
— —
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 70 / 77
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
5.18.2.2. Mitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
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 r
ise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.
Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 20.5 annual days of extreme heat Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 71 / 77
Extreme Precipitation 0.90 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise 0.00 meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 0.90 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 r
ain 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 f
or 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 1 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought 0 0 0 N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest 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 o
verall 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
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 72 / 77
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 1 1 1 2
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought 1 1 1 2
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest 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 o
verall 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
AQ-PM 6.42
AQ-DPM 23.3
Drinking Water 45.4
Lead Risk Housing 3.36
Pesticides 0.00
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 73 / 77
Toxic Releases 2.28
Traffic 54.3
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 0.00
Groundwater 2.11
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 7.35
Impaired Water Bodies 0.00
Solid Waste 52.9
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 43.8
Cardio-vascular 62.4
Low Birth Weights 3.57
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 51.0
Housing 37.5
Linguistic 61.5
Poverty 50.0
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 59.36096497
Employed 95.85525472
Median HI 46.91389709
Education —
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 74 / 77
Bachelor's or higher 61.85037854
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 32.38804055
Transportation —
Auto Access 53.75336841
Active commuting 19.15821891
Social —
2-parent households 45.32272552
Voting 33.11946619
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 73.47619659
Park access 29.10304119
Retail density 42.35852688
Supermarket access 61.22160914
Tree canopy 1.360195047
Housing —
Homeownership 67.59912742
Housing habitability 42.70499166
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 8.879763891 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 54.20248941
Uncrowded housing 81.14974978
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 36.50712178
Arthritis 0.0
Asthma ER Admissions 53.3
High Blood Pressure 0.0
Cancer (excluding skin) 0.0
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 75 / 77
Asthma 0.0
Coronary Heart Disease 0.0
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 32.9
Cognitively Disabled 74.6
Physically Disabled 38.4
Heart Attack ER Admissions 34.7
Mental Health Not Good 0.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0
Obesity 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
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 89.4
Elderly 50.2
English Speaking 74.2
Foreign-born 36.8
Outdoor Workers 62.3
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 76 / 77
Impervious Surface Cover 54.4
Traffic Density 19.9
Traffic Access 23.0
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 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 56.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.
8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Date Palm Mixed Use - Alt 2 Detailed Report, 12/28/2023 77 / 77
Land Use Per site plan
Construction: Construction Phases No demolition required Operations: Vehicle Data Approx. 3,743 trips per day per IEG traffic assessment. All trips applied to fast-food for simplicity.
Construction: Off-Road Equipment Adjusted per construction timeline Operations: Refrigerants A/C added for self-storage unit
Appendix B:
County of Riverside GHG Screening Tables
Feature Description Assigned Point
Values Project Points
2017 Title 24 Requirements (walls R-13; roof/attic R-30) 0 Modestly Enhanced Insulation (walls R-13, roof/attic R-38)) 9 Enhanced Insulation (rigid wall insulation R-13, roof/attic R-38) 11 Greatly Enhanced Insulation (spray foam insulated walls R-15 or higher, roof/attic R-38 or higher) 12 2016 Title 24 Windows (0.57 U-factor, 0.4 solar heat gain coefficient [SHGC}) 0 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) 7 Modest Cool Roof (CRRC Rated 0.15 aged solar reflectance, 0.75 thermal emittance) 7 Enhanced Cool Roof (CRRC Rated 0.2 aged solar reflectance, 0.75 thermal emittance) 8 Greatly Enhanced Cool Roof ( CRRC Rated 0.35 aged solar reflectance, 0.75 thermal emittance) 10 Air barrier applied to exterior walls, calking, and visual inspection such as the HERS Verified Quality Insulation Installation (QII or equivalent) 7 7
Blower Door HERS Verified Envelope Leakage or equivalent 6 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 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) 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 Minimum Duct Insulation (R-4.2 required) 0
Modest Duct insulation (R-6) 5
Enhanced Duct Insulation (R-8) 6
Distribution loss reduction with inspection (HERS Verified Duct Leakage or equivalent) 8 2016 Title 24 Minimum HVAC Efficiency (EER 13/75% AFUE or 7.7 HSPF) 0 Improved Efficiency HVAC (EER 14/78% AFUE or 8 HSPF) 4
High Efficiency HVAC (EER 15/80% AFUE or 8.5 HSPF) 5
Very High Efficiency HVAC (EER 16/82% AFUE or 9 HSPF) 7 Commercial Heat Recovery
Systems
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.
TBD
2016 Title 24 Minimum Efficiency (0.57 Energy Factor) 0 Improved Efficiency Water Heater (0.675 Energy Factor) 8 High Efficiency Water Heater (0.72 Energy Factor) 10
Very High Efficiency Water Heater (0.92 Energy Factor) 11 Solar Pre-heat System (0.2 Net Solar Fraction) 2
Enhanced Solar Pre-heat System (0.35 Net Solar Fraction) 5 All peripheral rooms within building have at least one window or skylight 0 All rooms within building have daylight (through use of windows, solar tubes, skylights, etc.) 1 All rooms daylighted 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 High Efficiency Lights (50% of in-unit fixtures are high efficacy) 7 Very High Efficiency Lights (100% of in-unit fixtures are high efficacy) 8 Star Commercial Refrigerator (new) 2 2
Energy Star Commercial Dish Washer (new) 2 2
Energy Star Commercial Cloths Washing 2
Building Placement North/South alignment of building or other building placement such that the orientation of the buildings optimizes conditions for natural heating, cooling, and lighting. 4 Shading At least 90% of south-facing glazing will be shaded by vegetation or overhangs at noon on Jun 21st. 6 Other
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.
TBD
County of Riverside Screening Table for Implementation of GHG Reduction Measures for Commercial Development Appliances
Miscellaneous Commercial/Industrial Building Efficiencies Indoor Space Efficiencies
5 Daylighting
Artificial Lighting 7
Water Heaters
10 Space Heating/Cooling
Equipment
Building Envelope
6 Windows
Insultation
Cool Roof
Air Filtration
Heating/Cooling
Distribution System
Thermal Storage of Building
12 5
8 4
30 percent of the power needs of the project 8
40 percent of the power needs of the project 12
50 percent of the power needs of the project 16
60 percent of the power needs of the project 19
70 percent of the power needs of the project 23
80 percent of the power needs of the project 26
90 percent of the power needs of the project 30
100 percent of the power needs of the project 34
30 percent of the power needs of the project 8
40 percent of the power needs of the project 12
50 percent of the power needs of the project 16
60 percent of the power needs of the project 19
70 percent of the power needs of the project 23
80 percent of the power needs of the project 26
90 percent of the power needs of the project 30
100 percent of the power needs of the project 34
Eliminate conventional turf from landscaping 0
Only moderate water using plants 2
Only low water using plants 3
Only California Native landscape that requires no or only supplemental irrigation 5 Low precipitation spray heads< .75”/hr or drip irrigation 1 Weather based irrigation control systems combined with drip irrigation (demonstrate 20% reduced water use) 3 Stormwater
Reuse Systems
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.
TBD
Recycled Water Graywater (purple pipe) irrigation system on site 5 5 Showers Water Efficient Showerheads (2.0 gpm) 2
Water Efficient Toilets/Urinals (1.5gpm) 3
Waterless Urinals (note that commercial buildings having both waterless urinals and high efficiency toilets will have a combined point value of 6 points) 3
Faucets Water Efficient faucets (1.28gpm) 3 3
Commercial Dishwashers Water Efficient dishwashers (20% water savings) 2 2 Water Efficient laundry (15% water savings) 2
High Efficiency laundry Equipment that captures and reuses rinse water (30% water savings) 4 Alternative Scheduling
Provide flexibility in scheduling such that at least 30% of employees participate in 9/80 work week, 4-day/40- hour work week, or telecommuting 1.5 days/week. 5
Car/vanpool program 1
Car/vanpool program with preferred parking 2
Car/vanpool with guaranteed ride home program 3
Subsidized employee incentive car/vanpool program 5
Complete sidewalk to residential within ½ mile 1 1
Complete bike path to residential within 3 miles 1
Bike lockers and secure racks 1 1
Showers and changing facilities 2
Subsidized employee walk/bike program 3
Local transit within ¼ mile 1 1
Light rail transit within ½ mile 3
Shuttle service to light rail transit station 5
Guaranteed ride home program 1
Subsidized Transit passes 2
Commute Trip Reduction
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) TBD
Other Trip Reduction
Measures
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 Employee
Bicycle/Pedestrian
Programs
Shuttle/Transit Programs
6 Commercial Laundry
Washers
Employment Based Trip and VMT Reduction Policy
Car/Vanpools
Irrigation and Landscaping
5Water Efficient Landscaping
Water Efficient Irrigation
Systems 1
Potable Water
Toilets
Photovoltaic
Renewable Energy
Wind Turbines
Mixed-Use
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.
TBD
Local Retail Near Residential
(Commercial only Projects)
Having residential developments within walking and biking distance of local retail helps to reduce vehicle trips and/or vehicle miles traveled. The point value of residential projects in close proximity to local retail will be determined based upon traffic studies that demonstrate trip reductions and/or reductions in vehicle miles traveled.
TBD
Provide reserved preferential parking spaces for car-share, carpool, and ultra-low or zero emission vehicles. 1 Provide larger parking spaces that can accommodate vans used for ridesharing programs and reserve them for vanpools and include adequate passenger waiting/loading areas. 1 Signal synchronization 1 point/signal
Traffic signals connected to ITS 3 points/signal
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) TBD
Provide sidewalks on one side of the street (required) 0 Provide sidewalks on both sides of the street 1
Provide pedestrian linkage between commercial and residential land uses within 1 mile 3 Provide circuit and capacity in garages/parking areas for installation of electric vehicle charging stations. 2 points/area Install electric vehicle charging stations in garages/parking areas 8 points/station Provide NEV safe routes within the project site 3
Provide NEV safe routes between the project site and other land uses. 5 Provide separated recycling bins within each commercial building/floor and provide large external recycling collection bins at central location for collection truck pick-up 2 2 Provide commercial/industrial recycling programs that fulfills an on-site goal of 80% diversion of solid waste 5 5 Other GHG Reduction
Features
This allows innovation by the applicant to provide commercial design features that the GHG emissions from 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
100
100
Source: County of Riverside Climate Action Plan Update. November 2019.
Signal Improvements
Adopt and Implement a Bicycle Master Plan to Expand Bike Routes around the County Sidewalks
Mixed-Use Development
Signial Synchronization and Intelligent Traffic Systems Preferential Parking
Signal Improvements
Recycling
Other GHG Reduction Feature Implementation
Minimum Required Points
Increase Public Transit
Electrifying the Fleet
Electric Vehicle Recharging
Reduce Waste to Landfills
Total Points
Neighborhood Electric
Vehicle (NEV) Infrastructure
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 YearVehicle CategoryModel Year Speed Fuel Population VMT Trips Fuel Consumption Fuel Consumption Total Fuel Consumption VMT Total VMT Miles Per Gallon Vehicle Class South Coast AQMD2023 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 75.10442936 8265.097 1502.689 1.936286145 1936.286145 1913466.474 8265.097 13656273.03 7.14 HHD South Coast AQMD2023 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 109818.6753 13648008 1133618 1911.530188 1911530.188 13648008 South Coast AQMD2023 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 6635002.295 2.53E+08 31352477 7971.24403 7971244.03 8020635.698 2.53E+08 255180358.3 31.82 LDA South Coast AQMD2023 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 62492.97958 2469816 297086.6 49.3916685 49391.6685 2469816 South Coast AQMD2023 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 150700.3971 6237106 751566 0 0 6237106 South Coast AQMD2023 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 758467.6481 27812996 3504563 1023.913006 1023913.006 1024279.466 27812996 27821405.09 27.16 LDT1 South Coast AQMD2023 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 360.7799144 8408.618 1256.88 0.366459477 366.4594769 8408.618 South Coast AQMD2023 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 7122.93373 303507.5 35798.19 0 0 303507.5 South Coast AQMD2023 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 2285150.139 85272416 10723315 3338.798312 3338798.312 3356536.438 85272416 85922778.34 25.60 LDT2 South Coast AQMD2023 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 15594.68309 650362.8 76635.83 17.73812611 17738.12611 650362.8 South Coast AQMD2023 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 28809.63735 917592.8 145405.4 0 0 917592.8 South Coast AQMD2023 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 174910.3847 6216643 2605904 583.3851736 583385.1736 811563.1022 6216643 11211395.79 13.81 LHDT1 South Coast AQMD2023 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 125545.0822 4994753 1579199 228.1779285 228177.9285 4994753 South Coast AQMD2023 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 30102.75324 1034569 448486.2 111.5753864 111575.3864 209423.5025 1034569 2969599.008 14.18 LHDT2 South Coast AQMD2023 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 50003.13116 1935030 628976.5 97.84811618 97848.11618 1935030 South Coast AQMD2023 MCY Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 305044.5141 2104624 610089 57.849018 57849.018 57849.018 2104624 2104623.657 36.38 MCY South Coast AQMD2023 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 1589862.703 55684188 7354860 2693.883526 2693883.526 2744536.341 55684188 57109879.73 20.81 MDV South Coast AQMD2023 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 36128.1019 1425691 176566.9 50.65281491 50652.81491 1425691 South Coast AQMD2023 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 16376.67653 537591.7 83475.95 0 0 537591.7 South Coast AQMD2023 MH Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 34679.50542 330042.9 3469.338 63.26295123 63262.95123 74893.26955 330042.9 454344.9436 6.07 MH South Coast AQMD2023 MH Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 13122.69387 124302 1312.269 11.63031832 11630.31832 124302 South Coast AQMD2023 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 25624.3151 1363694 512691.3 265.2060557 265206.0557 989975.6425 1363694 9484317.768 9.58 MHDT South Coast AQMD2023 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 122124.488 8120623 1221858 724.7695868 724769.5868 8120623 South Coast AQMD2023 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 5955.291639 245774 119153.5 48.07750689 48077.50689 86265.88761 245774 579743.8353 6.72 OBUS South Coast AQMD2023 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 4286.940093 333969.8 41558.29 38.18838072 38188.38072 333969.8 South Coast AQMD2023 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 2783.643068 112189.6 11134.57 12.19474692 12194.74692 39638.85935 112189.6 323043.5203 8.15 SBUS South Coast AQMD2023 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 6671.825716 210853.9 76991.94 27.44411242 27444.11242 210853.9 South Coast AQMD2023 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 957.7686184 89782.63 3831.074 17.62416327 17624.16327 17863.66378 89782.63 91199.2533 5.11 UBUS South Coast AQMD2023 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 13.00046095 1416.622 52.00184 0.239500509 239.5005093 1416.622 South Coast AQMD2023 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 16.11693886 1320.163 64.46776 0 1320.163
Appendix B
Habitat Assessment and CVMSHCP Consistency Analysis
2201 N. Grand Avenue #10098 | Santa Ana, CA 92711-0098 | (714) 716-5050 www.ELMTConsulting.com
March 7, 2024
THE ALTUM GROUP
Attention: Stephen Nieto
44-600 Village Court, Suite 100
Palm Desert, California 92260
SUBJECT: Habit
at 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.
Introducti
on
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 Locat
ion
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.
Mrach 7, 2024