Ceres City Council
April 13, 2026

sustainable populations of those species (Id., § 1802). Similarly, for purposes of CEQA, CDFW is charged by law to provide, as available, biological expertise during public agency environmental review efforts, focusing specifically on projects and related activities that have the potential to adversely affect fish and wildlife resources.

CDFW is also submitting comments as a Responsible Agency under CEQA (Pub.

Resources Code, § 21069; CEQA Guidelines, § 15381). CDFW expects that it may need to exercise regulatory authority as provided by the Fish and Game Code. As proposed, for example, the Project may be subject to CDFW’s lake and streambed alteration regulatory authority (Fish & G. Code, § 1600 et seq.). Likewise, to the extent implementation of the Project as proposed may result in “take” as defined by State law of any species protected under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.), related authorization as provided by the Fish and Game Code will be required.

Nesting Birds: CDFW has jurisdiction over actions with potential to result in the disturbance or destruction of active nest sites or the unauthorized take of birds. Fish and Game Code sections that protect birds, their eggs and nests include, sections 3503 (regarding unlawful take, possession or needless destruction of the nest or eggs of any bird), 3503.5 (regarding the take, possession or destruction of any birds-of-prey or their nests or eggs), and 3513 (regarding unlawful take of any migratory nongame bird).

PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
Proponent: Stewart S. Fahmy and Nav Athwal
Objective: The Project consists of the approval, annexation, and subsequent development of the Project area, including related permits and approvals. The Project establishes a plan for, and would result in, development of residential, commercial, and other urban land uses within the approximately 534.6-acre Project area. Proposed urban development within the Project area would require City approval of the Project, the proposed annexation, amendments of the Ceres General Plan, pre-zoning of the annexation area, one or more development agreements, and future Tentative Map application submittals. Other required permits and approvals would include cancellation of Williamson Act contracts, adjustment of the boundaries of the Ceres Fire Protection District, and encroachment permits from the Turlock Irrigation District.

Project approval and annexation would result in the potential development of approximately 260.3 acres of low-, medium-, medium high-, and high-density residential units within the Project area. Approximately 107.4 acres is proposed for Regional Commercial development. The Project also proposes approximately 42.3 acres of parks and open space, including street landscapes, and 3.4 acres for new public uses that would be in addition to the 74.1 acres already occupied by the Central Valley High DocuSign Envelope ID: 03308D46-639D-45B4-B152-BC17780542E1 EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Christopher Hoem, Director
City of Ceres Community Development Department
October 30, 2023

School and Hidahl Elementary School, both operated by the Ceres Unified School District. The Project planned circulation system would utilize and improve existing roads and add new roads and streets and provide for development of new bicycle and pedestrian trails and open space linkages to provide access to and between the residential neighborhoods, commercial areas, schools, and parks of the developed Project area.

Along with annexation of the Project area, the Project proposes the annexation of 146.1 acres of currently unincorporated land outside the Project area to the City of Ceres.

All annexations would require approval from the Stanislaus Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). City approvals would also be required for the annexation of the non-Project lands. Annexation of the non-Project area would include pre-zoning of the area consistent with the Ceres General Plan and potentially extending the availability of the City utilities and services to this largely developed unincorporated area. The nonProject area includes discontinuous tracts of undeveloped land with some new development potential.

Location: The Project area is located in unincorporated Stanislaus County south of and adjacent to the City of Ceres. The Project area is bounded by State Route 99 and Mitchell Road on the east, Service Road on the north, Blaker Road on the west, and Turlock Irrigation District’s Lower Lateral 2 on the south. The non-Project annexation area is located just north and east of the Project area and south of the existing City boundary. Much of the non-Project area is located west of State Route 99 and is bounded by Service Road to the south, Central Avenue to the west, Industrial Way to the north, and State Route 99 to the east. The eastern portion of the non-Project annexation area consists primarily of the mainline State Route 99 and associated State Highway right-of-way between 9th Street on the northwest and Moore Road to the southeast. An additional area to be annexed is located between the State Route 99 right-of-way and the existing City of Ceres boundary to the northeast.

Timeframe: Unspecified.

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CDFW offers the following comments and recommendations to assist the City of Ceres Community Development Department in adequately identifying and/or mitigating the Project’s significant, or potentially significant, direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on fish and wildlife (biological) resources. Editorial comments or other suggestions may also be included to improve the EIR for this Project.

The EIR that will be prepared will determine the likely environmental impacts associated with the Project. CDFW is concerned regarding potential impacts to special-status DocuSign Envelope ID: 03308D46-639D-45B4-B152-BC17780542E1 EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Christopher Hoem, Director
City of Ceres Community Development Department
October 30, 2023

species from the ground disturbance development activities, including but not limited to, the State threatened Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni).

In order to adequately assess potential impacts to biological resources, CDFW advises a qualified biologist perform database and other research of the Project area, then conduct focused habitat assessments and/or focused biological surveys during the appropriate survey period(s) in order to determine whether any special-status species may be present within the Project site. CDFW recommends this initial work be documented and used to inform further efforts that may be needed thereafter including the need for additional protocol surveys and/or the development of avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures. This information and analysis may then be used to consider the development of modified or new project alternatives to avoid and minimize potentially significant environmental impacts on the biological environment.

This information is critical to make an informed decision during the CEQA process and to ensure Project compliance with CESA, Fish and Game code, and other applicable State and federal laws and regulations.

Swainson’s Hawk (SWHA)
SWHA exhibit high nest-site fidelity year after year in the San Joaquin Valley (CDFW 2016). The Project as proposed will involve noise, groundwork, and movement of workers that could affect nests and has the potential to result in nest abandonment, significantly impacting local nesting SWHA. Without appropriate avoidance and minimization measures for SWHA, potential significant impacts that may result from Project activities include nest abandonment, and reduced nesting success (loss or reduced health or vigor of eggs or young) from loss of foraging habitat.

CDFW recommends that protocol surveys for SWHA be conducted using SWHA survey methods developed by the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee (SWHA TAC 2000). In addition, CDFW recommends a minimum no‑disturbance buffer of 0.5- mile be delineated around all active nests until the breeding season has ended or until a qualified biologist has determined that the birds have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or parental care for survival. If construction or other disturbance could occur within the 0.5 mile buffer of an active nest, CDFW recommends that the Project obtain an Incidental Take Permit, pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2081 subdivision (b).

Nesting birds
CDFW encourages that all Project construction activities occur during the bird nonnesting season; however, if ground-disturbing or vegetation-disturbing activities must occur during the breeding season (February through mid-September), the Project proponent is responsible for ensuring that implementation of the Project does not result DocuSign Envelope ID: 03308D46-639D-45B4-B152-BC17780542E1 EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Christopher Hoem, Director
City of Ceres Community Development Department
October 30, 2023

in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or relevant Fish and Game Codes as referenced above.

To evaluate Project-related impacts on nesting birds, CDFW recommends that a qualified wildlife biologist conduct pre-activity surveys for active nests no more than 10 days prior to the start of ground or vegetation disturbance to maximize the probability that nests that could potentially be impacted are detected. CDFW recommends a minimum no-disturbance buffer of 250 feet around active nests of non-listed bird species and a 500-foot no-disturbance buffer around active nests of non-listed raptors.

These buffers are advised to remain in place until the breeding season has ended or until a qualified biologist has determined that the birds have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or on-site parental care for survival.

Lake and Stream Alteration: Potential streams such as Turlock Irrigation District’s Lateral and other waterbodies are located within the Project site. Therefore, the Project may be subject to notification under Fish and Game Code Section 1602. Fish and Game Code section 1602 requires the Project proponent to notify CDFW prior to commencing any activity that may (a) substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of any river, stream, or lake; (b) substantially change or use any material from the bed, bank, or channel of any river, stream, or lake; or (c) deposit debris, waste or other materials that could pass into any river, stream, or lake. “Any river, stream, or lake” includes those that are ephemeral or intermittent as well as those that are perennial in nature. If a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSA Agreement) is needed, CDFW is required to comply with CEQA in the issuance of an LSA Agreement. For additional information on notification requirements, please contact our staff in the LSA Program at (559) 243-4593, or by electronic mail at [email protected].

Cumulative Impacts: CDFW recommends that a cumulative impact analysis be conducted for all biological resources that will either be significantly or potentially significantly impacted by implementation of the Project, including those whose impacts are determined to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated or for those resources that are rare or in poor or declining health and will be impacted by the project, even if those impacts are relatively small (i.e., less than significant). CDFW recommends cumulative impacts be analyzed using an acceptable methodology to evaluate the impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects on resources and be focused specifically on the resource, not the Project. An appropriate resource study area identified and utilized for this analysis is advised. CDFW staff is available for consultation in support of cumulative impacts analyses as a trustee and responsible agency under CEQA.

CDFW is available to meet with you ahead of draft EIR preparation to discuss potential impacts and possible mitigation measures for some or all of the resources that may be analyzed in the EIR. If you have any questions, please contact Jim Vang, Senior DocuSign Envelope ID: 03308D46-639D-45B4-B152-BC17780542E1 EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Christopher Hoem, Director
City of Ceres Community Development Department
October 30, 2023

Environmental Scientist Specialist, at the address provided on this letterhead, by telephone at (559) 580-3203, or by electronic mail at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Bob Stafford for Julie A. Vance
Regional Manager
ec: State Clearinghouse
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
[email protected]
CDFW LSA/1600
[email protected]
DocuSign Envelope ID: 03308D46-639D-45B4-B152-BC17780542E1 EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Christopher Hoem, Director
City of Ceres Community Development Department
October 30, 2023

LITERATURE CITED
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2016. Five-year status review: Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni). Sacramento, California, USA.

Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee. 2000. Recommended timing and methodology for Swainson’s hawk nesting surveys in California’s Central Valley.

Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 03308D46-639D-45B4-B152-BC17780542E1 EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Gavin Newsom, Governor
David Shabazian, Director
OCTOBER 17, 2023
VIA EMAIL: [email protected]

CHRISTOPHER HOEM, DIRECTOR

CITY OF CERES

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
2200 MAGNOLIA STREET
CERES, CA 95307
Dear Mr. Hoem:

NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE COPPER TRAILS SPECIFIC PLAN AND ANNEXATION PROJECT, SCH# 2023090637 The Department of Conservation’s (Department) Division of Land Resource Protection (Division) has reviewed the Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation Project (Project).

The Division monitors and maps farmland conversion on a statewide basis, provides technical assistance regarding the Williamson Act, and administers various agricultural land conservation programs. Public Resources Code, section 614, subdivision (b) authorizes the Department to provide soil conservation advisory services to local governments, including review of CEQA documents.

Protection of the state’s agricultural land resources is part of the Department’s mission and central to many of its programs. The CEQA process gives the Department an opportunity to acknowledge the value of the resource, identify areas of Department interest, and offer information on how to assess potential impacts or mitigation opportunities.

The Department respects local decision-making by informing the CEQA process, and is not taking a position or providing legal or policy interpretation.

We offer the following comments for consideration with respect to the project’s potential impacts on agricultural land and resources within the Department’s purview.

PROJECT ATTRIBUTES
The proposed project consists of the approval, annexation, and subsequent development of the Copper Trails Specific Plan (CTSP) area, including related permits and approvals. The CTSP establishes a plan for, and would result in, development of residential, commercial, and other urban land uses within the approximately 534.6-acre CTSP area. CTSP approval and annexation would result in the potential development of
State of California Natural Resources Agency | Department of Conservation 715 P Street, MS 1904, Sacramento, CA 95814
conservation.ca.gov | T: (916) 324-0850 | F: (916) 327-3430 EXHIBIT B ITEM 13

approximately 260.3 acres of low-, medium-, medium high-, and high-density residential units within the CTSP area. The total dwelling units that would be potentially developed is 2,392. Approximately 107.4 acres is proposed for Regional Commercial development.

The CTSP also proposes approximately 42.3 acres of parks and open space, including street landscapes, and 3.4 acres for new public uses that would be in addition to the

74.1 acres already occupied by the Central Valley High School and Hidahl Elementary School. Along with annexation of the CTSP area, the project proposes the annexation of 146.1 acres of currently unincorporated land outside the CTSP area to the City of Ceres.

The project site contains Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Unique Farmland as designated by DOC’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.

A portion of the project site is subject to a Williamson Act contract.

PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS
The conversion of agricultural land represents a permanent reduction and impact to California’s agricultural land resources. The Department generally advises discussion of the following in any environmental review for the loss or conversion of agricultural land:
• Type, amount, and location of farmland conversion resulting directly and indirectly from implementation of the proposed project. • Impacts on any current and future agricultural operations in the vicinity; e.g., land-use conflicts, increases in land values and taxes, loss of agricultural support infrastructure such as processing facilities, etc.
• Incremental impacts leading to cumulative impacts on agricultural land. This would include impacts from the proposed project, as well as impacts from past, current, and likely future projects.
• Proposed mitigation measures for impacted agricultural lands within the proposed project area.
• The project’s compatibility with lands within an agricultural preserve and/or enrolled in a Williamson Act contract.

WILLIAMSON ACT
Where, as here, the project site is located on land subject to a Williamson Act contract, the Department advises that the environmental review discuss the compatibility of the project with the contract and local Williamson Act program requirements.

MITIGATING AGRICULTURAL LAND LOSS OR CONVERSION
Consistent with CEQA Guidelines, the Department advises that the environmental review address mitigation for the loss or conversion of agricultural land. An agricultural conservation easement is one potential method for mitigating loss or conversion of agricultural land. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15370 [mitigation includes “compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or EXHIBIT B ITEM 13

environments, including through permanent protection of such resources in the form of conservation easements.”]; see also King and Gardiner Farms, LLC v. County of Kern (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 814.)
Mitigation through agricultural conservation easements can take at least two forms: the outright purchase of easements or the donation of mitigation fees to a local, regional, or statewide organization or agency whose purpose includes the acquisition and stewardship of agricultural easements. The conversion of agricultural land may be viewed as an impact of at least regional significance. Hence, the search for replacement lands may not need to be limited strictly to lands within the project’s surrounding area. A helpful source for regional and statewide agricultural mitigation banks is the California Council of Land Trusts. They provide helpful insight into farmland mitigation policies and implementation strategies, including a guidebook with model policies and a model local ordinance. The guidebook can be found at:

California Council of Land Trusts
Of course, the use of conservation easements is only one form of mitigation, and the Department urges consideration of any other feasible measures necessary to mitigate project impacts.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation Project. Please provide the Department with notices of any future hearing dates as well as any staff reports pertaining to this project. If you have any questions regarding our comments, please contact Farl Grundy, Associate Environmental Planner via email at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Monique Wilber
Conservation Program Support Supervisor
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
26 October 2023
Christopher Hoem
City of Ceres
2220 Magnolia Street
Ceres, CA 95307
[email protected]

COMMENTS TO REQUEST FOR REVIEW FOR THE NOTICE OF PREPARATION

FOR THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, COPPER TRAILS SPECIFIC PLAN AND ANNEXATION, SCH#2023090637, STANISLAUS COUNTY Pursuant to the State Clearinghouse’s 27 September 2023 request, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Valley Water Board) has reviewed the Request for Review for the Notice of Preparation for the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation, located in Stanislaus County.

Our agency is delegated with the responsibility of protecting the quality of surface and groundwaters of the state; therefore, our comments will address concerns surrounding those issues.

I. Regulatory Setting
Basin Plan
The Central Valley Water Board is required to formulate and adopt Basin Plans for all areas within the Central Valley region under Section 13240 of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Each Basin Plan must contain water quality objectives to ensure the reasonable protection of beneficial uses, as well as a program of implementation for achieving water quality objectives with the Basin Plans. Federal regulations require each state to adopt water quality standards to protect the public health or welfare, enhance the quality of water and serve the purposes of the Clean Water Act. In California, the beneficial uses, water quality objectives, and the Antidegradation Policy are the State’s water quality standards. Water quality standards are also contained in the National Toxics Rule, 40 CFR Section 131.36, and the California Toxics Rule, 40 CFR Section 131.38.

The Basin Plan is subject to modification as necessary, considering applicable laws, policies, technologies, water quality conditions and priorities. The original Basin Plans were adopted in 1975, and have been updated and revised periodically as required, using Basin Plan amendments. Once the Central Valley Water Board has adopted a Basin Plan amendment in noticed public hearings, it must be approved by EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation- 2 - 26 October 2023 Stanislaus County
the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board), Office of Administrative Law (OAL) and in some cases, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Basin Plan amendments only become effective after they have been approved by the OAL and in some cases, the USEPA. Every three (3) years, a review of the Basin Plan is completed that assesses the appropriateness of existing standards and evaluates and prioritizes Basin Planning issues. For more information on the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins, please visit our website:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/basin_plans/ Antidegradation Considerations
All wastewater discharges must comply with the Antidegradation Policy (State Water Board Resolution 68-16) and the Antidegradation Implementation Policy contained in the Basin Plan. The Antidegradation Implementation Policy is available on page 74 at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/basin_plans/sacsjr_2018

05.pdf
In part it states:

Any discharge of waste to high quality waters must apply best practicable treatment or control not only to prevent a condition of pollution or nuisance from occurring, but also to maintain the highest water quality possible consistent with the maximum benefit to the people of the State.

This information must be presented as an analysis of the impacts and potential impacts of the discharge on water quality, as measured by background concentrations and applicable water quality objectives.

The antidegradation analysis is a mandatory element in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and land discharge Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) permitting processes. The environmental review document should evaluate potential impacts to both surface and groundwater quality.

II. Permitting Requirements
Construction Storm Water General Permit
Dischargers whose project disturb one or more acres of soil or where projects disturb less than one acre but are part of a larger common plan of development that in total disturbs one or more acres, are required to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit), Construction General Permit Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ. Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading, grubbing, disturbances to the ground, such as stockpiling, or excavation, but does not include regular maintenance activities performed to restore the original line, grade, or capacity of the facility. The Construction General Permit requires the development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). For more information on the Construction General Permit, visit the State Water Resources Control Board website at:

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation- 3 - 26 October 2023 Stanislaus County
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/constpermits.sht ml
Phase I and II Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permits1 The Phase I and II MS4 permits require the Permittees reduce pollutants and runoff flows from new development and redevelopment using Best Management Practices (BMPs) to the maximum extent practicable (MEP). MS4 Permittees have their own development standards, also known as Low Impact Development (LID)/postconstruction standards that include a hydromodification component. The MS4 permits also require specific design concepts for LID/post-construction BMPs in the early stages of a project during the entitlement and CEQA process and the development plan review process.

For more information on which Phase I MS4 Permit this project applies to, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/storm_water/municipal_p ermits/
For more information on the Phase II MS4 permit and who it applies to, visit the State Water Resources Control Board at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/phase_ii_munici pal.shtml
Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit
If the project will involve the discharge of dredged or fill material in navigable waters or wetlands, a permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act may be needed from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). If a Section 404 permit is required by the USACE, the Central Valley Water Board will review the permit application to ensure that discharge will not violate water quality standards. If the project requires surface water drainage realignment, the applicant is advised to contact the Department of Fish and Game for information on Streambed Alteration Permit requirements. If you have any questions regarding the Clean Water Act Section 404 permits, please contact the Regulatory Division of the Sacramento District of USACE at (916) 557-5250.

Clean Water Act Section 401 Permit – Water Quality Certification If an USACE permit (e.g., Non-Reporting Nationwide Permit, Nationwide Permit, Letter of Permission, Individual Permit, Regional General Permit, Programmatic General Permit), or any other federal permit (e.g., Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act or Section 9 from the United States Coast Guard), is required for this project due to the disturbance of waters of the United States (such as streams and wetlands), then a Water Quality Certification must be obtained from the Central Valley Water Board prior to initiation of project activities. There are no waivers for 1 Municipal Permits = The Phase I Municipal Separate Storm Water System (MS4) Permit covers medium sized Municipalities (serving between 100,000 and 250,000 people) and large sized municipalities (serving over 250,000 people). The Phase II MS4 provides coverage for small municipalities, including non-traditional Small MS4s, which include military bases, public campuses, prisons and hospitals.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation- 4 - 26 October 2023 Stanislaus County
401 Water Quality Certifications. For more information on the Water Quality Certification, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/water_quality_certificatio n/
Waste Discharge Requirements – Discharges to Waters of the State If USACE determines that only non-jurisdictional waters of the State (i.e., “nonfederal” waters of the State) are present in the proposed project area, the proposed project may require a Waste Discharge Requirement (WDR) permit to be issued by Central Valley Water Board. Under the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, discharges to all waters of the State, including all wetlands and other waters of the State including, but not limited to, isolated wetlands, are subject to State regulation. For more information on the Waste Discharges to Surface Water NPDES Program and WDR processes, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/waste_to_surface_wat er/
Projects involving excavation or fill activities impacting less than 0.2 acre or 400 linear feet of non-jurisdictional waters of the state and projects involving dredging activities impacting less than 50 cubic yards of non-jurisdictional waters of the state may be eligible for coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board Water Quality Order No. 2004-0004-DWQ (General Order 2004-0004). For more information on the General Order 2004-0004, visit the State Water Resources Control Board website at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_decisions/adopted_orders/water_quality/200 4/wqo/wqo2004-0004.pdf
Dewatering Permit
If the proposed project includes construction or groundwater dewatering to be discharged to land, the proponent may apply for coverage under State Water Board General Water Quality Order (Low Threat General Order) 2003-0003 or the Central Valley Water Board’s Waiver of Report of Waste Discharge and Waste Discharge Requirements (Low Threat Waiver) R5-2018-0085. Small temporary construction dewatering projects are projects that discharge groundwater to land from excavation activities or dewatering of underground utility vaults. Dischargers seeking coverage under the General Order or Waiver must file a Notice of Intent with the Central Valley Water Board prior to beginning discharge.

For more information regarding the Low Threat General Order and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_decisions/adopted_orders/water_quality/2003/ wqo/wqo2003-0003.pdf
For more information regarding the Low Threat Waiver and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board_decisions/adopted_orders/waiv ers/r5-2018-0085.pdf
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation- 5 - 26 October 2023 Stanislaus County
Limited Threat General NPDES Permit
If the proposed project includes construction dewatering and it is necessary to discharge the groundwater to waters of the United States, the proposed project will require coverage under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Dewatering discharges are typically considered a low or limited threat to water quality and may be covered under the General Order for Limited Threat Discharges to Surface Water (Limited Threat General Order). A complete Notice of Intent must be submitted to the Central Valley Water Board to obtain coverage under the Limited Threat General Order. For more information regarding the Limited Threat General Order and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board_decisions/adopted_orders/gene ral_orders/r5-2016-0076-01.pdf
NPDES Permit
If the proposed project discharges waste that could affect the quality of surface waters of the State, other than into a community sewer system, the proposed project will require coverage under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. A complete Report of Waste Discharge must be submitted with the Central Valley Water Board to obtain a NPDES Permit. For more information regarding the NPDES Permit and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/help/permit/ If you have questions regarding these comments, please contact me at (916) 464-4684 or [email protected].

Peter Minkel
Engineering Geologist
cc: State Clearinghouse unit, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Sacramento
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13

STANISLAUS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES REFERRAL

RESPONSE FORM
TO: City of Ceres Community Development Department
Attn: Christopher Hoem
Director, City of Ceres
[email protected]

FROM: Stanislaus County Department of Environmental Resources, Environmental Health Division

SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL REFERRAL – NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A DRAFT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR COPPER TRAILS SPECIFIC PLAN AND

ANNEXATION

Based on this agency’s particular field(s) of expertise, it is our position the above described project:

X Will not have a significant effect on the environment.

May have a significant effect on the environment.

No Comments.

Listed below are specific impacts which support our determination (e.g., traffic general, carrying capacity, soil types, air quality, etc.) – (attach additional sheet if necessary) Listed below are possible mitigation measures for the above-listed impacts: PLEASE BE SURE

TO INCLUDE WHEN THE MITIGATION OR CONDITION NEEDS TO BE IMPLEMENTED (PRIOR TO RECORDING A MAP, PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT, ETC.):

In addition, our agency has the following comments (attach additional sheets if necessary).  The applicant(s) shall demonstrate and secure any necessary permits for the destruction/ relocation of all onsite wastewater treatment systems (OWTS) and/or water wells impacted or proposed by this project, under the direction of the Stanislaus County Department of Environmental Resources (DER), where applicable.
 Any person proposing to build or remodel a FOOD FACILITY shall submit complete, easily readable plans drawn to scale, and specifications to the Stanislaus County Department of Environmental Resources (DER) for review, and shall receive plan approval before starting any new construction or Remodeling of any facility for use as a RETAIL FOOD FACILITY (California Retail Food Code Section §114380).
 If required, a grease trap or grease interceptor shall not be located in a food or utensil handling area. (California Retail Food Code §114201).

Response prepared by: Date: 10/06/2023

Parminder Dhillon, R.E.H.S.

Senior Environmental Health Specialist

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
3800 Cornucopia Way, Suite C Modesto, CA 95358-9494
Phone: 209.525.6700 Fax: 209.525.6774
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13

Stanislaus County Department of Environmental Resources EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13

Date: September 27, 2023
To: Responsible Agencies, Trustee Agencies, Interested Parties and Organizations Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Title: Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation Lead Agency: City of Ceres
Community Development Department
2200 Magnolia Street
Ceres, CA 95307
Project Applicant: Stewart S. Fahmy and Nav Athwal
c/o NorthStar Engineering Group, Inc.
620 12th Street
Modesto, CA 95354
The City of Ceres is the Lead Agency and will prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation project. As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City is soliciting the views of Responsible and Trustee Agencies as to the scope and content of the environmental information that is germane to your agency’s statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency may need to use the EIR prepared by the City when considering a permit or other approval for the project. The City is also providing a copy of this Notice of Preparation to other parties and organizations that may have an interest in the Copper Trails Specific Plan and EIR.

The Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation project and its probable environmental effects are described in the full version of the NOP, which is available for review. The City of Ceres has determined that an EIR will be prepared without preparation of an Initial Study as permitted in Section 15060(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines.

Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response to this notice must be sent at the earliest possible date but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice.

If you would like to discuss the project or the environmental impacts that should be addressed in the EIR, the Ceres Planning Commission will conduct a public scoping meeting on October 16, 2023 at 6:00 p.m. at the Ceres Community Center, 2701 4th Street, Ceres, CA

CITY COUNCIL
Javier Lopez, Mayor
James Casey Dist. 1 Rosalinda L. Vierra, Dist. 2
Bret Silveira, Dist. 3 Daniel A. Martinez, Dist. 4
Planning and Building Division
2220 Magnolia Street
Ceres, CA 95307
209-538-5774
Fax 209-538-5675
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Please send your comments by mail or email to Christopher Hoem, Director of the Ceres Community Development Department as shown below. Please provide the contact person’s name and associated contact information for your agency or organization.
_________________________________________ ______________________ Christopher Hoem, AICP Date
Community Development Director, City of Ceres
[email protected]
(209) 538-5778
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
October 23, 2023
Christopher Hoem
City of Ceres
Community Development Department
2200 Magnolia Street
Ceres, CA, 95307
Project: Notice of Preparation for a Draft Environmental Impact Report for Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation
District CEQA Reference No: 20230879
Dear Mr. Hoem:

The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (District) has reviewed the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) from the City of Ceres (City) for the Copper Trails Specific Plan and Annexation (CTSPA). Per the CTSPA, the project consists of the development of 260.3 acres for 2,392 dwelling units, 107.4 acres for 1,169,586 square feet of commercial development, 42.3 acres of parks and open space, 3.4 acres of new public uses, and the annexation of 146.1 acres of unincorporated land (Project). The Project is bounded by SR 99 and Mitchell Road on the east, Service Road on the north, Blaker Road on the west, and TID Lower Lateral 2 on the south, in unincorporated Stanislaus County, CA.

The District offers the following comments at this time regarding the Project:

Land Use Planning
Nearly all development projects within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, from specific plan to individual projects have the potential to generate air pollutants, making it more difficult to attain state and federal ambient air quality standards.

Land use decisions are critical to improving air quality within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin because land use patterns greatly influence transportation needs, and motor vehicle emissions are the largest source of air pollution in the Valley. Land use decisions and project design elements such as preventing urban sprawl, encouraging mix-use development, and project design elements that reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) have proven to be beneficial for air quality. The District recommends that the CTSPA incorporate strategies that reduce VMTs and require the cleanest available heavy duty trucks, vehicles, and off-road equipment, including EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 2 of 14 District Reference No: 20230879
October 23, 2023
zero and near-zero technologies. VMTs can be reduced through encouragement of mix-use development, walkable communities, etc. Additional design element options can be found at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/ob0pweru/clean-air-measures.pdf In addition, the District recommends that the CTSPA incorporate strategies that will advance implementation of the best practices listed in Tables 5 and 6 of California Air Resource Board’s (CARB’s) Freight Handbook Concept Paper, to the extent feasible. This document compiles best practices designed to address air pollution impacts as “practices” which may apply to the siting, design, construction, and operation of freight facilities to minimize health impacts on nearby communities. The concept paper is available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-03/2019.12.12%20- %20Concept%20Paper%20for%20the%20Freight%20Handbook_1.pdf Project Related Emissions
At the federal level under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), the District is designated as extreme nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone standards and serious nonattainment for the particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size (PM2.5) standards. At the state level under California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), the District is designated as nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 standards.

As such, the District recommends that the CTSPA stipulate that future development projects within the CTSPA identify and characterize project construction and operational air emissions. The District recommends the air emissions be compared to the District significance thresholds as identified in the District’s Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts:
https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI.pdf. The District recommends that future projects be mitigated to the extent feasible, and that future projects with air emissions above the aforementioned thresholds be mitigated to below these thresholds.

The District understands that the CTSPA is a specific plan level project where future individual project-specific data may not be available at this time. As such, the DEIR should include a discussion of policies, which when implemented, will require assessment and characterization of project-level emissions, and subsequently require mitigation of air quality impacts to the extent feasible at the individual projectspecific level. Environmental reviews of potential impacts on air quality should incorporate the following items:

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 3 of 14 District Reference No: 20230879
October 23, 2023
Construction Emissions
The District recommends, to reduce impacts from construction-related diesel exhaust emissions, the Project should utilize the cleanest available off-road construction equipment.

Operational Emissions
Operational (ongoing) air emissions from mobile sources and stationary sources should be analyzed separately. For reference, the District’s significance thresholds are identified in the District’s Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts:
https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI.pdf.

Recommended Mitigation Measure: At a minimum, project related impacts on air quality should be reduced to levels below the District’s significance thresholds through incorporation of design elements such as the use of cleaner Heavy Heavy-Duty (HHD) trucks and vehicles, measures that reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMTs), and measures that increase energy efficiency. More information on transportation mitigation measures can be found at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/ob0pweru/clean-air-measures.pdf Recommended Model for Quantifying Air Emissions
Project-related criteria pollutant emissions from construction and operational sources should be identified and quantified. Emissions analysis should be performed using the California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMod), which uses the most recent CARB-approved version of relevant emissions models and emission factors. CalEEMod is available to the public and can be downloaded from the CalEEMod website at: www.caleemod.com.

Health Risk Screening/Assessment
The City should evaluate the risk associated with the Project for sensitive receptors (residences, businesses, hospitals, day-care facilities, health care facilities, etc.) in the area and mitigate any potentially significant risk to help limit exposure of sensitive receptors to emissions.

To determine potential health impacts on surrounding receptors (residences, businesses, hospitals, day-care facilities, health care facilities, etc.) a Prioritization and/or a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) should be performed for future development projects that may be approved under implementation of the Project.

These health risk determinations should quantify and characterize potential Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) identified by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 4 of 14 District Reference No: 20230879
October 23, 2023
Assessment/California Air Resources Board (OEHHA/CARB) that pose a present or potential hazard to human health.

Health risk analyses should include all potential air emissions from the project, which include emissions from construction of the project, including multi-year construction, as well as ongoing operational activities of the project. Note, two common sources of TACs can be attributed to diesel exhaust emitted from heavy-duty off-road earth moving equipment during construction, and from ongoing operation of heavy-duty on-road trucks.

Prioritization (Screening Health Risk Assessment):

A “Prioritization” is the recommended method for a conservative screening-level health risk assessment. The Prioritization should be performed using the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s (CAPCOA) methodology. Please contact the District for assistance with performing a Prioritization analysis.

The District recommends that a more refined analysis, in the form of an HRA, be performed for any project resulting in a Prioritization score of 10 or greater. This is because the prioritization results are a conservative health risk representation, while the detailed HRA provides a more accurate health risk evaluation.

Health Risk Assessment:

Prior to performing an HRA, it is strongly recommended that land use agencies/ project proponents develop and submit for District review a health risk modeling protocol that outlines the sources and methodologies that will be used to perform the HRA.

A development project would be considered to have a potentially significant health risk if the HRA demonstrates that the health impacts would exceed the District’s established risk thresholds, which can be found here:
http://www.valleyair.org/transportation/ceqa_idx.htm.

A project with a significant health risk would trigger all feasible mitigation measures.

The District strongly recommends that development projects that result in a significant health risk not be approved by the land use agency.

The District is available to review HRA protocols and analyses. For HRA submittals please provide the following information electronically to the District for review:
 HRA (AERMOD) modeling files
 HARP2 files
 Summary of emissions source locations, emissions rates, and emission factor calculations and methodologies.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 5 of 14 District Reference No: 20230879
October 23, 2023
For assistance, please contact the District’s Technical Services Department by:
 E-Mailing inquiries to: [email protected]
 Calling (559) 230-5900
Recommended Measure: Development projects resulting in TAC emissions should be located an adequate distance from residential areas and other sensitive receptors to prevent the creation of a significant health risk in accordance to CARB's Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective located at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/resource-center/strategydevelopment/land-use-resources.

Health Impact Discussion
As required by the recent decision in Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.4th 502, a reasonable effort to discuss relevant specifics regarding the connection between potential adverse air quality impacts from the Project with the likely nature and magnitude of potential health impacts may be required. If the potential health impacts from the Project cannot be specifically correlated, explain what is known and why, given scientific constraints, potential health impacts cannot be translated.

Ambient Air Quality Analysis
An Ambient Air Quality Analysis (AAQA) uses air dispersion modeling to determine if emissions increases from a project will cause or contribute to a violation of State or National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The District recommends an AAQA be performed for any future development projects that may be approved under implementation of the Project with emissions that exceed 100 pounds per day of any pollutant.

An AAQA uses air dispersion modeling to determine if emission increase from a project will cause or contribute to a violation of State or National Ambien Air Quality Standards. An acceptable analysis would include emissions from both projectspecific permitted and non-permitted equipment and activities. The District recommends consultation with District staff to determine the appropriate model and input data to use in the analysis.

Specific information for assessing significance, including screening tools and modeling guidance, is available online at the District’s website:
www.valleyair.org/ceqa.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 6 of 14 District Reference No: 20230879
October 23, 2023
Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement
Future development projects from the Project could have a significant impact on air quality. The District recommends the DEIR include a feasibility discussion on implementing a Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement (VERA) as a mitigation measure for future development projects that may be approved under implementation of the Project that are determined to exceed the District’s CEQA significance thresholds.

A VERA is a mitigation measure by which the project proponent provides pound-forpound mitigation of emissions increases through a process that develops, funds, and implements emission reduction projects, with the District serving a role of administrator of the emissions reduction projects and verifier of the successful mitigation effort. To implement a VERA, the project proponent and the District enter into a contractual agreement in which the project proponent agrees to mitigate project specific emissions by providing funds for the District’s incentives programs.

The funds are disbursed by the District in the form of grants for projects that achieve emission reductions. Thus, project-related impacts on air quality can be mitigated.

Types of emission reduction projects that have been funded in the past include electrification of stationary internal combustion engines (such as agricultural irrigation pumps), replacing old heavy-duty trucks with new, cleaner, more efficient heavy-duty trucks, and replacement of agricultural equipment with the latest generation technologies.

In implementing a VERA, the District verifies the actual emission reductions that have been achieved as a result of completed grant contracts, monitors the emission reduction projects, and ensures the enforceability of achieved reductions. After the project is mitigated, the District certifies to the Lead Agency that the mitigation is completed, providing the Lead Agency with an enforceable mitigation measure demonstrating that project-related emissions have been mitigated. To assist the Lead Agency and project proponent in ensuring that the environmental document is compliant with CEQA, the District recommends the environmental document includes an assessment of the feasibility of implementing a VERA.

Allowed Uses Not Requiring Project-Specific Discretionary Approval In the event that the City determines that a project be approved as an allowed use not requiring a project-specific discretionary approval, the District recommends the DEIR include language requiring such projects to prepare a technical assessment, in consultation with the District, to determine if additional analysis and/or mitigation is required.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 7 of 14 District Reference No: 20230879
October 23, 2023
Truck Routing
Truck routing involves the assessment of which roads Heavy Heavy-Duty (HHD) trucks take to and from their destination, and the emissions impact that the HHD trucks may have on residential communities and sensitive receptors.

The District recommends the City evaluate HHD truck routing patterns for future development projects, with the aim of limiting exposure of residential communities and sensitive receptors to emissions. This evaluation would consider the current truck routes, the quantity and type of each truck (e.g., Medium Heavy-Duty, HHD, etc.), the destination and origin of each trip, traffic volume correlation with the time of day or the day of the week, overall Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), and associated exhaust emissions. The truck routing evaluation would also identify alternative truck routes and their impacts on VMT and air quality.

Cleanest Available Heavy-Duty Trucks
The San Joaquin Valley will not be able to attain stringent health-based federal air quality standards without significant reductions in emissions from HHD trucks, the single largest source of NOx emissions in the San Joaquin Valley. Accordingly, to meet federal air quality attainment standards, the District’s ozone and particulate matter attainment plans rely on a significant and rapid transition of HHD fleets to zero or near-zero emissions technologies.

Since the Project includes the development of approximately 1,169,586 square feet of commercial development, future development projects could include warehouses or distribution centers that would generate HHD truck traffic. As such, for future development projects, the District recommends that the following measures be considered by the City to reduce Project-related operational emissions:
 Recommended Measure: Fleets associated with operational activities utilize the cleanest available HHD trucks, including zero and near-zero technologies.  Recommended Measure: All on-site service equipment (cargo handling, yard hostlers, forklifts, pallet jacks, etc.) utilize zero-emissions technologies.

Reduce Idling of Heavy-Duty Trucks
The goal of this strategy is to limit the potential for localized PM2.5 and toxic air contaminant impacts associated with the idling of Heavy-Duty trucks. The diesel exhaust from idling has the potential to impose significant adverse health and environmental impacts.

Since future development projects are expected to result in HHD truck trips, the District recommends the DEIR include measures to ensure compliance of the state EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 8 of 14 District Reference No: 20230879
October 23, 2023
anti-idling regulation (13 CCR § 2485 and 13 CCR § 2480) and discuss the importance of limiting the amount of idling, especially near sensitive receptors. In addition, the District recommends the City consider the feasibility of implementing a more stringent 3-minute idling restriction and requiring appropriate signage and enforcement of idling restrictions.

Electric On-Site Off-Road and On-Road Equipment
Since the development project may include commercial uses that may include warehouse or distribution projects, future development projects may have the potential to result in increased use of off-road equipment (e.g., forklifts) and on-road equipment (e.g., mobile yard trucks with the ability to move materials). The District recommends that the DEIR include requirements for project proponents to utilize electric or zero emission off-road and on-road equipment.

Under-fired Charbroilers
Future development projects have the potential to occupy restaurants with underfired charbroilers. Such charbroilers may pose the potential for immediate health risk, particularly when located in densely populated areas or near sensitive receptors.

Since the cooking of meat can release carcinogenic PM2.5 species, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, controlling emissions from new under-fired charbroilers will have a substantial positive impact on public health. The air quality impacts on neighborhoods near restaurants with under-fired charbroilers can be significant on days when meteorological conditions are stable, when dispersion is limited and emissions are trapped near the surface within the surrounding neighborhoods. This potential for neighborhood-level concentration of emissions during evening or multi-day stagnation events raises air quality concerns.

Furthermore, reducing commercial charbroiling emissions is essential to achieving attainment of multiple federal PM2.5 standards. Therefore, the District recommends that the DEIR include a measure requiring the assessment and potential installation, as technologically feasible, of particulate matter emission control systems for new large restaurants operating under-fired charbroilers.

The District is available to assist the City and project proponents with this assessment. Additionally, the District is currently offering substantial incentive funding that covers the full cost of purchasing, installing, and maintaining the system during a demonstration period covering two years of operation. Please contact the District at (559) 230-5800 or [email protected] for more information, or visit:
http://valleyair.org/grants/rctp.htm
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 9 of 14 District Reference No: 20230879
October 23, 2023
Vegetative Barriers and Urban Greening
For future development projects within the Project area, and at strategic locations throughout the Project area in general, the District suggests the City consider incorporating vegetative barriers and urban greening as a measure to further reduce air pollution exposure on sensitive receptors (e.g., residences, schools, healthcare facilities).

While various emission control techniques and programs exist to reduce air quality emissions from mobile and stationary sources, vegetative barriers have been shown to be an additional measure to potentially reduce a population’s exposure to air pollution through the interception of airborne particles and the update of gaseous pollutants. Examples of vegetative barriers include, but are not limited to the following: trees, bushes, shrubs, or a mix of these. Generally, a higher and thicker vegetative barrier with full coverage will result in greater reductions in downwind pollutant concentrations. In the same manner, urban greening is also a way to help improve air quality and public health in addition to enhancing the overall beautification of a community with drought tolerant, low-maintenance greenery.

Clean Lawn and Garden Equipment in the Community
Since the Project consists of residential and commercial development, gas-powered residential and commercial lawn and garden equipment have the potential to result in an increase of NOx and PM2.5 emissions. Utilizing electric lawn care equipment can provide residents with immediate economic, environmental, and health benefits.

The District recommends the Project proponent consider the District’s Clean Green Yard Machines (CGYM) program which provides incentive funding for replacement of existing gas powered lawn and garden equipment. More information on the District CGYM program and funding can be found at:
http://www.valleyair.org/grants/cgym.htm
and http://valleyair.org/grants/cgym-commercial.htm.

On-Site Solar Deployment
It is the policy of the State of California that renewable energy resources and zerocarbon resources supply 100% of retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers by December 31, 2045. While various emission control techniques and programs exist to reduce air quality emissions from mobile and stationary sources, the production of solar energy is contributing to improving air quality and public health. The District suggests that the City consider incorporating solar power systems as an emission reduction strategy for future development projects that may be approved under implementation of the Project.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 10 of 14 District Reference No: 20230879
October 23, 2023
Electric Infrastructure
To support and accelerate the installation of electric vehicle charging equipment and development of required infrastructure, the District offers incentives to public agencies, businesses, and property owners of multi-unit dwellings to install electric charging infrastructure (Level 2 and 3 chargers). The purpose of the District’s Charge Up! Incentive program is to promote clean air alternative-fuel technologies and the use of low or zero-emission vehicles. The District recommends that the City and project proponents install electric vehicle chargers at project sites, and at strategic locations.

Please visit www.valleyair.org/grants/chargeup.htm for more information.

District Rules and Regulations
The District issues permits for many types of air pollution sources, and regulates some activities that do not require permits. A project subject to District rules and regulations would reduce its impacts on air quality through compliance with the District’s regulatory framework. In general, a regulation is a collection of individual rules, each of which deals with a specific topic. As an example, Regulation II (Permits) includes District Rule 2010 (Permits Required), Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review), Rule 2520 (Federally Mandated Operating Permits), and several other rules pertaining to District permitting requirements and processes.

The list of rules below is neither exhaustive nor exclusive. Current District rules can be found online at: www.valleyair.org/rules/1ruleslist.htm. To identify other District rules or regulations that apply to future projects, or to obtain information about District permit requirements, the project proponents are strongly encouraged to contact the District’s Small Business Assistance (SBA) Office at (209) 557-6446.

District Rules 2010 and 2201 - Air Quality Permitting for Stationary Sources
Stationary Source emissions include any building, structure, facility, or installation which emits or may emit any affected pollutant directly or as a fugitive emission. District Rule 2010 (Permits Required) requires operators of emission sources to obtain an Authority to Construct (ATC) and Permit to Operate (PTO) from the District. District Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review) requires that new and modified stationary sources of emissions mitigate their emissions using Best Available Control Technology (BACT).

Future development projects may be subject to District Rule 2010 (Permits Required) and Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review) and EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 11 of 14 District Reference No: 20230879
October 23, 2023
may require District permits. Prior to construction, project proponents shall obtain an ATC permit from the District for equipment/activities subject to District permitting requirements.

Recommended Mitigation Measure: For projects subject to permitting by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, demonstration of compliance with District Rule 2201 (obtain ATC permit from the District) shall be provided to the City before issuance of the first building permit.

For further information or assistance, project proponents may contact the District’s SBA Office at (209) 557-6446.

District Rule 9510 - Indirect Source Review (ISR)
Accordingly, future development projects within the CTSPA may be subject to District Rule 9510 if upon full buildout, the project would equal or exceed any of the following applicability thresholds, depending on the type of development and public agency approval mechanism:

Table 1: ISR Applicability Thresholds
Development
Type
Discretionary
Approval Threshold
Ministerial Approval /
Allowed Use / By Right
Thresholds
Residential 50 dwelling units 250 dwelling units
Commercial 2,000 square feet 10,000 square feet
Light Industrial 25,000 square feet 125,000 square feet Heavy Industrial 100,000 square feet 500,000 square feet Medical Office 20,000 square feet 100,000 square feet
General Office 39,000 square feet 195,000 square feet
Educational Office 9,000 square feet 45,000 square feet Government 10,00 square feet 50,000 square feet
Recreational 20,000 square feet 100,000 square feet
Other 9,000 square feet 45,000 square feet
District Rule 9510 also applies to any transportation or transit development projects where construction exhaust emissions equal or exceed two tons of NOx or two tons of PM.

The purpose of District Rule 9510 is to reduce the growth in both NOx and PM emissions associated with development and transportation projects from mobile and area sources; specifically, the emissions associated with the construction and subsequent operation of development projects. The Rule requires developers to mitigate their NOx and PM emissions by incorporating clean air design elements into their projects. Should the proposed development project EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 12 of 14 District Reference No: 20230879
October 23, 2023
clean air design elements be insufficient to meet the required emission reductions, developers must pay a fee that ultimately funds incentive projects to achieve off-site emissions reductions.

In the case the individual development project is subject to District Rule 9510, per Section 5.0 of the rule, an Air Impact Assessment (AIA) application is required to be submitted no later than applying for project-level approval from a public agency so that proper mitigation and clean air design under ISR can be incorporated into the public agency’s analysis.

Information about how to comply with District Rule 9510 can be found online at:
http://www.valleyair.org/ISR/ISRHome.htm.

The AIA application form can be found online at:
http://www.valleyair.org/ISR/ISRFormsAndApplications.htm.

District staff is available to provide assistance with determining if the Project will be subject to Rule 9510, and can be reached by phone at (559) 230-5900 or by email at [email protected].

District Rule 9410 (Employer Based Trip Reduction)
Future development projects may be subject to District Rule 9410 (Employer Based Trip Reduction) if the project would result in employment of 100 or more “eligible” employees. District Rule 9410 requires employers with 100 or more “eligible” employees at a worksite to establish an Employer Trip Reduction Implementation Plan (eTRIP) that encourages employees to reduce singleoccupancy vehicle trips, thus reducing pollutant emissions associated with work commutes. Under an eTRIP plan, employers have the flexibility to select the options that work best for their worksites and their employees.

Information about District Rule 9410 can be found online at:
www.valleyair.org/tripreduction.htm.

For additional information, you can contact the District by phone at 559-230- 6000 or by e-mail at [email protected]
District Rule 4002 (National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants)
Future development projects may be subject to District Rule 4002. This rule requires a thorough inspection for asbestos to be conducted before any regulated facility is demolished or renovated. Information on how to comply with District Rule 4002 can be found online at:
http://www.valleyair.org/busind/comply/asbestosbultn.htm.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 13 of 14 District Reference No: 20230879
October 23, 2023
District Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings)
The Project may be subject to District Rule 4601 since it may utilize architectural coatings. Architectural coatings are paints, varnishes, sealers, or stains that are applied to structures, portable buildings, pavements or curbs.

The purpose of this rule is to limit VOC emissions from architectural coatings.

In addition, this rule specifies architectural coatings storage, cleanup and labeling requirements. Additional information on how to comply with District Rule 4601 requirements can be found online at:
http://www.valleyair.org/rules/currntrules/r4601.pdf
District Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions)
The project proponent may be required to submit a Construction Notification Form or submit and receive approval of a Dust Control Plan prior to commencing any earthmoving activities as described in Regulation VIII, specifically Rule 8021 – Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities.

Should the project result in at least 1-acre in size, the project proponent shall provide written notification to the District at least 48 hours prior to the project proponents intent to commence any earthmoving activities pursuant to District Rule 8021 (Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities). Also, should the project result in the disturbance of 5- acres or more, or will include moving, depositing, or relocating more than 2,500 cubic yards per day of bulk materials, the project proponent shall submit to the District a Dust Control Plan pursuant to District Rule 8021 (Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities). For additional information regarding the written notification or Dust Control Plan requirements, please contact District Compliance staff at (559) 230-5950.

The application for both the Construction Notification and Dust Control Plan can be found online at:
https://www.valleyair.org/busind/comply/PM10/forms/DCP-Form.docx Information about District Regulation VIII can be found online at:
http://www.valleyair.org/busind/comply/pm10/compliance_pm10.htm District Rule 4901 - Wood Burning Fireplaces and Heaters The purpose of this rule is to limit emissions of carbon monoxide and particulate matter from wood burning fireplaces, wood burning heaters, and outdoor wood burning devices. This rule establishes limitations on the installation of new wood burning fireplaces and wood burning heaters.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 14 of 14 District Reference No: 20230879
October 23, 2023
Specifically, at elevations below 3,000 feet in areas with natural gas service, no person shall install a wood burning fireplace, low mass fireplace, masonry heater, or wood burning heater.

Information about District Rule 4901 can be found online at:
http://valleyair.org/rule4901/
Other District Rules and Regulations
Future development projects may also be subject to the following District rules:

Rule 4102 (Nuisance) and Rule 4641 (Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations).

Future Projects / Land Use Agency Referral Documents
Future development projects may require an environmental review and air emissions mitigation. A project’s referral documents and environmental review documents provided to the District for review should include a project summary, the land use designation, project size, air emissions quantifications and impacts, and proximity to sensitive receptors and existing emission sources, and air emissions mitigation measures. For reference and guidance, more information can be found in the District’s Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts at:
https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI.pdf
District Comment Letter
The District recommends that a copy of the District’s comments be provided to the Project proponent.

If you have any questions or require further information, please contact Eric McLaughlin by e-mail at [email protected] or by phone at (559) 230-5808.

Sincerely,
Brian Clements
Director of Permit Services
For: Mark Montelongo
Program Manager
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
October 26, 2023
City of Ceres
Planning and Building Division
Attn: Christopher Hoem
2220 Magnolia Street
Ceres, CA 95307
RE: Copper Trails Specific Plan & Annexation – NOP of a DEIR Dear Mr. Hoem:

The Turlock Irrigation District (District) acknowledges the opportunity to review and comment on the referenced project. District standards require development occurring within the District’s boundary that impacts irrigation and electric facilities, to meet the District’s requirements.

The District’s Ceres Main Canal borders a portion of the eastern project boundary and Lower Lateral 2 borders the southern boundary of the proposed Copper Trails Specific Plan (CTSP) area. The eastern half also includes the jointly owned TID/MID 230kV overhead electric transmission line located along these canals. The District will need to review the canal rights of way to ensure they are consistent with the current canal and electric facilities as constructed.

Any inconsistencies shall be resolved prior to development of the adjoining property. District Standards require the construction of a minimum, 6-foot high concrete or masonry wall on developed property that adjoins a canal. Additionally, the plans also indicate a trail to be constructed along these canals. This trail, to the extent it adjoins the District’s right of way, will be subject to District review and approval.

There are several irrigation improvement districts (ID) and numerous private facilities (pipelines, pumps, ditches, etc.) that exist in the plan area and will be subject to upgrading to current District Standards. One of the improvement districts (ID 91C, Lateral C), flows through the CTSP area, from east to west, to serve agricultural land beyond the plan area. A portion of this facility was upgraded as part of the development of the Central Valley High School. The remainder of this line will have to be upgraded and possibly relocated to accommodate development.

Depending on the sequence of development, including within the non-CTSP area, there exists an opportunity for the abandonment and removal of many of these other irrigation facilities.

An overall strategy for mitigating impacts to irrigation should be developed to avoid inefficiencies that can occur when reviewing on a project-by-project basis. Development buildout should try to emphasize in-fill development to reduce conflicts between remaining agricultural production and the progressing development.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Todd Troglin
October 26, 2023

District records also indicate there is an abandoned underground drain pipeline (approximately 24” diameter) located along the Redwood Road corridor and also a separate segment along the east side of Blaker Road north of Lower Lateral 2. These drain pipelines shall be located and removed prior to development, or appropriately abandoned in place to eliminate voids and potential future subsidence.

If the District’s canal system is to be used for storm water drainage, the existing Master Storm Drainage Agreement between City of Ceres and the Turlock Irrigation District must be reviewed to determine if the additional discharge can be accommodated. This additional discharge would be subject to District approval.

The District now requires 13-foot Public Utility Easement be dedicated along all street frontages.

Additionally, the front building setback is to be a minimum of 15-feet from the property line and a minimum of 15-feet from the back-of-sidewalk to enable the safe placement of utilities.

When evaluating electric infrastructure requirements for CTSP area, understanding early on in the process the proposed building requirements related to solar, EV charging, and whether natural gas will be supplied, is extremely helpful. Furthermore, identifying the location of any public EV charging facilities and the proposed character of that service is important for infrastructure design purposes.

If you have any questions concerning irrigation system requirements, please contact me at (209) 883-8367. Questions regarding electric utility requirements should be directed to David Porath at (209) 883-8659.

Sincerely,
Todd Troglin
Todd Troglin
Supervising Engineering Technician, Civil
CF: 2023053
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
APPENDIX B
ANNEXATION MAP AND OWNERSHIP LIST
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
# Owner Name Street Address City, State, and Zip APN Assessment Code 1 WILFRIDO S ZAMUDIO 2412 BLAKER RD CERES CA 95307 041-008-046 $298,408 121 2 WILFRIDO S ZAMUDIO 4112 BLAKER RD CERES CA 95307 041-008-047 $155,014 121 3 JACK W BYRD, et. Al 19667 AMERICAN AVE #11 HILMAR CA 95324 041-008-053 $90,203 70 4 JACK W BYRD, et. Al 19667 AMERICAN AVE #11 HILMAR CA 95324 041-008-052 $75,380 121 5 EDWARD TOUMA 6652 N SEELEY AVE CHICAGO IL 60645 041-008-038 $546,822 270 6 SARWAT SABET FAHMY, et. Al 331 SANTA ROSA DR LOS GATOS CA 95032 041-008-036 $3,514,878 885 7 SARWAT SABET FAHMY, et. Al 331 SANTA ROSA DR LOS GATOS CA 95032 041-008-026 $2,411,778 882 8 HARRY E PYATT 3204 ALLAN ADALE DR MODESTO CA 95355 041-009-017 $199,172 815 9 NANCY FONTANA 1608 SEVEN FALLS MODESTO CA 95355 041-008-025 $156,708 271 10 JUAN M CALVO, et. Al 4401 CENTRAL AVE CERES CA 95307 041-008-024 $262,069 121 11 HORACIO FERREIRA MAGANA 3811 BULLOTI CT CERES CA 95307 041-008-035 $399,446 121 12 ESPERANZA JAIME 1738 MARGARET WAY CERES CA 95307 041-008-022 $221,327 121 13 ROBIN LORRAINE CARTER 4301 CENTRAL AVE CERES CA 95307 041-008-054 $206,581 711 14 ROBIN LORRAINE CARTER 4301 CENTRAL AVE CERES CA 95307 041-008-055 $231,815 711 15 HARINDER TOOR 1017 N CANYON DR MODESTO CA 95351 041-010-003 $1,893,761 272 16 4224 CENTRAL AVENUE LLC 2561 4TH ST CERES CA 95307 041-010-012 $406,131 272 17 INDERJIT TOOR 1017 N CANYON DR MODESTO CA 95351 041-010-002 $673,020 271 18 S P N A LLC 2561 4TH ST CERES CA 95307 041-010-001 $696,931 271 19 THOMAS HOLMQUIST, et. Al 5835 CHENAULT DR MODESTO CA 95356 041-011-013 $342,373 630 20 JIM L WYATT 3530 E SERVICE RD CERES CA 95307 041-011-014 $341,506 70 21 WINCHESTER FARMS INC 9312 N HILLS CT OAKDALE CA 95361 041-011-012 $898,689 812 22 4224 CENTRAL AVE LLC 2561 4TH ST CERES CA 95307 041-010-006 $382,772 121 23 SHANE PARSON, et. Al 6055 CENTRAL AVE CERES CA 95307 041-010-007 $299,954 261 24 SUSANA DE ALBA 4342 CENTRAL AVE CERES CA 95307 041-010-008 $596,421 711 25 HUMBERTO DE ALBA 4342 CENTRAL AVE CERES CA 95307 041-010-013 $238,824 121 26 JANIECE MARTIN 16875 SUNDANCE DR MORGAN HILL CA 95037 041-010-010 $64,442 121 27 DIMITRA KORDAZAKIS 1908 LARKSPUR LN CERES CA 95307 041-010-011 $164,897 121 28 ALAN A AUTRAND 2219 E REDWOOD RD CERES CA 95307 041-010-015 $233,796 711 29 CERES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT PO BOX 307 CERES CA 95307 041-010-016 $0 -- 30 RICHARD L CROUCH, et. Al 2236 E REDWOOD RD CERES CA 95307 041-014-004 $89,444 711 31 MARJORIE R RATHBUN, et. Al 2324 E REDWOOD RD CERES CA 95307 041-014-005 $98,947 711 32 MARY H DUFFY 2342 E REDWOOD RD CERES CA 95307 041-014-006 $208,778 711 33 DARRELL LEDBETTER, et. Al PO BOX 272 CERES CA 95307 041-014-007 $1,310,861 882 34 DARRELL LEDBETTER, et. Al PO BOX 272 CERES CA 95307 041-014-011 $853,850 713 35 DARRELL LEDBETTER, et. Al PO BOX 272 CERES CA 95307 041-014-012 $401,821 712 36 WILLIAM R HEYTZ RES TRUST 2459 E REDWOOD RD CERES CA 95307 041-011-009 $248,807 121

EXHIBIT B, COPPER TRAILS ANNEXATION PARCEL OWNER LIST
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
37 ERNAN MENDOZA 3682 LARIAN WAY CERES CA 95307 041-011-008 $203,062 121 38 LEDBETTER FAMILY PARTNERSHIP 2337 DON PEDRO RD CERES CA 95307 041-011-007 $128,303 707 39 STEVEN B VILAS 2300 SWAN PARK DR TURLOCK CA 95382 041-011-002 $490,833 882 40 JAMES ALLEN PO BOX 272 CERES CA 95307 041-011-017 $98,377 712 41 DARRELL LEDBETTER, et. Al PO BOX 272 CERES CA 95307 041-011-010 $179,519 712 42 RICHARD J NORTON, et. Al 2513 E REDWOOD RD CERES CA 95307 041-011-011 $176,567 121 43 DARRELL LEDBETTER, et. Al PO BOX 272 CERES CA 95307 041-014-024 $374,305 815 44 DAVID V PITTMAN 2572 E REDWOOD RD CERES CA 95307 041-014-025 $171,042 714 45 MISTY G SPEEGLE 2600 E REDWOOD RD CERES CA 95307 041-016-001 $250,173 711 46 SUDCHAI SOUNTHALA 2608 E REDWOOD RD CERES CA 95307 041-016-002 $572,582 711 47 BE PONGBANDITH, et. Al 2612 E REDWOOD RD CERES CA 95307 041-016-003 $541,047 711 48 CITLALIC MARQUEZ 2624 E REDWOOD RD CERES CA 95307 041-016-004 $503,074 714 49 RAYMOND F HEGWOOD 2666 E REDWOOD RD CERES CA 95307 041-016-005 $532,008 711 50 LEDBETTER FAMILY PARTNERSHIP 2337 DON PEDRO RD CERES CA 95307 041-016-006 $947,255 812 51 VALLEY SPORTS ARENA LLC 2166 HILLSTONE DR SAN JOSE CA 95138 041-013-006 $659,854 721 52 HERACLIO SOLTERO, et. Al 2743 E REDWOOD RD CERES CA 95307 041-012-013 $474,679 272 53 ROY DEAN MC GUIRE, et. Al 2657 E REDWOOD RD CERES CA 95307 041-012-018 $215,075 271 54 JAMES PORTER DAVIS, et. Al 4406 MOFFETT RD CERES CA 95307 041-012-016 $242,973 271 55 NAPA FARMS LLC 3039 BERTOLLI DR LIVERMORE CA 94550 041-012-017 $449,000 885 56 NAPA FARMS LLC 3039 BERTOLLI DR LIVERMORE CA 94550 041-012-014 $470,000 885 57 NAPA FARMS LLC 3039 BERTOLLI DR LIVERMORE CA 94550 041-013-005 $571,000 883 58 NAPA FARMS LLC 3039 BERTOLLI DR LIVERMORE CA 94550 041-013-004 $457,000 885 59 NAPA FARMS LLC 3039 BERTOLLI DR LIVERMORE CA 94550 041-012-010 $1,185,500 885 60 KODIAL PROPERTIES LLC 2301 FAIRVIEW DR #A CERES CA 95307 041-012-008 $51,265 261 61 JUAN VELARDE 4001 JOSEPH RD CERES CA 95307 041-012-009 $269,384 291 62 JAGDEV SINGH, et. Al 3557 WHISPERING OAK DR CERES CA 95307 041-012-007 $83,609 141 63 REBECA PADGETT, et. Al 4137 JOSEPH RD CERES CA 95307 041-012-006 $131,336 101 64 THOMAS E ANDERSON, et. Al 4112 MOFFETT RD CERES CA 95307 041-012-005 $275,755 121 65 SHIRLEY LANGLEY, et. Al 3941 COLLINS RD CERES CA 95307 041-012-001 $16,731 121 66 TONY A MANGIPANE, et. Al 4225 CROWS LANDING RD MODESTO CA 95358 041-012-002 $70,174 121 67 HECTOR H ROMO, et. Al 2630 E SERVICE RD CERES CA 95307 041-012-003 $665,849 121 68 HECTOR H ROMO, et. Al 2630 E SERVICE RD CERES CA 95307 041-012-004 $194,736 121 69 S & R PROPERTIES LLC 3826 OLD OAK DR CERES CA 95307 053-034-001 $735,907 121 70 DENISE CUETO PO BOX 2052 CERES CA 95307 053-034-002 $203,062 121 71 SONIA MANZUR VARGAS 2313 E SERVICE RD CERES CA 95307 053-034-003 $272,685 111 72 GAIL L FONTANA, et. Al 2331 E SERVICE RD CERES CA 95307 053-036-001 $180,172 271 73 IRMA DAGIO DE MONTOYA, et. Al 2401 E SERVICE RD CERES CA 95307 053-036-002 $201,204 121

EXHIBIT B, COPPER TRAILS ANNEXATION PARCEL OWNER LIST
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
74 RICARDO BARAJAS 2407 E SERVICE RD CERES CA 95307 053-036-003 $246,217 101 75 MANUEL GUTIERREZ 2417 E SERVICE RD CERES CA 95307 053-036-004 $413,747 101 76 PENTECOSTAL CHURCH OF GOD OF AMERICA 2425 E SERVICE RD CERES CA 95307 053-036-005 $229,890 581 77 ARTHUR D HOLT, et. Al 2449 E SERVICE RD CERES CA 95307 053-036-006 $70,399 271 78 ARTHUR D HOLT, et. Al 2451 E SERVICE RD CERES CA 95307 053-036-016 $89,459 111 79 ARTHUR D HOLT, et. Al 2451 E SERVICE RD CERES CA 95307 053-036-019 $57,229 101 80 JUSTIN MATTHEW SERPA 3959 COLLINS RD CERES CA 95307 053-036-020 $176,911 101 81 DANIEL ARMANDO CERVANTES 3955 COLLINS RD CERES CA 95307 053-036-018 $251,458 101 82 LINDA IWASKIEWICZ 3951 COLLINS RD CERES CA 95307 053-036-017 $67,674 101 83 FRANCISCO ROMERO 3945 COLLINS RD CERES CA 95307 053-036-015 $89,217 101 84 GUY J BRISBY PO BOX 722 CERES CA 95307 053-036-014 $2,264 10 85 MORINE BRISBY PO BOX 722 CERES CA 95307 053-036-013 $30,531 121 86 JESSE GROGAN 7525 PALMA AVE HUGHSON CA 95326 053-036-012 $63,414 121 87 EDGAR ROBERTO LUNA 2436 LYNELL CT CERES CA 95307 053-036-011 $170,042 101 88 DWIGHT FAULK 2437 LYNELL CT CERES CA 95307 053-036-007 $90,463 101 89 ROBERT G WALKER 2441 LYNELL CT CERES CA 95307 053-036-008 $48,087 101 90 JUAN A TORRES 2449 LYNELL CT CERES CA 95307 053-036-009 $47,568 121 91 LEONIDES NAVARRO 4320 MONDAVI CT STOCKTON CA 95206 053-036-010 $235,163 121 92 ONKAR BUILDERS INC 212 CAMPUS WAY MODESTO CA 95350 053-037-033 $165,000 10 93 MARIA D BECERRA NIEBLAS 3942 COLLINS RD CERES CA 95307 053-037-032 $95,390 101 94 ROQUE A VILLEDA, et. Al 2513 E SERVICE RD CERES CA 95307 053-037-021 $136,703 101 95 ROCA DE SALVACION DE AIC MODESTO INC 2519 E SERVICE RD CERES CA 95307 053-037-020 $436,917 580 96 VICENTE BARAJAS CANCINO 1618 E SAN FERNANDO ST SAN JOSE CA 95116 053-037-019 $71,938 101 97 JUAN ANDRADE GARCIA 2528 E SERVICE RD CERES CA 95307 053-037-013 $199,723 121 98 MARIBEL SAUCEDO 2541 E SERVICE RD CERES CA 95307 053-037-012 $98,185 121 99 JOSE FERNANDO MARTINEZ 2545 E SERVICE RD CERES CA 95307 053-037-006 $97,788 121 100 JESUS J RODRIGUEZ 3943 MOFFETT RD CERES CA 95307 053-037-005 $200,727 101 101 AMARJIT S SAMRA, et. Al 3809 BANYAN TREE DR MODESTO CA 95355 053-037-004 $56,037 101 102 JOEL TORRES 760 SAUCITO AVE SALINAS CA 93906 053-037-010 $166,543 121 103 ANGEL PORTILLO 512 HUMBER CT MODESTO CA 95354 053-037-011 $90,223 121 104 GABRIELA GUZMAN, et. Al 2522 LYNELL CT CERES CA 95307 053-037-017 $340,690 261 105 ALEX CARRANZA, et. Al 2516 LYNELL CT CERES CA 95307 053-037-018 $141,662 101 106 JUAN LUIS PARDO SANCHEZ 2508 LYNELL CT CERES CA 95307 053-037-030 $270,000 101 107 GEORGE W LANKFORD 2500 LYNELL CT CERES CA 95307 053-037-031 $74,249 101 108 EL SALTO LLC 6825 ZERILLO DR RIVERBANK CA 95367 053-037-029 $75,077 121 109 MIGUEL GARCIA ZALDIVAR 555 SONORA AVE LODI CA 95240 053-037-028 $237,433 101 110 KENNETH E WALKER 2517 LYNELL CT CERES CA 95307 053-037-016 $49,567 101

EXHIBIT B, COPPER TRAILS ANNEXATION PARCEL OWNER LIST
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
111 COIT GARRY 2021 TRUST 525 E KEYES RD CERES CA 95307 053-037-015 $89,217 101 112 JOSUE M ORTIZ, et. Al 2533 LYNELL CT CERES CA 95307 053-037-009 $92,281 101 113 ERIC THANE MEGEE, et. Al 2501 RIVER RD MODESTO CA 95351 053-037-008 $76,128 121 114 CHERISE M STUART 2020 JACKSON CT TURLOCK CA 95382 053-037-003 $4,838 101 115 JAIME E PENA 1401 SAN PEDRO AVE CERES CA 95307 053-037-002 $157,965 101 116 AARON RUBALCABA 2536 DON PEDRO RD CERES CA 95307 053-037-007 $166,940 121 117 EVELYN PEARSON HEWES 312 E GRAYSON RD MODESTO CA 95358 053-037-014 $32,910 271 118 ROBERT RISLEY, et. Al 1401 OHIO AVE MODESTO CA 95358 053-037-027 $60,067 101 119 BEVERLY A JACKSON, et. Al 3621 HEMLOCK AVE CERES CA 95307 053-037-026 $69,413 101 120 FRANCISCO JAVIER MALDONADO, et. Al 5104 BLOOMFIELD DR KEYES CA 95328 053-037-035 $127,592 101 121 ROBERT HIGHTOWER, et. Al PO BOX 459 CERES CA 95307 053-037-034 $183,638 261 122 BERTHA GUERRERO SANCHEZ 3401 S HALF MOON DR BAKERSFIELD CA 93309 053-037-024 $262,794 261 123 MARIA VARGAS HERNANDEZ 3812 COLLINS RD CERES CA 95307 053-037-023 $194,467 101 124 Y WORLD INVESTMENT LLC 721 GREEN HILL BLVD BRENTWOOD TN 37027 053-037-022 $340,086 431 125 ANGILBERTO AGUILAR, et. Al 3907 COLLINS RD CERES CA 95307 053-035-018 $187,296 121 126 BALDEMAR REYES 3901 COLLINS RD CERES CA 95307 053-035-017 $125,836 101 127 MARIA M BETANCOURT 3817 COLLINS RD CERES CA 95307 053-035-016 $130,113 101 128 PEDRO A HERNANDEZ, et. Al 1404 GENEVIEVE WAY CERES CA 95307 053-035-015 $343,522 101 129 ADELA VALENZUELA, et. Al 3801 COLLINS RD CERES CA 95307 053-035-014 $37,257 101 130 LEONA TAYLOR 2444 DON PEDRO RD CERES CA 95307 053-035-013 $54,732 101 131 JOSE ROBERTO PORTILLO, et. Al 2440 DON PEDRO RD CERES CA 95307 053-035-012 $47,690 101 132 DAVID P PAGE LIVING TRUST 2436 DON PEDRO RD CERES CA 95307 053-035-011 $21,965 101 133 WILLIAM J LEDBETTER, et. Al 2337 DON PEDRO RD CERES CA 95307 053-035-010 $433,279 121 134 JMANUAL H GARCIA, et. Al 2424 DON PEDRO RD CERES CA 95307 053-035-009 $84,854 101 135 MIGUEL IBARRA, et. Al 2420 DON PEDRO RD CERES CA 95307 053-035-008 $113,699 101 136 VINCENT CRANDELL, et. Al 2416 DON PEDRO RD CERES CA 95307 053-035-007 $153,860 101 137 MARIA DE LA LUZ IBARRA 2412 DON PEDRO RD CERES CA 95307 053-035-006 $56,806 101 138 MARCELINO CASTRO 2406 DON PEDRO RD CERES CA 95307 053-035-005 $122,486 101 139 JOSE GARIBO GARCIA 2404 DON PEDRO RD CERES CA 95307 053-035-004 $310,000 121 140 EXPEDITO VENEGAS, et. Al 2400 DON PEDRO RD CERES CA 95307 053-035-003 $309,169 121 141 AXIAK FAMILY LIVING TRUST 2324 DON PEDRO RD CERES CA 95307 053-035-002 $51,588 101 142 CERES SCHOOL DIST PO BOX 307 CERES CA 95307 053-035-001 $0 -- 143 LEDBETTER FAMILY PARTNERSHIP 2337 DON PEDRO RD CERES CA 95307 053-032-015 $2,494,213 241 144 JIM L WYATT 3530 E SERVICE RD CERES CA 95307 053-032-011 $92,394 211 145 JIM L WYATT 3530 E SERVICE RD CERES CA 95307 053-032-012 $92,394 211 146 JIM L WYATT 3530 E SERVICE RD CERES CA 95307 053-032-013 $92,394 211 147 JIM L WYATT 3530 E SERVICE RD CERES CA 95307 053-032-014 $58,303 211

EXHIBIT B, COPPER TRAILS ANNEXATION PARCEL OWNER LIST
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
148 LEDBETTER FAMILY PARTNERSHIP 2337 DON PEDRO RD CERES CA 95307 053-032-010 $2,742,762 241 149 LEDBETTER FAMILY PARTNERSHIP 2337 DON PEDRO RD CERES CA 95307 053-031-023 $673,405 320 150 FRED E ANDERSON, et. Al 2449 LAUREL AVE CERES CA 95307 053-031-022 $60,654 101 151 FRED ANDERSON, et. Al 2449 LAUREL AVE CERES CA 95307 053-031-021 $53,403 101 152 JERRY SONKE, et. Al 1658 DOAK BLVD RIPON CA 95366 053-031-020 $135,057 101 153 JAMES L KRIGBAUM 3625 COLLINS RD CERES CA 95307 053-031-019 $61,518 101 154 JERRY SONKE, et. Al 1658 DOAK BLVD RIPON CA 95366 053-031-018 $68,221 171 155 RAUL F CAMPOS, et. Al 5979 WASHINGTON RD HUGHSON CA 95326 053-031-017 $41,628 121 156 JEOVA VILLEDA, et. Al 2450 INDUSTRIAL WAY CERES CA 95307 053-031-041 $198,015 101 157 MACARIO RAMIREZ JR 3604 LARCH AVE CERES CA 95307 053-031-040 $104,208 101 158 LEODEGARIO VELAZQUEZ-RODRIGUEZ 3608 LARCH AVE CERES CA 95307 053-031-015 $219,996 101 159 WILLIAM J LEDBETTER, et. Al 2337 DON PEDRO RD CERES CA 95307 053-031-014 $283,421 101 160 WILLIAM TERRY LAWRENCE 5231 AVENUE A MODESTO CA 95358 053-031-013 $78,063 101 161 LUIS A DE LEON 3620 LARCH AVE CERES CA 95307 053-031-012 $317,511 121 162 ANDRES ARROYO AVILA, et. Al 713 W TUOLUMNE RD CERES CA 95307 053-031-011 $53,652 101 163 MY COMMUNITY LLC. 7110 CAROLINA CT MODESTO CA 95356 053-031-010 $164,207 261 164 WILLIAM J LEDBETTER, et. Al 2337 DON PEDRO RD CERES CA 95307 053-031-009 $189,820 10 165 BILL LEDBETTER JR, et. Al 2337 DON PEDRO RD CERES CA 95307 053-031-008 $24,614 10 166 LEDBETTER FAMILY PARTNERSHIP 2337 DON PEDRO RD CERES CA 95307 053-031-007 $56,526 201 167 CHRISTIANSEN FAMILY PROPERTIES LLC 3404 KINGS POINT DR MODESTO CA 95355 053-031-006 $10,653 121 168 SIQUI MORA 1313 EUGENE AVE MODESTO CA 95351 053-031-005 $40,605 101 169 BEVERLY A JACKSON, et. Al 3621 HEMLOCK AVE CERES CA 95307 053-031-004 $27,585 10 170 LEDBETTER FAMILY PARTNERSHIP 2337 DON PEDRO RD CERES CA 95307 053-031-003 $59,119 101 171 ROSA E IBARRA 3601 LARCH AVE CERES CA 95307 053-031-027 $111,894 101 172 MIGUEL TOPETE 2616 MORGAN RD CERES CA 95307-9299 R005 053-030-048 $221,547 101 173 DARRELL LEDBETTER, et. Al PO BOX 272 CERES CA 95307-0272 B003 053-030-049 $97,069 101 174 BEVERLY A JACKSON 3621 HEMLOCK AVE CERES CA 95307 053-030-050 $104,093 101 175 LUIS A BARAJAS 3612 HEMLOCK AVE CERES CA 95307 053-030-051 $169,513 121 176 YADER F CALDERON, et. Al 3616 HEMLOCK AVE CERES CA 95307 053-030-052 $226,782 101 177 JOSE DIAZ, et. Al 2308 QUILLING CT MODESTO CA 95351 053-030-053 $228,973 101 178 RUBEN AGUILERA ZARAGOZA 3624 HEMLOCK AVE CERES CA 95307 053-030-054 $185,917 101 179 ERIC ROBERSON 1602 BRIER RD TURLOCK CA 95380 053-030-055 $78,248 261 180 WILLIAM J LEDBETTER, et. Al 2337 DON PEDRO RD CERES CA 95307 053-030-056 $200,043 101 181 BEVERLY A JACKSON 3621 HEMLOCK AVE CERES CA 95307 053-030-057 $72,129 101 182 BEVERLY A JACKSON 3621 HEMLOCK AVE CERES CA 95307 053-030-042 $65,556 101 183 JAMES A BEGIER, et. Al 2001 E 14TH ST SAN LEANDRO CA 94577 053-030-043 $58,011 101 184 XIAOXIA LU BEGIER 2001 E 14TH ST SAN LEANDRO CA 94577 053-030-044 $50,958 101

EXHIBIT B, COPPER TRAILS ANNEXATION PARCEL OWNER LIST
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
185 DARRELL LEDBETTER PO BOX 272 CERES CA 95307 053-030-045 $84,392 101 186 DARRELL LEDBETTER PO BOX 272 CERES CA 95307 053-030-046 $33,744 101 187 MACARIO O RAMIREZ 400 FLORES AVE MODESTO CA 95351 053-030-047 $109,454 10 188 ANGELA LOPEZ 3600 SPRUCE AVE CERES CA 95307 053-030-033 $275,553 101 189 RAFAEL H DIAZ, et. Al 2003 WALNUT AVE CERES CA 95307 053-030-034 $71,372 101 190 MARTIN C CASTRO 3608 SPRUCE AVE CERES CA 95307 053-030-035 $134,150 101 191 JOEL GOMEZ 3612 SPRUCE AVE CERES CA 95307 053-030-036 $182,272 101 192 GUADALUPE ESBEIDI BONILLA LARA 908 MUSICK AVE MODESTO CA 95351 053-030-037 $101,919 121 193 CARLOS E PEREZ ZAPIEN 3620 SPRUCE AVE CERES CA 95307 053-030-038 $185,501 101 194 LUIS EXAULEMUS SAMAYOA 738 N 11TH ST SAN JOSE CA 95112 053-030-039 $76,413 101 195 JESUS N SOSA, et. Al 3628 SPRUCE AVE CERES CA 95307 053-030-040 $156,172 261 196 HELLO MAGALLANES LAUREL AVE CERES CA 95307 053-030-025 $318,263 261 197 JOSE NAVARRO, et. Al 3625 SPRUCE AVE CERES CA 95307 053-030-026 $184,471 101 198 ROCELIA GARCIA OROSCO 3621 SPRUCE AVE CERES CA 95307 053-030-027 $102,380 101 199 CV RESIDENTIAL LLC 2561 4TH ST CERES CA 95307 053-030-028 $46,151 101 200 DIEHL NO 1 LLC PO BOX 592 MODESTO CA 95353 053-030-029 $110,892 201 201 DIEHL NO 1 LLC PO BOX 592 MODESTO CA 95353 053-030-030 $78,696 201 202 ROBERTO MANZO GARCIA, et. Al 3605 SPRUCE AVE CERES CA 95307 053-030-031 $254,652 101 203 JESUS MEDINA 2212 INDUSTRIAL WAY CERES CA 95307 053-030-032 $144,248 101 204 ROBERTO GUTIERREZ 2206 INDUSTRIAL WAY CERES CA 95307 053-030-017 $107,700 261 205 GREGORIO RODRIGUEZ, et. Al 3604 TAMARACK AVE CERES CA 95307 053-030-018 $128,715 101 206 WILLIAM J IRVING 2720 CHARLOTTE AVE CERES CA 95307 053-030-019 $67,703 101 207 EDUARDO REBOLLAR PO BOX 2223 CERES CA 95307 053-030-020 $45,302 101 208 RAVINDER MANN 3312 BLAKER RD CERES CA 95307 053-030-021 $53,652 101 209 SUKHJIT S MANN 3312 BLAKER RD CERES CA 95307 053-030-022 $101,939 121 210 SUKHJIT SINGH MANN 3312 BLAKER RD CERES CA 95307 053-030-023 $74,939 261 211 LEDBETTER FAMILY PARTNERSHIP 2337 DON PEDRO RD CERES CA 95307 053-030-024 $128,517 201 212 LEDBETTER FAMILY PARTNERSHIP 2337 DON PEDRO RD CERES CA 95307 053-030-009 $261,549 201 213 SUKHJIT S MANN 3312 BLAKER RD CERES CA 95307 053-030-010 $72,733 121 214 SUKHJIT S MANN 3312 BLAKER RD CERES CA 95307 053-030-011 $29,730 101 215 AYDE RIOS 3617 TAMARACK AVE CERES CA 95307 053-030-012 $107,582 101 216 RAVINDER K MANN 3312 BLAKER RD CERES CA 95307 053-030-013 $71,008 101 217 IGNACIO M IBARRA, et. Al 3609 TAMARACK AVE CERES CA 95307 053-030-014 $101,965 121 218 SAM H NASHER 3605 TAMARACK AVE CERES CA 95307 053-030-015 $104,524 101 219 NASHER SAM HIZAM 3779 OLD OAK DR CERES CA 95307 053-030-016 $262,793 431 220 EDWARD J SOARES, et. Al 3600 CENTRAL AVE CERES CA 95307 053-030-001 $80,664 101 221 DOMINGO VALENZUELA, et. Al 3820 DRAKEWOOD CT CERES CA 95307 053-030-002 $213,029 261

EXHIBIT B, COPPER TRAILS ANNEXATION PARCEL OWNER LIST
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
222 JIM L WYATT 3530 E SERVICE RD CERES CA 95307 053-030-003 $137,601 201 223 JESUS IBARRA MELANO, et. Al 3612 CENTRAL AVE CERES CA 95307 053-030-004 $54,364 121 224 IMELDA RUIZ PO BOX 951 PATTERSON CA 95363 053-030-005 $52,211 261 225 JOE SILVA, et. Al 700 E TAYLOR RD CERES CA 95307 053-030-006 $143,873 261 226 CARLOS A NALLEY 3624 CENTRAL AVE CERES CA 95307 053-030-007 $144,685 121 227 ERIC PALAFOX 3628 CENTRAL AVE CERES CA 95307 053-030-008 $187,633 101 228 SANGHERA 2020 FAMILY TRUST 6425 E HATCH RD HUGHSON CA 95326 053-038-001 $299,026 630 229 MYIA DAVILA 4286 SPRING CREEK DR MARIPOSA CA 95338 053-038-002 $115,848 491 230 LORENZO SANDOVAL 1863 VICTORIA CT TURLOCK CA 95380 053-038-003 $72,227 310 231 AMARJIT SINGH SAMRA 3940 MOFFETT RD CERES CA 95307 053-038-004 $75,024 690 232 JOSE FERNANDO MARTINEZ 2601 E SERVICE RD CERES CA 95307 053-038-005 $197,015 121 233 JIM L WYATT 3530 E SERVICE RD CERES CA 95307 053-038-006 $408,964 640 234 JIM L WYATT 3530 E SERVICE RD CERES CA 95307 053-038-007 $189,221 630 235 CITY OF CERES 2720 2ND ST CERES CA 95307 053-013-001 $0 900 236 LOUISE E BAKER 1629 W WHITMORE AVE MODESTO CA 95358 053-013-002 $34,808 330 237 LOUISE E BAKER 1629 W WHITMORE AVE MODESTO CA 95358 053-013-003 $75,418 101 238 DIRK L WYATT, et. Al 4761 E SERVICE RD CERES CA 95307 053-013-005 $86,012 330 239 JAVIER JAIME, et. Al 2632 DON PEDRO RD CERES CA 95307 053-013-004 $125,394 491 240 TONY GALVEZ 3736 EL CAMINO AVE CERES CA 95307 053-013-006 $81,127 491 241 GERARDO JOSE SANCHEZ CORDOVA 1001 MOON RIVER WAY CERES CA 95307 053-013-007 $242,046 261 242 ALSUMERI FAHMI 2001 CROWS LANDING RD MODESTO CA 95358 053-013-008 $630,995 261 243 CITY OF CERES 2720 2ND ST CERES CA 95307 053-013-009 $0 900 244 DIRK L WYATT, et. Al 4761 E SERVICE RD CERES CA 95307 053-013-010 $173,979 491

EXHIBIT B, COPPER TRAILS ANNEXATION PARCEL OWNER LIST
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
APPENDIX C
AIR QUALITY MODELING RESULTS
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails max construct Summary Report, 4/29/2024
1 / 6
Copper Trails max construct Summary 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

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

7. Health and Equity Details

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails max construct Summary Report, 4/29/2024
2 / 6

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Copper Trails max construct
Construction Start Date 4/1/2027
Operational Year 2035
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Plan/community
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 3.10
Precipitation (days) 29.2
Location 37.577990296205584, -120.95273877771139
County Stanislaus
City Unincorporated
Air District San Joaquin Valley APCD
Air Basin San Joaquin Valley
TAZ 2260
EDFZ 14
Electric Utility Turlock Irrigation District
Gas Utility Pacific Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.22

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
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails max construct Summary Report, 4/29/2024
3 / 6
Single Family
Housing
478 Dwelling Unit 155 932,100 5,598,746 — 1,515 —
Regional Shopping
Center
234 1000sqft 5.37 233,917 0.00 — — —

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

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.71 3.12 28.0 29.1 0.06 1.17 19.8 21.0 1.08 10.1 11.2 — 6,755 6,755 0.27 0.38 11.1 6,780 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.60 348 13.8 25.3 0.04 0.38 2.80 3.18 0.36 0.68 1.03 — 6,554 6,554 0.21 0.40 0.32 6,679 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.14 20.0 6.61 11.0 0.02 0.21 1.48 1.69 0.19 0.47 0.66 — 2,837 2,837 0.09 0.16 2.01 2,889 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.21 3.64 1.21 2.01 < 0.005 0.04 0.27 0.31 0.03 0.09 0.12 — 470 470 0.01 0.03 0.33 478

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) EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails max construct Summary Report, 4/29/2024
4 / 6
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. 70.5 82.6 33.7 370 0.91 16.4 49.7 66.1 15.8 12.6 28.4 3,023 72,198 75,221 61.9 8.89 77.1 79,495 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 63.1 75.3 36.7 315 0.86 16.4 49.7 66.0 15.8 12.6 28.4 3,023 68,090 71,113 62.4 9.10 9.60 75,393 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 40.5 62.6 27.0 213 0.51 4.14 41.3 45.4 4.00 10.5 14.5 1,009 57,895 58,904 52.3 8.56 33.2 62,796 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 7.39 11.4 4.92 38.9 0.09 0.76 7.53 8.29 0.73 1.92 2.65 167 9,585 9,752 8.65 1.42 5.49 10,397

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 0 0 0 N/A
Drought 0 0 0 N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails max construct Summary Report, 4/29/2024
5 / 6
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 1 1 1 2
Drought 1 1 1 2
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

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

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

7. Health and Equity Details

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 71.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 12.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) Yes Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) Yes Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails max construct Summary Report, 4/29/2024
6 / 6
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.

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

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
CTSP Operations WR Detailed Report, 5/1/2024
1 / 72
CTSP Operations WR 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

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
CTSP Operations WR Detailed Report, 5/1/2024
2 / 72

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

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
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
CTSP Operations WR Detailed Report, 5/1/2024
3 / 72

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

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 EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
CTSP Operations WR Detailed Report, 5/1/2024
4 / 72

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

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 EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
CTSP Operations WR Detailed Report, 5/1/2024
5 / 72

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.9.2. Mitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.1.2. Mitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.11.2. Mitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.12.2. Mitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
CTSP Operations WR Detailed Report, 5/1/2024
6 / 72

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

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
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
CTSP Operations WR Detailed Report, 5/1/2024
7 / 72

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

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
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
CTSP Operations WR Detailed Report, 5/1/2024
8 / 72

8. User Changes to Default Data
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
CTSP Operations WR Detailed Report, 5/1/2024
9 / 72

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name CTSP Operations WR
Construction Start Date 4/15/2026
Operational Year 2050
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Plan/community
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 3.10
Precipitation (days) 29.2
Location 37.57670786707898, -120.9527522059472
County Stanislaus
City Unincorporated
Air District San Joaquin Valley APCD
Air Basin San Joaquin Valley
TAZ 2260
EDFZ 14
Electric Utility Turlock Irrigation District
Gas Utility Pacific Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.22

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
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
CTSP Operations WR Detailed Report, 5/1/2024
10 / 72
Single Family
Housing
1,286 Dwelling Unit 418 2,507,700 15,062,734 — 4,077 —
Apartments Low
Rise
880 Dwelling Unit 55.0 932,800 93,280 — 2,790 —
Condo/Townhouse 336 Dwelling Unit 21.0 356,160 35,616 — 1,065 — Regional Shopping
Center
676 1000sqft 15.5 676,269 67,627 — — —
Supermarket 65.0 1000sqft 1.49 65,000 6,500 — — —
General Office
Building
195 1000sqft 4.47 194,931 19,493 — — —
Hotel 250 Room 8.33 363,000 36,300 — — —
Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru

19.6 1000sqft 0.45 19,602 1,960 — — —
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)

19.6 1000sqft 0.45 19,602 1,960 — — —

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title
Transportation T-18 Provide Pedestrian Network Improvement Transportation T-34* Provide Bike Parking
Transportation T-37* Dedicate Land for Bike Trails
Transportation T-50* Required Project Contributions to Transportation Infrastructure Improvement
Energy E-1 Buildings Exceed 2019 Title 24 Building Envelope Energy Efficiency Standards
Water W-7 Adopt a Water Conservation Strategy
Waste S-1/S-2 Implement Waste Reduction Plan
* Qualitative or supporting measure. Emission reductions not included in the mitigated emissions results.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
CTSP Operations WR Detailed Report, 5/1/2024
11 / 72

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily - Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily - Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —

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 ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily - Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily - Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
CTSP Operations WR Detailed Report, 5/1/2024
12 / 72
Daily, Summer — — — — — — — — — — —
(Max)
Unmit. 311 134 1,619 4.27 85.2 237 322 82.1 60.1 142 382,459 Mit. 304 128 1,565 4.12 85.0 222 307 82.0 56.3 138 359,991 % Reduced 2% 5% 3% 3% < 0.5% 6% 5% < 0.5% 6% 3% 6%
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 283 143 1,305 4.08 85.0 237 322 82.0 60.1 142 364,044 Mit. 276 137 1,259 3.95 84.9 222 306 81.8 56.3 138 342,714 % Reduced 2% 5% 4% 3% < 0.5% 6% 5% < 0.5% 6% 3% 6%
Average Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 226 95.7 780 2.03 21.0 165 186 20.3 42.0 62.3 277,594 Mit. 220 90.6 745 1.93 20.9 155 175 20.2 39.3 59.5 259,755 % Reduced 2% 5% 4% 5% 1% 6% 6% 1% 6% 4% 6%
Annual (Max) — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 41.2 17.5 142 0.37 3.84 30.1 34.0 3.70 7.66 11.4 45,959 Mit. 40.2 16.5 136 0.35 3.82 28.2 32.0 3.68 7.17 10.9 43,005 % Reduced 2% 5% 4% 5% 1% 6% 6% 1% 6% 4% 6%

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 106 79.7 832 2.14 0.95 237 238 0.89 60.1 61.0 221,810 Area 203 31.8 774 1.98 82.5 — 82.5 79.4 — 79.4 42,176
Energy 1.28 22.4 12.7 0.14 1.77 — 1.77 1.77 — 1.77 93,079 Water — — — — — — — — — — 3,965
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
CTSP Operations WR Detailed Report, 5/1/2024
13 / 72
Waste—————————— 7,295
Refrig.—————————— 14,135
Total 311 134 1,619 4.27 85.2 237 322 82.1 60.1 142 382,459 Daily, Winter
(Max)
———————————
Mobile 100 90.9 719 1.96 0.95 237 238 0.89 60.1 61.0 204,016 Area 181 30.0 574 1.97 82.3— 82.3 79.3— 79.3 41,554
Energy 1.28 22.4 12.7 0.14 1.77— 1.77 1.77— 1.77 93,079 Water—————————— 3,965
Waste—————————— 7,295
Refrig.—————————— 14,135
Total 283 143 1,305 4.08 85.0 237 322 82.0 60.1 142 364,044 Average Daily———————————
Mobile 81.3 65.7 539 1.44 0.69 165 166 0.65 42.0 42.6 149,479 Area 143 7.62 228 0.45 18.6— 18.6 17.9— 17.9 9,642
Energy 1.28 22.4 12.7 0.14 1.77— 1.77 1.77— 1.77 93,079 Water—————————— 3,965
Waste—————————— 7,295
Refrig.—————————— 14,135
Total 226 95.7 780 2.03 21.0 165 186 20.3 42.0 62.3 277,594 Annual———————————
Mobile 14.8 12.0 98.4 0.26 0.13 30.1 30.3 0.12 7.66 7.78 24,748 Area 26.1 1.39 41.6 0.08 3.39— 3.39 3.26— 3.26 1,596
Energy 0.23 4.09 2.31 0.03 0.32— 0.32 0.32— 0.32 15,410 Water—————————— 656
Waste—————————— 1,208
Refrig.—————————— 2,340
Total 41.2 17.5 142 0.37 3.84 30.1 34.0 3.70 7.66 11.4 45,959 EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
CTSP Operations WR Detailed Report, 5/1/2024
14 / 72

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 99.3 74.6 778 2.01 0.89 222 222 0.84 56.3 57.1 207,615 Area 203 31.8 774 1.98 82.5 — 82.5 79.4 — 79.4 42,176
Energy 1.23 21.5 12.2 0.13 1.70 — 1.70 1.70 — 1.70 91,070 Water — — — — — — — — — — 3,172
Waste — — — — — — — — — — 1,824
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — 14,135
Total 304 128 1,565 4.12 85.0 222 307 82.0 56.3 138 359,991 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 93.7 85.1 673 1.84 0.89 222 222 0.84 56.3 57.1 190,959 Area 181 30.0 574 1.97 82.3 — 82.3 79.3 — 79.3 41,554
Energy 1.23 21.5 12.2 0.13 1.70 — 1.70 1.70 — 1.70 91,070 Water — — — — — — — — — — 3,172
Waste — — — — — — — — — — 1,824
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — 14,135
Total 276 137 1,259 3.95 84.9 222 306 81.8 56.3 138 342,714 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 76.1 61.5 505 1.35 0.64 155 155 0.61 39.3 39.9 139,912 Area 143 7.62 228 0.45 18.6 — 18.6 17.9 — 17.9 9,642
Energy 1.23 21.5 12.2 0.13 1.70 — 1.70 1.70 — 1.70 91,070 Water — — — — — — — — — — 3,172
Waste — — — — — — — — — — 1,824
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — 14,135
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
CTSP Operations WR Detailed Report, 5/1/2024
15 / 72
Total 220 90.6 745 1.93 20.9 155 175 20.2 39.3 59.5 259,755 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 13.9 11.2 92.1 0.25 0.12 28.2 28.3 0.11 7.17 7.28 23,164 Area 26.1 1.39 41.6 0.08 3.39 — 3.39 3.26 — 3.26 1,596
Energy 0.22 3.92 2.22 0.02 0.31 — 0.31 0.31 — 0.31 15,078 Water — — — — — — — — — — 525
Waste — — — — — — — — — — 302
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — 2,340
Total 40.2 16.5 136 0.35 3.82 28.2 32.0 3.68 7.17 10.9 43,005

3. Construction Emissions Details

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

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

15.6 13.0 146 0.40 0.17 44.1 44.3 0.16 11.2 11.4 40,886 Apartments
Low Rise

9.29 7.74 86.9 0.24 0.10 26.2 26.3 0.10 6.67 6.76 24,308 Condo/Townho
use

4.08 3.40 38.2 0.10 0.05 11.5 11.6 0.04 2.93 2.97 10,677 Regional
Shopping
Center

40.1 25.9 236 0.54 0.25 58.6 58.8 0.24 14.9 15.1 56,499 EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
CTSP Operations WR Detailed Report, 5/1/2024
16 / 72
Supermarket 14.8 11.9 130 0.35 0.15 38.4 38.6 0.14 9.77 9.91 35,748 General Office
Building

2.50 2.01 22.0 0.06 0.03 6.52 6.54 0.02 1.66 1.68 6,061 Hotel 2.25 1.81 19.8 0.05 0.02 5.86 5.88 0.02 1.49 1.51 5,444 Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru

14.3 11.4 125 0.33 0.15 37.1 37.3 0.14 9.43 9.56 34,498 High Turnover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)

3.18 2.55 27.9 0.07 0.03 8.27 8.30 0.03 2.10 2.13 7,690 Total 106 79.7 832 2.14 0.95 237 238 0.89 60.1 61.0 221,810 Daily, Winter
(Max)
———————————
Single Family
Housing

14.8 14.9 121 0.36 0.17 44.1 44.3 0.16 11.2 11.4 37,551 Apartments
Low Rise

8.77 8.84 72.2 0.22 0.10 26.2 26.3 0.10 6.67 6.76 22,325 Condo/Townho
use

3.85 3.88 31.7 0.09 0.05 11.5 11.6 0.04 2.93 2.97 9,806 Regional
Shopping
Center

37.9 29.5 220 0.50 0.25 58.6 58.8 0.24 14.9 15.1 52,150 Supermarket 14.0 13.5 109 0.32 0.15 38.4 38.6 0.14 9.77 9.91 32,848 General Office
Building

2.37 2.30 18.5 0.05 0.03 6.52 6.54 0.02 1.66 1.68 5,569 Hotel 2.12 2.06 16.7 0.05 0.02 5.86 5.88 0.02 1.49 1.51 5,002 Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru

13.5 13.1 106 0.31 0.15 37.1 37.3 0.14 9.43 9.56 31,699 High Turnover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)

3.00 2.91 23.5 0.07 0.03 8.27 8.30 0.03 2.10 2.13 7,066 Total 100 90.9 719 1.96 0.95 237 238 0.89 60.1 61.0 204,016 EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
CTSP Operations WR Detailed Report, 5/1/2024
17 / 72
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Single Family
Housing

2.64 2.50 22.1 0.07 0.03 7.73 7.76 0.03 1.96 1.99 6,214 Apartments
Low Rise

1.44 1.36 12.0 0.04 0.02 4.21 4.23 0.02 1.07 1.09 3,383 Condo/Townho
use

0.63 0.60 5.28 0.02 0.01 1.85 1.86 0.01 0.47 0.48 1,486 Regional
Shopping
Center

5.45 3.88 29.6 0.07 0.03 7.67 7.71 0.03 1.95 1.98 6,490 Supermarket 1.71 1.33 10.7 0.03 0.01 3.12 3.14 0.01 0.79 0.81 2,585 General Office
Building

0.33 0.30 2.59 0.01 < 0.005 0.88 0.89 < 0.005 0.22 0.23 713 Hotel 0.37 0.34 2.94 0.01 < 0.005 1.00 1.01 < 0.005 0.25 0.26 809 Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru

1.85 1.37 10.7 0.03 0.01 2.93 2.95 0.01 0.75 0.76 2,455 High Turnover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)

0.43 0.33 2.59 0.01 < 0.005 0.74 0.74 < 0.005 0.19 0.19 612 Total 14.8 12.0 98.4 0.26 0.13 30.1 30.3 0.12 7.66 7.78 24,748

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 ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Single Family
Housing

14.6 12.2 137 0.37 0.16 41.3 41.5 0.15 10.5 10.6 38,269 Apartments
Low Rise

8.70 7.25 81.3 0.22 0.10 24.6 24.7 0.09 6.24 6.33 22,753 EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
CTSP Operations WR Detailed Report, 5/1/2024
18 / 72
Condo/Townho 3.82 3.18 35.7 0.10 0.04 10.8 10.8 0.04 2.74 2.78 9,994 use
Regional
Shopping
Center

37.5 24.2 221 0.51 0.23 54.8 55.0 0.22 13.9 14.1 52,883 Supermarket 13.8 11.1 121 0.32 0.14 36.0 36.1 0.13 9.14 9.28 33,460 General Office
Building

2.34 1.88 20.6 0.05 0.02 6.10 6.13 0.02 1.55 1.57 5,673 Hotel 2.11 1.69 18.5 0.05 0.02 5.48 5.50 0.02 1.39 1.41 5,095 Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru

13.3 10.7 117 0.31 0.14 34.7 34.9 0.13 8.82 8.95 32,290 High Turnover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)

2.97 2.39 26.1 0.07 0.03 7.74 7.77 0.03 1.97 2.00 7,198 Total 99.3 74.6 778 2.01 0.89 222 222 0.84 56.3 57.1 207,615 Daily, Winter
(Max)
———————————
Single Family
Housing

13.8 13.9 114 0.34 0.16 41.3 41.5 0.15 10.5 10.6 35,148 Apartments
Low Rise

8.21 8.28 67.6 0.20 0.10 24.6 24.7 0.09 6.24 6.33 20,897 Condo/Townho
use

3.61 3.64 29.7 0.09 0.04 10.8 10.8 0.04 2.74 2.78 9,178 Regional
Shopping
Center

35.4 27.6 206 0.47 0.23 54.8 55.0 0.22 13.9 14.1 48,812 Supermarket 13.1 12.7 102 0.30 0.14 36.0 36.1 0.13 9.14 9.28 30,745 General Office
Building

2.21 2.15 17.4 0.05 0.02 6.10 6.13 0.02 1.55 1.57 5,213 Hotel 1.99 1.93 15.6 0.05 0.02 5.48 5.50 0.02 1.39 1.41 4,682 Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru

12.6 12.2 98.8 0.29 0.14 34.7 34.9 0.13 8.82 8.95 29,670 EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
CTSP Operations WR Detailed Report, 5/1/2024
19 / 72
High Turnover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)

2.81 2.73 22.0 0.06 0.03 7.74 7.77 0.03 1.97 2.00 6,614 Total 93.7 85.1 673 1.84 0.89 222 222 0.84 56.3 57.1 190,959 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Single Family
Housing

2.47 2.34 20.7 0.06 0.03 7.23 7.26 0.03 1.84 1.87 5,816 Apartments
Low Rise

1.34 1.27 11.3 0.03 0.02 3.94 3.96 0.01 1.00 1.02 3,167 Condo/Townho
use

0.59 0.56 4.94 0.01 0.01 1.73 1.74 0.01 0.44 0.45 1,391 Regional
Shopping
Center

5.10 3.64 27.7 0.06 0.03 7.18 7.21 0.03 1.83 1.85 6,075 Supermarket 1.60 1.25 9.99 0.03 0.01 2.92 2.94 0.01 0.74 0.75 2,419 General Office
Building

0.31 0.28 2.43 0.01 < 0.005 0.83 0.83 < 0.005 0.21 0.21 668 Hotel 0.35 0.32 2.75 0.01 < 0.005 0.94 0.94 < 0.005 0.24 0.24 757 Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru

1.73 1.28 9.99 0.02 0.01 2.75 2.76 0.01 0.70 0.71 2,298 High Turnover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)

0.40 0.31 2.42 0.01 < 0.005 0.69 0.69 < 0.005 0.18 0.18 573 Total 13.9 11.2 92.1 0.25 0.12 28.2 28.3 0.11 7.17 7.28 23,164

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
CTSP Operations WR Detailed Report, 5/1/2024
20 / 72
Daily, Summer———————————
(Max)
Single Family
Housing
—————————— 21,515
Apartments
Low Rise
—————————— 7,676
Condo/Townho
use
—————————— 3,402
Regional
Shopping
Center
—————————— 12,317
Supermarket—————————— 6,242
General Office
Building
—————————— 7,825
Hotel—————————— 3,813
Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru
—————————— 1,188
High Turnover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)
—————————— 1,188
Total—————————— 65,165
Daily, Winter
(Max)
———————————
Single Family
Housing
—————————— 21,515
Apartments
Low Rise
—————————— 7,676
Condo/Townho
use
—————————— 3,402
Regional
Shopping
Center
—————————— 12,317
Supermarket—————————— 6,242
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
CTSP Operations WR Detailed Report, 5/1/2024
21 / 72
General Office
Building
—————————— 7,825
Hotel—————————— 3,813
Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru
—————————— 1,188
High Turnover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)
—————————— 1,188
Total—————————— 65,165
Annual———————————
Single Family
Housing
—————————— 3,562
Apartments
Low Rise
—————————— 1,271
Condo/Townho
use
—————————— 563
Regional
Shopping
Center
—————————— 2,039
Supermarket—————————— 1,033
General Office
Building
—————————— 1,295
Hotel—————————— 631
Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru
—————————— 197
High Turnover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)
—————————— 197
Total—————————— 10,789

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
CTSP Operations WR Detailed Report, 5/1/2024
22 / 72
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Single Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 21,438
Apartments
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 7,638
Condo/Townho
use
— — — — — — — — — — 3,389
Regional
Shopping
Center
— — — — — — — — — — 11,932
Supermarket — — — — — — — — — — 6,168
General Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — 7,638
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — 3,760
Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru
— — — — — — — — — — 1,177
High Turnover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)
— — — — — — — — — — 1,177
Total — — — — — — — — — — 64,318
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Single Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 21,438
Apartments
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 7,638
Condo/Townho
use
— — — — — — — — — — 3,389
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
CTSP Operations WR Detailed Report, 5/1/2024
23 / 72
Regional—————————— 11,932
Shopping
Center
Supermarket—————————— 6,168
General Office
Building
—————————— 7,638
Hotel—————————— 3,760
Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru
—————————— 1,177
High Turnover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)
—————————— 1,177
Total—————————— 64,318
Annual———————————
Single Family
Housing
—————————— 3,549
Apartments
Low Rise
—————————— 1,265
Condo/Townho
use
—————————— 561
Regional
Shopping
Center
—————————— 1,975
Supermarket—————————— 1,021
General Office
Building
—————————— 1,265
Hotel—————————— 623
Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru
—————————— 195
High Turnover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)
—————————— 195
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
CTSP Operations WR Detailed Report, 5/1/2024
24 / 72
Total — — — — — — — — — — 10,649

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

0.55 9.45 4.02 0.06 0.76 — 0.76 0.76 — 0.76 12,023
Apartments
Low Rise

0.20 3.38 1.44 0.02 0.27 — 0.27 0.27 — 0.27 4,298
Condo/Townho
use

0.12 1.97 0.84 0.01 0.16 — 0.16 0.16 — 0.16 2,507
Regional
Shopping
Center

0.08 1.45 1.22 0.01 0.11 — 0.11 0.11 — 0.11 1,733
Supermarket 0.03 0.50 0.42 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 598 General Office
Building

0.09 1.68 1.41 0.01 0.13 — 0.13 0.13 — 0.13 2,012
Hotel 0.17 3.01 2.53 0.02 0.23 — 0.23 0.23 — 0.23 3,598 Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru

0.03 0.48 0.40 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 572
High Turnover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)

0.03 0.48 0.40 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 572
Total 1.28 22.4 12.7 0.14 1.77 — 1.77 1.77 — 1.77 27,914 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Single Family
Housing

0.55 9.45 4.02 0.06 0.76 — 0.76 0.76 — 0.76 12,023
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
CTSP Operations WR Detailed Report, 5/1/2024
25 / 72
Apartments 0.20 3.38 1.44 0.02 0.27— 0.27 0.27— 0.27 4,298 Low Rise
Condo/Townho
use

0.12 1.97 0.84 0.01 0.16— 0.16 0.16— 0.16 2,507
Regional
Shopping
Center

0.08 1.45 1.22 0.01 0.11— 0.11 0.11— 0.11 1,733
Supermarket 0.03 0.50 0.42 < 0.005 0.04— 0.04 0.04— 0.04 598 General Office
Building

0.09 1.68 1.41 0.01 0.13— 0.13 0.13— 0.13 2,012
Hotel 0.17 3.01 2.53 0.02 0.23— 0.23 0.23— 0.23 3,598
Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru

0.03 0.48 0.40 < 0.005 0.04— 0.04 0.04— 0.04 572
High Turnover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)

0.03 0.48 0.40 < 0.005 0.04— 0.04 0.04— 0.04 572
Total 1.28 22.4 12.7 0.14 1.77— 1.77 1.77— 1.77 27,914
Annual———————————
Single Family
Housing

0.10 1.72 0.73 0.01 0.14— 0.14 0.14— 0.14 1,990
Apartments
Low Rise

0.04 0.62 0.26 < 0.005 0.05— 0.05 0.05— 0.05 712
Condo/Townho
use

0.02 0.36 0.15 < 0.005 0.03— 0.03 0.03— 0.03 415
Regional
Shopping
Center

0.01 0.26 0.22 < 0.005 0.02— 0.02 0.02— 0.02 287
Supermarket 0.01 0.09 0.08 < 0.005 0.01— 0.01 0.01— 0.01 98.9 General Office
Building

0.02 0.31 0.26 < 0.005 0.02— 0.02 0.02— 0.02 333
Hotel 0.03 0.55 0.46 < 0.005 0.04— 0.04 0.04— 0.04 596
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
CTSP Operations WR Detailed Report, 5/1/2024
26 / 72
Fast Food < 0.005 0.09 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 94.8 Restaurant with
Drive Thru
High Turnover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)
< 0.005 0.09 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 94.8
Total 0.23 4.09 2.31 0.03 0.32 — 0.32 0.32 — 0.32 4,621

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

0.53 9.02 3.84 0.06 0.73 — 0.73 0.73 — 0.73 11,483
Apartments
Low Rise

0.19 3.23 1.38 0.02 0.26 — 0.26 0.26 — 0.26 4,113
Condo/Townho
use

0.11 1.88 0.80 0.01 0.15 — 0.15 0.15 — 0.15 2,397
Regional
Shopping
Center

0.08 1.38 1.16 0.01 0.10 — 0.10 0.10 — 0.10 1,649
Supermarket 0.03 0.49 0.41 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 584 General Office
Building

0.09 1.62 1.36 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.12 — 0.12 1,936
Hotel 0.16 2.88 2.42 0.02 0.22 — 0.22 0.22 — 0.22 3,448 Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru

0.03 0.48 0.40 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 571
High Turnover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)

0.03 0.48 0.40 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 571
Total 1.23 21.5 12.2 0.13 1.70 — 1.70 1.70 — 1.70 26,752 EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
CTSP Operations WR Detailed Report, 5/1/2024
27 / 72
Daily, Winter
(Max)
———————————
Single Family
Housing

0.53 9.02 3.84 0.06 0.73— 0.73 0.73— 0.73 11,483
Apartments
Low Rise

0.19 3.23 1.38 0.02 0.26— 0.26 0.26— 0.26 4,113
Condo/Townho
use

0.11 1.88 0.80 0.01 0.15— 0.15 0.15— 0.15 2,397
Regional
Shopping
Center

0.08 1.38 1.16 0.01 0.10— 0.10 0.10— 0.10 1,649
Supermarket 0.03 0.49 0.41 < 0.005 0.04— 0.04 0.04— 0.04 584 General Office
Building

0.09 1.62 1.36 0.01 0.12— 0.12 0.12— 0.12 1,936
Hotel 0.16 2.88 2.42 0.02 0.22— 0.22 0.22— 0.22 3,448
Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru

0.03 0.48 0.40 < 0.005 0.04— 0.04 0.04— 0.04 571
High Turnover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)

0.03 0.48 0.40 < 0.005 0.04— 0.04 0.04— 0.04 571
Total 1.23 21.5 12.2 0.13 1.70— 1.70 1.70— 1.70 26,752
Annual———————————
Single Family
Housing

0.10 1.65 0.70 0.01 0.13— 0.13 0.13— 0.13 1,901
Apartments
Low Rise

0.03 0.59 0.25 < 0.005 0.05— 0.05 0.05— 0.05 681
Condo/Townho
use

0.02 0.34 0.15 < 0.005 0.03— 0.03 0.03— 0.03 397
Regional
Shopping
Center

0.01 0.25 0.21 < 0.005 0.02— 0.02 0.02— 0.02 273
Supermarket < 0.005 0.09 0.07 < 0.005 0.01— 0.01 0.01— 0.01 96.7 EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
CTSP Operations WR Detailed Report, 5/1/2024
28 / 72
General Office
Building

0.02 0.30 0.25 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 321
Hotel 0.03 0.53 0.44 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 571 Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru
< 0.005 0.09 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 94.5
High Turnover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)
< 0.005 0.09 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 94.5
Total 0.22 3.92 2.22 0.02 0.31 — 0.31 0.31 — 0.31 4,429

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 63.4 30.0 574 1.97 82.3 — 82.3 79.3 — 79.3 41,554 Consumer
Products
110 — — — — — — — — — —
Architectural
Coatings

8.21 — — — — — — — — — —
Landscape
Equipment

21.9 1.80 201 0.01 0.17 — 0.17 0.13 — 0.13 621
Total 203 31.8 774 1.98 82.5 — 82.5 79.4 — 79.4 42,176
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 63.4 30.0 574 1.97 82.3 — 82.3 79.3 — 79.3 41,554 Consumer
Products
110 — — — — — — — — — —
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
CTSP Operations WR Detailed Report, 5/1/2024
29 / 72
Architectural 8.21 — — — — — — — — — —
Coatings
Total 181 30.0 574 1.97 82.3 — 82.3 79.3 — 79.3 41,554
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 2.60 1.23 23.5 0.08 3.37 — 3.37 3.25 — 3.25 1,546 Consumer
Products

20.1 — — — — — — — — — —
Architectural
Coatings

1.50 — — — — — — — — — —
Landscape
Equipment

1.97 0.16 18.1 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.01 — 0.01 50.7
Total 26.1 1.39 41.6 0.08 3.39 — 3.39 3.26 — 3.26 1,596

4.3.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 63.4 30.0 574 1.97 82.3 — 82.3 79.3 — 79.3 41,554 Consumer
Products
110 — — — — — — — — — —
Architectural
Coatings

8.21 — — — — — — — — — —
Landscape
Equipment

21.9 1.80 201 0.01 0.17 — 0.17 0.13 — 0.13 621
Total 203 31.8 774 1.98 82.5 — 82.5 79.4 — 79.4 42,176
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 63.4 30.0 574 1.97 82.3 — 82.3 79.3 — 79.3 41,554 Consumer
Products
110 — — — — — — — — — —
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
CTSP Operations WR Detailed Report, 5/1/2024
30 / 72
Architectural
Coatings

8.21 — — — — — — — — — —
Total 181 30.0 574 1.97 82.3 — 82.3 79.3 — 79.3 41,554
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 2.60 1.23 23.5 0.08 3.37 — 3.37 3.25 — 3.25 1,546 Consumer
Products

20.1 — — — — — — — — — —
Architectural
Coatings

1.50 — — — — — — — — — —
Landscape
Equipment

1.97 0.16 18.1 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.01 — 0.01 50.7
Total 26.1 1.39 41.6 0.08 3.39 — 3.39 3.26 — 3.26 1,596

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Single Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 1,619
Apartments
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 519
Condo/Townho
use
— — — — — — — — — — 198
Regional
Shopping
Center
— — — — — — — — — — 735
Supermarket — — — — — — — — — — 117
General Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — 507
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
CTSP Operations WR Detailed Report, 5/1/2024
31 / 72
Hotel—————————— 94.4
Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru
—————————— 87.1
High Turnover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)
—————————— 87.1
Total—————————— 3,965
Daily, Winter
(Max)
———————————
Single Family
Housing
—————————— 1,619
Apartments
Low Rise
—————————— 519
Condo/Townho
use
—————————— 198
Regional
Shopping
Center
—————————— 735
Supermarket—————————— 117
General Office
Building
—————————— 507
Hotel—————————— 94.4
Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru
—————————— 87.1
High Turnover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)
—————————— 87.1
Total—————————— 3,965
Annual———————————
Single Family
Housing
—————————— 268
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
CTSP Operations WR Detailed Report, 5/1/2024
32 / 72
Apartments
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 85.9
Condo/Townho
use
— — — — — — — — — — 32.8
Regional
Shopping
Center
— — — — — — — — — — 122
Supermarket — — — — — — — — — — 19.4
General Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — 84.0
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — 15.6
Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru
— — — — — — — — — — 14.4
High Turnover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)
— — — — — — — — — — 14.4
Total — — — — — — — — — — 656

4.4.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Single Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 1,295
Apartments
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 415
Condo/Townho
use
— — — — — — — — — — 158
Regional
Shopping
Center
— — — — — — — — — — 588
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
CTSP Operations WR Detailed Report, 5/1/2024
33 / 72
Supermarket—————————— 93.9
General Office
Building
—————————— 406
Hotel—————————— 75.5
Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru
—————————— 69.6
High Turnover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)
—————————— 69.6
Total—————————— 3,172
Daily, Winter
(Max)
———————————
Single Family
Housing
—————————— 1,295
Apartments
Low Rise
—————————— 415
Condo/Townho
use
—————————— 158
Regional
Shopping
Center
—————————— 588
Supermarket—————————— 93.9
General Office
Building
—————————— 406
Hotel—————————— 75.5
Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru
—————————— 69.6
High Turnover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)
—————————— 69.6
Total—————————— 3,172
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
CTSP Operations WR Detailed Report, 5/1/2024
34 / 72
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Single Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 214
Apartments
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 68.7
Condo/Townho
use
— — — — — — — — — — 26.2
Regional
Shopping
Center
— — — — — — — — — — 97.4
Supermarket — — — — — — — — — — 15.6
General Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — 67.2
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — 12.5
Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru
— — — — — — — — — — 11.5
High Turnover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)
— — — — — — — — — — 11.5
Total — — — — — — — — — — 525

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Single Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 2,104
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
CTSP Operations WR Detailed Report, 5/1/2024
35 / 72
Apartments—————————— 1,227
Low Rise
Condo/Townho
use
—————————— 468
Regional
Shopping
Center
—————————— 1,339
Supermarket—————————— 691
General Office
Building
—————————— 342
Hotel—————————— 258
Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru
—————————— 426
High Turnover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)
—————————— 440
Total—————————— 7,295
Daily, Winter
(Max)
———————————
Single Family
Housing
—————————— 2,104
Apartments
Low Rise
—————————— 1,227
Condo/Townho
use
—————————— 468
Regional
Shopping
Center
—————————— 1,339
Supermarket—————————— 691
General Office
Building
—————————— 342
Hotel—————————— 258
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
CTSP Operations WR Detailed Report, 5/1/2024
36 / 72
Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru
— — — — — — — — — — 426
High Turnover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)
— — — — — — — — — — 440
Total — — — — — — — — — — 7,295
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Single Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 348
Apartments
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 203
Condo/Townho
use
— — — — — — — — — — 77.6
Regional
Shopping
Center
— — — — — — — — — — 222
Supermarket — — — — — — — — — — 114
General Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — 56.6
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — 42.7
Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru
— — — — — — — — — — 70.5
High Turnover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)
— — — — — — — — — — 72.8
Total — — — — — — — — — — 1,208

4.5.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
CTSP Operations WR Detailed Report, 5/1/2024
37 / 72
Daily, Summer
(Max)
———————————
Single Family
Housing
—————————— 526
Apartments
Low Rise
—————————— 307
Condo/Townho
use
—————————— 117
Regional
Shopping
Center
—————————— 335
Supermarket—————————— 173
General Office
Building
—————————— 85.5
Hotel—————————— 64.5
Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru
—————————— 106
High Turnover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)
—————————— 110
Total—————————— 1,824
Daily, Winter
(Max)
———————————
Single Family
Housing
—————————— 526
Apartments
Low Rise
—————————— 307
Condo/Townho
use
—————————— 117
Regional
Shopping
Center
—————————— 335
Supermarket—————————— 173
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
CTSP Operations WR Detailed Report, 5/1/2024
38 / 72
General Office
Building
—————————— 85.5
Hotel—————————— 64.5
Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru
—————————— 106
High Turnover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)
—————————— 110
Total—————————— 1,824
Annual———————————
Single Family
Housing
—————————— 87.1
Apartments
Low Rise
—————————— 50.8
Condo/Townho
use
—————————— 19.4
Regional
Shopping
Center
—————————— 55.4
Supermarket—————————— 28.6
General Office
Building
—————————— 14.1
Hotel—————————— 10.7
Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru
—————————— 17.6
High Turnover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)
—————————— 18.2
Total—————————— 302

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
CTSP Operations WR Detailed Report, 5/1/2024
39 / 72

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Single Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 18.0
Apartments
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 6.68
Condo/Townho
use
— — — — — — — — — — 2.55
Regional
Shopping
Center
— — — — — — — — — — 3.25
Supermarket — — — — — — — — — — 13,476
General Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — 0.47
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — 567
Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru
— — — — — — — — — — 30.6
High Turnover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)
— — — — — — — — — — 30.6
Total — — — — — — — — — — 14,135
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Single Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 18.0
Apartments
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 6.68
Condo/Townho
use
— — — — — — — — — — 2.55
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
CTSP Operations WR Detailed Report, 5/1/2024
40 / 72
Regional
Shopping
Center
—————————— 3.25
Supermarket—————————— 13,476
General Office
Building
—————————— 0.47
Hotel—————————— 567
Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru
—————————— 30.6
High Turnover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)
—————————— 30.6
Total—————————— 14,135
Annual———————————
Single Family
Housing
—————————— 2.97
Apartments
Low Rise
—————————— 1.11
Condo/Townho
use
—————————— 0.42
Regional
Shopping
Center
—————————— 0.54
Supermarket—————————— 2,231
General Office
Building
—————————— 0.08
Hotel—————————— 93.9
Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru
—————————— 5.07
High Turnover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)
—————————— 5.07
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
CTSP Operations WR Detailed Report, 5/1/2024
41 / 72
Total — — — — — — — — — — 2,340

4.6.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Single Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 18.0
Apartments
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 6.68
Condo/Townho
use
— — — — — — — — — — 2.55
Regional
Shopping
Center
— — — — — — — — — — 3.25
Supermarket — — — — — — — — — — 13,476
General Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — 0.47
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — 567
Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru
— — — — — — — — — — 30.6
High Turnover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)
— — — — — — — — — — 30.6
Total — — — — — — — — — — 14,135
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Single Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 18.0
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
CTSP Operations WR Detailed Report, 5/1/2024
42 / 72
Apartments—————————— 6.68
Low Rise
Condo/Townho
use
—————————— 2.55
Regional
Shopping
Center
—————————— 3.25
Supermarket—————————— 13,476
General Office
Building
—————————— 0.47
Hotel—————————— 567
Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru
—————————— 30.6
High Turnover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)
—————————— 30.6
Total—————————— 14,135
Annual———————————
Single Family
Housing
—————————— 2.97
Apartments
Low Rise
—————————— 1.11
Condo/Townho
use
—————————— 0.42
Regional
Shopping
Center
—————————— 0.54
Supermarket—————————— 2,231
General Office
Building
—————————— 0.08
Hotel—————————— 93.9
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
CTSP Operations WR Detailed Report, 5/1/2024
43 / 72
Fast Food — — — — — — — — — — 5.07
Restaurant with
Drive Thru
High Turnover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)
— — — — — — — — — — 5.07
Total — — — — — — — — — — 2,340

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) Equipment
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —

4.7.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
CTSP Operations WR Detailed Report, 5/1/2024
44 / 72
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) Equipment
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
CTSP Operations WR Detailed Report, 5/1/2024
45 / 72
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) Equipment
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —

4.9.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
CTSP Operations WR Detailed Report, 5/1/2024
46 / 72
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) Vegetation ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e 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 ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
CTSP Operations WR Detailed Report, 5/1/2024
47 / 72

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
CTSP Operations WR Detailed Report, 5/1/2024
48 / 72
— — — — — — — — — — — —

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) Vegetation ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
CTSP Operations WR Detailed Report, 5/1/2024
49 / 72
Species ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — —
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
CTSP Operations WR Detailed Report, 5/1/2024
50 / 72

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description

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

5.2.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.3.2. Mitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
CTSP Operations WR Detailed Report, 5/1/2024
51 / 72

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres)

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Single Family Housing 14.2 0%
Apartments Low Rise — 0%
Condo/Townhouse — 0%
Regional Shopping Center 0.00 0%
Supermarket 0.00 0%
General Office Building 0.00 0%
Hotel 0.00 0%
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 0.00 0%
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 0.00 0%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2026 0.00 609 0.24 0.34
2027 0.00 609 0.24 0.34
2028 0.00 609 0.24 0.34
2029 0.00 609 0.24 0.34
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
CTSP Operations WR Detailed Report, 5/1/2024
52 / 72
2030 0.00 609 0.24 0.34
2031 0.00 609 0.24 0.34
2032 0.00 609 0.24 0.34
2033 0.00 609 0.24 0.34
2034 0.00 609 0.24 0.34
2035 0.00 609 0.24 0.34
2036 0.00 609 0.24 0.34
2037 0.00 609 0.24 0.34
2038 0.00 609 0.24 0.34
2039 0.00 609 0.24 0.34
2040 0.00 609 0.24 0.34
2041 0.00 609 0.24 0.34
2042 0.00 609 0.24 0.34
2043 0.00 609 0.24 0.34
2044 0.00 609 0.24 0.34
2045 0.00 609 0.24 0.34
2046 0.00 609 0.24 0.34
2047 0.00 609 0.24 0.34
2048 0.00 609 0.24 0.34
2049 0.00 609 0.24 0.34
2050 0.00 609 0.24 0.34
2051 0.00 609 0.24 0.34
2052 0.00 609 0.24 0.34
2053 0.00 609 0.24 0.34
2054 0.00 609 0.24 0.34
2055 0.00 609 0.24 0.34
2056 0.00 609 0.24 0.34
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
CTSP Operations WR Detailed Report, 5/1/2024
53 / 72
2057 0.00 609 0.24 0.34
2058 0.00 609 0.24 0.34
2059 0.00 609 0.24 0.34
2060 0.00 609 0.24 0.34
2061 0.00 609 0.24 0.34
2062 0.00 609 0.24 0.34
2063 0.00 609 0.24 0.34
2064 0.00 609 0.24 0.34
2065 0.00 609 0.24 0.34
2066 0.00 609 0.24 0.34
2067 0.00 609 0.24 0.34
2068 0.00 609 0.24 0.34
2069 0.00 609 0.24 0.34
2070 0.00 609 0.24 0.34
2071 0.00 609 0.24 0.34
2072 0.00 609 0.24 0.34
2073 0.00 609 0.24 0.34
2074 0.00 609 0.24 0.34

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
8,558 8,649 7,751 3,086,306 61,485 62,136 55,688 22,173,637 Apartments Low
Rise
4,624 5,142 3,967 1,680,495 33,221 36,942 28,501 12,073,557 Condo/Townhouse 2,031 2,258 1,742 738,126 14,592 16,226 12,519 5,303,085 EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
CTSP Operations WR Detailed Report, 5/1/2024
54 / 72
Regional Shopping
Center
19,658 24,017 10,988 6,950,505 60,392 82,427 37,711 22,009,335 Supermarket 4,982 8,287 7,767 2,135,979 13,402 54,121 50,724 8,961,087 General Office
Building
1,405 319 101 388,192 9,176 2,082 659 2,535,179
Hotel 1,262 1,236 898 440,294 8,242 8,074 5,863 2,875,442 Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru
6,113 7,997 6,148 2,331,332 13,816 52,228 40,152 8,419,069 High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
1,402 1,530 1,783 538,240 3,777 9,990 11,642 2,112,690

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
8,010 8,095 7,255 2,888,783 57,550 58,159 52,124 20,754,524 Apartments Low
Rise
4,328 4,813 3,713 1,572,944 31,095 34,578 26,677 11,300,850 Condo/Townhouse 1,901 2,114 1,631 690,886 13,658 15,188 11,717 4,963,688 Regional Shopping
Center
18,400 22,480 10,285 6,505,672 56,527 77,151 35,298 20,600,737 Supermarket 4,663 7,757 7,270 1,999,276 12,545 50,657 47,477 8,387,578 General Office
Building
1,315 298 94.5 363,348 8,588 1,949 617 2,372,927
Hotel 1,181 1,157 840 412,115 7,714 7,557 5,488 2,691,414 Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru
5,722 7,485 5,755 2,182,127 12,932 48,886 37,582 7,880,249 High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
1,312 1,432 1,669 503,792 3,535 9,351 10,897 1,977,478
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
CTSP Operations WR Detailed Report, 5/1/2024
55 / 72

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Single Family Housing —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 643
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 643
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 64
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 64
Pellet Wood Stoves 0
Apartments Low Rise —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 440
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 440
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 44
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 44
Pellet Wood Stoves 0
Condo/Townhouse —
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
CTSP Operations WR Detailed Report, 5/1/2024
56 / 72
Wood Fireplaces0
Gas Fireplaces 168
Propane Fireplaces0
Electric Fireplaces0
No Fireplaces 168
Conventional Wood Stoves0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 17
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 17
Pellet Wood Stoves0

5.10.1.2. Mitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Single Family Housing—
Wood Fireplaces0
Gas Fireplaces 643
Propane Fireplaces0
Electric Fireplaces0
No Fireplaces 643
Conventional Wood Stoves0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 64
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 64
Pellet Wood Stoves0
Apartments Low Rise—
Wood Fireplaces0
Gas Fireplaces 440
Propane Fireplaces0
Electric Fireplaces0
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
CTSP Operations WR Detailed Report, 5/1/2024
57 / 72
No Fireplaces 440
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 44
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 44
Pellet Wood Stoves 0
Condo/Townhouse —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 168
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 168
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 17
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 17
Pellet Wood Stoves 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)
7688236.5 2,562,746 2,007,606 669,202 —

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
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
CTSP Operations WR Detailed Report, 5/1/2024
58 / 72
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Single Family Housing 10,964,062 609 0.2373 0.3390 37,409,773 Apartments Low Rise 3,911,484 609 0.2373 0.3390 13,375,236 Condo/Townhouse 1,733,479 609 0.2373 0.3390 7,801,902
Regional Shopping Center 6,276,857 609 0.2373 0.3390 5,393,186 Supermarket 3,181,093 609 0.2373 0.3390 1,859,331
General Office Building 3,987,453 609 0.2373 0.3390 6,261,418 Hotel 1,943,013 609 0.2373 0.3390 11,195,793
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive
Thru
605,289 609 0.2373 0.3390 1,780,867
High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)
605,289 609 0.2373 0.3390 1,780,867

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 10,924,757 609 0.2373 0.3390 35,730,800 Apartments Low Rise 3,892,470 609 0.2373 0.3390 12,798,810 Condo/Townhouse 1,727,145 609 0.2373 0.3390 7,459,048
Regional Shopping Center 6,080,502 609 0.2373 0.3390 5,130,028 EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
CTSP Operations WR Detailed Report, 5/1/2024
59 / 72
Supermarket 3,143,422 609 0.2373 0.3390 1,817,329
General Office Building 3,892,463 609 0.2373 0.3390 6,025,397 Hotel 1,916,109 609 0.2373 0.3390 10,728,979
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive
Thru
599,789 609 0.2373 0.3390 1,776,388
High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)
599,789 609 0.2373 0.3390 1,776,388

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Single Family Housing 51,334,837 254,268,039
Apartments Low Rise 35,128,038 1,574,623
Condo/Townhouse 13,412,524 601,220
Regional Shopping Center 50,092,950 934,024
Supermarket 8,012,434 89,774
General Office Building 34,645,817 269,226
Hotel 6,341,693 501,354
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 5,949,868 27,070
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 5,949,868 27,070

5.12.2. Mitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Single Family Housing 41,067,870 203,414,431
Apartments Low Rise 28,102,430 1,259,698
Condo/Townhouse 10,730,019 480,976
Regional Shopping Center 40,074,360 747,219
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
CTSP Operations WR Detailed Report, 5/1/2024
60 / 72
Supermarket 6,409,947 71,819
General Office Building 27,716,654 215,381
Hotel 5,073,354 401,083
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 4,759,894 21,656
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 4,759,894 21,656

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Single Family Housing 1,116 —
Apartments Low Rise 651 —
Condo/Townhouse 248 —
Regional Shopping Center 710 —
Supermarket 367 —
General Office Building 181 —
Hotel 137 —
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 226 —
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 233 —

5.13.2. Mitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Single Family Housing 279 —
Apartments Low Rise 163 —
Condo/Townhouse 62.1 —
Regional Shopping Center 178 —
Supermarket 91.6 —
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
CTSP Operations WR Detailed Report, 5/1/2024
61 / 72
General Office Building 45.3 —
Hotel 34.2 —
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 56.4 —
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 58.3 —

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Single Family Housing Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Single Family Housing Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
Apartments Low Rise Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Apartments Low Rise Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
Condo/Townhouse Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Condo/Townhouse Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
Regional Shopping
Center
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Regional Shopping
Center
Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
Supermarket Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
CTSP Operations WR Detailed Report, 5/1/2024
62 / 72
Supermarket Supermarket R-404A 3,922 26.5 16.5 16.5 18.0 refrigeration and
condensing units
General Office Building Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.02 0.60 0.00 1.00
General Office Building Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Hotel Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.00 0.60 0.00 1.00
Hotel Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 1.80 4.00 4.00 18.0
Hotel Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0
Fast Food Restaurant
with Drive Thru
Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.00 0.60 0.00 1.00
Fast Food Restaurant
with Drive Thru
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 1.80 4.00 4.00 18.0
Fast Food Restaurant
with Drive Thru
Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.00 0.60 0.00 1.00
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 1.80 4.00 4.00 18.0
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0

5.14.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Single Family Housing Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Single Family Housing Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
CTSP Operations WR Detailed Report, 5/1/2024
63 / 72
Apartments Low Rise Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Apartments Low Rise Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
Condo/Townhouse Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Condo/Townhouse Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
Regional Shopping
Center
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Regional Shopping
Center
Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
Supermarket Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Supermarket Supermarket
refrigeration and
condensing units
R-404A 3,922 26.5 16.5 16.5 18.0
General Office Building Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.02 0.60 0.00 1.00
General Office Building Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Hotel Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.00 0.60 0.00 1.00
Hotel Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 1.80 4.00 4.00 18.0
Hotel Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0
Fast Food Restaurant
with Drive Thru
Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.00 0.60 0.00 1.00
Fast Food Restaurant
with Drive Thru
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 1.80 4.00 4.00 18.0
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
CTSP Operations WR Detailed Report, 5/1/2024
64 / 72
Fast Food Restaurant R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0 with Drive Thru
Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.00 0.60 0.00 1.00
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 1.80 4.00 4.00 18.0
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.15.2. Mitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.16. Stationary Sources

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

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

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
CTSP Operations WR Detailed Report, 5/1/2024
65 / 72

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) EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
CTSP Operations WR Detailed Report, 5/1/2024
66 / 72

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 21.5 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 1.85 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 0.00 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

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

Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (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 0 0 0 N/A
Drought 0 0 0 N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
CTSP Operations WR Detailed Report, 5/1/2024
67 / 72
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

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

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

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

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

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

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

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

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
CTSP Operations WR Detailed Report, 5/1/2024
68 / 72
AQ-Ozone 72.5
AQ-PM 56.7
AQ-DPM 67.4
Drinking Water 97.0
Lead Risk Housing 59.3
Pesticides 96.9
Toxic Releases 31.4
Traffic 50.7
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 25.9
Groundwater 42.8
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 56.4
Impaired Water Bodies 0.00
Solid Waste 0.00
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 44.1
Cardio-vascular 64.7
Low Birth Weights 32.5
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 83.6
Housing 31.2
Linguistic 56.9
Poverty 70.1
Unemployment 86.8

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.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
CTSP Operations WR Detailed Report, 5/1/2024
69 / 72
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 16.92544591
Employed 5.00449121
Median HI 23.29013217
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 13.1271654
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 14.69267291
Transportation —
Auto Access 43.30809701
Active commuting 28.32028744
Social —
2-parent households 32.77300141
Voting 25.07378417
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 75.7602977
Park access 24.3295265
Retail density 12.83202874
Supermarket access 46.20813551
Tree canopy 56.28127807
Housing —
Homeownership 65.75131528
Housing habitability 29.21852945
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 25.83087386 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 10.77890414
Uncrowded housing 25.7153856
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
CTSP Operations WR Detailed Report, 5/1/2024
70 / 72
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 28.58976004
Arthritis 0.0
Asthma ER Admissions 54.4
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 11.8
Cognitively Disabled 1.8
Physically Disabled 4.7
Heart Attack ER Admissions 21.1
Mental Health Not Good 0.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0
Obesity 0.0
Pedestrian Injuries 42.5
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
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
CTSP Operations WR Detailed Report, 5/1/2024
71 / 72
Children 36.4
Elderly 65.5
English Speaking 60.2
Foreign-born 38.3
Outdoor Workers 9.2
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 79.4
Traffic Density 58.0
Traffic Access 0.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 89.3
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 33.2

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 71.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 12.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) Yes Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) Yes 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
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
CTSP Operations WR Detailed Report, 5/1/2024
72 / 72
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

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

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Construction: Construction Phases Evaluating operational emissions only.

Operations: Vehicle Data Per project traffic study, less internal trips.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
APPENDIX D
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE MATERIALS
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Element_Type Scientific_Name Common_Name Element_Code Federal_Status State_Status CDFW_Status CA_Rare_Plant_Rank Quad_Code Quad_Name Data_Status Taxonomic_So Animals -
Birds
Buteo swainsoni Swainsons hawk ABNKC19070 None Threatened - - 3712058 CERES Mapped and Unprocessed
Animals - Birds -
Accipitridae -
Buteo swainson
Animals -
Birds
Agelaius tricolor tricolored
blackbird
ABPBXB0020 None Threatened SSC - 3712058 CERES Mapped Animals - Birds - Icteridae -
Agelaius tricolor
Animals -
Birds
Athene
cunicularia
burrowing owl ABNSB10010 None None SSC - 3712058 CERES Unprocessed Animals - Birds - Strigidae -
Athene
cunicularia
Animals - Fish Cottus gulosus riffle sculpin AFC4E02140 None None SSC - 3712058 CERES Unprocessed Animals - Fish - Cottidae - Cottus
gulosus
Animals - Fish Mylopharodon
conocephalus
hardhead AFCJB25010 None None SSC - 3712058 CERES Mapped Animals - Fish - Cyprinidae -
Mylopharodon
conocephalus
Animals - Fish Oncorhynchus
mykiss irideus
pop. 11
steelhead -
Central Valley
DPS
AFCHA0209K Threatened None - - 3712058 CERES Mapped and Unprocessed
Animals - Fish -
Salmonidae -
Oncorhynchus
mykiss irideus
pop. 11
Animals - Fish Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha pop.
13 chinook salmon -
Central Valley
fall / late fall-run
ESU
AFCHA0205N None None SSC - 3712058 CERES Unprocessed Animals - Fish - Salmonidae -
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha pop
13 Animals -
Insects
Bombus
caliginosus
obscure bumble
bee
IIHYM24380 None None - - 3712058 CERES Mapped Animals - Insect - Apidae -
Bombus
caliginosus
Animals -
Insects
Bombus crotchii Crotch bumble
bee
IIHYM24480 None Candidate
Endangered
- - 3712058 CERES Mapped Animals - Insect
- Apidae -
Bombus crotchii
Animals -
Insects
Bombus
pensylvanicus
American
bumble bee
IIHYM24260 None None - - 3712058 CERES Mapped and
Unprocessed
Animals - Insect
- Apidae -
Bombus
pensylvanicus
Animals -
Insects
Desmocerus
californicus
dimorphus
valley elderberry
longhorn beetle
IICOL48011 Threatened None - - 3712058 CERES Mapped Animals - Insect - Cerambycidae
Desmocerus
californicus
dimorphus
Animals -
Insects
Lytta moesta moestan blister
beetle
IICOL4C020 None None - - 3712058 CERES Mapped Animals - Insect - Meloidae - Lytt
moesta
Animals -
Mammals
Corynorhinus
townsendii
Townsends bigeared batAMACC08010 None None SSC - 3712058 CERES Mapped Animals - Mammals -
Vespertilionidae
Corynorhinus
townsendii
Animals -
Mollusks
Anodonta
oregonensis
Oregon floater IMBIV04110 None None - - 3712058 CERES Unprocessed Animals - Mollusks -
Unionidae -
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Anodonta
oregonensis
Animals -
Mollusks
Gonidea
angulata
western ridged
mussel
IMBIV19010 None None-- 3712058 CERES Mapped Animals -
Mollusks -
Unionidae -
Gonidea
angulata
Plants -
Vascular
Atriplex cordulata
var. cordulata
heartscale PDCHE040B0 None None- 1B.2 3712058 CERES Mapped Plants - Vascula - Chenopodiacea
- Atriplex
cordulata var.
cordulata
Plants -
Vascular
Atriplex subtilis subtle orache PDCHE042T0 None None- 1B.2 3712058 CERES Mapped Plants - Vascula - Chenopodiacea
- Atriplex subtilis
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Standards and Support Team, [email protected]
Wetlands
Estuarine and Marine Deepwater
Estuarine and Marine Wetland
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
Freshwater Pond
Lake
Other
Riverine
September 22, 2023
0 0.125 0.25 0.5 mi
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 km
1:15,047
This page was produced by the NWI mapper
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)
This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is not responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the base data shown on this map. All wetlands related data should be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on the Wetlands Mapper web site.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
APPENDIX E
CULTURAL RESOURCE MATERIALS
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Date: 12/20/2023 Records Search File #: 12758N
Project: Copper Trails Specific Plan EIR
Rayanna Beck
BaseCamp Environmental, Inc.
802 W. Lodi Ave.

Lodi, CA 95240 [email protected]
209-224-8213
Dear Ms. Beck:

We have conducted a non-confidential extended records search as per your request for the abovereferenced project areas located on the Ceres USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle map in Stanislaus County.

Search of our files includes review of our maps for the specific project area and the immediate vicinity of the project area, and review of the following:

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)
California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR)
California Inventory of Historic Resources (1976)
California Historical Landmarks
California Points of Historical Interest listing
Office of Historic Preservation Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD) and the Archaeological Resources Directory (ARD)
Survey of Surveys (1989)
Caltrans State and Local Bridges Inventory
General Land Office Plats
Other pertinent historic data available at the CCaIC for each specific county The following details the results of the records search:

Prehistoric or historic resources within the project area:
• There are no formally recorded prehistoric or historic archaeological resources within the project area.
• There are 20 historic buildings (single family properties) and two historic structures (Southern Pacific Railroad and TID Ceres Main Canal) formally recorded on or adjacent to the project area (see attached list). Nineteen of the single family properties and the Southern Pacific Railroad are referenced in the Office of Historic Preservation Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD) with the evaluation status of “6Y”, determined

CENTRAL CALIFORNIA INFORMATION CENTER
California Historical Resources Information System
Department of Anthropology – California State University, Stanislaus One University Circle, Turlock, California 95382
(209) 667-3307
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Alpine, Calaveras, Mariposa, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus & Tuolumne Counties EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
ineligible for the National Register by consensus through the Section 106 process, not evaluated for the California Register of Historical Resources or for local listing (see attached list). Please be advised that there are additional listings for Ceres in the BERD that may fall within the project area that we do not have documents on file for (see attached Excel file).
• The General Land Office survey plat for T4S R9E (dated 1854) shows a road extending southwest to northeast through Sections 14 and 23, but no other historic features within Sections 22 or 24.
• The Official Map of the County of Stanislaus, California (1906) shows the City of Ceres street configuration and numerous parcels with no specific landowners referenced. • The 1916 edition of the Ceres USGS quadrangle references the City of Ceres layout, the Southern Pacific Railroad and TID Ceres Main Canal.

Prehistoric or historic resources within the immediate vicinity of the project area: None other than the historic buildings and structures referenced above.

Resources that are known to have value to local cultural groups: None has been formally reported to the Information Center.

Previous investigations within the project area: There have been investigations within portions of the project area, referenced in the following fourteen documents:

Swenson, L. (Caltrans District 10)
1980 An Archaeological Survey Report for the Proposed Keyes Freeway Segment of Highway 99 in Stanislaus County, 10-Sta-99, 7.3/10.9, 10204-058201.

CCaIC Report ST-00936
Richards, R. J. (Caltrans District 10, Heritage Preservation Section) 1980 Historic Property Survey Report: State Highway 99, Stanislaus County, Post Mile R7.3/R10.9, Keyes Freeway. [includes ASR by L. Swenson (also separate as ST-936) and HASR by J. Snyder].

CCaIC Report ST-01754
Snyder, J. (Caltrans District 10)
1980 An Historic Architectural Survey of 10-Sta-99, P.M. 7.3/10.9.

CCaIC Report ST-01754
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Hatoff, B., B. Voss, S. Waechter, S. Wee, and V. Bente (Woodward-Clyde Consultants; for Mojave Pipeline Company)
1995 Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion Project.

CCaIC Report ST-02759
Nelson, W. J. (Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc.; for Parsons, Brinckerhoff Network Services)
2000 Cultural Resources Survey for the Level (3) Communications Long Haul Fiber Optics Project; Segment WS04: Sacramento to Bakersfield.

CCaIC Report ST-03995
SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA Environmental Consultants; for Qwest Communications)
2006 Cultural Resources Final Report of Monitoring and Findings for the QWest Network Construction Project, State of California. SWCA Project No. 10715-180.

CCaIC Report ST-06345
Peak, M. A. (Peak & Associates, Inc.; for EIP Associates) 2006 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Turlock Irrigation District's Regional Water Supply Project, County of Stanislaus, California.

CCaIC Report ST-06446
Haley, Kathryn (Jones & Stokes; for Caltrans District 10) 2006 State Route 99/Mitchell Road/Service Road Interchange Reconstruction, Historic Property Survey Report (Includes Historical Resources Evaluation Report and Archaeological Survey Report), State Route 99/Mitchell Road, Ceres, Californis, 10-STA-99-KP 15.6-17.5 (PM 9.7-10.9), EA 10-1A690.

CCaIC Report ST-06477
Jones & Stokes (Jones & Stokes; for City of Ceres, Nolte Associates, and Caltrans District 6)
2006 Archaelogical Survey Report for the State Route 99/Mitchell Road/Service Road Interchange Reconstruction.

CCaIC Report ST-06477b
Arrington, C., L. Harrington, and P. Daly (Cultural Research Associates; for Parus Consulting)
2009 Cultural Resources Inventory for the Hughson-Grayson 115kV Transmission Line and Substation Project in Stanislaus County, California.

CCaIC Report ST-06977
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Peak, M. A. (Peak and Associates, Inc.; for Rincon Consultants, Inc.) 2009 Letter Report Re: Elementary School Sites 13 and 14, Ceres Unified School District, (Job #09-057).

CCIC Report ST-07057
Kuzak, C. (Caltrans District 10)
2011 Historic Property Survey Report, 10-STA-99, P.M. 0.0/24.8, 2576 EFIS1000020344, Stanislaus County, California.

CCaIC Report ST-07537
Clifton, V., and M. Cornelius (EBI Consulting fo Verizon Wireless) 2015 Cultural Resource Survey, Ceres-Moffet/Ensite #23420 (296105), 4037 Moffett Road, Ceres, Stanislaus Couny, California, 95307, NE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of section 23 T04S R09E, EBI Projet No. 6114009751.

CCaIC Report ST-08212
Haley, K. (ICF for City of Ceres and Caltrans)
2017 Finding of No Adverse Effect for the State Route 99/Service Road/Mitchell Road Interchange Project, City of Ceres, Stanislaus County, California; California Department of Transportation District 10, Stanislaus County, State Route 99, Post Miles 9.5-11.4; EA 10-1A690; Project ID 10-0000-0375.

CCaIC Report ST-08825
Recommendations/Comments:

Please be advised that a historical resource is defined as a building, structure, object, prehistoric or historic archaeological site, or district possessing physical evidence of human activities over 45 years old. Since the three proposed area has not been subject to project-specific investigations, there may be unidentified features involved that are 45 years or older and considered as historical resources requiring further study and evaluation by a qualified professional of the appropriate discipline.

If the current project does not include ground disturbance, further study for archaeological resources is not recommended at this time. If ground disturbance is considered a part of the current project, we recommend further review for the possibility of identifying prehistoric or historic-era archaeological resources.

If the proposed project contains buildings or structures that meet the minimum age requirement (45 years in age or older) it is recommended that the resource/s be assessed by a professional familiar with architecture and history of the county. Review of the available historic building/structure data has included only those sources listed above and should not be considered comprehensive.

If at any time you might require the services of a qualified professional the Statewide Referral EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
List for Historical Resources Consultants is posted for your use on the internet at http://chrisinfo.org
If archaeological resources are encountered during project-related activities, work should be temporarily halted in the vicinity of the discovered materials and workers should avoid altering the materials and their context until a qualified professional archaeologist has evaluated the situation and provided appropriate recommendations. Project personnel should not collect cultural resources.

If human remains are discovered, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires you to protect the discovery and notify the county coroner, who will determine if the find is Native American. If the remains are recognized as Native American, the coroner shall then notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 authorizes the NAHC to appoint a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) who will make recommendations for the treatment of the discovery.

Due to processing delays and other factors, not all of the historical resource reports and resource records that have been submitted to the State Office of Historic Preservation are available via this records search. Additional information may be available through the federal, state, and local agencies that produced or paid for historical resource management work in the search area.

Additionally, Native American tribes have historical resource information not in the CHRIS Inventory, and you should contact the California Native American Heritage Commission for information on local/regional tribal contacts.

The California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) contracts with the California Historical Resources Information System’s (CHRIS) regional Information Centers (ICs) to maintain information in the CHRIS inventory and make it available to local, state, and federal agencies, cultural resource professionals, Native American tribes, researchers, and the public.

Recommendations made by IC coordinators or their staff regarding the interpretation and application of this information are advisory only. Such recommendations do not necessarily represent the evaluation or opinion of the State Historic Preservation Officer in carrying out the OHP’s regulatory authority under federal and state law.

We thank you for contacting this office regarding historical resource preservation. Please let us know when we can be of further service. Thank you for transmitting the signed Access Agreement Short Form.

Note: Billing will be transmitted separately via email from the Financial Services office ($225.00), payable within 60 days of receipt of the invoice.

If you wish to include payment by Credit Card, you must wait to receive the official invoice from Financial Services so that you can reference the CMP # (Invoice Number), and then contact the link below:

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
https://commerce.cashnet.com/ANTHROPOLOGY
Sincerely,
E. A. Greathouse E. A. Greathouse, Coordinator
Central California Information Center
California Historical Resources Information System
* Invoice Request sent to: [email protected], CSU Stanislaus Financial Services EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Stanislaus P-50-000001
Stanislaus P-50-000073
Stanislaus P-50-001968
Stanislaus P-50-001969
Stanislaus P-50-001972
Stanislaus P-50-001973
Stanislaus P-50-001974
-::-St
::
a
;:ni
::sl;:
a;:us--·---=p
-=.5
c::o-= -001975
Stanislaus P-50-001976
Stanislaus P-50-001977
Stanislaus P-50-001979
Stanislaus P-50-001980
Stanislaus P-50-001981
Stanislaus P-50-001982
Stanislaus P-50-001983
Stanislaus P-50-001984
Stanislaus P-50-001985
Stanislaus P-50-001986
Stanislaus P-50-001987
Stanislaus P-50-001988
Stanislaus P-50-002014
Stanislaus P-50-002015
CA-STA-000350H
CA-STA-000426H
San Joaquin Valley Railroad; Southern Pacific Railroad line; TID Ceres Main Canal; TID Lower Lateral No. 2; TID
2901 Redwood Rd.
4385 Lucas Rd.
2812, 2830, 2832 Service Rd.
4002 Jose h Rd.
4001 Joseph Rd.
4112 Moffett Rd.
4005 Lucas Rd.
2807 Service Rd.
2601 Service Rd.
2541 Service Rd.
2524 Service Rd.
2519 Service Rd.
3930 El Camino Ave.
3912 El Camino Ave.
3836 El Camino Ave.
3824 El Camino Ave.
2632 Don Pedro Rd.
4231 Central Avenue
4237 Central Avenue
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Primary Nu St Nur St Name City County Zip Evaluation Ownership Constructic 50-000001 CERES STANISLAUS 6Y,03/07/2007,FHWA070117A 002 152 07 1869 50-001988 2632 DON PEDRO RD CERES
"
STANISLAUS 95307 6Y,03/07/2007,FHWA070117A 053-013-004 1937 50-001987 3824 EL CAMINO AVE CERES STANISLAUS 6Y,03/07/2007,FHWA070117A 1947 50-001986 3836 EL CAMINO AVE CERES
"
STANISLAUS 95307 6Y,03/07/2007,FHWA070117A 053-013-008 1943 50-001985 3912 EL CAMINO AVE CERES
"
STANISLAUS 95307 6Y,03/07/2007,FHWA070117A 053-013-009 1940 50-001984 3930 EL CAMINO AVE CERES
"
STANISLAUS 95307 6Y,03/07/2007,FHWA070117A 053-013-010 1953 50-001974 4001 JOSEPH RD CERES
"
STANISLAUS 95307 6Y,03/07/2007,FHWA070117A 041-012-009 1949 50-001973 4002 JOSEPH RD CERES
"
STANISLAUS 95307 6Y,03/07/2007,FHWA070117A 041-012-008 1950 50-001975 4137 JOSEPH RD CERES
"
STANISLAUS 95307 6Y,03/07/2007,FHWA070117A 041-012-006 1895 50-001977 4005 LUCAS RD CERES
"
STANISLAUS 95307 6V,03/07/2007,FHWA070117A 041-012-003 1920 50-001969 4385 LUCAS RD CERES
"
STANISLAUS 95307 6Y,03/07/2007,FHWA070117A 041-013-005 1922 50-001788 2079 MAGNOLIA ST CERES
"
STANISLAUS 95307 6Y, 07/25/2000, DOE-50-00- 127-12-09 1947, 50-001976 4112 MOFFETT RD CERES
"
STANISLAUS 95307 6Y,03/07/2007,FHWA070117A 041-012-005 1920 50-001968 2901 REDWOOD RD CERES
"
STANISLAUS 95307 6Y,03/07/2007,FHWA070117A 041-013-006 1905 50-001983 2519 SERVICE RD CERES
"
STANISLAUS 95307 6Y,03/07/2007,FHWA070117A 053-037-020 1950 50-001982 2524 SERVICE RD CERES
"
STANISLAUS 95307 6Y,03/07/2007,FHWA070117A 053-037-019 1956 50-001981 2541 SERVICE RD CERES
"
STANISLAUS 95307 6Y,03/07/2007,FHWA070117A 053-037-012 1925 50-001980 2601 SERVICE RD CERES
"
STANISLAUS 95307 6Y,03/07/2007,FHWA070117A 053-038-005 1940 50-001979 2807 SERVICE RD CERES
"
STANISLAUS 95307 6Y,03/07/2007,FHWA070117A 053-013-015 1928 50-001972 2812 SERVICE RD CERES
"
STANISLAUS 95307 6Y,03/07/2007,FHWA070117A 041-013-003 1950 So Pac RR
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
APPENDIX F
NOISE STUDY
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Environmental Noise Assessment
Copper Trails Master Plan
City of Ceres, California
May 1, 2024
Project #240101
Prepared for:

BaseCamp Environmental, Inc.
802 West Lodi Avenue
Lodi, CA 95240
Prepared by:

Saxelby Acoustics LLC
Luke Saxelby, INCE Bd. Cert.

Principal Consultant
Board Certified, Institute of Noise Control Engineering (INCE) EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Master Plan
City of Ceres, CA
Job #240101
May 1, 2024 www.SaxNoise.com
Page i
S:\General\Job Folders\240101 Copper Trails Master Plan EIR\Word\240101 Copper Trails Master Plan EIR.docx Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................ 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING .............................................................................................................. 1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON NOISE........................................................................................................ 1 EXISTING NOISE AND VIBRATION ENVIRONMENTS........................................................................... 6 EXISTING NOISE RECEPTORS ........................................................................................................................ 6 EXISTING GENERAL AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS ................................................................................................... 6 FUTURE TRAFFIC NOISE ENVIRONMENT AT OFF-SITE RECEPTORS ..................................................... 7 OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY........................................................................ 7 EVALUATION OF PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE ON EXISTING SENSITIVE RECEPTORS ...................... 8 ROOFTOP HVAC ....................................................................................................................................... 8 PARKING LOT CIRCULATION......................................................................................................................... 8 EVALUATION OF DRIVE-THRU SPEAKER BOX NOISE ......................................................................................... 9 NOISE LEVELS AT SENSITIVE RECEPTORS ........................................................................................................ 9 PARK NOISE.............................................................................................................................................. 9 EVALUATION OF FUTURE TRANSPORTATION NOISE ON PROJECT SITE............................................ 10 EVALUATION OF STATIONARY NOISE ON PROJECT SITE .................................................................. 11 CONSTRUCTION NOISE ENVIRONMENT .......................................................................................... 12 CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION ENVIRONMENT .................................................................................. 12 REGULATORY CONTEXT.................................................................................................................. 13 FEDERAL ................................................................................................................................................ 13 STATE.................................................................................................................................................... 13 LOCAL.................................................................................................................................................... 13 CRITERIA FOR ACCEPTABLE VIBRATION........................................................................................................ 17 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES.......................................................................................... 19 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE .................................................................................................................. 19 PROJECT-SPECIFIC IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES .............................................................................. 20 REFERENCES................................................................................................................................... 30 List of Figures
Figure 1: Site Plan.......................................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2: Noise Measurement Sites and Receptor Locations....................................................................... 3 Figure 3: Quiet Pavement Locations........................................................................................................... 22 EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Master Plan
City of Ceres, CA
Job #240101
May 1, 2024 www.SaxNoise.com
Page ii
S:\General\Job Folders\240101 Copper Trails Master Plan EIR\Word\240101 Copper Trails Master Plan EIR.docx List of Tables
Table 1: Typical Noise Levels......................................................................................................................... 4 Table 2: Summary of Existing Background Noise Measurement Data ......................................................... 7 Table 3: Predicted Traffic Noise Level and Project-Related Traffic Noise Level Increases...........................8 Table 4: Predicted Operational Noise Levels at Existing Sensitive Receptors.............................................. 9 Table 5: Noise Levels for Common Noise Sources...................................................................................... 10 Table 6: Construction Equipment Noise ..................................................................................................... 12 Table 7: Vibration Levels for Various Construction Equipment.................................................................. 12 Table 8: Community Noise Compatibility Matrix........................................................................................ 14 Table 9: Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure for Transportation Noise Sources .....................................14 Table 10: Performance Standards for Stationary Noise Sources................................................................ 15 Table 11: Effects of Vibration on People and Buildings.............................................................................. 18 Table 12: Significance of Changes in Noise Exposure ................................................................................. 20 Table 13: Predicted Traffic Noise Level and Project-Related Traffic Noise Level Increases.......................21 Table 14: Screening Distances for Stationary Noise Sources...................................................................... 24 Table 15: Construction Noise Levels at Sensitive Receptors ...................................................................... 25 Table 16: Barrier Heights Along E. Service Road......................................................................................... 26 Appendices
Appendix A: Acoustical Terminology
Appendix B: Field Noise Measurement Data
Appendix C: Traffic Noise Calculations
Appendix D: FHWA Barrier Calculations
Appendix E: Interior Noise Reduction Calculations
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Master Plan
City of Ceres, CA
Job #240101
May 1, 2024 www.SaxNoise.com

S:\General\Job Folders\240101 Copper Trails Master Plan EIR\Word\240101 Copper Trails Master Plan EIR.docx

INTRODUCTION
The Copper Trails Master Plan project is located in the City of Ceres, California. The planned development is bordered by E. Service Road to the north, the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR), SR 99, and Mitchell Road to the east, T.I.D. Lower Lateral No. 2 to the south, and Blaker Road to the west. The project includes the preparation of a planned development which includes single and multi-family residential, regional commercial, public usage, and parks and open space land uses. The project is located outside of the Ceres City Limits, but is located within the City’s Sphere of Influence and thus is proposed to be annexed into the City.

Figure 1 shows the project site plan. Figure 2 shows an aerial photo of the project site.

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON NOISE
Fundamentals of Acoustics
Acoustics is the science of sound. Sound may be thought of as mechanical energy of a vibrating object transmitted by pressure waves through a medium to human (or animal) ears. If the pressure variations occur frequently enough (at least 20 times per second), then they can be heard and are called sound. The number of pressure variations per second is called the frequency of sound and is expressed as cycles per second or Hertz (Hz).

Noise is a subjective reaction to different types of sounds. Noise is typically defined as (airborne) sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected or undesired, and may therefore be classified as a more specific group of sounds.

Perceptions of sound and noise are highly subjective from person to person.

Measuring sound directly in terms of pressure would require a very large and awkward range of numbers. To avoid this, the decibel scale was devised. The decibel scale uses the hearing threshold (20 micropascals), as a point of reference, defined as 0 dB. Other sound pressures are then compared to this reference pressure, and the logarithm is taken to keep the numbers in a practical range. The decibel scale allows a million-fold increase in pressure to be expressed as 120 dB, and changes in levels (dB) correspond closely to human perception of relative loudness.

The perceived loudness of sounds is dependent upon many factors, including sound pressure level and frequency content. However, within the usual range of environmental noise levels, perception of loudness is relatively predictable, and can be approximated by A-weighted sound levels. There is a strong correlation between A-weighted sound levels (expressed as dBA) and the way the human ear perceives sound. For this reason, the A-weighted sound level has become the standard tool of environmental noise assessment.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Master Plan EIR
City of Ceres, California
Figure 1
Project Site Plan
Project Location
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Master Plan
EIR
City of Ceres, California
Figure 2
Noise Measurement Sites
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Master Plan
City of Ceres, CA
Job #240101
May 1, 2024 www.SaxNoise.com

S:\General\Job Folders\240101 Copper Trails Master Plan EIR\Word\240101 Copper Trails Master Plan EIR.docx The decibel scale is logarithmic, not linear. In other words, two sound levels 10-dB apart differ in acoustic energy by a factor of 10. When the standard logarithmic decibel is A-weighted, an increase of 10-dBA is generally perceived as a doubling in loudness. For example, a 70-dBA sound is half as loud as an 80-dBA sound, and twice as loud as a 60-dBA sound.

Community noise is commonly described in terms of the ambient noise level, which is defined as the allencompassing noise level associated with a given environment. A common statistical tool is the average, or equivalent, sound level (Leq), which corresponds to a steady-state A-weighted sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given time period (usually one hour). The Leq is the foundation of the composite noise descriptor, Ldn, and shows very good correlation with community response to noise.

The day/night average level (DNL or Ldn) is based upon the average noise level over a 24-hour day, with a +10- decibel weighing applied to noise occurring during nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) hours. The nighttime penalty is based upon the assumption that people react to nighttime noise exposures as though they were twice as loud as daytime exposures. Because Ldn represents a 24-hour average, it tends to disguise short-term variations in the noise environment.

Table 1 lists several examples of the noise levels associated with common situations. Appendix A provides a summary of acoustical terms used in this report.

TABLE 1: TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS
Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level (dBA) Common Indoor Activities --110-- Rock Band
Jet Fly-over at 300 m (1,000 ft.) --100--
Gas Lawn Mower at 1 m (3 ft.) --90--
Diesel Truck at 15 m (50 ft.),
at 80 km/hr. (50 mph) --80-- Food Blender at 1 m (3 ft.)Garbage Disposal at 1 m (3 ft.) Noisy Urban Area, Daytime
Gas Lawn Mower, 30 m (100 ft.) --70-- Vacuum Cleaner at 3 m (10 ft.) Commercial Area
Heavy Traffic at 90 m (300 ft.) --60-- Normal Speech at 1 m (3 ft.) Quiet Urban Daytime --50-- Large Business Office
Dishwasher in Next Room
Quiet Urban Nighttime --40-- Theater, Large Conference Room (Background) Quiet Suburban Nighttime --30-- Library
Quiet Rural Nighttime --20-- Bedroom at Night, Concert Hall (Background) --10-- Broadcast/Recording Studio
Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing --0-- Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing Source: Caltrans, Technical Noise Supplement, Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. September, 2013.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Master Plan
City of Ceres, CA
Job #240101
May 1, 2024 www.SaxNoise.com

S:\General\Job Folders\240101 Copper Trails Master Plan EIR\Word\240101 Copper Trails Master Plan EIR.docx Effects of Noise on People
The effects of noise on people can be placed in three categories:
• Subjective effects of annoyance, nuisance, and dissatisfaction • Interference with activities such as speech, sleep, and learning • Physiological effects such as hearing loss or sudden startling Environmental noise typically produces effects in the first two categories. Workers in industrial plants can experience noise in the last category. There is no completely satisfactory way to measure the subjective effects of noise or the corresponding reactions of annoyance and dissatisfaction. A wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance exists and different tolerances to noise tend to develop based on an individual’s past experiences with noise.

Thus, an important way of predicting a human reaction to a new noise environment is the way it compares to the existing environment to which one has adapted: the so-called ambient noise level. In general, the more a new noise exceeds the previously existing ambient noise level, the less acceptable the new noise will be judged by those hearing it.

With regards to increases in A-weighted noise level, the following relationships occur:
• Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of 1-dBA cannot be perceived; • Outside of the laboratory, a 3-dBA change is considered a just-perceivable difference; • A change in level of at least 5-dBA is required before any noticeable change in human response would be expected; and
• A 10-dBA change is subjectively heard as approximately a doubling in loudness and can cause an adverse response.

Stationary point sources of noise – including stationary mobile sources such as idling vehicles – attenuate (lessen) at a rate of approximately 6-dB per doubling of distance from the source, depending on environmental conditions (i.e. atmospheric conditions and either vegetative or manufactured noise barriers, etc.). Widely distributed noises, such as a large industrial facility spread over many acres or a street with moving vehicles, would typically attenuate at a lower rate.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Master Plan
City of Ceres, CA
Job #240101
May 1, 2024 www.SaxNoise.com

S:\General\Job Folders\240101 Copper Trails Master Plan EIR\Word\240101 Copper Trails Master Plan EIR.docx

EXISTING NOISE AND VIBRATION ENVIRONMENTS

EXISTING NOISE RECEPTORS
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to noise than others. Land uses often associated with sensitive receptors generally include residences, schools, libraries, hospitals, and passive recreational areas. Sensitive noise receptors may also include threatened or endangered noise-sensitive biological species, although many jurisdictions have not adopted noise standards for wildlife areas. Noise sensitive land uses are typically given special attention in order to achieve protection from excessive noise.

Sensitivity is a function of noise exposure (in terms of both exposure duration and insulation from noise) and the types of activities involved. In the vicinity of the project site, sensitive land uses include existing singlefamily residential uses to the north and south of the project site.

EXISTING GENERAL AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS
The existing noise environment in the project area is primarily defined by traffic on SR 99, UPRR, and E. Service Road. Secondary noise sources include traffic on the local roadway network. To quantify the existing ambient noise environment in the project vicinity, Saxelby Acoustics conducted continuous (24-hr.) noise level measurements at four locations on the project site and two short-term noise measurement at two locations on the project site. Noise measurement locations are shown on Figure 2. A summary of the noise level measurement survey results is provided in Table 2. Appendix B contains the complete results of the noise monitoring.

The sound level meters were programmed to record the maximum, median, and average noise levels at each site during the survey. The maximum value, denoted Lmax, represents the highest noise level measured. The average value, denoted Leq, represents the energy average of all the noise received by the sound level meter microphone during the monitoring period. The median value, denoted L50, represents the sound level exceeded 50 percent of the time during the monitoring period.

Larson Davis Laboratories (LDL) model 812, 820, and 831 precision integrating sound level meters were used for the ambient noise level measurement survey. The meters were calibrated before and after use with a CAL200 acoustical calibrator to ensure the accuracy of the measurements. The equipment used meets all pertinent specifications of the American National Standards Institute for Type 1 sound level meters (ANSI S1.4).

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Master Plan
City of Ceres, CA
Job #240101
May 1, 2024 www.SaxNoise.com

S:\General\Job Folders\240101 Copper Trails Master Plan EIR\Word\240101 Copper Trails Master Plan EIR.docx TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF EXISTING BACKGROUND NOISE MEASUREMENT DATA Location Date Ldn
Daytime
Leq
Daytime
L50
Daytime
Lmax
Nighttime
Leq
Nighttime
L50
Nighttime
Lmax
LT-1: 230 ft. to CL of SR
99 3/7/2024 76 70 69 84 70 67 84
LT-2: 25 ft. to CL of
Redwood Rd. 3/7/2024 66 62 57 82 59 57 74
LT-3: 40 ft. to CL of
Central Ave. 3/7/2024 73 71 65 90 65 55 84
LT-4: 65 ft. to CL of
Service Rd. 3/7/2024 74 71 70 82 67 59 81
ST-1: 20 ft. to CL of
Gondring Rd. 3/6/2024 N/A 44 43 51 N/A N/A N/A
LT-2: 20 ft. to CL of Blaker
Rd. 3/6/2024 N/A 52 53 55 N/A N/A N/A
Notes:
• All values shown in dBA
• Daytime hours: 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
• Nighttime Hours: 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
• Source: Saxelby Acoustics, 2024.

FUTURE TRAFFIC NOISE ENVIRONMENT AT OFF-SITE RECEPTORS

OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
To assess noise impacts due to project-related traffic increases on the local roadway network, traffic noise levels are predicted at sensitive receptors for the Near-Term and Near-Term Plus Project conditions.

Near Term noise levels due to traffic are calculated using the Federal Highway Administration Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA RD-77-108). The model is based upon the Calveno reference noise factors for automobiles, medium trucks and heavy trucks, with consideration given to vehicle volume, speed, roadway configuration, distance to the receiver, and the acoustical characteristics of the site.

The FHWA model was developed to predict hourly Leq values for free-flowing traffic conditions. To predict traffic noise levels in terms of Ldn, it is necessary to adjust the input volume to account for the day/night distribution of traffic.

Project trip generation volumes were provided by the project traffic engineer (Wood Rogers 2024), truck usage and vehicle speeds on the local area roadways were estimated from field observations. The predicted increases in traffic noise levels on the local roadway network for Near-Term conditions which would result from the project are provided in terms of Ldn.

Traffic noise levels are predicted at the sensitive receptors located at the closest typical setback distance along each project-area roadway segment. In some locations sensitive receptors may not receive full shielding from noise barriers or may be located at distances which vary from the assumed calculation distance.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Master Plan
City of Ceres, CA
Job #240101
May 1, 2024 www.SaxNoise.com

S:\General\Job Folders\240101 Copper Trails Master Plan EIR\Word\240101 Copper Trails Master Plan EIR.docx Table 3 summarizes the modeled traffic noise levels at the nearest sensitive receptors along each roadway segment in the Project area. Appendix C provides the complete inputs and results of the FHWA traffic modeling.

TABLE 3: PREDICTED TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL AND PROJECT-RELATED TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASES Roadway Segment Near-Term no
Project (dBA)
Near-Term +
Project (dBA) Change
El Camino Ave North of North Street 65.1 66.3 1.2
North Street East of El Camino Ave 60.8 59.2 -1.6
El Camino Ave South of 4th Street 63.4 62.2 -1.2
E. Service Road West of SR 99 68.8 72.5 3.7
Based upon the Table 3 data, the proposed project is predicted to result in an increase in a maximum traffic noise level increase of 3.7 dBA.

EVALUATION OF PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE ON EXISTING SENSITIVE RECEPTORS The Project proposes over 100 acres of land zoned Regional Commercial. Saxelby Acoustics assumed that these uses could include, but are not limited to, general retail, grocery, restaurants, drive-thrus, and/or gas stations.

Project site traffic circulation, rooftop mechanical equipment, and drive-thru HVAC noise are considered to be the primary noise sources for this project.

Detailed site plans were not available at the time of analysis; therefore, Saxelby Acoustics modeled noise emanating from the commercial component of the site based on typical layouts for new commercial uses adjacent to major state routes. The following is a list of assumptions used for the noise modeling. The data used is based upon a combination of manufacturer’s provided data and Saxelby Acoustics data from similar operations.

ROOFTOP HVAC
Typical commercial parcels have a density of 5,000-6,000 square feet of building space per acre. Saxelby Acoustics assumed the commercial buildings would use an average of one ton of cooling per 250 square feet of building space. It was assumed that the average HVAC unit would be a 3-to-6-ton packaged HVAC unit with a sound level rating of approximately 82 dBA. All equipment is assumed to operate continuously during the daytime, and 50% of the time at night. Saxelby Acoustics assumed that the HVAC units would be installed on the rooftop of the proposed commercial buildings surrounded by 4-foot parapets.

PARKING LOT CIRCULATION
Based upon similar commercial projects, Saxelby Acoustics estimates that the project could generate 75-140 peak hour trips per acre of commercial area. Saxelby Acoustics assumed that 1% of these trips could be trucks.

Parking lot movements are predicted to generate a sound exposure level (SEL) of 71 dBA SEL at 50 feet for cars and 85 dBA SEL at 50 feet for trucks. Nighttime traffic outside of the AM or PM peak hour is estimated to be approximately 50% of daytime trips during nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). Saxelby Acoustics data.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Master Plan
City of Ceres, CA
Job #240101
May 1, 2024 www.SaxNoise.com

S:\General\Job Folders\240101 Copper Trails Master Plan EIR\Word\240101 Copper Trails Master Plan EIR.docx

EVALUATION OF DRIVE-THRU SPEAKER BOX NOISE
Based upon similar projects, commercial areas typically include one quick service restaurant for every 3-4 acres of commercial property. The proposed quick service restaurants will likely use speaker boxes to collect customer orders. Saxelby Acoustics assumed that speaker boxes would produce an average noise level of 68 dBA Leq at a distance of 3 feet. It was assumed that each quick service restaurant would utilize up to 2 speakers.

NOISE LEVELS AT SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
To assess noise generated by the commercial portion of the project, individual commercial areas were assessed at the closest residential use as measured from the center of each commercial area. The project has four main commercial areas. Noise sources are assumed to be evenly distributed across the commercial area. Table 4 below shows the predicted noise levels at the nearby sensitive receptors.

TABLE 4: PREDICTED OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVELS AT EXISTING SENSITIVE RECEPTORS Area Acres
Distance to
Sensitive
Receptors
Correction1
Noise
Level Leq
Day
Noise
Level Lmax
Day
Noise
Level Leq
Night
Noise
Level Lmax
Night
RC 14.7 AC. 14.7 1230 0 42.8 62.8 39.8 59.8
RC 16.5 AC. 16.5 2070 -10 28.2 48.2 25.2 45.2
RC 25.1 AC. 25.1 980 0 46.5 66.5 43.5 63.5
RC 51.1 AC. 51.1 2000 -10 33.4 53.4 30.4 50.4
1Masonry sound walls typically provide -5 dB of shielding. Intervening buildings or built-up areas provide -10 dB of shielding.

In addition to the sources detailed above, the project may utilize several noise-generating components which require large setbacks or sound walls to shield. Table 5 below lists several sources and their noise levels.

PARK NOISE
Recreation at public park areas such as playgrounds, play fields, and picnic areas generally produces noise levels of up to 55 dBA Leq at 50 feet from the center of activity. Park activities typically occur during daytime hours only and are generally compatible with residential uses. Certain park recreational features, such as pickleball courts, can produce higher levels of noise. Table 5 lists several amenities which may require larger setback distances or additional screening.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Master Plan
City of Ceres, CA
Job #240101
May 1, 2024 www.SaxNoise.com

S:\General\Job Folders\240101 Copper Trails Master Plan EIR\Word\240101 Copper Trails Master Plan EIR.docx TABLE 5: NOISE LEVELS FOR COMMON NOISE SOURCES
Source Typical Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Loading Dock 46 Leq & 64 Lmax at 350 feet
Car Wash 80 Leq & 80 Lmax at 50 feet
Pickleball Courts (Four Courts) 61 Leq & 81 Lmax at 45 feet Soccer Fields 55 Leq & 75 Lmax at 200 feet
Dog Park 52 Leq & 68 Lmax at 170 feet

EVALUATION OF FUTURE TRANSPORTATION NOISE ON PROJECT SITE Saxelby Acoustics used noise level measurement data from the ambient noise survey (see Table 2) as well as the Federal Highway Administration Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA RD-77-108) to calculate traffic noise levels at the proposed residential uses due to traffic on E. Service Road. E. Service Road was estimated to increase by +3.7 dBA based upon project traffic increases provided by the project traffic engineer (Wood Rogers 2024). It was determined that E. Service Road would produce a noise level of approximately 77 dBA Ldn at 50 feet from the centerline of the roadway under the Near-Term plus Project conditions.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Master Plan
City of Ceres, CA
Job #240101
May 1, 2024 www.SaxNoise.com

S:\General\Job Folders\240101 Copper Trails Master Plan EIR\Word\240101 Copper Trails Master Plan EIR.docx

EVALUATION OF STATIONARY NOISE ON PROJECT SITE
The primary source of stationary noise on the project site is a pump station located at the City of Ceres waste water treatment plant (WWTP). Saxelby Acoustics conducted noise level measurements of the pump station at location ST-2 (see Table 2). Measurements of the pump station were influenced by traffic along Blaker Road and residential activities in the surrounding area. It was determined that the pump station produced noise levels of up to 48 dBA Leq at a distance of approximately 150 feet. The proposed medium-density residential uses are located 175 feet away from the pump station. At this distance, noise levels are predicted to be 46.7 dBA Leq. Noise from pump stations is continuous; maximum noise levels would be approximately equal to the continuous Leq noise level.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Master Plan
City of Ceres, CA
Job #240101
May 1, 2024 www.SaxNoise.com

S:\General\Job Folders\240101 Copper Trails Master Plan EIR\Word\240101 Copper Trails Master Plan EIR.docx

CONSTRUCTION NOISE ENVIRONMENT
During the construction of the proposed project, noise from construction activities would temporarily add to the noise environment in the project vicinity. As shown in Table 6, activities involved in construction would generate maximum noise levels ranging from 76 to 90 dB at a distance of 50 feet.

TABLE 6: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE
Type of Equipment Maximum Level, dBA at 50 feet
Auger Drill Rig 84
Backhoe 78
Compactor 83
Compressor (air) 78
Concrete Saw 90
Dozer 82
Dump Truck 76
Excavator 81
Generator 81
Jackhammer 89
Pneumatic Tools 85
Source: Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide. Federal Highway Administration. FHWA-HEP-05-054. January 2006.

CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION ENVIRONMENT
The primary vibration-generating activities associated with the proposed project would occur during construction when activities such as grading, utilities placement, and parking lot construction occur. Table 7 shows the typical vibration levels produced by construction equipment.

TABLE 7: VIBRATION LEVELS FOR VARIOUS CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT Type of Equipment
Peak Particle Velocity at
25 feet
(inches/second)
Peak Particle Velocity at
50 feet
(inches/second)
Peak Particle Velocity at
100 feet
(inches/second)
Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.031 0.011
Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.027 0.010
Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.001 0.000
Auger/drill Rigs 0.089 0.031 0.011
Jackhammer 0.035 0.012 0.004
Vibratory Hammer 0.070 0.025 0.009
Vibratory Compactor/roller 0.210
(Less than 0.20 at 26 feet) 0.074 0.026
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidelines. Federal Transit Administration. May 2006.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Master Plan
City of Ceres, CA
Job #240101
May 1, 2024 www.SaxNoise.com

S:\General\Job Folders\240101 Copper Trails Master Plan EIR\Word\240101 Copper Trails Master Plan EIR.docx

REGULATORY CONTEXT

FEDERAL
There are no federal regulations which apply to the proposed project.

STATE
California Environmental Quality Act
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Appendix G, indicate that a significant noise impact may occur if a project exposes persons to noise or vibration levels in excess of local general plans or noise ordinance standards, or cause a substantial permanent or temporary increase in ambient noise levels.

CEQA standards are discussed in more detail under the Thresholds of Significance section.

LOCAL
City of Ceres General Plan
Goal 5.L: Protect the community from the harmful and annoying effect of exposure to excessive noise and vibration.

5.L.1: Community Noise Compatibility. Use Table 5-3: Community Noise Compatibility Matrix and the Projected Noise Contours (2035) in Figure 5-13 as guidelines to evaluate land use compatibility of new development, including whether a proposed use is compatible with the existing or planned noise environment of a given location, as well as whether a proposed use would negatively affect the noise environment for existing or planned uses in the area.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Master Plan
City of Ceres, CA
Job #240101
May 1, 2024 www.SaxNoise.com

S:\General\Job Folders\240101 Copper Trails Master Plan EIR\Word\240101 Copper Trails Master Plan EIR.docx TABLE 8: COMMUNITY NOISE COMPATIBILITY MATRIX
Source : Table 5-3 City of Ceres General Plan

5.L.2: Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure. Use the standards in Table 5-4: Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure for Transportation Noise Sources to regulate acceptable limits of noise for various land uses for both exterior and interior environments from transportation sources.

TABLE 9: MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE NOISE EXPOSURE FOR TRANSPORTATION NOISE SOURCES Land Use DNL Outdoor Activity Areas
(DNL, CNEL, dB2)
Residential 60
Transient Lodging 60
Hospitals, Nursing Homes 60
Theaters, Auditoriums, Music Halls --
Churches, Meeting Halls 60
Office Buildings 65
Schools, Libraries, Museums 60
Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks 65
Notes:

DNL = Day-Night Average Level; CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level; dB = Decibel; Leq = Equivalent Noise Level

1. An outdoor activity area is a location outside of the immediate structure where formal or informal activities are likely to happen (such as a yard on a residential property, a playground or sports field at a school, or exterior patio or exercise area of a hospital).

For non-residential uses where an outdoor activity area is not proposed, the standard does not apply. Where the location of outdoor activity areas is unknown, the exterior noise level standard shall be applied to the property line of the receiving land use. For residential uses with front yards facing the identified noise source, an exterior noise level standard of DNL 65 dB shall be applied at the building façade, in addition to a DNL 60 dB standard at the outdoor activity area.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Master Plan
City of Ceres, CA
Job #240101
May 1, 2024 www.SaxNoise.com

S:\General\Job Folders\240101 Copper Trails Master Plan EIR\Word\240101 Copper Trails Master Plan EIR.docx

2. Where it is not possible to reduce noise in outdoor activity areas to the allowable maximum, levels up to 5 dB higher may be allowed provided that available exterior noise level reduction measures have been implemented and interior noise levels are in compliance with this table.

3. CNEL is used for quantification of aircraft noise exposure.

4. As determined for a typical worst-case hour during periods of use.

Source : Table 5-4 City of Ceres General Plan

5.L.3: Performance Standards. Use performance standards established in Table 5-5:

Performance Standards for Stationary Sources to regulate operational noise associated with new non-residential development or changes of non-residential use. Require, Prior to approval of a project, that noise generated by the project be mitigated so as not to exceed the performance standards of Table 5-5. Standards apply to the noise sources themselves, as measured at the edge of the property line of residential or other sensitive uses; noise caused by motor vehicles traveling to and from the site is exempt from these standards.

5.L.4: Single Noise Sensitive Uses. Prohibit the development of noise-sensitive uses where noise levels are “normally unacceptable” or higher as shown in Table 5-3: Community Noise Compatibility Matrix, unless effective noise mitigation measures have been incorporated into the development design to achieve the specified interior noise standards in Table 5- 4: Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure for Transportation Noise Sourced. For public schools, require acoustic analyses for any schools proposed in areas where noise levels would be considered “normally unacceptable” per Table 5-3: Community Noise Compatibility Matrix.

5.L.5: Compatibility with Noise Sensitive Uses. Require that noise created by new proposed non-transportation sources be mitigated so as not exceed the noise level standards of Table 5-4: Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure for Transportation Noise Sources as measured at the property line of lands designated on the General Plan Land Use Map for noise-sensitive uses.

TABLE 10: PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR STATIONARY NOISE SOURCES Noise Level Descriptor Daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) Nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) Hourly Equivalent Sound Level (Leq),
dBA 55 45
Maximum Sound Level dBA 60 45
Notes :

1. Sound level measurements shall be made at a point on the receiving property nearest where the sound source at issue generates the highest sound level.

2. Each of the noise levels specified shall be lowered by 5 dB for simple tone noises, noises consisting primarily of speech or music, or for recurring impulsive noises.

3. These noise level standards do not apply to residential units established in conjunction with industrial or commercial uses (e.g. caretaker dwellings).

Source : Table 5-5 City of Ceres General Plan
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Master Plan
City of Ceres, CA
Job #240101
May 1, 2024 www.SaxNoise.com

S:\General\Job Folders\240101 Copper Trails Master Plan EIR\Word\240101 Copper Trails Master Plan EIR.docx

5.L.10: Noise Compatibility. Prevent incompatible land uses from encroaching upon existing or planned noise-generating uses (such as agricultural, industrial, or commercial uses) by avoiding the placement of incompatible uses in environments where existing noise levels conflict with guidelines and standards provided in Table 5-3, Table 5-4, and Table 5-5, or where land use designation provide for future uses whose noise levels would be likely to conflict, in order to protect the city’s economic base.

5.L.11: Noise Mitigation. Require, where noise mitigation measures are required to achieve the standards of Table 5-4 and Table 5-5, that the emphasis of such measures be placed upon site planning and project design. The use of noise barriers shall be considered a means of achieving the noise standards only after all other practical design-related noise mitigation measures have been integrated into the project.

City of Ceres Municipal Code

9.04.010 - Noise prohibited.

It is unlawful for any person to make, continue or cause to be made or continued any loud, unnecessary or unusual noise or any noise which either annoys, disturbs, injures or endangers the comfort, repose, health, peace or safety of others.

9.04.020 Unnecessary noises.

The following acts, among others, are declared to be loud, disturbing and unnecessary noises in violation of the provisions of this chapter, but the enumeration shall not be deemed to be exclusive, namely:

A. Horns, signaling devices. Sounding of any horn or signaling device on any automobile, motorcycle or other vehicle on any street or public place of the City, except as a danger warning; the creation by means of any such signaling device of any unreasonably loud or harsh sound; and sounding of any such device for an unnecessary and unreasonable period of time. The use of any signaling device except one operated by hand or electricity; the use of any horn, whistle or other device operated by engine exhaust; and the use of any such signaling device when traffic is for any reason held up; B. Radios, stereos, or other sound amplification devices. The using, operating, or permitting to be placed, used or operated by radio receiving set, musical instrument, stereo, or other machine or device for the producing, reproducing, or amplifying sound in such manner as to disturb the peace, quiet and comfort of the neighboring inhabitants at any time with louder volume than is necessary for convenient hearing for the person or persons who are in the room, vehicle or chamber in which such machine or device is operated and who are voluntary listeners thereto. The operation of any such set, instrument, stereo, machine or device between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. in such a manner as to be plainly audible at a distance of 50 feet from the building, structure or vehicle in which it is located shall be prima facie evidence of a violation of this section. This section can be enforced at any time of the day.

Nothing in this section that establishes prima facie evidence of a violation of this section shall be interpreted to limit the City's ability to enforce this section; C. Animals, birds. The keeping of any animal or bird which by causing frequent or long continued noise shall disturb the comfort or repose of any persons in the vicinity; EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Master Plan
City of Ceres, CA
Job #240101
May 1, 2024 www.SaxNoise.com

S:\General\Job Folders\240101 Copper Trails Master Plan EIR\Word\240101 Copper Trails Master Plan EIR.docx D. Exhausts. The discharge into the open air of the exhaust of any motorboat or motor vehicle except through a muffler or other device which will effectively prevent loud or explosive noises therefrom; E. Construction or repairing of buildings. The erection (including excavating), demolition, alteration or repair of any building other than between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., except that, by special permit issued by the Building Inspector or City Engineer, as the case may be, upon a determination that the public health and safety will not be impaired thereby, the erection, demolition, alteration or repair of any building or the excavation of streets and highways may be permitted within the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.;
F. Hawkers, peddlers. The shouting and crying of peddlers, hawkers and vendors which disturbs the peace and quiet of the neighborhood;
G. Machinery. Operation between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. of any machinery or appliance, use of which is attended by loud or unusual noise;
H. Motor vehicles. The using or operating of any motor vehicle in a manner which creates shrill, piercing or loud noises which may be heard beyond the property lines of the property from which the subject noise is produced or caused;
I. Snow-cone, ice cream trucks. Soft music allowed over p.a. system or bells - no loud music. Loud is defined as a noise that either annoys, disturbs, injures or endangers the comfort, repose, health, peace or safety of others.
(Ord. No. 2020-1056 , § 1, 2-24-2020)

9.04.030 - Exception to sections 9.04.010 and 9.04.020.

The provision of sections 9.04.010 and 9.04.020 shall not apply to any noise or situation within the scope of section 23109 of the vehicle code of the state.

The collection of garbage is hereby exempted from the time limits contained in sections 9.04.010 and 9.04.020 to the extent that it does not create a public nuisance. Garbage collection shall not start prior to 5:00 a.m.

CRITERIA FOR ACCEPTABLE VIBRATION
Vibration is like noise in that it involves a source, a transmission path, and a receiver. While vibration is related to noise, it differs in that noise is generally considered to be pressure waves transmitted through air, whereas vibration usually consists of the excitation of a structure or surface. As with noise, vibration consists of an amplitude and frequency. A person’s perception to the vibration will depend on their individual sensitivity to vibration, as well as the amplitude and frequency of the source and the response of the system which is vibrating.

Vibration can be measured in terms of acceleration, velocity, or displacement. A common practice is to monitor vibration measures in terms of peak particle velocities in inches per second. Standards pertaining to perception as well as damage to structures have been developed for vibration levels defined in terms of peak particle velocities.

Human and structural response to different vibration levels is influenced by a number of factors, including ground type, distance between source and receptor, duration, and the number of perceived vibration events.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Master Plan
City of Ceres, CA
Job #240101
May 1, 2024 www.SaxNoise.com

S:\General\Job Folders\240101 Copper Trails Master Plan EIR\Word\240101 Copper Trails Master Plan EIR.docx Table 11, which was developed by Caltrans, shows the vibration levels which would normally be required to result in damage to structures. The vibration levels are presented in terms of peak particle velocity in inches per second.

Table 11 indicates that the threshold for architectural damage to structures is 0.20 in/sec p.p.v. A threshold of 0.20 in/sec p.p.v. is considered to be a reasonable threshold for short-term construction projects.

TABLE 11: EFFECTS OF VIBRATION ON PEOPLE AND BUILDINGS
Peak Particle Velocity Human Reaction Effect on Buildings mm/second in/second

0.15-0.30 0.006-0.019 Threshold of perception; possibility of intrusion
Vibrations unlikely to cause damage of
any type

2.0 0.08 Vibrations readily perceptible
Recommended upper level of the
vibration to which ruins and ancient
monuments should be subjected

2.5 0.10 Level at which continuous vibrations
begin to annoy people
Virtually no risk of “architectural”
damage to normal buildings

5.0 0.20
Vibrations annoying to people in
buildings (this agrees with the levels
established for people standing on
bridges and subjected to relative
short periods of vibrations)
Threshold at which there is a risk of
“architectural” damage to normal
dwelling - houses with plastered walls
and ceilings. Special types of finish such
as lining of walls, flexible ceiling
treatment, etc., would minimize
“architectural” damage
10-15 0.4-0.6
Vibrations considered unpleasant by
people subjected to continuous
vibrations and unacceptable to some
people walking on bridges
Vibrations at a greater level than
normally expected from traffic, but
would cause “architectural” damage
and possibly minor structural damage
Source: Transportation Related Earthborne Vibrations. Caltrans. TAV-02-01-R9601. February 20, 2002.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Master Plan
City of Ceres, CA
Job #240101
May 1, 2024 www.SaxNoise.com

S:\General\Job Folders\240101 Copper Trails Master Plan EIR\Word\240101 Copper Trails Master Plan EIR.docx

IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines states that a project would normally be considered to result in significant noise impacts if noise levels conflict with adopted environmental standards or plans or if noise generated by the project would substantially increase existing noise levels at sensitive receivers on a permanent or temporary basis. Significance criteria for noise impacts are drawn from CEQA Guidelines Appendix G (Items XI [a-c]).

Would the project:
a. 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?
b. Generate 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? The proposed project is not located within two miles of a public or private airport, therefore item “c” is not discussed any further in this study.

Noise Level Increase Criteria for Long-Term Project-Related Noise Level Increases The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines define a significant impact of a project if it “increases substantially the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas.” Generally, a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it will substantially increase the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas or expose people to severe noise levels. In practice, more specific professional standards have been developed.

These standards state that a noise impact may be considered significant if it would generate noise that would conflict with local project criteria or ordinances, or substantially increase noise levels at noise sensitive land uses. The potential increase in traffic noise from the project is a factor in determining significance. Research into the human perception of changes in sound level indicates the following:
• A 3-dB change is barely perceptible,
• A 5-dB change is clearly perceptible, and
• A 10-dB change is perceived as being twice or half as loud.

A limitation of using a single noise level increase value to evaluate noise impacts is that it fails to account for pre-project noise conditions. Table 12 is based upon recommendations made by the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) to provide guidance in the assessment of changes in ambient noise levels resulting from aircraft operations. The recommendations are based upon studies that relate aircraft noise levels to the percentage of persons highly annoyed by the noise. Although the FICON recommendations were specifically developed to assess aircraft noise impacts, it has been accepted that they are applicable to all sources of noise described in terms of cumulative noise exposure metrics such as the Ldn.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Master Plan
City of Ceres, CA
Job #240101
May 1, 2024 www.SaxNoise.com

S:\General\Job Folders\240101 Copper Trails Master Plan EIR\Word\240101 Copper Trails Master Plan EIR.docx TABLE 12: SIGNIFICANCE OF CHANGES IN NOISE EXPOSURE
Ambient Noise Level Without Project, Ldn Increase Required for Significant Impact <60 dB +5.0 dB or more
60-65 dB +3.0 dB or more
>65 dB +1.5 dB or more
Source: Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON).

Based on the Table 12 data, an increase in the traffic noise level of 5 dB or more would be significant where the pre-project noise levels are less than 60 dB Ldn, or 3 dB or more where existing noise levels are between 60 to 65 dB Ldn. Extending this concept to higher noise levels, an increase in the traffic noise level of 1.5 dB or more may be significant where the pre-project traffic noise level exceeds 65 dB Ldn. The rationale for the Table 12 criteria is that, as ambient noise levels increase, a smaller increase in noise resulting from a project is sufficient to cause annoyance.

Temporary Construction Noise Impacts
With temporary noise impacts (construction), identification of “substantial increases” depends upon the duration of the impact, the temporal daily nature of the impact, and the absolute change in decibel levels. Per the City of Ceres Municipal Code, construction activities are prohibited outside of the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.

The City has not adopted any formal standard for evaluating temporary construction noise which occurs within allowable hours. For short-term noise associated with Project construction, Saxelby Acoustics recommends use of the Caltrans increase criteria of 12 dBA (Caltrans Traffic Noise Protocol, 2020), applied to existing residential receptors in the project vicinity. This level of increase is approximately equivalent to a doubling of sound energy and has been the standard of significance for Caltrans projects at the state level for many years.

Application of this standard to construction activities is considered reasonable considering the temporary nature of construction activities.

PROJECT-SPECIFIC IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 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? Traffic Noise Increases at Off-Site Receptors
Based upon the Table 12 FICON criteria, where existing traffic noise levels are greater than 65 dBA Ldn, at the outdoor activity areas of noise-sensitive uses, a +1.5 dBA Ldn increase in roadway noise levels will be considered significant. Where traffic noise levels are between 60 dBA Ldn and 65 dBA Ldn, a +3.0 dB Ldn increase in roadway noise levels will be considered significant. Where traffic noise levels are less than 60 dBA Ldn, a +5.0 dB Ldn increase in roadway noise levels will be considered significant. According to Table 3, the maximum increase is traffic noise at the nearest sensitive receptor is predicted to be 3.7 dBA. Therefore, this is a potentially significant impact and requires mitigation.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Master Plan
City of Ceres, CA
Job #240101
May 1, 2024 www.SaxNoise.com

S:\General\Job Folders\240101 Copper Trails Master Plan EIR\Word\240101 Copper Trails Master Plan EIR.docx As shown in Table 3, noise-sensitive receptors located along El Camino Avenue, North Street, and E. Service Road in the project vicinity are currently exposed to exterior traffic noise levels exceeding the City of Ceres 60 dB Ldn exterior noise level standard for residential uses. These receptors would continue to experience elevated exterior noise levels with implementation of the proposed project. Sensitive receptors under Near-Term conditions experience an exterior noise level of up to 68.8 dB Ldn along E. Service Road. Under Near-Term + Project conditions, exterior traffic noise levels are predicted to be approximately 72.5 dB Ldn. Exterior noise levels in both scenarios exceed the City’s exterior noise level standard of 60 dB Ldn.

TABLE 13: PREDICTED TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL AND PROJECT-RELATED TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASES Roadway Segment Near-Term
No Project
Increase
Criterion
Near-Term +
Project Change Exceeds Threshold?
El Camino Ave North of North Street 65.1 +1.5 dB 66.3 1.2 No North Street East of El Camino Ave 60.8 +3.0 dB 59.2 -1.6 No El Camino Ave South of 4th Street 63.4 +3.0 dB 62.2 -1.2 No E. Service Road West of SR 99 68.8 +1.5 dB 72.5 3.7 Yes Under Plus Project conditions, the proposed Project’s contribution to increased traffic ranges between -1.6 dB and 3.7 dBA. A negative number indicates a reduction of trips along this segment and thus a reduction of trafficgenerated noise levels. The increase of 3.7 dB along E. Service Road exceeds the significance threshold of 1.5 dB. In order to reduce this impact, the use of sound walls or quiet pavement would be required. Construction of new six-foot-tall sound walls could be a potential mitigation measure. However, many of the impacted residential uses along the roadway segments listed above are accessed directly via driveways off the main roadway. As such, a sound wall would require many driveway openings, resulting in partial noise barriers.

These openings in the sound wall would substantially reduce the noise barrier performance. Additionally, construction of noise barriers at off-site locations would result in encroachment into private property. Such encroachment would require private property owners to allow permission to enter their property. Therefore, noise barriers are not considered to be a practical option.

Quiet pavements are typically assumed to provide a 3 to 5 dBA reduction. Assuming an average reduction of 4 dBA, quiet pavement placed along sensitive receptor areas could reduce Project noise level increases from up to 3.7 dBA to 0.0 dBA along E. Service Road. Approximately 6,000 feet (approximately 1.1 miles) of quiet pavement would be required. See Figure 3 for approximate required pavement locations.

Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure 1(a), traffic noise impacts would be less-thansignificant.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Master Plan
City of Ceres, California
Figure 3
Recommended Quiet Pavement Location
Blaker Road
Service Road Central Ave
Central Valley
High School
Hidahl
Elementary
School
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Master Plan
City of Ceres, CA
Job #240101
May 1, 2024 www.SaxNoise.com

S:\General\Job Folders\240101 Copper Trails Master Plan EIR\Word\240101 Copper Trails Master Plan EIR.docx Operational Noise at Existing Sensitive Receptors
As shown in Table 4, the project is predicted to expose nearby residences to noise levels up to 46.5 dBA Leq and during daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) hours and 43.5 dBA Leq during nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) hours. These receptors will be annexed into the City as a part of the project. The predicted project noise levels would meet the City of Ceres noise standard for non-transportation noise sources of 45 dBA, Leq.

As shown in Table 2, the average ambient noise level at the sensitive receptors near the proposed commercial uses ranges from 62-70 dBA Leq during the day and 59-70 dBA Leq at night. These levels are well above the 55 dBA Leq and 45 dBA Leq daytime and nighttime noise level standards. This is primarily due to transportation noise from SR 99 and the UPRR. The commercial area contributions of 46.5 dBA Leq and 43.5 dBA Leq to these existing receptors would result in a less than 0.1 dBA increase in noise levels. This is less than the Table 12 minimum threshold of +1.5 dBA for long-term project-related noise increases and would therefore not constitute a significant increase.

Maximum noise levels have the potential to exceed City standards. However, maximum noise levels at the closest sensitive receptors currently exceed the City maximum noise level standards. Sensitive receptors to the north of the proposed commercial sources (represented by LT-4 in Table 2) are exposed to daytime noise levels of 82 dBA Lmax and nighttime noise levels of 81 dBA Lmax. Sensitive receptors to the south of the proposed commercial sources (represented by LT-2 in Table 2) are exposed to daytime noise levels of 82 dBA Lmax and nighttime noise levels of 74 dBA Lmax. As shown in Table 4, maximum noise levels due the commercial noise sources are not expected to exceed 66.5 dBA Lmax during daytime hours and 63.5 dBA Lmax during nighttime hours. Therefore, the proposed commercial component of the project would not cause the maximum noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors to increase.

Additionally, the proposed project also includes several park spaces. Public parks with recreational amenities such as playgrounds and picnic areas generally produce noise levels of 55 dBA Leq at a distance of 50 feet from center. However, some amenities such as pickleball courts, soccer fields, and baseball fields produce higher levels of noise.

If the proposed commercial portion of the project includes sources such as loading docks or car washes, additional screening or large setback distances may be required. The table below provides screening distances required to comply with the City’s noise level standards with and without sound walls. Construction of these noise-generating sources may occur closer than the listed screening distances if approved through a sitespecific acoustical analysis performed by a qualified acoustical consultant.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Master Plan
City of Ceres, CA
Job #240101
May 1, 2024 www.SaxNoise.com

S:\General\Job Folders\240101 Copper Trails Master Plan EIR\Word\240101 Copper Trails Master Plan EIR.docx TABLE 14: SCREENING DISTANCES FOR STATIONARY NOISE SOURCES Source Typical Noise Levels (dBA)
Unshielded
Screening
Distance (feet)
Screening
Distance with
8-ft Wall1
(feet)
Screening
Distance with
Intervening
Building2 -
(feet)
Loading Dock3 46 Leq & 64 Lmax at 350 feet 3120 1755 990 Car Wash4 80 Leq & 80 Lmax at 50 feet 500 285 160
Pickleball Courts (Four Couts)4 61 Leq & 81 Lmax at 45 feet 900 505 N/A5 Soccer Fields4 55 Leq & 75 Lmax at 200 feet 1125 635 N/A5 Dog Park4 52 Leq & 68 Lmax at 170 feet 760 430 N/A5
1Assumes a -5 dB reduction. 2Assumes a -10 dB reduction. 3Assumes operation during both daytime and nighttime hours. 4Assumes operation during daytime hours only.
5Park buildings typically large enough to shield sources.

If the above uses were constructed closer than the screening distances listed in the table, the City’s noise level standards could be exceeded at nearby sensitive receptors. Therefore, this is a potentially significant impact, and mitigation is required. Mitigation measure 1(b) would reduce stationary noise impacts to less-thansignificant.

Construction Noise
During the construction phases of the project, noise from construction activities would add to the noise environment in the immediate project vicinity. As indicated in Table 6, activities involved in construction would generate maximum noise levels ranging from 76 to 90 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet. Construction activities would also be temporary in nature and are anticipated to occur during normal daytime working hours. The City of Ceres prohibits construction activities generating substantial noise levels outside of the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.

Caltrans defines a significant increase due to noise as an increase of 12 dBA over existing ambient noise levels; Saxelby Acoustics used this criterion to evaluate increases due to construction noise associated with the project. As shown in Table 6, construction equipment is predicted to generate noise levels of up to 90 dBA Lmax at 50 feet. Construction noise is evaluated as occurring at the center of the site to represent average noise levels generated over the duration of construction across the project site. Table 15 provides the predicted noise levels at the nearest sensitive receptor to each project area.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Master Plan
City of Ceres, CA
Job #240101
May 1, 2024 www.SaxNoise.com

S:\General\Job Folders\240101 Copper Trails Master Plan EIR\Word\240101 Copper Trails Master Plan EIR.docx TABLE 15: CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS AT SENSITIVE RECEPTORS Area
Distance to
Sensitive
receptors1
Existing Max2
(dBA)
Construction
Max (dBA)
Increase Over
Ambient Exceeds 12 dB?
LDR 7.0 AC. 465 79 71 0 No
LDR 10.7 AC. 525 66 70 4 No
LDR 7.7 AC. 650 66 68 2 No
LDR 15.5 AC. 795 90 66 0 No
LDR 17.0 AC. 1470 79 61 0 No
LDR 47.2 AC. 1440 90 61 0 No
LDR 26.7 AC. 1815 55 59 4 No
LDR 47.8 AC. 690 82 67 0 No
MDR 17.2 AC. 550 90 69 0 No
MDR 7.0 AC. 1600 82 60 0 No
MDR 8.9 AC. 1350 66 61 0 No
MHDR 7.7 AC. 1720 82 59 0 No
MHDR 9.1 AC. 600 72 68 0 No
HDR 13.0 AC. 1000 57 64 7 No
HDR 17.8 AC. 810 82 66 0 No
RC 14.7 AC. 1230 55 62 7 No
RC 16.5 AC. 2070 82 58 0 No
RC 25.1 AC. 980 82 64 0 No
RC 51.1 AC. 2060 82 58 0 No
P/OS 3.8 AC. 945 90 64 0 No
P/OS 5.0 AC 560 72 69 0 No
P/OS 2.0 AC 1215 72 62 0 No
P/OS 4.7 AC. 1265 82 62 0 No
CF 1.8 AC. 860 72 65 0 No
CF 1.6 AC. 800 72 66 0 No
Notes:
1As measured from the center of construction area.
2Based upon average daytime maximum noise level measured or calculated based on long-term measurement data.

As shown in the table, construction of the proposed project areas is predicted to generate an increase of up to 7 dB above the ambient noise environment, which is less than the 12 dB significance threshold.

Noise would also be generated during the construction phase by increased truck traffic on area roadways. A project-generated noise source would be truck traffic associated with transport of heavy materials and EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Master Plan
City of Ceres, CA
Job #240101
May 1, 2024 www.SaxNoise.com

S:\General\Job Folders\240101 Copper Trails Master Plan EIR\Word\240101 Copper Trails Master Plan EIR.docx equipment to and from the construction site. This noise increase would be of short duration and would occur during daytime hours.

Although construction activities are temporary in nature and would occur during normal daytime working hours, construction-related noise could result in sleep interference at existing noise-sensitive land uses in the vicinity of the construction if construction activities were to occur outside the normal daytime hours.

Therefore, impacts resulting from noise levels temporarily exceeding the threshold of significance due to construction would be considered potentially significant. Mitigation measure 1(c) would reduce construction noise impacts to less-than-significant.

Transportation Noise on Project Site (Non-CEQA Issue)
Exterior Transportation Noise
Compliance with City’s standards on new noise-sensitive receptors is not a CEQA consideration. However, this information is provided here so that a determination can be made regarding the ability of the proposed project to meet the requirements of the City of Ceres for exterior and interior noise levels at new sensitive uses proposed under the project.

As shown in Table 2, measured noise levels along E. Service Road were 74 dBA Ldn at a distance of 50 feet from the roadway centerline. Based upon the projected increases in traffic along E. Service Road, an increase in noise levels due to traffic of approximately +3 dB is expected. The proposed residential uses will be located approximately 100 feet from the centerline of E. Service Road. At this distance, noise levels of up to 72 dBA Ldn are predicted at the center of the proposed residential outdoor activity areas. This would exceed the City’s noise level standard of 60 dBA Ldn. Therefore, Saxelby Acoustics recommends the construction of a sound wall along E. Service Road. Table 16 below shows noise levels at the sensitive receptors with various barrier heights.

Appendix D contains the complete results of the FHWA barrier calculations.

TABLE 16: BARRIER HEIGHTS ALONG E. SERVICE ROAD
Top of
Barrier
Elevation (ft)
Barrier
Height2 (ft)
-------------------- Ldn, dB -------------------- Barrier Breaks Line of Sight to… Autos Medium
Trucks
Heavy
Trucks Total Autos? Medium Trucks?
Heavy
Trucks?
6 6 70 57 61 71 Yes Yes Yes
7 7 69 55 59 69 Yes Yes Yes
8 8 67 54 58 68 Yes Yes Yes
9 9 66 52 57 66 Yes Yes Yes
10 10 65 51 55 65 Yes Yes Yes
11 11 64 50 54 64 Yes Yes Yes
12 12 63 49 53 63 Yes Yes Yes
13 13 62 49 52 63 Yes Yes Yes
14 14 62 48 52 62 Yes Yes Yes
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Master Plan
City of Ceres, CA
Job #240101
May 1, 2024 www.SaxNoise.com

S:\General\Job Folders\240101 Copper Trails Master Plan EIR\Word\240101 Copper Trails Master Plan EIR.docx As shown in the table, a barrier height greater than 14 feet would be required to achieve the City’s noise level standard of 60 dBA Ldn. However, the City’s General Plan allows for transportation noise levels of up to 65 dBA Ldn provided that exterior noise control measures have been implemented and interior noise levels are in compliance with the City standards. Therefore, 10-foot-tall sound walls should be constructed between E.

Service Road and the outdoor activity areas of the proposed residential uses. For multifamily residential developments, an intervening building may be used as shielding for outdoor areas in lieu of the 10-foot-tall sound walls.

Interior Transportation Noise
Based upon the predicted noise levels along E. Service Road of 77 dBA Ldn at 50 feet to the centerline, the proposed project would be exposed to unshielded exterior noise levels of up to 71 dBA Ldn at the ground floor building facades closest to E. Service Road. Second floor receivers are typically exposed to noise levels 2-3 dB higher than ground floor receivers, resulting in noise levels of up to 74 dBA Ldn at the second-floor facades.

Where sound walls are utilized, exterior noise levels at ground floor receivers are predicted to be 65 dBA Ldn.

Conventional construction typically achieves a 25 dBA noise level reduction (assuming a minimum of STC 29 rated glazing). This would result in first-floor interior noise levels of up to 40 dBA Ldn, which complies with the City’s interior noise level standard of 45 dBA Ldn. However, unshielded first-floor receivers and second-floor receivers would not benefit from the shielding of the wall. Based upon these exterior transportation noise levels of 71-74 dBA Ldn, an exterior-to-interior noise level reduction of 26-29 dBA would be required to meet the City’s interior noise level standard of 45 dBA Ldn at the second-floor facades of the proposed residential uses.

As floor plans for the proposed residences were not available at the time of this study, an estimate of the required noise control measures is provided in Appendix E. The assumptions of these calculations should be verified upon completion of the floor plans. To achieve compliance with the 45 dBA Ldn standard, glazing with an STC rating of at least 32 at first floors and 38 at second floors should be used at all first-row receivers with a view of E. Service Road. Ground-level receivers shielded by a sound wall would require STC 29 glazing.

Appendix E shows the complete exterior-to-interior noise calculations.

Stationary Noise on the Project Site (Non-CEQA Issue).

The proposed project is predicted to be exposed to stationary noise levels emanating from the WWTP of up to

46.7 dBA Leq at the property line during both daytime and nighttime hours. Based upon the proposed street sections, the medium density residential development will be shielded along the western boundary by a masonry wall. Saxelby Acoustics assumes this wall would be at least 6 feet in height relative to the centerline of Blaker Road. This would be sufficient to reduce noise levels to below the City’s stationary noise level standard of 45 dBA Leq. Therefore, no additional noise control measures would be required.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Master Plan
City of Ceres, CA
Job #240101
May 1, 2024 www.SaxNoise.com

S:\General\Job Folders\240101 Copper Trails Master Plan EIR\Word\240101 Copper Trails Master Plan EIR.docx Mitigation Measures
1(a) To reduce traffic noise increases under Near-Term Plus Project conditions to less than +1.5 dB, the segment of E. Service Road north of the project boundary shall be paved with quiet pavement. The pavement would be required for any portion of the roadway passing a noise-sensitive use, and for a distance of 100 feet on either side of the sensitive-use. Figure 3 provides the required location of quiet pavement.
1(b) To ensure compliance with the City’s noise level standards for stationary noise sources, the setback distances listed in Table 14 shall be maintained. In lieu of this measure, an acoustical analysis may be performed by a qualified acoustical consultant demonstrating compliance with the City’s noise level standards.
1(c) The City shall establish the following as conditions of approval for any permit that results in the use of construction equipment:
• Construction shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. unless allowed by special permit issued by the Building Inspector or City Engineer.
• All construction equipment powered by internal combustion engines shall be properly muffled and maintained.
• Quiet construction equipment, particularly air compressors, are to be selected whenever possible. • All stationary noise-generating construction equipment such as generators or air compressors are to be located as far as is practical from existing residences. In addition, the project contractor shall place such stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors closest to the project site.
• Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines is prohibited. • The construction contractor shall, to the maximum extent practical, locate on-site equipment staging areas to maximize the distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction.

Timing/Implementation: Implemented prior to approval of grading and/or building permits Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Ceres Community Development Services Department The above mitigation measures would help to reduce noise levelsresulting from implementation of the project.

With mitigation, this impact would be considered less-than-significant.

Recommended Condition of Approval
Prior to approval of project improvement plans, the plans for the proposed project shall show that the outdoor activity areas of residential uses along E. Service Road shall be shielded from E. Service Road through the use of minimum ten-foot-tall sound walls per the approval of the City Engineer. Sound wall may include a combination of earthen berm and masonry wall to achieve the required wall height. Wall heights shall be measured relative to either pad or roadway centerline elevations, whichever is higher. This shall apply to all first-row receiver rooms with a view of E. Service Road. Other types of barrier may be employed but shall be reviewed by an acoustical engineer prior to being constructed. Alternatively, an intervening building may provide adequate shielding for outdoor common uses of multifamily residential developments.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Master Plan
City of Ceres, CA
Job #240101
May 1, 2024 www.SaxNoise.com

S:\General\Job Folders\240101 Copper Trails Master Plan EIR\Word\240101 Copper Trails Master Plan EIR.docx Additionally, the proposed residential buildings located along the E. Service Road frontage shall be designed to achieve a 26-29 dBA exterior to interior noise level reduction to achieve the 45 dBA Ldn standard. This shall apply to all unshielded facades of residences with a view of E. Service Road. Appendix E provides an estimate of interior noise control measures required to meet the applicable standards. It should be noted that interior noise control measures are based upon an estimate of the future residence layouts. These assumptions should be verified once floor plans become available for an accurate assessment of interior noise control measures.

Impact 2: Would the project generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Construction vibration impacts include human annoyance and building structural damage. Human annoyance occurs when construction vibration rises significantly above the threshold of perception. Building damage can take the form of cosmetic or structural.

The Table 7 data indicate that construction vibration levels anticipated for the project are less than the 0.2 in/sec threshold at distances of 26 feet. Sensitive receptors which could be impacted by construction related vibrations, especially vibratory compactors/rollers, are located further than 26 feet from typical construction activities. At distances greater than 26 feet construction vibrations are not predicted to exceed acceptable levels. Additionally, construction activities would be temporary in nature and would likely occur during normal daytime working hours.

This is a less-than-significant impact and no mitigation is required.

Impact 3: 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?
There are no airports within two miles of the project vicinity. Therefore, this impact is not applicable to the proposed project.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Master Plan
City of Ceres, CA
Job #240101
May 1, 2024 www.SaxNoise.com

S:\General\Job Folders\240101 Copper Trails Master Plan EIR\Word\240101 Copper Trails Master Plan EIR.docx

REFERENCES
American National Standards Institute. (1998). [Standard] ANSI S1.43-1997 (R2007): Specifications for integrating-averaging sound level meters. New York: Acoustical Society of America.

American Standard Testing Methods, Standard Guide for Measurement of Outdoor A-Weighted Sound Levels, American Standard Testing Methods (ASTM) E1014-08, 2008.

ASTM E1014-12. Standard Guide for Measurement of Outdoor A-Weighted Sound Levels. ASTM International. West Conshohocken, PA. 2012.

ASTM E1780-12. Standard Guide for Measuring Outdoor Sound Received from a Nearby Fixed Source. ASTM International. West Conshohocken, PA. 2012.

Barry, T M. (1978). FHWA highway traffic noise prediction model (FHWA-RD-77-108). Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of transportation, Federal highway administration, Office of research, Office of environmental policy.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Technical Noise Supplement, Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, September 2013.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, May 2011.

Egan, M. D. (1988). Architectural acoustics. United States of America: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Federal Highway Administration. FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide. FHWA-HEP-05- 054 DOT-VNTSC-FHWA-05-01. January 2006.

Hanson, Carl E. (Carl Elmer). (2006). Transit noise and vibration impact assessment. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Office of Planning and Environment.

International Electrotechnical Commission. Technical committee 29: Electroacoustics. International Organization of Legal Metrology. (2013). Electroacoustics: Sound level meters.

International Organization for Standardization. (1996). Acoustic - ISO 9613-2: Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors. Part 2: General methods of calculation. Ginevra: I.S.O.

Miller, L. N., Bolt, Beranek, & and Newman, Inc. (1981). Noise control for buildings and manufacturing plants.

Cambridge, MA: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Inc.

SoundPLAN. SoundPLAN GmbH. Backnang, Germany. http://www.soundplan.eu/english/ Wood Rogers. Copper Trails Master Plan Transportation Impact Analysis. March 2024.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Appendix A: Acoustical Terminology
Acoustics   The science of sound.

Ambient Noise  The distinctive acoustical characteristics of a given space consisting of all noise sources audible at that location. In many cases, the term ambient is used to describe an existing or pre‐project condition such as the setting in an environmental noise study.

ASTC  Apparent  Sound  Transmission  Class.    Similar  to  STC  but  includes  sound  from  flanking  paths  and  correct  for  room reverberation. A larger number means more attenuation. The scale, like the decibel scale for sound, is logarithmic.

Attenuation   The reduction of an acoustic signal.

A‐Weighting   A  frequency‐response  adjustment  of  a  sound  level meter  that  conditions  the  output  signal  to  approximate  human response.

Decibel or dB   Fundamental  unit  of  sound, A Bell is  defined as  the logarithm  of  the  ratio  of  the  sound  pressure  squared  over  the reference pressure squared. A Decibel is one‐tenth of a Bell.

CNEL   Community Noise Equivalent Level. Defined as  the 24‐hour average noise level with noise occurring during evening hours (7 ‐ 10 p.m.) weighted by +5 dBA and nighttime hours weighted by +10 dBA.

DNL  See definition of Ldn.

IIC  Impact  Insulation  Class.  An  integer‐number  rating  of  how  well  a  building  floor  attenuates  impact  sounds,  such  as footsteps. A larger number means more attenuation. The scale, like the decibel scale for sound, is logarithmic.

Frequency   The measure of the rapidity of alterations of a periodic signal, expressed in cycles per second or hertz (Hz).

Ldn     Day/Night Average Sound Level. Similar to CNEL but with no evening weighting.

Leq     Equivalent or energy‐averaged sound level.

Lmax     The highest root‐mean‐square (RMS) sound level measured over a given period of time.

L(n)   The sound level exceeded a described percentile over a measurement period. For instance, an hourly L50 is the sound level exceeded 50% of the time during the one‐hour period.

Loudness   A subjective term for the sensation of the magnitude of sound.

NIC  Noise Isolation Class.  A rating of the noise reduction between two spaces.  Similar to STC but includes sound  from flanking paths and no correction for room reverberation.

NNIC Normalized Noise Isolation Class.  Similar to NIC but includes a correction for room reverberation.

Noise     Unwanted sound.

NRC   Noise Reduction Coefficient. NRC is a single‐number rating of the sound‐absorption of a material equal to the arithmetic mean of the sound‐absorption coefficients in the 250, 500, 1000, and 2,000 Hz octave frequency bands rounded to the nearest multiple  of  0.05. It  is  a  representation  of  the  amount of  sound energy  absorbed  upon  striking  a  particular surface. An NRC of 0 indicates perfect reflection; an NRC of 1 indicates perfect absorption.

RT60     The time it takes reverberant sound to decay by 60 dB once the source has been removed.

Sabin   The unit of sound absorption. One square foot of material absorbing 100% of incident sound has an absorption of 1 Sabin.

SEL   Sound Exposure Level. SEL is a rating, in decibels, of a discrete event, such as an aircraft flyover or train pass by, that compresses the total sound energy into a one‐second event.

SPC  Speech Privacy Class. SPC is a method of rating speech privacy in buildings. It is designed  to measure the degree of speech  privacy  provided  by  a  closed  room,  indicating  the  degree  to  which  conversations  occurring  within  are  kept private from listeners outside the room.

STC   Sound Transmission Class. STC is an integer rating of how well a building partition attenuates airborne sound. It is widely used  to  rate  interior  partitions,  ceilings/floors,  doors,  windows  and  exterior  wall  configurations.    The  STC  rating  is typically used to rate the sound transmission of a specific building element when tested in laboratory conditions where flanking paths around the assembly don’t exist.   A larger number means more attenuation. The scale, like the decibel scale for sound, is logarithmic.

Threshold  The lowest sound that can be perceived by the human auditory system, generally considered of Hearing   to be 0 dB for persons with perfect hearing.

Threshold   Approximately 120 dB above the threshold of hearing. of Pain
Impulsive   Sound of short duration, usually less than one second, with an abrupt onset and rapid decay.

Simple Tone         Any sound which can be judged as audible as a single pitch or set of single pitches.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Appendix B: Continuous and Short-Term
Ambient Noise Measurement Results
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Site: LT-1
Project: Meter:

Leq Lmax L50 L90 Location: Calibrator:

Thursday, March 7, 2024 0:00 70 91 65 60 Coordinates:

Thursday, March 7, 2024 1:00 70 87 65 59
Thursday, March 7, 2024 2:00 65 73 64 59
Thursday, March 7, 2024 3:00 71 86 68 62
Thursday, March 7, 2024 4:00 65 82 63 60
Thursday, March 7, 2024 5:00 72 83 71 64
Thursday, March 7, 2024 6:00 73 79 73 70
Thursday, March 7, 2024 7:00 72 79 71 69
Thursday, March 7, 2024 8:00 73 89 71 69
Thursday, March 7, 2024 9:00 70 82 70 66
Thursday, March 7, 2024 10:00 69 81 68 64
Thursday, March 7, 2024 11:00 69 81 68 63
Thursday, March 7, 2024 12:00 70 88 69 66
Thursday, March 7, 2024 13:00 69 83 68 65
Thursday, March 7, 2024 14:00 70 88 69 66
Thursday, March 7, 2024 15:00 70 80 70 67
Thursday, March 7, 2024 16:00 71 88 69 64
Thursday, March 7, 2024 17:00 69 83 67 65
Thursday, March 7, 2024 18:00 70 81 70 67
Thursday, March 7, 2024 19:00 71 87 70 67
Thursday, March 7, 2024 20:00 70 81 69 66
Thursday, March 7, 2024 21:00 68 86 66 61
Thursday, March 7, 2024 22:00 69 84 67 61
Thursday, March 7, 2024 23:00 69 93 66 61
Leq Lmax L50 L90
70 84 69 66
70 84 67 62
68 79 66 61
73 89 71 69
65 73 63 59
73 93 73 70
76 66
CNEL 76 Night % 34
Day Low
Day High
Night Low
Night High
Ldn Day %
Night Average
CAL200
Thursday, March 7, 2024 Thursday, March 7, 2024
Statistics
Day Average
(37.579082, -120.943865)
Appendix B1: Continuous Noise Monitoring Results
Date Time
Measured Level, dBA Copper Trails Master Plan EIR
North Eastern Project Boundary
LDL 820-7
91 87
73 86
82 83
79 79
89 82 81 81
88 83
88 80
88 83
81 87
81 86
84 93
60 59 59
62 60
64 70 69 69
66 64 63
66 65 66 67
64 65
67 67 66
61 61 61
70 70
65 71
65 72 73 72 73
70 69 69 70 69 70 70 71 69 70 71
70 68 69 69
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Measured Hourly Noise Levels, dBA
Time of Day
Measured Ambient Noise Levels vs. Time of Day
Lmax L90 Leq
Noise Measurement Site
LT-1
Service Rd.

Red Wood Rd.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Site: LT-2
Project: Meter:

Leq Lmax L50 L90 Location: Calibrator:

Thursday, March 7, 2024 0:00 56 79 54 51 Coordinates:

Thursday, March 7, 2024 1:00 57 75 55 53
Thursday, March 7, 2024 2:00 56 64 55 52
Thursday, March 7, 2024 3:00 57 68 56 54
Thursday, March 7, 2024 4:00 59 68 58 56
Thursday, March 7, 2024 5:00 60 82 58 57
Thursday, March 7, 2024 6:00 60 80 60 58
Thursday, March 7, 2024 7:00 62 80 59 55
Thursday, March 7, 2024 8:00 63 81 54 52
Thursday, March 7, 2024 9:00 61 91 52 49
Thursday, March 7, 2024 10:00 58 81 55 52
Thursday, March 7, 2024 11:00 59 79 57 55
Thursday, March 7, 2024 12:00 60 81 56 54
Thursday, March 7, 2024 13:00 60 80 57 54
Thursday, March 7, 2024 14:00 61 83 57 55
Thursday, March 7, 2024 15:00 63 83 58 56
Thursday, March 7, 2024 16:00 68 97 58 55
Thursday, March 7, 2024 17:00 60 81 56 54
Thursday, March 7, 2024 18:00 60 83 58 56
Thursday, March 7, 2024 19:00 60 75 59 57
Thursday, March 7, 2024 20:00 59 78 58 57
Thursday, March 7, 2024 21:00 59 79 58 56
Thursday, March 7, 2024 22:00 62 78 59 55
Thursday, March 7, 2024 23:00 64 74 60 55
Leq Lmax L50 L90
62 82 57 55
59 74 57 55
58 75 52 49
68 97 59 57
56 64 54 51
64 82 60 58
66 76
CNEL 66 Night % 24
Day Low
Day High
Night Low
Night High
Ldn Day %
(37.5730312, -120.9418469)
Thursday, March 7, 2024 Thursday, March 7, 2024
Statistics
Day Average
Night Average
CAL200
LDL 812-3
Appendix B2: Continuous Noise Monitoring Results
Date Time
Measured Level, dBA Copper Trails Master Plan EIR
South Eastern Project Boundary
79 75
64 68 68
82 80 80 81
91 81 79 81 80
83 83
97 81 83
75 78 79 78
74 51 53 52 54 56 57 58
55 52
49 52
55 54 54 55 56 55 54 56 57 57 56 55 55
56 57 56 57 59 60 60 62 63 61
58 59 60 60 61
63 68
60 60 60 59 59
62 64
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
110
Measured Hourly Noise Levels, dBA
Time of Day
Measured Ambient Noise Levels vs. Time of Day
Lmax L90 Leq
Noise Measurement Site
LT-2
Service Rd.

Red Wood Rd.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Site: LT-3
Project: Meter:

Leq Lmax L50 L90 Location: Calibrator:

Thursday, March 7, 2024 0:00 60 84 49 46 Coordinates:

Thursday, March 7, 2024 1:00 58 80 51 48
Thursday, March 7, 2024 2:00 59 85 51 48
Thursday, March 7, 2024 3:00 63 85 53 49
Thursday, March 7, 2024 4:00 65 83 56 54
Thursday, March 7, 2024 5:00 67 87 59 55
Thursday, March 7, 2024 6:00 71 86 66 58
Thursday, March 7, 2024 7:00 73 93 70 62
Thursday, March 7, 2024 8:00 72 86 69 59
Thursday, March 7, 2024 9:00 69 89 62 52
Thursday, March 7, 2024 10:00 69 84 63 53
Thursday, March 7, 2024 11:00 69 85 64 55
Thursday, March 7, 2024 12:00 74 105 64 53
Thursday, March 7, 2024 13:00 70 86 67 57
Thursday, March 7, 2024 14:00 71 92 68 58
Thursday, March 7, 2024 15:00 70 94 67 59
Thursday, March 7, 2024 16:00 70 85 68 58
Thursday, March 7, 2024 17:00 71 87 69 59
Thursday, March 7, 2024 18:00 69 82 65 55
Thursday, March 7, 2024 19:00 70 95 61 55
Thursday, March 7, 2024 20:00 67 84 62 54
Thursday, March 7, 2024 21:00 70 100 56 52
Thursday, March 7, 2024 22:00 63 82 54 51
Thursday, March 7, 2024 23:00 62 84 53 50
Leq Lmax L50 L90
71 90 65 56
65 84 55 51
67 82 56 52
74 105 70 62
58 80 49 46
71 87 66 58
73 87
CNEL 73 Night % 13
Day Low
Day High
Night Low
Night High
Ldn Day %
(37.5787583, -120.9568210)
Thursday, March 7, 2024 Thursday, March 7, 2024
Statistics
Day Average
Night Average
CAL200
LDL 820-6
Appendix B3: Continuous Noise Monitoring Results
Date Time
Measured Level, dBA Copper Trails Master Plan EIR
Northern Project Boundary
84 80
85 85 83
87 86
93 86
89 84 85
105
86 92
94 85
87 82
95 84
100
82 84
46 48 48 49
54 55
58 62
59 52 53 55 53
57 58 59 58 59
55 55 54 52 51 50
60 58 59
63 65
67 71
73 72
69 69 69
74 70 71 70 70 71
69 70
67 70
63 62
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
110
Measured Hourly Noise Levels, dBA
Time of Day
Measured Ambient Noise Levels vs. Time of Day
Lmax L90 Leq
Noise Measurement Site
LT-3
Service Rd.

Red Wood Rd.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Site: LT-4
Project: Meter:

Leq Lmax L50 L90 Location: Calibrator:

Thursday, March 7, 2024 0:00 63 79 54 50 Coordinates:

Thursday, March 7, 2024 1:00 62 80 55 52
Thursday, March 7, 2024 2:00 62 83 55 52
Thursday, March 7, 2024 3:00 65 78 57 54
Thursday, March 7, 2024 4:00 67 81 60 56
Thursday, March 7, 2024 5:00 70 89 65 57
Thursday, March 7, 2024 6:00 71 80 70 60
Thursday, March 7, 2024 7:00 72 82 71 63
Thursday, March 7, 2024 8:00 71 82 70 61
Thursday, March 7, 2024 9:00 71 81 69 56
Thursday, March 7, 2024 10:00 71 83 70 58
Thursday, March 7, 2024 11:00 71 83 70 60
Thursday, March 7, 2024 12:00 72 84 71 62
Thursday, March 7, 2024 13:00 71 87 70 60
Thursday, March 7, 2024 14:00 71 80 71 62
Thursday, March 7, 2024 15:00 71 84 70 64
Thursday, March 7, 2024 16:00 72 82 71 64
Thursday, March 7, 2024 17:00 71 81 71 65
Thursday, March 7, 2024 18:00 71 85 70 61
Thursday, March 7, 2024 19:00 70 79 68 59
Thursday, March 7, 2024 20:00 69 84 68 57
Thursday, March 7, 2024 21:00 68 81 65 56
Thursday, March 7, 2024 22:00 67 82 62 55
Thursday, March 7, 2024 23:00 65 78 57 53
Leq Lmax L50 L90
71 82 70 61
67 81 59 54
68 79 65 56
72 87 71 65
62 78 54 50
71 89 70 60
74 82
CNEL 74 Night % 18
Day Low
Day High
Night Low
Night High
Ldn Day %
(37.5801023, -120.9515062)
Thursday, March 7, 2024 Thursday, March 7, 2024
Statistics
Day Average
Night Average
CAL200
LDL 820-5
Appendix B4: Continuous Noise Monitoring Results
Date Time
Measured Level, dBA Copper Trails Master Plan EIR
Northern Project Boundary
79 80
83 78
81 89
80 82 82 81
83 83 84
87 80
84 82 81
85 79
84 81 82
78 50 52 52
54 56 57
60 63
61 56 58 60
62 60
62 64 64 65
61 59
57 56 55
53 63 62 62
65 67
70 71 72 71 71 71 71 72 71 71 71 72 71 71 70 69 68 67
65 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Measured Hourly Noise Levels, dBA
Time of Day
Measured Ambient Noise Levels vs. Time of Day
Lmax L90 Leq
Noise Measurement Site
LT-4
Service Rd.

Red Wood Rd.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Site: ST-1
Project: Copper Trails Master Plan EIR Meter:

Location: Southern Project Boundary Calibrator:

Coordinates:

Start:

Stop:

SLM: SoundAdvisor™ Model 831C
Serial: 10702
Duration: 0:10
Leq: 44
Lmax: 51
Lmin: 41
L50: 43
L90: 42
(37.5707222, -120.9524181)
Appendix B2
Primary noise source was traffic noise from State Route 99 and natural sounds such as birds.
: Short Term Noise Monitoring Results
LDL 831-6
CAL200
2024-03-06 11:10:21
2024-03-06 11:20:21
Measurement Results, dBA
Notes
Noise Measurement Site
12 16
20 24 26 27 26 25 28 25 24 27
30 31
34 35 33 31 31
36 35
27 30
23 15
22 29
33 40
36 39
36 34
40 39
35 34
39 37 38 38 38
40 42
46 48
38 45
38 27
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 Measured Noise Level, dBA
1/3 Octave Band Center Frequency
Measured Ambient Noise Frequency Spectrum
Overall 1/3 Spectra Max 1/3 Spectra
ST-1
Gondring Rd.

Redwood Rd.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Site: ST-2
Project: Copper Trails Master Plan EIR Meter:

Location: North Eastern Project Boundary Calibrator:

Coordinates:

Start:

Stop:

SLM: SoundAdvisor™ Model 831C
Serial: 10702
Duration: 0:05
Leq: 52
Lmax: 55
Lmin: 50
L50: 53
L90: 51
Notes
Primary noise source was machinery noise coming from the factory north of the noise measurement site. This was heavily influence by traffic noise from State Route 99.
2024-03-06 11:50:01
2024-03-06 11:55:26
Measurement Results, dBA
LDL 831-6
CAL200
(37.5789215, -120.9660685)
Appendix B2 : Short Term Noise Monitoring Results
Noise Measurement Site
9 17
20 20
27 29
38 32 34 36 36 36 36 36
42 42 42
45 46
38 35 35
28 24
18 11
18 22 22
28 30
39 33
36 37 37 38 37 38
46 48 48 48 49
42 37
40 29
26 20
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 Measured Noise Level, dBA
1/3 Octave Band Center Frequency
Measured Ambient Noise Frequency Spectrum
Overall 1/3 Spectra Max 1/3 Spectra
ST-2
Gondring Rd.

Redwood Rd.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Appendix C: Traffic Noise Calculation
Inputs and Results
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Project #:

Description:

Ldn/CNEL: Ldn
Hard/Soft: Soft
60 dBA
65 dBA
70 dBA
Level,
dBA
1 El Camino Ave North of North Street 5,960 87 0 13 1.0% 1.0% 35 30 0 66 31 14 65.1 2 North Street East of El Camino Ave 4,760 87 0 13 1.0% 1.0% 35 50 0 57 26 12 60.8 3 El Camino Ave South of 4th Street 9,530 87 0 13 1.0% 1.0% 45 80 0 135 63 29 63.4 4 Service Road West of SR 99 16,200 87 0 13 1.0% 1.0% 45 50 0 193 90 42 68.8 5 Service Road East of SR 99 16,550 87 0 13 1.0% 1.0% 45 110 -5 196 91 42 58.8 6 SR 99 El Camino Ave, North of North Street 106,000 66 0 34 3.3% 9.2% 65 180 0 2720 1262 586 77.7 7 SR 99 North Street, East of El Camino Ave 106,000 66 0 34 3.3% 9.2% 65 880 -10 2720 1262 586 57.4 8 SR 99 El Camino Ave, South of 4th Street 106,000 66 0 34 3.3% 9.2% 65 320 0 2720 1262 586 73.9 9 SR 99 Service Road, West of SR 99 106,000 66 0 34 3.3% 9.2% 65 1440 -10 2720 1262 586 54.1 10 SR 99 Service Road, East of SR 99 106,000 66 0 34 3.3% 9.2% 65 1300 -10 2720 1262 586 54.8 11 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0
12 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0
13 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0
14 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0
15 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0
16 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0
17 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0
18 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0
19 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0
20 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0
21 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0
22 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0
23 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0
24 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0
25 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0
26 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0
27 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0
28 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0
Segment Roadway Segment ADT
Day
%
Appendix C-1
FHWA-RD-77-108 Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model
240101 Copper Trails Master Plan
EPAP Traffic
Offset
(dB)
Contours (ft.) - No
Offset
Eve
%
Night
%
% Med.

Trucks
% Hvy.

Trucks Speed Distance
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Project #:

Description:

Ldn/CNEL: Ldn
Hard/Soft: Soft
60 dBA
65 dBA
70 dBA
Level,
dBA
1 El Camino Ave North of North Street 7,790 87 0 13 1.0% 1.0% 35 30 0 79 37 17 66.3 2 North Street East of El Camino Ave 3,300 87 0 13 1.0% 1.0% 35 50 0 44 21 10 59.2 3 El Camino Ave South of 4th Street 7,260 87 0 13 1.0% 1.0% 45 80 0 113 52 24 62.2 4 Service Road West of SR 99 38,390 87 0 13 1.0% 1.0% 45 50 0 343 159 74 72.5 5 Service Road East of SR 99 22,790 87 0 13 1.0% 1.0% 45 110 -5 242 112 52 60.1 6 SR 99 El Camino Ave, North of North Street 106,000 66 0 34 3.3% 9.2% 65 180 0 2720 1262 586 77.7 7 SR 99 North Street, East of El Camino Ave 106,000 66 0 34 3.3% 9.2% 65 880 -10 2720 1262 586 57.4 8 SR 99 El Camino Ave, South of 4th Street 106,000 66 0 34 3.3% 9.2% 65 320 0 2720 1262 586 73.9 9 SR 99 Service Road, West of SR 99 106,000 66 0 34 3.3% 9.2% 65 1440 -10 2720 1262 586 54.1 10 SR 99 Service Road, East of SR 99 106,000 66 0 34 3.3% 9.2% 65 1300 -10 2720 1262 586 54.8 11 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0
12 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0
13 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0
14 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0
15 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0
16 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0
17 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0
18 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0
19 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0
20 0 0 0 0 0 Rex 0.0% 0 0 0
21 0 0 0 0 0 Natalie 0.0% 0 0 0
22 0 0 0 0 0 Luke 0.0% 0 0 0
23 0 0 0 0 0 Amber 0.0% 0 0 0
24 0 0 0 0 0 Lauren 0.0% 0 0 0
25 0 0 0 0 0 Kenny 0.0% 0 0 0
26 0 0 0 0 0 Leticia 0.0% 0 0 0
27 0 0 0 0 0 Michael 0.0% 0 0 0
28 0 0 0 0 0 Sergio 0.0% 0 0 0
Segment Roadway Segment ADT
Day
%
Appendix C-2
FHWA-RD-77-108 Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model
240101 Copper Trails Master Plan
EPAP Plus Project Traffic
Offset
(dB)
Contours (ft.) - No
Offset
Eve
%
Night
%
% Med.

Trucks
% Hvy.

Trucks Speed Distance
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Appendix D: FHWA Barrier Noise Reduction
Calculations
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
76 62
66 100
10 0
2 8
0 5
0 6
Autos
Medium
Trucks
Heavy
Trucks Total Autos?
Medium
Trucks?
Heavy
Trucks?
6 70 57 61 71 Yes Yes Yes
7 69 55 59 69 Yes Yes Yes
8 67 54 58 68 Yes Yes Yes
9 66 52 57 66 Yes Yes Yes
10 65 51 55 65 Yes Yes Yes
11 64 50 54 64 Yes Yes Yes
12 63 49 53 63 Yes Yes Yes
13 62 49 52 63 Yes Yes Yes
14 62 48 52 62 Yes Yes Yes
Notes:

Appendix D-1
Project Information:

Noise Level Data:

Site Geometry:

Service Road
Location(s): 1
Auto Ldn, dB:
2044
Job Number:

Description
Base of Barrier Elevation:

Automobile Elevation:

Noise Barrier Effectiveness Prediction Worksheet
FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108)
Starting Barrier Height
-------------------- Ldn, dB --------------------
240101
Copper Trails Master Plan
1 Standard receiver elevation is five feet above grade/pad elevations at the receiver location(s).

Barrier Effectiveness:
14 9
10 11
12 6
Top of Barrier
Elevation (ft)
Barrier Height2
(ft)
13 7
8 Barrier Breaks Line of Sight to…
Roadway Name:

Year:

Receiver Description:

Medium Truck Elevation:

Heavy Truck Elevation:

Receiver Elevation1
:

West of SR 99
Heavy Truck Ldn, dB:

Medium Truck Ldn, dB:

Centerline to Barrier Distance (C1):

Barrier to Receiver Distance (C2):

Pad/Ground Elevation at Receiver:

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Appendix E: Exterior to Interior Noise
Reduction Calculations
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Appendix E1: Interior Noise Calculation Sheet
Project: Copper Trails Master Plan
Room Description:

Parallel Exterior level, dBA: 71.0 Ldn
Correction Factor, dBA: 5.0
Noise Source:

Room Length, ft: 10.0
Room Width, ft: 10.0
Room Height, ft: 9.0
Transmitting Panel Length, ft: 20.0
Glazing Area, ft: 25.0
Ceiling Finish:

Ceiling, sf: 100
Wall Finish 1:

Wall Finish 1, sf: 335
Wall Finish 2:

Wall Finish 2, sf: 25
Floor:

Floor, sf: 100
Misc. Finish:

Misc. Finish, sf: 25
Transmitting Element 1:

Element 1, sf: 155
Transmitting Element 2:

Element 2, sf: 25
Transmitting Element 3:

Element 3, sf:

Transmitting Element 4:

Element 4, sf:

Predicted Interior Noise Level, dBA: 45
Noise Reduction, dBA: -26
Vinyl Plank
Soft Furnishings
Wall - 1-Coat Stucco, 5/8" gyp INSUL
Glazing - STC 32
First Floor Bedroom
Inputs
Arterial Traffic
Gyp Board
Gyp Board
Glass
50 52 53
55 58
61 60 60
62 63 62 62
59 57
55 51
29 29
36 37 37 38
35 33 33 33
31 29 29
27 23
20 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 800 1K 1.25K 1.6K 2K 2.5K 3.15K 4K dBA
1/3 Octave Band Center Frequency
Exterior Noise Level Predicted Interior Noise Level
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Appendix E2: Interior Noise Calculation Sheet
Project: Copper Trails Master Plan
Room Description:

Parallel Exterior level, dBA: 74.0 Ldn
Correction Factor, dBA: 5.0
Noise Source:

Room Length, ft: 10.0
Room Width, ft: 10.0
Room Height, ft: 9.0
Transmitting Panel Length, ft: 20.0
Glazing Area, ft: 25.0
Ceiling Finish:

Ceiling, sf: 100
Wall Finish 1:

Wall Finish 1, sf: 335
Wall Finish 2:

Wall Finish 2, sf: 25
Floor:

Floor, sf: 100
Misc. Finish:

Misc. Finish, sf: 25
Transmitting Element 1:

Element 1, sf: 155
Transmitting Element 2:

Element 2, sf: 25
Transmitting Element 3:

Element 3, sf:

Transmitting Element 4:

Element 4, sf:

Predicted Interior Noise Level, dBA: 45
-29
Glass
Second Floor Bedroom
Inputs
Arterial Traffic
Gyp Board
Gyp Board
Vinyl Plank
Soft Furnishings
Wall - 1-Coat Stucco, 5/8" gyp INSUL
Glazing - STC 38
Noise Reduction, dBA:
53 55 56
58 61
64 63 63
65 66 65 65
62 60
58 54
32 30
33 34 35
38 34
33 34 34 33
32 32
29 23
17 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 800 1K 1.25K 1.6K 2K 2.5K 3.15K 4K dBA
1/3 Octave Band Center Frequency
Exterior Noise Level Predicted Interior Noise Level
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
APPENDIX G
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Ceres, CA
Copper Trails Master Plan Transportation Impact Analysis

DRAFT REPORT
Prepared For:

City of Ceres
Prepared By
3301 B Street, Building 100-B
Sacramento, CA 95819
(916) 341-7760
March 2024
\\w oo d ro d g e rs . l o c \P r od u c t i o n D a t a \J o b s-P l s n t\J o b s\ 88 7 8 C op p e r Tr a i l s\C o p p e r Tra i l s O A\ T ra f f i c \R e p o rt s\C op p e r_ Tr a i l s _ TI A _ 2 0 24 03 27. d o c x EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Master Plan TIA
Ceres, CA
WR #8878001 March 2024 Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..........................................................................................................................................................................1 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................................................................6

1.1 Project Description.................................................................................................................................................................6

1.2 Analysis Scenarios ..................................................................................................................................................................8

1.3 Travel Demand Modeling.....................................................................................................................................................8

1.4 Report Organization ..............................................................................................................................................................9 2 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION........................................................................................................................................................9

2.1 Project Site Description........................................................................................................................................................9

2.2 Project Generated Trips ....................................................................................................................................................10

2.3 Project Trip Assignment....................................................................................................................................................12 3 ROADWAY SEGMENT ADT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES......................................................................................12 4 CALTRANS FACILITY ANALYSIS ...............................................................................................................................................16

4.1 Safety Evaluation..................................................................................................................................................................16

4.2 Off-Ramp Queueing Analysis...........................................................................................................................................18

4.2.1 Study Intersection Volumes ............................................................................................................................18

4.2.2 Analysis Methodology and Assumptions...................................................................................................19

4.2.3 Intersection Geometries ...................................................................................................................................24

4.2.4 Study Intersection Off-Ramp Queueing Operations and Impacts....................................................25

4.2.5 Service Road Interchange Mitigations and Improvements................................................................28 5 PROJECT IMPACTS ON PEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE, AND TRANSIT FACILITIES .........................................................29

5.1 Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Impacts and Mitigations ..................................................................................29 6 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED ANALYSIS..................................................................................................................................30

6.1 VMT Methodology................................................................................................................................................................30

6.2 VMT Thresholds ...................................................................................................................................................................31

6.2.1 Residential VMT Threshold.............................................................................................................................31

6.2.2 Office VMT Threshold........................................................................................................................................32

6.2.3 Retail VMT Threshold........................................................................................................................................32

6.3 Initial Project VMT...............................................................................................................................................................32

6.3.1 Project Residential VMT per Capita .............................................................................................................32

6.3.2 Project Office VMT per Employee.................................................................................................................33

6.3.3 Project Retail Net Change To County VMT................................................................................................33

6.4 Project VMT Reductions....................................................................................................................................................34

6.4.1 Diversity of Land Uses .......................................................................................................................................34

6.4.2 Proposed Multi-Use Paths................................................................................................................................36

6.5 Final Project VMT and Impacts ......................................................................................................................................38

6.6 Potential VMT Mitigation Measures.............................................................................................................................39 APPENDIX A.............................................................................................................................................................................................41 APPENDIX B.............................................................................................................................................................................................42 APPENDIX C.............................................................................................................................................................................................43 APPENDIX D.............................................................................................................................................................................................45 APPENDIX E.............................................................................................................................................................................................46 APPENDIX F.............................................................................................................................................................................................47 EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Master Plan TIA
Ceres, CA
WR #8878001 March 2024 Page ii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: Project Location and Study Vicinity...........................................................................................................................7 Figure 3.1: Study Roadway Segments...........................................................................................................................................14 Figure 4.1: Existing (2023) Intersection Volumes...................................................................................................................20 Figure 4.2: Near-Term Intersection Volumes............................................................................................................................21 Figure 4.3: Project Effect Intersection Volumes .......................................................................................................................22 Figure 4.4: Near-Term Plus Project Intersection Volumes ..................................................................................................23 Figure 4.5. Recommended Moffet Road & Service Road Intersection Geometry with Project .............................24 Figure 4.6. Near-Term Plus Project PM Queueing at the SR 99 SB Off Ramp to Service Road..............................26 Figure 4.7. Near-Term Plus Project PM Queueing on Eastbound Service Road..........................................................27

LIST OF TABLES
Table ES.1. Project Residential and Office VMT Summary......................................................................................................5 Table ES.2. Effect of Project Retail on County VMT Summary...............................................................................................5 Table 2.1. Project Land Use Summary ..........................................................................................................................................10 Table 2.2. Project Trip Generation .................................................................................................................................................11 Table 3.1. Roadway Segment ADT..................................................................................................................................................15 Table 4.1. Collision Rates for Caltrans Facilities (TASAS)....................................................................................................16 Table 4.2. Collision Severity and Type for Caltrans Facilities (TASAS)...........................................................................17 Table 4.3. Primary Collision Factors for Caltrans Facilities (TASAS)..............................................................................18 Table 4.4. Near-Term and Near-Term Plus Project Queueing Analysis Results..........................................................25 Table 4.5. Near-Term Plus Project With Improvements Queueing Analysis Results................................................28 Table 6.1. City of Ceres Residential VMT Threshold...............................................................................................................32 Table 6.2. City of Ceres Office VMT Threshold ..........................................................................................................................32 Table 6.3. Initial Project VMT per Capita.....................................................................................................................................33 Table 6.4. Initial Project VMT per Employee .............................................................................................................................33 Table 6.5. Initial Project Retail Net Change In County VMT ................................................................................................34 Table 6.6. Project Daily Trip Comparison (TDM vs. ITE)......................................................................................................34 Table 6.7. Project Internal Trip VMT Reduction – Retail......................................................................................................35 Table 6.8. Project Home-Based Internal Trip Percentages ..................................................................................................35 Table 6.9. Project Internal Trip VMT Reduction – Residential...........................................................................................36 Table 6.10. Measure T-18 Provide Pedestrian Network Improvement..........................................................................37 Table 6.11. Project VMT Reduction Due to Multi-Use Paths ...............................................................................................37 Table 6.12. Final Project VMT Per Capita....................................................................................................................................38 Table 6.13. Project VMT Per Employee After Reductions ....................................................................................................38 EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Master Plan TIA
Ceres, CA
WR #8878001 March 2024 Page iii
Table 6.14. Project Retail Net Change In County VMT After Reductions .......................................................................38 Table 6.15 Potential VMT Mitigation Measures........................................................................................................................40

APPENDICES
Appendix A – Project Land Use Map
Appendix B – Copper Trails New Student Trip Generation Calculations Appendix C – StanCOG Travel Demand Model Trip Generation Summary Appendix D – Traffic Counts
Appendix E – SimTraffic Queueing Reports
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Master Plan TIA
Ceres, CA
WR #8878001 March 2024 Page 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Copper Trails Master Plan (Project) is located west of State Route 99 and south of Service Road, on an approximately 535-acre site that currently includes a mix of undeveloped parcels, rural residential, and agriculture uses. The site also contains the existing Hidahl Elementary School, Central Valley High School, and Hanline Elementary School. Development of the Project would entail a General Plan Amendment, Rezone/Pre-Zone, and Annexation.

The Project would develop a mix of residential, commercial, park, and public/quasi‐public land uses. The Project would contain the following land use designations:
• Low Density Residential – 179.6 acres
• Medium Density Residential – 33.1 acres
• Medim High Density Residential – 16.8 acres
• High Density Residential – 30.8 acres
• Regional Commercial – 107.4 acres
• Park/Open Space – 42.3 acres
• Public Usage – 3.4 acres
• Existing Public Uses (existing schools) – 74.1 acres
• Backbone Roads – 47.1 Acres

ANALYSIS SCENARIOS
The analysis scenarios utilized in this study are as follows:
• Existing (2023) Conditions
• Existing Plus Project Conditions
• Near-Term (2028) Conditions
• Near-Term Plus Project Conditions
• Cumulative (2048) Conditions
• Cumulative Plus Project Conditions

TRAVEL DEMAND MODELING
The latest version of the StanCOG TDM was used in this Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA). The StanCOG TDM was edited to include the same changes as those made for the State Route 99/Mitchell Road/Service Road Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI) Project Addendum to the Approved (Jan 23, 2015) Traffic Operations Analysis Report (TOAR) (Service Road Interchange TOAR Addendum) (Fehr & Peers, October 24, 2023). A review of the StanCOG TDM was performed in the Project study area. Additional detail and calibration changes were made to the StanCOG TDM in the Project study area in order to create an accurate estimate of travel characteristics near the Project.

PROJECT TRIP GENERATION AND ASSIGNMENT
Project land uses were broken down into more detailed land use quantities for use in trip generation. Table

2.1 in this TIA provides a detailed breakdown of assumed Project land use quantities.

The trip generation data and methodologies contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, was used to approximate the number of trips generated by the Project. The proposed Project is anticipated to generate a total of 51,186 external daily primary trips, 2,840 external AM peak hour primary trips (1,440 inbound, 1,400 outbound), and 4,414 external PM peak hour primary trips (2,296 inbound, 2,118 outbound). The ITE National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 684 estimator tool, which is an industry standard tool, was utilized to estimate the number of trips EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Master Plan TIA
Ceres, CA
WR #8878001 March 2024 Page 2
that would occur between Project land uses, also known as “internal” trips. It was estimated that the Project would have 22.9 percent of daily trips, 37.2 percent of AM peak hour tips, and 25.5 percent of PM peak hour trips staying internal to the Project site.

The Project land uses were also plugged into the “Plus Project” scenarios in the StanCOG TDM. The StanCOG TDM Project generated trips were compared against the ITE Project trip generation. Since the StanCOG TDM generally was found to generate a lower number of trips for the Project than was estimated in the ITE Trip Generation, the StanCOG TDM Project volumes were conservatively factored as necessary to match the ITE Trip Generation.

The Project trip assignment was determined using the StanCOG TDM. The planned Service Road Interchange project was assumed to be completed under all “Plus Project” StanCOG TDM scenarios.

ROADWAY SEGMENT ADT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
This study developed average daily traffic (ADT) volumes at 26 existing and proposed study roadway segments under all six (6) study scenarios. Existing roadway segment ADTs were collected on November 30, 2023. The StanCOG TDM was used to develop future volumes. Table 3.1 in this TIA provides a summary of all roadway segment ADT volumes.

CALTRANS SAFETY TASAS EVALUATION
Five years of collision data were obtained from the Caltrans Traffic Accident Surveillance and Analysis Systems (TASAS) for eight (8) study facilities to identify high collision locations and common collision characteristics. The SR 99 Northbound Off-Ramp to Pine Street/El Camino Avenue/4th Street, the SR 99 Southbound On-Ramp from 2nd Street/North Street, and the SR 99 Southbound Off-Ramp to Mitchell Road have experienced higher Total Collision rates and Fatal + Injury collision rates than the state average for similar facilities. Additionally, the SR 99 Southbound Off-Ramp to Mitchell Road experienced a higher-thanaverage Fatal collision rate. All other study facilities experienced lower than average Total collision rates.

The most common collision types were Hit Object collisions, followed by Rear End type collisions. The most common primary collision factors were speeding and improper turning. It is projected that the Project would not add a significant number of trips to the existing ramps that have higher than typical collision rates. The proposed new Service Road Interchange is projected to redirect a significant amount of traffic away from the remaining nearby existing ramps to the new diverging diamond interchange ramps at Service Road.

CALTRANS OFF-RAMP QUEUEING ANALYSIS
95th percentile AM and PM peak hour off-ramp queueing was analyzed at five (5) off-ramp intersections to determine if the addition of Project trips would add two or more car lengths to an off-ramp queue that will extend into the freeway mainline. Off-Ramp queueing was performed for Near-Term (2028) and Near-Term Plus Project conditions. Near-Term scenarios were used in lieu of Existing conditions scenarios for the ramp queueing analysis as the new Service Road Interchange is planned to be constructed well before the Project is complete. Near-Term volumes were developed using a combination of existing counts, volumes from the Service Road Interchange TOAR Addendum, Project trip generation, and the StanCOG TDM. The five (5) study intersections are:

1. El Camino Avenue & 99 Southbound Off-Ramp/North Street

2. El Camino Avenue & SR 99 Northbound Ramps/4th Street

3. SR 99 Southbound Ramps & Service Road (proposed)

4. SR 99 Northbound Ramps & Service Road (proposed)

5. SR 99 Ramps/Mitchell Road & Rhode Road/Ceres Gateway Access (proposed) Synchro 11 software was used to model the study intersections and SimTraffic 11 software was used to analyze 95th percentile queues. Additional adjacent intersection facilities (primarily Service Road intersections with Moffett Road and Mitchell Road) were included in the SimTraffic model runs in order to EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Master Plan TIA
Ceres, CA
WR #8878001 March 2024 Page 3
more accurately simulate the interaction between the closely spaced intersections at the new Service Road Interchange. The SimTraffic models were run with a 10-minute warm-up period and results were the average of 10 runs. The SimTraffic models were set up to be consistent with the consistent with the Service Road Interchange TOAR Addendum analysis.

The study intersections near the Service Road Interchange and Mitchell Road Interchange were assumed to have the geometries specified in the Service Road Interchange GAD (Appendix B of this TIA). The study intersections near the El Camino Avenue Interchange were assumed to have existing conditions geometries.

However, under Near-Term Plus Project conditions the following lane configuration and controls were implemented at the Moffett Road & Service Road intersection in order to accommodate the addition of Project traffic:
• Signalization with protected left-turn phasing on all approaches and northbound right-turn overlap phasing.
• Eastbound Approach: one left-turn lane, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane. • Westbound Approach: three left-turn lanes (including one left-turn trap lane), two through lanes, and one right-turn lane.
• Northbound Approach: one left-turn lane, one through lane, and two right-turn lanes. • Southbound Approach: one left-turn lane and one shared through-right-turn lane.

It was assumed that the Moffett Road & Service Road signal would be coordinated with the Service Road Interchange signals.

Queuing Impacts
The Project would have a queueing impact at the SR 99 Southbound Off-Ramp to Service Road under NearTerm Plus Project PM peak hour conditions as the queue is projected to exceed the available storage. The queueing impact at the SR 99 Southbound Off-Ramp is largely due to the significant increase in southbound right turn volumes due to vehicles traveling to the Project. The excessive queueing at the SR 99 Southbound Off-Ramp is shown in a screenshot of the microsimulation model run in Figure 4.6 in this TIA.

Other Queueing Issues
Excessive eastbound queueing is projected to occur on Service Road between Moffet Road and the SR 99 Northbound On-Ramps under Near-Term Plus Project PM peak hour conditions. Eastbound queueing on Service Road is due to the significantly increased volume of eastbound left-turn traffic entering the Northbound On-Ramp from the Project via Service Road. With the Project, there is a high number of vehicles that make a northbound right turn at the Moffett Road & Service Road intersection, and then want to merge all the way to the inside eastbound lane on Service Road to get to the Northbound On-Ramp, causing a lane utilization problem. The excessive eastbound queueing on Service Road is shown in a screenshot of the microsimulation model run in Figure 4.7 in this TIA.

Queueing Mitigations and Improvements
SR 99 Southbound Off-Ramp to Service Road
To mitigate the queuing impact, it is recommended that the proposed Southbound Off-Ramp be reconfigured to include two southbound right-turn lanes and one southbound left-turn lane.

Eastbound Queueing at the Service Road Interchange
In order to improve eastbound queueing on Service road and address the lane utilization issue, it is recommended to widen the eastbound entrance to the Northbound On-Ramp to two lanes and convert the eastbound approach of Service Road at the Northbound On-Ramp to consist of one dedicated left-turn trap lane onto the ramp, one shared left-through-lane, and one through lane.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Master Plan TIA
Ceres, CA
WR #8878001 March 2024 Page 4
With the recommended mitigation and improvements in place, off-ramp queueing would fit within available storage. The Project queueing impact at the SR 99 Southbound Off Ramp to Service Road would be less than significant after mitigation.

PROJECT IMPACTS ON PEDESTRIAN BICYCLE AND TRANSIT FACILITIES The Project proposes the following internal pedestrian and bicycle features:
• 12-foot sidewalks and 8-foot bike lanes on eastbound Service road along Project frontage • 5-foot sidewalks in both directions along typical interior Project streets • 5-foot sidewalks and 4-foot bike lanes in both directions along Central Avenue • 10-foot multiuse path along northbound Blaker Road along Project frontage • 5-foot sidewalks and 4-foot bike lanes in both directions along interior collector streets • 8-foot path/trail along Project frontage adjacent to the TID Lateral canal The Project area is served by the Stanislaus Regional Transit Authority (StanRTA). StanRTA offers fixed route bus services, as well as ADA Paratransit and Medivan services. The closest transit stops to the Project site are located on Service Road in front of Central Valley High School and on Blaker Road and Central Avenue north of Service Road. These stops are served by Route 42, which provides connectivity between the Modesto Transit Center and the Ceres Walmart Transit Hub via residential and commercial roads. The Project is considering a potential extension of StanRTA’s fixed-route bus service which would run along Central Avenue, E. Redwood Road, proposed Street C, Lucas Road, proposed Street B, and Moffett Road within the Project site.

The Project would not impact existing or proposed pedestrian or bicycle facilities in a way that would discourage their use, nor is the Project anticipated to cause a significant increase in pedestrian or bicycle demand in the study area that would put existing facilities over capacity.

The Project would likely cause a significant increase in local transit demand. It is recommended that the Project accommodate new transit demand by including an extended transit route and transit stops within the Project site, including the regional commercial and office portions of the site. Expanded service areas for Route 42 or other local bus routes should be explored in coordination with the City and StanRTA.

VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED ANALYSIS
VMT Methodology
The VMT analysis was prepared consistent with the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (OPR Technical Advisory) (December 2018). The StanCOG TDM was used to estimate all City and Project VMT within Stanislaus County. In order to estimate City and Project VMT outside of Stanislaus County, consistent with OPR Guidelines, this analysis utilizes trip length and origin-destination information from the location-based services data vendor Replica.

VMT was analyzed under Existing (2023) and Cumulative (2048) conditions, as necessary, both without and with the Project.

VMT Thresholds, Project VMT, and Impacts
VMT thresholds were developed based on OPR Technical Advisory guidance. Initial Project VMT was developed using data from the StanCOG TDM scenarios, supplemented by Replica-based out-of-County trip lengths. Additional analysis was performed to quantify the VMT reductions due to Project features (diversity of land uses and new multimodal facilities) which cannot be fully captured by the StanCOG TDM and Replica platform, and Final Project VMT was calculated. Table ES.1 summarizes VMT thresholds, Project VMT, and VMT impacts for residential and office land uses. Table ES.2 summarizes VMT thresholds, Project net change to VMT, and VMT impacts for retail land uses.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Master Plan TIA
Ceres, CA
WR #8878001 March 2024 Page 5
Table ES.1. Project Residential and Office VMT Summary
Metric Home-Based VMT per Capita
(Residential)
Commute VMT per Employee
(Office)
Existing City Average VMT 14.7 23.1
Threshold (85% of City Average) 12.5 19.7
Final Project VMT 12.9 25.1
Percent Difference +3.2% +27.4%
Impact Significant before mitigation Significant before mitigation Table ES.2. Effect of Project Retail on County VMT Summary Metric Value
Net Change to County VMT Threshold +0
Project Retail Net Change to County VMT (Existing Plus Project) -15,296 Existing Plus Project Impact Less than significant
Project Retail Net Change to County VMT (Cumulative Plus Project) -13,149 Cumulative Plus Project Impact Less than significant
Potential VMT Mitigation Measures
Table 6.15 in this TIA identifies a list of 23 potential VMT mitigation measures that could be utilized to reduce Project VMT. Table 6.15 in this TIA also identifies the potential range of effectiveness of each measure, and the type of VMT/impact that the measure would address. It is recommended that the City and the Project team coordinate to identify and implement a number of VMT mitigation measure that would be feasible to implement for the Project and which would reduce the VMT impacts.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Master Plan TIA
Ceres, CA
WR #8878001 March 2024 Page 6
1 INTRODUCTION
This report has been prepared to present the results of a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) in support of the proposed Copper Trails Master Plan (Project) located in the City of Ceres (City). The proposed Project is located west of State Route 99 and south of Service Road, on an approximately 535-acre site that currently includes a mix of undeveloped parcels, rural residential, and agriculture uses. The site also contains the existing Hidahl Elementary School, Central Valley High School, and Hanline Elementary School. Development of the Project would entail a General Plan Amendment, Rezone/Pre-Zone, and Annexation. The Project location is shown in Figure 1.1.

The purpose of this TIA is to address the Project’s impacts under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. The CEQA analysis will consider the Project’s effects on regional vehicle miles traveled (VMT), safety, and multimodal facilities. The CEQA analysis will also fulfill Caltrans requirements regarding queueing analysis and safety/collision analysis based on procedures outlined in the Traffic Safety Bulletin 20-02-R1: Interim Local Development Intergovernmental Review Safety Practitioners Guidance (LDIGR).

1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project would develop a mix of residential, commercial, park, and public/quasi‐public land uses. The Project would contain the following land use designations:
• Low Density Residential – 179.6 acres
• Medium Density Residential – 33.1 acres
• Medim High Density Residential – 16.8 acres
• High Density Residential – 30.8 acres
• Regional Commercial – 107.4 acres
• Park/Open Space – 42.3 acres
• Public Usage – 3.4 acres
• Existing Public Uses (existing schools) – 74.1 acres
• Backbone Roads – 47.1 Acres
The current Project land use map is contained in Appendix A.

The Project is bordered by Lucas Road and Mitchell Road to the east, Service road to the north, Blaker Road to the west and the Turlock Irrigation District (TID) Lateral Canal to the south. The Project would access the surrounding roadway network via existing and new connections to Service Road, Blaker Road, Central Avenue, Moffett Road, Lucas Road, and East Redwood Avenue. The majority of Project traffic would access State Route 99 (SR 99) via the planned new SR 99 Mitchell/Service Road Diverging Diamond Interchange (Service Road Interchange) which has a target opening year of 2028. The Service Road Interchange Geometric Approval Drawing (GAD) (NV5, dated October 16, 2023) is included in Appendix B. Some Project traffic is also anticipated to utilize the existing SR 99 Ramps located on El Camino Avenue between Magnolia Street and Pine Street.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Mitchell Rd
Legend
New Roadways
Project Site
0 1,500 3,000
Feet

PROJECT LOCATION AND VICINITY

COPPER TRAILS MASTER PLAN TIA

CERES, CA
MARCH 2024
\\woodrodgers.loc\ProductionData\Jobs-Plsnt\Jobs\8878 Copper Trails\Copper Trails OA\GIS\Traffic\Copper_Trails_Traffic\Copper_Trails_Traffic.aprx 3/14/2024 4:04 PM nscappaticci Figure 1.1
NORTH
Pine St
Central Ave
Blaker Rd
J16
W Hatch Rd
E Service Rd
E Glenn Ave
Eureka St
Service Rd
Imperial Ave
zani Ln
Marin Ave
Knox Rd
E Whitmore Ave
Crows Landing Rd
Whitmore Ave
Bret Harte
J16
W Kaiser Rd
E Grayson Rd
Lathrop St
Grayson Rd
St. Stanislaus
Golf Course
Cowan
Central Ave
Don Pedro Rd
E Service Rd
6th St 6th St
Blaker Rd
Fowler Rd
9th St
Morgan Rd
Moffett Rd
10th St
Garrison St
5th St
Richard Way
Evans Rd
Tranquil Ln
Farris Ave
Kinser Rd
Glasgow Dr
Caswell Ave
Calcagno St
Mitchell Rd
E Whitmore Ave
State Route 99
State Route 99
Ceres Central Ave
E Redwood Rd
Blaker Rd
Moffett Rd Moffett Rd
W Kaiser Rd
Morgan Rd
Gondring Rd
Turner Rd
Lucas Rd
E Service Rd
Roeding Rd
Eastgate Blvd
Moore Rd
Don Pedro Rd
Boothe Rd
Washington Rd
Lockwood Rd
Gilbert Rd
Lun
ar Dr
E Whitmore Ave
Co
ra
W
7th St
ay
7th St
Esmar Rd
Esmar Rd
9th St
Prairie Flower Rd
Rohde Rd
Washington Rd
Anna Ave
Redwood Rd
Keyes
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Master Plan TIA
Ceres, CA
WR #8878001 March 2024 Page 8

1.2 ANALYSIS SCENARIOS
The analysis scenarios utilized in this study are as follows:
• Existing Conditions: represents existing (2023) traffic conditions. This scenario is used to establish the baseline thresholds for the VMT analysis.
• Existing Plus Project Conditions: represents existing (2023) conditions where the Service Road Interchange is complete, and all Project land uses and internal roadways are constructed. It was assumed that the Service Road Interchange would have to be completed alongside the Project because the Service Road Interchange is planned to be constructed well before the Project is complete, the interchange is needed to support the traffic generated by the Project, and the interchange would drastically alter the Project trip distribution. This scenario is used to evaluate Project VMT against thresholds.
• Near-Term Conditions: represents a near-term (2028) condition where the Service Road Interchange is complete, and the Project is not yet constructed. This scenario is used as the baseline upon which to evaluate queuing at the interchange. While the Caltrans TOAR requires ramp queuing analysis under Existing conditions, Near-Term conditions were considered to be more appropriate for this study as that is when the new Service Road Interchange is planned to open. • Near-Term Plus Project Conditions: represents a near-term (2028) condition where the Service Road Interchange is complete, and all Project land uses and internal roadways are constructed. This scenario is used in lieu of true “Existing Plus Project” (i.e. “2023 Plus Project”) conditions for the ramp queueing analysis, as the new Service Road Interchange is planned to be constructed well before the Project is complete.
• Cumulative Conditions: represents a long-term future (2048) condition that includes forecasted growth and future roadway network conditions contained in the Stanislaus Council of Governments (StanCOG) Travel Demand Model (TDM). This scenario is used to evaluate Stanislaus County (County) VMT under cumulative future conditions.
• Cumulative Plus Project Conditions: represents long-term future (2048) condition traffic volumes plus full Project buildout traffic. This scenario is used to evaluate Project net change in County VMT under cumulative future conditions.

1.3 TRAVEL DEMAND MODELING
The latest version of the StanCOG TDM was used in this TIA. The StanCOG TDM was edited to include the same changes as those made for the State Route 99/Mitchell Road/Service Road Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI) Project Addendum to the Approved (Jan 23, 2015) Traffic Operations Analysis Report (TOAR) (Service Road Interchange TOAR Addendum) (Fehr & Peers, October 24, 2023). A review of the StanCOG TDM was performed in the Project study area. Additional detail and calibration changes were made to the StanCOG TDM in the Project study area in order to create an accurate estimate of travel characteristics near the Project. Additional detail and calibration changes included editing roadway network and land use assumptions in the study area to better match existing conditions and adding detail where lacking in the off the shelf model. The base year 2019 scenario in the StanCOG TDM was updated to reflect Existing year 2023 conditions. The cumulative year 20246 scenario in the StanCOG TDM was updated to reflect Cumulative year 2048 conditions, consistent with the Cumulative scenario used in the Service Road Interchange TOAR Addendum. The Cumulative scenario in the TDM includes the new Service Road diverging diamond interchange, reconfigured Mitchell Road Interchange, and new and planned land uses near the Mitchell Road & Service Road intersection. This TDM base was updated to include Project land uses and major new Project internal roadways and connections. The calibrated StanCOG TDM was used to develop Project trip distribution and assignment/effects, as well as background traffic growth and future network Average Daily Traffic (ADT).

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Master Plan TIA
Ceres, CA
WR #8878001 March 2024 Page 9

1.4 REPORT ORGANIZATION
The remainder of this report is divided into the following chapters:
• Chapter 2: Project Trip Generation – Describes the Project trip generation estimate and Project trip distribution.
• Chapter 3: Roadway Segment ADT for Environmental Studies – Provides Existing, Near-Term, Near-Term Plus Project, Cumulative, and Cumulative Plus Project scenario ADT for the study roadway segments.
• Chapter 4: Caltrans Facility Analyses – Describes projected off-ramp queueing conditions under Near-Term and Near-Term Plus Project conditions at SR 99 ramp intersections that would be affected by Project traffic. Also provides a safety evaluation and summary of collision history at study area interchanges.
• Chapter 5: Project Impacts on Multimodal Facilities – Describes planned multimodal improvements in the study area, and the Project’s impact on those facilities. • Chapter 6: Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis – Describes the Project’s impact on VMT and potential mitigation measures.
2 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
This chapter provides a description of the proposed Project, a discussion of the trip generation, and distribution/assignment methods used to assign Project trips to the surrounding roadway network.

2.1 PROJECT SITE DESCRIPTION
The Project consists of an approximately 535-acre site that currently includes a mix of undeveloped parcels, rural residential, and agriculture uses. The site also contains the existing Hidahl Elementary School, Central Valley High School, and Hanline Elementary School. All existing site uses, with the exception of the existing schools, would be removed with development of the Project. Table 2.1 provides a summary of the proposed land uses in the Copper Trails development, a breakdown of the potential commercial uses that would make up the commercial portion of the Project, and Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition land use categories and codes for each use. Note that the Project’s commercial land uses and quantities shown in Table 2.1 are used for planning-level analyses and may not represent the final uses contained in the ultimate build-out of the site.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Master Plan TIA
Ceres, CA
WR #8878001 March 2024 Page 10
Table 2.1. Project Land Use Summary
Land Use Acreage FAR1 ITE Land Use ITE
Code Units2 Quantity
Residential
Low Density Residential (LDR) 179.6 -
Single-Family Detached
Housing 210 DU 988
Medium Density Residential (MDR) 33.1 -
Single-Family Detached
Housing 210 DU 298
Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) 16.8 -
Single-Family Attached
Housing 215 DU 336
High Density Residential (HDR) 30.8 -
Multi-Family Housing
(Low-Rise) 220 DU 770
Commercial (107.4 Total Acres)
Regional Commercial 53.8 0.25 Shopping Center
(>150k) 820 KSF 585.882
Hotel 13.4 0.25 Hotel 310 Rooms 250
Commercial Mixed-Use (Allows HDR)
Retail Commercial 4.5 0.25 Shopping Center
(>150k) 820 KSF 49.005
Office 4.5 0.25 General Office Building 710 KSF 49.005
High Density Residential 4.4 Multi-Family Housing
(Low-Rise) 220 DU 110
Office 13.4 0.25 General Office Building 710 KSF 145.926 Drive-Through Commercial
Fast-Food with Drive Through 1.8 0.25
Fast-Food Restaurant
with Drive-Through
Window
934 KSF 19.602
High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant 1.8 0.25 High-Turnover (SitDown) Restaurant 932 KSF 19.602 Supermarket 6.0 0.25 Supermarket 850 KSF 65.000
Retail Commercial 3.8 0.25 Shopping Center
(>150k) 820 KSF 41.382
Schools
Elementary School – New Students3 - - Elementary School 520 Students 1,085 High School – New Students3 - - High School 525 Students 620 Notes:
1FAR = Floor-to-Area ratio
2DU = Dwelling Units, KSF = 1,000 square feet
3See Attachment A for detailed calculation of projected number of new Elementary and High School students generated by the Project.

Although the Project would not develop new schools, the residential portions of the Project would lead to increased enrollment at existing area schools. The increased enrollment would generate new student trips at the existing schools on and near the Project site. Note that adjacent to the existing Central Valley High School campus is an existing elementary school facility (Hanline Elementary School) that currently houses the Ceres Adult School. This facility is anticipated to transition to elementary school use as demand requires.

Appendix C contains the data and methodology used to estimate the number of new high school and elementary school students generated by the Project.

2.2 PROJECT GENERATED TRIPS
The trip generation data and methodologies contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, was used to approximate the number of trips generated by the Project.

Table 2.2 shows the Project trip generation estimate.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Master Plan TIA
Ceres, CA
WR #8878001 March 2024 Page 11
Table 2.2. Project Trip Generation
Land Use ITE
Code Quantity Units2 Daily1
AM Peak Hour1 PM Peak Hour1
In Out Total In Out Total
Single-Family Detached Housing 210 1,286 DU 10,578 190 571 761 690 406 1,096 Single-Family Attached Housing 215 336 DU 2,510 42 127 169 117 81 198 Multi-Family Housing (Low-Rise) 220 880 DU 5,716 71 225 296 251 148 399 Walk, Bike, Transit Reduction: 4% 4 -752 -12 -37 -49 -42 -25 -68 Total Residential Trips 18,052 291 886 1,177 1,016 610 1,625 School Internal Capture Trips with Residential5 -1,760 0 -575 -575 -126 0 -126 Residential Internal Capture with Office, Retail, Restaurant, and Hotel3 -1,688 -21 -71 -92 -148 -52 -200 Total Residential External Trips 14,604 270 240 510 742 558 1,299 Elementary School 520 1,085 Students 2,463 434 369 803 80 94 174 High School 525 620 Students 1,203 268 126 394 42 45 87 Walk, Bike, Transit Reduction: 4% 4 -147 -28 -20 -48 -5 -6 -10 Total School Trips 3,519 674 475 1,149 117 133 251
School Internal Capture Trips with Residential5 -1,760 -575 0 -575 0 -126 -126 Total School External Trips 1,759 99 475 574 117 7 125
Shopping Center (>150k) 820 676.269 KSF 23,521 330 203 533 1,073 1,162 2,235 Supermarket 850 65.000 KSF 5,960 110 76 186 273 272 545 Total Retail Trips 29,481 440 279 719 1,346 1,434 2,780 Retail Internal Capture with Office, Restaurant, and Hotel3 -3,934 -52 -46 -98 -206 -157 -363 Retail Internal Capture with Residential3 -906 -3 -6 -9 -13 -123 -136 Total Retail External Trips 24,641 385 227 612 1,127 1,154 2,281 General Office Building 710 194.931 KSF 2,074 261 36 297 49 240 289 Office Internal Capture with Retail, Restaurant, and Hotel3 -558 -55 -33 -88 -25 -45 -70 Office Internal Capture with Residential3 -111 -6 0 -6 -23 -2 -25 Total Office External Trips 1,405 200 3 203 1 193 194
Hotel 310 250 Rooms 1,998 66 52 118 80 77 157
Hotel Internal Capture with Office, Retail, and Restaurant3 -672 -3 -20 -23 -41 -34 -75 Hotel Internal Capture with Residential3 -64 0 0 0 -10 0 -10 Total Hotel External Trips 1,262 63 32 95 29 43 72
Fast-Food Restaurant With Drive-Through 934 19.602 KSF 9,164 446 428 874 336 311 647 High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant 932 19.602 KSF 2,101 103 85 188 108 69 177 Total Restaurant Trips 11,265 549 513 1,062 444 380 824 Restaurant Internal Capture with Office, Retail, and Hotel3 -3,143 -64 -75 -139 -158 -194 -352 Restaurant Internal Capture with Residential3 -607 -62 -15 -77 -6 -23 -29 Total Restaurant External Trips 7,515 423 423 846 280 163 443 Total External Primary Trips 51,186 1,440 1,400 2,840 2,296 2,118 4,414 Notes:
1Trip rates are calculated based on ITE Trip Generation (11th Edition) fitted curve equations or average rates. 2DU= Dwelling Unit,KSF = 1,000 square feet
3Internal Capture based on ITE NCHRP Report 684 estimator tool. 4Walk, Bike, Transit Reduction based on California Statewide Household Survey Data for Ceres/Stanislaus County. 550% of School trips were assumed to be internally matched with Residential trips EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Master Plan TIA
Ceres, CA
WR #8878001 March 2024 Page 12
As illustrated in Table 2.2, the proposed Project is anticipated to generate a total of 51,186 external daily primary trips, 2,840 external AM peak hour primary trips (1,440 inbound, 1,400 outbound), and 4,414 external PM peak hour primary trips (2,296 inbound, 2,118 outbound). The ITE National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 684 estimator tool, which is an industry standard tool, was utilized to estimate the number of trips that would occur between Project land uses, also known as “internal” trips. It was estimated that the Project would generate a total of 15,203 internal daily trips, 1,682 internal AM peak hour trips, and 1,512 internal PM peak hour trips. These quantities translate to 22.9 percent of daily trips, 37.2 percent of AM peak hour tips, and 25.5 percent of PM peak hour trips staying internal to the Project site. Detailed totals of Project internal, external, and total trips are included in Appendix D.

The Project land uses were also plugged into the “Plus Project” scenarios in the StanCOG TDM. The “Plus Project” StanCOG TDM scenarios were ran and the Project generated trips estimated by the StanCOG TDM were extracted. The StanCOG TDM Project generated trips were compared against the ITE Project trip generation in Table 2.2 to verify that the StanCOG TDM was generating a reasonable number of trips for the Project. Since the StanCOG TDM generally was found to generate a lower number of trips for the Project than was estimated in the ITE Trip Generation, the StanCOG TDM Project volumes were conservatively factored as necessary to match the ITE Trip Generation. A summary of the comparison of StanCOG TDM Project trips and ITE Trip Generation Project trips is included in Appendix D.

2.3 PROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENT
The Project trip assignment was determined using the StanCOG TDM. The planned Service Road Interchange project was assumed to be completed under all “Plus Project” StanCOG TDM scenarios. The planned Service Road Interchange causes a significant rerouting of existing traffic patterns in the Project study area. Also, addition of Project land uses to the model causes a significant rerouting in existing background traffic as vehicles avoid new areas of congestion and travel to/from new destinations in the Project site. The rerouted background traffic, combined with the new Project trips on the network, is referred to as the net “Project Effect” traffic, and is further discussed in the next chapter. Note that some “Project Effect” values may be negative due to the rerouted background traffic discussed above. 3 ROADWAY SEGMENT ADT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
This section provides roadway segment ADT for 26 existing and proposed study roadway segments under all study scenarios. The following roadway segments were studied in this TIA:

1. Morgan Road between Hackett Road and Service Road

2. Blaker Road between Hackett Road and Service Road

3. Blaker Road south of Service Road

4. Central Avenue between Pine Street and Service Road

5. Central Avenue between Service Road and High School Southern Access

6. Central Avenue between High School Southern Access and E Redwood Road

7. Pine Street between Central Avenue and El Camino Avenue

8. Collins Road between Don Pedro Road and Service Road

9. Moffett Road south of Service Road

10. Moffett Road north of E Redwood Road

11. El Camino Avenue north of Pine Street

12. El Camino Avenue north of Service Road

13. Mitchell Road between Don Pedro Road and Service Road

14. Mitchell Road south of Service Road

15. Service Road between Morgan Road and Blaker Road

16. Service Road between Blaker Road and Central Avenue

17. Service Road between Central Avenue and Moffett Road EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Master Plan TIA
Ceres, CA
WR #8878001 March 2024 Page 13

18. Service Road between El Camino Avenue and Mitchell Road

19. Lucas Road south of Service Road

20. Lucas Road north of Mitchell Road

21. E Redwood Road between Central Avenue and Moffett Road

22. E Redwood Road between Moffett Road and Lucas Road

23. New Project Road between E Redwood Road and Lucas Road

24. New Project Road between Blaker Road and Central Avenue

25. New Project Road between Central Avenue and Moffett Road

26. New Project Road between Moffett Road and Lucas Road

27. Mitchell Road between E Redwood Road and Lucas Road Existing roadway segment ADTs were collected on November 30, 2023. ADT count data is contained in Appendix E. ADTs were not collected at Segments #10, #20, and #27 as they would have similar ADTs to adjacent segments under existing conditions. Study roadway segments are shown in Figure 3.1.

The StanCOG TDM was used to estimate daily roadway volumes under the following model scenarios:
• “2023 Base Year” – does not include the Project or the Service Road Interchange • “2023 Plus Project” – includes the Project and the Service Road Interchange • “Cumulative 2048 Base” – does not include the Project, includes the Service Road Interchange • “Cumulative 2048 Plus Project” – includes the Project and the Service Road Interchange Net “Near-Term Project Effect” and “Cumulative Project Effect” traffic volumes were calculated by taking the difference between “2023 Base Year” and “2023 Plus Project” model volumes, and “Cumulative 2048 Base” and “Cumulative 2048 Plus Project” model volumes, respectively. These “Project Effect” volumes account for both new Project trips added to the study roadway network and background trips that have rerouted due to the new Service Road Interchange and new congestion and destinations from the Project.

Yearly growth rates were calculated for each study segment by comparing “2023 Base Year” and “Cumulative 2048 Base” traffic volumes. These growth rates were applied to Existing (2023) ADT over a five-year period to obtain “Near-Term 2028” Base volumes. The Existing Project Effect volumes were added to “Near-Term 2028 Base” volumes to obtain “Near-Term 2028 Plus Project” conditions ADT.

Yearly growth rates were also applied to Existing (2023) ADT over a 25-year period to obtain “Cumulative 2048 Base” volumes. The Cumulative Project Effect volumes were added to “Cumulative 2048 Base” volumes to obtain “Cumulative 2048 Plus Project” conditions ADT. Table 3.1 contains ADTs for all study scenarios.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
E Service Rd
E Whitmore Ave
Don Pedro Rd
E Service Rd
6th St 6th St
Blaker Rd
9th St
Morgan Rd
10th St
Magnolia St 5th St
Tranquil Ln
Farris Ave
Kinser Rd
Rose Ave
Brown Ave
Roeding Rd
Mitchell Rd
E Whitmore Ave
State Route 99
Ceres
E Redwood Rd Moffett Rd
Gondring Rd
Lucas Rd
Eastgate
Blvd
Moore Rd
Don Pedro Rd
Lun
ar Dr
Esmar Rd
Rohde Rd
Lucas Rd
23 25
26 24
10 8
15 19
12 22
4 21
27 16
17 18
11 20
1 2
3 5
13 14
6 9
7 Legend
Existing Study Roadway Segments
New Project Roadway Study Segments
New Roadways
Project Site
0 850 1,700
Feet

STUDY ROADWAY FACILITIES

COPPER TRAILS MASTER PLAN TIA

CERES, CA
MARCH 2024
\\woodrodgers.loc\ProductionData\Jobs-Plsnt\Jobs\8878 Copper Trails\Copper Trails OA\GIS\Traffic\Copper_Trails_Traffic\Copper_Trails_Traffic.aprx 3/14/2024 4:25 PM nscappaticci Figure 3.1
NORTH
Blaker Rd
Central Ave
Pine St
Mitchell Rd
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Master Plan TIA
Ceres, CA
WR #8878001 March 2024 Page 15
Table 3.1. Roadway Segment ADT
# Segment
Average Daily Traffic
Existing
NearTerm
(2028)
Near-Term
Project
Effect
NearTerm Plus
Project
Cuml.
(2048)
Cuml.

Project
Effect
Cuml.

Plus
Project
1 Morgan Rd between Hackett Rd and
Service Rd 7,789 8,223 4,008 12,231 10,217 3,608 13,825 2 Blaker Rd between Hackett Rd and Service
Rd 3,820 4,098 397 4,495 5,428 -118 5,310
3 Blaker Rd south of Service Rd 925 962 380 1,342 1,124 315 1,439 4 Central Ave between Pine St and Service
Rd 9,306 9,774 2,849 12,623 11,893 1,499 13,392
5 Central Ave between Service Rd and High
School Southern Access 9,715 9,924 6,204 16,128 10,805 5,917 16,722 6 Central Ave between High School Southern
Access and E Redwood Rd 7,352 7,564 4,206 11,770 8,477 3,976 12,453 7 Pine St between Central Ave and El
Camino Ave 12,187 12,562 1,023 13,585 14,183 741 14,924 8 Collins Rd between Don Pedro Rd and
Service Rd 1,510 1,511 831 2,342 1,513 1,195 2,708
9 Moffett Rd south of Service Rd 766 826 39,230 40,056 1,117 38,600 39,717 10 Moffett Rd north of E Redwood Rd1 766 789 11,400 12,189 889 10,522 11,411 11 El Camino Ave north of Pine St 10,514 10,515 -919 9,596 10,520 1,319 11,839 12 El Camino Ave north of Service Rd2 2,736 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 Mitchell Rd between Don Pedro Rd and
Service Rd 27,390 28,924 6,372 35,296 35,968 7,345 43,313 14 Mitchell Rd south of Service Rd 28,953 30,058 -3,712 26,346 34,916 -1,025 33,891 15 Service Rd between Morgan Rd and Blaker
Rd 11,616 12,298 -492 11,806 15,451 -3,151 12,300
16 Service Rd between Blaker Rd and Central
Ave 13,780 14,680 -873 13,807 18,907 -4,099 14,808
17 Service Rd between Central Ave and
Moffett Rd 16,089 17,153 544 17,697 22,163 -1,845 20,318 18 Service Rd between El Camino Ave and
Mitchell Rd 18,876 19,588 8,652 28,240 22,714 9,278 31,992 19 Lucas Rd south of Service Rd 696 799 216 1,015 1,389 359 1,748 20 Lucas Rd north of Mitchell Rd1 696 799 -46 753 1,389 -68 1,321 21 E Redwood Rd between Central Ave and
Moffett Rd 851 853 5,002 5,855 861 4,687 5,548
22 E Redwood Rd between Moffett Rd and
Lucas Rd 278 302 13,082 13,384 421 12,119 12,540
23 New Project Rd between E Redwood Rd
and Lucas Rd 0 0 395 395 0 388 388
24 New Project Rd between Blaker Rd and
Central Ave 0 0 1,238 1,238 0 1,242 1,242
25 New Project Rd between Central Ave and
Moffett Rd 0 0 356 356 0 294 294
26 New Project Rd between Moffett Rd and
Lucas Rd 0 0 17,826 17,826 0 18,029 18,029
26 Mitchell Rd between E Redwood Rd and
Lucas Rd1
278 0 1,462 1,462 0 2,181 2,181
Notes: Bold values indicate unacceptable LOS.
1 Existing segment ADTs are assumed to be the same as the adjacent segment. 2 The segment of El Camino Avenue north of Service Road would not exist with construction of the Service Road Interchange.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Master Plan TIA
Ceres, CA
WR #8878001 March 2024 Page 16
4 CALTRANS FACILITY ANALYSIS
The LDIGR Safety Review Practitioners Guidance (Caltrans, December 18, 2020) establishes the safety review expectations for proposed land use projects that would affect Caltrans facilities in the context of the CEQA review process. LDIGR guidelines consist of a freeway queueing analysis and traffic safety review, including collision analysis.

4.1 SAFETY EVALUATION
This section provides a safety evaluation under Existing conditions for the following ramp facilities:
• SR 99 Northbound Off-Ramp to Pine Street/El Camino Avenue/4th Street (PM R11.338) • SR 99 Southbound On-Ramp from 2nd Street/North Street (PM R 11.379) • SR 99 Northbound On-Ramp from Pine Street/El Camino Avenue/4th Street (PM R11.408) • SR 99 Southbound Off-Ramp to El Camino Avenue/North Street (PM R11.772) • SR 99 Southbound On-Ramp from Mitchell Road (PM R9.974) • SR 99 Northbound Off-Ramp to Mitchell Road (PM R9.993) • SR 99 Northbound On-Ramp from Mitchell Road (PM R10.346) • SR 99 Southbound Off-Ramp to Mitchell Road (PM R10.365) Five years of collision data were obtained from the Caltrans Traffic Accident Surveillance and Analysis Systems (TASAS) for the study facilities to identify high collision locations and common collision characteristics. Data provided for all facilities is from April 1, 2017 to March 31, 2022, with the exception of data for the SR 99 SB Off-Ramp to El Camino Avenue/North Street, which is from July 1, 2018 to June 30, 2023.

Table 4.1 summarizes collision rates at the Caltrans study facilities by severity over the last five years and provides average rates for similar facilities throughout the state for comparison.

Table 4.1. Collision Rates for Caltrans Facilities (TASAS) Roadway
Total No. of Collisions
Actual Collision Rate
(per million vehicle miles)
Average Collision Rate
(per million vehicle miles)
Fatal
Fatal + Injury
Total
1 Fatal
Fatal + Injury
Total
1 SR 99 NB Off-Ramp to Pine St/El
Camino Ave/4th St 9 0 1.06 4.75 0.007 0.42 1.37
SR 99 SB On-Ramp from 2nd
St/North St 3 0 0.24 0.72 0.002 0.18 0.57
SR 99 NB On-Ramp from Pine St/El
Camino Ave/4th St 0 0 0 0 0.002 0.18 0.57
SR 99 SB Off-Ramp to El Camino
Ave/North St 5 0 0.15 0.38 0.007 0.42 1.37
SR 99 SB On-Ramp from Mitchell Rd 8 0 0.16 0.43 0.002 0.23 0.63 SR 99 NB Off-Ramp to Mitchell Rd 5 0 0.12 0.29 0.003 0.38 1.04 SR 99 NB On-Ramp from Mitchell
Rd 2 0 0.15 0.31 0.002 0.23 0.63
SR 99 SB Off-Ramp to Mitchell Rd 25 0.149 1.34 3.58 0.003 0.38 1.04 Notes:
1 Total collisions include Fatal + Injury and Property Damage Only (PDO) collisions EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Master Plan TIA
Ceres, CA
WR #8878001 March 2024 Page 17
As shown in Table 4.1, the SR 99 Northbound Off-Ramp to Pine Street/El Camino Avenue/4th Street, the SR 99 Southbound On-Ramp from 2nd Street/North Street, and the SR 99 Southbound Off-Ramp to Mitchell Road have experienced higher Total Collision rates and Fatal + Injury collision rates than the state average for similar facilities. Additionally, the SR 99 Southbound Off-Ramp to Mitchell Road experienced a higher-thanaverage Fatal collision rate. All other study facilities experienced lower than average Total collision rates.

Table 4.2 summarizes the collisions at the Caltrans study facilities and describes the collision severity (fatal, serious injury, other injury, and Property Damage Only (PDO)) and the collision type. The TASAS data indicated that a total of 56 collisions occurred at the Caltrans study facilities over the last five years.

The most common collision types were Hit Object collisions, followed by Rear End type collisions.

Table 4.2. Collision Severity and Type for Caltrans Facilities (TASAS) Roadway
Total Collisions
Severity Type
Fatal
Serious Injuries
Other Injuries
PDO
Sideswipe
Rear-End
Broadside
Hit Object
Overturn
Other
Head-On
SR 99 NB Off-Ramp to Pine St/El
Camino Ave/4th St 9 0 0 2 7 0 0 0 9 0 0 0
SR 99 SB On-Ramp from 2nd St/North St 3 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 SR 99 NB On-Ramp from Pine St/El
Camino Ave/4th St 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SR 99 SB Off-Ramp to El Camino
Ave/North St 5 0 1 1 3 0 2 0 3 0 0 0
SR 99 SB On-Ramp from Mitchell Rd 8 0 1 2 5 0 3 1 4 0 0 0 SR 99 NB Off-Ramp to Mitchell Rd 5 0 0 2 3 1 1 0 2 1 0 0 SR 99 NB On-Ramp from Mitchell Rd 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 SR 99 SB Off-Ramp to Mitchell Rd 24 1 0 8 15 1 8 4 7 1 1 2 Table 4.3 shows the primary collision factors (PCFs) at each Caltrans study facility. As shown in Table 4.3, the most common PCFs were speeding and improper turning.

Of the existing study ramps, the Project is primarily projected to add trips to the SR 99 Northbound On-Ramp from Pine Street/El Camino Avenue/4th Street and the SR 99 Southbound Off-Ramp to El Camino Avenue/North Street. Both of these facilities have experienced collision rates below the average for similar facilities. Construction of the Service Road Interchange project would reconstruct the entire Mitchell Road Interchange by eliminating the SR 99 Northbound On-Ramp from Mitchell Road and the SR 99 Southbound Off-Ramp to Mitchell Road and modifying the Northbound Off-Ramp and Southbound On-Ramp. With the new Service Road Interchange in place, Project traffic is unlikely to utilize the Mitchell Road ramps.

Additionally, the new Service Road Interchange is projected to redirect a significant amount of traffic away from the remaining nearby existing ramps to the new DDI ramps at Service Road. It is projected that the Project would not add a significant number of trips to the existing ramps that have higher than typical collision rates.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Master Plan TIA
Ceres, CA
WR #8878001 March 2024 Page 18
Table 4.3. Primary Collision Factors for Caltrans Facilities (TASAS) Roadway
Total Collisions
PCF
Speeding
Improper Turn
Influence of Alcohol
Failure to Yield
Other Violations
SR 99 NB Off-Ramp to Pine St/El Camino Ave/4th St 9 3 2 4 0 0 SR 99 SB On-Ramp from 2nd St/North St 3 0 1 0 1 1
SR 99 NB On-Ramp from Pine St/El Camino Ave/4th St 0 0 0 0 0 0 SR 99 SB Off-Ramp to El Camino Ave/North St 5 1 1 2 0 1 SR 99 SB On-Ramp from Mitchell Rd 8 4 1 1 2 0
SR 99 NB Off-Ramp to Mitchell Rd 5 1 3 0 0 1
SR 99 NB On-Ramp from Mitchell Rd 2 0 2 0 0 0
SR 99 SB Off-Ramp to Mitchell Rd 24 8 5 3 6 2

4.2 OFF-RAMP QUEUEING ANALYSIS
95th percentile AM and PM peak hour off-ramp queueing was analyzed to determine if the addition of Project trips would add two or more car lengths to an off-ramp queue that will extend into the freeway mainline.

The Project is projected to add trips to the following five existing and proposed SR 99 Ramp intersections:

1. El Camino Avenue & 99 Southbound Off-Ramp/North Street

2. El Camino Avenue & SR 99 Northbound Ramps/4th Street

3. SR 99 Southbound Ramps & Service Road (proposed)

4. SR 99 Northbound Ramps & Service Road (proposed)

5. SR 99 Ramps/Mitchell Road & Rhode Road/Ceres Gateway Access (proposed) The above intersections were modeled using SimTraffic 11 software in order to analyze 95th percentile queueing at the following five off-ramp facilities:

1. SR 99 Southbound Off-Ramp to El Camino Avenue/North Street

2. SR 99 Northbound Off-Ramp to El Camino Avenue/4th Street

3. SR 99 Southbound Off-Ramp to Service Road

4. SR 99 Northbound Off-Ramp to Service Road

5. SR 99 Northbound Off-Ramp to Mitchell Road

4.2.1 Study Intersection Volumes
Off-Ramp queueing was performed for Near-Term (2028) and Near-Term Plus Project conditions. NearTerm scenarios were used in lieu of Existing conditions scenarios for the ramp queueing analysis as the new Service Road Interchange is planned to be constructed well before the Project is complete. Near-Term (No EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Master Plan TIA
Ceres, CA
WR #8878001 March 2024 Page 19
Project) condition volumes at the Service Road and Mitchell Road ramp intersections were obtained from the Service Road Interchange TOAR Addendum.

Near-Term conditions intersection volumes at the El Camino Avenue & 99 Southbound Off-Ramp/North Street and El Camino Avenue & SR 99 Northbound Ramps/4th Street intersections were developed by applying a growth rate from the StanCOG TDM to existing intersection counts. Existing traffic counts were collected at the intersections on Thursday November 30, 2023, during the AM (7-9AM) and PM (4-6PM) peak periods. Intersection count sheets are included in Appendix E. An average growth rate of 0.5% per year was calculated based on growth between “2023 Base Year” and “Cumulative 2048 Base” scenarios in the StanCOG TDM at the El Camino Avenue & 99 Southbound Off-Ramp/North Street and El Camino Avenue & SR 99 Northbound Ramps/4th Street intersections. The growth rate was applied between Existing year 2023 and Near-Term year 2028.

Existing (2023) traffic volumes at the El Camino Avenue & 99 Southbound Off-Ramp/North Street and El Camino Avenue & SR 99 Northbound Ramps/4th Street intersections are shown in Figure 4.1. Near-Term base study intersection volumes are shown in Figure 4.2.

In order to capture the effect of the new Service Road Interchange and new Project trips on existing traffic volumes, Project Effect volumes for the El Camino Avenue Ramp intersections were calculated by using the difference method between “2023 Base Year” (which does not include the Service Road Interchange) and “2023 Base Year Plus Project” (which includes the Service Road Interchange) scenarios of the StanCOG TDM.

As the Near-Term base volumes for the Service Road Interchange and Michell Road interchange intersections are from the Service Road Interchange TOAR Addendum, those volumes already accounted for the rerouting of trips due to the Service Road Interchange. Therefore, Project Effect trips at the Service Road Interchange and Michell Road interchange intersections were calculated by using the difference method between “2023 Base Year Plus Service Road Interchange” and “2023 Base Year Plus Project”(which also includes the Service Road Interchange) scenarios of the StanCOG TDM. Project Effect traffic volumes are shown in Figure 4.3 and Near-Term Plus Project volumes are shown in Figure 4.4.

4.2.2 Analysis Methodology and Assumptions
Synchro 11 software was used to model the study intersections and SimTraffic 11 software was used to analyze 95th percentile queues. Synchro models used in the Service Road Interchange TOAR Addendum were obtained from Fehr & Peers. These models contained the planned Service Road Interchange, the reconfigured Mitchell Road Interchange, and various adjacent intersections, driveways, and improvements associated with the planned Mitchell Ranch/Ceres Gateway developments. These models were updated to include the El Camino Avenue & SR 99 Southbound Off-Ramp/North Street and El Camino Avenue & SR 99 Northbound Ramps/4th Street intersections. For the purposes of this analysis, the intersections of Moffett Road & Service Road and Mitchell Road & Service Road were included in model, as were the three future intersections/driveways on Service Road between the proposed Northbound SR 99 Ramps and Mitchell Road. These additional facilities were included in the SimTraffic model runs in order to more accurately simulate the interaction between the closely spaced intersections at the new interchange and along Service Road. The SimTraffic models were run with a 10-minute warm-up period and results were the average of 10 runs. A peak hour factor of 0.93 was used throughout the study network, consistent with the Service Road Interchange TOAR Addendum analysis.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
!(
!(
!( !(
!(5
3 4
2 1
Existing Traffic Volumes
Copper Trails Master Plan TIA
Ceres, CA
March 2024
El Camino Ave &
252 (365)3 (14)
El Camino Ave
12 (28)
10 (17)
North St
138 (83)
El Camino Ave
102 (92)
257 (406)
289 (327)
SR 99 SB Off-Ramp
1 SR 99 SB Off-Ramp/North St
El Camino Ave &
17 (26)310 (390)1 (4)
El Camino Ave
5 (5)
53 (50)
21 (32)
4th St 13 (33)
250 (247)153 (137)
El Camino Ave
64 (17)
51 (68)
49 (91)
SR 99 NB Ramps
2 SR 99 NB Off-Ramp/4th St
SR 99 SB Ramps & SR 99 SB Off-Ramp
Service Rd
SR 99 SB On-Ramp
Service Rd
3 Service Rd
SR 99 NB Ramps & SR 99 NB On-Ramp
Service Rd
SR 99 NB Off-Ramp
Service Rd
4 Service Rd
SR 99 Ramps/Mitchell Rd & Mitchell Rd
Rohde Rd
SR 99 Ramps
Ceres GW Access
5 Rohde Rd/Ceres GW Access
\\woodrodgers.loc\ProductionData\Jobs-Plsnt\Jobs\8878 Copper Trails\Copper Trails OA\GIS\Traffic\Copper_Trails_Traffic\Tasks\TurningMovements\2023_Exist.mxd 3/22/2024 5:24:29 PM nscappaticci Figure 4.1
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
NORTH
Legend
!( Study Intersections
New Roadways
New Service Road Ramps
Project Site
XX(XX) AM(PM) Peak Hour
Volumes
#
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
!(
!(
!( !(
!(5
3 4
2 1
Near-Term Traffic Volumes
Copper Trails Master Plan TIA
Ceres, CA
March 2024
El Camino Ave &
258 (374)3 (14)
El Camino Ave
12 (29)
10 (17)
North St
141 (85)
El Camino Ave
105 (94)
263 (416)
296 (335)
SR 99 SB Off-Ramp
1 SR 99 SB Off-Ramp/North St
El Camino Ave &
17 (27)318 (400)1 (4)
El Camino Ave
5 (5)
54 (51)
22 (33)
4th St 13 (34)
256 (253)157 (140)
El Camino Ave
66 (17)
52 (70)
50 (93)
SR 99 NB Ramps
2 SR 99 NB Off-Ramp/4th St
SR 99 SB Ramps &
100 (100)360 (410)
SR 99 SB Off-Ramp
480 (770)
70 (45)
Service Rd
SR 99 SB On-Ramp
340 (550)
350 (200)
Service Rd
3 Service Rd
SR 99 NB Ramps & SR 99 NB On-Ramp
500 (255)
315 (540)
Service Rd 10 (10)
235 (275)
SR 99 NB Off-Ramp
95 (110)
605 (850)
Service Rd
4 Service Rd
SR 99 Ramps/Mitchell Rd &
140 (125)865 (750)170 (160)
Mitchell Rd
380 (180)
25 (150)
120 (130)
Rohde Rd
760 (725)100 (170)
90 (80)
SR 99 Ramps
150 (190)
25 (180)
40 (70)
Ceres GW Access
5 Rohde Rd/Ceres GW Access
\\woodrodgers.loc\ProductionData\Jobs-Plsnt\Jobs\8878 Copper Trails\Copper Trails OA\GIS\Traffic\Copper_Trails_Traffic\Tasks\TurningMovements\2023_NT.mxd 3/22/2024 5:25:19 PM nscappaticci Figure 4.2
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
NORTH
Legend
!( Study Intersections
New Roadways
New Service Road Ramps
Project Site
XX(XX) AM(PM) Peak Hour
Volumes
#
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
!(
!(
!( !(
!(5
3 4
2 1
Project Effects Traffic Volumes
Copper Trails Master Plan TIA
Ceres, CA
March 2024
El Camino Ave &
59 (29)-35 (-18)
El Camino Ave
-7 (-12)
North St
36 (168)
El Camino Ave
-4 (-2)
-85 (-134)
-70 (-126)
SR 99 SB Off-Ramp
1 SR 99 SB Off-Ramp/North St
El Camino Ave &
-96 (-152)
El Camino Ave
9 (11)
4th St 2 (9)
-1 (21)
-74 (-66)
El Camino Ave
39 (147)
7 (-13)
-2 (-50)
SR 99 NB Ramps
2 SR 99 NB Off-Ramp/4th St
SR 99 SB Ramps &
394 (568)-55 (-113)
SR 99 SB Off-Ramp
272 (509)
Service Rd
SR 99 SB On-Ramp
298 (970)
117 (172)
Service Rd
3 Service Rd
SR 99 NB Ramps & SR 99 NB On-Ramp
-49 (-76)
271 (362)
Service Rd
1 (147)
SR 99 NB Off-Ramp
88 (518)
155 (338)
Service Rd
4 Service Rd
SR 99 Ramps/Mitchell Rd & -22 (-48) -9 (21)Mitchell Rd
-29 (-49)
Rohde Rd
-16 (-60)
SR 99 Ramps
Ceres GW Access
5 Rohde Rd/Ceres GW Access
\\woodrodgers.loc\ProductionData\Jobs-Plsnt\Jobs\8878 Copper Trails\Copper Trails OA\GIS\Traffic\Copper_Trails_Traffic\Tasks\TurningMovements\2023_Proj.mxd 3/22/2024 5:27:06 PM nscappaticci Figure 4.3
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
NORTH
Legend
!( Study Intersections
New Roadways
New Service Road Ramps
Project Site
XX(XX) AM(PM) Peak Hour
Volumes
#
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
!(
!(
!( !(
!(5
3 4
2 1
Near-Term Plus Project Traffic Volumes
Copper Trails Master Plan TIA
Ceres, CA
March 2024
El Camino Ave &
317 (403)3 (14)
El Camino Ave
5 (17)
10 (17)
North St
177 (253)
El Camino Ave
101 (92)
178 (282)
226 (209)
SR 99 SB Off-Ramp
1 SR 99 SB Off-Ramp/North St
El Camino Ave &
17 (27)222 (248)1 (4)
El Camino Ave
5 (5)
54 (51)
31 (44)
4th St 15 (43)
182 (187)156 (161)
El Camino Ave
105 (164)
59 (57)
48 (43)
SR 99 NB Ramps
2 SR 99 NB Off-Ramp/4th St
SR 99 SB Ramps &
494 (668)305 (297)
SR 99 SB Off-Ramp
752 (1279)
70 (45)
Service Rd
SR 99 SB On-Ramp
638 (1520)
467 (372)
Service Rd
3 Service Rd
SR 99 NB Ramps & SR 99 NB On-Ramp
451 (179)
586 (902)
Service Rd 10 (10)
236 (422)
SR 99 NB Off-Ramp
183 (628)
760 (1188)
Service Rd
4 Service Rd
SR 99 Ramps/Mitchell Rd &
140 (125)843 (702)161 (181)
Mitchell Rd
351 (131)
25 (150)
120 (130)
Rohde Rd
744 (665)100 (170)
90 (80)
SR 99 Ramps
150 (190)
25 (180)
40 (70)
Ceres GW Access
5 Rohde Rd/Ceres GW Access
\\woodrodgers.loc\ProductionData\Jobs-Plsnt\Jobs\8878 Copper Trails\Copper Trails OA\GIS\Traffic\Copper_Trails_Traffic\Tasks\TurningMovements\2023_NT+P.mxd 3/22/2024 5:26:12 PM nscappaticci Figure 4.4
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
NORTH
Legend
!( Study Intersections
New Roadways
New Service Road Ramps
Project Site
XX(XX) AM(PM) Peak Hour
Volumes
#
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Master Plan TIA
Ceres, CA
WR #8878001 March 2024 Page 24

4.2.3 Intersection Geometries
Under Near-Term (No Project) conditions, the study intersections near the Service Road Interchange and Mitchell Road Interchange were assumed to have the geometries specified in the Service Road Interchange GAD (see Appendix B). The study intersections near the El Camino Avenue Interchange were assumed to have existing conditions geometries.

Under Near-Term Plus Project conditions, all intersection geometries were assumed to be the same as under Near-Term (No Project) conditions, except the following lane configuration and controls were implemented at the Moffett Road & Service Road intersection in order to accommodate the addition of Project traffic:
• Signalization with protected left-turn phasing on all approaches and northbound right-turn overlap phasing.
• Eastbound Approach: one left-turn lane, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane. • Westbound Approach: three left-turn lanes (including one left-turn trap lane), two through lanes, and one right-turn lane.
• Northbound Approach: one left-turn lane, one through lane, and two right-turn lanes. • Southbound Approach: one left-turn lane and one shared through-right-turn lane.

It was assumed that the Moffett Road & Service Road signal would be coordinated with the Service Road Interchange signals. The assumed geometries at the Moffett Road & Service Road intersection under NearTerm Plus Project conditions is shown in Figure 4.5 below.

Figure 4.5. Recommended Moffet Road & Service Road Intersection Geometry with Project Service Road
Moffett Road
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Master Plan TIA
Ceres, CA
WR #8878001 March 2024 Page 25

4.2.4 Study Intersection Off-Ramp Queueing Operations and Impacts Table 4.4 shows available storage lengths and projected peak hour 95th percentile off-ramp queues under Near-Term and Near-Term Plus Project conditions.

Table 4.4. Near-Term and Near-Term Plus Project Queueing Analysis Results Off-Ramp/Intersection Movement
Available
Storage
(ft)1
Peak
Hour
95th Percentile Queue (ft)2
Near-Term Near-Term
Plus Project
SR 99 Southbound Off-Ramp – El
Camino Avenue & 99 Southbound
Off-Ramp/North Street
EB 1,240
AM 121 108
PM 649 152
SR 99 Northbound Off-Ramp – El
Camino Avenue & SR 99 Northbound
Ramps/4th Street
EB 515
AM 77 89
PM 81 105
SR 99 Southbound Off-Ramp to
Service Road – SR 99 Southbound
Ramps & Service Road
SB 1,376
AM 155 391
PM 188 1,513
SR 99 Northbound Off-Ramp to
Service Road – SR 99 Northbound
Ramps & Service Road
NB 1,280
AM 99 110
PM 107 50
SR 99 Northbound Off-Ramp to
Mitchell Road – SR 99 Ramps &
Mitchell Road
NB 2,190
AM 157 151
PM 162 147
Notes: Bold values indicate queue exceeds available storage. One vehicle length is assumed to equal 20 feet. 1 Available storage represents the distance to the beginning of the off-ramp gore area. Off-Ramp storage for the Service Road and Mitchell Road ramps are based on the Service Road Interchange Draft Geometric Approval Drawing (GAD) (Prepared by NV5, October 16, 2023).
2 Queue reported represents the longest single-lane queue on the off-ramp.

As shown in Table 4.4, all off-ramp queues are projected to fit within available storage under Near-Term conditions. The SR 99 Southbound Off-Ramp queue at Service Road is projected to exceed available storage under Near-Term Plus Project PM peak hour conditions. The remaining off-ramp queues are projected to fit within available storage under Near-Term Plus Project conditions. SimTraffic queueing reports are included in Appendix F.

The Project would have a queueing impact at the SR 99 Southbound Off-Ramp to Service Road under NearTerm Plus Project PM peak hour conditions.

The microsimulation runs at the Service Road Interchange were reviewed to determine the cause of the queueing impact identified above, as well as to identify any other potential queueing issues in the study area.

The results of the microsimulation review are summarized on the following pages.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Master Plan TIA
Ceres, CA
WR #8878001 March 2024 Page 26
SR 99 Southbound Off-Ramp to Service Road
The queueing impact at the SR 99 Southbound Off-Ramp shown in Table 4.4 is largely due to the significant increase in southbound right turn volumes due to vehicles traveling to the Project. The excessive queueing at the SR 99 Southbound Off-Ramp is shown in a screenshot of the microsimulation model run in Figure 4.6.

Figure 4.6. Near-Term Plus Project PM Queueing at the SR 99 SB Off Ramp to Service Road Service Road
Moffett Road
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Master Plan TIA
Ceres, CA
WR #8878001 March 2024 Page 27
Eastbound Queueing at the Service Road Interchange
In addition to the SR 99 Southbound Off-Ramp queuing impact, observation of the microsimulation runs reveal excessive eastbound queueing was shown to occur on Service Road between Moffet Road and the SR 99 Northbound On-Ramps. Eastbound queueing on Service Road is due to the significantly increased volume of eastbound left-turn traffic entering the Northbound On-Ramp from the Project via Service Road. With the Project, there is a high number of vehicles that make a northbound right turn at the Moffett Road & Service Road intersection, and then want to merge all the way to the inside eastbound lane on Service Road to get to the Northbound On-Ramp, causing a lane utilization problem. The excessive eastbound queueing on Service Road is shown in a screenshot of the microsimulation model run in Figure 4.7.

Figure 4.7. Near-Term Plus Project PM Queueing on Eastbound Service Road Service Road
Moffett Road
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Master Plan TIA
Ceres, CA
WR #8878001 March 2024 Page 28

4.2.5 Service Road Interchange Mitigations and Improvements SR 99 Southbound Off-Ramp to Service Road
To mitigate the queuing impact, it is recommended that the proposed Southbound Off-Ramp be reconfigured to include two southbound right-turn lanes and one southbound left-turn lane.

Eastbound Queueing at the Service Road Interchange
In order to improve eastbound queueing on Service road and address the lane utilization issue, it is recommended to widen the eastbound entrance to the Northbound On-Ramp to two lanes and convert the eastbound approach of Service Road at the Northbound On-Ramp to consist of one dedicated left-turn trap lane onto the ramp, one shared left-through-lane, and one through lane.

Off-Ramp queueing results with the mitigations and improvements in place are shown in Table 4.5.

Table 4.5. Near-Term Plus Project With Improvements Queueing Analysis Results Off-Ramp/Intersection Movement
Available
Storage
(ft)1
Peak
Hour
95th Percentile Queue (ft)2
Near-Term Near-Term
Plus Project
Near-Term Plus
Project With
Improvements
SR 99 Southbound Off-Ramp to
Service Road – SR 99 Southbound
Ramps & Service Road
SB 1,376
AM 155 391 282
PM 188 1,513 262
SR 99 Northbound Off-Ramp to
Service Road – SR 99 Northbound
Ramps & Service Road
NB 1,280
AM 99 110 103
PM 107 50 222
Notes: Bold values indicate queue exceeds available storage. One vehicle length is assumed to equal 20 feet. 1 Available storage represents the distance to the beginning of the off-ramp gore area. Off-Ramp storage for the Service Road and Mitchell Road ramps are based on the Service Road Interchange Draft Geometric Approval Drawing (GAD) (Prepared by NV5, October 16, 2023).
2 Queue reported represents the longest single-lane queue on the off-ramp.

As shown in Table 4.5, off-ramp queueing would fit within available storage with the mitigation and improvements in place. The Project queueing impact at the SR 99 Southbound Off Ramp to Service Road would be less than significant after mitigation. SimTraffic queueing reports for improved conditions are included in Appendix F.

It is recommended that Service Road Interchange operations are further analyzed in the Project Traffic Operations Analysis to ensure that the interchange will operate acceptably under Cumulative Plus Project conditions.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Master Plan TIA
Ceres, CA
WR #8878001 March 2024 Page 29
5 PROJECT IMPACTS ON PEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE, AND

TRANSIT FACILITIES
The Project proposes the following internal pedestrian and bicycle features:
• 12-foot sidewalks and 8-foot bike lanes on eastbound Service road along Project frontage • 5-foot sidewalks in both directions along typical interior Project streets • 5-foot sidewalks and 4-foot bike lanes in both directions along Central Avenue • 10-foot multiuse path along northbound Blaker Road along Project frontage • 5-foot sidewalks and 4-foot bike lanes in both directions along interior collector streets • 8-foot path/trail along Project frontage adjacent to the TID Lateral canal The Project would provide pedestrian connectivity to the existing sidewalk network on Blaker Road and Central Avenue and to the proposed pedestrian and bicycle facilities to be completed with the Service Road Interchange project. The Project’s proposed pedestrian and bicycle facilities are illustrated in Appendix A.

The Project area is served by the Stanislaus Regional Transit Authority (StanRTA). StanRTA offers fixed route bus services, as well as ADA Paratransit and Medivan services. The closest transit stops to the Project site are located on Service Road in front of Central Valley High School and on Blaker Road and Central Avenue north of Service Road. These stops are served by Route 42, which provides connectivity between the Modesto Transit Center and the Ceres Walmart Transit Hub via residential and commercial roads. Route 42 operates at 30-minute to 1-hour headways between approximately 5:45 AM and 11:00 PM on weekdays, 7:15 AM to 9:30 PM on Saturdays, and 8:45 AM to 7:30 PM on Sundays. The Project is considering a potential extension of StanRTA’s fixed-route bus service which would run along Central Avenue, E. Redwood Road, proposed Street C, Lucas Road, proposed Street B, and Moffett Road within the Project site. The preliminary extension of the StanRTA transit route is illustrated in Appendix A.

5.1 PEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE, AND TRANSIT IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS The Project would not impact existing or proposed pedestrian or bicycle facilities in a way that would discourage their use, nor is the Project anticipated to cause a significant increase in pedestrian or bicycle demand in the study area that would put existing facilities over capacity.

The Project would likely cause a significant increase in local transit demand. It is recommended that the Project accommodate new transit demand by including an extended transit route and transit stops within the Project site, including the regional commercial and office portions of the site. Expanded service areas for Route 42 or other local bus routes should be explored in coordination with the City and StanRTA.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Master Plan TIA
Ceres, CA
WR #8878001 March 2024 Page 30
6 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED ANALYSIS
Senate Bill 743 (SB 743), signed in 2013, required changes to CEQA guidelines on the measurement and identification of transportation impacts due to new projects in California. Revised CEQA Guidelines were adopted in 2018 which identified VMT as the most appropriate metric to evaluate transportation impacts.

Statewide implementation of assessment of VMT as a metric of transportation impact occurred for all jurisdictions on July 1, 2020. The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (OPR Technical Advisory) (December 2018), contains technical recommendations regarding assessment of VMT, thresholds of significance, and mitigation measures. The City has not currently adopted official VMT guidelines or thresholds. Therefore, this memorandum utilizes recommended thresholds and methodologies outlined in the OPR Technical Advisory for analyzing residential, office, and retail land uses.

6.1 VMT METHODOLOGY
The latest version of the StanCOG TDM was used to estimate VMT generated by the Project land uses. The StanCOG TDM was edited to include the same changes as those made for the Mitchell Road Interchange TOAR Addendum. A review of the StanCOG TDM was performed in the Project study area. Additional detail and calibration changes were made to the StanCOG TDM in the Project study area in order to create an accurate estimate of travel characteristics near the Project. Additional detail and calibration changes included editing roadway network and land use assumptions in the study area to better match existing conditions and adding detail where lacking in the off the shelf model.

The following scenarios were run in the StanCOG TDM for Project VMT analysis:
• Existing Year 2023 No Project
• Existing Year 2023 Plus Project
• Cumulative Year 2048 No Project
• Cumulative Year 2048 Plus Project
The “No Project” scenarios were run to estimate VMT thresholds based on existing City average VMT, while the “Plus Project” scenarios were run to estimate Project VMT. Note that the proposed SR 99/Mitchell Road/Service Road Diverging Diamond Interchange project was assumed to be complete under all “Plus Project” scenarios as well as under the Cumulative Year 2048 No Project scenario. While the interchange has a target completion date of 2028, the interchange was assumed to be complete under all “Plus Project” scenarios because the interchange is necessary to support the traffic generated by the Project.

The StanCOG TDM was used to estimate all City and Project VMT within Stanislaus County. In order to estimate City and Project VMT outside of Stanislaus County, consistent with OPR Guidelines, this analysis utilizes trip length and origin-destination information from the location-based services data vendor Replica.

Additional information on Replica can be found here: https://replicahq.com/about/. The latest available Replica data for average Thursday daily conditions in Spring of 2023 was utilized for this analysis. All data used in this analysis was from the California-Nevada region, which means it will capture all trips that start or end within the states of California or Nevada. Replica has nation-wide data, which means all trip lengths reported from Replica are full trip lengths and are not truncated due to jurisdictional boundaries. All Replica data used in this study can be provided upon request.

Three VMT metrics are used in this analysis: VMT per capita (based on home-based trips), VMT per employee (based on work commute trips), and net change in VMT (based on all trips). Home-based trips include trips made by residents of the City or Project to or from the home, including driving to/from work, school, shopping, and other destinations. Work commute trips include trips made by employees of land uses within the City or Project for commuting to/from work. “All” trips include all trips made within the StanCOG model EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Master Plan TIA
Ceres, CA
WR #8878001 March 2024 Page 31
boundary, including home-based trips, work trips, and trips made for all other purposes including shopping, recreation, and other activities.

Project land uses and roadways were coded into the StanCOG TDM under the “Plus Project” scenarios consistent with the Project description in Section 2.1 of this TIA. Note that regarding retail land uses, OPR guidance states the following:

By adding retail opportunities into the urban fabric and thereby improving retail destination proximity, local-serving retail development tends to shorten trips and reduce VMT. Thus, lead agencies generally may presume such development creates a less-than-significant transportation impact. Regional-serving retail development, on the other hand, which can lead to substitution of longer trips for shorter ones, may tend to have a significant impact…Generally, however, retail development including stores larger than 50,000 square feet might be considered regional-serving, and so lead agencies should undertake an analysis to determine whether the project might increase or decrease VMT.

The Project includes a large quantity of proposed regional serving retail land uses, as well as some retail land uses that would operate as local serving retail. Regional serving retail is typically considered to consist of the big box stores and shopping centers with a large footprint that would potentially draw customers from nearby Cities and communities. Local serving retail is typically considered to consist of smaller businesses that would primarily serve nearby residents or people already in the area, such as restaurants, grocery stores, gas stations, drug stores, etc. For proposed retail land uses in the Project, rerouting of retail trips from existing businesses in the area/region was accounted for consistent with OPR recommendations.

6.2 VMT THRESHOLDS

6.2.1 Residential VMT Threshold
Based on OPR Technical Advisory guidance, this memorandum assumes the residential land uses in the Project would result in a less-than-significant VMT impact if the Project site’s VMT per Capita is at least 15% below the existing City average VMT per Capita (i.e., 85% of the City average VMT per Capita).

Data from the StanCOG TDM Existing Year 2023 No Project scenario, supplemented by Replica-based out-ofCounty trip lengths, was used to calculate City of Ceres VMT per capita under existing baseline conditions.

The existing baseline VMT per capita values for the City were used to create residential land use significance thresholds for potential impacts and are shown in Table 6.1.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Master Plan TIA
Ceres, CA
WR #8878001 March 2024 Page 32
Table 6.1. City of Ceres Residential VMT Threshold
City of Ceres Metric Value
Existing Residents 48,360
Average Daily Trips by Residents 81,716
Average Daily Vehicle-Miles Traveled by Residents 710,977 Existing Average VMT Per Capita 14.7
Residential VMT per Capita Threshold (85% of Average) 12.5 Note: All data from the StanCOG TDM.

6.2.2 Office VMT Threshold
Based on OPR Technical Advisory guidance, this memorandum assumes the office land uses in the Project would result in a less-than-significant VMT impact if the Project site’s VMT per Employee is at least 15% below the existing City average VMT per Employee (i.e., 85% of the City average VMT per Employee).

Data from the StanCOG TDM Existing Year 2023 No Project scenario, supplemented by Replica-based out-ofCounty trip lengths, was used to calculate City of Ceres VMT per employee under existing baseline conditions.

The existing baseline VMT per employee values for the City were used to create office land use significance thresholds for potential impacts and are shown in Table 6.2.

Table 6.2. City of Ceres Office VMT Threshold
City of Ceres Metric Value
Existing Employees 12,157
Average Daily Commute Trips by Employees 14,997
Average Daily Vehicle-Miles Traveled by Employees 281,341 Existing Average VMT Per Employees 23.1
Office VMT per Employee Threshold (85% of Average) 19.7 Note: All data from the StanCOG TDM.

6.2.3 Retail VMT Threshold
Based on OPR Technical Advisory guidance, this memorandum assumes the retail land uses in the Project would result in a less-than-significant VMT impact if the retail land uses result in “no net increase in VMT on Stanislaus County roadways” under both Existing and Cumulative conditions.

6.3 INITIAL PROJECT VMT

6.3.1 Project Residential VMT per Capita
Data from the StanCOG TDM Existing Year 2023 Plus Project scenario, supplemented by Replica-based outof-County trip lengths, was used to calculate Project VMT per capita under baseline plus Project conditions.

The Project VMT per capita values were compared against the City significance thresholds as shown in Table

6.3. EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Master Plan TIA
Ceres, CA
WR #8878001 March 2024 Page 33
Table 6.3. Initial Project VMT per Capita
Metric Value
Project Residents 7,704
Average Daily Trips by Project Residents 11,903
Average Daily Vehicle-Miles Traveled by Project Residents 105,688 Initial Project VMT Per Capita 13.7
VMT per Capita Threshold 12.5
Percent Difference +9.6%
Note: All data from the StanCOG TDM.

As shown in Table 6.3, the Initial Project VMT per capita is approximately 9.6 percent above the City VMT per Capita Threshold.

6.3.2 Project Office VMT per Employee
Data from the StanCOG TDM Existing Year 2023 Plus Project scenario, supplemented by Replica-based outof-County trip lengths, was used to calculate Project VMT per employee under baseline plus Project conditions. The Project VMT per employee values were compared against the City significance thresholds as shown in Table 6.4.

Table 6.4. Initial Project VMT per Employee
Metric Value
Project Employees 2,655
Average Daily Commute Trips by Project Employees 2,859
Average Daily Vehicle-Miles Traveled by Project Employees 66,606 Initial Project VMT Per Employee 25.1
VMT per Employee Threshold 19.7
Percent Difference +27.4%
Note: All data from the StanCOG TDM.

As shown in Table 6.4, the Initial Project VMT per employee is approximately 27.4 percent above the City VMT per Employee Threshold.

6.3.3 Project Retail Net Change To County VMT
The StanCOG TDM Existing Year 2023 Plus Project and Cumulative Year 2048 Plus Project scenarios were used to calculate VMT on Stanislaus County roadways with and without the proposed retail portion of the Project. The Project retail land use net change to Stanislaus County roadway VMT is shown in Table 6.5.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Master Plan TIA
Ceres, CA
WR #8878001 March 2024 Page 34
Table 6.5. Initial Project Retail Net Change In County VMT Metric Value
Total VMT on County Roadways under Existing Plus Project Minus Retail 12,634,733 Total VMT on County Roadways under Existing Plus Project 12,672,539 Initial Net Change to County VMT (Existing Plus Project) +37,806 Total VMT on County Roadways under Cumulative Plus Project Minus Retail 15,891,918 Total VMT on County Roadways under Cumulative Plus Project 15,931,871 Initial Net Change to County VMT (Cumulative Plus Project) +39,953 Net Change to County VMT Threshold +0
Note: All data from the StanCOG TDM.

As shown in Table 6.5, the Project regional retail land uses would cause an initial net increase in total County VMT of 37,806 under Existing plus Project conditions, and an initial net increase in total County VMT of 39,953 under Cumulative plus Project conditions.

6.4 PROJECT VMT REDUCTIONS
The Project VMT values estimated in the prior section were based on data from the StanCOG TDM and the Replica big data platform. While the StanCOG TDM and Replica platform do provide a good initial estimate of Project VMT, they do have limitations. In particular, they cannot fully account for the diversity of land uses and resulting internal capture on the Project site, and they cannot fully account for the effects of multimodal infrastructure improvements, such as multi-use paths, on Project VMT. This section quantifies the VMT reductions due to those Project features which cannot be fully captured by the StanCOG TDM and Replica platform.

6.4.1 Diversity of Land Uses
The Project proposes a significant diversity of land uses, including residential, office, local serving retail, regional retail, and mixed-use buildings. As a result, a certain percentage of Project trips will stay on site, traveling from one land use type to another (for example from one of the homes to a store in the Project).

The trips that occur on site between Project land uses are typically referred to as “internal trips”. The StanCOG TDM accounts for internal trips to some extent by estimating the number of origin-destination pairs between Project land uses. The Project ITE trip generation contained in Chapter 2 of this TIA also accounts for Project internal trips though application of the ITE NCHRP Report 684 estimator tool, which is an industry standard tool. The estimates of overall Project internal trips are summarized in Table 6.6 below.

Table 6.6. Project Daily Trip Comparison (TDM vs. ITE)
Trip Type StanCOG TDM Project Trip
Generation
ITE Project Trip
Generation Difference
All Trips 52,336 66,389 -14,053
Internal Trips 4,293 15,203 -10,910
% Internal Trips 8.2% 22.9% -14.7%
External Trips 48,043 51,186 -3,143
As shown in Table 6.6, the StanCOG TDM estimates that approximately 8.2 percent of Project trips would be internal to the Project site, while the ITE Project trip generation estimates that approximately 22.9 percent of Project trips would be internal to the Project site. Generally, the NCHRP Report 864 estimator tool used in the ITE Project Trip Generation is considered to be an industry standard way of estimating Project internal trips and is considered to produce an accurate estimate of internal trip percentage for a project of this type.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Master Plan TIA
Ceres, CA
WR #8878001 March 2024 Page 35
Therefore, the StanCOG TDM is likely underestimating the percentage of internal trips in the Project by approximately 14.7 percent (8.2% - 22.9% = -14.7%).

The StanCOG TDM assumes a much higher number of Project trips to/from destinations outside the Project than the ITE Project Trip Generation assumes, which would result in a higher than typical VMT estimates for Project trips. To compensate for this, it was determined that the additional Project internal trip percentage from the ITE Project Trip Generation (14.7%) should be applied to the Project retail trips, which are responsible for a large portion of internal trips. The resulting reduction in retail VMT due to the additional Project internal trip percentage is shown in Table 6.7.

Table 6.7. Project Internal Trip VMT Reduction – Retail Metric Value
Project Daily Retail Trips 38,594 trips
Average External Retail Trip Length 9.92 miles
Average Internal Retail Trip Length 0.56 miles
Trip Length Difference 9.36 miles
Additional Percent Internal Trips 14.7%
Total Internal Trip VMT Reduction (Retail) -53,102 vehicle-miles The residential land uses in the Project are evaluated based on the associated home-based trips. Therefore, all calculations regarding residential VMT need to be based on home-based trips. Table 6.8 shows a comparison of the internal Project home-based trip percentages from the StanCOG TDM and the ITE Trip Generation.

Table 6.8. Project Home-Based Internal Trip Percentages Metric StanCOG TDM Project
Trip Generation
ITE Project Trip
Generation Difference
% Internal Home-Based Trips 14.8% 19.1% -4.3%
As shown in Table 6.8, the StanCOG TDM estimates that approximately 14.8 percent of Project home-based trips would be internal to the Project site, while the ITE Project trip generation estimates that approximately

19.1 percent of Project home-based trips would be internal to the Project site. Therefore, the StanCOG TDM is likely underestimating the percentage of internal home-based trips in the Project by approximately 4.3 percent (14.8% - 19.1% = -4.3%). To compensate for this, it was determined that the additional Project internal home-based trip percentage from the ITE Project Trip Generation (4.3%) should be applied to the Project residential trips. The resulting reduction in residential VMT due to the additional Project internal home-based trip percentage is shown in Table 6.9.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Master Plan TIA
Ceres, CA
WR #8878001 March 2024 Page 36
Table 6.9. Project Internal Trip VMT Reduction – Residential Metric Value
Project Daily Residential Home-Based Trips 11,903
Average External Residential Trip Length 10.24 miles
Average Internal Residential Trip Length 0.78 miles
Trip Length Difference 9.46 miles
Additional Percent Internal Trips 4.3%
Total Internal Trip VMT Reduction (Residential) 4,842 vehicle-miles Project Residents 7,704
Per Capita Internal Trip VMT Reduction (Residential) -0.6 VMT per Capita The office land uses in the Project are evaluated based on the associated commute trips, also known as homebased-work (HBW) trips. Office employees would typically live throughout the region. Therefore, the percentage of internal trips for office commute trips would typically be lower than the overall project internal trip percentage of 22.9 percent shown in Table 6.6. Therefore, the Project Office commute trips and VMT per employee were not adjusted for internal trips.

6.4.2 Proposed Multi-Use Paths
The Project proposes to construct a 10-foot-wide separated multi-use path along the east side of Blaker Road between Service Road and the TID Canal. This facility would provide north/south linkage along the western edge of the Project area.

The Project proposes to construct an 8-foot-wide street-separated multi-use path within the greenbelt adjacent to the TID Canal. This facility would provide east/west linkage between several residential neighborhoods, parks, and the regional commercial center. It also includes two northward spurs providing connections to E. Redwood Road at Moffett Road and at the regional commercial center. Both proposed multiuse paths also provide connectivity to the on-site sidewalks which provide routes to the schools located within the Project area.

The OPR Technical Advisory identifies constructing bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure such as multi-use paths as potential measures to reduce a Project’s VMT. Note that the proposed sidewalks in the Project were assumed to not reduce Project VMT beyond the initial estimates from the StanCOG TDM because presence of sidewalks along local roadways and collectors is typical in the City of Ceres. Separated multi-use paths, however, are currently less common in the City, and therefore would likely lead to more multimodal trips than typical.

VMT reduction from the proposed multi-use paths was quantified using methodologies outlined in the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity (CAPCOA Handbook) (December 2021). Measure T-18 Provide Pedestrian Network Improvement in the CAPCOA Handbook was determined to best represent the proposed impromvents. The study area was assumed to be the Project site.

Table 6.10 and Table 6.11 show the estimated percent reduction in VMT due to the multi-use paths.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Master Plan TIA
Ceres, CA
WR #8878001 March 2024 Page 37
Table 6.10. Measure T-18 Provide Pedestrian Network Improvement Equation: A = ( (C / B) - 1 ) x D
Variables: ID Variable Value Unit Source Note
Output
A Percent reduction in
GHG emissions from
household vehicle
travel in plan/
community
0-6.4 % calculated
User Inputs
B Sidewalk length in
study area

6.69 miles user input Calculated based on Project site
plan.

C Sidewalk length in
study area with
measure

2.44 miles user input Calculated based on Project site
plan
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
D Elasticity of
household VMT with
respect to the ratio of
sidewalks-to-streets
-0.05 unitles
s
Frank et al. 2011 Recommended value from the
CAPCOA Handbook.

Measure
Max:

Ama
x
The percent
reduction in GHG
emissions (A) is
capped at the
specified value
-6.4 % CAPCOA Handbook Recommended value from the
CAPCOA Handbook.

Subsector: Neighborhood Design
Reduction: A = -3.18%
Table 6.11. Project VMT Reduction Due to Multi-Use Paths Equation: VMT Reduction = Study Area VMT x Reduction
Variables: ID Measure Value Unit
Study Area VMT Daily VMT Generated by Project
Area Land Uses on Project Area
Roadways
40,036 vehicle-miles
Reduction VMT Reduction Percentage due to
the Proposed Multi-Use Paths

3.18 %
Study Area
Daily VMT
Reduction:

Total VMT Reduction = -1,273 vehicle-miles
VMT per Capita Reduction = -0.2 VMT per Capita
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Master Plan TIA
Ceres, CA
WR #8878001 March 2024 Page 38

6.5 FINAL PROJECT VMT AND IMPACTS
This section applies the VMT reductions calculated in Section 6.4.1 and 6.4.2 to the Initial Project VMT values from Section 6.3.

Table 6.12. Final Project VMT Per Capita
Metric Value
Initial Project VMT Per Capita 13.7
Internal Trip Reduction (VMT per Capita) -0.6
Multi-Use Path Trip Reduction (VMT per Capita) -0.2
Final Project VMT Per Capita 12.9
VMT per Capita Threshold 12.5
Percent Difference +3.2%
Note: All data from the StanCOG TDM.

As shown in Table 6.12, the Final Project VMT per Capita is approximately 3.2 percent above the City VMT per Capita Threshold. Therefore, the residential land uses in the Project would have significant impacts before mitigation.

Table 6.13. Project VMT Per Employee After Reductions
Metric Value
Initial Project VMT Per Employee 25.1
Internal Trip Reduction (VMT per Employee) -0.0
Final Project VMT Per Employee 25.1
VMT per Employee Threshold 19.7
Percent Difference +27.4%
Note: All data from the StanCOG TDM.

As shown in Table 6.13, the Final Project VMT per Employee is approximately 27.4 percent above the City VMT per Employee Threshold. Therefore, the office land uses in the Project would have significant impacts before mitigation.

Table 6.14. Project Retail Net Change In County VMT After Reductions Metric Value
Initial Net Change to County VMT (Existing Plus Project) +37,806 Retail Internal Trip Reduction -53,102
Final Net Change to County VMT (Existing Plus Project) -15,296 Initial Net Change to County VMT (Cumulative Plus Project) +39,953 Retail Internal Trip Reduction -53,102
Final Net Change to County VMT (Cumulative Plus Project) -13,149 Net Change to County VMT Threshold +0
Note: All data from the StanCOG TDM.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Master Plan TIA
Ceres, CA
WR #8878001 March 2024 Page 39
As shown in Table 6.14, the Project retail land uses would cause a net decrease in total County VMT of 15,296 under Existing plus Project conditions, and a net decrease in total County VMT of 13,149 under Cumulative plus Project conditions. Therefore, the retail land uses in the Project would have less than significant impacts.

6.6 POTENTIAL VMT MITIGATION MEASURES
The OPR Technical Advisory provides a number of potential mitigation measures to reduce a Project’s VMT.

The effectiveness of the measures can vary and typically depends on the characteristics of the area and the specifics of the measures proposed. The CAPCOA Handbook is the industry standard methodology for quantifying the VMT reductions from proposed mitigation measures, and also provides a range of effectiveness for each measure.

The Project is still in the process of being developed, and therefore VMT mitigation measures have not been finalized at this time. It is recommended that the City and the Project team coordinate to identify and implement a number of VMT mitigation measure that would be feasible to implement for the Project and which would reduce the VMT impacts identified in the previous section. This section identifies a number of recommended mitigation measures for the Project and their potential range of effectiveness.

Note that the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Rule 9410 requires employers with at least 100 eligible employees to implement an Employer Trip Reduction Implementation Plan (ETRIP). The ETRIP must include measures from a list of identified Trip Reduction Strategies which includes many of the same measures as those recommended by the OPR Technical Advisory. Therefore, implementation of the ETRIP would help the Project to reduce the VMT per employee. The full text of Rule 9410 is available online at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/rules-and-planning/current-district-rules-and-regulations/.

Table 6.15 identifies a list of potential VMT mitigation measures that could be utilized to reduce Project VMT. Table 6.15 also identifies the potential range of effectiveness of each measure, and the type of VMT/impact that the measure would address.

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Master Plan TIA
Ceres, CA
WR #8878001 March 2024 Page 40
Table 6.15 Potential VMT Mitigation Measures
CAPCOA
ID Measure
Range of
Potential VMT
Reduction
Type of VMT/Impact that would
be Reduced
Trip Reduction Programs
T-4 Implement Commute Trip Reduction Program (Voluntary) 0.0%-4.0% VMT per Employee T-5
Implement Commute Trip Reduction Program (Mandatory
Implementation and Monitoring) 0.0%-26.0% VMT per Employee T-6 Implement commute Trip Reduction Marketing 0.0%-4.0% VMT per Employee T-7 Provide Ridesharing Program 0.0%-8.0% VMT per Employee T-8 Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program 0.0%-5.5% VMT per Employee or per Capita T-9 Provide End-of-Trip Bicycle Facilities 0.1%-4.4% VMT per Employee T-10 Provide Employer-Sponsored Vanpool 3.4%-20.4% VMT per Employee T-11 Price Workplace Parking 0.0%-20.0% VMT per Employee T-12 Implement Employee Parking Cash-Out 0.0%-12.0% VMT per Employee T-22 Provide Community-Based Travel Planning 0.0%-2.3% VMT per Capita or Net Change Parking or Road Pricing/Management
T-14 Limit Residential Parking Supply 0.0%-13.7% VMT per Capita T-15 Unbundle Residential Parking Costs from Property Cost 0.0%-15.7% VMT per Capita T-23 Implement Market Price Public Parking (On-Street) 0.0%-30.0% VMT per Capita or Net Change Neighborhood Design
T-17 Provide Pedestrian Network Improvement 0.0%-6.4% VMT per Capita or Net Change T-18-A Construct or Improve Bike Facility 0.0%-0.8% Net Change T-19 Expand Bikeway Network 0.0%-0.5% VMT per Capita or Net Change T-20-B Implement Electric Carshare Program 0.0%-0.18% VMT per Capita or Net Change T-21-B Implement Electric Bikeshare Program 0.0%-0.06% VMT per Capita or Net Change T-21-C Implement Scootershare Program 0.0%-0.07% VMT per Capita or Net Change Transit
T-24 Extend Transit Network Coverage or Hours 0.0%-4.6% VMT per Employee or per Capita or Net Change
T-25 Increase Transit Service Frequency 0.0%-11.3% VMT per Employee or per Capita or Net Change
T-26 Implement Transit-Supportive Roadway Treatments 0.0%-0.6% VMT per Employee or per Capita or Net Change
T-27 Reduce Transit Fare 0.0%-1.2% VMT per Employee or per Capita or Net Change
Note: All data from the Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Has Emission Reduction, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, August 2021).

EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
Copper Trails Master Plan TIA
Ceres, CA
WR #8878001 March 2024

APPENDIX A
Project Land Use Map and Multimodal Improvements
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13

EXHIBIT B
ITEM 13

EXHIBIT B
ITEM 13
Copper Trails Master Plan TIA
Ceres, CA
WR #8878001 March 2024

APPENDIX B
Service Road Interchange GAD (10/16/2023)
EXHIBIT B ITEM 13
12"SD
12"SD
4"GW
4"SS
4"SS
2"W
4"SS 4"GW
2"W
2"W

CHIPOTLE
2,305 SF

DO NOT ENTER DRIVE
THRU
12"SD
12"SD
12"SD
4"GW
4"GW
2"W
3/4"W
2"W 2"W
4"SS
2"W
4"SS
4"SS

STARBUCKS
2,266 SF

DO NOT ENTER
DRIVE
THRU
12"SD
4"SS
4"GW
12"SD
4"SS
4"SS
4"GW
4"SS
2"W

ONO HAWAIIAN BBQ
2,200 SF COMPACT COMPACT
DRIVE
THRU
DRIVE
THRU

DO NOT ENTER
18"SD
18"SD
18"SD
8"SS
18"SD
12"SS
8"SS
8"SS
12"SS
12"SS
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
12"SS
12"SS
12"SS
12"SS
24"W
24"W
24"W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
30"IRR
10"W
10"W
10"W
8"W
8"W
10"W
12"W
SS
SS
42"SS
42"SS
36"SS
42"SS
24"W
8"W
EX. SD
EX.SD

SERVICE ROAD

MITCHELL ROAD
8"SS
8"SS
18"SD
24"SD
18"SD
24"SD
8"SS
24"SD
24"SD
24"SD
8"SS
8"SS
8"W
8"W
10"W
8"W
8"W
8"W
8"W
8"W
8"W
8"W
8"W
18"SD
18"SD
8"SS
6"W
2"W
6"W
2"W
8"SS
8"SS

EAST CORRIDOR

NORTH CORRIDOR

SERVICE RD WEST ENTRY

SERVICE RD

EAST ENTRY

MITCHELL RD
ENTRY
STATE ROUTE 99
STATE ROUTE 99
PARCEL 7
PARCEL 3
PARCEL 5
PARCEL 6
PARCEL 1
PARCEL 4
PARCEL 2

REMAINDER
PARCEL
8 DO NOT ENTER
8"SS
8"SS
8"SS
8"SS

M I T C H E L L R O A D
A R C H C L I F F E D R.

D O N P E D R O R O A D

S E R V I C E R O A D
C-182-SGL-NO RETAIL STORE # 1983-04
TOTAL BUILDING SF: ±185,682 SF (GLA)

55.00 (INCLUDING VESTIBULES) FFE=95.75'
SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F
6''F
6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F
6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F
6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F
6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F
6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F
6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F
SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> UGC

UGC UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC

UGC UGC
UGC

UGC UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC
UGC

UGC UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC

UGC UGC

UGC UGC UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC
UGC

UGC UGC

UGC UGC

UGC UGC
UGC

UGC UGC

UGC UGC UGC UGC UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC

UGC UGC
UGC

UGC UGC

UGC UGC UGC UGC
UGC

UGC UGC

UGC UGC

UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC

UGC UGC

UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC

UGC UGC
UGC

UGC UGC

UGC UGC

UGC UGC
UGC

UGC UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC

UGC UGC

UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC

UGC UGC
UGC

UGC UGC

UGC UGC

UGC UGC
UGC

UGC UGC

UGC UGC

UGC UGC UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC

UGC UGC

UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC

UGC UGC
UGC

UGC UGC

UGC UGC UGC UGC
UGC

UGC UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC

UGC UGC
UGC

UGC UGC

UGC UGC

UGC UGC
UGC

UGC UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC

UGC UGC
UGC

UGC UGC UGC UGC UGC
UGC
UGC

UGC UGC

UGC UGC

UGC UGC

UGC UGC

UGC UGC

UGC UGC UGC UGC
UGC

UGC UGC UGC UGC UGC UGC UGC UGC UGC UGC UGC UGC UGC
UGC

UGC UGC UGC UGC
UGC

UGC UGC UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC

UGC UGC

UGC UGC

UGC UGC

UGC UGC

UGC UGC
UGC
UGC

UGC UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC UGC UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC UGC UGC UGC UGC UGC UGC UGC
UGC

UGC UGC

UGC UGC
UGC
UGC

UGC UGC

UGC UGC

UGC UGC

UGC UGC

UGC UGC UGC UGC UGC UGC UGC UGC UGC
UGC

UGC UGC UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC UGC UGC
UGC

UGC UGC UGC UGC UGC UGC UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC

UGC UGC

UGC UGC

UGC UGC
UGC
UGC

UGC UGC

UGC UGC
UGC

UGC UGC UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC UGC UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC UGC UGC
UGC
UGC

UGC UGC

UGC UGC

UGC UGC

UGC UGC

UGC UGC

UGC UGC

UGC UGC UGC UGC UGC
E
E
E
E
E
E

UGC UGC UGC UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC

UGC UGC

UGC UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC UGC
UGC
UGC
UGC

UGC UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC UGC UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC

UGC UGC

UGC UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC
UGC

UGC UGC

UGC UGC

UGC UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC UGC
UGC

UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC UGC UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC

UGC UGC

UGC UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC

UGC UGC

UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC UGC UGC
UGC

UGC UGC UGC
UGC
UGC

UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC

UGC UGC

UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC UGC UGC
UGC
UGC

UGC UGC

UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC

UGC UGC UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC UGC UGC

UGC UGC
UGC
UGC
G
G
G
G
G
G

TS TS TS TS
TS
TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS
TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS
TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS
TS

TS TS TS TS TS
TS
TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS
TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS
TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS
TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS
TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS
TS

TS TS TS TS TS
TS
TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS
TS

TS TS TS TS TS
TS
TS
TS
TS

TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS
TS
TS
TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS
TS
TS
TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS TS
TS
TS
TS
TS

TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS
TS
TS
TS

TS TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS
TS
TS
TS

TS TS TS TS TS
TS
6''F
6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F
6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F
6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F
6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F
6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F
2''W
2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W
2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W
2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 6''F
6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F
6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F
6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F
6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F
6''F 6''F 6''F
6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F
6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F
6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F
6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F
6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F
6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F
6''F 6''F
8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F 8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F 8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F 8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F 8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F 8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F 8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F 8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F 8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F 8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F 8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F 8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F 8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F 8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F 8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F 8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F 8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F 8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F 8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F 8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F 8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F 8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F 8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F 8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F
E
E
E
E
E
E E
E
E
E E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E E
E
E
E
E
E E
E E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F
6''F
6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F
6''F
3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W
3''W 3''W
3''W 3''W
3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W
3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W
3''W 3''W 3''W
3''W 3''W
3''W 3''W
3''W 3''W
3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W
3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W
3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W
3''W 3''W
3''W 3''W
3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W
3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W
3''W 3''W
3''W
3''W
3''W 3''W
3''W 3''W
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F
3''W 3''W
3''W
3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W
3''W 3''W
3''W 3''W
3''W 3''W
3''W 3''W
3''W
3''W
3''W 3''W
3''W 3''W
3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W
3''W
3''W 3''W
3''W 3''W
3''W 3''W
3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W
8''F
8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F
8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F
6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F
6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F
6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F
6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F
6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS
TS

TS TS TS TS TS
TS
TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS
TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS
TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS
TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS
TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS
TS

TS TS TS TS TS
TS
TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS
TS

TS TS TS TS
TS TS
TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS
TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS
TS TS
TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS
TS

TS TS TS TS TS
TS
TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS
TS

TS TS TS TS TS
TS
TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS
TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS
TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS
TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS
TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS
TS

TS TS TS TS TS
TS
TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS
TS

TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS
TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS TS
TS

TS TS TS TS
TS TS
TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS
TS

TS TS TS TS TS
TS
TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS
TS

TS TS TS TS TS
TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS
TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS
TS
TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS
TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS
TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS
TS

TS TS TS TS TS
TS
TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS
TS
TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS
TS

TS TS TS TS
TS TS
TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS
TS
TS TS
SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W
3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W
3''W 3''W
3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W
3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W
3''W 3''W
3''W 3''W
3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W
3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W
3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W
3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W
3''W 3''W
3''W 3''W
3''W 3''W
3''W 3''W
3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W
3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W
3''W
3''W
3''W 3''W
3''W 3''W
3''W 3''W
3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W 3''W
8''F 8''F 8''F
3''W 3''W
SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN>
SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN>

TS TS TS TS TS TS TS
TS
TS
TS

TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS
TS
TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS TS
TS

TS TS TS TS
SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN>
SAN> SAN> SAN>
SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN>
SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> SAN> 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F
2''W 2''W 2''W
2''W 2''W 2''W
2''W 2''W 2''W
2''W
2''W
2''W
8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F
TS

TSTS TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS

TS TSTS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS TS

TSTS TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS

TS TSTS TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS

TS TS TS

TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS

TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS

TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS

TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS
TS
TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS TS
TS TS
TS
TS

TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS
TS
TS
TS

TS TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS
TS
TS
TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS
TS
TS
TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS TS
TS
TS
TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS

TS TSTS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS

TS TSTS TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS
TS
TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS
TS
TS
TS

TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS
TS
TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS
TS
TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS TS
TS TS
TS
TS

TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS TS
TS
TS

TS TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS
TS
TS
TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS TS
TS TS
TS
TS
TS

TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS
TS
TS
TS

TS TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS
TS
TS
TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS TS
TS TS
TS
TS

TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS TS
TS
TS
TS

TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS
TS
TS
TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS
TS
TS
TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS TS
TS
TS
TS

TS TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS
TS
TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS
TS

TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS TS
TS
TS
TS

TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS
TS
TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS
TS
TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS TS
TS TS
TS
TS

TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS
TS
TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS
TS
TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS TS
TS TS
TS
TS

TS TS TS
TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS
TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS
TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS TS
TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS
TS

TS TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS

TS TS TS

TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS

TS TS TS

TS TS TS

TS TS TS

TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS

TS TS TS

TS TS TS

TS TS TS TS TS TS

TS TS TS
8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 2''W 2''W 2''W
2''W 2''W 2''W
2''W 2''W
2''W
2''W 2''W
2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W
2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W
2''W 2''W
2''W 2''W 2''W
2''W 2''W 2''W
2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W
2''W 2''W 2''W
2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W
2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W
2''W 2''W
2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W
2''W
2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W
2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W
2''W
2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W
2''W
2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W
2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W
2''W
2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W
2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W
2''W 2''W 2''W
2''W 2''W 2''W
2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W
2''W 2''W 2''W
2''W 2''W 2''W
2''W 2''W
2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W
2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W
2''W 2''W
2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W
2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W
2''W
2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W
2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W
2''W 2''W
2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W
2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W
2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W
2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W
2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W
2''W
2''W 2''W 2''W
2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W
2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W
2''W 2''W 2''W
2''W
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F
6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F
6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F
6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F
6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F
6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F
6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F
6''F 6''F
6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F
6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F
6''F 6''F 6''F
6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F
6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F
6''F 6''F 6''F 6''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F
8''F 8''F
8''F
E
E
E
E E
E
E
E E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E E
E
E
E E
E
E
E E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E E
E
E
E
E
E E
E
E
E E
E
E
E E
E
E
E E
E
E
E