Folsom City Council
June 23, 2026

06/23/2026 Item No.18.
l. For all noise-sensitive
receptors that would be
located within the Ciry of
Folsom: City of Folsom
Community Development
Department.

2. For all noise-sensitive
receptors in El Dorado
Hills: El Dorado County
Development Services
Department.

3. For all noise-sensitive
receptors in the vicinity the
oflsite detention basin west
of Prairie City Road:

Project applicant(s) of
all project phases.

During project
construction activities at
noise-sensitive receptors
on the SPA; at the
existing noise-sensitive
receptors on Empire
Ranch Road from
Broadstone Parkway to
Iron Point Road; and at
the existing noisesensitive receptors on
Latrobe Road from
White Rock Road to
Golden Foothills
Parkway
Mitigation Measure 3A.11-4: Implement Measures to Prevent Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Increases in Noise from ProjectGenerated Operational Traffic on Off-site and On-Site Roadways.

To meet applicable noise standards as set forth in the appropriate General Plan or Code (e.g., City of Folsom, County of Sacramento, and County of El Dorado) and to reduce increases in traffic-generated noise levels at noise-sensitive uses, the project applicant(s) of all project phases shall implement the following:
> Obtain the services ofa consultant (such as a licensed engineer or licensed architect) to develop noise-attenuation measures for the proposed construction of on-site noise-sensitive land uses (i.e., residential dwellings and school classrooms) that will produce a minimum composite Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating for buildings of 30 or greater, individually computed for the walls and the floor/ceiling construction ofbuildings, for the proposed construction ofon-site noise-sensitive land uses (i.e., residential dwellings and school classrooms).
> Prior to submittal of tentative subdivision maps and improvement plans, the project applicant(s) shall conduct a site-specific acoustical analysis to determine predicted roadway noise impacts athibutable to the project, taking into account site-specific conditions (e.g., site design, location of structures, building characteristics). The acoustical analysis shall evaluate stationary- and mobile-source noise attributable to the proposed use or uses and impacts on nearby noise-sensitive land uses, in accordance with adopted City noise standards. Feasible measures shall be identified to reduce project-related noise impacts. These measures may include, but are not limited

1. For all project-related
improvements that would be
located within the City of
Folsom: City of Folsom
Community Development
Department.

2. For the two roadway
connections off-site into El
Dorado Hills: El Dorado
County Development
Services Department.

3. For the off-site detention
basin west of Prairie City
Road: Sacramento County
Planning and Community
Development Department.

4. For the U.S. 50 interchange
improvements : Caltrans.

Project applicant(s) and
primary contractor(s) of
all project phases.

Before and during
bulldozing and blasting
activities on the SPA
and within El Dorado
Hills and the County of
Sacramento
Mitigation Measure 3A.11-3: Implement Measures to Prevent Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Groundborne Noise or Vibration from Project Generated Construction Activities.
> To the extent feasible, blasting activities shall not be conducted within 275 feet of existing or future sensitive receptors. > To the extent feasible, bulldozing activities shall not be conducted within 50 feet of existing or future sensitive receptors. > All blasting shall be performed by a blast contractor and blasting personnel licensed to operate in the State of California. > A blasting plan, including estimates of vibration levels at the residence closest to the blast, shall be submitted to the enforcement agency for review and approval prior to the commencement of the first blast. > Each blast shall be monitored and documented for groundboume noise and vibration levels at the nearest sensitive land use and associated recorded submitted to the enforcement agency. information, including a daytime telephone number, for the project representative to be contacted in the event that noise levels are deemed excessive. Recommendations to assist noise-sensitive land uses in reducing interior noise levels (e.g., closing windows and doors) shall also be included in the notification.

To the extent feasible, acoustic barriers (e.g., lead curtains, sound barriers) shall be constructed to reduce construction-generated noise levels at affected noise-sensitive land uses. The barriers shall be designed to obstruct the line of sight between the noise-sensitive land use and on-site construction equipment. When installed properly, acoustic barriers can reduce construction noise levels by approximately 8-10 dB (EPA l97r).

When future noise sensitive uses are within close proximity to prolonged construction noise, noise-attenuating buffers such as structures, truck trailers, or soil piles shall be located between noise sources and future residences to shield sensitive receptors from construction noise.

The primary contractor shall prepare and implement a construction noise management plan. This plan shall identifu specific measures to ensure compliance with the noise control measures specified above. The noise control plan shall be submitted to the City of Folsom before any noise-generating construction activity begins. Construction shall not commence until the conitruction noise management plan is approved by the City of Folspm. Mitigation for the two off-site roadway connections into El Dorado County must be coordinated by the project applicant(s) of the applicable project phase with El Dorado County, since the roadway extensions are outside of the City of Folsom's jurisdictional boundaries.

Dated Signature for
Verification of Compliance
Enforcement lmplementation Timing Mitigation Measure
Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the Folsom South of U.S. Highway 50 Specific Plan Project AECOM
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Folsom South of U.S. Highway 50 Specific Plan
City of Folsom 48

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

F
l. For structural improvements
that would be located within
the City of Folsom: City of
Folsom Neighborhood
Services Department and
City of Folsom Community
Development Department.

2. For structural improvements
that would be located within
unincorporated Sacramento
County: Sacramento County
Planning and Community
Development Department.

3. For structural improvements
that would be located within
the City of Rancho
Cordova: City of Rancho
Cordova Planning
Dspartment.

City of Folsom Utilities
Department
During construction of
all Off-site Water
Facility components
Mitigation Measure 3B.11-1a: Limit Construction Hours. Construction activities shall be limited to daylight hours betweenT a.m. andT p.m. Monday through Friday, and 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. on Saturday. No construction shall be allowed on Sundays or holidays.

City of Folsom Community
Development Department.

Project applicant(s) of
all project phases.

Before submittal of
improvement plans for
each project phase, and
during project
operations for testing of
emergency generators.

Mitigation Measure 3A.11-5: Implement Measures to Reduce Noise from Project-Generated Stationary Sources.

The project applicant(s) for any particular discretionary development project shall implement the following measures to reduce the effect of noise levels generated by on-site stationary noise sources that would be located within 600 feet ofany noise-sensitive receptor:
> Routine testing and preventive maintenance of emergency electrical generators shall be conducted during the less sensitive daytime hours (i.e., 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.). All electrical generators shall be equipped with noise control (e.g., muffler) devices in accordance with manufacturers' specifi cations.
> External mechanical equipment associated with buildings shall incorporate features designed to reduce noise emissions below the stationary noise source criteria. These features may include, but are not limited to, locating generators within equipment rooms or enclosures that incorporate noise-reduction features, such as acoustical louvers, and exhaust and intake silencers. Equipment enclosures shall be oriented so that major openings (i.e., intake louvers, exhaust) are directed away from nearby noise-sensitive receptors. > Parking lots shall be located and designed so that noise emissions do not exceed the stationary noise source criteria established in this analysis (i.e., 50 dB for 30 minutes in every hour during the daytime l7 a.m. to 10 p.m.l and less than 45 dB for 30 minutes of every hour during the night time [0 p.m. to 7 a.m.]). Reduction of parking lot noise can be achieved by locating parking lots as far away as feasible from noise sensitive land uses, or using buildings and topographic features to provide acoustic shielding for noise-sensitive land uses. > Loading docks shall be located and designed so thatnoise emissions do not exceed the stationary noise source criteria established in this analysis (i.e., 50 dB for 30 minutes in every hour during the daytime l7 a.m. to 10 p.m.l and less than45 dB for 30 minutes of every hour during the night time [0 p.m. to 7 a.m.]). Reduction of loading dock noise can be achieved by locating loading docks as far away as possible from noise sensitive land uses, constructing noise barriers between loading docks and noise-sensitive land uses, or using buildings and topographic features to provide acoustic shielding for noise-sensitive land uses.

Sacramento Counfy
Planning and Community
Development Department.

4. For all noise-sensitive
receptors adjacent to the
U.S. 50 interchange
improvements : Caltrans.
to, the following:
' limiting noise-generating operational activities associated with proposed commercial land uses, including truck deliveries; . constructing exterior sound walls;
. constructing barrier walls and/or berms with vegetation; . using "quiet pavement" (e.g., rubberized asphalt) construction methods on local roadways; and, ' using increased noise-attenuation measures in building construction (e.g., dual-pane, sound-rated windows; exterior wall insulation) Dated Signature for
Verification of Compliance
Enforcement lmplementation Timing Mitigation Measure
Table 1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the Folsom South of U.S. Highway 50 Specific Plan Project

38.11 NOISE-WATER
Folsom South of U.S. Highway 50 Specific Plan
City of Folsom
AECOM
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 49

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

During construction of
all Off-site Water
Facility components
Mitigation Measure 38.11-1d: Prohibit Non-Essential Noise Sources During Construction. No amplified sources (e.g., stereo "boom boxes") shall be used in the vicinity ofresidences during project construction.

1. For structural improvements
that would be located within
the City of Folsom: City of
Folsom Neighborhood
Services Department and
City of Folsom Community
Development Department.

2. For structural improvements
that would be located within
urlirlcorporated Sacramento
County: Sacramento County
Planning and Community
Development Department.

City of Folsom Utilities
Department
During construction of
all Off-site Water
Facility components
Mitigation Measure 3B.11-1c: Maximize the Use of Noise Barriers. Construction contractors shall locate fixed construction equipment (such as compressors and generators) and construction staging areas as far as possible from nearby residences. Iffeasible, noise barriers shall be used at the construction site and staging area. Temporary walls, stockpiles of excavated materials, or moveable sound barrier cur|ains would be appropriate in instances where construction noise would exceed 90 dBA and occur within less than 50 feet from a sensitive receptor. The final selection of noise barriers will be subject to the City's approval and shall provide a minimum 10 dBA reduction in construction noise levels.

1. For structural improvements
that would be located within
the City of Folsom: City of
Folsom Neighborhood
Services Department and
City of Folsom Community
Development Department.

2. For structural improvements
that would be located within
unincorporated Sacramento
County: Sacramento County
Planning and Community
Development Department.

3. For structural improvements
that would be located within
the City of Rancho
Cordova: City of Rancho
Cordova Planning
Department.

City of Folsom Utilities
Department
During construction of
all Off-site Water
Facility components
Mitigation Measure 3B.11-1b: Minimize Noise from Construction Equipment and Staging. Construction equipment noise shall be minimized during project construction by muffling and shielding intakes and exhaust on construction equipment (per the manufacturer's specifications) and by shrouding or shielding impact tools, where used. The City's construction specifications shall also require that the contractor select staging areas as far as feasibly possible from sensitive receptors.

City of Folsom Utilities
Department

1. For structural improvements
that would be located within
the City of Folsom: City of
Folsom Neighborhood
Services Department and
City of Folsom Community
Development Departmelt.

2. For structural improvements
that would be located within
unincorporated Sacramento
County: Sacramento County
Planning and Community
Development Department.

3. For structural improvements
that would be located within
the City of Rancho
Cordova: City of Rancho
Cordova Planning
Department.

Mitigation Measure Timing Enforcement lmplementation
Dated Signature for
Verifi cation of Compliance
Table I
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the Folsom South of U.S. Highway 50 Specific Plan Proiect AECOM
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Folsom South of U.S. Highway 50 Specific Plan
City of Folsom 50

06/23/2026 Item No.18.
r
I
rI
r
r
(
I
I
I
l
f
i

1. For structural improvements
that would be located within
the City of Folsom: City of
Folsom Neighborhood
Services Department and
City of Folsom Community
Development Department.

2. For strucfural improvements
that would be located within
unincorporated Sacramento
County: Sacramento County
Planning and Community
Development Department.

3. For structural improvements
that would be located within
the City of Rancho
Cordova: City of Rancho
Cordova Planning
Department.

City of Folsom Utilities
Deparhnent
Approval of engineering
plans for the On- or Offsite WTPs and Off-site
booster pumping
facilities prior to
construction
Mitigation Measure 38.11-3: Implement Operational Noise Minimization Measures. The following mitigation measures shall be implemented for the design of the WTP and the pump station(s) to ensure that operational noise levels at the property line do not exceed the CitylCounty standards :
> Shielding and other specified measures as deemed appropriate and effective by the design engineer shall be incorporated into the design in order to comply with performance standards.
> Pumps located underground shall be shielded to not affect nearby sensitive receptors. > Project equipment shall be outfitted and maintained with noise-reduction devices such as equipment closures, fan silencers, mufflers, acoustical louvers, noise barriers, and acoustical panels to minimize operational noise. > Particularly noisy equipment shall be located as far away as feasibly possible from nearby sensitive receptors. > The orientation of acoustical exits shall always be facing away from nearby sensitive receptors. > Buildings and landscaping shall be incorporated, where possible, to absorb or redirect noise away from nearby sensitive receptors.

1. For structural improvements
that would be located within
the City of Folsom: City of
Folsom Neighborhood
Services Department and
City of Folsom Community
Development Department.

2. For structural improvements
that would be located within
unincorporated Sacramento
County: Sacramento County
Planning and Community
Development Department.

3. For structural improvements
that would be located within
the City of Rancho
Cordova: City of Rancho
Cordova Planning
Department.

City of Folsom Utilities
Department
During construction of
all Off-site Water
Facility components
Mitigation Measure 38.11-1e: Monitor Construction Noise and Provide a Mechanism for Filing Noise Complaints. An on-site complaint and enforcement manager shall track and respond to noise complaints. The City shall also provide a mechanism for residents, businesses, and agencies to register complaints with the City if construction noise levels are overly intrusive or construction occurs outside the required hours.

3. For structural improvements
that would be located within
the City of Rancho
Cordova: City of Rancho
Cordova Planning
Department.

Dated Signature for
Verification of Compliance
Enforcement lmplementation Timing Mitigation Measure
Table 1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the Folsom South of U.S. Highway 50 Specific Plan Project f
t
(
i
,'
I
l
L.
{
l
I
t..

Folsom South of U.S, Highway 50 Specific Plan
City of Folsom 51
AECOM
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

38.12 PARKS AND RECREATION
. WATER
3A.14 PUBLIC SERVICES. LAND
Proj ect applicant(s) of
all project phases.

Before issuance of
building permits and
issuance of occupancy
permits or final
inspections for all
project phases.

Mitigation Measure 3A.14-2: Incorporate California Fire Code; City of Folsom Fire Code Requirements; and EDHFD Requirements, if Necessary, into Project Design and Submit Project Design to the City of Folsom Fire Department for Review and Approval. To reduce impacts related to the provision of new fire services, the project applicant(s) of all project phases shall do the following, as described below.

1. Incorporate into project designs fire flow requirements based on the California Fire Code, Folsom Fire Code (City of Folsom Municipal Code Title 8, Chapter 8.36), and other applicable requirements based on the City of Folsom Fire Department fire prevention standards.

Improvement plans showing the incorporation automatic sprinkler systems, the availability of adequate fire flow, and the locations of hydrants shall be submitted to the City of Folsom Fire Department for review and approval. In addition, approved plans showing access design shall be provided to the City of Folsom Fire Department as described by Zoning Code Section 1 7.57.080 ("Vehicular Access Requirements"). These plans shall describe access-road length, dimensions, and finished surfaces for firefighting equipment. The installation of security gates across a fire apparatus access road shall be approved by the City of Folsom Fire Department. The design and operation of gates and barricades shall be in accordance with the Sacramento County Emergency Access Gates and Barriers Standard, as required by the City of Folsom Fire Code.
'2. Submit a tire Systems New Bujldings, Additions, and Alterations Document Submittal List to the City of Folsom Community Development Department Building Division for review and approval befbre the issuance of building permits.

In addition to the above measures, the project applicant(s) ofall project phases shail incorporate the provisions described below for the City of Folsom Fire
Depafiment, and City of
Folsom Community
Development Department,
and/or EDHFD for the portion
of the SPA within the EDHFD
service area1. For those roadways that
would be annexed into the
City of Folsom: City of
Folsom Public Works
Department.

2. For those roadways that
would remain under the
control of Sacramento
County: Sacramento County
Department of
Transportation.

3. For the two off-site roadway
connections into El Dorado
Hills: El Dorado County
Department of
Transportation.

4. For U.S. 50 interchange
improvements: Caltrans.

Project applicant(s) of
all project phases.

Before the approval of
all relevant plans and/or
permits and during
construction ofall
project phases.

Mitigation Measure 34.14-1: Prepare and Implement a Construction Traffic Control Plan. The project applicant(s) of all project phases shall prepare and implement traffic control plans for construction activities that may affect road rights-of-way. The traffic control plans must follow any applicable standards ofthe agency responsible for the affected roadway and must be approved and signed by a professional engineer. Measures typically used in traffic control plans include advertising of planned lane closures, waming signage, a flagperson to direct traffic flows when needed, and methods to ensure continued access by emergency vehicles. During project construction, access to existing land uses shall be maintained at all times, with detours used as necessary during road closures. Traffic control plans shall be submitted to the appropriate City or County department or the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for review and approval before the approval of all project plans or permits, for all project phases where implementation may cause impacts on traffic.

Mitigation for the off-site elements outside of the City of Folsom's jurisdictional boundaries must be coordinated by the project applicant(s) of each applicable project phase with the affected oversight agency(ies) (i.e., El Dorado and/or Sacramento Counties and Caltrans). l. For structural improvements
that would be located within
unincorporated Sacramento
County: Sacramento County
Planning and Communify
Development Department.

2. For structural improvements
that would be located within
the City of Rancho
Cordova: City of Rancho
Cordova Planning
Department.

City of Folsom Utilities
Department
Prior to and during
construction activities
Mitigation Measure 38.12-l: Provide for Continued Recreational Access as Identified in Mitigation Measure 3.14-la. As part of the Traffic Control Plan identified in Mitigation Measure 3.14-1a, the City shall ensure that trail access is maintained throughout the construction period through the use of detours. Proper signage shall be included in multiple locations, where necessary, to provide advance notice to hikers and equestrian riders of up-comings construction activities.

Timing Mitigation Measure
Dated Signature for
Verification of Compliance
Enforcement lmplementation
Table 1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the Folsom South of U.S. Highway 50 Specific Plan Project AECOM
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Folsom South of U.S. Highway 50 Specific Plan
City of Folsom 52

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Project Participation in Funding Transportation Improvements a. Within andadjacent to the project boundaries, the Applicant shall construct all feasible physical improvements necessary and available to reduce the ieverity of the project's significant transportation-related impacts, which may be subject to fee credits and/or reimbursement, cooidinated by the City, from other fee-paying development projects if available with respect to roads or other facilities that would also serve those non-project fee-paying development projects Funding of improvements on the perimeter of the project boundaries will be shared with other developmenVjurisdictions. b. Outside the project boundaries, the Applicant shall be responsible for the project's fair share of feasible physical improvements necessary and available to reduce the severity of the project's significant transporlation-related impacts within the City of Folsom, in other
jurisdictions and on State facilities, based on "cumulative plus project conditions." For purposes of this measure, "cumulative plus project conditions" refers to development authorized under the project as well as development consistent with approved general plans, rp."in" plans, and other entitlements in the City and other jurisdictions. In cases where the project's fair share contribution is identified, the share will be based on the project's relative contribution to traffic growth under "cumulative plus project conditions." The project's contribution toward such improvements may take any, or some combination, of the following forms:

1. Construction of roads, road improvements, or other transportation facilities outside the boundaries of the project, subject in some instances to fee credit against other improvements necessitated by the project or future reimbursement, coordinated by the City, from other fee-paying development projects if available where the roads or improvements at issue would also serve those non-project fee paying development Proj ects;
Z. The payment of impact fees to the City of Folsom in amounts that constitute the project's fair share contributions to the construction of tr;ilportation facilities to be built or improved within the City, consistent with the City's Capital Improvement Program ("CIP");

3. The payment of other adopted regional impact fees that would provide improvements to roadways, intersections and/or interchanges that are affected by multiple
jurisdictions, except where the project applicant's payments of other fees or construction of improvements within the City of Folsom creates credit against the payment of regional impact fees;

4. The payment of impact fees to the City of Folsom in amounts that constitute of transportation facilities and/or improvements within affected jurisdictions
Folsom and transmittal of fees to other agencies would occur through one or required improvement, there is a reasonable mitigation plan that ensures that the project's fair share contributions to the construction outside of Folsom, which payments to the City of
more enforceable agreements provided that for each
(i) the fees collected from the project will be used for Mitigation Measure 3A.14-3: Incorporate Fire Flow Requirements into Project Designs. The project applicant(s) of all project phases shall-incorporate into their project designs fire flow requirements based on the California Fire Code, Folsom Fire Code, and,/or EDHFD for those areas of the SPA within the EDHFD service area and shall verify to City of Folsom Fire Department that adequate water flow is available, prior to approval of improvement plans and issuance of occupancy permits or final inspections for all project phases.

Project applicant(s) of
all project phases.

Before issuance of
building permits and
issuance ofoccupancy
permits or final
inspections for all
project phases.

City of Folsom Fire
Department, City of Folsom
Communify Development
Department, and/or EDHFD
for the 178-acre portion of the
SPA within the EDHFD
service area.
portion of the SpA within the EDHFD service area, if it is determined through CitylBl Dorado County negotiations that EDHFD would serve the 178-acre portion of the SPA.

3. Incorporate into project designs applicable requirements based on the EDHFD fire prevention standards. For commercial development, improvement plans ihowingioadways, land splits, buildings, fne sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems, and other commercial building improvements shall be submitted to the EDHFD for review and approval. For residential development, improvement plans showing propertylinesandadjacentstreetsorroads;total acreageorsquarefootageoftheparcel;thefootprintofallstructures;drivewayplan views descrlUing width, length, tumouts, turnarounds, radiuses, and surfaces; and driveway profile views showing the percent grade from the access road to the structure and vertical clearance shall be submitted to the EDHFD for review and approval.

4. Submit a Fire prevention Plan Checklist to the EDHFD for review and approval before the issuance of building permits. In addition, residential development requiring automation fire sprinklers shall submit sprinkler design sheet(s) and hydraulic calculations from a California State Licensed C-16 Contractor.

The City shall not authorize the occupancy of any structures until the project applicant(s) have obtained a Certificate of Occupancy from the City of Folsom Community Development Department verifying that all fire prevention items have been addressed on-site to the satisfaction of the City of Folsom Fire Department and/or the EDHFD for the 178-acre area of the SPA within the EDHFD service area. lmplementation Timing
Dated Signature for
Verification of Compliance
Enforcement
Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the Folsom South of U.S. Highway 50 Specific Plan Project Mitigation Table 1
3A.15 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
. LAND
Folsom South of U.S. Highway 50 Specific Plan
City of Folsom
AECOM
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 53

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

City of Folsom Public Works
Department
City of Folsom Public
Works Department.

A phasing analysis shall
be performed prior to
approval ofthe first
subdivision map to
determine when the
improvement should be
implemented.

Mitigation Measure 3A.15-1b: The Applicant Shall Pay a Fair Share to Fund the Construction of Improvements at the Sibley Street/ Blue Ravine Road Intersection (Intersection 2). To ensure that the Sibley Street/Blue Ravine Road intersection operates at an acceptable LOS, the northbound approach must be reconfigured to consist of two left-tum lanes, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane. The applicant shall pay its proportionate share of funding of improvements, as may be determined by a nexus study or other appropriate and reliable mechanism paid for by applicant, to reduce the impacts to the Sibley Sheet/Blue Ravine Road intersection (Intersection 2).

City of Folsom Public Works
Department
City of Folsom Public
Works Department.

A phasing analysis shall
be performed prior to
approval of the first
subdivision map to
determine when the
improvement should be
implemented and when
fair share funding
should be paid.

Mitigation Measure 3A.15-1a: The Applicant Shall Pay a Fair Share to Fund the Construction of Improvements to the Folsom Boulevard/Blue Ravine Road Intersection Qntersection 1). To ensure that the Folsom Boulevard/Blue Ravine Road intersection operates at an acceptable LOS, the eastbound approach must be reconfigured to consist of two left-turn lanes, one through lane, and one right-turn lane. The applicant shall pay its proportionate share of funding of improvements, as may be determined by a nexus study or other appropriate and reliable mechanism paid for by applicant, to reduce the impacts to the Folsom Boulevard/Blue Ravine Road intersection (Intersection 1). their intended purposes, and (ii) the improvements will actually be built within a reasonable period of time, and

5. The payment of impact fees to the City of Folsom in amounts that constitute the project's fair share contributions to the construction of transportation facilities and/or improvements on federal or state highways or freeways needed in part because of the project, to be made available to the California Department of Transportation ("Caltrans") if and when Caltrans and the City of Folsom enter into an enforceable agreement consistent with state law provided that, for each required improvement. Caltrans has a reasonable mitigation plan that ensures that (i) the fees collected from the project will be used for their intended purposes, and (ii) the improvements will actually be built within a reasonable period of time. c. In pursuing a single agreement or multiple agreements with any jurisdictions outside of the City of Folsom that will be affected by traffic from the project in order to effectuate proposed mitigation measures for improvements outside the City of Folsom, the City will seek to negotiate in good faith with these other
jurisdictions to enter into fair and reasonable arrangements with the intention of achieving, within a reasonable time period after approval of the project's, commitments for (i) the provision of adequate "fair share" mitigation payments from the project for out-of-jurisdiction traffic impacts and impacts on federal and state freeways and highways, and (ii) reciprocal payments from regional development projects to the City of Folsom to address cumulative "fair share" mitigation payments towards federal and state freeways and highways for transportation-related facilities and/or improvements within the City of Folsom necessitated by the development within the region. It is intended that these agreements shall permit the participating agencies flexibilify in providing cross-jurisdictional credits and reimbursements consistent with the general "fair share" mitigation standard, and require an updated model run incorporating the best available information in order to obtain the most accurate, up-to-date impact assessment feasible and to generate the most accurate, up-to-date estimates of regional fair share conhibutions. Best efforts should be made to secure funding from federal, state and regional sources. These agreements, moreover, should also include provisions that allow for periodic updates to the traffic modeling on which fair share payment calculations depend in order to account for (i) newly approved projects cumulatively contributing to transportation-related impacts and that therefore should contribute to the funding of necessary improvements (ii) additional physical improvements necessitated in whole or in part by newly approved projects, and (iii) changing cost calculations for the construction of needed improvements based on changes in the costs of materials, labor, and other inputs. d. If transportation improvements required to be constructed as mitigation are constructed prior to project implementation, the project will pay its fair share portion for those improvements.
e. In considering individual projects within the project area (e.g., small-lot tentative subdivision maps or similar discretionary nonresidential approvals), the City of Folsom shall identift required improvements, and shall base its calculations for such projects' fair share payments, based on the most recent traffic modeling (i.e., modeling that accounts for (i) newly approved projects cumulatively conhibuting to transportation-related impacts and that therefore should contribute to the funding of necessary improvements, (ii) additional physical improvements necessitated in whole or in part by newly approved projects, and (iii) changing cost calculations for the construction of needed improvements based on changes in the costs of materials, labor, and other inputs).

Dated Signature for
Verification of Compliance
Enforcement lmplementation Timing Mitigation Measure
Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the Folsom South of U.S. Highway 50 Specific Plan Project AECOM
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Folsom South of U,S. Highway 50 Specific Plan
City of Folsom 54

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Sacramento County Public
Works Department
Sacramento County
Public Works
Department.

Before project build out.

Construction of phase
two of the Hazel
Avenue widening, from
Mitigation Measure 3A.15-1j: Participate in Fair Share Funding of Improvements to Reduce Impacts on Hazel Avenue between Madison Avenue and Curragh Downs Drive (Roadway Segment 10). To ensure thatHazelAvenue operates at an acceptable LOS between Curragh Downs Drive and Gold Country Boulevard, Hazel Avenue must be widened to six lanes. This improvement is part of the County adopted Hazel Avenue widening project.

Sacramento County Public
Works Department
Sacramento County
Public Works
Department.

Before project build out.

Design of the White
Rock Road widening to
four lanes, from Grant
Line Road to Prairie
City Road, with
intersection
irnprovements has
begun, and because this
widening project is
environmentally cleared
and fully funded, it's
construction is expected
to be complete before
the first phase of the
Proposed Project or
alternative is built.

Mitigation Measure 3A.15-1i: Participate in Fair Share Funding of Improvements to Reduce Impacts on the Grant Line RoadAilhite Rock Road Intersection and to White Rock Road widening between the Rancho Cordova City limit to Prairie City Road (Sacramento County Intersection 3). Improvements must be made to ensure that the Grant Line Road/White Rock Road intersection operates at an acceptable LOS. The currently County proposed White Rock Road widening project will widen and realign White Rock Road from the Rancho Cordova City limit to the El Dorado County line (this analysis assumes that the Proposed Project and build altematives will widen White Rock Road to five lanes from Prairie City road to the El Dorado County Line). This widening includes improvements to the Grant Line Road intersection and realigning White Rock Road to be the through movement. The improvements include two eastbound through lanes, one eastbound right turn lane, two northbound left turn lanes, two northbound right turn lanes, two westbound left turn lanes and two westbound through lanes. This improvement also includes the signalization of the White Rock Road and Grant Line Road intersection. With implementation of this improvement, the intersection would operate at an acceptable LOS A. The applicant shall pay its proportionate share of funding of improvements to the agency responsible for improvements, based on a program established by that agency to reduce the impacts to the Grant Line RoadAVhite Rock Road intersection (Sacramento County Intersection 3).

Sacramento County Public
Works Department and
Caltrans
Sacramento County
Public Works
Department and
Caltrans.

A phasing analysis shall
be performed prior to
approval ofthe first
subdivision map to
determine when the
improvement should be
implemented.

Mitigation Measure 3A.15-1h: Participate in Fair Share Funding of Improvements to Reduce Impacts to the Hazel Avenue/Folsom Boulevard Intersection (Sacramento County Intersection 2). To ensure that the Hazel Avenue/Folsom Boulevard intersection operates at an acceptable LOS, this intersection must be grade separated including'Jug handle" ramps. No at grade improvement is feasible. Grade separating and extended (south) Hazel Avenue with improvements to the U.S. 5DlHazel Avenue interchange is a mitigation measure for the approved Easton-Glenbrough Specific Plan development project. The applicant shall pay its proportionate share of funding of improvements to the agency responsible for improvements, based on a program established by that agency to reduce the impacts to the Hazel Avenue/Folsom Boulevard intersection (Sacramento County Intersection 2).

City of Folsom Public Works
Department
City of Folsom Public
Works Department.

A phasing analysis shall
be performed prior to
approval of the first
subdivision map to
determine when the
improvement should be
implemented.

Mitigation Measure 3A.15-1f: Fund and Construct Improvements to the Oak Avenue Parkway/Nliddle Road Intersection (Intersection 44). To ensure that the Oak Avenue Parkway/ivliddle Road intersection operates at an acceptable LOS, control all movements with a stop sign. The applicant shall fund and construct these improvements.

City of Folsom Public Works
Department
City of Folsom Public
Works Department.

A phasing analysis shall
be performed prior to
approval ofthe first
subdivision map to
determine when the
improvement should be
implemented.

Mitigation Measure 3A.15-1e: Fund and Construct Improvements to the Hillside Drive/Easton Valley Parkway Intersection (Intersection 4l).

To ensure that the Hillside Drive/Easton Valley Parkway intersection operates at an acceptable LOS, the eastbound approach must be reconfigured to consist ofone dedicated left turn lane and two through lanes, and the westbound approach must be reconfigured to consist of two through lanes and one dedicated right-turn lane. The applicant shall fund and construct these improvements.

City of Folsom Public Works
Department
City of Folsom Public
Works Department.

A phasing analysis shall
be performed prior to
approval ofthe first
subdivision map to
determine when the
improvement should be
implemented.

Mitigation Measure 3A.15-1c: The Applicant Shall Fund and Construct Improvements to the Scott Road (West)AMhite Rock Road Intersection Qntersection 28). To ensure that the Scott Road (West)/White Rock Road intersection operates at an acceptable LOS, a traffic signal must be installed.

Dated Signature for
Verification of Compliance
Enforcement lmplementation Timing Mitigation Measure
Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the Folsom South of U.S. Highway 50 Specific Plan Project Folsom South of U.S. Highway 50 Specific Plan
City of Folsom
AECOM
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 55

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Sacramento County
Department of Transportation
and the City of Rancho
Cordova Department of Public
Works
Sacramento County
Department of
Transportation and the
City of Rancho Cordova
Department of Public
Works
Before project build out.

A phasing analysis
should be performed
prior to approval ofthe
first subdivision map to
determine during which
project phase the
improvement should be
built.

Mitigation Measure 3A.15-1p: Particlpate in Fair Share Funding of Improvements to Reduce Impacts on the Grant Line Road/ State Route 16 Intersection (Caltrans Intersection l2).To ensure that the Grant Line Road/State Route 16 intersection operates at an acceptable LOS, the northbound and southbound approaches must be reconfigured to consist of one left-turn lane and one shared through/right-turn lane.

Protected left-turn signal phasing must be provided on the northbound and southbound approaches. Improvements to the Grant Line Road/State Route 16 intersection are contained within the County Development Fee Program, and are scheduled for Measure A funding. > Improvements to this intersection must be implemented by Caltrans, Sacramento County, and the City of Rancho Cordova.

The applicant shall pay its proportionate share of funding of improvements to the agency responsible for improvements, based on a program established by that agency to reduce the impacts to the Grant Line Road/State Route l6 intersection (Caltrans Intersection 12).

City of Folsom Public Works
Department and Sacramento
County Department of
Transportation
City of Folsom Public
Works Department and
Sacramento County
Department of
Transportation
Before project build out.

A phasing analysis
should be performed
prior to approval ofthe
first subdivision map to
determine during which
project phase the
improvement should be
built.

Mitigation Measure 3A.15-1o: Participate in Fair Share Funding of Improvements to Reduce Impacts on Eastbound U.S. 50 as an alternative to improvements at the Folsom Boulevard/U.S. 50 Eastbound Ramps Intersection (Caltrans Intersection 4). Congestion on eastbound U.S. 50 is causing vehicles to use Folsom Boulevard as an alternate parallel route until they reach U.S. 50, where they must get back on the freeway due to the lack of a parallel route. It is preferred to alleviate the congestion on U.S. 50 than to upgrade the intersection at the end of this reliever route. The applicant shall pay its proportionate share of funding of improvements to the agency responsible for improvements, based on a progfitm established by that agency to reduce the impacts to the Folsom Boulevard/U.S. 50 Eastbound Ramps intersection (Caltrans Intersection 4).

To ensure that the Folsom Boulevard/U.S. 50 eastbound ramps intersection operates at an acceptable LOS, auxiliary lanes should be added to eastbound U.S. 50 from Hazel Avenue to east of Folsom Boulevard. This was recommended in the Traffic Operations Analysis Report for the U.S. 50 Auxiliary Lane Project.

El Dorado County Department
of Transportation
El Dorado County
Department of
Transportation.

Before project build out.

A phasing analysis
should be performbd
prior to approval ofthe
first subdivision map to
determine during which
project phase the
improvement should be
built.

Mitigation Measure 34.15-11: Participate in Fair Share Funding of Improvements to Reduce Impacts on the White Rock Road/Windfield Way fntersection @l Dorado County Intersection 3). To ensure that the White Rock RoadAVindfield Way intersection operates at an acceptable LOS, the intersection must be signalized and separate northbound left and right turn lanes must be striped. The applicant shall pay its proportionate share of funding of improvements to the agency responsible for improvements, based on a program established by that agency to reduce the impacts to the White Rock Road/Windfield Way intersection @l Dorado County Intersection 3).

Madison Avenue to
Cunagh Downs Drive,
is expected to be
completed by year 2013,
before the first phase of
the Proposed Project or
altemative is complete.

The applicant shall pay
its proportionate share
of funding of
improvements to the
agency responsible for
improvements, based on
a progmm established
by that agency to reduce
the impacts toHazel
Avenue between
Madison Avenue and
Cunagh Downs Drive
(Sacramento County
Roadway Segment l0).

Dated Signature for
Verification of Compliance
Enforcement lmplementation Timing Mitigation Measure
Table 1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the Folsom South of U.S. Highway 50 Specific Plan Project AECOM
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Folsom South of U.S. Highway 50 Specific Plan
City of Folsom 56

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

City of Rancho Cordova
Department of Public Works
and Sacramento County
Department of Transportation
Cify of Rancho Cordova
Department of Public
Works and Sacramento
County Depaftment of
Transportation
Before project build out.

A phasing analysis
should be performed
prior to approval ofthe
first subdivision map to
determine during which
Mitigation Measure 3A.15-1v: Participate in Fair Share Funding of Improvements to Reduce Impacts on Westbound U.S. 50 between Hazel Avenue and Sunrise Boulevard (Freeway Segment 18). To ensure that Westbound U.S. 50 operates at an acceptable LOS between Hazel Avenue and Sunrise Boulevard, an auxiliary lane must be constructed. This improvement was recommended in the Traffic Operations Analysis Report for the U.S. 50 Auxiliary Lane Project, and included in the proposed Rancho Cordova Parkway interchange project.

Improvements to this freeway segment must be implemented by Caltrans. The applicant shall pay its proportionate share of funding of improvements to the agency responsible for improvements, based on a program established by that agency to reduce the irnpacts to City of Folsom Public Works
Department and Sacramento
Counfy Depafiment of
Transportation
City of Folsom Public
Works Department and
Sacramento County
Department of
Transportation
Before project build out.

A phasing analysis
should be performed
prior to approval ofthe
first subdivision map to
determine during which
project phase the
improvement should be
built.

Mitigation Measure 3.{.15-1u: Participate in Fair Share Funding of Improvements to Reduce Impacts on Westbound U.S. 50 between Prairie Cify Road and Folsom Boulevard (Freeway Segment 16). To ensure that Westbound U.S. 50 operates at an acceptable LOS between Prairie City Road and Folsom Boulevard, an auxiliary lane must be constructed. This improvement was recommended in the Traffic Operations Analysis Report for the U.S. 50 Auxiliary Lane Project. This improvement is included in the proposed 50 Corridor Mobility Fee Program. The applicant shall pay its proportionate share of funding of improvements, as may be determined by a nexus study or other appropriate and reliable mechanism paid for by applicant, to reduce the impacts to Westbound U.S. 50 between Prairie City Road and Folsom Boulevard (Freeway Segment 16).

City of Folsom Public Works
Department and Sacramento
County Department of
Transportation
City of Folsom Public
Works Depafiment and
Sacramento County
Department of
Transportation
Before project build out.

A phasing analysis
should be performed
prior to approval ofthe
first subdivision map to
determine during which
project phase the
improvement should be
built.

Mitigation Measure 3A.15-1s: Participate in Fair Share Funding of Improvements to Reduce Impacts on Eastbound U.S. 50 between Folsom Boulevard and Prairie City Road (Freeway Segment 4). To ensure that Eastbound U.S. 50 operates at an acceptable LOS between Folsom Boulevard and Prairie City Road, an auxiliary lane must be constructed. This improvement was recommended in the Traffic Operations Analysis Report for the U.S. 50 Auxiliary Lane Project. This improvement is included in the proposed 50 Conidor Mobility Fee Program. The applicant shall pay its proportionate share of funding of improvements, as may be determined by a nexus study or other appropriate and reliable mechanism paid for by applicant, to reduce the impacts to Eastbound U.S. 50 between Folsom Boulevard and Prairie City Road (Freeway Segment 4).

City of Folsom Public Works
Department and Sacramento
County Department of
Transportation
City of Folsom Public
Works Department and
Sacramento County
Department of
Transportation
Before project build out.

A phasing analysis
should be performed to
determine during which
project phase the
improvement should be
built.

Mitigation Measure 3A.15-1r: Participate in Fair Share Funding of Improvements to Reduce Impacts on Eastbound U.S. 50 between Hazel Avenue and Folsom Boulevard (Freeway Segment 3). To ensure that Eastbound U.S. 50 operates at an acceptable LOS between Hazel Avenue and Folsom Boulevard, an auxiliary lane must be constructed. This improvement was recommended in the Traffic Operations Analysis Report for the U.S. 50 Auxiliary Lane Project. This improvement is included in the proposed 50 Corridor Mobility Fee Program.

The applicant shall pay its proportionate share of funding of improvements to the agency responsible for improvements, based on a program established by that agency to reduce the impacts to Eastbound U.S. 50 between Hazel Avenue and Folsom Boulevard (Freeway Segment 3).

Caltrans Caltrans Before project build out.

Construction of the
Sacramento 50 BusCarpool Lane and
Community
Enhancements Project is
expected to be
completed by year 2013,
before the first phase of
the Proposed Project or
alternative is complete.

Construction of the
Sacramento 50 BusCarpool Lane and
Community
Enhancements Project
has started since the
writing of the Draft
EIS/EIR.

Mitigation Measure 34.15-1q: Participate in Fair Share Funding of Improvements to Reduce Impacts on Eastbound U.S. 50 between Zinfandel Drive and Sunrise Boulevard (Freeway Segment 1). To ensure that Eastbound U.S. 50 operates at an acceptable LOS between Zinfandel Drive and Sunrise Boulevard, a bus-carpool (HOV) lane must be constructed. This improvement is currently planned as part of the Sacramento 50 Bus-Carpool Lane and Community Enhancements Project. The applicant shall pay its proportionate share of funding of improvements to the agency responsible for improvements, based on a program established by that agency to reduce the impacts to Eastbound U.S. 50 between Zinfandel Drive and Sunrise Boulevard (Freeway Segment 1).

Dated Signature for
Verification of Compliance
Enforcement lmplementation Timing Mitigation Measure
Table 1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the Folsom South of U.S. Highway 50 Specific Plan Project Folsom South of U.S. Highway 50 Specific Plan
City of Folsom
AECOM
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 57

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

City of Folsom Public Works
Department
City of Folsom Public
Works Department
Before project build out.

A phasing analysis
should be performed
prior to approval ofthe
first subdivision map to
determine during which
project phase the
improvement should be
built.

Mitigation Measure 3A.15-1aa: Participate in Fair Share Funding of Improvements to Reduce Impacts on U.S. 50 Eastbound/Oak Avenue Parkway Loop Merge (Freeway Merge 9). To ensure that Eastbound U.S. 50 operates at an acceptable LOS at the Oak Avenue Parkway loop merge, an auxiliary lane to the East Bidwell Street - Scott Road diverge must be constructed. This auxiliary lane improvement is included in the proposed 50 Corridor Mobility Fee Program. The applicant shall pay its proportionate share of funding of improvements, as may be determined by a nexus study or other appropriate and reliable mechanism paid for by applicant, to reduce the impacts to the U.S. 50 Eastbound/ Oak Avenue Parkway loop merge (Freeway Merge 9).

City of Folsom Public Works
Department
City of Folsom Public
Works Department
Before project build out.

A phasing analysis
should be performed
prior to approval ofthe
first subdivision map to
determine during which
project phase the
improvement should be
built.

Mitigation Measure 34.15-12: Participate in Fair Share Funding of Improvements to Reduce Impacts on U.S. 50 Eastbound/Prairie City Road Flyover On-Ramp to Oak Avenue Parkway Off-Ramp Weave (Freeway Weave 8). To ensure that Eastbound U.S. 50 operates at an acceptable LOS at the Prairie City Road flyover on-ramp to Oak Avenue Parkway off-ramp weave, an improvement acceptable to Caltrans should be implemented to eliminate the unacceptable weaving conditions. Such an improvement may involve a "braided ramp".

The applicant shall pay its proportionate share of funding of improvements, as may be determined by a nexus study or other appropriate and reliable mechanism paid for by applicant, to reduce the impacts to the U.S. 50 Eastbound / Prairie City Road flyover on-ramp to Oak Avenue Parkway off-ramp weave (Freeway Weave 8).

City of Folsom Public Works
Department
City of Folsom Public
Works Department
Before project build out.

A phasing analysis
should be performed
prior to approval ofthe
first subdivision map to
determine during which
project phase the
improvement should be
built.

Mitigation Measure 3A.15-1y: Participate in Fair Share Funding of Improvements to Reduce Impacts on U.S. 50 Eastbound/Prairie Cify Road Direct Merge (Freeway Merge 6). To ensure that Eastbound U.S. 50 operates at an acceptable LOS at the Prairie Cify Road onramp direct merge, an auxiliary lane to the East Bidwell Street - Scott Road diverge must be constructed. This auxiliary lane improvement is included in the proposed 50 Corridor Mobility Fee Program. The applicant shall pay its proportionate share of firnding of improvements, as may be determined by a nexus study or other appropriate and reliable mechanism paid for by applicant, to reduce the impacts to the U.S. 50 Eastbound/Prairie City Road direct merge (Freeway Merge 6).

City of Folsom Public Works
Department and Sacramento
County Department of
Transportation
City of Folsom Public
Works Department and
Sacramento County
Department of
Transportation
Before project build out.

A phasing analysis
should be performed
prior to approval ofthe
first subdivision map to
determine during which
project phase the
improvement should be
built.

Mitigation Measure 3A.15-1x: Participate in Fair Share Funding of Improvements to Reduce Impacts on U.S. 50 Eastbound/?rairie City Road Diverge (Freeway Diverge 5). To ensure that Eastbound U.S. 50 operates at an acceptable LOS at the Prairie City Road off-ramp diverge, an auxiliary lane fiom the Folsom Boulevard merge must be constructed. This improvement was recommended in the Traffic Operations Analysis Report for the U.S. 50 Auxiliary Lane Project. This auxiliary lane improvement is included in the proposed 50 Conidor Mobility Fee Program. The applicant shall pay its proportionate share of funding of improvements, as may be determined by a nexus study or other appropriate and reliable mechanism paid for by applicant, to reduce the impacts to the U.S. 50 Eastbound/Prairie City Road diverge (Freeway Diverge 5).

City of Folsom Public Works
Department and Sacramento
County Department of
Transportation
City of Folsom Public
Works Department and
Sacramento County
Department of
Transportation
Before project build out.

A phasing analysis
should be performed
prior to approval ofthe
first subdivision map to
determine during which
project phase the
improvement should be
built.

Mitigation Measure 3A.15-1w: Participate in Fair Share Funding of Improvements to Reduce Impacts on U.S. 50 Eastbound/Folsom Boulevard Ramp Merge (Freeway Merge 4). To ensure that Eastbound U.S. 50 operates at an acceptable LOS at the Folsom Boulevard merge, an auxiliary lane from the Folsom Boulevard merge to the Prairie City Road diverge must be constructed. This improvement was recommended in the Traffic Operations Analysis Report for the U.S. 50 Auxiliary Lane Project. This improvement is included in the proposed 50 Conidor Mobility Fee Program. The applicant shall pay its proportionate share of funding of improvements to the agency responsible for improvements, based on a program established by that agency to reduce the impacts to the U.S. 50 Eastbound/Folsom Boulevard Ramp Merge (Freeway Merge 4).
project phase the
improvement
Westbound U.S. 50 between Hazel Avenue and Sunrise Boulevard (Freeway Segment 18).

Dated Signature for
Verification of Compliance
Enforcement lmplementation Timing Mitigation Measure
Table 1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the Folsom South of U.S. Highway 50 Specific Plan Project AECOM
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Folsom South of U.S. Highway 50 Specific Plan
City of Folsom 58

06/23/2026 Item No.18.
[-
t
I
I
t
t
I
t
{
t
I
I
i
Sacramento County
Department of Transportation
and City of Rancho Cordova
Department of Public Works
Sacramento County
Department of
Transportation and City
ofRancho Cordova
Before project build out.

A phasing analysis
should be performed
prior to approval of the
Mitigation Measure 3A.15-1ii: Participate in Fair Share Funding of Improvements to Reduce Impacts on U.S. 50 WestboundlHazel Avenue Direct Ramp Merge (Freeway Merge 38). To ensure that Westbound U.S. 50 operates at an acceptable LOS at the Hazel Avenue direct ramp merge, an auxiliary lane to the Sunrise Boulevard offramp diverge must be constructed. This auxiliary lane improvement is included in the proposed 50 Corridor Mobility Fee Program. The applicant shall pay its proportionate share of funding of improvements to City of Folsom Public Works
Department and Sacramento
County Department of
Transportration
City of Folsom Public
Works Department and
Sacramento County
Department of
Transportation
Before project build out.

A phasing analysis
should be performed
prior to approval ofthe
first subdivision map to
determine during which
project phase the
improvement should be
built.

Mitigation Measure 3A.15-1hh: Participate in Fair Share Funding of Improvements to Reduce Impacts on U.S. 50 Eastbound/Folsom Boulevard Diverge (Freeway Diverge 34). To ensure that Westbound U.S. 50 operates at an acceptable LOS at the Folsom Boulevard Diverge, an auxiliary lane from the Prairie City Road loop ramp merge must be constructed. Improvements to this freeway segment must be implemented by Caltrans. This auxiliary lane improvement is included in the proposed 50 Corridor Mobility Fee Program. The applicant shall pay its proportionate share of funding of improvements, as may be determined by a nexus study or other appropriate and reliable mechanism paid for by applicant, to reduce the impacts to the U.S. 50 Eastbound / Folsom Boulevard diverge (Freeway Diverge 34).

City of Folsom Public Works
Department and Sacramento
County Department of
Transportation
City of Folsom Public
Works Department and
Sacramento County
Department of
Transportation
Before project build out.

A phasing analysis
should be performed
prior to approval ofthe
first subdivision map to
determine during which
project phase the
improvement should be
built.

Mitigation Measure 3A.15-1gg: Participate in Fair Share Funding of Improvements to Reduce Impacts on U.S. 50 Westbound/Prairie City Road Direct Ramp Merge @reeway Merge 33). To ensure that Westbound U.S. 50 operates at an acceptable LOS at the Prairie City Road direct ramp merge, an auxiliary lane to the Folsom Boulevard off ramp diverge must be constructed. This auxiliary lane improvement is included in the proposed 50 Conidor Mobility Fee Program. The applicant shall pay its proportionate share of funding of improvements, as may be determined by a nexus study or other appropriate and reliable mechanism paid for by applicant, to reduce the impacts to the U.S. 50 Westbound/Prairie City Road direct ramp merge (Freeway Merge 33).

City of Folsom Public Works
Department and Sacramento
County Department of
Transportation
City of Folsom Public
Works Department and
Sacramenlo County
Department of
Transportation
Before project build out.

A phasing analysis
should be performed
prior to approval ofthe
first subdivision map to
determine during which
project phase the
improvement should be
built.

Mitigation Measure 3A.1,5-1ff: Participate in Fair Share Funding of Improvements to Reduce Impacts on U.S. 50 Westbound/Prairie City Road Loop Ramp Merge (Freeway Merge 32). To ensure that Westbound U.S. 50 operates at an acceptable LOS at the Prairie City Road loop ramp merge, an auxiliary lane to the Folsom Boulevard offramp diverge must be constructed. This auxiliary lane improvement is included in the proposed 50 Corridor Mobility Fee Program. The applicant shall pay its proportionate share of funding of improvements, as may be determined by a nexus study or other appropriate and reliable mechanism paid for by applicant, to reduce the impacts to the U.S. 50 Westbound/Prairie City Road Loop Ramp Merge (Freeway Merge 32).

City of Folsom Public Works
Department
City of Folsom Public
Works Department
Before project build out.

A phasing analysis
should be performed
prior to approval ofthe
first subdivision map to
determine during which
project phase the
improvement should be
built.

Mitigation Measure 3A.15-1ee: Participate in Fair Share Funding of Improvements to Reduce Impacts on U.S. 50 Westbound/Oak Avenue Parkway Loop Ramp Merge (Freeway Merge 29). To ensure that Westbound U.S. 50 operates at an acceptable LOS, the northbound Oak Avenue Parkway loop on ramp should start the westbound auxiliary lane that ends at the Prairie City Road off ramp. The slip on ramp from southbound Oak Avenue Parkway would merge into this extended auxiliary lane. Improvements to this freeway segment must be implemented by Caltrans. The applicant shall pay its proportionate share of funding of improvements, as may be determined by a nexus study or other appropriate and reliable mechanism paid for by applicant, to reduce the impacts to the U.S. 50 Westbound/Oak Avenue Parkway loop ramp merge (Freeway Merge 29).

City of Folsom Public Works
Department
City of Folsom Public
Works Department
Before project build out.

A phasing analysis
should be performed
prior to approval ofthe
first subdivision map to
determine during which
project phase the
improvement should be
built.

Mitigation Measure 3A.15-1dd: Participate in Fair Share Funding of Improvements to Reduce Impacts on U.S. 50 Westbound/Empire Ranch Road Loop Ramp Merge (Freeway Merge 23). To ensure that Westbound U.S. 50 operates at an acceptable LOS, the northbound Empire Ranch Road loop on ramp should start the westbound auxiliary lane that ends at the East Bidwell Street - Scoft Road offramp. The slip on ramp from southbound Empire Ranch Road would merge into this extended auxiliary lane. Improvements to this freeway segment must be implemented by Caltrans. The applicant shall pay its proportionate share of funding of improvements, as may be determined by a nexus study or other appropriate and reliable mechanism paid for by applicant, to reduce the impacts to the U.S. 50 WestboundlEmpire Ranch Road loop ramp merge (Freeway Merge 23).

Dated Signature for
Verification of Gompliance
Enforcement lmplementation Timing Mitigation Measure
Table 1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the Folsom South of U.S. Highway 50 Specific Plan Project t
I
Folsom South of U.S, Highway 50 Specific Plan
City of Folsom
AECOM
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Lr
59

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Mitigation Measure 3A.15-4b: The Applicant Shall Pay a Fair Share to Fund the Construction of Improvements to the Oak Avenue Parkway/East Bidwell Street Intersection (Folsom Intersection 6). To ensure that the Oak Avenue Parkway/East Bidwell Street intersection operates at an acceptable LOS, the eastbound (East Bidwell Street) approach must be reconfigured to consist of two left-turn lanes, four through lanes and a right-tum lane, and the westbound (East Bidwell Street) approach must be reconfigured to consist of two lefttum lanes, four through lanes, and a right-turn lane. It is against the City of Folsom policy to have eight lane roads because of the impacts to non motorized traffic and a,djacent development; therefore, this improvement is infeasible.

City of Folsom Public Works
Department
City of Folsom Public
Works Department.

Before project build out.

A phasing analysis
should be performed
prior to approval ofthe
first subdivision map to
determine during which
project phase the
improvement should be
built.

Mitigation Measure 3A.15-4a: The Applicant Shall Pay a Fair Share to Fund the Construction of Improvements to the Sibley Street/Blue Ravine Road Intersection (Folsom Intersection 2). To ensure that the Sibley Street/Blue Ravine Road intersection operates at a LOS D with less than the Cumulative No Project delay, the northbound approach must be reconfigured to consist of two left-turn lane, two through lanes, and one dedicated right-turn lane. The applicant shall pay its proportionate share of funding of improvements, as may be determined by a nexus study or other appropriate and reliable mechanism paid for by applicant, to reduce the impacts to the Sibley Street/Blue Ravine Road intersection (Folsom Intersection 2).

City of Folsom Public Works
Department
City of Folsom and
Applicant(s)
As a condition of project
approval and/or as a
condition of the
development agreement
for all project phases.

Mitigation Measfre 3A.15-3: Pay Full Cost of Identified Improvements that Are Not Funded by the City's Fee Program.

In accordance with Measure W, the project applicant(s) for any particular discretionary development application shall provide fair-share contributions to the City's transportation impact fee program to fully fund improvements only required because of the Specific Plan.

City of Folsom Public Works
Department.
50 Corridor
Transportation
Management
Association and
Applicant(s)
Concurrent with
construction for all
project phases.

Mitigation Measure 3A.15-2c: Participate with the 50 Corridor Transportation Management Association. The project applicant(s) for any particular discretionary development application shall join and parlicipate with the 50 Conidor Transpodation Management Association to reduce the number of single-occupant automobile travel on area roadways and intersections.

City of Folsom Public Works
Department.

City of Folsom and
Applicant(s)
Concurrent with
construction for all
project phases.

Mitigation Measure 3A..15-2b: Participate in the City's Transportation System Management Fee Program. The project applicant(s) for any particular discretionary development application shall pay an appropriate amount into the City's existing Transportation System Management Fee Program to reduce the number of single-occupant automobile travel on area roadways and intersections.

City of Folsom Public Works
Department.

City of Folsom Public Works
Department.

City of Folsom and
Applicant(s)
City of Folsom,
Regional Transit, and
Applicant(s)
Before approval of
improvement plans for
all project phases any
particular discretionary
development application
that includes residential
and commercial or
mixed-use development.

As a condition of project
approval and/or as a
condition of the
development agreement
for all project phases.

Mitigation Measure 3A.L5-2r: Develop Commercial Support Services and Mixed-use Development Concurrent with Housing Development, and Develop and Provide Options for Alternative Transportation Modes. The project applicant(s) for any particular discretionary development application including commercial or mixed-use development along with residential uses shall develop commercial and mixed-use development concurrent with housing development, to the extent feasible in light of market realities and other considerations, to internalize vehicle trips. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Public Works Department. To fuither minimize impacts from the increased demand on area roadways and intersections, the project applicant(s) for any particular discretionary development application involving schools or commercial centers shall develop and implement safe and secure bicycle parking to promote alternative transportation uses and reduce the volume of single-occupancy vehicles using area roadways and intersections.

The project applicant(s) for any particular discretionary development application shall participate in capital improvements and operating funds for transit service to increase the percent of travel by transit. The project's fair-share participation and the associated timing of the improvements and service shall be identified in the project conditions of approval and./or the project's development agreement. Improvements and service shall be coordinated, as necessary, with Folsom Stage Lines and Sacramento RT.

Department of Public
Works
first subdivision map to
determine during which
project phase the
improvement should be
built.
the agency responsible for improvements, based on a program established by that agency to reduce the impacts to the U.S. 50 Westbound/Flazel Avenue direct ramp merge (Freeway Merge 38).

Dated Signature for
Verification of Compliance
Enforcement lmplementation Timing Mitigation Measure
Table 1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the Folsom South of U.S. Highway 50 Specific Plan Project AECOM
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Folsom South of U.S. Highway 50 Specific Plan
City of Folsom 60

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Sacramento County
Department of Transportation.

Sacramento County
Department of
Transportation.

Before project build out.

A phasing analysis
should be performed
prior to approval ofthe
first subdivision map to
Mitigation Measure 3A.15-4i: Participate in Fair Share Funding of Improvements to Reduce Impacts on the Grant Line RoadAilhite Rock Road Intersection (Sacramento Counfy Intersection 3). To ensure that the Grant Line RoadAVhite Rock Road intersection operates at an acceptable LOS E or better this intersection should be replaced by some type ofgrade separated intersection or interchange.

Improvements to this intersection are identified in the Sacramento County's Proposed General Plan. Implementation of these improvements would assist in reducing traffic impacts on this intersection by providing acceptable operation. Intersection improvements must be City of Folsom Public Works
Department
City of Folsom Public
Works Department.

Before project build out.

A phasing analysis
should be performed
prior to approval ofthe
first subdivision map to
determine during which
project phase the
improvement should be
built.

Mitigation Measure 3A.15-4g: The Applicant Shall Fund and Construct Improvements to the Oak Avenue Parkway/Easton Valley Parkway Intersection (Folsom Intersection 33). To ensure that the Oak Avenue Parkway/Easton Valley Parkway intersection operates at an acceptable LOS the southbound approach must be reconfigured to consist of two left-turn lanes, fwo through lanes, and two righrturn lanes. The applicant shall fund and construct these improvements.

City of Folsom Public Works
Department
City of Folsom Public
Works Department.

Before project build out.

A phasing analysis
should be performed
prior to approval ofthe
first subdivision map to
determine during which
project phase the
improvement should be
built.

Mitigation Measure 3A.15-4f: The Applicant Shall Pay a Fair Share to Fund the Construction of Improvements to the Empire Ranch Road/Iron Point Road Intersection (Folsom Intersection 24).To ensure that the Empire Ranch Road / Iron Point Road intersection operates at a LOS D or better, all of the following improvements are required:
> The eastbound approach must be reconfigured to consist ofone left-turn lane, two through lanes, and a right-turn lane. > The westbound approach must be reconfigured to consist of two left-turn lanes, one through lane, and a through-right lane. > The northbound approach must be reconfigured to consist oftwo left-tum lanes, three through lanes, and a right-turn lane. > The southbound approach must be reconfigured to consist of two left-tum lanes, three through lanes, and a right-turn lane.

The applicant shall pay its proportionate share of funding of improvements, as may be determined by a nexus study or other appropriate and reliable mechanism paid for by applicant, to reduce the impacts to the Empire Ranch Road / Iron Point Road Intersection (Folsom Intersection 24).

City of Folsom Public Works
Department
City of Folsom Public
Works Department.

Before project build out.

A phasing analysis
should be performed
prior to approval ofthe
first subdivision map to
detemine during which
project phase the
improvement should be
build.

Mitigation Measure 3A.15-4e: The Applicant Shall Pay a Fair Share to Fund the Construction of Improvements to the Serpa Way/ Iron Point Road Intersection (Folsom Intersection 23). To improve LOS at the Serpa Way/ Iron Point Road intersection, the northbound approaches must be restriped to consist of one left-tumlane, one shared left-through lanes, and one right-turn lane. The applicant shall pay its proportionate share of funding of improvements, as may be determined by a nexus study or other appropriate and reliable mechanism paid for by applicant, to reduce the impacts to the Serpa Way/Iron Point Road Intersection (Folsom Intersection 23).

Mitigation Measure 3A.15-4d: The Applicant Shall Pay a Fair Share to Fund the Construction of Improvements to the East Bidwell Street/Iron Point Road Intersection (Folsom Intersection 21). To ensure that the East Bidwell Street /Iron Point Road intersection operates at an acceptable LOS, the northbound approach must be reconhgured to consist oftwo left-tum lanes, four through lanes and a right-turn lane, and the southbound approach must be reconfigured to consist oftwo left-tum lanes, four through lanes and a right-tum lane. It is against the Cify of Folsom policy to have eight lane roads because of the impacts to non motorized traffic and adjacent development; therefore, this improvement is infeasible.

City of Folsom Public Works
Depaftment
City of Folsom Public
Works Department.

Before project build out.

A phasing analysis
should be performed
prior to approval ofthe
first subdivision map to
determine during which
project phase the
improvement should be
built.

Mitigation Measure 3A.15-4c: The Applicant Shall Pay a Fair Share to Fund the Construction of Improvements to the East Bidwell Street/College Street Intersection (Folsom Intersection 7). To ensure that the East Bidwell Street/College Street intersection operates at acceptable LOS C or better, the westbound approach must be reconfigured to consist of one left-turn lane, one left-through lane, and two dedicated right-turn lanes. The applicant shall pay its proportionate share of funding of improvements, as may be determined by a nexus study or other appropriate and reliable mechanism paid for by applicant, to reduce the impacts to the East Bidwell Street/Nesmith Court intersection (Folsom Intersection 7).

Dated Signature for
Verification of Compliance
Enforcement lmplementation Timing Mitigation Measure
Table 1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the Folsom South of U.S. Highway 50 Specific Plan Project Folsom South of U.S. Highway 50 Specific Plan
City of Folsom
AECOM
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 61

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Sacramento County
Department of Transportation.

Sacramento County
Department of
Transportation.

Before project build out.

A phasing analysis
should be performed
prior to approval ofthe
Mitigation Measure 3A..15-4n: Participate in Fair Share Funding of Improvements to Reduce Impacts on White Rock Road between Empire Ranch Road and Carson Crossing Road (Sacramento County Roadway Segment 28). To improve operation on White Rock Road between Empire Ranch Road and Carson Crossing Road, this roadway segment must be widened to six lanes. Improvements to this roadway segment must be implemented by Sacramento County. The applicant shall pay its proportionate share of funding of improvements to Sacramento County
Department of Transportation.

Sacramento County
Department of
Transportation.

Before project build out.

A phasing analysis
should be performed
prior to approval ofthe
first subdivision map to
determine during which
project phase the
improvement should be
built.

Mitigation Measure 3A.15-4m: Participate in Fair Share Funding of Improvements to Reduce Impacts on White Rock Road between Grant Line Road and Prairie City Road (Sacramento County Roadway Segment 22). To improve operation on White Rock Road between Grant Line Road and Prairie City Road, this roadway segment must be widened to six lanes. This improvement is included in the 2035 MTP but is not included in the Sacramento County General Plan. Improvements to this roadway segment must be implemented by Sacramento County.

The identified improvement would more than offset the impacts specifically related to the Folsom South of U.S. 50 project on this roadway segment. However, because of other development in the region that would substantially increase traffic levels, this roadway segment would continue to operate at an unacceptable LOS F even with the capacity improvements identified to mitigate Folsom South of U.S. 50 impacts.

The applicant shall pay its proportionate share of funding of improvements to the agency responsible for improvements, based on a program established by that agency to reduce the impacts to White Rock Road between Grant Line Road and Prairie Cify Road (Sacramento County Roadway Segment 22).

Sacramento County
Department of Transportation.

Sacramento County
Department of
Transportation.

Before project build out.

A phasing analysis
should be performed
prior to approval ofthe
first subdivision map to
determine during which
project phase the
improvement should be
built.

Mitigation Measure 3A.15-4t: Participate in Fair Share Funding of Improvements to Reduce Impacts on Hazel Avenue between Curragh Downs Drive and U.S. 50 Westbound Ramps (Sacramento County Roadway Segment s 12-13). To improve operation on Hazel Avenue between Curragh Downs Drive and the U.S. 50 westbound ramps, this roadway segment could be widened to eight lanes. This improvement is inconsistent with Sacramento County's general plan because the county's policy requires a maximum roadway cross section ofsix lanes.

Analysis shown later indicates that improvements at the impacted intersection in this segment can be mitigated (see Mitigation Measure 3A.15-aQ. Improvements to impacted intersections on this segment will improve operations on this roadway segment and, therefore; mitigate this segment impact. The applicant shall pay its proportionate share of funding of improvements to the agency responsible for improvements, based on a program established by that ager'cy to reduce the impacts to Hazel Avenue between Curragh Downs Drive and U.S. 50 Westbound Ramps (Sacramento County Roadway Segments 12-13).

Sacramento County
Department of Transportation.

Sacramento County
Department of
Transportation.

Before project build out.

A phasing analysis
should be performed
prior to approval ofthe
first subdivision map to
determine during which
project phase the
improvement should be
built.

Mitigation Measure 3A.15-4k: Participate in Fair Share Funding of Improvements to Reduce Impacts on Grant Line Road between Kiefer Boulevard and Jackson Highway (Sacramento County Roadway Segment 8). To improve operation on Grant Line Road between Kiefer Boulevard Jackson Highway, this roadway segment could be widened to six lanes. This improvement is proposed in the Sacramento County and the City of Rancho Cordova General Plans; however, it is not in the 2035 MTP. Improvements to this roadway segment must be implemented by Sacramerito County and the City of Rancho Cordova. The applicant shall pay its proportionate share of funding of improvements to the agency responsible for improvements, based on a program established by that agency to reduce the impacts to Grant Line Road between Kiefer Boulevard and Jackson Highway (Sacramento County Roadway Segment 8).

The identified improvement would more than offset the impacts specifically related to the Folsom South of U.S. 50 project on this roadway segment.

Sacramento County
Department of Transportation
Sacramento County
Department of
Transportation.

Before project build out.

A phasing analysis
should be performed
prior to approval ofthe
first subdivision map to
determine during which
project phase the
improvement should be
built.

Mitigation Measure 3A.15-4j: Participate in Fair Share Funding of Improvements to Reduce Impacts on Grant Line Road between White Rock Road and Kiefer Boulevard (Sacramento County Roadway Segments 5-7). To improve operation on Grant Line Road between White Rock Road and Kiefer Boulevard, this roadway segment must be widened to six lanes. This improvement is proposed in the Sacramento County and the City of Rancho Cordova General Plans; however, it is not in the 2035 MTP. Improvements to this roadway segment must be implemented by Sacramento County and the City of Rancho Cordova. The applicant shall pay its proportionate share of funding of improvements to the agency responsible for improvements, based on a program established by that agency to reduce the impacts to Grant Line Road between White Rock Road and Kiefer Boulevard (Sacramento County Roadway Segments 5-7).

The identified improvement would more than offset the impacts specifically related to the Folsom South of U.S. 50 project on this roadway segment.
determine during which
project phase the
improvement should be
built.
implemented by Sacramento County. The applicant shall pay its proportionate share of funding of improvements to the agency responsible for improvements, based on a program established by that agency to reduce the impacts to the Grant Line RoadAVhite Rock Road Intersection (Sacramento County Intersection 3).

Dated Signature for
Verification of Compliance
Enforcement lmplementation Timing Mitigation Measure
Table I
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the Folsom South of U.S. Highway 50 Specific Plan Project AECOM
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Folsom South of U.S. Highway 50 Specific Plan
City of Folsom 62

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Capitol Southeast Connecter
Joint Powers Authority.

Capitol Southeast
Connecter Joint Powers
Authority.

Before project build out.

A phasing analysis
should be performed
prior to approval ofthe
first subdivision map to
determine during which
project phase the
Mitigation Measure 3A.15-4s: Participate in Fair Share Funding of Improvements to Reduce Impacts on Eastbound US 50 between Folsom Boulevard and Prairie City Road (Freeway Segment 5). To ensure that Eastbound US 50 operates at an acceptable LOS befween Folsom Boulevard and Prairie Cify Road, the eastbound auxiliary lane should be converted to a mixed flow lane that extends to and drops at the Oak Avenue Parkway off ramp (see mitigation measure 3A.15-4t). Improvements to this freeway segment must be implemented by Caltrans. This improvement is not consistent with the Concept Facility in Caltrans State Route 50 Corridor System Management Plan; therefore, it is not likely to be implemented by Caltrans by 2030.

Construction of the Capitol South East Connector, including widening White Rock Road and Grant Line Road to six lanes with limited Capitol Southeast Connecter
Joint Powers Authority.

Capitol Southeast
Connecter Joint Powers
Authority.

Before project build out.

A phasing analysis
should be performed
prior to approval ofthe
first subdivision map to
determine during which
project phase the
improvement should be
built.

Mitigation Measure 3A.15-4r: Participate in Fair Share Funding of Improvements to Reduce Impacts on Eastbound US 50 between Rancho Cordova Parkway and Hazel Avenue (Freeway Segment 3). To ensure that Eastbound US 50 operates at an acceptable LOS between Rancho Cordova Parkway andHazel Avenue, an additional eastbound lane could be constructed. This improvement is not consistent with the Concept Facility in Caltrans State Route 50 Corridor System Management Plan; therefore, it is not likely to be implemented by Caltrans by 2030.

Construction of the Capitol South East Connector, including widening White Rock Road and Grant Line Road to six lanes with limited access, could divert some traffic off of U.S. 50 and partially mitigate the project's impact. The applicant shall pay its proportionate share of funding of improvements to the agency responsible for improvements, based on a program established by that agency to reduce the impacts to Eastbound U.S. 50 between Rancho Cordova Parkway and Hazel Avenue (Freeway Segment 3).

Capitol Southeast Connecter
Joint Powers Authority.

Capitol Southeast
Connecter Joint Powers
Authority.

Before project build out.

A phasing analysis
should be performed
prior to approval ofthe
first subdivision map to
determine during which
project phase the
improvement should be
built.

Mitigation Measure 3A.15-4q: Participate in Fair Share Funding of Improvemeits to Reduce Impacts on Eastbound US 50 between Zinfandel Drive and Sunrise Boulevard (Freeway Segment 1). To ensure that Eastbound US 50 operates at an acceptable LOS between Zinfandel Drive and Sunrise Boulevard, an additional eastbound lane could be constructed. This improvement is not consistent with the Concept Facility in Caltrans State Route 50 Corridor System Management Plan; therefore, it is not likely to be implemented by Caltrans by 2030.

Construction of the Capitol South East Connector, including widening White Rock Road and Grant Line Road to six lanes with limited access, could divert some traffic from U.S. 50 and partially mitigate the project's impact. The applicant shall pay its proportionate share of funding of improvements to the agency responsible for improvements, based on a program established by that agency to reduce the impacts to Eastbound U.S. 50 between Zinfandel Drive and Sunrise Boulevard (Freeway Segment 1).

Sacramento County
Department of Transportation.

Sacramento County
Department of
Transportation.

Before project build out.

A phasing analysis
should be performed
prior to approval ofthe
first subdivision map to
determine during which
project phase the
improvement should be
built.

Mifigation Measure 3A.15-4p: Participate in Fair Share Funding of Improvements to Reduce Impacts on the Hazel Avenue/U.S. 50 Westbound Ramps Intersection (Caltrans Intersection 1). To ensure that the Hazel AvenueAJ.S. 50 westbound ramps intersection operates at an acceptable LOS, the westbound approach must be reconfigured to consist ofone dedicated left turn lane, one shared leftthrough lane and three dedicated right-turn lanes. Improvements to this intersection must be implemented by Caltrans and Sacramento County. The applicant shall pay its proportionate share of funding of improvements to the agency responsible for improvements, based on a program established by that agency to reduce the impacts to the Hazel AvenueAJ.S. 50 Westbound Ramps Intersection (Caltrans Intersection 1).

El Dorado County Department
of Public Works.

El Dorado County
Department of Public
Works.

Before project build out.

A phasing analysis
should be performed
prior to approval ofthe
first subdivision map to
determine during which
project phase the
improvement should be
built.

Mitigation Measure 3A.15-4o: Participate in Fair Share Funding of Improvements to Reduce Impacts on the White Rock Road/Carson Crossing Road Intersection (El Dorado County 1). To ensure that the White Rock Road/Carson Crossing Road intersection operates at an acceptable LOS, the eastbound right turn lane must be converted into a separate free right turn lane, or double right.

Improvements to this intersection must be implemented by El Dorado County. The applicant shall pay its proportionate share of funding of improvements to the agency responsible for improvements, based on a program established by that agency to reduce the impacts to the White Rock Road/Carson Crossing Road Intersection (El Dorado County l). first subdivision map to
determine during which
project phase the
improvement should be
built.
the agency responsible for improvements, based on a program established by that agetcy to reduce the impacts to White Rock Road between Empire Ranch Road and Carson Crossing Road (Sacramento County Roadway Segment 28).

Dated Signature for
Verification of Compliance
Enforcement lmplementation Timing Mitigation Measure
Table 1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the Folsom South of U.S. Highway 50 Specific Plan Project Folsom South of U.S. Highway 50 Specific Plan
City of Folsom
AECOM
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 63

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

City of Folsom Public Works
Department.

City of Folsom Public
Works Department.

Before project build out.

A phasing analysis
should be performed
prior to approval ofthe
first subdivision map to
determine during which
project phase the
improvement should be
built.

Mitigation Measure 3A.15-4x: Participate in Fair Share Funding of Improvements to Reduce Impacts on U.S. 50 Westbound / Empire Ranch Road Loop Ramp Merge (Freeway Merge 27).To ensure that Westbound US 50 operates at an acceptable LOS, the northbound Empire Ranch Road loop on ramp should start the westbound auxiliary lane that ends at the East Bidwell Street - Scott Road off ramp. The slip on ramp from southbound Empire Ranch Road slip ramp would merge into this extended auxiliary lane. Improvements to this freeway segment must be implemented by Caltrans. The applicant shall pay its proportionate share of funding of improvements, as may be determined by a nexus study or other appropriate and reliable mechanism paid for by applicant, to reduce the impacts to the U.S. 50 Westbound / Empire Ranch Road loop ramp merge (Freeway Merge 27).

City of Folsom Public Works
Department.

City of Folsom Public
Works Department.

Before project build out.

A phasing analysis
should be performed
prior to approval of the
first subdivision map to
determine during which
project phase the
improvement should be
built.

Mitigation Measure 3A.15-4w: Participate in Fair Share Funding of Improvements to Reduce Impacts on U.S. 50 Eastbound / Oak Avenue Parkway Loop Ramp Merge (Freeway Merge 8). To ensure that Eastbound US 50 operates at an acceptable LOS, the southbound Oak Avenue Parkway loop on ramp should merge with the eastbound auxiliary lane that starts at the southbound Prairie City Road braided flyover on ramp and ends at the East Bidwell Street - Scott Road off ramp (see mitigation measure 3.{.15-4u, v and w). Improvements to this freeway segment must be implemented by Calhans. The applicant shall pay its proportionate share of funding of improvements, as may be determined by a nexus study or other appropriate and reliable mechanism paid for by applicant, to reduce the impacts to U.S. 50 Eastbound / Oak Avenue Parkway Loop Ramp Merge (Freeway Merge 8).

Cify of Folsom Public Works
Department.

City of Folsom Public
Works Department.

Before project build out.

A phasing analysis
should be performed
prior to approval ofthe
frrst subdivision map to
determine during which
project phase the
improvement should be
built.

Mitigation Measure 3A.15-4v: Participate in Fair Share Funding of Improvements to Reduce Impacts on the U.S. 50 Eastbound / Prairie City Road Flyover On Ramp to Oak Avenue Parkway Off Ramp Weave (Freeway Weave 7). To ensure that Eastbound US 50 operates at an acceptable LOS, the northbound Prairie City Road slip on ramp should start the eastbound auxiliary lane that extends to and drops at the Oak Avenue Parkway off ramp (see mitigation measure 3A.15-4u, v and x), and the southbound Prairie City Road flyover on ramp should be braided over the Oak Avenue Parkway off ramp and start an extended full auxiliary lane to the East Bidwell Street - Scott Road off ramp. Improvements to this freeway segment must be implemented by Caltrans. The applicant shall pay its proportionate share of funding of improvements, as may be determined by a nexus study or other appropriate and reliable mechanism paid for by applicant, to reduce the impacts to the U.S. 50 Eastbound i Prairie City Road Flyover On Ramp to Oak Avenue Parkway Off Ramp Weave (Freeway Weave 7).

City of Folsom Public Works
Department.

City of Folsom Public
Works Department.

Before project build out.

A phasing analysis
should be performed
prior to approval ofthe
first subdivision map to
determine during which
project phase the
improvement should be
built.

Mitigation Measure 3A.15-4u: Participate in Fair Share Funding of Improvements to Reduce Impacts on the U.S. 50 Eastbound / Prairie City Road Slip Ramp Merge (Freeway Merge 6). To ensure that Eastbound US 50 operates at an acceptable LOS, the northbound Prairie City Road slip on ramp should start the eastbound auxiliary lane that extends to and drops at the Oak Avenue Parkway offramp (see mitigation measure 3A.. l5-4it, w and x), and the southbound Prairie City Road flyover on ramp should be braided over the Oak Avenue Parkway off ramp and start an extended full auxiliary lane to the East Bidwell Sfreet - Scott Road off ramp. Improvements to this freeway segment must be implemented by Caltrans. The applicant shall pay its proportionate share of funding of improvements, as may be determined by a nexus study or other appropriate and reliable mechanism paid for by applicant, to reduce the impacts to the U.S. 50 Eastbound / Prairie City Road slip ramp merge (Freeway Merge 6).

City of Folsom Public Works
Department
City of Folsom Public
Works Department
Before project build out.

A phasing analysis
should be performed
prior to approval ofthe
first subdivision map to
determine during which
project phase the
improvement should be
built.

Mitigation Measure 3A.15-4t: Participate in Fair Share Funding of Improvements to Reduce Impacts on Eastbound US 50 between Prairie City Road and Oak Avenue Parkway (Freeway Segment 6). To ensure that Eastbound US 50 operates at an acceptable LOS between Prairie City Road and Oak Avenue Parkway, the northbound Prairie City Road slip on ramp should merge with the eastbound auxiliary lane that extends to and drops at the Oak Avenue Parkway off ramp (see Mitigation Measures 3,{.15-4u, v and w), and the southbound Prairie City Road flyover on ramp should be braided over the Oak Avenue Parkway off ramp and start an extended full auxiliary lane to the East Bidwell Street - Scott Road off ramp. Improvements to this freeway segment must be implemented by Caltrans. The applicant shall pay its proportionate share of funding of improvements, as may be determined by a nexus study or other appropriate and reliable mechanism paid for by applicant, to reduce the impacts to Eastbound U.S. 50 between Prairie City Road and Oak Avenue Parkway (Freeway Segment 6).
improvement should be
built.
access, could divert some traffic off of U.S. 50 and partially mitigate the project's impact.

The applicant shall pay its proportionate share of funding of improvements, as may be determined by a nexus study or other appropriate and reliable mechanism paid for by applicant, to reduce the impacts to Eastbound U.S. 50 between Folsom Boulevard and Prairie City Road (Freeway Segment 5).

Dated Signature for
Verification of Compliance
Enforcement lmplementation Timing Mitigation Measure
Table 1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the Folsom South of U.S. Highway 50 Specific Plan Project AECOM
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Folsom South of U,S. Highway 50 Specific Plan
City of Folsom 64

06/23/2026 Item No.18.
l. For structural improvements
that would be located within
the City of Folsom: City of
Folsom Neighborhood
Services Department and
City of Folsom Community
Development Department.

2. For structural improvements
that would be located within
unincorporated Sacramento
County: Sacramento County
Planning and Community
Development Department.

3. For structural improvements
that would be located within
the City of Rancho
Cordova: City of Rancho
Cordova Planning
Department.

City of Folsom Utilities
Department
Prior to and during
construction of all Offsite Water Facilities
Mitigation Measure 3B.15-1b: Assess Pre-Off-site Water Facilities Roadway Conditions.

Prior to construction, the City's construction conhactor(s) shall be responsible for assessing current road conditions for Off-site Water Facilities-related haul routes including the local access roads and develop post construction road restoration requirements. As part of the encroachment permitting process, an agreement shall be entered into with applicable jurisdictions prior to construction that details post construction road restoration requirements. Staff with the City of Rancho Cordova and Sacramento County shall review the post construction restoration standards for each ofthe affected roadways. The City shall perform roadway repairs or rehabilitation as necessary such that post construction requirements are met.
l. For structural improvements
that would be located within
the City of Folsom: City of
Folsom Neighborhood
Services Department and
City of Folsom Community
Development Department.

2. For structural improvements
that would be located within
unincorporated S acramento
County: Sacramento County
Planning and Community
Development Department.

3. For structural improvements
that would be located within
the City of Rancho
Cordova: City of Rancho
Cordova Planning
Department.

City of Folsom Utilities
Department
Prior to and during
construction of all Offsite Water Facilities
Mitigation Measure 3B.15-1a: Prepare Traffic Control Plan. Prior to construction, the City shall prepare aTraffrc Conhol Plan for roadways and intersections affected by Off-site Water Facilities-related construction. The Traffic Control Plan shall designate haul routes and comply with requirements in the encroachment permits issued by the City of Rancho Cordova, Sacramento County, and Caltrans. The Traffic Control Plan to be prepared by the construction contractor(s) shall, at minimum, include the following measures:
> Maintaining the maximum amount of travel lane capacity during non-construction periods, possible, and advanced notice to drivers through the provision of construction signage.
> Maintaining alternate one-way traffic flow past the lay down area and site access when feasible. > Heavy trucks and other construction transport vehicles shall avoid the busiest cornrnute hours (7 a.m. to 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. to 6 p.m. on weekdays).
> The City shall provide a minimum 72-hour advance notice of access restrictions for residents, businesses, and local emergency response agencies. This shall include the identification of altemative routes and detours to enable for the avoidance of the immediate construction zofie.
> The City, in cooperation with its contractor(s), shall provide a phone number and community contact for inquiries about the schedule of the Off-site Water Facilities throughout the construction period. This information will be posted in a local newspaper, via the City's web site, or at City Hall and will be updated on a monthly basis. > To the extent practical depending the alignment of the selected Off-site Water Facility Alternative, the City shall maximize opportunities for coordinated construction and installation of the conveyance pipeline with other planned roadway improvement projects.

City of Folsom Public Works
Department and Sacramento
County Department of
Transportation.

City of Folsom Public
Works Department and
Sacramento County
Department of
Transportation.

Before project build out.

A phasing analysis
should be performed
prior to approval ofthe
first subdivision map to
determine during which
project phase the
improvement should be
built.

Mitigation Measure 3A.15-4y: Participate in Fair Share Funding of Improvements to Reduce Impacts on U.S. 50 Westbound / Prairie City Road Loop Ramp Merge (Freeway Merge 35). To ensure that Westbound US 50 operates at an acceptable LOS, the northbound Prairie City Road loop on ramp should start the westbound auxiliary lane that continues beyond the Folsom Boulevard offramp.

The slip on ramp from southbound Prairie City Road slip ramp would merge into this extended auxiliary lane. Improvements to this freeway segment must be implemented by Caltrans. The applicant shall pay its proportionate share of funding of improvements, as may be determined by a nexus study or other appropriate and reliable mechanism paid for by applicant, to reduce the impacts to the U.S. 50 Westbound / Prairie City Road Loop Ramp Merge (Freeway Merge 35).

Dated Signature for
Verification of Compliance
Enforcement lmplementation Timing Mitigation Measure
Table 1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the Folsom South of U.S. Highway 50 Specific Plan Project

38.15 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
. WATER
Folsom South of U.S. Highway 50 Specific PIan
City of Folsom
AECOM
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 65

06/23/2026 Item No.18.
3A.16 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - LAND

38.16 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
. WATER

38.1 7 GROUNDWATER
. WATER

1. California Department of
Fish and Game or Regional
Water Quality Control
Board

2.City of Folsom Community
Development Department.

City of Folsom Utilities
Department
Prior to and during
construction
Mitigation Measure 38.17-1a: Implement Construction Dewatering Best Management Practices.

During construction at site locations containing high groundwater, if groundwater from dewatering activities cannot be contained within the construction area(e.g. pipeline corridor, WTP), it shall be pumped to an authorized onsite land area, existing detention facilities, or Baker tanks or equivalent with sufficient capacity to control the volume of groundwater. Tanks shall be equipped with either a gel coagulant, a filter system, or other containment to remove sediment. The Off-site Water Facilities Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall include BMPs, as appropriate, to retain, treat, and dispose of groundwater from dewatering activities. Measures shall include, but not limited to, the City of Folsom Utilities
Department
City of Folsom Utilities
Department
Prior to construction of
all Off-site Water
Facilities
Mitigation Measure 38.16-3b: Coordinate with Utility Providers and Implement Appropriate Installation Methods to Minimize Potential Utility Service Disruptions. Prior to installation, the City shall consult with SCWA, SRCSD, CSD-I, and PG&E to determine proper installation methods and final design criteria to minimize the potential for disruptions to existing and planned utilities.

City of Folsom Utilities
Department
City of Folsom Utilities
Department
Prior to construction of
all Off-site Water
Facilities
Mitigation Measure 38.16-3a: Minimize Utility Conflicts by Implementing an Underground Services Alert. Underground utilities and service connections shall be identified prior to commencing any excavation work through the implementation of an Underground Services Alert (USA). The exact utility locations will be determined by hand-excavated test pits dug at locations determined and approved by the construction manager (also referred to as "pot-holing"). Temporary disruption of service may be required to allow for construction. No service on such lines would be disrupted until prior approval is received from the construction manager and the service provider.

City of Folsom Community
Development Department and
City of Folsom Public Works
Department.

The project applicant(s)
ofall project phases.

Before approval of final
maps and issuance of
building permits for any
project phases involving
the El Dorado Hills
WWTP.

Mitigation Measure 3A..16-5: Demonstrate Adequate El Dorado Hills Wastewater Treatment Plant Capacity. The project applicant(s) of all project phases shall demonstrate adequate capacity at the El Dorado Hills WWTP for new wastewater flows generated by project development. This shall involve preparing a tentative map-level study and paying connection and capacity fees as identified by EID.

Approval of the final map and issuance of building permits for all project phases shall not be granted until the City verifies adequate El Dorado Hills WWTP capacity is available for the amount of development identified in the tentative map.

City of Folsom Community
Development Department and
City of Folsom Public Works
Department.

The project applicant(s)
ofall project phases..

Before approval of final
maps and issuance of
building permits for any
project phase
Mitigation Measure 34.16-4: Submit Proof of Adequate EID Off-Site Wastewater Conveyance Facilities and Implement EID Off-Site Infrastructure Service Systems or Ensure That Adequate Financing Is Secured. Before the approval of the final map and issuance of building permits for all project phases, the project applicant(s) of all project phases shall obtain proof from EID that an adequate wastewater conveyance system either has been constructed or is ensured through the use ofbonds or other sureties. The project applicants ofall project phases shall submit this proof to the City of Folsom. EID off-site wastewater conveyance infrastructure sufficient to provide adequate service to project shall be in place for the amount of development identified in the tentative map before approval of the frnal map and issuance of building permits for all project phases, and before issuance of occupancy permits, or their financing shall be ensured to the satisfaction of the Cify.

City of Folsom Community
Development Department and
City of Folsom Public Works
Department.

The proj ect applicant(s)
ofall project phases.

Before approval offinal
maps and issuance of
building permits for any
project phases.

Mitigation Measure 34.16-3: Demonstrate Adequate SRWTP Wastewater Treatment Capacity. The project applicant(s) of all project phases shall demonstrate adequate capacity at the SRWTP for new wastewater flows generated by the project. This shall involve preparing a tentative maplevel study and paying connection and capacity fees as identified by SRCSD. Approval of the final map and issuance of building permits for all project phases shall not be granted until the City verifies adequate SRWTP capacity is available for the amount of development identified in the tentative map.

City of Folsom Community
Development Department and
City of Folsom Public Works
Department.

The project applicant(s)
ofall project phases.

Before approval offinal
maps and issuance of
building permits for any
project phases.

Mitigation Measure 3A.16-1: Submit Proof of Adequate On- and Off-Site Wastewater Conveyance Facilities and Implement On- and Off-Site Infrastructure Service Systenls or Ensure That Adequate Financing Is Secured. Before the approval of the final map and issuance of building permits for all project phases, the project applicant(s) of all project phases shall submit proof to the City of Folsom that an adequate wastewater conveyance system either has been constructed or is ensured through payment of the City's facilities augmentation fee as described under the Folsom Municipal Code Title 3, Chapter 3.40, "Facilities Augmentation Fee - Folsom South Area Facilities Plan," or other sureties to the City's satisfaction. Both on-site wastewater conveyance infrastructure and off-site force main sufficient to provide adequate service to the project shall be in place for the amount of development identified in the tentative map before approval of the final map and issuance of building permits for all project phases, or their financing shall be ensured to the satisfaction of the City.

Dated Signature for
Verification of Compliance
Enforcement lmplementation Timing Mitigation Measure
Table 1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the Folsom South of U.S. Highway 50 Specific Plan Project AECOM
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Folsom South of U.S. Highway 50 Specific Plan
City of Folsom 66

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

City of Folsom Community
Development Department and
City of Folsom Public Works
Department.

The project applicant(s)
for any particular
discretionary
development
application.

Before approval offinal
maps and issuance of
building permits for any
project phases.

Mitigation Measure 3,A.18-2b: Demonstrate Adequate Off-Site Water Treatment Capacity (if the Off-Site Water Treatment Plant Option is Selected).

If an off-site water treatment plant (WTP) alternative is selected (as opposed to the on-site WTP alternative), the project applicant(s) for any particular discretionary development application shall demonstrate adequate capacity at the off-site WTP. This shall involve preparing a tentative map-level study and paying connection and capacify fees as determined by the City. Approval of the final project map shall not be granted until the City verifies adequate water treatment capacity either is available or is certain to be available when needed for the amount of development identified in the tentative map before approval of the final map and issuance of building permits for all project phases. A certificate of occupancy shall not be issued for any building within the SPA until the water treatment capacity sufficient to serve such City of Folsom Community
Development Department and
City of Folsom Public Works
Department.

The project applicant(s)
for any particular
discretionary
development
application.

Before approval offinal
maps and issuance of
building permits for any
project phases.

Mitigation Measure 3A.18-2a: Submit Proof of Adequate Off-Site Water Conveyance Facilities and Implement Off-Site Infrastructure Service System or Ensure That Adequate Financing Is Secured.

Before the approval ofthe final subdivision map and issuance ofbuilding permits for all project phases, the project applicant(s) ofany parlicular discretionary development application shall submit proof to the City of Folsom that an adequate off-site water conveyance system either has been constructed or is ensured or other sureties to the City's satisfaction. The off-site water conveyance infrastructure sufficient to provide adequate service to the project shall be in place for the amount of development identified in the tentative map before approval of the final subdivision map and issuance of building permits for all project phases, or their financing shall be ensured to the satisfaction of the City A certificate of occupancy shall not be issued for any building within the SPA until the water conveyance infrastructure sufficient to serve such building has been constructed and is in place.

1. California Deparlment of
Fish and Game or Regional
Water Quality Control
Board

2.City of Folsom Community
Development Department.

3. Sacramento County
Planning Department or
City of Rancho Cordova
Planning Department for
improvements within their
respective
jurisdictions.

City of Folsom Community
Development Department and
City of Folsom Public Works
Department.

City of Folsom Utilities
Department
The project applicant(s)
ofall project phases.

Prior to and during
construction
Before approval of final
maps and issuance of
building permits for any
project phases.

Mitigation Measure 38.17-1b: Implement a Dewatering Discharge Monitoring Program. A groundwater discharge monitoring program shall be implemented to ensure that receiving water quality does not exceed levels that would impact aquatic resources and agricultural use. If monitoring reveals that water quality would impact these beneficial uses, discharges to surface waterways shall be reduced or diluted to acceptable levels, or terminated. If discharges are reduced or terminated, groundwater shall be disposed through land application.

Groundwater collected during dewatering shall be tested for contamination prior to disposal and comply with Central Valley RWQCB requirements.

Mitigation Measure 3A.18-1: Submit Proof of Surface Water Suppty Availability. a. Prior to approval of any small-lot tentative subdivision map subject to Government Code Section 66473 .7 (SB 221), the City shall comply with that statute. Prior to approval of any small-lot tentative subdivision map for a proposed residential project not subject to that statute, the City need not comply with Section 66473.1 , or formally consult with any public water system that would provide water to the affected area; nevertheless, the City shall make a factual showing or impose conditions similar to those required by Section 66473.7 to ensure an adequate water supply for development authorized by the map. b. Prior to recordation of each final subdivision map, or prior to City approval of any similar proj ect-specific discretionary approval or entitlement required for nonresidential uses, the project applicant(s) ofthat project phase or activity shall demonstrate the availabiiity of a reliable and sufficient water supply from a public water system for the amount of development that would be authorized by the final subdivision map or project-specific discretionary nonresidential approval or entitlement. Such a demonstration shall consist of information showing that both existing sources are available or needed supplies and improvements will be in place prior to occupancy.

3. Sacramento County
Planning Department or
City of Rancho Cordova
Planning Department for
improvements within their
respective
jurisdictions.
following:
> temporarily retain pumped groundwater, as appropriate, to reduce turbidity and concentrations of suspended sediments before discharge to surface waterways;
> convey pumped groundwater to a suitable land disposal area capable of percolating flows; and,/or > incorporate other applicable measures from the Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbook, Section 7: Dewatering Operations (2004).

Dated Signature for
Verification of Compliance
Enforcement lmplementation Timing Mitigation Measure
Table 1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the Folsom South of U.S. Highway 50 Specific Plan Project 3A.18 WATER SUPPLY. LAND
Folsom South of U.S. Highway 50 Specific Plan
City of Folsom
AECOM
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 67

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Cumulative Mitigation Measure AIR-l-Land: Implement East Sacramento Regional Aggregate Mining Truck Management Plan or Other Measures to Reduce Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Operational Emissions of Toxic Air Contaminants from Quarry Truck Traffic. The City of Folsom is a participant in the development of an East Sacramento Regional Aggregate Mining Truck Management Plan (TMP), a cooperative effort led by the County of Sacramento, with the input of the City of Folsom, the City of Rancho Cordova and other interested parties, including representatives of quarry project applicants. When the County Board of Supervisors approved entitlements for the Teichert quarry project in November 2010, it also adopted conditions of approval and a development agreement that requires Teichert's participation in, and fair share funding ol a TMP to implement roadway capacity and safety improvements required to improve the compatibility of truck traffic from the quarries with the future urban development in the Folsom Specific Plan area and other jurisdictions that will be affected by quarry truck trafhc. The development agreement adopted by the County for the Teichert project imposes limits on the amounts of annual aggregate sales from Teichert's facility until a TMP is adopted. The City of Folsom does not have direct jurisdiction over the Teichert, Desilva Gates, or Walltown quarry/ project applicants as these projects are located within the unincorporated portion of the County. The Counfy, as the agency with the primary authority over the quarries, has indicated that it intends to prepare pn environmental analysis in accordance with CEQA prior to adoption of a TMP. The City's authority to control the activities of the quarry trucks includes restrictions or other actions, such as the approval and implementation of specialized road improvements to accommodate quarry truck traffic, that would be applicable within the City's jurisdictional boundaries. For the foregoing reasons, the City of Folsom considers itself a "responsible agency" (as that term is defined at State CEQA Guidelines, CCR Section 15381), in that it has some discretionary power over some elements of a future TMP, if such TMP calls for improvements or other activities on roadways within the jurisdiction of the City. In a responsible agency role, the City would follow the process specified in the CEQA Guidelines for consideration and approval of the environmental analysis prepared by the Counfy for a TMP after such documentation is prepared and adopted by the County. (State CEQA Guidelines, CCR Section 15096.)
Because no final project description for a TMP has been developed as of the completion of this FEIR/FEIS, the City would have to speculate as to those portions of a TMP that might be proposed for implementation within its jurisdiction, or the impacts that could arise from the
implementation of as-yet uncertain components. Accordingly, formulation of the precise means of mitigating the potential cumulative air quality impacts pursuant to the TMP is not currently feasibte or practical. However, as the preferred, feasible, and intended mitigation strategy to address the cumulative impacts of quarry truck traffic through the SPA, the City shall implement, or cause to be implemented those portions of the TMP (as described above) that are within its authority to control. In implementing the TMP, the City shall ensure that the TMP or traffic measures imposed by the City within the SPA reduce the risk of cancer to sensitive receptors along routes within the SPA from toxic air contaminant emissions to no more than296 in one million (SMAQMD 2009. March. Recommended Protocol for Evaluating the Location of Sensitive Land Uses Adjacent to Major Roadways, Version 2.2:7), or such different threshold of significance mandated by SMAQMD or ARB at the time, if any. With this mitigation, the cumulative air quality impacts from truck toxic air contaminants would be less than significant.

As an alternative (or in addition) to implementing the TMP within the SPA, the following measrues could (and should) be voluntarily implemented by the quarry project applicant(s) (Teichert, DeSilva Gates, and Granite [Walltown]) to help ensure exposure of sensitive
receptors to TACs generated by quarry truck traffic to the 296-in-one-million threshold of significance identified above. The City encourages implementation of the following measures:
> The quarry project applicant(s) should meet with the City of Folsom to discuss mitigation strategies, implementation, and cost. > A site-specific, project-level screening analysis and/or Health Risk Assessment (HRA) should be conducted by the City of Folsom and funded by the truck applicant(s) for all proposed sensitive receptors (e.g., residences, schools) in the SPA that would be located along the sides of roadway segments that are identified in Table 4-4 as being potentially significant under any of the analyzed scenarios. Each project-level analysis shall be performed according to the standards set forth by SMAQMD for the purpose of disclosure to the public and decision makers. The project-level analysis shall account for the location of the receptors relative to the roadway, their distance from the roadway, the projected future traffic volume for the year 2030 (including the proportion of diesel trucks), and emission rates representative of the vehicle fleet for the year when the sensitive land uses would first become operational and/or occupied. If the incremental increase in cancer risk determined by in the HRA exceeds 296 in one million (or a different threshold of significance recommended by SMAQMD or ARB at the time, if any), then project design mitigation should be employed, which may include the following:

City of Folsom Community
Development Department.

The project applicant(s)
of the Folsom South of
U.S. 50 Specific Plan
project.

Prior to approval offirst
tentative map or
discretionary approval
within SPA that would
place sensitive receptors
along roadways that
quarry trucks would
reasonably use to access
U.S. Highway 50.
building has been constructed and is in place.

Timing Mitigation Measure
Dated Signature for
Verification of Compliance
Enforcement lmplementation
Table 1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the Folsom South of U.S. Highway 50 Specific Plan Project CUMULATIVE. LAND
AECOM
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Folsom South of U.S. Highway 50 Specific Plan
City of Folsom 68

06/23/2026 Item No.18.
{''
City of Folsom Community
Development Department.

The project applicant(s)
ofthe Folsom South of
U.S. 50 Specific Plan
project.

Prior to approval offirst
tentative map or
discretionary approval
within SPA that would
place sensitive receptors
along roadways that
quarry trucks would
reasonably use to access
u.s.50.

Cumulative Mitigation Measure NOISE-1-Land: Implement East Sacramento Regional Aggregate Mining Truck Management Plan or Other Measures to Reduce Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Operational Noise from Quarry Truck Traffic.

The City of Folsom is a participant in the development of an East Sacramento Regional Aggregate Mining Truck Management Plan (TMP), a cooperative effort led by the County of Sacramento, with the input of the City of Folsom, the City of Rancho Cordova and other interested parties, including representatives of quarry project applicants. When the County Board of Supervisors approved entitlements for the Teichert quarry project in November 2010, it also adopted conditions of approval and a development agreement that requires Teichert's participation in, and fair share funding of a TMP to implement roadway capacily and safety improvements required to improve the compatibility of truck traffic from the quarries with the future urban development in the SPA and other jurisdictions that will be affected by quarry truck traffic. The development agreement adopted by the County for the Teichert project imposes limits on the amounts of annual aggregate sales from Teichert's facility until a TMP is adopted. The City of Folsom does not have direct jurisdiction over the Teichert, Desilva Gates, or Walltown quarry project applicants as these projects are located within the unincorporated portion of the County. The County, as the agency with the primary authority over the quarries, has indicaied that it intends to prepare an environmental analysis in accordance with CEQA prior to adoption of a TMP. The City's authority to control the activities of the quarry trucks includes restrictions or other actions, such as the approval and implementation of specialized road improvements to accommodate quarry truck traffic, that would be applicable within the City's jurisdictional boundaries. For the foregoing reasons, the City of Folsom considers itself a "responsible agency" (as that term is defined at State CEQA Guidelines, CCR Section 15381), in that it has some discretionary power over some elements of a future TMP, if such TMP calls for improvements or other activities on roadways within the jurisdiction of the City. In a responsible agency role, the City would follow the process specified in the CEQA Guidelines for consideration and approval of the environmental analysis prepared by the County for a TMP after such documentation is prepared and adopted by the County. (State CEQA Guidelines, CCR Section 15096.) Because no final project description for a TMP has been developed as of the completion of this FEIR/FEIS, the City would have to speculate ' Increase the setback distance befween the roadway and affected receptor. If this mitigation measure is determined by the City of Folsom to be necessary, based on the results of the HRA, the quarry truck applicant(s) should pay the Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan project applicant(s) and the City of Folsom a fee that shall serve as compensation for lost development profit and lost City tax revenues, all as determined by the parties. Said mitigation fee shall be determined in consultation with the quarry project applicant(s), the Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan project applicant(s), and the City of Folsom. No quarry trucks shall be allowed to pass on any roadway segment immediately adjacent to or within the SPA until said mitigation fees are paid. '
Implement tiered tree planting of fine-needle species, such as redwood, along the near side of the roadway segments and, if feasible, along the roadway 500 feet in both directions of the initial planting (e.g., 500 feet north and south of a roadway that runs east-west) to enhance the dispersion and filtration of mobile-source TACs associated with the adjacent roadway. These trees should be planted at a density such that a solid visual buffer is achieved after the trees reach maturity, which breaks the line of sight between U.S. 50 and the proposed homes. These trees should be planted before occupation ofany affected sensitive land uses. This measure encourages the planting of these hees in advance of the construction of potentially affected receptors to allow the trees to become established and progress toward maturity. The life of these trees should be maintained through the duration of the quarry projects.

The planting, cost, and ongoing maintenance ofthese hees should be firnded by the quarry project applicant(s). ' To improve the indoor air quality at affected receptors, implement the following measures before the occupancy of the affected residences and schools:
' equip all affected residences and school buildings developed in the SPA with High Efficiency Particle Arresting (HEPA) filter systems at all mechanical air intake points to the interior rooms; o use the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems to maintain all residential units under positive pressure at all times;
' locate air intake systems for HVAC as far away from roadway air pollution sources as possible; and ' develop and implement an ongoing education and maintenance plan about the filtration systems associated with HVAC for residences and schools.

To the extent this indoor air quality mitigation would not already be implemented as part of the Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan project development, this mitigation should be paid for by the quarry project applicant(s) before any quarry trucks are allowed to pass on any roadway that is within 400 feet of any residence or school within the SPA.

Dated Signature for
Verification of Compliance
Enforcement lmplementation Timing
Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the Folsom South of U.S. Highway 50 Specific Plan Project CUMULATIVE . NOISE
Folsom South of U.S. Highway 50 Specific Plan
City of Folsom
AECOM
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 69

06/23/2026 Item No.18.
as to those portions of a TMP that might be proposed for implementation within its jurisdiction, or the impacts that could arise from the of asyet uncertain components. Accordingly, formulation of the precise means of mitigating the potential cumulative noise impacts pursuant to the TMP is not currently feasible or practical. However, as the preferred, feasible, and intended mitigation strategy to address the cumulative impacts of quarry truck traffic through the SPA, the City shall implement, or cause to be implemented those portions of the TMP (as described above) that are within its authority to control. In implementing the TMP, the City shall ensure that the TMP or traffic measures imposed by the City within the SPA reduce the haffic noise exposure to sensitive receptors along routes within the SPA so as to ensure that sensitive receptors are not exposed to interior noise levels in excess of 45 dBA, or increases in interior noise levels of 3 dBA or more, whichever is more restrictive. With this mitigation, the cumulative noise impacts from truck traffrc would be less than significant.

As an altemative (or in addition) to implementing the TMP within the SPA, the following measures could (and should) be voluntarily implemented by the quarry project applicant(s) (Teichert, DeSilva Gates, and Granite [Walltown]) to help ensure interior noise levels for
sensitive receptors to noise generated by quarry truck traffic would not exceed 45 dBA or increase of 3 dBA over existing conditions, as identified above. The City encourages implementation of the following measures:
> The quarry project applicant(s) should meet with the City of Folsom to discuss mitigation strategies, implementation, and cost. > A site-specific, project-level screening analysis should be conducted by the City of Folsom and funded by the quarry truck applicant(s) for all proposed sensitive receptors (e.g., residences, schools) in the SPA that would be located along the sides of roadway segments that are identified in Table 4-8 as being potentially significant under any ofthe analyzed scenarios. The analysis should be conducted using an approved three dimensional traffic noise modeling progrum (i.e., TNM or SoundPlan). Each project-level analysis should be performed according to the standards set forth by the City of Folsom for the pu{pose of disclosure to the public and decision makers. The project-level analysis should account for the location of the receptors relative to the roadway, their distance from the roadway, and the projected future traffic volume for the year 2030 (including the percentage of heavy trucks). If the incremental increase in traffic noise levels are determined to exceed the threshold of significance recommended by the City of Folsom, then design mitigation should be employed, which may include the following:
> Model the benefits of soundwalls (berm/wall combination) along the quarry truck hauling roadways and affected receptors not to exceed a total height of eight feet (two-foot berm and six-foot concrete mason wall). If this mitigation measure is determined by the City of Folsom to be inadequate, additional three dimensional traffic noise modeling should be conducted with the inclusion of rubberized asphalt at the expense of the quarry truck applicant(s). No quarry trucks should be allowed to pass on any roadway segment immediately adjacent to or within the SPA until said mitigation has been agreed upon by the City of Folsom and fees for construction of said mitigation are paid by the quarry truck applicant(s).
> Implement the installation of rubberized asphalt (quiet pavement) on roadway segments adjacent to sensitive receptors thal carry quarry trucks if soundwalls do not provide adequate reduction of traffic noise levels. The inclusion of rubberized asphalt would provide an additional 3 to 5 dB of traffic noise reduction. The cost of construction using rubberized asphalt should be borne by the quarry truck applicant(s). Said mitigation fee should be determined in consultation with the quarry project applicant(s), the Folsom South of U.W. 50 Specific Plan project applicant(s), and the City of Folsom. No quarry trucks should be allowed to pass on any roadway segment immediately adjacent to or within the SPA until said mitigation fees are paid. > To improve the indoor noise levels at affected receptors, implement the following measures before the occupancy of the affected residences and schools:
. Conduct an interior noise analysis once detailed construction plans of residences adjacent to affected roadways are available to determine the required window package at second and third floor receptors to achieve the interior noise level standard of 45 dB Ldn without quarry trucks.
. Detemine the interior quarry truck traffic noise level increases at second and third floor receptors adjacent to affected roadways compared to no quarry truck conditions. Window package upgrades are expected to be necessary due to the traffic noise level increases caused by quarry trucks along affected roadways. Quarry truck applicant(s) should pay for
the cost of window package upgrades (increased sound transmission class rated windows) required to achieve the interior noise level standard of 45 dB Ldn with the inclusion of quarry truck traffic To the extent this noise mitigation would not already be implemented as part of the Folsom South of U.W. 50 Specific Plan project development, this mitigation should be paid for by the quarry project applicant(s) before any quarry trucks are allowed to pass on any roadway that is within 400 feet of any residence or school witlin the SPA.

Dated Signature for
Verification of Gompliance
Enforcement lmplementation Timing Mitigation Measure
Table 1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the Folsom South of U.S. Highway 50 Specific Plan Project AECOM
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Folsom South of U.S. Highway 50 Specific Plan
City of Folsom 70

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

APPENDIX B
Alder Creek Property Project Emissions Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc. July 2025.

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Alder Creek Property Project Detailed Report, 6/13/2025 1 / 70
Alder Creek Property Project Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Site Preparation (2026) - Unmitigated

3.3. Grading (2026) - Unmitigated

3.5. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated

3.9. Building Construction (2028) - Unmitigated Page 844 06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Alder Creek Property Project Detailed Report, 6/13/2025 2 / 70

3.11. Building Construction (2029) - Unmitigated

3.13. Building Construction (2030) - Unmitigated

3.15. Paving (2026) - Unmitigated

3.17. Paving (2027) - Unmitigated

3.19. Paving (2028) - Unmitigated

3.21. Paving (2029) - Unmitigated

3.23. Paving (2030) - Unmitigated

3.25. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated

3.27. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated

3.29. Architectural Coating (2028) - Unmitigated

3.31. Architectural Coating (2029) - Unmitigated

3.33. Architectural Coating (2030) - Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated Page 845 06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Alder Creek Property Project Detailed Report, 6/13/2025 3 / 70

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

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 Page 846 06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Alder Creek Property Project Detailed Report, 6/13/2025 4 / 70

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths Page 847
06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Alder Creek Property Project Detailed Report, 6/13/2025 5 / 70

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation Page 848
06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Alder Creek Property Project Detailed Report, 6/13/2025 6 / 70

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

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 Page 849
06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Alder Creek Property Project Detailed Report, 6/13/2025 7 / 70

8. User Changes to Default Data Page 850
06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Alder Creek Property Project Detailed Report, 6/13/2025 8 / 70

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Alder Creek Property Project
Construction Start Date 3/3/2026
Operational Year 2028
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Plan/community
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.70
Precipitation (days) 9.40
Location 38.63087462620575, -121.14203082090893
County Sacramento
City Folsom
Air District Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD
Air Basin Sacramento Valley
TAZ 779
EDFZ 13
Electric Utility Sacramento Municipal Utility District
Gas Utility Pacific Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.29

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Single Family
Housing
1,424 Dwelling Unit 277 2,776,800 16,679,108 — 3,987 —

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Alder Creek Property Project Detailed Report, 6/13/2025 9 / 70
City Park 13.8 Acre 13.8 0.00 0.00 0.00 — —
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

19.7 Acre 19.7 0.00 435,600 — — —
Government Office
Building

24.8 1000sqft 1.90 24,829 0.00 — — —
City Park 137 Acre 137 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Open Space

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 32.1 29.2 63.0 0.07 1.24 19.8 21.1 1.14 10.1 11.3 — 15,590 15,590 0.56 0.94 36.1 15,922 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 31.8 29.2 53.5 0.07 1.24 19.8 21.1 1.14 10.1 11.3 — 14,792 14,792 0.60 0.96 0.94 15,093 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 22.5 19.0 37.4 0.05 0.60 6.27 6.88 0.56 2.45 3.01 — 10,531 10,531 0.39 0.65 10.1 10,744 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 4.10 3.46 6.82 0.01 0.11 1.15 1.26 0.10 0.45 0.55 — 1,744 1,744 0.06 0.11 1.67 1,779 Page 852 06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Alder Creek Property Project Detailed Report, 6/13/2025 10 / 70

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 32.1 29.2 63.0 0.07 1.24 19.8 21.1 1.14 10.1 11.3 — 15,590 15,590 0.56 0.94 36.1 15,922 2027 31.9 26.0 60.8 0.07 0.71 7.65 8.36 0.66 1.83 2.50 — 15,363 15,363 0.53 0.91 32.7 15,680 2028 31.5 24.5 58.5 0.07 0.63 7.65 8.28 0.59 1.83 2.42 — 15,104 15,104 0.51 0.71 29.4 15,357 2029 31.3 23.5 56.6 0.07 0.59 7.65 8.24 0.55 1.83 2.38 — 14,854 14,854 0.51 0.68 26.2 15,096 2030 31.2 22.5 54.8 0.07 0.55 7.65 8.20 0.48 1.83 2.32 — 14,603 14,603 0.48 0.68 23.2 14,840 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 31.8 29.2 53.5 0.07 1.24 19.8 21.1 1.14 10.1 11.3 — 14,792 14,792 0.60 0.96 0.94 15,093 2027 31.4 27.0 51.8 0.07 0.72 7.65 8.37 0.67 1.83 2.50 — 14,580 14,580 0.57 0.92 0.85 14,871 2028 31.3 25.4 50.2 0.07 0.63 7.65 8.28 0.59 1.83 2.42 — 14,339 14,339 0.55 0.92 0.76 14,629 2029 31.1 24.2 48.7 0.07 0.59 7.65 8.24 0.55 1.83 2.38 — 14,105 14,105 0.55 0.89 0.68 14,386 2030 31.0 23.4 47.4 0.07 0.55 7.65 8.20 0.48 1.83 2.32 — 13,867 13,867 0.51 0.88 0.60 14,143 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 8.32 16.5 22.8 0.04 0.60 6.27 6.88 0.56 2.45 3.01 — 5,744 5,744 0.23 0.24 3.63 5,824 2027 22.5 19.0 37.4 0.05 0.51 5.43 5.94 0.47 1.30 1.77 — 10,531 10,531 0.39 0.65 10.1 10,744 2028 22.4 18.0 36.3 0.05 0.45 5.45 5.90 0.42 1.31 1.73 — 10,384 10,384 0.39 0.65 9.10 10,597 2029 22.2 17.0 35.2 0.05 0.42 5.43 5.85 0.39 1.30 1.69 — 10,186 10,186 0.37 0.63 8.05 10,391 2030 8.74 6.48 13.5 0.02 0.16 2.14 2.30 0.14 0.51 0.65 — 3,951 3,951 0.14 0.19 2.82 4,014 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 1.52 3.02 4.16 0.01 0.11 1.15 1.26 0.10 0.45 0.55 — 951 951 0.04 0.04 0.60 964 2027 4.10 3.46 6.82 0.01 0.09 0.99 1.08 0.09 0.24 0.32 — 1,744 1,744 0.06 0.11 1.67 1,779 2028 4.09 3.28 6.62 0.01 0.08 0.99 1.08 0.08 0.24 0.31 — 1,719 1,719 0.06 0.11 1.51 1,754 Page 853 06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Alder Creek Property Project Detailed Report, 6/13/2025 11 / 70
2029 4.06 3.11 6.41 0.01 0.08 0.99 1.07 0.07 0.24 0.31 — 1,686 1,686 0.06 0.10 1.33 1,720 2030 1.59 1.18 2.46 < 0.005 0.03 0.39 0.42 0.02 0.09 0.12 — 654 654 0.02 0.03 0.47 665

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. 135 69.6 668 1.44 2.12 119 121 2.05 30.2 32.2 636 170,575 171,211 59.6 5.72 417 174,822 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 122 78.4 487 1.32 2.08 119 121 2.02 30.2 32.2 636 158,402 159,038 60.1 6.23 30.2 162,428 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 126 73.6 530 1.32 2.09 115 118 2.02 29.3 31.4 636 158,275 158,910 59.7 5.86 188 162,338 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 22.9 13.4 96.8 0.24 0.38 21.1 21.5 0.37 5.35 5.72 105 26,204 26,309 9.88 0.97 31.1 26,877

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 59.4 54.5 579 1.35 0.92 119 120 0.86 30.2 31.0 — 137,891 137,891 5.29 5.36 397 140,019 Area 74.5 0.77 82.0 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.03 — 0.03 — 220 220 0.01 < 0.005 — 221 Energy 0.84 14.4 6.20 0.09 1.16 — 1.16 1.16 — 1.16 — 31,829 31,829 2.08 0.10 — 31,909 Page 854 06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Alder Creek Property Project Detailed Report, 6/13/2025 12 / 70
Water — — — — — — — — — — 118 635 753 0.43 0.26 — 841
Waste — — — — — — — — — — 518 0.00 518 51.8 0.00 — 1,812 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 19.9 19.9
Total 135 69.6 668 1.44 2.12 119 121 2.05 30.2 32.2 636 170,575 171,211 59.6 5.72 417 174,822 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 53.7 64.0 480 1.23 0.92 119 120 0.86 30.2 31.0 — 125,939 125,939 5.87 5.87 10.3 127,846 Area 67.3 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.84 14.4 6.20 0.09 1.16 — 1.16 1.16 — 1.16 — 31,829 31,829 2.08 0.10 — 31,909 Water — — — — — — — — — — 118 635 753 0.43 0.26 — 841
Waste — — — — — — — — — — 518 0.00 518 51.8 0.00 — 1,812 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 19.9 19.9
Total 122 78.4 487 1.32 2.08 119 121 2.02 30.2 32.2 636 158,402 159,038 60.1 6.23 30.2 162,428 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 52.6 58.7 468 1.23 0.90 115 116 0.84 29.3 30.2 — 125,660 125,660 5.42 5.51 168 127,605 Area 72.2 0.53 56.2 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.02 — 0.02 — 151 151 0.01 < 0.005 — 152 Energy 0.84 14.4 6.20 0.09 1.16 — 1.16 1.16 — 1.16 — 31,829 31,829 2.08 0.10 — 31,909 Water — — — — — — — — — — 118 635 753 0.43 0.26 — 841
Waste — — — — — — — — — — 518 0.00 518 51.8 0.00 — 1,812 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 19.9 19.9
Total 126 73.6 530 1.32 2.09 115 118 2.02 29.3 31.4 636 158,275 158,910 59.7 5.86 188 162,338 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 9.60 10.7 85.4 0.22 0.16 21.1 21.2 0.15 5.35 5.51 — 20,805 20,805 0.90 0.91 27.8 21,126 Area 13.2 0.10 10.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 25.0 25.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 25.1 Energy 0.15 2.62 1.13 0.02 0.21 — 0.21 0.21 — 0.21 — 5,270 5,270 0.34 0.02 — 5,283 Water — — — — — — — — — — 19.5 105 125 0.07 0.04 — 139
Waste — — — — — — — — — — 85.7 0.00 85.7 8.57 0.00 — 300 Page 855 06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Alder Creek Property Project Detailed Report, 6/13/2025 13 / 70
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3.30 3.30
Total 22.9 13.4 96.8 0.24 0.38 21.1 21.5 0.37 5.35 5.72 105 26,204 26,309 9.88 0.97 31.1 26,877

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Site Preparation (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

3.14 29.2 28.8 0.05 1.24 — 1.24 1.14 — 1.14 — 5,298 5,298 0.21 0.04 — 5,316 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 19.7 19.7 — 10.1 10.1 — — — — — — —
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

3.14 29.2 28.8 0.05 1.24 — 1.24 1.14 — 1.14 — 5,298 5,298 0.21 0.04 — 5,316 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 19.7 19.7 — 10.1 10.1 — — — — — — —
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
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Page 856
06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Alder Creek Property Project Detailed Report, 6/13/2025 14 / 70
553 — < 0.005 0.02 552 552 — 0.12 — 0.12 0.13 — 0.13 0.01 3.00 3.04 0.33 Off-Road Equipment
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 2.05 2.05 — 1.05 1.05 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.06 0.55 0.55 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 91.3 91.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 91.6 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.37 0.37 — 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 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.05 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 195 195 < 0.005 0.01 0.70 198 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.73 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 173 173 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 175 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 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 18.5 18.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 18.7 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 Page 857 06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Alder Creek Property Project Detailed Report, 6/13/2025 15 / 70
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 — 3.06 3.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.10 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.3. Grading (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

3.04 27.2 27.6 0.06 1.12 — 1.12 1.03 — 1.03 — 6,599 6,599 0.27 0.05 — 6,621 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 9.20 9.20 — 3.65 3.65 — — — — — — —
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

0.81 7.24 7.33 0.02 0.30 — 0.30 0.27 — 0.27 — 1,754 1,754 0.07 0.01 — 1,760 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 2.45 2.45 — 0.97 0.97 — — — — — — —
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 Page 858 06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Alder Creek Property Project Detailed Report, 6/13/2025 16 / 70
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.15 1.32 1.34 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 290 290 0.01 < 0.005 — 291 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.45 0.45 — 0.18 0.18 — — — — — — —
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 0.05 1.13 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 223 223 < 0.005 0.01 0.80 226 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 0.02 0.02 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 53.9 53.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 54.7 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 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.93 8.93 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 9.05 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

3.5. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Page 859 06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Alder Creek Property Project Detailed Report, 6/13/2025 17 / 70
Onsite—————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
—————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38— 0.38 0.35— 0.35— 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02— 2,405 Onsite
truck

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

1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38— 0.38 0.35— 0.35— 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02— 2,405 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
—————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.24 2.22 2.92 0.01 0.09— 0.09 0.08— 0.08— 539 539 0.02 < 0.005— 541 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

0.04 0.40 0.53 < 0.005 0.02— 0.02 0.01— 0.01— 89.3 89.3 < 0.005 < 0.005— 89.6 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 2.08 1.34 29.3 0.00 0.00 5.26 5.26 0.00 1.23 1.23— 5,794 5,794 0.08 0.20 20.7 5,876 Vendor 0.16 7.66 2.92 0.03 0.06 1.18 1.24 0.06 0.32 0.38— 4,430 4,430 0.29 0.67 10.7 4,647 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

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Alder Creek Property Project Detailed Report, 6/13/2025 18 / 70
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Worker 1.89 1.74 21.6 0.00 0.00 5.26 5.26 0.00 1.23 1.23 — 5,145 5,145 0.11 0.21 0.54 5,211 Vendor 0.16 8.21 2.98 0.03 0.06 1.18 1.25 0.06 0.32 0.38 — 4,428 4,428 0.29 0.66 0.28 4,634 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 0.42 0.34 4.95 0.00 0.00 1.18 1.18 0.00 0.28 0.28 — 1,188 1,188 0.02 0.05 2.01 1,205 Vendor 0.04 1.82 0.67 0.01 0.01 0.27 0.28 0.01 0.07 0.09 — 997 997 0.07 0.15 1.03 1,044 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 0.08 0.06 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 197 197 < 0.005 0.01 0.33 199 Vendor 0.01 0.33 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 — 165 165 0.01 0.02 0.17 173 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.7. Building Construction (2027) - 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

1.03 9.39 12.9 0.02 0.34 — 0.34 0.31 — 0.31 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck

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

1.03 9.39 12.9 0.02 0.34 — 0.34 0.31 — 0.31 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Page 861 06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Alder Creek Property Project Detailed Report, 6/13/2025 19 / 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 Average
Daily
—————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.74 6.71 9.24 0.02 0.24— 0.24 0.22— 0.22— 1,712 1,712 0.07 0.01— 1,718 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

0.13 1.22 1.69 < 0.005 0.04— 0.04 0.04— 0.04— 283 283 0.01 < 0.005— 284 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 2.02 1.32 27.6 0.00 0.00 5.26 5.26 0.00 1.23 1.23— 5,690 5,690 0.08 0.20 18.8 5,770 Vendor 0.16 7.20 2.83 0.03 0.06 1.18 1.24 0.06 0.32 0.38— 4,329 4,329 0.26 0.63 9.58 4,534 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 1.64 1.71 20.2 0.00 0.00 5.26 5.26 0.00 1.23 1.23— 5,054 5,054 0.11 0.21 0.49 5,120 Vendor 0.15 7.69 2.88 0.03 0.06 1.18 1.25 0.06 0.32 0.38— 4,328 4,328 0.26 0.63 0.25 4,524 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 1.17 1.07 14.8 0.00 0.00 3.73 3.73 0.00 0.87 0.87— 3,705 3,705 0.07 0.14 5.80 3,754 Vendor 0.11 5.39 2.02 0.02 0.04 0.84 0.88 0.04 0.23 0.27— 3,092 3,092 0.19 0.45 2.95 3,234 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—————————————————

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Alder Creek Property Project Detailed Report, 6/13/2025 20 / 70
Worker 0.21 0.20 2.70 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.68 0.00 0.16 0.16 — 613 613 0.01 0.02 0.96 622 Vendor 0.02 0.98 0.37 < 0.005 0.01 0.15 0.16 0.01 0.04 0.05 — 512 512 0.03 0.07 0.49 535 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. Building Construction (2028) - 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

0.99 8.92 12.9 0.02 0.30 — 0.30 0.28 — 0.28 — 2,397 2,397 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

0.99 8.92 12.9 0.02 0.30 — 0.30 0.28 — 0.28 — 2,397 2,397 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

0.71 6.39 9.26 0.02 0.22 — 0.22 0.20 — 0.20 — 1,717 1,717 0.07 0.01 — 1,723 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

0.13 1.17 1.69 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 284 284 0.01 < 0.005 — 285 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 Page 863 06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Alder Creek Property Project Detailed Report, 6/13/2025 21 / 70
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.78 1.14 25.9 0.00 0.00 5.26 5.26 0.00 1.23 1.23 — 5,573 5,573 0.07 0.03 17.0 5,602 Vendor 0.16 6.72 2.70 0.03 0.06 1.18 1.24 0.06 0.32 0.38 — 4,214 4,214 0.26 0.63 8.50 4,418 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 1.60 1.53 19.1 0.00 0.00 5.26 5.26 0.00 1.23 1.23 — 4,951 4,951 0.10 0.21 0.44 5,016 Vendor 0.15 7.19 2.78 0.03 0.06 1.18 1.24 0.06 0.32 0.38 — 4,213 4,213 0.26 0.63 0.22 4,409 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 1.15 0.95 14.0 0.00 0.00 3.74 3.74 0.00 0.88 0.88 — 3,639 3,639 0.07 0.14 5.26 3,688 Vendor 0.11 5.07 1.96 0.02 0.04 0.84 0.89 0.04 0.23 0.27 — 3,018 3,018 0.19 0.45 2.63 3,160 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 0.21 0.17 2.55 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.68 0.00 0.16 0.16 — 602 602 0.01 0.02 0.87 611 Vendor 0.02 0.92 0.36 < 0.005 0.01 0.15 0.16 0.01 0.04 0.05 — 500 500 0.03 0.08 0.44 523 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. Building Construction (2029) - 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Page 864
06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Alder Creek Property Project Detailed Report, 6/13/2025 22 / 70
2,405— 0.02 0.10 2,397 2,397— 0.25— 0.25 0.28— 0.28 0.02 12.9 8.58 0.97 Off-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

0.97 8.58 12.9 0.02 0.28— 0.28 0.25— 0.25— 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02— 2,405 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
—————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.69 6.13 9.22 0.02 0.20— 0.20 0.18— 0.18— 1,712 1,712 0.07 0.01— 1,718 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

0.13 1.12 1.68 < 0.005 0.04— 0.04 0.03— 0.03— 283 283 0.01 < 0.005— 284 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 1.70 1.12 24.4 0.00 0.00 5.26 5.26 0.00 1.23 1.23— 5,473 5,473 0.07 0.03 15.3 5,500 Vendor 0.13 6.28 2.61 0.03 0.06 1.18 1.24 0.06 0.32 0.38— 4,088 4,088 0.26 0.60 7.41 4,282 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 1.52 1.35 18.0 0.00 0.00 5.26 5.26 0.00 1.23 1.23— 4,863 4,863 0.10 0.21 0.39 4,928 Vendor 0.12 6.72 2.68 0.03 0.06 1.18 1.24 0.06 0.32 0.38— 4,088 4,088 0.26 0.60 0.19 4,275

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Alder Creek Property Project Detailed Report, 6/13/2025 23 / 70
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 1.09 0.82 13.2 0.00 0.00 3.73 3.73 0.00 0.87 0.87 — 3,564 3,564 0.06 0.14 4.69 3,613 Vendor 0.09 4.72 1.88 0.02 0.04 0.84 0.88 0.04 0.23 0.27 — 2,920 2,920 0.19 0.43 2.29 3,056 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 0.20 0.15 2.40 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.68 0.00 0.16 0.16 — 590 590 0.01 0.02 0.78 598 Vendor 0.02 0.86 0.34 < 0.005 0.01 0.15 0.16 0.01 0.04 0.05 — 483 483 0.03 0.07 0.38 506 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

3.13. Building Construction (2030) - 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

0.94 8.39 12.9 0.02 0.26 — 0.26 0.24 — 0.24 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck

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

0.94 8.39 12.9 0.02 0.26 — 0.26 0.24 — 0.24 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Page 866
06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Alder Creek Property Project Detailed Report, 6/13/2025 24 / 70
678 — 0.01 0.03 675 675 — 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 0.01 3.63 2.36 0.26 Off-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 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.05 0.43 0.66 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 112 112 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 112 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 1.63 0.94 23.1 0.00 0.00 5.26 5.26 0.00 1.23 1.23 — 5,379 5,379 0.07 0.03 13.6 5,404 Vendor 0.13 5.87 2.52 0.03 0.06 1.18 1.24 0.03 0.32 0.35 — 3,953 3,953 0.23 0.60 6.46 4,145 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 1.46 1.33 17.0 0.00 0.00 5.26 5.26 0.00 1.23 1.23 — 4,780 4,780 0.09 0.20 0.35 4,841 Vendor 0.12 6.29 2.59 0.03 0.06 1.18 1.24 0.03 0.32 0.35 — 3,953 3,953 0.23 0.60 0.17 4,139 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 0.41 0.32 4.90 0.00 0.00 1.47 1.47 0.00 0.35 0.35 — 1,382 1,382 0.02 0.01 1.65 1,387 Vendor 0.04 1.74 0.72 0.01 0.02 0.33 0.35 0.01 0.09 0.10 — 1,114 1,114 0.06 0.17 0.79 1,167 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 0.08 0.06 0.89 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 229 229 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.27 230 Vendor 0.01 0.32 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 184 184 0.01 0.03 0.13 193 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 Page 867 06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Alder Creek Property Project Detailed Report, 6/13/2025 25 / 70

3.15. Paving (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.76 7.12 9.94 0.01 0.32 — 0.32 0.29 — 0.29 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,516 Paving 0.05 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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

0.76 7.12 9.94 0.01 0.32 — 0.32 0.29 — 0.29 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,516 Paving 0.05 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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

0.17 1.60 2.24 < 0.005 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 — 340 340 0.01 < 0.005 — 341 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 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.03 0.29 0.41 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 56.3 56.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 56.5 Paving < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 Page 868 06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Alder Creek Property Project Detailed Report, 6/13/2025 26 / 70
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.04 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 167 167 < 0.005 0.01 0.60 169 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 148 148 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 150 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 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 34.2 34.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 34.7 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 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.67 5.67 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.75 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

3.17. Paving (2027) - 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Page 869
06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Alder Creek Property Project Detailed Report, 6/13/2025 27 / 70
1,516— 0.01 0.06 1,511 1,511— 0.27— 0.27 0.30— 0.30 0.01 9.95 6.94 0.74 Off-Road Equipment
Paving 0.05————————————————
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

0.74 6.94 9.95 0.01 0.30— 0.30 0.27— 0.27— 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01— 1,516 Paving 0.05————————————————
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

0.53 4.96 7.11 0.01 0.21— 0.21 0.20— 0.20— 1,079 1,079 0.04 0.01— 1,083 Paving 0.04————————————————
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

0.10 0.91 1.30 < 0.005 0.04— 0.04 0.04— 0.04— 179 179 0.01 < 0.005— 179 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 0.06 0.04 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.04 0.04— 164 164 < 0.005 0.01 0.54 166 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

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Alder Creek Property Project Detailed Report, 6/13/2025 28 / 70
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 146 146 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 148 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 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 107 107 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.17 108 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 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 17.7 17.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 17.9 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.19. Paving (2028) - 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

0.69 6.63 9.91 0.01 0.26 — 0.26 0.24 — 0.24 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,516 Paving 0.05 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Page 871
06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Alder Creek Property Project Detailed Report, 6/13/2025 29 / 70
Off-Road
Equipment

0.69 6.63 9.91 0.01 0.26— 0.26 0.24— 0.24— 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01— 1,516 Paving 0.05————————————————
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

0.49 4.75 7.10 0.01 0.18— 0.18 0.17— 0.17— 1,082 1,082 0.04 0.01— 1,086 Paving 0.04————————————————
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 0.87 1.30 < 0.005 0.03— 0.03 0.03— 0.03— 179 179 0.01 < 0.005— 180 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 0.05 0.03 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.04 0.04— 161 161 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.49 161 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)
—————————————————
Worker 0.05 0.04 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.04 0.04— 143 143 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 145 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 Average
Daily
—————————————————

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Alder Creek Property Project Detailed Report, 6/13/2025 30 / 70
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 105 105 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.15 106 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 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 17.4 17.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 17.6 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

3.21. Paving (2029) - 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

0.67 6.46 9.92 0.01 0.24 — 0.24 0.22 — 0.22 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,516 Paving 0.05 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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

0.67 6.46 9.92 0.01 0.24 — 0.24 0.22 — 0.22 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,516 Paving 0.05 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 4.61 7.08 0.01 0.17 — 0.17 0.16 — 0.16 — 1,079 1,079 0.04 0.01 — 1,083 Page 873 06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Alder Creek Property Project Detailed Report, 6/13/2025 31 / 70
Paving 0.04 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 0.84 1.29 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 179 179 0.01 < 0.005 — 179 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 0.05 0.03 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 158 158 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.44 158 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 140 140 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 142 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 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.02 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 103 103 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.14 104 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 0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 17.0 17.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 17.2 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 Page 874 06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Alder Creek Property Project Detailed Report, 6/13/2025 32 / 70

3.23. Paving (2030) - 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

0.64 6.28 9.90 0.01 0.22 — 0.22 0.20 — 0.20 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,516 Paving 0.05 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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

0.64 6.28 9.90 0.01 0.22 — 0.22 0.20 — 0.20 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,516 Paving 0.05 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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

0.18 1.77 2.79 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 426 426 0.02 < 0.005 — 427 Paving 0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.03 0.32 0.51 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 70.5 70.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 70.7 Paving < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 Page 875 06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Alder Creek Property Project Detailed Report, 6/13/2025 33 / 70
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.03 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 155 155 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.39 156 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 138 138 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 140 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 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 39.8 39.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 40.0 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 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.59 6.59 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.62 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

3.25. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Page 876
06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Alder Creek Property Project Detailed Report, 6/13/2025 34 / 70
134 — < 0.005 0.01 134 134 — 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 < 0.005 1.13 0.86 0.12 Off-Road Equipment
Architect
ural
Coatings

27.3 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.12 0.86 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coatings

27.3 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.03 0.19 0.25 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 30.0 30.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 30.1 Architect
ural
Coatings

6.15 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 4.97 4.97 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.99 Architect
ural
Coatings

1.12 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Page 877
06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Alder Creek Property Project Detailed Report, 6/13/2025 35 / 70
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.42 0.27 5.87 0.00 0.00 1.05 1.05 0.00 0.25 0.25 — 1,159 1,159 0.02 0.04 4.14 1,175 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.38 0.35 4.31 0.00 0.00 1.05 1.05 0.00 0.25 0.25 — 1,029 1,029 0.02 0.04 0.11 1,042 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 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 238 238 < 0.005 0.01 0.40 241 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 0.02 0.01 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 39.3 39.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 39.9 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.27. Architectural Coating (2027) - 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

0.11 0.83 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Page 878 06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Alder Creek Property Project Detailed Report, 6/13/2025 36 / 70
Architect
Coatings

27.3 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.11 0.83 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coatings

27.3 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.08 0.59 0.80 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 95.4 95.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 95.7 Architect
ural
Coatings

19.5 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 0.11 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 15.8 15.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.8 Architect
ural
Coatings

3.56 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Page 879
06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Alder Creek Property Project Detailed Report, 6/13/2025 37 / 70
Worker 0.40 0.26 5.52 0.00 0.00 1.05 1.05 0.00 0.25 0.25 — 1,138 1,138 0.02 0.04 3.76 1,154 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.33 0.34 4.05 0.00 0.00 1.05 1.05 0.00 0.25 0.25 — 1,011 1,011 0.02 0.04 0.10 1,024 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 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.23 0.21 2.96 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.75 0.00 0.17 0.17 — 741 741 0.01 0.03 1.16 751 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 0.04 0.04 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 123 123 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.19 124 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

3.29. Architectural Coating (2028) - 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

0.11 0.81 1.12 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.01 — 0.01 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coatings

27.3 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Page 880
06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Alder Creek Property Project Detailed Report, 6/13/2025 38 / 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 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.11 0.81 1.12 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.01 — 0.01 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coatings

27.3 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.08 0.58 0.80 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 95.6 95.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 96.0 Architect
ural
Coatings

19.6 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 0.11 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 15.8 15.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.9 Architect
ural
Coatings

3.57 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 0.36 0.23 5.19 0.00 0.00 1.05 1.05 0.00 0.25 0.25 — 1,115 1,115 0.01 0.01 3.40 1,120 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 Page 881 06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Alder Creek Property Project Detailed Report, 6/13/2025 39 / 70
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 0.32 0.31 3.82 0.00 0.00 1.05 1.05 0.00 0.25 0.25 — 990 990 0.02 0.04 0.09 1,003 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 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.23 0.19 2.79 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.75 0.00 0.18 0.18 — 728 728 0.01 0.03 1.05 738 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 0.04 0.03 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 120 120 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.17 122 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

3.31. Architectural Coating (2029) - 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

0.10 0.79 1.11 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coatings

27.3 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 Page 882 06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Alder Creek Property Project Detailed Report, 6/13/2025 40 / 70
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.10 0.79 1.11 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coatings

27.3 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.07 0.57 0.79 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 95.4 95.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 95.7 Architect
ural
Coatings

19.5 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 0.10 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 15.8 15.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.8 Architect
ural
Coatings

3.56 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 0.34 0.22 4.89 0.00 0.00 1.05 1.05 0.00 0.25 0.25 — 1,095 1,095 0.01 0.01 3.05 1,100 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 Page 883 06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Alder Creek Property Project Detailed Report, 6/13/2025 41 / 70
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Worker 0.30 0.27 3.59 0.00 0.00 1.05 1.05 0.00 0.25 0.25 — 973 973 0.02 0.04 0.08 986 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 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.22 0.16 2.63 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.75 0.00 0.17 0.17 — 713 713 0.01 0.03 0.94 723 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 0.04 0.03 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 118 118 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.16 120 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

3.33. Architectural Coating (2030) - 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

0.10 0.78 1.11 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coatings

27.3 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 Page 884 06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Alder Creek Property Project Detailed Report, 6/13/2025 42 / 70
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Off-Road
Equipment

0.10 0.78 1.11 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coatings

27.3 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.03 0.22 0.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 37.6 37.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 37.8 Architect
ural
Coatings

7.70 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.04 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 6.23 6.23 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.25 Architect
ural
Coatings

1.41 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 0.33 0.19 4.62 0.00 0.00 1.05 1.05 0.00 0.25 0.25 — 1,076 1,076 0.01 0.01 2.72 1,081 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 Page 885 06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Alder Creek Property Project Detailed Report, 6/13/2025 43 / 70
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Worker 0.29 0.27 3.40 0.00 0.00 1.05 1.05 0.00 0.25 0.25 — 956 956 0.02 0.04 0.07 968 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 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.06 0.98 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.07 0.07 — 276 276 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.33 277 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 0.02 0.01 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 45.8 45.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 45.9 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

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

57.1 52.4 557 1.30 0.88 114 115 0.83 29.0 29.8 — 132,661 132,661 5.08 5.16 382 134,707 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page 886 06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Alder Creek Property Project Detailed Report, 6/13/2025 44 / 70
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Governm
ent
Office
Building

2.33 2.08 22.1 0.05 0.03 4.50 4.53 0.03 1.14 1.18— 5,230 5,230 0.20 0.20 15.1 5,312 Total 59.4 54.5 579 1.35 0.92 119 120 0.86 30.2 31.0— 137,891 137,891 5.29 5.36 397 140,019 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—————————————————
Single
Family
Housing

51.6 61.6 462 1.18 0.88 114 115 0.83 29.0 29.8— 121,161 121,161 5.64 5.65 9.91 122,996 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Governm
ent
Office
Building

2.10 2.45 18.4 0.05 0.03 4.50 4.54 0.03 1.14 1.18— 4,778 4,778 0.23 0.22 0.39 4,851 Total 53.7 64.0 480 1.23 0.92 119 120 0.86 30.2 31.0— 125,939 125,939 5.87 5.87 10.3 127,846 Annual—————————————————
Single
Family
Housing

9.22 10.3 82.0 0.22 0.16 20.3 20.4 0.15 5.15 5.29— 19,998 19,998 0.86 0.88 26.7 20,307 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Governm
ent
Office
Building

0.38 0.42 3.34 0.01 0.01 0.82 0.82 0.01 0.21 0.21— 807 807 0.04 0.04 1.08 819 Total 9.60 10.7 85.4 0.22 0.16 21.1 21.2 0.15 5.35 5.51— 20,805 20,805 0.90 0.91 27.8 21,126

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Alder Creek Property Project Detailed Report, 6/13/2025 45 / 70

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 13,027 13,027 0.45 0.06 — 13,056
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Governm
ent
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 587 587 0.02 < 0.005 — 588
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 13,614 13,614 0.47 0.06 — 13,644 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 13,027 13,027 0.45 0.06 — 13,056
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Governm
ent
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 587 587 0.02 < 0.005 — 588 Page 888 06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Alder Creek Property Project Detailed Report, 6/13/2025 46 / 70
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 13,614 13,614 0.47 0.06 — 13,644 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 2,157 2,157 0.07 0.01 — 2,162
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Governm
ent
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 97.2 97.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 97.4
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 2,254 2,254 0.08 0.01 — 2,259

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.83 14.1 6.02 0.09 1.14 — 1.14 1.14 — 1.14 — 17,950 17,950 1.59 0.03 — 17,999 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Governm
ent
Office
Building

0.01 0.22 0.19 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 265 265 0.02 < 0.005 — 265 Total 0.84 14.4 6.20 0.09 1.16 — 1.16 1.16 — 1.16 — 18,214 18,214 1.61 0.03 — 18,265 Page 889 06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Alder Creek Property Project Detailed Report, 6/13/2025 47 / 70
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.83 14.1 6.02 0.09 1.14 — 1.14 1.14 — 1.14 — 17,950 17,950 1.59 0.03 — 17,999 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Governm
ent
Office
Building

0.01 0.22 0.19 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 265 265 0.02 < 0.005 — 265 Total 0.84 14.4 6.20 0.09 1.16 — 1.16 1.16 — 1.16 — 18,214 18,214 1.61 0.03 — 18,265 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.15 2.58 1.10 0.02 0.21 — 0.21 0.21 — 0.21 — 2,972 2,972 0.26 0.01 — 2,980 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Governm
ent
Office
Building
< 0.005 0.04 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 43.8 43.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 44.0 Total 0.15 2.62 1.13 0.02 0.21 — 0.21 0.21 — 0.21 — 3,016 3,016 0.27 0.01 — 3,024

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 Page 890 06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Alder Creek Property Project Detailed Report, 6/13/2025 48 / 70
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
—————————————————
Consum
er
Products

60.0————————————————
Architect
ural
Coatings

7.26————————————————
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

7.22 0.77 82.0 < 0.005 0.04— 0.04 0.03— 0.03— 220 220 0.01 < 0.005— 221 Total 74.5 0.77 82.0 < 0.005 0.04— 0.04 0.03— 0.03— 220 220 0.01 < 0.005— 221 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—————————————————
Consum
er
Products

60.0————————————————
Architect
ural
Coatings

7.26————————————————
Total 67.3————————————————
Annual—————————————————
Consum
er
Products

11.0————————————————
Architect
ural
Coatings

1.32————————————————
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

0.90 0.10 10.3 < 0.005 < 0.005— < 0.005 < 0.005— < 0.005— 25.0 25.0 < 0.005 < 0.005— 25.1 Total 13.2 0.10 10.3 < 0.005 < 0.005— < 0.005 < 0.005— < 0.005— 25.0 25.0 < 0.005 < 0.005— 25.1

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Alder Creek Property Project Detailed Report, 6/13/2025 49 / 70

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 107 611 718 0.39 0.24 — 799
City Park — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 10.1 10.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.1 Governm
ent
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — 10.5 13.7 24.2 0.04 0.02 — 32.0
Total — — — — — — — — — — 118 635 753 0.43 0.26 — 841
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 107 611 718 0.39 0.24 — 799
City Park — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 10.1 10.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.1 Governm
ent
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — 10.5 13.7 24.2 0.04 0.02 — 32.0 Page 892 06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Alder Creek Property Project Detailed Report, 6/13/2025 50 / 70
Total — — — — — — — — — — 118 635 753 0.43 0.26 — 841
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 17.8 101 119 0.06 0.04 — 132
City Park — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 1.67 1.67 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.67 Governm
ent
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — 1.75 2.27 4.01 0.01 < 0.005 — 5.30
Total — — — — — — — — — — 19.5 105 125 0.07 0.04 — 139

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 505 0.00 505 50.5 0.00 — 1,768
City Park — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Governm
ent
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — 12.4 0.00 12.4 1.24 0.00 — 43.5 Page 893 06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Alder Creek Property Project Detailed Report, 6/13/2025 51 / 70
Total — — — — — — — — — — 518 0.00 518 51.8 0.00 — 1,812 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 505 0.00 505 50.5 0.00 — 1,768
City Park — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Governm
ent
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — 12.4 0.00 12.4 1.24 0.00 — 43.5
Total — — — — — — — — — — 518 0.00 518 51.8 0.00 — 1,812 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 83.7 0.00 83.7 8.36 0.00 — 293
City Park — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Governm
ent
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — 2.06 0.00 2.06 0.21 0.00 — 7.21
Total — — — — — — — — — — 85.7 0.00 85.7 8.57 0.00 — 300

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) Page 894 06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Alder Creek Property Project Detailed Report, 6/13/2025 52 / 70
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 19.9 19.9
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Governm
ent
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.06 0.06
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 19.9 19.9
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 19.9 19.9
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Governm
ent
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.06 0.06
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 19.9 19.9
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3.29 3.29
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Governm
ent
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.01
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3.30 3.30 Page 895
06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Alder Creek Property Project Detailed Report, 6/13/2025 53 / 70

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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8. 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Page 896
06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Alder Creek Property Project Detailed Report, 6/13/2025 54 / 70
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10. 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Page 897
06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Alder Creek Property Project Detailed Report, 6/13/2025 55 / 70
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Page 898
06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Alder Creek Property Project Detailed Report, 6/13/2025 56 / 70
Subtotal—————————————————
Remove d—————————————————
Subtotal—————————————————
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—————————————————
Avoided—————————————————
Subtotal—————————————————
Sequest
ered
—————————————————
Subtotal—————————————————
Remove d—————————————————
Subtotal—————————————————
——————————————————
Annual—————————————————
Avoided—————————————————
Subtotal—————————————————
Sequest
ered
—————————————————
Subtotal—————————————————
Remove d—————————————————
Subtotal—————————————————
——————————————————

5. Activity Data Page 899
06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Alder Creek Property Project Detailed Report, 6/13/2025 57 / 70

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 3/3/2026 4/23/2026 5.00 38.0 — Grading Grading 4/24/2026 9/7/2026 5.00 97.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 9/8/2026 5/24/2030 5.00 969 — Paving Paving 9/8/2026 5/24/2030 5.00 969 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 9/8/2026 5/24/2030 5.00 969 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 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 Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 423 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Page 900 06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Alder Creek Property Project Detailed Report, 6/13/2025 58 / 70
Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 14.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 8.80 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 20.0 14.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 8.80 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 521 14.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 156 8.80 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 14.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 8.80 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — — Page 901
06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Alder Creek Property Project Detailed Report, 6/13/2025 59 / 70
Architectural Coating Worker 104 14.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 8.80 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 5,623,020 1,874,340 37,244 12,415 51,488

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 — — 57.0 0.00 —
Grading — — 291 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 35.4

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
Single Family Housing 15.7 0% Page 902
06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Alder Creek Property Project Detailed Report, 6/13/2025 60 / 70
City Park 0.00 0%
Other Asphalt Surfaces 19.7 100%
Government Office Building 0.00 0%
City Park 0.00 0%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2026 0.00 375 0.01 < 0.005
2027 0.00 375 0.01 < 0.005
2028 0.00 375 0.01 < 0.005
2029 0.00 375 0.01 < 0.005
2030 0.00 375 0.01 < 0.005

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Single Family
Housing
13,443 13,585 12,175 4,847,876 159,357 161,045 144,333 57,469,831 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Government Office
Building
561 561 561 204,725 6,344 6,344 6,344 2,315,583
City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5.10. Operational Area Sources Page 903
06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Alder Creek Property Project Detailed Report, 6/13/2025 61 / 70

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
5623020 1,874,340 37,244 12,415 51,488

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 250

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Single Family Housing 12,685,307 375 0.0129 0.0017 56,007,542 City Park 0.00 375 0.0129 0.0017 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 375 0.0129 0.0017 0.00
Government Office Building 571,673 375 0.0129 0.0017 826,051 City Park 0.00 375 0.0129 0.0017 0.00

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated Page 904
06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Alder Creek Property Project Detailed Report, 6/13/2025 62 / 70
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Single Family Housing 50,208,816 284,711,972
City Park 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 6,083,739
Government Office Building 4,932,561 0.00
City Park 0.00 0.00

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Single Family Housing 938 —
City Park 0.00 —
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 —
Government Office Building 23.1 —
City Park 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 Single Family Housing Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Single Family Housing Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
City Park Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Alder Creek Property Project Detailed Report, 6/13/2025 63 / 70

1.00 0.00 1.00 0.04 1,430 R-134a City Park Stand-alone retail refrigerators and
freezers
Government Office
Building
Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.02 0.60 0.00 1.00
Government Office
Building
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

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor

5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change Page 906
06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Alder Creek Property Project Detailed Report, 6/13/2025 64 / 70

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

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 27.3 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 6.25 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 9.31 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

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

Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Page 907 06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Alder Creek Property Project Detailed Report, 6/13/2025 65 / 70
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 4 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation 2 0 0 N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding 0 0 0 N/A
Drought 0 0 0 N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 4 1 1 4
Extreme Precipitation 2 1 1 3
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding 1 1 1 2
Drought 1 1 1 2
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2 Page 908
06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Alder Creek Property Project Detailed Report, 6/13/2025 66 / 70
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 72.8
AQ-PM 13.2
AQ-DPM 66.6
Drinking Water 5.35
Lead Risk Housing 0.08
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 13.9
Traffic 66.8
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 31.2
Groundwater 69.6
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 93.1
Impaired Water Bodies 0.00
Solid Waste 0.00
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 20.6 Page 909
06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Alder Creek Property Project Detailed Report, 6/13/2025 67 / 70
Cardio-vascular 50.6
Low Birth Weights 23.7
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 3.52
Housing 21.6
Linguistic 33.9
Poverty 12.7
Unemployment 49.9

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 94.14859489
Employed 95.85525472
Median HI 93.14769665
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 92.17246247
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 87.30912357
Transportation —
Auto Access 70.20402926
Active commuting 47.97895547
Social —
2-parent households 88.63082253
Voting 95.05966893
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 78.63467214 Page 910
06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Alder Creek Property Project Detailed Report, 6/13/2025 68 / 70
Park access 53.43256769
Retail density 12.51122803
Supermarket access 36.73809829
Tree canopy 76.73553189
Housing —
Homeownership 71.32041576
Housing habitability 90.14500192
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 89.54189657 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 75.38816887
Uncrowded housing 75.52932119
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 93.18619274
Arthritis 87.4
Asthma ER Admissions 81.4
High Blood Pressure 79.9
Cancer (excluding skin) 45.0
Asthma 86.2
Coronary Heart Disease 93.8
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 94.6
Diagnosed Diabetes 95.3
Life Expectancy at Birth 84.5
Cognitively Disabled 91.4
Physically Disabled 95.7
Heart Attack ER Admissions 47.2
Mental Health Not Good 90.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 93.4
Obesity 83.0
Pedestrian Injuries 19.6 Page 911
06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Alder Creek Property Project Detailed Report, 6/13/2025 69 / 70
Physical Health Not Good 95.9
Stroke 95.7
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 14.4
Current Smoker 80.3
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 96.0
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 44.4
Elderly 85.6
English Speaking 67.1
Foreign-born 46.0
Outdoor Workers 64.1
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 48.4
Traffic Density 62.2
Traffic Access 23.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 12.8
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 88.5

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 17.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 97.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Page 912 06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Alder Creek Property Project Detailed Report, 6/13/2025 70 / 70
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
Land Use Information changed to reflect details provided in the Project Description.

Construction: Construction Phases Phasing changed to reflect expected construction schedule for the Project.

Operations: Vehicle Data Traffic changed to reflect the nature of a fire station, as trips will be generated on the weekend as well.

Operations: Hearths Hearths assumed to not be included in the Project.

Operations: Solid Waste Parks and open space will not be generating waste.

Operations: Refrigerants Parks and open space will not need refrigerants. Page 913 06/23/2026 Item No.18.

APPENDIX C
Alder Creek Property Project Roadway Construction
ECORP Consulting, Inc. July 2025

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 6/13/2025
Case Description: Alder Creek: Building Construction
Description Affected Land Use
Building Construction Residential
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Crane No 16 80.6 50 0
Gradall No 40 83.4 50 0
Gradall No 40 83.4 50 0
Gradall No 40 83.4 50 0
Generator No 50 80.6 50 0
Tractor No 40 84 50 0
Tractor No 40 84 50 0
Tractor No 40 84 50 0
Welder / Torch No 40 74 50 0
Results
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax Leq
Crane 80.6 72.6
Gradall 83.4 79.4
Gradall 83.4 79.4
Gradall 83.4 79.4
Generator 80.6 77.6
Tractor 84 80
Tractor 84 80
Tractor 84 80
Welder / Torch 74 70
Total 84 88.1
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

APPENDIX D
Alder Creek Property Project Traffic Noise Levels
ECORP Consulting, Inc. July 2025.

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS
Project Number: 2024-012.01
Project Name: Alder Creek Project
Background InformationModel Description: FHWA Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) with California Vehicle Noise (CALVENO) Emission Levels.Analysis Scenario(s): Existing Source of Traffic Volumes: Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan Draft EIR/EIS Baseline Traffic Volumes (2011) Community Noise Descriptor: Ldn: CNEL: XAssumed 24-Hour Traffic Distribution: Day Evening NightTotal ADT Volumes 77.70% 12.70% 9.60%Medium-Duty Trucks 87.43% 5.05% 7.52%Heavy-Duty Trucks 89.10% 2.84% 8.06%Traffic Noise Levels Peak Design Dist. from Barrier Vehicle Mix Peak Hour 24-Hour Analysis Condition Median Hour ADT Speed Center to Alpha Attn. Medium Heavy dB(A) dB(A) Roadway Segment Land Use Lanes Width Volume Volume (mph) Receptor1 Factor dB(A) Trucks Trucks Leq CNEL Between US 50 and White Rock Road Project Site 4 32 1,223 11,008 55 50 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 72.7 71.5 1 Prairie City Road without Project
Distance is from the centerline of the roadway segment to the receptor location.

Appendix 4.13-4 FHWA Noise Model Alder Creek ECORP Consulting 6/20/2025

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS
Project Number: 2024-012.01
Project Name: Alder Creek Project
Background InformationModel Description: FHWA Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) with California Vehicle Noise (CALVENO) Emission Levels.Analysis Scenario(s): Existing + ProjectSource of Traffic Volumes: Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan Draft EIR/EIS Baseline Traffic Volumes (2011) and CalEEMod Version 2022.1 Projected Daily Traffic Volumes Bas Community Noise Descriptor: Ldn: CNEL: XAssumed 24-Hour Traffic Distribution: Day Evening NightTotal ADT Volumes 77.70% 12.70% 9.60%Medium-Duty Trucks 87.43% 5.05% 7.52%Heavy-Duty Trucks 89.10% 2.84% 8.06%Traffic Noise Levels Peak Design Dist. from Barrier Vehicle Mix Peak Hour 24-Hour Analysis Condition Median Hour ADT Speed Center to Alpha Attn. Medium Heavy dB(A) dB(A) Roadway Segment Land Use Lanes Width Volume Volume (mph) Receptor1 Factor dB(A) Trucks Trucks Leq CNEL Between US 50 and White Rock Road Project Site 4 32 2,795 25,154 55 50 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 76.3 75.1 1 Prairie City Road with Project
Distance is from the centerline of the roadway segment to the receptor location.

Appendix 4.13-4 FHWA Noise Model Alder Creek ECORP Consulting 6/20/2025

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

APPENDIX E
Prairie City Road Phase 1 Improvements and Interim Connections.

MacKay & Somps. August 2025.

06/23/2026 Item No.18.
1366 1365 1364 1362 1360 1359
1358 1357
1283 1284
1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1356 Prairie City Road - Phase 1 Prairie City Road (Existing)

END PRAIRIE CITY ROAD (INTERIM)
Prairie City Road (Existing)
TOLL BROTHERS at ALDER CREEK Property Line
Property Line
Property Line
Existing Fence
Existing Fence
Proposed Pole
Location, Typical
1363 1361
Property Line FUTURE BY OTHERS
END PHASE 1 IMPROVEMENTS

BEGIN PRAIRIE CITY ROAD (INTERIM)
Phase 1 Limits of Work
1379 1378
1377 1376 1375 1374 1373 13721371 1370 1369 1368 1367 1366 BEGIN PRAIRIE CITY ROAD (INTERIM) Prairie City Road (Existing) TOLL BROTHERS at ALDER CREEK
Proposed Pole Location, Typical
Existing Pole & OHE To Be Removed Property Line Property Line Existing Fence
Existing Fence
Existing OHE to be removed FUTURE BY OTHERS
END PRAIRIE CITY ROAD (INTERIM) BEGIN PHASE 1 IMPROVEMENTS Prairie City Road - Phase 1
Phase 1 Limits of Work
California City of Folsom
Scale 1"=60' 27238.000 August 2025
1025 Creekside Ridge Drive, Suite 150, Roseville, CA 95678 (916) 773-1189 Toll Brothers Prairie City Road
Phase 1 Improvements &
Interim Connections
176' R/W R/W
88' 88' CL
5' BIKE 5' BIKE 3' C&G
3' C&G3' C&G3' C&G
6' WALK 2' 2' 11' TRAVEL LANE 11' TRAVEL LANE 12' TRAVEL LANE 12' TRAVEL LANE 16' MEDIAN 24' SLOPE 16' MEDIAN24' SLOPE 30' LANDSCAPE CORRIDOR & PUE 16' PLANT. STRIP 8' PLANT. STRIP 12' TRUCK LANE 12' TRUCK LANE 176' RIGHT-OF-WAY Not To Scale
TYPE 4 CURB
(TYP.) 6' WALK 30' LANDSCAPE CORRIDOR & PUE 16' 8' PLANT. STRIP PLANT. STRIP
TYPE 2 C&G
(TYP.) 1' 5' ABOVE TOP OF CURB 3:1 2%
4:1 CONFORM
TO EG
12' 3' 2' 5' 3' BENCH

EXISTING PRAIRIE CITY ROAD CORRIDOR

CL & PL EXISTING

SACRAMENTO COUNTY CITY OF FOLSOM CL FUTURE CITY OF FOLSOM

FUTURE PROPOSED
PROPOSED 69 kV POLE LOCATION

SACRAMENTO COUNTY
176' R/W R/W
88' 88' CL
5' BIKE 5' BIKE 3' C&G
3' C&G3' C&G3' C&G
6' WALK 2' 2' 11' TRAVEL LANE 11' TRAVEL LANE 12' TRAVEL LANE 12' TRAVEL LANE 16' MEDIAN 24' SLOPE 16' MEDIAN24' SLOPE 30' LANDSCAPE CORRIDOR & PUE 16' PLANT. STRIP 8' PLANT. STRIP 12' TRUCK LANE 12' TRUCK LANE 176' RIGHT-OF-WAY TYPE 4 CURB
(TYP.) 6' WALK 30' LANDSCAPE CORRIDOR & PUE 16' 8' PLANT. STRIP PLANT. STRIP
TYPE 2 C&G
(TYP.) 1' 5' ABOVE TOP OF CURB 3:1 2%
4:1 CONFORM
TO EG
12' 3' 2' 5' 3' BENCH VARIES

EXISTING PRAIRIE CITY ROAD CORRIDOR

EXISTING FENCE

CL & PL EXISTING SACRAMENTO COUNTY CITY OF FOLSOM CL FUTURE CITY OF FOLSOM

FUTURE PROPOSED
PROPOSED 69 kV POLE LOCATION

SACRAMENTO COUNTY

EXISTING FENCE
Prairie City Road with Dedicated Depressed Truck Route with Proposed Phase 1 Improvements Not To Scale Future Prairie City Road with Dedicated Depressed Truck Route with Existing Prairie City Road EXISTING 69 kV POLE
20'±
Backbone Permit Limits

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Attachment 21
Kimley Horne Traffic Report and Circulation Study,
dated April 1, 2025

06/23/2026 Item No.18.
kimley-horn.com 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300, Sacramento, California 95814 916 858 5800 Memorandum
To: Mr. Martin Nivinski
Toll Brothers, Inc.

From: Bryant Lee, EIT
Matt Weir, PE, TE, PTOE, RSP1
Re: Toll Brothers at Alder Creek
Folsom Ranch – Folsom, California
Traffic, Access, and Circulation Study
Date: April 1, 2025
As requested and necessitated by the City of Folsom (“City”), we have prepared this memorandum to document our evaluation of traffic, access, and circulation conditions anticipated to result from the completion of the Toll Brothers at Alder Creek project (the “Proposed Project” or “Project”). The Project site plan and Project vicinity map are depicted in Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2, respectively. This evaluation was completed in a manner consistent with the City’s requirements for similar projects within Folsom Ranch.

Overview
We understand that a “Traffic, Access, and Circulation Study” is required by the City for the Proposed Project. The project site generally described as the southwest portion of Folsom Ranch, primarily located within the vicinity of the Oak Avenue Parkway intersection with Mangini Parkway. While the project is understood to include nine (9) distinct development phases, the entire project (all 9 phases) is herein considered as the “project.” Consistent with previous studies, the City has provided the following traffic study requirements:
 Project trip generation
 Project access, driveway location, and driveway spacing evaluation  Internal vehicle circulation evaluation
 Emergency vehicle access evaluation
The primary purpose of this study was to inform both the near-term and build-out transportation network necessary to accommodate the addition of the Proposed Project. Specifically, this evaluation was used to identify the required infrastructure and access improvements along Oak Avenue Parkway and the unnamed Street D. Additional consideration was given to the project’s Oak Avenue Parkway frontage interim/ultimate geometrics. Accordingly, a weekday AM and PM peak-hour intersection Level of Service (LOS) analysis was completed for the following scenarios:
 Near-Term (2025) plus Project (all phases)
 Build-Out (2045) plus Project (all phases)
The following intersections were included in thisstudy to inform the recommended interim and ultimate transportation network configuration (see Exhibit 2):

1. Oak Avenue Parkway @ Mangini Parkway

2. Oak Avenue Parkway @ Street D

3. Prairie City Road @ Street D

4. Alder Creek Parkway @ Street F

5. Oak Avenue Parkway @ Street E

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Page 2 of 7
Traffic, Access, and Circulation Study April 1, 2025
Development Assumptions and Trip Generation
The study assumes the following development and network parameters:

A. Near-Term (2025) plus Project
o Scenario includes peak-hour volumes collected on January 30, 2025, combined with manually generated and assigned Project trips
o Scenario assumes build-out of all nine Project phases o The localized transportation network is defined as follows:
- 2-lane Oak Avenue Parkway
- Street D connection to Prairie City Road (right-in/right-out access only) - No Oak Avenue Parkway connection to Alder Creek Parkway B. Build-Out (2045) plus Project
o Scenario includes Build-Out (2045) peak-hour volumes established using the City’s Travel Demand Model (TDM), representative of build-out of planned development within the general project vicinity1 and the associated transportation network, combined with the assigned Project trips
o Scenario assumes build-out of all nine Project phases o The localized transportation network is defined as follows:
- 2-lane Oak Avenue Parkway
- Street D connection to Prairie City Road (full access) - Oak Avenue Parkway connection to Alder Creek Parkway (2-lane roadway) The City’s Specific Plan2 illustrates the allocated dwelling units for all nine (9) phases of development (totaling 1,520 dwelling units). The Project site plan (Exhibit 1) depicts the project’s land uses and dwelling units (totaling approximately 1,420 single and multi-family units). Therefore, the Project is consistent with and less intense than the Specific Plan’s land use assumptions.

The number of trips anticipated to be generated by the Proposed Project was approximated using the Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Project trips were assigned to the surrounding transportation network based on the City’stravel demand model (TDM) and professional judgment. The project trip distribution is shown in Exhibit 3. As shown in Table 1, the complete Proposed Project (assuming construction of all nine phases) is estimated to generate 12,154 daily trips, with 854 occurring in the weekday AM peak-hour and 1,134 occurring in the weekday PM peak-hour.

Table 1 – Proposed Project Trip Generation

1 City of Folsom – SACOG Increasing Residential Capacities Implementation (REAP) Traffic Analysis, Kimley-Horn, April 17, 2024. 2 Figure 4.3, Section 4 Land Use, Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan, City of Folsom, April 2024. % Trips % Trips % Trips % Trips
Single-Family Detached
Housing (LU 210)1 956 DU 9,016 669 26% 174 74% 495 899 63% 566 37% 333 Multifamily Housing (LowRise) (LU 220)1 464 DU 3,376 203 25% 50 75% 153 261 63% 164 37% 97 Net External Trips 12,392 872 224 648 1,160 730 430
Source: 1Trip Generation Manual, 11 th Edition
DU = Dwelling Units
In Out
Land Use
(ITE Code) Size Daily Trips
AM Peak-Hour PM Peak-Hour
Total
Trips
In Out Total
Trips

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Page 3 of 7
Traffic, Access, and Circulation Study April 1, 2025
The study facilities, traffic control, lane configurations, and turning movement volumes for Near-Term (2025) plus Project and Build-Out (2045) plus Project conditions are depicted in Exhibit 4 and Exhibit 5, respectively.

Analysis Results
Intersection LOS was determined using methods defined in the Highway Capacity Manual, 7th Edition, using appropriate traffic analysis software (Synchro®). The City’s operational threshold3 of LOS D was
used to establish the necessary infrastructure improvements which allow all intersections to operate acceptably and provide adequate turn lane storage to contain anticipated queuing. Traffic control assumptions were based on existing conditions and information contained in the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan4
. The following traffic control assumptions are inherent to the analyses documented herein:

1. Oak Avenue Parkway @ Mangini Parkway
- Near-Term: All-Way Stop Control (AWSC)
- Build-Out: Signal

2. Oak Avenue Parkway @ Street D – AWSC

3. Prairie City Road @ Street D
- Near-Term: Side-Street Stop Control (SSSC), right-in/right-out - Build-Out: Signal

4. Alder Creek Parkway @ Street F – SSSC, full access

5. Oak Avenue Parkway @ Street E – SSSC, full access
Table 2 summarizes the peak-hour intersection LOS analysis results. As shown in Table 2, all intersections are expected to operate at LOS D or better for Near-Term (2025) and Build-Out (2045) plus Project conditions. Analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix A and Appendix B.

Table 2 – Intersection Levels of Service

Vehicle queuing was also evaluated for the analysis scenarios summarized in Table 3 using 95th percentile queue as calculated in Synchro®. Storage lengths for turn lanes that do not currently exist are informed by the City Design Standards5
. As shown in Table 3, the available/potential storage will contain the vehicle queues with the addition of trips generated by the Proposed Project. Analysis worksheets for Near-Term (2025) plus Project conditions are provided in Appendix A. Analysis worksheets for Build-Out (2045) plus Project conditions are provided in Appendix B.
3 Mobility Element, Folsom 2035 General Plan, City of Folsom, July 2024. 4 Section 7 Circulation, Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan, City of Folsom, April 2024. 5 Section 12 Site Access, Folsom Design Standards, City of Folsom, February 2020.

Delay [sec] LOS Delay [sec] LOS
AM 9.4 A 14.7 B
PM 11.8 B 14.5 B
AM 8.6 A 11.5 B
PM 8.9 A 12.2 B
AM 24.6 C 15.0 B
PM 15.8 C 14.8 B
AM 9.1 A 13.5 B
PM 9.3 A 17.0 C
AM 8.6 A 12.5 B
PM 8.7 A 13.2 B
4 Alder Creek Pkwy @ Street F SSSC
Near-Term (2025)
plus Project
2 Oak Avenue Pkwy @ Street D AWSC
3 Oak Avenue Pkwy @ Street E SSSC
Prairie City Dr @ Street D SSSC/Signal
Build-Out (2045)
plus Project
Note: Bold represents unacceptable conditions. Shaded cells represent project induced deficiencies.

Side Street Stop Controlled (SSSC) intersections are reported by the worst approach's delay. The reported LOS corresponds to the worst 1 Oak Avenue Pkwy @ Mangini Pkwy AWSC/Signal
5 ID Intersection Control Peak Hour

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Page 4 of 7
Traffic, Access, and Circulation Study April 1, 2025
Table 3 – Intersection Queuing

Additional Considerations
Internal Vehicle Circulation and General Access Control Per the project site plan (Exhibit 1), the planned neighborhood driveways provide adequate spacing relative to intersections and other driveways5
. Neighborhood streets accessing arterials and collectors are recommended to be side-street stop control allowing full-access.

To satisfy the City of Folsom Fire Code6, emergency vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of 20-feet and an unobstructed height of 13.5-feet. The required turning radius of a fire apparatus access road shall have a minimum dimension of 25-feet on the inside and 50-feet on the outside. A qualitative review of the project site plan indicates that the Project design satisfies the basic geometric elements required by the Fire Code. Final design of the emergency vehicle access roads in conformance with the Fire Code is the responsibility of the Project’s design engineer. 6 Folsom Municipal Code, City of Folsom, October 22, 2024.

AM PeakHourPM PeakHour
#1, Oak Avenue Pkwy @ Mangini Pkwy NBL
0 5
17 17
SBL
30 20
34 33
EBL
0 0
34 26
WBL
5 5
55 53
#2, Oak Avenue Pkwy @ Street D NBL
20 30
45 50
SBL
0 0
5 10
#3, Prairie City Dr @ Street D SBL
120 168
WBL
150 13 13
#4, Alder Creek Pkwy @ Street F WBL
10 5
#5, Oak Avenue Pkwy @ Street E SBL
0 0
0 5
150 Near-Term (2025) plus Project
Build-Out (2045) plus Project
250 Near-Term (2025) plus Project
Build-Out (2045) plus Project
400 Near-Term (2025) plus Project
Build-Out (2045) plus Project
300
Near-Term (2025) plus Project 250 Build-Out (2045) plus Project Build-Out (2045) plus Project
Build-Out (2045) plus Project
Intersection / Analysis Scenario Movement
Available/
Potential
Storage (ft)
95%-tile Queue (ft)
Near-Term (2025) plus Project
Near-Term (2025) plus Project
Build-Out (2045) plus Project 250
250
Build-Out (2045) plus Project
Build-Out (2045) plus Project 250
250 Near-Term (2025) plus Project
Build-Out (2045) plus Project
Note: Cell shaded orange where queue exceeds capacity by >1 vehicle length (25 feet)

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Page 5 of 7
Traffic, Access, and Circulation Study April 1, 2025
Bicycle/Pedestrian Considerations
Per the Specific Plan4
, sidewalks are planned along all project roadways. Class II bike lanes are planned along Oak Avenue Parkway, Alder Creek Parkway, Mangini Parkway, Street D, and Prairie City Road. Class I bike paths are also planned in the open space and crosses Street D and Oak Avenue Parkway.

Near Intersection #5 (Oak Avenue Parkway @ Street E), the Specific Plan4 proposes an at-grade pedestrian crossing. As this crossing may see frequent use by trail users, cyclists, and local residents, active crossing control is recommended. Based on the FHWA Guidance7
, a rectangular rapid-flashing beacon (RRFB) or a
pedestrian hybrid beacon should be considered based on the combination of projected through vehicular volume, roadway width, and other roadway characteristics of Oak Avenue Parkway. It is recommended that the Project install high-visibility crosswalk markings, warning signs, and lighting for pedestrian safety.

Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE)
An Intersection Control Evaluation (provided as Attachment C) was completed for Intersection #1 (Oak Avenue Parkway @ Mangini Parkway), Intersection #2 (Oak Avenue Parkway @ Street D), and Intersection #3 (Prairie City Road @ Street D). The evaluations were completed to enable an objective comparison of intersection control alternatives’ performance measures as identified below:

1. Oak Avenue Parkway @ Mangini Parkway – Signal, Roundabout

2. Oak Avenue Parkway @ Street D – AWSC, Roundabout

3. Prairie City Road @ Street D – Signal, Roundabout
Four key quantitative performance measures were used to determine the benefits of proposed improvements:
 Delay Reduction Benefit: The delay reduction benefit is a measure of the societal cost associated with the number of person-hours of delay at the study intersection during the study period.

Components used to calculate the delay reduction benefit include peak hour delay, average vehicle occupancy (AVO), and the value of travel time savings (VTTS).  Safety Benefit: The safety benefit is a measure of the societal cost associated with the predicted number and severity of crashes that may occur based on the intersection control type, intersection configuration, physical setting, and volume of traffic.  Operations and Maintenance Costs: The operations and maintenance (O&M) cost is a measure of the added annual cost to operate and maintain the proposed intersection control alternative.

These costs include annual power consumption for lighting, signal power consumption, signal timing, equipment replacement, pavement management, and landscape maintenance amongst others.
 Initial Capital Costs: The initial capital cost is a measure of the added cost to construct the proposed improvements. A range of estimated order of magnitude costs was developed for the proposed improvements based on engineer’s judgement.

A Benefit-Cost (B/C) ratio was developed using the quantitative performance measures described above.

The B/C ratio measures the expected return on investment between intersection control alternatives. If only one alternative has a positive B/C, it will be the preferred alternative. If no proposed alternatives generate a B/C greater than one, then the existing control will be the preferred alternative. The alternative with the greatest benefit compared to the cost will be the preferred alternative.

In addition to the key performance measures mentioned above, consideration is also given to qualitative measures. Some of these measures include presence and width of sidewalks, presence and class of bike 7 Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations, USDOT FHWA, July 2018.

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Page 6 of 7
Traffic, Access, and Circulation Study April 1, 2025
lanes, and required right-of-way acquisition. For each scenario, existing site constraints have been considered to determine feasible improvements that will provide the greatest operational and safety benefits. The traffic control for each intersection that had the highest B/C ratio relative to the considered alternatives is identified below:

1. Oak Avenue Parkway @ Mangini Parkway – Roundabout

2. Oak Avenue Parkway @ Street D – Roundabout

3. Prairie City Road @ Street D – Roundabout
Summary of Findings
Based on the analyses documented herein, we offer the following summary of our findings:
 Under Near-Term (2025) conditions with all nine (9) development phases assumed to be fully occupied, the transportation network is shown to operate adequately with the addition of the Proposed Project under the following network and traffic control assumptions:
o Roadway Segments/Connections:
- 2-lane Oak Avenue Parkway (1 through lane in each direction) - Street D connection to Prairie City Road
- No Oak Avenue Parkway connection to Alder Creek Parkway o Intersection Traffic Control:
- Oak Avenue Parkway @ Mangini Parkway – All-Way Stop Control (AWSC) - Oak Avenue Parkway @ Street D – AWSC
- Prairie City Road @ Street D – SSSC, (right-in/right-out access only) - Alder Creek Parkway @ Street F – SSSC, full access
- Oak Avenue Parkway @ Street E – SSSC, full access
 Under Build-Out (2045) conditions with all nine (9) development phases assumed to be fully occupied, conditions representative of build-out of planned development within the general project vicinity and the associated transportation network, combined with the assigned Project trips is shown to operate adequately with the addition of the Proposed Project under the following network and traffic control assumptions :
o Roadway Segments/Connections:
- 2-lane Oak Avenue Parkway (1 through lane in each direction) - Street D connection to Prairie City Road (full access) - Oak Avenue Parkway connection to Alder Creek Parkway (2-lane roadway) o Intersection Traffic Control:
- Oak Avenue Parkway @ Mangini Parkway – Signal
- Oak Avenue Parkway @ Street D – AWSC
- Prairie City Road @ Street D – Signal
- Alder Creek Parkway @ Street F – SSSC, full access
- Oak Avenue Parkway @ Street E – SSSC, full access
 Based on the FHWA Guidance7
, a rectangular rapid-flashing beacon or a pedestrian hybrid beacon should be considered at the at-grade crossing along Oak Avenue Parkway near the northern project limit. It is also recommended to install high-visibility crosswalk markings, warning signs, and lighting for pedestrian safety.
 Although the intersections operate acceptably with the aforementioned intersection control assumptions, the following intersection control types would yield a higher return on investment per the analysis completed in the Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE):
o Oak Avenue Parkway @ Mangini Parkway – Roundabout
o Oak Avenue Parkway @ Street D – Roundabout
o Prairie City Road @ Street D – Roundabout

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Page 7 of 7
Traffic, Access, and Circulation Study April 1, 2025
Attachments
Exhibit 1 – Project Site Plan
Exhibit 2 – Project Vicinity Map
Exhibit 3 – Project Trip Distribution
Exhibit 4 – Near-Term (2025) plus Project Study Facilities, Traffic Control, Lane Configuration, and Volumes
Exhibit 5 – Build-Out (2045) plus Project Study Facilities, Traffic Control, Lane Configuration, and Volumes
Attachment A – Analysis Worksheets for Near-Term (2025) plus Project Conditions Attachment B – Analysis Worksheets for Build-Out (2045) plus Project Conditions Attachment C – Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) Memorandum

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

NOT TO SCALE
Exhibit 1
Project Site Plan
Toll Brothers at Alder Creek
Source: MacKay & Somps, November 22, 2024

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Prairie City Rd
Prairie City Rd
White Rock Rd
White Rock Rd
Mangini Pkwy
Street D
Street E
Street F
Oak Avenue
Pkwy
Oak Avenue
Pkwy
US-50
Alder Creek Pkwy
E Bidwell St
LEGEND
# Study Intersection
2 1
3 4
5 NOT TO SCALE
Exhibit 2
Project Vicinity Map
Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Page 930
06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Prairie City Rd
Prairie City Rd
White Rock Rd
White Rock Rd
Mangini Pkwy
Street D
Oak Avenue
Pkwy
Oak Avenue
Pkwy
US-50
Alder Creek Pkwy
E Bidwell St
Street E
Street F
LEGEND
# Study Intersection
##%(##%) 5%
5%
30%
40%
20%
AM(PM) Distribution
2 1
3 4
5 NOT TO SCALE
2 1
3 4
5 Exhibit 3
Project Trip Distribution
Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Page 931
06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Exhibit 4
Near-Term (2025) plus Project Study Facilities, Traffic Control, Lane Configuration, and Volumes Toll Brothers at Alder Creek
1 Mangini Pkwy
Oak Avenue Pkwy
1 12
Street D
Oak Avenue Pkwy
15 Street E
Oak Avenue Pkwy
1 Street D
3 Prairie City Rd
2(2)
4(4)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
82(56)
0(0)
133(177)
5(17)
23(73)
45(29)
62(42)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
2(2)
0(0)
2(6)
0(0)
3(11)
0(0)
5(3)
0(0)
80(50)
170(113)
4(2)
29(19)
14(10)
110(300) 5(17) 41(132) 19(31)
13(42)
37(28)
14 Alder Creek Pkwy
Street F
0(0)
39(127)
97(61)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
430(595)
204(134) 706(574) 7(24)
LEGEND
# Study Intersection AM(PM) Peak-hour Volume ##(##) Stop Control Aproach

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Figure 5
Build-Out (2045) plus Project Study Facilities, Traffic Control, Lane Configuration, and Volumes Toll Brothers at Alder Creek
1 Mangini Pkwy
Oak Avenue Pkwy
1 12
Street D
Oak Avenue Pkwy
15 Street E
Oak Avenue Pkwy
1 Street D
3 Prairie City Rd
10(20)
160(220)
20(50)
30(10)
30(40)
150(180)
50(30)
200(210)
190(150)
0(0)
50(40)
0(0)
10(20)
150(260)
10(40)
20(10)
10(10)
10(10)
40(30)
10(10)
230(150)
20(20)
10(10)
20(20)
20(30)
320(270)
30(30)
30(20)
90(60)
10(10)
30(30) 10(10) 240(310) 40(60)
40(90)
60(50)
14 Alder Creek Pkwy
Street F
200(200)
50(100)
10(20)
10(10)
10(10)
50(30)
40(70)
170(180)
20(50)
110(70)
10(10)
60(50)
440(600)
170(220)
240(220) 710(580) 10(10)
10(10)
LEGEND
# Study Intersection AM(PM) Peak-hour Volume ##(##) Stop Control Aproach Signalized Intersection

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek
Traffic, Access, and Circulation Study
Attachment A
Analysis Worksheets for Near-Term (2025) plus Project Conditions

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Existing plus Project
1: Oak Avenue Pkwy & Mangini Pkwy Timing Plan: AM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 12
HCM 7th AWSC Page 1
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 9.4
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 29 14 37 13 110 5 41 19 170 80 0
Future Vol, veh/h 4 29 14 37 13 110 5 41 19 170 80 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 4 32 15 40 14 120 5 45 21 185 87 0
Number of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 2 2 2 2
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 2 2 2
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 2 2 2 2
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 8.6 8.8 8.5 10.1

HCM LOS A A A B
Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, % 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0%
Vol Thru, % 0% 68% 0% 67% 0% 11% 0% 100%
Vol Right, % 0% 32% 0% 33% 0% 89% 0% 0%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 5 60 4 43 37 123 170 80
LT Vol 5 0 4 0 37 0 170 0
Through Vol 0 41 0 29 0 13 0 80
RT Vol 0 19 0 14 0 110 0 0
Lane Flow Rate 5 65 4 47 40 134 185 87
Geometry Grp 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Degree of Util (X) 0.009 0.094 0.007 0.07 0.067 0.18 0.291 0.125 Departure Headway (Hd) 5.901 5.174 6.13 5.396 5.993 4.86 5.667 5.165 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 604 689 582 661 597 737 634 692
Service Time 3.658 2.931 3.886 3.152 3.737 2.603 3.413 2.911 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.008 0.094 0.007 0.071 0.067 0.182 0.292 0.126 HCM Control Delay, s/veh 8.7 8.5 8.9 8.6 9.2 8.7 10.7 8.7 HCM Lane LOS A A A A A A B A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0 0.3 0 0.2 0.2 0.7 1.2 0.4

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Existing plus Project
2: Oak Avenue Pkwy & Street D Timing Plan: AM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 12
HCM 7th AWSC Page 2
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.6
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 82 62 45 0 133 5 23 0 4 2
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 82 62 45 0 133 5 23 0 4 2
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 0 89 67 49 0 145 5 25 0 4 2
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 2 2
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 2 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 2 2 1 1
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 7.4 8.5 9.4 7.7

HCM LOS A A A A
Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, % 100% 0% 0% 58% 0% 0%
Vol Thru, % 0% 18% 0% 42% 100% 67%
Vol Right, % 0% 82% 100% 0% 0% 33%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 133 28 82 107 0 6
LT Vol 133 0 0 62 0 0
Through Vol 0 5 0 45 0 4
RT Vol 0 23 82 0 0 2
Lane Flow Rate 145 30 89 116 0 7
Geometry Grp 5 5 2 2 5 5
Degree of Util (X) 0.221 0.037 0.098 0.15 0 0.009
Departure Headway (Hd) 5.496 4.417 3.958 4.628 5.172 4.937 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 655 811 907 777 0 725
Service Time 3.221 2.142 1.974 2.643 2.902 2.667
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.221 0.037 0.098 0.149 0 0.01
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 9.8 7.3 7.4 8.5 7.9 7.7
HCM Lane LOS A A A A N A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.8 0.1 0.3 0.5 0 0

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Existing plus Project
3: Street D & Prarie City Rd Timing Plan: AM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 12
HCM 7th TWSC Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.7
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 204 706 7 0 430
Future Vol, veh/h 0 204 706 7 0 430
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 0 - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 222 767 8 0 467
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All - 771 0 0 - -
Stage 1 - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy - 6.22 - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy - 3.318 - - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 400 - - 0 -
Stage 1 0 - - - 0 -
Stage 2 0 - - - 0 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 400 - - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - -
Stage 1 - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v24.64 0 0

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 400 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.554 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - - 24.6 -
HCM Lane LOS - - C -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 3.3 -

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Existing plus Project
4: Street F & Alder Creek Pkwy Timing Plan: AM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 12
HCM 7th TWSC Page 4
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 6.4
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 39 0 0 97 0
Future Vol, veh/h 0 39 0 0 97 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - 150 - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 42 0 0 105 0
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 42 0 22 21
Stage 1 - - - - 21 -
Stage 2 - - - - 1 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.14 - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.84 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.22 - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1565 - 992 1051
Stage 1 - - - - 998 -
Stage 2 - - - - 1022 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1565 - 992 1051
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 992 -
Stage 1 - - - - 998 -
Stage 2 - - - - 1022 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0 0 9.06

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 992 - - 1565 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.106 - - - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 9.1 - - 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 - - 0 -

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Existing plus Project
5: Oak Avenue Pkwy & Street E Timing Plan: AM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 12
HCM 7th TWSC Page 5
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 5.7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 2 5 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 0
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 2 5 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - 150 - - 150 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 0 2 5 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 0
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 5 9 1 7 7 2 1 0 0 3 0 0
Stage 1 1 1 - 6 6 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 4 8 - 1 1 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1015 886 1083 1013 888 1083 1622 - - 1619 - - Stage 1 1022 895 - 1016 891 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 1018 889 - 1022 895 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1014 885 1083 1009 887 1083 1622 - - 1619 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 1014 885 - 1009 887 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 1022 895 - 1015 890 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 1017 888 - 1020 895 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 8.33 8.59 2.89 0

HCM LOS A A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1622 - - 1083 1009 1619 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 - - 0.002 0.005 - - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.2 - - 8.3 8.6 0 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - - A A A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0 0 0 - -

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Existing plus Project
1: Oak Avenue Pkwy & Mangini Pkwy Timing Plan: PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 12
HCM 7th AWSC Page 1
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 11.8
Intersection LOS B
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 19 10 1 28 42 300 17 132 31 113 50 Future Vol, veh/h 2 19 10 1 28 42 300 17 132 31 113 50
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 2 21 11 1 30 46 326 18 143 34 123 54
Number of Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 2 2 2 2
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 2 2 2
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 2 2 2 2
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 9 13 10.8 10.5

HCM LOS A B B B
Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, % 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0%
Vol Thru, % 0% 81% 0% 66% 0% 12% 0% 100%
Vol Right, % 0% 19% 0% 34% 0% 88% 0% 0%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 17 163 2 29 29 342 113 50
LT Vol 17 0 2 0 29 0 113 0
Through Vol 0 132 0 19 0 42 0 50
RT Vol 0 31 0 10 0 300 0 0
Lane Flow Rate 18 177 2 32 32 372 123 54
Geometry Grp 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Degree of Util (X) 0.033 0.287 0.004 0.052 0.054 0.526 0.221 0.09 Departure Headway (Hd) 6.48 5.84 6.691 5.939 6.215 5.091 6.492 5.987 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 553 617 535 603 580 714 554 599
Service Time 4.211 3.571 4.427 3.674 3.915 2.791 4.224 3.718 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.033 0.287 0.004 0.053 0.055 0.521 0.222 0.09 HCM Control Delay, s/veh 9.4 10.9 9.5 9 9.3 13.3 11.1 9.3 HCM Lane LOS A B A A A B B A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.1 1.2 0 0.2 0.2 3.1 0.8 0.3

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Existing plus Project
1: Oak Avenue Pkwy & Mangini Pkwy Timing Plan: PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 12
HCM 7th AWSC Page 2
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh
Intersection LOS
Movement SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0
Future Vol, veh/h 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2
Mvmt Flow 0
Number of Lanes 0
Approach
Opposing Approach
Opposing Lanes
Conflicting Approach Left
Conflicting Lanes Left
Conflicting Approach Right
Conflicting Lanes Right
HCM Control Delay, s/veh

HCM LOS

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Existing plus Project
2: Oak Avenue Pkwy & Street D Timing Plan: PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 12
HCM 7th AWSC Page 3
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.9
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 56 42 29 0 177 17 73 0 4 2
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 56 42 29 0 177 17 73 0 4 2
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 0 61 46 32 0 192 18 79 0 4 2
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 2 2
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 2 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 2 2 1 1
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 7.5 8.4 9.3 7.7

HCM LOS A A A A
Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, % 100% 0% 0% 59% 0% 0%
Vol Thru, % 0% 19% 0% 41% 100% 67%
Vol Right, % 0% 81% 100% 0% 0% 33%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 177 90 56 71 0 6
LT Vol 177 0 0 42 0 0
Through Vol 0 17 0 29 0 4
RT Vol 0 73 56 0 0 2
Lane Flow Rate 192 98 61 77 0 7
Geometry Grp 5 5 2 2 5 5
Degree of Util (X) 0.282 0.114 0.07 0.104 0 0.009
Departure Headway (Hd) 5.279 4.209 4.149 4.839 5.124 4.89 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 671 837 867 745 0 733
Service Time 3.079 2.008 2.155 2.843 2.846 2.611
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.286 0.117 0.07 0.103 0 0.01
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 10.2 7.6 7.5 8.4 7.8 7.7
HCM Lane LOS B A A A N A
HCM 95th-tile Q 1.2 0.4 0.2 0.3 0 0

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Existing plus Project
3: Street D & Prarie City Rd Timing Plan: PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 12
HCM 7th TWSC Page 4
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.6
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 134 574 24 0 595
Future Vol, veh/h 0 134 574 24 0 595
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 0 - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 146 624 26 0 647
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All - 637 0 0 - -
Stage 1 - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy - 6.22 - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy - 3.318 - - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 477 - - 0 -
Stage 1 0 - - - 0 -
Stage 2 0 - - - 0 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 477 - - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - -
Stage 1 - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v15.82 0 0

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 477 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.305 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - - 15.8 -
HCM Lane LOS - - C -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 1.3 -

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Existing plus Project
4: Street F & Alder Creek Pkwy Timing Plan: PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 12
HCM 7th TWSC Page 5
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 127 0 0 61 0
Future Vol, veh/h 0 127 0 0 61 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - 150 - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 138 0 0 66 0
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 138 0 70 69
Stage 1 - - - - 69 -
Stage 2 - - - - 1 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.14 - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.84 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.22 - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1443 - 927 980
Stage 1 - - - - 946 -
Stage 2 - - - - 1022 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1443 - 927 980
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 927 -
Stage 1 - - - - 946 -
Stage 2 - - - - 1022 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0 0 9.18

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 927 - - 1443 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.072 - - - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 9.2 - - 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - 0 -

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Existing plus Project
5: Oak Avenue Pkwy & Street E Timing Plan: PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 12
HCM 7th TWSC Page 6
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 2 3 0 0 6 0 11 0 0 0
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 2 3 0 0 6 0 11 0 0 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - 150 - - 150 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 0 2 3 0 0 7 0 12 0 0 0
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 14 26 1 20 20 6 1 0 0 12 0 0
Stage 1 1 1 - 19 19 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 13 25 - 1 1 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1002 867 1083 993 874 1077 1622 - - 1607 - - Stage 1 1022 895 - 1000 879 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 1007 874 - 1022 895 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 998 864 1083 987 870 1077 1622 - - 1607 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 998 864 - 987 870 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 1022 895 - 996 876 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 1003 871 - 1020 895 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 8.33 8.66 2.55 0

HCM LOS A A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1622 - - 1083 987 1607 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.004 - - 0.002 0.003 - - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.2 - - 8.3 8.7 0 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - - A A A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0 0 0 - -

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek
Traffic, Access, and Circulation Study
Attachment B
Analysis Worksheets for Build-Out (2045) plus Project Conditions

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Existing plus Project
1: Oak Avenue Pkwy & Mangini Pkwy Timing Plan: AM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 12
Queues Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 30 90 10 60 40 30 10 240 40 30 320 20 Future Volume (vph) 30 90 10 60 40 30 10 240 40 30 320 20 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 150 0 400 0 200 132 200 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.985 0.935 0.979 0.991
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1835 0 1770 1742 0 1770 1824 0 1770 1846 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1835 0 1770 1742 0 1770 1824 0 1770 1846 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 9 33 13 5
Link Speed (mph) 40 40 40 40
Link Distance (ft) 290 615 346 357
Travel Time (s) 4.9 10.5 5.9 6.1
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 33 109 0 65 76 0 11 304 0 33 370 0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases
Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5
Total Split (s) 9.6 22.5 9.6 22.5 9.5 23.4 9.5 23.4
Total Split (%) 14.8% 34.6% 14.8% 34.6% 14.6% 36.0% 14.6% 36.0% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None Min None Min
Act Effct Green (s) 5.9 8.5 5.9 10.2 5.8 23.4 5.8 24.9
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.21 0.15 0.26 0.15 0.59 0.15 0.63 v/c Ratio 0.13 0.27 0.25 0.16 0.04 0.28 0.13 0.32
Control Delay (s/veh) 23.3 18.1 24.1 12.3 23.0 12.6 23.5 11.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 23.3 18.1 24.1 12.3 23.0 12.6 23.5 11.4

LOS C B C B C B C B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 19.3 17.7 13.0 12.4
Approach LOS B B B B
Queue Length 50th (ft) 7 19 13 5 2 49 7 64
Queue Length 95th (ft) 34 68 55 42 17 146 34 184
Internal Link Dist (ft) 210 535 266 277

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Existing plus Project
1: Oak Avenue Pkwy & Mangini Pkwy Timing Plan: AM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 12
Queues Page 2
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 400 200 200
Base Capacity (vph) 261 960 261 923 256 1103 256 1154
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.13 0.11 0.25 0.08 0.04 0.28 0.13 0.32 Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 65
Actuated Cycle Length: 39.8
Natural Cycle: 65
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.32
Intersection Signal Delay (s/veh): 14.3 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 42.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 1: Oak Avenue Pkwy & Mangini Pkwy

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Existing plus Project
1: Oak Avenue Pkwy & Mangini Pkwy Timing Plan: AM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 12
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 30 90 10 60 40 30 10 240 40 30 320 20 Future Volume (veh/h) 30 90 10 60 40 30 10 240 40 30 320 20 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 33 98 11 65 43 33 11 261 43 33 348 22 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 70 207 23 119 150 115 26 399 66 70 487 31
Arrive On Green 0.04 0.13 0.13 0.07 0.15 0.15 0.01 0.26 0.26 0.04 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1652 185 1781 982 753 1781 1566 258 1781 1741 110 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 33 0 109 65 0 76 11 0 304 33 0 370 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1837 1781 0 1735 1781 0 1824 1781 0 1851 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.6 0.0 1.9 1.2 0.0 1.4 0.2 0.0 5.2 0.6 0.0 6.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.6 0.0 1.9 1.2 0.0 1.4 0.2 0.0 5.2 0.6 0.0 6.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.10 1.00 0.43 1.00 0.14 1.00 0.06
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 70 0 231 119 0 266 26 0 465 70 0 518 V/C Ratio(X) 0.47 0.00 0.47 0.55 0.00 0.29 0.43 0.00 0.65 0.47 0.00 0.71 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 259 0 943 259 0 891 254 0 983 254 0 997 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 16.5 0.0 14.3 15.8 0.0 13.1 17.1 0.0 11.7 16.5 0.0 11.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.9 0.0 1.5 3.8 0.0 0.6 10.7 0.0 1.6 4.9 0.0 1.9 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.3 0.0 0.7 0.5 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 1.6 0.3 0.0 2.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 21.4 0.0 15.8 19.7 0.0 13.7 27.9 0.0 13.2 21.4 0.0 13.2 LnGrp LOS C B B B C B C B
Approach Vol, veh/h 142 141 315 403
Approach Delay, s/veh 17.1 16.5 13.7 13.9
Approach LOS B B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 5.9 13.4 6.8 8.9 5.0 14.3 5.9 9.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 18.9 5.1 18.0 5.0 18.9 5.1 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.6 7.2 3.2 3.9 2.2 8.3 2.6 3.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.4 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.2 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 14.7
HCM 7th LOS B

06/23/2026 Item No.18.

Toll Brothers at Alder Creek Existing plus Project
2: Oak Avenue Pkwy & Street D Timing Plan: AM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 12
HCM 7th AWSC Page 4
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh11.5
Intersection LOS B
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 30 30 150 0 50 50 200 190 0 20 160 10 Future Vol, veh/h 30 30 150 0 50 50 200 190 0 20 160 10 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 33 33 163 0 54 54 217 207 0 22 174 11
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 2 2
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 2 1 1
Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 2 2 1 1
HCM Control Delay, s/veh11.2 10 12.2 11.3

HCM LOS B A B B
Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, % 100% 0% 14% 0% 100% 0%
Vol Thru, % 0% 100% 14% 50% 0% 94%
Vol Right, % 0% 0% 71% 50% 0% 6%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 200 190 210 100 20 170
LT Vol 200 0 30 0 20 0
Through Vol 0 190 30 50 0 160
RT Vol 0 0 150 50 0 10
Lane Flow Rate 217 207 228 109 22 185
Geometry Grp 5 5 2 2 5 5
Degree of Util (X) 0.381 0.333 0.341 0.173 0.04 0.311
Departure Headway (Hd) 6.306 5.799 5.381 5.718 6.611 6.062 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 572 620 667 625 541 593
Service Time 4.042 3.535 3.427 3.772 4.356 3.806
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.379 0.334 0.342 0.174 0.041 0.312
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 12.9 11.4 11.2 10 9.6 11.5
HCM Lane LOS B B B A A B
HCM 95th-tile Q 1.8 1.5 1.5 0.6 0.1 1.3