Escalon City Council
August 3, 2026

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 3-48 September 2025
hours outside nighttime hours when people would be most sensitive to noise.

Implementation of the mitigation measure and Noise Ordinance provisions would reduce construction noise impacts to a level that would be less than significant.

Level of Significance: Potentially significant
Mitigation Measures:

NOISE-3: All equipment used on the construction site during all project phases shall be fitted with mufflers in accordance with manufacturers’ specifications. Mufflers shall be installed on construction equipment at all times on the construction site.

Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
b) Generation of Groundborne Vibration or Noise.

Groundborne vibration is not a common environmental problem. Some sources of groundborne vibration are trains, buses on rough roads, and construction activities such as blasting, pile driving, and operating heavy earth-moving equipment. Caltrans has prescribed a methodology for evaluating groundborne vibration impacts from construction related to potential damage to structures, based on transient sources (e.g., blasting, drop balls) or continuous/frequent intermittent sources such as impact and vibratory pile drivers, vibratory compaction equipment (Caltrans 2013). Measurements of groundborne vibrations are presented in peak particle velocity, with the unit of measure being inches per second. Table 3-5 presents thresholds for impacts related to groundborne vibration, based on the Caltrans methodology.

TABLE 3-5

GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION THRESHOLDS
Guidelines for:

Maximum Peak Particle Velocity (in/sec)
Transient Sources
Continuous/Frequent
Intermittent Sources
Structure and Condition
Older residential structures 0.5 0.3
New residential structures 1.0 0.5
Modern industrial/commercial buildings 2.0 0.5
Human Response
Barely perceptible 0.04 0.01
Distinctly perceptible 0.25 0.04
Strongly perceptible 0.9 0.1
Severe 2.0 0.4
Source: Caltrans 2013.

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 3-49 September 2025
The only potential source of groundborne vibrations from the project would be from equipment used in construction activities. Using the methodology prescribed by Caltrans, the ground vibration produced by a large bulldozer - the most likely construction equipment listed in Table 3-4 that would be used - would have a peak particle velocity of approximately 0.089 inches per second at the residences. The predicted peak particle velocity is above the “Barely Perceptible” threshold peak particle velocity of 0.04 inches per second, but it is below the “Distinctly Perceptible” threshold of 0.25 inches per second (see Table 3-5). It is also below the threshold of potential damage to newer residential structures, which is 1.0 inches per second. Potential vibration impacts would be intermittent and short-term. On this basis, project impacts related to groundborne vibration would be less than significant.
c) Public Airport and Private Airstrip Noise.

As discussed in Section 3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, there are no public airports in the vicinity of Escalon. There are also no private airstrips in the project vicinity. The project would have no impact associated with noise from airport or airstrip operations.

3.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
!" !" !"
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
!" !" !"
Environmental Setting
According to the 2020 U.S. Census, the population of Escalon was 7,472, an increase from its 2010 U.S. Census population of 7,132. The California Department of Finance estimated a total of 2,732 housing units in Escalon in 2023. Of that total, 2,343 were single-family detached units (typical houses), approximately 85.8% of the total (California Department of Finance 2023).

The Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) is a part of State Housing Element law that determines the projected and existing housing needs for each local jurisdiction in California. State housing law requires each jurisdiction’s Housing Element to demonstrate that the jurisdiction has sufficient land zoned for housing and plans to meet it RHNA. The SJCOG conducts the RHNA process for jurisdictions in San Joaquin County every eight years, as required by the HCD. As discussed in Chapter 1.0, Introduction, the HCD

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 3-50 September 2025
approved the Regional Housing Needs Plan, which included the RHNA, submitted by SJCOG for the 6th Cycle Housing Element, 2023-2031.

Escalon Municipal Code Chapter 17.50 sets forth requirements for the provision of affordable housing, as defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 50052.5. All developers engaging in a residential project shall be required to provide affordable housing, dedicate land, or pay in-lieu fees. For all residential projects that require a tentative and final map or a parcel map, the developer shall enter into an inclusionary housing agreement and provide affordable housing units pursuant to Chapter 17.50, unless the City Council makes a finding of infeasibility. Section 17.50.060(A)(1) states that 10 to 15 percent of all new for-sale units in any residential project shall be available to very low-, lower-, and moderate-income households at an affordable housing cost.

Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Unplanned Population Growth.

The project would involve a subdivision of 17.98 acres of land into lots that would provide 72 new single-family residences. Based on 2.73 persons per household in Escalon (California Department of Finance 2023), the project would house 197 residents. The proposed development would be consistent with the Escalon General Plan, which already designates the project site for low-density residential development. The increase in residents resulting from the project would be consistent with the population growth anticipated by the Escalon General Plan.

The proposed units constructed by the project are expected to be above-moderate units as defined for RHNA purposes. However, the project is also subject to Municipal Code Chapter 17.50, which requires that at least 10 percent of housing units be affordable. Based on this percentage, it is expected that the project would provide 7 housing units for very low-, lower-, and moderate-income households. These units would assist the City of Escalon in achieving its RHNA allocation of 212 very low-, low-, and moderate-income households. The remaining 65 units would assist the City in achieving its RHNA allocation of 155 above-moderate units for the 6th Cycle.

As noted in Chapter 2.0, Project Description, the proposed Specific Plan, in accordance with State law and Escalon Municipal Code Section 17.41.140, allows for the construction of ADUs and JADUs. Since an ADU is not mandatory for a residential property, and since it is not known how many single-family residences would choose to have an ADU, the number of residents in ADUs on the project site is considered speculative and is not further analyzed in this document. Any ADUs/JADUs that are constructed could conceivably apply to the RHNA targets for lower-income housing.

The project would provide employment opportunities in Escalon during its construction, which sometimes may bring people into the Escalon area. However, these opportunities would be limited in number and can be expected to be met from the existing population in nearby areas of San Joaquin and Stanislaus Counties. No additional population is expected to be generated by project employment, which would cease when construction work is completed. Project impacts on unplanned population growth would be less than significant.

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 3-51 September 2025
b) Displacement of Housing or People.

The project site is mostly vacant. There is one single-family residence on the site. The project proposes to replace the residence with 72 single-family residences, so the housing stock in Escalon would actually increase. It is expected that housing units in the Escalon area would be available for sale or rent to any residents currently in the residence that would be removed. Project impact on displacement of people or housing would be less than significant.

3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of, or the need for, new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
i) Fire protection? !" !" !"
ii) Police protection? !" !" !"
iii) Schools? !" !" !"
iv) Parks? !" !" !"
v) Other public facilities? !" !" !"
Environmental Setting
Fire protection and emergency medical services are provided by the Escalon Consolidated Fire Protection District. The Fire District provides fire suppression and rescue operations around the clock to an area covering 65 square miles of primarily agricultural land but also includes the City of Escalon. The Fire District’s main station and offices are located at 1749 Coley Avenue in Escalon. When fully staffed, the Fire District consists of a Fire Chief, three Battalion Chiefs, and three Firefighter Engineers. Support personnel consist of one part-time Administrative Assistant, ten reserve officers, and six volunteers. The Fire District currently has five engines of varying types, one rescue vehicle, and two water tenders for fire protection and emergency response equipment. Between January of 2019 and December 2019 there were 1,342 calls for assistance. The average time from dispatch to on scene for calls within the City limits is 5 minutes 32 seconds (San Joaquin LAFCo 2022).

Law enforcement services in the City are provided by the Escalon Police Department. The Department is stationed at 2040 McHenry Avenue, approximately 0.75 miles southeast of the project site. The Escalon Police Department has a staff of 12 full-time sworn officers, seven part-time sworn reserve officers, and two support staff. The average response time v
v
v
v
v

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 3-52 September 2025
is three minutes or less for priority calls (i.e., life-threatening situations) and seven minutes or less for non-priority calls (San Joaquin LAFCo 2022). Law enforcement in the unincorporated area is the responsibility of the San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Department.

The California Highway Patrol handles all traffic-related incidents on State Route 120 and in the unincorporated county area.

The project site is within the boundaries of the Escalon Unified School District, which encompasses 75 square miles and had an enrollment of 2,906 students from kindergarten to 12th grade in the 2021-22 school year (California Department of Education et al. 2023).

The School District consists of four elementary schools, one middle school, one high school, one continuation high school, and one charter school.

The Escalon Parks and Recreation Department manages nine community parks, one open space area, and two sports fields that offer a variety of recreational opportunities. Section

3.16, Recreation, discusses these opportunities in more detail. Other public services in Escalon include a branch of the Stockton-San Joaquin County Public Library.

Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a-i) Fire Protection.

The project would add residential units, which would likely increase demand for fire protection. Continued growth within the City’s Sphere of Influence will increase the overall demand on fire protection services in the City due to the increase in development. All the land within the Sphere of Influence is also within the Fire District boundary, so no expansion of service area is necessary to accommodate the expansion (San Joaquin LAFCo 2022).

The Fire District receives a Fire Facility Fee of $0.16 cents per square foot on all buildings built within the District. The fee can be used to build and equip the fire stations, but it cannot be used for operating expenses such as staffing or additional firefighters. The Fire District also has an override tax of $0.05 cents per square foot on buildings within the District that is added to the property tax bill. This money is used to hire additional full-time personnel. Additional facilities, personnel, equipment, and materials costs will be offset through these fees, along with the expanded property tax base (San Joaquin LAFCo 2022).

Given the location of the project adjacent to existing development, it is expected that additional demands of project development for fire protection would be offset by payment of these fees and of property tax assessments on new development.

In addition, all new development must comply with the provisions of the California Fire Code, the 2022 version of which has been adopted by the City. Among other issues, the California Fire Code addresses fire protection systems, fire-resistant materials, and fire flow requirements. Compliance with the California Fire Code, along with payment of applicable fees and taxes, would reduce project impacts on fire protection services to a level that would be less than significant.

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 3-53 September 2025
a-ii) Police Protection.

The project is expected to generate a demand for police protection services, as the project site is currently vacant. The project would be required to pay development impact fees to the City for future construction of Police Department facilities, as needed. A Municipal Service Review conducted for the City concluded that the City will be able to pay for the additional law enforcement operational needs through the expanded tax base generated by new development. Capital costs for facilities and equipment will be funded through development fees collected from these new developments (San Joaquin LAFCo 2022).

Therefore, project impacts related to police protection services are considered less than significant.
a-iii) Schools.

The project would increase demands on the Escalon Unified School District for educational services. Based on a student generation rate used in a District analysis (EUSD 2014), the project is estimated to generate approximately 51 students. The project site is within the boundaries of Van Allen Elementary School, and all School District students would attend El Portal Middle School and Escalon High School. As of 2020, all three schools are reported to have excess capacity by local standards, although much of this capacity is primarily in portable classrooms. Under State standards, Van Allen and El Portal Schools have student enrollment that exceeds capacity (EUSD 2020).

The project would be required to pay Level I developer fees of $3.36 per square foot that are imposed on residential development by the Escalon Unified School District. The fees would be used for future construction of school facilities, as needed. Under State law, the payment of development impact fees is considered adequate mitigation for residential development impacts on schools. Because the project would pay development impact fees to the Escalon Unified School District, project impacts on schools are considered less than significant.
a-iv, v) Parks and Other Public Facilities.

The project could result in additional demands on parks and library facilities. As discussed in Section 3.14, Population and Housing, the population increase resulting from the project is not unplanned nor substantial. Therefore, additional demands on parks and other public facilities such as libraries are expected to be incremental, and no new or expanded facilities would be required. While new facilities would not likely be required as a result of the project, the project would be required to pay development fees to the City for future construction of park and library facilities, as needed. Project impacts would be less than significant.

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 3-54 September 2025

3.16 RECREATION
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facilities would occur or be accelerated?
!" !" !"
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
!" !" !"
Environmental Setting
As noted in Section 3.15, Public Services, the Escalon Parks and Recreation Department manages nine community parks, one open space area, and two sports fields that offer a variety of recreational opportunities. The closest park to the project site is Shadowood Park, an approximately two-acre park adjacent to the southeast corner of the site. Shadowood Park provides a play area and a grass area, as well as a basin for storm drainage.

The Parks and Recreation Department also operates the Escalon Community Center at 1055 Escalon Avenue. Aside from providing space available to the public for functions, the Community Center also hosts activities oriented towards senior citizens.

Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a, b) Recreational Facilities.

As noted in Section 3.14, Population and Housing, the project is expected to generate 197 residents, who would generate a demand for park and recreational facilities and services.

In particular, the adjacent Shadowood Park may experience greater use as a result of the project.

Existing parks and recreational facilities are expected to accommodate the additional residents without causing a substantial physical deterioration of these facilities. As noted in Chapter 2.0, Project Description, the project would include a 1.10-acre area that would serve as a park, as well as a drainage basin. This park is expected to be use most frequently by residents on the project site. Also, as noted in Section 3.15, Public Services, the project would be required to pay development fees to the City for future construction of park facilities, as needed. Project impacts on recreational facilities are considered less than significant.

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 3-55 September 2025

3.17 TRANSPORTATION
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
!" !" !"
b) Conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
!" !" !"
c) Substantially increase hazards to a geometric design feature (e g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e g, farm equipment)?
!" !" !"
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? !" !" !"
Environmental Setting
Transportation Facilities and Services
The project site is just south of SR 120, which extends from Interstate 5 in Lathrop to U.S.

Highway 395 in Mono County. SR 120 passes through Escalon as a surface street; at the project site, SR 120 is a two-lane road at the Brennan Avenue intersection. Brennan Avenue is a two-lane road adjacent to and west of the project site. It extends north to Mariposa Road and south to East River Road. Two existing local streets, Celivo Way and Riesling Way, currently end at the southern boundary of the project site. Both roads currently connect to California Street, which provides access to Brennan Road to the west and ultimately SR 120. No direct access from the project site to Brennan Road or SR 120 is proposed.

Two agencies provide public transit services to Escalon. One agency is eTrans, the City’s transit system operated by Modesto Area Express. eTrans makes several stops within Escalon and connects passengers to Modesto. eTrans also provides door-to-door, dial-aride service on weekdays within the Escalon City limits. The other agency is the San Joaquin Regional Transit District, which operates a bus route to Escalon that provides connections to Manteca and Stockton. There are no designated bicycle routes in the project vicinity. No sidewalks exist along the project site frontage on Brennan Avenue.

A railroad track managed by the Union Pacific Railroad is adjacent to and north of the project site. This track eventually runs in a north-south direction along McHenry Avenue south of SR 120. In 2004, the most recent year information is available, the railroad operated five days per week in the morning and early afternoon. Approximately two trains per day entered and exited the City. Service provided by the Union Pacific Railroad to the City was dependent upon the number of businesses with the need and capabilities to utilize the railroad service (City of Escalon 2004).
v
v

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 3-56 September 2025
Transportation Plans and Guidelines
As the designated metropolitan planning organization representing San Joaquin County, SJCOG is required by both federal and State law to prepare a long-range transportation planning document known as a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The most recent RTP was adopted in 2022. It sets forth how the SJCOG region will meet its transportation needs to 2046, considering existing and projected land use patterns and forecasted population and job growth. It identifies and prioritizes expenditures of anticipated funding for transportation projects of all transportation modes, as well as transportation demand management measures and transportation systems management. Among the projects identified in the RTP are improvements to the intersection of SR 120 and Brennan Avenue (SJCOG 2022a).

The Circulation Element of the Escalon General Plan sets forth policies and implementation strategies related to transportation and circulation including streets and highways, transportation corridors, public transit, railroads, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and commercial, general, and military airports (City of Escalon 2019a). The Circulation Element states that the City shall maintain LOS D or better on the City’s street system. However, LOS is no longer used to determine the environmental impacts of projects, as explained in the following paragraph.

The State of California has recently added Section 15064.3 to the CEQA Guidelines, which is meant to incorporate SB 743 into CEQA analysis. SB 743 was enacted in 2013 with the intent to balance congestion management needs and the mitigation of the environmental impacts of traffic with statewide GHG emission reduction goals, mainly by developing an alternative mechanism for evaluating transportation impacts. Section 15064.3 states that VMT is the preferred method for evaluating transportation impacts, rather than LOS. The VMT metric measures the total miles traveled as a result of a given project. VMT accounts for the total environmental impact of transportation associated with a project, including use of non-vehicle travel modes.

Impacts of the project on traffic operations and on VMT were analyzed by transportation consultants Fehr and Peers, in an initial 2023 technical memorandum. The results of their analysis were updated and presented in a 2025 technical memorandum, which is shown in Appendix G of this document.

Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Conflict with Transportation Plans, Ordinances and Policies.

Development of the project would generate new vehicle trips and potentially affect traffic operations at nearby intersections, particularly the SR 120/Brennan Avenue intersection.

The Fehr and Peers 2025 memorandum reported a traffic operations analysis on the SR 120/Brennan Avenue intersection, which examined operations under existing and cumulative conditions, both without and with the project. Results under cumulative conditions are discussed in Section 3.21, Mandatory Findings of Significance.

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 3-57 September 2025
Under existing conditions, the overall intersection operates deficiently at LOS A under AM and PM peak hour conditions. However, the northbound approach (worst-case movement) experiences significant delay under both AM and PM peak hour conditions resulting in an unacceptable LOS F for the side-street approach. The project would add 24 trips to the intersection during the AM peak hour and 26 trips during the PM peak hour, which would exacerbate the side-street intersection worst-case movement delay. Under existing plus project conditions, the overall intersection delay would increase by approximately 15 seconds maintaining LOS F under AM peak hour conditions, and would increase by approximately eight seconds, maintaining LOS F under PM peak hour conditions.

Caltrans has completed a Conceptual Report for improvements at the SR 120/Brennan Road intersection as a prelude to preparing an Intersection Control Evaluation, which will evaluate various control options and identify the most appropriate control option and lane configurations for the intersection. The Intersection Control Evaluation process has not yet started. Because the Intersection Control Evaluation will identify the appropriate control option and lane configurations, the Fehr and Peers memorandum did not identify recommended improvements options for deficient operations.

The proposed project would result in minimal changes to delay at the other study intersections and all other intersections would operate at LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours. It is noted that delay for the northbound approach at SR 120/Walnut Avenue is at the LOS D/E threshold of 35 seconds during the AM peak hour and near this threshold during the PM peak hour. This delay is experienced by motorists making the northbound left turn onto SR 120; the northbound right turn delay would increase from approximately 15 to 18 seconds with the addition of project trips. The proposed project would not add any trips to the northbound left turn movement at this intersection and as a result, this delay does not change with the addition of project trips.

With the addition of project trips, volumes on California Street would increase to between approximately 1,000 to 1,100 ADT and volumes on Brennan Avenue would increase to approximately 1,600 ADT. The City of Escalon General Plan includes a goal of maintaining a roadway LOS of D or better on local streets, Minor Collectors, Collector and Arterial Streets but does not include specific LOS D thresholds. Based on the Highway Capacity Manual’s generalized daily service volume thresholds for two-lane urban streets, California Street and Brennan Avenue would operate at LOS D or better with the addition of project trips.

No other potential deficiencies related to road and intersection facilities were identified with the project. Therefore, the project would not conflict with transportation plans that seek to maintain traffic flow at acceptable levels, such as the Circulation Element.

The project could result in an increase in demand for public transit service. The frequency and proximity of future transit service is not known at this time and, as a result, demand for transit cannot be quantified. However, it is expected that eTrans can accommodate the additional passengers the project would generate, as well as the San Joaquin Regional Transit District. This would be consistent with the goals of the RTP, which encourage further use of public transit. Project impacts on transportation plans, ordinances, and policies would be less than significant.

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 3-58 September 2025
b) Conflict with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b).

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) sets forth criteria that may be used analyze transportation impacts using VMT. Section 15064.3(b)(1) states that for land use projects, VMT exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact.

The City of Escalon has not adopted VMT impact thresholds for general use, so a projectspecific threshold was developed by Fehr and Peers based on direction from City staff.

Appendix G provides a detailed description of the VMT methodology. The City of Escalon has determined that a significant impact would occur if the proposed project’s home-based VMT per capita would exceed the existing Citywide average home-based VMT per capita.

The Citywide average home-based VMT per capita was determined to be 26.4 (Fehr and Peers 2025).

The Fehr and Peers memorandum determined project VMT through calculating the homebased VMT for the U.S. Census block group within which the proposed project is located.

The results of the assessment indicated that the project home-based VMT per capita would be 25.2, which is less than the Citywide average home-based VMT per capita was determined to be 26.4. Based on this result, project impacts on VMT are considered less than significant. Additionally, detail on the VMT analysis can be found in Appendix G. c) Traffic Hazards.

The project site is located along Brennan Avenue, which has no improvements along the site frontage. The Brennan Avenue frontage would be improved with sidewalk in accordance with City standards and specifications. This would reduce potential hazards to pedestrian traffic that could be generated by project generated traffic.

The project would generate an estimated 722 vehicle trips daily (Fehr and Peers 2023).

This is considered a relatively low volume of traffic for residential development; plus the type of vehicle traffic associated with the project would be the same as traffic in the surrounding residential areas. Project impacts related to traffic hazards would overall be less than significant.

Fehr & Peers reviewed collision data at SR 120/Brennan Avenue for the most recent five years available to determine what, if any, collision patterns exist under existing conditions.

During the study time period, there were 15 reported collisions at the intersection. As shown, one fatal, five “severe” injury, six “other visible” injury, and three property damage only (PDO) collisions occurred during the study time period. The following collision types were the most prevalent:
• Broadside: 53% (8 collisions)
• Rear End: 20% (3 collisions)
• Sideswipe: 13% (2 collisions)
Five of the six KSI collisions were broadside collisions which occurred as a result of motorists on Brennan Avenue failing to yield to oncoming traffic on SR 120.

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 3-59 September 2025
Fehr and Peers reviewed and identified Proven Safety Countermeasures to reduce fatal and severe injury collisions for the crash types listed above and could be considered by Caltrans and/or the City for near-term implementation as discussed in Appendix G.

Fehr & Peers (2025) completed a queuing impact analysis to determine how the addition of project traffic during peak hours would impact queueing at the State Route (SR) 120/Brennan Avenue and SR 120/Walnut Avenue and other related intersections; these off-highway queues are presented for informational purposes only. Caltrans requests queueing impact analysis related to the state highway system for CEQA review purposes while the City of Escalon does not.

Based on guidance provided by Caltrans, the project would result in a significant queuing impact if it would cause available queue storage to exceed available storage capacity more than 95% of the time. The following intersections were selected for the vehicle queueing analysis based on the comment letter provided by Caltrans on December 17, 2024. 1) SR 120/Brennan Avenue
2) Brennan Avenue/California Street
3) California Street/Walnut Avenue
4) SR 120/Walnut Avenue
Additional discussion of queuing analysis methodology is provided in Appendix G. The analysis was completed for the following scenarios: 1) Existing Conditions and 2) Existing Plus Proposed Project Conditions. Fehr & Peers (2025) Table 3 displays existing and existing plus project AM and PM peak hour 95th percentile queue lengths at the queuing study intersections. As shown in Table 3, the 95th percentile queue would not exceed the available storage at any of the study intersections under existing or existing plus project conditions. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less than significant queuing impact.
d) Emergency Access.

As described in Chapter 2.0, Project Description, the project would have two entryways, Celivo Way and Riesling Way, both of which would be extended to the project site. These local streets would provide adequate access to the project site for emergency vehicles.

Project impacts related to emergency access would be less than significant.

3.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 3-60 September 2025
object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section
5020.1(k), or
!" !" !"
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the
criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
!" !" !"
Environmental Setting
As noted, in Section 3.5, Cultural Resources, the project site lies within the traditional territory of the Northern Valley Yokuts, whose lands extended from the San Joaquin River near Mendota north to the confluence of the San Joaquin and Calaveras Rivers. Yokuts groups lived in small seasonal camps or in larger settlements on perennial water sources such as the San Joaquin River. Dwellings in the larger villages consisted of circular tule covered structures and more elaborate semi-subterranean pit houses. Ceremonial sweat houses and assembly chambers were often constructed within the more substantial villages.

These larger settlements might include approximately 200 inhabitants constituting a small sub-tribe of the Yokuts. A headman, while not necessarily possessing absolute powers, served as an advisor to these self-contained communities.

The Yokuts were severely impacted by Euro-American settlement. Missionization and exposure to disease decimated the population. The influx of Europeans during the Gold Rush era further reduced the population because of disease and violent encounters with the miners. Because of this, the Northern Valley Yokuts are generally not well documented in the ethnographic record. Despite this, the Yokuts tribe continues to exist today; the Nototomne/North Valley Yokut Tribe, Inc., represents the Northern Valley Yokuts in the region.

In 2014, the California Legislature enacted Assembly Bill (AB) 52, which focuses on consultation with Native American tribes on land use issues potentially affecting the tribes.

The intent of this consultation is to avoid or mitigate potential impacts on “tribal cultural resources,” which are defined as “sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe.” Under AB 52, when a tribe requests consultation with a CEQA lead agency on projects within its traditionally and culturally affiliated geographical area, the lead agency must provide the tribe with notice of a proposed project within 14 days of a project application being deemed complete or when the lead agency decides to undertake the project if it is the agency’s own project.

The tribe has up to 30 days to respond to the notice and request consultation; if consultation is requested, then the local agency has up to 30 days to initiate consultation.

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 3-61 September 2025
AB 52 notification letters were distributed to representatives of eight potentially interested tribes on April 26, 2024: Buena Vista Rancheria, California Valley Miwok Tribe, Sheep Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians, Ione Band of Miwok Indians, Northern Valley Yokuts, Tule River Indian Tribe, Wilton Rancheria, and Wuksachi Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band. Only one of the tribes responded – the California Valley Miwok, who stated that it had no comments or concerns related to the project. None of the other contacted tribes responded to the letters; therefore, it is concluded that the tribes chose not to consult on the project. The City considers the AB 52 consultation process complete.

Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a, b) Tribal Cultural Resources.

As noted in Section 3.5, Cultural Resources, no archaeological resources have been recorded on the project site, and contacted tribes provided no information on potential tribal cultural resources. However, project construction could potentially uncover previously unknown archaeological resources, which could include those of Native American origin.

Mitigation Measure CULT-1 would require construction work to stop at an uncovered resource site under an archaeologist can evaluate the resource and give recommendations for its disposition. If potential tribal cultural resources or burials are encountered, the appropriate tribal representative would be contacted to evaluate the find and make recommendations on its disposition, per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e) and as described in Section 3.5. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CULT-1 would reduce potential impacts on tribal cultural resources to a level that would be less than significant.

Level of Significance: Potentially significant
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measure CULT-1.

Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant

3.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
!" !" !"
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development
during normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
!" !" !"

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 3-62 September 2025
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that would serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
!" !" !"
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
!" !" !"
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? !" !" !"
Environmental Setting
Domestic water service is currently provided within the City limits by the City of Escalon from three existing groundwater wells with a current total pumping capacity of 3,200 gallons per minute (gpm). A fourth well, Well No. 1, has been deactivated, but a replacement well will be drilled at the Well No. 1 site when funding becomes available. In 2020, average daily water use was 1.42 million gallons per day (mgd), and maximum daily water use was 2.27 mgd (City of Escalon 2023). Water is delivered through a distribution system consisting of approximately 33 miles of pipelines, ranging in diameter from 3 to 16 inches. A 10-inch diameter water line is beneath California Street, with a 10-inch diameter stub along Riesling Way and an 8-inch stub along Celivo Way (City of Escalon 2007a).

The City of Escalon provides wastewater treatment and collection services to residential, commercial, and industrial land uses within the City limits. The City operates two wastewater treatment facilities – a domestic facility for residential, commercial, and small industrial sources, and the other for industrial sources. The domestic wastewater facility currently treats on average about 0.5 mgd, with a permitted capacity of 0.9 mgd (City of Escalon 2023). Wastewater collection lines are located throughout the City, ranging in size from 6 to 14 inches in diameter. An 8-inch diameter sewer line is beneath California Street, with 8-inch diameter stubs along Riesling Way and Celivo Way (City of Escalon 2007b).

The City maintains a network of storm drains and detention basins that collect storm water runoff from the urbanized areas. Most of the collected storm drainage is discharged to SSJID canals in the area; a small amount is conveyed to the industrial treatment ponds of the City’s wastewater plant. An existing storm drain line is beneath California Street, and a retention basin and pump station are in Shadowood Park adjacent to the southeastern corner of the project site (City of Escalon 2007c). As noted in Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the City operates under the MS4 General Permit, in accordance with which the City has adopted a Post-Construction Standards Plan that provides guidance to developers in meeting the SWRCB’s requirements for mitigating impacts associated with storm drainage.

Solid waste collection services in Escalon are provided by Gilton Solid Waste Management, which operates under a City franchise. Solid waste from the City is taken to the McClure Transfer Station in Modesto, which in turn is sent to the Fink Road Sanitary Landfill in southwestern Stanislaus County. The Fink Road Landfill has a maximum

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 3-63 September 2025
permitted capacity of 14,640,000 cubic yards. As of March 1, 2017, the landfill had a remaining capacity of 7,184,701 cubic yards (CalRecycle 2023).

Electricity is provided to Escalon by PG&E and the Modesto Irrigation District; the City is within a “joint electric distribution service area” where both utilities may compete for customers. Both PG&E and MID have electrical facilities in the project vicinity; existing overhead electrical lines are along Brennan Avenue. Natural gas services are provided by PG&E. Local telephone service is provided by AT&T, and Comcast provides cable television services.

Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Relocation or Construction of New Facilities.

The project would connect to existing water, sewer, storm drainage, and electrical lines in the project vicinity. Extension of water and sewer lines from existing stubs along Riesling way and Celivo Way is anticipated, and onsite service lines would be installed for residential development. Otherwise, no new lines or facilities would need to be constructed by the utilities. Relocation of existing utility lines in the vicinity is not anticipated. Project impacts related to relocation or construction of new facilities would be less than significant. b) Water Systems and Supply.

The project would place additional demand on the City’s water supplies. The City’s Water Master Plan indicates a water demand factor for residential development similar to the project of 540 gallons per day per water meter connection (City of Escalon 2007a).

Assuming each unit has a separate meter, the total water demand of the anticipated residential development would be 38,880 gallons per day on average, or approximately

0.04 mgd.

As noted above, the City’s water system has approximately 3,200 gpm of available water supply and a maximum of 1,591 gpm daily use. The City’s water capacity will be increased in the future with the replacement of deactivated Well No. 1. The City’s Water Master Plan recommends that all new wells have a capacity of at least 1,200 gpm (City of Escalon 2007a), so the new Well No. 1 is expected to have at least that much capacity.

In addition, the City, in association with the SSJID and other cities in southern San Joaquin County, has contracted for additional water supply as a part of the South County Surface Water Project. Under this project, water would be provided from SSJID’s Woodward Reservoir. The City has been allotted up to 2,799 acre-feet from this source (City of Escalon 2023). The City has not yet activated this source, but surface water is expected to supplement the City’s water supplies in the future.

In summary, the City would have adequate capacity to accommodate the water demands of the project without the need for new or expanded entitlements (City of Escalon 2023).

It also should be noted that the project would be required to comply with the City’s Model

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 3-64 September 2025
Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, which would make landscape irrigation more waterefficient. Project impacts on water supplies would be less than significant. c) Wastewater Treatment Capacity.

The project would place additional demand on the City’s wastewater collection and treatment system. The City’s Sewer Master Plan indicates a sewer demand factor for residential development similar to the project of 250 gallons per day per unit (City of Escalon 2007b). Based on this factor, the project would generate 18,250 gallons of wastewater per day, or approximately 0.02 mgd. As indicated above, the City’s wastewater treatment plant currently has available capacity of approximately 0.4 mgd based on current average use. Thus, the plant would have adequate capacity to accommodate wastewater generated by the project. The project would pay sewer connection fees, which would be used for future expansion of the City’s wastewater system as needed. Project impacts on wastewater services would be less than significant.
d, e) Solid Waste Services.

The project would generate solid waste materials consistent with residential land uses. The project is not anticipated to create a significant amount of solid waste. All solid waste generated during construction and operations would be removed in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations. These include the 2022 CALGreen, which requires projects to divert 65% of all construction and demolition debris excluding inert and organic material and 90% of inert and organic materials from landfills through reuse and recycling.

As of 2017, the Fink Road Landfill had approximately half of its maximum capacity available; as such, the land fill could accommodate project-generated solid waste. Project impacts would be less than significant.

3.20 WILDFIRE
If located in or near State Responsibility Areas or lands classified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
!" !" !"
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
!" !" !"
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
!" !" !"

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 3-65 September 2025
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? !" !" !"
Environmental Setting
The Environmental Checklist in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G has been revised to include a section addressing the potential impacts of a project as it relates to wildfire. As noted in Section 3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the project site is not in an area susceptible to wildland fires; land is either agricultural or developed.

The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’s Fire and Resource Assessment Program identifies fire threat based on a combination of two factors: 1) fire frequency, or the likelihood of a given area burning, and 2) potential fire behavior (hazard). These two factors are combined in determining the following Fire Hazard Severity Zones: Moderate, High, Very High, Extreme. These zones apply to areas designated as State Responsibility Areas – areas in which the State has primary firefighting responsibility. The project site is not within a State Responsibility Area and therefore has not been placed in a Fire Hazard Severity Zone for such areas (Cal Fire 2007a). Both the project site and surrounding area are in a Local Responsibility Area, where primary firefighting responsibility is by a local fire district or department, in this case the Escalon Consolidated Fire Protection District.

Neither are in any designated fire hazard severity zones for Local Responsibility Areas (Cal Fire 2007b).

Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Emergency Response Plans and Emergency Evacuation Plans.

As discussed in Section 3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, project construction is not expected to substantially obstruct emergency vehicles or any evacuations that may occur in the area with implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1. The project would not obstruct any roadways once construction work is completed. Project impacts related to wildfire emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans would be less than significant with mitigation.

Level of Significance: Potentially significant
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.

Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant
b) Exposure of Project Occupants to Wildfire Hazards.

The project site is not part of a State Responsibility Area, and Cal Fire maps indicate the site is not designated within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone or a zone of higher severity for Local Responsibility Areas. The project site is adjacent to a predominantly residential area, which is not prone to wildfires. The project would reduce the existing fire hazard on the project site by replacing vacant land covered by grasses and weeds with

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 3-66 September 2025
residences and landscaping. The project would have no impact related to exposure of project occupants to wildfire hazards.
c) Installation and Maintenance of Infrastructure.

The project proposes the installation of roads and parking areas and the extension of utilities. The installation of these facilities is not expected to exacerbate the wildfire risk on the project site, which is minimal as explained in b) above. The project would have no impact related to exacerbation of wildfire hazards by infrastructure improvements. d) Risks from Runoff, Post-Fire Slope Instability, or Drainage Changes.

The project site is in a topographically flat area. There are no streams or other channels that cross the site. As such, it is not expected that people or structures would be exposed to significant risks from changes resulting from fires in steeper areas, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides. The project would have no impact related to risks from runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes.

3.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
!" !" !"
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
!" !" !"
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
!" !" !"
a) Findings on Biological and Cultural Resources.

The project’s potential biological, cultural, and tribal cultural resource impacts were described in Sections 3.4, 3.5, and 3.18, respectively. Potentially significant environmental

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 3-67 September 2025
impacts were identified in these issue areas, but these impacts would be reduced to levels that would be less than significant with implementation of identified mitigation measures. b) Findings on Individually Limited but Cumulatively Considerable Impacts.

The project site is across State Route 120 from the Liberty Business Park Specific Plan area. Adopted by the City in 2007, the Specific Plan covers 178.4 acres and proposes an industrial park development with a mix of industrial, industrial/business-professional, office, and commercial uses. No development of the Specific Plan area has occurred to date. No other major development projects have been approved recently by the City.

The potential cumulative impacts of development of the project site and the Liberty Business Park area were accounted for in the Escalon General Plan EIR. The EIR evaluated the potential environmental impacts of development under the 2005 General Plan, with which this project is consistent. Potentially significant impacts were identified, but most of these impacts could be mitigated to a level that would be less than significant (City of Escalon 2005). However, the General Plan EIR identified two impacts that were considered significant and unavoidable: direct and indirect conversion of Farmland, and potential violation of air quality standards. Project impacts that contribute to these two significant and unavoidable impacts may be cumulatively considerable.

As discussed in Section 3.2, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, the project would directly convert Farmland to non-agricultural use. However, in its analysis, the General Plan EIR considered potential development on the project site. The conversion of Farmland would not have a new or a more severe impact than that described in the General Plan EIR. As such, project impacts on Farmland are not considered to be cumulatively considerable.

As discussed in Section 3.3, Air Quality, while the project would contribute air pollutant emissions, the project emissions would be below SJVAPCD significance thresholds, which were developed in part to determine if a project would interfere with the attainment of air quality standards. Therefore, the project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to air quality impacts.

Impacts of the project on traffic operations at the SR 120/Brennan Avenue intersection under cumulative conditions without and with the project were analyzed by Fehr and Peers.

The results of their analysis are available in Appendix G. Cumulative conditions were defined as traffic conditions in the year 2045; by this time, the intersection is expected to be improved such that no cumulative queuing impact would be expected.

As noted, Caltrans has completed a draft Conceptual Report for improvements at the SR 120/Brennan Road intersection as a prelude to preparing an Intersection Control Evaluation. The Intersection Control Evaluation process has not yet started.

As described in this IS/MND, the potential environmental effects of the project would either be less than significant or would have no impact at all. Where the project involves potentially significant effects, these effects would be avoided or reduced to a level that is less than significant with proposed mitigation measures and/or compliance with applicable regulations and conditions of required permits. Given this, the potential environmental impacts of the project would not be cumulatively considerable.

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 3-68 September 2025
c) Findings on Adverse Effects on Human Beings.

Potential adverse effects on human beings were discussed in Section 3.7, Geology and Soils (seismic hazards); Section 3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality (flooding); Section 3.17, Transportation (traffic hazards); and Section 3.20, Wildfire. All potential adverse effects on human beings identified in those sections would be reduced to levels that are less than significant through mitigation measures or through compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and ordinances.

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 4-1 September 2025

4.0 REFERENCES

4.1 DOCUMENT PREPARERS
This IS/MND was prepared by BaseCamp Environmental, Inc. for use by and under the supervision of the City of Escalon Planning Department. The following persons were involved in preparation of the IS/MND:

City of Escalon Planning Department
Dominique Romo, City Manager/City Planner
Diana Trejo, Assistant Planner
BaseCamp Environmental, Inc.

Charlie Simpson, Principal
Terry Farmer, AICP, Senior Environmental Planner
Krista Simpson, Maps/Graphics
Rayanna Beck, Research and Document Production

4.2 DOCUMENTS CITED
Baez Geotechnical Group, Inc. 2023a. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Murphy Ranch, APNS: 225-04-028 & 225-04-029, 18092 & 18112 Brennan Road, Escalon, California. August 30, 2023.
______. 2023b. Geotechnical Investigation, Murphy Ranch Residential Subdivision, 18092 & 18112 Brennan Road, Escalon, California. August 31, 2023.

BlackWater Consulting Engineers, Inc. 2016. City of Escalon Water System Evaluation.

February 2016.

Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. 2023. Environmental Noise Assessment, Murphy Ranch Residential Development, Escalon, California. September 8, 2023.

California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. November 2017.
______. 2022. 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. November 16, 2022. ______. 2023. California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2021: Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators. December 14, 2023.

California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resources Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). 2018. San Joaquin County Important Farmland 2018 (map).

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 4-2 September 2025
California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR). 2023. Well Finder – CalGEM GIS. Available online at https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/. Accessed August 4, 2023.

California Department of Education, EdSource, and Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team. 2023. EdData: Census Day Enrollment – Escalon Unified.

Available online at ed-data.org/district/San-Joaquin/Escalon-Unified/. Accessed August 6, 2023.

California Department of Finance. 2023. Report E-5 - Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State — January 1, 2021-2023. Sacramento, California, May 2023.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire). 2007a. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA, San Joaquin County (map). Adopted November 7, 2007. ______. 2007b. Draft Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA, San Joaquin County (map).

October 2, 2007.

California Department of Resources Recovery and Recycling (CalRecycle). 2023. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details, Fink Road Landfill (50-AA-0001). Available online at https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/ Details/992?siteID=3733. Accessed August 22, 2023.

California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2023. EnviroStor database, www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov. Accessed July 11, 2023.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2013. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. September 2013. ______. 2019. List of Designated and Eligible State Scenic Highways. Available online at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/ scenic_hwy.htm. August 2019.

California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2023. Best Available Maps.

Available online at https://gis.bam.water.ca.gov/bam/. Accessed August 4, 2023.

California Energy Commission (CEC). 2023a. Electricity Consumption by County – San Joaquin County 2021. Available online at ecdms.energy.ca.gov/ elecbycounty.aspx. Accessed April 19, 2023.
______. 2023b. Gas Consumption by County – San Joaquin County 2021. Available online at ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx. Accessed April 19, 2023.

California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). 2016a. Sites Identified with Waste Constituents Above Hazardous Waste Levels Outside the Waste Management Unit. Available online at http://www.calepa.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/ CorteseList/CurrentList.pdf. Accessed September 23, 2018.

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 4-3 September 2025
______. 2016b. List of "Active" CDO and CAO from Water Board. Available online at http://www.calepa.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/CorteseList/default.htm. Accessed September 23, 2018.

California Geological Survey. 2023. CGS Information Warehouse: Regulatory Maps.

Available online at maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/ regulatorymaps/. Accessed August 1, 2023.

California Public Utilities Commission. 2022. 2022 California Renewables Portfolio Standard Annual Report. November 2022.

Central California Information Center. 2023. Records Search File #: 12627L. Project:

Murphy Ranch, T2S R9E NW ¼, Section 5, APNs 225-040-28 & 225-040-29.

August 10, 2023.

City of Escalon. 2004. Escalon General Plan Update Administrative Draft Background Report. Prepared by Quad Knopf. February 2004.
______. 2005. Final Environmental Impact Report for the Escalon General Plan 2005- 2035. Prepared by Quad Knopf. April 2005.
______. 2007a. City of Escalon Water Master Plan. Prepared by ECO:LOGIC Engineering. January 2007.
______. 2007b. City of Escalon Sewer Master Plan. Prepared by ECO:LOGIC Engineering. January 2007.
______. 2007c. City of Escalon Storm Drain Master Plan. Prepared by ECO:LOGIC Engineering. December 2007.
______. 2014. Post-Construction Standards Plan. Prepared by WGR Southwest, Inc. ______. 2019a. Escalon General Plan. Prepared by Quad Knopf. Updated by De Novo Planning Group. Updated December 12, 2019.
______. 2019b. Housing Element. Prepared by De Novo Planning Group. Adopted December 2, 2019.
______. 2023. City of Escalon Municipal Services Review and Sphere of Influence Update. Prepared by J.B. Anderson Land Use Planning. March 9, 2023.

Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority (ESJGA). 2019. Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan. November 2019.

Escalon Unified School District (EUSD). 2014. Level I Developer Fee Study for Escalon Unified School District. Prepared by Jack Schreder & Associates. May 22, 2014. ______. 2020. Facilities Assessment and Implementation Plan. Prepared by Caldwell Flores Winters, Inc. June 2020.

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 4-4 September 2025
Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2009. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FEMA #06077C0670F). City of Escalon, California. Effective date October 16, 2009.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide. FHWA-HEP-05-054. January 2006.

Fehr and Peers. 2023. Technical Memorandum - Murphy Ranch VMT Impact Assessment and Operations Analysis. November 22, 2023.

Fernandez-Bou, Angel Santiago, J. Pablo Ortiz-Partida, Chantelise Pells, Leticia M.

Classen-Rodriguez, Vicky Espinoza, Jose M. Rodríguez-Flores, Lorenzo Booth, Julia Burmistrova, Alan Cai, Ariadna Cairo, John A. Capitman, Spencer Cole, Humberto Flores-Landeros, Alexander Guzman, Mahesh L. Maskey, Dalia Martínez- Escobar, Pedro Andres Sanchez-Perez, Jorge Valero-Fandiño, Joshua H. Viers, Leroy Westerling, and Josué Medellín-Azuara. 2021. Regional Report for the San Joaquin Valley Region on Impacts of Climate Change. California Natural Resources Agency. Publication number: SUM-CCCA4-2021-003.

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD). 2021. Guide to Air Quality Assessment in Sacramento County: Chapter 6 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Adopted February 26, 2021.

San Joaquin Council of Governments. (SJCOG). 2000. San Joaquin County MultiSpecies Open Space and Habitat Conservation Plan (SJMSCP). November 14, 2000.
______. 2022a. 2022 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy.

Adopted June 2018.
______. 2022b. 2022 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Report. March 2018. ______. 2022c. SJCOG 2023-2031 Regional Housing Needs Plan. Adopted September 22, 2022.

San Joaquin County. 2016. San Joaquin County General Plan Background Report.

Prepared by Mintier Harnish. December 2016.

San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo). 2012. Change of Organization Policies and Procedures (Including Annexations and Reorganizations). Adopted September 21, 2007; last amended December 14, 2012.
______. 2022. City of Escalon Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Plan.

Prepared by J.B. Anderson Land Use Planning. October 2022.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2015. Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI). March 19, 2015.

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 4-5 September 2025
______. 2023. Ambient Air Quality Standards and Valley Attainment Status. SJVAPCD website, http://www.valleyair.org/aqinfo/attainment.htm. Accessed August 21, 2023.

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2023. GeoTracker website, www.geotracker.swrcb.ca.gov. Accessed July 11, 2023.

University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP). 2020. UC Museum of Paleontology Localities database. Available online at
https://ucmpdb.berkeley.edu/cgi/ucmp_query2. Accessed December 30, 2020.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2023.

Custom Soil Resource Report for San Joaquin County, California: Murphy Ranch.

July 11, 2023.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (SCS). 1992. Soil Survey of San Joaquin County, California.

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2018. 2015 Residential Energy Consumption Survey: Energy Consumption and Expenditures Tables. Table CE4.10: Annual household site end‐use consumption by fuel in the West - averages, 2015. Release date May 2018.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009. Endangerment and Cause of Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. Federal Register Vol. 74, No. 239, pp. 66496-66546. December 15, 2009.

Wagner, D. L., E. J. Bortugno, and R. D. McJunkin. 1991. Geologic Map of the San Francisco-San Jose Quadrangle, California, 1:250,000. California Division of Mines and Geology, Regional Geologic Map Series.

4.3 PERSONS CONSULTED
Morris, Dan. Escalon Consolidated Fire Protection District.

Romo, Dominique. City Planner, City of Escalon.

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 5-1 September 2025

5.0 NOTES RELATED TO EVALUATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The following notes are included in the Environmental Information Checklist shown in Appendix G of the State CEQA guidelines. The notes provide guidance as to the proper use of the form.
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from “Earlier Analyses,” as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed: Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 5-2 September 2025
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures: For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances).

Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.

APPENDIX A
AIR QUALITY MODELING RESULTS

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
1 / 81
Murphy Ranch Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2024) - Unmitigated

3.2. Demolition (2024) - Mitigated

3.3. Site Preparation (2024) - Unmitigated

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
2 / 81

3.4. Site Preparation (2024) - Mitigated

3.5. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated

3.6. Grading (2024) - Mitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated

3.8. Building Construction (2024) - Mitigated

3.9. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated

3.10. Building Construction (2025) - Mitigated

3.11. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated

3.12. Building Construction (2026) - Mitigated

3.13. Paving (2026) - Unmitigated

3.14. Paving (2026) - Mitigated

3.15. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated

3.16. Architectural Coating (2026) - Mitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.1.2. Mitigated

4.2. Energy

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
3 / 81

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

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.6.2. Mitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
4 / 81

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

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

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
5 / 81

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

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

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
6 / 81

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

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

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
7 / 81

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

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

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
8 / 81

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
9 / 81

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Murphy Ranch
Construction Start Date 5/1/2024
Operational Year 2026
Lead Agency City of Escalon
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 3.10
Precipitation (days) 25.4
Location 37.7978583630635, -121.01179328193305
County San Joaquin
City Unincorporated
Air District San Joaquin Valley APCD
Air Basin San Joaquin Valley
TAZ 2125
EDFZ 4
Electric Utility Modesto Irrigation District
Gas Utility Pacific Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.26

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Single Family
Housing

72.0 Dwelling Unit 18.0 140,400 843,326 — 233 —

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
10 / 81

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title
Construction C-10-A Water Exposed Surfaces
Construction C-10-C Water Unpaved Construction Roads
Construction C-11 Limit Vehicle Speeds on Unpaved Roads Water W-7 Adopt a Water Conservation Strategy

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. 4.54 3.76 42.2 33.9 0.10 1.60 19.8 21.4 1.47 10.1 11.6 — 13,259 13,259 0.42 1.09 16.3 13,609 Mit. 4.54 3.76 42.2 33.9 0.10 1.60 7.81 9.41 1.47 3.97 5.45 — 13,259 13,259 0.42 1.09 16.3 13,609 %
Reduced
— — — — — — 61% 56% — 61% 53% — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 44.1 44.1 11.6 14.4 0.02 0.50 0.28 0.78 0.46 0.07 0.53 — 2,841 2,841 0.12 0.06 0.04 2,862 Mit. 44.1 44.1 11.6 14.4 0.02 0.50 0.28 0.78 0.46 0.07 0.53 — 2,841 2,841 0.12 0.06 0.04 2,862 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.48 2.47 7.72 10.2 0.02 0.31 1.25 1.56 0.29 0.53 0.81 — 2,027 2,027 0.08 0.08 0.61 2,042 -------------------

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
11 / 81
Mit. 2.48 2.47 7.72 10.2 0.02 0.31 0.61 0.92 0.29 0.24 0.52 — 2,027 2,027 0.08 0.08 0.61 2,042 %
Reduced
— — — — — — 51% 41% — 55% 36% — — — — — — —
Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.45 0.45 1.41 1.86 < 0.005 0.06 0.23 0.28 0.05 0.10 0.15 — 336 336 0.01 0.01 0.10 338 Mit. 0.45 0.45 1.41 1.86 < 0.005 0.06 0.11 0.17 0.05 0.04 0.10 — 336 336 0.01 0.01 0.10 338 %
Reduced
— — — — — — 51% 41% — 55% 36% — — — — — — —

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 4.54 3.76 42.2 33.9 0.10 1.60 19.8 21.4 1.47 10.1 11.6 — 13,259 13,259 0.42 1.09 16.3 13,609 2025 1.48 1.24 10.8 14.5 0.02 0.43 0.28 0.71 0.40 0.07 0.47 — 2,855 2,855 0.11 0.06 1.49 2,878 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 1.56 1.32 11.6 14.4 0.02 0.50 0.28 0.78 0.46 0.07 0.53 — 2,841 2,841 0.12 0.06 0.04 2,862 2025 1.47 1.23 10.8 14.2 0.02 0.43 0.28 0.71 0.40 0.07 0.47 — 2,832 2,832 0.11 0.06 0.04 2,853 2026 44.1 44.1 10.2 14.0 0.02 0.38 0.28 0.66 0.35 0.07 0.42 — 2,824 2,824 0.11 0.06 0.03 2,844 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.92 0.77 7.45 7.61 0.02 0.31 1.25 1.56 0.28 0.53 0.81 — 1,826 1,826 0.07 0.08 0.61 1,853 2025 1.05 0.88 7.72 10.2 0.02 0.31 0.19 0.51 0.29 0.05 0.33 — 2,027 2,027 0.08 0.04 0.46 2,042 2026 2.48 2.47 0.50 0.73 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 0.02 — 116 116 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 117 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.17 0.14 1.36 1.39 < 0.005 0.06 0.23 0.28 0.05 0.10 0.15 — 302 302 0.01 0.01 0.10 307 -------------------

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
12 / 81
2025 0.19 0.16 1.41 1.86 < 0.005 0.06 0.04 0.09 0.05 0.01 0.06 — 336 336 0.01 0.01 0.08 338 2026 0.45 0.45 0.09 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 19.2 19.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 19.3

2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 4.54 3.76 42.2 33.9 0.10 1.60 7.81 9.41 1.47 3.97 5.45 — 13,259 13,259 0.42 1.09 16.3 13,609 2025 1.48 1.24 10.8 14.5 0.02 0.43 0.28 0.71 0.40 0.07 0.47 — 2,855 2,855 0.11 0.06 1.49 2,878 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 1.56 1.32 11.6 14.4 0.02 0.50 0.28 0.78 0.46 0.07 0.53 — 2,841 2,841 0.12 0.06 0.04 2,862 2025 1.47 1.23 10.8 14.2 0.02 0.43 0.28 0.71 0.40 0.07 0.47 — 2,832 2,832 0.11 0.06 0.04 2,853 2026 44.1 44.1 10.2 14.0 0.02 0.38 0.28 0.66 0.35 0.07 0.42 — 2,824 2,824 0.11 0.06 0.03 2,844 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.92 0.77 7.45 7.61 0.02 0.31 0.61 0.92 0.28 0.24 0.52 — 1,826 1,826 0.07 0.08 0.61 1,853 2025 1.05 0.88 7.72 10.2 0.02 0.31 0.19 0.51 0.29 0.05 0.33 — 2,027 2,027 0.08 0.04 0.46 2,042 2026 2.48 2.47 0.50 0.73 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 0.02 — 116 116 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 117 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.17 0.14 1.36 1.39 < 0.005 0.06 0.11 0.17 0.05 0.04 0.10 — 302 302 0.01 0.01 0.10 307 2025 0.19 0.16 1.41 1.86 < 0.005 0.06 0.04 0.09 0.05 0.01 0.06 — 336 336 0.01 0.01 0.08 338 2026 0.45 0.45 0.09 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 19.2 19.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 19.3

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) -------------------

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
13 / 81
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. 6.85 6.54 3.50 31.7 0.07 0.10 5.51 5.61 0.09 1.40 1.50 40.0 8,221 8,261 4.37 0.31 24.3 8,488 Mit. 6.85 6.54 3.50 31.7 0.07 0.10 5.51 5.61 0.09 1.40 1.50 38.9 8,212 8,251 4.25 0.31 24.3 8,474 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — 3% < 0.5% < 0.5% 3% 1% — < 0.5%
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 6.26 5.96 3.92 23.7 0.06 0.10 5.51 5.61 0.09 1.40 1.49 40.0 7,725 7,765 4.40 0.34 1.61 7,977 Mit. 6.26 5.96 3.92 23.7 0.06 0.10 5.51 5.61 0.09 1.40 1.49 38.9 7,716 7,754 4.28 0.33 1.61 7,963 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — 3% < 0.5% < 0.5% 3% 1% — < 0.5%
Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 6.38 6.09 3.68 25.3 0.06 0.10 5.30 5.40 0.09 1.35 1.44 40.0 7,703 7,743 4.38 0.32 10.8 7,958 Mit. 6.38 6.09 3.68 25.3 0.06 0.10 5.30 5.40 0.09 1.35 1.44 38.9 7,694 7,733 4.26 0.32 10.8 7,945 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — 3% < 0.5% < 0.5% 3% 1% — < 0.5%
Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.16 1.11 0.67 4.61 0.01 0.02 0.97 0.98 0.02 0.25 0.26 6.62 1,275 1,282 0.72 0.05 1.79 1,318 Mit. 1.16 1.11 0.67 4.61 0.01 0.02 0.97 0.98 0.02 0.25 0.26 6.43 1,274 1,280 0.71 0.05 1.79 1,315 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — 3% < 0.5% < 0.5% 3% 1% — < 0.5%

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e -------------------
-------------------

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
14 / 81
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 3.16 2.91 2.93 27.4 0.07 0.05 5.51 5.56 0.05 1.40 1.45 — 6,690 6,690 0.24 0.29 23.3 6,806 Area 3.63 3.61 0.04 4.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 10.9 10.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.0 Energy 0.06 0.03 0.53 0.23 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 1,475 1,475 0.11 0.01 — 1,480 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 5.61 45.5 51.1 0.58 0.01 — 69.7 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 34.4 0.00 34.4 3.44 0.00 — 120 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.01 1.01
Total 6.85 6.54 3.50 31.7 0.07 0.10 5.51 5.61 0.09 1.40 1.50 40.0 8,221 8,261 4.37 0.31 24.3 8,488 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 2.95 2.69 3.39 23.4 0.06 0.05 5.51 5.56 0.05 1.40 1.45 — 6,204 6,204 0.27 0.32 0.60 6,306 Area 3.25 3.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.06 0.03 0.53 0.23 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 1,475 1,475 0.11 0.01 — 1,480 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 5.61 45.5 51.1 0.58 0.01 — 69.7 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 34.4 0.00 34.4 3.44 0.00 — 120 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.01 1.01
Total 6.26 5.96 3.92 23.7 0.06 0.10 5.51 5.61 0.09 1.40 1.49 40.0 7,725 7,765 4.40 0.34 1.61 7,977 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 2.89 2.63 3.13 23.0 0.06 0.05 5.30 5.35 0.05 1.35 1.40 — 6,177 6,177 0.25 0.30 9.83 6,282 Area 3.43 3.42 0.02 2.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 5.39 5.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.40 Energy 0.06 0.03 0.53 0.23 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 1,475 1,475 0.11 0.01 — 1,480 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 5.61 45.5 51.1 0.58 0.01 — 69.7 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 34.4 0.00 34.4 3.44 0.00 — 120 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.01 1.01
Total 6.38 6.09 3.68 25.3 0.06 0.10 5.30 5.40 0.09 1.35 1.44 40.0 7,703 7,743 4.38 0.32 10.8 7,958 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
15 / 81
Mobile 0.53 0.48 0.57 4.21 0.01 0.01 0.97 0.98 0.01 0.25 0.26 — 1,023 1,023 0.04 0.05 1.63 1,040 Area 0.63 0.62 < 0.005 0.37 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 0.89 0.89 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.89 Energy 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 244 244 0.02 < 0.005 — 245 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.93 7.53 8.46 0.10 < 0.005 — 11.5 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 5.69 0.00 5.69 0.57 0.00 — 19.9 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.17 0.17
Total 1.16 1.11 0.67 4.61 0.01 0.02 0.97 0.98 0.02 0.25 0.26 6.62 1,275 1,282 0.72 0.05 1.79 1,318

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 3.16 2.91 2.93 27.4 0.07 0.05 5.51 5.56 0.05 1.40 1.45 — 6,690 6,690 0.24 0.29 23.3 6,806 Area 3.63 3.61 0.04 4.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 10.9 10.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.0 Energy 0.06 0.03 0.53 0.23 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 1,475 1,475 0.11 0.01 — 1,480 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 4.49 36.4 40.9 0.46 0.01 — 55.8 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 34.4 0.00 34.4 3.44 0.00 — 120 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.01 1.01
Total 6.85 6.54 3.50 31.7 0.07 0.10 5.51 5.61 0.09 1.40 1.50 38.9 8,212 8,251 4.25 0.31 24.3 8,474 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 2.95 2.69 3.39 23.4 0.06 0.05 5.51 5.56 0.05 1.40 1.45 — 6,204 6,204 0.27 0.32 0.60 6,306 Area 3.25 3.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.06 0.03 0.53 0.23 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 1,475 1,475 0.11 0.01 — 1,480 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 4.49 36.4 40.9 0.46 0.01 — 55.8 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 34.4 0.00 34.4 3.44 0.00 — 120 -------------------

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
16 / 81
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.01 1.01
Total 6.26 5.96 3.92 23.7 0.06 0.10 5.51 5.61 0.09 1.40 1.49 38.9 7,716 7,754 4.28 0.33 1.61 7,963 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 2.89 2.63 3.13 23.0 0.06 0.05 5.30 5.35 0.05 1.35 1.40 — 6,177 6,177 0.25 0.30 9.83 6,282 Area 3.43 3.42 0.02 2.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 5.39 5.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.40 Energy 0.06 0.03 0.53 0.23 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 1,475 1,475 0.11 0.01 — 1,480 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 4.49 36.4 40.9 0.46 0.01 — 55.8 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 34.4 0.00 34.4 3.44 0.00 — 120 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.01 1.01
Total 6.38 6.09 3.68 25.3 0.06 0.10 5.30 5.40 0.09 1.35 1.44 38.9 7,694 7,733 4.26 0.32 10.8 7,945 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.53 0.48 0.57 4.21 0.01 0.01 0.97 0.98 0.01 0.25 0.26 — 1,023 1,023 0.04 0.05 1.63 1,040 Area 0.63 0.62 < 0.005 0.37 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 0.89 0.89 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.89 Energy 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 244 244 0.02 < 0.005 — 245 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.74 6.02 6.77 0.08 < 0.005 — 9.24 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 5.69 0.00 5.69 0.57 0.00 — 19.9 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.17 0.17
Total 1.16 1.11 0.67 4.61 0.01 0.02 0.97 0.98 0.02 0.25 0.26 6.43 1,274 1,280 0.71 0.05 1.79 1,315

3. Construction Emissions Details

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

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
17 / 81
Off-Roa
Equipment

3.12 2.62 24.9 21.7 0.03 1.06 — 1.06 0.98 — 0.98 — 3,425 3,425 0.14 0.03 — 3,437 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.56 0.56 — 0.08 0.08 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.09 0.07 0.68 0.60 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 93.8 93.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 94.2 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.02 0.02 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.02 0.01 0.12 0.11 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 15.5 15.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.6 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 142 142 0.01 0.01 0.57 144 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.02 0.01 0.55 0.13 < 0.005 0.01 0.12 0.13 0.01 0.03 0.04 — 457 457 0.01 0.07 1.10 480

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
18 / 81
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.60 3.60 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.65 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12.5 12.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 13.1 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.60 0.60 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.60 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.07 2.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.17

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

3.12 2.62 24.9 21.7 0.03 1.06 — 1.06 0.98 — 0.98 — 3,425 3,425 0.14 0.03 — 3,437 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.56 0.56 — 0.08 0.08 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
19 / 81
Off-Roa
Equipment

0.09 0.07 0.68 0.60 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 93.8 93.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 94.2 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.02 0.02 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.02 0.01 0.12 0.11 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 15.5 15.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.6 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 142 142 0.01 0.01 0.57 144 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.02 0.01 0.55 0.13 < 0.005 0.01 0.12 0.13 0.01 0.03 0.04 — 457 457 0.01 0.07 1.10 480 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.60 3.60 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.65 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12.5 12.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 13.1 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.60 0.60 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.60 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
20 / 81
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.07 2.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.17

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

4.34 3.65 36.0 32.9 0.05 1.60 — 1.60 1.47 — 1.47 — 5,296 5,296 0.21 0.04 — 5,314 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 19.7 19.7 — 10.1 10.1 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.12 0.10 0.99 0.90 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 145 145 0.01 < 0.005 — 146 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.54 0.54 — 0.28 0.28 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
21 / 81
Off-Roa
Equipment

0.02 0.02 0.18 0.16 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 24.0 24.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 24.1 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.10 0.10 — 0.05 0.05 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09 0.08 0.05 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 165 165 0.01 0.01 0.66 168 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.20 4.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.26 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.69 0.69 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.71 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

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

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
22 / 81
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

4.34 3.65 36.0 32.9 0.05 1.60 — 1.60 1.47 — 1.47 — 5,296 5,296 0.21 0.04 — 5,314 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 7.67 7.67 — 3.94 3.94 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.12 0.10 0.99 0.90 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 145 145 0.01 < 0.005 — 146 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.21 0.21 — 0.11 0.11 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.02 0.02 0.18 0.16 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 24.0 24.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 24.1 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.04 0.04 — 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — —

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
23 / 81
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09 0.08 0.05 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 165 165 0.01 0.01 0.66 168 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.20 4.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.26 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.69 0.69 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.71 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

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

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
24 / 81
Off-Roa 4.19 3.52 34.3 30.2 0.06 1.45 — 1.45 1.33 — 1.33 — 6,598 6,598 0.27 0.05 — 6,621 d
Equipm
ent
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 9.25 9.25 — 3.66 3.66 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.23 0.19 1.88 1.65 < 0.005 0.08 — 0.08 0.07 — 0.07 — 362 362 0.01 < 0.005 — 363 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.51 0.51 — 0.20 0.20 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.04 0.04 0.34 0.30 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 59.9 59.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 60.1 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.09 0.09 — 0.04 0.04 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
25 / 81
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.10 0.09 0.06 1.14 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 189 189 0.01 0.01 0.76 192 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.26 0.15 7.84 1.86 0.04 0.12 1.68 1.80 0.12 0.46 0.58 — 6,471 6,471 0.14 1.03 15.5 6,796 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.59 9.59 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 9.74 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 0.01 0.45 0.10 < 0.005 0.01 0.09 0.10 0.01 0.02 0.03 — 355 355 0.01 0.06 0.37 372 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.59 1.59 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.61 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 58.7 58.7 < 0.005 0.01 0.06 61.6

3.6. Grading (2024) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

4.19 3.52 34.3 30.2 0.06 1.45 — 1.45 1.33 — 1.33 — 6,598 6,598 0.27 0.05 — 6,621 -------------------

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
26 / 81
Dust — — — — — — 3.61 3.61 — 1.43 1.43 — — — — — — —
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.23 0.19 1.88 1.65 < 0.005 0.08 — 0.08 0.07 — 0.07 — 362 362 0.01 < 0.005 — 363 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.20 0.20 — 0.08 0.08 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.04 0.04 0.34 0.30 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 59.9 59.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 60.1 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.04 0.04 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.10 0.09 0.06 1.14 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 189 189 0.01 0.01 0.76 192

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
27 / 81
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.26 0.15 7.84 1.86 0.04 0.12 1.68 1.80 0.12 0.46 0.58 — 6,471 6,471 0.14 1.03 15.5 6,796 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.59 9.59 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 9.74 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 0.01 0.45 0.10 < 0.005 0.01 0.09 0.10 0.01 0.02 0.03 — 355 355 0.01 0.06 0.37 372 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.59 1.59 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.61 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 58.7 58.7 < 0.005 0.01 0.06 61.6

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

1.44 1.20 11.2 13.1 0.02 0.50 — 0.50 0.46 — 0.46 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
28 / 81
Off-Roa 1.44 1.20 11.2 13.1 0.02 0.50 — 0.50 0.46 — 0.46 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 d
Onsite
truck

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

0.42 0.36 3.32 3.88 0.01 0.15 — 0.15 0.14 — 0.14 — 708 708 0.03 0.01 — 711 Onsite
truck

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

0.08 0.06 0.61 0.71 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.02 — 0.02 — 117 117 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 118 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.13 0.12 0.08 1.48 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.22 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 245 245 0.01 0.01 0.98 249 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.28 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 222 222 < 0.005 0.03 0.60 232 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.12 0.11 0.11 1.17 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.22 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 221 221 0.01 0.01 0.03 224 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.30 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 222 222 < 0.005 0.03 0.02 232 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
29 / 81
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 67.0 67.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.13 68.1 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 65.5 65.5 < 0.005 0.01 0.08 68.6 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.1 11.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 11.3 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.8 10.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 11.4 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.8. Building Construction (2024) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.44 1.20 11.2 13.1 0.02 0.50 — 0.50 0.46 — 0.46 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.44 1.20 11.2 13.1 0.02 0.50 — 0.50 0.46 — 0.46 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
30 / 81
Off-Roa 0.42 0.36 3.32 3.88 0.01 0.15 — 0.15 0.14 — 0.14 — 708 708 0.03 0.01 — 711 d
Onsite
truck

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

0.08 0.06 0.61 0.71 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.02 — 0.02 — 117 117 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 118 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.13 0.12 0.08 1.48 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.22 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 245 245 0.01 0.01 0.98 249 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.28 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 222 222 < 0.005 0.03 0.60 232 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.12 0.11 0.11 1.17 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.22 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 221 221 0.01 0.01 0.03 224 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.30 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 222 222 < 0.005 0.03 0.02 232 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 67.0 67.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.13 68.1 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 65.5 65.5 < 0.005 0.01 0.08 68.6 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.1 11.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 11.3 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.8 10.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 11.4

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
31 / 81
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.9. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.35 1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.35 1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck

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

0.96 0.80 7.46 9.31 0.02 0.31 — 0.31 0.28 — 0.28 — 1,713 1,713 0.07 0.01 — 1,719 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
32 / 81
Off-Roa 0.18 0.15 1.36 1.70 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.05 — 0.05 — 284 284 0.01 < 0.005 — 285 d
Equipm
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.12 0.11 0.07 1.35 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.22 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 240 240 0.01 0.01 0.89 244 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.27 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 218 218 < 0.005 0.03 0.60 228 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.11 0.10 0.10 1.07 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.22 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 217 217 0.01 0.01 0.02 220 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.29 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 218 218 < 0.005 0.03 0.02 228 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 159 159 < 0.005 0.01 0.27 161 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.20 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 156 156 < 0.005 0.02 0.18 163 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 26.3 26.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 26.6 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 25.8 25.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 27.0 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.10. Building Construction (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e -------------------

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
33 / 81
Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.35 1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.35 1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck

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

0.96 0.80 7.46 9.31 0.02 0.31 — 0.31 0.28 — 0.28 — 1,713 1,713 0.07 0.01 — 1,719 Onsite
truck

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

0.18 0.15 1.36 1.70 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.05 — 0.05 — 284 284 0.01 < 0.005 — 285 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
34 / 81
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Worker 0.12 0.11 0.07 1.35 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.22 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 240 240 0.01 0.01 0.89 244 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.27 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 218 218 < 0.005 0.03 0.60 228 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.11 0.10 0.10 1.07 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.22 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 217 217 0.01 0.01 0.02 220 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.29 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 218 218 < 0.005 0.03 0.02 228 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 159 159 < 0.005 0.01 0.27 161 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.20 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 156 156 < 0.005 0.02 0.18 163 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 26.3 26.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 26.6 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 25.8 25.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 27.0 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

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

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
35 / 81
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.28 1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38 — 0.38 0.35 — 0.35 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck

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

0.01 0.01 0.06 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 14.1 14.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.1 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.33 2.33 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.34 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.22 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 212 212 0.01 0.01 0.02 215 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.28 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 214 214 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 224 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
36 / 81
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.28 1.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.30 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.26 1.26 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.32 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.21 0.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.21 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.21 0.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.22 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.12. Building Construction (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.28 1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38 — 0.38 0.35 — 0.35 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck

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

0.01 0.01 0.06 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 14.1 14.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.1 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
37 / 81
Off-Roa
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.33 2.33 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.34 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.22 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 212 212 0.01 0.01 0.02 215 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.28 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 214 214 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 224 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.28 1.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.30 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.26 1.26 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.32 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.21 0.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.21 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.21 0.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.22 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

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

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
38 / 81
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.91 0.76 7.12 9.94 0.01 0.32 — 0.32 0.29 — 0.29 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,516 Paving 0.11 0.11 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.05 0.04 0.39 0.54 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 82.8 82.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 83.1 Paving 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.01 0.01 0.07 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 13.7 13.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.8 Paving < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 123 123 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 124

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
39 / 81
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.90 6.90 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.14 1.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.16 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.14. Paving (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.91 0.76 7.12 9.94 0.01 0.32 — 0.32 0.29 — 0.29 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,516 Paving 0.11 0.11 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
40 / 81
Off-Roa 0.05 0.04 0.39 0.54 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 82.8 82.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 83.1 d
Paving 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.01 0.01 0.07 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 13.7 13.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.8 Paving < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 123 123 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 124 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.90 6.90 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.14 1.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.16 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
41 / 81

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

0.15 0.12 0.86 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coating
s

43.9 43.9 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.01 0.01 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.32 7.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.34 Architect
ural
Coating
s

2.41 2.41 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
42 / 81
Off-Roa < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.21 1.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.22 d
Equipm
ent
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.44 0.44 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 42.4 42.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 43.0 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.38 2.38 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.42 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.39 0.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.40 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.16. Architectural Coating (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
43 / 81
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.15 0.12 0.86 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coating
s

43.9 43.9 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.01 0.01 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.32 7.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.34 Architect
ural
Coating
s

2.41 2.41 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.21 1.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.22 -------------------

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
44 / 81
Architect 0.44 0.44 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ural
Coating
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 42.4 42.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 43.0 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.38 2.38 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.42 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.39 0.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.40 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

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

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
45 / 81
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

3.16 2.91 2.93 27.4 0.07 0.05 5.51 5.56 0.05 1.40 1.45 — 6,690 6,690 0.24 0.29 23.3 6,806 Total 3.16 2.91 2.93 27.4 0.07 0.05 5.51 5.56 0.05 1.40 1.45 — 6,690 6,690 0.24 0.29 23.3 6,806 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

2.95 2.69 3.39 23.4 0.06 0.05 5.51 5.56 0.05 1.40 1.45 — 6,204 6,204 0.27 0.32 0.60 6,306 Total 2.95 2.69 3.39 23.4 0.06 0.05 5.51 5.56 0.05 1.40 1.45 — 6,204 6,204 0.27 0.32 0.60 6,306 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.53 0.48 0.57 4.21 0.01 0.01 0.97 0.98 0.01 0.25 0.26 — 1,023 1,023 0.04 0.05 1.63 1,040 Total 0.53 0.48 0.57 4.21 0.01 0.01 0.97 0.98 0.01 0.25 0.26 — 1,023 1,023 0.04 0.05 1.63 1,040

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

3.16 2.91 2.93 27.4 0.07 0.05 5.51 5.56 0.05 1.40 1.45 — 6,690 6,690 0.24 0.29 23.3 6,806 Total 3.16 2.91 2.93 27.4 0.07 0.05 5.51 5.56 0.05 1.40 1.45 — 6,690 6,690 0.24 0.29 23.3 6,806

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
46 / 81
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Single
Family
Housing

2.95 2.69 3.39 23.4 0.06 0.05 5.51 5.56 0.05 1.40 1.45 — 6,204 6,204 0.27 0.32 0.60 6,306 Total 2.95 2.69 3.39 23.4 0.06 0.05 5.51 5.56 0.05 1.40 1.45 — 6,204 6,204 0.27 0.32 0.60 6,306 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.53 0.48 0.57 4.21 0.01 0.01 0.97 0.98 0.01 0.25 0.26 — 1,023 1,023 0.04 0.05 1.63 1,040 Total 0.53 0.48 0.57 4.21 0.01 0.01 0.97 0.98 0.01 0.25 0.26 — 1,023 1,023 0.04 0.05 1.63 1,040

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 804 804 0.06 0.01 — 807
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 804 804 0.06 0.01 — 807
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 804 804 0.06 0.01 — 807
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 804 804 0.06 0.01 — 807
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
47 / 81
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 133 133 0.01 < 0.005 — 134
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 133 133 0.01 < 0.005 — 134

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 804 804 0.06 0.01 — 807
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 804 804 0.06 0.01 — 807
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 804 804 0.06 0.01 — 807
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 804 804 0.06 0.01 — 807
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 133 133 0.01 < 0.005 — 134
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 133 133 0.01 < 0.005 — 134

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

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
48 / 81
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.06 0.03 0.53 0.23 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 671 671 0.06 < 0.005 — 673 Total 0.06 0.03 0.53 0.23 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 671 671 0.06 < 0.005 — 673 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.06 0.03 0.53 0.23 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 671 671 0.06 < 0.005 — 673 Total 0.06 0.03 0.53 0.23 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 671 671 0.06 < 0.005 — 673 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.01 0.01 0.10 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 111 111 0.01 < 0.005 — 111 Total 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 111 111 0.01 < 0.005 — 111

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

0.06 0.03 0.53 0.23 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 671 671 0.06 < 0.005 — 673 Total 0.06 0.03 0.53 0.23 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 671 671 0.06 < 0.005 — 673 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
49 / 81
Single
Family
Housing

0.06 0.03 0.53 0.23 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 671 671 0.06 < 0.005 — 673 Total 0.06 0.03 0.53 0.23 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 671 671 0.06 < 0.005 — 673 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.01 0.01 0.10 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 111 111 0.01 < 0.005 — 111 Total 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 111 111 0.01 < 0.005 — 111

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

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

3.00 3.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.24 0.24 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

0.38 0.36 0.04 4.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 10.9 10.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.0 Total 3.63 3.61 0.04 4.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 10.9 10.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.0 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
50 / 81
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Product
s

3.00 3.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.24 0.24 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 3.25 3.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Product
s

0.55 0.55 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.04 0.04 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.37 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.89 0.89 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.89 Total 0.63 0.62 < 0.005 0.37 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 0.89 0.89 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.89

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

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
51 / 81
Consum 3.00 3.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
er
Product
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.24 0.24 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

0.38 0.36 0.04 4.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 10.9 10.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.0 Total 3.63 3.61 0.04 4.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 10.9 10.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.0 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Product
s

3.00 3.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.24 0.24 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 3.25 3.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Product
s

0.55 0.55 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.04 0.04 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
52 / 81
Landsca 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.37 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.89 0.89 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.89 pe
Equipm
Total 0.63 0.62 < 0.005 0.37 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 0.89 0.89 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.89

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 5.61 45.5 51.1 0.58 0.01 — 69.7
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 5.61 45.5 51.1 0.58 0.01 — 69.7 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 5.61 45.5 51.1 0.58 0.01 — 69.7
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 5.61 45.5 51.1 0.58 0.01 — 69.7 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.93 7.53 8.46 0.10 < 0.005 — 11.5 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.93 7.53 8.46 0.10 < 0.005 — 11.5

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

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
53 / 81
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 4.49 36.4 40.9 0.46 0.01 — 55.8
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 4.49 36.4 40.9 0.46 0.01 — 55.8 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 4.49 36.4 40.9 0.46 0.01 — 55.8
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 4.49 36.4 40.9 0.46 0.01 — 55.8 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.74 6.02 6.77 0.08 < 0.005 — 9.24 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.74 6.02 6.77 0.08 < 0.005 — 9.24

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 34.4 0.00 34.4 3.44 0.00 — 120

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
54 / 81
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 34.4 0.00 34.4 3.44 0.00 — 120 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 34.4 0.00 34.4 3.44 0.00 — 120
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 34.4 0.00 34.4 3.44 0.00 — 120 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 5.69 0.00 5.69 0.57 0.00 — 19.9
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 5.69 0.00 5.69 0.57 0.00 — 19.9

4.5.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 34.4 0.00 34.4 3.44 0.00 — 120
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 34.4 0.00 34.4 3.44 0.00 — 120 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 34.4 0.00 34.4 3.44 0.00 — 120
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 34.4 0.00 34.4 3.44 0.00 — 120 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
55 / 81
Single — — — — — — — — — — — 5.69 0.00 5.69 0.57 0.00 — 19.9 Family
Housing
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 5.69 0.00 5.69 0.57 0.00 — 19.9

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.01 1.01
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.01 1.01
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.01 1.01
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.01 1.01
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.17 0.17
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.17 0.17

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

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
56 / 81
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.01 1.01
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.01 1.01
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.01 1.01
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.01 1.01
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.17 0.17
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.17 0.17

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
57 / 81
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) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

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

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
58 / 81
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) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
59 / 81
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) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
60 / 81
Vegetati TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e on
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e -------------------

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
61 / 81
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
62 / 81
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
63 / 81

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

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
64 / 81
Sequest — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ered
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demolition Demolition 5/1/2024 5/14/2024 5.00 10.0 —
Site Preparation Site Preparation 5/30/2024 6/13/2024 5.00 10.0 — Grading Grading 6/14/2024 7/11/2024 5.00 20.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 8/3/2024 1/3/2026 5.00 370 — Paving Paving 1/4/2026 2/1/2026 5.00 20.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 2/2/2026 3/2/2026 5.00 20.0 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 367 0.40 Demolition Excavators Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
65 / 81
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37 hoes
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 423 0.48
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48

5.2.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 367 0.40 Demolition Excavators Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Excavators Diesel Average

2.00 of 1226

8.00 36.0 0.38
Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
66 / 81
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37 Grading Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 423 0.48
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 15.0 11.9 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 9.10 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 6.40 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 11.9 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 9.10 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — Page 382 of 1226 — —
Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
67 / 81
Grading Worker 20.0 11.9 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 9.10 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 90.7 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 25.9 11.9 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 7.70 9.10 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 11.9 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 9.10 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 5.18 11.9 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 9.10 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.3.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 15.0 11.9 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 9.10 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 6.40 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation — — Page 383 of 1226 — —
Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
68 / 81
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 11.9 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 9.10 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 20.0 11.9 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 9.10 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 90.7 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 25.9 11.9 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 7.70 9.10 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 11.9 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 9.10 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 5.18 11.9 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 9.10 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

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

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
69 / 81

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 284,310 94,770 0.00 0.00 —

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (Building Square Footage)
Acres Paved (acres)
Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,500 —
Site Preparation — — 15.0 0.00 —
Grading 14,500 — 105 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.80

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 0.80 100%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2024 0.00 478 0.03 < 0.005
2025 0.00 478 0.03 < 0.005
2026 0.00 478 0.03 < 0.005

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
70 / 81

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
680 687 616 245,117 7,658 7,739 6,936 2,761,603

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
680 687 616 245,117 7,658 7,739 6,936 2,761,603

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 0
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 100
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
71 / 81

5.10.1.2. Mitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Single Family Housing —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 0
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 100
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
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)
284310 94,770 0.00 0.00 —

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

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

180
Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
72 / 81

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 613,851 478 0.0330 0.0040 2,094,482

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 613,851 478 0.0330 0.0040 2,094,482

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Single Family Housing 2,928,512 14,467,408

5.12.2. Mitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Single Family Housing 2,342,809 11,573,927

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Single Family Housing 63.8 —

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
73 / 81

5.13.2. Mitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Single Family Housing 63.8 —

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

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

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

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
74 / 81
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.16. Stationary Sources

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

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

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type
— —

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

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

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
75 / 81
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)

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

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

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
76 / 81
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
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
Page
1 2
392 of 1226
Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
77 / 81
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 —
AQ-Ozone 63.6
AQ-PM 53.8
AQ-DPM 36.1
Drinking Water 53.8
Lead Risk Housing 27.2
Pesticides 86.3
Toxic Releases 98.9
Traffic 18.1
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 50.3
Groundwater 45.1
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 43.3
Impaired Water Bodies 0.00
Solid Waste

86.5 of 1226
Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
78 / 81
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 53.6
Cardio-vascular 76.6
Low Birth Weights 25.7
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 51.0
Housing 39.7
Linguistic 18.9
Poverty 45.1
Unemployment 37.7

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 53.58655203
Employed 86.15424099
Median HI 38.16245348
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 30.14243552
High school enrollment 24.98395996
Preschool enrollment 70.15270114
Transportation —
Auto Access 53.75336841
Active commuting 37.05889901
Social —
2-parent households 8.340818683
Voting 73.72000513

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
79 / 81
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 45.61786218
Park access 49.71127935
Retail density 26.19017067
Supermarket access 62.13268318
Tree canopy 49.22366226
Housing —
Homeownership 67.1885025
Housing habitability 48.91569357
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 37.1872193 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 21.18567946
Uncrowded housing 82.07365584
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 82.30463236
Arthritis 0.0
Asthma ER Admissions 54.5
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 53.9
Cognitively Disabled 70.6
Physically Disabled 54.0
Heart Attack ER Admissions 21.4
Mental Health Not Good 0.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0

Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
80 / 81
Obesity 0.0
Pedestrian Injuries 19.6
Physical Health Not Good 0.0
Stroke 0.0
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 0.0
Current Smoker 0.0
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 65.5
Elderly 30.4
English Speaking 69.2
Foreign-born 15.4
Outdoor Workers 22.1
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 53.2
Traffic Density 13.2
Traffic Access 0.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 39.8
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 68.9

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a)

58.0 of 1226
Murphy Ranch Detailed Report, 7/24/2024
81 / 81
Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 54.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

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

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

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

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Construction: Construction Phases Limited grading work.

Construction: Paving All paving to be asphalt.

Operations: Hearths No wood stoves or fireplaces.

Land Use Actual acreage
Construction: Dust From Material Movement Estimated grading.

APPENDIX B
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE MATERIALS

IPaC resource list
This report is an automatically generated list of species and other resources such as critical habitat (collectively referred to as trust resources) under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) jurisdiction that are known or expected to be on or near the project area referenced below. The list may also include trust resources that occur outside of the project area, but that could potentially be directly or indirectly affected by activities in the project area. However, determining the likelihood and extent of effects a project may have on trust resources typically requires gathering additional site-specific (e.g., vegetation/species surveys) and project-specific (e.g., magnitude and timing of proposed activities) information.

Below is a summary of the project information you provided and contact information for the USFWS office(s) with jurisdiction in the defined project area. Please read the introduction to each section that follows (Endangered Species, Migratory Birds, USFWS Facilities, and NWI Wetlands) for additional information applicable to the trust resources addressed in that section.

Location
San Joaquin County, California
Local office
Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Office
 (916) 414-6600
 (916) 414-6713
Federal Building
IPaC U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
i
Sul mi 1ty, ~•

Federal Building
2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605
Sacramento, CA 95825-1846

Endangered species
This resource list is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an analysis of project level impacts.

The primary information used to generate this list is the known or expected range of each species. Additional areas of influence (AOI) for species are also considered. An AOI includes areas outside of the species range if the species could be indirectly affected by activities in that area (e.g., placing a dam upstream of a fish population even if that fish does not occur at the dam site, may indirectly impact the species by reducing or eliminating water flow downstream).

Because species can move, and site conditions can change, the species on this list are not guaranteed to be found on or near the project area. To fully determine any potential effects to species, additional site-specific and project-specific information is often required.

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of such proposed action" for any project that is conducted, permitted, funded, or licensed by any Federal agency. A letter from the local office and a species list which fulfills this requirement can only be obtained by requesting an official species list from either the Regulatory Review section in IPaC (see directions below) or from the local field office directly.

For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to the IPaC website and request an official species list by doing the following:

1. Draw the project location and click CONTINUE.

2. Click DEFINE PROJECT.

3. Log in (if directed to do so).

4. Provide a name and description for your project.

5. Click REQUEST SPECIES LIST.

Listed species and their critical habitats are managed by the Ecological Services Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the fisheries division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA Fisheries ).

Species and critical habitats under the sole responsibility of NOAA Fisheries are not shown on this list. Please contact NOAA Fisheries for species under their jurisdiction.

1. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are threatened or endangered; IPaC also shows species that are candidates, or proposed, for listing. See the listing status page for more information. IPaC only shows species that are regulated by USFWS (see FAQ).

2. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce. 1 2

The following species are potentially affected by activities in this location:

Amphibians
Insects
Crustaceans

NAME STATUS
California Tiger Salamander Ambystoma californiense
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2076
Threatened

NAME STATUS
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
Candidate
Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Desmocerus californicus dimorphus
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7850
Threatened

NAME STATUS
Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp Branchinecta lynchi
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/498
Threatened
Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp Lepidurus packardi
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2246
Endangered
--- -- --------
--- -- -------
--- -- --------

Critical habitats
Potential effects to critical habitat(s) in this location must be analyzed along with the endangered species themselves.

There are no critical habitats at this location.

You are still required to determine if your project(s) may have effects on all above listed species.

Bald & Golden Eagles
What does IPaC use to generate the potential presence of bald and golden eagles in my specified location?
The potential for eagle presence is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply). To see a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the Rapid Avian Information Locator (RAIL) Tool.

What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs of bald and golden eagles in my specified location?
The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location.

There are no documented cases of eagles being present at this location. However, if you believe eagles may be using your site, please reach out to the local Fish and Wildlife Service office.

Additional information can be found using the following links:

Eagle Managment https://www.fws.gov/program/eagle-management Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds
https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-take-migratorybirds Nationwide conservation measures for birds
https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/nationwide-standard-conservationmeasures.pdf ------------------- --- ----

The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore activities or development.

Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area. It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the Rapid Avian Information Locator (RAIL) Tool.

What if I have eagles on my list?
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur. Please contact your local Fish and Wildlife Service Field Office if you have questions.

Migratory birds
The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your project location. To learn more about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how this list is generated, see the FAQ below. This is not a list of every bird you may find in this location, nor a guarantee that every bird on this list will be found in your project area. To see exact locations of where birders and the general public have sighted birds in and around your project area, visit the E-bird data mapping tool (Tip: enter your location, desired date range and a species on Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act .

Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described below.

1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.

2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.

Additional information can be found using the following links:

Birds of Conservation Concern https://www.fws.gov/program/migratory-birds/species Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds
https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-take-migratorybirds Nationwide conservation measures for birds
https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/nationwide-standard-conservationmeasures.pdf 1 2
----·-----
------------------- --- ----
•

your list). For projects that occur off the Atlantic Coast, additional maps and models detailing the relative occurrence and abundance of bird species on your list are available. Links to additional information about Atlantic Coast birds, and other important information about your migratory bird list, including how to properly interpret and use your migratory bird report, can be found below.

For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, click on the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY at the top of your list to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area.

NAME BREEDING SEASON
Belding's Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis
beldingi
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8
Breeds Apr 1 to Aug 15
Bullock's Oriole Icterus bullockii
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA Breeds Mar 21 to Jul 25
Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas sinuosa
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2084
Breeds May 20 to Jul 31
Lawrence's Goldfinch Carduelis lawrencei
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9464
Breeds Mar 20 to Sep 20
Nuttall's Woodpecker Picoides nuttallii
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9410
Breeds Apr 1 to Jul 20
Oak Titmouse Baeolophus inornatus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9656
Breeds Mar 15 to Jul 15
--- -- ------
--- -- --------
--- -- --------
--- -- --------

Probability of Presence Summary
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read and understand the FAQ "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report.

Probability of Presence ( )
Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4-week months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort (see below) can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One can have higher confidence in the presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also high.

How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:

1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is

0.25. 2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2.

3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of presence score.

To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.

Breeding Season ( )
Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3914
Breeds May 20 to Aug 31
Yellow-billed Magpie Pica nuttalli
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9726
Breeds Apr 1 to Jul 31
■
■

probability of presence  breeding season  survey effort  no data Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area.

Survey Effort ( )
Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys.

To see a bar's survey effort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.

No Data ( )
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.

Survey Timeframe
Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse.

SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Belding's
Savannah
Sparrow

BCC - BCR
Bullock's Oriole

BCC - BCR
Common
Yellowthroat

BCC - BCR
Lawrence's
Goldfinch
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Nuttall's
Woodpecker

BCC - BCR
Oak Titmouse
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Olive-sided
Flycatcher
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
----t- ----1- -~-- +--- -1-- I •

Yellow-billed
Magpie
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds.

Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly important when birds are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very helpful impact minimization measure. To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary.

Additional measures or permits may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of infrastructure or bird species present on your project site.

What does IPaC use to generate the list of migratory birds that potentially occur in my specified location? The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location.

The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore activities or development.

Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area. It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the Rapid Avian Information Locator (RAIL) Tool.

What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location?
The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets.

Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information becomes available.

To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and how to interpret them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me about these graphs" link.

How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering or migrating in my area? To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering, migrating or year-round), you may query your location using the RAIL Tool and look at the range maps provided for birds in your area at the bottom of the profiles provided for each bird in your results. If a bird on your migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur in your project area, there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specified. If "Breeds elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area. --- I - • - I - I --
------------------- --- ----
----------

What are the levels of concern for migratory birds?
Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern:

1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern throughout their range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacific Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands);

2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA; and

3. "Non-BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either because of the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non-eagles) potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities (e.g. offshore energy development or longline fishing).

Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts should be made, in particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC species of rangewide concern. For more information on conservation measures you can implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles, please see the FAQs for these topics.

Details about birds that are potentially affected by offshore projects For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and groups of bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be helpful to you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird model results files underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf project webpage.

Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use throughout the year, including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this information. For additional information on marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study and the nanotag studies or contact Caleb Spiegel or Pam Loring.

What if I have eagles on my list?
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur.

Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of birds of priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for identifying what other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location". Please be aware this report provides the "probability of presence" of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look carefully at the survey effort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the "no data" indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high survey effort is the key component. If the survey effort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you know what to look for to confirm presence,

and helps guide you in knowing when to implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project activities, should presence be confirmed. To learn more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ "Tell me about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds" at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page.

Facilities
National Wildlife Refuge lands
Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a 'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns.

There are no refuge lands at this location.

Fish hatcheries
There are no fish hatcheries at this location.

Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory
(NWI)
Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes.

For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District.

Wetland information is not available at this time
This can happen when the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map service is unavailable, or for very large projects that intersect many wetland areas. Try again, or visit the NWI map to view wetlands at this location.

Data limitations
The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level information on the location, type and size of these resources. The maps are prepared from the analysis of high altitude imagery. Wetlands are identified based on vegetation, visible hydrology and geography. A margin of error is inherent in the use of imagery; thus, detailed on-the-ground inspection of any particular site may result in revision of the wetland boundaries or classification established through image analysis.

The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the image analysts, the amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth verification work conducted. Metadata should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any mapping problems.

Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or field work. There may be occasional differences in polygon boundaries or classifications between the information depicted on the map and the actual conditions on site.

Data exclusions
Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of aerial imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or submerged aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and nearshore coastal waters. Some deepwater reef communities (coral or tuberficid worm reefs) have also been excluded from the inventory. These habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery.

Data precautions
Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may define and describe wetlands in a different manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in either the design or products of this inventory, to define the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local government or to establish the geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies. Persons intending to engage in activities involving modifications within or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate Federal, state, or local agencies concerning specified agency regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may affect such activities.

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 -
Amphibians
Ambystoma
californiense
pop. 1
California tiger
salamander -
central California
DPS
AAAAA01181 Threatened Threatened WL - 3712171 AVENA Mapped Animals - Amphibians -
Ambystomatidae
- Ambystoma
californiense
pop. 1
Animals -
Birds
Buteo swainsoni Swainsons hawk ABNKC19070 None Threatened - - 3712171 AVENA Mapped Animals - Birds - Accipitridae -
Buteo swainson
Animals -
Birds
Athene
cunicularia
burrowing owl ABNSB10010 None None SSC - 3712171 AVENA Unprocessed Animals - Birds - Strigidae -
Athene
cunicularia
Animals - Fish Acipenser
medirostris pop.
1 green sturgeon -
southern DPS
AFCAA01031 Threatened None - - 3712171 AVENA Mapped Animals - Fish - Acipenseridae -
Acipenser
medirostris pop.
1 Animals - Fish Lavinia
exilicauda
exilicauda
Sacramento
hitch
AFCJB19012 None None SSC - 3712171 AVENA Unprocessed Animals - Fish - Cyprinidae -
Lavinia
exilicauda
exilicauda
Animals - Fish Mylopharodon
conocephalus
hardhead AFCJB25010 None None SSC - 3712171 AVENA Unprocessed Animals - Fish - Cyprinidae -
Mylopharodon
conocephalus
Animals - Fish Hysterocarpus
traskii traskii
Sacramento-San
Joaquin tule
perch
AFCQK02012 None None - - 3712171 AVENA Unprocessed Animals - Fish - Embiotocidae -
Hysterocarpus
traskii traskii
Animals - Fish Entosphenus
tridentatus
Pacific lamprey AFBAA02100 None None SSC - 3712171 AVENA Unprocessed Animals - Fish - Petromyzontidae
- Entosphenus
tridentatus
Animals - Fish Oncorhynchus
mykiss irideus
pop. 11
steelhead -
Central Valley
DPS
AFCHA0209K Threatened None - - 3712171 AVENA 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 - 3712171 AVENA Unprocessed Animals - Fish - Salmonidae -
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha pop
13 Animals -
Insects
Bombus
occidentalis
western bumble
bee
IIHYM24252 None Candidate
Endangered
- - 3712171 AVENA Mapped Animals - Insect
- Apidae -
Bombus
occidentalis
Animals -
Insects
Bombus
pensylvanicus
American
bumble bee
IIHYM24260 None None - - 3712171 AVENA Mapped and
Unprocessed
Animals - Insect
- Apidae -
Bombus
pensylvanicus
Animals -
Insects
Desmocerus
californicus
dimorphus
valley elderberry
longhorn beetle
IICOL48011 Threatened None - - 3712171 AVENA Mapped Animals - Insect - Cerambycidae
Desmocerus

californicus
dimorphus
Animals -
Reptiles
Anniella pulchra Northern
California
legless lizard
ARACC01020 None None SSC- 3712171 AVENA Mapped Animals - Reptiles -
Anniellidae -
Anniella pulchra I I I I I I

Murphy Ranch
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
July 17, 2023
0 0.03 0.06 0.12 mi
0 0.05 0.1 0.2 km
1:3,762
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.
□
□
□
■
□
' I I ------
■
□

APPENDIX C
CENTRAL CALIFORNIA INFORMATION CENTER
LETTER

Date: 8/10/2023 Records Search File #: 12627L
Project: Murphy Ranch, T2S R9E NW ¼
Section 5, APNs 225-040-28 & 225-040-29
Krista Simpson Invoice to: [email protected]
BaseCamp Environmental, Inc.
802 West Lodi Ave.

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

We have conducted a non-confidential extended records search as per your request for the abovereferenced project area located on the Avena USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle map in San Joaquin 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 or historic buildings or structures within the project area.
• The General Land Office survey plat for T2S R9E (dated 1854) shows the NW ¼ of Section 5 divided into two parcels: 80.7 acres in the north half and 80 acres in the south half.

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

• The General Land Office survey plat for T2S R9E (dated 1873) shows the NW ¼ of Section 5 divided into three parcels. The north half shows 40.39 acres on the west and

40.37 acres on the east, with 80 acres on the south half. • The Map of the County of San Joaquin, California (1883) shows Brennan Avenue and French Camp Road (aka SR 120/Yosemite Avenue), with John W. Jones the landowner in Section 5, T2S R9E at that time.
• The 1914 edition of the Avena USGS quadrangle references the railroad, Brennan Road, and French Camp Road/SR 120 alignments.
• The 1952 edition of the Avena USGS quadrangle also references two buildings within the project that would be 71 years in age (or older), considered as possible historical resources. We have no further information on file regarding these buildings.

Prehistoric or historic resources within the immediate vicinity of the project area: None has been formally reported to the Information Center.

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: None has been formally reported to the Information Center.

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 project area has not been subject to previous investigations, there may be unidentified features involved in your project 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 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 sending the Access Agreement Short Form.

Note: Billing will be transmitted separately via email from the Financial Services office ($150.00), 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:
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

APPENDIX D
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

5236 REDWOOD ROAD, HUGHSON, CA 95326 | P.O. BOX 296, OAKDALE, CA 95361 | 355 EARHART WAY, LIVERMORE, CA 94551 | (209) 602-6569

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

MURPHY RANCH RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
18092 & 18112 BRENNAN ROAD

ESCALON, CALIFORNIA
for
Florsheim Homes, Inc.

August 31, 2023

BGG Project No. G357.01

Via E-Mail
August 31, 2023
BGG Project No. G357.01
John Pronoitis
Florsheim Homes
1701 West March Lane, Suite D
Stockton, California 95207
Subject: Geotechnical Investigation
Murphy Ranch Residential Subdivision
18092 and 18112 Brennan Road
Escalon, California
Dear Mr. Pronoitis:

We have completed a geotechnical investigation for the design and construction of a proposed residential subdivision at the subject site in Escalon, California. The proposed development site is located in the southeast corner of the intersection of Yosemite Avenue/Highway 120 and Brennan Avenue as shown on Plate 1, Vicinity Map. It is our understanding that 73 one-story and two-story, single-family homes are proposed for the approximately 18-acre site. The project will include a 0.9-acre park/basin in the southeast corner and paved streets. Two streets will connect the new subdivision to California Street that runs east-west through the existing neighborhood south of the site. The Murphy Ranch site is relatively flat, hence minor grading is anticipated.

PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES
The purpose of our investigation was to evaluate the subject site with respect to soil and groundwater conditions, and to provide geotechnical recommendations for the design and construction of the proposed subdivision improvements. The scope of our services included a review of available, published geologic literature covering the site, field exploration, laboratory testing, engineering analyses, and preparation of this report.

FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
Our field exploration was conducted on June 20, 2023, which consisted of drilling eight borings at the site to depths of up to 50-feet below the ground surface (bgs). The borings were drilled using a truck-mounted drill rig equipped with solid flight augers in the locations shown on Plate 2, Site Plan.

Materials encountered in the borings were visually classified in the field and logs were recorded.

Bulk soil samples and driven Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and Modified California split spoon tube soil samples were obtained for laboratory testing. The borings were backfilled with drill cuttings upon completion. The boring logs, showing soil classifications and blow counts, are contained in Appendix A.
5236 REDWOOD ROAD, HUGHSON, CA 95326 | P.O. BOX 296, OAKDALE, CA 95361 | 355 EARHART WAY, LIVERMORE, CA 94551 | (209) 602-6569

August 31, 2023
BGG No. G357.01
BAEZ GEOTECHNICAL GROUP Geotechnical Investigation – Murphy Ranch Residential Subdivision Page 2

LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory testing included tests for in-situ moisture and density, sieve analyses, consolidation/swell, direct shear, R-Value, and soil corrosivity. R-Values of 16 and 27 were obtained for bulk soil samples obtained from borings B4 and B8, respectively, at depths of 1 to 2-feet bgs. Some of the laboratory test results are summarized below and within the boring logs, and the complete test results are contained in Appendix B.

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS – SIEVE AND DIRCT SHEAR
Location
and Depth
Soil
Type
Percent Passive
No. 200 Sieve (1)
Friction Angle
(degrees)
Cohesion
(psf)
B4: 2.5-3-ft SM – Silty Sand 47% --- ---
B2: 3.5-4-ft SM – Silty Sand --- 34 deg Peak
33 deg Residual
Zero Peak and
Residual
B3: 5-5.5-ft SM – Silty Sand --- 30 deg Peak
28 deg Residual
Zero Peak and
Residual
(1) Percent silt and clay sized particles.

Consolidation/swell tests consisted of loading a relatively undisturbed soil samples with an initial seating load approximately equivalent to the in-situ overburden pressure, then recording the amount of long-term consolidation/swell after adding a surcharge load of 2,500 psf and again after saturation.

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS – CONSOLIDATION/SWELL
Location
and Depth
Soil
Type
Percent Moisture
In-situ /
Saturation
Consolidation
or Swell (2)
Consolidation
or Swell (3)
B7: 2.5-3-ft SM – Silty Sand 12.5% / 80% -1.7% -0.2%
B1: 3-3.5-ft SM – Silty Sand 14.8% / 89% -2.4% 0%
B4: 3-3.5-ft SM – Silty Sand 7.7% / 38% -1.0% -2.4%
B6: 3.5-4-ft SM/ML – Silty Sand
to Sandy Silt

12.7% / 68% -0.5% -0.1%
(2) Consolidation or swell percent after adding surcharge load (3) Additional consolidation or swell after saturation
A sample containing soil from a depth of 5.5- to 6-feet in boring B1 was submitted to CERCO Analytical, a state-certified analytical laboratory, in Concord, California. A suite of corrosion tests was performed on the sample, including tests for Redox, pH, Resistivity, Sulfides, Chlorides, and Sulfates. The test results and a brief evaluation are contained in Appendix C. These results should be provided to the project structural engineer and underground utility designers.

GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOLOGICAL FINDINGS

SITE DESCRIPTION
The site is bounded by railroad tracks and Yosemite Avenue/Highway 120 on the north, residential development on the east and south, and Brennan Road on the west. An existing mixed-use park/storm

August 31, 2023
BGG No. G357.01
BAEZ GEOTECHNICAL GROUP Geotechnical Investigation – Murphy Ranch Residential Subdivision Page 3 drain basin is adjacent to the southeast corner of the site. Two residences are located in the western portion of the site with access from Brennan Road, and several nonpermanent shed and shade structures are located around the residences. A concrete masonry unit (CMU) barn is located near the southern property boundary, east of the south residence. The remainder of the site is currently fallow, with a small portion on the west divided by fencing, and the larger, eastern portion in use for cattle grazing. The site is relatively flat with surface elevations varying between about 110-feet to 115-feet above mean sea level (MSL).

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
According to the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey, the upper five to six feet of the site is mantled predominantly by the Veritas fine sandy loam soil series, with a small area of the southwest portion of the site underlain by the Delhi loamy sand and Nocut sandy loam soil series. These soils are similar and are reported to have 85 to 100 percent passing the No. 4 sieve (minimal gravel-sized particles), 35 to 50 percent passing the No. 200 sieve (silt- and clay-sized particles), Liquid Limits between zero and 35, and Plasticity Index between zero and 10. The Veritas fine sandy loam soils reportedly have hardpan at depths between 4 to 6 feet bgs. The soils are classified to be in Hydrologic Group A, with reported infiltration rates of 2 to 6 inches per hour (except for the relatively impermeable hardpan).

The following is a general description of the soils encountered in our borings. More detailed descriptions of the subsurface soil conditions recorded at the site are contained in the boring logs in Appendix A.
• The upper foot of soil mantling the site consisted of silty sand with fine gravel and some organics.
• The upper 4 to 8-feet of soil consisted of medium dense silty sand. However, loose silty sand was encountered in the upper 2 to 5-feet in borings B1, B2 and B8 in the western portion of the site.
• The soil below the upper silty sands consisted of alternating layers of medium dense silty sand and hardpan.
• The deeper soils (from about 18 to 28 feet bgs to a depth of 50-feet) consisted of alternating layers of very dense silty sand and hardpan.

GROUNDWATER
According to the California Water Data Library, four wells are located within about 1½-miles from the site. Groundwater levels in these nearby wells are reported to be more than 50-feet-deep.

Groundwater was not encountered in our deepest boring B1, which was drilled to a maximum depth of 50-feet bgs. Numerous factors contribute to groundwater level fluctuations including precipitation, irrigation, and well pumping. A detailed evaluation of these and other factors, which may be responsible for groundwater fluctuations, was beyond the scope of this investigation.

August 31, 2023
BGG No. G357.01
BAEZ GEOTECHNICAL GROUP Geotechnical Investigation – Murphy Ranch Residential Subdivision Page 4

RELEVANT GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
The site is proximal to a seismic region, and will experience moderate shaking from distant, large earthquakes. The site-modified peak ground acceleration (PGA), according to the ASCE 7 Hazard Tool website, is 0.35g for the site. The site is not located in a California designated earthquake fault zone, hence the potential for surface fault rupture to occur at the site is nil. The central valley is susceptible to subsidence from groundwater withdrawal; determining the settlement impacts from subsidence was beyond the scope of this study.

Liquefaction is the temporary transformation of saturated, loose to medium dense, sandy and silty soils from a solid state to a liquid state due to strong ground shaking during a major earthquake. It is our opinion that the potential is low for liquefaction induced phenomena to impact the proposed structures due to the low seismic loading and very dense sandy soil.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

GENERAL
We conclude, from a geotechnical engineering standpoint, that the proposed development can generally be constructed as planned, provided that the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into the project design and during construction. The predominant geotechnical consideration for the project is the presence of loose soil in the upper 2 feet bgs. This material will need to be reworked as engineered fill in building pad and fill areas.

SITE PREPARATION AND GRADING
Our general site preparation and grading recommendations are as follows:

1. The site should be cleared of existing vegetation, including trees and their root balls.

2. Existing structures should be demolished, including their foundations, underground utility lines, and septic systems.

3. The excavations from demolition should be backfilled with engineered fill.

4. The upper 2-feet of existing ground in building pad areas (both cut and fill conditions) should be reworked by overexcavating the upper foot and then scarifying the overexcavation bottom to a depth of one foot, for a total rework depth of 2-feet.

5. If zones of soft or loose soil are encountered during grading operations, overexcavation of the loose soils may be required to expose deeper, firm soils. This should be determined in the field by the soils engineer.

6. Engineered fill soils should be moisture conditioned to above the optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. Relative compaction refers to the in-place dry density of the soil expressed as a percentage of its maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM D1557 compaction test procedure. Optimum moisture is the water content (percentage by dry weight) corresponding to the maximum dry density.

7. Fill should be properly moisture conditioned and placed in thin lifts (normally 6 to 8 inches depending on the compaction equipment utilized) and compacted as prescribed above.

August 31, 2023
BGG No. G357.01
BAEZ GEOTECHNICAL GROUP Geotechnical Investigation – Murphy Ranch Residential Subdivision Page 5

8. The onsite soils are generally suitable for engineered fill, provided they are free of debris, significant vegetation, rocks greater than 4 inches in largest dimension, and other deleterious matter. Debris, if encountered during grading, will need to be removed from the site.

9. Import fill, if required, should be subject to the evaluation of the soil engineer prior to its use.

Import fill should be predominantly sandy and should contain no deleterious matter or rocks greater than 4 inches in largest dimension.

10. Observations and soil density tests should be performed during site grading and backfilling to assist the contractor in obtaining the required degree of compaction and proper moisture content. Where the compaction is outside the range required, additional effort and adjustments to the moisture content should be made until the specified compaction and moisture conditioning are achieved.

11. The soils engineer should be notified at least 48 hours prior to any grading operations. The procedure and methods of grading may then be discussed between the contractor and the soils engineer.

UTILITY TRENCH EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL
Excavations should conform to applicable State and Federal industrial safety requirements.

Temporary trench sidewalls more than 4-feet deep may have to be laid back to 1H:1V or flatter to be stable. Flatter trench slopes may be required if seepage is encountered during construction or if exposed soil conditions are conducive to instability.

Materials quality, placement procedures, and compaction operations for utility line bedding and shading materials should meet municipal, utility, or other applicable agency requirements. Utility trench backfill above the shading materials may consist of the onsite soils processed to remove rubble, rock fragments over 4 inches in largest dimension, rubbish, vegetation, and other undesirable substances. Backfill materials should be placed in level lifts, about 8 to 10 inches in loose thickness, moisture conditioned, and mechanically compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction.

CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (CBC) SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS

The subject site is located at approximately 37.7978 degrees north latitude and -121.0116 degrees west longitude. The site is located within a large, deep alluvial valley; hence, the structural engineer should utilize Site Class D – Stiff Soil for determining seismic response spectra parameters.

According to the ASCE 7 Hazard Tool website (utilizing ASCE7-16), the site modified peak ground acceleration is 0.35g. Alternately, the site modified peak ground acceleration utilizing ASCE7-22 is 0.36g.

FOUNDATIONS
It is our opinion, from a geotechnical engineering standpoint, that shallow foundations can support the proposed residences. We recommend that the following criteria be incorporated in the design of shallow foundations.

August 31, 2023
BGG No. G357.01
BAEZ GEOTECHNICAL GROUP Geotechnical Investigation – Murphy Ranch Residential Subdivision Page 6

SHALLOW STRIP AND ISOLATED FOOTINGS
Allowable Bearing Capacity (DL + LL)
(may be increased by one-third for temporary seismic and wind loads, at the discretion of the structural engineer) 2,000 psf for 12-inches deep
2,500 psf for 18-inches deep
Allowable Passive Equivalent Fluid Pressure
(neglect the upper foot)
350 pcf
Allowable Base Friction Coefficient 0.30
Minimum Footing Depth
Below Lowest Adjacent Finished Grade
12-inches – one-story
18-inches – two-story
The following are our recommendations for the design of drilled, reinforced concrete piers:

DRILLED REINFORCED CONCRETE PIERS
Allowable Skin Friction, Vertically Down
Ignore the upper foot
350 psf
Allowable Skin Friction, Vertically Up
Ignore the upper foot
200 psf
Allowable Lateral Passive Resistance, equivalent fluid pressure, acting on 2 pier diameters, ignore the upper foot
350 pcf
Minimum Pier Diameter 12 inches

CONCRETE SLAB-ON-GRADE FLOORS
Concrete slab-on-grade floors should be at least 5-inches-thick, reinforced with reinforcing bars, and can be supported directly on the properly prepared subgrade soils. The subgrade soil should be moisture conditioned to above optimum moisture and compacted to at least 90% relative compaction. Where moisture vapor through the floor slab would be objectionable, the use of a vapor retarder may be necessary. From a geotechnical standpoint, we do not require a layer of sand above the vapor retarder. We suggest utilizing ASTM E1745 and ASTM E1643 as guidelines for the vapor retarder material and installation.

During foundation and/or utility trench excavation, previously compacted subgrade soils may become disturbed. Before placement of concrete slabs, the disturbed subgrade soil should be moisture conditioned and compacted according to the requirements outlined under the section titled “Site Preparation and Grading” in this report. Subgrade soils should be maintained in a moist and compacted condition until covered with the complete slab section.

RETAINING WALLS
The following lateral pressures should be utilized in the design for retaining walls. The recommended lateral pressures assume drained conditions and that retaining walls will have drainage. Exterior retaining walls less than 2-feet-tall do not require drainage.

August 31, 2023
BGG No. G357.01
BAEZ GEOTECHNICAL GROUP Geotechnical Investigation – Murphy Ranch Residential Subdivision Page 7 Active Equivalent Fluid Pressure
(Level backfill and drained conditions)
30 pcf
At-Rest Equivalent Fluid Pressure
(Level backfill and drained conditions)
50 pcf
Surcharge Load, where applicable Designated by structural engineer

PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
We are providing recommendations for structural pavement that will be supported by the onsite soils. Our pavement analyses are based upon an R-Value of 15 using the Caltrans Design Method for Flexible Pavement for a 20-year design life. The following are our recommendations for Asphalt Concrete (AC) pavement sections along with their corresponding traffic indices (TI), which are indications of load frequency and intensity.

AC PAVEMENT SECTIONS
Traffic Index AC (in) Class 2 AB (in) Total (in)
TI=4.5 3 6 9
TI=5 3 8 11
TI=6 3 12 15
TI=7 4 14 18
The upper foot of the subgrade soils in pavement areas should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction and rolled to provide a smooth, unyielding surface. Class 2 aggregate base (AB) should also be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction in pavement areas.

Concrete pavements that will support heavy trucks and aprons around trash enclosures should be at least 6-inches-thick, reinforced, and underlain by at least 6-inches of Class 2 AB. Subgrade soils beneath Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) pavements should be rolled to at least 90 percent relative compaction to provide a smooth, unyielding surface.

ADDITIONAL SOIL ENGINEERING SERVICES
To a degree, the performance of the proposed project is dependent on the procedures and quality of the construction. Therefore, we should provide observation of the contractor's procedures and the exposed soil conditions, and field and laboratory testing during site preparation and grading, placement and compaction of fill, underground utility and retaining wall backfilling, foundation construction, and pavement construction. These observations will allow us to check the contractor's work for conformance with the intent of our recommendations and to observe any unanticipated soil conditions that could require modification of our recommendations. In addition, we would welcome the opportunity to meet with the contractor prior to the start of earthwork operations to discuss the procedures and methods of construction. This can facilitate the performance of the construction operation and minimize possible misunderstanding and construction delays.

August 31, 2023
BGG No. G357.01
BAEZ GEOTECHNICAL GROUP Geotechnical Investigation – Murphy Ranch Residential Subdivision Page 8

LIMITATIONS
The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based upon the information provided to us regarding the proposed site improvements, subsurface conditions encountered in our field explorations, laboratory testing, and professional judgment. This study has been conducted in accordance with current professional geotechnical engineering standards; no other warranty is expressed or implied.

If changes are planned or implemented regarding the nature, design, and/or location of the proposed improvements, or if it is found during construction that subsurface conditions differ from those described in this report, then the conclusions and recommendations in this report shall be considered invalid, unless the changes are reviewed, and the conclusions and recommendations are modified or approved in writing.

Should you have questions or need additional information, please contact us. We appreciate the opportunity to provide professional services to you and to be involved in the design of this project.

Respectfully submitted,

BAEZ GEOTECHNICAL GROUP
Stefanie Parman-Ribeiro William R. Stevens
Project Engineer Principal Engineer
GE 2339
Attachments:

Plate 1 – Vicinity Map
Plate 2 – Site Plan
Appendix A – Boring Logs
Appendix B – Laboratory Test Results – Geotechnical
Appendix C – Laboratory Test Results – Soil Corrosivity E://1-BGG/G357-Murphy Ranch/01 GI/Report/GI G357 FS Murphy Escalon.docx

~
£L
(I)
s..: i 11C1
I ,li!:
~
~ I
0 ~ 0
~ ,,...
o5
o l=::::.=---.--10iiiS(:iiiiM.liioiil'iii,iE Aiiii,VE ___ ,... _________ .,__-( w
I--: ;:§ \lb
0 BASE; PORTION OF U.S.G.S. 7.5 MINUTE TOPOGRAPHIC

QUADRAN,GLE, AVENA, CALIFORNIA,
PHOTOREVISED 20'21, AT A SCALE OF 1 :24,000.

VICINITY MAP

MURPHY RANCH
1809.2 & 18112 BRENNAN ROAD
APNs: 225--04-028 & 225-04-0291

ESCALON, CALIFORNIA
FOR
FLORSHEIM HOMES, INC.
0 ...
0 2000
1 INCH = 2000 IFEET
~
PLATE1

N

EXPLANATION

APPROXIMATE

BORING LOCATION
BASE: GOOGLE EARTH IMAGE 4/6/2022 & SHEET 1, SKETCH 'E', FOR MUPRHY RANCH, BY ASSOCIATED ENGINEERING GROUP, JOB #99-19, DATED 5/3/22. BGG NUMBER: G357.01 DATE: 08/21/2023 DRAWN BY: SPR

SITE PLAN

MURPHY RANCH
18092 & 18112 BRENNAN AVENUE

ESCALON, CALIFORNIA
FOR
FLORSHEIM HOMES, INC.
0 150
1 INCH = 150 FEET
B8 EDGEWOOD AVENUE
B2
PLATE 2

CALIFORNIA STREET RIESLING WAY CELESTINA LANE CELIVO WAY YOSEMITE AVENUE / CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY 120 BRENNAN ROAD
B1
B3 B4
B5
B6
B7 B8
BAH GE;:OTE;:C�NICAL GROUP
O.!?. W1 / 169
___________ __L_ ____________ _
- - - - 3~ 1 !' ,...--------=--=---------'------------------------------:------------:----c---,--------------_-_-_-_- __ -__ -_-------=:.;;_--------------'--------1 I ~ ! 57 !
46 ~ 6()' "'2' "'2'
100'
:!! 40 :!! :!!
4S il
Ell
56 :!! 5"' !
6()' (Q'
3-4 :!! " :!!
60 '6'
32 61 :!! 62 :!!
27 :!!
I
+----ii----------
LOT A
RANCH
t=X15TIN6

STORH DRAINME
BASIN HO. 7

APPENDIX A
Boring Logs
g BAE;Z GE;OTE;CI-INICAL GROUP

USCS

ELEVATION
(feet)
DEPTH
(feet)

SAMPLER

FINES CONTENT
% PASSING #200

PLASTICITY
INDEX

MOISTURE
CONTENT (%)

DRY UNIT

BLOW COUNT
WEIGHT (pcf)
(blows/foot)

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0 5
10 15
20 A-1
PAGE 1 OF 3
PROJECT NAME:

PROJECT NUMBER:

DATE DRILLED:

DRILLING CONTRACTOR:

DRILLING METHOD:

LOGGED BY:

NOTES:

BORING NUMBER: B1

BAEZ GEOTECHNICAL GROUP
5 50/6”
50/6”
27 37
110 7.7
PROJECT LOCATION:

CLIENT:

GROUND ELEVATION:

GROUNDWATER ELEVATION:

SAMPLER TYPE:

Murphy Ranch
G357.01
06/20/2023
West Coast Exploration
SIMCO 2400 with solid flight auger
KR
Elevation obtained from Google Earth
18092 & 18112 Brennan Road, Escalon
Florsheim Homes, Inc.
110 feet above mean sea level (MSL)
Not encountered
Standard
Penetration Test
Modified California
Sampler
110
105
100
95 90
AC
ML SANDY SILT, gray, tan, and orange with gold mottling, slightly moist, hard [H ] ARDPAN
3-inches Asphalt Concrete (AC)
Bulk
Sample
SM SILTY SAND, medium brown, moist to very moist, loose, fine- to coarsegrained sand, with fine gravel to -inch size ¹⁄ SM SILTY SAND, tan and medium brown with mottled dark red and rustorange, slightly moist, very dense, fine- to medium-grained sand [H ] ARDPAN
SM SILTY SAND, tan and medium brown with mottled dark red and rustorange, moist, medium dense to dense, fine- to medium-grained sand (Sample consolidated 1.0% with a 2,500 psf load and an additional

2.4% upon saturation)
~----------------------------------------------------- ,- - -
- --
----~------------------------------------------------------- - -- - -
- - ,, ,, '~----------------------------------------------------- - - - -
- -
,, ,, '~----------------------------------------------------- - - - - -
- -
- -
- -

USCS

ELEVATION
(feet)
DEPTH
(feet)

SAMPLER

FINES CONTENT
% PASSING #200

PLASTICITY
INDEX

MOISTURE
CONTENT (%)

DRY UNIT

BLOW COUNT
WEIGHT (pcf)
(blows/foot)

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
20 25
30 35
40 A2-
PAGE OF 23
PROJECT NAME:

PROJECT NUMBER:

DATE DRILLED:

DRILLING CONTRACTOR:

DRILLING METHOD:

LOGGED BY:

NOTES:

BORING NUMBER: B1

BAEZ GEOTECHNICAL GROUP
50/6”
68 90
85 80
75 70
SILTY SAND, tan and medium brown with mottled dark red and rustorange, moist, medium dense to dense, fine- to medium-grained sand SM
PROJECT LOCATION:

CLIENT:

GROUND ELEVATION:

GROUNDWATER ELEVATION:

SAMPLER TYPE:

Standard
Penetration Test
Modified California
Sampler
SM SILTY medium brown with dark brown mottling, moist, very SAND, dense, fine- to coarse-grained sand [HARDPAN]
SM/
SP
SILTY SAND to SAND with SILT and GRAVEL, tan to medium brown with light and dark gray mottling, slightly moist to moist, very dense, fineto coarse-grained sand, rounded gravel to ¹⁄-inch diameter Murphy Ranch
G357.01
06/20/2023
West Coast Exploration
SIMCO 2400 with solid flight auger
KR
Elevation obtained from Google Earth
18092 & 18112 Brennan Road, Escalon
Florsheim Homes, Inc.
110 feet MSL
Not encountered
- -
- -
- -
- -
-----~----------------------------------------------------- - - - -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- - -----~----------------------------------------------------- - -

USCS

ELEVATION
(feet)
DEPTH
(feet)

SAMPLER

FINES CONTENT
% PASSING #200

PLASTICITY
INDEX

MOISTURE
CONTENT (%)

DRY UNIT

BLOW COUNT
WEIGHT (pcf)
(blows/foot)

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
40 54
05 55
06 A3-
PAGE OF 33
PROJECT NAME:

PROJECT NUMBER:

DATE DRILLED:

DRILLING CONTRACTOR:

DRILLING METHOD:

LOGGED BY:

NOTES:

BORING NUMBER: B1

BAEZ GEOTECHNICAL GROUP
79 70
65 60
55 50
PROJECT LOCATION:

CLIENT:

GROUND ELEVATION:

GROUNDWATER ELEVATION:

SAMPLER TYPE:

Standard
Penetration Test
Bottom of Boring at feet below the ground surface (bgs). 50 Groundwater not encountered.

SILTY SAND to SAND with SILT and GRAVEL, tan to medium brown with light and dark gray mottling, slightly moist to moist, very dense, fineto coarse- grained sand, rounded gravel to ¹⁄-inch diameter SM/
SP
Modified California
Sampler
SM SILTY medium brown with gray, rust-orange, and dark brown SAND, mottling, moist, very dense, fine- to coarse-grained sand Murphy Ranch
G357.01
06/20/2023
West Coast Exploration
SIMCO 2400 with solid flight auger
KR
Elevation obtained from Google Earth
18092 & 18112 Brennan Road, Escalon
Florsheim Homes, Inc.
110 feet MSL
Not encountered
- -
- -
- -
- -
-----~----------------------------------------------------- - - - ~
- -
~
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -

USCS

ELEVATION
(feet)
DEPTH
(feet)

SAMPLER

FINES CONTENT
% PASSING #200

PLASTICITY
INDEX

MOISTURE
CONTENT (%)

DRY UNIT

BLOW COUNT
WEIGHT (pcf)
(blows/foot)

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0 5
10 15
20 A-4
PAGE 1 OF 1
PROJECT NAME:

PROJECT NUMBER:

DATE DRILLED:

DRILLING CONTRACTOR:

DRILLING METHOD:

LOGGED BY:

NOTES:

BORING NUMBER: B2

BAEZ GEOTECHNICAL GROUP
9 11
75/6”
112 4.6
PROJECT LOCATION:

CLIENT:

GROUND ELEVATION:

GROUNDWATER ELEVATION:

SAMPLER TYPE:

Modified California
Sampler
109
104
99 94
89 Standard
Penetration Test
Bottom of Boring at feet . 9 bgs ¹⁄
Groundwater not encountered.

SM SILTY SAND, medium brown, moist to very moist, loose to medium dense, fine- to coarse-grained sand, with fine gravel to -inch size ¹⁄ SM/
ML
SILTY SAND to SANDY SILT, tan and medium brown with mottled dark red and rust-orange, slightly moist, very dense to hard, fine- to mediumgrained sand [HARDPAN] with organics in upper foot
Murphy Ranch
G357.01
06/20/2023
West Coast Exploration
SIMCO 2400 with solid flight auger
KR
Elevation obtained from Google Earth
18092 & 18112 Brennan Road, Escalon
Florsheim Homes, Inc.
109 feet MSL
Not encountered
(c = 0 psf, = 34 degrees) ɸ
below 6 feet, medium dense
- -
- -
-
- --
-----~----------------------------------------------------- - - - -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -

USCS

ELEVATION
(feet)
DEPTH
(feet)

SAMPLER

FINES CONTENT
% PASSING #200

PLASTICITY
INDEX

MOISTURE
CONTENT (%)

DRY UNIT

BLOW COUNT
WEIGHT (pcf)
(blows/foot)

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0 5
10 15
20 A-5
PAGE 1 OF 1
PROJECT NAME:

PROJECT NUMBER:

DATE DRILLED:

DRILLING CONTRACTOR:

DRILLING METHOD:

LOGGED BY:

NOTES:

BORING NUMBER: B3

BAEZ GEOTECHNICAL GROUP
12 11
50/6”
115 6.2
PROJECT LOCATION:

CLIENT:

GROUND ELEVATION:

GROUNDWATER ELEVATION:

SAMPLER TYPE:

Modified California
Sampler
112
107
102
97 92
Standard
Penetration Test
Bottom of Boring at feet . 8 bgs ¹⁄
Groundwater not encountered.

SM SILTY SAND, medium brown, moist to very moist, medium dense, fineto coarse-grained sand, with fine gravel to -inch size ¹⁄ SM/
ML
SILTY SAND to SANDY SILT, tan and medium brown with mottled dark red and rust-orange, slightly moist, very dense to hard, fine- to mediumgrained sand [HARDPAN] with organics in upper foot
Murphy Ranch
G357.01
06/20/2023
West Coast Exploration
SIMCO 2400 with solid flight auger
KR
Elevation obtained from Google Earth
18092 & 18112 Brennan Road, Escalon
Florsheim Homes, Inc.
112 feet MSL
Not encountered
(c = 0 psf, = 3 degrees) ɸ0
- -
-
- -
----~----------------------------------------------------- \ - - \ \
-
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -

USCS

ELEVATION
(feet)
DEPTH
(feet)

SAMPLER

FINES CONTENT
% PASSING #200

PLASTICITY
INDEX

MOISTURE
CONTENT (%)

DRY UNIT

BLOW COUNT
WEIGHT (pcf)
(blows/foot)

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0 5
10 15
20 A-6
PAGE 1 OF 1
PROJECT NAME:

PROJECT NUMBER:

DATE DRILLED:

DRILLING CONTRACTOR:

DRILLING METHOD:

LOGGED BY:

NOTES:

BORING NUMBER: B4

BAEZ GEOTECHNICAL GROUP
16 26
50/6”
116 15.0
47 PROJECT LOCATION:

CLIENT:

GROUND ELEVATION:

GROUNDWATER ELEVATION:

SAMPLER TYPE:

Modified California
Sampler
114
109
104
99 94
Standard
Penetration Test
Bottom of Boring at feet . 9 bgs ¹⁄
Groundwater not encountered.

SM SILTY SAND, medium brown, moist to very moist, medium dense, fineto coarse-grained sand, with fine gravel to -inch size ¹⁄ SM/
ML
SILTY SAND to SANDY SILT, medium brown with mottled dark red and rust orange, slightly moist, very dense to hard, fine- to medium-grained sand [HARDPAN]
SM SILTY SAND, medium brown with red-brown, very moist, medium dense, fine- to coarse-grained sand
Bulk
Sample
with organics in upper foot
Murphy Ranch
G357.01
06/20/2023
West Coast Exploration
SIMCO 2400 with solid flight auger
KR
Elevation obtained from Google Earth
18092 & 18112 Brennan Road, Escalon
Florsheim Homes, Inc.
114 feet MSL
Not encountered
(Sample consolidated % with a 2,500 psf load and 2.4 did not consolidate further upon saturation)
- -
- -
----~------------------------------------------------------- - ----~------------------------------------------------------- - - - -
-
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -

USCS

ELEVATION
(feet)
DEPTH
(feet)

SAMPLER

FINES CONTENT
% PASSING #200

PLASTICITY
INDEX

MOISTURE
CONTENT (%)

DRY UNIT

BLOW COUNT
WEIGHT (pcf)
(blows/foot)

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0 5
10 15
20 A-7
PAGE 1 OF 1
PROJECT NAME:

PROJECT NUMBER:

DATE DRILLED:

DRILLING CONTRACTOR:

DRILLING METHOD:

LOGGED BY:

NOTES:

BORING NUMBER: B5

BAEZ GEOTECHNICAL GROUP
26 70/3”
26 PROJECT LOCATION:

CLIENT:

GROUND ELEVATION:

GROUNDWATER ELEVATION:

SAMPLER TYPE:

Modified California
Sampler
113
108
103
98 93
Standard
Penetration Test
Bottom of Boring at feet . 11 bgs ¹⁄
Groundwater not encountered.

SM SILTY SAND, medium brown, moist to very moist, medium dense, fineto coarse-grained sand, with fine gravel to -inch size ¹⁄ SM/
ML
SILTY SAND to SANDY SILT, tan to medium brown with mottled dark red, rust-orange, and gray, slightly moist, very dense to hard, fine- to medium-grained sand [HARDPAN]
SM/
ML
SILTY SAND to SANDY SILT, tan and gray, moist, medium dense to very stiff, fine- to medium-grained sand
ML SANDY SILT, tan to medium brown with gray and rust-orange mottling, moist, very stiff, fine- to medium-grained sand
with organics in upper foot
Murphy Ranch
G357.01
06/20/2023
West Coast Exploration
SIMCO 2400 with solid flight auger
KR
Elevation obtained from Google Earth
18092 & 18112 Brennan Road, Escalon
Florsheim Homes, Inc.
113 feet MSL
Not encountered
- -
- -
----~------------------------------------------------------- ----~------------------------------------------------------- - - -
- -
- -
--- -------------------------------------------------------~----t---t-+-----1 -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -

USCS

ELEVATION
(feet)
DEPTH
(feet)

SAMPLER

FINES CONTENT
% PASSING #200

PLASTICITY
INDEX

MOISTURE
CONTENT (%)

DRY UNIT

BLOW COUNT
WEIGHT (pcf)
(blows/foot)

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0 5
10 15
20 A-8
PAGE 1 OF 1
PROJECT NAME:

PROJECT NUMBER:

DATE DRILLED:

DRILLING CONTRACTOR:

DRILLING METHOD:

LOGGED BY:

NOTES:

BORING NUMBER: B6

BAEZ GEOTECHNICAL GROUP
50/6”
50/6”
112 12.7
PROJECT LOCATION:

CLIENT:

GROUND ELEVATION:

GROUNDWATER ELEVATION:

SAMPLER TYPE:

Modified California
Sampler
114
109
104
99 94
Standard
Penetration Test
Bottom of Boring at 8 feet .bgs
Groundwater not encountered.

SM SILTY SAND, medium brown, moist to very moist, medium dense, fineto coarse-grained sand, with fine gravel to -inch size ¹⁄ SM/
ML
SILTY SAND to SANDY SILT, tan to medium brown with mottled dark red, rust-orange, and gray, slightly moist, very dense to hard, fine- to medium-grained sand [HARDPAN]
SM SILTY SAND, medium brown with red-brown, very moist, medium dense, fine- to coarse-grained sand
with organics in upper foot
Murphy Ranch
G357.01
06/20/2023
West Coast Exploration
SIMCO 2400 with solid flight auger
KR
Elevation obtained from Google Earth
18092 & 18112 Brennan Road, Escalon
Florsheim Homes, Inc.
114 feet MSL
Not encountered
(Sample consolidated % with a 2,500 psf load and 0.5 consolidated an additional 0.1% upon saturation)
- -
--- ------------------------------------------------------- - - ----~------------------------------------------------------- - -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -

USCS

ELEVATION
(feet)
DEPTH
(feet)

SAMPLER

FINES CONTENT
% PASSING #200

PLASTICITY
INDEX

MOISTURE
CONTENT (%)

DRY UNIT

BLOW COUNT
WEIGHT (pcf)
(blows/foot)

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0 5
10 15
20 A-9
PAGE 1 OF 2
PROJECT NAME:

PROJECT NUMBER:

DATE DRILLED:

DRILLING CONTRACTOR:

DRILLING METHOD:

LOGGED BY:

NOTES:

BORING NUMBER: B7

BAEZ GEOTECHNICAL GROUP
18 50/6”
50 52

12.5120
PROJECT LOCATION:

CLIENT:

GROUND ELEVATION:

GROUNDWATER ELEVATION:

SAMPLER TYPE:

Standard
Penetration Test
Modified California
Sampler
113
108
103
98 93
SM SILTY SAND, medium brown, moist to very moist, medium dense, fineto coarse-grained sand, with fine gravel to -inch size ¹⁄ with organics in upper foot
ML SANDY SILT, gray, tan, and orange with gold mottling, slightly moist, hard [H ] ARDPAN
SM SILTY SAND, medium brown with red-brown, very moist, medium dense, fine- to coarse-grained sand
SM SILTY SAND, tan and medium brown with mottled dark red and rustorange, slightly moist, very dense, fine- to medium-grained sand [H ] ARDPAN
SM/
SP
SILTY SAND to SAND with SILT, tan to light brown with mottled gray and rust-orange, slightly moist, very dense, fine- to coarse-grained sand Murphy Ranch
G357.01
06/20/2023
West Coast Exploration
SIMCO 2400 with solid flight auger
KR
Elevation obtained from Google Earth
18092 & 18112 Brennan Road, Escalon
Florsheim Homes, Inc.
113 feet MSL
Not encountered
(Sample consolidated % with a 2,500 psf load and 1.7 consolidated an additional 0.2% upon saturation)
- -
- ----~------------------------------------------------------- ----~------------------------------------------------------- - -
- -
- -
- - ,, ,, '~-------------------------------------------------------+-----t---t-+-----1 -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
,,
',,~----------------------------------------------------- - -

USCS

ELEVATION
(feet)
DEPTH
(feet)

SAMPLER

FINES CONTENT
% PASSING #200

PLASTICITY
INDEX

MOISTURE
CONTENT (%)

DRY UNIT

BLOW COUNT
WEIGHT (pcf)
(blows/foot)

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
20 25
30 35
40 A 10 -
PAGE OF 2 2
PROJECT NAME:

PROJECT NUMBER:

DATE DRILLED:

DRILLING CONTRACTOR:

DRILLING METHOD:

LOGGED BY:

NOTES:

BORING NUMBER: B7

BAEZ GEOTECHNICAL GROUP
50/6”
93 88
83 78
73 PROJECT LOCATION:

CLIENT:

GROUND ELEVATION:

GROUNDWATER ELEVATION:

SAMPLER TYPE:

Standard
Penetration Test
Modified California
Sampler
Bottom of Boring at feet bgs. 29
Groundwater not encountered.

SILTY SAND to SAND with SILT, tan to light brown with mottled gray and rust-orange, slightly moist, very dense, fine- to coarse-grained sand SM/
SP
SM SILTY medium brown with dark brown mottling, moist, very SAND, dense, fine- to coarse-grained sand [HARDPAN]
Murphy Ranch
G357.01
06/20/2023
West Coast Exploration
SIMCO 2400 with solid flight auger
KR
Elevation obtained from Google Earth
18092 & 18112 Brennan Road, Escalon
Florsheim Homes, Inc.
113 feet MSL
Not encountered
- -
- -
- -
- -
-----~----------------------------------------------------- - - - - -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -

USCS

ELEVATION
(feet)
DEPTH
(feet)

SAMPLER

FINES CONTENT
% PASSING #200

PLASTICITY
INDEX

MOISTURE
CONTENT (%)

DRY UNIT

BLOW COUNT
WEIGHT (pcf)
(blows/foot)

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0 5
10 15
20 A-11
PAGE 1 OF 1
PROJECT NAME:

PROJECT NUMBER:

DATE DRILLED:

DRILLING CONTRACTOR:

DRILLING METHOD:

LOGGED BY:

NOTES:

BORING NUMBER: B8

BAEZ GEOTECHNICAL GROUP
8 50/6”
PROJECT LOCATION:

CLIENT:

GROUND ELEVATION:

GROUNDWATER ELEVATION:

SAMPLER TYPE:

Modified California
Sampler
113
108
103
98 93
Standard
Penetration Test
Bottom of Boring at feet . 6 bgs ¹⁄
Groundwater not encountered.

SM SILTY SAND, medium brown, moist to very moist, loose to medium dense, fine- to coarse-grained sand, with fine gravel to -inch size ¹⁄ SM/
ML
SILTY SAND to SANDY SILT, medium brown with mottled dark red and rust-orange, slightly moist, very dense to hard, fine- to medium-grained sand [HARDPAN]
Bulk
Sample
with organics in upper foot
Murphy Ranch
G357.01
06/20/2023
West Coast Exploration
SIMCO 2400 with solid flight auger
KR
Elevation obtained from Google Earth
18092 & 18112 Brennan Road, Escalon
Florsheim Homes, Inc.
113 feet MSL
Not encountered
B ~ ~
-
:1 -
- - ~
- -~
---- ~------------------------------------------------------- - - ~
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -

APPENDIX B
Geotechnical Laboratory Test Results
g BAE;Z GE;OTE;CI-INICAL GROUP

= = =
= = =
= = =
B4

FINE COARSE
DEPTH (ft):

COARSE MEDIUM FINE

47.2 ATTERBERG LIMITS
PL =
SAMPLE ID:

2.5-3
B4 @ 2.5-3'
% FINES

SILT CLAY
% +75mm
% GRAVEL % SAND
LOCATION:

D15
ASTM D1140, Method B

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION REPORT
SIEVE
SIZE

PERCENT
FINER
SPEC.*

PERCENT
PASS?
(X=NO)

SOIL DESCRIPTION
See exploration logs
#200 47.2
Soak time = 180 min
Dry sample weight = 321.44 g
Largest particle size ≥ No. 4 Sieve
* (no specification provided)
LL = PI =

COEFFICIENTS
D90 D85 D60
D50 D30

REMARKS

CLASSIFICATION
USCS =
D10 Cu Cc
17278 Golden Valley Parkway | Lathrop, CA 95330 | T: (209) 835-0610 | F: (888) 279-2698 | www.engeo.com REPORT DATE: 8/3/2023
TESTED BY: K. Lecce
REVIEWED BY: M. Tong
CLIENT: Baez Geotechnical Group, Inc.

PROJECT NAME: G357.01 - Murphy Ranch
PROJECT NO: 14368.000.208 PHLAB
PROJECT LOCATION: Escalon, CA
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001

PERCENT FINER
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
6 in.
3 in.
2 in.
1 ½ in.
1 in.
¾ in.
½ in.
⅜ in.
#4
#10
#20
#40
#60#100
#140
#200
I
I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11
I
I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 I
I II I I I I 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I II I

I II I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I II

I II I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I II I I I I I I I I 11 I I I I 0 I I I I II I I I I I I
I I I I I I I 11 I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I II

I I I I I

I I I I
I I I I 11

I I II I I I I I I I

I I I I

I I II I I I I I II
I I II I I I I I 11 I I I I I
I I I
I I I 11 I I I I I 11
I I II I I I I 11 I I I I
ENGEO
- Expect Excellence

SAMPLE ID: B7 @ 2.5-3 IN-SITU LOAD (psf): 300
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: See exploration logs DESIGN LOAD (psf): 2500 TYPE OF WATER USED: Distilled USCS: n/a SOURCE OF WATER: Distilled TRANSPORTATION METHOD: Insulated bucket SAMPLING DATE: n/a STORAGE ENVIRONMENT: Controlled TEST START DATE: 08/03/23 Remolded? (Y/N): N Initial % Saturation: 79.89
Number of lifts, if remolded: n/a Final % Saturation: 99.98 Specific Gravity, <#4 (Measured): 2.744 Initial water content: 12.49 Initial sample height (in): 0.9965 Final water content: 14.58 Dry in-situ load height (in): 0.9955 Post-test dry density (pcf): 122.25 Dry design load height (in): 0.9789 Dry In-situ load % SWELL/COLLAPSE: -0.10 Wet design load height (in): 0.9772 Dry design load % SWELL/COLLAPSE: -1.67 Initial sample mass (g): 155.21 Wet design load % SWELL/COLLAPSE: -0.17 Final saturated sample mass (g): 158.10 Overall % SWELL/COLLAPSE: -1.94 Initial-test dry density (pcf): 119.88
PROJECT NAME: G357.01 - Murphy Ranch, Escalon, CA REPORT DATE: 08/10/23 PROJECT NUMBER: 14368.000.208 PHLAB
CLIENT: Baez Geotechnical Group, Inc.

PHASE NUMBER: LAB
Tested by: K. Lecce Reviewed by: J. Moriarty
ONE DIMENSIONAL SWELL/COLLAPSE POTENTIAL - METHOD 'C' Modified ASTM D4546
Testing remarks: As requested by client, an in-situ load was added and then a design load was added prior to saturation. Note, gravels larger #4 were removed and replaced with trimmings.

0.9700

0.9720

0.9740

0.9760

0.9780

0.9800

0.9820

0.9840

0.9860

0.9880

0.9900

0.9920

0.9940

0.9960

0.9980

1.0000

0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0 10000.0
Height (in)
Time (minutes)
Sample Height vs Time
Lab Address: 17278 Golden Valley Parkway, Lathrop, CA 95330. Phone No. (209) 835-0610. ◄ •
.... ~ ... _
-- -. - r-. ~ ......
---....
~
I..
,..
,,
-.....
-
ENGEO
Expect Excellence

SAMPLE ID: B1 @ 3-3.5 IN-SITU LOAD (psf): 450
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: See exploration logs DESIGN LOAD (psf): 2500 TYPE OF WATER USED: Distilled USCS: n/a SOURCE OF WATER: Distilled TRANSPORTATION METHOD: Insulated bucket SAMPLING DATE: n/a STORAGE ENVIRONMENT: Controlled TEST START DATE: 08/02/23 Remolded? (Y/N): N Initial % Saturation: 37.58
Number of lifts, if remolded: n/a Final % Saturation: 100.00 Specific Gravity, <#4 (Measured): 2.745 Initial water content: 7.72 Initial sample height (in): 0.9966 Final water content: 18.57 Dry in-situ load height (in): 0.9964 Post-test dry density (pcf): 113.42 Dry design load height (in): 0.9864 Dry In-situ load % SWELL/COLLAPSE: -0.02 Wet design load height (in): 0.9628 Dry design load % SWELL/COLLAPSE: -1.00 Initial sample mass (g): 136.30 Wet design load % SWELL/COLLAPSE: -2.37 Final saturated sample mass (g): 150.03 Overall % SWELL/COLLAPSE: -3.39 Initial-test dry density (pcf): 109.57
PROJECT NAME: G357.01 - Murphy Ranch, Escalon, CA REPORT DATE: 08/09/23 PROJECT NUMBER: 14368.000.208 PHLAB
CLIENT: Baez Geotechnical Group, Inc.

PHASE NUMBER: LAB
Tested by: K. Lecce Reviewed by: M. Tong
ONE DIMENSIONAL SWELL/COLLAPSE POTENTIAL - METHOD 'C' Modified ASTM D4546
Testing remarks: As requested by client, an in-situ load was added and then a design load was added prior to saturation. Note, gravels larger #4 were removed and replaced with trimmings.

0.9500

0.9550

0.9600

0.9650

0.9700

0.9750

0.9800

0.9850

0.9900

0.9950

1.0000

1.0050

0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0 10000.0
Height (in)
Time (minutes)
Sample Height vs Time
Lab Address: 17278 Golden Valley Parkway, Lathrop, CA 95330. Phone No. (209) 835-0610.

ENGEO
Expect Excellence

SAMPLE ID: B4 @ 3-3.5 IN-SITU LOAD (psf): 350
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: See exploration logs DESIGN LOAD (psf): 2500 TYPE OF WATER USED: Distilled USCS: n/a SOURCE OF WATER: Distilled TRANSPORTATION METHOD: Insulated bucket SAMPLING DATE: n/a STORAGE ENVIRONMENT: Controlled TEST START DATE: 08/03/23 Remolded? (Y/N): N Initial % Saturation: 89.13
Number of lifts, if remolded: n/a Final % Saturation: 100.00 Specific Gravity, <#4 (Measured): 2.700 Initial water content: 14.80 Initial sample height (in): 0.9888 Final water content: 14.97 Dry in-situ load height (in): 0.9834 Post-test dry density (pcf): 119.94 Dry design load height (in): 0.9598 Dry In-situ load % SWELL/COLLAPSE: -0.55 Wet design load height (in): 0.9594 Dry design load % SWELL/COLLAPSE: -2.39 Initial sample mass (g): 153.64 Wet design load % SWELL/COLLAPSE: -0.04 Final saturated sample mass (g): 153.87 Overall % SWELL/COLLAPSE: -2.97 Initial-test dry density (pcf): 116.37
PROJECT NAME: G357.01 - Murphy Ranch, Escalon, CA REPORT DATE: 08/09/23 PROJECT NUMBER: 14368.000.208 PHLAB
CLIENT: Baez Geotechnical Group, Inc.

PHASE NUMBER: LAB
Tested by: K. Lecce Reviewed by: M. Tong
ONE DIMENSIONAL SWELL/COLLAPSE POTENTIAL - METHOD 'C' Modified ASTM D4546
Testing remarks: As requested by client, an in-situ load was added and then a design load was added prior to saturation. Note, gravels larger #4 were removed and replaced with trimmings.

0.9500

0.9540

0.9580

0.9620

0.9660

0.9700

0.9740

0.9780

0.9820

0.9860

0.9900

0.9940

0.9980

0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0 10000.0
Height (in)
Time (minutes)
Sample Height vs Time
Lab Address: 17278 Golden Valley Parkway, Lathrop, CA 95330. Phone No. (209) 835-0610.

ENGEO
Expect Excellence

SAMPLE ID: B6 @ 3.5-4 IN-SITU LOAD (psf): 400
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: See exploration logs DESIGN LOAD (psf): 2500 TYPE OF WATER USED: Distilled USCS: n/a SOURCE OF WATER: Distilled TRANSPORTATION METHOD: Insulated bucket SAMPLING DATE: n/a STORAGE ENVIRONMENT: Controlled TEST START DATE: 08/03/23 Remolded? (Y/N): N Initial % Saturation: 67.52
Number of lifts, if remolded: n/a Final % Saturation: 99.97 Specific Gravity, <#4 (Measured): 2.726 Initial water content: 12.72 Initial sample height (in): 0.9981 Final water content: 18.47 Dry in-situ load height (in): 0.9980 Post-test dry density (pcf): 113.10 Dry design load height (in): 0.9932 Dry In-situ load % SWELL/COLLAPSE: -0.01 Wet design load height (in): 0.9922 Dry design load % SWELL/COLLAPSE: -0.48 Initial sample mass (g): 145.94 Wet design load % SWELL/COLLAPSE: -0.10 Final saturated sample mass (g): 153.38 Overall % SWELL/COLLAPSE: -0.59 Initial-test dry density (pcf): 112.43
PROJECT NAME: G357.01 - Murphy Ranch, Escalon, CA REPORT DATE: 08/10/23 PROJECT NUMBER: 14368.000.208 PHLAB
CLIENT: Baez Geotechnical Group, Inc.

PHASE NUMBER: LAB
Tested by: K. Lecce Reviewed by: J. Moriarty
ONE DIMENSIONAL SWELL/COLLAPSE POTENTIAL - METHOD 'C' Modified ASTM D4546
Testing remarks: As requested by client, an in-situ load was added and then a design load was added prior to saturation. Note, gravels larger #4 were removed and replaced with trimmings.

0.9900

0.9910

0.9920

0.9930

0.9940

0.9950

0.9960

0.9970

0.9980

0.9990

1.0000

0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0 10000.0
Height (in)
Time (minutes)
Sample Height vs Time
Lab Address: 17278 Golden Valley Parkway, Lathrop, CA 95330. Phone No. (209) 835-0610. " " "
...

ENGEO
Expect Excellence

17278 Golden Valley Parkway | Lathrop, CA 95330 | T: (209) 835-0610 | F: (888) 279-2698 | www.engeo.com TESTED BY: K. Lecce
REVIEWED BY: M. Tong
14368.000.208 PHLAB
PROJECT LOCATION: Escalon, CA
REPORT DATE: 8/9/2023
CLIENT: Baez Geotechnical Group, Inc.

PROJECT NAME: G357.01 Murphy Ranch
PROJECT NO:

C(psf)
PEAK:

SAMPLE TYPE: In-situ RESIDUAL: 33.4 0.0
DESCRIPTION: See exploration logs
ASTM D4318

LIQUID LIMIT
PLASTIC LIMIT:

SAMPLE ID: [email protected]

SPECIMEN INFORMATION STRENGTH
PARAMETERS ɸ°
REMARKS: Consolidation data inconclusive. Default minimum shear rates used per ASTM D3080
n/a
n/a
DEPTH (ft): 3.5-4 ft 34.0 0.0
RATE (IN/MIN) 0.006038 0.006038
DIAMETER-TO-HEIGHT RATIO 2.507 2.481
RESIDUAL STRESS (ksf) 2.05 0.43
RESIDUAL STRAIN (%) 15.00 15.00
PEAK STRESS (ksf) 2.13 0.48
PEAK STRAIN (%) 11.39 6.42
HEIGHT (IN.) 0.963 0.973
NORMAL STRESS (ksf) 3.00 1.00
SATURATION (%) 99.99 99.99
DIAMETER (IN.) 2.415 2.415
DRY DENSITY (PCF) 126.56 123.04
VOID RATIO 0.347 0.386
FINAL PARAMETERS 3 ksf 1 ksf
MOISTURE (%) 12.71 14.12
DIAMETER-TO-HEIGHT RATIO 2.439 2.410
SPECIFIC GRAVITY (ASTM D854) 2.731 2.731
DIAMETER (IN.) 2.415 2.415
HEIGHT (IN.) 0.990 1.002
VOID RATIO 0.539 0.510
SATURATION (%) 21.48 26.64

CONSOLIDATED DRAINED DIRECT SHEAR
ASTM D3080

SPECIMEN
INITIAL PARAMETERS 3 ksf 1 ksf
MOISTURE (%) 4.24 4.97
DRY DENSITY (PCF) 110.78 112.91

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 2.5

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.05.56.06.57.07.5 SHEAR STRESS (ksf) NORMAL STRESS (ksf)
Peak(s) Peak Linear Regression Residual(s) Residual Linear Regression -0.028
-0.024
-0.020
-0.016
-0.012
-0.008
-0.004

0.000
0% 4% 8% 12% 16%
VERTICAL DISPLACEMENT (in.)
HORIZONTAL DISPLACEMENT (%)
3 ksf 1 ksf

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 2.5
0% 4% 8% 12% 16%
SHEAR STRESS (ksf)
HORIZONTAL DISPLACEMENT (%)
I • •
✓
,
~ /
l/ ,
~ /
/ , 0
- - I
I
I
rr
ENGEO
Expect Excellence

17278 Golden Valley Parkway | Lathrop, CA 95330 | T: (209) 835-0610 | F: (888) 279-2698 | www.engeo.com TESTED BY: K. Lecce
REVIEWED BY: M. Tong
14368.000.208 PHLAB
PROJECT LOCATION: Escalon, CA
REPORT DATE: 8/9/2023
CLIENT: Baez Geotechnical Group, Inc.

PROJECT NAME: G357.01 - Murphy Ranch
PROJECT NO:

C(psf)
PEAK:

SAMPLE TYPE: In-situ RESIDUAL: 28.3 0.0
DESCRIPTION: See exploration logs
ASTM D4318

LIQUID LIMIT
PLASTIC LIMIT:

SAMPLE ID: [email protected]

SPECIMEN INFORMATION STRENGTH
PARAMETERS ɸ°
REMARKS: Consolidation data inconclusive. Default minimum shear rates used per ASTM D3080
n/a
n/a
DEPTH (ft): 5-5.5 ft 30.1 0.0
RATE (IN/MIN) 0.00604 0.00604
DIAMETER-TO-HEIGHT RATIO 2.486 2.425
RESIDUAL STRESS (ksf) 1.71 0.43
RESIDUAL STRAIN (%) 15.00 15.00
PEAK STRESS (ksf) 1.80 0.52
PEAK STRAIN (%) 4.97 1.66
HEIGHT (IN.) 0.972 0.996
NORMAL STRESS (ksf) 3.00 1.00
SATURATION (%) 100.00 100.00
DIAMETER (IN.) 2.415 2.415
DRY DENSITY (PCF) 126.09 119.63
VOID RATIO 0.343 0.416
FINAL PARAMETERS 3 ksf 1 ksf
MOISTURE (%) 12.65 15.32
DIAMETER-TO-HEIGHT RATIO 2.422 2.428
SPECIFIC GRAVITY (ASTM D854) 2.713 2.713
DIAMETER (IN.) 2.415 2.415
HEIGHT (IN.) 0.997 0.995
VOID RATIO 0.486 0.468
SATURATION (%) 37.07 33.86

CONSOLIDATED DRAINED DIRECT SHEAR
ASTM D3080

SPECIMEN
INITIAL PARAMETERS 3 ksf 1 ksf
MOISTURE (%) 6.64 5.84
DRY DENSITY (PCF) 113.97 115.34

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 2.5

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.05.56.06.57.07.5 SHEAR STRESS (ksf) NORMAL STRESS (ksf)
Peak(s) Peak Linear Regression Residual(s) Residual Linear Regression -0.024
-0.020
-0.016
-0.012
-0.008
-0.004

0.000

0.004

0.008

0.012
0% 4% 8% 12% 16%
VERTICAL DISPLACEMENT (in.)
HORIZONTAL DISPLACEMENT (%)
3 ksf 1 ksf

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 1.4

1.6 1.8

2.0 0% 4% 8% 12% 16%
SHEAR STRESS (ksf)
HORIZONTAL DISPLACEMENT (%)
I • •
/2 ~
~ ,
/2
~ ...... ,..-!!!
,,,,, ~
/ ,
r ~
I
I
,
r -
ENGEO
Expect Excellence

00 SPECIMENS 1 2 3
EXUDATION PRESSURE (psi) 376 295 116
EXPANSION PRESSURE (psf) 0
R-VALUE 20 15
REPORT DATE:

PROJECT NAME:

CLIENT: Baez Geotechnical Group, Inc.

DRY DENSITY (pcf)
0 126.6 126.7 125.9
16 TEST RESULT
R-VALUE AT EXUDATION PRESSURE OF 300 psi
EXPANSION PRESSURE (psf) AT EXUDATION PRESSURE OF 300 psi 14 MOISTURE CONTENT (%) 10.5 11.1 11.5

R-VALUE TEST REPORT
CTM 301
29025 Avenue Penn | Valencia, CA 91355 | T: (925) 866-9000 | F: (888) 279-2698 | www.engeo.com TESTED BY:

REVIEWED BY:
14368.000.208 PHLAB
G357.01 - Murphy Ranch
Escalon, CA
8/2/2023
K. Paul
J. Moriarty
PROJECT LOCATION:

PROJECT NO:

B4 @1-4'

SAMPLE ID
See Exploration Logs B4 @1-4'

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SAMPLE LOCATION

R-VALUE

EXPANSION
PRESSURE 0
5 10
15 20
25 30
35 40
45 50
55 60
65 70
75 80
85 90
95 100
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 65
70 75
80 85
90 95
100
900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0
EXPANSION PRESSURE (psf)

R-VALUE
EXUDATION PRESSURE (psi)
ENGEO
- Expect ExcellencePage 452 of 1226
B8 @1-4'

SAMPLE ID
See Exploration Logs B8 @1-4'

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SAMPLE LOCATION

R-VALUE TEST REPORT
CTM 301
29025 Avenue Penn | Valencia, CA 91355 | T: (925) 866-9000 | F: (888) 279-2698 | www.engeo.com TESTED BY:

REVIEWED BY:
14368.000.208 PHLAB
G357.01 - Murphy Ranch
Escalon, CA
8/1/2023
K. Paul
J. Moriarty
PROJECT LOCATION:

PROJECT NO:
33 MOISTURE CONTENT (%) 12.3 11.7 10.9
REPORT DATE:

PROJECT NAME:

CLIENT: Baez Geotechnical Group, Inc.

DRY DENSITY (pcf)
0 125.3 125.2 126.6
27 TEST RESULT
R-VALUE AT EXUDATION PRESSURE OF 300 psi
EXPANSION PRESSURE (psf) AT EXUDATION PRESSURE OF 300 psi 00 SPECIMENS 1 2 3
EXUDATION PRESSURE (psi) 150 263 423
EXPANSION PRESSURE (psf) 0
R-VALUE 17 25

R-VALUE

EXPANSION
PRESSURE 0
5 10
15 20
25 30
35 40
45 50
55 60
65 70
75 80
85 90
95 100
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 65
70 75
80 85
90 95
100
900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0
EXPANSION PRESSURE (psf)

R-VALUE
EXUDATION PRESSURE (psi)
ENGEO
- Expect ExcellencePage 453 of 1226

APPENDIX C
CERCO Analytical - Corrosivity Laboratory Test Results
g BAE;Z GE;OTE;CI-INICAL GROUP

2 August, 2023
Ms. Stefanie Pannan
Baez Geotechnical Group, Inc.

P.O. Box 296
Oakdale, CA 95361
Subject: Project No.: 0357.0 I
Job No. 2307057
Cust. No. 13042
Project Name: Murphy Ranch, Escalon, Modesto, CA
Corrosivity Analysis - ASTM Methods
Dear Ms. Parman:
1100 Willow Pass Court, S1.1ite A
Concord, CA 94520-1006
92S 462 2n1 Fax. 925 462 277S
www.cercoanalytical.com
Pursuant to your request, CERCO Analytical has analyzed the soil samp:es submitted on July 26, 2023.

Based on the analytical results, this brief corrosivity evaluation is enclosed for your consideration.

Based upon the resistivity measurement, tbis sample is classified as "mo:lerately corrosive". All buried iron, steel, cast iron, ductile iron, galvanized steel and dielectric coated steel or iron should be properly protected against corrosion depending upon the critical nature of the structure. All buried metallic pressure piping such as ductile iron firewater pipelines should be protected against corrosion.

The chloride ion concentration reflects none detected with a reporting limit of IS mg/kg.

The sulfate ion concentration .-eflects none cetected with a reporting limit o: IS mg/kg.

The sulfide ion concentrations reflect none detected with a reporting limit of SO mg/kg.

The pH of the soil is 8.40, which does not present corrosion problems for buried iron, steel, mortar-coated steel and reinforced concrete structures.

TI1e redox potential is 240-mV and is ind:cative of potentially "slightly corrosive" soils resulting from anaerobic soil conditions.

This corrosivity evaluation is based on gene.-al corrosion engineering standards and is non-specific in nature. For specific long-term corrosion control design recommendations or consultation, please call JDH Corrosion Co11sulta11ts, Inc. at (925) 927-6630.

We appreciate the opportunity of working with you on this project. If you have any questions, or if you require further information, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Very truly yours,
cj1o ~ICA~:c.

J. Darby Howard, Jr., P.E.

President
JOH/jdl
Enclosure