Los Banos City Council
January 5, 2022

APN: 081-110-007
185

THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
186
EXHmIT "B"
[SAMPLE FORM]

ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT
THIS ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT (hereinafter "this Agreement") is entered into this day of , 20_, by and between _____________________ (hereinafter called "Owner") and, (hereinafter "Assignee").

RECITALS
A. On , 20_, the City of Los Banos and Owner entered into that certain agreement entitled "Pre-Annexation Development Agreement," approved by Ordinance (hereinafter "Agreement"), relative to the development known as the ____________ (hereinafter "Subject Property").

B. Owner entered into a purchase and sale agreement whereby a portion of the Subject Property will be sold to Assignee, which portion of the Subject Property is identified and described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (hereinafter the "Assigned Parcel(s)").

C. Owner desires to assign all of its interests, rights and obligations under the Agreement with respect to the Assigned Parcel(s).

D. Assignee desires to assume all Owner's rights and obligations under the Agreement with respect to the Assigned Parcel(s).

NOW, THEREFORE, Owner and Assignee hereby agree as follows:

1. Owner hereby assigns, effective as of Owner's conveyance of the Assigned Parcel(s) to Assignee, all of the rights, interest, burdens and obligations of Owner under the Agreement with respect to the Assigned Parcel(s). Owner retains all the rights, interest, burdens and obligations under the Agreement with respect to all other property within the Subject Property owned thereby.

2. Assignee hereby assumes all of the burdens and obligations of Owner under the Agreement, and agrees to observe and fully perform all of the duties and obligations of Owner under the Agreement, and to be subject to all the terms and conditions thereof, with respect to the Assigned Parcel(s), it being the express intention of both Owner and Assignee that, upon the execution of this Agreement and conveyance of the Assigned Parcel(s) to Assignee, Assignee shall be come substituted for Owner as the "Developer" under the Agreement with respect to the Assigned Parcel(s).
187

3. All of the covenants, terms, and conditions set forth herein shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective heirs, successors and assigns.

IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written.

ASSIGNOR I OWNER
By: _______ _
By: _______ _

ASSIGNEE
By: _______ _
By: _______ _

SIGNATURES MUST BE NOTARIZED
188
EXHIBIT "C"

DEVELOPER OBLIGATIONS/SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS

1. Specific Plan. This Agreement requires that a Specific Plan be approved by the City for the entire 28.5 acre Project Site prior to any application for further entitlements or development. The Specific Plan shall be adopted by ordinance or resolution of the city council, in compliance with state law (Section 65453 of the California Government Code). The City shall maintain full authority and discretion to determine how the Specific Plan will be prepared.

Developer shall be responsible for the cost of the preparation and processing of the Specific Plan A. The specific purposes of the Specific Plan shall be to: ensure orderly planning for the development of the entire Project Site consistent with the General Plan; maintain an environmental equilibrium consistent with existing vegetation, soils, geology, topography, and drainage patterns; avoid premature or inappropriate development that would result in incompatible uses or create public service demands exceeding the capacity of existing or planned facilities; encourage sensitive site planning and design; ensure the provision of utilities, roadways and other public facilities.

B. Land use regulations for the Project Site shall be those of the underlying zoning district unless modified by the approved Specific Plan, provided that all land use regulations shall be consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation for land within the Specific Plan area.

C. Development regulations for the Project Site shall be those of the underlying zoning district unless modified by the approved Specific Plan.

D. The Specific Plan shall include a land use and circulation system concept for the entire Project Site that is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan, compatible with the environment, and capable of being served by existing and planned public facilities and utilities.

E. The Specific Plan shall consider shared access, reciprocal parking, shared open space and amenity areas, the relationship of buildings to each other on adjacent parcels, and other design features to optimize use of the entire planning area as a functional unit.

F. The Specific Plan shall address conceptual building locations, heights and footprints; overall circulation, ingress and egress; parking layout; conceptual grading and drainage; and areas for common use.

G. A statement of intent regarding building design andlor conceptual elevations shall be provided to indicate architectural style, product types, form and materials. 189
H. The following plans and materials must be incorporated into the Specific Plan submittal. The Community and Economic Development Director or his or her designee may require the submission of additional items considered necessary:

1. A map showing proposed Specific Plan boundaries and the relationship of the area to uses and structures within a 300-foot radius of the plan area boundaries;

2. A map of the Specific Plan area showing sufficient topographical data to indicate clearly the character of the terrain, and the type, location, and condition of mature trees and other natural vegetation;

3. A site plan indicating the existing and proposed uses, gross floor area, lot coverage, height, parking and density, and a circulation plan;

4. Architectural plans indicating exterior elevations, floor plans, colors, material of buildings and structures;

5. A landscape plan indicating existing vegetation and proposed planting areas, types and sizes of plant materials, and design of walkways, trails, bicycle paths, paved areas, benches, water features, and lighting;

6. Preliminary development schedule indicating sequence and timing of development; and

7. Design guidelines for the physical development of the property, including illustrations of proposed architectural, urban design, and landscape concepts to guide future individual building developers and maintain the integrity of the Specific Plan concept.

8. Proposed Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions, subject to review and approval by the City Attorney.

I. The application for the approval of the Specific Plan shall be processed the same as a zone change pursuant to Title 9 Chapter 3 Article 23 of the Los Banos Municipal Code. In order to approve the Specific Plan the Planning Commission and the City Council shall find that the proposed Specific Plan:

1. Conforms to the General Plan;

2. Generally complies with the land use and development regulations of the underlying Zoning District and does not significantly alter the regulations;

3. Can be adequately, reasonably and conveniently served by public services, utilities and public facilities; and

4. Based on the fiscal impact analysis, the Specific Plan area will be financially selfsustaining, so that it imposes no additional financial burden on the residents, property owners or taxpayers in other areas of the City, by providing for the payment of all costs for the public facilities and services necessary to serve the Specific Plan area.

J. Procedures for an amendment to the adopted Specific Plan shall be initiated in the same manner as same as a zone change pursuant to Title 9 Chapter 3 Article 23 of the Los Banos Municipal Code. Substantial amendments to the adopted Specific Plan may trigger the requirement for a revised fiscal impact analysis.

K. The approved Specific Plan may specify adherence to a development staging or phasing program.
190
L. Land use permits and Site plans for a project within the approved Specific Plan area shall only be accepted for review if they are consistent with the approved Specific Plan, and with all other applicable requirements of this Agreement and the Los Banos Municipal Code. The Community and Economic Development Director shall give written notice to the applicant whether the proposed development substantially complies with the approved Specific Plan. In the event the proposed development is determined not to be in substantial compliance, the notice shall specify the reason(s) for the determination and suggest action(s) that would bring the proposal into substantial compliance.

M. The approved Specific Plan does not itself authorize construction, but provides standards against which application for subsequent development including site plans and permits for development of property covered by the approved Specific Plan are to be reviewed.

N. Development standards, site and architectural design standards identified in the approved Specific Plan shall control for all subsequent site development as long as the approved Specific plan remains in effect. If alternative standards or procedures are not specifically identified in the approved Specific Plan, the applicable city standard at the time of land use permit or subdivision submittal shall control. In the event site development or design standards approved as part of the Specific Plan differ from otherwise applicable city standards, the approved Specific Plan standards shall control. If alternative standards are not identified in the approved Specific Plan, the applicable city standard shall control.

2. Financially Self Sustaining Development. Prior to any application for further entitlements or development a fiscal impact analysis shall be conducted at the Developer's expense for the proposed/approved Specific Plan identifying the financial requirements for the Project and setting forth a Finance and Implementation Plan to provide for the payment of all costs for the public facilities and services necessary to serve such development to be approved by the City Council upon recommendation by the Planning Commission.

3. Participation in a Community Facilities District. Prior to approval of any final or parcel map, or issuance of a building permit the Developer shall form or annex the Subject Property to a community facilities district created for the purposes of funding public safety, as authorized by Government Code section 53313(a) and (b). The form, terms and conditions and the tax rate for the formation of the Mello-Roos district, or in the alternative the annexation of the Subject Property to an existing district, shall be as approved by the City Council, as determined in its sole and exclusive discretion. District formation or annexation shall be at the sole cost of the Developer.

4. Participation in a Lighting and Landscaping District. Prior to approval of any fmal or parcel map, or issuance of a building permit the Developer shall form or annex the Subject Property to a Lighting and Landscaping District created for purposes of maintaining public landscape areas, signage and public lighting including a share of traffic signal maintenance costs as authorized pursuant to the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972, Part s of Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code, and Article XllID of the California Constitution. The form, terms and conditions and the tax rate for the formation of the Lighting and Landscaping 191
district, or in the alternative the annexation of the Subject Property to an existing district, shall be as approved by the City Council, as determined in its sole and exclusive discretion. District formation or annexation shall be at the sole cost of the Developer. 192
EXHIBIT "D"
[SAMPLE FORM]

NOTICE OF TERMINATION
TIDS NOTICE OF TERMINATION (hereinafter "this Notice") is given this day of , 20_, by the City of Los Banos (hereinafter called "City") for the benefit of ________________ " (hereinafter "Owner"),

1. On , 20_, the City of Los Banos and entered into
that certain agreement entitled "Pre Annexation Development Agreement," approved by Ordinance (hereinafter "Agreement"), relative to the development known as the _______ (hereinafter "Subject Property").

2. Owner has fully performed all its duties with respect to that portion of the Subject Property. which portion of the Subject Property is identified and described in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (hereinafter the "Released Property").

3. Pursuant ~o Section of the Pre Annexation Development Agreement, the Pre Annexation Development Agreement is no longer in effect with respect to the Released Property.

CITY OF LOS BANOS
By:

City Manager or Designee

SIGNATURES MUST BE NOTARIZED
193

PROPERTY OWNER'S CONSENT
[APN 081-110-007]
J/We, the undersigned am/are the owner(s) of record of APN 081-110-007 that property described in Exhibit A to this Pre Annexation Agreement by and between the City of Los Banos and AMG & Associates LLC, relative to the project known as the AMG Industrial Business Park Annexation. J/We hereby consent to all the terms and conditions of said agreement and agree that my/our property as described herein shall be bound by all of the terms and conditions of said agreement.

Dated:

AMG & Associates LLC
y - --''''ex'is M. Gevorgian,
Managing Member

SIGNATURES MUST BE NOTARIZED
194

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.

State of California )
)
County of lo~ ~l¥j~ \e,s )
On \)e..(;eJ'(\'oe..~ ~\), 20~ before me, :s C>....C-O"=> s.t>,()l.\.~ " • a Notary Public, personally appeared \e. '/-,\~ Cae..\lO\Cj\ C>.{) • who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(.i1':: whose nam~anr subscribed t~e within instrument and acknowledged to me that ~/s.hefther executed the same in (hi.sJRer/tHefr authorized capacity, and that b~theiysignature~n the instrument the person~ or the entity upon behalf of which the personCB) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is trUe and COlTect.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature~~' (/ [SEAL]
.~
./
195

THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
196
California
Department of Conservation
Division of Land Resource Protection
NOVEMBER 4, 2020
VIA EMAIL: [email protected]
City of Los Banos
520 J Street
Attn: Stacy Souza Elms
Community and Economic Development Director
Dear Ms. Elms:

Gavin Newsom, Governor
David Shabazian, Director

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE CITY OF LOS BANOS ANNEXATION AND PREZONE 2013-01 AND PRE-ANNEXATION DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AMG INDUSTRIAL ANNEXATION), SCH# 2014091056
The Department of Conservation's (Department) Division of Land Resource Protection (Division) has reviewed the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the City of Los Banos Annexation and Prezone Project (Project). The Division monitors farmland conversion on a statewide basis, provides technical assistance regarding the Williamson Act, and administers various agricultural land conservation programs. We offer the following comments and recommendations with respect to the project's potential impacts on agricultural land and resources.

Project Description
The Proposed Project consists of an Annexation, Pre-zone, and Pre-Annexation Development Agreement to allow for the annexation of the 28.5-acre parcel (APN: 081- 110-007) into the city limits of the City of Los Banos. The annexation will include a PreZoning of the project site to Industrial but does not include any specific development.

At this time, the proposed project consists only of an Annexation and Pre-Zone request, in addition to the Pre-Annexation Development Agreement. The Pre-Annexation Development Agreement will clarify future improvements, development fees, and City expectations for the future development of the proposed project site.

The proposed project site has been historically utilized for agricultural purposes and is actively farmed with row crops. There are no existing structures within the proposed project area. Urban development (single-family and industrial development) has occurred on the south, east, and west sides of the project site, along with associated street and utility improvements.

State of California Natural Resources Agency I Department of Conservation 801 K Street, MS 14-15, Sacramento, CA 95814
conservation.ca.gov I T: (916) 324-0850 I F: (916) 327-3430 197
The project site contains Prime Farmland as defined by the Department of Conservation's Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program1• Department Comments
Although conversion of agricultural land is often an unavoidable impact under CEQA analysis, feasible alternatives and/or feasible mitigation measures must be considered.

In some cases, the argument is made that mitigation cannot reduce impacts to below the level of significance because agricultural land will still be converted by the project, and therefore, mitigation is not required. However, reduction to a level below significance is not a criterion for mitigation under CEQA. Rather, the criterion is feasible mitigation that lessens a project's impacts. As stated in CEQA statue, mitigation may also include, "Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments, including through permanent protection of such resources in the form of conservation easements."2
The conversion of agricultural land represents a permanent reduction in the State's agricultural land resources. As such, the Department advises the use of permanent agricultural conservation easements on land of at least equal quality and size as partial compensation for the loss of agricultural land. Conservation easements are an available mitigation tool and considered a standard practice in many areas of the State. The Department highlights conservation easements because of their acceptance and use by lead agencies as an appropriate mitigation measure under CEQA and because it follows an established rationale similar to that of wildlife habitat mitigation.

Mitigation via agricultural conservation easements can be implemented by at least two alternative approaches: the outright purchase of easements or the donation of mitigation fees to a local, regional, or statewide organization or agency whose purpose includes the acquisition and stewardship of agricultural conservation easements. The conversion of agricultural land should be deemed an impact of at least regional significance. Hence, the search for replacement lands should not be limited strictly to lands within the project's surrounding area.

A source that has proven helpful for regional and statewide agricultural mitigation banks is the California Council of Land Trusts. They provide helpful insight into farmland mitigation policies and implementation strategies, including a guidebook with model policies and a model local ordinance. The guidebook can be found at:
1 California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, https:llmaps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ 2 Public Resources Code Section 15370, Association of Environmental Professionals, 2020 CEQA, California Environmental Quality Act, Statute & Guidelines, page 284, https:llwww.califaep.org/docs/2020 cega book. pdf

198
http ://www.calandtrusts.org/resources/conserving-californias-harvest! Of course, the use of conservation easements is only one form of mitigation that should be considered. Any other feasible mitigation measures should also be considered.

Conclusion
The Department recommends further discussion of the following issues:
• Type, amount, and location of farmland conversion resulting directly and indirectly from implementation of the proposed project. • Impacts on any current and future agricultural operations in the vicinity; e.g., land-use conflicts, increases in land values and taxes, loss of agricultural support infrastructure such as processing facilities, etc.
• Incremental impacts leading to cumulative impacts on agricultural land. This would include impacts from the proposed project, as well as impacts from past, current, and likely future projects.
• Proposed mitigation measures for all impacted agricultural lands within the proposed project area.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment on the Initial study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the City of Los Banos Annexation and Prezone Project. Please provide this Department with notices of any future hearing dates as well as any staff reports pertaining to this project. If you have any questions regarding our comments, please contact Farl Grundy, Associate Environmental Planner via email at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Monique Wilber
Conservation Program Support Supervisor

199
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Jared Blumenfeld
Secretary for
Environmental Protection
September 30, 2020
Ms. Stacy Souza Elms
City of Los Banos
520 J Street
Los Banos, CA 95635
Stacy. [email protected]
Meredith Williams, Ph.D.

Director
8800 Cal Center Drive
Sacramento, California 95826-3200
Gavin Newsom
Governor
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR ANNEXATION AND PREZONE 2013-01 AND PRE-ANNEXATION DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - AMG INDUSTRIALDATED OCTOBER 16,2020 (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER: 2014091056) Ms. Souza Elms:

The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) received a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Annexation and Prezone 2013-01 and Pre-Annexation Development Agreement - AMG Industrial (Project). The Lead Agency is receiving this notice from DTSC because the Project includes one or more of the following:
groundbreaking activities, work in close proximity to a roadway, work in close proximity to mining or suspected mining or former mining activities, presence of site buildings that may require demolition or modifications, importation of backfill soil, and/or work on or in close proximity to an agricultural or former agricultural site.

DTSC recommends that the following issues be evaluated in the MND. Hazards and Hazardous Materials section:

1. The MND should acknowledge the potential for historic or future activities on or near the project site to result in the release of hazardous wastes/substances on the project site. In instances in which releases have occurred or may occur, further studies should be carried out to delineate the nature and extent of the contamination, and the potential threat to public health and/or the environment should be evaluated. The MND should also identify the mechanism(s) to initiate any required investigation and/or remediation and the government agency who will be responsible for providing appropriate regulatory oversight.

2. Refiners in the United States started adding lead compounds to gasoline in the 1920s in order to boost octane levels and improve engine performance. This practice did not officially end until 1992 when lead was banned as a fuel additive in California. Tailpipe emissions from automobiles using leaded gasoline @ Printed on Recycled Paper
200
Ms. Stacy Souza Elms
October 16, 2020

contained lead and resulted in aerially deposited lead (ADL) being deposited in and along roadways throughout the state. ADL-contaminated soils still exist along roadsides and medians and can also be found underneath some existing road surfaces due to past construction activities. Due to the potential for ADL-contaminated soil DTSC, recommends collecting soil samples for lead analysis prior to performing any intrusive activities for the project described in the MND.

3. If any sites within the project area or sites located within the vicinity of the project have been used or are suspected of having been used for mining activities, proper investigation for mine waste should be discussed in the MND. DTSC recommends that any project sites with current and/or former mining operations onsite or in the project site area should be evaluated for mine waste according to DTSC's 199B Abandoned Mine Land Mines Preliminary Assessment Handbook (https:lldtsc.ca.gov/wD-contentlu ploads/sites/31/201B/11/ami handbook. pdf) .

4. If buildings or other structures are to be demolished on any project sites included in the proposed project, surveys should be conducted for the presence of lead-based paints or products, mercury, asbestos containing materials, and polychlorinated biphenyl caulk. Removal, demolition and disposal of any of the above-mentioned chemicals should be conducted in compliance with California environmental regulations and policies. In addition, sampling near current and/or former buildings should be conducted in accordance with DTSC's 2006 Interim Guidance Evaluation of School Sites with Potential Contamination from Lead Based Paint, Termiticides, and Electrical Transformers
(https:lldtsc.ca.gov/wpcontentlu ploads/sites/31/201BI09/Guidance Lead Contamination 05011B.pdf).

5. If any projects initiated as part of the proposed project require the importation of soil to backfill any excavated areas, proper sampling should be conducted to ensure that the imported soil is free of contamination. DTSC recommends the imported materials be characterized according to DTSC's 2001 Information Advisory Clean Imported Fill Material (https:lldtsc.ca.gov/wpcontentlupioads/sites/31/201BI09/SMP FS Cleanfill-Schools. pdO.

6. If any sites included as part of the proposed project have been used for agricultural, weed abatement or related activities, proper investigation for organochlorinated pesticides should be discussed in the MND. DTSC recommends the current and former agricultural lands be evaluated in accordance with DTSC's 200B Interim Guidance for Sampling Agricultural Properties (Third Revision) (https:lldtsc.ca.gov/wpcontentlu ploads/sites/31/201BI09/Ag-Guidance-Rev-3-August-7-200B-2.pdO.

DTSC appreciates the opportunity to comment on the MND. Should you need any assistance with an environmental investigation, please submit a request for Lead Agency Oversight Application, which can be found at: https:lldtsc.ca.gov/wp201 Ms. Stacy Souza Elms
October 16, 2020

contentiu pioads/sites/31/2018/09NCP App-1460.doc. Additional information regarding voluntary agreements with DTSC can be found at: https:lldtsc.ca.gov/brownfields/.

If you have any questions, please contact me at (916) 255-3710 or via email at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Gavin McCreary
Project Manager
Site Evaluation and Remediation Unit
Site Mitigation and Restoration Program
Department of Toxic Substances Control
cc: (via email)
Governor's Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse
[email protected]
Mr. Dave Kereazis
Office of Planning & Environmental Analysis
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]
202
November 16, 2020
Stacy Souza Elms
• ~IO. h ~_~O
I I ~ II ."
h-S<i H~.", In ~'r e' "'e l'.C
ol> '" ol ~ II ~ ~b •
Community and Economic Development Director
City of Los Banos
520 J Street
Los Banos, CA 93635
[email protected]
W'" lozeau,.-u y c
J @~I"d.rf.Jr,
Re: Comments Regarding Annexation and PreZone 2013-01 and Pre-Annexation Development Agreement - AMG Industrial Annexation
Dear Ms. Elms,
I am writing on behalf of Laborers International Union of North America Local Union 1130 ("LIVNA") concerning the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (collectively the "MND") for the AMG Industrial Annexation and Prezone 2013-01 and Pre-Annexation Development Agreement ("Project"). The Project proposes to annex a 28.5 acre parcel (APN 081-110-007) into the City of Los Banos, pre-zone the parcel as Industrial, and approve a PreAnnexation Development Agreement. MND, pp. 8-9. Although the parcel is currently designated as Industrial in the County's General Plan, its current County zoning and existing use is agricultural. Id., p. 9. The City'S annexation and pre-zoning as industrial will open the parcel up to a range of possible industrial uses, including the development of a distribution center, warehouses, truck terminals, pottery manufacturing, etc. See Los Banos Municipal Code § 9-

3.1502. Although the subsequent development of the annexed site will be subject to further review by the City, the current CEQA review of the annexation, pre-zoning and development agreement cannot ignore, as it currently does, the development scenario that will follow once the annexation project is approved. After reviewing the Project and MND together with our expert consultants, it is evident that the MND is wholly inadequate and fails to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the project as a whole, as required by CEQA. Because the most probable development of the parcel may have significant environmental impacts on the adjacent residences, wildlife, farmland, and air quality, the City must prepare an ErR before proceeding with the Project.

I. Legal Background
A "project" is "the whole of an action" directly undertaken, supported, or authorized by a public agency "which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment." Pub. Res. Code § 21065; 203
Stacy Souza Elms
AMG Industrial Annexation
November 16,2020

CEQA Guidelines § IS378(a). Under CEQA, "the term 'project' refers to the underlying activity and not the governmental approval process. " California Unions for Reliable Energy v. Mojave Desert Air Quality Mgmt. Dist., 178 Cal. App. 4th 122S, 1241 (2009) (quoting Orinda Ass 'n v.

Bd. of Supervisors, 182 Cal. App. 3d 114S, 1171-72 (1986)). The definition of "project" is "given a broad interpretation in order to maximize protection of the environment." Lighthouse Field Beach Rescue v. City of Santa Cruz, 131 Cal. App. 4th 1170, 1180 (200S) (internal quotation omitted). As the City recognizes, a project need not even involve tangible physical activity so long as the agency's discretionary action has the potential to lead to either a direct or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. See Communities for a Better Env'tv. Cal. Res. Agency, 103 Cal. App. 4th 98,126 (2002) ("Governmental organizational activities, such as annexation approvals and school district reorganizations, which constitute an essential step culminating in an environmental effect are 'projects' within the scope of CEQ A."); see also, e.g., Muzzy Ranch, 41 Cal. 4th at 382-83; Fullerton Joint Union High Sch.

Dist. v. State Bd. of Educ., 32 Cal. 3d 779, 796-97 (1982); Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Comm 'n, 13 Cal. 3d 263,277-81 (197S).

A. Environmental Review of an Annexation or Zoning Must Address the Secondary Impacts of Likely Development in the Future.

Although absent a specific development proposal for the parcel, an MND or EIR would not be as detailed regarding that development, the CEQA review at the annexation, zoning and pre-annexation development agreement stage nevertheless must focus on those decisions' "secondary effects that can be expected to follow .... "" 14 Cal. Code Regs. § IS146(b). "An EIR on a project such as the adoption or amendment of a comprehensive zoning ordinance or a local general plan should focus on the secondary effects that can be expected to follow from the adoption, or amendment, but the EIR need not be as detailed as an EIR on the specific construction projects that might follow." Id. Although not as detailed as a review of a specific development project proposed in the future, the regulation is clear that consideration of projects that might follow must be included in the CEQA analysis. At this annexation and pre-zoning stage, the City'S environmental review need not "describe in detail each and every conceivable development scenario" that could be proposed consistent with the City's zoning ordinance.

However, the environmental review "the most probable development patterns." City of Antioch v. City Council (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 132S, 1337. "The fact that the environmental consequences of a rezoning may be more amorphous than those flowing from a precise development plan does not compel the conclusion that no EIR is required." Id., citing City of Carmel-By-The-Sea v. Bd. of Supervisors (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 229, 2S0. "Thus the difficulty of assessing future impacts of a zoning ordinance does not excuse preparation of an EIR; such difficulty only reduces the level of specificity required and shifts the focus to the secondary effects." Carmel-By-The-Sea, 183 Cal.App.3d at 2S0
B. The Fair Argument Standard Establishes a Low Bar for Preparing an EIR Rather than a MND.

As the California Supreme Court has held, "[i]f no EIR has been prepared for a nonexempt project, but substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the 204
Stacy Souza Elms
AMG Industrial Annexation
November 16,2020

project may result in significant adverse impacts, the proper remedy is to order preparation of an EIR." Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (ConocoPhillips) (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310,319-320 ("CBE v. SCAQMD"); Brentwood Assn. for No Drilling, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1982) 134 Cal. App. 3d 491,504-505. "The 'foremost principle' in interpreting CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act to be read so as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language." Communities for a Better Environment v. Calif. Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.

App. 4th 98, 109.

The EIR is the very heart of CEQA. Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1214; Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 903,927. The EIR is an "environmental 'alarm bell' whose purpose is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached the ecological points of no return." Bakersfield Citizens, 124 Cal.App.4th at 1220. The EIR also functions as a "document of accountability," intended to "demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action." Laurel Heights Improvements Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Ca1.3d 376,392. The EIR process "protects not only the environment but also informed selfgovernment." Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th 927.

An EIR is required if "there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment." Pub. Res.

Code § 21080(d) (emphasis added); see also Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927. In very limited circumstances, an agency may avoid preparing an EIR by issuing a negative declaration, a written statement briefly indicating that a project will have no significant impact thus requiring no EIR (CEQA Guidelines § 15371), only if there is not even a "fair argument" that the project will have a significant environmental effect. Pub. Res. Code §§ 21100,21064. Since "[t]he adoption of a negative declaration ... has a terminal effect on the environmental review process," by allowing the agency "to dispense with the duty [to prepare an EIR]," negative declarations are allowed only in cases where "the proposed project will not affect the environment at alL" Citizens of Lake Murray v. San Diego, 129 Cal.App.3d 436, 440 (1989).

A negative declaration is improper, and an EIR is required, whenever substantial evidence in the record supports a "fair argument" that significant impacts may occur. Under the "fair argument" standard, an EIR is required if any substantial evidence in the record indicates that a project may have an adverse environmental effect--even if contrary evidence exists to support the agency's decision. 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15064(f)(l); Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 931; Stanislaus Audubon v. Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 150-151 (1995); Quail Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1602. The "fair argument" standard creates a "low threshold" favoring environmel).tal review through an EIR rather than through issuance of negative declarations or notices of exemption from CEQA. Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928.

The "fair argument" standard is virtually the opposite of the typical deferential standard accorded to agencies. As a leading CEQA treatise explains:
205
Stacy Souza Elms
AMG Industrial Annexation
November 16,2020

This 'fair argument' standard is very different from the standard normally followed by public agencies in making administrative determinations. Ordinarily, public agencies weigh the evidence in the record before them and reach a decision based on a preponderance of the evidence. [Citations]. The fair argument standard, by contrast, prevents the lead agency from weighing competing evidence to determine who has a better argument concerning the likelihood or extent of a potential environmental impact.

The lead agency's decision is thus largely legal rather than factual; it does not resolve conflicts in the evidence but determines only whether substantial evidence exists in the record to support the prescribed fair argument.

Kostka & Zishcke, Practice Under CEQA, §6.29, pp. 273-274. The Courts have explained that "it is a question of law, not fact, whether a fair argument exists, and the courts owe no deference to the lead agency's determination. Review is de novo, with apreferencefor resolving doubts in favor of environmental review." Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928 (emphasis in original).

As a matter of law, "substantial evidence includes ... expert opinion." Pub. Res. Code § 21080(e)(1); 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15064(f)(5). CEQA Guidelines demand that where experts have presented conflicting evidence on the extent of the environmental effects of a project, the agency must consider the environmental effects to be significant and prepare an EIR. 14 Cal.

Code Regs. § 15064(f)(5); Pub. Res. Code § 21080(e)(1); Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 935. "Significant environmental effect" is defined very broadly as "a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment." Pub. Res. Code § 21068; see also Guidelines 15382. An effect on the environment need not be "momentous" to meet the CEQA test for significance; it is enough that the impacts are "not trivial." No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 83. In the Pocket Protectors case, the court explained how expert opinion is considered. The Court limited agencies and courts to weighing the admissibility of the evidence.

Id. In the context of reviewing a negative declaration, "neither the lead agency nor a court may 'weigh' conflicting substantial evidence to determine whether an EIR must be prepared in the first instance." !d. Where a disagreement arises regarding the validity of a negative declaration, the courts require an EIR. As the Pocket Protectors court explained, "It is the function of an EIR, not a negative declaration, to resolve conflicting claims, based on substantial evidence, as to the environmental effects of a project." !d.
"The agency [will] not be allowed to hide behind its own failure to gather relevant data .... " Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1378. As the Court in Gentry explained:

CEQA places the burden of environmental investigation on government rather than the pUblic. If the local agency has failed to study an area of possible environmental impact, a fair argument may be based on the limited facts in the record. Deficiencies in the record may actually enlarge the scope of fair argument by lending a logical plausibility to a wider range of inferences. 36 Cal.App.4th at 1378-79, citing Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 206
Stacy Souza Elms
AMG Industrial Annexation
November 16,2020

296, 311; see also Christward Ministry v. Superior Court (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 180, 197, 228 Cal. Rptr. 868 [fact that initial study checklist was incomplete and marked every impact "no" supported fair argument that project would have significant environmental effects].) As discussed below, the Project may have significant adverse environmental impacts. An EIR is therefore required.

II. DISCUSSION.

A. The City's MND Fails to Identify Any Likely Future Development or Assess the Resulting Secondary Impacts of Annexing and Zoning the Parcel Industrial.

The City's proposed pre-zone and authorization of the annexation must address the reasonably foreseeable indirect physical changes that will result by ultimately changing the site from its current agricultural zoning to the city's proposed industrial zoning. The City's industrial zoning would open the site up to a variety of potential industrial uses. Although the City may not know the precise development projects that will be proposed for the site, it is incumbent upon the City to acknowledge the likely industrial development that will occur. The City's zoning code will permit the site to include, for example, a distribution center, warehousing or truck terminals.

Los Banos Municipal Code § 9-3.1502. Although the City will have an opportunity to review future site plans for specific development proposals, that does not mean the City does not need to provide a reasonable proj ection of the levels and types of use to which the site's industrial zoning will lead.

The MND is silent as to the likely development that will ensue from the annexation and pre-zoning. As a result, there is no effort in the MND to discuss any impacts from that likely development. As a result, the MND on its face is deficient as a matter of law.

B. The MND's Project Description is Deficient Because It Does Not Describe the Terms of the Pre-Annexation Development Agreement.

The MND is in support of a pre-annexation development agreement that the City proposes to approve. However, nothing in the MND describes the terms of the development agreement. Nor is a draft ofthe agreement attached to the MND. Accordingly, the project description is insufficient.

C. There is Substantial Evidence of a Fair Argument that the Project May Have Significant Environmental Impacts.

The City's failure to address the potential impacts of the site's likely development, deficiencies in the MND's analysis, and substantial evidence provided by qualified experts establishes a fair argument that the Project may have significant environmental impacts requiring the preparation of an EIR.
207
Stacy Souza Elms
AMG Industrial Annexation
November 16, 2020

1. The MND's analysis of farmland impacts is inadequate and a fair argument is present that the Project may significantly impact farmland.

The analysis of farmland impacts is flawed for numerous reasons, including the MND's failure to properly weigh the County's current zoning of the site as agricultural and the illogical reliance on the General Plan's finding that because farmland impacts are significant and unavoidable under the City's General Plan, the destruction of the parcel's 28.5 acres of prime farmland is not significant.
a. Because the Project conflicts with the County's existing agricultural zoning, there is a fair argument that the
Project may have a significant impact on farmland.

The initial study questionnaire poses the question "[ w ]ould the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use ... ?" MND, p. 19. The MND then provides this confusing response to this question:

The Proposed Project is located on existing agricultural land and is bounded by primarily industrial, agricultural, and residential uses. The Project Site located within Merced County is zoned for agricultural uses. The Proposed Project includes an Annexation and Pre-Zoning into the City of Los Banos. The zoning district being proposed as a part of the Proposed Project's Pre-Zoning is Industrial (I) and future development within the Proposed Project area will be consistent with the City's I zoning district. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have No Impact.
ld. It simply defies logic to state that a parcel currently zoned agricultural and proposed to be changed to an industrial zone does not conflict with the existing zoning. If the rationale behind the response is that there would be no conflict with the existing zoning because the proposal is to change the existing zoning, that rationale fails to respond to the question. The future proposed zoning of industrial conflicts with the existing zoning of agricultural. Because the City cannot rationally answer this question in the negative, a fair argument exists - indeed it's guaranteedthat the Project may have a significant environmental impact from the change in zoning from agricultural to industrial.
h. The City cannot make a determination that the General Plan EIR adequately addressed the farmland conversion
impacts of the Project.

Equally illogical is the MND's claim that because, in certifying the Subsequent EIR for an amendment to the General Plan in 2017, the City determined that the planned loss of 7,945 acres of farmland by development within the City'S sphere ofinfluence was significant and unavoidable means the loss of the Project's 28.5 acres is therefore insignificant. MND, p. 18.

Obviously, at a minimum, the loss of this parcel of farmland has significant cumulative impacts when considered in the context of the entire 7,945 acres of farmland slated to be developed by 208
Stacy Souza Elms
AMG Industrial Annexation
November 16,2020

the City. Mitigation Measure AG-l adopted with the 2017 SEIR does not eliminate the significant impact to farmland. See SEIR, p. 2-2. Indeed, it does not even apply to the Project given its trigger of a 50-acre parcel to be converted. Likewise, the original 2007 EIR for the General Plan also does not provide any mitigations applicable to the Project. 2077 General Plan EIR, p. E-ll. Indeed, the thrust of the mitigation is to avoid converting any more than the acres that will be converted by this General Plan. Of course, the impact itself cannot rationally amount to a mitigation of that impact.

Because of the inapplicability of any of the mitigation set forth in the General Plan EIRs as well as the general ineffectiveness the measures had or will have on mitigating conversions of farmland within the City's sphere of influence, the City cannot now rely on those prior EIRs to claim it has already addressed the farmland impacts of this Project. Section 15152(f) provides in relevant part:
(f) A later EIR shall he required when the initial study or other analysis finds that the later project may cause significant effects on the environment that were not adequately addressed in the prior EIR.
(3) Significant environmental effects have been "adequately addressed" if the lead agency determines that:
(A) they have been mitigated or avoided as a result of the prior environmental impact report and findings adopted in connection with that prior environmental report; or
(B) they have been examined at a sufficient level of detail in the prior environmental impact report to enable those effects to be mitigated or avoided by site specific revisions, the imposition of conditions, or by other means in connection with the approval of the later project. 14 Cal. Admin. Code § 15152(f). The City cannot make either of the necessary determinations to avoid preparing a subsequent tiered EIR for the Project. The Project's effects on farmland are not mitigated at all by Mitigation Measure AG-l. It does not even apply. Similarly, there are no site specific revisions to the Project, conditions or any other means included in the proposed Project.

As a result, a subsequent EIR must be prepared to address the Project's conversion of 28.5 acres of important farmland.
c. The City must make the findings necessary to support a statement of overriding considerations in order to approve the Project, including substantial evidence that there are no additional mitigation measures that can be applied to the Project to mitigate its farmland conversion impacts.

In addition, given the City's prior certification that the General Plan's conversion of farmland, including the Project site, was a significant and unavoidable impact, the City cannot avoid recertifying that determination for this Project and whether or not additional specific mitigations can either mitigate or avoid the admitted impact. 209
Stacy Souza Elms
AMG Industrial Annexation
November 16,2020

Under CEQA, when an agency approves a project with significant environmental impacts that will not be fully mitigated, it must adopt a "statement of overriding considerations" finding that, because of the project's overriding benefits, it is approving the project despite its environmental harm. 14 Ca1.Code Regs. §15043; Pub. Res. Code §21081(b); Sierra Club v.

Contra Costa County (1992) 10 Ca1.App.4th 1212, 1222. A statement of overriding considerations expresses the "larger, more general reasons for approving the project, such as the need to create new jobs, provide housing, generate taxes and the like." Concerned Citizens of South Central LA v. Los Angeles Unif. Sch. Dist. (1994) 24 Ca1.App.4th 826,847.

An agency may adopt a statement of overriding considerations only after it has imposed all feasible mitigation measures to reduce a project's impact to less than significant levels. 14 Ca1.Code Regs. §§ 15126.4, 15091. CEQA prohibits agencies from approving projects with significant environmental impacts when feasible mitigation measures can substantially lessen or avoid such impacts. Pub. Res. Code § 21002. As explained in CEQA Guidelines § l5092(b)(2), an agency is prohibited from approving a project unless it has "[e]liminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible." A statement of overriding considerations must be supported by substantial evidence in the record. 14 Ca1.Code Regs. §15093(b); Sierra Club v. Contra Costa Co., 10 Ca1.App.4th at 1223.

The agency must make "a fully informed and publicly disclosed" decision that "specifically identified expected benefits from the project outweigh the policy of reducing or avoiding significant environmental impacts of the project." 14 Cal.Code Regs. § 15043(b). As with all findings, the agency must present an explanation to supply the logical steps between the ultimate finding and the facts in the record. Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Ca1.3d 506,515.

In the case of Communities for a Better Environment v. Cal. Resources Agency (2002) 103 Ca1.App.4th 98, 122-125, disapproved on other grounds by Berkeley Hillside Pres. v. City of Berkeley, 60 Ca1.4th 1086 (2015), the court of appeal held that when a "first tier" EIR admits a significant, unavoidable environmental impact and included a statement of overriding considerations pursuant to Pub. Res. Code § 21081, then the agency must consider and make subsequent statements of overriding considerations for future projects falling within the area of impacts considered. 103 Ca1.App.4th at 124-25.

At the time of CBE's challenge, Section 15152(t) also included subsection (3)(C) which allowed for a third fmding in support of a statement of overriding consideration:
(C) they cannot be mitigated to avoid or substantially lessen the significant impacts despite the project proponent's willingness to accept all feasible mitigation measures, and the only purpose of including analysis of such effects in another [EIR] would be to put the agency in a position to adopt a statement of overriding considerations with respect to the effects.

CBE v. CRA, 103 Ca1.App.4th at 126. The Court held this subsection be invalid because it would have allowed agencies to avoid adopting subsequent statements of overriding consideration for 210
Stacy Souza Elms
AMG Industrial Annexation
November 16, 2020

future projects covered by the program level EIR. As the Court explained:

Under Guidelines section 15152(t)(3)(C), however, an agency apparently could adopt one statement of overriding considerations for a prior, more general EIR, and then avoid future political accountability by approving later, more specific projects with significant unavoidable impacts pursuant to the prior EIR and statement of overriding considerations. Even though a prior EIR's analysis of environmental effects may be subject to being incorporated in a later EIR for a later, more specific project, the responsible public officials must still go on the record and explain specifically why they are approving the later project despite its significant unavoidable impacts.
103 Cal.App.4th at 124-25. Thus, the City must consider and, if possible, make the findings to support a statement of overriding considerations for the Project. Currently, the City has not shown that it has considered and required all feasible mitigation measures to address the Project's conversion of farmland. In addition, the City has made no attempt to make any of the findings of overriding considerations for the Project's farmland conversion consistent with Pub.

Res. Code § 21081. Absent those findings, the City cannot approve the Project.

2. The MND's analysis of biological resource impacts is inadequate and a fair argument is present that the Project may significantly impact farmland.

Expert biologist Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D., has reviewed the MND's discussion of biological resources. See Smallwood Comments, attached hereto as Exhibit A. Drawing on his familiarity with the proj ect area and decades of studying and surveying many of the species encountered at the site, Dr. Smallwood has prepared a critique of the MND, pointing out numerous shortcomings in the baseline assessment of the presence of species at the site, failures to evaluate impacts that will result from the Project, and numerous instances where the MND's assertions are insufficient or not supported by substantial evidence. a. The EIR fails to identify the likely presence of sensitive and other wildlife species at the Project site.

Dr. Smallwood points out the absence of any biological surveys that would provide actual evidence of the presence or absence of species at the Project site. Based on his expert opinion and his observations at the Project site, there has been no effort to detect whether or not numerous sensitive species are in harm's way from the Project. Dr. Smallwood identifies 52 special status vertebrate species of wildlife likely to be adversely affected by the project, while the MND claims there are no special status species occurring at the site. Smallwood Comments, p. 6. Dr. Smallwood notes the presence of ground squirrels within 150 m of the Project boundary. The presence of ground squirrel burrows is closely associated with the presence of burrowing owls that frequently use the squirrel burrows. Id., p. 8. The MND fails to discuss the possible presence of burrowing owls at the Project site. 211
Stacy Souza Elms
AMG Industrial Annexation
November 16,2020

Establishing an accurate baseline is the sine qua non to adequately analyzing and mitigating the significant environmental impacts of the Project. (See CEQA Guidelines, § 15125(a); Save Our Peninsula, 87 Cal.App.4th at 121-123.) Unfortunately, the MND's failure to investigate and identify the occurrences of sensitive biological resources at the Project site results in a skewed baseline. Such a skewed baseline ultimately "mislead(s) the public" by engendering inaccurate analyses of environmental impacts, mitigation measures and cumulative impacts for biological resources. See San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center, 149 Cal.App.4th at 656; Woodward Park Homeowners, 150 Cal.App.4th at 708-711. By failing to conduct any surveys and disregarding the absence of key species from the project site, ignoring numerous other species likely to be present, the MND fails to establish and otherwise skews the entire biological resources baseline for the Project. As a result, there is a fair argument that the Project may have significant impacts on wildlife.

The MND's reliance on the General Plan ErR also is misplaced. As Dr. Smallwood points out, the fact that land is being used for agriculture does not mean it is not significant habitat for a long list of sensitive species. Smallwood Comments, pp. 1-7. Thus, the MND' s reference to Figure 3.8-1 ofthe General Plan ErR does not provide any evidence that sensitive species are absent from the Project site.

In addition, the General Plan EIR concludes that development within the sphere of influence will have significant and unavoidable impacts on sensitive species. As a result, and because Dr. Smallwood has observed many sensitive species in and around the Project site, the General Plan EIR certainly does not support the complete absence of impacts on sensitive species by the Project. See General Plan ErR, p. E-25.
h. The MND fails to address the Project's impacts on wildlife movement.

The MND fails to answer the complete question posed by the CEQA Appendix G Environmental Checklist Form. As the MND acknowledges, the initial study question is will the project "d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?" MND, p. 27. However, the MND's response to this question focuses exclusively on impacts to wildlife corridors. Id., pp. 27-28. The MND ignores impacts on movement of species. Id.

As Dr. Smallwood points out, this is significant omission in the MND's analysis. Dr.

Smallwood notes that the Project may have significant impacts on wildlife movement without also affecting a discrete corridor. Smallwood Comments, pp. 8-9. Dr. Smallwood also notes that the likely development would have effects on wildlife movement off-site due to collisions between wildlife and vehicles, including trucks, using the likely development. Id., p. 8. The General Plan EIR acknowledges the impacts on wildlife movement that will result from increased traffic. General Plan EIR, p. 170. That acknowledgement in the General Plan EIR is one of the reasons the EIR concludes that the General Plan's development would have a significant and unavoidable impact on wildlife movement. Id., p. E-26. The MND mentions this 212
Stacy Souza Elms
AMG Industrial Annexation
November 16, 2020

component of that unavoidable impact, but suggests that it is all affiliated with the SR-152 Bypass. MND, p. 27 ("It is also noted that new development would cause an increase in both vehicular traffic levels and nighttime light levels, which would serve to deter wildlife movement.

However, the Proposed Project is not located within the Highway 152 bypass area."). The General Plan EIR suggests no such limitation and does not support any contention that the Project's impacts on wildlife cannot be significant. Dr. Smallwood's expert opinion is substantial evidence to the contrary. Accordingly, a fair argument is present that the project may have significant impacts on wildlife movement.
c. There is a fair argument that the Project will have
significant impacts on wildlife from increased traffic.

Dr. Smallwood describes the significant role increased traffic plays in wildlife mortality.

Smallwood Comments, pp. 9-10. Despite this scientific evidence of wildlife impacts from traffic, no attempt is made by the MND to identify or evaluate this impact from the Project's increased traffic. Pointing out numerous studies and his own experience in evaluating the rate of traffic collisions with wildlife, Dr. Smallwood points out that "[t]he prezone annexation would likely lead to a project which will generate traffic; ... The project-generated traffic would kill many animals and would interfere with movement of wildlife in the region." Smallwood Comments, p.

9. Dr. Smallwood's expert analysis, combined with the MND's failure to collect information or to disclose the likely development at the site, is substantial evidence of a fair argument that the Project may have significant wildlife impacts associated with vehicle collisions. d. The MND fails to analyze the Project's impacts from the use of pest control measures.

The MND does not discuss the potential impact of using pesticides inside and outside of the proposed warehouse. Whatever the likely development is at the site, there wi1llikely be steps taken to abate pests. There are many businesses that provide services for controlling stored products pests, perching birds, and rodents and other mammal pests within and around the uses anticipated in the City's industrial zone. Smallwood Comments, pp. 10-11. These businesses advertise exclusion strategies and fumigation for stored products pests, glue boards for rodents, and other measures including anticoagulant poisons and acute toxicants.ld., p. 10. The use of these methods "can harm non-target wildlife through direct exposure and indirect exposure via predation and scavenging." ld. "Pest control involving toxicants can result in the spread of toxicants beyond the warehouse." ld. Indeed, while visiting the Project site, Dr. Smallwood observed an example of the collateral damage caused by pesticide control measures, observing and photographing a dead gopher snake that was ensnared on a discarded glue trap intended for use on insects. ld.

An EIR is needed to analyze the potential impacts of animal damage control associated with the proposed Project. Anticipated animal control strategies at the Project should be detailed, and impacts mitigated.
213
Stacy Souza Elms
AMG Industrial Annexation
November 16,2020

e. No meaningful discussion of the Project's cumulative effects on wildlife is included in the MND.

Recognizing that several projects may together have a considerable impact, CEQA requires an agency to consider the "cumulative impacts" of a project along with other projects in the area. Pub. Res. Code § 21083(b); 14 Cal. Code Regs. §15355(b). If a project may have cumulative impacts, the agency must prepare an EIR, since "a project may have a significant effect on the environment if '[t]he possible effects of a project are individually limited but cumulatively considerable.'" CBE, 103 Cal.App.4th at 98, 114; Kings County Farm Bur., 221 Cal.App.3d at 721. It is vital that an agency assess "'the environmental damage [that] often occurs incrementally from a variety of small sources ... '" Bakersfield Citizens For Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1214.

The MND makes no effort to address the Project's cumulative impacts on wildlife. Given the General Plan EIR's finding that development in the Los Banos area is having significant and unavoidable impacts to wildlife from increased traffic, disruption of wildlife movement and impacts to sensitive species, there is a near certainty that the Project will have cumulative wildlife impacts. The MND acknowledges that "[t]he potential environmental impacts associated with the Proposed Project represent a portion of the environmental consequences of the planned growth and development permitted by the 2030 General Plan." MND, p. 71. The MND then claims that "[t]he Proposed Project may involve a minor addition to the potential environmental impacts identified in the 2030 General Plan EIR, but the Proposed Project will not result in any substantial contribution to any of the significant cumulative impacts identified in the 2030 General Plan EIR." Id. However, given the absence of any effort in the MND to describe the likely development that will result from the Project, the General Plan EIR's acknowledgement of ongoing cumulative wildlife impacts and Dr. Smallwood's comments, there is a fair argument that the Project may have significant cumulative impacts on wildlife.

3. The MND's analysis of air quality impacts is inadequate and a fair argument is present that the Project may significantly impact farmland.

The MND's discussion of the Project's air quality impacts fails to identify what level of uses it has in mind in evaluating air emissions. As noted above, because the MND fails to identify the most probable development scenario for the site, there is no way to know whether 'any conclusions about the Project's air quality impacts have any rational basis. Although the MND mentions the thresholds of significance adopted by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District ("SJV APD"), the MND does not address whether or not the Project will exceed those thresholds. MND, p. 22. The MND relies almost conclusively on the presumed application of the SJVAPCD's Indirect Source Review ("ISR") process and SJVAPCD Rule 9510. The MND states that the Project will exceed the development sizing requirements triggering Rule 9510. Based solely on future compliance with Rule 9510, the MND assumes that the Project's air quality impacts for NOx and PMI0 will be less than significant.

Initially, the General Plan EIR determined that new development operation in Los Banos 214
Stacy Souza Elms
AMG Industrial Annexation
November 16,2020

would exceed not only the significance thresholds for NOx but also ROGs. General Plan EIR, p. 186. This impact was certified as significant and unavoidable. SN APCD Rule 9510 does not apply to ROGs. Although it does not attempt to quantify emissions for any likely development, the MND acknowledges that the project will emit ROGs. Rule 9510 will not mitigate any ROG emissions from the likely development.

The MND places great reliance on future project's compliance with Rule 9510. However, the MND does not identify the probable development scenario(s) and makes no effort to provide any justification for its conclusion that compliance with Rule 9510 would assure that the Project will never exceed the significance thresholds established by the SlV APCD. As a result, the MND is not supported by any evidence. Moreover, the General Plan EIR concluded that build out of the General Plan would result in operational emissions exceeding the thresholds for ROGs and NOx and these air quality impacts are significant and unavoidable. General Plan EIR, pp. 186, 188. Hence, at a minimum, the Project would contribute to these cumulative impacts. The MND's conclusion that the Project could not have any operational air quality impacts is an abuse of discretion because it fails to identify the likely development and provide evidence in the form of air modeling to support the MND's conclusion that there would be no significant operational air pollution impacts.

4. The MND's analysis of health risk impacts is inadequate and a fair argument is present that the Project may significantly impact health risks of adjacent residents.

In regard to health risks to sensitive receptors, the General Plan EIR [mds that this impact will be significant and unavoidable. General Plan DEIR, p. E-28. See id., p. 185 ("Stationary sources and diesel-fueled mobile sources would also generate emissions of toxic air contaminants including diesel particulate matter that could pose a health risk"). Again, defying logic, the MND nevertheless concludes that developing 28.5 acres of farmland to industrial uses immediately adjacent to residents could not have any potential significant effect on risks to those residents' health. MND, pp. 25-26. This conclusion is made without identifying the likely development scenarios the Project will undergo as a result of the annexation and industrial zoning. The City has not prepared any evidence to substantiate the MND's conclusions, including for example a health risk assessment. The MND's discussion of health risks makes no acknowledgement of the likelihood that diesel trucks will be part of future industrial operations at the site. No effort to estimate the levels of diesel emissions that would result from trucks using the site is attempted.

The MND also provides no evidence to support its assertion that the Project will not have any adverse effects on health risks of the adjacent neighbors from construction activities that will result. MND, pp. 24-25. This is despite the general Plan EIR's recognition that future projects would need to quantify the health risks from construction in order to address this potential impact. "Information regarding specific development projects, soil conditions, and the location of sensitive receptors in relation to the various projects would be needed in order to quantify the level of impact associated with construction activity." General Plan DEIR, pp. 185-86. "Actual significance would be determined on a project by project basis as future development 215
Stacy Souza Elms
AMG Industrial Annexation
November 16, 2020

applications are submitted." Id., p 186. The City is now fully aware of the location of adjacent residents and the soil conditions at the site. As discussed above, the City also has an obligation to disclose the most probable development scenario that will result from the industrial zoning.

Nothing precludes the City from estimating the likely types of grading equipment and heavy construction equipment that would be need to build out the site for the anticipated industrial uses.

In order to comply with CEQA and the directives set forth in the General Plan EIR, the City must make a reasonable effort to quantify and disclose the health risks that may result to nearby residents from construction activities.

In addition, the MND's discussion of potential construction health risks is deficient because the City's Implementing Action POSR-I-38 does not even address diesel emissions.

MND, p. 25. Whatever benefits Implementing Action POSR-I-38 may have on reducing dust from the City's construction sites, they will not reduce any diesel particulate matter from presumably well-maintained heavy duty construction equipment and vehicles.

The MND also is entirely deficient by failing to provide any meaningful health risk quantification for the long-term operational phase of industrial activities that will be authorized by the annexation and change in the current zoning of the site. Moreover, the MND's one sentence discussion of operational health risks focuses exclusively on stationary sources and completely ignores the most likely source of health risks from operations - diesel emissions from trucks. MND, p. 24.

The MND loosely references adhering to the Air District's rules and a general claim to comply with CEQA. Id. The General Plan EIR acknowledges that industrial operations will have significant and unavoidable health risks to the City'S residents. General Plan DEIR, p. 186.

Despite the absence of specific development proposals, the DEIR manages to rely upon air quality modeling to quantify the significance of emissions and resulting health risks. Importantly, the DEIR acknowledges that precisely because the specific identity of future development proposals was not known at the time, the DEIR had to conclude that those impacts were significant and unavoidable. !d. The same rationale must apply here. Although obliged to identify probable development at the site, by not identifying any development, the City is required to acknowledge that health risks may be significant and the Project is conditioned on all of the [mdings and mitigations necessary for the City to provide a statement of overriding considerations. See supra, pp. 7-9.

For these reasons, the MND's discussion of health risks is entirely inadequate as a matter of law and an abuse of discretion.

5. The MND's analysis of GHG impacts is inadequate and a fair argument is present that the Project may significantly impact GHG emissions.

Like the above examples, the MND's GHG emissions discussion is largely uninformative because the City fails to disclose the most probable development scenario at the site. In addition, 216
Stacy Souza Elms
AMG Industrial Annexation
November 16,2020

the MND's GHG discussion ignores the most likely GHG emission sources for future industrial operations at the site - diesel truck emissions. If, for example, the site's likely development is to construct and operate a distribution center or warehouse, diesel truck emissions likely would be the most significant GHG emission source. See, e.g. General Plan DEIR, p. 120 ("Consumption of fossil fuels in the transportation sector was the single largest source of California's GHG emissions in 2004, accounting for 40.7 percent of total GHG emissions in the state (California Energy Commission 2006)"); id., p. 121 (describing truck emissions).

Nevertheless, the MND focuses exclusively on elements of future building design and efforts to provide alternatives such as bikes for employees. Although important, these measures will do nothing to address the likely GHG emissions from trucks. As a result, the MND is inadequate as matter oflaw in discussing the Project's GHG emission impacts.

6. The MND's analysis of noise impacts is inadequate and a fair argument is present that the Project may significantly impact noise levels at adjacent properties and residences.

The MND fails to adequately address potential noise impacts of the likely development scenarios on the site. The residential properties and homes on Honeybell Street are literally feet from the site. MND, p. 6. Any grading and construction equipment in this area will generate excessive noise levels that will have significant impacts on those properties and residences.

Likewise, operational noises may also be significant, including for example truck traffic and building equipment. The General Plan measures cannot ensure that noise impacts will not result.

See General Plan DEIR, p. E-31. Because the details of future development at the site are unknown, the MND cannot guarantee that noise levels will not be significant. Because the City has not endeavored to disclose the likely noise levels from construction or operations of probable development to occur at the site, the MND cannot and does not disclose the extent the Project may exceed the "normally acceptable" noise levels discussed in the general Plan EIR. See id., p. 225. There is nothing preventing the City from quantifying potential noise levels and evaluating and addressing appropriate mitigation measures, including buffers, walls, building alignment and others, that would apply to this site to mitigate construction and operational noise impacts.

Because probable development scenarios resulting from the City's proposed industrial zoning must be disclosed by the City (see supra), it is incorrect for the MND to claim that the "[t]he Proposed Project itself will not result in any noise impacts, either temporary or permanent, as no new development or construction is proposed at this time." MND, p. 52. In order to correct these deficiencies, the MND must evaluate noise impacts resulting from the site's likely deVelopment scenario(s) and identify mitigation measures at this stage that would at least partially address those noise impacts and provide a basis for determining whether or not the Project may have significant noise impacts. Because the MND is deficient as a matter of law and provides no evidence to support the conclusion that no significant noise impacts will result, it does not comply with CEQA's standards.

III
III
217
Stacy Souza Elms
AMG Industrial Annexation
November 16,2020

7. The MND's analysis of traffic impacts is inadequate and a fair argument is present that the Project may sjgnificantly impact traffic and vehicle miles travelled.

The MND errs as a matter of law by framing its traffic analysis as limited to the annexation procedure rather than the likely industrial development intended to be facilitated by the annexation and pre-zoning. Thus, the MND misleads the public and decision makers by asserting near the beginning of its traffic impact discussion that "[t]he Proposed Project does not result in any additional traffic impacts, as the Proposed Project consists of annexation and prezone only." MND, p. 61. Although LIUNA agrees that a specific development proposal's traffic will need to be evaluated in further detail once a specific project is proposed, the City cannot avoid identifying a likely development scenario at this annexation and pre-zoning stage in order to disclose potential traffic impacts for the Project. As is the case for the many potential environmental impacts described above, there is nothing preventing the City from addressing traffic impacts of potential development scenarios for the site. ITE provides readily available truck trip generation rates for all of the various types of industrial operations, including warehousing and distribution. See https:l/www.ite.org!technical-resources/topics/trip-andparking-generationltrip-generation-l Oth-edition-formats/. Given that the City is unclear what type ofindustrial project(s) may be proposed in the future, the MND must identify a reasonably likely development scenario from which to assess the Project's traffic impacts. As currently written, the MND relies exclusively on deferred mitigation which is forbidden pursuant to CEQA. 14 Cal. Code Regs. § lS126.4(a)( 1 )(B); Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.AppJd 296, 308-309. An agency may only defer the formulation of mitigation measures when it possesses '''meaningful information' reasonably justifying an expectation of compliance." Sundstrom at 308. Because the MND provides no meaningful information, the traffic analysis and reference to future traffic analyses is contrary to law and an abuse of discretion.

Thank you for this opportunity to provide comments on the project. LIUNA Local 1130 reserves its right to supplement these comments up until the close of the public hearings on the Project. Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist., 60 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1121 (1997).For all of the above reasons, the City should withdraw the MND, In order to proceed, the City should prepare an EIR based on substantial evidence and a realistic description of a probable development scenario for the site. Compliance with CEQA is essential to provide the public a better opportunity to evaluate the Project's significant impacts.

Sincerely,
~/Z~
Michael R. Lozeau ~
218

EXHIBIT A
219

THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
220
Shawn Smallwood, PhD
3108 Finch Street
Davis, CA 95616
Stacy Souza Elms
Community and Economic Development Director
City of Los Banos
Community and Economic Development Department
520 J Street
Los Banos, California 93635
RE: AMG Industrial Annex
Dear Ms. Elms,
13 November 2020
I write to comment on potential biological impacts related to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared for the proposed AMG Industrial Annex, which is a prezone for an undefined industrial use on 28.5 acres at the southeast corner of Johnson Road and Overland Ave. (City of Los Banos 2020).

My qualifications for preparing expert comments are the following. I hold a Ph.D. degree in Ecology from University of California at Davis, where I subsequently worked for four years as a post-graduate researcher in the Department of Agronomy and Range Sciences. My research has been on animal density and distribution, habitat selection, interactions between wildlife and human infrastructure and activities, and conservation of rare and endangered species. I performed research on wildlife mortality caused by wind turbines, electric distribution lines, agricultural practices, and road traffic. I served as Chair of the Conservation Affairs Committee for The Wildlife Society - Western Section. I am a member of The Wildlife Society and the Raptor Research Foundation, and I've been a part-time lecturer at California State University, Sacramento. I was Associate Editor of wildlife biology's premier scientific journal, The Journal of Wildlife Management, as well as of Biological Conservation, and I was on the Editorial Board of Environmental Management. I have performed wildlife surveys in California for thirtyfive years, including at many proposed project sites. My CV is attached.

SITE VISIT
I visited the site of the proposed prezone from 07:13 to 09:03 hours on 11 November 2020. I walked along the roadside and scanned the project site for wildlife using binoculars. The temperature was cool and it was sunny with no wind. The site was disked (Photos 1 through 3), but it was adjacent to a grassland to the south and an irrigated pasture to the northwest. It was obviously used for cotton production in 2020, but the 2014 IS/MND reported it is also used for corn and alfalfa. Alfalfa is a typical rotation crop with corn and cotton, so current condition of the site can be characterized as alfalfa/cotton/corn rotation. Small livestock (goats) are kept on land north of the site.
1 221
Despite the site having been cleared of vegetative cover, I saw 24 species of vertebrate wildlife at or adjacent to the site during my brief visit (Table 1). I saw another 2 species of raptor (osprey and red-shouldered hawk) nearby as I left the site. Fourteen of the species I detected were just off site, but the rest were on site. Seven of the species I detected were special-status species. In surveys I performed in the area in 2006, I detected breeding pairs of Swanson's hawks - a species listed as Threatened under the California Endangered Species Act. At the time of my site visit on 11 November 2020, Swanson's hawks were at their winter migration sites in Mexico.

Photos 1-3. Views of the project sitefrom northeast, 11 November 2020. 2 222
Table 1. Species of wildlife Iobservedfrom 07:13 to 09:03 hours on 11 November 2020 at the site of the pro posed project.

Species Scientific name Statusl Note
Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus TWL Just off site Killdeer Charadrius vociferous Just off site
Osprey Pandion haliaetus TWL, FGC 3503.5 Nearby
Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis FGC3503.5 On site
Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus Nearby
American kestrel Falco sparverius FGC3503·5 Just off site Ring-billed gull Larus delawarensis Flyover
California gull Larus californicus TWL Flyover
Rock pigeon Columba livea Non-native On site
Eurasian collared-dove Streptopelia decaocto Non-native On site Mourning dove Zenaida macroura Just off site
Black phoebe Sayornis nigricans Just off site
Say's phoebe Sayornis say a Just off site
California horned lark Eremophila alpestris actia TWL On site Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos Just off site
Common raven Corvus corax On site
American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos On site
Yellow-billed magpie Pica nuttalli BCC On site
European starling Sturnus vulgaris Non-native On site
Lincoln's sparrow Melospiza lincolnii Just off site
White-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrlJS Just off site House finch Carpodacus mexicanus Just off site
Lesser goldfinch Carduelis psaltria Just off site
House sparrow Passer domesticus Non-native Just off site Botta's pocket gopher Thomomys bottae Just off site
California ground squirrel Otospermophilus beecheyi Just off site 1 FGC 3503.5 = CalIforma Fish and Game Code 3503.5 (BIrds of prey), TWL = Taxa to Watch List (Shuford and Gardali 2008).

During my visit to the site, I saw American crows and yellow-billed magpies (Photos 4 and 5), a black phoebe and white-crowned sparrows (Photos 6 and 7), California gulls house finches (Photos 8 and 9), and California ground squirrels adjacent to the site (Photo 10). For having been disked, the area of the site was very busy with birds. 3 223
.&
Photos 4 and 5. American crow holding a pecan tI"'llVCJV-U'UU'U magpie (right) at the project site, 11 November 2020.

Photos 6 and 7. Black phoebe (left) and white-crowned sparrow (right) at the project site, 11 November 2020.
4 224
Photos 8 and 9. California gullflying over the site (left) and housefinch next to the site (right), 11 November 2020.

Photo 10. California ground squirrels next to the site, 11 November 2020.

BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS ASSESSMENT
The analysis of potential impacts to biological resources was not based on any surveys performed by biologists, nor was it based on any review of information pertaining to biological resources in data bases. Instead, City of Los Banos (2020:26) relies on similarly unfounded conclusions in an ISjMND that was certified for the project site in 2014. The ISjMND also relies on the City's 2030 General Plan and EIR for its analyses of project impacts to biological resources. City of Los Banos needs an analysis performed by biologists who are familiar with the resources in the area. A reasonable argument can be made for the need to prepare a project-specific EIR to appropriately analyze potential impacts to biological resources.

As an example of its unsuitability for analyzing potential impacts to biological resources, City of Los Banos (2020:27) implies that special-status species cannot occur on actively farmed land, thereby justifying its conclusion that the proposed project would have no significant impacts on special-status species. The City's implication is incorrect. 5 225
Multiple special-status species of wildlife rely on actively farmed agricultural land as habitat, including Swanson's hawk (Smallwood and Geng 1993, Smallwood 1995, Smallwood et al. 1996), ferruginous hawk, white-tailed kite (Erichsen et al. 1996), northern harrier, burrowing owl, yellow-billed magpie (Smallwood and Nakamoto 1009), California horned larks (Photos 11 and 12), and many others. Special-status species breed on actively farmed agricultural land, where they also forage and find stopover habitat. Tricolored blackbirds - a species listed as Threatened in California - famously rely on agricultural land. The same is true for sandhill crane and giant garter snake, among others.
11 12. A pair of ea larks at their b;eeding iite-in Aprii 2020, in an agriculturalfield where safflower and wheat were cultivated to either side.

Photos by K. Shawn Smallwood.

Given that the site has been characterized as one used for alfalfa production (see 2014 ISjMND), and given that cotton is typically grown in rotation with alfalfa, the site is especially of value to wildlife. Alfalfa is one of the friendliest crops to wildlife, including to multiple special-status species (Smallwood and Geng 1993, Smallwood 1995, Smallwood et al. 1996, 2001). The site's current condition can be characterized as an agricultural rotation including alfalfa production. When alfalfa is grown, which is typically 4 years at a time, it serves as habitat for Swanson's hawk and other specialstatus species.

According to City of Los Banos (2020:27), " ... the Proposed Project is not located within an area known for the potential of containing any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service." The City's conclusion is inaccurate. As I noted earlier, I documented Swanson's hawk nest sites around Los Banos in 2006. I also detected 7 special-status species at or near the project site during my 11 November site 6 226
visit (Table 1). Furthermore, at least 42 special-status species of birds have been documented near the project site (Table 2), and the geographic ranges of another 10 special-status species of mammal overlap the project site (Table 2). Not only is City of Los Banos inaccurate in its characterization of the project area as devoid of specialstatus species, but it is wrong by at least 52 special-status species of vertebrate wildlife.

Biologists need to perform the analysis that the City is attempting to perform on its own, and the preparation of a project-specific EIR is warranted.

Ti a hi e 2. e B' zr d or iN atura l' 1St occurrence recor d s at or near t h e propose d proJect sIte. eBirdfiNat
Sp ecies Scientific name Status1 records2
American white pelican Pelecanus erythrorh.lJnchos SSC1 Nearby Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus TWL On site White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi TWL nearby
Sandhill crane Grus c. canadensis SSC3 On site
Whimbrel lVun1enius phaeopus BCC Nearby
Long-billed curlew lVun1enius an1ericanus TWL Nearby
SnoWY plover Charadrius alexandrinus SSC3 LBWTP
Black tern Chlidonias niger SSC2 LBWTP
California gull Larus californicus TWL Nearby
Turkey vulture Cathartes aura FGC3503.5 Nearby
Osprey Pandion haliaetus TWL, FGC 350~ Nearby
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus BGEPA, BCC, CE Nearby Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos BGEPA,BCC,CFP LBWTP
Red-tailed hawk Buteo jan1aicensis FGC3503.5 On site
Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis FGC 3503.5, TWL Nearby
Swains on's hawk Buteo swainsoni BCC,CT Nearby
Rough-legged hawk Buteo regalis FGC3503.5 LBWTP
Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus FGC3503·5 Nearby
Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus FGC 3503.5, TWL Nearby Cooper's hawk Accipiter cooped FGC 3503.5, TWL Nearby
Northern harrier Circus cyaneus SSC3, FGC 3503.5 On site White-tailed kite Elanus leucurus CFP TWL Nearby
American kestrel Falco sparverius FGC3503.5 On site
Merlin Falco colun1barius FGC 3503.5, TWL Nearby
Prairie falcon Falco n1exicanus FGC 3503.5, TWL Nearby
Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus CE,CFP Nearby
Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia BCC, SSC2 Nearby
Great-horned owl Bubo virginianus FGC3503·5 Nearby
Short-eared owl Asio jlan1n1eus SSC3, FGC 3503.5 LBNWR
Barn owl T.tJto alba FGC3503.5 Nearby
Nuttall's woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC Nearby
Vaux's swift Chaetura vauxi SSC2 LBNWR
Willow flycatcher Epidomax trailii CE, BCC LBNWR
Oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus BCC LBNWR
7 227
eBird/iNat
Species Scientific name Statusl records2
Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus BCC, SSC2 Nearby
Yellow-billed magpie Pica nuttalli BCC On site
Horned lark Eremophila alpestris TWL Nearby
Yellow warbler Setophaqa petechia SSC2 Nearby
Oregon vesper sparrow Pooecetes qramineus affinis SSC2 Nearby Tricolored blackbird Aqelaius tricolor CT Nearby
Yellow-headed blackbird X. xanthocephalus SSC::1 Nearby Lawrence's goldfinch Spinus lawrencei BCC Volta WA
Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus SSC, WBWGH In range
Townsend's big-eared bat Plecotus t. townsendii SSC,WBWGH In range Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii SSC, WBWGH In range Small-footed myotis Myotis cililabrum WBWGM In region
Long-eared mvotis Myotis evotis WBWGM In range
Fringed myotis Myotis thusanodes WBWGH In range
Long-legged myotis Myotis volans WBWGH In range
Yumamyotis Myotis yumanensis SSC, WBWGLM In range
Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus WBWGLM In region
American badger Taxidea taxus SSC In region
1 LIsted as FE = federally Endangered, BGEPA = Bald and Golden Eagle ProtectIOn Act, BCC = federal Bird Species of Conservation Concern, CT & CE = California Threatened and Endangered, CFP = California Fully Protected (CDFG Code 3511), FGC 3503.5 = California Fish and Game Code 3503.5 (Birds of prey), and SSC1, SSC2 and SSC3 = California Bird Species of Special Concern priorities 1, 2 and 3 (Shuford and Gardali 2008), TWL = Taxa to Watch List (Shuford and Gardali 2008), WBWG = Western Bat Working Group with low, medium and high conservation priorities. 2 LBWTP = Los Banos Water Treatment Plant, LBNWR = Los Banos National Wildlife Refuge, Volta WA = Volta Wildlife Area, Nearby = within a few miles.

Burrowing owl
Although the field composing the project site cannot support ground squirrel burrow systems while it is actively farmed, it is adjacent to grassland and pasture where ground squirrels exist. The occurrence of ground squirrels next to the project site is important because ground squirrels and their burrows are the principal resources needed by burrowing owls - a species of special concern in California. Burrowing owls use ground squirrel burrows as refugia and nest sites, and they rely on mutual alarm-calling between squirrels and burrowing owls to evade capture by predators. CDFW (2012) recommends that burrowing owl detection surveys be performed at project sites where ground squirrel burrows occur within 150 m of the project boundary. Burrowing owl detection surveys are needed at this site, because ground squirrels do indeed occur within 150 m of the project's boundary.
8 228
Wildlife Movement
City of Los Banos (2020:27) identifies buildout along the Highway 152 corridor as the source of potential significant impacts on wildlife movement, but then concludes the project would not contribute to these impacts because it is not located within the Highway 152 corridor. But this conclusion is incomplete and inaccurate. A likely project to be built on the project site following the proposed prezoning would be a distribution warehouse. One of the principal transportation routes available to cars and trucks traveling to and from the project site would be Highway 152. By crushing and colliding with wildlife, car and truck traffic generated by the project would interfere with the movement of many species of wildlife, some of which I did not list in Table 2 because they are less likely to occur on the project's 28.5-acre footprint, per se. If the built project generates traffic, then that traffic will extend the project's impacts to the reaches of its traffic. This project would further impede the movements of such species as mountain lion (Puma concolor), California red-legged frog (Rana dray to niz) , California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), western spadefoot (Spea hammondiz), and the federally endangered and California threatened San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica). All ofthese animals must cross the very roads that traffic generated by the eventual built project would generate.

City of Los Banos (2020:27) further dismisses potential impacts to wildlife movement by concluding that development around the project site precludes its use as part of a wildlife movement corridor. The premise of this conclusion must be that the presence of a wildlife corridor determines whether a project would significantly interfere with wildlife movement in the region. However, this premise represents a false CEQA standard. The primary phrase of the CEQA standard goes to wildlife movement regardless of whether the movement is channeled by a corridor. A site such as the proposed project site is critically important for wildlife movement because it composes an increasingly diminishing patch of open space within a growing expanse of anthropogenic uses, forcing more species of bird to use the site as stopover and staging habitat during migration, dispersal, and home range patrol (Warnock 2010, Taylor et al. 2011, Runge et al. 2014). While I visited the project site, I witnessed many birds flying right over it; they did not fly over the neighborhood to the east nor the food processing plant to the west, but rather in north-south vectors right over the field that composes the project site. The project would cut birds off from stopover and staging habitat, forcing them to travel even farther between remaining stopover habitat patches. The project would interfere with avian movement in the region.

Traffic Impacts on Wildlife
City of Los Banos (2020) does not consider the project's most likely substantial impact to wildlife, and that is wildlife traffic mortality generated by the project and extending to locations as far away from the eventual building footprint as cars and trucks will travel to and from the project. Had City of Los Banos (2020) provided a prediction of average daily vehicle trips or average daily miles traveled, I could have predicted traffic-caused mortality of birds. The City of Los Banos (2020:61) claims that a prezone annexation 9 229
generates no traffic, so no prediction of project-generated traffic is warranted. But this claim is misleading. The prezone annexation would likely lead to a project which will generate traffic; the proposed action begets the next. The project-generated traffic would kill many animals and would interfere with movement of wildlife in the region.

Across North America, traffic impacts have taken devastating tolls on wildlife (Forman et al. 2003). In Canada, 3,562 birds were estimated killed per 100 km of road per year (Bishop and Brogan 2013), and the US estimate of avian mortality on roads is 2,200 to 8,405 deaths per 100 km per year, or 89 million to 340 million total per year (Loss et al. 2014). Local impacts can be more intense than nationally.

During winter 2019, 2,695 California newts were counted dead along a 6-mile stretch of Alma Bridge Road in Los Gatos (Lisa M. Krieger, Bay Area News Group, 19 February 2019). In a recent study of traffic-caused wildlife mortality, investigators found 1,275 carcasses of 49 species of mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles over 15 months of searches along a 2.5 mile stretch of Vasco Road in Contra Costa County, California (Mendelsohn et al. 2009). Using carcass detection trials performed on land immediately adjacent to the traffic mortality study (Brown et al. 2016) to adjust the found fatalities for the proportion of fatalities not found due to scavenger removal and searcher error, the estimated traffic-caused fatalities was 12,187. This fatality estimate translates to a rate of 3,900 wild animals per mile per year. In terms comparable to the national estimates, the estimates from the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study would translate to 243,740 animals killed per 100 km of road per year, or 29 times that of Loss et al.'s (2014) upper bound estimate and 68 times the Canadian estimate. An analysis is needed of whether increased traffic generated by a project that can reasonably be expected to follow the prezone annexation would similarly result in local impacts on wildlife.

Wildlife roadkill is not randomly distributed, so can be predicted. Causal factors include types of roadway, human population density, and temperature (Chen and Wu 2014), as well as time of day and adjacency and extent of vegetation cover (Chen and Wu 2014, Bartonicka et al. 2018), and intersections with streams and riparian vegetation (Bartonicka et al. 2018). For example, species of mammalian Carnivora are killed by vehicle traffic within 0.1 miles of stream crossings >40 times other than expected (K. S.

Smallwood, 1989-2019 unpublished data). These factors also point the way toward mitigation measures, which should be formulated in a project-specific EIR.

Use of Pesticides
According to City of Los Banos Municipal Code § 9-3.1502 and § 9-3.1503, permissible uses of land zoned Industrial could include Meat packing, stockyards, the slaughter of animals and fowl, as well as warehouse storage. I assume warehouse storage could also include the storage of foods. In any of these cases, or in other permissible uses under these Code Sections, the use of pesticides for the control of vertebrate and invertebrate animal pests is likely. Wildlife and small livestock (goats) living near the project would be vulnerable to pesticides applied within and outside the proposed project buildings. 10 230
Multiple businesses advertise their services on the internet for controlling stored products pests, perching birds, and rodent and other mammal pests within and around distribution warehouses. These types of businesses advertise exclusion strategies, as well as fumigation for stored products pests, glue boards for rodents, and 'other measures.' Having a background in animal damage control, I am familiar with 'other methods,' including the use of anticoagulant poisons and acute toxicants such as strychnine. I also know from experience that the use of toxicants can harm non-target wildlife through direct exposure and indirect exposure via predation and scavenging. As an example, the gopher snake in Photo 13 was killed accidentally after someone lost control of a glue-trap set for insects, presumably at the commercial strip next to where the glue-trap was found. Pest control involving toxicants and glue-traps can result in the spread of hazards beyond the warehouse.

Photo 13. A gopher
snake died after becoming
stuck to a discarded gluetrap intendedfor insects.

Photo by Noriko
Smallwood in Banning,
California, 9 November
2020.

I reviewed the scientific literature on animal damage control associated with warehousing. Little to no serious scientific attention has been directed toward animal damage control in warehouse settings. That businesses are advertising their animal damage control services in warehousing indicates either an awareness or an assumption that the warehousing industry experiences damage from wildlife. There also exists a how-to manual on managing animal pests in distribution warehouses (hUp:llwww.pctonline.com/ article/vertebrate-pests--the-fight-against-pallet-micel), further indicating conflicts exist between wildlife and warehousing. It is important, therefore, that an EIR be prepared to address the potential impacts of animal damage 11 231
control associated with this proposed project. Industry practices related to animal damage control should be detailed, as well as anticipated practices at this project site.

Potential impacts caused by these practices need to be assessed, and suitable mitigation measures formulated along with assurances that they will be implemented.

CUMUlATIVE IMPACTS
City of Los Banos (2020) argues that the project would contribute no cumulative impacts to biological resources because it would cause no direct impacts. If this argument represents an analysis, it is flawed. CEQA's definition of cumulative impacts is neither direct impacts nor residual impacts following mitigation (note that in the case of this ISjMND, there is no mitigation).

City of Los Banos's (2020) argument is also the same type of argument which, made many times in environmental review documents across California and the USA, resulted cumulatively in the 29% decline in overall bird abundance across North America (Rosenberg et al. 2019). It is an opinion that begs the question of why CEQA would requires a cumulative impacts analysis, because the City's opinion entirely ignores cumulative effects defined by the CEQA Guidelines.

When it comes to wildlife, cumulative effects can often be interpreted as effects on the numerical capacity (Smallwood 2015), breeding success, genetic diversity, or other population performance metrics expressed at the regional scale. In the case of migrating birds, the project's cumulative effects could be measured as numerical reductions of breeding birds at far-off breeding sites as migrating adults and next-year's recruits lose access to stop-over habitat. In the cases of wildlife species that are susceptible to traffic collisions, the project's contribution to ongoing and foreseeable traffic-caused mortality can be measured or predicted. Even crude predictions of cumulative impacts are imperative. A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare a project-specific EIR to adequately address the project's potential contributions to cumulative impacts on wildlife in the region.

MITIGATION MEASURES
City of Los Banos (2020) proposes no mitigation for project impacts to wildlife. The project would lead to the displacement of wildlife from habitat, would indirectly and adversely affect wildlife neighboring the project site, and its generated traffic would kill wildlife from the project site to many miles distant in multiple directions. Mitigation measures are needed. The City should prepare a project-specific EIR to more seriously analyze impacts and formulate mitigation. The EIR should formulate appropriate mitigation measures for habitat loss, interference with wildlife movement in the region, and wildlife mortality caused by project-generated traffic.

Detection surveys are needed for special-status species. Detection surveys have been designed by species experts to either detect species when they are present or to support negative determinations. They are also needed to inform survey personnel where to 12 232
most effectively perform preconstruction take-avoidance surveys for nesting birds and special-status species. Detection surveys are also needed for formulating appropriate mitigation measures. For example, given the occurrence of ground squirrels next to the project site and the likelihood of burrowing owls taking up residence in the burrows of those ground squirrels, the CDFW (2012) survey guidelines for burrowing owls need to be implemented. The guidelines call for surveys to extend 150 m beyond the project footprint, which in this case would include areas occupied by ground squirrels.

Impact minimization measures are needed for traffic impacts on wildlife, and compensatory mitigation is needed for habitat loss and for traffic mortality. I recommend funding wildlife crossings at strategic locations along roads used by the project, and funding research into wildlife mortality caused by truck traffic.

Compensatory mitigation ought also to include funding contributions to wildlife rehabilitation facilities to cover the costs of injured animals that will be delivered to these facilities for care. Most of the wildlife injuries will likely be caused by collisions with cars and trucks driven to and from the site, including injuries caused by turbulence of passing trucks. But the project's impacts can also be offset by funding the treatment of injuries to animals caused by other buildings, electric lines, windows, and cats.

Thank you for your attention,
Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D.

REFERENCES CITED
Bartonicka, T., R. Andrasik, M. Dula, J. Sedonik, and M. Bil. 2018. Identification of local factors causing clustering of animal-vehicle collisions. Journal of Wildlife Management. Journal of Wildlife Management DOl: 1O.1002/jwmg.21467 Bishop, C. A. and J. M. Brogan. 2013. Estimates of Avian Mortality Attributed to Vehicle Collisions in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8:2. http:// dx.doLorg/1O.5751/ ACE-00604-080202.

Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, J. Szewczak, and B. Karas. 2016. Final 2012-2015 Report Avian and Bat Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California.

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 1994. State Fish and Game staff report regarding mitigation for impacts to Swains on's Hawks in the Central Valley of California. Sacramento, California.

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Sacramento, California.
13 233
Chen,X. and S. Wu. 2014. Examining patterns of animal-vehicle collisions in Alabama, USA. Human-Wildlife Interactions 8:235-244.

City of Los Banos. 2020. Public Review Draft Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration AMG Industrial Annexation: File No. Annexation and PreZone 2013-01, and Pre-Annexation Development Agreement. Los Banos, California.

Erichsen, A L., K. S. Smallwood, A M. Commandatore, D. M. Fry, and B. Wilson. 1996.

White-tailed Kite movement and nesting patterns in an agricultural landscape.

Pages 166-176 in D. M. Bird, D. E. Varland, and J. J. Negro, eds., Raptors in human landscapes. Academic Press, London.

Forman, T. T., D. Sperling, J. A Bisonette, A P. Clevenger, C. D. Cutshall, V. H. Dale, L.

Fahrig, R. France, C. R. Goldman, K. Heanue, J. A. Jones, F. J. Swanson, T.

Turrentine, and T. C. Winter. 2003. Road Ecology. Island Press, Covello, California.

Kobylarz, B. 2001. The effect of road type and traffic intensity on amphibian road mortality. Journal of Service Learning in Conservation Biology 1:10-15.

Loss, S. R., T. Will, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Estimation of Bird-Vehicle Collision Mortality on U.S. Roads. Journal of Wildlife Management 78:763-771.

Mendelsohn, M., W. Dexter, E. Olson, and S. Weber. 2009. Vasco Road wildlife movement study report. Report to Contra Costa County Public Works Department, Martinez, California.

Rosenberg, K. V., A. M. Dokter, P. J. Blancher, J. R. Sauer, A C. Smith, P. A. Smith, J. C.

Stanton, A. Panjabi, L. Helft, M. Parr, and P. P. Marra. 2019. Decline of the North American avifauna. Science 1O.U26/science.aaw1313 (2019).

Runge, C. A, T. G. Martin, H. P. Possingham, S. G. Willis, and R. A Fuller. 2014.

Conserving mobile species. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 12(7): 395-402, doi:10.1890/130237.

Shuford, W. D., and T. Gardali, [eds.]. 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.

Smallwood, K. S. 1995. Scaling Swainson's hawk population density for assessing habitat-use across an agricultural landscape. J. Raptor Research 29:172-178.

Smallwood, K. S. 2015. Habitat fragmentation and corridors. Pages 84-101 in M. L.

Morrison and H. A Mathewson, Eds., Wildlife habitat conservation: concepts, 14 234
challenges, and solutions. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

Smallwood, K.S. and S. Geng. 1993. Alfalfa as wildlife habitat. California Alfalfa Symposium 23:105-8.

Smallwood, K. S., B. J. Nakamoto, and S. Geng. 1996. Association analysis of raptors on an agricultural landscape. Pages 177-190 in D.M. Bird, D.E. Varland, and J.J.

Negro, eds., Raptors in human landscapes. Academic Press, London.

Smallwood, K.S., S. Geng, and M. Zhang. 2001. Comparing pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) density in alfalfa stands to assess management and conservation goals in northern California. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 87: 93-109.

Taylor, P. D., S. A. Mackenzie, B. G. Thurber, A. M. Calvert, A. M. Mills, L. P. McGuire, and C. G. Guglielmo. 2011. Landscape movements of migratory birds and bats reveal an expanded scale of stopover. PlosOne 6(11): e27054.
doi:1O.1371jjournal.pone.0027054.

Warnock, N. 2010. Stopping vs. staging: the difference between a hop and a jump.

Journal of Avian Biology 41:621-626.
15 235
3108 Finch Street
Davis, CA 95616
Phone (530) 756-4598
Cell (530) 601-6857
[email protected]
Expertise
Kenneth Shawn Smallwood
Curriculum Vitae
Ecologist
Born May 3, 1963 in
Sacramento, California.

Married, father of two.
• Finding solutions to controversial problems related to wildlife interactions with human industry, infrastructure, and activities;
• Wildlife monitoring and field study using GPS, thermal imaging, behavior surveys; • Using systems analysis and experimental design principles to identify meaningful ecological patterns that inform management decisions.

Education
Ph.D. Ecology, University of California, Davis. September 1990.

M.S. Ecology, University of California, Davis. June 1987.

B.S. Anthropology, University of California, Davis. June 1985.

Corcoran High School, Corcoran, California. June 1981.

Experience
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
477 professional publications, including:
81 peer reviewed publications
24 in non-reviewed proceedings
370 reports, declarations, posters and book reviews
8 in mass media outlets
87 public presentations of research results at meetings Reviewed many professional papers and reports
Testified in 4 court cases.

Editing for scientific journals: Guest Editor, Wildlife Society Bulletin, 2012-2013, of invited papers representing international views on the impacts of wind energy on wildlife and how to mitigate the impacts. Associate Editor, Journal o/Wildlife Management, March 2004 to 30 June 2007.

Editorial Board Member, Environmental Management, 10/1999 to 8/2004. Associate Editor, Biological Conservation, 911994 to 911995.

Member, Alameda County Scientific Review Committee (SRC), August 2006 to April 2011. The 1 236
Smallwood CV
five-member committee investigated causes of bird and bat collisions in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, and recommended mitigation and monitoring measures. The SRC reviewed the science underlying the Alameda County Avian Protection Program, and advised the County on how to reduce wildlife fatalities.
2 Consulting Ecologist, 2004-2007, California Energy Commission (CEC). Provided consulting services as needed to the CEC on renewable energy impacts, monitoring and research, and produced several reports. Also collaborated with Lawrence-Livermore National Lab on research to understand and reduce wind turbine impacts on wildlife.

Consulting Ecologist, 1999-2013, U.S. Navy. Performed endangered species surveys, hazardous waste site monitoring, and habitat restoration for the endangered San Joaquin kangaroo rat, California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, California clapper rail, western burrowing owl, salt marsh harvest mouse, and other species at Naval Air Station Lemoore; Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord; Naval Security Group Activity, Skaggs Island; National Radio Transmitter Facility, Dixon; and, Naval Outlying Landing Field Imperial Beach.

Fulbright Research Fellow, Indonesia, 1988. Tested use of new sampling methods for numerical monitoring of Sumatran tiger and six other species of endemic felids, and evaluated methods used by other researchers.

Peer Reviewed Publications
Smallwood, K. S. 2017. Long search intervals under-estimate bird and bat fatalities caused by wind turbines. Wildlife Society Bulletin 41 :224-230.

Smallwood, K. S. 2017. The challenges of addressing wildlife impacts when repowering wind energy projects. Pages 175-187 in Koppel, J., Editor, Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts:

Proceedings from the CWW2015 Conference. Springer. Cham, Switzerland.

May, R., Gill, A. B., Koppel, J. Langston, R. H.W., Reichenbach, M., Scheidat, M., Smallwood, S., Voigt, C. C., Hiippop, 0., and Portman, M. 2017. Future research directions to reconcile wind turbine-wildlife interactions. Pages 255-276 in Koppel, J., Editor, Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts: Proceedings from the CWW2015 Conference. Springer. Cham, Switzerland.

Smallwood, K. S. 2017. Monitoring birds. M. Perrow, Ed., Wildlife and Wind Farms - Conflicts and Solutions, Volume 2. Pelagic Publishing, Exeter, United Kingdom. www.bit.1y/2v3cR90 Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and D. A. Bell. 2017. Siting to Minimize Raptor Collisions: an example from the Repowering Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. M. Perrow, Ed., Wildlife and Wind Farms - Conflicts and Solutions, Volume 2. Pelagic Publishing, Exeter, United Kingdom. www.bit.1Y!2v3cR90
Johnson, D. H., S. R. Loss, K. S. Smallwood, W. P. Erickson. 2016. Avian fatalities at wind energy facilities in North America: A comparison of recent approaches. Human-Wildlife Interactions 10(1): 7 -18.
237
Smallwood CV
Sadar, M. J., D. S.-M. Guzman, A Mete, J. Foley, N. Stephenson, K. H. Rogers, C. Grosset, K. S.

Smallwood, J. Shipman, A Wells, S. D. White, D. A Bell, and M. G. Hawkins. 2015. Mange Caused by a novel Micnemidocoptes mite in a Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos). Journal of Avian Medicine and Surgery 29(3):231-237.
3 Smallwood, K. S. 2015. Habitat fragmentation and corridors. Pages 84-101 in M. L. Morrison and H. A Mathewson, Eds., Wildlife habitat conservation: concepts, challenges, and solutions. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
Mete, A, N. Stephenson, K. Rogers, M. G. Hawkins, M. Sadar, D. Guzman, D. A Bell, J. Shipman, A Wells, K. S. Smallwood, and 1. Foley. 2014. Emergence of Knemidocoptic mange in wild Golden Eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) in California. Emerging fufectious Diseases 20(10):1716- 1718.

Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Introduction: Wind-energy development and wildlife conservation.

Wildlife Society Bulletin 37: 3-4.

Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Comparing bird and bat fatality-rate estimates among North American wind-energy projects. Wildlife Society Bulletin 37: 19-33. + Online Supplemental Material.

Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, J. Mount, and R. C. E. Culver. 2013. Nesting Burrowing Owl Abundance in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Wildlife Society Bulletin:
37:787-795.

Smallwood, K. S., D. A Bell, B. Karas, and S. A Snyder. 2013. Response to Huso and Erickson Comments on Novel Scavenger Removal Trials. Journal of Wildlife Management 77: 216-225.

Bell, D. A, and K. S. Smallwood. 2010. Birds of prey remain at risk. Science 330:913.

Smallwood, K. S., D. A Bell, S. A Snyder, and J. E. DiDonato. 2010. Novel scavenger removal trials increase estimates of wind turbine-caused avian fatality rates. Journal of Wildlife Management 74: 1089-1097 + Online Supplemental Material.

Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and D. A Bell. 2009. Map-based repowering and reorganization of a wind resource area to minimize burrowing owl and other bird fatalities. Energies 2009(2):915- 943. http://www.mdpi.coml1996-1073/2/4/915
Smallwood, K. S. and B. Nakamoto. 2009. Impacts of West Nile Virus Epizootic on Yellow-Billed Magpie, American Crow, and other Birds in the Sacramento Valley, California. The Condor 111 :247-254.

Smallwood, K. S., L. Rugge, and M. L. Morrison. 2009. fufluence of Behavior on Bird Mortality in Wind Energy Developments: The Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Journal of Wildlife Management 73: 1 082-1098.

Smallwood, K. S. and B. Karas. 2009. Avian and Bat Fatality Rates at Old-Generation and 238
Smallwood CV
Repowered Wind Turbines in California. Journal of Wildlife Management 73:1062-1071.

Smallwood, K S. 2008. Wind power company compliance with mitigation plans in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Environmental & Energy Law Policy Journal 2(2):229-285.

SmallwQod, K S., C. G. Thelander. 2008. Bird Mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:215-223.

Smallwood, K S. 2007. Estimating wind turbine-caused bird mortality. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:2781-2791.
4 Smallwood, K S., C. G. Thelander, M. L. Morrison, and L. M. Rugge. 2007. Burrowing owl mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:1513- 1524.

Cain, J. W. III, K S. Smallwood, M. L. Morrison, and H. L. Loffland. 2005. Influence of mammal activity on nesting success of Passerines. J. Wildlife Management 70:522-531.

Smallwood, KS. 2002. Habitat models based on numerical comparisons. Pages 83-95 in Predicting species occurrences: Issues of scale and accuracy, J. M. Scott, P. J. Heglund, M.

Morrison, M. Raphael, J. Haufler, and B. Wall, editors. Island Press, Covello, California.

Morrison, M. L., K S. Smallwood, and L. S. Hall. 2002. Creating habitat through plant relocation:

Lessons from Valley elderberry longhorn beetle mitigation. Ecological Restoration 21: 95-100.

Zhang, M., K S. Smallwood, and E. Anderson. 2002. Relating indicators of ecological health and integrity to assess risks to sustainable agriculture and native biota. Pages 757-768 in D.J.

Rapport, W.L. Lasley, D.E. Rolston, N.O. Nielsen, C.O. Qualset, and A.B. Damania (eds.), Managing for Healthy Ecosystems, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida USA.

Wilcox, B. A., K S. Smallwood, and J. A. Kahn. 2002. Toward a forest Capital Index. Pages 285- 298 in D.J. Rapport, W.L. Lasley, D.E. Rolston, N.O. Nielsen, C.O. Qualset, and A.B. Damania (eds.), Managing for Healthy Ecosystems, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida USA.

Smallwood, KS. 2001. The allometry of density within the space used by populations of Mammalian Carnivores. Canadian Journal of Zoology 79: 1634-1640.

Smallwood, KS., and T.R. Smith. 2001. Study design and interpretation of Sore x density estimates. Annales Zoologi Fennici 38:141-161.

Smallwood, KS., A. Gonzales, T. Smith, E. West, C. Hawkins, E. Stitt, C. Keckler, C. Bailey, and K Brown. 2001. Suggested standards for science applied to conservation issues. Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 36:40-49.

Geng, S., Yixing Zhou, Minghua Zhang, and K Shawn Smallwood. 2001. A Sustainable Agroecological Solution to Water Shortage in North China Plain (Huabei Plain). Environmental Planning and Management 44:345-355.
239
Smallwood CV
Smallwood, K Shawn, Lourdes Rugge, Stacia Hoover, Michael L. Morrison, Carl Thelander. 2001.

Intra- and inter-turbine string comparison of fatalities to animal burrow densities at Altamont Pass. Pages 23-37 in S. S. Schwartz, ed., Proceedings of the National Avian-Wind Power Planning Meeting IV. RESOL VB, Inc., Washington, D.C.

Smallwood, KS., S. Geng, and M. Zhang. 2001. Comparing pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) density in alfalfa stands to assess management and conservation goals in northern California.

Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 87: 93-109.

Smallwood, K S. 2001. Linking habitat restoration to meaningful units of animal demography.

Restoration Ecology 9:253-261.

Smallwood, K S. 2000. A crosswalk from the Endangered Species Act to the HCP Handbook and real HCPs. Environmental Management 26, Supplement 1 :23-35.

Smallwood, K S., J. Beyea and M. Morrison. 1999. Using the best scientific data for endangered species conservation. Environmental Management 24:421-435.

Smallwood, K S. 1999. Scale domains of abundance among species of Mammalian Carnivora.

Environmental Conservation 26: 102-111.

Smallwood, KS. 1999. Suggested study attributes for making useful population density estimates.

Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 35: 76-82.

Smallwood, K S. and M. L. Morrison. 1999. Estimating burrow volume and excavation rate of pocket gophers (Geomyidae). Southwestern Naturalist 44:173-183.

Smallwood, K S. and M. L. Morrison. 1999. Spatial scaling of pocket gopher (Geomyidae) density. Southwestern Naturalist 44:73-82.

Smallwood, K S. 1999. Abating pocket gophers (Thomomys spp.) to regenerate forests in clearcuts. Environmental Conservation 26:59-65.

Smallwood, K S. 1998. Patterns of black bear abundance. Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 34:32-38.

Smallwood, K S. 1998. On the evidence needed for listing northern goshawks (Accipter gentilis) under the Endangered Species Act: a reply to Kennedy. J. Raptor Research 32:323-329.

Smallwood, K S., B. Wilcox, R. Leidy, and K Yarris. 1998. Indicators assessment for Habitat Conservation Plan of Yolo County, California, USA. Environmental Management 22: 947-958.

Smallwood, K S., M. L. Morrison, and J. Beyea. 1998. Animal burrowing attributes affecting hazardous waste management. Environmental Management 22: 831-847.

Smallwood, K S, and C. M. Schonewald. 1998. Study design and interpretation for mammalian 5 240
Smallwood CV
carnivore density estimates. Oecologia 113:474-491.

Zhang, M., S. Geng, and K. S. Smallwood. 1998. Nitrate contamination in groundwater of Tulare County, California. Ambio 27(3):170-174.

Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 1997. Animal burrowing in the waste management zone of Hanford Nuclear Reservation. Proceedings of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society Meeting 33:88-97.

Morrison, M. L., K. S. Smallwood, and J. Beyea. 1997. Monitoring the dispersal of contaminants by wildlife at nuclear weapons production and waste storage facilities. The Environmentalist 17:289-295.

Smallwood, K. S. 1997. Interpreting puma (Puma concolor) density estimates for theory and management. Environmental Conservation 24(3):283-289.

Smallwood, K. S. 1997. Managing vertebrates in cover crops: a first study. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 11 : 155-160.

Smallwood, K. S. and S. Geng. 1997. Multi -scale influences of gophers on alfalfa yield and quality. Field Crops Research 49: 159-168.

Smallwood, K. S. and C. Schonewald. 1996. Scaling population density and spatial pattern for terrestrial, mammalian carnivores. Oecologia 105:329-335.

Smallwood, K. S., G. Jones, and C. Schonewald. 1996. Spatial scaling of allometry for terrestrial, mammalian carnivores. Oecologia 107:588-594.

Van Vuren, D. and K. S. Smallwood. 1996. Ecological management of vertebrate pests in agricultural systems. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture 13 :41-64.

Smallwood, K. S., B. 1. Nakamoto, and S. Geng. 1996. Association analysis of rap tors on an agricultural landscape. Pages 177-190 in D.M. Bird, D.E. Varland, and 1.1. Negro, eds., Raptors in human landscapes. Academic Press, London.

Erichsen, A. L., K. S. Smallwood, A. M. Commandatore, D. M. Fry, and B. Wilson. 1996. Whitetailed Kite movement and nesting patterns in an agricultural landscape. Pages 166-176 in D. M.

Bird, D. E. Varland, and 1. J. Negro, eds., Raptors in human landscapes. Academic Press, London.
6 Smallwood, K. S. 1995. Scaling Swainson's hawk population density for assessing habitat-use across an agricultural landscape. J. Raptor Research 29: 172-178.

Smallwood, K. S. and W. A. Erickson. 1995. Estimating gopher populations and their abatement in forest plantations. Forest Science 41 :284-296.

Smallwood, K. S. and E. L. Fitzhugh. 1995. A track count for estimating mountain lion Felis 241
Smallwood CV
concolor californica population trend. Biological Conservation 71 :251-259 Smallwood, K. S. 1994. Site invasibility by exotic birds and mammals. Biological Conservation 69:251-259.

Smallwood, K. S. 1994. Trends in California mountain lion populations. Southwestern Naturalist 39:67-72.

Smallwood, K. S. 1993. Understanding ecological pattern and process by association and order.

Acta Oecologica 14(3):443-462.

Smallwood, K. S. and E. L. Fitzhugh. 1993. A rigorous technique for identifying individual mountain lions Felis concolor by their tracks. Biological Conservation 65:51-59.

Smallwood, K. S. 1993. Mountain lion vocalizations and hunting behavior. The Southwestern Naturalist 38:65-67.

Smallwood, K. S. and T. P. Salmon. 1992. A rating system for potential exotic vertebrate pests.

Biological Conservation 62:149-159.
7 Smallwood, K. S. 1990. Turbulence and the ecology of invading species. Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, Davis.
242
DRURY '. ~
November 16,2020
Stacy Souza Elms
Community and Economic Development Director
City of Los Banos
520 J Street
Los Banos, CA 93635
[email protected]
Re: Comments Regarding Annexation and PreZone 2013-01 and Pre-Annexation Development Agreement - AMG Industrial Annexation
Dear Ms. Elms,
In addition to the comment submitted earlier today by my office on behalf of Laborers International Union of North America Local Union 1130 ("LIVNA") concerning the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (collectively the "MND") for the AMG Industrial Annexation and Prezone 2013-01 and Pre-Annexation Development Agreement ("Project"), please accept these additional comments, including the attached expert comments by Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., and Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. ofSWAPE and Traffic Engineer Dan Smith.

SWAPE has reviewed the Project's potential impacts on air quality. SW APE's comments are attached hereto as Exhibit A. Mr. Smith has reviewed the absence of any meaningful traffic analysis in the MND. Mr. Smith's comments are attached as Exhibit B.

SWAPE's concerns include but are not limited to the following:

1. The City's reliance on Rule 9510 to address the Project's air pollution emissions does not address emissions of CO, ROGs, SOx, and PM2.5.

2. SW APE ran the CalEEMod air pollution emission model based on a probable project consisting of "General Light Industry" extending over most of the site. SW APE estimates that the NOx remissions from the Project's operation would be 34.37 tons per year, well in excess of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District's (SJVPCD") threshold of significance for NOx.

3. SWAPE ran a screening-level analysis of the health risks posed by the Project's construction and operation. Using the AERSCREEN model, SW APE calculated at a screening level the excess cancer risk that may be posed by the construction and operation of probable industrial development associated with Project. SWAPE's screening shows that the Project may increase cancer risks to adjacent residents, 243
Stacy Souza Elms
AMG Industrial Annexation
November 16, 2020

including child, adult, and residential cancer risks of 73,27 and 110 in a million.

These all exceed SJVAPD's significance threshold of20 in a million.

4. SW APE reviewed the possible impacts of the Project on greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions and the absence of sufficient evidence to corroborate the MND's discussion of this potential impact.

Traffic Engineer Smith projects the traffic impacts of General Light Industrial uses at the site based on the authoritative transportation resource Trip Generation, 10'" Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Using the reasonable projection that probable development would result in about 30 percent site coverage with roughly 372,438 TSF floor area, the probable development of the site would generate 1,856 new trips daily, 261 in the AM peak and 309 in the PM peak. All of these trips would be new trips. All of these trips would add significantly to the vehicle miles traveled from this area of Los Banos. The level of vehicle trips estimated by Mr. Smith is substantial evidence that the Project may have significant impacts on traffic, traffic safety, and VMTs.

SWAPE's and Mr. Smith's reviews and analyses are further substantial evidence that the project may have significant adverse impacts on traffic, air quality, health risks, and GHG emissions. As a result, an environmental impact report must be prepared for the Project prior to the City approving the Project.

Sincerely,
Michael
~/C~~ R. Lozeau
244

EX B TA
245

THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
246
I SWA P E I foehnl" ' Consultation, 0. wtyJis ;nO
"-____ --J n Support for the Environment
November 16, 2020
Michael R. Lozeau
Lozeau I Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94612
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
mhagemann @swape.com
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310) 795-2335
[email protected]
Subject: Comments on the AMG Industrial Annexation (SCH No. 2014091056) Dear Mr. Lozeau,
We have reviewed the October 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ("IS/MND") for the AMG Industrial Annexation ("Project") located in the City of Los Banos ("City"). The Project proposes to pre-zone the 28.5-acre Project site to accommodate industrial land uses.

Our review concludes that the IS/MND fails to adequately evaluate the Project's air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas impacts. As a result, emissions and health risk impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project are underestimated and inadequately addressed. An EIR should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas impacts that the project may have on the surrounding environment.

Air Quality
Failure to Evaluate Potential Air Quality Impact
The IS/M ND concludes that the proposed Project would result in a less-than-significant air quality impact without quantifying the Project's construction-related and operational criteria air pollutant emissions (p. 23). Specifically, the IS/MND states:
liThe Proposed Project is subject to the Air District's Rule 9510. District Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review) is intended to reduce a project's impact on air quality through project design elements or mitigation by payments of applicable off-site mitigation fees. Compliance with Rule 9510 will reduce construction exhaust NOx and PMlO by 20 percent and 45 percent, respectfully. 247
The Proposed Project exceeds the ISR threshold of 25,000 square feet of industrial space; and therefore, a mitigation measure to comply with the Air District's Rule 9510 has been added, respectfully (Mitigation Measure AQ-1). Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated" (p. 23).

As you can see in the excerpt above, the IS/MND concludes that the Project would implement Mitigation Measure AQ-1, which would require the Project to comply with SJVAPCD Rule 9510, reducing construction exhaust NOx and PM10 by 20 percent and 45 percent, respectfully. As a result, the IS/MND concludes that the Project would result in a less-than-significant air quality impact with mitigation.

However, this is incorrect for three reasons.

First, by failing to quantify the Project's construction-related and operational criteria air pollutant emissions, the IS/MND is inconsistent with San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District ("SJVAPCD") guidelines. The SJVAPCD has adopted thresholds of significance that should be utilized to evaluate the significance of construction-related and operational criteria air pollutant emissions (see excerpt below).l Operational Emissions
Conlftruction .Permitted ~on-Permitted
PoUutant/Prct'unur Emis~j(Jns Equipment Hud Equipment and Adi,ities Adhtities
Emissimu' (Ip)') Emissions (IPJ'} Emis$ions (Ip),)
CO 100 tOO 100
~O~ 10 10 to
ROG 10 10 10
SO}. 27 27 27
PMw 15 15 15
PMZ.5 15 15 15
By failing to quantify the proposed Project's construction-related and operational criteria air pollutant emissions to compare to the SJVAPCD thresholds of Significance, the IS/MND is inconsistent with SJVAPCD guidance. Thus, the Project should not be approved until an EIR is prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential air quality impacts that the Project may have on the surrounding environment.

Second, the IS/MND's conclusion that the Project's air quality impact would be less-than-significant based on compliance with the Rule 9510 is incorrect. While, the IS/MND is correct in stating that Rule 9510 requires 20% and 45% reductions in NOx and PM lO emissions from construction equipment, 1 "Air Quality Thresholds of Significance - Criteria Pollutants." SNAPCD, March 2015, available at:
http://www.valleya i r. org/tra nspa rtati on/ 0714-GAMAQI-Criteri a-Po II uta nt -Th resh 01 ds-af -Sign ifica nce. pdf. 2 248
respectively, Rule 9510 fails to address emissions of CO, ROG, SOx, and PM2.5. Furthermore, Rule 9510 does not address non-equipment construction-related emissions, such as on-road mobile equipment associated with workers, vendors, and hauling; fugitive dust emissions; and architectural coating activities. 2 As such, compliance with the Rule 9510 does not guarantee that the Project's criteria air pollutant emissions would be less than significant. Moreover, under SJVAPCD Rule 9510, the Project is required to submit an Air Impact Assessment ("AIA,,).3 According to Rule 9510, the AlA should:
"quantity construction and operational NO~ and PMlQ emissions associated with the project. This shall include the estimated construction and operational baseline emissions, and the mitigated emissions for each applicable pollutant for the development project, or each phase thereof" (emphasis added).4
The AlA should identify measures that would reduce the Project's operational NOx and PM lO emissions.

Regarding the voluntary on-site mitigation measures, Rule 9510 states:
"The applicant shall identify measures voluntarily selected and how those measures will be enforced. On-Site measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, development agreements, or other legally binding instrument entered into by the applicant and the public agency" (emphasis added).5
Here, however, the proposed Project fails to quantify the Project's construction and operational NOx and PM lO emissions and identify mitigation measures, as well as demonstrate how they will be enforced.

As such, absent an AlA, the proposed Project fails to comply with Rule 9510, and the IS/MND's less-thansignificant air quality impact conclusion based on compliance with Rule 9510 should not be relied upon.

Therefore, as previously stated, we recommend that the proposed Project not be approved until an EIR is prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential air quality impacts that the Project may have on the surrounding environment.

Third, in an effort to accurately estimate the Project's construction-related and operational emissions, we prepared a CalEEMod model utilizing the Project-specific information provided by the IS/MND. In our model, we included 28.5-acres, or 1,241,460-SF of "General Light Industry." Based on the Project's location, we assumed that the Project would be located within Climate Zone 3.6 Based on information provided in the IS/MND, we assumed that the Project's utility company would be Pacific Gas & Electric (pp. 87). All other values were left as default. Our analysis demonstrates that the Project's operational 2 "CaIEEMod User's Guide." CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www,agmd.gov/ docs/ defaultsource/ caleemod/01 user-39-s-guide2016-3-2 15november2017,pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 2. 3 "Rule 9510." SJVAPCD, December 2017, available at: https:llwww.valleyair,org!rules/ currntrules! r9510-a.pdf, pp.ll.
4 "Rule 9510." SJVAPCD, December 2017, available at: https:Uwww.valleyair,org/rules/ currntrules/ r9510-a.pdf, pp.12.
5 "Rule 9510." SJVAPCD, December 2017, available at: https:l!www,valleyair,org!rules! currntrules/r9510-a. pdf, pp.10.
6 "Appendix F Climate Zones Lookup." CAPCOA, September 2016, available at:
http://www,agmd,gov/ docs/default-source/ caleemod/ upgrades/2016.3/07 appendix-f2016-3-l.odf?sfvrsn=2, pp.

24. 3
249
NOx emissions, when modeled using available, Project-specific information, exceed the 10 tons per year ("tons/year") threshold set by the SJVAPCD (see table below).7 AMG Industrial Annexation - SWAPE Modeling
Model
SWAPE Operational
SJVAPCD Regional Threshold (tons per year)
Threshold Exceeded?
NOx

34.37 10
Yes
As demonstrated above, when modeled, the Project's operational NOx emissions exceed the SJVAPCD threshold of 10 tons/year. Thus, our model demonstrates that the Project would result in a potentially significant air quality impact that was not previously identified or addressed in the IS/MND. According to CEQA Guidelines § 15064.4(b), if there is substantial evidence that the possible effects of a particular project are still cumulatively considerable notwithstanding compliance with the adopted regulations or requirements, a full CEQA analysis must be prepared for the project. Therefore, a Project-specific EIR should be prepared and recirculated for the Project, and mitigation should be implemented where necessary, per CEQA Guidelines.

Diesel Particulate Matter Health Risk Emissions Inadequately Evaluated The IS/MND concludes that the Project's health risk impacts would be less than significant without conducting a quantified construction or operational health risk assessment ("HRA") (p. 24). Specifically, regarding the Project's operational health risk impacts, the IS/MND states:
"The Proposed Project will include industrial uses that may include stationary diesel engine or other stationary source of TACs. However, if proposed, these uses will be required to adhere to the Air District's Rules and Regulations as well as be consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)" (p. 24).

As you can see in the excerpt above, the IS/MND claims that an operational HRA is not necessary, because the future industrial land uses would have to comply with SJVAPCD and CEQA Guidelines.

Furthermore, regarding health risk impacts associated with Project construction, the IS/MND states:
"[Clonstruction is temporary and occurs over a relatively short duration in comparison to the operational lifetime of the Proposed Project. Because health risks associated with exposure to any TACs are correlated with high concentrations over a long period of exposure (e.g., over a 70- year lifetime), the temporary, intermittent construction-related TAC emissions would not be expected to cause any health risks to nearby sensitive receptors. The future development of the Proposed Project is required to adhere to the City's General Plan Policies and Implementation Actions, including Implementing Action POSR-I-38 which requires Best Management Practices to be included in the construction of the Proposed Project. Furthermore, the Developer will be 7 "Air Quality Thresholds of Significance - Criteria Pollutants." SJVAPCD, March 2015, available at:
http://www.valleyair.org!transportation/0714-GAMAQI-Criteria-Pollutant-Thresholds-of-Significance.pdf. 4 250
required to adhere to the SNAPCD's Rules and Regulations as it relates to construction related emissions, dust control, heavy equipment emissions, etc" (p. 24).

As you can see in the excerpt above, the IS/MND concludes that the Project's construction-related health risk impacts would be less than significant, because construction is temporary, the Project would adhere to the City's General Plan policies, and the Developer would adhere to SJVAPCD rules and regulations. However, the IS/MND's evaluation ofthe Project's health risk impacts, as well as the subsequent less-than-significant impact determination, is incorrect for three reasons.

First, the Project proposes the development of industrial land uses, and as such, the Project should not be approved until an HRA is prepared evaluating the potential health risk impacts associated with Project operation. By failing to prepare an operational HRA for nearby, existing sensitive receptors, the Project is inconsistent with recommendations set forth by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment ("0EHHA"), the organization responsible for providing recommendations for health risk assessments in California. In February of 2015, OEHHA released its most recent Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, which was formally adopted in March of 2015.8 This guidance document describes the types of projects that warrant the preparation of a health risk assessment. The OEHHA document recommends that exposure from projects lasting more than 6 months should be evaluated for the duration of the project, and recommends that an exposure duration of 30 years be used to estimate individual cancer risk for the maximally exposed individual resident ("MEIR,,).9 Even though we were not provided with the expected lifetime ofthe Project, we can reasonably assume that the Project will operate for at least 30 years, if not more. Therefore, we recommend that health risk impacts from Project operation should have also been evaluated, as a 30- year exposure duration vastly exceeds the 6-month requirement set forth by OEHHA. These recommendations reflect the most recent health risk policy, and as such, we recommend that an assessment of health risk impacts to nearby sensitive receptors from operation should be included in an air quality impact evaluation for the Project.

Second, simply because the IS/MND claims that construction would be temporary, the Project would adhere to the City's General Plan policies, and the Developer would adhere to SJVAPCD rules and regulations does not justify the omission of a quantified construction HRA. By failing to prepare a construction HRA for nearby, existing sensitive receptors, the Project is inconsistent with recommendations set forth by OEHHA. Construction of the Project will produce emissions of diesel particulate matter ("DPM"), a human carcinogen, through the exhaust stacks of construction equipment. The OEHHA document recommends that all short-term projects lasting at least two months be evaluated for cancer risks to nearby sensitive receptors. 10 Although we were not told the anticipated duration of construction, we can reasonably assume that it will last over two months. Therefore, per 8 "Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments." OEHHA, February 2015, available at: http://oehha.ca.gov/ air/ hotspots/ hotspots2015.html 9 "Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments." OEHHA, February 2015, available at: http://oehha.ca.gov/ air/ hot spots! 201512015GuidanceManual.pdf, p. 8-6, 8-15 10 "Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments." OEHHA, February 2015, available at: http://oehha.ca.gov/ air! hot spots/ 2015/ 2015GuidanceManual.pdf, p. 8-18 5 251
OEHHA guidelines, we recommend that health risk impacts from Project construction should have been evaluated. This recommendation reflects the most recent health risk policy, and as such, we recommend that an assessment of health risk impacts to nearby sensitive receptors from construction and operation should be included in an air quality impact evaluation for the Project.

Third, the Project fails to compare the excess health risk to the SNAPCD's specific numeric threshold of 20 in one million.
ll Thus, it cannot be assumed that the Project would result in a less-than-significant health risk impact, without first quantifying the Project's construction and operational cancer risk to compare to the proper threshold, as recommended by the lead agency for the Project.

Screening-Level Analysis Demonstrates Significant Impacts In an effort to demonstrate the potential health risk posed by Project construction and operation to nearby, existing sensitive receptors, we prepared a simple screening-level HRA. The results of our assessment as described below, demonstrate that the Project may result in a significant impact not previously identified or addressed by the IS/MND.

In order to conduct our screening-level risk assessment we relied upon AERSCREEN, which is a screening level air quality dispersion model.12 The model replaced SCREEN3, and AERSCREEN is included in the OEHHA13 and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Associated ("CAPCOA,,)14 guidance as the appropriate air dispersion model for Level 2 health risk screening assessments ("HRSA(s)"). A Level 2 HRSA utilizes a limited amount of site-specific information to generate maximum reasonable downwind concentrations of air contaminants to which nearby sensitive receptors may be exposed. If an unacceptable air quality hazard is determined to be possible using AERSCREEN, a more refined modeling approach is required prior to approval ofthe Project.

As discussed above, we prepared a CalEEMod model for the Project, using the Project-specific information provided in the IS/MND. Utilizing this model, we prepared a preliminary HRA of the Project's construction-related and operational health risk impacts to residential sensitive receptors using the annual PM10 exhaust estimates from the SWAPE annual CalEEMod output files. Consistent with recommendations set forth by OEHHA, we assumed residential exposure begins during the third trimester stage of life. The Project's construction CalEEMod output files indicate that construction activities will generate approximately 341 pounds of DPM over the default construction period of 846 days. The AERSCREEN model relies on a continuous average emission rate to simulate maximum downward concentrations from point, area, and volume emission sources. To account for the variability in equipment usage and truck trips over Project construction, we calculated an average DPM emission rate by the following equation:
11 "Air Quality Thresholds of Significance - Toxic Air Contaminants." SJVAPCD, available at:
http://www.valleyair.org/transportation/ 0714-GAMAQI-TACs-Thresholds-of-Significance.pdf. 12 U.S. EPA (April 2011) AERSCREEN Released as the EPA Recommended Screening Model, http://www.epa.gov/ ttn/ scram/guidance/ c1arification/ 20110411 AERSCREEN Release Memo.pdf 13 "Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments." OEHHA, February 2015, available at: http://oehha.ca.gov/ air/ hotspots/ hotspots2015.html. 14 CAPCOA (July 2009) Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects, http://www.capcoa.org/wpcontent/ uploads/ 2012/ 03/ CAPCOA HRA LU Guidelines 8-6-09.pdf. 6 252
. . (grams) 341.41bs 453.6 grams 1 day 1 hour
EmlsslOn Rate --d = 846 d x lb x 24 h x 3600 d = 0.00212 Dis secon ays s ours, secon s Using this equation, we estimated a construction emission rate of 0.00212 grams per second (g/s).

Subtracting the 846-day construction duration from the total residential duration of 30 years, we assumed that after Project construction the MEIR would be exposed to the Project's operational DPM for an additional 27.68 years, approximately. The Project's operational CalEEMod emissions indicate that operational activities will generate approximately 434 pounds of DPM per year throughout operation. Applying the same equation used to estimate the construction DPM rate, we estimated the following emission rate for Project operation:
. . (grams) 433.81bs 453.6 grams 1 day 1 hour EmlsslOn Rate --- = x x x - 0 00624 Dis second 365 days lbs 24 hours 3,600 seconds - .

Using this equation, we estimated an operational emission rate of 0.00624 g/s. Construction and operational activity was simulated as a 28.5-acre rectangular area source in AERSCREEN with dimensions of 458 meters by 252 meters. A release height of three meters was selected to represent the height of exhaust stacks on operational equipment and other heavy-duty vehicles, and an initial vertical dimension of one and a half meters was used to simulate instantaneous plume dispersion upon release.

An urban meteorological setting was selected with model-default inputs for wind speed and direction distribution.

The AERSCREEN model generates maximum reasonable estimates of single-hour DPM concentrations from the Project site. EPA guidance suggests that in screening procedures, the annualized average concentration of an air pollutant be estimated by multiplying the single-hour concentration by 10%.15 Review of Google Earth demonstrates that the nearest sensitive receptors are located directly adjacent to the eastern boundary of the Project site. However, review of the AERSCREEN output files demonstrates that the maximally exposed individual resident ("MEIR") is located approximately 250 meters from the Project site. Thus, the maximum single-hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN for Project construction is approximately 9.568 Ilg/m3 DPM at approximately 250 meters downwind.

Multiplying this single-hour concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of

0.09568 Ilg/m3 for Project construction at the maximally exposed sensitive receptor. For Project operation, the Single-hour concentration is estimated by AERSCREEN is approximately 2.817 Ilg/m3 at approximately 250 meters downwind. Multiplying this single-hour concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 0.2817 Ilg/m3 for Project operation at the maximally exposed sensitive receptor.
15 "Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources Revised."EPA, 1992, available at: http://www.epa.gov! ttn! scram!guidance!guide! EPA-454R-92-019 OCR.pdf; see also "Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments." OEHHA, February 2015, available at:
https:l!oehha.ca.gov/ media! downloads! crnr/ 2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 4-36 7 253
We calculated the excess cancer risk to the maximally exposed residential receptors using applicable HRA methodologies prescribed by OEHHA and the SJVAPCD.16 Consistent with the Project's construction schedule, the annualized average concentration for construction was used for the entire third trimester of pregnancy (0.25 years), the entire infantile stage of life (0 - 2 years), and the first 0.07 years of the child stage of life (2 -16 years). The annualized average concentration for operation was used for the remainder ofthe 30-year exposure period, including the remaining 13.93 years ofthe child stage of life and the entire adult stage of life (16 - 30 years).

Consistent with OEHHA, the South Coast air Quality Management District ("SCAQMDn), Bay Area Air Quality Management District ("BAAQMD"), and SJVAPCD guidance, we used Age Sensitivity Factors ("ASF(s)") to account for the heightened susceptibility of young children to the carcinogenic toxicity of air pollution. 17, 18, 19, 20 According to the above-referenced guidance, we recommend that the quantified cancer risk be multiplied by a factor of ten during the third trimester of pregnancy and during the infant stage of life (0 to 2 years) and multiplied by a factor of three during the child stage of life (2 to 16 years).

However, while we recommend this methodology as the most health-protective analysis, we also include the quantified cancer risk without adjusting for the heightened susceptibility of young children to the carcinogenic toxicity of air pollution in accordance with older OEHHA guidance from 2003. This guidance utilizes a less health protective scenario than what is currently recommended by the SJVAPCD, the air quality district responsible for the City, and several other air districts in the state. In order to evaluate impacts most conservatively, we strongly recommend the use of age sensitivity factors as is recommended by the most recent guidance. Furthermore, we used daily breathing rates in accordance with SJVAPCD recommendations. 21 We used a cancer potency factor of 1.1 (mg/kg-dayr1 and an averaging time of 25,550 days. OEHHA and SJVAPCD recommend that a 3D-year exposure duration be 16 "Final Staff Report; Update to District's Risk Management Policy to Address OEHHA's Revised Risk Assessment Guidance Document." SJVUAPCD, May 2015, available at: https://www.valleyair.org/busind/pto/ staff-report-5-28-

15.pdf.
17 "Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments." OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/ media/ downloads/ crnr/2015guidancemanual. pdf. 18 "Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Proposed The Exchange (SCH No. 2018071058)." SCAQMD, March 2019, available at: http://www.agmd.gov/ docs/ default-source/ ceqa/ commentletters/2019/ march/ RVC190115-03.pdf?sfvrsn=8, p. 4. 19 "California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines." BAAQMD, May 2017, available at:
htt //www.baa md. ov media/files/p lannin -and-research ce ce a guidelines may2017-pdf.pdf?la-en, p. 56; see also "Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards." BAAQMD, May 2011, available at:
htt //www.baa md. ov media Files Plannin %20and%20Research CEQAj BAA MD%20Modelin %20App roac h.ashx, p. 65, 86.
20 "Final Staff Report; Update to District's Risk Management Policy to Address OEHHA's Revised Risk Assessment Guidance Document." SJVAPCD, May 2015, p. 8, 20, 24, available at: https:!/www.valleyair.org/busind/pto/ staffreport-5-28-15.Ddf. 21 "Final Staff Report; Update to District's Risk Management Policy to Address OEHHA's Revised Risk Assessment Guidance Document." SJVUAPCD, May 2015, p. 9, available at: https:!/www.valleyair.org/busind/pto/ staff-report5-28-15.pdf. 8 254
used as the basis for estimating cancer risk at the MEIR. 22• 23 Consistent with OEHHA guidance, exposure to the MEIR was assumed to begin in the third trimester of pregnancy to provide the most conservative estimate of air quality hazards. Finally, according to SJVAPCD and OEHHA guidance, we used a Fraction of Time At Home ("FAH") Value of 0.851 for the 3rd trimester and infant receptors, 0.721 for child receptors, and 0.73 for adult receptors. 24 The results of our calculations are shown in the table below.

The Maximally Exposed Individual at an Existing Residential Receptor Breathing Cancer Risk Cancer
Duration Concentration
Activity (years) (ug/m3)
Rate (L/kg- without ASF Risk with
day) ASFs* ASFs*
Construction 0.25 0.09568 361 1.1E-07 10 1.1E-06
3rd Trimester
3rd
Duration

0.25 1.lE-07 Trimester 1.lE-06
Exposure
Construction 2.00 0.09568 1090 2.7E-06 10 2.7E-05
Infant Exposure 2.00 2.7E-06
Infant

2.7E-05
Duration Exposure
Construction 0.07 0.09568 572 4.0E-08 3 1.2E-07
Operation 13.93 0.2817 572 2.4E-05 3 7.3E-05
Child Exposure Child

14.00 2.4E-05 7.3E-05
Duration Exposure
Operation 14.00 0.2817 261 1.1E-05 1 1.1E-05
Adult Exposure Adult

14.00 1.lE-05 1.lE-05
Duration Exposure
Lifetime Exposure 30.00 Lifetime

3.8E-05 1.1E-04
Duration Exposure
As indicated in the table above, the excess cancer risk posed to adults, children, infants, and during the third trimester of pregnancy at the maximally exposed residential receptor, located approximately 250 meters away, over the course of Project construction and operation, utilizing age sensitivity factors, are approximately 11, 73, 27, and 1.1 in one million, respectively. The excess cancer risk over the course of a residential lifetime (30 years) at the maximally exposed residential receptor, utilizing age sensitivity factors, is approximately 110 in one million. The infant, child, adult, and lifetime cancer risks, utilizing age sensitivity factors, exceed the SJVAPCD threshold of 20 in one million, thus resulting in a potentially significant impact not previously addressed or identified by the IS/MND. Utilizing age sensitivity factors 22"Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for preparation of Health Risk Assessments." OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https:U oehha.ca.gov/ media/ downloads/ crnr/ 201sguidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-6. 23 "Final Staff Report; Update to District's Risk Management Policy to Address OEHHA's Revised Risk Assessment Guidance Document." SJVUAPCD, May 2015, p. 7, available at: httos:!lwww.valleyair.org/busind/pto/ staff-reports-28-1S.pdf. 24 "Final Staff Report; Update to District's Risk Management Policy to Address OEHHA's Revised Risk Assessment Guidance Document." SJVAPCD, May 2015, p. 11, available at: https:U www.valleyair.org/busind/pto/ staff-reports-28-1s.pdf. 9 255
is the most conservative, health-protective analysis according to the most recent guidance by OEHHA and recommendations from the air district. Results without age sensitivity factors are presented in the table above, although we do not recommend utilizing these values for health risk analysis. Regardless, the excess cancer risk over the course of a residential lifetime (30 years) at the closest receptor, without age sensitivity factors, is approximately 38 in one million. Thus, the Project may result in a significant impact regardless of the use of age sensitivity factors.

An agency must include an analysis of health risks that connects the Project's air emissions with the health risk posed by those emissions. Our analysis represents a screening-level HRA, which is known to be conservative and tends to err on the side of health protection. The purpose ofthe screening-level construction HRA shown above is to demonstrate the link between the proposed Project's emissions and the potential health risk. Our screening-level HRA demonstrates that construction of the Project could result in a potentially significant health risk impact, when correct exposure assumptions and upto-date, applicable guidance are used. Therefore, since our screening-level construction HRA indicates a potentially significant impact, an EIR should include a reasonable effort to connect the Project's air quality emissions and the potential health risks posed to nearby receptors. Thus, an EIR should include a quantified air pollution model as well as an updated, quantified, refined health risk assessment which adequately and accurately evaluates health risk impacts associated with both Project construction and operation.

Greenhouse Gas
Failure to Evaluate Greenhouse Gas Impacts
The IS/MND concludes that the Project would result in a less-than-significant greenhouse gas ("GHG") impact, claiming that the mitigation measures implemented with respect to the Project's air quality impacts would result in a 31.3% reduction in GHG emissions from the business-as-usual ("BAU") scenario. Specifically, the IS/MND states:
"With the implementation of the following Mitigation Measure and the Mitigation Measures presented in Section 3: Air Quality, the overall annual GHG emissions associated with the Proposed Project would be reduced by 31.3 percent relative to the BAU scenario, consistent with applicable standards and thresholds of a 29 percent reduction. Because the Proposed Project would meet the 29 percent minimum reduction threshold, the Proposed Project would be consistent with the GHG reduction percentage sought by the State's Scoping Plan" (p. 41).

Furthermore, the IS/MND concludes that the Project would result in a less-than-significant greenhouse gas ("GHG") impact based on the implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1, stating:
"[I]mpacts related to GHG emissions and global climate change would be considered Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated with the implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1" (p.41).

Finally, the IS/MND claims that the Project would comply with the current Title 24 energy efficiency standards in order to conclude that the Project would result in a less-than-significant GHG impact (p. 10 256
41). However, the IS/MND's evaluation ofthe Project's potential GHG emissions, as well as the subsequent less-than-significant GHG impact conclusion, is incorrect for three reasons. (1) The IS/MND incorrectly relies on the Title 24 energy efficiency standards; and (2) The IS/MND fails to quantify the Project's greenhouse gas emissions. 1) Incorrect Reliance 011 Title 24
As previously discussed, the IS/MND relies upon the Project's consistency with California's Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings ("Title 24") to conclude that the Project's GHG impact would be less than significant. However, this plan does not qualify as an adequate GHG reduction plan or Climate Action Plan ("CAP") under CEQA. CEQA Guidelines § 15064.4(b)(3) and § 15183(b) allow a lead agency to consider a project's consistency with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions. When read in conjunction, CEQA Guidelines § 15064.4(b)(3) and § 15183.5(b)(1) make clear that qualified GHG reduction plans or CAPs should include the following features:
(1) Inventory: Quantify GHG emissions, both existing and projected over a specified time period, resulting from activities (e.g., projects) within a defined geographic area (e.g., lead agency jurisdiction);
(2) Establish GHG Reduction Goal: Establish a level, based on substantial evidence, below which the contribution to GHG emissions from activities covered by the plan would not be cumulatively considerable;
(3) Analyze Project Types: Identify and analyze the GHG emissions resulting from specific actions or categories of actions anticipated within the geographic area; (4) Craft Performance Based Mitigation Measures: Specify measures or a group of measures, including performance standards, that substantial evidence demonstrates, if implemented on a project-by-project basis, would collectively achieve the specified emissions level; (5) Monitoring: Establish a mechanism to monitor the CAP progress toward achieving said level and to require amendment ifthe plan is not achieving specified levels; Collectively, the above-listed features tie qualitative measures to quantitative results, which in turn become binding via proper monitoring and enforcement by the jurisdiction-all resulting in real GHG reductions for the jurisdiction as a whole, and substantial evidence demonstrating that a project's incremental contribution is not cumulatively considerable. Here, however, the IS/MND fails to demonstrate that this policy includes the above-listed requirements to be considered a qualified GHG Reduction Plan for the City. As such, the IS/MND leaves an analytical gap showing that compliance with said plan can be used for a project-level significance determination. Thus, the IS/MND's GHG analysis regarding Title 24 should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. 2) Failure to Quantify GHG Emissions
As previously stated, the IS/MND concludes that the Project would result in a less-than-significant GHG impact, because the Project's air quality mitigation measures would result in a 31.3% reduction in GHG 11 257
emissions from the BAU scenario. However, the IS/MND's GHG analysis is unsupported, as the IS/MND fails to quantify the Project's GHG emissions. This is incorrect for two reasons.

First, while we agree that the Project's GHG emissions should be evaluated by demonstrating a 29% reduction in GHG emissions from BAU, we cannot verify that the proposed Project's GHG emissions would be reduced by 31.3% reduction in GHG emissions from BAU.2s As such, the IS/MND's claim that the Project would comply with the SJVAPCD's 29% minimum reduction threshold, and the subsequent less-than-significant GHG impact determination should not be relied upon.

Specifically, the IS/MND's failure to quantify the proposed Project's construction and operational GHG emissions is inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines. Specifically, according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4:
"The determination of the significance of greenhouse gas emissions calls for a careful judgment by the lead agency consistent with the provisions in section 15064. A lead agency should make good-faith effort, based on available information, to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project" (emphasis added).

As you can see in the excerpt above, CEQA Guidelines require that a Project "describe, calculate, or estimate" the GHG emissions generated by a Project. Here, by failing to quantify the Project's GHG emissions, the IS/MND is inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines, and the IS/MND's less-than-significant GHG impact determination should not be relied upon.

Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions Our analysis demonstrates that the Project's air quality, health risk, and GHG emissions may result in significant impacts and may mitigated further. In an effort to reduce the Project's emissions, we identified several mitigation measures that are applicable to the proposed Project. Feasible mitigation measures can be found in CAPCOA's Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures. 26 Therefore, to reduce the Project's emissions, consideration ofthe following measures should be made:

CAPCOA'sQuonfl/Ying 6fftnhouse 60$ Mlti,,,,'on Meosuru17 Measures - Energy
Building Energy Use
Install Programmable Thermostat Timers
Obtain Third-party HVAC Commissioning and Verification of Energy Savings 25 "Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): Land Use Development Projects" San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, available at:
http://www.valleyair.org/Programs/ CCAP/ bps/ Fact Sheet Development Sources.pdf. 26 http://www . ca pcoa. org/wp-content/ upl oads/2010/ 11/ CAPCOA-Quantification -Report -9-14-Fi na I. pdf 27 "Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures." California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), August 2010, available at: http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/ 201O/ ll/ CAPCOAQuantification-Report-9-14-Final.pdf, p. 12 258
Install Energy Efficient Appliances
Install Energy Efficient Boilers
Lighting
Limit Outdoor Lighting Requirements
Replace Traffic Lights with LED Traffic Lights
Alternative Energy Generation
Establish Onsite Renewable or Carbon-Neutral Energy Systems Establish Onsite Renewable Energy System - Solar Power
Establish Onsite Renewable Energy System - Wind Power
Utilize a Combined Heat and Power System
Establish Methane Recovery in Landfills
Establish Methane Recovery in Wastewater Treatment Plants Measures - Transportation
Land Use/Location
Increase Density
Increase Location Efficiency
Increase Diversity of Urban and Suburban Developments (Mixed Use) Increase Destination Accessibility
Integrate Affordable and Below Market Rate Housing
Orient Project Toward Non-Auto Corridor
Locate Project near Bike Path/Bike Lane
Neighborhood/Site Enhancements
Provide Pedestrian Network Improvements, such as:
• Compact, mixed-use communities
• Narrower roadways and shorter block lengths
• Sidewalks
• Accessibility to transit and transit shelters
• Traffic calming measures and street trees
• Parks and public spaces
• Minimize pedestrian barriers
Provide Traffic Calming Measures, such as:
• Marked crosswalks
• Count-down signal timers
• Curb extensions
• Speed tables
• Raised crosswalks
• Raised intersections
• Median islands
• Tight corner radii
• Roundabouts or mini-circles
13 259
• On-street parking
• Planter strips with trees
• Chicanes/chokers
Implement a Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (NEV) Network.

Create Urban Non-Motorized Zones
Incorporate Bike Lane Street Design (on-site)
Provide Bike Parking in Non-Residential Projects
Provide Bike Parking with Multi-Unit Residential Projects Provide Electric Vehicle Parking
Dedicate Land for Bike Trails
Parking Policy/Pricing
Limit Parking Supply through:
• Elimination (or reduction) of minimum parking requirements • Creation of maximum parking requirements
• Provision of shared parking
Unbundle Parking Costs from Property Cost
Implement Market Price Public Parking (On-Street)
Require Residential Area Parking Permits
Commute Trip Reduction Programs
Implement Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Program - Voluntary • Carpooling encouragement
• Ride-matching assistance
• Preferential carpool parking
• Flexible work schedules for carpools
• Half time transportation coordinator
• Van pool assistance
• Bicycle end-trip facilities (parking, showers and lockers) • New employee orientation of trip reduction and alternative mode options • Event promotions and publications
• Flexible work schedule for employees
• Transit subsidies
• Parking cash-out or priced parking
• Shuttles
• Emergency ride home
Implement Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Program - Required Implementation/Monitoring • Established performance standards (e.g. trip reduction requirements) • Required implementation
• Regular monitoring and reporting
Provide Ride-Sharing Programs
• Designate a certain percentage of parking spaces for ride sharing vehicles • Designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for ride-sharing vehicles 14 260
• Providing a web site or messaging board for coordinating rides • Permanent transportation management association membership and funding requirement.

Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program
Provide Ent of Trip Facilities, including:
• Showers
• Secure bicycle lockers
• Changing spaces
Encourage Telecommuting and Alternative Work Schedules, such as:
• Staggered starting times
• Flexible schedules
• Compressed work weeks
Implement Commute Trip Reduction Marketing, such as:
• New employee orientation of trip reduction and alternative mode options • Event promotions
• Publications
Implement Preferential Parking Permit Program
Implement Car-Sharing Program
Implement School Pool Program
Provide Employer-Sponsored Vanpool!Shuttle
Implement Bike-Sharing Programs
Implement School Bus Program
Price Workplace Parking, such as:
• Explicitly charging for parking for its employees;
• Implementing above market rate pricing;
• Validating parking only for invited guests;
• Not providing employee parking and transportation allowances; and • Educating employees about available alternatives.

Implement Employee Parking "Cash-Out"
Transit System Improvements
Transit System Improvements, including:
• Grade-separated right-of-way, including bus only lanes (for buses, emergency vehicles, and sometimes taxis), and other Transit Priority measures. Some systems use guideways which automatically steer the bus on portions of the route.
• Frequent, high-capacity service
• High-quality vehicles that are easy to board, quiet, clean, and comfortable to ride. • Pre-paid fare collection to minimize boarding delays. • Integrated fare systems, allowing free or discounted transfers between routes and modes. • Convenient user information and marketing programs.
• High quality bus stations with Transit Oriented Development in nearby areas. • Modal integration, with BRT service coordinated with walking and cycling facilities, taxi services, intercity bus, rail transit, and other transportation services. 15 261
Implement Transit Access Improvements, such as:
• Sidewalk/crosswalk safety enhancements
• Bus shelter improvements
Expand Transit Network
Increase Transit Service Frequency/Speed
Provide Bike Parking Near Transit ,
Provide Local Shuttles
Road Pricing/Management
Implement Area or Cordon Pricing
Improve Traffic Flow, such as:
• Signalization improvements to reduce delay;
• Incident management to increase response time to breakdowns and collisions; • Intelligent Transportation Systems {ITS) to provide real-time information regarding road conditions and directions; and
• Speed management to reduce high free-flow speeds.

Required Project Contributions to Transportation Infrastructure Improvement Projects Install Park-and-Ride Lots
Vehicles
Electrify Loading Docs and/or Require Idling-Reduction Systems Utilize Alternative Fueled Vehicles, such as:
• Biodiesel (B20)
• Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)
• Compressed Natural Gas (eNG)
Utilize Electric or Hybrid Vehicles
Measures - Water
Water Supply
Use Reclaimed Water
Use Gray Water
Use Locally Sourced Water Supply
Water Use
Adopt a Water Conservation strategy
Design Water-Efficient Landscapes (see California Department of Water Resources Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance), such as:
• Reducing lawn sizes;
• Planting vegetation with minimal water needs, such as native species; • Choosing vegetation appropriate for the climate of the project site; • Choosing complimentary plants with similar water needs or which can provide each other with shade and/or water.
16 262
Reduce Turf in Landscapes and Lawns
Plant Native or Drought-Resistant Trees and Vegetation
Measures - Area Landscaping
Landscaping Equipment
Prohibit Gas Powered Landscape Equipment
Implement Lawnmower Exchange Program
Electric Yard Equipment Compatibility
Measures - Solid Waste
Solid Waste
Institute Recycling and Composting Services
Recycle Demolished Construction Material
Measures - Vegetation
Vegetation
Urban Tree Planting
Create New Vegetated Open Space
Measures - Construction
Construction
Use Alternative Fuels for Construction Equipment
Urban Tree Planting
Use Electric and Hybrid Construction Equipment
Limit Construction Equipment Idling Beyond Regulation Requirements Institute a Heavy-Duty Off-Road Vehicle Plan, including:
• Construction vehicle inventory tracking system;
• Requiring hour meters on equipment;
• Document the serial number, horsepower, manufacture age, fuel, etc. of all onsite equipment; and
• Daily logging ofthe operating hours ofthe equipment.

Implement a Construction Vehicle Inventory Tracking System Measures - Miscellaneous
Miscellaneous
Establish a Carbon Sequestration Project, such as:
• Geologic sequestration or carbon capture and storage techniques, in which CO2 from point sources is captured and injected underground;
• Terrestrial sequestration in which ecosystems are established or preserved to serve as CO2 sinks; • Novel techniques involving advanced chemical or biological pathways; or • Technologies yet to be discovered.

Establish Off-Site Mitigation
Use Local and Sustainable Building Materials
17 263
Require best Management Practices in Agriculture and Animal Operations Require Environmentally Responsible Purchasing, such as:
• Purchasing products with sustainable packaging;
• Purchasing post-consumer recycled copier paper, paper towels, and stationary; • Purchasing and stocking communal kitchens with reusable dishes and utensils; • Choosing sustainable cleaning supplies;
• Leasing equipment from manufacturers who will recycle the components at their end of life; • Choosing ENERGY STAR appliances and Water Sense-certified waterfixtures; • Choosing electronic appliances with built in sleep-mode timers; • Purchasing 'green power' (e.g. electricity generated from renewable or hydropower) from the utility; and
• Choosing locally-made and distributed products.

Implement an Innovative Strategy for GHG Mitigation
Measures - General Plans
General Plans
Fund Incentives for Energy Efficiency, such as:
• Retrofitting or designing new buildings, parking lots, streets, and public areas with energyefficient lighting; • Retrofitting or designing new buildings with low-flow water fixtures and high-efficiency appliances;
• Retrofitting or purchasing new low-emissions equipment; • Purchasing electric or hybrid vehicles;
• Investing in renewable energy systems
Establish a Local Farmer's Market
Establish Community Gardens
Plant Urban Shade Trees
Implement Strategies to Reduce Urban Heat-Island Effect, such as:
• Planting urban shade trees;
• Installing reflective roofs; and
• Using light-colored or high-albedo pavements and surfaces.

Furthermore, in an effort to reduce the Project's emissions, we identified several mitigation measures that are applicable to the proposed Project from NEDC's Diesel Emission Controls in Construction Projects. 28 Therefore, to reduce the Project's emissions, consideration ofthe following measures should be made:
28 "Diesel Emission Controls in Construction Projects." Northeast Diesel Collaborative (NEDC), December 2010, available at: https:/ /www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/201S-09/documents/nedc-model-contractsepcification.pdf. 18 264
a. Diesel Onroad Vehicles
All diesel nonroad vehicles on site for more than 10 total days must have either (1) engines that meet EPA onroad emissions standards or (2) emission control technology verified by EPA or CARB to reduce PM emissions a minimum of 85%.
b. Diesel Generators
All diesel generators on site for more than 10 total days must be equipped with emission control technology verified EPA or CARB to reduce PM emissions a minimum of 85%. c. Diesel Nonroad Construction Equipment
i. All non road diesel engines on site must be Tier 2 or higher. Tier 0 and Tier 1 engines are not allowed on site
ii. All diesel nonroad construction equipment on site for more than 10 total days must have either (1) engines meeting EPA Tier 4 nonroad emission standards or (2) emission control technology verified by EPA or CARB for use with nonroad engines to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85% for engines 50hp and and by a minimum of 20% for nes less than SOh
d. Upon confirming that the diesel vehicle, construction equipment, or generator has either an engine meeting Tier 4 non road emission standards or emission control technology, as specified above, installed and functioning, the developer will issue a compliance sticker. All diesel vehicles, construction equipment, and generators on site shall display the compliance sticker in a visible, external location as des nated the develo r.
e. Emission control technology shall be operated, maintained, and serviced as recommended by the emission control techno manufacturer.
f. All diesel vehicles, construction equipment, and generators on site shall be fueled with ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel (ULSD) or a biodiesel blend30 approved by the original engine manufacturer with sulfur content of 15
a. Construction shall not proceed until the contractor submits a certified list of all diesel vehicles, construction equipment, and generators to be used on site. The list shall include the following:
i. Contractor and subcontractor name and address, plus contact person responsible for the vehicles or equipment.
ii. Equipment type, equipment manufacturer, equipment serial number, engine manufacturer, engine model year, engine certification (Tier rating), horsepower, engine serial number, and expected fuel usage and hours of operation.
iii. For the emission control technology installed: technology type, serial number, make, model, manufacturer, EPA/CARB verification number/level, and installation date and hour-meter reading on installation date.
29 "Diesel Emission Controls in Construction Projects." Northeast Diesel Collaborative (NEDC), December 2010, available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/ productionlfiles/ 2015-09/documents/ nedc-model-contractsepcification. pdf. 30 Biodiesel blends are only to be used in conjunction with the technologies which have been verified for use with biodiesel blends and are subject to the following requirements:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/ reg/biodieselcompliance.pdf. 19 265
b. If the contractor subsequently needs to bring on site equipment not on the list, the contractor shall submit written notification within 24 hours that attests the equipment complies with all contract conditions and provide information.
c. All diesel equipment shall comply with all pertinent local, state, and federal regulations relative to exhaust emission controls and safety.
d. The contractor shall establish generator sites and truck-staging zones for vehicles waiting to load or unload material on site. Such zones shall be located where diesel emissions have the least impact on abutters, the general public, and especially sensitive receptors such as hospitals, schools, daycare facilities, elderly housing, and convalescent facilities.

Reporting
a. For each onroad diesel vehicle, nonroad construction equipment, or generator, the contractor shall submit to the developer's representative a report prior to bringing said equipment on site that includes:
i. Equipment type, equipment manufacturer, equipment serial number, engine manufacturer, engine model year, engine certification (Tier rating), horsepower, and engine serial number. ii. The type of emission control technology installed, serial number, make, model, manufacturer, and EPA/CARB verification number/level. ...

III . The Certification Statement signed and printed on the contractor's letterhead . b. The contractor shall submit to the developer's representative a monthly report that, for each onroad diesel vehicle, nonroad construction equipment, or generator onsite, includes:
i. Hour-meter readings on arrival on-site, the first and last day of every month, and on off-site date. ii. Any problems with the equipment or emission controls. iii. Certified copies of fuel deliveries for the time period that identify:

1. Source of supply

2. Quantity of fuel

3. Quality of fuel,including sulfur content (percent by weight) These measures offer a cost-effective, feasible way to incorporate lower-emitting design features into the proposed Project, which subsequently, reduce emissions released during Project construction and operation. An EIR should be prepared to include all feasible mitigation measures, as well as include an updated health risk and GHG analysis to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are implemented to reduce emissions to below thresholds. The EIR should also demonstrate a commitment to the implementation of these measures prior to Project approval, to ensure that the Project's significant emissions are reduced to the maximum extent possible.

Disclaimer
SWAPE has received limited discovery regarding this project. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties.
20 266
Sincerely,
I }
Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
21 267

THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
268
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 1 of 36 Date: 11/11/20205:16 PM AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County. Annual

1.0 Project Characteristics

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses J Size
General Light Industry 1.241.46

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (mls)
Climate Zone 3
Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company
C02 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
641.35 CH4 Intensity
(lblMWhr)

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - 28.5 acres = 1.241,460-SF.

Table Name Column Name

2.0 Emissions Summary
AMG Industrial Annexation
Merced County, Annual
J " Metric
1000sqft
I Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area _1

28.50 1.241,460.00

2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 49

0.029
Operational Year
N20 Intensity
(lblMWhr)
Default Value
2022

0.006
New Value
Population
o
269
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 2 of 36 Date: 11/11/20205:16 PM

2.1 Overall Construction
Unmitigated Construction
ROG
Year
AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County. Annual
PM2.5
Tota l
C02e
2020 0.0389 0.3824 0.2559' 4.6000e- • 1.3800e-· 0.0191 0.0205' 3.7000e-· 0.0177 0.01 81 II 0.0000 • 40.3501 • 40.3501 • 0.0111 0.0000' 40.6270 • 004 • 003 • • 004 • I .: : •• I I I I • I I I I , • I • I I --.--------.-------~-------~-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------~-------I-------,-------,-------,-------T------- 2021 0.6003 5.4746 4.5068 0.0138 0.9009 0.1707 1.0716 0.3228 0.1592 0.4819 II 0.0000 '1.255.731' 1.255.731 I 0.1674 0.0000' 1.259.915 , I 5 : 5 : • 2 _. , I I I I , I I I , , I I I I -----------.-------,-------,-------,-------,-------T--- ----,-------~------,-------~-------~-------I-------T-------~------T_------T------- 2022 0.5546 4.8510 4.4607 0.01 56 0.6906 0.1155 0.8061 0.1875 0.1086 0.2961 II 0.0000 .1,424.935 I 1,424.935 I 0.1498 0.0000' 1.428.679 :: , 1 9 • 9 • • 8 _. I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I -----------.-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------T-------,-------~-------~-------.-------,_------~------~------T------- 2023 8.6552 I 0.1599 0.2718 I 4.9000e- I 0.0161 I 7.9900e- I 0.0241 4.2700e- I 7.4500e- I 0.0117 I 0.0000 • 43.6757 I 43.6757 I 9.0300e- I 0.0000 • 43.9015 004 003 003 003 I 003 I
Maximum 1,428.679
8 270
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 3 of 36 Date: 11/11/20205:16 PM AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County, Annual

2.1 Overall Construction
Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx co
J
Year
So.2 Fugitive
. PM10
Exhaust
PM10
tons/yr
PM10
. Total
Fugitive
PM2.S
Exhaust
·PM2.S
PM2.5
Total
BIo- Co.2 . NBio- Co.21 Totai CO.2 I
MT/yr
CH4 1 N2o. I C02e
2020 0.0389 0.3824 0.2559' 4.6000e- , 1.3800e-' 0.0191 0.0205' 3.7000e-' 0.0177 0.0181! 0.0000 • 40.3500 • 40,3500 • 0,0111 0,0000' 40.6270 '004:003: '004' i I I I :
., I I , t I I I I I I • I I I I
-------.---.-------.,-------.,-------.,-------,-------.,-- -----,-------,-------,-------T-------~---·---I-------,-------,-------,-------~------- 2021 0.6003 5.4746 4.5068 0.0138 0.9009 0.1707 1.0716 0.3228 0.1592 0.4819! 0.0000 • 1,255,731 ' 1,255.731' 0.1674 ' 0.0000 • 1,259.914 i : 1 I 1 I • 8 • • • • I • • • I I • , • I I I •
.. .. .. ................ n-------.,-------,-------.,-------...-------,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------T-------.............. .. ~------.,-------.,-------.,-------~ ........ .. .. _I 2022 0.5546 4,8510 4.4607 0.0156 0.6906 0.1155 0,8061 0.1875 0.1086 0,2961! 0.0000 • 1,424,935 ' 1,424,935' 0.1498 ' 0.0000 • 1,428.679 i I 5 I 5 I I 5 •• I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I
-----------.-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-- -----.,-------~-------~-------T-------~-------I-------~-------~-------~-------~------- 2023 8.6552 0.1599 0.2718' 4.9000e· 0.0161 I 7.9900e- 0.0241' 4,2700e- I 7.4500e- I 0.0117 i 0.0000 43.6757' 43.6757 ' 9.0300e- ' 0.0000 ' 43.9015 004 003 003 003 ~ 003 , Maximum 8.6552 I 5.4746 4.5068 I 0.0156 0.9009 0.1707 1.0716 0.3228 0.1592 0.4819 0.0000 1.42:.9351 1.42:.935 1 0.1674 1 0.0000 1 1,42:.679 ' ROG NOx · CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.S Bio-C02 NBio-C02 Total CO2 CH4 N20 C02e PM10 PM10· Total ' PM2.5 PM2.5 · Total
Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction
Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG+ NOX (tons/quarter) . . . 1 12-1-2020 2-28-2021 1.3497 1,3497
2 3-1-2021 5-31-2021 1.5867 1.5867
3 6-1-2021 8-31-2021 1.5161 1.5161
4 9-1-2021 11-30-2021 1,5064 1,5064
5 12-1-2021 2-28-2022 1.4170 1.4170
6 3-1-2022 5-31-2022 1.4020 1.4020
7 6-1-2022 8-31-2022 1.3992 1.3992
8 9-1-2022 11-30-2022 1.3896 1.3896
271
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 4 of 36 Date: 11/11/20205:16 PM AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County, Annual
9 12-1-2022 2-28-2023 4.3853 4.3853
10 3-1-2023 5-31-2023 4.7767 4.7767
Highest 4.7767 4.7767

2.2 Overall Operational
Unmitigated Operational
Category
Area
ROG NOx I co S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10
PM10 PM10 Total '
tons/yr
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
8io- C02 I NBio- C02 I Total C02 CH4 N20 I C02e
MT/yr

5.7127 '1.0000e- I 0.0114 0.0000 ' 4.0000e- , 4.0000e- I I 4.0000e- , 4.0000e- ',0.0000 0.0222 0.0222' 6.0000e- I 0.0000 0.0237 , 004 I : 005 : 005 I : 005 : 005 , ' 005 : •• I I , I I I I r I , • I I I I ----------.-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-- -----,-------,-------,-------~-------~-------I-------,-------,-------,-------T ------ Energy·· 0.1397 1.2701 1.0669' 7.6200e- I 0.0965 0.0965 0.0965 0.0965 'I 0.0000 • 4.568.004 ' 4,568.004' 0.1705 0.0552' 4,588.701 •. : 003 I , : 0 I 0 I • 5 •• I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I
-----------.-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-- -----,-------,-------,-------T-------~-------~------T_------,-------,-------T------- Mobile 2.6665 ' 33.1024 I 26.4345 '0,1361 7.3076' 0.1204 I 7.4279 1.9690' 0.11 38 I 2.0828 'I 0.0000 • 12,683.67 ' 12,683.67' 1.1211 0.0000' 12,71 1.70 I I , I • 48 ' 48 I I 18 _. I I • I I I I I I , , I I I I .................. ...... -------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------..-------.,-------.. -------.,-------..... -------.. - - - - - ...... ,-------.,-------...-------.,-------T - ............. _1 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000! 312.4863 : 0.0000 : 312.4863 : 18.4674 : 0.0000 : 774.1716 I , •• I I • I • I I • I , • I I I I
.................. - .......... -------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------..... -------.. _ ............ -I-------.,-------.. -------.,-------T ........... - __ I Water "0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 O.OOOO! 91.0797 • 451.9109 I 542.9906 9.3752 0.2251' 844.4542 , I
Total 8,5189 34.3725 t:J 0.1437 7.3076 1: :J 7.5245 1.9690 0.2104 j 2.1794 403.5660 17.703.61j 18,107.17 19 78

29.1343 0.2803 1 18,919.05 l 28
272
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2

2.2 Overall Operational
Mitigated Operational
ROG NOx J . Category
Co I S02

AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County, Annual
Bio- C02 I NBio- C02 I Total C02 I CH4 N20 I C02e Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
tons/yr MT/yr

5.7127 '1.0000e-' 0.0114 0.0000 ' 4.0000e- , 4.0000e- , , 4.0000e- , 4.0000e- ~ 0.0000 0.0222 0.0222' 6.0000e-' 0.0000 0.0237 : 004 : : 005 : 005: : 005 : 005 I : 005 :

Area
•• I I I I I I I I I & I I I I I .................... -.-------..,-------.,-------.,-------"'1-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------T-------"" .............. I _______ ., _______ ., _______ ., _______ ~ .............. I Energy 0.1397 1.2701' 1.0669 '7.6200e-' 0.0965 0.0965 0.0965 0.0965 II 0.0000 '4,568.004' 4,568.004' 0.1705 0.0552' 4,588.701 , 003 ' I '0' 0 : ' 5 •• I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I
----.------.-------T-------~------~------T_------T_------T-------.,-------.,-------T-------"" ........ ---I-------T-------.,-------T-------~---- .. - Mobile ., 2.6665 ' 33.1024 ' 26.4345 ' 0.1361 ' 7.3076 '0.1204 7.4279 1.9690 0.1138 2.0828 II 0.0000 • 12,683.67' 12,683.67' 1.1211 0.0000' 12,711 .70 ., • I • & I 48 I 48 I I 18 •• I I I I I I I I I , t I I I I
.................. --.-------T-------..,-------T-------T-------.,-------T-------.,-------.,-------"T"-------"" .. -.... ---,-------~-------,-------,-------~------ Waste ' 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ~ 312.4863: 0.0000 : 312.4863: 18.4674 : 0.0000 : 774.1716 I I
•• I I I I I I I , I & • I 1 I I
-----------.-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------T-------~-------I-------,-------,-------,-------~------ Water " "0.0000 0,0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 I 91.0797 • 451 .9109 ' 542.9906' 9.3752 0,2251' 844.4542 I
I
Total 8,5189 I 34.3725127,5128 \ 0,1437,7,3076 1_0_2169 7.524511 ().21~4 f 2_1794 1 403.5660 1 17,7 1 0;.61 18'~0;'17 29.1343 1 0,2803 18'92~9.05
Percent
Reduction
ROG
0,00

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
NOx co
0,00 0,00
S02 Fugitive Exhaust
PM10 PM10 .'

0.00 0.00 0.00
PM10
Total
0,00
Fugitive I Exhaust
PM2.5 PM2.S

0.00 0.00
PM2_5
Total
0,00
Bio- C02 I NBio-C02 l Total C02 CH4 N20 C02e

0.00 0.00 0,00 0,00 0.00 0_00
273
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2
Phase 1 Number"
Phase Name 1 Phase Type

AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County, Annual
Start Date . End Date Num Days I Num Days
Week
: Demolition : Demolition : 12/1/2020 : 111112021 5: 30:

Date: 11/11/20205:16 PM
Phase Description
-..... -~-------- ... ---- --------- :-----------------------1--~---------~------------~--------4--------+------- ------------------ 2 : Site Preparation : Site Preparation : 1112/2021 : 218/2021 : 5: 20:
-------~---------------- ------- -:-----------------------1------------~------------~--------4--------~------- --------- -------- 3 :Grading :Grading : 2/9/2021 : 4/12/2021 : 5: 45:
-------1------------------------1--------------------- --1------------~------------4--------4--------~------- ------------------ 4 : Building Construction : Building Construction : 4/13/2021 : 12/19/2022: 5: 440:
-------I---------------- ----- -- :---~-------------------1------------~------------4--------4--------~------- ---- ... --------.. - 5 : Paving : Paving : 12120/2022 : 2/6/2023 : 5: 35:
-------~-.------------------ .--. ~----------------------~-----------~------------~--------~--------~--------- ---------------- 6 :Architectural Coating :Architectural Coating : 21712023 : 3/27/2023 5: 35:

Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5
Acres of Paving: 0
Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 1,862,190; Non-Residential Outdoor: 620,730; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating - sqft)
Off Road Equipment
274
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 36 Date: 11/11/20205:16 PM AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County. Annual
' Phase Name 1 Offroad Equipment Type I Amount Usage Hours I Horse powal Load Factor Architectural Coating "Air Compressors 1 i 6.00' 78' 0.48 ....................................................... .. :. - - - - ------ - - - - - - -.................. ~ ----------------~ .......................... ~ .... --------.. -... --.... ---------~ .......................... .. Demolition "Excavators , 31 8.00' 158' 0.38 ---------- -.. ----------------:------------------------- --~----------------~-------------~- -----------~--- -- --- ---- Demolition "Concrete/Industrial Saws' 11 8.00' 8" 0.73 • I = I I ...................................................... .. :- .................................................... ~ - - .... - - - - - - - .... - - -..; .......................... ~--.... -----.. --... -----.. ----I- .......................... ..

Grading : Excavators : 2; 8.00: 158: 0.38
----- .......... _-----------------1------------------------- --~----------------~-------------~-------------~----.- -------- Building Construction :Cranes : 11 7.00: 231: 0.29 ----------------------------:---------------------------~----------------i-------------~-------------~-------------- Building Construction : Forklifts : 31 8.00: 89: 0.20 ........................... - - - ... - - - .. - .. 1- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -t--- - - - - - ---------i---......... -............•.. ---.. -.--... --.. ---.~ ... -.. -........ . Building Construction :Generator Sets : '1 8.00: 84: 0.74 -------- -------------------~--------------------------~----------------i---·---------~-------------~------ ------- Paving : Pavers : 2; 8.00: 130: 0.42 ------···-----..... -.. ------- .. --1------------------------- --t-----------------~---- ... -......... ----~-------------~- ........ --- ... --- .. Paving 'Rollers ' 21 8.00' 80' 0.38 • I I I I -------- ...... -------------··--1------------------------- --t-----------------~ .. -- ... -.. -........ --~-------------~----- .. . -- .. ---- Demolition "Rubber Tired Dozers ' 21 8.00' 247' 0.40 • I I I I ----------------------------~--------------------------~----------------i---·-------·-~-------------~-------------- Grading : Rubber Tired Dozers : 1 1 8.00: 247: 0.40 ---···--··--.. -- .. ---··· ........ --1---------------------------t-----------------,------------.. t_-------------~ .... ---- --- -.... -.. Building Construction :Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes: 3 i 7.00: 97: 0.37 ·-------.. --- .. -.... ····· .... -.. -.. -1------------------------- --t-----------------~-------------t_-------------~ .... -- .. -.. ------ .. Grading "Graders ' 1! 8.00' 187' 0.41 • I I I I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- - - - - -:-- -.. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -... - -~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -i - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~----------- -----------~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Grading :Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes: 21 8.00: 97: 0.37 -- --- -- --------------------:---------------------------~----------------~--- ---------~------ ------~-------------- Paving "Paving Equipment ' 2i 8.00' 132' 0.36 • I I I I - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -:-- - -- - -- - - - - - - - - - -- -- - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - ------i-- - - -- - - - - - - - ~------------- -----------~ - - - -- - - - --- - - - Site Preparation : Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes : 41 8.00: 97: 0.37 -...... .. -...... ----------------·--1------------------------- --t------------ ----~- .... -----... -.. -.. t_-------------~------ -------- Site Preparation "Rubber Tired Dozers ' 31 8.00' 247' 0.40 • I I I I --- ............ --- ...... ----- ...... -.... --1------------------------- --t------ ----------~---- .... -------~-------------~- .. -- .. --------- Grading "Scrapers ' 21 8.00' 367' 0.48 • I I I I .. -- ............ --------.. -.. -........ -~--------------------------~----------------4_------------~-------------~----- .... --.... --- Building Construction :Welders 1 : 8.00: 46: 0.45 Trips and VMT
275
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 8 of 36 Date: 11/11/20205:16 PM AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County, Annual
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip I Hauling Trip
Number' Number
Worker Trip
- length '
'VendorTrip
length
Hauling Trip
length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor I Hauling
Vehicle Class Vehicle Class
Demolition. 6: 15.00: 0.00: 0,00: 10.80: 7.30: 20.00:LD_Mix :HDT_Mix :HHDT ................ :---------------.... ----------; ....... ... ~- ---------I-----------I-----------l----------1- -------------1-· --------.j. •••••••••• Site Preparation: 7: 18.00: 0.00: 0,00: 10.80: 7.30: 20.00:lD_Mix :HDT_Mix :HHDT ........ -... -... :---------------1-----------; ..... ..... ~- ---------1-----------1-----------1------ - - --1- - - - - - - - - - - - --1- .. - - - - - -- .j. •••• • - ••• - Grading : 8: 20.00: 0.00: 0,00: 10,80: 7.30: 20,00:LO_Mix :HDT_Mix :HHDT ................ :---------------1-----------: .......... ~- ---------I-----------I-----------l--- -------1- -------------1- ---------.j. •••••••••• Building Construction: 9: 521.00: 203.00: 0,00: 10.80: 7.30: 20.00:lD_Mix :HDT_Mix :HHDT ................ :---------------1-----------: .......... ~- ---------I-----------I-----------l----------1- -------------1- ---------.j. •••••••••• Paving : 6: 15,00: 0,00: 0,00: 10.80: 7.30: 20,00:lD_Mix :HDT_Mix :HHDT -- .. ------------~--------------~----------~---------~---------~----------~----------~---------~-------------~---------~---------- Architectural Coating : 1: 104,00: 0.00: 0,00: 10,80: 7,30: 20,00:lD_Mix :HDT_Mix :HHDT

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction

3.2 Demolition - 2020
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG
Category
Off-Road .. 0.0381 . 0.3818 . 0.2502 ..
.. Total
• 4.5000e- •
004
.

PM2.5
Total

0.0191 I 0.0191 I 0.0177 . 0.0177 0.0000 • 39.0984 • 39,0984 • 0.0110 I 0.0000 C02e
• 39.3743

39.3743
276
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 9 of 36 Date: 11/11/20205:16 PM

3.2 Demolition - 2020
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx J co
. Category
J
AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County, Annual
S02 Fugitive PM10
PM10 Total
tons/yr
Fugitive
PM2.S PM2.S Total
Exhaust J PM2.S Bio- C02 I NBio- C02 I Total ~02 1
MT/yr
CH4 N20 C02e
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I _. I I I I I I I I I , • I I I I
.. ....................... -------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------"T"-------"* ............. -.-------.,-------.,-------.,-------T ............ .. I Vendor 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I _. I I I I I I 1 I I , I I r , I
-----------.-------~------.,-------~------T-------T_------.,-------.,-------.,-------"T"------- .. -------~------T_------.,-------.,-------~------- Worker 7.9000e· I 5.6000e- I 5.7500e- 1.0000e- I 1.3800e- I 1.0000e- I 1.3900e- I 3.7000e- I 1.0000e- I 3.8000e- : 0.0000 1.2517 I 1.2517 I 4.0oooe- I 0.0000 1.2527 _~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ - I
Total 7.9000e004

5.6000e- 1.3900e004 003
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG
Category
Off-Road ., 0.0381 0.3818 I 0.2502 4.5000e- 0.0191 0.01 91 004
Total

3.7000e004
I

1.0000e-j 005

0.0177 I

3.S000e004
PM2.5
Total

0.0177

0.0000 1.2517 j 1.2517 1

4.ooooe- 1
005

0.0000 1.2527
Bio- CO2 C02e

0.0000 39.0984 I 39.0984 0.0110 0.0000 I 39.3743

39.3743
1 277
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 10 of 36 Date: 11/11/20205:16 PM

3.2 Demolition - 2020
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County, Annual
RaG NOx 1 co J S02 Fugitive J Exhaust
PM10 ' PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Exhaust 1 PM2,5 Bio- C02 I NBio- C02 I Total C02 CH4 N20 I C02e Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 t 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 , •• I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I -----------~-------~-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------T-------~-------I-------,-------,-------,-------T ------ Vendor 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 0,0000 0.0000 , _. I t I I I I I I I , I I I I I -----------~-------,-------,-------,-------,_------,-------,-------,-------,-------T-------~-------I-------,-------,-------,-------T------- Worker •• 7.9000e- 5.6000e- · 5,7500e- • 1.0000e- • 1.3800e- • 1,0000e- • 1.3900e- ' 3.7000e- 1.0000e-· 3,8000e- t 0,0000 1.2517 1.2517' 4.oo00e-' 0.0000 1.2527 M~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~
Total 7.9000e004 004 003 005

5.6OOOe- 1 5.7500e- I ,·ooooe3.2 Demolition - 2021
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
RaG
Category
Off-Road .. 0.0111 . 0,1100 0,0755 1.4000e004
Total
'.3800e- I 1.0000e003 1 005

1.3900e003
• 5,4300e- , 5.4300e- ,
003 003

3.7oo0e004

1.0000e- I 3_8000e005 1 004
PM2.5
Total

5.04ooe- 5,0400e003 003
,

0.0000
Bio- CO2
0,0000 .

1.2517 t:J 4_00ooe005
11 .9003 • 11 .9003 I 3.3500e- I
003

0.0000 J 1.2527
C02e
0,0000 I 11.9840
"_9840
278
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 11 of 36 Date: 11/11/20205:16 PM

3.2 Demolition - 2021
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County, Annual
ROG NOx I CO Bio- C02 I NBio- C02 Total C02 1 CH4 -1 N20 1 C02e I S02 Fugitive Exhaust . PM10 Fugitive I Exhaust 1 PM2.S PM10 PM10 Total PM2.S PM2.5 Total
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 , •• I I I I I I I • I , • I • • I --.--------~-------~-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------T-------~-------I-------,-------,-------,-------T------- Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 , •• I I I I I I I I I , • I • I I -----------~-------,-------T_------,-------,-------,-------,-------~------T_------T-------~-------I-------,-------,-------,-------T------- Worker ., 2.2000e- 1.S000e-' 1.S900e- ' 0.0000 4.2000e-' 0.0000 '4.2000e- I 1.1000e- I 0.0000 I 1.1000e- i 0.0000 0.3699 0.3699 I 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.3701 004 004 003 004 004 004 004 & DOS &
Total 2.2000e- I 1.5000e- 1 1.5900e- 1 0.0000
004 004 003 I 4.2000e- / 0_0000 /4.2000e- 0.0000 f 1_1000e- 004 004 004 0.0000 I 0.3699 I 0.3699 1.~~:e- 1 0.0000 I 0.3701 Mitigated Construction On-Site
RaG PM2.S C02e
TOlal
Category
Off-Road ., 0.0111 0.1100 0.0755 1.4000e- I 5.4300e- I 5.4300e- I S.0400e- I S.0400e- 0.0000 , 11 .9003 11.9003 I 3.3S00e- I 0.0000 I 11 .9840 004 003 003 003 003 003
Total 11.9840
279
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 12 of 36 Date: 11/11/20205:16 PM

3.2 Demolition - 2021
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
:ROG. > I NOx 1 . Category
co J S02
AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County, Annual
Fugitive PM10
PM10 Total
to~s/yr
Fugitive
PM2.5
EXha. ust j PM2 .S
PM2.5 Total
Bio- C02 I NB.io- COJTotal C02
MT/y;
CH4 N20 j C02e
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 t 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 & •• I I I I I I I , I , I I I I I
··------··-ft-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------~-------I-------,-------,-------,-------T------- Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 t 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 & •• I I I I I I I , I , I I I I I
-----------.-------T-------,-------,-------T-------,-------T-------,-------,-------~-------~-------~------,-------,-------,-------T------- Worker 2.2000e- 1.S000e-' 1.S900e-' 0.0000 '4.2000e-' 0.0000 '4.2000e-' 1.1000e-' 0.0000 ' 1.1000e- i 0.0000 0.3699 0.3699' 1.0000e-' 0.0000 ' 0.3701 004 004 003 004 004 004 004 & OOS &
Total 2.2000e- 1.5000e- 1.5900e- 1 0.0000
004 004 003

3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx J CO
Category
S02 -'
004 004

4.2000e- 0.0000 ) 4.Z000eFugitive . Exhaust
PMiO . PM10
tons/yr
PM10
Total

1.1000e004
Fugitive
PM2.5

0.0000
Exhaust
PM2.5
1 1.1oooe004
PM2.5
Total

0.0000

0. 3699 1 0.3699 1.0000e005
Bio- C02 I NBio- C02 I Total C02 CH4
MT/yr

0.0000 1 0.3701
NZO COZe
Fugitive Dust 0.1807 0.0000 0.1807 0.0993 0.0000 0.0993 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 & •• I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I
---------.-------~------,-------,-------T_------,-------T_------,-------,-------~-------.-------.-------T_------,-------,-------~------. Off-Road ., 0.0389 0.40S0 0.2115' 3.8000e- , 0.0204 0.0204 0.0188 0.0188 t 0.0000 • 33.4357 ' 33.4357 '0.D108 0.0000' 33.7061 ., 004 &
Total 0.0389 0.4050 I 0.Z115 3_8000e004 0.1807 0.0204 0.2011 0.0993 &

0.0188 0.1181 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7061 280
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 13 of 36 Date: 11/11/20205:16 PM

3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County, Annual
ROG NOx co S02 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust PM10
·PM10 Total
Fugitive
PM2.S
Exhaust PM2.5
PM2.S Total
Bio- C02 I NBio-COl Total C02 CH4 N20 1 C02e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling •• 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 O.OOOO! 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 - I _. I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I
.... ................ .. ... -------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------"'-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,..-------"* ............ "'.-------.,-------.,-------.,-------................ -' Vendor •• 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 O.OOOO! 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 - I _. I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I .......... .............. _______ ,-______ ., _______ ...-______ ,-______ .,-______ ,-______ ., _______ ., _______ .,.. _______ ............... , _______ ...-______ .,-______ ., _______ ................ _ I Worker 7.S000e- , S.2000e- , 5.46ooe- , 1.oo00e- , 1.4400e- , 1.00ooe- 'l.4S00e- 3.8000e- 1.0000e- ' 3.9000e- t 0.0000 1.2681 1.2681 4.0oooe- 0.0000 1.2691 004 004 003 OOS 003 OOS 003 004 OOS 004 I OOS I
Total 7.5000e004

5.2000e004

5.4600e003
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO
Category

1.0000e005
S02

1.4400e003
Fugitive
PM10
005 003

1.0000e- \ 1.4500eExhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
tons/yr

3.8000e004
Fugitive
PM2.S
005 004

1.0000e- \ 3.9000eExhaust
PM2.S
PM2.S
Total

0.0000 1.2681 J 1.2681 4.0000e005
Bio- C02 I NBio- C02 I Total C02 CH4
MT/yr

0.0000 J 1.2691
N20 C02e
Fugitive Dust 0.1807 0.0000 0.1807 0.0993 0.0000 0.0993! 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I •• I I I I I I I I I , I I I , I
------_ .. ---._------.,-------...-------.,-------.,-------.,------- ,-------,-------,-------T-------~-------~------,-------,-------,-------T ------ Off-Road 0.0389 0.40S0' 0.211 5 ' 3.8000e-' 0.0204 0.0204' , 0.0188 ' 0.0188 t 0.0000 • 33.43S7 ' 33.4357 : 0.Q1 08 ' 0.0000 ' 33.7060 •• 004 I,
Total - I 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e004

0.1807 0.0204 0.2011 0.0993 0.0188 0.1181 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7060 281
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 14 of 36 Date: 11/11/20205:16 PM

3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx I
Category
CO I S02
AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County, Annual
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust PM10
PM10 Total ·
tons/yr
Fugitive
PM2.S
Exhaust
PM2.S
PM2.5
Total
Bio- C02 I NBio- C02 I Total C02
MT/yr
CH4 N20 C02e
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 & _. I I I I I I I I I " I I I I I
-------.---~-------~-------~-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------T-------~-------I-------,-------,-------,-------T------- Vendor 0.0000 ' 0.0000 '0.0000 0.0000' 0.0000 '0.0000 0.0000' 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 t 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I •• • • • I • I I I I I • • I I I
-----------n-------,-------T-------T-------,-------~------,-------T-------,-------~-------.-------~------~------ Worker T-------T-------T------- 7.S0ooe- S.2oooe- S.4600e-' 1.ooooe- , 1.4400e- , 1.ooooe- '1.4Sooe- 3.80ooe- 1.0oo0e-' 3.90ooe- t 0.0000 1.2681 1.2681' 4.0oooe-' 0.0000 1.2691 004 004 003 DOS 003 DOS 003 004 DOS 004 I ODS I
Total 7.50ooe· "\ 5_2oooe· 1 5.46ooe.\1.0000e. 1.44ooe· 004 004 003 005 003

3.4 Grading - 2021
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
RaG NOx CO . S02 Fugitive
PM10

1.0000e· 1.4500e· 3.8ooOe· 1.00ooe·
005 003 004 005
Exhaust
PMlO
' PM10 '
Total
Fugitive Exhaust
PM2.S PM2.5
. Category . tonsi'yr

3.90ooe·
004
PM2.S
Total

0.0000 1.2681 1.2681 4.ooooe·
005
Bio: C02 I NBio- C021 Total C02 CH4
MT/yr

0.0000 1.2691
N20 C02e
Fugitive Dust 0.19S2 0.0000 0.19S2 0.0809 0.0000 0.0809! 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I •• • I I • I I I • I , • • I I I
-----------n-------,-------,-------,-------T-------,-------~------~-------,-------~-------~~-~--- ~------~------,-------,-------~------~ Off-Road 0.0943 1.0440 0.6948' 1.4oo0e- 0.0447 0.0447 0.0411 0.0411 i 0.0000 '122.6137' 122.6137' 0.0397 0.0000' 123.6051 - ~ I
Total
- , 0.0943 1.0440 0.6948 1.4oo0e·
003
0_1952 0.0447 0.2398 0.0809 J 0_0411 0.1220 0.0000 122.6137 1 122.6137 0.0397 0.0000 123.6051 282
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 15 of 36 Date: 11/11/20205:16 PM

3.4 Grading - 2021
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx J CO S02
Category
AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County, Annual
Fugitive PM10
PM10 Total
tons/yr
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- C02 I NBio- C02 I Total C02
MT/yr
CH4 N20 C02e
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 t 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I _. I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I
--------··-m-------~-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------T-------~-------I-------,-------,-------,-------T------- Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ,. 0.0000 O.OOOO! 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 , I •• , I I , • I I I I , I I I I I
........................ -------...-------...-------~------.,-------,_------..,_------.,-- -----.,-------"T"--------t ............ -.-------.,-------.,-------.,-------"T ............ _ I Worker 1.8800e- , 1.2900e-' 0.0137 '4.0000e-' 3.5900e- 3.0000e-' 3.6200e- '9.5000e- 3.0000e- 9.8000e- t 0.0000 3.1702 3.1702' 1.0000e- 0.0000 3.1726 003 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 I 004 I
Total 1.8800e003 003 005

1.2900e· 1 0.0137 1 4.0000e.

Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG I NOx CO I S02
Category.
003 005 003

3.5900e- ./ 3.0000e-13.6200eFugitive Exhaust PM10
PM10 PM10 Total
tons/yr

9.5000e004
Fugitive
PM2.S

3.0000e005
'Exhaust
PM2.5

9.8000e004
PM2.5
Total

0.0000 3.1702 1 3.1702
' Bio- C02 I NBio- C02 1'Total C02

1.0000e004
CH4
MT/yr

0.0000 3.1726
N20 I C02e
Fugitive Dust ., 0.1952 0.0000 0.1952 0.0809 0.0000 0.0809! 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 - I •• I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I
--------- -- m-------.,-------...-------.,-------.,-------,--- ----,-------,-------,-------~-------.-------.-------,-------~------,-------~------- Off-Road 0.0943 1.0440 0.6948' 1.4000e- , 0.0447 0.0447 0.0411 0.0411 l 0.0000 '122.6136' 122.6136' 0.0397 , 0.0000 '123.6050 - ~ , - I
Total 0.0943 ~:40 f 0.6948 J 1·~30e. 0.1952 f 0.0447 I 0.2398 0.0809 0.0411 0.1220 0.0000 122.6136 I 122.6136 0.0397 0.0000 1 123.6050 283
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 16 of 36 Date: 11/11/20205:16 PM

3.4 Grading - 2021
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG Npx I CO I S02
Category
AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County. Annual
Fugitive I Exhaust PM10
PM10 . '. PM10 Total
tons/yr
Fugitive
PM2.S
Exhaust
·PM2.S
PM2.S
Total
Bio-C02 NBio-COl Total C02 I CH4 N20 1 C02e
MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000! 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I •• I I I 1 I I I I I , I I I I •
........ -.-.-------~-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------T-------~-------.-------,-------,-------,-------T------- Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 ! 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 I •• I I I I I , I I I , I I I I I
-----------.-------,-------~------~------,-------T_------,-------,-------,-------T-------~-------~------T_------T-------,-------T------- Worker 1.8800e- I 1.2900e- I 0.01 37 I 4.0000e- 3.S900e- I 3.0000e- 3.6200e- I 9.S000e- I 3.0000e- I 9.8000e- ! 0.0000 3.1702 3.1702 I 1.0oooe- I 0.0000 3.1726 003 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 I 004 I
Total 1.8800e003

1.Z900e- I 0.0137 I 4.0000e003 ~ 005

3.5 Building Construction - 2021
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG
Category
Off-Road .. 0.1796 I 1.6473 I 1.5664 I 2. 5400e- I
003
Total
003 005 003

3.S900e- 1 3.0000e- 1 3.6200eI 0.0906 I 0.0906 I

9.S000e004
I
005 004

3.0000e-j 9.8000ePM2.5
. Total

0.0852 I 0.0852

0.0000

0.0000

3.170Z j 3.170Z 1 1.0000e004
• 218.8972 I 218.8972 I 0.0528 I

0.0000 j 3.17Z6
C02e

0.0000 I 220.2175
220.2175
284
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 17 of 36 Date: 11/11/20205:16 PM

3.5 Building Construction - 2021
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG I NOx co
Category
AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County, Annual
S02 ' ·PM10 L Fu9itiV. e. I Exhaust
Total PM2.5 l' PM2.5
tons/yr
PM2.S
Total
Bio· C02 J NBiO. C02 Total C02 I
MT/yr.

CH4 N20 C02e
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I _. f I I • I I • I I , I I I I I
-------.- -- ~-------~-------~-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------~-------I-------,-------,-------,-------~------- Vendor 0.0674 2.1251 0.4434 I 5.4500e· I 0.1270 I 6.5400e· I 0.1335 0.0367 I 6.2600e· I 0.0430 II 0.0000 '517.2230 I 517.2230 I 0.0500 0.0000 I 518.4721 I 003: I 003 I I 003 I , I : I I _. r I I I I I I I I , I I , I I
---------- ~-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------T-------~-------I-------,-------,-------,-------T------- Worker 0.2062 0.1412 1.4945 I 3.8400e· 0.3927 2.9900e· I 0.3956 0.1044 I 2.7500e· I 0.1071 i 0.0000 346.8534 I 346.8534' 0.0106 0.0000 347.1186 003 003 003 I
I
Total 0.2736 ! 2.2663 ! 1.9379 9.29OOe. ! 0.5196 ! 9.5300e. 0.5292 0.1411 I 9.0100e· I 0.1501 003 003 003

0.0000 0.0606 0.0000 865.5907
Mitigated Construction On-Site
RaG PM2.5 C02e
Total
Category MT/yr
.~ :;
Off·Road .. 0.1796 1.6473 I 1.5664 2.54ooe· I I 0.0906 I 0.0906 I 0.0852 I 0.0852 0.0000' 218.8970 I 218.B970 I 0.0528 I 0.0000 I 220.2172 003 : I
Total 220.2172
285
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 18 of 36 Date: 11/11/20205:16 PM AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County, Annual

3.5 Building Construction - 2021
Mitigated Construction Off·Site
ROG NOx J co
Category
I S02 Fugitive I Exhaust PM2.S
PM10 ' PM10 Total
Bio- COZ-1NBio- C01 Totai C02 I CH4 l - N20 I C02e
tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 , •• I I • I I I I I I & I I I I I ---------.-.-------~-------,-------~-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------~-------I-------,-------,-------,-------~------- Vendor 0.0674 2.1251 0.4434' 5.4500e-' 0.1270 '6.5400e-' 0.1335 0.0367' 6.2600e-' 0.0430 " 0.0000 ' 517.2230' 517.2230' 0.0500 0.0000' 518.4721 , 003 I I 003 I • 003 I I ' I: I •• , I I I I I I r I & • I I I I ........................ -------.,.-------.,-------,-------.,-------.,.-------.,-------.,-------.,-------,..--------t .... .. ......... .-______ ., _______ ..-______ ., _______ ............... _ 1 Worker ., 0.2062 0.1412 1.4945 3.8400e- ' 0.3927 2.9900e-' 0.3956 0.1044 2.7500e· 0.1071! 0.0000 346.8534 346.8534' 0.Q106 0.0000' 347.1186 :: 003 003 003 i . , Total 0.2736 2.2663 1 1.9379 ! 9.2900e- 1 0.5196 1 9.5300e- 1 0.5292 1 0.1411 1 9. 01 Doe- I 0.1501
003 003 003

3.5 Building Construction - 2022
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG PM2.S
Total
Category
Off-Road ., 0.2141 1.9598 , 2.0536 ' 3.3800e- , 0.1015 , 0.101 5 , 0.0955 , 0.0955 003
Total

0.0000 1 864.0765 1 864.0765 1 0.0606 1 0.0000 1 865.5907 C02e

0.0000 ' 290.8152 ' 290.81 52 0.0697 , 0.0000 : 292.5570 , , , , 286
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 19 of 36 Date: 11/11/20205:16 PM

3.5 Building Construction - 2022
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
RaG
Category
AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County, Annual
PM2.5
Total
C02e
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 _. I I I I I I I I I & I I I I I
-----------m-------~-------,-------,-------~-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------~-------I-------,-------,-------,-------~------- Vendor 0.0824 2.6737 0.5325 I 7.1700e- I 0.1686 I 7.5400e- I 0.1762 0.0487 I 7.2100e- I 0.0560 "I' 0.0000 • 680.5100 I 680.5100 I 0.0646 0.0000 I 682.1244 I 003 I '003 I : 003: , I I I • • , I • • • • I • I • , • • • • •
-----------~-------,-------T_------,-------,-------,_------,-------,-------,-------T-------. ------~------,_------,-------,-------T------- Worker 0.2528 0.1674 I 1.8071 I 4.9200e- I 0.5215 3.8300e- 0.5253 0.1386 3.5300e- I 0.1422 ! 0.0000 • 444.1398 I 444.1398 0.0126 0.0000 I 444.4543 003 I 003 003 1
Total 0.3352
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG J NOx
Category
Off-Road :: 0.2141 1.9598 I
Total 0.2141 1 1.9598
co S02

2.0536 I 3.3800e- I
003
2_0536 3.3800e003
' Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PMI0
tons/yr

0.1015

0.1015
PMIO
Total

0.1015

0.1015
Fugitive
PM2.S
Exhaust
PM2.5
I 0.0955 I

0.0955
PM2.5
Total

0.0955

0.0955
1 Bio- C02 I NBio- C02 I Total C02 CH4
MT/yr
N20
1,126.578
8 C02e

0.0000 290.8148 I 290.8148 I 0.0697 0.0000 I 292.5566

0.0000 290.8148 290.8148 0.0697 0.0000 292.5566
287
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 20 of 36 Date: 11/11/20205:16 PM

3.5 Building Construction - 2022
Mitigated Construction Off·Site
ROG
Category
AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County, Annual
·PM2.5
Total
C02e
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000! 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 , _. I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I -----------n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------.-------I-------,-------,-------,-------~------- Vendor 0.0824 I 2.6737 I 0.5325 I 7. 1700e- I 0.1686 I 7.5400e- I 0.1762 0.0487 I 7.2100e- I 0.0560 t 0.0000 I 680.5100 I 680.5100 I 0.0646 I 0.0000 I 682.1244 I 003 I I 003 I I 003 Ii:: I •• I t I I I I I I • , • I • I I -----------~-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------T-------,-------~-------.-------.-------,-------,-------,-------~------- Worker 0.2528 0.1674 1.8071 I 4.9200e- I 0.5215 I 3.8300e- I 0.5253 0.1386 I 3.5300e- I 0.1422 i 0.0000 • 444.1398 I 444.1398 0.0126 0.0000 I 444.4543 003 003 003 I
Total

3.6 Paving - 2022
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx . CO
Category
S02 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
tons/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
I
Bio- C02 I NBio- C02} Total C02 CH4
MT/yr
N20
1,126.578
8 C02e
Off-Road ., 4.9600e- I 0.0501 0.0656 I 1.0000e- I I 2.5600e- I 2.5600e- I I 2.3500e- I 2.3500e- I, 0.0000 9.0124 9.0124 I 2.9100e· I 0.0000 9.0853 •• 003 : : 004 I I 003 I 003 I : 003 : 003 I I 003 I ., I I I I I I I I • , • • It'
-----------n-------,-------~------,_------~------~------T_------~-------~-------~-------.---.---~------,_------~-------T_------T------- Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 t 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 4.9600e003

0.0501 0.0656 1.0000e004

2.5600e003 2.5600e003

2.3500e003 2.3500e003
I
I

0.0000

9. 01241 9.0124 2.9100e003

0.0000 9.0853
288
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 21 of 36 Date: 11/11/20205:16 PM AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County, Annual

3.6 Paving - 2022
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx co S02 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust '
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive 1 Exhaust
PM2.5 PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- C02 J NBio- C02 I Total C02 I CH4 . N20 I C02e
Category , , tons/yr, MT/yr
Hauling •• 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000! 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • I _. I I I , I I I I I , I I I I I
-----------.-------~-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------~-------I-------,-------,-------,-------~------- Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000' 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 O.OOOO! 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 , •• • I I I I I I I • l • I I I I ----------- __ ------T-------T-------~------,-------~------,-------,-------,-------~-------.-------~------T_------T-------,-------~------- Worker •• 2.6000e- I 1.7000e- I 1.8700e- I 1.0000e- I 5.4000e- I 0.0000 I 5.4000e- • 1.4000e- I 0.0000 I 1.5000e- t 0.0000 0.4585 I 0.4585 I 1.0000e- I 0.0000 0.4588 .~ ~ ~ ~'~ ~ ~ ~ I ~
Total Z.6000e- 1 1.7000e004 004

1.8700e003
Mitigated Construction On-Site
RaG NOx co
Category,

1.0oo0e005
S02
S.4000e004
Fugitive
PM10

0.0000
Exhaust ,
PM10
tons/yr
S.4000e004
PM10
,Toti"

1.4oooe- l 0.0000
004
. Fu,gitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5

1.5000e004
PM2.5
Total
I

0.0000 I 0.4585 I 0.4585
1 1
.

OooOe
005 - 1 0.0000 I 0.4588
Bio· C02 I NBio- C02 I Total C02 CH4 N20 C02e
MT/yr
Off-Road •• 4.9600e· I 0.0501 0.0656 I 1.0000e- I I 2.5600e· I 2.5600e· I I 2.3500e- I 2.3500e- ',0.0000 9.0124 9.0124 I 2.9100e- I 0.0000 9.0853 •• 003 I I 004 I I 003 I 003 I : 003 : 003 I I 003 I _. I I I I I I I I I , I I • I I
-----------~-------T_------,-------,-------~------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------.····-·-I-------,-------,-------,-------~------- Paving •• 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 + 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -. i Total 4.9600e003 0.0501 0.0656 1.0oo0e004 2.56ooe- 2.5600e- 2.3500e· 2.3500e003 003 003 003 &

0.0000 9.0124 9.0124 2.9100e003 0.0000 9.0853
289
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 22 of 36 Date: 11/11/20205:16 PM AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County, Annual

3.6 Paving - 2022
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
I C02e NOx I Fugitive Exhaust PM10
PM10 PM10Totai
Fugitive Exhaust PM2.S
PM2.S PM2.S Total
ROG CO S02 Bio· C02 I NBio· C02 I Total C02 CH4 N20
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000! 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I _. I I I I I I I I I , I I I I •
--- ... -----.-------~-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------~-------I-------,-------,-------,-------T------- Vendor •• 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000! 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000' 0.0000 • 0.0000 • I ., I I I I I I I I I , I I I I •
-----------e-------,-------,-------,-------,-------T-------,-------,-------,-------~-------~-------~------,-------T-------,-------T------- Worker •• 2.6000e· • 1.7000e· 1.8700e·' 1.0000e· , 5.4000e·' 0.0000 '5.4000e·' 1.4000e· ' 0.0000 1.5000e· t 0.0000 0.4585' 0.4585 1.0000e·' 0.0000 0.4588 :~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~I ~ • I
Total 2.6000e· 1 1.7oooe'1 1.87°oe. 'll.ooooe.
004 004 003 005

3.6 Paving - 2023
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO S02
Category
004 004

5.4000e. ] 0.0000 ] 5.4000e.

Fugitive
. PM10
Exhaust
PM10
tons/yr
PM10
Total
004 004

1.4000e. \ 0.0000 1 1.5000e.

Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.S
Total

0.0000 0.4585 0.4585 1.0000e·
005
Bio· C02 I NBio· C02 I Total C02 CH4
MT/yr

0.0000 0.4588
N20 C02e
Off· Road 0.0134 0.1325 0.1896' 3.0000e· , , 6.6300e· , 6.6300e· , , 6.1000e· , 6.1000e· 'I 0.0000 • 26.0349 ' 26.0349 ' 8.4200e·' 0.0000 ' 26.2454 , 004' '003' 003' : 003 : 003 I • : '003' , ., I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I -----------~-------T_------,-------,-------,_------,-------,-------T-------~------T-------~-----··I-------,-------,-------,-------~.---.-- Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 O.OOOO! 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0134 0.1325 0.1896 3.0000e004 6.6300e· 6.6300e· 003 003
I
I

6.1000e- 6.1000e· 0.0000
003 003

26.0349 26.0349 I 8.4200e003

0.0000 26.2454
290
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 23 of 36 Date: 11/11/20205:16 PM AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County, Annual

3.6 Paving - 2023
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO S02 1 Fugitive - PM10
Exhaust PM2.S
PM10 Total
Bio- C02 I NBio--COl Total C02 1- CH4 N20 I C02e
Category ' tons/yr . MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 t 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I _. I I I I I I I I I , I I I I ,
------.. ---~-------~-------~-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------T-------~-------I-------,-------,-------,-------~-----.- Vendor •• 0.0000 0.0000' 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000' 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 t 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 m I •• , I I I I I I I I , I I I I ,
-----------~-------,-------~------~------,-------T_------,-------T-------,-------T-------.-------.-------,-------T-------T-------~------- Worker ., 7.0000e- '4.S000e- 4.8900e- 1.0000e- 1.S600e- 1.0000e-' 1.S700e- 4.1000e- ' 1.0000e- , 4.2000e- t 0.0000 1.2748 1.2748 3.0000e- 0.0000 1.27S6 -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~I ~ I

7.0DOOe- I 4.5000e- I 4.89OOe- 1 1.OooOe-j 1.5600e004 004 003 005 003

1.0000e- 4.2000e005 004 0.0000 1 1.2748 1 1.2748 3.00~5oe- 1 0.0000 1 1.2756 Total Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG I NOX ! Co S02 I Bio" C02 I NBio- C02 I Total C02 I CH4 N20 C02e Category MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0134 0.1325 0.1896' 3.0000e- , , 6.6300e- , 6.6300e- , , 6.1000e- , 6.1 000e- II 0.0000 ' 26.0349 ' 26.0349 ' 8.4200e-' 0.0000 ' 26.2454 , 004' '003' 003' : 003 : 003 I ' , '003' , _. I I I I I I I I I , • I I I I -----------n-------~------,-------~------T_------~------~------,-------~-------T-------.-------~------T_------~-------~-------~--- ... - Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 t 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0134 J 0.1325 J 0.1896 3.0000e-J
004

6.6300e· 6.6300e- 6.1000e· 6.1000e003 003 003 003
I
I

0.0000 26.0349 26.0349 8.4200e003 0.0000 26.2454
291
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 24 of 36 Date: 11/11/20205:16 PM

3.6 Paving - 2023
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
RaG
Category
AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County, Annual
PM2.S
Total.

C02e
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ~ 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 & _. I I I I I I I I I & I I I I I
-----------~-------~-------~-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------T-------~-------I-------,-------,-------,-------~------- Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 & _. I • I I I I • • I , I I 1 • I
-----------~-------,-------,-------,-------~------,-------T-------~------T_------T-------.-------I-------,-------,-------T-------~------- Worker .. 7.0000e- I 4.S000e- I 4.8900e- 1.0000e- 1.5600e- I 1.0000e- I 1.5700e- I 4.1oo0e- I 1.0000e- I 4.2000e- i 0.0000 1.2748 1.2748 3.oo00e- I 0.0000 1.2756 .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~& ~
.. &
Total 7.0000e004

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2023
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
RaG NOx co
Category
S02 Fugitive
' PM10
Exhaust
PM10
tons/yr
' PM10
. Total Fugitive 1 Exhaust
PM2.5 .' PM2.S
PM2.5
Total

1.2756
Bio- C02' I NBio- C02l Total <;:02 CH4 I N20 C02e
MT/yr
Archil. Coating ., 8.6313 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 O.OOOO! 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 .. , _. I I I I I I I I • , • • • I I -----------n-------T-------T-------T-------,-------~------,-------T-------~-------~-------.-------~------~------T_------~-------~------- Off-Road 3.3500e- I 0.0228 0.0317 I 5.oo00e- I 1.24ooe- I 1.2400e- I I 1.2400e- I 1.2400e- t 0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.7000e- I 0.0000 4.4749 003 005 003 003 003 003, 004
Total 8.6346 0.0228 0.0317 S.OOOOe005

1.2400e- 1.2400e·
003 003
, I 1.2400e- I 1.2400e- 1 003 003

4.4749 4.4682 t~82 1 2
. 7:o~e- 1 0.0000 0.0000
292
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 25 of 36 Date: 11/11/20205:16 PM

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2023
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO
Category
I S02
AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County, Annual
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust PM10
. PM10 Total
tons/yr
Fugitive Exhaust
PM2.5 PM2.5
PM2.S
Total
Bio- C02 I NBio- C02 I Tot'll C02
MT/yr
CH4 N20 C02e
Hauling ., 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 l 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 - & _, I I I I I I I I I & I I I I I
--.-.. -----~-------~-------~-------~-------~-------~-------,-------,-------,-------~-------~-------I-------,-------,-------,-------~------- Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000! 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 : _. I I I I I I I I I , , I I I •
----------- __ ------,-------~------,-------,-------~------,-------T-------,-------~-------.-------~------,_------T-------,-------~------- Worker ., 6.50ooe- I 4.16ooe- I 0.0456 I 1.30ooe- I 0.0145 I 1.ooooe- I 0.0146 I 3.86ooe- I 9.0oo0e- I 3.9Sooe- & 0.0000 ' 11.8978 I 11 .8978 I 3.1000e- I 0.0000 I 11.9056 003 003 004 004 003 005 003! 004
Total 6.5000e- I 4.1600e003 1 003

0.0456 J 1.3=eMitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx I co S02
Category

0.0145
Fugitive
PM10

1.0000e- \ 0.0146
004
( . Exhaust PM10
PM10 Total
tons/yr
&
3 11.9056 .8600e- \ 9.0000e- I 3.9S00e003 005 003

11.8978 L 11.8978 ~~e. J 0.0000 0.0000
Fugitive Exhaust PM2.S I Bio- C02 I NBio- C02 I Total C02 I ' CH4 N20 C02e PM2.S PM2.S Total
'MT/yr
Archil. Coating ., 8.6313 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 •• & _. I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I
----------- __ ------,-------,-------,-------~-------~------,-------~-------~-------T-------.-------~------,_------~-------~-------~------- Off-Road ., 3.3500e- I 0.0228 0.0317 I S.OOOOe- I I 1.2400e- I 1.24ooe- , I 1.2400e- I 1.2400e- t 0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 I 2.7000e- I 0.0000 4.4749 -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~& ~
Total

8. 6346 1 0.0228 0.0317 S.OOOOe·
005

1.2400e003
1_2400e.
003

1.2400e·
003

1.2400e·
003
,

0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.7000e·
004
0_0000 4.4749
293
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 26 of 36 Date: 11/11/20205:16 PM

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2023
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
RaG
Category
NOx ; co S02
AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County, Annual
Fugitive
. PM10
Exhaust 1 PM10
PM10 Total
tons/yr
FU9it.ive 1 Exhaust • PM2.5 PM2.5 .. PM2.S
-lotal
Bio- C02 I NBio- C021 Total C02
MT/yr
CH4 1 N20 C02e
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 & _. I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I
-----------~-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------T-------~---·---I-------,-------,-------,-------T------- Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 t 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i •• I • • I , I I I • , • • • • •
--------- Worker -~-------,-------T_------,-------,-------~------,-------T-------,-------T-------~-------~------,-------T-------,-------T------- 6.5000e- I 4.1600e- I 0.0456 I 1.3000e- I 0.0145 I 1.0000e- I 0.0146 I 3.8600e- I 9.0000e- I 3.9500e- I 0.0000 I 11 .8978 I 11.8978 I 3.1OOOe- 0.0000 I 11.9056 :~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~
Total
11 6.5OO0e-14.1600e- 0.0456 1.30ooe- 1 0.0145
003 003 004

1.00ooe- I 0.0146
004 1 3.8600e-1 9.0000e003 005

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

3.9500e003
&

0.0000 11.8978111.8978 3.1OOOe- I
004 1 0.0000 11.9056
294
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 27 of 36 Date: 11/11/20205:16 PM AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County, Annual
ROG NOx co S02 Fugitive ·1 Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.S Total
Sio- C02 I NSio- C02 I Total C02 I CH4 N20 C02e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 2.6665' 33.1024 ' 26.4345 '0.1361 7.3076 0.1204 7.4279 1.9690 0.1138 2.0828 II 0.0000 '12.683.67' 12.683.67' 1.1211 0.0000' 12.711 .70 I I I , I 48 I 48 : : 18 •• I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I ...................... .,..------""T'"------"'T"------...,..------..,..------""T"------..,..-------r--------r-------.--------............. -r-------...,..------"T"-------r------..,. ............ ... Unmitigated 2.6665' 33.1024 26.4345 0.1361 7.3076 0.1204 7.4279 1.9690 0.11 38 2.0828' 0.0000 • 12.683.67· 12.683.67' 1.1211 0.0000' 12.711.70 • 48 • 48 • • 18

4.2 Trip Summary Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday I Saturday ~unday Annual VMT Annual VMT General Light Industry , 8,652.98 I 1,638.73 I 844.19 . 19,080,174 . 19,080,174 Total I 8,652.98 I 1.638.73 I 844.19 I 19,080,174 I 19,080,174 -

4.3 Trip Type Information
' Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H'W or C-W I H-S or C-C I H·O or C-NW H-W or C-WI H-S or C-C I H-O or C-NW Pnmary I 'Diverted 1 Pass-by General Light Industry . 9.50 7.30 7.30 . 59.00 28.00 . 13.00 . . . . . . . . 92 . . . 5 . 3

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDTl LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD t-tHD - BUS I UBUS MCV SBUS I MH General Light Industry • 0.498498: 0.030090: 0.155509: 0.109662: 0.018147: 0.004601: 0.015536: 0.154991: 0.002397: 0.002156: 0.006230: 0.001554: 0.000628

5.0 Energy Detail
Historical Enerqv Use: N
295
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 28 of 36 Date: 11/11/20205:16 PM AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County, Annual

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Category
Electricity
Mitigated
ROG -'
NOx I co I S02 Fugitive ' _ Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 PM10 PM10 Tota1PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio; C02 I NBio- C02 I Total C02 I CH4 I N20 C02e tons/yr MT/yr
.. 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 t 0.0000 '3,185.386' 3,185.386' 0.1440 0.0298' 3,197.867 .. i I 7 : 7 : ' 9 _. I I I I I I I I I , I I I I • -----------~-------~-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------T-------~-------I-------,-------,-------,-------T------- Electricity 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 O.OOOO! 0.0000 '3,185.386' 3,185.386' 0.1440 0.0298' 3,197.867 Unmitigated , '7' 7 : ' 9 _. I • I I • I I I • I: • • • I • -----------w-------,-------T-------,-------,-------T-------,-------~------,_------T-------.-------~------,_------,-------,-------T------- NaturalGas 0.1397 1.2701 1.0669' 7.6200e- , 0.0965 0.0965 0.0965 0.0965! 0.0000 '1,382.617' 1,382.617' 0.0265 0.0254' 1,390.833 Mitigated ' 003 ' , '3' 3 ' , 5 •• I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I ............................ -.r-------..,...------..,...-------r-------r-------r------..... -------,..-------,..------..,...-------.................. -~------_._------.,..-------r-------r""" .. "" NaturalGas 0.1397 1.2701 1.0669 7.6200e-· 0.0965 0.0965 0.0965 0.0965· 0.0000 '1,382.617' 1,382.617' 0.0265 0.0254' 1,390.833 Unmitigated 003 ' 3 ' 3 ' , 5

5.2 Energy by Land Use· NaturalGas
Unmitigated
NaturalGa ROG PM2.5· C02e
s Use Total
Land Use , kBTU/yr tons/yr
General Light '2.59093e:' 0.1397 '1.2701 1.0669' 7.6200e- , , 0.0965 ' 0.0965 ' , 0.0965 '0.0965 0.0000' 1,382.617 ' 1,382.617' 0.0265 ' 0.0254 '1,390.833 Industry : +007 ,: 003 ' 3 ' 3 ' , 5
" Total 1,390_833
5 296
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
Mitigated
NaturalGa ROG
s Use
Land Use kBTU/yr
General Light ' 2.59093e I, 0.1397 , 1.2701 , 1.0669
Industry : +007 ::

I,
Total

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Unmitigated
Electricity Total CO2
Use
Land Use _ kWh/yr
General Light : 1.09497e :: 3, 185.386 : 0.1440 , 0.0298 Industry , +007 I, 7 , I, ,
Total

AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County, Annual
PM2.5 C02e
Total
tons/yr
' 7.6200e- , 0.0965 , 0.0965 , 0.0965 , 0.0965 0.0000 : 1.382.617 : 1.382.617 : 0.0265 , 0.0254 : 1.390.833 I 003 3 , 3 , 5
1,390.833
5 C02e
' 3, 197.867 , 9
3,197.867
9 297
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 30 of 36 Date: 11/11/20205:16 PM AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County, Annual

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity Total CO2 C02e
Use
Land Use kWhlyr MT/yr
General Light • 1.09497e :. 3.18S.386 ' 0.1440 0.0298 • 3.197.867 Industry : +007.: 7 : • 9
I. I
Total 3,197.867
9 6.0 Area Detail

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
ROG J Blo· C02 I NBio· C02 \ Total COi H4 N20 1 C02e NOx 1 CO J S02 " Fugitive \' Exhaust PM2.S PM10 . 1 pM10 Total
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated S.7127 , 1.0000e·· 0.0114 0.0000 I 4.0000e· I 4.0000e· • , 4.0000e· , 4.0000e· II 0.0000 0.0222 0.0222 I 6.0000e· I 0.0000 0.0237 I 004 ' I 005 I 005' : 005 : 005 I ' 005 ' •• I I I I I I I I • , I I • I , ....................... -.r------.,...-------r------.,...------....-------.,...------.,...------.,...------.,...------.,...-------'* .............. ,..------.,...------.,...------....... ------................ .. Unmitigated 5.7127' 1.0000e· 0.0114 0.0000 '4.0000e- 4.0000e- • 4.0000e- • 4.0000e- • 0.0000 0.0222 0.0222 6.0000e-· 0.0000 0.0237 004 005 005 005 005 OOS
298
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 31 of 36 Date: 11/11/20205:16 PM

6.2 Area by SubCategory
Unmitiaated
AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County, Annual
ROG J NOx co 1 S02 . Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.S
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- C02 I NBio- C02l Total C02 CH4 I N20 I C02e
SubCategory t6ns/yr MT/yr
Architectural 0.8631 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 to.OOOO 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating , _. I I I I I I I I I , , I I I I
-----------~-------~-------~-------~-------~-------~-------~-------~-------,-------T-------~-------.-------,-------,-------,-------~------- Consumer 4.8485 ' , , 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000! 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products I ., • I I t I , I I • , I I I I I
-----------n-------~------,-------T_------,-------~------,-------,-------,-------T-------.-------~------,----- --,-------,-------T------- landscaping 1.0600e- , 1.0000e-' 0.0114 ' 0.0000 ' , 4.0000e- , 4.0000e- , 4.0000e- , 4.0000e- ! 0.0000 0.0222 0.0222' 6.0000e-' 0.0000 0.0237 003 004 '005 005 005 005 I 005 I
Total 5.7127
Mitigated
ROG
SubCategory .

1.0000e004

0.0114 I 0.0000 4.0000e005

4.0000e005 4.0000e005

4.0000e005
PM2.5
Total

0.0000

0. 0222 1 0.0222 s.ooooe-l 005

0.0000 I 0.0237
C02e
Architectural
Coating
., 0.8631 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 O.OOOO! 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 , •• • I I I I I I I • , • I I • • -----------n-------T-------,-------T-------~------~------T-------,-------,-------~-------.------.~------~------- ,-------,-------T-·----- Consumer 4.8485 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 t 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products i •• I I I I I I I I I , • I I I I
.----.... --~-------,-------,-------,-------~-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------~-------I-------,-------~------~------T----··- landscaping 1.0600e- , 1.0000e-' 0.D114 0.0000 ' 4.0000e- , 4.0000e- , , 4.0000e- , 4.0000e- ! 0.0000 0.0222 0.0222' 6.0000e-' 0.0000 0.0237 003 004 005 005 005 005, 005 I
Total 0.0237

7.0 Water Detail
299
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 32 of 36
AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County, Annual

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
Total C02 I CH4 I N20 I G02e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated .. 542.9906 I 9.3752 I 0.2251 : 844.4542 ., I I ., I I I
_. I I I
.................... -.,..------"'T"-------r-------..................

Unmitigated ., 542.9906 ' 9.3752 , ., , , ., ,
, , --

7.2 Water by Land Use
Unmitigated
Indoor/Out Total CO2
door. Use
Land Use Mgal
General Light ' 287.088 / I, 542.9906 '
Industry : 0:: :

I,
Total

0.2251 ' 844.4542 ,
,
C02e

9.3752 I 0.2251 : 844.4542
844.4542
Date: 11/11/20205:16 PM
300
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2

7.2 Water by Land Use
Mitigated
h,door/Out Total CO2
door Use·
Land Use Mgal
General Light • 287.088 I A, 542.9906 '
Industry : o~: :

A,
Total

8.0 Waste Detail

9.3752

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
CategoryN ear
Total C021 CH4 I N20
MT/yr
Mitigated :: 312.4863 : 18.4674 : 0.0000
., , ,

0.2251
I C02e
"
: 774.1716
, _. • I •

AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County, Annual
COZe
: 844.4542
,
844.4542
-....................... --------r------~------_r .............. Unmitigated :: 312.4863 : 18.4674 : 0.0000 : 774.1716 .. , , .. , , '-
Date: 11/11/20205:16 PM
301
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Unmitigated
Waste Total CO2
Disposed
Land Use tons
General Light 1539.41 I. 312.4863' 18.4674 ' I, , 0.0000 Industry I,
I,
Total
Mitigated
Waste Total CO2
Disposed
Land Use tons
General Light ' 1539.41 I. 312.4863 ' 18.4674 ' 0.0000
Industry I. , I,
I,
Total

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number

AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County, Annual
C02e
: 774.1716 ' ,
774.1716
C02e
: 774.1716
774.1716
1 Hours/Day DayslYear Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 302
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 35 of 36 Date: 11/11/20205:16 PM AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County, Annual

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
. Equipment Type Number HoursfDay' HourslYear Horse Power Load Factor 'Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number. Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equip!Tient Type Number . J

11.0 Vegetation
303
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 1 of 30
AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County, Summer

1.0 Project Characteristics

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses I Size
General Light Industry 1,241.46

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s)
Climate Zone 3
Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company
C02 Intensity
(IblMWhr)
641 .35 CH4 Intensity
(IblMWhr)

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - 28.5 acres = 1,241,460-SF.
. Table Name Column Name

2.0 Emissions Summary
AMG Industrial Annexation
Merced County, Summer
I

2.2 0.029
Metric
1000sqft
Precipitation Freq (Days)
Operational Year
N20 Intensity
(Ib/MWhr)
Default Value
Date: 11/11/20205:17 PM
' Lot Acreage. I Floor Surface Area Population

28.50 1,241.460.00 o
49 2022

0.006
New Value . .
304
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 2 of 30 Date: 11/11/20205:17 PM AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County, Summer

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
Unmitigated Construction
Year
2020
ROG -I Npx 1 co 1 S02 Fugitive
PM10
Ib/day
PM10
TOtal
Fugitive
PM2.S EXhaustj' PM2.5
PM2.5 '
Total
Bio- C02 I NBio- c01 Total C02 CH4 N20 1 C02e
' Ib/day

3.3902 ' 33.2458 ' 22.3293 '0.0401 0.1232 1.6596 1.7829 0.0327 1.5427 1.5754 l 0.0000 '3,878.920' 3,878.920' 1.0623 0.0000' 3,905.478 : I : , I 5 I 5 : : 7 •• I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -----------.-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------.-------I-------,-------,-------.,-------T------- 2021 5.0970 ' 46.4530 ' 39.1995 ' 0.1299 ' 18.2141 ' 2.0456 ' 20.2597 '9.9699 1.8819 11.8518', 0.0000 '13,094.97' 13,094.97 I 1.9481 0.0000' 13,127.60 I I : I I I I ,I 82 I 82 I I 88 •• I t I I I I I I I , I I I I I
........................ -------,-------.,-------,-------.,-------.,-------,-------.,-------.,-------"T"'-------"* ............ -.-------.,-------.,-------.,-------................ _ I 2022 4.6554 ' 37.9302 I 36.9556 '0.1277 5.6565 0.8986 6.5551 1.5317 0.8458 2.3774 'I 0.0000 '12,881 .11 112,881 .11' 1.2712 0.0000' 12,912.89 I • I & I 12 I 12 I I 00 •• I I I I I I I , I , r I I I I
-----------._------,-------.,-------.,-------...-------,-------T-------~-------~-------T-------.-------t-------~-------~-------~-------~------ 2023 ., 493.8308' 10.2234 I 15.0200 '0.0240 0.8543 0.5111 0.9311 0.2266 0.4702 0.5029', 0.0000 • 2.325.803 ' 2,325.803 I 0.7171 0.0000' 2,343.731 •• , I 5 : 5 I I 3 , Maximum 493'8308 46.~30 \ 39.1995 ~ 0.1299 18.2141 U 20.2597 9.9699

1. 8819 1 11.8518 0.0000 13.094.97 113,094.97
82 1 82

1.9481 0.0000 1 13,127.60
88 305
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 3 of 30 Date: 11/11/20205:17 PM AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County. Summer

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
Mitigated Construction
' ROG I NOx 1 co 1 S02 . Fugitive
PM10
Year Ib/day
PM10 Fugitive
Total PM2.5 '
PM2.5
Total
Bio- C02 NBio- C02 1 Total C02J CH4 N20 1 C02e
Iblday
2020 •• 3.3902 • 33.2458 • 22.3293 • 0.0401 0.1232 1.6596 1.7829 0.0327 1.5427 1.5754 t 0.0000 • 3,878.920' 3,878.920' 1.0623 0.0000' 3,905.478 -. I I I , I 5 : 5 : : 7 ., I I I I I I I I I , I , I I I
-----------~-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------.-------I-------,-------,-------,-------~------- 2021 5.0970 • 46.4530 • 39.1995 • 0.1299 • 18.2141 • 2.0456 • 20.2597 • 9.9699 1.8819 11.8518 II 0.0000 • 13,094.97 • 13,094.97' 1.9481 I 0.0000 • 13,127.60 I I , I I I I ,I 82 I 82 : I 88 _. I I r I I I I , I , I I I I I
-----------~-------T_------T_------,-------T_------,-------~------,-------,-------~-------.-------I-------,---- ---,-------,-------T------ 2022 4.6554 I 37.9302 I 36.9556 • 0.1277 5.6565' 0.8986 6.5551 1.5317 I 0.8458 • 2.3774 II 0.0000 • 12,881 .11 112,881.11' 1.2712 0.0000' 12,912.89 • • : , I 12 1 12 I I 00 _. I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I
-----------~-------,-------T-------,-------T_------,-------~------T_------~-------~-------~-----·-I-------~------~-------~------T----·- 2023 •• 493.8308 I 10.2234 I 15.0200 I 0.0240 I 0.8543 • 0.5111 I 0.9311 0.2266 I 0.4702 I 0.5029 i 0.0000 : 2,325.803 : 2,325.803 : 0.7171 0.0000: 2,343.731 •. , 5 I 5 I I 3 h I
Maximum 493.8308 1 46.4530 1 39.1995 1 0.1299 1 18.2141 1 2.0456 1 20,2597 1 9.9699 1 1.8819 1 11.8518 0.0000 13.094.97 1 13,094.97 1 1.9481 1 0.0000 1 13,127.60 82 82 88 ROG NOx , CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 . Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-C02 NBio-C02 Total CO2 CH4 N20 C02e PM10 PM10. Total ' PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction
306
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 4 of 30 Date: 11/11/20205:17 PM AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County, Summer

2.2 Overall Operational
Unmitigated Operational
RaG NOx co I S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10
PM10 PM10 Total
Category Ib/day
Fugitive
PM2.5
' Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Sio· C02 I NSio- C02 I Total C02 I CH4 N20 C02e
Ib/day
Area •• 31.3085 • 1.1600e-· 0.1270 • 1.00ooe- • • 4.50ooe- • 4.50ooe- • • 4.5OO0e- • 4.50ooe- I 0.2717 0.2717' 7.20ooe- • 0.2896 •• • 003 ' • 005' • 004 • 004: : 004 : 004 ! . 004 : _. I I I I I I I I I , • I I I I -----------.-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------T-------~-------I-------,-------,-------,-------T------- Energy 0.7655 • 6.9593 5.8458' 0.0418 • 0.5289 0.5289 0.5289 0.5289 + • 8,351 .094 I 8,351.094 I 0.1601 0.1531 18.400.720 i . 3 I 3 I I 7 •• I • • • I I I I I , • I I I I
-----------__ ------T-------~------~------~------~------T_------,---- --,-------T-------.---- --~------,-------,-------,-------T------- Mobile 22.6050 238.0290 I 208.6910 I 1.0389 I 54.7010 I 0.8669 I 55.5679 I 14.7023 0.8195 15,5219! • 106,641 .6 I 106,641 .6 I 8.6967 '106,859.1 i . 874 I 874 I I 047 Total 54.6790 1 244.91 214.6638 \ 1.0807 54_7010 1.3963 I 56.0973 14.7023 1,3489 , 16,0512 114,993.0 1114,993.0 I 8.8575
535 535

0.1531 115,260.1
150
Mitigated Operational
RaG 1 NOx . I co 1
Category
502 Fugitive Exhaust
PM10 PM10
Ib/day
PM10
Total
Fugitive Exhaust
PMl.5. PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Sio- C02 I NSio- CO~ I Total C02
Ib/day
CH4

1. N20 I C02e
Area •• 31 .3085 I 1.1600e- I 0.1270 I 1.0000e- I I 4.5000e- • 4.5000e- I I 4.5000e- I 4.5000e- ! 0.2717 0.2717 I 7,2000e- I 0.2896 •• I 003 I I 005: : 004 I 004 I : 004 : 004 i I 004 I •• • • I • I I I I I , I 1 I • I
----- -- --- .-------~------T-------,-------T_------,-------~------,_------T_------T-------~~------I-------T_------,-------T_------T-- -- Energy 0.7655 6.9593 5.8458 0.0418 0.5289 0.5289 0.5289 0.5289 II • 8,351.094 I 8,351 ,094 I 0,1601 0.1531 18.400.720 I • 3 I 3 I , 7
_, I I I I , I I I I , I I I I I
.......... ---.. --.. -------,-------,_------,-------,-------,-------,-------.,-------.,-------T-------~ .... ........ -I-------.,-------,-------.,-------T ...... _ .... _I Mobile 22.6050 I 238.0290 I 208.6910 I 1.0389 I 54.7010 ' 0.8669 • 55.5679 14.7023 I 0.8195 15,5219 'I • 106,641.6 I 106,641.6 I 8,6967 I 106,859.1 , • 874 I 874 I • 047 Total 54.6790 54.7010 1.3963 ] 56.0973 14.7023 ] 1,3489 , 16.0512
535 535
114,993.01 114,993.0 8.8575
~
1 0.1531 1115,260.1
150
307
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 30 Date: 11/11/20205:17 PM ROG NOx co
Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00
Reduction

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase ' Phase Name
. Number
AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County, Summer
S02 Fugitive Exha~t PMl0
PM10 PM10 Total

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Phase Type Start Date
Fugitive ,·Exhaust PM2.S Bio·C02
PM2.S , PM2.S Total

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
End Date Num Days I Num Days
Week
: Demolition : Demolition :12/1/2020: 1111/2021 5: 30:

NBio-C02 Total C02 CH4

0.00 0.00 0.00
Phase De c~iption
-------~--------.-----.---------=-----------------------I------------~------------~--------~--------~------------------------- 2 : Site Preparation : Site Preparation : 1112/2021 : 218/2021 : 5: 20:
-------~------------------------=-----------------------I------------~------------~--------~--------~------------------------- 3 :Grading :Grading : 2/9/2021 : 4/1 2/2021 : 5: 45:
-------~------------ -----------:-----------------------1----- ---- -~------------4--------~--------~------------------- -- 4 :Building Construction :Building Construction : 4/13/2021 : 12/19/2022: 5: 440:
-------~------------------------=-----------------------I------------~------------~--------~--------~------------------------- 5 : Paving : Paving : 12/20/2022 : 2/612023 : 5: 35:
------.~-------.----------------~----------------------~-----------~------------~--------~--------~------------------------- 6 :Architectural Coating :Architectural Coating : 21712023 : 3/27/2023 5: 35:

Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5
Acres of Paving: 0
N20

0.00 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 1,862,190; Non-Residential Outdoor: 620,730; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating - sqft)
Off Road Equipment
C02e

0.00 308
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 6 of 30 Date: 11/11/20205:17 PM AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County, Summer
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount I· Usage Hours I· HorsePower ( Load Factor Architectural Coating :Air Compressors : 1 i 6.00: 78: 0.48 - - - - - - - - - - ........ - . - - - .. - - - :- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -I-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - i - - - - - - - - - - - - -•.... ---------.---.-.-.---.-~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Demolition "Excavators • 3: 8.00' 158' 0.38 • I I I I .---------------........ ----:---------------------------I-----------------i-------------I--------------~-------------- Demolition "Concretellndustrial Saws. 11 8.00' 81' 0.73 • t'. I .. _------_ ... __ ........... _-:---------------------------I-----------------~-------------I---- ---------~------------ .. Grading : Excavators : 21 8.00: 158: 0.38 ..... --------------........ -:---------------------------I-----------------i-------------I--------------~------.----.-. Building Construction :Cranes : 11 7.00: 231: 0.29 .... -------------.-........ -~--------------------------I-----------------i-------------I--------------~----------.--- Building Construction : Forklifts : 31 8.00: 89: 0.20 .-------------.. -.... -.. -.--:---------------------------I-----------------i-------------I--------------~-------------- Building Construction :Generator Sets : 11 8.00: 84: 0.74 -----------......... --------:---------------------------I-----------------i-------------I--------------~-------------- Paving : Pavers : 21 8.00: 130: 0.42 . - ... - - - - - . - - - - - . - - ........ - :- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -I-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - i - - - - - - - - - - - - -•.... -.---------.-.-.-.-.-.-~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Paving : Rollers : 21 8.00: 80: 0.38 .......... -----... -......... :---------------------------I-----------------i-------------I--------------~---·--------.- Demolition "Rubber Tired Dozers • 21 8.00' 247' 0.40 • • I I I ...... _------- ... __ .. _--- .-:---------------------------I-----------------;-------------I--------------~-.--------- ... Grading :Rubber Tired Dozers : 11 8.00: 247: 0.40 .-----.----........ ---------~--------------------------I-----------------~-------------I--------------~ ...... -------- Building Construction :Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes: 3 i 7.00: 97: 0.37 --------.... -.---------..... ~--------------------------I-----------------~-------------I--------------~ .... ---- ..... . Grading "Graders • 1 i 8.00' 187' 0.41 • I I 1 I - - - - - - - - - - ....... - - - - - - - - - - - :- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -I-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - i - - - - - - - - - - -- -I-.--------.----..... -~ ----....... --- Grading :Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes: 21 8.00: 97: 0.37 ---------- .... ----.-------.-~--------------------------I-----------------i-------------I--------------~··-------- .... Paving :Paving Equipment : 21 8.00: 132: 0.36 .. --------.-----------------:---------------------------I-----------------i-------------I--------------~----------- ... Site Preparation : Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes : 41 8.00: 97: 0.37 .. -.... ---.-----------------:---------------------------I-----------------i-------------I--------------~-------------. SitePreparalion : Rubber Tired Dozers : 31 8.00: 247: 0.40 .. -.. ---------.-.. ----------:---------------------------I-----------------i-------------I--------------~-·····-------- Grading :Scrapers : 21 8.00: 367: 0.48 ----------------------------~--------------------------~----------------4_------------~-------------~-------- ------ Building Construction :Welders 1 : 8.00: 46: 0.45 Trips and VMT
309
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 30 Date: 11/11/20205:17 PM AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County, Summer
Phase Name Offroad Equipment . Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip I' Worker Trip
Number Length .

Vendor Trip
Length '
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
, Vendor I Hauling
Vehicle Class Vehicle Class
Demolition. 6: 15.00: 0.00: 0.00: 10.80: 7.30: ZO.OO:LD_Mix : HOT_Mix :HHOT ----------------:---------------1-----------1- ---------~----------I-----------I-----------l----------I--------------I----------.\. ---------- Site Preparation: 7: 18.00: 0.00: 0.00: 10.80: 7.30: 20.00:LD_Mix : HOT_Mix :HHOT ----------------:---------------1-----------1- ---------~----------I-----------I-----------l----------I--------------1- ---------.\. ---------- Grading : 8: 20.00: 0.00: 0.00: 10.80: 7.30: 20.00:LD_Mix : HOT_Mix :HHDT ----------------:---------------1-----------1-······· -.~----------I---··-------I-----------l----------I--------------I----------.\. -. -... -... Building Construction: 9: 521.00: 203.00: 0.00: 10.80: 7.30: 20.00:LD_Mix : HOT_Mix :HHDT ---------------·:---------------1-----------1---------. ~----------I-----------I-----------l----------I--------------I----------.\. ------. --- Paving : 6: 15.00: 0.00: 0.00: 10.80: 7.30: 20.00:LO_Mix : HOT_Mix lHHDT ~ .. -------------~--------------~----------~---------~---------~----------~---------~---------~-------------~---------~-.----- -- Architectural Coating: 1: 104.00: 0.00: 0.00: 10.80: 7.30: 20.00:LO_Mix : HOT_Mix :HHOT

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction

3.2 Demolition - 2020
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG
Categor~
Off-Road .. 3.3121 ' 33.2010 21.7532
Total

0.0388 , 1.6587 , 1.6587
PM2.5 Bio: CO2
Total
, 1.5419 , 1.541 9 ' 3.747.704 ' 3.747.704 I 1.0580 , , 9 , 9 I C02e
: 3.774.1 53
6 3,774.153
6 310
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 8 of 30 Date: 11/11/20205:17 PM

3.2 Demolition - 2020
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG 1 NOx 1 CO
C~tegory
1 S02 ·
AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County, Summer
Fugitive PM10
PM10 . . Total
Ib/day
Fugitive I Exhaust
PM2.5 1 PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- C02 I NBio- C02 I Total C02 I CH4
Ib/day
N20 C02e
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000: 0.0000 : 0.0000 t 0.0000 0.0000: 0.0000 0.0000 & •• I I t I , I I I I 10 I I I I I
.................... .. _.-------.,-------.,-------.,-------..,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------..,..-------.............. -I-------.,-------.,-------.,-------T ............ .. Vendor 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 t 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 & •• I I I I , I I I I , 1 I I I I
___________ ~-----_-..,-----_-,_-----_.,------_.,------_.,-------.,-------,-------,-------..,..-------~-------,-------.,-------,-------,-------T------- Worker 0.0780 I 0.0448 0.5761 I 1.3200e- I 0.1232 9.4000e- 0.1242 0.0327 I 8.6000e- I 0.0336 i . 131 .2156 I 131 .2156 I 4.3800e- 131.3251 003 004 004 & 003 &
Total 0.0780 1 0.0448 I 0.5761 I u~~eMitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO S02
Category
Off-Road 3.3121 I 33.2010 I 21.7532 I 0.0388
Total 3.3121 33.2010 21.7532 0.0388

0.1232 19.~~e-1 0.1242
Fugitive
. PM10
Exhaust
PM10
Ib/day

1.6587

1.6587
PM10
Total

1.6587

1.6587
0_0327 \ 8.6000e004
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5

1.5419

1.5419

0.0336
PM2.5
Total

1.5419

1.5419
131-2156 I 131.2156 I 4.3800e003
Bio- C02 I NBio- C02 I Total C02 CH4
Ib/day

0.0000 • 3,747.704 I 3.747.704 I 1.0580 I 9 I 9 :

0.0000 I 3,747.704 1 3,747.704 I 1.0580
9 9
N20
131_3251
C02e
• 3,774.153
I 6
3,774.153
6 311
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 9 of 30 Date: 11/11/20205:17 PM

3.2 Demolition - 2020
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
RaG
Category
AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County, Summer
PM2.5
Total
C02e
Ib/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 t 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 , •• I I I I I I I I I , I I t I I -----------~-------~-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------.-------I-------,-------,-------,-------~------- Vendor ., 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 t 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 u , ., I I I I I I I • I " I I I I I ................................... -------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------..,-------.,--------r--------.................... ""-------.,-------.,-------.,-------..................... - I Worker 0.0780 0.0448 0.5761 I 1.3200e- I 0.1232 I 9.4000e- I 0.1242 0.0327 I 8.6000e- I 0.0336 t ' 131 .2156 I 131 .2156 4.3800e-' , 131 .3251 003 004 004, 003
Total

3.2 Demolition - 2021
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
RaG NOx co
Category
S02
Off-Road 3.1651 31.4407 I 21 .5650 ' 0.0388
Total 3.1651 31 .4407 21.5650 0.0388
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
Ib/day

1.5513

1.5513
PM10,
Total

1.5513

1.5513
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5

1.4411

1.4411
PM2.5
Total

1.4411

1.4411
,
Bio- C02 I NBio- C02 I Total C02 CH4
Ib/day
, 3,747.944 ' 3,747.944 I 1.0549 I 9 • 9 :

I
3,747.944 1 3,747.944 I 1.0549
9 9
N20
131.3251
C02e
, 3,774.317 , 4
3,774.317
4 312
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 10 of 30 Date: 11/11/20205:17 PM AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County, Summer

3.2 Demolition - 2021
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx I co
Category;
.S02 I Fugitive I Exhaust ' PM10 PM10
Ib/day
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.S
Total
Bio: C02 NBio- C02 I Total C021 CH4 N20 1 C02e
Ib/day
Hauling •• 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000! 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • I •• I I I I I I I I I , • I I I I
· .. ---------M-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------~-------I-------,-------,-------,-------T------- Vendor •• 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 ! 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • I _. I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I
.................. ...... -------.,-------.,-------,-------.,.-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------"T"-------............. -I-------...-------.,-------.,-------T ............ - I Worker 0,0718 0,0399 I 0.5256 1.2800e- 0.1232 I 9.1000e- I 0.1241 0.0327' 8.4000e- I 0.0335 t I 127.4030 I 127.4030 I 3.9500e- I I 127.5017 003 004 004 I 003 I
Total 0.0718 I 0.0399 I 0.5256 0.1241 0.0327 8.4000e-J 0.0335 004
127.4030 1 127.4030 1 3.95ooe003
J 127.5017
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG .. PM2.5 C02e . Total
Category Ib/day
Off-Road •• 3.1651 I 31.4407 I 21 .5650 I 0.0388 I I 1.5513 1.551 3 I 1.4411 1.4411 0.0000' 3.747.944 I 3,747.944 I 1.0549 I 13,174.317 I 9 I 9 I I 4 Total 3,774.317
4 313
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 11 of 30 Date: 11/11/20205:17 PM

3.2 Demolition - 2021
Mitigated Construction Off·Site
ROG NOx
Category
Co I 502
AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County, Summer
Fugitiv~ , . Exhaust
PM10 PM10
Ib/day
PM10
Total
Fugitive Exha ust
PM2.5 PM2.5
PM2.S
Total
Bio- C02 I NBio- C02 \ Total C02
Ib/day
CH4
\
N20 C02e
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 t 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I _. I I I I I I I I I , • I I I •
-----------a-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------.-------I-------,-------,-------,-------~------- Vendor •• 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 t 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 . , ., • I I I • I , I I , I I I , I ----------D-------~------,-------,-------~------,-------T-------,-------,-------~-------.-------I-------T_------,-------,-------T---- --- Worker 0.0718 0.0399 0.5256 1.2800e-' 0.1232 • 9.1000e- I 0.1241 0.0327 I 8.4000e- I 0.0335 ~ '127.4030 127.4030 3.9500e- I 127.5017 •• 003 004 004 i 003 • I
Total 0.0718 I 0.0399 0_5256 ',1.2800e- 1 003

3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx Co 502
Category

0.1232 19~4oe-l 0.1241
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
Iblday
PM10
Total

0.0327 ,'1 8.4000e004
Fugitive', ,I Exhaust
PM2.5 · PM2.5

0.0335
PM2.S
Total
127.40301127.4030
810- C02 I NBio- C02 I Total C02

3.9500e- ,
003 1
CH4
Ib/day
127.5017
N20 C02e
Fugitive Dust : 18.0663 : 0.0000 : 18.0663 : 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 t 0.0000 0.0000 I I I _, I 1 I I I I I I I , I I I I •
---------- ~-------,-------,-------,-------~-------,-------,-------T-------T-------T-------~--- ---I-------,-------T-------T-------~------- Off-Road 3.8882' 40.4971 ' 21.1543 ' 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 t ' 3,685.656 ' 3,685.656 I 1.1920 ' 3,715.457 I : 9 : 9 : I 3
Total 3.8882 40_4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 I

9.9307 1_8809 11_8116 3,685.656 1 3,685.656 I 1.1920
9 9
3,715.457
3 314
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 12 of 30 Date: 11/11/20205:17 PM

3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
Unmitigated Construction Off·Site
ROG NOx Co
Category
S02
AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County, Summer
Fugitive Exhaust PM10
PM10 PM10 Total
Ib/day
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust PM2.5
PM2.S Total
Bio- C02 I NBio-COl Total C02 I CH4 1
Ib/day
N20 1 C02e
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 t 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 , _. I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I -----------R-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------.-------I-------,-------,-------,-------~------- Vendor •• 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 t 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 . , ., I I I I I I I , I , I I I I I -----------.-------~------,-------~------T_------,-------~------,-------,-------~-------.-------,-------,_------,-------,-------~------- Worker 0.0862 0.0478 0.6307 1.S400e-' 0.1479 I 1.0900e- I 0.1490 0.0392 I 1.0100e- I 0.0402 t . 152.8836 I 152.8836 I 4.7400e- I I 153.0020 003 003 003 , 003
Total 0.0862 0.0478 0.6307 1.S400e003 0.1479 1.0900e- 1 0.1490 003

0.0392 1.0100e- 1 0.0402
003
, 1S2.8836 152.8836 4.70~~e- ) 153.0020
Mitigated Construction On·Site
ROG NOx CO S02
Category
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
Ib/day
.PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio·C02 NBio· C02 I Total C02 I CH4 N20 C02e
Ill/day
Fugitive Dust • I 18.0663 I 0.0000 I 18.0663 I 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307! 0.0000 0.0000 _. I I I I , _. I I I I I I I I I , , I I I I
----------- __ ------~------,_------T_------T_------T_------,-------,-------,-------T-------.-------~------T_------,-------,-------T------- Off-Road 3.8882 I 40.4971 I 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809', 0.0000 • 3,685.656 I 3,685.656 I 1.1920 I '3,715.457 , I 9 I 9 : I 3 Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 , 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 0.0000 3,68;.656_t8;~656 1.1920 3,715.457 3 315
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 13 of 30 Date: 11/11/20205:17 PM

3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
Mitigated Construction Off·Site
RaG NOx
Category
co S02
AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County, Summer
Fugitive 1-' Exhaust
PM10 PM10
Ib/day
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2,5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio· C02 ,I NBio- C02 I Total C02
Ib/day
CH4 N20 C02e
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 t 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 & _. I I I • I I I I I , I I I I I
.......................... -------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------"T"-------............... .. I-------.,-------.,-------.,-------~ ............ .. Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 & •• I • I I I I I I I , I I • I I
-- .. --------~-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-- -----.,-------T-------T-------"T"------- .. ----- .. -.-------.,-- -----.,-------~------~------- Worker 0.0862 0.0478 0.6307 I 1.5400e- I 0.1479 1.0900e- 0.1490 0.0392 I 1.0100e- I 0.0402 t '152.8836 152.8836 4.7400e- I I 153.0020 003 003 003, 003
Total 0.0862 0.0478 0.6307

3.4 Grading - 2021
Unmitigated Construction On·Site
RaG NOx co
Category

1.5400e003
S02

0.1479 1.0900e003
Fugitive 'I' Exhaust
PM10 . PM10
Ib/day

0.1490
PM10
Total

0.0392 1 1.0100e003
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5

0.0402
,PM2.5
Total
&
Bio- C02
152.8836 I 152.8836 I 4.7400e003
NBio- C021 Totai C02_, CH4
Ib/day
153.0020
N20 C02e
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 i 0.0000 0.0000 , •• • • • I I I I I • , • I • I • .. -- ........ ----n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------~-------~-------.-------~------,_------~-------~-------.- -- ---- Off-Road 4.1912 I 46.3998 I 30.8785 I 0.0620 I 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 i '6,007.043 I 6,007.043 I 1.9428 16,055.613 ., , I 4 : 4 I I 4 h , Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 6'OO~.043J 6,OO~.043 1.9428 I 6,055.613 4 316
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 14 of 30 Date: 11/11/20205:17 PM

3.4 Grading - 2021
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
Category
AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County, Summer
PM2.5
Total
Blo- C02 C02e
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000! 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I •• I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I
--------.--.-------~-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------T-------~-------I-------,-------,-------,-------~------- Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 O.OOOO! 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I •• • I I , I I I I • l • • • I •
...... ... ... ... ......... _ ...... ._------.,-------,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------"T"-------"* .................. -.-------.,-------.,-------"'1-------.,. .................. ' Worker 0.0958 0.0532 0.7008 I 1.7100e- 0.1643 I 1.2100e- I 0.1655 0.0436 I 1.1200e- I 0.0447 ! . 169.8707 169.8707 5.2600e- I I 170.0023 003 003 003, 003 I
Total 170.0023
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG 1 NOx CO S02 Fugitive I Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 I Bio- C02 I NBio- C02 I Total C02 I CH4 N20 C02e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Totid
Category Ib/day I Ib/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 ~ 0.0000 0.0000 i •• I • I I 1 I • • • , I I • • •
-------- --.-------.,------ .,-------.,-------.,-------,---- ---.,-------T-------~------~-------.-------~------~-------T-------~-------~-------I Off-Road 4.191 2 I 46.3998 I 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265,' 0.0000 • 6,007.043 I 6,007.043 I 1.9428 16,055.613 , • 4 I 4 I I 4 , Total 4_1912 1 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 0.0000 I 6,00!.043 I 6.O0!.043 I 1.9428 1 16,05:.613 317
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 15 of 30 Date: 11/11/20205:17 PM

3.4 Grading - 2021
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG l NOX co 1 S02
Category
AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County, Summer
I F~~itive 1 Exhaust PM10
L10 PM10 Total
Fugitive Exhaust
PM2.5 PM2.5
Ib/day '
PM2.S
Total
Bio· C02 I NBio- C02 I Total C02 I CH4
Ib/day
N20 C02e
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000! 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 , _. I I • • I I I I I , • I I I • ... --------.-------,-------,-------,-------~-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------~-------I-------,-------,-------,-------~------- Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 O.OOOO! 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I •• • • • • I I I I • l • I I I I
-----------n-------,-------T-------T-------T-------,-------T-------,-------,-------~-------.-------~------,_------,-------,-------.------- Worker 0.0958 0.0532 0.7008 I 1.7100e- I 0.1643 I 1.2100e- I 0.1655 0.0436 I 1.1200e- I 0.0447 t ' 169.8707 I 169.8707 5.2600e- I I 170.0023 003 003 003 I 003 I
Total

0. 0958 1 0_0532 0.7008 I 1.7,!.?~oe- I 0.1643
~

1.21ooe-1 0.1655
003

0.043611.120Oe003

0.0447 169.8707 1 169.8707 5.2600e003 170.0023

3.5 Building Construction - 2021
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
Category
ROG PM2.5 C02e
Total
Off-Road ., 1.9009 I 17.4321 I 16.5752 0.0269 I 0.9586 0.9586 0.9013 0.9013 ' 2,553.363 I 2,553.363 I 0.6160 I 12,568.764 •• I 9 I 9 I • 3 Total 2,568.764
3 318
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 16 of 30 Date: 11/11/2020 5: 17 PM

3.5 Building Construction - 2021
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx co
Category
S02
AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County, Summer
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
Ib/day
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio· C02 I NBio· C02 I Total C02
Ib/day
CH4 1 N20 C02e
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I _. I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I
......................... -------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,- ------.,-------.,-------'T"-------"l ............ -1-------.,-------.,-------.,-------""" ............ .. Vendor 0.7011' 22.2279 '4.3694 0.0585 1.3766 0.0682 1.4447 0.3964 0.0652 0.4616 II ' 6,116.482 ' 6,116.482 ' 0.5521 ' 6,130.285 I I I I 7 I 7 I • 6 _. I I t I I I I I • , • • • I I
-- ------ .. --~-------.,-------~------T_------.,-------~------.,-------T-------.,-------~-------.-------~------.,-------~------~------~- -- -- Worker 2.4950 1.3848' 18.2549 '0.0445 4.2799 0,0316 4.3115 1.1352 0.0291 1.1 644 II • 4.425.1 31 ' 4.425.1 31' 0,1371 ' 4.428.559 •• , I 7 I 7 I 0 - I
Total 3.1961 23.6127 22.6243 0.1029 5.6565 0.0998 5.7562 1.5317 0.0943 1.6260 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG PM2.S
Total
Category
Off·Road ., 1.9009 ' 17.4321 , 16.5752 ' 0.0269 , 0,9586 , 0,9586 , , 0.901 3 0.901 3 Total
10,541,61 110,541.61
43 43

0.0000 ' 2,553.363 ' 2,553.363 ' , 9 , 9 ,

0. 6892 1

0.6160 ,
10,558.84
46 C02e
, 2,568.764 , 3
2,568.764
3 319
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2

3.5 Building Construction - 2021
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO
Category
S02

AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County, Summer
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
:PM10 -
Ib/day
PM10
,Total
Fugitive 1 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5
PM2.5
Total Bio· C02 1.

NBiO- C02 I Total C02 1-----cH4 1 N20 I C02e
Ib/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000! 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I _. I I I I I I I I I I • I I I I
-----------.-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------~-------I-------,-------,-------,-------~------- Vendor 0.7011' 22.2279 '4.3694 0.0585 1.3766 0.0682 1.4447 0.3964 0.0652 0.4616 I, '6.116.482' 6,116.482' 0.5521 '6,130.285 I I & • 7 : 7 I : 6 •• I I • • I I I I • & • I I I •
-- ---- -- --n-------~------,_----- T_------T_------,_------T_------,-------,-------~-------.- -- --- ~------T_------,-------,-------.---- -- Worker 2.4950 1.3848 ' 18.2549 '0.0445 4.2799 0.0316 4.3115 1.1352 0.0291 1.1644 t '4.425.131' 4,425.131' 0.1371 ' '4,428.559 i I 7 I 7 I 0 Total 3.1961 23.6127 22.6243

3.5 Building Construction - 2022
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
RaG
Category
Off-Road ., 1.7062 15.61 56 ' 16.3634 '
Total

0.1029 5.6565 0.0998 5.7562

0.0269 0.8090 , 0.8090 ,
,

1. 5317 1 0.0943 1.6260
PM2.5
. Total
, 0.761 2 , 0.761 2
10'~~.61 10'54~1 61 1 0.6892 1
' 2,554.333 ' 2,554.333 ' 0.6120 , , 6 , 6 ,
1 10,558.84
46 C02e
, 2,569.632 , 2
2,569.632
2 320
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2

3.5 Building Construction - 2022
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG 1 NOx co
Category
1 S02

AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County, Summer
PM10 ' PM10 Fugitive I Exhaust 1
Ib/day
PM10
Total
Fugitive 1 Exhaust
PM2.5 PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio· C02 I NBio· COl Total C02 CH4
1 N20 C02e
Ib/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 l 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I •• I I I I I I I I I , • I I I I
.. .................... .,-------""1-------.,-------.,-------"1-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------..,..-------.............. -I-------.,-------.,-------.,-------'T ............ _ I Vendor 0.6453 I 21.0782 I 3.9423 0.0579 1.3766 0.0591 1.4357 0.3964 0.0565 0.4529 t 16.060.166 I 6.060.166 I 0.5368 16.073.584 I I , I 1 : 1 : : 8 • • I I • • I • • • I , I • I • I -----------ft-------T-------"I-------.,-------~------.,-------~------.,-------T_------T------- .. -------I-------.,-------.,-------T-------T---- -- - Worker 2.3039 1.2364 16.6498 I 0.0429 4.2799 0.0305 4.3104 1.1352 0.0281 1.1633 + '4,266.611 '4.266.611 I 0.1225 '4.269.673 i I 5 I 5 I 0 Total 2.9492 1 22.3146 20.5922 1 0.1008
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO S02
Category
Off·Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269
Total

1. 7062
1 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269

5.6565
Fugitive
. PM10

0. 0896 1
Exhaust
PM10
Ib/day '

0.8090

0.8090

5.7461
PM10
'" Total

0.8090

0.8090

1. 53171
Fugitive
PM2.5

0.0846
Exhaust
·· PM2.5

0.7612

0.7612

1.6163
PM2.5
Total

0.761 2

0.7612
&
76 76
10,326.771 10,326.77

0. 6592
1 Bio· C02 I NBio· C02 I Total C02 CH4
Ib/day

0.0000 I 2,554.333 I 2,554.333 I 0.6120 I 6 I 6 I

0.0000 2,554.333 1 2,554.333 0.6120
6 6
N20
10,343.25
78 C02e
I 2.569.632 I 2
2,569.632
2 321
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 19 of 30 Date: 11/11/20205:17 PM AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County, Summer

3.5 Building Construction - 2022
Mitigated Construction Off·Site
ROG l I . Fugitive Exhaust
PM10 PM10
NOx co S02
Category Ib/day
PM10
Total
Fugitive Exhaust
PM2.5 PM2.5
PM2.S
Total
Blo- C02 ! NBiO- C02 I Total C02 I CH4 N20 C02e
Ib/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000! 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 : _. I I I I I I I I I I • I I I •
.. ---------.-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------.-------I-------,-------,-------,-------~------- Vendor •• 0.6453 • 21.0782 • 3.9423 0.0579 1.3766 0.0591 1.4357 0.3964 0.0565 0.4529! • 6,060.166 • 6,060.166' 0,5368 • 6,073.584 •• I I i I 1 I 1 I I 8 •• I I I I I I I , I I • I I I •
-----------ft-------T-------,-------,-------~------,-------~------,-------~------T-------.-------~------T_------ ,-------,-------T------- Worker 2.3039 • 1.2364 • 16.6498 • 0.0429 4.2799' 0.0305 • 4.3104 • 1.1352 • 0.0281 • 1.1633 ! . 4,266.611 14,266.611 I 0.1225 I '4,269.673 i I 5 I 5 I 0 Total 2.9492 J 22.3146 20.5922 J 0.1008 5.6565 \ 0.0896 \ 5.7461 1.5317 1 0.0846 &
\
10,326.77 \ 10,326.77
76 76

1.6163 0.6592 I 10,343.25
78 3.6 Paving - 2022
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
Category
Off-Road
ROG NOx Co I S02 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
Ib/day
PM10
Total
Fugitive .

PM2.S
Exhaust
PM2.S
PM2.5
'Total
. Bio- C02 I NBio- C02 I Total C02
Ib/day
CH4 N20 C02e
•• 1.1028 I 11.1249 I 14.5805 I 0.0228 0.5679 0.5679 0.5225 0.5225 II • 2,207.660 • 2,207.660 I 0.7140 12,225.510 •• I I I , • 3 I 3 I 14 •• I I I • I I , I I l I I I I I
---.---.. --~-------~-------,-------,-------T-------~-------T-------,-------~-------T-------.- --·- -I-------,_------~-------,-------.. ------ Paving 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 O.oooo! 0.0000 0.0000 Total
1 1.1028 14.5805 J 0.0228 I 11.1249 0.5679 0.5679
I
I

0.5225 0.5225 2,207.660 1 2,207.660 I 0.7140
3 3
2,225.510
4 322
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 20 of 30 Date: 11/11/20205:17 PM

3.6 Paving - 2022
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx co S02
. Category
AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County, Summer
Fugitive ,
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
Ib/day
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2 .. 5
Total
Bio- C02 I NBio- C02 I Total C02
Ib/day
CH4 J N20 C02e
Hauling 0.0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0.0000 0,0000 0,0000 t 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0.0000 , _. I I • I I I I I I " I I I I I -----------.-------~-------,-------,-------,-------~-------,-------,-------,-------~-------~-------I-------,-------,-------,-------~------- Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 0,0000 0.0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0.0000 O.OOOO! 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 , •• I I I I I I 1 I I , I I • • I -----------~------~------,-------T_------~------,-------~------,-------,_------T-------~-------I-------,-------,-------,-------.------- Worker 0.0663 0.0356 0.4794 I 1,2300e- 0.1232 I 8,8000e- I 0.1241 0.0327 I 8.1000e- I 0.0335 t I 122,8391 I 122,8391 I 3,5300e- I I 122,9272 003 004 004 I 003 I
Total 0.0663 0.0356 0.4794
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROGNOx CO
Category
1_2300e003
502

0.1232
Fugitive
PM10

8.8000e·
004
Exhaust
PM10
Ib/day

0.1241
PM10
Total
;!t>"

0.0327
Fugitive
PM2,5

8.1000e004
Exhaust
PM2.5

0.0335
PM2,5
Total

3.5300e- 1
003 1 122_8391 I 122.8391 122_9272
Bio- C02 I NBio· C02 I Total C02 CH4 N20 C02e
Ib/day
Off-Road 1.1028 I 11,1249 I 14.5805 I 0.0228 0.5679 0.5679 0.5225 0.5225 II 0.0000 • 2,207.660 '2,207.660 I 0,7140 '2,225.510 I I : , I 3 I 3 I I 4 •• • • • , I I I I • l • I I I I
-- --------._------,-------T-------T_------,-------T_------T_------,-------,-------T-------~-------~------T_------,-------~-------T---- -- Paving 0.0000 I I 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 i 0.0000 I 0.0000 Total 1.1028 1 11.1249 14.5805 0.0228 0.5679 0.5679
I
l

0.5225 0.5225 0.0000 I 2,207.660 1 2.207.660 I 0.7140
3 3
2,225.510
4 323
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 21 of 30 Date: 11/11/20205:17 PM

3.6 Paving - 2022
Mitigated Construction Off·Site
ROG
Category
AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County, Summer
PM2.5
Total
C02e
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 , •• I I I I I I I I I , , I I I • ··---------ft-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------T-------~·------I-------,-------,-------,-------~------- Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I ., I I I I I I I , I , I I I I I
-----------.-------~------,-------,-------T_------,-------~------,-------~------T-------~-------I-------,-------,-------~------~------ Worker 0.0663 0.0356 0.4794 I 1.2300e- I 0.1232 I 8.8000e- I 0.1241 0.0327 I 8.1000e- I 0.0335 t I 122.8391 I 122.8391 ' 3.5300e- I , 122.9272 003 004 004, 003
Total

3.6 Paving - 2023
Unmitigated Construction On·Site
ROG NOx J CO
Category
S02 Fugitive I Exhaust
PM10 • PM10
Ib/day
PM10
Total
Fugitive
' PM2.S
Exhaust
PM2.5

0.0335
PM2.S
Total
, 122.9272
Bio- C02 I NBio- C02 I Total C02 CH4 N20 C02e
Ib/day
Off-Road 1.0327 I 10.1917 ' 14.5842 ' 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694', . 2.207.584 ' 2.207.584 I 0.7140 '2.225.433 I I : , I 1 I 1 • I 6 _. I • , I I I I I I , I I I I I -----------ft-------,-------T-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------T-------~-------~------~-------T-------,-------~------- Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000! 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1_0327 10.1917 J 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102
&
&

0.4694 0.4694 2.207.584 1 2,207.584 I 0.7140
1 1
2,225.433
6 324
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 22 of 30 Date: 11/11/20205:17 PM

3.6 Paving - 2023
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
Category
AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County, Summer
PM2.5
Total
C02e
Ib/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000! 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I _. I I I I I I I I I , • I • I I
---------.-.-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------~-------I-------,-------,-------,-------T------- Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 O.OOOO! 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I _. I t I I I I I I I , I I I I I
-----------ft-------,-------,-------,-------T-------,-------~------,-------~------T-------.-------I-------,-------,-------~------T------- Worker 0.0613 0.0318 I 0.4358 I 1.1900e- I 0.1232 I 8.5000e- I 0.1241 I 0.0327 I 7.8000e- I 0.0335 ! I 118.2194 I 118.2194 ' 3.1300e- I , 118.2978 003 004 004 I 003
Total
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO
Category
502 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
Ib/day
PM10
.Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
I
Bio- C02 I NBio- COl Total C02
Ib/day
118.2978
CH4 N20 C02e
Off-Road 1.0327 I 10.1917 ' 14.5842 I 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 I, 0.0000 '2.207.584 I 2.207.584' 0.7140 '2.225.433 • I • , .,. 1 I t 6 -. I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I
-----------ft-------,-------T-------,-------,-------,-------,-------T-------T-------~-------.~~~···-I-------,-------~-------T-------T····--- Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 O.OOOO! 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.0327 10_1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102

0. 4694 1 I
I

0.4694 0.0000 2,207 _584-T 2,207.584
1 I 1

0.7140 2,225.433
6 325
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 23 of 30 Date: 11/11/20205:17 PM

3.6 Paving - 2023
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
Category
AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County, Summer
PM2.S
Total ·
C02e
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 t 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 , _. I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I -----------~-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------.-------I-------,-------,-------,-------T------- Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 , •• I I I I I I I , I , I I I I I -----------ft-------~------,-------~------~------,-------~------,-------,-------~-------.-------I-------~------,-------,-------T------- Worker 0.0613 0.0318 0.4358' 1.1900e- ' 0.1232 '8.S000e- 0.1241 0.0327' 7.8000e-' 0.0335 t . 118.2194 '118.2194 3.1300e-' • 118.2978 003 004 004, 003
Total

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2023
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx Co
Categ?ry
S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10
PM10 PMlO Total
Ib/day
Fugitive
PM2.S
Exhaust
PM2.S
PM2.S
Total
, 118.2978
Bio- C02 I NBio- C02 I Total C02 I CH4 N20 C02e
.Ib/day
Archil. Coating :: 493.2143 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 t 0.0000 0.0000 , _. I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I ............ ............ -------.,-------.,-------,-------.,-------,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------'T"-------"* - - - - - - -.-------,-------.,-------.,-------.... - - - - - __ I Off-Road 0.1917 1.3030 1.8111' 2.9700e- , 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 t . 281 .4481 ' 281.4481' 0.0168 • 281.8690 003 ,
Total 493.4060 1.3030 1.B111 2.9700e003 L:: l 0.0708
, 0.0708 0.0708 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690
326
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 24 of 30 Date: 11/11/20205:17 PM 3,7 Architectural Coating - 2023
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County. Summer
ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
.Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.S
Total
Bio· C02 I NBio- C02 I Total C02 CH4 N20 I, C02e
Category Ib/day Ib/day
Hauling :: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I • • •• I I I I I I I I I , • I I I I
..... ------.-------~-------,-------,-------~-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------~-------I-------,-------,-------,-------~------- Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 t 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I •• I I I I I I I , I , I I I t I
-----------n-------~------,-------T_------T_------,-------T-------,-------~------~-------~-------.-------T_------,-------,-------~------- Worker 0.4248 0.2203 I 3.0217 • 8.2300e-' 0.8543 • 5.8900e-' 0.8602 0.2266 5.4300e- I 0.2320 t . 819.6545 • 819.6545 I 0.0217 • 820.1978 •• 003 003 003 I
• I
Total 0.4248 1 0.2203 3.0217
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO
Category

8.2300e003
S02

0.8543
Fugitive
PM10

5.89OOe003
Exhaust
PM10
Ib/day

0.8602
PM10
Total

0.2266 5.4300e003
Fugitive: Exhaust
PM2.S PM2.S

0.2320
PM2.5
Total
819.6545 819.6545 0.0217 \ 820.1978
Bio- C02 I NBio- C02 I Total C02 CH4 N20 C02e
Ib/day
Archil. Coating :: 493.2143 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 t 0.0000 0.0000 & _. I I I I , I I , I , t I I I I
-----------.-------,-------T-------,-------,-------,-------~-------T_------T_------T-------.-------.-------~-------T_------~-------T ------ Off-Road •• 0.1917 1.3030 1.8111' 2.9700e- I 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 'I' 0.0000 '281.4481' 281.4481' 0.Q168 • 281.8690 • ~ I Total 493.4060 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e003

0.0708 0.0708
, 0.0708 0.0708 0.0000 281.4481 I 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690 327
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 25 of 30 Date: 11/11/20205:17 PM AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County. Summer

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2023
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx 1 co
Category
I S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10
PM10 PM10 Total
Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5
PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Bio- C02 I NBio- C02 I Total C02 I . CH4 N20 1 C02e
Ib/day Ib/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 t 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 & ., I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I
~----------n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------T-------~-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~------- Vendor -. 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • & ., I I I I I I I I I , I I • I I -----------n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~------~------T-------~-------,-------,-------,-------,-------T------- Worker 0.4248 0.2203 3.0217 I 8.2300e- I 0.8543 I 5.8900e- I 0.8602 0.2266 I 5.4300e- I 0.2320 i I 819.6545 I 819.6545 I 0.0217 I 820.1978 003 003 003 &
Total 0-4248 0.2203 ~ 8.2300e- I I 003

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

0.8543 0.8602 0_2266 1 5.4300e- 1 0.2320
003 I
&
1 819.6545 819.6545 t 0.0217 t 1 820_1978
328
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 26 of 30 Date: 11/11/20205:17 PM AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County, Summer
ROG 1 NOx co S02 Fugitive Exhaust
PM10 PM10
PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.S
Total PM2.S PM2.5 Total
CH4 N20 I C02e
Category Ib/day ·Ib/day
Mitigated :: 22.6050 : 238.0290 : 208.6910: 1.0389 : 54.7010 : 0.8669 : 55.5679 : 14.7023 : 0.81 95 15.5219 . • 106,641 .6 ' 106,641 .6' 8.6967 • 106,859.1
: 874 • 874 ' • : 047 ., I I I • I I I I I I I I I I
- -un~tig~i d - - - -i2~605o -:- 238~0290 -:- 208~691 0 .... - 1.038-9- -:- -54~70io .... - 0.866-9- .... -55~5679 -:- -14~702:i -:- - 0.819-5- .... -1-5~5219- . ... .. .... -,..-------r------..... -------,--------r ............ .. , 106,641 .6 • 106,641 .6' 8.6967 • 106,859.1 • 874 • 874 • , 047

4.2 Trip Summary Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated I
Land Use Weekday I Saturday \Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT General Light Industry . 8,652.98 I 1,638.73 I 844.19 . 19,080,174 . 19,080,174 . Total 8,652.98 I 1,638.73 T 844.19 1 19,080,174 I 19,080,174 I

4.3 Trip Type Information
Miles Trip % Trip Purpo,se %
Land Use H-W or cow I H-S or.C-C I H-O or C-NW H-W or COW I H-S or C-C I H-O or C-NW Primary I Diverted I Pass-by General Light Industry . . 9.50 7.30 7.30 . 59.00 28.00 13.00 . 92 . 5 . 3 , . . . . . .

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDn LDT2 MDV I LHD1 LH,D2 MHD 1 HHD l OBUS 1 UBUS I MCV L SBUS -I MH General Light Industry • 0.498498: 0.030090: 0.155509: 0.109662: 0.018147: 0.004601: 0.015536: 0.154991: 0.002397: 0.002156: 0.006230: 0.001554: 0.000628

5.0 Energy Detail
Historical Enerqy Use: N
329
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 27 of 30 Date: 11/11/20205:17 PM AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County, Summer

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
ROG I NOx co I S02 Fugitive I Exhaust
PM10 PM10
PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5
Total PM2.5 PM2.S Total
Bio· C02 I NBio· C02 TotalCO~1 CH4 N20 1 C02e
Category Ib/day Ib/day
NaturalGas 0.7655 6.9593 5.8458 0.0418 0.5289 0.5289 0.5289 0.5289! ' 8.351 .094 I 8.351.094 I 0.1601 0.1531 18.400.720 Mitigated & '3 I 3 I : 7 _. I I I I I I I I I & I I 1 I I .................... -.,..------....,..------..... ------....,..------....,..------..... ------...... ------..... ------..... ------..,..-------. .. .. ...... .. -,..------..... ------...,..------....,..------..,. ............ ..

NaturalGas 0.7655 6.9593 5.8458 0.0418 0.5289 0.5289 0.5289 0.5289 ' 8.351.094 ' 8.351 .094' 0.1601 0.1531' 8.400.720 Unmitigated ' 3 ' 3 ' , 7

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
Unmitigated
Land Use ,
NaturalGa
·s Use
kBTU/yr
ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust
PM10 PM10
Ib/day
PM10
Total
Fugitive E.xhaust
PM2.5 PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio·. CO2 I NBio- C02ITotai C02 CH4 N20
Ib/day
C02e
General Light '70984.3
Industry
:: 0.7655 6.9593 5.8458 0.0418 , 0.5289 I 0.5289 I 0.5289 0.5289 18.351 .094 I 8.351.094 I 0.1601 I 0.1531 18.400.720 Total
I,
I,

0.7655 6.9593 5.8458 0.0418 0.5289 0.5289 0.5289 0.5289 : 3 : 3 I : 7
8,351.094 1 8,351.094 I 0.1601
3 3

0.1531 1 8,400.720
7 330
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 28 of 30 Date: 11/11/20205:17 PM

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
Mitigated
NaturalGa ROG
s Use
Land Use kBTUlyr
General Light ' 70.9843 0.7655 6.9593 , 5.8458
Industry
Total

6.0 Area Detail

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County, Summer
PM2.5 Bio- CO2
Total

0.0418 0.5289 0.5289 , 0.5289 , 0.5289 : 8,351.094 : 8,351.094 :
3 3 ,
ROG 1 NOx I CO

1. S02 . Fugitive Exhaust
PM10 PM10
PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5
Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Bio- C02 I NBio- C02 I Total C02 I CH4
Category Ib/day Ib/day

0.1601 0.1531
N20 I C02e
Mitigated •• 31.3085 ' 1.1600e-' 0.1270 ' 1.0000e- , , 4.5000e- , 4.5000e- , , 4.5000e- , 4.5000e- 'I 0.2717 0.2717' 7.2000e- , 0.2896 ., : 003: '005 ' '004: 004: : 004 : 004 I : 004 : _. I I I I I I I I I I • I • I • C02e
: 8,400.720
7 8,400.720
7 ...................... ~-------'--------"'------"""'-------r------~------.,..-------.----- --....,..-------.-------- .. .. .......... -r-------.-------.... -------,..------...... .. .. .. .... .. Unmitigated 31.3085 1.16ooe- 0.1 270' 1.0000e- , '4.5OO0e- 4.50ooe- , 4.5OO0e- , 4.5000e- • 0.2717 0.2717 7.20ooe-' 0.2896 003 005 004 004 004 004 004
331
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 29 of 30 Date: 11/11/20205:17 PM

6.2 Area by SubCategory
Unmitigated
ROG NOx
SUbCategory
CO S02
AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County. Summer
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
Ib/day
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.S
PM2.5
Total
8 10- ~02 I NBio- co~t Total C02
Ib/day
CH4 N20 C02e
Architectural 4.7295 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 t 0.0000 0.0000 Coating , •• I I I I I I I • I & I I I I I
.................... .... -------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------..,-------.,-------.,-------.,--------.............. -,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------"'1" ............ - I Consumer :: 26.5672 : I I 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 t I 0.0000 I 0.0000 Products.. I ,
_. I I 1 I I I I I I , • I I I I
........................ -------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-- -----.,-------~------.,-------T-------.. --- .. -- .. ,-------T_------~------,_------~ .. ------ landscaping 0.0118' 1.1600e- I 0.1270 • 1.0000e- I I 4.5000e- 4.5000e- I I 4.5000e- 4.5000e- t 0.2717 0.2717 I 7.2000e- I 0.2896 003 005 004 004 004 004, 004
Total 31.3085
Mitigated
ROG
SubCategory

1.1600e003
NOx 1

0.1270
CO J

1.0000e·
005
S02 Fugitive
PM10

4.5000e·
004
Ib/day

4.5000e·
004

4.5000e·
004
pMl0 I -Fugitive .j . ·.Exhaust Total , PM2.5 PM2.5

4.5000e·
004
PM2.5 .

Total
,
Bio· C02

0.2717 I 0.2717 7.2000e004
NBio- C02 I Total C02j CH4
Ib/day

0.2896
N20 J C02e
Architectural 4.7295 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 t 0.0000 0.0000 Coating I
•• I I I I I I I I I , I I I I •
............ -.. ---.-------.,-------.,-------T-------~-------T_------~-------T_------~-------T-------~-------~------T_------~------T_------T-·----- Consumer •• 26.5672 I 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 t 0.0000 I I I 0.0000 Products" I ,
•• I I I I I I I • I , • I • I I
----.... ---.-------~-------~-------~-------~-------,-------,-------~-------,-------T-------~-------I-------~-------,-------~-------T----··· Landscaping 0.0118 I 1.1600e- 0.1270 I 1.0000e- 4.5000e- I 4.5000e- I I 4.5000e- I 4.5000e- t 0.2717 0.2717 I 7.2000e- I 0.2896 •• 003 005 004 004 004 004, 004 . , 1.1600e· -I
003 1 Total 31.3085 0.1270

7.0 Water Detail
OOS 1
1 .
00oae' l 004 004 4.S000e' 4.S000~ I 004
1 4
.

S
OOOe- I 4.S000e004 1 0.
2717 1 0.2717
L=~1 1 0.2896
332
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 30 of 30 Date: 11/11/20205:17 PM AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County. Summer

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

8.0 Waste Detail

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

9.0 Operational Offroad
_ Equipment Type Number Hours/Day DayslYear Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
. Equipment Type Number Hours/Day HourslYear Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat.lnput/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type-· Number

11.0 Vegetation
333

THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
334
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 1 of 30
AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County. Winter

1.0 Project Characteristics

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses [ Size
General Light Industry 1.241 .46

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s)
Climate Zone 3
Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company
C02 Intensity
(lbIMWhr)
641.35 CH4 Intensity
(lblMWhr)

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - 28.5 acres = 1,241,460-SF.

Table Name Column Name .

2.0 Emissions Summary
AMG Industrial Annexation
Merced County, Winter
I

2.2 0.029
Metric
1000sqft
Precipitation Freq (Days)
Operational Year
N20 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Default Value
Date: 11/11/20205:28 PM
Lot Acreage floor Surface Area I Population

28.50 1.241 .460.00 o
49 2022

0.006
New Value
335
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 2 of 30 Date: 11/11/20205:28 PM AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County, Winter

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
Unmitigated Construction
ROG
. Year
PM2.5
Total
C02e
2020 3.3844 • 33.2543 • 22.2491 • 0.0400 0.1232 1.6596 1.7829 0.0327 1.5427 1.5754 II 0.0000 • 3,863.651' 3,863.651' 1.0618 0.0000' 3,890.196 I : : & r 4 I 4 I I 9 ., I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I
-----------n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------~--··---I-------,-------,-------,-------~------- 2021 4.9460 • 46.4630 • 37.3434 • 0.1228 • 18.2141 I 2.0456 I 20.2597 I 9.9699 1.8819 11 .8518 II 0.0000 • 12,381 .69 I 12,381 .69 I 1,9474 0.0000 '12,415.74 I I I I I I I " 73 I 73 I I 05 •• I • I I I I I I I , I • • I I
-----------ft-------~------~------,-------T_------,-------T-------~------~------T-------.-------,-------T_------,-------,-------T------ 2022 4.5158 I 38.3232 I 35.2278 I 0.1208 5.6565 0.9010 6.5575 1.5317 0.8481 2.3797 II 0.0000 • 12,186.91 '12,186.91 I 1.3287 0.0000 I 12,220.13 I I I I • 98 I 98 I I 58 •• I I I I I I I I I " I I I I I
-----------n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------T-------.-------I-------,-------~-------~-------T------ 2023 493.7989 I 10.2294 I 14.9549 I 0.0239 0.8543 0.5111 0.9311 0.2266 0.4702 0.5029 II 0.0000 • 2,312.045 I 2,312.045 I 0.7167 0.0000 '2,329.963 &: I 0 I 0 I I 3 I
Maximum 12,381,69 1 1,9474
73 0.0000 1 12,415.74
05 336
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 3 of 30 Date: 11/11/20205:28 PM AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County, Winter

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
Mitigated Construction
RaG 1 NOx co I S02 Fugitive I Exhaust 1
PM10 PM10
Year Ib/day
PM10
Total Fugitive I Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
BJo· C02 I N Bio· c021 Total C02 I
Ib/day
CH4 I N20 . I C02e
2020 3.3844 ' 33.2543 ' 22.2491 '0.0400 0.1232 1.6596 1.7829 0.0327 1.5427 1.5754! 0.0000 '3.863.651' 3,863.651' 1.0618 0.0000' 3.890.196 : : I , • 4 : 4 : • 9 _. I I I I , I I I I , I I I • I --------~--.-------~-------~-------~-------~-------~-------,-------,-------,-------T-------~-------I-------,-------,-------,-------~------- 2021 4.9460 ' 46.4630 ' 37.3434 ' 0.1228 ' 18.2141 ' 2.0456 ' 20.2597 '9.9699 1.8819 11.8518! 0.0000 '12,381 .69' 12,381 .69' 1.9474 ' 0.0000 '12,415.74 I I I I I I I i I 73 I 73 I : 04 •• • I • 1 I I I I • , • I I • I
----------- __ ------~------,-------T_------,-------~------,-------,-------,-------T-------.-------~------T_------T-------,-------.------- 2022 4.5158 ' 38.3232 ' 35.2278 ' 0.1208 , 5.6565 '0.9010 6.5575 1.5317' 0.8481 ' 2.3797 ! 0.0000 '12,186.91' 12,186.91' 1.3287 ' 0.0000 '12,220.13 , , , i '98' 98 ' , 58 •• I I I • I I I I I , I I I I I
-----------.-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------~-------~-------.--- .. --.-------~-------,-------,-------~------- 2023 493.7989 ' 10.2294 ' 14.9549 '0.0239 0.8543 0.5111 0.9311 0.2266 0.4702 0.5029! 0.0000 '2,312.045' 2,312.045' 0.7167 ' 0.0000 '2,329.963 i : 0 I 0 I I 3 , Maximum II 493.7989 1.8819 \

11.8518 I 0.0000 112,381.69112,381.69\ 1.9474
\

0.0000 \ 12.415.
74 73 73 04
ROG I NOx I CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.S Bio-C02 NBio-C02 Total CO2 CH4 N20 C02e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.S PM2.S Total
Percent 0.00 I 0.00 I 0.00 I 0.00 I 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction
337
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 4 of 30 Date: 11/11/20205:28 PM AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County, Winter

2.2 Overall Operational
Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx co I
Category
S02 Fugitive 'Exhaust '
PM10 PM10
Ib/day
PM10
Total
Fugitive ExhauSt
PM2.5 PM2.5
Pt)I12.5
Total
Bio- C02 I NBio- C02 I Total C02 I
Ib/day
CH4 I N20 I C02e
Area .. 31.3085 • 1.1600e-· 0.1270 • 1.0000e- • • 4.5000e- • 4.5000e- • • 4.5000e- • 4.5000e- & 0.2717 0.2717' 7.2000e- • 0.2896 .. • 003: • 005 • : 004 • 004 • : 004 : 004 t : 004 • _. I I I • • I I I I , I I I I • ...................... .. -------.,-------.,-------.,-------..,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------T-------.............. -.-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,. ............ . ' Energy 0.7655 6.9593 5.8458 0.0418 0.5289 0.5289 0.5289 0.5289 ~ • 8,351.094 • 8,351.094' 0.1601 0.1531' 8,400.720 i . 3 : 3 I I 7 ., I I I I I I I , • , • I I 1 I ......................... _______ ,-______ .,-______ .,-______ .,-______ ,-______ .,-______ ., ___ ----.,-------T-------.............. -~------.,-------.,-------... -------~ ............ _I Mobile 18.7347 • 241 .2277 • 197.9891' 0.9637 • 54.7010 • 0.8903 • 55.5913 14.7023 0.8419 15.5442 II • 99,013.94 • 99,013,94 • 9.5423 • 99,252.50 & • 89 • 89 • • 71 I Total 54.7010 50.8087 \ 248.1881 \203.91;1j 1.0055 14.7023 1 1.3712 16.0735 \
107,365.3 0.1531 \ 107,653.5
149 174

1.4196 56.1206
Mitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO S02
Category
Fugitive Exhaust
PM10 PM10
Iblday
PM10
Total 1 N20 I C02e Fugitive J Exhaust PM2.5 , PM2,5 PM2.S Total Bio- C02 I NBio- C02 I Total C02 I CH4
Ib/day
Area •• 31.3085 • 1.1600e-· 0.1270 • 1.0000e- • • 4.5000e- • 4.5000e- • • 4.5000e- • 4.5000e- & 0.2717 0.2717' 7.2000e- • 0.2896 .. • 003' • 005' • 004 • 004' : 004 : 004 t . 004 • • , I I I • I I , I I , I , I I I ......................... -------.,-------,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------,-------.,-------,-------T-------.............. .. I-------,-------.,-------,-------~ .............. I Energy 0.7655 6.9593 5.8458 0.0418 0.5289 0.5289 0.5289 0.5289 ~ • 8,351 .094' 8,351 .094' 0.1601 0.1531' 8,400.720 i . 3 I 3 I I 7 •• I I I I I I I I I , • I I I I
.. -- .. --- .. ---.-------.,-------~-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------~-------.,-------T------- .. -- .. ----I-------~-------.,-------~-------~------- Mobile 18.7347 241.2277 197.9891' 0.9637 • 54.7010 0.8903' 55.5913 • 14.7023 • 0.8419 15.5442 + • 99,013.94 • 99,013.94' 9.5423 • 99,252.50 i . 89 : 89 I I 71
&
Total 50.8087 1 248,1881 56.1206

1. 4196 1 14.702311.3712 1 16.0735
\
107,365.3 \ 107,365.3 \ 9.7031 \ 0.1531 \ 107,653.5
149 149 174
203.9619 1.0055 54.7010
338
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod,2016,3,2 Page 5 of 30 Date: 11/11/20205:28 PM ROG
Percent 0,00
Reduction

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase '
. Number
Phase Name
NOx co
0,00 0,00
AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County, Winter
502 Fugitive ' Exhaust PM10 '
' PM10 PM10 Total
0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Phase Type Start Date
Fugitive , Exhaust PM2,5 Bio- CO2
PM2,5
0,00
End Date
PM2,5 Total '
0,00 0,00 0,00
Num Days I Nurn Days
Week
: Demolition : Demolition : 12/1/2020 : 111 1/2021 : 5 : 30 :

NBio-C02 Total CO2 CH4
0,00 0.00 0.00
Phase Description
-----~------------------------;-----------------------1------------~------------~--------~--------4--------._--------------. 2 :Site Preparation :Site Preparation :1112/2021 :2/8/2021 : 5: 20:
-----~------------------------:-----------------------1------------~------------~--------~--------4------------------------- 3 :Grading :Grading : 2/9/2021 : 4/1 2/2021 : 5: 45:
-------~------------------------I-----------------------I------------~------------~--------~--------~------------------------- 4 : Building Construction : Building Construction : 4/13/2021 : 1 2/1 9/2022: 5: 440:
-------~------------------------:-----------------------I------------~------------~--------~--------~------------------------- 5 : Paving :Paving :12120/2022 :2/6/2023 : 5: 35:
-------~------------------------~----------------------~-----------~-----------~--------~--------~------------------------- 6 :Architectural Coating :Architectural Coating : 2/7/2023 : 3/27/2023 5: 35:

Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5
Acres of Paving: 0
N20

0.00 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 1,862,190; Non-Residential Outdoor: 620,730; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating - sqft)
Off Road Equipment
C02e
0,00
339
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 6 of 30 Date: 11/11/20205:28 PM AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County, Winter
Phase Name I Offroad Equipment Type I Amount _I Usage Hours Horse Power J Load Factor Architectural Coating "Air Compressors 1 i 6.00' 78' 048 • I I I 1 • .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1- - - - - - - ................................................. -1--- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - i- ........................ ~------.. -----.--------.. -----~ .......................... .. Demolition "Excavators I 3: 8.00' 158' 0.38 .... _----- -------- -------_ ...... -:------------------------- --~----------------~-------------~-------------~---- ---- ---- .. Demolition "Concrete/Industrial Saws I 11 8.00' 81' 0.73 • I I I I ................ ... .. ............ ........................ .. 1- .................................................. -I-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ .......................... ~---..... ---....... ----.. ---~ ........................... ..

Grading : Excavators : 21 8.00: 158: 0.38
-------- ------- -------------:---------------------------~----------------~-------------~-------------~-------------- Building Construction :Cranes : 11 7.00: 231: 0.29 ----------------------------:---------------------------I-----------------1- ------------.-------------------~ -------------- Building Construction : Forklifts : 31 8.00: 89: 0.20 ----------------------------~--------------------------I-----------------i-------------I--------------~-------------- Building Construction :Generator Sets : 11 8.00: 84: 0.74 ------- --------------------:---------------------------I-----------------1-------------I--------------~-------------- Paving : Pavers : 21 8.00: 130: 0.42 ......................................................... :---------------------------1-----------------..; .................................... ............................ ---.. -....... -.. -.-~ .. -...... - - - -........ .. Paving "Rollers ' 2i 8.00' 80' 0.38 • I 1 I I .......... __ .... - ........ _ ... _- --- .......... :------------------------- --~----------------..;-------------~------------~ .... -.... -.. -.. __ .... Demolition "Rubber Tired Dozers I 21 8.00' 247' 0.40 • I I I I ....... ----............ -....... --.. -..... --:---- - -- ------- - ------... -- - --~ ----------------~ ...... -................................ ----...... -.. --.... -----.... -~ .. -............ ----.. .. Grading "Rubber Tired Dozers I 11 8.00' 247' 0.40 • I: I I ........ _-----_ .... __ .... ------ .......... :------------------------- --~----------------~------ ............ -.. -~-------------~ .. ----- .. - .. ---- .. Building Construction "Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes I 3 i 7.00' 97' 0.37 • I: I I _._-_ .. _-_ .... _ .......... - ............ _--:------------------------- --~----------------..;---- ............... ---... ~-------------~ .. ---- .. ..... -_ .... - Grading "Graders I 11 8.00' 187' 0.41 • I I I I ----------------------------~--------------------------I-----------------i-------------~-------------~-------------- Grading :Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes: 21 8.00: 97: 0.37 - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - -- - - - - - - --:-- - - - - -- -- - - ---- - -- - - - -- - - -~ - - - -- - - - - - - - -- --1- - - - - - - - -- - - -I-- --------- -- ---~ -------------- Paving :Paving Equipment : 2: 8.00: 132: 0.36 ----------------------------:---------------------------I-----------------1- ----------- -I-------------------------~ -------------- Site Preparation :Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes: 41 8.00: 97: 0.37 .. _ ............ - ...... _ .......... - .. .... _ ......... :------------------------- --~----------------~-------------~-------------~ .. -........ ............. .. Site Preparation 'Rubber Tired Dozers ' 31 8.00' 247' 0.40 • I I I I -.............. -.... ---- .. -........ -- .... --:---------------------------r----------------..;---... -............ ---.... -------.. -------~ .. -.. ------- .... -- Grading "Scrapers ' 2i 8.00' 367' 0.48 • I: I 1 -.... -.... -------........ -.. -.. -...... .. -.. ~--------------------------~----------------4-------------~-------------~---- ... -.. .. ----- Building Construction :Welders 1: 8.00: 46: 0.45 Trips and VMT
340
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 30 Date: 11/11/20205:28 PM AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County, Winter
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number '.

Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
. Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length .

Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor I Hauling
Vehicle Class Vehicle Class
Demolition. 6: 15.00: 0.00: 0.00: 10.80: 7.30: 20.00:LD_Mix iHDT_Mix :HHDT ----------------:---------------t-----------I--- -------~----------I-----------I-----------I----------I--------------I----------~ ----- ----- Site Preparation: 7: 18.00: 0.00: 0.00: 10.80: 7.30: 20.00:LD_Mix :HDT_Mix :HHDT --------. ------·I---------------t-----------:· --. -----. ~----------I-----------I-----------I----------I--------------I------- --~ ---------- Grading : 8: 20.00: 0.00: 0.00: 10.80: 7.30: 20.00:LD_Mix :HDT_Mix :HHDT ---........ -----I---------------t-----------I- ----. -. -. ~- ---------1-----------1-----------1----------1- -------------1- -----. ---~ .. -------- Building Construction: 9: 521 .00: 203.001 0.00: 10.80: 7.30: 20.00:LD_Mix :HDT_Mix IHHDT ...... ----. ----·1---------------1-----------:····· ... -. ~- ---------1-----------1-----------1----------1--------------1- ---------~ .... ------ Paving : 6: 15.00: 0.001 0.00: 10.80: 7.30: 20.00:LD_Mix :HDT_Mix IHHDT .--------------.~--------------+----------~---------~---------~----------+----------~---------+-------------+---------~------- ... Architectural Coating : 1: 104.00: 0.00: 0.00: 10.80: 7.30: 20.00:LD_Mix :HDT_Mix :HHDT

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction

3.2 Demolition - 2020
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG
Category
Off-Road 3.3121 . 33.2010 • 21.7532 •
Total

0.0388 . 1.6587
PM2.S
Total
. 1.6587 1.5419 . 1.5419 • 3,747.704 • 3,747.704 • 1.0580 . . . . 9 9 C02e
: 3,774.153
6 3,774.153
6 341
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 8 of 30 Date: 11/11/20205:28 PM

3.2 Demolition - 2020
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County, Winter
RaG I NOx I co I S02 I FU9itiveC-j .. Exhaust I PM10
PM10 . PM10 . Total
Fugitive Exhaust
PM2.5 PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- C02 I NBiO- COI Total C02 I I N20 j C02e
Category Ib/day Ib/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ~ 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 & _. I I I I , I I I I , I I I I I
-----------.-------~-------,-------,-------~-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------~--- ---I-------,-------,-------,-------~------- Vendor •• 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • & •• I I 1 f , I I I • , I I • • I -- --------.-------, ------,-------,-------,-------~------,-------~------,_------~-------~- -- ----I-------,-------,-------,-------T -- ----- Worker •• 0.0723 0.0533 0.4959 1.1700e-: 0.1232 : 9.4000e-' 0.1242 0.0327' 8.6000e- 0.0336 t . 115.9465 ' 115.9465 ' 3.8700e- 116.0433 ., 003 " 004 004 & 003 &
Total 0-0723 0.0533 0.4959 I u::e- I 0.1232
Mitigated Construction On-Site
RaG
Category
Off-Road .. 3.3121 ' 33.2010 ' 21 .7532 ' 0.0388 , ..

Total

9.4oooe- l 0.1242
004

1.6587 , 1.6587 ,
0_0327 1 8.6oooe004
, 1.5419

0.0336 1 115.94651 115.9465 1 3_8;:e- 1 116.0433
· PM2.5 C02e
Tota l
, 1.5419 0.0000 • 3,747.704 ' 3,747.704 ' 1,0580 , : 3,774.153 . 9 , 9 , 6 3,774.153
6 342
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 9 of 30 Date: 11/11/20205:28 PM

3.2 Demolition - 2020
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG I NOx
Category
co S02
AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County, Winter
PM10 " Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5
Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Fugitive . Exhaust C02e
PM10 PM10
Blo· C02 I NBio· CO] Total C02 I CH4 ~ N20
Ib/day Ib/day
Hauling •• 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 l 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • I •• I I I , I I I I I , I I I I I
... --------.-------~-------,-------,-------~-------,-------,-------,-------,-------T-------~-------I-------,-------.,-------.,-------T------- Vendor 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 O.OOOO! 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I •• • I • • • I I I • l • • • I •
...................... .,-------,-------,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------T-------.............. -~------.,_------.,-------.,-------.,. .............. I Worker 0.0723 0.0533 0.4959 I 1.1700e· I 0.1232 9.4000e· 0.1 242 0.0327 I B.6000e·' 0.0336 ! . 115.9465 I 115.9465 I 3.8700e· I I 116.0433 003 004 004 I 003 I
Total 0.0723 I 0.0533 I 0.4959 1·V:e·lr·~~:-1 1·0327 f 8.6g~e' l 0.0336

3.2 Demolition - 2021
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx co
Category
S02
Off·Road 3.1651 I 31.4407 I 21.5650 I 0.0388
Total 3.1651 31.4407 I 21.5650 0.0388
Fugitive Exhaust
. PM10 PM10 '
Ib/day
PM10
Total

1.5513 1.5513

1.5513 1.5513
Fugitive Exhaust
PM2.5 PM2.5

1.4411

1.4411
PM2.5
Total

1.4411

1.4411
115.9465 '\115.9465 3.8700e- I
003 1
Bio· C02 I NBio· C02 I Total C02 CH4
Ib/day
• 3,747.944 I 3,747.944 I 1.0549 • 9 I 9 I
3,747.944 1 3,747.944 I 1.0549
9 9
N20
116.0433
C02e
I 3,774.317
I 4
3,774.317
4 343
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 10 of 30 Date: 11/11/2020 5:28 PM

3.2 Demolition - 2021
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx co
Category
S02
AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County, Winter
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
Ib/day
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.S
PM2.S
Total
Bio- C02 ' NBio- C02 I Total C02
;
Ib/day
CH4 N20 C02e
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 t 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 l _. I I I I I I I I I , • I I I •
... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. • 1-------.,-------.,-------,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------""1""--------1' ...................• -------.,-------.,-------.,-------~ .................. ... Vendor 0.0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 I 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 I .................... ....... .,- _. ______ .,-• ______ .,-I ______ ., , _______ ., I _______ ,.-I ______ ., I _______ ., , _______ ., I _______ .... I _______ ................. l _.-• ______ .,-• ______ .,-I ______ ., I _______ .,. I ................... I Worker 0,0664 0,0474 0,4504 1,1300e- I 0,1232 I 9.1000e- I 0.1241 0,0327 8,4000e- 0,0335! • 112,5719 I 112,5719 3,4800e-' 112.6589 003 004 004 I 003 I
Total 0.0664 0.0474 0.4504
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG
Category
Off-Road .. 3.1651 • 31.4407 • 21,5650
Total

1.1300e003

0.0388

0.1232
I

9.1000e004
1,5513

0.1241 0.0327

1.5513 I

8.4000e004

1.4411

0.0335
PM2,5
Total
1,4411 0.0000
112.5719 I 112.5719 I 3.4800e003
• 3,747.944 I 3.747.944 I 1,0549 . 9 I 9 I
112.6589
C02e
I 3,774,317 I 4
3,774.317
4 344
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 11 of 30 Date: 11/11/20205:28 PM

3.2 Demolition - 2021
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx
Category
CO I S02
AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County. Winter
Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust
PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 " · PM2.5
Ib/day
PM2.5
Total
Bio· C02 I NBio· C02 l Total C02
Ib/day
CH4 N20 C02e
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 l 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I I
_. I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I
-------.---~-------~-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------~-------.-------,-------,-------,-------~------- Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 O.OOOO! 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I •• I • • I • • • I • I • • I I •
-------- Work --M-------,-------T-------~------,-------~------,-------T-------,-------T-------.----- -- ~------T_------,-------,-------~------- er 0.0664 0.0474 I 0.4504 I 1.13OOe· I 0.1232 I 9.10ooe· I 0.1241 0.0327' 8.4oo0e· 0.0335! • 112.571 9 I 112.571 9 I 3.4800e· I I 112.6589 '~ ~ ~ I ~ I
Total 0.0664 I 0.0474 I 0.4504 1'~~' 1 0.1232 9'~~' 1 0.1241 I 0.0327 8.~' 0.0335 112.5719 J 112.5719 3.4800e· 003
112.6589

3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO
Category
S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust
PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5
Ib/day
PM2.5
Total
Bio· C02 . I NBio· C02 I Total C02 I CH4 1 N20 I C02e
Ib/day
Fugitive Dust : 18.0663 : 0.0000 : 18.0663 : 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307! 0.0000 0.0000 I , •• • I I • , • 1 • I " I I • I t
-----------w-------T-------,-------,-------~------,-------~------,-------T_------T-------.- ·---- -I-------~-------~-------~------~------- Off·Road 3.8882 I 40.4971 I 21.1543 I 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 t ' 3,685.656 I 3,685.656 I 1.1920 ' 3,715.457 i . 9 : 9 I • 3 I Total 11.8116 2.0445 J 9.9307 J 3.685.6561 3.685.656
9 9

1.1920 J 3.71~.457 3.8882 40.4971 21 .1543 0.0380 18.0663 20.1107 1.8809 345
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 12 of 30 Date: 11/11/20205:28 PM AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County, Winter

3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx j co J S02
Category
Fugitive
PM10
Ib/day
PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.,5
Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Bio- C02 I NBio- C02 I Total C02 I CH4 N20 I C02e
Ib/day
Hauling •• 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 t 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 u , •• I I I I I I I , I , I I I I I
-----------n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------.-------I-------,-------,-------,-------T------- Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 t 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 , •• I I I I I I t I I , I I I I I -----------.-------~------,-------~------~------T_------T-------,-------,-------~-------.-------I-------T_------,-------,-------T------ ~ Worker 0.0797 0.0569 0.5405' 1.3600e-' 0.1479 '1.0900e-' 0.1490 0.0392 ' 1.0100e·' 0.0402 l 135.0863 ' 135.0863 ' 4.1800e- , , 135.1907 003 003 003 , 003

0.0569 1 0.5405 \ 1.3600e-
~ 003
Total 0.0797
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG I NOx CO I 502
Category

0.1479 1 1.09ooe- l 0.1490 I 0.0392 / 1.0100e- , 0.0402 l 003 003 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
Ill/day
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
, 135.0863 135.0863 4.~~~e- ' 1 135.1907
Bio- C02 I NBio- C02 I Total C02 CH4 N20 C02e
Ib/day
Fugitive Dust : 18.0663 : 0.0000 : 18.0663 : 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 t 0.0000 0.0000 , _. I I I I I I I I I & I I I I I -----------n-------,-------,-------,-------T-------,-------,-------~------T_------T-------~····---I-------,-------,-------T-------~ .. -.--- Off-Road 3.8882' 40.4971 ' 21.1543 • 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809', 0.0000 ' 3,685.656' 3,685.656' 1.1920 ' , 3,715.457 , I 9 I 9 • I 3 ,

0.0000 I 3.685.656 1 3,685.656 I 1.1920
9 9 3.8882 ~0.~971 t 21.1543 / 0.0380 Total 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 J 3,71~.457 346
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 13 of 30 Date: 11/11/20205:28 PM

3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
. Category
AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County. Winter
PM2 ,5
Total
C02e
Hauling 0.0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 0,0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 I •• I I I I I I I I I , • I I I I
... --------.-------~-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,- -----,-------,-------T-------~-------I-------,-------,-------,-------~------- Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 O.OOOO! 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0,0000 I 0.0000 I •• • I • I I I I I • , I • I I I
----------- __ ------~------,_------,_------,_------~------,-------,-------,-------T-------.-------~------,_------,_------,-------~------- Worker 0.0797 I 0,0569 I 0,5405 I 1.3600e- I 0,1479 I 1.0900e- I 0.1490 I 0,0392 I 1,01 OOe- I 0,0402 ! . 135,0863 I 135.0863 I 4,1800e- I I 135.1907 003 003 003 I 003
Total
..
.. 0.0797

3.4 Grading - 2021

0.0569 0.5405
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx co
Category
S02 Fugitive ', I Exhaust
PM10 PM10
Ib/day
PM10
. Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2,5
PM2,5
Total
I
135.1907
Bio- C02 I NBio- C02l Total C02 CH4 N20 C02e
Ib/day
Fugitive Dust 8,6733 0,0000 8,6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 ~ 0,0000 0.0000 i •• I I I I I I I I I , I I • I 1
-----------.-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------T-------~--- --·I-------,-------~------~------T------- Off-Road 4,1912 I 46.3998 I 30.8785 I 0.0620 I I 1,9853 1.9853 1.8265 1,8265! • 6,007.043 I 6,007.043 I 1,9428 '6,055.613 i I 4 I 4 I • 4 Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 I

3.5965 1.8265 5.4230
4 4 6.007.043 .1.6.007.043 1.9428 6,055.613 4
347
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 14 of 30 Date: 11/11/20205:28 PM

3.4 Grading - 2021
Unmitigated Construction Off·Site
ROG NOx co S02
Category
AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County, Winter
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
Ib/day
PM10
Total
Fugitive
·PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio· C02 ria. C02 I Total C02 ~
Ib/day
CH4 1 N20 1 C02e
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 t 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I _. I I I I , I I I I , I I I I I
........................... ,-------.,.-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------..,..-------.................. -I-------.,-------.,-------.,-------T ............ .. Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 I _. I • I I I I I I • , I I I I I
-------- ... -~-------.,.-------T_------.,-------.,-------.,--- ----.,-------T-------T-------..,..------- .. ----_ .. _,-------.,--- ----.,-------~------"T------ .. Worker 0.0886 0.0632 0.6006 1.51OOe· I 0.1643 I 1.21OOe· I 0.1655 0.0436 I 1.1200e· I 0.0447 t ' 150.0958 I 150.0958 I 4.6400e· I I 150.2119 003 003 003 I 003 , Total 0.0886 0.0632 0.6006
Mitigated Construction On·Site
RaG NOx CO
Category

1.5100e·
003
502

0.1643
Fugitive
PM10

1.2100e·
003
Exhaust
PM10
Ib/day

0.1655
PM10
.Total

0.0436
Fugitive
PM2.5

1.1200e·
003
Exhaust
PM2.5

0.0447
PM2.5
Total
15o.0958 150.0958 4.6.:o~e- 1 \ 150.2119
Bio· C02 I NBio: C02 I Total C02 CH4 N20 C02e
Ib/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965! 0.0000 0.0000 I •• I t I • , • I I I , • I I I •
-----------w-------T-------.,-------.,-------~------,-------~------,-------,-------~-------~-~- ---~------T_------,-------,-------~-- .. --. Off·Road 4.1912 I 46.3998 30.8785 I 0.0620 I I 1.9853 1.9853 I 1.8265 I 1.8265 II 0.0000 '6,007.043 I 6,007.043 I 1.9428 16.055.613 1 , I 4 I 4 I I 4 Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 I

3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 0.0000 1 6,007.043 16,007.043 I 1.9428 4 4

6.055.613
4 348
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 15 of 30 Date: 11/11/20205:28 PM

3.4 Grading - 2021
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG 1 NOx co
Category
AMG Industrial Annexation - Merced County, Winter
L:J02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10
PM10 .·PM10 Total
- --
Ib/day
Fugitive I Exhaust I PM2.S
PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- C02 r:C021 Total C02 I CH4 ·1 N20 I C02e Ib/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 t 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 & •• I I I • I I I I I & I I I I I
---.-------~-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------T-------~-------I-------,-------,-------,-------T------- Vendor :: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 t 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 , •• I I I I I I I I I , I I I I • ---- ------~-------,-------,-------,-------~------,-------,-------,-------,-------T-------.-------.-------,-------,-------,-------T------- Worker 0.0886 0.0632 0.6006 1.5100e- 0.1643' 1.2100e-' 0.1655 0.0436 1.1200e- ' 0.0447 t 150.0958 150.0958 4.6400e- 150.2119 003 003 003 & 003 &
Total 0.0886 J 0.0632 0.6006

3.5 Building Construction - 2021
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx Co
Category

1.5~~- 1
S02
Off-Road 1.9009 I 17.4321 I 16.5752 • 0.0269
Total
.,
.. 1.9009 17 .4321 I 16.5752 0.0269

0.1643 1.210Oe' l 0.1655
003
Fugitive Exhaust
PM10 PM10
Ib/day

0.9586

0.9586
PM10
Total

0.9586

0.9586
0436 1.~~e-1 0.0447
Fugitive Exhaust
PM2.5 PM2.5
PM2.5
Total

0.9013 0.9013

0.9013 0.9013
1 15o.0958 1 15o.0958 1 4.6:3oe.

Blo· C02 I NBio· C02 1.Total C02 CH4
Ib/day '
, 2,553.363 • 2,553.363 I 0.6160 I 9 I 9 I
2,553.363 1 2,553.363 I 0.6160
9 9
N20
1 150.2119
C02e
• 2,568.764
: 3
2,568.764
3 349
CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2

3.5 Building Construction - 2021
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
Category