Agenda packet — Mendota City Council, October 6, 2026 (part 3 of 5)

SECTION 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Quad Knopf, Inc. ሺQKሻ has completed an Air Quality Impact Analysis ሺAQIAሻ for the Pistacchio Business Park Project ሺProjectሻ. The Project is located on the west side of Amador Ave, approximately 0.7 miles north of Belmont Ave. The project is located in City of Mendota, CA, within Fresno County. The Project proposes to develop 53.43 gross acres into 271 singlefamily homes and a drainage basin.

The proposed Project’s construction and operations would include the following criteria pollutant emissions: reactive organic gases ሺROGሻ, carbon monoxide ሺCOሻ, nitrogen dioxide ሺNO2ሻ, sulfur dioxide ሺSO2ሻ, and suspended particulate matter ሺPM10 and PM2.5ሻ. Project operations would generate air pollutant emissions from mobile ሺvehicle activity from residentsሻ, energy sources ሺnatural gas and electricity usageሻ, and area sources ሺincidental activities related to architectural coating, consumer products, and landscape maintenanceሻ.

Project construction and operational activities would also generate greenhouse gas ሺGHGሻ emissions. Criteria and GHG emissions were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model ሺCalEEModሻ version 2022.1.1.43 ሺCalifornia Air Pollution Control Officers Association ሺCAPCOAሻ, 2025ሻ, which is the most current version of the model approved for use by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District ሺSJVAPCDሻ.

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

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

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

ExecutiveSummary
SECTION 1 - EXECUTIVESUMMARY
Quad Knopf, Inc. (QK) has completed an Air Quality Impact Analysis (AQIA) for the Pistacchio Business Park Project (Project). The Project is located on the west side of Amador Ave, approximately 0.7 miles north of Belmont Ave. The project is located in City of Mendota,CA, within Fresno County. The Project proposes to develop 53.43 gross acres into 271 singlefamily homes and a drainage basin.

The proposed Project’s construction and operations would include the following criteria pollutant emissions: reactive organic gases (ROG), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (N02), sulfur dioxide (502), and suspended particulate matter (PM1o and PM2.5).Project operations would generate air pollutant emissions from mobile (vehicle activity from residents), energy sources (natural gas and electricity usage), and area sources (incidental activities related to architectural coating, consumer products,and landscape maintenance).

Project construction and operational activities would also generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Criteria and GHG emissions were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2022.11.43 (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), 2025), which is the most current version of the model approved for use by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SIVAPCD).

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

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

SIVAPCD uses a single threshold for the determination of significance for both projectspecific and cumulative impacts. As such,a qualitative evaluation of the cumulative projects supportsthe finding thatthe Project’s contribution would not be cumulatively considerable because the proposed Project’s incremental emissions would be less than Slgnificant Mendota Residential Project — Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 1 ends

Introduction

Mendota Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 2 ends

SECTION 2 - INTRODUCTION

2.1 - Purpose
This AQIA was prepared pursuant to the SJVAPCD Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts ሺGAMAQIሻ ሺSJVAPCD, 2015ሻ and the California Environmental Quality Act ሺCEQAሻ Statute and Guidelines ሺCEQA, 2024ሻ.

2.2 - General Project Description
The Project is generally bound by Amador Avenue to the east and vacant land to the north, south and west with Belmont Avenue approximately 0.7 miles to the south. The project is located in Mendota, CA within the County of Fresno. The Project proposes to develop 53.43 gross acres into 271 single-family homes and a drainage basin.

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

Figure 2-3 depicts the Project site’s topography. The Project site is located at an elevation of approximately 253 feet above mean sea level and is surrounded residential to the east and vacant/agricultural land to the north, south and west.

Introduction
SECTION 2 - INTRODUCTION

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

2.2 - General Project Description
The Project is generally bound by Amador Avenue to the east and vacantland to the north, south and west with Belmont Avenue approximately 0.7 miles to the south. The project is located in Mendota,CA within the County of Fresno. The Project proposes to develop 53.43 gross acres into 271 single-family homes and a drainage basin.

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

Mendota Residential Project — Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 2 ends

Introduction

Mendota Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 2 ends

Figure 2-1
Regional Location
Introduction
'l.‘ 5-H. 1 lilj,‘ ' | I ll lip-In!”
L. gnu-=Hhhi = E 7
. j .I ‘
'R‘_...H I.‘5. J III-HI r_.||!' I
III-.—
" I rel-IIH‘I r»? _B_ncetq_(|5raphicResignfig___ ' ' - _ . _ _Ffllfl. | I l i I i r ' m” - l'h II Furl-d
I“: ”' A H" , “' | .H -
.. W'— E. MendotanUnifiad ”up“ II‘—"—‘='- I .5c Distrct '-_,-' I ! Lfieminn'hwwl . {. '
IF=‘" Jess e Gonzalez. Filmtflg[a%hYE-I$3;nal-nfllacfrlI'E' ' T: Lg; a as a; a _ _.u (. a 3 § g E [F . E § § § 5 E _ E LI? 3 E 5 E
[- "—‘-gmald13t=—'L—'E
_ _ _,I J Rojas Pierce Park
-— Hill-Eli:- _ Ell-III: 1
term:

EIHL-EIIII-I Flan- : HII'IIII'I L...“ Radar—- mm
H1. mmF' 2-1
QIW Regiciggfiocation
Mendota Residential Project — Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 2 ends

Introduction

Mendota Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 2 ends

Figure 2-2
Project Location
Introduction
lI
" If Hi 1'? ; iv a
,
"
- WWW rrmww?
I 'r 1.1T.
”3137 ”a, . F
. :2
ilk“ h? " . 4'1"} 16‘1", F" I .‘ -.~..r*7 F {L
J u_. , r': J. i. I i :4'
r' 5 J's
.. | =-.-.:

QIW Figure 2-2
Project Location
Mendota Residential Project — Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 2 ends

Introduction

Mendota Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 2 ends

Figure 2-3
Project Site Topography
Introduction
"I _._
_L .I { -..._— .....
l m- g than? Ir I3! I; 7 H ‘fifl f- WE"
”:1 mm: 91“. g 11:1: ” m-"*
__———=__'—'_ - - - - - - - ' -_ H3}.
—‘[[’mmfivs
-| Eff- MCCABEAVE PE)
I? ..
=‘ If '7: I. I I. . _ - I I - -' 1_"-r1rm~c'niré':-
- may: -- . = 7‘- __.,-._...:.Z
-' ' __ 4!. 'm-HCK‘SWE‘L ”44441 .aar J .4 i-J
fi 1.. :91 “I In” u'33: "GREGGTETW = 3 1". at O N. - .. Na" = a; m ;==|! 2;! an: '. . .:
~. In a! 5;"; in {U "E! - —I 111g], 2 rm: 1“ n. l GQEEGCL : 3%=13” 3a: in
3 F" ., ::§” E: 1,5" 1& HP— = J‘ ‘— EI: ‘2: " _ Lw Liz—=2-l G‘s aid—1r; ' _ -..F'.--' as}; QIW ProjectFSigclér;ozl;ggraphy
Mendota Residential Project — Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 2 ends

Setting

Mendota Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 3 ends

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

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

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

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

Setting
SECTION 3 - SE1TING
Protection of public health is maintained through the attainment and maintenance of ambient air quality standards for various atmospheric compounds and the enforcement of emissions limits for individual stationary sources. The Federal Clean Air Act requires that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to protectthe health, safety, and welfare of the public. NAAQShavebeen established for ozone (03), CO, N02, 802, PM1o and PM2.5, and lead (Pb). California has also adopted ambient air quality standards (CAAQS) for these"criteria" air pollutants. CAAQSare more stringent thanthe corresponding NAAQS and include standards for hydrogen sulfide (H25), Vinyl Chloride (chloroethene), and Visibility-reducing particles. The U.S. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 required each state to identify areas thatwere in non-attainment of the NAAQSand to develop State Implementation Plans (SIPS) containing strategies to bring these non-attainment areas into compliance. NAAQS and CAAQSdesignation/Classification for Fresno County are presented in Section 3.1 below.

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

3.1 - Air Quality Standards
The Project area is located within Fresno County in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SIVAB or Basin). Fresno County is included among the eight counties thatcomprise the SIVAPCD.

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

Mendota Residential Project — Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 3 ends

Setting

Mendota Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 3 ends

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

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

Setting
Table 3-1
Federal and California Standards
Pollutant Averaging Time NAAQS ‘ CAAQS Concentration
8-hour 0.070 ppm (137 [lg/m3}a 0.070 ppm (137 ug/m3)
03 1-hour — 0.09 ppm (180 ug/m3)
8-hour 9 ppm (10 ug/m3) 9 ppm (10 ug/m3)
CO 1-hour 35 ppm (40 ug/m3) 20 ppm (23 ug/m3)
Annual Average 53 ppb (100 ug/m3) 0.030 ppm (57 ug/m3)
N02 1-Hour 100 ppb (188.68 ug/m3) 0.18 ppm (339 ug/m3)
3-Hour 0.5 ppm (1,300 [lg/m3)
$02 24 Hour 0.14 ppm (365 ug/m3) 0.04 ppm (105 ug/m3)
1-Hour 75 ppb (196 ug/m3) ‘ 0.25 ppm (655 ug/m3)
Particulate Matter Annuaifegiflhmetic 20 ug/m3
(PMlo) 24-Hour 150 ug/m3 ‘ 50 ug/m3
Fine Particulate Annuaifeglflhmetlc 12 ug/ m3 | 12 ug/ m3 Matter (PM2.5) 24-Hour 35 ug/m3
Sulfates 24-Hour fi 25 ug/m3
Rolling Three-Month | 0 15 /m3
Pbd Average ' pg
30 Day Average 1.5 ug/m3
HzS 1-Hour 0.03 ppm (42 ug/m3)
Vinyl Chloride 3
(Chloroethene) 24 Hour 0.010 ppm (26 ug/m )
Visibility Reducing 8 Hour (1000 to 1800
particles PST) - ppm = parts per mg/ m3 = milligrams per cubic ug/ m3= micrograms per cubic meter meter
million
ppb = parts per billion
Source: CARB 2024b

3. On October 1, 2015, the national 8-hour ozone primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075 to 0.070 ppm
b. In 1989, CARB converted both the general statewide 10-mile Visibility standards and the Lake Tahoe 30-mile Visibility standard to instrumental equivalents, which are “extinction of 0.23 per kilometer" and “extinction of 0.07 per kilometer" for the statewide and Lake Tahoe Air Basin standards, respectively.

Under the provisions of the US. Clean Air Act, the Fresno County portion of the SIVABhas been Classified as non-attainment/ extreme, non-attainment/severe, non-attainment, attainment/ unclassified, attainment, or unclassified under the established NAAQS and CAAQS for various criteria pollutants. Table 3-2 provides the SIVAB’S designation and Classification based on the various criteria pollutants under both NAAQSand CAAQS.

Mendota Residential Project — Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 3 ends

Setting

Mendota Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 3 ends

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

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

Pollutant
Ozone —1 Hour
Ozone — 8 Hour8
PM10
PM2.5
Carbon Monoxide
Nitrogen Dioxide
Sulfur Dioxide
Lead Particulates
Table 3-2
SIVABAttainment Status
NAAQSa
N0 Federal Standardf
Non-attainment/Extremee
AttainmentC
Non-attainmentd
Attainment/ Unclassified
Attainment/Unclassified
Attainment/ Unclassified
No Designation/Classification
K H28 No Federal Standard
Sulfates No Federal Standard
misibility Reducing Particulates _ N0 Federal Standard
Vinyl Chloride No Federal Standard
Source: SIVAPCD20253
Notes:
a. See 40 CFR Part 81
b. See CCR Title 17 Sections 60200-60210
Setting
CAAQSb
Non-attainment/Sevm
Non-attainment
Non-attainment ]
Non-attainment
Attainment/Unclassifie‘
Attainment
Attainment - Attainment
Unclassified I
Attainment
‘ Unclassified - Attainment
c. On September 25, 2008, EPA redesignated the San Joaquin Valley to attainment for the PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and approved the PM10Maintenance Plan. d. The Valley is designated non-attainment for the 1997 PM2.5NAAQS. EPA designated the Valley as non-attainment for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS on November 13, 2009 (effective December 14, 2009). e. Though the Valley was initially Classified as serious non-attainment for the 1997 8-hour 03 standard, EPA approved Valley reclassification to extreme non-attainment in the Federal Register on May 5, 2010 (effective June 4, 2010). f. Effective June 15, 2005, the EPA revoked the federal 1-h0ur 03 standard, including associated designations and classifications. EPA had previously classified the SIVAB as extreme non-attainment for this standard. EPA approved the 2004 Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan on March 8, 2010 (effective April 7, 2010). Many applicable requirements for extreme 1-hour 03 non-attainment areas continue to apply to the SIVAB.

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

Mendota Residential Project — Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 3 ends

Setting

Mendota Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 3 ends

Figure 3-1
CARB Monitoring Network
Setting
Air Monitoring Sites in Operation
SANJDAQUIHmum macsmum
n Stochnn-HflflImG,M.F:F,T * 20Hangman
*2 Tm-Nrport:G.hlEF n21mam:
*3 mum 01W: Tummnh
nmumscaum a.21“human?
.4 mamnauer’
t5 ImaMHF mnsmmv
- 23 WREEMP
"ENC-WW :24 mammalian *6 MacedMStEF my:
*7 WEI,“ l 25 Ifllflf‘lilmflfi,” mum ”6 *‘WWHMG'M'F
is WWGEEM
*9 Wmmqm .- mmm 2? ma.” mom ' 1‘ mam: aw: i 29 Warm
mwmvmm * 3'0 WW5“ no Tamwamfi ' 3‘ Waufifi‘r
*1] TMWEGEH *3! W5.” “2 FmSkyMGM I33 WEB-mm}:
*13 Mai-1.33“- '34 m5.“
.1: FWGMPJJ." '35 W6“
.15 FmPacficF *“Wfi-H
“a Emu-wean * 3? ME”
*1? maul: * IE MEG": #19 MEI! mm
#5t 101! : Emgamam
SanJoaquinValley .2 mm” :3; mmx‘”*“WWW“
AIR amnu comotnlmm "‘“W T“m - ”mum-“WWW“?
QIW CARBMgigfclgfigélNetwork
Mendota Residential Project — Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 3 ends

Setting

Mendota Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 3 ends

3.2 - Existing Air Quality
For the purposes of background data and this air quality assessment, this analysis relied on data collected in the last three years for the CARB monitoring stations that are located in closest proximity to the Project site. Table 3-3 provides the background concentrations for O3, particulate matter of 10 microns (PM10), particulate matter of less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5), CO, NO2, Pb and H2S as of 2024. Information is provided for the Tranquility – 32650 West Adams Ave., Fresno - Sierra Skypark #2, Fresno – Garland & Fresno – Drummond Street for 2022 through 2024. No data is available for SO2, Vinyl Chloride, or other toxic air contaminants in the SJVAB.

Table 3-3
Existing Air Quality Monitoring Data in Project Area
Maximum Concentration Days Exceeding Standard
Pollutant and
Monitoring Station Location 2022 2023 2024 2022 2023 2024 O3 – 1-hour CAAQS (0.09 ppm)
Tranquility – 32650 West Adams Ave. 0.074 0.073 0.090 0 0 0 Fresno – Sierra Skypark #2 0.097 0.101 0.107 1 2 4
O3 – 8-hour NAAQS (0.070 ppm)
Tranquility – 32650 West Adams Ave. 0.066 0.065 0.074 0 0 4 Fresno – Sierra Skypark #2 0.083 0.079 0.084 5 11 25
O3 – 8-hour CAAQS (0.070 ppm)
Tranquility – 32650 West Adams Ave. 0.067 0.066 0.074 0 0 4 Fresno – Sierra Skypark #2 0.083 0.080 0.084 5 12 28
PM10 – 24-hour CAAQS (50 µg/m3)
Fresno -Garland 109.2 107.8 128.9 73 54 60
Fresno – Drummond Street 166.5 130.0 151.3 133 120 113
PM10 – 24-hour NAAQS (150 µg/m3)
Fresno -Garland 116.1 109.3 132.9 0 0 0
Fresno – Drummond Street 73.4 131.1 181.9 0 0 1
PM2.5 - 24-hour NAAQS (35 µg/m3)
Tranquility – 32650 West Adams Ave. 33.1 26.2 30.7 0 0 0 Fresno – Garland 53.3 39.1 52.8 13 4 7
CO - 8-Hour CAAQS & NAAQS (9.0 ppm)
No data collected * * * * * *
NO2 - 1-Hour CAAQS (0.18 ppm)
Fresno – Sierra Skypark #2 0.034 0.040 0.034 0 0 0
Fresno – Garland 0.054 0.047 0.042 0 0 0
NO2 - 1-Hour NAAQS (0.10 ppm)
Fresno – Sierra Skypark #2 0.035 0.041 0.034 0 0 0
Fresno – Garland 0.055 0.048 0.042 0 0 0
SO2 – 24-hour Concentration - CAAQS (0.04 ppm) & NAAQS (0.14 ppm) No data collected * * * * * *
Pb - Maximum 30-Day Concentration CAAQS (1500 ng/m3)
Fresno - Garland 42 6.5 6.5 * * *
H2S – 1-Hour CAAQS (0.03 ppm)
No data collected * * * * * *
Source: CARB 2024
Notes: ppm= parts per million
* There was insufficient (or no) data available to determine the value.

Setting

3.2 - EvistingAir Quality
For the purposes of background data and this air quality assessment, this analysis relied on data collected in the last three years for the CARB monitoring stations thatare located in Closest proximity to the Project site. Table 3-3 provides the background concentrations for 03, particulate matter of 10 microns (PMlO), particulate matter of less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5),CO,N02, Pb and H28 as of 2024. Information is provided for the Tranquility — 32650 West Adams Ave., Fresno - Sierra Skypark #2, Fresno — Garland & Fresno — Drummond Street for 2022 through 2024. No data is available for $02, Vinyl Chloride, or other toxic air contaminants in the SIVAB.

Table 3-3
Existing Air Quality Monitoring Data in Project Area
Maximum Concentration Days Exceeding Standard
Pouutantand 2022 2023 2024 2022 2023 2024 Monitoring Station Location 03 - 1-hour CAAQS(0.09 ppm)
quility — 32650WestAdamsmm
Fresno - Sierra Skypark #2 0.097 0.101 0.107 1 2 4
03 - 8-hour NAAQS (0.070 ppm) _ _
[Tranquility— 32650WestAdamsAve. 0.066 0.065 0.074 “1
Fresno — Sierra Skypark #2 0.083 0.079 0.084 5 11 25
O3- 8-hour CAAQS(0.070 ppm)
‘muility — 32650WestAdams _
Fresno — Sierra Skypark #2 0.083 0.080 0.084 5 12 28
PM1o — 24-hour CAAQS(50 ug/ m3)
I Fresno-Garland 109.2 107.8 1w m:- —
Fresno — Drummond Street 166.5 130.0 151.3 133 120 113
PM1o — 24-hour NAAQS (150 ug/m3) ' I Fresno-Garland E 1% 1329 ‘2‘:- Fresno - Drummond Street 73.4 131.1 181.9 0 0 1
PM2.5- 24-hour NAAQS (35 ug/ m3) _
.ranquility — 32650 West Adams Ave. 33.1 1 - Fresno — Garland 53.3 39.1 52.8 13 4 7 CO - 8-Hour CAAQS& NAAQS (9.0 ppm)
No data collected :_ * N02- 1-Hour CAAQS(0.18 ppm)
I Fresno — SierraSkypark #2 0.03'4 m
Fresno — Garland 0.054 0.047 0.042 0 0 0
N02 - 1-Hour NAAQS (0.10 ppm)
‘ Fresno — Sierra Skypark #2 0.035 0.041 0.034 —
Fresno — Garland 0.055 0.048 0.042 0 0 0
$02 — 24-hour Concentration - CAAQS(0.04 ppm) & NAAQS (0.14 ppm) I Nodatacollected * * * 4—hPb - Maximum 30-Day Concentration CAAQS(1500 ng/m3) [ Fresno - Garland 42 6.5 6.5 * * - HZS — 1-Hour CAAQS(0.03 ppm) I Source: CARB
No
2024
datacollected * *—
Notes: ppm: parts per million
* There was insufficient (or no) data available to determine the value.

Mendota Residential Project — Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 3 ends

Setting

Mendota Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 3 ends

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

3.2.1 - OZONE (O3)
The SJVAB has high concentrations of O3, and these high levels are known to cause eye irritation and impair respiratory functions. High levels of O3 can also affect plants and materials. Grapes, lettuce, spinach, and many types of garden flowers and shrubs are particularly vulnerable to O3 damage. O3 is not directly emitted into the atmosphere; it is a secondary pollutant produced from a photochemical interaction between hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides (NOx). One to three hours of strong sunlight in a stable atmosphere creates O3. The “O3 season,” therefore, typically spans from April through October. O3 is a regional pollutant; wind transports and diffuses the precursors while activating the photochemical reaction process. The data presented in Table 3-3 shows that the Project area monitoring stations exceeded the 1-hour average ambient O3 CAAQS and the 8-hour average ambient O3 NAAQS and CAAQS between 2022 through 2024.

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

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

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

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

Table 3-3 shows that PM10 levels exceeded the CAAQS, and both PM10 and PM2.5 exceeded the NAAQS in 2022 and 2024, respectively. Similar levels can be expected to occur in the vicinity of the Project site.

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

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

3.2.1 - OZONE(03)
The SIVAB has high concentrations of 03, and these high levels are known to cause eye irritation and impair respiratory functions. High levels of 03 can also affect plants and materials. Grapes, lettuce, spinach, and many types of garden flowers and shrubs are particularly vulnerable to 03 damage. 03 is not directly emitted into the atmosphere; it is a secondary pollutant produced from a photochemical interaction between hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides (NOX). One to three hours of strong sunlight in a stable atmosphere creates

03. The “03 season," therefore, typically spansfrom April through October. 03 is a regional pollutant; wind transports and diffuses the precursors while activating the photochemical reaction process. The data presented in Table 3-3 shows thatthe Project area monitoring stations exceeded the 1-hour average ambient 03 CAAQSand the 8-hour average ambient 03 NAAQSand CAAQS between 2022 through 2024.

3.2.2 - SUSPENDEDPARTICULATE MATTER(PMIO ANDPM2.5)
Both NAAQS and CAAQS now apply to particulates under 10 microns (PMlO). Since the smaller diameter fraction of total suspended particulates is documented to represent the greatest health hazard, EPA has established NAAQS for particulates under 2.5 microns (PM2.5).The Project area is Classified as attainment for PM10and non-attainment for PM2.5 for NAAQS.

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

Natural activities, such as wind-raised dust, fires, and ocean spray, also increase the level of particulates in the atmosphere. The largest source of PM1o and PM2.5in Fresno County is vehicle movement over paved and unpaved roads from demolition and construction activities and farming operations. PM1o and PM2.5are considered regional pollutants, with elevated levels typically occurring over a wide geographic area. Concentrations tend to be highest in the winter, during periods of high atmospheric stability and low wind speed. Very small particulates may contain absorbed gases thatproduce injury to the respiratory tract.

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

Table 3-3 shows that PM1o levels exceeded the CAAQS,and both PM1o and PM2.5exceeded the NAAQS in 2022 and 2024, respectively. Similar levels can be expected to occur in the Vicinity of the Project site.

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

Mendota Residential Project — Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 3 ends

Setting

Mendota Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 3 ends

Internal combustion engines, principally in vehicles, produce CO due to incomplete fuel combustion. Various industrial processes also produce CO emissions through incomplete combustion. Gasoline-powered motor vehicles are typically the major source of this contaminant. CO does not irritate the respiratory tract but passes through the lungs directly into the bloodstream, and by interfering with the transfer of fresh oxygen to the blood, deprives sensitive tissues of oxygen, thereby aggravating cardiovascular disease, causing fatigue, headaches, and dizziness. CO is not known to have adverse effects on vegetation, visibility, or materials. Table 3-3 reports insufficient data for the CO monitoring at any monitoring stations during the three-year period from 2022 through 2024.

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

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

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

Certain hydrocarbons can damage plants by inhibiting growth and by causing flowers and leaves to fall. Levels of hydrocarbons currently measured in urban areas are not known to cause adverse effects in humans. However, certain members of this contaminant group are important components in the reactions which produce photochemical oxidants. Table 3-3 shows that the NO2 NAAQS and CAAQS were not exceeded over the three-year period of 2022 through 2024. Hydrocarbons are not currently monitored.

3.2.5 - SULFUR DIOXIDE
Fresno County has been designated as an unclassified area for the NAAQS for SO2. SO2 is the primary combustion product of sulfur or sulfur-containing fuels. Fuel combustion is the major source of this pollutant, while chemical plants, sulfur recovery plants, and metal processing facilities are minor contributors. Gaseous fuels (natural gas, propane, etc.) typically have lower percentages of sulfur-containing compounds than liquid fuels such as diesel or crude oil. SO2 levels are generally higher in the winter months. Decreasing levels of SO2 in the atmosphere reflect the use of natural gas in power plants and boilers.

At high concentrations, SO2 irritates the upper respiratory tract. At lower concentrations, when respirated in combination with particulates, SO2 can result in greater harm by injuring Setting
Internal combustion engines, principally in vehicles, produce CO due to incomplete fuel combustion. Various industrial processes also produce CO emissions through incomplete combustion. Gasoline-powered motor vehicles are typically the major source of this contaminant. CO does not irritate the respiratory tract but passesthrough the lungs directly into the bloodstream, and by interfering with the transfer of fresh oxygen to the blood, deprives sensitive tissues of oxygen, thereby aggravating cardiovascular disease, causing fatigue, headaches,and dizziness. CO is not known to have adverse effects on vegetation, Visibility, or materials. Table 3-3 reports insufficient data for the CO monitoring at any monitoring stations during the three-year period from 2022 through 2024.

3.2.4 - NITROGEN DIOXIDE(N02) ANDHYDROCARBONS
Fresno County has been designated as an unclassified area for the NAAQSfor N02. N02 is the "whiskey brown" colored gas readily Visible during periods of heavy air pollution. Mobile sources accountfor nearly all the County'sNOXemissions, most of which are emitted as N02.

Combustion in motor vehicle engines, power plants, refineries, and other industrial operations are the primary sources in the air basin. Railroads and aircraft are other potentially significant sourcesof combustion air contaminants. Oxides of nitrogen are direct participants in photochemical smog reactions. The emitted compound, nitric oxide, combines with oxygen in the atmosphere in the presence of hydrocarbons and sunlight to form N02 and 03. N02, the most significant of these pollutants, can color the atmosphere at concentrations as low as 0.5 ppm on days of 10-mile Visibility. NOX is an important air pollutant in the region because it is a primary receptor of ultraviolet light, which initiates the reactions producing photochemical smog. It also reacts in the air to form nitrate particulates.

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

Certain hydrocarbons can damage plants by inhibiting growth and by causing flowers and leaves to fall. Levels of hydrocarbons currently measured in urban areas are not known to causeadverse effects in humans. However, certain members of this contaminant group are important components in the reactions which produce photochemical oxidants. Table 3-3 shows thatthe N02 NAAQSand CAAQSwere not exceeded over the three-year period of 2022 through 2024. Hydrocarbons are not currently monitored.

3.2.5 - SULFUR DIOXIDE
Fresno County has been designated as an unclassified area for the NAAQSfor $02. $02 is the primary combustion product of sulfur or sulfur-containing fuels. Fuel combustion is the major source of this pollutant, while Chemical plants, sulfur recovery plants, and metal processing facilities are minor contributors. Gaseous fuels (natural gas, propane, etc.) typically havelower percentages of sulfur-containing compounds thanliquid fuels such as diesel or crude oil. 802 levels are generally higher in the winter months. Decreasing levels of $02 in the atmosphere reflect the use of natural gas in power plants and boilers.

At high concentrations, 802 irritates the upper respiratory tract. At lower concentrations, when respirated in combination with particulates, 802 can result in greater harm by injuring Mendota Residential Project — Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 3 ends

Setting

Mendota Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 3 ends

lung tissues. Sulfur oxides (SOx), in combination with moisture and oxygen, result in the formation of sulfuric acid, which can yellow the leaves of plants, dissolve marble, and oxidize iron and steel. SOx can also react to produce sulfates that reduce visibility and sunlight. Table 3-3 shows no data has been reported over the three-year period.

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

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

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

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

Meteorological data for various monitoring stations is maintained by the Western Regional Climate Center. Meteorological data for the Project site is expected to be similar to the data Setting
lung tissues. Sulfur oxides (SOX), in combination with moisture and oxygen, result in the formation of sulfuric acid, which can yellow the leaves of plants, dissolve marble, and oxidize iron and steel. SOXcan also react to produce sulfates thatreduce Visibility and sunlight. Table 3-3 shows no data has been reported over the three-year period.

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

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

Air enters the Valley through the Carquinez Strait and flows toward the Tehachapi Mountains. This up-valley (northwesterly) wind flow is interrupted in early fall by the emergence of nocturnal, down-valley (southeasterly) winds, which become progressively more predominant as winter approaches. Wind speeds are generally highest during the spring and lightest in fall and winter. The relatively cool air flowing through the Carquinez Strait is warmed on its journey south through the Valley. On reaching the southern end of the Valley, the average high temperature during the summer is nearly 100 degrees Fahrenheit (°F). Relative humidity during the summer is quite low, causing large diurnal temperature variations. Temperatures during the summer often drop into the upper 605. In winter, the average high temperatures reach into the mid-SOS, and the average low drops to the mid-305. In addition, another high-pressure cell, known as the "Great Basin High," develops east of the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range during winter. When this cell is weak, a layer of cool, damp air becomes trapped in the basin, and extensive fog results. During inversions, vertical dispersion is restricted, and pollutant emissions are trapped beneath the inversion and pushed against the mountains, adversely affecting regional air quality.

Page 3 ends

Setting

Mendota Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 3 ends

recorded at the Fresno monitoring station. This data is provided in Table 3-4, which contains average precipitation data recorded at the Fresno Yosemite Intl. Airport monitoring station.

Over the 68 - year period from January of 1948 through June of 2016 (the most recent data available), the average annual precipitation was 10.89 inches.

Table 3-4
Fresno Yosemite Int. Airport Monitoring Station, California Weather Data Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary for the Period 01/01/1948 to 06/09/2016 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
Average Max.

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

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

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

3.4 - Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases

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

As determined from worldwide meteorological measurements between 1990 and 2005, the primary observed effect of global climate change has been a rise in the average global tropospheric temperature of 0.36 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) per decade. Climate change modeling shows that further warming could occur, which could induce additional changes in the global climate system during the current century. Changes to the global climate system, Setting
recorded at the Fresno monitoring station. This data is provided in Table 3-4, which contains average precipitation data recorded at the Fresno Yosemite Intl. Airport monitoring station.

Over the 68 - year period from January of 1948 through June of 2016 (the most recent data available), the average annual precipitation was 10.89 inches.

Temperature (F)
Average Total
Precipitation (in.)
Average Total
SnowFall (in.)
Average Snow
Depth (in.) 0 O O 0 O O O O O I. 0
Percent of possible observations for period of record:

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

37.6 40.7 43.8 48.0 54.3 60.5 65.7 64.0 59.7 51.2 42.4 37.3 50.4

2.09 1.90 1.89 1.03 0.36 0.16 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.53 1.13 1.64

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

3.4 - Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases

3.4.1 - GLOBALCLIMATECHANGE
“Global Climate Change" refers to Changes in average meteorological conditions on the earth with respect to temperature, precipitation, and storms, lasting for decades or longer. The term “global Climate Change" is often used interchangeably with the term “global warming," but “global Climate Change" is preferred by some scientists and policymakers to “global warming" because it helps convey the notion thatin addition to rising temperatures, other Changes in global Climate may occur. Climate Change may result from the following influences:
0 Natural factors, such as Changes in the sun’sintensity or slow Changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun.
0 Natural processes within the Climate system (e.g.,Changes in oceanCirculation). 0 Human activities thatChange the atmosphere’s composition (e.g., through burning fossil fuels) and the land surface (e.g., deforestation, reforestation, urbanization, and desertification).

As determined from worldwide meteorological measurements between 1990 and 2005, the primary observed effect of global Climate Change has been a rise in the average global tropospheric temperature of 0.36 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) per decade. Climate Change modeling shows thatfurther warming could occur, which could induce additional Changes in the global Climate system during the current century. Changes to the global Climate system, Mendota Residential Project — Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 3 ends

Setting

Mendota Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 3 ends

ecosystems, and the environment of California could include higher sea levels, drier or wetter weather, changes in ocean salinity, changes in wind patterns, or more energetic aspects of extreme weather (e.g., droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves, extreme cold, and increased intensity of tropical cyclones). Specific effects from climate change in California may include a decline in the Sierra Nevada snowpack, erosion of California’s coastline, and seawater intrusion in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.

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

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

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

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

Methane is produced when organic matter decomposes in environments lacking sufficient oxygen. Natural sources of CH4 production include wetlands, termites, and oceans. Human activity accounts for the majority of the approximately 500 million metric tons of CH4 emitted annually. These anthropogenic sources include the mining and burning of fossil fuels, digestive processes in ruminant livestock such as cattle, rice cultivation, and the decomposition of waste in landfills. The major removal process for atmospheric CH4, the Setting
ecosystems, and the environment of California could include higher sea levels, drier or wetter weather, Changes in ocean salinity, Changes in wind patterns,or more energetic aspects of extreme weather (e.g., droughts, heavy precipitation, heatwaves, extreme cold, and increased intensity of tropical cyclones). Specific effects from Climate Change in California may include a decline in the Sierra Nevada snowpack, erosion of California’s coastline, and seawater intrusion in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.

Human activities, including fossil fuel combustion and land use Changes, release carbon dioxide (C02) and other compounds cumulatively termed greenhouse gases. GHGs are effective at trapping radiation thatwould otherwise escape the atmosphere. This trapped radiation warms the atmosphere, the oceans,and the earth’ssurface (USGCRP, 2014). Many scientists believe most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities" (IPCC, 2014). The increased amount of C02 and other GHGS in the atmosphere is the alleged primary result of human-induced warming.

GHGSare present in the atmosphere naturally, released by natural sources, or formed from secondary reactions taking place in the atmosphere. They include C02, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N20), and 03. In the last 200 years, substantial quantities of GHGShavebeen released into the atmosphere, primarily from fossil fuel combustion. These human-induced emissions are increasing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere, therefore enhancing the natural greenhouse effect. The GHGSresulting from human activity are believed to be causing global climate Change. While human-made GHGs include C02, CH4, and N20, some (like Chlorofluorocarbons [CFCS]) are completely new to the atmosphere. GHGSvary considerably in terms of Global Warming Potential (GWP), the comparative ability of each GHG to trap heat in the atmosphere. The GWP is based on several factors, including the relative effectiveness of a gas to absorb infrared radiation and the length of time thatthe gas remains in the atmosphere (“atmospheric lifetime"). The GWP of eachgas is measured relative to C02, the most abundant GHG. The definition of GWP for a particular GHG is the ratio of heat trapped by one unit mass of the GHGto the ratio of heattrapped by one unit mass of C02 over a specified time period. GHG emissions are typically measured in terms of pounds or tonsof “C02 equivalents" (COze).

Natural sources of C02 include the respiration (breathing) of animals and plants and evaporation from the oceans. Together, these natural sources release approximately 150 billion metric tonsof C02 each year, far outweighing the seven billion metric tonsof GHG emissions from fossil fuel burning, waste incineration, deforestation, cement manufacturing, and other human activity. Nevertheless, natural GHG removal processes such as photosynthesis cannotkeep pace with the additional output of C02 from human activities.

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

Page 3 ends

Setting

Mendota Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 3 ends

chemical breakdown in the atmosphere, cannot keep pace with source emissions; therefore, CH4 concentrations in the atmosphere are rising.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Setting
chemical breakdown in the atmosphere, cannotkeep pace with source emissions; therefore, CH4concentrations in the atmosphere are rising.

Worldwide emissions of GHGs in 2008 were 30.1 billion metric tons of C026:and have increased considerably since thattime (United Nations, 2011). Emissions from the top five emitting countries (China, the United States, India, the Russian Federation, and Japan) and the European Union accounted for approximately 70 percent of total global GHG emissions in 2014. The United States was the number two producer of GHG emissions, behind China.

The primary GHG emitted by human activities was C02, representing approximately 80 percent of total GHG emissions (U.S. EPA, 2024).

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

Between 1990 and 2022, C02 emissions from fossil fuel combustion decreased by 1.1 percent; emissions decreased by 18.2 percent (1,044.7 MMT COZe) from 2005 levels; and from 2021 to 2022, theseemissions increased by 1.0 percent (45.1 MMT C029). (U.S. EPA, 2024)
Worldwide, energy-related C02 emissions are expected to increase through 2050.

Projections indicate thatresources, demand, and technology costswill drive the shift from fossil to non-fossil energy sources,but current policies are not enough to decrease global energy-sector emissions. This outcome is largely due to population growth, regional economic shifts toward more manufacturing, and increased energy consumption as living standards improve. Globally, we project increases in energy consumption to outpace efficiency improvements. China remains the primary source of energy-related C02 emissions through 2050 across all cases, although its share of total global C02 emissions declines.

Further, across all caseswe project India to displace the United States and our Other AsiaPacific modeling region to displace Western Europe as the second- and third-highest emitters of energy-related C02 emissions by 2050, respectively. (U.S. EIA,2023).

CARBis responsible for developing and maintaining the California GHGemissions inventory.

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

In 2022, emissions from statewide emitting activities were 371.1 million metric tonsof C02 equivalent (MMT COze),which is 9.3 MMT COzelower than2021levels. 2022 emissions have decreased by 24 percent since peak levels in 2004 and are 59.9 MMT COze below the 1990 emissions level and the State’s 2020 GHGlimit (CARB 2024a).

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

Mendota Residential Project — Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 3 ends

Setting

Mendota Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 3 ends

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

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

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

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

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

During the past century, sea levels along California’s coast have risen about seven inches. If emissions continue unabated and temperatures rise into the higher anticipated warming range, sea level is expected to rise an additional 22 to 35 inches by the end of the century. Sea level rises of this magnitude would inundate coastal areas with salt water, accelerate coastal erosion, threaten vital levees and inland water systems, and disrupt wetlands and natural habitats. (Note: This condition would not affect the proposed Project area, as it is a significant distance away from coastal areas.)
• An increase in temperature and extreme weather events. Climate change is expected to lead to increases in the frequency, intensity, and duration of extreme heat events Setting

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

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

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

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

Theseare based on trends established by the [FCC and are summarized below. 0 A diminishing Sierra snowpack declining by 70 percent to 90 percent, threatening the State’s water supply.
0 A rise in sea levels, resulting in the displacement of coastal businesses and residences.

During the past century, sea levels along California’s coast have risen about seven inches. If emissions continue unabated and temperatures rise into the higher anticipated warming range, sea level is expected to rise an additional 22 to 35 inches by the end of the century. Sea level rises of this magnitude would inundate coastal areas with salt water, accelerate coastal erosion, threaten Vital levees and inland water systems,and disrupt wetlands and natural habitats. (Note: This condition would not affect the proposed Project area, as it is a significant distance away from coastal areas.)
0 An increase in temperature and extreme weather events. Climate Change is expected to lead to increases in the frequency, intensity, and duration of extreme heatevents Mendota Residential Project — Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 3 ends

Setting

Mendota Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 3 ends

and heat waves in California. More heat waves can exacerbate chronic disease or heatrelated illness. • Increased risk of large wildfires if rain increases as temperatures rise. Wildfires in the grasslands and chaparral ecosystems of southern California are estimated to increase by approximately 30 percent toward the end of the 21st century because more winter rain will stimulate the growth of more plant fuel available to burn in the fall. In contrast, a hotter, drier climate could promote up to 90 percent more northern California fires by the end of the century by drying out and increasing the flammability of forest vegetation.
• Increasing temperatures from 8 to 10.4°F under the higher emission scenarios, leading to a 25 percent to 35 percent increase in the number of days that ozone pollution levels are exceeded in most urban areas (see below). • Increased vulnerability of forests due to forest fires, pest infestation, and increased temperatures.
• Reductions in the quality and quantity of certain agricultural products. The crops and products likely to be adversely affected include wine grapes, fruit, nuts, and milk. • Exacerbation of air quality problems. If temperatures rise to the medium warming range, there could be 75 to 85 percent more days with weather conducive to ozone formation in Los Angeles and the San Joaquin Valley, relative to today’s conditions.

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

3.4.3 - GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE REGULATORY ISSUES
In 1988, the United Nations established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to evaluate the impacts of global warming and to develop strategies that nations could implement to curtail global climate change. In 1992, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change established an agreement with the goal of controlling GHG emissions, including methane. As a result, the Climate Change Action Plan was developed to address the reduction of GHGs in the United States. The plan consists of more than 50 voluntary programs. Additionally, the Montreal Protocol was originally signed in 1987 and substantially amended in 1990 and 1992. Pursuant to the Montreal Protocol, the production and consumption of compounds that deplete O3 in the stratosphere (chlorofluorocarbons [CFCs], halons, carbon tetrachloride, and methyl chloroform) were phased out by 2000 (methyl chloroform was phased out by 2005).

On September 27, 2006, Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (the Act), was enacted by the State of California. The legislature stated, “Global Setting
and heatwaves in California. More heatwaves can exacerbate chronic disease or heatrelated illness. 0 Increased risk of large wildfires if rain increases as temperatures rise. Wildfires in the grasslands and Chaparral ecosystems of southern California are estimated to increase by approximately 30 percent toward the end of the lt century because more winter rain will stimulate the growth of more plant fuel available to burn in the fall. In contrast,a hotter,drier Climate could promote up to 90 percent more northern California fires by the end of the century by drying out and increasing the flammability of forest vegetation.
0 Increasing temperatures from 8 to 10.4°F under the higher emission scenarios, leading to a 25 percent to 35 percent increase in the number of days that ozone pollution levels are exceeded in most urban areas (see below). 0 Increased vulnerability of forests due to forest fires, pest infestation, and increased temperatures.
0 Reductions in the quality and quantity of certain agricultural products. The crops and products likely to be adversely affected include wine grapes, fruit, nuts,and milk. 0 Exacerbation of air quality problems. If temperatures rise to the medium warming range, there could be 75 to 85 percent more days with weather conducive to ozone formation in Los Angeles and the San Joaquin Valley, relative to today’s conditions.

This is more than twice the increase expected if rising temperatures remain in the lower warming range. This increase in air quality problems could result in an increase in asthma and other health-related problems.
0 A decrease in the health and productivity of California’s forests. Climate Change can causean increase in wildfires, an enhanced insect population, and the establishment of non-native species.
0 Increased electricity demand, particularly in the hot summer months. 0 Increased ground-level ozone formation due to higher reaction rates of ozone precursors.

3.4.3 - GLOBALCLIMATECHANGE REGULATORY ISSUES
In 1988, the United Nations established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to evaluate the impacts of global warming and to develop strategies that nations could implement to curtail global Climate Change. In 1992, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change established an agreement with the goal of controlling GHG emissions, including methane. As a result, the Climate Change Action Plan was developed to address the reduction of GHGS in the United States. The plan consists of more than 50 voluntary programs. Additionally, the Montreal Protocol was originally signed in 1987 and substantially amended in 1990 and 1992. Pursuant to the Montreal Protocol, the production and consumption of compounds that deplete 03 in the stratosphere (Chlorofluorocarbons [CFCS], halons, carbon tetrachloride, and methyl chloroform) were phased out by 2000 (methyl chloroform was phased out by 2005).

Page 3 ends

Setting

Mendota Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 3 ends

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

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

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

The California Supreme Court’s most recent CEQA decision on the Newhall Ranch development case, Center for Biological v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (November 30, 2015, Case No. 217763), determined that the project’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR) did not substantiate the conclusion that the GHG cumulative impacts would be less than significant. The EIR determined that the Newhall Ranch development project would reduce GHG emissions by 31 percent from business as usual (BAU). This reduction was compared to California’s target of reducing GHG emissions statewide by 29 percent from business as usual. The Court determined that “the EIR’s deficiency stems from taking a quantitative comparison method developed by the Scoping Plan as a measure of the greenhouse gas reduction effort required by the State as a whole, and attempting to use that method, without adjustments, for a purpose very different from its original design.” In the Court’s final ruling, it offered suggestions that were deemed appropriate use of the BAU methodology:

Setting
warming poses a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California." The Act caps California’s GHG emissions at 1990 levels by 2020. The Act defines GHG emissions as all of the following gases: carbon dioxide (C02), methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. This agreement represents the first enforceable statewide program in the US. to cap all GHG emissions from major industries that include penalties for non-compliance. While acknowledging thatnational and international actions will be necessary to fully address the issue of global warming, AB 32 lays out a program to inventory and reduce GHG emissions in California and from power generation facilities located outside the State that serve California residents and businesses. According to CARB, California has met its 2020 GHG emission reduction target (CARB, 2021).

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

The California Supreme Court’s most recent CEQA decision on the Newhall Ranch development case, Center for Biological V. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (November 30, 2015, Case No. 217763), determined thatthe project’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR) did not substantiate the conclusion thatthe GHG cumulative impacts would be less thansignificant. The EIR determined thatthe Newhall Ranch development project would reduce GHG emissions by 31 percent from business as usual (BAU). This reduction was compared to California’s target of reducing GHG emissions statewide by 29 percent from business as usual. The Court determined that “the EIR’Sdeficiency stems from taking a quantitative comparison method developed by the Scoping Plan as a measure of the greenhouse gas reduction effort required by the State as a whole, and attempting to use that method,without adjustments, for a purpose very different from its original design." In the Court’s final ruling, it offered suggestions that were deemed appropriate use of the BAU methodology:

Mendota Residential Project — Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 3 ends

Setting

Mendota Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 3 ends

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

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

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

Neither the City of Mendota nor Fresno County have developed specific thresholds for GHGs.

As discussed in Section 4.1, the SJVAPCD, a CEQA Trustee Agency for this Project, has developed thresholds to determine the significance of a proposed project – either implement Best Performance Standards or achieve a 29 percent reduction from BAU (a specific numerical threshold). However, the SJVAPCD has established their BAU and baseline emissions based on the years 2002-2004 and 2020, respectively. The 2020 projected baseline has passed, and at this time, no new guidance has been approved for determining BAU and projected baseline for the next target year. Therefore, the 29 percent reduction from BAU cannot be applied to the subject Project in order to determine significance.

Additionally, a Best Performance Standards threshold has not been established. For this Project, compliance with locally adopted climate plans will be used to determine the level of significance of GHG. Therefore, the GHG analysis for this Project follows the suggestions from the Court’s ruling on the Newhall Ranch development project in order to determine the significance of using the Project design features.

Setting

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

2. Project design features that comply with regulations to reduce emissions may demonstrate thatthosecomponents of emissions are less thansignificant.

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

Neither the City of Mendota nor Fresno County havedeveloped specific thresholds for GHGS.

As discussed in Section 4.1, the SIVAPCD, a CEQA Trustee Agency for this Project, has developed thresholds to determine the significance of a proposed project — either implement Best Performance Standards or achieve a 29 percent reduction from BAU (a specific numerical threshold). However, the SIVAPCD has established their BAU and baseline emissions based on the years 2002-2004 and 2020, respectively. The 2020 projected baseline has passed,and at this time, no new guidance has been approved for determining BAU and projected baseline for the nexttarget year. Therefore, the 29 percent reduction from BAU cannot be applied to the subject Project in order to determine significance.

Additionally, a Best Performance Standards threshold has not been established. For this Project, compliance with locally adopted Climate plans will be used to determine the level of significance of GHG.Therefore, the GHGanalysis for this Project follows the suggestions from the Court’s ruling on the Newhall Ranch development project in order to determine the significance of using the Project design features.

Mendota Residential Project — Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 3 ends

Impact Assessment

Mendota Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 4 ends

SECTION 4 - IMPACT ASSESSMENT

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

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

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

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

Impact Assessment
SECTION 4 - IMPACTASSESSMENT

4.1 - Significance Criteria
To determine whether a proposed Project could create a potential CEQAimpact, local, State, and federal agencies have developed various means by which a project’s impacts may be measured and evaluated. Such means can generally be categorized as follows:
0 Thresholds of significance adopted by air quality agencies to guide lead agencies in their evaluation of air quality impacts under the CEQA. 0 Regulations established by air districts, CARB, and EPA for the evaluation of stationary sources when applying for Authorities to Construct,Permits to Operate, and other permit program requirements (e.g., New Source Review). 0 Thresholds utilized to determine if a project would causeor contribute significantly to Violations of the ambient air quality standards or other concentration-based limits. 0 Regulations applied in areas where severe air quality problems exist.

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

4.1.1 - THRESHOLDS ADOPTED FORTHEEVALUATION OFAIR QUALITY IMPACTSUNDERCEQA In order to maintain consistency with CEQA, the SIVAPCD (2015) adopted guidelines to assist applicants in complying with the various requirements. According to the SIVAPCD’S GAMAQI,a project would havepotentially significant air quality impacts when the project:
0 Creates a conflict with or obstructs implementation of the applicable air quality plan. 0 Causesa Violation of any air quality standard or generates substantial contribution towards exceeding an existing or projected air quality standard. 0 Results in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is designated non-attainment under a NAAQS and CAAQS (including emissions thatexceed quantitative thresholds for 03 precursors). o Exposes sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. 0 Creates objectionable odors thataffect a substantial number of people.

The SIVAPCDGAMAQI thresholds are designed to implement the general criteria for air quality emissions as required in the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, Paragraph 111(Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations §15064.7) and CEQA (California Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et al.). SIVAPCD’Sspecific CEQAair quality thresholds are presented in Table 4-1.

Mendota Residential Project — Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 4 ends

Impact Assessment

Mendota Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 4 ends

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

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

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

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

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

Impact Assessment
Table 4—1
SIVAPCDCEQAThresholds of Significance
Operational Emissions
SEES; Construction Permitted Equipment Non-Permitted
Emissions and Activities Equipment and Activities
I NOX 10 tons/yr 10 tons/yr 10 tons/yr
ROG 10 tons/yr 10 tons/yr 10 tons/yr
l SOX 27 tons/yr 27 tons/yr 27 tons/yr
PM1o 15 tons/yr 15 tons/yr 15 tons/yr
l PM2.5 15 tons/yr A 15 tons/yr Al 15 tons/yr
CO 100 tons/yr 100 tons/yr 100 tons/yr
Source: SIVAPCD,2015.

4.1.2 - THRESHOLD FOR AMBIENT AIRQUALITY IMPACTS
CEQA Guidelines — Appendix G (Environmental Checklist) states thata project thatwould “Violabe any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an eXisting or projected air quality Violation" would be considered to create significant impacts on air quality. Therefore, an AQIAshould determine whether the emissions from a project would cause or contribute significantly to Violations of the NAAQS or CAAQS (presented above in Table 3-1) when added to existing ambient concentrations.

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

As the Project would not include modification to the stationary source under New Source Review (NSR), it would not be subject to either PSD or NSR review. The PSD SIL thresholds are used with ambient air quality modeling for a CEQAproject to address whether the project would “Violabeany air quality stan dard or contribute substantially to an eXistingor projected air quality Violation." Ambient air quality emissions estimates below the PSD SIL thresholds would result in less-than-significant ambient air quality impacts on both a project and cumulative CEQA impact analysis. The SIVAB is Classified as non-attainment/marginal for the 8-hour 03 NAAQS and, as such, is subject to non-attainment NSR. PSD SILs and increments are more stringent thanthe CAAQSor NAAQSand represent the most stringent thresholds of significance.

4.1.3 - THRESHOLDS FOR HAZARDOUSAIR POLLUTANTS
The SIVAPCD’SGAMAQIstates, “From a health risk perspective, there are basically two types of land use projects thathavethe potential to causelong-term public health risk impacts:
0 Type A Projects: Land use projects thatwill place new toxic sources in the Vicinity of existing receptors.

Mendota Residential Project — Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 4 ends

Impact Assessment

Mendota Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 4 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: EKAPCD, 1996

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

Impact Assessment
Type B Projects: Land use projects that will place new receptors in the Vicinity of existing toxic sources"(SIVAPCD, 2015).

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

Table 4—2
Measures of Significance — Toxic Air Contaminants
Agency Level Description
Significance Thresholds Adopted for the Evaluation of Impacts Under CEQA Maximally Exposed Individual risk equals or
Carcmogens exceeds 20 in one million.

SIV APCD Acute: Hazard Index equals or exceeds 1.0 for the Non- Maximally Exposed Individual.

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

Source: EKAPCD, 1996

4.1.4 - GLOBALCLIMATE CHANGETHRESHOLDS OFSIGNIFICANCE
On December 17, 2009, SIVAPCD adopted Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA (SIVAPCD, 2009); which outlined the SIVAPCD’Smethodology for assessing a project’s significance for GHGS under CEQA.The following criteria were outlined in the document to determine whether a project could havea significant impact:

Projects determined to be exempt from the requirements of CEQA would be determined to havea less-than-significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG emissions and would not require further environmental review, including analysis of project-specific GHG emissions. Projects exempt under CEQA would be evaluated consistent with established rules and regulations governing project approval and would not be required to implement BPS.

Projects complying with an approved GHGemission reduction plan or GHGmitigation program thatavoids or substantially reduces GHG emissions within the geographic area in which the project is located would be determined to have a less-thansignificant individual and cumulative impact for GHG emissions. Such plans or programs must be specified in law or approved by the lead agency with jurisdiction over the affected resource and supported by a CEQA-compliant environmental review document adopted by the lead agency. Projects complying with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or GHG mitigation program would not be required to implement BPS.

Projects implementing BestPerformance Standards would not require quantification of project-specific GHG emissions. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines, such projects would be determined to have a less-than-significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG emissions.

Mendota Residential Project — Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 4 ends

Impact Assessment

Mendota Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 4 ends

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

The SJVAPCD, a CEQA Trustee Agency for this Project, has developed thresholds to determine the significance of a proposed project – either implement Best Performance Standards or achieve a 29 percent reduction from BAU (a specific numerical threshold). However, the SJVAPCD has established their BAU and baseline emissions based on the years 2002-2004 and 2020, respectively. The 2020 projected baseline has passed, and at this time, no new guidance has been approved for determining BAU and projected baseline for the next target year. Therefore, the 29 percent reduction from BAU cannot be applied to the subject Project in order to determine significance. Additionally, a Best Performance Standards threshold has not been established. For this Project, compliance with locally adopted climate plans will be used to determine the level of significance for GHG. Therefore, the GHG analysis for this Project follows the suggestions from the Court’s ruling on the Newhall Ranch development project in order to determine the significance of using the project design features.

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

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

Project emissions were estimated for the following development stages:
• Short-term (Construction and Demolition) – Construction emissions of the proposed Project were estimated in CalEEMod using the default construction schedule and construction equipment for the development. (See Appendix A.) • Long-term (Operations) – Long-term emissions were also estimated in CalEEMod using model defaults for operations of the aforementioned land use types. (See Appendix A.)
Impact Assessment
0 Projects not implementing BestPerformance Standards would require quantification of project-specific GHG emissions and demonstration that project-specific GHG emissions would be reduced or mitigated by at least 29 percent, compared to business as usual (BAU), including GHGemission reductions achieved since the 2002- 2004 baseline period.Projects achieving at least a 29 percent GHGemission reduction compared to BAU would be determined to havea less-than-significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG.
0 Notwithstanding any of the above provisions, projects requiring the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for any other reason would require quantification of project-specific GHG emissions. Projects implementing BPS or achieving at least a 29 percent GHG emission reduction compared to BAU would be determined to have a less-than-significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG.

The SIVAPCD,a CEQATrustee Agency for this Project, has developed thresholds to determine the significance of a proposed project — either implement Best Performance Standards or achieve a 29 percent reduction from BAU (a specific numerical threshold). However, the SIVAPCDhas established their BAU and baseline emissions based on the years 2002-2004 and 2020, respectively. The 2020 projected baseline has passed, and at this time, no new guidance has been approved for determining BAUand projected baseline for the nexttarget year. Therefore, the 29 percent reduction from BAUcannotbe applied to the subject Project in order to determine significance. Additionally, a BestPerformance Standards threshold has not been established. For this Project, compliance with locally adopted Climate plans will be used to determine the level of significance for GHG. Therefore, the GHG analysis for this Project follows the suggestions from the Court’s ruling on the Newhall Ranch development project in order to determine the significance of using the project design features.

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

Project emissions were estimated for the following development stages:
0 Short-term (Construction and Demolition) — Construction emissions of the proposed Project were estimated in CalEEMod using the default construction schedule and construction equipment for the development. (See Appendix A.) 0 Long-term (Operations) — Long-term emissions were also estimated in CalEEMod using model defaults for operations of the aforementioned land use types. (See Appendix A.)
Mendota Residential Project — Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 4 ends

Impact Assessment

Mendota Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 4 ends

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

The construction emissions were based on the default CalEEMod equipment list for the proposed Project’s land use type and development intensity and applying model defaults as well as a conservative analysis approach. In order to be conservative construction emissions were estimated under the assumption that construction would begin in 2026. The dates entered into the CalEEMod program represent the earliest construction timeline, which would estimate the worst-case emissions as construction equipment technology and emissions improve over time; therefore, all estimated emission totals are conservative and reflect a reasonable and legally sufficient estimate of potential impacts. All construction equipment activity levels assumed were based on CalEEMod default values for type, number of equipment, hours per day and horsepower.

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

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

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

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

Impact Assessment

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

Adjustments to the CalEEMod default values were as follows:
0 Land use lot acreage was adjusted to match the Project description. 0 Demolition construction phase was removed as the Project Location is open land.

SIVAPCD’S required measures for all projects were also applied:
0 Water exposed area three times per day.
0 Reduce vehicle speed to less than15 miles per hour on unpaved roads.

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

As calculated with CalEEMod, the estimated short-term construction-related emissions would not exceed SIVAPCDsignificance threshold levels during any given year and would, therefore, be less than Slgnificant
Mendota Residential Project — Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 4 ends

Impact Assessment

Mendota Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 4 ends

Table 4-3
Short-Term Project Emissions
Emissions Source Pollutant (tons/year)
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
2026 0.317 2.700 3.084 0.006 0.408 0.220
2027 0.183 1.380 2.164 0.004 0.173 0.073
2028 0.173 1.314 2.138 0.004 0.169 0.069
2029 0.166 1.257 2.098 0.004 0.165 0.066
2030 0.149 1.157 1.946 0.003 0.143 0.058
2031 1.670 0.125 0.218 0.000 0.011 0.005
Significance Threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15
Is Threshold Exceeded for a Single
Year After Mitigation? No No No No No No
Source: QK 2025

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

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

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

SJVAPCD’s Regulation VIII establishes required controls to reduce and minimize fugitive dust emissions. The following SJVAPCD Rules and Regulations apply to the proposed Project (and all projects):
• Rule 4102 – Nuisance – prohibits a facility from posing as a nuisance to surrounding receptors and can impose penalties for nuisance issues such as dust, smoke, excess emissions, etc. Compliance with this rule ensures that the area around the Project site will not be adversely impacted by such issues.
• Regulation VIII – Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions – a series of regulations to reduce and/or eliminate the generation of particulate matter (PM) that can adversely impact visibility as well as the health and safety of people on-site or in the vicinity of the Project.
o Rule 8011 – General Requirements – this rule is to reduce ambient concentrations of fine particulate matter (PM10) by requiring actions to prevent, reduce, or mitigate anthropogenic (human-caused) fugitive dust emissions.
o Rule 8021 – Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities – restricts generation of airborne dust and visibility Impact Assessment
Table 4—3
Short-Term Project Emissions
Emissions Source Pollutant (tons/year) _ ROG NOX CO 302 PM10 PM2.5_ m6 _:_ 0.317 2.700 3.084 0.006 0.408 022$
, 2027 0.183 1.380 2.164 0.004 0.173 0.073
2028 0.173 1.314 2.138 0.004 0.169 0.069
2029 0.166 1.257 2.098 0.004 0.165 0.066
2030 0.149 1.157 1.946 0.003 0.143 0.0581
2031 1.670 0.125 0.218 0.000 0.011 0.005
{Significance Threshold IT 10 10 100 27 15 I,
Is Threshold Exceeded for a Slngle No No No No No No
Year After Mitigation?
Source: QK 2025

4.2.2 - LONG-TERM OPERATIONALEMISSIONS
Long-term emissions are caused by operational mobile sources and area source emissions from the residences.

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

SIVAPCD’SRegulation VIII establishes required controls to reduce and minimize fugitive dust emissions. The following SIVAPCDRules and Regulations apply to the proposed Project (and all projects):

Mendota Residential Project — Air Quality Impact Analysis Rule 4102 — Nuisance — prohibits a facility from posing as a nuisance to surrounding receptors and can impose penalties for nuisance issues such as dust, smoke, excess emissions, etc. Compliance with this rule ensures thatthe area around the Projectsite will not be adversely impacted by such issues.

Regulation VIII — Fugitive PM10Prohibitions — a series of regulations to reduce and/or eliminate the generation of particulate matter (PM) that can adversely impact Visibility as well as the health and safety of people on-site or in the Vicinity of the Project.
0 Rule 8011 — General Requirements — this rule is to reduce ambient concentrations of fine particulate matter (PM10) by requiring actions to prevent, reduce, or mitigate anthropogenic (human-caused) fugitive dust emissions.
0 Rule 8021 — Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities — restricts generation of airborne dustand Visibility December 2025

Page 4 ends

Impact Assessment

Mendota Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 4 ends

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

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

Exhaust Emissions
Project-related transportation activities from industry would generate mobile source ROG, NOx, SOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 exhaust emissions. Exhaust emissions would vary substantially from day to day but would average out over the course of an operational year. The variables factored into estimating total Project emissions include level of activity, site characteristics, weather conditions, and number of residents. The default trip rates in CalEEMod were used along with an adjusted fleet mix to reflect SJVAPCD approved residential fleet mix for year 2026.

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

4. Emission calculations are available in Appendix A.

Table 4-4
Post-Project Max Year (Operational Emissions)
Emissions Source Pollutant (tons/year)
ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Mitigated Emissions
Operational Emissions 3.81 2.36 17.95 0.05 4.24 1.12
SJVAPCD Threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15
Is Threshold Exceeded After Mitigation? No No No No No No As shown in Table 4-4, operations-related emissions, as calculated in Appendix B, would not exceed the SJVAPCD significant threshold levels. Therefore, the Project is less-thansignificant for operational emissions.

4.3 - Potential Impacts on Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive receptors are defined as locations where young children, chronically ill individuals, the elderly, or people who are more sensitive than the general population reside, such as Impact Assessment
impacts from these activities. Places limits on opacity and equipment operation under certain adverse weather conditions.
0 Rule 8041 — Carryout and Trackout — requires thatequipment and vehicles leaving the construction site control the amount of dirt, soil, or mud that is tracked offsite and onto public roadways. This helps eliminate or minimize dustgeneration and opacity degradation.
0 Rule 8051 — Open Areas — limits fugitive dustfrom open areas, i.e., areas on a construction site that are not actively being constructed upon but may generate wind-blown dust.

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

Evhaust Emissions
Project-related transportation activities from industry would generate mobile source ROG, NOX,SOX,CO, PM1o, and PM2.5exhaustemissions. Exhaust emissions would vary substantially from day to day but would average out over the course of an operational year. The variables factored into estimating total Project emissions include level of activity, site Characteristics, weather conditions, and number of residents. The default trip rates in CalEEMod were used along with an adjusted fleet mix to reflect SIVAPCDapproved residential fleet mix for year 2026.

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

4. Emission calculations are available in Appendix A.

Table 4-4
Post-Project MaxYear (Operational Emissions)
. . Pollutant (tons /year)
Emlss‘onssource ROG N0x c0 50x PM1o PM2.5
Mitigated Emissions
Dperational Emissions 3.81 2.36 17.95 0.05 4.24
SIVAPCDThreshold 10 10 100 27 15 15
L15 Threshold Exceeded After Mitigation? N0 N0 N0 N0 No As shown in Table 4-4,operations-related emissions, as calculated in Appendix B, would not exceed the SIVAPCD significant threshold levels. Therefore, the Project is less-thansignificant for operational emissions.

4.3 - Potential Impacts on Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive receptors are defined as locations where young Children, chronically ill individuals, the elderly, or people who are more sensitive than the general population reside, such as Mendota Residential Project — Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 4 ends

Impact Assessment

Mendota Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 4 ends

schools, hospitals, nursing homes, and daycare centers. The nearest residential sensitive receptor to the proposed Project is located adjacent to portions of the Project’s sites. Table 4-5 lists the known non-residential sensitive receptors less than 1 mile from the Project site.

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

Table 4-5
Sensitive Receptors Located <1 Mile from Project Site
Receptor Type of Facility Distance from
Project (miles)
Direction
from Project
McCabe Elementary School School 0.39 East
Mendota Elementary School School 0.74 Northeast
Mendota Community High School School 0.41 Southeast
Washington Elementary School School 0.70 Southeast
Learn4Life Mendota – Cresent View West School 0.74 Southeast Mendota Junior High School School 0.95 Southeast
Fresno EOC Head Start Mendota Preschool 0.45 Southeast
Mendota Migrant Head Start Preschool 0.52 Southeast
United Health Centers Mendota Health Center 0.68 East

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

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

4.5 - Potential Impacts from Carbon Monoxide
Ambient CO concentrations normally correspond closely to the spatial and temporal distributions of vehicular traffic. Relatively high concentrations of CO would be expected along heavily traveled roads and near busy intersections. CO concentrations are also influenced by wind speed and atmospheric mixing. CO concentrations may be more uniformly distributed when inversion conditions are prevalent in the valley. Under certain meteorological conditions, CO concentrations along a congested roadway or intersection may reach unhealthful levels for sensitive receptors, e.g., children, the elderly, hospital patients, etc. This localized impact can result in elevated levels of CO, or “hotspots,” even Impact Assessment
schools, hospitals, nursing homes, and daycare centers. The nearest residential sensitive receptor to the proposed Project is located adjacent to portions of the Project’s sites. Table 4—5lists the known non-residential sensitive receptors less than1 mile from the Project site.

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

Table 4—5
Sensitive Receptors Located <1 Mile from Project Site
Distance from Direction
Receptor Type Of Fac111ty Project (miles) from Project
I McCabe Elementary School School 0.39 East V
Mendota Elementary School School 0.74 Northeast
K Mendota Community High School School 0.41 Southeast
Washington Elementary School School 0.70 Southeast
[Learn4Life Mendota — Cresent View West School 0.74 Southeast Mendota Junior High School School 0.95 Southeast
K Fresno EOC Head Start Mendota Preschool 0.45 Southeast Mendota Migrant Head Start Preschool 0.52 Southeast
.Jnited Health Centers Mendota ’Health Centem

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

4.5 - Potential Impacts from Carbon Monoxide
Ambient CO concentrations normally correspond Closely to the spatial and temporal distributions of vehicular traffic. Relatively high concentrations of CO would be expected along heavily traveled roads and near busy intersections. CO concentrations are also influenced by wind speed and atmospheric mixing. CO concentrations may be more uniformly distributed when inversion conditions are prevalent in the valley. Under certain meteorological conditions, CO concentrations along a congested roadway or intersection may reach unhealthful levels for sensitive receptors, e.g., Children, the elderly, hospital patients, etc. This localized impact can result in elevated levels of CO, or “hotspots,” even Mendota Residential Project — Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 4 ends

Impact Assessment

Mendota Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 4 ends

though concentrations at the closest air quality monitoring station may be below NAAQS and CAAQS.

The localized project impacts depend on whether ambient CO levels in the Project vicinity would be above or below NAAQS. If ambient levels are below the standards, a project is considered to have significant impacts if a project’s emissions would exceed one or more of these standards. If ambient levels already exceed a State standard, a project’s emissions are considered significant if they would increase 1-hour CO concentrations by 10 ppm or more or 8-hour CO concentrations by 0.45 ppm or more. There are two criteria established by the SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI by which CO “hotspot” modeling is required:

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

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

A traffic study was not completed for this Project at the time of this analysis. However, due to size and location it is anticipated that impacted intersections and roadway segments will operate at a LOS of C or better. Therefore, CO “hotspot” modeling was not conducted for this Project, and no concentrated excessive CO emissions are expected to be caused once the proposed Project is completed.

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

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

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

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

Health risk is determined using the Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP) software distributed by the CARB. HARP2 requires peak 1-hour emission rates and annualImpact Assessment though concentrations at the Closest air quality monitoring station may be below NAAQSand CAAQS.

The localized project impacts depend on whether ambient CO levels in the Project Vicinity would be above or below NAAQS. If ambient levels are below the standards, a project is considered to havesignificant impacts if a project’s emissions would exceed one or more of thesestandards. If ambient levels already exceed a State standard, a project’s emissions are considered significant if they would increase 1-hour CO concentrations by 10 ppm or more or 8-hour CO concentrations by 0.45 ppm or more. There are two criteria established by the SIVAPCD’SGAMAQI by which CO “hotspot” modeling is required:

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

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

A traffic study was not completed for this Project at the time of this analysis. However, due to size and location it is anticipated thatimpacted intersections and roadway segments will operate at a LOS of Cor better. Therefore, CO “hotspot” modeling was not conducted for this Project, and no concentrated excessive CO emissions are expected to be caused once the proposed Project is completed.

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

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

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

Health risk is determined using the Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP) software distributed by the CARB. HARPZ requires peak 1-hour emission rates and annualMendota Residential Project — Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 4 ends

Impact Assessment

Mendota Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 4 ends

averaged emission rates for all pollutants for each modeling source. The assumptions used to calculate the emission rates for the proposed Project are outlined below.

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

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

A discrete receptor grid was placed over the City of Mendota in order to evaluate residences and businesses within close proximity of the Project site. A total of 984 discrete off-site receptors were analyzed. Elevated terrain options were employed even though there is not complex terrain in the Project area. The 7.5-minute DEM terrain data for Tranquillity, CA and Coit Ranch, CA and the 1-deg DEM terrain data for Monterey, CA, was processed with AERMAP to identify elevations for the proposed Project.

SJVAPCD-provided AERMET processed meteorological datasets for the Mendota monitoring station, calendar years 2007 through 2011 were input to AERMOD (SJVAPCD, 2025d). This was the most recent available dataset available at the time the modeling was conducted.

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

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

SJVAPCD has set the level of significance for carcinogenic risk at twenty in one million, which is understood as the possibility of causing 20 additional cancer cases in a population of one Impact Assessment
averaged emission rates for all pollutants for each modeling source. The assumptions used to calculate the emission rates for the proposed Project are outlined below.

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

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

A discrete receptor grid was placed over the City of Mendota in order to evaluate residences and businesses within Close proximity of the Project site. A total of 984 discrete off-site receptors were analyzed. Elevated terrain options were employed even though there is not complex terrain in the Project area. The 75-minute DEM terrain data for Tranquillity, CA and Coit Ranch,CA and the 1-deg DEM terrain data for Monterey, CA, was processed with AERMAP to identify elevations for the proposed Project.

SIVAPCD-provided AERMET processed meteorological datasets for the Mendota monitoring station, calendar years 2007 through 2011 were input to AERMOD (SIVAPCD, 2025d). This was the most recent available dataset available at the time the modeling was conducted.

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

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

SIVAPCDhas set the level of significance for carcinogenic risk at twenty in one million, which is understood as the possibility of causing 20 additional cancer cases in a population of one Mendota Residential Project — Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 4 ends

Impact Assessment

Mendota Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 4 ends

million people. The level of significance for chronic non-cancer risk is a hazard index of 1.0.

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

The carcinogenic risk and the health hazard index (HI) for chronic non-cancer risk at the point of maximum impact (PMI) do not exceed the significance levels of 20 in one million (20 x 10-6) and 1.0, respectively, for the proposed Project. The PMIs are identified by receptor location and risk and are provided in Table 4-6. The electronic AERMOD and HARP2 output files are provided in Appendix D.

Table 4-6
Potential Maximum Impacts Predicted by HARP
Cancer Risk Chronic Hazard
Index
Construction 9.30E-06 3.74E-03
SJVAPCD Threshold 20.0E-06 1.0
Exceedance? No No
Receptor # 236 236
UTM Easting (m) 732460.18 732460.18
UTM Northing (m) 4071452.50 4071452.50
Note: UTM = Universal Transverse Mercator
As shown above in Table 4-5, the maximum predicted cancer risk for the proposed Project is 9.30E-06. The maximum chronic non-cancer hazard index for the proposed Project is

3.74E-03. Since the PMI remained below the significance threshold for cancer and chronic risk, this Project would not have an adverse effect to any of the surrounding communities.

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

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

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

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

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

4.7 - Potential Impacts from Valley Fever
The proposed project has the potential to generate fugitive dust and suspend Valley Fever spores with the dust that could then reach nearby sensitive receptors. It is possible that onsite workers could be exposed to Valley Fever spores as fugitive dust is generated during Impact Assessment
million people. The level of significance for Chronic non-cancer risk is a hazard index of 1.0.

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

The carcinogenic risk and the health hazard index (HI) for Chronic non-cancer risk at the point of maximum impact (PMI) do not exceed the significance levels of 20 in one million (20 X10-6) and 1.0, respectively, for the proposed Project. The PMIS are identified by receptor location and risk and are provided in Table 4-6. The electronic AERMOD and HARPZ output files are provided in Appendix D.

Table 4-6
Potential MaximumImpacts Predicted by HARP
Cancer Risk Chromc Hazard
Index
I Construction 9.30E-06 - 3.74E-03 - SIVAPCDThreshold 20.0E-06 1.0 I Exceedance? N0 No - Receptor# 236 236
k UTM Easting(m) 732460.18 732460.18 - UTM Northing (m) 407145250 407145250 Note: UTM = Universal Transverse Mercator
As shown above in Table 4-5,the maximum predicted cancer risk for the proposed Project is 9.30E-06. The maximum chronic non-cancer hazard index for the proposed Project is

3.74E-03. Since the PMI remained below the significance threshold for cancer and Chronic risk, this Project would not havean adverse effect to any of the surrounding communities.

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

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

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

Therefore, potential risk to the population attributable to emissions of HAPS from the proposed Project would be less thansignificant.

4. 7 - Potential Impacts from Valley Fever
The proposed project has the potential to generate fugitive dustand suspend Valley Fever spores with the dustthat could then reach nearby sensitive receptors. It is possible that onsite workers could be exposed to Valley Fever spores as fugitive dustis generated during Mendota Residential Project — Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 4 ends

Impact Assessment

Mendota Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 4 ends

construction. In order to mitigate potential risk, the proposed Project would provide training and personal protective respiratory equipment to construction workers and provide information to all construction personnel and visitors about Valley Fever. Therefore, the exposure to Valley Fever would be minimized. With the implementation of the mitigation measures, dust from the construction of the proposed project would not add significantly to the existing exposure level of people to this fungus, including construction workers, and impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels.

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

Serpentinite and/or ultramafic rocks are known to be present in 44 of California's 58 counties. These rocks are particularly abundant in the counties associated with the Sierra Nevada foothills, the Klamath Mountains, and the Coast Ranges. However, according to information provided by the Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, the project site is not located in an area where naturally occurring asbestos is likely to be present (CDCDMG, 2025). Therefore, impacts associated with the exposure of construction workers and nearby sensitive receptors to asbestos would be less than significant.

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

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

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

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

Impact Assessment
construction. In order to mitigate potential risk, the proposed Project would provide training and personal protective respiratory equipment to construction workers and provide information to all construction personnel and Visitors about Valley Fever. Therefore, the exposure to Valley Fever would be minimized. With the implementation of the mitigation measures, dust from the construction of the proposed project would not add significantly to the existing exposure level of people to this fungus, including construction workers, and impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels.

Serpentinite and/ or ultramafic rocks are known to be present in 44 of California's 58 counties. These rocks are particularly abundant in the counties associated with the Sierra Nevada foothills, the Klamath Mountains, and the Coast Ranges. However, according to information provided by the Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, the projectsite is not located in an area where naturally occurring asbestos is likely to be present (CDCDMG, 2025). Therefore, impacts associated with the exposure of construction workers and nearby sensitive receptors to asbestos would be less thansignificant.

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

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

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

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

Mendota Residential Project — Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 4 ends

Impact Assessment

Mendota Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 4 ends

Based on the provisions of the SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI, the proposed Project would not exceed any screening trigger levels to be considered a source of objectionable odors or odorous compounds ሺSJVAPCD, 2015ሻ. Furthermore, there does not appear to be any significant source of objectionable odors in close proximity that may adversely impact the Project site when it is in operation. Additionally, the Project emissions estimates indicate that it would not be expected to adversely impact surrounding receptors. As such, the proposed Project would not be a source of any odorous compounds, nor would it likely be impacted by any odorous source.

4.10 - Impacts to Ambient Air Quality
As stated in the GAMAQI ሺ2015, pp 96-97ሻ, SJVAPCD has developed screening levels that require an Ambient Air Quality Analysis ሺAAQAሻ. The SJVAPCD recommends that an AAQA be performed for all criteria pollutants when emissions of any criteria pollutant resulting from project construction or operational activities exceed the 100 pounds per day screening level, after compliance with Rule 9510 requirements and implementation of all enforceable mitigation measures.

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

4.11 - Impacts to Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change
The proposed Project’s construction and operational GHG emissions were estimated using the CalEEMod. The Project’s GHG emissions are primarily from mobile source activities. Not all GHGs exhibit the same ability to induce climate change; as a result, GHG contributions are commonly quantified as CO2e. Table 4-7 presents the Project’s annual GHG emissions.

Table 4-7
Estimated Annual GHG Emissions ሺMT/Yearሻ
Source CO2e
Total Construction Emissions 2.476
Annualized Construction Emissions1 83
Total Operational Emissions 5,072
Total Project Emissions 5,155
1 Per South Coast AQMD’s Methodology
In the decade after SJVAPCD adopted their Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA, several new laws and executive orders were adopted that require additional reductions in years after 2020. For instance, Senate Bill 32 requires that GHG emissions be 40 percent less than 1990 levels by 2030. More drastic still, Senate Bill 100, which was signed by the Governor recently, requires 100 percent zero-carbon electricity by 2045. On the day SB 100 was signed into law, the Governor also signed Executive Order B-55-18, which commits California to total, economyImpact Assessment Based on the provisions of the SIVAPCD’SGAMAQI,the proposed Project would not exceed any screening trigger levels to be considered a source of objectionable odors 0r odorous compounds (SIVAPCD, 2015). Furthermore, there does not appear to be any significant source of objectionable odors in close proximity that may adversely impact the Project site when it is in operation. Additionally, the Project emissions estimates indicate thatit would not be expected to adversely impact surrounding receptors. As such,the proposed Project would not be a source of any odorous compounds,nor would it likely be impacted by any odorous source.

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

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

4.11 - Impacts to Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change
The proposed Project’s construction and operational GHG emissions were estimated using the CalEEMod. The Project’s GHG emissions are primarily from mobile source activities. Not all GHGSexhibit the same ability to induce climate change; as a result, GHGcontributions are commonly quantified as COze.Table 4—7 presents the Project’s annual GHG emissions.

Table 4—7
Estimated Annual GHG Emissions (MT/Year)
Source COze
l‘otal Construction Emissions 2.476
Annualized Construction Emissionsl 83 _Total Operational Emissions ‘_ 5,072 ‘ Total Project Emissions 5,155 1 Per SouthCoast AQMD’s Methodology
In the decade after SIVAPCD adopted their Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA, several new laws and executive orders were adopted that require additional reductions in years after 2020. For instance, SenateBill 32 requires thatGHG emissions be 40 percent less than1990 levels by 2030. More drastic still, SenateBill 100, which was Signed by the Governor recently, requires 100 percent zero-carbon electricity by 2045. On the day SB 100 was signed into law, the Governor also signed Executive Order B-55-18,which commits California to total, economyMendota Residential Project — Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 4 ends

Impact Assessment

Mendota Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 4 ends

wide carbon neutrality by 2045. Clearly, the 2009 Guidance may be somewhat inadequate in producing a meaningful comparison by today’s standards, which propose a grand vision that, if achieved, would fundamentally change how business is conducted and citizens live in the State. Thus, as discussed in the most recent updates to the Scoping Plan, the objectives of the Scoping Plan affect entire sectors of the economy.

For these reasons, Project GHG emissions levels presented in Table 4-7 are primarily for disclosure purposes. The Project’s largest contributors to GHG emissions are from electricity and exhaust from transportation fuels. Electricity and transportation fuels are, in effect, regulated by requiring providers and importers of electricity and fuel to participate in the GHG Cap-and-Trade Program and other programs ሺe.g., low carbon fuel standard, renewable portfolio standard, etc.ሻ. Each such sector-wide program exists within the framework of AB 32 and its descendant laws, the purpose of which is to achieve GHG emissions reductions consistent with the AB 32 Scoping Plan.

The Project would generate GHGs from electricity use and combustion of gasoline/diesel fuels, each of which is regulated near the top of the supply chain. As such, each citizen of California ሺincluding those creating emissions of this Projectሻ will have no choice but to purchase electricity and fuels produced in a way that is acceptable to the California market.

Thus, Project GHG emissions will be consistent with the relevant plan ሺi.e., AB 32 Scoping Planሻ. The Project would meet its fair share of the cost to mitigate the cumulative impact of global climate change because energy purchases are from the California market. Thus, consumers of electricity and transportation fuels are, in effect, regulated by higher-level emissions restrictions on the producers of these energy sources. Therefore, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact on applicable GHG reduction plans and the Project’s contribution to cumulative global climate change impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

Impact Assessment
wide carbon neutrality by 2045. Clearly, the 2009 Guidance may be somewhat inadequate in producing a meaningful comparison by today’sstandards,which propose a grand Vision that, if achieved, would fundamentally Change how business is conducted and citizens live in the State. Thus, as discussed in the most recent updates to the Scoping Plan, the objectives of the Scoping Plan affect entire sectors of the economy.

For these reasons, Project GHG emissions levels presented in Table 4-7 are primarily for disclosure purposes. The Project’s largest contributors to GHGemissions are from electricity and exhaust from transportation fuels. Electricity and transportation fuels are, in effect, regulated by requiring providers and importers of electricity and fuel to participate in the GHGCap-and-Trade Program and other programs (e.g.,low carbon fuel standard, renewable portfolio standard, etc.). Each suchsector-wide program exists within the framework of AB 32 and its descendant laws, the purpose of which is to achieve GHG emissions reductions consistent with the AB 32 Scoping Plan.

The Project would generate GHGS from electricity use and combustion of gasoline/diesel fuels, each of which is regulated near the top of the supply chain. As such,each Citizen of California (including those creating emissions of this Project) will have no Choice but to purchase electricity and fuels produced in a way thatis acceptable to the California market.

Thus,Project GHG emissions will be consistent with the relevant plan (i.e., AB 32 Scoping Plan). The Project would meet its fair share of the cost to mitigate the cumulative impact of global climate change because energy purchases are from the California market. Thus, consumers of electricity and transportation fuels are, in effect, regulated by higher-level emissions restrictions on the producers of these energy sources. Therefore, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact on applicable GHG reduction plans and the Project’s contribution to cumulative global climate change impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

Mendota Residential Project — Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 4 ends

Cumulative Impacts

Mendota Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 5 ends

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

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

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

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

GAMAQI also states, “If a project is significant based on the thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants, then it is also cumulatively significant. This does not imply that if the project is below all such significance thresholds, it cannot be cumulatively significant." (SIVAPCD, 2015). Based on the analysis conductedfor this Project, it is individually less than significant. This AQIA, however, also considered the impacts of the proposed Project in conjunction with the impacts of other projects previously proposed in the area. The following cumulative impacts were considered:
0 Cumulative 03 Impacts (ROG and NOX) from numerous sources within the region, including transport from outside the region. 03 is formed through Chemical reactions of ROGand NOXin the presence of sunlight.
0 Cumulative CO Impacts produced primarily by vehicular emissions. 0 Cumulative PM10 Impacts from within the region and locally from the various projects. Such projects may cumulatively produce a significant amount of PM10 if several projects conductgrading or earthmoving activities at the same time; and 0 Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) Impacts on sensitive receptors.

5.1 - Cumulative Regional Air Quality Impacts
The most recent,certified SIVAB Emission Inventory data available from the SIVAPCDis based on data gathered for the 2024 annual inventory. This data will be used to assist the SIVAPCDin demonstrating attainment of Federal 1-hour 03 Standards. Table 5-1 provides a comparative look at the impacts proposed by the proposed Project to the SIVABEmissions Inventory.

Mendota Residential Project — Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 5 ends

Cumulative Impacts

Mendota Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 5 ends

Table 5-1
Comparative Analysis Based on SJVAB 2024 Inventory
Emissions Inventory Source Pollutant (tons/year)
ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Fresno County – 20242 21,698.52 11,242.00 54,483.19 553.34 24,252.06 6,059.00 SJVAB – 20242 108,775.1 51,926.7 215,561.3 2,265.2 97,564.5 23,861.1 Proposed Project 3.81 2.36 17.95 0.05 4.24 1.12
Proposed Project’s % of Fresno1 0.0176% 0.0210% 0.0329% 0.0090% 0.0175% 0.0185% Proposed Project’s % of SJVAB1 0.0035% 0.0045% 0.0083% 0.0022% 0.0043% 0.0047% Source: CARB, 2025
Notes: 1) Percentages equaling 0.0000 could represent a percent <0.00005. 2) This is the latest inventory available as of June 2025, excluding Natural Sources.

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

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

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

Table 5-3
Emission Inventory Fresno County 2030 Projection –
Tons per Year
ROG NOX CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Total Emissions 20,463.36 7,796.40 40,658.81 547.87 24,306.81 5,277.54 Percent Stationary Sources 34.58% 16.47% 2.97% 77.81% 2.82% 6.89% Percent Area-Wide Sources 49.70% 7.60% 28.34% 10.33% 93.58% 84.31% Percent Mobile Sources 15.72% 75.93% 68.69% 11.86% 3.60% 8.80% Total Stationary Source Emissions 7,076.25 1,283.70 1,206.69 426.32 687.66 363.54 Total Area-Wide Source Emissions 10,170.73 592.76 11,524.14 56.58 22,746.07 4,449.72 Total Mobile Source Emissions 3,216.38 5,919.94 27,927.98 64.97 873.08 464.28 Source: CARB, 2025
Note: Total may not add due to rounding.

Cumulative Impacts
Table 5-1
Comparative Analysis Based on SIVAB2024 Inventory
. . Pollutant (tons /year) Emlssmns Inventory Source ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 ' FresnoCounty — 20242 21,698.52 11,242.00 54,483.19553.34 24,252.066,059.6“ SIVAB — 20242 108,775.1 51,926] 2155613 2,265.2 97,564.5 23,861.1 I Proposed Project 3.81 2.36 17.95 0.05 4.24 1.12
Proposed Project’s % of Fresno1 0.0176% 0.0210% 0.0329% 0.0090% 0.0175% 0.0185% ! ProposedProject’s%of SIVAB1 0.0035% 0.0045% 0.0083% 0.0022% 0.0043% 0.00- Source: CARB, 2025
Notes: 1) Percentages equaling 0.0000 could represent a percent <0.00005. 2) This is the latest inventory available as of June 2025, excluding Natural Sources.

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

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

Table 5-2
Emission Inventory SJVAB2030 Projection — Tons per Year ROG NOx CO SOX PM1o PM2.5
- Emissions 104,3805 38,0363 168,950.5 2,208.6 99,271.2 21,75“ Percent Stationary Sources 29.98% 15.51% 4.43% 78.83% 4.30% 11.34% I PercentArea-WideSources 55.76% 6.01% 27.47% 8.59% 91.44% 76.99% Percent Mobile Sources 14.26% 78.48% 74.09% 12.58% 4.26% 11.66% 'l‘otal Stationary Source Emissions 31,2977 5,897.7 7,489.8 1,741.1 4,266.9 2,468.5 ) Total Area-Wide Source Emissions 58,2029 2,285.6 36,279.9 189.8 90,775.5 16,752.8 !otal Mobile Source Emissions 14,880.3 29,852.6 125,181.1 277.8 4,228.9 2,5 Source: CARB, 2025
Note: Total may not add due to rounding.

Table 5-3
Emission Inventory Fresno County 2030 Projection —
Tons per Year
ROG NOx CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
.1 Emissions 20,463.36 7,796.40 40,658.81 547.87 24,306.81 5,277.- PercentStationarySources 34.58% 16.47% 2.97% 77.81% 2.82% 6.89% ' PercentArea-WideSources 49.70% 7.60% 28.34% 10.33% 93.58% 84.31%I PercentMobileSources 15.72% 75.93% 68.69% 11.86% 3.60% 8.80%‘ Fowl StationarySourceEmissions 7,076.25 1,283.70 1,206.69 426.32 687.66 363.541 TotalArea-WideSourceEmissions 10,170.73 592.76 11,524.14 56.58 22,746.07 4,449.72 Iotal MobileSourceEmissions 3,216.38 5,919.9427,927.98 64.97 873.08 Source: CARB, 2025
Note: Total may not add due to rounding.

Mendota Residential Project — Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 5 ends

Cumulative Impacts

Mendota Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 5 ends

Table 5-4
2030 Emissions Projections – Proposed Project, Fresno County and SJVAB ROG NOX PM10
Proposed Project 3.81 2.36 4.24
Fresno County 20,463.36 7,796.40 24,306.81
SJVAB 104,380.5 38,036.3 99,271.2
Proposed Project Percent of Fresno County 0.019% 0.030% 0.017% Proposed Project Percent of SJVAB 0.004% 0.006% 0.004%
Fresno County Percent of SJVAB 19.60% 20.50% 24.49%
As shown above, the proposed Project would pose an inconsequential impact on regional O3 and PM10 formation. Therefore, this Project would not be considered cumulatively considerable in its contribution to regional O3 and PM10 impacts.

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

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

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

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

Cumulative Impacts
Table 5-4
2030 Emissions Projections — Proposed Project, Fresno County and SIVAB ROG NOx PM10
- Proposed Project 3.81 2.36 4.24 ' Fresno County 20,463.36 7,796.40 24,306.81 - SIVAB 104,3805 38,036.3 99,271.2 I
Proposed Project Percent of Fresno County 0.019% 0.030% 0.017% Proposed Project Percent of SIVAB .. 0.004% 0.006% 0.004% - Fresno County Percent of SIVAB 19.60% 20.50% 24.49% As shown above, the proposed Project would posean inconsequential impact on regional 03 and PM10 formation. Therefore, this Project would not be considered cumulatively considerable in its contribution to regional 03 and PM10impacts.

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

5.3 - Cumulative Hazardous Air Pollutants
The GAMAQI also states thatwhen evaluating potential impacts related to HAPS,“impacts of local pollutants (C0, HAPS) are cumulatively SIgnificant when modeling 5110WS that the combined emissions #0122 the project and other eXistingan (Iplanned projects will eXceed air quality standards." Because the Project would not be a significant source of HAPS, the proposed Project would also not be BXpected to pose a SIgnificant cumulative CO or HAPS impact.

5.4 - Cumulative Carbon Monoxide (00) - Mobile Sources
The SIVAPCD’SGAMAQI has identified CO impacts from impacted traffic intersections and roadway segments as being potentially cumulatively considerable. Traffic increases and added congestion caused by a project can combine to causea Violation of the SIVAPCD’SCO standard, also known as a “hotspot.” There are two criteria established by the GAMAQI by which CO “hotspot” modeling is required:

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

Mendota Residential Project — Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 5 ends

Cumulative Impacts

Mendota Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 5 ends

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

Cumulative Impacts

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

A traffic study was not completed for this Project at the time of this analysis. However, due to size and location it is anticipated thatimpacted intersections and roadway segments will operate at a LOS of Cor better. Therefore, CO “hotspot” modeling was not conducted for this Project, and no concentrated excessive CO emissions are expected to be caused once the proposed Project is completed.

Mendota Residential Project — Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 5 ends

Consistency with the Air Quality Attainment Plan

Mendota Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 6 ends

SECTION 6 - CONSISTENCY WITH THE AIR QUALITY ATTAINMENT PLAN Air quality impacts from proposed projects within Fresno County are controlled through policies and provisions of the SJVAPCD and the Fresno County General Plan (FCPLU, 2024).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consistencywith the Air Quality Attainment Plan
SECTION6 - CONSISTENCYWITHTHEAIR QUALITYA1TAINMENTPLAN
Air quality impacts from proposed projects within Fresno County are controlled through policies and provisions of the SIVAPCDand the Fresno County General Plan (FCPLU, 2024).

In order to demonstrate that a proposed project would not cause further air quality degradation in either the SIVAPCD’S plan to improve air quality within the air basin or the federal requirements to meet certain air quality compliance goals, each project should also demonstrate consistency with the SIVAPCD’Sadopted Air Quality Attainment Plans (AQAP) for 03 and PM1o.The SIVAPCDis required to submit a “Rate of Progress" document to CARB that demonstrates past and planned progress toward reaching attainment for all criteria pollutants. The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) requires air pollution control districts with severe or extreme air quality problems to provide for a five percent reduction in nonattainment emissions per year. The AQAP prepared for the San Joaquin Valley by the SIVAPCDcomplies with this requirement. CARBreviews, approves,or amends the document and forwards the plan to the EPA for final review and approval within the SIP.

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

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

1. Determination thatan AQAP is being implemented in the area where the project is being proposed. The SIVAPCD has implemented the current, modified AQAP as approved by CARE.

Mendota Residential Project — Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 6 ends

Consistency with the Air Quality Attainment Plan

Mendota Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 6 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Based on thesefactors,the Project is consistent with tbeAQAP.

6.2 - Consistency with the Fresno Council of Ga vernment’s Regional Conformity Analysis
The Fresno Council of Governments (FresnoCOG) Conformity Analysis Determination demonstrates thatthe federal and regional transportation plans in Fresno County portion of the San Joaquin Valley air quality attainment areas would not hinder the efforts set out in the CARB’SSIP for eacharea’s non-attainment pollutants (CO, 03, and PM10). The analysis uses an adopted regional growth forecast prepared by Applied Development Economics (ADE) which was commissioned by FresnoCOG to update theseforecasts.

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

Land use designations thatare altered based on subsequent GPASthatwere not included in the Regional Conformity Analysis were not incorporated into the FresnoCOG analysis.

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

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

Mendota Residential Project — Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 6 ends

Consistency with the Air Quality Attainment Plan

Mendota Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 6 ends

Figure 6-1
Fresno County Zoning
'rfi‘é'ifié'fhgr'a'éImuFéjk»
'l Jlul‘n
" r fflfirficultui‘a'l
-.

QIW
Consistencywith the Air Quality Attainment Plan
Figure 6-1
Fresno County Zoning
Mendota Residential Project — Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 6 ends

Mitigation and Other Recommended Measures

Mendota Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 7 ends

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

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

Mitigation and Other Recommended Measures
SECTION 7 - MITIGATIONAND OTHERRECOMMENDEDMEASURES
The estimated construction and operational emissions from the proposed Project would be less thansignificant after the specific mitigation measures listed below. However, to ensure thatthe Project is in compliance with all applicable SIVAPCDrules and regulations and that emissions are further reduced, the applicant should implement and comply with a number of measures thatare either recommended as a “good operating practice" for environmental stewardship, or they are required by regulation. Some of the listed measures are regulatory requirements or construction requirements thatwould result in further emission reductions through their inclusion in Project construction and long-term design. The following measures either havebeen applied to the Project through the CalEEMod model and would be incorporated into the Project by design or would be implemented in conjunction with SIVAPCDrules as conditions of approval.

7.1 - Applicable PM10 Reduction Measures
As the Project would be completed in compliance with SIVAPCDRegulation VIII, dust control measures would be taken to ensure compliance, specifically during the grading and construction phases. The required Regulation VIIImeasures are as follows:
0 Water previously exposed surfaces (soil) whenever Visible dustis capable of drifting from the site or approaches 20 percent opacity.
0 Water all unpaved haul roads a minimum of three times/day or whenever Visible dust from such roads is capable of drifting from the site or approaches 20 percent opacity. 0 Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than15 miles per hour. 0 Install and maintain a track-out control device that meets the specifications of SIVAPCD Rule 8041 if the site exceeds 150 vehicle trips per day or more than 20 vehicle trips per day by vehicles with three or more axles. o Stabilize all disturbed areas, including storage piles, which are not being actively utilized for production purposes using water, Chemical stabilizers, or by covering with a tarp or other suitable cover.
0 Control fugitive dustemissions during land Clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, leveling, grading, or cut and fill operations with application of water or by presoaking. 0 When transporting materials offsite, maintain a freeboard limit of at least 6 inches and cover or effectively wet to limit Visible dustemissions. 0 Limit and remove the accumulation of mud and/ or dirt from adjacent public roadways at the end of eachworkday. (Use of dry rotary brushes is prohibited except when preceded or accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit Visible dust emissions, and use of blowers is expressly forbidden.)
o Stabilize the surface of storage piles following the addition or removal of materials using water or Chemical stabilizer/suppressants.
0 Remove Visible track-out from the site at the end of each workday. o Cease grading or other activities that cause excessive (greater than 20 percent opacity) dust formation during periods of high winds (greater than 20 mph over a one-hour period).

Mendota Residential Project — Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 7 ends

Mitigation and Other Recommended Measures

Mendota Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 7 ends

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

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

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

Mitigation and Other Recommended Measures

7.2 - Recommended Measures to Reduce Equipment Evhaust
In addition, the GAMAQI guidance document lists the following measures as approved and recommended for construction activities. These measures are recommended:

Maintain all construction equipment as recommended by manufacturer manuals.

Shut down equipment when not in use for extended periods.

Construction equipment shall operate no longer thaneight cumulative hours per day.

Use electric equipment for construction whenever possible in lieu of diesel or gasoline powered equipment.

Curtail use of high-emitting construction equipment during periods of high or excessive ambient pollutant concentrations.

All construction vehicles shall be equipped with proper emissions control equipment and kept in good and proper running order to substantially reduce NOXemissions.

On-road and Off-road diesel equipment shall use diesel particulate filters if permitted under the manufacturer’sguidelines.

On-road and Off-road diesel equipment shall use cooled exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) if permitted under the manufacturer’sguidelines.

All construction workers shall be encouraged to shuttle (car-p001) to retail establishments or to remain on-site during lunch breaks.

7.3 - Recommended Measures to Reduce Equipment Evhaust
The following measures are recommended to further reduce the potential for long-term emissions from the Project. These measures are required as a matter of regulatory compliance:

The Project design shall comply with applicable standards set forth in Title 24 of the Uniform Building Code to minimize total consumption of energy.

The developer shall comply with the provisions of SIVAPCDRule 4601 - Architectural Coatings, during the construction of all buildings and facilities. Application of architectural coatings shall be completed in a manner thatposesthe least emissions impacts whenever such application is deemed proficient.

The applicant shall comply with the provisions of SIVAPCD Rule 4641 during the construction and pavement of all roads and parking areas within the project area.

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

Mendota Residential Project — Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 7 ends

Level of Significance After Mitigation

Mendota Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 8 ends

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

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

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

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

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

Level of SignificanceAfter Mitigation
SECTION 8 - LEVELOFSIGNIFICANCEAFI'ER MITIGATION
The proposed Project would have short-term air quality impacts due to construction activities as well as vehicular emissions. Bothof theseimpacts would be mitigated and were found to be less than Slgnificant before and afler mitIga tion.

The proposed Project would result in impacts to greenhouse gases and Climate Change due to construction and operational emissions. These impacts were found to be less than SIgHIficant
The proposed Project, in conjunction with other past, present, and foreseeable future projects, would result in cumulative short-term and long-term impacts to air quality. The proposed Project’s incremental contribution to theseimpacts would be below thresholds of significance and would not be considered cumulatively considerable. Therefore, the Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts was found to be less than SIgnificant The proposed Project, in conjunction with other past, present, and foreseeable future projects, would result in cumulative long-term impacts to global Climate change. The proposed Project’s incremental contribution to theseimpacts will be mitigated to the extent feasible and are considered less than SIgHIficant
Mendota Residential Project — Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 8 ends

References

Mendota Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 9 ends

SECTION 9 - REFERENCES
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2025. California Emissions Estimator Model tm (CalEEMod), version 2022.1.1.35, released November 2025.

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

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

Enviropedia, 2019. Greenhouse Gas Emissions website, accessed December 2024. http://www.enviropedia.org.uk/Global_Warming/Emissions.php Fresno Council of Governments (FresnoCOG). July 2022. Conformity Analysis for the 2023 Federal Transportation Improvement and the 2022 Regional Transportation Plan Fresno County Planning and Land Use (KCPLU). February 2024. Fresno County General Plan Review.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2017. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/ ---------. Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report. 2014.
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessmentreport/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2025a. Ambient Air Quality Standards & Valley Attainment Status. https://ww2.valleyair.org/air-qualityReferences SECTION 9 - REFERENCES
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2025. California Emissions Estimator Model tm (CalEEMod), version 2022.11.35, released November 2025.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2024. Background Emissions Data. https://www.arb.ca.g0V/adam/index.html. Accessed December 2024. --------. 2024a. California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2022: Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators. 2024. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/ files/2024- 09/nc—2000 2022 ghg inventory trends.pdf
--------. 2025. Almanac Emission Projection Data.
htt s: ww2.arb.ca. 0V 3 lications ce amZO19V1-04-standard-emission-tool.

Accessed 2025.
--------. 2024b. “Ambient Air Quality Standards." July 22, 2024. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/ files/2024-
08/AAQS%20Table ADA FINAL 07222024.pdf
California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). 2006. Climate Action Team (CAT) Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature.
htt : www.climatechan e.ca. 0V climate action team re orts 2006re ort 2006- 04-03 FINAL CAT REPORTPDF
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statute and Guidelines. 2024. (Public Resources Code 21000 to 21177) and CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000 —15387).

Enviropedia, 2019. Greenhouse Gas Emissions website, accessed December 2024. http://www.enviropedia.org.uk/ Global Warming/Emissions.php Fresno Council of Governments (FresnoCOG). July 2022. Conformity Analysis for the 2023 Federal Transportation Improvement and the 2022 Regional Transportation Plan Fresno County Planning and Land Use (KCPLU). February 2024. Fresno County General Plan Review.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2017. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/ ---------. Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report. 2014.
https://www.ipCC.Ch/pdf/assessmentreport/arS/syr/SYR ARE FINAL full wcover.pdf San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SIVAPCD). 2025a. Ambient Air Quality Standards & Valley Attainment Status. https://ww2.Valleyair.org/air-qualityMendota Residential Project — Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 9 ends

References

Mendota Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 9 ends

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

January 7, 2025. https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/vzuixb0n/item-12_2024-isrannual-report.pdf ----------. 2025d. Meteorological Data Zip Files for Mendota 2007-2011. https://www.valleyair.org/permitting/air-dispersion-modeling/meteorologicaldata-zip-files/ ----------. 2022. 2022 Plan for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone Standard. December 15, 2022. https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/q55posm0/0000-2022-plan-for-the-2015-8- hour-ozone-standard.pdf
----------. 2015. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. March 19, 2015. ----------. 2023. 2023 Maintenance Plan and Redesignation Request for the Revoked 1-Hour Ozone Standard. June 15, 2023. https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/itoegkch/03- adopted-2023-maintenance-plan-and-redesignation-request-for-the-revoked-1- hour-ozone-standard.pdf
United Nations, 2011. The Millennium Development Goals Report 2011. http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/(2011_E)%20MDG%20Report%202011_ Book%20LR.pdf
United States Energy Information Administration (U.S. EIA). 2023. International Energy Outlook 2023. https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/pdf/IEO2023_Narrative.pdf United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2024. Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990–2022.
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-04/us-ghg-inventory-2024- main-text_04-18-2024.pdf.

References
information Zambient-air-guality—standards-Valley-attainmnet-status Z,accessed December 2024.
----------. 2024. Air Monitoring Location Map.
https://www.valleyair.org/ media/31khl4ye/2024-network-plan-map.jpg. accessed December 2024.
----------. 2024a. 2024 Plan for the 2012 Annual PM2.5Standard. June 20, 2024. https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/nbaCVj /2024-pm25-plan.pdf ----------. 2025b. 2024 Annual Report to the Community. https://www.valleyair.org/newsoutreach-and-education news valle -air-district-releaseS-the-2024-annual-re ortto-the-communityz ----------. 2025c. 2024 Annual Report on the District’s Indirect Source Review Program.

January 7, 2025. https:Z[ww2.valleyair.org[mediasuiXbOH[item-12 2024-isrannual-reportpdf ----------2.0.25d Meteorological Data Zip Files for Mendota 2007-2011. data--zip-files/
----------. 2022. 2022 Plan for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone Standard. December 15, 2022. https://ww2.Valleyair.org/media/q5SposmO/OOOO-ZOZZ-plan-for-the-ZO15-8— hour-ozone-standard.pdf
----------. 2015. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. March 19, 2015. ----------. 2023. 2023 Maintenance Plan and Redesignation Request for the Revoked 1-H0ur Ozone Standard. June 15, 2023. https://ww2.Valleyair.org/media/itoegkch/O3- adopted-2023-maintenance-plan-and-redesignation-reguest-for-the-revoked-1- hour-ozone-3tandard.pdf
United Nations, 2011. The Millennium Development Goals Report 2011. htt : www.un.0r millennium oals df 2011 E 0/ ZOMDGO/ZORe orto/ 202011 Book%20LR.pdf
United States Energy Information Administration (U.S. EIA). 2023. International Energy Outlook 2023. https://www.eia.g0V/0utlookS/ie0/pdf/IE02023 Narrative.pdf United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2024. Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990—2022.
https://www.epa.gov/ system/files/documents/2024-04/us-ghg-inventory-2024- main-text 04-18-2024.pdf.

Mendota Residential Project — Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 9 ends

References

Mendota Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 9 ends

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

Western Regional Climate Center, 2025. Mendota, California, Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary, 1/1/1948 to 6/09/2016. https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgibin/cliMAIN.pl?ca0442. Accessed December 2025.

References
United States Geological Survey’5 (USGS) National Map. 2021. Mendota, CA. 7. 5 minute. htt s: Viewer.nationalma . OV basic ?basema =b1&cate or =ust0 o&title=US %20T0p0%20D0wnload
United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). 2014. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. htt : ncaZOl4. lobalchan e. 0V . Western Regional Climate Center, 2025. Mendota, California, Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary, 1/1/ 1948 to 6/09/2016. https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgibin/cliMAIN.pl?caO442. Accessed December 2025.

Mendota Residential Project — Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 9 ends

APPENDIX A

PROJECT EMISSION CALCULATIONS

APPENDIXA

PROJECTEMISSIONCALCULATIONS
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 1 / 62
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year

2.2.1. Total Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

2.2.2. Onsite Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

2.2.3. Offsite Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

2.3. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.4. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Site Preparation (2026)

3.1.1. Onsite - Unmitigated
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year

2.2.1. Total Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

2.2.2. Onsite Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

2.2.3. Offsite Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

2.3. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.4. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Site Preparation (2026)

3.1.1. Onsite - Unmitigated
1/62
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 2 / 62

3.1.2. Offsite - Unmitigated

3.2. Grading (2026)

3.2.1. Onsite - Unmitigated

3.2.2. Offsite - Unmitigated

3.3. Building Construction (2026)

3.3.1. Onsite - Unmitigated

3.3.2. Offsite - Unmitigated

3.4. Building Construction (2027)

3.4.1. Onsite - Unmitigated

3.4.2. Offsite - Unmitigated

3.5. Building Construction (2028)

3.5.1. Onsite - Unmitigated

3.5.2. Offsite - Unmitigated

3.6. Building Construction (2029)

3.6.1. Onsite - Unmitigated

3.6.2. Offsite - Unmitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2030)

3.7.1. Onsite - Unmitigated

3.1.2. Offsite - Unmitigated

3.2. Grading (2026)

3.2.1. Onsite - Unmitigated

3.2.2. Offsite - Unmitigated

3.3. Building Construction (2026)

3.3.1. Onsite - Unmitigated

3.3.2. Offsite - Unmitigated

3.4. Building Construction (2027)

3.4.1. Onsite - Unmitigated

3.4.2. Offsite - Unmitigated

3.5. Building Construction (2028)

3.5.1. Onsite - Unmitigated

3.5.2. Offsite - Unmitigated

3.6. Building Construction (2029)

3.6.1. Onsite - Unmitigated

3.6.2. Offsite - Unmitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2030)

3.7.1. Onsite - Unmitigated
2/62
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 3 / 62

3.7.2. Offsite - Unmitigated

3.8. Paving (2030)

3.8.1. Onsite - Unmitigated

3.8.2. Offsite - Unmitigated

3.9. Paving (2031)

3.9.1. Onsite - Unmitigated

3.9.2. Offsite - Unmitigated

3.10. Architectural Coating (2031)

3.10.1. Onsite - Unmitigated

3.10.2. Offsite - Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

3.7.2. Offsite - Unmitigated

3.8. Paving (2030)

3.8.1. Onsite - Unmitigated

3.8.2. Offsite - Unmitigated

3.9. Paving (2031)

3.9.1. Onsite - Unmitigated

3.9.2. Offsite - Unmitigated

3.10. Architectural Coating (2031)

3.10.1. Onsite - Unmitigated

3.10.2. Offsite - Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated
3/62
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 4 / 62

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

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

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

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

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
4/62
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 5 / 62

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
5/62
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 6 / 62

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
6/62
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 7 / 62

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data

8.1. Justifications

8.3. Land Use

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data

8.1. Justifications

8.3. Land Use
7/62
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 8 / 62

8.4. Construction

8.4.1. Construction Phases

8.5. Operations

8.5.1. Mobile Sources

8.5.1.2. Fleet Mix

8.5.2. Area Sources

8.5.2.1. Hearths

8.4. Construction

8.4.1. Construction Phases

8.5. Operations

8.5.1. Mobile Sources

8.5.1.2. Fleet Mix

8.5.2. Area Sources

8.5.2.1. Hearths
8/62
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 9 / 62

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2
Construction Start Date 1/1/2026
Operational Year 2026
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.90000
Precipitation (days) 21.2000
Location 36.76195528574678, -120.39751214700786
County Fresno
City Unincorporated
Air District San Joaquin Valley APCD
Air Basin San Joaquin Valley
TAZ 2528
EDFZ 5
Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Gas Utility Pacific Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.43

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Single Family
Housing
271.000 Dwelling Unit 53.4300 528,450 3,174,184 — 867.000 — Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Project Name Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2
Construction Start Date 1/1/2026
Operational Year 2026
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.90000
Precipitation (days) 21.2000
ILogtion 36.76195528574678, -120.39751214700786
:County Fresno
ICity Unincorporated
Air District San Joaquin Valley APCD
Air Basin San Joaquin Valley
lTAZ 2528 I
IIEDFZ 5 I
l‘Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric Company
IGas Utility Pacific Gas & Electric
:App Version 2022.1.1.43

1.2. Land Use Types
Single Family 271.000 Dwelling Unit 53.4300 528,450 3,174,184 — 867.000 — Housing
9/62
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 10 / 62

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

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 44.2749 44.2536 27.2796 28.5092 0.06093 1.12137 2.55416 3.67554 1.03166 0.98777 2.01943 — 6,772.83 6,772.83 0.27119 0.16666 4.84138 6,798.20 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 44.2694 44.2480 29.2222 29.4276 0.06093 1.24251 5.25190 6.49441 1.14311 2.65970 3.80282 — 6,753.02 6,753.02 0.27208 0.16666 0.12551 6,777.82 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 9.16281 9.14831 14.7957 16.8971 0.03247 0.59228 1.64190 2.23417 0.54516 0.66124 1.20640 — 3,827.80 3,827.80 0.14563 0.11515 1.33443 3,854.26 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.67221 1.66957 2.70022 3.08373 0.00593 0.10809 0.29965 0.40774 0.09949 0.12068 0.22017 — 633.736 633.736 0.02411 0.01906 0.22093 638.116

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year

2.2.1. Total Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated Includes both onsite and offsite emissions.

Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026

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

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants Ib/d for dail , to for annual‘ and GHGS ’Ib/d for dai , MT for annual Daily, — — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Summer
(Max)
I Unmit. 44.2749 44.2536 27.2796 28.5092 0.06093 1.12137 2.55416 3.67554 1.03166 0.98777 2.01943 — 6,772.83 6,772.83 0.27119 0.16666 4.84138 6,798.20 Daily, — — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Winter
'(Max) |
Unmit. |44.2694 44.2480 29.2222 29.4276 0.06093 1.24251 5.25190 6.49441 1.14311 2.65970 3.80282 — 6,753.02 6,753.02 0.27208 0.16666 0.12551 6,777.82 Average l— — — — — — — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Daily
(Max)
Unmit. |9.16281 9.14831 14.7957 16.8971 0.03247 0.59228 1.64190 2.23417 0.54516 0.66124 1.20640 — 3,827.80 3,827.80 0.14563 0.11515 1.33443 3,854.26 ‘ I Annual
(Max) |
| Unmit. 1.67221 1.66957 2.70022 3.08373 0.00593 0.10809 0.29965 0.40774 0.09949 0.12068 0.22017 — 633.736 633.736 0.02411 0.01906 0.22093 638.116

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year

2.2.1. Total Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated Includes both onsite and offsite emissions.

Criteria Pollutants Ib/d for dail ,to for annual and GHGs ’Ib/d for dai , MT for annual 10/62
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 11 / 62
Daily - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
2026 3.71222 3.12682 27.2796 28.5092 0.06093 1.12137 2.55416 3.67554 1.03166 0.98777 2.01943 — 6,772.83 6,772.83 0.27119 0.16666 4.84138 6,798.20 2027 1.66405 1.43856 10.5168 17.4837 0.02884 0.34747 0.99377 1.34124 0.32054 0.24162 0.56216 — 3,974.33 3,974.33 0.12702 0.15906 4.32769 4,029.23 2028 1.59481 1.35924 9.99088 17.1755 0.02885 0.31113 0.99377 1.30491 0.28712 0.24162 0.52874 — 3,940.16 3,940.16 0.12704 0.15906 3.86270 3,994.60 2029 1.54122 1.30599 9.58310 16.8681 0.02884 0.28654 0.99377 1.28031 0.26449 0.24162 0.50611 — 3,904.74 3,904.74 0.12486 0.15361 3.43162 3,957.07 2030 1.49437 1.26398 9.36284 16.5831 0.02884 0.27101 0.99377 1.26478 0.25020 0.24162 0.49182 — 3,869.71 3,869.71 0.11941 0.12843 3.02938 3,914.00 2031 44.2749 44.2536 0.80686 1.74324 0.00173 0.00943 0.15730 0.16672 0.00867 0.03687 0.04554 — 288.318 288.318 0.00757 0.00237 0.34041 289.555 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 3.80814 3.20862 29.2222 29.4276 0.06093 1.24251 5.25190 6.49441 1.14311 2.65970 3.80282 — 6,753.02 6,753.02 0.27208 0.16666 0.12551 6,777.82 2027 1.62127 1.37124 10.6368 16.4644 0.02884 0.34747 0.99377 1.34124 0.32054 0.24162 0.56216 — 3,880.69 3,880.69 0.13347 0.16121 0.11229 3,932.18 2028 1.55418 1.31774 10.1055 16.2061 0.02885 0.31113 0.99377 1.30491 0.28712 0.24162 0.52874 — 3,848.50 3,848.50 0.13134 0.16121 0.10021 3,899.93 2029 1.50553 1.26815 9.69767 15.9754 0.02884 0.28654 0.99377 1.28031 0.26449 0.24162 0.50611 — 3,814.98 3,814.98 0.13131 0.15576 0.08903 3,864.77 2030 1.43414 1.22550 9.44742 15.7643 0.02884 0.27101 0.99377 1.26478 0.25020 0.24162 0.49182 — 3,781.74 3,781.74 0.12371 0.15361 0.07858 3,830.68 2031 44.2694 44.2480 6.15354 10.2523 0.01395 0.20981 0.15730 0.33073 0.19303 0.03687 0.22137 — 1,616.23 1,616.23 0.06359 0.01702 0.00884 1,622.90 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 2.05655 1.73570 14.7957 16.8971 0.03247 0.59228 1.64190 2.23417 0.54516 0.66124 1.20640 — 3,827.80 3,827.80 0.14563 0.07410 0.73760 3,854.26 2027 1.16158 1.00051 7.56141 11.8598 0.02060 0.24819 0.70049 0.94868 0.22896 0.17025 0.39921 — 2,790.74 2,790.74 0.09226 0.11515 1.33443 2,828.70 2028 1.11717 0.94736 7.20109 11.7166 0.02066 0.22285 0.70241 0.92526 0.20564 0.17072 0.37636 — 2,774.94 2,774.94 0.09253 0.11393 1.19487 2,812.40 2029 1.07782 0.90781 6.89014 11.4939 0.02060 0.20467 0.70049 0.90516 0.18892 0.17025 0.35917 — 2,743.04 2,743.04 0.09072 0.10972 1.05742 2,779.07 2030 0.96656 0.81452 6.33996 10.6607 0.01880 0.18743 0.59597 0.78341 0.17296 0.14472 0.31768 — 2,453.88 2,453.88 0.07980 0.09277 0.79278 2,484.31 2031 9.16281 9.14831 0.68474 1.19463 0.00153 0.01959 0.04192 0.06151 0.01802 0.00982 0.02784 — 193.005 193.005 0.00697 0.00160 0.03963 193.696 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.37532 0.31677 2.70022 3.08373 0.00593 0.10809 0.29965 0.40774 0.09949 0.12068 0.22017 — 633.736 633.736 0.02411 0.01227 0.12212 638.116 2027 0.21199 0.18259 1.37996 2.16441 0.00376 0.04530 0.12784 0.17313 0.04179 0.03107 0.07286 — 462.039 462.039 0.01528 0.01906 0.22093 468.323 2028 0.20388 0.17289 1.31420 2.13827 0.00377 0.04067 0.12819 0.16886 0.03753 0.03116 0.06869 — 459.423 459.423 0.01532 0.01886 0.19782 465.625 Daily-
(Max)
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
[2031
; Daily - Winter
1 (Max)
‘2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
l2031
Summer

3.71222
1&5

1.59481

1.54122

1.49437
I44.2749
|_
|
'3.80814 1.62127

1.55418

1.50553

1.43414
|44.2694
lAverage :— Daily
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
Annual
2026
2027
2028

1.16158

1.11717

1.07782

0.96656

9.16281

0.37532

0.21199

3.12682
1 .43856
1 .35924
1 .30599
1 .26398

44.2536

3.20862

1.37724

1.31774

1.26815
1 .22550

27.2796

10.5168

9.99088

9.58310

9.36284

0.80686

29.2222

10.6368

10.1055

9.69767

9.44742
I44.2480 I6.15354

1.00051

0.94736

0.90781

0.81452

9.14831

0.31677

0.18259
l2026 '2.05655I1.7357o I14.7957

7.56141

7.20109

6.89014

6.33996

0.68474

2.70022

1.37996

0.20388 IO.17289 I1.31420

28.5092

17.4837

17.1755

16.8681

16.5831

1.74324

29.4276

16.4644

16.2061

15.9754

15.7643
I10.2523
I
'—
I16.8971
“.8598

11.7166

11.4939

10.6607

1.19463

3.08373

2.16441
I2.13827

0.06093

0.02884

0.02885

0.02884

0.00173

0.06093

0.02884

0.02885

0.02884

0.02884
I0.01395
'—
I0.03247

0.02060

0.02066

0.02060

0.01880

0.00153

0.00593

0.00376
I0.00377

1.12137

0.3474}

0.31113

0.28654

0.27101

0.00943

1.24251

0.34747

0.31113

0.28654

0.27101
IO.20981
'—
IO.59228 0.24819

0.22285

0.20467

0.18743

0.01959

0.10809

0.04530
I0.04067

2.55416
39—9377

0.99377

0.15730

5.25190

0.5;9377

0.99377

0.99377
IO.15730
'—
I 1.64190

0.70049

0.70241

0.70049

0.59597

0.04192

0.29965

0.12784
I0.12819

3.67554

1.32; 24

1.30491

1.28031

1.26478

0.16672

6.49441

1.34721

1.30491

1.28031

1.26478
| 0.33073
I

1.03166

0.32054

0.28712

0.26449

0.25020

0.00867

1.14311
(3.32054

0.28712

0.26449

0.25020

0.98777

0.24162

0.03687

2.65970

0.24162

0.24162
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026

2.01943

0.56216

0.52874

0.50611

0.49182

0.04554

3.80282

0.56216

0.52874

0.50611

0.49182
I0.19303 I0.03687 I0.22137
I2.23417 I0.54516 I0.66124 I1.20640 0.94868

0.92526

0.90516

0.78341

0.06151

0.40774

0.17313
IO.16886

0.22896

0.20564

0.18892

0.17296

0.01802

0.09949

0.04179
I0.03753
11/62

0.17025

0.17072

0.17025

0.14472

0.00982

0.12068

0.03107
I0.03116

0.39921

0.37636

0.35917

0.31768

0.02784

0.22017

0.07286
I0.06869
6,772.83
3,974.33
3,940.16
3,904.74
3,869.71
288.318
6,753.02
3,880.69
3,848.50
3,814.98
3,781.74
1,616.23
6,772.83
3,974.33
3,940.16
3,904.74
3,869.71
288.318
6,753.02
3,880.69
3,848.50
3,814.98
3,781.74
I1,616.23
I

0.27119

0.12702

0.12704

0.12486

0.11941

0.00757

0.27208

0.13347

0.13134

0.13131

0.12371
I0.06359
3,827.80 I3,827.80 IO.14563
2,790.74 2,790.74 0.09226
2,774.94 2,774.94 0.09253
2,743.04 2,743.04 0.09072
2,453.88 2,453.88 0.07980
193.005 193.005 0.00697
633.736 633.736 0.02411
462.039 462.039 0.01528
459.423 I459.423 I0.O1532

0.16666

0.15906

0.15361

0.12843

0.00237

0.16666
(-11é;21

0.16121

0.15576

0.15361
I0.01702
I
'—
IO.O741O 0.115]?

0.11393

0.10972

0.09277

0.00160

0.01227

0.01906
IO.O1886

4.84138

4.32769

3.86270

3.43162

3.02938

0.34041

0.12551

6.11222)

0.10021

0.08903

0.07858
I0.00884
'—
I0.73760
-1-1-33443 1.19487

1.05742

0.79278

0.03963

0.12212

0.22093
I0.19782
6,798.20
4,029.23
3,994.60
3,957.0.7
3,914.60
289.555
6,777.82
3,932.18
3,89933
3,864.77
3,830.68
1,622.90
3,854.26
2,828.70
2,812.40| _ |
2,779.07
2,484.31
193.696
638.116
468.323
465.625
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 12 / 62
2029 0.19670 0.16568 1.25745 2.09763 0.00376 0.03735 0.12784 0.16519 0.03448 0.03107 0.06555 — 454.142 454.142 0.01502 0.01817 0.17507 460.106 2030 0.17640 0.14865 1.15704 1.94557 0.00343 0.03421 0.10877 0.14297 0.03156 0.02641 0.05798 — 406.268 406.268 0.01321 0.01536 0.13125 411.306 2031 1.67221 1.66957 0.12496 0.21802 0.00028 0.00358 0.00765 0.01123 0.00329 0.00179 0.00508 — 31.9541 31.9541 0.00115 0.00027 0.00656 32.0686

2.2.2. Onsite Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 3.62261 3.04400 27.2253 27.5707 0.06093 1.12137 2.39293 3.51431 1.03166 0.94998 1.98164 — 6,598.58 6,598.58 0.26767 0.05353 0.00000 6,621.22 2027 1.23076 1.02988 9.39093 12.9379 0.02340 0.33657 0.00000 0.33657 0.30965 0.00000 0.30965 — 2,397.08 2,397.08 0.09724 0.01945 0.00000 2,405.30 2028 1.18481 0.99143 8.92495 12.9352 0.02340 0.30024 0.00000 0.30024 0.27622 0.00000 0.27622 — 2,397.46 2,397.46 0.09725 0.01945 0.00000 2,405.68 2029 1.15336 0.96514 8.58166 12.9012 0.02340 0.27564 0.00000 0.27564 0.25359 0.00000 0.25359 — 2,396.83 2,396.83 0.09723 0.01945 0.00000 2,405.06 2030 1.12372 0.94034 8.39196 12.8848 0.02340 0.26012 0.00000 0.26012 0.23931 0.00000 0.23931 — 2,396.83 2,396.83 0.09723 0.01945 0.00000 2,405.06 2031 44.2167 44.1967 0.77690 1.10346 0.00173 0.00943 0.00000 0.00943 0.00867 0.00000 0.00867 — 133.518 133.518 0.00542 0.00108 0.00000 133.976 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 3.74146 3.14387 29.1635 28.8082 0.06093 1.24251 5.11082 6.35334 1.14311 2.62664 3.76975 — 6,598.58 6,598.58 0.26767 0.05353 0.00000 6,621.22 2027 1.23076 1.02988 9.39093 12.9379 0.02340 0.33657 0.00000 0.33657 0.30965 0.00000 0.30965 — 2,397.08 2,397.08 0.09724 0.01945 0.00000 2,405.30 2028 1.18481 0.99143 8.92495 12.9352 0.02340 0.30024 0.00000 0.30024 0.27622 0.00000 0.27622 — 2,397.46 2,397.46 0.09725 0.01945 0.00000 2,405.68 2029 1.15336 0.96514 8.58166 12.9012 0.02340 0.27564 0.00000 0.27564 0.25359 0.00000 0.25359 — 2,396.83 2,396.83 0.09723 0.01945 0.00000 2,405.06 2030 1.12372 0.94034 8.39196 12.8848 0.02340 0.26012 0.00000 0.26012 0.23931 0.00000 0.23931 — 2,396.83 2,396.83 0.09723 0.01945 0.00000 2,405.06 2031 44.2167 44.1967 6.12541 9.88333 0.01395 0.20981 0.00000 0.20981 0.19303 0.00000 0.19303 — 1,510.63 1,510.63 0.06128 0.01226 0.00000 1,515.81 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 1.89001 1.58677 14.3899 15.3991 0.03082 0.58897 1.28125 1.87022 0.54185 0.57414 1.11600 — 3,296.36 3,296.36 0.13371 0.02674 0.00000 3,307.67 2027 0.87911 0.73563 6.70781 9.24139 0.01671 0.24041 0.00000 0.24041 0.22118 0.00000 0.22118 — 1,712.20 1,712.20 0.06945 0.01389 0.00000 1,718.07 2028 0.84861 0.71011 6.39243 9.26478 0.01676 0.21504 0.00000 0.21504 0.19784 0.00000 0.19784 — 1,717.16 1,717.16 0.06966 0.01393 0.00000 1,723.05 Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 2029 0.19670|o.16568 |1.25745 I2.09763IO.00376|o.o3735 |o.12784 |o.16519 |o.03448 |o.03107 I0.06555 — 454.142|454.142 |o.o1502 |o.o1817 |o.17507 |460.106 2030 0.17640 0.148651.157041.94557 0.00343 0.034210.10877 0.14297 0.03156 0.026410.05798 — 406.268 406.268 0.013210.01536 0.13125 411.306 2031 1.67221 1.66957 0.12496 0.21802 0.00028 0.00358 0.00765 0.01123 I0.00329 I0.OO179 I0.00508 — 31.9541 I31.9541 I0.00115 |0.00027 |0.00656 I32.0686 2.2.2. Onsite Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGS (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) NBCOZ
Daily- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max) I | I I I I I I | | | I | |
2026 3.62261 |3.04400 I27.2253 |27.5707 |0.06093 |1.12137 |2.39293 |3.51431 |1.03166 I0.94998 I1.98164 — 6,598.58I6,598.58|0.26767 |0.05353 I0.00000 I6,621.22 2027 LE6 1.02988 9.39093 12.9379 0.02340 0.33657 0.00000 0.33657 0.30965 0.00000 0.30965 2,397.08 2,397.08 0.09724 0.01945 0.00000 24% 5 1.18481 0.99143 8.92495 12.9352 0.02340 0.30024 0.00000 0.30024 0.27622 0.00000 0.27622 2,397.46 2,397.46 0.09725 0.01945 0.00000 2,405.68 2029 1.15336 0.96514 8.58166 12.9012 0.02340 0.27564 0.00000 0.27564 0.25359 0.00000 0.25359 2,396.83 2,396.83 0.09723 0.01945 0.00000 2,405.06 2030 1.12372 0.94034 8.39196 12.8848 0.02340 0.26012 0.00000 0.26012 0.23931 0.00000 0.23931 2,396.83 2,396.83 0.09723 0.01945 0.00000 2,405.06 [2031 I44.2167 44.1967 0.77690 1.10346 0.00173 0.00943 0.00000 0.00943 0.00867 0.00000 0.00867 133.518 133.518 0.00542 0.00108 0.00000 133.976 :Daily- i— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter ' :(Max) |
‘2026 I3.74146 3.14387 29.1635 28.8082 0.06093 1.24251 5.11082 6.35334 1.14311 2.62664 3.76975 6,598.58 6,598.58 0.26767 0.05353 0.00000 6,621.22 2027 1.23076 1.02988 9.39093 12.9379 0.02340 0.33657 0.00000 0.33657 0.30965 0.00000 0.30965 2,397.08 2,397.08 0.09724 0.01945 0.00000 24% 2028 1.18481 0.99143 8.92495 12.9352 0.02340 0.30024 0.00000 0.30024 0.27622 0.00000 0.27622 2,397.46 2,397.46 0.09725 0.01945 0.00000 2,405.68 2029 1.15336 0.96514 8.58166 12.9012 0.02340 0.27564 0.00000 0.27564 0.25359 0.00000 0.25359 2,396.83 2,396.83 0.09723 0.01945 0.00000 2,405.06 2030 1.12372 0.94034 8.39196 12.8848 0.02340 0.26012 0.00000 0.26012 0.23931 0.00000 0.23931 2,396.83 2,396.83 0.09723 0.01945 0.00000 2,405.1016 l2031 I44E67 |44.1967 I6.12541 |9'88333 IO.01395 IO.20981 0.00000 0.20981 I0.19303 I0.OOOOO I0.19303 1,510.63 1,510.63l0.06128 I0.01226 IO'OOOOO 1,53 ‘ I . . . . . . . . . '22:;896' ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! .!!'! l2026 |1.89001 |1.58677 |14.3899 |15.3991 |0.03082 |O.58897 I1.28125 |1.87022 |0.54185 |0.57414 |1.11600 3,296.36|3,296.36|0.13371 I0.02674 I0.00000 I3,307.67 207 0%1 0.71-5-5—63 6.70781 9.24139 0.01671 0.24041 0.00000 0.24041 0.22118 0.00000 0.22118 1,712.20 1,712.20 0.06945 0.01389 0.00000 1,718.07 2028 0.84861 |O.71011 |6.39243 I9.26478 I0.01676 I0.21504 IO.OOOOO I0.21504 I0.19784 12/62

0.00000 I0.19784 1,717.16|1,717.16|0.06966 IO.01393 IO'OOOOOI1,723.05 Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 13 / 62
2029 0.82383 0.68938 6.12975 9.21517 0.01671 0.19689 0.00000 0.19689 0.18114 0.00000 0.18114 — 1,712.02 1,712.02 0.06945 0.01389 0.00000 1,717.90 2030 0.75932 0.63573 5.73804 8.84073 0.01557 0.18097 0.00000 0.18097 0.16650 0.00000 0.16650 — 1,604.50 1,604.50 0.06509 0.01302 0.00000 1,610.01 2031 9.14847 9.13432 0.67508 1.05841 0.00153 0.01959 0.00000 0.01959 0.01802 0.00000 0.01802 — 154.553 154.553 0.00627 0.00125 0.00000 155.083 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.34493 0.28959 2.62615 2.81033 0.00562 0.10749 0.23383 0.34131 0.09889 0.10478 0.20367 — 545.749 545.749 0.02214 0.00443 0.00000 547.622 2027 0.16044 0.13425 1.22418 1.68655 0.00305 0.04387 0.00000 0.04387 0.04036 0.00000 0.04036 — 283.474 283.474 0.01150 0.00230 0.00000 284.447 2028 0.15487 0.12959 1.16662 1.69082 0.00306 0.03925 0.00000 0.03925 0.03611 0.00000 0.03611 — 284.296 284.296 0.01153 0.00231 0.00000 285.271 2029 0.15035 0.12581 1.11868 1.68177 0.00305 0.03593 0.00000 0.03593 0.03306 0.00000 0.03306 — 283.445 283.445 0.01150 0.00230 0.00000 284.418 2030 0.13858 0.11602 1.04719 1.61343 0.00284 0.03303 0.00000 0.03303 0.03039 0.00000 0.03039 — 265.643 265.643 0.01078 0.00216 0.00000 266.555 2031 1.66960 1.66701 0.12320 0.19316 0.00028 0.00358 0.00000 0.00358 0.00329 0.00000 0.00329 — 25.5880 25.5880 0.00104 0.00021 0.00000 25.6758

2.2.3. Offsite Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.47934 0.43019 1.19120 4.90685 0.00545 0.01090 0.99377 1.00467 0.01090 0.24162 0.25252 — 1,611.33 1,611.33 0.03193 0.14721 4.84138 1,660.83 2027 0.43329 0.40868 1.12584 4.54578 0.00545 0.01090 0.99377 1.00467 0.01090 0.24162 0.25252 — 1,577.25 1,577.25 0.02978 0.13961 4.32769 1,623.93 2028 0.41000 0.36781 1.06593 4.24024 0.00545 0.01090 0.99377 1.00467 0.01090 0.24162 0.25252 — 1,542.70 1,542.70 0.02978 0.13961 3.86270 1,588.92 2029 0.38785 0.34085 1.00144 3.96684 0.00545 0.01090 0.99377 1.00467 0.01090 0.24162 0.25252 — 1,507.91 1,507.91 0.02763 0.13417 3.43162 1,552.01 2030 0.37065 0.32365 0.97087 3.69838 0.00545 0.01090 0.99377 1.00467 0.01090 0.24162 0.25252 — 1,472.88 1,472.88 0.02218 0.10899 3.02938 1,508.94 2031 0.05825 0.05696 0.02996 0.63978 0.00000 0.00000 0.15730 0.15730 0.00000 0.03687 0.03687 — 154.800 154.800 0.00215 0.00129 0.34041 155.579 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.41202 0.38526 1.31883 3.79408 0.00545 0.01090 0.99377 1.00467 0.01090 0.24162 0.25252 — 1,515.42 1,515.42 0.03624 0.14721 0.12551 1,560.32 2027 0.39051 0.34136 1.24587 3.52647 0.00545 0.01090 0.99377 1.00467 0.01090 0.24162 0.25252 — 1,483.62 1,483.62 0.03624 0.14176 0.11229 1,526.88 2028 0.36937 0.32631 1.18050 3.27090 0.00545 0.01090 0.99377 1.00467 0.01090 0.24162 0.25252 — 1,451.05 1,451.05 0.03409 0.14176 0.10021 1,494.25 2029 0.35216 0.30301 1.11602 3.07415 0.00545 0.01090 0.99377 1.00467 0.01090 0.24162 0.25252 — 1,418.15 1,418.15 0.03409 0.13632 0.08903 1,459.71 2029
2030
2031
Annual
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031

0.82383I0.68938I6.12975

0.75932

9.14847

0.34493

0.118344

0.15487

0.15035

0.13858
1 .66960

0.63573

9.13432

0.28959

0.13425

0.12959

0.12581

0.11602

1.66701

5.73804

0.67508

2.62615

1.22418

1.16662

1.11868

1.04719
r"— 0.12320
I9.21517 8.84073

1.05841

2.81033

1.68655

1.69082

1.68177

1.61343

6.19316
|0.01671
Olga

0.00153

0.00562

0.00305

0.00306

0.00305

0.00284

0.00028
I0.19689

0.18097

0.01959

0.10749

0.04387

0.03925

0.03593

0.03303

0.00358
I0.00000

0.00000

0.23383

0.00000

2.2.3. Offsite Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated Criteria PollutantsRC)(Ib/dayoxfor daily, ton/yro2for annual) and GHGS (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) '0.19689

0.18097

0.01959

0.34131

0.04387

0.03925

0.03593

0.03303
|0.00358
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 I0.18114 '0.00000I0.18114

0.16650

0.01802

0.09889

0.04036

0.03611

0.03306

0.03039
I0.00329

0.00000

0.10478

0.00000

0.00000
I0.00000

0.16650

0.01802

0.20367

0.04036

0.0361 1

0.03306

0.03039
I0.00329
1,712.02|1,712.02
1,604.501,604.50
154.553154.553
545.749 545.749
283.474 283.474
284.296 284.296
283.445 283.445
265.643 265.643

25.5880 I25.5880
'0.06945

0.06509

0.00627

0.02214

0.01150

0.01153

0.01150

0.01078
Io.oo104
'o.o1389

0.01302

0.00125

0.00443

0.00230

0.00231

0.00230

0.00216
Io.00021
'0.00000

0.00000

0.00000
I0.00000
l1,717.90
1,610.01
155.083
547.622
284.447
285.271
284.418
266.555
I25.6758
Daily - Summer
(Max)
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
[2031
; Daily - Winter
1 (Max)
‘2026
2027
2028
2029

0.47934
OAEZQ

0.41000

0.38785

0.37065
_ 0.05825

0.41202

0.39051

0.36937

0.35216
I0.43019 I1.19120 I4.90685 0.40868

0.36781

0.34085

0.32365

0.05696

0.38526

0.34136

0.32631

1.12584

1.06593

1.00144

0.97087

0.02996

1.31883

1.24587

1.18050
IO.30301 I1.11602

4.54578

4.24024

3.96684

3.69838

0.63978

3.79408

3.52647

3.27090
I3.07415
I0.00545

0.00545

0.00000

0.00545

0.00545
I0.00545
IO.O1090 0.01090

0.01090

0.00000

0.01090

0.01090
IO.01090
I0.99377

0.99377

0.15730

0.99377

0.99377
I0.99377
I 1.00467

1.00167

1.00467

0.15730
1 .00467

1.00167

1.00467
I 1.00467
I0.01090 I0.24162 I0.25252 0.01090

0.01090

0.00000

0.01090

0.01090
13 / 62

0.24162

0.03687

0.24162

0.24162
I0.24162

0.25252

0.03687

0.25252

0.25252
I0.25252
1,611.33'1,611.33
1,577.25 :|,é77.25
1,542.70 1,542.70
1,507.91 1,507.91
1,472.88 1,472.88
154.800 154.800
1,515.42 1,515.42
1,483.62 1,483.62
1,451.05 1,451.05
1,418.15'1,418.15
|
I0.O3193 0.02978

0.02978

0.02763

0.02218

0.00215

0.03624

0.03409
I0.03409
I0.14721 0.13961

0.13961

0.13417

0.10899

0.00129

0.14721

0.14176

0.14176
I0.13632
I4.84138 4.32769

3.86270

3.43162

3.02938

0.34041

0.12551

0.11229

0.10021
I0.08903
I 1,660.83
1,623.93
1,588.-9-2
1,552.
1,508g4
155.579
1,560.32
1,526.88
1 ,494.25
I1,459.71
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 14 / 62
2030 0.31041 0.28517 1.05546 2.87956 0.00545 0.01090 0.99377 1.00467 0.01090 0.24162 0.25252 — 1,384.90 1,384.90 0.02649 0.13417 0.07858 1,425.63 2031 0.05266 0.05137 0.03659 0.47991 0.00000 0.00000 0.15730 0.15730 0.00000 0.03687 0.03687 — 137.369 137.369 0.00301 0.00620 0.00884 139.300 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.16654 0.14893 0.40587 1.49807 0.00165 0.00330 0.36065 0.36395 0.00330 0.08709 0.09040 — 531.443 531.443 0.01192 0.04735 0.73760 546.589 2027 0.28247 0.26489 0.85360 2.61842 0.00389 0.00778 0.70049 0.70827 0.00778 0.17025 0.17803 — 1,078.54 1,078.54 0.02281 0.10126 1.33443 1,110.62 2028 0.26855 0.23725 0.80866 2.45178 0.00390 0.00780 0.70241 0.71021 0.00780 0.17072 0.17852 — 1,057.78 1,057.78 0.02287 0.10000 1.19487 1,089.35 2029 0.25399 0.21843 0.76039 2.27871 0.00389 0.00778 0.70049 0.70827 0.00778 0.17025 0.17803 — 1,031.02 1,031.02 0.02127 0.09583 1.05742 1,061.17 2030 0.20723 0.17879 0.60193 1.81994 0.00323 0.00646 0.59597 0.60244 0.00646 0.14472 0.15118 — 849.379 849.379 0.01471 0.07975 0.79278 874.306 2031 0.01434 0.01399 0.00965 0.13623 0.00000 0.00000 0.04192 0.04192 0.00000 0.00982 0.00982 — 38.4521 38.4521 0.00070 0.00035 0.03963 38.6130 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.03039 0.02718 0.07407 0.27340 0.00030 0.00060 0.06582 0.06642 0.00060 0.01589 0.01650 — 87.9864 87.9864 0.00197 0.00784 0.12212 90.4941 2027 0.05155 0.04834 0.15578 0.47786 0.00071 0.00142 0.12784 0.12926 0.00142 0.03107 0.03249 — 178.565 178.565 0.00378 0.01676 0.22093 183.876 2028 0.04901 0.04330 0.14758 0.44745 0.00071 0.00142 0.12819 0.12961 0.00142 0.03116 0.03258 — 175.128 175.128 0.00379 0.01656 0.19782 180.354 2029 0.04635 0.03986 0.13877 0.41586 0.00071 0.00142 0.12784 0.12926 0.00142 0.03107 0.03249 — 170.697 170.697 0.00352 0.01587 0.17507 175.688 2030 0.03782 0.03263 0.10985 0.33214 0.00059 0.00118 0.10877 0.10994 0.00118 0.02641 0.02759 — 140.624 140.624 0.00244 0.01320 0.13125 144.751 2031 0.00262 0.00255 0.00176 0.02486 0.00000 0.00000 0.00765 0.00765 0.00000 0.00179 0.00179 — 6.36618 6.36618 0.00012 0.00006 0.00656 6.39283

2.3. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 24.1764 22.7585 12.3837 130.573 0.28220 0.38135 23.6795 24.0608 0.36894 5.98529 6.35423 150.639 32,173.9 32,324.5 16.8295 1.19156 94.7513 33,195.1 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 21.5875 20.2202 13.8649 88.4953 0.25488 0.37394 23.6795 24.0534 0.36337 5.98529 6.34867 150.639 29,437.5 29,588.1 16.9304 1.28282 6.14315 30,399.8 2030
2031

0.31041 0.28517 1.05546 2.87956

0.05266 0.05137 0.03659 0.47991
lAverage :— Daily
l2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
Annual
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
'0.16654

0.2E47

0.26855

0.25399

0.20723

0.01134
003,039

0.05155

0.04901

0.04635
I0.03782

0.00262
I_

0.26489

0.23725

0.21843

0.17879

0.01399

0.02718

0.04834

0.04330

0.03986

0.03263

0.00255
I_
I0.14893 I0.40587 0.85360

0.80866

0.76039

0.60193

0.00965

0.07407

0.15578

0.14758

0.13877

0.10985

0.00176
'—
I 1.49807

2.61842

2.45178

2.27871

1.81994

0.13623

0.27340

0.47786

0.44745

0.41586

0.33214

0.02486
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026

0.00545 0.01090 0.99377 1.00467 0.01090 0.24162 0.25252

0.00000 0.00000 0.15730 0.15730 0.00000 0.03687 0.03687 I _
I0.00165

0.00389

0.00390

0.00389

0.00323

0.00000

0.00030

0.00071

0.00059
I0.00330

0.00778

0.00780

0.00778

0.00646

0.00000

0.00060

0.00142

0.00118

0.36065

0.70049

0.70241

0.70049

0.59597

0.04192

0.06582

0.12784

0.12819

0.12784

0.10877

0.00000 0.00000 0.00765
'—
I0.36395 0.70827

0.71021

0.70827

0.60244

0.04192

0.06642

0.12926

0.12961

0.12926

0.10994

0.00765

2.3. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGS (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Unmit.
. Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Unmit.

24.1764 22.7585 12.3837 130.573 0.28220 0.38135 23.6795 24.0608 0.36894 5.98529 6.35423 150.639

21.5875 20.2202 13.8649 88.4953 0.25488 0.37394 23.6795 24.0534 0.36337 5.98529 6.34867 150.639 I0.00330 I0.08709 I0.09040 0.00778

0.00780

0.00778

0.00646

0.00000

0.00060

0.00142

0.00118

0.00000
14/62

0.17025

0.17072

0.17025

0.14472

0.00982

0.01589

0.03107

0.03116

0.03107

0.02641
I0.00179

0.17803

0.17852

0.17803

0.15118

0.00982

0.01650

0.03249

0.03258

0.03249

0.02759
I0.00179
1,384.901,384.90 0.02649 0.13417 0.07858 1,425.63
137.369 137.369 0.00301 0.00620 0.00884 139.300
531.443 I531.443 IO.O1192 I0.O4735 I0.73760 I546.589 1,078.541,078.54 0.02281 0.10126 1.33443 1,110.62 | 0.10000 1.19487 1,089.35

0.09583 1.05742 1,061.17I
1,057.78 1,057.78 0.02287
1,031.02 1,031.02 0.02127
849.379 849.379 0.01471 0.07975 0.79278 874.306

38.4521 38.4521 0.00070 0.00035 0.03963 38.6130

87.9864 87.9864 0.00197 0.00784 0.12212 90.4941
178.565 178.565 0.00378 0.01676 0.22093 183.876

0.01656 0.19782 180.354

0.01587 0.17507 175.688

0.01320 0.13125 144.751
175.128 175.128 0.00379
170.697 170.697 0.00352
140.624 140.624 0.00244

6.36618 I6.36618 I0.00012 IO.OOOO6 I0.00656 I6.39283
NBCOZ
32,1739 32,324.516.8295 1.19156 94.7513 33,195.1
29,437.5 29,588.1 16.9304 1.28282 6.14315 30,3998
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 15 / 62
Average — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily
(Max)
Unmit. 22.2587 20.9009 12.9111 98.3294 0.25730 0.37405 22.8334 23.2075 0.36281 5.77233 6.13513 150.639 29,658.7 29,809.3 16.8479 1.21048 42.1869 30,633.4 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 4.06222 3.81442 2.35627 17.9451 0.04696 0.06826 4.16710 4.23536 0.06621 1.05345 1.11966 24.9401 4,910.33 4,935.27 2.78937 0.20041 6.98451 5,071.71

2.4. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 10.2113 9.02483 9.57282 114.075 0.26453 0.15857 23.6795 23.8380 0.14801 5.98529 6.13330 — 27,241.6 27,241.6 1.17407 1.10423 90.9665 27,691.0 Area 13.6535 13.5779 0.14840 15.3658 0.00067 0.00751 — 0.00751 0.00566 — 0.00566 0.00000 41.1072 41.1072 0.00172 0.00034 — 41.2519 Energy 0.31157 0.15579 2.66251 1.13298 0.01699 0.21527 — 0.21527 0.21527 — 0.21527 — 4,795.14 4,795.14 0.52810 0.03412 — 4,818.51 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 20.9257 96.0564 116.982 2.16123 0.05286 — 186.767 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 129.714 0.00000 129.714 12.9644 0.00000 — 453.824 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3.78476 3.78476 Total 24.1764 22.7585 12.3837 130.573 0.28220 0.38135 23.6795 24.0608 0.36894 5.98529 6.35423 150.639 32,173.9 32,324.5 16.8295 1.19156 94.7513 33,195.1 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 9.06096 7.84940 11.2024 87.3623 0.23789 0.15867 23.6795 23.8381 0.14811 5.98529 6.13340 — 24,546.3 24,546.3 1.27668 1.19583 2.35839 24,936.9 Area 12.2150 12.2150 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 Energy 0.31157 0.15579 2.66251 1.13298 0.01699 0.21527 — 0.21527 0.21527 — 0.21527 — 4,795.14 4,795.14 0.52810 0.03412 — 4,818.51 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 20.9257 96.0564 116.982 2.16123 0.05286 — 186.767 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 129.714 0.00000 129.714 12.9644 0.00000 — 453.824 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3.78476 3.78476 Total 21.5875 20.2202 13.8649 88.4953 0.25488 0.37394 23.6795 24.0534 0.36337 5.98529 6.34867 150.639 29,437.5 29,588.1 16.9304 1.28282 6.14315 30,399.8 Average —
Daily
(Max)
4 Annual
|(Max) |
lUnmit. |
l—

2.4. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants Ib/d
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
for dail , to
Mobile 10.2113 I9.02483 I9.57282 Area 13.6535
Refrig.
‘Total 24.1764
, Daily,
Winter
(Max) '
Mobile 9.06096
Area 12.2150
Energy 0.31157 I
1Water
I
Waste
Refrig.

Total 21.5875

13.5779

0.15579

22.7585

7.84940

12.2150

0.15579

20.2202

0.14840

2.66251

12.3837
1 1.2024

0.00000

2.66251

13.8649
|
I 114.075

15.3658

1.13298
130.573

87.3623

0.00000

1.13298

88.4953
Unmit. I22.2587 20.9009 12.9111 98.3294 0.25730 0.37405 22.8334 23.2075

4.06222 3.81442 2.35627 17.9451 0.04696 0.06826 4.16710 4.23536 for annual‘ and GHGS ’Ib/d
|
I0.26453

0.00067

0.01699

0.28220

0.23789

0.00000

0.01699

0.25488
|
IO.15857 0.00751

0.21527

0.38135

0.15867

0.00000

0.21527

0.37394

23.6795 23.8380

0.00751

0.21527

23.6795 24.0608

23.6795 23.8381

0.00000

0.21527

23.6795 24.0534

0.36281

0.06621

5.77233

1.05345
for dai , MT
|
I0.14801 0.00566

0.21527

0.36894

0.14811

0.00000

0.21527

0.36337
15 / 62

5.98529

5.98529
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026

6.13513 150.639

1.11966 24.9401
for annual

6.13330

0.00566

0.21527

6.35423

6.13340

0.00000

0.21527

6.34867

0.00000

20.9257
129.714
150.639

0.00000

20.9257
129.714
150.639
|0.00000 129.714 12.9644
29,658.7 29,809.3 16.8479 1.21048
4,910.33 4,935.27 2.78937 0.20041
| | |
27241.6 27241.6 1.17407 I1.10423
—1‘-—r—’ f1’W7T 41.1072 41.1072 0.00172 0.00034
4,795.14 4,795.14 0.52810 0.03412

96.0564 116.982 2.16123 0.05286

0.00000 129.714 12.9644 0.00000
32,173.9 32,324.5 16.8295 1.19156
24,546.3 24,546.3 1.27668 1.19583

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
4,795.14 4,795.14 0.52810 0.03412

96.0564 116.982 2.16123 0.05286

0.00000
29,437.5 29,588.1 16.9304 1.28282

42.1869

6.98451

90.9665

3.78476

94.7513

2.35839

3.78476
30,6334
5,071.71
27,6910

41.2519
|4,818.51 I
l
|186.767
|453.824

3.78476
33,195.1
24,936.9

0.00000
I4,818.51
!186.767
|453.824

3.78476

6.14315 30,3998
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 16 / 62
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 9.02276 7.85800 10.1754 89.6188 0.23998 0.15508 22.8334 22.9885 0.14475 5.77233 5.91707 — 24,747.2 24,747.2 1.19334 1.12332 38.4021 25,150.2 Area 12.9244 12.8871 0.07318 7.57766 0.00033 0.00371 — 0.00371 0.00279 — 0.00279 0.00000 20.2721 20.2721 0.00085 0.00017 — 20.3434 Energy 0.31157 0.15579 2.66251 1.13298 0.01699 0.21527 — 0.21527 0.21527 — 0.21527 — 4,795.14 4,795.14 0.52810 0.03412 — 4,818.51 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 20.9257 96.0564 116.982 2.16123 0.05286 — 186.767 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 129.714 0.00000 129.714 12.9644 0.00000 — 453.824 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3.78476 3.78476 Total 22.2587 20.9009 12.9111 98.3294 0.25730 0.37405 22.8334 23.2075 0.36281 5.77233 6.13513 150.639 29,658.7 29,809.3 16.8479 1.21048 42.1869 30,633.4 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.64665 1.43409 1.85701 16.3554 0.04380 0.02830 4.16710 4.19540 0.02642 1.05345 1.07987 — 4,097.18 4,097.18 0.19757 0.18598 6.35790 4,163.90 Area 2.35870 2.35190 0.01336 1.38292 0.00006 0.00068 — 0.00068 0.00051 — 0.00051 0.00000 3.35627 3.35627 0.00014 0.00003 — 3.36808 Energy 0.05686 0.02843 0.48591 0.20677 0.00310 0.03929 — 0.03929 0.03929 — 0.03929 — 793.890 793.890 0.08743 0.00565 — 797.759 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 3.46449 15.9032 19.3677 0.35782 0.00875 — 30.9213 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 21.4756 0.00000 21.4756 2.14641 0.00000 — 75.1357 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.62661 0.62661 Total 4.06222 3.81442 2.35627 17.9451 0.04696 0.06826 4.16710 4.23536 0.06621 1.05345 1.11966 24.9401 4,910.33 4,935.27 2.78937 0.20041 6.98451 5,071.71

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Site Preparation (2026)

3.1.1. Onsite - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 Average — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily
Mobile 9.02276 7.85800 10.1754 89.6188 0.23998 0.15508 22.8334 22.9885 0.14475 5.77233 5.91707 — 24,747.2 24,747.2 1.19334 1.12332 38.4021 25,1502 l‘Area 123224 12.8871 0.073;|8 7.57766 0.00033 0.00371 — 0.00371 0.00279 — 0.00279 0.00000 20.2721 20_._27210.00085 0.00017 — 20.3434 IEnergy I0.31157 0.15579 2.66251 1.13298 0.01699 0.21527 — 0.21527 0.21527 — 0.21527 ::— 4,795.14 4,795.14 0.52810 0.03412 — l4,818.51:

EWater — — — — — — — — — — — 20.9257 I96.0564 116.982 2.16123 0.05286 — |186.767 7| |Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 129.714 |0.00000 129.714 12.9644 0.00000 — l453.824{ Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3.78476 3.78476 Total 22.2587 20.9009 12.9111 98.3294 0.25730 0.37405 22.8334 23.2075 0.36281 5.77233 6.13513 150.639 29,658.? 29,809.316.8479 1.21048 I42.1869 30,6334 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.64665 1.43409 1.85701 16.3554 0.04380 0.02830 4.1% |411.19540 0.02642 IJE 70175-3237 lm—I I4,097.18 4,097.18 0.19757 0.18598 6.35790 4,163.90 Area 2.35870 2.35190 0.01336 1.38292 0.00006 0.00068 — 0.00068 0.00051 — 0.00051 0.00000 I3.35627 3.35627 0.00014 0.00003 — 3.36808 IEnergy 0.05686 0.02843 0.48591 0.20677 0.00310 0.03929 — 0.03929 0.03929 — 0.03929 — 793.890 793.890 0.08743 0.00565 — — 797.759I EWater — — — — — — — — — — — 3.46449 15.9032 19.3677 0.35782 0.00875 — |130.9213:
|Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 21.4756 0.00000 21.4756 2.14641 0.00000 — |75.1357l Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.62661 0.62661 Total 4.06222 3.81442 2.35627 17.9451 0.04696 0.06826 4.16710 4.23536 0.06621 1.05345 1.11966 24.9401 4,910.33 4,935.27 2.78937 0.20041 6.98451 5,071.71

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Site Preparation (2026)

3.1.1. Onsite - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants Ib/d for dail ,to for annual and GHGS ’Ib/d for dai , MT for annual Daily, — — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Summer
Wax) I | | | I
16/62
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 17 / 62
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

3.74146 3.14387 29.1635 28.8082 0.04890 1.24251 — 1.24251 1.14311 — 1.14311 — 5,297.94 5,297.94 0.21491 0.04298 — 5,316.12 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 5.11082 5.11082 — 2.62664 2.62664 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.41002 0.34453 3.19600 3.15706 0.00536 0.13617 — 0.13617 0.12527 — 0.12527 — 580.596 580.596 0.02355 0.00471 — 582.589 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.56009 0.56009 — 0.28785 0.28785 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.07483 0.06288 0.58327 0.57616 0.00098 0.02485 — 0.02485 0.02286 — 0.02286 — 96.1243 96.1243 0.00390 0.00078 — 96.4542 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.10222 0.10222 — 0.05253 0.05253 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Off-Roa 3.74146
Id
lEquipm
.ent
Dust
From
Material - Movement
Onsite
truck
Average —
-Daily
Off-Roe 0.41002
Id
lEquipm
.ent
Dust
From
Material - Movement
Onsite
truck
lAnnuaI —
'Ofi-Roa0.07483
Id
IEquipm
.ent
Dust
From
Material - Movement
Onsite
truck

3.14387 29.1635

0.00000 0.00000

0.34453 3.19600

0.00000 0.00000

0.06288 0.58327

0.00000 0.00000

28.8082

0.00000

3.15706

0.00000

0.57616

0.00000

0.04890

0.00000

0.00536

0.00000

0.00098

0.00000

1.24251

0.00000

0.13617

0.00000

0.02485

0.00000

5.11082

0.00000

0.56009

0.00000

0.10222

0.00000

1.24251

5.11082

0.00000

0.13617

0.56009

0.00000

0.02485

0.10222

0.00000

1.14311

0.00000

0.12527

0.00000

0.02286

0.00000
17/62

2.62664

0.00000

0.28785

0.00000

0.05253

0.00000
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026

1.14311

2.62664

0.00000

0.12527

0.28785

0.00000

0.02286

0.05253

0.00000
5,297.94 5,297.94 0.21491

0.00000
580.596

0.00000

96.1243

0.00000

0.00000
580.596

0.00000

96.1243

0.00000

0.02355

0.00000

0.00390

0.00000

0.04298

0.00000

0.00471

0.00000

0.00078

0.00000

0.00000
5,316.12

0.00000
582.589

0.00000

96.4542

0.00000
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 18 / 62

3.1.2. Offsite - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06668 0.06475 0.05868 0.61943 0.00000 0.00000 0.14108 0.14108 0.00000 0.03307 0.03307 — 135.142 135.142 0.00386 0.00595 0.01385 137.024 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00787 0.00722 0.00578 0.07137 0.00000 0.00000 0.01525 0.01525 0.00000 0.00357 0.00357 — 15.3489 15.3489 0.00038 0.00065 0.02525 15.5778 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00144 0.00132 0.00105 0.01303 0.00000 0.00000 0.00278 0.00278 0.00000 0.00065 0.00065 — 2.54118 2.54118 0.00006 0.00011 0.00418 2.57908 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.2. Grading (2026)

3.2.1. Onsite - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026

3.1.2. Offsite - Unmitigated
Criteria PollutantsRC)(Ib/dayoxfor daily, ton/yro2for annual) and GHGS (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Daily, —
Summer
(Max) I
Dally, l— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Winter I
(Max)
WEer 0.06668 0.06475 0.05868 0.61943 0.00000 0.00000 0.14108 0.14108 0.00000 0.03307 0.03307 — 135.142 135.142 0.00386 0.00595 0.01385 137.024 l\Eflor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 VHEIing 0.00000 IO'OOOOOIO'OOOOOIO'OOOOOIO'OOOOOIO'OOOOOIO'OOOOOIO'OOOOOIO'OOOOOIO'OOOOOIO'OOOOO — 0.00000 IO'OOOOOIO'OOOOOI0.OOOOO IO'OOOOOIO.OOOOO 33399 I I I I | I I I I I I I | | I IVfier 0.00787 I0.00722 I0.00578 I0.07137 IO.00000 IO.00000 IO.01525 I0.01525 I0.00000 I0.00357 I0.00357 — 15.3489 I15.3489 I0.00038 I0.00065 I0.02525 I15.5778 [\l—Qior 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 :IH_a—u|ing0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.0% :IA_n—nua|— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
:W_—orker 0.00144 0.00132 0.00105 0.01303 0.00000 0.00000 0.00278 0.00278 0.00000 0.00065 0.00065 — 2.54118 2.54118 0.00006 0.00011 0.00418 2.579? Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.0% |flng 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 IO'OOOOOIO'OOOOOIO'OOOOOIO'OOOOOIO'OOOOOIO'OOOOOIO'OOOOOIO'OOOOO — 0.00000 IO'OOOOOIO'OOOOOI0.OOOOO IO'OOOOOIO'OOOOO

3.2. Grading (2026)

3.2.1. Onsite - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants Ib/d for dail ,to" for annual) and GHGS Ib/d for dai ,MT for annual) |I mi Daily, — — — — — — — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Summer
Max) | I I I I I I I |
18/62
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 19 / 62
Off-Roa
Equipment

3.62261 3.04400 27.2253 27.5707 0.06093 1.12137 — 1.12137 1.03166 — 1.03166 — 6,598.58 6,598.58 0.26767 0.05353 — 6,621.22 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 2.39293 2.39293 — 0.94998 0.94998 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.09175 0.91737 8.20487 8.30896 0.01836 0.33795 — 0.33795 0.31091 — 0.31091 — 1,988.61 1,988.61 0.08067 0.01613 — 1,995.44 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.72116 0.72116 — 0.28629 0.28629 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.19924 0.16742 1.49739 1.51639 0.00335 0.06168 — 0.06168 0.05674 — 0.05674 — 329.237 329.237 0.01336 0.00267 — 330.367 |Off-Roa
Equipme
Dust
From
Material - Movement
Onsite
truck
Daily,
Winter
.(Max)
Off-Roe 3.62261
Id
lEquipm
.ent
Dust
From
Material - Movement
Onsite
truck
Average —
-Daily
Off-Roa 1.09175
Id
lEquipm
.ent
Dust
From
Material - Movement
Onsite
truck
Annual
IOff—Roa 0.19924
d
Equipm
ent

3.04400

0.00000

3.04400

0.00000

0.91737

0.00000

0.16742

27.2253

0.00000

27.2253

0.00000

8.20487

0.00000

1.49739

27.5707

0.00000

27.5707

0.00000

8.30896

0.00000

1.51639

0.06093

0.00000

0.06093

0.00000

0.01836

0.00000

0.00335

1.12137

0.00000

1.12137

0.00000

0.33795

0.00000

0.06168

2.39293

0.00000

2.39293

0.00000

0.72116

0.00000

1.12137

2.39293

0.00000

1.12137

2.39293

0.00000

0.33795

0.72116

0.00000

0.06168

1.03166

0.00000

1.03166

0.00000

0.31091

0.00000

0.05674
19/62

0.94998

0.00000

0.94998

0.00000

0.28629

0.00000
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026

1.03166

0.94998

0.00000

1.03166

0.94998

0.00000

0.31091

0.28629

0.00000

0.05674
6,598.58 6,598.58 0.26767

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
6,598.58 6,598.58 0.26767

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
1,988.61 1,988.61 0.08067

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
329.237 329.237 0.01336

0.05353

0.00000

0.05353

0.00000

0.01613

0.00000

0.00267

0.00000

0.00000
6,621.22

0.00000
1 ,995.44

0.00000
330.367
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 20 / 62
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.13161 0.13161 — 0.05225 0.05225 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.2.2. Offsite - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08961 0.08281 0.05436 0.93853 0.00000 0.00000 0.16123 0.16123 0.00000 0.03779 0.03779 — 174.257 174.257 0.00353 0.00679 0.61079 176.981 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07620 0.07400 0.06706 0.70792 0.00000 0.00000 0.16123 0.16123 0.00000 0.03779 0.03779 — 154.449 154.449 0.00441 0.00679 0.01583 156.599 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02475 0.02270 0.01816 0.22432 0.00000 0.00000 0.04793 0.04793 0.00000 0.01122 0.01122 — 48.2394 48.2394 0.00120 0.00205 0.07935 48.9588 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00452 0.00414 0.00331 0.04094 0.00000 0.00000 0.00875 0.00875 0.00000 0.00205 0.00205 — 7.98658 7.98658 0.00020 0.00034 0.01314 8.10570 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Dust
From
Material
Movemerllt

0.13161 0.13161
IOnsite l0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Itruck 3.2.2. Offsite - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants ’Ib/d for dail ,ton for annual and GHGS Ib/d Daily,
Summer
(ME) | I I I I
Worker 0.08961 I0.08281 I0.05436 I0.93853 I0.00000 IO.00000 IO.16123 I0.16123 lVendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Daily,
Winter
(Max) ' Worker 0.07620 0.07400 0.06706 0.70792 0.00000 0.00000 0.16123 0.16123 lVendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 |Hauling 0.00000 I0.OOOOO I0.OOOOO |0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

0.02475 I0.02270 I0.O1816 I0.22432

0.00000 I0.00000
Average — I—
Daily
l‘Worker 0.00000 IO.04793 IO.O4793 Vendor

0.00000

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 |
l_
l—
:—l1A_nnua|
l
l—Worker 0.00452 0.00414 0.00331 0.04094 0.00000 0.00000 0.00875 0.00875 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026

0.05225 0.05225

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
for dai , MT
|
I0.OOOOO I0.03779 I0.03779 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

0.00000 0.03779 0.03779

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
|0.00000 |0.00000 |0.00000
I0.00000 I0.01122 I0.01122 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

0.00000 0.00205 0.00205

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
Hauling I0.00000 I0.00000 I0.00000 I0.00000 I0.00000 I0.00000 I0.00000 I0.00000 I0.00000 20/62
I0.00000 I0.00000
for annual
174.257

0.00000

0.00000
154.449

0.00000

48.2394

0.00000

7.98658

0.00000

0.00000
I 174.257

0.00000

0.00000
154.449

0.00000
|0.00000

0.00000

7.98658

0.00000
I0.00000
I0.00353

0.00000

0.00441

0.00000
|0.00000

0.00000

0.00020

0.00000
I0.00000
|

0.00679

0.00000

0.00679

0.00000
|0.00000

48.2394 IO.00’| 20 I0.00205 0.00000

0.00000

0.00034

0.00000
I0.00000
I0.61079

0.00000

0.01583

0.00000
|0.00000
I0.07935

0.00000

0.01314

0.00000
I0.00000

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
I176.981 0.00000

0.00000
156.599

0.00000
|0.00000
I48.9588 0.00000

0.00000

8.10570

0.00000
I0.00000
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 21 / 62

3.3. Building Construction (2026)

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

1.27993 1.07101 9.85401 12.9664 0.02340 0.37865 — 0.37865 0.34836 — 0.34836 — 2,397.24 2,397.24 0.09724 0.01945 — 2,405.47 Onsite
truck

0.38824 0.32487 2.98899 3.93305 0.00710 0.11486 — 0.11486 0.10567 — 0.10567 — 727.147 727.147 0.02950 0.00590 — 729.643 Onsite
truck

0.07085 0.05929 0.54549 0.71778 0.00130 0.02096 — 0.02096 0.01928 — 0.01928 — 120.388 120.388 0.00488 0.00098 — 120.801 Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026

3.3. Building Construction (2026)

3.3.1. Onsite - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGS (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Daily, —
Summer
(Max) I
Off-Roa
Id
I Equipm !
lent
I Onsite 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 'truck

1.27993 1.07101 9.85401 12.9664 0.02340 0.37865 — 0.37865 0.34836 — 0.34836 — 2,397.24 2,397.24 0.09724 0.01945 — 2,405.47 Daily, — — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Winter
.(Max)
Off-Roa 1.27993 1.07101 9.85401 12.9664 0.02340 0.37865 — 0.37865 0.34836 — 0.34836 — 2,397.24 2,397.24 0.09724 0.01945 — 2,405.47 Id
IEquipm !
I ent
Onsite 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 truck
Average — — — — — — — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
. Daily |
Off-Roa |O.38824 0.32487 2.98899 3.93305 0.00710 0.11486 — 0.11486 0.10567 — 0.10567 — 727.147 727.147 0.02950 0.00590 — 729.643 Id
IEquipm
ent I
Onsite |0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 |truck
Annual — — — — — — — — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
IOff-Roe 0.07085 0.05929 0.54549 0.71778 0.00130 0.02096 — 0.02096 0.01928 — 0.01928 — 120.388 120.388 0.00488 0.00098 — 120.801 d
Equipm
ent
21/62
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 22 / 62
Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.3.2. Offsite - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.43711 0.40397 0.26515 4.57815 0.00000 0.00000 0.78649 0.78649 0.00000 0.18435 0.18435 — 850.026 850.026 0.01721 0.03314 2.97945 863.313 Vendor 0.04223 0.02622 0.92605 0.32870 0.00545 0.01090 0.20728 0.21818 0.01090 0.05727 0.06816 — 761.299 761.299 0.01473 0.11407 1.86193 797.521 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.37171 0.36095 0.32714 3.45324 0.00000 0.00000 0.78649 0.78649 0.00000 0.18435 0.18435 — 753.400 753.400 0.02151 0.03314 0.07721 763.892 Vendor 0.04031 0.02431 0.99169 0.34084 0.00545 0.01090 0.20728 0.21818 0.01090 0.05727 0.06816 — 762.019 762.019 0.01473 0.11407 0.04830 796.428 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.12150 0.11144 0.08918 1.10132 0.00000 0.00000 0.23532 0.23532 0.00000 0.05511 0.05511 — 236.840 236.840 0.00587 0.01005 0.38960 240.372 Vendor 0.01242 0.00757 0.29275 0.10106 0.00165 0.00330 0.06215 0.06546 0.00330 0.01719 0.02050 — 231.015 231.015 0.00447 0.03460 0.24340 241.681 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02217 0.02034 0.01627 0.20099 0.00000 0.00000 0.04295 0.04295 0.00000 0.01006 0.01006 — 39.2115 39.2115 0.00097 0.00166 0.06450 39.7963 Vendor 0.00227 0.00138 0.05343 0.01844 0.00030 0.00060 0.01134 0.01195 0.00060 0.00314 0.00374 — 38.2471 38.2471 0.00074 0.00573 0.04030 40.0130 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.4. Building Construction (2027)
Onsite
truck
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.3.2. Offsite - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGS (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Worker
lVendor
I—
Hauling
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Worker
lVendor
|Hauling
|

0.43711 I0.40397 I0.26515 I4.57815 IO.00000 0.04223

0.00000

0.37171

0.04031

0.02622

0.00000

0.36095

0.02431

0.92605

0.00000

0.32714

0.99169

0.32870

0.00000

3.45324

0.34084

0.00000 I0.OOOOO IO'OOOOOIO'OOOOO
Average — Daily
I‘Worker
[\l—Ejor
:1Hauling
:IA_n—nua|
:lW_—orker
Vendor
|Hauling

0.00545

0.00000

0.00545
|0.00000

0.00000

0.01090

0.00000

0.01090
|0.00000
I0.78649

0.20728

0.00000

0.78649

0.20728
I0.78649 0.21818

0.00000

0.78649

0.21818

0.01090

0.00000

0.01090

0.05727

0.00000

0.18435

0.05727
IO'OOOOOIO'OOOOOI0.OOOOO I0.OOOOO

0.12150 I0.11144 IO.O8918 I1.1O132 I0.00000 IO.00000 IO.23532 I0.23532 0.01242

0.00000

0.02217

0.00227

0.00000

0.00757

0.00000

0.02034

0.00138

0.00000

0.29275

0.00000

0.01627

0.05343

0.00000

0.10106

0.00000

0.20099

0.01844

0.00000

0.00165

0.00000

0.00030

0.00000

3.4. Building Construction (2027)

0.00330

0.00000

0.00060
I0.00000

0.06215

0.00000

0.04295

0.01134

IO'OOOOO

0.06546

0.00000

0.04295

0.01195
I0.00000

0.00330

0.00000

0.00060

0.00000 I0.05511 0.01719

0.00000

0.01006

0.00314

0.00000 I0.18435 I0.18435

0.06816

0.00000

0.18435

0.06816

IO'OOOOO
'—
I0.05511 0.02050

0.00000

0.01006

0.00374
I0.00000 I0.00000 I0.00000
22/62
850.026
761.299

0.00000
753.400
762.019
I850.026
761.299

0.00000
753.400
762.019
I0.O1721 0.01473

0.00000

0.02151

0.01473
I0.03314 0.11407

0.00000

0.03314

0.11407
I2.97945

1.86193

0.00000

0.07721

0.04830
I863.313 797.521

0.00000
763.892
796.428

0.00000 IO'OOOOOIO'OOOOOIO.OOOOO I0.00000 IO.OOOOO
236.840 I236.840 I0.00587 I0.01005 I0.38960 I24O.372 231.015

0.00000

39.2115

38.2471

0.00000
231.015

0.00000

39.2115

38.2471

IO'OOOOO

0.00447

0.00000

0.00097

0.00074
I0.00000

0.03460

0.00000

0.00166

0.00573
I0.00000

0.24340

0.00000

0.06450

0.04030
I0.00000
241.681

0.00000

39.7963

40.0130
I0.00000
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 23 / 62

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

1.23076 1.02988 9.39093 12.9379 0.02340 0.33657 — 0.33657 0.30965 — 0.30965 — 2,397.08 2,397.08 0.09724 0.01945 — 2,405.30 Onsite
truck

0.87911 0.73563 6.70781 9.24139 0.01671 0.24041 — 0.24041 0.22118 — 0.22118 — 1,712.20 1,712.20 0.06945 0.01389 — 1,718.07 Onsite
truck

0.16044 0.13425 1.22418 1.68655 0.00305 0.04387 — 0.04387 0.04036 — 0.04036 — 283.474 283.474 0.01150 0.00230 — 284.447 Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026

3.4.1. Onsite - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGS (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Daily, —
Summer
(Max) I
Off-Roa
Id
I Equipm !
lent
I Onsite
'truck

1.23076

0.00000
Daily, —
Winter
.(Max)
Off-Roa 1.23076
Id
I Equipm !
I ent
Onsite
truck

0.00000
Average —
. Daily
Off-Roa 0.87911
Id
IEquipm !
I ent
Onsite
|truck

0.00000
lAnnuaI '—
IOff—Roa 0.16044
d
I Equipm !
ent
Onsite 0.00000
truck
1 .02988

0.00000
1 .02988

0.00000

0.73563

0.00000

0.13425

0.00000

9.39093

0.00000

9.39093

0.00000

6.70781

0.00000

1.22418

0.00000

12.9379

0.00000

12.9379

0.00000

9.24139

0.00000

1.68655

0.00000

0.02340

0.00000

0.02340

0.00000

0.01671

0.00000

0.00305

0.00000

0.33657

0.00000

0.33657

0.00000

0.24041

0.00000

0.04387

0.00000

0.33657

0.00000

0.33657

0.00000

0.24041

0.00000

0.04387

0.00000

0.30965

0.00000

0.30965

0.00000

0.22118

0.00000

0.04036

0.00000
23/62

0.00000

0.30965

0.00000

0.30965

0.00000

0.22118

0.00000

0.04036

0.00000
2,397.08 2,397.08 0.09724

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
2,397.08 2,397.08 0.09724

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
1,712.20 1,712.20 0.06945

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
283.474 283.474 0.01150

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

0.01945

0.00000

0.01945

0.00000

0.01389

0.00000

0.00230

0.00000

0.00000
2,405.30

0.00000
1,718.07

0.00000
284.447

0.00000
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 24 / 62

3.4.2. Offsite - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.39106 0.38246 0.23631 4.22989 0.00000 0.00000 0.78649 0.78649 0.00000 0.18435 0.18435 — 832.317 832.317 0.01506 0.03099 2.69168 844.621 Vendor 0.04223 0.02622 0.88953 0.31589 0.00545 0.01090 0.20728 0.21818 0.01090 0.05727 0.06816 — 744.932 744.932 0.01473 0.10862 1.63601 779.305 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.35020 0.31705 0.29615 3.19972 0.00000 0.00000 0.78649 0.78649 0.00000 0.18435 0.18435 — 737.946 737.946 0.02151 0.03314 0.06984 748.431 Vendor 0.04031 0.02431 0.94972 0.32675 0.00545 0.01090 0.20728 0.21818 0.01090 0.05727 0.06816 — 745.670 745.670 0.01473 0.10862 0.04246 778.449 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.25321 0.24707 0.18940 2.38959 0.00000 0.00000 0.55413 0.55413 0.00000 0.12977 0.12977 — 546.228 546.228 0.01229 0.02367 0.82971 554.420 Vendor 0.02925 0.01782 0.66420 0.22883 0.00389 0.00778 0.14636 0.15414 0.00778 0.04048 0.04826 — 532.315 532.315 0.01052 0.07759 0.50471 556.203 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04621 0.04509 0.03456 0.43610 0.00000 0.00000 0.10113 0.10113 0.00000 0.02368 0.02368 — 90.4342 90.4342 0.00203 0.00392 0.13737 91.7905 Vendor 0.00534 0.00325 0.12122 0.04176 0.00071 0.00142 0.02671 0.02813 0.00142 0.00739 0.00881 — 88.1308 88.1308 0.00174 0.01285 0.08356 92.0858 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.5. Building Construction (2028)

3.5.1. Onsite - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026

3.4.2. Offsite - Unmitigated
Criteria PollutantsRC)(Ib/dayoxfor daily, ton/yro2for annual) and GHGS (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Daily, —
Summer
(ME) I I I I I I I I I I I
Worker 0.39106I0.38246I0.23631I4.22989'0.00000'0.00000I0.78649I0.78649'0.00000I0.18435I0.18435 832.317I832.317I0.01506Io.03099 I2.69168I844.621 'LVe_-ndor 0.042230.026220.889530.315890.005450.010900.207280.218180.010900.057270.06816 744.932744.9320.014730.108621.63601 779.305 Hauling 0.000000.000000.000000.000000.000000.000000.000000.000000.000000.000000.00000 0.000000.000000.000000.000000.000000.00000 DaTy,___________ ______
Winter
(Max)
waer 0.350200.317050.296153.199720.000000.000000.786490.786490.000000.184350.18435 737.946737.9460.02151 0.033140.06984748.431 Nam 0.04031 0.02431 0.949720.326750.005450.010900.207280.218180.010900.057270.06816 745.670745.6700.014730.108620.04246778.449 VHEling 0.00000IO'OOOOO IO'OOOOO IO'OOOOO I0.00000 I0.00000 I0.00000 IO'OOOOO IO'OOOOO IO'OOOOO IO'OOOOO 0.00000IO'OOOOO IO'OOOOO IO'OOOOO Io.00000 I0'00000 33399 | I I I I I | I I | I I I I I
IWo—rker 0.25321Io.24707 I0.18940I2.389596.00000'0.00000'0.55413I0.55413Io.00000 '0.12977Io.12977 546.228I546.228Io.o1229 I0.02367I0.82971I554.420 {vim 0.029250.017820.664200.228830.003890.007780.146360.154140.007780.040480.04826 532.315532.3150.010520.077590.50471 556.203 :IH_a—u|ing 0.000000.000000.000000.000000.000000.000000.000000.000000.000000.000000.00000 0.000000.000000.000000.000000.000000.0% :IA_n—nua|— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ——
:IW_—orker 0.04621 0.045090.034560.436100.000000.000000.101130.101130.000000.023680.02368 90.434290.43420.002030.003920.1373791% Vendor 0.005340.003250.121220.041760.00071 0.001420.02671 0.028130.001420.007390.00881 88.130888.13080.001740.012850.0835692% fling 0.000000.000000.000000.000000.00000IO'OOOOOIO'OOOOO IO'OOOOO IO'OOOOO IO'OOOOO IO'OOOOO 0.00000IO'OOOOO IO'OOOOO IO'OOOOO IO'OOOOO IO'OOOOO

3.5. Building Construction (2028)

3.5.1. Onsite - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants ’Ib/d for dail ,ton for annual and GHGS’Ib/d for dai ,MT for annual 24/62
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 25 / 62
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.18481 0.99143 8.92495 12.9352 0.02340 0.30024 — 0.30024 0.27622 — 0.27622 — 2,397.46 2,397.46 0.09725 0.01945 — 2,405.68 Onsite
truck

0.84861 0.71011 6.39243 9.26478 0.01676 0.21504 — 0.21504 0.19784 — 0.19784 — 1,717.16 1,717.16 0.06966 0.01393 — 1,723.05 Onsite
truck

0.15487 0.12959 1.16662 1.69082 0.00306 0.03925 — 0.03925 0.03611 — 0.03611 — 284.296 284.296 0.01153 0.00231 — 285.271 Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.5.2. Offsite - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Off-Roa
Id
I Equipm
I ent
l Onsite
Itruck Daily,
Winter
.(Max)
Off-Roa
Id
I Equipm
I ent
Onsite
truck

1.18481

0.00000

1.18481

0.00000
Average —
.Daily
Off-Roa
Id
I Equipm
lent Onsite
|truck
lAnnuaI
IOff-Rea Id
I Equipm
ent
Onsite
truck
|O.84861
|
| 0.00000
|O.15487

0.00000

0.99143

0.00000

0.99143

0.00000

0.71011

0.00000

0.12959

0.00000

8.92495

0.00000

8.92495

0.00000

6.39243

0.00000

1.16662

0.00000

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

12.9352

0.00000

12.9352

0.00000

9.26478

0.00000

1.69082

0.00000

0.02340

0.00000

0.02340

0.00000

0.01676

0.00000

0.00306

0.00000

0.30024

0.00000

0.30024

0.00000

0.21504

0.00000

0.03925

0.00000

0.30024

0.00000

0.30024

0.00000

0.21504

0.00000

0.03925

0.00000

0.27622

0.00000

0.27622

0.00000

0.19784

0.00000

0.03611

0.00000
25/62

0.00000

0.00000
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026

0.27622

0.00000

0.27622

0.00000

0.19784

0.00000

0.03611

0.00000
2,397.46 2,397.46 0.09725

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
2,397.46 2,397.46 0.09725

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
1,717.16 1,717.16 0.06966

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
284.296 284.296 0.01153

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

0.01945

0.00000

0.01945

0.00000

0.01393

0.00000

0.00231

0.00000

0.00000
2,405.68

0.00000
1,723.05

0.00000
285.271

0.00000
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 26 / 62
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.37386 0.34286 0.20747 3.93716 0.00000 0.00000 0.78649 0.78649 0.00000 0.18435 0.18435 — 816.274 816.274 0.01506 0.03099 2.42146 828.308 Vendor 0.03614 0.02495 0.85846 0.30308 0.00545 0.01090 0.20728 0.21818 0.01090 0.05727 0.06816 — 726.430 726.430 0.01473 0.10862 1.44125 760.608 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.33514 0.30200 0.26731 2.95696 0.00000 0.00000 0.78649 0.78649 0.00000 0.18435 0.18435 — 723.868 723.868 0.01936 0.03314 0.06282 734.292 Vendor 0.03423 0.02431 0.91320 0.31394 0.00545 0.01090 0.20728 0.21818 0.01090 0.05727 0.06816 — 727.179 727.179 0.01473 0.10862 0.03739 759.953 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.24312 0.21938 0.16926 2.23150 0.00000 0.00000 0.55565 0.55565 0.00000 0.13012 0.13012 — 537.257 537.257 0.01232 0.02220 0.74904 544.929 Vendor 0.02543 0.01787 0.63941 0.22028 0.00390 0.00780 0.14676 0.15457 0.00780 0.04059 0.04840 — 520.525 520.525 0.01055 0.07780 0.44583 544.419 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04437 0.04004 0.03089 0.40725 0.00000 0.00000 0.10141 0.10141 0.00000 0.02375 0.02375 — 88.9490 88.9490 0.00204 0.00368 0.12401 90.2192 Vendor 0.00464 0.00326 0.11669 0.04020 0.00071 0.00142 0.02678 0.02821 0.00142 0.00741 0.00883 — 86.1789 86.1789 0.00175 0.01288 0.07381 90.1347 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.6. Building Construction (2029)

3.6.1. Onsite - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 Dally, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(ME) I I I I I
Worker 0.37386 I0.34286 I0.20747 I3.93716 I0.00000 IO.00000 I0.78649 I0.78649 I0.00000 I0.18435 I0.18435 — 816.274 I816.274 I0.01506 I0.03099 I2.42146 I828.308 :Ve_-ndor 0.03614 0.02495 0.85846 0.30308 0.00545 0.01090 0.20728 0.21818 0.01090 0.05727 0.06816 — 726.430 726.430 0.01473 0.10862 1.44125 76% Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 T, ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Winter
(Max) ' WEer 0.33514 0.30200 0.26731 2.95696 0.00000 0.00000 0.78649 0.78649 0.00000 0.18435 0.18435 — 723.868 723.868 0.01936 0.03314 0.06282 734.292 l\Ejor 0.03423 0.02431 0.91320 0.31394 0.00545 0.01090 0.20728 0.21818 0.01090 0.05727 0.06816 — 727.179 727.179 0.01473 0.10862 0.03739 759.953 ”4;a 0.00000 IO'OOOOOIO'OOOOOIO'OOOOOIO'OOOOOIO'OOOOOIO'OOOOOIO'OOOOOIO'OOOOOIO'OOOOOIO'OOOOO — 0.00000 IO'OOOOOIO'OOOOOI0.OOOOO IO'00000 ”0% Qfirj‘ge I I I I I I | I I | | | I I I
lWo—rker 0.24312 I0.21938 I0.16926 I2.23150 I0.00000 IO.00000 I0.55565 I0.55565 I0.00000 I0.13012 I0.13012 — 537.257 I537.257 I0.O1232 I0.02220 I0.74904 I544.929 :Lajor 0.02543 0.01787 0.63941 0.22028 0.00390 0.00780 0.14676 0.15457 0.00780 0.04059 0.04840 — 520.525 520.525 0.01055 0.07780 0.44583 544.419 :IH_a—u|ing0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.0% :IA_n—nua|— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
:W_—orker 0.04437 0.04004 0.03089 0.40725 0.00000 0.00000 0.10141 0.10141 0.00000 0.02375 0.02375 — 88.9490 88.9490 0.00204 0.00368 0.12401 90.2192 Vendor 0.00464 0.00326 0.11669 0.04020 0.00071 0.00142 0.02678 0.02821 0.00142 0.00741 0.00883 — 86.1789 86.1789 0.00175 0.01288 0.07381 90.1347 | fl ing 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 IO'OOOOOIO'OOOOOIO'OOOOOIO'OOOOOIO'OOOOOIO'OOOOO — 0.00000 IO'OOOOOIO'OOOOOI0.OOOOO IO'OOOOOIO'OOOOO

3.6. Building Construction (2029)

3.6.1. Onsite - Unmitigated
Criteria PollutantsRC)(Ib/dayoxfor daily, ton/yro2for annual) and GHGS (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Daily, —
Summer
Max) | I I I I I I | | I I I I I I I |
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 27 / 62
Off-Roa
Equipment

1.15336 0.96514 8.58166 12.9012 0.02340 0.27564 — 0.27564 0.25359 — 0.25359 — 2,396.83 2,396.83 0.09723 0.01945 — 2,405.06 Onsite
truck

0.82383 0.68938 6.12975 9.21517 0.01671 0.19689 — 0.19689 0.18114 — 0.18114 — 1,712.02 1,712.02 0.06945 0.01389 — 1,717.90 Onsite
truck

0.15035 0.12581 1.11868 1.68177 0.00305 0.03593 — 0.03593 0.03306 — 0.03306 — 283.445 283.445 0.01150 0.00230 — 284.418 Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.6.2. Offsite - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa 1.15336
Equipment
Onsite 0.00000
truck I
Daily,
Winter
.(Max)
Off-Roa
Id
I Equipm !
I ent
Onsite
truck

1.15336

0.00000
Average —
. Daily
Off-Roa 0.82383
Id
I Equipm I
I ent |
Onsite
|truck

0.00000
lAnnuaI '—
IOff-Rea Id
I Equipm !
ent

0.15035
Onsite 0.00000
truck

0.96514

0.00000

0.96514

0.00000

0.68938

0.00000

0.12581

0.00000

8.58166

0.00000

8.58166

0.00000

6.12975

0.00000

1.11868

0.00000

3.6.2. Offsite - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGS (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)

12.9012

0.00000

12.9012

0.00000

9.21517

0.00000

1.68177

0.00000

0.02340

0.00000

0.02340

0.00000

0.01671

0.00000

0.00305

0.00000

0.27564

0.00000

0.27564

0.00000

0.19689

0.00000

0.03593

0.00000

0.27564

0.00000

0.27564

0.00000

0.19689

0.00000

0.03593

0.00000

0.25359

0.00000

0.25359

0.00000

0.18114

0.00000

0.03306

0.00000

0.00000
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026

0.25359

0.00000

0.25359

0.00000

0.18114

0.00000

0.03306

0.00000
2,396.83 2,396.83 0.09723

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
2,396.83 2,396.83 0.09723

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
1,712.02 1,712.02 0.06945

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
283.445 283.445 0.01150

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

0.01945

0.00000

0.01945

0.00000

0.01389

0.00000

0.00230

0.00000

0.00000
2,405.06

0.00000
1,717.90

0.00000
284.418

0.00000
W
Daily, —
Summer
|(Max) |
27/62
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 28 / 62
Worker 0.35235 0.32136 0.18078 3.67112 0.00000 0.00000 0.78649 0.78649 0.00000 0.18435 0.18435 — 801.208 801.208 0.01290 0.03099 2.16176 812.928 Vendor 0.03550 0.01950 0.82066 0.29571 0.00545 0.01090 0.20728 0.21818 0.01090 0.05727 0.06816 — 706.699 706.699 0.01473 0.10317 1.26985 739.082 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.31794 0.28479 0.24061 2.76758 0.00000 0.00000 0.78649 0.78649 0.00000 0.18435 0.18435 — 710.698 710.698 0.01936 0.03314 0.05615 721.115 Vendor 0.03423 0.01822 0.87540 0.30657 0.00545 0.01090 0.20728 0.21818 0.01090 0.05727 0.06816 — 707.450 707.450 0.01473 0.10317 0.03288 738.597 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.22863 0.20496 0.14973 2.06429 0.00000 0.00000 0.55413 0.55413 0.00000 0.12977 0.12977 — 526.012 526.012 0.01075 0.02214 0.66678 533.545 Vendor 0.02536 0.01347 0.61066 0.21442 0.00389 0.00778 0.14636 0.15414 0.00778 0.04048 0.04826 — 505.008 505.008 0.01052 0.07369 0.39064 527.622 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04173 0.03740 0.02733 0.37673 0.00000 0.00000 0.10113 0.10113 0.00000 0.02368 0.02368 — 87.0873 87.0873 0.00178 0.00367 0.11039 88.3345 Vendor 0.00463 0.00246 0.11145 0.03913 0.00071 0.00142 0.02671 0.02813 0.00142 0.00739 0.00881 — 83.6098 83.6098 0.00174 0.01220 0.06467 87.3539 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.7. Building Construction (2030)

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

1.12372 0.94034 8.39196 12.8848 0.02340 0.26012 — 0.26012 0.23931 — 0.23931 — 2,396.83 2,396.83 0.09723 0.01945 — 2,405.06 Worker
Vendor
Hauling
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Worker
lVendor
|Hauling
l0.35235 '0.32136

0.03550

0.00000

0.31794

0.03423

0.01950

0.00000

0.28479

0.01822
'0.18078

0.82066

0.00000

0.24061

0.87540
I3.67112

0.29571

0.00000

2.76758

0.30657

0.00000 I0.OOOOO IO'OOOOOIO'OOOOO
Average — Daily
IWorker
[Lajor
:1Hauling
:IA_n—nua|
:lW_—orker
Vendor
IHauIIng
I0.00000

0.00545

0.00000

0.00545
|0.00000

0.22863 I0.20496 I0.14973 I2.O6429 I0.00000 0.02536

0.00000

0.04173

0.00463

0.00000

0.01347

0.00000

0.03740

0.00246

0.00000

0.61066

0.00000

0.02733

0.11145

0.00000

0.21442

0.00000

0.37673

0.03913

0.00000

0.00389

0.00000

0.00071

0.00000

3.7. Building Construction (2030)

3.7.1. Onsite - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants ’Ib/d
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
for dail ,to
I0.00000

0.01090

0.00000

0.01090
|0.00000

0.00778

0.00000

0.00142
I0.00000
'0.78649

0.20728

0.00000

0.78649

0.20728

0.14636

0.00000

0.10113

0.02671
IO.OOOOO
'0.78649

0.21818

0.00000

0.78649

0.21818

0.15414

0.00000

0.10113

0.02813
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 'o.00000I0.18435I0.18435

0.01090

0.00000

0.01090

0.00778

0.00000

0.00142

0.05727

0.00000

0.18435

0.05727

0.04048

0.00000

0.02368

0.00739

0.06816

0.00000

0.18435

0.06816

0.00000 IO'OOOOOI0.OOOOO I0.OOOOO IO.OOOOO

0.00000 IO.55413 I0.55413 I0.OOOOO I0.12977 I0.12977 0.04826

0.00000

0.02368

0.00881
I0.00000 I0.OOOOO I0.OOOOO IO'OOOOO
for annual and GHGS ’Ib/d
Off-Roa 1.12372 0.94034 8.39196 12.8848 0.02340 0.26012 d
Equipm
ent

0.26012
for dai

0.23931
28/62
,MT for annual

0.23931
801.208
706.699

0.00000
710.698
707.450
' 801.208
706.699

0.00000
710.698
707.450
'0.01290

0.01473

0.00000

0.01936

0.01473
'0.03099

0.10317

0.00000

0.03314

0.10317
l2.16176

1.26985

0.00000

0.05615

0.03288
'812.928
739.082

0.00000
721.115
738.597

0.00000 IO'OOOOOIO'OOOOOIO.OOOOO IO'OOOOOIO.OOOOO
526.012 I526.O12 I0.O1075 I0.02214 I0.66678 I533.545 505.008

0.00000

87.0873

83.6098

0.00000
505.008

0.00000

87.0873

83.6098
I0.00000

0.01052

0.00000

0.00178

0.00174

IO'OOOOO

0.07369

0.00000

0.00367

0.01220
I0.00000
2,396.83 2,396.83 0.09723 0.01945

0.39064

0.00000

0.11039

0.06467
I0.00000
527.622

0.00000

88.3345

87.3539
I0.00000
2,405.06
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 29 / 62
Onsite
truck

1.12372 0.94034 8.39196 12.8848 0.02340 0.26012 — 0.26012 0.23931 — 0.23931 — 2,396.83 2,396.83 0.09723 0.01945 — 2,405.06 Onsite
truck

0.66632 0.55758 4.97605 7.64008 0.01387 0.15424 — 0.15424 0.14190 — 0.14190 — 1,421.21 1,421.21 0.05765 0.01153 — 1,426.09 Onsite
truck

0.12160 0.10176 0.90813 1.39432 0.00253 0.02815 — 0.02815 0.02590 — 0.02590 — 235.298 235.298 0.00954 0.00191 — 236.106 Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.7.2. Offsite - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.33514 0.30415 0.17648 3.40939 0.00000 0.00000 0.78649 0.78649 0.00000 0.18435 0.18435 — 786.993 786.993 0.01290 0.00645 1.92313 791.161 Vendor 0.03550 0.01950 0.79440 0.28899 0.00545 0.01090 0.20728 0.21818 0.01090 0.05727 0.06816 — 685.889 685.889 0.00928 0.10253 1.10625 717.782 Onsite
truck
Daily,
Winter
.(Max)
Off-Roa
Id
I Equipm
I ent
Onsite
truck

0.00000

1.12372
|

0.00000
Average —
.Daily
Off-Roa
Id
I Equipm
I ent
Onsite
|truck
lAnnuaI
IOff-Rea Id
I Equipm
ent
Onsite
truck
|0.66632
|
| 0.00000
|O.1216O

0.00000

0.94034

0.00000

0.55758

0.00000

0.10176

0.00000

8.39196

0.00000

4.97605

0.00000

0.90813

0.00000

3.7.2. Offsite - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGS (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Worker
Vendor

0.00000

12.8848

0.00000

7.64008

0.00000

1.39432

0.00000

0.02340

0.00000

0.01387

0.00000

0.00253

0.00000

0.26012

0.00000

0.15424

0.00000

0.02815

0.00000

0.26012

0.00000

0.15424

0.00000

0.02815

0.00000

0.23931

0.00000

0.14190

0.00000

0.02590

0.00000

0.00000
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026

0.00000

0.23931

0.00000

0.14190

0.00000

0.02590

0.00000

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
2,396.83 2,396.83 0.09723

0.00000
1,421.21

0.00000
235.298

0.00000
NBCOZ

0.33514 0.30415 0.17648 3.40939 0.00000 0.00000 0.78649 0.78649 0.00000 0.18435 0.18435 —

0.03550 0.01950 0.79440 0.28899 0.00545 0.01090 0.20728 0.21818 0.01090 0.05727 0.06816 29/62

0.00000
1,421.21

0.00000
235.298

0.00000

0.05765

0.00000

0.00954

0.00000

0.01945

0.00000

0.01153

0.00000

0.00191

0.00000

0.00000
2,405.06

0.00000
1 ,426.09

0.00000
236.106

0.00000
786.993 786.993 0.01290 0.00645 1.92313
685.889 685.889 0.00928 0.10253 1.10625
791.161
717.782
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 30 / 62
Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.27619 0.26758 0.21177 2.58035 0.00000 0.00000 0.78649 0.78649 0.00000 0.18435 0.18435 — 698.258 698.258 0.01721 0.03099 0.04983 707.974 Vendor 0.03423 0.01758 0.84369 0.29921 0.00545 0.01090 0.20728 0.21818 0.01090 0.05727 0.06816 — 686.646 686.646 0.00928 0.10317 0.02875 717.652 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.18087 0.16249 0.10719 1.59572 0.00000 0.00000 0.46000 0.46000 0.00000 0.10772 0.10772 — 428.994 428.994 0.00893 0.01838 0.49317 435.187 Vendor 0.02067 0.01118 0.49136 0.17401 0.00323 0.00646 0.12150 0.12796 0.00646 0.03361 0.04007 — 406.888 406.888 0.00550 0.06080 0.28409 425.427 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03301 0.02965 0.01956 0.29122 0.00000 0.00000 0.08395 0.08395 0.00000 0.01966 0.01966 — 71.0249 71.0249 0.00148 0.00304 0.08165 72.0502 Vendor 0.00377 0.00204 0.08967 0.03176 0.00059 0.00118 0.02217 0.02335 0.00118 0.00613 0.00731 — 67.3649 67.3649 0.00091 0.01007 0.04704 70.4343 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.8. Paving (2030)

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

0.76655 0.64411 6.28020 9.89564 0.01395 0.22035 — 0.22035 0.20272 — 0.20272 — 1,510.63 1,510.63 0.06128 0.01226 — 1,515.81 Hauling
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Worker
lVendor
|Hauling

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

0.27619 0.26758 0.21177 2.58035

0.03423 0.01758 0.84369 0.29921

0.00000 I0.00000 I0.00000 I0.00000
Average — Daily
IWorker
[Lajor
:1Hauling
:IA_n—nua|
:lW_—orker
Vendor
|Hauling

0.00000

0.00545
|0.00000

0.18087 I0.16249 I0.10719 I1.59572 I0.00000 0.02067

0.00000

0.03301

0.00377

0.00000

0.011 18

0.00000

0.02965

0.00204

0.00000

3.8. Paving (2030)

0.49136

0.00000

0.01956

0.08967

0.00000

3.8.1. Onsite - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants ’Ib/d
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Daily,
Winter
.(Max)
Off-Roe 0.76655 0.64411
d
Equipm
ent
for dail

0.17401 0.00323

0.00000 0.00000

0.29122 0.00000

0.03176 0.00059
I0.00000 I0.00000
, to-r1

0.00000

0.01090
|0.00000

0.00646

0.00000

0.00118
I0.00000
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

0.78649 0.78649 0.00000 0.18435 0.18435

0.20728 0.21818 0.01090 0.05727 0.06816

0.12150

0.00000

0.08395

0.02217

IO'OOOOO
for annual and GHGS Ib/d

6.28020 9.89564 0.01395 0.22035 —

0.12796 0.00646

0.00000 0.00000

0.08395 0.00000

0.02335 0.00118
I0.00000 I0.00000

0.22035 0.20272
30/62
for dai

0.03361

0.00000

0.01966

0.00613

0.00000 IO'OOOOOI0.OOOOO I0.OOOOO IO.OOOOO

0.00000 IO.46000 I0.46000 I0.00000 I0.1O772 I0.1O772 0.04007

0.00000

0.01966

0.00731
I0.00000 I0.00000
,MT for annual

0.20272

0.00000
698.258
686.646

0.00000
428.994
406.888

0.00000

71.0249

67.3649

0.00000

0.00000
698.258
686.646
|0.00000
I428.994 406.888

0.00000

71.0249

67.3649
I0.00000

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

0.01721 0.03099 0.04983 707.974

0.00928 0.10317 0.02875 717.652

0.00000 IO.OOOOO IO'OOOOOIO.OOOOO
I0.00893

0.00550

0.00000

0.00148

0.00091
I0.00000

0.06080

0.00000

0.00304

0.01007
I0.00000
1,510.63 1,510.63 0.06128 0.01226

0.28409

0.00000

0.08165

0.04704
I0.00000

0.01838 I0.49317 I435.187 425.427

0.00000

72.0502

70.4343
I0.00000
1,515.81
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 31 / 62
Paving 0.00000 0.00000 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.09301 0.07815 0.76198 1.20065 0.00169 0.02674 — 0.02674 0.02460 — 0.02460 — 183.285 183.285 0.00743 0.00149 — 183.914 Paving 0.00000 0.00000 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.01697 0.01426 0.13906 0.21912 0.00031 0.00488 — 0.00488 0.00449 — 0.00449 — 30.3450 30.3450 0.00123 0.00025 — 30.4491 Paving 0.00000 0.00000 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.8.2. Offsite - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04246 0.04114 0.03256 0.39673 0.00000 0.00000 0.12092 0.12092 0.00000 0.02834 0.02834 — 107.358 107.358 0.00265 0.00477 0.00766 108.852 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 Paving 0.00000 0.00000 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 truck
Average -— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
IDai I
Off-Roa 0.09301 0.07815 0.76198 1.20065 0.00169 0.02674 — 0.02674 0.02460 — 0.02460 183.285 183.285 0.00743 0.00149 — 183.914 Id
lEquipm :
lent Paving 0.00000 0.00000 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — i I IOnsite 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 truck
lAnnuaI '— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
iOff-Roa 0.01697 0.01426 0.13906 0.21912 0.00031 0.00488 — 0.00488 0.00449 — 0.00449 30.3450 30.3450 0.00123 0.00025 — 30.4491 d
lEquipm :
lent Paving 0.00000 0.00000 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Onsite l0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 truck

3.8.2. Offsite - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants Ib/d for dail ,to for annual and GHGS’Ib/d for dai ,MT for annual Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max) I
Daily, |— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter I
(Max)
Worker 0.04246 0.04114 0.03256 0.39673 0.00000 0.00000 0.12092 0.12092 0.00000 0.02834 0.02834 107.358 107.358 0.00265 0.00477 0.00766 108.852 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling IO'OOOOOIO'OOOOOIO'OOOOOIO'OOOOOIO'OOOOOIO'OOOOOIO'OOOOOI0'00000 '0'00000 lo.00000 IO'OOOOO 0.00000IO'OOOOOIO'OOOOOIO'OOOOOIO'OOOOOIO'OOOOO 31/62
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 32 / 62
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00569 0.00511 0.00337 0.05020 0.00000 0.00000 0.01447 0.01447 0.00000 0.00339 0.00339 — 13.4965 13.4965 0.00028 0.00058 0.01552 13.6913 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00104 0.00093 0.00062 0.00916 0.00000 0.00000 0.00264 0.00264 0.00000 0.00062 0.00062 — 2.23449 2.23449 0.00005 0.00010 0.00257 2.26675 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.9. Paving (2031)

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

0.74689 0.62759 6.12541 9.88333 0.01395 0.20981 — 0.20981 0.19303 — 0.19303 — 1,510.63 1,510.63 0.06128 0.01226 — 1,515.81 Paving 0.00000 0.00000 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00569

0.00000

0.00104

0.00000

0.00511

0.00000

0.00093

0.00000

0.00337

0.00000

0.00062

0.00000

0.05020

0.00000

0.00916

0.00000
I0.00000

0.00000

0.00000
I0.00000

0.00000

0.00000
I0.00000

0.01447

0.00000

0.00264

0.00000
I0.00000

0.01447

0.00000

0.00264

0.00000
I0.00000

0.00000

0.00339

0.00000

0.00062

0.00000
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026

0.00339

0.00000

0.00062

0.00000
I0.00000 I0.00000 I0.00000

13.4965

0.00000

2.23449

0.00000

13.4965

0.00000

2.23449

0.00000
I0.00000

0.00028 0.00058 0.01552

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

0.00005 0.00010 0.00257

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
I0.00000 I0.00000 I0.00000

13.6913

0.00000

2.26675

0.00000
mg I0.00000

3.9.Paving(2031)

3.9.1. Onsite - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGS (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) W
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Daily,
Winter
.(Max)
Off-Roa 0.74689 0.62759 6.12541 9.88333 0.01395 0.20981 Id
lEquipm I
lent

0.20981 0.19303 — 0.19303 1,510.63 1,510.63 0.06128 0.01226 1,515.81 Paving 0.00000 0.00000 —
i
Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average —
Daily
32/62
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 33 / 62
Off-Roa 0.06285 0.05281 0.51545 0.83167 0.00117 0.01766 — 0.01766 0.01624 — 0.01624 — 127.118 127.118 0.00516 0.00103 — 127.554 d
Equipm
ent
Paving 0.00000 0.00000 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.01147 0.00964 0.09407 0.15178 0.00021 0.00322 — 0.00322 0.00296 — 0.00296 — 21.0458 21.0458 0.00085 0.00017 — 21.1180 Paving 0.00000 0.00000 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.9.2. Offsite - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04048 0.03949 0.02813 0.36894 0.00000 0.00000 0.12092 0.12092 0.00000 0.02834 0.02834 — 105.604 105.604 0.00231 0.00477 0.00680 107.088 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00343 0.00335 0.00231 0.03262 0.00000 0.00000 0.01004 0.01004 0.00000 0.00235 0.00235 — 9.20705 9.20705 0.00017 0.00008 0.00949 9.24559 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
Paving
I
IOnsite
truck
lAnnuaI
IOff-Rea Id
l Equipm
lent Paving
Onsite
truck
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026

0.06285 0.05281 0.51545 0.83167 0.00117 0.01766 — 0.01766 0.01624 — 0.01624

0.00000 0.00000 — — — — _ _ _ _ _ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

0.01147 0.00964 0.09407 0.15178 0.00021 0.00322 — 0.00296

0.00000 0.00000 — — — — — _ _ _ _

0.00322 0.00296 —
l0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.9.2. Offsite - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGS (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Worker
lVendor
|Hauling

0.04048 0.03949 0.02813 0.36894 0.00000 0.00000 0.12092 0.12092 0.00000 0.02834 0.02834

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

0.00000 IO.OOOOO I0.OOOOO IO'OOOOOIO'OOOOOIO'OOOOOIO'OOOOOIO'OOOOOI0.OOOOO IO'OOOOOIO'OOOOO Avera e — — — — — — — — — — — 9 I I I I I I I I Daily
' Worker
Vendor
Hauling

0.00343 I0.00335 I0.00231 I0.O3262 IO.OOOOO IO.OOOOO IO.O’|OO4 IO.O1OO4 I0.OOOOO I0.00235 I0.00235

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 IO'OOOOOI0.OOOOO IO'OOOOOIO'OOOOOIO'OOOOOIO'OOOOOIO'OOOOOIO'OOOOO|0.00000 |0.00000 IO'OOOOO 33/62
127.118 127.118 0.00516 0.00103 — 127.554

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

21.0458 21.0458 0.00085 0.00017 — 21.1180

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
105.604 105.604 0.00231 0.00477 0.00680 107.088

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

0.00000 IO.OOOOO IO'OOOOOIO.OOOOO IO'OOOOOIO.OOOOO

9.20705 I9.20705 IO.00017 IO.OOOO8 I0.00949 I9.24559 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

0.00000 IO'OOOOOIO'OOOOOIO.OOOOO IO'OOOOOIO.OOOOO
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 34 / 62
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00063 0.00061 0.00042 0.00595 0.00000 0.00000 0.00183 0.00183 0.00000 0.00043 0.00043 — 1.52433 1.52433 0.00003 0.00001 0.00157 1.53071 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.10. Architectural Coating (2031)

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

0.11542 0.09539 0.77690 1.10346 0.00173 0.00943 — 0.00943 0.00867 — 0.00867 — 133.518 133.518 0.00542 0.00108 — 133.976 Architect
ural
Coating
s

44.1013 44.1013 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.11542 0.09539 0.77690 1.10346 0.00173 0.00943 — 0.00943 0.00867 — 0.00867 — 133.518 133.518 0.00542 0.00108 — 133.976 Architect
ural
Coating
s

44.1013 44.1013 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Worker 0.00063 0.00061 0.00042 0.00595 0.00000 0.00000 0.00183 0.00183 0.00000 0.00043 0.00043 — 1.52433 1.52433 0.00003 0.00001 0.00157 1.53071 I\Eflor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 IO'OOOOOIO'OOOOOIO'OOOOOIO'OOOOOIO'OOOOOIO'OOOOO — 0.00000 IO'OOOOOIO'OOOOOI0.OOOOO IO'OOOOOIO.OOOOO 3.10. Architectural Coating (2031)

3.10.1. Onsite - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGS (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Daily, —
Summer
(Max) I
Off-Roa 0.11542 0.09539 0.77690 1.10346 0.00173 0.00943 — 0.00943 0.00867 — 0.00867 — 133.518 133.518 0.00542 0.00108 — 133.976 Id
‘Equipm I
ent
Architect 44.1013 44.1013 — — — — — — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ lural
lCoating l
S
l
lIOnsite 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ltruck
Daily, — — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Winter
'(Max)
Off-Roa 0.11542 0.09539 0.77690 1.10346 0.00173 0.00943 — 0.00943 0.00867 — 0.00867 — 133.518 133.518 0.00542 0.00108 — 133.976 Id
‘Equipm I
ent
Architect 44.1013 44.1013 — — — — — — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ural
Coating
s
34/62
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 35 / 62
Onsite 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 truck
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.02372 0.01960 0.15964 0.22674 0.00035 0.00194 — 0.00194 0.00178 — 0.00178 — 27.4351 27.4351 0.00111 0.00022 — 27.5293 Architect
ural
Coating
s

9.06190 9.06190 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00433 0.00358 0.02913 0.04138 0.00006 0.00035 — 0.00035 0.00033 — 0.00033 — 4.54220 4.54220 0.00018 0.00004 — 4.55779 Architect
ural
Coating
s

1.65380 1.65380 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.10.2. Offsite - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05825 0.05696 0.02996 0.63978 0.00000 0.00000 0.15730 0.15730 0.00000 0.03687 0.03687 — 154.800 154.800 0.00215 0.00129 0.34041 155.579 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Onsite 0.00000
truck
Average —
. Daily
Off-Roa 0.02372
Id
¢ Equipm
ent
Architect 9.06190
|ural
l Coating
s
I |
Onsite 0.00000
truck
lAnnuaI —
IOff-Rea Id
!Equipm
ent |

0.00433
Architect 1 .65380
|ural
l Coating
S
Onsite 0.00000
truck

0.00000

0.01960

9.06190

0.00000

0.00358
1 .65380

0.00000

0.15964

0.00000

0.02913

0.00000

3.10.2. Offsite - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGS (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Worker
Vendor
Hauling

0.05825

0.00000

0.22674

0.00000

0.04138

0.00000

0.00035

0.00000

0.00006

0.00000

0.00194

0.00000

0.00035 —

0.00000 0.00000

0.00194

0.00000 0.00000

0.00035

0.00000

0.00178

0.00000

0.00033

0.00000
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026

0.00000 0.00000

0.00178

0.00000 0.00000

0.00033

0.00000 0.00000

0.00000

27.4351

0.00000

4.54220

0.00000

27.4351

0.00000

4.54220

0.00000

0.00111

0.00000

0.00018

0.00000

0.00022

0.00000

0.00004

0.00000

0.00000 0.00000

27.5293

0.00000 0.00000

4.55779

0.00000 0.00000
|
I0.05696 I0.02996 I0.63978 IO.00000 IO.00000 IO.15730 IO.15730 I0.OOOOO I0.03687 I0.03687 35/62

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 IO'OOOOOIO.OOOOO IO'OOOOOIO'OOOOOIO'OOOOOIO.OOOOO IO'OOOOOIO'OOOOO|0.00000 |0.00000 IO'OOOOO 154.800 I154.800 IO.00215 I0.00129 I0.34041 I155.579 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

0.00000 IO'OOOOOIO'OOOOOIO.OOOOO IO'OOOOOIO.OOOOO
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 36 / 62
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05266 0.05137 0.03659 0.47991 0.00000 0.00000 0.15730 0.15730 0.00000 0.03687 0.03687 — 137.369 137.369 0.00301 0.00620 0.00884 139.300 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01091 0.01064 0.00734 0.10361 0.00000 0.00000 0.03188 0.03188 0.00000 0.00747 0.00747 — 29.2450 29.2450 0.00053 0.00027 0.03014 29.3674 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00199 0.00194 0.00134 0.01891 0.00000 0.00000 0.00582 0.00582 0.00000 0.00136 0.00136 — 4.84185 4.84185 0.00009 0.00004 0.00499 4.86212 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

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

10.2113 9.02483 9.57282 114.075 0.26453 0.15857 23.6795 23.8380 0.14801 5.98529 6.13330 — 27,241.6 27,241.6 1.17407 1.10423 90.9665 27,691.0 Total 10.2113 9.02483 9.57282 114.075 0.26453 0.15857 23.6795 23.8380 0.14801 5.98529 6.13330 — 27,241.6 27,241.6 1.17407 1.10423 90.9665 27,691.0 Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Worker 0.052660.051370.036590.479910.000000.000000.157300.157300.000000.036870.03687 — 137.369137.3690.003010.006200.00884139.300 [Vendor 0.000000.000000.000000.000000.000000.000000.000000.000000.000000.000000.00000 — 0.000000.000000.000000.000000.000000.00000 [Hauling 0.00000Io.00000 Io.00000 Io.00000 I0.00000 l0.00000 I0.00000 IO'OOOOO I0.00000 Io.00000 I0.ooooo — 0.00000I0.00000 Io.00000 Io.00000 lo.00000 I0.00000 Average — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Deny I | I | | | | | | I | | | | | IWorker 0.01091I0.O1064 '0.00734I0.1O361'0.00000'0.00000IO.03188IO.O3188 '0.00000'0.00747'0.00747 — 29.2450 '29.2450'0.00053'0.00027'0.o3014I29.3674 :V_endor 0.000000.000000.000000.000000.000000.000000.000000.000000.000000.000000.00000 — 0.000000.000000.000000.000000.000000.00000 l
IIH_auling 0.000000.000000.000000.000000.000000.000000.000000.000000.000000.000000.00000 — 0.000000.000000.000000.000000.000000.00000 :A:nnual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
l — lvv_orker 0.001990.001940.001340.018910.000000.000000.005820.005820.000000.001360.00136 — 4.84185 4.841850.000090.000040.00499 4.86212

0.000000.000000.000000.000000.000000.000000.000000.000000.000000.000000.00000 — 0.000000.000000.000000.000000.000000.00000

0.000000.000000.000000.000000.000000.00000l0.00000 IO'OOOOO IO'OOOOO IO'OOOOO IO'OOOOO — 0.00000IO'OOOOO IO'OOOOO IO'OOOOO IO'OOOOO I0'00000

4. Operations EmnssnonsDetails

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGS (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Dally, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Single I10.21139.024839.57282114.0750.264530.15857 23.6795 23.83800.148015.985296.13330 — 27,241.6 27,241.61.174071.1042390.9665 27,6910 Family
Housing
Total 10.21139.024839.57282114.0750.264530.15857 23.6795 23.83800.148015.985296.13330 — 27,241.6 27,241.61.174071.1042390.9665 27,6910 36/62
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 37 / 62
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

9.06096 7.84940 11.2024 87.3623 0.23789 0.15867 23.6795 23.8381 0.14811 5.98529 6.13340 — 24,546.3 24,546.3 1.27668 1.19583 2.35839 24,936.9 Total 9.06096 7.84940 11.2024 87.3623 0.23789 0.15867 23.6795 23.8381 0.14811 5.98529 6.13340 — 24,546.3 24,546.3 1.27668 1.19583 2.35839 24,936.9 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

1.64665 1.43409 1.85701 16.3554 0.04380 0.02830 4.16710 4.19540 0.02642 1.05345 1.07987 — 4,097.18 4,097.18 0.19757 0.18598 6.35790 4,163.90 Total 1.64665 1.43409 1.85701 16.3554 0.04380 0.02830 4.16710 4.19540 0.02642 1.05345 1.07987 — 4,097.18 4,097.18 0.19757 0.18598 6.35790 4,163.90

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,415.54 1,415.54 0.22900 0.02776 — 1,429.54 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,415.54 1,415.54 0.22900 0.02776 — 1,429.54 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,415.54 1,415.54 0.22900 0.02776 — 1,429.54 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,415.54 1,415.54 0.22900 0.02776 — 1,429.54 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, —
Winter
(Max)
Single '9.06096
Family
Housing
Total 9.06096
.Annual —
Single
Family
I Housing I
1 .64665
1Total 1 .64665

4.2. Energy

7.84940

7.84940
1 .43409
1 .43409

11.2024

1.85701

87.3623

16.3554

0.23789

0.04380

0.15867

0.02830

23.6795

4.16710

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGS (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)

23.8381

4.19540

0.14811

0.02642

5.98529

1.05345

1.05345
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026

6.13340

6.13340
1 .07987
1 .07987
24,546.3
24,546.3
4,097.18
4,097.18
24,546.3
24,546.3
4,097.18
4,097.18
1 .27668
1 .27668

0.19757

1.19583

0.18598

2.35839

6.35790

6.35790
24,936.9
24,936.9
4,163.90
4,163.90
Daily, —
Summer
(Max)
Single —
Family
Housing
Total —
1Daily, —
Winter
(Max)
Single —
Family
Housing
Total —
Annual —
1,415.54
1,415.54
1,415.54
1,415.54
1,415.54
1,415.54
1,415.54
1,415.54

0.22900

0.02776

0.02776
1 ,429.54
1 ,429.54
1 ,429.54
1 ,429.54
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 38 / 62
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 234.359 234.359 0.03791 0.00460 — 236.677 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 234.359 234.359 0.03791 0.00460 — 236.677

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

0.31157 0.15579 2.66251 1.13298 0.01699 0.21527 — 0.21527 0.21527 — 0.21527 — 3,379.59 3,379.59 0.29909 0.00636 — 3,388.97 Total 0.31157 0.15579 2.66251 1.13298 0.01699 0.21527 — 0.21527 0.21527 — 0.21527 — 3,379.59 3,379.59 0.29909 0.00636 — 3,388.97 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.31157 0.15579 2.66251 1.13298 0.01699 0.21527 — 0.21527 0.21527 — 0.21527 — 3,379.59 3,379.59 0.29909 0.00636 — 3,388.97 Total 0.31157 0.15579 2.66251 1.13298 0.01699 0.21527 — 0.21527 0.21527 — 0.21527 — 3,379.59 3,379.59 0.29909 0.00636 — 3,388.97 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.05686 0.02843 0.48591 0.20677 0.00310 0.03929 — 0.03929 0.03929 — 0.03929 — 559.530 559.530 0.04952 0.00105 — 561.082 Total 0.05686 0.02843 0.48591 0.20677 0.00310 0.03929 — 0.03929 0.03929 — 0.03929 — 559.530 559.530 0.04952 0.00105 — 561.082

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 Single — — — — — — — — — — — — 234.359 234.359 0.03791 0.00460 — 236.677 Family
Housing
ITotaI — — — — — — — — — — — — 234.359 234.359 0.03791 0.00460 — 236.677

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGS (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Daily, —
Summer
(Max)
Single I 0.31157
Family
Housing ' Total IO.31157
1Daily, |—
Winter . (Max) |
Single IO.31157
Family
Housing ' Total 'O.31157
.Annual —
Single
Family
I Housing .

0.05686

0.15579

0.02843

2.66251

0.48591
I Total 0.05686 0.02843 0.48591 l—

1.13298

0.20677

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

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

0.01699

0.00310

0.21527

0.03929

0.21527

0.03929

0.21527

0.03929

0.03929
38/62

0.21527

0.03929

0.03929
3,379.59 3,379.59 0.29909
3,379.59 3,379.59 0.29909
3,379.59 3,379.59 0.29909
3,379.59 3,379.59 0.29909
559.530 559.530 0.04952
559.530 559.530 0.04952

0.00636

0.00105

0.00105
3,388.97
3,388.97
3,388.97
3,388.97
561.082
561.082
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 39 / 62
Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 Consum
er
Product
s

11.3088 11.3088 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.90619 0.90619 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

1.43848 1.36287 0.14840 15.3658 0.00067 0.00751 — 0.00751 0.00566 — 0.00566 — 41.1072 41.1072 0.00172 0.00034 — 41.2519 Total 13.6535 13.5779 0.14840 15.3658 0.00067 0.00751 — 0.00751 0.00566 — 0.00566 0.00000 41.1072 41.1072 0.00172 0.00034 — 41.2519 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 Consum
er
Product
s

11.3088 11.3088 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.90619 0.90619 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 12.2150 12.2150 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 Daily, —
Summer
(Max)
Hearths 0.00000
Consum 11.3088 |er I
|Product
3 Architect
ural
lCoating
.3

0.90619
Landsca 1.43848
pe
Equipm
Ient Total 13.6535
I Daily, —
Winter
(Max) ' Hearths 0.00000
Consum 11.3088
|er I
|Product
lSArchitect 0.90619
ural
Coating
3 Total 12.2150
Annual —
Hearths 0.00000

0.00000
1 1.3088

0.90619

1.36287

13.5779

0.00000
1 1.3088

0.90619

12.2150

0.00000

0.14840

0.00000

15.3658

0.00000

0.00067

0.00000

0.00751

0.00000

0.00751

0.00000

0.00566

0.00000

0.00000
39/62

0.00000

0.00566

0.00000

41.1072

0.00000

41.1072

0.00000

0.00172

0.00000

0.00034

0.00000

41.2519

0.00000

0.00000
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 40 / 62
Consum 2.06386 2.06386 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
er
Product
s
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.16538 0.16538 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

0.12946 0.12266 0.01336 1.38292 0.00006 0.00068 — 0.00068 0.00051 — 0.00051 — 3.35627 3.35627 0.00014 0.00003 — 3.36808 Total 2.35870 2.35190 0.01336 1.38292 0.00006 0.00068 — 0.00068 0.00051 — 0.00051 0.00000 3.35627 3.35627 0.00014 0.00003 — 3.36808

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 20.9257 96.0564 116.982 2.16123 0.05286 — 186.767 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 20.9257 96.0564 116.982 2.16123 0.05286 — 186.767 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 20.9257 96.0564 116.982 2.16123 0.05286 — 186.767 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 20.9257 96.0564 116.982 2.16123 0.05286 — 186.767 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 Consum 2.06386 2.06386 — — — — — — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ er Product lSArchitect 0.16538 0.16538 — — — — — — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ural
lCoating
‘sLandsca 0.12946 0.12266 0.01336 1.38292 0.00006 0.00068 — 0.00068 0.00051 — 0.00051 — 3.35627 3.35627 0.00014 0.00003 — 3.36808 pe
Equipm
ent
Total 2.35870 2.35190 0.01336 1.38292 0.00006 0.00068 — 0.00068 0.00051 — 0.00051 0.00000 3.35627 3.35627 0.00014 0.00003 — 3.36808

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants Ib/d for dail , to for annual‘ and GHGS ’Ib/d for dai , MT for annual Daily, — — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Summer
(Max)
Single — — — — — — — — — — — 20.9257 96.0564 116.982 2.16123 0.05286 — 186.767 Family
Housing
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 20.9257 96.0564 116.982 2.16123 0.05286 — 186.767 lDai, — — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Winter
(Max)
Single — — — — — — — — — — — 20.9257 96.0564 116.982 2.16123 0.05286 — 186.767 Family
Housing
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 20.9257 96.0564 116.982 2.16123 0.05286 — 186.767 Annual — — — — — — — — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 41 / 62
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 3.46449 15.9032 19.3677 0.35782 0.00875 — 30.9213 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 3.46449 15.9032 19.3677 0.35782 0.00875 — 30.9213

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 129.714 0.00000 129.714 12.9644 0.00000 — 453.824 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 129.714 0.00000 129.714 12.9644 0.00000 — 453.824 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 129.714 0.00000 129.714 12.9644 0.00000 — 453.824 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 129.714 0.00000 129.714 12.9644 0.00000 — 453.824 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 21.4756 0.00000 21.4756 2.14641 0.00000 — 75.1357 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 21.4756 0.00000 21.4756 2.14641 0.00000 — 75.1357

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
Single — — — — —
Family
Housing
Total — — — — —

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 — — — 3.46449 15.9032 19.3677 0.35782 0.00875 — 30.9213 — — — 3.46449 15.9032 19.3677 0.35782 0.00875 — 30.9213 Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGS (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Daily, — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Single — — — — —
Family
Housing
Total — — — — —
1Daily, — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Single — — — — —
Family
Housing
Total — — — — —
.Annual — — — — —
Single — — — — —
Family
I Housing
l Total — — — — —

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
129.714
129.714
129.714
129.714

21.4756

0.00000

0.00000
129.714
129.714
129.714
129.714

21.4756

12.9644

2.14641

0.00000

0.00000
453.824
453.824
453.824
453.824

75.1357

75.1357
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 42 / 62

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3.78476 3.78476
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3.78476 3.78476
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3.78476 3.78476
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3.78476 3.78476
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.62661 0.62661
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.62661 0.62661

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGS (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Daily, — — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Summer
(Max)
Single — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3.78476 3.78476
Family
Housing
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3.784763.78476
Daily, — — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Winter
(Max)
Single — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3.78476 3.78476
Family
Housing
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3.78476 3.78476
.Annual — — — — — — — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Single — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.62661 0.62661 Family
Housing
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.62661 0.62661

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants Ib/d for dail , to for annual‘ and GHGs ’Ib/d for dai , MT for annual’ 42/62
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 43 / 62
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

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

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 Daily, — — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Summer
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
,Daily, — — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Winter
l(Max)
“ Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Total — — — — — — — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants Ib/d for dail , to for annual‘ and GHGs ’Ib/d for dai , MT for annual Daily, — — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Summer
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
,Daily, — — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Winter
l(Max)
“ Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Total — — — — — — — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated
43/62
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 44 / 62
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Daily, — — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Summer
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.Daily, — — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Winter
l(Max)
‘ Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Total — — — — — — — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants ’Ib/d for dail , to for annual‘ and GHGS ’Ib/d for dai , MT for annual Daily, — — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Summer
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.Daily, — — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Winter
'(Max)
‘ Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Total — — — — — — — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 44/62
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 45 / 62

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

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGS (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Daily, — — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Summer
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
,Daily, — — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Winter
l(Max)
“ Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Total — — — — — — — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGS (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Daily, — — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Summer
(Max)
Avoided — — — — — — — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Subtotal — — — — — — — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Sequest — — — — — — — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ered
Subtotal — — — — — — — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
I Remove — — — — — — — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ d
Subtotal — — — — — — — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
45/62
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 46 / 62
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/1/2026 2/25/2026 5.00000 40.0000 — Grading Grading 2/26/2026 7/29/2026 5.00000 110.000 —
Building Construction Building Construction 7/30/2026 10/30/2030 5.00000 1,110.00 — Daily, — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Avoided — — — —
Subtotal — — — —
Sequest — — — —
ered
Subtotal — — — —
I Remove — — — —
d
Subtotal — — — —
Annual — — — —
Avoided — — — —
Subtotal — — — —
Sequest — — — —
ered
Subtotal — — — —
I Remove — — — —
d
Subtotal — — — — 5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Site Preparation Site Preparation
Grading Grading
Building Construction Building Construction
1/1/2026
2/26/2026
7/30/2026
2/25/2026
7/29/2026
10/30/2030
46/62
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026

5.00000

40.0000
110.000
1,110.00
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 47 / 62
Paving Paving 10/31/2030 2/12/2031 5.00000 75.0000 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 2/13/2031 5/28/2031 5.00000 75.0000 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00000 8.00000 367.000 0.40000 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 4.00000 8.00000 84.0000 0.37000
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 2.00000 8.00000 36.0000 0.38000 Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 148.000 0.41000 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 367.000 0.40000 Grading Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00000 8.00000 423.000 0.48000 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.00000 8.00000 84.0000 0.37000
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.000000 7.00000 367.000 0.29000 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00000 8.00000 82.0000 0.20000 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 14.0000 0.74000 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00000 7.00000 84.0000 0.37000
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 46.0000 0.45000 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00000 8.00000 81.0000 0.42000 Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00000 8.00000 89.0000 0.36000 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00000 8.00000 36.0000 0.38000 Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.000000 6.00000 37.0000 0.48000

5.3. Construction Vehicles
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 Paving Paving 10/31/2030 2/12/2031 5.00000 75.0000
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 2/13/2031 5/28/2031 5.00000 75.0000

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00000 8.00000 367.000 0.40000 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back Diesel Average 4.00000 8.00000 84.0000 0.37000 ' Ihoes
!Grading Excavators Diesel Average 2.00000 8.00000 36.0000 0.38000 IGrading Graders Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 148.000 0.41000 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 367.000 0.40000 l Grading Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00000 8.00000 423.000 0.48000 iGrading ITractors/Loaders/Back Diesel Average 2.00000 8.00000 84.0000 0.37000 hoes
Wig Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.000000 7.00000 367.000 0.29000 IBJding Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00000 8.00000 82.0000 0.20000 Ifliing Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 14.0000 0.74000 IBuilding Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back Diesel Average 3.00000 7.00000 84.0000 0.37000 hoes
mm ConéEEtion Welder: Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 46.0000 0.45000 IPaving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00000 8.00000 81.0000 0.42000 Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00000 8.00000 89.0000 0.36000 IPaving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00000 8.00000 36.0000 0.38000 Maura Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.000000 6.00000 37.0000 0.48000

5.3. Construction Vehicles
47/62
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 48 / 62

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Site Preparation Worker 17.5000 11.4100 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 8.53000 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00000 20.0000 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading Worker 20.0000 11.4100 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 8.53000 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00000 20.0000 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction Worker 97.5600 11.4100 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Building Construction Vendor 28.9699 8.53000 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00000 20.0000 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving Worker 15.0000 11.4100 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 8.53000 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00000 20.0000 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating Worker 19.5120 11.4100 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Architectural Coating Vendor — 8.53000 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00000 20.0000 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water unpaved roads twice daily 55% 55%
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Site Preparation Worker 17.5000 11.4100 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 8.53000 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00000 20.0000 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Gréding Worker 20.0000 11.4100 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 8.53000 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00000 20.0000 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Bu-ildingConstruction Worker 97.5600 11.4100 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Building Construction Vendor 28.9699 8.53000 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00000 20.0000 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
PJng Worker 15.0000 11.4100 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
I Paving Vendor — 8.53000 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00000 20.0000 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
AFhitectural Coating Worker 19.5120 1 1.4100 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Architectural Coating Vendor — 8.53000 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00000 20.0000 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied PM1O Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water unpaved roads twice daily 55% 55%
48/ 62
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 49 / 62
Limit vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 25 mph 44% 44%

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 1,070,111 356,704 0.00000 0.00000 —

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) Site Preparation — — 60.0000 0.00000 0.00000
Grading — — 330.000 0.00000 0.00000
Paving 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 2.98623

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 3 74% 74%

5.7. Construction Paving
Phase Name Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Paving Single Family Housing 2.98623 0%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2026 0.00000 203.983 0.03300 0.00400
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 Limit vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 25 mph 44% 44%

5.5. Architectural Coatings
ArchitecturalCoating 1,070,111 356,704 0.00000 0.00000 —

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Site Preparation — — 60.0000 0.00000 0.00000
Grading — — 330.000 0.00000 0.00000
i
IPaving 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 2.98623

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Water Exposed Area 3 74% 74%

5.7. Construction Paving
Paving Single Family Housing 2.98623

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (Ib/MWh)
0%
2026 0.00000 203.983
49/62

0.03300 0.00400
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 50 / 62
2027 0.00000 203.983 0.03300 0.00400
2028 0.00000 203.983 0.03300 0.00400
2029 0.00000 203.983 0.03300 0.00400
2030 0.00000 203.983 0.03300 0.00400
2031 0.00000 203.983 0.03300 0.00400

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Single Family
Housing
2,558.24 2,585.34 2,317.05 922,594 33,426.8 33,780.9 30,275.3 12,054,921

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths
Land Use Hearth Type Unmitigated (number) Mitigated (number) Single Family Housing Wood Fireplaces 0 0
Single Family Housing Gas Fireplaces 0 0
Single Family Housing Propane Fireplaces 0 0
Single Family Housing Electric Fireplaces 0 0
Single Family Housing No Fireplaces 171 171
Single Family Housing Conventional Wood Stoves 0 0
Single Family Housing Catalytic Wood Stoves 0 0
Single Family Housing Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0 0
Single Family Housing Pellet Wood Stoves 0 0

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031

0.00000

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Single Family 2,558.24
Housing

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths
2,317.05
203.983
203.983
203.983
203.983
203.983
922,594

0.03300

0.03300
33,4268
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026

0.00400

0.00400
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year 2,585.34 30,2753
Single Family Housing
Single Family Housing
Single Family Housing
Single Family Housing
Single Family Housing
Single Family Housing
Single Family Housing
we Family Housing
we Family Housing

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Wood Fireplaces
Gas Fireplaces
Propane Fireplaces
Electric Fireplaces
No Fireplaces
Conventional Wood Stoves
Catalytic Wood Stoves
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves
Pellet Wood Stoves 0000
171
50/62 0000
1710000
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 51 / 62
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
1,070,111 356,704 0.00000 0.00000 —

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00000
Summer Days day/yr 180.000

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Single Family Housing 2,532,924 203.983 0.0330 0.0040 10,545,239

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Single Family Housing 10,920,216 53,255,514

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Single Family Housing 240.683 0.00000
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 1,070,111 356,704 0.00000 0.00000 —

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Snow Days day/yr 0.00000
Summer Days day/yr . 180.000

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electrici k and COZ and CH4 and N20 and Natural Gas kBTU fl tricity (kWh/yr) COZ — N20 Natural Gas (kBTU/yr)
SingleFamilyHousing 2,532,924 203.983 0.0330 0.0040 10,545,239

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Single Family Housing 10,920,216 53,255,514

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Single Family Housing 240.683 0.00000
51/62
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 52 / 62

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Single Family Housing Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088.00 0.00225 2.50000 2.50000 10.00000
Single Family Housing Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430.00 0.11538 0.60000 0.00000 1.000000

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

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

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Refrigerant Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Single Family Housing Average room A/C & R-410A
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
Single Family Housing Household R-134a
|refrigerators and/or
freezers

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
2,088.00 0.00225 2.50000 2.50000 10.00000
1,430.00 0.11538 0.60000 0.00000 1.000000
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
52/62
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 53 / 62

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

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

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

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

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 30.8300 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 0.25000 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 0.00000 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

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

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

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

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

Temperature and Extreme Heat 30.8300 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 0.25000 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm ISea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
:Wildfire 0.00000 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040—2059average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

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

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

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
53/62
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 54 / 62
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 4 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding 0 0 0 N/A
Drought 0 0 0 N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

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

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

Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 Climate Hazard Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 4
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
WiEifire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding 0 0 0 N/A
Drought 0 0 0 N/A
{Sngwpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
.Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

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

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
54/62
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 55 / 62
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

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

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 62.7256
AQ-PM 37.8096
AQ-DPM 15.2209
Drinking Water 75.1717
Lead Risk Housing 78.0214
Pesticides 86.6552
Toxic Releases 17.7669
Traffic 10.3125
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 58.1747
Groundwater 71.7915
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 7.34613
Impaired Water Bodies 58.6938
Solid Waste 0.00000
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 87.9237
Cardio-vascular 57.6147
Low Birth Weights 66.6410
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures. 6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

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

Exposure Indicators
AQ-Ozone 62.7256
ACE-EM 37.8096
AQ-—DPM 15.2209
Dri-rl1kingWater 75.1717
Lead Risk Housing 78.0214
Pesticides 86.6552
Togo Releases 17.7669
Tréffic 10.3125
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 58.1747
Groundwater 71.7915
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 7.34613
Impaired Water Bodies 58.6938
Solid Waste 0.00000
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 87.9237
Cardio-vascular 57.6147
Low Birth Weights 66.6410
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators
55/62
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 56 / 62
Education 99.8481
Housing 77.5792
Linguistic 99.8782
Poverty 99.2714
Unemployment 99.5575

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

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 0.30796869
Employed 2.014628513
Median HI 3.413319646
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 0.808417811
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 19.49185166
Transportation —
Auto Access 12.42140382
Active commuting 40.07442577
Social —
2-parent households 60.47735147
Voting 1.360195047
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 34.0177082
Park access 30.89952521
Retail density 1.809316053
Supermarket access 61.52957783
Educafion
Housing
Linguistic
|Poverty
l
|Unemployment

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

99.8481

77.5792

99.8782

99.2714

99.5575
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

Economic
Above Poverty
Employed
Median HI
Educafion
Bachelor's or higher
High school enrollment
Preschool enrollment
Transportation
Auto Access
Active commuting
I Social
l
2—parenthouseholds
Voting
Neighborhood
Alcohol availability
Park access
Retail density
Supermarket access
—— Result for Project Census Tract

0.30796869

2.014628513

3.413319646

0.80841781 1
100

19.49185166

12.42140382

40.07442577

60.47735147

1.360195047

34.0177082

30.89952521

1.809316053

61.52957783
56/62
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 57 / 62
Tree canopy 3.27216733
Housing —
Homeownership 22.10958553
Housing habitability 9.482869242
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 2.386757346 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 44.14217888
Uncrowded housing 20.37726165
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 2.463749519
Arthritis 0.0
Asthma ER Admissions 12.0
High Blood Pressure 0.0
Cancer (excluding skin) 0.0
Asthma 0.0
Coronary Heart Disease 0.0
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 27.7
Cognitively Disabled 85.7
Physically Disabled 78.7
Heart Attack ER Admissions 7.0
Mental Health Not Good 0.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0
Obesity 0.0
Pedestrian Injuries 90.3
Physical Health Not Good 0.0
Stroke 0.0
Health Risk Behaviors —
Tree canopy
Housing
Homeownership
Housing habitability
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden
Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden
Uncrowded housing
Health Outcomes
Insured adults
Arthritis
Asthma ER Admissions
High Blood Pressure
Cancer (excluding skin)
Asthma
Cc;ronary Heart Disease
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Diagnosed Diabetes
Life Expectancy at Birth
Cognitively Disabled
Physically Disabled
Heart Attack ER Admissions
Mental Health Not Good
Chronic Kidney Disease
Obesity
Pedestrian Injuries
Prgsical Health Not Good
Stroke
Health Risk Behaviors

3.27216733

22.10958553

9.482869242

2.386757346

44.14217888

20.37726165

2.463749519

0.0 12.0

0.0 0.0

27.7 85.7

78.7 7.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 90.3

0.0 0.0
57/62
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 58 / 62
Binge Drinking 0.0
Current Smoker 0.0
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 14.1
Elderly 89.5
English Speaking 0.2
Foreign-born 96.1
Outdoor Workers 0.1
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 74.7
Traffic Density 9.6
Traffic Access 0.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 99.4
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 9.1

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 85.0000 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 1.000000 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) Yes Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) Yes Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No Binge Drinking
Current Smoker
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity
Climate Change Exposures
Wildfire Risk
SLR Inundation Area
Ctren
EId—erly
Engish Speaking
Foreign-born
Outdoor Workers
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity
Impervious Surface Cover
Traffic Density
TrafficAccess
Other Indices
Hardship
IOther Decision Support
I2016 Voting

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a)
Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b)
Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617)

0.0 0.0

0.0 14.1

89.5 0.2

96.1 0.1

74.7 9.6

0.0 99.4

9.1 85.0000

1.000000
Yes
Yes
No
58/62
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 59 / 62
a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

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

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

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

8. User Changes to Default Data

8.1. Justifications
Screen Justification
Land Use Acreage adjusted to match Project Description
Construction: Construction Phases Removed Demo
Operations: Fleet Mix Adjusted to match SJVAPCD Approved Residential Fleet Mix for 2026 Operations: Hearths No Hearths or Wood Stoves

8.3. Land Use
Model Parameter Units Default Value New Value
Lot Area acre 87.9870 53.4300

8.4. Construction

8.4.1. Construction Phases
Phase Type Phase Name Model Parameter Default Value New Value Site Preparation Site Preparation Start Date 4/10/2026 1/1/2026 Site Preparation Site Preparation End Date 6/5/2026 2/25/2026 Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

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

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

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

8. User Changes to Default Data

8.1. Justifications
Land Use Acreage adjusted to match Project Description
Construction: Construction Phases Removed Demo
|Etions: Fleet Mix Adjusted to match SJVAPCD Approved Residential Fleet Mix for 2026 IErations: Hearths No Hearths or Wood Stoves

8.3. Land Use
Lot Area acre 87.9870 53.4300

8.4. Construction

8.4.1. Construction Phases
Site Preparation Site Preparation Start Date 4/10/2026 1/1/2026 ISite Preparation Site Preparation IEnd Date 6/5/2026 I2/25/2026 59/ 62 Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 60 / 62
Grading Grading Start Date 6/6/2026 2/26/2026
Grading Grading End Date 11/7/2026 7/29/2026
Building Construction Building Construction Start Date 11/8/2026 7/30/2026 Building Construction Building Construction End Date 2/9/2031 10/30/2030 Paving Paving Start Date 2/10/2031 10/31/2030
Paving Paving End Date 5/26/2031 2/12/2031
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating Start Date 5/27/2031 2/13/2031 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating End Date 9/9/2031 5/28/2031

8.5. Operations

8.5.1. Mobile Sources

8.5.1.2. Fleet Mix
Land Use Season Model Parameter Units Default Value New Value Single Family Housing A Heavy-Heavy-Duty Trucks % 2% 2% Single Family Housing A Passenger Cars % 47% 52%
Single Family Housing A Light-Duty Trucks 1 % 4% 21%
Single Family Housing A Light-Duty Trucks 2 % 21% 17%
Single Family Housing A Light Heavy-Duty Trucks 1 % 3% < 0.5% Single Family Housing A Light Heavy-Duty Trucks 2 % 1% < 0.5% Single Family Housing A Motorcycles % 2% < 0.5%
Single Family Housing A Medium-Duty Trucks % 18% 6%
Single Family Housing A Motor Homes % < 0.5% < 0.5%
Single Family Housing A Medium-Heavy-Duty Trucks % 1% 1% Single Family Housing A Other Buses % < 0.5% 0%
Single Family Housing A School Buses % < 0.5% < 0.5%
Single Family Housing A Urban Buses % < 0.5% < 0.5%
Single Family Housing S Heavy-Heavy-Duty Trucks % 2% 2% Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 Grading Grading Start Date 6/6/2026 2/26/2026
Grading Grading End Date 11/7/2026 7/29/2026
Bu-ildingConstruction Building Construction Start Date 11/8/2026 7/30/2026 Buiding Construction Building Construction End Date 2/9/2031 10/30/2030 PJng Paving Start Date 2/10/2031 10/31/2030
Pavfilg Paving End Date 5/26/2031 2/12/2031
IAFhitectural Coating Architectural Coating Start Date 5/27/2031 2/13/2031 :flc—hitecturalCoating Architectural Coating End Date 9/9/2031 5/28/2031

8.5. Operations

8.5.1. Mobile Sources

8.5.1.2. Fleet Mix
Single Family Housing Heavy-Heavy-Duty Trucks 2% 2%
Single Family Housing A Passenger Cars % 47% 52%
Single Family Housing A Light-Duty Trucks 1 % 4% 21%
Single Family Housing A Light-Duty Trucks 2 % 21% 17%
Single Family Housing A Light Heavy-Duty Trucks 1 % 3% < 0.5% Single Family Housing A Light Heavy—Duty Trucks 2 % 1% < 0.5% Single Family Housing A Motorcycles % 2% < 0.5%
Single Family Housing A Medium-Duty Trucks % 18% 6%
Single Family Housing A Motor Homes % < 0.5% < 0.5%
Single Family Housing A Medium-Heavy-Duty Trucks % 1% 1% Single Family Housing A Other Buses % < 0.5% 0%
Single Family Housing A School Buses % < 0.5% < 0.5%
Single Family Housing A Urban Buses % < 0.5% < 0.5%
Single Family Housing 8 Heavy-Heavy—DutyTrucks % 2% 2%
60/62
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 61 / 62
Single Family Housing S Passenger Cars % 47% 52%
Single Family Housing S Light-Duty Trucks 1 % 4% 21%
Single Family Housing S Light-Duty Trucks 2 % 21% 17%
Single Family Housing S Light Heavy-Duty Trucks 1 % 3% < 0.5% Single Family Housing S Light Heavy-Duty Trucks 2 % 1% < 0.5% Single Family Housing S Motorcycles % 2% < 0.5%
Single Family Housing S Medium-Duty Trucks % 18% 6%
Single Family Housing S Motor Homes % < 0.5% < 0.5%
Single Family Housing S Medium-Heavy-Duty Trucks % 1% 1% Single Family Housing S Other Buses % < 0.5% 0%
Single Family Housing S School Buses % < 0.5% < 0.5%
Single Family Housing S Urban Buses % < 0.5% < 0.5%
Single Family Housing W Heavy-Heavy-Duty Trucks % 2% 2% Single Family Housing W Passenger Cars % 47% 52%
Single Family Housing W Light-Duty Trucks 1 % 4% 21%
Single Family Housing W Light-Duty Trucks 2 % 21% 17%
Single Family Housing W Light Heavy-Duty Trucks 1 % 3% < 0.5% Single Family Housing W Light Heavy-Duty Trucks 2 % 1% < 0.5% Single Family Housing W Motorcycles % 2% < 0.5%
Single Family Housing W Medium-Duty Trucks % 18% 6%
Single Family Housing W Motor Homes % < 0.5% < 0.5%
Single Family Housing W Medium-Heavy-Duty Trucks % 1% 1% Single Family Housing W Other Buses % < 0.5% 0%
Single Family Housing W School Buses % < 0.5% < 0.5%
Single Family Housing W Urban Buses % < 0.5% < 0.5%

8.5.2. Area Sources
Single Family Housing
Single Family Housing
Single Family Housing
Single Family Housing
Single Family Housing
Single Family Housing
Single Family Housing
Single Family Housing
Single Family Housing
Single Family Housing
Single Family Housing
Single Family Housing
Single Family Housing
Single Family Housing
Single Family Housing
Single Family Housing
Single Family Housing
Single Family Housing
Single Family Housing
Single Family Housing
Single Family Housing
Single Family Housing
Single Family Housing
me Family Housing
ISingle Family Housing

8.5.2. Area Sources
Passenger Cars
Light-Duty Trucks 1
Light-Duty Trucks 2
Light Heavy-Duty Trucks 1
Light Heavy—Duty Trucks 2
Motorcycles
Medium-Duty Trucks
Motor Homes
Medium-Heavy-Duty Trucks
Other Buses
School Buses
Urban Buses
Heavy-Heavy—Duty Trucks
Passenger Cars
Light-Duty Trucks 1
Light-Duty Trucks 2
Light Heavy-Duty Trucks 1
Light Heavy—Duty Trucks 2
Motorcycles
Medium-Duty Trucks
Motor Homes
Medium-Heavy-Duty Trucks
Other Buses
School Buses
Urban Buses
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
61/62
47%
4%
21%
3%
1%
2%
18%
< 0.5%
1%
< 0.5%
< 0.5%
< 0.5%
2%
47%
4%
21%
3%
1%
2%
18%
< 0.5%
1%
< 0.5%
< 0.5%
< 0.5%
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 52%
21%
17%
< 0.5%
< 0.5%
< 0.5%
6%
< 0.5%
1%
0%
< 0.5%
< 0.5%
2%
52%
21%
17%
< 0.5%
< 0.5%
< 0.5%
6%
< 0.5%
1%
0%
< 0.5%
< 0.5%
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026 62 / 62

8.5.2.1. Hearths
Land Use Model Parameter Default Value New Value
Single Family Housing Gas Fireplaces 136 0
Single Family Housing No Fireplaces 136 171
Single Family Housing Catalytic Wood Stoves 14 0
Single Family Housing Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 14 0
Mendota Residential 271 Lots v2 Detailed Report, 5/26/2026

8.5.2.1. Hearths
S—ingleFamily Housing G—asFireplaces
Single Family Housing No Fireplaces 136 171
Single Family Housing Catalytic Wood Stoves 14 0
Single Family Housing Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 14 0
62/62

APPENDIX B

HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT MODELING FILES (ELECTRONIC) APPENDIXB HEALTHRISKASSESSMENTMODELING.FILES(ELECTRONIC)
Appendix
Appendix B - Biological Evaluation

Appendix
Appendix B- Biological Evaluation
.

BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION

MENDOTA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

FRESNO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Prepared by
LIVE OAK ASSOCIATES, INC.

Austin Pearson, Vice President
Rebekah Jensen, Senior Project Manager and Ecologist
Prepared for:

Joseph Crown
Joseph Crown Construction
5320 E. Pine Avenue
Fresno, CA 93727
November 21, 2025 2992-01

LIVE OAK
——ASSOC|ATES, INC.

BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION

MENDOTA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

FRESNO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Prepared by
LIVE OAK ASSOCIATES, INC.

Austin Pearson, Vice President
Rebekah Jensen, Senior Project Manager and Ecologist
Prepared for:

Joseph Crown
Joseph Crown Construction
5320 E. Pine Avenue
Fresno, CA 93727
November 21, 2025 2992-01

OAKHURST SAN JOSE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
P.O. Box 2697 | 39930 Sierra Way #3 6840 Via Del Oro, Suite 220 PO. Box 7314 Oakhurst,CA93544 San Jose,CA95119 SouthLakeTahoe,CA96158 P:(559} 642-4880IF:{559) 642-4883 (403} 224-8300 (408)281-5885 WWW.LOAINC.COM
ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Live Oak Associates, Inc. (LOA) investigated the biological resources of an approximately 58- acre parcel in Fresno County, California that is proposed for a residential subdivision, and evaluated potential project-related impacts to such resources pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This site is located north of Belmont Avenue and immediately west of the limits of the City of Mendota.

The project site was surveyed on October 7, 2025 for its biotic habitats, the plants and animals occurring in those habitats, and significant habitat values that may be protected by state and federal law. At the time, the site consisted of vacant land, most of which had been recently disked and was barren of vegetation. Where vegetated, the site supported a variety of weedy grasses and forbs typical of a disturbed agricultural environment. The project site did not contain wildlife movement corridors, sensitive natural communities, designated critical habitat, or state or federally protected waters or wetlands.

The project has the potential to significantly impact one special status animal, the Swainson’s hawk, through construction-related disturbance of active nests. Project impacts are also considered potentially significant for other nesting birds and raptors. Impacts to the Swainson’s hawk and other nesting birds and raptors will be reduced to a less than significant level by either constructing the project outside of the nesting season or, if construction must occur during the nesting season, conducting preconstruction surveys and avoiding active nests.

The project will either have no impact or a less than significant impact, as defined by CEQA, on the following biotic resources: all 14 special status plant species known to occur in the region; 20 special status animal species that are not expected to occur on site; six special status animal species that may forage on site but would not breed, nest, or communally roost on or near enough to the site that they would be vulnerable to construction-related disturbance during these sensitive activities; jurisdictional waters; wildlife movement corridors; and sensitive natural communities and designated critical habitat. The project appears to be consistent with Fresno County General Plan policies related to biological resources and is not subject to any Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans.
5%

The project site was surveyed 011October 7, 2025 for its biotic habitats, the plants and animals occurring in those habitats, and significant habitat values that may be protected by state and federal law. At the time, the site consisted of vacant land, most of which had been recently disked and was barren of vegetation. Where vegetated, the site supported a variety of weedy grasses and forbs typical of a disturbed agricultural environment. The project site did not contain Wildlife movement corridors, sensitive natural communities, designated critical habitat, or state or federally protected waters or wetlands.

The project will either have no impact or a less than significant impact, as defined by CEQA, on the following biotic resources: all 14 special status plant species known to occur in the region; 20 special status animal species that are not expected to occur on site; siX special status animal species that may forage on site but would not breed, nest, or communally roost on or near enough to the site that they would be vulnerable to construction-related disturbance during these sensitive activities; jurisdictional waters; Wildlife movement corridors; and sensitive natural communities and designated critical habitat. The project appears to be consistent with Fresno County General Plan policies related to biological resources and is not subject to any Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans.
ii
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... ii

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................. 1

1.2 REPORT OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................... 1

2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................................................................... 5

2.1 REGIONAL SETTING ..................................................................................................... 5

2.2 PROJECT SITE ................................................................................................................ 5

2.3 BIOTIC HABITATS / LAND USES ................................................................................. 6

2.4 SPECIAL STATUS PLANTS AND ANIMALS .............................................................. 8

2.5 JURISDICTIONAL WATERS ....................................................................................... 17

2.6 DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT ........................................................................ 17

2.7 CALIFORNIA SENSITIVE NATURAL COMMUNITIES ........................................ 18

2.8 WILDLIFE MOVEMENT CORRIDORS..................................................................... 18

3.0 RELEVANT GOALS, POLICIES, AND LAWS ............................................................. 19

3.1 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ................................................ 19

3.2 OTHER RELEVANT LAWS AND POLICIES ............................................................ 20

3.2.1 Fresno County General Plan ....................................................................................... 20

3.2.2 Threatened and Endangered Species .......................................................................... 21

3.2.3 California Fully Protected Species ............................................................................. 22

3.2.4 Migratory Birds .......................................................................................................... 22

3.2.5 Birds of Prey ............................................................................................................... 22

3.2.6 Nesting Birds .............................................................................................................. 23

3.2.7 Habitat Conservation Plans and Natural Community Conservation Plans ................. 23

3.2.8 Wetlands and Other Jurisdictional Waters ................................................................. 23

4.0 IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS ...................................................................................... 26

4.1 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT PROJECT IMPACTS ............................................ 26

4.1.1 Potential Project Impacts to Nesting Raptors and Migratory Birds including the Swainson’s Hawk ................................................................................................................ 26

4.2 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT PROJECT IMPACTS .................................................. 27

4.2.1 Potential Project Impacts to Special Status Plants ...................................................... 27

4.2.2 Potential Project Impacts to Special Status Animal Species Absent from or Unlikely to Occur Within the Project Site .......................................................................................... 27

4.2.3 Project Impacts to Special Status Animal Species that Would Use the Site for NonSensitive Activities Only ..................................................................................................... 28

4.2.4 Potential Project Impacts to Waters of the U.S. and State .......................................... 29

4.2.5 Potential Project Impacts to Wildlife Movement Corridors ....................................... 29 5%

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ii

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1

1.2 REPORT OBJECTIVES 1

2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 5

2.1 REGIONAL SETTING 5

2.2 PROJECT SITE 5

2.3 BIOTIC HABITATS / LAND USES 6

2.4 SPECIAL STATUS PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8

2.5 JURISDICTIONAL WATERS 17

2.6 DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT 17

2.7 CALIFORNIA SENSITIVE NATURAL COMMUNITIES 18

2.8 WILDLIFE MOVEMENT CORRIDORS 18

3.0 RELEVANT GOALS, POLICIES, AND LAWS 19

3.1 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT 19

3.2 OTHER RELEVANT LAWS AND POLICIES 20

3.2.1 Fresno County General Plan ....................................................................................... 20

3.2.2 Threatened and Endangered Species .......................................................................... 21

3.2.3 California Fully Protected Species ............................................................................. 22

3.2.4 Migratory Birds .......................................................................................................... 22

3.2.5 Birds of Prey ............................................................................................................... 22

3.2.6 Nesting Birds.............................................................................................................. 23

3.2.7 Habitat Conservation Plans and Natural Community Conservation Plans.................23

3.2.8 Wetlands and Other Jurisdictional Waters ................................................................. 23

4.0 IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS 26

4.1 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT PROJECT IMPACTS 26

4.2 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT PROJECT IMPACTS 27

4.2.1 Potential Project Impacts to Special Status Plants...................................................... 27

4.2.4 Potential Project Impacts to Waters of the US. and State.......................................... 29

4.2.5 Potential Project Impacts to Wildlife Movement Corridors....................................... 29 iii
iv

4.2.6 Project Impacts to Sensitive Natural Communities and Designated Critical Habitat 29

4.2.7 Consistency with Local Policies and Ordinances ....................................................... 29

4.2.8 Consistency with Habitat Conservation Plans and Natural Community Conservation Plans ..................................................................................................................................... 30 LITERATURE REFERENCED OR CITED .......................................................................... 31 APPENDIX A: VASCULAR PLANTS OF THE PROJECT SITE ...................................... 33 APPENDIX B: TERRESTRIAL VERTEBRATE SPECIES POTENTIALLY
OCCURRING ON THE PROJECT SITE .............................................................................. 35 APPENDIX C: SELECT PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROJECT SITE ............................. 39 5%

4.2.6 Project Impacts to Sensitive Natural Communities and Designated Critical Habitat 29

4.2.7 Consistency with Local Policies and Ordinances....................................................... 29

4.2.8 Consistency with Habitat Conservation Plans and Natural Community Conservation Plans ............................................................................................................................. LITERATURE REFERENCED OR CITED APPENDIX A: VASCULAR PLANTS OF THE PROJECT SITE
APPENDIX B: TERRESTRIAL VERTEBRATE SPECIES POTENTIALLY

OCCURRING ON THE PROJECT SITE
APPENDIX C: SELECT PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROJECT SITE
........ 30
31 33
35 39
1 1.0 INTRODUCTION
Live Oak Associates, Inc. (LOA) conducted an investigation of the biotic resources of approximately 58 acres of lands (“project site” or “site”) proposed for a residential subdivision and associated improvements (“project”) and evaluated potential project impacts to such resources pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The project site is located north of Belmont Avenue and immediately west of the limits of the City of Mendota in unincorporated Fresno County, California (Figure 1). It can be found on the Firebaugh U.S.

Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangle in Section 25 and 36, Township 13 South, Range 14 East; Mount Diablo Base and Meridian (Figure 2).

1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project is centered on the subdivision of an approximately 50-acre parcel into 271 residential lots, followed by site development with single-family residences, roads, and other residential infrastructure. It also includes various improvements on adjacent lands. First, a permanent storm drain basin, approximately 4 acres in size, will be constructed immediately north of the proposed subdivision to accommodate storm water runoff generated by the subdivision. The basin will be dedicated to the City of Mendota. Second, a limited-width extension of Amador Avenue will be constructed, extending approximately 0.5 mile from the southern boundary of the proposed subdivision south to Belmont Avenue. Third and finally, approximately 1,000 feet of new sewer main will be constructed, connecting the proposed subdivision to existing City of Mendota sewer infrastructure. The proposed sewer main segment will extend from the northeast corner of the proposed subdivision east to the Castro Street alignment.

1.2 REPORT OBJECTIVES
This report summarizes a biological study conducted by LOA to facilitate environmental review pursuant to CEQA. As such, the report’s objectives are to:
• Characterize the project site’s existing biological resources, including biotic habitats, flora and fauna, soils, and aquatic resources
• Evaluate the project site’s potential to support sensitive resources such as special status species, sensitive natural communities, and jurisdictional waters and wetlands 5%

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Live Oak Associates, Inc. (LOA) conducted an investigation of the biotic resources of approximately 58 acres of lands (“project site” or “‘site”) proposed for a residential subdivision and associated improvements (“project”) and evaluated potential project impacts to such resources pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The project site is located north of Belmont Avenue and immediately west of the limits of the City of Mendota in unincorporated Fresno County, California (Figure 1). It can be found on the Firebaugh US.

Geological Survey (USGS) 75-minute quadrangle in Section 25 and 36, Township 13 South, Range 14 East; Mount Diablo Base and Meridian (Figure 2).

1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project is centered on the subdivision of an approximately SO-acre parcel into 271 residential lots, followed by site development with single-family residences, roads, and other residential infrastructure. It also includes various improvements on adjacent lands. First, a permanent storm drain basin, approximately 4 acres in size, will be constructed immediately north of the proposed subdivision to accommodate storm water runoff generated by the subdivision. The basin will be dedicated to the City of Mendota. Second, a limited-Width extension of Amador Avenue will be constructed, extending approximately 0.5 mile from the southern boundary of the proposed subdivision south to Belmont Avenue. Third and finally, approximately 1,000 feet of new sewer main will be constructed, connecting the proposed subdivision to existing City of Mendota sewer infrastructure. The proposed sewer main segment will extend from the northeast corner of the proposed subdivision east to the Castro Street alignment.

1.2 REPORT OBJECTIVES
This report summarizes a biological study conducted by LOA to facilitate environmental review pursuant to CEQA. As such, the report’s objectives are to:
o Characterize the project site’s existing biological resources, including biotic habitats, flora and fauna, soils, and aquatic resources
0 Evaluate the project site’s potential to support sensitive resources such as special status species, sensitive natural communities, and jurisdictional waters and wetlands Date Project # Figure #
Merced County Association of Gov, Fresno County Dept. PWP, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, INCREMENT P, Intermap, NGA, USGS Esri, HERE, Garmin, NGA, USGS, NPS
LEGEND
Project Site Boundaries
Approximate Project
Location
0 0.25 0.5 1
Miles
0 2.5 5 10
Miles
µ
11/19/2025 2992-01 1
Mendota Residential Development
Vicinity Map
LEGEND
I:I ProjectSiteBoundaries
*
VI:

Approximate Project
Locafion
Esri, HERE,Garmi , NGA, USGS, NP
/
i
I
x {
\\\ : \ \\ \\ \\\
/\ \\ \‘s \ \ \
\
\ \ .

I
l Willam\ ,' RJohmton‘ I
’« MmlAirport\ : a \ I
\ L,
l . l A n
,fl ~ 5?- éBlackiAvu I. H 9 T9 f 4 1........ 5 E .. ' V 1 ‘32 2 1 fixnard‘Staia3.... g .. . i
--------- Plane 3 *7 ”I | r : Pm g y»; I fl
‘,‘—Smt+ot31 *7 i‘ 7 1| w ‘ I .
,. .‘ o 1
\ "- fi traw'St '7 ’ I
’II hut-3‘ fi : ‘ ‘ 7 8 5|
' E E;
n o H as,3 ' 5:
, 3* h I I L_fl ‘ |
lg g _ ‘, :
..._ -
ll” 7‘ l .. I ‘ | I ' I
I ' l
I ' | I ' I
I : |
l' : ~-—J
“l-VT rcedConnfyflswcfitivrroffiovi FresnoCountyDee PWP, reauof Miles Land gaanageZment, Esri,HERE,Garmin, INCREMENTP,Inter 2o, NGA, USGS |
|
v 11/19/2025
180
Q
%
,LIVEASSOCIATES, OAK INC.

Mendota Residential Development
Vicinity Map
Date Project # Figure #
2992-01 1
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
µ
0 0.13 0.25 0.5
Miles
LEGEND
Project Site Boundaries
Mendota Residential Development
Topographic Map
11/19/2025 2992-01 2
Date Project # Figure #
LEGEND

LIVE OAK
—,ASSOC|ATES INC.
uncut-swan-I- 5-n c8888==== ’ L Mendota Residential Development ‘ : Topographic Map
0 0.13 0.25 0.5 _ Date Project # Figure#
Miles 11/19/2025 2992-01 2
. =
4 • Summarize all state and federal natural resource protection laws that may be relevant to project implementation
• Identify and discuss potential project-related impacts to biological resources within the context of CEQA and other state and federal laws
• Identify avoidance and mitigation measures that would reduce the magnitude of projectrelated impacts in a manner consistent with CEQA and species-specific guidelines

1.4 STUDY METHODOLOGY
The analysis of impacts, as discussed in Section 3.0 of this report, is based on the known and potential biotic resources of the project site (discussed in Section 2.0). Sources of information used in the preparation of this analysis include: (1) the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CDFW 2025); (2) the Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS 2025); (3) manuals, reports, and references related to plants and animals of the San Joaquin Valley; and (4) other available planning documents and biological studies from the general project vicinity. A field survey of the project site was conducted on October 7, 2025 by LOA biologist Natalie Neff. The survey was conducted by walking through the project site while identifying and characterizing the site’s principal land uses and plant and animal communities. The field survey conducted for this study was sufficient to assess the significance of possible biological impacts associated with the development plans for the project site. 6%
o Summarize all state and federal natural resource protection laws that may be relevant to project implementation
0 Identify and discuss potential project-related impacts to biological resources Within the context of CEQA and other state and federal laws
0 Identify avoidance and mitigation measures that would reduce the magnitude of projectrelated impacts in a manner consistent with CEQA and species-specific guidelines

1.4 STUDY METHODOLOGY
The analysis of impacts, as discussed in Section 3.0 of this report, is based on the known and potential biotic resources of the project site (discussed in Section 2.0). Sources of information used in the preparation of this analysis include: (1) the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CDFW 2025); (2) the Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS 2025); (3) manuals, reports, and references related to plants and animals of the San Joaquin Valley; and (4) other available planning documents and biological studies from the general project Vicinity. A field survey of the project site was conducted on October 7, 2025 by LOA biologist Natalie Neff. The survey was conducted by walking through the project site While identifying and characterizing the site’s principal land uses and plant and animal communities. The field survey conducted for this study was sufficient to assess the significance of possible biological impacts associated with the development plans for the project site. 5 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS

2.1 REGIONAL SETTING
The project site is located in the central San Joaquin Valley. The San Joaquin Valley is a large, nearly flat alluvial plain bordered by the Sierra Nevada to the east, the Tehachapi Mountains to the south, the California coast ranges to the west, and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to the north.

The San Joaquin Valley experiences a Mediterranean climate with warm, dry summers followed by cool, moist winters. Summer temperatures commonly exceed 100 degrees Fahrenheit, and the relative humidity is generally very low. Winter temperatures rarely exceed 70 degrees Fahrenheit with daytime highs often below 60 degrees Fahrenheit. Annual precipitation in the project vicinity varies considerably from year to year, but averages approximately 11 inches, almost all of which falls between the months of November and April in the form of rain (NOAA 2021).

The San Joaquin River and Fresno Slough are the principal natural drainages in the region, passing approximately 2 miles northeast and east of the project site, respectively, at the closest point. The San Joaquin River originates in the Sierra Nevada mountains and flows northwest through the San Joaquin Valley. The Fresno Slough is a distributary channel that flows northwest, connecting the Kings River to the San Joaquin River.

The project site is situated in a landscape dominated by intensive agriculture and urban uses associated with the City of Mendota. It also includes substantial areas of vacant land that do not appear to have had recent agricultural cultivation but experience regular vegetation management through disking or other means.

2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS

The San Joaquin Valley experiences a Mediterranean climate with warm, dry summers followed by cool, moist Winters. Summer temperatures commonly exceed 100 degrees Fahrenheit, and the relative humidity is generally very low. Winter temperatures rarely exceed 70 degrees Fahrenheit with daytime highs often below 60 degrees Fahrenheit. Annual precipitation in the project Vicinity varies considerably from year to year, but averages approximately 11 inches, almost all of which falls between the months of November and April in the form of rain (NCAA 2021).

2.2 PROJECT SITE
At the time of LOA’s survey, the project site consisted of vacant land, the majority of which had been recently disked and contained no live vegetation. The site was bordered by similar vacant land in all directions, and also by a residential subdivision to the east and Belmont Avenue to the south. Beyond Belmont Avenue is a young orchard and more vacant land similar in character to the project site.
6 The site is relatively flat with an average elevation of 170 feet above sea level (see Figure 2). It contains a single soil mapping unit: Calflax clay loam, saline-sodic, wet, 0 to 1 percent slopes, MLRA 17. The soils of this mapping unit are not hydric, meaning they do not have the propensity to pond water and support hydrophytic (water-loving) vegetation.

An aerial view of the site is presented in Figure 3. A list of vascular plants identified on the site is presented in Appendix A. A list of terrestrial vertebrates using or potentially using the project site is presented in Appendix B. Representative photos of the site are presented in Appendix C.

2.3 BIOTIC HABITATS / LAND USES
LOA identified a single habitat type within the project site: ruderal, or disturbed. This habitat type encompassed four apparent land uses: (1) a large field that appears to be regularly disked and contained no live vegetation at the time of LOA’s survey, (2) the vegetated margins of the field, which are presumably maintained through mowing but do not appear to experience regular disking, (3) dirt access roads, and (4) several segments of a drainage ditch running along the field margins. Based on Google Earth aerial imagery, the ditch was constructed sometime in 2017. It was completely dry at the time of LOA’s survey, as it is in all available Google Earth images.

Vegetation at the field margins was dominated by non-native grasses and forbs including wild oats (Avena sp.), Bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), black mustard (Brassica nigra), and mallow (Malva sp.). A few native species were observed; these included big saltbush (Atriplex polycarpa), salt heliotrope (Heliotropium curassavicum), and a single narrowleaf milkweed (Asclepias fascicularis) plant. Where the field margins bordered the residential subdivision to the east, escaped cultivars such as cherry tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) and watermelon (Citrullus lanatus) were noted. The ditch was largely barren of vegetation; where vegetated, it contained upland grasses and forbs.

The project site’s ruderal lands are of relatively low wildlife value due to the regular disturbance regimen and general lack of vegetation in most areas. However, certain common species are expected to utilize the site. Reptiles that could occur here include the side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana) and Pacific gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer catenifer). Brewer’s blackbirds 6%
The site is relatively flat with an average elevation of 170 feet above sea level (see Figure 2). It contains a single soil mapping unit: Calflax clay loam, saline-sodic, wet, 0 to 1 percent slopes, MLRA 17. The soils of this mapping unit are not hydric, meaning they do not have the propensity to pond water and support hydrophytic (water-loving) vegetation.

An aerial View of the site is presented in Figure 3. A list of vascular plants identified on the site is presented in Appendix A. A list of terrestrial vertebrates using or potentially using the project site is presented in Appendix B. Representative photos of the site are presented in Appendix C.

2.3 BIOTIC HABITATS / LAND USES
LOA identified a single habitat type Within the project site: ruderal, or disturbed. This habitat type encompassed four apparent land uses: (1) a large field that appears to be regularly disked and contained no live vegetation at the time of LOA’s survey, (2) the vegetated margins of the field, which are presumably maintained through mowing but do not appear to experience regular disking, (3) dirt access roads, and (4) several segments of a drainage ditch running along the field margins. Based on Google Earth aerial imagery, the ditch was constructed sometime in 2017. It was completely dry at the time of LOA’s survey, as it is in all available Google Earth images.

Vegetation at the field margins was dominated by non-native grasses and forbs including Wild oats (Avena sp.), Bermudagrass (Cynodon daclylon), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), black mustard (Brassica nigra), and mallow (Malva sp.). A few native species were observed; these included big saltbush (Atriplex polycarpa), salt heliotrope (Heliotropium curassavicum), and a single narrowleaf milkweed (Asclepiasfascicularis) plant. Where the field margins bordered the residential subdivision to the east, escaped cultivars such as cherry tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) and watermelon (Citrullus lanatus) were noted. The ditch was largely barren of vegetation; Where vegetated, it contained upland grasses and forbs.

The project site’s ruderal lands are of relatively low Wildlife value due to the regular disturbance regimen and general lack of vegetation in most areas. However, certain common species are expected to utilize the site. Reptiles that could occur here include the side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana) and Pacific gopher snake (Pituophis catem'fer catem'fer). Brewer’s blackbirds Olive
J1
N Ohio Ave
W Belmont Ave
Lozano S
N Santa Fe Grade
McCabe Ave
Petry St
Holmes Ave
Castaneda
Oxnard St
Black Ave
Espinoza St
Valenzuela St
San Pedro St
Maldonado St
Santa Cruz St
Segovia St
Gonzalez St
Silva St
Diaz St
Fleming Ave
Gregg Ct N
Amador Ave
Gregg Ct S
J1
Sorensen
Ave
Locust Ave
Tuft St
Smoot Ave
W Belmont Ave
Rojas Pierce
Park
AMOR
Wellness
Health Center
33 Perez
33 Pucheu St
Rami
Quince St
Bass Ave
Burger King
Stamo
Tule St
5th St
4th St
Smoot Ave
Straw St
Unida St
Tuft St
Derrick Ave
Family Dollar
33 Microsoft, Vantor, Sources: Esri, TomTom, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
µ
0 0.13 0.25 0.5
Miles
LEGEND
Project Site Boundaries
Mendota Residential Development
Aerial Map
11/19/2025 2992-01 3
Date Project # Figure #
LEGEND
I:I ProjectSiteBoundaries
, " .21. ‘
.2‘ . \
. r3 \, ' ’ . 33 -,
‘ f 1‘ k f
‘6
‘__
‘v
f" . 15*"
7 r
I I. A.\ ~.
g 1 r5?
o. i . . I I A.
f A V P 3 I of '
. l
x w" H I!" .3!»
ll 4 ‘ z
. ‘ l ‘ .1 ‘1'; ;
7-." -’T/\ I ‘ ”-
.“"‘_ _, <‘I ’
V
J
T. s . z - ‘\ o . ’ \' ‘ '0‘
q" 0 N . f y 4. v“
. ' ‘ r l . I ‘ ' . A. L ’ ‘ . ‘ § . . , .. . ‘ A ‘ a f ’ 4‘ \ '7 ' ' . L z. ‘ *1 ‘o . ‘ ’II gag |'-‘ ’ ' _ , . f . \ , . ‘zf; fl 1: o .‘ 'f'r“ m
V g 7‘ I _J r . . ‘ r“ M —~ -- , — , J1I , ,
' ' LIVEOAK
‘ —,ASSOC|ATES INC.
‘1" I 4‘ W
[“1"] ‘ ‘ ‘ J , .
’Mendota Residential Development
;
Him“l ‘ AerialMap
0 o_13 025 ()5 Date Project # Figure # — — Miles 11/19/2025 2992-01 3 8 (Euphagus cyanocephalus) and American crows (Corvus brachyrhynchos) may forage in the disked field from time to time, while the disturbance-tolerant killdeer (Charadrius vociferus) could nest in the field or its margins. Open country raptors such as the red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) or American kestrel (Falco sparverius) may forage over the site from time to time.

Small mammal use of the site is expected to be limited due to regular disking and other forms of disturbance. At the time of LOA’s field survey, no evidence of burrowing rodents was observed in the interior of the field; however, Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) burrows were observed in several locations along the field margins and drainage ditch. Other small mammals potentially occurring along the field margins include the deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus) and California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi). Coyotes (Canis latrans) and raccoons (Procyon lotor) may utilize and pass through the site on occasion, and various bats may forage over the site.

2.4 SPECIAL STATUS PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Many species of plants and animals within the state of California have low populations, limited distributions, or both. Such species may be considered “rare” and are vulnerable to extirpation as the state’s human population grows and the habitats these species occupy are converted to agricultural and urban uses. As described more fully in Section 3.0, state and federal laws have provided California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) with a mechanism for conserving and protecting the diversity of plant and animal species native to the state. A sizable number of native plants and animals have been formally designated as threatened or endangered under state and federal endangered species legislation. Others have been designated as “candidates” for such listing. Still others have been designated as “species of special concern” by the CDFW. The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) has developed its own set of lists (i.e., California Rare Plant Ranks, or CRPR) of native plants considered rare, threatened, or endangered (CNPS 2025). Collectively, these plants and animals are referred to as “special status species.”
The California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB; CDFW 2025) was queried for special status plant and animal occurrences in the nine USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles containing and surrounding the project site (Firebaugh, Oxalis, Poso Farm, Firebaugh NE, Mendota Dam, Tranquility, Coit Ranch, Chaney Ranch, and Broadview Farms). Plants and animals returned in 5%
(Euphagus cyanocephalus) and American crows (Corvus brachyrhynchos) may forage in the disked field from time to time, While the disturbance-tolerant killdeer (Charadrius vociferus) could nest in the field or its margins. Open country raptors such as the red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) or American kestrel (F alco sparverius) may forage over the site from time to time.

Small mammal use of the site is expected to be limited due to regular disking and other forms of disturbance. At the time of LOA’s field survey, no evidence of burrowing rodents was observed in the interior of the field; however, Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) burrows were observed in several locations along the field margins and drainage ditch. Other small mammals potentially occurring along the field margins include the deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus) and California ground squirrel (OtOSpermophilus beecheyi). Coyotes (Cam's latrans) and raccoons (Procyon lotor) may utilize and pass through the site on occasion, and various bats may forage over the site.

2.4 SPECIAL STATUS PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Many species of plants and animals Within the state of California have low populations, limited distributions, or both. Such species may be considered “rare” and are vulnerable to extirpation as the state’s human population grows and the habitats these species occupy are converted to agricultural and urban uses. As described more fully in Section 3.0, state and federal laws have provided California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the US. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) with a mechanism for conserving and protecting the diversity of plant and animal species native to the state. A sizable number of native plants and animals have been formally designated as threatened or endangered under state and federal endangered species legislation. Others have been designated as “candidates” for such listing. Still others have been designated as “species of special concern” by the CDFW. The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) has developed its own set of lists (i.e., California Rare Plant Ranks, or CRPR) of native plants considered rare, threatened, or endangered (CNPS 2025). Collectively, these plants and animals are referred to as “special status species.”
The California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB; CDFW 2025) was queried for special status plant and animal occurrences in the nine USGS 75-minute quadrangles containing and surrounding the project site (F irebaugh, Oxalis, P050 Farm, Firebaugh NE, Mendota Dam, Tranquilily, Coit Ranch, Chaney Ranch, and Broadview Farms). Plants and animals returned in 9 the query are summarized below in Table 1. Sources of information for this table included the California Native Plant Society’s Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS 2025), Calflora.org, iNaturalist.org, and eBird.org. 6% the query are summarized below in Table 1. Sources of information for this table included the California Native Plant Society’s Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS 2025), Calflora.0rg, iNaturalist. org, and eBird.org. 10 PLANTS (adapted from CDFW 2025 and CNPS 2025)
Species Listed as Threatened or Endangered under the State and/or Federal Endangered Species Act Species Status Habitat Occurrence on the Project Site
Palmate-bracted salty bird’sbeak
(Chloropyron palmatum)

FE, CE,
CRPR
1B.1
Occurs in chenopod scrub and valley
and foothill grasslands; alkaline soils;
elevations up to 500 ft. Blooms MayOctober.

Absent. The intensively maintained
habitats of the project site are
unsuitable for this species.

San Joaquin woolly threads
(Monolopia congdonii)
FT,
CRPR
1B.2
Occurs in chenopod scrub and valley
and foothill grassland at elevations
between 200 and 2,600 feet.

Frequently occurs on sand dunes and
sandy ridges, and along the high-water
line of washes and on adjacent
terraces. Blooms February-May.

Absent. The intensively maintained
habitats of the project site are
unsuitable for this species, and the site
is situated below its elevational
distribution.

CNPS-listed Plants
Heartscale
(Atriplex cordulata var.
cordulata)
CRPR
1B.2
Occurs in cismontane woodland and
valley and foothill grasslands; saline or
alkaline soils; blooms April-October;
elevations up to 1,850 ft.

Absent. The intensively maintained
habitats of the project site are
unsuitable for this species.

Lost Hills crownscale
(Atriplex coronata var.
vallicola)
CRPR
1B.2
Found in chenopod scrub and valley
and foothill grasslands; alkaline soils;
blooms April-August; elevations up to
2,000 ft.

Absent. An occurrence of this species
was generally mapped to Mendota in
1938 (CDFW 2025). However, any
habitat that may have once been
present on site or in the immediate
vicinity has been eliminated through
intensive agriculture, urban
development, and other anthropogenic
uses.

Brittlescale
(Atriplex depressa)
CRPR
1B.2
Occurs in alkali soils in barren areas
within alkali grassland, meadow and
scrub. Occasionally found around
vernal pools. Elevations up to 1,000 ft.

Blooms April-October.

Absent. The intensively maintained
habitats of the project site are
unsuitable for this species.

Lesser saltscale
(Atriplex minuscula)
CRPR
1B.1
Occurs in cismontane woodland and
valley and foothill grasslands of the
San Joaquin Valley; alkaline/sandy
soils; blooms May-October; elevations
below 700 ft.

Absent. The intensively maintained
habitats of the project site are
unsuitable for this species.

Subtle orache
(Atriplex subtilis)
CRPR
1B.2
Occurs in valley and foothill
grasslands of the San Joaquin Valley;
blooms August-October; elevation
130-330 ft.

Absent. The intensively maintained
habitats of the project site are
unsuitable for this species.

Recurved larkspur
(Delphinium recurvatum)
CRPR
1B.2
Occurs in cismontane woodland and
valley and foothill grasslands; blooms
March-June; alkaline soils; elevations
below 2,500 ft.

Absent. The intensively maintained
habitats of the project site are
unsuitable for this species.

Alkali-sink goldfields
(Lasthenia chrysantha)
CRPR
1B.1
Found in alkaline vernal pools below
approximately 650 feet in elevation.

Blooms February-April.

Absent. The project site experiences
intensive vegetation management
activities and does not contain vernal
pools. As such, it is unsuitable for this
species.

TABLE 1. LIST OF SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES THAT COULD OCCUR IN THE

PROJECT VICINITY
5%
TABLE 1. LIST OF SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES THAT COULD OCCUR IN THE

PROJECT VICINITY
PLANTS (adapted from CDFW 2025 and CNPS 2025)
Species Listed as Threatened 0r Endangered under the State and/or Federal Endangered Species Act Species
Palmate-bracted salty bird’sbeak
(Chloropyron palmatum)
San Joaquin woolly threads
(Monolopia congdonii)
CNPS-listed Plants
Heartscale
(Atriplex cordulata var. cordulata)
Lost Hills crownscale
(Atriplex coronata var. vallicola)
Brittlescale
(Atriplex depressa)
Lesser saltscale
(Atriplex minuscula)
Subtle orache
(Atriplex subtilis)
Recurved larkspur
(Delphinium recurvatum)
Alkali-sink goldfields
(Lasthenia chrysantha)
Status

FE, CE,
CRPR
1B.1
FT,
CRPR
1B.2
CRPR
1B.2
CRPR
1B.2
CRPR
1B.2
CRPR
1B.1
CRPR
1B.2
CRPR
1B.2
CRPR
1B.1
Habitat
Occurs in chenopod scrub and valley
and foothill grasslands; alkaline soils;
elevations up to 500 ft. Blooms MayOctober.

Occurs in chenopod scrub and valley
and foothill grassland at elevations
between 200 and 2,600 feet.

Frequently occurs on sand dunes and
sandy ridges, and along the high-water
line of washes and on adjacent
terraces. Blooms February-May.

Occurs in cismontane woodland and
valley and foothill grasslands; saline or alkaline soils; blooms April-October; elevations up to 1,850 ft.

Found in chenopod scrub and valley
and foothill grasslands; alkaline soils;
blooms April-August; elevations up to
2,000 ft.

Occurs in alkali soils in barren areas Within alkali grassland, meadow and scrub. Occasionally found around
vernal pools. Elevations up to 1,000 ft.

Blooms April-October.

Occurs in cismontane woodland and
valley and foothill grasslands of the
San Joaquin Valley; alkaline/sandy
soils; blooms May-October; elevations
below 700 ft.

Occurs in valley and foothill
grasslands of the San Joaquin Valley;
blooms August-October; elevation
130-330 ft.

Occurs in cismontane woodland and
valley and foothill grasslands; blooms
March-June; alkaline soils; elevations
below 2,500 ft.

Found in alkaline vernal pools below
approximately 650 feet in elevation.

Blooms February-April.

Occurrence on the Project Site
Absent. The intensively maintained
habitats of the project site are unsuitable for this species.

Absent. The intensively maintained
habitats of the project site are unsuitable for this species, and the site is situated below its elevational
distribution.

Absent. The intensively maintained
habitats of the project site are unsuitable for this species.

Absent. An occurrence of this species was generally mapped to Mendota in 1938 (CDFW 2025). However, any
habitat that may have once been
present on site or in the immediate
Vicinity has been eliminated through
intensive agriculture, urban
development, and other anthropogenic uses. Absent. The intensively maintained habitats of the project site are unsuitable for this species.

Absent. The intensively maintained
habitats of the project site are unsuitable for this species.

Absent. The project site experiences
intensive vegetation management
activities and does not contain vernal
pools. As such, it is unsuitable for this
species.
10 11
PLANTS (cont’d)
CNPS Listed Plants
Species Status Habitat Occurrence on the Project Site
Munz's tidy-tips
(Layia munzii)
CRPR
1B.2
Occurs on hillsides, in white-gray
alkaline clay soils between 500 and
2,300 ft. in elevation. Blooms March –
April.

Absent. The project site is situated
below the elevational distribution of
this species, lacks sloping topography,
and experiences intensive vegetation
management activities that would
preclude this species.

Panoche pepper-grass
(Lepidium jaredii spp.
album)
CRPR
1B.2
Occurs in washes and on alluvial fans
in valley grassland habitats; blooms
February-June; elevations up to 900 ft.

Absent. The intensively maintained
habitats of the project site are
unsuitable for this species.

California alkali grass
(Puccinellia simplex)
CRPR
1B.2
Occurs in alkali sinks and flats within
grassland and chenopod scrub habitats
of the Central Valley, San Francisco
Bay area and western Mojave Desert;
elevations below 3,000 feet. Blooms
March-May.

Absent. The intensively maintained
habitats of the project site are
unsuitable for this species.

Sanford’s arrowhead
(Sagittaria sanfordii)
CRPR
1B.2
Occurs in freshwater marshes,
swamps, and ditches of the Central
Valley; blooms May-October;
elevations up to 2000 ft.

Absent. The site’s drainage ditch does
not have an inundation regime that
would support this species.

Rocky Mountain bulrush
(Schoenoplectiella
saximontana)
CRPR
2B.1
This obligate wetland species is found
at the margins of ponds, ditches,
marshes, vernal pools, and other
freshwater environments, at elevations
below 2,400 ft. Blooms JuneSeptember.

Absent. The site’s drainage ditch does
not have an inundation regime that
would support this species.

ANIMALS (adapted from CDFW 2025)
Species Listed as Threatened or Endangered under the State and/or Federal Endangered Species Act Longhorn fairy shrimp
(Branchinecta longiantenna)
FE Inhabits vernal pools in grassland and
rock outcrops. Known from four
populations in Merced, San Luis
Obispo, Alameda, and Contra Costa
Counties.

Absent. Vernal pool habitat is absent
from the project site.

Vernal pool fairy shrimp
(Branchinecta lynchi)
FT Occurs in vernal pools, clear to teacolored water in grass or mudbottomed swales, and basalt depression pools.

Absent. Vernal pool habitat is absent
from the project site.

Crotch’s bumble bee
(Bombus crotchii)
CCE A species of open grassland and scrub
habitats, the Crotch’s bumble bee
historically ranged throughout central
and southern California. Widespread
conversion of grassland to agricultural
and urban uses has led to its near
extirpation from the Central Valley.

Where present, it is associated with
remnant grassland and scrub
supporting food plants of the
Asclepias, Chaenactis, Lupinus,
Medicago, Phacelia, and Salvia genera
(Williams et al. 2014).

Absent. The intensively maintained
habitats of the project site are
unsuitable for this species.

TABLE 1. LIST OF SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES THAT COULD OCCUR IN THE

PROJECT VICINITY
5%
TABLE 1. LIST OF SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES THAT COULD OCCUR IN THE

PROJECT VICINITY
PLANTS (cont’d)
CNPS Listed Plants
Species Status Habitat
Munz's tidy-tips CRPR Occurs on hillsides, in White-gray (Layia munzz'z) 1B.2 alkaline clay soils between 500 and 2,300 ft. in elevation. Blooms March —
April.

Panoche pepper-grass CRPR Occurs in washes and on alluvial fans (Lepz’dium jaredz'i spp. 1B.2 in valley grassland habitats; blooms album) February-June; elevations up to 900 ft.

California alkali grass CRPR Occurs in alkali sinks and flats within (Puccinellia simplex) 1B.2 grassland and chenopod scrub habitats of the Central Valley, San Francisco
Bay area and western Mojave Desert;
elevations below 3,000 feet. Blooms
March-May.

Sanford’s arrowhead CRPR Occurs in freshwater marshes,
(Sagittaria sanfordii) 1B.2 swamps, and ditches of the Central Valley; blooms May-October;
elevations up to 2000 ft.

Rocky Mountain bulrush CRPR This obligate wetland species is found (Schoenoplectiella 2B.1 at the margins of ponds, ditches, saximontana) marshes, vernal pools, and other
ANIMALS (adapted from CDFW 2025)
freshwater environments, at elevations
below 2,400 ft. Blooms JuneSeptember.

Occurrence on the Project Site
Absent. The project site is situated
below the elevational distribution of
this species, lacks sloping topography,
and experiences intensive vegetation
management activities that would
preclude this species.

Absent. The intensively maintained
habitats of the project site are unsuitable for this species.

Absent. The site’s drainage ditch does
not have an inundation regime that
would support this species.

Species Listed as Threatened 0r Endangered under the State and/or Federal Endangered Species Act Longhorn fairy shrimp
(Branchinecta longiantenna)
Vernal pool fairy shrimp
(Branchinecta Iynchi)
Crotch’s bumble bee
(Bombus crotchii)
FE
FT
CCE
Inhabits vernal pools in grassland and
rock outcrops. Known from four
populations in Merced, San Luis
Obispo, Alameda, and Contra Costa
Counties.

Occurs in vernal pools, clear to teacolored water in grass or mudbottomed swales, and basalt depression pools.

A species of open grassland and scrub
habitats, the Crotch’s bumble bee
historically ranged throughout central
and southern California. Widespread
conversion of grassland to agricultural
and urban uses has led to its near extirpation from the Central Valley.

Where present, it is associated with
remnant grassland and scrub
supporting food plants of the
Asclepias, Chaenactis, Lupinus,
Medicago, Phacelia, and Salvia genera
(Williams et a1. 2014).

Absent. Vernal p001 habitat is absent
from the project site.

Absent. The intensively maintained
habitats of the project site are unsuitable for this species. 11 12
ANIMALS – cont’d.

Species Listed as Threatened or Endangered under the State and/or Federal Endangered Species Act Species Status Habitat Occurrence on the Project Site
Central Valley steelhead
(Oncorhynchus mykiss
irideus)
FT, CSC The anadromous form of the rainbow
trout, native to Pacific streams from
Alaska to Mexico. Needs cool, clear,
oxygenated streams and gravel beds
for spawning. Found in deep pools,
under bubble curtains, and underwater
ledges.

Absent. Suitable aquatic habitat is
absent from the site.

Western spadefoot
(Spea hammondii)
FPT, CSC Occurs in grasslands of San Joaquin
Valley, where it breeds in vernal pools
or other seasonal wetlands and
aestivates in underground refugia such
as rodent burrows. Baumberger et al.
(2019) recorded a maximum distance
of around 860 feet between breeding
and aestivation sites.

Absent. Suitable breeding habitat is
absent from the project site and
surrounding lands, and the site is
situated within a matrix of
agricultural, urban, and other
intensive uses within which this
species would not have been able to
persist. The closest known
occurrence is a 1942 record mapped
generally to the Mendota Wildlife
Area, approximately 2 miles east of
project boundaries (CDFW 2025).

Blunt-nosed leopard lizard
(BNLL)
(Gambelia silus)

FE, CE,
CFP
Frequents grasslands, alkali meadows
and chenopod scrub of the San Joaquin
Valley. Prefers flat areas with open
space for running. Takes cover under
large shrubs and in small mammal
burrows.

Absent. This species was
historically known from the
vicinity; a 1979 occurrence is
mapped generally to an area about 1
mile east of project boundaries
(CDFW 2025). However, any
BNLL habitat that may have once
been present on site or in the
immediate vicinity has been
eliminated through intensive
agriculture, urban development, and
other anthropogenic uses.

Giant garter snake (GGS)
(Thamnophis gigas)
FT, CT Occurs in marshes, sloughs, drainage
canals, irrigation ditches, rice fields,
and adjacent uplands. Prefers
locations with emergent vegetation for
cover and open areas for basking.

GGS use small mammal burrows and
soil crevices adjacent to aquatic
habitats for overwintering and, in the
summer, to escape excessive heat.

Absent. This species is known from
the wetlands east of Mendota
(CDFW 2025). It does not have the
potential to occur on the site itself
because suitable aquatic habitat is
absent.

Western pond turtle
(Emys marmorata)
FPT, CSC Found in open slow-moving water or
ponds with rocks and logs for basking.

Nesting occurs in open areas, on a
variety of soil types, and up to ¼ mile
away from water. Overwintering and
summertime aestivation includes use
of upland habitat, generally with leaf
litter or other loose substrate for
burying themselves.

Unlikely. Suitable aquatic habitat is
absent from the site and adjacent
lands, and the intensively
maintained habitats of the project
site would not support upland use
by this species.

TABLE 1. LIST OF SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES THAT COULD OCCUR IN THE

PROJECT VICINITY
5%
TABLE 1. LIST OF SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES THAT COULD OCCUR IN THE

PROJECT VICINITY
ANIMALS — cont’d.

Species Listed as Threatened 0r Endangered under the State and/or Federal Endangered Species Act Species
Central Valley steelhead
(Oncorhynchus mykiss
irideus)
Western spadefoot
(Spea hammondii)
Blunt-nosed leopard lizard
(BNLL)
(Gambelia silus)
Giant garter snake (GGS)
(Thamnophis gigas)
Western pond turtle
(Emys marmorata)
Status

FT, CSC

FPT, CSC

FE, CE,
CFP
FT, CT

FPT, CSC
Habitat
The anadromous form of the rainbow
trout, native to Pacific streams from
Alaska to Mexico. Needs cool, clear,
oxygenated streams and gravel beds
for spawning. Found in deep pools,
under bubble curtains, and underwater
ledges.

Occurs in grasslands of San Joaquin
Valley, Where it breeds in vernal pools or other seasonal wetlands and aestivates in underground refugia such
as rodent burrows. Baumberger et a1.
(2019) recorded a maximum distance
of around 860 feet between breeding
and aestivation sites.

Frequents grasslands, alkali meadows
and chenopod scrub of the San Joaquin
Valley. Prefers flat areas with open
space for running. Takes cover under
large shrubs and in small mammal
burrows.

Occurs in marshes, sloughs, drainage
canals, irrigation ditches, rice fields,
and adjacent uplands. Prefers
locations with emergent vegetation for cover and open areas for basking.

GGS use small mammal burrows and
soil crevices adjacent to aquatic
habitats for overwintering and, in the
summer, to escape excessive heat.

Found in open slow-moving water or ponds with rocks and logs for basking.

Nesting occurs in open areas, on a variety of soil types, and up to % mile away from water. Overwintering and
summertime aestivation includes use of upland habitat, generally with leaf litter or other loose substrate for
burying themselves.

Occurrence on the Project Site
Absent. Suitable aquatic habitat is
absent from the site.

Absent. Suitable breeding habitat is
absent from the project site and
surrounding lands, and the site is
situated Within a matrix of
agricultural, urban, and other
intensive uses Within which this
species would not have been able to
persist. The closest known
occurrence is a 1942 record mapped
generally to the Mendota Wildlife
Area, approximately 2 miles east of
project boundaries (CDFW 2025).

Absent. This species was historically known from the
Vicinity; a 1979 occurrence is
mapped generally to an area about 1
mile east of project boundaries
(CDFW 2025). However, any
BNLL habitat that may have once been present on site or in the immediate Vicinity has been
eliminated through intensive
agriculture, urban development, and
other anthropogenic uses. Absent. This species is known from the wetlands east of Mendota
(CDFW 2025). It does not have the
potential to occur on the site itself
because suitable aquatic habitat is
absent.

Unlikely. Suitable aquatic habitat is
absent from the site and adjacent
lands, and the intensively
maintained habitats of the project
site would not support upland use by this species.
12 13
ANIMALS – cont’d.

Species Listed as Threatened or Endangered under the State and/or Federal Endangered Species Act Species Status Habitat Occurrence on the Project Site
Swainson’s hawk
(Buteo swainsoni)
CT This breeding migrant to California
nests in mature trees in riparian areas
and oak savannah, and occasionally
in lone trees at the margins of
agricultural fields. Requires adjacent
suitable foraging areas such as
grasslands or alfalfa fields supporting
rodent populations.

Possible. Swainson’s hawks are
regularly sighted in the project
vicinity (eBird 2025), and several
active nests have been documented 1
to 3 miles from project boundaries
(eBird 2025, CDFW 2025). Nesting
habitat is absent from the project site
itself, and the site experiences
intensive maintenance practices that
would presumably limit its prey base
and associated foraging suitability.

However, given the species’ presence
in the vicinity, Swainson’s hawk
individuals are likely to fly over
and/or attempt foraging on the site
from time to time.

Burrowing owl
(Athene cunicularia)
CCE Frequents open, dry annual or
perennial grasslands, deserts, and
scrublands characterized by low
growing vegetation. Dependent upon
burrowing mammals, most notably
the California ground squirrel, for
nest burrows.

Unlikely. The intensively maintained
habitats of the site are unsuitable for
the burrowing owl, and the site is
situated in a matrix of intensive
agriculture, urban development, and
other anthropogenic uses
incompatible with this species’
ecology. No California ground
squirrel burrows or other suitable
refugia were observed on site at the
time of LOA’s survey. There are
several burrowing owl occurrences in
the Mendota area; however, all are
associated with grassland and/or
wetland habitats east and south of city
limits (CDFW 2025, eBird 2025).

LOA is not aware of any burrowing
owl occurrences in the agricultural
matrix west of Mendota, where the
project site is located.

Bank swallow
(Riparia riparia)
CT This breeding migrant nests in banks
and bluffs along rivers, lakes, and
ocean coastlines of northern and
central California. Requires friable
soils for digging nest burrows.

Absent. This species was historically
known from the wetlands around
Mendota, including a 1980
observation at Mendota Pool,
approximately 1.5 miles from project
boundaries (CDFW 2025, eBird
2025). Bank swallows do not have
the potential to occur on site because
aquatic and riparian habitat is absent
from the site and adjacent lands.

Western yellow-billed cuckoo
(Coccyzus americanus
occidentalis)
FT, CE Once a common breeding species in
riparian habitats of lowland
California, the western yellow-billed
cuckoo today breeds consistently in
only two California localities: along
the Sacramento and South Fork Kern
Rivers.

Absent. This species is believed to
have been extirpated from the project
vicinity. The last known sighting in
the vicinity was at Mendota Pool in
1950 (CDFW 2025). Suitable habitat
for the western yellow-billed cuckoo
is absent from the site and adjacent
lands.

TABLE 1. LIST OF SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES THAT COULD OCCUR IN THE

PROJECT VICINITY
5%
TABLE 1. LIST OF SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES THAT COULD OCCUR IN THE

PROJECT VICINITY
ANIMALS — cont’d.

Species Listed as Threatened 0r Endangered under the State and/or Federal Endangered Species Act Species
Swainson’s hawk
(Buteo swainsoni)
Burrowing owl
(Athene cunicularia)
Bank swallow
(Riparia riparia)
Western yellow-billed cuckoo
(Coccyzus americanus
occidentalis)
Status
CT
CCE
CT
FT, CE
Habitat
This breeding migrant to California
nests in mature trees in riparian areas and oak savannah, and occasionally in lone trees at the margins of
agricultural fields. Requires adjacent
suitable foraging areas such as grasslands or alfalfa fields supporting rodent populations.

Frequents open, dry annual or perennial grasslands, deserts, and scrublands characterized by low
growing vegetation. Dependent upon
burrowing mammals, most notably
the California ground squirrel, for
nest burrows.

This breeding migrant nests in banks
and bluffs along rivers, lakes, and
ocean coastlines of northern and
central California. Requires friable
soils for digging nest burrows.

Once a common breeding species in
riparian habitats of lowland
California, the western yellow-billed
cuckoo today breeds consistently in
only two California localities: along
the Sacramento and South Fork Kern
Rivers.

Occurrence on the Project Site
Possible. Swainson’s hawks are
regularly sighted in the project
Vicinity (eBird 2025), and several
active nests have been documented 1
to 3 miles from project boundaries
(eBird 2025, CDFW 2025). Nesting
habitat is absent from the project site
itself, and the site experiences
intensive maintenance practices that
would presumably limit its prey base
and associated foraging suitability.

However, given the species’ presence
in the Vicinity, Swainson’s hawk
individuals are likely to fly over and/0r attempt foraging on the site from time to time.

LOA is not aware of any burrowing
0W1occurrences in the agricultural
matrix west of Mendota, Where the
project site is located.

Absent. This species was historically
known from the wetlands around
Mendota, including a 1980
observation at Mendota P001,
approximately 1.5 miles from project
boundaries (CDFW 2025, eBird
2025). Bank swallows do not have
the potential to occur on site because
aquatic and riparian habitat is absent
from the site and adjacent lands.

Absent. This species is believed to
have been extirpated from the project
Vicinity. The last known sighting in
the Vicinity was at Mendota P001 in
1950 (CDFW 2025). Suitable habitat
for the western yellow-billed cuckoo
is absent from the site and adjacent
lands.
13 14
ANIMALS – cont’d.

Species Listed as Threatened or Endangered under the State and/or Federal Endangered Species Act Species Status Habitat Occurrence on the Project Site
Tricolored blackbird
(Agelaius tricolor)
CT Nests colonially near fresh water in
dense cattails or tules, in thickets of
willows or shrubs, and increasingly in
grain fields. Forages in grassland and
cropland areas.

Possible. Tricolored blackbirds are
occasionally sighted in the Mendota
area (eBird 2025, CDFW 2025) and
may fly over or forage on the site
from time to time. Nesting habitat is
absent from the site and adjacent
areas.

Nelson’s antelope squirrel
(Ammospermophilus nelsoni)
CT Found in arid upland scrub
communities, and to a lesser extent
grasslands, along the western margin
of the San Joaquin Valley and in the
adjoining hills and plains. Occupies
modified kangaroo rat burrows or selfconstructed burrows. Not usually found on steep slopes or in areas prone
to flooding.

Absent. Past and ongoing land uses
would have eliminated any Nelson’s
antelope squirrel populations that
may have occurred in the project
vicinity. There is one historical
record of this species in the
Mendota area, recorded
approximately 2 miles east of the
project site in 1918 (CDFW 2025).

Fresno kangaroo rat
(Dipodomys nitratoides exilis)
FE, CE Historically occurred in grassland and
scrub communities on the San Joaquin
Valley floor in Fresno, Madera,
Merced, and Kings Counties. The only
Absent. The intensively maintained
habitats of the site are unsuitable for
the Fresno kangaroo rat, and the site
is situated in a matrix of intensive
agriculture, urban development, and
other anthropogenic uses within
which this species would not have
been able to persist. Moreover, the
last known observation of a Fresno
kangaroo rat in the wild was in 1992
(USFWS 2025).

Giant kangaroo rat
(Dipodomys ingens)
FE, CE Inhabits grasslands on gentle slopes
with friable, sandy-loam soils in the
west side of the southern San Joaquin
Valley and adjacent coastal foothills.

Absent. The intensively maintained
habitats of the site are unsuitable for
the giant kangaroo rat. The closest
known populations of this species
are more than 15 miles west of
project boundaries.

San Joaquin kit fox (SJKF)
(Vulpes macrotis mutica)
FE, CT Frequents desert alkali scrub and
annual grasslands and may forage in
adjacent agricultural habitats. Utilizes
enlarged (6 to 10 inches in diameter)
ground squirrel burrows as denning
habitat. May become adapted to urban
areas, as has occurred in Bakersfield,
Coalinga, and Taft (Cypher et al.
2012).

Unlikely. The SJKF was
historically known from the
vicinity, with 6 CNDDB records in
a 10-mile radius from project
boundaries. The closest of these has
a spatial margin of error that
overlaps the project site; however,
this record is from 1934 and all
others in the 10-mile vicinity are
from over 30 years ago. The site’s
intensively maintained habitats are
unsuitable for the SJKF, and the site
is situated in a matrix of intensive
agriculture, urban development, and
other anthropogenic uses generally
incompatible with this species’
ecology. Mendota does not contain
any urban-adapted SJKF
populations.

TABLE 1. LIST OF SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES THAT COULD OCCUR IN THE

PROJECT VICINITY
5%
TABLE 1. LIST OF SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES THAT COULD OCCUR IN THE

PROJECT VICINITY
ANIMALS — cont’d.

Species Listed as Threatened 0r Endangered under the State and/or Federal Endangered Species Act Species Status
Tricolored blackbird CT
(Agelaius tricolor)
Nelson’s antelope squirrel CT
(Ammospermophilus nelsoni)
Fresno kangaroo rat FE, CE
(Dipodomys nitratoides exilis)
Giant kangaroo rat FE, CE
(Dipodomys ingens)
San Joaquin kit fox (SJKF) FE, CT
(Vulpes macrotis mutica)
Habitat
Nests colonially near fresh water in
dense cattails or tules, in thickets of
Willows or shrubs, and increasingly in
grain fields. Forages in grassland and
cropland areas.

Found in arid upland scrub
communities, and to a lesser extent
grasslands, along the western margin
of the San Joaquin Valley and in the
adjoining hills and plains. Occupies
modified kangaroo rat burrows or selfconstructed burrows. Not usually found on steep slopes or in areas prone
to flooding.

Historically occurred in grassland and
scrub communities on the San Joaquin
Valley floor in Fresno, Madera,
Merced, and Kings Counties. The only
Inhabits grasslands on gentle slopes
with friable, sandy-loam soils in the
west side of the southern San Joaquin
Valley and adjacent coastal foothills.

Frequents desert alkali scrub and
annual grasslands and may forage in
adjacent agricultural habitats. Utilizes
enlarged (6 to 10 inches in diameter)
ground squirrel burrows as denning
habitat. May become adapted to urban
areas, as has occurred in Bakersfield,
Coalinga, and Taft (Cypher et a1.
2012)
Occurrence on the Project Site
Possible. Tricolored blackbirds are occasionally sighted in the Mendota area (eBird 2025, CDFW 2025) and
may fly over or forage on the site
from time to time. Nesting habitat is
absent from the site and adjacent areas. Absent. Past and ongoing land uses would have eliminated any Nelson’s antelope squirrel populations that
may have occurred in the project
Vicinity. There is one historical
record of this species in the
Mendota area, recorded
approximately 2 miles east of the
project site in 1918 (CDFW 2025).

Absent. The intensively maintained
habitats of the site are unsuitable for
the Fresno kangaroo rat, and the site
is situated in a matrix of intensive
agriculture, urban development, and
other anthropogenic uses Within
which this species would not have
been able to persist. Moreover, the
last known observation of a Fresno
kangaroo rat in the Wild was in 1992
(USFWS 2025).

Absent. The intensively maintained
habitats of the site are unsuitable for
the giant kangaroo rat. The closest
known populations of this species are more than 15 miles west of project boundaries.

Unlikely. The SJKF was historically known from the
Vicinity, with 6 CNDDB records in
a 10-mile radius from project
boundaries. The closest of these has a spatial margin of error that overlaps the project site; however,
this record is from 1934 and all
others in the 10-mile Vicinity are
from over 30 years ago. The site’s
intensively maintained habitats are unsuitable for the SJKF, and the site is situated in a matrix of intensive
agriculture, urban development, and
other anthropogenic uses generally
incompatible with this species’
ecology. Mendota does not contain
any urban-adapted SJKF
populations.
14 15
ANIMALS – cont’d.

State Species of Special Concern or California Fully Protected Species Status Habitat Occurrence on the Project Site
San Joaquin coachwhip
(Masticophis flagellum
ruddocki)
CSC Occurs in open, dry areas including
grassland and saltbush scrub. Takes
refuge in rodent burrows and under
shaded vegetation.

Unlikely. The intensively maintained
habitats of the site are unsuitable for
the San Joaquin coachwhip, and the
site is situated in a matrix of intensive
agriculture, urban development, and
other anthropogenic uses within which
this species is unlikely to have
persisted. The only known occurrence
in the general vicinity is a 2004 record
at the Alkali Sink Ecological Reserve,
some 5 miles east of the site (CDFW
2025).

Two-striped garter snake
(Thamnophis hammondii)
CSC Occurs in woodland, chaparral,
brushland, and coniferous forest in
and around permanent water sources
such as pools, creeks, and cattle
tanks. Often found in rocky areas.

Absent. The intensively maintained
habitats of the site are unsuitable for
the two-striped garter snake, and
permanent water sources are absent
from the site and adjacent areas.

Northern California legless
lizard
(Anniella pulchra)
CSC Occurs in sparsely vegetated areas of
beach dunes, chaparral, pine-oak
woodlands, desert scrub, sandy
washes, and stream terraces with
sycamores, cottonwoods, or oaks.

Requires moist soils.

Unlikely. The intensively maintained
habitats of the site are unsuitable for
the northern California legless lizard,
and the site is situated in a matrix of
intensive agriculture, urban
development, and other anthropogenic
uses within which this species, if once
present, is unlikely to have persisted.

The only known occurrence in the
general vicinity is a 2000 sighting
made in riparian habitat along the San
Joaquin River, approximately 6 miles
east of the site (CDFW 2025).

Coast horned lizard
(Phrynosoma blainvillii)
CSC Ranges from the central and southern
California coast inland through the
western Sierra Nevada, where it is
found in grassland and open areas
within woodland and forest habitats.

Often found in sandy areas including
washes and floodplains.

Unlikely. The intensively maintained
habitats of the site are unsuitable for
the coast horned lizard, and the site is
situated in a matrix of intensive
agriculture, urban development, and
other anthropogenic uses within which
this species is unlikely to have
persisted. The only known occurrences
in the general vicinity are associated
with the Alkali Sink Ecological
Reserve, some 5 miles east of the site
(CDFW 2025).

Mountain plover
(Charadrius montanus)
CSC Forages in short grasslands and
freshly plowed fields of the Central
Valley.

Possible. There are several recorded
sightings of the mountain plover in the
general Mendota area, between 1.5 and

4.5 miles from project boundaries
(eBird 2025). Mountain plovers may
forage on the site from time to time.

TABLE 1. LIST OF SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES THAT COULD OCCUR IN THE

PROJECT VICINITY
5%
TABLE 1. LIST OF SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES THAT COULD OCCUR IN THE

PROJECT VICINITY
ANIMALS — cont’d.

State Species of Special Concern or California Fully Protected Species
San Joaquin coachwhip
(Masticophis flagellum
ruddocki)
Two-striped garter snake
(Thamnophis hammondii)
Northern California legless
lizard
(Armiella pulchra)
Coast horned lizard
(Phrjynosoma blainvillz'z')
Mountain plover
(Charadrius montanus)
Status
CSC
CSC
CSC
CSC
CSC
Habitat
Occurs in open, dry areas including
grassland and saltbush scrub. Takes
refuge in rodent burrows and under
shaded vegetation.

Occurs in woodland, Chaparral,
brushland, and coniferous forest in
and around permanent water sources
such as pools, creeks, and cattle
tanks. Often found in rocky areas. Occurs in sparsely vegetated areas of beach dunes, Chaparral, pine-oak
woodlands, desert scrub, sandy
washes, and stream terraces with
sycamores, cottonwoods, or oaks.

Requires moist soils.

Ranges from the central and southern
California coast inland through the
western Sierra Nevada, Where it is
found in grassland and open areas Within woodland and forest habitats.

Often found in sandy areas including
washes and floodplains.

Forages in short grasslands and
freshly plowed fields of the Central
Valley.

Occurrence on the Project Site
Unlikely. The intensively maintained
habitats of the site are unsuitable for
the San Joaquin coachwhip, and the
site is situated in a matrix of intensive
agriculture, urban development, and
other anthropogenic uses within which
this species is unlikely to have
persisted. The only known occurrence
in the general Vicinity is a 2004 record
at the Alkali Sink Ecological Reserve, some 5 miles east of the site (CDFW 2025)
Absent. The intensively maintained
habitats of the site are unsuitable for
the two-striped garter snake, and
permanent water sources are absent
from the site and adjacent areas. Unlikely. The intensively maintained habitats of the site are unsuitable for
the northern California legless lizard,
and the site is situated in a matrix of
intensive agriculture, urban
development, and other anthropogenic uses Within which this species, if once present, is unlikely to have persisted.

The only known occurrence in the
general Vicinity is a 2000 sighting
made in riparian habitat along the San
Joaquin River, approximately 6 miles
east of the site (CDFW 2025).

Unlikely. The intensively maintained
habitats of the site are unsuitable for
the coast horned lizard, and the site is
situated in a matrix of intensive
agriculture, urban development, and
other anthropogenic uses within which
this species is unlikely to have
persisted. The only known occurrences
in the general Vicinity are associated
with the Alkali Sink Ecological
Reserve, some 5 miles east of the site
(CDFW 2025).

Possible. There are several recorded
sightings of the mountain plover in the
general Mendota area, between 1.5 and

4.5 miles from project boundaries
(eBird 2025). Mountain plovers may
forage on the site from time to time.
15 16
ANIMALS – cont’d.

State Species of Special Concern or California Fully Protected Species Status Habitat *Occurrence on the Project Site
Northern harrier
(Circus cyaneus)
CSC Frequents meadows, grasslands, open
rangelands, freshwater emergent
wetlands; uncommon in wooded
habitats. Nests on the ground in high
vegetation.

Possible Suitable breeding habitat for
the northern harrier is absent from the
project site, and the site’s intensively
maintained habitats would be of low
foraging value for this species.

However, harriers are frequently
sighted in the Mendota area (eBird
2025) and have some potential to fly
over or attempt foraging on the site
from time to time.

Yellow-headed blackbird
(Xanthocephalus
xanthocephalus)
CSC Forages and breeds in wetlands. Also
forages in cropland and grassland
several miles from wetlands.

Possible. Yellow-headed blackbirds
are occasionally sighted in the
Mendota area (eBird 2025) and may
fly over or forage on the site from time
to time. Nesting habitat is absent from
the site and adjacent areas.

Western mastiff bat
(Eumops perotis ssp.
californicus)
CSC Frequents open, semi-arid to arid
habitats, including conifer, and
deciduous woodlands, coastal scrub,
grasslands, palm oasis, chaparral and
urban. Roosts in cliff faces, high
buildings, and tunnels.

Possible. This species may forage over
the project site, but roosting habitat is
absent.

Western red bat
(Lasiurus blossevillii)
CSC Found in western lowlands and
coastal regions, where it roosts in the
foliage of large trees and forages over
woodlands, grasslands, orchards, and
agricultural fields.

Possible. This species may forage over
the project site, but roosting habitat is
absent.

American badger
(Taxidea taxus)
CSC Found in drier open stages of most
shrub, forest, and herbaceous habitats
with friable soils. Utilize
subterranean burrows, usually selfdug, for rest and reproduction.

Unlikely. The site’s intensively
maintained habitats are unsuitable for
the American badger, and the site is
situated in a matrix of intensive
agriculture, urban development, and
other anthropogenic uses generally
incompatible with this species’
ecology. The closest known occurrence
is a 1985 sighting at the Alkali Sink
Ecological Reserve, some 6 miles east
of the site.

OCCURRENCE DESIGNATIONS AND STATUS CODES

Present: Species observed on the site at time of field surveys or during recent past.

Likely: Species not observed on the site, but it may reasonably be expected to occur there on a regular basis.

Possible: Species not observed on the site, but it could occur there from time to time.

Unlikely: Species not observed on the site, and would not be expected to occur there except, perhaps, as a transient.

Absent: Species not observed on the site and precluded from occurring there because habitat requirements not met.

STATUS CODES
FE Federally Endangered CE California Endangered
FT Federally Threatened CT California Threatened
FPT Federally Proposed Threatened CCE California Candidate Endangered CFP California Fully Protected
CSC California Species of Special Concern
TABLE 1. LIST OF SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES THAT COULD OCCUR IN THE

PROJECT VICINITY
5%
TABLE 1. LIST OF SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES THAT COULD OCCUR IN THE

PROJECT VICINITY
ANIMALS — cont’d.

State Species of Special Concern or California Fully Protected Species
Northern harrier
(Circus cyaneus)
Yellow-headed blackbird
(Xanthocephalus
xanthocephalus)
Western mastiff bat
(Eumops perotis ssp.
califomicus)
Western red bat
(Lasiurus blossevillz'z')
American badger
(Taxidea taxus)
Status
CSC
CSC
CSC
CSC
CSC
Habitat
Frequents meadows, grasslands, open
rangelands, freshwater emergent
wetlands; uncommon in wooded
habitats. Nests on the ground in high
vegetation.

Forages and breeds in wetlands. Also
forages in cropland and grassland
several miles from wetlands.

Frequents open, semi-arid to arid
habitats, including conifer, and
deciduous woodlands, coastal scrub,
grasslands, palm oasis, Chaparral and
urban. Roosts in cliff faces, high
buildings, and tunnels.

Found in western lowlands and
coastal regions, Where it roosts in the
foliage of large trees and forages over woodlands, grasslands, orchards, and agricultural fields.

Found in drier open stages of most
shrub, forest, and herbaceous habitats
with friable soils. Utilize
subterranean burrows, usually selfdug, for rest and reproduction.

OCCURRENCE DESIGNATIONS AND STATUS CODES

Present: Species observed on the site at time of field surveys or during recent past.

Likely: Species not observed on the site, but it may reasonably be expected to occur there on a regular basis.

Possible: Species not observed on the site, but it could occur there from time to time.

Unlikely: Species not observed on the site, and would not be expected to occur there except, perhaps, as a transient.

Absent: Species not observed on the site and precluded from occurring there because habitat requirements not met.

STATUS CODES
FE Federally Endangered
FT Federally Threatened
FPT Federally Proposed Threatened
CE California Endangered
CT California Threatened
*Occurrence on the Project Site
Possible Suitable breeding habitat for
the northern barrier is absent from the
project site, and the site’s intensively
maintained habitats would be of 10W
foraging value for this species.

However, harriers are frequently
sighted in the Mendota area (eBird
2025) and have some potential to fly
over or attempt foraging on the site
from time to time.

Possible. Yellow-headed blackbirds are occasionally sighted in the Mendota area (eBird 2025) and may
fly over or forage on the site from time
to time. Nesting habitat is absent from
the site and adjacent areas. Possible. This species may forage over the project site, but roosting habitat is
absent.

Possible. This species may forage over
the project site, but roosting habitat is
absent.

CCE California Candidate Endangered
CFP California Fully Protected
CSC California Species of Special Concern
16 17

CRPR CODES
1A Plants Presumed Extinct in California 2 Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in 1B Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, but more common elsewhere California and elsewhere

2.5 JURISDICTIONAL WATERS
Jurisdictional waters are those rivers, creeks, drainages, lakes, ponds, reservoirs, and wetlands that are subject to the authority of the USACE, CDFW, and/or the RWQCB. In general, the USACE regulates navigable waters, tributaries to navigable waters, and wetlands with a continuous surface connection to these waters, where wetlands are defined by the presence of hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and wetland hydrology. All waters under USACE jurisdiction are also regulated by the RWQCB as waters of the State. Additionally, the RWQCB asserts jurisdiction over certain isolated features disclaimed by the USACE. The CDFW has jurisdiction over waters that have a defined bed and bank. The regulation of jurisdictional waters is discussed in more detail in Section 3.2.8.

As discussed, the site contains several segments of a drainage ditch. The ditch runs along much of the collective perimeter of the disked fields that overlap and surround the project site. It does not appear to connect to any other aquatic features. Its purpose is presumably to collect runoff from the fields, but the fields do not appear to have been irrigated since the ditch was constructed in 2017, and the ditch itself is dry in all available Google Earth aerial images. The ditch lacks wetland characteristics and an ordinary high water mark and would not fall under the jurisdiction of the USACE, RWQCB, or CDFW.

2.6 DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT
As will be discussed further in Section 3.0, the USFWS often designates areas of “critical habitat” when it lists species as threatened or endangered. Critical habitat is a specific geographic area(s) that contains features essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species and that may require special management and protection.

Designated critical habitat is absent from the project site and adjacent lands. The nearest unit of critical habitat is at the Alkali Sink Ecological Reserve, approximately 5 miles east of the project site, and is designated for the protection of the Fresno kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides exilis). 5%

CRPR CODES
1A Plants Presumed Extinct in California 2 Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in IE Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, but more common elsewhere California and elsewhere

2.5 JURISDICTIONAL WATERS
Jurisdictional waters are those rivers, creeks, drainages, lakes, ponds, reservoirs, and wetlands that are subject to the authority of the USACE, CDFW, and/or the RWQCB. In general, the USACE regulates navigable waters, tributaries to navigable waters, and wetlands with a continuous surface connection to these waters, Where wetlands are defined by the presence of hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and wetland hydrology. All waters under USACE jurisdiction are also regulated by the RWQCB as waters of the State. Additionally, the RWQCB asserts jurisdiction over certain isolated features disclaimed by the USACE. The CDFW has jurisdiction over waters that have a defined bed and bank. The regulation of jurisdictional waters is discussed in more detail in Section 3.2.8.

2.7 CALIFORNIA SENSITIVE NATURAL COMMUNITIES
California contains a wide range of natural communities, or unique assemblages of plants and animals. These communities have largely been classified and mapped by CDFW as part of their Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program (VegCAMP). Natural communities are assigned state and global ranks according to their rarity and the magnitude and trend of the threats they face. Any natural community with a state rank of 3 or lower (on a 1 to 5 scale) is considered “sensitive” and must be considered in CEQA review.

Sensitive natural communities and other sensitive habitats are absent from the project site and adjacent lands.

2.8 WILDLIFE MOVEMENT CORRIDORS
Wildlife movement corridors are routes that animals regularly and predictably follow during seasonal migration, dispersal from native ranges, daily travel within home ranges, and interpopulation movements. Movement corridors in California are typically associated with valleys, rivers and creeks supporting riparian vegetation, and ridgelines.

The project site does not contain or adjoin any geographic features that could function as a wildlife movement corridor.
5%

2.7 CALIFORNIA SENSITIVE NATURAL COMMUNITIES
California contains a Wide range of natural communities, or unique assemblages of plants and animals. These communities have largely been classified and mapped by CDFW as part of their Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program (VegCAMP). Natural communities are assigned state and global ranks according to their rarity and the magnitude and trend of the threats they face. Any natural community with a state rank of 3 or lower (on a 1 to 5 scale) is considered “sensitive” and must be considered in CEQA review.

Sensitive natural communities and other sensitive habitats are absent from the project site and adjacent lands.

2.8 WILDLIFE MOVEMENT CORRIDORS
Wildlife movement corridors are routes that animals regularly and predictably follow during seasonal migration, dispersal from native ranges, daily travel Within home ranges, and interpopulation movements. Movement corridors in California are typically associated with valleys, rivers and creeks supporting riparian vegetation, and ridgelines.

The project site does not contain or adjoin any geographic features that could function as a Wildlife movement corridor.
18 19

3.0 RELEVANT GOALS, POLICIES, AND LAWS

3.1 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
In California, any project carried out or approved by a public agency that will result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment must comply with CEQA.

The purpose of CEQA is to ensure that a project’s potential impacts on the environment are evaluated and methods for avoiding or reducing these impacts are considered before the project is allowed to move forward. A secondary aim of CEQA is to provide justification to the public for the approval of any projects involving significant impacts on the environment.

According to Section 15382 of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant effect on the environment means a “substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic interest.” Although the lead agency may set its own CEQA significance thresholds, project impacts to biological resources are generally considered to be significant if they would meet any of the following criteria established in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines:
• Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS.
• Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by CDFW or USFWS.
• Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.
• 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.
• Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
• Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. 5%

3.0 RELEVANT GOALS, POLICIES, AND LAWS

According to Section 15382 of the CEQA Guidelines, 21significant effect on the environment means a “substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions Within the area affected by the project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic interest.” Although the lead agency may set its own CEQA significance thresholds, project impacts to biological resources are generally considered to be significant if they would meet any of the following criteria established in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines:
0 Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS.
0 Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by CDFW or USFWS.
0 Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal p001, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.
0 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.
0 Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
0 Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. 19 20
Furthermore, CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a) requires the lead agency to make “mandatory findings of significance” if there is substantial evidence that a project may:
• Substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species. • Achieve short-term environmental goals to the detriment of long-term environmental goals.
• Produce environmental effects that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable, meaning that the incremental effects of the project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects.

3.2 OTHER RELEVANT LAWS AND POLICIES

3.2.1 Fresno County General Plan
California state law requires cities and counties to adopt general plans to guide future development while conserving natural resources and working landscapes. In general, projects must be consistent with the goals and policies of these general plans. The County of Fresno’s general plan was adopted in 2000 and has a planning horizon of 15 to 25 years.

The general plan’s Open Space and Conservation Element includes a number of goals, policies, and implementation programs concerning biological resources. Policies of particular relevance to the project are summarized as follows: 1) the County shall support the “no-net-loss” wetlands policies of the USACE, USFWS, and CDFW, and shall require new development to fully mitigate the loss of regulated wetlands, 2) the County shall require new development to be designed in such a manner that pollutants and siltation do not significantly degrade the area, value, or function of wetlands, 3) the County shall require new developments to preserve and enhance native riparian habitat unless public safety concerns require removal of habitat, and shall require riparian protection zones around natural watercourses, 4) the County shall identify and conserve remaining upland habitat areas adjacent to wetland and riparian areas that are critically important to wildlife species associated with those wetland and riparian areas, 5) where practicable, the County shall support efforts to avoid the “net” loss of important wildlife habitat, and should preserve in a 5%
Furthermore, CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a) requires the lead agency to make “mandatory findings of significance” if there is substantial evidence that a project may:
0 Substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or Wildlife species, cause a fish or Wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species. 0 Achieve short-term environmental goals to the detriment of long-term environmental goals.
0 Produce environmental effects that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable, meaning that the incremental effects of the project are significant when Viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects.

3.2 OTHER RELEVANT LAWS AND POLICIES

3.2.1 Fresno County General Plan
California state law requires cities and counties to adopt general plans to guide future development While conserving natural resources and working landscapes. In general, projects must be consistent with the goals and policies of these general plans. The County of Fresno’s general plan was adopted in 2000 and has a planning horizon of 15 to 25 years.

The general plan’s Open Space and Conservation Element includes a number of goals, policies, and implementation programs concerning biological resources. Policies of particular relevance to the project are summarized as follows: 1) the County shall support the “no-net-loss” wetlands policies of the USACE, USFWS, and CDFW, and shall require new development to fully mitigate the loss of regulated wetlands, 2) the County shall require new development to be designed in such a manner that pollutants and siltation do not significantly degrade the area, value, or function of wetlands, 3) the County shall require new developments to preserve and enhance native riparian habitat unless public safety concerns require removal of habitat, and shall require riparian protection zones around natural watercourses, 4) the County shall identify and conserve remaining upland habitat areas adjacent to wetland and riparian areas that are critically important to Wildlife species associated with those wetland and riparian areas, 5) Where practicable, the County shall support efforts to avoid the “net” loss of important Wildlife habitat, and should preserve in a 20 21
natural state those areas defined as habitats for rare and endangered animal and plant species, 6) if loss of important habitat for special status species or other valuable wildlife resources cannot be avoided, the County shall impose adequate mitigation, 7) the County shall require adequate buffer zones between construction activities and significant wildlife resources, 8) the County shall support the preservation of significant areas of natural vegetation, e.g. oak woodlands, riparian areas, and vernal pools, and 9) the County shall require that new developments preserve natural woodlands to the maximum extent possible.

3.2.2 Threatened and Endangered Species
In California, imperiled plants and animals may be afforded special legal protections under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) and/or Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA). Species may be listed as “threatened” or “endangered” under one or both Acts, and/or as “rare” under CESA. Under both Acts, “endangered” means a species is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and “threatened” means a species is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future. Under CESA, “rare” means a species may become endangered if their present environment worsens. Both Acts prohibit “take” of listed species, defined under CESA as “to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill” (California Fish and Game Code, Section 86), and more broadly defined under FESA to include “harm” (16 USC, Section 1532(19), 50 CFR, Section 17.3). The USFWS commonly interprets “take” to include the loss of habitat utilized by a listed species.

When state and federally listed species have the potential to be impacted by a project, the USFWS and CDFW must be included in the CEQA process. These agencies review the environmental document to determine the adequacy of its treatment of endangered species issues and to make project-specific recommendations for the protection of listed species. Projects that may result in the “take” of listed species must generally enter into consultation with the USFWS and/or CDFW pursuant to FESA and CESA, respectively. In some cases, incidental take authorization(s) from these agencies may be required before the project can be implemented. 5%
natural state those areas defined as habitats for rare and endangered animal and plant species, 6) if loss of important habitat for special status species or other valuable Wildlife resources cannot be avoided, the County shall impose adequate mitigation, 7) the County shall require adequate buffer zones between construction activities and significant Wildlife resources, 8) the County shall support the preservation of significant areas of natural vegetation, e.g. oak woodlands, riparian areas, and vernal pools, and 9) the County shall require that new developments preserve natural woodlands to the maximum extent possible.

3.2.2 Threatened and Endangered Species
In California, imperiled plants and animals may be afforded special legal protections under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) and/0r Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA). Species may be listed as “threatened” or “endangered” under one or both Acts, and/or as “rare” under CESA. Under both Acts, “endangered” means a species is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and “threatened” means a species is likely to become endangered Within the foreseeable future. Under CESA, “rare” means a species may become endangered if their present environment worsens. Both Acts prohibit “take” of listed species, defined under CESA as “to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill” (California Fish and Game Code, Section 86), and more broadly defined under FESA to include “harm” (16 USC, Section 1532(19), 50 CFR, Section 17.3). The USFWS commonly interprets “take” to include the loss of habitat utilized by a listed species.

3.2.3 California Fully Protected Species
The classification of certain animal species as “fully protected” was the State of California’s initial effort in the 1960s, prior to the passage of the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), to identify and provide additional protection to those species that were rare or faced possible extinction. Following CESA enactment in 1970, many fully protected species were also listed as California threatened or endangered. The list of fully protected species are identified, and their protections stipulated, in California Fish and Game Code Sections 3511 (birds), 4700 (mammals), 5050 (reptiles and amphibians), and fish (5515). Fully protected species may not be taken or possessed at any time and no licenses or permits may be issued for their take, except in conjunction with necessary scientific research and protection of livestock.

3.2.4 Migratory Birds
The Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (FMBTA: 16 USC 703-712) prohibits killing, possessing, or trading in any bird species covered in one of four international conventions to which the United States is a party, except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior.

The name of the act is misleading, as it actually covers almost all birds native to the United States, even those that are non-migratory. The FMBTA encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs.

Native birds are also protected under California state law. The California Fish and Game Code makes it unlawful to take or possess any non-game bird covered by the FMBTA (Section 3513), as well as any other native non-game bird (Section 3800), even if incidental to lawful activities.

3.2.5 Birds of Prey
Birds of prey are also protected in California under provisions of the State Fish and Game Code, Section 3503.5, 1992), which states that it is “unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds of prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.” Construction disturbance during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Disturbance 5%

3.2.3 California Fully Protected Species
The classification of certain animal species as “fully protected” was the State of California’s initial effort in the 19605, prior to the passage of the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), to identify and provide additional protection to those species that were rare or faced possible extinction. Following CESA enactment in 1970, many fully protected species were also listed as California threatened or endangered. The list of fully protected species are identified, and their protections stipulated, in California Fish and Game Code Sections 3511 (birds), 4700 (mammals), 5050 (reptiles and amphibians), and fish (5515). Fully protected species may not be taken or possessed at any time and no licenses or permits may be issued for their take, except in conjunction with necessary scientific research and protection of livestock.

The name of the act is misleading, as it actually covers almost all birds native to the United States, even those that are non-migratory. The FMBTA encompasses Whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs.

3.2.5 Birds of Prey
Birds of prey are also protected in California under provisions of the State Fish and Game Code, Section 3503.5, 1992), which states that it is “unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order Falcom'formes or Strigiformes (birds of prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.” Construction disturbance during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Disturbance 22 23
that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered “taking” by the CDFW.

3.2.6 Nesting Birds
In California, protection is afforded to the nests and eggs of all birds. California Fish and Game Code (Section 3503) states that it is “unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.” Breeding-season disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered a form of “take” by the CDFW.

3.2.7 Habitat Conservation Plans and Natural Community Conservation Plans Section 10 of the federal Endangered Species Act establishes a process by which non-federal projects can obtain authorization to incidentally take listed species, provided take is minimized and thoroughly mitigated. A Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), developed by the project applicant in collaboration with the USFWS and/or NMFS, ensures that such minimization and mitigation will occur, and is a prerequisite to the issuance of a federal incidental take permit. Similarly, a Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), developed by the project applicant in collaboration with CDFW, provides for the conservation of biodiversity within a project area, and permits limited incidental take of state-listed species.

3.2.7 Habitat Conservation Plans and Natural Community Conservation Plans Section 10 of the federal Endangered Species Act establishes a process by which non-federal projects can obtain authorization to incidentally take listed species, provided take is minimized and thoroughly mitigated. A Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), developed by the project applicant in collaboration with the USFWS and/or NMFS, ensures that such minimization and mitigation will occur, and is a prerequisite to the issuance of a federal incidental take permit. Similarly, a Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), developed by the project applicant in collaboration with CDFW, provides for the conservation of biodiversity Within a project area, and permits limited incidental take of state-listed species.

3.2.8 Wetlands and Other Jurisdictional Waters
Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into “navigable waters” (33 U.S.C. §1344), defined in the CWA as “the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas” (33 U.S.C. §1362(7)). The CWA does not supply a definition for waters of the U.S., and that has been the subject of considerable debate since the CWA’S passage in 1972. A variety of regulatory definitions have been promulgated by the two federal agencies responsible for implementing the CWA, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and USACE. These definitions have been interpreted, and in some cases, invalidated, by federal courts.
23 24
Waters of the U.S. are presently defined by the EPA and USACE’s joint 2023 Revised Definition of ‘Waters of the U.S.’ Rule (2023 WOTUS Rule), issued in January 2023 and amended in August 2023. Generally speaking, waters of the U.S. include:
• Waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide
• The territorial seas
• Interstate waters
• Impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under the definition
• Tributaries to other waters of the U.S. that are relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water
• Wetlands adjacent to other waters of the U.S. that have a continuous surface connection to those waters
The 2023 WOTUS Rule also defines a number of exclusions from the definition of waters of the U.S., many of which are longstanding exclusions from earlier regulatory regimes. These generally include:
• Waste treatment systems
• Prior converted cropland
• Ditches excavated wholly in and draining only dry land that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water
• Certain artificial features, e.g. irrigation basins, swimming pools, borrow pits, and artificially irrigated areas
• Swales and erosional features characterized by low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow
All activities that involve the discharge of dredge or fill material into waters of the U.S. are subject to the permit requirements of the USACE. Such permits are typically issued on the condition that the applicant agrees to provide mitigation that result in no net loss of wetland functions or values. 6%
Waters of the US. are presently defined by the EPA and USACE’S joint 2023 Revised Definition of ‘Waters of the US. ’ Rule (2023 WOTUS Rule), issued in January 2023 and amended in August 2023. Generally speaking, waters of the US. include:
. Waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide
. The territorial seas
. Interstate waters
. Impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under the definition
. Tributaries to other waters of the US. that are relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water
. Wetlands adjacent to other waters of the US. that have a continuous surface connection to those waters
The 2023 WOTUS Rule also defines a number of exclusions from the definition of waters of the US, many of which are longstanding exclusions from earlier regulatory regimes. These generally include:

Waste treatment systems
. Prior converted cropland
. Ditches excavated Wholly in and draining only dry land that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water
. Certain artificial features, e.g. irrigation basins, swimming pools, borrow pits, and artificially irrigated areas
. Swales and erosional features characterized by low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow
All activities that involve the discharge of dredge or fill material into waters of the US. are subject to the permit requirements of the USACE. Such permits are typically issued on the condition that the applicant agrees to provide mitigation that result in no net loss of wetland functions or values. 24 25
Under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1969, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) has regulatory authority to protect the water quality of all surface water and groundwater in the State of California (“waters of the State”). Nine RWQCBs oversee water quality at the local and regional level. The RWQCB for a given region regulates discharges of fill or pollutants into waters of the State through the issuance of various permits and orders.

Discharges into waters of the State that are also waters of the U.S. require a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB as a prerequisite to obtaining a Section 404 Clean Water Act permit. Discharges into waters of the State that are not also waters of the U.S. require Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs), or waivers of WDRs, from the RWQCB.

The SWRCB and RWQCBs also administer the federal National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program, which is concerned with the discharge of stormwater and other pollutants into water bodies. Projects that disturb one or more acres of soil must obtain coverage under the SWRCB’s current NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit. A prerequisite for permit coverage is the development of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) by a certified Qualified SWPPP Developer. Other types of pollutant discharges into waters of the U.S., such as wastewater, may require coverage under a different NPDES general permit, and in some cases an individual permit.

CDFW has jurisdiction over the bed and bank of natural drainages and lakes according to provisions of Section 1601 and 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code. Activities that may substantially modify such waters through the diversion or obstruction of their natural flow, change or use of any material from their bed or bank, or the deposition of debris require a Notification of Lake or Streambed Alteration. If CDFW determines that the activity may adversely affect fish and wildlife resources, a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement will be prepared. Such an agreement typically stipulates that certain measures will be implemented to protect the habitat values of the lake or drainage in question.
6%
Under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1969, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) has regulatory authority to protect the water quality of all surface water and groundwater in the State of California (“waters of the State”). Nine RWQCBS oversee water quality at the local and regional level. The RWQCB for a given region regulates discharges of fill or pollutants into waters of the State through the issuance of various permits and orders.

Discharges into waters of the State that are also waters of the US. require a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB as a prerequisite to obtaining a Section 404 Clean Water Act permit. Discharges into waters of the State that are not also waters of the US. require Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRS), or waivers of WDRS, from the RWQCB.

The SWRCB and RWQCBS also administer the federal National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program, which is concerned with the discharge of stormwater and other pollutants into water bodies. Projects that disturb one or more acres of soil must obtain coverage under the SWRCB’S current NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit. A prerequisite for permit coverage is the development of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) by a certified Qualified SWPPP Developer. Other types of pollutant discharges into waters of the U.S., such as wastewater, may require coverage under a different NPDES general permit, and in some cases an individual permit.

4.0 IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS
The project considered in this evaluation of impacts to biological resources is the conversion of approximately 58 acres of vacant land to a residential subdivision and associated off-site infrastructure. This analysis assumes that all areas of the project site will experience permanent impacts from proposed development.

4.1 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT PROJECT IMPACTS

4.1.1 Potential Project Impacts to Nesting Raptors and Migratory Birds including the Swainson’s Hawk
Potential Impacts. The project site has the potential to support nesting by certain ground-nesting birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and related state laws; for example, the killdeer, mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), and western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta). Various other birds may nest in trees or shrubs adjacent to the site; for example, American robins (Turdus migratorius) and northern mockingbirds (Mimus polyglottos), among other species. Although relatively unlikely due to high levels of ambient disturbance, trees in the project vicinity may also support nesting by raptors such as the red-tailed hawk and possibly even the Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), a California Threatened species. If project construction takes place during the nesting season, birds nesting on site could be injured or killed by construction activities, while birds nesting near the site could be disturbed such that they would abandon their nests.

Construction-related mortality of nesting birds and disturbance leading to nest abandonment would violate state and federal laws and constitute a significant impact of the project.

As noted in Table 1, Swainson’s hawks have some potential to forage on the project site from time to time. However, the site’s maintenance regimen is likely to limit its prey base and associated foraging suitability for this species. Similar and higher quality habitat is abundant in the greater Mendota area. The project site is not expected to represent an important part of any individual foraging range, particularly given this species’ wide-ranging foraging behavior. Loss of foraging habitat for the Swainson’s hawk is not considered a significant impact of the project under CEQA.
5%

4.1 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT PROJECT IMPACTS

4.1.1 Potential Project Impacts to Nesting Raptors and Migratory Birds including the Swainson’s Hawk
Potential Impacts. The project site has the potential to support nesting by certain ground-nesting birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and related state laws; for example, the killdeer, mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), and western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta). Various other birds may nest in trees or shrubs adjacent to the site; for example, American robins (Turdus migratorius) and northern mockingbirds (Mimus polyglottos), among other species. Although relatively unlikely due to high levels of ambient disturbance, trees in the project Vicinity may also support nesting by raptors such as the red-tailed hawk and possibly even the Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), a California Threatened species. If project construction takes place during the nesting season, birds nesting on site could be injured or killed by construction activities, While birds nesting near the site could be disturbed such that they would abandon their nests.

Construction-related mortality of nesting birds and disturbance leading to nest abandonment would Violate state and federal laws and constitute a significant impact of the project.

As noted in Table 1, Swainson’s hawks have some potential to forage on the project site from time to time. However, the site’s maintenance regimen is likely to limit its prey base and associated foraging suitability for this species. Similar and higher quality habitat is abundant in the greater Mendota area. The project site is not expected to represent an important part of any individual foraging range, particularly given this species’ Wide-ranging foraging behavior. Loss of foraging habitat for the Swainson’s hawk is not considered a significant impact of the project under CEQA.
26 27
Mitigation. The following measures will be implemented for the protection of nesting birds and raptors including the Swainson’s hawk.

Mitigation Measure 4.1.1a (Construction Timing). If feasible, future construction activities will take place entirely outside of the avian nesting season, defined as February 1 to August 31.

Mitigation Measure 4.1.1b (Preconstruction Surveys). If construction must occur between February 1 and August 31, a qualified biologist will conduct surveys for active bird nests within 7 days prior to the start of work during this period. The survey area will encompass the site and surrounding lands within ½ mile for the Swainson’s hawk, 500 feet for other nesting raptors, and 250 feet for other nesting birds.

Mitigation Measure 4.1.1c (Avoidance of Active Nests). Should any active nests be discovered in or near proposed construction zones, the biologist will identify a suitable construction-free buffer around the nest. This buffer will be identified on the ground with flagging or fencing and will be maintained until the biologist has determined that the young have fledged and are capable of foraging independently.

Implementation of the above measures will reduce potential project impacts to nesting birds and raptors, including the Swainson’s hawk, to a less than significant level under CEQA and facilitate compliance with state and federal laws protecting these species.

4.2 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT PROJECT IMPACTS

4.2.1 Potential Project Impacts to Special Status Plants Potential Impacts. Fourteen special status plant species have been documented in the project vicinity (see Table 1). All ten species are considered absent from the project site due to an absence of suitable habitat and/or soils, the site’s being situated outside of the species’ distribution, or a combination thereof. Potential project impacts to special status plants are considered less than significant under CEQA.

Mitigation. Mitigation is not warranted.

Mitigation Measure 4.1.1a (Construction Timing). If feasible, future construction activities will take place entirely outside of the avian nesting season, defined as February 1 to August 31.

Mitigation Measure 4.1.1b (Preconstruction Surveys). If construction must occur between February 1 and August 31, a qualified biologist will conduct surveys for active bird nests Within 7 days prior to the start of work during this period. The survey area will encompass the site and surrounding lands Within 1/2 mile for the Swainson’s hawk, 500 feet for other nesting raptors, and 250 feet for other nesting birds.

Mitigation Measure 4.1.16 (Avoidance of Active Nests). Should any active nests be discovered in or near proposed construction zones, the biologist will identify a suitable construction-free buffer around the nest. This buffer will be identified on the ground with flagging or fencing and will be maintained until the biologist has determined that the young have fledged and are capable of foraging independently.

4.2 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT PROJECT IMPACTS

4.2.1 Potential Project Impacts to Special Status Plants Potential Impacts. Fourteen special status plant species have been documented in the project Vicinity (see Table 1). All ten species are considered absent from the project site due to an absence of suitable habitat and/or soils, the site’s being situated outside of the species’ distribution, or a combination thereof. Potential project impacts to special status plants are considered less than significant under CEQA.

Mitigation. Mitigation is not warranted.

4.2.2 Potential Project Impacts to Special Status Animal Species Absent from or Unlikely to Occur Within the Project Site
Potential Impacts. Of the 27 special status animal species that potentially occur in the general Vicinity of the site, 20 are considered absent from or unlikely to occur Within the project site due 27 28
to the absence of suitable habitat and/or the project site being situated outside of the species’ known distribution (see Table 1). These comprise the longhorn fairy shrimp (Branchinecta longiantenna), vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), Crotch’s bumble bee (Bombus crotchii), Central Valley steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus), western spadefoot (Spea hammondii), blunt-nosed leopard lizard (Gambelia sila), giant garter snake (Thamnophis gigas), western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), bank swallow (Riparia riparia), western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis), Nelson’s antelope squirrel (Ammospermophilus nelsoni), Fresno kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides exilis), giant kangaroo rat (Dipodomys ingens), San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica), San Joaquin coachwhip (Masticophis flagellum ruddocki), two-striped garter snake (Thamnophis hammondii), northern California legless lizard (Anniella pulchra), coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii), and American badger (Taxidea taxus). The project is expected to have an insignificant effect or no effect on these species through construction mortality/disturbance or loss of habitat because there is little or no likelihood that they are present.

Mitigation. Mitigation is not warranted.

4.2.3 Project Impacts to Special Status Animal Species that Would Use the Site for NonSensitive Activities Only Potential Impacts. Six special status animal species, the tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), mountain plover (Charadrius montanus), northern harrier (Circus hudsonius), yellow-headed blackbird (Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus), western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus), and western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii), have some potential to pass through or forage on the site from time to time but would not nest, breed, or communally roost on or near enough to the site that they could be vulnerable to construction-related disturbance during these sensitive activities (see Table 1). Individuals of this species are unlikely to be injured or killed by construction activities because they are highly mobile while foraging and would be expected to simply avoid active work areas.

The project would not adversely affect these species through loss of foraging habitat. The site does not offer unique foraging habitat for these species, nor is it likely to represent an important 6%
to the absence of suitable habitat and/or the project site being situated outside of the species’ known distribution (see Table 1). These comprise the longhorn fairy shrimp (Branchinecta longiantenna), vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), Crotch’s bumble bee (Bombus crotchii), Central Valley steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus), western spadefoot (Spea hammondii), blunt-nosed leopard lizard (Gambelia sila), giant garter snake (Thamnophis gigas), western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata), burrowing 0W1(Athene cunicularia), bank swallow (Riparia riparia), western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis), Nelson’s antelope squirrel (Ammospermophilus nelsoni), Fresno kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides exilis), giant kangaroo rat (Dipodomys ingens), San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica), San Joaquin coachwhip (Masticophis flagellum ruddockz'), two-striped garter snake (Thamnophis hammondii), northern California legless lizard (Anniella pulchra), coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii), and American badger (Taxidea taxus). The project is expected to have an insignificant effect or no effect on these species through construction mortality/disturbance or loss of habitat because there is little or no likelihood that they are present.

Mitigation. Mitigation is not warranted.

4.2.3 Project Impacts to Special Status Animal Species that Would Use the Site for NonSensitive Activities Only Potential Impacts. Six special status animal species, the tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), mountain plover (Charadrius montanus), northern harrier (Circus hudsonius), yellow-headed blackbird (Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus), western mastiff bat (Eumops pemtis califomicus), and western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii), have some potential to pass through or forage on the site from time to time but would not nest, breed, or communally roost on or near enough to the site that they could be vulnerable to construction-related disturbance during these sensitive activities (see Table 1). Individuals of this species are unlikely to be injured or killed by construction activities because they are highly mobile While foraging and would be expected to simply avoid active work areas.

The project would not adversely affect these species through loss of foraging habitat. The site does not offer unique foraging habitat for these species, nor is it likely to represent an important 28 29
part of their foraging range, given its disturbed nature and urban setting. Similar and higher quality foraging habitats are abundant in the project vicinity and elsewhere in the region.

Mitigation. Mitigation is not warranted.

4.2.4 Potential Project Impacts to Waters of the U.S. and State Potential Impacts. The site does not contain or adjoin any features that would fall under the jurisdiction of the USACE, RWQCB, or CDFW. The project will have no impact on waters of the U.S. and state.

Mitigation. Mitigation is not warranted.

4.2.5 Potential Project Impacts to Wildlife Movement Corridors Potential Impacts. The project site does not contain or adjoin any geographic features that could function as a wildlife movement corridor. Therefore, the project will have no impact on wildlife movement corridors.

Mitigation. Mitigation is not warranted.

4.2.6 Project Impacts to Sensitive Natural Communities and Designated Critical Habitat Potential Impacts. Sensitive natural communities and designated critical habitat are absent from the project site and surrounding lands. Project development would have no impact on sensitive natural communities or designated critical habitat.

Mitigation. No mitigation is warranted.

4.2.7 Consistency with Local Policies and Ordinances
Potential Impacts. The project appears consistent with Fresno County General Plan policies related to biological resources.

Mitigation. Mitigation measures are not warranted.
5%
part of their foraging range, given its disturbed nature and urban setting. Similar and higher quality foraging habitats are abundant in the project Vicinity and elsewhere in the region.

Mitigation. Mitigation is not warranted.

4.2.4 Potential Project Impacts to Waters of the US. and State Potential Impacts. The site does not contain or adjoin any features that would fall under the jurisdiction of the USACE, RWQCB, or CDFW. The project will have no impact on waters of the US. and state.

Mitigation. Mitigation is not warranted.

4.2.5 Potential Project Impacts to Wildlife Movement Corridors Potential Impacts. The project site does not contain or adjoin any geographic features that could function as a Wildlife movement corridor. Therefore, the project will have no impact on Wildlife movement corridors.

Mitigation. Mitigation is not warranted.

Mitigation. No mitigation is warranted.

4.2.7 Consistency with Local Policies and Ordinances
Potential Impacts. The project appears consistent with Fresno County General Plan policies related to biological resources.

Mitigation. Mitigation measures are not warranted.
29 30

4.2.8 Consistency with Habitat Conservation Plans and Natural Community Conservation Plans
Potential Impacts. There are no known HCPs or NCCPs that would apply to the project.

Mitigation. Mitigation measures are not warranted.
5%

4.2.8 Consistency with Habitat Conservation Plans and Natural Community Conservation Plans
Potential Impacts. There are no known HCPs or NCCPS that would apply to the project.

Mitigation. Mitigation measures are not warranted.
30 31

LITERATURE REFERENCED
Baldwin, B. G., D. H. Goldman, D. J. Keil, R. Patterson, and T. J. Rosatti, Eds. 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, 2nd edition. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Baumberger, K. L., M. V. Eitzel, M. E. Kirby, and M. H. Horn. 2019. Movement and habitat selection of the western spadefoot (Spea hammondii) in southern California. PLoS ONE 14(10): e0222532. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222532 Calflora. 2025. Calflora: An online database of plant identification and distribution [web application]. Calflora, Berkeley, California. Available: http://www.calflora.org.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2025. California Natural Diversity Database. The Resources Agency, Sacramento, CA.
________. 2002. California Fish and Game Code. Gould Publications. Binghamton, NY.

California Native Plant Society. 2025. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. Available: http://cnps.site.aplus.net/cgi-bin/inv/inventory.cgi.

Cypher, B., C. Van Horn Job, and S. Phillips. 2012. Conservation strategies for San Joaquin kit foxes in urban environments. Prepared for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Agreement No. R11AP20502.
eBird. 2025. eBird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance [web application]. eBird, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. Available: http://www.ebird.org.

Estep, J. A. 1989. Biology, movements, and habitat relationships of the Swainson’s hawk in the Central Valley of California, 1986-87. The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Management Division, Nongame Bird and Mammal Section. iNaturalist. 2025. Available: https://www.inaturalist.org/ Jepson Flora Project (eds.) 2025. Jepson eFlora, Available: https://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/ NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information. 2021. U.S. Climate Normals 2020: U.S.

Annual Climate Normals (1991-2020). Available: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/usclimate-normals/#dataset=normalsannualseasonal&timeframe=30&location=CA&station=US1CAFR0014.

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2025. UC Davis: Soil Web. Available:
https://casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu/gmap/
U.S. Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual.

Department of the Army.
5%

LITERATURE REFERENCED
Baldwin, B. G., D. H. Goldman, D. J. Keil, R. Patterson, and T. J. Rosatti, Eds. 2012. The J epson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, 2nd edition. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Baumberger, K. L., M. V. Eitzel, M. E. Kirby, and M. H. Horn. 2019. Movement and habitat selection of the western spadefoot (Spea hammondii) in southern California. PLOS ONE 14(10): 60222532. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1371/iournal.pone.0222532 Calflora. 2025. Calflora: An online database of plant identification and distribution [web application]. Calflora, Berkeley, California. Available: http://www.calflora.org.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2025. California Natural Diversity Database. The Resources Agency, Sacramento, CA.
. 2002. California Fish and Game Code. Gould Publications. Binghamton, NY.

California Native Plant Society. 2025. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. Available: http://cnps.site.aplus.net/cgi-bin/inV/inventorv.cgi.

Cypher, B., C. Van Horn Job, and S. Phillips. 2012. Conservation strategies for San Joaquin kit foxes in urban environments. Prepared for the US. Bureau of Reclamation, Agreement No. R11AP20502.
eBird. 2025. eBird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance [web application]. eBird, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. Available: http://www.ebird.0rg.

Estep, J. A. 1989. Biology, movements, and habitat relationships of the Swainson’s hawk in the Central Valley of California, 1986-87. The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Management Division, Nongame Bird and Mammal Section. iNaturalist. 2025. Available: https://WWW.inaturalist.org/ Jepson Flora Project (eds.) 2025. Jepson eFlora, Available: https://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/efl0ra/ NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information. 2021. US. Climate Normals 2020: US.

Annual Climate Normals (1991-2020). Available: https://WWW.ncei.noaa.gov/access/usclimate-normals/#dataset=normalsannualseasonal&timeframe=3 0&location=CA& station=US 1 CAFROO14.

Department of the Army.
31 32
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2025. 5-year review, Fresno kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides exilis). Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, Sacramento, CA.

Zeiner, David C., William F. Laudenslayer, Kenneth E. Mayer and Marshal White. Ed. 1988.

California’s wildlife, volume I, amphibians and reptiles, volume II, birds, and volume III, mammals. Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. Available:
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CWHR/Life-History-and-Range. 6%
US. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2025. 5-year review, Fresno kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides exilis). Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, Sacramento, CA.

Zeiner, David G, William F. Laudenslayer, Kenneth E. Mayer and Marshal White. Ed. 1988.

California’s wildlife, volume I, amphibians and reptiles, volume 11, birds, and volume 111, mammals. Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. Available:
https://Wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CWHR/Life-History-and-Range. 32 33
APPENDIX APPENDIX A: A: VASCULAR VASCULAR PLANTS OF THE PROJECT SITE PLANTS OF THE PROJECT SITE 33 34

APPENDIX A

VASCULAR PLANTS OF THE PROJECT SITE
The plant species listed below were observed on the project site during LOA’s October 7, 2025 surveys. The wetland indicator status of each plant, derived from the USACE-administered National Wetland Plant List for the Arid West Region, has been shown following its common name if available.

OBL - Obligate
FACW - Facultative Wetland
FAC - Facultative
FACU - Facultative Upland
UPL - Upland

AMARANTHACEAE – Amaranth Family
Amaranthus blitoides Procumbent Pigweed FACU
Amaranthus retroflexus Redroot Amaranth FACU
Atriplex polycarpa Cattle Saltbrush FACU
APOCYNACEAE – Dogbane Family
Asclepias fascicularis Narrowleaf Milkweed FAC
ASTERACEAE – Sunflower Family
Lactuca serriola Prickly Lettuce FACU
BORAGINACEAE – Borage Family
Heliotropium curassavicum Salt Heliotrope FACU
BRASSICACEAE – Mustard Family
Rhamphospermum nigrum Black Mustard UPL
CACTACEAE—Cactus Family
Opuntia Prickly Pear UPL
CHENOPODIACEAE—Goosefoot Family
Salsola tragus Russian Thistle FACU
CONVOLVULACEAE – Bindweed Family
Convolvulus arvensis Field Bindweed UPL
CUCURBITACEAE – Gourd Family
Citrullus lanatus Watermelon UPL
MALVACEAE – Mallow Family
Malvella leprosa Alkali Cheeseweed FACU
Malvella parviflora Cheeseweed UPL
POACEAE – Grass Family
Avena sp. Oat UPL
Cynodon dactylon Bermuda Grass FACU
Echinochloa crus-galli Barnyard Grass FACW
Hordeum marinum Seaside Barley FAC
SOLANACEAE – Nightshade Family
Solanum lycopersicum Cherry Tomato UPL
5%

APPENDIX A

OBL - Obligate
FACW - Facultative Wetland
FAC - Facultative
FACU - Facultative Upland
UPL - Upland
AMARANTHACEAE — Amaranth Family
Amaranthus blitaides Procumbent Pigweed FACU
Amaranthus retroflexus Redroot Amaranth FACU
Atriplex polycarpa Cattle Saltbrush FACU
APOCYNACEAE — Dogbane Family
Asclepiasfascicularis Narrowleaf Milkweed FAC
ASTERACEAE — Sunflower Family
Lactuca serriola Prickly Lettuce FACU
BORAGINACEAE — Borage Family
Heliotropium cumssavicum Salt Heliotrope FACU
BRASSICACEAE — Mustard Family
Rhamphospermum nigrum Black Mustard UPL
CACTACEAE—Cactus Family
Opuntia Prickly Pear UPL
CHENOPODIACEAE—Goosefoot Family
Salsola tragus Russian Thistle FACU
CONVOLVULACEAE — Bindweed Family
Convolvulus arvensis Field Bindweed UPL
CUCURBITACEAE — Gourd Family
Citrullus lanatus Watermelon UPL
MALVACEAE — Mallow Family
Malvella leprosa Alkali Cheeseweed FACU
Malvella parviflora Cheeseweed UPL
POACEAE — Grass Family
Avena Sp. Oat UPL
Cynodon daclylan Bermuda Grass FACU
Echinochloa crus-galli Barnyard Grass FACW
Hordeum marinum Seaside Barley FAC
SOLANACEAE — Nightshade Family
Solanum Zycopersicum Cherry Tomato UPL
34 35
APPENDIX B: TERRESTRIAL VERTEBRATE SPECIES POTENTIALLY

OCCURRING ON THE PROJECT SITE
APPENDIX B: TERRESTRIAL VERTEBRATE SPECIES POTENTIALLY

OCCURRING ON THE PROJECT SITE
35 36

APPENDIX B

TERRESTRIAL VERTEBRATE SPECIES THAT POTENTIALLY OCCUR

ON THE PROJECT SITE
The species listed below are those that may be expected to routinely and predictably use or pass through the project site during some or all of the year. An asterisk denotes a species observed on or immediately adjacent to the site during surveys conducted by LOA on October 7, 2025.

APPENDIX B

TERRESTRIAL VERTEBRATE SPECIES THAT POTENTIALLY OCCUR

CLASS: AMPHIBIA
ORDER: ANURA (Frogs and Toads)
FAMILY: BUFONIDAE (True Toads)
Western Toad (Bufo boreas)
FAMILY: HYLIDAE (Treefrogs and Relatives)
Pacific Tree Frog (Pseudacris regilla)
CLASS: REPTILIA
ORDER: SQUAMATA (Lizards and Snakes)
SUBORDER: SAURIA (Lizards)
FAMILY: PHRYNOSOMATIDAE
Side-blotched Lizard (Uta stansburiana)
Western Fence Lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis)
SUBORDER: SERPENTES (Snakes)
FAMILY: COLUBRIDAE (Colubrids)
Pacific Gopher Snake (Pituophis catem’fer catem'fer)
Common Kingsnake (Lampropeltis califomiae)
FAMILY: VIPERIDAE Wipers)
Western Rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis)
CLASS: AVES
ORDER: CICONIIFORMES (Herons, Starks, Ibises and Relatives) FAMILY: CATHARTIDAE (New World Vultures)
Turkey Vulture (Cathartes aura)
ORDER: FALCONIFORMES Wultures, Hawks, and Falcons)
FAMILY: ACCIPITRIDAE (Hawks, Old World Vultures, and Harriers) Cooper’s Hawk (Accipiter cooperi)
Red-tailed Hawk (Buteojamaicensis)
ORDER: CHARADRIIFORMES (Shorebirds)
FAMILY: CHARADRIIDAE (Plovers, Dotterels, and Lapwings) Killdeer (Charadrius vociferus)
ORDER: COLUMBIFORMES (Pigeons and Doves)
FAMILY: COLUMBIDAE (Pigeons and Doves)
*Rock Pigeon (Columba livia)
Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroum)
Eurasian Collared Dove (Streptopelia decaocto)
ORDER: STRIGIFORMES (Owls)
FAMILY: TYTONIDAE (Barn Owls)
Barn Owl (Tyto alba)
36 37
ORDER: PASSERIFORMES (Perching Birds)
FAMILY: TYRANNIDAE (Tyrant Flycatchers)
Black Phoebe (Sayornis nigricans)
Western Kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis)
FAMILY: CORVIDAE (Jays, Magpies, and Crows)
California Scrub Jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens)
American Crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos)
Common Raven (Corvus corax)
FAMILY: HIRUNDINIDAE (Swallows)
Cliff Swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota)
Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica)
FAMILY: TURDIDAE (Thrushes)
Western Bluebird (Sialia mexicana)
American Robin (Turdus migratorius)
FAMILY: MIMIDAE (Mockingbirds and Thrashers)
*Northern Mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos)
FAMILY: MOTACILLIDAE (Wagtails, Longclaws, and Pipits)
American Pipit (Anthus rubescens)
FAMILY: STURNIDAE (Starlings and Allies)
European Starling (Sturnus vulgaris)
FAMILY: EMBERIZIDAE (Sparrows)
White-crowned Sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys)
FAMILY: ICTERIDAE (Blackbirds, Orioles and Allies)
Western Meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta)
Red-winged Blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus)
Great-tailed Grackle (Quiscalus mexicanus)
Brewer's Blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus)
FAMILY: FRINGILLIDAE (Finches)
House Finch (Carpodacus mexicanus)
FAMILY: PASSERIDAE (Old World Sparrows)
*House Sparrow (Passer domesticus)
CLASS: MAMMALIA
ORDER: DIDELPHIMORPHIA (Marsupials)
FAMILY: DIDELPHIDAE (Opossums)
Virginia Opossum (Didelphis virginiana)
ORDER: CHIROPTERA (Bats)
FAMILY: VESPERTILIONIDAE (Vespertilionid Bats)
Yuma Myotis (Myotis yumanensis)
California Myotis (Myotis californicus)
Western Pipistrelle (Pipistrellus hesperus)
Big Brown Bat (Eptesicus fuscus)
FAMILY: MOLOSSIDAE (Free-tailed Bat)
Brazilian Free-tailed Bat (Tadarida brasiliensis)
ORDER: LAGOMORPHA (Rabbits, Hares, and Pikas)
FAMILY: LEPORIDAE (Rabbits and Hares)
Audubon’s Cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii)
5%
ORDER: PASSERIFORMES (Perching Birds)
FAMILY: TYRANNIDAE (Tyrant Flycatchers)
Black Phoebe (Sayomis nigricans)
Western Kingbird (Tymnnus verticalis)
FAMILY: CORVIDAE (Jays, Magpies, and Crows)
California Scrub Jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens)
American Crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos)
Common Raven (Corvus corax)
FAMILY: HIRUNDINIDAE (Swallows)
Cliff Swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota)
Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica)
FAMILY: TURDIDAE (Thrushes)
Western Bluebird (Sialia mexicana)
American Robin (Turdus migratorius)
FAMILY: MIMIDAE (Mockingbirds and Thrashers)
*Northern Mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos)
FAMILY: MOTACILLIDAE Magtails, Longclaws, and Pipits)
American Pipit (Anthus rubescens)
FAMILY: STURNIDAE (Starlings and Allies)
European Starling (Stumus vulgaris)
FAMILY: EMBERIZIDAE (Sparrows)
White-crowned Sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys)
FAMILY: ICTERIDAE (Blackbirds, Orioles and Allies)
Western Meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta)
Red-winged Blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus)
Great-tailed Grackle (Quiscalus mexicanus)
Brewer's Blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus)
FAMILY: FRINGILLIDAE (Finches)
House Finch (Carpodacus mexicanus)
FAMILY: PASSERIDAE (Old World Sparrows)
*House Sparrow (Passer domesticus)
CLASS: MAMMALIA
ORDER: DIDELPHIMORPHIA (Marsupials)
FAMILY: DIDELPHIDAE (Opossums)
Virginia Opossum (Didelphis virginiana)
ORDER: CHIROPTERA (Bats)
FAMILY: VESPERTILIONIDAE (V espertilionid Bats)
Yuma Myotis (Myotis yumanensis)
California Myotis (Myotis calz'fornicus)
Western Pipistrelle (Pipistrellus hesperus)
Big Brown Bat (Eptesicusfuscus)
FAMILY: MOLOSSIDAE (Free-tailed Bat)
Brazilian Free-tailed Bat (T(16161146161 brasiliensis)
ORDER: LAGOMORPHA (Rabbits, Hares, and Pikas)
FAMILY: LEPORIDAE (Rabbits and Hares)
Audubon’s Cottontail (Sylvilagus audubanii)
37 38
ORDER: RODENTIA (Rodents)
FAMILY: SCIURIDAE (Squirrels, Chipmunks, and Marmots)
California Ground Squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi)
FAMILY: GEOMYIDAE (Pocket Gophers)
*Botta’s Pocket Gopher (Thomomys bottae)
FAMILY: MURIDAE (Mice, Rats and Voles)
Western Harvest Mouse (Reithrodontomys megalotis)
Deer Mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus)
Norway Rat (Rattus norvegicus)
House Mouse (Mus musculus)
California Vole (Microtus californicus)
ORDER: CARNIVORA (Carnivores)
FAMILY: CANIDAE (Foxes, Wolves, and Relatives)
Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes)
Coyote (Canis latrans)
*Domestic Dog (Canis familiaris)
FAMILY: PROCYONIDAE (Raccoons and Relatives)
Raccoon (Procyon lotor)
FAMILY: MEPHITIDAE (Skunks)
Striped Skunk (Mephitis mephitis)
FAMILY: FELIDAE (Cats)
Feral Cat (Felis catus)
5%
ORDER: RODENTIA (Rodents)
FAMILY: SCIURIDAE (Squirrels, Chipmunks, and Marmots)
California Ground Squirrel (OtOSpermophilus beecheyi)
FAMILY: GEOMYIDAE (Pocket Gophers)
*Botta’s Pocket Gopher (Thomomys bottae)
FAMILY: MURIDAE (Mice, Rats and Voles)
Western Harvest Mouse (Reithrodantomys megalotis)
Deer Mouse (Pemmyscus maniculatus)
Norway Rat (Rattus norvegicus)
House Mouse (Mus musculus)
California Vole (Microtus californicus)
ORDER: CARNIVORA (Carnivores)
FAMILY: CANIDAE (Foxes, Wolves, and Relatives)
Red FOX(Vulpes Wipes)
Coyote (Cam's latrans)
*Domestic Dog (Canisfamiliaris)
FAMILY: PROCYONIDAE (Raccoons and Relatives)
Raccoon (Procyon lotor)
FAMILY: MEPHITIDAE (Skunks)
Striped Skunk (Mephitis mephitis)
FAMILY: FELIDAE (Cats)
Feral Cat (F elis cams)
38 39
APPENDIX C:

Mendota City CouncilOctober 6, 2026

Mendota City Council
October 6, 2026