Agenda — Indio City Council, December 6, 2023 (part 7 of 18)

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 846 of 3061 0 5
10 15
20 25
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
6/6
6/6
7/6
3/6
3/6
3/6
SM
ML
Silty SAND
Loose; moist; mottled light brown/
light gray; fine grain sand. Sandy SILT
Firm; moist; mottled light brown/
light gray; fine grain sand. End of boring at 5 feet BSG. 13 6 17.9

11.0 90.2
-
Test Boring: B-7 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: -6' 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

Page 309 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 847 of 3061 0 5
10 15
20 25
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
16/6
16/6
18/6
7/6
8/6
10/6
ML Sandy SILT
Very stiff; dry; fine to medium grain
sand; with gravel. Grades as above; dry; fine grain
sand. End of boring at 5 feet BSG. 34
18 2.4

4.5 112.4
-
Test Boring: B-8 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

Page 310 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 848 of 3061 0 5
10 15
20 25
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
13/6
9/6
25/6
6/6
8/6
13/6
6/6
10/6
11/6
SM
ML
Silty SAND
Medium dense; dry; light brown;
fine grain sand. Sandy SILT
Very stiff; moist; light brown. Grades as above; with fine sand. End of boring at 10 feet BSG. 34 21
21 1.6

4.7 8.4
100.3
-
-
Test Boring: B-9 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

Page 311 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 849 of 3061 0 5
10 15
20 25
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
14/6
19/6
29/6
7/6
10/6
14/6
SM
ML
Silty SAND
Demse; dry; light brown; fine
grain sand. Sandy SILT
Very stiff; dry; light brown; fine
grain sand. End of boring at 5 feet BSG. 48
24 1.7

2.3 98.4
-
Test Boring: B-10 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

Page 312 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 850 of 3061 Granular Soils Cohesive Soils
Blows Per Foot (Uncorrected) Blows Per Foot (Uncorrected)

MCS SPT MCS SPT
Very loose <5 <4 Very soft <3 <2
Loose 5-15 4-10 Soft 3-5 2-4
Medium dense 16-40 11-30 Firm 6-10 5-8
Dense 41-65 31-50 Stiff 11-20 9-15
Very dense >65 >50 Very Stiff 21-40 16-30
Hard >40 >30
MCS = Modified California Sampler
SPT = Standard Penetration Test Sampler
Notes:

Soil Samplers
California sampler
Standard penetration test

Page 313 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 851 of 3061 Project: Job No.:

SM/SC Hole Radius: 4 in.

Pipe Dia.: 3 in.

Test Hole No.: P-1 Presoaking Date: Total Depth of Hole: 118 in.

Tested by: JC Test Date:

Drilled Hole Depth: 9.8 ft. Pipe Stick up: 2.0 ft.

Time Start
Time
Finish
Depth of
Test Hole
(ft)#
RefillYes or
No
Elapsed
Time
(hrs:min)
Initial
Water
Level# (ft)
Final
Water
Level# (ft)
Δ Water
Level (in.) Δ Min.

Meas.

Perc Rate
(min/in)
Initial
Height of
Water (in)
Final
Height of
Water (in)
Average
Height of
Water (in)
Tested
Infiltration Rate
It (in/hr)
10:40 11:10 11.8 Y 0:30 9.00 9.32 3.84 30 7.8 34.0 30.2 32.1 0.45 11:10 11:40 11.8 N 0:30 9.32 9.55 2.76 30 10.9 30.2 27.4 28.8 0.36 11:40 12:10 11.8 N 0:30 9.55 9.75 2.40 30 12.5 27.4 25.0 26.2 0.34 12:10 12:40 11.8 N 0:30 9.75 9.90 1.80 30 16.7 25.0 23.2 24.1 0.28 12:40 13:10 11.8 N 0:30 9.90 10.05 1.80 30 16.7 23.2 21.4 22.3 0.30 13:10 13:40 11.8 N 0:30 10.05 10.18 1.56 30 19.2 21.4 19.8 20.6 0.28 13:40 14:10 11.8 N 0:30 10.18 10.30 1.44 30 20.8 19.8 18.4 19.1 0.27 14:10 14:40 11.8 N 0:30 10.30 10.42 1.44 30 20.8 18.4 17.0 17.7 0.29 14:40 15:10 11.8 N 0:30 10.42 10.52 1.20 30 25.0 17.0 15.8 16.4 0.26 15:10 15:40 11.8 N 0:30 10.52 10.62 1.20 30 25.0 15.8 14.6 15.2 0.28 15:40 16:10 11.8 N 0:30 10.62 10.71 1.08 30 27.8 14.6 13.5 14.0 0.27 16:10 16:40 11.8 N 0:30 10.71 10.79 0.96 30 31.3 13.5 12.5 13.0 0.26 Tested Infiltration Rate, It 0.26
Proposed Multi-Tenant Development
Percolation Test Worksheet
7/7/2022
7/7/2022
7/8/2022
NEC Jackson Street & Avenue 42
Indio, CA
Date Drilled:

Soil Classification:
3-222-0678

Page 314 of 2023 ends

Project: Job No.: 3-222-0678
Date Drilled:

Soil Classification: ML Hole Radius: 4 in.

Pipe Dia.: 3 in.

Test Hole No.: P-2 Presoaking Date: Total Depth of Hole: 60 in.

Tested by: JC Test Date:

Drilled Hole Depth: 5.0 ft. Pipe Stick up: 0.5 ft.

Time Start
Time
Finish
Depth of
Test Hole
(ft)#
RefillYes or
No
Elapsed
Time
(hrs:min)
Initial
Water
Level# (ft)
Final
Water
Level# (ft)
Δ Water
Level (in.) Δ Min.

Meas.

Perc Rate
(min/in)
Initial
Height of
Water (in)
Final
Height of
Water (in)
Average
Height of
Water (in)
Tested
Infiltration Rate
It (in/hr)
10:46 11:16 5.5 Y 0:30 2.78 3.32 6.48 30 4.6 32.6 26.2 29.4 0.83 11:16 11:46 5.5 N 0:30 3.32 3.72 4.80 30 6.2 26.2 21.4 23.8 0.75 11:46 12:16 5.5 N 0:30 3.72 4.04 3.84 30 7.8 21.4 17.5 19.4 0.72 12:16 12:46 5.5 N 0:30 4.04 4.30 3.12 30 9.6 17.5 14.4 16.0 0.69 12:46 13:16 5.5 N 0:30 4.30 4.51 2.52 30 11.9 14.4 11.9 13.1 0.67 13:16 13:46 5.5 N 0:30 4.51 4.69 2.16 30 13.9 11.9 9.7 10.8 0.68 13:47 14:17 5.5 Y 0:30 2.98 3.40 5.04 30 6.0 30.2 25.2 27.7 0.68 14:17 14:47 5.5 N 0:30 3.40 3.73 3.96 30 7.6 25.2 21.2 23.2 0.63 14:47 15:17 5.5 N 0:30 3.73 4.02 3.48 30 8.6 21.2 17.8 19.5 0.65 15:17 15:47 5.5 N 0:30 4.02 4.26 2.88 30 10.4 17.8 14.9 16.3 0.63 15:47 16:17 5.5 N 0:30 4.26 4.47 2.52 30 11.9 14.9 12.4 13.6 0.65 16:17 16:47 5.5 N 0:30 4.47 4.65 2.16 30 13.9 12.4 10.2 11.3 0.65 Tested Infiltration Rate, It 0.63
Percolation Test Worksheet
7/7/2022
7/7/2022
7/8/2022
Proposed Multi-Tenant Development
NEC Jackson Street & Avenue 42
Indio, CA

Page 315 of 2023 ends

Project: Job No.: 3-222-0678
Date Drilled:

Soil Classification: ML Hole Radius: 4 in.

Pipe Dia.: 3 in.

Test Hole No.: P-3 Presoaking Date: Total Depth of Hole: 120 in.

Tested by: JC Test Date:

Drilled Hole Depth: 10.0 ft. Pipe Stick up: 2.0 ft.

Time Start
Time
Finish
Depth of
Test Hole
(ft)#
RefillYes or
No
Elapsed
Time
(hrs:min)
Initial
Water
Level# (ft)
Final
Water
Level# (ft)
Δ Water
Level (in.) Δ Min.

Meas.

Perc Rate
(min/in)
Initial
Height of
Water (in)
Final
Height of
Water (in)
Average
Height of
Water (in)
Tested
Infiltration Rate
It (in/hr)
11:25 11:55 12.0 Y 0:30 7.85 8.42 6.84 30 4.4 49.8 43.0 46.4 0.57 11:55 12:25 12.0 N 0:30 8.42 8.88 5.52 30 5.4 43.0 37.4 40.2 0.52 12:25 12:55 12.0 N 0:30 8.88 9.26 4.56 30 6.6 37.4 32.9 35.2 0.49 12:55 13:25 12.0 N 0:30 9.26 9.60 4.08 30 7.4 32.9 28.8 30.8 0.50 13:25 13:55 12.0 N 0:30 9.60 9.89 3.48 30 8.6 28.8 25.3 27.1 0.48 13:55 14:25 12.0 N 0:30 9.89 10.15 3.12 30 9.6 25.3 22.2 23.8 0.48 14:25 14:55 12.0 N 0:30 10.15 10.38 2.76 30 10.9 22.2 19.4 20.8 0.48 14:55 15:25 12.0 N 0:30 10.38 10.58 2.40 30 12.5 19.4 17.0 18.2 0.47 15:25 15:55 12.0 N 0:30 10.58 10.76 2.16 30 13.9 17.0 14.9 16.0 0.48 15:55 16:25 12.0 N 0:30 10.76 10.92 1.92 30 15.6 14.9 13.0 13.9 0.48 16:25 16:55 12.0 N 0:30 10.92 11.06 1.68 30 17.9 13.0 11.3 12.1 0.48 16:55 17:25 12.0 N 0:30 11.06 11.19 1.56 30 19.2 11.3 9.7 10.5 0.50 Tested Infiltration Rate, It 0.47
7/8/2022
Percolation Test Worksheet
Proposed Multi-Tenant Development
NEC Jackson Street & Avenue 42 7/7/2022
Indio, CA
7/7/2022

Page 316 of 2023 ends

Project: Job No.: 3-222-0678
Date Drilled:

Soil Classification: SM Hole Radius: 4 in.

Pipe Dia.: 3 in.

Test Hole No.: P-4 Presoaking Date: Total Depth of Hole: 60 in.

Tested by: JC Test Date:

Drilled Hole Depth: 5.0 ft. Pipe Stick up: 0.5 ft.

Time Start
Time
Finish
Depth of
Test Hole
(ft)#
RefillYes or
No
Elapsed
Time
(hrs:min)
Initial
Water
Level# (ft)
Final
Water
Level# (ft)
Δ Water
Level (in.) Δ Min.

Meas.

Perc Rate
(min/in)
Initial
Height of
Water (in)
Final
Height of
Water (in)
Average
Height of
Water (in)
Tested
Infiltration Rate
It (in/hr)
10:25 10:50 5.5 Y 0:25 3.38 4.72 16.08 25 1.6 25.4 9.4 17.4 3.98 10:51 11:16 5.5 Y 0:25 3.41 4.67 15.12 25 1.7 25.1 10.0 17.5 3.72 11:17 11:27 5.5 Y 0:10 3.54 4.09 6.60 10 1.5 23.5 16.9 20.2 3.56 11:27 11:37 5.5 N 0:10 4.09 4.50 4.92 10 2.0 16.9 12.0 14.5 3.59 11:37 11:47 5.5 N 0:10 4.50 4.80 3.60 10 2.8 12.0 8.4 10.2 3.54 11:48 11:58 5.5 Y 0:10 3.68 4.19 6.12 10 1.6 21.8 15.7 18.8 3.53 11:58 12:08 5.5 Y 0:10 4.19 4.57 4.56 10 2.2 15.7 11.2 13.4 3.54 12:08 12:18 5.5 N 0:10 4.57 4.85 3.36 10 3.0 11.2 7.8 9.5 3.51 Tested Infiltration Rate, It 3.51
7/8/2022
Percolation Test Worksheet
Proposed Multi-Tenant Development
NEC Jackson Street & Avenue 42 7/7/2022
Indio, CA
7/7/2022

Page 317 of 2023 ends

Project: Job No.: 3-222-0678
Date Drilled:

Soil Classification: SM Hole Radius: 4 in.

Pipe Dia.: 3 in.

Test Hole No.: P-5 Presoaking Date: Total Depth of Hole: 120 in.

Tested by: CC Test Date:

Drilled Hole Depth: 40.0 ft. Pipe Stick up: 3.0 ft.

Time Start
Time
Finish
Depth of
Test Hole
(ft)#
RefillYes or
No
Elapsed
Time
(hrs:min)
Initial
Water
Level# (ft)
Final
Water
Level# (ft)
Δ Water
Level (in.) Δ Min.

Meas.

Perc Rate
(min/in)
Initial
Height of
Water (in)
Final
Height of
Water (in)
Average
Height of
Water (in)
Tested
Infiltration Rate
It (in/hr)
8:07 8:32 43.0 Y 0:25 4.06 14.42 124.32 25 0.2 467.3 343.0 405.1 1.47 8:32 8:57 43.0 N 0:25 14.42 21.16 80.88 25 0.3 343.0 262.1 302.5 1.27 8:57 9:07 43.0 N 0:10 21.16 23.29 25.56 10 0.4 262.1 236.5 249.3 1.22 9:07 9:17 43.0 N 0:10 23.29 25.17 22.56 10 0.4 236.5 214.0 225.2 1.19 9:17 9:27 43.0 N 0:10 25.17 26.84 20.04 10 0.5 214.0 193.9 203.9 1.17 9:27 9:37 43.0 N 0:10 26.84 28.33 17.88 10 0.6 193.9 176.0 185.0 1.15 9:37 9:47 43.0 N 0:10 28.33 29.70 16.44 10 0.6 176.0 159.6 167.8 1.16 9:47 9:57 43.0 N 0:10 29.70 30.94 14.88 10 0.7 159.6 144.7 152.2 1.16 Tested Infiltration Rate, It 1.15
9/7/2022
Percolation Test Worksheet
Proposed Multi-Tenant Development
NEC Jackson Street & Avenue 42 9/6/2022
Indio, CA
9/6/2022

Page 318 of 2023 ends

Project: Job No.: 3-222-0678
Date Drilled:

Soil Classification: SM Hole Radius: 4 in.

Pipe Dia.: 3 in.

Test Hole No.: P-6 Presoaking Date: Total Depth of Hole: 120 in.

Tested by: CC Test Date:

Drilled Hole Depth: 34.0 ft. Pipe Stick up: 2.0 ft.

Time Start
Time
Finish
Depth of
Test Hole
(ft)#
RefillYes or
No
Elapsed
Time
(hrs:min)
Initial
Water
Level# (ft)
Final
Water
Level# (ft)
Δ Water
Level (in.) Δ Min.

Meas.

Perc Rate
(min/in)
Initial
Height of
Water (in)
Final
Height of
Water (in)
Average
Height of
Water (in)
Tested
Infiltration Rate
It (in/hr)
8:02 8:27 36.0 Y 0:25 3.95 12.93 107.76 25 0.2 384.6 276.8 330.7 1.55 8:27 8:52 36.0 N 0:25 12.93 18.69 69.12 25 0.4 276.8 207.7 242.3 1.36 8:52 9:02 36.0 N 0:10 18.69 20.38 20.28 10 0.5 207.7 187.4 197.6 1.22 9:02 9:12 36.0 N 0:10 20.38 21.89 18.12 10 0.6 187.4 169.3 178.4 1.21 9:12 9:22 36.0 N 0:10 21.89 23.26 16.44 10 0.6 169.3 152.9 161.1 1.21 9:22 9:32 36.0 N 0:10 23.26 24.51 15.00 10 0.7 152.9 137.9 145.4 1.22 9:32 9:42 36.0 N 0:10 24.51 25.63 13.44 10 0.7 137.9 124.4 131.2 1.21 9:42 9:52 36.0 N 0:10 25.63 26.64 12.12 10 0.8 124.4 112.3 118.4 1.21 Tested Infiltration Rate, It 1.21
9/7/2022
Percolation Test Worksheet
Proposed Multi-Tenant Development
NEC Jackson Street & Avenue 42 9/6/2022
Indio, CA
9/6/2022

Page 319 of 2023 ends

Project: Job No.: 3-222-0678
Date Drilled:

Soil Classification: ML Hole Radius: 4 in.

Pipe Dia.: 3 in.

Test Hole No.: P-7 Presoaking Date: Total Depth of Hole: 120 in.

Tested by: CC Test Date:

Drilled Hole Depth: 20.0 ft. Pipe Stick up: 3.0 ft.

Time Start
Time
Finish
Depth of
Test Hole
(ft)#
RefillYes or
No
Elapsed
Time
(hrs:min)
Initial
Water
Level# (ft)
Final
Water
Level# (ft)
Δ Water
Level (in.) Δ Min.

Meas.

Perc Rate
(min/in)
Initial
Height of
Water (in)
Final
Height of
Water (in)
Average
Height of
Water (in)
Tested
Infiltration Rate
It (in/hr)
8:04 8:29 23.0 Y 0:25 4.09 6.77 32.16 25 0.8 226.9 194.8 210.8 0.73 8:29 8:54 23.0 N 0:25 6.77 8.68 22.92 25 1.1 194.8 171.8 183.3 0.59 8:54 9:04 23.0 N 0:10 8.68 9.32 7.68 10 1.3 171.8 164.2 168.0 0.54 9:04 9:14 23.0 N 0:10 9.32 9.88 6.72 10 1.5 164.2 157.4 160.8 0.50 9:14 9:24 23.0 N 0:10 9.88 10.40 6.24 10 1.6 157.4 151.2 154.3 0.48 9:24 9:34 23.0 N 0:10 10.40 10.88 5.76 10 1.7 151.2 145.4 148.3 0.46 9:34 9:44 23.0 N 0:10 10.88 11.34 5.52 10 1.8 145.4 139.9 142.7 0.46 9:44 9:54 23.0 N 0:10 11.34 11.80 5.52 10 1.8 139.9 134.4 137.2 0.48 Tested Infiltration Rate, It 0.46
9/7/2022
Percolation Test Worksheet
Proposed Multi-Tenant Development
NEC Jackson Street & Avenue 42 9/6/2022
Indio, CA
9/6/2022

Page 320 of 2023 ends

Project: Job No.: 3-222-0678
Date Drilled:

Soil Classification: SM/ML Hole Radius: 4 in.

Pipe Dia.: 3 in.

Test Hole No.: P-8 Presoaking Date: Total Depth of Hole: 120 in.

Tested by: CC Test Date:

Drilled Hole Depth: 38.0 ft. Pipe Stick up: 1.0 ft.

Time Start
Time
Finish
Depth of
Test Hole
(ft)#
RefillYes or
No
Elapsed
Time
(hrs:min)
Initial
Water
Level# (ft)
Final
Water
Level# (ft)
Δ Water
Level (in.) Δ Min.

Meas.

Perc Rate
(min/in)
Initial
Height of
Water (in)
Final
Height of
Water (in)
Average
Height of
Water (in)
Tested
Infiltration Rate
It (in/hr)
10:06 10:31 39.0 Y 0:25 4.02 13.35 111.96 25 0.2 419.8 307.8 363.8 1.47 10:31 10:56 39.0 N 0:25 13.35 19.56 74.52 25 0.3 307.8 233.3 270.5 1.31 10:56 11:06 39.0 N 0:10 19.56 21.47 22.92 10 0.4 233.3 210.4 221.8 1.23 11:06 11:16 39.0 N 0:10 21.47 23.12 19.80 10 0.5 210.4 190.6 200.5 1.17 11:16 11:26 39.0 N 0:10 23.12 24.60 17.76 10 0.6 190.6 172.8 181.7 1.16 11:26 11:36 39.0 N 0:10 24.60 25.96 16.32 10 0.6 172.8 156.5 164.6 1.18 11:36 11:46 39.0 N 0:10 25.96 27.20 14.88 10 0.7 156.5 141.6 149.0 1.18 11:46 11:56 39.0 N 0:10 27.20 28.31 13.32 10 0.8 141.6 128.3 134.9 1.17 Tested Infiltration Rate, It 1.16
9/7/2022
Percolation Test Worksheet
Proposed Multi-Tenant Development
NEC Jackson Street & Avenue 42 9/6/2022
Indio, CA
9/6/2022

Page 321 of 2023 ends

Project: Job No.: 3-222-0678
Date Drilled:

Soil Classification: SM Hole Radius: 4 in.

Pipe Dia.: 3 in.

Test Hole No.: P-9 Presoaking Date: Total Depth of Hole: 120 in.

Tested by: CC Test Date:

Drilled Hole Depth: 17.5 ft. Pipe Stick up: 2.5 ft.

Time Start
Time
Finish
Depth of
Test Hole
(ft)#
RefillYes or
No
Elapsed
Time
(hrs:min)
Initial
Water
Level# (ft)
Final
Water
Level# (ft)
Δ Water
Level (in.) Δ Min.

Meas.

Perc Rate
(min/in)
Initial
Height of
Water (in)
Final
Height of
Water (in)
Average
Height of
Water (in)
Tested
Infiltration Rate
It (in/hr)
10:11 10:36 20.0 Y 0:25 4.00 6.86 34.32 25 0.7 192.0 157.7 174.8 0.93 10:36 11:01 20.0 N 0:25 6.86 9.03 26.04 25 1.0 157.7 131.6 144.7 0.85 11:01 11:11 20.0 N 0:10 9.03 9.80 9.24 10 1.1 131.6 122.4 127.0 0.86 11:11 11:21 20.0 N 0:10 9.80 10.54 8.88 10 1.1 122.4 113.5 118.0 0.89 11:21 11:31 20.0 N 0:10 10.54 11.12 6.96 10 1.4 113.5 106.6 110.0 0.75 11:31 11:41 20.0 N 0:10 11.12 11.67 6.60 10 1.5 106.6 100.0 103.3 0.75 11:41 11:51 20.0 N 0:10 11.67 12.19 6.24 10 1.6 100.0 93.7 96.8 0.76 11:51 12:01 20.0 N 0:10 12.19 12.68 5.88 10 1.7 93.7 87.8 90.8 0.76 Tested Infiltration Rate, It 0.75
9/7/2022
Percolation Test Worksheet
Proposed Multi-Tenant Development
NEC Jackson Street & Avenue 42 9/6/2022
Indio, CA
9/6/2022

Page 322 of 2023 ends

Project: Job No.: 3-222-0678
Date Drilled:

Soil Classification: SM Hole Radius: 4 in.

Pipe Dia.: 3 in.

Test Hole No.: P-10 Presoaking Date: Total Depth of Hole: 120 in.

Tested by: CC Test Date:

Drilled Hole Depth: 30.0 ft. Pipe Stick up: 0.5 ft.

Time Start
Time
Finish
Depth of
Test Hole
(ft)#
RefillYes or
No
Elapsed
Time
(hrs:min)
Initial
Water
Level# (ft)
Final
Water
Level# (ft)
Δ Water
Level (in.) Δ Min.

Meas.

Perc Rate
(min/in)
Initial
Height of
Water (in)
Final
Height of
Water (in)
Average
Height of
Water (in)
Tested
Infiltration Rate
It (in/hr)
10:15 10:40 30.5 Y 0:25 4.09 7.75 43.92 25 0.6 316.9 273.0 295.0 0.71 10:40 11:05 30.5 N 0:25 7.75 10.52 33.24 25 0.8 273.0 239.8 256.4 0.62 11:05 11:15 30.5 N 0:10 10.52 11.46 11.28 10 0.9 239.8 228.5 234.1 0.57 11:15 11:25 30.5 N 0:10 11.46 12.32 10.32 10 1.0 228.5 218.2 223.3 0.55 11:25 11:35 30.5 N 0:10 12.32 13.15 9.96 10 1.0 218.2 208.2 213.2 0.56 11:35 11:45 30.5 N 0:10 13.15 13.94 9.48 10 1.1 208.2 198.7 203.5 0.55 11:45 11:55 30.5 N 0:10 13.94 14.67 8.76 10 1.1 198.7 190.0 194.3 0.54 11:55 12:05 30.5 N 0:10 14.67 15.40 8.76 10 1.1 190.0 181.2 185.6 0.56 Tested Infiltration Rate, It 0.54
9/7/2022
Percolation Test Worksheet
Proposed Multi-Tenant Development
NEC Jackson Street & Avenue 42 9/6/2022
Indio, CA
9/6/2022

Page 323 of 2023 ends

Project: Job No.: 3-222-0678
Date Drilled:

Soil Classification: ML Hole Radius: 4 in.

Pipe Dia.: 3 in.

Test Hole No.: P-11 Presoaking Date: Total Depth of Hole: 120 in.

Tested by: CC Test Date:

Drilled Hole Depth: 17.0 ft. Pipe Stick up: 3.0 ft.

Time Start
Time
Finish
Depth of
Test Hole
(ft)#
RefillYes or
No
Elapsed
Time
(hrs:min)
Initial
Water
Level# (ft)
Final
Water
Level# (ft)
Δ Water
Level (in.) Δ Min.

Meas.

Perc Rate
(min/in)
Initial
Height of
Water (in)
Final
Height of
Water (in)
Average
Height of
Water (in)
Tested
Infiltration Rate
It (in/hr)
10:18 10:43 20.0 Y 0:25 4.07 6.82 33.00 25 0.8 191.2 158.2 174.7 0.90 10:43 11:08 20.0 N 0:25 6.82 8.93 25.32 25 1.0 158.2 132.8 145.5 0.82 11:08 11:18 20.0 N 0:10 8.93 9.64 8.52 10 1.2 132.8 124.3 128.6 0.78 11:18 11:28 20.0 N 0:10 9.64 10.33 8.28 10 1.2 124.3 116.0 120.2 0.81 11:28 11:38 20.0 N 0:10 10.33 10.92 7.08 10 1.4 116.0 109.0 112.5 0.74 11:38 11:48 20.0 N 0:10 10.92 11.45 6.36 10 1.6 109.0 102.6 105.8 0.71 11:48 11:58 20.0 N 0:10 11.45 11.96 6.12 10 1.6 102.6 96.5 99.5 0.72 11:58 12:08 20.0 N 0:10 11.96 12.44 5.76 10 1.7 96.5 90.7 93.6 0.72 Tested Infiltration Rate, It 0.71
9/7/2022
Percolation Test Worksheet
Proposed Multi-Tenant Development
NEC Jackson Street & Avenue 42 9/6/2022
Indio, CA
9/6/2022

Page 324 of 2023 ends

Project: Job No.: 3-222-0678
Date Drilled:

Soil Classification: SM Hole Radius: 4 in.

Pipe Dia.: 3 in.

Test Hole No.: P-12 Presoaking Date: Total Depth of Hole: 120 in.

Tested by: CC Test Date:

Drilled Hole Depth: 34.5 ft. Pipe Stick up: 0.5 ft.

Time Start
Time
Finish
Depth of
Test Hole
(ft)#
RefillYes or
No
Elapsed
Time
(hrs:min)
Initial
Water
Level# (ft)
Final
Water
Level# (ft)
Δ Water
Level (in.) Δ Min.

Meas.

Perc Rate
(min/in)
Initial
Height of
Water (in)
Final
Height of
Water (in)
Average
Height of
Water (in)
Tested
Infiltration Rate
It (in/hr)
12:15 12:40 35.0 Y 0:25 4.00 12.83 105.96 25 0.2 372.0 266.0 319.0 1.58 12:40 13:05 35.0 N 0:25 12.83 18.84 72.12 25 0.3 266.0 193.9 230.0 1.49 13:05 13:15 35.0 N 0:10 18.84 20.71 22.44 10 0.4 193.9 171.5 182.7 1.46 13:15 13:25 35.0 N 0:10 20.71 22.35 19.68 10 0.5 171.5 151.8 161.6 1.44 13:25 13:35 35.0 N 0:10 22.35 23.78 17.16 10 0.6 151.8 134.6 143.2 1.42 13:35 13:45 35.0 N 0:10 23.78 25.04 15.12 10 0.7 134.6 119.5 127.1 1.41 13:45 13:55 35.0 N 0:10 25.04 26.15 13.32 10 0.8 119.5 106.2 112.9 1.39 13:55 14:05 35.0 N 0:10 26.15 27.13 11.76 10 0.9 106.2 94.4 100.3 1.38 Tested Infiltration Rate, It 1.38
9/7/2022
Percolation Test Worksheet
Proposed Multi-Tenant Development
NEC Jackson Street & Avenue 42 9/6/2022
Indio, CA
9/6/2022

Page 325 of 2023 ends

Project: Job No.: 3-222-0678
Date Drilled:

Soil Classification: SM Hole Radius: 4 in.

Pipe Dia.: 3 in.

Test Hole No.: P-13 Presoaking Date: Total Depth of Hole: 120 in.

Tested by: CC Test Date:

Drilled Hole Depth: 17.0 ft. Pipe Stick up: 3.0 ft.

Time Start
Time
Finish
Depth of
Test Hole
(ft)#
RefillYes or
No
Elapsed
Time
(hrs:min)
Initial
Water
Level# (ft)
Final
Water
Level# (ft)
Δ Water
Level (in.) Δ Min.

Meas.

Perc Rate
(min/in)
Initial
Height of
Water (in)
Final
Height of
Water (in)
Average
Height of
Water (in)
Tested
Infiltration Rate
It (in/hr)
12:18 12:43 20.0 Y 0:25 4.00 6.21 26.52 25 0.9 192.0 165.5 178.7 0.70 12:43 13:08 20.0 N 0:25 6.21 7.92 20.52 25 1.2 165.5 145.0 155.2 0.63 13:08 13:18 20.0 N 0:10 7.92 8.48 6.72 10 1.5 145.0 138.2 141.6 0.56 13:18 13:28 20.0 N 0:10 8.48 9.00 6.24 10 1.6 138.2 132.0 135.1 0.55 13:28 13:38 20.0 N 0:10 9.00 9.52 6.24 10 1.6 132.0 125.8 128.9 0.57 13:38 13:48 20.0 N 0:10 9.52 10.00 5.76 10 1.7 125.8 120.0 122.9 0.55 13:48 13:58 20.0 N 0:10 10.00 10.43 5.16 10 1.9 120.0 114.8 117.4 0.52 13:58 14:08 20.0 N 0:10 10.43 10.86 5.16 10 1.9 114.8 109.7 112.3 0.54 Tested Infiltration Rate, It 0.52
9/7/2022
Percolation Test Worksheet
Proposed Multi-Tenant Development
NEC Jackson Street & Avenue 42 9/6/2022
Indio, CA
9/6/2022

Page 326 of 2023 ends

Project: Job No.: 3-222-0678
Date Drilled:

Soil Classification: SM Hole Radius: 4 in.

Pipe Dia.: 3 in.

Test Hole No.: P-14 Presoaking Date: Total Depth of Hole: 120 in.

Tested by: CC Test Date:

Drilled Hole Depth: 38.0 ft. Pipe Stick up: 2.0 ft.

Time Start
Time
Finish
Depth of
Test Hole
(ft)#
RefillYes or
No
Elapsed
Time
(hrs:min)
Initial
Water
Level# (ft)
Final
Water
Level# (ft)
Δ Water
Level (in.) Δ Min.

Meas.

Perc Rate
(min/in)
Initial
Height of
Water (in)
Final
Height of
Water (in)
Average
Height of
Water (in)
Tested
Infiltration Rate
It (in/hr)
15:12 15:37 40.0 Y 0:25 4.01 14.33 123.84 25 0.2 431.9 308.0 370.0 1.60 15:37 16:02 40.0 N 0:25 14.33 21.22 82.68 25 0.3 308.0 225.4 266.7 1.48 16:02 16:12 40.0 N 0:10 21.22 23.35 25.56 10 0.4 225.4 199.8 212.6 1.43 16:12 16:22 40.0 N 0:10 23.35 25.20 22.20 10 0.5 199.8 177.6 188.7 1.40 16:22 16:32 40.0 N 0:10 25.20 26.83 19.56 10 0.5 177.6 158.0 167.8 1.38 16:32 16:42 40.0 N 0:10 26.83 28.28 17.40 10 0.6 158.0 140.6 149.3 1.38 16:42 16:52 40.0 N 0:10 28.28 29.57 15.48 10 0.6 140.6 125.2 132.9 1.38 16:52 17:02 40.0 N 0:10 29.57 30.73 13.92 10 0.7 125.2 111.2 118.2 1.39 Tested Infiltration Rate, It 1.38
9/7/2022
Percolation Test Worksheet
Proposed Multi-Tenant Development
NEC Jackson Street & Avenue 42 9/6/2022
Indio, CA
9/6/2022

Page 327 of 2023 ends

Project: Job No.: 3-222-0678
Date Drilled:

Soil Classification: ML Hole Radius: 4 in.

Pipe Dia.: 3 in.

Test Hole No.: P-15 Presoaking Date: Total Depth of Hole: 120 in.

Tested by: CC Test Date:

Drilled Hole Depth: 26.0 ft. Pipe Stick up: 4.5 ft.

Time Start
Time
Finish
Depth of
Test Hole
(ft)#
RefillYes or
No
Elapsed
Time
(hrs:min)
Initial
Water
Level# (ft)
Final
Water
Level# (ft)
Δ Water
Level (in.) Δ Min.

Meas.

Perc Rate
(min/in)
Initial
Height of
Water (in)
Final
Height of
Water (in)
Average
Height of
Water (in)
Tested
Infiltration Rate
It (in/hr)
15:05 15:30 30.5 Y 0:25 4.11 11.31 86.40 25 0.3 316.7 230.3 273.5 1.51 15:30 15:55 30.5 N 0:25 11.31 16.12 57.72 25 0.4 230.3 172.6 201.4 1.36 15:55 16:05 30.5 N 0:10 16.12 17.56 17.28 10 0.6 172.6 155.3 163.9 1.25 16:05 16:15 30.5 N 0:10 17.56 18.70 13.68 10 0.7 155.3 141.6 148.4 1.09 16:15 16:25 30.5 N 0:10 18.70 19.75 12.60 10 0.8 141.6 129.0 135.3 1.10 16:25 16:35 30.5 N 0:10 19.75 20.72 11.64 10 0.9 129.0 117.4 123.2 1.12 16:35 16:45 30.5 N 0:10 20.72 21.66 11.28 10 0.9 117.4 106.1 111.7 1.19 16:45 16:55 30.5 N 0:10 21.66 22.52 10.32 10 1.0 106.1 95.8 100.9 1.20 Tested Infiltration Rate, It 1.09
9/7/2022
Percolation Test Worksheet
Proposed Multi-Tenant Development
NEC Jackson Street & Avenue 42 9/6/2022
Indio, CA
9/6/2022

Page 328 of 2023 ends

Project: Job No.: 3-222-0678
Date Drilled:

Soil Classification: SM Hole Radius: 4 in.

Pipe Dia.: 3 in.

Test Hole No.: P-16 Presoaking Date: Total Depth of Hole: 120 in.

Tested by: CC Test Date:

Drilled Hole Depth: 17.0 ft. Pipe Stick up: 3.0 ft.

Time Start
Time
Finish
Depth of
Test Hole
(ft)#
RefillYes or
No
Elapsed
Time
(hrs:min)
Initial
Water
Level# (ft)
Final
Water
Level# (ft)
Δ Water
Level (in.) Δ Min.

Meas.

Perc Rate
(min/in)
Initial
Height of
Water (in)
Final
Height of
Water (in)
Average
Height of
Water (in)
Tested
Infiltration Rate
It (in/hr)
15:24 15:49 20.0 Y 0:25 4.03 6.95 35.04 25 0.7 191.6 156.6 174.1 0.95 15:49 16:14 20.0 N 0:25 6.95 9.54 31.08 25 0.8 156.6 125.5 141.1 1.04 16:14 16:24 20.0 N 0:10 9.54 10.32 9.36 10 1.1 125.5 116.2 120.8 0.91 16:24 16:34 20.0 N 0:10 10.32 10.99 8.04 10 1.2 116.2 108.1 112.1 0.85 16:34 16:44 20.0 N 0:10 10.99 11.55 6.72 10 1.5 108.1 101.4 104.8 0.76 16:44 16:54 20.0 N 0:10 11.55 12.04 5.88 10 1.7 101.4 95.5 98.5 0.70 16:54 17:04 20.0 N 0:10 12.04 12.51 5.64 10 1.8 95.5 89.9 92.7 0.71 17:04 17:14 20.0 N 0:10 12.51 12.94 5.16 10 1.9 89.9 84.7 87.3 0.69 Tested Infiltration Rate, It 0.69
9/7/2022
Percolation Test Worksheet
Proposed Multi-Tenant Development
NEC Jackson Street & Avenue 42 9/6/2022
Indio, CA
9/6/2022

Page 329 of 2023 ends

LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS REPORT
Input parameters and analysis data
In-situ data type:

Analysis type:

Analysis method:

Fines correction method:

Standard Penetration Test
Deterministic
NCEER 1998
Robertson & Wride
Depth to water table:

Earthquake magnitude Mw:

Peak ground accelaration:

User defined F.S.:

35.00 ft

8.20 1.14 g

1.30 Project title : 3-222-0678
Project subtitle : Indio
Salem Engineering Group, Inc.
8711 Monroe Court, Suite A
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
(909) 980-6455
N1(60)cs
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
CSR*

0.6 0.5

0.4 0.3

0.2 0.1
0 8
Mw=71/2, sigma'=1 atm base curve
No Liquefaction
Liquefaction
Shear stress ratio

CSR CRR
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Depth (ft)

50.00 48.00

46.00 44.00

42.00 40.00

38.00 36.00

34.00 32.00

30.00 28.00

26.00 24.00

22.00 20.00

18.00 16.00

14.00 12.00

10.00 8.00

6.00 4.00

2.00 0.00
SPT data graph
Field SPT N1(60)
N1(60)cs
0 10 20 30 40 50
Depth (ft)

50.00 48.00

46.00 44.00

42.00 40.00

38.00 36.00

34.00 32.00

30.00 28.00

26.00 24.00

22.00 20.00

18.00 16.00

14.00 12.00

10.00 8.00

6.00 4.00

2.00 0.00
Factor of safety
F.S. F.S.=1
0 1 2 3 4 5

50.00 48.00

46.00 44.00

42.00 40.00

38.00 36.00

34.00 32.00

30.00 28.00

26.00 24.00

22.00 20.00

18.00 16.00

14.00 12.00

10.00 8.00

6.00 4.00

2.00 0.00
Settlements (in)
Total Point

0.02 0.04 0.06

50.00 48.00

46.00 44.00

42.00 40.00

38.00 36.00

34.00 32.00

30.00 28.00

26.00 24.00

22.00 20.00

18.00 16.00

14.00 12.00

10.00 8.00

6.00 4.00

2.00 0.00
LiqIT v.4.7.7.1 - Soil Liquefaction Assesment Software 1

Page 330 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 868 of 3061 This software is licensed to : Salem Engineering Group Inc. :: Field input data ::

Point ID Field NSPT
(blows/feet)
Depth
(ft)
Unit weight
(pcf)
Fines content
(%)
1 2.00 16.00 120.00 42.00
2 5.00 13.00 120.00 86.00
3 10.00 28.00 120.00 60.00
4 15.00 17.00 120.00 46.00
5 20.00 26.00 120.00 20.00
6 25.00 16.00 120.00 85.00
7 30.00 26.00 120.00 20.00
8 35.00 25.00 120.00 20.00
9 40.00 15.00 120.00 99.00
10 45.00 50.00 120.00 20.00
11 50.00 30.00 120.00 53.00
Depth :

Field SPT :

Unit weight :

Fines content :

Depth from free surface, at which SPT was performed (ft) SPT blows measured at field (blows/feet)
Bulk unit weight of soil at test depth (pcf)
Percentage of fines in soil (%)
:: Cyclic Stress Ratio calculation (CSR fully adjusted and normalized) ::

Point ID Sigma
(tsf)
Depth
(ft)
u
(tsf)
Sigma'
(tsf)
rd CSR MSF CSReq,M=7.5 Ksigma CSR*
1 2.00 0.12 0.00 0.12 1.00 0.74 0.80 0.93 1.00 0.93
2 5.00 0.30 0.00 0.30 0.99 0.73 0.80 0.92 1.00 0.92
3 10.00 0.60 0.00 0.60 0.98 0.72 0.80 0.91 1.00 0.91
4 15.00 0.90 0.00 0.90 0.97 0.72 0.80 0.90 1.00 0.90
5 20.00 1.20 0.00 1.20 0.95 0.71 0.80 0.89 0.97 0.91
6 25.00 1.50 0.00 1.50 0.94 0.70 0.80 0.88 0.93 0.94
7 30.00 1.80 0.00 1.80 0.93 0.69 0.80 0.87 0.90 0.97
8 35.00 2.10 0.00 2.10 0.89 0.66 0.80 0.83 0.87 0.95
9 40.00 2.40 0.16 2.24 0.85 0.67 0.80 0.85 0.86 0.99
10 45.00 2.70 0.31 2.39 0.81 0.68 0.80 0.85 0.85 1.01
11 50.00 3.00 0.47 2.53 0.77 0.67 0.80 0.85 0.84 1.01
Depth :

Sigma :
u :

Sigma' :
rd :

CSR :

MSF :

CSReq,M=7.5
Ksigma
CSR*
Depth from free surface, at which SPT was performed (ft) Total overburden pressure at test point, during earthquake (tsf) Water pressure at test point, during earthquake (tsf)
Effective overburden pressure, during earthquake (tsf)
Nonlinear shear mass factor
Cyclic Stress Ratio
Magnitude Scaling Factor
CSR adjusted for M=7.5
Effective overburden stress factor
CSR fully adjusted
:: Cyclic Resistance Ratio calculation CRR7.5 ::

Point ID C Field SPT N n Ce Cb Cr Cs 1(60) DeltaN CRR N1(60)cs 7.5 1 16.00 1.70 0.86 1.00 0.75 1.20 21.08 19.50 40.58 2.00 2 13.00 1.70 0.90 1.00 0.80 1.20 19.15 38.78 57.93 2.00 3 28.00 1.32 0.97 1.00 0.85 1.20 36.62 50.35 86.97 2.00 4 17.00 1.08 1.04 1.00 0.95 1.20 21.73 22.28 44.01 2.00 5 26.00 0.93 1.11 1.00 0.95 1.20 30.70 11.51 42.22 2.00 6 16.00 0.83 1.18 1.00 0.95 1.20 17.95 35.91 53.86 2.00 7 26.00 0.76 1.25 1.00 1.00 1.20 29.68 11.13 40.81 2.00 8 25.00 0.71 1.32 1.00 1.00 1.20 27.89 10.46 38.34 2.00 9 15.00 0.68 1.33 1.00 1.00 1.20 16.37 38.47 54.85 2.00 10 50.00 0.66 1.33 1.00 1.00 1.20 52.90 19.84 72.74 2.00 11 30.00 0.64 1.33 1.00 1.00 1.20 30.83 36.99 67.82 2.00 LiqIT v.4.7.7.1 - Soil Liquefaction Assesment Software 2

Page 331 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 869 of 3061 This software is licensed to : Salem Engineering Group Inc. :: Cyclic Resistance Ratio calculation CRR7.5 ::

Point ID C Field SPT N n Ce Cb Cr Cs 1(60) DeltaN CRR N1(60)cs 7.5 Cn :

Ce :

Cb :

Cr
:

Cs :

N1(60) :

DeltaN :

N1(60)cs :

CRR7.5) :

Overburden corretion factor
Energy correction factor
Borehole diameter correction factor
Rod length correction factor
Liner correction factor
Corrected NSPT
Addition to corrected NSPT value due to the presence of fines Corected N1(60) value for fines
Cyclic resistance ratio for M=7.5
:: Settlements calculation for saturated sands ::

Point ID N N1(60) 1 FSL ev
(%)
Settle.
(in)
1 40.58 33.81 1.66 0.02 0.00
2 57.93 48.27 1.67 0.02 0.00
3 86.97 72.47 1.69 0.02 0.00
4 44.01 36.68 1.71 0.02 0.00
5 42.22 35.18 1.68 0.02 0.00
6 53.86 44.88 1.63 0.03 0.00
7 40.81 34.01 1.59 0.03 0.00
8 38.34 31.95 1.61 0.03 0.00
9 54.85 45.70 1.56 0.03 0.02
10 72.74 60.62 1.53 0.04 0.02
11 67.82 56.52 1.52 0.04 0.01
Total settlement : 0.06
N1,(60):

N1:

FSL:
ev:

Settle.:

Stress normalized and corrected SPT blow count
Japanese equivalent corrected value
Calculated factor of safety
Post-liquefaction volumentric strain (%)
Calculated settlement (in)
:: Liquefaction potential according to Iwasaki ::

Point ID w FI z L
1 0.00 9.70 0.00
2 0.00 9.24 0.00
3 0.00 8.48 0.00
4 0.00 7.71 0.00
5 0.00 6.95 0.00
6 0.00 6.19 0.00
7 0.00 5.43 0.00
8 0.00 4.67 0.00
9 0.00 3.90 0.00
10 0.00 3.14 0.00
11 0.00 2.38 0.00
Overall potential IL : 0.00
IL = 0.00 - No liquefaction
IL between 0.00 and 5 - Liquefaction not probable
IL between 5 and 15 - Liquefaction probable
IL > 15 - Liquefaction certain
LiqIT v.4.7.7.1 - Soil Liquefaction Assesment Software 3

Page 332 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 870 of 3061

Page 333 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 871 of 3061 Project No. 3-222-0678 B-1

APPENDIX B

LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with generally accepted test methods of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), Caltrans, or other suggested procedures. Selected samples were tested for in-situ dry density and moisture content, corrosivity, consolidation, shear strength, maximum density and optimum moisture content, R-value and grain size distribution. The results of the laboratory tests are summarized in the following figures.

Page 334 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 872 of 3061

CONSOLIDATION - PRESSURE TEST DATA
ASTM D2435
02468
10 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0

VOLUME CHANGE IN PERCENT

LOAD IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT
SOAKED

CONSOLIDATION

REBOUND

0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.8 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 8.0
Boring: B-2 @ 2'
20 30 40 50 60 80
Moisture Content:

Dry Density:

6.5%
103.1 pcf
Project Name: Proposed Multi-Tenant Development- Indio
Project Number: 3-222-0678

COLLAPSE

Page 335 of 2023 ends

CONSOLIDATION - PRESSURE TEST DATA
ASTM D2435
02468
10 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0

VOLUME CHANGE IN PERCENT

LOAD IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT
SOAKED

CONSOLIDATION

REBOUND

0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.8 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 8.0
Boring: B-4 @ 5'
20 30 40 50 60 80
Moisture Content:

Dry Density:

11.1%

88.9 pcf
Project Name: Proposed Multi-Tenant Development- Indio
Project Number: 3-222-0678

COLLAPSE

Page 336 of 2023 ends

Project Name: Proposed Multi-Tenant Development- Indio
Project Number:

Client:

Sample Location:

Sample Type:

Soil Classification:

Tested By:

Reviewed By:

Date:

Equipment Used:

Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3
Normal Stress (ksf) 1.000 2.000 3.000
Shear Rate (in/min)
Peak Shear Stress (ksf) 0.720 1.464 1.946
Residual Shear Stress (ksf) 0.000 0.000 0.000
Initial Height of Sample (in) 1.000 1.000 1.000
Height of Sample before Shear (in.) 1 1 1
Diameter of Sample (in) 2.416 2.416 2.416
Initial Moisture Content (%)
Final Moisture Content (%) 27.1 30.1 30.6
Dry Density (pcf) 88.8 88.2 94.7
Slope 0.61
Friction Angle 31.5
Cohesion (psf) 151
Direct Shear Test (ASTM D3080)
3-222-0678

2.0 Peak Shear Strength Values
Can Do LLC
B-1 @ 2'
Undisturbed Ring
ML
M. Noorzay
CJ
7/12/2022
Geomatic Direct Shear Machine

0.004

0.000

0.500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

3.000
0 1 2 3 4
Shear Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress vs. Shear Stress

31.5 °
0 500
1000
1500
2000
2500
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Shear Stress psi)
Horizontal Displacement (in.)
Horizontal Displacement vs. Shear Stress
1 ksf 2 ksf 3 ksf

Page 337 of 2023 ends

Project Name: Proposed Multi-Tenant Development- Indio
Project Number:

Client:

Sample Location:

Sample Type:

Soil Classification:

Tested By:

Reviewed By:

Date:

Equipment Used:

Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3
Normal Stress (ksf) 1.000 2.000 3.000
Shear Rate (in/min)
Peak Shear Stress (ksf) 0.864 1.308 2.076
Residual Shear Stress (ksf) 0.000 0.000 0.000
Initial Height of Sample (in) 1.000 1.000 1.000
Height of Sample before Shear (in.) 1 1 1
Diameter of Sample (in) 2.416 2.416 2.416
Initial Moisture Content (%)
Final Moisture Content (%) 32.5 33.3 31.1
Dry Density (pcf) 96.4 92.2 92.7
Slope 0.61
Friction Angle 31.2
Cohesion (psf) 204
Direct Shear Test (ASTM D3080)
3-222-0678

12.7 Peak Shear Strength Values
Can Do LLC
B-2 @ 5'
Undisturbed Ring
ML
M. Noorzay
CJ
7/13/2022
Geomatic Direct Shear Machine

0.004

0.000

0.500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

3.000
0 1 2 3 4
Shear Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress vs. Shear Stress

31.2 °
0 500
1000
1500
2000
2500
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Shear Stress psi)
Horizontal Displacement (in.)
Horizontal Displacement vs. Shear Stress
1 ksf 2 ksf 3 ksf

Page 338 of 2023 ends

PL= LL= PI=
D85= D60= D50=
D30= D15= D10=
Cu= N/A Cc= N/A
Project Name: Proposed Multi-Tenant Development- Indio
Project Number: 3-222-0678
Boring: B-1 @ 2'
#100 75.5% USCS CLASSIFICATION
#200 55.2%
-
#16 99.6%
#30 99.2%
#50 93.2%
#8 99.9%
Sieve Size Percent Passing Atterberg Limits
3/4 inch 100.0%
1/2 inch 100.0%
3/8 inch 100.0% Coefficients
#4 99.9%
0% 45% 55%

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION DIAGRAM
GRADATION TEST - ASTM C136
Percent Gravel Percent Sand Percent Silt/Clay
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Percent Passing
Grain Size (mm)

Page 339 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 877 of 3061 PL= LL= PI=
D85= D60= D50=
D30= D15= D10=
Cu= N/A Cc= N/A
Project Name: Proposed Multi-Tenant Development- Indio
Project Number: 3-222-0678
Boring: B-2 @ 2'
#100 77.4% USCS CLASSIFICATION
#200 41.8%
-
#16 99.9%
#30 99.8%
#50 96.9%
#8 100.0%
Sieve Size Percent Passing Atterberg Limits
3/4 inch 100.0%
1/2 inch 100.0%
3/8 inch 100.0% Coefficients
#4 100.0%
0% 58% 42%

Page 340 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 878 of 3061 PL= LL= PI=
D85= D60= D50=
D30= D15= D10=
Cu= N/A Cc= N/A
Project Name: Proposed Multi-Tenant Development- Indio
Project Number: 3-222-0678
Boring: B-2 @ 5'
#100 96.9% USCS CLASSIFICATION
#200 86.2%
-
#16 99.9%
#30 99.3%
#50 99.1%
#8 100.0%
Sieve Size Percent Passing Atterberg Limits
3/4 inch 100.0%
1/2 inch 100.0%
3/8 inch 100.0% Coefficients
#4 100.0%
0% 14% 86%

Page 341 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 879 of 3061 PL= LL= PI=
D85= D60= D50=
D30= D15= D10=
Cu= N/A Cc= N/A
Project Name: Proposed Multi-Tenant Development- Indio
Project Number: 3-222-0678
Boring: B-2 @ 15'
#100 64.2% USCS CLASSIFICATION
#200 46.4%
-
#16 99.8%
#30 96.4%
#50 80.3%
#8 99.9%
Sieve Size Percent Passing Atterberg Limits
3/4 inch 100.0%
1/2 inch 100.0%
3/8 inch 100.0% Coefficients
#4 100.0%
0% 54% 46%

Page 342 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 880 of 3061 PL= LL= PI=
D85= D60= D50=
D30= D15= D10=
Cu= N/A Cc= N/A
Project Name: Proposed Multi-Tenant Development- Indio
Project Number: 3-222-0678
Boring: B-2 @ 25'
#100 95.6% USCS CLASSIFICATION
#200 84.8%
-
#16 98.3%
#30 97.9%
#50 97.5%
#8 98.6%
Sieve Size Percent Passing Atterberg Limits
3/4 inch 100.0%
1/2 inch 100.0%
3/8 inch 100.0% Coefficients
#4 99.0%
1% 14% 85%

Page 343 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 881 of 3061 PL= LL= PI=
D85= D60= D50=
D30= D15= D10=
Cu= N/A Cc= N/A
Project Name: Proposed Multi-Tenant Development- Indio
Project Number: 3-222-0678
Boring: B-2 @ 40'
#100 99.5% USCS CLASSIFICATION
#200 99.3%
-
#16 99.7%
#30 99.6%
#50 99.6%
#8 99.9%
Sieve Size Percent Passing Atterberg Limits
3/4 inch 100.0%
1/2 inch 100.0%
3/8 inch 100.0% Coefficients
#4 100.0%
0% 1% 99%

Page 344 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 882 of 3061 PL= LL= PI=
D85= D60= D50=
D30= D15= D10=
Cu= N/A Cc= N/A
Project Name: Proposed Multi-Tenant Development- Indio
Project Number: 3-222-0678
Boring: B-2 @ 50'
#100 75.5% USCS CLASSIFICATION
#200 52.8%
-
#16 96.2%
#30 93.9%
#50 89.6%
#8 97.8%
Sieve Size Percent Passing Atterberg Limits
3/4 inch 100.0%
1/2 inch 100.0%
3/8 inch 100.0% Coefficients
#4 99.4%
1% 47% 53%

Page 345 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 883 of 3061 PL= LL= PI=
D85= D60= D50=
D30= D15= D10=
Cu= N/A Cc= N/A
Project Name: Proposed Multi-Tenant Development- Indio
Project Number: 3-222-0678
Boring: B-4 @ 5'
#100 97.0% USCS CLASSIFICATION
#200 87.9%
-
#16 100.0%
#30 99.9%
#50 99.6%
#8 100.0%
Sieve Size Percent Passing Atterberg Limits
3/4 inch 100.0%
1/2 inch 100.0%
3/8 inch 100.0% Coefficients
#4 100.0%
0% 12% 88%

Page 346 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 884 of 3061 Project Name: Proposed Multi-Tenant Development- Indio
Project Number: 3-222-0678
Date Sampled: 7/7/22 Date Tested: 7/14/22
Sampled By: KY Tested By: M. Noorzay
Soil Description: Silty SAND (SM)
2800 mg/kg 183 mg/kg
2900 mg/kg 183 mg/kg
2800 mg/kg 179 mg/kg
2833 mg/kg 182 mg/kg
SO4 - Modified CTM 417 & Cl - Modified CTM 417/422

CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
1a.

Sample
Number
Sample
Location
Soluble Sulfate
SO4-S
Soluble Chloride
Cl pH

7.7 7.7
B-2 @ 0 - 3'

7.7 Average: 7.7
1b.
1c.

B-2 @ 0 - 3'
B-2 @ 0 - 3'

Page 347 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 885 of 3061 Laboratory Compaction Curve
ASTM D1557
Project Name: Proposed Multi-Tenant Development- Indio
Project Number: 3-222-0678
Date Sampled: 7/7/22 Date Tested: 7/18/22
Sampled By: KY Tested By: M. Noorzay
Sample Location: B-2 @ 0 - 3' Soil
Description: Light Brown Silty SAND (SM)
Test Method: Method B
1 2 3 4
Weight of Moist Specimen & Mold, (g) 6118.6 6184.1 6227.8 6210.1 Weight of Compaction Mold, (g) 4280.2 4280.2 4280.2 4280.2 Weight of Moist Specimen, (g) 1838.4 1903.9 1947.6 1929.9 Volume of Mold, (ft3) 0.0333 0.0333 0.0333 0.0333
Wet Density, (pcf) 121.6 125.9 128.8 127.6
Weight of Wet (Moisture) Sample, (g) 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 Weight of Dry (Moisture) Sample, (g) 184.8 181.0 177.4 173.9 Moisture Content, (%) 8.2% 10.5% 12.7% 15.0%
Dry Density, (pcf) 112.3 114.0 114.3 111.0
95 100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Dry Density, pcf
Moisture Content, % of Dry Weight
Maximum Dry Density: pcf
Optimum Moisture Content: %
114.5

12.0

Page 348 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 886 of 3061 Date Tested: 7/13/22
Tested By: BD
Project Name: Multi Tenant Dev - Indio
Project Number: 3-222-0678
Date Sampled: 7/7/22
Sampled By: SEG
Sample Location: B-10 @ 0 - 3'
Soil Description: Silty SAND (SM)
1 2 3
642.8 296.8 166.4

10.2 11.2 12.4
118.7 118.7 117.4
290 173 30

4.8 6.2 7.3

2.7 1.6 0.3
52 38 27
Specimen
Resistance R-Value
and Expansion Pressure of Compacted Soils
ASTM D2844
Controlling R-Value 38
Exudation Pressure, psi
Moisture at Test, %
Dry Density, pcf
Expansion Pressure, psf
Thickness by Stabilometer, in.

Thickness by Expansion Pressure, in
R-Value by Stabilometer
R-Value by Expansion Pressure N/A
R-Value at 300 psi Exudation Pressure 38
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100
R- Value
Exudation Pressure, psi

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0

6.0 7.0

8.0 9.0

10.0 11.0

12.0 13.0

14.0 15.0

16.0 17.0

18.0 19.0

20.0 21.0

22.0 23.0

24.0 0.0 6.0 12.0 18.0 24.0
Cover Thickness by Stabilometer, in.

Cover Thickness by Expansion Pressure, in.

Page 349 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 887 of 3061

Page 350 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 888 of 3061 Project No. 3-222-0678 C-1

APPENDIX C

GENERAL EARTHWORK AND PAVEMENT SPECIFICATIONS
When the text of the report conflicts with the general specifications in this appendix, the recommendations in the report have precedence.

1.0 SCOPE OF WORK: These specifications and applicable plans pertain to and include all earthwork associated with the site rough grading, including, but not limited to, the furnishing of all labor, tools and equipment necessary for site clearing and grubbing, stripping, preparation of foundation materials for receiving fill, excavation, processing, placement and compaction of fill and backfill materials to the lines and grades shown on the project grading plans and disposal of excess materials.

2.0 PERFORMANCE: The Contractor shall be responsible for the satisfactory completion of all earthwork in accordance with the project plans and specifications. This work shall be inspected and tested by a representative of SALEM Engineering Group, Incorporated, hereinafter referred to as the Soils Engineer and/or Testing Agency. Attainment of design grades, when achieved, shall be certified by the project Civil Engineer. Both the Soils Engineer and the Civil Engineer are the Owner's representatives. If the Contractor should fail to meet the technical or design requirements embodied in this document and on the applicable plans, he shall make the necessary adjustments until all work is deemed satisfactory as determined by both the Soils Engineer and the Civil Engineer. No deviation from these specifications shall be made except upon written approval of the Soils Engineer, Civil Engineer, or project Architect.

No earthwork shall be performed without the physical presence or approval of the Soils Engineer. The Contractor shall notify the Soils Engineer at least 2 working days prior to the commencement of any aspect of the site earthwork.

The Contractor shall assume sole and complete responsibility for job site conditions during the course of construction of this project, including safety of all persons and property; that this requirement shall apply continuously and not be limited to normal working hours; and that the Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold the Owner and the Engineers harmless from any and all liability, real or alleged, in connection with the performance of work on this project, except for liability arising from the sole negligence of the Owner or the Engineers.

3.0 TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS: All compacted materials shall be densified to no less that 95 percent of relative compaction (90 percent for fine grained cohesive soils) based on ASTM D1557 Test Method (latest edition), UBC or CAL-216, or as specified in the technical portion of the Soil Engineer's report. The location and frequency of field density tests shall be determined by the Soils Engineer. The results of these tests and compliance with these specifications shall be the basis upon which satisfactory completion of work will be judged by the Soils Engineer.

4.0 SOILS AND FOUNDATION CONDITIONS: The Contractor is presumed to have visited the site and to have familiarized himself with existing site conditions and the contents of the data presented in the Geotechnical Engineering Report. The Contractor shall make his own interpretation of the data contained in the Geotechnical Engineering Report and the Contractor shall not be relieved of liability for any loss sustained as a result of any variance between conditions indicated by or deduced from said report and the actual conditions encountered during the progress of the work.

Page 351 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 889 of 3061 Project No. 3-222-0678 C-2

5.0 DUST CONTROL: The work includes dust control as required for the alleviation or prevention of any dust nuisance on or about the site or the borrow area, or off-site if caused by the Contractor's operation either during the performance of the earthwork or resulting from the conditions in which the Contractor leaves the site. The Contractor shall assume all liability, including court costs of codefendants, for all claims related to dust or wind-blown materials attributable to his work. Site preparation shall consist of site clearing and grubbing and preparation of foundation materials for receiving fill.

6.0 CLEARING AND GRUBBING: The Contractor shall accept the site in this present condition and shall demolish and/or remove from the area of designated project earthwork all structures, both surface and subsurface, trees, brush, roots, debris, organic matter and all other matter determined by the Soils Engineer to be deleterious. Such materials shall become the property of the Contractor and shall be removed from the site.

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 1 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.

7.0 SUBGRADE PREPARATION: Surfaces to receive Engineered Fill and/or building or slab loads shall be prepared as outlined above, scarified to a minimum of 12 inches, moisture-conditioned as necessary, and recompacted to 95 percent relative compaction (90 percent for fine grained cohesive soils).

Loose soil areas and/or areas of disturbed soil shall be moisture-conditioned as necessary and recompacted to 95 percent relative compaction (90 percent for fine grained cohesive soils). All ruts, hummocks, or other uneven surface features shall be removed by surface grading prior to placement of any fill materials. All areas which are to receive fill materials shall be approved by the Soils Engineer prior to the placement of any fill material.

8.0 EXCAVATION: All excavation shall be accomplished to the tolerance normally defined by the Civil Engineer as shown on the project grading plans. All over-excavation below the grades specified shall be backfilled at the Contractor's expense and shall be compacted in accordance with the applicable technical requirements.

9.0 FILL AND BACKFILL MATERIAL: No material shall be moved or compacted without the presence or approval of the Soils Engineer. Material from the required site excavation may be utilized for construction site fills, provided prior approval is given by the Soils Engineer. All materials utilized for constructing site fills shall be free from vegetation or other deleterious matter as determined by the Soils Engineer.

10.0 PLACEMENT, SPREADING AND COMPACTION: The placement and spreading of approved fill materials and the processing and compaction of approved fill and native materials shall be the responsibility of the Contractor. Compaction of fill materials by flooding, ponding, or jetting shall not be permitted unless specifically approved by local code, as well as the Soils Engineer. Both cut and fill shall be surface-compacted to the satisfaction of the Soils Engineer prior to final acceptance.

Page 352 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 890 of 3061 Project No. 3-222-0678 C-3

11.0 SEASONAL LIMITS: No fill material shall be placed, spread, or rolled while it is frozen or thawing, or during unfavorable wet weather conditions. When the work is interrupted by heavy rains, fill operations shall not be resumed until the Soils Engineer indicates that the moisture content and density of previously placed fill is as specified.

12.0 DEFINITIONS - The term "pavement" shall include asphaltic concrete surfacing, untreated aggregate base, and aggregate subbase. The term "subgrade" is that portion of the area on which surfacing, base, or subbase is to be placed. The term “Standard Specifications”: hereinafter referred to, is the most recent edition of the Standard Specifications of the State of California, Department of Transportation. The term "relative compaction" refers to the field density expressed as a percentage of the maximum laboratory density as determined by ASTM D1557 Test Method (latest edition) or California Test Method 216 (CAL216), as applicable.

13.0 PREPARATION OF THE SUBGRADE - The Contractor shall prepare the surface of the various subgrades receiving subsequent pavement courses to the lines, grades, and dimensions given on the plans.

The upper 12 inches of the soil subgrade beneath the pavement section shall be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95% (90% for fine grained cohesive soil) based upon ASTM D1557. The finished subgrades shall be tested and approved by the Soils Engineer prior to the placement of additional pavement courses.

14.0 AGGREGATE BASE - The aggregate base material shall be spread and compacted on the prepared subgrade in conformity with the lines, grades, and dimensions shown on the plans. The aggregate base material shall conform to the requirements of Section 26 of the Standard Specifications for Class II material, ¾-inch or 1½-inches maximum size. The aggregate base material shall be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent based upon CAL-216. The aggregate base material shall be spread in layers not exceeding 6 inches and each layer of aggregate material course shall be tested and approved by the Soils Engineer prior to the placement of successive layers.

15.0 AGGREGATE SUBBASE - The aggregate subbase shall be spread and compacted on the prepared subgrade in conformity with the lines, grades, and dimensions shown on the plans. The aggregate subbase material shall conform to the requirements of Section 25 of the Standard Specifications for Class II Subbase material. The aggregate subbase material shall be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent based upon CAL-216, and it shall be spread and compacted in accordance with the Standard Specifications. Each layer of aggregate subbase shall be tested and approved by the Soils Engineer prior to the placement of successive layers.

16.0 ASPHALTIC CONCRETE SURFACING - Asphaltic concrete surfacing shall consist of a mixture of mineral aggregate and paving grade asphalt, mixed at a central mixing plant and spread and compacted on a prepared base in conformity with the lines, grades, and dimensions shown on the plans.

The viscosity grade of the asphalt shall be PG 64-10, unless otherwise stipulated or local conditions warrant more stringent grade. The mineral aggregate shall be Type A or B, ½ inch maximum size, medium grading, and shall conform to the requirements set forth in Section 39 of the Standard Specifications. The drying, proportioning, and mixing of the materials shall conform to Section 39. The prime coat, spreading and compacting equipment, and spreading and compacting the mixture shall conform to the applicable chapters of Section 39, with the exception that no surface course shall be placed when the atmospheric temperature is below 50 degrees F. The surfacing shall be rolled with a combination steel-wheel and pneumatic rollers, as described in the Standard Specifications. The surface course shall be placed with an approved selfpropelled mechanical spreading and finishing machine.

Page 353 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 891 of 3061 Appendix F

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT

Page 354 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 892 of 3061 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
The Greens Indio Project
City of Indio, California

Prepared by:

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
1100 W. Town and Country Road, Suite 700
Orange, California 92868
Contact: Mr. Ryan Chiene
714.705.1343
August 2023

Page 355 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 893 of 3061 City of Indio The Greens Indio Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
August 2023
Page | ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS......................................................................................................................... II 1 INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................1

1.1 Project Location and Setting...............................................................................................1

1.2 Project Description .............................................................................................................1 2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING.....................................................................................................5

2.1 Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change.............................................................................5 3 REGULATORY SETTING ...........................................................................................................7

3.1 Federal ................................................................................................................................7

3.2 State of California ...............................................................................................................9

3.3 Regional ............................................................................................................................16

3.4 Local..................................................................................................................................17 4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY ......................................................................18

4.1 Thresholds and Significance Criteria.................................................................................18

4.2 Methodology.....................................................................................................................18 5 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION................................................................................19

5.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions...............................................................................................19

5.2 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan Compliance...................................................................20

5.3 Cumulative Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures...................................................26 6 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................28 TABLES
Table 1: Description of Greenhouse Gases.............................................................................................6 Table 2: Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions..................................................................19 Table 3: Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions.........................................................................................20 Table 4: Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Consistency.....................21 Table 5: Consistency with the Climate-Ready Development Review Checklist....................................24

FIGURES
Figure 1: Regional Location Map ..................................................................................................................2 Figure 2: Project Vicinity Map.......................................................................................................................3 Figure 3: Site Plan..........................................................................................................................................4

APPENDIX
Appendix A: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data

Page 356 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 894 of 3061 City of Indio The Greens Indio Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
August 2023
Page | iii

LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS
AB Assembly Bill
CARB California Air Resource Board
CCR California Code of Regulations
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CALGreen Code California Green Building Standards Code
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
CO2 Carbon dioxide
CO2e Carbon dioxide equivalent
CFC Chlorofluorocarbon
CPP Clean Power Plan
cy Cubic yard
FCAA Federal Clean Air Act
FR Federal Register
GHG Greenhouse gas
HCFC Hydrochlorofluorocarbon
HFC Hydrofluorocarbon
LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard
CH4 Methane
MMTCO2e Million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent MTCO2e Metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NF3 Nitrogen trifluoride
N2O Nitrous oxide
PFC Perfluorocarbon
RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy SB Senate Bill
SCAB South Coast Air Basin
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCAG Southern California Association of Government
Sf Square foot
SF6 Sulfur hexafluoride
TAC Toxic air contaminants
U.S. EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Page 357 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 895 of 3061 City of Indio The Greens Indio Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
August 2023
Page | 1
1 INTRODUCTION
This report documents the results of a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Assessment completed for the Greens Indio Project (“Project” or “proposed Project”). The purpose of this GHG Emissions Assessment is to evaluate the potential construction and operational emissions associated with the Project and determine the level of impact the Project would have on the environment.

1.1 Project Location and Setting
The Project site is located at the northeastern corner of Jackson Street and Avenue 42 (APNs 692-670- 001, -014, and -017), in the City of Indio (City), California; refer to Figure 1, Regional Location Map. The Project site is approximately 6.34 acres and regional access to the Project site is provided via Interstate 10 (I-10). Local access to the Project site is provided via Jackson Street and Avenue 42, both four-lane roadways. The Project site is surrounded by commercial uses to the west, north, and south, a golf course to the east, and residential uses to the north. The site 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; refer to Figure 2, Project Vicinity Map.

1.2 Project Description
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 with a patio opening up to the golf course; refer to Figure 3, Site Plan. As noted above, Project site’s ingress and egress would be provided via four driveways with two located on Jackson Street and two located on Avenue 42. Approximately 17 percent (approximately 38,823 sf) of the Project site area would be landscaped.

Project implementation would require the construction of new on-site and off-site utility infrastructure connections to serve the proposed commercial retail uses. These utilities would be connected to existing utility infrastructure. Trenching for new electrical conduit and wire would occur on the north side of Avenue 42 behind the existing sidewalk and from the single-family development to the western boundary of the Project site. The off-site trenching would be approximately 1,250 feet from the western boundary of the single-family residential development to the eastern terminus of the Project site. Trenching and construction activities associated with these off-site improvements are evaluated as a part of the overall Project.

Construction is anticipated to occur over a duration of approximately eight months, commencing in January 2024.

Parking
The Project is anticipated to provide 245 vehicle parking stall and 10 bicycle parking spaces would be provided on-site. 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 as part of this Project refer to Figure 3.

Page 358 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 896 of 3061 The Greens Indio Project Not to scale
Source: USGS, 2023
Figure 1: Regional Location Map Monroe St N Sun City Blvd Madison St
L
i
n
d
y
L
n
BiskraPalms
Whitewater Ri ver
10 Siroc
c
o
A
v
e
n
ta
Elise
C
a
m
i
n
o
l
o
s
Milagros
AlbertaAve
Madison St Madison St
4 0
t
h
A
v
e
e
d
W
a
r
i
n
g
D
r
F
r
e
d
W
a
r
i
n
g
D
r
Avenue42
Indio
Blvd
ShadowHills
GolfClub
M
i
l
e
s
A
v
e
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
A
v
e
C o a c h e l l a
V a l l e y
145ft
Vista del Oro
HopiAve
Jackson St
K
e
n
n
e
r
A
v
e
S
t
r
a
d
i
v
a
r
i
R
d
Ocot
i
l
l
o
A
v
e
A
venue43
Broadmoor Dr
aL go Vista Blvd
C
r
e
s
t
Av
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
4 4
Monroe St
A
d
o
b
e
R
d
V
a
l
e
n
c
i
a
A
v
e
R
u
b
y
A
v
e
Calhoun St
S
Bay
Dr
Ma
r
k
e
t
S
t
S
h
o
w
c
a
s
e
P
k
w
y
G
r
e
e
n
b
r
i
a
r
D
r
Gore St
North Shore
Dr
Jackson St
Monroe St
A
v
e
n
u
e
4 2
Indio
Blvd
IndioMunicipal
GolfCourse
111
10 King St
M
i
l
e
s
A
v
e
Sie
r
ra
A
v
e
BlissAve
A
v
e
n
u
e
4 5
Comme rce St
Smurr St
Indio
Blvd
Indio
206ft
429ft
A
v
e
n
u
e
4 4
B
r
a
c
k
R
d
Te
rra
Lago
Land
F
i
l
l
Te
rra
Lag
o
Pkwy
Dillon Rd
TheGolfClub
atTerraLago
16ft
Tyler St
Dillon R
EagleFallsGolf
d
Course
3, 9:59:06 AM
0 0.38
0 0.5
Project Site
Stockton
Fremont
Salinas
Fresno
SanJose
d a Mou n t a i n s
San J oa q u i n Va l l ey
Ra n g e
Sequoia
NationalForest
SantaMaria
Lompoc
SantaBarbara
SanLuisObispo
Oxnard
SantaClarita
Visalia
Lancaster
Bakersfield
LongBeach
LosAngeles
S a n Joa qu i n V a l l e y
Coa s ta l Ra n g e
NellisAirForce
Range
Nevada
National
SecuritySite
p
Mesquite
StGeorge
Gila
YumaProving
Ground
MarineCorps
Agcc
Twentynine
Palms
ChocolateMtn
AerialGunnery
Range
Grand
Canyon-Parashant
NM
Mojave
National
Preserve
DeathValley
NationalPark
CabezaPrieta
Nat'lWildlife
Refuge
LakeHavasuCity
Murrieta
Indio
Riverside
Oceanside
Henderson
Victorville
Palmdale
Mexicali
LasVegas
SanDiego
Tijuana
Sonoran
Desert
Mojave
Desert
Ensenada
Dix
SonoranDesert
NM
GrandCanyon
NationalPark
KaibabNational
Forest
A
Prescott
Pho
S
Califo
USGS
USGS
2/3/2023, 10:05:13 AM
0 45
0 75
City of San Jose | Esri, USGS | California State Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, FAO, NOAA

Page 359 of 2023 ends

Not to scale
Source: Google Earth, 2023.

Figure 2: Project Vicinity Map
The Greens Indio Project
Project Site
Off-Site Improvements
Legend

Page 360 of 2023 ends

Not to scale
Figure 3: Site Plan
The Greens Indio Project
Source: Bickel Group Architecture, 2023
N.A.P.

EXISTING

AUTO PARTS
& SERVICE
N.A.P.

EXISTING

GAS STATION,

CONVENIENCE STORE,
& CAR WASH
AVENUE 42

JACKSON STREET
S 89°31'2" E 239.91'
S 0°7'52" W 243.11'
S 0°0'0" E 151.29'
BLDG 1
D/T REST.
±3,750 SF
24 29
65' 24
16 24
11 2
3 TE
TE
BLDG 4
D/T REST.
±980 SF 28 5
5 43
6 BLDG 2
REST.
±3,996 SF
12 COVERED
PATIO
±2,270 SF
60'
50'
75'
87 GOLF COURSE

STALLS (NOT

INCLUDED IN PARKING

CALCULATIONS)
12 13
8 2 TE
BLDG 3
D/T REST.
±4,562 SF
9 6
18 13
10 9
62'-2"
82'-2"
PATIO
SHADE

STRUCTURE
SHADE

STRUCTURE
NORTH

SITE INFORMATION
APN: 692-670-001,
692-670-014,
692-670-017
TOTAL PARCEL AREA: ±266,735 SF (±6.12 AC)
TOTAL BLDG AREA: ±13,288 SF
FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR): ±0.050

PARKING INFORMATION
PARKING REQUIREMENT: 1 STALL / 100 SF
STALLS REQUIRED: 133 STALLS
STALLS PROVIDED: 245 STALLS
PARKING RATIO: ±18.4/1,000 SF

VICINITY MAP

NOT TO SCALE

PROJECT SITE
143
AVENUE 42

JACKSON ST

Page 361 of 2023 ends

City of Indio The Greens Indio Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
August 2023
Page | 5
2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

2.1 Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change
Certain gases in the earth’s atmosphere classified as GHGs, play a critical role in determining the earth’s surface temperature. Solar radiation enters the earth’s atmosphere from space. A portion of the radiation is absorbed by the earth’s surface and a smaller portion of this radiation is reflected back toward space.

This absorbed radiation is then emitted from the earth as low-frequency infrared radiation. The frequencies at which bodies emit radiation are proportional to temperature. Because the earth has a much lower temperature than the sun, it emits lower-frequency radiation. Most solar radiation passes through GHGs; however, infrared radiation is absorbed by these gases. As a result, radiation that otherwise would have escaped back into space is instead “trapped,” resulting in a warming of the atmosphere. This phenomenon, known as the greenhouse effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate on earth.

The primary GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). Fluorinated gases also make up a small fraction of the GHGs that contribute to climate change. Examples of fluorinated gases include chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3); however, it is noted that these gases are not associated with typical land use development. Human-caused emissions of GHGs exceeding natural ambient concentrations are believed to be responsible for intensifying the greenhouse effect and leading to a trend of unnatural warming of the Earth’s climate, known as global climate change or global warming.

GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants (TACs), which are pollutants of regional and local concern. Whereas pollutants with localized air quality effects have relatively short atmospheric lifetimes (about one day), GHGs have long atmospheric lifetimes (one to several thousand years). GHGs persist in the atmosphere for long enough time periods to be dispersed around the globe. Although the exact lifetime of a GHG molecule is dependent on multiple variables and cannot be pinpointed, more CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere than is sequestered by ocean uptake, vegetation, or other forms of carbon sequestration. Of the total annual human-caused CO2 emissions, approximately 55 percent is sequestered through ocean and land uptakes every year, averaged over the last 50 years, whereas the remaining 45 percent of human-caused CO2 emissions remains stored in the atmosphere.
1 Table 1: Description of Greenhouse Gases describes the primary GHGs attributed to global climate change, including their physical properties.
1 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2013. http://www.climatechange2013.org/ images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf.

Page 362 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 900 of 3061 City of Indio The Greens Indio Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
August 2023
Page | 6
Table 1: Description of Greenhouse Gases
Greenhouse Gas Description
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) CO2 is a colorless, odorless gas that is emitted naturally and through human activities. Natural sources include decomposition of dead organic matter; respiration of bacteria, plants, animals, and fungus; evaporation from oceans; and volcanic outgassing. Anthropogenic sources are from burning coal, oil, natural gas, and wood. The largest source of CO2 emissions globally is the combustion of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and gas in power plants, automobiles, and industrial facilities. The atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is variable because it is readily exchanged in the atmosphere. CO2 is the most widely emitted GHG and is the reference gas (Global Warming Potential of 1) for determining Global Warming Potentials for other GHGs.

Nitrous Oxide (N2O) N2O is largely attributable to agricultural practices and soil management. Primary human-related sources of N2O include agricultural soil management, sewage treatment, combustion of fossil fuels, and adipic and nitric acid production. N2O is produced from biological sources in soil and water, particularly microbial action in wet tropical forests. The atmospheric lifetime of N2O is approximately 120 years. The Global Warming Potential of N2O is 298.

Methane (CH4) CH4, a highly potent GHG, primarily results from off-gassing (the release of chemicals from nonmetallic substances under ambient or greater pressure conditions) and is largely associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Methane is the major component of natural gas, about 87 percent by volume. Human-related sources include fossil fuel production, animal husbandry, rice cultivation, biomass burning, and waste management. Natural sources of CH4 include wetlands, gas hydrates, termites, oceans, freshwater bodies, non-wetland soils, and wildfires. The atmospheric lifetime of CH4 is about 12 years and the Global Warming Potential is 25.

Hydrofluorocarbons
(HFCs)
HFCs are typically used as refrigerants for both stationary refrigeration and mobile air conditioning.

The use of HFCs for cooling and foam blowing is increasing, as the continued phase out of CFCs and HCFCs gains momentum. The 100-year Global Warming Potential of HFCs range from 124 for HFC152 to 14,800 for HFC-23.

Perfluorocarbons
(PFCs)
PFCs have stable molecular structures and only break down by ultraviolet rays about 60 kilometers above Earth’s surface. Because of this, they have long lifetimes, between 10,000 and 50,000 years.

Two main sources of PFCs are primary aluminum production and semiconductor manufacturing.

Global Warming Potentials range from 6,500 to 9,200.

Chlorofluorocarbons
(CFCs)
CFCs are gases formed synthetically by replacing all hydrogen atoms in methane or ethane with chlorine and/or fluorine atoms. They are nontoxic, nonflammable, insoluble, and chemically unreactive in the troposphere (the level of air at the earth’s surface). CFCs were synthesized in 1928 for use as refrigerants, aerosol propellants, and cleaning solvents. The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer prohibited their production in 1987. Global Warming Potentials for CFCs range from 3,800 to 14,400.

Sulfur Hexafluoride
(SF6)
SF6 is an inorganic, odorless, colorless, and nontoxic, nonflammable gas. It has a lifetime of 3,200 years. This gas is manmade and used for insulation in electric power transmission equipment, in the magnesium industry, in semiconductor manufacturing, and as a tracer gas. The Global Warming Potential of SF6 is 23,900.

Hydrochlorofluorocar
bons (HCFCs)
HCFCs are solvents, similar in use and chemical composition to CFCs. The main uses of HCFCs are for refrigerant products and air conditioning systems. As part of the Montreal Protocol, HCFCs are subject to a consumption cap and gradual phase out. The United States is scheduled to achieve a 100 percent reduction to the cap by 2030. The 100-year Global Warming Potentials of HCFCs range from 90 for HCFC-123 to 1,800 for HCFC-142b.

Nitrogen Trifluoride
(NF3)
NF3 was added to Health and Safety Code section 38505(g)(7) as a GHG of concern. This gas is used in electronics manufacture for semiconductors and liquid crystal displays. It has a high global warming potential of 17,200.

Source: Compiled from U.S. EPA, Overview of Greenhouse Gases, April 11, 2018 (https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhousegases); U.S. EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2016, 2018; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, 2007; National Research Council, Advancing the Science of Climate Change, 2010; U.S. EPA, Methane and Nitrous Oxide Emission from Natural Sources, April 2010.

Page 363 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 901 of 3061 City of Indio The Greens Indio Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
August 2023
Page | 7
3 REGULATORY SETTING

3.1 Federal
To date, national standards have not been established for nationwide GHG reduction targets, nor have any regulations or legislation been enacted specifically to address climate change and GHG emissions reduction at the project level. Various efforts have been promulgated at the federal level to improve fuel economy and energy efficiency to address climate change and its associated effects.

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (December 2007), among other key measures, requires the following, which would aid in the reduction of national GHG emissions:
 Increase the supply of alternative fuel sources by setting a mandatory Renewable Fuel Standard requiring fuel producers to use at least 36 billion gallons of biofuel in 2022.  Set a target of 35 miles per gallon for the combined fleet of cars and light trucks by model year 2020 and direct the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to establish a fuel economy program for medium- and heavy-duty trucks and create a separate fuel economy standard for work trucks.
 Prescribe or revise standards affecting regional efficiency for heating and cooling products and procedures for new or amended standards, energy conservation, energy efficiency labeling for consumer electronic products, residential boiler efficiency, electric motor efficiency, and home appliances.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Endangerment Finding The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) authority to regulate GHG emissions stems from the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007). The Supreme Court ruled that GHGs meet the definition of air pollutants under the existing Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) and must be regulated if these gases could be reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Responding to the Court’s ruling, the U.S. EPA finalized an endangerment finding in December 2009. Based on scientific evidence it found that six GHGs (CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6) constitute a threat to public health and welfare. Thus, it is the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the existing FCAA and the U.S. EPA’s assessment of the scientific evidence that form the basis for the U.S. EPA’s regulatory actions.

Federal Vehicle Standards
In response to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling discussed above, Executive Order 13432 was issued in 2007 directing the U.S. EPA, the Department of Transportation, and the Department of Energy to establish regulations that reduce GHG emissions from motor vehicles, non-road vehicles, and non-road engines by 2008. In 2009, the NHTSA issued a final rule regulating fuel efficiency and GHG emissions from cars and light-duty trucks for model year 2011, and in 2010, the U.S. EPA and NHTSA issued a final rule regulating cars and light-duty trucks for model years 2012–2016.

In 2010, an Executive Memorandum was issued directing the Department of Transportation, Department of Energy, U.S. EPA, and NHTSA to establish additional standards regarding fuel efficiency and GHG reduction, clean fuels, and advanced vehicle infrastructure. In response to this directive, the U.S. EPA and NHTSA proposed stringent, coordinated federal GHG and fuel economy standards for model years 2017–

Page 364 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 902 of 3061 City of Indio The Greens Indio Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
August 2023
Page | 8
2025 light-duty vehicles. The proposed standards projected to achieve 163 grams per mile of CO2 in model year 2025, on an average industry fleet-wide basis, which is equivalent to 54.5 miles per gallon if this level were achieved solely through fuel efficiency. The final rule was adopted in 2012 for model years 2017– 2021, and NHTSA intends to set standards for model years 2022–2025 in a future rulemaking. On January 12, 2017, the U.S. EPA finalized its decision to maintain the current GHG emissions standards for model years 2022–2025 cars and light trucks. It should be noted that the U.S. EPA is currently proposing to freeze the vehicle fuel efficiency standards at their planned 2020 level (37 mpg), canceling any future strengthening (currently 54.5 mpg by 2026).

In addition to the regulations applicable to cars and light-duty trucks described above, in 2011, the U.S.

EPA and NHTSA announced fuel economy and GHG standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks for model years 2014–2018. The standards for CO2 emissions and fuel consumption are tailored to three main vehicle categories: combination tractors, heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans, and vocational vehicles.

According to the U.S. EPA, this regulatory program will reduce GHG emissions and fuel consumption for the affected vehicles by 6 to 23 percent over the 2010 baselines.

In August 2016, the U.S. EPA and NHTSA announced the adoption of the phase two program related to the fuel economy and GHG standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks. The phase two program applies to vehicles with model year 2018 through 2027 for certain trailers, and model years 2021 through 2027 for semi-trucks, large pickup trucks, vans, and all types and sizes of buses and work trucks. The final standards lower CO2 emissions by approximately 1.1 billion metric tons and reduce oil consumption by up to two billion barrels over the lifetime of the vehicles sold under the program.2 On September 27, 2019, the U.S. EPA and the NHTSA published the “Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule Part One: One National Program.” (84 Fed. Reg. 51,310 (Sept. 27, 2019.)3 The SAFE Rule (Part One) revoked California’s authority to set its own GHG emissions standards and set zero-emission vehicle mandates in California. On March 31, 2020, the U.S. EPA and NHTSA finalized rulemaking for SAFE Part Two sets CO2 emissions standards and corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for passenger vehicles and light duty trucks, covering model years 2021-2026. The current U.S. EPA administration repealed SAFE Rule Part One, effective January 28, 2022 and is reconsidering Part Two.

In December 2021, the U.S. EPA finalized federal GHG emissions standards for passenger cars and light trucks for Model Years 2023 through 2026. These standards are the strongest vehicle emissions standards ever established for the light-duty vehicle sector and are based on sound science and grounded in a rigorous assessment of current and future technologies. The updated standards will result in avoiding more than three billion tons of GHG emissions through 2050.4 Presidential Executive Orders 13990 and 14008
On January 20, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 13990, "Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis". Executive Order 13990 directs Federal 2 U.S. EPA and NHTSA, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles – Phase 2, 2016. Available at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-10-25/pdf/2016-21203.pdf. Accessed: February 2023. 3 U.S. EPA and NHTSA, Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 188, The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule Part One: One National Program, September 27, 2019. Available at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-09-27/pdf/2019-20672.pdf. Accessed:

February 2023. 4 U.S. EPA, Final Rule to Revise Existing National GHG Emissions Standards for Passenger Cars and Light Trucks Through Model Year 2026, 2021. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/final-rule-revise-existing-national-ghg-emissions.

Accessed: February 2023.

Page 365 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 903 of 3061 City of Indio The Greens Indio Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
August 2023
Page | 9
agencies to immediately review and take action to address the promulgation of Federal regulations and other actions that conflict with these important national objectives and to immediately commence work to confront the climate crisis. Executive Order 13990 directs the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to review CEQ’s 2020 regulations implementing the procedural requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and identify necessary changes or actions to meet the objectives of Executive Order 13990.

Executive Order 13390 also directs the U.S. EPA to consider whether to propose suspending, revising, or rescinding the standards previously revised under the “The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks,” promulgated in April 2020.

On January 27, 2021, President Biden signed Executive Order 14008, "Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad," to declare the Administration’s policy to move quickly to build resilience, both at home and abroad, against the impacts of climate change that are already manifest and will continue to intensify according to current trajectories. In line with these Executive Order directives, CEQ is reviewing the 2020 NEPA regulations and plans to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to identify necessary revisions in order to comply with the law; meet the environmental, climate change, and environmental justice objectives of Executive Orders 13990 and 14008; ensure full and fair public involvement in the NEPA process; provide regulatory certainty to stakeholders; and promote better decision making consistent with NEPA’s statutory requirements. This phase 1 rulemaking will propose a narrow set of changes to the 2020 NEPA regulations to address these goals.

3.2 State of California
California Air Resources Board
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is responsible for the coordination and oversight of State and local air pollution control programs in California. Various statewide and local initiatives to reduce California’s contribution to GHG emissions have raised awareness about climate change and its potential for severe long-term adverse environmental, social, and economic effects. California is a significant emitter of CO2 equivalents (CO2e) in the world and produced 459 million gross metric tons of CO2e in 2013.

In the State, the transportation sector is the largest emitter of GHGs, followed by industrial operations such as manufacturing and oil and gas extraction.

The State of California legislature has enacted a series of bills that constitute the most aggressive program to reduce GHGs of any state in the nation. Some legislation, such as the landmark Assembly Bill (AB) 32, California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, was specifically enacted to address GHG emissions.

Other legislation, such as Title 24 building efficiency standards and Title 20 appliance energy standards, were originally adopted for other purposes such as energy and water conservation, but also provide GHG reductions. This section describes the major provisions of the legislation.

Assembly Bill 32 (California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006) AB 32 instructs the CARB to develop and enforce regulations for the reporting and verification of Statewide GHG emissions. AB 32 also directed CARB to set a GHG emissions limit based on 1990 levels, to be achieved by 2020. It set a timeline for adopting a scoping plan for achieving GHG reductions in a technologically and economically feasible manner.

Page 366 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 904 of 3061 City of Indio The Greens Indio Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
August 2023
Page | 10
2022 CARB Scoping Plan
Adopted December 15, 2022, CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan) sets a path to achieve targets for carbon neutrality and reduce anthropogenic GHG emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045 in accordance with AB 1279. To achieve the targets of AB 1279, the 2022 Scoping Plan relies on existing and emerging fossil fuel alternatives and clean technologies, as well as carbon capture and storage. Specifically, the 2022 Scoping Plan focuses on zero-emission transportation; phasing out use of fossil gas use for heating homes and buildings; reducing chemical and refrigerants with high GWP; providing communities with sustainable options for walking, biking, and public transit; displacement of fossil-fuel fired electrical generation through use of renewable energy alternatives (e.g., solar arrays and wind turbines); and scaling up new options such as green hydrogen.

The 2022 Scoping Plan sets one of the most aggressive approaches to reach carbon neutrality in the world.

Unlike the 2017 Scoping Plan, CARB no longer includes a numeric per capita threshold and instead advocates for compliance with a local GHG reduction strategy (i.e., Climate Action Plan) consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5.

The key elements of the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan focus on transportation. Specifically, the 2022 Scoping Plan aims to rapidly move towards zero-emission transportation (i.e., electrifying cars, buses, trains, and trucks), which constitutes California’s single largest source of GHGs. The regulations that impact the transportation sector are adopted and enforced by CARB on vehicle manufacturers and are outside the jurisdiction and control of local governments. The 2022 Scoping Plan accelerates development of new regulations as well as amendments to strengthen regulations and programs already in place.

Included in the 2022 Scoping Plan is a set of Local Actions (2022 Scoping Plan Appendix D) aimed at providing local jurisdictions with tools to reduce GHGs and assist the State in meeting the ambitious targets set forth in the 2022 Scoping Plan. Appendix D to the 2022 Scoping Plan includes a section on evaluating plan-level and project-level alignment with the State’s Climate Goals in CEQA GHG analyses. In this section, CARB identifies several recommendations and strategies that should be considered for new development in order to determine consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan. Notably, this section is focused on Residential and Mixed-Use Projects.
5 CARB specifically states that Appendix D does not
address other land uses (e.g., industrial).6 However, CARB plans to explore new approaches for other land use types in the future.
7 As such, it would be inappropriate to apply the requirements contained in Appendix D of the 2022 Scoping Plan to any land use types other than residential or mixed-use residential development.

Senate Bill 32 (California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: Emissions Limit) Signed into law in September 2016, SB 32 codifies the 2030 GHG reduction target in Executive Order B30-15 (40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030). The bill authorizes CARB to adopt an interim GHG emissions level target to be achieved by 2030. CARB also must adopt rules and regulations in an open public process to achieve the maximum, technologically feasible, and cost-effective GHG reductions. 5 California Air Resources Board, 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality, Appendix D: Local Actions, Page 21, November 2022. 6 Ibid, Page 4. 7 ibid, Page 21.

Page 367 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 905 of 3061 City of Indio The Greens Indio Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
August 2023
Page | 11
SB 375 (The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008) Signed into law on September 30, 2008, SB 375 provides a process to coordinate land use planning, regional transportation plans, and funding priorities to help California meet the GHG reduction goals established by AB 32. SB 375 requires metropolitan planning organizations to include sustainable community strategies in their regional transportation plans for reducing GHG emissions, aligns planning for transportation and housing, and creates specified incentives for the implementation of the strategies.

AB 1493 (Pavley Regulations and Fuel Efficiency Standards) AB 1493, enacted on July 22, 2002, required CARB to develop and adopt regulations that reduce GHGs emitted by passenger vehicles and light duty trucks. Implementation of the regulation was delayed by lawsuits filed by automakers and by the U.S. EPA’s denial of an implementation waiver. The U.S. EPA subsequently granted the requested waiver in 2009, which was upheld by the by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in 2011. The regulations establish one set of emission standards for model years 2009–2016 and a second set of emissions standards for model years 2017 to 2025. By 2025, when all rules will be fully implemented, new automobiles will emit 34 percent fewer CO2e emissions and 75 percent fewer smog-forming emissions. In 2019, the U.S. EPA published the SAFE Rule that revoked California’s waiver. However, the U.S. EPA is currently reconsidering the SAFE rule pursuant to Presidential Executive Order 13390.

SB 1368 (Emission Performance Standards)
SB 1368 is the companion bill of AB 32, which directs the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to adopt a performance standard for GHG emissions for the future power purchases of California utilities. SB 1368 limits carbon emissions associated with electrical energy consumed in California by forbidding procurement arrangements for energy longer than 5 years from resources that exceed the emissions of a relatively clean, combined cycle natural gas power plant. The new law effectively prevents California’s utilities from investing in, otherwise financially supporting, or purchasing power from new coal plants located in or out of the State. The CPUC adopted the regulations required by SB 1368 on August 29, 2007.

The regulations implementing SB 1368 establish a standard for baseload generation owned by, or under long-term contract to publicly owned utilities, for 1,100 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour.

SB 1078, SB 107, and SBX1-2 (Renewable Electricity Standards) SB 1078 requires California to generate 20 percent of its electricity from renewable energy by 2017. SB 1078 (2006) changed the due date to 2010 instead of 2017. On November 17, 2008, the Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-14-08, which established a Renewable Portfolio Standard target for California requiring that all retail sellers of electricity serve 33 percent of their load with renewable energy by 2020. Executive Order S-21-09 also directed CARB to adopt a regulation by July 31, 2010, requiring the State’s load serving entities to meet a 33 percent renewable energy target by 2020. CARB approved the Renewable Electricity Standard on September 23, 2010, by Resolution 10-23. SBX1-2, which codified the 33 percent by 2020 goal.

SB 350 (Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015) Signed into law on October 7, 2015, SB 350 implements the goals of Executive Order B-30-15. The objectives of SB 350 are to increase the procurement of electricity from renewable sources from 33 percent to 50 percent (with interim targets of 40 percent by 2024, and 25 percent by 2027) and to double the energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas end uses of retail customers through energy

Page 368 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 906 of 3061 City of Indio The Greens Indio Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
August 2023
Page | 12
efficiency and conservation. SB 350 also reorganizes the Independent System Operator to develop more regional electricity transmission markets and improve accessibility in these markets, which will facilitate the growth of renewable energy markets in the western United States.

AB 398 (Market-Based Compliance Mechanisms)
Signed on July 25, 2017, AB 398 extended the duration of the Cap-and-Trade program from 2020 to 2030.

AB 398 required CARB to update the Scoping Plan and for all GHG rules and regulations adopted by the State. It also designated CARB as the statewide regulatory body responsible for ensuring that California meets its statewide carbon pollution reduction targets, while retaining local air districts’ responsibility and authority to curb TACs and criteria pollutants from local sources that severely impact public health. AB 398 also decreased free carbon allowances over 40 percent by 2030 and prioritized Cap-and-Trade spending to various programs including reducing diesel emissions in impacted communities.

SB 150 (Regional Transportation Plans)
Signed on October 10, 2017, SB 150 aligns local and regional GHG reduction targets with State targets (i.e., 40 percent below their 1990 levels by 2030). SB 150 creates a process to include communities in discussions on how to monitor their regions’ progress on meeting these goals. The bill also requires the CARB to regularly report on that progress, as well as on the successes and the challenges regions experience associated with achieving their targets. SB 150 provides for accounting of climate change efforts and GHG reductions and identify effective reduction strategies.

SB 100 (California Renewables Portfolio Standard [RPS] Program: Emissions of Greenhouse Gases) Signed into law in September 2018, SB 100 increased California’s renewable electricity portfolio from 50 to 60 percent by 2030. SB 100 also established a further goal to have an electric grid that is entirely powered by clean energy by 2045.

AB 1346 (Air Pollution: Small Off-Road Engines)
Signed into Law in October 2021, AB 1346 requires CARB, to adopt cost-effective and technologically feasible regulations to prohibit engine exhaust and evaporative emissions from new small off-road engines, consistent with federal law, by July 1, 2022. The bill requires CARB to identify and, to the extent feasible, make available funding for commercial rebates or similar incentive funding as part of any updates to existing applicable funding program guidelines to local air pollution control districts and air quality management districts to implement to support the transition to zero-emission small off-road equipment operations.

AB 1279 (The California Climate Crisis Act)
AB 1279 establishes the policy of the State to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, but no later than 2045; to maintain net negative GHG emissions thereafter; and to ensure that by 2045 statewide anthropogenic GHG emissions are reduced at least 85 percent below 1990 levels. The bill requires CARB to ensure that Scoping Plan updates identify and recommend measures to achieve carbon neutrality, and to identify and implement policies and strategies that enable CO2 removal solutions and carbon capture, utilization, and storage technologies.

Page 369 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 907 of 3061 City of Indio The Greens Indio Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
August 2023
Page | 13
SB 1020 (100 Percent Clean Electric Grid)
Signed on September 16, 2022, SB 1020 provides additional goals for the path to the 2045 goal of 100 percent clean electricity retail sales. It creates a target of 90 percent clean electricity retail sales by 2035 and 95 percent clean electricity retail sales by 2040.

SB 905 (Carbon Sequestration Program)
Signed on September 16, 2022, SB 905 establishes regulatory framework and policies that involve carbon removal, carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration. It also prohibits the injecting of concentrated carbon dioxide fluid into a Class II injection well for the purpose of enhanced oil recovery.

AB 1757 (Nature-Based Solutions)
Signed on September 16, 2022, AB 1757 requires State agencies to develop a range of targets for natural carbon sequestration and nature-based climate solutions that reduce GHG emissions to meet the 2030, 2038, and 2045 goals which would be integrated into a scoping plan addressing natural and working lands.

CARB Advanced Clean Truck Regulation
CARB adopted the Advanced Clean Truck Regulation in June 2020 requiring truck manufacturers to transition from diesel trucks and vans to electric zero-emission trucks beginning in 2024. By 2045, every new truck sold in California is required to be zero-emission. This rule directly addresses disproportionate risks and health and pollution burdens and puts California on the path for an all zero-emission short-haul drayage fleet in ports and railyards by 2035, and zero-emission “last-mile” delivery trucks and vans by 2040. The Advanced Clean Truck Regulation accelerates the transition of zero-emission medium-and heavy-duty vehicles from Class 2b to Class 8. The regulation has two components including a manufacturer sales requirement, and a reporting requirement:
 Zero-Emission Truck Sales: Manufacturers who certify Class 2b through 8 chassis or complete vehicles with combustion engines are required to sell zero-emission trucks as an increasing percentage of their annual California sales from 2024 to 2035. By 2035, zero-emission truck/chassis sales need to be 55 percent of Class 2b – 3 truck sales, 75 percent of Class 4 – 8 straight truck sales, and 40 percent of truck tractor sales.  Company and Fleet Reporting: Large employers including retailers, manufacturers, brokers, and others would be required to report information about shipments and shuttle services. Fleet owners, with 50 or more trucks, would be required to report about their existing fleet operations.

This information would help identify future strategies to ensure that fleets purchase available zero-emission trucks and place them in service where suitable to meet their needs.

AB 1384 (Resiliency Through Adaptation, Economic Vitality, and Equity Act) Signed on September 16, 2022, AB 1384 requires the release of a draft Safeguarding California Plan by January 1, 2024, and every three years thereafter. The intent of AB 1384 is to prioritize the most vulnerable communities, ecosystems, and economic sectors in the State’s climate adaptation and resilience strategy set forth in the Safeguarding California Plan by ensuring that all State departments and agencies accurately identify, collaboratively prepare for, and are sufficiently resourced to adequately respond to the impacts of climate change, such as extreme weather events, the urban heat island effect, habitat loss, wildfire, sea level rise, and drought.

Page 370 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 908 of 3061 City of Indio The Greens Indio Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
August 2023
Page | 14
Executive Orders Related to GHG Emissions
California’s Executive Branch has taken several actions to reduce GHGs using executive orders. Although not regulatory, they set the tone for the State and guide the actions of State agencies.

Executive Order S-3-05. Executive Order S-3-05 was issued on June 1, 2005, which established the following GHG emissions reduction targets:
 By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels.
 By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels.
 By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.

The 2050 reduction goal represents what some scientists believe is necessary to reach levels that will stabilize the climate. The 2020 goal was established to be a mid-term target. Because this is an executive order, the goals are not legally enforceable for local governments or the private sector.

Executive Order S-01-07. Issued on January 18, 2007, Executive Order S-01-07 mandates that a statewide goal shall be established to reduce the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by at least 10 percent by 2020. The executive order established a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) and directed the Secretary for Environmental Protection to coordinate the actions of the California Energy Commission, CARB, the University of California, and other agencies to develop and propose protocols for measuring the “life-cycle carbon intensity” of transportation fuels. CARB adopted the LCFS on April 23, 2009.

Executive Order S-13-08. Issued on November 14, 2008, Executive Order S-13-08 facilitated the California Natural Resources Agency development of the 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy. Objectives include analyzing risks of climate change in California, identifying and exploring strategies to adapt to climate change, and specifying a direction for future research.

Executive Order S-14-08. Issued on November 17, 2008, Executive Order S-14-08 expands the State’s Renewable Energy Standard to 33 percent renewable power by 2020. Additionally, Executive Order S-21- 09 (signed on September 15, 2009) directs CARB to adopt regulations requiring 33 percent of electricity sold in the State come from renewable energy by 2020. CARB adopted the Renewable Electricity Standard on September 23, 2010, which requires 33 percent renewable energy by 2020 for most publicly owned electricity retailers.

Executive Order S-21-09. Issued on July 17, 2009, Executive Order S-21-09 directs CARB to adopt regulations to increase California's RPS to 33 percent by 2020. This builds upon SB 1078 (2002), which established the California RPS program, requiring 20 percent renewable energy by 2017, and SB 107 (2006), which advanced the 20 percent deadline to 2010, a goal which was expanded to 33 percent by 2020 in the 2005 Energy Action Plan II.

Executive Order B-30-15. Issued on April 29, 2015, Executive Order B-30-15 established a California GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and directs CARB to update the Climate Change Scoping Plan to express the 2030 target in terms of million metric tons of CO2e (MMTCO2e). The 2030 target acts as an interim goal on the way to achieving reductions of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, a goal set by Executive Order S-3-05. The executive order also requires the State’s climate adaptation plan to be updated every three years and for the State to continue its climate change research program, among

Page 371 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 909 of 3061 City of Indio The Greens Indio Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
August 2023
Page | 15
other provisions. With the enactment of SB 32 in 2016, the Legislature codified the goal of reducing GHG emissions by 2030 to 40 percent below 1990 levels.

Executive Order B-55-18. Issued on September 10, 2018, Executive Order B-55-18 establishes a goal to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, and no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net negative emissions thereafter. This goal is in addition to the existing statewide targets of reducing GHG emissions. The executive order requires CARB to work with relevant State agencies to develop a framework for implementing this goal. It also requires CARB to update the Scoping Plan to identify and recommend measures to achieve carbon neutrality. The executive order also requires State agencies to develop sequestration targets in the Natural and Working Lands Climate Change Implementation Plan.

Executive Order N-79-20. Signed in September 2020, Executive Order N-79-20 establishes as a goal that where feasible, all new passenger cars and trucks, as well as all drayage/cargo trucks and off-road vehicles and equipment, sold in California, will be zero-emission by 2035. The executive order sets a similar goal requiring that all medium and heavy-duty vehicles will be zero-emission by 2045 where feasible. It also directs CARB to develop and propose rulemaking for passenger vehicles and trucks, medium-and heavyduty fleets where feasible, drayage trucks, and off-road vehicles and equipment “requiring increasing volumes” of new ZEVs “towards the target of 100 percent.” The executive order directs the California Environmental Protection Agency, the California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM), and the California Natural Resources Agency to transition and repurpose oil production facilities with a goal toward meeting carbon neutrality by 2045. Executive Order N-79-20 builds upon the CARB Advanced Clean Trucks regulation, which was adopted by CARB in July 2020.

California Regulations and Building Codes
California has a long history of adopting regulations to improve energy efficiency in new and remodeled buildings. These regulations have kept California’s energy consumption relatively flat even with rapid population growth.

Title 20 Appliance Efficiency Regulations. The appliance efficiency regulations (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 20, Sections 1601-1608) include standards for new appliances. Twenty-three categories of appliances are included in the scope of these regulations. These standards include minimum levels of operating efficiency, and other cost-effective measures, to promote the use of energy- and water-efficient appliances.

Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (CCR Title 24, Part 6) was first adopted in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficient technologies and methods. Energy efficient buildings require less electricity; therefore, increased energy efficiency reduces fossil fuel consumption and decreases GHG emissions. The California Energy Commission (CEC) adopted the 2022 Energy Code on August 11, 2021, which was subsequently approved by the California Building Standards Commission for inclusion into the California Building Standards Code. The 2022 Title 24 standards will result in less energy use, thereby reducing air pollutant emissions associated with energy consumption across California. For example, the 2022 Title 24 standards will require efficient electric heat pumps,

Page 372 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 910 of 3061 City of Indio The Greens Indio Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
August 2023
Page | 16
establishes electric-ready requirements for new homes, expands solar photovoltaic and battery storage standards, and strengthens ventilation standards.

Title 24 California Green Building Standards Code. The California Green Building Standards Code (CCR Title 24, Part 11 code) commonly referred to as the CALGreen Code, is a statewide mandatory construction code developed and adopted by the California Building Standards Commission and the Department of Housing and Community Development. The CALGreen standards require new residential and commercial buildings to comply with mandatory measures under the topics of planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency/conservation, material conservation and resource efficiency, and environmental quality.

CALGreen also provides voluntary tiers and measures that local governments may adopt that encourage or require additional measures in the five green building topics. The most recent update to the CALGreen Code went into effect on January 1, 2023 (2022 CALGreen). The 2022 CALGreen standards continue to improve upon the existing standards for new construction of, and additions and alterations to, residential and nonresidential buildings.

3.3 Regional
South Coast Air Quality Management District Thresholds
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) formed a GHG California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Significance Threshold Working Group to provide guidance to local lead agencies on determining significance for GHG emissions in their CEQA documents. This Working Group was formed to assist SCAQMD’s efforts to develop a GHG significance threshold and included a wide variety of stakeholders including the State Office of Planning and Research (OPR), CARB, the Attorney General’s Office, a variety of city and county planning departments in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), various utilities such as sanitation and power companies throughout the SCAB, industry groups, and environmental and professional organizations. On December 5, 2008, the SCAQMD Governing Board adopted a 10,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) industrial threshold for projects where the SCAQMD is the lead agency. However, the SCAQMD has not announced when a GHG threshold for land use projects will be presented to the governing board where the SCAQMD is not the lead agency.

The Working Group proposed a 3,000 MTCO2e threshold for non-industrial projects, but that threshold has not been formally adopted. During Working Group Meeting #7 it was explained that this threshold was derived using a 90 percent capture rate of a large sampling of industrial facilities. During Meeting #8, the Working Group defined industrial uses as production, manufacturing, and fabrication activities or storage and distribution (e.g., warehouse, transfer facility, etc.). The Working Group indicated that the threshold applies to both emissions from construction and operational phases plus indirect emissions (electricity, water use, etc.). The SCAQMD concluded that projects with emissions less than the screening threshold would not result in a significant cumulative impact.

Southern California Association of Governments
On September 3, 2020, SCAG’s Regional Council adopted Connect SoCal (2020−2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy [2020 RTP/SCS]). The RTP/SCS charts a course for closely integrating land use and transportation so that the region can grow smartly and sustainably. The strategy was prepared through a collaborative, continuous, and comprehensive process with input from local governments, county transportation commissions, tribal governments, non-profit organizations, businesses, and local stakeholders within the counties of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura. The RTP/SCS is a long-range vision plan that balances future mobility and

Page 373 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 911 of 3061 City of Indio The Greens Indio Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
August 2023
Page | 17
housing needs with economic, environmental, and public health goals. The SCAG region strives toward sustainability through integrated land use and transportation planning. The SCAG region must achieve specific federal air quality standards and is required by State law to lower regional GHG emissions.

3.4 Local
City of Indio Climate Action Plan
The City of Indio adopted its Climate Action Plan (CAP) in September 2019 in an effort to address climate change at the local level by reducing greenhouse gas emissions within its own operations and the overall community. The CAP provides a framework for the development and implementation of policies and programs that will reduce the City’s emissions and is tracked via the City’s Communitywide and Municipal Greenhouse Gas Inventories. The CAP qualifies as a programmatic tiering document for purposes of CEQA for Indio for GHG emissions pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15152 and 15183.5.

City of Indio General Plan
The Indio General Plan includes the following goals and policies that pertain either directly or indirectly to climate change and greenhouse gas emissions that are applicable to the Project:

Policy SE-5.2: Climate change research. Integrate climate change research and adaptation planning into City operations, services, and public infrastructure development, including capital improvements.

Policy LU-4.6: Climate-appropriate design. Encourage the use of building techniques and materials that relate to Indio’s warm and dry desert climate. Promote solar control and use of shade in building design and associated pedestrian amenities.

Policy LU-7.11: Connections to key destinations. Require direct pedestrian and bicycle connections between residential areas and nearby commercial and public and institutional areas as well as other residential areas.

Page 374 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 912 of 3061 City of Indio The Greens Indio Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
August 2023
Page | 18
4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY

4.1 Thresholds and Significance Criteria
Addressing GHG emissions generation impacts requires an agency to determine what constitutes a significant impact. The amendments to the CEQA Guidelines specifically allow lead agencies to determine thresholds of significance that illustrate the extent of an impact and are a basis from which to apply mitigation measures. This means that each agency is left to determine whether a project’s GHG emissions will have a “significant” impact on the environment. The guidelines direct that agencies are to use “careful judgment” and “make a good-faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate” the project’s GHG emissions. 8 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:
 Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, based on any applicable threshold of significance; or  Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.

The Indio City Council Adopted the Indio CAP in September 2019. The CAP serves as the programmatic tiering document for purposes of CEQA analysis of GHG emissions within the City. Development projects that can demonstrate consistency with the CAP’s Climate-Ready Development Review Checklist (Appendix A of the CAP) would have less than significant impacts with regard to GHG emissions.

4.2 Methodology
The Project’s construction and operational emissions were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model version 2022.1 (CalEEMod). Details of the modeling assumptions and emission factors are provided in Appendix A: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data. For construction, CalEEMod calculates emissions from off-road equipment usage and on-road vehicle travel associated with haul, delivery, and construction worker trips. GHG emissions during construction were forecasted based on the proposed construction schedule and applying the mobile-source and fugitive dust emissions factors derived from CalEEMod. The Project’s construction-related GHG emissions would be generated from off-road construction equipment, on-road hauling and vendor (material delivery) trucks, and worker vehicles. The Project’s operational-related GHG emissions would be generated by vehicular traffic, area sources (e.g., landscaping maintenance, consumer products), electrical generation, natural gas consumption, water supply and wastewater treatment, and solid waste.
8 14 California Code of Regulations, Section 15064.4a

Page 375 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 913 of 3061 City of Indio The Greens Indio Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
August 2023
Page | 19
5 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION

5.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Threshold 5.1 Would the project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that could have a significant impact on the environment?
Short-Term Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Project would result in direct emissions of GHGs from construction. The approximate quantity of daily GHG emissions generated by construction equipment utilized to build the Project is depicted in Table 2:

Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

Table 2: Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Category MTCO2e
Total Construction Emissions 310
30-Year Amortized Construction 10
Source: CalEEMod version 2022.1. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs.

As shown, the Project would result in the generation of approximately 310 MTCO2e over the course of construction. Construction GHG emissions are typically summed and amortized over the lifetime of the Project (assumed to be 30 years), then added to the operational emissions. 9 The amortized Project
construction emissions would be 10 MTCO2e per year. Once construction is complete, the generation of these GHG emissions would cease.

Long-Term Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Operational or long-term emissions occur over the life of the Project. GHG emissions would result from direct emissions such as Project generated vehicular traffic, on-site combustion of natural gas, and operation of any landscaping equipment. Operational GHG emissions would also result from indirect sources, such as off-site generation of electrical power, the energy required to convey water to, and wastewater from the Project. The emissions associated with solid waste generated from the Project, and any fugitive refrigerants from air conditioning or refrigerators.

Total GHG emissions associated with the Project are summarized in Table 3: Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions for informational purposes only.
9 The project lifetime is based on the standard 30-year assumption of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast Air Quality Management District, Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #13, August 26, 2009).

Page 376 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 914 of 3061 City of Indio The Greens Indio Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
August 2023
Page | 20
Table 3: Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Emissions Source MTCO2e per Year1
Proposed Emissions
Construction Amortized Over 30 Years 10
Area Source <1
Energy 100
Mobile 5,840
Waste 47
Water and Wastewater 6
Refrigeration 1
Proposed Total 6,004
Source: CalEEMod version 2022.1. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs.

1. Totals may not add up due to rounding.

As shown in Table 3, the Project would generate approximately 6,004 MTCO2e annually from both construction and operations. As discussed below and identified on Table 6: Compliance with the ClimateReady Development Review Checklist, the Project would be in compliance with Tier 2 through consistency with the City of Indio CAP and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Level of Significance: Less than significant impact.

5.2 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan Compliance
Threshold 5.2 Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions?
Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Consistency On September 3, 2020, SCAG’s Regional Council adopted Connect SoCal (2020 RTP/SCS). The RTP/SCS is a long-range visioning plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental, and public health goals. The RTP/SCS embodies a collective vision for the region’s future and is developed with input from local governments, county transportation commissions, tribal governments, nonprofit organizations, businesses, and local stakeholders in the counties of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura. SCAG’s RTP/SCS establishes GHG emissions goals for automobiles and light-duty trucks for 2020 and 2035 as well as an overall GHG target for the Project region consistent with both the target date of AB 32 and the post-2020 GHG reduction goals of Executive Orders 5-03-05 and B-30-15, described above (Section 3, Regulatory Setting).

The RTP/SCS contains over 4,000 transportation projects, ranging from highway improvements, railroad grade separations, bicycle lanes, new transit hubs and replacement bridges. These future investments were included in county plans developed by the six county transportation commissions and seek to reduce traffic bottlenecks, improve the efficiency of the region’s network, and expand mobility choices for

Page 377 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 915 of 3061 City of Indio The Greens Indio Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
August 2023
Page | 21
everyone. The RTP/SCS is an important planning document for the region, allowing project sponsors to qualify for federal funding.

The plan accounts for operations and maintenance costs to ensure reliability, longevity, and cost effectiveness. The RTP/SCS is also supported by a combination of transportation and land use strategies that help the region achieve State GHG emissions reduction goals and FCAA requirements, preserve open space areas, improve public health and roadway safety, support our vital goods movement industry, and utilize resources more efficiently. GHG emissions resulting from development-related mobile sources are the most potent source of emissions, and therefore Project comparison to the RTP/SCS is an appropriate indicator of whether the Project would inhibit the post-2020 GHG reduction goals promulgated by the State. The Project’s consistency with the RTP/SCS goals is analyzed in detail in Table 4: Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Consistency.

Table 4: Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Consistency SCAG Goals Compliance
GOAL 1: Encourage regional economic prosperity
and global competitiveness.

Not
applicable.

This is not a project-specific policy and is therefore
not applicable. However, the Project site is bordered
by development. Development of the site would
contribute to regional economic prosperity.

GOAL 2: Improve mobility, accessibility,
reliability, and travel safety for people
and goods.

Not
applicable.

This is not a transportation improvement Project
and is therefore not applicable.

GOAL 3: Enhance the preservation, security, and
resilience of the regional transportation
system.

Not
applicable.

This is not a transportation improvement Project
and is therefore not applicable.

GOAL 4: Increase person and goods movement
and travel choices within the
transportation system.

Not
applicable.

This is not a transportation improvement Project
and is therefore not applicable.

GOAL 5: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and
improve air quality.

Consistent. The Project site is located within a developed area near an existing freeway. Location of the Project
within a developed area would reduce trip lengths,
which would reduce GHG and air quality emissions.

GOAL 6: Support healthy and equitable
communities
Consistent. As discussed in the Air Quality Assessment, the Project would not exceed thresholds or result in
health impacts. The Project would not conflict with
the surrounding community’s ability to access
healthy food or parks. In addition, the Project would
be required to comply with the City’s General Plan
and CAP ensuring that impacts to sensitive receptors
would be minimized to the extent feasible.

GOAL 7: Adapt to a changing climate and
support an integrated regional
development pattern and
transportation network.

Not
applicable.

This is not a project-specific policy and is therefore
not applicable.

GOAL 8: Leverage new transportation
technologies and data-driven solutions
that result in more efficient travel.

Not
applicable.

This is not a transportation improvement project
and is therefore not applicable. However, the
Project is located in a developed area in proximity to
an existing freeway. The location of the Project
within a developed area would reduce trip lengths,
which would result in more efficient travel.

Page 378 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 916 of 3061 City of Indio The Greens Indio Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
August 2023
Page | 22
SCAG Goals Compliance
GOAL 9: Encourage development of diverse
housing types in areas that are
supported by multiple transportation
options.

Not
applicable.

The Project does not include housing.

Goal 10: Promote conservation of natural and
agricultural lands and restoration of
habitats.

Not
applicable.

The Project site is not located on agricultural or
habitat lands.

Source: Southern California Association of Governments, Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (Connect SoCal), 2020.

The goals stated in the RTP/SCS were used to determine consistency with the planning efforts previously stated. As shown in Table 4, the proposed Project would be consistent with the stated goals of the RTP/SCS. However, the proposed Project would not conflict with implementation of the stated goals of the RTP/SCS. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in any significant impacts or interfere with SCAG’s ability to achieve the region’s post-2020 mobile source GHG reduction targets.

California Air Resource Board Scoping Plan Consistency
As previously noted, the 2022 Scoping Plan sets a path to achieve targets for carbon neutrality and reduce anthropogenic GHG emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045 in accordance with AB 1279. The transportation, electricity, and industrial sectors are the largest GHG contributors in the State. The 2022 Scoping Plan plans to achieve the AB 1279 targets primarily through zero-emission transportation (e.g., electrifying cars, buses, trains, and trucks). Additional GHG reductions are achieved through decarbonizing the electricity and industrial sectors.

Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions in the latest 2022 Scoping Plan include implementing SB 100, which would achieve 100 percent clean electricity by 2045; achieving 100 percent zero emission vehicle sales in 2035 through Advanced Clean Cars II; and implementing the Advanced Clean Fleets regulation to deploy zero-electric vehicle buses and trucks. Additional transportation policies include the Off-Road Zero-Emission Targeted Manufacturer rule, Clean Off-Road Fleet Recognition Program, In-use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation, Off-Road Zero-Emission Targeted Manufacturer rule, Clean OffRoad Fleet Recognition Program, and Amendments to the In-use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation. The 2022 Scoping Plan would continue to implement SB 375. GHGs would be further reduced through the Cap-and-Trade Program carbon pricing and SB 905. SB 905 requires CARB to create the Carbon Capture, Removal, Utilization, and Storage Program to evaluate, demonstrate, and regulate carbon dioxide removal projects and technology.

As shown in Table 3, approximately 99 percent of the Project’s GHG emissions are from energy and mobile sources which would be further reduced by the 2022 Scoping Plan measures described above. It should be noted that the City has no control over vehicle emissions (approximately 95 percent of the Project’s total emissions). However, these emissions would decline in the future due to statewide measures discussed above, as well as cleaner technology and fleet turnover. Several of the State’s plans and policies would contribute to a reduction in mobile source emissions from the Project. These include the following:
 CARB’s Advanced Clean Truck Regulation: Adopted in June 2020, CARB’s Advanced Clean Truck Regulation requires truck manufacturers to transition from diesel trucks and vans to electric zeroemission trucks beginning in 2024. By 2045, every new truck sold in California is required to be

Page 379 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 917 of 3061 City of Indio The Greens Indio Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
August 2023
Page | 23
zero-emission. The Advanced Clean Truck Regulation accelerates the transition of zero-emission medium-and heavy-duty vehicles from Class 2b to Class 8.  Executive Order N-79-20: Executive Order N-79-20 establishes the goal for all new passenger cars and trucks, as well as all drayage/cargo trucks and off-road vehicles and equipment, sold in California, will be zero-emission by 2035 and all medium and heavy-duty vehicles will be zeroemission by 2045. It also directs CARB to develop and propose rulemaking for passenger vehicles and trucks, medium-and heavy-duty fleets where feasible, drayage trucks, and off-road vehicles and equipment “requiring increasing volumes” of new ZEVs “towards the target of 100 percent.”  CARB’s Mobile Source Strategy: CARB’s Mobile Source Strategy takes an integrated planning approach to identify the level of transition to cleaner mobile source technologies needed to achieve all of California’s targets by increasing the adoption of ZEV buses and trucks.  CARB’s Sustainable Freight Action Plan: The Sustainable Freight Action Plan which improves freight system efficiency, utilizes near-zero emissions technology, and deployment of ZEV trucks.

This Plan applies to all trucks accessing the Project site and may include existing trucks or new trucks that are part of the statewide goods movement sector.  CARB’s Emissions Reduction Plan for Ports and Goods Movement: CARB’s Emissions Reduction Plan for Ports and Goods Movement identifies measures to improve goods movement efficiencies such as advanced combustion strategies, friction reduction, waste heat recovery, and electrification of accessories.

While these measures are not directly applicable to the Project, any commercial activity associated with goods movement would be required to comply with these measures as adopted. The Project would not obstruct or interfere with efforts to increase ZEVs or State efforts to improve system efficiency.

Compliance with applicable State standards (e.g., continuation of the Cap-and-Trade regulation; CARB’s Mobile Source Strategy, Sustainable Freight Action Plan, and Advanced Clean Truck Regulation; Executive Order N-79-20; SB 100/renewable electricity portfolio improvements that require 60 percent renewable electricity by 2030 and 100 percent renewable by 2045, etc.) would ensure consistency with State and regional GHG reduction planning efforts, including the 2022 Scoping Plan. It should also be noted that the Project would not convert any Natural and Working Lands (NWL) and/or decrease the urban forest carbon stock in the State, which are areas of emphasis in the 2022 Scoping Plan.

The Project does not conflict with the applicable plans that are discussed above and therefore with respect to this particular threshold, the Project does not have a significant impact.

Consistency with the City of Indio CAP
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5 allows projects to tier from the programmatic GHG emissions analysis contained in a qualified GHG emissions reduction plan by identifying those requirements specified in the plan that apply to the Project, and, if those requirements are not otherwise binding and enforceable, incorporating those requirements as mitigation measures applicable to the Project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5[a] and [b][2]). As discussed previously, the City’s CAP is a qualified GHG emissions reduction plan under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b)(1). As a result, this analysis tiers from the GHG emissions analysis conducted for the City’s CAP.

Page 380 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 918 of 3061 City of Indio The Greens Indio Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
August 2023
Page | 24
As previously discussed, the City of Indio CAP outlines the goals and measures for resource efficiency and planning for climate change within the City. For this purpose, the City has implemented a Climate-Ready Development Review Checklist.

Prior to Project approval, the applicant is required to complete the Climate-Ready Development Review Checklist to demonstrate the Project’s compliance with the City of Indio CAP, which is provided in. Table 5: Compliance with the Climate-Ready Development Review Checklist. As shown in Table 5, the Project would comply with all applicable project design features included in the Climate-Ready Development Review Checklist. As such, impacts related to consistency with the CAP would be less than significant.

Table 5: Consistency with the Climate-Ready Development Review Checklist Project Design Feature Yes/No Explanation
Will the project include bicycle facilities (e.g. bike lanes, parking)?
Yes
Bicycle facilities in the area include Avenue 42, which provides Class II bike lanes with striping to separate
the vehicle and bike travel way. On Jackson Street
bicyclists either share the traffic lane or ride on the sidewalk. Additionally, bicycle storage for employees
and visitors would be provided on site, as well as
bicycle access on the driveways.

Will the project include sidewalks along all roadways?
Yes
The proposed Project is in a mixed-use area. There is
currently pedestrian access to/from the Project site
via sidewalks along Avenue 42 and Jackson Street.

Will the project support bike sharing or rental programs? N/A
The proposed Project is a local serving retail
development and would not necessitate bike sharking
or rental programs; therefore, this project design
feature is not appliable. However, there are existing
bicyclist facilities in the area on Avenue 42 which
provides Class II bike lanes with buffered striping to
separate vehicle and bike travel. Additionally, the
proposed Project would include 10 bicycle parking
spaces as well as bicycle access on the driveway.

Will there be transit stop within ¼ mile of the project? Yes
The Project site is located within ¼ mile of SunLine
Transit Agency (SLTA) bus stops along Jackson Street
and Avenue 42.

Will the install provide traffic calming elements?
N/A
The proposed Project is a local serving retail
development and would not necessitate traffic
calming elements; therefore, this project design
feature is not appliable.

Will the project’s pedestrian and/or bicycle infrastructure connect to the external network?
Yes
There is currently pedestrian access to/from the
Project site via sidewalks along Jackson Street and
Avenue 42. Bicyclist facilities in the area include
Avenue 42 which provides Class II bike lanes with
buffered striping to separate vehicle and bike travel.

On Jackson Street bicyclists either share the traffic
lane or ride on the sidewalk. The proposed Project
would include bicycle 10 parking spaces as well as
bicycle and pedestrian access on the driveway.

If the project provides streets, will the streets meet the City’s Complete Streets standards? N/A The Project does not provide streets; therefore, this project design feature is not appliable.

Will the project include high-density housing? A range of housing types? Affordable housing? Be mixed-use? No The Project proposes a commercial retail space that includes the following: a 3,750 sf fast food restaurant

Page 381 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 919 of 3061 City of Indio The Greens Indio Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
August 2023
Page | 25
Project Design Feature Yes/No Explanation
with drive-through; a 980 sf coffee shop with drivethrough; a 3,996 sf fast food restaurant with drivethrough; and a 4,562 sf high turnover sit down restaurant.

Will the project provide shared or reduced parking
Yes
The proposed Project would create approximately 245
new parking spaces. The proposed parking stalls
would be shared by existing retail uses located
adjacent to the Project site.

Will the project be designed to maximize solar
orientation?
Yes
The Project would comply with the latest Title 24
Building Code Energy Efficiency standards for
commercial uses. The Project would also implement
required green building strategies through existing
regulation that requires the Project to comply with
various CalGreen requirements. The Project would
also include the installation of solar photovoltaic (PV) arrays on-site.

Will the buildings be designed to incorporate passive solar design?
Will the project include transportation demand
management measures?
N/A
The proposed Project is a local serving retail
development with no single store on‐site exceeding
50,000 square feet, and thus is not expected to have
significant VMT impacts per the Riverside County
Transportation Guidelines and therefore would not
necessitate any TDM programs to reduce the vehicle
trips and vehicle miles generated by the Project.

However, the Project includes connections to existing
bicycle lane facilities and bicycle parking. As discussed above, the proposed Project would include 10 bicycle
parking spaces as well as access for bicyclists and
pedestrian to access the site. This would promote
safety and encourage employees to use alternative
sources of transportation.

Will the project provide electric vehicle charging stations? Yes The Project would install EV chargers on site in
Will the project pre compliance with CALGreen Section 5.106.5.3.3. -wire for electric vehicle charging stations to be added at a later date?
Will the project use all electric appliances and HVAC
systems?
Yes
The Project would be constructed in accordance with
the latest California Building Code and green building
Will the project seek LEED or similar green building regulations/CalGreen. certification?
Will the project increase the number of trees on site? Yes The Project would plant, at a minimum, 122 new trees.

Will renewable energy systems be installed as part of the project?
Yes
The Project would be required to install a PV solar
array in accordance with the Title 24 Building Code
Energy Efficiency standards. Additionally, the Project
would implement required green building strategies
through existing regulation that requires the Project
to comply with various CalGreen requirements to
reduce energy use.

Will construction waste and debris be diverted from the landfill consistent with City requirements? Yes
The Project would be required to comply with Indio
Municipal Code Section 51.47: Recycling and Diversion
of Debris of Construction and Demolitions and
CALGreen with regard to construction waste diversion.

Page 382 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 920 of 3061 City of Indio The Greens Indio Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
August 2023
Page | 26
Project Design Feature Yes/No Explanation
Will the project collect recycling? Compost?
Yes
The Project would comply with the City’s Mandatory
Organic Waste Disposal Reduction Ordinance (Chapter
51A of the Indio Municipal Code).

Will the project use low-water or drought tolerant species for landscaping?
Yes
The Project would comply with the City’s Water
Efficient Landscape Development Standards
Ordinance (Section 54.064.2 of the Indio Municipal
Code). Will the project use smart irrigation?
Will rainwater be captured on site?
Will the project be connected to the recycled water
system? Does the project use recycled water? N/A
The Project site is not located near recycled water
facilities (refer to the 2020 Coachella Valley Reginal
Urban Water Management Plan); therefore, this
project design feature is not appliable.

Will the project use low-impact development practices?
Yes
The Project would comply with the City’s Landscape
and Water Conservation Ordinance (Section 54.064.1
of the Indio Municipal Code).

Source: City of Indio, City of Indio Climate Action Plan: Appendix A, September 2019.

As discussed above, the Project would be consistent with the Indio CAP Climate-Ready Development Review Checklist, and impacts would be less than significant. Additionally, Project emissions would be indirectly reduced through the implementation of various 2022 Scoping Plan measures, such as the low carbon fuel standard, vehicle emissions standards, building energy efficiency standards, market-based mechanisms (such as the cap-and-trade program) and the Renewable Portfolio Standard. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with the 2022 Scoping Plan’s recommended measures and, as such, would not impede implementation of the 2022 Scoping Plan. As such, impacts related to consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan would be less than significant.

Regarding goals for 2050 under Executive Order S-3-05, at this time it is not possible to quantify the emissions savings from future regulatory measures, as they have not yet been developed; nevertheless, it can be anticipated that operation of the Project would benefit from implementation of current and potential future regulations (e.g., improvements in vehicle emissions, SB 100/renewable electricity portfolio improvements, etc.) enacted to meet an 80 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2050.

The Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for reducing the emissions of GHGs because the Project would generate low levels of GHGs, and would not impede implementation of the 2022 Scoping Plan or any other GHG reduction plan. Therefore, the impacts would be less than significant.

5.3 Cumulative Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Cumulative Setting
Climate change is a global problem. GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria air pollutants and TACs, which are pollutants of regional and local concern. Whereas pollutants with localized air quality effects have relatively short atmospheric lifetimes (about 1 day), GHGs have much longer atmospheric lifetimes of 1 year to several thousand years that allow them to be dispersed around the globe.

Page 383 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 921 of 3061 City of Indio The Greens Indio Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
August 2023
Page | 27
Cumulative Impacts
It is generally the case that an individual project of this size and nature is of insufficient magnitude by itself to influence climate change or result in a substantial contribution to the global GHG inventory. GHG impacts are recognized as exclusively cumulative impacts; there are no non-cumulative GHG emission impacts from a climate change perspective. The additive effect of Project-related GHG emissions would not result in a reasonably foreseeable cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change. In addition, the Project as well as other cumulative related projects would also be subject to all applicable regulatory requirements, which would further reduce GHG emissions. As discussed above, the Project would not conflict with the Indio CAP Climate-Ready Development Review Checklist, the RTP/SCS, or the CARB Scoping Plan. Therefore, the Project’s cumulative contribution of GHG emissions would be less than significant and the Project’s cumulative GHG impacts would also be less than cumulatively considerable.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Level of Significance: Less than significant impact.

Page 384 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 922 of 3061 City of Indio The Greens Indio Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
August 2023
Page | 28
6 REFERENCES

1. California Air Resources Board, California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, 2017.

2. City of Indio, General Plan, 2019.

3. City of Indio, City of Indio Climate Action Plan, September 2019.

4. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, 2007.

5. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2013.

6. National Research Council, Advancing the Science of Climate Change, 2010.

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

8. State of California, Code of Regulations Section 15065.5a, 2018.

9. Southern California Association of Governments, 2020 - 2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (Connect SoCal), 2020.

10. Southern California Association of Governments, Final Federal Safer, Affordable, Fuel-Efficient Vehicles Rule Part I (Supplemental Report). Available online at:
http://www.scag.ca.gov/committees/CommitteeDocLibrary/EEC_Item8_RC_Item10%20Supplement al%20Report .pdf.

11. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #13, 2009.

12. U.S. Department of Transportation and U.S. EPA. 2019, One National Program Rule on Federal Preemption of State Fuel Economy Standards. Available online at:
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P100XI4W.pdf, accessed February 2023.

13. U.S. EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2016, 2018.

14. U.S. EPA, Methane and Nitrous Oxide Emission from Natural Sources, 2010.

15. U.S. EPA, Midterm Evaluation of Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Model Years 2022-2025. Available online at: https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-andengines/midterm-evaluation-light-duty-vehicle-greenhouse-gas, accessed February 2023.

16. U.S. EPA, Overview of Greenhouse Gases, 2018.

Page 385 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 923 of 3061 Appendix A
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data

Page 386 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 924 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

Page 387 of 2023 ends

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

Page 388 of 2023 ends

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

Page 389 of 2023 ends

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

Page 390 of 2023 ends

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

Page 391 of 2023 ends

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

Page 392 of 2023 ends

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

Page 393 of 2023 ends

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

Page 394 of 2023 ends

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

Page 395 of 2023 ends

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 396 of 2023 AGENDA ITEM #14.1 Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 934 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 397 of 2023 AGENDA ITEM #14.1 Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 935 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 — — — — — — —

Page 398 of 2023 ends

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Page 399 of 2023 ends

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)
——————————————————

Page 400 of 2023 ends

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 401 of 2023 AGENDA ITEM #14.1 Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 939 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

Page 402 of 2023 ends

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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Page 403 of 2023 ends

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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Page 404 of 2023 ends

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

Page 405 of 2023 ends

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

Page 406 of 2023 ends

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—

Page 407 of 2023 ends

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

Page 408 of 2023 ends

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

Page 409 of 2023 ends

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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Page 410 of 2023 ends

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 411 of 2023 AGENDA ITEM #14.1 Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 949 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 412 of 2023 AGENDA ITEM #14.1 Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 950 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

Page 413 of 2023 ends

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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Page 414 of 2023 ends

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

Page 415 of 2023 ends

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

Page 416 of 2023 ends

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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Page 417 of 2023 ends

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Page 418 of 2023 ends

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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Page 419 of 2023 ends

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)

Page 420 of 2023 ends

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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Page 421 of 2023 ends

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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Page 422 of 2023 ends

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—

Page 423 of 2023 ends

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

Page 424 of 2023 ends

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

Page 425 of 2023 ends

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%

Page 426 of 2023 ends

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

Page 427 of 2023 ends

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

Page 428 of 2023 ends

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—

Page 429 of 2023 ends

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 430 of 2023 AGENDA ITEM #14.1 Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 968 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

Page 431 of 2023 ends

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 432 of 2023 AGENDA ITEM #14.1 Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 970 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 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

Page 433 of 2023 ends

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

Page 434 of 2023 ends

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

Page 435 of 2023 ends

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

Page 436 of 2023 ends

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

Page 437 of 2023 ends

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

Page 438 of 2023 ends

Appendix G

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT

Page 439 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 977 of 3061 Revised Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment
Prospective Development Property
NEC Jackson Street and Avenue 42
Indio, California
for
Can Do, LLC
December 14, 2022

Page 440 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 978 of 3061 Revised Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment
Prospective Development Property
NEC Jackson Street and Avenue 42
Indio, California
for
Can Do, LLC
December 14, 2022
5820 South Kelly Avenue, Suite B
Portland, Oregon 97239
503.906.6577

Page 441 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 979 of 3061 Revised Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment
Prospective Development Property
NEC Jackson Street and Avenue 42
Indio, California
File No. 26481-001-00
December 14, 2022
Prepared for:

Can Do LLC
31791 Los Rios Street
San Juan Capistrano, California 92675
Attention: Tom Carpenter
Prepared by:

GeoEngineers, Inc.
5820 South Kelly Avenue, Suite B
Portland, Oregon 97239
503.906.6577
Nick Poulter
Staff Scientist
Chris Breemer
Principal Geologist
NP:CB:leh
Disclaimer: Any electronic form, facsimile or hard copy of the original document (email, text, table, and/or figure), if provided, and any attachments are only a copy of the original document. The original document is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record.

Page 442 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 980 of 3061 December 14, 2022| Page i
File No. 26481-001-00
Table of Contents
ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND KEY DEFINITIONS......................................................................... III EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ ES-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................1

1.1. Phase I Scope of Services ............................................................................................................ 1

1.2. Special Considerations................................................................................................................. 3

1.3. Report Shelf Life ........................................................................................................................... 3

2.0 USER-PROVIDED INFORMATION......................................................................................................3

2.1. Environmental Liens or Activity and Use Limitations (AULs)...................................................... 3

2.2. Summary of Previous Reports...................................................................................................... 4

3.0 RECORDS REVIEW............................................................................................................................4

3.1. Location and Setting..................................................................................................................... 4

3.2. Standard Environmental Database Search................................................................................. 5

3.2.1.Database and Regulatory Findings for the Subject Property ............................................. 5

3.2.2.Screening Criteria for other Listed Facilities ....................................................................... 5

3.2.3.Database and Regulatory Findings for Screened Listed Facilities .................................... 6

3.3. Regulatory Agency File and Records Review............................................................................... 6

3.3.1.Review of State Regulatory Agency Files............................................................................. 6

3.3.2.Review of Local Regulatory Agency Files............................................................................. 8

3.3.3.Areawide Contamination ...................................................................................................... 8

3.4. Historical Resources..................................................................................................................... 8

3.4.1.Historical Property Ownership and Use Summary .............................................................. 9

4.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE...................................................................................................................9

4.1. Subject Property Observations..................................................................................................... 9

4.2. Adjacent Property and Vicinity Observations.............................................................................11

5.0 INTERVIEWS................................................................................................................................... 12

5.1. Interview with the Key Site Manager/Owner.............................................................................13

5.2. Interview with Occupants ...........................................................................................................13

5.3. Interview with the Owners ..........................................................................................................13

5.4. Interviews with Local Government Officials ..............................................................................13

6.0 EVALUATION................................................................................................................................... 13

6.1. Findings and Opinion..................................................................................................................13

6.2. Data Gaps....................................................................................................................................14

6.3. Conclusions.................................................................................................................................14

7.0 LIMITATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR USE .................................................................................... 14

7.1. Standard Limitations ..................................................................................................................14

7.2. Special Limitations .....................................................................................................................15

8.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................. 16

9.0 STATEMENT AND SIGNATURES OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONAL ....................................... 18

Page 443 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 981 of 3061 December 14, 2022| Page ii
File No. 26481-001-00

9.1 Qualifications of Environmental Professional..............................................................................18

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Site Plan

APPENDICES
Appendix A. User Provided Information and Completed User Questionnaire Appendix B. Envirosite Report
Appendix C. Selected Historical Research Documents
Appendix D. Previous Environmental Reports
Appendix E. Environmental Professional Resumes

Page 444 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 982 of 3061 December 14, 2022| Page iii
File No. 26481-001-00

ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND KEY DEFINITIONS
AAI All Appropriate Inquiries
AST aboveground storage tank
ASTM ASTM International
AUL activity use limitations
BFPP bona fide prospective purchaser
bgs below ground surface
CDL Clandestine Drug Labs
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System CREC Controlled REC:

This report utilizes the definitions for CREC per ASTM E 1527-21: “recognized environmental condition affecting the subject property that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority or authorities with hazardous substances or petroleum products allowed to remain in-place subject to the implementation of the required controls.” CSCSL Confirmed and Suspected Contaminated Sites List
CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Environmental Site Assessment
FINDS Federal Records Facility Index System/Facility Registry System HAZNET California Hazardous Waste Information System
HMIRS Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System
HREC Historical Recognized Environmental Condition:

This report utilizes the definitions for HREC per ASTM E 1527-21: “a previous release of hazardous substances or petroleum products that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority or authorities and meeting unrestricted use criteria established by the applicable regulatory authority or authorities without subjecting the subject property to any controls….A historical recognized environmental condition is not a recognized environmental condition.

HSL Hazardous Sites List
ICIS Integrated Compliance Information System
ICR Independent Cleanup Report
LUST leaking underground storage tank
MTBE methyl tert-butyl ether

Page 445 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 983 of 3061 December 14, 2022| Page iv
File No. 26481-001-00
NFA No Further Action
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPL National Priorities List
PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls
ppb parts per billion
ppm parts per million
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
REC Recognized Environmental Condition:

This report utilizes the definitions for recognized environmental conditions (RECs) per ASTM E 1527-21: “(1) the presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the subject property due to a release to the environment; (2) the likely presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the subject property due to a release or likely release to the environment; or (3) the presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the subject property under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. A de minimis condition is not a recognized environmental condition.

SPH separate phase hydrocarbons
SVE soil vapor extraction
TPH-G gasoline-range total petroleum hydrocarbons
USGS United States Geological Survey
UST underground storage tank
VCP Voluntary Cleanup Program

Page 446 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 984 of 3061 December 14, 2022| Page ES-1
File No. 26481-001-00

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report summarizes the results of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the prospective development property located at northeast of the intersection of Jackson Street and Avenue 42 in Indio, California. The Riverside County parcel numbers for the subject property are 692670001, 692670004, 692670010, 692670011, 692670014, 692670017, and 692040019. The approximately 6.34-acre subject property is vacant, generally flat, and covered with bare soil and crushed rock. Paved driveways providing access to the subject property are present at the south and west sides of the subject property.

The subject property was vacant and undeveloped until the early 1950s. At that time the portions of the Site were developed as orchards. By the mid-1960s, agricultural uses were terminated, and the subject property consisted of vacant, bare land. In the early 1970s, the southern portion of the property was irrigated. The specific uses of the irrigated portion of the subject property at that time are unknown. Also, in the early 1970s, the southeast corner of the subject property was developed as a parking area for the adjacent The Lights at Indio Golf Course. The Site has remained generally unchanged since that time, except that recently the Site has been graded and access drive lanes have been established to prepare for further development of the Site.

Offsite, properties near the subject property were generally in use for agriculture through the 1990s. By the mid-1960s, The Lights at Indio Golf Course north and east of the subject property had been established, and by 2010, the Indio Town Center shopping center south of the Site (across Avenue 42) had been established. By the early 2010s the AutoZone auto parts store adjacent and west of the Site had been constructed, and by 2014, an Arco-branded fuel station and car wash was established adjacent and west of the subject property. The most recent inspection of the Arco facility (in March 2021) did not identify any violations. Based on the absence of reported releases and the relatively recent construction of the facility, including modern containment and interstitial monitoring systems, the Arco-branded fuel station and car wash is not considered a recognized environmental condition (REC) in connection with the subject property.

Based on the results of this Phase I ESA, we did not identify RECs associated with the subject property.

This Executive Summary should be used only in the context of the full report for which it is intended.

Page 447 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 985 of 3061 December 14, 2022| Page 1
File No. 26481-001-00

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report summarizes the results of our Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the prospective development property located at northeast of the intersection of Jackson Street and Avenue 42 in Indio, Riverside County, California. The property is currently owned by Can Do LLC and is currently vacant. The Site has been graded and covered with crushed rock. Access driveways are present, and it appears that underground utilities are present in some areas. The property is identified as the “subject property” for the purposes of this Phase I ESA report. The subject property includes Riverside County parcels 692670001, 692670004, 692670010, 692670011, 692670014, 692670017, and 692040019, The subject property is shown relative to surrounding physical features on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. The layout of the subject property and surrounding properties is shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2.

Our study was completed at the request of Tom Carpenter of Frontier Real Estate Investments, Inc., representing Can Do LLC. We understand that Can Do LLC plans to purchase the subject property and that the results of this Phase I ESA will be used by Can Do LLC as part of their pre-acquisition evaluation of potential environmental liabilities associated with ownership and potential redevelopment of the subject property. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Can Do LLC. Because this environmental report is not intended for use by others, no one except the Can Do LLC should rely on this report without first conferring with GeoEngineers.

1.1. Phase I Scope of Services
The purpose of this Phase I ESA is to identify recognized environmental conditions (RECs) in connection with the subject property. Our scope of services is in general accordance with ASTM International (ASTM) Standard E 1527-21 for Phase I ESAs and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Federal Regulation 40 CFR Part 312 “Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (AAI),” which are intended to permit a user to satisfy one of the requirements to qualify for the innocent landowner, contiguous property owner or bona fide prospective purchaser (BFPP) limitations on liability under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). This Phase I ESA also meets ASTM Standard E 1527-13. The ASTM standard outlines the practice that constitutes “all appropriate inquiry into the previous ownership and uses of the property consistent with good commercial or customary practice” as defined by 42 U.S.C. §9601. Our services, described below, were completed in general accordance with our proposal dated November 18, 2022. These services were completed by, or under the direction of, an environmental professional as described in 40 CFR Part 312.

Page 448 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 986 of 3061 December 14, 2022| Page 2
File No. 26481-001-00
Our specific scope of services for this Phase I ESA was as follows:

1. Review readily available geotechnical reports, environmental reports and/or other relevant documents pertaining to environmental conditions at the subject property.

2. Review the results of a federal, state, local and tribal environmental database search provided by an outside environmental data service for listings of properties with known or suspected environmental concerns on or near the subject property within the search distances specified by ASTM. Our database and file review search also included a review of EPA, CalEPA, and Riverside County websites for readily available information (publications and reports) concerning areawide soil and groundwater contamination on or adjacent to the subject property.

3. Review user-provided information and evaluate the significance of any identified environmental liens or activity use limitations (AULs).

4. Review regulatory agency files regarding listed properties of potential environmental concern relative to the subject property.

5. Identify a key site manager with specific knowledge of past and present property use and request that the key site manager meet a GeoEngineers’ representative on-site for an interview during the visual site reconnaissance and/or an interview by telephone if he or she is not available during the site reconnaissance. We also identified and interviewed others familiar with the use and history of the subject property, as available and appropriate, including representatives of current occupants that likely use, store, treat, handle, or dispose of hazardous substances now or in the past.

6. Interview current owners or occupants of neighboring properties as necessary to gather information or fill property use data gaps regarding the subject property.

7. Interview past owners and occupants of the subject property as necessary to gather information or fill property use data gaps regarding property use history.

8. Interview a representative of the local fire department, health department and/or CalEPA as necessary to gather information or fill data gaps regarding the history of the subject property and surrounding properties relative to the likely presence of hazardous substances.

9. Review historical aerial photographs, fire insurance maps, building department records, city directories, chain-of-title reports, and land use and tax assessor records, as available and appropriate, to identify past development history on and adjacent to the subject property relative to the possible use, generation, storage, release, or disposal of hazardous substances. We attempted to identify uses of the subject property from the present back to the time that records show no apparent structures on the subject property, back to the time that the property was first used for residential, agricultural, commercial, industrial, or governmental purposes, or back to 1940, whichever is earliest.

10. Review current United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps to identify the physiographic setting of the subject property and provide a statement on the local geologic, soil and groundwater conditions based on our general experience and sources such as geologic maps and soil surveys.

11. Conduct a visual reconnaissance of the subject property and adjacent properties to identify visible evidence of RECs.

12. Identify the source(s) of potable water for the subject property and current heating and sewage disposal system(s) used at the subject property, if any, and their age if readily ascertainable.

Page 449 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 987 of 3061 December 14, 2022| Page 3
File No. 26481-001-00

13. Identify data gaps relative to the Phase I ESA study findings.

14. Provide a written summary of the Phase I ESA results and identified RECs, CRECs, HRECs, de minimis conditions1 and data gaps2 as appropriate, along with our opinion and recommendations regarding the potential for contamination by hazardous substances at the subject property and any significant data gaps identified.

1.2. Special Considerations
Our scope of services did not include an environmental compliance audit or an evaluation for the presence of lead-based paint, toxic mold, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in light ballasts, radon, lead in drinking water, asbestos-containing building materials, urea-formaldehyde insulation in on-site structures or debris or other potentially hazardous building materials. Soil, groundwater, soil vapor, indoor air or surface water sampling was not part of our Phase I ESA services.

1.3. Report Shelf Life
The User of this Phase I ESA should be aware that ASTM E 1527-21 establishes that a Phase I ESA is viable when conducted within 180 days prior to the date of property acquisition or intended transaction and that a report completed within one year prior to the date of acquisition or intended transaction may be used provided that the following scope elements were updated within 180 days prior to the transaction:
interviews with owners, operators, and occupants, a search for recorded environmental cleanup liens (a user responsibility), reviews of government records, visual inspection of the subject and adjacent properties, and the declaration by the environmental professional.

2.0 USER-PROVIDED INFORMATION
We received responses to a user questionnaire, a copy of which is provided in Appendix A. According to the responses from the user-provided information (for example, review of title records for activity and use limitations and environmental liens, specialized knowledge or experience, commonly known information regarding the subject property, etc.), the user did not provide any specific findings that suggest a REC or potential REC relative to the subject property.

2.1. Environmental Liens or Activity and Use Limitations (AULs) According to the USER, environmental liens and AULs for the subject property were evaluated by:

Transaction-Related Title Insurance Documentation. Review of preliminary title report or title commitment See ASTM 6.2.1 and Review of Institutional/Engineering Control Registry. 1 A de minimis condition is defined ASTM E 1527-21 as a condition related to a release “that generally does not present a threat to human health or the environment and that generally would not be subject to an enforcement action if brought to the attention of the appropriate governmental agencies.” A condition determined to be a de minimis condition is not a recognized environmental condition nor a controlled recognized environmental condition.
2 A data gap is defined in ASTM E 1527-21 as “a lack of or inability to obtain information required by this practice despite good faith efforts by the environmental professional to gather such information.”

Page 450 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 988 of 3061 December 14, 2022| Page 4
File No. 26481-001-00
Amended Preliminary Report, prepared by Ticor Title, September 14, 2022, Amended September 21, 2022 was provided by Can Do LLC and is included in Appendix A. The User did not identify recorded environmental liens in connection with the subject property.

A search of institutional control and engineering control registries was included in the database search report provided by a subcontracted regulatory list search service, Envirosite Corporation (Envirosite). The database search report is included in Appendix B and is discussed in more detail in Section 3.2. The subject property was not listed on the institutional or engineering control registries.

2.2. Summary of Previous Reports
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Project CA-3704, Riverside County Parcel 692-670-009, Indio, California, prepared by Cascadia Associates, LLC, April 21, 2021, was provided for our review. The report was prepared for an approximately 1-acre portion of the subject property. No RECs were identified in the report.

3.0 RECORDS REVIEW

3.1. Location and Setting
General information, property use(s) and environmental setting of the subject property area are summarized in Table I below. The location is shown relative to surrounding physical features in Figure 1.

The current layout of the subject property and surrounding property uses are shown in Figure 2.

TABLE I. SUBJECT PROPERTY INFORMATION
Topographic Map USGS, 7.5-minute Indio, California topographic quadrangle map dated 2018.

Address No physical address has been established.

Tax Parcel Number APN 692670001, 692670004. 692670010,
692670011, 692670014, 692670017, and
692040019
Approximate Area 6.34 acres
Existing Use(s) Vacant, graded land, prepared for retail commercial development
Geologic Setting Coachella Valley of Colorado Desert
Nearest Surface Water Bodies Artificial golf course lake, ¼ mile east Approximate Surface Elevation 5 feet below mean sea level Soil and Geologic Conditions Soil is Indio series, very fine sandy loam.

Depth to Groundwater Groundwater is approximately 15 to 30 feet below the ground surface (bgs).

Inferred Direction of Shallow Groundwater Flow The inferred groundwater flow direction in the Site region is to the northeast.

Our knowledge of the general physiographic setting, geology, and groundwater occurrence in the vicinity of

Page 451 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 989 of 3061 December 14, 2022| Page 5
File No. 26481-001-00
the subject property is based on our review of the maps and reports listed (see References, Section 8.0), and our general experience in the area.

3.2. Standard Environmental Database Search
GeoEngineers reviewed the results of a search of pertinent environmental regulatory lists and databases for current or previous facilities listed at addresses located within ASTM-specified distances from the subject property. The search was performed on November 21, 2022. The information reviewed was provided by a subcontracted regulatory list search service, Envirosite. The Envirosite report is presented in Appendix B. The report includes details regarding the listed facilities identified and maps showing the approximate locations of the listed facilities relative to the subject property.

GeoEngineers reviewed the search results for listings pertaining to the subject property. Adjacent and nearby listings within the ASTM-specified distances from the subject property were evaluated for potential impact to the subject property. Sites included in Envirosite’s “unmappable list” (database entries that could not be mapped by Envirosite because of insufficient addresses) were checked for facilities possibly located within ASTM-specified distances from the subject property.

3.2.1.Database and Regulatory Findings for the Subject Property The subject property address was not identified on the regulatory database lists or on Envirosite’s proprietary databases of historic service stations, auto repair and dry cleaners.

3.2.2.Screening Criteria for other Listed Facilities
We screened the listed facilities within the ASTM search distances relative to the criteria described below.

The results of the screening are presented in Section 3.2.3.

1. Adjacent Sites
a. If adjacent sites were listed, they were retained for additional review. Any adjacent properties identified on Envirosite’s proprietary databases of historic dry cleaner or automotive service station sites but not on regulatory databases are discussed in Section 3.4.

2. Non-Adjacent Sites
a. Any non-adjacent sites included in the Envirosite report only by virtue of being listed in the RCRA, AST, UST, HMIRS, FINDS, ICIS and/or NPDES databases (see list of acronyms on page iii) were not further reviewed because these databases are not indicative of known or suspected releases at a site. Sites listed in these databases only are considered low risk of contaminant migration and not potential RECs.
b. A screening radius of approximately 1/4 mile was used to identify listed non-adjacent sites potentially warranting further review based on our knowledge of soil and groundwater conditions at the subject property. Specifically, sites within approximately 1/4-mile of the subject property and upgradient or cross-gradient that were listed in the Federal, State or Tribal Equivalent databases of CERCLIS, NPL, HSL, CSCSL, CSCSL NFA, VCP, ICR, Solid Waste Landfill, LUST, CDL, or Institutional Control Registries (see acronyms and abbreviations) were further reviewed because these databases indicate a reported known or suspected release at a site.

We requested Ecology files for listed sites on these databases

Page 452 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 990 of 3061 December 14, 2022| Page 6
File No. 26481-001-00
c. Sites that were not confirmed or suspected contaminated sites, not leaking UST sites or located outside a 1/4-mile radius from the subject property were generally considered low risk of contaminant migration and not potential RECs.

3.2.3.Database and Regulatory Findings for Screened Listed Facilities The following database-listed site(s) (Table II) met the screening criteria described above. We requested CalEPA and/or County of Riverside files for this site(s) (Section 3.3).

TABLE II. LISTED FACILITIES OF POTENTIAL CONCERN FOR CONTAMINANT MIGRATION Listed
Business
Listed
Address
Distance from
Site and Location
Type of Database and
Database Information
Environmental Professional
Opinion Based on Database
Information
The Lights at
Indio Golf
Course
83040
Avenue 42
Adjacent and east
of the subject
property
Facility Registration
System, HAZNET, HIST
California Hazardous
Materials Incident Report
System, Hazardous Waste
Generator
See Section 3.3.1.

ArcoBranded
Fuel Station
41910
Jackson
Street
Adjacent and west CalEPA Sites, California
Integrated Water Quality
Systems, Environmental
Protection Agency
Enforcement and
Compliance History
Online, FID-UST, Facility
Index Systems, HAZNET,
RCRA-NonGen, Integrated
Compliance Information
Systems, Inactive Permit
Compliance Facilities,
National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination
System
See Section 3.3.1.

AutoZone 41850
Jackson St.

Adjacent and west PA Compliance History
Online, CalEPA Sites,
Facility Index Systems,
HAZNET, RCRA-NonGen,
and Solid Waste Recycling
See Section 3.3.1.

3.3. Regulatory Agency File and Records Review
GeoEngineers requested reasonably ascertainable, pertinent records from Riverside County and CalEPA.

Our review of the responsive records is presented below.

3.3.1.Review of State Regulatory Agency Files
The Lights at Indio Golf Course
The Lights at Indio Golf Course, which is at 83040 Avenue 42, adjacent and east of the subject property, is a LUST cleanup site. In 1986, a gasoline underground storage tank (UST), was removed from the facility

Page 453 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 991 of 3061 December 14, 2022| Page 7
File No. 26481-001-00
and replaced with an above ground storage tank (AST). Upon removal, holes were noted in the UST and an unauthorized release report was filed with the Indio Fire Department. From 1986 through 1987 twelve groundwater monitoring wells were reportedly installed at the facility. During installation of the monitoring wells, total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline (TPH-G) were detected in soil at concentrations up to 3,800 parts per million (ppm), and separate phase hydrocarbons (SPH) were encountered in the groundwater monitoring wells at thicknesses up to 6.1 feet. Groundwater was reportedly encountered at depths ranging from 15 to 30 feet below the ground surface (bgs).

In 1998 and 2001 the AST that replaced the former UST was vandalized and additional gasoline was released. In 1998, approximately 200 gallons of gasoline were released and in 2001, approximately 100 gallons of gasoline were released. Following the gasoline releases in 1998 and 2001, impacted surface soil was excavated from the release area and transported off-site for disposal. In 2001, a soil vapor extraction (SVE) system was installed at the facility. The SVE system operated from January 2002 through August 2004. An estimated 56,920 pounds or 7,857 gallons of hydrocarbons were removed from the release area during operational period of the SVE system.

Groundwater monitoring wells at the facility were sampled in 1986 and 1987. Sampling was once again resumed in 1996. During the 1996 sampling event, TPH-G and total xylenes were detected in one well at a concentration of 750 parts per billion (ppb) and 65 ppb, respectively. Samples collected from borings advanced in the release area after operation of the SVE system detected TPH-G at a concentration of

1.7 ppm at a depth of 15 feet bgs. Additional constituents including benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) were not detected in the soil and/or groundwater samples.

In a letter dated September 16, 2005, the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health issued a no further action determination for the facility indicating that adequate remediation activities at the facility had been completed to address the release of petroleum hydrocarbons. In 2008 the groundwater monitoring wells at the facility were decommissioned. Groundwater elevation data collected during monitoring activities as the facility indicate that groundwater in the area flows to the northeast (away from the subject property). Based on the no further action determination issued by the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health for the facility and the inferred groundwater flow direction in the area, the release of petroleum hydrocarbons at The Lights at Indio Golf Course is not considered an REC in connection with the subject property.

Arco-Branded Fuel Station
An Arco-branded fuel station operates at 41910 Jackson Street, which is adjacent and west of the subject property. The facility is listed in the CalEPA Sites, California Integrated Water Quality Systems, Environmental Protection Agency Enforcement and Compliance History Online, FID-UST, Facility Index Systems, HAZNET, RCRA-NonGen, Integrated Compliance Information Systems, Inactive Permit Compliance Facilities, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, Enforced Permit Compliance Facilities, Regulated Facility Report, and UST databases. Reportedly, the facility was constructed in 2014. Chemicals stored at the facility include gasoline and diesel fuel in three USTs, and soaps and polishes associated with the car wash at the facility. Multiple violations have been recorded for the facility including failure to submit a Hazardous Material Response Plan to the appropriate regulatory agency, inappropriate labeling of waste generated at the facility, and failure to maintain interstitial monitoring equipment associated with the UST systems. The violations recorded for the facility have reportedly been corrected, and no releases of hazardous substances have been reported at the facility. The most recent inspection of the facility in March

Page 454 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 992 of 3061 December 14, 2022| Page 8
File No. 26481-001-00
2021 did not identify any violations. Based on the absence of reported releases and the relatively recent construction of the facility, including modern containment and interstitial monitoring systems, the Arcobranded fuel station and car wash is not considered an REC in connection with the subject property.

AutoZone Store
An AutoZone auto parts store operates at 41850 Jackson Street (adjacent and west of the subject property).

The facility is listed in the EPA Compliance History Online, CalEPA Sites, Facility Index Systems, HAZNET, RCRA-NonGen, and Solid Waste Recycling databases. The facility is listed in these databases due to the storage, use, and off-site disposal of small quantities of chemicals including used oil, anti-freeze, and solvents associated with vehicle maintenance activities. No releases have been reported at the facility.

Given the distance of the facility from the Site, and the absence of reported releases, the AutoZone Auto parts store is not considered an REC in connection with the subject property.

3.3.2.Review of Local Regulatory Agency Files
GeoEngineers requested files from Riverside County. Files relevant to this study are discussed above, in Section 3.3.1.

3.3.3.Areawide Contamination
We also conducted a search of CalEPA and Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) websites for readily available information (publications and reports) that may concern areawide soil and groundwater contamination on or adjacent to the subject property. Areawide contamination reports pertaining to the subject property vicinity were not identified.

3.4. Historical Resources
Our understanding of the history of the subject property is based on a review of the information from the historical resources listed in Table III. Selected historical research documents are included in Appendix C.

TABLE III. HISTORICAL RESOURCES REVIEWED
Description
Provider or
Interviewee
Dates of Coverage
or Dates of
Knowledge of the
Property
Date Reviewed or
Contacted
Comment
(See Section 3.4.1 for
findings)
Historical Aerial
Photographs1
Historical
Information
Gatherers
1932, 1939, 1948,
1953, 1965, 1972,
1977, 1984, 1989,
1996, 2002, 2005,
2009, 2012, 2016,
and 2020
November 25,
2022
--
Historical Aerial
Photographs1
Google Earth 2021 November 25,
2022
--
Historical Fire
Insurance Maps
Historical
Information
Gatherers
No coverage Not applicable Sanborn maps do not cover
the subject property vicinity.

Historical
Topographic
Maps1
Historical
Information
Gatherers
1941, 1943, 1956,
1956, 1972, 2009,
2012, and 2015
November 22,
2022
--

Page 455 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 993 of 3061 December 14, 2022| Page 9
File No. 26481-001-00
Description
Provider or
Interviewee
Dates of Coverage
or Dates of
Knowledge of the
Property
Date Reviewed or
Contacted
Comment
(See Section 3.4.1 for
findings)
City Directory
Search
Historical
Information
Gatherers
Approximate 5-year
intervals, 2005 to
2018
November 22,
2022
--
Building Permits City of Indio Undisclosed November 23, 2022
The City of Indio building
permits are assigned only to
physical addresses. No
building permit records were
provided by the City of Indio
for the subject property.

Septic Tank and
Water Well
Records
Riverside
County
Department
of
Environment
al Health –
Land Use
Undisclosed November 23,
2022
Riverside County reported
no records for the subject
property.

Notes:
1 The scale of the maps/photographs reviewed allowed for an interpretation of general property development/configuration, such as identifying most structures, roadways and clearings. However, the scale of the maps/photographs did not allow for identification of specific property features, such as fuel pumps, wells or chemical storage areas on the subject property, if any.

3.4.1.Historical Property Ownership and Use Summary
Historical records indicate that the Site was undeveloped in the early 1930s and was in use for agriculture by the early 1950s. By the mid-1960s, the Site was no longer in agricultural use, and consisted of vacant, bare land. In the early 1970s, the southern portion of the property was irrigated, and the southeast corner of the subject property was developed as a parking area for the adjacent The Lights at Indio Golf Course.

The Site has remained generally unchanged since that time.

Offsite, properties in the Site vicinity were generally in use for agriculture through the 1990s. By the mid1960s, the golf course east of the Site had been established, and by the late 2000s, the shopping center south of the Site (across Avenue 42) had been established. By the early 2010s the AutoZone auto parts store adjacent and west of the Site had been constructed, and by the late 2010s the properties in the Site vicinity had been developed in their current configurations, with the Arco-branded fuel station and car wash adjacent and west of the subject property.

4.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE

4.1. Subject Property Observations
A representative of GeoEngineers (Chris Breemer) performed a visual reconnaissance of the subject property on December 2, 2022. The GeoEngineers representative was unaccompanied during the site reconnaissance. Our interview with the Key Site Manager, Dan Almquist, Manager for Can Do LLC, took place via written questionnaire and is summarized in Section 4.0.

Page 456 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 994 of 3061 December 14, 2022| Page 10
File No. 26481-001-00
The subject property was accessed from Avenue 42. The subject property is graded and covered with crushed rock and bare soil, except for the southeast part of the subject property. That area has been developed as a parking lot for the adjacent The Lights at Indio Golf Course. Paved access driveways are present at the west and south sides of the subject property. No buildings are present at the subject property.

Sidewalks are adjacent to the west and south sides of the subject property.

Table IV below summarizes conditions observed during our site reconnaissance. The approximate locations of the observed features discussed in this section are shown in Figure 2. Photographs of the subject property were taken to document observations made during our reconnaissance. Photographs of the subject property are available in our files.

TABLE IV. SUMMARY OF SITE RECONNAISSANCE OBSERVATIONS
Features
Observed
Yes No Comment
Current Uses, Roads, and Existing
Structures X
The subject property has been graded, with
access driveways at the south and west sides of
the subject property. The subject property is
vacant, except for a parking lot at the southeast
part of the subject property.

Evidence of Past Uses and Former
Structures X
Heating/Cooling System X
Floor Drains, Sumps or Drywells X
Aboveground Storage Tanks (ASTs) X
Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) or
Evidence of USTs X
Drums or Other Bulk Containers X
Identified Hazardous Substances and
Petroleum Products (other than drums
noted above or de minimis quantities
of cleaning products)
X
Unidentified Substances or Containers X
Evidence of Leaks, Spills or Releases
Surrounding ASTs, USTs and/or
Chemical Storage Areas
X
Stained or Corroded Floors, Walls or
Drains (other than the above or
apparent water stains or minor oil
stains on pavement from parked
vehicles)
X
Hydraulic Hoists X
Oil/Water Separators X
Electric or Hydraulic Equipment
Containing PCBs X

Page 457 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 995 of 3061 December 14, 2022| Page 11
File No. 26481-001-00
Features
Observed
Yes No Comment
Discolored, Stained, or Stressed Soil
or Vegetation Potentially from
Hazardous Substances
X
Solid Waste/Fill Material X
On-site Septic or Sewage Disposal
System
X
Potable Water Supply X
Standing Water or Other Pooled
Liquids
X
Catch Basins, Stormwater Drainage, or
other Wastewater Discharges
X
Pits/Ponds/Lagoons 3 X
Strong, Pungent or Noxious Odors X
Water Wells (agricultural, domestic,
monitoring)
X
Other Conditions of Environmental
Concern
X

4.2. Adjacent Property and Vicinity Observations
We viewed properties located adjacent to and surrounding the subject property on December 2, 2022 from accessible public rights-of-way and the subject property. We did not enter adjacent properties or buildings.

The subject property generally is situated in an area that is heavily developed with commercial and retail uses, except to the north and east of the subject property. A recreational vehicle parking area is north of the subject property. The Lights at Indio Golf Course is east of the subject property. Table III below outlines adjacent land uses and pertinent observations with respect to conditions that could pose a REC on the subject property. Any visual evidence or indications of prior uses of adjacent properties that would be considered a REC are noted in the table below. Figure 2 shows adjacent property uses and locations in relation to the subject property.

TABLE V. ADJOINING STREETS AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES OBSERVATIONS Direction
Adjoining
Street
Position Relative to
Subject Property1 Adjacent Property and Use Comments
North None Crossgradient
The Toy Box RV and Boat Storage facility
(41700 Jackson St.) and The Lights at Indio
Golf Course (83040 Avenue 42).
3 As defined in ASTM 1527-21: “manmade or natural depressions in a ground surface that are likely to hold liquids or sludge containing hazardous substances or petroleum hydrocarbons.”

Page 458 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 996 of 3061 December 14, 2022| Page 12
File No. 26481-001-00
Direction
Adjoining
Street
Position Relative to
Subject Property1 Adjacent Property and Use Comments
South Avenue 42 Upgradient
A sidewalk followed by Avenue 42. The Indio
Town Center shopping center is south of
Avenue 42.

East None Crossgradient
Vacant land, followed by a parking lot
associated with The Lights at Indio Golf
Course (83040 Avenue 42).

West Jackson
Street Upgradient
Asphalt-concrete drive lane, followed by an
Arco-branded fuel station and car wash
(41910 Jackson St.) and AutoZone store
(41850 Jackson St).

Note:
1 The inferred shallow groundwater flow direction in the vicinity of the subject property is toward the northeast, as described in Section 3.1.

5.0 INTERVIEWS
Our understanding of the history of the subject property presented in Section 3.0 is partially based on interviews with the individuals listed in Table VI. Pertinent historical findings from interviews have also been integrated into Section 3.4 above.

TABLE VI. PERSONS INTERVIEWED
Agency
Description
Provider or
Interviewee
Dates of
Coverage or
Dates of
Knowledge of the
Property
Date
Reviewed or
Contacted Comment
Key Site
Manager/Us
er/Owner
Dan Almquist,
Manager, Can
Do LLC
2007 to present 11/28/2022 See Section 5.1
Current
Occupant Not applicable
Riverside
County
Department
of
Environment
al Health
Staff Not disclosed 11/21/2022 The Riverside County Department of Environmental Health reported no
records of water wells or septic tanks
at the subject property. The county
provided no information about
hazardous substances or USTs at the
subject property.

City of Indio Staff Not disclosed 11/23/2022 The City of Indio reported that their records are organized by physical
address; therefore, records for the
subject property are not reasonably
available.

Page 459 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 997 of 3061 December 14, 2022| Page 13
File No. 26481-001-00

5.1. Interview with the Key Site Manager/Owner
An owner representative, Dan Almquist, the Manager of Can Do LLC, completed a Key Site Manager questionnaire in lieu of a direct interview. The questionnaire was transmitted to GeoEngineers on November 28, 2022. Mr. Almquist reported that Can Do LLC acquired the property in 2007 and the subject property was vacant at the time of the acquisition and has remained vacant since that time. Mr. Almquist reported that he did not know who previously owned the subject property. Mr. Almquist reported that there he has no knowledge of USTs or ASTs at the subject property or spill, releases, or storage of hazardous substances at the subject property. He noted that, based on the Cascadia Associates, LLC 2021 Phase I ESA report, the Site was previously used for agriculture.

5.2. Interview with Occupants
The subject property is vacant; therefore, no interviews were performed with occupants of the subject property.

5.3. Interview with the Owners
The Key Site Manager is the owner; therefore, no separate owner interview was performed.

5.4. Interviews with Local Government Officials
GeoEngineers contacted representatives of the City of Indio and Riverside County to obtain information about historical uses and activities at the subject property. No information relevant for understanding environmental conditions at the subject property was provided.

6.0 EVALUATION

6.1. Findings and Opinion
The subject property was vacant and undeveloped until the early 1950s. At that time the portions of the Site were developed as orchards. By the mid-1960s, agricultural uses were terminated, and the subject property consisted of vacant, bare land. In the early 1970s, the southern portion of the property was irrigated. The specific uses of the irrigated portion of the subject property at that time are unknown. Also, in the early 1970s, the southeast corner of the subject property was developed as a parking area for the adjacent The Lights at Indio Golf Course. The Site has remained generally unchanged since that time, except that recently the Site has been graded and access drive lanes have been established to prepare for further development of the Site.

Page 460 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 998 of 3061 December 14, 2022| Page 14
File No. 26481-001-00
It is possible that pesticides were applied to the Site when it was used for agricultural purposes. Assuming that pesticides were applied in accordance with manufacturers recommendations, the historical use of pesticides at the Site does not constitute an REC. The current and future risks associated with possible historical application of pesticides are considered very low for three reasons. First, the Site has not been used for agricultural purposes for many years, thus, the concentrations of some chemicals may have attenuated. Second, under a future development scenario, it is likely that the Site will be graded prior to development. Grading commonly results in mixing of surface soil with deeper soil. The mixing of agricultural soils often reduces pesticide concentrations in soil. Third, under a future development scenario, most of the Site is expected to be covered with asphalt-concrete or Portland cement concrete surfaces. These surfaces will prevent exposure to underlying soil.

6.2. Data Gaps
Significant data gaps were not identified by this study.

6.3. Conclusions
GeoEngineers has performed a Phase I ESA in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice E 1527-21 of the prospective development property located at northeast of the intersection of Jackson Street and Avenue 42 in Indio, California. The Riverside County parcel numbers for the subject property are 692670001, 692670004, 692670010, 692670011, 692670014, 692670017, and 692040019. Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in Section 1.2 of this report. This assessment has revealed no RECs, CRECs, or significant data gaps in connection with the subject property.

7.0 LIMITATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR USE
These Limitations provide information to help you manage your risks with respect to the use of this report.

Some clients, design professionals and contractors may not recognize that the geoscience practices (geotechnical engineering, geology, and environmental science) are far less exact than other engineering and natural science disciplines. This lack of understanding can create unrealistic expectations that could lead to disappointments, claims and disputes. GeoEngineers includes these explanatory “limitations” provisions in our reports to help reduce such risks. Please confer with GeoEngineers if you are unclear how these “Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use” apply to your project or site.

7.1. Standard Limitations
This Phase I ESA has been prepared for use by Can Do LLC. GeoEngineers has performed this Phase I ESA of the prospective development property located at northeast of the intersection of Jackson Street and Avenue 42 in Indio, California in general accordance with the scope and limitations of our proposal dated November 18, 2022 and ASTM International (ASTM) E 1527-21, Standard Practice for Phase I ESAs and EPA’s Federal Standard 40 CFR Part 312 “Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (AAI).” This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Can Do LLC and their clients. This report is not intended for use by others, and the information contained herein is not applicable to other properties. Our report was prepared for the exclusive use of our Client. No other party may rely on the product of our services unless we agree in advance to such reliance in writing. This is to provide our firm with reasonable protection against open-ended liability claims by third parties with whom there would otherwise be no contractual limits to their actions.

Page 461 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 999 of 3061 December 14, 2022| Page 15
File No. 26481-001-00
Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with the generally accepted environmental science practices for Phase I ESAs in this area at the time this report was prepared. No warranty or other conditions express or implied, should be understood.

Any electronic form, facsimile or hard copy of the original document (email, text, table, and/or figure), if provided, and any attachments are only a copy of the original document. The original document is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record.

7.2. Special Limitations
GeoEngineers structures our services to meet the specific needs of our clients. For example, an environmental site assessment study conducted for a property owner or lessee may not fulfill the needs of a prospective purchaser of the same property. Because each environmental study is unique, each environmental report is unique, prepared solely for the specific client and project property. This report should not be applied for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. GeoEngineers considered a number of unique, project-specific factors when establishing the scope of services for this project and report. Unless GeoEngineers specifically indicates otherwise, do not rely on this report if it was:
■ Not prepared for you,
■ Not prepared for your project,
■ Not prepared for the specific property explored, or
■ Completed before important project changes were made.

If important changes are made to the project or subject property after the date of this report, GeoEngineers should be retained to review our interpretations and recommendations and to provide written modifications or confirmation, as appropriate.

GeoEngineers makes no warranties or guarantees regarding the accuracy or completeness of information provided or compiled by others. The information presented in this report is based on the above-described research and a single recent site visit. GeoEngineers has relied upon information provided by others in our description of historical conditions and in our review of regulatory databases and files. The available data do not provide definitive information with regard to all past uses, operations or incidents at the subject property or adjacent properties.

No ESA can wholly eliminate uncertainty regarding the potential for recognized environmental conditions (RECs) in connection with a property. Performance of an ESA study is intended to reduce, but not eliminate, uncertainty regarding the potential for RECs in connection with a property. There is always a potential that areas with contamination that were not identified during this Phase I ESA exist at the subject property or in the study area. Further evaluation of such potential would require additional research, subsurface exploration, sampling and/or testing.

Some substances may be present in the vicinity of the subject property in quantities or under conditions that may have led, or may lead, to contamination of the subject property, but are not included in current local, state, or federal regulatory definitions of hazardous substances or do not otherwise present current potential liability. GeoEngineers cannot be responsible if the standards for appropriate inquiry, or regulatory

Page 462 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 1000 of 3061 December 14, 2022| Page 16
File No. 26481-001-00
definitions of hazardous substance, change or if more stringent environmental standards are developed in the future.

This environmental report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. The findings and conclusions of this report may be affected by the passage of time (for example, a Phase I ESA report is typically applicable for 180 days), by events such as a change in property use or occupancy, or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, slope instability or groundwater fluctuations. If more than six months have passed since issuance of our report or work product, or if any of the described events may have occurred, please contact GeoEngineers before applying this report so that we may evaluate whether changed conditions affect the continued reliability or applicability of our conclusions and recommendations.

The equipment, techniques and personnel used to perform an environmental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical or geologic study and vice versa. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering or geologic report does not usually relate any environmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Similarly, environmental reports are not used to address geotechnical or geologic concerns regarding a specific project.

GeoEngineers’ Scope of Work specifically excludes the investigation, detection, prevention, or assessment of the presence of Biological Pollutants. Accordingly, this report does not include any interpretations, recommendations, findings, or conclusions regarding the detecting, assessing, preventing, or abating of Biological Pollutants and no conclusions or inferences should be drawn regarding Biological Pollutants, as they may relate to this project. The term “Biological Pollutants” includes, but is not limited to, molds, fungi, spores, bacteria, and viruses, and/or any of their byproducts. If Client desires these specialized services, they should be obtained from a consultant who offers services in this specialized field.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to Can Do LLC. Please call if you require more information or have questions regarding this report.

8.0 REFERENCES
ASTM International (ASTM) Standard E 1527-21 for Phase I ESAs.

Cascadia Associates, LLC. 2021. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. Prepared for BB Holdings CA, LLC. April 21, 2021.

Envirosite Corporation (Envirosite) Government Records Report, November 21, 2022.

Historical Information Gatherers (HIG) City Directory Abstract for Avenue 42, November 21, 2022.

Historical Information Gatherers (HIG) City Directory Abstract for Jackson Street, November 21, 2022.

Historical Information Gatherers (HIG) Historical Aerial Photo Package, November 21, 2022.

Historical Information Gatherers (HIG) Historical Aerial Topo Package, November 21, 2022.

Historical Information Gatherers (HIG) Fire Insurance Maps, November 21, 2022.

Page 463 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 1001 of 3061 December 14, 2022| Page 17
File No. 26481-001-00
Historical Information Gatherers (HIG) Title Report, November 21, 2022.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Federal Standard 40 CFR Part 312 “Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (AAI).

Page 464 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 1002 of 3061 December 14, 2022| Page 18
File No. 26481-001-00

9.0 STATEMENT AND SIGNATURES OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONAL “I declare that, to the best of my professional knowledge and belief, I meet the definition of Environmental Professional as defined in Sec. 312.10 of 40 CFR Part 312.”*
“I have the specific qualifications based on education, training, and experience to assess a property of the nature, history, and setting of the subject property. I have developed and performed the all appropriate inquiries in conformance with the standards and practices set forth in 40 CFR Part 312.”*
*A person who does not qualify as an Environmental Professional may assist in the conduct of all appropriate inquiries in accordance with ASTM E 1527-21, if such person is under the supervision or responsible charge of a person meeting the definition of an environmental professional when conducting such activities.

Nick Poulter
Staff Scientist
Chris Breemer
Principal/Associate

9.1 Qualifications of Environmental Professional
Resumes for Chris Breemer and Nick Poulter are presented in Appendix E.

Page 465 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 1003 of 3061

FIGURES

Page 466 of 2023 ends

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 1004 of 3061 Camino los Milagros
Fred Waring Dr
10 Kenner Ave
Jackson St
Avenue 41
Long Cove Dr
Avenue 44
Hopi Ave
Gore St
Avenue 43
S Bay Dr
Dillon Ave
Market St
Oleander Ave
Ruby Ave
North Shore Dr
Crest Ave
Adobe Rd
Calhoun St
Jackson St
Monroe St
Indio Blvd
Indio Municipal
Golf Course
The Golf Club at
Terra Lago
SITE
Vicinity Map
Figure 1
Phase I ESA
Prospective Development
NEC Jackson Street & Avenue 42, Indio, CA
Banning
Indio
Cathedral City
0 2,000
Feet
P:\26\26481001\GIS\26481001_Project\26481001_Project.aprx\2648100100_F01_VicinityMap Date Exported: 11/22/22 by ccabrera Source(s):
• ESRI
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California VI FIPS 0406 Feet Disclaimer: This figure was created for a specific purpose and project. Any use of this figure for any other project or purpose shall be at the user's sole risk and without liability to GeoEngineers.

The locations of features shown may be approximate. GeoEngineers makes no warranty or representation as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability of the figure, or data contained therein. The file containing this figure is a copy of a master document, the original of which is retained by GeoEngineers and is the official document of record.

Page 467 of 2023 ends

Indio City CouncilDecember 6, 2023

Indio City Council
December 6, 2023