Indio City Council
December 6, 2023

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 696 of 3061 City of Indio The Greens Indio Project
Air Quality Assessment
August 2023
Page | 11
Table 4: State and National Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging Time State Standards1 Federal Standards2 Ozone (O3) 2, 5, 7
8 Hour 0.070 ppm (137 µg/m3) 0.070 ppm
1 Hour 0.09 ppm (180 µg/m3) NA
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 8 Hour 9.0 ppm (10 mg/m3) 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) 1 Hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m3) 35 ppm (40 mg/m3)
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 1 Hour 0.18 ppm (339 µg/m3) 0.10 ppm11 Annual Arithmetic Mean 0.030 ppm (57 µg/m3) 0.053 ppm (100 µg/m3) Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 8
24 Hour 0.04 ppm (105 µg/m3) 0.14 ppm (365 µg/m3)
1 Hour 0.25 ppm (655 µg/m3) 0.075 ppm (196 µg/m3)
Annual Arithmetic Mean NA 0.03 ppm (80 µg/m3)
Particulate Matter (PM10) 1, 3, 6 24-Hour 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3 Annual Arithmetic Mean 20 µg/m3 NA
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 3, 4, 6, 9 24-Hour NA 35 µg/m3 Annual Arithmetic Mean 12 µg/m3 12 µg/m3
Sulfates (SO4-2) 24 Hour 25 µg/m3 NA
Lead (Pb) 10, 11
30-Day Average 1.5 µg/m3 NA
Calendar Quarter NA 1.5 µg/m3
Rolling 3-Month Average NA 0.15 µg/m3
Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) 1 Hour 0.03 ppm (0.42 µg/m3) NA
Vinyl Chloride (C2H3CI) 10 24 Hour 0.01 ppm (26 µg/m3) NA Notes:
ppm = parts per million; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter; – = no information available. 1 California standards for O3, carbon monoxide (except Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1-hour and 24-hour), nitrogen dioxide, suspended particulate matter - PM10, and visibility reducing particles are values that are not to be exceeded. The standards for sulfates, Lake Tahoe carbon monoxide, lead, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride are not to be equaled or exceeded. If the standard is for a 1-hour, 8-hour or 24-hour average (i.e. all standards except for lead and the PM10 annual standard), then some measurements may be excluded.

Measurements are excluded that CARB determines would occur less than once per year on the average. The Lake Tahoe carbon monoxide standard is 6.0 ppm, a level one-half the national standard and two-thirds the State standard. 2 National standards shown are the "primary standards" designed to protect public health. National standards other than for O3, particulates and those based on annual averages are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The 1-hour O3 standard is attained if, during the most recent three-year period, the average number of days per year with maximum hourly concentrations above the standard is equal to or less than one. The 8-hour O3 standard is attained when the 3-year average of the 4th highest daily concentrations is 0.070 ppm or less. The 24-hour PM10 standard is attained when the 3-year average of the 99th percentile of monitored concentrations is less than 150 µg/m3. The 24-hour PM2.5 standard is attained when the 3-year average of 98th percentiles is less than 35 µg/m3. 3 Except for the national particulate standards, annual standards are met if the annual average falls below the standard at every site. The national annual particulate standard for PM10 is met if the 3-year average falls below the standard at every site. The annual PM2.5 standard is met if the 3-year average of annual averages spatially-averaged across officially designed clusters of sites falls below the standard.

NAAQS are set by the U.S. EPA at levels determined to be protective of public health with an adequate margin of safety. 4 On October 1, 2015, the national 8-hour O3 primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075 to 0.070 ppm. An area will meet the standard if the fourth-highest maximum daily 8-hour O3 concentration per year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than

0.070 ppm. U.S. EPA will make recommendations on attainment designations by October 1, 2016, and issue final designations October 1, 2017. Nonattainment areas will have until 2020 to late 2037 to meet the health standard, with attainment dates varying based on the O3 level in the area.
5 The national 1-hour O3 standard was revoked by the U.S. EPA on June 15, 2005. 6 In June 2002, CARB established new annual standards for PM2.5 and PM10. 7 The 8-hour California O3 standard was approved by the CARB on April 28, 2005 and became effective on May 17, 2006. 8 On June 2, 2010, the U.S. EPA established a new 1-hour SO2 standard, effective August 23, 2010, which is based on the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. The existing 0.030 ppm annual and 0.14 ppm 24-hour SO2 NAAQS however must continue to be used until one year following U.S. EPA initial designations of the new 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. 9 In December 2012, U.S. EPA strengthened the annual PM2.5 NAAQS from 15.0 to 12.0 μg/m3 . In December 2014, the U.S. EPA issued final
area designations for the 2012 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Areas designated “unclassifiable/attainment” must continue to take steps to prevent their air quality from deteriorating to unhealthy levels. The effective date of this standard is April 15, 2015. 10 CARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as ‘toxic air contaminants’ with no threshold level of exposure below which there are no adverse health effects determined.
11 National lead standard, rolling 3-month average: final rule signed October 15, 2008. Final designations effective December 31, 2011.

Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan, 2016; California Air Resources Board, Ambient Air Quality Standards, May 6, 2016.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 697 of 3061 City of Indio The Greens Indio Project
Air Quality Assessment
August 2023
Page | 12

3.3 Regional
South Coast Air Quality Management District
The SCAQMD is the air pollution control agency for Orange County and the urban portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. The agency’s primary responsibility is ensuring that State and federal ambient air quality standards are attained and maintained in the SCAB. The SCAQMD is also responsible for adopting and enforcing rules and regulations concerning air pollutant sources, issuing permits for stationary sources of air pollutants, inspecting stationary sources of air pollutants, responding to citizen complaints, monitoring ambient air quality and meteorological conditions, awarding grants to reduce motor vehicle emissions, conducting public education campaigns, and many other activities. All projects are subject to SCAQMD rules and regulations in effect at the time of construction.

The SCAQMD is also the lead agency in charge of developing the AQMP, with input from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and CARB. The AQMP is a comprehensive plan that includes control strategies for stationary and area sources, as well as for on-road and off-road mobile sources.

SCAG has the primary responsibility for providing future growth projections and the development and implementation of transportation control measures. CARB, in coordination with federal agencies, provides the control element for mobile sources.

The 2016 AQMP was adopted by the SCAQMD Governing Board on March 3, 2017. The purpose of the AQMP is to set forth a comprehensive and integrated program that would lead the SCAB into compliance with the federal 24-hour PM2.5 air quality standard, and to provide an update to the SCAQMD’s commitments towards meeting the federal 8-hour O3 standards. The AQMP incorporates the latest scientific and technological information and planning assumptions, including the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) and updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories. As part of its air quality planning, SCAG has prepared the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide and the Connect SoCal – The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS was determined to conform to the federally mandated SIP for the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS will be incorporated into the 2022 AQMP. Both the Regional Comprehensive Plan and AQMP are based, in part, on projections originating with county and city general plans.

On October 1, 2015, the U.S. EPA strengthened the NAAQS for ground-level O3. The 2022 AQMP, adopted by the South Coast AQMD Governing Board on December 2, 2022, was developed to address the requirements for meeting the 2015 8-hour O3 standard. The 2022 AQMP builds upon measures already in place from previous AQMPs. It also includes a variety of additional strategies such as regulation, accelerated deployment of available cleaner technologies (e.g., zero emissions technologies, when costeffective and feasible, and low NOX technologies in other applications), best management practices, cobenefits from existing programs (e.g., climate and energy efficiency), incentives, and other FCAA measures to achieve the 2015 8-hour ozone standard. The 2022 AQMP incorporates the latest scientific and technological information and planning assumptions, including the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS and updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories.

The SCAQMD has published the CEQA Air Quality Handbook (approved by the SCAQMD Governing Board in 1993 and augmented with guidance for Local Significance Thresholds [LST] in 2008). The SCAQMD guidance helpslocal government agencies and consultants to develop environmental documents required by California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and provides identification of suggested thresholds of

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 698 of 3061 City of Indio The Greens Indio Project
Air Quality Assessment
August 2023
Page | 13
significance for criteria pollutants for both construction and operation (see discussion of thresholds below). With the help of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook and associated guidance, local land use planners and consultants are able to analyze and document how proposed and existing projects affect air quality in order to meet the requirements of the CEQA review process. The SCAQMD periodically provides supplemental guidance and updates to the handbook on their website.

The SCAG is the regional planning agency for Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Imperial counties and serves as a forum for regional issues relating to transportation, the economy, community development, and the environment. Under federal law, SCAG is designated as a Metropolitan Planning Organization and under State law as a Regional Transportation Planning Agency and a Council of Governments.

The State and federal attainment status designations for the SCAB are summarized in Table 5: South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status. The SCAB is currently designated as a nonattainment area with respect to the State O3, PM10, and PM2.5 standards, as well as the national 8-hour O3 and PM2.5 standards. The SCAB is designated as attainment or unclassified for the remaining State and federal standards.

Table 5: South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status
Pollutant State Federal
Ozone (O3)
(1 Hour Standard) Non-Attainment Non-Attainment (Extreme) Ozone (O3)
(8 Hour Standard) Non-Attainment Non-Attainment (Extreme) Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
(24 Hour Standard) – Non-Attainment (Serious)
Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
(Annual Standard) Non-Attainment Non-Attainment (Moderate) Particulate Matter (PM10)
(24 Hour Standard) Non-Attainment Attainment (Maintenance) Particulate Matter (PM10)
(Annual Standard) Non-Attainment –
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
(1 Hour Standard) Attainment Attainment (Maintenance)
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
(8 Hour Standard) Attainment Attainment (Maintenance)
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
(1 Hour Standard) Attainment Unclassifiable/Attainment
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
(Annual Standard) Attainment Attainment (Maintenance)
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
(1 Hour Standard) Attainment Unclassifiable/Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
(24 Hour Standard) Attainment –
Lead (Pb)
(30 Day Standard) – Unclassifiable/Attainment
Lead (Pb)
(3 Month Standard) Attainment –
Sulfates (SO4-2)
(24 Hour Standard) Attainment –
Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S)
(1 Hour Standard) Unclassified –
Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan, 2016; United States Environmental Protection Agency, Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants (Green Book), 2020.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 699 of 3061 City of Indio The Greens Indio Project
Air Quality Assessment
August 2023
Page | 14
The following is a list of SCAQMD rules that are required of construction activities associated with the Project:
 Rule 402 (Nuisance) – This rule prohibits the discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. This rule does not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals.
 Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) – This rule requires fugitive dust sources to implement best available control measures for all sources, and all forms of visible particulate matter are prohibited from crossing any property line. This rule is intended to reduce PM10 emissions from any transportation, handling, construction, or storage activity that has the potential to generate fugitive dust. PM10 suppression techniques are summarized below.
a) Portions of a construction site to remain inactive longer than a period of three months will be seeded and watered until grass cover is grown or otherwise stabilized. b) All on-site roads will be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or chemically stabilized.
c) All material transported off-site will be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
d) The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations will be minimized at all times.
e) Where vehicles leave a construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the streets will be swept daily or washed down at the end of the workday to remove soil tracked onto the paved surface.
 Rule 431.2 (Sulfur Content of Liquid Fuels) – This rule limits the sulfur content in diesel and other liquid fuels for the purpose of both reducing the formation of sulfur oxides and particulates during combustion and to enable the use of add-on control devices for diesel fueled internal combustion engines.
 Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings) – This rule requires manufacturers, distributors, and end users of architectural and industrial maintenance coatings to reduce ROG emissions from the use of these coatings, primarily by placing limits on the ROG content of various coating categories.

3.4 Local
City of Indio General Plan
Chapter 3 (Land Use and Urban Design) and Chapter 6 (Health and Equity) of the Indio General Plan includes the following polices and implementation actions that pertain either directly or indirectly to air quality that are applicable to the Project:

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 700 of 3061 City of Indio The Greens Indio Project
Air Quality Assessment
August 2023
Page | 15
Policy LU-10.4: Non-polluting industries. Promote development of non-polluting industries that are not major sources of air and water pollution or other negative externalities.

Goal HE-3: Environmental Quality. A City designed to improve the quality of the built and natural environments to reduce disparate health and environmental impacts.

Policy HE-3.1: Regional air quality planning efforts. Participate in air quality planning efforts with local, regional, and State agencies that improve local air quality to protect human health and

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 701 of 3061 City of Indio The Greens Indio Project
Air Quality Assessment
August 2023
Page | 16
4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY

4.1 Air Quality Thresholds
Based upon the criteria derived from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project normally would have a significant effect on the environment if it would:
 Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.  Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is in nonattainment under an applicable state or federal ambient air quality standard.  Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.  Result in other emissions(such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

SCAQMD Thresholds
The significance criteria established by SCAQMD may be relied upon to make the above determinations.

According to the SCAQMD, an air quality impact is considered significant if the Project would violate any ambient air quality standard, contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The SCAQMD has established thresholds of significance for air quality during construction and operational activities of land use development projects, as shown in Table 6: South Coast Air Quality Management District Emissions Thresholds.

Table 6: South Coast Air Quality Management District Emissions Thresholds Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors
Pounds per Day
Construction-Related Operational-Related
Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) 75 55
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 550
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) 100 55
Sulfur Oxides (SOX) 150 150
Coarse Particulates (PM10) 150 150
Fine Particulates (PM2.5) 55 55
Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds, April 2019.

Localized Carbon Monoxide
In addition to the daily thresholds listed above, development associated with the Project would also be subject to the ambient air quality standards. These are addressed though an analysis of localized CO impacts. The significance of localized impacts depends on whether ambient CO levels near the Project are above State and national CO standards (the more stringent California standards are 20 ppm for 1-hour and 9 ppm for 8-hour). The SCAB has been designated as attainment under the 1-hour and 8-hour standards.

Localized Significance Thresholds
In addition to the CO hotspot analysis, the SCAQMD developed LSTs for emissions of NO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 generated at new development sites (off-site mobile source emissions are not included in the LST analysis). LSTs represent the maximum emissions that can be generated at a project without expecting to

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 702 of 3061 City of Indio The Greens Indio Project
Air Quality Assessment
August 2023
Page | 17
cause or substantially contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent State or national ambient air quality standards. LSTs are based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant within the Project source receptor area (SRA), as demarcated by the SCAQMD, and the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. LST analysis for construction is applicable for all projects that disturb 5 acres or less on a single day. The City of Indio is located within SCAQMD SRA 30. Table 7: Local Significance Thresholds for Construction/Operations, shows the LSTs for a 1-acre, 2-acre, and 5-acre project in SRA 30 within 25 meters of the Project. The nearest sensitive receptor is a residential property located at approximately 46 meters to the southeast. Therefore, the threshold distance of 25 meters was conservatively used for the analysis based on the SCAQMD LST methodology guidance. LSTs associated with all acreage categories at 25 meters are provided in Table 7 for informational purposes. The table shows that the LSTs increase as acreages increase. It should be noted that LSTs are screening thresholds and are therefore conservative.

The construction LST acreage is determined based on daily acreage disturbed. The operational LST acreage is based on the total area of the Project site. Although the Project site is greater than five acres, the 5- acre operational LSTs are conservatively used to evaluate the Project.

Table 7: Local Significance Thresholds for Construction/Operations Project Size
Pounds per Day
Nitrogen Oxide
(NOx)
Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
Coarse Particulates
(PM10)
Fine Particulates
(PM2.5)
1 Acre 132/132 878/878 4/1 3/1
2 Acres 191/191 1,299/1,299 7/2 5/2
5 Acres 304/304 2,292/2,292 14/4 8/2
Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, July 2008.

4.2 Methodology
This air quality impact analysis considers construction and operational impacts associated with the Project. Where criteria air pollutant quantification was required, emissions were modeled using the California Emissions Estimator Model version 2022.1 (CalEEMod). CalEEMod is a Statewide land use emissions computer model designed to quantify potential criteria pollutant emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects. Air quality impacts were assessed according to methodologies recommended by CARB and the SCAQMD.

Construction equipment, trucks, worker vehicles, and ground-disturbing activities associated with Project construction would generate emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors. Daily regional construction emissions are estimated by assuming construction occurs at the earliest feasible date (i.e., a conservative estimate of construction activities) and applying off-road, fugitive dust, and on-road emissions factors in CalEEMod.

Project operations would result in emissions of area sources (consumer products), energy sources (natural gas usage), and mobile sources (motor vehicles from Project generated vehicle trips). Project-generated increases in operational emissions would be predominantly associated with motor vehicle use. The increase of traffic over existing conditions as a result of the Project was obtained from the Project’s Trip Generation prepared by Kimley-Horn (January 2023). Other operational emissions from area, energy, and stationary sources were quantified in CalEEMod based on land use activity data.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 703 of 3061 City of Indio The Greens Indio Project
Air Quality Assessment
August 2023
Page | 18
As discussed above, the SCAQMD provides significance thresholds for emissions associated with proposed Project construction and operations. The proposed Project’s construction and operational emissions are compared to the daily criteria pollutant emissions significance thresholds in order to determine the significance of a Project’s impact on regional air quality.

The localized effects from the Project’s on-site emissions were evaluated in accordance with the SCAQMD’s LST methodology, which uses on-site mass emissions rate look-up tables and Project-specific modeling. LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or State ambient air quality standards and are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each SRA and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 704 of 3061 City of Indio The Greens Indio Project
Air Quality Assessment
August 2023
Page | 19
5 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION

5.1 Air Quality Analysis
Threshold 5.1 Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
As part of its enforcement responsibilities, the U.S. EPA requires each state with nonattainment areas to prepare and submit a SIP that demonstrates the means to attain the federal standards. The SIP must integrate federal, state, and local plan components and regulations to identify specific measures to reduce pollution in nonattainment areas, using a combination of performance standards and market-based programs. Similarly, under State law, the CCAA requires an air quality attainment plan to be prepared for areas designated as nonattainment regarding the state and federal ambient air quality standards. Air quality attainment plans outline emissions limits and control measures to achieve and maintain these standards by the earliest practical date.

The Project site is located within the SCAB, which is under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. The SCAQMD is required, pursuant to the FCAA, to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants for which the SCAB is in nonattainment. To reduce such emissions, the SCAQMD adopted the 2016 and 2022 AQMPs (AQMPs).

The AQMPs establish a program of rules and regulations directed at reducing air pollutant emissions and achieving State (California) and national air quality standards. The AQMPs are a regional and multi-agency effort including the SCAQMD, the CARB, the SCAG, and the U.S. EPA. The AQMPs pollutant control strategies are based on the latest scientific and technical information and planning assumptions, including SCAG’s RTP/SCS, updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories, and SCAG’s latest growth forecasts. SCAG’s latest growth forecasts were defined in consultation with local governments and with reference to local general plans. The Project is subject to the SCAQMD’s AQMPs.

Criteria for determining consistency with the AQMP are defined by the following indicators:
 Consistency Criterion No. 1: The Project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMPs.  Consistency Criterion No. 2: The Project will not exceed the assumptions in the AQMPs or increments based on the years of the Project build-out phase.

According to the SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the purpose of the consistency finding is to determine if a project is inconsistent with the assumptions and objectives of the regional air quality plans, and thus if it would interfere with the region’s ability to comply with CAAQS and NAAQS.

The violations to which Consistency Criterion No. 1 refers are CAAQS and NAAQS. As shown in Table 8 and Table 9 below, the Project would not exceed the construction or operational standards. Therefore, the Project would not contribute to an existing air quality violation. Thus, the Project would be consistent with the first criterion.

Concerning Consistency Criterion No. 2, the AQMP contains air pollutant reduction strategies based on SCAG’s latest growth forecasts, and SCAG’s growth forecasts were defined in consultation with local governments and with reference to local general plans. Project implementation would require a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to re-designate/zone APN 692-670-006 as Open Space – Parks, and

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 705 of 3061 City of Indio The Greens Indio Project
Air Quality Assessment
August 2023
Page | 20
re-designate/zone APN 692-670-012 as Regional Commercial to accommodate the proposed drivethrough restaurants. Although the Project requires a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and a Zone Change, the Project would not result in a direct increase in population since the proposed Project would not accommodate any new residents. The Project would, however, increase the number of jobs which, in turn, could indirectly result in a nominal increase in population. As such, the Project would not result in substantial unplanned growth or unaccounted for growth in the General Plan or job growth projections used by the SCAQMD to develop the AQMP. Thus, a less than significant impact would occur, as the Project is also consistent with the second criterion.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Level of Significance: Less than significant impact.

Threshold 5.2 Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable state or federal ambient air quality standard?
Construction Emissions
Construction associated with the Project would generate short-term emissions of criteria air pollutants.

The criteria pollutants of primary concern within the Project area include O3-precursor pollutants (i.e., ROG and NOX) and PM10 and PM2.5. Construction-generated emissions are short term and of temporary duration, lasting only as long as construction activities occur, but would be considered a significant air quality impact if the volume of pollutants generated exceeds the SCAQMD’s thresholds of significance.

Construction results in the temporary generation of emissions resulting from site grading, road paving, motor vehicle exhaust associated with construction equipment and worker trips, and the movement of construction equipment, especially on unpaved surfaces. Emissions of airborne particulate matter are largely dependent on the amount of ground disturbance associated with site preparation activities as well as weather conditions and the appropriate application of water.

The duration of construction activities associated with the Project is estimated to last approximately eight months. Construction-generated emissions associated the Project were calculated using the CARBapproved CalEEMod computer program, which is designed to model emissions for land use development projects, based on typical construction requirements. See Appendix A: Air Quality Modeling Data for more information regarding the construction assumptions used in this analysis. Predicted maximum daily construction-generated emissions for the Project are summarized in Table 8: Construction-Related Emissions.

Fugitive dust emissions may have a substantial, temporary impact on local air quality. In addition, fugitive dust may be a nuisance to those living and working in the Project vicinity. Uncontrolled dust from construction can become a nuisance and potential health hazard to those living and working nearby.

SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 (prohibition of nuisances, watering of inactive and perimeter areas, track out requirements, etc.) are applicable to the Project and were applied in CalEEMod to minimize fugitive dust emissions. Table 8 shows that unmitigated construction emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds. Impacts would be less than significant.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 706 of 3061 City of Indio The Greens Indio Project
Air Quality Assessment
August 2023
Page | 21
Table 8: Construction-Related Emissions
Construction Year
Pollutant (Maximum Pounds per Day)
Reactive
Organic
Gases (ROG)
Nitrogen
Oxide (NOx)
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Sulfur
Dioxide
(SO2)
Coarse
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
Fine
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5)
Unmitigated Emissions1
2024 3.56 36.43 32.74 <1 6.44 3.53
SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 55 150
Exceed SCAQMD
Threshold? No No No No No No
Notes:

1. SCAQMD Rule 403 Fugitive Dust applied. The Rule 403 reduction/credits include the following: properly maintain mobile and other construction equipment; replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly; water exposed surfaces three times daily; cover stock piles with tarps; water all haul roads twice daily; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. Reductions percentages from the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook (Tables XI-A through XI-E) were applied. Refer to Appendix A: Air Quality Modeling Data for Model Data Outputs.

Source: CalEEMod version 2022.1. Refer to Appendix A: Air Quality Monitoring Data for model outputs.

Operational Emissions
The Project’s operational emissions would be associated with area sources (e.g., landscape maintenance equipment, architectural coatings, off-road equipment, etc.), energy sources, mobile sources (i.e., motor vehicle use), and off-road equipment. Primary sources of operational criteria pollutants are from motor vehicle use and area sources. Long-term operational emissions attributable to the Project are summarized in Table 9: Operational Emissions. The operational emissions sources are described below.  Area Source Emissions. Area source emissions would be generated due to on-site equipment, architectural coating, and landscaping that were previously not present on the site.  Energy Source Emissions. Energy source emissions would be generated due to electricity and natural gas usage associated with the Project. Primary uses of electricity and natural gas by the Project would be for space heating and cooling, water heating, ventilation, lighting, appliances, electronics, and cooking.
 Mobile Source. Mobile sources are emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions. Depending upon the pollutant being discussed, the potential air quality impact may be of either regional or local concern. For example, ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 are all pollutants of regional concern. NOX and ROG react with sunlight to form O3, known as photochemical smog. Additionally, wind currents readily transport PM10 and PM2.5. However, CO tends to be a localized pollutant, dispersing rapidly at the source.  Project-generated vehicle emissions are based on the trip generation within the Project’s Trip Generation and incorporated into CalEEMod as recommended by the SCAQMD. Per the Project Trip Generation (Kimley-Horn, January 2023), the Project would generate a total of 7,632 daily trips.

As shown in Table 9, Project operational emissions would not exceed SCAQMD daily thresholds.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 707 of 3061 City of Indio The Greens Indio Project
Air Quality Assessment
August 2023
Page | 22
Table 9: Operational Emissions
Source
Pollutant (Maximum Pounds per Day)1
Reactive
Organic
Gases (ROG)
Nitrogen
Oxide (NOx)
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Sulfur
Dioxide
(SO2)
Coarse
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
Fine
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5)
Area Source
Emissions 0.44 <0.1 0.59 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Energy Emissions 0.02 0.39 0.32 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Mobile Emissions 33.2 32.0 317 0.69 21.6 4.18
Mobile (On-Site
Drive-Through)2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 2.73 <0.1 <0.1
Total Project
Emissions 33.6 32.4 318 3.42 21.6 4.21
SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Notes:
1 Totals may not add up due to rounding.
2 On-site drive through idling emissions were calculated with emissions factors from EMFAC2021.

Source: CalEEMod version 2022.1. Refer to Appendix A: Air Quality Monitoring Data for model outputs.

Cumulative Short-Term Emissions
The SCAB is designated nonattainment for O3, PM10, and PM2.5 for State standards and nonattainment for O3 and PM2.5 for national standards. Appendix D of the SCAQMD White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution (2003) notes that projects that result in emissions that do not exceed the project-specific SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance should result in a less than significant impact on a cumulative basis unless there is other pertinent information to the contrary. The mass-based regional significance thresholds published by the SCAQMD are designed to ensure compliance with both NAAQS and CAAQS and are based on an inventory of projected emissions in the SCAB. Therefore, if a project is estimated to result in emissions that do not exceed the thresholds, the project’s contribution to the cumulative impact on air quality in the SCAB would not be cumulatively considerable. As shown in Table 8, Project construction-related emissions by themselves would not exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds for criteria pollutants. Therefore, the proposed Project would not generate a cumulatively considerable contribution to air pollutant emissions during construction.

The SCAQMD has developed strategies to reduce criteria pollutant emissions outlined in the AQMP pursuant to the FCAA mandates. The analysis assumed fugitive dust controls would be utilized during construction, including frequent water applications. SCAQMD rules, mandates, and compliance with adopted AQMP emissions control measures would also be imposed on construction projects throughout the SCAB, which would include related projects. Compliance with SCAQMD rules and regulations would further reduce the Project construction-related impacts. Therefore, Project-related construction emissions, combined with those from other projects in the area, would not substantially deteriorate local air quality. Construction emissions associated with the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative air quality impacts.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 708 of 3061 City of Indio The Greens Indio Project
Air Quality Assessment
August 2023
Page | 23
Cumulative Operational Impacts
The SCAQMD has not established separate significance thresholds for cumulative operational emissions.

The nature of air emissions is largely a cumulative impact. As a result, no single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, individual project emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. The SCAQMD developed the operational thresholds of significance based on the level above which individual project emissions would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the SCAB’s existing air quality conditions. Therefore, a project that exceeds the SCAQMD operational thresholds would also be a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact.

As shown in Table 9, the Project operational emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds. As a result, operational emissions associated with the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative air quality impacts. Additionally, adherence to SCAQMD rules and regulations would alleviate potential impacts related to cumulative conditions on a project-by-project basis. Project operations would not contribute a cumulatively considerable net increase of any nonattainment criteria pollutant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Level of Significance: Less than significant impact.

Threshold 5.3 Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Localized Construction Significance Analysis
The nearest sensitive receptors are the single-family residenceslocated approximately 75 feet (23 meters) to the northeast of the Project construction. To identify impacts to sensitive receptors, the SCAQMD recommends addressing LSTs for construction. LSTs were developed in response to SCAQMD Governing Boards' Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative (I-4). The SCAQMD provided the Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (dated June 2003 [revised 2008]) for guidance. The LST methodology assists lead agencies in analyzing localized impacts associated with Project-specific emissions.

Since CalEEMod calculates construction emissions based on the number of equipment hours and the maximum daily soil disturbance activity possible for each piece of equipment, Table 10: EquipmentSpecific Grading Rates, is used to determine the maximum daily disturbed acreage for comparison to LSTs. The appropriate SRA for the localized significance thresholds is the Coachella Valley Monitoring Area (SRA 30) since this area includes the Project. LSTs apply to CO, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5. The SCAQMD produced look-up tables for projects that disturb areas less than or equal to 5 acres in size. Project construction is anticipated to disturb a maximum of 3.5 acres in a single day. As the LST guidance provides thresholds for projects disturbing 1-, 2-, and 5-acres in size and the thresholds increase with size of the site, the LSTs for a 3.5-acre threshold were utilized for this analysis.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 709 of 3061 City of Indio The Greens Indio Project
Air Quality Assessment
August 2023
Page | 24
Table 10: Equipment-Specific Grading Rates
Construction
Phase Equipment Type
Equipment
Quantity
Acres Graded
per 8-Hour
Day
Operating
Hours per Day
Acres Graded
per Day
Site Preparation
Tractors 3 0.5 8 1.5
Graders 2 0.5 8 1
Dozers 2 0.5 8 1
Scrapers 0 1 8 0
Total Acres Graded per Day 3.5
Source: CalEEMod version 2022.1. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs.

The SCAQMD’s methodology states that “off-site mobile emissions from the Project should not be included in the emissions compared to LSTs.” Therefore, only emissions included in the CalEEMod “onsite” emissions outputs were considered. The nearest sensitive receptors are single-family residences located approximately 75 feet (23 meters) northeast of the Project construction. LST thresholds are provided for distances to sensitive receptors of 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 meters. Therefore, LSTs for 25 meters were interpolated and utilized in this analysis. Table 11: Localized Significance of Construction Emissions, shows the results of localized emissions during construction. This table represents the worstcase scenario and are based on peak earthwork volumes anticipated. As shown, localized Project construction emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Table 11: Localized Significance of Construction Emissions Construction Activity
Pollutant (Maximum Pounds per Day)1
Nitrogen Oxide
(NOx)
Carbon
Monoxide (CO)
Coarse
Particulate
Matter (PM10)
Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
Demolition (2024) 15.60 16.00 0.86 0.81
Site Preparation (2024) 12.70 11.40 0.56 0.52
Grading (2024) 30.70 29.20 1.76 1.64
Trenching (2024) 1.35 1.49 <0.01 <0.01
Paving (2024) 6.44 8.26 0.31 0.29
Building Construction (2024) 11.20 11.90 0.49 0.42
Architectural Coating (2024) 0.91 1.15 0.03 0.03
Maximum emissions 30.70 29.20 1.76 1.64
SCAQMD Localized Screening
Threshold (adjusted for 3.5 acres at
25 meters)
149 984 10 6
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No
1 Totals may not add up due to rounding.

Source: CalEEMod version 2022.1. Refer to Appendix A: Air Quality Modeling Data for model outputs.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 710 of 3061 City of Indio The Greens Indio Project
Air Quality Assessment
August 2023
Page | 25
Localized Operational Significance Analysis
According to the SCAQMD LST methodology, LSTs would apply to the operational phase of a project only if it includes stationary sources or attracts mobile sources that may spend long periods queuing and idling at the site (e.g., warehouse or transfer facilities). Since the Project consists of restaurant and fast food uses, the operational phase LST protocol is conservatively applied to both on-site stationary sources and 10 percent of the total mobile source emissions. As the nearest receptor islocated approximately 150 feet (46 meters) from the Projectsite, LSTs for 46 meters for SRA 30 were interpolated and used in this analysis.

Although the Project site is 6.3 acres, the 5-acre LST threshold was conservatively used because the LSTs increase with the size of the site. Therefore, the 5-acre LSTs are conservative for evaluation of a 6.3-acre site.

The LST analysis only includes on-site sources. However, the CalEEMod model outputs do not separate on-site and off-site emissions for mobile sources. For a worst-case scenario assessment, the emissions shown in Table 12: Localized Significance of Operational Emissions, conservatively include all on-site Project-related stationary sources and 10 percent of the Project-related new mobile sources, since a portion of mobile sources could include idling on-site. Table 12 shows that daily emissions of these pollutants during operations would not result in significant concentrations of pollutants at nearby sensitive receptors. Therefore, significant impacts would not occur concerning LSTs during operational activities.

Table 12: Localized Significance of Operational Emissions Activity
Pollutant (Maximum Pounds per Day)
Nitrogen Oxide
(NOx)
Carbon
Monoxide (CO)
Coarse
Particulate
Matter (PM10)
Fine Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5)
On-Site and Mobile Source
Emissions1 3.2 31.7 2.2 0.42
SCAQMD Localized Screening
Threshold
(5 acres at 46 meters)2
183 1,601 6 2
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No

1. Conservatively assumes 10 percent of mobile emissions are on-site.

2. SRA Zone 30 – Coachella Valley; 5-acre area, 46 meters to receptor.

Source: CalEEMod version 2022.1. Refer to Appendix A: Air Quality Modeling Data for model outputs.

Criteria Pollutant Health Impacts
On December 24, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued an opinion identifying the need to provide sufficient information connecting a project’s air emissions to health impacts or explain why such information could not be ascertained (Sierra Club v. County of Fresno [Friant Ranch, L.P.] [2018] Cal.5th, Case No. S219783). The SCAQMD has set its CEQA significance thresholds based on the FCAA, which defines a major stationary source (in extreme O3 nonattainment areas such as the SCAB) as emitting 10 tons per year. The thresholds correlate with the trigger levels for the federal New Source Review (NSR) Program and SCAQMD Rule 1303 for new or modified sources. The NSR Program2 was created by the 2 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) [i.e., PSD (40 CFR 52.21, 40 CFR 51.166, 40 CFR 51.165 (b)), Non-attainment NSR (40 CFR 52.24, 40 CFR

51.165, 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S)

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 711 of 3061 City of Indio The Greens Indio Project
Air Quality Assessment
August 2023
Page | 26
FCAA to ensure that stationary sources of air pollution are constructed or modified in a manner that is consistent with attainment of health-based NAAQS. The NAAQS establish the levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health. Therefore, projects that do not exceed the SCAQMD’s LSTs and mass emissions thresholds would not violate any air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation and no criteria pollutant health impacts.

NOX and ROG are precursor emissions that form O3 in the atmosphere in the presence of sunlight where the pollutants undergo complex chemical reactions. It takes time and the influence of meteorological conditions for these reactions to occur, so O3 may be formed at a distance downwind from the sources.

Breathing ground-level O3 can result in health effects that include reduced lung function, inflammation of airways, throat irritation, pain, burning, or discomfort in the chest when taking a deep breath, chest tightness, wheezing, or shortness of breath. In addition to these effects, evidence from observational studies strongly indicates that higher daily O3 concentrations are associated with increased asthma attacks, increased hospital admissions, increased daily mortality, and other markers of morbidity. The consistency and coherence of the evidence for effects upon asthmatics suggests that O3 can make asthma symptoms worse and can increase sensitivity to asthma triggers.

According the SCAQMD AQMPs, O3, NOX, and ROG have been decreasing in the SCAB since 1975 and are projected to continue to decrease in the future. Although vehicle miles traveled in the SCAB continue to increase, NOX and ROG levels are decreasing because of the mandated controls on motor vehicles and the replacement of older polluting vehicles with lower-emitting vehicles. NOX emissions from electric utilities have also decreased due to the use of cleaner fuels and renewable energy. The 2016 AQMP demonstrates how the SCAQMD’s control strategy to meet the 8-hour O3 standard in 2023 would lead to sufficient NOX emission reductions to attain the 1-hour O3 standard by 2022. In addition, since NOX emissions also lead to the formation of PM2.5, the NOX reductions needed to meet the O3 standards will likewise lead to improvement of PM2.5 levels and attainment of PM2.5 standards.

The SCAQMD’s air quality modeling demonstrates that NOX reductions prove to be much more effective in reducing O3 levels and will also lead to significant improvement in PM2.5 concentrations. NOX-emitting stationary sources regulated by the SCAQMD include Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM) facilities (e.g., refineries, power plants, etc.), natural gas combustion equipment (e.g., boilers, heaters, engines, burners, flares) and other combustion sources that burn wood or propane. The AQMPsidentifies robust NOX reductions from new regulations on RECLAIM facilities, non-refinery flares, commercial cooking, and residential and commercial appliances. Such combustion sources are already heavily regulated with the lowest NOX emissions levels achievable but there are opportunities to require and accelerate replacement with cleaner zero-emission alternatives, such as residential and commercial furnaces, pool heaters, and backup power equipment. The AQMD plans to achieve such replacements through a combination of regulations and incentives. Technology-forcing regulations can drive development and commercialization of clean technologies, with future year requirements for new or existing equipment. Incentives can then accelerate deployment and enhance public acceptability of new technologies.

As previously discussed, Project emissions would be less than significant and would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds (refer to Table 8 and Table 9). Localized effects of on-site Project emissions on nearby receptors were also found to be less than significant (refer to Table 11 and Table 12). The LSTs represent

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 712 of 3061 City of Indio The Greens Indio Project
Air Quality Assessment
August 2023
Page | 27
the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable State or national ambient air quality standard. The LSTs were developed by the SCAQMD based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each SRA and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. The ambient air quality standards establish the levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect public health, including protecting the health of sensitive populations.

Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
An analysis of CO “hot spots” is needed to determine whether the change in the level of service of an intersection resulting from the Project would have the potential to result in exceedances of the CAAQS or NAAQS. It has long been recognized that CO exceedances are caused by vehicular emissions, primarily when vehicles are idling at intersections. Vehicle emissions standards have become increasingly stringent in the last 20 years. Currently, the CO standard in California is a maximum of 3.4 grams per mile for passenger cars (requirements for certain vehicles are more stringent). With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of control technology on industrial facilities, CO concentrations have steadily declined. Accordingly, with the steadily decreasing CO emissions from vehicles, even very busy intersections do not result in exceedances of the CO standard.

The SCAB was redesignated as attainment in 2007 and is no longer addressed in the SCAQMD’s AQMP.

The 2003 AQMP is the most recent version that addresses CO concentrations. As part of the SCAQMD CO Hotspot Analysis, the Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue intersection, one of the most congested intersections in southern California with an average daily traffic (ADT) volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day, was modeled for CO concentrations. This modeling effort identified a CO concentration high of 4.6 ppm, which is well below the 35-ppm national standard. The Project considered herein would not produce the volume of traffic required to generate a CO hot spot in the context of SCAQMD’s CO Hotspot Analysis. As the CO hotspots were not experienced at the Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue intersection even as it accommodates 100,000 vehicles daily, it can be reasonably inferred that CO hotspots would not be experienced at any vicinity intersections resulting from 7,632 additional vehicle trips attributable to the Project. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Level of Significance: Less than significant impact.

Threshold 5.4 Would the Project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook identifies certain land uses as sources of odors. These land uses include agriculture (farming and livestock), wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting facilities, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The Project would not include any of the land uses that have been identified by the SCAQMD as odor sources.

During construction-related activities, some odors (not substantial pollutant concentrations) that may be detected are those typical of construction vehicles (e.g., diesel exhaust from grading and construction equipment). These odors are a temporary short-term impact that is typical of construction projects and would disperse rapidly. Furthermore, odors that could be generated by construction activities are required to follow SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance) to prevent odor nuisances on sensitive land uses. The

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 713 of 3061 City of Indio The Greens Indio Project
Air Quality Assessment
August 2023
Page | 28
Project would not include any of the land uses that have been identified by the SCAQMD as odor sources.

Therefore, the Project would not create objectionable odors.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Level of Significance: No impact.

5.2 Cumulative Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Cumulative Setting
The cumulative setting for air quality includes the City of Indio and SCAB. SCAB is designated as a nonattainment area for State standards of O3, PM10, and PM2.5. The SCAB is designated as a nonattainment area for federal standards of O3 and PM2.5, attainment and serious maintenance for national PM10 standards, and is designated as unclassified or attainment for all other pollutants. Cumulative growth in population and vehicle use could inhibit efforts to improve regional air quality and attain the ambient air quality standards.

Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The SCAQMD’s approach to assessing cumulative impacts is based on the AQMP forecasts of attainment of ambient air quality standards in accordance with requirements of the FCAA and CCAA. As discussed above, the proposed Project would be consistent with the AQMP, which is intended to bring SCAB into attainment for all criteria pollutants. Since the Project’s estimated construction and operational emissions would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD daily significance thresholds that are designed to assist the region in attaining both NAAQS and CAAQS, cumulative impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Level of Significance: Less than significant impact.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 714 of 3061 City of Indio The Greens Indio Project
Air Quality Assessment
August 2023
Page | 29
6 REFERENCES

1. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), Health Effects, 2018.

2. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects, 2009.

3. California Air Resources Board, Aerometric Data Analysis and Measurement System (ADAM) Top Four Summaries from 2019 to 2021, 2022.

4. California Air Resources Board, Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective, 2005.

5. California Air Resources Board, Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles, 2000.

6. City of Indio, General Plan, 2019.

7. Kimley-Horn, Trip Generation for the Greens Indio Project, January 2023.

8. South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2016 Air Quality Management Plan, March 2017.

9. South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2022 Air Quality Management Plan, December 2022.

10. South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993.

11. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, 2008.

12. South Coast Air Quality Management District, High-Cube Warehouse Vehicle Trip Generation Analysis, 2016.

13. South Coast Air Quality Management District, South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds, April 2019.

14. United States Environmental Protection Agency, National Ambient Air Quality Standards Table, 2016.

15. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants, 2019.

16. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Policy Assessment for the Review of the Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 2013.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 715 of 3061 Appendix A
Air Quality Modeling Data

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 716 of 3061 Drive-Through On Site Emissions
Total Trips/Day 1,527
Drive-Through Trips 1,069
Minutes/Trip 5
Distance (miles/trip) 0.1
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
EMFAC Emissions Rate (g/mi) 0.023578 0.001634 0.001772 138.7726 0.004455 0.002195 Pounds/Day 4.63E-04 3.21E-05 3.48E-05 2.73E+00 8.75E-05 4.31E-05 CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
EMFAC Emissions Rate (g/mi) 0.027215 0.339957 0.001371 -- MT/year 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.029049
Source: EMFAC2021 (v1.0.0) Emission Rates, Los Angeles (SC) Sub-Area, Year 2022, Annual.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 717 of 3061 The Greens Indio Project Detailed Report, 8/29/2023
1 / 52
The Greens Indio 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. Demolition (2024) - Unmitigated

3.3. Site Preparation (2024) - Unmitigated

3.5. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated

The Greens Indio Project Detailed Report, 8/29/2023
2 / 52

3.9. Paving (2024) - Unmitigated

3.11. Architectural Coating (2024) - Unmitigated

3.13. Trenching (2024) - Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

The Greens Indio Project Detailed Report, 8/29/2023
3 / 52

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

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

The Greens Indio Project Detailed Report, 8/29/2023
4 / 52

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

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

The Greens Indio Project Detailed Report, 8/29/2023
5 / 52

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

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

The Greens Indio Project Detailed Report, 8/29/2023
6 / 52

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

8. User Changes to Default Data

The Greens Indio Project Detailed Report, 8/29/2023
7 / 52

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name The Greens Indio Project
Construction Start Date 1/1/2024
Operational Year 2024
Lead Agency—
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 3.00
Precipitation (days) 7.60
Location 33.74483529314546, -116.2150356103961
County Riverside-Salton Sea
City Indio
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin Salton Sea
TAZ 5657
EDFZ 19
Electric Utility Imperial Irrigation District
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.18

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

The Greens Indio Project Detailed Report, 8/29/2023
8 / 52
Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru

9.55 1000sqft 0.22 9,550 77,667 — — 3 fast food
restaurants
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)

4.00 1000sqft 0.09 4,000 0.00 — — —
Parking Lot 114 1000sqft 2.62 0.00 0.00 — — —

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. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.79 4.30 12.3 13.8 0.03 0.49 0.20 0.60 0.45 0.05 0.48 — 2,510 2,510 0.10 0.03 0.85 2,522 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 4.26 3.56 36.4 32.7 0.07 1.58 5.62 6.44 1.45 2.08 3.53 — 8,636 8,636 0.24 0.60 0.22 8,822 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.05 1.33 8.14 8.27 0.02 0.34 0.71 1.05 0.31 0.23 0.54 — 1,877 1,877 0.06 0.09 0.57 1,906 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.19 0.24 1.49 1.51 < 0.005 0.06 0.13 0.19 0.06 0.04 0.10 — 311 311 0.01 0.01 0.09 315

The Greens Indio Project Detailed Report, 8/29/2023
9 / 52
Exceeds — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
(Daily
Max)
Threshol
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. Yes — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Exceeds
(Average
Daily)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Threshol
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. Yes — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

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 TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 1.79 4.30 12.3 13.8 0.03 0.49 0.20 0.60 0.45 0.05 0.48 — 2,510 2,510 0.10 0.03 0.85 2,522 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 4.26 3.56 36.4 32.7 0.07 1.58 5.62 6.44 1.45 2.08 3.53 — 8,636 8,636 0.24 0.60 0.22 8,822 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 1.05 1.33 8.14 8.27 0.02 0.34 0.71 1.05 0.31 0.23 0.54 — 1,877 1,877 0.06 0.09 0.57 1,906 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.19 0.24 1.49 1.51 < 0.005 0.06 0.13 0.19 0.06 0.04 0.10 — 311 311 0.01 0.01 0.09 315

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

The Greens Indio Project Detailed Report, 8/29/2023
10 / 52
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 36.1 33.6 32.4 318 0.69 0.53 53.9 54.4 0.50 13.7 14.2 92.8 71,933 72,026 12.1 3.20 273 73,557 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 28.9 26.5 35.2 216 0.61 0.53 53.9 54.4 0.50 13.7 14.2 92.8 64,030 64,123 12.3 3.30 27.7 65,442 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 27.3 25.9 21.6 152 0.34 0.30 27.7 28.0 0.29 7.03 7.32 92.8 36,353 36,446 11.4 1.97 77.4 37,396 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 4.97 4.72 3.93 27.8 0.06 0.06 5.06 5.12 0.05 1.28 1.34 15.4 6,019 6,034 1.89 0.33 12.8 6,191

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 TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 35.9 33.2 32.0 317 0.69 0.50 53.9 54.4 0.47 13.7 14.1 — 70,169 70,169 2.71 3.17 252 71,434 Area 0.10 0.44 < 0.005 0.59 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.42 2.42 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.43 Energy 0.04 0.02 0.39 0.32 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 1,731 1,731 0.13 0.01 — 1,738 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 7.88 30.2 38.1 0.81 0.02 — 64.2 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 84.9 0.00 84.9 8.49 0.00 — 297 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 21.2 21.2
Total 36.1 33.6 32.4 318 0.69 0.53 53.9 54.4 0.50 13.7 14.2 92.8 71,933 72,026 12.1 3.20 273 73,557Page 189 of 2023 AGENDA ITEM #14.1 Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 727 of 3061 The Greens Indio Project Detailed Report, 8/29/2023
11 / 52
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Mobile 28.9 26.1 34.8 216 0.61 0.50 53.9 54.4 0.47 13.7 14.1— 62,269 62,269 2.86 3.27 6.54 63,322 Area— 0.34————————————————
Energy 0.04 0.02 0.39 0.32 < 0.005 0.03— 0.03 0.03— 0.03— 1,731 1,731 0.13 0.01— 1,738 Water——————————— 7.88 30.2 38.1 0.81 0.02— 64.2
Waste——————————— 84.9 0.00 84.9 8.49 0.00— 297
Refrig.———————————————— 21.2 21.2
Total 28.9 26.5 35.2 216 0.61 0.53 53.9 54.4 0.50 13.7 14.2 92.8 64,030 64,123 12.3 3.30 27.7 65,442 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Mobile 27.2 25.5 21.2 152 0.34 0.27 27.7 28.0 0.26 7.03 7.29— 34,590 34,590 1.99 1.94 56.3 35,274 Area 0.05 0.39 < 0.005 0.29 < 0.005 < 0.005— < 0.005 < 0.005— < 0.005— 1.20 1.20 < 0.005 < 0.005— 1.20 Energy 0.04 0.02 0.39 0.32 < 0.005 0.03— 0.03 0.03— 0.03— 1,731 1,731 0.13 0.01— 1,738 Water——————————— 7.88 30.2 38.1 0.81 0.02— 64.2
Waste——————————— 84.9 0.00 84.9 8.49 0.00— 297
Refrig.———————————————— 21.2 21.2
Total 27.3 25.9 21.6 152 0.34 0.30 27.7 28.0 0.29 7.03 7.32 92.8 36,353 36,446 11.4 1.97 77.4 37,396 Annual——————————————————
Mobile 4.96 4.65 3.86 27.7 0.06 0.05 5.06 5.11 0.05 1.28 1.33— 5,727 5,727 0.33 0.32 9.31 5,840 Area 0.01 0.07 < 0.005 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005— < 0.005 < 0.005— < 0.005— 0.20 0.20 < 0.005 < 0.005— 0.20 Energy 0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.06 < 0.005 0.01— 0.01 0.01— 0.01— 287 287 0.02 < 0.005— 288 Water——————————— 1.30 5.01 6.31 0.13 < 0.005— 10.6
Waste——————————— 14.1 0.00 14.1 1.41 0.00— 49.2
Refrig.———————————————— 3.51 3.51
Total 4.97 4.72 3.93 27.8 0.06 0.06 5.06 5.12 0.05 1.28 1.34 15.4 6,019 6,034 1.89 0.33 12.8 6,191Page 190 of 2023 AGENDA ITEM #14.1 Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 728 of 3061 The Greens Indio Project Detailed Report, 8/29/2023
12 / 52

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.92 1.61 15.6 16.0 0.02 0.67 — 0.67 0.62 — 0.62 — 2,494 2,494 0.10 0.02 — 2,502 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 4.52 4.52 — 0.69 0.69 — — — — — — —
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 0.07 0.64 0.66 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 102 102 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 103 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 0.19 0.19 — 0.03 0.03 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.01 0.01 0.12 0.12 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 17.0 17.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 17.0 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 0.03 0.03 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —

The Greens Indio Project Detailed Report, 8/29/2023
13 / 52
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — truck
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.05 0.08 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 161 161 0.01 0.01 0.02 — 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 0.10 0.07 4.33 0.93 0.02 0.07 0.93 1.00 0.07 0.24 0.31 — 3,587 3,587 0.03 0.56 0.20 — Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.09 7.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.17 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 147 147 < 0.005 0.02 0.14 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.17 1.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 24.4 24.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 —

3.3. Site Preparation (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

The Greens Indio Project Detailed Report, 8/29/2023
14 / 52
Daily,——————————————————
Winter
(Max)
Off-Road
Equipment

1.56 1.31 12.7 11.4 0.03 0.55— 0.55 0.51— 0.51— 2,716 2,716 0.11 0.02— 2,725 Dust
From
Material
Movement
—————— 0.41 0.41— 0.04 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— Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.03 0.03 0.24 0.22 < 0.005 0.01— 0.01 0.01— 0.01— 52.1 52.1 < 0.005 < 0.005— 52.3 Dust
From
Material
Movement
—————— 0.01 0.01— < 0.005 < 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— Annual——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005— < 0.005 < 0.005— < 0.005— 8.62 8.62 < 0.005 < 0.005— 8.65 Dust
From
Material
Movement
—————— < 0.005 < 0.005— < 0.005 < 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— Offsite——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————

The Greens Indio Project Detailed Report, 8/29/2023
15 / 52
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.05 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 96.8 96.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 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 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.99 1.99 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 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 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.33 0.33 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 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. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

3.81 3.20 30.7 29.2 0.04 1.44 — 1.44 1.32 — 1.32 — 4,653 4,653 0.19 0.04 — 4,669Page 194 of 2023 AGENDA ITEM #14.1 Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 732 of 3061 The Greens Indio Project Detailed Report, 8/29/2023
16 / 52
Dust—————— 3.69 3.69— 1.78 1.78———————
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck

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

0.33 0.28 2.69 2.56 < 0.005 0.13— 0.13 0.12— 0.12— 408 408 0.02 < 0.005— 409 Dust
From
Material
Movement
—————— 0.32 0.32— 0.16 0.16———————
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 0.05 0.49 0.47 < 0.005 0.02— 0.02 0.02— 0.02— 67.5 67.5 < 0.005 < 0.005— 67.8 Dust
From
Material
Movement
—————— 0.06 0.06— 0.03 0.03———————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Offsite——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.09 0.07 0.11 1.03 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.05 0.05— 226 226 0.01 0.01 0.03— 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 0.10 0.06 4.25 0.91 0.02 0.07 0.92 0.98 0.07 0.23 0.30— 3,517 3,517 0.03 0.55 0.19—

The Greens Indio Project Detailed Report, 8/29/2023
17 / 52
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 21.2 21.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.01 0.01 0.37 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 0.08 0.09 0.01 0.02 0.03 — 308 308 < 0.005 0.05 0.28 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.51 3.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 51.0 51.0 < 0.005 0.01 0.05 —

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

1.58 1.32 11.2 11.9 0.02 0.46 — 0.46 0.42 — 0.42 — 2,201 2,201 0.09 0.02 — 2,209 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

0.48 0.40 3.39 3.60 0.01 0.14 — 0.14 0.13 — 0.13 — 663 663 0.03 0.01 — 666 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

The Greens Indio Project Detailed Report, 8/29/2023
18 / 52
Off-Road
Equipment

0.09 0.07 0.62 0.66 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.02 — 0.02 — 110 110 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 110 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 86.4 86.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.32 — Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 71.5 71.5 < 0.005 0.01 0.19 — 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 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 23.7 23.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 — Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 21.5 21.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 — 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 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.92 3.92 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.57 3.57 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

3.9. Paving (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

The Greens Indio Project Detailed Report, 8/29/2023
19 / 52
Daily,——————————————————
Summer
(Max)
Off-Road
Equipment

0.89 0.75 6.44 8.26 0.01 0.31— 0.31 0.29— 0.29— 1,244 1,244 0.05 0.01— 1,248 Paving— 0.33————————————————
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

0.89 0.75 6.44 8.26 0.01 0.31— 0.31 0.29— 0.29— 1,244 1,244 0.05 0.01— 1,248 Paving— 0.33————————————————
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

0.05 0.04 0.37 0.48 < 0.005 0.02— 0.02 0.02— 0.02— 71.6 71.6 < 0.005 < 0.005— 71.8 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

0.01 0.01 0.07 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005— < 0.005 < 0.005— < 0.005— 11.9 11.9 < 0.005 < 0.005— 11.9 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— Offsite——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————

The Greens Indio Project Detailed Report, 8/29/2023
20 / 52
Worker 0.09 0.08 0.09 1.55 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 228 228 0.01 0.01 0.85 — 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 0.08 0.06 0.09 0.88 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 194 194 0.01 0.01 0.02 — 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 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.9 11.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 — 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 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.97 1.97 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

3.11. Architectural Coating (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG 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

0.17 0.14 0.91 1.15 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134

The Greens Indio Project Detailed Report, 8/29/2023
21 / 52
Architect— 2.81————————————————
ural
Coatings
Onsite
truck

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

0.03 0.02 0.14 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005— < 0.005 < 0.005— < 0.005— 20.5 20.5 < 0.005 < 0.005— 20.6 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.43————————————————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Annual——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005— < 0.005 < 0.005— < 0.005— 3.39 3.39 < 0.005 < 0.005— 3.40 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.08————————————————
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 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005— 17.3 17.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06— 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—

The Greens Indio Project Detailed Report, 8/29/2023
22 / 52
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.41 2.41 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 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 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.40 0.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 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 —

3.13. Trenching (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.25 0.21 1.35 1.49 < 0.005 0.07 — 0.07 0.06 — 0.06 — 207 207 0.01 < 0.005 — 208 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

0.01 0.01 0.08 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 11.9 11.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12.0

The Greens Indio Project Detailed Report, 8/29/2023
23 / 52
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Annual——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005— < 0.005 < 0.005— < 0.005— 1.98 1.98 < 0.005 < 0.005— 1.98 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)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01— 32.3 32.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005— 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 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005— 1.99 1.99 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005— 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 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005— 0.33 0.33 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005— 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

The Greens Indio Project Detailed Report, 8/29/2023
24 / 52

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
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru

33.1 30.5 29.4 292 0.63 0.46 49.6 50.1 0.43 12.6 13.0 — 64,542 64,542 2.49 2.92 232 65,706 High
Turnover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)

2.88 2.66 2.57 25.4 0.06 0.04 4.32 4.36 0.04 1.10 1.13 — 5,627 5,627 0.22 0.25 20.2 5,728 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 35.9 33.2 32.0 317 0.69 0.50 53.9 54.4 0.47 13.7 14.1 — 70,169 70,169 2.71 3.17 252 71,434 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru

26.6 24.0 32.0 198 0.56 0.46 49.6 50.1 0.43 12.6 13.0 — 57,275 57,275 2.63 3.01 6.01 58,244 High
Turnover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)

2.32 2.10 2.79 17.3 0.05 0.04 4.32 4.36 0.04 1.10 1.13 — 4,993 4,993 0.23 0.26 0.52 5,078 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 28.9 26.1 34.8 216 0.61 0.50 53.9 54.4 0.47 13.7 14.1 — 62,269 62,269 2.86 3.27 6.54 63,322 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

The Greens Indio Project Detailed Report, 8/29/2023
25 / 52
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru

4.56 4.27 3.54 25.3 0.06 0.05 4.62 4.67 0.04 1.17 1.21 — 5,230 5,230 0.30 0.29 8.50 5,334 High
Turnover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)

0.40 0.38 0.33 2.34 0.01 < 0.005 0.44 0.44 < 0.005 0.11 0.12 — 497 497 0.03 0.03 0.81 506 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 4.96 4.65 3.86 27.7 0.06 0.05 5.06 5.11 0.05 1.28 1.33 — 5,727 5,727 0.33 0.32 9.31 5,840

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
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — — — 807 807 0.06 0.01 — 811
High
Turnover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)
— — — — — — — — — — — — 338 338 0.02 < 0.005 — 340
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 125 125 0.01 < 0.005 — 126
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,271 1,271 0.09 0.01 — 1,276Page 204 of 2023 AGENDA ITEM #14.1 Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 742 of 3061 The Greens Indio Project Detailed Report, 8/29/2023
26 / 52
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — — — 807 807 0.06 0.01 — 811
High
Turnover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)
— — — — — — — — — — — — 338 338 0.02 < 0.005 — 340
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 125 125 0.01 < 0.005 — 126
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,271 1,271 0.09 0.01 — 1,276 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — — — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134
High
Turnover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)
— — — — — — — — — — — — 56.0 56.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 56.2 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 20.7 20.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 20.8 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 210 210 0.02 < 0.005 — 211

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
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2ePage 205 of 2023 AGENDA ITEM #14.1 Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 743 of 3061 The Greens Indio Project Detailed Report, 8/29/2023
27 / 52
Daily,——————————————————
Summer
(Max)
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru

0.03 0.01 0.27 0.23 < 0.005 0.02— 0.02 0.02— 0.02— 325 325 0.03 < 0.005— 326 High
Turnover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)

0.01 0.01 0.11 0.10 < 0.005 0.01— 0.01 0.01— 0.01— 136 136 0.01 < 0.005— 136 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00— 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 Total 0.04 0.02 0.39 0.32 < 0.005 0.03— 0.03 0.03— 0.03— 461 461 0.04 < 0.005— 462 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru

0.03 0.01 0.27 0.23 < 0.005 0.02— 0.02 0.02— 0.02— 325 325 0.03 < 0.005— 326 High
Turnover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)

0.01 0.01 0.11 0.10 < 0.005 0.01— 0.01 0.01— 0.01— 136 136 0.01 < 0.005— 136 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00— 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 Total 0.04 0.02 0.39 0.32 < 0.005 0.03— 0.03 0.03— 0.03— 461 461 0.04 < 0.005— 462 Annual——————————————————
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru

0.01 < 0.005 0.05 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005— < 0.005 < 0.005— < 0.005— 53.8 53.8 < 0.005 < 0.005— 53.9

The Greens Indio Project Detailed Report, 8/29/2023
28 / 52
High
Turnover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 22.5 22.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 22.6 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 76.3 76.3 0.01 < 0.005 — 76.5

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 TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 0.30 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.04 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

0.10 0.10 < 0.005 0.59 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.42 2.42 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.43 Total 0.10 0.44 < 0.005 0.59 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.42 2.42 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.43 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 0.30 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

The Greens Indio Project Detailed Report, 8/29/2023
29 / 52
Architect — 0.04 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ural
Total — 0.34 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 0.05 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.20 0.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.20 Total 0.01 0.07 < 0.005 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.20 0.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.20

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
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — — 5.55 23.0 28.6 0.57 0.01 — 47.0
High
Turnover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)
— — — — — — — — — — — 2.33 7.19 9.52 0.24 0.01 — 17.2

The Greens Indio Project Detailed Report, 8/29/2023
30 / 52
Parking
Lot
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Total——————————— 7.88 30.2 38.1 0.81 0.02— 64.2
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
——————————— 5.55 23.0 28.6 0.57 0.01— 47.0
High
Turnover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)—
—————————— 2.33 7.19 9.52 0.24 0.01— 17.2
Parking
Lot
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Total——————————— 7.88 30.2 38.1 0.81 0.02— 64.2
Annual——————————————————
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
——————————— 0.92 3.82 4.73 0.09 < 0.005— 7.78
High
Turnover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)—
—————————— 0.39 1.19 1.58 0.04 < 0.005— 2.85
Parking
Lot
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Total——————————— 1.30 5.01 6.31 0.13 < 0.005— 10.6

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

The Greens Indio Project Detailed Report, 8/29/2023
31 / 52

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
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — — 59.3 0.00 59.3 5.93 0.00 — 207
High
Turnover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)
— — — — — — — — — — — 25.7 0.00 25.7 2.56 0.00 — 89.8
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 84.9 0.00 84.9 8.49 0.00 — 297 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — — 59.3 0.00 59.3 5.93 0.00 — 207
High
Turnover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)
— — — — — — — — — — — 25.7 0.00 25.7 2.56 0.00 — 89.8
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 84.9 0.00 84.9 8.49 0.00 — 297 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

The Greens Indio Project Detailed Report, 8/29/2023
32 / 52
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — — 9.82 0.00 9.82 0.98 0.00 — 34.3
High
Turnover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)
— — — — — — — — — — — 4.25 0.00 4.25 0.42 0.00 — 14.9
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 14.1 0.00 14.1 1.41 0.00 — 49.2

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 14.9 14.9
High
Turnover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 6.25 6.25
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 21.2 21.2
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

The Greens Indio Project Detailed Report, 8/29/2023
33 / 52
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 14.9 14.9
High
Turnover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 6.25 6.25
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 21.2 21.2
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.47 2.47
High
Turnover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.04 1.04
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3.51 3.51

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

The Greens Indio Project Detailed Report, 8/29/2023
34 / 52
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
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)

The Greens Indio Project Detailed Report, 8/29/2023
35 / 52
Equipme TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e nt
Type
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
TOG 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

The Greens Indio Project Detailed Report, 8/29/2023
36 / 52

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
TOG 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 TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

The Greens Indio Project Detailed Report, 8/29/2023
37 / 52
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Avoided——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Remove d——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
———————————————————
Annual——————————————————
Avoided——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Remove d——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
———————————————————

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demolition Demolition 1/1/2024 1/20/2024 5.00 15.0—
Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/23/2024 1/31/2024 5.00 7.00—

The Greens Indio Project Detailed Report, 8/29/2023
38 / 52
Grading Grading 2/1/2024 3/15/2024 5.00 32.0—
Building Construction Building Construction 4/16/2024 9/16/2024 5.00 110— Paving Paving 3/18/2024 4/15/2024 5.00 21.0—
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 7/1/2024 9/16/2024 5.00 56.0— Trenching Trenching 2/1/2024 2/29/2024 5.00 21.0—

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Site Preparation Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 Site Preparation Scrapers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 423 0.48 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Graders Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 2.00 7.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 46.0 0.45

The Greens Indio Project Detailed Report, 8/29/2023
39 / 52
Paving Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 10.0 0.56
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48 Trenching Trenchers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 40.0 0.50

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition————
Demolition Worker 12.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor— 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 51.6 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck—— HHDT
Site Preparation————
Site Preparation Worker 7.50 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor— 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck—— HHDT
Grading————
Grading Worker 17.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor— 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 50.6 20.0 HHDT

The Greens Indio Project Detailed Report, 8/29/2023
40 / 52
Grading Onsite truck—— HHDT
Building Construction————
Building Construction Worker 5.69 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 2.22 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck—— HHDT
Paving————
Paving Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor— 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck—— HHDT
Architectural Coating————
Architectural Coating Worker 1.14 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor— 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck—— HHDT
Trenching————
Trenching Worker 2.50 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Trenching Vendor— 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Trenching Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Trenching Onsite truck—— HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water unpaved roads twice daily 55% 55%

The Greens Indio Project Detailed Report, 8/29/2023
41 / 52

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 0.00 0.00 20,325 6,775 6,856

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (Cubic Yards) Material Exported (Cubic Yards) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (Ton of Debris)
Acres Paved (acres)
Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,093 —
Site Preparation 0.00 0.00 10.5 0.00 —
Grading 4,660 8,290 64.0 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.62

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 3 74% 74%

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 0.00 0%
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 0.00 0%
Parking Lot 2.62 100%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

The Greens Indio Project Detailed Report, 8/29/2023
42 / 52
kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2024 0.00 457 0.03 < 0.005

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru
7,020 7,020 7,020 2,562,305 22,312 70,168 70,168 13,134,453 High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
612 612 612 223,380 2,356 6,117 6,117 1,252,145
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
0 0.00 20,325 6,775 6,856

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

The Greens Indio Project Detailed Report, 8/29/2023
43 / 52
Summer Days day/yr 180

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Fast Food Restaurant with Drive
Thru
645,407 457 0.0330 0.0040 1,013,412
High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)
270,328 457 0.0330 0.0040 424,466
Parking Lot 100,094 457 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 2,898,747 1,457,469 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 1,214,135 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 110—
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 47.6—
Parking Lot 0.00—

The Greens Indio Project Detailed Report, 8/29/2023
44 / 52

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 Fast Food Restaurant
with Drive Thru
Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.00 0.60 0.00 1.00
Fast Food Restaurant
with Drive Thru
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 1.80 4.00 4.00 18.0
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.00 0.60 0.00 1.00
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 1.80 4.00 4.00 18.0
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0
Fast Food Restaurant
with Drive Thru
Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0

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)Page 223 of 2023 AGENDA ITEM #14.1 Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 761 of 3061 The Greens Indio Project Detailed Report, 8/29/2023
45 / 52

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type
— —

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

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

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

The Greens Indio Project Detailed Report, 8/29/2023
46 / 52
Temperature and Extreme Heat 22.4 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 0.10 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise 0.00 meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 0.00 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 (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential inundation depth 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 50 meters (m) by 50 m, or about 164 feet (ft) by 164 ft.

Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 1 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought 1 0 0 N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

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

The 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. Page 225 of 2023 AGENDA ITEM #14.1 Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 763 of 3061 The Greens Indio Project Detailed Report, 8/29/2023
47 / 52

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 1 1 1 2
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought 1 1 1 2
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

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

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

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

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

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 88.7
AQ-PM 8.79
AQ-DPM 41.1
Drinking Water 11.6
Lead Risk Housing 6.58

The Greens Indio Project Detailed Report, 8/29/2023
48 / 52
Pesticides 43.3
Toxic Releases 2.74
Traffic 53.8
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 0.00
Groundwater 0.00
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 16.6
Impaired Water Bodies 77.3
Solid Waste 9.67
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 22.6
Cardio-vascular 44.6
Low Birth Weights 21.8
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 44.3
Housing 38.8
Linguistic 85.3
Poverty 41.5
Unemployment 35.0

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 63.53137431
Employed 91.91582189
Median HI 75.83728988

The Greens Indio Project Detailed Report, 8/29/2023
49 / 52
Education—
Bachelor's or higher 47.7223149
High school enrollment 24.76581548
Preschool enrollment 65.63582702
Transportation—
Auto Access 73.42486847
Active commuting 1.039394328
Social—
2-parent households 81.99666367
Voting 39.09919158
Neighborhood—
Alcohol availability 74.43859874
Park access 35.90401642
Retail density 25.49724111
Supermarket access 24.65032722
Tree canopy 0.500449121
Housing—
Homeownership 80.90594123
Housing habitability 75.28551264
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 45.43821378 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 76.90234826
Uncrowded housing 82.07365584
Health Outcomes—
Insured adults 74.96471192
Arthritis 88.1
Asthma ER Admissions 76.9
High Blood Pressure 88.4

The Greens Indio Project Detailed Report, 8/29/2023
50 / 52
Cancer (excluding skin) 68.9
Asthma 61.7
Coronary Heart Disease 90.3
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 86.1
Diagnosed Diabetes 86.4
Life Expectancy at Birth 43.1
Cognitively Disabled 62.4
Physically Disabled 45.1
Heart Attack ER Admissions 66.5
Mental Health Not Good 57.3
Chronic Kidney Disease 85.5
Obesity 39.2
Pedestrian Injuries 19.6
Physical Health Not Good 70.2
Stroke 91.3
Health Risk Behaviors—
Binge Drinking 5.5
Current Smoker 54.4
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 62.4
Climate Change Exposures—
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 13.5
Elderly 57.9
English Speaking 32.4
Foreign-born 27.0
Outdoor Workers 82.7

The Greens Indio Project Detailed Report, 8/29/2023
51 / 52
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 61.0
Traffic Density 57.2
Traffic Access 23.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 44.9
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 52.4

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 23.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 70.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.

8. User Changes to Default Data

The Greens Indio Project Detailed Report, 8/29/2023
52 / 52
Screen Justification
Construction: Construction Phases Anticipated construction timeline Construction: Off-Road Equipment Anticipated construction equipment Operations: Vehicle Data Per trip generation memo

Appendix B

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 770 of 3061

To: Dana Privitt, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

From: Shannon Mindeman and Alec Goodman, Rocks Biological Consulting Date: September 6, 2023
Subject: Biological and Aquatic Resources Constraints Assessment for The Greens Indio Project
This memo provides a summary of the biological and aquatic resources constraints assessment conducted by Rocks Biological Consulting (RBC) for The Greens Indio Project (project) in Indio, Riverside County, California (Figure 1). This memo also provides planning information about potential steps/permits that may be required if future development activities are proposed on the site. This information is general and intended for initial land planning activities.

METHODS
Database and Literature Review
Prior to visiting the project site, RBC conducted a desktop analysis of the approximately 7.8- acre project site by querying relevant biological and aquatic resource databases and reviewing current and historic aerial photography. A subsequent desktop review was conducted for the approximately 0.8-acre off-site improvements footprint. This review included, but was not limited to the following:
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB)1
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Special-Status Species Database2 • California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Rare Plant Inventory3 • United States Geological Survey (USGS) National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)4 and the USFWS National Wetland Inventory (NWI)5
• CDFW Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS) Database6 • Google Earth Pro Imagery7
1CDFW. (2023). California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Database. Retrieved January 5, 2023, and August 16, 2023, from https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB.
2USFWS (2023). Occurrence Information for Multiple Species with Jurisdiction of the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (CFWO).

Retrieved January 5, 2023, and August 16, 2023, from https://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/gis/cfwogis.html. 3CNPS Rare Plant Program. (2023). Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (online edition, v9). Retrieved January 5, 2023, and August 16, 2023, from http://www.rareplants.cnps.org. 4USGS. (2023). The National Map, Advanced Viewer. U.S. Department of Interior. Retrieved January 5, 2023, and August 16, 2023, from https://viewer.nationalmap.gov/advanced-viewer.
5 USFWS (2023). National Wetlands Inventory website. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

Retrieved January 5, 2023, and August 16, 2023, from https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper. 6CDFW. (2023). Biogeographic Information and Observation System. Retrieved January 5, 2023, and August 16, 2023, from https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios/.
7 Google Earth Pro V 7.3.4.8573. (2023). Retrieved January and August 2023.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 771 of 3061 2 Field Survey
On January 6, 2023, RBC associate biologist Alec Goodman conducted a field survey that included vegetation mapping of the project site plus a 100-foot buffer, a general biological survey, habitat assessments for special-status species, and a constraints-level aquatic resource assessment of the project site. An additional survey was conducted within the off-site improvements footprint on August 18, 2023 by RBC biologists Hannah Swarthout and Kelsey Woldt. This follow-up survey included vegetation mapping of the off-site improvements footprint plus a 100-foot buffer, a general biological survey, habitat assessments for special-status species, and a constraints-level aquatic resource assessment of the additional area.

Vegetation was mapped to determine the type and condition of habitats that occur on site. The potential for special-status plant and wildlife species to occur on the project site and off-site improvements footprint was based on habitat suitability and documented occurrences (e.g., CNDDB and USFWS records) in the vicinity. No focused or protocol surveys for special-status species were conducted as part of this assessment.

If present, on-site areas with depressions, drainage patterns, wetland vegetation, or riparian vegetation were assessed for potential state and/or federal jurisdictional status, with focus on the presence of defined channels, soils, and hydrology. A formal jurisdictional aquatic resources delineation was not conducted as part of this task.

RESULTS
Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan The project site and off-site improvements footprint are located within the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) Plan Area, and the City of Indio is a participating jurisdiction in the plan. As such, any projects within the Plan Area would be subject to CVMSHCP requirements and would also be eligible for ‘take authority’ and simplified processing for potential take of Covered Species under the plan if needed.

The CVMSHCP includes mapping for targeted areas within the plan area for conservation, i.e., Conservation Areas. Such areas were determined through analysis of a combination of ecological and jurisdictional factors. The CVMSHCP also sets Conservation Goals and Objectives to ensure adequate preservation of the Covered Species and natural communities within the CVMSHCP Reserve System. Additionally, the CVMSHCP also designates areas of Core Habitat, Other Conserved Habitat, Essential Ecological Processes, and Biological Corridors and Linkages.

The project site and off-site improvements footprint are not located within or adjacent to a Conservation Area or Core Habitat, Other Conserved Habitat, Essential Ecological Process, or Biological Corridor and Linkage.

Per the CVMSHCP Section 5.2.1.1 Local Development Mitigation Fee, the project will be conditioned by the lead agency to pay a mitigation fee for the costs of mitigating impacts of the project. Based on the local development mitigation fee schedule for fiscal year 2024 (effective July 1, 2023 – June 30, 2024), fees for commercial and/or industrial development would be $7,225 per acre8.The ‘Local Development Mitigation Fees’ are subject to change following each fiscal year. As such, the applicant shall refer to the updated fee amounts once the schedule for project construction is finalized.
8 Coachella Valley Conservation Commission. (2023). Local Development Mitigation Fee. Retrieved September 1, 2023, from https://cvmshcp.org/ldmf/.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 772 of 3061 3 As a Covered Activity located outside of and not directly adjacent to designated Conservation Areas, no additional regulatory compliance measures are required for compliance with the CVMSHCP.

Vegetation Communities
The vegetation on site consists primarily of highly compacted disturbed habitat. The project site also supports developed habitat, which includes the existing parking lot, adjacent golf course, and commercial areas with plantings of ornamental species (Figure 2). The off-site improvements area is less disturbed and supports some native habitats; vegetation within the off-site improvements footprint includes bush seepweed scrub, disturbed allscale scrub, mesquite thickets, and ornamental vegetation (Figure 2).

Bush seepweed scrub occurs at the western end of the off-site improvements footprint. Bush seepweed scrub within the off-site improvements footprint (0.02 acre) is composed primarily of bush seepweed (Suaeda nigra) and secondarily of allscale (Atriplex polycarpa). Bush seepweed is a wetland indicator plant species per the Army Corps of Engineers’ Arid West 2020 Regional Wetland Plant List9.

Bush seepweed scrub (global ranking G4; state ranking S3) is recognized by CDFW as a sensitive natural community under CEQA10.

Developed land supports little to no native vegetation and is comprised of human-made structures (buildings, pavement, etc.) or human-made disturbances (vegetation clearing, mowing, vehicle disturbance, etc.). The developed land (2.4 acres) on the project site consists of landscaping, including plantings of non-native species such as Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), fountain grass (Pennisetum setaceum), and Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta). Developed land is also present in the off-site improvements footprint (0.04 acre) and includes primarily ornamental vegetation.

Developed land is not recognized by CDFW10; therefore, it is not considered a sensitive natural community under CEQA.

Disturbed land comprises the majority of the project site. The disturbed land on site (5.4 acres) has been previously graded and is composed of compacted gravelly soils. The disturbed land supports very little vegetation, including non-native herbaceous species such as puncture vine (Tribulus terrestris), Mediterranean grass (Schismus sp.), and nettle leaf goosefoot (Chenopodium murale). Disturbed land is also present in the off-site improvements footprint (0.6 acre) and is largely unvegetated due to grading, with the exception of a few allscale scrub plants.

Disturbed land is not recognized by CDFW10; therefore, it is not considered a sensitive natural community under CEQA.

Disturbed allscale scrub spans the majority of the eastern half of the off-site improvements footprint. Disturbed allscale scrub (0.03 acre) includes allscale scrub and fourwing saltbush (Atriplex canescens), as well as sparse bush seepweed. This vegetation community is similar in composition to allscale scrub; however, it has experienced disturbances which have degraded 9 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (2020). National Wetland Plant List, version 3.5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, MH. Retrieved August 2023, from http://wetland-plants.usace.army.mil/.
10CDFW. (2023). California Natural Community List. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Retrieved August 2023, from https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=153398&inline.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 773 of 3061 4 its ecological quality. Disturbances on site include fire, grading, trash dumping, mounded dirt, and uprooted vegetation. Grading and dirt/vegetation mounds appear to be associated with construction of the adjacent road and sidewalk.

Allscale scrub (global ranking G4; state ranking S4) is not recognized by CDFW10 as a sensitive natural community under CEQA.

Mesquite thickets occur at the eastern end of the off-site improvements footprint. Mesquite thickets within the off-site improvements footprint (0.04 acre) is composed of a single species, honey mesquite (Prosopsis glandulosa).

Mesquite thickets (global ranking G5; state ranking S3) is recognized by CDFW10 as a sensitive natural community under CEQA.

Ornamental vegetation borders the Indio Municipal Golf Course at the western end of the offsite improvements footprint. Ornamental vegetation is typically classified as an area containing landscaped, aesthetically appealing plant species. Ornamental vegetation within the off-site improvement area (0.03 acre) includes Mexican palo verde (Parkinsonia aculeata) and Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta).

Ornamental habitat is not recognized by CDFW10; therefore, it is not considered a sensitive natural community under CEQA.

Sensitive Natural Communities
Bush seepweed scrub (G4/S3) and mesquite thickets (G5/S3) occur within the off-site improvements footprint. Vegetation communities with a state ranking of S1-S3 are considered sensitive natural communities by CDFW covered under CEQA. A S3 state ranking indicates that a vegetation community is “Vulnerable — At moderate risk of extirpation in the jurisdiction due to a fairly restricted range, relatively few populations or occurrences, recent and widespread declines, threats, or other factors”11. Impacts to bush seepweed and mesquite thickets must be avoided with project implementation. If avoidance is not feasible, compensatory mitigation may be required.

Potential Aquatic Resources
The site does not support aquatic resources potentially jurisdictional by the Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, or CDFW. Additionally, Section 10 navigable waters of the U.S. do not occur within the project site or off-site improvements footprint. No USGS NHD blue line streams or USFWS NWI aquatic features were identified within the project site or off-site improvements footprint during the project desktop review. No evidence of flows or drainage patterns were observed during the constraints-level assessments (e.g., no soil moisture or saturation, no ordinary high water mark indicators or swale/drainage patterns).

Although several Mexican palo verde and bush seepweed, wetland indicator plant species per the Army Corps of Engineers’ Arid West 2020 Regional Wetland Plant List9, were observed within the off-site improvements footprint, no wetland hydrology indicators were documented in association. Therefore, these areas are not expected to qualify as wetland waters of the U.S./state or associated wetland habitat jurisdictional by CDFW. 11 NatureServe. (2023). Definitions of NatureServe Conservation Status Ranks. Retrieved September 2023, from https://help.natureserve.org/biotics/content/record_management/Element_Files/Element_Tracking/ETRACK_Definitions_of_Heritage _Conservation_Status_Ranks.htm

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 774 of 3061 5 Special-Status Species Habitat Assessments
No federally or state-listed as threatened or endangered plant or wildlife species were observed on site during the field surveys, and none have a moderate or high potential for occurrence. The federally threatened and state-endangered Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard (Uma inornata), and the federally endangered Coachella Valley milk-vetch (Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae) have been documented within three miles of the project site and off-site improvements footprint, but suitable habitat is not present on site for the either species.

The CDFW Species of Special Concern (SSC) western yellow bat (Lasiurus xanthinus), though not observed during the survey, has a moderate potential to occur. The on-site Mexican fan palms (Washingtonia robusta) are suitable for roosting, and western yellow bats are often documented foraging in open, grassy areas with water features, such as those like the adjacent golf course.

With project implementation, direct impacts on western yellow bat could occur in the form of habitat destruction. Western yellow bat is a Covered Species under the CVMSHCP. Please note that this species was once considered to be a subspecies of southern yellow bat (Larius ega) and the CVMSCHP documents use this former name. Through conformance with CVMSHCP regulations and guidelines, western yellow bat habitat would be adequately conserved through the establishment of CVMSHCP Conservation Areas.

Direct impacts on western yellow bat may also result from potential death, injury, or harassment during project construction. Avoidance and minimization measures are recommended to avoid direct take of this species. The project shall avoid removal or trimming of palm trees. If avoidance is not feasible, pre-construction surveys should be conducted to determine the presence or absence of roosting bats prior to any removal or trimming of on-site palm trees. If western yellow bats are observed, appropriate avoidance and minimization should be implemented and coordination with CDFW may be required. If bats are not documented during the pre-construction survey, no further measures would be required if palm removal or trimming is initiated immediately after the pre-construction survey.

No other special-status wildlife species are considered to have a moderate or high potential for occurrence on site. The burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), a CDFW SSC, is known from the region; however, suitable habitat and burrows necessary to support this species were not documented on the site or in surrounding areas. Additionally, the species nor their sign was observed during the field surveys. As such, burrowing owl is considered to have a low potential for occurrence.

Wildlife Movement Corridors
A wildlife corridor can be defined as a physical feature that links wildlife habitat, often consisting of native vegetation that joins two or more larger areas of similar wildlife habitat. RBC reviewed the CDFW BIOS database to determine if the project site is located within an Essential Connectivity Area, as mapped through the California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project. The project site and off-site improvements footprint do not occur within a mapped wildlife corridor, and the nearest recognized corridor is roughly five miles northwest of the site.

Nesting Birds
The project site and off-site improvements footprint have the potential to support avian nests, which would be protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). If vegetation removal or ground-breaking activities are proposed during any potential future projects, these should occur outside of the breeding season (generally February 15 to August 31) to avoid direct impacts on raptors and/or native/migratory birds. If removal of habitat in the proposed area of disturbance must occur during the breeding season, a pre-construction survey would be required to

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 775 of 3061 6 determine the presence or absence of nesting birds in the proposed area of disturbance. If nesting birds are observed, appropriate avoidance and minimization should be implemented and coordination with CDFW/USFWS may be required. If nesting birds are not documented during the pre-construction survey, no further measures would be required if site disturbance is initiated immediately after the pre-construction survey.

CONCLUSIONS
The project site is composed primarily of disturbed and developed habitat and supports minimal native habitat. The off-site improvements footprint includes two CDFW sensitive natural communities, bush seepweed and mesquite thickets. Impacts to bush seepweed and mesquite thickets should be avoided if possible. If avoidance of these sensitive natural communities is not feasible, compensatory mitigation may be required. No potentially jurisdictional aquatic features were identified within the project site or off-site improvements footprint during the desktop review or constraints-level aquatic resource assessment. Assuming impacts are as shown in Figure 2, no formal jurisdictional delineation or associated reporting is recommended.

The project site and off-site improvements footprint are not located in any CVMSHCPdesignated special conservation areas and does not have a high likelihood of supporting any ‘red flag’ protected plant or wildlife species. Burrowing owl occurs in the general region; however, the project site and off-site improvements footprint lack suitable habitat and burrows, therefore the potential for this species to occur on site is low.

Any future development would be subject to the CVMSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee because the project site and off-site improvements footprint occur within the Plan Area and the City of Indio is a participant in the plan. In addition, western yellow bat and standard nesting bird avoidance measures would be required during construction activities.

This memo is a constraints-level summary of biological and aquatic resources and is intended for initial land/site planning purposes. Note that vegetation mapping and habitat assessments performed for this analysis could be used for future preparation of a biological technical report, including impact analysis, once a specific project/site plan is developed; such survey information is typically considered valid for one to two years.

ATTACHMENTS
Figure 1. Project Location
Figure 2. Vegetation

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 776 of 3061 !"`$
Ave 46
Golf Center Pkwy
Whitewater River
Indio Blvd
Golf Center Pkwy
Ave 44
Jaskson St
Ave 43
Ave 42
AÙ
Monroe St
INDIO

RIVERSIDE COUNTY
Project Boundary
ROCKS

BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING
Figure
1 0 1,000 2,000
Feet N
Project Location

THE GREENS INDIO
Aerial Photo: USDA NAIP 2022
!
Project Site
!"`$
AÙ
A¿
!"`$

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 777 of 3061 Ave 42
Jackson St
Generations Dr
Project Site Boundary
Off-Site Improvements Footprint Boundary
Survey Area
Vegetation
Mesquite Thickets
Bush Seepweed Scrub
Disturbed Allscale Scrub
Ornamental
Disturbed
Developed ROCKS

BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING
0 90 180
Feet
N

THE GREENS INDIO
Aerial Photo: Nearmap 2023
Figure 2
Vegetation

Appendix C

CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 779 of 3061 kimley-horn.com 3801 University Ave, Ste 300, Riverside, CA 92501 951-543-9868

MEMORANDUM
To: Frontier Real Estate Investments
31791 Los Rios St., San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
From: Jessica Mauck, MA, RPA
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
3801 University Ave., Ste 300, Riverside, CA 92501
Date: 18 August 2023
Subject:

Cultural Resources Assessment for The Greens - Indio Project in the City of Indio, Riverside County, California
To Whom It May Concern:

At the request of Frontier Real Estate Investments, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (KHA) conducted a Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment of the subject property located in the City of Indio, Riverside County, California. This study was completed to support the initial review of potential impacts to cultural resources within the property as a result of the proposed The Greens - Indio Project (Project). A literature review was conducted for the property to identify the likelihood of present cultural resources that would be adversely impacted by the Project, the results of which are presented in this memorandum. All research, analysis, and reporting for this effort was conducted by a cultural resources management professional that meets Secretary of Interior (SOI) Professional Qualifications in Archaeology and History (Attachment D).

Project Location
The Project area is in the central portion of the City of Indio within the central portion of the County of Riverside, California (Attachment A: Figure 1). The Project area encompasses 6.12 acres (APN 692- 670-001, -014, and -017; 692-040-020 and -007) and is generally bordered by urban development, with a RV storage facility to the north, the Indio Municipal Golf Course to the east, Indio Town Center to the south, and an existing AutoZone, Arco Gas station and convenience store to the west (Attachment A: Figure 2). Regional access is provided by Interstate 10 (I-10), located approximately

0.4 mile south of the project site, and local access to the project site is provided from Avenue 42 and Jackson Street.

The Project area is located within the heart of Coachella Valley and lies within the prehistoric footprint of Lake Cahuilla (Attachment A: Figure 3). It is bounded on the north by the San Andreas Fault and a channel of the Whitewater River to the south. The area, like much of California, contains

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 780 of 3061

kimley-horn.com 3801 University Ave, Ste 300, Riverside, CA 92501 951-543-9868 a unique and diverse climate and environment. This regional diversity provided Native Californians the ability to exploit a range of different plants, animals, and natural resources (Lightfoot 2009).

The proposed Project area is located within the ancestral territory of the Cahuilla. Although Alfred Kroeber recorded the territories of southern California tribes in 1925, the ancient territorial borders remain vague for two reasons: first, territorial boundaries were flexible and, secondly, indigenous borders and land use were not recorded until after European contact destroyed native lifeways.

Although firm and defining borders cannot be known, archaeological, ethnographic, and historic evidence exists to support the prehistoric occupation and use by the Cahuilla.

Research
An archaeological/historical resources records search request was submitted to the Eastern Information Center (EIC) on January 18, 2023 with follow-ups submitted on April 26, June 20, and August 15, 2023 (Attachment B). No response has been received. A Sacred Lands File (SLF) records search request was submitted to the Native American Heritage Commission on March 29, 2023 and results were received on April 7, 2023. The results indicated no SLFs were on record within or near the Project area (Attachment C). No outreach to Native American Tribes was conducted as a part of the cultural resources assessment, as the City of Indio will conduct Government-to-Government with Native American Tribes regarding their knowledge and concerns of present or potential Tribal Cultural Resources within the Project area.

A review of available historical and topographic maps and technical studies was conducted to ascertain the potential for existing buried and built cultural resources. The literature review revealed that the project area is located entirely within the former footprint of Lake Cahuilla (Historic Aerials).

The banks of Lake Cahuilla provided a notable home to many Cahuilla villages, though none that would have intersected with the Project area given it falls within the historic footprint of the river itself. Historic maps show the project was utilized for agriculture in 1953 until sometime between 1972 and 1977, at which point in time a parking lot was developed in the southeastern portion of the Project area. The rest of the Project area has remained vacant, though shows visible signs of surface soil modification, potentially as a result of prior agricultural operations on site (Historic Aerials).

Results
No results were received from the Eastern Information Center (EIC) that would indicate the presence of previously recorded cultural resources within or adjacent to the Project area. Further, results from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) noted there are no Sacred Lands File (SLF) records within or near the Project area. Due to existing development in the southeastern

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 781 of 3061

kimley-horn.com 3801 University Ave, Ste 300, Riverside, CA 92501 951-543-9868 portion of the project and surficial soil modifications that have occurred across the remainder of the Project area, the likelihood of surficial archaeological resources being present is low. Additionally, given the Project area is located within the footprint of the historic Lake Cahuilla, the likelihood of buried archaeological resources being present within the Project area is low. Finally, the site does not contain any standing buildings or structures that are older than 45 years, or any younger buildings that hold more recent historical value, that meet the definition of a cultural resource.

Recommendations
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (KHA) did not identify any existing cultural resources, nor the potential for unknown buried cultural resources, as a part of the Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment. As such, no further consideration regarding the impacts to cultural resources as a result of the Project is recommended during the environmental review process. However, it is recommended that Project include conditions that outline process for the inadvertent discovery and treatment of cultural resources, as well as conditions outlining the legal process for inadvertent discovery of human remains referenced in California State Health and Safety Code 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. An example of the recommended language is below:

1. Inadvertent Discoveries of Cultural Resources: In the event that cultural resources are discovered during Project implementation, all earthwork and ground-disturbing activities will halt within 100 feet of the discovery. The Lead Agency and an archaeologist that meets Secretary of Interior Professional Qualifications for Archaeology will immediately be notified and the archaeologist will identify whether the resource is potentially significant and, therefore, requires further evaluation. If the cultural resources are Native American in origin, the Consulting Tribe(s) must be immediately contacted and consulted regarding potential significance and treatment of the resource. For any potential significant cultural resources, the archaeologist will make recommendations to the Lead Agency to avoid or mitigate impacts to the resource. This may include the addition of archaeological monitoring for all remaining ground-disturbing activities.

Preservation in place (i.e. avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery to excavate the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. Disposition of significant Native American archaeological materials, such as reburial or curation by a qualified repository within the County, will be agreed upon by the Lead Agency and Consulting Tribe(s). Any significant non-Native American archaeological material shall be curated at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials within the County, if such an institution agrees to

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 782 of 3061

kimley-horn.com 3801 University Ave, Ste 300, Riverside, CA 92501 951-543-9868 accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, it shall be offered to a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes.

All identified cultural resources will be recorded on appropriate CA DPR 523 series forms and evaluated for significance. All findings will be included within a Monitoring Report drafted by the archaeologist and submitted to the Lead Agency and Consulting Tribe(s) for review. Final copies of the Monitoring Report will be submitted to the Lead Agency, Consulting Tribe(s), and Eastern Information Center (EIC).

2. Inadvertent Discoveries of Human Remains: If human remains are encountered during the undertaking, California State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that excavation shall stop and no further disturbance shall occur within 100 feet of the discovery until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition of the remains pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC. If the NAHC is unable to identify an MLD, the MLD fails to make a recommendation, or the landowner or his/her authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the MLD, the human remains and associated items will be interred on the property with appropriate dignity in a location that will not be subject to future disturbance.

Sincerely,
Jessica Mauck, MA, RPA
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Register of Professional Archaeologists (RPA) Number: 37243944 Attachment A: Maps and Figures
Attachment B: Eastern Information Center (EIC) Records Search Request Attachment C: Sacred Lands File (SLF) Records Search Request and Results Attachment D: Professional Qualifications

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 783 of 3061

kimley-horn.com 3801 University Ave, Ste 300, Riverside, CA 92501 951-543-9868 References
Historic Aerials. https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer. Accessed March 29, 2023.

Kroeber, Alfred L. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin No. 78. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. Reprinted in 1976, New York:

Dover.

Lightfoot, Kent G. and Otis Parrish 2009. California Indians and Their Environment. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 784 of 3061

kimley-horn.com 3801 University Ave, Ste 300, Riverside, CA 92501 951-543-9868 Attachment A:

Maps and Figures

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 785 of 3061

kimley-horn.com 3801 University Ave, Ste 300, Riverside, CA 92501 951-543-9868 Figure 1: Project Area within the City of Indio
Figure 2: Project Area

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 786 of 3061

kimley-horn.com 3801 University Ave, Ste 300, Riverside, CA 92501 951-543-9868 Figure 3: The Project Area within Lake Cahuilla

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 787 of 3061

kimley-horn.com 3801 University Ave, Ste 300, Riverside, CA 92501 951-543-9868 Attachment B:

Eastern Information Center (EIC)
Records Search Request

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 788 of 3061 January 18, 2023
M.C. Hall, Coordinator
Eastern Information Center
University of California, Riverside
Department of Anthropology
Riverside, CA 92521‐0418
RE: Records Search Request
Kimley‐Horn and Associates, Inc. (Kimley‐Horn) would like to submit this letter as a request for a records search for a proposed project in the City of Indio.

Contact Information
Dana C. Privitt, AICP
Kimley‐Horn and Associates, Inc.
1100 Town and Country Road, Suite 700
Orange CA 92868
(714) 786‐6128
Dana.Privitt@kimley‐horn.com
Project Description
Project Name: The Greens
The projectsite islocated at the northeastern corner of Jackson Street and Avenue 42 (APNs 692‐670‐ 001, ‐014, and ‐017), in the City of Indio. The site is approximately 6.34 acres and is bordered by a surface parking lot to the north, Jackson Street to the west, Avenue 42 to the south, and the Lights at Indio Golf Course to the east.

The Project proposes a mixed‐use development consisting of 13,288 square feet (sf) of commercial retail space including the following: a 3,750 sf fast food restaurant with drive‐through; a 980 sf coffee shop with drive‐through; a 3,996 sf fast food restaurant with drive‐through; and a 4,562 sf high turnover sit down restaurant. Additionally, a new golf course parking lot, consisting of 87 parking stalls, will be constructed on City owned property located on the southeastern corner of the site, for use by the golf course.

Please let me know if you need any additional information for the records search, thank you. kimley‐horn.com 1100 Town and Country Road, Suite 700 Orange CA 92868 714 705‐1372

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 789 of 3061

kimley-horn.com 3801 University Ave, Ste 300, Riverside, CA 92501 951-543-9868 Attachment C:

Sacred Lands File (SLF)
Records Search Request and Results

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 790 of 3061 Local Government Tribal Consultation List Request
Native American Heritage Commission
1550 Harbor Blvd, Suite 100
West Sacramento, CA 95691
916-373-3710
916-373-5471 – Fax
[email protected]
Type of List Requested
☐ CEQA Tribal Consultation List (AB 52) – Per Public Resources Code § 21080.3.1, subs. (b), (d), (e) and 21080.3.2 ☐ General Plan (SB 18) - Per Government Code § 65352.3.

Local Action Type:
___ General Plan ___ General Plan Element ___ General Plan Amendment ___ Specific Plan ___ Specific Plan Amendment ___ Pre-planning Outreach Activity Required Information
Project Title:____________________________________________________________________________ Local Government/Lead Agency: ___________________________________________________________ Contact Person: __________________________________________________________________________ Street Address: ___________________________________________________________________________ City:_____________________________________________________ Zip:__________________________ Phone:____________________________________ Fax:_________________________________________ Email:_____________________________________________
Specific Area Subject to Proposed Action
County:________________________________ City/Community: ___________________________ Project Description:

Additional Request
☐ Sacred Lands File Search - Required Information:

USGS Quadrangle Name(s):____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Township:___________________ Range:___________________ Section(s):___________________

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 791 of 3061 STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION

April 7, 2023
Jessica Mauck
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Via Email to: [email protected]
Re: Native American Tribal Consultation, Pursuant to the Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), Amendments to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014), Public Resources Code Sections 5097.94 (m), 21073, 21074, 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3, 21083.09, 21084.2 and 21084.3, The Greens - Indio Project, Riverside County Dear Ms. Mauck:

Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1 (c), attached is a consultation list of tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the above-listed project. Please note that the intent of the AB 52 amendments to CEQA is to avoid and/or mitigate impacts to tribal cultural resources, (Pub. Resources Code §21084.3 (a)) (“Public agencies shall, when feasible, avoid damaging effects to any tribal cultural resource.”) Public Resources Code sections 21080.3.1 and 21084.3(c) require CEQA lead agencies to consult with California Native American tribes that have requested notice from such agencies of proposed projects in the geographic area that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the tribes on projects for which a Notice of Preparation or Notice of Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration has been filed on or after July 1, 2015. Specifically, Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1 (d) provides:

Within 14 days of determining that an application for a project is complete or a decision by a public agency to undertake a project, the lead agency shall provide formal notification to the designated contact of, or a tribal representative of, traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes that have requested notice, which shall be accomplished by means of at least one written notification that includes a brief description of the proposed project and its location, the lead agency contact information, and a notification that the California Native American tribe has 30 days to request consultation pursuant to this section.

The AB 52 amendments to CEQA law does not preclude initiating consultation with the tribes that are culturally and traditionally affiliated within your jurisdiction prior to receiving requests for notification of projects in the tribe’s areas of traditional and cultural affiliation. The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) recommends, but does not require, early consultation as a best practice to ensure that lead agencies receive sufficient information about cultural resources in a project area to avoid damaging effects to tribal cultural resources.

The NAHC also recommends, but does not require that agencies should also include with their notification letters, information regarding any cultural resources assessment that has been completed on the area of potential effect (APE), such as:

1. The results of any record search that may have been conducted at an Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), including, but not limited to:

CHAIRPERSON
Laura Miranda
Luiseño

VICE CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash

SECRETARY
Sara Dutschke
Miwok

COMMISSIONER
Isaac Bojorquez
Ohlone-Costanoan

COMMISSIONER
Buffy McQuillen
Yokayo Pomo, Yuki,
Nomlaki

COMMISSIONER
Wayne Nelson
Luiseño

COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaay

COMMISSIONER
[Vacant]

COMMISSIONER
[Vacant]

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Raymond C.

Hitchcock
Miwok/Nisenan

NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
NAHC.ca.gov

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 792 of 3061

• A listing of any and all known cultural resources that have already been recorded on or adjacent to the APE, such as known archaeological sites;
• Copies of any and all cultural resource records and study reports that may have been provided by the Information Center as part of the records search response; • Whether the records search indicates a low, moderate, or high probability that unrecorded cultural resources are located in the APE; and
• If a survey is recommended by the Information Center to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present.

2. The results of any archaeological inventory survey that was conducted, including:
• Any report that may contain site forms, site significance, and suggested mitigation measures.

All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum, and not be made available for public disclosure in accordance with Government Code section 6254.10.

3. The result of any Sacred Lands File (SLF) check conducted through the Native American Heritage Commission was negative.

4. Any ethnographic studies conducted for any area including all or part of the APE; and

5. Any geotechnical reports regarding all or part of the APE.

Lead agencies should be aware that records maintained by the NAHC and CHRIS are not exhaustive and a negative response to these searches does not preclude the existence of a tribal cultural resource. A tribe may be the only source of information regarding the existence of a tribal cultural resource.

This information will aid tribes in determining whether to request formal consultation. In the event that they do, having the information beforehand will help to facilitate the consultation process.

If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify the NAHC. With your assistance, we can assure that our consultation list remains current.

If you have any questions, please contact me at my email address: [email protected].

Sincerely,
Andrew Green
Cultural Resources Analyst
Attachment

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 793 of 3061

kimley-horn.com 3801 University Ave, Ste 300, Riverside, CA 92501 951-543-9868 Attachment D:

Professional Qualifications

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 794 of 3061 Jessica Mauck, MA, RPA
Cultural Resources Management Practice Builder
Jessica has more than 10 years of experience focused on California cultural resources management with a focus on historic
preservation and heritage stewardship. Due to her background working for Federal and Tribal Government, she has a robust background in effective communication between diverse groups of stakeholders and maintains a strong understanding of complex subject matters related to historic preservation and environmental law. She has been resposible for all aspects of fieldwork, technical reporting, and consultation for compliance with Federal and California historic preservation and environmental law. She meets Secretary of Interior (SOI) Professional Qualifications and is listed on the Register of Professional Archaeologists.

RELEVANT RECENT EXPERIENCE
• 2245 W. Valley Blvd Project, Historic Property Resources Assessment, Colton, CA • BLM Land Sale Project, Historic Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report, Barstow, CA
• Tracy Emergency Shelter, Cultural Resources Assessment (Archaeology and Historic Built Environment), Tracy, CA
• LA ART Project, Environmental Support Services (Aesthetics, Archaeology, and Historic Built Environment), Los Angeles, CA
• Irwindale Speedway, Cultural Resources Assessment (Archaeology and Historic Built Environment), Irwindale, CA
• 1610 Artesia Blvd Project, Cultural Resources Assessment (Archaeology and Historic Built Environment), Gardena, CA
• Lowes Norwalk Relocation Project, Cultural Resources Assessment (Archaeology and Historic Built Environment), Norwalk, CA
• Park 55 Project, Cultural Resources Assessment (Archaeology and Historic Built Environment), Santa Ana, CA
• Hollister Airport Runway 6 Improvements, Cultural Resources Assessment (Archaeology and Historic Built Environment), Hollister, CA
• The Greens - Indio Project, Cultural Resources Assessment (Archaeology and Historic Built Environment), Indio, CA
• Crafton Pipeline Replacement Project, CEQA Consulting Party (Cultural/Historic and Tribal Cultural Resources), Redlands, CA*
• Warmington Residential Project, CEQA Consulting Party (Cultural/Historic and Tribal Cultural Resources), San Bernardino, CA*
• Caltrans SR-138 Improvements Project, CEQA and NHPA Consulting Party (Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources), Cajon Pass, CA*
• High Speed Rail Project (Bakersfield to Palmdale, Palmdale to Burbank), CEQA Consulting Party (Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources), Various Cities, CA*
• Brightline Xpress West High Speed Rail Project, NHPA Consulting Party and NEPA Cooperating Agency (Aesthetics, AQ, Visual, Vibration/Noise, Biological, and Cultural/Historic Resources), Various Cities, CA* • Edwards Solar/Transmission Line Project, CEQA, NHPA, and NEPA Consulting Party (Biological, Cultural/Historic, and Tribal Cultural Resources), Kern County, CA* *Prior to joining Kimley-Horn

EDUCATION
• Master of Arts,
Historical
Archaeology,
University of
Leicester, England
• Bachelor of Arts,
Anthropology,
University of
California, Los
Angeles

PROFESSIONAL

AFFILIATIONS
• Register of
Professional
Archaeologists (2015-
Present)
• Society for American
Archaeology Desert
Renewable Energy
Conservation Plan
(DRECP) Task Force
Chair (2021-2023)
• CALFIRE Native
American Advisory
Council (2019-2023)
• Caltrans Native
American Advisory
Council (2022-2023)

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 795 of 3061 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. – Cultural Resources Management Practice Builder – 02/27/2023- Present
• Responsible for building the organization’s CRM practice to handle compliance with State and Federal Laws, such as the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as it relates to archaeological resources, historic built environment resources, and Tribal cultural resources
• Drafts/reviews cultural resources-based scopes of work and conducts (or oversees the implementation of) research, fieldwork, and technical reporting for Phase I inventory, Phase II evaluation, and Phase III data recovery efforts for archaeological and built historic resources • Conducts outreach to Tribes for report-based information gathering and supports government-to-government Tribal Consultation
• Drafts/reviews cultural resource-based project mitigation and conditions, cultural sections in environmental documents, and various cultural resource-based management plans (Cultural Resources Management Plans, Monitoring and Treatment Plans, Plans of Action, etc.)
San Manuel Band of Mission Indians – Director of Cultural Resources Management – 02/10/2020- 02/17/2023
• Oversees the department’s efforts to enhance the Tribe’s heritage stewardship program as it relates to the many facets of cultural preservation and revitalization – includes creating/managing the department budget, managing all department staff, conducting outreach to the Tribal community to ascertain needs for future programming, creating intra-departmental and inter-departmental policy/procedure alongside program growth, and drafting/submitting regular reports to applicable Tribal bodies and the Federal Government • Oversees a robust regulatory compliance and land management program for historic preservation, environmental, and land use laws/policies (particularly CEQA, SB18, NEPA, and NHPA) on the Tribe’s Reservation and off-Reservation properties, as well as across the Tribe’s 7.4 million acre ancestral territory • Manages a prominent reclamation effort of the Tribe’s ancestral lands, ancestors, and cultural materials via acquisition of materials/lands via purchase, donation, and legal repatriation under applicable state/federal law, as well as legal access to private/government lands via permits, conservation easements, MOU/MOA, etc. • Manages various digital and physical data resources, such as the cultural Geographical Information System (GIS) platform and the OnBase digital regulatory project management/reference library repository, as well as oversees management of a physical Archive and Curation facility that contains thousands of archival, archaeological, and ethnographic materials
• Spearheads a robust capacity-building program that includes increasing public awareness of the Tribe’s history/culture across their ancestral lands, building cultural literacy within Tribal Government staff, and providing technical and professional training to Tribal community members of all ages • Facilitates the department’s Tribal outreach efforts with the general population, the Cultural Advisor Working Group (CAWG), and Tribal leadership to ensure community needs are understood and met within departmental programming, which has led to the department increasing staff and programming efforts by 400% in 2.5 years
San Manuel Band of Mission Indians – Cultural Resources Analyst – 05/17/2017-02/07/2020 (Promoted) • Created the Tribe’s CEQA and SB18 regulatory program and managed consultation with hundreds of agencies, developers, etc. pursuant to CEQA, SB18, NEPA, and NHPA for projects within the Tribe’s 7.4 million acre ancestral territory
• Responsible for creating and maintaining partnerships with external agencies with an emphasis on providing regular assistance and steady, transparent communication in a manner that is above and beyond the expectations of the regulatory process

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 796 of 3061 • Reviewed technical documents (i.e., geotechnical reports, soil studies, cultural studies, etc.), conducted internal research, and provided verbal/written feedback in order to ensure compliant/appropriate field methodology, resource sensitivity assessments, and well-rounded preservation recommendations are included within project documentation
• Drafted and provided mitigation/conditions of approval, monitoring and treatment plans, archaeological testing plans, etc. to ensure legally compliant and culturally appropriate preservation/treatment measures regarding the Tribe’s archaeological resources, ethnobotanical resources, and intangible cultural resources (i.e., viewsheds, landscapes, etc.) are pursued
• Created and maintained a cultural resources geodatabase, and other complimentary digital data management systems, to better assist the Tribe in their decision-making during consultation, as well as to increase the Tribe’s stewardship over their own resources both on and off Tribal land Versar, Inc. – Archaeologist, Task Manager – 06/20/2016-05/12/2017 • Contracted as an Archaeologist, Task Manager for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) working on preconstruction projects in the Barstow, Needles, Palm Springs, Ridgecrest field areas for deteriorated SCE poles, restoration, and travel management as well as ground truthing projects in the Barstow and Ridgecrest field areas focused on disturbances (OHV, weather, etc.), cultural/natural resource route triggers, and travel management/site mitigation
• Managed various contracts, handled intake and assignments for all work requests, conducted cultural background research, completed all field planning/mapping, performed all cultural resource surveys, maintained all collected data (resources, disturbances, etc.), and produced all cultural reports (NHPA/NEPA, Quarterly) as well as all contract deliverables to client (progress reports, budget reports, etc.) • Managed 5 direct reports, ensured all daily/weekly BLM deliverables were up to standard and on time, confirmed all Versar administrative tasks were completed for safety and billing requirements, and maintained a safe and healthy working environment for all Versar personnel • Point of contact for all contracts for both Versar program manager and BLM clients, attended weekly meetings with clients to ensure client satisfaction for all contracts, submitted monthly reports for contract task order review, assisted program manager with quality assurance plans, contract bids/budgets, and rental contracts • Created all report/deliverable templates, SOPs, and project tracklogs from scratch and worked with BLM to create an efficient workflow for each contract
Redhorse Corporation – Archaeologist – 04/13/2015-06/17/2016 • Contracted as GS-09 level archaeologist on a team of 4 with a lead (GS-11), coworker (GS-09), and technician (GS-06/7) on Fort Irwin (DoD) for the Directorate of Public Works (DPW) Environmental Division implementing compliance measures for archaeological and built environment historic resources across the installatoin
• Main responsibilities included compliant data management (GIS data; completion/update/management of site records), plan/implement preconstruction/Section 110 survey/inventory and construction monitoring, draft/submit NHPA reports and NEPA Cultural Resources sections for SHPO, THPO, and internal review, and conduct survey/prepare annual reports for NRHP site monitoring program • Tasked with completely re-organizing the cultural data on post: digitizing legacy data, re-creating the schema for the GeoXH Trimble units, creating a new schema for the cultural geodatabase for implementation by the GIS technician, creating protocols for data collection and input to maintain consistency, ensure data compliance with the Army standard (SDSFIE) as well as internal needs for report production, re-map the cultural drive, etc.
• Tasked with providing support for a complete overhaul and re-organization of the Fort Irwin Archaeological Curation Facility as well as re-organizing the curation database in conjunction with my tasked data project University of Leicester – Archaeology Graduate Student – 01/15/2014-01/28/2015 • Coursework included both archaeology and built historic resources coursework and led to the finalization of a 15,000 word Master’s thesis entitled ““Race and Gender in Rural Central Texas Between 1865 and 1920”

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 797 of 3061 • Led a team of field technicians on a pedestrian survey of a 208-acre homestead and ranch to inventory archaeological and historic built environment resources and conducted background research within the Caldwell County Courthouse and other repositories for documents, oral histories, museum archives, books, etc.

Aerotek – Archaeology/GIS Technician – 06/30/2014-11/15/2014 • Contract 1: GIS technician editing and producing utility plans for engineering design and associated construction permits for utility extensions, replacements, and relocations in the City of Austin • Contract 2: Archaeology technician shovel testing and completing pedestrian surveys in central Texas and surrounding areas when contract opportunities arrived
American Conservation Experience – Archaeology and GIS Technician – 06/03/2013-05/09/2014 • Contracted as a GS-07 level archaeology and GIS technician on the South Zone of the Inyo National Forest supporting compliance efforts related to archaeological and historic built environment resources • Responsible for weekly progress and budget reporting to ACE and client • Responsible for performing site conditions assessments and report (i.e. monitoring records, site record updates, and management/mitigation reports, etc.)
• Responsible for conducting preconstruction archaeological and historic built environment resource surveys and reporting pursuant to the NHPA (and the applicable CA/NV Programmatic Agreement) and NEPA • Solely responsible for maintaining the Trimble GeoXH and ArcGIS cultural geodatabase for the South Zone • Leadership over a GIS intern and a Paiute Tribe intern both in the field and in the office POWER Engineers – Archaeology Technician – 09/11/2012-09/15/2012 • Preconstruction pedestrian survey of 1000 acres of LADWP land near Lone Pine, CA for power line development

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 798 of 3061 Appendix D

ENERGY DATA

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 799 of 3061 Construction Fuel Consumption
On-Site Diesel1 (off-road construction Equipment) MTCO2e Gallons of Fuel4 County Fuel in
2023 (Start of
Construction)
Percent
Demolition 17 1,677
Site Preparation/Grading 76 7,530
Building Construction 110 10,857
Paving 12 1,172
Architectural Coating 3 335
Total 219 21,571 256,823,744 0.0084%
Off-Site Diesel1 (on-road construction trips)
Demolition 26 2,519
Site Preparation/Grading 53 5,269
Building Construction 4 367
Paving 0 0
Architectural Coating 0 0
Total 83 8,154 256,823,744 0.0032%
Off-Site Gasoline2
Demolition 1 135
Site Preparation/Grading 4 441
Building Construction 4 451
Paving 2 227
Architectural Coating 0 46
Total 11 1,300 715,317,878 0.0002%
Total Diesel Fuel 29,725 256,823,744 0.0116%
Total Gasoline Fuel 1,300 715,317,878 0.0002%
Total Construction Fuel 313 31,025 972,141,622 0.0000%
On-Site Diesel
(Off-Road)
Off-Site Diesel
(Hauling/Vendor)
Off-Site Gasoline
(Worker)
On-Site Diesel
(Off-Road)
Off-Site Diesel
(Hauling/Vendor)
Off-Site Gasoline
(Worker)
On-Site Diesel
(Off-Road)
Off-Site Diesel
(Hauling/Vendor)
Off-Site Gasoline
(Worker)
2024 17 26 1 9 0 0 68 53 4
Total 17 26 1 9 0 0 68 53 4
On-Site Diesel
(Off-Road)
Off-Site Diesel
(Hauling/Vendor)
Off-Site Gasoline
(Worker)
On-Site Diesel
(Off-Road)
Off-Site Diesel
(Hauling/Vendor)
Off-Site Gasoline
(Worker)
On-Site Diesel
(Off-Road)
Off-Site Diesel
(Hauling/Vendor)
Off-Site Gasoline
(Worker)
2024 110 4 4 12 0 2 3 0 0
Total 110 4 4 12 0 2 3 0 0
Notes:
1 Fuel used for off-road, hauling, and vendor trips assumed to be diesel. 2 Fuel used for worker trips assumed to be gasoline.
3 MTCO2e rates from CalEEMod (3.0 Construction Emissions Details). 4 For CO2e emissions, see Chapter 13 (page 94); Conversion Ratios: Climate Registry, General Reporting Protocol, 2016.

Architectural Coating
Construction Phase3
Demolition Site Preparation Grading/Infrastructure Improvements Building Construction Paving
Construction Phase3

Construction Water Energy
Daily Soil Disturbance1 3.5 acres
Days of Soil Disturbance2
39 days
Water Concentration3
3,020 gallons/acre
Water Energy Intensity4
3,218 kWh/MG
Total Construction Water 0.41 million gallons
Construction Water Energy 1,327 kWh

0.0013 GWh
16,767 GWh

0.00001%
Notes:
1 Total daily acres disturbed from offroad equipment per CalEEMod (3.0 Construction Emissions Detail) and maximum SCAQMD LST values for soil-disturbing equipment. 2 Number of days of construction with soil-disturbing equipment per CalEEMod (5.1 Construction Schedule). 3 Water application rate per Air and Waste Management Association's Air Pollution Engineering Manual. 4 Water energy intensity factor for subarea per CalEEMod User Guide, Appendix G, Tab G-32.

Riverside County Annual Electricity
Percentage Increase

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 801 of 3061 Operational Fuel
Vehicle Type Percent1 Annual VMT2 MPG3 Annual Fuel
(Gallons) Fuel Type
Riverside
County
Gallons4
RS
Percent
Passenger Cars (Gasoline) 0.92 13,271,614 21.6 614,427 Gas 715,317,878 0.0859% Light/Medium Trucks 0.05 758,314 17.2 44,088 Diesel 256,823,744 0.0172% Heavy Trucks/Other 0.02 356,671 6.1 58,471 Diesel 256,823,744 0.0228% Total 0.08 14,386,598 102,559 0.0399%
Total
Land Use5 LDA LDT1 LDT2 MCY MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD OBUS UBUS SBUS MH HHD Fast Food Rerstaurant with
Drive Thru / High Turnover
(Sit Down Restaurant)

0.4725 0.0431 0.2267 0.0182 0.1620 0.0269 0.0083 0.0104 0.0006 0.0005 0.0013 0.0048 0.0248 Notes:
1 Percent of vehicle trip distribution based on fleet mix from CalEEMod (4.4 Fleet Mix). 2 Total annual operational VMT based on mitigated annual VMT from CalEEMod (4.2 Trip Summary Information). 3 Average fuel economy derived from Department of Transportation. 4 Total annual county fuel per EMFAC 2017 model of projected operational fuel usage.

Operational Water Energy
Indoor 4.1 million gallons
Indoor Energy Intensity Factor
1 4,737 kWh/MG
Outdoor1 million gallons
Outdoor Energy Intensity Factor
2 3,218 kWh/MG
Operational Water Energy 24,173 kWh

0.0242 GWh
16,767 GWh

0.0001%
Indoor Outdoor Indoor Outdoor
Fast Food Retaurant with Drive Thru 2,898,747 1,457,469 00 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 1,214,135
000
Parking Lot
00 Total Operational Water (MG/year)
4100
Notes: 1
Indoor water energy intensity factor for subarea per CalEEMod User Guide, Appendix G, Tab G-32. Factor includes supply, treatment, distribution, and wastewater. 2 Outdoor water energy intensity factor for subarea per CalEEMod User Guide, Appendix G, Tab G-32. Factor includes supply, treatment, and distribution. 3 Operational water use values per CalEEMod (5.12 Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption).

Land Use
3 Unmitigated (gal/year) Mitigated (gal/year)
Riverside County Annual Electricity
Percentage Increase
Operational Water Energy

Elecricity/Natural Gas Energy
Project
Annual Energy
Riverside County
Annual Energy3
Percentage
Increase
Electricity (kWh/yr) 1,015,829 16,767,235,877 0.0061%
Electricity (GWh/yr) 1.0158 16,767 0.0061%
Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) 1,437,877 43,084,359,800 0.0033%
Natural Gas (therms/yr) 14,379 430,843,598 0.0033%
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 645,407 1,013,412
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 270,328 424,466
Parking Lot 100,094 0
Total Energy 1,015,829 1,437,877
Land Use
Notes:
1 Electricity use per CalEEMod (5.11 Operational Energy Consumption). 2 Natural Gas use per CalEEMod (5.11 Operational Energy Consumption). 3 County total energy values from California Energy Commission energy reports available through ecdms.energy.ca.gov. (year 2021) Natural Gas2Electricity (kBTU/yr) 1 (kWh/yr)

Appendix E

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 805 of 3061

GEOTECHNICAL

ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION

PROPOSED MULTI-TENANT DEVELOPMENT
NEC JACKSON STREET & AVENUE 42

INDIO, CALIFORNIA
SALEM PROJECT NO. 3-222-0678
SEPTEMBER 20, 2022
PREPARED FOR:

MR. TOM CARPENTER

CAN DO LLC
31791 LOS RIOS STREET
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CA 92675
PREPARED BY:

SALEM ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.
8711 MONROE COURT, SUITE A
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
P: (909) 980-6455
F: (909) 980-6435
www.salem.net
LOS ANGELES • SAN JOSE • FRESNO • STOCKTON • BAKERSFIELD DALLAS • SEATTLE • DENVER
GEOTECHNICAL ● ENVIRONMENTAL ● GEOLOGY ● MATERIALS TESTING & INSPECTION ● FORENSIC ● LABORATORY

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 806 of 3061 8711 Monroe Court, Suite A
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Phone (909) 980-6455
Fax (909) 980-6435
LOS ANGELES • SAN JOSE • FRESNO • STOCKTON • BAKERSFIELD DALLAS • SEATTLE • DENVER
September 20, 2022 Project No. 3-222-0678
Mr. Tom Carpenter
Can Do LLC
31791 Los Rios Street
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
SUBJECT: GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION

PROPOSED MULTI-TENANT DEVELOPMENT
NEC JACKSON STREET & AVENUE 42

INDIO, CALIFORNIA
Dear Mr. Carpenter
At your request and authorization, SALEM Engineering Group, Inc. (SALEM) has prepared this Geotechnical Engineering Investigation report for the Proposed Multi-Tenant Development to be located at the subject site.

The accompanying report presents our findings, conclusions, and recommendations regarding the geotechnical aspects of designing and constructing the project as presently proposed. In our opinion, the proposed project is feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint provided our recommendations are incorporated into the design and construction of the project.

We appreciate the opportunity to assist you with this project. Should you have questions regarding this report or need additional information, please contact the undersigned at (909) 980-6455.

Respectfully Submitted,
SALEM ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.

Ibrahim Foud Ibrahim, PE Clarence Jiang, GE
Senior Managing Engineer Senior Geotechnical Engineer
RCE 86724 RGE 2477

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 807 of 3061

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE..................................................................................................... 1

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION.................................................................................................. 1

3. SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ........................................................................... 2

4. FIELD EXPLORATION..................................................................................................... 2

5. LABORATORY TESTING ................................................................................................ 3

6. GEOLOGIC SETTING ....................................................................................................... 3

7. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS..................................................................................................... 3

7.1 Faulting and Seismicity...........................................................................................................3

7.2 Surface Fault Rupture .............................................................................................................4

7.3 Ground Shaking......................................................................................................................4

7.4 Liquefaction............................................................................................................................4

7.5 Lateral Spreading....................................................................................................................5

7.6 Landslides...............................................................................................................................5

7.7 Tsunamis and Seiches.............................................................................................................5

8. SOIL AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS ................................................................. 5

8.1 Subsurface Conditions............................................................................................................5

8.2 Groundwater...........................................................................................................................6

8.3 Soil Corrosion Screening ........................................................................................................6

8.4 Infiltration Testing ..................................................................................................................7

9. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................. 8

9.1 General ...................................................................................................................................8

9.2 Seismic Design Criteria ........................................................................................................10

9.3 Soil and Excavation Characteristics......................................................................................11

9.4 Materials for Fill...................................................................................................................11

9.5 Grading.................................................................................................................................12

9.6 Shallow Foundations ............................................................................................................16

9.7 Concrete Slabs-on-Grade......................................................................................................17

9.8 Pedestrian Concrete Pavement..............................................................................................18

9.9 Lateral Earth Pressures and Frictional Resistance .................................................................19

9.10 Retaining Walls....................................................................................................................20

9.11 Temporary Excavations........................................................................................................21

9.12 Underground Utilities...........................................................................................................22

9.13 Surface Drainage ..................................................................................................................22

9.14 Pavement Design ..................................................................................................................23

9.15 Concrete Paver Design..........................................................................................................24

9.16 Temporary Fire Access Road................................................................................................24

10. PLAN REVIEW, CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING........................ 25

10.1 Plan and Specification Review..............................................................................................25

10.2 Construction Observation and Testing Services....................................................................25

11. LIMITATIONS AND CHANGED CONDITIONS........................................................... 25

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 808 of 3061 TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)

FIGURES
Figure 1, Vicinity Map
Figure 2, Site Plan
APPENDIX A – FIELD INVESTIGATION
Figures A-1 through A-10, Logs of Exploratory Soil Borings B-1 through B-10 Percolation Testing Results, P-1 through P-16
Liquefaction Analysis
APPENDIX B – LABORATORY TESTING
Consolidation Test Results
Direct Shear Test Results
Gradation Curves
Corrosivity Test Results
Maximum Density and Optimum Moisture Proctor Test Results R-Value Test Results
APPENDIX C – EARTHWORK AND PAVEMENT SPECIFICATIONS

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 809 of 3061 8711 Monroe Court, Suite A
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Phone (909) 980-6455
Fax (909) 980-6435
Project No. 3-222-0678 - 1 -

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION

PROPOSED MULTI-TENANT DEVELOPMENT
NEC JACKSON STREET & AVENUE 42

INDIO, CALIFORNIA

1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This report presents the results of our Geotechnical Engineering Investigation for the Proposed MultiTenant Development located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Jackson Street and Avenue 42 in the city of Indio, California (see Figure 1, Vicinity Map). The purpose of our geotechnical engineering investigation was to observe and sample the subsurface conditions encountered at the site, and provide conclusions and recommendations relative to the geotechnical aspects of constructing the project as presently proposed.

The scope of this investigation included a field exploration, laboratory testing, engineering analysis and the preparation of this report. Our field exploration was performed on July 7, July 8, September 6 and September 7 of 2022 and included the drilling of ten (10) small-diameter soil borings to a maximum depth of 51½ feet at the site. Additionally, sixteen (16) percolation tests were performed at depths of approximately 5 to 40 feet below existing grade for determination of the infiltration rates. The locations of the soil borings and percolation tests are depicted on Figure 2, Site Plan. A detailed discussion of our field investigation, exploratory boring logs, and percolation tests are presented in Appendix A.

Laboratory tests were performed on selected soil samples obtained during the investigation to evaluate pertinent physical properties for engineering analyses. Appendix B presents the laboratory test results in tabular and graphic format. The recommendations presented herein are based on analysis of the data obtained during the investigation and our experience with similar soil and geologic conditions. If project details vary significantly from those described herein, SALEM should be contacted to determine the necessity for review and possible revision of this report. Earthwork and Pavement Specifications are presented in Appendix C. If text of the report conflict with the specifications in Appendix C, the recommendations in the text of the report have precedence.

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Based on the Site Plan provided to us, we understand that the proposed development of the site will include construction of a ±3,600 square-foot Drive Thru (D//T) Restaurant (Building 1), a ±16,900 square-feet 2-story office (Building 2), a ±3,900 square-feet restaurant (Building 3) with ±2,400 squarefeet patio, a ±4,823 D/T Restaurant (Building 4), and a ±980 square-feet D/T Restaurant (Building 5) on

6.34 acres of vacant land. Maximum wall load is expected to be on the order of 5 kips per linear foot.

Maximum column load is expected to be on the order of 50 kips. Floor slab soil bearing pressure is expected to be on the order of 150 psf. Parking and landscaping are also planned to be associated with the proposed development.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 810 of 3061 Project No. 3-222-0678 - 2 -
A site grading plan was not available at the time of preparation of this report. As the site area is slightly sloping towards the southeast, we anticipate that cuts and fills during earthwork will be minimal and limited to providing level pads and positive site drainage. In the event that changes occur in the nature or design of the project, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report will not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and the conclusions of our report are modified. The site configuration and locations of proposed improvements are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2.

3. SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The project site is irregular in shape and encompasses approximately 6.34 acres. The site is located near the northeast corner of the intersection of Jackson Street and Avenue 42 in the city of Indio, California (see Vicinity Map, Figure 1). An Arco gas station and an AutoZone store are located at the northeast corner of the intersection. A vacant land owned by the site city located east of the project site (not part of the project site) will be developed to an 87-stall parking lot for the existing golf course.

At the time of our field investigation, the site was mostly vacant with an asphalt paved parking lot located within the eastern portion of the project site. The project site area is gently sloping towards the southeast with elevations ranging between 7 to 14 feet below mean sea level based on Google Earth imagery. The city owned vacant land (east of the project site) is slightly elevated above the project site and Avenue 42 with elevations ranging between 3 to 10 feet below mean sea level based on Google Earth imagery.

4. FIELD EXPLORATION
Our field exploration consisted of site surface reconnaissance and subsurface exploration. The exploratory test borings (B-1 through B-10) were drilled on July 7, 2022 at the approximate locations shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. The test borings were advanced with a 6½-inch diameter hollow stem augers rotated by a truck-mounted CME 45C drill rig. The test borings were extended to a maximum depth of 51½ feet below existing grade.

The materials encountered in the test borings were visually classified in the field, and logs were recorded by a field engineer and stratification lines were approximated on the basis of observations made at the time of drilling. Visual classification of the materials encountered in the test borings were generally made in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D2488).

A soil classification chart and key to sampling is presented on the Unified Soil Classification Chart, in Appendix "A." The logs of the test borings are presented in Appendix "A." The Boring Logs include the soil type, color, moisture content, dry density, and the applicable Unified Soil Classification System symbol.

The location of the test borings were determined by measuring from features shown on the Site Plan, provided to us. Hence, accuracy can be implied only to the degree that this method warrants.

The actual boundaries between different soil types may be gradual and soil conditions may vary. For a more detailed description of the materials encountered, the Boring Logs in Appendix "A" should be consulted. Soil samples were obtained from the test borings at the depths shown on the logs of borings.

The MCS samples were recovered and capped at both ends to preserve the samples at their natural moisture content; SPT samples were recovered and placed in a sealed bag to preserve their natural moisture content. The borings were backfilled with soil cuttings after completion of the drilling.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 811 of 3061 Project No. 3-222-0678 - 3 -

5. LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory tests were performed on selected soil samples to evaluate their physical characteristics and engineering properties. The laboratory-testing program was formulated with emphasis on the evaluation of natural moisture, density, shear strength, consolidation potential, maximum density and optimum moisture determination, R-Value, and gradation of the materials encountered.

In addition, chemical tests were performed to evaluate the corrosivity of the soils to buried concrete and metal. Details of the laboratory test program and the results of laboratory test are summarized in Appendix "B." This information, along with the field observations, was used to prepare the final boring logs in Appendix "A."

6. GEOLOGIC SETTING
Regionally, the proposed site is situated within the northern portion of the Coachella Valley of Southern California. Near-surface material consists of alluvial fan deposits of sand, silt, gravel, and cobbles derived from erosion of the Mesozoic granitic and metamorphic rocks of the adjacent San Jacinto Mountains. A significant feature within this geomorphic province is the Salton Trough. The Salton Trough is a large northwest-trending structural depression that extends from the San Gorgonio Pass to the Gulf of California. A large portion of this depression in the vicinity of the Salton Sea is below sea level.

The Coachella Valley forms the northerly portion of the Salton Trough and contains a thick sequence of sedimentary deposits that are Miocene to Recent in age. Mountains surrounding the Coachella Valley include the Little San Bernardino Mountains to the northeast, foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains to the northwest, and the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains to the southwest. These mountains expose primarily Precambrian metamorphic and Mesozoic granitic rocks. Tectonism of the region is dominated by the interaction of the East Pacific Plate and the North American Plate along a transform boundary.

The Coachella Valley has been filled with a variable thickness of relatively young, heterogeneous alluvial deposits. Deposits encountered on the subject site during exploratory drilling are discussed in detail in this report.

7. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS

7.1 Faulting and Seismicity
Based on the proximity of several dominant active faults and seismogenic structures, as well as the historic seismic record, the area of the subject site is considered subject to relatively high seismicity. The seismic hazard most likely to impact the site is ground-shaking due to a large earthquake on one of the major active regional faults. Moderate to large earthquakes have affected the area of the subject site within historic time. There are no known active fault traces in the project vicinity. The project area is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault (Special Studies) Zone and will not require a special site investigation by an Engineering Geologist. Soils on site are classified as Site Class D in accordance with Chapter 16 of the California Building Code. The proposed structures are determined to be in Seismic Design Category E. To determine the distance of known active faults within 100 miles of the site, we used the United States Geological Survey (USGS) web-based application 2008 National Seismic Hazard Maps - Fault Parameters. Site latitude is 33.7449° north; site longitude is -116.2152° west. The closest active faults are summarized below in Table 7.1.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 812 of 3061 Project No. 3-222-0678 - 4 -
TABLE 7.1

REGIONAL FAULT SUMMARY
Fault Name Distance to
Site (miles)
Maximum
Earthquake
Magnitude, Mw
S. San Andreas;
PK+CH+CC+BB+NM+SM+NSB+SSB+BG+CO 0.9 8.2
S. San Andreas;
PK+CH+CC+BB+NM+SM+NSB+SSB+BG 3.5 8.1
Burnt Mtn 16.5 6.8
Eureka Peak 16.6 6.7
San Jacinto; SBV+SJV+A+C 24.3 7.8
San Jacinto; SBV+SJV+A+CC+B+SM 24.6 7.9
San Jacinto; CC+B+SM 26.7 7.4
Pinto Mtn 27.6 7.3
So Emerson-Copper Mtn 28.5 7.1
Pigsah-Bullion Mtn-Mesquite Lk 29.6 7.3
The faults tabulated above and numerous other faults in the region are sources of potential ground motion. However, earthquakes that might occur on other faults throughout California are also potential generators of significant ground motion and could subject the site to intense ground shaking.

7.2 Surface Fault Rupture
The site is not within a currently established State of California Earthquake Fault Zone for surface fault rupture hazards. No active faults with the potential for surface fault rupture are known to pass directly beneath the site. Therefore, the potential for surface rupture due to faulting occurring beneath the site during the design life of the proposed development is considered low.

7.3 Ground Shaking
Seismic coefficients and spectral response acceleration values were developed based on the 2019 California Building Code (CBC). The CBC methodology for determining design ground motion values is based on the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) Seismic Design Maps, which incorporate both probabilistic and deterministic seismic ground motion. Based on the 2019 CBC, a Site Class D represents the on-site soil conditions. A table providing the recommended design acceleration parameters for the project site, based on a Site Class D designation, is included in Section 9.2.1 of this report. Based on the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) Seismic Design Maps, the estimated design peak ground acceleration adjusted for site class effects (PGAM) was determined to be 1.138g (based on both probabilistic and deterministic seismic ground motion).

7.4 Liquefaction
Soil liquefaction is a state of soil particles suspension caused by a complete loss of strength when the effective stress drops to zero. Liquefaction normally occurs under saturated conditions in soils such as sand in which the strength is purely frictional. Primary factors that trigger liquefaction are: moderate to strong

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 813 of 3061 Project No. 3-222-0678 - 5 -
ground shaking (seismic source), relatively clean, loose granular soils (primarily poorly graded sands and silty sands), and saturated soil conditions (shallow groundwater). Due to the increasing overburden pressure with depth, liquefaction of granular soils is generally limited to the upper 50 feet of a soil profile.

The soils encountered within the depth of 51½ feet on the project site consisted predominately of loose to dense silty sand and stiff to hard sandy silt with various amounts of clay. Low to very low cohesion strength is associated with the sandy soil. A seismic hazard, which could cause damage to the proposed development during seismic shaking, is the post-liquefaction settlement of the liquefied sands. Free groundwater was not encountered in our borings during this investigation. The historically highest groundwater is estimated to be at a depth of 35 feet below ground surface according to regional groundwater data. The Riverside County Office of Information Technology GIS website shows the subject site is located within a moderate potential liquefaction zone. The potential for soil liquefaction during a seismic event was evaluated using LiqIT computer program (version 4.7.5) developed by GeoLogismiki of Greece. For the analysis, a maximum earthquake potential magnitude of 8.2 MW, a peak horizontal ground surface acceleration of 1.14g (with a 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years), and a groundwater depth of 35 feet were considered appropriate for the liquefaction analysis. The liquefaction analysis indicated that the site soils had a low potential for liquefaction under seismic conditions. The total liquefaction-induced settlement was calculated to be less than 0.1 inches. The liquefaction analyses are included in Appendix A.

7.5 Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading is a phenomenon in which soils move laterally during seismic shaking and is often associated with liquefaction. The amount of movement depends on the soil strength, duration and intensity of seismic shaking, topography, and free face geometry. Due to the relatively flat site topography, we judge the likelihood of lateral spreading to be low.

7.6 Landslides
There are no known landslides at the site, nor is the site in the path of any known or potential landslides.

We do not consider the potential for a landslide to be a hazard to this project.

7.7 Tsunamis and Seiches
The site is not located within a coastal area. Therefore, tsunamis (seismic sea waves) are not considered a significant hazard at the site. Seiches are large waves generated in enclosed bodies of water in response to ground shaking. No major water-retaining structures are located immediately up gradient from the project site. Flooding from a seismically-induced seiche is considered unlikely.

8. SOIL AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS

8.1 Subsurface Conditions
The subsurface conditions encountered appear typical of those found in the geologic region of the site. In general, the soils within the depth of exploration consisted predominately of loose to very dense silty sand and stiff to hard sandy silt with various amounts of clay. No significant fill soils were encountered during this investigation. Fill soils may be present onsite between our test boring locations. Undocumented fill materials are not suitable to support any future structures and should be replaced with Engineered Fill. The

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 814 of 3061 Project No. 3-222-0678 - 6 -
extent and consistency of the fills should be verified during site construction. Prior to fill placement, Salem Engineering Group, Inc. should inspect the bottom of the excavation to verify the fill condition.

The soils were classified in the field during the drilling and sampling operations. The stratification lines were approximated by the field engineer on the basis of observations made at the time of drilling. The actual boundaries between different soil types may be gradual and soil conditions may vary. For a more detailed description of the materials encountered, the Boring Logs in Appendix "A" should be consulted.

The Boring Logs include the soil type, color, moisture content, dry density, and the applicable Unified Soil Classification System symbol. The locations of the test borings were determined by measuring from feature shown on the Site Plan, provided to us. Hence, accuracy can be implied only to the degree that this method warrants.

8.2 Groundwater
The test boring locations were checked for the presence of groundwater during and after the drilling operations. Free groundwater was not encountered in our borings during this investigation. The historically highest groundwater is estimated to be at a depth of approximately 35 feet below existing grade according to regional groundwater data. It should be recognized that water table elevations may fluctuate with time, being dependent upon seasonal precipitation, irrigation, land use, localized pumping, and climatic conditions as well as other factors. Therefore, water level observations at the time of the field investigation may vary from those encountered during the construction phase of the project. The evaluation of such factors is beyond the scope of this report.

8.3 Soil Corrosion Screening
Excessive sulfate in either the soil or native water may result in an adverse reaction between the cement in concrete and the soil. The 2014 Edition of ACI 318 (ACI 318) has established criteria for evaluation of sulfate and chloride levels and how they relate to cement reactivity with soil and/or water. A soil sample was obtained from the project site and was tested for the evaluation of the potential for concrete deterioration or steel corrosion due to attack by soil-borne soluble salts and soluble chloride. The water-soluble sulfate concentration in the saturation extract from the soil sample was detected to be 2,833 mg/kg. ACI 318 Tables

19.3.1.1 and 19.3.2.1 outline exposure categories, classes, and concrete requirements by exposure class.

ACI 318 requirements for site concrete based upon soluble sulfate are summarized in Table 8.3 below.

TABLE 8.3

WATER SOLUBLE SULFATE EXPOSURE REQUIREMENTS
The water-soluble chloride concentration detected in saturation extract from the soil samples was 182 mg/kg. This level of chloride concentration is considered to be mildly corrosive. It is recommended that a qualified corrosion engineer be consulted regarding protection of buried steel or ductile iron piping and conduit or, at a minimum, applicable manufacturer’s recommendations for corrosion protection of buried metal pipe be closely followed.

Water Soluble
Sulfate (SO4) in
Soil, % by Weight
Exposure
Severity
Exposure
Class
Maximum
w/cm Ratio
Min. Concrete
Compressive
Strength
Cementations
Materials
Type

0.2833 Severe S2 0.45 4,500 psi V

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 815 of 3061 Project No. 3-222-0678 - 7 -

8.4 Infiltration Testing
Sixteen (16) percolation tests (P-1 through P-16) were performed on-site and were conducted in accordance with the guidelines established by the County of Riverside. The approximate locations of the percolation tests are shown on the attached Site Plan, Figure 2.

The boreholes were advanced to the depths shown on the percolation test worksheets. The holes were pre-saturated before percolation testing commenced. Percolation rates were measured by filling the test holes with clean water and measuring the water drops at a certain time interval. The percolation rate data are presented in tabular format at the end of this Report. The difference in the percolation rates are reflected by the varied type of soil materials at the bottom of the test holes. The test results are shown on the table below.

Test
No.

Depth
(Feet)
Tested
Infiltration Rate1
(inch/hour)
Design
Infiltration Rate2
(inch/hour)
Soil Type3
P-1 9.8 0.26 0.09 Silty Clayey SAND (SM/SC)
P-2 5 0.63 0.21 Sandy SILT (ML)
P-3 10 0.47 0.16 Sandy SILT (ML)
P-4 5 3.51 1.17 Silty SAND (SM)
P-5 40 1.15 0.38 Silty SAND (SM)
P-6 34 1.21 0.40 Silty SAND (SM)
P-7 20 0.46 0.15 Sandy SILT (ML)
P-8 38 1.16 0.39 Silty SAND/Sandy SILT (SM/ML)
P-9 17.5 0.75 0.25 Silty SAND (SM)
P-10 30 0.54 0.18 Silty SAND (SM)
P-11 17 0.71 0.24 Sandy SILT (ML)
P-12 34.5 1.38 0.46 Silty SAND (SM)
P-13 17 0.52 0.17 Silty SAND (SM)
P-14 38 1.38 0.46 Silty SAND (SM)
P-15 26 1.09 0.36 Sandy SILT (ML)
P-16 17 0.69 0.23 Silty SAND (SM)
1 Tested infiltration Rate = (∆H 60 r) / (∆t(r + 2Havg)) 2 FS=3 according to the Riverside County – Low Impact Development BMP Design Handbook 3 At bottom of drilled holes
The soil infiltration rates are based on test conducted with clear water. The infiltration rates may vary with time as a result of soil clogging from water impurities. The infiltration rate will deteriorate over time due to the soil conditions and an appropriate factor of safety (FS) may be applied. SALEM recommends a minimum factor of safety of 3 be used in design. The soils may also become less permeable to impermeable if the soil is compacted. Thus, periodic maintenance consisting of clearing the bottom of

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 816 of 3061 Project No. 3-222-0678 - 8 -
the drainage system of clogged soils should be expected. An overflow outlet from the infiltration system should be designed to convey runoff to the public storm drain system.

The infiltration rate may become slower if the surrounding soil is wet or saturated due to prolonged rainfalls. Additional infiltration tests should be conducted at bottom of the drainage system during construction to verify the infiltration rate. Groundwater, if closer to the bottom of the drainage system, will also reduce the infiltration rate.

The scope of our services did not include a groundwater study and was limited to the performance of infiltration testing and soil profile description, and the submitted data only. Our services did not include those associated with septic system design. Neither did services include an Environmental Site Assessment for the presence or absence of hazardous and/or toxic materials in the soil, groundwater, or atmosphere; or the presence of wetlands. Any statements, or absence of statements, in this report or on any boring logs regarding odors, unusual or suspicious items, or conditions observed, are strictly for descriptive purposes and are not intended to convey engineering judgment regarding potential hazardous and/or toxic assessment.

The geotechnical engineering information presented herein is based upon professional interpretation utilizing standard engineering practices. The work conducted through the course of this investigation, including the preparation of this report, has been performed in accordance with the generally accepted standards of geotechnical engineering practice, which existed in the geographic area at the time the report was written. No other warranty, express or implied, is made.

Please be advised that when performing infiltration testing services in relatively small areas that the testing may not fully model the actual full scale long term performance of a given site. This is particularly true where infiltration test data is to be used in the design of large infiltration areas such as those proposed for the site. Subsurface conditions, including infiltration rates, can change over time as fine-grained soils migrate. It is not warranted that such information and interpretation cannot be superseded by future geotechnical engineering developments. We emphasize that this report is valid for the project outlined above and should not be used for any other sites.

9. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

9.1 General

9.1.1 Based upon the data collected during this investigation, and from a geotechnical engineering standpoint, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed construction of improvements at the site as planned, provided the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into the project design and construction. Conclusions and recommendations provided in this report are based on our review of available literature, analysis of data obtained from our field exploration and laboratory testing program, and our understanding of the proposed development at this time.

9.1.2 The primary geotechnical constraints identified in our investigation is the presence of potentially compressible soil, and severely corrosive soil at the site. Recommendations to mitigate the effects of these soils are provided in this report.

9.1.3 Site demolition activities shall include removal of all surface obstructions not intended to be incorporated into final site design. In addition, underground buried structures and/or utility lines

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 817 of 3061 Project No. 3-222-0678 - 9 -
encountered during demolition and construction should be properly removed and the resulting excavations backfilled with Engineered Fill. It is suspected that possible demolition activities of the existing structures may disturb the upper soils. After demolition activities, it is recommended that disturbed soils be removed and/or recompacted.

9.1.4 Fill soils may be present on-site between our test boring locations. Undocumented fill materials are not considered suitable to support any future structures and should be replaced with Engineered Fill. The extent and consistency of the fills should be verified during site construction. Prior to fill placement, Salem Engineering Group, Inc. should inspect the bottom of the excavation to verify the fill condition.

9.1.5 Surface vegetation consisting of grasses and other similar vegetation should be removed by stripping to a sufficient depth to remove organic-rich topsoil. The upper 2 to 4 inches of the soils containing vegetation, roots, and other objectionable organic matter encountered at the time of grading should be stripped and removed from the surface. Deeper stripping may be required in localized areas. The stripped vegetation will not be suitable for use as Engineered Fill or within 5 feet of building pads or within pavement areas. However, stripped topsoil may be stockpiled and reused in landscape areas or exported from the site.

9.1.6 The water-soluble sulfate concentrations were detected to be severe. Therefore, Type V cement with a maximum water-cement ratio of 0.45 and a minimum compressive strength of 4,500 psi should be used for concrete in contact with onsite soil.

9.1.7 The surficial soils are moisture-sensitive and exhibited moderate collapse potential under saturated conditions. The collapsible or weak soils should be removed and recompacted according to the recommendations in the Grading section of this report (Section 9.5).

9.1.8 Based on the subsurface conditions at the site and the anticipated structural loading, we anticipate that the proposed buildings may be supported using conventional shallow foundations and that the provided that the recommendations presented herein are incorporated in the design and construction of the project.

9.1.9 SALEM shall review the project grading and foundation plans, and specifications prior to final design submittal to assess whether our recommendations have been properly implemented and evaluate if additional analysis and/or recommendations are required. If SALEM is not provided plans and specifications for review, we cannot assume any responsibility for the future performance of the project.

9.1.10 SALEM shall be present at the site during site demolition and preparation to observe site clearing/demolition, preparation of exposed surfaces after clearing, and placement, treatment and compaction of fill material.

9.1.11 SALEM's observations should be supplemented with periodic compaction tests to establish substantial conformance with these recommendations. Moisture content of footings and slab subgrade should be tested immediately prior to concrete placement. SALEM should observe foundation excavations prior to placement of reinforcing steel or concrete to assess whether the

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 818 of 3061 Project No. 3-222-0678 - 10 -
actual bearing conditions are compatible with the conditions anticipated during the preparation of this report.

9.2 Seismic Design Criteria

9.2.1 For seismic design of the structures, and in accordance with the seismic provisions of the 2019 CBC, our recommended parameters are shown below. These parameters were determined using Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) Seismic Design Maps by location website (https://seismicmaps.org/), in accordance with the 2019 CBC. The Site Class was determined based on the soils encountered during our field exploration.

TABLE 9.2.1

SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
Seismic Item Symbol Value 2016 ASCE 7 or
2019 CBC Reference
Site Coordinates (Datum = NAD 83) 33.7449 Lat
-116.2152 Lon
Site Class -- D ASCE 7 Table 20.3
Soil Profile Name -- Stiff Soil ASCE 7 Table 20.3
Risk Category -- II CBC Table 1604.5
Site Coefficient for PGA FPGA 1.1 ASCE 7 Table 11.8-1
Peak Ground Acceleration
(adjusted for Site Class effects) PGAM 1.138g ASCE 7 Equation 11.8-1 Seismic Design Category SDC E ASCE 7 Table 11.6-1 & 2
Mapped Spectral Acceleration
(Short period - 0.2 sec) SS 2.406 g CBC Figure 1613.3.1(1-6) Mapped Spectral Acceleration
(1.0 sec. period) S1 1.024 g CBC Figure 1613.3.1(1-6)
Site Class Modified Site Coefficient Fa 1 CBC Table 1613.3.3(1) Site Class Modified Site Coefficient Fv *1.7 CBC Table 1613.3.3(2) MCE Spectral Response Acceleration
(Short period - 0.2 sec) SMS = Fa SS
SMS 2.406 g CBC Equation 16-37
MCE Spectral Response Acceleration
(1.0 sec. period) SM1 = Fv S1
SM1 *1.741 g CBC Equation 16-38
Design Spectral Response Acceleration
SDS=⅔SMS (short period - 0.2 sec) SDS 1.604 g CBC Equation 16-39 Design Spectral Response Acceleration
SD1=⅔SM1 (1.0 sec. period) SD1 *1.161 g CBC Equation 16-40 Short Term Transition Period (SD1/SDS),
seconds TS 0.724 ASCE 7-16, Section 11.4.6
Long Period Transition Period (seconds) TL 8 ASCE 7-16, Figure 22-14 * Determined per ASCE Table 11.4-2 for use in calculating TS only.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 819 of 3061 Project No. 3-222-0678 - 11 -

9.2.2 Site Specific Ground Motion Analysis was not included in the scope of this investigation. Per ASCE 11.4.8, structures on Site Class D with S1 greater than or equal to 0.2 may require Site Specific Ground Motion Analysis. However, a site specific motion analysis may not be required based on Exceptions listed in ASCE 11.4.8. The Structural Engineer should verify whether Exception No. 2 of ASCE 7-16, Section 11.4.8, is valid for the site. In the event that a site specific ground motion analysis is required, SALEM should be contacted for these services.

9.2.3 Conformance to the criteria in the above table for seismic design does not constitute any kind of guarantee or assurance that significant structural damage or ground failure will not occur if a large earthquake occurs. The primary goal of seismic design is to protect life, not to avoid all damage, since such design may be economically prohibitive.

9.3 Soil and Excavation Characteristics

9.3.1 Based on the soil conditions encountered in our soil borings, the onsite soils can be excavated with moderate effort using conventional excavation equipment.

9.3.2 It is the responsibility of the contractor to ensure that all excavations and trenches are properly shored and maintained in accordance with applicable Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) rules and regulations to maintain safety and maintain the stability of adjacent existing improvements. Temporary excavations are further discussed in a later Section of this report.

9.3.3 The upper soils within the project site are identified primarily as silty sand with clay and sandy silt with clay. The clayey soils, in their present condition, possess a risk to construction in terms of possible post-construction movement of the foundations and floor systems if no mitigation measures are employed. Accordingly, measures are considered necessary to reduce anticipated expansion potential.

9.3.4 The near surface soils identified as part of our investigation are, generally, damp to moist due to the absorption characteristics of the soil. Earthwork operations may encounter very moist unstable soils which may require removal to a stable bottom. Exposed native soils exposed as part of site grading operations shall not be allowed to dry out and should be kept continuously moist prior to placement of subsequent fill.

9.4 Materials for Fill

9.4.1 Excavated soils generated from cut operations at the site are suitable for use as general Engineered Fill in structural areas provided they do not have an Expansion Index greater than 20 (EI≤20) and do not contain deleterious matter, debris, organic material, or rock material larger than 3 inches in maximum dimension.

9.4.2 The preferred materials specified for Engineered Fill are suitable for most applications with the exception of exposure to erosion. Project site winterization and protection of exposed soils during the construction phase should be the sole responsibility of the Contractor, since they have complete control of the project site.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 820 of 3061 Project No. 3-222-0678 - 12 -

9.4.3 Import soil shall be well-graded, slightly cohesive silty fine sand or sandy silt, with relatively impervious characteristics when compacted. A clean sand or very sandy soil is not acceptable for this purpose. This material should be approved by the Engineer prior to use and should typically possess the soil characteristics summarized below in Table 9.4.3.

TABLE 9.4.3

IMPORT FILL REQUIREMENTS
Minimum Percent Passing No. 200 Sieve 20
Maximum Percent Passing No. 200 Sieve 50
Minimum Percent Passing No. 4 Sieve 80
Maximum Particle Size 3"
Maximum Plasticity Index 12
Maximum CBC Expansion Index 20

9.4.4 Environmental characteristics and corrosion potential of import soil materials should also be considered.

9.4.5 Proposed import materials should be sampled, tested, and approved by SALEM prior to its transportation to the site.

9.5 Grading

9.5.1 A SALEM or certified testing and inspection engineer (typical) representative should be present during all site clearing and grading operations to test and observe earthwork construction. This testing and observation is an integral part of our service as acceptance of earthwork construction is dependent upon compaction of the material and the stability of the material. The Geotechnical Engineer may reject any material that does not meet compaction and stability requirements.

Further recommendations of this report are predicated upon the assumption that earthwork construction will conform to recommendations set forth in this section as well as other portions of this report.

9.5.2 A preconstruction conference should be held at the site prior to the beginning of grading operations with the owner, contractor, civil engineer and geotechnical engineer in attendance.

9.5.3 Site preparation should begin with removal of existing surface/subsurface structures, underground utilities (as required), any existing uncertified fill, and debris. Excavations or depressions resulting from site clearing operations, or other existing excavations or depressions, should be restored with Engineered Fill in accordance with the recommendations of this report.

9.5.4 Surface vegetation consisting of grasses and other similar vegetation should be removed by stripping to a sufficient depth to remove organic-rich topsoil. The upper 2 to 4 inches of the soils containing, vegetation, roots and other objectionable organic matter encountered at the time of grading should be stripped and removed from the surface. Deeper stripping may be required in

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 821 of 3061 Project No. 3-222-0678 - 13 -
localized areas. In addition, existing concrete and asphalt materials shall be removed from areas of proposed improvements and stockpiled separately from excavated soil material. The stripped vegetation, asphalt and concrete materials will not be suitable for use as Engineered Fill or within 5 feet of building pads or within pavement areas. However, stripped topsoil may be stockpiled and reused in landscape or non-structural areas or exported from the site.

9.5.5 Site demolition activities shall include removal of all surface obstructions not intended to be incorporated into final site design. In addition, underground buried structures and/or utility lines encountered during demolition and construction should be properly removed and the resulting excavations backfilled with Engineered Fill. It is suspected that possible demolition activities of the existing structures may disturb the upper soils. After demolition activities, it is recommended that disturbed soils be removed and/or recompacted.

9.5.6 Tree root systems in proposed improvement areas should be removed to a minimum depth of 3 feet and to such an extent which would permit removal of all roots greater than ½ inch in diameter.

Tree roots removed in parking areas may be limited to the upper 1½ feet of the ground surface.

Backfill of tree root excavations is not permitted until all exposed surfaces have been inspected and the Soils Engineer is present for the proper control of backfill placement and compaction.

Burning in areas which are to receive fill materials shall not be permitted.

9.5.7 Any undocumented fill materials encountered during grading should be removed and replaced with engineered fill. The actual depth of the overexcavation and recompaction should be determined by our field representative during construction.

9.5.8 Structural building pad areas should be considered as areas extending a minimum of 5 feet horizontally beyond the outside dimensions of buildings, including footings and non-cantilevered overhangs carrying structural loads.

9.5.9 To minimize post-construction soil movement and provide uniform support for the proposed building areas, it is recommended that overexcavation and recompaction within the proposed building area be performed to a minimum depth of three (3) feet below existing grade or two (2) feet below proposed footing bottom, whichever is deeper. The overexcavation and recompaction should also extend laterally to a minimum of 5 feet beyond the outer edges of the proposed footings except in the area where lateral extension is restricted by the existing building. Prior to placement of fill soils, the upper 10 to 12 inches of native subgrade soils should be scarified, moisture-conditioned to no less than the optimum moisture content and recompacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density based on ASTM D1557 Test Method.

9.5.10 Within the pavement areas of the city owned vacant land (east of the project site), overexcavation and recompaction should be performed to a minimum depth of two (2) feet below existing grade or proposed grade, whichever is deeper. Any undocumented fill materials encountered during grading should be removed and replaced with Engineered Fill. The overexcavation and recompaction should also extend laterally to a minimum of 2 feet beyond the pavement edges. Prior to placement of fill soils, the upper 10 to 12 inches of native subgrade soils should be scarified, moisture-conditioned to no less than the optimum moisture content and recompacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density based on ASTM D1557 Test Method.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 822 of 3061 Project No. 3-222-0678 - 14 -

9.5.11 Within the pavement areas of the project site, overexcavation and recompaction should be performed to a minimum depth of one (1) foot below existing grade or proposed grade, whichever is deeper. Any undocumented fill materials encountered during grading should be removed and replaced with Engineered Fill. The overexcavation and recompaction should also extend laterally to a minimum of 2 feet beyond the pavement edges. Prior to placement of fill soils, the upper 10 to 12 inches of native subgrade soils should be scarified, moistureconditioned to no less than the optimum moisture content and recompacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density based on ASTM D1557 Test Method.

9.5.12 To minimize potential soil movement, it is recommended that interior slabs-on-grade be underlain by six (6) inches of compacted granular aggregate subbase and exterior flatwork areas be underlain by four (4) inches of aggregate base.

9.5.13 All Engineered Fill (including scarified ground surfaces and backfill) should be placed in thin lifts to allow for adequate bonding and compaction (typically 6 to 8 inches in loose thickness).

9.5.14 Engineered Fill soils should be placed, moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 95% relative compaction.

9.5.15 An integral part of satisfactory fill placement is the stability of the placed lift of soil. If placed materials exhibit excessive instability as determined by a SALEM or certified testing and inspection engineer (typical) field representative, the lift will be considered unacceptable and shall be remedied prior to placement of additional fill material. Additional lifts should not be placed if the previous lift did not meet the required dry density or if soil conditions are not stable.

9.5.16 An integral part of satisfactory fill placement is the stability of the placed lift of soil. If placed materials exhibit excessive instability as determined by a SALEM field representative, the lift will be considered unacceptable and shall be remedied prior to placement of additional fill material. Additional lifts should not be placed if the previous lift did not meet the required dry density or if soil conditions are not stable.

9.5.17 Final pavement subgrade should be finished to a smooth, unyielding surface. We further recommend proof-rolling the subgrade with a loaded water truck (or similar equipment with high contact pressure) to verify the stability of the subgrade prior to placing aggregate base.

9.5.18 The most effective site preparation alternatives will depend on site conditions prior to grading.

We should evaluate site conditions and provide supplemental recommendations immediately prior to grading, if necessary.

9.5.19 We do not anticipate groundwater or seepage to adversely affect construction if conducted during the drier months of the year (typically summer and fall). However, groundwater and soil moisture conditions could be significantly different during the wet season (typically winter and spring) as surface soil becomes wet; perched groundwater conditions may develop. Grading during this time period will likely encounter wet materials resulting in possible excavation and fill placement difficulties.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 823 of 3061 Project No. 3-222-0678 - 15 -
Project site winterization consisting of placement of aggregate base and protecting exposed soils during construction should be performed. If the construction schedule requires grading operations during the wet season, we can provide additional recommendations as conditions warrant.

9.5.20 Wet soils may become non conducive to site grading as the upper soils yield under the weight of the construction equipment. Therefore, mitigation measures should be performed for stabilization.

Typical remedial measures include: discing and aerating the soil during dry weather; mixing the soil with dryer materials; removing and replacing the soil with an approved fill material or placement of slurry, crushed rocks or aggregate base material; or mixing the soil with an approved lime or cement product.

The most common remedial measure of stabilizing the bottom of the excavation due to wet soil condition is to reduce the moisture of the soil to near the optimum moisture content by having the subgrade soils scarified and aerated or mixed with drier soils prior to compacting. However, the drying process may require an extended period of time and delay the construction operation.

To expedite the stabilizing process, slurry or crushed rock may be utilized for stabilization provided this method is approved by the owner for the cost purpose. If the use of slurry, crushed rock is considered, it is recommended that the upper soft and wet soils be replaced by 6 to 24 inches of 2-sack slurry or ¾-inch to 1-inch crushed rocks. The thickness of the slurry or rock layer depends on the severity of the soil instability. The recommended 6 to 24 inches of crushed rock material will provide a stable platform.

It is further recommended that lighter compaction equipment be utilized for compacting the crushed rock. A layer of geofabric is recommended to be placed on top of the compacted crushed rock to minimize migration of soil particles into the voids of the crushed rock, resulting in soil movement. Although it is not required, the use of geogrid (e.g. Tensar TX7) below the slurry or crushed rock will enhance stability and reduce the required thickness of crushed rock necessary for stabilization.

Our firm should be consulted prior to implementing remedial measures to provide appropriate recommendations.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 824 of 3061 Project No. 3-222-0678 - 16 -

9.6 Shallow Foundations

9.6.1 The site is suitable for use of conventional shallow foundations consisting of continuous footings and isolated pad footings bearing in properly compacted Engineered Fill.

9.6.2 The bearing wall footings considered for the structure should be continuous with a minimum width of 15 inches and extend to a minimum depth of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent soil grade. Isolated column footings should have a minimum width of 24 inches and extend a minimum depth of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent soil grade. Footing depth should be measured at the time of footing trench excavation not to include any future material (e.g. base, concrete, asphalt, etc.) over the subgrade.

9.6.3 The bottom of footing excavations should be maintained free of loose and disturbed soil. Footing concrete should be placed into a neat excavation.

9.6.4 Footings proportioned as recommended above may be designed for the maximum allowable soil bearing pressures shown in the table below.

Loading Condition Allowable Bearing
Dead Load Only 2,000 psf
Dead-Plus-Live Load 2,500 psf
Total Load, Including Wind or Seismic Loads 3,325 psf

9.6.5 For design purposes, total settlement due to static loadings on the order of 1 inch may be assumed for shallow footings. Differential settlement due to static loading, along a 20-foot exterior wall footing or between adjoining column footings, should be ½ inch, producing an angular distortion of 0.002. Most of the settlement is expected to occur during construction as the loads are applied.

However, additional post-construction settlement may occur if the foundation soils are flooded or saturated. The footing excavations should not be allowed to dry out any time prior to pouring concrete.

9.6.6 Resistance to lateral footing displacement can be computed using an allowable coefficient of friction factor of 0.35 acting between the base of foundations and the supporting native subgrade.

9.6.7 Lateral resistance for footings can alternatively be developed using an equivalent fluid passive pressure of 300 pounds per cubic foot acting against the appropriate vertical native footing faces.

The frictional and passive resistance of the soil may be combined without reduction in determining the total lateral resistance. An increase of one-third is permitted when using the alternate load combinations that includes wind or earthquake loads.

9.6.8 Underground utilities running parallel to footings should not be constructed in the zone of influence of footings. The zone of influence may be taken to be the area beneath the footing and within a 1:1 plane extending out and down from the bottom edge of the footing.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 825 of 3061 Project No. 3-222-0678 - 17 -

9.6.9 The foundation subgrade should be sprinkled as necessary to maintain a moist condition without significant shrinkage cracks as would be expected in any concrete placement. Prior to placing rebar reinforcement, foundation excavations should be evaluated by a representative of SALEM for appropriate support characteristics and moisture content. Moisture conditioning may be required for the materials exposed at footing bottom, particularly if foundation excavations are left open for an extended period.

9.7 Concrete Slabs-on-Grade

9.7.1 The following recommendations are intended for lightly loaded interior slabs on grade not subject to vehicular traffic. Slab thickness and reinforcement should be determined by the structural engineer based on the anticipated loading. We recommend that non-structural slabs-on-grade be at least 4 inches thick and underlain by six (6) inches of clean crushed aggregate base (CAB) over the depth of engineered fill recommended in section 9.5 of this report. The CAB should meet the Greenbook requirements and compacted to at least 95% relative compaction.

9.7.2 Crushed Miscellaneous or Recycled Base (CMB) containing recycled materials should not be used as granular aggregate subbase within the building areas.

9.7.3 We recommend reinforcing slabs, at a minimum, with No. 3 reinforcing bars placed 18 inches on center, each way. The concrete should have a minimum compressive strength of 4,500 psi.

9.7.4 Slabs subject to structural loading may be designed utilizing a modulus of subgrade reaction K of 150 pounds per square inch per inch. The K value was approximated based on interrelationship of soil classification and bearing values (Portland Cement Association, Rocky Mountain Northwest).

9.7.5 The spacing of crack control joints should be designed by the project structural engineer. In order to regulate cracking of the slabs, we recommend that construction joints or control joints be provided at a maximum spacing of 15 feet in each direction for 5-inch thick slabs and 12 feet for 4-inch thick slabs.

9.7.6 Crack control joints should extend a minimum depth of one-fourth the slab thickness and should be constructed using saw-cuts or other methods as soon as practical after concrete placement.

The exterior floors should be poured separately in order to act independently of the walls and foundation system.

9.7.7 It is recommended that the utility trenches within the structure be compacted, as specified in our report, to minimize the transmission of moisture through the utility trench backfill. Special attention to the immediate drainage and irrigation around the structures is recommended.

9.7.8 Moisture within the structure may be derived from water vapors, which were transformed from the moisture within the soils. This moisture vapor penetration can affect floor coverings and produce mold and mildew in the structure. To minimize moisture vapor intrusion, it is recommended that a vapor retarder be installed in accordance with manufacturer’s recommendations and/or ASTM guidelines, whichever is more stringent. In addition, ventilation of the structure is recommended to reduce the accumulation of interior moisture.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 826 of 3061 Project No. 3-222-0678 - 18 -

9.7.9 In areas where it is desired to reduce floor dampness where moisture-sensitive coverings are anticipated, construction should have a suitable waterproof vapor retarder (a minimum of 15 mils thick polyethylene vapor retarder sheeting, Raven Industries “VaporBlock 15, Stego Industries 15 mil “StegoWrap” or W.R. Meadows Sealtight 15 mil “Perminator”) incorporated into the floor slab design. The water vapor retarder should be decay resistant material complying with ASTM E96 not exceeding 0.04 perms, ASTM E154 and ASTM E1745 Class A. The vapor barrier should be placed between the concrete slab and the compacted granular aggregate subbase material. The water vapor retarder (vapor barrier) should be installed in accordance with ASTM Specification E 1643-94.

9.7.10 The concrete may be placed directly on vapor retarder. The vapor retarder should be inspected prior to concrete placement. Cut or punctured retarder should be repaired using vapor retarder material lapped 6 inches beyond damaged areas and taped.

9.7.11 The recommendations of this report are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of slabs due to soil movement. However, even with the incorporation of the recommendations presented herein, foundations, stucco walls, and slabs-on-grade may exhibit some cracking due to soil movement. This is common for project areas that contain expansive soils since designing to eliminate potential soil movement is cost prohibitive. The occurrence of concrete shrinkage cracks is independent of the supporting soil characteristics. Their occurrence may be reduced and/or controlled by limiting the slump of the concrete, proper concrete placement and curing, and by the placement of crack control joints at periodic intervals, in particular, where re-entrant slab corners occur.

9.7.12 Proper finishing and curing should be performed in accordance with the latest guidelines provided by the American Concrete Institute, Portland Cement Association, and ASTM.

9.8 Pedestrian Concrete Pavement

9.8.1 We recommend that pedestrian concrete pavements be at least 4 inches thick and reinforced with No. 3 reinforcing bars placed 24 inches on center, each way or 6x6-w2.9xw2.9 welded wire fabric, placed at mid-height. The concrete should have a minimum compressive strength of 4,500 psi.

9.8.2 The spacing of crack control joints should be at a maximum spacing of 15 feet in each direction.

Crack control joints should extend a minimum depth of one-fourth the slab thickness and should be constructed using saw-cuts or other methods as soon as practical after concrete placement.

9.8.3 The subgrade soils should be non-expansive (EI≤20), moisture conditioned to no less than the optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum of 95% relative compaction prior to placement of concrete.

9.8.4 The recommendations are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of concrete pavement due to soil movement. However, even with the incorporation of the recommendations presented herein, concrete pavement may exhibit some cracking due to soil movement. The occurrence of concrete shrinkage cracks is independent of the supporting soil characteristics. Their occurrence

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 827 of 3061 Project No. 3-222-0678 - 19 -
may be reduced and/or controlled by limiting the slump of the concrete, proper concrete placement and curing, and by the placement of crack control joints at periodic intervals.

9.8.5 Proper finishing and curing should be performed in accordance with the latest guidelines provided by the American Concrete Institute, Portland Cement Association, and ASTM.

9.9 Lateral Earth Pressures and Frictional Resistance

9.9.1 Active, at-rest and passive unit lateral earth pressures against footings and walls are summarized in the table below:

Lateral Pressure Conditions Equivalent Fluid Pressure, pcf Active Pressure, Drained 40
At-Rest Pressure, Drained 60
Passive Pressure 300
Related Parameters
Allowable Coefficient of Friction 0.35
In-Place Soil Density (lbs/ft3) 120

9.9.2 Active pressure applies to walls, which are free to rotate. At-rest pressure applies to walls, which are restrained against rotation. The preceding lateral earth pressures assume sufficient drainage behind retaining walls to prevent the build-up of hydrostatic pressure.

9.9.3 The top one-foot of adjacent subgrade should be deleted from the passive pressure computation.

9.9.4 A safety factor consistent with the design conditions should be included in their usage.

9.9.5 For stability against lateral sliding, which is resisted solely by the passive pressure, we recommend a minimum safety factor of 1.5.

9.9.6 For stability against lateral sliding, which is resisted by the combined passive and frictional resistance, a minimum safety factor of 2.0 is recommended.

9.9.7 For lateral stability against seismic loading conditions, we recommend a minimum safety factor of 1.1.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 828 of 3061 Project No. 3-222-0678 - 20 -

9.9.8 For dynamic seismic lateral loading the following equation shall be used:

Dynamic Seismic Lateral Loading Equation
Dynamic Seismic Lateral Load = ⅜γKhH
2 Where: γ = In-Place Soil Density
Kh = Horizontal Acceleration = ⅔PGAM
H = Wall Height

9.10 Retaining Walls

9.10.1 Retaining and/or below grade walls should be drained with either perforated pipe encased in freedraining gravel or a prefabricated drainage system. The gravel zone should have a minimum width of 12 inches wide and should extend upward to within 12 inches of the top of the wall. The upper 12 inches of backfill should consist of native soils, concrete, asphaltic-concrete or other suitable backfill to minimize surface drainage into the wall drain system. The gravel should be completely wrapped in nonwoven polypropylene geotextiles (filter fabric) to minimize migration of soil particles into the voids of the crushed rock.

9.10.2 Prefabricated drainage systems, such as Miradrain®, Enkadrain®, or an equivalent substitute, are acceptable alternatives in lieu of gravel provided they are installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. If a prefabricated drainage system is proposed, our firm should review the system for final acceptance prior to installation.

9.10.3 Drainage pipes should be placed with perforations down and should discharge in a non-erosive manner away from foundations and other improvements. The top of the perforated pipe should be placed at or below the bottom of the adjacent floor slab or pavements. The pipe should be placed in the center line of the drainage blanket and should have a minimum diameter of 4 inches.

Slots should be no wider than 1/8-inch in diameter, while perforations should be no more than ¼-inch in diameter.

9.10.4 If retaining walls are less than 5 feet in height, the perforated pipe may be omitted in lieu of weep holes on 4 feet maximum spacing. The weep holes should consist of 2-inch minimum diameter holes (concrete walls) or unmortared head joints (masonry walls) and placed no higher than 18 inches above the lowest adjacent grade. Two 8-inch square overlapping patches of geotextile fabric (conforming to the CalTrans Standard Specifications for "edge drains") should be affixed to the rear wall opening of each weep hole to retard soil piping.

9.10.5 During grading and backfilling operations adjacent to any walls, heavy equipment should not be allowed to operate within a lateral distance of 5 feet from the wall, or within a lateral distance equal to the wall height, whichever is greater, to avoid developing excessive lateral pressures.

Within this zone, only hand operated equipment ("whackers," vibratory plates, or pneumatic compactors) should be used to compact the backfill soils.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 829 of 3061 Project No. 3-222-0678 - 21 -

9.11 Temporary Excavations

9.11.1 We anticipate that the majority of the sandy site soils will be classified as Cal-OSHA “Type C” soil when encountered in excavations during site development and construction. Excavation sloping, benching, the use of trench shields, and the placement of trench spoils should conform to the latest applicable Cal-OSHA standards. The contractor should have a Cal-OSHA-approved “competent person” onsite during excavation to evaluate trench conditions and make appropriate recommendations where necessary.

9.11.2 It is the contractor’s responsibility to provide sufficient and safe excavation support as well as protecting nearby utilities, structures, and other improvements which may be damaged by earth movements. All onsite excavations must be conducted in such a manner that potential surcharges from existing structures, construction equipment, and vehicle loads are resisted. The surcharge area may be defined by a 1:1 projection down and away from the bottom of an existing foundation or vehicle load.

9.11.3 Temporary excavations and slope faces should be protected from rainfall and erosion. Surface runoff should be directed away from excavations and slopes.

9.11.4 Open, unbraced excavations in undisturbed soils should be made according to the slopes presented in the following table:

RECOMMENDED EXCAVATION SLOPES
Depth of Excavation (ft) Slope (Horizontal : Vertical)
0-5 1:1
5-10 2:1

9.11.5 If, due to space limitation, excavations near property lines or existing structures are performed in a vertical position, slot cuts, braced shorings or shields may be used for supporting vertical excavations. Therefore, in order to comply with the local and state safety regulations, a properly designed and installed shoring system would be required to accomplish planned excavations and installation. A Specialty Shoring Contractor should be responsible for the design and installation of such a shoring system during construction.

9.11.6 Braced shorings should be designed for a maximum pressure distribution of 30H, (where H is the depth of the excavation in feet). The foregoing does not include excess hydrostatic pressure or surcharge loading. Fifty percent of any surcharge load, such as construction equipment weight, should be added to the lateral load given herein. Equipment traffic should concurrently be limited to an area at least 3 feet from the shoring face or edge of the slope.

9.11.7 The excavation and shoring recommendations provided herein are based on soil characteristics derived from the borings within the area. Variations in soil conditions will likely be encountered during the excavations. SALEM Engineering Group, Inc. should be afforded the opportunity to provide field review to evaluate the actual conditions and account for field condition variations not otherwise anticipated in the preparation of this recommendation. Slope height, slope

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 830 of 3061 Project No. 3-222-0678 - 22 -
inclination, or excavation depth should in no case exceed those specified in local, state, or federal safety regulation, (e.g. OSHA) standards for excavations, 29 CFR part 1926, or Assessor’s regulations.

9.12 Underground Utilities

9.12.1 Underground utility trenches should be backfilled with properly compacted material. The material excavated from the trenches should be adequate for use as backfill provided it does not contain deleterious matter, vegetation or rock larger than 3 inches in maximum dimension.

Trench backfill should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 8 inches and compacted to at least 95% relative compaction at or above optimum moisture content.

9.12.2 Bedding and pipe zone backfill typically extends from the bottom of the trench excavations to approximately 6 to 12 inches above the crown of the pipe. Pipe bedding and backfill material should conform to the requirements of the governing utility agency.

9.12.3 It is suggested that underground utilities crossing beneath new or existing structures be plugged at entry and exit locations to the building or structure to prevent water migration. Trench plugs can consist of on-site clay soils, if available, or sand cement slurry. The trench plugs should extend 2 feet beyond each side of individual perimeter foundations.

9.12.4 The contractor is responsible for removing all water-sensitive soils from the trench regardless of the backfill location and compaction requirements. The contractor should use appropriate equipment and methods to avoid damage to the utilities and/or structures during fill placement and compaction.

9.13 Surface Drainage

9.13.1 Proper surface drainage is critical to the future performance of the project. Uncontrolled infiltration of irrigation excess and storm runoff into the soils can adversely affect the performance of the planned improvements. Saturation of a soil can cause it to lose internal shear strength and increase its compressibility, resulting in a change to important engineering properties. Proper drainage should be maintained at all times.

9.13.2 The ground immediately adjacent to the foundation shall be sloped away from the building at a slope of not less than 5 percent for a minimum distance of 10 feet.

9.13.3 Impervious surfaces within 10 feet of the buildings foundation shall be sloped a minimum of 2 percent away from the building and drainage gradients maintained to carry all surface water to collection facilities and off site. These grades should be maintained for the life of the project.

Ponding of water should not be allowed adjacent to the structure. Over-irrigation within landscaped areas adjacent to the structure should not be performed.

9.13.4 Roof drains should be installed with appropriate downspout extensions out-falling on splash blocks so as to direct water a minimum of 5 feet away from the structures or be connected to the storm drain system for the development.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 831 of 3061 Project No. 3-222-0678 - 23 -

9.14 Pavement Design

9.14.1 Based on site soil conditions and laboratory test results, an R-value of 35 was used for the preliminary flexible asphaltic concrete pavement design. The R-value may be verified during grading of the pavement areas.

9.14.2 The asphaltic concrete (flexible pavement) is based on a 20 year pavement life for traffic indexes of 5.0 (light duty for vehicular parking and drive), 5.5 (medium duty for vehicular traffic with 1- 2 semi-trucks per week) and 6.0 (heavy duty for truck traffic with 1-2 semi-trucks per day). If higher traffic loading is anticipated, SALEM should be contacted to provide revised pavement thickness recommendations.

TABLE 9.14.2

ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT
Traffic Index Asphaltic
Concrete
Crushed
Aggregate Base*
Compacted
Subgrade*

5.0 (Light Duty) 3.0" 4.0" 24.0"

5.5 (Medium Duty) 3.0" 5.5" 24.0"

6.0 (Heavy Duty) 3.0" 7.0" 24.0"
*95% compaction based on ASTM D1557 Test Method

9.14.3 The following recommendations are for light-duty, medium-duty and heavy-duty Portland Cement Concrete pavement sections.

TABLE 9.14.3

PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENT
Traffic Index Portland Cement
Concrete*
Crushed
Aggregate Base**
Compacted
Subgrade**

5.0 (Light Duty) 5.0" 4.0" 24.0"

5.5 (Medium Duty) 5.5" 4.0" 24.0"

6.0 (Heavy Duty) 6.0" 4.0" 24.0"
* Min Compressive Strength of 4,500 psi; Min Reinforcement of #4 bars at 18" O.C., E.W. ** 95% compaction based on ASTM D1557 Test Method

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 832 of 3061 Project No. 3-222-0678 - 24 -

9.15 Concrete Paver Design

9.15.1 The following recommendations are for concrete paver sections.

TABLE 9.15.1

CONCRETE PAVER
Traffic Index Concrete Paver*
Crushed Aggregate
Base**
Compacted
Subgrade**

5.0 (Light Duty) 80 mm 6.0" 24.0"

5.5 (Medium Duty) 100 mm 8.0" 24.0"

6.0 (Heavy Duty) 100 mm 10.0" 24.0"
* Minimum Compressive Strength of 8,000 psi
** 95% compaction based on ASTM D1557-07 Test Method

9.15.2 A layer of Tensar NX850 geogrid should be placed on top of the prepared subgrade prior to placement of Aggregate Base.

9.15.3 The thickness of aggregate base should meet the manufacturer’s requirement. The aggregate base should consist entirely of crushed rock and rock dust (no recycled materials).

9.15.4 The bedding sand, joint sand, water sealer and stain sealer should be properly applied/installed per manufacturer’s specifications. The joint sand (e.g. HP Polymeric Sand) should be resistant to water erosion (rain, splashes, sprinklers, etc.), weed growth, and insect invasion. The joints should be resealed periodically to protect the paver.

9.16 Temporary Fire Access Road

9.16.1 The temporary access roads will support the imposed load of fire apparatus weighting 94,000 pounds for all-weather driving capabilities during the time of construction.

9.16.2 The temporary access road should consist of a minimum of 6 inches of Crushed Aggregate Base (CAB) compacted to a minimum of 95% relative compaction. The road should have a minimum un-obstructed width of 20 feet. The subgrade soil should be scarified to depths of 12 inches, moisture condition to near optimum moisture content and recompacted to a minimum of 95% relative compaction prior to placing aggregate base.

9.16.3 All surface water should be directed away from the road. The road should be maintained, inspected and tested periodically. Additional moisture conditioning and recompaction will be required if the road conditions deteriorate. A bituminous surface treatment (seal coat) may be applied to the compacted aggregate base surface to minimize disturbance.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 833 of 3061 Project No. 3-222-0678 - 25 -

10. PLAN REVIEW, CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING

10.1 Plan and Specification Review

10.1.1 SALEM should review the project plans and specifications prior to final design submittal to assess whether our recommendations have been properly implemented and evaluate if additional analysis and/or recommendations are required.

10.2 Construction Observation and Testing Services

10.2.1 The recommendations provided in this report are based on the assumption that we will continue as Geotechnical Engineer of Record throughout the construction phase. It is important to maintain continuity of geotechnical interpretation and confirm that field conditions encountered are similar to those anticipated during design. If we are not retained for these services, we cannot assume any responsibility for others interpretation of our recommendations, and therefore the future performance of the project.

10.2.2 SALEM or certified testing and inspection engineer (typical) should be present at the site during site preparation to observe site clearing, preparation of exposed surfaces after clearing, and placement, treatment and compaction of fill material.

10.2.3 SALEM's observations should be supplemented with periodic compaction tests to establish substantial conformance with these recommendations. Moisture content of footings and slab subgrade should be tested immediately prior to concrete placement. SALEM should observe foundation excavations prior to placement of reinforcing steel or concrete to assess whether the actual bearing conditions are compatible with the conditions anticipated during the preparation of this report.

11. LIMITATIONS AND CHANGED CONDITIONS
The analyses and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the test borings drilled at the approximate locations shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. The report does not reflect variations which may occur between borings. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until construction is initiated. If variations then appear, a re-evaluation of the recommendations of this report will be necessary after performing on-site observations during the excavation period and noting the characteristics of such variations. The findings and recommendations presented in this report are valid as of the present and for the proposed construction.

If site conditions change due to natural processes or human intervention on the property or adjacent to the site, or changes occur in the nature or design of the project, or if there is a substantial time lapse between the submission of this report and the start of the work at the site, the conclusions and recommendations contained in our report will not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed by SALEM and the conclusions of our report are modified or verified in writing.

The validity of the recommendations contained in this report is also dependent upon an adequate testing and observations program during the construction phase. Our firm assumes no responsibility for construction compliance with the design concepts or recommendations unless we have been retained to perform the onPage 296 of 2023 AGENDA ITEM #14.1 Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 834 of 3061 Project No. 3-222-0678 - 26 -
site testing and review during construction. SALEM has prepared this report for the exclusive use of the owner and project design consultants.

SALEM does not practice in the field of corrosion engineering. It is recommended that a qualified corrosion engineer be consulted regarding protection of buried steel or ductile iron piping and conduit or, at a minimum, that manufacturer’s recommendations for corrosion protection be closely followed. Further, a corrosion engineer may be needed to incorporate the necessary precautions to avoid premature corrosion of concrete slabs and foundations in direct contact with native soil.

The importation of soil and or aggregate materials to the site should be screened to determine the potential for corrosion to concrete and buried metal piping. The report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices in the area. No other warranties, either express or implied, are made as to the professional advice provided under the terms of our agreement and included in this report.

If you have any questions, or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our office at (909) 980-6455.

Respectfully Submitted,
SALEM ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.

Jared Christiansen, MS, EIT
Geotechnical Staff Engineer
Ibrahim Foud Ibrahim, PE Clarence Jiang, GE
Senior Managing Engineer Senior Geotechnical Engineer
RCE 86724 RGE 2477

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 835 of 3061 Source Image: U.S. Geological Survey, Indio Quadrangle, Riverside County, California , 2021

VICINITY MAP

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION
Proposed Multi-Tenant Development
NEC Jackson Street & Avenue 42
Indio, California
SCALE: DATE
:

NOT TO SCALE07/2022
DRAWN BY: APPROVED BY
:

JC CJ
PROJECT NO. FIGURE NO. 3-222-0678
1 SITE LOCATION
N

SITE PLAN

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION
Proposed Multi-Tenant Development
NEC Jackson Street & Avenue 42
Indio, California
SCALE: DATE
:

NOT TO SCALE09/2022
DRAWN BY: APPROVED BY
:

JC CJ
PROJECT NO. FIGURE NO. 3-222-0678 2
LEGEND:

Soil Boring Locations
Percolation Locations
All Locations Approximate B-1
N
B-2
B-1
B-3
P-1
B-4
B-6
P-1
B-7
B-8
P-2
B-5
B-9
P-3
P-4
B-10
P-5
P-9
P-12
P-11
P-16
P-6
P-7
P-8
P-10
P-13
P-14
P-15

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 838 of 3061 Project No. 3-222-0678 A-1

APPENDIX A

FIELD EXPLORATION
Fieldwork for our investigation (drilling) was conducted on July 7, July 8, September 6, and September 7, 2022 and included a site visit, subsurface exploration, and soil sampling. The locations of the exploratory borings are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. Boring logs for our exploration are presented in figures following the text in this appendix. Borings were located in the field using existing reference points.

Therefore, actual boring locations may deviate slightly.

In general, our borings were performed using a truck-mounted CME-45C drill rig equipped with 6½-inch hollow stem augers. Sampling in the borings was accomplished using a hydraulic 140-pound hammer with a 30-inch drop. Samples were obtained with a 3-inch outside-diameter (OD), split spoon (California Modified) sampler, and a 2-inch OD, Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampler. The number of blows required to drive the sampler the last 12 inches (or fraction thereof) of the 18-inch sampling interval were recorded on the boring logs. The blow counts shown on the boring logs should not be interpreted as standard SPT “N” values; corrections have not been applied. Upon completion, the borings were backfilled with drill cuttings.

Subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings were visually examined, classified and logged in general accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure D2488). This system uses the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) for soil designations. The logs depict soil and geologic conditions encountered and depths at which samples were obtained. The logs also include our interpretation of the conditions between sampling intervals. Therefore, the logs contain both observed and interpreted data. We determined the lines designating the interface between soil materials on the logs using visual observations, drill rig penetration rates, excavation characteristics and other factors. The transition between materials may be abrupt or gradual. Where applicable, the field logs were revised based on subsequent laboratory testing.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 839 of 3061 0 5
10 15
20 25
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
10/6
12/6
23/6
9/6
20/6
20/6
5/6
10/6
13/6
3/6
9/6
10/6
8/6
13/6
16/6
ML
SM
Sandy SILT
Very stiff; dry; light brown; fine
grain sand. Grades as above; moist. Grades as above. Silty SAND Medium dense; very moist; light
brown; fine grain sand. Grades as above; slighty moist; mottled light gray/light brown. End of boring at 21.5 feet BSG. 35 40
23 19
29 2.1

8.6 11.7

15.5 2.9

97.2 90.3
-
-
-
Test Boring: B-1 Page 1 Of:

Project Number: 3-222-0678
Date: 07/07/2022
Client: Can Do LLC
Project: Proposed Multi-Tenant Development
Location: NEC Jackson Street & Avenue 42 Indio, California Drilled By: SALEM Logged By: KY
Drill Type: CME 45C Elevation: -8' Auger Type: 6.5 in. Hollow Stem Auger Initial Depth to Groundwater: N/A Hammer Type: Automatic Trip - 140 lb/ 30 in Final Depth to Groundwater:

Notes:

Figure Number A1

ELEVATION/
DEPTH
(feet)

SOIL SYMBOLS

SAMPLER SYMBOLS

AND FIELD TEST DATA
USCS Soil Description
N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content %
Dry Density, PCF Remarks
1

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 840 of 3061 0 5
10 15
20 25
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
3/6
11/6
14/6
8/6
10/6
11/6
8/6
14/6
14/6
6/6
6/6
11/6
9/6
12/6
14/6
4/6
8/6
8/6
SM
ML
SM
ML
Silty SAND
Medium dense; moist; light brown;
fine grain sand. Sandy SILT
Very stiff; very moist; light brown;
fine grain sand. Grades as above; slightly moist;
mottled brown/light brown. Silty SAND
Medium dense; moist; light brown;
fine to medium grain sand. Grades as above; very moist. Sandy SILT Very stiff; very moist; brown.
25 21
28 17
26 16

6.5 13.2

4.1 9.3

13.6 15.5
103.1

97.0 -
-
-
-
Test Boring: B-2 Page 1 Of:

Project Number: 3-222-0678
Date: 07/07/2022
Client: Can Do LLC
Project: Proposed Multi-Tenant Development
Location: NEC Jackson Street & Avenue 42 Indio, California Drilled By: SALEM Logged By: KY
Drill Type: CME 45C Elevation: -10' Auger Type: 6.5 in. Hollow Stem Auger Initial Depth to Groundwater: N/A Hammer Type: Automatic Trip - 140 lb/ 30 in Final Depth to Groundwater:

Notes:

Figure Number

ELEVATION/
DEPTH
(feet)

SOIL SYMBOLS

SAMPLER SYMBOLS

AND FIELD TEST DATA
USCS Soil Description
N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content %
Dry Density, PCF Remarks
2

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 841 of 3061 30 35
40 45
50 55
60 -40
-45
-50
-55
-60
-65
-70
8/6
13/6
13/6
7/6
11/6
14/6
3/6
6/6
9/6
12/6
24/6
26/6
8/6
10/6
20/6
SM
ML
SM
ML
Silty SAND
Medium dense; slightly moist;
mottled lgiht brown/gray; fine grain
sand. Grades as above. SILT
Stiff; wet; brown; with trace clay. Silty SAND
Dense; very moist; brown; fine to
medium grain sand. Sandy SILT
Very stiff; very moist; brown; fine
grain sand. End of boring at 51.5 feet BSG.
26 25
15 50
30 6.3

6.1 34.0

13.3 14.5
-
-
-
-
-

Project Number: 3-222-0678
Date: 07/07/2022
Test Boring: B-2
Notes:

Figure Number

ELEVATION/
DEPTH
(feet)

SOIL SYMBOLS

SAMPLER SYMBOLS

AND FIELD TEST DATA
USCS Soil Description
N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content %
Dry Density, PCF Remarks 2

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 842 of 3061 0 5
10 15
20 25
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
5/6
14/6
16/6
8/6
17/6
22/6
7/6
12/6
14/6
6/6
12/6
10/6
6/6
9/6
10/6
ML
SM
Sandy SILT
Very stiff; light brown; dry. Grades as above; light brown. Silty SAND Medium dense; moist; light brown;
fine grain sand. Grades as above. Grades as above. End of boring at 21.5 feet BSG. 30 39
26 22
19 6.8

9.5 8.0

6.0 8.7
102.3
105.4
-
-
-
Test Boring: B-3 Page 1 Of:

Project Number: 3-222-0678
Date: 07/07/2022
Client: Can Do LLC
Project: Proposed Multi-Tenant Development
Location: NEC Jackson Street & Avenue 42 Indio, California Drilled By: SALEM Logged By: KY
Drill Type: CME 45C Elevation: -9' Auger Type: 6.5 in. Hollow Stem Auger Initial Depth to Groundwater: N/A Hammer Type: Automatic Trip - 140 lb/ 30 in Final Depth to Groundwater:

Notes:

Figure Number

ELEVATION/
DEPTH
(feet)

SOIL SYMBOLS

SAMPLER SYMBOLS

AND FIELD TEST DATA
USCS Soil Description
N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content %
Dry Density, PCF Remarks
1

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 843 of 3061 0 5
10 15
20 25
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
10/6
14/6
15/6
4/6
5/6
7/6
4/6
9/6
14/6
4/6
10/6
11/6
7/6
13/6
11/6
ML
ML
SM
Sandy SILT
Very stiff; dry; light brown; fine
grain sand. Grades as above; stiff; moist; light
brown. Grades as above; very stiff; fine
grain sand. Silty SAND
Medium dense; moist; light brown;
fine grain sand. Grades as above; mottled brown/
light gray. End of boring at 21.5 feet BSG.
29 12
23 21
24 2.0

11.1 18.8

8.1 19.9

93.8 88.9
-
-
-
Test Boring: B-4 Page 1 Of:

Project Number: 3-222-0678
Date: 07/07/2022
Client: Can Do LLC
Project: Proposed Multi-Tenant Development
Location: NEC Jackson Street & Avenue 42 Indio, California Drilled By: SALEM Logged By: KY
Drill Type: CME 45C Elevation: -7' Auger Type: 6.5 in. Hollow Stem Auger Initial Depth to Groundwater: N/A Hammer Type: Automatic Trip - 140 lb/ 30 in Final Depth to Groundwater:

Notes:

Figure Number

ELEVATION/
DEPTH
(feet)

SOIL SYMBOLS

SAMPLER SYMBOLS

AND FIELD TEST DATA
USCS Soil Description
N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content %
Dry Density, PCF Remarks
1

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 844 of 3061 0 5
10 15
20 25
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
3/6
7/6
15/6
3/6
9/6
15/6
8/6
11/6
10/6
7/6
14/6
15/6
6/6
12/6
13/6
ML
SM
Sandy SILT
Very stiff; moist; brown; fine grain
sand. Grades as above; wet. Silty SAND
Medium dense; moist; light brown;
fine grain sand. Grades as above; slightly moist;
light brown/gray. Grades as above; moist. End of boring at 21.5 feet BSG. 22 24
21 29
25 9.7

20.3 8.7

3.5 6.6

96.2 96.2
-
-
-
Test Boring: B-5 Page 1 Of:

Project Number: 3-222-0678
Date: 07/07/2022
Client: Can Do LLC
Project: Proposed Multi-Tenant Development
Location: NEC Jackson Street & Avenue 42 Indio, California Drilled By: SALEM Logged By: KY
Drill Type: CME 45C Elevation: -11' Auger Type: 6.5 in. Hollow Stem Auger Initial Depth to Groundwater: N/A Hammer Type: Automatic Trip - 140 lb/ 30 in Final Depth to Groundwater:

Notes:

Figure Number

ELEVATION/
DEPTH
(feet)

SOIL SYMBOLS

SAMPLER SYMBOLS

AND FIELD TEST DATA
USCS Soil Description
N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content %
Dry Density, PCF Remarks
1

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 845 of 3061 0 5
10 15
20 25
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
3/6
4/6
7/6
3/6
2/6
2/6
2/6
3/6
3/6
SM
ML
Silty SAND
Loose; moist; light gray. Grades as above; very loose; wet; brown. Sandy Silt
Firm; very moist; brown; fine grain
sand. End of boring at 10 feet BSG.
11 4
6 5.8

18.5 15.2
113.1
-
-
Test Boring: B-6 Page 1 Of:

Project Number: 3-222-0678
Date: 07/07/2022
Client: Can Do LLC
Project: Proposed Multi-Tenant Development
Location: NEC Jackson Street & Avenue 42 Indio, California Drilled By: SALEM Logged By: KY
Drill Type: CME 45C Elevation: -8' Auger Type: 6.5 in. Hollow Stem Auger Initial Depth to Groundwater: N/A Hammer Type: Automatic Trip - 140 lb/ 30 in Final Depth to Groundwater:

Notes:

Figure Number

ELEVATION/
DEPTH
(feet)

SOIL SYMBOLS

SAMPLER SYMBOLS

AND FIELD TEST DATA
USCS Soil Description
N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content %
Dry Density, PCF Remarks
1