Agenda packet, regular meeting — Palm Desert City Council, May 28, 2026 (part 6 of 8)

3736440 3736530 3736620 3736710 3736800 3736890 3736980 3737070 3737160 3736530 3736620 3736710 3736800 3736890 3736980 3737070 3737160 557860 557950 558040 558130 558220 558310 558400
557860 557950 558040 558130 558220 558310 558400
33° 46' 22'' N
116° 22' 30'' W
33° 46' 22'' N
116° 22' 9'' W
33° 45' 59'' N
116° 22' 30'' W
33° 45' 59'' N N 116° 22' 9'' W
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 11N WGS84 0 150 300 600 900
Feet
0 50 100 200 300
Meters
Map Scale: 1:3,540 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet.

Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
1168

MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Rating Polygons
A
A/D
B
B/D
C
C/D
D
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Lines
A
A/D
B
B/D
C
C/D
D
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Points
A
A/D
B
B/D
C
C/D
D
Not rated or not available
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:24,000.

Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.

Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.

Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.

Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:

Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required.

This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below.

Soil Survey Area: Riverside County, Coachella Valley Area, California
Survey Area Data: Version 17, Sep 10, 2024
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger.

Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Mar 15, 2022—May 28, 2022
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.

Hydrologic Soil Group—Riverside County, Coachella Valley Area, California (2866 Catavina East)
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
8/1/2025

Page 2 of 4 ends

Hydrologic Soil Group
Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI MaB Myoma fine sand, 0 to 5
percent slopes
A 10.6 54.3%
MaD Myoma fine sand, 5 to
15 percent slopes
A 8.9 45.7%
Totals for Area of Interest 19.5 100.0%
Description
Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from long-duration storms.

The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and three dual classes (A/D, B/D, and C/D). The groups are defined as follows:

Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission.

Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture.

These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission.

Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission.

Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission.

If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D, or C/D), the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes.

Rating Options
Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition
Hydrologic Soil Group—Riverside County, Coachella Valley Area, California 2866 Catavina East Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
8/1/2025

Page 3 of 4 ends

1170
Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified
Tie-break Rule: Higher
Hydrologic Soil Group—Riverside County, Coachella Valley Area, California 2866 Catavina East Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
8/1/2025

Page 4 of 4 ends

1171
Portola Springs
Blue Fern West, LLC.

PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY REPORT
Appendix D
NOAA Atlas 14
1172
NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 6, Version 2
Location name: Palm Desert, California, USA*
Latitude: 33.7686°, Longitude: -116.3757°
Elevation: 268 ft**
* source: ESRI Maps
** source: USGS

POINT PRECIPITATION FREQUENCY ESTIMATES
Sanja Perica, Sarah Dietz, Sarah Heim, Lillian Hiner, Kazungu Maitaria, Deborah Martin, Sandra Pavlovic, Ishani Roy, Carl Trypaluk, Dale Unruh, Fenglin Yan, Michael Yekta, Tan Zhao, Geoffrey Bonnin, Daniel Brewer, Li-Chuan Chen, Tye Parzybok, John Yarchoan
NOAA, National Weather Service, Silver Spring, Maryland PF_tabular | PF_graphical | Maps_&_aerials
PF tabular
PDS-based point precipitation frequency estimates with 90% confidence intervals (in inches Duration
Average recurrence interval (years)
1 2 5 10 25 50 100 200 500 1000
5-min 0.064
(0.054-0.078)

0.100
(0.083-0.121)

0.154
(0.128-0.187)

0.205
(0.169-0.252)

0.287
(0.228-0.364)

0.360
(0.281-0.467)

0.446
(0.339-0.593)

0.548
(0.404-0.749)

0.712
(0.504-1.02)

0.913
(0.624-1.35)
10-min 0.092
(0.077-0.112)

0.143
(0.119-0.173)

0.221
(0.183-0.269)

0.294
(0.242-0.361)

0.411
(0.327-0.522)

0.516
(0.402-0.670)

0.639
(0.486-0.850)

0.785
(0.580-1.07)

1.02 (0.722-1.46)

1.31 (0.894-1.93)
15-min 0.111
(0.093-0.135)

0.173
(0.144-0.210)

0.267
(0.222-0.325)

0.356
(0.293-0.436)

0.497
(0.396-0.631)

0.624
(0.486-0.810)

0.773
(0.587-1.03)

0.949
(0.701-1.30)

1.23 (0.873-1.76)

1.58 (1.08-2.34)
30-min 0.171
(0.143-0.207)

0.265
(0.221-0.321)

0.410
(0.340-0.498)

0.545
(0.449-0.669)

0.762
(0.607-0.967)

0.958
(0.746-1.24)

1.19 (0.901-1.58)

1.46 (1.08-1.99)

1.89 (1.34-2.70)

2.43 (1.66-3.59)
60-min 0.245
(0.204-0.297)

0.380
(0.316-0.460)

0.587
(0.487-0.714)

0.781
(0.643-0.958)

1.09 (0.869-1.39)

1.37 (1.07-1.78)

1.70 (1.29-2.26)

2.08 (1.54-2.85)

2.71 (1.92-3.87)

3.48 (2.37-5.14)
2-hr 0.343
(0.286-0.415)

0.518
(0.431-0.628)

0.780
(0.648-0.949)

1.02 (0.840-1.25)

1.39 (1.11-1.77)

1.72 (1.34-2.23)

2.09 (1.59-2.78)

2.52 (1.86-3.44)

3.17 (2.24-4.52)

3.76 (2.57-5.57)
3-hr 0.410
(0.342-0.496)

0.614
(0.511-0.745)

0.916
(0.760-1.11)

1.19 (0.980-1.46)

1.61 (1.28-2.04)

1.97 (1.54-2.56)

2.38 (1.81-3.16)

2.84 (2.10-3.89)

3.55 (2.51-5.06)

4.17 (2.85-6.17)
6-hr 0.548
(0.457-0.663)

0.817
(0.680-0.990)

1.21 (1.00-1.47)

1.56 (1.28-1.91)

2.09 (1.66-2.66)

2.54 (1.98-3.30)

3.05 (2.32-4.05)

3.61 (2.67-4.94)

4.46 (3.16-6.37)

5.19 (3.55-7.68)
12-hr 0.657
(0.548-0.796)

0.995
(0.829-1.21)

1.49 (1.23-1.81)

1.92 (1.58-2.36)

2.58 (2.05-3.27)

3.14 (2.44-4.07)

3.75 (2.85-4.99)

4.44 (3.28-6.08)

5.47 (3.87-7.81)

6.36 (4.34-9.40)
24-hr 0.778
(0.689-0.897)

1.20 (1.06-1.39)

1.82 (1.60-2.10)

2.36 (2.07-2.76)

3.18 (2.69-3.83)

3.87 (3.21-4.75)

4.63 (3.76-5.82)

5.48 (4.33-7.09)

6.76 (5.13-9.10)

7.85 (5.76-10.9)
2-day 0.872
(0.772-1.01)

1.36 (1.20-1.57)

2.07 (1.82-2.40)

2.69 (2.36-3.14)

3.62 (3.07-4.36)

4.40 (3.66-5.41)

5.26 (4.26-6.62)

6.21 (4.91-8.03)

7.63 (5.79-10.3)

8.84 (6.48-12.3)
3-day 0.921
(0.816-1.06)

1.44 (1.28-1.67)

2.20 (1.94-2.55)

2.87 (2.51-3.35)

3.86 (3.27-4.65)

4.69 (3.89-5.76)

5.60 (4.54-7.05)

6.62 (5.22-8.55)

8.12 (6.16-10.9)

9.40 (6.89-13.1)
4-day 0.959
(0.849-1.11)

1.51 (1.33-1.74)

2.30 (2.03-2.66)

3.00 (2.62-3.50)

4.04 (3.42-4.86)

4.90 (4.07-6.03)

5.86 (4.75-7.37)

6.92 (5.46-8.94)

8.49 (6.44-11.4)

9.82 (7.20-13.7)
7-day 1.02
(0.898-1.17)

1.61 (1.42-1.86)

2.47 (2.17-2.85)

3.22 (2.82-3.76)

4.34 (3.68-5.23)

5.28 (4.38-6.48)

6.30 (5.11-7.92)

7.43 (5.86-9.60)

9.09 (6.90-12.2)

10.5 (7.70-14.6)
10-day 1.05
(0.933-1.22)

1.68 (1.48-1.94)

2.59 (2.28-2.99)

3.38 (2.96-3.95)

4.57 (3.87-5.50)

5.56 (4.61-6.83)

6.63 (5.38-8.35)

7.82 (6.18-10.1)

9.58 (7.26-12.9)

11.0 (8.10-15.4)
20-day 1.13
(0.997-1.30)

1.82 (1.61-2.10)

2.84 (2.50-3.28)

3.73 (3.26-4.36)

5.07 (4.30-6.11)

6.19 (5.14-7.61)

7.42 (6.01-9.33)

8.76 (6.92-11.3)

10.7 (8.13-14.4)

12.4 (9.07-17.2)
30-day 1.23
(1.09-1.42)

2.01 (1.77-2.32)

3.15 (2.78-3.64)

4.17 (3.65-4.86)

5.70 (4.83-6.86)

6.98 (5.80-8.58)

8.37 (6.79-10.5)

9.90 (7.82-12.8)

12.1 (9.20-16.3)

14.0 (10.3-19.5)
45-day 1.32
(1.17-1.52)

2.18 (1.92-2.51)

3.45 (3.04-3.99)

4.59 (4.02-5.36)

6.33 (5.36-7.62)

7.79 (6.47-9.58)

9.38 (7.61-11.8)

11.1 (8.78-14.4)

13.7 (10.4-18.4)

15.8 (11.6-21.9)
60-day 1.41
(1.25-1.62)

2.34 (2.07-2.70)

3.74 (3.30-4.33)

5.01 (4.38-5.84)

6.93 (5.87-8.35)

8.56 (7.11-10.5)

10.3 (8.39-13.0)

12.3 (9.70-15.9)

15.1 (11.5-20.3)

17.5 (12.8-24.3)
1173
1 Precipitation frequency (PF) estimates in this table are based on frequency analysis of partial duration series (PDS).

Numbers in parenthesis are PF estimates at lower and upper bounds of the 90% confidence interval. The probability that precipitation frequency estimates (for a given duration and average recurrence interval) will be greater than the upper bound (or less than the lower bound) is 5%. Estimates at upper bounds are not checked against probable maximum precipitation (PMP) estimates and may be higher than currently valid PMP values.

Please refer to NOAA Atlas 14 document for more information.

Back to Top
PF graphical
1174
Back to Top
Maps & aerials
Small scale terrain
Large scale terrain
Large scale map
+
–
3km
2mi
+
–
100km
60mi
1175
Large scale aerial
Back to Top
US Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Weather Service
National Water Center
1325 East West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Questions?: [email protected]
Disclaimer
+
–
100km
60mi
1176
Portola Springs
Blue Fern West, LLC.

PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY REPORT
Appendix E
RCFCD Synthetic Unit Hydrograph Worksheets
Retention Storage Capacity Calculations
1177
RRR
2866
2 AMC II

AREA SOIL TRIBUTARY AREAS ACRES LOW LOSS RI INFILTRATION IMPERVIOUS

DESIG GROUP CONDITION NUMBER RATE PERCENT
8 A SF - 70% MAX. COVERAGE 14.39 D 32 0.74 0.70
10 A RETENTION 2.34 BS 32 0.74 0.10
1,242 ft
286 ft
282.7 ft
ELEVATION OF CONCENTRATION POINT 270.9 ft

0.025
100
LOW LOSS RATE (For storms > 10 Years) 85%
POINT RAIN FROM NOAA ATLAS 14
1-HOUR 1.70 in
3-HOUR 2.38 in
6-HOUR 3.05 in
24-HOUR 4.63 in
RETENTION BASIN:

AREA: 1,069 sf

UNDERGROUND STORAGE AREA
LENGTH: 480 ft
WIDTH: 10 ft TOTAL PERC AREA 5,869 sf
PERCOLATION RATE 2.00 in/hr

PROJECT NUMBER

CONCENTRATION POINT DESIGNATION
DATE:

AREA DESIGNATION
Portola Springs
Inlet
Site

RCFCD SYNTHETIC UNIT HYDROGRAPH - SHORTCUT METHOD

DATA INPUT SHEET
WORKSHEET PREPARED BY:

PROJECT NAME
August 4, 2025

ELEVATION OF HEADWATER

AVERAGE MANNINGS 'N' VALUE

STORM FREQUENCY (YEAR)

AMC NUMBER

LENGTH OF WATERCOURSE (L)
LENGTH TO POINT OPPOSITE CENTROID (Lca)
Low Loss Conditions: X=Existing; D=Developed; BS=Retention 1178
PROJECT:

Job No.:

BY: DATE: 8/4/25
[1] AMC
[2] FREQUENCY-YEARS

NOAA ATLAS
[3] DURATION:
1-HOUR
3-HOUR
6-HOUR
24-HOUR
DURATION 24-HOUR
EFFECTIVE RAIN (in) 1.17
FLOOD VOLUME (cu ft) 71,125
(ac-ft) 1.63
REQUIRED STORAGE (cu ft) 52,647
PEAK FLOW (cfs) 5.83
[2] AREA DESIGNATION Site
RCFC & WCD SYNTHETIC UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD Portola Springs HYDROLOGY BASIC DATA CALCULATION FORM 2866

MANUAL RRR

PHYSICAL DATA
[1] CONCENTRATION POINT Inlet

16.73 [4] L-FEET 1242
[5] L-MILES 0.235
[3] AREA - ACRES
[6] La-FEET 286.00
[7] La-MILES 0.054
[8] ELEVATION OF HEADWATER 282.7
[9] ELEVATION OF CONCENTRATION POINT 270.9
[10] H-FEET 11.8
[11] S-FEET/MILE 50.2
[12] S^0.5 7.08
[13] L*LCA/S^0.5 0.002
[14] AVERAGE MANNINGS 'N' 0.025
14 [15] LAG TIME-HOURS 0.05
[16] LAG TIME-MINUTES 3.3
[17] 100% OF LAG-MINUTES 3.3
[18] 200% OF LAG-MINUTES 6.5

RAINFALL DATA
II
100

STORM EVENT SUMMARY
Point Rain

1.70 in

2.38 in

3.05 in

4.63 in
Plate E-2.1

Page 2 of 9 ends

1179
PROJECT:

Job No.:

BY: DATE: 8/4/25

MAX LOW LOW MIN

SOIL RI PERVIOUS DECIMAL ADJUSTED AREA AREA AVERAGE LOSS LOSS RATE AVERAGE

GROUP NUMBER AREA PERCENT INFILTRATION WEIGHTED ADJUSTED CONDITION PER ADJUSTED INFILTRATION OF AREA RATE AVERAGE INFILTRATION RCFC/2322 INFILTRATION

RATE IMPERVIOUS RATE RATE
(in/hr) (in/hr) (in/hr) (in/hr) (in/hr)
[Plate C-1] [Plate E-6.1] [Plate E-6.2] [Plate E-6.3]
A 32 0.74 70% 0.27 14.39 0.860 0.2355 DEVELOPED 0.3400 0.2924 A 32 0.74 10% 0.67 2.34 0.140 0.0942 BASIN 0.1000 0.0140 SUM 16.73 SUM 0.3297 0.3064
VARIABLE LOSS RATE CURVE (24-HOUR STORM ONLY)
Fm= 0.164845726 NOTE: Low loss rates established per RCFC/2322 (Dated: May-30-95) C= 0.00305 For Storms Less than the 100 Year Event
Ft=C(24-(T/60))^1.55 = 0.00305 0.16 in/hr Undeveloped Condition: Low Loss = 90% CONSTANT LOSS RATE (3 & 6 HOUR STORMS) = 0.3297 in/hr Developed Condition: Low Loss = 0.9 - (0.8 * %impervious) LOW LOSS RATE = 0.8500 in/hr Basin Site: Low Loss = 10% Where: For 100 Year Storm - Low Loss should be between 80% & 90% T=Time in minutes. To get an average value for each unit time period, Use T=1/2 the unit time for the first time period, of the Rainfall Rate T=1 1/2 unit time for the second period, etc.

Portola Springs
RRR
2866

RCFC & WCD

HYDROLOGY
MANUAL

SYNTHETIC UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD

BASIC DATA CALCULATION FORM
(24-(T/60))^1.55 +

LAND USE
SF - 70% MAX. COVERAGE

RETENTION
AMC II

AVERAGE ADJUSTED LOSS RATE
Plate E-2.1

Page 3 of 9 ends

1180
PROJECT:

Job No.: 2866 DATE:

BY: RRR 8/4/25
DRAINAGE AREA-ACRES 16.730 CONSTANT LOSS RATE-in/hr n/a UNIT TIME-MINUTES 15 VARIABLE LOSS RATE (AVG) in/hr 0.3297 LAG TIME - MINUTES 3.26 MINIMUM LOSS RATE (for var. loss) - in/hr 0.165 UNIT TIME-PERCENT OF LAG 460.1 LOW LOSS RATE - DECIMAL 0.85 TOTAL ADJUSTED STORM RAIN-INCHES 4.63 C 0.00305
Unit Time Pattern Storm Effective Flood Flood Percolation Required Period Minutes Hours Percent Rain Rain Hydrograph Volume Volume Storage in/hr Flow Volume
(Plate E-5.9) Max Low in/hr cfs cu ft cu ft cu ft
1 15 0.25 0.2 0.037 0.582 0.031 0.006 0.09 84 84 0
2 30 0.50 0.3 0.056 0.575 0.047 0.008 0.14 127 127 0
3 45 0.75 0.3 0.056 0.569 0.047 0.008 0.14 127 127 0
4 60 1.00 0.4 0.074 0.562 0.063 0.011 0.19 169 169 0
5 75 1.25 0.3 0.056 0.555 0.047 0.008 0.14 127 127 0
6 90 1.50 0.3 0.056 0.549 0.047 0.008 0.14 127 127 0
7 105 1.75 0.3 0.056 0.542 0.047 0.008 0.14 127 127 0
8 120 2.00 0.4 0.074 0.536 0.063 0.011 0.19 169 169 0
9 135 2.25 0.4 0.074 0.529 0.063 0.011 0.19 169 169 0
10 150 2.50 0.4 0.074 0.523 0.063 0.011 0.19 169 169 0
11 165 2.75 0.5 0.093 0.516 0.079 0.014 0.23 211 211 0
12 180 3.00 0.5 0.093 0.510 0.079 0.014 0.23 211 211 0
13 195 3.25 0.5 0.093 0.504 0.079 0.014 0.23 211 211 0
14 210 3.50 0.5 0.093 0.498 0.079 0.014 0.23 211 211 0
15 225 3.75 0.5 0.093 0.491 0.079 0.014 0.23 211 211 0
16 240 4.00 0.6 0.111 0.485 0.094 0.017 0.28 253 245 9
17 255 4.25 0.6 0.111 0.479 0.094 0.017 0.28 253 245 17 18 270 4.50 0.7 0.130 0.473 0.110 0.019 0.33 295 245 68 19 285 4.75 0.7 0.130 0.467 0.110 0.019 0.33 295 245 118 20 300 5.00 0.8 0.148 0.461 0.126 0.022 0.37 337 245 211 21 315 5.25 0.6 0.111 0.455 0.094 0.017 0.28 253 245 220 22 330 5.50 0.7 0.130 0.449 0.110 0.019 0.33 295 245 271 23 345 5.75 0.8 0.148 0.443 0.126 0.022 0.37 337 245 363 24 360 6.00 0.8 0.148 0.437 0.126 0.022 0.37 337 245 456 25 375 6.25 0.9 0.167 0.431 0.142 0.025 0.42 380 245 591 26 390 6.50 0.9 0.167 0.426 0.142 0.025 0.42 380 245 726 27 405 6.75 1.0 0.185 0.420 0.157 0.028 0.47 422 245 904 28 420 7.00 1.0 0.185 0.414 0.157 0.028 0.47 422 245 1,081 29 435 7.25 1.0 0.185 0.409 0.157 0.028 0.47 422 245 1,258 30 450 7.50 1.1 0.204 0.403 0.173 0.031 0.52 464 245 1,477 31 465 7.75 1.2 0.222 0.397 0.189 0.033 0.56 506 245 1,739 32 480 8.00 1.3 0.241 0.392 0.205 0.036 0.61 548 245 2,043 33 495 8.25 1.5 0.278 0.387 0.236 0.042 0.70 633 245 2,431 34 510 8.50 1.5 0.278 0.381 0.236 0.042 0.70 633 245 2,819 35 525 8.75 1.6 0.296 0.376 0.252 0.044 0.75 675 245 3,249 36 540 9.00 1.7 0.315 0.371 0.268 0.047 0.80 717 245 3,722 37 555 9.25 1.9 0.352 0.365 0.299 0.053 0.89 801 245 4,279 38 570 9.50 2.0 0.370 0.360 0.315 0.010 0.17 157 245 4,191 39 585 9.75 2.1 0.389 0.355 0.331 0.034 0.57 516 245 4,462 40 600 10.00 2.2 0.407 0.350 0.346 0.058 0.97 874 245 5,092 41 615 10.25 1.5 0.278 0.345 0.236 0.042 0.70 633 245 5,480 42 630 10.50 1.5 0.278 0.340 0.236 0.042 0.70 633 245 5,868 43 645 10.75 2.0 0.370 0.335 0.315 0.036 0.60 540 245 6,163 44 660 11.00 2.0 0.370 0.330 0.315 0.040 0.68 614 245 6,533 45 675 11.25 1.9 0.352 0.325 0.299 0.027 0.45 407 245 6,695 46 690 11.50 1.9 0.352 0.320 0.299 0.032 0.53 480 245 6,930 47 705 11.75 1.7 0.315 0.316 0.268 0.047 0.80 717 245 7,403 48 720 12.00 1.8 0.333 0.311 0.283 0.023 0.38 342 245 7,500 49 735 12.25 2.5 0.463 0.306 0.394 0.157 2.64 2,380 245 9,636 50 750 12.50 2.6 0.482 0.302 0.409 0.180 3.03 2,731 245 12,122 51 765 12.75 2.8 0.519 0.297 0.441 0.221 3.74 3,362 245 15,240 52 780 13.00 2.9 0.537 0.293 0.457 0.244 4.12 3,711 245 18,707 53 795 13.25 3.4 0.630 0.288 0.535 0.341 5.76 5,185 245 23,647 54 810 13.50 3.4 0.630 0.284 0.535 0.346 5.83 5,251 245 28,653 55 825 13.75 2.3 0.426 0.280 0.362 0.146 2.47 2,223 245 30,632 56 840 14.00 2.3 0.426 0.275 0.362 0.151 2.54 2,288 245 32,675 57 855 14.25 2.7 0.500 0.271 0.425 0.229 3.86 3,476 245 35,907 58 870 14.50 2.6 0.482 0.267 0.409 0.215 3.62 3,258 245 38,921 59 885 14.75 2.6 0.482 0.263 0.409 0.219 3.69 3,320 245 41,996 60 900 15.00 2.5 0.463 0.259 0.394 0.204 3.44 3,100 245 44,852 61 915 15.25 2.4 0.444 0.255 0.378 0.190 3.20 2,879 245 47,486 Portola Springs
UNIT HYDROGRAPH and EFFECTIVE RAIN CALCULATION FORM
MANUAL

RCFC & WCD
in/hr

HYDROLOGY
Time Loss Rate

SYNTHETIC UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD

SHORTCUT METHOD
24-HOUR STORM
Plate E-2.2
24 Hour Storm

Page 8 of 9 ends

1181
PROJECT:

Job No.: 2866 DATE:

RCFC & WCD
in/hr

HYDROLOGY
Time Loss Rate

SYNTHETIC UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD

SHORTCUT METHOD
24-HOUR STORM
62 930 15.50 2.3 0.426 0.251 0.362 0.175 2.95 2,657 245 49,898 63 945 15.75 1.9 0.352 0.247 0.299 0.105 1.77 1,590 245 51,244 64 960 16.00 1.9 0.352 0.243 0.299 0.109 1.83 1,648 245 52,647 65 975 16.25 0.4 0.074 0.240 0.063 0.011 0.19 169 245 52,571 66 990 16.50 0.4 0.074 0.236 0.063 0.011 0.19 169 245 52,495 67 1005 16.75 0.3 0.056 0.232 0.047 0.008 0.14 127 245 52,377 68 1020 17.00 0.3 0.056 0.229 0.047 0.008 0.14 127 245 52,259 69 1035 17.25 0.5 0.093 0.225 0.079 0.014 0.23 211 245 52,226 70 1050 17.50 0.5 0.093 0.222 0.079 0.014 0.23 211 245 52,192 71 1065 17.75 0.5 0.093 0.219 0.079 0.014 0.23 211 245 52,158 72 1080 18.00 0.4 0.074 0.216 0.063 0.011 0.19 169 245 52,083 73 1095 18.25 0.4 0.074 0.212 0.063 0.011 0.19 169 245 52,007 74 1110 18.50 0.4 0.074 0.209 0.063 0.011 0.19 169 245 51,931 75 1125 18.75 0.3 0.056 0.206 0.047 0.008 0.14 127 245 51,813 76 1140 19.00 0.2 0.037 0.203 0.031 0.006 0.09 84 245 51,653 77 1155 19.25 0.3 0.056 0.200 0.047 0.008 0.14 127 245 51,535 78 1170 19.50 0.4 0.074 0.198 0.063 0.011 0.19 169 245 51,459 79 1185 19.75 0.3 0.056 0.195 0.047 0.008 0.14 127 245 51,341 80 1200 20.00 0.2 0.037 0.192 0.031 0.006 0.09 84 245 51,181 81 1215 20.25 0.3 0.056 0.190 0.047 0.008 0.14 127 245 51,063 82 1230 20.50 0.3 0.056 0.187 0.047 0.008 0.14 127 245 50,945 83 1245 20.75 0.3 0.056 0.185 0.047 0.008 0.14 127 245 50,827 84 1260 21.00 0.2 0.037 0.183 0.031 0.006 0.09 84 245 50,666 85 1275 21.25 0.3 0.056 0.181 0.047 0.008 0.14 127 245 50,548 86 1290 21.50 0.2 0.037 0.178 0.031 0.006 0.09 84 245 50,388 87 1305 21.75 0.3 0.056 0.177 0.047 0.008 0.14 127 245 50,270 88 1320 22.00 0.2 0.037 0.175 0.031 0.006 0.09 84 245 50,110 89 1335 22.25 0.3 0.056 0.173 0.047 0.008 0.14 127 245 49,992 90 1350 22.50 0.2 0.037 0.171 0.031 0.006 0.09 84 245 49,832 91 1365 22.75 0.2 0.037 0.170 0.031 0.006 0.09 84 245 49,672 92 1380 23.00 0.2 0.037 0.169 0.031 0.006 0.09 84 245 49,512 93 1395 23.25 0.2 0.037 0.167 0.031 0.006 0.09 84 245 49,351 94 1410 23.50 0.2 0.037 0.166 0.031 0.006 0.09 84 245 49,191 95 1425 23.75 0.2 0.037 0.166 0.031 0.006 0.09 84 245 49,031 96 1440 24.00 0.2 0.037 0.165 0.031 0.006 0.09 84 245 48,871

EFFECTIVE RAIN & FLOOD VOLUMES SUMMARY
EFFECTIVE RAIN (in) 1.17
FLOOD VOLUME (ac-ft) 1.63
FLOOD VOLUME (cu ft) 71,125
REQUIRED STORAGE VOLUME (cu ft) 52,647
PEAK FLOW (cfs) 5.83
Plate E-2.2
24 Hour Storm

Page 9 of 9 ends

1182
FRUSTRUM VOLUME METHOD, WHERE:

CONTOUR DEPTH AREA VOLUME

ELEVATION INCR TOTAL INCR TOTAL INCR TOTAL
(ft) (ft) (sf) (sf) (cuft) (cuft) (acre-ft)
259.0 0.0 0.0 1,069 0 0 0.00
260.0 1.0 1.0 890 1,959 1,492 1,492 0.03
261.0 1.0 2.0 1,137 3,096 2,506 3,998 0.09
262.0 1.0 3.0 1,272 4,368 3,714 7,711 0.18
263.0 1.0 4.0 1,393 5,761 5,048 12,760 0.29
264.0 1.0 5.0 1,506 7,267 6,499 19,259 0.44
JOB #:

RETENTION BASIN

BASIN CHARACTERISTICS
2866 Portola Springs
South end
DATE: July 31, 2025
BASIN 1
( )( ) 1 2 1 2 1 2 3
1 V = E − E A + A + A A
1183
Date:

Project Name:

City / County:

State:

Company:

Telephone:

Storage Volume Required (cf): 33,388
Limiting Width (ft): 15.00

12.00 Solid or Perforated Pipe: Perforated
Shape Or Diameter (in): 96 50.27 ft2
Pipe Area
Number Of Headers: 0
Spacing between Barrels (ft): 3.00
Stone Width Around Perimeter of System (ft): 1
Depth A: Porous Stone Above Pipe (in): 12
Depth C: Porous Stone Below Pipe (in): 12
Stone Porosity (0 to 40%): 40
System Sizing
Pipe Storage: 23,926 cf
Porous Stone Storage: 9,549 cf
33,476 cf 100.3% Of Required Storage Barrel 12
1 barrels Barrel 11
Length per Barrel: 476.0 ft Barrel 10
Length Per Header: 0.0 ft Barrel 9
Rectangular Footprint (W x L): 10. ft x 478. ft Barrel 8 CONTECH Materials Barrel 7
Total CMP Footage: 476 ft Barrel 6
Approximate Total Pieces: 20 pcs Barrel 5
Approximate Coupling Bands: 19 bands Barrel 4
Approximate Truckloads: 10 trucks Barrel 3
Construction Quantities** Barrel 2
Total Excavation: 2125 cy Barrel 1
Porous Stone Backfill For Storage: 884 cy stone
Backfill to Grade Excluding Stone: 355 cy fill
**Construction quantities are approximate and should be verified upon final design 2866 Portola Springs
Palm Desert
MSA Consulting, Inc.

CA
RRR
Project Summary
Total Storage Provided:

Number of Barrels:

Invert Depth Below Asphalt (ft):
7/31/2025
Corrugated Metal Pipe Calculator
Enter Information in
(760) 320-9811 Blue Cells
System Layout
Number Of Barrels Exceed Graph Limitations
476
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 Barrel Footage (w/o headers)
For design assistance, drawings,
and pricing send completed worksheet to:
[email protected]
© 2007 CONTECH Stormwater Solutions
1184
Portola Springs
Blue Fern West, LLC.

PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY REPORT
Appendix F
Riverside County Whitewater River Region WQMP Worksheet 1185
ATRIB = 16.730 acres
Determine the Impervious Area Within ATRIB (AIMP) AIMP = 10.310 acres Calculate the Impervious Area Ratio (IF)
IF = AIMP/ATRIB IF = 0.62
Use the following equation based on the WEF/ASCE Method CBMP = 0.858If
3 - 0.78If
2 + 0.774If + 0.04 CBMP = 0.42
Calculate VU, the 80% Unit Storage Volume VU = 0.40 x CBMP VU = 0.17 (in*ac)/ac Calculate the design storage volume of the BMP, VBMP
VBMP (ft3) = VBMP = 10,241 ft3
QBMP = CBMP x I x ATRIB QBMP = 1.41 ft3
/s
I = Design Rainfall Intensity, 0.2 in/hr
Notes:

BMP Design Flow Rate, QBMP
Company Name
Designed By
Company Project Number/Name
Drainage Area Number/Name
2866 - Portola Springs
Site
August 4, 2025
VU (in-ac/ac) x AT (ac) x 43,560 (ft2/ac)
12(in/ft)
Calculate the Composite Runoff Coefficient, C for the BMP Tributary Area Determine Design Storage Volume, VBMP
Legend:

Required Entries
Calculated Cells
Determine the Impervious Area Ratio
Whitewater Watershed
BMP Design Volume, VBMP & Design Flow Rate , QBMP (Rev. 06-2014) Enter the Area Tributary to this Feature (ATRIB)
MSA Consulting, Inc
RRR
Date
County/City Case No.
1186
Portola Springs
Blue Fern West, LLC.

PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY REPORT
Appendix G
Existing Conditions Exhibit
1187
MSA CONSULTING ,INC.

Civil Engineering LandSurveying Landscape Architecture
Planning Environmental Services DryUtilityCoordination GIS 34200 Bob Hope Drive Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 | 760.320.9811 | MSAConsultinginc.com PORTOLA

VICINITY MAP
N.T.S.

CITY OF
PALM

DESERT AVENUE

GERALD FORD
DRIVE

FRANK SINATRA DRIVE

COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE
INTERSTATE 10 AVENUE COOK STREET
DINAH
SHORE
DR. MONTEREY

CITY OF
RANCHO
MIRAGE
SITE R:\2866\Acad\Hydrology\Preliminary\2866 Existing Conditions Exhibit.dwg, 8/4/2025 2:21:08 PM, rreed, MSA Consulting, Inc. 1188
Portola Springs
Blue Fern West, LLC.

PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY REPORT
Appendix H
Preliminary Synthetic Unit Hydrograph Exhibit
1189

LAND USE
SF - 70% MAX COVERAGE 14.39
(acres)
AREA
32 RI
NUMBER

0.74 AMC II

INFILTRATION
RATE
(in/hr)

0.70 IMPERVIOUS

DECIMAL
TOTAL 16.73

PERCENT
OPEN SPACE/RETENTION AREA 2.34 32 0.74 0.10
MSA CONSULTING ,INC.

VICINITY MAP
N.T.S.

CITY OF
PALM

DESERT AVENUE

GERALD FORD
DRIVE

FRANK SINATRA DRIVE

COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE
INTERSTATE 10 AVENUE COOK STREET
DINAH
SHORE
DR. MONTEREY

CITY OF
RANCHO
MIRAGE
SITE
96" DIA. CHAMBERS - 664 LF TOTAL 33,388 CU FT
TOTAL STORAGE PROVIDED 52,647 CU FT
RETENTION BASIN 19,259 CU FT R:\2866\Acad\Hydrology\Preliminary\2866 Preliminary SUH Exhibit.dwg, 8/4/2025 2:25:45 PM, rreed, MSA Consulting, Inc. 476
1190
Portola Springs
Blue Fern West, LLC.

PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY REPORT
Appendix J
Preliminary Grading Exhibit
1191
PE
279.0
PE
279.2
PE
278.4
PE
279.0
PE
279.2
PE
278.8
PE
280.2
PE
280.4
PE
279.6
PE
280.2
PE
280.4
PE
280.2
PE
281.4
PE
281.6
PE
280.9
PE
281.4
PE
281.6
PE
280.6
PE
282.7
PE
282.9
PE
281.5
PE
282.7
PE
282.9
PE
282.2
PE
280.9
PE
281.1
PE 280.4
PE
280.9
PE
281.1
PE 280.1
PE 277.4
PE 275.4
PE 279.1PE
279.5
PE
279.7
PE
279.7
PE 279.5
PE 278.6
PE 278.0
PE 278.2
PE 278.2
PE 278.0
PE 277.2
PE 275.9
PE 276.1
PE 276.1
PE 275.9
PE 275.4
PE 275.5PE 275.9
PE 276.1
PE 276.1
PE 275.9
PE 275.0
PE 273.9PE 274.4
PE 274.6
PE 274.6
PE 274.4
PE 273.5
PE 272.7PE 273.2
PE 273.4
PE 273.4
PE 273.2
PE 272.4
PE 271.8PE 272.3
PE 272.5
PE 272.5
PE 272.3
PE 271.6
PE 270.9PE 271.4
PE 271.6
PE 271.6
PE 271.4
PE 272.1
PE 272.3
PE 272.5
PE 272.7
PE 272.9 PE 273.3 PE 273.3 PE 273.5 PE 273.7 PE 273.9 PE 273.8 PE 273.7 PE 273.5 PE 273.4 PE 273.2 PE
273.3 PE 273.7 PE 273.8 PE 273.9 PE 273.7 PE 273.5 PE 273.3 PE
273.5 PE
273.7 PE
273.9 PE
274.1
PE
274.0
PE
273.8
PE
273.6
PE
273.4
PE
273.2
PE
273.0
PE
272.8
PE
272.7
PE
272.5
PE
277.7
PE
278.2
PE
278.5
PE
278.7
PE
278.9
PE
279.1
PE
279.3 PE
279.4
PE
279.9 PE
279.5
PE
280.0
PE
PE 279.4
279.3
PE
279.1
PE
278.9
PE
279.2 PE 279.1
PE
280.0
PE
280.2
PE
280.3
PE
280.5
PE
280.7
PE
280.9
PE
280.2
PE
280.0
PE
279.8
PE
279.7 PE
279.5
PE
PE 279.3
279.2 PE 279.3 PE 279.5 PE 279.6 PE 279.5 PE 279.3 PE 279.1 PE 280.7 PE 280.6 PE 280.5 PE 280.6
PE 280.5
PE 280.2
PE 279.8
PE 279.7
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
A
A

51.25'

25.6'
20' 20'
A.C. PAVEMENT OVER A.B.

25.6'
PROP. CURB & GUTTER
SCALE: 1" = 10'
R/W
PROP.

SECTION A-A
CL 5'
2%
5'
R/W
PROP.

SIDEWALK
2%
PROP. CURB & GUTTER

SIDEWALK
10' 10'
8'

PARKING
8'

PARKING
P.U.E. P.U.E. 12' 12'

TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE

61.25' C.V.W.D. EASEMENT
.625' .625'

25.25'
12' 12'
A.C. PAVEMENT OVER A.B.

PROP. CURB & GUTTER
SCALE: 1" = 10'

SECTION B-B
5' 5'
2%
PROP. CURB & GUTTER
24'

TRAVEL LANE

35.25' C.V.W.D. EASEMENT
.625' .625'
P.U.E. CL
R/W
PROP.

R/W
PROP.

P.U.E.

TRAVEL LANE
2%
MSA CONSULTING ,INC.

Civil Engineering LandSurveying Landscape Architecture
Planning Environmental Services DryUtilityCoordination GIS 34200 Bob Hope Drive Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 | 760.320.9811 | MSAConsultinginc.com

ESTIMATED EARTHWORK QUANTITIES
EARTHWORK FACTORS:

THE FOLLOWING FACTORS WERE USED IN THE PREPARATION
OF THE EARTHWORK ANALYSIS:

SHRINKAGE: 12.5%.

SUBSIDENCE: 0.10'
OVER-EX. : 3' (300,239 S.F.)
SOURCE OF TOPOGRAPHY:

AEROTECH MAPPING, INC.
200 SPECTRUM CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 300
IRVINE, CA 92618
(619) 606-5020
DATE OF TOPOGRAPHY : OCTOBER 31, 2024 R:\2866\Acad\Grading\Preliminary\2866 Preliminary Grading Exhibit.dwg, 8/4/2025 4:21:59 PM, rreed, MSA Consulting, Inc. 1192
Appendix F
Site Access and Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis,
November 2025
1193
1194

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
To: Blue Fern, c/o Kim Molina, Pacific Land Consultants From: Sabita Tewani, AICP, PTP, Senior Transportation Planner Tyler Mathews, Transportation Planner
Arthur Chen, Senior Transportation Modeler
Subject: Site Access and Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis for Portola Springs Residential Project, City of Palm Desert
Date: July 28, 2025
cc: Nicole Cobleigh, Dudek
Dennis Pascua, Dudek
Attachments: Figures 1 – 6
A – Approved Traffic Scoping Agreement and Form
B – Vistro Worksheets
C – SimTraffic Worksheets
The following technical memorandum provides a Site Access and Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis for the proposed Portola Springs Residential Project (project), located at the southwest corner of Portola Avenue and Frank Sinatra Drive in the City of Palm Desert (City). Based on a project team meeting with the City staff on June 5, 2025, and the subsequently approved Scoping Agreement included as Attachment A, the following memorandum includes an access analysis of the project driveways along Portola Avenue and Frank Sinatra Drive and a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) screening analysis per CEQA requirements for transportation analysis of the proposed project.

The City of Palm Desert has adopted the VMT metric and significance criteria for transportation impact analyses for CEQA compliance and requires level of service (LOS) analysis for General Plan consistency requirements. It should be noted the City adopted the Riverside County Transportation Impact Guidelines for Level Service and Vehicle Miles Traveled (December 2020) per Resolution 2022-74 on August 25, 2022, and subsequently released the City of Palm Desert Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment (August 2023). The analysis is consistent with both the City and County requirements for the transportation analysis of a land use project.

1.0 Project Description and Setting
Figure 1 shows the project’s location at the southwest corner of Portola Avenue and Frank Sinatra Boulevard.

Regional access to the project site is primarily from Interstate 10 (I-10) to the north and State Route 111 (SR-111) 1195

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: SITE ACCESS AND VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED ANALYSIS FOR PORTOLA SPRINGS RESIDENTIAL PROJECT,

CITY OF PALM DESERT
18192.02 2
JULY 2025
to the south. The project would construct 156 single-family dwelling units on a 16.9 acre site. The project site is designated as Planned Residential in the City’s land use map and would be consistent with that land use designation.

The site plan of the proposed project is shown on Figure 2. The proposed project would be accessed via three driveways: Driveway 1 on Frank Sinatra Boulevard, Driveway 2 on Portola Avenue, and Driveway 3 further south on Portola Avenue. All three driveways would operate as right-in/right-out only driveways (i.e., no left-turns for inbound and outbound access) due to existing raised medians on Portola Avenue and Frank Sinatra Drive. The access driveways would be 32 feet wide and would be designed per City standards for residential driveways as included in the City of Palm Desert Standard Details and Design Guidelines1 .

Roadways
The City of Palm Desert follows the roadway classification system included in the City’s General Plan (adopted November 10, 2016) Mobility chapter. The roadways in the vicinity of the project site are described below:

Portola Avenue is classified as a north-south Balanced Arterial in the City and in the vicinity of the proposed project.

Balanced arterials have four lanes with a median as well as sidewalks for pedestrians and bicycle lanes. Portola Avenue, south of Frank Sinatra Drive, is constructed with three lanes in each direction with a raised median and a Class II bike lane in both directions. The three travel lanes in the southbound direction transition to two-lanes approximately 250 feet south of Frank Sinatra Drive. The roadway is generally constructed with paved and meandering sidewalks with landscaping and trees along the eastern side of Portola Avenue between Frank Sinatra Drive and County Club Drive. The posted speed limit in the project vicinity is 55 miles per hour (MPH). Portola Avenue would provide access to the project via two right-in/right-out only driveways.

Frank Sinatra Drive is classified as a Balanced Arterial in the City and in the vicinity of the proposed project. The roadway is oriented east-west in the City. The current roadway design is four lanes with a median and a Class II bike lane in both directions. The roadway is generally constructed with paved and meandering sidewalks with landscaping and trees along the northern side of Frank Sinatra Drive between Portola Avenue and Monterey Avenue. The posted speed limit in the project vicinity is 55 MPH. Frank Sinatra Drive would provide access to the project via right-in/right-out only driveway, west of Portola Avenue.

Country Club Drive is classified as an east-west Vehicular Oriented Arterial in the City and in the vicinity of the proposed project. Country Club Drive is a four-lane roadway with a raised median, paved sidewalks, and Class II bike lanes. The posted speed limit in the project vicinity is 45 MPH.

Cook Street is a north-south roadway classified as a Vehicular Oriented Arterial in the City and in the vicinity of the proposed project. Cook Street is generally constructed as a six-lane roadway with a raised median and paved sidewalks north of Frank Sinatra Drive and as a four-lane roadway with a raised median, Class II bike lanes and sidewalks south of Frank Sinatra Drive. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the roadway. On-street parking is generally not permitted and the posted speed limit is 55 MPH. 1 https://www.palmdesert.gov/departments/public-works/engineering-/standard-drawings 1196

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: SITE ACCESS AND VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED ANALYSIS FOR PORTOLA SPRINGS RESIDENTIAL PROJECT,

CITY OF PALM DESERT
18192.02 3
JULY 2025
Transit Facilities
SunLine Transit Agency provides public transportation throughout Coachella Valley. Bus Routes 5, 10, and 500 operate in the vicinity of the project along Cook Street, as described below:
▪ Route 5 operates between the Palm Desert Towne Center and Desert Hot Springs via Cook Street and Fred Waring Drive between 6:30 a.m. and 7:30 p.m. The route operates at a frequency of 60 minutes on weekdays only.
▪ Route 10 is a commuter link between San Bernardino and Indio and serves north Palm Desert via Cook Street. The route has a frequency of 2.5 to 3 hours throughout the week and there is no weekend or holiday service available.
▪ Route 500 operates as a weekday-only school tripper service between Cook Street at University Park Drive and Town Center. The route operates between 3:50 p.m. and 4:15 p.m. primarily to prevent overcrowding on other routes due to increase in student ridership from the Palm Desert High School.

The nearest bus stop to the project site for Route 5 and is located approximately one mile east of the intersection of Portola Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive. Bus stops for Route 10 and 500 are located approximately 0.2 miles from the project site, north of Cook Street/Frank Sinatra Drive intersection.

Bicycle and Golf Cart Facilities
The Palm Desert General Plan Mobility Element provides a comprehensive and updated overview of the City’s current and future recommendations to enhance multi-modal facilities which include pedestrian, bicycle, and golfcart classifications:

Class I: Class I facilities are off-street facilities, which can be shared between golf carts, bicyclists, and pedestrians.

Class II: Class II facilities are on-street facilities, which can be used by either bicycles only or as joint use facilities used by golf carts and bicycles. These facilities are designated either by striping or through physical separations in the roadway.

Class III: Class III paths are on-street facilities designated through signage that do not provide a separate space.

Class S: Class S facilities are shared sidewalks that provide access for both pedestrians and bicyclists.

Coachella Valley (CV) Link: CV Link is a regional off-street facility for new electric vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians. This facility will be overseen by the Coachella Valley Association of Governments.

CV Link Connectors: CV Connectors provide additional connections to the CV Link Facility through signage, crossing treatments, or separate facilities that provide connections from the city to the CV Link Facility.

There are existing Class II bike facilities that are striped for bicycles and golf carts adjacent to the project site along Portola Avenue and Frank Sinatra Drive. Class II facilities currently exist on Country Club Road, east of Portola Avenue and on Cook Street, south of Frank Sinatra Boulevard. Figure 3 illustrates the bike and transit facilities in the vicinity of the project site.
1197

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: SITE ACCESS AND VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED ANALYSIS FOR PORTOLA SPRINGS RESIDENTIAL PROJECT,

CITY OF PALM DESERT
18192.02 4
JULY 2025
Pedestrian Facilities
As described under Roadway Facilities, the segments of Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola Avenue in the vicinity oi the project are constructed with paved and meandering sidewalks along one side of the roadway while the opposite side of these streets is unpaved and has intermittent shrubs or landscaping. The Portola Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive intersection is constructed with curb ramps and pedestrian crosswalks on all four legs of the intersection. The traffic signal at the intersection includes pedestrian phasing.

2.0 Project Trip Generation
Trip generation estimates for the project are based on daily and AM and PM peak hour trip generation rates obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 11th Edition (2021), using the Single-family (detached) land use (ITE Code 210) trip rates. Table 1 provides a comparison of the proposed project’s trip generation with the previously approved project.

Table 1. Trip Generation Comparison
Land Use
Daily Trip
Rate/Unit
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Trip Rates and Trip Generation1
Multi-family housing (Low-rise) 6.74 trips/DU 0.10 0.30 0.40 0.32 0.19 0.51 Single-family housing (Detached) 9.43 trips/DU 0.18 0.53 0.70 0.59 0.35 0.94 Land Use Units Daily
Approved Project (multi-family) 402 2,709 40 121 161 129 76 205 Proposed Project (single family) 156 1,471 27 82 109 93 54 147 Net New (Proposed – Approved) -1,238 -13 -39 -52 -36 -22 -58 Notes: DU = Dwelling unit
1 Trip rates from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition.

The approved project’s trip generation was estimated to be 2,709 daily trips, 161 AM peak hour trips (40 inbound and 121 outbound), and 205 PM peak hour trips (129 inbound and 76 outbound). As shown in Table 1, using the ITE trip rates for the single family detached units, the proposed project would generate approximately 1,471 daily trips, 109 AM peak hour trips (27 inbound and 82 outbound), and 147 PM peak hour trips (93 inbound and 54 outbound). Compared to the approved project trip generation, the proposed project would generate net negative (or fewer trips): (-) 1,238 daily trips, (-) 52 AM peak hour trips (-13 inbound and -39 outbound), and (-) 58 PM peak hour trips (-36 inbound and -22 outbound).

The proposed project would add fewer trips to the intersections and roadway segments in the vicinity of the project site compared to the previously approved project. Hence, the City staff did not require the project to prepare a new traffic analysis, however, to account for the new trips at the access driveways, the site access analysis has been prepared. The site access analysis is based on the proposed project’s trip generation estimates, i.e., 1,471 daily trips, 109 AM peak hour trips (27 inbound and 82 outbound), and 147 PM peak hour trips (93 inbound and 54 outbound).
1198

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: SITE ACCESS AND VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED ANALYSIS FOR PORTOLA SPRINGS RESIDENTIAL PROJECT,

CITY OF PALM DESERT
18192.02 5
JULY 2025

3.0 Project Trip Distribution and Assignment
Project trip distribution percentages were based on project access control and logical travel paths to commute corridors from the project site. Approximately 15% of project trips would travel north along Portola Avenue and 30% of the project trips would travel south along Portola Avenue. Approximately 40% of project trips would travel east along Frank Sinatra Drive and 15% would travel west along Frank Sinatra Drive. Project trips were assigned to the project driveways by applying the project trip generation estimates to the trip distribution percentages described above. Figure 4 illustrates the project trip distribution and assignment.

Based on the project’s trip distribution (see Figure 4), and because all project driveways allow only right-in-right-out access, some trips would make northbound and eastbound U-turns at the Portola Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive intersection to access the proposed project. A nominal percentage of trips could also make southbound U-turns at the Portola Avenue/Desert Willow Court intersection, south of project driveway D3. However, the percentage and project trips would be low and not affect the site access analysis shown below.

4.0 Site Access Analysis
The proposed project access driveways would allow right-in-right-out movements from westbound Portola Avenue and southbound Frank Sinatra Drive. The project’s driveways are as follows:
▪ Driveway 1 (D1)/Frank Sinatra Drive
▪ Driveway 2 (D2)/Portola Avenue
▪ Driveway 3 (D3)/Portola Avenue
To analyze the operation of driveways, a queuing analysis was conducted at the project driveways. A queuing analysis is needed to identify improvements or need for turning lanes by assessing queue lengths at intersections and/or site access driveways. The Portola Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive intersection was also included in the analysis because of the proximity to the site. The queuing analysis was conducted for AM and PM peak hours under the Existing and Existing plus Project conditions.

An analysis of right turn deceleration lane was also conducted for all the inbound right turns from Portola Avenue and Frank Sinatra Drive into the project site. The City’s guidelines require analysis and review of available storage capacity of existing and proposed auxiliary lanes if a project generates 50 vehicles per hour or greater during peak hours. This is because:
▪ High volumes of right-turn traffic can cause backup and delay on the through lanes. ▪ Results in conflicts between crossing pedestrians and right turning vehicles and bicycles. ▪ Result in frequent rear-end and sideswipe collisions involving right-turning vehicles. 1199

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: SITE ACCESS AND VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED ANALYSIS FOR PORTOLA SPRINGS RESIDENTIAL PROJECT,

CITY OF PALM DESERT
18192.02 6
JULY 2025

4.1 Site Access Standards
The City of Palm Desert TIA Guidelines (2023) identifies policies applicable to site access and deceleration lanes within the city, as follows:

1. A left-turn deceleration lane with taper and storage length is required for any driveway with a projected peak hour left ingress turning volume estimated to be 25 vehicles per hour (vph) or greater. The taper length shall be included as part of the required deceleration lane.

2. A right-turn deceleration lane is required for any driveway with a projected peak hour right ingress turning volume estimated to be 50 vph or greater. The taper length shall be included as part of the required deceleration lane length. Pocket storage length requirements shall be based on individual project characteristics.

3. A right-turn deceleration lane should be considered for lower turning volumes on high-volume streets.

4. A left-turn deceleration lane should be considered for locations where left-turning vehicles would be required to queue in a high speed (> 40 mph) through lane.

5. Installation recommendations for deceleration lanes and related intersection turning movement distributions shown in the final traffic study report will be subject to approval by the City Engineer.

4.2 Analysis Methodology
A queuing analysis, using SimTraffic 12 software, was conducted to determine the 95th percentile (design) queue of the existing and proposed storage lanes at the project driveways and the Portola Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive intersection.

The project trip assignment was used to assess vehicular queues that would occur along Portola Avenue and Frank Sinatra Drive and to determine the requirements for turn lanes and deceleration lanes. As seen in the PM peak hour, a maximum of 53 vehicles would make a southbound right-turn into the site at the Driveway 2 (D2)/Portola Avenue

4.3 Queuing Analysis
This queuing analysis focuses on the weekday daily, AM (7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.) and the PM (4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.) peak periods. The peak periods represent the highest volume of traffic for the adjacent street system. Existing weekday AM and PM peak hour turn movement counts for the Portola Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive intersection were obtained from the Catavina Residential Transportation Impact Analysis (Michael Baker 2025) were used as background volumes. The project trip assignment illustrated on Figure 4 were added to background traffic volumes to obtain Existing plus Project traffic volumes for the project driveways and the Portola Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive intersection.

Existing and proposed geometric conditions at the intersection and driveways are illustrated on Figure 5. Table 2 summarizes the 95th percentile queuing analysis under Existing and Existing plus Project conditions. The SimTraffic worksheets are provided in Attachment C.
1200

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: SITE ACCESS AND VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED ANALYSIS FOR PORTOLA SPRINGS RESIDENTIAL PROJECT,

CITY OF PALM DESERT
18192.02 7
JULY 2025
Table 2. Project Queuing Summary
Intersection
Movement Storage
Length1
Existing Existing plus Project
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Avg
Queue2
Exceeds
Storage
Length
Avg
Queue2
Exceeds
Storage
Length
Avg
Queue2
Exceeds
Storage
Length
Avg
Queue2
Exceeds
Storage
Length
Portola Avenue/
Frank Sinatra Drive
NBUL 257 333 Yes4
Yes4
318 Yes4
Yes4
329 Yes4
Yes4
326 Yes4
Yes4
SBUL 178 232 Yes4 237 Yes4 234 Yes4 239 Yes4
EBUL 120 113 No 166 Yes4 137 Yes4 170 Yes4
EBR 230 75 No 66 No 75 No 81 No
WBUL 143 132 No 117 No 136 No 143 No
WBR 100 72 No 73 No 77 No 74 No
Driveway 1/ Frank
Sinatra Drive
NBR3 170 Does not exist 57 No 54 No
Portola
Avenue/Driveway 2
EBR3 145 Does not exist 33 No 28 No
Portola
Avenue/Driveway 3
EBR3 145 Does not exist 33 No 26 No
Notes: NBUL = northbound U- and left-turn lane; NBR = northbound right; SBUL = southbound U- and left-turn lane; WBR = westbound right; EBR = eastbound right. 1 Storage length is exceeded if the calculated distance is less than or equal to the storage length provided. 2 Based on 95th percentile queue length in SimTraffic 12. 3 Storage length is on-site.
1201

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: SITE ACCESS AND VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED ANALYSIS FOR PORTOLA SPRINGS RESIDENTIAL PROJECT,

CITY OF PALM DESERT
18192.02 8
JULY 2025
As shown in Table 2, under the Existing conditions, the vehicular queues exceed the storage lane at the Portola Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive intersection at the northbound and southbound left-turn lanes in the AM and PM peak hours; and, the eastbound left-turn lane in the PM peak hour only. Under the Existing plus Project conditions, the project would add trips to the Portola Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive intersection and the queue lengths would increase nominally (less than 25 feet or one car length) at all the turn movements. The queue at the eastbound left-turn lane would exceed storage length in the AM peak hour, however it would be less than one car length. It should be noted that average queues do not exceed the storage length under any peak hour. As such, the project would not contribute to excessive queueing at the Portola Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive intersection to require any improvement. Additionally, the on-site queues at the project driveways would not exceed more than two vehicles and would be accommodated within the driveways’ throat (storage) lengths provided on the project site.

The highest volumes of right-turning vehicles in to the project site were observed In the PM peak hour when 53 vehicles make a southbound right-turn at the Portola Avenue/Driveway 2. Because this would exceed the threshold in the City’s guidelines, it is recommended that the project construct a deceleration lane to accommodate southbound right turning vehicles at the Portola Avenue/Driveway 2. The existing curb, gutter, sidewalk, and bicycle lane along Portola Avenue along with the transition of the southbound lanes from three lanes to two lanes along the project frontage would need to be designed to accommodate the southbound right deceleration lane. A detailed design of the deceleration lane at the Portola Avenue/Driveway 2 would be prepared by the project’s civil engineer and would be subject to approval of the City Engineer.

5.0 VMT Analysis
In December 2018, CEQA Guidelines were updated to include a threshold for evaluating traffic impacts using the VMT methodology. This methodology was required to be used statewide beginning on July 1, 2020. The CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, “Determining the Significance of Transportation Impacts” state that “generally, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts” and define VMT as “the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project.” It should be noted that “automobile” refers to on-road passenger vehicles, specifically cars and light trucks. OPR has clarified in the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (OPR 2018) (Technical Advisory) and informational presentations that heavy-duty truck VMT is not required to be included in the estimation of a project’s VMT. Other relevant considerations may include the effects of the project on transit and non-motorized traveled.

The requirements to prepare a detailed transportation VMT analysis apply to all discretionary land development projects that are not exempt from CEQA, except those that meet at least one of the VMT screening criteria described below. A project that meets at least one of the screening criteria per City’s VMT guidelines below would be presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact.

5.1 VMT Screening Criteria
1202

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: SITE ACCESS AND VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED ANALYSIS FOR PORTOLA SPRINGS RESIDENTIAL PROJECT,

CITY OF PALM DESERT
18192.02 9
JULY 2025
The City uses the VMT screening criteria included in the County of Riverside Transportation Guidelines which include:
▪ Small Projects: applies to projects with low trip generation per existing CEQA exemptions or based on the County Greenhouse Gas Emissions Screening Tables, result in a 3,000 Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (MTCO2e) per year screening level threshold
▪ Projects near High quality transit: applies to projects located within half-mile of an existing major stop which maintains a service interval frequency of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods
▪ Local-serving retail uses: applies to retail uses where no single store on-site should exceed 50,000 square feet and the use is local serving
▪ Affordable Housing: applies to projects with a high percentage of affordable housing ▪ Local essential service: applies to local serving essential services such as day care, or police or fire facility, medical/dental office buildings, government offices or local or community parks ▪ Redevelopment Projects: applies to projects that replace existing VMT-generating land uses and does not result in a net overall increase in VMT
▪ Map-based Screening: The map-based screening eliminates the need for complex analyses by allowing existing VMT data to serve as a basis for screening smaller residential and office developments. This mapbased screening criteria is applicable to this project as it is a residential project located in a low VMT area As shown below, the project would screen out using the map-based screening assessment and not require further VMT analysis.

5.2 Map-Based Screening Analysis
The map-based screening for the project is performed using the updated Riverside County Travel Demand Model (RIVCOM), with a base year of 2018. A model run was performed and its Daily Residential Home Based VMT per Capita was computed by travel analysis zone (TAZ) and compared to the Riverside County Average VMT per Capita.

The project is located TAZ #1605 of the RIVCOM model. A sample of the surrounding TAZ’s residential VMT values were calculated then compared to the Riverside County average to see if the project is located within a low VMT area and under the County VMT threshold value. Figure 5 shows a map of the project site with RIVCOM TAZs and Table 3 presents the VMT per capita values of the TAZs surrounding the proposed project.

Table 3. VMT per Capita Estimate for Screening
TAZ Residential VMT Population VMT per Capita
1603 7,742 552 14.03
1604 28,607 1,706 16.77
1605 (Project) 20 2 9.86
1608 1,235 115 10.74
1609 16,228 1,206 13.46
1649 1,652 97 17.03
1203

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: SITE ACCESS AND VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED ANALYSIS FOR PORTOLA SPRINGS RESIDENTIAL PROJECT,

CITY OF PALM DESERT
18192.02 10
JULY 2025
Table 3. VMT per Capita Estimate for Screening
TAZ Residential VMT Population VMT per Capita
1651 11,967 686 17.44
1655 17,034 1,093 15.58
1656 6,100 382 15.97
Total 90,585 5,839 15.51
Riverside County 42,904,715 2,358,439 18.19
The project is located in TAZ #1605 within the RIVCOM model, which contains a low residential VMT per capita value along with a low population. To get a more accurate VMT per capita value of the project, the surrounding 10 TAZs that have similar residential uses around the project site were selected and their VMT per capita values were calculated. The average of the 10 TAZs’ VMT per capita value is 15.51, which is lower than the Riverside County average of 18.19. The City’s Guidelines are consistent with the Riverside County Guidelines in that if a project’s VMT per capita value is lower than the county average, then the project meets the map-based screening criteria and the project’s impact can be presumed to be less than significant. Therefore, the project would not require further VMT analysis. The impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures would be required.

6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
The approved project’s trip generation was estimated to be 2,709 daily trips, 161 AM peak hour trips (40 inbound and 121 outbound), and 205 PM peak hour trips (129 inbound and 76 outbound). As shown in Table 1, using the ITE trip rates for the single family detached units, the proposed project would generate approximately 1,471 daily trips, 109 AM peak hour trips (27 inbound and 82 outbound), and 147 PM peak hour trips (93 inbound and 54 outbound). Compared to the approved project trip generation, the proposed project would generate net negative (or fewer trips): (-) 1,238 daily trips, (-) 52 AM peak hour trips (-13 inbound and -39 outbound), and (-) 58 PM peak hour trips (-36 inbound and -22 outbound).

Per the City’s guidelines, a deceleration lane would be required along the project’s eastern site boundary preceding Driveway 2 for southbound right-turn movements. The existing curb, gutter, sidewalk, and bicycle lane along Portola Avenue along with the transition of the southbound lanes from three lanes to two lanes along the project frontage would need to be designed to accommodate the southbound right deceleration lane.

Dudek performed a map based VMT screening evaluation of the project and found that it meets the screening criteria because it is located in a low VMT area consistent with the City and Riverside County’s transportation guidelines.

Therefore, the project is presumed to result in a less than significant VMT impact under CEQA, and no mitigation measures are required.
1204

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: SITE ACCESS AND VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED ANALYSIS FOR PORTOLA SPRINGS RESIDENTIAL PROJECT,

CITY OF PALM DESERT
18192.02 11
JULY 2025

7.0 References
City of Palm Desert. 2023. Palm Desert Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines, August 2022.

County of Riverside Transportation Department. 2020. Transportation Analysis Guidelines for Level of Service, Vehicle Miles Traveled. August 2022.

ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers). 2021. Trip Generation Manual. 11th ed.

Michael Baker International. 2025. Transportation Impact Analysis – Catavina Residential.

TRB (Transportation Research Board). 2022. Highway Capacity Manual, Seventh Edition: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis.
1205
1 3

FRANK SINATRA DR PORTOLA AVE COUNTRY CLUB DR

COOK ST
D1
D2
D3 2
© 2025 Microsoft Corporation © 2025 Maxar ©CNES (2025) Distribution Airbus DS © 2025 TMAP MOBILITY Earthstar Geographics SIO Jul 23, 2025 - 4:49pm tmathews P:\300.Environmental\18192_Blue Fern Development USA\03 Task Orders\02_Portola Springs\01 Dudek Work Products\01 Documents\Transportation\Graphics\AutoCAD\PortolaSprings_TRAF.dwg Layout: Fig1-StudyArea Portola Springs Residential Development Project NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 1 SOURCE: Bing Maps 2025
Project Location
Legend
Project Boundary n

PROJECT SITE
DX Right-In/Right-Out
Driveways
1206
SOURCE: MSA Consulting, Inc., 2025
Jul 23, 2025 - 4:50pm tmathews P:\300.Environmental\18192_Blue Fern Development USA\03 Task Orders\02_Portola Springs\01 Dudek Work Products\01 Documents\Transportation\Graphics\AutoCAD\PortolaSprings_TRAF.dwg Layout: Fig2-SitePlan Portola Springs Residential Development Project n NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 2
Site Plan
1207
Country Club Dr
Gerald Ford Dr
Frank Sinatra Dr
VarnerRd
0 1,000 2,000 n Feet
Date: 7/24/2025 User: cgardner Path: Z:\Projects\j1819202\MAPDOC\CEQA\PortolaSprings.aprx Map: Figure 3 Bike and Transit Facilities Layout: Figure 3 Bike and Transit Facilities Project Boundary
SunLine Bus Stops
SunLine Transit Routes
Route 5 | Desert Hot Springs - CSUSB
(PDC) - Palm Desert Mall
Route 10 Commuter Link | Indio - CSUSB
(PDC) - CSUSB
Route 500 | Palm Desert Mall
Bicycle & Golf Cart Facilities
Class 2 - Striped Lane
Shared Sidewalk
Golf Carts Permitted
SOURCE: Esri Basemap; Palm Desert General Plan 2022; SunLine Transit Agency 2025 Portola Springs Residential Development Project
Bike and Transit Facilities
FIGURE 3
Coachella
La Quinta
Indian
Wells
Palm Desert
Indio
Rancho
Mirage
Cathedral
City
Palm
Springs
ÄÆ243
ÄÆ195
ÄÆ86 ÄÆ111
ÄÆ111
ÄÆ74
§¨¦10
R i v e r s i d e
C o u n t y
Project Site
!(^
1208
1 FRANK SINATRA DR

PORTOLA AVE COUNTRY CLUB DR

COOK ST
D1
D2
D3
Jul 28, 2025 - 12:55pm tmathews P:\300.Environmental\18192_Blue Fern Development USA\03 Task Orders\02_Portola Springs\01 Dudek Work Products\01 Documents\Transportation\Graphics\AutoCAD\PortolaSprings_TRAF.dwg Layout: Fig4-PrjDist-Asgn Portola Springs Residential Development Project NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 4 SOURCE: Bing Maps 2025
Project Trip Distribution and Assignment n
Driveway 1 D1 Frank Sinatra Drive
Portola Avenue D2 Driveway 2
(4) 14
(62) 42
(12) 8
(10) 6
28 (8)
(12)
29 (16) 53
(10) 6
28 (8)
(14)
9 (7) 26
Portola Avenue D3 Driveway 3
Portola Avenue 1 Frank Sinatra Drive
(12) 8
(33) 23
(5) 3 (11) 37
(4)
14 (8) 28
(12) 8
Legend
Percentage
Distribution XX%
(X) Weekday AM Peak Hour
X
Traffic Volumes
Weekday PM Peak Hour
Traffic Volumes
DX Right-In/Right-Out
Driveways
Site Boundary
15%
15%
10%
10%
10%
10%
30%
1209
D1 1
D2
D3
SOURCE: MSA Consulting, Inc., 2025
Portola Avenue 1 Frank Sinatra DriveDriveway 1 D1 Frank Sinatra Drive Portola Avenue D2 Driveway 2
Portola Avenue D3 Driveway 3
Legend X Study Intersection
Stop Sign
Lane Geometrics
Proposed Lane
Geometrics
Proposed Stop Sign PROT PROT
PROT
PROT
DX Right-In/Right-Out
Driveways
Jul 23, 2025 - 10:51am tmathews P:\300.Environmental\18192_Blue Fern Development USA\03 Task Orders\02_Portola Springs\01 Dudek Work Products\01 Documents\Transportation\Graphics\AutoCAD\PortolaSprings_TRAF.dwg Layout: Fig4-QueuingGeometrics n NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 5
Queuing Study Intersection Geometrics
Portola Springs Residential Development Project 1210
SOURCE: RIVCOM, 2018
Jul 23, 2025 - 10:56am tmathews P:\300.Environmental\18192_Blue Fern Development USA\03 Task Orders\02_Portola Springs\01 Dudek Work Products\01 Documents\Transportation\Graphics\AutoCAD\PortolaSprings_TRAF.dwg Layout: Fig6-VMT SCREENING MAP Portola Springs Residential Development Project
n NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE 6
VMT Screening Map
TAZ: 1604
TAZ: 1656
TAZ: 1655
TAZ: 1605 TAZ: 1608
TAZ: 1651
TAZ: 1603
TAZ: 1609
TAZ: 1649
TAZ: 1610
1211
Attachment A
Approved Traffic Scoping Agreement and Form
1212

MEMORANDUM
To: Cesar Lopez, City of Palm Desert
From: Sabita Tewani, AICP, PTP, Dudek
Subject: Proposed Transportation Analysis for the Portola Springs Residential Project, City of Palm Desert
Date: June 10, 2025,
cc: Nicole Cobleigh, Dudek
Kim Molina, Pacific Land Consultants
Attachments: A. Traffic Scoping for Portola Springs Residential Project B. Excerpts from the Transportation Analysis for Portola /Frank Sinatra Residential, March 2022, prepared by Urban Crossroads Inc.

C. Excerpts from the Transportation Impact Analysis for Catavina Residential Project, February 2025, prepared by Michael Baker International.

Dudek is preparing the transportation analysis for the Portola Springs Residential Project (project) which proposes to construct 156 single family homes in the southwest quadrant of the Portola Avenue/Frank Sinatra intersection in the City of Palm Desert (City). Access to the proposed project would be via three right-in-right-out only driveways.

Of the total three driveways, two driveways are located along Portola Avenue and one driveway is located along Frank Sinatra Drive. Based on the project team’s discussion in the June 5, 2025, meeting with the City staff, the following memorandum provides the proposed project’s consistency with the previously approved project and transportation analysis conducted for the Portola/Frank Sinatra Residential Project in March 2022. Based on these studies, Dudek proposes to conduct a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) screening analysis per CEQA requirements and a Site Access Analysis of the project driveways per non-CEQA requirements for transportation analysis for the proposed project (see Attachment A).

Previously Approved Project
A comprehensive analysis for larger residential development of 402 multi-family units was prepared for the project site in July 2022 and the final MND was certified in December 2022. The project included one right-out access (exit only) along Frank Sinatra Drive, one right-out access (exit only) along Portola Avenue, and one right-in/right-out/leftin access along Portola Avenue. 1213

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS FOR THE PORTOLA SPRINGS RESIDENTIAL PROJECT, CITY OF

PALM DESERT
18192 2
JUNE 2025
Table 1 provides a comparison of the proposed project’s trip generation with the approved project using the trip rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, 2021.

The study area of the previously approved project included 11 intersections which were analyzed using the Highway Capacity Manual) HCM) analysis methodology. All intersections were shown to operate at LOS D or better under Existing (year 2022), Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project, and Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project plus Cumulative Project conditions (year 2024). As such, no traffic impacts were identified, nor off-site intersection improvements were required. Because no traffic effects or improvements were identified in the transportation analysis of the approved project, the proposed project would not likely result in operational deficiencies or level of service below LOS D. Excerpts from the Transportation Analysis for Portola /Frank Sinatra Residential, March 2022 are provided as attachment B to this memo.

Additionally, results of the recently completed transportation study for the Catavina Residential Project (February 2025) were reviewed. The Catavina Residential Project would construct 546 single family dwelling units on a vacant site adjacent to the proposed project site. Vehicular access to the Catavina Residential Project be provided via a full access driveway on Frank Sinatra Drive (directly across from Hollister Drive) and a full access driveway on Portola Avenue (directly across from Desert Willow Court). The Catavina Residential Project is anticipated to be completed in Year 2027 and is forecast to generate approximately 4,810 daily trips with 349 AM peak hour trips and 490 PM peak hour trips. The study area included 8 intersections (including project access driveways) and 3 roadway segments which were analyzed using the HCM methodology. All intersections and roadway segments were 1214

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS FOR THE PORTOLA SPRINGS RESIDENTIAL PROJECT, CITY OF

PALM DESERT
18192 3
JUNE 2025
shown to operate at LOS D or better under Existing (year 2025), Existing plus Project, Opening Year 2027 and Opening Year 2027 plus Project. As such, no traffic impacts were identified, nor off-site intersection improvements were required. Excerpts from the Transportation Impact Analysis for Catavina Residential, February 2025 are provided as Attachment C to this memo.

Vehicle Miles Traveled Screening
The VMT screening analysis for the previously approved project and Catavina Residential Project was conducted using the RIVTAM/RIVCOM travel demand model to satisfy the map-based screening criteria using the County of Riverside thresholds. Both the proposed project site and the Catavina Residential Project site are located within the same traffic analysis zone (TAZ). The average VMT per capita of the Project TAZ is lower than the County’s VMT per capita (18.26). As shown in the scoping form (Attachment A), the proposed project would also screen out and not require further VMT analysis. The impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures would be required.

Proposed Scope of Work for Portola Springs
Based on the information provided above, it can be concluded that because the proposed project generates fewer trips than the previously approved project and has similar residential use as the TAZ it is located within, the proposed project would not result in significant LOS or VMT impacts.

The proposed project access driveways would allow right-in-right-out movements from westbound Portola Avenue and southbound Frank Sinatra Drive. Based on the project’s trip distribution (see Figure 3 and Table 2, Attachment A), few trips would make northbound U-turn and eastbound U-turn at the Portola Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive intersection to access the proposed project. Dudek will also provide an analysis of right turn deceleration lane in the proposed analysis. From the preliminary analysis, the proposed project would warrant a southbound deceleration right turn lane at Driveway 2/Portola Avenue access to facilitate access into the project site. Driveway 1 or Driveway 3 would not warrant a right turn deceleration lane. As shown on Figure 1 in Attachment A, all the project driveways have a width of 32 feet. None of the driveways would have gates and would provide both vehicular and emergency access to the proposed project.

Dudek has revised the scope of analysis for the proposed project to include a Site Access Analysis of the project’s driveways (Driveways 1, 2 and 3) for Existing plus Project conditions only. A screening analysis using RIVCOM travel demand model to demonstrate map-based screening for project’s VMT has been included in Attachment A. Please review Attachment A Traffic Scoping for Portola Springs Residential Project. The results of the proposed project’s VMT Screening and Site Access Analysis will be provided in a technical memorandum. 1215
Attachment A
Traffic Scoping Memo for the Portola Springs
Residential Project
• Scoping Form
• Table 1: Project Trip Generation
• Table 2: Project Trip Assignment for Site Access Analysis • Figure1: Site Plan
• Figure 2: VMT Screening Map
• Figure 3: Trip Distribution and Assignment
• Worksheets from Vistro Software: Intersection and Driveway Trips 1216

!"#$%&'()'*++,+&-(.#*(-*)..%"(%,$)"-(!-/01 2
34
25
672 4 8924:;5 <;=;>2?;6

7;9 5@9A B2:5A 8@A C
@DEA
86A 5 6; @A A 2A FA )G(-HIJ('KLKHMNIOL(!OPHQKR((DF5FE 5 <SA
<SA 5T
A
T
A 5
B B ? UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU ? UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU 4AUUUV UUU@ D W6E X4AUUUV
X
W492X8 8;42 9
D2EA ( 156 single family homes located in the southwest quadrant of Portola Avenue and Frank Sinatra Drive, Palm Desert
VMT Analysis: The project's VMT screening analysis was conducted using the baseline VMT from the RIVCOM Travel Demand Model. Figure 2 provides the VMT per capita of the project's TAZ, which is 9.86. The County's threshold VMT is 18.20 VMT per capita.

Therefore, the project can be screened out of a detailed VMT analysis. The project's VMT impact would be less than significant. .

The project access is via three right-in-right-out driveways. See Figure 1 Portola Springs (previously Catavina East) 620-400-031 Sabita Tewani, Dudek Kim Molina,Pacific Land Consultants 760-479-4109 714-782-4271 [email protected] [email protected] TC Neighborhood TC Neighborhood 0 0 0 27 82 109 0 0 0 93 54 147 ✔ ✔
P.R.22 P.R.22
1217

!"#$%&"'()*$+&,%-".%/0$%120%)34"5 6 7 6 8 6 96 :;<;
=
>!" +-?*$)23@"#$+AA%-B

CDE
FB
G;HB
;F:=B I;
C
JB K
L
;

B
.!M02@N"%30($/(-0%)3/4 " :OPQRSTUVWXYZ[T[\T]Y^_`_\aTbc[Y]T\[dY]Te]\XYZ[`fT[]_eTgYaY]b[_\ahi_`[]_WV[_\aTb]YTiY[Y]j_aYifT\]T Z\jjYa[`Tc]\jT\[dY]TbgYaZ_Y`kTlbeT_`T]YmV_]YikTnaTgYaY]bofT[dYTj_a_jVjTb]YbT[\TWYT`[Vi_YiT`dbooT_aZoViYTbapT_a[Y]`YZ[_\aT\cTqT \]Tj\]YTrs\ooYZ[\]tT\]Td_gdY]TZob``_c_Zb[_\aT`[]YY[`fTb[Tud_ZdT[dYTe]\e\`YiTe]\XYZ[Tu_ooTbiiTvwT\]Tj\]YTeYbxTd\V]T[]_e`fTa\[T YyZYYi_agTbTvzj_oYT]bi_V`Tc]\jT[dYTe]\XYZ[T`_[YkTQdYT{VWo_ZT|\]x`T}Yeb][jYa[TjbpT]YmV_]YTiY^_b[_\aTc]\jT[dY`YT]YmV_]YjYa[`T Wb`YiT\aT[dYTo\Zb[_\ak~A Site Access analysis is proposed for the following under Existing plus Project conditons:

"
!"M02@N"
)+@+N"M(*(30/4:OPQRSTUVWXYZ[T[\T]Y^_`_\aTbc[Y]T\[dY]Te]\XYZ[`fT[]_eTgYaY]b[_\ahi_`[]_WV[_\aTb]YT iY[Y]j_aYifT\]TZ\jjYa[`Tc]\jT\[dY]TbgYaZ_Y`kTlbeT_`T]YmV_]YikTnaTgYaY]bofT[dYTj_a_jVjTb]YbT[\TWYT`[Vi_YiT`dbooT_aZoViYTbapT _a[Y]`YZ[_\aT\cTqT\]Tj\]YTrs\ooYZ[\]tT\]Td_gdY]TZob``_c_Zb[_\aT`[]YY[`fTb[Tud_ZdT[dYTe]\e\`YiTe]\XYZ[Tu_ooTbiiTvwT\]Tj\]YTeYbxTd\V]T []_e`fTa\[TYyZYYi_agTbTvzj_oYT]bi_V`Tc]\jT[dYTe]\XYZ[T`_[YkTQdYT{VWo_ZT|\]x`T}Yeb][jYa[TjbpT]YmV_]YTiY^_b[_\aTc]\jT[dY`YT ]YmV_]YjYa[`TWb`YiT\aT[dYTo\Zb[_\ak~

"
!0,($"2$%/@%-0%)3+"&+-0/4 ;
CG;
E

F5

C
B "
"

'!M%0("+3:
;
= !"%/0%3*">)3@%0%)3/4"Q]bcc_ZTZ\Va[Tib[bTjV`[TWYToY``T[dbaTqTpYb]`T\oikT{]\^_iYT[]bcc_ZTZ\Va[Tib[Y`T_cTV`_agT\[dY]T[dbaT qzpYb]z\oiTZ\Va[`kaoY``T\[dY]u_`YTbee]\^YiTWpT[dYTs_[pTRag_aYY]fTZ\Va[`T`dbooTWYTeY]c\]jYiTiV]_agTzTbkjkTbaiTzTekjkfT j_iibpTudYaTaYb]WpT`Zd\\o`kTUYb`\aboTeYbxTcbZ[\]TjbpTWYT]YmV_]YiT[\TWYTbeeo_YiT[\TZ\Va[`T[bxYaTiV]_agT[dYT\cc`Yb`\aT_aT[dYT s\bZdYoobTbooYpk~ :=

4.

5.
15 30 40 15 2028 NA NA NA NA Driveway 1 - D1/Frank Sinatra Dr Driveway 3 - D3/Portola Ave Driveway 2 - D2/Portola Ave ✔ NA
1218

F

!"#$%&'()('#(**+&*#,-#.&#/001&**&0#(2#,3&#$,+04#5(2#/00(,(-2#,-#,3&#*,/20/10#/2/64*(*#0&*'1(.&0# (2#,3&#7+(0&6(2&89:; <=>?@ABCDBEFGBEHIDDJKBLEMNOBLEIEGLBEFIEBPIBEHIDDJKBLJQRISBJLTIUUGIHLBEVBWGBXIHHIREGNYB<VHBLJZJSIHBLEIEGZGRE[BIEBIRBG\JLEJRQB MRLJQRISJ]GNBVEFGHBLUGKJDJKBJEGZLBEVBWGBINNHGLLGNBMRNGHBG\JLEJRQBKVRNJEJVRL^B_`FVMHBIUUHVIKFBEHIDDJKBaVSMZGBJRDVHZIEJVRBZMLEB WGBLMWZJEEGNBJRBINNJEJVRBEVBEFGBUGIbBFVMHSOBEMHRJRQBZVaGZGREBKVMRELBDVHBEFIEBJREGHLGKEJVRcBdUGKJDJKBJEGZLBEVBWGBINNHGLLGNBIHGB XIHHIREBIRISOLJL^BLJEGBIKKGLL^BVR`LJEGBKJHKMSIEJVR^BUIHbJRQ^BKVRLJLEGRKOBXJEFBUSIRLBLMUUVHEJRQBWJKOKSGL^BUGNGLEHJIRL^BIRNBEHIRLJE^B IRNBVEFGHLcBeEEIKFBUHVUVLGNBIRISOLJLBLKGRIHJVLB<OGIHLBUSMLBUHVUVLGNBDVHGKILEJRQBIUUHVIKF[BIRNBIEEIKFBIBUHVUVLGNBUFILJRQB IUUHVIKFBJDBEFGBUHVfGKEBJLBUFILGNc[B

g&'-hh&20&0#.4i# j%%1-k&0#$'-%(2l#jl1&&h&2,i# :mno p ppoqo p p
rs p
q

qt not #
?FGBuJEOBVDBvISZBwGLGHEBHGLGHaGLBEFGBHJQFEBEVBMLG^BLFIHG^BIRNBHGUHVNMKGBEFGBJRDVHZIEJVRBJRKSMNJRQ^BWMEBRVEBSJZJEGNBEV^BEHIDDJKB KVMREL^BG\FJWJEL^BIRNBLMHaGOLBUHVaJNGNBJRBISSBLMWZJEEGNBEHIDDJKBLEMNJGLBIRNBxy?BILLGLLZGRELcBBuFIRQGLBEVBEFGBLKVUGBVDBXVHb^B LJEGBVKKMUIRKOBVHBMLG^BLzMIHGBDVVEIQG^BIRNTVHBUGHZJEEGNBIKEJaJEJGLBZIOBHGzMJHGBIBHGLMWZJEEISBVHBIZGRNZGREBEVBEFGBLKVUJRQB IQHGGZGREc B B{|}~{~

Sabita Tewani, Dudek June 10, 2025
1219
In Out Total In Out Total
Single-family (detached) 210 9.43 0.18 0.53 0.70 0.59 0.35 0.94 Single Family Homes 210 156 DUs 1,471 27 82 109 93 54 147 1,471 27 82 109 93 54 147
Notes:

PM Peak Hour
Total
per DU
Trip Generation
Trip rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation, 11th Edition , 2021.

Table 1
Project Trip Generation Summary
Land Use Size/Unit Daily
AM Peak Hour
Trip Rates
ITE Code
Trip Generation, Portola Springs 1220
Project Driveway/Intersection Movement AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Right-turn
deceleration lane
warranted?
NBL
NBT
NBR 62 42
SBL
SBT
SBR
EBL
EBT
EBR 4 14
WBL
WBT 12 8
WBR
NBL
NBT 8 28
NBR
SBL
SBT 12 29
SBR 16 53 Yes
EBL
EBT
EBR 6
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT 8 28
NBR
SBL
SBT 14 9
SBR 7 26
EBL
EBT
EBR 10 6
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBU 8 28
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT 4 14
SBR
EBU 12 8
EBL 12 8
EBT 33 23
EBR 5 3
WBL 11 37
WBT
WBR
Table 2. Project Trip Assignment for Site Access Analysis Portola Avenue/Frank Sinatra
Drive
Driveway 1/Frank Sinatra
Drive
Driveway 2/Portola Avenue
Driveway 3/Portola Avenue
1221
SOURCE: MSA Consulting, Inc., 2025
Jun 10, 2025 - 3:49pm tmathews C:\Users\tmathews\OneDrive - Dudek\Desktop\In Progress\Portola Springs\Graphics\AutoCAD\PortolaSprings_TRAF.dwg Layout: ScopeFig1-SitePlan Portola Springs Residential Development Project n NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 1
Site Plan
1222
SOURCE: RIVCOM, 2018
May 30, 2025 - 4:00pm tmathews P:\300.Environmental\18192_Blue Fern Development USA\03 Task Orders\02_Portola Springs\01 Dudek Work Products\01 Documents\Transportation\Graphics\AutoCAD\PortolaSprings_TRAF.dwg Layout: ScopeFig4-VMT SCREENING MAP n NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 2
VMT Screening Map
Portola Springs Residential Development Project 1223
1 3

FRANK SINATRA DR PORTOLA RD

COUNTRY CLUB DR

COOK ST
D1
D2
D3
2 May 30, 2025 - 4:05pm tmathews P:\300.Environmental\18192_Blue Fern Development USA\03 Task Orders\02_Portola Springs\01 Dudek Work Products\01 Documents\Transportation\Graphics\AutoCAD\PortolaSprings_TRAF.dwg Layout: ScopeFig2-PrjDist-Asgn

NOT TO SCALE
SOURCE: Bing Maps 2025 FIGURE 3
Project Trip Assignment and Distribution
Portola Springs Residential Development Project n
Cook Street 2 Frank Sinatra Drive
Portola Road 3 Country Club Drive
(25) 18
(8) 5 (3) 9
(8) 28
(3) 9
10 (3)
(2) 9
(8) 5
(8)
5 (8) 5
North Project Access D1 Frank Sinatra Drive
Portola Road D2 Central Project Access
(4) 14
(62) 42
(12) 8
(10) 6
28 (8)
(12)
29 (16) 53
(10) 6
28 (8)
(14)
9 (7) 26
Portola Road D3 South Project Access
Portola Road 1 Frank Sinatra Drive
(12) 8
(33) 23
(5) 3 (11) 37
(4)
14 (8) 28
(12) 8
Legend
X
Percentage
Distribution XX%
Study Intersection
(X) Weekday AM Peak Hour
X
Traffic Volumes
Weekday PM Peak Hour
Traffic Volumes
DX Right-In/Right-Out
Driveways
Site Boundary
15%
15%
10%
10%
10%
10%
30%
1224
Trip Generation summary
Report File: P:\...\Proj_AM.pdf 5/23/2025
Vistro File: P:\...\18192_Portola Springs.vistro Scenario 1 Project_AM Portola Springs
Zone ID: Name Land Use variables Code Ind.

Var. Rate Quantity % In % Out % Int.Capture
Trips In
Adj.

Trips Out
Adj.

Total
Trips Adj.
% of Total
Trips
1: Zone 0.000 50.00 50.00 0.00 27 82 109 100.00
Added Trips Total 27 82 109 100.00
Added Trips
Portola Springs
AM Peak Hour
Scenario 1: 1 Project_AM
Version 2024 (SP 0-4)
Generated with
1225
Trip Distribution summary
Report File: P:\...\Proj_AM.pdf 5/23/2025
Vistro File: P:\...\18192_Portola Springs.vistro Scenario 1 Project_AM Portola Springs
Zone 1: Zone
To Zone: From Zone:

Zone / Gate Share % Trips Share % Trips
2: Gate 15.00 4 15.00 12
3: Gate 15.00 4 15.00 12
4: Gate 30.00 8 30.00 26
5: Gate 10.00 3 10.00 8
6: Gate 10.00 3 10.00 8
7: Gate 10.00 3 10.00 8
8: Gate 10.00 3 10.00 8
Total 100.00 28 100.00 82
Portola Springs
AM Peak Hour
Scenario 1: 1 Project_AM
Version 2024 (SP 0-4)
Generated with
1226
Traffic Volume - Net New Site Trips
Portola Avenue/Central ProjePortola Avenue/South Project Portola Ave/Frank Sinatra Dr Cook St/Frank Sinatra Dr Portola Ave/Country Club Dr North Project Access/Frank S Portola Springs
AM Peak Hour
Scenario 1: 1 Project_AM
Version 2024 (SP 0-4)
Generated with
1227
Trip Generation summary
Report File: P:\...\Proj_PM.pdf 5/23/2025
Vistro File: P:\...\18192_Portola Springs.vistro Scenario 2 Project_PM Portola Springs
Zone ID: Name Land Use variables Code Ind.

Var. Rate Quantity % In % Out % Int.Capture
Trips In
Adj.

Trips Out
Adj.

Total
Trips Adj.
% of Total
Trips
1: Zone 0.000 50.00 50.00 0.00 93 54 147 100.00
Added Trips Total 93 54 147 100.00
Added Trips
Portola Springs
PM Peak Hour
Scenario 2: 2 Project_PM
Version 2024 (SP 0-4)
Generated with
1228
Trip Distribution summary
Report File: P:\...\Proj_PM.pdf 5/23/2025
Vistro File: P:\...\18192_Portola Springs.vistro Scenario 2 Project_PM Portola Springs
Zone 1: Zone
To Zone: From Zone:

PORTOLA/FRANK SINATRA

RESIDENTIAL

TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

CITY OF PALM DESERT
PREPARED BY:

John Kain, AICP
[email protected]
(949) 375-2435
Marlie Whiteman, P.E.
[email protected]
(714) 585-0574
Janette Cachola
[email protected]
AUGUST 18, 2022 REVISED
MARCH 21, 2022
14677-03 TA Report.docx
1232
EX. C/L FRANK SINATRA DRIVE Pool Dog Park / Retention Spa Yoga Lawn Pool PROP. PROJECT BOUNDARY & R/W (TYP.) EX. CURB & GUTTER
PROP. ENTRY KIOSK EX. PROJECT BOUNDARY & LOT LINE (TYP.) EX. PROJECT BOUNDARY & LOT LINE (TYP.) EX. C/L (TYP.) PROP. SIGNAGE PROP. PROJECT BOUNDARY & R/W (TYP.) EX. C/L (TYP.)

PORTOLA AVENUE
N 27°46'33" E 840.48'
N 01°21'56" E 1923.00'
N 89°52'08" E 686.08'
N 04°19'04" E 58.45'
=23°27'29" R=1937.0 ' L=793.05'
=11°29'14" R=1863.0 ' L=373.51' N 47°57'11" W 29.27' Park PROP. LANDSCAPE PARKWAY (TYP.) PROP. LANDSCAPE PARKWAY (TYP.) PROP. LANDSCAPE PARKWAY (TYP.) EX. PROPERTIES TO BE MERGED WITH FINAL DESIGN PLANS PROP. PROPERTY FENCE PER LANDSCAPE & ARCHITECTURE PLANS (TYP.) PROP. PROPERTY FENCE PER LANDSCAPE & ARCHITECTURE PLANS (TYP.) 24' WIDE “ALL-WEATHER SURFACE” MADE UP OF A COMBINATION OF CONCRETE & TURF BLOCK ABLE TO WITHSTAND A FULLY LOADED FIRE VEHICLE TO THE SATISFACTION AND APPROVAL OF THE FIRE MARSHALL 24' WIDE “ALL-WEATHER SURFACE” MADE UP OF A COMBINATION OF CONCRETE & TURF BLOCK ABLE TO WITHSTAND A FULLY LOADED FIRE VEHICLE TO THE SATISFACTION AND APPROVAL OF THE FIRE MARSHALL

PARKING NO
NO

PARKING NO

PARKING
NO

PARKING NO

PARKING NO
PARKING PROP. BUILDING 1 TYPE "C" 10,300 SF (1ST FLOOR) 10,300 SF (2ND FLOOR) 10,300 SF (3RD FLOOR) 30,900 SF (TOTAL) PROP. BUILDING 2 TYPE "C" 10,300 SF (1ST FLOOR) 10,300 SF (2ND FLOOR)
10,300 SF (3RD FLOOR)
30,900 SF (TOTAL) PROP. BUILDING 3 TYPE "C" 10,300 SF (1ST FLOOR) 10,300 SF (2ND FLOOR)
10,300 SF (3RD FLOOR)
30,900 SF (TOTAL) PROP. BUILDING 4 TYPE "B" 10,833 SF (1ST FLOOR) 10,833 SF (2ND FLOOR)
10,833 SF (3RD FLOOR)
32,499 SF (TOTAL) PROP. BUILDING 5 TYPE "A" 10,752 SF (1ST FLOOR) 10,752 SF (2ND FLOOR) 10,752 SF (3RD FLOOR) 32,256 SF (TOTAL) PROP. BUILDING 6 TYPE "B" 10,833 SF (1ST FLOOR) 10,833 SF (2ND FLOOR) 10,833 SF (3RD FLOOR) 32,499 SF (TOTAL) PROP. BUILDING 7 TYPE "A" 10,752 SF (1ST FLOOR) 10,752 SF (2ND FLOOR) 10,752 SF (3RD FLOOR) 32,256 SF (TOTAL) PROP. BUILDING 8 TYPE "A" 10,752 SF (1ST FLOOR) 10,752 SF (2ND FLOOR) 10,752 SF (3RD FLOOR) 32,256 SF (TOTAL) PROP. BUILDING 9 TYPE "A" 10,752 SF (1ST FLOOR) 10,752 SF (2ND FLOOR) 10,752 SF (3RD FLOOR) 32,256 SF (TOTAL) PROP. BUILDING 10 TYPE "B" 10,833 SF (1ST FLOOR) 10,833 SF (2ND FLOOR) 10,833 SF (3RD FLOOR) 32,499 SF (TOTAL) PROP. BUILDING 11 TYPE "D" 9,819 SF (1ST FLOOR) 9,819 SF (2ND FLOOR) 9,819 SF (3RD FLOOR) 29,457 SF (TOTAL) PROP. BUILDING 12 TYPE "A" 10,752 SF (1ST FLOOR) 10,752 SF (2ND FLOOR) 10,752 SF (3RD FLOOR) 32,256 SF (TOTAL) PROP. BUILDING 13 TYPE "E" 44,361 SF (1ST FLOOR) 44,361 SF (2ND FLOOR) 44,361 SF (3RD FLOOR) 133,083 SF (TOTAL) PROP. BUILDING 14 LEASING / CLUBHOUSE 17,311 SF PROP. BUILDING 15 FITNESS 2,553 SF (1ST FLR) 2,049 SF (2ND FLR) 4,602 SF (TOTAL)

32.8'

43.7'

45.1'

42.8'

31.4'

34.5' 33.2'

30.5' 20.5' 17.8' 20.5' 16.2' 18' 30' 18'

21.8'
18'
32'

11.5'

22.8'
63'
20'

32.6'

46.3'

10.9' 18'

13.9' 55.6' 309.6' 17' 20.5' 74.1' 14.9' 20.5'

45.1'

23.6'

30.6'
24'
10' 24'

29.1'

30.5' 18' 16' 20.5' 30'
30'
18'

20.4'
18'
30'
18'

20.5'

26.9'
23'
36'
23'
20'
26'
128'

20.5'
30'

20.5'

26.4'
18'
30'
18'

22.8'
24'
29'
29'
117.2'

59.4' 21.6' 21.6' 21.6'
18' 23.1'
9'
TYP.
18'

29.4'
30'

20.5'

39.8'

68.1'

19.5'

20.5'
30'

20.5'

21.9'
22'
18'
18'

15.2' 21.4' 18'
30' 81.2' 60.3' 20.5'
10'
10'
10'
18'

20.5' 30.5' 20.5'
117.5' 38.9'
144.2'
=1 °29'14" R=1863.0 ' L=373.51' PORTOLA AVENUE Parking To Be Developed if Necessary PROP. LANDSCAPE PARKWAY (TYP.) EX. PROPERTIES TO BE MERGED WITH FINAL DESIGN PLANS PROP. PROPERTY FENCE PER LANDSCAPE & ARCHITECTURE PLANS (TYP.) 65 PROP. BUILDING 9 TYPE "A" 10,752 SF (1ST FLOOR) 10,752 SF (2ND FLOOR)
10,752 SF (3RD FLOOR)
32,256 SF (TOTAL) PROP. BUILDING 10 TYPE "B" 10,833 SF (1ST FLOOR) 10,833 SF (2ND FLOOR) 10,833 SF (3RD FLOOR) 32,499 SF (TOTAL) 20'
26'

19.5'

20.5'
30'

20.5'

21.9'
22'
18'
18'

15.2' 21.4' 18'
30'
10' MSA CONSULTING ,INC.

Civil E
n
gin
e ring
La
nd
S
urveying
La
n
d
s
c
a
pe
Arc
hitecture
Pla
n
ning
Enviro
n
me
ntal Services
Dry
Utility
Co rdin
ation
GIS 34200 Bob Hope Drive Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 | 760.320.9811 | MSAConsultinginc.com EAST NORTH SOUTH WEST CENTERLINE EASEMENT EXISTING ABBREVIATIONS (E) (N) (S) (W) C/L ESMT. EX. ACREAGE AC CURB AND GUTTER C&G ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER A.C. ASPHALT CONCRETE APN E/P EDGE OF PAVEMENT MAX. MAXIMUM BOUNDARY BNDRY M.B. MAP BOOK EXISTING SPOT ELEVATIONS EXISTING CONTOURS EXISTING CABLE EXISTING IRRIGATION DRAIN LINE EXISTING EASEMENT EXISTING ELECTRIC EXISTING GAS EXISTING IRRIGATION EXISTING OVERHEAD TELEPHONE EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY EXISTING SEWER EXISTING SEWER FORCE MAIN EXISTING WATER EXISTING PROJECT BOUNDARY PROPOSED PROJECT BOUNDARY PROPOSED AND EXISTING CENTER LINE PROPOSED CURB PROPOSED EASEMENT PROPOSED LOT LINE PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY LEGEND EXISTING LOT LINE EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT EXISTING TELEPHONE MIN. MINIMUM NUMBER PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY TYPICAL NO. PROP. P.U.E. PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT R/WSF SQUARE FEET TYP. RADIUS R STANDARD N.T.S. NOT TO SCALE P/L PROPERTY LINE R-L LOW DENSITY (RESIDENTIAL) STD. UG UNDERGROUND OVERHEAD O/H OPEN SPACE / PARKS OS/PP PAGE PG. PROPOSED PARKING STALLS X CUP SITE PLAN DATA TABLE ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: EXHIBIT DATE: AUGUST 17, 2022 620-400-030 & -031 SOURCE OF TOPOGRAPHY: ADDRESS: INLAND AERIAL SURVEYS, INC. 7117 ARLINGTON AVENUE, SUITE "A" RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92503 DATE OF TOPOGRAPHY: DECEMBER 22, 2021 EXHIBIT PREPARER: ADDRESS: MSA CONSULTING, INC. 34200 BOB HOPE DRIVE RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA 92270 CONTACT: PAUL DEPALATIS, AICP TELEPHONE: (760) 320-9811 REVISIONS NO. DATE IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA LEGAL DESCRIPTION: DESCRIPTION A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 6 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN. TELEPHONE: (951) 687-4252 APPLICANT / ADDRESS: CONTACT: HAYES DIETRICH, LLC 5021 VERNON AVENUE, SUITE 201 EDINA, MINNESOTA 55436 CALVIN HAYES LAND OWNER: LAND USE DESCRIPTION: EXISTING GROSS ACREAGE LANDSCAPE & RETENTION AREAS 6.85 AC. 299,070 SF 38% TOTAL BUILDING AREA (GROUND FLOOR AREA) 4.40 AC. 191,203 SF 24% 6.90 AC. 300,538 SF 38% GARAGES, ACCESS ROADS, HARDSCAPE & PARKING ACREAGE 18.31 AC. SF797,567 SF PERCENTAGE - - PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDING: TYPE "A" (5, 7-9 & 12) - PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDING: TYPE "B" (4, 6 & 10) 53,760 SF 32,499 SF 1.23 AC. 0.75 AC. - - DATA TABLE (CONTINUED) EXISTING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE: PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN LAND USE: PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, 22 DU/AC. (P.R.-22) PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, 22 DU/AC. (P.R.-22) TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOOD TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOOD BUILDING DESCRIPTION: STORY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING: TYPE "A" (BUILDING NO(S). 5, 7, 8, 9 & 12) 3 STORY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING: TYPE "B" (BUILDING NO(S). 4, 6 & 10) 3 STORY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING: TYPE "C" (BUILDING NO(S). 1-3) 3 STORY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING: TYPE "D" (BUILDING NO. 11) 3 STORY PROPOSED PUBLIC STREET RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION 0.16 AC. 6,756 SF - (FRANK SINATRA DRIVE) PROPOSED NET ACREAGE 18.15 AC. 790,811 SF 100% PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL: TYPE "A" SURFACE PARKING PROVIDED 240 STALLS 515 STALLS ONSITE PARKING DATA: COUNT PARKING RATIO UNITS / SF 120 UNITS -
-- (BUILDING NO(S). 5, 7, 8, 9 & 12) TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED 394 UNITS - 788 STALLS PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL: TYPE "B" (BUILDING NO(S). 4, 6 & 10) PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL: TYPE "C" (BUILDING NO(S). 1-3) PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL: TYPE "D" (BUILDING NO. 11) 72 UNITS - 72 UNITS - 21 UNITS - 144 STALLS 144 STALLS 42 STALLS DATA TABLE (CONTINUED) RESIDENTIAL BUILDING: TYPE "E" (BUILDING NO. 13)LEASING / CLUBHOUSE BUILDING: (BUILDING NO. 14) 3 STORY 1 STORY FITNESS BUILDING: (BUILDING NO. 15) 2 STORY - PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDING: TYPE "C" (1-3) 30,900 SF 0.71 AC. - - PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDING: TYPE "D" (11) 9,819 SF 0.23 AC. - - PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDING: TYPE "E" (13) 44,361 SF 1.02 AC. - - PROPOSED LEASING / CLUBHOUSE BUILDING (14) 17,311 SF 0.40 AC. - - PROPOSED FITNESS BUILDING (15) 2,553 SF 0.06 AC. - UNDERGROUND PARKING PROVIDED 157 STALLS - - SUB-TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED 672 STALLS - 1.7 STALLS PER UNIT PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL: TYPE "E" (BUILDING NO. 13) 109 UNITS - 218 STALLS PUBLIC UTILITY PURVEYORS: FEMA FLOOD ZONE DESIGNATION: ZONE "X": AREAS DETERMINED TO BE OUTSIDE THE 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOODPLAIN LIQUEFACTION: MODERATE LIQUEFACTION ZONE NOTES: 1. ELECTRIC: GAS: TELEPHONE: WATER: CABLE: SEWER: USA: THIS MAP INCLUDES THE ENTIRE CONTIGUOUS OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND DIVIDER. 2. THERE ARE NO EXISTING DWELLINGS, BUILDINGS, OR OTHER STRUCTURES KNOWN ON THIS PROPERTY. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT SPECTRUM COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT (800) 684-8123 (877) 238-0092 (800) 921-8101 (760) 398-2651 (877) 719-3278 (760) 398-2651 (800) 227-2600 SCHOOL DISTRICT: DESERT SANDS UNIFIED AS SHOWN ON RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAPS, COMMUNITY PANEL MAP NUMBER: 06065C1595G EFFECTIVE DATE: AUGUST 28, 2008 DATA TABLE (CONTINUED) PROOF OF PARKING PROVIDED - - 65 STALLS TOTAL WITH PROOF OF PARKING PROVIDED - 1.9 STALLS PER UNIT 737 STALLS PROOF OF PARKING EXHIBITSEE BELOW FOR PROOF OF PARKING EXHIBIT R:\2746\Acad\Planning\Site Plan\2746 Technical Site Plan.dwg, 8/17/2022 3:43:09 PM, dgallerani, MSA Consulting, Inc. 2 1233
4 1234
#Intersection
Existing
(2022)
EAP
(2024)
EAPC
(2024)
1 Monterey Av. / Frank Sinatra Dr.
2 Portola Av. / Central Access
3 Shepherd Ln. ‐ N. Access / Frank Sinatra Dr.
4 Portola Av. / Frank Sinatra Dr.
5 Cook St. / Frank Sinatra Dr.
6 Portola Av. / Retreat Cir. (N)
7 Portola Av. / Retreat Cir. (S)
8 Portola Av. / Willow Ridge
9 Portola Av. / Country Club Dr.
10 Portola Av. / South Access
11 Cook St. / University Park Dr.
6 1235
In Out Total In Out Total
Multifamily Housing (Low‐Rise) 220 402 DU 0.10 0.30 0.40 0.32 0.19 0.51 6.74 In Out Total In Out Total
Multifamily Housing (Low‐Rise) 220 402 DU 40 121 161 129 76 205 2,709 F:\UXRjobs\_14600‐15000\14677\02_LOS\Excel\[14677 ‐ Report.xlsx]Trip Gen TABLE 4‐1: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
Trip Generation Rates1
Land Use
ITE LU
Code Quantity2
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily
2 DU = Dwelling Unit
1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition (2021).

Trip Generation Results
Land Use
ITE LU
Code Quantity2
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily
22 1236

L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM
1 Monterey Av. / Frank Sinatra Dr. TS 2 3 0 2 3 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 20.0 22.2 C C 2 Portola Av. / Central Access ‐‐
3 Shepherd Ln. ‐ N. Access / Frank Sinatra Dr. CSS 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 2 d 12.0 10.4 B B 4 Portola Av. / Frank Sinatra Dr. TS 1 3 d 1 3 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 24.5 23.1 C C 5 Cook St. / Frank Sinatra Dr. TS 2 2 0 2 3 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 12.3 25.4 B C 6 Portola Av. / Retreat Cir. (N) CSS 0 3 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 11.5 11.8 B B 7 Portola Av. / Retreat Cir. (S) CSS 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 11.4 11.7 B B 8 Portola Av. / Willow Ridge CSS 0 2 1 1* 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 d 16.3 16.7 C C 9 Portola Av. / Country Club Dr. TS 1 2 1 1 2 d 1 2 1 1 2 1 40.7 38.2 D D 10 Portola Av. / South Access ‐‐
11 Cook St. / University Park Dr. TS 1 3 1>> 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5.8 5.7 A A 1 When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.
2 Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM6), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control.

For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown.

Delay and level of service is calculated using Synchro 11 analysis software. 3 TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross‐Street Stop
F:\UXRjobs\_14600‐15000\14677\02_LOS\Excel\[14677 ‐ Report.xlsx]3‐1 L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; >> = Free Right Turn Lane; d = Defacto Right Turn Lane; * = Turn lane accomodated within two‐way left‐turn lane (TWLTL) Level of
Service2
#Intersection
Traffic
Control3
Intersection Approach Lanes1 Delay2
Northbound Southbound Eastbound (Secs)
TABLE 3‐1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING (2022) CONDITIONS Intersection Does Not Exist
Intersection Does Not Exist
Westbound
20 1237

L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM
1 Monterey Av. / Frank Sinatra Dr. TS 2 3 0 2 3 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 20.9 24.0 C C 2 Portola Av. / Central Access CSS 1 3002 1 00 1 0 0 0 10.7 10.0 B B 3 Shepherd Ln. ‐ N. Access / Frank Sinatra Dr. CSS 0 0 1 00112002d 12.5 11.5 B B 4 Portola Av. / Frank Sinatra Dr. TS 1 3 d 1 3 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 28.8 25.8 C C 5 Cook St. / Frank Sinatra Dr. TS 2 2 0 2 3 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 16.4 30.0 B C 6 Portola Av. / Retreat Cir. (N) CSS 0 3 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 11.7 12.0 B B 7 Portola Av. / Retreat Cir. (S) CSS 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 11.6 12.2 B B 8 Portola Av. / Willow Ridge CSS 0 2 1 1* 2000010d 17.3 18.4 C C 9 Portola Av. / Country Club Dr. TS 1 2 1 1 2 d 1 2 1 1 2 1 41.3 39.2 D D 10 Portola Av. / South Access CSS 03002000 1 0 0 0 10.6 10.0 B B 11 Cook St. / University Park Dr. TS 1 3 1>> 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5.9 5.8 A A 1 When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.
2 Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM6), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control.

For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown.

Delay and level of service is calculated using Synchro 11 analysis software. 3 TS = Traffic Signal;  CSS = Cross‐Street Stop
F:\UXRjobs\_14600‐15000\14677\02_LOS\Excel\[14677 ‐ Report.xlsx]5‐1 TABLE 5‐1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EAP (2024) CONDITIONS L  =  Left;  T  =  Through;  R  =  Right;  >>  =  Free Right Turn Lane;  d  =  Defacto Right Turn Lane;  *  =  Turn lane accomodated within two‐way left‐turn lane (TWLTL) # Intersection
Traffic
Control3
Intersection Approach Lanes1 Delay2
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound (Secs)
Level of
Service2
1  =  Improvement
31 1238

L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM
1 Monterey Av. / Frank Sinatra Dr. TS 2 3 0 2 3 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 24.1 40.4 C D 2 Portola Av. / Central Access CSS 1 3002 1 00 1 0 0 0 11.5 10.8 B B 3 Shepherd Ln. ‐ N. Access / Frank Sinatra Dr. CSS 0 0 1 00112002d 13.6 12.7 B B 4 Portola Av. / Frank Sinatra Dr. TS 1 3 d 1 3 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 30.8 29.4 C C 5 Cook St. / Frank Sinatra Dr. TS 2 2 0 2 3 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 19.5 41.0 B D 6 Portola Av. / Retreat Cir. (N) CSS 0 3 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 12.7 14.6 B B 7 Portola Av. / Retreat Cir. (S) CSS 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 12.2 13.6 B B 8 Portola Av. / Willow Ridge CSS 0 2 1 1* 2000010d 20.1 24.6 C C 9 Portola Av. / Country Club Dr. TS 1 2 1 1 2 d 1 2 1 1 2 1 45.4 44.4 D D 10 Portola Av. / South Access CSS 03002000 1 0 0 0 11.4 10.8 B B 11 Cook St. / University Park Dr. TS 1 3 1>> 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 16.4 11.0 B B 1 When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.
2 Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM6), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control.

For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown.

Delay and level of service is calculated using Synchro 11 analysis software.

BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). 3 TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross‐Street Stop
F:\UXRjobs\_14600‐15000\14677\02_LOS\Excel\[14677 ‐ Report.xlsx]6‐1 TABLE 6‐1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EAPC (2024) CONDITIONS L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; >> = Free Right Turn Lane; d = Defacto Right Turn Lane; * = Turn lane accomodated within two‐way left‐turn lane (TWLTL) 1 = Improvement
# Intersection
Traffic
Control3
Intersection Approach Lanes1 Delay2
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound (Secs)
Level of
Service2
36 1239
AM PM Peak Hour Volume AM PM
2 NBL 16 52 PM 52 200 30 38
SBR 24 77 PM 77 200 NOM 3 NOM 3
EBR 36 23 AM 36 >50 34 31
3 NBR 73 46 AM 73 >75 53 70
4 EBL 79 100 PM 100 120 102 121
EBR 132 126 AM 132 230 49 62
6 SBL 5 25 PM 25 100 23 37
10 EBR 12 8 AM 12 >75 33 27
3 NOM = Nominal, average length less than 10 feet.

F:\UXRjobs\_14600‐15000\14677\02_LOS\Excel\[14677 ‐ Report.xlsx]6‐2 1 Queue length calculated using SimTraffic.
2 Proposed length of storage.

Portola Av. / Central Access
Shepherd Ln. ‐ N. Access / Frank Sinatra Dr.

Portola Av. / South Access
Portola Av. / Frank Sinatra Dr.

Portola Av. / Retreat Cir. (N)
TABLE 6‐2: EAPC (2024) PROJECT TURN LANE STORAGE LENGTHS ID Intersection
Turning
Movement
Lane
EAPC (2024)
Storage
Length2
(feet)
95th Percentile
Queue Length
Per Lane (feet)1
37 1240
Attachment C
Excerpts from the Transportation Impact Analysis for
Catavina Residential Project, February 2025
1241

5050 Avenida Encinas, Suite 260, Carlsbad, CA 92008
Office: 760.476-9193 | Fax: 760.476.9198
Contact: [email protected]
JN 205082

TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
Catavina Residential
PREPARED FOR:

Pacific Land Consultants
2168 Dickinson Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
February 28, 2025
1242
Catavina Residential ___________________________________________________________________________________ TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS

Page 5 ends

ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS
I-10 EB Ramps to Gerald Ford Drive Vehicular Oriented Arterials 45,000 35,067 0.78 C 36,510 0.81 C Gerald Ford Drive to Frank Sinatra Drive Vehicular Oriented Arterials 45,000 29,028 0.65 C 30,712 0.68 C Hollister Drive to Portola Avenue Balanced Arterials 30,000 7,061 0.24 C 8,504 0.28 C Portola Avenue to Cook Street Balanced Arterials 30,000 10,362 0.35 C 12,286 0.41 C Frank Sinatra Drive to Desert Willow Court Balanced Arterials 30,000 17,497 0.58 C 19,181 0.64 C Desert Willow Court to Country Club Drive Balanced Arterials 30,000 17,813 0.59 C 19,256 0.64 C LOS= Level of Service
V/C= Volume to Capacity Ratio
Roadway Classifications and LOS C Capacities were taken from the City of Palm Desert's General Plan, Mobility (Chapter 4).

Portola Avenue
Existing
Roadway Segment
Existing Plus Project
Roadway Classification LOS C
Capacity
Cook Street
Frank Sinatra Drive
TABLE 1 –EXISTING AND EXISTING PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION LOS SUMMARY Study Intersection
Existing
Traffic
Control
Existing Conditions Existing Plus Project
Conditions Improv.

AM PM AM PM Required?
Delay-LOS Delay-LOS Delay-LOS Delay-LOS
1 - Cook Street & I-10 WB On Ramp Signal 22.0 – C 2.2 – A 22.1 – C 3.8 – A No 2 - Cook Street & I-10 EB On Ramp Signal 40.7 – D 33.4 – C 33.5 – C 34.6 – C No 3 - Cook Street & Gerald Ford Drive Signal 30.2 – C 34.5 – C 30.4 – C 34.7 – C No 4 - Frank Sinatra Drive & Hollister Drive TWSC 14.9 – B 15.7 – C 17.4 – C 23.3 – C No 5 - Frank Sinatra Drive & Portola Avenue Signal 34.5 – C 37.9 – D 36.3 – D 44.2 – D No 6 - Frank Sinatra Drive & Cook Street Signal 19.0 – B 25.0 – C 22.1 – C 27.5 – C No 7 - Portola Avenue & Desert Willow Court TWSC 15.2 – C 19.4 – C 30.8 – D 32.7 – D No 8 - Portola Avenue & Country Club Drive Signal 42.1 – D 39.5 – D 45.5 – D 40.9 – D No Notes:

Delay is expressed in seconds per vehicle.

LOS = Level of Service
TWSC = Two-Way Stop Control, worst approach delay and LOS reported.

TABLE 2 – EXISTING AND EXISTING PLUS PROJECT ROADWAY SEGMENT LOS SUMMARY 1243
Catavina Residential ___________________________________________________________________________________ TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS

Page 6 ends

ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS
I-10 EB Ramps to Gerald Ford Drive Vehicular Oriented Arterials 45,000 0.94 C 43,668 0.97 C 42,225 Gerald Ford Drive to Frank Sinatra Drive Vehicular Oriented Arterials 45,000 0.80 C 37,608 0.84 C 35,924 Hollister Drive to Portola Avenue Balanced Arterials 30,000 0.25 C 8,946 0.30 C 7,503 Portola Avenue to Cook Street Balanced Arterials 30,000 0.36 C 12,840 0.43 C 10,916 Frank Sinatra Drive to Desert Willow Court Balanced Arterials 30,000 0.69 C 22,274 0.74 C 20,590 Desert Willow Court to Country Club Drive Balanced Arterials 30,000 0.70 C 22,362 0.75 C 20,919 LOS= Level of Service
V/C= Volume to Capacity Ratio
Roadway Classifications and LOS C Capacities were taken from the City of Palm Desert's General Plan, Mobility (Chapter 4).

Portola Avenue
Roadway Segment Classification LOS C
Capacity
Opening Year 2027
Without Project
Opening Year 2027
Plus Project
Cook Street
Frank Sinatra Drive
TABLE 3 – OPENING YEAR 2027 WITHOUT PROJECT & OPENING YEAR 2027 PLUS PROJECT

INTERSECTION LOS SUMMARY
Study Intersection
Existing
Traffic
Control
Opening Year 2027
Without Project
Conditions
Opening Year 2027
Plus Project Conditions Improv.

Required? AM PM AM PM
Delay-LOS Delay-LOS Delay-LOS Delay-LOS
1 - Cook Street & I-10 WB On Ramp Signal 24.7 – C 8.0 – A 24.9 – C 9.3 – A No 2 - Cook Street & I-10 EB On Ramp Signal 50.7 – D 48.6 – D 53.0 – D 51.6 – D No 3 - Cook Street & Gerald Ford Drive Signal 49.8 – D 51.9 – D 50.2 – D 53.9 – D No 4 - Frank Sinatra Drive & Hollister Drive TWSC 15.5 – C 16.4 – C 18.1 – C 24.8 – C No 5 - Frank Sinatra Drive & Portola Avenue Signal 35.7 – D 39.4 – D 37.6 – D 46.4 – D No 6 - Frank Sinatra Drive & Cook Street Signal 19.7 – B 29.4 – C 22.9 – C 32.0 – C No 7 - Portola Avenue & Desert Willow Court TWSC 15.7 – C 20.4 – C 30.4 – D 31.6 – D No 8 - Portola Avenue & Country Club Drive Signal 45.6 - D 43.1 – D 50.4 – D 44.9 – D No Notes:

Delay is expressed in seconds per vehicle.

LOS = Level of Service
TWSC = Two-Way Stop Control, worst approach delay and LOS reported.

TABLE 4 – OPENING YEAR 2027 WITHOUT PROJECT AND OPENING YEAR 2027 PLUS PROJECT

ROADWAY SEGMENT LOS SUMMARY

1.2 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED
To satisfy California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) screening assessment and analysis was prepared for the Project under a separate memorandum. 1244
Not to Scale
Exhibit 3
Project Site Plan
1245
Catavina Residential ___________________________________________________________________________________ TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS

Page 22 ends

5 PROPOSED PROJECT
The Project proposes to construct 546 single family homes on vacant and undeveloped land. Regional access to the site is provided via the Interstate 10 & Cook Street interchange. Vehicular access to the site will be provided via a new full access driveway on Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola Avenue.

5.1 PROJECT FORECAST TRIP GENERATION
In order to calculate vehicle trips forecast to be generated by the proposed Project, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition) was used to calculate the trip generation rates as summarized in Table 9 which are based on the proposed land use quantity.

Table 10 summarizes the vehicular trip generation forecast to be generated by the project using the rates shown in Table 9. The site is vacant and undeveloped, therefore, no trip generation credit has been applied. As shown, the proposed Project is forecast to generate approximately 4,810 daily vehicle trips with 349 AM (87 inbound and 262 outbound) peak hour trips and 490 PM (309 inbound and 181 outbound) peak hour trips.

TABLE 9 - ITE TRIP GENERATION RATES
Land Use ITE Code 1 Daily Trip
Rate
AM Peak Hour Rate PM Peak Hour Rate
Total In : Out Total In : Out
Single-Family
Detached Housing 210 8.81 /DU 0.64 /DU 25% : 75% 0.90 /DU 63% : 37% 1 Source: ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition.

TABLE 10 - PROPOSED PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
Land Use Intensity Daily
Trips
AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips
Total In : Out Total In : Out
Single-Family
Detached Housing 546 DU 4,810 349 87 : 262 490 309 : 181 Notes:

DU = Dwelling Units

5.2 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT OF PROPOSED PROJECT Project trips were assigned onto the surrounding roadway network based on the location of the Project relative to the area transportation network such as access to freeway interchange and primary arterials.

Exhibit 10 shows the forecast trip percent distribution of Project traffic within the study area. The distribution of Project traffic assumes 15% travel north on Portola Avenue, 30% travel south via Portola Avenue, 15% travel west on Frank Sinatra Drive and 40% travel east towards Cook Street via Frank Sinatra Drive.

Exhibit 11 shows the corresponding forecast assignment of daily and AM/PM peak hour projectgenerated trips assuming the trip percent distribution shown in Exhibit 10. 1246
Attachment B
Vistro Worksheets
1247
Trip Generation summary
Report File: P:\...\Proj_AM.pdf 5/23/2025
Vistro File: P:\...\18192_Portola Springs.vistro Scenario 1 Project_AM Portola Springs
Zone ID: Name Land Use variables Code Ind.

Var. Rate Quantity % In % Out % Int.Capture
Trips In
Adj.

Trips Out
Adj.

Total
Trips Adj.
% of Total
Trips
1: Zone 0.000 50.00 50.00 0.00 27 82 109 100.00
Added Trips Total 27 82 109 100.00
Added Trips
Portola Springs
AM Peak Hour
Scenario 1: 1 Project_AM
Version 2024 (SP 0-4)
Generated with
1248
Trip Distribution summary
Report File: P:\...\Proj_AM.pdf 5/23/2025
Vistro File: P:\...\18192_Portola Springs.vistro Scenario 1 Project_AM Portola Springs
Zone 1: Zone
To Zone: From Zone:

Zone / Gate Share % Trips Share % Trips
2: Gate 15.00 4 15.00 12
3: Gate 15.00 4 15.00 12
4: Gate 30.00 8 30.00 26
5: Gate 10.00 3 10.00 8
6: Gate 10.00 3 10.00 8
7: Gate 10.00 3 10.00 8
8: Gate 10.00 3 10.00 8
Total 100.00 28 100.00 82
Portola Springs
AM Peak Hour
Scenario 1: 1 Project_AM
Version 2024 (SP 0-4)
Generated with
1249
Traffic Volume - Net New Site Trips
Portola Avenue/Central ProjePortola Avenue/South Project Portola Ave/Frank Sinatra Dr Cook St/Frank Sinatra Dr Portola Ave/Country Club Dr North Project Access/Frank S Portola Springs
AM Peak Hour
Scenario 1: 1 Project_AM
Version 2024 (SP 0-4)
Generated with
1250
Trip Generation summary
Report File: P:\...\Proj_PM.pdf 5/23/2025
Vistro File: P:\...\18192_Portola Springs.vistro Scenario 2 Project_PM Portola Springs
Zone ID: Name Land Use variables Code Ind.

Var. Rate Quantity % In % Out % Int.Capture
Trips In
Adj.

Trips Out
Adj.

Total
Trips Adj.
% of Total
Trips
1: Zone 0.000 50.00 50.00 0.00 93 54 147 100.00
Added Trips Total 93 54 147 100.00
Added Trips
Portola Springs
PM Peak Hour
Scenario 2: 2 Project_PM
Version 2024 (SP 0-4)
Generated with
1251
Trip Distribution summary
Report File: P:\...\Proj_PM.pdf 5/23/2025
Vistro File: P:\...\18192_Portola Springs.vistro Scenario 2 Project_PM Portola Springs
Zone 1: Zone
To Zone: From Zone:

Zone / Gate Share % Trips Share % Trips
2: Gate 15.00 14 15.00 8
3: Gate 15.00 14 15.00 8
4: Gate 30.00 28 30.00 18
5: Gate 10.00 9 10.00 5
6: Gate 10.00 9 10.00 5
7: Gate 10.00 9 10.00 5
8: Gate 10.00 9 10.00 5
Total 100.00 92 100.00 54
Portola Springs
PM Peak Hour
Scenario 2: 2 Project_PM
Version 2024 (SP 0-4)
Generated with
1252
Traffic Volume - Net New Site Trips
Portola Avenue/Central ProjePortola Avenue/South Project Portola Ave/Frank Sinatra Dr Cook St/Frank Sinatra Dr Portola Ave/Country Club Dr North Project Access/Frank S Portola Springs
PM Peak Hour
Scenario 2: 2 Project_PM
Version 2024 (SP 0-4)
Generated with
1253
Attachment C
SimTraffic Worksheets
1254
SimTraffic Performance Report
Existing AM Peak Hour
Portola Springs Residential Project SimTraffic Report
Dudek Page 1
1: Portola Avenue & Frank Sinatra Drive Performance by movement 1255
Queuing and Blocking Report
Existing AM Peak Hour
Portola Springs Residential Project SimTraffic Report
Dudek Page 2
Intersection: 1: Portola Avenue & Frank Sinatra Drive
Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB
Directions Served UL T T R UL T T R UL T T TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 132 127 119 105 145 102 78 93 282 403 378 95 Average Queue (ft) 58 55 51 42 75 38 30 44 227 198 140 26 95th Queue (ft) 113 104 96 75 132 79 68 72 333 455 371 67 Link Distance (ft) 583 583 4436 4436 481 481 481
Upstream Blk Time (%) 2 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 4 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 120 230 143 100 257
Storage Blk Time (%) 2 0 1 0 0 25 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 3 0 1 0 0 20 2
Intersection: 1: Portola Avenue & Frank Sinatra Drive
Movement B10 SB SB SB SB
Directions Served T UL T T TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 17 203 740 665 423
Average Queue (ft) 1 197 476 402 149
95th Queue (ft) 17 232 751 681 329
Link Distance (ft) 103 1218 1218 1218
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 178
Storage Blk Time (%) 64 10
Queuing Penalty (veh) 141 25
1256
SimTraffic Performance Report
Existing PM Peak Hour
Portola Springs Residential Project SimTraffic Report
Dudek Page 1
1: Portola Avenue & Frank Sinatra Drive Performance by movement 1257
Queuing and Blocking Report
Existing PM Peak Hour
Portola Springs Residential Project SimTraffic Report
Dudek Page 2
Intersection: 1: Portola Avenue & Frank Sinatra Drive
Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB
Directions Served UL T T R UL T T R UL T T TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 145 256 203 83 132 88 83 96 282 474 407 180 Average Queue (ft) 112 76 56 39 61 37 33 38 224 227 181 102 95th Queue (ft) 166 190 124 66 117 72 73 73 318 443 354 167 Link Distance (ft) 583 583 4436 4436 481 481 481
Upstream Blk Time (%) 2 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 7 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 120 230 143 100 257
Storage Blk Time (%) 16 0 0 1 0 0 17 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 18 0 0 1 1 0 28 0
Intersection: 1: Portola Avenue & Frank Sinatra Drive
Movement B10 B10 SB SB SB SB
Directions Served T T UL T T TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 19 19 203 388 337 190
Average Queue (ft) 3 1 178 221 156 64
95th Queue (ft) 26 13 237 355 268 154
Link Distance (ft) 103 103 1218 1218 1218
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 178
Storage Blk Time (%) 22 6
Queuing Penalty (veh) 33 14
1258
SimTraffic Performance Report
Existing plus Project AM Peak Hour
Portola Springs Residential Project SimTraffic Report
Dudek Page 1
1: Portola Avenue & Frank Sinatra Drive Performance by movement 4: North Project Access & Driveway 1/Frank Sinatra Drive Performance by movement 5: Portola Avenue & Driveway 2 Performance by movement
6: Portola Avenue & Driveway 3 Performance by movement
Total Network Performance
1259
Queuing and Blocking Report
Existing plus Project AM Peak Hour
Portola Springs Residential Project SimTraffic Report
Dudek Page 2
Intersection: 1: Portola Avenue & Frank Sinatra Drive
Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB
Directions Served UL T T R UL T T R UL T T TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 144 168 157 99 153 90 83 101 282 501 441 93 Average Queue (ft) 80 64 68 44 81 38 32 45 248 252 177 25 95th Queue (ft) 137 120 123 75 136 78 69 77 329 548 447 67 Link Distance (ft) 583 583 4436 4436 481 481 481
Upstream Blk Time (%) 3 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 6 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 120 230 143 100 257
Storage Blk Time (%) 5 1 2 0 0 39 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 7 1 1 0 0 31 2
Intersection: 1: Portola Avenue & Frank Sinatra Drive
Movement B10 B10 SB SB SB SB
Directions Served T T UL T T TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 38 21 203 530 474 237
Average Queue (ft) 5 1 191 326 260 126
95th Queue (ft) 41 20 234 520 441 222
Link Distance (ft) 103 103 1218 1218 1218
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 178
Storage Blk Time (%) 38 13
Queuing Penalty (veh) 85 33
Intersection: 4: North Project Access & Driveway 1/Frank Sinatra Drive Movement EB NB
Directions Served TR R
Maximum Queue (ft) 5 71
Average Queue (ft) 0 32
95th Queue (ft) 4 57
Link Distance (ft) 2847 114
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
1260
Queuing and Blocking Report
Existing plus Project AM Peak Hour
Portola Springs Residential Project SimTraffic Report
Dudek Page 3
Intersection: 5: Portola Avenue & Driveway 2
Movement EB NB B10 B10 B10
Directions Served R T T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 31 15 98 168 137
Average Queue (ft) 10 1 3 38 33
95th Queue (ft) 33 11 38 116 89
Link Distance (ft) 163 799 481 481 481
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: Portola Avenue & Driveway 3
Movement EB
Directions Served R
Maximum Queue (ft) 29
Average Queue (ft) 10
95th Queue (ft) 33
Link Distance (ft) 114
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 166
1261
SimTraffic Performance Report
Existing plus Project PM Peak Hour
Portola Springs Residential Project SimTraffic Report
Dudek Page 1
1: Portola Avenue & Frank Sinatra Drive Performance by movement 4: Driveway 1 & Frank Sinatra Drive Performance by movement 5: Portola Avenue & Driveway 2 Performance by movement
6: Portola Avenue & Driveway 3 Performance by movement
Total Network Performance
1262
Queuing and Blocking Report
Existing plus Project PM Peak Hour
Portola Springs Residential Project SimTraffic Report
Dudek Page 2
Intersection: 1: Portola Avenue & Frank Sinatra Drive
Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB
Directions Served UL T T R UL T T R UL T T TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 145 290 248 103 156 168 90 104 282 525 455 196 Average Queue (ft) 122 105 75 47 85 53 38 40 263 366 279 104 95th Queue (ft) 170 244 160 81 143 122 76 74 326 652 544 176 Link Distance (ft) 583 583 4436 4436 481 481 481
Upstream Blk Time (%) 21 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 62 2
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 120 230 143 100 257
Storage Blk Time (%) 25 0 0 2 0 0 0 46 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 30 0 0 1 0 0 0 76 3
Intersection: 1: Portola Avenue & Frank Sinatra Drive
Movement B10 B10 SB SB SB SB
Directions Served T T UL T T TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 74 41 203 419 381 187
Average Queue (ft) 38 16 176 222 163 73
95th Queue (ft) 141 76 239 368 289 165
Link Distance (ft) 103 103 1218 1218 1218
Upstream Blk Time (%) 10 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 29 1
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 178
Storage Blk Time (%) 21 5
Queuing Penalty (veh) 32 12
Intersection: 4: Driveway 1 & Frank Sinatra Drive
Movement EB EB NB
Directions Served T TR R
Maximum Queue (ft) 4 4 64
Average Queue (ft) 0 0 26
95th Queue (ft) 3 3 54
Link Distance (ft) 2847 2847 114
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
1263
Queuing and Blocking Report
Existing plus Project PM Peak Hour
Portola Springs Residential Project SimTraffic Report
Dudek Page 3
Intersection: 5: Portola Avenue & Driveway 2
Movement EB NB NB B10 B10 B10
Directions Served R T T T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 31 117 87 15 102 88
Average Queue (ft) 7 38 26 1 23 24
95th Queue (ft) 28 177 134 11 69 70
Link Distance (ft) 163 799 799 481 481 481
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: Portola Avenue & Driveway 3
Movement EB SB SB
Directions Served R T TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 29 18 8
Average Queue (ft) 7 1 0
95th Queue (ft) 26 13 6
Link Distance (ft) 114 799 799
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 250
1264
Appendix G
Air Quality, Greenhouse Emissions, and
Energy Assessment, November 2025
1265
1266

MEMORANDUM
To: Kim Molina, Blue Fern West, LLC.

From: David Larocca, Dudek
Subject: Air Quality, Greenhouse (GHG) Emissions, and Energy Assessment Date: November 14, 2025
cc: Kristen Stoner, Dudek
Attachment(s): A, CalEEMod Emissions Output
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide air quality, greenhouse (GHG) emissions, and energy assessment from construction and operation of the Portola Project, in the City of Palm Desert (City), California, and evaluate potential impacts resulting from project implementation under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This memorandum estimates criteria air pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from construction and operation of the project and evaluates the project’s compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Appendix G and South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD’s) thresholds of significance. The contents and organization of this memorandum are as follows: project description; approach and methodology; air quality assessment; GHG assessment; energy; and references.
1 Project Description
The Portola Springs Residential Development Project (project) is located at the southwest corner of Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola Avenue in the City of Palm Desert, Riverside County, California. The project site encompasses approximately 17.6 acres and is currently a vacant, disturbed lot within a predominantly residential area.

The Modified Project proposes the development of 156 single-family residential lots, replacing the previously approved multifamily project of up to 402 units. Residences will be one- to two-story structures, with alley-loaded and cluster configurations. Associated improvements include internal roadways, utility connections, stormwater retention basins, landscaping, and approximately 2.73 acres of common open space distributed throughout the site.

Site access will be provided via three entry points: two on Portola Avenue and one on Frank Sinatra Drive. All driveways will be right-turn in/right-turn out, and parking will be accommodated within attached garages, driveways, and on-street spaces.

The project will also include frontage improvements along Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola Avenue, such as new sidewalks and landscaping consistent with the City’s desert flora landscape design manual. Utility infrastructure will connect to existing water, sewer, and dry utility facilities adjacent to the site.

Surrounding land uses include residential development to the north, east, and south, golf courses to the east and west, and vacant land zoned for residential use to the west and northeast. The project is consistent with the City’s General Plan designation (Town Center Neighborhood) and zoning (Planned Residential, P.R.22). 1267

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AND ENERGY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 18192 2 NOVEMBER 2025
Compared to the previously approved multifamily project, the Modified Project will generate fewer daily vehicle trips and is expected to result in reduced air quality, GHG, and energy impacts. 2 Approach and Methodology
The project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) and is within the jurisdictional boundaries of the SCAQMD. The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2022.1.1.30 was used to estimate emissions from construction and operation of the project (CAPCOA 2022). CalEEMod is a statewide computer model developed in cooperation with air districts throughout the state to quantify criteria air pollutant and GHG emissions associated with construction activities and operation of a variety of land use projects, such as educational, residential, commercial, and industrial facilities. CalEEMod input parameters, including the land use type used to represent the project and its size, construction schedule, and anticipated use of construction equipment, were based on information provided by the applicant or default model assumptions if project specifics were unavailable.

Criteria air pollutants are defined as pollutants for which the federal and state governments have established ambient air quality standards, or criteria, for outdoor concentrations to protect public health. Criteria air pollutants that are evaluated include volatile organic compounds (also referred to as reactive organic gases [ROGs]), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur oxides, particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 microns (coarse particulate matter, or PM10), and particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 microns (fine particulate matter, or PM2.5). ROGs and NOx are important because they are precursors to ozone (O3).

GHGs are gases that absorb infrared radiation in the atmosphere. The greenhouse effect is a natural process that contributes to regulating Earth’s temperature. Global climate change concerns are focused on whether human activities are leading to an enhancement of the greenhouse effect. Principal GHGs include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), O3, and water vapor. If the atmospheric concentrations of GHGs rise, the average temperature of the lower atmosphere will gradually increase. Globally, climate change has the potential to impact numerous environmental resources through uncertain impacts related to future air temperatures and precipitation patterns. Although climate change is driven by global atmospheric conditions, climate change impacts are felt locally.

Climate change is already affecting California: average temperatures have increased, leading to more extreme hot days and fewer cold nights; shifts in the water cycle have been observed, with less winter precipitation falling as snow, and both snowmelt and rainwater running off earlier in the year; sea levels have risen; and wildland fires are becoming more frequent and intense due to dry seasons that start earlier and end later (CAT 2010).

The effect each GHG has on climate change is measured as a combination of the mass of its emissions and the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere, known as its global warming potential (GWP), which varies among GHGs. Total GHG emissions are expressed as a function of how much warming would be caused by the same mass of CO2. Thus, GHG emissions are typically measured in terms of pounds or tons of CO2 equivalent (CO2e). The CO2e for a gas is derived by multiplying the mass of the gas by the associated GWP, such that metric tons (MT) of CO2e = (MT of a GHG) × (GWP of the GHG). CalEEMod assumes that the GWP for CH4 is 25, which means that emissions of 1 MT of CH4 are equivalent to emissions of 25 MT of CO2, and the GWP for N2O is 298, based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC 2007). 1268

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AND ENERGY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 18192 3 NOVEMBER 2025

2.1 Construction Emissions
CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.30 was used to estimate emissions from construction of the project (CAPCOA 2022).

Criteria air pollutant emissions associated with construction of the project were estimated for the following emission sources: operation of off-road construction equipment, paving, on-road vendor (i.e., delivery) trucks, haul trucks, and worker vehicles. GHG emissions associated with construction of the project were estimated for the following emission sources: off-road construction equipment, on-road vendor trucks, haul trucks, and worker vehicles.

For purposes of estimating project-generated construction emissions, it was conservatively assumed that construction of the project would commence in June 2027 and would last approximately 23 months, ending in May 2029.
1 The building construction, paving, and architectural coating phases would overlap. The anticipated construction schedule is detailed below:
 Site Preparation (60 days): 6/1/2027 – 8/23/2027
 Grading (60 days): 8/24/2027 – 11/15/2027
 Building Construction (300 days): 2/1/2028 – 3/26/2029  Paving (45 days): 11/16/2027 – 1/17/2028
 Architectural Coating (30 days): 3/27/2029 – 5/7/2029 CalEEMod default values for worker and vendor trips and trip lengths were assumed. An estimated export of 322 cubic yards of soils was also assumed during the grading phase. The construction equipment mix and vehicle trips used for estimating the project-generated construction emissions are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Construction Scenario Assumptions
23 Construction
Phase
One-way Vehicle Trips Equipment
Average
Daily
Worker
Trips
Average
Daily
Vendor
Truck
Trips
Average
Daily
Haul
Truck
Trips Equipment Type Quantity
Usage
Hours
Site Preparation 18 4 0 Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8
Grading 20 4 2
Excavators 2 8
Graders 1 8
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8
Scrapers 2 8
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8
Building
Construction 56 16 0
Cranes 1 7
Forklifts 3 8
Generator Sets 1 8
1 The analysis assumes a construction start date of June 2027, which represents the earliest date construction would initiate.

Assuming the earliest start date for construction represents the worst-case scenario for criteria air pollutant and GHG emissions because equipment and vehicle emission factors for later years would be slightly less due to more stringent standards for in-use off-road equipment and heavy-duty trucks, as well as fleet turnover replacing older equipment and vehicles in later years. 1269

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AND ENERGY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 18192 4 NOVEMBER 2025
Table 1. Construction Scenario Assumptions
23 Construction
Phase
One-way Vehicle Trips Equipment
Average
Daily
Worker
Trips
Average
Daily
Vendor
Truck
Trips
Average
Daily
Haul
Truck
Trips Equipment Type Quantity
Usage
Hours
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7
Welders 1 8
Paving 16 2 0
Pavers 2 8
Paving Equipment 2 8
Rollers 2 8
Architectural Coating 12 2 0 Air Compressors 1 6
Notes: See Attachment A of this report for additional assumption details.

2.2 Operational Emissions
Operation of the proposed project would generate emissions from area sources, energy sources, mobile sources, water and wastewater, solid waste, and refrigerants, which are discussed below. Emissions from these sources were estimated based on CalEEMod default assumptions for operations of the proposed project land uses. It was assumed that the project would be operational following the completion of construction, which would occur in 2029.

Area Sources
CalEEMod was used to estimate operational emissions from area sources, including emissions from hearths, consumer product use, architectural coatings, and landscape maintenance equipment.

CalEEMod estimates direct emissions from hearths (fireplaces) and woodstoves and includes default values for residential land uses and estimates natural gas fireplace emissions based on emission factors from EPA’s Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, EPA Publication No. AP-42. In accordance, with SCAQMD Rule 445 (Wood Burning Devices), the project is not permitted to provide wood-burning devices, but could include natural gas, propane, or electric fireplaces. However, the project design is all-electric and would not include natural gas or propane fireplaces.

Consumer products are chemically formulated products used by household and institutional consumers, including cleaning supplies, kitchen aerosols, cosmetics, toiletries (CAPCOA 2022). Other paint products, furniture coatings, or architectural coatings are not considered consumer products (CAPCOA 2022). Consumer product volatile organic compound emissions were estimated in CalEEMod based on the floor area of buildings and default factor of pounds of volatile organic compound per building square foot per day. For the parking land uses, CalEEMod estimates VOC emissions associated with use of parking surface degreasers based on a square footage of parking surface area and pounds of VOC per square foot per day. The CalEEMod default values for consumer products were assumed.

VOC off-gassing emissions result from the evaporation of solvents contained in surface coatings, such as in paints and primers, used during building maintenance. CalEEMod calculates the VOC evaporative emissions from application of nonresidential surface coatings based on the VOC emission factor, the building square footage, the 1270

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AND ENERGY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 18192 5 NOVEMBER 2025
assumed fraction of surface area, and the reapplication rate. The VOC emission factor is based on the VOC content of the surface coatings, and SCAQMD Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings) governs the VOC content for interior and exterior coatings. The model default reapplication rate of 10% of area per year is used. Consistent with CalEEMod defaults, it is assumed that the residential surface area for painting equals 2.7 times the floor square footage and the nonresidential surface area for painting equals 2.0 times the floor square footage, with 75% assumed for interior coating and 25% assumed for exterior surface coating. For the parking land uses assumed, the architectural coating area is assumed to be 6% of the total square footage, consistent with the supporting CalEEMod studies provided as an appendix to the CalEEMod User’s Guide (CAPCOA 2022).

Landscape maintenance includes fuel combustion emissions from equipment such as lawn mowers, rototillers, shredders/grinders, blowers, trimmers, chainsaws, and hedge trimmers. The emissions associated from landscape equipment use are estimated based on CalEEMod default values for emission factors (grams per square foot of building space per day) and number of summer days (when landscape maintenance would generally be performed) and winter days.

Energy Sources
As represented in CalEEMod, (see Attachment A), energy sources include emissions associated with building electricity. The project design is all-electric and therefore natural gas would not be consumed by the project operation. Electricity use would contribute indirectly to criteria air pollutant emissions; however, the emissions from electricity use are only quantified for GHGs in CalEEMod, since criteria pollutant emissions occur at the site of the power plant, which is typically off site. The project would not have natural gas appliances within the residential units.

Mobile Sources
Following the completion of construction activities, the project would generate criteria pollutant and GHG emissions from mobile sources (vehicular traffic) as a result of the additional residential units. CalEEMod was used to estimate emissions from proposed vehicular sources (refer to Attachment A of this report). CalEEMod default data, were conservatively used for the model inputs. Project-related traffic was assumed to include a mixture of vehicles in accordance with the associated use, as modeled within CalEEMod, which is based on the California Air Resources Board (CARB) EMFAC2021 model. Emission factors representing the vehicle mix and emissions for 2029 were used to estimate emissions associated with vehicular sources.

Solid Waste
The project would generate solid waste, and therefore, result in CO2e emissions associated with landfill off-gassing.

CalEEMod default values for solid waste generation were used to estimate GHG emissions associated with solid waste.

Water and Wastewater
Supply, conveyance, treatment, and distribution of water for the project require the use of electricity, which would result in associated indirect GHG emissions. Similarly, wastewater generated by the project requires the use of electricity for conveyance and treatment, along with GHG emissions generated during wastewater treatment. 1271

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AND ENERGY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 18192 6 NOVEMBER 2025
3 Air Quality Assessment

3.1 Thresholds of Significance
The significance criteria used to evaluate the project impacts to air quality are based on the recommendations provided in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. For the purposes of this air quality analysis, a significant impact would occur if the project would (14 CCR 15000 et seq.):

1. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.

2. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.

3. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

4. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.) indicates that, where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to determine whether the project would have a significant impact on air quality.

SCAQMD has adopted thresholds to address the significance of air quality impacts resulting from a project. A project would result in a substantial contribution to an existing air quality violation of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) or California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for O3, which is a nonattainment pollutant, if the project’s construction emissions would exceed SCAQMD’s VOC or NOx significance thresholds shown in Table 2.

These emission-based thresholds for O3 precursors are intended to serve as a surrogate for an “ozone significance threshold” (i.e., the potential for adverse O3 impacts to occur) because O3 itself is not emitted directly, and the effects of an individual project’s emissions of O3 precursors (VOC and NOx) on O3 levels in ambient air cannot reliably or meaningfully be determined through air quality models or other quantitative methods. The SCAB is also nonattainment for the state PM10 and federal and state PM2.5 standards. While the SCAQMD does have a threshold for lead, the project would not be a source of lead during construction or operation. Therefore, lead was not evaluated herein.

Table 2. SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants Mass Daily Thresholds
Pollutant Construction (pounds per day) Operation (pounds per day) VOCs 75 55
NOx 100 55
CO 550 550
SOx 150 150
PM10 150 150
PM2.5 55 55
Leada 3 3
1272

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AND ENERGY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 18192 7 NOVEMBER 2025
Table 2. SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants Mass Daily Thresholds
TACs and Odor Thresholds
TACsb Maximum incremental cancer risk 10 in 1 million
Cancer Burden > 0.5 excess cancer cases (in areas 1 in 1 million) Chronic and acute hazard index 1.0 (project increment) Odor Project creates an odor nuisance pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 402 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutantsc
NO2 1-hour average
NO2 annual arithmetic mean
SCAQMD is in attainment; project is significant if it causes or contributes to an exceedance of the following attainment standards:

0.18 ppm (state)

0.030 ppm (state) and 0.0534 ppm (federal)
CO 1-hour average
CO 8-hour average
SCAQMD is in attainment; project is significant if it causes or contributes to an exceedance of the following attainment standards:
20 ppm (state) and 35 ppm (federal)

9.0 ppm (state/federal)
PM10 24-hour average
PM10 annual average

10.4 g/m3 (construction)d

2.5 g/m3 (operation)

1.0 g/m3
PM2.5 24-hour average 10.4 g/m3 (construction)d

2.5 g/m3 (operation)
Source: SCAQMD 2023.

Notes: SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District; VOC = volatile organic compounds; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; CO = carbon monoxide; SOx = sulfur oxides; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter; TAC = toxic air contaminant; NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; ppm = parts per million by volume; g/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter.

Greenhouse gas emissions thresholds for industrial projects, as added in the March 2015 revision to the SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds, were not include included in this table as they are addressed within the greenhouse gas emissions analysis and not the air quality analysis.
a The phaseout of leaded gasoline started in 1976. Since gasoline no longer contains lead, the project is not anticipated to result in impacts related to lead; therefore, it is not discussed in this analysis. b TACs include carcinogens and noncarcinogens. c Ambient air quality standards for criteria pollutants are based on SCAQMD Rule 1303, Table A-2, unless otherwise stated. d Ambient air quality threshold are based on SCAQMD Rule 403.

In addition to the emission-based thresholds listed in Table 2, SCAQMD also recommends the evaluation of localized air quality impacts to sensitive receptors in the immediate vicinity of the project as a result of construction activities. Such an evaluation is referred to as a localized significance threshold (LST) analysis. Project construction activities would result in temporary sources of on-site criteria air pollutant emissions associated with off-road equipment exhaust and fugitive dust generation. According to the Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, “off-site mobile emissions from the project should not be included in the emissions compared to the LSTs” (SCAQMD 2008a). Trucks and worker trips associated with the project are not expected to cause substantial air quality impacts to sensitive receptors along off-site roadways since emissions would be relatively brief in nature and would cease once the vehicles pass through the main streets. For project sites of 5 acres or less, the SCAQMD LST Methodology includes lookup tables that can be used to determine the maximum allowable daily emissions that would satisfy the localized significance criteria (i.e., the emissions would not cause an exceedance of the applicable concentration limits for NO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5) without performing project-specific dispersion modeling.
1273

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AND ENERGY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 18192 8 NOVEMBER 2025
The LST significance thresholds for NO2 and CO represent the allowable increase in concentrations above background levels in the vicinity of a project that would not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the relevant ambient air quality standards, while the threshold for PM10 represents compliance with Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust).

The LST significance threshold for PM2.5 is intended to ensure that construction emissions do not contribute substantially to existing exceedances of the PM2.5 ambient air quality standards. The allowable emission rates depend on the following parameters:
 Source-receptor area (SRA) in which the project is located  Size of the project site
 Distance between the project site and the nearest sensitive receptor (e.g., residences, schools, hospitals) The project site is located in SRA 30 (Coachella Valley). LST pollutant screening level concentration data is currently published for 1-, 2-, and 5-acre sites for varying distances. In accordance with the SCAQMD Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds (SCAQMD n.d.) and based on the construction equipment assumptions in Table 1, the project would disturb a maximum of 5-acres per day during the grading phase. The nearest sensitive-receptor land use (a residence) is located approximately 33 meters to the north of the project site. Per the SCAQMD’s Finalized LST Methodology, it is acceptable to linearly interpolate to estimate the allowable emissions between the downwind distances given in the tables (SCAQMD 2008a). Therefore, the analysis applies the LSTs for an interpolated 5-acre disturbance area (between lookup tables for 2 and 5 acres) and a receptor distance of 33 meters (between lookup tables for 25 meters and 50 meters) which is presented in Table 3.

Table 3. Localized Significance Thresholds for Source-Receptor Area 30 (Coachella Valley)
Pollutant Threshold (pounds/day)
Construction
NO2 316.28
CO 2,614.4
PM10 24.2
PM2.5 9.0
Source: SCAQMD 2008a.

Notes: NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter Localized significance thresholds were determined based on the values for a 3-acre site at a distance of 40 meters from the nearest sensitive receptor.

3.2 Impact Analysis

3.2.1 Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
The project site is located within the SCAB, which includes the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties and all of Orange County, and is within the jurisdictional boundaries of SCAQMD.

SCAQMD administers SCAB’s Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), which is a comprehensive document outlining an air pollution control program for attaining all CAAQS and NAAQS. The most recent adopted AQMP for the SCAB 1274

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AND ENERGY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 18192 9 NOVEMBER 2025
is the 2022 AQMP, which was adopted by SCAQMD’s Governing Board in December 2022 (SCAQMD 2022). The 2022 AQMP provides actions, strategies, and steps needed to reduce air pollution emissions and meet ozone (O3) standards by 2037 (SCAQMD 2022). Specifically, the 2022 AQMP is focused on attaining the 2015 8-hour O3 standard of 70 parts per billion (SCAQMD 2022).

The purpose of a consistency finding is to determine if a project is inconsistent with the assumptions and objectives of the regional air quality plans, and, thus, if it would interfere with the region’s ability to comply with federal and state air quality standards. The SCAQMD has established criteria for determining consistency with the currently applicable AQMP in Chapter 12, Sections 12.2 and 12.3, in the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook. The criteria are as follows (SCAQMD 1993):
 Consistency Criterion No. 1: The project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards of the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP.  Consistency Criterion No. 2: The project will not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP or increments based on the year of project buildout and phase.

To address the first criterion, project-generated criteria air pollutant emissions have been estimated and analyzed for significance and are addressed under Section 3.2.2. Detailed results of this analysis are included in Attachment A, CalEEMod Emissions Outputs. As presented in Section 3.2.2, construction and operation of the project would not generate criteria air pollutant emissions that exceed SCAQMD’s thresholds. Therefore, the project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations. As such, the project would be consistent with Consistency Criterion No. 1 of the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook.

The second criterion regarding the project’s potential to exceed the assumptions in the AQMP or increments based on the year of project buildout and phase is primarily assessed by determining consistency between the project’s land use designations and its potential to generate population growth. In general, projects are considered consistent with, and not in conflict with or obstructing implementation of, the AQMP if the growth in socioeconomic factors is consistent with the underlying regional plans used to develop the AQMP (per Consistency Criterion No. 2 of the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook).

SCAQMD primarily uses demographic growth forecasts for various socioeconomic categories (e.g., population, housing, employment by industry) developed by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) for its Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) (SCAG 2020). This document, which is based on general plans for cities and counties in the SCAB, is used by SCAQMD to develop the AQMP emissions inventory (SCAQMD 2022).2 The SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS, Connect SoCal, and the associated Regional Growth Forecast are generally consistent with the local plans;3 therefore, the 2022 AQMP is generally consistent with local government plans. Note that although the Connect SoCal (2024–2050 RTP/SCS) is the most recently-adopted 2 Information necessary to produce the emissions inventory for the SCAB is obtained from SCAQMD and other governmental agencies, including the CARB, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and SCAG. Each of these agencies is responsible for collecting data (e.g., industry growth factors, socioeconomic projections, travel activity levels, emission factors, emission speciation profile, and emissions) and developing methodologies (e.g., model and demographic forecast improvements) required to generate a comprehensive emissions inventory. SCAG incorporates these data into its Travel Demand Model for estimating/projecting vehicle miles traveled and driving speeds. SCAG’s socioeconomic and transportation activities projections in their 2020 RTP/SCS are integrated in the 2022 AQMP (SCAQMD 2022). 3 Demographics from the 2020 RTP/SCS are still applicable for the purposes of the air quality analysis, since those are included and used in the current AQMP.
1275

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AND ENERGY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 18192 10 NOVEMBER 2025
RTP/SCS, the SCAQMD 2022 AQMP is based upon the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. Therefore, the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS and associated Regional Growth Forecast would be applicable in this analysis of the potential to conflict with the SCAQMD 2022 AQMP.

The project site and the surrounding area are located within the City’s Planned Residential zoning district. As such, the project would be consistent with the underlying zoning. Therefore, the project would not result in growth that would exceed existing growth forecasts. The project is consistent with the existing land use designation and implementation of the project would not generate an increase in growth demographics that would conflict with existing projections within the region. Accordingly, the project is consistent with the SCAG RTP/SCS forecasts used in the SCAQMD AQMP development.

In summary, based on the considerations presented for the two criteria, impacts relating to the project’s potential to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable AQMP would be less than significant.

3.2.2 Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. The nonattainment status of regional pollutants is a result of past and present development, and SCAQMD develops and implements plans for future attainment of ambient air quality standards. Based on these considerations, project-level thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants are relevant in the determination of whether a project’s individual emissions would have a cumulatively significant impact on air quality.

Construction Emissions
Proposed construction activities would result in the temporary addition of pollutants to the local airshed caused by on-site sources (i.e., off-road construction equipment and VOC off-gassing) and off-site sources (i.e., on-road vendor trucks, haul trucks, and worker vehicle trips). Construction emissions can vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity; the specific type of operation; and, for particulate matter, the prevailing weather conditions. Therefore, such emission levels can only be approximately estimated.

The CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.30 was used to estimate emissions from construction of the project. Internal combustion engines used by construction equipment, trucks, and worker vehicles would result in emissions of VOCs, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. PM10 and PM2.5 emissions would also be generated by entrained dust, which results from the exposure of earth surfaces to wind from the direct disturbance and movement of soil. The project would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 to control dust emissions generated during any dustgenerating activities. Standard construction practices that would be employed to reduce fugitive dust emissions include watering of the active dust areas two times per day, with additional watering depending on weather conditions. The CalEEMod default assumptions were used for estimating fugitive dust emissions from grading on site. The project would involve application of architectural coating (e.g., paint and other finishes) for painting the interior and exterior of the building as well as parking lot striping. The contractor is required to procure architectural coatings from a supplier that complies with the requirements of SCAQMD’s Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings). Table 4 presents the estimated maximum daily construction emissions generated during construction 1276

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AND ENERGY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 18192 11 NOVEMBER 2025
of the project. “Summer” emissions are representative of the conditions that may occur during the O3 season (May 1 to October 31), and “winter” emissions are representative of the conditions that may occur during the balance of the year (November 1 to April 30). Details of the emission calculations are provided in Attachment A.

Table 4. Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Year
VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Pounds per Day
Summer
2027 3.13 28.17 29.85 0.06 9.11 5.09
2028 1.24 9.61 17.56 0.03 1.19 0.50
2029 68.35 0.83 1.99 <0.005 0.17 0.05
Winter
2027 3.02 25.96 28.33 0.06 4.98 2.47
2028 1.20 9.67 15.62 0.03 1.19 0.50
2029 68.34 9.28 15.44 0.03 1.17 0.47
Maximum 68.35 28.17 29.85 0.06 9.11 5.09
SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Notes: VOC = volatile organic compound; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; CO = carbon monoxide; SOx = sulfur oxides; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter; SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District.

See Attachment A for complete results.

As shown in Table 4, the project construction would not exceed SCAQMD’s daily thresholds. Therefore, construction impacts associated with criteria air pollutant emissions would be less than significant.

Operational Emissions
Following the completion of construction activities, the project would generate criteria air pollutant emissions from area sources (i.e., hearths, the use of landscaping equipment, consumer products, and architectural coatings); energy sources; and mobile sources (i.e., resident, worker, and visitor vehicle trips). Pollutant emissions associated with long-term operations were quantified using CalEEMod using a combination of project-specific information and CalEEMod default values. Table 5 presents the maximum daily project emissions (year 2029). Details of the emission calculations are provided in Attachment A of this report.

Table 5. Estimated Maximum Daily Operation Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Emissions Source
VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Pounds per Day
Summer
Area 8.16 0.08 8.86 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005
Energy 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mobile 5.75 6.17 64.23 0.16 13.53 3.51
Total 13.91 6.25 73.09 0.16 13.53 3.51
1277

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AND ENERGY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 18192 12 NOVEMBER 2025
Table 5. Estimated Maximum Daily Operation Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Emissions Source
VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Pounds per Day
Winter
Area 7.38 0 0 0 0 0
Energy 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mobile 4.68 6.71 42.9 0.14 13.53 3.51
Total 12.06 6.71 42.9 0.15 13.53 3.51
Maximum Daily Emissions 13.91 6.71 73.09 0.16 13.53 3.51 SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Notes: VOC = volatile organic compound; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; CO = carbon monoxide; SOx = sulfur oxides; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter; SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District; <0.01 = reported value less than 0.005; N/A = not applicable.

Totals may not sum due to rounding.

See Attachment A of this report for complete results.

As shown in Table 5, the project would not exceed SCAQMD’s significance thresholds during operations. Therefore, operational impacts associated with criteria air pollutant emissions would be less than significant.

In considering cumulative impacts from the project, the analysis must specifically evaluate a project’s contribution to the cumulative increase in pollutants for which the SCAB is designated as nonattainment for the CAAQS and NAAQS. If a project’s emissions would exceed SCAQMD’s significance thresholds, it would be considered to have a cumulatively considerable contribution to nonattainment status in the SCAB. If a project does not exceed thresholds and is determined to have less than significant project-specific impacts, it may still contribute to a significant cumulative impact on air quality. The basis for analyzing the project’s cumulatively considerable contribution is if the project’s contribution accounts for a significant proportion of the cumulative total emissions (i.e., it represents a “cumulatively considerable contribution” to the cumulative air quality impact) and consistency with SCAQMD’s 2022 AQMP, which addresses cumulative emissions in the SCAB.

The SCAB has been designated as a federal nonattainment area for O3 and PM2.5 and a state nonattainment area for O3, PM10, and PM2.5. The nonattainment status is the result of cumulative emissions from various sources of air pollutants and their precursors within the SCAB, including motor vehicles, off-road equipment, and commercial and industrial facilities. Construction of the project would generate VOC and NOx emissions (which are precursors to O3) and emissions of PM10 and PM2.5. As indicated in Tables 4 and 5, project-generated construction and operational emissions would be minimal and would not exceed SCAQMD’s emission-based significance thresholds for VOC, NOx, CO, SO2, PM10, or PM2.5.

Cumulative localized impacts would potentially occur if a construction project were to occur concurrently with another off-site project. Construction schedules for potential future projects near the project site are currently unknown; therefore, potential construction impacts associated with two or more simultaneous projects would be speculative.4 However, future projects would be subject to CEQA and would require an air quality analysis and, 4 The CEQA Guidelines state that if a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation, the agency should note its conclusion and terminate discussion of the impact (14 CCR 15145). This discussion is nonetheless provided in an effort to show good-faith analysis and to comply with CEQA’s information disclosure requirements. 1278

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AND ENERGY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 18192 13 NOVEMBER 2025
where necessary, mitigation if the project would exceed SCAQMD’s significance thresholds. Criteria air pollutant emissions associated with construction activity of future proposed projects would be reduced through implementation of control measures required by SCAQMD. Cumulative PM10 and PM2.5 emissions would be reduced because all future projects would be subject to SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust), which sets forth general and specific requirements for all construction sites in the SCAQMD.

Based on the previous considerations, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions of nonattainment pollutants, and cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

3.3.3 Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Localized Significance Thresholds
Sensitive receptors are those individuals more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than the population at large. People most likely to be affected by air pollution include children, the elderly, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. According to SCAQMD, sensitive receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, long-term healthcare facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes (SCAQMD 1993). The nearest sensitive receptor is a residence located approximately 33 meters north of the project boundary.

Construction activities associated with the project would result in temporary sources of on-site fugitive dust and construction equipment emissions. According to the Final LST Methodology, “off-site mobile emissions from the project should not be included in the emissions compared to the LSTs” (SCAQMD 2008a). On-site emissions from mobile trips were limited to 1,000 feet of estimated on-site activity in the LST analysis. The maximum allowable daily emissions that would satisfy the SCAQMD localized significance criteria for SRA 30 are presented in Table 6 and compared to the maximum daily on-site construction emissions in 2027, 2028, and 2029.

As shown in Table 6, the project LST would not exceed the established significance thresholds, and thus, would result in a less than significant localized impact to sensitive receptors during construction.

Table 6. Localized Significance Thresholds Analysis for Project Construction Year
NO2 CO PM10 PM2.5
Pounds per Day
Summer
2027 28.03 28.46 8.84 5.02
2028 9.13 13.51 0.31 0.27
2029 0.80 1.19 0.01 0.01
Winter
2027 25.67 27.52 4.64 2.39
2028 9.14 13.55 0.31 0.28
2029 8.79 13.49 0.01 0.25
Maximum Daily Emissions 28.03 28.46 8.84 5.02
SCAQMD LST Threshold 316.28 2,614.4 24.2 9.0
1279

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AND ENERGY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 18192 14 NOVEMBER 2025
Table 6. Localized Significance Thresholds Analysis for Project Construction Year
NO2 CO PM10 PM2.5
Pounds per Day
LST exceeded? No No No No
Source: SCAQMD 2008a.

Notes: LST = localized significance threshold; NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter.

See Attachment A for detailed results.

LSTs are shown for 5-acre project sites corresponding to an approximate distance to a sensitive receptor of 33 meters for SRA 30.

These estimates reflect control of fugitive dust required by Rule 403.

The emissions represent worst-case operating scenario during construction.

CO Hotspots
Traffic-congested roadways and intersections have the potential to generate localized high levels of CO. Localized areas where ambient concentrations exceed federal and/or state standards for CO are termed “CO hotspots.” The transport of CO is extremely limited, as it disperses rapidly with distance from the source. However, under certain extreme meteorological conditions, CO concentrations near a congested roadway or intersection may reach unhealthy levels, affecting sensitive receptors. Typically, high CO concentrations are associated with severely congested intersections operating at an unacceptable level of service (LOS) (LOS E or worse is unacceptable].

Projects contributing to adverse traffic impacts may result in the formation of a CO hotspot. Additional analysis of CO hotspot impacts would be conducted if a project would result in a significant impact or contribute to an adverse traffic impact at a signalized intersection that would potentially subject sensitive receptors to CO hotspots.

At the time that the SCAQMD Handbook (1993) was published, the SCAB was designated nonattainment under the CAAQS and NAAQS for CO. In 2007, the SCAQMD was designated in attainment for CO under both the CAAQS and NAAQS as a result of the steady decline in CO concentrations in the SCAB due to turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of control technology on industrial facilities. The SCAQMD conducted CO modeling for the 2003 AQMP5 (SCAQMD 2003) for the four worst-case intersections in the SCAB: (1) Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue, (2) Sunset Boulevard and Highland Avenue, (3) La Cienega Boulevard and Century Boulevard, and (4) Long Beach Boulevard and Imperial Highway. At the time, the 2003 AQMP was prepared, the intersection of Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue was the most congested intersection in Los Angeles County, with an average daily traffic volume of about 100,000 vehicles per day. The 2003 AQMP also projected 8- hour CO concentrations at these four intersections for 1997 and from 2002 through 2005. From years 2002 through 2005, the maximum 8-hour CO concentration was 3.8 ppm at the Sunset Boulevard and Highland Avenue intersection in 2002; the maximum 8-hour CO concentration was 3.4 ppm at the Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue in 2002. Accordingly, CO concentrations at congested intersections would not exceed the 1-hour or 8-hour CO CAAQS unless projected daily traffic would be at least over 100,000 vehicles per day. The project’s anticipated average daily weekday trips (ADT) of 810 is minimal and is not of a magnitude expected to raise the traffic volumes at intersections within proximity of the proposed project to the 100,000 vehicles per day that could result in a CO hotspot.

Given the minimal increase in daily trips, project-related mobile emissions are not expected to contribute significantly to CO concentrations, and a CO hotspot is not anticipated to occur. Finally, due to continued 5 SCAQMD’s CO hotspot modeling guidance has not changed since 2003. 1280

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AND ENERGY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 18192 15 NOVEMBER 2025
improvement in vehicular emissions at a rate faster than the rate of vehicle growth and/or congestion, the potential for CO hotspots in the SCAB is steadily decreasing. Based on these considerations, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact regarding potential CO hotspots.

Health Impacts of Criteria Air Pollutants
Construction and operation of the project would generate criteria air pollutant emissions; however, the project would not exceed the SCAQMD mass-emission thresholds.

The SCAB is designated as nonattainment for O3 for the NAAQS and CAAQS. Thus, existing O3 levels in the SCAB are at unhealthy levels during certain periods. The health effects associated with O3 generally relate to reduced lung function. Because the project would not involve construction or operational activities that would result in O3 precursor emissions (VOC or NOx) that would exceed the SCAQMD thresholds, the project is not anticipated to substantially contribute to regional O3 concentrations and associated health impacts.

In addition to O3, NOx emissions contribute to potential exceedances of the NAAQS and CAAQS for NO2 (since NO2 is a constituent of NOx). Exposure to NO2 can cause lung irritation, bronchitis, and pneumonia, and lower resistance to respiratory infections. As depicted in Table 6, project construction would not exceed the SCAQMD localized thresholds for NO2. Thus, the project would not be expected to exceed the NO2 standards or contribute to associated health effects.

CO tends to be a localized impact associated with congested intersections. CO competes with oxygen, often replacing it in the blood, reducing the blood’s ability to transport oxygen to vital organs. The results of excess CO exposure can include dizziness, fatigue, and impairment of central nervous system functions. CO hotspots were discussed previously as a less than significant impact. Thus, the project’s CO emissions would not contribute to the health effects associated with this pollutant.

The SCAB is designated as nonattainment for PM10 under the CAAQS and nonattainment for PM2.5 under the NAAQS and CAAQS. Particulate matter contains microscopic solids or liquid droplets that are so small that they can get deep into the lungs and cause serious health problems. Particulate matter exposure has been linked to a variety of problems, including premature death in people with heart or lung disease, nonfatal heart attacks, irregular heartbeat, aggravated asthma, decreased lung function, and increased respiratory symptoms such as irritation of the airways, coughing, or difficulty breathing (EPA 2025b). As with O3 and NOx, the project would not generate emissions of PM10 or PM2.5 that would exceed SCAQMD’s LSTs or regional thresholds. Accordingly, the project’s PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are not expected to cause any increase in related regional health effects for these pollutants.

In summary, the project would not result in any potentially significant contribution to local or regional concentrations of nonattainment pollutants and would not result in a significant contribution to the adverse health impacts associated with those pollutants. Impacts would be less than significant.

3.3.4 Would the Project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? The occurrence and severity of potential odor impacts depends on numerous factors. The nature, frequency, and intensity of the source; the wind speeds and direction; and the sensitivity of receiving location each contribute to 1281

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AND ENERGY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 18192 16 NOVEMBER 2025
the intensity of the impact. Although offensive odors seldom cause physical harm, they can be annoying and cause distress among the public and generate citizen complaints.

Odors would potentially be generated from vehicles and equipment exhaust emissions during construction of the project. Potential odors produced during construction would be attributable to concentrations of unburned hydrocarbons from tailpipes of construction equipment and asphalt pavement application. Such odors would disperse rapidly from the project site and generally occur at magnitudes that would not affect substantial numbers of people. Therefore, impacts associated with odors during construction would be less than significant.

Land uses and industrial operations associated with odor complaints include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food-processing plants, chemical plants, composting operations, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding facilities (SCAQMD 1993). The residences and kitchen may emit odors outside during cooking.

These would be limited to the areas adjacent to the source and would not impact substantial numbers of people.

These odors would also be short term in nature and would disperse rapidly. Furthermore, as stated above, the project would comply with SCAQMD Rule 402, Nuisance, which prohibits the release of odors which may cause annoyance to a considerable number of persons, as well as other SCAQMD rules related to odor generation from restaurant activities. The project would not create any new sources of odor during operation. Therefore, project operations would result in an odor impact that is less than significant. 4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment

4.1 Thresholds of Significance
The significance criteria used to evaluate the project’s GHG emissions impacts is based on the recommendations provided in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. For the purposes of this GHG emissions analysis, the project would have a significant environmental impact if it would (14 CCR 15000 et seq.):

1. Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.

2. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.

Global climate change is a cumulative impact; a project participates in this potential impact through its incremental contribution combined with the cumulative increase of all other sources of GHGs. There are currently no established thresholds for assessing whether the GHG emissions of a project, such as the project, would be considered a cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change; however, all reasonable efforts should be made to minimize a project’s contribution to global climate change. In addition, while GHG impacts are recognized exclusively as cumulative impacts, GHG emissions impacts must also be evaluated on a project-level under CEQA.

Approach to Determining Significance
The CEQA Guidelines do not prescribe specific methodologies for performing an assessment, do not establish specific thresholds of significance, and do not mandate specific mitigation measures. Rather, the CEQA Guidelines emphasize the lead agency’s discretion to determine the appropriate methodologies and thresholds of significance consistent with the manner in which other impact areas are handled in CEQA (CNRA 2009). The State of California has not adopted emission-based thresholds for GHG emissions under CEQA. The Governor’s 1282

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AND ENERGY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 18192 17 NOVEMBER 2025
Office of Planning and Research’s Technical Advisory, titled “Discussion Draft CEQA and Climate Change Advisory,” states that
“Neither the CEQA statute nor the CEQA Guidelines prescribe thresholds of significance or particular methodologies for performing an impact analysis. This is left to lead agency judgment and discretion, based upon factual data and guidance from regulatory agencies and other sources where available and applicable. Even in the absence of clearly defined thresholds for GHG emissions, such emissions must be disclosed and mitigated to the extent feasible whenever the lead agency determines that the project contributes to a significant, cumulative climate change impact.” (OPR 2018)
Furthermore, the advisory document indicates that “in the absence of regulatory standards for GHG emissions or other scientific data to clearly define what constitutes a ‘significant impact,’ individual lead agencies may undertake a projectby-project analysis, consistent with available guidance and current CEQA practice.” Section 15064.7(c) of the CEQA Guidelines specifies that “when adopting thresholds of significance, a lead agency may consider thresholds of significance previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies, or recommended by experts, provided the decision of the lead agency to adopt such thresholds is supported by substantial evidence.” Amendments to Section 15064.4 of the CEQA Guidelines were adopted to assist lead agencies in determining the significance of the impacts of GHG emissions. Section 15064.4 specifies that a lead agency “shall make a good-faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project.” Section 15064.4 also provides lead agencies with the discretion to determine whether to assess those emissions quantitatively or to rely on a qualitative analysis or performancebased standards. In addition, the CEQA Guidelines specify that “[w]hen adopting or using thresholds of significance, a lead agency may consider thresholds of significance previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies, or recommended by experts, provided the decision of the lead agency to adopt such thresholds is supported by substantial evidence” (14 CCR 15064.7[c]).

Threshold 1
SCAQMD formed a GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group to work with SCAQMD staff on developing GHG CEQA significance thresholds until statewide significance thresholds or guidelines are established. In December 2008, SCAQMD adopted an interim 10,000 metric tons (MT) of CO2 equivalent (CO2e) per year screening level threshold for stationary-source/industrial projects for which SCAQMD is the lead agency. From December 2008 through September 2010, SCAQMD hosted working group meetings and revised the draft threshold proposal several times, although it did not officially provide these proposals in a subsequent document. SCAQMD has continued to consider adoption of significance thresholds for residential and general land use development projects. The most recent proposal, issued in September 2010, uses the following tiered approach to evaluate potential GHG impacts from various uses (SCAQMD 2010):

Tier 1 Determine if CEQA categorical exemptions are applicable. If not, move to Tier 2.

Tier 2 Consider whether or not the proposed project is consistent with a locally adopted GHG reduction plan that has gone through public hearing and CEQA review, that has an approved inventory, includes monitoring, etc. If not, move to Tier 3. 1283

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AND ENERGY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 18192 18 NOVEMBER 2025
Tier 3 Consider whether the project generates GHG emissions in excess of screening thresholds for individual land uses. The 10,000 MT CO2e per year threshold for industrial uses would be recommended for use by all lead agencies. Under option 1, separate screening thresholds are proposed for residential projects (3,500 MT CO2e per year), commercial projects (1,400 MT CO2e per year), and mixed-use projects (3,000 MT CO2e per year).

Under option 2, a single numerical screening threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e per year would be used for all non-industrial projects. If the project generates emissions in excess of the applicable screening threshold, move to Tier 4.

Tier 4 Consider whether the project generates GHG emissions in excess of applicable performance standards for the project service population (population plus employment).

The efficiency targets were established based on the goal of AB 32 to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The 2020 efficiency targets are 4.8 MT CO2e per service population for project level analyses and 6.6 MT CO2e per service population for plan level analyses. If the project generates emissions in excess of the applicable efficiency targets, move to Tier 5.

Tier 5 Consider the implementation of CEQA mitigation (including the purchase of GHG offsets) to reduce the project efficiency target to Tier 4 levels.

Under Tier 3 option 2, the recommended SCAQMD threshold to apply to the project is the 3,000 MT CO2e per year for all non-industrial projects. Per the SCAQMD guidance, construction emissions should be amortized over the operational life of the project, which is assumed to be 30 years (SCAQMD 2008b). This impact analysis, therefore, adds amortized construction emissions to the estimated annual operational emissions, and then compares operational emissions to the proposed SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e per year.

Threshold 2
For threshold 2, the project is evaluated for its potential to conflict with state, regional, and local GHG reduction plans. The analysis includes a comparison of the project’s potential to conflict with SCAG’s Connect SoCal (2024- 2050 RTP/SCS) and the CARB 2022 Scoping Plan.

SCAG is the regional planning agency for Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Imperial counties and serves as a forum for regional issues relating to transportation, the economy, community development, and the environment. In April 2024, SCAG adopted the 2024-2050 RTP/SCS, also referred to as “Connect SoCal 2024.” Connect SoCal 2024-2050 builds upon prior planning cycles to update the vision of the region’s future (SCAG 2024). The RTP/SCS is a regional growth management strategy, which targets per capita GHG reduction from passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks in the Southern California region pursuant to SB 375.

In addition to demonstrating the region’s ability to attain the GHG emission reduction targets set forth by CARB, the 2024–2050 RTP/SCS outlines a series of actions and strategies for integrating the transportation network with an overall land use pattern that responds to projected growth, housing needs, changing demographics, and transportation demands (SCAG 2024). Thus, successful implementation of the 2024–2050 RTP/SCS would result in more complete communities with various transportation and housing choices while reducing automobile use.

The Scoping Plan, approved by CARB in 2008 and updated in 2014, 2017, and 2022 provides a framework for actions to reduce California’s GHG emissions and requires CARB and other state agencies to adopt regulations 1284

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AND ENERGY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 18192 19 NOVEMBER 2025
and other initiatives to reduce GHGs. As such, the Scoping Plan is not directly applicable to specific projects, nor is it intended to be used for project-level evaluations.6 Under the Scoping Plan, however, there are several state regulatory measures aimed at the identification and reduction of GHG emissions. CARB and other state agencies have adopted many of the measures identified in the Scoping Plan. Most of these measures focus on area source emissions (e.g., energy usage, high-GWP GHGs in consumer products) and changes to the vehicle fleet (i.e., hybrid, electric, and more fuel-efficient vehicles) and associated fuels (e.g., Low-Carbon Fuel Standard), among others. The potential to conflict with the key project attributes of the 2022 Scoping Plan Update will ensure that projects are 1) addressing the largest sources of their operational emissions, 2) are in alignment with the priority areas defined for Local Climate Action, and 3) are in alignment with the state’s climate goals.

CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan reflects the 2030 target of a 40% reduction below 1990 levels codified by Senate Bill (SB) 32, and the 2045 target of carbon neutrality established by Executive Order B-55-18 (Assembly Bill 1279). Per the 2022 Scoping Plan, empirical evidence shows that residential development projects that are consistent with certain key project attributes to reduce GHG emissions will accommodate growth in a manner that aligns with the GHG and equity goals of SB 32. Absent a qualified GHG reduction plan, Appendix D of the CARB Scoping Plan provides recommendations for key attributes that residential and mixed-use projects should achieve that would align with the state’s climate goals, including electric vehicle charging infrastructure, infill location, no loss or conversion of natural and working lands, transit-supportive densities or proximity to transit stops, and no net loss of existing affordable units, among others (CARB 2022).

4.2 Impact Analysis

4.2.1 Would the Project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Construction Emissions
Construction of the project would result in GHG emissions, which are primarily associated with use of off-road construction equipment, on-road vendor trucks, haul trucks, and worker vehicles. As stated above, the SCAQMD recommends that construction emissions be amortized over a 30-year project lifetime; therefore, the total construction GHG emissions were calculated and amortized over 30 years.

CalEEMod was used to estimate GHG emissions during construction. Construction of the project is anticipated to last up to 23 months. Table 7 presents construction GHG emissions for the project from on-site and off-site emission sources.

Table 7. Estimated Annual Construction GHG Emissions
Year
CO2 CH4 N2O R CO2e
Metric Tons
2027 373.25 0.01 <0.005 0.03 375.09
6 The Final Statement of Reasons for the amendments to the CEQA Guidelines reiterates the statement in the Initial Statement of Reasons that “[t]he Scoping Plan may not be appropriate for use in determining the significance of individual projects because it is conceptual at this stage and relies on the future development of regulations to implement the strategies identified in the Scoping Plan” (CNRA 2009).
1285

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AND ENERGY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 18192 20 NOVEMBER 2025
Table 7. Estimated Annual Construction GHG Emissions
Year
CO2 CH4 N2O R CO2e
Metric Tons
2028 399.66 0.01 0.01 0.15 403.71
2029 102.2 <0.005 <0.005 0.04 103.22
Total 882.02
Annualized emissions over 30 years (metric tons per year) 29.40 Notes: CO2 = carbon dioxide; CH4 = methane; N2O = nitrous oxide; R = refrigerants; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent; GHG = greenhouse gas.

See Attachment A for complete results.

As shown in Table 7, the estimated total GHG emissions during construction would be approximately 882 MT CO2e.

Estimated project-generated construction emissions amortized over 30 years would be approximately 29 MT CO2e per year. As with project-generated construction air quality pollutant emissions, GHG emissions generated during construction of the project would be short-term in nature, lasting only for the duration of the construction period, and would not represent a long-term source of GHG emissions. Because there is no separate GHG threshold for construction, the evaluation of significance is determined by adding the amortized construction emissions to the operational emissions and comparing them to the operational threshold.

Operational Emissions
Operation of the project would generate GHG emissions landscape maintenance equipment operation; vehicle trips; energy use; solid waste disposal; generation of electricity associated with water supply, treatment, and distribution; and refrigerants. CalEEMod was used to calculate the annual GHG emissions. The estimated operational projectgenerated GHG emissions are shown in Table 8.

Table 8. Estimated Annual Operation GHG Emissions
Emissions Source
CO2 CH4 N2O R CO2e
Metric Tons
Area 1.93 <0.005 <0.005 - 1.94
Energy 234.22 0.02 <0.005 - 235.59
Mobile 2,452.50 0.09 0.11 3.17 2,491.44
Refrigerants - - - 0.38 0.38
Waste 12.77 1.28 0 - 44.67
Water 6.73 0.21 <0.005 - 13.38
Operational Emissions 2,787.40
Amortized Construction Emissions 29.40
Total Emissions 2,816.80
SCAQMD Threshold 3,000
Threshold Exceeded? No
Notes: CO2 = carbon dioxide; CH4 = methane; N2O = nitrous oxide; R = refrigerants; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent; SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District; <0.01 = reported value less than 0.005, N/A = not applicable.

Source: See Attachment A for outputs.
1286

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AND ENERGY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 18192 21 NOVEMBER 2025
As shown in Table 8, the estimated total project-generated GHG emissions would be approximately 2,787 MT CO2e per year as a result of project operations. The total operational emissions plus amortized construction emissions would be approximately 2,817 MT CO2e per year. The project’s GHG emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD threshold, and therefore, the project would not generate GHG emissions that would have a significant impact on the environment. Impacts would be less than significant.

4.2.2 Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Applicable plans for the project site include SCAG’s 2024-2050 RTP/SCS and CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan to address Senate Bill (SB) 32 and Assembly Bill (AB) 1279. Each of these plans is described below along with an analysis of the proposed project’s potential to conflict with the related GHG emission reduction goals.

Project Potential to Conflict with the SCAG 2024-2050 RTP/SCS As stated in the Connect SoCal 2024–2050 RTP/SCS, there is no obligation by a jurisdiction to change its land use policies, General Plan, or regulations to be consistent with the RTP/SCS, and lead agencies have the sole discretion in determining a local project’s potential to conflict with the RTP/SCS (SCAG 2024). The major goals of the Connect SoCal are outlined in Table 9, along with the project’s potential to conflict with those goals.

Table 9. Project Potential to Conflict with the SCAG 2024-2050 RTP/SCS RTP/SCS Goal Potential to Conflict
Mobility: Build and maintain an integrated
multimodal transportation network:
 Support investments that are wellmaintained and operated, coordinated, resilient and result in improved safety,
improved air quality and minimized
greenhouse gas emissions.
 Ensure that reliable, accessible,
affordable, and appealing travel
options are readily available, while
striving to enhance equity in the
offerings in high-need communities.
 Support planning for people of all ages,
abilities, and backgrounds.

No Conflict. The project would provide residential uses on site and is not an integrated multimodal transportation network.

However, it would not preclude SCAG from meeting this goal.

Communities: Develop, connect, and
sustain livable and thriving communities:
 Create human-centered communities in
urban, suburban, and rural settings to
increase mobility options and reduce
travel distances.
 Produce and preserve diverse housing
types in an effort to improve
affordability, accessibility, and
opportunities for all households.

No Conflict. The project would provide a livable residential community in an urban/suburban environment. This would
reduce travel distances and support a human-centered
community.
1287

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AND ENERGY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 18192 22 NOVEMBER 2025
Table 9. Project Potential to Conflict with the SCAG 2024-2050 RTP/SCS RTP/SCS Goal Potential to Conflict
Environment: Create a healthy region for
the people of today and tomorrow:
 Develop communities that are resilient
and can mitigate, adapt to and respond
to chronic and acute stresses and
disruptions.
 Integrate the region’s development
pattern and transportation network to
improve air quality, reduce greenhouse
gas emissions, and enable more
sustainable use of energy and water.
 Conserve the region’s resources.

No Conflict. The project would meet the applicable requirements of the Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen Code or the applicable version at the time of building permit issuance. The project would promote sustainability in land use design by developing in an infill location proximate to commercial uses and other residential land uses and would thereby encourage walking, bicycling, and transit ridership to reduce VMT, and improve pedestrian infrastructure through sidewalk continuity and street connectivity.

Economy: Support a sustainable, efficient,
and productive regional economic
environment that provides opportunities for
all people in the region:
 Improve access to jobs and educational
resources.
 Advance a resilient and efficient goods
movement system that supports the
economic vitality of the region,
attainment of clean air and quality of
life for our communities.

No Conflict. The project would provide housing within a commercial area, thereby providing housing proximate to employment opportunities.

Source: SCAG 2024.

Notes: RTP/SCS = Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Plan; SCAG = Southern California Association of Governments; VMT = vehicle miles traveled; GHG = greenhouse gas; CALGreen = California Green Building Standards Code; PV = photovoltaic; EV = electric vehicle.

SCAG’s 2024–2050 RTP/SCS also identifies the following strategy areas to support its environmental goals:

Sustainable Development, Air Quality, Clean Transportation, Natural and Agricultural Lands Preservation, and Climate Resilience. An analysis of the project’s potential to conflict with the applicable strategies is presented below.  Sustainable Development. The 2024–2050 RTP/SCS identifies sustainable development, including water and energy-efficient building practices and green infrastructure, as a strategy to reduce GHG emissions.

Targeted sustainable design strategies of the project, in addition to meeting the requirements of California’s Building Energy Efficiency Standards, CALGreen, would include incorporating all-electric development. With these strategies, the project would not conflict with the RTP/SCS goal of promoting sustainability within development.
 Air Quality. The 2024–2050 RTP/SCS identifies air quality and meeting federal and state ambient air quality standards as a co-benefit of reducing GHG emissions. As discussed in Section 3.2.2, the project would not exceed SCAQMD’s thresholds of significance for any criteria air pollutant. Therefore, the project would not obstruct the goal of reducing air pollution in Southern California nor would it obstruct the SCAG’s implementation of the RTP/SCS.
1288

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AND ENERGY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 18192 23 NOVEMBER 2025
 Natural and Agricultural Lands Preservation. The 2024–2050 RTP/SCS promotes the conservation and restoration of natural and agricultural lands through several policies, such as quantifying the carbon sequestration potential of natural and agricultural lands and prioritization of sensitive habitat and wildlife corridors for permanent protection. The project proposes development on an urban infill site and would not convert natural or agricultural lands. Therefore, the project would not conflict with this strategy.

Based on the analysis above, the project would not conflict with the 2024–2050 RTP/SCS.

Project Potential to Conflict with State Reduction Targets and CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan The California State Legislature passed the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) to provide initial direction to limit California’s GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and initiate the state’s long-range climate objectives.

Since the passage of AB 32, the state has adopted GHG emissions reduction targets for future years beyond the initial 2020 horizon year. For the project, the relevant GHG emissions reduction targets include those established by SB 32 and AB 1279, which require that GHG emissions be reduced to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030, and 85% below 1990 levels by 2045, respectively. In addition, AB 1279 requires the state to achieve net zero GHG emissions by no later than 2045 and achieve and maintain net negative GHG emissions thereafter. EO B-55-18 establishes a new statewide policy to achieve carbon neutrality (i.e., the point at which removal of carbon pollution from the atmosphere meets or exceeds emissions) no later than 2045, and to achieve and maintain net negative greenhouse gas emissions thereafter.

As defined in AB 32, CARB is required to develop the Scoping Plan, which provides the framework for actions to achieve the state’s GHG emission targets. The Scoping Plan is required to be updated every 5 years and requires CARB and other state agencies to adopt regulations and initiatives that will reduce GHG emissions statewide. The first Scoping Plan was adopted in 2008, and was updated in 2014, 2017, and most recently in 2022. While the Scoping Plan is not directly applicable to specific projects, nor is it intended to be used as the sole basis for projectlevel evaluations, it is the official framework for the measures and regulations that will be implemented to reduce California’s GHG emissions in alignment with the adopted targets. Therefore, a project would be found to not conflict with the statutes if it would meet the Scoping Plan policies and would not impede attainment of the goals therein.

CARB’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan update was the first to address the state’s strategy for achieving the 2030 GHG reduction target set forth in SB 32 (CARB 2017a), and the most recent CARB 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality update outlines the state’s plan to reduce emissions and achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 in alignment with AB 1279 and assesses progress toward the 2030 SB 32 target (CARB 2022b). As such, given that SB 32 and AB 1279 are the relevant GHG emission targets, the 2022 Scoping Plan updates the strategy to achieve those targets that are the most applicable to the project.

Many of the measures and programs included in the 2022 Scoping Plan would result in the reduction of projectrelated GHG emissions with no action required at the project-level, including GHG emission reductions through increased energy efficiency and renewable energy production (SB 350), reduction in carbon intensity of transportation fuels (LCFS), and the accelerated efficiency and electrification of the statewide vehicle fleet (Mobile Source Strategy). The project is specifically supportive of the Scoping Plan measures as follows.

The project is a single-family residential development located on an infill site that is surrounded by urban uses and is presently served by existing utilities and essential public services, including transit, streets, water, and sewer.

Consistent with the Original Project which was determined to be compatible with all of the land use policies found within the City’s General Plan as the Original Project would provide pedestrian sidewalks and pathways, amenities 1289

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AND ENERGY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 18192 24 NOVEMBER 2025
available to residents that would reduce VMT by residents, and adequate site access points and recreational amenities. The Original Project would also comply with the intent and purpose of the Town Center Neighborhood General Plan land use designation that is intended to provide moderate to higher intensity neighborhood development that features a variety of housing choices, walkable streets, and mixed uses.

The project site, located on the southwest corner of Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola Avenue, is a disturbed, vacant lot with a utility easement observed along the western portion of the project site. The project site contains minimal vegetation with low bushes scattered throughout the site, and thus, would not result in the conversion of the state’s natural or working (i.e., agricultural) lands. VMT reductions would be achieved as the project site is served with bus services by Sunline Transit with bus stops near the east of the project site at the northeast corner of Cook Street and Frank Sinatra Drive. Shared sidewalks would be constructed along the Original Project’s street frontage, consistent with the General Plan Roadway Cross-sections, and each Original Project access point would include a crosswalk for nearby residents.

Existing on-street bike lanes are generally located throughout the Original Project’s study area. The project would support the use of existing and proposed pedestrian, bicycle, and mass-transit infrastructure and connectivity. Less reliance on automobiles and support for multi-modal transportation would help reduce GHG emissions and improve air quality. The project would not result in a loss of affordable units and would provide all electric housing units without any natural gas connections and does not propose the use of propane or other fossil fuels for space heating, water heating, or indoor cooking.

Overall, the project would comply with all regulations adopted in furtherance of the Scoping Plan to the extent applicable and required by law. As demonstrated above, the project would not conflict with CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan updates and with the state’s ability to achieve the GHG reduction and carbon neutrality goals. Based on the considerations previously outlined, the project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs, and the impact would be less than significant.

As such, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to air quality or GHG emissions. 5 Energy

5.1 Thresholds of Significance
The significance criteria used to evaluate the project impacts to energy are based on Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, A significant impact related to energy would occur if the project would:

1. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation.

2. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

5.2 Approach and Methodology
1290

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AND ENERGY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 18192 25 NOVEMBER 2025
CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.30 (CAPCOA 2022) was used to estimate the project’s energy consumption during construction and operation. Construction of the project would result in petroleum consumption primarily associated with use of off-road construction equipment, on-road hauling and vendor (material delivery) trucks, and worker vehicles. All details specific to construction and operation are discussed in Section 2.1. Potential energy consumption from project operations were estimated for area sources (landscape maintenance equipment), energy sources (natural gas and electricity), mobile sources, solid waste, and water supply and wastewater treatment.

5.3 Impact Analysis
Threshold 5.3a. Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Implementation of the project would increase the demand for electricity as well as petroleum consumption during construction and operation.

Electricity
Construction
Temporary electric power for lighting, heating/cooling, and electronic equipment, such as computers inside temporary construction trailers, as well as lighting for construction activities, would be required during short-term construction activities. The electricity demand at any given time would vary throughout the construction period based on the construction activities being performed and would cease upon completion of construction. When not in use, electric equipment would be powered off to avoid unnecessary energy consumption. All sources of electricity would be obtained from existing power lines that serve the site and no new infrastructure would be required. There is nothing unusual about project construction activities that would result in a wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary use of electrical energy. The electricity used for construction activities would be temporary and would have a negligible contribution to the project’s overall energy consumption. Impacts to electricity during construction would be less than significant.

Operations
Project operation would require electricity for multiple purposes including building heating and cooling, lighting, appliances, electronics, and water and wastewater conveyance. As discussed in Section 3, Air Quality, CalEEMod default values for electricity consumption for the project’s land uses were utilized which account for compliance with the 2019 Title 24 standards. This is conservative, as the project would be required to comply with the 2025 Title 24 standards, at a minimum. Table 10 presents the anticipated net electricity demand for the project.

Table 10. Operational Net Electricity Demand
Land Use kWh/Year
Single Family Housing 1,461,002
Parking 30,565
Total Electrical Demand for the Project 1,491,567
1291

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AND ENERGY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 18192 26 NOVEMBER 2025
Source: Attachment A.

Note: kWh = kilowatt-hour.

As shown in Table 10, buildout of the project is estimated to have a total electrical demand of approximately 1,491,567 kWh per year. In addition, the project would be built in accordance with the current Building Energy Efficiency Standards California Building Standards Code (Title 24) in effect at the time of construction, which include robust requirements for energy efficiency. Also, the provisions of the CALGreen building code apply to the planning, design, operation, construction, use and occupancy of every newly constructed building or structure in the state.

Therefore, due to the inherent increase in efficiency of building code regulations, the project would not result in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy. Impacts related to operational electricity use would be less than significant.

Natural Gas
Construction
Natural gas is not anticipated to be required during construction of the project. Fuels used for construction would primarily consist of diesel and gasoline, which are discussed below under the “petroleum” subsection. Any minor amounts of natural gas that may be consumed as a result of project construction would be substantially less than that required for the project’s operation and would have a negligible contribution to the project’s overall energy consumption.

Petroleum
Construction
Petroleum would be consumed throughout construction of the project. Fuel consumed by construction equipment would be the primary energy resource expended over the course of construction, and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) associated with the transportation of construction materials and construction worker commutes would also result in petroleum consumption. Heavy-duty construction equipment associated with construction activities, vendor trucks, and haul trucks would rely on diesel fuel. Construction workers would travel to and from the project site throughout the duration of construction. It was assumed that construction workers would travel in gasoline-powered vehicles.

Fuel consumption from construction equipment was estimated by converting the total CO2 emissions from each construction phase to gallons using conversion factors for CO2 to gallons of gasoline or diesel. The conversion factor for gasoline is 8.78 kilograms per metric ton CO2 per gallon, and the conversion factor for diesel is 10.21 kilograms per metric ton CO2 per gallon (The Climate Registry 20242025). The estimated diesel fuel use from construction equipment is shown in Table 15.

Table 15. Total Project Construction Petroleum Demand (Gallons) Off-Road Equipment (diesel) Haul Trucks (diesel) Vendor Trucks (diesel) Worker Vehicles
(gasoline)
Gallons
67,089.18 363.47 7,228.57 13,420.37
Source: See Attachment A for outputs.

Notes: Fuel consumption from worker and vendor truck trips was estimated by converting the total CO2 emissions from the construction phase to gallons using the conversion factors for CO2 to gallons of gasoline or diesel. Worker vehicles are assumed to be gasoline fueled, whereas vendor and haul trucks are assumed to be diesel fueled. 1292

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AND ENERGY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 18192 27 NOVEMBER 2025
In summary, construction associated with the project over the construction period is conservatively anticipated to consume 74,681 gallons of diesel from off-road equipment, haul trucks, and vendor trucks, and 363 gallons of gasoline from worker vehicles. The project would be subject to CARB’s In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation that applies to certain off-road diesel engines, vehicles, or equipment greater than 25 horsepower. The regulation does the following: (1) imposes limits on idling, requires a written idling policy, and requires a disclosure when selling vehicles; (2) requires all vehicles to be reported to CARB (using the Diesel Off-Road Online Reporting System) and labeled; (3) restricts adding older vehicles into fleets starting on January 1, 2014; and (4) requires fleets to reduce their emissions by retiring, replacing, or repowering older engines or installing Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies (i.e., exhaust retrofits). The fleet must either show that its fleet average index was less than or equal to the calculated fleet average target rate, or that the fleet has met the Best Achievable Control Technology requirements. Overall, the project would not be unusual when compared to local and regional demand for other energy resources and would not involve characteristics that require equipment that would be less energy-efficient than at comparable construction sites in the region or state. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Operations
The fuel consumption resulting from the project’s operational phase would be attributable to various vehicles associated with the residential land use. Petroleum fuel consumption associated with motor vehicles traveling within the city during operation is a function of VMT. The fuel use from the proposed project operational mobile sources is shown in Table 16.

Table 16. Annual Net Mobile Source Petroleum Demand
Fuel Vehicle MT CO2 kg/CO2/Gallon Gallons
Gasoline 1,890.63 8.87 215,333.33
Diesel 600.37 10.21 58,802.48
Total 274,135.81
Source: Trips and vehicle CO2 (provided in Attachment A of this report under “Project Operational Fuel Based Annual CO2”); kg/CO2/Gallon (The Climate Registry 2025).

Note: MT = metric ton; CO2 = carbon dioxide; kg = kilogram.

As depicted in Table 16, mobile sources from project buildout would result in approximately 274,136 gallons of petroleum fuel usage per year. For comparison, California as a whole consumes approximately 22.27 billion barrels gallons of petroleum per year (EIA 2024c).

Over the lifetime of the project, the fuel efficiency of vehicles is expected to increase. As such, the amount of petroleum consumed due to vehicular trips to and from the project site during operation would decrease over time.

In addition, there are numerous regulations in place that require and encourage increased fuel efficiency. For example, CARB has adopted an approach to passenger vehicles that combines the control of smog-causing pollutants and GHG emissions into a single, coordinated package of standards. The approach also includes efforts to support and accelerate the number of plug-in hybrids and zero-emissions vehicles in California, and the ACC II regulation that by 2035, all new passenger cars, trucks, and SUVs sold in California will be zero emissions (CARB 2011, 20222025). As such, operation of the project is expected to use decreasing amounts of petroleum over time due to advances in vehicle fuel economy standards.

In summary, the project would increase petroleum use during operation, but due to efficiency requirements the amount of petroleum consumed would diminish over time. The consumption of energy resources (including 1293

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AND ENERGY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 18192 28 NOVEMBER 2025
electricity, natural gas, and petroleum) during the project construction and operation would not be considered inefficient, or wasteful, or unnecessary and would result in a less-than-significant impact.

Threshold 5.3b Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Construction
The project would use construction contractors who must demonstrate compliance with applicable state and local regulations. Construction equipment would be required to comply with federal, state, and regional requirements where applicable. With respect to truck fleet operators, US EPA and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) have adopted fuel-efficiency standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks that will be phased in over time.

Phase 1 heavy-duty truck standards apply to combination tractors, heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans, and vocational vehicles for model years 2014 through 2018. US EPA and NHTSA also adopted the Phase 2 heavy-duty truck standards, which cover model years 2021 through 2027 and require the phase-in of a 5 to 25% reduction in fuel consumption over the 2017 baseline depending on the compliance year and vehicle type (EPA 2016). The energy modeling for trucks does not consider specific fuel reductions from these regulations, since they would apply to fleets as they incorporate newer trucks meeting the regulatory standards. However, these regulations would have an overall beneficial effect on reducing fuel consumption from trucks over time as older trucks are replaced with newer models that meet the standards.

In addition, construction equipment and trucks are required to comply with CARB regulations regarding heavy-duty truck idling limits of 5 minutes per occurrence. Off-road emissions standards would increase equipment efficiencies as they are phased-in overtime and less-efficient equipment is phased out of construction fleets. These limitations would result in an increase in energy savings in the form of reduced fuel consumption from more fuel-efficient engines. Although these requirements are intended to reduce criteria pollutant emissions, compliance with the antiidling and emissions regulations would also result in the efficient use of construction-related energy. Thus, based on the information above, construction of the project would comply with state or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

Per CEQA Guidelines Appendix F, the project’s construction equipment would be consistent with the current energy standards applicable to construction equipment including limiting idling fuel consumption and using contractors that comply with applicable CARB regulatory standards that affect energy efficiency. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency regarding during project construction, and impacts would be less than significant.

Operation
The project would comply with all applicable regulatory requirements including Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations CCR which contains energy efficiency standards for residential buildings based on a state mandate to reduce California’s energy demand. Specifically, Title 24 addresses a number of energy efficiency measures that impact energy used for lighting, water heating, heating, and air conditioning, including the energy impact of the building envelope such as windows, doors, wall/floor/ceiling assemblies, and roofs. Part 6 of Title 24 specifically establishes energy efficiency standards for residential and nonresidential buildings constructed in the State of California designed to reduce energy demand and consumption. Part 11 of Title 24 also includes the CALGreen 1294

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AND ENERGY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 18192 29 NOVEMBER 2025
building standards, which established mandatory minimum environmental performance standards for new construction projects. The project would comply with Title 24, Part 6, and Part 11, per state regulations.

Additionally, the project would receive electricity from SCE, which has a mandate to comply with SB 1020. This policy requires that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100% of the retail sales of electricity to California by 2045, with 90% by 2035, and 95% by 2040, and that the zero-carbon electricity resources do not increase the carbon emissions elsewhere in the western grid and that the achievement not be achieved through resource shuffling. Thus, the project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency; therefore, impacts during construction and operation of the project would be less than significant.
1295

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AND ENERGY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 18192 30 NOVEMBER 2025
6 References
CAPCOA (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association). 2022. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) User’s Guide Version 2022.1. Prepared by ICF in collaboration with Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, Fehr & Peers, STI, and Ramboll. April 2022. https://caleemod.com/documents/user-guide/01_User%20Guide.pdf.

CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April 2005. https://files.ceqanet.lci.ca.gov/221458-6/attachment/UNr-g159CWr0G4DR8q6daNdAKT3RJTd8gGQCfz4wqFfl-eNdZNQEqjf8tfls1x6Gsae7YqpXwtFIZBd0.

CARB. 2022. “Local Actions.” Appendix D in California Air Resources Board 2022 Scoping Plan. November 2022.

Accessed September 2024. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-11/2022-sp-appendix-dlocal-actions.pdf.

CAT (Climate Action Team). 2010. Climate Action Team Biennial Report. Sacramento, California. April 2010.

CNRA (California Natural Resources Agency). 2009. Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action:

Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines Addressing Analysis and Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Pursuant to SB 97. December 2009. Accessed June 2025. http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/Final_Statement_of_Reasons.pdf.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2025a. “Monitor Values Report.” Last updated March 28, 2025. https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data/monitor-values-report.

EPA. 2025b. “Health and Environmental Effects of Particulate Matter (PM).” Last updated May 23, 2025. https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/health-and-environmental-effects-particulate-matter-pm.

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007. IPCC Fourth Assessment Synthesis of ScientificTechnical Information Relevant to Interpreting Article 2 of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. November 2007. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4_syr_full_report.pdf.

NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory). 2025. PVWatts Calculator. Accessed June 2025. https://pvwatts.nrel.gov/index.php.

OEHHA (California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines – Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. February 2015. https://oehha.ca.gov/air/crnr/notice-adoption-air-toxics-hot-spots-program-guidance-manual-preparationhealth-risk-0.

OPR (Governor’s Office of Planning and Research). 2018. Discussion Draft: CEQA and Climate Change Advisory.

December 2018. https://lci.ca.gov/docs/20181228-Discussion_Draft_Climate_Change_Adivsory.pdf.

SCAG (Southern California Association of Governments). 2020. The 2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy of the Southern California Association of Governments, Connect 1296

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AND ENERGY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 18192 31 NOVEMBER 2025
SoCal. Adopted September 3, 2020. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2024- 05/0903fconnectsocal-plan_0.pdf.

SCAG. 2024. Connect SoCal 2024. The 2024–2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy of the Southern California Association of Government. Adopted April 4, 2024. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2024-05/23-2987-connect-socal-2024-final-complete040424.pdf.

SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District). 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Accessed January 2019. http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/ ceqa-air-quality-handbook-(1993).

SCAQMD. 2003. Final 2003 AQMP Appendix V Modeling and Attainment Demonstrations. August 2003. https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-plans/2003-airquality-management-plan/2003-aqmp-appendix-v.pdf?sfvrsn=2.

SCAQMD. 2008a. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. July 2008. Accessed June 2025. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/final-lstmethodology-document.pdf?sfvrsn=2.

SCAQMD. 2008b. Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold.

October 2008. Accessed June 2025. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-significance-thresholds/ghgattachmente.pdf.

SCAQMD. 2010. “Greenhouse Gases CEQA Significance Thresholds Working Group Meeting No. 15.” September 28, 2010. Accessed June 2025. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/ greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-significance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-15/ ghg-meeting-15-main-presentation.pdf?sfvrsn=2.

SCAQMD. 2022. 2022 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Adopted December 2, 2022. Accessed June 2025. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-plans/2022-airquality-management-plan/final-2022-aqmp/final-2022-aqmp.pdf?sfvrsn=16.

SCAQMD. 2023. “SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds.” Originally published in CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Table A9-11-A. Revised March 2023. https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/ceqa/handbook/south-coast-aqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=25.

SCAQMD. 2025a. “SCAQMD Modeling Guidance for AERMOD.” Accessed June 2025. https://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/meteorological-data/modeling-guidance.

SCAQMD. 2025b. “Health Risk Assessment Tool and AERMOD-Ready Meteorological Data Files.” Last updated March 1, 2025. Accessed June 2025. https://www.aqmd.gov/assets/aermet/AERMET_files_And_HRA_Tool.html.

SCAQMD. n.d. Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds. Accessed June 2025. https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significancethresholds/caleemod-guidance.pdf?sfvrsn=2. 1297

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AND ENERGY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 18192 32 NOVEMBER 2025
1298
Attachment A
CalEEMod Emissions Output
1299
1300
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
1 / 86
Portola Springs Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Site Preparation (2027) - Unmitigated

3.2. Site Preparation (2027) - Mitigated

3.3. Grading (2027) - Unmitigated
1301
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
2 / 86

3.4. Grading (2027) - Mitigated

3.5. Building Construction (2028) - Unmitigated

3.6. Building Construction (2028) - Mitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2029) - Unmitigated

3.8. Building Construction (2029) - Mitigated

3.9. Paving (2027) - Unmitigated

3.10. Paving (2027) - Mitigated

3.11. Paving (2028) - Unmitigated

3.12. Paving (2028) - Mitigated

3.13. Architectural Coating (2029) - Unmitigated

3.14. Architectural Coating (2029) - Mitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.1.2. Mitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
1302
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
3 / 86

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.3.2. Mitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.4.2. Mitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.5.2. Mitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.6.2. Mitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.7.2. Mitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
1303
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
4 / 86

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.8.2. Mitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.9.2. Mitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

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

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated

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

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.2.2. Mitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles
1304
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
5 / 86

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.3.2. Mitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.9.2. Mitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
1305
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
6 / 86

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.11.2. Mitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.12.2. Mitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.13.2. Mitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.14.2. Mitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.15.2. Mitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers
1306
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
7 / 86

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2.2. Mitigated

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
1307
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
8 / 86

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data

8.1. Justifications
1308
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
9 / 86

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Portola Springs
Construction Start Date 1/1/2026
Operational Year 2027
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 3.3
Precipitation (days) 0.80
Location 33.771474087298074, -116.3728596364748
County Riverside-Salton Sea
City Palm Desert
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin Salton Sea
TAZ 5646
EDFZ 11
Electric Utility Southern California Edison
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.32

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Single Family
Housing
156 Dwelling Unit 9.4 318,000 0.00 0.00 504 2 Story single family 1309
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
10 / 86
Parking Lot 89 Space 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Parking lots and on street
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
166 1000sqft 3.8 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Interior Roads
City Park 2.7 Acre 2.7 0.00 2.7 2.7 — Common &
Retention

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title
Energy E-15 Require All-Electric Development

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. 68 68 28 30 0.06 1.2 7.9 9.1 1.1 4.0 5.1 — 7,140 7,140 0.27 0.11 3.3 7,178 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 68 68 26 28 0.06 1.0 3.9 5.0 0.96 1.5 2.5 — 7,097 7,097 0.27 0.11 0.08 7,133 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 5.8 5.8 9.5 11 0.02 0.39 2.0 2.4 0.36 0.91 1.3 — 2,414 2,414 0.09 0.07 0.93 2,438 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.1 1.1 1.7 2.0 < 0.005 0.07 0.36 0.43 0.07 0.17 0.23 — 400 400 0.01 0.01 0.15 404 1310
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
11 / 86

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 3.7 3.1 28 30 0.06 1.2 7.9 9.1 1.1 4.0 5.1 — 7,140 7,140 0.27 0.10 1.4 7,178 2028 1.5 1.2 9.6 18 0.03 0.31 0.89 1.2 0.28 0.21 0.50 — 3,667 3,667 0.11 0.11 3.3 3,705 2029 68 68 0.84 2.0 < 0.005 0.01 0.16 0.17 0.01 0.04 0.05 — 303 303 0.01 0.01 0.42 305 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 3.6 3.0 26 28 0.06 1.0 3.9 5.0 0.96 1.5 2.5 — 7,097 7,097 0.27 0.10 0.04 7,133 2028 1.4 1.2 9.7 16 0.03 0.31 0.89 1.2 0.28 0.21 0.50 — 3,548 3,548 0.11 0.11 0.08 3,584 2029 68 68 9.3 15 0.03 0.28 0.89 1.2 0.26 0.21 0.47 — 3,524 3,524 0.11 0.11 0.08 3,558 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 1.3 1.1 9.5 11 0.02 0.39 2.0 2.4 0.36 0.91 1.3 — 2,254 2,254 0.09 0.03 0.20 2,266 2028 0.96 0.83 6.5 11 0.02 0.21 0.59 0.80 0.19 0.14 0.33 — 2,414 2,414 0.08 0.07 0.93 2,438 2029 5.8 5.8 1.6 2.8 < 0.005 0.05 0.16 0.21 0.04 0.04 0.08 — 617 617 0.02 0.02 0.23 623 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 0.24 0.20 1.7 1.9 < 0.005 0.07 0.36 0.43 0.07 0.17 0.23 — 373 373 0.01 < 0.005 0.03 375 2028 0.18 0.15 1.2 2.0 < 0.005 0.04 0.11 0.15 0.04 0.03 0.06 — 400 400 0.01 0.01 0.15 404 2029 1.1 1.1 0.29 0.51 < 0.005 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.02 — 102 102 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 103

2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 1311
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
12 / 86
Daily - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
2027 3.7 3.1 28 30 0.06 1.2 7.9 9.1 1.1 4.0 5.1 — 7,140 7,140 0.27 0.10 1.4 7,178 2028 1.5 1.2 9.6 18 0.03 0.31 0.89 1.2 0.28 0.21 0.50 — 3,667 3,667 0.11 0.11 3.3 3,705 2029 68 68 0.84 2.0 < 0.005 0.01 0.16 0.17 0.01 0.04 0.05 — 303 303 0.01 0.01 0.42 305 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 3.6 3.0 26 28 0.06 1.0 3.9 5.0 0.96 1.5 2.5 — 7,097 7,097 0.27 0.10 0.04 7,133 2028 1.4 1.2 9.7 16 0.03 0.31 0.89 1.2 0.28 0.21 0.50 — 3,548 3,548 0.11 0.11 0.08 3,584 2029 68 68 9.3 15 0.03 0.28 0.89 1.2 0.26 0.21 0.47 — 3,524 3,524 0.11 0.11 0.08 3,558 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 1.3 1.1 9.5 11 0.02 0.39 2.0 2.4 0.36 0.91 1.3 — 2,254 2,254 0.09 0.03 0.20 2,266 2028 0.96 0.83 6.5 11 0.02 0.21 0.59 0.80 0.19 0.14 0.33 — 2,414 2,414 0.08 0.07 0.93 2,438 2029 5.8 5.8 1.6 2.8 < 0.005 0.05 0.16 0.21 0.04 0.04 0.08 — 617 617 0.02 0.02 0.23 623 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 0.24 0.20 1.7 1.9 < 0.005 0.07 0.36 0.43 0.07 0.17 0.23 — 373 373 0.01 < 0.005 0.03 375 2028 0.18 0.15 1.2 2.0 < 0.005 0.04 0.11 0.15 0.04 0.03 0.06 — 400 400 0.01 0.01 0.15 404 2029 1.1 1.1 0.29 0.51 < 0.005 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.02 — 102 102 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 103

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. 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. 15 14 7.7 74 0.17 0.23 13 14 0.22 3.4 3.6 89 19,520 19,609 9.8 0.74 48 20,122 Mit. 15 14 6.3 73 0.16 0.11 13 14 0.10 3.4 3.5 89 17,746 17,835 9.6 0.74 48 18,343 1312
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
13 / 86
% 1% 1% 18% 1% 5% 50% — 1% 52% — 3% — 9% 9% 2% < 0.5% — 9% Reduced
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 13 12 8.1 43 0.15 0.22 13 14 0.22 3.4 3.6 89 17,682 17,772 9.8 0.76 3.5 18,247 Mit. 13 12 6.7 43 0.14 0.11 13 14 0.10 3.4 3.5 89 15,908 15,998 9.6 0.76 3.5 16,468 %
Reduced
1% 1% 17% 1% 6% 51% — 1% 53% — 3% — 10% 10% 2% < 0.5% — 10% Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 13 13 7.7 53 0.15 0.22 13 13 0.21 3.3 3.5 89 18,042 18,132 9.8 0.73 21 18,615 Mit. 13 13 6.3 53 0.14 0.11 13 13 0.10 3.3 3.4 89 16,268 16,357 9.6 0.73 21 16,836 %
Reduced
1% 1% 18% 1% 6% 51% — 1% 53% — 3% — 10% 10% 2% < 0.5% — 10% Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.4 2.3 1.4 9.7 0.03 0.04 2.4 2.4 0.04 0.61 0.65 15 2,987 3,002 1.6 0.12 3.5 3,082 Mit. 2.4 2.3 1.2 9.6 0.03 0.02 2.4 2.4 0.02 0.61 0.62 15 2,693 2,708 1.6 0.12 3.5 2,787 %
Reduced
1% 1% 18% 1% 6% 51% — 1% 53% — 3% — 10% 10% 2% < 0.5% — 10%

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 6.3 5.7 6.2 64 0.16 0.11 13 14 0.10 3.4 3.5 — 16,279 16,279 0.53 0.69 45 16,544 Area 8.2 8.2 0.08 8.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 24 24 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 24 Energy 0.16 0.08 1.4 0.60 0.01 0.11 — 0.11 0.11 — 0.11 — 3,189 3,189 0.29 0.02 — 3,202 1313
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
14 / 86
Water — — — — — — — — — — — 12 29 41 1.2 0.03 — 81
Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 77 0.00 77 7.7 0.00 — 270
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.3 2.3
Total 15 14 7.7 74 0.17 0.23 13 14 0.22 3.4 3.6 89 19,520 19,609 9.8 0.74 48 20,122 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 5.2 4.7 6.7 43 0.14 0.11 13 14 0.10 3.4 3.5 — 14,465 14,465 0.55 0.71 1.2 14,692 Area 7.4 7.4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.16 0.08 1.4 0.60 0.01 0.11 — 0.11 0.11 — 0.11 — 3,189 3,189 0.29 0.02 — 3,202 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 12 29 41 1.2 0.03 — 81
Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 77 0.00 77 7.7 0.00 — 270
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.3 2.3
Total 13 12 8.1 43 0.15 0.22 13 14 0.22 3.4 3.6 89 17,682 17,772 9.8 0.76 3.5 18,247 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 5.4 4.8 6.3 48 0.14 0.11 13 13 0.10 3.3 3.4 — 14,813 14,813 0.52 0.68 19 15,048 Area 7.8 7.8 0.04 4.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 12 12 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12 Energy 0.16 0.08 1.4 0.60 0.01 0.11 — 0.11 0.11 — 0.11 — 3,189 3,189 0.29 0.02 — 3,202 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 12 29 41 1.2 0.03 — 81
Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 77 0.00 77 7.7 0.00 — 270
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.3 2.3
Total 13 13 7.7 53 0.15 0.22 13 13 0.21 3.3 3.5 89 18,042 18,132 9.8 0.73 21 18,615 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.98 0.88 1.1 8.8 0.03 0.02 2.4 2.4 0.02 0.61 0.62 — 2,452 2,452 0.09 0.11 3.2 2,491 Area 1.4 1.4 0.01 0.80 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 1.9 1.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.9 Energy 0.03 0.01 0.26 0.11 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 528 528 0.05 < 0.005 — 530 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 2.0 4.7 6.7 0.21 < 0.005 — 13 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 13 0.00 13 1.3 0.00 — 45
1314
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
15 / 86
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.38 0.38
Total 2.4 2.3 1.4 9.7 0.03 0.04 2.4 2.4 0.04 0.61 0.65 15 2,987 3,002 1.6 0.12 3.5 3,082

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector 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 6.3 5.7 6.2 64 0.16 0.11 13 14 0.10 3.4 3.5 — 16,279 16,279 0.53 0.69 45 16,544 Area 8.2 8.2 0.08 8.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 24 24 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 24 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 1,415 1,415 0.13 0.02 — 1,423 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 12 29 41 1.2 0.03 — 81
Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 77 0.00 77 7.7 0.00 — 270
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.3 2.3
Total 15 14 6.3 73 0.16 0.11 13 14 0.10 3.4 3.5 89 17,746 17,835 9.6 0.74 48 18,343 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 5.2 4.7 6.7 43 0.14 0.11 13 14 0.10 3.4 3.5 — 14,465 14,465 0.55 0.71 1.2 14,692 Area 7.4 7.4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 1,415 1,415 0.13 0.02 — 1,423 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 12 29 41 1.2 0.03 — 81
Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 77 0.00 77 7.7 0.00 — 270
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.3 2.3
Total 13 12 6.7 43 0.14 0.11 13 14 0.10 3.4 3.5 89 15,908 15,998 9.6 0.76 3.5 16,468 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 5.4 4.8 6.3 48 0.14 0.11 13 13 0.10 3.3 3.4 — 14,813 14,813 0.52 0.68 19 15,048 Area 7.8 7.8 0.04 4.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 12 12 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12 1315 Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
16 / 86
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 1,415 1,415 0.13 0.02 — 1,423 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 12 29 41 1.2 0.03 — 81
Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 77 0.00 77 7.7 0.00 — 270
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.3 2.3
Total 13 13 6.3 53 0.14 0.11 13 13 0.10 3.3 3.4 89 16,268 16,357 9.6 0.73 21 16,836 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.98 0.88 1.1 8.8 0.03 0.02 2.4 2.4 0.02 0.61 0.62 — 2,452 2,452 0.09 0.11 3.2 2,491 Area 1.4 1.4 0.01 0.80 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 1.9 1.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.9 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 234 234 0.02 < 0.005 — 236 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 2.0 4.7 6.7 0.21 < 0.005 — 13 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 13 0.00 13 1.3 0.00 — 45
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.38 0.38
Total 2.4 2.3 1.2 9.6 0.03 0.02 2.4 2.4 0.02 0.61 0.62 15 2,693 2,708 1.6 0.12 3.5 2,787

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Site Preparation (2027) - 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-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

3.6 3.1 28 28 0.05 1.2 — 1.2 1.1 — 1.1 — 5,298 5,298 0.21 0.04 — 5,316 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 7.7 7.7 — 3.9 3.9 — — — — — — —
1316
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
17 / 86
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 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.60 0.50 4.6 4.6 0.01 0.19 — 0.19 0.18 — 0.18 — 871 871 0.04 0.01 — 874 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 1.3 1.3 — 0.65 0.65 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.11 0.09 0.84 0.85 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.03 — 0.03 — 144 144 0.01 < 0.005 — 145 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.23 0.23 — 0.12 0.12 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09 0.08 0.08 1.5 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 263 263 < 0.005 0.01 0.78 267 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.12 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 119 119 < 0.005 0.02 0.30 124 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 0.00 1317
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
18 / 86
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 39 39 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 40 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 20 20 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 20 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 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.5 6.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.6 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.2 3.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.4 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 0.00

3.2. Site Preparation (2027) - Mitigated
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-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

3.6 3.1 28 28 0.05 1.2 — 1.2 1.1 — 1.1 — 5,298 5,298 0.21 0.04 — 5,316 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 7.7 7.7 — 3.9 3.9 — — — — — — —
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 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1318
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
19 / 86
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.60 0.50 4.6 4.6 0.01 0.19 — 0.19 0.18 — 0.18 — 871 871 0.04 0.01 — 874 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 1.3 1.3 — 0.65 0.65 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.09 0.08 0.08 1.5 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 263 263 < 0.005 0.01 0.78 267 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.12 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 119 119 < 0.005 0.02 0.30 124 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 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 39 39 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 40 1319 Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
20 / 86
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 20 20 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 20 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 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.5 6.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.6 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.2 3.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.4 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 0.00

3.3. Grading (2027) - 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-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

3.5 2.9 26 27 0.06 1.0 — 1.0 0.96 — 0.96 — 6,598 6,598 0.27 0.05 — 6,621 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 3.6 3.6 — 1.4 1.4 — — — — — — —
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 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

3.5 2.9 26 27 0.06 1.0 — 1.0 0.96 — 0.96 — 6,598 6,598 0.27 0.05 — 6,621 1320
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
21 / 86
Dust — — — — — — 3.6 3.6 — 1.4 1.4 — — — — — — —
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 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.58 0.48 4.2 4.5 0.01 0.17 — 0.17 0.16 — 0.16 — 1,085 1,085 0.04 0.01 — 1,088 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.59 0.59 — 0.23 0.23 — — — — — — —
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 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.11 0.09 0.77 0.82 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 180 180 0.01 < 0.005 — 180 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.11 0.11 — 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 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.10 0.09 0.09 1.7 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 293 293 < 0.005 0.01 0.86 296 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.12 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 119 119 < 0.005 0.02 0.30 124 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.14 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 130 130 < 0.005 0.02 0.26 136 1321
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
22 / 86
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.10 0.96 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 249 249 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 252 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.13 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 119 119 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 124 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.15 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 130 130 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 136 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 44 44 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 44 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 20 20 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 20 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 21 21 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 22 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.2 7.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.3 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.2 3.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.4 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.5 3.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.7

3.4. Grading (2027) - Mitigated
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-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

3.5 2.9 26 27 0.06 1.0 — 1.0 0.96 — 0.96 — 6,598 6,598 0.27 0.05 — 6,621 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 3.6 3.6 — 1.4 1.4 — — — — — — —
1322
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
23 / 86
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 0.00 truck
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

3.5 2.9 26 27 0.06 1.0 — 1.0 0.96 — 0.96 — 6,598 6,598 0.27 0.05 — 6,621 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 3.6 3.6 — 1.4 1.4 — — — — — — —
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 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1323
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
24 / 86
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.10 0.09 0.09 1.7 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 293 293 < 0.005 0.01 0.86 296 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.12 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 119 119 < 0.005 0.02 0.30 124 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.14 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 130 130 < 0.005 0.02 0.26 136 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.10 0.96 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 249 249 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 252 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.13 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 119 119 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 124 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.15 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 130 130 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 136 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 44 44 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 44 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 20 20 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 20 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 21 21 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 22 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.2 7.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.3 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.2 3.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.4 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.5 3.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.7

3.5. Building Construction (2028) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1324
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
25 / 86
Off-Roa 1.2 0.99 8.9 13 0.02 0.30 — 0.30 0.28 — 0.28 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 d
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 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.2 0.99 8.9 13 0.02 0.30 — 0.30 0.28 — 0.28 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.78 0.65 5.9 8.5 0.02 0.20 — 0.20 0.18 — 0.18 — 1,572 1,572 0.06 0.01 — 1,577 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 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.14 0.12 1.1 1.5 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.03 — 0.03 — 260 260 0.01 < 0.005 — 261 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 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.26 0.23 0.22 4.4 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.75 0.00 0.18 0.18 — 804 804 0.01 0.03 2.2 814 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.46 0.20 < 0.005 0.01 0.13 0.14 0.01 0.04 0.04 — 466 466 0.01 0.06 1.1 486 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 0.00 1325
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
26 / 86
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.20 0.19 0.25 2.5 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.75 0.00 0.18 0.18 — 685 685 0.01 0.03 0.06 693 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.50 0.21 < 0.005 0.01 0.13 0.14 0.01 0.04 0.04 — 466 466 0.01 0.06 0.03 485 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 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.14 0.13 0.14 2.0 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.49 0.00 0.12 0.12 — 480 480 0.01 0.02 0.62 486 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.32 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.09 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 — 305 305 < 0.005 0.04 0.31 318 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 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 79 79 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.10 80 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 51 51 < 0.005 0.01 0.05 53 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 0.00

3.6. Building Construction (2028) - Mitigated
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-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.2 0.99 8.9 13 0.02 0.30 — 0.30 0.28 — 0.28 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1326
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
27 / 86
Off-Roa
Equipment

1.2 0.99 8.9 13 0.02 0.30 — 0.30 0.28 — 0.28 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.78 0.65 5.9 8.5 0.02 0.20 — 0.20 0.18 — 0.18 — 1,572 1,572 0.06 0.01 — 1,577 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 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.14 0.12 1.1 1.5 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.03 — 0.03 — 260 260 0.01 < 0.005 — 261 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 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.26 0.23 0.22 4.4 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.75 0.00 0.18 0.18 — 804 804 0.01 0.03 2.2 814 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.46 0.20 < 0.005 0.01 0.13 0.14 0.01 0.04 0.04 — 466 466 0.01 0.06 1.1 486 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 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.20 0.19 0.25 2.5 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.75 0.00 0.18 0.18 — 685 685 0.01 0.03 0.06 693 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.50 0.21 < 0.005 0.01 0.13 0.14 0.01 0.04 0.04 — 466 466 0.01 0.06 0.03 485 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 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1327
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
28 / 86
Worker 0.14 0.13 0.14 2.0 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.49 0.00 0.12 0.12 — 480 480 0.01 0.02 0.62 486 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.32 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.09 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 — 305 305 < 0.005 0.04 0.31 318 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 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 79 79 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.10 80 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 51 51 < 0.005 0.01 0.05 53 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 0.00

3.7. Building Construction (2029) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location 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-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.2 0.97 8.6 13 0.02 0.28 — 0.28 0.25 — 0.25 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.19 0.16 1.4 2.1 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.04 — 0.04 — 399 399 0.02 < 0.005 — 400 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 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1328
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
29 / 86
Off-Roa
Equipment

0.04 0.03 0.26 0.39 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 66 66 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 66 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 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.19 0.16 0.22 2.3 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.75 0.00 0.18 0.18 — 673 673 0.01 0.03 0.05 681 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.48 0.20 < 0.005 0.01 0.13 0.14 0.01 0.04 0.04 — 454 454 0.01 0.06 0.03 472 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 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 120 120 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.14 121 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 75 75 < 0.005 0.01 0.07 78 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 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 20 20 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 20 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12 12 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 13 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 0.00

3.8. Building Construction (2029) - Mitigated
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1329
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
30 / 86
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.2 0.97 8.6 13 0.02 0.28 — 0.28 0.25 — 0.25 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.19 0.16 1.4 2.1 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.04 — 0.04 — 399 399 0.02 < 0.005 — 400 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 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.04 0.03 0.26 0.39 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 66 66 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 66 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 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.19 0.16 0.22 2.3 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.75 0.00 0.18 0.18 — 673 673 0.01 0.03 0.05 681 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.48 0.20 < 0.005 0.01 0.13 0.14 0.01 0.04 0.04 — 454 454 0.01 0.06 0.03 472 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 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1330
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
31 / 86
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 120 120 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.14 121 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 75 75 < 0.005 0.01 0.07 78 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 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 20 20 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 20 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12 12 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 13 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 0.00

3.9. Paving (2027) - 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-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.88 0.74 6.9 10.0 0.01 0.30 — 0.30 0.27 — 0.27 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,516 Paving 0.27 0.27 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.08 0.07 0.63 0.90 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.02 — 0.02 — 136 136 0.01 < 0.005 — 136 Paving 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1331
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
32 / 86
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 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01 0.01 0.11 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 23 23 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 23 Paving < 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 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.06 0.08 0.76 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 199 199 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 202 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 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 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 19 19 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 19 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 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 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 — 3.2 3.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.2 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.00

3.10. Paving (2027) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 1332 Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
33 / 86
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-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.88 0.74 6.9 10.0 0.01 0.30 — 0.30 0.27 — 0.27 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,516 Paving 0.27 0.27 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.08 0.07 0.63 0.90 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.02 — 0.02 — 136 136 0.01 < 0.005 — 136 Paving 0.02 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 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01 0.01 0.11 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 23 23 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 23 Paving < 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 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1333
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
34 / 86
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.06 0.08 0.76 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 199 199 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 202 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 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 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 19 19 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 19 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 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 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 — 3.2 3.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.2 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.00

3.11. Paving (2028) - 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1334
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
35 / 86
Off-Roa 0.82 0.69 6.6 9.9 0.01 0.26 — 0.26 0.24 — 0.24 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,516 d
Equipm
ent
Paving 0.27 0.27 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.03 0.02 0.22 0.33 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 50 50 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 50 Paving 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 8.3 8.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.4 Paving < 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 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 196 196 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 198 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.00 1335
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
36 / 86
Average — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.0 7.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.0 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 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 — 1.2 1.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.2 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.00

3.12. Paving (2028) - Mitigated
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-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.82 0.69 6.6 9.9 0.01 0.26 — 0.26 0.24 — 0.24 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,516 Paving 0.27 0.27 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.03 0.02 0.22 0.33 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 50 50 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 50 1336
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
37 / 86
Paving 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 196 196 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 198 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.0 7.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.0 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 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 — 1.2 1.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.2 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.00

3.13. Architectural Coating (2029) - Unmitigated
1337
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
38 / 86
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-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.12 0.10 0.79 1.1 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coating
s
68 68 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.12 0.10 0.79 1.1 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coating
s
68 68 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01 0.01 0.07 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 11 11 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11 1338
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
39 / 86
Architect 5.6 5.6 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ural
Coating
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 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.8 1.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.8 Architect
ural
Coating
s

1.0 1.0 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.88 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 169 169 < 0.005 0.01 0.42 171 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 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 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.05 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 144 144 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 146 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 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 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13 13 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 13 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 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 0.00 1339 Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
40 / 86
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.1 2.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.1 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 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 0.00

3.14. Architectural Coating (2029) - Mitigated
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-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.12 0.10 0.79 1.1 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coating
s
68 68 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.12 0.10 0.79 1.1 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coating
s
68 68 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 0.00 1340
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
41 / 86
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01 0.01 0.07 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 11 11 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11 Architect
ural
Coating
s

5.6 5.6 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

1.0 1.0 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.88 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 169 169 < 0.005 0.01 0.42 171 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 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 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.05 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 144 144 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 146 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 0.00 1341
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
42 / 86
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 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13 13 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 13 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 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 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 — 2.1 2.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.1 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 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 0.00

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

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

6.3 5.7 6.1 64 0.16 0.11 13 13 0.10 3.4 3.5 — 16,213 16,213 0.53 0.69 45 16,477 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 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 City
Park

0.03 0.02 0.02 0.26 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 65 65 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.18 66 1342
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
43 / 86
Total 6.3 5.7 6.2 64 0.16 0.11 13 14 0.10 3.4 3.5 — 16,279 16,279 0.53 0.69 45 16,544 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

5.2 4.7 6.7 43 0.14 0.11 13 13 0.10 3.4 3.5 — 14,407 14,407 0.55 0.71 1.2 14,633 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 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 City
Park

0.02 0.02 0.03 0.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 58 58 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 59 Total 5.2 4.7 6.7 43 0.14 0.11 13 14 0.10 3.4 3.5 — 14,465 14,465 0.55 0.71 1.2 14,692 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.98 0.88 1.1 8.8 0.03 0.02 2.4 2.4 0.02 0.60 0.62 — 2,447 2,447 0.09 0.11 3.2 2,486 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 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 City
Park
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.3 5.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.4 Total 0.98 0.88 1.1 8.8 0.03 0.02 2.4 2.4 0.02 0.61 0.62 — 2,452 2,452 0.09 0.11 3.2 2,491

4.1.2. Mitigated
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 1343
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
44 / 86
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Single
Family
Housing

6.3 5.7 6.1 64 0.16 0.11 13 13 0.10 3.4 3.5 — 16,213 16,213 0.53 0.69 45 16,477 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 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 City
Park

0.03 0.02 0.02 0.26 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 65 65 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.18 66 Total 6.3 5.7 6.2 64 0.16 0.11 13 14 0.10 3.4 3.5 — 16,279 16,279 0.53 0.69 45 16,544 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

5.2 4.7 6.7 43 0.14 0.11 13 13 0.10 3.4 3.5 — 14,407 14,407 0.55 0.71 1.2 14,633 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 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 City
Park

0.98 0.88 1.1 8.8 0.03 0.02 2.4 2.4 0.02 0.60 0.62 — 2,447 2,447 0.09 0.11 3.2 2,486 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 1344
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
45 / 86
Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt
Surfaces
City
Park
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.3 5.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.4 Total 0.98 0.88 1.1 8.8 0.03 0.02 2.4 2.4 0.02 0.61 0.62 — 2,452 2,452 0.09 0.11 3.2 2,491

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,382 1,382 0.13 0.02 — 1,390
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 29 29 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 29
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,411 1,411 0.13 0.02 — 1,419 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,382 1,382 0.13 0.02 — 1,390
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 29 29 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 29
1345
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
46 / 86
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,411 1,411 0.13 0.02 — 1,419 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 229 229 0.02 < 0.005 — 230
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 4.8 4.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.8
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 234 234 0.02 < 0.005 — 235

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,386 1,386 0.13 0.02 — 1,394
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 29 29 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 29
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
1346
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
47 / 86
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,415 1,415 0.13 0.02 — 1,423 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,386 1,386 0.13 0.02 — 1,394
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 29 29 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 29
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,415 1,415 0.13 0.02 — 1,423 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 229 229 0.02 < 0.005 — 231
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 4.8 4.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.8
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 234 234 0.02 < 0.005 — 236

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 CO2e 1347
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
48 / 86
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Single
Family
Housing

0.16 0.08 1.4 0.60 0.01 0.11— 0.11 0.11— 0.11— 1,778 1,778 0.16 < 0.005— 1,783 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 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00— 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 City
Park

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00— 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 Total 0.16 0.08 1.4 0.60 0.01 0.11— 0.11 0.11— 0.11— 1,778 1,778 0.16 < 0.005— 1,783 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Single
Family
Housing

0.16 0.08 1.4 0.60 0.01 0.11— 0.11 0.11— 0.11— 1,778 1,778 0.16 < 0.005— 1,783 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 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00— 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 City
Park

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00— 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 Total 0.16 0.08 1.4 0.60 0.01 0.11— 0.11 0.11— 0.11— 1,778 1,778 0.16 < 0.005— 1,783 Annual——————————————————
Single
Family
Housing

0.03 0.01 0.26 0.11 < 0.005 0.02— 0.02 0.02— 0.02— 294 294 0.03 < 0.005— 295 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 1348
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
49 / 86
Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Asphalt
Surfaces
City
Park

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.03 0.01 0.26 0.11 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 294 294 0.03 < 0.005 — 295

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

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 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 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 City
Park

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 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 1349
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
50 / 86
Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Asphalt
Surfaces
City
Park

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 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 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 City
Park

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

4.3. 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Product
s

6.8 6.8 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1350
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
51 / 86
Architect 0.56 0.56 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ural
Coating
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

0.82 0.78 0.08 8.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 24 24 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 24 Total 8.2 8.2 0.08 8.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 24 24 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 24 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Product
s

6.8 6.8 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.56 0.56 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 7.4 7.4 0.00 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Product
s

1.2 1.2 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.10 0.10 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

0.07 0.07 0.01 0.80 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.9 1.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.9 Total 1.4 1.4 0.01 0.80 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 1.9 1.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.9 1351
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
52 / 86

4.3.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Product
s

6.8 6.8 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.56 0.56 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

6.8 6.8 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

1.2 1.2 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.10 0.10 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

0.07 0.07 0.01 0.80 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.9 1.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.9 Total 1.4 1.4 0.01 0.80 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 1.9 1.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.9

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 12 29 41 1.2 0.03 — 81
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 12 29 41 1.2 0.03 — 81
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1353
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
54 / 86
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 12 29 41 1.2 0.03 — 81
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 12 29 41 1.2 0.03 — 81
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 2.0 4.7 6.7 0.21 < 0.005 — 13
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 2.0 4.7 6.7 0.21 < 0.005 — 13

4.4.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 12 29 41 1.2 0.03 — 81
1354
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
55 / 86
Parking
Lot
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
City
Park
——————————— 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005— < 0.005 Total——————————— 12 29 41 1.2 0.03— 81
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Single
Family
Housing
——————————— 12 29 41 1.2 0.03— 81
Parking
Lot
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
City
Park
——————————— 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005— < 0.005 Total——————————— 12 29 41 1.2 0.03— 81
Annual——————————————————
Single
Family
Housing
——————————— 2.0 4.7 6.7 0.21 < 0.005— 13
Parking
Lot
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
City
Park
——————————— 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005— < 0.005 Total——————————— 2.0 4.7 6.7 0.21 < 0.005— 13
1355
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
56 / 86

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 77 0.00 77 7.7 0.00 — 269
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.13 0.00 0.13 0.01 0.00 — 0.44
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 77 0.00 77 7.7 0.00 — 270
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 77 0.00 77 7.7 0.00 — 269
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.13 0.00 0.13 0.01 0.00 — 0.44
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 77 0.00 77 7.7 0.00 — 270
1356
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
57 / 86
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 13 0.00 13 1.3 0.00 — 45
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.02 0.00 0.02 < 0.005 0.00 — 0.07 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 13 0.00 13 1.3 0.00 — 45

4.5.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 77 0.00 77 7.7 0.00 — 269
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.13 0.00 0.13 0.01 0.00 — 0.44
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 77 0.00 77 7.7 0.00 — 270
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1357
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
58 / 86
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 77 0.00 77 7.7 0.00 — 269
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.13 0.00 0.13 0.01 0.00 — 0.44
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 77 0.00 77 7.7 0.00 — 270
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 13 0.00 13 1.3 0.00 — 45
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.02 0.00 0.02 < 0.005 0.00 — 0.07 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 13 0.00 13 1.3 0.00 — 45

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1358
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
59 / 86
Single — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.3 2.3
Family
Housing
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.3 2.3
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.3 2.3
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.3 2.3
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.38 0.38
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.38 0.38

4.6.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.3 2.3
1359
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
60 / 86
City — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Park
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.3 2.3
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.3 2.3
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.3 2.3
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.38 0.38
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.38 0.38

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) Equipm
ent
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1360
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
61 / 86
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.7.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8. 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) Equipm
ent
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1361
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
62 / 86
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
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) Equipm
ent
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1362
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
63 / 86
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.9.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10. 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) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 1363
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
64 / 86
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1364
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
65 / 86
Avoided——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Remove d——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
———————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Avoided——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Remove d——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
———————————————————
Annual——————————————————
Avoided——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Remove d——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
———————————————————
1365
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
66 / 86

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati
on
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated 1366
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
67 / 86
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1367
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
68 / 86
Remove — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Site Preparation Site Preparation 6/1/2027 8/23/2027 5.0 60 — Grading Grading 8/24/2027 11/15/2027 5.0 60 —
Building Construction Building Construction 2/1/2028 3/26/2029 5.0 300 — Paving Paving 11/16/2027 1/17/2028 5.0 45 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 3/27/2029 5/7/2029 5.0 30 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.0 8.0 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 4.0 8.0 84 0.37
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 2.0 8.0 36 0.38
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.0 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.0 367 0.40 Grading Scrapers Diesel Average 2.0 8.0 423 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.0 8.0 84 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.0 367 0.29 1368
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
69 / 86
Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.0 8.0 82 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.0 14 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.0 7.0 84 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.0 46 0.45 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.0 8.0 81 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.0 8.0 89 0.36
Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.0 8.0 36 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.0 37 0.48

5.2.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.0 8.0 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 4.0 8.0 84 0.37
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 2.0 8.0 36 0.38
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.0 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.0 367 0.40 Grading Scrapers Diesel Average 2.0 8.0 423 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.0 8.0 84 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.0 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.0 8.0 82 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.0 14 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.0 7.0 84 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.0 46 0.45 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.0 8.0 81 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.0 8.0 89 0.36
1369
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
70 / 86
Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.0 8.0 36 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.0 37 0.48

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Site Preparation Worker 18 19 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor 4.0 10.0 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading Worker 20 19 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor 4.0 10.0 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 2.0 20 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction Worker 56 19 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 16 10.0 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving Worker 16 19 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor 0.00 10.0 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating Worker 12 19 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor 0.00 10.0 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT
1370
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
71 / 86

5.3.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Site Preparation Worker 18 19 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor 4.0 10.0 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading Worker 20 19 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor 4.0 10.0 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 2.0 20 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction Worker 56 19 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 16 10.0 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving Worker 16 19 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor 0.00 10.0 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating Worker 12 19 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor 0.00 10.0 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20 HHDT
Architectural Coating 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% 1371
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
72 / 86

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 643,950 214,650 0.00 0.00 12,023

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 (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) Site Preparation 0.00 0.00 7.5 0.00 0.00
Grading 0.00 322 90 0.00 0.00
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.3

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 2 61% 61%

5.7. Construction Paving
Phase Name Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Paving Single Family Housing 1.7 0%
Paving Parking Lot 0.80 100%
Paving Other Asphalt Surfaces 3.8 100%
Paving City Park 0.00 0%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh) 1372
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
73 / 86
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2027 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005
2028 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005
2029 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Single Family
Housing
1,473 1,488 1,334 531,087 18,709 18,907 16,945 6,747,141 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
City Park 2.1 5.4 6.0 1,146 27 68 76 14,605

5.9.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Single Family
Housing
1,473 1,488 1,334 531,087 18,709 18,907 16,945 6,747,141 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
City Park 2.1 5.4 6.0 1,146 27 68 76 14,605

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths
Land Use Hearth Type Unmitigated (number) Mitigated (number) 1373
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
74 / 86
Single Family Housing Wood Fireplaces00
Single Family Housing Gas Fireplaces00
Single Family Housing Propane Fireplaces00
Single Family Housing Electric Fireplaces00
Single Family Housing No Fireplaces00
Single Family Housing Conventional Wood Stoves00
Single Family Housing Catalytic Wood Stoves00
Single Family Housing Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves00
Single Family Housing Pellet Wood Stoves00
Parking Lot Wood Fireplaces00
Parking Lot Gas Fireplaces00
Parking Lot Propane Fireplaces00
Parking Lot Electric Fireplaces00
Parking Lot No Fireplaces00
Parking Lot Conventional Wood Stoves00
Parking Lot Catalytic Wood Stoves00
Parking Lot Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves00
Parking Lot Pellet Wood Stoves00
Other Asphalt Surfaces Wood Fireplaces00
Other Asphalt Surfaces Gas Fireplaces00
Other Asphalt Surfaces Propane Fireplaces00
Other Asphalt Surfaces Electric Fireplaces00
Other Asphalt Surfaces No Fireplaces00
Other Asphalt Surfaces Conventional Wood Stoves00
Other Asphalt Surfaces Catalytic Wood Stoves00
Other Asphalt Surfaces Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves00
Other Asphalt Surfaces Pellet Wood Stoves00
City Park Wood Fireplaces00
1374
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
75 / 86
City Park Gas Fireplaces 0 0
City Park Propane Fireplaces 0 0
City Park Electric Fireplaces 0 0
City Park No Fireplaces 0 0
City Park Conventional Wood Stoves 0 0
City Park Catalytic Wood Stoves 0 0
City Park Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0 0
City Park Pellet Wood Stoves 0 0

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)
undefined 643,950 214,650 0.00 0.00 12,023

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) 1375 Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
76 / 86
Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Single Family Housing 1,456,922 346 0.0330 0.0040 5,548,033 Parking Lot 30,565 346 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 346 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
City Park 0.00 346 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.11.2. Mitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Single Family Housing 1,461,002 346 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Parking Lot 30,565 346 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 346 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
City Park 0.00 346 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) Single Family Housing 6,345,109 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00
City Park 0.00 114

5.12.2. Mitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Single Family Housing 6,345,109 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00
1376
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
77 / 86
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00
City Park 0.00 114

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Single Family Housing 143 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00
City Park 0.23 0.00

5.13.2. Mitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Single Family Housing 143 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00
City Park 0.23 0.00

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Single Family Housing Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.5 2.5 10.0
Single Family Housing Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
1377
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
78 / 86
City Park Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.0 4.0 18
City Park Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00

5.14.2. Mitigated
Land Use Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Single Family Housing Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.5 2.5 10.0
Single Family Housing Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
City Park Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.0 4.0 18
City Park Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.15.2. Mitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined
1378
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
79 / 86

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

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

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

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

5.18.2.2. Mitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year) 1379
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
80 / 86

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

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

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 26 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 0.00 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 0.03 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

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

Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 1 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought 0 0 0 N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A 1380
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
81 / 86
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

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

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

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 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 91
1381
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
82 / 86
AQ-PM 7.4
AQ-DPM 31
Drinking Water 45
Lead Risk Housing 3.6
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 2.2
Traffic 58
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 0.00
Groundwater 0.00
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 38
Impaired Water Bodies 0.00
Solid Waste 0.00
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 13
Cardio-vascular 26
Low Birth Weights —
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 35
Housing 68
Linguistic 7.4
Poverty 56
Unemployment 94

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 —
1382
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
83 / 86
Above Poverty 63.17207751
Employed 0.603105351
Median HI 35.4035673
Education—
Bachelor's or higher 62.49197998
High school enrollment 25.13794431
Preschool enrollment 19.97946875
Transportation—
Auto Access 38.0341332
Active commuting 2.989862697
Social—
2-parent households 99.56371102
Voting 89.95252149
Neighborhood—
Alcohol availability 79.00680098
Park access 2.194276915
Retail density 19.54317978
Supermarket access 30.52739638
Tree canopy 11.49749775
Housing—
Homeownership 91.21006031
Housing habitability 90.45297061
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 40.29257026 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 81.59887078
Uncrowded housing 96.93314513
Health Outcomes—
Insured adults 92.49326318
Arthritis 0.0
1383
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
84 / 86
Asthma ER Admissions 86.4
High Blood Pressure 0.0
Cancer (excluding skin) 0.0
Asthma 0.0
Coronary Heart Disease 0.0
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 0.1
Cognitively Disabled 54.2
Physically Disabled 2.4
Heart Attack ER Admissions 89.3
Mental Health Not Good 0.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0
Obesity 0.0
Pedestrian Injuries 19.6
Physical Health Not Good 0.0
Stroke 0.0
Health Risk Behaviors—
Binge Drinking 0.0
Current Smoker 0.0
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0
Climate Change Exposures—
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 99.4
Elderly 0.2
English Speaking 88.3
Foreign-born 30.0
1384
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
85 / 86
Outdoor Workers 98.2
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 49.1
Traffic Density 21.3
Traffic Access 23.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 70.6
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 93.3

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 13
Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 36
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
1385
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
86 / 86

8.1. Justifications
Screen Justification
Land Use Based on applicant site plan
Construction: Construction Phases Site cleared, no demolition phase of construction.

Construction: Dust From Material Movement Applicant provided information.

Construction: Trips and VMT Applicant provided information.

Operations: Hearths Per applicant, all electric development. 1386
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
1 / 86
Portola Springs Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Site Preparation (2027) - Unmitigated

3.2. Site Preparation (2027) - Mitigated

3.3. Grading (2027) - Unmitigated
1387
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
2 / 86

3.4. Grading (2027) - Mitigated

3.5. Building Construction (2028) - Unmitigated

3.6. Building Construction (2028) - Mitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2029) - Unmitigated

3.8. Building Construction (2029) - Mitigated

3.9. Paving (2027) - Unmitigated

3.10. Paving (2027) - Mitigated

3.11. Paving (2028) - Unmitigated

3.12. Paving (2028) - Mitigated

3.13. Architectural Coating (2029) - Unmitigated

3.14. Architectural Coating (2029) - Mitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.1.2. Mitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
1388
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
3 / 86

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.3.2. Mitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.4.2. Mitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.5.2. Mitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.6.2. Mitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.7.2. Mitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
1389
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
4 / 86

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.8.2. Mitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.9.2. Mitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

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

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated

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

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.2.2. Mitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles
1390
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
5 / 86

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.3.2. Mitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.9.2. Mitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
1391
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
6 / 86

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.11.2. Mitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.12.2. Mitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.13.2. Mitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.14.2. Mitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.15.2. Mitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers
1392
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
7 / 86

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2.2. Mitigated

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
1393
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
8 / 86

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data

8.1. Justifications
1394
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
9 / 86

1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Single Family
Housing
156 Dwelling Unit 9.4 318,000 0.00 0.00 504 2 Story single family 1395
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
10 / 86
Parking Lot 89 Space 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Parking lots and on street
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
166 1000sqft 3.8 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Interior Roads
City Park 2.7 Acre 2.7 0.00 2.7 2.7 — Common &
Retention

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title
Energy E-15 Require All-Electric Development

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. 68 68 28 28 0.06 1.2 7.7 8.8 1.1 3.9 5.0 — 6,617 6,617 0.27 0.06 0.04 6,640 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 68 68 26 28 0.06 1.0 3.6 4.6 0.96 1.4 2.4 — 6,616 6,616 0.27 0.06 < 0.005 6,640 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 5.8 5.8 9.5 10 0.02 0.39 1.9 2.2 0.36 0.88 1.2 — 2,097 2,097 0.09 0.02 0.01 2,105 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.1 1.1 1.7 1.8 < 0.005 0.07 0.34 0.41 0.07 0.16 0.23 — 347 347 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 348 1396
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
11 / 86

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 3.7 3.1 28 28 0.06 1.2 7.7 8.8 1.1 3.9 5.0 — 6,617 6,617 0.27 0.06 0.02 6,640 2028 1.4 1.2 9.1 14 0.02 0.30 0.01 0.31 0.28 < 0.005 0.28 — 2,442 2,442 0.11 0.03 0.04 2,453 2029 68 68 0.80 1.2 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 — 137 137 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 138 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 3.6 3.0 26 28 0.06 1.0 3.6 4.6 0.96 1.4 2.4 — 6,616 6,616 0.27 0.06 < 0.005 6,640 2028 1.3 1.1 9.1 14 0.02 0.30 0.01 0.31 0.28 < 0.005 0.28 — 2,442 2,442 0.11 0.03 < 0.005 2,453 2029 68 68 8.8 13 0.02 0.28 0.01 0.29 0.25 < 0.005 0.26 — 2,440 2,440 0.11 0.03 < 0.005 2,451 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 1.3 1.1 9.5 10 0.02 0.39 1.9 2.2 0.36 0.88 1.2 — 2,097 2,097 0.09 0.02 < 0.005 2,105 2028 0.93 0.79 6.2 9.2 0.02 0.21 0.01 0.21 0.19 < 0.005 0.19 — 1,651 1,651 0.07 0.02 0.01 1,658 2029 5.8 5.8 1.5 2.3 < 0.005 0.05 < 0.005 0.05 0.04 < 0.005 0.04 — 417 417 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 419 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 0.24 0.20 1.7 1.8 < 0.005 0.07 0.34 0.41 0.07 0.16 0.23 — 347 347 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 348 2028 0.17 0.14 1.1 1.7 < 0.005 0.04 < 0.005 0.04 0.03 < 0.005 0.03 — 273 273 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 275 2029 1.1 1.1 0.28 0.43 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 — 69 69 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 69

2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 1397
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
12 / 86
Daily - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
2027 3.7 3.1 28 28 0.06 1.2 7.7 8.8 1.1 3.9 5.0 — 6,617 6,617 0.27 0.06 0.02 6,640 2028 1.4 1.2 9.1 14 0.02 0.30 0.01 0.31 0.28 < 0.005 0.28 — 2,442 2,442 0.11 0.03 0.04 2,453 2029 68 68 0.80 1.2 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 — 137 137 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 138 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 3.6 3.0 26 28 0.06 1.0 3.6 4.6 0.96 1.4 2.4 — 6,616 6,616 0.27 0.06 < 0.005 6,640 2028 1.3 1.1 9.1 14 0.02 0.30 0.01 0.31 0.28 < 0.005 0.28 — 2,442 2,442 0.11 0.03 < 0.005 2,453 2029 68 68 8.8 13 0.02 0.28 0.01 0.29 0.25 < 0.005 0.26 — 2,440 2,440 0.11 0.03 < 0.005 2,451 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 1.3 1.1 9.5 10 0.02 0.39 1.9 2.2 0.36 0.88 1.2 — 2,097 2,097 0.09 0.02 < 0.005 2,105 2028 0.93 0.79 6.2 9.2 0.02 0.21 0.01 0.21 0.19 < 0.005 0.19 — 1,651 1,651 0.07 0.02 0.01 1,658 2029 5.8 5.8 1.5 2.3 < 0.005 0.05 < 0.005 0.05 0.04 < 0.005 0.04 — 417 417 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 419 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 0.24 0.20 1.7 1.8 < 0.005 0.07 0.34 0.41 0.07 0.16 0.23 — 347 347 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 348 2028 0.17 0.14 1.1 1.7 < 0.005 0.04 < 0.005 0.04 0.03 < 0.005 0.03 — 273 273 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 275 2029 1.1 1.1 0.28 0.43 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 — 69 69 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 69

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. 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. 15 14 7.7 74 0.17 0.23 13 14 0.22 3.4 3.6 89 19,520 19,609 9.8 0.74 48 20,122 Mit. 15 14 6.3 73 0.16 0.11 13 14 0.10 3.4 3.5 89 17,746 17,835 9.6 0.74 48 18,343 1398
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
13 / 86
% 1% 1% 18% 1% 5% 50% — 1% 52% — 3% — 9% 9% 2% < 0.5% — 9% Reduced
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 13 12 8.1 43 0.15 0.22 13 14 0.22 3.4 3.6 89 17,682 17,772 9.8 0.76 3.5 18,247 Mit. 13 12 6.7 43 0.14 0.11 13 14 0.10 3.4 3.5 89 15,908 15,998 9.6 0.76 3.5 16,468 %
Reduced
1% 1% 17% 1% 6% 51% — 1% 53% — 3% — 10% 10% 2% < 0.5% — 10% Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 13 13 7.7 53 0.15 0.22 13 13 0.21 3.3 3.5 89 18,042 18,132 9.8 0.73 21 18,615 Mit. 13 13 6.3 53 0.14 0.11 13 13 0.10 3.3 3.4 89 16,268 16,357 9.6 0.73 21 16,836 %
Reduced
1% 1% 18% 1% 6% 51% — 1% 53% — 3% — 10% 10% 2% < 0.5% — 10% Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.4 2.3 1.4 9.7 0.03 0.04 2.4 2.4 0.04 0.61 0.65 15 2,987 3,002 1.6 0.12 3.5 3,082 Mit. 2.4 2.3 1.2 9.6 0.03 0.02 2.4 2.4 0.02 0.61 0.62 15 2,693 2,708 1.6 0.12 3.5 2,787 %
Reduced
1% 1% 18% 1% 6% 51% — 1% 53% — 3% — 10% 10% 2% < 0.5% — 10%

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 6.3 5.7 6.2 64 0.16 0.11 13 14 0.10 3.4 3.5 — 16,279 16,279 0.53 0.69 45 16,544 Area 8.2 8.2 0.08 8.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 24 24 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 24 Energy 0.16 0.08 1.4 0.60 0.01 0.11 — 0.11 0.11 — 0.11 — 3,189 3,189 0.29 0.02 — 3,202 1399
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
14 / 86
Water — — — — — — — — — — — 12 29 41 1.2 0.03 — 81
Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 77 0.00 77 7.7 0.00 — 270
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.3 2.3
Total 15 14 7.7 74 0.17 0.23 13 14 0.22 3.4 3.6 89 19,520 19,609 9.8 0.74 48 20,122 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 5.2 4.7 6.7 43 0.14 0.11 13 14 0.10 3.4 3.5 — 14,465 14,465 0.55 0.71 1.2 14,692 Area 7.4 7.4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.16 0.08 1.4 0.60 0.01 0.11 — 0.11 0.11 — 0.11 — 3,189 3,189 0.29 0.02 — 3,202 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 12 29 41 1.2 0.03 — 81
Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 77 0.00 77 7.7 0.00 — 270
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.3 2.3
Total 13 12 8.1 43 0.15 0.22 13 14 0.22 3.4 3.6 89 17,682 17,772 9.8 0.76 3.5 18,247 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 5.4 4.8 6.3 48 0.14 0.11 13 13 0.10 3.3 3.4 — 14,813 14,813 0.52 0.68 19 15,048 Area 7.8 7.8 0.04 4.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 12 12 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12 Energy 0.16 0.08 1.4 0.60 0.01 0.11 — 0.11 0.11 — 0.11 — 3,189 3,189 0.29 0.02 — 3,202 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 12 29 41 1.2 0.03 — 81
Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 77 0.00 77 7.7 0.00 — 270
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.3 2.3
Total 13 13 7.7 53 0.15 0.22 13 13 0.21 3.3 3.5 89 18,042 18,132 9.8 0.73 21 18,615 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.98 0.88 1.1 8.8 0.03 0.02 2.4 2.4 0.02 0.61 0.62 — 2,452 2,452 0.09 0.11 3.2 2,491 Area 1.4 1.4 0.01 0.80 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 1.9 1.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.9 Energy 0.03 0.01 0.26 0.11 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 528 528 0.05 < 0.005 — 530 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 2.0 4.7 6.7 0.21 < 0.005 — 13 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 13 0.00 13 1.3 0.00 — 45
1400
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
15 / 86
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.38 0.38
Total 2.4 2.3 1.4 9.7 0.03 0.04 2.4 2.4 0.04 0.61 0.65 15 2,987 3,002 1.6 0.12 3.5 3,082

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector 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 6.3 5.7 6.2 64 0.16 0.11 13 14 0.10 3.4 3.5 — 16,279 16,279 0.53 0.69 45 16,544 Area 8.2 8.2 0.08 8.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 24 24 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 24 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 1,415 1,415 0.13 0.02 — 1,423 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 12 29 41 1.2 0.03 — 81
Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 77 0.00 77 7.7 0.00 — 270
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.3 2.3
Total 15 14 6.3 73 0.16 0.11 13 14 0.10 3.4 3.5 89 17,746 17,835 9.6 0.74 48 18,343 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 5.2 4.7 6.7 43 0.14 0.11 13 14 0.10 3.4 3.5 — 14,465 14,465 0.55 0.71 1.2 14,692 Area 7.4 7.4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 1,415 1,415 0.13 0.02 — 1,423 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 12 29 41 1.2 0.03 — 81
Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 77 0.00 77 7.7 0.00 — 270
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.3 2.3
Total 13 12 6.7 43 0.14 0.11 13 14 0.10 3.4 3.5 89 15,908 15,998 9.6 0.76 3.5 16,468 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 5.4 4.8 6.3 48 0.14 0.11 13 13 0.10 3.3 3.4 — 14,813 14,813 0.52 0.68 19 15,048 Area 7.8 7.8 0.04 4.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 12 12 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12 1401 Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
16 / 86
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 1,415 1,415 0.13 0.02 — 1,423 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 12 29 41 1.2 0.03 — 81
Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 77 0.00 77 7.7 0.00 — 270
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.3 2.3
Total 13 13 6.3 53 0.14 0.11 13 13 0.10 3.3 3.4 89 16,268 16,357 9.6 0.73 21 16,836 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.98 0.88 1.1 8.8 0.03 0.02 2.4 2.4 0.02 0.61 0.62 — 2,452 2,452 0.09 0.11 3.2 2,491 Area 1.4 1.4 0.01 0.80 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 1.9 1.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.9 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 234 234 0.02 < 0.005 — 236 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 2.0 4.7 6.7 0.21 < 0.005 — 13 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 13 0.00 13 1.3 0.00 — 45
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.38 0.38
Total 2.4 2.3 1.2 9.6 0.03 0.02 2.4 2.4 0.02 0.61 0.62 15 2,693 2,708 1.6 0.12 3.5 2,787

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.6 3.1 28 28 0.05 1.2 — 1.2 1.1 — 1.1 — 5,298 5,298 0.21 0.04 — 5,316 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 7.7 7.7 — 3.9 3.9 — — — — — — —
1402
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
17 / 86
Onsite
truck

0.60 0.50 4.6 4.6 0.01 0.19 — 0.19 0.18 — 0.18 — 871 871 0.04 0.01 — 874 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 1.3 1.3 — 0.65 0.65 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.01 0.15 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.6 5.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.1 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.0 7.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.4 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 0.00 1403
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
18 / 86
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.88 0.88 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.96 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.2 1.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.2 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 — 0.15 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.16 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.19 0.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.20 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 0.00

3.6 3.1 28 28 0.05 1.2 — 1.2 1.1 — 1.1 — 5,298 5,298 0.21 0.04 — 5,316 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 7.7 7.7 — 3.9 3.9 — — — — — — —
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 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1404
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
19 / 86
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.60 0.50 4.6 4.6 0.01 0.19 — 0.19 0.18 — 0.18 — 871 871 0.04 0.01 — 874 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 1.3 1.3 — 0.65 0.65 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.01 0.15 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.6 5.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.1 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.0 7.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.4 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 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.88 0.88 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.96 1405 Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
20 / 86
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.2 1.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.2 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 — 0.15 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.16 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.19 0.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.20 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 0.00

3.5 2.9 26 27 0.06 1.0 — 1.0 0.96 — 0.96 — 6,598 6,598 0.27 0.05 — 6,621 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 3.6 3.6 — 1.4 1.4 — — — — — — —
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 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

3.5 2.9 26 27 0.06 1.0 — 1.0 0.96 — 0.96 — 6,598 6,598 0.27 0.05 — 6,621 1406
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
21 / 86
Dust — — — — — — 3.6 3.6 — 1.4 1.4 — — — — — — —
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 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.07 0.01 0.16 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.2 6.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.7 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.0 7.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.4 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.2 5.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.5 1407
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
22 / 86
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.01 0.18 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.8 5.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 6.4 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.2 7.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 7.5 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.4 5.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.6 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.98 0.98 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.1 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.2 1.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.2 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.87 0.87 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.91 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.16 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.18 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.19 0.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.20 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.14 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.15

3.5 2.9 26 27 0.06 1.0 — 1.0 0.96 — 0.96 — 6,598 6,598 0.27 0.05 — 6,621 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 3.6 3.6 — 1.4 1.4 — — — — — — —
1408
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
23 / 86
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 0.00 truck
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

3.5 2.9 26 27 0.06 1.0 — 1.0 0.96 — 0.96 — 6,598 6,598 0.27 0.05 — 6,621 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 3.6 3.6 — 1.4 1.4 — — — — — — —
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 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1409
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
24 / 86
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.07 0.01 0.16 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.2 6.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.7 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.0 7.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.4 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.2 5.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.5 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.01 0.18 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.8 5.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 6.4 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.2 7.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 7.5 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.4 5.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.6 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.98 0.98 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.1 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.2 1.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.2 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.87 0.87 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.91 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.16 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.18 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.19 0.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.20 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.14 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.15

3.5. Building Construction (2028) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1410
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
25 / 86
Off-Roa 1.2 0.99 8.9 13 0.02 0.30 — 0.30 0.28 — 0.28 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 d
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 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.2 0.99 8.9 13 0.02 0.30 — 0.30 0.28 — 0.28 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.78 0.65 5.9 8.5 0.02 0.20 — 0.20 0.18 — 0.18 — 1,572 1,572 0.06 0.01 — 1,577 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 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.14 0.12 1.1 1.5 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.03 — 0.03 — 260 260 0.01 < 0.005 — 261 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 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.19 0.19 0.04 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 17 17 0.01 < 0.005 0.02 18 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.17 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 28 28 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 29 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 0.00 1411
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
26 / 86
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.15 0.15 0.04 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16 16 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 17 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.18 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 28 28 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 29 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 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.11 0.10 0.02 0.27 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11 11 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 12 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 18 18 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 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 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.8 1.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.9 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.0 3.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.2 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1.2 0.99 8.9 13 0.02 0.30 — 0.30 0.28 — 0.28 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1412
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
27 / 86
Off-Roa
Equipment

1.2 0.99 8.9 13 0.02 0.30 — 0.30 0.28 — 0.28 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.78 0.65 5.9 8.5 0.02 0.20 — 0.20 0.18 — 0.18 — 1,572 1,572 0.06 0.01 — 1,577 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 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.14 0.12 1.1 1.5 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.03 — 0.03 — 260 260 0.01 < 0.005 — 261 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 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.19 0.19 0.04 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 17 17 0.01 < 0.005 0.02 18 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.17 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 28 28 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 29 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 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.15 0.15 0.04 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16 16 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 17 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.18 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 28 28 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 29 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 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1413
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
28 / 86
Worker 0.11 0.10 0.02 0.27 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11 11 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 12 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 18 18 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 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 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.8 1.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.9 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.0 3.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.2 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1.2 0.97 8.6 13 0.02 0.28 — 0.28 0.25 — 0.25 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.19 0.16 1.4 2.1 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.04 — 0.04 — 399 399 0.02 < 0.005 — 400 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 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1414
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
29 / 86
Off-Roa
Equipment

0.04 0.03 0.26 0.39 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 66 66 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 66 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 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.14 0.14 0.04 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16 16 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 17 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.18 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 28 28 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 29 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 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.7 2.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.9 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.5 4.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.7 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 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 — 0.44 0.44 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.48 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.75 0.75 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.78 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 0.00

3.8. Building Construction (2029) - Mitigated
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1415
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
30 / 86
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.2 0.97 8.6 13 0.02 0.28 — 0.28 0.25 — 0.25 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.19 0.16 1.4 2.1 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.04 — 0.04 — 399 399 0.02 < 0.005 — 400 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 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.04 0.03 0.26 0.39 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 66 66 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 66 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 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.14 0.14 0.04 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16 16 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 17 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.18 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 28 28 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 29 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 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1416
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
31 / 86
Worker 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.7 2.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.9 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.5 4.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.7 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 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 — 0.44 0.44 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.48 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.75 0.75 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.78 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 0.00

0.88 0.74 6.9 10.0 0.01 0.30 — 0.30 0.27 — 0.27 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,516 Paving 0.27 0.27 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.08 0.07 0.63 0.90 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.02 — 0.02 — 136 136 0.01 < 0.005 — 136 Paving 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1417
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
32 / 86
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 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01 0.01 0.11 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 23 23 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 23 Paving < 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 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.04 0.01 0.14 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.7 4.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.1 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 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 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 — 0.43 0.43 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.47 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 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 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 — 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 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 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 0.00

3.10. Paving (2027) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 1418 Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
33 / 86
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-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.88 0.74 6.9 10.0 0.01 0.30 — 0.30 0.27 — 0.27 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,516 Paving 0.27 0.27 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.08 0.07 0.63 0.90 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.02 — 0.02 — 136 136 0.01 < 0.005 — 136 Paving 0.02 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 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01 0.01 0.11 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 23 23 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 23 Paving < 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 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1419
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
34 / 86
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.04 0.01 0.14 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.7 4.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.1 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 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 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 — 0.43 0.43 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.47 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 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 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 — 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 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 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 0.00

3.11. Paving (2028) - 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1420
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
35 / 86
Off-Roa 0.82 0.69 6.6 9.9 0.01 0.26 — 0.26 0.24 — 0.24 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,516 d
Equipm
ent
Paving 0.27 0.27 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.03 0.02 0.22 0.33 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 50 50 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 50 Paving 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.13 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.6 4.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.0 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.00 1421
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
36 / 86
Average — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.16 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.17 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 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 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 — 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.00

0.82 0.69 6.6 9.9 0.01 0.26 — 0.26 0.24 — 0.24 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,516 Paving 0.27 0.27 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.03 0.02 0.22 0.33 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 50 50 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 50 1422
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
37 / 86
Paving 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.13 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.6 4.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.0 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.16 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.17 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 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 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 — 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.00

3.13. Architectural Coating (2029) - Unmitigated
1423
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
38 / 86
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-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.12 0.10 0.79 1.1 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coating
s
68 68 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.12 0.10 0.79 1.1 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coating
s
68 68 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01 0.01 0.07 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 11 11 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11 1424
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
39 / 86
Architect 5.6 5.6 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ural
Coating
Onsite
truck

1.0 1.0 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.6 3.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.9 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.4 3.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.7 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 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 — 0.28 0.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.31 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 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 0.00 1425 Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
40 / 86
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.00

0.12 0.10 0.79 1.1 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coating
s
68 68 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.12 0.10 0.79 1.1 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coating
s
68 68 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 0.00 1426
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
41 / 86
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01 0.01 0.07 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 11 11 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11 Architect
ural
Coating
s

5.6 5.6 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

1.0 1.0 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.6 3.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.9 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.4 3.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.7 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1427
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
42 / 86
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 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 — 0.28 0.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.31 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 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 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 — 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.00

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

6.3 5.7 6.1 64 0.16 0.11 13 13 0.10 3.4 3.5 — 16,213 16,213 0.53 0.69 45 16,477 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 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 City
Park

0.03 0.02 0.02 0.26 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 65 65 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.18 66 1428
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
43 / 86
Total 6.3 5.7 6.2 64 0.16 0.11 13 14 0.10 3.4 3.5 — 16,279 16,279 0.53 0.69 45 16,544 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

5.2 4.7 6.7 43 0.14 0.11 13 13 0.10 3.4 3.5 — 14,407 14,407 0.55 0.71 1.2 14,633 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 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 City
Park

0.98 0.88 1.1 8.8 0.03 0.02 2.4 2.4 0.02 0.60 0.62 — 2,447 2,447 0.09 0.11 3.2 2,486 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 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

4.1.2. Mitigated
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 1429
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
44 / 86
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Single
Family
Housing

6.3 5.7 6.1 64 0.16 0.11 13 13 0.10 3.4 3.5 — 16,213 16,213 0.53 0.69 45 16,477 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 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 City
Park

5.2 4.7 6.7 43 0.14 0.11 13 13 0.10 3.4 3.5 — 14,407 14,407 0.55 0.71 1.2 14,633 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 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 City
Park

0.98 0.88 1.1 8.8 0.03 0.02 2.4 2.4 0.02 0.60 0.62 — 2,447 2,447 0.09 0.11 3.2 2,486 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 1430
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
45 / 86
Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt
Surfaces
City
Park
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.3 5.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.4 Total 0.98 0.88 1.1 8.8 0.03 0.02 2.4 2.4 0.02 0.61 0.62 — 2,452 2,452 0.09 0.11 3.2 2,491

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,382 1,382 0.13 0.02 — 1,390
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 29 29 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 29
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,411 1,411 0.13 0.02 — 1,419 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,382 1,382 0.13 0.02 — 1,390
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 29 29 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 29
1431
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
46 / 86
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,411 1,411 0.13 0.02 — 1,419 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 229 229 0.02 < 0.005 — 230
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 4.8 4.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.8
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 234 234 0.02 < 0.005 — 235

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,386 1,386 0.13 0.02 — 1,394
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 29 29 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 29
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
1432
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
47 / 86
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,415 1,415 0.13 0.02 — 1,423 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,386 1,386 0.13 0.02 — 1,394
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 29 29 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 29
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,415 1,415 0.13 0.02 — 1,423 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 229 229 0.02 < 0.005 — 231
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 4.8 4.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.8
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 234 234 0.02 < 0.005 — 236

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 CO2e 1433
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
48 / 86
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Single
Family
Housing

0.16 0.08 1.4 0.60 0.01 0.11— 0.11 0.11— 0.11— 1,778 1,778 0.16 < 0.005— 1,783 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 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00— 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 City
Park

0.16 0.08 1.4 0.60 0.01 0.11— 0.11 0.11— 0.11— 1,778 1,778 0.16 < 0.005— 1,783 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 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00— 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 City
Park

0.03 0.01 0.26 0.11 < 0.005 0.02— 0.02 0.02— 0.02— 294 294 0.03 < 0.005— 295 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 1434
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
49 / 86
Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Asphalt
Surfaces
City
Park

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.03 0.01 0.26 0.11 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 294 294 0.03 < 0.005 — 295

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 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 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 City
Park

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 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 1435
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
50 / 86
Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Asphalt
Surfaces
City
Park

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 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 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 City
Park

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

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

6.8 6.8 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1436
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
51 / 86
Architect 0.56 0.56 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ural
Coating
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

6.8 6.8 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

1.2 1.2 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.10 0.10 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

0.07 0.07 0.01 0.80 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.9 1.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.9 Total 1.4 1.4 0.01 0.80 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 1.9 1.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.9 1437
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
52 / 86

6.8 6.8 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.56 0.56 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

6.8 6.8 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

1.2 1.2 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.10 0.10 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 12 29 41 1.2 0.03 — 81
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 12 29 41 1.2 0.03 — 81
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1439
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
54 / 86
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 12 29 41 1.2 0.03 — 81
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 12 29 41 1.2 0.03 — 81
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 2.0 4.7 6.7 0.21 < 0.005 — 13
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 2.0 4.7 6.7 0.21 < 0.005 — 13

4.4.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 12 29 41 1.2 0.03 — 81
1440
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
55 / 86
Parking
Lot
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
City
Park
——————————— 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005— < 0.005 Total——————————— 12 29 41 1.2 0.03— 81
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Single
Family
Housing
——————————— 12 29 41 1.2 0.03— 81
Parking
Lot
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
City
Park
——————————— 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005— < 0.005 Total——————————— 12 29 41 1.2 0.03— 81
Annual——————————————————
Single
Family
Housing
——————————— 2.0 4.7 6.7 0.21 < 0.005— 13
Parking
Lot
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
City
Park
——————————— 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005— < 0.005 Total——————————— 2.0 4.7 6.7 0.21 < 0.005— 13
1441
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
56 / 86

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 77 0.00 77 7.7 0.00 — 269
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.13 0.00 0.13 0.01 0.00 — 0.44
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 77 0.00 77 7.7 0.00 — 270
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 77 0.00 77 7.7 0.00 — 269
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.13 0.00 0.13 0.01 0.00 — 0.44
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 77 0.00 77 7.7 0.00 — 270
1442
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
57 / 86
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 13 0.00 13 1.3 0.00 — 45
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.02 0.00 0.02 < 0.005 0.00 — 0.07 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 13 0.00 13 1.3 0.00 — 45

4.5.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 77 0.00 77 7.7 0.00 — 269
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.13 0.00 0.13 0.01 0.00 — 0.44
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 77 0.00 77 7.7 0.00 — 270
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1443
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
58 / 86
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 77 0.00 77 7.7 0.00 — 269
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.13 0.00 0.13 0.01 0.00 — 0.44
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 77 0.00 77 7.7 0.00 — 270
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 13 0.00 13 1.3 0.00 — 45
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.02 0.00 0.02 < 0.005 0.00 — 0.07 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 13 0.00 13 1.3 0.00 — 45

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1444
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
59 / 86
Single — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.3 2.3
Family
Housing
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.3 2.3
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.3 2.3
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.3 2.3
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.38 0.38
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.38 0.38

4.6.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.3 2.3
1445
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
60 / 86
City — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Park
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.3 2.3
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.3 2.3
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.3 2.3
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.38 0.38
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.38 0.38

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) Equipm
ent
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1446
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
61 / 86
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) Equipm
ent
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1447
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
62 / 86
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) Equipm
ent
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1448
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
63 / 86
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) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 1449
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
64 / 86
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1450
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
65 / 86
Avoided——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Remove d——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
———————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Avoided——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Remove d——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
———————————————————
Annual——————————————————
Avoided——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Remove d——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
———————————————————
1451
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
66 / 86

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated 1452
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
67 / 86
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1453
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
68 / 86
Remove — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.0 8.0 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 4.0 8.0 84 0.37
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 2.0 8.0 36 0.38
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.0 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.0 367 0.40 Grading Scrapers Diesel Average 2.0 8.0 423 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.0 8.0 84 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.0 367 0.29 1454
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
69 / 86
Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.0 8.0 82 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.0 14 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.0 7.0 84 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.0 46 0.45 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.0 8.0 81 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.0 8.0 89 0.36
Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.0 8.0 36 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.0 37 0.48

5.2.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.0 8.0 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 4.0 8.0 84 0.37
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 2.0 8.0 36 0.38
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.0 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.0 367 0.40 Grading Scrapers Diesel Average 2.0 8.0 423 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.0 8.0 84 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.0 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.0 8.0 82 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.0 14 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.0 7.0 84 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.0 46 0.45 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.0 8.0 81 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.0 8.0 89 0.36
1455
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
70 / 86
Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.0 8.0 36 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.0 37 0.48

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Site Preparation Worker 18 0.19 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor 4.0 0.19 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 0.19 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading Worker 20 0.19 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor 4.0 0.19 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 2.0 0.19 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction Worker 56 0.19 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 16 0.19 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 0.00 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving Worker 16 0.19 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor 0.00 0.19 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 0.19 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating Worker 12 0.19 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor 0.00 0.19 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 0.19 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT
1456
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
71 / 86

5.3.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Site Preparation Worker 18 0.19 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor 4.0 0.19 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 0.19 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading Worker 20 0.19 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor 4.0 0.19 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 2.0 0.19 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction Worker 56 0.19 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 16 0.19 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 0.00 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving Worker 16 0.19 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor 0.00 0.19 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 0.19 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating Worker 12 0.19 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor 0.00 0.19 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 0.19 HHDT
Architectural Coating 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% 1457
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
72 / 86

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 2 61% 61%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh) 1458
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
73 / 86
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2027 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005
2028 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005
2029 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
City Park 2.1 5.4 6.0 1,146 27 68 76 14,605

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths
Land Use Hearth Type Unmitigated (number) Mitigated (number) 1459
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
74 / 86
Single Family Housing Wood Fireplaces00
Single Family Housing Gas Fireplaces00
Single Family Housing Propane Fireplaces00
Single Family Housing Electric Fireplaces00
Single Family Housing No Fireplaces00
Single Family Housing Conventional Wood Stoves00
Single Family Housing Catalytic Wood Stoves00
Single Family Housing Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves00
Single Family Housing Pellet Wood Stoves00
Parking Lot Wood Fireplaces00
Parking Lot Gas Fireplaces00
Parking Lot Propane Fireplaces00
Parking Lot Electric Fireplaces00
Parking Lot No Fireplaces00
Parking Lot Conventional Wood Stoves00
Parking Lot Catalytic Wood Stoves00
Parking Lot Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves00
Parking Lot Pellet Wood Stoves00
Other Asphalt Surfaces Wood Fireplaces00
Other Asphalt Surfaces Gas Fireplaces00
Other Asphalt Surfaces Propane Fireplaces00
Other Asphalt Surfaces Electric Fireplaces00
Other Asphalt Surfaces No Fireplaces00
Other Asphalt Surfaces Conventional Wood Stoves00
Other Asphalt Surfaces Catalytic Wood Stoves00
Other Asphalt Surfaces Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves00
Other Asphalt Surfaces Pellet Wood Stoves00
City Park Wood Fireplaces00
1460
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
75 / 86
City Park Gas Fireplaces 0 0
City Park Propane Fireplaces 0 0
City Park Electric Fireplaces 0 0
City Park No Fireplaces 0 0
City Park Conventional Wood Stoves 0 0
City Park Catalytic Wood Stoves 0 0
City Park Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0 0
City Park Pellet Wood Stoves 0 0

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) 1461 Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
76 / 86
Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Single Family Housing 1,456,922 346 0.0330 0.0040 5,548,033 Parking Lot 30,565 346 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 346 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
City Park 0.00 346 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) Single Family Housing 6,345,109 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00
City Park 0.00 114

5.12.2. Mitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Single Family Housing 6,345,109 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00
1462
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
77 / 86
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00
City Park 0.00 114

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Single Family Housing 143 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00
City Park 0.23 0.00

5.13.2. Mitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Single Family Housing 143 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00
City Park 0.23 0.00

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Single Family Housing Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.5 2.5 10.0
Single Family Housing Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
1463
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
78 / 86
City Park Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.0 4.0 18
City Park Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.15.2. Mitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined
1464
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
79 / 86

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

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

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

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

5.18.2.2. Mitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year) 1465
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
80 / 86

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 1 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought 0 0 0 N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A 1466
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
81 / 86
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 91
1467
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
82 / 86
AQ-PM 7.4
AQ-DPM 31
Drinking Water 45
Lead Risk Housing 3.6
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 2.2
Traffic 58
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 0.00
Groundwater 0.00
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 38
Impaired Water Bodies 0.00
Solid Waste 0.00
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 13
Cardio-vascular 26
Low Birth Weights —
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 35
Housing 68
Linguistic 7.4
Poverty 56
Unemployment 94

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
1468
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
83 / 86
Above Poverty 63.17207751
Employed 0.603105351
Median HI 35.4035673
Education—
Bachelor's or higher 62.49197998
High school enrollment 25.13794431
Preschool enrollment 19.97946875
Transportation—
Auto Access 38.0341332
Active commuting 2.989862697
Social—
2-parent households 99.56371102
Voting 89.95252149
Neighborhood—
Alcohol availability 79.00680098
Park access 2.194276915
Retail density 19.54317978
Supermarket access 30.52739638
Tree canopy 11.49749775
Housing—
Homeownership 91.21006031
Housing habitability 90.45297061
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 40.29257026 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 81.59887078
Uncrowded housing 96.93314513
Health Outcomes—
Insured adults 92.49326318
Arthritis 0.0
1469
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
84 / 86
Asthma ER Admissions 86.4
High Blood Pressure 0.0
Cancer (excluding skin) 0.0
Asthma 0.0
Coronary Heart Disease 0.0
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 0.1
Cognitively Disabled 54.2
Physically Disabled 2.4
Heart Attack ER Admissions 89.3
Mental Health Not Good 0.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0
Obesity 0.0
Pedestrian Injuries 19.6
Physical Health Not Good 0.0
Stroke 0.0
Health Risk Behaviors—
Binge Drinking 0.0
Current Smoker 0.0
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0
Climate Change Exposures—
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 99.4
Elderly 0.2
English Speaking 88.3
Foreign-born 30.0
1470
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
85 / 86
Outdoor Workers 98.2
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 49.1
Traffic Density 21.3
Traffic Access 23.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 70.6
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 93.3

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
1471
Portola Springs Detailed Report, 11/12/2025
86 / 86

8.1. Justifications
Screen Justification
Land Use Based on applicant site plan
Construction: Construction Phases Site cleared, no demolition phase of construction.

Construction: Dust From Material Movement Applicant provided information.

Construction: Trips and VMT Applicant provided information. Trip length set to 1,000 ft for onsite only LST analysis.

Operations: Hearths Per applicant, all electric development. 1472
Project Operational Fuel Based Annual CO2
CalEEMod Proportion CO2
Project Uses VMT
Annual CO2
MT/yr Gas Diesel
Single Family 6,747,141 2,491 1,890.63 600.37
Total 1890.63 600.37
CalEEMod
Operational Vehicle Distribution
Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline Gasoline
Land Use Subtype HHD% LDA% LDT1% LDT2% LHD1% LHD2% MCY% MDV% MH% MHD% OBUS% SBUS% UBUS% Single Family 2.6019 45.9526 4.0022 24.0875 2.699 0.80749 1.856 16.26 0.421 1.07859 0.056588 0.12965 0.04527 % Faction
Gasoline 75.8983 0.758983
1473
1474
Appendix H
Noise and Vibration Technical Memorandum,
November 2025
1475
1476

MEMORANDUM
To: Kim Molina, Blue Fern West, LLC.

From: Connor Burke INCE, Acoustician III, Dudek
Subject: Noise and Vibration Technical Memorandum for Portola Springs Residential Development Project (Modified Project)
Date: November 13, 2025
Attachment(s): Attachment A – Ambient Traffic Noise Worksheet Attachment B – Construction Noise Worksheet
Attachment C – Traffic Noise Modeling Inputs & Outputs
Attachment D – Operations Noise Worksheet
1 Introduction and Purpose
The purpose of this memorandum is to estimate noise and vibration levels from construction and operation of the Portola Springs Residential Development Project (“Modified Project”), in the City of Palm Desert (City), California, and evaluate potential impacts resulting from project implementation under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This memorandum was prepared in response to a screening-level environmental review request to support the City’s initial assessment of potential noise and vibration impacts.

The contents and organization of this memorandum are as follows: (2) project description; (3) noise and vibration background and terminology, thresholds of significance, and impact analysis; (4) conclusions; and (5) references cited.
2 Project Description
The Portola Springs Residential Development Project (“Modified Project”) is located at the southwest corner of Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola Avenue in the City of Palm Desert, Riverside County, California. The project site encompasses approximately 17.6 acres and is currently a vacant, disturbed lot within a predominantly residential area.

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: PORTOLA PROJECT – NOISE & VIBRATION ASSESSMENT 18192.02 2
NOVEMBER 2025
Site access will be provided via three entry points: two on Portola Avenue and one on Frank Sinatra Drive. All driveways will be right-turn in/right-turn out, and parking will be accommodated within attached garages, driveways, and on-street spaces.

Compared to the previously approved multifamily project (i.e. Original Project analyzed in the 2022 IS/MND), the Modified Project will generate fewer daily vehicle trips and is expected to result in reduced long-term traffic noise along adjacent roadways.
3 Noise & Vibration Assessment

3.1 Background

3.1.1 Acoustical Fundamentals
Although the terms may be used interchangeably in the right context, “sound” is defined as any gas or fluid pressure variation detected by the human ear, and “noise” is unwanted sound. The preferred unit for measuring sound is the decibel (dB), which by way of expressing the ratio of sound pressures to a reference value logarithmically enables a wide range of audible sound to be evaluated and discussed conveniently. On the low end of this range, zero dB is not the absence of sound energy, but instead corresponds approximately to the threshold of average healthy human hearing; and, on the upper end, 120–140 dB corresponds to an average person’s threshold of pain.

The human ear is not equally responsive to all frequencies of the audible sound spectrum. An electronic filter is normally used when taking noise measurements that de-emphasizes certain frequencies in a manner that mimics the human ear’s response to sound; this method is referred to as A-weighting. Sound levels expressed under the Aweighted system are sometimes designated dBA. All sound levels discussed in this report are A-weighted.

The equivalent continuous sound level (Leq) is a single dB value which, if held constant during the specified time period, would represent the same total acoustical energy of a fluctuating noise level over that same time period; this is also known as the “average” sound level. Leq values are commonly expressed for periods of one hour, but longer or shorter time periods may be specified. Another descriptor is maximum sound level (Lmax), which is the greatest sound level measured during a designated time interval or event. The minimum sound level (Lmin) is the lowest measured level and often called the floor of a measurement period.

Unlike the Leq, Lmax, and Lmin metrics, Ldn and CNEL descriptors always represent 24-hour periods and differ from a 24-hour Leq value because they apply a time-weighted factor designed to emphasize noise events that occur during the non-daytime hours (when speech and sleep disturbance is of more concern). Time weighted refers to the fact that Ldn and CNEL penalize noise that occurs during certain sensitive periods. In the case of CNEL, noise occurring 1478

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: PORTOLA PROJECT – NOISE & VIBRATION ASSESSMENT 18192.02 3
NOVEMBER 2025
during the daytime (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.) receives no penalty. Noise during the evening (7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.) is penalized by adding 5 dB to the actual levels, and nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) noise is penalized by adding 10 dB to the actual levels. Ldn differs from CNEL in that the daytime period is longer (defined instead as 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.), thus eliminating the dB adjustment for the evening period. Ldn and CNEL are the predominant criteria used to measure roadway noise affecting residential receptors. These two metrics generally differ from one another by no more than 0.5–1 dB and are often considered or actually defined as being essentially equivalent by many jurisdictions (Caltrans 2013).

3.1.2 Exterior Noise Attenuation
Noise sources are classified in two forms: (1) point sources, such as stationary equipment or a group of construction vehicles and equipment working within a spatially limited area at a given time; and (2) line sources, such as a roadway with a large number of pass-by sources (motor vehicles). Sound generated by a point source typically diminishes (attenuates) at a rate of 6.0 dBA for each doubling of distance from the source to the receptor at acoustically “hard” sites and at a rate of 7.5 dBA for each doubling of distance from source to receptor at acoustically “soft” sites (Caltrans 2013). Sound generated by a line source (i.e., a roadway) typically attenuates at a rate of 3 dBA and 4.5 dBA per doubling distance, for hard and soft sites, respectively (Caltrans 2013). Sound levels can also be attenuated by human-made or natural barriers. For the purpose of a sound attenuation discussion, a hard or reflective site does not provide any excess ground-effect attenuation and is characteristic of asphalt or concrete ground surfaces, as well as very hard-packed soils. An acoustically soft or absorptive site is characteristic of unpaved loose soil or vegetated ground.

With respect to examples of this distance-attenuation relationship for exterior noise, a 62 dBA noise level measured at 10 feet from an outdoor gathering area within a paved site would diminish to 56 dBA at 20 feet from the source, and to 50 dBA at 40 feet from the source. This scenario is addressed by the point source attenuation for a hard site (6 dBA with each doubling of the distance). For the scenario where soft-site conditions exist between the point source and receptor, represented by open ground between Project site and receiver, an attenuation rate of 7.5 dBA per doubling of distance would apply; the outdoor gathering area noise measured as a 62 dBA at 10 feet would diminish to 54.5 dBA at 20 feet from the source and to 47 dBA at 40 feet from the source, where soft ground with or without vegetation exists between the sound source and the receptor location.

3.1.3 Vibration Characteristics
Guidance from the FTA includes reference groundborne vibration levels, at distances of 25 feet from the emission source, for a variety of common construction equipment types (FTA 2018). Information from FTA guidance also suggests that vibration level exposures having peak particle velocity (PPV) of approximately 0.2 inches per second (ips) would be considered annoying.

3.2 Noise Regulation in Palm Desert

3.2.1 Palm Desert Municipal Code (Chapter 9.24)
Within the City of Palm Desert, the applicable hourly average sound level limits for outdoor noise levels in residential areas is 55 dBA from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m., and 45 dBA from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. The standard used for maximum community outdoor noise levels in multi-family residential areas in the City is a CNEL of 65 dBA; for retail commercial uses the maximum outdoor noise exposure level is a CNEL of 70 dBA. 1479

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: PORTOLA PROJECT – NOISE & VIBRATION ASSESSMENT 18192.02 4
NOVEMBER 2025
Section 9.24.060 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code (PDMC) establishes the following activities that are considered exempt from the provision of the Code. The following exemptions are applicable to the Project:
• Outdoor gatherings, public dances, shows and sporting and entertainment events; provided, the events are authorized by the city;
• Activities conducted in public parks and public playgrounds; • Any mechanical device, apparatus or equipment used, related to or connected with emergency machinery, vehicle or work;
• Noise sources associated with property maintenance activities referred to in Section 9.24.075 of the PDMC;
• The provisions of this regulation shall not preclude the construction, operation, maintenance and repairs of equipment, apparatus or facilities of park and recreation departments, public work projects or essential public services and facilities, including those of public utilities subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission; and
• Noise sources associated with construction activities taking place within specified time periods referred to in Section 9.24.070 of the PDMC. Currently those time periods are seven a.m. through five-thirty p.m Monday through Friday and eight a.m. through five p.m. on Saturday during the period of October 1st through April 30th. For the period of May 1st through September 30th the time periods for construction are six a.m. through seven p.m Monday through Friday and eight a.m. through five p.m. on Saturday. No construction is permitted on holidays or Sundays.

3.2.2 Palm Desert General Plan Noise Element
The Noise Element provides a comprehensive program for including noise control in the planning process. The following policies from the Noise Element would be applicable to the project.

Policy 1.1: Noise Compatibility. Apply the Noise Compatibility Matrix, as a guide for planning and development decisions. The City will require projects involving new development or modifications to existing development to implement mitigation measures, where necessary, to reduce noise levels to at least the normally compatible range shown in the City’s Noise Compatibility Matrix. Mitigation measures should focus on architectural features and building design and construction, rather than site design features such as excessive setbacks, berms and sound walls, to maintain compatibility with adjacent and surrounding uses.

Policy 1.2: Noise Buffers. Require an open space or other noise buffer between new projects that are a source of excessive noise and nearby noise-sensitive receptors.

Policy 2.1: Noise Ordinance. Minimize noise conflicts between neighboring properties through enforcement of applicable regulations such as the City’s Noise Control Ordinance.

Policy 2.2: Noise Control. Ensure that noise impacts from stationary sources on noise-sensitive receptors and noise emanating from construction activities, private developments/residences, landscaping activities, night clubs and bars, and special events are minimized.
1480

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: PORTOLA PROJECT – NOISE & VIBRATION ASSESSMENT 18192.02 5
NOVEMBER 2025
Table 1 below summarizes the limit for allowable noise exposure levels from Noise Element Land Use Compatibility Table for various land uses applicable to the Lupine Plaza project.

Table 1. Noise Element Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure by Land Use Land Use Category
Exterior
Normally
Acceptable
Exterior
Possibly
Acceptable
Exterior
Normally
Unacceptable
Interior
Acceptable
dBA CNEL / Ldn
Residential Single Family 60 61 - 70 71 and higher 45
Residential Multi-Family 65 66 - 70 71 and higher 45
Playgrounds / Neighborhood
Parks
70 71 - 75 76 and higher --
Offices 70 71 - 75 76 and higher 45
Retail/Commercial 70 71 - 75 76 and higher --
Notes: dBA = A-weighted decibels; CNEL = community noise equivalent level; Ldn = day-night sound level.

3.3 Existing Noise Levels
In order to establish existing baseline community noise levels (also known as outdoor ambient noise levels), Dudek performed a series of sound level measurements. Sound pressure level measurements of short duration (i.e., less than an hour apiece) were conducted in the vicinity of the Project site to quantify and characterize the existing outdoor ambient noise levels. The short-term measurements were conducted to characterize typical daytime noise levels in the Project area as well as to gather data necessary to calibrate the traffic noise model.

The short-term sound-pressure level measurements were performed by a Dudek field investigator using a Rion NL52 model sound level meter equipped with a 0.5-inch, pre-polarized condenser microphone with pre-amplifier. The Rion NL-52 sound level meter meets the current American National Standards Institute standard for a Type 1 (precision) sound level meter. The accuracy of the sound level meters was verified using a field calibrator before and after the measurements, and the measurements were conducted with the microphone positioned approximately five feet above the ground. Table 2, Measured Short-Term Baseline Outdoor Noise Levels, provides the location and time at which these baseline noise level measurements were taken.

As detailed in Table 2, two short-term noise level measurement locations were selected (ST1 and ST2) that represent existing sensitive receivers at the Project boundaries, which could be subject to increases in ambient noise levels as a result of Project implementation.

Table 2. Measured Short-Term Ambient Outdoor Noise Levels Receptor Location (Street) Time Leq (dBA)
ST1 Adjacent to northern Project boundary; north of Frank Sinatra Drive. 11:00 AM to 11:15 AM 71
ST2 Single Family Residence East of Retreat Circle; East of Portola Avenue. 11:26 AM to 11:41 AM 62
1481

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: PORTOLA PROJECT – NOISE & VIBRATION ASSESSMENT 18192.02 6
NOVEMBER 2025
The measured outdoor energy-equivalent sound level (Leq) values appearing in Table 2 range from 62 to 71 Aweighted decibels (dBA) and are consistent with expectations for the environment based on the distance to roadways, such as Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola Avenue. Photographs, tagged survey positions, and instrument details of these investigator-attended measurements can be found in Attachment A.

3.4 Thresholds of Significance
The significance criteria used to evaluate project impacts to air quality are based on the recommendations provided in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.), as follows:

A. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.

B. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.

C. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.

With regard to Threshold C, the closest airport to the project site is Bermuda Dunes (5.4 miles southeast) The project site is not covered under the airport land use plan for either of these facilities and would not be expected to be exposed to elevated noise from airport or aircraft activities associated with these airports. Therefore, no impact would occur and this threshold is not addressed further in the following analysis.

3.5 Impact Analysis

3.5.1 Would the project generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

3.5.1.1 Construction Noise
Construction of the project would result in the temporary generation of noise at the project site. Construction would involve the use of heavy equipment and machinery, such as excavators, loaders, cranes, temporary generators, scrapers, and other equipment. Construction would generate levels of noise that can vary from hour to hour and day to day depending on the equipment in use, the operations being performed, and the distance between the source and receptor. Typically, construction equipment operates in alternating cycles of full power and low power, producing average noise levels less than the maximum noise level. The average sound level of construction activity also depends on the amount of time that the equipment operates and the intensity of construction activities during that time. Aggregate noise emission from construction activities, broken down by phase, was predicted at two evaluation distances to the nearest existing noise-sensitive receptor: (1) from the nearest position of the construction site boundary, and (2) from the center of the construction site. The closest existing noise-sensitive 1482

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: PORTOLA PROJECT – NOISE & VIBRATION ASSESSMENT 18192.02 7
NOVEMBER 2025
residential receptor is approximately 110 feet to the north of the proposed project’s northern boundary. At the site boundary, this analysis assumes that only the two loudest pieces of equipment, comparable to FTA general assessment guidance, for the listed phase will be involved in construction activity for a limited portion of the 8-hour workday. In other words, at such proximity, the operating equipment cannot “stack” or crowd the vicinity and still operate.

Table 3 presents the estimated construction noise level (8-hour Leq) for each anticipated phase of project construction activity. Details of these predictions in Attachment B show the expected acoustical contribution from each type of operating construction equipment for each phase.

Table 3. Estimated Per-Phase Construction Noise Levels
Project
Construction
Activity Phase
Nearest Horizontal
Distance to
Nearest Noisesensitive Receptor
(Feet)
Predicted 8-hour
Leq (dBA) for
Nearest Distance
Centroid Horizontal
Distance to
Nearest Noisesensitive Receptor
(Feet)
Predicted 8-hour
Leq (dBA) for
Centroid Distance
Site Preparation 110 72 500 62
Grading &
Earthwork 110 80 500 71
Paving 110 78 500 65
Building
Construction 110 79 500 68
Architectural
Coating 110 56 500 41
Source: Attachment B
Note: Leq = energy-equivalent sound level; dBA = A-weighted decibel As shown in Table 3, predicted construction noise levels at the nearest residential property (approximately 110 feet from the project’s northern boundary) could reach up to 80 dBA Leq over an 8-hour period during Grading and Earthwork activities.

Palm Desert only allows construction during the daytime, including the periods from seven a.m. through five-thirty p.m Monday through Friday and eight a.m. through five p.m. on Saturday during the period of October 1st through April 30th. For the period of May 1st through September 30th the time periods for construction are six a.m. through seven p.m Monday through Friday and eight a.m. through five p.m. on Saturday. No construction is permitted on holidays or Sundays. The project would be required to adhere to a daily construction schedule limited to the specified hours within Section 9.24.070 of the PDMC.

The City Palm Desert does not establish a numeric limit for construction noise exposure. Therefore, this analysis applies the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) construction noise assessment criterion of 80 dBA Leq (8-hour) for residential and other sensitive land uses during daytime construction. This national standard provides a reasonable and defensible basis for evaluating the significance of construction noise impacts under CEQA where local numeric limits are not provided.
1483

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: PORTOLA PROJECT – NOISE & VIBRATION ASSESSMENT 18192.02 8
NOVEMBER 2025
With respect to the FTA recommended daytime 8-hour average of 80 dBA at vicinity residences, construction noise levels are predicted to be no greater than an 8-hour average of 80 dBA Leq at the closest residences to the project and would therefore not exceed the FTA recommended limit.

Although the nearest residences could be exposed to construction noise levels that are noticeable compared to ambient levels, and therefore could result in potential annoyance, the exposure would be short term, would occur during the less sensitive daytime period, and would cease upon construction completion. Therefore, construction noise would remain less than significant.

3.5.1.2 Off-site Traffic Noise
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would result in the creation of additional vehicle trips on local arterial roadways (i.e., Frank Sinatra Drive, and Portola Avenue), which could result in increased traffic noise levels at adjacent noise-sensitive land uses. Attachment C, Traffic Noise Modeling Input and Output, contains a spreadsheet with traffic volume data (average daily traffic) Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola Avenue, which according to the Traffic Impact Assessment prepared for the proposed project (Dudek 2025) would add 1,238 total average daily trips to adjacent to the project site.

According to Caltrans, a three-dBA change in sound is the beginning at which humans generally notice a barely perceptible change in sound, a five-dBA change is generally readily perceptible, and a 10-dBA increase is perceived by most people as a doubling of the existing noise level (Caltrans 2020).

Potential noise effects from vehicular traffic were assessed using the Federal Highway Administration’s Traffic Noise Model version 2.5 (FHWA 2004). Information used in the model included the roadway geometry, existing and existing plus project, opening year and opening year plus project traffic volumes and posted traffic speeds. Noise levels were modeled at representative noise-sensitive receivers ST1 and ST2 , as shown in Figure 1. The receivers were modeled to be 5 feet above the local ground elevation. The noise model results are summarized in Table 4. Based on results of the model, implementation of the proposed project would not result in readily perceptible increases in traffic noise.

Table 4. Roadway Traffic Noise Modeling Results
Modeled Receiver
Tag
Existing (2022)
Noise Level
Existing with
Project Noise
Level
Existing
(2022) Noise
Level
Existing
with Project
Noise Level
Maximum ProjectRelated Noise
Level Increase
(dBA CNEL) (dBA CNEL) (dBA CNEL) (dBA CNEL) (dB)
ST1 68.4 68.8 69.8 70.1 0.4
ST2 67.8 68 68.8 69 0.2
Source: Attachment C.

Notes: dBA = A-weighted decibel; CNEL = community noise equivalent level; dB = decibel.

Table 4 shows that at all four listed representative receivers, the addition of proposed project traffic to the roadway network would result in an increase in the CNEL of less than 3 dB, which is below the discernible level of change for the average healthy human ear. Thus, a less-than-significant impact is expected for proposed project-related off-site traffic noise increases affecting existing residences in the vicinity. 1484

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: PORTOLA PROJECT – NOISE & VIBRATION ASSESSMENT 18192.02 9
NOVEMBER 2025

3.5.1.3 On-site Traffic Noise
To confirm compliance with the City of Palm Desert’s exterior noise standard for residential uses (65 dBA CNEL), additional traffic noise modeling was conducted using the Federal Highway Administration’s Traffic Noise Model (FHWA TNM v2.5). For this analysis, receptor locations were placed at the facades of project buildings adjacent to Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola Avenue. Detailed modeling inputs, receptor locations, and results are provided in Attachment C.

All modeled receptor locations at the building facades were found to be below the 65 dBA CNEL exterior threshold, demonstrating that the project will meet the City’s standard for residential outdoor areas. When exterior noise levels are at or below 65 dBA CNEL, standard construction practices (such as dual-pane windows, insulated walls, and doors) ensure that interior noise levels will also comply with the 45 dBA CNEL requirement set forth by the California Building Code and City of Palm Desert.

In summary, the Portola Springs Residential Development Project will comply with both exterior and interior noise standards, and no significant noise impacts are anticipated for future residents or adjacent sensitive uses.

3.5.1.4 On-site (Stationary) Noise
Less Than Significant Impact. The incorporation of new habitable units and a mix of open space uses attributed to development of the proposed project will add a variety of noise-producing electro-mechanical equipment that include those presented and discussed herein. Most of these noise-producing equipment or sound sources would be considered stationary, or limited in mobility to a defined area. Using a Microsoft Excel–based outdoor sound propagation prediction model, project-attributed operational noise at nearby community receptors was predicted using several assumptions:
▪ Treatment of exposed rooftop air-cooled condensing units as point-type sound emission sources; and, ▪ Point-source sound propagation (i.e., 6 dB per doubling of distance) that conservatively ignores acoustical absorption from atmospheric and ground surface effects.

Please see Attachment D for quantitative details of the inputs and outputs that form the basis of the following assessment presentations.

For purposes of this analysis, each of the new occupied units would be expected to feature a split-system type airconditioning unit, with an air-cooled refrigeration (2-ton capacity) condenser unit. Each condenser unit is assumed to exhibit an SPL of 68 dBA at 3 feet based on available data from a likely manufacturer (Carrier 2012), and the units would generally be installed at grade level behind mechanical equipment screens. The closest existing noisesensitive residential receptor to the south of the proposed project’s North unit would be over 120 horizontal feet to the nearest of these condenser units. The predicted sound exposure level from the combination of all operating condenser units as received by this offsite single-family home would be 40 dBA Leq and thus be compliant with the City’s nighttime threshold of 45 dBA hourly Leq. Under such conditions, the operation of residential air-conditioning units would result in a less-than-significant noise impact. 1485

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: PORTOLA PROJECT – NOISE & VIBRATION ASSESSMENT 18192.02 10 NOVEMBER 2025

3.5.2 Would the project generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Less Than Significant Impact. Construction activities may expose persons to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise, causing a potentially significant impact. Guidance from the FTA includes reference groundborne vibration levels, at distances of 25 feet from the emission source, for a variety of common construction equipment types (FTA 2018). Information from FTA guidance also suggests that vibration level exposures having peak particle velocity (PPV) of approximately 0.2 inches per second (ips) would be considered annoying. For context, such a vibration magnitude would be comparable to that of a “clam shovel drop” at 25 feet distance, while most heavier pieces of construction equipment, such as a bulldozer that may be expected on the project site, have PPVs of approximately 0.089 ips or less at a reference distance of 25 feet (FTA 2018).

Groundborne vibration attenuates rapidly, even over short distances. The attenuation of groundborne vibration as it propagates from source to receptor through intervening soils and rock strata can be estimated with expressions found in FTA guidance. By way of example, for a bulldozer operating on site and as close as the northern project boundary (i.e., ~120 feet from the nearest property), the estimated vibration velocity would be 0.008 ips per the equation as follows (FTA 2018):

PPVrcvr = PPVref * (25/D)1.5 = 0.008 = 0.089 * (25/120)

1.5 In the above equation, PPVrcvr is the predicted vibration velocity at the receptor position, PPVref is the reference value at 25 feet from the vibration source (the bulldozer), and D is the actual horizontal distance to the receptor.

Therefore, at this predicted PPV and compared to a threshold of 0.2 ips PPV, the impact of vibration-induced annoyance to occupants of nearby existing homes would be less than significant.

Construction vibration, at sufficiently high levels, can also present a building damage risk. However, anticipated construction vibration associated with the proposed project would yield a maximum amplitude of 0.008 ips, which does not surpass the FTA-based construction vibration damage criterion of 0.2 ips PPV for “non-engineered timber and masonry buildings” (i.e., a building category consistent with most residential structures) (FTA 2018). Because the predicted vibration level at 20 feet is less than this guidance limit, the risk of vibration damage to nearby structures is considered less than significant.

Once operational, the proposed project would not be expected to feature major producers of groundborne vibration.

Anticipated mechanical systems like HVAC units are designed and manufactured to feature rotating (fans, motors) and reciprocating (compressors) components that are well balanced with isolated vibration within or external to the equipment casings. On this basis, potential vibration impacts due to proposed project operation would be less than significant.
4 Conclusions
Construction of improvements for the Project would result in noise and vibration levels that fall within the standards that have been adopted by Palm Desert and FTA guidance, which represents consideration of another agency and thus consistent with CEQA practice for determining potential noise impact significance. Construction noise would result in noticeable temporary increase in the ambient noise environment at the closest residences, but construction noise would be attenuated indoors to levels that would not interfere with household activities, and 1486

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: PORTOLA PROJECT – NOISE & VIBRATION ASSESSMENT 18192.02 11 NOVEMBER 2025
construction noise would cease upon project construction completion. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact with regard to construction noise and vibration impacts.

Operational noise levels from the Project are also not expected to exceed applicable limits as adopted by Palm Desert. Operational noise levels would not increase the ambient noise levels (expressed in CNEL) at adjacent land uses or at the nearest residences. Therefore, on-site operational noise of the project would be less than significant.

The project would result in changes to traffic levels along Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola Avenue on the segments adjacent to the project site. However, based on the results of traffic noise modeling, all predicted exterior noise levels at the facades of project buildings and at existing residential properties in the vicinity remain below the City’s 65 dBA CNEL threshold. The incremental increase in traffic noise due to the project is less than 3 dB, which is not perceptible to the average human ear and does not constitute a significant impact. 1487

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: PORTOLA PROJECT – NOISE & VIBRATION ASSESSMENT 18192.02 12 NOVEMBER 2025
5 References Cited
14 CCR 15000–15387 and Appendices A–L. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended.

Caltrans. 2013 Technical Noise Supplement.

Caltrans.2020. Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol.

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

FHWA. 2006. Roadway Construction Noise Model, Version 1.1 International Organization of Standardization (ISO). 1996. 9613-2: “Attenuation of Sound During Propagation Outdoors, Part 2: General Method of Calculation”. December. Accessible at https://www.iso.org/standard/20649.html
Dudek. 2025. “Portola Traffic Study” October 2025.

Palm Desert Municipal Code. Chapter 24 Noise Control.
1488
Portola Ave
Frank Sinatra Dr
DesertSprings
D
r
Halfway Dr
Fuller Dr
Pele Pl
Alpine Ln
Daisy Ln
Emerson Dr
Desert Greens Drive North Drexell Dr
Hollister Dr
Shepherd Ln
Sawmill Canyon Way
Oak Flats Dr Bautista Canyon Way
C
h
a
p
a
r
r
o
s
a
Wa
y
Heatherwood Dr
Desert Greens
D
riv
e
E
a
s
t
ST1
ST2
Project Boundary
Noise Measurement Locations
0 250 500 n Feet Date: 11/11/2025 User: cgardner Path: Z:\Projects\j1819202\MAPDOC\Noise\PortolaSprings_Noise.aprx Map: Figure 1 Noise Measurement Locations Layout: Figure 1 Noise Measurement Locations SOURCE: Esri Imagery; Open Street Map 2023
Portola Springs Residential Development Project
Noise Measurement Locations
FIGURE 1
1489
Attachment A
Ambient Traffic Noise Worksheet
1490
Field Noise Measurement Data
Submitted by: [email protected]
Submitted time: Oct 29, 2025, 8:36:47 PM
Project Name
Portola
Observer(s)
Carson Wong
Date
Oct 29, 2025
Meteorological Conditions
Temp (F°)
89 Humidity % (R.H.)
13 Wind
Light
Wind Speed (MPH)
5 Wind Direction
South
Sky
Clear
1491
Instrument and Calibrator Information
Instrument Name List
(ENC) Rion NL-52
Manufacturer
Rion
Model
NL-52
Serial Number
553896
Calibrator Name
(ENC) LD CAL150
Calibrator Manufacturer
LD CAL150
Calibrator Model
Larson Davis
Calibrator Serial #
5152
Pre-Test (dBA SPL)
94 Post-Test (dBA SPL)
94 1492
Monitoring
Windscreen
Yes
Weighting?
A-WTD
Slow/Fast?
Slow
ANSI?
Yes
Record #
{77525571-72a1-4d48-b611-bf8c2d1f8e20}
Site ID
ST1
Begin (Time)
11:00
End (Time)
11:15
Leq
71 Lmax
90 Lmin
45 1493
Other Lx?
L50
L50
64 L10
54 Primary Noise Source
Traffic
Other Noise Sources (Background)
Distant Traffic
Source Info and Traffic Counts
Description / Photos
Lane Width (feet)
10 Roadway Width (feet)
100
Roadway Width (m)
31 Site Photos
1494
Photo
sitephoto-20251029-180035.jpg
Comments / Description
Facing south
Photo
sitephoto-20251029-180057.jpg
Comments / Description
Facing west
1495
Photo
sitephoto-20251029-180120.jpg
Comments / Description
Facing east
Record #
{be19457e-4121-4a3d-b435-1e45f4621434}
Site ID
ST2
Begin (Time)
11:26
End (Time)
11:41
Leq
62 Lmax
77 1496
Lmin
36 Other Lx?
L50
L50
60 L10
47 Primary Noise Source
Traffic
Other Noise Sources (Background)
Distant Conversations / Yelling
Other Noise Sources Additional Description
Bug song
Source Info and Traffic Counts
Description / Photos
Lane Width (feet)
10 Roadway Width (feet)
100
Roadway Width (m)
31 1497
Site Photos
Photo
sitephoto-20251029-182657.jpg
Comments / Description
Facing northeast
Photo
sitephoto-20251029-182713.jpg
1498
Comments / Description
Facing southeast
Photo
sitephoto-20251029-182731.jpg
Comments / Description
Facing south
Photo
sitephoto-20251029-182752.jpg
1499
Comments / Description
Facing west
1500
Attachment B
Construction Noise Worksheet
1501
Portola Project Appendix B -- Construction Noise Modeling Data Source to barrier distance Varies 80
Receiver to barrier distance Varies 8 0 = temporary barrier (TB) of input height inserted between source and receptor Receiver height 5
Construction Activity Equipment Total Equipment Qty Reference Level (Leq or Lmax) @ 50 ft. from FHWA RCNM 2 Table Air Quality/Client Equipment Description, Data Source and/or Notes Source to NSR Distance (ft.) Distance- Adjusted Level Allowable Operation Time (hours) Allowable Operation Time (minutes) Predicted 8- hour Leq Source Elevation (ft) Receiver Elevation (ft) Barrier Height (ft) Source to Barr. ("A") Horiz. (ft) Rcvr. to Barr. ("B") Horiz. (ft) Source to Rcvr. ("C") Horiz. (ft) "A" (ft) "B" (ft) "C" (ft) Path Length Diff. "P" (ft) Abarr (dB) Heff (with barrier) Heff (wout barrier) G (with barrier) G (without barrier) ILbarr (dB) Site Preparation Dozer 3 80.0 dozer 500 55.0 8.00 480 60 5.3 5 0 5 495 500 7.3 495.0 500.0 0.00 0.1 5.2 5.2 0.7 0.7 0.1 Backhoe 4 75.8 backhoe 500 50.8 8.00 480 57 4.5 5 0 5 495 500 6.7 495.0 500.0 0.00 0.1 4.8 4.8 0.7 0.7 0.1

61.5 Grading & Earthwork Grader (passby) 1 78.5 grader 500 53.6 8 480 54 6.0 5 0 5 495 500 7.8 495.0 500.0 0.00 0.1 5.5 5.5 0.7 0.7 0.1 Excavator 2 75.9 excavator 500 50.9 8 480 54 6.2 5 0 5 495 500 8.0 495.0 500.0 0.00 0.1 5.6 5.6 0.7 0.7 0.1Backhoe 2 75.8 backhoe 500 50.8 8 480 54 4.5 5 0 5 495 500 6.7 495.0 500.0 0.00 0.1 4.8 4.8 0.7 0.7 0.1 Scraper 2 92.4 scraper 500 67.5 8 480 71 8.0 5 0 5 495 500 9.4 495.0 500.0 0.00 0.1 6.5 6.5 0.6 0.6 0.1 Dozer 1 80.0 Rubber Tired Loaders 500 55.0 8 480 55 5.3 5 0 5 495 500 7.3 495.0 500.0 0.00 0.1 5.2 5.2 0.7 0.7 0.1

70.9 Paving Paving - Asphalt (Paver + Dump Truck) 2 81.8 paver 500 56.8 8 480 60 5.0 5 0 5 495 500 7.1 495.0 500.0 0.00 0.1 5.0 5.0 0.7 0.7 0.1 Paving - Concrete (Triple Roller Tube Paver) 2 85.1 roller 500 60.1 8 480 63 5.0 5 0 5 495 500 7.1 495.0 500.0 0.00 0.1 5.0 5.0 0.7 0.7 0.1 Backhoe 1 75.8 backhoe 500 50.8 8 480 51 4.5 5 0 5 495 500 6.7 495.0 500.0 0.00 0.1 4.8 4.8 0.7 0.7 0.1

64.9 Building Construction Crane 1 74.2 Cranes 500 49.3 7 420 49 7.7 5 0 5 495 500 9.2 495.0 500.0 0.00 0.1 6.4 6.4 0.6 0.6 0.1 Telescopic Handler (Forklift) 3 88.3 manlift 500 63.2 8 480 68 3.0 5 0 5 495 500 5.8 495.0 500.0 0.00 0.1 4.0 4.0 0.7 0.7 0.1Generator 1 67.1 generator 500 42.1 8 480 42 4.5 5 0 5 495 500 6.7 495.0 500.0 0.00 0.1 4.8 4.8 0.7 0.7 0.1 Backhoe 3 75.8 backhoe 500 50.8 8 480 56 4.5 5 0 5 495 500 6.7 495.0 500.0 0.00 0.1 4.8 4.8 0.7 0.7 0.1Welding Machine 1 71.2 welders 500 46.1 8 480 46 2.5 5 0 5 495 500 5.6 495.0 500.0 0.00 0.1 3.8 3.8 0.7 0.7 0.1

68.3 Architectural Coating Compressor 1 65.6 compressor 500 40.6 8 480 41 4.3 5 0 5 495 500 6.6 495.0 500.0 0.00 0.1 4.7 4.7 0.7 0.7 0.1 Total for Architectural Coating Phase: 40.6
magnitude of threshold (dBA) =
allowable hours over which Leq is to be averaged =
Total for Site Preparation Phase:

Total for Grading & Earthwork Phase:

Total for Paving Phase:

Total for Building Construction Phase:

RCNM2-emulator_wschedule_v1 Dudek Project No. 18192.02 Acoustical Center 1502 Portola Project Appendix B -- Construction Noise Modeling Data Source to barrier distance Varies 80
Receiver to barrier distance Varies 8 0 = temporary barrier (TB) of input height inserted between source and receptor Receiver height 5
Construction Activity Equipment Total Equipment Qty Reference Level (Leq or Lmax) @ 50 ft. from FHWA RCNM 2 Table Air Quality/Client Equipment Description, Data Source and/or Notes Source to NSR Distance (ft.) Distance- Adjusted Level Allowable Operation Time (hours) Allowable Operation Time (minutes) Predicted 8- hour Leq Source Elevation (ft) Receiver Elevation (ft) Barrier Height (ft) Source to Barr. ("A") Horiz. (ft) Rcvr. to Barr. ("B") Horiz. (ft) Source to Rcvr. ("C") Horiz. (ft) "A" (ft) "B" (ft) "C" (ft) Path Length Diff. "P" (ft) Abarr (dB) Heff (with barrier) Heff (wout barrier) G (with barrier) G (without barrier) ILbarr (dB) Site Preparation Dozer 1 80.0 dozer 110 70.6 8.00 480 71 5.3 5 0 5 105 110 7.3 105.1 110.0 0.00 0.1 5.2 5.2 0.7 0.7 0.1 Backhoe 1 75.8 backhoe 110 66.2 8.00 480 66 4.5 5 0 5 105 110 6.7 105.1 110.0 0.00 0.1 4.8 4.8 0.7 0.7 0.1

71.9 Grading & Earthwork Grader (passby) 1 78.5 grader 110 69.3 3 180 65 6.0 5 0 5 105 110 7.8 105.1 110.0 0.00 0.1 5.5 5.5 0.7 0.7 0.1 Excavator 1 75.9 excavator 110 66.7 3 180 62 6.2 5 0 5 105 110 8.0 105.1 110.0 0.00 0.1 5.6 5.6 0.7 0.7 0.1Backhoe 1 75.8 backhoe 110 66.2 3 180 62 4.5 5 0 5 105 110 6.7 105.1 110.0 0.00 0.1 4.8 4.8 0.7 0.7 0.1 Scraper 1 92.4 scraper 110 83.7 3 180 79 8.0 5 0 5 105 110 9.4 105.1 110.0 0.00 0.1 6.5 6.5 0.6 0.6 0.1 Dozer 1 80.0 Rubber Tired Loaders 110 70.6 3 180 66 5.3 5 0 5 105 110 7.3 105.1 110.0 0.00 0.1 5.2 5.2 0.7 0.7 0.1

79.9 Paving Paving - Asphalt (Paver + Dump Truck) 1 81.8 paver 110 72.3 8 480 72 5.0 5 0 5 105 110 7.1 105.1 110.0 0.00 0.1 5.0 5.0 0.7 0.7 0.1 Paving - Concrete (Triple Roller Tube Paver) 1 85.1 roller 110 75.6 8 480 76 5.0 5 0 5 105 110 7.1 105.1 110.0 0.00 0.1 5.0 5.0 0.7 0.7 0.1 Backhoe 1 75.8 backhoe 110 66.2 8 480 66 4.5 5 0 5 105 110 6.7 105.1 110.0 0.00 0.1 4.8 4.8 0.7 0.7 0.1

77.6 Building Construction Crane 1 74.2 Cranes 110 65.4 7 420 65 7.7 5 0 5 105 110 9.2 105.1 110.0 0.00 0.1 6.4 6.4 0.6 0.6 0.1 Telescopic Handler (Forklift) 1 88.3 manlift 110 78.4 8 480 78 3.0 5 0 5 105 110 5.8 105.1 110.0 0.00 0.1 4.0 4.0 0.7 0.7 0.1Generator 1 67.1 generator 110 57.5 8 480 58 4.5 5 0 5 105 110 6.7 105.1 110.0 0.00 0.1 4.8 4.8 0.7 0.7 0.1 Backhoe 1 75.8 backhoe 110 66.2 8 480 66 4.5 5 0 5 105 110 6.7 105.1 110.0 0.00 0.1 4.8 4.8 0.7 0.7 0.1Welding Machine 1 71.2 welders 110 61.1 8 480 61 2.5 5 0 5 105 110 5.6 105.1 110.0 0.00 0.1 3.8 3.8 0.7 0.7 0.1

78.9 Architectural Coating Compressor 1 65.6 compressor 110 56.0 8 480 56 4.3 5 0 5 105 110 6.6 105.1 110.0 0.00 0.1 4.7 4.7 0.7 0.7 0.1

56.0 Total for Building Construction Phase:

Total for Architectural Coating Phase:
magnitude of threshold (dBA) =
allowable hours over which Leq is to be averaged =
Total for Site Preparation Phase:

Total for Grading & Earthwork Phase:

Total for Paving Phase:

RCNM2-emulator_wschedule_v1 Dudek Project No. 18192.02 Nearest Receptor 1503 Portola Project Appendix B -- Construction Noise Modeling Data RCNM 2.0 Data Measured level across four locations RCNM 1.0 Data Measured Level Compare (average) reported RCMN 2.0 - RCNM 1.0
Avg Max Avg Max RCNM Equivalent Name AUF% Lmax Leq Lmax Leq AUF% Air-Operated Post Driver 7 TRUE 83.2 83.2 84.9 84.9 68 none -- -- -- -- -- -- Asphalt Distributor Truck (Asphalt Sprayer) 5 FALSE 0.0 0.0 69.7 70.8 none -- -- -- -- -- -- Auger Drill 6.4 TRUE 87.5 88.3 101.1 101.6 4 Auger Drill Rig 20 84.4 77.4 16.7 10.1 -16 Backhoe 4.5 TRUE 75.8 77.4 83.6 84.3 17 Backhoe 40 77.6 73.6 6.0 2.2 -23 Bar Bender 2 TRUE 66.3 67.1 74.7 76.4 15 Bar Bender 20 80 73 -5.3 -6.7 -5 Blasting (Abrasive) 12.3 TRUE 100.3 103.3 103.0 105.9 54 Blasting 1 94 74 9.0 26.3 53 Blasting (Explosive) 1 TRUE 82.8 84.2 92.7 94.4 10 Blasting 1 94 74 -1.3 8.8 9 Chip Spreader 6 FALSE 0.0 0.0 76.7 77.2 none -- -- -- -- -- -- Compactor (Plate) 1 FALSE 0.0 0.0 74.6 74.6 Compactor (ground) 20 83.2 76.2 -8.6 -- -- Compactor (Roller) 4.4 FALSE 0.0 0.0 82.4 83.1 Compactor (ground) 20 83.2 76.2 -0.8 -- -- Compressor 4.3 TRUE 65.6 66.7 66.8 68.1 77 Compressor (air) 40 77.7 73.7 -10.9 -8.1 37 Concrete Batch Plant 25 TRUE 86.6 88.7 90.0 92.5 46 Concrete Batch Plant 15 83 74.8 7.0 11.8 31 Concrete Grinder 5 FALSE 0.0 0.0 96.7 96.7 none -- -- -- -- -- -- Concrete Mixer Truck 5 TRUE 81.1 81.1 82.4 82.4 74 Concrete Mixer Truck 40 78.8 74.8 3.6 6.3 34 Concrete Pump Truck 5.7 TRUE 83.5 86.0 87.5 89.2 40 Concrete Pump Truck 20 81.4 74.4 6.1 9.1 20 Concrete Saw 2.2 TRUE 85.4 86.2 88.1 88.4 54 Concrete Saw 20 89.6 82.6 -1.5 2.8 34 Crane 7.7 TRUE 74.2 77.0 76.0 79.0 66 Crane 16 80.6 72.6 -4.6 1.6 50 Directional Drill Rig 4 TRUE 67.9 67.9 79.6 79.6 7 Drill Rig Truck 20 79.1 72.2 0.5 -4.3 -13 Dozer 5.3 TRUE 80.0 80.1 86.1 85.9 24 Dozer 40 81.7 77.7 4.4 2.3 -16 Drum Mixer 3 TRUE 65.8 67.5 70.6 74.0 33 Drum Mixer 50 80 77 -9.4 -11.2 -17 Dump Truck (Cyclical) 4.8 TRUE 81.7 81.7 91.6 91.6 10 Dump Truck 40 76.5 72.5 15.1 9.2 -30 Dump Truck (Passby) 5.1 FALSE 0.0 0.0 73.1 74.3 Dump Truck 40 76.5 72.5 -3.4 -- -- Excavator 6.2 TRUE 75.9 76.7 86.7 87.4 8 Excavator 40 80.7 76.7 6.0 -0.8 -32 Flatbed Truck 5 FALSE 0.0 0.0 74.2 74.8 Flat Bed Truck 40 74.3 70.3 -0.1 -- -- Front End Loader (Cyclical) 6 TRUE 72.4 72.4 81.4 81.4 12 Front End Loader 40 79.1 75.1 2.3 -2.7 -28 Front End Loader (Passby) 5.4 FALSE 0.0 0.0 71.2 72.6 Front End Loader 40 79.1 75.1 -7.9 -- -- Generator 4.5 TRUE 67.1 67.9 67.8 68.4 84 Generator 50 80.6 77.6 -12.8 -10.5 34 Grader (passby) 6 FALSE 0.0 0.0 78.5 77.3 Grader 40 85 81 -6.5 -- -- Hoe Ram 1 TRUE 91.7 90.8 98.8 97.6 20 Mounteed Impact Hamme 20 90.3 87.5 8.5 4.2 0 Horizontal Bore Drill 9 TRUE 87.0 87.0 87.8 87.8 84 Horiz. Boring Hydr. Jack -- -- -- -- -- -- Impact Pile Driver 5.3 TRUE 98.9 99.5 104.9 104.9 26 Impact Pile Driver 20 101.3 94.3 3.6 4.6 6 Joint Sealer 3 FALSE 0.0 0.0 74.1 74.1 None -- -- -- -- -- -- Light Tower 3 TRUE 60.6 62.6 61.8 63.3 76 None -- -- -- -- -- -- Man Lift 5.8 TRUE 72.1 73.8 73.3 75.0 76 Man Lift 20 74.7 67.7 -1.4 4.4 56 Movement Alarm 5.5 TRUE 79.1 79.1 80.4 80.4 73 None -- -- -- -- -- -- Mud Recycler 4 TRUE 73.3 73.3 73.8 73.8 88 None -- -- -- -- -- -- Power Tools - Air Hose 1 TRUE 92.8 92.8 99.9 99.9 19 None -- -- -- -- -- -- Power Tools - Chainsaw 1 TRUE 79.4 80.7 82.7 83.6 47 Chain Saw 20 83.7 76.7 -1.0 2.7 27 Power Tools - Chipping Gun 1 TRUE 95.0 95.6 99.5 100.6 36 None -- -- -- -- -- -- Power Tools - Circular Saw 1 TRUE 72.9 75.9 76.1 78.6 48 None -- -- -- -- -- -- Power Tools - Grinder 1 TRUE 67.6 71.7 71.2 75.8 44 None -- -- -- -- -- -- Power Tools - Hammer Drill 1 TRUE 72.4 72.9 75.1 76.1 54 None -- -- -- -- -- -- Power Tools - Impact Wrench 1 TRUE 68.3 69.8 72.2 74.5 40 None -- -- -- -- -- -- Power Tools - Jackhammer 1 TRUE 91.0 92.1 95.4 95.9 36 Jackhammer 20 88.9 81.9 6.5 9.1 16 Power Tools - Jig Saw 1 TRUE 91.9 91.9 94.6 94.6 53 None -- -- -- -- -- -- Power Tools - Nail Gun 1 TRUE 69.5 71.8 73.5 75.7 40 None -- -- -- -- -- -- Power Tools - Reciprocating Saw 1 TRUE 63.7 65.5 66.0 67.2 59 None -- -- -- -- -- -- Power Tools - Rivet Buster 1 TRUE 100.3 100.3 107.3 107.3 20 None -- -- -- -- -- -- Power Tools - Sander 1 TRUE 65.0 66.4 67.5 69.4 56 None -- -- -- -- -- -- Pavement Scarifier (Milling Machine) 6.5 FALSE 0.0 0.0 84.0 83.7 Pavement Scarafier 20 89.5 82.5 -5.5 -- -- Paving - Asphalt (Paver + Dump Truck) 5 FALSE 0.0 0.0 81.8 84.1 Paver 50 77.2 74.2 4.6 -- -- Paving - Asphalt (Paver + MTV + Dump Truck) 5.5 FALSE 0.0 0.0 82.8 82.8 Paver 50 77.2 74.2 5.6 -- -- Paving - Concrete (Placer + Slipform Paver) 9 TRUE 87.2 87.2 90.8 90.8 43 Paver 50 77.2 74.2 13.6 13.0 -7 Paving - Concrete (Texturing/Curing Machine) 8 TRUE 73.3 73.6 74.0 74.4 84 Paver 50 77.2 74.2 -3.2 -0.9 34 Paving - Concrete (Triple Roller Tube Paver) 5 TRUE 85.1 86.1 88.4 88.9 46 Paver 50 77.2 74.2 11.2 10.9 -4 Power Unit (Power Pack) 4.3 TRUE 81.2 82.4 81.6 82.8 91 None -- -- -- -- -- -- Pump 3.8 TRUE 72.8 73.7 73.9 74.7 77 Pumps 50 80.9 77.9 -7.0 -5.1 27 Rock Drill 3.7 TRUE 91.5 91.5 95.3 94.6 42 Rock Drill 20 81 74 14.3 17.5 22 Rumble Strip Grinding 6 FALSE 0.0 0.0 87.3 87.8 None -- -- -- -- -- -- Scraper 8 FALSE 0.0 0.0 92.4 92.4 Scraper 40 83.6 79.6 8.8 -- -- Shot Crete Pump/Spray 4 TRUE 78.0 78.0 86.8 86.8 13 None -- -- -- -- -- -- Street Sweeper 5 FALSE 0.0 0.0 81.3 82.0 None -- -- -- -- -- -- Telescopic Handler (Forklift) 3 FALSE 0.0 0.0 88.3 89.2 None -- -- -- -- -- -- Vacuum Excavator (Vac-Truck) 5.6 TRUE 85.9 86.5 86.7 87.7 82 Vacuum Excavator -- -- -- -- -- -- Ventilation Fan 1.5 TRUE 61.7 62.3 63.2 63.8 72 Ventilation Fan 100 78.9 78.9 -15.7 -17.2 -28 Vibratory Concrete Consolidator 2 TRUE 78.4 78.4 80.2 80.2 66 Vibratory Concrete Mixer 20 80 73 0.2 5.4 46 Vibratory Pile Driver 1 TRUE 98.5 99.2 104.5 105.6 25 Vibratory Pile Driver 20 100.8 93.8 3.7 4.7 5 Warning Horn (Air Horn) 5 TRUE 93.7 97.0 99.1 102.6 29 Warning Horn 5 83.2 70.2 15.9 23.5 24 Water Spray Truck 5.2 FALSE 0.0 0.0 72.0 72.2 None -- -- -- -- -- -- Welding Machine 2.5 TRUE 71.2 73.9 72.1 74.7 81 Welder / Torch 40 74 70 -1.9 1.2 41 minimum 0.0 0.0 61.8 63.3 4.5 1.0 74.0 67.7 -15.7 -17.2 -31.8 maximum 100.3 103.3 107.3 107.3 91.1 100.0 101.3 94.3 16.7 26.3 56.3

32.4 43.5 88.1
Leq, dBA @ 50 ft
Equipment Type
Source
Height (ft) Stationary?
Lmax, dBA @ 50 ft
calculated AUF%
Level @ 50 ft. (dBA)
RCNM2-emulator_wschedule_v1 Dudek Project No. 18192.02 INCE22 Table1504 Attachment C
Traffic Noise Modeling Inputs & Outputs
1505
INPUT: ROADWAYS Portola
Dudek 11 November 2025 CB TNM 2.5 INPUT: ROADWAYS Average pavement type shall be used unlessPROJECT/CONTRACT: Portola a State highway agency substantiates the useRUN: Existing of a different type with the approval of FHWARoadway PointsName Width Name No. Coordinates (pavement) Flow Control Segment X Y Z Control Speed Percent Pvmt On
Device Constraint Vehicles Type Struct?
Affected
ft ft ft ft mph %
Frank Sinatra Dr W1 40.0 point1 1 6,522,454.5 2,224,791.8 0.00 Average point2 2 6,523,383.0 2,224,793.5 0.00 Average point3 3 6,523,490.5 2,224,796.2 0.00 Average point4 4 6,523,771.5 2,224,793.0 0.00 Average point5 5 6,524,051.5 2,224,797.0 0.00 Average point6 6 6,524,420.0 2,224,799.2 0.00 Average point7 7 6,524,898.0 2,224,796.0 0.00 Frank Sinatra Dr W2 40.0 point8 8 6,524,911.0 2,224,739.8 0.00 Average point9 9 6,524,277.0 2,224,750.2 0.00 Average point10 10 6,523,510.5 2,224,749.2 0.00 Average point11 11 6,522,465.5 2,224,743.5 0.00 Portola Ave n1 40.0 point12 12 6,525,005.0 2,225,479.5 0.00 Average point13 13 6,524,991.5 2,224,858.2 0.00 Average point14 14 6,524,991.5 2,224,851.5 0.00 Portola Ave n2 40.0 point15 15 6,524,940.0 2,224,828.8 0.00 Average point16 16 6,524,949.5 2,225,494.5 0.00
Frank Sinatra Dr E1 40.0 point17 17 6,526,031.0 2,224,799.8 0.00 Average point18 18 6,525,675.0 2,224,803.0 0.00 Average point19 19 6,524,933.5 2,224,798.5 0.00 Average point20 20 6,524,930.5 2,224,798.5 0.00 Frank Sinatra Dr E2 40.0 point21 21 6,526,019.0 2,224,756.2 0.00 Average point22 22 6,525,945.0 2,224,754.5 0.00 Average point23 23 6,524,936.0 2,224,741.8 0.00 Portola Ave s2 40.0 point24 24 6,524,129.5 2,221,715.2 0.00 Average point25 25 6,524,134.0 2,221,905.8 0.00 Average
C:\TNM25\Projects\Portola\CAL\Existing 1 11 November 2025 1506
INPUT: ROADWAYS Portola
point26 26 6,524,140.0 2,222,160.2 0.00 Average point27 27 6,524,148.0 2,222,363.5 0.00 Average point28 28 6,524,171.5 2,222,508.2 0.00 Average point29 29 6,524,242.5 2,222,808.5 0.00 Average point30 30 6,524,280.5 2,222,913.8 0.00 Average point31 31 6,524,392.0 2,223,148.2 0.00 Average point32 32 6,524,468.0 2,223,293.0 0.00 Average point33 33 6,524,580.5 2,223,507.8 0.00 Average point34 34 6,524,658.5 2,223,654.2 0.00 Average point35 35 6,524,771.0 2,223,871.8 0.00 Average point36 36 6,524,863.5 2,224,093.5 0.00 Average point37 37 6,524,934.0 2,224,335.8 0.00 Average point38 38 6,524,957.5 2,224,474.5 0.00 Average point39 39 6,524,981.0 2,224,657.5 0.00 Average point40 40 6,524,984.5 2,224,733.8 0.00 Portola Ave s1 40.0 point41 41 6,524,933.5 2,224,730.0 0.00 Average point42 42 6,524,932.0 2,224,711.2 0.00 Average point43 43 6,524,929.5 2,224,673.8 0.00 Average point44 44 6,524,911.0 2,224,505.0 0.00 Average point45 45 6,524,869.5 2,224,273.8 0.00 Average point46 46 6,524,835.5 2,224,148.2 0.00 Average point47 47 6,524,744.0 2,223,929.0 0.00 Average point48 48 6,524,607.0 2,223,665.0 0.00 Average point49 49 6,524,479.5 2,223,426.2 0.00 Average point50 50 6,524,358.5 2,223,188.2 0.00 Average point51 51 6,524,250.5 2,222,964.0 0.00 Average point52 52 6,524,210.5 2,222,858.5 0.00 Average point53 53 6,524,158.0 2,222,674.8 0.00 Average point54 54 6,524,124.5 2,222,498.8 0.00 Average point55 55 6,524,108.0 2,222,355.5 0.00 Average point56 56 6,524,101.5 2,222,102.2 0.00 Average point57 57 6,524,092.5 2,221,717.2 0.00 C:\TNM25\Projects\Portola\CAL\Existing 2 11 November 2025 1507
INPUT: TRAFFIC FOR LAeq1h Volumes Portola
Dudek 11 November 2025 CB TNM 2.5 INPUT: TRAFFIC FOR LAeq1h VolumesPROJECT/CONTRACT: Portola RUN: Existing Roadway PointsName Name No. Segment Autos MTrucks HTrucks Buses Motorcycles V SV SV SV SV Sveh/hr mph veh/hr mph veh/hr mph veh/hr mph veh/hr mph Frank Sinatra Dr W1 point1 1 342 50 7 50 3 50 0 0 0 0
point2 2 342 50 7 50 3 50 0 0 0 0 point3 3 342 50 7 50 3 50 0 0 0 0 point4 4 342 50 7 50 3 50 0 0 0 0 point5 5 342 50 7 50 3 50 0 0 0 0 point6 6 342 50 7 50 3 50 0 0 0 0 point7 7 Frank Sinatra Dr W2 point8 8 342 50 7 50 3 50 0 0 0 0
point9 9 342 50 7 50 3 50 0 0 0 0 point10 10 342 50 7 50 3 50 0 0 0 0 point11 11 Portola Ave n1 point12 12 848 55 17 55 8 55 0 0 0 0
point13 13 848 55 17 55 8 55 0 0 0 0 point14 14
Portola Ave n2 point15 15 848 55 17 55 8 55 0 0 0 0
point16 16
Frank Sinatra Dr E1 point17 17 342 50 7 50 3 50 0 0 0 0 point18 18 342 50 7 50 3 50 0 0 0 0 point19 19 342 50 7 50 3 50 0 0 0 0 point20 20 Frank Sinatra Dr E2 point21 21 342 50 7 50 3 50 0 0 0 0 point22 22 342 50 7 50 3 50 0 0 0 0 point23 23
C:\TNM25\Projects\Portola\CAL\Existing 1 11 Novembe
1508
INPUT: TRAFFIC FOR LAeq1h Volumes Portola
Portola Ave s2 point24 24 848 55 17 55 8 55 0 0 0 0
point25 25 848 55 17 55 8 55 0 0 0 0 point26 26 848 55 17 55 8 55 0 0 0 0 point27 27 848 55 17 55 8 55 0 0 0 0 point28 28 848 55 17 55 8 55 0 0 0 0 point29 29 848 55 17 55 8 55 0 0 0 0 point30 30 848 55 17 55 8 55 0 0 0 0 point31 31 848 55 17 55 8 55 0 0 0 0 point32 32 848 55 17 55 8 55 0 0 0 0 point33 33 848 55 17 55 8 55 0 0 0 0 point34 34 848 55 17 55 8 55 0 0 0 0 point35 35 848 55 17 55 8 55 0 0 0 0 point36 36 848 55 17 55 8 55 0 0 0 0 point37 37 848 55 17 55 8 55 0 0 0 0 point38 38 848 55 17 0 8 55 0 0 0 0 point39 39 848 55 17 55 8 55 0 0 0 0 point40 40
Portola Ave s1 point41 41 848 55 17 55 8 55 0 0 0 0
point42 42 848 55 17 55 8 55 0 0 0 0 point43 43 848 55 17 55 8 55 0 0 0 0 point44 44 848 55 17 55 8 55 0 0 0 0 point45 45 848 55 17 55 8 55 0 0 0 0 point46 46 848 55 17 55 8 55 0 0 0 0 point47 47 848 55 17 55 8 55 0 0 0 0 point48 48 848 55 17 55 8 55 0 0 0 0 point49 49 848 55 17 55 8 55 0 0 0 0 point50 50 848 55 17 55 8 55 0 0 0 0 point51 51 848 55 17 55 8 55 0 0 0 0 point52 52 848 55 17 55 8 55 0 0 0 0 point53 53 848 55 17 55 8 55 0 0 0 0 point54 54 848 55 17 55 8 55 0 0 0 0 point55 55 848 55 17 55 8 55 0 0 0 0 point56 56 848 55 17 55 8 55 0 0 0 0 point57 57 C:\TNM25\Projects\Portola\CAL\Existing 2 11 Novembe
1509
INPUT: RECEIVERS Portola
Dudek 11 November 2025 CB TNM 2.5 INPUT: RECEIVERSPROJECT/CONTRACT: Portola RUN: Existing ReceiverName No. #DUs Coordinates (ground) Height Input Sound Levels and Criteria Active X Y Z above Existing Impact Criteria NR in
Ground LAeq1h LAeq1h Sub'l Goal Calc.
ft ft ft ft dBA dBA dB dB
ST1 1 1 6,524,403.0 2,224,827.8 0.00 4.92 0.00 66 10.0 8.0 Y ST2A 2 1 6,524,917.5 2,224,070.2 0.00 4.92 0.00 66 10.0 8.0 Y ST2 4 1 6,524,699.5 2,223,507.8 0.00 4.92 0.00 66 10.0 8.0 Y C:\TNM25\Projects\Portola\CAL\Existing 1 11 Novembe
1510
RESULTS: SOUND LEVELS Portola
Dudek 11 November 2025 CB TNM 2.5
Calculated with TNM 2.5
RESULTS: SOUND LEVELSPROJECT/CONTRACT: Portola RUN: Existing BARRIER DESIGN: INPUT HEIGHTS Average pavement type shall be used unless a State highway agency substantiates the use
ATMOSPHERICS: 68 deg F, 50% RH of a different type with approval of FHWA.ReceiverName No. #DUs Existing No Barrier With Barrier LAeq1h LAeq1h Increase over existing Type Calculated Noise Reduction Calculated Crit'n Calculated Crit'n Impact LAeq1h Calculated Goal Calculated Sub'l Inc minus
Goal
dBA dBA dBA dB dB dBA dB dB dB
ST1 1 1 0.0 68.4 66 68.4 10 Snd Lvl 68.4 0.0 8 -8.0
ST2A 2 1 0.0 70.3 66 70.3 10 Snd Lvl 70.3 0.0 8 -8.0
ST2 4 1 0.0 67.8 66 67.8 10 Snd Lvl 67.8 0.0 8 -8.0
Dwelling Units # DUs Noise Reduction
Min Avg Max dB dB dB
All Selected 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 All Impacted 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 All that meet NR Goal 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C:\TNM25\Projects\Portola\CAL\Existing 1 11 November 2025 1511
INPUT: ROADWAYS Portola
Dudek 11 November 2025 CB TNM 2.5 INPUT: ROADWAYS Average pavement type shall be used unlessPROJECT/CONTRACT: Portola a State highway agency substantiates the useRUN: Existing + Project of a different type with the approval of FHWARoadway PointsName Width Name No. Coordinates (pavement) Flow Control Segment X Y Z Control Speed Percent Pvmt On
Device Constraint Vehicles Type Struct?
Affected
ft ft ft ft mph %
Frank Sinatra Dr W1 40.0 point1 1 6,522,454.5 2,224,791.8 0.00 Average point2 2 6,523,383.0 2,224,793.5 0.00 Average point3 3 6,523,490.5 2,224,796.2 0.00 Average point4 4 6,523,771.5 2,224,793.0 0.00 Average point5 5 6,524,051.5 2,224,797.0 0.00 Average point6 6 6,524,420.0 2,224,799.2 0.00 Average point7 7 6,524,898.0 2,224,796.0 0.00 Frank Sinatra Dr W2 40.0 point8 8 6,524,911.0 2,224,739.8 0.00 Average point9 9 6,524,277.0 2,224,750.2 0.00 Average point10 10 6,523,510.5 2,224,749.2 0.00 Average point11 11 6,522,465.5 2,224,743.5 0.00 Portola Ave n1 40.0 point12 12 6,525,005.0 2,225,479.5 0.00 Average point13 13 6,524,991.5 2,224,858.2 0.00 Average point14 14 6,524,991.5 2,224,851.5 0.00 Portola Ave n2 40.0 point15 15 6,524,940.0 2,224,828.8 0.00 Average point16 16 6,524,949.5 2,225,494.5 0.00
Frank Sinatra Dr E1 40.0 point17 17 6,526,031.0 2,224,799.8 0.00 Average point18 18 6,525,675.0 2,224,803.0 0.00 Average point19 19 6,524,933.5 2,224,798.5 0.00 Average point20 20 6,524,930.5 2,224,798.5 0.00 Frank Sinatra Dr E2 40.0 point21 21 6,526,019.0 2,224,756.2 0.00 Average point22 22 6,525,945.0 2,224,754.5 0.00 Average point23 23 6,524,936.0 2,224,741.8 0.00 Portola Ave s2 40.0 point24 24 6,524,129.5 2,221,715.2 0.00 Average point25 25 6,524,134.0 2,221,905.8 0.00 Average
C:\TNM25\Projects\Portola\CAL\Existing\Existing + Project 1 11 N 1512
INPUT: ROADWAYS Portola
point26 26 6,524,140.0 2,222,160.2 0.00 Average point27 27 6,524,148.0 2,222,363.5 0.00 Average point28 28 6,524,171.5 2,222,508.2 0.00 Average point29 29 6,524,242.5 2,222,808.5 0.00 Average point30 30 6,524,280.5 2,222,913.8 0.00 Average point31 31 6,524,392.0 2,223,148.2 0.00 Average point32 32 6,524,468.0 2,223,293.0 0.00 Average point33 33 6,524,580.5 2,223,507.8 0.00 Average point34 34 6,524,658.5 2,223,654.2 0.00 Average point35 35 6,524,771.0 2,223,871.8 0.00 Average point36 36 6,524,863.5 2,224,093.5 0.00 Average point37 37 6,524,934.0 2,224,335.8 0.00 Average point38 38 6,524,957.5 2,224,474.5 0.00 Average point39 39 6,524,981.0 2,224,657.5 0.00 Average point40 40 6,524,984.5 2,224,733.8 0.00 Portola Ave s1 40.0 point41 41 6,524,933.5 2,224,730.0 0.00 Average point42 42 6,524,932.0 2,224,711.2 0.00 Average point43 43 6,524,929.5 2,224,673.8 0.00 Average point44 44 6,524,911.0 2,224,505.0 0.00 Average point45 45 6,524,869.5 2,224,273.8 0.00 Average point46 46 6,524,835.5 2,224,148.2 0.00 Average point47 47 6,524,744.0 2,223,929.0 0.00 Average point48 48 6,524,607.0 2,223,665.0 0.00 Average point49 49 6,524,479.5 2,223,426.2 0.00 Average point50 50 6,524,358.5 2,223,188.2 0.00 Average point51 51 6,524,250.5 2,222,964.0 0.00 Average point52 52 6,524,210.5 2,222,858.5 0.00 Average point53 53 6,524,158.0 2,222,674.8 0.00 Average point54 54 6,524,124.5 2,222,498.8 0.00 Average point55 55 6,524,108.0 2,222,355.5 0.00 Average point56 56 6,524,101.5 2,222,102.2 0.00 Average point57 57 6,524,092.5 2,221,717.2 0.00 C:\TNM25\Projects\Portola\CAL\Existing\Existing + Project 2 11 N 1513
INPUT: TRAFFIC FOR LAeq1h Volumes Portola
Dudek 11 November 2025 CB TNM 2.5 INPUT: TRAFFIC FOR LAeq1h VolumesPROJECT/CONTRACT: Portola RUN: Existing + Project Roadway PointsName Name No. Segment Autos MTrucks HTrucks Buses Motorcycles V SV SV SV SV Sveh/hr mph veh/hr mph veh/hr mph veh/hr mph veh/hr mph Frank Sinatra Dr W1 point1 1 380 50 7 50 3 50 0 0 0 0
point2 2 380 50 7 50 3 50 0 0 0 0 point3 3 380 50 7 50 3 50 0 0 0 0 point4 4 380 50 7 50 3 50 0 0 0 0 point5 5 380 50 7 50 3 50 0 0 0 0 point6 6 380 50 7 50 3 50 0 0 0 0 point7 7 Frank Sinatra Dr W2 point8 8 380 50 7 50 3 50 0 0 0 0
point9 9 380 50 7 50 3 50 0 0 0 0 point10 10 380 50 7 50 3 50 0 0 0 0 point11 11 Portola Ave n1 point12 12 889 55 18 55 9 55 0 0 0 0
point13 13 889 55 18 55 9 55 0 0 0 0 point14 14
Portola Ave n2 point15 15 889 55 18 55 9 55 0 0 0 0
point16 16
Frank Sinatra Dr E1 point17 17 380 50 7 50 3 50 0 0 0 0 point18 18 380 50 7 50 3 50 0 0 0 0 point19 19 380 50 7 50 3 50 0 0 0 0 point20 20 Frank Sinatra Dr E2 point21 21 380 50 7 50 3 50 0 0 0 0 point22 22 380 50 7 50 3 50 0 0 0 0 point23 23
C:\TNM25\Projects\Portola\CAL\Existing\Existing + Project 1 1514
INPUT: TRAFFIC FOR LAeq1h Volumes Portola
Portola Ave s2 point24 24 889 55 18 55 9 55 0 0 0 0
point25 25 889 55 18 55 9 55 0 0 0 0 point26 26 889 55 18 55 9 55 0 0 0 0 point27 27 889 55 18 55 9 55 0 0 0 0 point28 28 889 55 18 55 9 55 0 0 0 0 point29 29 889 55 18 55 9 55 0 0 0 0 point30 30 889 55 18 55 9 55 0 0 0 0 point31 31 889 55 18 55 9 55 0 0 0 0 point32 32 889 55 18 55 9 55 0 0 0 0 point33 33 889 55 18 55 9 55 0 0 0 0 point34 34 889 55 18 55 9 55 0 0 0 0 point35 35 889 55 18 55 9 55 0 0 0 0 point36 36 889 55 18 55 9 55 0 0 0 0 point37 37 889 55 18 55 9 55 0 0 0 0 point38 38 889 55 18 55 9 55 0 0 0 0 point39 39 889 55 18 55 9 55 0 0 0 0 point40 40 Portola Ave s1 point41 41 889 55 18 55 9 55 0 0 0 0
point42 42 889 55 18 55 9 55 0 0 0 0 point43 43 889 55 18 55 9 55 0 0 0 0 point44 44 889 55 18 55 9 55 0 0 0 0 point45 45 889 55 18 55 9 55 0 0 0 0 point46 46 889 55 18 55 9 55 0 0 0 0 point47 47 889 55 18 55 9 55 0 0 0 0 point48 48 889 55 18 55 9 55 0 0 0 0 point49 49 889 55 18 55 9 55 0 0 0 0 point50 50 889 55 18 55 9 55 0 0 0 0 point51 51 889 55 18 55 9 55 0 0 0 0 point52 52 889 55 18 55 9 55 0 0 0 0 point53 53 889 55 18 55 9 55 0 0 0 0 point54 54 889 55 18 55 9 55 0 0 0 0 point55 55 889 55 18 55 9 55 0 0 0 0 point56 56 889 55 18 55 9 55 0 0 0 0 point57 57 C:\TNM25\Projects\Portola\CAL\Existing\Existing + Project 2 1515
INPUT: RECEIVERS Portola
Dudek 11 November 2025 CB TNM 2.5 INPUT: RECEIVERSPROJECT/CONTRACT: Portola RUN: Existing + Project ReceiverName No. #DUs Coordinates (ground) Height Input Sound Levels and Criteria Active X Y Z above Existing Impact Criteria NR in
Ground LAeq1h LAeq1h Sub'l Goal Calc.
ft ft ft ft dBA dBA dB dB
ST1 1 1 6,524,403.0 2,224,827.8 0.00 4.92 0.00 66 10.0 8.0 Y ST2A 2 1 6,524,917.5 2,224,070.2 0.00 4.92 0.00 66 10.0 8.0 Y ST2 4 1 6,524,699.5 2,223,507.8 0.00 4.92 0.00 66 10.0 8.0 Y C:\TNM25\Projects\Portola\CAL\Existing\Existing + Project 1 1516
RESULTS: SOUND LEVELS Portola
Dudek 11 November 2025 CB TNM 2.5
Calculated with TNM 2.5
RESULTS: SOUND LEVELSPROJECT/CONTRACT: Portola RUN: Existing + Project BARRIER DESIGN: INPUT HEIGHTS Average pavement type shall be used unless a State highway agency substantiates the use
ATMOSPHERICS: 68 deg F, 50% RH of a different type with approval of FHWA.ReceiverName No. #DUs Existing No Barrier With Barrier LAeq1h LAeq1h Increase over existing Type Calculated Noise Reduction Calculated Crit'n Calculated Crit'n Impact LAeq1h Calculated Goal Calculated Sub'l Inc minus
Goal
dBA dBA dBA dB dB dBA dB dB dB
ST1 1 1 0.0 68.8 66 68.8 10 Snd Lvl 68.8 0.0 8 -8.0
ST2A 2 1 0.0 70.5 66 70.5 10 Snd Lvl 70.5 0.0 8 -8.0
ST2 4 1 0.0 68.0 66 68.0 10 Snd Lvl 68.0 0.0 8 -8.0
Dwelling Units # DUs Noise Reduction
Min Avg Max dB dB dB
All Selected 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 All Impacted 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 All that meet NR Goal 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C:\TNM25\Projects\Portola\CAL\Existing\Existing + Project 1 11 November 1517
INPUT: ROADWAYS Portola
Dudek 11 November 2025 CB TNM 2.5 INPUT: ROADWAYS Average pavement type shall be used unlessPROJECT/CONTRACT: Portola a State highway agency substantiates the useRUN: Opening Year of a different type with the approval of FHWARoadway PointsName Width Name No. Coordinates (pavement) Flow Control Segment X Y Z Control Speed Percent Pvmt On
Device Constraint Vehicles Type Struct?
Affected
ft ft ft ft mph %
Frank Sinatra Dr W1 40.0 point1 1 6,522,454.5 2,224,791.8 0.00 Average point2 2 6,523,383.0 2,224,793.5 0.00 Average point3 3 6,523,490.5 2,224,796.2 0.00 Average point4 4 6,523,771.5 2,224,793.0 0.00 Average point5 5 6,524,051.5 2,224,797.0 0.00 Average point6 6 6,524,420.0 2,224,799.2 0.00 Average point7 7 6,524,898.0 2,224,796.0 0.00 Frank Sinatra Dr W2 40.0 point8 8 6,524,911.0 2,224,739.8 0.00 Average point9 9 6,524,277.0 2,224,750.2 0.00 Average point10 10 6,523,510.5 2,224,749.2 0.00 Average point11 11 6,522,465.5 2,224,743.5 0.00 Portola Ave n1 40.0 point12 12 6,525,005.0 2,225,479.5 0.00 Average point13 13 6,524,991.5 2,224,858.2 0.00 Average point14 14 6,524,991.5 2,224,851.5 0.00 Portola Ave n2 40.0 point15 15 6,524,940.0 2,224,828.8 0.00 Average point16 16 6,524,949.5 2,225,494.5 0.00
Frank Sinatra Dr E1 40.0 point17 17 6,526,031.0 2,224,799.8 0.00 Average point18 18 6,525,675.0 2,224,803.0 0.00 Average point19 19 6,524,933.5 2,224,798.5 0.00 Average point20 20 6,524,930.5 2,224,798.5 0.00 Frank Sinatra Dr E2 40.0 point21 21 6,526,019.0 2,224,756.2 0.00 Average point22 22 6,525,945.0 2,224,754.5 0.00 Average point23 23 6,524,936.0 2,224,741.8 0.00 Portola Ave s2 40.0 point24 24 6,524,129.5 2,221,715.2 0.00 Average point25 25 6,524,134.0 2,221,905.8 0.00 Average
C:\TNM25\Projects\Portola\CAL\Existing\Opening Year 1 11 N 1518
INPUT: ROADWAYS Portola
point26 26 6,524,140.0 2,222,160.2 0.00 Average point27 27 6,524,148.0 2,222,363.5 0.00 Average point28 28 6,524,171.5 2,222,508.2 0.00 Average point29 29 6,524,242.5 2,222,808.5 0.00 Average point30 30 6,524,280.5 2,222,913.8 0.00 Average point31 31 6,524,392.0 2,223,148.2 0.00 Average point32 32 6,524,468.0 2,223,293.0 0.00 Average point33 33 6,524,580.5 2,223,507.8 0.00 Average point34 34 6,524,658.5 2,223,654.2 0.00 Average point35 35 6,524,771.0 2,223,871.8 0.00 Average point36 36 6,524,863.5 2,224,093.5 0.00 Average point37 37 6,524,934.0 2,224,335.8 0.00 Average point38 38 6,524,957.5 2,224,474.5 0.00 Average point39 39 6,524,981.0 2,224,657.5 0.00 Average point40 40 6,524,984.5 2,224,733.8 0.00 Portola Ave s1 40.0 point41 41 6,524,933.5 2,224,730.0 0.00 Average point42 42 6,524,932.0 2,224,711.2 0.00 Average point43 43 6,524,929.5 2,224,673.8 0.00 Average point44 44 6,524,911.0 2,224,505.0 0.00 Average point45 45 6,524,869.5 2,224,273.8 0.00 Average point46 46 6,524,835.5 2,224,148.2 0.00 Average point47 47 6,524,744.0 2,223,929.0 0.00 Average point48 48 6,524,607.0 2,223,665.0 0.00 Average point49 49 6,524,479.5 2,223,426.2 0.00 Average point50 50 6,524,358.5 2,223,188.2 0.00 Average point51 51 6,524,250.5 2,222,964.0 0.00 Average point52 52 6,524,210.5 2,222,858.5 0.00 Average point53 53 6,524,158.0 2,222,674.8 0.00 Average point54 54 6,524,124.5 2,222,498.8 0.00 Average point55 55 6,524,108.0 2,222,355.5 0.00 Average point56 56 6,524,101.5 2,222,102.2 0.00 Average point57 57 6,524,092.5 2,221,717.2 0.00 C:\TNM25\Projects\Portola\CAL\Existing\Opening Year 2 11 N 1519
INPUT: TRAFFIC FOR LAeq1h Volumes Portola
Dudek 11 November 2025 CB TNM 2.5 INPUT: TRAFFIC FOR LAeq1h VolumesPROJECT/CONTRACT: Portola RUN: Opening Year Roadway PointsName Name No. Segment Autos MTrucks HTrucks Buses Motorcycles V SV SV SV SV Sveh/hr mph veh/hr mph veh/hr mph veh/hr mph veh/hr mph Frank Sinatra Dr W1 point1 1 468 50 9 50 4 50 0 0 0 0
point2 2 468 50 9 50 4 50 0 0 0 0 point3 3 468 50 9 50 4 50 0 0 0 0 point4 4 468 50 9 50 4 50 0 0 0 0 point5 5 468 50 9 50 4 50 0 0 0 0 point6 6 468 50 9 50 4 50 0 0 0 0 point7 7 Frank Sinatra Dr W2 point8 8 468 50 9 50 4 50 0 0 0 0
point9 9 468 50 9 50 4 50 0 0 0 0 point10 10 468 50 9 50 4 50 0 0 0 0 point11 11 Portola Ave n1 point12 12 1080 55 22 55 11 55 0 0 0 0
point13 13 1080 55 22 55 11 55 0 0 0 0 point14 14
Portola Ave n2 point15 15 1080 55 22 55 11 55 0 0 0 0
point16 16
Frank Sinatra Dr E1 point17 17 468 50 9 50 4 50 0 0 0 0 point18 18 468 50 9 50 4 50 0 0 0 0 point19 19 468 50 9 50 4 50 0 0 0 0 point20 20 Frank Sinatra Dr E2 point21 21 468 50 9 50 4 50 0 0 0 0 point22 22 468 50 9 50 4 50 0 0 0 0 point23 23
C:\TNM25\Projects\Portola\CAL\Existing\Opening Year 1
1520
INPUT: TRAFFIC FOR LAeq1h Volumes Portola
Portola Ave s2 point24 24 1080 55 22 55 11 55 0 0 0 0
point25 25 1080 55 22 55 11 55 0 0 0 0 point26 26 1080 55 22 55 11 55 0 0 0 0 point27 27 1080 55 22 55 11 55 0 0 0 0 point28 28 1080 55 22 55 11 55 0 0 0 0 point29 29 1080 55 22 55 11 55 0 0 0 0 point30 30 1080 55 22 55 11 55 0 0 0 0 point31 31 1080 55 22 55 11 55 0 0 0 0 point32 32 1080 55 22 55 11 55 0 0 0 0 point33 33 1080 55 22 55 11 55 0 0 0 0 point34 34 1080 55 22 55 11 55 0 0 0 0 point35 35 1080 55 22 55 11 55 0 0 0 0 point36 36 1080 55 22 55 11 55 0 0 0 0 point37 37 1080 55 22 55 11 55 0 0 0 0 point38 38 1080 55 22 55 11 55 0 0 0 0 point39 39 1080 55 22 55 11 55 0 0 0 0 point40 40 Portola Ave s1 point41 41 1080 55 22 55 11 55 0 0 0 0
point42 42 1080 55 22 55 11 55 0 0 0 0 point43 43 1080 55 22 55 11 55 0 0 0 0 point44 44 1080 55 22 55 11 55 0 0 0 0 point45 45 1080 55 22 55 11 55 0 0 0 0 point46 46 1080 55 22 55 11 55 0 0 0 0 point47 47 1080 55 22 55 11 55 0 0 0 0 point48 48 1080 55 22 55 11 55 0 0 0 0 point49 49 1080 55 22 55 11 55 0 0 0 0 point50 50 1080 55 22 55 11 55 0 0 0 0 point51 51 1080 55 22 55 11 55 0 0 0 0 point52 52 1080 55 22 55 11 55 0 0 0 0 point53 53 1080 55 22 55 11 55 0 0 0 0 point54 54 1080 55 22 55 11 55 0 0 0 0 point55 55 1080 55 22 55 11 55 0 0 0 0 point56 56 1080 55 22 55 11 55 0 0 0 0 point57 57 C:\TNM25\Projects\Portola\CAL\Existing\Opening Year 2
1521
INPUT: RECEIVERS Portola
Dudek 11 November 2025 CB TNM 2.5 INPUT: RECEIVERSPROJECT/CONTRACT: Portola RUN: Opening Year ReceiverName No. #DUs Coordinates (ground) Height Input Sound Levels and Criteria Active X Y Z above Existing Impact Criteria NR in
Ground LAeq1h LAeq1h Sub'l Goal Calc.
ft ft ft ft dBA dBA dB dB
ST1 1 1 6,524,403.0 2,224,827.8 0.00 4.92 0.00 66 10.0 8.0 Y ST2A 2 1 6,524,917.5 2,224,070.2 0.00 4.92 0.00 66 10.0 8.0 Y ST2 4 1 6,524,699.5 2,223,507.8 0.00 4.92 0.00 66 10.0 8.0 Y C:\TNM25\Projects\Portola\CAL\Existing\Opening Year 1
1522
RESULTS: SOUND LEVELS Portola
Dudek 11 November 2025 CB TNM 2.5
Calculated with TNM 2.5
RESULTS: SOUND LEVELSPROJECT/CONTRACT: Portola RUN: Opening Year BARRIER DESIGN: INPUT HEIGHTS Average pavement type shall be used unless a State highway agency substantiates the use
ATMOSPHERICS: 68 deg F, 50% RH of a different type with approval of FHWA.ReceiverName No. #DUs Existing No Barrier With Barrier LAeq1h LAeq1h Increase over existing Type Calculated Noise Reduction Calculated Crit'n Calculated Crit'n Impact LAeq1h Calculated Goal Calculated Sub'l Inc minus
Goal
dBA dBA dBA dB dB dBA dB dB dB
ST1 1 1 0.0 69.8 66 69.8 10 Snd Lvl 69.8 0.0 8 -8.0
ST2A 2 1 0.0 71.4 66 71.4 10 Snd Lvl 71.4 0.0 8 -8.0
ST2 4 1 0.0 68.8 66 68.8 10 Snd Lvl 68.8 0.0 8 -8.0
Dwelling Units # DUs Noise Reduction
Min Avg Max dB dB dB
All Selected 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 All Impacted 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 All that meet NR Goal 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C:\TNM25\Projects\Portola\CAL\Existing\Opening Year 1 11 November 1523
INPUT: ROADWAYS Portola
Dudek 11 November 2025 CB TNM 2.5 INPUT: ROADWAYS Average pavement type shall be used unlessPROJECT/CONTRACT: Portola a State highway agency substantiates the useRUN: Opening Year + Project of a different type with the approval of FHWARoadway PointsName Width Name No. Coordinates (pavement) Flow Control Segment X Y Z Control Speed Percent Pvmt On
Device Constraint Vehicles Type Struct?
Affected
ft ft ft ft mph %
Frank Sinatra Dr W1 40.0 point1 1 6,522,454.5 2,224,791.8 0.00 Average point2 2 6,523,383.0 2,224,793.5 0.00 Average point3 3 6,523,490.5 2,224,796.2 0.00 Average point4 4 6,523,771.5 2,224,793.0 0.00 Average point5 5 6,524,051.5 2,224,797.0 0.00 Average point6 6 6,524,420.0 2,224,799.2 0.00 Average point7 7 6,524,898.0 2,224,796.0 0.00 Frank Sinatra Dr W2 40.0 point8 8 6,524,911.0 2,224,739.8 0.00 Average point9 9 6,524,277.0 2,224,750.2 0.00 Average point10 10 6,523,510.5 2,224,749.2 0.00 Average point11 11 6,522,465.5 2,224,743.5 0.00 Portola Ave n1 40.0 point12 12 6,525,005.0 2,225,479.5 0.00 Average point13 13 6,524,991.5 2,224,858.2 0.00 Average point14 14 6,524,991.5 2,224,851.5 0.00 Portola Ave n2 40.0 point15 15 6,524,940.0 2,224,828.8 0.00 Average point16 16 6,524,949.5 2,225,494.5 0.00
Frank Sinatra Dr E1 40.0 point17 17 6,526,031.0 2,224,799.8 0.00 Average point18 18 6,525,675.0 2,224,803.0 0.00 Average point19 19 6,524,933.5 2,224,798.5 0.00 Average point20 20 6,524,930.5 2,224,798.5 0.00 Frank Sinatra Dr E2 40.0 point21 21 6,526,019.0 2,224,756.2 0.00 Average point22 22 6,525,945.0 2,224,754.5 0.00 Average point23 23 6,524,936.0 2,224,741.8 0.00 Portola Ave s2 40.0 point24 24 6,524,129.5 2,221,715.2 0.00 Average point25 25 6,524,134.0 2,221,905.8 0.00 Average
C:\TNM25\Projects\Portola\CAL\Existing\Opening year + Project 1 1524
INPUT: ROADWAYS Portola
point26 26 6,524,140.0 2,222,160.2 0.00 Average point27 27 6,524,148.0 2,222,363.5 0.00 Average point28 28 6,524,171.5 2,222,508.2 0.00 Average point29 29 6,524,242.5 2,222,808.5 0.00 Average point30 30 6,524,280.5 2,222,913.8 0.00 Average point31 31 6,524,392.0 2,223,148.2 0.00 Average point32 32 6,524,468.0 2,223,293.0 0.00 Average point33 33 6,524,580.5 2,223,507.8 0.00 Average point34 34 6,524,658.5 2,223,654.2 0.00 Average point35 35 6,524,771.0 2,223,871.8 0.00 Average point36 36 6,524,863.5 2,224,093.5 0.00 Average point37 37 6,524,934.0 2,224,335.8 0.00 Average point38 38 6,524,957.5 2,224,474.5 0.00 Average point39 39 6,524,981.0 2,224,657.5 0.00 Average point40 40 6,524,984.5 2,224,733.8 0.00 Portola Ave s1 40.0 point41 41 6,524,933.5 2,224,730.0 0.00 Average point42 42 6,524,932.0 2,224,711.2 0.00 Average point43 43 6,524,929.5 2,224,673.8 0.00 Average point44 44 6,524,911.0 2,224,505.0 0.00 Average point45 45 6,524,869.5 2,224,273.8 0.00 Average point46 46 6,524,835.5 2,224,148.2 0.00 Average point47 47 6,524,744.0 2,223,929.0 0.00 Average point48 48 6,524,607.0 2,223,665.0 0.00 Average point49 49 6,524,479.5 2,223,426.2 0.00 Average point50 50 6,524,358.5 2,223,188.2 0.00 Average point51 51 6,524,250.5 2,222,964.0 0.00 Average point52 52 6,524,210.5 2,222,858.5 0.00 Average point53 53 6,524,158.0 2,222,674.8 0.00 Average point54 54 6,524,124.5 2,222,498.8 0.00 Average point55 55 6,524,108.0 2,222,355.5 0.00 Average point56 56 6,524,101.5 2,222,102.2 0.00 Average point57 57 6,524,092.5 2,221,717.2 0.00 C:\TNM25\Projects\Portola\CAL\Existing\Opening year + Project 2 1525
INPUT: TRAFFIC FOR LAeq1h Volumes Portola
Dudek 11 November 2025 CB TNM 2.5 INPUT: TRAFFIC FOR LAeq1h VolumesPROJECT/CONTRACT: Portola RUN: Opening Year + Project Roadway PointsName Name No. Segment Autos MTrucks HTrucks Buses Motorcycles V SV SV SV SV Sveh/hr mph veh/hr mph veh/hr mph veh/hr mph veh/hr mph Frank Sinatra Dr W1 point1 1 506 50 10 50 5 50 0 0 0 0
point2 2 506 50 10 50 5 50 0 0 0 0 point3 3 506 50 10 50 5 50 0 0 0 0 point4 4 506 50 10 50 5 50 0 0 0 0 point5 5 506 50 10 50 5 50 0 0 0 0 point6 6 506 50 10 50 5 50 0 0 0 0 point7 7 Frank Sinatra Dr W2 point8 8 506 50 10 50 5 50 0 0 0 0
point9 9 506 50 10 50 5 50 0 0 0 0 point10 10 506 50 10 50 5 50 0 0 0 0 point11 11 Portola Ave n1 point12 12 1121 55 23 55 11 55 0 0 0 0
point13 13 1121 55 23 55 11 55 0 0 0 0 point14 14
Portola Ave n2 point15 15 1121 55 23 55 11 55 0 0 0 0
point16 16
Frank Sinatra Dr E1 point17 17 506 50 10 50 5 50 0 0 0 0 point18 18 506 50 10 50 5 50 0 0 0 0 point19 19 506 50 10 50 5 50 0 0 0 0 point20 20 Frank Sinatra Dr E2 point21 21 506 50 10 50 5 50 0 0 0 0 point22 22 506 50 10 50 5 50 0 0 0 0 point23 23
C:\TNM25\Projects\Portola\CAL\Existing\Opening year + Project 1 1526
INPUT: TRAFFIC FOR LAeq1h Volumes Portola
Portola Ave s2 point24 24 1121 55 23 55 11 55 0 0 0 0
point25 25 1121 55 23 55 11 55 0 0 0 0 point26 26 1121 55 23 55 11 55 0 0 0 0 point27 27 1121 55 23 55 11 55 0 0 0 0 point28 28 1121 55 23 55 11 55 0 0 0 0 point29 29 1121 55 23 55 11 55 0 0 0 0 point30 30 1121 55 23 55 11 55 0 0 0 0 point31 31 1121 0 23 55 11 55 0 0 0 0 point32 32 1121 55 23 55 11 55 0 0 0 0 point33 33 1121 55 23 55 11 55 0 0 0 0 point34 34 1121 55 23 55 11 55 0 0 0 0 point35 35 1121 55 23 55 11 55 0 0 0 0 point36 36 1121 55 23 55 11 55 0 0 0 0 point37 37 1121 55 23 55 11 55 0 0 0 0 point38 38 1121 55 23 55 11 55 0 0 0 0 point39 39 1121 55 23 55 11 55 0 0 0 0 point40 40 Portola Ave s1 point41 41 1121 55 23 55 11 55 0 0 0 0
point42 42 1121 55 23 55 11 55 0 0 0 0 point43 43 1121 55 23 55 11 55 0 0 0 0 point44 44 1121 55 23 55 11 55 0 0 0 0 point45 45 1121 55 23 55 11 55 0 0 0 0 point46 46 1121 55 23 55 11 55 0 0 0 0 point47 47 1121 55 23 55 11 55 0 0 0 0 point48 48 1121 55 23 55 11 55 0 0 0 0 point49 49 1121 55 23 55 11 55 0 0 0 0 point50 50 1121 55 23 55 11 55 0 0 0 0 point51 51 1121 55 23 55 11 55 0 0 0 0 point52 52 1121 55 23 55 11 55 0 0 0 0 point53 53 1121 55 23 55 11 55 0 0 0 0 point54 54 1121 55 23 55 11 55 0 0 0 0 point55 55 1121 55 23 55 11 55 0 0 0 0 point56 56 1121 55 23 55 11 55 0 0 0 0 point57 57 C:\TNM25\Projects\Portola\CAL\Existing\Opening year + Project 2 1527
INPUT: RECEIVERS Portola
Dudek 11 November 2025 CB TNM 2.5 INPUT: RECEIVERSPROJECT/CONTRACT: Portola RUN: Opening Year + Project ReceiverName No. #DUs Coordinates (ground) Height Input Sound Levels and Criteria Active X Y Z above Existing Impact Criteria NR in
Ground LAeq1h LAeq1h Sub'l Goal Calc.
ft ft ft ft dBA dBA dB dB
ST1 1 1 6,524,403.0 2,224,827.8 0.00 4.92 0.00 66 10.0 8.0 Y ST2A 2 1 6,524,917.5 2,224,070.2 0.00 4.92 0.00 66 10.0 8.0 Y ST2 4 1 6,524,699.5 2,223,507.8 0.00 4.92 0.00 66 10.0 8.0 Y M1 6 1 6,524,834.5 2,224,470.5 0.00 4.92 0.00 66 10.0 8.0 Y M2 7 1 6,524,379.0 2,224,666.5 0.00 4.92 0.00 66 10.0 8.0 Y M3 8 1 6,524,509.5 2,223,617.5 0.00 4.92 0.00 66 10.0 8.0 Y C:\TNM25\Projects\Portola\CAL\Existing\Opening year + Project 1 1528
INPUT: BARRIERS Portola
Dudek 11 November 2025 CB TNM 2.5 INPUT: BARRIERSPROJECT/CONTRACT: Portola RUN: Opening Year + Project Barrier PointsName Type Height If Wall If Berm Add'tnl Name No. Coordinates (bottom) Height Segment Min Max $ per $ per Top Run:Rise $ per X Y Z at Seg Ht Perturbs On Important Unit Unit Width Unit Point Incre- #Up #Dn Struct? ReflecArea Vol. Length ment tions? ft ft $/sq ft $/cu yd ft ft:ft $/ft ft ft ft ft ft
Barrier1 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point1 1 6,524,199.0 2,224,670.8 0.00 6.00 0.00 0 0 point2 2 6,524,329.0 2,224,671.8 0.00 6.00 0.00 0 0 point3 3 6,524,404.0 2,224,677.0 0.00 6.00 0.00 0 0 point4 4 6,524,606.5 2,224,678.5 0.00 6.00 0.00 0 0 point5 5 6,524,861.0 2,224,678.5 0.00 6.00 0.00 0 0 point6 6 6,524,872.0 2,224,672.0 0.00 6.00 0.00 0 0 point7 7 6,524,866.0 2,224,633.5 0.00 6.00 0.00 0 0 point8 8 6,524,857.5 2,224,524.5 0.00 6.00 0.00 0 0 point9 9 6,524,828.5 2,224,356.0 0.00 6.00 0.00 0 0 point10 10 6,524,777.0 2,224,165.8 0.00 6.00 0.00 0 0 point11 11 6,524,721.0 2,224,018.2 0.00 6.00 Barrier2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point12 12 6,524,703.0 2,223,921.2 0.00 6.00 0.00 0 0 point13 13 6,524,695.0 2,223,958.8 0.00 6.00 0.00 0 0 point14 14 6,524,651.5 2,223,863.8 0.00 6.00 0.00 0 0 point15 15 6,524,609.0 2,223,785.2 0.00 6.00 0.00 0 0 point16 16 6,524,557.5 2,223,692.5 0.00 6.00 0.00 0 0 point17 17 6,524,421.5 2,223,435.2 0.00 6.00 0.00 0 0 point18 18 6,524,256.0 2,223,128.0 0.00 6.00 C:\TNM25\Projects\Portola\CAL\Existing\Opening year + Project 1 11 November 2025 1529
RESULTS: SOUND LEVELS Portola
Dudek 11 November 2025 CB TNM 2.5
Calculated with TNM 2.5
RESULTS: SOUND LEVELSPROJECT/CONTRACT: Portola RUN: Opening Year + Project BARRIER DESIGN: INPUT HEIGHTS Average pavement type shall be used unless a State highway agency substantiates the use
ATMOSPHERICS: 68 deg F, 50% RH of a different type with approval of FHWA.ReceiverName No. #DUs Existing No Barrier With Barrier LAeq1h LAeq1h Increase over existing Type Calculated Noise Reduction Calculated Crit'n Calculated Crit'n Impact LAeq1h Calculated Goal Calculated Sub'l Inc minus
Goal
dBA dBA dBA dB dB dBA dB dB dB
ST1 1 1 0.0 70.1 66 70.1 10 Snd Lvl 70.1 0.0 8 -8.0
ST2A 2 1 0.0 71.5 66 71.5 10 Snd Lvl 71.5 0.0 8 -8.0
ST2 4 1 0.0 69.0 66 69.0 10 Snd Lvl 69.0 0.0 8 -8.0
M1 6 1 0.0 63.6 66 63.6 10 ---- 63.6 0.0 8 -8.0
M2 7 1 0.0 58.4 66 58.4 10 ---- 58.4 0.0 8 -8.0
M3 8 1 0.0 63.2 66 63.2 10 ---- 63.2 0.0 8 -8.0
Dwelling Units # DUs Noise Reduction
Min Avg Max dB dB dB
All Selected 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 All Impacted 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 All that meet NR Goal 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C:\TNM25\Projects\Portola\CAL\Existing\Opening year + Project 1 11 1530
Attachment D
Operations Noise Worksheet
1531
SOURCE: Dudek 2025 FIGURE 1
Portola Project
0 176 352 Feet
Portola Operation Noise
Color High Low
80 75
75 70
70 65
65 60
60 55
55 50
50 45
45 40
40 35
35 0
dBA range
Predicted Aggregate Sound
Pressure Level (SPL)
1532
Appendix I
Assembly Bill 52 Consultation, 2025
1533
1534