Fresno City Council
August 14, 2025

SECTION 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Quad Knopf, Inc. (QK) has completed an Air Quality Impact Analysis (AQIA) for the Blossom View Subdivision (Project). The Project is generally located on the north side of East McKinley Avenue, east of North Temperance Avenue. The project is located immediately east of the City of Fresno (City) corporate limits, in unincorporated Fresno County, and lies within the boundaries of the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI).

The project site is located on a vacant 24-acre parcel (APN 310-052-27) to be developed as part of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6502. The project includes the annexation of the project site and two adjacent parcels owned and maintained by the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD), APNs 310-052-26T and 310-052-22 (Annexation Only Area). No development is proposed on the parcels owned and maintained by FMFCD. The Project proposes to subdivide the 24-acre Project Site (APN 310-052-27) into 122 singlefamily lots, 28 of which are proposed to be within a gated HOA. The proposed residential subdivision includes a 1.32-acre trail and accompanying 11,000 square foot park.

The proposed Project’s construction and operations would include the following criteria pollutant emissions: reactive organic gases (ROG), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and suspended particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). Project operations would generate air pollutant emissions from mobile (vehicle activity from delivery trucks, consumers, and employees), energy sources (natural gas and electricity usage), and area sources (incidental activities related to architectural coating, consumer products, and landscape maintenance). Project construction and operational activities would also generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Criteria and GHG emissions were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2022.1.1.29 (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), 2024), which is the most current version of the model approved for use by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD).

Table 4-3 presents the Project’s construction emissions and provides substantial evidence to support a less-than-significant air quality impact on the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB).

Table 4-4 presents the Project’s operations emissions and provides substantial evidence to support a less-than-significant air quality impact on the SJVAB after mitigation.

SJVAPCD uses a single threshold for the determination of significance for both projectspecific and cumulative impacts. As such, a qualitative evaluation of the cumulative projects supports the finding that the Project’s contribution would not be cumulatively considerable because the proposed Project’s incremental emissions would be less than significant.

Introduction

Blossom View Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis February 2025

SECTION 2 - INTRODUCTION

2.1 - Purpose
This AQIA was prepared pursuant to the SJVAPCD Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI) (SJVAPCD, 2015) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statute and Guidelines (CEQA, 2024).

2.2 - General Project Description
The Project site is generally located on the north side of East McKinley Avenue, east of North Temperance Avenue. The project is located immediately east of the City of Fresno (City) corporate limits, in unincorporated Fresno County, and lies within the boundaries of the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI).

The project is located on a vacant 24-acre parcel (APN 310-052-27) to be developed as part of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6502. The project includes the annexation of the project site and two adjacent parcels owned and maintained by the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD), APNs 310-052-26T and 310-052-22 (Annexation Only Area). No development is proposed on the parcels owned and maintained by FMFCD. The Project proposes to subdivide the 24-acre Project Site (APN 310-052-27) into 122 single-family lots, 28 of which are proposed to be within a gated HOA. The proposed residential subdivision includes a 1.32-acre trail and accompanying 11,000 square foot park.

Figure 2-1 depicts the regional location and Figure 2-2 depicts an aerial view of the Project location.

Figure 2-3 depicts the Project site’s topography. The Project site is located at an elevation of approximately 350 feet above mean sea level and is surrounded by residential, industrial, and empty parcels.

Introduction

Blossom View Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis February 2025

Figure 2-1
Regional Location
Monument FertHal © (78)
Re;
_
P

HARNEY B
101
803
“Gmain,
Naticn
Sheldd
na140) -4PAH

LI FOR NIA
Clovis
s
Si ireka
JI △
131 esno
180 100
locino •anger
OChico
Forest
Carson City
Parlier SacramSto F
[ayab® 1
Miles 10
id
ord? Yot
ark dest
Fr o
11 O. TAL RA
O
X .

Sequoa
Nat pan3 a
L I
“Lake Meed Naticnal
reatcn Are a Hend Ol
[127)
I

O D E S E R T SAN J A V E
Bakersfield Fort Irwin
a M A
Lancaster
los Padres o
Victorville Nation a y Santa o Forest Palm dale Clarita 9 Sar 12
Aocales -
A im Stbei
O Long Be’
Murrieta
S O Oceanside t
San
A Project Location lexfcair
Tijuana
Miles 100
Ensenada
Q4
. Forest
-RN
Nell is Air
Force Base
J 9 Stocl
ivermore..
ervatic
Pocat
Black Rock R&x’canyah
RscueYecafls
OOGus
uma Proving
' Ground
at
laticn
Fores
Rogue River- '
SiSktycu NF
N.^
Modoc
Naticnal
Forest Wildlife
Refuge
Winema
Nation a
Fcrest
Kofa
Naicna
Wildlife
Retuge
Naws
Fore st
Joshua Tre
Natona
Pak
Eldcrado
Naticn d
Fcrest
Nevada
National
Security
Site
Barry M
Goldwater Air
Force Range
Naticn’a
Forest
Femont
National
Fcrest
Na end Frrest T.
0 Six Rivers
National
Fcrest
Death Valley
Naticn al
Pak
Pres Nat
Fori
Shasta
Natcha
Forest
Naon
Rana
Wildlife
Reuge
R eno -W
195
; Vaca HI
Jo ..
o 3
O
anta s
S
O Frement x
Visalia
VO
$933
Salinas
Q -
r
0 apa
—ledford C
San Luis
Obispo
O
-om poc
O
Stanisiaus
Naion a
Fore st
o
X
- \ al
y cu
xnard ) s M
d
susec
Klamath
Naticn a
Forest
r
o
Forest
Sequoia
Nationa
Forest
Fis ‘Na
Mojave
Nation a
Preserve
Sa Bernadino
Naticnal Fcrest
mNatunar”
Fcres6
Rosa
O
Barbarly Oxnard
edding
c A Sc ADE RANGE
Lake
Havasu
City
Grand G
Canyon-, Parash a"M
Seton
' oIndio
PalmDesert
. San Jgsewt
Introduction

Blossom View Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis February 2025

Figure 2-2
Project Location

EMCKINLEYIAVE
009se/
v
1,
1 1
■
V * A k ‘t
II ! u
4 |
t
( (
*
—
• I 'i N K 1
0 :L -——All G
Feet ; 7 ul I"
El
; 'Jr
r
poEe l ■
Mi 97
0 L
500
_I
1 s
If *
C “ 1 Annexation Area Only
City Limits
LU Project Site
J
""
M
3‘63 S3
A I 7. t
- u 121
LI W
- < -
I II
P"N REDDA’RD!' piemlGen) Gjad
Introduction

Blossom View Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis February 2025

Figure 2-3
Project Site Topography
-9
376 • • 369
. 280
Feet
J
13 d
I
I
I
*
zPereo.Burness MCKINLE
A ND ’
E f
I «
600
_I
st
1 t Project Site
1 I Annexation Area Only
7 ( I
1345.,
KA*
. TEMPERANCE DlTQH
I
I
I
1 I
I
I
L
Setting

Blossom View Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis May 2025

SECTION 3 - SETTING
Protection of public health is maintained through the attainment and maintenance of ambient air quality standards for various atmospheric compounds and the enforcement of emissions limits for individual stationary sources. The Federal Clean Air Act requires that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public. NAAQS have been established for ozone (O3), CO, NO2, SO2, PM10 and PM2.5, and lead (Pb). California has also adopted ambient air quality standards (CAAQS) for these "criteria" air pollutants. CAAQS are more stringent than the corresponding NAAQS and include standards for hydrogen sulfide (H2S), vinyl chloride (chloroethene), and visibility-reducing particles. The U.S. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 required each state to identify areas that were in non-attainment of the NAAQS and to develop State Implementation Plans (SIPs) containing strategies to bring these non-attainment areas into compliance. NAAQS and CAAQS designation/classification for Fresno County are presented in Section 3.1 below.

Responsibility for the regulation of air quality in California lies with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the 35 local air districts, with oversight responsibility held by the EPA. CARB is responsible for regulating mobile source emissions, establishing CAAQS, conducting research, managing regulation development, and providing oversight and coordination of the activities of the 35 air districts. The air districts are primarily responsible for regulating stationary source emissions and monitoring ambient pollutant concentrations. CARB also determines whether air basins, or portions thereof, are “unclassified,” in “attainment,” or in “non-attainment” for the NAAQS and CAAQS relying on statewide air quality monitoring data.

3.1 - Air Quality Standards
The Project area is located within Fresno County in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB or Basin). Fresno County is included among the eight counties that comprise the SJVAPCD.

The SJVAPCD acts as the regulatory agency for air pollution control in the Basin and is the local agency empowered to regulate air pollutant emissions for the Project area. Table 3-1 provides the NAAQS and CAAQS.

Setting

Blossom View Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis May 2025

Table 3-1
Federal and California Standards
Pollutant Averaging Time NAAQS CAAQS
Concentration
O3
8-hour 0.070 ppm (137 µg/m3)a 0.070 ppm (137 µg/m3)
1-hour 0.09 ppm (180 µg/m3)
CO
8-hour 9 ppm (10 µg/m3) 9 ppm (10 µg/m3)
1-hour 35 ppm (40 µg/m3) 20 ppm (23 µg/m3)
NO2
Annual Average 53 ppb (100 µg/m3) 0.030 ppm (57 µg/m3)
1-Hour 100 ppb (188.68 µg/m3) 0.18 ppm (339 µg/m3)
SO2
3-Hour 0.5 ppm (1,300 µg/m3)
24 Hour 0.14 ppm (365 µg/m3) 0.04 ppm (105 µg/m3)
1-Hour 75 ppb (196 µg/m3) 0.25 ppm (655 µg/m3)
Particulate Matter
(PM10)
Annual Arithmetic
Mean 20 µg/m3
24-Hour 150 µg/m3 50 µg/m3
Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
Annual Arithmetic
Mean 12 µg/m3 12 µg/m3
24-Hour 35 µg/m3
Sulfates 24-Hour 25 µg/m3
Pbd
Rolling Three-Month
Average 0.15 µg/m3
30 Day Average 1.5 µg/m3
H2S 1-Hour 0.03 ppm (42 µg/m3)
Vinyl Chloride
(chloroethene) 24-Hour 0.010 ppm (26 µg/m3)
Visibility Reducing
particles
8 Hour (1000 to 1800
PST)
b
ppm = parts per
million
ppb = parts per billion
mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic
meter
µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic
meter
Source: CARB 2024b
a. On October 1, 2015, the national 8-hour ozone primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075 to 0.070 ppm
b. In 1989, CARB converted both the general statewide 10-mile visibility standards and the Lake Tahoe 30-mile visibility standard to instrumental equivalents, which are “extinction of 0.23 per kilometer” and “extinction of 0.07 per kilometer” for the statewide and Lake Tahoe Air Basin standards, respectively.

Under the provisions of the U.S. Clean Air Act, the Fresno County portion of the SJVAB has been classified as non-attainment/extreme, non-attainment/severe, non-attainment, attainment/ unclassified, attainment, or unclassified under the established NAAQS and CAAQS for various criteria pollutants. Table 3-2 provides the SJVAB’s designation and classification based on the various criteria pollutants under both NAAQS and CAAQS.

Setting

Blossom View Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis May 2025

Table 3-2
SJVAB Attainment Status
Pollutant NAAQSa CAAQSb
Ozone – 1 Hour No Federal Standardf Non-attainment/Severe Ozone – 8 Hour8 Non-attainment/Extremee Non-attainment
PM10 Attainmentc Non-attainment
PM2.5 Non-attainmentd Non-attainment
Carbon Monoxide Attainment/Unclassified Attainment/Unclassified Nitrogen Dioxide Attainment/Unclassified Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide Attainment/Unclassified Attainment
Lead Particulates No Designation/Classification Attainment H2S No Federal Standard Unclassified
Sulfates No Federal Standard Attainment
Visibility Reducing Particulates No Federal Standard Unclassified Vinyl Chloride No Federal Standard Attainment
[Source: SJVAPCD 2025a
Notes:
a. See 40 CFR Part 81
b. See CCR Title 17 Sections 60200-60210
c. On September 25, 2008, EPA redesignated the San Joaquin Valley to attainment for the PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and approved the PM10 Maintenance Plan. d. The Valley is designated non-attainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA designated the Valley as non-attainment for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS on November 13, 2009 (effective December 14, 2009). e. Though the Valley was initially classified as serious non-attainment for the 1997 8-hour O3 standard, EPA approved Valley reclassification to extreme non-attainment in the Federal Register on May 5, 2010 (effective June 4, 2010). f. Effective June 15, 2005, the EPA revoked the federal 1-hour O3 standard, including associated designations and classifications. EPA had previously classified the SJVAB as extreme non-attainment for this standard. EPA approved the 2004 Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan on March 8, 2010 (effective April 7, 2010). Many applicable requirements for extreme 1-hour O3 non-attainment areas continue to apply to the SJVAB.

The SJVACPD, along with CARB, operates an air quality monitoring network that provides average concentrations of those pollutants for which State or federal agencies have established ambient air quality standards. Information from the various monitoring stations is available from the corresponding agency’s websites. A map of the monitoring stations in the SJVAB is provided in Figure 3-1 below.

Setting

Blossom View Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis May 2025

Figure 3-1
CARB Monitoring Network
11 23
22 201 19
21 24
27 36
37 As of July 2021
San Joaquin Valley

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT
Air Monitoring Sites in Operation
33 35
8 9

MONITORING DESIGNATIONS
F Fine Particulate (PM2 5) P Particulate (PM1O)

MERCED COUNTY
♦ 6 Merced M St: P F
• 7 Merced-Coffee: G,F, M

MADERA COUNTY
♦ 8 Madera City: G,RE M
♦ 9 Madera-Pump Yard: G. M
G Gaseous
M Meteorological
N National Core
T Toxins

KINGS COUNTY
♦ 20 Hanford: G. F, M, P
♦ 21 Corcoran: F,M. P
Other'
Tachi Yokut Tribe
STANISLAUS COUNTY A 22 Santa Rosa Rancheria: G M, P
■ 4 Modesto- 14th St GM.P.F
*S Turlock G,M.P F TULARE COUNTY
■ 23 Visalia-Church St G F. M. P
♦ 24 Porterville: G, F M
Other:

A 25 Lower Kaweah: A, G M
A 26 Ash Mountain: A, G, M. F

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY
■ 1 Stockton- Hazelton G, M. P. F, T
♦ 2 Tracy-Airport:G,M.P,F
♦ 3 Manteca: P. F, M

FRESNO COUNTY
Other’:

Monache Tribe/Foothll Yokut Indians
A 10 Table Mountain AMS': GF.P.M
♦ 11 Tranquillity: G.F M
♦ 12 Fresno-Sky Part G M
♦ 13 Clovis: G,M,P, F
■ 14 Fresno-Garland:G,M,P,F,T,N
♦ 15 F resno-Pacific F
♦ 16 F resno-Drummond: G R M
♦ 17 Fresno-Foundry. G M, F
* 18 Parlier: G, M
♦ 19 Huron: F.M

KERN COUNTY
• 27 Shafter G.M
■ 28 Oildale: G,M,P
♦ 29 Bakersfield-Golder/MStFP
♦ 30 Bakersfield-Westwind: G M
■ 31 Bakersfield-California G M. P. F.T
♦ 32 Bakersfield-Muni: G M
■ 33 Bakersfield-Airport (Planz): F
■ 34 Edison:GM
■ 35 Arvin-Di-Giorgio: G, M
♦ 36 Maricopa: G. M
♦ 37 Lebec F.M
6 7
1 2 3
25 26
4 5
IO
13 12 14
171615
ir

MONITORING OPERATION
♦ Sites operated by the District
• Sites operated by the District & CARB
■ Sites operated by CARB
A Sites operated by other agencies
Other' Tnbal
Other National Park Service
* Air Monitoring Station (AMS)
,
rt28 395334
Setting

Blossom View Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis May 2025

3.2 - Existing Air Quality
For the purposes of background data and this air quality assessment, this analysis relied on data collected in the last three years for the CARB monitoring stations that are located in closest proximity to the Project site. Table 3-3 provides the background concentrations for O3, particulate matter of 10 microns (PM10), particulate matter of less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5), CO, NO2, Pb and H2S as of 2023. Information is provided for the Fresno—Drummond Street, Fresno—Garland, and Fresno—N Villa Ave monitoring stations for 2021 through 2023. No data is available for SO2, Vinyl Chloride, or other toxic air contaminants in the SJVAB.

Table 3-3
Existing Air Quality Monitoring Data in Project Area
Maximum Concentration Days Exceeding Standard
Pollutant and
Monitoring Station Location 2021 2022 2023 2021 2022 2023 O3 – 1-hour CAAQS (0.09 ppm)
Fresno – Drummond Street 0.125 0.111 0.102 9 3 3
Fresno – Garland 0.112 0.096 0.101 6 2 3
Clovis – N Villa Avenue 0.123 0.109 0.102 9 3 3
O3 – 8-hour CAAQS (0.07 ppm)
Fresno – Drummond Street 0.100 0.089 0.088 41 8 24
Fresno – Garland 0.093 0.083 0.084 22 10 17
Clovis – N Villa Avenue 0.100 0.084 0.084 37 26 23
O3 – 8-hour NAAQS (0.070 ppm)
Fresno – Drummond Street 0.099 0.089 0.088 39 8 20
Fresno – Garland 0.093 0.083 0.084 18 10 15
Clovis – N Villa Avenue 0.100 0.084 0.083 34 23 21
PM10 – 24-hour CAAQS (50 µg/m3)
Fresno – Drummond Street 149.8 166.5 130.0 20 133 120
Fresno – Garland 283.3 109.2 107.8 91 73 54
Clovis – N Villa Avenue 208.8 120.0 103.1 111 73 44
PM10 – 24-hour NAAQS (150 µg/m3)
Fresno – Drummond Street 151.8 73.4 131.1 0 0 0
Fresno – Garland 281.0 116.1 109.3 1 0 0
Clovis – N Villa Avenue 125.0 127.0 104.7 0 0 0
PM2.5 - 24-hour NAAQS (35 µg/m3)
Fresno – Garland 99.9 53.3 39.1 30 13 4
Clovis – N Villa Avenue 104.6 41.9 34.7 22 4 0
CO - 8-Hour CAAQS & NAAQS (9.0 ppm)
No data collected * * * * * *
NO2 - 1-Hour CAAQS (0.18 ppm)
Fresno – Drummond Street 0.064 0.058 0.058 0 0 0
Fresno – Garland 0.056 0.054 0.047 0 0 0
Clovis – N Villa Avenue 0.059 0.051 0.047 0 0 0
NO2 - 1-Hour NAAQS (0.10 ppm)
Fresno – Drummond Street 0.0645 0.0583 0.0581 0 0 0
Fresno – Garland 0.0563 0.0547 0.0479 0 0 0
Clovis – N Villa Avenue 0.0494 0.0518 0.0479 0 0 0
SO2 – 24-hour Concentration - CAAQS (0.04 ppm) & NAAQS (0.14 ppm) No data collected * * * * * *
Setting

Blossom View Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis May 2025

Pb - Maximum 30-Day Concentration CAAQS (1500 ng/m3)
Fresno – Garland 6.8 42 6.5 * * *
Source: CARB 2024
Notes: ppm= parts per million
* There was insufficient (or no) data available to determine the value.

The following describes criteria air pollutants, typical sources, health effects, and recently documented pollutant levels in the Project vicinity.

3.2.1 - OZONE (O3)
The SJVAB has high concentrations of O3, and these high levels are known to cause eye irritation and impair respiratory functions. High levels of O3 can also affect plants and materials. Grapes, lettuce, spinach, and many types of garden flowers and shrubs are particularly vulnerable to O3 damage. O3 is not directly emitted into the atmosphere; it is a secondary pollutant produced from a photochemical interaction between hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides (NOx). One to three hours of strong sunlight in a stable atmosphere creates O3. The “O3 season,” therefore, typically spans from April through October. O3 is a regional pollutant; wind transports and diffuses the precursors while activating the photochemical reaction process. The data presented in Table 3-3 shows that the Project area monitoring stations exceeded the 1-hour average ambient O3 CAAQS and the 8-hour average ambient O3 NAAQS and CAAQS between 2021 through 2023.

3.2.2 - SUSPENDED PARTICULATE MATTER (PM10 AND PM2.5)
Both NAAQS and CAAQS now apply to particulates under 10 microns (PM10). Since the smaller diameter fraction of total suspended particulates is documented to represent the greatest health hazard, EPA has established NAAQS for particulates under 2.5 microns (PM2.5). The Project area is classified as attainment for PM10 and non-attainment for PM2.5 for NAAQS.

Dust and fumes from industrial and agricultural operations generate particulate matter.

Natural activities, such as wind-raised dust, fires, and ocean spray, also increase the level of particulates in the atmosphere. The largest source of PM10 and PM2.5 in Fresno County is vehicle movement over paved and unpaved roads from demolition and construction activities and farming operations. PM10 and PM2.5 are considered regional pollutants, with elevated levels typically occurring over a wide geographic area. Concentrations tend to be highest in the winter, during periods of high atmospheric stability and low wind speed. Very small particulates may contain absorbed gases that produce injury to the respiratory tract.

Particulates of aerosol size suspended in the air can both scatter and absorb sunlight, producing haze and reducing visibility. They can also damage a wide range of materials.

Table 3-3 shows that PM10 levels exceeded the CAAQS, and both PM10 and PM2.5 exceeded the NAAQS in 2021 and 2023, respectively. Similar levels can be expected to occur in the vicinity of the Project site.

Setting

Blossom View Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis May 2025

3.2.3 - CARBON MONOXIDE (CO)
Ambient CO concentrations normally correspond closely to the spatial and temporal distributions of vehicular traffic. Relatively high concentrations of CO would be expected along heavily traveled roads and near busy intersections. Wind speed and atmospheric mixing also influence CO concentrations.

Internal combustion engines, principally in vehicles, produce CO due to incomplete fuel combustion. Various industrial processes also produce CO emissions through incomplete combustion. Gasoline-powered motor vehicles are typically the major source of this contaminant. CO does not irritate the respiratory tract but passes through the lungs directly into the bloodstream, and by interfering with the transfer of fresh oxygen to the blood, deprives sensitive tissues of oxygen, thereby aggravating cardiovascular disease, causing fatigue, headaches, and dizziness. CO is not known to have adverse effects on vegetation, visibility, or materials. Table 3-3 reports insufficient data for the CO monitoring at any monitoring stations during the three-year period from 2021 through 2023.

3.2.4 - NITROGEN DIOXIDE (NO2) AND HYDROCARBONS
Fresno County has been designated as an unclassified area for the NAAQS for NO2. NO2 is the "whiskey brown" colored gas readily visible during periods of heavy air pollution. Mobile sources account for nearly all the County's NOx emissions, most of which are emitted as NO2.

Combustion in motor vehicle engines, power plants, refineries, and other industrial operations are the primary sources in the air basin. Railroads and aircraft are other potentially significant sources of combustion air contaminants. Oxides of nitrogen are direct participants in photochemical smog reactions. The emitted compound, nitric oxide, combines with oxygen in the atmosphere in the presence of hydrocarbons and sunlight to form NO2 and O3. NO2, the most significant of these pollutants, can color the atmosphere at concentrations as low as 0.5 ppm on days of 10-mile visibility. NOx is an important air pollutant in the region because it is a primary receptor of ultraviolet light, which initiates the reactions producing photochemical smog. It also reacts in the air to form nitrate particulates.

Motor vehicles are the major source of reactive hydrocarbons in the basin. Other sources include evaporation of organic solvents and petroleum production and refining operations.

Certain hydrocarbons can damage plants by inhibiting growth and by causing flowers and leaves to fall. Levels of hydrocarbons currently measured in urban areas are not known to cause adverse effects in humans. However, certain members of this contaminant group are important components in the reactions which produce photochemical oxidants. Table 3-3 shows that the NO2 NAAQS and CAAQS were not exceeded over the three-year period of 2021 through 2023. Hydrocarbons are not currently monitored.

3.2.5 - SULFUR DIOXIDE
Fresno County has been designated as an unclassified area for the NAAQS for SO2. SO2 is the primary combustion product of sulfur or sulfur-containing fuels. Fuel combustion is the major source of this pollutant, while chemical plants, sulfur recovery plants, and metal Setting

Blossom View Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis May 2025

processing facilities are minor contributors. Gaseous fuels (natural gas, propane, etc.) typically have lower percentages of sulfur-containing compounds than liquid fuels such as diesel or crude oil. SO2 levels are generally higher in the winter months. Decreasing levels of SO2 in the atmosphere reflect the use of natural gas in power plants and boilers.

At high concentrations, SO2 irritates the upper respiratory tract. At lower concentrations, when respirated in combination with particulates, SO2 can result in greater harm by injuring lung tissues. Sulfur oxides (SOx), in combination with moisture and oxygen, result in the formation of sulfuric acid, which can yellow the leaves of plants, dissolve marble, and oxidize iron and steel. SOx can also react to produce sulfates that reduce visibility and sunlight. Table 3-3 shows no data has been reported over the three-year period.

3.2.6 - LEAD (PB) AND SUSPENDED SULFATE
Ambient Pb levels have dropped dramatically due to the increase in the percentage of motor vehicles that run exclusively on unleaded fuel. Ambient Pb levels in Fresno (the closest monitoring station to the Project) are well below the ambient standard and are expected to continue to decline; the data reported in Table 3-3 only shows the highest concentration as the number of days exceeding standards is not reported. Suspended sulfate levels have stabilized to the point where no excesses of the State standard are expected in any given year.

3.3 - Climate
The most significant single control on the weather pattern of the San Joaquin Valley is the semi-permanent subtropical high-pressure cell, referred to as the "Pacific High." During the summer, the Pacific High is positioned off the coast of northern California, diverting oceanderived storms to the north. Hence, the summer months are virtually rainless. During the winter, the Pacific High moves southward, allowing storms to pass through the San Joaquin Valley. Almost all the precipitation expected during a given year occurs from December through April. During the summer, the predominant surface winds are out of the northwest.

Air enters the Valley through the Carquinez Strait and flows toward the Tehachapi Mountains. This up-valley (northwesterly) wind flow is interrupted in early fall by the emergence of nocturnal, down-valley (southeasterly) winds, which become progressively more predominant as winter approaches. Wind speeds are generally highest during the spring and lightest in fall and winter. The relatively cool air flowing through the Carquinez Strait is warmed on its journey south through the Valley. On reaching the southern end of the Valley, the average high temperature during the summer is nearly 100 degrees Fahrenheit (°F). Relative humidity during the summer is quite low, causing large diurnal temperature variations. Temperatures during the summer often drop into the upper 60s. In winter, the average high temperatures reach into the mid-50s, and the average low drops to the mid-30s. In addition, another high-pressure cell, known as the "Great Basin High," develops east of the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range during winter. When this cell is weak, a layer of cool, damp air becomes trapped in the basin, and extensive fog results. During inversions, vertical dispersion is restricted, and pollutant emissions are trapped beneath the inversion and pushed against the mountains, adversely affecting regional air quality.

Setting

Blossom View Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis May 2025

Surface-based inversions, while shallow and typically short-lived, are present most mornings. Elevated inversions, while less frequent than ground-based inversions, are typically longer lasting and create more severe air stagnation problems. The winter season characteristically has the poorest conditions for vertical mixing of the entire year.

Meteorological data for various monitoring stations is maintained by the Western Regional Climate Center. Meteorological data for the Project site is expected to be similar to the data recorded at the Fresno monitoring station. This data is provided in Table 3-4, which contains average precipitation data recorded at the Fresno monitoring station from January 1948 through June 2016 (the most recent data available at the time this report was prepared).

Table 3-4
Fresno, California Weather Data
Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary for the Period 01/01/1948 to 6/09/2016 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
Average Max.

Temperature (F) 54.6 61.5 67.0 74.4 83.5 91.7 98.3 96.4 90.8 79.7 65.3 54.7 76.5 Average Min.

Temperature (F) 37.6 40.7 43.8 48.0 54.3 60.5 65.7 64.0 59.7 51.2 42.4 37.3 50.4 Average Total
Precipitation (in.) 2.09 1.90 1.89 1.03 0.36 0.16 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.53 1.13 1.64 10.89 Average Total
Snowfall (in.) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Average Snow
Depth (in.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Percent of possible observations for the period of record:

Max. Temp.: 100% Min. Temp.: 100% Precipitation: 100% Snowfall: 91.2% Snow Depth: 91.3% Source: Western Regional Climate Center, 2024.

3.4 - Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases

3.4.1 - GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
“Global climate change” refers to changes in average meteorological conditions on the earth with respect to temperature, precipitation, and storms, lasting for decades or longer. The term “global climate change” is often used interchangeably with the term “global warming,” but “global climate change” is preferred by some scientists and policymakers to “global warming” because it helps convey the notion that in addition to rising temperatures, other changes in global climate may occur. Climate change may result from the following influences:
• Natural factors, such as changes in the sun’s intensity or slow changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun.
• Natural processes within the climate system (e.g., changes in ocean circulation). • Human activities that change the atmosphere’s composition (e.g., through burning fossil fuels) and the land surface (e.g., deforestation, reforestation, urbanization, and desertification).

Setting

Blossom View Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis May 2025

As determined from worldwide meteorological measurements between 1990 and 2005, the primary observed effect of global climate change has been a rise in the average global tropospheric temperature of 0.36 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) per decade. Climate change modeling shows that further warming could occur, which could induce additional changes in the global climate system during the current century. Changes to the global climate system, ecosystems, and the environment of California could include higher sea levels, drier or wetter weather, changes in ocean salinity, changes in wind patterns, or more energetic aspects of extreme weather (e.g., droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves, extreme cold, and increased intensity of tropical cyclones). Specific effects from climate change in California may include a decline in the Sierra Nevada snowpack, erosion of California’s coastline, and seawater intrusion in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.

Human activities, including fossil fuel combustion and land use changes, release carbon dioxide (CO2) and other compounds cumulatively termed greenhouse gases. GHGs are effective at trapping radiation that would otherwise escape the atmosphere. This trapped radiation warms the atmosphere, the oceans, and the earth’s surface (USGCRP, 2014). Many scientists believe most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities” (IPCC, 2014). The increased amount of CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere is the alleged primary result of human-induced warming.

GHGs are present in the atmosphere naturally, released by natural sources, or formed from secondary reactions taking place in the atmosphere. They include CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and O3. In the last 200 years, substantial quantities of GHGs have been released into the atmosphere, primarily from fossil fuel combustion. These human-induced emissions are increasing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere, therefore enhancing the natural greenhouse effect. The GHGs resulting from human activity are believed to be causing global climate change. While human-made GHGs include CO2, CH4, and N2O, some (like chlorofluorocarbons [CFCs]) are completely new to the atmosphere. GHGs vary considerably in terms of Global Warming Potential (GWP), the comparative ability of each GHG to trap heat in the atmosphere. The GWP is based on several factors, including the relative effectiveness of a gas to absorb infrared radiation and the length of time that the gas remains in the atmosphere (“atmospheric lifetime”). The GWP of each gas is measured relative to CO2, the most abundant GHG. The definition of GWP for a particular GHG is the ratio of heat trapped by one unit mass of the GHG to the ratio of heat trapped by one unit mass of CO2 over a specified time period. GHG emissions are typically measured in terms of pounds or tons of “CO2 equivalents” (CO2e).

Natural sources of CO2 include the respiration (breathing) of animals and plants and evaporation from the oceans. Together, these natural sources release approximately 150 billion metric tons of CO2 each year, far outweighing the seven billion metric tons of GHG emissions from fossil fuel burning, waste incineration, deforestation, cement manufacturing, and other human activity. Nevertheless, natural GHG removal processes such as photosynthesis cannot keep pace with the additional output of CO2 from human activities.

Consequently, GHGs are building up in the atmosphere (Enviropedia, 2019).

Setting

Blossom View Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis May 2025

Methane is produced when organic matter decomposes in environments lacking sufficient oxygen. Natural sources of CH4 production include wetlands, termites, and oceans. Human activity accounts for the majority of the approximately 500 million metric tons of CH4 emitted annually. These anthropogenic sources include the mining and burning of fossil fuels, digestive processes in ruminant livestock such as cattle, rice cultivation, and the decomposition of waste in landfills. The major removal process for atmospheric CH4, the chemical breakdown in the atmosphere, cannot keep pace with source emissions; therefore, CH4 concentrations in the atmosphere are rising.

Worldwide emissions of GHGs in 2008 were 30.1 billion metric tons of CO2e and have increased considerably since that time (United Nations, 2011). Emissions from the top five emitting countries (China, the United States, India, the Russian Federation, and Japan) and the European Union accounted for approximately 70 percent of total global GHG emissions in 2014. The United States was the number two producer of GHG emissions, behind China.

The primary GHG emitted by human activities was CO2, representing approximately 80 percent of total GHG emissions (U.S. EPA, 2024).

In 2022, the United States emitted approximately 6,343.2 million metric tons of CO2e.

Between 1990 and 2022, CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion decreased by 1.1 percent; emissions decreased by 18.2 percent (1,044.7 MMT CO2e) from 2005 levels; and from 2021 to 2022, these emissions increased by 1.0 percent (45.1 MMT CO2e). (U.S. EPA, 2024).

Worldwide, energy-related CO2 emissions are expected to increase through 2050.

Projections indicate that resources, demand, and technology costs will drive the shift from fossil to non-fossil energy sources, but current policies are not enough to decrease global energy-sector emissions. This outcome is largely due to population growth, regional economic shifts toward more manufacturing, and increased energy consumption as living standards improve. Globally, we project increases in energy consumption to outpace efficiency improvements. China remains the primary source of energy-related CO2 emissions through 2050 across all cases, although its share of total global CO2 emissions declines.

Further, across all cases we project India to displace the United States and our Other AsiaPacific modeling region to displace Western Europe as the second- and third-highest emitters of energy-related CO2 emissions by 2050, respectively. (U.S. EIA, 2023).

CARB is responsible for developing and maintaining the California GHG emissions inventory.

This inventory estimates the amount of GHGs emitted into and removed from the atmosphere by human activities within California and supports the Assembly Bill (AB) 32 Climate Change Program. CARB’s current GHG emission inventory covers the years 2000 through 2017 and is based on fuel use, equipment activity, industrial processes, and other relevant data (e.g., housing, landfill activity, and agricultural lands).

In 2022, emissions from statewide emitting activities were 371.1 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MMT CO2e), which is 9.3 MMT CO2e lower than 2021 levels. 2022 emissions have decreased by 24 percent since peak levels in 2004 and are 59.9 MMT CO2e below the 1990 emissions level and the State’s 2020 GHG limit (CARB 2024a).

Setting

Blossom View Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis May 2025

CARB estimates that transportation was the source of approximately 39 percent of California’s GHG emissions in 2022, followed by industrial sources at 23 percent. Other sources of GHG emissions were electricity sources at 16 percent, residential plus commercial activities at 14 percent, and agriculture at 8 percent (CARB, 2024a).

3.4.2 - EFFECTS OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
Changes in the global climate are assessed using historical records of temperature changes that have occurred in the past. Climate change scientists use this temperature data to extrapolate a level of statistical significance, specifically focusing on temperature records from the last 150 years (the Industrial Age) that differ from past climate changes in rate and magnitude.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) constructed several emission trajectories of GHGs needed to stabilize global temperatures and climate change impacts. In its Fifth Assessment Report, the IPCC predicted that the global mean temperature change from 1990 to 2100, could range from 1.1 degree Celsius (°C) to 6.4°C (8 to 10.4°Fahrenheit) (IPCC, 2013). Global average temperatures and sea levels are expected to rise under all scenarios (IPCC, 2014). The IPCC concluded that global climate change was largely the result of human activity, mainly the burning of fossil fuels. However, the scientific literature is not consistent regarding many aspects of climate change, the actual temperature changes during the 20th century, and contributions from human versus non-human activities.

Effects from global climate change may arise from temperature increases, climate-sensitive diseases, extreme weather events, and degradation of air quality. There may be direct temperature effects through increases in average temperature leading to more extreme heat waves and less extreme cold spells. Those living in warmer climates are likely to experience more stress and heat-related problems. Heat-related problems include heat rash and heat stroke, drought, etc. In addition, climate-sensitive diseases may increase, such as those spread by mosquitoes and other disease-carrying insects. Such diseases include malaria, dengue fever, yellow fever, and encephalitis. Extreme events such as flooding and hurricanes can displace people and agriculture. Global warming may also contribute to air quality problems from increased frequency of smog and particulate air pollution.

According to the 2006 California Climate Action Team (CAT) Report, several climate change effects can be expected in California over the course of the next century (CalEPA, 2006).

These are based on trends established by the IPCC and are summarized below. • A diminishing Sierra snowpack declining by 70 percent to 90 percent, threatening the State’s water supply.
• A rise in sea levels, resulting in the displacement of coastal businesses and residences.

During the past century, sea levels along California’s coast have risen about seven inches. If emissions continue unabated and temperatures rise into the higher anticipated warming range, sea level is expected to rise an additional 22 to 35 inches by the end of the century. Sea level rises of this magnitude would inundate coastal areas with salt water, accelerate coastal erosion, threaten vital levees and inland Setting

Blossom View Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis May 2025

water systems, and disrupt wetlands and natural habitats. (Note: This condition would not affect the proposed Project area, as it is a significant distance away from coastal areas.)
• An increase in temperature and extreme weather events. Climate change is expected to lead to increases in the frequency, intensity, and duration of extreme heat events and heat waves in California. More heat waves can exacerbate chronic disease or heatrelated illness. • Increased risk of large wildfires if rain increases as temperatures rise. Wildfires in the grasslands and chaparral ecosystems of southern California are estimated to increase by approximately 30 percent toward the end of the 21st century because more winter rain will stimulate the growth of more plant fuel available to burn in the fall. In contrast, a hotter, drier climate could promote up to 90 percent more northern California fires by the end of the century by drying out and increasing the flammability of forest vegetation.
• Increasing temperatures from 8 to 10.4°F under the higher emission scenarios, leading to a 25 percent to 35 percent increase in the number of days that ozone pollution levels are exceeded in most urban areas (see below). • Increased vulnerability of forests due to forest fires, pest infestation, and increased temperatures.
• Reductions in the quality and quantity of certain agricultural products. The crops and products likely to be adversely affected include wine grapes, fruit, nuts, and milk. • Exacerbation of air quality problems. If temperatures rise to the medium warming range, there could be 75 to 85 percent more days with weather conducive to ozone formation in Los Angeles and the San Joaquin Valley, relative to today’s conditions.

This is more than twice the increase expected if rising temperatures remain in the lower warming range. This increase in air quality problems could result in an increase in asthma and other health-related problems.
• A decrease in the health and productivity of California’s forests. Climate change can cause an increase in wildfires, an enhanced insect population, and the establishment of non-native species.
• Increased electricity demand, particularly in the hot summer months. • Increased ground-level ozone formation due to higher reaction rates of ozone precursors.

3.4.3 - GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE REGULATORY ISSUES
In 1988, the United Nations established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to evaluate the impacts of global warming and to develop strategies that nations could implement to curtail global climate change. In 1992, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change established an agreement with the goal of controlling GHG emissions, including methane. As a result, the Climate Change Action Plan was developed to address the reduction of GHGs in the United States. The plan consists of more than 50 voluntary programs. Additionally, the Montreal Protocol was originally signed in 1987 and substantially amended in 1990 and 1992. Pursuant to the Montreal Protocol, the production and consumption of compounds that deplete O3 in the stratosphere (chlorofluorocarbons Setting

Blossom View Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis May 2025

[CFCs], halons, carbon tetrachloride, and methyl chloroform) were phased out by 2000 (methyl chloroform was phased out by 2005).

On September 27, 2006, Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (the Act), was enacted by the State of California. The legislature stated, “Global warming poses a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California.” The Act caps California’s GHG emissions at 1990 levels by 2020. The Act defines GHG emissions as all of the following gases: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. This agreement represents the first enforceable statewide program in the U.S. to cap all GHG emissions from major industries that include penalties for non-compliance. While acknowledging that national and international actions will be necessary to fully address the issue of global warming, AB 32 lays out a program to inventory and reduce GHG emissions in California and from power generation facilities located outside the State that serve California residents and businesses. According to CARB, California has met its 2020 GHG emission reduction target (CARB, 2021).

Subsequent legislation by the California legislature has included Senate Bill (SB) 32, which expanded on AB 32 to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below the 1990 levels by 2030; AB 197, which increased the legislative oversight of the CARB by adding two legislatively appointed non-voting members to the CARB Board and provided additional protection to disadvantaged communities; SB 350, which increased California’s renewable energy electricity procurement goal; and SB 100, which established a landmark policy requiring renewable energy and zero-carbon resources to supply 100 percent of electrical retail sales to end-use customers and 100 percent of electricity procured to serve State agencies by 2045.

Global warming and climate change have received substantial public attention for more than 20 years. For example, the United States Global Change Research Program was established by the Global Change Research Act of 1990 to enhance the understanding of natural and human-induced changes in the Earth’s global environmental system, to monitor, understand, and predict global change, and to provide a sound scientific basis for national and international decision-making. Even so, the analytical tools have not been developed to determine the effect on global warming from a particular increase in GHG emissions, or the resulting effects on climate change in a particular locale. The scientific tools needed to evaluate the impacts that a specific project may have on the environment are even further in the future.

The California Supreme Court’s most recent CEQA decision on the Newhall Ranch development case, Center for Biological v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (November 30, 2015, Case No. 217763), determined that the project’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR) did not substantiate the conclusion that the GHG cumulative impacts would be less than significant. The EIR determined that the Newhall Ranch development project would reduce GHG emissions by 31 percent from business as usual (BAU). This reduction was compared to California’s target of reducing GHG emissions statewide by 29 percent from business as usual. The Court determined that “the EIR’s deficiency stems from taking a Setting

Blossom View Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis May 2025

quantitative comparison method developed by the Scoping Plan as a measure of the greenhouse gas reduction effort required by the State as a whole, and attempting to use that method, without adjustments, for a purpose very different from its original design.” In the Court’s final ruling, it offered suggestions that were deemed appropriate use of the BAU methodology:

1. Lead agencies can use the comparison to BAU methodology if they determine what reduction a particular project must achieve in order to comply with statewide goals.

2. Project design features that comply with regulations to reduce emissions may demonstrate that those components of emissions are less than significant.

3. Lead agencies could also demonstrate compliance with locally adopted climate plans or apply specific numerical thresholds developed by some local agencies.

In the even that a local air district’s guidance for addressing GHG impacts does not use numerical GHG emissions thresholds, at the lead agency’s discretion, a neighboring air district’s GHG threshold may be used to determine impacts. On April 20, 2022, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) adopted new Project Level Climate Impact Thresholds of Significance which rely upon necessary design elements to achieve California’s long-term climate goal of carbon neutrality by 2045. Chapter 3 of BAAQMD’s 2022 CEQA Guidelines indicates that a land use project will have less than significant impact related to operational GHG emissions if it includes the following project design elements:
• Buildings
o The project will not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing. o The project will not result in any wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy use as determined by the analysis under CEQA Section 21100(b)(3) and Section 15126.2 (b) of the State CEQA Guidelines.

Setting

Blossom View Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis May 2025

• Transportation
o The project will achieve a reduction in project-generated vehicle miles traveled (VMT) below the regional average consistent with the current version of the California Climate Change Scoping Plan or meet a locally adopted Senate Bill 743 VMT target that reflects the recommendation provided in the Governor’s Office Planning and Research’s Technical Advisory on Evaluation Transportation Impacts in CEQA.
o The project will achieve compliance with off-street electric vehicle requirements in the most recently adopted version of CALGreen Tier 2.

The City has recommended use of the BAAQMD’s GHG significance threshold for determining GHG impacts from residential projects. The VMT threshold target in the City is 13% of the average County VMT per capita that results in less than 14.01 VMT.

Impact Assessment

Blossom View Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis May 2025

SECTION 4 - IMPACT ASSESSMENT

4.1 - Significance Criteria
To determine whether a proposed Project could create a potential CEQA impact, local, State, and federal agencies have developed various means by which a project’s impacts may be measured and evaluated. Such means can generally be categorized as follows:
• Thresholds of significance adopted by air quality agencies to guide lead agencies in their evaluation of air quality impacts under the CEQA. • Regulations established by air districts, CARB, and EPA for the evaluation of stationary sources when applying for Authorities to Construct, Permits to Operate, and other permit program requirements (e.g., New Source Review). • Thresholds utilized to determine if a project would cause or contribute significantly to violations of the ambient air quality standards or other concentration-based limits. • Regulations applied in areas where severe air quality problems exist.

Below are summary tables of these emission-based and concentration-based thresholds of significance for each pollutant, along with a discussion of their applicability.

4.1.1 - THRESHOLDS ADOPTED FOR THE EVALUATION OF AIR QUALITY IMPACTS UNDER CEQA In order to maintain consistency with CEQA, the SJVAPCD (2015) adopted guidelines to assist applicants in complying with the various requirements. According to the SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI, a project would have potentially significant air quality impacts when the project:
• Creates a conflict with or obstructs implementation of the applicable air quality plan. • Causes a violation of any air quality standard or generates substantial contribution towards exceeding an existing or projected air quality standard. • Results in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is designated non-attainment under a NAAQS and CAAQS (including emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for O3 precursors). • Exposes sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. • Creates objectionable odors that affect a substantial number of people.

The SJVAPCD GAMAQI thresholds are designed to implement the general criteria for air quality emissions as required in the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, Paragraph III (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations §15064.7) and CEQA (California Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et al.). SJVAPCD’s specific CEQA air quality thresholds are presented in Table 4-1.

Impact Assessment

Blossom View Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis May 2025

Table 4-1
SJVAPCD CEQA Thresholds of Significance
Criteria
Pollutant
Operational Emissions
Construction
Emissions
Permitted Equipment
and Activities
Non-Permitted
Equipment and Activities
NOx 10 tons/yr 10 tons/yr 10 tons/yr
ROG 10 tons/yr 10 tons/yr 10 tons/yr
SOx 27 tons/yr 27 tons/yr 27 tons/yr
PM10 15 tons/yr 15 tons/yr 15 tons/yr
PM2.5 15 tons/yr 15 tons/yr 15 tons/yr
CO 100 tons/yr 100 tons/yr 100 tons/yr
Source: SJVAPCD, 2015.

4.1.2 - THRESHOLD FOR AMBIENT AIR QUALITY IMPACTS
CEQA Guidelines – Appendix G (Environmental Checklist) states that a project that would “violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation” would be considered to create significant impacts on air quality. Therefore, an AQIA should determine whether the emissions from a project would cause or contribute significantly to violations of the NAAQS or CAAQS (presented above in Table 3-1) when added to existing ambient concentrations.

The EPA has established the federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program to determine what comprises “significant impact levels” (SIL) to NAAQS attainment areas. A project’s impacts are considered less than significant if emissions are below PSD SIL for a particular pollutant. When a SIL is exceeded, an additional “increment analysis” is required.

As the Project would not include modification to the stationary source under New Source Review (NSR), it would not be subject to either PSD or NSR review. The PSD SIL thresholds are used with ambient air quality modeling for a CEQA project to address whether the project would “violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.” Ambient air quality emissions estimates below the PSD SIL thresholds would result in less-than-significant ambient air quality impacts on both a project and cumulative CEQA impact analysis. The SJVAB is classified as non-attainment/marginal for the 8-hour O3 NAAQS and, as such, is subject to non-attainment NSR. PSD SILs and increments are more stringent than the CAAQS or NAAQS and represent the most stringent thresholds of significance.

4.1.3 - THRESHOLDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
The SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI states, “From a health risk perspective, there are basically two types of land use projects that have the potential to cause long-term public health risk impacts:
• Type A Projects: Land use projects that will place new toxic sources in the vicinity of existing receptors.
■
Impact Assessment

Blossom View Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis May 2025

• Type B Projects: Land use projects that will place new receptors in the vicinity of existing toxic sources” (SJVAPCD, 2015).

Table 4-2 presents the thresholds of significance used with toxic air contaminants when evaluating hazardous air pollutants (HAPs).

Table 4-2
Measures of Significance – Toxic Air Contaminants
Agency Level Description
Significance Thresholds Adopted for the Evaluation of Impacts Under CEQA

SJVAPCD
Carcinogens Maximally Exposed Individual risk equals or exceeds 20 in one million.

NonCarcinogens
Acute: Hazard Index equals or exceeds 1.0 for the
Maximally Exposed Individual.

Chronic: Hazard Index equals or exceeds 1.0 for
the Maximally Exposed Individual.

Source: EKAPCD, 1996

4.1.4 - GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE On December 17, 2009, SJVAPCD adopted Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA (SJVAPCD, 2009); which outlined the SJVAPCD’s methodology for assessing a project’s significance for GHGs under CEQA. The following criteria were outlined in the document to determine whether a project could have a significant impact:
• Projects determined to be exempt from the requirements of CEQA would be determined to have a less-than-significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG emissions and would not require further environmental review, including analysis of project-specific GHG emissions. Projects exempt under CEQA would be evaluated consistent with established rules and regulations governing project approval and would not be required to implement BPS.
• Projects complying with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or GHG mitigation program that avoids or substantially reduces GHG emissions within the geographic area in which the project is located would be determined to have a less-thansignificant individual and cumulative impact for GHG emissions. Such plans or programs must be specified in law or approved by the lead agency with jurisdiction over the affected resource and supported by a CEQA-compliant environmental review document adopted by the lead agency. Projects complying with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or GHG mitigation program would not be required to implement BPS.
• Projects implementing Best Performance Standards would not require quantification of project-specific GHG emissions. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines, such projects would be determined to have a less-than-significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG emissions.

Impact Assessment

Blossom View Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis May 2025

• Projects not implementing Best Performance Standards would require quantification of project-specific GHG emissions and demonstration that project-specific GHG emissions would be reduced or mitigated by at least 29 percent, compared to business as usual (BAU), including GHG emission reductions achieved since the 2002- 2004 baseline period. Projects achieving at least a 29 percent GHG emission reduction compared to BAU would be determined to have a less-than-significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG.
• Notwithstanding any of the above provisions, projects requiring the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for any other reason would require quantification of project-specific GHG emissions. Projects implementing BPS or achieving at least a 29 percent GHG emission reduction compared to BAU would be determined to have a less-than-significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG.

The SJVAPCD, a CEQA Trustee Agency for this Project, has developed thresholds to determine the significance of a proposed project – either implement Best Performance Standards or achieve a 29 percent reduction from BAU (a specific numerical threshold). However, the SJVAPCD has established their BAU and baseline emissions based on the years 2002-2004 and 2020, respectively. The 2020 projected baseline has passed, and at this time, no new guidance has been approved for determining BAU and projected baseline for the next target year.

On April 20, 2022, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) adopted new Project Level Climate Impact Thresholds of Significance which rely upon necessary design elements to achieve California’s long-term climate goal of carbon neutrality by 2045. Chapter 3 of BAAQMD’s 2022 CEQA Guidelines indicates that a land use project will have less than significant impact related to operational GHG emissions if it includes the following project design elements:
• Buildings
o The project will not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing. o The project will not result in any wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy use as determined by the analysis under CEQA Section 21100(b)(3) and Section 15126.2 (b) of the State CEQA Guidelines.

Impact Assessment

Blossom View Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis May 2025

• Transportation
o The project will achieve a reduction in project-generated vehicle miles traveled (VMT) below the regional average consistent with the current version of the California Climate Change Scoping Plan or meet a locally adopted Senate Bill 743 VMT target that reflects the recommendation provided in the Governor’s Office Planning and Research’s Technical Advisory on Evaluation Transportation Impacts in CEQA.
o The project will achieve compliance with off-street electric vehicle requirements in the most recently adopted version of CALGreen Tier 2.

The City has recommended use of the BAAQMD’s GHG significance threshold for determining GHG impacts from residential projects. The VMT threshold target in the City is 13% of the average County VMT per capita, which results in less than 14.01 VMT.

4.2 - Project Related Emissions
This document was prepared pursuant to the SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI. The GAMAQI identifies separate thresholds for a project’s short-term (construction) and long-term (operational) emissions.

Project emissions were estimated separately for each emission source. The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) was used to estimate emissions for both short-term, construction-related sources and long-term, operations-related sources.

Project emissions were estimated for the following development stages:
• Short-term (Construction and Demolition) – Construction emissions of the proposed Project were estimated in CalEEMod using the default construction schedule and construction equipment for the development. (See Appendix B.) • Long-term (Operations) – Long-term emissions were also estimated in CalEEMod using model defaults for operations of the aforementioned land use types. (See Appendix B.)

4.2.1 - SHORT-TERM EMISSIONS
Short-term emissions from the construction phases of a project would have temporary impacts on air quality.

The construction emissions were based on the default CalEEMod equipment list for the proposed Project’s land use type and development intensity and applying model defaults as well as a conservative analysis approach. In order to be conservative construction emissions were estimated under the assumption that construction would begin in 2025. The dates entered into the CalEEMod program represent the earliest construction timeline, which would estimate the worst-case emissions as construction equipment technology and emissions improve over time; therefore, all estimated emission totals are conservative and Impact Assessment

Blossom View Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis May 2025

reflect a reasonable and legally sufficient estimate of potential impacts. All construction equipment activity levels assumed were based on CalEEMod default values for type, number of equipment, hours per day and horsepower.

Adjustments to the CalEEMod default values were as follows:
• Land use lot acreage was adjusted to match the Project description. • Demolition construction phase was removed as the Project Location is open land.

SJVAPCD’s required measures for all projects were also applied:
• Water exposed area three times per day.
• Reduce vehicle speed to less than 15 miles per hour on unpaved roads.

Table 4-3 presents the Project’s short-term emissions based on the anticipated construction period.

As calculated with CalEEMod, the estimated short-term construction-related emissions would not exceed SJVAPCD significance threshold levels during any given year and would, therefore, be less than significant.

Impact Assessment

Blossom View Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis May 2025

Table 4-3
Short-Term Project Emissions
Emissions Source Pollutant (tons/year)
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
2025 0.15 1.37 1.49 <0.005 0.18 0.10
2026 0.16 1.33 1.87 <0.005 0.09 0.05
2027 0.77 0.20 0.29 <0.005 0.01 0.01
Maximum Annual Emission 0.77 1.37 1.87 <0.005 0.18 0.10 Significance Threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15
Is Threshold Exceeded for a Single
Year After Mitigation? No No No No No No
Source: QK 2025

4.2.2 - LONG-TERM OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Long-term emissions are caused by operational mobile sources and area source emissions from the on-site building.

Fugitive Dust Emissions
Operation of the Project site at full build-out is not expected to present a substantial source of fugitive dust (PM10) emissions. The main source of PM10 emissions would be from vehicular traffic associated with the Project site.

PM10, on its own as well as in combination with other pollutants, creates a health hazard.

SJVAPCD’s Regulation VIII establishes required controls to reduce and minimize fugitive dust emissions. The following SJVAPCD Rules and Regulations apply to the proposed Project (and all projects):
• Rule 4102 – Nuisance – prohibits a facility from posing as a nuisance to surrounding receptors and can impose penalties for nuisance issues such as dust, smoke, excess emissions, etc. Compliance with this rule ensures that the area around the Project site will not be adversely impacted by such issues.
• Regulation VIII – Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions – a series of regulations to reduce and/or eliminate the generation of particulate matter (PM) that can adversely impact visibility as well as the health and safety of people on-site or in the vicinity of the Project.
o Rule 8011 – General Requirements – this rule is to reduce ambient concentrations of fine particulate matter (PM10) by requiring actions to prevent, reduce, or mitigate anthropogenic (human-caused) fugitive dust emissions.
o Rule 8021 – Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities – restricts generation of airborne dust and visibility impacts from these activities. Places limits on opacity and equipment operation under certain adverse weather conditions.
■
Impact Assessment

Blossom View Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis May 2025

o Rule 8041 – Carryout and Trackout – requires that equipment and vehicles leaving the construction site control the amount of dirt, soil, or mud that is tracked offsite and onto public roadways. This helps eliminate or minimize dust generation and opacity degradation.
o Rule 8051 – Open Areas – limits fugitive dust from open areas, i.e., areas on a construction site that are not actively being constructed upon but may generate wind-blown dust.

The Project would comply with applicable SJVAPCD Rules and Regulations, the local zoning codes, and additional emissions reduction measures recommended later in this analysis, in Section 7, Mitigation and Other Recommended Measures.

Exhaust Emissions
Project-related transportation activities from residents would generate mobile source ROG, NOx, SOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 exhaust emissions. Exhaust emissions would vary substantially from day to day but would average out over the course of an operational year. The variables factored into estimating total Project emissions include level of activity, site characteristics, weather conditions, and number of visitors. As the Project is not expected to generate an adverse change in current activity levels, substantial emissions are not anticipated. The default trip rates in CalEEMod were used along with an adjusted fleet mix to reflect SJVAPCD approved residential fleet mix for year 2026.

Projected Emissions
The proposed Project is expected to have long-term air quality impacts as shown in Table 4-

4. Emission calculations are available in Appendix B.

Table 4-4
Post-Project Max Year (Operational Emissions)
Emissions Source Pollutant (tons/year)
ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Mitigated Emissions
Operational Emissions 1.67 0.72 5.01 0.01 0.90 0.24
SJVAPCD Threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15
Is Threshold Exceeded After Mitigation? No No No No No No As shown in Table 4-4, operations-related emissions, as calculated in Appendix B, would not exceed the SJVAPCD significant threshold levels. Therefore, the Project is less-thansignificant for operational emissions.

4.3 - Potential Impacts on Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive receptors are defined as locations where young children, chronically ill individuals, the elderly, or people who are more sensitive than the general population reside, such as schools, hospitals, nursing homes, and daycare centers. The nearest residential sensitive Impact Assessment

Blossom View Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis May 2025

receptor to the proposed Project is located adjacent to portions of the Project’s sites. Table 4-5 lists the known non-residential sensitive receptors within one mile of the Project site.

Discussion of health risks and risks to sensitive receptors is addressed in detail below in Section 4.6.

Table 4-5
Sensitive Receptors Located < 1 miles from Project
Receptor Type of Facility Distance from
Project (miles)
Direction
from Project
Virginia R. Boris Elementary School 0.12 NW
Temperance Kutner Elementary School 0.79 SW
Young Elementary School 0.90 N
Ohana Care Home Central Valley Assisted Living 0.78 N

4.4 - Potential Impacts to Visibility to Nearby Class 1 Areas Visibility impact analyses are intended for stationary sources of emissions which are subject to the PSD requirements in 40 CFR Part 60; they are not usually conducted for area sources.

Under the PSD program, all international parks, national wilderness areas and national memorial parks that exceed 5,000 acres, and of national parks that exceed 6,000 acres are designated as mandatory federal Class I areas which are provided visibility protection under the Clean Air Act. Because the Project’s PM10 emissions increases are predicted to be less than the PSD threshold levels, an impact at any Class 1 area or military/airspace operation within 100 kilometers of the Project is extremely unlikely. Therefore, based on the Project’s predicted less-than significant PM10 emissions, the Project would be expected to have a less than significant impact to visibility at any Class 1 area or military/airspace operation.

4.5 - Potential Impacts from Carbon Monoxide
Ambient CO concentrations normally correspond closely to the spatial and temporal distributions of vehicular traffic. Relatively high concentrations of CO would be expected along heavily traveled roads and near busy intersections. CO concentrations are also influenced by wind speed and atmospheric mixing. CO concentrations may be more uniformly distributed when inversion conditions are prevalent in the valley. Under certain meteorological conditions, CO concentrations along a congested roadway or intersection may reach unhealthful levels for sensitive receptors, e.g., children, the elderly, hospital patients, etc. This localized impact can result in elevated levels of CO, or “hotspots,” even though concentrations at the closest air quality monitoring station may be below NAAQS and CAAQS.

The localized project impacts depend on whether ambient CO levels in the Project vicinity would be above or below NAAQS. If ambient levels are below the standards, a project is considered to have significant impacts if a project’s emissions would exceed one or more of these standards. If ambient levels already exceed a State standard, a project’s emissions are Impact Assessment

Blossom View Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis May 2025

considered significant if they would increase 1-hour CO concentrations by 10 ppm or more or 8-hour CO concentrations by 0.45 ppm or more. There are two criteria established by the SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI by which CO “hotspot” modeling is required:

1. A traffic study for the project indicates that the Level of Service (LOS) on one or more streets or at one or more intersections in the project vicinity would be reduced to LOS E or F.

2. A traffic study indicates that the project would substantially worsen an already existing LOS F on one or more streets or at one or more intersections in the project vicinity.

A traffic study was completed for this Project (Ruettgers & Schuler, 2024). According to the traffic study, impacted intersections and roadway segments are anticipated to operate at a LOS of C or better. Therefore, CO “hotspot” modeling was not conducted for this Project, and no concentrated excessive CO emissions are expected to be caused once the proposed Project is completed.

4.6 - Predicted Health Impacts
GAMAQI recommends that Lead Agencies consider situations wherein a new or modified source of HAPs is proposed for a location near an existing residential area or other sensitive receptors when evaluating potential impacts related to HAPs.

The proposed Project would result in emissions of HAPs from construction activities and would be located near existing residents; therefore, an assessment of the potential risk to the population attributable to emissions of hazardous air pollutants from the proposed Project is required.

To predict the potential health risk to the population attributable to emissions of HAPs from the proposed Project, ambient air concentrations were predicted with dispersion modeling to arrive at a conservative estimate of increased individual carcinogenic risk that might occur as a result of continuous exposure over the construction period for construction emissions.

Similarly, predicted concentrations were used to calculate non-cancer chronic and acute hazard indices, which are the ratio of expected exposure to acceptable exposure. The basis for evaluating potential health risks is the identification of sources with increased HAPs. HAP emissions from anticipated on-site construction activities were evaluated.

Health risk is determined using the Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP) software distributed by the CARB. HARP2 requires peak 1-hour emission rates and annualaveraged emission rates for all pollutants for each modeling source. The assumptions used to calculate the emission rates for the proposed Project are outlined below.

The most recent version of EPA’s AMS/EPA Regulatory Model – AERMOD (recompiled for the Lakes ISC-AERMOD View) was used to predict the dispersion of emissions from the proposed Project. The analysis employed all of the regulatory default AERMOD model keyword parameters, including elevated terrain options.

Impact Assessment

Blossom View Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis May 2025

Diesel combustion emissions from diesel on-site construction equipment were modeled as an area source for on-site construction activity on the property. Diesel particulate matter was calculated using CalEEMod for on-site construction. A unit emission rate of one gram/second (g/sec) was input to AERMOD for each source.

A fenceline discrete receptor grid was placed around the Project site in order to evaluate residences and businesses within close proximity of the Project site. A three-tier grid was used with 25-meter fenceline spacing. The first tier extended 100 meters with 25-meter tier spacing, the second tier extended an additional 200 meters with 50 meter tier spacing and the third tier extended another 400 meters with a tier spacing of 100 meters. A total of 1,346 discrete off-site receptors were analyzed. Elevated terrain options were employed even though there is not complex terrain in the Project area. The 7.5-minute DEM terrain data for Clovis, CA, was processed with AERMAP to identify elevations for the proposed Project.

SJVAPCD-provided AERMET processed meteorological datasets for the Fresno monitoring station, calendar years 2018 through 2022 were input to AERMOD (SJVAPCD, 2025d). This was the most recent available dataset available at the time the modeling was conducted.

Rural dispersion parameters were used because the operation and the majority of the land surrounding the facility are considered “rural” under the Auer land use classification method (Auer, 1978).

Plot files generated by AERMOD were uploaded to the Air Dispersion Modeling and Risk Assessment Tool (ADMRT) program in the Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program Version 2 (HARP2) (CARB, 2015). ADMRT post-processing was used to assess the potential for excess cancer risk and chronic and acute non-cancer effects using the most recent health effects data from the California EPA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) using the OEHHA Derived Method. HARP2 site parameters were set for the mandatory minimum pathways of inhalation, homegrown gardens, soil ingestion, dermal, and mother’s milk. The non-inhalation pathways used a deposition rate of 0.02 m/s along with all other default parameters. Risk reports were generated using the derived OEHHA analysis method for carcinogenic risk and non-carcinogenic chronic and acute risk. Site parameters are included in the HARP2 output files. Total cancer risk was predicted for the inhalation pathway at each receptor. A hazard index was computed for chronic non-cancer health effects for each applicable endpoint and each receptor. A hazard index for acute noncancer health effects was not computed since DPM does not have a risk exposure level for acute risk.

SJVAPCD has set the level of significance for carcinogenic risk at twenty in one million, which is understood as the possibility of causing 20 additional cancer cases in a population of one million people. The level of significance for chronic non-cancer risk is a hazard index of 1.0.

All receptors were modeled with a 3-year exposure for construction activities.

The carcinogenic risk and the health hazard index (HI) for chronic non-cancer risk at the point of maximum impact (PMI) do not exceed the significance levels of 20 in one million (20 x 10-6) and 1.0, respectively, for the proposed Project. The PMIs are identified by receptor Impact Assessment

Blossom View Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis May 2025

location and risk and are provided in Table 4-6. The electronic AERMOD and HARP2 output files are provided in Appendix D.

Table 4-6
Potential Maximum Impacts Predicted by HARP
Cancer Risk Chronic Hazard
Index
Construction 15.90E-06 8.35E-03
SJVAPCD Threshold 20.0E-06 1.0
Exceedance? No No
Receptor # 57 57
UTM Easting (m) 262873.11 262873.11
UTM Northing (m) 4072237.61 4072237.61
Note: UTM = Universal Transverse Mercator
As shown above in Table 4-5, the maximum predicted cancer risk for the proposed Project is 15.90E-06. The maximum chronic non-cancer hazard index for the proposed Project is

8.35E-03. Since the PMI remained below the significance threshold for cancer and chronic risk, this Project would not have an adverse effect to any of the surrounding communities.

The potential health risk attributable to the proposed Project is determined to be less than significant based on the following conclusions:

1. Potential carcinogenic risk from the proposed Project is below the significance level of twenty in a million at each of the modeled receptors.

2. The hazard index for the potential chronic non-cancer risk from the proposed Project is below the significance level of 1.0 at each of the modeled receptors.

3. The hazard index for the potential acute non-cancer risk was not calculated since there is no acute risk associated with DPM emission; therefore, the proposed Project is considered below the significance level.

Therefore, potential risk to the population attributable to emissions of HAPs from the proposed Project would be less than significant.

4.7 - Potential Impacts from Valley Fever
The proposed project has the potential to generate fugitive dust and suspend Valley Fever spores with the dust that could then reach nearby sensitive receptors. It is possible that onsite workers could be exposed to Valley Fever spores as fugitive dust is generated during construction. In order to mitigate potential risk, the proposed Project would provide training and personal protective respiratory equipment to construction workers and provide information to all construction personnel and visitors about Valley Fever. Therefore, the exposure to Valley Fever would be minimized. With the implementation of the mitigation measures, dust from the construction of the proposed project would not add significantly to Impact Assessment

Blossom View Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis May 2025

the existing exposure level of people to this fungus, including construction workers, and impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels.

4.8 - Potential Impacts from Asbestos
Naturally occurring asbestos can be released from serpentinite and ultramafic rocks when the rock is broken or crushed. At the point of release, the asbestos fibers may become airborne, causing air quality and human health hazards. These rocks have been commonly used for unpaved gravel roads, landscaping, fill projects, and other improvement projects in some localities. Asbestos may be released into the atmosphere due to vehicular traffic on unpaved roads, during the grading of development projects, and at mining operations.

Serpentinite and/or ultramafic rocks are known to be present in 44 of California's 58 counties. These rocks are particularly abundant in the counties associated with the Sierra Nevada foothills, the Klamath Mountains, and the Coast Ranges. However, according to information provided by the Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, the project site is not located in an area where naturally occurring asbestos is likely to be present (CDCDMG, 2000). Therefore, impacts associated with the exposure of construction workers and nearby sensitive receptors to asbestos would be less than significant.

4.9 - Odor Impacts and Mitigation
The SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI states, “An analysis of potential odor impacts should be conducted for both of the following two situations:

1. Generators – projects that would potentially generate odorous emissions proposed to locate near existing sensitive receptors or other land uses where people may congregate.

2. Receivers – residential or other sensitive receptor projects or other projects built for the intent of attracting people locating near existing odor sources” (SJVAPCD, 2015).

The GAMAQI also states, “The District has identified some common types of facilities that have been known to produce odors in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. These are presented in Table 6 (Screening Levels for Potential Odor Sources), along with a reasonable distance from the source within which the degree of odors could possibly be significant. [Table 6] can be used as a screening tool to qualitatively assess a project’s potential to adversely affect area receptors” (SJVAPCD, 2015). Because the Project’s anticipated land uses and activities are not listed in Table 6 of the GAMAQI as a source that would create objectionable odors, the Project is not expected to be a source of objectionable odors.

Based on the provisions of the SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI, the proposed Project would not exceed any screening trigger levels to be considered a source of objectionable odors or odorous compounds (SJVAPCD, 2015). Furthermore, there does not appear to be any significant source of objectionable odors in close proximity that may adversely impact the Project site when it is in operation. Additionally, the Project emissions estimates indicate that it would not be expected to adversely impact surrounding receptors. As such, the proposed Project Impact Assessment

Blossom View Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis May 2025

would not be a source of any odorous compounds, nor would it likely be impacted by any odorous source.

4.10 - Impacts to Ambient Air Quality
As stated in the GAMAQI (2015, pp 96-97), SJVAPCD has developed screening levels that require an Ambient Air Quality Analysis (AAQA). The SJVAPCD recommends that an AAQA be performed for all criteria pollutants when emissions of any criteria pollutant resulting from project construction or operational activities exceed the 100 pounds per day screening level, after compliance with Rule 9510 requirements and implementation of all enforceable mitigation measures.

Average daily emissions for construction and operational activities associated with this Project would not exceed 100 pounds per day. Therefore, an AAQA is not required for this Project.

4.11 - Impacts to Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change
The proposed Project’s construction and operational GHG emissions were estimated using the CalEEMod. The Project’s GHG emissions are primarily from mobile source activities. Not all GHGs exhibit the same ability to induce climate change; as a result, GHG contributions are commonly quantified as CO2e. Table 4-6 presents the Project’s annual GHG emissions.

Table 4-7
Estimated Annual GHG Emissions (MT/Year)
Source CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Total Construction Emissions 874.74 0.03 0.02 880.74
Annualized Construction
Emissions1

29.16 0.00 0.00 29.36
Total Operational Emissions 1,689 1.67 0.07 1,755
Total Project Emissions
1 Per South Coast AQMD’s Methodology
In the decade after SJVAPCD adopted their Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA, several new laws and executive orders were adopted that require additional reductions in years after 2020. For instance, Senate Bill 32 requires that GHG emissions be 40 percent less than 1990 levels by 2030. More drastic still, Senate Bill 100, which was signed by the Governor recently, requires 100 percent zero-carbon electricity by 2045. On the day SB 100 was signed into law, the Governor also signed Executive Order B-55-18, which commits California to total, economywide carbon neutrality by 2045. Clearly, the 2009 Guidance may be somewhat inadequate in producing a meaningful comparison by today’s standards, which propose a grand vision that, if achieved, would fundamentally change how business is conducted, and citizens live in the State. Thus, as discussed in the most recent updates to the Scoping Plan, the objectives of the Impact Assessment

Blossom View Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis May 2025

Scoping Plan affect entire sectors of the economy, and it no longer makes sense to evaluate GHG emissions on a project level.

For these reasons, Project GHG emissions levels presented in Table 4-6 are primarily for disclosure purposes. The City has recommended use of the BAAQMD’s GHG significance threshold for determining GHG impacts from residential projects. Chapter 3 of BAAQMD’s 2022 CEQA Guidelines indicates that a land use project will have less than significant impact related to operational GHG emissions if it includes the following project design elements:
• Buildings
o The project will not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing. o The project will not result in any wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy use as determined by the analysis under CEQA Section 21100(b)(3) and Section 15126.2 (b) of the State CEQA Guidelines.
• Transportation
o The project will achieve a reduction in project-generated vehicle miles traveled (VMT) below the regional average consistent with the current version of the California Climate Change Scoping Plan or meet a locally adopted Senate Bill 743 VMT target that reflects the recommendation provided in the Governor’s Office Planning and Research’s Technical Advisory on Evaluation Transportation Impacts in CEQA.
 The VMT threshold target in the City of Fresno is 13% of the average County VMT per capita which results in less than 14.01 VMT o The project will achieve compliance with off-street electric vehicle requirements in the most recently adopted version of CALGreen Tier 2.

The development of the Project will not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing per Project representatives. In addition, the proposed Project will use energyefficient materials, modern construction practices, and new appliances, following Appliance Efficiency Regulations (Title 20, California Code of Regulations {CCR} Sections 1601-1608).

Energy Consumption during construction and operation will align with typical residential usage but will vary based on personal choices and building design. The Project, located in an urban area and residential land use under the Fresno General Plan, will comply with the City’s energy efficiency policies (General Plan Policies RC-8-a through RC-8-k), ensuring it does not result in wasteful or inefficient energy consumption. The Project is also subject to CCR, Title 24 building standards which would improve the Project’s energy efficiency and consumption. The Title 24 California Building Standards Code is a wide-ranging set of requirements for energy conservation and green design that apply to the structural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems in a building.

The Fresno City Council adopted the CEQA Guidelines for Vehicles Miles Traveled (VMT) on June 25, 2020, which establishes the City’s threshold of significance for CEQA transportation Impact Assessment

Blossom View Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis May 2025

studies as it relates to VMT. In addition, Fresno COG’s Fresno County SB 743 Implementation Technical Report (March 2021) also establishes threshold of significance for CEQA transportation studies as it relates to VMT. Both documents indicate that projects that generate a low volume of daily traffic are presumed to create a less than significant impact on VMT and GHG emissions. As noted above, the VMT threshold target in the City is 13% of the average County VMT per capita, which results in less than 14.01 VMT.

Using Project specific data, the City’s VMT Urban Calculator estimated the VMT per capita for the Project at 14.70 VMT, which exceeds the current threshold by 0.70 VMT per capita.

Therefore, further mitigation was needed in order to reduce VMT below the significance thresholds. A Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIA) was prepared for the Project (JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc, 2025). The following are mitigation measures applied by the traffic engineers to further reduce the VMT:
• Increase Destination Accessibility
• Improve Design of Development
• Provide Pedestrian Network Improvements
• Provide Traffic Calming Measures
In order to apply the VMT mitigation measure of “Provide Traffic Calming Measures” it is recommended that the Project include traffic calming measures at the intersections of Hornet Avenue at Peralta Way, Hornet Avenue at University Avenue and Hornet Avenue at Normal Avenue. At this time residential traffic circles are suggested as the traffic calming measure to meet the VMT reduction criteria. These mitigation measures would reduce the Project’s VMT by an additional 1.21. The recommendation is currently under review by the City of Fresno. Once approved the Project’s VMT per capita would be 13.49, which is less than the City’s significance threshold of 14.01 VMT per capita. If the current recommended strategy is not approved by the City, the Project proponent will continue to work with the City staff to determine an acceptable calming measure or pay required regulatory mitigation fees in order to reduce VMT impacts to a less than significant level.

Project design elements also include ‘ready to charge’ capabilities for each residential unit, to be compliant with off-street electric vehicle requirements in the most recently adopted 2022 CALGreen TIER 2 Residential Measures (A4.106.8). Therefore, based on the information outlined above, the Project is considered less than significant for GHG impacts.

Cumulative Impacts

Blossom View Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis February 2025

SECTION 5 - CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
By its very nature, air pollution has a cumulative impact. The District’s non-attainment status is a result of past and present development within the SJVAB. Furthermore, attainment of ambient air quality standards can be jeopardized by increasing emissions-generating activities in the region. No single project would be sufficient in size by itself to result in nonattainment of the regional air quality standards. Instead, a project’s emissions may be individually limited, but cumulatively considerable when taken in combination with past, present, and future development within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. When assessing whether there is a new significant cumulative effect, the Lead Agency shall consider whether the incremental effects of the project are cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects [CCR §15064(h)(1)]. Per CEQA Guidelines §15064(h)(3), a Lead Agency may determine that a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if the project will comply with the requirements in a previously approved plan or mitigation program, including, but not limited to an air quality attainment or maintenance plan that provides specific requirements that will avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem within the geographic area in which the project is located (SJVAPCD, 2015).

GAMAQI also states, “If a project is significant based on the thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants, then it is also cumulatively significant. This does not imply that if the project is below all such significance thresholds, it cannot be cumulatively significant.” (SJVAPCD, 2015). Based on the analysis conducted for this Project, it is individually less than significant. This AQIA, however, also considered the impacts of the proposed Project in conjunction with the impacts of other projects previously proposed in the area. The following cumulative impacts were considered:
• Cumulative O3 Impacts (ROG and NOx) from numerous sources within the region, including transport from outside the region. O3 is formed through chemical reactions of ROG and NOx in the presence of sunlight.
• Cumulative CO Impacts produced primarily by vehicular emissions. • Cumulative PM10 Impacts from within the region and locally from the various projects. Such projects may cumulatively produce a significant amount of PM10 if several projects conduct grading or earthmoving activities at the same time; and • Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) Impacts on sensitive receptors.

5.1 - Cumulative Regional Air Quality Impacts
The most recent, certified SJVAB Emission Inventory data available from the SJVAPCD is based on data gathered for the 2024 annual inventory. This data will be used to assist the SJVAPCD in demonstrating attainment of Federal 1-hour O3 Standards. Table 5-1 provides a comparative look at the impacts proposed by the proposed Project to the SJVAB Emissions Inventory.

Cumulative Impacts

Blossom View Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis February 2025

Table 5-1
Comparative Analysis Based on SJVAB 2024 Inventory
Emissions Inventory Source Pollutant (tons/year)
ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Fresno County – 20242 21,698.5 11,242.0 54,483.2 553.3 24,252.1 6,059.4 SJVAB – 20242 108,775.1 51,926.7 215,561.3 2,265.2 97,564.5 23,861.1 Proposed Project 1.67 0.72 5.01 0.01 0.9 0.24
Proposed Project’s % of Fresno1 0.0077% 0.0064% 0.0092% 0.0018% 0.0037% 0.0040% Proposed Project’s % of SJVAB1 0.0015% 0.0014% 0.0023% 0.0004% 0.0009% 0.0010% Source: CARB, 2025
Notes: 1) Percentages equaling 0.0000 could represent a percent <0.00005. 2) This is the latest inventory available as of May 2025, excluding Natural Sources.

As shown in Table 5-1 the proposed Project does not pose a substantial increase to basin emissions, as such basin emissions would be essentially the same if the Project is approved.

Table 5-2, Table 5-3, and Table 5-4 provide CARB Emissions Inventory projections for the year 2030 for both the SJVAB and the Fresno County portion of the air basin. Looking at the SJVAB Emissions predicted by the CARB year 2030 emissions inventory, the Fresno County portion of the air basin is a moderate source of the emissions. The proposed Project produces a small portion of the total emissions in both Fresno County and the entire SJVAB.

Table 5-2
Emission Inventory SJVAB 2030 Projection – Tons per Year ROG NOX CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Total Emissions 104,380.5 38,036.3 168,950.5 2,208.6 99,271.2 21,758.7 Percent Stationary Sources 29.98% 15.51% 4.43% 78.83% 4.30% 11.34% Percent Area-Wide Sources 55.76% 6.01% 27.47% 8.59% 91.44% 76.99% Percent Mobile Sources 14.26% 78.48% 74.09% 12.58% 4.26% 11.66% Total Stationary Source Emissions 31,297.7 5,897.7 7,489.8 1,741.1 4,266.9 2,468.5 Total Area-Wide Source Emissions 58,202.9 2,285.6 36,279.9 189.8 90,775.5 16,752.8 Total Mobile Source Emissions 14,880.3 29,852.6 125,181.1 277.8 4,228.9 2,537.5 Source: CARB, 2025
Note: Total may not add due to rounding.

Table 5-3
Emission Inventory Fresno County 2030 Projection –
Tons per Year
ROG NOX CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Total Emissions 20,463.4 7,796.4 40,658.8 547.5 24,307.2 5,277.5 Percent Stationary Sources 34.58% 16.47% 2.97% 77.86% 2.83% 6.89% Percent Area-Wide Sources 49.70% 7.60% 28.34% 10.34% 93.58% 84.31% Percent Mobile Sources 15.72% 75.93% 68.69% 11.87% 3.59% 8.80% Total Stationary Source Emissions 7,076.3 1,283.7 1,206.7 426.3 687.7 363.5 Total Area-Wide Source Emissions 10,170.7 592.8 11,524.1 56.6 22,746.1 4,449.7 Total Mobile Source Emissions 3,216.4 5,919.9 27,928.0 65.0 873.1 464.3 Source: CARB, 2025
Note: Total may not add due to rounding.
■
■
Cumulative Impacts

Blossom View Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis February 2025

Table 5-4
2030 Emissions Projections – Proposed Project, Fresno County and SJVAB ROG NOX PM10
Proposed Project 1.67 0.72 0.90
Fresno County 20,463.4 7,796.4 24,307.2
SJVAB 104,380.5 38,036.3 99,271.2
Proposed Project Percent of Fresno County 0.008% 0.009% 0.004% Proposed Project Percent of SJVAB 0.002% 0.002% 0.001%
Fresno County Percent of SJVAB 19.60% 20.50% 24.49%
As shown above, the proposed Project would pose an inconsequential impact on regional O3 and PM10 formation. Therefore, this Project would not be considered cumulatively considerable in its contribution to regional O3 and PM10 impacts.

5.2 - Cumulative Local Air Quality Impacts
SJVAPCD uses a single threshold for the determination of significance for both projectspecific and cumulative impacts. Air quality in SJVAB has improved over the past decades, as shown in Section 3.3, which indicates that the single threshold is sufficient for assessing cumulative impacts. The proposed Project would generate less-than-significant impacts, after mitigation with a VERA, to criteria air pollutants; therefore, the Project’s incremental contribution to cumulative air quality impacts would not be cumulatively considerable (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3); (SJVAPCD, 2015).

5.3 - Cumulative Hazardous Air Pollutants
The GAMAQI also states that when evaluating potential impacts related to HAPs, “impacts of local pollutants (CO, HAPs) are cumulatively significant when modeling shows that the combined emissions from the project and other existing and planned projects will exceed air quality standards.” Because the Project would not be a significant source of HAPs, the proposed Project would also not be expected to pose a significant cumulative CO or HAPs impact.

5.4 - Cumulative Carbon Monoxide (CO) – Mobile Sources
The SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI has identified CO impacts from impacted traffic intersections and roadway segments as being potentially cumulatively considerable. Traffic increases and added congestion caused by a project can combine to cause a violation of the SJVAPCD’s CO standard, also known as a “hotspot.” There are two criteria established by the GAMAQI by which CO “hotspot” modeling is required:

1. A traffic study for the project indicates that the Level of Service (LOS) on one or more streets or at one or more intersections in the project vicinity would be reduced to LOS E or F.

Cumulative Impacts

Blossom View Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis February 2025

2. A traffic study indicates that the project would substantially worsen an already existing LOS F on one or more streets or at one or more intersections in the project vicinity.

According to the TIA (JLB Traffic Engineering Inc 2025), impacted intersections and roadway segments are anticipated to operate at a LOS of C or better. Therefore, CO “hotspot” modeling was not conducted for this Project, and no concentrated excessive CO emissions are expected to be caused once the proposed Project is completed.

Consistency with the Air Quality Attainment Plan

Blossom View Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis May 2025

SECTION 6 - CONSISTENCY WITH THE AIR QUALITY ATTAINMENT PLAN Air quality impacts from proposed projects within Fresno County are controlled through policies and provisions of the SJVAPCD and the Fresno County General Plan (, 2008). In order to demonstrate that a proposed project would not cause further air quality degradation in either the SJVAPCD’s plan to improve air quality within the air basin or the federal requirements to meet certain air quality compliance goals, each project should also demonstrate consistency with the SJVAPCD’s adopted Air Quality Attainment Plans (AQAP) for O3 and PM10. The SJVAPCD is required to submit a “Rate of Progress” document to CARB that demonstrates past and planned progress toward reaching attainment for all criteria pollutants. The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) requires air pollution control districts with severe or extreme air quality problems to provide for a five percent reduction in nonattainment emissions per year. The AQAP prepared for the San Joaquin Valley by the SJVAPCD complies with this requirement. CARB reviews, approves, or amends the document and forwards the plan to the EPA for final review and approval within the SIP.

Air pollution sources associated with stationary sources are regulated through the permitting authority of the SJVAPCD under the New and Modified Stationary Source Review Rule (SJVAPCD Rule 2201). Owners of any new or modified equipment that emits, reduces, or controls air contaminants, except those specifically exempted by the SJVAPCD, are required to apply for an Authority to Construct and Permit to Operate (SJVAPCD Rule 2010).

Additionally, best available control technology (BACT) is required on specific types of stationary equipment and is required to offset both stationary source emission increases along with increases in cargo carrier emissions if the specified threshold levels are exceeded (SJVAPCD Rule 2201, 4.7.1). Through this mechanism, the SJVAPCD would ensure that all stationary sources within the project area would be subject to the standards of the SJVAPCD to ensure that new developments do not result in net increases in stationary sources of criteria air pollutants.

6.1 - Required Evaluation Guidelines
CEQA Guidelines and the Federal Clean Air Act (Sections 176 and 316) contain specific references on the need to evaluate consistency between a proposed project and the applicable AQAP for the Project site. To accomplish this, CARB has developed a three-step approach to determine project conformity with the applicable AQAP:

1. Determination that an AQAP is being implemented in the area where the project is being proposed. The SJVAPCD has implemented the current, modified AQAP as approved by CARB.

2. The proposed project must be consistent with the growth assumptions of the applicable AQAP. The proposed Project is included in the employment increases projected in the Fresno County General Plan.

3. The project must contain in its design all reasonably available and feasible air quality control measures. The proposed Project incorporates various policy and rulerequired implementation measures that will reduce related emissions.

Consistency with the Air Quality Attainment Plan

Blossom View Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis May 2025

The CCAA and AQAP identify transportation control measures as methods to further reduce emissions from mobile sources. Strategies identified to reduce vehicular emissions such as reductions in vehicle trips, vehicle use, vehicle miles traveled, vehicle idling, and traffic congestion, in order to reduce vehicular emissions, can be implemented as control measures under the CCAA as well. Additional measures may also be implemented through the building process, such as providing electrical outlets on exterior walls of structures to encourage the use of electrical landscape maintenance equipment or measures such as electrical outlets for electrical systems on diesel trucks to reduce or eliminate idling time.

As the growth represented by the proposed Project was anticipated by the Fresno County General Plan and incorporated into the AQAP, conclusions may be drawn from the following criteria:

1. That, by definition, the proposed emissions from the Project are below the SJVAPCD’s established emissions impact thresholds.

2. That the primary source of emissions from the Project would be motor vehicles which would be licensed through the State of California and whose emissions are already incorporated into the CARB’s Eastern Fresno County’s Emissions Inventory.

Based on these factors, the Project is consistent with the AQAP.

6.2 - Consistency with the Fresno Council of Government’s Regional Conformity Analysis
The Fresno Council of Governments (Fresno COG) Conformity Analysis Determination demonstrates that the federal and regional transportation plans in Fresno County portion of the San Joaquin Valley air quality attainment areas would not hinder the efforts set out in the CARB’s SIP for each area’s non-attainment pollutants (CO, O3, and PM10). The analysis uses an adopted regional growth forecast prepared by Applied Development Economics (ADE) which was commissioned by Fresno COG to update these forecasts.

The Fresno COG Regional Conformity Analysis considers General Plan Amendments (GPA) and zone changes that were enacted at the time of the analysis as projected growth within the area based on land use designations incorporated within the Fresno County General Plan.

Land use designations that are altered based on subsequent GPAs that were not included in the Regional Conformity Analysis were not incorporated into the Fresno COG analysis.

Consequently, if a proposed project is not included in the regional growth forecast using the latest planning assumptions, it may not be said to conform to the regional growth forecast.

Under the current Fresno County Zoning, the Project site is designated as AE20 – Exclusive Agricultural (see Figure 6-1). Under current policies, only after a GPA is approved, can housing and employment assumptions be updated to reflect the capacity changes. The proposed development does require a zone change; therefore, the existing growth forecast will need to be modified to reflect these changes.

Consistency with the Air Quality Attainment Plan

Blossom View Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis May 2025

Figure 6-1
Fresno County Zoning
nivers -O)
lol ‘o!
“Peralta
LL
Mckinley.
——
Q
ro
Normal
(ny C
c RS-3 RS-3 C
L
[RS44 "
o— RS-4—L I___ —( Ac
a O
Feet
Adena (. ( RS.4
-- --- 0_ Vassar. __— c Vassar
-= RS-4 Drs RS-4-
C
YaleO----
RS-4 i guos RS-4
in RS-4 Berkeley____ 3 r
___ OL 2.48-acres t i---- — (D _ (
I RS-4 RS-4 O
C.

RS-3
RS-3
co
0)
or
O.
in
(0
600
-I
CL
PI
C
_C(
U
Clinton
184 Bs4 RS-4
Z
<
U O
0 L
I
AE20
.1.
o RS-4
5 //,
“in RS-4
Adena_i . CBS

15.51-acres
24-acres 3
J
n n
RS-4
TTr
RS-4
NV
Weldon
RS-4
RS=4
City of Fresno Zoning
_ P1 - Public and Institutional
I RS-3 - Residential Single-Family, Low Density
I I RS-4 - Residential Single-Family, Medium Low Density I I Proposed Project
L. Additional Annexation Parcels
L.J Fresno City Limits
Fresno County Zoning
o
I I AE20
Janice,
O
CT $3
"VRNEr
Q
or
-LU
2 Mitigation and Other Recommended Measures

Blossom View Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis May 2025

SECTION 7 - MITIGATION AND OTHER RECOMMENDED MEASURES
The estimated construction and operational emissions from the proposed Project would be less than significant after the specific mitigation measures listed below. However, to ensure that the Project is in compliance with all applicable SJVAPCD rules and regulations and that emissions are further reduced, the applicant should implement and comply with a number of measures that are either recommended as a “good operating practice” for environmental stewardship, or they are required by regulation. Some of the listed measures are regulatory requirements or construction requirements that would result in further emission reductions through their inclusion in Project construction and long-term design. The following measures either have been applied to the Project through the CalEEMod model and would be incorporated into the Project by design or would be implemented in conjunction with SJVAPCD rules as conditions of approval.

7.1 - Applicable PM10 Reduction Measures
As the Project would be completed in compliance with SJVAPCD Regulation VIII, dust control measures would be taken to ensure compliance, specifically during the grading and construction phases. The required Regulation VIII measures are as follows:
• Water previously exposed surfaces (soil) whenever visible dust is capable of drifting from the site or approaches 20 percent opacity.
• Water all unpaved haul roads a minimum of three times/day or whenever visible dust from such roads is capable of drifting from the site or approaches 20 percent opacity. • Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 miles per hour. • Install and maintain a track-out control device that meets the specifications of SJVAPCD Rule 8041 if the site exceeds 150 vehicle trips per day or more than 20 vehicle trips per day by vehicles with three or more axles. • Stabilize all disturbed areas, including storage piles, which are not being actively utilized for production purposes using water, chemical stabilizers, or by covering with a tarp or other suitable cover.
• Control fugitive dust emissions during land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, leveling, grading, or cut and fill operations with application of water or by presoaking. • When transporting materials offsite, maintain a freeboard limit of at least 6 inches and cover or effectively wet to limit visible dust emissions. • Limit and remove the accumulation of mud and/or dirt from adjacent public roadways at the end of each workday. (Use of dry rotary brushes is prohibited except when preceded or accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit visible dust emissions, and use of blowers is expressly forbidden.)
• Stabilize the surface of storage piles following the addition or removal of materials using water or chemical stabilizer/suppressants.
• Remove visible track-out from the site at the end of each workday. • Cease grading or other activities that cause excessive (greater than 20 percent opacity) dust formation during periods of high winds (greater than 20 mph over a one-hour period).

Mitigation and Other Recommended Measures

Blossom View Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis May 2025

7.2 - Recommended Measures to Reduce Equipment Exhaust
In addition, the GAMAQI guidance document lists the following measures as approved and recommended for construction activities. These measures are recommended:
• Maintain all construction equipment as recommended by manufacturer manuals. • Shut down equipment when not in use for extended periods. • Construction equipment shall operate no longer than eight cumulative hours per day. • Use electric equipment for construction whenever possible in lieu of diesel or gasoline powered equipment.
• Curtail use of high-emitting construction equipment during periods of high or excessive ambient pollutant concentrations.
• All construction vehicles shall be equipped with proper emissions control equipment and kept in good and proper running order to substantially reduce NOx emissions. • On-road and Off-road diesel equipment shall use diesel particulate filters if permitted under the manufacturer’s guidelines.
• On-road and Off-road diesel equipment shall use cooled exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) if permitted under the manufacturer’s guidelines. • All construction workers shall be encouraged to shuttle (car-pool) to retail establishments or to remain on-site during lunch breaks.

7.3 - Recommended Measures to Reduce Equipment Exhaust
The following measures are recommended to further reduce the potential for long-term emissions from the Project. These measures are required as a matter of regulatory compliance:
• The Project design shall comply with applicable standards set forth in Title 24 of the Uniform Building Code to minimize total consumption of energy. • The developer shall comply with the provisions of SJVAPCD Rule 4601 - Architectural Coatings, during the construction of all buildings and facilities. Application of architectural coatings shall be completed in a manner that poses the least emissions impacts whenever such application is deemed proficient. • The applicant shall comply with the provisions of SJVAPCD Rule 4641 during the construction and pavement of all roads and parking areas within the project area.

Specifically, the applicant shall not allow the use of:
o Rapid cure cutback asphalt.
o Medium cure cutback asphalt.
o Slow cure cutback asphalt (as specified in SJVAPCD Rule 4641, Section 5.1.3); or Emulsified asphalt (as specified in SJVAPCD Rule 4641, Section 5.1.4). o The developer shall comply with applicable provisions of SJVAPCD Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review).

Level of Significance After Mitigation

Blossom View Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis May 2025

SECTION 8 - LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
The proposed Project would have short-term air quality impacts due to construction activities as well as vehicular emissions. Both of these impacts would be mitigated and were found to be less than significant before and after mitigation.

The proposed Project would result in long-term air quality impacts due to operational and related mobile source emissions. These impacts would be mitigated and were found to be less than significant before and after mitigation.

The proposed Project would result in impacts to greenhouse gases and climate change due to construction and operational emissions. These impacts were found to be less than significant.

The proposed Project, in conjunction with other past, present, and foreseeable future projects, would result in cumulative short-term and long-term impacts to air quality. The proposed Project’s incremental contribution to these impacts would be mitigated below thresholds of significance and would not be considered cumulatively considerable.

Therefore, the Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts was found to be less than significant.

The proposed Project, in conjunction with other past, present, and foreseeable future projects, would result in cumulative long-term impacts to global climate change. The proposed Project’s incremental contribution to these impacts will be mitigated to the extent feasible and are considered less than significant.

References

Blossom View Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis May 2025

SECTION 9 - REFERENCES
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2024. California Emissions Estimator Model tm (CalEEMod), version 2022.1.1.29, released November 2024.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2024. Background Emissions Data. https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/index.html. Accessed December 2024. --------. 2024a. California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2022: Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators. 2024. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2024- 09/nc-2000_2022_ghg_inventory_trends.pdf
--------. 2025. Almanac Emission Projection Data.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/applications/cepam2019v1-04-standard-emission-tool.

Accessed 2025.
--------. 2024b. “Ambient Air Quality Standards.” July 22, 2024. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2024-
08/AAQS%20Table_ADA_FINAL_07222024.pdf
California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). 2006. Climate Action Team (CAT) Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature.
http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reports/2006report/2006- 04-03_FINAL_CAT_REPORT.PDF
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statute and Guidelines. 2024. (Public Resources Code 21000 to 21177) and CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000 – 15387).

Enviropedia, 2019. Greenhouse Gas Emissions website, accessed December 2024. http://www.enviropedia.org.uk/Global_Warming/Emissions.php Fresno Council of Governments (Fresno COG). July 2024. Conformity Analysis for the 2025 Federal Transportation Improvement and the 2022 Regional Transportation Plan Fresno County Department of Public Works and Planning (FCDPWP). 2024. Fresno County General Plan Policy Document.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2017. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/ ---------. Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report. 2014.
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessmentreport/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc. May 2025. Traffic Impact Analysis Report for Tract 6502.

References

Blossom View Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis May 2025

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2025a. Ambient Air Quality Standards & Valley Attainment Status. https://ww2.valleyair.org/air-qualityinformation/ambient-air-quality-standards-valley-attainmnet-status/, accessed December 2024.
----------. 2024. Air Monitoring Location Map.
https://www.valleyair.org/media/3lkhl4ye/2024-network-plan-map.jpg, accessed December 2024.
----------. 2024a. 2024 Plan for the 2012 Annual PM2.5 Standard. June 20, 2024. https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/gw5bacvj/2024-pm25-plan.pdf ----------. 2025b. 2024 Annual Report to the Community. https://www.valleyair.org/newsoutreach-and-education/news/valley-air-district-releases-the-2024-annual-reportto-the-community/ ----------. 2025c. 2024 Annual Report on the District’s Indirect Source Review Program.

January 7, 2025. https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/vzuixb0n/item-12_2024-isrannual-report.pdf ----------. 2025d. Meteorological Data Zip Files for Fresno 2018-2022. https://www.valleyair.org/permitting/air-dispersion-modeling/meteorologicaldata-zip-files/ ----------. 2022. 2022 Plan for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone Standard. December 15, 2022. https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/q55posm0/0000-2022-plan-for-the-2015-8- hour-ozone-standard.pdf
----------. 2015. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. March 19, 2015. ----------. 2023. 2023 Maintenance Plan and Redesignation Request for the Revoked 1-Hour Ozone Standard. June 15, 2023. https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/itoegkch/03- adopted-2023-maintenance-plan-and-redesignation-request-for-the-revoked-1- hour-ozone-standard.pdf
United Nations, 2011. The Millennium Development Goals Report 2011. http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/(2011_E)%20MDG%20Report%202011_ Book%20LR.pdf
United States Energy Information Administration (U.S. EIA). 2023. International Energy Outlook 2023. https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/pdf/IEO2023_Narrative.pdf United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2024. Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990–2022.
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-04/us-ghg-inventory-2024- main-text_04-18-2024.pdf.

References

Blossom View Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis May 2025

United States Geological Survey’s (USGS) National Map. 2021. Fresno, CA. 7.5 minute. https://viewer.nationalmap.gov/basic/?basemap=b1&category=ustopo&title=US %20Topo%20Download
United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). 2014. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/.

Western Regional Climate Center, 2024. Fresno, California, Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary, 10/1/1937 to 6/09/2016. https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca0442.

Accessed December 2024.

APPENDIX A

EXISTING AIR QUALITY MONITORING DATA








!

!
"#
$%&'(
&)"
$$"
*+*,*+***+*-
./01 21/34516170./01 21/34516170./01 21/34516170
89530:9;<= >?@ABCDEFGH?IAJKLAAA>?MAN KLAKO
P1QR7S:9;<= H?ITKKLAATUVWBKLKXB>?MO KLKXB
Y<95S:9;<= H?IOBKLAKJUVWTKLKXZUVWAN KLKXZ
8R450<:9;<= >?@AZKLAKTUVWO[KLKXKHW\OB KLKX[
]/^9_R579/=
`./a3bcRd10<1P0/7S/5S= XT T
]/^9_R579/.139;7/09R7
e/^41= KLAAKLAA KLAA
fgh1Q01Si1/j./a
]R7Q1705/09R7= KLAAKKLAKX KLAKN
k/09R7/^=
lmnopqrstuvwuxvnyzn{z| EC C
}~un{€pv‚nvuz€ƒ„u
vuz
†‡‚ru{sˆ€ƒ
uuzny
u
mnop|
CD‰CD‰ CD‰
Š~un{€pv‚nvuz€ƒ„u
vuz
†‡‚ru{sˆ€ƒ
uuzny
u
mnop|

EDCCDC CDC
†nv‹Œxvnyzn{zmupy
ŽnŒ‡u| CDEE‰CDEEE CDEC
1/5]Rd15/;1= XTXZ XZ
kR013=
:R45^aR‘R7161/345161703/7S51^/01S30/09309Q3/51/d/9^/c^1/085137R’.5466R7SP05110c10“117,”•– /7S*+*-—PR61a1/53970<935/7;16/a7R0c151h5131701S— b^^QR7Q1705/09R731gh51331S97h/503h1569^^9R7—
Y<17/09R7/^,’<R45R‘R7130/7S/5S“/351dRj1S97˜471*++™—P0/09309Q351^/01S0R0<17/09R7/^,’<R45R‘R71 30/7S/5S/513<R“797R5—
b71gQ11S/7Q1R_/30/7S/5S937R071Q133/59^a51^/01S0R/d9R^/09R7R_0<130/7S/5S— 1/5]Rd15/;197S9Q/0130<11g01700R“<9Q</d/9^/c^16R790R597;S/0/51h5131700<10961R_0<1a1/5“<17 QR7Q1705/09R73/511gh1Q01S0Rc1<9;<130—+61/730</0S/0/51h5131707R71R_0<1<9;<h159RSš,++61/73 0</0S/0/51h5131700<1170951<9;<h159RS—b<9;<1/5]Rd15/;1SR137R061/70</00<151“/334__9Q9170 S/0/_R5/774/^30/09309Q30Rc1QR739S151Sd/^9S—
›61/730<151“/39734__9Q9170S/0//d/9^/c^10RS101569710<1d/^41—    
œžŸ ¡Ÿ¢£ž¢¤¥¦§žŸ¢¨¦§©Ÿ§ª«¦§§œ§§ª§ ¬«¨¦¥Ÿ­¦®¬¤ª«¯°¦±§ iAAM
U.Gov A0 10 — in E







!

!
"#
$%&'(
) &*
+,+-+,+++,+.
/012 32045627281/012 32045627281/012 32045627281
9:641;:<=> ?@ABCCDEEF?@AEGCDCHGI@JFF CDECE
K2LM8N;:<=> I@OEHCDECPQRSPCDCHGI@OBC CDCHT
U=:6N;:<=> ?@AFHCDECFQRSBCDCHCI@JFB CDCHT
9M561=;:<=> ?@AFPCDCHVQRSFCDCPGI@JET CDCHW
X0Y:ZM68:0>
[/0\4]^M_21=2K108N06N> GF B
X0Y:ZM68:0/24:<801:M8
`0Y52> CDEECDEE CDEC
abc2L12Nd20e/0\
XM8L281601:M8> CDECVCDECV CDECE
f01:M80Y>
ghijklmnopqrpsqituivuw xx x
yz{piv|kq}~iqpu|€pqpu
‚ƒ~mpvn„|ppuitp
hijkw
x
xx
x x
x
†z{piv|kq}~iqpu|€pqpu
‚ƒ~mpvn„|ppuitp
hijkw
x
xx
x x
x
‚iq‡ˆsqituivuhpk}‰t
Šiˆƒpw x
‹‹Œx
‹‹Œ x
‹x‹
206XM_260<2> HHHH HP
fM124>
;M56Y\MŽM8272045627281408N62Y012N4101:41:L40620_0:Y0^Y20196248M06Y08N^21‘228+,-+08N+,+.’ KM72\2064:81=:4608<270\8M1^262c6242812N’
]YYLM8L281601:M842bc62442N:8c0614c267:YY:M8’
U=2801:M80Y-=M56MŽM824108N06N‘0462_Me2N:8“582+,,”’K101:41:L462Y012N1M1=2801:M80Y-=M56MŽM82 4108N06N0624=M‘8:8M6’
]82bL22N08L2MZ04108N06N:48M182L24406:Y\62Y012N1M0_:MY01:M8MZ1=24108N06N’ 206XM_260<2:8N:L01241=22b12811M‘=:L=0_0:Y0^Y27M8:1M6:8<N01062c6242811=21:72MZ1=2\206‘=28 LM8L281601:M840622bc2L12N1M^2=:<=241’,720841=01N01062c6242818M82MZ1=2=:<=c26:MN•-,,72084 1=01N01062c6242811=2281:62=:<=c26:MN’]=:<=206XM_260<2NM248M172081=011=262‘0445ZZ:L:281 N010ZM608850Y4101:41:L41M^2LM84:N262N_0Y:N’
–720841=262‘04:845ZZ:L:281N0100_0:Y0^Y21MN21267:821=2_0Y52’    
—˜™š›œšž™Ÿ ¡¢™š£¡¢¤š¢¥¦¡¢¢—¢¢¥¢›§¦£¡ š¨¡©§Ÿ¥¦ª«¡¬¢ iAAM
U.Gov A0 10 — in E







!

!
"#$%&'()*&$$ +%,-,
./.0./.../.1
2345 6537895:5;42345 6537895:5;42345 6537895:5;4
<=974>=?@A BCDEFFGHIEJKLIFGHFMNCOEF FGHFI
P5QR;S>=?@A BCDIMFGHHMJKLTFGHFHNCUHV FGHFI
W@=9S>=?@A BCDIXFGHHEBCDHMFGFMVNCUIE FGFMX
<R894@>=?@A NCOHMFGHHHNCOITFGFMTNCUII FGFMT
Y3Z=[R9;=3A
\23]7^_R`54@5P43;S39SA ME E
Y3Z=[R9;=3257=?;34=R;
a3Z85A FGHHFGHH FGHH
bcd5Q45Se53f23]
YR;Q5;4934=R;A FGHHEFGHHT FGHFX
g34=R;3ZA
hijklmnopqrsqtrjuvjwvx yy y
z{|qjw}lr~jrqv}€q‚rqv
ƒ„nqwo
}€‚qqvju‚q
ijklx
y†‡y†‡ y†y
ˆ{|qjw}lr~jrqv}€q‚rqv
ƒ„nqwo
}€‚qqvju‚q
ijklx
y†yy†y y†y
ƒjr‰Štrjuvjwviql~‹u
ŒjŠ„qx y†Žy†Ž y†
539YR`593?5A MM M‘
gR457A
>R89Z]R’R;5:537895:5;473;S95Z345S7434=74=Q73953`3=Z3_Z534YZR`=7“ga=ZZ3^`5;85_54”55;0••/3;S ./.1–PR:5]5397=;4@=793;?5:3];R4_595d9575;45S–
^ZZQR;Q5;4934=R;75cd95775S=;d3947d59:=ZZ=R;–
W@5;34=R;3Z0“@R89R’R;5743;S39S”3795`Rf5S=;—8;5.//˜–P434=74=Q795Z345S4R4@5;34=R;3Z0“@R89R’R;5 743;S39S3957@R”;=;R9–
^;5cQ55S3;Q5R[3743;S39S=7;R4;5Q57739=Z]95Z345S4R3`=RZ34=R;R[4@5743;S39S– 539YR`593?5=;S=Q34574@55c45;44R”@=Q@3`3=Z3_Z5:R;=4R9=;?S34395d9575;44@54=:5R[4@5]539”@5; QR;Q5;4934=R;73955cd5Q45S4R_5@=?@574–/:53;74@34S34395d9575;4;R;5R[4@5@=?@d59=RS™0//:53;7 4@34S34395d9575;44@55;4=95@=?@d59=RS–^@=?@539YR`593?5SR57;R4:53;4@344@595”3778[[=Q=5;4 S343[R93;;83Z7434=74=Q74R_5QR;7=S595S`3Z=S–
š:53;74@595”37=;78[[=Q=5;4S3433`3=Z3_Z54RS5459:=;54@5`3Z85–    
›œžŸ ž¡¢¡£¤¥¦ž¡§¥¦¨ž¦©ª¥¦¦›¦¦©¦Ÿ«ª§¥¤ž¬¥­«£©ª®¯¥°¦ iAAM
U.Gov A0 10 — in E






!"#$% 
&'
()*+,
*-&
((&
./.0./.../.1
23456789:;593<523456789:;593<52345 6789:;593<5
=34>?@3A./0BC4DE/F/G/
HHIJK
L>9M48><NK OPQRSTUTVVWPXRYTUTSVOPZ[ TUTSS
C5\?@D8><NK WPX[STUTVV]^_STUTSROPZR` TUTSY
aN>9D8><NK OPQRVTUTVb]^_bTUTcSOPZR TUTSb
L?d94N8><NK WPX[VTUTSS]^_[eTUTcYW_f[S TUTS[
g3A>h?9@>3C4DE/F/G/HHIJK
L>9M48><NK OPQRSTURTTWPXRYTUTSVOPZ[ TUTSS
C5\?@D8><NK WPX[STUTVV]^_STUTS[OPZR` TUTSc
aN>9D8><NK OPQRVTUTVb]^_bTUTcSOPZR TUTSb
L?d94N8><NK WPXbTTUTSV]^_[eTUTcYW_f[S TUTS[
=34>?@3A./0BC4DE/F/G/
HHIJK
i23jM:k?;54N5C43@D39DK bVS [T
=34lAC43@D39D25M><@
m3Ad5K TUTS[TUTSb TUTS[
=34>?@3An539g?;593<5K V`VV VS
g3A>h?9@>3C4DE/F/G/HHIJK
i23jM:k?;54N5C43@D39DK eRS [e
g3A>h?9@>325M><@34>?@
m3Ad5K TUTVbTUTVb TUTSV
opH5\45Dq53r23j
g?@\5@4934>?@K TUTV`TUTV` TUTV[
g3A>h?9@>3n539g?;593<5K VbVY VY
=?45MK
o><N47N?d9?s?@53;593<5M3@D95A345DM434>M4>\M3953;3>A3kA534L95M@?729dII?@DC49554k54t55@0u6v3@D ./.1FC?I5j539M>@4N>M93@<5I3j@?4k595H95M5@45DF
:AA3;593<5M5pH95MM5D>@H394MH59I>AA>?@F
:@5p\55D3@\5?h3M43@D39D>M@?4@5\5MM39>Aj95A345D4?3;>?A34>?@?h4N5M43@D39DF C43453@D@34>?@3AM434>M4>\MI3jD>hh59h?94N5h?AA?t>@<953M?@MK =34>?@3A67N?d93;593<5M39549d@\345D4?4N955D5\>I3AHA3\5MwC434567N?d93;593<5M3959?d@D5D4?4N955D5\>I3AHA3\5MF C4345\9>459>3h?95@Md9>@<4N34D343395Mdhh>\>5@4Aj\?IHA545h?9\3A\dA34>@<67N?d93;593<5M395I?95M49>@<5@44N3@4N5@34>?@3A\9>459>3F 23>AjI3p>IdI67N?d93;593<5M3MM?\>345Dt>4N4N5=34>?@3A/F/G/HHIM43@D39D5p\AdD54N?M567N?d9 3;593<5M4N34N3;5h>9M4N?d9Mk54t55@I>D@><N43@DxK//3Iyq3\>h>\C43@D39Da>I5F    
z{|}~}€|€‚ƒ„
|}€†„
‡}
ˆ‰„

z

ˆ
~Š‰†„ƒ}‹„ŒŠ‚ˆ‰Ž„

iAAM
U.Gov A0 10 — in E






!"#$% 
&'
()*+,
- *.
/0/1/0///0/2
3456789:;<6:4=63456789:;<6:4=63456 789:;<6:4=6
>45?@A4B/01CD5EF0G0H0
IIJKL
M?:N59?=OL PQRSTUVUWXPQRYZUVUTX[Q\SX UVUT]
D6^@AE9?=OL PQRSWUVUT_`abTUVUTU[Q\S UVUTS
cO?:E9?=OL [QdYWUVUTZ`abSUVU__[QdXU UVUTU
M@e:5O9?=OL PQRXUUVUTZ`abXUVU_X[Q\YZ UVUTU
f4B?g@:A?4D5EF0G0H0IIJKL
M?:N59?=OL PQRSTUVUWXPQRYZUVUTX[Q\SX UVUT]
D6^@AE9?=OL PQRSWUVUT_`abTUVUTU[Q\S UVUTS
cO?:E9?=OL PQRXUUVUT_`abSUVU_T[QdXU UVUTY
M@e:5O9?=OL [QdYWUVUTZ`abXUVU_X[Q\YZ UVUTY
>45?@A4B/01CD5EF0G0H0
IIJKL
h34iN;j@<65O6D54AE4:EL YTYU Yk
>45lBD54AE4:E36N?=A
m4Be6L UVUT]UVUTX UVU_W
>45?@A4Bn64:f@<6:4=6L YUUWW WW
f4B?g@:A?4D5EF0G0H0IIJKL
h34iN;j@<65O6D54AE4:EL SSYU Y_
f4B?g@:A?436N?=A45?@A
m4Be6L UVUWSUVUWU UVUT_
opI6^56Eq64r34i
f@A^6A5:45?@AL UVUWSUVUWY UVUTT
f4B?g@:A?4n64:f@<6:4=6L WWWW W_
>@56NL
o?=O58O@e:@s@A64<6:4=6N4AE:6B456EN545?N5?^N4:64<4?B4jB645M:6NA@8t4:B4AEj65u66A/01/4AE/0/2G D@J6i64:N?A5O?N:4A=6J4iA@5j6:6I:6N6A56EG
;BB4<6:4=6N6pI:6NN6E?AI4:5NI6:J?BB?@AG
;A6p^66E4A^6@g4N54AE4:E?NA@5A6^6NN4:?Bi:6B456E5@4<?@B45?@A@g5O6N54AE4:EG D54564AEA45?@A4BN545?N5?^NJ4iE?gg6:g@:5O6g@BB@u?A=:64N@ANL >45?@A4B78O@e:4<6:4=6N4:65:eA^456E5@5O:66E6^?J4BIB4^6NvD545678O@e:4<6:4=6N4:6:@eAE6E5@5O:66E6^?J4BIB4^6NG D5456^:?56:?4g@:6ANe:?A=5O45E4544:6Negg?^?6A5Bi^@JIB656g@:^4B^eB45?A=78O@e:4<6:4=6N4:6J@:6N5:?A=6A55O4A5O6A45?@A4B^:?56:?4G 34?BiJ4p?JeJ78O@e:4<6:4=6N4NN@^?456Eu?5O5O6>45?@A4B0G0H0IIJN54AE4:E6p^BeE65O@N678O@e:
4<6:4=6N5O45O4<6g?:N5O@e:Nj65u66AJ?EA?=O54AEwL004Jxq4^?g?^D54AE4:Ec?J6G    
yz{|}~|€{‚ƒ„{|
ƒ„†|„‡ˆƒ„„y„„‡„}‰ˆ
ƒ‚|Šƒ‹‰‡ˆŒƒŽ„
iAAM
U.Gov A0 10 — in E






!"#$% 
&'()*+,-.*(( /)010
232423222325
6789:;<=>?9=7@96789:;<=>?9=7@96789 :;<=>?9=7@9
A78BCD7E234FG8HI3J3K3
LLMNO
PB=Q8<B@RO STUVWXYZXXSTUZ[XYXW\]T^V_ XYXW_
G9`CDH<B@RO STUVaXYXaZbcdVXYXW_]T^Ze XYXWV
fRB=H<B@RO STU_XXYXaXbcd[XYXWX]Tg_X XYXWZ
PCh=8R<B@RO ]TgZaXYXWebcdWXYXWX]T^V XYXWZ
i7EBjC=DB7G8HI3J3K3LLMNO
PB=Q8<B@RO STUVWXYZXXSTUZ[XYXW\]T^V_ XYXW\
G9`CDH<B@RO STUVaXYXaVbcdVXYXW_]T^Ze XYXWV
fRB=H<B@RO STU_XXYXaXbcd[XYXWX klmn XYXWV
PCh=8R<B@RO ]TgZaXYXW[bcdWXYXWX]Tg_X XYXWZ
A78BCD7E234FG8HI3J3K3
LLMNO
o67pQ>qC?98R9G87DH7=HO _\V_ VZ
A78rEG87DH7=H69QB@D
s7Eh9O XYXW_XYXW\ XYXWV
A78BCD7Et97=iC?9=7@9O aaaW an
i7EBjC=DB7G8HI3J3K3LLMNO
o67pQ>qC?98R9G87DH7=HO _nV[ V_
i7EBjC=DB769QB@D78BCD
s7Eh9O XYXaeXYXae XYXaV
uvL9`89Hw97x67p
iCD`9D8=78BCDO XYXa[XYXa[ XYXa_
i7EBjC=DB7t97=iC?9=7@9O anan a_
AC89QO
uB@R8;RCh=CyCD97?9=7@9Q7DH=9E789HQ878BQ8B`Q7=97?7BE7qE978iEC?BQ;AsBEE7>?9Dh9q98z99D4{{37DH 2325JGCM9p97=QBD8RBQ=7D@9M7pDC8q9=9L=9Q9D89HJ
>EE7?9=7@9Q9vL=9QQ9HBDL7=8QL9=MBEEBCDJ
>D9v`99H7D`9Cj7Q87DH7=HBQDC8D9`9QQ7=BEp=9E789H8C7?BCE78BCDCj8R9Q87DH7=HJ G87897DHD78BCD7EQ878BQ8B`QM7pHBjj9=jC=8R9jCEECzBD@=97QCDQO A78BCD7E:;RCh=7?9=7@9Q7=98=hD`789H8C8R=99H9`BM7ELE7`9Q|G8789:;RCh=7?9=7@9Q7=9=ChDH9H8C8R=99H9`BM7ELE7`9QJ G8789`=B89=B7jC=9DQh=BD@8R78H7877=9QhjjB`B9D8Ep`CMLE989jC=`7E`hE78BD@:;RCh=7?9=7@9Q7=9MC=9Q8=BD@9D88R7D8R9D78BCD7E`=B89=B7J 67BEpM7vBMhM:;RCh=7?9=7@9Q7QQC`B789HzB8R8R9A78BCD7E3J3K3LLMQ87DH7=H9v`EhH98RCQ9:;RCh= 7?9=7@9Q8R78R7?9jB=Q8RCh=Qq98z99DMBHDB@R87DH}O337M~w7`BjB`G87DH7=HfBM9J    
€‚ƒ„‚
†
‡ˆ‰Š‚
‹‰ŠŒ‚ŠŽ‰ŠŠŠŠŠƒŽ‹‰ˆ‚‰‘‡Ž’“‰”Š
iAAM
U.Gov A0 10 — in E








 
!


 
"#
$%&'(
&)"
$$"
*+*,*+***+*-
./01 21/34516170./01 21/34516170./01 21/34516170
8/09:7/;<
=9530>9?@< ABCDEFGHIBJDDHKGL MCNLD HKGD
O1P:7Q>9?@< MCNDHHKGRSTUVHHEGVABCDH HFGW
X@95Q>9?@< STULRHWGVSTUVFHEGR MCNDY HVGE
=:450@>9?@< Z[\FHHGDIBJDKHFGHABCDL HVGH
]/;9^:579/<
=9530>9?@< ABCDEFIBJDDHK MCNLD HK
O1P:7Q>9?@< MCNDHHKSTUVFHEABCDH HF
X@95Q>9?@< STULRHWSTUVHHE MCNDY HV
=:450@>9?@< Z[\FHHIBJDRHFABCDL HV
8/09:7/;<
,_>:45O0/7Q/5Q.139?7
`/;41< aHV HD
,_>:45O0/7Q/5Qbc0@
d15P1709;1< FYGWHVGR HRGK
e./f3gh:i10@1O0/7Q/5Q< RR R
g774/;O0/7Q/5Q.139?7
`/;41< DDDV DR
]/;9^:579/<
,_>:45O0Q.139?7/09:7
`/;41< WRWR ER
jkl1P01Qd1/m./f
]:7P1705/09:7< EEEH EL
e./f3gh:i10@1O0/7Q/5Q< RR R
g774/;O0Q.139?7/09:7
`/;41< DDDV DV
g774/;gi15/?1< DDDVDR
n1/5]:i15/?1< YLYYYW
8:013<
>:45;f7905:?17Q9:k9Q161/345161703/7Q51;/01Q30/09309P3/51/i/9;/h;1/0=5137:_.5466:7QO05110 h10o117,bcp/7Q*+*-qO:61f1/53970@935/7?16/f7:0h151l5131701Qq    
rstuvwuxytxz{|}tux~|}u}€|}}r}}€}v‚~|{uƒ|„‚z€
†|‡}
iAAM
U.Gov A0 10 — in E








 
!


 
"#
$%&'(
) &*
+,+-+,+++,+.
/012 32045627281/012 32045627281/012 32045627281
901:;80<=
>:641?:@A= BCDEFGHIJKLMFFNHOBCDEI NOHP
Q2R;8S?:@A= TDUEGNVHEJKLMINGHGBCDEF NOHM
WA:6S?:@A= TDUNNGHGJKLMGNNHFBCDEN NFHM
>;561A?:@A= XCYMNNFHGJKLMNNNHEBCDEG NMHP
Z0<:[;68:0=
>:641?:@A= BCDEFGJKLMFFNBCDEI NO
Q2R;8S?:@A= TDUEGNVJKLMINGBCDEF NO
WA:6S?:@A= TDUNNG TDUEPNNBCDEN NF
>;561A?:@A= XCYMNNFJKLMNNNJKLEI NM
901:;80<=
-\?;56Q108S06S/24:@8
]0<52= NGNN NM
-\?;56Q108S06S^_1A
`26R281:<2= NIHONEHa NaHG
b/0c4de;f21A2Q108S06S= aa a
d8850<Q108S06S/24:@8
]0<52= VV V
Z0<:[;68:0=
-\?;56Q1S/24:@801:;8
]0<52= GaGa Fa
ghi2R12S`20j/0c
Z;8R281601:;8= FGFF Fa
b/0c4de;f21A2Q108S06S= aa a
d8850<Q1S/24:@801:;8
]0<52= PP V
d8850<df260@2= VkO l206Z;f260@2= PPVIPN
9;124=
?;56<c8:16;@28S:;h:S272045627281408S62<012S4101:41:R40620f0:<0e<201>6248;\m06<08Se21n228+,-+ 08S+,+.oQ;72c2064:81A:4608@270c8;1e262i6242812So    
pqrstusvwrvxyz{rsv|z{}s{~z{{p{{~{t€|zysz‚€x~ƒ„z {
iAAM
U.Gov A0 10 — in E








 
!


 
"#$%&'()*&$$ +%,-,
./.0./.../.1
2345 6537895:5;42345 6537895:5;42345 6537895:5;4
<34=>;3?@
A=974B=CD@ EFGHIJKILMNOPQHKREFGHP ISKJ
T5U>;VB=CD@ LMNPWIXKHLMNOQQHKOEFGHI IXKR
YD=9VB=CD@ ZG[HIPKQLMNOXIQKJLMNHI IXKX
A>894DB=CD@ \]^OHIOKQLMNOOIIKRLMNP IXKI
_3?=`>9;=3@
A=974B=CD@ EFGHIJLMNOPQHEFGHP IS
T5U>;VB=CD@ LMNPWIXLMNOQQHLMNP IX
YD=9VB=CD@ ZG[HIPLMNOXIQLMNHI IX
A>894DB=CD@ \]^OHIOLMNOOIIEFGHI IX
<34=>;3?@
0aB>89T43;V39V257=C;
b3?85@ IXIP IH
0aB>89T43;V39Vcd4D
e59U5;4=?5@ PRKHIPKO IOKH
f23g7hi>j54D5T43;V39V@ WW W
h;;83?T43;V39V257=C;
b3?85@ RJ R
_3?=`>9;=3@
0aB>89T4V257=C;34=>;
b3?85@ XWQW QW
klm5U45Ve53n23g
_>;U5;4934=>;@ QRQI QH
f23g7hi>j54D5T43;V39V@ WW W
h;;83?T4V257=C;34=>;
b3?85@ JJ R
h;;83?hj593C5@ SRS o539_>j593C5@ JJJXJX
<>457@
B>89?g;=49>C5;V=>l=V5:537895:5;473;V95?345V7434=74=U73953j3=?3i?534_?>j=7a<b=??3hj5;85i54p55; 0cc/3;V./.1qT>:5g5397=;4D=793;C5:3g;>4i595m9575;45Vq    
rstuvwuxytxz{|}tux~|}u}€|}}r}}€}v‚~|{uƒ|„‚z€
†|‡}
iAAM
U.Gov A0 10 — in E







!"#

$%
&'()*
(+$
&&$
,-,.,-,,,-,/
0123 ,4567
89371:3 0123 ,456789371:3 0123 ,4567
89371:3
;12<=>1?@
A<7B26<:C@ DEFGHIHIJKLEMINOPJQ RSTIU IPIJI
V3W=>X6<:C@ YZ[GNIQOJO\]^GU_KJU RSTGN IGOJG
`C<7X6<:C@ RSTIIGUJOLEMQHQJU RSTO IGIJP
A=a72C6<:C@ DEFOIGKJI\]^IOHQJ_ RSTH IIKJP
b1?<c=7><1@
A<7B26<:C@ DEFGHIQUJKDEFUI__JH RSTIU IPNJN
V3W=>X6<:C@ YZ[GNIQHJNDEF_I_HJO RSTGN IGHJQ
`C<7X6<:C@ RSTIIGUJG\Z^GGIQOJU RSTO IIUJQ
A=a72C6<:C@ DEFOIGPJUDEFKIPIJH RSTH IIOJH
;12<=>1?@
dB2<e123Xf01gBh,4567
V2X@ ii NJN
j31Ba73Xf01gBh,4567
V2X@ NN N
/5k789:dB2f01gBh,4567
V2X@ ii i
lmmnoplqrsotru vwxywzx{ v{x|
}~roslqrsotru vyv€ 
b1?<c=7><1@
dB2<e123Xf01gBh,4567
V2X@ ii i
j31Ba73Xf01gBh,4567
V2X@ GNIPP IGN
8>>a1?89371:3@ ii i
/5k317j1‚<eae8>>a1?
89371:3@ QNi i
k317b=9371:3@ UPINN ;=23B@
01<?gƒj.-19371:3B1>X73?123XB212<B2<WB173191<?1„?312A73B>=507aee=>XV27332„32 33>.†‡†1>X,-,/ˆ
V=e3g317B<>2C<B71>:3e1g>=2„373‰73B3>23Xˆ
   
Š‹ŒŽ‘Œ’“”•Œ–”•—•˜™”••Š••˜•Žš™–”“›”œš’˜™ž”Ÿ• iAAM
U.Gov A0 10 — in E







!"#

$%
&'()*
+ (,
-.-/-.---.-0
1234 -5678
9:482;4 1234 -56789:482;4 1234 -5678
9:482;4
<23=>?2@A
B=8C37=;DA EFGHHIJHKLMNOPHHQKH EFGIL HLPKR
S4T>?U7=;DA EFGRHVRKHMNOIHLWKQ EFGHP HLIKR
XD=8U7=;DA MNOIWHRJKRMNOQHLRKLYZ[R JHKJ
B>\83D7=;DA ]^_ILHRHKHMNOHPWKP`NFHW JHKV
a2@=b>8?=2A
B=8C37=;DA EFGHHIJRKRMNOPHLPKI EFGIL HLcKJ
S4T>?U7=;DA EFGRHVRKLMNOIHLLKL EFGHP HLHKc
XD=8U7=;DA MNOIWHRWKcMNOQPcKI`NFHW JWKP
B>\83D7=;DA EFGVHIPKVMNOHPHKW`NFHV JVKJ
<23=>?2@A
dC3=e234Uf12gCh-5678
S3UA HKLLKL LKL
i42C\84Uf12gCh-5678
S3UA HL L
06j89:;dC3f12gCh-5678
S3UA QKLWKL LKL
kllmnokpqrnsqt uvwuxywz xzwx
{|}qnrkpqrnsqt uvuz xy
a2@=b>8?=2A
dC3=e234Uf12gCh-5678
S3UA PHKW~ WWKP
i42C\84Uf12gCh-5678
S3UA PHcR WV
9??\2@9:482;4A VHKQ~ RIKc
06j428i2=e\e9??\2@
9:482;4A VJVJ VI
j428a>:482;4A LLL <>34CA
12=@g€i/.2:482;4C2?U84@234UC323=C3=TC2842:2=@2@423B84C?>6‚28@2?U43ƒ44?-./-2?U-.-0„S>e4 g428C=?3D=C82?;4e2g?>3484 84C4?34U„
   
†‡ˆ‰Š‹‰ŒˆŒŽ‘ˆ‰Œ’‘“‰‘”•‘‘†‘‘”‘Š–•’‰—˜–Ž”•™š›‘ iAAM
U.Gov A0 10 — in E







!"#

$%&'()*+,(&& -'./.
010201000103
4567 089:;
<=7;5>7 4567 089:;<=7;5>7 4567 089:;
<=7;5>7
?56@AB5CD
E@;F6:@>GD HIJKLMKNOLPQRSMKTOL UVWKL MLXOT
Y7ZAB[:@>GD PQRKNMKXOTPQRKMMSON UVWMS \SOM
]G@;[:@>GD UVWMMLXO\PQR^MLNOS UVWM\ \NOL
EA_;6G:@>GD PQRTS\OTPQR\S^O`PQRKK TNOS
a5C@bA;B@5D
E@;F6:@>GD UVWMMKL\O\PQRSMKLOL UVWKL ML`OM
Y7ZAB[:@>GD HIJMSMX^OMPQRKMM`O\ UVWMS \\OK
]G@;[:@>GD UVWXMXXOTPQR^MLLON UVWM\ \XOX
EA_;6G:@>GD UVW`MXXOL UVWKMSKOTPQRKK TNO\
?56@AB5CD
cF6@d567[e45fFg089:;
Y6[D hLOL LOL
i75F_;7[e45fFg089:;
Y6[D LL L
39j;<=>cF6e45fFg089:;
Y6[D hNOL LOL
kllmnokpqrnsqt uvwxuywy uzwu
{|}qnrkpqrnsqt u~u ux
a5C@bA;B@5D
cF6@d567[e45fFg089:;
Y6[D MMKOXT`O\ XXOL
i75F_;7[e45fFg089:;
Y6[D MMMT` XX
<BB_5C<=7;5>7D X`OK`^OK `LON
39j75;i5€@d_d<BB_5C
<=7;5>7D NMNM X`
j75;aA=7;5>7D SNL L ?A67FD
45@Cfi215=7;5>7F5B[;7C567[F656@F6@ZF5;75=5@C5‚C756aCA=@F9?ƒ@CC5<=7B_7‚76„77B2

25B[0103†
YAd7f75;F@B6G@F;5B>7d5fBA6‚7;7‡;7F7B67[†
   
ˆ‰Š‹Œ‹ŽŠŽ‘’“Š‹Ž”’“•‹“–—’““ˆ““–“Œ˜—”’‘‹™’š˜–—›œ’“ iAAM
U.Gov A0 10 — in E







 !"#

$%
&'()*
+ (,
-.-/-.---.-0
1234 -5678
9:482;4 1234 -56789:482;4 1234 -5678
9:482;4
<23=>?2@A
B=8C37=;DA EFGHIIJIKLMNOPHJHQRFNP HIJN
S4T>?U7=;DA EFGOVOJHWXYZPOIJ[QRFNO H[JZ
\D=8U7=;DA ]^_Z[`OJOWXYZOOIJVQRFZ` HVJI
B>a83D7=;DA EFGP`HJZWXYZVOOJ[QRFN` H`J`
b2@=c>8?=2A
B=8C37=;DA EFGHIIJIWXYZPPHJPQRFNO OZJV
S4T>?U7=;DA EFGOVOJHKLMNOPHJHQRFZ` OZJO
\D=8U7=;DA ]^_Z[`OJOWXYZOOIJVQRFNP HIJN
B>a83D7=;DA EFGP`HJZWXYZVOOJ[QRFNV H[JN
<23=>?2@A
d.efC3=g234Uh12iCj-56
78S3UA HkJHNHJV OJN
d.el42Ca84Uh12iCj-56
78S3UA HkNH O
-..e-5678S3U14C=;?
m2@a4A P[`N OH
-..e-5678S3Uno3D
p48T4?3=@4A PHJPOHJZ HHJH
-..e9??a2@S3U14C=;?
m2@a4A NPJHNPJI NHJk
-..e9??a2@9:482;4A NPJ`NZJI NkJO
-./-9??a2@S3U14C=;?
m2@a4A NPJHNPJI NHJk
-./-9??a2@9:482;4A NPJ`NZJI NkJO
-.-59??a2@S3U14C=;?
m2@a4A NPJHNPJI NHJk
-.-59??a2@9:482;4A NPJ`NZJINkJO
b2@=c>8?=2A
9??a2@S3U14C=;?23=>?
m2@a4A N[N[N`
   
qrstuvtwxswyz{|stw}{|~t|€{||q|||u€}{zt‚{ƒy€„ {†|
iAAM
U.Gov A0 10 — in E







 !"#

$%&'()*+,(&& -'./.
010201000103
4567 089:;
<=7;5>7 4567 089:;<=7;5>7 4567 089:;
<=7;5>7
?56@AB5CD
E@;F6:@>GD HIJKLMNOPQRSLNNLOTUVIWP KNOX
Y7ZAB[:@>GD HIJNTMONQRSLPNMOK\V]WL KNOM
^G@;[:@>GD HIJ_PPOKQRSL_K_OTUVILN KMO_
EA`;6G:@>GD HIJWPPOMQRSWMK_O_UVILK KMOW
a5C@bA;B@5D
E@;F6:@>GD HIJKLMNOPQRSLNNLOTUVIWP KNOX
Y7ZAB[:@>GD HIJNTMONQRSLPNMOK\V]WL KNOM
^G@;[:@>GD HIJ_PPOKQRSL_K_OTUVILN KMO_
EA`;6G:@>GD HIJWPPOMQRSWMK_O_UVILK KMOW
?56@AB5CD
c1deF6@f567[g45hFi089
:;Y6[D WWOMNOK MOM
c1dj75F`;7[g45hFi089
:;Y6[D WWN M
011d089:;Y6[47F@>B
k5C`7D _TPL KP
011d089:;Y6[lm6G
n7;Z7B6@C7D NTOPKWOT WNOM
011d<BB`5CY6[47F@>B
k5C`7D oLNOX LLON
011d<BB`5C<=7;5>7D L_OLLMO_ pO_
0120<BB`5CY6[47F@>B
k5C`7D LNOPLNOX LLON
0120<BB`5C<=7;5>7D L_OLLMO_ pO_
0108<BB`5CY6[47F@>B
k5C`7D LNOPLNOX LLON
0108<BB`5C<=7;5>7D L_OLLMO_pO_
a5C@bA;B@5D
<BB`5CY6[47F@>B56@AB
k5C`7D LpLpLL
   
qrstuvtwxswyz{|stw}{|~t|€{||q|||u€}{zt‚{ƒy€„ {†|
iAAM
U.Gov A0 10 — in E
 



  









 
! !" #$%#&'(((! )
*
+, - 
,# . !
 
/. !," 
,. "#",
/"!"0! !"  !0-! ! +" #!0 .. !,. 1&- " #!,.  
0!  0 " 2,-!+!",- 0 ##! !00 ,. 
  
!"-/&-"-#, 
! . -,0- &-
""  /."!#-
-),-! . 0--
-. !3')),
-! . - -
-. !-
-  
!,-- &00"
!0 "#"! !!

,- &00"!#! ,- 







 


!"# $%%
&'
()*+,-./0)10,2 3456 789:
;<;=>?<@A BC? DEFGD @CHC?
I*02 JK-LM N+MOP0M*2 IO+Q
RSTU
VWXYZ[
\US[SXY V]X]^_^ VS`]TX VSTX
abYZ
\SUcSXY]dS VTe]^_^
fYTX`TU`
gSh]TY]WX
i_^jSU Wk
lj[SUhTY]WX[
gSYScY]WX
m]^]Y
n[Y]^TYS`
o][p
qrqs rtuqtq v stswtxytxqyzrts v
qrqz rtwxztz {|}~ xtrwtxytxqxytz €|
qrqq rtwxztw v tssqyytqyqytz v
qrqy rtwxqtq v strwt‚ytwryuytz v
qrqr rtwxƒ v ƒwtyqtru ytz v
qry rtwxqtz {|„ wtwyrtzqts‚qytz €|
qry‚ rtwxzty }|
‚twyqtqqtqzyytz €|
qryu rtwxzty v wtw‚tsqtr‚qwytz v
qryw rtwxztr {|„ xtuyqtyqtsuzyytz €|
qryx rtwxqtw {|€ xts‚tzyt‚yzrytz €|
qrys rt‚xztr {|†{ ‚tryqztrzrytu €|
qryz rtxztx v yrtyyustryzrytr v
qryq rtuxqtw {|„ wtqywztqqytx €|
qryy ƒƒ v ƒƒƒ r ƒ v
qryr ƒƒ v ƒƒƒ r ƒ v
qrr ƒƒ v ƒƒƒ r ƒ v
qrr‚ ƒƒ v ƒƒƒ r ƒ v
qrru ƒƒ v ƒƒƒ r ƒ v
qrrw ƒƒ v ƒƒƒ r ƒ v
qrrx ƒƒ v ƒƒƒ r ƒ v
qrrs ƒƒ v ƒƒƒ r ƒ v
qrrz ƒƒ v ƒƒƒ r ƒ v
qrrq ƒƒ v ƒƒƒ r ƒ v
qrry ƒƒ v ƒƒƒ r ƒ v
qrrr ƒƒ v ƒƒƒ r ƒ v
y ƒƒ v ƒƒƒ r ƒ v
y‚ ƒƒ v ƒƒƒ r ƒ v
yu ƒƒ v ƒƒƒ r ƒ v
yw ƒƒ v ƒƒƒ r ƒ v
yx ƒƒ v ƒƒƒ r ƒ v
ys ƒƒ v ƒƒƒ r ƒ v
yz ƒƒ v ƒƒƒ r ƒ v
yq ƒƒ v ƒƒƒ r ƒ v
yy ƒƒ v ƒƒƒ r ƒ v
yr ƒƒ v ƒƒƒ r ƒ v
y‚ ƒƒ v ƒƒƒ r ƒ v
‡ˆ‰Š‹Œ Td_S[ jSdWŽ YZS m]^]Y Wk gSYScY]WX mWg T[[_^S` YW jS ‘ mWg’ VSTX[ TX` U][p[ [ZWŽX WXd“ kWU “STU[ Ž]YZ `TYT ]X Tdd ”• ^WXYZ[’ –—– ^STX[ YZSUS ŽT[ ]X[_kk]c]SXY WU XW `TYT ThT]dTjdS YW `SYSU^]XS YZS hTd_S’ mLMA,An W
Welcome to ]California -s
AMrRsgeigss Feeirej
AMMM
FT
Graph
[ Toxics
me
View a Different Site
View a Different Substance
Data
Descriptions
Page_____
HH

APPENDIX B

PROJECT EMISSION CALCULATIONS

Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
1 / 82
Blossom View 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 (2025) - Unmitigated

3.2. Demolition (2025) - Mitigated

3.3. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated
Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
2 / 82

3.4. Site Preparation (2025) - Mitigated

3.5. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated

3.6. Grading (2025) - Mitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated

3.8. Building Construction (2025) - Mitigated

3.9. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated

3.10. Building Construction (2026) - Mitigated

3.11. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated

3.12. Building Construction (2027) - Mitigated

3.13. Paving (2027) - Unmitigated

3.14. Paving (2027) - Mitigated

3.15. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated

3.16. Architectural Coating (2027) - Mitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.1.2. Mitigated

4.2. Energy
Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
3 / 82

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
Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
4 / 82

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
Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
5 / 82

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
Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
6 / 82

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
Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
7 / 82

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
Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
8 / 82

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
Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
9 / 82

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Blossom View
Construction Start Date 6/1/2025
Operational Year 2026
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.70
Precipitation (days) 25.4
Location 36.76649251461362, -119.65808030182652
County Fresno
City Unincorporated
Air District San Joaquin Valley APCD
Air Basin San Joaquin Valley
TAZ 2421
EDFZ 5
Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Gas Utility Pacific Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.29

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
122 Dwelling Unit 24.0 237,900 1,428,969 — 390 —
Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
10 / 82

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title
Construction C-11 Limit Vehicle Speeds on Unpaved Roads

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. 74.6 74.6 31.7 30.8 0.06 1.37 7.76 9.13 1.26 3.96 5.22 — 6,720 6,720 0.27 0.08 1.44 6,745 Mit. 74.6 74.6 31.7 30.8 0.06 1.37 7.76 9.13 1.26 3.96 5.22 — 6,720 6,720 0.27 0.08 1.44 6,745 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 74.6 74.6 10.9 14.5 0.02 0.43 0.28 0.72 0.40 0.07 0.47 — 2,806 2,806 0.11 0.06 0.04 2,825 Mit. 74.6 74.6 10.9 14.5 0.02 0.43 0.28 0.72 0.40 0.07 0.47 — 2,806 2,806 0.11 0.06 0.04 2,825 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 4.23 4.21 7.51 10.2 0.02 0.31 0.66 0.97 0.28 0.27 0.55 — 2,004 2,004 0.08 0.04 0.40 2,018 Mit. 4.23 4.21 7.51 10.2 0.02 0.31 0.66 0.97 0.28 0.27 0.55 — 2,004 2,004 0.08 0.04 0.40 2,018 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
11 / 82
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
(Max)
Unmit. 0.77 0.77 1.37 1.87 < 0.005 0.06 0.12 0.18 0.05 0.05 0.10 — 332 332 0.01 0.01 0.07 334 Mit. 0.77 0.77 1.37 1.87 < 0.005 0.06 0.12 0.18 0.05 0.05 0.10 — 332 332 0.01 0.01 0.07 334 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 4.02 3.39 31.7 30.8 0.06 1.37 7.76 9.13 1.26 3.96 5.22 — 6,720 6,720 0.27 0.08 1.44 6,745 2026 1.48 1.25 10.2 14.6 0.02 0.38 0.28 0.66 0.35 0.07 0.42 — 2,826 2,826 0.11 0.06 1.30 2,847 2027 74.6 74.6 0.85 1.40 < 0.005 0.02 0.05 0.07 0.02 0.01 0.03 — 185 185 0.01 < 0.005 0.16 186 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 1.54 1.30 10.9 14.5 0.02 0.43 0.28 0.72 0.40 0.07 0.47 — 2,806 2,806 0.11 0.06 0.04 2,825 2026 1.45 1.23 10.3 14.3 0.02 0.38 0.28 0.66 0.35 0.07 0.42 — 2,797 2,797 0.11 0.06 0.03 2,817 2027 74.6 74.6 9.77 14.2 0.02 0.34 0.28 0.62 0.31 0.07 0.38 — 2,789 2,789 0.11 0.05 0.03 2,808 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 1.00 0.85 7.51 8.15 0.01 0.31 0.66 0.97 0.28 0.27 0.55 — 1,663 1,663 0.07 0.02 0.20 1,672 2026 1.04 0.88 7.31 10.2 0.02 0.27 0.20 0.47 0.25 0.05 0.30 — 2,004 2,004 0.08 0.04 0.40 2,018 2027 4.23 4.21 1.08 1.59 < 0.005 0.04 0.03 0.07 0.04 0.01 0.04 — 283 283 0.01 < 0.005 0.04 285 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.18 0.15 1.37 1.49 < 0.005 0.06 0.12 0.18 0.05 0.05 0.10 — 275 275 0.01 < 0.005 0.03 277 2026 0.19 0.16 1.33 1.87 < 0.005 0.05 0.04 0.09 0.05 0.01 0.05 — 332 332 0.01 0.01 0.07 334 2027 0.77 0.77 0.20 0.29 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 — 46.9 46.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 47.2 Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
12 / 82

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 4.02 3.39 31.7 30.8 0.06 1.37 7.76 9.13 1.26 3.96 5.22 — 6,720 6,720 0.27 0.08 1.44 6,745 2026 1.48 1.25 10.2 14.6 0.02 0.38 0.28 0.66 0.35 0.07 0.42 — 2,826 2,826 0.11 0.06 1.30 2,847 2027 74.6 74.6 0.85 1.40 < 0.005 0.02 0.05 0.07 0.02 0.01 0.03 — 185 185 0.01 < 0.005 0.16 186 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 1.54 1.30 10.9 14.5 0.02 0.43 0.28 0.72 0.40 0.07 0.47 — 2,806 2,806 0.11 0.06 0.04 2,825 2026 1.45 1.23 10.3 14.3 0.02 0.38 0.28 0.66 0.35 0.07 0.42 — 2,797 2,797 0.11 0.06 0.03 2,817 2027 74.6 74.6 9.77 14.2 0.02 0.34 0.28 0.62 0.31 0.07 0.38 — 2,789 2,789 0.11 0.05 0.03 2,808 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 1.00 0.85 7.51 8.15 0.01 0.31 0.66 0.97 0.28 0.27 0.55 — 1,663 1,663 0.07 0.02 0.20 1,672 2026 1.04 0.88 7.31 10.2 0.02 0.27 0.20 0.47 0.25 0.05 0.30 — 2,004 2,004 0.08 0.04 0.40 2,018 2027 4.23 4.21 1.08 1.59 < 0.005 0.04 0.03 0.07 0.04 0.01 0.04 — 283 283 0.01 < 0.005 0.04 285 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.18 0.15 1.37 1.49 < 0.005 0.06 0.12 0.18 0.05 0.05 0.10 — 275 275 0.01 < 0.005 0.03 277 2026 0.19 0.16 1.33 1.87 < 0.005 0.05 0.04 0.09 0.05 0.01 0.05 — 332 332 0.01 0.01 0.07 334 2027 0.77 0.77 0.20 0.29 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 — 46.9 46.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 47.2

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
13 / 82
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Unmit. 10.4 9.97 3.85 35.4 0.06 0.14 4.97 5.11 0.13 1.26 1.39 67.8 8,061 8,129 7.38 0.32 20.8 8,429 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 9.22 8.84 4.20 24.7 0.06 0.13 4.97 5.10 0.13 1.26 1.39 67.8 7,481 7,549 7.43 0.34 2.20 7,838 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 9.53 9.15 3.96 27.4 0.06 0.13 4.78 4.91 0.13 1.21 1.34 67.8 7,527 7,595 7.39 0.32 9.77 7,885 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.74 1.67 0.72 5.01 0.01 0.02 0.87 0.90 0.02 0.22 0.24 11.2 1,246 1,257 1.22 0.05 1.62 1,306

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 4.08 3.78 2.59 28.0 0.06 0.04 4.97 5.01 0.03 1.26 1.29 — 5,841 5,841 0.33 0.28 19.1 5,951 Area 6.15 6.11 0.07 6.92 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 18.5 18.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 18.6 Energy 0.14 0.07 1.20 0.51 0.01 0.10 — 0.10 0.10 — 0.10 — 2,159 2,159 0.24 0.02 — 2,169 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 9.42 43.2 52.7 0.97 0.02 — 84.1 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 58.3 0.00 58.3 5.83 0.00 — 204 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.70 1.70
Total 10.4 9.97 3.85 35.4 0.06 0.14 4.97 5.11 0.13 1.26 1.39 67.8 8,061 8,129 7.38 0.32 20.8 8,429 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
14 / 82
Mobile 3.59 3.27 3.01 24.2 0.05 0.04 4.97 5.01 0.03 1.26 1.29 — 5,279 5,279 0.39 0.30 0.50 5,379 Area 5.50 5.50 0.00 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 0.14 0.07 1.20 0.51 0.01 0.10 — 0.10 0.10 — 0.10 — 2,159 2,159 0.24 0.02 — 2,169 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 9.42 43.2 52.7 0.97 0.02 — 84.1 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 58.3 0.00 58.3 5.83 0.00 — 204 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.70 1.70
Total 9.22 8.84 4.20 24.7 0.06 0.13 4.97 5.10 0.13 1.26 1.39 67.8 7,481 7,549 7.43 0.34 2.20 7,838 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 3.57 3.28 2.73 23.5 0.05 0.04 4.78 4.82 0.03 1.21 1.24 — 5,316 5,316 0.35 0.28 8.06 5,417 Area 5.82 5.80 0.03 3.41 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 9.13 9.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.16 Energy 0.14 0.07 1.20 0.51 0.01 0.10 — 0.10 0.10 — 0.10 — 2,159 2,159 0.24 0.02 — 2,169 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 9.42 43.2 52.7 0.97 0.02 — 84.1 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 58.3 0.00 58.3 5.83 0.00 — 204 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.70 1.70
Total 9.53 9.15 3.96 27.4 0.06 0.13 4.78 4.91 0.13 1.21 1.34 67.8 7,527 7,595 7.39 0.32 9.77 7,885 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.65 0.60 0.50 4.29 0.01 0.01 0.87 0.88 0.01 0.22 0.23 — 880 880 0.06 0.05 1.33 897 Area 1.06 1.06 0.01 0.62 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 1.51 1.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.52 Energy 0.03 0.01 0.22 0.09 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 357 357 0.04 < 0.005 — 359 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 1.56 7.16 8.72 0.16 < 0.005 — 13.9 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 9.66 0.00 9.66 0.97 0.00 — 33.8 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.28 0.28
Total 1.74 1.67 0.72 5.01 0.01 0.02 0.87 0.90 0.02 0.22 0.24 11.2 1,246 1,257 1.22 0.05 1.62 1,306

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 Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
15 / 82
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 4.08 3.78 2.59 28.0 0.06 0.04 4.97 5.01 0.03 1.26 1.29 — 5,841 5,841 0.33 0.28 19.1 5,951 Area 6.15 6.11 0.07 6.92 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 18.5 18.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 18.6 Energy 0.14 0.07 1.20 0.51 0.01 0.10 — 0.10 0.10 — 0.10 — 2,159 2,159 0.24 0.02 — 2,169 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 9.42 43.2 52.7 0.97 0.02 — 84.1 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 58.3 0.00 58.3 5.83 0.00 — 204 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.70 1.70
Total 10.4 9.97 3.85 35.4 0.06 0.14 4.97 5.11 0.13 1.26 1.39 67.8 8,061 8,129 7.38 0.32 20.8 8,429 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 3.59 3.27 3.01 24.2 0.05 0.04 4.97 5.01 0.03 1.26 1.29 — 5,279 5,279 0.39 0.30 0.50 5,379 Area 5.50 5.50 0.00 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 0.14 0.07 1.20 0.51 0.01 0.10 — 0.10 0.10 — 0.10 — 2,159 2,159 0.24 0.02 — 2,169 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 9.42 43.2 52.7 0.97 0.02 — 84.1 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 58.3 0.00 58.3 5.83 0.00 — 204 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.70 1.70
Total 9.22 8.84 4.20 24.7 0.06 0.13 4.97 5.10 0.13 1.26 1.39 67.8 7,481 7,549 7.43 0.34 2.20 7,838 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 3.57 3.28 2.73 23.5 0.05 0.04 4.78 4.82 0.03 1.21 1.24 — 5,316 5,316 0.35 0.28 8.06 5,417 Area 5.82 5.80 0.03 3.41 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 9.13 9.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.16 Energy 0.14 0.07 1.20 0.51 0.01 0.10 — 0.10 0.10 — 0.10 — 2,159 2,159 0.24 0.02 — 2,169 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 9.42 43.2 52.7 0.97 0.02 — 84.1 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 58.3 0.00 58.3 5.83 0.00 — 204 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.70 1.70
Total 9.53 9.15 3.96 27.4 0.06 0.13 4.78 4.91 0.13 1.21 1.34 67.8 7,527 7,595 7.39 0.32 9.77 7,885 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
16 / 82
Mobile 0.65 0.60 0.50 4.29 0.01 0.01 0.87 0.88 0.01 0.22 0.23 — 880 880 0.06 0.05 1.33 897 Area 1.06 1.06 0.01 0.62 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 1.51 1.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.52 Energy 0.03 0.01 0.22 0.09 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 357 357 0.04 < 0.005 — 359 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 1.56 7.16 8.72 0.16 < 0.005 — 13.9 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 9.66 0.00 9.66 0.97 0.00 — 33.8 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.28 0.28
Total 1.74 1.67 0.72 5.01 0.01 0.02 0.87 0.90 0.02 0.22 0.24 11.2 1,246 1,257 1.22 0.05 1.62 1,306

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (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

2.86 2.40 22.2 19.9 0.03 0.92 — 0.92 0.84 — 0.84 — 3,425 3,425 0.14 0.03 — 3,437 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.42 0.42 — 0.06 0.06 — — — — — — —
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
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
17 / 82
Off-Roa 0.16 0.13 1.22 1.09 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 188 188 0.01 < 0.005 — 188 d
Equipm
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

0.03 0.02 0.22 0.20 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 31.1 31.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 31.2 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 0.07 0.06 0.03 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 90.9 90.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.34 92.5 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 0.41 0.10 < 0.005 0.01 0.09 0.10 0.01 0.02 0.03 — 343 343 0.01 0.05 0.83 360 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.58 4.58 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.66 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 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 18.8 18.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 19.7 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.76 0.76 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.77 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 Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
18 / 82
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.11 3.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.26

3.2. Demolition (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 Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

2.86 2.40 22.2 19.9 0.03 0.92 — 0.92 0.84 — 0.84 — 3,425 3,425 0.14 0.03 — 3,437 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.42 0.42 — 0.06 0.06 — — — — — — —
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

0.16 0.13 1.22 1.09 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 188 188 0.01 < 0.005 — 188 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

0.03 0.02 0.22 0.20 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 31.1 31.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 31.2 Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
19 / 82
Demoliti — — — — — — < 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 0.07 0.06 0.03 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 90.9 90.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.34 92.5 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 0.41 0.10 < 0.005 0.01 0.09 0.10 0.01 0.02 0.03 — 343 343 0.01 0.05 0.83 360 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.58 4.58 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.66 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 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 18.8 18.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 19.7 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.76 0.76 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.77 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 — 3.11 3.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.26

3.3. Site Preparation (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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
20 / 82
Off-Roa 3.94 3.31 31.6 30.2 0.05 1.37 — 1.37 1.26 — 1.26 — 5,295 5,295 0.21 0.04 — 5,314 d
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

0.11 0.09 0.87 0.83 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.03 — 0.03 — 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 0.16 0.15 < 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 — — — — — — —
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
21 / 82
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Worker 0.08 0.08 0.04 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 106 106 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.40 108 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 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.67 2.67 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.72 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 — 0.44 0.44 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.45 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 (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 Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

3.94 3.31 31.6 30.2 0.05 1.37 — 1.37 1.26 — 1.26 — 5,295 5,295 0.21 0.04 — 5,314 Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
22 / 82
Dust — — — — — — 7.67 7.67 — 3.94 3.94 — — — — — — —
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

0.11 0.09 0.87 0.83 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.03 — 0.03 — 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 0.16 0.15 < 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 — — — — — — —
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 0.08 0.04 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 106 106 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.40 108 Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
23 / 82
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 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.67 2.67 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.72 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 — 0.44 0.44 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.45 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 (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

3.80 3.20 29.7 28.3 0.06 1.23 — 1.23 1.14 — 1.14 — 6,599 6,599 0.27 0.05 — 6,622 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 3.59 3.59 — 1.42 1.42 — — — — — — —
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 Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
24 / 82
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.36 0.31 2.85 2.71 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.11 — 0.11 — 633 633 0.03 0.01 — 635 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.34 0.34 — 0.14 0.14 — — — — — — —
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

0.07 0.06 0.52 0.50 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 105 105 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 105 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.06 0.06 — 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09 0.09 0.05 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 121 121 < 0.005 0.01 0.45 123 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
25 / 82
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.7 10.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 10.9 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.77 1.77 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.80 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

3.6. Grading (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 Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

3.80 3.20 29.7 28.3 0.06 1.23 — 1.23 1.14 — 1.14 — 6,599 6,599 0.27 0.05 — 6,622 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 3.59 3.59 — 1.42 1.42 — — — — — — —
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
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
26 / 82
Off-Roa 0.36 0.31 2.85 2.71 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.11 — 0.11 — 633 633 0.03 0.01 — 635 d
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.34 0.34 — 0.14 0.14 — — — — — — —
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

0.07 0.06 0.52 0.50 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 105 105 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 105 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.06 0.06 — 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09 0.09 0.05 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 121 121 < 0.005 0.01 0.45 123 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 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.7 10.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 10.9 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
27 / 82
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.77 1.77 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.80 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

3.7. 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

0.32 0.26 2.45 3.06 0.01 0.10 — 0.10 0.09 — 0.09 — 563 563 0.02 < 0.005 — 565 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 Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
28 / 82
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.06 0.05 0.45 0.56 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 93.2 93.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 93.5 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 0.20 0.19 0.10 1.63 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 266 266 0.01 0.01 1.00 271 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.28 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 172 172 < 0.005 0.03 0.45 180 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 0.18 0.16 0.12 1.32 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 236 236 0.01 0.01 0.03 240 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.29 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 172 172 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 180 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 0.04 0.03 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 57.5 57.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.10 58.4 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 40.3 40.3 < 0.005 0.01 0.05 42.2 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.52 9.52 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 9.67 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.68 6.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.98 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 (2025) - Mitigated
Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
29 / 82
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

0.32 0.26 2.45 3.06 0.01 0.10 — 0.10 0.09 — 0.09 — 563 563 0.02 < 0.005 — 565 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

0.06 0.05 0.45 0.56 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 93.2 93.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 93.5 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 Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
30 / 82
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.20 0.19 0.10 1.63 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 266 266 0.01 0.01 1.00 271 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.28 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 172 172 < 0.005 0.03 0.45 180 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 0.18 0.16 0.12 1.32 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 236 236 0.01 0.01 0.03 240 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.29 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 172 172 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 180 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 0.04 0.03 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 57.5 57.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.10 58.4 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 40.3 40.3 < 0.005 0.01 0.05 42.2 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.52 9.52 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 9.67 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.68 6.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.98 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 (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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
31 / 82
Off-Roa 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 d
Onsite
truck

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

1.28 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

0.91 0.77 7.04 9.26 0.02 0.27 — 0.27 0.25 — 0.25 — 1,712 1,712 0.07 0.01 — 1,718 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

0.17 0.14 1.28 1.69 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 283 283 0.01 < 0.005 — 284 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.19 0.17 0.09 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 261 261 0.01 0.01 0.91 265 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.27 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 168 168 < 0.005 0.03 0.39 176 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 Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
32 / 82
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.16 0.16 0.11 1.22 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 231 231 0.01 0.01 0.02 235 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.28 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 169 169 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 176 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 0.12 0.11 0.07 0.89 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 171 171 0.01 0.01 0.28 174 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.20 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 120 120 < 0.005 0.02 0.12 126 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 28.4 28.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 28.8 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 19.9 19.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 20.8 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 (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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
33 / 82
Off-Roa
Equipment

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

0.91 0.77 7.04 9.26 0.02 0.27 — 0.27 0.25 — 0.25 — 1,712 1,712 0.07 0.01 — 1,718 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

0.17 0.14 1.28 1.69 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 283 283 0.01 < 0.005 — 284 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.19 0.17 0.09 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 261 261 0.01 0.01 0.91 265 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.27 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 168 168 < 0.005 0.03 0.39 176 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 0.16 0.16 0.11 1.22 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 231 231 0.01 0.01 0.02 235 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.28 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 169 169 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 176 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
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
34 / 82
Worker 0.12 0.11 0.07 0.89 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 171 171 0.01 0.01 0.28 174 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.20 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 120 120 < 0.005 0.02 0.12 126 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 28.4 28.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 28.8 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 19.9 19.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 20.8 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 (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.23 1.03 9.39 12.9 0.02 0.34 — 0.34 0.31 — 0.31 — 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

0.08 0.07 0.62 0.86 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 159 159 0.01 < 0.005 — 160 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
35 / 82
Off-Roa
Equipment

0.01 0.01 0.11 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 26.4 26.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 26.5 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 0.15 0.14 0.10 1.13 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 227 227 0.01 0.01 0.02 230 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.28 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 165 165 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 172 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.6 15.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 15.9 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.0 11.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 11.5 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.59 2.59 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.63 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.82 1.82 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.90 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 (2027) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
36 / 82
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.23 1.03 9.39 12.9 0.02 0.34 — 0.34 0.31 — 0.31 — 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

0.08 0.07 0.62 0.86 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 159 159 0.01 < 0.005 — 160 Onsite
truck

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

0.01 0.01 0.11 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 26.4 26.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 26.5 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 0.15 0.14 0.10 1.13 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 227 227 0.01 0.01 0.02 230 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.28 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 165 165 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 172 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
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
37 / 82
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.6 15.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 15.9 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.0 11.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 11.5 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.59 2.59 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.63 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.82 1.82 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.90 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 (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.88 0.74 6.94 9.95 0.01 0.30 — 0.30 0.27 — 0.27 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,516 Paving 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 0.38 0.55 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 82.8 82.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 83.1 Paving 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
38 / 82
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 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 77.4 77.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 78.7 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.39 4.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.47 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.73 0.73 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.74 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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 (2027) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
39 / 82
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.88 0.74 6.94 9.95 0.01 0.30 — 0.30 0.27 — 0.27 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,516 Paving 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 0.38 0.55 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 82.8 82.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 83.1 Paving 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
40 / 82
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 77.4 77.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 78.7 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.39 4.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.47 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.73 0.73 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.74 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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.15. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.14 0.11 0.83 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
41 / 82
Architect 74.5 74.5 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.14 0.11 0.83 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coating
s

74.5 74.5 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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

4.08 4.08 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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
< 0.005 < 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 Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
42 / 82
Architect 0.74 0.74 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ural
Coating
s
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 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 51.1 51.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.16 51.9 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 45.3 45.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 46.1 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.57 2.57 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.62 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 — 0.43 0.43 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.43 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 (2027) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
43 / 82
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.14 0.11 0.83 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coating
s

74.5 74.5 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.14 0.11 0.83 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coating
s

74.5 74.5 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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

4.08 4.08 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
44 / 82
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 Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.74 0.74 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 51.1 51.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.16 51.9 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 45.3 45.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 46.1 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.57 2.57 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.62 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 — 0.43 0.43 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.43 Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
45 / 82
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

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

4.08 3.78 2.59 28.0 0.06 0.04 4.97 5.01 0.03 1.26 1.29 — 5,841 5,841 0.33 0.28 19.1 5,951 Total 4.08 3.78 2.59 28.0 0.06 0.04 4.97 5.01 0.03 1.26 1.29 — 5,841 5,841 0.33 0.28 19.1 5,951 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

3.59 3.27 3.01 24.2 0.05 0.04 4.97 5.01 0.03 1.26 1.29 — 5,279 5,279 0.39 0.30 0.50 5,379 Total 3.59 3.27 3.01 24.2 0.05 0.04 4.97 5.01 0.03 1.26 1.29 — 5,279 5,279 0.39 0.30 0.50 5,379 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.65 0.60 0.50 4.29 0.01 0.01 0.87 0.88 0.01 0.22 0.23 — 880 880 0.06 0.05 1.33 897 Total 0.65 0.60 0.50 4.29 0.01 0.01 0.87 0.88 0.01 0.22 0.23 — 880 880 0.06 0.05 1.33 897

4.1.2. Mitigated
Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
46 / 82
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

4.08 3.78 2.59 28.0 0.06 0.04 4.97 5.01 0.03 1.26 1.29 — 5,841 5,841 0.33 0.28 19.1 5,951 Total 4.08 3.78 2.59 28.0 0.06 0.04 4.97 5.01 0.03 1.26 1.29 — 5,841 5,841 0.33 0.28 19.1 5,951 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

3.59 3.27 3.01 24.2 0.05 0.04 4.97 5.01 0.03 1.26 1.29 — 5,279 5,279 0.39 0.30 0.50 5,379 Total 3.59 3.27 3.01 24.2 0.05 0.04 4.97 5.01 0.03 1.26 1.29 — 5,279 5,279 0.39 0.30 0.50 5,379 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.65 0.60 0.50 4.29 0.01 0.01 0.87 0.88 0.01 0.22 0.23 — 880 880 0.06 0.05 1.33 897 Total 0.65 0.60 0.50 4.29 0.01 0.01 0.87 0.88 0.01 0.22 0.23 — 880 880 0.06 0.05 1.33 897

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
47 / 82
Single — — — — — — — — — — — — 637 637 0.10 0.01 — 644
Family
Housing
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 637 637 0.10 0.01 — 644
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 637 637 0.10 0.01 — 644
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 637 637 0.10 0.01 — 644
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 106 106 0.02 < 0.005 — 107
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 106 106 0.02 < 0.005 — 107

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
— — — — — — — — — — — — 637 637 0.10 0.01 — 644
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 637 637 0.10 0.01 — 644
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 637 637 0.10 0.01 — 644
Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
48 / 82
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 637 637 0.10 0.01 — 644
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 106 106 0.02 < 0.005 — 107
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 106 106 0.02 < 0.005 — 107

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 Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.14 0.07 1.20 0.51 0.01 0.10 — 0.10 0.10 — 0.10 — 1,521 1,521 0.13 < 0.005 — 1,526 Total 0.14 0.07 1.20 0.51 0.01 0.10 — 0.10 0.10 — 0.10 — 1,521 1,521 0.13 < 0.005 — 1,526 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.14 0.07 1.20 0.51 0.01 0.10 — 0.10 0.10 — 0.10 — 1,521 1,521 0.13 < 0.005 — 1,526 Total 0.14 0.07 1.20 0.51 0.01 0.10 — 0.10 0.10 — 0.10 — 1,521 1,521 0.13 < 0.005 — 1,526 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.03 0.01 0.22 0.09 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 252 252 0.02 < 0.005 — 253 Total 0.03 0.01 0.22 0.09 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 252 252 0.02 < 0.005 — 253

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) Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
49 / 82
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

0.14 0.07 1.20 0.51 0.01 0.10 — 0.10 0.10 — 0.10 — 1,521 1,521 0.13 < 0.005 — 1,526 Total 0.14 0.07 1.20 0.51 0.01 0.10 — 0.10 0.10 — 0.10 — 1,521 1,521 0.13 < 0.005 — 1,526 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.14 0.07 1.20 0.51 0.01 0.10 — 0.10 0.10 — 0.10 — 1,521 1,521 0.13 < 0.005 — 1,526 Total 0.14 0.07 1.20 0.51 0.01 0.10 — 0.10 0.10 — 0.10 — 1,521 1,521 0.13 < 0.005 — 1,526 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.03 0.01 0.22 0.09 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 252 252 0.02 < 0.005 — 253 Total 0.03 0.01 0.22 0.09 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 252 252 0.02 < 0.005 — 253

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 Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
50 / 82
Consum 5.09 5.09 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
er
Product
s
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.41 0.41 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

0.65 0.61 0.07 6.92 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 18.5 18.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 18.6 Total 6.15 6.11 0.07 6.92 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 18.5 18.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 18.6 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

5.09 5.09 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.41 0.41 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 5.50 5.50 0.00 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

0.93 0.93 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.07 0.07 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
51 / 82
Landsca 0.06 0.06 0.01 0.62 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.51 1.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.52 pe
Total 1.06 1.06 0.01 0.62 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 1.51 1.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.52

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

5.09 5.09 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.41 0.41 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

0.65 0.61 0.07 6.92 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 18.5 18.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 18.6 Total 6.15 6.11 0.07 6.92 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 18.5 18.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 18.6 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

5.09 5.09 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.41 0.41 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
52 / 82
Total 5.50 5.50 0.00 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

0.93 0.93 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.07 0.07 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

0.06 0.06 0.01 0.62 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.51 1.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.52 Total 1.06 1.06 0.01 0.62 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 1.51 1.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.52

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
— — — — — — — — — — — 9.42 43.2 52.7 0.97 0.02 — 84.1
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 9.42 43.2 52.7 0.97 0.02 — 84.1 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
53 / 82
Single — — — — — — — — — — — 9.42 43.2 52.7 0.97 0.02 — 84.1 Family
Housing
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 9.42 43.2 52.7 0.97 0.02 — 84.1 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 1.56 7.16 8.72 0.16 < 0.005 — 13.9 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 1.56 7.16 8.72 0.16 < 0.005 — 13.9

4.4.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 9.42 43.2 52.7 0.97 0.02 — 84.1
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 9.42 43.2 52.7 0.97 0.02 — 84.1 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 9.42 43.2 52.7 0.97 0.02 — 84.1
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 9.42 43.2 52.7 0.97 0.02 — 84.1 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 1.56 7.16 8.72 0.16 < 0.005 — 13.9 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 1.56 7.16 8.72 0.16 < 0.005 — 13.9 Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
54 / 82

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
— — — — — — — — — — — 58.3 0.00 58.3 5.83 0.00 — 204
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 58.3 0.00 58.3 5.83 0.00 — 204 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 58.3 0.00 58.3 5.83 0.00 — 204
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 58.3 0.00 58.3 5.83 0.00 — 204 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 9.66 0.00 9.66 0.97 0.00 — 33.8
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 9.66 0.00 9.66 0.97 0.00 — 33.8

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
55 / 82
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 58.3 0.00 58.3 5.83 0.00 — 204
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 58.3 0.00 58.3 5.83 0.00 — 204 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 58.3 0.00 58.3 5.83 0.00 — 204
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 58.3 0.00 58.3 5.83 0.00 — 204 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 9.66 0.00 9.66 0.97 0.00 — 33.8
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 9.66 0.00 9.66 0.97 0.00 — 33.8

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
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.70 1.70
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.70 1.70
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
56 / 82
Single — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.70 1.70
Family
Housing
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.70 1.70
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.28 0.28
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.28 0.28

4.6.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.70 1.70
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.70 1.70
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.70 1.70
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.70 1.70
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.28 0.28
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.28 0.28
Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
57 / 82

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
58 / 82
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
59 / 82
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
60 / 82
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
61 / 82
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
62 / 82
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
63 / 82
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
64 / 82
Sequest — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ered
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demolition Demolition 6/1/2025 6/29/2025 5.00 20.0 —
Site Preparation Site Preparation 6/30/2025 7/14/2025 5.00 10.0 — Grading Grading 7/15/2025 9/2/2025 5.00 35.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 9/3/2025 2/3/2027 5.00 370 — Paving Paving 2/4/2027 3/4/2027 5.00 20.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 3/5/2027 4/2/2027 5.00 20.0 — Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
65 / 82

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Demolition Excavators Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 367 0.40 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 Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 423 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 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 Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 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
Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
66 / 82
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Demolition Excavators Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 367 0.40 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 Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 423 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 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 Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 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 Site Preparation — — — —
Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
67 / 82
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor— 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck—— HHDT
Grading————
Grading Worker 20.0 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor— 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck—— HHDT
Building Construction————
Building Construction Worker 43.9 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 13.0 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck—— HHDT
Paving————
Paving Worker 15.0 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor— 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck—— HHDT
Architectural Coating————
Architectural Coating Worker 8.78 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor— 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck—— HHDT
Demolition————
Demolition Worker 15.0 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor— 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 4.90 20.0 HHDT
Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
68 / 82
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.3.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 20.0 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 43.9 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 13.0 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 8.78 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
69 / 82
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT
Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 15.0 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 4.90 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

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

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 481,748 160,583 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 8,500 —
Site Preparation — — 15.0 0.00 —
Grading — — 105 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.34

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
70 / 82
Water Exposed Area 2 61% 61%

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Single Family Housing 1.34 0%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2025 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2026 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2027 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Single Family
Housing
1,152 1,164 1,043 415,338 7,017 7,092 6,356 2,530,721

5.9.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Single Family
Housing
1,152 1,164 1,043 415,338 7,017 7,092 6,356 2,530,721

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths
Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
71 / 82

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 122
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0

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 122
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
72 / 82
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)
481747.5 160,583 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

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 1,140,283 204 0.0330 0.0040 4,747,303

5.11.2. Mitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Single Family Housing 1,140,283 204 0.0330 0.0040 4,747,303

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
73 / 82

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Single Family Housing 4,916,112 23,974,817

5.12.2. Mitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Single Family Housing 4,916,112 23,974,817

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Single Family Housing 108 —

5.13.2. Mitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Single Family Housing 108 —

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
Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
74 / 82

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
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
Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
75 / 82

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

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

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

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

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

5.18.2.2. Mitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year) Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
76 / 82

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 30.9 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 1.20 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 0.00 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

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

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

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 4 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
Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
77 / 82
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 4 1 1 4
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding 1 1 1 2
Drought 1 1 1 2
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

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

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

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

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

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 88.7
Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
78 / 82
AQ-PM 94.8
AQ-DPM 23.1
Drinking Water 99.5
Lead Risk Housing 9.43
Pesticides 91.1
Toxic Releases 69.7
Traffic 4.05
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 89.1
Groundwater 14.3
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 16.6
Impaired Water Bodies 0.00
Solid Waste 70.4
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 31.4
Cardio-vascular 11.2
Low Birth Weights 49.6
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 56.5
Housing 1.52
Linguistic 48.7
Poverty 16.3
Unemployment 44.4

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 —
Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
79 / 82
Above Poverty 90.72244322
Employed 84.92236623
Median HI 71.12793533
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 69.75490825
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 27.28089311
Transportation —
Auto Access 64.27563198
Active commuting 24.09854998
Social —
2-parent households 66.50840498
Voting 55.90914924
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 97.0101373
Park access 2.194276915
Retail density 5.094315411
Supermarket access 2.399589375
Tree canopy 9.752341845
Housing —
Homeownership 92.55742333
Housing habitability 99.60220711
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 97.80572308 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 98.07519569
Uncrowded housing 80.21301168
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 78.89131272
Arthritis 98.6
Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
80 / 82
Asthma ER Admissions 87.5
High Blood Pressure 98.6
Cancer (excluding skin) 96.0
Asthma 80.2
Coronary Heart Disease 98.9
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 98.1
Diagnosed Diabetes 98.4
Life Expectancy at Birth 52.2
Cognitively Disabled 84.2
Physically Disabled 71.5
Heart Attack ER Admissions 98.9
Mental Health Not Good 71.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 98.6
Obesity 89.8
Pedestrian Injuries 19.6
Physical Health Not Good 97.3
Stroke 98.8
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 2.8
Current Smoker 70.0
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 77.2
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 24.2
Elderly 36.8
English Speaking 66.3
Foreign-born 31.2
Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
81 / 82
Outdoor Workers 48.3
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 91.7
Traffic Density 5.8
Traffic Access 0.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 30.7
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 50.8

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 41.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 69.0 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
Blossom View Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
82 / 82
Screen Justification
Land Use Acreage Adjusted to match Project site
Construction: Construction Phases x
Operations: Fleet Mix Adjusted to match the SJVAPCD accepted residential Fleet mix for year 2026 Operations: Hearths No fireplaces or wood stoves

APPENDIX C

HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT MODELING FILES (ELECTRONIC)

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE EVALUATION

CITY OF FRESNO

BLOSSOM VIEW
TRACT 6502 PROJECT

DECEMBER 2024
wig 129
Mi sesa
- P
srmre 2s
coians -, s t sere
-EY
ase
ents “ns
T.=- ieith “T=aegi Sw ns
"Tstosb “-rpesenha
—-e)r “"5
5 a eceol w Satee
Q
-"======= fos
p.5h ssulenta
eine
Peageca
_eessmre=<
. E araret
S : —T — s s a P. ee5==
thesta“Care.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE EVALUATION

BLOSSOM VIEW
TRACT 6502 PROJECT
Prepared for:

De Young Properties – Team 5
677 W. Palmdon Drive, Suite 208
Fresno, CA 93704
Contact Person: Brandon De Young, Executive Vice President Phone: (559) 435-0900
Consultant:
5080 California Avenue, Suite 220
Fresno, CA 93612
Contact: Jaymie Brauer
Phone: (661) 616-2600
December 2024
© Copyright by Quad Knopf, Inc.

Project #230286
Q

Blossom View Tract 6502 Project December 2024
De Young Properties Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................................... i Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 1 SECTION 1 - Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1-1

1.1 - Project Location..........................................................................................................................................1-1

1.2 - Project Description....................................................................................................................................1-1

1.3 - Purpose, Goals, and Objectives for this Report .............................................................................1-1 SECTION 2 - Methods ...................................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 - Definition of Biological Study Area.....................................................................................................2-1

2.2 - Literature Review and Database Analysis.......................................................................................2-1

2.3 - Reconnaissance-Level Field Surveys .................................................................................................2-2 SECTION 3 - Environmental Setting .......................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 - Topography...................................................................................................................................................3-1

3.2 - Climate ............................................................................................................................................................3-1

3.3 - Land Use.........................................................................................................................................................3-1

3.4 - Soils ..................................................................................................................................................................3-1

3.5 - Hydrology ......................................................................................................................................................3-4

3.6 - General Biological Conditions...............................................................................................................3-7 SECTION 4 - Findings ...................................................................................................................................... 4-8

4.1 - Results of Site Survey and Database Searches...............................................................................4-8

4.1.1 - Results of Site Survey.............................................................................................................4-8

4.1.2 - Results of Literature Review and Database Searches..............................................4-8

4.1.3 - Presence of Sensitive Natural Communities ................................................................4-8

4.2 - Special-Status Plants.................................................................................................................................4-9

4.2.1 - Presence of Special-Status Plants .....................................................................................4-9

4.2.2 - Presence of Special-Status Plants .....................................................................................4-9

4.3 - Special-Status Wildlife .............................................................................................................................4-1

4.3.1 - Results of Literature Review and Database Searches..............................................4-1

4.3.2 - Presence of Special-Status Wildlife..................................................................................4-2

4.4 - Nesting Migratory Birds and Raptors................................................................................................4-5

4.4.1 - Presence of Nesting Birds and Raptors ..........................................................................4-5

4.5 - Critical Habitat, Movement Corridors, and Linkages..................................................................4-5

4.5.1 - Presence of Critical Habitat.................................................................................................4-5

4.5.2 - Presence of Movement Corridors and Linkages.........................................................4-5

4.6 - Wetlands and Other Waters ..................................................................................................................4-8

4.6.1 - Presence of Wetlands and Other Waters.......................................................................4-8

Blossom View Tract 6502 Project December 2024
De Young Properties Page ii
SECTION 5 - Potential Project Impacts ..................................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 - Potential Impacts to Sensitive Vegetation Communities ..........................................................5-1

5.2 - Potential Impacts to Special-Status Plant Species .......................................................................5-1

5.3 - Potential Impacts to Special-Status Wildlife Species..................................................................5-1

5.4 - Potential Impacts to Nesting Birds and Raptors...........................................................................5-2

5.5 - Potential Impacts to Movement Corridors and Linkages .........................................................5-3

5.5.1 - Potential Impacts to Critical Habitat ...............................................................................5-3

5.5.2 - Potential Impacts to Movement Corridors and Linkages.......................................5-3

5.6 - Potential Impacts to Wetlands and Waters ....................................................................................5-4 SECTION 6 - Recommendations .................................................................................................................. 6-1 SECTION 7 - Summary and Conclusions .................................................................................................. 7-1 SECTION 8 - References .................................................................................................................................. 8-1 Appendices
Appendix A CNDDB, CNPS, and IPaC Database Results
Appendix B Representative Photographs
Appendix C Plant and Wildlife Species Observed on the Project Site List of Figures
Figure 1-1 Regional Map ...................................................................................................................................1-2 Figure 1-2 Project Location Map ...................................................................................................................1-3 Figure 3-1 Soils Mapped within the BSA....................................................................................................4-7 Figure 3-2 NWI and NHD Records of Aquatic Resources....................................................................3-5 Figure 3-3 FEMA Flood Zone Map.................................................................................................................3-6 Figure 4-1 Biological Resources Map ..........................................................................................................4-9 Figure 4-2 Mapped Critical Habitat in the Project Vicinity ................................................................4-7 List of Tables
Table 2-1 Field Survey Personnel and Timing.........................................................................................2-2 Table 3-1 Soil Acreages On-Site and within the BSA,...................3Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table 4-1 Special-Status Plant Species Occurring in the Region, ....................................................4-1 Table 4-2 Special-Status Wildlife Species Occurring in the Region,...............................................4-1 Biological Resource Evaluation Executive Summary

Blossom View Tract 6502 Project December 2024
De Young Properties Page 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Biological Resource Evaluation (BRE) report provides the results of a biological survey conducted by QK for the Blossom View Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 6502 Project (Project).

To comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and requirements for approval of a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map by the City of Fresno, a biological evaluation was conducted to identify the potential impacts to sensitive biological resources that occur on or near the Project.

The Project site is approximately 24 acres and is located north of McKinley Avenue between Temperance Avenue and DeWolf Avenue in the city of Fresno, California. The Project development consists of the construction of a 122- single-family lot subdivision. Amenities will include an approximate 1.32-acre pedestrian trail and an 11,000 square foot park.

A review of agency databases was conducted to obtain information about the occurrences of natural communities, special-status plants, and wildlife species known to occur in the vicinity of the Project site. Qualified QK biologists conducted a biological reconnaissance survey on December 12, 2024, of the Project site and a 250-foot survey buffer (biological survey buffer or (BSA) to determine the locations and extent of land use, natural vegetation communities, determine the potential for occurrences of special-status plant and wildlife species, and verify the presence of wetlands and State and or federal jurisdictional waters.

No special-status plant species or special-status wildlife species were observed during the site survey, and no wetlands were found on or near the Project site. Three different types of canid scat (domestic dog and fox sized) were observed within the 250-foot buffer. Three potential dens of the State and federally listed San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) were observed within the Project area. These dens had prey remains near the den entrances.

Based on the database search and the results of the survey, there is a potential for four special-status wildlife species to be impacted by construction site activities: Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni)State threatened, San Joaquin kit fox federally endangered and state threatened, burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) State candidate species, American badger (Taxidea taxus) species of special concern. There is potential for nesting migratory birds and other raptors species to occur in the BSA.

With the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) and recommended avoidance measures, the Project is expected to have no impacts to special-status wildlife species and migratory birds and raptors. There is expected to be no impacts to special-status plant species, sensitive natural communities, wetlands or water features as a result of the Project.

Biological Resource Evaluation Introduction

Blossom View Tract 6502 Project December 2024
De Young Properties Page 1-1
SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION
De Young Properties (Applicant) proposes to construct a new residential development in the City of Fresno (City), Fresno County, California. The Blossom View Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 6502 (Project) will provide additional housing within the City. To comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and meet the requirements for approval of a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map by the City Planning and Development Department, a biological evaluation was conducted to identify the potential for sensitive biological resources to occur on or near the Project site. This Biological Resource Evaluation (BRE) provides the basic biological information requested by De Young Properties.

1.1 - Project Location
The Project is immediately east of City corporate limits, in unincorporated Fresno County (Figure 1-1). The Project site is approximately 24 acres and is generally on the north side of East McKinley Avenue, east of North Temperance Avenue, on Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 310-052-27, and lies within the boundaries of the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) (Figure 1- 2). The Project site is within the Clovis United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangle, in section 26, Township 13 South, Range 21 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian.

1.2 - Project Description
The proposed Project site consists of two distinct areas: a residential subdivision and an annexation area. The proposed residential subdivision TTM 6502, the Project site, is comprised of one undeveloped 24-acre parcel (APN 310-052-27). The annexation area encompasses both the proposed residential subdivision and two adjacent parcels owned and maintained by the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD), APNs 310-052-26T and 310-052-22. The Project will subdivide the Project Site into 122 single-family lots. It will also include an approximately 1.32-acre pedestrian trail accompanying an 11,000 square foot park.

1.3 - Purpose, Goals, and Objectives for this Report
The primary focus of this report is to assist with CEQA compliance and provide the City with the information needed to approve TTM 6502 and allow for the future construction of the Project. This BRE provides information about sensitive biological resources occurring or potentially occurring on and in the vicinity of the Project site, including sensitive natural communities, special-status plant and wildlife species, wildlife-movement corridors and nursery sites, and State and federal jurisdictional wetlands and waters. Information on these topics was obtained by conducting a desktop review of existing databases and literature, then verifying and augmenting those findings by conducting an on-site sensitive biological resource survey.

Biological Resource Evaluation Introduction

Blossom View Tract 6502 Project December 2024
De Young Properties Page 1-2

Figure 1-1
Regional Map
Blossom View Tract 6502 Project, Fresno County, California Monument Hal 13 02 Re;
Pocat
HARNEY B __
NF
ic(140) na
Sheldd
Naticn
TAH crest

ALIFORNIA
Clovis 8
ireka Ld
• ser
Nat n i
Fore st
C A Sc ADE RANGE △
esno 180 180
A Sanger Na OChico-
'
Reno-"I I
Forest
Carson City
P
Parlier SacratMo
iii- Miles
id
ord2
Modest
Fr O
/
>i y St O. TAL RA
o
e Se quota Na ■ pan“ \
Las Veq
Henderson
___ (127]
T

O J A V E
DESERT —J San Luis es Fort Irwin Obispo
o
(
a
1 Lom poc losPadtesX
Palm dale=
Santa O
Bar bar• Oxnard 195
ISO Ri
cim Indio Long Bi OO
Palm Desert 1
-
Salton
Sea SO 1 Oceanside t
y
San
A Project Location i um I
icali
Tijuana
Miles 10000 0
Ensenada
or
Nellis Air
Force Base
‘uma Proving
1 Ground
Wildlife
Refuge
an Bernadino
raticnal Fcrest
riny .
al
Fremont
National
Fcrest
Nevada
National
Security
Site
Joshua Tree
Nal end
Pak
Shasta
Natch al
Forest
Redding
itt
Forest
(RuecueVecaf
000 @-03
Back Rock R&x’Eanyah
Elder alo
Nation d
Fcrest ,
lation Fcres
Six Rivers
National
Forest
Modoc
Naticnal
Forest
Mcave
Nation a
Preserve
Kola Naiona
Wildlife Refuge
Gr
S
D
t
Nati :n. ) Fores
Winema
Nationa
Fcrest
ch \
o Stoclh
Lake
Havasu
City
Barry M
Goldwater Air
Force Range
oAbi
epanta
Forest—
Nuone
din l
O .

Victorville
Lancast
O
1953
Bakersfield
p..

Raona
Wildlife
De ath Valley Reuge
Naticnal
Pak
, Medford
Santa o
( V Clarita
r
0 Rosa
O
r
0 “I
10 —vermore
Fremont Y
tosalla
[ Vac;
o
o
Sequoia
N abend
Forest
Grand Canyon-,
Parash atNM
—
= - -
Fcrest
Nawa
athel Fore st
o San Jgse wet
Nadkas
Forest
c
J«rado
Lake Mead Naticnal
4 Murrieta
6 Klam ath me Naticn a "
Forest
Biological Resource Evaluation Introduction

Blossom View Tract 6502 Project December 2024
De Young Properties Page 1-3

Figure 1-2
Project Location Map
Blossom View Tract 6502 Project, Fresno County, California - .2
4 !
■
souvnerser
il
l
_____
Biological Study Area (BSA, 250-Foot Buffer)
th Project Site
I • • HH
10*90 00tibt
91 I
WES
hMalsRt*we
2285 •
e .
i II xill:
' itme _____ — , ■t; ad Shy T ■ .-k «
7 I
r
I
■I
I
I
•*
A
il
I
* «
■ •
I
IM
t
I [T
I
g IT]

N REDDA RD
TI1
1 1
I■
kad
= 5,01.5
I;
m .stm
O : c ' _____ t g
7 *
- -
II
Biological Resource Evaluation Methods

Blossom View Tract 6502 Project December 2024
De Young Properties Page 2-1
SECTION 2 - METHODS

2.1 - Definition of Biological Study Area
The Biological Study Area (BSA) consists of the entire 24-acre Project site and a 250-foot survey buffer surrounding the Project site (Figure 1-2).

2.2 - Literature Review and Database Analysis
The following online resources were reviewed for information on special-status biological resources in the Project vicinity:
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB; CDFW, 2024a).
• CDFW’s Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS; CDFW, 2024b). • CDFW’s Special Animals List (CDFW, 2024c).
• CDFW’s California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) System (Mayer and Laudenslayer, 1988).
• California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS, 2024).
• United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation System (IPaC; USFWS, 2024a).
• USFWS Critical Habitat Mapper (USFWS, 2024b).
• USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI; USFWS, 2024c). • USGS National Hydrography Dataset (NHD; USGS, 2024).
• Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood zone maps (FEMA, 2024). • United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (NRCS, 2024)
• Current and historical aerial imagery (Google LLC, 2024; USGS, 2024).

The CNDDB and CNPS queries focused on the Clovis USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle in which the Project is located, plus the surrounding eight quadrangles: Malaga, Sanger, Clovis, Round Mountain, Friant, Academy, Fresno South, Lanes Bridge, Fresno North. To satisfy other standard search criteria, CNDDB records within a 10-mile radius of the Project site were queried separately from the broader database search.

The CNDDB provides element-specific spatial information on individually documented occurrences of special-status species and sensitive natural vegetation communities. The CNPS database provides similar information, but at a much lower spatial resolution, for additional sensitive plant species tracked by the CNPS. The CDFW Special Animals List and USFWS IPaC provide no spatial data on wildlife occurrences and provide only lists of species potentially present. Neither database represents a comprehensive survey for special-status resources in the region. As such, the absence of recorded occurrences in these databases at any specific location does not preclude the possibility that a special-status resource could be present. The NWI, NHD, and Web Soil Survey provide comprehensive data, but at a low Biological Resource Evaluation Methods

Blossom View Tract 6502 Project December 2024
De Young Properties Page 2-2
resolution that requires confirmation in the field. The database search results can be found in Appendix A.

A review of the NWI (USFWS, 2024b) was completed to identify whether wetlands had previously been documented on or adjacent to the Project site. The NWI, which is operated by the USFWS, is a collection of wetland and riparian maps that depicts graphic representations of the type, size, and location of historically identified wetland, deep water, and riparian habitats in the United States. In addition to the NWI, regional hydrologic information was obtained from the USGS to evaluate the potential occurrence of blueline streams within or near the Project site. This data requires confirmation in the field to determine whether identified water features are present.

Soils data was obtained from the Natural Resource Conservation District, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA, 2024), climate information was obtained from Weather Underground, and land use information was obtained from available aerial imagery.

Information about flood zones was obtained from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security (FEMA, 2024).

The results of the database inquiries were subsequently reviewed to extract pertinent information on site conditions and evaluate the potential for sensitive biological resources to occur within or near the proposed Project site. Only those resources with the potential to be present and affected by the project were included and considered in this document. The potential presence of natural communities and special-status species was based on distributional ranges overlapping the Project site and the presence of habitat and/or primary constituent habitat elements.

2.3 - Reconnaissance-Level Field Surveys
A reconnaissance survey was conducted on December 12, 2024, by QK Environmental Scientists Dyana Mitchell and Mattole Whitaker (Table 2-1). The survey consisted of walking meandering pedestrian transects spaced 50 to 100 feet apart throughout the BSA. Those areas that were inaccessible or of private property within the 250-buffer were surveyed visually with the aid of binoculars to gather a representative inventory of the plant and wildlife species present. The entire Project site was surveyed on foot during the day to optimize observations of biological resources.

Table 2-1
Field Survey Personnel and Timing
Date Personnel Time Weather Conditions Temperature
12/12/2024
Dyana Mitchell,
Mattole Whitaker 1050 - 1500 Sunny 53 - 55F
Tasks completed during the survey included determining and documenting current land use, developing an inventory of plant species, wildlife species, and wildlife sign (e.g., scat, Biological Resource Evaluation Methods

Blossom View Tract 6502 Project December 2024
De Young Properties Page 2-3
burrows, nests, feathers, tracks, etc.), characterizing vegetation associations and habitat conditions within the BSA, assessing the potential for federal, State-listed and other specialstatus plant and wildlife species that may occur on and near the Project site based on existing conditions, and assessing the potential for migratory birds and raptors to nest on and near the Project site. All historical wetland and water features documented by NWI and NHD were field verified. All spatial data was recorded using Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) Field Maps for ArcGIS software installed on an iPad. Site conditions were documented with representative photographs (Appendix B).

Biological Resource Evaluation Environmental Setting

Blossom View Tract 6502 Project December 2024
De Young Properties Page 3-1
SECTION 3 - ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
This section identifies the regional and local environmental setting of the Project site and describes existing baseline conditions. The environmental setting of the BSA was obtained from various sources of literature, databases, and aerial photographs. Site conditions were verified and updated during the site survey conducted by QK Environmental Scientists.

3.1 - Topography
The Project site is in the San Joaquin Valley, which is bounded on the west by the coastal mountain ranges, on the south by the Tehachapi Mountains, on the east by the Sierra Nevada ranges, and on the north by the Sacramento Valley. The Project site is on relatively flat, level terrain with minor variations in elevation. The average elevation of the Project site is approximately 340 feet above mean sea level.

3.2 - Climate
The region’s climatic conditions are typical of the San Joaquin Valley, consisting of hot, dry summers and mild, wet winters, characteristic of a Mediterranean climate. Average maximum temperatures range from approximately 54.6°F in January to 98.3°F in July, with several days recorded above 100°F each summer (WRCC, 2024). Average minimum temperatures range from 37.3°F in December to 65.7°F in July. The average annual precipitation is 10.89 inches, with the most rain occurring from October through April.

During the winter months, dense fog often occurs after rain events.

3.3 - Land Use
The Project is north of McKinley Avenue between Temperance Avenue and De Wolf Avenue in the city of Fresno, CA. (Figure 1-2). Most of the Project site consists of an agricultural field that has been repeatedly disced. with plant species consisting predominantly of non-native grasses and weeds. Based on historical aerial images, the Project site had been used for agricultural crops until it became inactive ag in 2006 but appears to be disced at least once a year (Google Earth, 2024).

The Project site is bounded by active orchard to the south, a basin to the northeast, fallow agricultural on the east and residential to the north and west. Based on available historical aerial imagery, the Project site and surrounding area have been utilized for intensive agricultural activities or urban development (residential properties) since at least 1998 (USGS, 2024).

3.4 - Soils
The Project site is underlain by a single soil type, Atwater series (NRCS, 2024). This soil series includes three soil types, as is described by the NRCS and is listed below.

Biological Resource Evaluation Environmental Setting

Blossom View Tract 6502 Project December 2024
De Young Properties Page 3-2
The Atwater series consists of very deep, porous, well-drained soils formed in granitic alluvium. They are friable, low in organic matter, slightly acidic, and have moderately rapid permeability and slow runoff. The soils are formed in dunes of uniformly sorted material containing a minimum of coarse and very coarse particles and have mixed mineralogy. These soils are from the east side of San Joaquin Valley, California and are moderately extensive, comprising 89,000 acres in Fresno, Merced and Madera Counties. The Atwater soils occur on gently undulating to rolling dunes formed from granitic alluvium and occur at elevations of less than 500 feet, in a semiarid, mesothermal climate with mean annual rainfall of 9 to 20 inches, with hot, dry summers and cool, moist winters. The mean soil temperature is greater than 59 degrees F. The mean annual temperature is about 61 degrees F, average January temperature about 44 degrees F, and average July temperature about 78 degrees F. Frostfree season averages about 250 to 280 days. These soils have ochric epipedons, argillic horizons and soil temperature is greater than 59 degrees F. The solum ranges in thickness from 26 to 48 inches. These soils are dry for 60 consecutive days in all parts between 10 and 40 inches. The Atwater series is used mainly for production of truck crops (truck crops are considered crops that are trucked outside the Central Valley such as tomatoes, etc), grapes, tree fruits, nuts, grain, and alfalfa. Vegetation consists of annual grasses, weeds, and lowgrowing shrubs.

Table 3-1
Soil Acreages within the Project Site
Soil Type

Acreages Percent
Atwater Loamy Sand 21 87.3%
Atwater Sandy Loam .8 3.4%
Dehli sand 2.2 9.3%
Totals for Area of Interest 24 100%
Biological Resource Evaluation Environmental Setting

Blossom View Tract 6502 Project December 2024
De Young Properties Page 3-3
Figure 3-1
Soils Mapped within the BSA
Blossom View Tract 6502 Project
Fresno County, California
Feet

E WELDON AVE

E MCKINLEY AVE
11 SSURGO Soils
Atwater loamy sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes, MLRA 17
Atwater loamy sand, moderately deep, 0 to 3 percent slopes Atwater sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes
_ Atwater sandy loam, moderately deep, 0 to 3 percent slopes Delhi loamy sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes, MLRA 17
Delhi loamy sand, moderately deep, 0 to 3 percent slopes Delhi sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes, MLRA 17
Hanford fine sandy loam
Ramona loam
Ramona loam, hard substratum
L Biological Study Area (BSA, 250-Foot Buffer)
I ~ * Project Site
Q
Q
<
C
Q
LU
Q
z
0 L
500
Biological Resource Evaluation Environmental Setting

Blossom View Tract 6502 Project December 2024
De Young Properties Page 3-4

3.5 - Hydrology
The Project site is in the South Valley Floor Hydrologic Unit, within the Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region (CDWR, 2024). The Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region encompasses approximately 10.5 million acres and includes the drainage area south of the San Joaquin River within the San Joaquin Valley. The Kings, Kaweah, Tule, and Kern Rivers, which drain the west face of the Sierra Nevada, provide the bulk of the surface water supply native to the basin. Imported surface waters enter the basin through the San Luis Canal/California Aqueduct System, the Friant-Kern Canal, and the Delta-Mendota Canal. Of these significant water features, the Friant-Kern Canal is the nearest to the Project, occurring approximately

8.5 miles northeast of the Project. The Friant-Kern Canal begins at the Friant Dam at the Millerton Lake reservoir and travels south along the eastern edge of the San Joaquin Valley until it ultimately runs into the Kern River near Bakersfield in Kern County.

The NHD and NWI identify two water features. Mill Ditch No. 36 is located east of the Project site and Redbank Slough that feeds into the concrete canal ditch to the north of the Project site. Both features are outside of the Project site but occur within the 250-foot buffer and beyond (Figure 3-2). Both features are classified by the NHD as canal ditches, and the NWI identifies them as Cowardin code R4SBCx; a riverine system, seasonally flooded stream bed with an unconsolidated bottom that is anthropogenic in origin (USFWS, 2024c, USGS, 2024).

As defined by FEMA, the entirety of the Project site falls within an area of Minimal Flood Hazard (FEMA, 2024).

Biological Resource Evaluation Environmental Setting

Blossom View Tract 6502 Project December 2024
De Young Properties Page 3-5
Figure 3-2
NWI and NHD Records of Aquatic Resources
Blossom View Tract 6502 Project
Fresno County, California
T
1 4
3 500
-44 "f. . 3
)
*
V
R4SBCx
ITS
Le
1 geam ms
■
l
I
1 th 0"' L
J. -
JE(MCKINLEY AVE -==
it A
T
ill u I
$3
i! i UH
I
I
I I ( M Iaki 11 R5UBEX
4 ’Ll
ag
e
1 ill
t ' *
iiitiii)
\
I
I
I
■
1 National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) Flowline
Canal Ditch
------Stream River - Intermittent
National Wetlands Inventory
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
Riverine
Biological Study Area (BSA, 250-Foot Buffer)
t" Project Site
i
1 t
if I I
o
C
e 10 TL. ‘Q ‘z
; 1...

I
■ I
lill.. iliii
1e I
miii
big i
I4 »
‘ E WELDON AVE
l .,pfPPareelcer £ ----2
mi • XKI.Ii.n
217
H' >
Biological Resource Evaluation Environmental Setting

Blossom View Tract 6502 Project December 2024
De Young Properties Page 3-6
Figure 3-3
FEMA Flood Zone Map
Blossom View Tract 6502 Project
Fresno County, California
E Adena Ave
E Vassar Ave
Mill Ditch
E Adena Ave
Z E Vassar Ave
O
O
( E Yale Ave
E Berkeley Ave
E Weldon Ave
Ave
Ave
O
C.
z
O
C
r
O
t
z
O
Un
o
O
<
I
E Normal I
E Universit
eralta Way
E McKinley Ave R
J
Flood Hazard Zones 348ft
1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard

0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard
Area of Minimal Flood Hazard
Biological Study Area (BSA, 250-Foot Buffer)
th Project Site
N
Feet
0 500
L
N Redda Rd
Biological Resource Evaluation Environmental Setting

Blossom View Tract 6502 Project December 2024
De Young Properties Page 3-7

3.6 - General Biological Conditions
The Project site is situated on a 24-acre routinely disked and current inactive agricultural parcel within the City and is surrounded by urban development and agricultural lands. The Project site is bordered by active orchards to the south, an overflow water catch basin to the northeast, Mills Ditch No. 36 that runs north and east, inactive agricultural further to the east and residential to the north and west.

No natural plant communities occur within the BSA. The Project site consists of non-native annual grassland species and ruderal species. Dominant species identified at the time of the survey included Bromus sp. (Bromus sp.), telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), and vinegar weed (Trichostema lanceolayum). Eucalyptus trees (Eucalyptud sp.) and chinaberry (Melia azedarach) are present within the BSA to the north of the Project site.

The large eucalyptus trees within the BSA could support nesting birds and/or raptors, but no raptor or passerine nests observed during the time of the survey. Smaller ornamental trees associated with private residences to the west and north of the Project site within the BSA, could support nesting passerine bird species.

The NHD and NWI, Figure 3-2, identified two aquatic features within the BSA, Redbank Creek which is to the north, north-east of the Project site and flows east-west. This feeds into Mill Ditch No. 36 that flows east–west to the north of the Project site and north-south to the east of the Project site. (Figure 3-2). Small pools of water were present in Mill Ditch No. 36 on the east side of the Project site. Water was not actively flowing in the aquatic features during the site survey.

Biological Resource Evaluation Findings

Blossom View Tract 6502 Project December 2024
De Young Properties Page 4-8
SECTION 4 - FINDINGS

4.1 - Results of Site Survey and Database Searches

4.1.1 - RESULTS OF SITE SURVEY
The site visit consisted of meandering pedestrian surveys throughout the BSA. The site was surveyed to identify special-status wildlife and plant species. Wildlife species, features, dens, nests, and other findings of importance with location recorded and mapped (Figure 4-1).

Common migratory bird species observed during the survey included mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), rock doves (Columba livia), and a Spotted Sandpiper (Actitis macularius) but active no nesting sites were observed Figure 4-1).

California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi) burrows and sign were observed throughout the BSA. Cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus sp.), sized burrows, valley pocket gopher (Thommomys bottae) sized burrows, and small mouse (Peromyscus sp.) burrows, and numerous California ground squirrel burrow complexes were found along the banks of Mill Ditch No. 36. Three potential San Juaquin kit fox dens were observed on the Project site and two others were observed in the BSA (Figure 4-1). No special-status plants were observed although the survey was outside of the optimal blooming period. No active nests were observed although the survey was conducted prior to the nesting season (January 1- September 15).

A complete list of plant and wildlife species observed within the BSA during the biological reconnaissance survey is included in Appendix C.

4.1.2 - RESULTS OF LITERATURE REVIEW AND DATABASE SEARCHES Literature results from the nine-quadrangle queries for the Project site revealed four sensitive natural vegetation communities: Great Valley Mixed Riparian Forest, Sycamore Alluvial Woodland, Northern Claypan Vernal Pool, and Northern Hardpan Vernal Pool.

4.1.3 - PRESENCE OF SENSITIVE NATURAL COMMUNITIES
No sensitive natural communities were present within the BSA. Great Valley Mixed Riparian Forest, Northern Claypan Vernal Pool, Northern Hardpan Vernal Pool and Sycamore Alluvial Woodland communities were not present within the BSA. Several small pools of water were observed within a naturally formed ditch between land parcels along the southern boundary of the Project site, but this feature lacked the hardpan soil characteristics required for both vernal pool communities and lacked the vegetation characteristic of these communities (native annual herbs and grasses).

Biological Resource Evaluation Findings

Blossom View Tract 6502 Project December 2024
De Young Properties Page 4-9

4.2 - Special-Status Plants

4.2.1 - PRESENCE OF SPECIAL-STATUS PLANTS
Eleven special-status plant species were identified in the literature and database review that are known or have potential to occur within the nine-quadrangle IPac and 10-mile radius of CNDDB queries centered on the Project site (Table 4-1).

4.2.2 - PRESENCE OF SPECIAL-STATUS PLANTS
No special-status plant species were observed within the BSA. There is no habitat present on the Project site or within the BSA that would support any special-status plant species queried during the database search. The Project site is degraded from historical land use, mainly for agricultural operations and residential development, and the adjacent lands have been equally disturbed for agricultural and residential uses. A complete list of plant species observed during the biological reconnaissance survey is included in Appendix C.

Biological Resource Evaluation Findings

Blossom View Tract 6502 Project December 2024
De Young Properties Page 4-10

Table 4-1
Special-Status Plant Species Occurring in the Region,
Blossom View Tract 6502 Project
(Source: CNDDB 2024, CNPS 2024, and USFWS 2024)
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Carex comosa bristly sedge 2B.1
Castilleja campestris var. succulenta succulent owl’s-clover FT, SE, 1B.2 Caulanthus californicus California jewelflower FE, SE, 1B.1 Eryngium spinosepalum spiny-sepaled button-celery 1B.2
Imperata brevifolia California satintail 2B.1
Lagophylla dichotoma forked hare-leaf 1B.1
Leptosiphon serrulatus Madera leptosiphon 1B.2
Orcuttia inaequalis San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass FT, SE, 1B.1 Pseudobahia peirsonii San Joaquin adobe sunburst FT, SE, 1B.1 Sagittaria sanfordii Sanford’s arrowhead 1B.2
Tuctoria greenei Greene’s tuctoria FE, 1B.1
Sources:
− California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2024. California Natural Diversity Data Base, California Department of Fish and Wildlife Sacramento, CA. Quads: Academy, Clovis. Friant, Lanes Bridge, Malaga, Round Mountain, Sanger, Fresno North, and Fresno South.
− California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2024. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v6-05b 4-11- 05). Rare Plant Scientific Advisory Committee. California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. Quads: Academy, Clovis. Friant, Lanes Bridge, Malaga, Round Mountain, Sanger, Fresno North, and Fresno South. − Unites States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2024. Federal Endangered and Threatened Species that Occur in or may be Affected by Projects in the Merced U.S.G.S 7 ½ Minute Quad. USFWS. Sacramento, CA.

Abbreviations:
1B.1 California Native Plant Society List 1B Species-Plants Categorized as Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and Elsewhere; Seriously Endangered in California 1B.2 California Native Plant Society List 1B Species-Plants Categorized as Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and Elsewhere; Fairly Endangered in California. 1B.3 California Native Plant Society List 1B Species-Plants Categorized as Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and Elsewhere; Not Very Endangered in California 2B.1 California Native Plant Society List 2B Species-Plants Categorized as Endangered in California; Seriously Endangered
2B.2 Native Plant Society List 2B Species-Plants Categorized as Endangered in California; Fairly Endangered in California
FE Federal Endangered Species
FT Federal Threatened Species
SE California State Endangered Species
Biological Resource Evaluation Findings

Blossom View Tract 6502 Project December 2024
De Young Properties Page 4-11
Figure 4-1
Biological Resources Map
Blossom View Tract 6502 Project
Fresno County, California
N
Den 3 lA Feet
21 }
A
Deny2
th
A
"I
"s
el
l £
[ l

1.9a l
1 M. "o - I
E * DenM Den 4 T,
*2
% d
mjiiiiiiil
3377
00 . 1
4 L g
— — 8.4
1 th
Weldon Ave
. OR
Z
Way
t Dens Within Project Site
Dens Outside of Buffer
Dilapidated Passerine Nest
Snag With Multiple Cavities
Spotted Sandpiper Observation
Woodchip Pile
House Removal Piles and Pits
A
11 i
--
res
0 L
Tie IT
Den 5
!
| | Trench
Shipping and Garbage Containers
i2i Project Site
I I Biological Study Area (BSA, 250-Foot Buffer)
500
A
r
*!
A
Biological Resource Evaluation

Blossom View Tract 6502 Project December 2024
De Young Properties Page 4-1

4.3 - Special-Status Wildlife

4.3.1 - RESULTS OF LITERATURE REVIEW AND DATABASE SEARCHES Twenty-six special-status wildlife species were identified in the literature and database review that are known or have potential to occur within the nine-quad search area centered on the Project site (Table 4-2). There are no historical records from the CNDDB of specialstatus wildlife species within the Project site.

Table 0-1
Special-Status Wildlife Species Occurring in the Region, Blossom View Tract 6502 Project
(Source: CNDDB 2024, CNPS 2024, and USFWS 2024)
Scientific Name Common name Status
Insects
Bombus crotchii Crotch’s bumble bee -,SE
Danaus plexippus monarch butterfly FC, -
Desmocerus californicus dimorphus Valley elderberry longhorn beetle
FT, -
Crustaceans
Branchinecta conservatio conservancy fairy shrimp FE, - Branchinecta lynchi vernal pool fairy shrimp FT, -
Fishes
Hypomesus transpacificus delta smelt FT, SE
Mylopharodon conocephalus hardhead -, SSC
Amphibians
Ambystoma californiense California tiger salamander FT, ST Rana draytonii California red-legged frog FT, SSC
Spea hammondii western spadefoot -, SSC
Reptiles
Anniella pulchra Northern California legless lizard -. SSC Arizona elegans occidentalis California glossy snake -. SSC Emys marmorata western pond turtle -, SSC
Gambelia sila blunt-nosed leopard lizard FE, SE, FP
Phrynosoma blainvillii coast horned lizard -, SSC
Thamnophis gigas giant garter snake FT, ST
Birds
Agelaius tricolor tricolored blackbird ST, SSC
Athene cunicularia burrowing owl -, SC
Buteo swainsoni Swainson’s hawk -, ST
Coccyzus americanus occidentalis western yellow-billed cuckoo FT, SE Vireo bellii pusillus least Bell’s vireo FE, SE
Mammals
Antrozous pallidus pallid bat -, SSC
Dipodomys nitratoides exilis Fresno kangaroo rat FE, SE Biological Resource Evaluation

Blossom View Tract 6502 Project December 2024
De Young Properties Page 4-2
Scientific Name Common name Status
Eumops perotis californicus western mastiff bat -, SSC
Taxidea taxus American badger -, SSC
Vulpes macrotis mutica San Joaquin kit fox FE, ST
Sources:
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2024. California Natural Diversity Data Base, California Department of Fish and Wildlife Sacramento, CA. Quads: Academy, Clovis. Friant, Lanes Bridge, Malaga, Round Mountain, Sanger, Fresno North, and Fresno South.
• California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2024. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v6-05b 4-11- 05). Rare Plant Scientific Advisory Committee. California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. Quads: Academy, Clovis. Friant, Lanes Bridge, Malaga, Round Mountain, Sanger, Fresno North, and Fresno South. • United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2024. Federal Endangered and Threatened Species that Occur in or may be Affected by Projects in the Merced U.S.G.S 7 ½ Minute Quad. USFWS. Sacramento, CA.

Abbreviations:

FE Federal Endangered Species
FT Federal Threatened Species
FC Federal Candidate for Listing
SC California State Candidate Species
SE California State Endangered Species
ST California State Threatened Species
SSC California Department of Fish and Wildlife Species of Special Concern

4.3.2 - PRESENCE OF SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE
Potential dens suitable for San Joaquin kit fox, were present within the BSA. There were scat and prey remains on the den entrances. Signs (scat, a much larger den, etc.) of a larger canid, potentially coyote (Canis latrans) and domestic dog (Canis familiaris) were seen along portions of the 250-foot buffer (Figure 4-1).

The desktop review identified 26 special-status animal species known or with potential to occur in the vicinity of the project. Of those, four were determined to have some potential to occur on-site. An evaluation of the potential for these species occurring on the Project site and within the BSA based upon nearby occurrence records, habitat affinities, and habitat conditions present is presented below. The BSA also has the potential of nesting birds and raptors during the nesting season. Nests from last season are located in the BSA that were not occupied because the survey was conducted outside of the nesting season and shown on Figure 4-1.

WESTERN BURROWING OWL

ATHENE CUNICULARIA HYPUGAEA
Status: State Candidate
The western burrowing owl is a broadly distributed, small, ground-dwelling owl that can be found throughout western North American, Florida, Central and South America, Hispaniola, Cub, and northern Lesser Antilles, and the Bahamas (Shuford and Gardali 2008). Typically, this species can be found in a variety of habitat types, including grasslands, deserts, or other open habitats where food resources are available and contain treeless areas with low vegetation cover and gently sloping terrain (Rodewald 2015).

Biological Resource Evaluation

Blossom View Tract 6502 Project December 2024
De Young Properties Page 4-3
Burrowing owls use earthen burrows, typically relying on other fossorial mammals to construct their burrows, such as American badger (USFWS, 1998a). In California, burrowing owls are associated with California ground squirrels (Winchell, 1994), which were on site during the reconnaissance survey. They use a burrow throughout the year for temperature regulation, offspring rearing, shelter, and escape from predators. While burrows are most often earthen, they have been documented using atypical burrows such as pipes, culverts, and other man-made structures as burrows, most often as shelter (Shuford and Gardali, 2008). Burrowing owls can have several burrows close to one other that they may frequently use to avoid predators.

There are three CNDDB recorded occurrences for the species within 10 miles of the BSA. The closest CNDDB recorded occurrence (EONDX 103146) is approximately .51 miles northeast of the BSA and is from 1990 (CDFW, 2024a). No burrowing owl or diagnostic sign (e.g., burrows, whitewash, prey remains, or feather) were observed during the survey. This species is a highly mobile transient forager that preys on small burrowing mammals. While burrowing owls are not commonly adapted to human interactions and noises, they have been found in urbanized settings. Suitable foraging and burrowing habitat is present within the BSA and the species may pass through as transients or become an inhabitant in the future if current conditions are not changed.

Swainson’s Hawk

BUTEO SWAINSONI
Status: State Threatened
Swainson’s hawks occur in grassland, desert, and agricultural landscapes throughout the Central Valley and Antelope Valley (Bechard et al., 2010; Zeiner et al., 1988). Some hawks may be resident, especially in the southern portion of their range, while others may migrate between winter and breeding habitats. They prefer larger isolated trees or small woodlots for nesting, usually with grassland or dryland grain fields nearby for foraging and have been known to nest in large eucalyptus trees (Eucalyptus sp.) along heavily traveled freeway corridors. Swainson’s hawks forage in grassland, open scrub, pasture, and dryland grain agricultural habitats, primarily for rodents, and exhibit moderate to high nest site fidelity for successful nest sites.

There are two CNDDB recorded occurrences for the species within 10 miles of the BSA (CDFW, 2024a). The closest CNDDB recorded occurrence (EONDX 91594) is approximately

1.75 miles southeast of the BSA and is from 1956, it is mapped to the east of Fresno with low accuracy. A more recent record with a high level of locational accuracy is (EONDX 106840) from 2016 and is 8.1 miles southwest of the Project site. It was an active nest with successfully fledged young. The BSA provides limited foraging and nesting habitat based on prey species (i.e., California ground squirrel) and stand of eucalyptus trees in the 250-foot buffer to the north and northwest of the Project site. There was no sign of Swainson’s hawk nests or individuals observed during the survey. Swainson’s hawk is unlikely to be present within the BSA.

Biological Resource Evaluation

Blossom View Tract 6502 Project December 2024
De Young Properties Page 4-4
American Badger

TAXIDEA TAXUS
Status: CDFW Species of Special Concern
The American badger is an uncommon, permanent resident at lower elevations throughout California except for the northern North Coast (CDFG, 1995). They can typically be found in grasslands, deserts, and drier habitats. Badgers are typically nocturnal and hunt or forage at night while spending daylight hours below ground. Normally, they have a single den entrance that is approximately 8 to 12 inches in width, in an elliptical or half-moon shape, similar to their body shape. Dens are usually found in friable soils which are easier to dig in.

American badgers spend most of their time near a den; however, they may have multiple dens in an area that can be used at the same time. American badgers are able to dig a new den each night. During cooler nights, the entrance to the den may be partially plugged with soil to help regulate temperatures.

There is one CNDDB recorded occurrence for the species within 10 miles of the BSA (CDFW, 2024a). The closest record (EONDX 56616) is approximately 2.30 miles northwest of the Project site and is from 1987. No American badger or diagnostic sign (i.e., dens, claw marks, scat, tracks, or prey remains) were observed during the survey. This species is a highly mobile transient forager that preys on small burrowing mammals (e.g., California ground squirrel). Suitable foraging and denning habitats are present within the BSA. The dens observed in the BSA were too small to be made by and used by badger. American badger is unlikely to be present within the BSA.

San Joaquin kit fox

VULPES MACROTIS MUTICA
Status: Federally Endangered, State Threatened
The San Joaquin kit fox is a subspecies of kit fox that is endemic to the San Joaquin Valley, Carrizo Plain, and Cuyama Valley, as well as other small valleys in the western foothills of the Central Valley of California (USFWS, 1998). They occupy arid to semi-arid grasslands, open shrublands, savannahs, and grazed lands with loose-textured soils. San Joaquin kit foxes are well-established in some urban areas and are highly adaptable to human-altered landscapes.

They generally avoid intensively maintained agricultural land but will forage into croplands surrounding suitable habitat. This species is a highly mobile transient forager that preys on small burrowing mammals (e.g., California ground squirrel), but will consume a variety of prey, and has adapted well to urbanized settings, even feeding on anthropogenic food sources. San Joaquin kit fox use subterranean dens year-round for shelter and pup-rearing.

They are nocturnally active but may be above ground near their dens during the day, particularly in the spring.

There is one CNDDB recorded occurrence for the species within 10 miles of the BSA (CDFW, 2024a). The closest recorded occurrence (EONDX 70606) is approximately six miles southeast of the Project site and is from 1980.No San Joaquin kit foxes were observed during the survey. Fox diagnostic signs (e.g., tracks, scat, prey remains, or dens) were observed during the survey. Three potential canid dens, potentially transient San Joaquin kit fox, were Biological Resource Evaluation

Blossom View Tract 6502 Project December 2024
De Young Properties Page 4-5
observed with prey remains and scat on and around the den apron were within the Project site. The other two dens were located within the 250-foot buffer (Figure 4-1). Suitable foraging and denning habitat are present within the BSA and the species may pass through as transient forager or become inhabitants in the future if current conditions are not changed. According to the database search, reliable sightings of San Joaquin kit fox have not occurred in Fresno County in over 40 years, though gray and red fox sightings are prevalent.

It is presumed that the dens were occupied by either red fox, gray fox, or coyote dens. Gray and red fox will typically displace kit fox and these species do not occur simultaneously. It is presumed that the dens were occupied by either red fox, gray fox, or coyote dens. San Joaquin kit fox is unlikely to be present within the BSA.

4.4 - Nesting Migratory Birds and Raptors

4.4.1 - PRESENCE OF NESTING BIRDS AND RAPTORS
No active or inactive migratory bird or raptor nests were observed during the survey. There are a variety of man-made structures and trees within the BSA and in the vicinity of the Project, which could support a variety of nesting bird species, including larger species such common raven (Corvus corax). One dilapidated migratory bird nest was present in the housing development within the BSA west of the Project site. That nest could become rejuvenated and active during the 2025 breeding season, but because of its location it would not likely be affected in any way by the Project. Because the Project site is routinely tilled and previously residentially developed, it is unlikely that ground-nesting species would nest on the Project. Based upon current conditions, it is unlikely that any active bird nest would be affected by the proposed Project, but on-site conditions could change, resulting in active bird nests. Accordingly, avoidance measures are recommended.

4.5 - Critical Habitat, Movement Corridors, and Linkages Habitat may be designated as Critical Habitat by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), which are blocks of habitat that may or may not be currently occupied by species that are of the highest priority for the survival, conservation, and recovery of threatened or endangered species. No designated Critical Habitat occurs on the Project site.

4.5.1 - PRESENCE OF CRITICAL HABITAT
The nearest critical habitat, approximately 6.30 miles from the BSA, is for fleshy owls clover (Castilleja campestris ssp.) The BSA is not within any designated critical habitat areas (Figure 4-2).

4.5.2 - PRESENCE OF MOVEMENT CORRIDORS AND LINKAGES
The CDFW database did not include any corridors, but there is Redbank Slough that feeds into the canal to the north of the Project area into Mill Ditch No. 36. It runs through the property that is likely used as a travel corridor based on tracks and habitat. The Project is Biological Resource Evaluation

Blossom View Tract 6502 Project December 2024
De Young Properties Page 4-6
situated within an area developed for urban and agricultural use and does not provide a linkage between suitable natural habitats for special-status wildlife species.

Biological Resource Evaluation

Blossom View Tract 6502 Project December 2024
De Young Properties Page 4-7
Figure 0-2
Mapped Critical Habitat in the Project Vicinity
Blossom View Tract 6502 Project
Fresno County, California
mp~ Fleshy, 168
Fria
N
Miles
Ils
ordon
2 /
Tariii ()
।
Clovis
O W Shaw Ave
W Ashlar Ave E Ashlan Ave
Gr
△
180
in z
Fresno 180 N
Sanger
in
o 01 Wahtoke
U
E
Olean
Fowler
W Manning Ave Parlier Lacjac
:y E Manning Ave E Manning Ave J
△ Project Location
10-Mile Buffer
Selma
USFWS Critical Habitat
Caruthers /b z’s
San Joaquin]
Valley Orcutt
grass
Rollin
Fleshy '
owl’s-clover
Fleshy
owl's-clover
o
C
o
4 (
4 u
San Joaquin Valley
Orcutt grass
Fleshy
I owl's-clover
California
tiger V
Salamander
4 J
O
<
Uh
V \ |
<
t
O > <
E
O
O
(
>
■ Hairy “Orcutt
/ grass
owl’s-clover
Pable Mountain
h Rancheria
0 L
< E California
tiger, Salamander
4—
Biological Resource Evaluation

Blossom View Tract 6502 Project December 2024
De Young Properties Page 4-8

4.6 - Wetlands and Other Waters

4.6.1 - PRESENCE OF WETLANDS AND OTHER WATERS
The NHD and NWI identify two water features, to the north and northwest are Mill Ditch No. 36 and Redbank Slough that feeds into the riparian corridor to the north and northeast of the Project area, both are in the 250-foot buffer and beyond (Figure 3-2). Both features are classified by the NHD as canal ditches, and the NWI identifies them as Cowardin code R4SBCx; a riverine system, seasonally flooded stream bed with an unconsolidated bottom that is anthropogenic in origin (USFWS, 2024c; USGS, 2024). No impacts to these features will be impacted by the Project. The Project site is flat except for areas that have been excavated (house demo, irrigation removal, tree removal and chipped). There should be no runoff water from the Project into any water resources that are under federal jurisdiction of the ACOE or EPA or that are under the regulatory authority of the CDFW or Flood Water District. A stormwater detention basin may be incorporated into the residential development to assist with any water runoff due to the Project.

Biological Resource Evaluation Potential Project Impacts

Blossom View Tract 6502 Project December 2024
De Young Properties Page 5-1
SECTION 5 - POTENTIAL PROJECT IMPACTS
The proposed Project would have a significant effect on biological resources if it would:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Avoidance and minimization measures are designed to reduce or eliminate impacts to special-status species during Project construction activities. Detailed specific measures are outlined below for each special-status species that may occur on the Project site.

5.1 - Potential Impacts to Sensitive Vegetation Communities No sensitive vegetation communities occur on-site. The Project would not impact sensitive natural communities, and no avoidance and minimization measures are required.

5.2 - Potential Impacts to Special-Status Plant Species There is no suitable habitat for any of the 11 special-status plant species with potential to occur in the vicinity of the Project. Avoidance and minimization measures are not warranted.

5.3 - Potential Impacts to Special-Status Wildlife Species No suitable habitat or host plants were observed for Crotch’s bumble bee, monarch butterfly, or Valley elderberry longhorn beetle. No vernal pool or continuous water resources habitat exist for conservancy fairy shrimp, vernal pool fairy shrimp, delta smelt, hardhead, California tiger salamander, western pond turtle or red-legged frog. No suitable habitat exists for western spadefoot, Northern California legless lizard, California glossy snake, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, coast horned lizard or giant garter snake. No suitable nesting habitat exists for tricolored blackbird, western yellow-billed cuckoo or Least Bell’s vireo. No roosting or maternity sites exist for pallid bat. No burrows suitable for Fresno kangaroo rat exist on the Project site.

Of the species with potential for occurrence in the BSA it was determined that four of the species could occur on the Project site. The four species are burrowing owl, Swainson’s hawk, American badger, and San Joaquin kit fox, and potential impacts of the Project to these species are described below.

San Joaquin Kit Fox
There is evidence that a small canid species is present within the BSA, the Project site has suitable foraging and denning habitat, and available prey resources for a transient kit fox.

The species isn’t common to the area and it is unlikely that San Joaquin kit fox would be present within the BSA.

Biological Resource Evaluation Potential Project Impacts

Blossom View Tract 6502 Project December 2024
De Young Properties Page 5-2
Potential impacts to this species could occur if there is an active San Joaquin kit fox den or transient individual within or near the area of development during construction activities.

Potential direct impacts resulting in injury, death, or entrapment in dens, trenches, or pipes could occur if a San Joaquin kit fox occupies the construction area or travels through. Noise, vibration, and the presence of construction workers could alter normal behaviors if kit foxes are present, which could affect reproductive success and overall fitness. Implementation of avoidance measures BIO-1 through BIO-4 would reduce impacts to the species.

American Badger
There is no evidence that American badger is present within the BSA, but the Project site does have suitable foraging and denning habitat and available prey resources for a transient badger. Because this species is highly mobile, there is a potential that American badger could become established in these areas or be present from time to time throughout the BSA as transient foragers.

Potential impacts to this species could occur if there is an active American badger den or transient individual within or near the area of development during construction activities.

Potential direct impacts resulting in injury, death, or entrapment in dens, trenches, or pipes could occur if an American badger occupies the construction area or travels through. Noise, vibration, and the presence of construction workers could alter normal behaviors if badgers are present, which could affect reproductive success and overall fitness. Implementation of avoidance measures BIO-1 through BIO-3 as listed below, would reduce any potential impacts to the American badger.

5.4 - Potential Impacts to Nesting Birds and Raptors
Western Burrowing Owl
There is no evidence that western burrowing owls are present within the BSA, but the Project site has suitable foraging and burrowing habitat for a transient owl. Because this species is highly mobile, there is potential for western burrowing owls to become established in these areas or be present from time to time throughout the BSA as transient foragers.

Potential impacts to this species could occur if there is an active western burrowing owl burrow or transient individual within or near the area of development during construction activities. Potential direct impacts resulting in injury, death, or entrapment in burrows, trenches, or pipes could occur if a western burrowing owl occupies the construction or travels through. Noise, vibration, and the presence of construction workers could alter normal behaviors if burrowing owls are present, which could affect reproductive success and overall fitness. Implementation of avoidance measures BIO-1 through BIO-3 would reduce impacts to the species.

Biological Resource Evaluation Potential Project Impacts

Blossom View Tract 6502 Project December 2024
De Young Properties Page 5-3
Swainson’s Hawk
Swainson’s hawk was not observed nesting nearby or observed foraging during the survey.

The Project site is not considered a high-quality nesting habitat. Although no nests were observed, potential suitable nesting sites are located within the BSA associated with ornamental trees in surrounding residential areas and in the eucalyptus trees to the north of the Project site. Suitable prey species (e.g., California ground squirrels) are throughout the BSA and provide foraging for Swainson’s hawk.

Impacts to individual nesting Swainson’s hawk outside of the Project site are not expected if construction activities occur near an active nest. Due to the distance from the site and other human activities that occur continually in this populated area, the noise and vibration from construction of the Project and the presence of construction workers are unlikely to alter the normal behaviors of nesting adults because the species has adapted to the noises and is known to nest adjacent to construction sites without reproductive loss.

However, implementation of Measures BIO-5 through BIO-6 would reduce impacts to this species.

Nesting Birds
Nesting birds are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). No bird nests were identified during the site survey. However, the BSA supports several habitats for nesting birds, which may nest on trees and shrubs, man-made structures, and directly on the ground.

Migratory birds could nest throughout the entire BSA.

Construction activities and vegetation removal could lead to the destruction of nests.

Construction-related vibration, noise, and dust production, and human presence could alter the normal behaviors of nesting birds in the vicinity of the Project and lead to nest failure.

To avoid and minimize impacts to burrowing owl, Swainson’s hawk, American badger, and San Joaquin kit fox, migratory birds and other special-status species, avoidance, and minimization measures BIO- 1 through BIO-7 are recommended to be implemented during construction to reduce impacts to these biological resources.

5.5 - Potential Impacts to Movement Corridors and Linkages

5.5.1 - POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO CRITICAL HABITAT
The Project would not impact any designated Critical Habitat. Avoidance and minimization measures are not warranted

5.5.2 - POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO MOVEMENT CORRIDORS AND LINKAGES Project activities would not impact any movement corridors or habitat linkages. Avoidance and minimization measures are not warranted
Biological Resource Evaluation Potential Project Impacts

Blossom View Tract 6502 Project December 2024
De Young Properties Page 5-4

5.6 - Potential Impacts to Wetlands and Waters
The proposed Project would have a significant effect on biological resources if it would:
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.

No wetland or water features will be impacted within the Project site. All water features (Mill Ditch No. 36 and Redbank Slough) are either within the 250-foot buffer or outside of the BSA.

All construction activities will occur within the Project boundary and will not impact the canal or slough.

Biological Resource Evaluation Recommendations

Blossom View Tract 6502 Project December 2024
De Young Properties Page 6-1
SECTION 6 - RECOMMENDATIONS
Avoidance and Minimization Measures:

BIO-1 Burrowing Owl, American Badger, and San Joaquin Kit Fox Detection. Within 14 days prior to the start of Project ground-disturbing activities, a pre-activity survey should be conducted by a qualified biologist knowledgeable in the identification of these species. Surveys for active, known, potential, and natal SJKF dens within and adjacent to the Project Area will be conducted following the USFWS’ “Standardized recommendations for protection of the San Joaquin kit fox (SJKF) prior to or during ground disturbance” (2011). Surveys for active western burrowing owl burrows within and adjacent to the Project Area will be conducted following the CDFG’s “Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation” (2012). If, during construction activities, a live burrowing owl, American badger, or SJKF is encountered, all construction activity should stop in the affected area until the animal leaves of its own volition. The special-status species should be avoided by construction activities and construction workers and allowed to leave the Project site without harassment.

BIO-2 Avoidance of Burrows for Western Burrowing Owl, American Badger, and San Joaquin Kit Fox. Within 14 days prior to the start of Project ground-disturbing activities, a pre-construction activity survey with a 250-foot buffer where land access is permitted should be conducted by a qualified biologist knowledgeable in the identification of these species and approved by the CDFW. Surveys need not be conducted for all areas at one time; they may be phased so that surveys occur within 14 days of the portion of the Project Site that will be disturbed. If dens/burrows that could support any of these species are discovered during the pre-activity survey (BIO-1), the avoidance buffers outlined below should be established. No work would occur within these buffers unless the biologist approves and monitors the activity.

Western Burrowing Owl (active burrows)
• April 1-August 15
o Low disturbance – 200 m
o Medium disturbance– 500 m
o High disturbance – 500 m
• August 16-October 15
o Low disturbance – 200 m
o Medium disturbance – 200 m
o High disturbance – 500 m
• October 16-March 31
o Low disturbance – 50 m
o Medium disturbance – 100 m
o High disturbance – 500m
Biological Resource Evaluation Recommendations

Blossom View Tract 6502 Project December 2024
De Young Properties Page 6-2
American Badger/SJKF
• Potential or Atypical den – 50 feet
• Known den – 100-feet
• Natal or pupping den – 500 feet, unless otherwise specified by CDFW.

If burrowing owl are found within these recommended buffers and avoidance is not possible, consultation with CDFW may allow burrow exclusion by a qualified biologist and only during the non-breeding season, before breeding behavior is exhibited and after the burrow is confirmed empty through non-invasive methods, such as surveillance.

BIO-3 Western Burrowing Owl, American Badger, and SJKF Avoidance. If evidence of these species is observed, a qualified biologist should remain on-call throughout the construction phase if a western burrowing owl, American badger, or SJKF occurs on the site during construction. If one of these species occurs on-site, work should be halted in that area. The biologist should be contacted immediately to determine whether biological monitoring or the implementation of avoidance buffers may be warranted.

BIO-4 Standard Avoidance and Minimization Measures for the protection of SJKF.

The following avoidance and minimization measures should be implemented during all phases of the Project to reduce the potential for impact from the Project.

They are modified from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered SJKF Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (USFWS 2011, Appendix E).
a. All food-related trash items such as wrappers, cans, bottles, and food scraps shall be disposed of in securely closed containers and removed at least once a week from the construction or Project Site.
b. Construction-related vehicle traffic shall be restricted to established roads and predetermined ingress and egress corridors, staging, and parking areas.

Vehicle speeds shall not exceed 20 miles per hour (mph) within the Project Site.
c. A Worker Environmental Awareness Training Program should be prepared and presented to all workers that will be on-site during construction activities d. To prevent inadvertent entrapment of kit fox or other animals during construction, the contractor shall cover all excavated, steep-walled holes or trenches more than two feet deep at the close of each workday with plywood or similar materials. If holes or trenches cannot be covered, one or more escape ramps constructed of earthen fill or wooden planks shall be installed in the trench. Before such holes or trenches are filled, the contractor shall thoroughly inspect them for entrapped animals. All construction-related pipes, culverts, or similar structures with a diameter of four-inches or greater that are stored on the Project Site shall be thoroughly inspected for wildlife Biological Resource Evaluation Recommendations

Blossom View Tract 6502 Project December 2024
De Young Properties Page 6-3
before the pipe is subsequently buried, capped, or otherwise used or moved in any way. If at any time an entrapped or injured kit fox is discovered, work in the immediate area shall be temporarily halted and USFWS and CDFW shall be consulted.
e. Kit foxes are attracted to den-like structures such as pipes and may enter stored pipes and become trapped or injured. All construction pipes, culverts, or similar structures with a diameter of four inches or greater that are stored at a construction site for one or more overnight periods shall be thoroughly inspected for kit foxes before the pipe is subsequently buried, capped, or otherwise used or moved in any way. If a kit fox is discovered inside a pipe, that section of pipe shall not be moved until the USFWS and CDFW have been consulted. If necessary, and under the direct supervision of the biologist, the pipe may be moved only once to remove it from the path of construction activity, until the fox has escaped.
f. No pets, such as dogs or cats, shall be permitted on the Project sites to prevent harassment, mortality of kit foxes, or destruction of dens. g. Use of anti-coagulant rodenticides and herbicides in Project sites shall be restricted. This is necessary to prevent primary or secondary poisoning of kit foxes and the depletion of prey populations on which they depend. All uses of such compounds shall observe label and other restrictions mandated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, California Department of Food and Agriculture, and other State and Federal legislation, as well as additional Project-related restrictions deemed necessary by the USFWS and CDFW. If rodent control must be conducted, zinc phosphide shall be used because of the proven lower risk to kit foxes.
h. A representative shall be appointed by the Project proponent who will be the contact source for any employee or contractor who might inadvertently kill or injure a kit fox or who finds a dead, injured, or entrapped kit fox. The representative shall be identified during the employee education program and their name and telephone number shall be provided to the USFWS. i. The Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office of USFWS and CDFW shall be notified in writing within three working days of the accidental death or injury to a SJKF during Project-related activities. Notification must include the date, time, and location of the incident or of the finding of a dead or injured animal and any other pertinent information. The USFWS contact is the Chief of the Division of Endangered Species, at the addresses and telephone numbers below. The CDFW contact can be reached at (559) 243-4014 and [email protected]. j. All sightings of the SJKF shall be reported to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). A copy of the reporting form and a topographic map clearly marked with the location of where the kit fox was observed shall also be provided to the Service at the address below.
k. Any Project-related information required by the USFWS or questions concerning the above conditions, or their implementation may be directed in writing to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at: Endangered Species Division, Biological Resource Evaluation Recommendations

Blossom View Tract 6502 Project December 2024
De Young Properties Page 6-4
2800 Cottage Way, Suite W 2605, Sacramento, California 95825-1846, phone:
(916) 414-6620 or (916) 414-6600.

BIO-5 Pre-activity Surveys for Swainson’s Hawk Nests. If Project construction activities must occur during the Swainson’s hawk nesting season (February 15 to August 31), pre-construction activity surveys should be conducted for Swainson’s hawk nests in accordance with the Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley, Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee (CDFG, 2000). The timing and the number of phases of surveys can be adjusted based on the timing of the construction schedule. The surveys may be phased to coincide with active construction areas plus a 0.5-mile buffer of those areas. If no active nests are observed during the surveys, no additional action is required.

BIO-6 Swainson’s Hawk Nest Avoidance. No mature trees that could be used by nesting Swainson’s hawk will be removed during construction of the Project. If an active Swainson’s hawk nest is discovered at any time within 0.5 miles of active construction, a qualified biologist should complete an assessment of the potential for current construction activities to impact the nest. The assessment would consider the type of construction activities, the location of construction relative to the nest, the visibility of construction activities from the nest location, and other existing disturbances in the area that are not related to the construction activities of this Project. Based on this assessment, the biologist will determine if construction activities can proceed, and the level of nest monitoring required.

Construction activities should not occur within 500 feet of an active nest but depending upon conditions at the site this distance may be reduced. Full-time monitoring to evaluate the effects of construction activities on nesting Swainson’s hawks may be required. The qualified biologist should have the authority to stop work if it is determined that Project construction is disturbing the nest. These buffers may need to increase depending on the sensitivity of the nesting Swainson’s hawk to disturbances and at the discretion of the qualified biologist.

No avoidance would be needed if construction occurs near a known Swainson’s hawk nest outside of the Swainson’s hawk nesting season.

BIO-7 Pre-activity Surveys for Nesting Birds. If Project construction activities will be initiated during the nesting season (February 1 to September 15), a preconstruction activity nesting bird survey should be conducted within 14 days prior to the start of ground disturbance activities. The surveys should encompass the Project site and accessible land visible from accessible areas within a 250-foot buffer for songbirds and a 500-foot buffer for raptors.

The surveys may be phased with the construction of the Project. If no active nests are found, no further action is required. However, existing nests may become active and new nests may be built at any time prior to and throughout the nesting season, including when construction activities are in progress. Surveys for burrowing owl will follow CDFW protocol.

Biological Resource Evaluation Recommendations

Blossom View Tract 6502 Project December 2024
De Young Properties Page 6-5
If active nests are found during the survey or at any time during construction of the Project, an avoidance buffer ranging from 50 feet to 500 feet may be required, with the avoidance buffer from any specific nest being determined by a qualified biologist. The avoidance buffer will remain in place until the biologist has determined that the young are no longer reliant on the adults or the nest, or if breeding attempts have otherwise been unsuccessful. Work may occur within the avoidance buffer under the approval and guidance of the biologist, but full-time monitoring may be required. The biologist shall have the ability to stop construction if nesting adults show any sign of distress.

Biological Resource Evaluation Summary and Conclusions

Blossom View Tract 6502 Project December 2024
De Young Properties Page 7-1
SECTION 7 - SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Land within the BSA is highly disturbed and contains no habitat that would support specialstatus plant species or sensitive natural communities. There are no designated Critical Habitats, movement corridors, wetlands, or water features that would be impacted by the Project.

Based on the literature and database searches and results of the site survey, there is potential for four special-status species to occur on the site: the San Joaquin kit fox, American badger, western burrowing owl, and Swainson’s hawk. Because of the disturbed nature of the Project and its situation within an area developed for agriculture and urban use, impacts to the western burrowing owl, San Joaquin kit fox and American badger are not expected. Western burrowing owl, San Joaquin kit foxes and American badgers would likely be only transient visitors to the Project site. If Swainson’s hawks were to nest in the vicinity of the Project, impacts to the species could occur. The Project and surrounding areas provide suitable nesting habitat for other nesting migratory birds as well and impacts to these species may also occur. Implementation of the recommended BMPs and avoidance measures outlined in Section 6 would minimize any Project impacts to these species.

This Biological Resource Evaluation report has been performed in accordance with professionally accepted biological investigation practices conducted at this time and in this geographic area. The findings and opinions conveyed in this report are based on findings derived from specified historical and literary sources and a biological survey of the Project site and surrounding area. The biological investigation was limited by the scope of work performed. The biological survey may not have been performed during blooming periods or periods of seasonal or daily wildlife activity that would provide positive identification if resources were present, and therefore the findings of this report might not be definitive. The biological survey was also limited by the environmental conditions present at the time of the survey. In addition, general biological or protocol surveys do not guarantee that the organisms are not present and would not be discovered in the future within the site. Mobile animal species could occupy the site on a transient basis or re-establish populations in the future. No other guarantees or warranties expressed or implied, are provided.

Biological Resource Evaluation References

Blossom View Tract 6502 Project December 2024
De Young Properties Page 8-1
SECTION 8 - REFERENCES
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2024a. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), from https://map.dfg.ca.gov/rarefind/view/RareFind.aspx.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2024b. Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS). www.wildlife.ca.gov/data/BIOS California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2024c. CDFW’s Special Animals List California Department of Water Resources Water Management Planning Tool (CDWR). 2024. https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/boundaries/
California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2024. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants.

Updated online and accessed via: www.rareplants.cnps.org.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 2024. Online Map Service Center.

Google LLC. 2024. Google Earth Pro.

Mayer, K.E. and W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr. 1988. A guide to wildlife habitats of California. State of California. Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. 166 pp. As updated online at: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CWHR/Wildlife-Habitats Netronline. 2024. Historic Aerials Viewer. Accessed via: www.historicaerials.com/viewer Rodewald, P. (Editor). 2015. The Birds of North America. Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca. NY. Website: https://birdsna.org. (Accessed March 2024).

Shuford, W.D. and T. Gardali, editors. 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2024a. Web Soil Survey. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2024b. Lists of Hydric Soils. National Cooperative Soil Survey, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Accessed via:
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/soils/use/hydric/.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1998. Recovery plan for upland species of the San Joaquin Valley, California. Region 1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Portland, Oregon
Biological Resource Evaluation References

Blossom View Tract 6502 Project December 2024
De Young Properties Page 8-2
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2024a. Information for Planning and Consultation online project planning tool. Available at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2024b. Critical Habitat Portal. Available at:
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/table/critical-habitat.html United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2024c. National Wetlands Inventory Wetlands Mapper (NWI). U.S. Geological Survey.

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2024. National Hydrography Dataset (NHD). https://www.usgs.gov/core-science-systems/ngp/national-hydrography Western Region Climate Center. 2024. Cooperative Climatological Data Summaries. Station ID: Fresno Yosemite Intl AP, California 043257. Accessed March 2022. https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca3257
National Park Service (NPS). 2024. Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo. Available at:

Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo (U.S. National Park Service)

APPENDIX A

SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES DATABASE SEARCH RESULTS FOR THE BLOSSOM VIEW TRACT

PROJECT
Biological Resource Evaluation References

Blossom View Tract 6502 Project December 2024
De Young Properties Page A-1

I5,
8 United States Department of the Interior
16 12/13/2024 22:33:27 UTC
To Whom It May Concern:

A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat.

In Reply Refer To:

Project Code: 2025-0031992
Project Name: Blossom View
New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through the IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.

The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). rh
1%
1cH 3
JENT OF r.
1 Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location or may be affected by your proposed project

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Office
Federal Building
2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605
Sacramento, CA 95825-1846
Phone: (916) 414-6600 Fax: (916) 414-6713

FISH & W ILIIFE

ABBEVTEE
Biological Resource Evaluation References

Blossom View Tract 6502 Project December 2024
De Young Properties Page A-2

Project code: 2025-0031992 12/13/2024 22:33:27 UTC
2 of 8
The MBTA has no provision for allowing take of migratory birds that may be unintentionally killed or injured by otherwise lawful activities. It is the responsibility of the project proponent to comply with these Acts by identifying potential impacts to migratory birds and eagles within applicable NEPA documents (when there is a federal nexus) or a Bird.Eagle Conservation Plan (when there is no federal nexus). Proponents should implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize the production of project-related stressors or minimize the exposure of birds and their resources to the project-related stressors. For more information on avian stressors and recommended conservation measures, see https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/threats-birds. (c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12.

If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at:
https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/endangered-species-consultationhandbook.pdf In addition to MBTA and BGEPA, Executive Order 13186: Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, obligates all Federal agencies that engage in or authorize activities that might affect migratory birds, to minimize those effects and encourage conservation measures that will improve bird populations. Executive Order 13186 provides for the protection of both migratory birds and migratory bird habitat. For information regarding the implementation of Executive Order 13186, please visit https://www.fws.gov/partner/council-conservationmigratory-birds.

We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Code in the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office.

Migratory Birds: In addition to responsibilities to protect threatened and endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), there are additional responsibilities under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) to protect native birds from project-related impacts. Any activity, intentional or unintentional, resulting in take of migratory birds, including eagles, is prohibited unless otherwise permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)). For more information regarding these Acts, see https://www.fws.gov/program/migratory-bird-permit/whatwe-do.

Biological Resource Evaluation References

Blossom View Tract 6502 Project December 2024
De Young Properties Page A-3

Project code: 2025-0031992 12/13/2024 22:33:27 UTC
Attachment(s):
■ Official Species List
This species list is provided by:
3 of 8
Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Office
Federal Building
2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605
Sacramento, CA 95825-1846
(916)414-6600

OFFICIAL SPECIES LIST
This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed action".

Biological Resource Evaluation References

Blossom View Tract 6502 Project December 2024
De Young Properties Page A-4

Project code: 2025-0031992 12/13/2024 22:33:27 UTC

PROJECT SUMMARY
2 E Biu wy ave
TOP eyi irness
Counties: Fresno County, California
4 of 8
Project Code:

Project Name:

Project Type:
2025-0031992
Blossom View
Residential Construction
Project Description: Housing development by DeYoung
Project Location:

The approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// www.google.com'maps/(q)36.76658985,-119.65840556 148127,14z Biological Resource Evaluation References

Blossom View Tract 6502 Project December 2024
De Young Properties Page A-5

Project code: 2025-0031992 12/13/2024 22:33:27 UTC
5 of 8
IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries-, as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the Department of Commerce.

1. 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.

Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species.

See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions.

ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SPECIES
There is a total of 12 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.

Biological Resource Evaluation References

Blossom View Tract 6502 Project December 2024
De Young Properties Page A-6

Project code: 2025-0031992 12/13/2024 22:33:27 UTC
STATUS
Endangered
Endangered
STATUS
Endangered
Threatened
STATUS
Endangered
STATUS
Threatened

INSECTS
6 of 8
Proposed
Threatened
Proposed
Threatened
BIRDS
NAME

AMPHIBIANS
NAME
Northwestern Pond Turtle Actinemys marmorata
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/llll

MAMMALS
NAME

REPTILES
NAME
San Joaquin Kit Fox Vulpes macrotis mutica
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2873
Blunt-nosed Leopard Lizard Gambelia situs
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.eov/ecp/species/625
Fresno Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys nitratoides exilis
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5150
Western Spadefoot Spea hammondii
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5425
California Condor Gymnogyps californianus
Population: Wherever found, except where listed as an experimental population There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8193
Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus
Population: Western U.S. DPS
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3911
California Tiger Salamander Ambystoma californiense
Population: U.S.A. (Central CA DPS)
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2076
Biological Resource Evaluation References

Blossom View Tract 6502 Project December 2024
De Young Properties Page A-7

Project code: 2025-0031992 12/13/2024 22:33:27 UTC

NAME STATUS
STATUS
Endangered
Threatened
STATUS
Endangered
7 of 8
Proposed
Threatened

YOU ARE STILL REQUIRED TO DETERMINE IF YOUR PROJECT(S) MAY HAVE EFFECTS ON ALL ABOVE LISTED SPECIES.

FLOWERING PLANTS
NAME

CRUSTACEANS
NAME

CRITICAL HABITATS
THERE ARE NO CRI TICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE’S JURISDICTION.

Conservancy Fairy Shrimp Branchinecta conservatio
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.

Species profile: https;//ecos. fws.gov/ecp/speci es/8246 Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus
There is proposed critical habitat for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp Branchinecta lynchi
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.eov/ecp/species/498
Greene's Tuctoria Tuctoria greenei
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ccp/species/1573
Biological Resource Evaluation References

Blossom View Tract 6502 Project December 2024
De Young Properties Page A-8

Project code: 2025-0031992 12/13/2024 22:33:27 UTC
Name: Mattole Whitaker
Address: 601 E Pollasky Ave Suite 301
8 of 8
City:

State:

Zip:

Email
Phone:

Clovis
CA
93612
[email protected]
5594492400

IPAC USER CONTACT INFORMATION
Agency: Private Entity
Biological Resource Evaluation References

Blossom View Tract 6502 Project December 2024
De Young Properties Page A-9

<0/
Selected Elements by Common Name
2 California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database Jhrmrp
Query Criteria:

Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank AMAJF04010 None None G5 S3 SSC
Taxidea taxus
American bumble bee IIHYM24260 None None G3G4 S2
Bombus pensylvanicus
Antioch efferian robberfly HDIP07010 None None G1G2 S1S2 Effena antiochi
black-crowned night heron ABNGA11010 None None G5 S4
Nycticorax nycticorax
bristly sedge PMCYP032YO None None G5 S2 2B.1
Carex comosa
burrowing owl ABNSB10010 None G4 S2 SSC
Athene cuniculaha
ARADB01017 None None G5T2 S2 SSC
California horned lark ABPAT02011 None None G5T4Q S4 WL Eremophila alpestris acba
California jewelflower PDBRA31010 Endangered Endangered G1 S1 1 B.1 Caulanthus californicus
California linderiella ICBRA06010 None None G2G3 S2S3
Linderiella occidentalis
California satintail PMPOA3D020 None None G3 S3 2B.1
Imperata brevifolia
California tiger salamander - central California DPS AAAAA01181 Threatened Threatened G2G3T3 S3 WL Ambystoma californiense pop. 1
coast horned lizard ARACF12100 None None G4 S4 SSC
Phrynosoma blainvillii
Crotch’s bumble bee IIHYM24480 None G2 S2
Bombus crotchii
double-crested cormorant ABNFD01020 None None G5 S4 WL
Nannopterum auntum
dwarf downingia PDCAM060C0 None None GU S2 2B.2
Downingia pusilia
forked hare-leaf PDAST5J070 None None G2 S2 1 B.1
Lagophylla dichotoma
Fresno kangaroo rat AMAFD03151 Endangered Endangered G2TH SH Dipodomys nitratoides exit is
Commercial Version - Dated December, 1 2024 — Biogeographic Data Branch Page 1 of 3 Report Printed on Friday. December 13, 2024 Information Expires 6/1/2025 CALIFORNIA teg
Candidate
Endangered
Candidate
Endangered
Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
Species SSC or FP
American badger
California glossy snake
Arizona elegans occidentalis
Quadespan style=‘colorRed‘ IS </span>( Clovis (3611976 )span style=‘colorRed OR </span>Fresno North (3611977 )span style=‘color.Red‘> OR </span>Fresno South (361 1967)-span style-color: Red'> OR </span-Malaga (3611966)-span style=’color.Red’> OR </span> Round Mountain (3611975)<span style-color: Red> OR </span>Sanger (3611965)<span style-color Red’> OR </span>Academy (3611985)<span style-color Red’> OR </span>Friant (3611986)<span style='color Red‘> OR </span>Lanes Bridge (3611987))
/ ’ 2
)
Biological Resource Evaluation References

Blossom View Tract 6502 Project December 2024
De Young Properties Page A-10

Selected Elements by Common Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
CTT61420CA None None G2 S2.2
Greene's tuctoria PMPOA6N010 Endangered Rare G1 S1 1B 1 Tuctoria greenei
PMPOA4G040 Endangered Endangered G1 S1 1B 1
hardhead AFCJB25010 None None G3 S3 ssc
Mylopharodon conocephalus
PDAST7P010 Endangered Endangered G1 S1 1B 1
AMACC05032 None None G3G4 S4
PDAST1P040 None None G2 S2 1B.3
IIDIP08010 None None G1G2 S1S2
least Bell's vireo ABPBW01114 Endangered Endangered G5T2 S3 Vireo bellii pu sill us
PDPLM09130 None None G3 S3 1B2
ICBRA03150 None None G2 S2S3
moestan blister beetle IICOL4C020 None None G2 S2
Lytta moesta
molestan blister beetle IICOL4C030 None None G2 S2
Lytta molesta
ARACC01020 None None G3 S2S3 SSC
CTT44120CA None None G1 S1.1
CTT44110CA None None G3 S3.1
ARAAD02031 None G2 SNR SSC
AM ACC 10010 None None G4 S3 SSC
PDPLM0C0X1 None None G2T2 S2 1B 1
PDAST7P030 Threatened Endangered G1 S1 1B.1
Commercial Version - Dated December, 1 2024 — Biogeographic Data Branch Page 2 of 3 Report Printed on Friday, December 13, 2024 Information Expires 6/1/2025 CALIFORNIA Ng
Proposed
Threatened
Northern Claypan Vernal Pool
Northern Claypan Vernal Pool
Great Valley Mixed Riparian Forest
Great Valley Mixed Ripanan Forest
hairy Orcutt grass
Orcuttia pilosa
Hoover’s calycadenia
Calycadenia hooveh
Northern Hardpan Vernal Pool
Northern Hardpan Vernal Pool
northwestern pond turtle
Actinemys marmorata
Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
Hartweg’s golden sunburst
Pseudobahia bahiifolia
Element Code
ABNGA04040
Madera leptosiphon
Leptosiphon serrulatus
Species
great egret
Ardea alba
San Joaquin adobe sunburst
Pseudobahia peirsonii
hoary bat
Lasiurus cinereus
Hurd's metapogon robberfly
Metapogon hurdi
Northern California legless lizard
Anniella pulchra
pallid bat
Antrozous pallidus
pincushion navarretia
Navarretia myersii ssp. myersii
midvalley fairy shrimp
Branchinecta mesovallensis
State Status
None
Federal Status
None
Global Rank
G5
State Rank
S4
Biological Resource Evaluation References

Blossom View Tract 6502 Project December 2024
De Young Properties Page A-11
Selected Elements by Common Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank AMAJA03041 Endangered Threatened G4T2 S3
Vulpes macrotis mutica
San Joaquin pocket mouse AMAFD01060 None None G2G3 S2S3 Perognathus inomatus
San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass PMPOA4G060 Threatened Endangered G1 S1 1B.1 Orcuttia inaequalis
Sanford's arrowhead PMALI040Q0 None None G3 S3 1B.2
Sagittaria sanfordii
snowy egret ABNGA06030 None None G5 S4
Egretta thula
spiny-sepaled button-celery PDAPI0Z0Y0 None None G2 S2 1B.2 Eryngium spinosepalum
spotted bat AMACC07010 None None G4 S3 SSC
Euderma maculatum
succulent owl’s-clover PDSCR0D3Z1 Threatened Endangered G4?T2T3 S2S3 1B.2 Castilleja campestris var. succulenta
Swainson's hawk ABNKC19070 None Threatened G5 S4
Buteo swainsoni
Sycamore Alluvial Woodland CTT62100CA None None G1 S1 1 Sycamore Alluvial Woodland
tricolored blackbird ABPBXB0020 None Threatened G1G2 S2 SSC Agelaius tricolor
valley elderberry longhorn beetle IICOL48011 Threatened None G3T3 S3 Desmocerus callfornicus dimorphus
vernal pool fairy shrimp ICBRA03030 Threatened None G3 S3 Branchinecta lynch!
western mastiff bat AMACD02011 None None G4G5T4 S3S4 SSC Eumops perotis callfornicus
western ridged mussel IMBIV19010 None None G3 32
Gonidea angulata
western spadefoot AAABF02020 None G2G3 S3S4 SSC
Spea hammondii
western yellow-billed cuckoo ABNRB02022 Threatened Endangered G5T2T3 S1 Coccyzus americanus occidentalis
Record Count: 56
Commercial Version - Dated December, 1 2024 — Biogeographic Data Branch Page 3 of 3 Report Printed on Friday, December 13, 2024 Information Expires 6/1/2025 Proposed
Threatened
Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
Species SSC or FP
San Joaquin kit fox

CALIFORNI
WFSH 8 T’e IDUF
Biological Resource Evaluation References

APPENDIX B

REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE BLOSSOM VIEW TRACT PROJECT

Blossom View Tract 6502 Project December 2024
De Young Properties Page B-1

Photograph 1:

Coordinates: °N, °W facing 152.27°.

Photo taken by Mattole Whitaker on December 12, 2024.

Photograph 2:

Coordinates: 36.76584 °N, -119.65824 °W facing 17.78°.

Photo taken by Mattole Whitaker on December 12, 2024.

u
B=-errnn
U00
etil
MyC
3r 0 . -
Peb.o 4
’84
— !
se 7 c.

S
id
TIt T‘' —leecl 1der
ca 4 meeed
cs
se
■ "
"“er
--
205
-17
, e
- • - ----- ts
“Teody,
--- tt-Frt —99
sale
AT
ws
fet —-En) a- s ■ ent
f
a
hare “r •
etr

Blossom View Tract 6502 Project December 2024
De Young Properties Page B-2

Photograph 3:

Coordinates: 36.76583 °N, -119.65824 °W facing 84.61°.

Photo taken by Mattole Whitaker on December 12, 2024.

Photograph 4:

Coordinates: 36.76584 °N, -119.65824 °W facing 258.93°.

Photo taken by Mattole Whitaker on December 12, 2024.

A y
“==
hhs eon". L Ieem
—
-
at. 15s
1e -
St ■ ad
• t -==umul
E
=o-tt
h
E /
MH
-
an
—
she
nt 3 ■ 1115
sisud

Blossom View Tract 6502 Project December 2024
De Young Properties Page B-3

Photograph 5: Rep photo of large canid burrow with scat and prey remains.

Coordinates: 36.7665 °N, -119.65798 °W facing 307.2°.

Photo taken by Mattole Whitaker on December 12, 2024.

Photograph 6: Woodchip pile.

Coordinates: 36.76713 °N, -119.65778 °W facing 176.34°.

Photo taken by Mattole Whitaker on December 12, 2024.

no or Jo. ceil va Weul it Ae..
ro
•. .. FMi see art ' UMa
.C
f 4
1 pe x ,1
N - h "h
es V
Sse an0
TTh ■
-
f
s
"add —a-el 219 TrslAr Lati
-5. - 3 1
-2. 8
ss ""
soaee
4 ""
y.

A
17 oumat b-snwe
=
*-
SWFSW Csre -■ s ter
0on
S
s Aw
ss.L ssss
’ ■ ra N 5 ” y ‘ r nite d . t ■
e z* $. glee".
—Feg Ess MI
) S
1g
ane
Ugs
sn"
se, Ss
het
s"Sels
aseutt
UEP9
t. ■
hr ‘2‘l

December 2024 Blossom View Tract 6502 Project
4- B Page De Young Properties

7: Photograph
. 119.65854 °W facing 29.61° - Coordinates: 36.76804 °N, . Mattole Whitaker on December 12, 2024 taken by Photo
8: Photograph
. 275.93° 119.65862 °W facing - Coordinates: 36.76802 °N, . Mattole Whitaker on December 12, 2024 taken by Photo
to
EA
T
e ■ a a
S’
- . -
-P-
-Ye
as
t
tr. i run
"r - '
rgce
r
e
7 1' ' Et
is
3 -277.
- 2
- ’
/•
. • t ••
-t tr
. 2
. 25 2.
- "a
■ “ 24
—
• r : ‘
-
ur • •
■B
a s mari
I uw - Y
ser
ieac
th a
4 At I'
El
y 575
A ■ 1
h V
4 t
4 k xly" yn l 47
4f . (Vij
ddls
d 0
T
' . > t
#
A
I st
I
!:
?
% )
> s
8 1
t ।
)
*, ■
re
nt
y
410
4 ■ - JMrd
" i IiPaik 233 yr
»
0 tA
s
a. 1,5
2 20.5 Lw
3 1
is
■.' 3, " - 4 ‘ WTU
, J
)
. 3. < 5
Al
< MNer" as

Blossom View Tract 6502 Project December 2024
De Young Properties Page B-5
Photograph 9: Former house location rep photo.

Coordinates: 36.7678 °N, -119.65935 °W facing 350.2°.

Photo taken by Mattole Whitaker on December 12, 2024.

Photograph 10: Disturbed area near house.

Coordinates: 36.76761 °N, -119.65938 °W facing 252.58°.

Photo taken by Mattole Whitaker on December 12, 2024.

4 e
T
L—
e 1
--
eis $ a. usote“Ea. oil J . s
2 5
tor —X
Jt — LM. -udc. wi e
STE Aes i" -54 an
4 ey se - J
aow >V ev ■ -.

T r tPaa a " wr
m A
5 has rJCAist
330 3 .
0 ' t
—r
e.
—90
r- ’ - -==-= 2 --
■ us m r. than od — T. 4 “Pr. d., Sri
w orl.

Pr
- SEdec”
t88

Blossom View Tract 6502 Project December 2024
De Young Properties Page B-6

Photograph 11: Potential rabbit burrow.

Coordinates: 36.7673 °N, -119.65935 °W facing 349.29°.

Photo taken by Mattole Whitaker on December 12, 2024.

Photograph 12: Garbage bins and containers from developer.

Coordinates: 36.76611 °N, -119.65887 °W facing 135.97°.

Photo taken by Mattole Whitaker on December 12, 2024.

“Rsti
-Yone d A f:
t ( 11 M
N r
e te mi 20 30e
Y -
i
rr
he
i. Te as w
s 2.s F
s
2—7 435
", e.
% h r. 1
t AS4 te
T
add are
Caobl
iu
-in
I.
77 Mo Gs
h"Evas

2. ...
$215101
9 4 1
!. —
arge
"9
- tee
- r
di
FSe
olhve
gomasi.
ere)r
. r > n’
MANsts
ags g
aectee 4 ■' S
awaee we -:
"?oot
er
Cr
m
MsseoleE J2e7E '
"P-Alvsn.
svetey
trr
-
ab
ill
* pons-eve g- .
g _aaoktn
aesn in’se
1 Ft
E

Blossom View Tract 6502 Project December 2024
De Young Properties Page B-7

Photograph 13: Den5.

Coordinates: 36.76523 °N, -119.65715 °W facing 93.82°.

Photo taken by Mattole Whitaker on December 12, 2024.

Photograph 14: Suspected rabbit burrow.

Coordinates: 36.7652 °N, -119.65615 °W facing 145.16°.

Photo taken by Mattole Whitaker on December 12, 2024.

weLtesonit, w"re —5 sw
t I
.a ‘r‘ T-e
2 e
tet2 1w"T — 657
A, " Sms
44 APr
—s -
-
sllee e
ail pw— I 2A. ant "fe
e av 41
ver E r
-ris 35. Si 2 - - "r"Hee” ‘h
sl s
7 bed t eas SSass
a9C 28
fall * : (re deed" f
S rd nd so C
Ase WVss mr=
I
it l'
Wat 1
h t “
we W
A J 3
" ■ ares -r I
2'
rit er ie h — E or
A
r
ch
“f-Fes tp—Ta 240
wet -72 7
e -- lr ga 2
lie Thedhr ses T
t
PA d
is. iv y
h sd
6 "s
k
Ar
s20.

TOg 2 . y 5" . ba —
acsengi a SomsaAeltenasn
Hanhor, Yem
77 E)5
“at
-esde,
" , -
, 4
Wsr
f
—
“rust trdts -ares,
-t he —.2h ‘SArat
r
2"2
an
-
2—ebioe
se g
wid
4 IAUFitr udEEZer
psse?"tge
-A
—
J . 155 t. oorr
Ps
thtl
he “‘s sat
.
se
*hel
25ys
ke
29e.
set
" PDTmt =Est ... eroy .6 ? s
th “
awrs
eeve
-ar f
w
me"s sets
3 42
stet
sitny
= -e T 4. TWer he
25 ootrg
s-ontnge - T
--
‘ e -- 2
-
affnt.
alree"
' —rwl = -terr- . 0 *0ea
P
"es
""tee
...hohshad
era feerr
S
sis “uveees
—y
■ 9 t ar—
imtetse "fwe
2 asee
sshiss soie
-one, — *
4 youre
2 oire. < -
I
-Ti g
Eo. -=
----an “Tei - fte
set t
—“Mass
- wahescane al"
*te
W- es-aine, cre
faveat e s . reeees . —
==-Y e

Blossom View Tract 6502 Project December 2024
De Young Properties Page B-8

Photograph 15: Den 4 other entrance potential fox.

Coordinates: 36.76534 °N, -119.65614 °W facing 267.67°.

Photo taken by Mattole Whitaker on December 12, 2024.

Photograph 16: Canid scat outside den 4.

Coordinates: 36.76539 °N, -119.65611 °W facing 129.09°.

Photo taken by Mattole Whitaker on December 12, 2024.

IAV i (29 —
L
4a
d Se, T st
I
in
3J
..
5 J
wr 5 - -redsl 122 (“2 0
?
299 e.
‘e 931
iky Wit 35. 2
tt TLi. “Any A
Eoergns
AMP “aot -
*
jeeel)" d
hesd
% ses—e as se
ps Se cr % 2
yr ie
S1
he AS s fe8
F
s
e
Ta 2E7 —TI
“—r
s
h. w sdi 4 iist
r
3 > • 2
de r5514,
Cir
Sell
Telave P’s
---7--; - s-rm
‘6,
At
,jrfr
150
4'
— e
■ e. ose
The
Ft j
Feycsn
)
-
ts
T
-"“"wl
5 < x otad wet -esmee’ss
tes. > 11s
“r-e", Letr • -- , . fpditt
s. sees
Aet.

XT
-:d
Pr)
4 Lrr
a
s
=544* - Ttel
G
EEV"
PhS
y
raw' at, —se “ae
s
IO
-5
,7
fr
J.
re
EmegT
oerP asja? — Pe “Al e" h -wereeis
Th
. itkee Souenye
—H
“WWEATE2 Ah i- . =
— 2 aoile
e.

Blossom View Tract 6502 Project December 2024
De Young Properties Page B-9

Photograph 17: Rep photo.

Coordinates: 36.76551 °N, -119.65522 °W facing 140.65°.

Photo taken by Mattole Whitaker on December 12, 2024.

Photograph 18: Irrigation ditch bordering property.

Coordinates: 36.76576 °N, -119.65508 °W facing 131.58°.

Photo taken by Mattole Whitaker on December 12, 2024.

"3
at
--
1 r
— 2
2P.

E
— Ae
Frem ,
“I
-
tomt
nsrei” to
Ger t
-:
• whkt "a:
sente

9. w J
■ *
5 7 . m ■ a Gaimess [2.
dal beat
—C--e
eee Ee
-P ' ‘ 1
—
o -reeo
• ■
s
. e ,
tbar • ---
see --it
P
... 3
. aesl
—ee FT - 2 - — ar

Blossom View Tract 6502 Project December 2024
De Young Properties Page B-10

Photograph 19: Crab.

Coordinates: 36.76609 °N, -119.65471 °W facing 68.52°.

Photo taken by Mattole Whitaker on December 12, 2024.

Photograph 20: Potential Coyote Scat.

Coordinates: 36.76608 °N, -119.65488 °W facing 253.8°.

Photo taken by Mattole Whitaker on December 12, 2024.

177
- F
-
t P
% i.
1 ul
i — s
Tieli■■ ve —
$
t, ,-u
,s Eor
it
13 I
T P WU.S
-
ha" V h
ate 57. & A
Al f
s
w? IE — .4 Ay )

2. T h-w to p 7 2 - J S '
W w
th 4
)
s" y
The
h. W
te F
*1 Vest E. ay
L< do 3
Y
is 1 7
P
"hh ‘ “s d
st
t
1 t
it y’V L2
Ahut " 6 eaowk
-iti
akswse
J
t"
wa
wes
aesstt
s
?
L Te
2 ts
119
-tray
1599,5
*3
H> S.Unsi
. s.
(e
. 1,5. ' heals x 213 •' 35
05 “Anst ais
,*AC
foyir
COWs
‘2
t
-
2 tr
ery
“d-ee") "a alter
rEtee
TCWe t? ■'
Rene
$

1. as
. X
n th
3 "s
s
2,
"4
f, ■-
-w.
. hell
-
y‘

25. ■ Y. t.
2 )—
hstl % ECV
x)
20s - / MTAtrnlr ws. ss -2
see. Til -
oe
eper

Blossom View Tract 6502 Project December 2024
De Young Properties Page B-11

Photograph 21:

Coordinates: °N, °W facing 153.75°.

Photo taken by Mattole Whitaker on December 12, 2024.

Photograph 22: Rep photo of cag on northern bank of canal.

Coordinates: 36.76745 °N, -119.65689 °W facing 121.17°.

Photo taken by Mattole Whitaker on December 12, 2024.

A .. IT I[ I
-
—; 2 nt
feet
ar il 5
132 71
N ldanlla
ei’s
P&
h)
- ■
"er
Cp
-n” 7
--
—1 t
.= ,
mis a ss—
les
nea

Blossom View Tract 6502 Project December 2024
De Young Properties Page B-12

Photograph 23: Rep photo of NE across canal property.

Coordinates: 36.76756 °N, -119.65686 °W facing 135.88°.

Photo taken by Mattole Whitaker on December 12, 2024.

Photograph 24: Rep photo of creek bed.

Coordinates: 36.76837 °N, -119.65915 °W facing 116.6°.

Photo taken by Mattole Whitaker on December 12, 2024.

■j’ w
th
t
twe
Ie,
"4 I 1 V
227
i
Ah -
Phee The o
gh
Ta ■
Y C‘7
te
l
le
A
y.
t.
r H -
11 IP1b
4 1 a
I
Y
JL
4 as
el
so
)
1'■l t
j
v. "I
.
iI Brf gyA 21
Cl YIr
# —D
s Ah/y
Nr
K
1 T

1.2 .. di
la
ret.
h
"T
id
EI,
i
er
112
^r
1 an
aut . vn
11251 Wty
he
/I n’t
tri
s)... .

T74
(P
wi Pits
[GMTPs s

Blossom View Tract 6502 Project December 2024
De Young Properties Page B-13

Photograph 25: Canid scat near den 2.

Coordinates: 36.7679 °N, -119.66044 °W facing 43.84°.

Photo taken by Mattole Whitaker on December 12, 2024.

Photograph 26:Canid scat .

Coordinates: 36.76799 °N, -119.66042 °W facing 343.74°.

Photo taken by Mattole Whitaker on December 12, 2024.
tr —
-
tonc
<
2 *7
- A
% 5
i?
5s — t 3
4 A
ao . RRE&l. ..dc?
T #
11 -0
E.,2 3
o‘ a
* e E
K
4 t.P r
w
L’Lc “4
2a wa. 4
s
oss
— yd 11 —He th’s. 65,

3. P
A
.0.3 Ieabost
ini"
dates 7
or
d
1 Pe
on4 ro’es. "
SMte
te
" 57
Awad
I
/ -
ee
Blossom View Tract 6502 Project December 2024
De Young Properties Page B-14
Photograph 27: Rep photo of canal area. Coordinates:

36.76806 °N, -119.65958 °W facing 256.21°. Photo taken
by Mattole Whitaker on December 12, 2024.

Photograph 28: Rep photo of housing area.

Coordinates: 36.76719 °N, -119.65951 °W facing 166.89°.

Photo taken by Mattole Whitaker on December 12, 2024.
ways y
—
rere
c
1 s
— wlFi JiserW 11 w r
a
• ■
gha io tlert
Ga fr we ry s5 p.

DdB. w
ael addes
ld Pr
^5 rhr st i
T s29ms honti L
1 A Mol Bi04
Hi LB . • O
A
-e‘
'l
I
MNwe “ . -
t
4 y
(P
t -zi
-- PT;
4*
Uh ' j W 2
s
Ss"eenve — “sPe
(BYT 72
‘4 ' Eor As “hie Tot
Tere \
4 *
a is s
ant" ematee r = wiandCisoE’Salnd
_____________________
ihos .r- —-onesns T - 2— —
wlas. ,57
rer ee-l tee, 22 nme ar
=smo
isg

1.10 pordi
--As
-==

Blossom View Tract 6502 Project December 2024
De Young Properties Page B-15
Photograph 29: Dilapidated passerine nest.

Coordinates: 36.76665 °N, -119.66029 °W facing 122.58°.

Photo taken by Mattole Whitaker on December 12, 2024.

Photograph 30:

Coordinates: 36.76608 °N, -119.6612 °W facing 264.92°.

Photo taken by Mattole Whitaker on December 12, 2024.
wh
d ■.

I
29 I
t
A
—x
2a0)
/
. 20 — iseis mlyy
F 11

Blossom View Tract 6502 Project December 2024
De Young Properties Page B-16
Photograph 31:

Coordinates: 36.7661 °N, -119.66113 °W facing 223.08°.

Photo taken by Mattole Whitaker on December 12, 2024.

Photograph 32: Atypical den habitat.

Coordinates: 36.76607 °N, -119.65959 °W facing 243.27°.

Photo taken by Mattole Whitaker on December 12, 2024.
s
3t y
r T7 T br
1*
l
t
- ' 27 3
Si
s rs
— W7S r’A
A 5-
C
auehey ri, urer
s Ii
r
; ! —
-
I
.
>
I
P.

I
X
tv. . I1
in
—he
s
erea
—
24 i /
i
tomeol
sou
— y
J
r
S
7 o
" I
• — rj - : 2
-
4 e. . i
S
o . H 52. 2 i •
.. , _
a /
CAvs - -7,
r
-ten *
> -
—1- =
1 7
>
—o,am”
E Ear." 213]s
- s s
- .
s -et 55

Blossom View Tract 6502 Project December 2024
De Young Properties Page B-17
Photograph 33: Shipping container and garbage bins stored.

Coordinates: 36.76609 °N, -119.65961 °W facing 282.87°.

Photo taken by Mattole Whitaker on December 12, 2024.

Photograph 34: Canid scat.

Coordinates: 36.76542 °N, -119.65955 °W facing 141.67°.

Photo taken by Mattole Whitaker on December 12, 2024.
th v’s n ;
. * . t
2 • 6
e
t I —
m n. T
m 2 ‘ e
994
£
3 a
$
2 i
95 h adars a .Pw -
i
ft —Te Patssie
t
■ 1340
A V'
— . I
w
t
r
r w II e a
%
L
d I
h •5.
. ► ! Xi
«i ss’
)
■
1 t
51?
K
naps
t
a
d
it
I
&
A
La !
mtep
h91
♦ —emenig As
) %5)
s
aehihd
. k s Essa

05.5--==="--- ■ trr
)
1 8
1,3
■
SO
I
n, ■.
l ate
’" i
u.
s -attnst ‘I
re
Mere
'
- 1 Vat i
v
n‘oy at
\1 . ,f
4 Ye", "at
h " Ch ' < a
> he
s-'w dre's tod.L

APPENDIX C

PLANT AND WILDLIFE OBSERVED ON THE BLOSSOM VIEW TRACT PROJECT

Blossom View Tract 6502 Project December 2024
De Young Properties Page C-1
Table C - 1
Plant and Wildlife Species Observed on the Project Site Blossom View Property Tract 6502 Project
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Plants
Amsinckia menziesii fiddleneck None
Heterotheca grandiflora Telegraph Weed None
Avena fatua wild oat None
Bromus diandrus ripgut brome None
Eucalyptus sp. Eucalyptus tree None
Melia azedarach Chinaberry tree None
Digitaria sp. crabgrass None
Erodium botrys broad leaf filaree None
Erodium cicutarium red-stemmed filaree None
Brassica juncea Mustard plant None
Datura stramonium Jimson weed None
Murdannia nudiflora Doveweed None
Trichostema lanceolatum vinegardweed None
Medicago polymorpha bur clover None
Populus tremuloides Aspen None
Salix sp. Willow tree None
Senecio vulgaris common groundsel None
Populus deltoides Cottonwood None
Washingtonia filifera California fan palm None
Birds
Columba livia Rock Dove None
Cathartes aura turkey vulture None
Sturnella neglecta Western meadowlark None
Mimus polyglottos northern mockingbird None
Zenaida macroura mourning dove None
Zonotrichia leucophrys white-crowned sparrow None
Mammals
Sylvilagus floridanus cottontail None
Otospermophilus beecheyi California ground squirrel* None Thomomys bottae Botta’s pocket gopher* None
* Indicates that only sign (e.g., tracks, scat, burrows, dens, vocalizations) of the species was observed.

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Date: January 28, 2025
Project: Cultural resources records search- Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6502 (Blossom View) Project, Fresno County, CA
To: Jaymie Brauer, Principal Planner
From: Robert Parr, MS, RPA, Senior Archaeologist
Subject: Cultural Resources Records Search Results (#25-024) Background
A cultural resources records search (#25-024) was conducted at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center at California State University, Bakersfield for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6502 (Blossom View) Project, Fresno County, California.

Location
The Project site is generally located on the north side of East McKinley Avenue, east of North Temperance Avenue, immediately east of the City of Fresno (City) corporate limits, in unincorporated Fresno County, CA (Attachment A). The Project site is located within Section 26, Township 13 South, Range 21 East of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle Clovis map Mount Diablo Base Meridian.

Project Description
The Project is generally located on the north side of East McKinley Avenue, east of North Temperance Avenue. The Project site is located immediately east of the City of Fresno (City) corporate limits, in unincorporated Fresno County, and lies within the boundaries of the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI).

The Project is located on a vacant 24-acre parcel (APN 310-052-27) to be developed as part of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6502. The Project includes the annexation of the site and two adjacent parcels owned and maintained by the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD), APNs 310-052-26T and 310-052-22 (Annexation Only Area). No development is proposed on the parcels owned and maintained by FMFCD.

The Project site is designated as Residential Medium Low Density (3.5 - 6 dwelling units [du] / acre) in the City of Fresno 2035 General Plan. The Annexation Only Area is designated as Open Space – Ponding Basin in the City of Fresno 2035 General Plan and comprises approximately 18 acres.

De Young Properties is requesting approval of the following entitlement applications:
• Vesting Tentative Tract Map (T-6502) Application No. P24-04042 proposes to subdivide the 24-acre Project Site (APN 310-052-27) into 122 single-family lots, 28 of which are proposed to be within a gated HOA. The proposed residential subdivision includes a 1.32- acre trail and accompanying 11,000 square foot park.
• The associated Pre-zone Application proposes to pre-zone approximately 24 acres from the Fresno County Exclusive Agriculture, 20-Acre Minimum (AE-20) designation to the City of Fresno RS-4 (Single-Family Residential, Medium Low Density) zone district and 18 acres (Annexation Only Area) from the Fresno County Exclusive Agriculture, 20-Acre Minimum (AE-20) designation to the City of Fresno OS (Open Space) zone district. • The associated Annexation Application proposes the annexation of APNs 310-052-27, 310-052-26T, and 310-052-22 into the City limits and the removal of these properties from the King River Conservation District and the Fresno County Fire Protection District. • The associated Planned Development Application proposes private streets within the gated HOA portion of the proposed subdivision.

California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA is the state law that applies to a project’s impacts on cultural resources. A project is an activity that may cause a direct or indirect physical change in the environment and that is undertaken or funded by a state or local agency, or requires a permit, license, or lease from a state or local agency. CEQA requires that impacts to Historical Resources be identified and, if the impacts will be significant, then apply mitigation measures to reduce the impacts.

A Historical Resource is a resource that:
i. is listed in or has been determined eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) by the State Historical Resources Commission, or has been determined historically significant by the CEQA lead agency because it meets the eligibility criteria for the CRHR;
ii. is included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Public Resources Code (PRC) 5020.1(k); or
iii. has been identified as significant in a historical resources survey, as defined in PRC 5024.1(g) (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 14, Section 15064.5(a)).

The eligibility criteria for the CRHR are as follows (CCR Title 14, Section 4852(b)):
i. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; ii. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; iii. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values; or iv. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation
In addition, the resource must retain integrity, which is evaluated with regard to the retention of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association (CCR Title 14, Section 4852(c)). Resources that have been determined eligible for the NRHP are automatically eligible for the CRHR.

Impacts to a Historical Resource, as defined by CEQA (listed in an official historic inventory or survey or eligible for the CRHR), are significant if the resource is demolished or destroyed or if the characteristics that made the resource eligible are materially impaired (CCR Title 14, Section 15064.5(b)). Demolition or alteration of eligible buildings, structures, and features that they would no longer be eligible would result in a significant impact. Whole or partial destruction of eligible archaeological sites would result in a significant impact. In addition to impacts from construction resulting in destruction or physical alteration of an eligible resource, impacts to the integrity of setting (sometimes termed visual impacts) of physical features in the Project Area could also result in significant impacts.

Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) are defined in Section 21074 of the California PRC as sites, features, places, cultural landscapes (geographically defined in terms of the size and scope), sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either included in or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR, or are included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1, or are 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 Section 5024.1. Section 1(b)(4) of Assembly Bill (AB) 52 established that only California Native American tribes, as defined in Section 21073 of the California PRC, are experts in the identification of TCRs and impacts thereto. Because ECORP does not meet the definition of a California Native American tribe, it only addresses information in this report for which it is qualified to identify and evaluate, and that which is needed to inform the cultural resources section of CEQA documents. This report, therefore, does not identify or evaluate TCRs. Should California Native American tribes ascribe additional importance to or interpretation of archaeological resources described herein, or provide information about nonarcheological TCRs, that information is documented separately in the AB 52 tribal consultation record between the tribe(s) and lead agency and summarized in the TCRs section of the CEQA document, if applicable.

Results
The records search covered an area within one-half mile of the Project and included a review of the National Register of Historic Places, California Points of Historical Interest, California Registry of Historic Resources, California Historical Landmarks, California State Historic Resources Inventory, and a review of cultural resource reports on file.

The records search indicated that the subject property has never been surveyed for cultural resources, and it is not known if any exist on it. Five previous cultural resource studies have been conducted within a half mile of the project (Wren and Crist 1975; Meighan et al. 1987; Sutton 1991; Losee 2003; Peak 2019). Two cultural resources, an historic residence (Primary no. P-10- 005363) and a prehistoric lithic scatter (P-10-002189), have been recorded within one half mile of the project. See Appendix C for more information.

A Sacred Lands File request was also submitted to the Native American Heritage Commission. A response dated January 13, 2025, indicates negative results (see Attachment B).

An intensive Phase I survey of the Project Site was conducted on January 24, 2024 by qualified archaeologists. The entire parcel was surveyed at 15 meter intervals, including the northern five acres accommodating residential buildings after permission was granted. No cultural resources of any kind were identified as a result of the intensive pedestrian survey (Attachment C).

Tribal consultation letters were sent to the appropriate tribal groups by City of Fresno staff. To date, no request for consultation has been received by a tribal group.

Conclusions
It is anticipated that the Project would have a less than significant impact on cultural resources.

The Project will not impact the identified resources within a half mile radius. Additionally, the Project construction would occur on a previously disturbed land. The potential to uncover subsurface historical or archaeological deposits would be considered unlikely. It is further recommended that, in the unlikely event that cultural resources are encountered during construction or use of the study area, an archaeologist be contacted to assess the discovery.

However, there is still a possibility that historical or archaeological materials may be exposed during construction. Ground-disturbing actions have the potential to damage or destroy these previously unidentified and potentially significant cultural resources within the project area, including historical or archaeological resources. Disturbance of any deposits that have the potential to provide significant cultural data would be considered a significant impact. Compliance with the following regulations would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.

As required by Sections 6254(r) and 6254.10 of the California Public Records Act, and the California Penal Code, Section 622.5, if prehistoric or historic-era cultural materials are encountered during construction activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall halt until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the find and make recommendations. Cultural resource materials may include prehistoric resources such as flaked and ground stone tools and debris, shell, bone, ceramics, and fire-affected rock as well as historic resources such as glass, metal, wood, brick, or structural remnants. If the qualified archaeologist determines that the discovery represents a potentially significant cultural resource, additional investigations may be required to mitigate adverse impacts from Project implementation. These additional studies may include avoidance, testing, and evaluation or data recovery excavation.

Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, if human remains are discovered during construction or operational activities, further excavation or disturbance shall be prohibited. The specific protocol, guidelines, and channels of communication outlin Heritage Commission, in accordance with Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section ed by the Native American 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code (Chapter 1492, Statutes of 1982, Senate Bill 297), and Senate Bill 447 (Chapter 44, Statutes of 1987), shall be followed. Section 7050.5(c) shall guide the potential Native American involvement, in the event of discovery of human remains, at the direction of the county coroner.

Robert E. Parr, MS, RPA
Senior Archaeologist
Attachment A- Figures
Attachment B- Sacred Lands File Response by the Native American Heritage Commission Attachment C-Field Survey Report References
(Note: Alpha-numeric designation in parentheses following citations refer to IC report reference number.) Losee, Carolyn
2003 Cultural Resources Analysis for Cingular CC-527-01 Site in Fresno. (FR-01994) Meighan, Clement, Brian Dillon, John Verano and Roc Indermill 1987 Redbank and Fancher Creek Intensive Cultural Resources Survey, Fresno County, California. (FR-00548)
Peak, Melinda A.
2019 Cultural Resource Assessment for the Floradora-Armstrong Reorganization-Annexation Area and Tentative Tract 6201 and Tract 6235 Developments, Fresno County, California. (FR-03008)
Sutton, Mark Q.
1991 An Archaeological Assessment of Six Acres Southeast of Clovis, Fresno County, California. (FR-00448)
Wren, Donald G. and Michael Crist
1975 Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Redbank and Fancher Creek Investigation Area. (FR-01130)

Attachment A
Figures

Regional Location
Figure 1 —Naticnal Monument
Forest 00 Re !
__ HARNEY B
1019
4 IC0
Naticnna
PAH
Clovis
Nat n
RecueVocalils ireka
0uuOciuss0s
9 edding
] C A SC ADE RANGE
△
esno
18 11
/
•anger
QChico
R eno-I
Forest
Carson City
-
Parlier SacramMto
Miles
ord?
odest
Fr
o
J
o San Ji ‘C1
r St
TAi. RM
O
Y
Gi
Las Veq ,0‘ CO12 , LseaMsadreatcn Are a Hend on
[127)
I

DESERT SAN O J A V E
Bakersfield Fort Irwin
e
Lancaster
los Padres
ictorville Fcrest Palmdale 0 Sani BarbaraOxnard
eso TSi A eim O Indio Long Be’ O 'o'
I alm I I ita a. Murrieta 9
Oceanside - S o
t
ysCeveland
Naticn a San D
A Project Location F re'
a
icali
Tijuana
Miles 100
Ensenada
Q
Klamath
NAusr
Nell is Au
Force Base
Wildlife
Refuge
uma Proving
1 Ground
Naticn’a
Forest
q V9 Stock
Fumas Naion a
Forest
Eldcr ado
Naticn d
Fcrest.

Havasu
City
Modoc
Naticnal
Forest
Shasta
Naficnal
Forest
J0
Joshua Tree Naiona
Pah
Kofa Naicna
Wildlife Retuge
Na or J
Death Valley
Naticnal
Pak
Rat
For
Hack Rock
Femont
Nation al
Forest
Win am a Nationa
Fcrest
Six Rivers
National
Forest
Lt Hal
ervatia
Pocat
a Bernadino
raticnal Fcrest
Barry M Gold water Air
Force Rage
Nevada
National
Security
Site
—Visalia Lo
SB
13 88
r- ° Frement
Sequcia
Ngane
s
Grt
Si
La
$933
1953
! Vacayill
JO ..
1° J
San Luis
Obispo
-ompoc O
s
Reuge
r0
Stanisaus
Naicna
Fore St
Salinas
Q .
"I
10 Rogue River- "4
SiSrycu NF
Skios
Foest— a
---
. Foe s8.
ro
w*rmere
Grand Canyon- Parash atNM
Q
Santa O
< X Clarita
Rosa o
Medford
Sequoia
Nationa
Fcrest
Forest .

S^ton
-s

CALIFORNIA
Moave
Nationa
Preserve

Project Area
Figure 2
I9SCETITFAE I &ntme s T N
Feet
Y
7 " Y I
102! r
"I
1 1 * I J.
—
■
<
i a
। —L
\
a Q
TZ i ■ i
Thrr
V
ill
trctetec -aal mmmmsi •• a i 1.’ 9009 uiii
tetrti Il st
1 ii
*
ad •/mt___ Me c
e ■ ]
1 A
QC
sstret
*
|||.

L I1 Annexation Area Only
C" j City Limits
t Project Site
1S
SLCt. WI
-------

E'MCKINLEY AVE
II
e
a ? |
oL
t t t
500
-J
’ FFETrer
EE WELDON AVE —
!,
I1

1.32 PLSS/USGS
Figure 3
E McKinley Ave
1 II
USGS Quad:

Clovis* 2
k—1
1 3
1 1
E Hedges Ave
36 2 Belmont
Country CI
O <
<v <
(V<
13S 21E =====-=-======
—14S-21E— s%
USGS Quad:

Malaga
E Clinton Ave 26 25
O
E Shields Ave E Shields Ave E Shields Ave
C) cO
£22 <
E Fioradora Ave
34 E Harvey Ave
Ave
k- Project Site
11* Annexation Area Only 1 ; PLSS Townships
PLSS Sub Sections
PLSS Sections
USGS Quads
Q
Feet
2,0000L
N De Wolf Ave
N De Wolf Ave
LL
O 1
m
N Temperance
C)in
6 O.
v
<> 1
C
07 N Verne Ave
y
CD.

Wolf Ave
N Lian Ave
N Temperance

Topo
Figure 4
36 • “369
0 - 26 Feet
)
I.
fr
i
I,
V J
1 Pester. Burness TANo-4-------I--------------
:KA *

TEMPERANCE
-- D/TCH • 4
34)
L. Project Site
1 - * Annexation Area Only
i
600
145
I
I » | ■IIII1

Attachment B
Sacred Lands File Response by the
Native American Heritage Commission

ERICA/ P STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom. Governor /
ST. NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
4 January 13, 2025
Via Email to: [email protected]
To Whom it May Concern: