Fowler City Council
May 20, 2025

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY, MAY 20, 2025 at 6:00 PM
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER – 128 SOUTH 5TH STREET, FOWLER, CA 93625 AGENDA
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need assistance or accommodations to access the City Council Chambers or participate in this meeting, please contact the Clerk at (559) 834-3113 x102. Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility.

City Council meetings are open to the public at the physical address listed above. There are numerous ways to participate in the City Council meetings: you may attend in person, you may appear by telephone as described below, or you may submit written comments via email to .

Please include your name and reference the agenda item you are commenting on, if any. Written comments received that do not specify an agenda item will be marked for the general public comment portion of the agenda. Emails received by 8:00 am on the date of the meeting will be provided to the City Council at the meeting and made part of the record of proceedings but will not be read aloud.

En cumplimiento con la Acta de Americanos con Discapacidades si necesita asistencia o adaptaciones para acceder a las Cámaras del Concejo de la Ciudad o participar en esta reunión, comuníquese con el secretario de la ciudad al (559) 834-3113 x102. También puede ponerse en contacto con el secretario si necesita servicios de traducción. La notificación al menos 48 horas antes de la reunión permitirá a la Ciudad hacer arreglos razonables para garantizar la accesibilidad.
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/86282859881?pwd=43hPIbHSUxZx7A3ByQW18vz5aDE7Ig.va9mQ6 7a_klx9Xa6
Telephone Number: (253) 215-8782
Meeting ID: 862 8285 9881
Passcode: 397813
Persons accessing the meeting will have an opportunity to provide comments at appropriate times during the meeting. To speak during a public comment period, press *9 on your phone to raise your hand or click “raise hand” in the webinar. At the appropriate time, you will be prompted to unmute yourself, and asked to identify yourself when providing public comment.

Any writing or document that is a public record and provided to a majority of the City Council regarding an open session item on the agenda will be made available for public inspection at City Hall, in the City Clerk's office, during normal business hours. In addition, such writings and documents may be posted on the City's website at .
1 Resolutions and Ordinances - With respect to the approval of resolutions and ordinances, the reading of the title thereto shall be deemed a motion to waive a reading of the complete resolution or ordinance and unless there is a request by a Councilmember that the resolution or ordinance be read in full, further reading of the resolution or ordinance shall be deemed waived by unanimous consent of the Council.

1. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER

2. ROLL CALL

3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

4. INVOCATION BY PASTOR JESUS VALENCIA FROM VISION CHURCH

5. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

6. PUBLIC COMMENT
This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons desiring to address the Council on any matter not described on this agenda. Presentations are limited to 3 minutes per person and no more than 15 minutes per topic.

7. CONSENT CALENDAR
Items on the Consent Calendar are considered routine and include a recommended action from Staff and shall be acted on by one motion of the Council. If a Councilmember requests additional information or would like to pull an item for discussion, that item shall be pulled from the Consent Calendar and acted upon separately. A Councilmember may register an action on an individual item without pulling the item from the Consent Calendar. A motion to approve the Consent Calendar is deemed to include a motion to waive the full reading of any ordinance or resolution on the Consent Calendar. For adoption of ordinances, only those which received a unanimous vote of the Councilmembers present at introduction shall be eligible for placement on the Consent Calendar.
7A RATIFY Pay Warrants for May 20, 2025
7B APPROVE Minutes of the May 6, 2025 City Council Meeting 7C Actions pertaining to the Fiscal Year 2024-25 3rd Quarter budget report and budget amendments:
i. ACCEPT the Fiscal Year 2024-25 mid-year quarter budget report. ii. ADOPT Resolution No. 2784 Fiscal Year 2024-25 budget amendments. 7D ADOPT Ordinance No. 2025-02, pertaining to Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 6471:
i. Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
2 ii. Prezoning Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 6471 to M-1 (Light Industrial) and its designated remainder to zoning map designation of R-1- 6 (Single Family Residential) with an implementing zone district of R-3 (Medium Density Residential)
iii. Prezoning APN 340-120-06 to zoning map designation of R-1-6 (Single Family Residential) with an implementing zone district of R-3 (Medium Density Residential)

8. CONTESTED CONSENT CALENDAR
Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be heard individually immediately after action is taken on the Consent Calendar.

9. GENERAL ADMINISTRATION
Public Works
A APPROVE RESOLUTION No. 2785, a resolution directing the City Engineer to initiate and prepare the Engineer’s Report for the City’s Landscaping and Storm Drainage Facilities Maintenance District No. 1 for Fiscal Year 2025-26

10. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
A. Measure C Presentation

11. COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS AND COMMENTS

12. CLOSED SESSION
Government Code Section 54957
Public Employee Appointment/Employment
Title: Finance Director
Government Code Section 54957
Public Employee Performance Evaluation
Title: City Attorney

13. RECONVENE INTO OPEN SESSION AND REPORT ACTION

14. ADJOURN
Next Ordinance No. 2025-03
Next Resolution No. 2786
CERTIFICATION: I, Angela Vasquez, City Clerk of the City of Fowler, California, hereby certify that the foregoing agenda was posted for public review on Friday, May 16, 2025.

Angela Vasquez, CPMC
City Clerk
3 CHECK NUMBERS CHECK DATES AMOUNT

ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECKS
Regular checks 44606-44696 April 29 thru May 14 1,811,488.18 $ TOTAL ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECKS 1,811,488.18 $

PAYROLL COSTS
First May Bi-Weekly Payroll May 9, 2025 104,007.18 $
TOTAL PAYROLL COSTS 104,007.18 $

TOTAL CASH DISBURSEMENTS 1,915,495.36 $
NOTE:

CITY OF FOWLER

WARRANTS LIST
May 20, 2025
4 Section 7, Item 7A
SUPERION PAGE NUMBER: 1
DATE: 05/15/2025 CITY OF FOWLER ACCTPA21
TIME: 12:01:03 CHECK REGISTER - BY FUND
SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.check_no between '44606' and '44696' ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 11/25
FUND - 100 - GENERAL FUND

CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT VENDOR NAME DEPT ACCNT ----DESCRIPTION---- SALES TAX AMOUNT 1001 44606 04/30/25 15013 ADVANCED PEST WIPEO 6130 5185 PEST CNTL 4/24/25 0.00 95.00 1001 44606 04/30/25 15013 ADVANCED PEST WIPEO 6020 5185 PEST CNTL 4/24/25 0.00 90.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 185.00
1001 44607 04/30/25 14519 AMAZON CAPITAL SERV 6020 5110 SUPPLIES-ADMIN 0.00 9.80 1001 44608 04/30/25 14167 ANDERSON LANDSCAPE 6260 5203 SERVICE RPR-PARKS 0.00 150.00 1001 44609 04/30/25 13636 BIG TEX 6200 5205 SUPPLIES-ST 0.00 95.67 1001 44610 04/30/25 10064 COLONIAL LIFE INSUR 100 2042 EMP DED APR25 0.00 47.42 1001 44611 04/30/25 12286 DEPT OF TRANSPORTAT 6200 5220 TRAFF SIG JAN-MAR25 0.00 387.18 1001 44613 04/30/25 10104 FPOA 100 2045 EMP DED 4/25/25 0.00 250.00 1001 44614 04/30/25 15208 JORGE NUNEZ 6400 5110 DJ PANCAKE N PETS 2 0.00 400.00 1001 44616 04/30/25 13496 KEENAN & ASSOCIATES 6260 5084 HEALTH BENEFIT APR2 0.00 3,320.27 1001 44616 04/30/25 13496 KEENAN & ASSOCIATES 6200 5084 HEALTH BENEFIT APR2 0.00 2,384.45 1001 44616 04/30/25 13496 KEENAN & ASSOCIATES 6220 5084 HEALTH BENEFIT APR2 0.00 2,194.87 1001 44616 04/30/25 13496 KEENAN & ASSOCIATES 6160 5084 HEALTH BENEFIT APR2 0.00 1,698.26 1001 44616 04/30/25 13496 KEENAN & ASSOCIATES 100 2041 HEALTH BENEFIT APR2 0.00 1,305.00 1001 44616 04/30/25 13496 KEENAN & ASSOCIATES 6400 5084 HEALTH BENEFIT APR2 0.00 1,201.63 1001 44616 04/30/25 13496 KEENAN & ASSOCIATES 6025 5084 HEALTH BENEFIT APR2 0.00 1,084.95 1001 44616 04/30/25 13496 KEENAN & ASSOCIATES 6700 5084 HEALTH BENEFIT APR2 0.00 953.33 1001 44616 04/30/25 13496 KEENAN & ASSOCIATES 6020 5084 HEALTH BENEFIT APR2 0.00 953.31 1001 44616 04/30/25 13496 KEENAN & ASSOCIATES 6150 5084 HEALTH BENEFIT APR2 0.00 744.94 1001 44616 04/30/25 13496 KEENAN & ASSOCIATES 6030 5084 HEALTH BENEFIT APR2 0.00 372.46 1001 44616 04/30/25 13496 KEENAN & ASSOCIATES 6120 5084 HEALTH BENEFIT APR2 0.00 12,522.84 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 28,736.31
1001 44617 04/30/25 10215 NELSON'S ACE HARDWA 6200 5195 SUPPLIES-ST 0.00 103.55 1001 44617 04/30/25 10215 NELSON'S ACE HARDWA 6260 5121 SUPPLIES-PARKS 0.00 108.03 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 211.58
1001 44618 04/30/25 10237 P G & E - SACRAMENT 6200 5170 SUMNER/MOGNOLA4/14/ 0.00 6.56 1001 44618 04/30/25 10237 P G & E - SACRAMENT 6200 5170 429 E MERCED 4/22/2 0.00 7.64 1001 44618 04/30/25 10237 P G & E - SACRAMENT 6200 5170 LS1-F HWY LT 4/14/2 0.00 11.40 1001 44618 04/30/25 10237 P G & E - SACRAMENT 6200 5170 LS1-E HWY LT 4/14/2 0.00 13.03 1001 44618 04/30/25 10237 P G & E - SACRAMENT 6200 5170 SUMNER/HW99 4/14/25 0.00 13.10 1001 44618 04/30/25 10237 P G & E - SACRAMENT 6200 5170 TSFR 3LTS 4/14/25 0.00 14.02 1001 44618 04/30/25 10237 P G & E - SACRAMENT 6200 5170 WALTER/FRES 3/14/25 0.00 15.86 1001 44618 04/30/25 10237 P G & E - SACRAMENT 6200 5170 8TH/VINE 4/14/25 0.00 17.43 1001 44618 04/30/25 10237 P G & E - SACRAMENT 6200 5170 LS1-A HWY LT 4/14/2 0.00 20.94 1001 44618 04/30/25 10237 P G & E - SACRAMENT 6200 5170 ADAMS/DEEAN 4/14/25 0.00 21.49 1001 44618 04/30/25 10237 P G & E - SACRAMENT 6200 5170 TR5090 4/14/25 0.00 31.47 1001 44618 04/30/25 10237 P G & E - SACRAMENT 6200 5170 3079 MANN 4/18/25 0.00 38.98 1001 44618 04/30/25 10237 P G & E - SACRAMENT 6200 5170 TEMP/PARL 4/14/25 0.00 45.86 1001 44618 04/30/25 10237 P G & E - SACRAMENT 6200 5170 LS2-A HWY LT 4/14/2 0.00 45.86 1001 44618 04/30/25 10237 P G & E - SACRAMENT 6200 5170 LS1-F HWY LT 4/14/2 0.00 48.83 1001 44618 04/30/25 10237 P G & E - SACRAMENT 6200 5170 TRACT 5834 3/14/25 0.00 65.74 5 Section 7, Item 7A
SUPERION PAGE NUMBER: 2
DATE: 05/15/2025 CITY OF FOWLER ACCTPA21
TIME: 12:01:03 CHECK REGISTER - BY FUND
SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.check_no between '44606' and '44696' ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 11/25
FUND - 100 - GENERAL FUND

CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT VENDOR NAME DEPT ACCNT ----DESCRIPTION---- SALES TAX AMOUNT 1001 44618 04/30/25 10237 P G & E - SACRAMENT 6200 5170 LS2-A HWY LT 4/14/2 0.00 68.12 1001 44618 04/30/25 10237 P G & E - SACRAMENT 6200 5170 TR5041 4/14/25 0.00 119.60 1001 44618 04/30/25 10237 P G & E - SACRAMENT 6200 5170 TRACT 5212 3/14/25 0.00 138.21 1001 44618 04/30/25 10237 P G & E - SACRAMENT 6200 5170 T5088 4/14/25 0.00 148.61 1001 44618 04/30/25 10237 P G & E - SACRAMENT 6200 5170 ADAMS/TEMP 3/14/25 0.00 216.53 1001 44618 04/30/25 10237 P G & E - SACRAMENT 6200 5170 GLDST/VLY DR 4/14/2 0.00 216.63 1001 44618 04/30/25 10237 P G & E - SACRAMENT 6200 5170 SOUTH&SUNNY 3/14/25 0.00 226.94 1001 44618 04/30/25 10237 P G & E - SACRAMENT 6200 5170 CLAYTON/ARMST 4/14/ 0.00 272.74 1001 44618 04/30/25 10237 P G & E - SACRAMENT 6200 5170 LS1-C HWY 4/14/25 0.00 342.64 1001 44618 04/30/25 10237 P G & E - SACRAMENT 6200 5170 LS1-F HWY LT 4/14/2 0.00 416.26 1001 44618 04/30/25 10237 P G & E - SACRAMENT 6200 5170 630 W FRESNO 4/21/2 0.00 453.40 1001 44618 04/30/25 10237 P G & E - SACRAMENT 6200 5170 LS1-A 4/14/25 0.00 812.02 1001 44618 04/30/25 10237 P G & E - SACRAMENT 6200 5170 LS2-A HWY LT 3/14/2 0.00 1,036.39 1001 44618 04/30/25 10237 P G & E - SACRAMENT 6200 5170 LS1-E HWY LT 4/14/2 0.00 1,124.88 1001 44618 04/30/25 10237 P G & E - SACRAMENT 6200 5170 LS2-A HWY LT 4/14/2 0.00 1,601.46 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 7,612.64
1001 44620 04/30/25 13655 PROVOST & PRITCHARD 6150 5220 ZONING CLEAR 25-01 0.00 177.00 1001 44620 04/30/25 13655 PROVOST & PRITCHARD 6260 5710 DW HARRIS PARK MAR2 0.00 197.40 1001 44620 04/30/25 13655 PROVOST & PRITCHARD 6150 5510 ENG SOUTH AVE 0.00 241.30 1001 44620 04/30/25 13655 PROVOST & PRITCHARD 6150 5220 MSR MAR25 0.00 316.50 1001 44620 04/30/25 13655 PROVOST & PRITCHARD 6150 5220 SPR 22-54 0.00 336.60 1001 44620 04/30/25 13655 PROVOST & PRITCHARD 6150 5510 ENG FB BP22-0108 0.00 380.00 1001 44620 04/30/25 13655 PROVOST & PRITCHARD 6150 5220 SPR 25-07 0.00 395.00 1001 44620 04/30/25 13655 PROVOST & PRITCHARD 6150 5220 CUP 25-06 0.00 399.00 1001 44620 04/30/25 13655 PROVOST & PRITCHARD 6150 5220 ENG FM TRACT 6405 0.00 585.42 1001 44620 04/30/25 13655 PROVOST & PRITCHARD 6150 5510 ENG BP23-137 0.00 635.05 1001 44620 04/30/25 13655 PROVOST & PRITCHARD 6150 5220 SPR 24-39 0.00 702.00 1001 44620 04/30/25 13655 PROVOST & PRITCHARD 6150 5220 CUP 24-27 0.00 744.50 1001 44620 04/30/25 13655 PROVOST & PRITCHARD 6150 5220 ZONING CLEAR 24-29 0.00 752.90 1001 44620 04/30/25 13655 PROVOST & PRITCHARD 6150 5220 TM 24-31 0.00 885.00 1001 44620 04/30/25 13655 PROVOST & PRITCHARD 6150 5220 TM 22-47 0.00 1,145.60 1001 44620 04/30/25 13655 PROVOST & PRITCHARD 6150 5510 ENG TRACT 6274 0.00 1,529.42 1001 44620 04/30/25 13655 PROVOST & PRITCHARD 6200 5510 ENCROACHMENT PERMIT 0.00 1,619.90 1001 44620 04/30/25 13655 PROVOST & PRITCHARD 6150 5510 ENG CON MARSH ESTII 0.00 2,146.16 1001 44620 04/30/25 13655 PROVOST & PRITCHARD 6150 5520 GEN PLAN ECON DEV 0.00 4,007.69 1001 44620 04/30/25 13655 PROVOST & PRITCHARD 6150 5220 CUP 25-04 0.00 8,647.00 1001 44620 04/30/25 13655 PROVOST & PRITCHARD 6150 5220 TM 25-03 0.00 12,991.80 1001 44620 04/30/25 13655 PROVOST & PRITCHARD 6200 5510 ONCALL ENG 2025 MAR 0.00 30,448.45 1001 44620 04/30/25 13655 PROVOST & PRITCHARD 6150 5220 ONCALL PLANFY25 MAR 0.00 35,166.40 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 104,450.09
1001 44622 04/30/25 13647 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL 6150 5084 DENTAL BENEFIT APR2 0.00 20.11 1001 44622 04/30/25 13647 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL 6020 5084 DENTAL BENEFIT APR2 0.00 32.48 1001 44622 04/30/25 13647 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL 6700 5084 DENTAL BENEFIT APR2 0.00 33.53 1001 44622 04/30/25 13647 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL 6400 5084 DENTAL BENEFIT APR2 0.00 40.22 1001 44622 04/30/25 13647 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL 6030 5084 DENTAL BENEFIT APR2 0.00 50.27 1001 44622 04/30/25 13647 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL 6025 5084 DENTAL BENEFIT APR2 0.00 64.28 1001 44622 04/30/25 13647 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL 6220 5084 DENTAL BENEFIT APR2 0.00 70.47 1001 44622 04/30/25 13647 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL 6160 5084 DENTAL BENEFIT APR2 0.00 115.60 1001 44622 04/30/25 13647 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL 6200 5084 DENTAL BENEFIT APR2 0.00 155.51 1001 44622 04/30/25 13647 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL 6260 5084 DENTAL BENEFIT APR2 0.00 356.59 6 Section 7, Item 7A
SUPERION PAGE NUMBER: 3
DATE: 05/15/2025 CITY OF FOWLER ACCTPA21
TIME: 12:01:03 CHECK REGISTER - BY FUND
SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.check_no between '44606' and '44696' ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 11/25
FUND - 100 - GENERAL FUND

CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT VENDOR NAME DEPT ACCNT ----DESCRIPTION---- SALES TAX AMOUNT 1001 44622 04/30/25 13647 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL 100 2046 DENTAL BENEFIT APR2 0.00 934.22 1001 44622 04/30/25 13647 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL 6120 5084 DENTAL BENEFIT APR2 0.00 1,010.26 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 2,883.54
1001 44623 04/30/25 10725 VERIZON WIRELESS 6170 5160 CELL PHONE MAR-APR2 0.00 417.84 1001 44624 04/30/25 11335 VISION SERVICE PLAN 6150 5084 VISION BENEFIT APR2 0.00 5.90 1001 44624 04/30/25 11335 VISION SERVICE PLAN 6020 5084 VISION BENEFIT APR2 0.00 9.84 1001 44624 04/30/25 11335 VISION SERVICE PLAN 6700 5084 VISION BENEFIT APR2 0.00 9.84 1001 44624 04/30/25 11335 VISION SERVICE PLAN 6400 5084 VISION BENEFIT APR2 0.00 11.82 1001 44624 04/30/25 11335 VISION SERVICE PLAN 6030 5084 VISION BENEFIT APR2 0.00 14.76 1001 44624 04/30/25 11335 VISION SERVICE PLAN 6025 5084 VISION BENEFIT APR2 0.00 17.73 1001 44624 04/30/25 11335 VISION SERVICE PLAN 6220 5084 VISION BENEFIT APR2 0.00 19.69 1001 44624 04/30/25 11335 VISION SERVICE PLAN 6160 5084 VISION BENEFIT APR2 0.00 35.44 1001 44624 04/30/25 11335 VISION SERVICE PLAN 6200 5084 VISION BENEFIT APR2 0.00 45.69 1001 44624 04/30/25 11335 VISION SERVICE PLAN 6260 5084 VISION BENEFIT APR2 0.00 104.74 1001 44624 04/30/25 11335 VISION SERVICE PLAN 100 2048 VISION BENEFIT APR2 0.00 156.38 1001 44624 04/30/25 11335 VISION SERVICE PLAN 6120 5084 VISION BENEFIT APR2 0.00 295.39 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 727.22
1001 44625 04/30/25 14830 WILLDAN GROUP INC 6160 5225 INSPECTION MAR25 0.00 3,610.00 1001 44630 05/08/25 14519 AMAZON CAPITAL SERV 6020 5110 SUPPLIES-ADMIN 0.00 26.36 1001 44630 05/08/25 14519 AMAZON CAPITAL SERV 6120 5230 SUPPLIES-PD 0.00 29.30 1001 44630 05/08/25 14519 AMAZON CAPITAL SERV 6025 5110 SUPPLIES-CLERK 0.00 47.92 1001 44630 05/08/25 14519 AMAZON CAPITAL SERV 6400 5110 SUPPLIES 4TH JULY25 0.00 68.20 1001 44630 05/08/25 14519 AMAZON CAPITAL SERV 6400 5110 SUPPLIES PANKNPETS2 0.00 82.76 1001 44630 05/08/25 14519 AMAZON CAPITAL SERV 6120 5110 SUPPLIES-PD 0.00 131.79 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 386.33
1001 44631 05/08/25 14867 ASHLEY PANELLA 6400 5110 EASTER PAINT CLASS 0.00 600.00 1001 44633 05/08/25 10025 BUFORD OIL COMPANY 6120 5210 GAS APR25-PD 0.00 64.02 1001 44634 05/08/25 14053 CENTRAL VALLEY GUNS 6120 5715 CLEANING SVC-PD 0.00 640.00 1001 44635 05/08/25 14356 COMCAST 6170 5160 COMCAST APR-MAY25-P 0.00 51.69 1001 44637 05/08/25 14702 DAVE'S AUTO SERVICE 6120 5205 BATTERY U#75-PD 0.00 60.00 1001 44637 05/08/25 14702 DAVE'S AUTO SERVICE 6120 5205 BRAKES U#75-PD 0.00 94.39 1001 44637 05/08/25 14702 DAVE'S AUTO SERVICE 6120 5205 OIL CHANGE CP-PD 0.00 109.81 1001 44637 05/08/25 14702 DAVE'S AUTO SERVICE 6120 5205 AC REPAIR CSO-PD 0.00 583.53 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 847.73
1001 44638 05/08/25 11282 DAWSON MAULDIN CONS 6200 5710 MERCED BANNER POLE 0.00 33,803.47 1001 44639 05/08/25 15207 DBA GS-JJ 6120 5220 TWO SIDES 3D COINS 0.00 3,177.71 1001 44641 05/08/25 10100 ECN POLYGRAPH & INV 6120 5310 PRE EMPLOY POLY-PD 0.00 250.00 1001 44643 05/08/25 14245 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 6200 5121 SUPPLIES-ST 0.00 2.82 1001 44643 05/08/25 14245 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 6200 5121 SUPPLIES-ST 0.00 4.56 7 Section 7, Item 7A
SUPERION PAGE NUMBER: 4
DATE: 05/15/2025 CITY OF FOWLER ACCTPA21
TIME: 12:01:03 CHECK REGISTER - BY FUND
SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.check_no between '44606' and '44696' ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 11/25
FUND - 100 - GENERAL FUND

CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT VENDOR NAME DEPT ACCNT ----DESCRIPTION---- SALES TAX AMOUNT 1001 44643 05/08/25 14245 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 6200 5121 SUPPLIES-ST 0.00 5.98 1001 44643 05/08/25 14245 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 6200 5121 SUPPLIES-ST 0.00 7.18 1001 44643 05/08/25 14245 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 6200 5121 SUPPLIES-ST 0.00 9.36 1001 44643 05/08/25 14245 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 6200 5121 SUPPLIES-ST 0.00 15.24 1001 44643 05/08/25 14245 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 6200 5121 SUPPLIES-ST 0.00 16.34 1001 44643 05/08/25 14245 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 6200 5121 SUPPLIES-ST 0.00 16.76 1001 44643 05/08/25 14245 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 6200 5121 SUPPLIES-ST 0.00 17.43 1001 44643 05/08/25 14245 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 6200 5121 SUPPLIES-ST 0.00 17.95 1001 44643 05/08/25 14245 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 6200 5121 SUPPLIES-ST 0.00 18.52 1001 44643 05/08/25 14245 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 6200 5121 SUPPLIES-ST 0.00 19.61 1001 44643 05/08/25 14245 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 6200 5121 SUPPLIES-ST 0.00 21.79 1001 44643 05/08/25 14245 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 6200 5121 SUPPLIES-ST 0.00 21.79 1001 44643 05/08/25 14245 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 6200 5110 SUPPLIES-ST 0.00 21.79 1001 44643 05/08/25 14245 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 6200 5121 SUPPLIES-ST 0.00 25.56 1001 44643 05/08/25 14245 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 6200 5110 SUPPLIES-ST 0.00 27.88 1001 44643 05/08/25 14245 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 6200 5121 SUPPLIES-ST 0.00 30.50 1001 44643 05/08/25 14245 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 6200 5121 SUPPLIES-ST 0.00 35.93 1001 44643 05/08/25 14245 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 6200 5121 SUPPLIES-ST 0.00 40.31 1001 44643 05/08/25 14245 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 6200 5121 SUPPLIES-ST 0.00 45.74 1001 44643 05/08/25 14245 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 6200 5121 SUPPLIES-ST 0.00 50.08 1001 44643 05/08/25 14245 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 6200 5121 SUPPLIES-ST 0.00 51.19 1001 44643 05/08/25 14245 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 6200 5121 SUPPLIES-ST 0.00 69.71 1001 44643 05/08/25 14245 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 6200 5121 SUPPLIES-ST 0.00 98.07 1001 44643 05/08/25 14245 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 6200 5121 SUPPLIES-ST 0.00 106.84 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 798.93
1001 44646 05/08/25 14249 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 6260 5121 SUPPLIES-PARKS 0.00 2.17 1001 44646 05/08/25 14249 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 6260 5121 SUPPLIES-PARKS 0.00 3.26 1001 44646 05/08/25 14249 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 6260 5121 SUPPLIES-PARKS 0.00 3.88 1001 44646 05/08/25 14249 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 6260 5121 SUPPLIES-PARKS 0.00 4.89 1001 44646 05/08/25 14249 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 6260 5121 SUPPLIES-PARKS 0.00 8.70 1001 44646 05/08/25 14249 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 6260 5121 SUPPLIES-PARKS 0.00 10.89 1001 44646 05/08/25 14249 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 6260 5121 SUPPLIES-PARKS 0.00 10.89 1001 44646 05/08/25 14249 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 6260 5121 SUPPLIES-PARKS 0.00 11.98 1001 44646 05/08/25 14249 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 6260 5121 SUPPLIES-PARKS 0.00 15.25 1001 44646 05/08/25 14249 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 6260 5121 SUPPLIES-PARKS 0.00 15.25 1001 44646 05/08/25 14249 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 6260 5121 SUPPLIES-PARKS 0.00 15.25 1001 44646 05/08/25 14249 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 6260 5121 SUPPLIES-PARKS 0.00 16.34 1001 44646 05/08/25 14249 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 6260 5121 SUPPLIES-PARKS 0.00 16.50 1001 44646 05/08/25 14249 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 6260 5121 SUPPLIES-PARKS 0.00 18.27 1001 44646 05/08/25 14249 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 6260 5121 SUPPLIES-PARKS 0.00 18.46 1001 44646 05/08/25 14249 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 6260 5121 SUPPLIES-PARKS 0.00 19.61 1001 44646 05/08/25 14249 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 6260 5121 SUPPLIES-PARKS 0.00 19.61 1001 44646 05/08/25 14249 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 6260 5121 SUPPLIES-PARKS 0.00 20.23 1001 44646 05/08/25 14249 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 6260 5121 SUPPLIES-PARKS 0.00 20.59 1001 44646 05/08/25 14249 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 6260 5121 SUPPLIES-PARKS 0.00 20.70 1001 44646 05/08/25 14249 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 6260 5121 SUPPLIES-PARKS 0.00 20.70 1001 44646 05/08/25 14249 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 6260 5121 SUPPLIES-PARKS 0.00 21.79 1001 44646 05/08/25 14249 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 6260 5121 SUPPLIES-PARKS 0.00 23.95 1001 44646 05/08/25 14249 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 6260 5121 SUPPLIES-PARKS 0.00 23.96 1001 44646 05/08/25 14249 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 6260 5121 SUPPLIES-PARKS 0.00 25.05 1001 44646 05/08/25 14249 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 6260 5121 SUPPLIES-PARKS 0.00 27.40 8 Section 7, Item 7A
SUPERION PAGE NUMBER: 5
DATE: 05/15/2025 CITY OF FOWLER ACCTPA21
TIME: 12:01:03 CHECK REGISTER - BY FUND
SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.check_no between '44606' and '44696' ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 11/25
FUND - 100 - GENERAL FUND

CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT VENDOR NAME DEPT ACCNT ----DESCRIPTION---- SALES TAX AMOUNT 1001 44646 05/08/25 14249 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 6260 5121 SUPPLIES-PARKS 0.00 31.79 1001 44646 05/08/25 14249 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 6260 5121 SUPPLIES-PARKS 0.00 42.49 1001 44646 05/08/25 14249 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 6260 5121 SUPPLIES-PARKS 0.00 42.49 1001 44646 05/08/25 14249 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 6260 5121 SUPPLIES-PARKS 0.00 42.49 1001 44646 05/08/25 14249 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 6260 5121 SUPPLIES-PARKS 0.00 45.76 1001 44646 05/08/25 14249 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 6260 5121 SUPPLIES-PARKS 0.00 65.37 1001 44646 05/08/25 14249 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 6260 5121 SUPPLIES-PARKS 0.00 67.71 1001 44646 05/08/25 14249 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 6260 5121 SUPPLIES-PARKS 0.00 74.08 1001 44646 05/08/25 14249 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 6260 5121 SUPPLIES-PARKS 0.00 81.70 1001 44646 05/08/25 14249 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 6260 5121 SUPPLIES-PARKS 0.00 132.92 1001 44646 05/08/25 14249 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 6260 5121 SUPPLIES-PARKS 0.00 152.55 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 1,194.92
1001 44647 05/08/25 10124 FRESNO SHERIFF BUS 6120 5270 PROC SVC 1/1-3/31/2 0.00 1,661.52 1001 44647 05/08/25 10124 FRESNO SHERIFF BUS 6120 5271 DISPATCH FEE MAY25- 0.00 10,976.83 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 12,638.35
1001 44648 05/08/25 12466 FRESNO EOC 6700 5105 MEALS APR25-SN CTR 0.00 1,692.97 1001 44653 05/09/25 10141 H & H TIRE SERVICES 6200 5205 FLEET BACKHOE-ST 0.00 37.00 1001 44653 05/09/25 10141 H & H TIRE SERVICES 6200 5205 FLEET MASSEY-ST 0.00 47.69 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 84.69
1001 44654 05/09/25 15061 JB ELECTRIC 6700 5110 RETRO FIT LIGHTS 0.00 975.00 1001 44655 05/09/25 10215 NELSON'S ACE HARDWA 6260 5195 SUPPLIES-ST 0.00 14.75 1001 44656 05/09/25 10237 P G & E - SACRAMENT 6150 5170 122 S. 5TH A 4/24/2 0.00 15.46 1001 44657 05/09/25 14560 PRINT THEORY 6260 5121 FLAGS-PARKS 0.00 944.81 1001 44658 05/09/25 11179 R G EQUIPMENT 6200 5205 SUPPLIES-ST 0.00 69.96 1001 44659 05/09/25 14479 RG POWER 6200 5120 SUPPLIES-ST 0.00 34.61 1001 44659 05/09/25 14479 RG POWER 6200 5203 SUPPLIES-PARKS 0.00 181.84 1001 44659 05/09/25 14479 RG POWER 6200 5202 SUPPLIES-ST 0.00 348.82 1001 44659 05/09/25 14479 RG POWER 6260 5120 SUPPLIES-PARKS 0.00 2,080.30 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 2,645.57
1001 44660 05/09/25 13355 SITE ONE LANDSCAPE 6260 5203 SUPPLIES-PARKS 0.00 200.96 1001 44661 05/09/25 10288 SMART & FINAL 6700 5104 SUPPLIES-SN CTR 0.00 133.37 1001 44661 05/09/25 10288 SMART & FINAL 6700 5104 SUPPLIES-SN CTR 0.00 180.77 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 314.14
1001 44662 05/14/25 14992 ALTA LANGUAGE SERVI 6120 5300 LANG TEST-ORELLANA- 0.00 127.00 1001 44663 05/14/25 14519 AMAZON CAPITAL SERV 6260 5185 SUPPLIES-PARKS 0.00 86.35 1001 44663 05/14/25 14519 AMAZON CAPITAL SERV 6260 5185 SUPPLIES-PARKS 0.00 86.35 1001 44663 05/14/25 14519 AMAZON CAPITAL SERV 6120 5104 SUPPLIES-PD 0.00 219.33 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 392.03
9 Section 7, Item 7A
SUPERION PAGE NUMBER: 6
DATE: 05/15/2025 CITY OF FOWLER ACCTPA21
TIME: 12:01:03 CHECK REGISTER - BY FUND
SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.check_no between '44606' and '44696' ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 11/25
FUND - 100 - GENERAL FUND

CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT VENDOR NAME DEPT ACCNT ----DESCRIPTION---- SALES TAX AMOUNT 1001 44664 05/14/25 10549 AT&T MOBILITY 6170 5160 ATT INTER 5/5-6/4/2 0.00 3,403.83 1001 44665 05/14/25 10026 BCT CONSULTING 6170 5230 PRA REQUEST EMAIL-I 0.00 288.75 1001 44665 05/14/25 10026 BCT CONSULTING 6170 5230 SOPHOS RENEWAL-IT 0.00 899.95 1001 44665 05/14/25 10026 BCT CONSULTING 6170 5230 VOIP MAY25 0.00 963.73 1001 44665 05/14/25 10026 BCT CONSULTING 6170 5230 NETWORK SVC-IT 0.00 2,886.60 1001 44665 05/14/25 10026 BCT CONSULTING 6170 5230 DESKTOP SVC MAY25 0.00 3,319.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 8,358.03
1001 44666 05/14/25 11291 THE BUSINESS JOURNA 6150 5150 PC CUP 25-04 0.00 402.50 1001 44666 05/14/25 11291 THE BUSINESS JOURNA 6150 5150 GP AMEND 25-11 0.00 805.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 1,207.50
1001 44668 05/14/25 10358 CITY OF FRESNO STRE 6200 5220 SHARE MAINT OCT-DEC 0.00 7,300.02 1001 44670 05/14/25 14243 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 6120 5100 SUPPLIES-IT 0.00 45.71 1001 44671 05/14/25 10104 FPOA 100 2045 EMP DED 5/09/25 0.00 250.00 1001 44672 05/14/25 10122 FRESNO COUNTY FIRE 6120 5110 GRAPHICS U#40-PD 0.00 917.08 1001 44672 05/14/25 10122 FRESNO COUNTY FIRE 6120 5110 GRAPHICS U#20-PD 0.00 960.30 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 1,877.38
1001 44673 05/14/25 13127 HEALTHWISE SERVICES 6120 5220 SHARPS CONTAINER-PD 0.00 420.53 1001 44674 05/14/25 10145 HINDERLITER, DELLAM 6030 5220 CONT SVC APR-JUN25 0.00 975.00 1001 44674 05/14/25 10145 HINDERLITER, DELLAM 6030 5220 AUDIT SVC APR-JUN25 0.00 7,024.99 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 7,999.99
1001 44675 05/14/25 14749 HOFFMAN SECURITY 6170 5160 ACCESS SVC MAY25-IT 0.00 454.00 1001 44676 05/14/25 15061 JB ELECTRIC 6260 5710 ELECTRICAL-PARKS 0.00 3,448.78 1001 44677 05/14/25 10416 LAW & ASSOCIATES IN 6120 5220 BACKGROUND INV-PD 0.00 800.00 1001 44678 05/14/25 15215 LEES SERVICE 6120 5205 OIL CHANGE-PD 0.00 321.24 1001 44680 05/14/25 14428 NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUT 6020 5220 COBRA APR25 0.00 200.00 1001 44681 05/14/25 10237 P G & E - SACRAMENT 6200 5170 1291 W SOUTH 4/29/2 0.00 -48.70 1001 44681 05/14/25 10237 P G & E - SACRAMENT 6200 5170 MERCED/6TH 4/29/25 0.00 -48.70 1001 44681 05/14/25 10237 P G & E - SACRAMENT 6200 5170 MERCED/7TH 4/29/25 0.00 -48.70 1001 44681 05/14/25 10237 P G & E - SACRAMENT 6200 5170 7TH/TULARE 4/29/25 0.00 -34.41 1001 44681 05/14/25 10237 P G & E - SACRAMENT 6260 5170 9TH/MERCED 4/29/25 0.00 2.21 1001 44681 05/14/25 10237 P G & E - SACRAMENT 6200 5170 5TH/FRESNO 4/29/25 0.00 8.47 1001 44681 05/14/25 10237 P G & E - SACRAMENT 6200 5170 5TH/FRESNO 4/29/25 0.00 15.60 1001 44681 05/14/25 10237 P G & E - SACRAMENT 6080 5170 MAIN/5TH 4/29/25 0.00 25.46 1001 44681 05/14/25 10237 P G & E - SACRAMENT 6080 5170 128 S 5TH 4/29/25 0.00 28.94 1001 44681 05/14/25 10237 P G & E - SACRAMENT 6080 5170 128 S 5TH 4/29/25 0.00 47.62 1001 44681 05/14/25 10237 P G & E - SACRAMENT 6200 5170 212 E MERCED 4/29/2 0.00 69.03 1001 44681 05/14/25 10237 P G & E - SACRAMENT 6200 5170 4218 GLDNSTAT 4/29/ 0.00 83.61 1001 44681 05/14/25 10237 P G & E - SACRAMENT 6200 5170 2831 E MANN 4/29/25 0.00 92.32 10 Section 7, Item 7A
SUPERION PAGE NUMBER: 7
DATE: 05/15/2025 CITY OF FOWLER ACCTPA21
TIME: 12:01:03 CHECK REGISTER - BY FUND
SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.check_no between '44606' and '44696' ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 11/25
FUND - 100 - GENERAL FUND

CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT VENDOR NAME DEPT ACCNT ----DESCRIPTION---- SALES TAX AMOUNT 1001 44681 05/14/25 10237 P G & E - SACRAMENT 6200 5170 GLDNST B 4/29/25 0.00 102.71 1001 44681 05/14/25 10237 P G & E - SACRAMENT 6260 5170 500 E MERCED 4/29/2 0.00 251.20 1001 44681 05/14/25 10237 P G & E - SACRAMENT 6200 5170 RETRO FIT LOAN APR2 0.00 941.28 1001 44681 05/14/25 10237 P G & E - SACRAMENT 6200 5170 5TH/FRESNO 4/29/25 0.00 594.70 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 2,082.64
1001 44682 05/14/25 12384 PITNEY BOWES GLOBAL 6170 5180 LEASE 2/28-5/27/25 0.00 340.98 1001 44684 05/14/25 13355 SITE ONE LANDSCAPE 6260 5203 SUPPLIES-PARKS 0.00 710.30 1001 44685 05/14/25 14358 SPARKLETTS 6020 5121 WTR SVC MAY25-ADMIN 0.00 86.38 1001 44685 05/14/25 14358 SPARKLETTS 6150 5121 WTR SVC MAY25-COM 0.00 86.38 1001 44685 05/14/25 14358 SPARKLETTS 6120 5121 WTR SVC MAY25-PD 0.00 86.39 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 259.15
1001 44687 05/14/25 14145 SUPERION, LLC. 6030 5230 MAINT FEE 8/25-10/2 0.00 591.15 1001 44689 05/14/25 12791 THE MOWERS EDGE 6260 5200 EQUIP MAINT-PARKS 0.00 104.45 1001 44689 05/14/25 12791 THE MOWERS EDGE 6260 5200 EQUIP MAINT-PARKS 0.00 112.12 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 216.57
1001 44690 05/14/25 13543 UNIFIRST CORPORATIO 6120 5185 MATS/MOPS 5/8/25-PD 0.00 9.70 1001 44690 05/14/25 13543 UNIFIRST CORPORATIO 6700 5185 JANIT 5/8/25-SN CTR 0.00 82.40 1001 44690 05/14/25 13543 UNIFIRST CORPORATIO 6020 5185 MATS/MOPS5/8/25-ADM 0.00 91.06 1001 44690 05/14/25 13543 UNIFIRST CORPORATIO 6200 5185 UNIFORM 5/8/25-ST 0.00 95.04 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 278.20
1001 44691 05/14/25 13521 UNITY IT 6120 5220 BACKUP 4/21-5/20/25 0.00 39.99 1001 44692 05/14/25 10725 VERIZON WIRELESS 6170 5160 PHONES MAR-MAY25 0.00 136.72 1001 44692 05/14/25 10725 VERIZON WIRELESS 6170 5160 PHONES MAR/APR25-PL 0.00 176.56 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 313.28
TOTAL CASH ACCOUNT 0.00 253,024.05
TOTAL FUND 0.00 253,024.05
11 Section 7, Item 7A
SUPERION PAGE NUMBER: 8
DATE: 05/15/2025 CITY OF FOWLER ACCTPA21
TIME: 12:01:03 CHECK REGISTER - BY FUND
SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.check_no between '44606' and '44696' ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 11/25
FUND - 200 - UTILITY USERS TAX

CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT VENDOR NAME DEPT ACCNT ----DESCRIPTION---- SALES TAX AMOUNT 1001 44667 05/14/25 15133 CALIFORNIA ENERGY C 2030 5805 INT PMT JUN25 0.00 860.34 1001 44667 05/14/25 15133 CALIFORNIA ENERGY C 2030 5804 PRIN PMT JUN25 0.00 12,881.29 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 13,741.63
TOTAL CASH ACCOUNT 0.00 13,741.63
TOTAL FUND 0.00 13,741.63
12 Section 7, Item 7A
SUPERION PAGE NUMBER: 9
DATE: 05/15/2025 CITY OF FOWLER ACCTPA21
TIME: 12:01:03 CHECK REGISTER - BY FUND
SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.check_no between '44606' and '44696' ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 11/25
FUND - 212 - ARPA FUNDING

CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT VENDOR NAME DEPT ACCNT ----DESCRIPTION---- SALES TAX AMOUNT 1001 44693 05/14/25 14634 DEWBERRY ARCHITECT 2120 5710 WATER TOWER 0.00 3,280.00 TOTAL CASH ACCOUNT 0.00 3,280.00
TOTAL FUND 0.00 3,280.00
13 Section 7, Item 7A
SUPERION PAGE NUMBER: 10
DATE: 05/15/2025 CITY OF FOWLER ACCTPA21
TIME: 12:01:03 CHECK REGISTER - BY FUND
SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.check_no between '44606' and '44696' ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 11/25
FUND - 225 - LTF - ARTICLE 8

CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT VENDOR NAME DEPT ACCNT ----DESCRIPTION---- SALES TAX AMOUNT 1001 44618 04/30/25 10237 P G & E - SACRAMENT 2250 5170 MANN&GLDST 4/23/25 0.00 33.61 1001 44652 05/09/25 14131 SWEEPING CORP OF AM 2250 5220 SWEEP WST MGT YRD 0.00 900.00 1001 44652 05/09/25 14131 SWEEPING CORP OF AM 2250 5220 SWEEP ST APR25 0.00 3,950.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 4,850.00
1001 44656 05/09/25 10237 P G & E - SACRAMENT 2250 5170 700 MERCED#A 4/25/2 0.00 659.15 1001 44656 05/09/25 10237 P G & E - SACRAMENT 2250 5220 ADAMS&GLDN ST 4/27/ 0.00 122.63 1001 44656 05/09/25 10237 P G & E - SACRAMENT 2250 5170 GLDST/MAN SIG 4/25/ 0.00 133.23 1001 44656 05/09/25 10237 P G & E - SACRAMENT 2250 5170 MERCED/8TH 4/25/25 0.00 12.21 1001 44656 05/09/25 10237 P G & E - SACRAMENT 2250 5170 1100 N/O MANN 4/25/ 0.00 14.29 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 941.51
TOTAL CASH ACCOUNT 0.00 5,825.12
TOTAL FUND 0.00 5,825.12
14 Section 7, Item 7A
SUPERION PAGE NUMBER: 11
DATE: 05/15/2025 CITY OF FOWLER ACCTPA21
TIME: 12:01:03 CHECK REGISTER - BY FUND
SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.check_no between '44606' and '44696' ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 11/25
FUND - 236 - ACTIVE TRNSPORT PLN (ATP)

CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT VENDOR NAME DEPT ACCNT ----DESCRIPTION---- SALES TAX AMOUNT 1001 44694 05/14/25 15213 4CREEKS 2360 5710 SAFE ROUTE TO SCHOO 0.00 9,361.78 TOTAL CASH ACCOUNT 0.00 9,361.78
TOTAL FUND 0.00 9,361.78
15 Section 7, Item 7A
SUPERION PAGE NUMBER: 12
DATE: 05/15/2025 CITY OF FOWLER ACCTPA21
TIME: 12:01:03 CHECK REGISTER - BY FUND
SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.check_no between '44606' and '44696' ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 11/25
FUND - 240 - CMAQ GRANT

CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT VENDOR NAME DEPT ACCNT ----DESCRIPTION---- SALES TAX AMOUNT 1001 44626 04/30/25 11793 DON BERRY CONSTRUCT 2400 5710 GSB BIKE/PED TRAIL 0.00 43,353.19 TOTAL CASH ACCOUNT 0.00 43,353.19
TOTAL FUND 0.00 43,353.19
16 Section 7, Item 7A
SUPERION PAGE NUMBER: 13
DATE: 05/15/2025 CITY OF FOWLER ACCTPA21
TIME: 12:01:03 CHECK REGISTER - BY FUND
SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.check_no between '44606' and '44696' ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 11/25
FUND - 250 - CDBG

CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT VENDOR NAME DEPT ACCNT ----DESCRIPTION---- SALES TAX AMOUNT 1001 44620 04/30/25 13655 PROVOST & PRITCHARD 2500 5220 ANNUAL WTR CCR 0.00 2,100.00 TOTAL CASH ACCOUNT 0.00 2,100.00
TOTAL FUND 0.00 2,100.00
17 Section 7, Item 7A
SUPERION PAGE NUMBER: 14
DATE: 05/15/2025 CITY OF FOWLER ACCTPA21
TIME: 12:01:03 CHECK REGISTER - BY FUND
SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.check_no between '44606' and '44696' ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 11/25
FUND - 255 - STATE GRANT AB178

CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT VENDOR NAME DEPT ACCNT ----DESCRIPTION---- SALES TAX AMOUNT 1001 44627 04/30/25 15149 KATCH GENERAL 2550 5710 NEW BUILD 0.00 565,776.11 1001 44628 04/30/25 13655 PROVOST & PRITCHARD 2550 5710 ENG PD HQ CONST ADM 0.00 10,556.91 1001 44628 04/30/25 13655 PROVOST & PRITCHARD 2550 5710 ENG PD HQ IMPROVEME 0.00 18,494.84 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 29,051.75
1001 44651 05/08/25 14414 FOWLER BAPTIST CHUR 2550 5710 TMP RNT APR25-SN CT 0.00 1,500.00 1001 44651 05/08/25 14414 FOWLER BAPTIST CHUR 2550 5710 TMP RNT MAY25-SN CT 0.00 1,500.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 3,000.00
1001 44695 05/14/25 15149 KATCH GENERAL 2550 5710 NEW BUILD 0.00 509,504.09 TOTAL CASH ACCOUNT 0.00 1,107,331.95
TOTAL FUND 0.00 1,107,331.95
18 Section 7, Item 7A
SUPERION PAGE NUMBER: 15
DATE: 05/15/2025 CITY OF FOWLER ACCTPA21
TIME: 12:01:03 CHECK REGISTER - BY FUND
SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.check_no between '44606' and '44696' ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 11/25
FUND - 256 - DWR STATE GRANT

CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT VENDOR NAME DEPT ACCNT ----DESCRIPTION---- SALES TAX AMOUNT 1001 44620 04/30/25 13655 PROVOST & PRITCHARD 2560 5710 WELL #9 DESIGN 0.00 1,930.00 1001 44620 04/30/25 13655 PROVOST & PRITCHARD 2560 5710 WELL #9 EPA GRANT 0.00 950.50 1001 44620 04/30/25 13655 PROVOST & PRITCHARD 2560 5710 WELL #9 DESIGN PM 0.00 662.20 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 3,542.70
TOTAL CASH ACCOUNT 0.00 3,542.70
TOTAL FUND 0.00 3,542.70
19 Section 7, Item 7A
SUPERION PAGE NUMBER: 16
DATE: 05/15/2025 CITY OF FOWLER ACCTPA21
TIME: 12:01:03 CHECK REGISTER - BY FUND
SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.check_no between '44606' and '44696' ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 11/25
FUND - 500 - WATER

CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT VENDOR NAME DEPT ACCNT ----DESCRIPTION---- SALES TAX AMOUNT 1001 44615 04/30/25 15206 KAZARIAN, MICHAEL S 500 2050 UB REFUND 0.00 55.05 1001 44616 04/30/25 13496 KEENAN & ASSOCIATES 5000 5084 HEALTH BENEFIT APR2 0.00 6,753.25 1001 44621 04/30/25 15201 STILL, JASON 500 2050 UB REFUND 0.00 66.62 1001 44622 04/30/25 13647 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL 5000 5084 DENTAL BENEFIT APR2 0.00 339.08 1001 44624 04/30/25 11335 VISION SERVICE PLAN 5000 5084 VISION BENEFIT APR2 0.00 98.66 1001 44632 05/08/25 10024 BSK ASSOCIATES 5000 5220 WATER TEST 4/10/25 0.00 1,771.01 1001 44636 05/08/25 14429 CORE & MAIN 5000 5202 SUPPLIES-WTR 0.00 192.62 1001 44640 05/08/25 15210 DIAZ, AUGIE & JENNI 500 2050 UB REFUND 0.00 33.24 1001 44643 05/08/25 14245 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 5000 5121 SUPPLIES-WTR 0.00 9.76 1001 44644 05/08/25 14247 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 5000 5121 SUPPLIES-WTR 0.00 3.26 1001 44644 05/08/25 14247 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 5000 5121 SUPPLIES-WTR 0.00 4.35 1001 44644 05/08/25 14247 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 5000 5121 SUPPLIES-WTR 0.00 6.72 1001 44644 05/08/25 14247 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 5000 5121 SUPPLIES-WTR 0.00 7.18 1001 44644 05/08/25 14247 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 5000 5121 SUPPLIES-WTR 0.00 9.35 1001 44644 05/08/25 14247 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 5000 5121 SUPPLIES-WTR 0.00 15.25 1001 44644 05/08/25 14247 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 5000 5121 SUPPLIES-WTR 0.00 27.67 1001 44644 05/08/25 14247 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 5000 5121 SUPPLIES-WTR 0.00 33.32 1001 44644 05/08/25 14247 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 5000 5121 SUPPLIES-WTR 0.00 41.39 1001 44644 05/08/25 14247 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 5000 5121 SUPPLIES-WTR 0.00 64.23 1001 44644 05/08/25 14247 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 5000 5121 SUPPLIES-WTR 0.00 71.91 1001 44644 05/08/25 14247 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 5000 5121 SUPPLIES-WTR 0.00 684.95 1001 44644 05/08/25 14247 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 5000 5121 SUPPLIES-WTR 0.00 697.44 1001 44644 05/08/25 14247 FOWLER ACE HARDWARE 5000 5121 SUPPLIES-WTR 0.00 3,032.26 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 4,699.28
1001 44649 05/08/25 15209 GONZALES, PAUL 500 2050 UB REFUND 0.00 18.32 1001 44650 05/08/25 15211 SANDERS, SHANAE 500 2050 UB REFUND 0.00 78.92 1001 44655 05/09/25 10215 NELSON'S ACE HARDWA 5000 5206 WELL #6 0.00 -26.02 1001 44655 05/09/25 10215 NELSON'S ACE HARDWA 5000 5206 WELL #6 0.00 76.98 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 50.96
1001 44656 05/09/25 10237 P G & E - SACRAMENT 5000 5170 325 S 5TH 4/30/25 0.00 533.99 1001 44656 05/09/25 10237 P G & E - SACRAMENT 5000 5170 WELL SITE #8 4/28/2 0.00 4,183.31 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 4,717.30
1001 44663 05/14/25 14519 AMAZON CAPITAL SERV 5000 5100 SUPPLIES-WTR 0.00 39.59 1001 44669 05/14/25 13275 FERGUSON WATERWORKS 5000 5175 HYDRO FLUSHER 0.00 3,835.92 1001 44679 05/14/25 15212 MEJIA, CAROL 500 2050 UB REFUND 0.00 91.76 20 Section 7, Item 7A
SUPERION PAGE NUMBER: 17
DATE: 05/15/2025 CITY OF FOWLER ACCTPA21
TIME: 12:01:03 CHECK REGISTER - BY FUND
SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.check_no between '44606' and '44696' ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 11/25
FUND - 500 - WATER

CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT VENDOR NAME DEPT ACCNT ----DESCRIPTION---- SALES TAX AMOUNT 1001 44681 05/14/25 10237 P G & E - SACRAMENT 5000 5170 95 E ADAMS 4/29/25 0.00 1,620.37 1001 44681 05/14/25 10237 P G & E - SACRAMENT 5000 5170 SESWNW231521 4/29/2 0.00 5,948.83 1001 44681 05/14/25 10237 P G & E - SACRAMENT 5000 5170 WELL SITE 7 5/1/25 0.00 10,460.55 1001 44681 05/14/25 10237 P G & E - SACRAMENT 5000 5170 ADAMS/5TH 4/29/25 0.00 602.99 1001 44681 05/14/25 10237 P G & E - SACRAMENT 5000 5170 TEMP/GOLDN 4/29/25 0.00 432.84 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 19,065.58
1001 44686 05/14/25 15216 STEELEX INDUSTRIAL 500 2050 HYDRANT REFUND 0.00 1,973.65 1001 44690 05/14/25 13543 UNIFIRST CORPORATIO 5000 5185 UNIFORM 5/8/25-WTR 0.00 95.05 TOTAL CASH ACCOUNT 0.00 43,985.62
TOTAL FUND 0.00 43,985.62
21 Section 7, Item 7A
SUPERION PAGE NUMBER: 18
DATE: 05/15/2025 CITY OF FOWLER ACCTPA21
TIME: 12:01:03 CHECK REGISTER - BY FUND
SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.check_no between '44606' and '44696' ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 11/25
FUND - 502 - GROUNDWATER/CID

CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT VENDOR NAME DEPT ACCNT ----DESCRIPTION---- SALES TAX AMOUNT 1001 44620 04/30/25 13655 PROVOST & PRITCHARD 5020 5220 SAN ANTONIO PIPELIN 0.00 5,642.20 1001 44620 04/30/25 13655 PROVOST & PRITCHARD 5020 5220 RECHARGE PIPELINE 0.00 4,910.80 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 10,553.00
TOTAL CASH ACCOUNT 0.00 10,553.00
TOTAL FUND 0.00 10,553.00
22 Section 7, Item 7A
SUPERION PAGE NUMBER: 19
DATE: 05/15/2025 CITY OF FOWLER ACCTPA21
TIME: 12:01:03 CHECK REGISTER - BY FUND
SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.check_no between '44606' and '44696' ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 11/25
FUND - 503 - TCP FUND

CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT VENDOR NAME DEPT ACCNT ----DESCRIPTION---- SALES TAX AMOUNT 1001 44629 04/30/25 13655 PROVOST & PRITCHARD 5030 5710 WELL 7 TCP TREAT 0.00 3,008.00 1001 44629 04/30/25 13655 PROVOST & PRITCHARD 5030 5710 TCP MITIGATION 0.00 9,550.97 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 12,558.97
1001 44696 05/14/25 15214 HPS MECHANICAL, INC 5030 5710 TCP WELL 7 0.00 247,427.50 TOTAL CASH ACCOUNT 0.00 259,986.47
TOTAL FUND 0.00 259,986.47
23 Section 7, Item 7A
SUPERION PAGE NUMBER: 20
DATE: 05/15/2025 CITY OF FOWLER ACCTPA21
TIME: 12:01:03 CHECK REGISTER - BY FUND
SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.check_no between '44606' and '44696' ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 11/25
FUND - 730 - AB1600-FIRE

CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT VENDOR NAME DEPT ACCNT ----DESCRIPTION---- SALES TAX AMOUNT 1001 44620 04/30/25 13655 PROVOST & PRITCHARD 7300 5710 FIRE STATION CM 0.00 5,111.95 1001 44688 05/14/25 14882 TEMPLE-ANDERSEN-MOO 7300 5710 PROF SVC FIRE STATI 0.00 12,375.00 TOTAL CASH ACCOUNT 0.00 17,486.95
TOTAL FUND 0.00 17,486.95
24 Section 7, Item 7A
SUPERION PAGE NUMBER: 21
DATE: 05/15/2025 CITY OF FOWLER ACCTPA21
TIME: 12:01:03 CHECK REGISTER - BY FUND
SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.check_no between '44606' and '44696' ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 11/25
FUND - 740 - AB1600-TRF MTGTN & IMPACT

CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT VENDOR NAME DEPT ACCNT ----DESCRIPTION---- SALES TAX AMOUNT 1001 44683 05/14/25 11880 RJ BERRY JR INC 7400 5710 PED CROSS IMP 2024 0.00 11,380.72 TOTAL CASH ACCOUNT 0.00 11,380.72
TOTAL FUND 0.00 11,380.72
25 Section 7, Item 7A
SUPERION PAGE NUMBER: 22
DATE: 05/15/2025 CITY OF FOWLER ACCTPA21
TIME: 12:01:03 CHECK REGISTER - BY FUND
SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.check_no between '44606' and '44696' ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 11/25
FUND - 760 - AB1600-WATER

CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT VENDOR NAME DEPT ACCNT ----DESCRIPTION---- SALES TAX AMOUNT 1001 44612 04/30/25 15141 E&M ELECTRIC MACHIN 7600 5715 SCADA APR25 0.00 26,535.00 TOTAL CASH ACCOUNT 0.00 26,535.00
TOTAL FUND 0.00 26,535.00
TOTAL REPORT 0.00 1,811,488.18
26 Section 7, Item 7A

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY, MAY 06, 2025 at 6:00 PM
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER – 128 SOUTH 5TH STREET, FOWLER, CA 93625

MINUTES

1. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
Mayor Mejia called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.

2. ROLL CALL

PRESENT
Juan Mejia
Amarjeet Gill
Leonard Hammer
Karnig Kazarian
Daniel Parra
Staff Present: Acting City Manager/Public Works Director Rocha, City Attorney Cross, City Planner Czeshinski, Sergeant Haro, City Planner Marple, City Engineer Park, and City Clerk Vasquez.

6. CEREMONIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Public Works Week Proclamation
B. Police Week Proclamation
C. Jr. Ambassador of the Year - Davian Alcaraz

7. PUBLIC COMMENT
Four members of the public spoke.

8. CONSENT CALENDAR
Motion made by Kazarian, Seconded by Parra.

Voting Yea: Mejia, Gill, Hammer, Kazarian, Parra

10. GENERAL ADMINISTRATION
Personnel
A. APPROVE Resolution No. 2780 adopting an updated salary classification schedule Two members of the public spoke.
27 Section 7, Item 7B
Motion made by Gill, Seconded by Parra.

Voting Yea: Mejia, Gill, Hammer, Kazarian, Parra
Planning
B. APPROVE Resolution No. 2781, adopting an addendum to the City of Fowler General Plan Environmental Impact Report and approving General Plan Amendment No. 25-11, with the land uses proposed under Alternative A.

Property owner, George Bravante spoke.

Two members of the public spoke.

Councilmember Kazarian made a motion to table this item to the June 3, 2025 Council meeting to pursue a hybrid alternative of Alternatives A & B and a policy recommendation to tighten up the development of the commercial core along Clovis Avenue. The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Gill.

Motion made by Kazarian, Seconded by Gill.

Voting Yea: Mejia, Gill, Hammer, Kazarian, Parra
C. APPROVE Resolution No. 2782 Authorizing the City Manager to execute agreements with Pacific West Communities and Fresno County Rural Transit Authority (FCRTA) as a joint applicant for a grant application for Round 9 of the Strategic Growth Council’s (SGC) Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) grant program.

Representatives from Pacific West Communities and Fresno County Rural Transit Authority spoke.

One member of the public spoke.

Motion made by Parra, Seconded by Gill.

Voting Yea: Mejia, Gill, Hammer, Kazarian, Parra
Councilmember Kazarian excused himself from the meeting at 7:32 p.m.

D. INTRODUCE Ordinance No. 2025-02, pertaining to Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 6471:
i. Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
ii. Prezoning Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 6471 to M-1 (Light Industrial) and its designated remainder to R3 (Single-Family Residential) iii. Prezoning APN 340-120-06 to R3
APPROVE Resolution No. 2783:
iv. Initiating annexation of the Property of Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 6471 and APN 340-120-06
28 Section 7, Item 7B
A representative from Precision Civil Engineering, Inc. spoke.

Councilmember Parra stated he may have a conflict of interest due to possibly receiving a campaign contribution in excess of $500 in the past 12 months from the President of Precision Civil Engineering, Inc. and recused himself from the matter and did not participate in the vote on the item.

Three members of the public spoke.

Motion made by Hammer, Seconded by Gill.

Voting Yea: Mejia, Gill, Hammer
Voting Abstaining: Parra
Public Works
E. Actions pertaining to the Well 9 Drought Resiliency Project:

1. AWARD a construction contract to United Field Services Corporation in the amount of $3,356,725 and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement.

2. APPROVE a professional services agreement with Vanir Construction Management, Inc. in the amount of $128,725 for construction management and observation services for the Project and authorize the City Manager to negotiate the agreement.

3. AUTHORIZE a 5% project construction contingency budget of $167,836 to fund any identified environmental mitigation, testing, inspection, and unforeseen issues during construction.

Two members of the public spoke.

Motion made by Gill, Seconded by Parra.

Voting Yea: Mejia, Gill, Hammer, Parra
F. AWARD Adams Avenue Rehabilitation Stearns to SR99 [STPL 5173 (039)] to Emmett Valley Construction, Inc. in the amount of $177,957 and authorize City Manager to execute the agreement
Motion made by Gill, Seconded by Hammer.

Voting Yea: Mejia, Gill, Hammer, Parra

11. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Updates were provided by Public Works Director Rocha, City Engineer Park, and Sergeant Haro.

12. COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS AND COMMENTS
Updates were provided by Mayor Pro Tem Gill, Councilmember Hammer, and Mayor Mejia.

13. ADJOURN
Having no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m. 29 Section 7, Item 7B

CITY COUNCIL MEETING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
DATE: May 20, 2025
FROM: RAUL CARRILLO, Accountant
SUBJECT: Actions pertaining to the Fiscal Year 2024-25 3 rd Quarter budget report and
budget amendments:
i. ACCEPT the Fiscal Year 2024-25 mid-year quarter budget report. ii. ADOPT Resolution No. 2784 Fiscal Year 2024-25 budget amendments.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Fiscal Year 2024-25 mid-year budget report reflects the City’s revenues and expenditures through March 31, 2025. The mid-year budget report provides the data to inform any necessary budget amendments to ensure that the budget is balanced at the end of the Fiscal Year.

BACKGROUND
Staff recommend several budget amendments based on operational changes during the first half of the Fiscal Year, as well as staff’s understanding of departmental operations and base budget needs. Below is a summary of revenues received and expenditures made for each fund type through March 31, 2025.

GENERAL FUND
The General Fund covers core services such as police, fire, public works, community development, parks, recreation, and the senior center. Sales and property taxes are the two largest sources of revenue in the General Fund. Revenues in the General Fund are at 74% and expenditure is at 73% at mid-year, as follows:

REVENUES
As summarized in Attachment A, General Fund revenues received through March 31, 2025 total 74% of the annual budget estimates, while expenditures at 73%. It is important to note that certain revenues are collected at various times throughout the year and not reflected in the mid-year report.
30 Section 7, Item 7C

PROPERTY TAX
Revenues are 76% of budget
The major portion of property tax revenue was distributed. The City received $916,942, 76% of the estimate. The next major distribution will occur in June.

PERMITS/LICENSES
Revenues are at 68% of budget
The City received 68% of permits/licenses fees through March 31, 2025. Charges for services are higher through March 31, 2025. Building permits are at $494,158, which make up a large portion of these estimated revenues. Increased permits and development activity are responsible for the increase. Several budget amendments are proposed to account for the projected growth in development activity.

FINES & FEES
Revenues are at 27% of budget
Fines and Fees are on target through March 31, 2025 at 27%.

USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY RENTAL INCOME
Revenues are 127% of budget
The City has received 127% of use of money & property rental income, in which the majority of revenues is due to the City’s current investments reflecting interest income at $113,575 through March 31, 2025. The remaining revenues are from rental income received from Unwired broadband for the water tower. An adjustment to interest income revenues will be proposed to adjust to actual.

MOTOR VEHICLE IN LIEU
Revenues are at 68% of budget
The Vehicle License Fee (VLF) payments received through the third quarter are at $613,686. The motor vehicle in lieu revenues are property tax shares allocated to cities and counties by the State.

SALES TAX
Revenues are at 60% of budget
The City has received 60% of sales tax revenues. Sales tax revenues are the largest revenue source in the General Fund. At 60% actual revenues collected in the third quarter, revenues are on target through the third quarter.

TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX
Revenues are at 57% of budget
Transient occupancy taxes are received on a quarterly basis, the first reflecting $91,204 of estimate through the third quarter.

FRANCHISE FEES
Revenues are at 60% of budget
Franchise fees are received on a quarterly basis, total received through third quarter is $260,750 60% of estimated budget.
31 Section 7, Item 7C

SERVICES & OTHER FEES
Revenues are at 112% of budget
Revenues from services & other fees are currently at 112% and are anticipated to meet budgeted expectations. These revenues are from various sources such as recreation, inspection, planning, park maintenance, and special police services.

GRANTS
Revenues are at 114% of budget
Grant funding received through third quarter is at $266,040. Staff anticipate grants to be on target at the end of year.

OTHER MISC REVENUE
Revenues are at 83% of budget
Revenues from other sources are currently at 83%. These miscellaneous revenues include donations, P.O.S.T reimbursements, restitution, and other refunds. It is typical for revenues in this category to reflect higher percentages than budgeted. A proposed budget amendment is needed to adjust for a one time revenues received for the third quarter.

TRANSFER IN
Revenues are at 100% of budget
This fund allocates the transfer in and transfer out to the appropriate funds at year end.

EXPENDITURES
As summarized in Attachment A, the City has expended roughly 73% of its General Fund appropriations as of March 31, 2025. All departments are on target to their budgeted lines from actual through the third quarter.

As summarized in Attachment B, the summary of all funds revenues reflects the revenues and expenditures through the third quarter by fund type as summarized below:

ENTERPRISE FUNDS

WATER UTILITY FUNDS
Revenues 94% | Expenses 52%
Through March 31, 2025, Staff anticipate the Water Utility Fund budget to be on target for year end.

WATER WELL MAINTENANCE
Revenues 128% | Expenses 0%
Revenues are currently at 128% due to interest income and 0% for expenses in the third quarter. A budget amendment is proposed to adjust interest income to actual.

GROUNDWATER RECHARGE CID
Revenues 100% | Expenses 100%
Groundwater Recharge CID funds are currently at 0% for revenues and 100% for expenses in the third quarter.
32 Section 7, Item 7C
TCP
Revenues 126% | Expenses 0%
TCP funds are currently at 126% for revenues reflecting the final payment for the TCP settlement and 0% for expenses in the third quarter.

SPECIAL REVENUES

UTILITY USERS TAX (UUT)
Revenues 100% | Expenses 47%
Utility User’s Tax are paid to the City one month in arrears. At third quarter revenues received are at $532,922, or 100% of budget, and expenses includes end of year transfers out of UUT.

DISTRICT SALES TAX (MEASURE N)
Revenues 68% | Expenses 11%
District Sales Tax Funds are received in a monthly basis. Revenues are $1,298,168 through the third quarter. Expenses currently at 11% of budget.

COPS GRANT
Revenues 69% | Expenses 100%
COPS grant reimbursement are processed once expenses are made. The expenses will be adjusted at year end. A budget amendment is proposed to adjust revenues to actual for additional revenues received for COPS growth allocations.

RECYCLE GRANT
Revenues 100% | Expenses 90%
Recycle grant reimbursement are processed once expenses are made. Staff anticipates to be on target at end of year.

GAS TAX (HIGHWAY USER TAX)
Revenues 77% | Expenses 0%
Highway User Tax (gas tax) revenues are received monthly. The 100% reflects final principal & interest payments made through the third quarter for debt service on the Merced Street Rehab.

AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT (ARPA)
Revenues 196% | Expenses 35%
American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds have been received at 100% in the prior Fiscal Years. The expenses are currently at 35% for the third quarter. Expenses budgeted for this fund include improvements for the Water Tower Rehabilitation and Website Rebranding projects. A budget amendment is proposed to adjust carryover expenses from prior year for the current year Website Rebranding expenses.

CALRECYCLE SB1383 GRANT
Revenues 0% | Expenses 0%
Revenues are at 0% and expenses are currently at 0% for the third quarter through the third quarter.
33 Section 7, Item 7C
LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND ARTICLES 3 & 8
Revenues 12% | Expenses 9%
Revenues are generated from Fresno County at 12%. The expenses are at 9% which include utilities and street sweeping.

MEASURE C
Revenues 68% | Expenses 0%
Measure C revenues are received on a monthly basis. $233,649 have been received through the third quarter.

SB1 ROAD MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION FUNDS
Revenues 76% | Expenses 0%
SB1 revenues are received monthly from the State. Budgeted expenses include street paving projects to be completed by end of year.

ACTIVE TRANSPORT PROGRAM (ATP)
Revenues 29% | Expenses 0%
Revenues are received as expenses are incurred. Budgeted expenses include the Golden State Bike Trail Project.

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BLOCK GRANT (STBG)
Revenues 42% | Expenses 6%
Revenues are received as expenses are incurred. Budgeted expenses include Manning Reconstruction Project.

MEASURE C TOD
Revenues 0% | Expenses 1%
Revenues are received as expenses are incurred for the Main Street Bikeway to Transit project. Expenses are at 7% through the third quarter.

HCD SB2 GRANT
Revenues 0% | Expenses 50%
Revenues are received as expenses are incurred for the General Plan and Zoning Code update as reimbursement basis.

CMAQ Grant
Revenues 28% | Expenses 113%
CMAQ grant funds are currently at 0%. A proposed budget amendment is needed to adjust engineering expenses to actual for the third quarter for grant reimbursable street projects.

CDBG
Revenues 112% | Expenses 0%
CDBG grant funds are currently at 112% for revenues and 0% for expenses in the third quarter for CDBG loan reimbursements.

STATE GRANT AB178 (POLICE HEADQUARTERS & SENIOR CENTER) Revenues 123% | Expenses 39%
Revenues are at 123% due to interest income, and expenses are currently at 39% for the third quarter through the third quarter. A budget amendment is proposed to adjust interest income to actual.
34 Section 7, Item 7C

DWR STATE GRANT
Revenues 5% | Expenses 3%
Revenues are received as expenses are incurred for the New Water Well 9 Project.

DWSRF STATE GRANT
Revenues 0% | Expenses 0%
Reimbursements are processed once expenses are made. Expenses will be adjusted at year end.

BIKE PED TRAILS SUST TRAN
Revenues 48% | Expenses 20%
Revenues are received as expenses are incurred for the Bicycle, Pedestrian and Trails Master Plan. This project is in close-out.

MANNING RR CROSSING
Revenues 0% | Expenses 3%
Reimbursements are processed once expenses are made. Expenses will be adjusted at year end.

AB1600 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
Due to the volume of development activity in the City, the various AB1600 revenues are reflecting a range from 265% to 24% for the mid-year. A budget amendment is proposed to adjust revenues to actual due to interest income and increased development activity. A budget amendment is also proposed to adjust expenses in Water Impact fees for the City Council-approved SCADA Modernization Project, and to adjust expenses in Traffic Impact Fees for the Temperance & Walter Avenues, and South & Bousian Avenues Pedestrian Crossing Project.

BUDGET AMENDMENTS
As summarized in Attachment C, staff propose several mid-year budget amendments to align the revenues and expenditures to budget. The following budget amendments are proposed:

GENERAL FUND
Revenues
To bring revenues to actual for current year supplement unsecured, tax increment, interest income, inspection fees, planning fees, street project revenue, other grant revenue planning.

Expenses
To bring expenses to actual several adjustments are needed, an increase to street maintenance for a purchase for banner poles from carry over prior year.

ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Water Fund
To increase expenses for vehicle purchase from prior year carryover. 35 Section 7, Item 7C

PUBLIC NOTICE
This item does not require a public hearing and was noticed as a part of the City Council Agenda.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This action does not constitute a “project” pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.

GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
The City’s annual budget supports implementation of the entire General Plan including its goals, policies, and action items.

FISCAL IMPACT
After the budget amendments, revenues and expenditures for all fund types are expected to be on target for the second quarter.

PROCUREMENT PROCESS
There is no procurement associated with this action.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Staff is not aware of any conflicts of interest.

Attachments:
- Attachment A: General Fund Summary
- Attachment B: All Fund Summary
- Resolution No. 2784 & Attachment C: Request for Budget Amendment 36 Section 7, Item 7C

ATTACHMENT A

GENERAL FUND SUMMARY REVENUES PERCENTAGE

BUDGET AS OF REVENUES
REVENUES 2024-2025 3/31/2025 3/31/2025
PROPERTY TAX 1,200,300 916,942 76%
PERMITS/LICENSES 877,300 595,993 68%
FINES & FEES 16,000 4,392 27%
USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY RENTAL 89,375 113,575 127%
VLF 896,000 613,686 68%
SALES TAX 2,090,000 1,259,194 60%
TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX 160,000 91,204 57%
FRANCHISE FEES 436,000 260,750 60%
SERVICES FEES & OTHER 153,550 171,322 112%
GRANTS 233,000 266,040 114%
OTHER MISC REVENUE 224,550 186,869 83%
TRANSFER IN 840,882 840,882 100%
TOTAL REVENUES $7,216,957 $5,320,849 74%

EXPENDITURES PERCENTAGE

BUDGET AS OF EXPENDITURES
EXPENDITURES 2024-2025 3/31/2025 3/31/2025
CITY COUNCIL 43,770 24,656 56%
ADMINISTRATION 465,506 296,246 64%
CITY CLERK 173,047 123,191 71%
FINANCE 332,521 330,376 99%
CITY ATTORNEY 200,000 113,839 57%
GENERAL GOVERNMENT 923,920 222,909 24%
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 121,450 162,791 134%
POLICE 2,250,529 1,703,855 76%
FIRE 311,863 328,907 105%
ANIMAL CONTROL 20,600 15,225 74%
PUBLIC WORKS-ADMIN 235,324 166,833 71%
PUBLIC WORKS-STREET 727,179 710,371 98%
PLANNING 523,190 562,740 108%
BUILDING 437,405 308,244 70%
PUBLIC WORKS-PARK MAINT 701,594 425,566 61%
RECREATION 239,332 177,845 74%
SENIOR CENTER 170,312 109,753 64%
TOTAL EXPENSES $7,877,542 $5,783,347 73%
37 Section 7, Item 7C

ATTACHMENT B

REVENUES EXPENSES

ALL FUND SUMMARY
2024-2025 REVENUES AS PERCENT 2024-2025 EXPENSES AS PERCENT BUDGET 3/31/2025 REC'S YTD BUDGET 3/31/2025 USED YTD

GENERAL FUND
101 General Fund $7,216,957 $5,320,849 74% $7,877,542 $5,783,347 73%

ENTERPRISE FUNDS
500 Water Utility 1,713,600 1,604,065 94% 2,756,815 1,419,784 52% 501 Water Well Maintenance 12,000 15,319 128% 0 0 0%
502 Groundwater Recharge CID 50,000 50,000 100% 464,954 464,954 100% 503 TCP 48,000 60,487 126% 4,504,562 15,472 0%
Sub-total $1,823,600 $1,729,872 95% $7,726,331 $1,900,210 25%

SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
200 Utility Users Tax 535,000 532,922 100% 1,427,911 665,264 47% 201 District Sales Tax 1,901,000 1,298,168 68% 8,955,348 963,257 11% 206 COPS Grant 125,700 86,943 69% 125,000 125,000 100%
209 Recycle Grant 5,000 5,000 100% 5,000 4,500 90%
210 Gas Tax 197,978 151,716 77% 0 0 0%
212 ARPA Funding 4,500 8,834 196% 653,952 227,631 35%
213 CalRecycle SB1383 Grant 300 294 0% 0 0 0%
220 LTF Article 3 8,450 1,043 12% 30,000 0 0%
225 LTF Article 8 383,500 20,216 5% 682,900 59,592 9%
230 Measure C 344,735 233,649 68% 548,226 0 0%
234 Road Maint & Rehab SB1 187,946 142,996 76% 323,096 0 0% 236 Active Trnsport Pln (ATP) 600,000 172,698 29% 600,000 0 0% 237 Srfc Trns Blck Grnat -STBG 1,971,625 834,088 42% 1,971,625 122,054 6% 238 Measure C TOD 400,000 1,000 0% 400,000 3,103 1%
239 HCD SB2 Grant 0 12,500 0% 0 0 0%
240 CMAQ Grant 500,230 137,894 28% 870,081 981,296 113% 250 CDBG 21,000 23,450 112% 0 657 0%
255 State Grant AB178 51,000 62,487 123% 3,848,401 1,510,135 39% 256 DWR State Grant 2,100,000 105,551 5% 2,100,000 55,284 3% 257 DWSRF State Grant 3,005,200 0 0% 3,005,200 0 0%
258 Bike Ped Trails Sust Tran 124,500 59,213 48% 124,650 25,401 20% 259 Manning RR Crossing 1,855,000 0 0% 1,855,000 47,750 3% 710 AB1600 General Service 61,500 106,674 173% 320,589 12,103 4% 720 AB1600 Law Enforcement 63,500 81,715 129% 500,000 0 0% 730 AB1600 Fire 82,700 94,713 115% 505,000 100,897 20%
740 AB1600 Traffic & Impact 92,000 140,831 153% 95,715 173,872 182% 750 AB1600 Parks 213,000 324,842 153% 1,300,000 13,197 1% 760 AB1600 Water 146,500 227,225 155% 796,035 206,273 26% 765 AB1600 Ground Wtr Rchrg 117,050 28,620 24% 151,000 50,000 33% 770 AB1600 Sewer 239,000 365,343 153% 0 0 0%
780 AB1600 Storm Drain 89,000 144,959 163% 150,000 0 0% 799 99/Merced Signalization 1,550 4,102 265% 0 0 0%
Sub-total 15,428,464 5,409,688 35% 31,344,729 5,347,266 17%

DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
320 Debt Service 88-1 0 58,871 0% 0 0 0%
900 Public Financial Auth 0 0 0% 0 596 0%
Sub-total $0 $58,871 0% $0 $596 0%
38 Section 7, Item 7C
RESOLUTION NO. 2784

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FOWLER

APPROVING AND ADOPTING BUDGET AMENDMENTS FOR VARIOUS FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024/2025
WHEREAS, the FY 2024/2025 Annual Budget reflects the City of Fowler’s ongoing commitment to providing core services; and
WHEREAS, the FY 2024/2025 Annual Budget was approved by the City Council on June 4, 2024, by Resolution 2717, and any subsequent amendments must be approved by Resolution; and
WHEREAS, a budget amendment is necessary to align the expected revenues and expected expenses.

WHEREAS, the budget amendment attached hereto as Attachment C specifies the various proposed budget amendments for various funds.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Fowler City Council hereby resolves that the FY 2024/2025 budget be amended as described in Attachment C hereto to provide the necessary funding to various funds.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of May 2025, at a regular meeting of the Fowler City Council by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:
___________________________
Juan Mejia, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Angela Vasquez, City Clerk
39 Section 7, Item 7C

ATTACHMENT C

REQUEST FOR BUDGET AMENDMENT
Resolution No. 2784
Requested by: Raul Carrillo Budget Amounts
Account Numbers: Fund Name Description Increase Decrease Revenues
100 General Fund-Fund Balance $ - $ 36,827
500 Water-Fund Balance 65,792 $
100-3008 General Fund-Current Year Supp Unsec 77,810 $
100-3015 General Fund-Tax Increment 48,656 $
100-3301 General Fund-Interest Income 25,992 $
100-3507 General Fund-Inspection Fees 23,572 $
100-3515 General Fund-Planning Fees 45,292 $
100-3629 General Fund-Street Project Revenue 151,771 $
100-3660 General Fund-Other Grant Rev-Planning 70,914 $ Expenses
6200-5710 Street Maintenance-Improvements 36,827 $
5000-5720 Water-Vehicles 65,792 $
Reason(s) for Budget Amendment:

Finance Director
Signature __________________________ Date_________________ City Manager
Signature __________________________ Date_________________ City Council: Approved Resolution #__________ Denied
To align expenses and revenues to third quarter FY 2024/25 budget, staff request budget amendments to the following funds:

General Fund Revenues: Third quarter adjustments for projected year-end to actual:

General Fund-Current Year Supp Unsec, $77,810: To adjust to actual current year supp.

General Fund-Tax Increment, $48,656: To adjust to actual tax increment.

General Fund-Interest Income, $25,992: To adjust to actual interest income.

General Fund-Inspection Fees, $23,572: To adjust to actual inspection fees.

General Fund-Planning Fees, $45,292: To adjust to actual planning fees.

General Fund-Street Project Revenue, $151,771: To adjust to actual street project revenue?? General Fund-Other Grant Rev-Planning, $70,914 To adjust to actual other grant revenue planning.?? General Fund Expenses: Third quarter adjustments for projected year-end to actual: Street Maintenance, $36,827: To adjust purchase of Merced Banner Poles prior year carry over.

Enterprise Fund Expenses: Third quarter adjustments for projected year-end to actual:

Water, $65,792: Purchase of a 2023 Ford F-350 prior year carry over. 40 Section 7, Item 7C

CITY COUNCIL MEETING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
DATE: May 20, 2025
FROM: DAWN E. MARPLE, City Planner
SUBJECT: ADOPT Ordinance No. 2025-02, pertaining to Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 6471:
i. Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
ii. Prezoning Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 6471 to M-1 (Light Industrial) and its designated remainder to zoning map designation of R-1-6 (Single Family
Residential) with an implementing zone district of R-3
(Medium Density Residential)
iii. Prezoning APN 340-120-06 to zoning map designation of R-1-6 (Single Family Residential) with an implementing
zone district of R-3 (Medium Density Residential)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Adoption of the Ordinance would prezone and allow for the initiation of annexation for a proposed 44-lot subdivision for light industrial uses on the north side of Fowler, providing for increased employment options within the City. The project is consistent with the goals and policies of the City’s General Plan. Ordinance 2025-02 was introduced by a vote of 3-0 (1 absent, 1 abstention) approval of the City Council on May 6, 2025. It is recommended that the Ordinance be adopted.

BACKGROUND
This item was introduced at the May 6, 2025 City Council meeting.

Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 6471 is a tentative subdivision map which proposes a new industrial subdivision on a property generally located at the southeast intersection of Golden State Boulevard and Clayton Avenue (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers [APN] 340-120-05, - 28, and -29) (the “Project”). The Project site is approximately 45.04 acres in size bounded by Clayton Avenue to the north, Golden State Boulevard and the Union Pacific Railroad to the west, and farmland and undeveloped land to the east and south (“Property”). 41 Section 7, Item 7D
The site is designated Light Industrial and Medium Low Density Residential under the City of Fowler’s General Plan and is proposed to be zoned M-1 (Light Industrial) and R-3 (One-Family Residential) on the City’s official zoning map. The General Plan identifies M-1 and R-1-6 as consistent with the Light Industrial and Medium Low Density Residential land uses, respectively. The Zoning Ordinance translates the R-1-6 zone to the development standards of the R-3 zone district. The Project proposes to develop approximately 30.65 acres of the site into industrial lots, while the remaining 14.39 acres on the eastern portion of the Property would be designated as an undeveloped remainder. Design and layout of the lots contained on the map are reflective of this. In total, the proposed Project would result in 44 light industrial lots, with an outlot reserved for stormwater retention. Future development of these lots would be required to meet the allowed uses and objective standards of the M-1 zone district. These objective standards require screening and noise management of industrial uses when adjacent to residential uses.

Two points of access from Clayton Avenue are proposed, and a stub connection was required to allow two points of access to the property to the south. Lots abutting East Clayton Avenue would relinquish direct access rights to Clayton Avenue because of their shallow lot depths.

Designated Remainder
The subject Property is split zoned, and only the Light Industrial portion of the Property is proposed for subdivision. The 14.39-acre designated remainder of the Property is not proposed for development at this time. Should this remainder of the Property wish to develop in accordance with the General Plan, a tentative subdivision map would need to be prepared, submitted, and approved. Such subdivision would need to comply with the proposed zoning of the Property—R-3—which would allow for 6,000 square foot lots. Such lots are consistent with the Medium Low Density Residential land use designation and with the size of lots in adjacent subdivision.

Williamson Act Contract
The Property which is proposed to be subdivided is subject to a Williamson Act contract. Such contracts convey a property tax benefit to the property owner in exchange for not converting the land to non-agricultural purposes. Such contracts are for ten years and renew annually.

Contracts can be terminated upon a public hearing by the contract holding agency, which is the County of Fresno. Termination fees are twelve and one-half percent (12.5%) of the fair market value of the Property, and must be paid prior to the contract being cancelled.

Public Infrastructure
The subject Property does not have wet utilities (i.e. water and sewer) along its Clayton Avenue frontage. The nearest utilities are in Golden State Boulevard and Fowler Avenue. The Project will be required to extend sewer to the subdivision frontage, and water from Golden State Boulevard to the existing connection point in Fowler Avenue. The General Plan Program EIR requires that no natural gas infrastructure be extended to the subdivision.

There is no permanent drainage service in the area, and thus the Project is required to construct a drainage basin. The City is requiring said basin to be dedicated to the City. The City would maintain the basin and reimbursed through a Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District or Community Facilities District that the subdivision would be required in annex into.

The Norris Canal, operated by Consolidated Irrigation District (“CID”), was previously undergrounded and is located in a 20-foot easement along the property’s Clayton Avenue 42 Section 7, Item 7D
frontage from the western edge of the map boundary to a point approximately where Norris Avenue is proposed, where it switches to the north side of Clayton Avenue. This easement is proposed to be dedicated to the City for purposes of extending the right-of-way to accommodate ultimate buildout of Clayton Avenue, where asphalt, curb, gutter, sidewalk, and streetlights would be constructed. In response, CID requests that the map be conditioned to relocate the irrigation pipeline and its easement elsewhere, as they do not want asphalt and curb and gutter over their pipeline. The City is willing to work with the engineer and CID to find an appropriate location for the irrigation pipeline to reduce the amount of land encumbered by an easement.

Ditch Easement
North Thomas Avenue is proposed over a 15-foot privately-held easement for ditch and incidental purposes. The City will require that North Thomas Avenue be relocated out of that easement, or the easement be quitclaimed. If such easement were not removed, the easement holder would have the right to construct a ditch and incidental purposes where the road exists.

Adjacent Property
Because of the required utility extensions, the Fresno Local Agency Formation Commission (“LAFCo”) recommends that the property adjacent to the Project site (APN 340-120-06) be annexed into the City. This property is approximately 38 acres and is planned for Medium Low Density Residential land uses. Staff recommend that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council that this area also be prezoned to R-3 and annexed into the City. Because future development of this site will require environmental analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), such analysis was not considered ripe at this time.

Flood Zone “A”
The subject Property is located in a 100-year floodplain, mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”). Review of the floodplain map indicates that this area is not flooded by a nearby canal or river, but rather a low spot. Subsequent buildings will be required that they are built above the base flood elevation. Water and sewer utilities will be required to be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwaters into the system, and vice-versa.

The basin would be required to be constructed such that the bank is one foot above the base flood elevation so runoff would make it into the basin even during a flood event.

Air Quality Emissions
Staff performed an air quality analysis and found that construction of the subdivision and subsequent construction and operations of subsequent development would result in a significant health impact to neighboring homes. As a result, the City proposes a mitigation measure to require that construction of the subdivision and subsequent buildings with construction equipment with cleaner engines. Such mitigation measure would result health impacts to less than significant and not impose operational restrictions on businesses in the subdivision. These requirements, in addition to other mitigation measures, will be required to be recorded on the property. Such requirements would reduce the amount of air quality mitigation fees subsequent projects would be owed to the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.

Construction Noise
Construction of the subdivision improvements and subsequent buildings would generate noise from construction. Construction noise is exempt from the City’s noise ordinance. Operational 43 Section 7, Item 7D
noise however is not, and future development would be required to construct concrete masonry block walls along the property line abutting the Designated Remainder.

Transportation Impacts
Due to the potential subsequent development of the site with industrial uses, a traffic impact study was required and prepared by a licensed traffic engineer. Several intersections likely utilized by subsequent development were analyzed. The study identified several intersections that would need improvements in the future, but not at time of buildout of the subdivision.

These included the following:
 Golden State Boulevard and Jefferson
 Clovis Avenue and Lincoln Avenue
 Golden State Boulevard and Clayton Avenue
 Clovis Avenue at State Route 99
 Merced and State Route 99 Southbound
 Merced and State Route 99 Northbound
The City Engineer prepared a cost estimate of the improvements necessary at each of these intersections and assigned a fair share cost estimate to each intersection. Traffic-generating development would be required to pay an inflation-adjusted, per-trip generated impact fee rather than the City’s scheduled traffic impact fee.

Bike, Pedestrian, and Trails Plan
While the Bike, Pedestrian, and Trails (“BPT”) Plan has been adopted, it does not have a regulatory effect at this time. That being said, the BPT Plan does identify Clayton Avenue as having a Class 1 Shared Use Path, connecting Golden State Boulevard to Temperance Avenue. As there is development on the south side of Clayton Avenue between Armstrong and Temperance, the Class 1 trail should be constructed on the north side of Clayton Avenue.

Therefore, the subdivision design would not conflict with the BPT Plan.

Prezone Approval
The Fowler Zoning Ordinance requires the City to make the following findings prior to approving a zoning map amendment:

1. The Zoning Code or Zoning Map Amendment is consistent with the intent of the goals and policies of the General Plan.

The proposed zoning would comply with the land use designations identified in the General Plan. The proposed area to be prezoned is located within the Priority Development Area.

Additionally, the zoning code amendment is consistent with General Plan Goals LU-4 and CH2 and General Plan Policies LU-1, LU-11, LU-20, and LU-22.

2. The Zoning Code or Zoning Map Amendment prescribes reasonable controls and standards to ensure compatibility with other established uses.

No individual uses are proposed within the subdivision at this time, however the Fowler Zoning Ordinance prescribes development standards when industrial properties are adjacent to residential zones, which includes block walls, setbacks, and vegetative screening requirements. There are also noise level standards that would apply. Additionally, subsequent analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act would be required for individual 44 Section 7, Item 7D
projects which would ensure additional review when specific developments are proposed.

Therefore, there are reasonable controls and standards to ensure compatibility with other established uses.

3. The Zoning Code or Zoning Map Amendment provides reasonable property development rights while protecting environmentally sensitive land uses and species.

Subsequent development resulting from the zoning map amendment would still be subject to discretionary approvals requiring compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.

Buildings constructed would be required to utilize a clean construction fleet and preconstruction surveys conducted prior to construction. Therefore, the zoning map amendment would protect environmentally sensitive land uses and species.

4. The Zoning Code or Zoning Map Amendment ensures protection of the general health, safety, and welfare of the community.

Subsequent development within the proposed zoning map amendment would comply with the requirements of the Fowler Zoning Ordinance, which was prepared and adopted to ensure the protection of the general health, safety, and welfare of the community.

Tentative Map
The Subdivision Map Act (Gov. Code § 66474.4) requires a City to deny approval of a tentative map if the City finds that either the resulting parcels following a subdivision of that land would be too small to sustain their agricultural use, and if the legislative body finds that the land is subject to a Williamson Act contract. Land shall be conclusively presumed to be in parcels too small to sustain their agricultural use if the land is less than 10 acres in size in the case of prime agricultural land, or less than 40 acres in size in the case of land that is not prime agricultural land. The subject Property is considered prime agricultural land.

A city however is not required to deny a tentative map if the Williamson Act contract has been tentatively cancelled. As the aforementioned Williamson Act contract is held by the County of Fresno, staff recommend the City Council take no action on the tentative map until said contract has been tentatively cancelled by the County of Fresno. The applicant has agreed to toll all time limitations regarding tentative map approval until such time occurs.

PUBLIC NOTICE
A Notice of Public Hearing was published in The Business Journal on April 25, 2025, which was at least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing. It was also sent via US Mail to all property owners within 300 feet of the proposed Project.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed Project has been reviewed for compliance with CEQA. The City prepared an initial study and on this basis determined that the proposed Project will not have significant adverse effects on the environment with incorporation of recommended mitigation. The City has prepared a proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration in accordance with CEQA requirements. Comments received on the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and responses are attached for the Planning Commission’s review. Comments were received by the California Departments of 45 Section 7, Item 7D
Conservation and Fish and Wildlife, and were focused on potential impacts to biological resources and farmland. Staff have incorporated mitigation for biological resources, and the General Plan EIR has already determined that impacts to farmland is a significant and unavoidable impact. No additional changes are necessary.

GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
The proposed project is consistent with the following General Plan goals and policies:

General Plan Goal LU-4
There are continued opportunities for the expansion of industrial land uses.

General Plan Policy LU-1
Development shall occur in accordance with the planned land uses as shown on Figure 4-1:

Land Use Diagram.

General Plan Policy LU-11
Annexation of industrial land uses may be allowed, provided the property meets all applicable requirements for annexation.

General Plan Policy LU-20
The City shall reserve sufficient space for industrial and supportive uses, recognizing greater land requirements due to methods of operation and marketing needs.

General Plan Policy LU-22
Industrial land in proximity to residential areas shall be planned for light industry.

General Plan Goal CH-2
Impacts from pollution are minimized through thoughtful and deliberate land use planning.

FISCAL IMPACT
Prezone and annexation of the Project site and adjacent parcel would allow for subsequent development of these parcels at intensities and densities prescribed by the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. Development impact fees would be collected to offset impacts from subsequent projects to City infrastructure. Annexation of the property would likely increase the assessed value of the property and therefore generate additional ongoing property tax revenue to the City. Annexation of the public rights-of-way would require maintenance by the City, which would be offset by additional property tax revenue received.

PROCUREMENT PROCESS
No procurement is associated with this action.
46 Section 7, Item 7D

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Staff is not aware of any conflicts of interest.

Attachments
- Exhibit 1 – Aerial Photo
- Exhibit 2 – General Plan Land Use Designation
- Exhibit 3 – Proposed Zoning Map
- Exhibit 4 – Tentative Map
- Ordinance No. 2025-02
- Ordinance No. 2025-02, Exhibit A (Prezone Area)
- Ordinance No. 2025-02, Exhibit B (Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration) 47 Section 7, Item 7D
Exhibit 1 – Aerial Photo
48 Section 7, Item 7D
Exhibit 2 – General Plan Land Use Designation
49 Section 7, Item 7D
Exhibit 3 – Proposed Zoning Map
50 Section 7, Item 7D
Exhibit 4 – Tentative Map
51 Section 7, Item 7D
ORDINANCE NO. 2025-02

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FOWLER ADOPTING

A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY TO REFLECT A CHANGE OF ZONE FOR ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBERS 340-120-05, 340-120-28, 340-120-29, AND 340-120-06.

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FOWLER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1.

The City Council hereby finds that the Amendments of the Zoning Map, as depicted in Sections 2 and 3 below have been adequately analyzed in the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration as described in Exhibit “B” attached hereto and incorporated by this reference herein, and the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program, including the mitigation measures identified therein and as described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, are hereby adopted.

SECTION 2.

The Official Zoning Map of the City of Fowler is hereby amended to designate Assessor’s Parcel No. 340-120-05, 340-120-28, and 340-120-29 with the M-1 (Light Industrial) and zoning map designation of R-1-6 (Single Family Residential) with an implementing zone district of R-3 (Medium Density Residential) as indicated in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein.

SECTION 3.

The Official Zoning Map of the City of Fowler is hereby amended to designate Assessor’s Parcel No. 340-120-06 with the zoning map designation of R-1-6 (Single Family Residential) with an implementing zone district of R-3 (Medium Density Residential) as indicated in Exhibit “A” attached hereto.
52 Section 7, Item 7D
SECTION 4.

This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days following its final passage and adoption. Within fifteen (15) days after its adoption, the ordinance, or a summary of the ordinance, shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation.

The foregoing ordinance was introduced at a meeting of the City Council of Fowler held on the 6th day of May 2025 and passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 20th day of May 2025 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
___________________________________
Juan Mejia, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Angela Vasquez, City Clerk
53 Section 7, Item 7D
Exhibit A
54 Section 7, Item 7D
Exhibit B
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
55 Section 7, Item 7D
TENTATIVE MAP NO. 6471

DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION
FEBRUARY 2025
SCH NO. 2024121188
PREPARED FOR:

City of Fowler
128 South 5th Street
Fowler, CA 93625
PREPARED BY:

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
7903
EST. 1968 PROVOST&

PRITCHARD

CONSULTING GROUP
56 Section 7, Item 7D
Table of Contents
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1 Introduction.................................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Regulatory Information......................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Document Format ................................................................................................................................. 1-1 Chapter 2 Project Description......................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Project Background ............................................................................................................................... 2-1 Project Title .................................................................................................................. 2-1 Lead Agency Name and Address................................................................................. 2-1 Contact Person and Phone Number ........................................................................... 2-1 Project Location ........................................................................................................... 2-1 General Plan Designation and Zoning......................................................................... 2-2 Description of Project.................................................................................................. 2-2 Other Public Agencies Whose Approval May Be Required........................................ 2-3 Consultation with California Native American Tribes................................................ 2-3 Chapter 3 Determination ................................................................................................................................ 3-1

3.1 Potential Environmental Impacts......................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Determination ....................................................................................................................................... 3-2 Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis...................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Aesthetics............................................................................................................................................... 4-1 Baseline Conditions...................................................................................................... 4-1 Impact Analysis............................................................................................................. 4-2

4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources..................................................................................................... 4-4 Baseline Conditions...................................................................................................... 4-4 Impact Analysis............................................................................................................. 4-5

4.3 Air Quality .............................................................................................................................................. 4-9 Baseline Conditions...................................................................................................... 4-9 Applicable Regulations................................................................................................. 4-9 Thresholds.................................................................................................................. 4-10 Impact Analysis........................................................................................................... 4-12 Mitigation ................................................................................................................... 4-14

4.4 Biological Resources............................................................................................................................ 4-15 Baseline Conditions.................................................................................................... 4-15 Applicable Regulations............................................................................................... 4-18 Impact Analysis........................................................................................................... 4-19

2.1.1 2.1.2

2.1.3 2.1.4

2.1.5 2.1.6

2.1.7 2.1.8

4.1.1 4.1.2

4.2.1 4.2.2

4.3.1 4.3.2

4.3.3 4.3.4

4.3.5 4.4.1

4.4.2 4.4.3
57 Section 7, Item 7D
Table of Contents
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 ii
Mitigation ................................................................................................................... 4-20

4.5 Cultural Resources............................................................................................................................... 4-21 Baseline Conditions.................................................................................................... 4-21 Regulatory Setting...................................................................................................... 4-22 Impact Analysis........................................................................................................... 4-22

4.6 Energy .................................................................................................................................................. 4-23 Baseline Conditions.................................................................................................... 4-23 Impact Analysis........................................................................................................... 4-23

4.7 Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................................ 4-25 Baseline Conditions.................................................................................................... 4-25 Regulatory Setting...................................................................................................... 4-27 Impact Analysis........................................................................................................... 4-27

4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions................................................................................................................. 4-30 Baseline Conditions.................................................................................................... 4-30 Thresholds.................................................................................................................. 4-30 Impact Analysis........................................................................................................... 4-30 Mitigation ................................................................................................................... 4-31

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials...................................................................................................... 4-32 Baseline Conditions.................................................................................................... 4-32 Impact Analysis........................................................................................................... 4-33

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................................................................... 4-36 Baseline Conditions.................................................................................................... 4-36 Impact Analysis........................................................................................................... 4-37

4.11 Land Use and Planning...................................................................................................................... 4-40 Baseline Conditions.................................................................................................... 4-40 Impact Analysis........................................................................................................... 4-40

4.12 Mineral Resources............................................................................................................................. 4-41 Baseline Conditions.................................................................................................... 4-41 Impact Analysis........................................................................................................... 4-41

4.13 Noise .................................................................................................................................................. 4-43 Baseline Conditions.................................................................................................... 4-43 Applicable Regulations............................................................................................... 4-43 Impact Analysis........................................................................................................... 4-44

4.14 Population and Housing.................................................................................................................... 4-46 Baseline Conditions.................................................................................................... 4-46

4.4.4 4.5.1

4.5.2 4.5.3

4.6.1 4.6.2

4.7.1 4.7.2

4.7.3 4.8.1

4.8.2 4.8.3

4.8.4 4.9.1

4.9.2 4.10.1

4.10.2 4.11.1

4.11.2 4.12.1

4.12.2 4.13.1

4.13.2 4.13.3

4.14.1 58
Section 7, Item 7D
Table of Contents
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 iii
Impact Analysis........................................................................................................... 4-46

4.15 Public Services................................................................................................................................... 4-48 Baseline Conditions.................................................................................................... 4-48 Impact Analysis........................................................................................................... 4-48

4.16 Recreation.......................................................................................................................................... 4-50 Baseline Conditions.................................................................................................... 4-50 Impact Analysis........................................................................................................... 4-50

4.17 Transportation................................................................................................................................... 4-52 Baseline Conditions.................................................................................................... 4-52 Impact Analysis........................................................................................................... 4-52

4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources.................................................................................................................. 4-54 Baseline Conditions.................................................................................................... 4-54 Regulatory Setting...................................................................................................... 4-55 Impact Assessment.................................................................................................... 4-56

4.19 Utilities and Service Systems............................................................................................................ 4-57 Baseline Conditions.................................................................................................... 4-57 Impact Analysis........................................................................................................... 4-57

4.20 Wildfire .............................................................................................................................................. 4-60 Baseline Conditions.................................................................................................... 4-60 Impact Analysis........................................................................................................... 4-60

4.21 CEQA Mandatory Findings of Significance ....................................................................................... 4-62 Statement of Findings................................................................................................ 4-62 Chapter 5 Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program.......................................................................... 5-1 Chapter 6 References...................................................................................................................................... 6-1

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: CalEEMod Output Files.............................................................................................................. A-1 Appendix B: Biological Memorandum ............................................................................................................ B-1 Appendix C: Cultural Resources Information ................................................................................................. C-1 Appendix D: Traffic Impact Study....................................................................................................................D-1

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1: Regional Location.......................................................................................................................... 2-4 Figure 2-2: Site Plan......................................................................................................................................... 2-5 Figure 2-3: Proposed Subdivision Map........................................................................................................... 2-1

4.14.2 4.15.1

4.15.2 4.16.1

4.16.2 4.17.1

4.17.2 4.18.1

4.18.2 4.18.3

4.19.1 4.19.2

4.20.1 4.20.2

4.21.1 59
Section 7, Item 7D
Table of Contents
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 iv
Figure 2-4: Proposed Zoning Map................................................................................................................... 2-1 Figure 2-5: Topo Quad..................................................................................................................................... 2-1 Figure 2-6: General Plan Land Use Designation Map .................................................................................... 2-2 Figure 2-7: Zone District Map.......................................................................................................................... 2-3 Figure 4-1: Farmland Map............................................................................................................................... 4-8 Figure 4-2: FEMA Flood Map......................................................................................................................... 4-39

LIST OF TABLES
Table 4-1: Aesthetics Impacts......................................................................................................................... 4-1 Table 4-2: Agriculture and Forest Impacts..................................................................................................... 4-4 Table 4-3: Air Quality Impacts......................................................................................................................... 4-9 Table 4-4: Thresholds of Significance for Criteria Air Pollutants................................................................. 4-10 Table 4-5: Thresholds of Significance for Toxic Air Contaminants.............................................................. 4-10 Table 4-6: Screening Levels for Potential Odor Sources.............................................................................. 4-11 Table 4-7: Summary of Ambient Air Quality Standards and Attainment Designation............................... 4-11 Table 4-8: Unmitigated Short-Term Construction Generated Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants.......... 4-12 Table 4-9: Maximum Daily Construction Related Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants.............................. 4-12 Table 4-10: Unmitigated Long-Term Operational Emissions....................................................................... 4-13 Table 4-11: Maximum Daily Operational Related Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants.............................. 4-13 Table 4-12: Biological Resources Impacts .................................................................................................... 4-15 Table 4-13: List of Soils Located on the Site and Their Basic Properties .................................................... 4-16 Table 4-14: Special Status Plant and Animal Species with the Potential to Occur on the Project Site ..... 4-17 Table 4-15: Cultural Resources Impacts....................................................................................................... 4-21 Table 4-16: Energy Impacts........................................................................................................................... 4-23 Table 4-17: Geology and Soils Impacts......................................................................................................... 4-25 Table 4-18: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts.......................................................................................... 4-30 Table 4-19: Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts............................................................................... 4-32 Table 4-20: Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts...................................................................................... 4-36 Table 4-21: Land Use and Planning Impacts................................................................................................. 4-40 Table 4-22: Mineral Resources Impacts ....................................................................................................... 4-41 Table 4-23: Noise Impacts............................................................................................................................. 4-43 Table 4-24: Noise Level Standards................................................................................................................ 4-44 Table 4-25: Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Sources Levels...................................................... 4-45 Table 4-26: Population and Housing Impacts............................................................................................... 4-46 Table 4-27: Public Services............................................................................................................................ 4-48 Table 4-28: Recreation Impacts.................................................................................................................... 4-50 Table 4-29: Transportation Impacts.............................................................................................................. 4-52 Table 4-30: Tribal Cultural Resources Impacts............................................................................................. 4-54 Table 4-31: Utilities and Service Systems Impacts....................................................................................... 4-57 Table 4-32: Wildfire Impacts......................................................................................................................... 4-60 Table 4-33: CEQA Mandatory Findings of Significance................................................................................ 4-62 Table 5-1: Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program.......................................................................... 5-2 60 Section 7, Item 7D
Table of Contents
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 i

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AB .................................................................................................................................................Assembly Bill BMP ........................................................................................................................ Best Management Practices CalEEMod ..........................................................................California Emissions Estimator Modeling (software) CalFire............................................................................California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CBC ...............................................................................................................................California Building Code CEQA.......................................................................................................... California Environmental Quality Act CESA ..............................................................................................................California Endangered Species Act CGS ........................................................................................................................ California Geological Survey CHRIS ................................................................................. California Historical Resources Information System CIP .................................................................................................................... Capital Improvement Program City ................................................................................................................................................City of Fowler CNDDB.......................................................................................................California Natural Diversity Database CNPS .....................................................................................................................California Native Plant Society CO .......................................................................................................................................Carbone Monoxide CO2 ..............................................................................................................................................Carbon dioxide County ............................................................................................................................................Fresno County dBA .....................................................................................................................................A-weighted decibels DCP ..........................................................................................................................................Dust Control Plan DPM .............................................................................................................................Diesel Particulate Matter DTSC ................................................................................................... Department of Toxic Substances Control EIR ......................................................................................................................Environmental Impact Report EPA ...............................................................................................................Environmental Protection Agency FGC .....................................................................................................................................Fish and Game Code FMMP ...........................................................................................Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program FTA .................................................................................................................... Federal Transit Administration GHG ........................................................................................................................................... Greenhouse Gas HMBP............................................................................................................Hazardous Materials Business Plan IS ................................................................................................................................................... Initial Study IS/MND..........................................................................................Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration mgd ................................................................................................................................. million gallons per day MMRP........................................................................................Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MND ...................................................................................................................Mitigated Negative Declaration 61 Section 7, Item 7D
Table of Contents
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 ii
MRZ ...............................................................................................................................Mineral Resource Zones MTCO2e ................................................................................metric tons of Carbon Dioxide and its equivalents NAHC ......................................................................................................Native American Heritage Commission ND ....................................................................................................................................Negative Declaration NO2 ...........................................................................................................................................Nitrogen Dioxide NOX ............................................................................................................................................Nitrogen Oxides O3 ............................................................................................................................................................Ozone Pb ...............................................................................................................................................................Lead PM10 ..........................................................................................................particulate matter 10 microns in size PM2.5 .........................................................................................................particulate matter 2.5 microns in size ppb .............................................................................................................................................parts per billion ppm ............................................................................................................................................parts per million Project ...............................................................................................................Tentative Map No. 6471 Project ROG ................................................................................................................................Reactive Organic Gases RTP .......................................................................................................................Regional Transportation Plan SB ................................................................................................................................................. South Bound SCS ..............................................................................................................Sustainable Communities Strategy SJVAPCD................................................................................... San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District SKFCSD....................................................................... Selma-Kingsburg-Fowler County Sanitation Department SKGSA ......................................................................................South Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency SO2 ................................................................................................................................................Sulfur Dioxide SOI ...................................................................................................................................... Sphere of Influence SSJVIC......................................................................................Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center SR ................................................................................................................................................... State Route SRA ..............................................................................................................................State Responsibility Area SWPPP ................................................................................................... Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan SWRCB..................................................................................................... State Water Resources Control Board TAC ................................................................................................................................ Toxic Air Contaminants USC .......................................................................................................................................United States Code USFWS ....................................................................................................United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS ..................................................................................................................United States Geological Survey UST ...........................................................................................................................underground storage tank Valley ....................................................................................................................................... San Joaquin Valley VMT ..................................................................................................................................vehicle miles travelled 62 Section 7, Item 7D
Table of Contents
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 iii
VOC .......................................................................................................................... volatile organic compound μg/m3.......................................................................................................................micrograms per cubic meter 63 Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 1: Introduction
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 1-1
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group (Provost & Pritchard) has prepared this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) on behalf of the City of Fowler (City) to address the environmental effects of the Tentative Map No. 6471 (Project). This document has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. The City is the CEQA lead agency for this Project.

The site and the Project are described in detail in Chapter 2 Project Description.

1.1 REGULATORY INFORMATION
An Initial Study (IS) is a document prepared by a lead agency to determine whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment. In accordance with California Code of Regulations Title 14 (Chapter 3, Section 15000, et seq.)-- also known as the CEQA Guidelines--Section 15064 (a)(1) states that an environmental impact report (EIR) must be prepared if there is substantial evidence in light of the whole record that the Project under review may have a significant effect on the environment and should be further analyzed to determine mitigation measures or project alternatives that might avoid or reduce project impacts to less than significant levels. A negative declaration (ND) may be prepared instead if the lead agency finds that there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. An ND is a written statement describing the reasons why a proposed Project, not otherwise exempt from CEQA, would not have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, why it would not require the preparation of an EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15371). According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15070, a ND or mitigated ND shall be prepared for a project subject to CEQA when either:
a. The IS shows there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the proposed Project may have a significant effect on the environment, or b. The IS identified potentially significant effects, but:

1. Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant before the proposed MND and IS is released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur is prepared, and

2. There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the proposed Project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment.

1.2 DOCUMENT FORMAT
This IS/MND contains six chapters. Chapter 1 Introduction, provides an overview of the Project and the CEQA process. Chapter 2 Project Description, provides a detailed description of proposed Project components and objectives. Chapter 3 Determination, the Lead Agency’s determination based upon this initial evaluation. Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis presents the CEQA checklist and environmental analysis for all impact areas, mandatory findings of significance, and feasible mitigation measures. If the Project does not have the potential to significantly impact a given issue area, the relevant section provides a brief discussion of the reasons why no impacts are expected. If the Project could have a potentially significant impact on a resource, the issue area discussion provides a description of potential impacts, and appropriate mitigation measures and/or permit requirements that would reduce those impacts to a less than significant level. Chapter 5 Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program (MMRP), provides the 64 Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 1: Introduction
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 1-2
proposed mitigation measures, implementation timelines, and the entity/agency responsible for ensuring implementation. Chapter 6 References details the documents and reports this document relies upon to provide its analysis.

The CalEEMod Output Files, Biological Memorandum, Cultural Resources Assessment, and Traffic Impact Study are provided as technical Appendix A, Appendix B, Appendix C, and Appendix D respectively, at the end of this document.
65 Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 2: Project Description
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 2-1
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND
Project Title
Tentative Map No. 6471
Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Fowler
128 South 5th Street
Fowler, CA 93625
Contact Person and Phone Number
Lead Agency Contact
Dawn E. Marple, City Planner
128 South 5th Street
Fowler, CA 93625
(559) 834-3113
CEQA Consultant
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
Jarred Olsen, Senior Planner
(559) 636-1166
Project Location
The Project is currently located outside the City of Fowler in central Fresno County, approximately 270 miles south of Sacramento and 150 miles north of Bakersfield (see Figure 2-1 and Figure 2-2), on the south side of Clayton Avenue east of Golden State Boulevard. The Project site is located approximately on Assessor’s Parcel Number(s) 340-120-05, -06, -28, and -29. The centroid of the Project site is 36° 38’ 24.06” N, 119° 41’ 14.66” W. The Project site also includes the following street intersections located in the city of Fowler and unincorporated Fresno County:
• Golden State Boulevard and Jefferson Avenue
• Clovis Avenue and Lincoln Avenue
• Clayton Avenue and Golden State Boulevard
• State Route (SR) 99 Southbound Ramps and Clovis Avenue • Merced Street and SR 99 South Bound (SB) Off Ramp-Fowler Avenue • Merced Street and SR 99 SB Northbound Ramps

2.1.1 2.1.2

2.1.3 2.1.4
66 Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 2: Project Description
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 2-2
General Plan Designation and Zoning
Project Area General Plan Designation Zoning District
ONSITE Light Industrial
Medium-Low Density Residential
AE-20 (Existing)
M-1, R-1-6 (Proposed)
ADJACENT LANDS Light Industrial
Heavy Industrial
Medium Density Residential
AE-20
M-1
R-1-6
Description of Project
Project Description
The project proposes to annex approximately 83.04 acres of farmland into the City of Fowler and to prezone approximately 30.65 acres of the land to be annexed to the M-1 zone district with the remaining 52.39 acres prezoned to the R-1-6 zone district for future residential development (“Project”). 36.54 acres of the Project area is restricted to Williamson Act Contract No. 6340. As part of the Project, Williamson Act Contract No. 6340 would be canceled, and Ag Preserve Fowler-Selma-Kingsburg No. 27 would be diminished. The area zoned M-1 would be subdivided into 44 parcels for future Light Industrial land uses.

Streets would be constructed and designed to City of Fowler standards. A stormwater retention basin is proposed which will be designed to accommodate the increased impermeability of the subdivision. Clayton Avenue would be widened to 60 feet along the Project frontage. Approximately 0.5 miles of sewer main would be constructed to connect to Selma-Kingsburg-Fowler County Sanitation District (SKFCSD) facilities in Golden State Boulevard. Approximately 1.3 miles of water main would be constructed to connect the subdivision to the existing mains in Golden State Boulevard and Fowler Avenue. Approximately 14.39 acres of the 52.39-acre area zoned R-1-6 would be designated as a remainder on the proposed subdivision map and would not be a part of the Project. The remaining 38 acres would be included in the annexation and prezoned R-1-6, but it would not be annotated on the proposed tentative map and would not be a part of the proposed subdivision. A lot line adjustment would be submitted to adjust the parcel lines in such a way to separate the designated remainder from the industrial subdivision. Future development for the whole R-1-6 zoned area would be subject to its own CEQA analysis.

The Project would also include improvements to several intersections that would be developed when intersection delay exceeds established parameters. They include:
• Golden State Boulevard and Jefferson Avenue (Horizon Year Without Project and Horizon Year Plus Project Conditions)
o Widen the eastbound approach to the intersection to include a left turn lane and a right turn lane (adding one right turn lane).
• Clovis Avenue and Lincoln Avenue (Horizon Year Without Project and Horizon Year Plus Project Conditions)
o Widen the westbound approach to the intersection to include a left turn lane and a right turn lane (adding one right turn lane).
• Clayton Avenue and Golden State Boulevard (Horizon Year Plus Project Conditions) o Install a traffic signal.
o Widen the westbound approach to the intersection to include a shared left-through lane and a right turn lane (adding one right turn lane).
• SR 99 SB Ramps and Clovis Avenue (Horizon Year Without Project and Horizon Year Plus Project Conditions)

2.1.5 2.1.6
67 Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 2: Project Description
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 2-3
o Install a traffic signal when warranted.
o Widen the southbound approach to the intersection to include two left turn lanes, a through lane, and a shared through-right lane (adding one left turn lane). • Merced Street and SR 99 SB Off Ramp-Fowler Avenue (Horizon Year Without Project and Horizon Year Plus Project Conditions)
o Install a traffic signal when warranted.
o Widen the northbound approach to the intersection to include a left turn lane and a right turn lane with right-turn overlap phasing (adding one right turn lane with right-turn overlap phasing).
o Widen the southbound approach to the intersection to include a left turn lane and a shared through-right lane (adding one left turn lane).
• Merced Street and SR 99 SB NB Ramps (Horizon Year Without Project and Horizon Year Plus Project Conditions)
o Install a traffic signal when warranted.
o Widen the westbound approach to the intersection to include a through lane and a right turn lane (adding one right turn lane).

Other Public Agencies Whose Approval May Be Required
• Consolidated Irrigation District
• County of Fresno
• Fresno Local Agency Formation Committee
• California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
• Selma-Kingsburg-Fowler County Sanitation District
Consultation with California Native American Tribes
Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1, et seq. [codification of Assembly Bill (AB) 52, 2013-14)] requires that a lead agency, within fourteen (14) days of determining that it will undertake a project, must notify in writing any California Native American Tribe traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project if that Tribe has previously requested notification about projects in that geographic area. The notice must briefly describe the project and inquire whether the Tribe wishes to initiate request formal consultation. Tribes have 30 days from receipt of notification to request formal consultation. The lead agency then has 30 days to initiate the consultation, which then continues until the parties come to an agreement regarding necessary mitigation or agree that no mitigation is needed, or one or both parties determine that negotiation occurred in good faith, but no agreement will be made.

The City has received written correspondence from the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1 requesting notification of proposed Project.

2.1.7 2.1.8
68 Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 2: Project Description
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 2-4
Figure 2-1: Regional Location
Rolling
1 Madera Hj||s Ranchos
Clovis
Fresno
Centerville
Minkler
| Malaga
Del Rey
Easton Project Sites
Bowles Fowler
RaisinCity
Parlier
Monmouth
o
Caruthers
Dinuba
Kingsburg
Lanare Riverdale Laton
Project Site Fresno Co.

Census Place Hardwick
City Limits (various colors)
Hanford

PROVOST&

PRITCHARD
2 Regional Vicinity Map
Miles City of Fowler - Clayton Ave Industrial Subdivision 69 Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 2: Project Description
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 2-5
Figure 2-2: Site Plan
ilfjflliJ
,E Lincoln Ave
imiMi 9
W Adams Av<
199' am
Project Site (83 Acres) E Sumner Ave I Fowler City Limits Fowler Sphere of Influence

PROVOST&

PRITCHARD
Aerial Map
City of Fowler - Clayton Ave Industrial Subdivision
500 1,000
Feet
70 Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 2: Project Description
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 2-1
Figure 2-3: Proposed Subdivision Map

LEGEND VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVSION MAP
TRACT MAP NO. 6471
P.ROFOSrD PARCH T Rtf P.REL.'MAARy-DlflECraV CF QCW FCF DFA'.VADl CL'.Rfi AMD' SOT’ER rX'51-AG PROPERTY TiNT EXiSTlUS SECBOV 'WE
7Xi5i'.W 'tf'US'/'iAV.V
EWSTiW SS SlEM-V OUT EllSEAC WATER WLkE
EXCTNG 8CMD /AARKinQ
FX'SWG WOOD Ff AfZ
.Of TiNV GWT VW -PfiWS

EX'ST-'N'GTREES
EXiSTWO W'JTERrVMP

EX-S-W HOSE UW
fXLsnw n rc.’RK? aox
------HU
rrtSTiw lifi'.'At'H rj; EX-SMS .'MAX
CLWiS MV
£4ST LMDLV .4'.E-VuE LS? PRQJE#
p-OS/B
\ _________• * % §
rASAws gut w pots
NOriTH O’MPfRANSE M'YE.VL
NLW.-h AR.M5iWaVC AfENL
EZiSiW W/lEH iAW (') EX.SJ-1NGELECTRICAL CABLE El EX'SBVG GMS TANK rxiSTW 6MOGHOIN9
i.'tCl.WJ CA'.Vi 4WW7 EMSTiUS CHAW LWX.ED FENCE
IN ll E CITY OF FOW-HR. FRESNO CCUK" V CALIFORNIA
FHLPARLD ON NOVLMBLR 2. 2323 SHECT 1 OF 1
-F.WGiAlJCWSTAND 'WS (I 9/
tX'STM AT&T CABLE
EttSFW CCWC9£TE rwsiiNS mwt w-ww WATER ,'.<.??'VXl FX'STW WA ROW? LWtT POLE (T,l SITE INFORMATION ASSESSOR'S PARCEL -VOUSER.340- .'20-05. -23, i -29
property /caRESs- 540 east cla*ycw avenue FCWICR. M 95625 &S7 ASMMS AiEN ■'£ EXSTiNS SEWER MANHOLE
SOUTH
rx TiNT? r.rrrar un.-p & PRonosro FiRE ,"m
EX'SBVG PCttERLiNE? PFO.KL'SED STREET L-W
exk.w? Ptf.tn? fti'.' WORDSED STOP SGMS (9)
i'.'E MCEfiASE? GROSS: ±45.04 AUr.ES ?xr w -fAff Ex-ST-nd TRAV8r osv.'£9 rule sewer maw p5' syt; EffiWS: AT-20 I'EXC'j'.S'tE 4SWU5.WI'. Z9.VE 29 ACRE kWiWiX'? TCOUNTf; PRiSPOSECt tiC.'.T .Wpl.'.TiRML A- 0-1 .W4E tAMEY RE.5CE.N7Wl fClJY;. SHE zcwwc- TZiS-W PONYR PtJ!.' i I.Ch' <1,1 •TA.'tR M-HN (6’ .'TrE,! PUNNED iA’tf? uSE.' I'A v-OSci
ii-GHT WBUS7H.WE.WECiUWbOW SEiVSTT RESIDENTIAL
.W CHAVSE EUSBVG .'-WILDGX FHCTDSD ScWER MAW BASIS OF BEARINGS PRGVOSEO VATER EXISTING L'5f.- AOTCLV1!.W.i, WlVi 7 S’AK'F-.'/MVr R., 5ill. r N0.t 5 EX'SBVG .‘Mil'KWI ,'RACKS Rtf *£$.’ 1W GT Otf .Va?R<lt£S7 A r SfE.W 7. '5 £. H. 2! C HS1W7 £«!!•£) S*A_ X7tf M7>?£iW. PER .RGJXJ®GT j-.JHiTY W £Y.W 'S 47 PASS’27, FtKSXO CGiNrr SKtfiDS. JAX.GV 79 X 4JOP7W i'.xVMa?’>7 NUMBER O r LOTS' AVRtMttTE lOCA7iO.N C>

0.309 ZCNE a
44 ®W F;1A9 SKNS f<' PROPOSED USE i Cn’l (Wi-Cra-H .7Sr CW lO.'S ’ .’0 44 WiS.Oh 'ML '.'it W i Hi 5c.UAW4.tr IWi ■NfttAiES R£L.WCuiynVE.N7 U c O',SECT ACCESS RiCMS A"*
e-cX-1 IR-
saf
tX.'SJ.YiG 4U‘ rL'ELlC r>L'Hi CF WYr' CT» 1/4 SCR. SEC 5 75/2? EAST TZIVT'.W LTiAND I'.'.'l
*'* %
VJK rAHMMff a.C rxrsp M - 7G’ Rrio'nav raoiT of wmy
rjfCFFTOfc £5 - 20' R'ATK? R.’iIh.' Dr WAY
DRCF05ED 20' R'CfiT OF W'MYDEDOTCN- LA'S.VNG COUNTY R.GH,' Gt 4AVWEST 0U4FT9 CO ER SECTCW 70 1 5/2i-i FOUND 7 r iR0V P.’PF, i .S 24fi4, DOWN' 6.3' PER kXCORD OF SOVIET 8‘i. 4J, PS. 78 CTBliNS HAUKKES (J,l ., ______ S'WFR LTDAAfCWN EX'SWtC. 59' PUBEiC R'SnT CF WMr CLAYTON AVENUE -?e
-2UU1’ r
•..'.>05-9.5
85 w’'? -NTi
i
’■ T'S.iJo'’ X.y ’*■?<>' Ip-
/ 70 i . 75
1*
'95 01 i .'.l.iU' •19/.'!; EZCEmW MS W7ED ,W A T?BE adpsRT gr PLACE" WLE CMW, (MXR W P-60>505, a*T£D MY !7, 252J- FRQRJ.VE TAW-x ■EZiSFW ST4*a9 >-\°E 2 ft 0.46 ACRES --
ft 38
.9.41
6C.49 ACRES
7 77.49 ACRES
ft
ft 3

0.49 ACRES
□

0.49 ACRES
?0

6.45 ACRES
4 ft 043 < A5RES “
ft r75 4’ ft 6.47 •; ACRES '•
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft 4CRf5
AV t'SLME.Vi U'rtH IM' L.4NU 4CR WNUitWJ ,%W4L6LS 47,U .NCttiVIAL PURPOSES ,W tAWW Ct SUU.'HEMV .•’ACl't' RAtPOAO CCMRAVf. >N SEED REL'CRDED .W>RT 2 ’. 1887, BOOK 54, EMCf 236, Qf DEEDS ;AGTTEl. “EREO AV EMSEVE.VT&ER SAD TMfiD W AW 59 W ft'CPR.'S D'TCh ANO .WWEHTAL WPCSES' W MWv OF ..'. C. K.'MKt. >N nrro PTcarairii wjivs. 1333, onav 76. pat ew7, or o’-fps. fuo.- «’., iiTMiir,i AV EASLME.Vi C7c.V SAd TAftO tCfr .WiLWMG .'WY5ES AM.' .NCttiVlAL UM'YlicS ,W tAWW Ct SCO'HEMt 'MCit.W RAuRatf- CCWWrr, in DEED RECORDED CCTCbER 7382, SX* '0?, PAGE J04. Cr DEEDS. ;PLCVED PERE'Mj AV E4SEWEN7 U>ER SA'O DA,'O FCF A PU.PD.C RtMD MW MLKEATAL PURPOSES .W PAVUR GF TR'E C0LW7V .y rprc, w ._ w arra pooiro-.i aucwst e, *502, book 274. past zis. cf deeds fwcrrp ‘oton;' AV t4SLMr.Vi C'rt.R Will UM) ftM fiffCtt AN® JWflflEMStt ftJfiftlSES flV . l AlVR OF MARGAH.1 .' t. I»0fiM5fiE A\t? FRAW LTMAN COMPANY . .N DEED REfXROED .WNUARr 2'7. IS05. 3DLW ’28. RASE 'J9, CF DEEDS. ir'.OTTED nERECN.I AV E4SEVE.V7 VER SAD CA,'D FCE PCtES AW MXE.V7AL PURPOSES W Fm'A’R CF THE PAC.FiC TlEPHOVE MW TTCEGWU CC.WVW. IN Q£lT Rl'CCFSED JUNE 5, ISO?. GDOK 395. FACE 55'. O’ MTD5. |'W T PLDTWTtr; AV USLMt.Vf <7rt.R WiU (MW FCft CWMl A'.O .WC10EN7AL,’W©S£S IN MlOrt CF CaV50i.tMiLD WMCA.'iON D1SDA1C.'. W DEED RECCRitD M>T 8. .’33 1. £CCK 1758. PAGE 3D?. CFr.tJAL RECCRDS. | WT PlDTTMat: AV EASEME.VT07ER SAD UW FCF A PF’El.NE AND iN0DE>tT4 PLFP0SE3 .’A r Ri'CR D r CCnSCl'LMTED .FR.CA’XW
SVSTPIST, W DEtd RECORDED .rrR MRY 15. '577. 99CM 6747. PACE 44. cmSMi RECORDS fPLCTTCD LOTOV) AV AGRcLMtiVI FLfflSUAN.' .'0 LW C-HFCWWI TMiW CCNSERVAOaV AC7 CF .'965. I'WCW? <K- ritRf in SiSCRSED ORCPERTY WW< AGRKaARFWl PREEERrE DESIGNATED AS W FOWLER SELMA KinSSSLWG ND. 27, ExESuTED fir faE CCvNTr GF OTSNO AVD ,VO0UO rt?5AW. MFA MOfiW R 20. AVD TEMA rtOSAW , RE9CFDE9 rEfiFUARY 75, 197?. EQCM 6972. FAST 1 7D OTTCW prpORDS. iSiLAVZiT .W UAR.'.<£j <Ht LttfC.' O' A MA” "UM-'ORi.ftV .'0 SnCW LW 7.4NL' AVD OTHLtt PlMM:Ri v , F.ltu .U'WUn 7. 2007 .V<EtCK 5.'. PACE £0 CF RECORD CF SCFVErS. .fa.ANR£F IN ,V4Pj.RE; EASiWO' ft UChT. POLE

0.43 ACRES- Ci ft ACRES
'53C2-, , .’- Z3./4 EZEFW HOUSE
A -17OX. IfXMTWW ar', JMM.WfY SEWER Ltf".'iC 'ANK >2'5/jS-' . "‘5

85.05 •t JWOV.-D W4TER ■glL-T Z 1 "’■

1./.95 — 00 i .'S.iy | 95 69' A- -2-. 78'
'fi a;-' 12’ CUE'AzftT AW WMlL EAST DEAN 41OWE ___
-t _________ -.-i. . — 1 __
ft 37 ft: 0.42 ACRES
Ex'ST.V.G EMW
76L.GO 7.19.IO' £.'.•.Ill f'A.ii'?' >79.50 9s. SO- A- -EX'SBMG W/TER TANK EfiSTiNS SW PfPE 44

0.86 LZ-fT
\ GAS .'AW
POWER POLE W/ElECTR'94*. METER . : 430.43
•OES
47 0.40 ACRES
13 ft 9.55 ft ARRES v<
42 0.43 ACRES
J4

9.55 ACRES
ft
ft
ft
ft ?29.55 ACRES
ft
ft
ft V
ft 6.54
’•■ ACITTS
ftft 0.55 ACRES S; ft 36
ft 0.42 E1E0WK JM.VtE- ft /CHES - 73 f J ;c‘i.L'7' X'£.lL' • : i .*.■? ,r ' r? CO T9 SO TS.09' EX.S.’iHG kWh’tr ,CX1EH' * WATERL.NE EC 40

1.?f AS-PCs
50' ft
ft ft 35 ft V. >TA2 ft MCHES * 20

5.54 ALLRcS
’6
ACRES
.’7

0.55 .■1URL5
18 ft 9.55 ft AOT5 ’■■’ 9

9.55 AO.’ES
ft ft PhWAWDr.7?
■4J? ACRES RRa°CSED USE- .REflffiNTiAL
3 To
| ;'5.u7
•2:.?5 1(9 (XT T9 SO 3960
5 4 PARCa 1 Tiw.’ PART O
r P.'.r CART ,tfJ| r ,Or Utf ATOF’.'.'CASt QIWRTlP Or i?l r SOUThWCST AMPLER 0r STWN .1 .TCWV5".'F 7.5 SO'.'Di, RAXGC ?1 EAST .'.I1? u AM. (Y-Nl WRTi,' AVD

E-IST U
l rrTO’rii C¥ WMY(I 1 CtiVi.'ML ".'Ci"L' HALHOVi!? COMl'AVY. : J4 ;
; 0 42 .-
- 4n?.rs •
ja

0.37 ACrti
’9 | '33 01 | !79.G9‘ ■25/4 A159, 5EGWMS 47 A F0W7 40 <~ET SCvT" CPOM .‘OTVHE57 SCtfnEW Cv RT EST (JUARTEk •>’ R.'E 5X'7H£4Sr 3LW7ER w SECTOR 9 TOAVjS. '5 SCtON. rAwCt ■ j31W 71 EASr AVG .RGWWlK? .'j CEE.' EAST. I.W.HOE irl.WW.Wb 501'Tri WML1EI fO fllSi MME Ct SUP MW.'HWfSr Cu-W.’r.? !0 A PCW.' HWffiE S*iiJ .’>W .WiTPScCTS '..Wt Cf M t'EM-RAL HAS'.P'C RAtROAO RESERtXriiW, 7h£uCE .VCrWflESTERir AlOWS SVD RE3£tWEG« 70 A Eaw7 lPi£f?£ 7ht WEST hh£ Sf SAC •ACWWKEST OUARiS? Cr SOUTHEAST OW-TD? INTERSECTS SAC RESERVaTKw: JhEMSE NORTH A\YJ ALCWC SAC WEST h'ftE Of SA'S NORTHWEST QUARTER CE SCvWEAST (WTER 5? P»W7 Cf gEWiNQ, ft 22 ft
E2CEP7ION ?: * /•• - 709' P'SnT Cf WAY FOR

PAWKMD PUWSES
ft ’-T.7? 24 ’S
.1.56
ft ft £0.44 ACRES'0.44 ACRES 1153 5, AC.W5 ” 0-50 SECT'W J’JE ASWS 0 42 ACHES' & (20.69' ?20.S0 W7CEI 2 <HA.' Fovrav OF Tnl NURi.HWl.5.’ OUARfW CY ,'W SaUTH'/S? QUCRI'R Ct SYCTCtf 9 ’DWN5HI'' !!> .‘.fJU.'n, W?K7f 71 .‘AST. .UCUN.' I.Wil (.' fiASf MiViJ M'NLW.V, i WS .NURlh MAD EAST CF THE CEN1R4L p/CTO RALRjYD EXCEPRAG ThErt£t9-0y A FORTY FOOT RCMDWAY CN TtiE NORlm h'AE WE.RECF /W MlSD EACEPft% TnEPEFrtOM Th/ 7 PGFTCA Tn'EEEGFKSEUEED AS FQLLCW5 %MMEnE.WG AT A FGiNT 40 rTT SOVIP GF r n'E WRThWEST CUR-VER 0 r SAID NORfUWEST QUARTER CF THE StHRHEMST QUARTER O
r FJ.'G STCVOfi; R.Y.Wr MS.’ 75 -r F.r7. P'.r NO r SOL'Tli TC A PGLN7 OL ,?<TOirc.’iCN .fTh ,NO?L". r AW?.’ Y nN' OF Utf Cl’A'PW PACina RAYROAO RrsrRU/raV, T'OTF NURi.HWlS.'tALY AACW SA'D H.NE ,'G ,'nl 'W Cr .WitrcStC'UUV DL SAID NUR-'tiL Ttr.Lr LINE Wl'n’ .'HE WES' HAE Gt MlU WR.’nWtS.' GuflRTtr CF '.HE SOL'-'nEMo.' 0U4RTP? Cf SJ)£| s£D7iON. ’HENCE .XCF’HE.RlY ALONG SM'D WEST nW TD THE PUW’ 0 r COMMENCEMENT.
;35.dJ' 'JdSt' 'J3.LQi?5.f.i;- 27
. 9.43 ft 3 =1 28
0*4
fYSirs
'2;. 7$' 'C: ft5
cXCLi'OO.N <>9 TA'Ch LAYEMtAI 26

6.67 ACRES
L 78.54
1JO.90
32 0.56 ACRES
■ .= 74
r 57.59- I >-L.1.19.19' r'LTOM
ft. BK&u“io G'JILO! .4
12' 75' l-Z'74
iMWcGCAW 5N®£Xf KOT CW M5 TEATAffltf .W” AY -TO' KLt.'SrJWWW WTOOT GM.r Z<.\? iL' u'97 TC40 HHJ'.'i? Wi' X lAS-Y.W.'WtfT? M5 fftf ZStflJWRS fXWW>IA.V? .’'? ......................................... -4'A'?.:C4 WW. •■?«• IM4*Xtf.':' .:VM'i •>’ .:U9W.7»TO-TO 7.W /pp. Tciit ator to .'SJUixi't o' jwifxvj- PTwr.

AC.9E5 .-W.WV Mf -WfWtf AIM CffXPiKEVL ,*W
JO
•S.56 A?.<rs
3 J C52
4T.7TS
0 60
f/’Yu’.Y.- T4W 'aV i’Z tfNfr,',M?-?r .WaV>YAaXW»S.W tWtfC' LV.'‘ Ji’RES AWirt- a«j- iWHfsm/oao *• s&to
357 ?246tf.raMf'tf'W
HtfTF :Ctf7H9?'.' TMStftf .94WMP AXL? flXGSV STATOailicm? 5J3Wrl' W5CEA7ML MAP PcSW'AJV
ZTL L'l.Ty A?C AKIRML3 79 ST AMD Sr TX .TO’.C*Xtf MSCtttfS. f r V.'jr. 1,'.' iaV wz
5909' StC.48'
i’i? CP .__47?.tl8-_
.4?
Fi’ 1 tf
(TT/f----
iAMWffr sstEF? -Krau
.i’GVJ? i’.W4aVi’ f.V»S’lr M?‘> c?-.':'<ll -37C AWTOC7W. C.T' C.r .TOHltl? 1M5T reS-TOTO/L CTOr Ctf DML£8
«S’ TGK
.■-'.Jx EtfST.NQ 6 SLOCK WMlL
5:>ic ’■ - W
>N'.i
'.Y.iAvr p.wi i& AWM wj.w.r .'• S .•■tf •■»•'.'al. 1,-.' w ffiESMO -.•.v?.t m wSw SMB? aw FftcaMwr awiflHwr .v ® Awr.w.w 'mw av;- wzwws fou i?tf WOStem'.' 6? .TOCtf ,<>A?55tf9 .■Y.T.tLFTUlAl ATCiSiVTS. .TDlVtf.'/TY GT FUGXSTX X? CF W<‘? DtfTOOT 3tfU.O Dtf ■-'iC'-'ATO TO /CCCF.r Rtf etTOVIEVtfTtfCS t'.'G C WZtfT Mi5U(7MTOD *7W AWWL LW ACnWSLS CTONStfTONr*’W M5 <\Y<t MUTOffltfi CAY COS’ :<K pA- ,7 ,.ff rfHU .'Alt. »WS iW AH .4tf.Y.7.C.'i.W4' AWSW A: O.’AV.V HAVANA? ,HW t'-ifttf {.-ax swvi '.fir .«■ ,tf PtitMtf ,1 AWJwcf atf rd a iMHca hwqtxv? * .1 LGii-Dh- ,Y7iP SL.W ,45Rtfli TOFY FWftlAT ?M$ L£DN W CFSc-ITCX.TOR"tfCC -DFS I'CMP.37-5TO. i i, ‘3??; OUTLOT NOTES
.y.vor A 79 6t CCT.-.4TE9 rcw STCffWATTP EMSW,
CMER/SL.EDWDER- «MMK9 p£f. * fjQREEN TRUSTEES
5497 EAST QA'Ci9W AVENUE
fUW'ittf, 9AE2t EWwEE/M PR£PARMBOV; PRECLSOV C/l £«K»&Wl8. 9K rT»"’A9, CM 55727 Rft .955-44.9-4. 7 THIS PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO: (APN 340-120-05 , -23 , -29) s. e.
fl

9. 76
?2.
5 W.' 9CW3
.'4.

LEGAL DESCRIPTION
7W .
jt> liLH.t

3.T. J4C-iiC-2ft. J*3-|iB-29
A'C: J4S 1-; 29-f.ei NOTES
AU iWFTOteMfN-TO-SHAU St Af WflCWD -YR CT' 5M’.O4‘TO5;AW SWCL W.Wtf fAWXffr .'±MF‘-?tf H«?f.-4 I.WAl ffiaK'.WJ WHfrf, -L-L*WAV .VZ f.TAV5*. ,> ,7.'.WV '.WffR. LWWVXX FfiWttWVK Sfeir fiiWMWi ®77 i®NK ™
7 'I’tWN.'V 1FE5 SWOT AY MOT A tfAK..' .WW-WW -TOCVOOWVTr GT ■Wil WARS5L8SW5W MV5 AW S?« NiSW WtS. 2. ‘Z’j7V<. M.fZ i.tiL? AW AhaXV .'tfAsV VCi.'.VS' .-Mft’ hV.V !MII r?.YV LITOCSW.WLVUilT.YLV A-.9 SWVL6 ST CC.VJtftf.7D?MQ-MMWl L.’;t .XLD HEtftfi? Sr Rtf lMAVTO.7 07 ■•WTOOT W-5.lt i-'R-.TtfJ A7tf 5WWN .TOF PEfLYtf'.Ltf .RVAL 7tfS«X LCOL’iW ,4>.9 2Zt 4X2 ftf A’tfLUKi? -X' r Y C.W. TWW3f4GW CWWWtOfW lWW.W:, .'Z
.Vl'cW CW(tC'.tfiA >
5tf LtfltfiCtf.rp R£$£i?rfS 7X XM7 TO 705 LUMft’Cr .cxW.Xtf SPxCPJ A - HTXC' tW.Vtf lVSW
A'Mftf. CCVWC7 7.<->aV7 SPAlYS Ml fiT ,4Lt6>C 45 AiliNK, p.r 4>. PW.Y? iJA’.'.’tfS 7S'.‘PhW. rxvt. IM.'VWA’tf VAVV.I .W1 ; m. .fti,'* Alt MWGKWW5 RWWSro T5OER S477P, STOW CG&J, GSRlR G lTL .ts. 4W r-fW.'tf.vr R/tfMtWj SHALL fiS CYWSWJCJE!?70 C'T SW Wf ESSPftW? .S-7RQT AWCWWK SW? A< XVS7.CH.Q)W OWERWNCE *75 CTr 57/.W.WS. <V '4.
ii. CA rFff/H/E.WF
'l-.'MT'.E .'A” PP5WY5 75W SLttiWJ *7e SJUPtfff.V fMFWf fCW <MTW?< <4.W*5 W AXV.'XAur.ww Ifi'A 4«Ht X' 1'.? Af.W <S'.WZ.W.Y VM'.F TW.Y ,v..'«.' f.Y.VtfW. UWW'- W SLUWCR 4C».'i7tf;
rL?.'M7'.Y .’A” XfW Pi.tixxtzr t«7 $TXTW?(V few <MW41 4W*5

5. 5x5 /WCTl .5 4WhW AM TlF GT jCCTCEP’.'PCTC JSQftH?.
..V-lfnWX W.VWW5 'A1 ■I. AY.H> >V-•Alf i’V «► .WfJ.tr.'.' W W«A>5. 5.c jL&«rr .5 ,'.cr wr-.w .i lAKCsaw watcvwt 71 Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 2: Project Description
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 2-1
Figure 2-4: Proposed Zoning Map
] Project Site
| Fowler City Limits Fowler Sphere of Influence ProposedZoning R-l-6 M-l Fowler Zoning R-l-12 R-l-10 E Jefferson Ave
R-l-7 R-l-6
E Lincoln Ave RM-2-A RM-2 RM-3 R-MP
AE20 %
SClovis Ave
SSunnyside Ave
E Clayton Ave
C-2 C-3 C-H
FBC M-l M-2 R-2/P1 RCO
FresnoCounty Zoning
_| AE20- Exclusive Agriculture
3 AL20- Limited Agricultural
| C6- General Commercial Ml- Light Manufacturing M2- General Industrial M3- Heavy Industrial I*
Z.

W Adams Ave
AE20 AL20
ESumner Ave
0 500
Feet
Proposed Zoning Designation Map
City of Fowler - Clayton Ave Industrial Subdivision

PROVOST&

PRITCHARD
72 Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 2: Project Description
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 2-1
Figure 2-5: Topo Quad
Project Elevation,is'approximately 300 feet above MSL.
34 f AMERICAN AVE
33 T15S R21E

S FOWLER AVE
E JEFFERSON AVE Q4

S ARMSTRONG AVE

E LINCOLN AVE

FOWLER AVE
i
10 ARETHA AVE

PETER AVE HEIDI AVE
.AQAMS AVE \
Fowler

E ADAMS AVE

E SUMNER AVE
E SOUTH AVE USGS Topo Maps (1:24k)

S BURGAN AVE
Quad Name
Township/Range
Section USGSNational Map.

PROVOST&

PRITCHARD
Topographic Map
City of Fowler - Clayton Ave Industrial Subdivision
0 750 1,500
Feet
73 Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 2: Project Description
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 2-2
Figure 2-6: General Plan Land Use Designation Map
I
I I '>.

JR \
1 '’’I ■ |
\ ’ ■ ;
J
lli
V '•
99'
1 . .’ Fowler City Limits
Fowler Sphere of Influence
Fowler General Plan Land Use
Low Density Residential
Medium Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Medium High Density Residential
High Density Residential
Neighborhood Commercial
Community Commercial
General Commercial
Light Industrial
Heavy Industrial
Parksand Open Space
Public Facilities
General Plan Land Use Map
City of Fowler - Clayton Ave Industrial Subdivision

PROVOST&

PRITCHARD
0 500 1,000
Feet
74 Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 2: Project Description
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 2-3
Figure 2-7: Zone District Map
EJefferson Ave ] Project Site
J J Fowler City Limits Fowler Sphere of Influence
C-3 C-H
FBC M-l Fowler Zoning
R-2/P1 RCO
Fresno County Zoning AE20- Exclusive Agricultural AL20- Limited Agricultural C6- General Commercial Ml- Light Manufacturing M2- General Industrial M3- Heavy Industrial R-l-5 RM-2-A RM-2 RM-3 R-MP
AE20
S Clovis Ave
$ Sunnyside
E Clayton Ave
AE20
E Carter Ave "
\I 4 1 X LJ AL20
AL20
W Adams Ave
AE20
E Sumner Ave
0 500
Feet Zoning Designation Map
City of Fowler - Clayton Ave Industrial Subdivision

PROVOST&

PRITCHARD
75 Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 3: Determination
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 3-1
CHAPTER 3 DETERMINATION

3.1 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
As indicated by the discussions of existing and baseline conditions, and impact analyses that follow in this Chapter, environmental factors not checked below would have no impacts or less than significant impacts resulting from the project. Environmental factors that are checked below would have potentially significant impacts resulting from the project. Mitigation measures are recommended for each of the potentially significant impacts that would reduce the impact to less than significant.

Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry
Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology / Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities and Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance
The analyses of environmental impacts in Chapter 4 Impact Analysis result in an impact statement, which shall have the following meanings.

Potentially Significant Impact. This category is applicable if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant, and no feasible mitigation measures can be identified to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. This category applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures would reduce an effect from a “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measure(s), and briefly explain how they would reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from earlier analyses may be cross-referenced).

Less than Significant Impact. This category is identified when the proposed Project would result in impacts below the threshold of significance, and no mitigation measures are required.

No Impact. This category applies when a project would not create an impact in the specific environmental issue area. “No Impact” answers do not require a detailed explanation if they are adequately supported by the information sources cited by the lead agency, which show that the impact does not apply to the specific project (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 76 Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 3: Determination
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 3-2

3.2 DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation (to be completed by the Lead Agency):

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets.

An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. _______________________________________ _____________________________ Signature Date
_______________________________________
Printed Name/Position
February 24, 2025
77 Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 4-1
CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

ANALYSIS

4.1 AESTHETICS
Table 4-1: Aesthetics Impacts
Except as provided in Public Resources
Code Section 21099, would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Have substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within
a state scenic highway?
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those that
are experienced from publicly accessible
vantage point). If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the project conflict
with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
Baseline Conditions
The Project site is located along the floor of the San Joaquin Valley (Valley) just north of the city of Fowler, which lies along SR 99. The predominant landscape feature of the San Joaquin Valley is a wide variety of agricultural land. Regional views from the Valley floor are generally limited due to the flatness of the region; however, on clear days the Sierra Nevada Mountains are visible to the east. Fowler is characterized as a freestanding city with small town atmosphere surrounded by agricultural land. As one of the cities along the Fresno County Blossom Trail, Fowler offers scenic views of blossoming orchards from February to March.

The Project site consists primarily of row crops; however, there are two existing homes on the property.

The site would be visible from the adjacent Golden State Boulevard and from the residential neighborhood to the south. Excluding the neighborhood to the south, the surrounding area is generally considered rural and low density, with agricultural land scattered with farming residencesto the north, east, and west. There are no scenic vistas on the Project site or in the vicinity. There are no designated State Scenic Highways within the City or surrounding area. In Fresno County, a portion of SR 180 has been officially identified by

4.1.1 78
Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 4-2
Caltrans as a “designated State Scenic Highway,” however, that segment is approximately 13 miles northeast of the Project site.1
Impact Analysis
a) Have substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
No Impact. Scenic features in the vicinity may include the vast expanse of agricultural land; however, neither Fresno County nor Fowler have designated any scenic vistas in the Project vicinity. The Project site is not within the viewshed of any water features or scenic vistas. Therefore, there would be no impact.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No Impact. In Fresno County, a portion of SR 180 has been officially identified by Caltrans as a “designated State Scenic Highway.” However, Project activities would take place approximately 13 miles southwest and would not have the potential to affect the highway. There would be no impact. c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Less than Significant Impact. The existing visual character of the Project site and its surroundings consist of urban development and agricultural land. To the north, west, and east, the Project site is surrounded by agricultural land and scattered farming residences, and to the south contains a residential neighborhood. It could be argued that the development of an industrialsubdivision could visually degrade the visual character of the surrounding agricultural land. However, the City has designated the site as Light Industrial and Medium Low Density Residential in the General Plan and associated with adoption of the General Plan and certification of the General Plan EIR, adopted a statement of overriding considerations determining that the benefits of placing industrial uses at the site outweighed the impacts of the loss of farmland and all the impacts, such as aesthetic impacts associated with it. With the City’s adoption of the overriding findings, no further analysis of the loss of farmland is necessary. The General Plan EIR determined that any development that is consistent with the General Plan would be subject to applicable design guidelines found in the Fowler Municipal Code (FMC). The applicable development standards for the industrial subdivision are included in Section 9-5.1402 of the FMC.2Furthermore, the industrial development would offer attractive landscaping and architectural design to reduce any visual effect to the surrounding properties pursuant to Section 9–5.1406 of the FMC. 3 The Project also includes the construction of traffic improvements to several intersections that would be developed when warranted. These improvements all occur within the existing right-of-way that are improved with pavement at minimum. Implementation of these improvements would not substantially 1 (California Department of Transportation 2023)
2 (Municode Codification 2024)
3 (Municode Codification 2024)

4.1.2 79
Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 4-3
deviate from the existing visual setting as the roadways already exist and additional traffic improvements would not be peculiar. Any impacts would be less than significant. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less than Significant Impact. Implementation of the Project would create new sources of light typical of industrial development and traffic improvements. Nighttime lighting levels would increase over current levels, as sources of new and nighttime lighting and illumination would include, but are not necessarily limited to, lighting from the new industrial use, lights associated with vehicular travel (i.e., car headlights), and street lighting. Increased nighttime lighting and illumination could result in adverse effects to adjacent land uses through the “spilling over” of light into these areas and “sky glow” conditions.

However, all future development under the Project would have to comply with Title 9 of the City of Fowler Zoning Ordinance, which ensures that proposed lighting is so arranged as to deflect the light away from adjoining properties. This would assist in reducing potential impacts associated with daytime glare and nighttime light. As such, any potential light and glare would be reduced to a less than significant impact. 80 Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 4-4

4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Table 4-2: Agriculture and Forest Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in
Public Resources Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
Baseline Conditions
The Project is located in California’s Central Valley in Fresno County and more specifically within the City of Fowler planning area. Fresno County is located within California’s agricultural heartland. In 2023, Fresno County ranked as one of the top agricultural counties in the State in the annual market value of farm products.4
A wide range of commodities are grown in the county, with major production of grapes, almonds, pistachios, and milk.
5 Rich soil; irrigation water; Mediterranean climate; and steady access to local, national, and global markets make this possible.

Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program: The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) produces maps and statistical data used for analyzing impacts to California’s agricultural resources.

Agricultural land is rated according to soil quality and irrigation status; the best quality land is called Prime Farmland. The maps are updated every two years with the use of a computer mapping system, aerial imagery, public review, and field reconnaissance. The California Department of Conservation’s 2020 FMMP 4 (The County of Fresno Department of Agriculture and Weights and Measures 2024) 5 Ibid.
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □

4.2.1 81
Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 4-5
is a non-regulatory program that produces “Important Farmland” maps and statistical data used for analyzing impacts on California’s agricultural resources. The Important Farmland maps identify eight land use categories, five of which are agriculture related: prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, unique farmland, farmland of local importance, and grazing land — rated according to soil quality and irrigation status. Each is summarized below:
• PRIME FARMLAND: Farmland with the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain long-term agricultural production. This land has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date. • FARMLAND OF STATEWIDE IMPORTANCE: Farmland similar to Prime Farmland but with minor shortcomings, such as greater slopes or less ability to store soil moisture. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.
• UNIQUE FARMLAND: Farmland of lesser quality soils used for the production of the state’s leading agricultural crops. This land is usually irrigated but may include non- irrigated orchards or vineyards as found in some climatic zones in California. Land must have been cropped at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.
• FARMLAND OF LOCAL IMPORTANCE: Land of importance to the local agricultural economy as determined by each county’s board of supervisors and a local advisory committee. • GRAZING LAND: Land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of livestock. The minimum mapping unit for Grazing Land is 40 acres.
• URBAN AND BUILT-UP LAND: Land occupied by structures with a building density of at least 1 unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately 6 structures to a 10-acre parcel. This land is used for residential, industrial, commercial, institutional, public administrative purposes, railroad and other transportation yards, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment, water control structures, and other developed purposes.
• OTHER LAND (X): Land not included in any other mapping category. Common examples include low density rural developments; brush, timber, wetland, and riparian areas not suitable for livestock grazing; confined livestock, poultry, or aquaculture facilities; strip mines, borrow pits; and water bodies smaller than 40 acres. Vacant and disturbed land surrounded on all sides by urban development and greater than 40 acres is mapped as Other Land.

As demonstrated in Figure 4-1, the FMMP for the subdivision area is designated as Prime Farmland.6The traffic signal areas are indicated as Urban and Built-Up Land and Prime Farmland, however these locations consist of paving and exist road infrastructure, therefore the analysis below does not discuss agricultural impacts were existing road infrastructure is located.

Impact Analysis
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site consists of prime farmland. However, the City has designated the site as Light Industrial and Medium Low Density Residential in the General Plan and, 6 (Calfornia Department of Conservation 2020)

4.2.2 82
Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 4-6
associated with adoption of the General Plan and certification of the General Plan EIR, adopted a statement of overriding considerations determining that the benefits of placing industrial uses at the site outweighed the impacts of the loss of prime farmland. With the City’s adoption of the overriding findings, no further analysis of the loss of prime farmland is necessary.

Traffic improvements associated with the Project would be located within existing improved ROW and would not impact agricultural land. Impacts would be less than significant. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is currently located in Fresno County with a zoning designation of AE-20 (Agricultural, 20-acre minimum parcel size). The Project is also located within the City of Fowler’s planning area and has a general plan land use designation of Light Industrial and Medium Low Density Residential. As part of the Project, the Project site would be prezoned to the M-1 and R-1-6 zone districts. The proposed prezones would be consistent with the underlying City of Fowler Land Use Diagram as found in the 2040 General Plan and mentioned above (see Figure 2-4). 7 Therefore, pursuant
to the proposed prezone, the Project would not conflict with an existing zoning for an agricultural use.

The Project site is encumbered by a Williamson Act contract. The Williamson Act enables local governments to contract with private landowners to restrict land to agricultural or related open space uses. In return, landowners receive reduced property taxes. Since the Project site would eventually be developed into an industrial use, it would no longer comply with the requirements of the Williamson Act.

As a regulatory requirement, prior to tentative map approval, the applicant would be required to secure a cancellation of its Williamson Act contract. Once the contract is canceled, implementation of the Project would not conflict with the Williamson Act as the site would no longer be encumbered by such contract.

Traffic improvements associated with the Project would be located within existing improved ROW and would not impact agricultural land. Overall, impacts would be less than significant. c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? c and d) No Impact. There are no forest lands or timberlands within the Project site or vicinity. There would be no impact.
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is prime farmland and is adjacent to active prime farmland to the north, west, and east. The farmland to the north, west, and east is designated for Light Industrial, Heavy Industrial, Medium Density Residential, Medium High Density Residential, and Medium Low Density Residential by the Fowler General Plan. The traffic signals would be located in existing disturbed areas and would not cause the conversion of farmland to be a non-agricultural use. Therefore, the potential conversion of this adjacent agricultural land to non-agricultural use has been evaluated by the 7 (Provost and Pritchard 2023)
83 Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 4-7
City’s General Plan EIR and the General Plan anticipates its conversion to non-agricultural uses. Therefore, the Project would not involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use. Impacts would be less than significant.
84 Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 4-8
Figure 4-1: Farmland Map
Fowler Sphere of Influence
Prime Farmland
Farmland of Statewide Importance
Farmland of Local Importance
Unique Farmland
Confined Animal Agriculture
Semi-Ag
Rural Residential
Vacant or Disturbed Land
Urban and Built-Up Land

PROVOST&

PRITCHARD
500 1,000
Feet City of Fowler -
85 Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 4-9

4.3 AIR QUALITY
Table 4-3: Air Quality Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non-attainment under
an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?
Baseline Conditions
Current air emissions on the site come from the activities associated with the farming of the existing vineyard. Cultivation requires the use of vehicles to transport workers and to haul harvested grapes offsite. Small off-road vehicles are often used to inspect and treat the vineyards.

Applicable Regulations
Regulation VIII—Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions
Regulation VIII is a control measure that is one main strategies from the 2006 PM10 Plan for reducing the particulate matter 10 microns in size (PM10)emissions that are part of fugitive dust. Projects over 10 acres are required to file a Dust Control Plan (DCP) containing dust control practices sufficient to comply with Regulation VIII. The Project is required to prepare a DCP to comply with Regulation VIII.

Rule 4002—National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants The purpose of the rule is to incorporate the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Part 61, Chapter I, Subchapter C, Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations and the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories from Part 63, Chapter I, Subchapter C, Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations to protect the health and safety of the public from hazardous air pollutants, such as asbestos.

Rule 4102—Nuisance
The purpose of this rule is to protect the health and safety of the public and applies to any source operation that emits or may emit air contaminants or other materials. Agricultural activities are exempt from the nuisance rule.

Rule 9510 – Indirect Source Review
The purpose of this rule is to ensure that land use development projects reduce their construction/operational Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) and PM10 emissions by 20%/40% and 33.3%/50%, respectively. Operational emissions are required to be reduced over a period of 10 years. Emission □ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □

4.3.1 4.3.2
86 Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 4-10
reductions can be obtained either by implementing on-site improvements, such as using more efficient construction equipment, improved land use design, electrical vehicle chargers, photovoltaic panels, or by simply paying an in-lieu fee that goes towards emission-reducing projects elsewhere in the Air District’s region. This project is required to submit an Air Impact Assessment and address its emissions prior to commencement of both construction and operation.

Other Measures
Other control measures that apply to the Project are Rule 4641—Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operation that requires reductions in volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions during paving and Rule 4601—Architectural Coatings that limits the VOC content of all types of paints and coatings sold in the San Joaquin Valley. These measures apply at the point of sale of the asphalt and coatings, so Project compliance is ensured.

Thresholds
Mass Emissions
The District’s annual mass emission significance thresholds used for the Project define the substantial contribution for both operational and construction emissions as follows:

Table 4-4: Thresholds of Significance for Criteria Air Pollutants Criteria
Pollutant
Emissions (in tons per year)
Construction Operations
ROG 10 10
CO 100 100
NOX 10 10
SOX 27 27
PM10 15 15
PM2.5 15 15
Toxic Air Contaminants
The District’s current thresholds of significance for toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions from the operations of both permitted and non-permitted sources are combined and presented in Table 4-5 below.

Table 4-5: Thresholds of Significance for Toxic Air Contaminants Toxic Air Contaminant Type Threshold
Carcinogens Maximally Exposed Individual risk equals or exceeds 20 in one million Non-Carcinogen, Acute Effects Hazard Index equals or exceeds 1 for the Maximally Exposed Individual Non-Carcinogen, Chronic Effects Hazard Index equals or exceeds 1 for the Maximally Exposed Individual Odors
Odor impacts on residential areas and other sensitive receptors, such as hospitals, day‐care centers, schools, etc. warrant the closest scrutiny, but consideration should also be given to other land uses where people may congregate, such as recreational facilities, worksites, and commercial areas. The District has determined the common land use types that are known to produce odors in the Air Basin. These types are shown in Table 4-6.

4.3.3 87
Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 4-11
Table 4-6: Screening Levels for Potential Odor Sources
Odor Generator Screening Distance
Wastewater Treatment Facilities 2 miles
Sanitary Landfills 1 mile
Transfer Stations 1 mile
Composting Facilities 1 mile
Petroleum Refineries 2 miles
Asphalt Batch Plants 1 mile
Chemical Manufacturers 1 mile
Fiberglass Manufacturers 1 mile
Painting/Coating Operations 1 mile
Food Processors 1 mile
Feed Lots and Dairies 1 mile
Rendering Plants 1 mile
Table 4-7: Summary of Ambient Air Quality Standards and Attainment Designation Pollutant
Averaging
Time
California Standards* National Standards*
Concentration*
Attainment
Status
Primary
Attainment
Status
Ozone
(O3)
1-hour 0.09 ppm Nonattainment/
Severe
– No Federal
Standard
8-hour 0.070 ppm Nonattainment 0.075 ppm Nonattainment
(Extreme)**
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
AAM 20 μg/m3 Nonattainment – Attainment
24-hour 50 μg/m3 150 μg/m3
Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
AAM 12 μg/m3 Nonattainment 12 μg/m3 Nonattainment
24-hour No Standard 35 μg/m3
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
1-hour 20 ppm Attainment/
Unclassified
35 ppm Attainment/
8-hour 9 ppm 9 ppm Unclassified
8-hour
(Lake Tahoe)
6 ppm –
Nitrogen
Dioxide
(NO2)
AAM 0.030 ppm Attainment 53 ppb Attainment/
1-hour 0.18 ppm 100 ppb Unclassified
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)
AAM – Attainment -- Attainment/
24-hour 0.04 ppm -- Unclassified
3-hour – 0.5 ppm
1-hour 0.25 ppm 75 ppb
Lead (Pb) 30-day Average 1.5 μg/m3 Attainment – No
Designation/
Classification
Calendar Quarter –
--
Rolling 3-Month
Average
– 0.15 μg/m3
Sulfates (SO4) 24-hour 25 μg/m3 Attainment No Federal Standards Hydrogen
Sulfide (H2S)
1-hour 0.03 ppm
(42 μg/m3)
Unclassified
Vinyl Chloride
(C2H3Cl)
24-hour 0.01 ppm
(26 μg/m3)
Attainment
88 Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 4-12
Pollutant
Averaging
Time
California Standards* National Standards*
Concentration*
Attainment
Status
Primary
Attainment
Status
VisibilityReducing
Particle Matter
8-hour Extinction coefficient:

0.23/km-visibility of
10 miles or more due
to particles when the
relative humidity is
less than 70%.

Unclassified
Note: ppm – parts per million; ppb – parts per billion; μg/m3 – micrograms per cubic meter * For more information on standards visit: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf ** No Federal 1-hour standard. Reclassified extreme nonattainment for the Federal 8-hour standard. ***Secondary Standard
Source: http://www.valleyair.org/aqinfo/attainment.htm.

Impact Analysis
Short-Term Construction-Generated Emissions
Estimated construction-generated emissions are summarized in Table 4-8 and Table 4-9, also in Appendix A. Emissions resulting from the addition of traffic signals to existing streets would be minimal.

Table 4-8: Unmitigated Short-Term Construction Generated Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants Source Annual Emissions (Tons per Year)
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5

MAXIMUM ANNUAL PROJECT

CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS

1.21 2.00 2.68 <0.005 0.23 0.09
SJVAPCD THRESHOLD 10 10 100 27 15 15
THRESHOLD EXCEEDED? No No No No No No
Table 4-9: Maximum Daily Construction Related Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants Source Daily Emissions Maximum (in pounds)
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
CONSTRUCTION – SUMMER 104 12.2 19.8 0.06 1.55 0.68
CONSTRUCTION – WINTER 3.38 31.7 30.7 0.06 9.13 5.22
SJVAPCD THRESHOLD 100 100 100 100 100 100
THRESHOLD EXCEEDED? Yes No No No No No
Long-Term Operational Emissions
Long-term air pollutant emission impacts are those associated with mobile sources (e.g., vehicle trips), energy sources (e.g., electricity and natural gas), and area sources (e.g., architectural coatings and the use of landscape maintenance equipment) related to the Project. Operational emissions of the proposed Project would be considered negligible due to the type of use proposed on-site. Emissions are weighed against thresholds designated by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). Table 4-10 and Table 4-11 summarizes estimated operational emissions. No operational emissions exceed SJVAPCD thresholds.
89 Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 4-13
Table 4-10: Unmitigated Long-Term Operational Emissions Source Annual Emissions (Tons per Year)
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5

MAXIMUM ANNUAL PROJECT

CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS

2.83 2.24 10.4 0.03 1.88 0.53
SJVAPCD THRESHOLD 10 10 100 27 15 15
THRESHOLD EXCEEDED? No No No No No No
Table 4-11: Maximum Daily Operational Related Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants Source Daily Emissions Maximum (in pounds)
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
CONSTRUCTION – SUMMER 17.5 11.8 76.4 0.16 10.5 2.98
CONSTRUCTION – WINTER 14.0 12.7 47.5 0.14 10.5 2.96
SJVAPCD THRESHOLD 100 100 100 100 100 100
THRESHOLD EXCEEDED? No No No No No No
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less than Significant Impact. The Project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of applicable air quality plans if the Project exceeded established thresholds of significance for criteria air pollutants or violate adopted Air District rules. As described above in Table 4-8, Table 4-9, Table 4-10, and Table 4-11, the Project, for the most part, would not exceed thresholds for criteria air pollutants. While the analysis depicts a construction daily emissions of 104 pounds per day for reactive organic gases (ROG), the calculation assumes that 100% of the buildings would be painted all at once, and given the individual development nature of the Project, would be highly unlikely. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Less than Significant Impact. Excluding daily emissions for ROG, Project-generated emissions are below the SJVAPCD’s regional significance thresholds, and the Project is consistent with current air quality attainment plans including control measures and regulations. The SJVAPCD through its Guidelines for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts has determined that projects that exceed regional thresholds would have a cumulatively considerable health impact. As described above, calculation assumes that 100% of the buildings would be painted all at once, and given the individual development nature of the Project, would be highly unlikely. Therefore, its cumulatively considerable impacts would be less than significant.
c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Construction of the Project will most likely utilize diesel-powered off-road equipment, spanning the course of over two (2) years cumulatively. Each building would be developed as desired. Construction in subsequent years are anticipated to generate fewer emissions due to the eventual replacement of old diesel construction equipment fleets with equipment compliant with current regulations. Cancer health risks associated with Project construction would equate to a 10.99 in a million risk of cancer. Chronic and acute health risks associated with the Project would be minimal and less than significant. Construction of traffic signals is not anticipated to generate significant emissions, and given their distance to sensitive receptors, would result in a less than significant impact.
90 Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 4-14
Project operations would also involve the use of diesel-powered trucks, which too would generate Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM). These trucks would most likely leave and enter the site by way of Golden State Boulevard, to either Clovis Avenue to the north or Adams Avenue to the south. Cancer health risks associated with Project operations would equate to 10.61 in a million risk of cancer. Chronic and acute health risks associated with the Project would be minimal and less than significant.

Together, without mitigation, cancer health risks would exceed the Air District threshold of 20 in a million and would result in a significant impact. To mitigate the impact to less than significant, subdivision construction and its buildings would be required to use Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Tier 3 engines with Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filters or EPA Tier 4 Final engines, or better. The use of Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filters would reduce construction DPM emissions by approximately 75%, and presumably the cancer risk associated with construction would too fall by 75%, which would be sufficient to comply with Air District thresholds. This has been memorialized as AIR-1. d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less than Significant Impact. Construction of the Project would utilize diesel-powered equipment, which would likely generate odors. These odors, however, are not generally found to adversely affect people, and due to the proximity of the site to sensitive receptors, would not affect a substantial number of people. Project operations would also utilize diesel-powered equipment, however the number of truck trips generated would be minimal and their distance sufficiently away from sensitive receptors. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation
AIR-1 Construction of the subdivision and the buildings within shall utilize EPA Tier 4 Final engines or EPA Tier 3 engines with Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filters.

4.3.5 91
Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 4-15

4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Table 4-12: Biological Resources Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but
not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Baseline Conditions
Study Methodology
A Biological Memorandum has been prepared for the Project (see Appendix B). Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group environmental specialist conducted a desktop analysis of potential Project-related impacts to biological resources based on the resources known to occur, or with potential to occur, within the Project site. Sources of information used in preparation of this analysis included: CDFW’s California Natural Diversity Database [(CNDDB); see Appendix A of Appendix B for the species list] and California Wildlife Habitat Relationships database; California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California; CalFlora’s online database of California native plants; Jepson Herbarium’s online database (i.e., Jepson eFlora); United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) □ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □

4.4.1 92
Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 4-16
Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS), Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC; see Appendix C of Appendix B for the species list) system, and National Wetlands Inventory; iNaturalist; NatureServe Explorer’s online database; United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service’s Web Soil Survey, California Herps website; and various manuals, reports, and references related to plants and animals of the San Joaquin Valley region.

General
The Project site is located in the San Joaquin Valley within the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Malaga 7.5-minute quadrangle. The topography within the site is relatively flat with elevations of approximately 300 feet above mean sea level. Like most of California, the site experiences a Mediterranean climate. Warm, dry summers are followed by cool, moist winters. In the summer, average high temperatures range between 85- and 98-degrees Fahrenheit (°F), but do not often exceed 105 °F, and the humidity is generally low. Winter temperatures are often below 60°F during the day and rarely exceed 65°F.

On average, the City of Fresno receives approximately 13 inches of precipitation in the form of rain yearly, most of which occurs between October and April, and the site would be expected to receive similar amounts of precipitation.

Waters
The nearest surface water features are the basins located east of the site. The Malaga Canal and Biggs Canal are located approximately 2 miles northeast of the site.

Soils
Four soil mapping units representing three soil types were identified within the site and are listed in Table 4-13 (see Attachment D of Appendix B for the Web Soil Survey Report). The soils are displayed with their core properties in the table below, according to the Major Land Resource Area of California. These soils are primarily used for growing a range of crops including grapes, peaches, truck crops, alfalfa and for homesites.

Table 4-13: List of Soils Located on the Site and Their Basic Properties Soil Soil Map Unit Percent
of Site
Hydric Soil
Category
Drainage Permeability Runoff
Delhi Loamy sand, 0 to 3
percent slopes
MLRA 17

0.1 % Predominantly
nonhydric
Somewhat
excessively
drained
High to very high Very low
Hanford Sandy loam 6.8% Nonhydric Very well
drained
High Very low
Hesperia Sandy loam, very
deep

59.7% Nonhydric Well drained Moderately low Negligible
Fine sandy loam,
very deep

33.4% Nonhydric Well drained Moderately low Negligible
Hydric soils are defined as soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions such that under sufficiently wet conditions, hydrophytic vegetation can be supported. None of the major units were identified as hydric, though one minor component of Delhi was noted as hydric.

Biotic Habitat
The majority of the Project site appears to consist of a vineyard and a residential single-family home. It is expected that the vineyard onsite could be used as foraging and nesting area for tree-nesting and ground93 Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 4-17
nesting species such as killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), or song sparrow (Melospiza melodia). The soil texture of most of the site is reported to be sandy loam, in general, and may be loose enough for burrowing by small mammals, such as California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi). Discing is not anticipated frequently through the vineyard, so ground disturbance may be minimal. This may further allow for and encourage nesting activities. Large, non-agricultural trees are visible on aerial imagery near the residential homes within the site and in the surrounding area, which could serve as suitable nesting habitat for raptors.

The Project site is surrounded by existing agricultural fields to the west, north, and east. Abutting the west boundary is the Golden State Boulevard. To the south is an existing residential subdivision. Heavy traffic associated with the adjacent highway could deter more elusive species from traveling to or through the area. Some species more habituated to human disturbance and activities, such as San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica), may be tolerant of the disturbances and could use the site for foraging.

Sensitive Resources
As follows are details on the special status species, migratory birds, designated habitat and communities, and wildlife movement corridors and native wildlife nursery sites that could be impacted by Project-related activities.

Special Status Species
A query of the CNDDB for occurrences of special status plant and animal species was conducted for the Malaga USGS 7.5-Minute quadrangle and the eight surrounding quadrangles: Sanger, Selma, Conejo, Caruthers, Fresno North, Fresno South, Clovis, and Round Mountain. A query of the IPaC was also completed for the site. Species which were observed within two miles of the Project site were evaluated for their potential to occur within the Project site. These species are listed in Table 4-14 below.

Table 4-14: Special Status Plant and Animal Species with the Potential to Occur on the Project Site Species Status* Habitat Occurrence within the Site
Pallid bat
(Antrozous pallidus)
CSSC Found in grasslands, chaparral,
and woodlands, where it feeds on
ground- and vegetation-dwelling
arthropods, and occasionally
takes insects in flight. Prefers to
roost in rock crevices, but may
also use tree cavities, caves,
bridges, and other human-made
structures.

Unlikely. The vineyard habitat could
provide foraging opportunities for
this species, but roosting habitat
appears to be absent from the
Project site and adjacent habitats.

Swainson’s hawk
(Buteo swainsoni)
CT Nests in large trees in open areas
adjacent to grasslands, grain or
alfalfa fields, or livestock pastures
suitable for supporting rodent
populations.

Possible. The nearest recorded
observation of this species is
approximately four miles northwest
of the site in the 1980s. However,
trees large enough for nesting are
present within 0.5 miles of the
Project site. Additionally, this species
would be expected to forage within
the fallow field and surrounding
areas.

Western mastiff bat
(Eumops perotis
californicus)
CSSC Found in open, arid to semi-arid
habitats, including dry desert
washes, flood plains, chaparral,
oak woodland, open ponderosa
Unlikely. The vineyard habitat could
provide foraging opportunities for
this species, but there do not seem
to be any resources for roosting.
94 Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 4-18
Species Status* Habitat Occurrence within the Site
pine forest, grassland, and
agricultural areas, where it feeds
on insects in flight. Roosts most
commonly in crevices in cliff
faces but may also use high
buildings and tunnels.

*EXPLANATION OF 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 due to absence of suitable habitat.

STATUS CODES
FE Federally Endangered CE California Endangered
FT Federally Threatened CSSC California Species of Special Concern FPT Federally Threatened (Proposed) CCE California Endangered (Candidate)

CNPS LISTING
1B Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in
California and elsewhere.
2B Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in
California, but more common elsewhere.

Applicable Regulations
Federal
Endangered Species Act
The Endangered Species Act, passed in 1973, defines an endangered species as any species or subspecies that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A threatened species is defined as any species or subspecies that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Once a species is listed, it is fully protected from a “take” unless a take permit is issued by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. A take is defined as the harassing, harming, pursuing, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, capturing, or collecting wildlife species or any attempt to engage in such conduct, including modification of its habitat ((16 USC (United States Code) 1532, 50 Code of Federal Regulations 17.3)). Proposed endangered or threatened species are those species for which a proposed regulation, but not a final rule, has been published in the Federal Register.

State
California Endangered Species Act
The California Endangered Species Act (CESA), codified at Fish and Game Code (FGC) Section 2050, et seq., protects certain plant and animal species when they are of special ecological, educational, historical, recreational, aesthetic, economic, and scientific value to the people of the State. CESA established that it is State policy to conserve, protect, restore, and enhance endangered species and their habitats. CESA was expanded upon the original Native Plant Protection Act and enhanced legal protection for plants. To be consistent with federal regulations, CESA created the categories of "threatened" and "endangered" species.

It converted all "rare" animals into the Act as threatened species but did not do so for rare plants. Thus, there are three listing categories for plants in California: rare, threatened, and endangered. Under State

4.4.2 95
Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 4-19
law, plant and animal species may be formally designated by official listing by the California Fish and Game Commission.

Predatory Birds – Fish and Game Code Section 3503, 3503.5, 3800 Under FGC Sections, 3503, 3503.5, and 3800, all predatory birds in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes in California, generally called “raptors,” are protected. The law indicates that it is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird unless it is in accordance with the code. Any activity that would cause a nest to be abandoned or cause a reduction or loss in a reproductive effort is considered a take. This generally includes construction activities.

Impact Analysis
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. There were no recorded observations of any special status species within two miles of the Project site, and there were no plant species with potential to occur on or near the site. However, suitable habitat for nesting birds, Swainson’s Hawk, and San Joaquin kit fox appears to be present. These special status species could occur on the site prior to or during Project activities. In order to comply with General Plan policies and state and federal laws protecting special status species, Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-2, and BIO-3 will be implemented to reduce potential Project-related impacts to biological resources within and around the site. b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact. Riparian habitat is absent from the Project site. The San Joaquin River Ecological reserve, located approximately 18 miles northwest in Fresno, includes a largely undisturbed riparian corridor.8 The only water bodies present within the planning area and surrounding region are irrigation canals, which are highly maintained and used primarily for agricultural water. Additionally, there are no CNDDBdesignated “natural communities of special concern” recorded within the Project site or surrounding lands. There would be no impact.
c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. The Project site does not contain any federally protected wetlands. Runoff from the Project site would be directed to proposed stormwater basins. There would be no impact. 8 (California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2024)

4.4.3 96
Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 4-20
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
No Impact. Wildlife movement corridors are routes that wild 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, ridgelines, and rivers and creeks supporting riparian vegetation. The Project site does not contain any federally protected wetlands. Runoff from the Project site would be directed to proposed stormwater basins.

There would be no impact.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No Impact. There are no applicable local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. As such, there would be no impact.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. There are no Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans applicable to the planning area. Therefore, there would be no impact.

Mitigation
Nesting Bird Avoidance: Project activities should occur, if feasible, between September 16 and January 31 (outside of the nesting bird season) to avoid impacts to nesting birds.

Migratory Nesting Bird Pre-Activity Survey: If Project activities must occur within the migratory bird nesting season (February 1 to September 15), a qualified biologist should complete a pre-activity survey for active nests within five (5) calendar days prior to the start of Project activities. The survey should be completed within the Project site, and all accessible lands up to 100 feet outside of the Project site for nesting migratory birds and up to 500 feet outside of the Project site for nesting raptors. Raptor nests would be considered “active” upon the nest-building stage. If no active nests are observed, the Project may proceed. The biologist should also conduct a one-time take avoidance preconstruction survey for Swainson’s hawk nests onsite and within a 0.5-mile radius. This one time take avoidance survey will be conducted in accordance with the Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson's Hawk Nesting Surveys in California's Central Valley (Swainson's Hawk Technical Advisory Committee 2000), or current guidance.

Nesting Bird Avoidance Buffers: On discovery of any active nests or breeding colonies near work areas, a qualified biologist should determine appropriate avoidance buffer distances based on applicable CDFW and/or USFWS guidelines, the biology of the species, conditions of the nest(s), and the level of Project disturbance. If needed, avoidance buffers should be identified with flagging, fencing, or other easily visible means, and should be maintained until the biologist has determined that the nestlings have fledged.

4.4.4 BIO-1
BIO-2
BIO-3
97 Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 4-21

4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Table 4-15: Cultural Resources Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource
pursuant to in § 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to § 15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of dedicated
cemeteries?
Baseline Conditions
Following the completion of the transcontinental railroad in 1869, the Central Pacific Railroad, predecessor to the Southern Pacific Railroad, began construction of a Central Valley route to connect southern California with the commerce center of the San Francisco Bay. The segment through Fowler was laid around 1872.

Thomas Fowler, a State Senator from 1869–1872, owned the ranch where a railroad switch was built by the Central Pacific Railroad. The town developed around the railroad switch and became known as Fowler’s Switch. The Valley branch of the historic Southern Pacific Railroad is presently owned and operated by the Union Pacific Railroad. A post office branch was established in Fowler in 1882, the name was eventually shortened, and the City of Fowler was incorporated in 1908. In May 1973, Fowler’s Switch was registered as a California Point of Interest for its local significance to Fowler. The marker for the Fowler Switch is located at the intersection of East Merced Street and South 7th Street and is not visible from the Project site.

The Project site is located on a previously farmed piece of land. Throughout the years of farming the site, it has been heavily disturbed through planting, harvesting, and discing. The traffic improvement areas are located in disturbed areas that have been developed with roadway infrastructure.

Records Search
A records search from the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (SSJVIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), located at California State University, Bakersfield was conducted in September 2024. The SSJVIC records search includes a review of all recorded archaeological and built-environment resources as well as a review of cultural resource reports on file. In addition, the California Points of Historical Interest, the California Historical Landmarks, the California Register of Historical Resources, the National Register of Historic Places, and the California State Built Environment Resources Directory listings were reviewed for the Project site and an additional ½-mile radius. According to the search, no cultural resource studies have been previously completed within the Project area, but four have been completed within the ½-mile radius. Furthermore, no recorded cultural resources have been discovered within the Project site; however, three have been discovered within the ½-mile radius. See Appendix C for the CHRIS records search results letter. □ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □

4.5.1 98
Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 4-22
Regulatory Setting
The following Fowler General Policies would apply to the Project:
o Policy CDES-12: All construction shall cease, and the Community Development Director and City Engineer shall be notified immediately if any prehistoric, archaeological, or fossil artifact or resource is uncovered during construction. All construction shall immediately stop and an archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in prehistoric or historical archaeology shall be retained, at the applicant’s and/or successors-ininterest’s expense, to evaluate the find(s) and recommend appropriate action according to Section 15064.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. If avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate measures would be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the project subject to direction of the archaeologist while assessment of historic resources or unique archaeological resources is being carried out.
o Policy CDES-13: All construction shall cease if any human remains are uncovered, and the Community Development Director, City Engineer and Fresno County Medical Examiner and Coroner shall be notified in accordance to Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code.

If human remains are determined to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be contacted, and the procedures outlined in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15064.5(e) shall be followed.

Impact Analysis
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to in § 15064.5?
b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
a and b) Less than Significant Impact. A CHRIS records search, from SSJVIC, was conducted in September 2024 and confirmed there have been no previous cultural resource studies conducted within the Project area. There have been four previous cultural resource studies within the ½-mile mile radius: FR-00135, 02287, 02452, 02642. The search also confirmed there are no recorded resources within the Project area, but three within the ½-mile mile radius: P-10-002962, 003930, 004423. It is unlikely that the Project has the potential to result in significant impacts or adverse effects to cultural or historical resources, such as archaeological remains, artifacts, or historic properties. Conformance with General Plan Policies CDES12 and CDES-13 would reduce impacts to less than significant. c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Less than Significant Impact. There is no evidence that the Project site has the potential to be an unknown burial site, or the site of buried human remains. In the unlikely event of such a discovery, General Plan Policies CDES-12 and CDES-13 identify the procedures that are required to be taken. mitigation will be implemented. Impacts resulting from the discovery of remains interred in the Project site would be less than significant.

4.5.2 4.5.3
99 Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 4-23

4.6 ENERGY
Table 4-16: Energy Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local
plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency?
Baseline Conditions
The Project site consists of farmland and a rural residential dwelling. Energy consumption from the dwelling and farmland would consist of electricity (pumps, dwelling), natural gas (dwelling), gasoline (automobiles), and diesel (dwelling, harvesting).

Impact Analysis
a) Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less than Significant Impact. Fuel consumed by construction equipment would be the primary energy resource expended over the course of Project construction. For heavy-duty construction equipment, horsepower and load factor were assumed using default data from the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). Fuel use associated with construction vehicle trips generated by the Project was also estimated; trips include construction worker trips, haul trucks trips for material transport, and vendor trips for construction material deliveries. Fuel use from these vehicles traveling to the Project was based on (1) the projected number of trips the Project would generate (CalEEMod default values), (2) default average trip distance by land use in CalEEMod, and (3) fuel efficiencies estimated in the California Air Resources Board 2017 Emissions Factors model (EMFAC2017) mobile source emission model.

Construction is estimated to consume a total of 99,178.75 gallons of diesel fuel and 19,533.25 gallons of gasoline fuel.9 California Code of Regulations Title 13, Motor Vehicles, Section 2449(d)(2), Idling, limits idling times of construction vehicles to no more than five (5) minutes, thereby precluding unnecessary and wasteful consumption of fuel because of unproductive idling of construction equipment. In addition, the energy consumption for construction activities would not be ongoing as they would be limited to the duration of Project construction.
9 Emissions for the Project were quantified using CalEEMod Output Files Version 2020.4.0. Refer to Appendix A for modeling results and assumptions.
□ □ □
□ □ □

4.6.1 4.6.2
100
Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 4-24
The development’s anticipated annual energy consumption is approximately 590,073 kilowatt-hours and 17,792 therms of natural gas.10 Energy consumption of residential uses is currently governed by the 2019 California Building Code, Part 6 for the structure itself, and Title 20 of the California Code of Regulations for appliances. Energy consumption is anticipated to decrease over time as more energy efficient standards take effect and energy-consuming equipment reach their end-of-life and necessitates replacement. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Less than Significant Impact. State and local authorities regulate energy use and consumption. These regulations at the State level are intended to reduce energy use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

These include, among others, AB 1493 – Light-Duty Vehicle Standards; California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 6 – Energy Efficiency Standards; and California Code of Regulations Title 24, Parts 6 and 11 – California Energy Code and Green Building Standards. The Project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
10 Emissions for the Project were quantified using CalEEMod Output Files Version 2020.4.0. Refer to Appendix A for modeling results and assumptions.
101
Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 4-25

4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Table 4-17: Geology and Soils Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in
on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994) creating substantial direct or indirect
risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative waste
water disposal systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of wastewater?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geological feature?
Baseline Conditions
Geology and Soils
The proposed Project is located in Fresno County, in the southern section of California’s Great Valley Geomorphic Province, or Central Valley. The Sacramento Valley makes up the northern third and the San Joaquin Valley makes up the southern two-thirds of the geomorphic province. Both valleys are watered by large rivers flowing west from the Sierra Nevada Range, with smaller tributaries flowing east from the Coast Ranges. Most of the surface of the Great Valley is covered by Quaternary (present day to 1.6 million years ago) alluvium. The sedimentary formations are steeply upturned along the western margin due to the □ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □

4.7.1 102
Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 4-26
uplifted Sierra Nevada Range.11 From the time the Valley first began to form, sediments derived from erosion of igneous and metamorphic rocks and consolidated marine sediments in the surrounding mountains have been transported into the Valley by streams.

As seen in Table 4-13, soils present on the Project site consist of Delhi loamy sand, Hanford sandy loam, Hesperia sandy loam, and Hesperia fine sandy loam.12
Faults and Seismicity
The Project is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and there are no known active faults within the City. The nearest major fault is the San Andreas Fault, located approximately 66 miles southwest of the Project site. The San Andreas fault is the dominant active tectonic feature of the Coast Ranges and represents the boundary of the North American and Pacific plates. The Nunez Fault is approximately 51 miles southwest and the Poso Fault is approximately 51 miles southwest. 13 Liquefaction
The potential for liquefaction, which is the loss of soil strength due to seismic forces, is dependent on soil types and density, the groundwater table, and the duration and intensity of ground shaking. Although no specific liquefaction hazard areas have been identified in the county, this potential is recognized throughout the San Joaquin Valley where unconsolidated sediments and a high-water table coincide. according to the California State Geoportal, Fowler is not located in or near a zone that has been designated as an area that has experienced soil liquefaction.14 Furthermore, the average depth to groundwater within the planning area is approximately 85 to 95 feet, which also minimizes liquefaction potential.15 Soil Subsidence
There are two types of Subsidence: Land subsidence and hydrocompaction subsidence. Hydrocompaction subsidence occurs when a large land area settles due to over-saturation. These areas are typically composed of open-textured soils that become saturated, high in silt or clay content. Land subsidence occurs when an extensive amount of ground water, oil, or natural gas is withdrawn from below the ground surface. The San Joaquin Valley has become an area that has increasingly experienced subsidence due to excessive groundwater pumping activities lowering the water table. The Project site consists of Atwater loam, Atwater loamy sand, and Greenfield Sandy loam. These soil types have a low to moderate risk of subsidence.

Landslides
Landslides usually occur in locations with steep slopes and unstable soils. Fowler is located on the Central Valley floor where no major geologic landforms exist, and the topography is essentially flat and level. The nearest foothills are approximately 15 miles northeast of the Project site. Therefore, the Project site has minimal-to-no landslide susceptibility.
11 (Harden 1998)
12 (United States Department of Agriculture 2024)
13 (California Department of Conservation 2023)
14 (California State Geoportal 2022)
15 (City of Fowler 2023)
103
Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 4-27
Regulatory Setting
The following Fowler General Policies would apply to the Project:
o Policy CDES-12: All construction shall cease, and the Community Development Director and City Engineer shall be notified immediately if any prehistoric, archaeological, or fossil artifact or resource is uncovered during construction. All construction shall immediately stop and an archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in prehistoric or historical archaeology shall be retained, at the applicant’s and/or successors-ininterest’s expense, to evaluate the find(s) and recommend appropriate action according to Section 15064.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. If avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate measures would be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the project subject to direction of the archaeologist while assessment of historic resources or unique archaeological resources is being carried out.

Impact Analysis
a) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

No Impact. There are no known active earthquake faults in Fresno County, inclusive of the City of Fowler and the Project site, nor is Fresno County within an Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zone as established by the Alquist-Priolo Fault Zoning Act. Thus, the Project would not cause rupture of a known earthquake fault and therefore, would have no impact.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is not located in an area traditionally characterized by high levels of seismic activity. Future development would be required to comply with current seismic protection standards in the California Building Code (CBC) which would significantly limit potential damage to structures and thereby reduce potential impacts including the risk of loss, injury, or death.

Compliance with the CBC would ensure impacts to be less than significant. iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less than Significant Impact. As mentioned above, there are no known active earthquake faults in Fresno County and Fresno County has historically been subject to low to moderate ground shaking. The Project site is in an area with low susceptibility to liquefaction with no known geologic hazards or unstable soil conditions. Due to the distance from an active fault, there is low potential for ground rupture. Further, the Project site is primarily made up of loamy sand and sandy loam that are well drained, which are less susceptible to liquefaction than silt or sands. In addition, development would be required to comply with CBC, the City’s grading and drainage standards, and specific requirements that address liquefaction. For these reasons, the Project would not result in seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction.

Impacts would be less than significant impact.

M2

4.7.3 104
Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 4-28
iv. Landslides?
No Impact. Characteristic of the Central Valley, the topography of the Project site is relatively flat. Soils on the Project site are native and stable. No large slopes deriving from rivers or streams are found within the Project site that would be susceptible to landslides. Therefore, there would be no impact. b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than Significant Impact. Soil erosion and loss of topsoil can be caused by natural factors, such as wind and flowing water, and human activity. Construction of the Project site would require typical site preparation activities such as grading and trenching which may result in the potential for short-term soil disturbance or erosion impacts. Construction would also involve the use of water that may cause further soil disturbance. Such impacts would be addressed through compliance with regulations set by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Namely, the SWRCB requires sites larger than one (1) acre to comply with the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity. The General Permit Order No. 2022-0057-DWQ requires the development of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) by a certified Qualified SWPPP Developer prior to the start of construction activities. The SWPPP estimates the sediment risk associated with construction activities and Soil erosion and loss of topsoil can be caused by natural factors, such as wind and flowing water, and human activity. includes best management practices (BMP) to control erosion. BMPs specific to erosion control cover erosion, sediment, tracking, and waste management controls. Implementation of the SWPPP minimizes the potential for the Project to result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Furthermore, development of the Project site would comply with Section 8-14.08 Grading of the Fowler Municipal Code to control soil erosion and erosion potential during Project operations. With these provisions in place, impacts to soil and topsoil by the Project would be considered less than significant. c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Less than Significant Impact. Land subsidence is the settling or sinking of surface soil deposits with little or no horizontal motion. Soils with high silt or clay content are subject to subsidence. Subsidence typically occurs in areas with groundwater withdrawal or oil or natural gas extraction. The site is not within an identified California Department of Conservation – Geologic Energy Management Division oil/gas field.16 The topography of the site is relatively flat with stable, native soils and no apparent unique or significant landforms. Furthermore, the Project is in an area of low significance for seismic activity due to its distance from faults. Such factors minimize the potential for other geologic hazards such as landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. Therefore, any development on the native, stable soils is unlikely to become unstable and result in geologic hazards. In addition, the Project would be required to comply with current seismic protection standards in the CBC which would significantly limit potential seismic-related hazards such as landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse.

Compliance with the CBC would ensure a less than significant impact. d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is relatively flat with native soils of fine sandy loam, which is not expansive. Sandy loam soils are not classified as expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the 16 (California Department of Conservation 2024)
105
Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 4-29
Uniform Building Code and would not create substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property. Thus, no impact would occur because of the Project.
e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact. Once annexed, the Project site would be located within the Fowler city limits and would connect to the City’s wastewater services. Thus, no permanent septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would be installed. There would be no impact. f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature?
Less than Significant Impact. No known paleontological resources have been identified at the Project site.

However, if a paleontological resource is found General Plan Policy CDES-12 describes the procedures necessary during construction activities to reduce impacts. All construction would be required to immediately stop and an archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in prehistoric or historical archaeology would be retained, at the applicant’s and/or successors-in-interest’s expense, to evaluate the find(s) and recommend appropriate action according to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. If avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate measures would be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the project subject to direction of the archaeologist while assessment of historic resources or unique archaeological resources is being carried out. Implementation of this General Plan policy would reduce impacts to less than significant. 106
Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 4-30

4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Table 4-18: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases?
Baseline Conditions
The subject property is developed with vineyards. Cultivation requires the use of vehicles to transport workers and to haul harvested grapes off-site. Small off-road vehicles are often used to inspect and treat the vineyards.

Thresholds
As the Project proposes to develop consistent with the 2040 Fowler General Plan, the Project would exceed thresholds of significance if the Project proposes not to implement the GHG mitigation measures of the 2040 Fowler General Plan Program EIR.

Impact Analysis
a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
a) and b) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Construction of the Project would generate approximately 855.1 metric tons of Carbon Dioxide and its equivalents (MTCO2e). Operation of the Project would generate approximately 4,263 MTCO2e.The City of Fowler has not adopted an applicable plan, policy, or regulation for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Therefore, the significance of the Project’s consistency with an applicable plan was evaluated in comparison to the GHGreduction strategies contained in the 2022 Fresno Council of Governments Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS); as well as State’s 2022 Climate Change Scoping Plan.

The Project is consistent with the General Plan, which was found to be consistent with the 2022 RTP/SCS.

In order for subsequent projects to comply with the 2022 Scoping Plan, the Program EIR adopted mitigation measures GHG-1 and GHG-2, described below, which would apply the Project’s fair share of greenhouse gas impacts. With implementation of these mitigation measures, impacts would be less than significant.
□ □ □
□ □ □

4.8.1 4.8.2

4.8.3 107
Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 4-31
Mitigation
GHG-1 Buildings in the subdivision shall be constructed with electrically-powered appliances and building mechanical equipment in place of natural-gas fueled equipment.

GHG-2 Off-street parking in the subdivision shall exceed the California Green Building Standard Code Tier 2 requirements for electric vehicle charging infrastructure.

4.8.4 108
Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 4-32

4.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Table 4-19: Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or
working in the project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly
or indirectly to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires?
Baseline Conditions
Hazardous Materials
The Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese) List is a planning document used by the State, local agencies, and developers to comply with CEQA requirements in providing information about the location of hazardous materials release sites. Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the California Environmental Protection Agency to develop at least annually an updated Cortese List. The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is responsible for a portion of the information contained in the Cortese List. Other State and local government agencies are required to provide additional hazardous material release information for the Cortese List. DTSC's EnviroStor database provides DTSC's component of Cortese List data. In addition to the EnviroStor database, the SWRCB Geotracker database provides information on □ □ K □
□ □ K □
□ □ K □
□ □ □ KI
□ □ □ K
□ □ KI □
□ □ □ K

4.9.1 109
Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 4-33
regulated hazardous waste facilities in California, including underground storage tank (UST) cases and nonUST cleanup programs, including Spills-Leaks-Investigations-Cleanups sites, Department of Defense sites, and Land Disposal program. A search of the DTSC EnviroStor database and the SWRCB Geotracker performed on October 7, 2024, determined that there are no known active hazardous waste generators or hazardous material spill sites within the Project site or immediate surrounding vicinity.17 Airports
The Fresno Yosemite International Airport is located approximately nine miles north-northwest, and the Selma Municipal Airport is located approximately four miles south-southeast of the Project.

Emergency Response Plan
The Fresno County Office of Emergency Services coordinates the development and maintenance of the Fresno County Operational area Master Plan.

Sensitive Receptors
The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project site is the residential subdivision to the south. Additionally, the Project site is roughly a quarter mile from John Fremont Elementary School.

Impact Analysis
a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
a) and b) Less than Significant Impact. Construction activities for the Project site would include typical site preparation, grading, paving, and trenching, all of which would require the transportation of building materials and equipment. Demolition would not be required. The site includes a single-family residence; however, it would remain in the portion of the Project site that would be designated for residential uses.

Generally, hazardous materials associated with construction include, but are not limited to, motor oil, gasoline, diesel, solvents, acids, fugitive dust, and stormwater runoff. Potential hazardous materials associated with construction could result from the use of fuels and lubricants for construction equipment (i.e., motor oil, gasoline and diesel), in addition to grading and drainage activities (i.e., fugitive dust and stormwater runoff). The Project’s grading and drainage plans are subject to City approval and would determine the limits of grading and disturbance. Compliance with these regulations would limit visible dust and ensure that disturbed surfaces or soils remain stable. Workers would be trained to properly identify and handle all hazardous materials, and hazardous waste would either be recycled or disposed of at a permitted and licensed treatment and/or disposal facility. All hazardous waste shipped off-site for recycling or disposal would be transported by a licensed and permitted hazardous waste hauler and disposed of at an approved location. During construction, nonhazardous construction debris would be generated and disposed of at the American Avenue Landfill, pursuant to applicable laws and regulations.

Sanitary waste would be managed using portable toilets located at a reasonably accessible on-site location. Compliance with applicable laws and regulations would ensure that construction of the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the 17 (California Department of Toxic Substances Control 2024); (State of California 2024)

4.9.2 110
Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 4-34
routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Overall, the relatively limited use and small quantities of typical hazardous materials, and subsequent transport and disposal of such materials, during construction would be controlled through compliance with applicable laws and regulations pursuant to a comprehensive regulatory framework administered by the DTSC and other relevant public agencies.

The Project proposes an industrial subdivision with light industrial uses unknown at this time. It is assumed that the future use of the Project site would be industrial with specifics complying with the permitted uses found in the Fowler Zoning Ordinance. The California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) oversees the Statewide implementation of the Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP), which aims to prevent or minimize harm to public health and safety, and the environment from the release or threatened release of hazardous material. The minimum reporting quantities for hazardous materials is 55 gallons for liquids, 500 pounds for solids, or 200 cubic feet for compress gas.18 If a business handles hazardous materials at or in excess of the minimum thresholds, a HMBP is required to be prepared and approved by the State and local jurisdictions. The project tenants/operator will be required to submit information to the California Environmental Reporting System, Fresno County Department of Public Health, and the City regarding the use and storage of hazardous materials. Both the proposed gas station/mini-mart and future industrial uses would be subject to the HMBP requirements if they handle hazardous materials in excess of minimum reporting quantities Based on known operations, it is not expected that the Project would involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.

Nevertheless, if future uses would involve transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, then the Fresno County Department of Public Health would require that the Project and future uses on the site submit an HMBP in order to provide for safe storage and use of chemicals. Therefore, if the facility does handle hazardous materials and/or hazardous waste, compliance with the HMBP as approved by the County would reduce any impacts to less than significant. Some appliances and electronics used or stored within buildings may contain hazardous components (e.g., refrigerants, oils, etc.); however, these hazardous components are regulated by the EPA under the Toxic Substances Control Act and Clean Air Act and transport of such components are regulated by the United States Department of Transportation, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety as implemented in California by California Code of Regulations Title 13, California Building Code, and Uniform Fire Code. Through compliance with the aforementioned regulations, the Project is not expected to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.

In addition, stormwater runoff resulting from the anticipated buildout of the Project would be managed by the City in compliance with the regulatory requirements pursuant to NPDES General Permit Requirements, as discussed in Section 4.7). This includes runoff consisting of any hazardous materials, including fuels and lubricants used for construction equipment. In addition, the quality of stormwater runoff would be maintained by design components specific to the Project including the required preparation of a SWPPP, and the City’s approval of the Project’s grading and drainage plans. Together, compliance with the aforementioned plans, policies, and regulatory requirements in addition to Project design components, would reduce potential impacts related to stormwater quality to a less than significant level.
c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less than Significant Impact. The Project site, including the proposed traffic improvements, is roughly a quarter mile from John Fremont Elementary School, located in the City of Fowler. As discussed above, the Project would comply with regulatory requirements such as potential Hazardous Materials 18 (County of Fresno Department of Public Health 2024)
111
Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 4-35
Management Plans and a SWPPP during construction. With the implementation of said regulatory compliance measures, impacts would be less than significant. d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No Impact. The Project does not involve land that is listed as a hazardous materials site pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and is not included on a list compiled by the Department of Toxic Substances Control. A search of the DTSC EnviroStor database and the SWRCB Geotracker determined that there are no known active hazardous waste generators or known hazardous material spill sites within the Project site. There would be no impact.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The Project is not located within an airport land use plan or within two (2) miles of an airport.

The Fresno Yosemite International Airport is located approximately nine (9) miles north-northwest, and the Selma Municipal Airport is located approximately four (4) miles south-southeast of the Project.

Construction and implementation of the Project would not be a safety hazard for people working in the area. There would be no impact.
f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less than Significant Impact. Construction activities would be temporary in nature and would not cause any road closures that could interfere with any adopted emergency response or evacuation plans. The construction contractor would be required to work with the City and County (public works, police/fire, etc.) if and when roadway diversions are required to ensure that adequate access is maintained for residents and emergency vehicles. The Project would also include traffic improvements; however, these improvements are necessary to maintain efficient levels of service and to support the existing circulation system. Accordingly, any impacts would be less than significant. g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
No Impact. According to California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire), the Project is not located within a State Responsibility Area (SRA), meaning CalFire does not assume responsibility for wildfire prevention and protection but is managed at the local level.19 Furthermore, according to CalFire, the proposed Project area is not located within a very high fire hazard severity zone, nor is the Project located within a high or moderate fire hazard severity zone.20 Given the absence of wildlands in the vicinity, implementation of the Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. There would be no impact. 19 (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 2022) 20 (ArcGIS 2023)
112
Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 4-36

4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Table 4-20: Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or ground
water quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would:
i. result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site;
ii. substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or
off-site;
iii. create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
iv. impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
a water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
Baseline Conditions
The San Joaquin River and the Kings River are the two principal drainages within the San Joaquin Valley, and Fowler is generally located approximately 18 miles south of the San Joaquin River and nine miles west of the Kings River.

Fowler lies entirely within the Kings Groundwater Subbasin of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin.21 Due to groundwater overdraft and contamination from agricultural chemicals, provision of reliable sources of groundwater in both quantity and quality have been a challenge throughout most of the Central Valley. 21 (California Department of Water Resources 2018)
□ □ K □
□ □ K □
□ □ K □
□ □ K □
□ □ K □
□ □ KI □
□ □ K □
□ □ K □

4.10.1 113
Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 4-37
Water supply is produced from six groundwater wells located throughout the City and distribution is provided by the Water Division of the City’s Public Works Department through a system in which pumps deliver water from beneath the ground to a network of water mains, pipelines, and laterals, which distribute water to residents and businesses. Municipal water is tested monthly to ensure quality.

According to the Annual Water Quality Report (2023), the average depth to groundwater is 85 to 95 feet.22 Fowler is also a member city of South Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency (SKGSA). SKGSA comprises five (5) cities and two (2) community services districts. These public entities formed a joint-powers authority in May 2017 to take on the responsibility of sustainable groundwater management in the portion of the Kings Subbasin underlying the GSA’s boundary. In 2019, Fowler along with the other members of the SKGSA adopted the SKGSA Groundwater Sustainability Plan.

The Project site is located within a 100-year flood zone (see Figure 4-2).

Impact Analysis
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Less than Significant Impact. Since the Project site is greater than one (1) acre in size, the Project is required to prepare a SWPPP in compliance with the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (i.e., General Permit Order No. 2022-0057-DWQ). The SWPPP estimates the sediment risk associated with construction activities and includes BMPs to control erosion.

BMPs specific to erosion control cover erosion, sediment, tracking, and waste management controls.

Implementation of the SWPPP minimizes the potential for the Project to result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. These provisions minimize the potential for the Project to violate any waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality. Further, runoff resulting from the Project would be managed in compliance with the approved grading and drainage plans. Thus, compliance with existing regulations including the General Construction Permit, BMPs, and the Fowler Municipal Code, in addition to approved plans, would reduce potential impacts related to water quality and waste discharge to less than significant levels. b) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Less than Significant Impact. Groundwater is pumped from the Kings River Basin underground aquifer through six groundwater wells operated by the City of Fowler. As per the Schematic Design Technical Memorandum prepared by for an unrelated Fowler project, the six wells can produce an estimated maximum of 5,735 gpm with maximum production of all six existing wells at about 8.2 million gallons per day (mgd).23 As of the 2020 Census the City had 6,700 residents and pumped an average of 205 gallons per day/per person for all municipal uses, or about 1.4 mgd. That leaves 6.8 mgd remaining well capacity.

As a result, adequate groundwater resources are available to meet the long-term water demand of the City; no surface water would need to be imported. The Project includes the development of industrial uses, consistent with the General Plan. The amount of water required from the Project to serve the site with industrial uses would be less than the amount of water required to serve the site as it exists today with agricultural uses. This would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere with 22 (City of Fowler 2023)
23 (Provost and Pritchard 2023)

4.10.2 114
Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 4-38
groundwater recharge. Furthermore, the Project in and of itself would not promote or increase population growth in the area and current water demand would not be substantially increased. As a result, the Project would have a less than significant impact. c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; ii. substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site;
iii. create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
iv. impede or redirect flood flows?
c) (i - iv) Less than Significant Impact. The Project includes changes to the existing stormwater drainage pattern of the area through the backfilling of the site and installation of impermeable (concrete/asphalt) surfaces and/or structures associated with the future industrial facilities. A stormwater retention basin is proposed and would be designed to adequately handle the amount of runoff generated and would be designed to be above the 100-year base flood elevation. It is not expected that the increase in impermeable surface will substantially alter the drainage pattern of the area. Standard construction practices and compliance with State and federal regulations, City ordinances and regulations, the California Building Code, and adherence to professional engineering design approved by the City of Fowler would reduce or eliminate potential drainage impacts from the Project. Therefore, any impacts resulting from drainage patterns would be less than significant. d) Would the project in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundations?
Less than Significant Impact. As seen in Figure 4-2, a portion of the Project site is located in flood zone.

In order to avoid any impacts related to the release of pollutants, implementation of the aforementioned SWPPP and compliance with the City’s Floodplain Management regulations (Chapter 8 of Title 8 of the Fowler Municipal Code) would ensure that the proper management of potential pollutants is enforced.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project complies with the Fowler General Plan and therefore is not anticipated to conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. The Project would not obstruct the implementation of projects adopted in the South Kings Groundwater Sustainability Plan. Impacts would be less than significant. 115
Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 4-39
Figure 4-2: FEMA Flood Map
5019C2140H
2/18/2009, 06019C2145H2/18/2009
E Clayton Ave
j "Xt
m™
06019C2143H
2/18/2009
4 Project Site
l Fowler City Limits
Fowler Sphere of Influence
Flood Zone
E Sumner Ave DFIRM Panel Number/Date
100 Year Flood Zone (FEMA DFIRM)
0 500 1,000 FEMAMap PROVOST&
Qi) Feet City of Fowler - Clayton Ave Industrial Subdivision PRITCHARD 116
Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 4-40

4.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Table 4-21: Land Use and Planning Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
f) Physically divide an established
community?
g) Cause a significant environmental impact
due to a conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Baseline Conditions
The Project site is currently located in Fresno County with a zoning designation of AE-20 (Agricultural, 20- acre minimum parcel size). The Project is also located within the City of Fowler’s planning area and has a general plan land use designation of Light Industrial and Medium Low Density Residential. Fresno County is currently the land use authority for the Project site.

Impact Analysis
a) Would the project physically divide an established community? No Impact. The Project includes annexation of the site from Fresno County to the City of Fowler. The site is located in the northeastern region of the Fowler planning area and once annexed, would be located at the edge of the Fowler city limits. No new barriers would be constructed, and no ROW is proposed to be abandoned. While construction of the Project would require work in the existing ROW for utility lines; it is anticipated that only minor detours to allow vehicles to maneuver around active construction areas would be implemented. Impacts to the ROW would be temporary. Furthermore, construction of the proposed traffic improvements would not result in any impacts to related to this impact question.

Therefore, the Project would have no impact associated with the physical division of established land uses in the community. There would be no impact.
b) Would the project cause a significant environmental conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No Impact. As part of the Project, the Project site would be prezoned to the M-1 and R-1-6 zone districts.

The proposed prezones would be consistent with the underlying City of Fowler Land Use Diagram as found in the 2040 General Plan.24 Therefore, pursuant to the proposed prezone, the Project would not conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. There would be no impact.

24 (Provost and Pritchard 2023)

4.1 1.1

4.11.2 117
Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 4-41

4.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Table 4-22: Mineral Resources Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?
Baseline Conditions
Fresno County has been a leading producer of minerals because of the abundance and wide variety of mineral resources that are present in the County. These resources include aggregate products (sand and gravel), fossil fuels (oil and coal), metals (chromite, copper, gold, mercury, and tungsten), and other minerals used in construction or industrial applications (asbestos, high-grade clay, diatomite, granite, gypsum, and limestone).25 No active or inactive mines are mapped in the City of Fowler planning area, which includes the Project stie, according to the California Department of Conservation’s Mines Online website.26 The Project lies within a large region that has been classified by California Geological Survey (CGS) as Mineral Resource Zone-3 (MRZ-3), representing an area containing mineral deposits the significance of which cannot be evaluated from available data.

According to the CGS’s Aggregate Sustainability Map, the Project is not within the vicinity of a site being used for aggregate production.27 In addition, California’s Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources has no record of active or inactive oil or gas wells or petroleum resources on the Project site or in the vicinity.28 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? a and b) No Impact. As mentioned, the Project is not within the vicinity of a site being used for aggregate production, nor are there any active or inactive mines in the vicinity. In addition, California’s Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources has no record of active or inactive oil or gas wells or petroleum resources on the Project site or in the vicinity. The Project lies within a large region that has been classified by CGS as MRZ-3, representing an area containing mineral deposits the significance of which cannot be evaluated from available data. However, there are no known current or historic mineral 25 (Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group 2022)
26 (California Department of Conservation 2016)
27 (California Department of Conservation 2018)
28 (California Department of Conservation 2024)
□ □ □
□ □ □

4.12.1 4.12.2
118
Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 4-42
resource extraction or recovery operations in the Project vicinity nor are there any known significant mineral resources onsite. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource since no known mineral resources occur in this area.

Furthermore, the Project area has not been designated as a locally important mineral resource recovery site by a general plan, specific plan, or land use plan. There would be no impact. 119
Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 4-43

4.13 NOISE
Table 4-23: Noise Impacts
Would the project result in:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the vicinity of the project in excess of
standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
b) Generation of excessive ground borne
vibration or ground borne noise levels?
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
Baseline Conditions
Noise is most often described as unwanted sound. Although sound can be easily measured, the perception of noise and the physical response to sound complicate the analysis of its impact on people. The City of Fowler is impacted by a multitude of noise sources. Principal noise sources include traffic on roadways, agricultural noise, and industrial noise. Mobile sources of noise, especially cars and trucks, are the most common and significant sources of noise in most communities, and they are predominant sources of noise in the City. The Project is located in an area consisting of residential and agricultural uses. The predominant noise sources in the Project site include traffic on local roadways and noise associated with active agriculture surrounding the Project site to the north, east, and west. Sensitive receptors (residences) abut the site to the south.

Applicable Regulations
City of Fowler Noise Ordinance: In addition to General Plan requirements, the City has established a Noise Ordinance in its municipal code. Noise ordinances establish noise limits for which penalties may be imposed or enforcement action may be taken. Therefore, while General Plan limits are to be taken into consideration during the development of a project and may or may not be strictly applied depending on the particular circumstances of the project, a noise ordinance generally must not be exceeded. In preparing a noise element, a city or county must identify local noise sources and analyze and quantify, to the extent practicable, current and projected noise levels for various sources, including highways and freeways; passenger and freight railroad operations; ground rapid transit systems; commercial, general, and military aviation and airport operations; and other ground stationary noise sources.

The Project is subject to the City of Fowler Noise Ordinance, which is covered in Chapter 21, Article 6 of the Municipal Code. It prohibits continued loud noise or noise which disturbs others by placing time constraints on noise producing activities and volume limits on noise amplification devices. □ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □

4.13.1 4.13.2
120
Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 4-44
Construction is specifically addressed in Chapter 21, Article 6, Section 5-21.601(d):

The erection (including excavating), demolition, alteration or repair of any building other than between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., except by special permit issued by the City Manager, Building Official, or City Engineer upon a determination that the public health and safety will not be impaired thereby. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to alter construction hours beyond those set forth in the conditions of approval for a development project.

Furthermore, noise level standards by receiving land use category have been established by the City of Fowler Municipal Code, as illustrated in Table 4-24, below.

Table 4-24: Noise Level Standards
Receiving Land Use Category Time Period Noise Level (dBA) Residential 10:00 p.m.—7:00 a.m. 50
7:00 a.m.—10:00 p.m. 60
Public Uses * 10:00 p.m.—7:00 a.m. 55
7:00 a.m.—10:00 p.m. 60
Commercial 10:00 p.m.—7:00 a.m. 60
7:00 a.m.—10:00 p.m. 65
Industrial Any time 70
* Public uses include schools, libraries, hospitals, churches, and parks.

Impact Analysis
a) Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less than Significant Impact. The Project would involve the construction of traffic control improvements and future industrial uses. The site is located in an area that is dominated by agricultural uses; however, there are single-family residences to the south of the site. The City of Fowler General Plan and the City municipal code establish a range of 50 dBA (A-weighted decibels) to 60 dBA as the normally acceptable exterior noise criteria for urban residential and noise sensitive receptors or public uses.

Activities associated with construction would result in temporary elevated noise levels, with maximum construction noise levels ranging between 74 dBA to 89 dBA at 50 feet distance. Typical construction equipment would include backhoes, tractors, air compressors, scrapers, drills, concrete mixers, and numerous other miscellaneous tools and equipment. Construction of the Project would result in temporary increased noise levels in the immediate vicinity.

As illustrated in Table 4-24 above, typical construction noise levels could range between 74 to 89 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from the source, according to criteria from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA).29 Implementation of feasible noise control measures, such as the installation of mufflers or engine casing, would result in noise reduction of 5-10 dBA per source. Generally, in accordance with the Fowler Municipal Code, construction would occur between the hours of 7am and 8pm, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. Additionally, as required by Section 9-5.1406 of the Fowler Municipal Code, a solid wall or screen six feet in height would be required to be built to buffer any adjoining non-industrial lands. 29 (Federal Highway Administration 2017)

4.13.3 121
Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 4-45
Because of these project features and the fact that construction noise will be temporary in nature, impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project result in generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? Less than Significant Impact. The FTA publication concerning noise and vibration impact assessment from transit activities has vibration standards suggestions. Although the FTA guidelines are to be applied to transit activities and construction, they may be reasonably applied to the assessment of the potential for annoyance or structural damage resulting from other activities. To prevent vibration annoyance in residences, a level of 80 VdB (vibration velocity level in dB) or less is suggested when there are fewer than 70 vibration events per day. A level of 100 VdB or less is suggested by the FTA guidelines to prevent damage to fragile buildings. Table 4-25 describes the typical construction equipment vibration levels.

While these construction-related activities would result in ground borne vibration, such ground borne noise or vibration would attenuate rapidly from the source and would not be generally perceptible outside of the construction-related areas. In addition, there would not be any vibrational impacts from operation and maintenance activities.

Table 4-25: Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Sources Levels Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Sources
Levels
Equipment PPV at 25 ft, in/sec Approximate Lv* at 25 ft Large bulldozer 0.089 87
Caisson drilling 0.089 87
Loaded trucks 0.076 86
Jackhammer 0.035 79
Small bulldozer 0.003 58
*RMS velocity in decibels, VdB re 1 micro-in/sec
Source: (John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center 2018) Construction-related activities in general can have the potential to create ground borne vibrations.

However, based on the soil types found in the general Project vicinity, there would not be any blasting or pile-driving in connection with construction of the Project. Therefore, the potential for ground borne vibrations to occur as part of construction-related activities of the Project would not be significant.

Additionally, operation of the Project would not contain any activities that would create excessive ground borne vibrations. The Project would not result in exposure of persons to, or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The Project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of an airport.

The Fresno Yosemite International Airport is located approximately nine miles north-northwest and the Selma Municipal Airport is located approximately four miles south-southeast of the Project. There would be no impact.
122
Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 4-46

4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Table 4-26: Population and Housing Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Baseline Conditions
The Project is located in Fresno County, within the planning area of the City of Fowler and unincorporated Fresno County. The City of Fowler planning area contains all the lands located in the Fowler’s city limits, it’s sphere of influence (SOI), and additional lands beyond Fowler’s SOI. As of 2022, Fresno County, which includes both unincorporated and incorporated areas, had a total population of 1,011,499.30 The unincorporated area makes up for 158,846 of the total population in Fresno County.31 As of 2022, the City of Fowler had a total population of 7,168.32 Unincorporated Fresno County maintains an average of 3.0 persons per household and 57,924 total housing units, while the City of Fowler maintains an average of 3.1 persons per household and 2,237 total housing units.33
Impact Analysis
a) Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
No Impact. The Project would not increase population or propose new homes. The Project would develop an industrial subdivision that would be developed internally with new roads that would connect to Clayton Avenue for access (see Figure 2-2). In addition to the development of new roads, wet and dry utility infrastructure would be constructed in the right of way of the new roads and would ultimately connect to the existing infrastructure surrounding the site. While the Project would propose the extension of roads and other infrastructure, they would not support residential development. Therefore, the Project would not induce population growth directly or indirectly. There would be no impact. 30 (Fresno Council of Governments 2023)
31 Ibid.
32 Ibid.
33 Ibid.
□ □ □
□ □ □

4.14.1 4.14.2
123
Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 4-47
b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. The Project site is primarily farmland; however, there is one single-family residence located at the northeastern corner of the Project site. As part of the Project, a 14.39-acre portion of the Project site, which includes the residence, would be prezoned to the R-1-6 zone district, which allows one dwelling unit per 7,000 square feet of land. In addition, this 14.39-acre area would be designated as a remainder on the proposed subdivision map and therefore would not be a part of the proposed subdivision and would be further analyzed in the future if and when an additional tentative map is placed on the property. Additionally, the residence would not be removed, and the site is being prezoned as residential in order for it to remain with a legal, conforming status with the City of Fowler. Therefore, the Project would not displace existing housing or people necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. There would be no impact.
124
Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 4-48

4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
Table 4-27: Public Services
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
i. Fire protection?
ii. Police protection?
iii. Schools?
iv. Parks?
v. Other public facilities?
Baseline Conditions
Fire Protection: The City of Fowler contracts with the Fresno County Fire Protection District for primary fire protection within the city limits. The nearest Fresno County Fire Protection District station, Fresno County Fire Station 89 is located approximately 4.9 miles west-northwest of the Project site.

Police Protection: The Fowler Police Department, located 0.6 miles southeast of the Project site, provides 24-hour policing services within the city limits.

Schools: John Fremont Elementary School is the nearest school to the Project site, located approximately a quarter-mile south.

Parks: The City of Fowler has four designated City Parks, all of which are managed by the City’s Department of Recreation. Panzak Park is the nearest park to the Project site, located approximately 0.5 miles southeast.

Library: The Fowler branch of the Fresno County Public Library is located 0.8 miles south of the Project site.

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

Less than Significant Impact. The Project would be served by the City of Fowler by way of the Fresno County Fire Protection District. The Project would be subject to the development impact fees for

4.15.2 125
Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 4-49
construction and acquisition costs for improvements to fire protection services and facilities. For these reasons, it can be determined that the Project can be served by existing facilities and would not result in the need for new or altered facilities Impacts would be less than significant. ii. Police Protection:

Less than Significant Impact. The Project would be served by the Fowler Police Department. The Project would be subject to the development impact fees for construction and acquisition costs for improvements to police protection services and facilities. For these reasons, it can be determined that the Project can be served by existing facilities and would not result in the need for new or altered facilities Impacts would be less than significant.
iii. Schools:

No Impact. The Project proposes an industrial subdivision and would not result in a net increase in the area population. The Project would include land pre-zoned for residential development; however, this area would not be included as a part of the proposed subdivision and would be subject to its own environmental analysis once/if it is further subdivided in the future. Thus, because of the nature of the Project and the characteristics of the area (i.e., industrial), there would be no increased demand for existing schools and the Project would thereby not result in adverse physical impacts or the need for altered or new facilities. Therefore, there would be no impact. iv. Parks:

No Impact. Park and recreational facilities are typically impacted by an increase in use from proposed residential development. As mentioned above, the portion of the Project site proposed to be pre-zoned to the R-1-6 zone district would require its own environmental analysis upon future subdivision unrelated to the Project. As the Project proposes industrial use, it can be presumed that it would not result in a net increase in the area population. Thus, because of the nature of the Project and the characteristics of the area (i.e., industrial), there would be no increased demand for existing neighborhood and regional parks, or other associated with the Project and the Project would thereby not result in adverse physical impacts or the need for altered or new facilities. Therefore, no impact would occur as a result of the Project. v. Other public facilities:

No Impact. As discussed throughout this section, the Project would not result in an increase in residents that would require other public services such as libraries or post offices. Therefore, the Project would not result in the need for new or altered facilities to provide other public services and no impact would occur as a result of the Project.
126
Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 4-50

4.16 RECREATION
Table 4-28: Recreation Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
Baseline Conditions
There are currently four City Parks in Fowler, all of which are administered by the Department of Parks and Recreation. Panzak Park covers an area of approximately 2.5 acres and includes a covered picnic area, large shade trees, playground equipment, and tennis courts. The recently developed Donny Wright Park covers an area of approximately six acres and includes an expanse of irrigated lawn and trails for recreation.

Margaret Cowings Park is an approximate 0.05-acre pocket park comprised of irrigated lawn and shade trees on the corner of Merced Street and Sixth Street in downtown Fowler. Also considered a City Park, the Fowler Veteran’s Monument covers an area of approximately 0.10 acres and includes benches on paved surfaces, a scenic fountain, several flag poles, ornamental hedges, and rose gardens. There are no State or regional parks within the planning area.

In addition to the four City Parks mentioned above, the City of Fowler also operates the Edwin Blayney Senior Center, which offers a meeting place and specialized recreation opportunities for senior citizens.

Impact Analysis
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No Impact. As the Project proposes to develop a 44-unit industrial subdivision, there is no anticipation that the Project would result in the increase in use of existing parks or other recreational facilities.

Therefore, the Project would not result in the physical deterioration of any such facilities. There would be no impact.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. The Project would not include or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. As mentioned, the Project would develop an industrial subdivision. The subdivision would not include any temporary or permanent residences that would accommodate inhabitants that could require additional facilities. While the Project would also include the annexation of land planned for residential □ □ □
□ □ □

4.16.1 4.16.2
127
Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 4-51
use, there would not be residential development proposed as part of the Project. Development of the proposed residential land would be carried out at a later time and would warrant its own environmental review separate from the Project. Therefore, there would be no impact. 128
Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 4-52

4.17 TRANSPORTATION
Table 4-29: Transportation Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Baseline Conditions
The Project is located in Fresno County just north of the City of Fowler. The Project site is bordered to the north by East Clayton Avenue, to the west by Golden State Boulevard, and to the east by North Fowler Avenue. The southern end of the Project site fronts a residential neighborhood. Access to the Project site would be provided at East Clayton Avenue between Golden State Boulevard and North Fowler Avenue. At the south end of the Project, Lynn Avenue dead ends at the south property line.

A Traffic Impact Study was prepared for the Project and can be found at the end of this document as Appendix D.

Impact Analysis
a) Would the project conflict with a plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Less than Significant Impact. A Traffic Study was prepared for the Project and recommended that several street intersections be upgraded in the future to satisfy the street circulation flow requirements of the 2040 Fowler General Plan, which are included in the project and can be seen in more detail in Section

2.1.6. These improvements include widening roads, adding turning lanes, and developing traffic signals to reduce any impacts that the Project may have on the existing circulation system. The Project would also be required to construct its fair share of Clayton Avenue right-of-way and provide for connections to the adjacent undeveloped land to the south. The Project would not conflict with plans, ordinances, and policies addressing the circulation system. Impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 subdivision (b)? Less than Significant Impact. The City has designated the site as Light Industrial and Medium Low Density Residential in the recently adopted General Plan and, associated with adoption of the General Plan and certification of the General Plan EIR, determined that vehicle miles traveled (VMT) would not result in a significant impact. According to the General Plan EIR, neither VMT per capita or per employee would □ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □

4.17.1 4.17.2
129
Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 4-53
exceed the adopted thresholds. Therefore, as identified in the General Plan, the Project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 subdivision (b). No further analysis is necessary.
c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less than Significant Impact. The Project will introduce six new local streets which will connect onto the City’s existing collector street system at Armstrong Avenue on the west border of the subdivision. The Project will introduce additional local streets consistent with the City’s Circulation Element. All roads will be built according to City of Fowler Street Design Standards. All rights-of-way proposed within the subdivision will be designed and constructed to meet City of Fowler Standard Specifications. The Project would not increase hazards due to Project design features or through the introduction of incompatible land uses into the existing community. There would be a less than significant impact d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Less than Significant Impact. The Project shall comply with all emergency access laws determined by federal, State, and local regulations. The proposed street layouts within the subdivision and all right-ofway improvements along major street frontages would be constructed to provide adequate emergency access. The Project would comply with the City of Fowler General Plan. As such, the Project would have a less than significant impact on emergency access.
130
Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 4-54

4.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Table 4-30: Tribal Cultural Resources Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource,
defined in Public Resources Code section
21074 as either a site, feature, place,
cultural landscape that is geographically
defined in terms of the size and scope of
the landscape, sacred place, or object with
cultural value to a California Native
American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in the local register of
historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k), or
ii. A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and supported
by substantial evidence, to be
significant pursuant to criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1. In
applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native
American tribe.

Baseline Conditions
Penutian-speaking Yokuts tribal groups occupied the southern San Joaquin Valley region and much of the nearby Sierra Nevada. For a variety of historical reasons, existing research information emphasizes the central Yokuts tribes who occupied both the valley and particularly the foothills of the Sierra. The northernmost tribes suffered from the influx of Euro-Americans during the Gold Rush and their populations were in substantial decline by the time ethnographic studies began in the early twentieth century. In contrast, the southernmost tribes were partially removed by the Spanish to missions and eventually absorbed into multi-tribal communities on the Sebastian Indian Reservation (on Tejon Ranch), and later the Tule River Reservation and Santa Rosa Rancheria to the north, as well as other reservations in the foothills and Sierras. The result is an unfortunate scarcity of ethnographic detail on valley tribes, especially in relation to the rich information collected from the central foothills tribes where native speakers of the Yokuts dialects are still found. Regardless, the general details of indigenous life-ways were similar across the broad expanse of Yokuts territory, particularly in terms of environmentally influenced subsistence and adaptation and with regard to religion and belief, which were similar everywhere. □ □ □
□ □ □

4.18.1 131
Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 4-55
Although population estimates vary and population size was greatly affected by the introduction of EuroAmerican diseases and social disruption, the Yokuts were one of the largest, most successful groups in Native California. It is estimated that the Yokuts region contained 27 percent of the aboriginal population in the state at the time of contact; other estimates are even higher. Many Yokut descendants continue to live in Fresno County, either on tribal reservations, or in local towns and communities.

Records Search
An archival records search was conducted at the California State University, Bakersfield, SSJVIC, in September 2024, to determine: (i) if prehistoric or historical cultural resources had previously been recorded within the area of potential effect; (ii) if the Project area had been systematically surveyed by archaeologists prior to the initiation of this field study; and/or (iii) whether the region of the Project was known to contain archaeological sites and to thereby be archaeologically sensitive. (Appendix C) According to the records search results, no previous studies have been conducted in the Project area, and no resources of any kind are known to exist within it. (Appendix C).

Assembly Bill 52
Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1, et seq. [codification of Assembly Bill (AB) 52, 2013-14)] requires that a lead agency, within fourteen (14) days of determining that it will undertake a project, must notify in writing any California Native American Tribe traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project if that Tribe has previously requested notification about projects in that geographic area. The notice must briefly describe the project and inquire whether the Tribe wishes to initiate request formal consultation. Tribes have 30 days from receipt of notification to request formal consultation. The lead agency then has 30 days to initiate the consultation, which then continues until the parties come to an agreement regarding necessary mitigation or agree that no mitigation is needed, or one or both parties determine that negotiation occurred in good faith, but no agreement will be made.

The City has received written correspondence from the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1 requesting notification of proposed projects. On October 24, 2024, the City sent a letter, via certified mail, to the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe notifying them of the Project. To date, a response has not been received by the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe.

Regulatory Setting
The following Fowler General Policies would apply to the Project:
o Policy CDES-12: All construction shall cease, and the Community Development Director and City Engineer shall be notified immediately if any prehistoric, archaeological, or fossil artifact or resource is uncovered during construction. All construction shall immediately stop and an archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in prehistoric or historical archaeology shall be retained, at the applicant’s and/or successors-ininterest’s expense, to evaluate the find(s) and recommend appropriate action according to Section 15064.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. If avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate measures would be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the project subject to direction of the archaeologist while assessment of historic resources or unique archaeological resources is being carried out.
o Policy CDES-13: All construction shall cease if any human remains are uncovered, and the Community Development Director, City Engineer and Fresno County Medical Examiner and Coroner shall be notified in accordance to Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code.

4.18.2 132
Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 4-56
If human remains are determined to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted, and the procedures outlined in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15064.5(e) shall be followed.

Impact Assessment
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in the local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Less than Significant Impact. No requests for tribal consultation for the Project have been received. In addition, the NAHC Sacred Lands File search results confirmed there were no recorded tribal cultural resources in the Project area. In the unlikely event that an archaeological resource is uncovered during construction, tribal in relation or not, all construction would cease, and a qualified archaeologist would be contacted to assess the resource. The Project would adhere to all applicable federal, State, and local requirements in regard to tribal cultural resources. General Plan Policies CDES-12 and CDES-13 described above, which are imposed as general conditions of approval, would ensure that potential impacts related to historic resources are less than significant.

4.18.3 133
Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 4-57

4.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Table 4-31: Utilities and Service Systems Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years?
c) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or
local standards, or in excess of the capacity
of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair
the attainment of solid waste reduction
goals?
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Baseline Conditions
The Project is located in Fresno County just north and adjacent to the City of Fowler. Lands within the unincorporated part of Fresno County rely on private wells for water and individual septic systems for sewage services. The subdivision area is planted with vineyards that are generally irrigated by drip, which is assumed to have a water consumption rate of 2.4 acre-feet per acre.34 The City of Fowler relies on groundwater pumped by City-owned wells to serve its residents. Sanitary sewer service is provided by SKFCSD and solid waste services are provided by Waste Management. Solid waste within Fresno County is transferred to the American Avenue Landfill in Kerman, CA, approximately 25 miles northwest of the Project site.

Impact Analysis
a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? 34 (United States Department of Agriculture 2023)
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □

4.19.1 4.19.2
134
Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 4-58
Less than Significant Impact. Upon development, the Project would connect to the City’s sanitary sewer system. According to District staff, the SKFCSD Treatment Plant has a capacity of 8.0 (mgd) with existing flows of 4.2 mgd (52.5% of capacity). By 2025, the SKFCSD Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects total flow at 5.71 mgd (71% of capacity). The Project is anticipated to generate approximately 1,290 gallons per day per acre, or approximately 0.04 mgd.35 Thus it is anticipated that the Project can be served by the SKFCSD Treatment Plant, and no new facilities would be needed.

Sewer infrastructure plans must be submitted to the District, including detailed floor and plumbing plans.

All sewer system facilities must be designed and constructed in accordance with the District’s Collection System Construction Standards, the District’s Sewer System Master Plan, and other requirements as may be specified by the District.

Expansion plans for a wastewater treatment plant are generally required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board when 70% of design capacity is reached. This threshold is not expected at the SKFCSD plant until after 2025. The District, however, is currently updating its Master Plan to include provisions for longterm expansion of the plant and will make interim improvements (such as refurbishing aerators, basin improvements, fleet replacements, etc.) in conformance with the 10-year CIP.

In accordance with Policy PF-17 of the City, the developer would be responsible for planning and installing wastewater collection and water delivery facilities as determined by the City Engineer. In addition, the developer would pay current development fees to off-set potential impacts to these facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.

The Fowler General Plan EIR concluded that implementation of the General Plan may require new or expanded water facilities to serve development within the SOI. The Project site is proposed for industrial and residential uses, consistent with the General Plan designation. Based on this consistency, the Project would not result in the need for new or expanded water facilities as a result of its development. b) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? No Impact. As discussed in Impact Analysis “b” of Section 4.10, the City has 6.8 mgd of remaining well capacity. As a result, adequate groundwater resources are available to meet the long-term water demand of the City; no surface water would need to be imported. The Project includes the development of industrial uses, consistent with the General Plan. The amount of water required from the Project to serve the site with industrial uses would be less than the amount of water required to serve the site as it exists today with agricultural uses, as typical industrial uses consume approximately 2.07 acre-feet per acre. 36 Since the City of Fowler has the same water source as the existing site, and would use less water than the existing on-site use, the Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge. The Project would have sufficient water supplies to be served, including reasonably foreseeable future development, during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. There would be no impact.
35 (Akel Engineering 2020)
36 Ibid.
135
Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 4-59
c) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Less than Significant Impact. As discussed above in Impact Analysis “a”, the SKF County Sanitation District Treatment Plant has a capacity of 8.0 mgd with existing flows of 4.2 mgd (52.5% of capacity). By 2025, the SKFCSD CIP projects total flow at 5.71 mgd (71% of capacity). The Treatment Plant can adequately handle the Project’s wastewater generation. It is anticipated that the Project can be served by the SKFCSD Treatment Plant, and no new facilities would be needed. Furthermore, the developer would pay current development fees to off-set potential impacts to these facilities. These fees would go towards future facility upgrades that may be needed as development occurs throughout the City. Impacts would be less than significant.
d) Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
d) and e) Less than Significant Impact. Project construction would generate minimal amounts of solid waste, which has to comply with construction debris recycling requirements. Operation of subsequent industrial developments would generate solid waste, and comply with state and local regulations regarding recycling, composting, and solid waste diversion requirements. The proposed road improvements would not generate any solid waste during operation. Therefore, the Project would comply with all federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste during construction. Any impact would be less than significant. 136
Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 4-60

4.20 WILDFIRE
Table 4-32: Wildfire Impacts
If located in or near state
responsibility areas or lands classified
as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and
thereby expose project occupants to
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrollable spread of wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads,
fuel breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines or other utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or that may result in
temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff,
post-fire slope instability, or drainage
changes?
Baseline Conditions
The Project site is located in Fresno County, inside the planning area of the City of Fowler. As mentioned in Section 4.15, the Project site would be served by Fresno County Fire Protection District for its fire protection needs. The site itself is in a agriculturally area with various row crops planted throughout the 45 acres it encompasses. Lands surrounding the site are similar in development.

According to CalFire, the Project is not located within an SRA, meaning CalFire does not assume responsibility for wildfire prevention and protection but is managed at the local level.37 Furthermore, according to CalFire, the proposed Project area is not located within a very high fire hazard severity zone, nor is the proposed Project located within a high or moderate fire hazard severity zone.38 Impact Analysis
a) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks and 37 (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 2022) 38 (ArcGIS 2023)
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □

4.20.1 4.20.2
137
Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 4-61
thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? a) - d) No Impact. The Project area is located in a section of Fresno County that has not been designated as either a very high fire hazard severity zone or an SRA. Therefore, further analysis is not required and there would be no impact.
138
Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 4-62

4.21 CEQA MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Table 4-33: CEQA Mandatory Findings of Significance
Does the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Have the potential to substantially degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community,
substantially reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable future projects)?
c) Have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Statement of Findings
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The analysis conducted in this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration results in a determination that the Project, with incorporation of mitigation measures, will have a less than significant effect on the environment. The potential for impacts related to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions from the implementation of the Project will be less than significant with the incorporation of the mitigation measures discussed in Chapter 5 Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program. One mitigation measure related to Air Quality is annotated as AIR1, which requires that construction of the subdivision and the buildings within shall utilize EPA Tier 4 Final engines or EPA Tier 3 engines with Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filter. The use of Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filters would reduce construction DPM emissions by approximately 75%, and presumably the cancer risk associated with construction would too fall by 75%, which would be sufficient to comply with Air District thresholds. Mitigation measures related to Greenhouse Gas Emissions include GHG-1 and GHG-2. GHG1 requires that buildings in the subdivision shall be constructed with electrically-powered appliances and building mechanical equipment in place of natural-gas fueled equipment. □ KI □ □
1 1 K □ 1 |

4.21.1 139
Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 4-63
GHG-2 requires that off-street parking in the subdivision shall exceed the California Green Building Standard Code Tier 2 requirements for electric vehicle charging infrastructure. Accordingly, with the inclusion of said mitigation measures, the Project would involve no potential for significant impacts through the degradation of the quality of the environment, the reduction in the habitat or population of fish or wildlife, including endangered plants or animals, the elimination of a plant or animal community or example of a major period of California history or prehistory. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(i) States that a Lead Agency shall consider whether the cumulative impact of a project is significant and whether the effects of the project are cumulatively considerable. The assessment of the significance of the cumulative effects of a project must, therefore, be conducted in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects. The Project would not result in direct or indirect unplanned population growth. Furthermore, potentially significant impacts of the Project would be reduced to a less than significant level following implementation of mitigation measures AIR-1, GHG-1, and GHG-2. Presumably, previously completed projects have also implemented mitigation as necessary.

Accordingly, the Project would not otherwise combine with impacts of related development to add considerably to any cumulative impacts in the Project region. With the inclusion of said mitigation, the Project would not have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. Therefore, the Project would have a less than cumulatively considerable impact with implementation of mitigation measures.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project proposes an industrial subdivision, traffic signal improvements, and the annexation of the Project property into the City of Fowler. The Project in and of itself would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Construction-related air quality/dust exposure impacts could occur temporarily as a result of Project construction. Industrial facilities may handle hazardous materials but would require to prepare and implement a Hazard Material Business Plan, the implementation of which is monitored by the County of Fresno. However, implementation of basic regulatory requirements identified in this IS/MND and mitigation measures referenced above would ensure that impacts are less than significant. Therefore, the Project would not have any direct or indirect adverse impacts on humans. This impact would be less than significant.

140
Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 5: Mitigation, Monitoring, & Reporting Program
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 5-1
CHAPTER 5 MITIGATION,

MONITORING, AND REPORTING

PROGRAM
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been formulated based upon the findings of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Project. The MMRP lists mitigation measures recommended in the IS/MND for the Project and identifies monitoring and reporting requirements.

Table 5-1: Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program presents the mitigation measures identified for the Project. Each mitigation measure is numbered with a symbol indicating the topical section to which it pertains, a hyphen, and the impact number. For example, AIR-2 would be the second mitigation measure identified in the Air Quality analysis of the IS/MND.

The first column of Table 5-1: Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program identifies the mitigation measure. The second column, entitled “When Monitoring is to Occur,” identifies the time the mitigation measure should be initiated. The third column, “Frequency of Monitoring,” identifies the frequency of the monitoring of the mitigation measure. The fourth column, “Agency Responsible for Monitoring,” names the party ultimately responsible for ensuring that the mitigation measure is implemented. The last columns will be used by the Lead and Responsible Agencies to ensure that individual mitigation measures have been complied with and monitored
141
Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 5: Mitigation, Monitoring, & Reporting Program
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 5-2
Table 5-1: Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program
Item Mitigation Measure When Monitoring is
to Occur
Frequency of
Monitoring
Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring
Method to
Verify
Compliance
Verification of
Compliance
Air Quality
AIR-1 Construction of the subdivision and the buildings within shall utilize EPA Tier 4 Final engines or EPA
Tier 3 engines with Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filters.

During construction During
construction Subdivider Rule 9510 Application
Biological Resources
BIO-1 Nesting Bird Avoidance: Project activities should occur, if feasible, between September 16 and
January 31 (outside of the nesting bird season) to
avoid impacts to nesting birds.

During construction During
construction Subdivider Report
BIO-2 Migratory Nesting Bird Pre-Activity Survey: If Project activities must occur within the migratory bird
nesting season (February 1 to September 15), a
qualified biologist should complete a pre-activity
survey for active nests within five (5) calendar days
prior to the start of Project activities. The survey
should be completed within the Project site, and all
accessible lands up to 100 feet outside of the Project
site for nesting migratory birds and up to 500 feet
outside of the Project site for nesting raptors. Raptor nests would be considered “active” upon the nestbuilding stage. If no active nests are observed, the Project may proceed. The biologist should also
conduct a one-time take avoid-ance preconstruction survey for Swainson’s hawk nests onsite and within a 0.5-mile radius. This one time
take avoidance survey will be conducted in
accordance with the Recommended Timing and
Meth-odology for Swainson's Hawk Nesting Surveys
in California's Central Valley (Swainson's Hawk
Technical Advisory Committee 2000), or current
guidance.

Within five calendar
days prior to the start
of construction
Once Subdivider Report
BIO-3 Nesting Bird Avoidance Buffers: On discovery of any active nests or breeding colonies near work areas, a
qualified biologist should determine appropriate
avoidance buffer distances based on applicable
Upon discovery of any
active nests or
breeding colonies
During
construction Subdivider Report
142
Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 5: Mitigation, Monitoring, & Reporting Program
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 5-3
Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program
Item Mitigation Measure When Monitoring is
to Occur
Frequency of
Monitoring
Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring
Method to
Verify
Compliance
Verification of
Compliance
CDFW and/or USFWS guidelines, the biology of the
species, conditions of the nest(s), and the level of
Project disturbance. If needed, avoidance buffers
should be identified with flagging, fencing, or other
easily visible means, and should be maintained until
the biologist has determined that the nestlings have
fledged.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
GHG-1 Buildings in the subdivision shall be
constructed with electrically-powered
appliances and building mechanical equipment
in place of natural-gas fueled equipment.

During construction During
construction Subdivider Building plans
GHG-2 Off-street parking in the subdivision shall
exceed the California Green Building Standard
Code Tier 2 requirements for electric vehicle
charging infrastructure.

During construction During
construction Subdivider Building plans
143
Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 6: References
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 6-1
CHAPTER 6 REFERENCES
Akel Engineering. 2020. "Water and Wastewater Unit Factor Update for Metropolitan Water Resources Management Plan Update."
ArcGIS. 2023. Is Your Home in a Fire Hazard Severity Zone? https://www.arcgis.com/apps/Styler/index.html?appid=5e96315793d445419b6c96f89ce5d153.

Calfornia Department of Conservation. 2020. Important Farmland Categories. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Important-Farmland-Categories.aspx.

California Department of Conservation. 2018. "California Geological Survey - Aggregate Sustainability in California." https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/Publications/MapSheets/MS_052_California_Aggregates_Map_201807.pdf. —. 2023. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/. —. 2016. Mines Online. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/mol/index.html. —. 2024. Oil & Gas Well Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/. —. 2024. Well Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2024. California Natural Diversity Database. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2022. California State Responsibility Areas. https://www.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?layers=5ac1dae3cb2544629a845d9a19e83 991.

California Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2024. California Department of Toxic Substances Control EnviroStor. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/.

California Department of Transportation. 2023. California State Scenic Highway System Map. https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=2e921695c43643b1aaf7000dfcc199

83. California Department of Water Resources. 2018. DWR Groundwater Basin Boundary Assessment Tool. https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bbat/.

California State Geoportal. 2022. CGS Seismic Hazards Program: Liquefaction Zones. February 11. https://gis.data.ca.gov/datasets/cadoc::cgs-seismic-hazards-program-liquefaction-zones1/explore?location=36.619171%2C-119.721226%2C9.55.

City of Fowler. 2023. "Annual Water Quality Report." Fowler. https://fowlercity.org/wpcontent/uploads/2024/06/Annual-Water-Quality-Report-2023.pdf.

County of Fresno Department of Public Health. 2024. "Hazardous Materials Business Plans." https://www.fresnocountyca.gov/Departments/Public-Health/Environmental-Health/HazardousMaterials-Business-Plans. 144
Section 7, Item 7D
Chapter 6: References
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 6-2
Federal Highway Administration . 2017. Construction Noise Handbook. Accessed April 2023. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/handbook/handbook09.cfm.

Fresno Council of Governments. 2023. "Fresno Multi-Jurisdictional 2023-2031 Housing Element HCD Review Draft." https://www.fresnocountyca.gov/files/assets/county/v/1/2023- 2031_mjhe_regional_fresnocounty.pdf.

Harden, D.R. 1998. California Geology. Prentice Hall.

John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center. 2018. "FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual ." https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/researchinnovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no0123_0.pdf.

Municode Codification. 2024. Fowler, CA Municipal Code Section 9-5.1402. https://library.municode.com/ca/fowler/codes/zoning?nodeId=ZONING_ORDINANCE_ART14- LINDI_9-5.1402SPPRDEST.
—. 2024. Fowler, CA Municipal Code Section 9-5.1406.
https://library.municode.com/ca/fowler/codes/zoning?nodeId=ZONING_ORDINANCE_ART14- LINDI_9-5.1402SPPRDEST.

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group. 2022. "City of Fowler 2040 General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report." Draft Environmental Impact Report, Fowler. https://fowlercity.org/wpcontent/uploads/2022/12/Fowler-General-Plan-DEIR_Combined-II.pdf.

Provost and Pritchard. 2023. "City of Fowler, Well No. 9 Schematic Design Technical Memorandum." 49.

Accessed July 2023.

State of California. 2024. State Water Resources Control Board Geo Tracker. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/.

The County of Fresno Department of Agriculture and Weights and Measures. 2024. "2023 Crop Report." https://www.fresnocountyca.gov/files/sharedassets/county/v/1/agricultural-commissioner/agcrop-reports/2023-ag-crop-report.pdf.

United States Department of Agriculture. 2023. "2022 Census of Agriculture, 2023 Irrigation and Water Management Survey."
—. 2024. Web Soil Survey. Accessed January 29, 2024.
https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx.

United States Fish & Wildlife Service. 2022. Environmental Conservation Online System. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/.
145
Section 7, Item 7D
Appendices
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 A-1
Appendix A: CalEEMod Output Files
146
Section 7, Item 7D
Clayton Avenue Tentative Map Custom Report, 12/2/2024
1 / 57
Clayton Avenue Tentative Map Custom Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated

3.2. Site Preparation (2025) - Mitigated

3.3. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated
147
Section 7, Item 7D
Clayton Avenue Tentative Map Custom Report, 12/2/2024
2 / 57

3.4. Grading (2025) - Mitigated

3.5. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated

3.6. Building Construction (2025) - Mitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated

3.8. Building Construction (2026) - Mitigated

3.9. Paving (2026) - Unmitigated

3.10. Paving (2026) - Mitigated

3.11. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated

3.12. Architectural Coating (2026) - Mitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.1.2. Mitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated 148 Section 7, Item 7D
Clayton Avenue Tentative Map Custom Report, 12/2/2024
3 / 57

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.3.2. Mitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.4.2. Mitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.5.2. Mitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.6.2. Mitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.7.2. Mitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment 149
Section 7, Item 7D
Clayton Avenue Tentative Map Custom Report, 12/2/2024
4 / 57

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.2.2. Mitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.3.2. Mitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.9.2. Mitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths 150
Section 7, Item 7D
Clayton Avenue Tentative Map Custom Report, 12/2/2024
5 / 57

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.1.2. Mitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.11.2. Mitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.12.2. Mitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.13.2. Mitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.14.2. Mitigated

8. User Changes to Default Data 151
Section 7, Item 7D
Clayton Avenue Tentative Map Custom Report, 12/2/2024
6 / 57

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Clayton Avenue Tentative Map
Construction Start Date 1/1/2025
Operational Year 2025
Lead Agency City of Fowler
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.70
Precipitation (days) 25.4
Location 36.640257631018144, -119.68908606371927
County Fresno
City Unincorporated
Air District San Joaquin Valley APCD
Air Basin San Joaquin Valley
TAZ 2535
EDFZ 5
Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Gas Utility Pacific Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.29

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Industrial Park 392 1000sqft 9.00 392,000 0.00 — — —
152
Section 7, Item 7D
Clayton Avenue Tentative Map Custom Report, 12/2/2024
7 / 57
Parking Lot 22.0 Acre 22.0 0.00 143,487 — — —

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title
Construction C-6 Use Diesel Particulate Filters

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. 104 104 12.2 19.8 0.03 0.44 1.11 1.55 0.41 0.27 0.68 — 4,241 4,241 0.15 0.19 5.93 4,306 Mit. 104 104 12.2 19.8 0.03 0.08 1.11 1.19 0.07 0.27 0.34 — 4,241 4,241 0.15 0.19 5.93 4,306 %
Reduced
— — — — — 83% — 24% 83% — 50% — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 4.01 3.38 31.7 30.7 0.06 1.37 7.76 9.13 1.26 3.96 5.22 — 6,706 6,706 0.27 0.19 0.15 6,731 Mit. 4.01 3.38 31.7 30.7 0.06 0.20 7.76 7.97 0.19 3.96 4.15 — 6,706 6,706 0.27 0.19 0.15 6,731 %
Reduced
— — — — — 85% — 13% 85% — 20% — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 6.77 6.65 11.0 14.7 0.02 0.42 1.21 1.63 0.38 0.40 0.79 — 3,250 3,250 0.12 0.12 1.54 3,290 Mit. 6.77 6.65 11.0 14.7 0.02 0.07 1.21 1.28 0.06 0.40 0.47 — 3,250 3,250 0.12 0.12 1.54 3,290 153
Section 7, Item 7D
Clayton Avenue Tentative Map Custom Report, 12/2/2024
8 / 57
%
Reduced
— — — — — 84% — 21% 84% — 41% — — — — — — —
Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.24 1.21 2.00 2.68 < 0.005 0.08 0.22 0.30 0.07 0.07 0.14 — 538 538 0.02 0.02 0.25 545 Mit. 1.24 1.21 2.00 2.68 < 0.005 0.01 0.22 0.23 0.01 0.07 0.09 — 538 538 0.02 0.02 0.25 545 %
Reduced
— — — — — 84% — 21% 84% — 41% — — — — — — —

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 2.16 1.88 12.2 19.8 0.03 0.44 1.11 1.55 0.41 0.27 0.68 — 4,241 4,241 0.15 0.19 5.93 4,306 2026 104 104 11.5 19.2 0.03 0.39 1.11 1.50 0.36 0.27 0.63 — 4,204 4,204 0.15 0.19 5.33 4,268 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 4.01 3.38 31.7 30.7 0.06 1.37 7.76 9.13 1.26 3.96 5.22 — 6,706 6,706 0.27 0.19 0.15 6,731 2026 1.94 1.69 11.7 18.1 0.03 0.39 1.11 1.50 0.36 0.27 0.63 — 4,096 4,096 0.15 0.19 0.14 4,155 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 1.71 1.47 11.0 14.7 0.02 0.42 1.21 1.63 0.38 0.40 0.79 — 3,250 3,250 0.12 0.12 1.54 3,290 2026 6.77 6.65 5.34 8.38 0.01 0.18 0.48 0.66 0.17 0.12 0.28 — 1,848 1,848 0.07 0.08 0.99 1,875 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.31 0.27 2.00 2.68 < 0.005 0.08 0.22 0.30 0.07 0.07 0.14 — 538 538 0.02 0.02 0.25 545 2026 1.24 1.21 0.98 1.53 < 0.005 0.03 0.09 0.12 0.03 0.02 0.05 — 306 306 0.01 0.01 0.16 310 154
Section 7, Item 7D
Clayton Avenue Tentative Map Custom Report, 12/2/2024
9 / 57

2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 2.16 1.88 12.2 19.8 0.03 0.08 1.11 1.19 0.07 0.27 0.34 — 4,241 4,241 0.15 0.19 5.93 4,306 2026 104 104 11.5 19.2 0.03 0.07 1.11 1.18 0.06 0.27 0.33 — 4,204 4,204 0.15 0.19 5.33 4,268 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 4.01 3.38 31.7 30.7 0.06 0.20 7.76 7.97 0.19 3.96 4.15 — 6,706 6,706 0.27 0.19 0.15 6,731 2026 1.94 1.69 11.7 18.1 0.03 0.07 1.11 1.18 0.06 0.27 0.33 — 4,096 4,096 0.15 0.19 0.14 4,155 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 1.71 1.47 11.0 14.7 0.02 0.07 1.21 1.28 0.06 0.40 0.47 — 3,250 3,250 0.12 0.12 1.54 3,290 2026 6.77 6.65 5.34 8.38 0.01 0.03 0.48 0.51 0.03 0.12 0.14 — 1,848 1,848 0.07 0.08 0.99 1,875 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.31 0.27 2.00 2.68 < 0.005 0.01 0.22 0.23 0.01 0.07 0.09 — 538 538 0.02 0.02 0.25 545 2026 1.24 1.21 0.98 1.53 < 0.005 0.01 0.09 0.09 0.01 0.02 0.03 — 306 306 0.01 0.01 0.16 310

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 18.4 17.5 11.8 76.4 0.16 0.45 10.0 10.5 0.44 2.54 2.98 436 24,206 24,642 45.8 1.32 147 26,329 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
155
Section 7, Item 7D
Clayton Avenue Tentative Map Custom Report, 12/2/2024
10 / 57
Unmit. 14.7 14.0 12.7 47.5 0.14 0.42 10.0 10.5 0.42 2.54 2.96 436 22,981 23,417 45.9 1.37 103 25,075 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 16.3 15.5 12.3 57.2 0.15 0.44 9.87 10.3 0.43 2.50 2.93 436 23,342 23,777 45.8 1.35 122 25,446 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.97 2.83 2.24 10.4 0.03 0.08 1.80 1.88 0.08 0.46 0.53 72.1 3,864 3,937 7.59 0.22 20.1 4,213

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 5.86 5.44 7.43 55.8 0.13 0.10 10.0 10.1 0.10 2.54 2.64 — 13,312 13,312 0.43 0.78 45.2 13,599 Area 12.1 11.8 0.14 17.0 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.02 — 0.02 — 70.1 70.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 70.4 Energy 0.46 0.23 4.21 3.53 0.03 0.32 — 0.32 0.32 — 0.32 — 10,622 10,622 1.35 0.12 — 10,692 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 174 202 376 17.8 0.43 — 949 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 262 0.00 262 26.2 0.00 — 917 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 102 102
Total 18.4 17.5 11.8 76.4 0.16 0.45 10.0 10.5 0.44 2.54 2.98 436 24,206 24,642 45.8 1.32 147 26,329 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 5.19 4.75 8.48 44.0 0.12 0.10 10.0 10.1 0.10 2.54 2.64 — 12,156 12,156 0.50 0.82 1.17 12,416 Area 9.03 9.03 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.46 0.23 4.21 3.53 0.03 0.32 — 0.32 0.32 — 0.32 — 10,622 10,622 1.35 0.12 — 10,692 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 174 202 376 17.8 0.43 — 949 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 262 0.00 262 26.2 0.00 — 917 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 102 102
156
Section 7, Item 7D
Clayton Avenue Tentative Map Custom Report, 12/2/2024
11 / 57
Total 14.7 14.0 12.7 47.5 0.14 0.42 10.0 10.5 0.42 2.54 2.96 436 22,981 23,417 45.9 1.37 103 25,075 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 5.27 4.85 7.97 45.3 0.12 0.10 9.87 9.97 0.10 2.50 2.60 — 12,483 12,483 0.46 0.80 19.5 12,752 Area 10.5 10.4 0.07 8.41 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 34.6 34.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 34.7 Energy 0.46 0.23 4.21 3.53 0.03 0.32 — 0.32 0.32 — 0.32 — 10,622 10,622 1.35 0.12 — 10,692 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 174 202 376 17.8 0.43 — 949 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 262 0.00 262 26.2 0.00 — 917 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 102 102
Total 16.3 15.5 12.3 57.2 0.15 0.44 9.87 10.3 0.43 2.50 2.93 436 23,342 23,777 45.8 1.35 122 25,446 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.96 0.88 1.46 8.27 0.02 0.02 1.80 1.82 0.02 0.46 0.47 — 2,067 2,067 0.08 0.13 3.23 2,111 Area 1.92 1.90 0.01 1.53 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 5.72 5.72 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.74 Energy 0.08 0.04 0.77 0.64 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 1,759 1,759 0.22 0.02 — 1,770 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 28.8 33.5 62.2 2.95 0.07 — 157 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 43.4 0.00 43.4 4.33 0.00 — 152 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 16.9 16.9
Total 2.97 2.83 2.24 10.4 0.03 0.08 1.80 1.88 0.08 0.46 0.53 72.1 3,864 3,937 7.59 0.22 20.1 4,213

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 5.86 5.44 7.43 55.8 0.13 0.10 10.0 10.1 0.10 2.54 2.64 — 13,312 13,312 0.43 0.78 45.2 13,599 Area 12.1 11.8 0.14 17.0 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.02 — 0.02 — 70.1 70.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 70.4 Energy 0.46 0.23 4.21 3.53 0.03 0.32 — 0.32 0.32 — 0.32 — 10,622 10,622 1.35 0.12 — 10,692 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 174 202 376 17.8 0.43 — 949 157 Section 7, Item 7D
Clayton Avenue Tentative Map Custom Report, 12/2/2024
12 / 57
Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 262 0.00 262 26.2 0.00 — 917 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 102 102
Total 18.4 17.5 11.8 76.4 0.16 0.45 10.0 10.5 0.44 2.54 2.98 436 24,206 24,642 45.8 1.32 147 26,329 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 5.19 4.75 8.48 44.0 0.12 0.10 10.0 10.1 0.10 2.54 2.64 — 12,156 12,156 0.50 0.82 1.17 12,416 Area 9.03 9.03 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.46 0.23 4.21 3.53 0.03 0.32 — 0.32 0.32 — 0.32 — 10,622 10,622 1.35 0.12 — 10,692 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 174 202 376 17.8 0.43 — 949 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 262 0.00 262 26.2 0.00 — 917 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 102 102
Total 14.7 14.0 12.7 47.5 0.14 0.42 10.0 10.5 0.42 2.54 2.96 436 22,981 23,417 45.9 1.37 103 25,075 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 5.27 4.85 7.97 45.3 0.12 0.10 9.87 9.97 0.10 2.50 2.60 — 12,483 12,483 0.46 0.80 19.5 12,752 Area 10.5 10.4 0.07 8.41 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 34.6 34.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 34.7 Energy 0.46 0.23 4.21 3.53 0.03 0.32 — 0.32 0.32 — 0.32 — 10,622 10,622 1.35 0.12 — 10,692 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 174 202 376 17.8 0.43 — 949 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 262 0.00 262 26.2 0.00 — 917 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 102 102
Total 16.3 15.5 12.3 57.2 0.15 0.44 9.87 10.3 0.43 2.50 2.93 436 23,342 23,777 45.8 1.35 122 25,446 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.96 0.88 1.46 8.27 0.02 0.02 1.80 1.82 0.02 0.46 0.47 — 2,067 2,067 0.08 0.13 3.23 2,111 Area 1.92 1.90 0.01 1.53 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 5.72 5.72 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.74 Energy 0.08 0.04 0.77 0.64 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 1,759 1,759 0.22 0.02 — 1,770 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 28.8 33.5 62.2 2.95 0.07 — 157 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 43.4 0.00 43.4 4.33 0.00 — 152 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 16.9 16.9
158
Section 7, Item 7D
Clayton Avenue Tentative Map Custom Report, 12/2/2024
13 / 57
Total 2.97 2.83 2.24 10.4 0.03 0.08 1.80 1.88 0.08 0.46 0.53 72.1 3,864 3,937 7.59 0.22 20.1 4,213

3. Construction Emissions Details

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

3.94 3.31 31.6 30.2 0.05 1.37 — 1.37 1.26 — 1.26 — 5,295 5,295 0.21 0.04 — 5,314 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 7.67 7.67 — 3.94 3.94 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.11 0.09 0.87 0.83 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.03 — 0.03 — 145 145 0.01 < 0.005 — 146 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.21 0.21 — 0.11 0.11 — — — — — — —
159
Section 7, Item 7D
Clayton Avenue Tentative Map Custom Report, 12/2/2024
14 / 57
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.02 0.02 0.16 0.15 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 24.0 24.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 24.1 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.04 0.04 — 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 94.2 94.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 95.6 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.67 2.67 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.72 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.44 0.44 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.45 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 160
Section 7, Item 7D
Clayton Avenue Tentative Map Custom Report, 12/2/2024
15 / 57

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

3.94 3.31 31.6 30.2 0.05 0.20 — 0.20 0.19 — 0.19 — 5,295 5,295 0.21 0.04 — 5,314 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 7.67 7.67 — 3.94 3.94 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.11 0.09 0.87 0.83 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 145 145 0.01 < 0.005 — 146 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.21 0.21 — 0.11 0.11 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
161
Section 7, Item 7D
Clayton Avenue Tentative Map Custom Report, 12/2/2024
16 / 57
Off-Roa 0.02 0.02 0.16 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 24.0 24.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 24.1 d
Equipm
ent
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.04 0.04 — 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 94.2 94.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 95.6 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.67 2.67 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.72 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.44 0.44 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.45 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.3. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 162
Section 7, Item 7D
Clayton Avenue Tentative Map Custom Report, 12/2/2024
17 / 57
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

3.80 3.20 29.7 28.3 0.06 1.23 — 1.23 1.14 — 1.14 — 6,599 6,599 0.27 0.05 — 6,622 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 3.59 3.59 — 1.42 1.42 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

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

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

0.07 0.06 0.52 0.50 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 105 105 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 105 163
Section 7, Item 7D
Clayton Avenue Tentative Map Custom Report, 12/2/2024
18 / 57
Dust — — — — — — 0.06 0.06 — 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — —
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.08 0.05 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 108 108 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 109 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.7 10.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 10.9 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.77 1.77 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.80 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.4. Grading (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
164
Section 7, Item 7D
Clayton Avenue Tentative Map Custom Report, 12/2/2024
19 / 57
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

3.80 3.20 29.7 28.3 0.06 0.19 — 0.19 0.17 — 0.17 — 6,599 6,599 0.27 0.05 — 6,622 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 3.59 3.59 — 1.42 1.42 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.36 0.31 2.85 2.71 0.01 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 633 633 0.03 0.01 — 635 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.34 0.34 — 0.14 0.14 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.07 0.06 0.52 0.50 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 105 105 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 105 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.06 0.06 — 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — —
165
Section 7, Item 7D
Clayton Avenue Tentative Map Custom Report, 12/2/2024
20 / 57
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.08 0.05 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 108 108 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 109 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.7 10.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 10.9 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.77 1.77 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.80 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.5. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
166
Section 7, Item 7D
Clayton Avenue Tentative Map Custom Report, 12/2/2024
21 / 57
Off-Roa 1.35 1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 d
Equipm
ent
Onsite
truck

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

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

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

0.80 0.67 6.17 7.71 0.01 0.26 — 0.26 0.23 — 0.23 — 1,417 1,417 0.06 0.01 — 1,422 Onsite
truck

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

0.15 0.12 1.13 1.41 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.04 — 0.04 — 235 235 0.01 < 0.005 — 235 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.75 0.71 0.37 6.13 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.90 0.00 0.21 0.21 — 998 998 0.03 0.04 3.74 1,015 Vendor 0.07 0.05 1.36 0.60 0.01 0.01 0.22 0.23 0.01 0.06 0.07 — 845 845 0.02 0.12 2.20 885 167 Section 7, Item 7D
Clayton Avenue Tentative Map Custom Report, 12/2/2024
22 / 57
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.67 0.62 0.45 4.97 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.90 0.00 0.21 0.21 — 886 886 0.04 0.04 0.10 900 Vendor 0.06 0.04 1.45 0.63 0.01 0.01 0.22 0.23 0.01 0.06 0.07 — 847 847 0.02 0.12 0.06 884 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.40 0.37 0.24 2.98 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.52 0.00 0.12 0.12 — 542 542 0.02 0.03 0.95 551 Vendor 0.04 0.03 0.83 0.36 < 0.005 0.01 0.13 0.13 0.01 0.03 0.04 — 500 500 0.01 0.07 0.56 523 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.07 0.04 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 89.8 89.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.16 91.3 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.15 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 82.8 82.8 < 0.005 0.01 0.09 86.5 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

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

1.35 1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 168
Section 7, Item 7D
Clayton Avenue Tentative Map Custom Report, 12/2/2024
23 / 57
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.35 1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck

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

0.80 0.67 6.17 7.71 0.01 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 1,417 1,417 0.06 0.01 — 1,422 Onsite
truck

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

0.15 0.12 1.13 1.41 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 235 235 0.01 < 0.005 — 235 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.75 0.71 0.37 6.13 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.90 0.00 0.21 0.21 — 998 998 0.03 0.04 3.74 1,015 Vendor 0.07 0.05 1.36 0.60 0.01 0.01 0.22 0.23 0.01 0.06 0.07 — 845 845 0.02 0.12 2.20 885 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.67 0.62 0.45 4.97 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.90 0.00 0.21 0.21 — 886 886 0.04 0.04 0.10 900 169
Section 7, Item 7D
Clayton Avenue Tentative Map Custom Report, 12/2/2024
24 / 57
Vendor 0.06 0.04 1.45 0.63 0.01 0.01 0.22 0.23 0.01 0.06 0.07 — 847 847 0.02 0.12 0.06 884 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.40 0.37 0.24 2.98 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.52 0.00 0.12 0.12 — 542 542 0.02 0.03 0.95 551 Vendor 0.04 0.03 0.83 0.36 < 0.005 0.01 0.13 0.13 0.01 0.03 0.04 — 500 500 0.01 0.07 0.56 523 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.07 0.04 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 89.8 89.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.16 91.3 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.15 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 82.8 82.8 < 0.005 0.01 0.09 86.5 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

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

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

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

1.28 1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38 — 0.38 0.35 — 0.35 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 170
Section 7, Item 7D
Clayton Avenue Tentative Map Custom Report, 12/2/2024
25 / 57
Onsite
truck

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

0.54 0.45 4.17 5.48 0.01 0.16 — 0.16 0.15 — 0.15 — 1,013 1,013 0.04 0.01 — 1,017 Onsite
truck

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

0.10 0.08 0.76 1.00 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 168 168 0.01 < 0.005 — 168 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.70 0.65 0.34 5.64 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.90 0.00 0.21 0.21 — 977 977 0.03 0.04 3.39 994 Vendor 0.07 0.05 1.32 0.59 0.01 0.01 0.22 0.23 0.01 0.06 0.07 — 829 829 0.02 0.12 1.94 869 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.60 0.58 0.42 4.56 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.90 0.00 0.21 0.21 — 868 868 0.04 0.04 0.09 881 Vendor 0.06 0.04 1.40 0.61 0.01 0.01 0.22 0.23 0.01 0.06 0.07 — 831 831 0.02 0.12 0.05 869 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.27 0.25 0.16 1.96 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.37 0.00 0.09 0.09 — 380 380 0.01 0.02 0.62 386 Vendor 0.03 0.02 0.58 0.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.09 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 — 351 351 0.01 0.05 0.35 367 171 Section 7, Item 7D
Clayton Avenue Tentative Map Custom Report, 12/2/2024
26 / 57
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 62.9 62.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.10 63.9 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.11 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 58.1 58.1 < 0.005 0.01 0.06 60.8 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

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

1.28 1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.06 — 0.06 0.05 — 0.05 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck

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

1.28 1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.06 — 0.06 0.05 — 0.05 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck

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

0.54 0.45 4.17 5.48 0.01 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 1,013 1,013 0.04 0.01 — 1,017 172
Section 7, Item 7D
Clayton Avenue Tentative Map Custom Report, 12/2/2024
27 / 57
Onsite
truck

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

0.10 0.08 0.76 1.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 168 168 0.01 < 0.005 — 168 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.70 0.65 0.34 5.64 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.90 0.00 0.21 0.21 — 977 977 0.03 0.04 3.39 994 Vendor 0.07 0.05 1.32 0.59 0.01 0.01 0.22 0.23 0.01 0.06 0.07 — 829 829 0.02 0.12 1.94 869 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.60 0.58 0.42 4.56 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.90 0.00 0.21 0.21 — 868 868 0.04 0.04 0.09 881 Vendor 0.06 0.04 1.40 0.61 0.01 0.01 0.22 0.23 0.01 0.06 0.07 — 831 831 0.02 0.12 0.05 869 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.27 0.25 0.16 1.96 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.37 0.00 0.09 0.09 — 380 380 0.01 0.02 0.62 386 Vendor 0.03 0.02 0.58 0.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.09 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 — 351 351 0.01 0.05 0.35 367 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 62.9 62.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.10 63.9 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.11 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 58.1 58.1 < 0.005 0.01 0.06 60.8 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 173
Section 7, Item 7D
Clayton Avenue Tentative Map Custom Report, 12/2/2024
28 / 57

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

0.91 0.76 7.12 9.94 0.01 0.32 — 0.32 0.29 — 0.29 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,516 Paving 2.88 2.88 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.05 0.04 0.39 0.54 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 82.8 82.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 83.1 Paving 0.16 0.16 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.01 0.01 0.07 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 13.7 13.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.8 Paving 0.03 0.03 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 174
Section 7, Item 7D
Clayton Avenue Tentative Map Custom Report, 12/2/2024
29 / 57
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.03 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 89.0 89.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.31 90.6 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.49 4.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.56 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.74 0.74 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.76 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

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

0.91 0.76 7.12 9.94 0.01 0.05 — 0.05 0.04 — 0.04 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,516 Paving 2.88 2.88 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
175
Section 7, Item 7D
Clayton Avenue Tentative Map Custom Report, 12/2/2024
30 / 57
Onsite
truck

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

0.05 0.04 0.39 0.54 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 82.8 82.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 83.1 Paving 0.16 0.16 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.01 0.01 0.07 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 13.7 13.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.8 Paving 0.03 0.03 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.03 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 89.0 89.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.31 90.6 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.49 4.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.56 176 Section 7, Item 7D
Clayton Avenue Tentative Map Custom Report, 12/2/2024
31 / 57
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.74 0.74 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.76 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

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

0.15 0.12 0.86 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coating
s
104 104 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.01 0.01 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.32 7.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.34 177
Section 7, Item 7D
Clayton Avenue Tentative Map Custom Report, 12/2/2024
32 / 57
Architect 5.71 5.71 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ural
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.21 1.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.22 Architect
ural
Coating
s

1.04 1.04 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.14 0.13 0.07 1.13 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 195 195 0.01 0.01 0.68 199 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.85 9.85 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 10.0 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.63 1.63 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.66 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 178
Section 7, Item 7D
Clayton Avenue Tentative Map Custom Report, 12/2/2024
33 / 57

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

0.15 0.12 0.86 1.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coating
s
104 104 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

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

5.71 5.71 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
179
Section 7, Item 7D
Clayton Avenue Tentative Map Custom Report, 12/2/2024
34 / 57
Off-Roa < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.21 1.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.22 d
Equipm
ent
Architect
ural
Coating
s

1.04 1.04 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.14 0.13 0.07 1.13 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 195 195 0.01 0.01 0.68 199 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.85 9.85 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 10.0 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.63 1.63 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.66 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4. Operations Emissions Details
180
Section 7, Item 7D
Clayton Avenue Tentative Map Custom Report, 12/2/2024
35 / 57

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Industria
l
Park

5.86 5.44 7.43 55.8 0.13 0.10 10.0 10.1 0.10 2.54 2.64 — 13,312 13,312 0.43 0.78 45.2 13,599 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 5.86 5.44 7.43 55.8 0.13 0.10 10.0 10.1 0.10 2.54 2.64 — 13,312 13,312 0.43 0.78 45.2 13,599 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Industria
l
Park

5.19 4.75 8.48 44.0 0.12 0.10 10.0 10.1 0.10 2.54 2.64 — 12,156 12,156 0.50 0.82 1.17 12,416 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 5.19 4.75 8.48 44.0 0.12 0.10 10.0 10.1 0.10 2.54 2.64 — 12,156 12,156 0.50 0.82 1.17 12,416 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Industria
l
Park

0.96 0.88 1.46 8.27 0.02 0.02 1.80 1.82 0.02 0.46 0.47 — 2,067 2,067 0.08 0.13 3.23 2,111 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.96 0.88 1.46 8.27 0.02 0.02 1.80 1.82 0.02 0.46 0.47 — 2,067 2,067 0.08 0.13 3.23 2,111

4.1.2. Mitigated
181
Section 7, Item 7D
Clayton Avenue Tentative Map Custom Report, 12/2/2024
36 / 57
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Industria
l
Park

5.86 5.44 7.43 55.8 0.13 0.10 10.0 10.1 0.10 2.54 2.64 — 13,312 13,312 0.43 0.78 45.2 13,599 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 5.86 5.44 7.43 55.8 0.13 0.10 10.0 10.1 0.10 2.54 2.64 — 13,312 13,312 0.43 0.78 45.2 13,599 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Industria
l
Park

5.19 4.75 8.48 44.0 0.12 0.10 10.0 10.1 0.10 2.54 2.64 — 12,156 12,156 0.50 0.82 1.17 12,416 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 5.19 4.75 8.48 44.0 0.12 0.10 10.0 10.1 0.10 2.54 2.64 — 12,156 12,156 0.50 0.82 1.17 12,416 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Industria
l
Park

0.96 0.88 1.46 8.27 0.02 0.02 1.80 1.82 0.02 0.46 0.47 — 2,067 2,067 0.08 0.13 3.23 2,111 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.96 0.88 1.46 8.27 0.02 0.02 1.80 1.82 0.02 0.46 0.47 — 2,067 2,067 0.08 0.13 3.23 2,111

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) 182
Section 7, Item 7D
Clayton Avenue Tentative Map Custom Report, 12/2/2024
37 / 57
Land TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Use
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Industria
l
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — 5,136 5,136 0.83 0.10 — 5,187
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 468 468 0.08 0.01 — 473
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 5,605 5,605 0.91 0.11 — 5,660 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Industria
l
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — 5,136 5,136 0.83 0.10 — 5,187
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 468 468 0.08 0.01 — 473
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 5,605 5,605 0.91 0.11 — 5,660 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Industria
l
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — 850 850 0.14 0.02 — 859
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 77.5 77.5 0.01 < 0.005 — 78.3
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 928 928 0.15 0.02 — 937

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 183
Section 7, Item 7D
Clayton Avenue Tentative Map Custom Report, 12/2/2024
38 / 57
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Industria
l
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — 5,136 5,136 0.83 0.10 — 5,187
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 468 468 0.08 0.01 — 473
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 5,605 5,605 0.91 0.11 — 5,660 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Industria
l
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — 5,136 5,136 0.83 0.10 — 5,187
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 468 468 0.08 0.01 — 473
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 5,605 5,605 0.91 0.11 — 5,660 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Industria
l
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — 850 850 0.14 0.02 — 859
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 77.5 77.5 0.01 < 0.005 — 78.3
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 928 928 0.15 0.02 — 937

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
184
Section 7, Item 7D
Clayton Avenue Tentative Map Custom Report, 12/2/2024
39 / 57
Industria 0.46 0.23 4.21 3.53 0.03 0.32 — 0.32 0.32 — 0.32 — 5,018 5,018 0.44 0.01 — 5,031 l
Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.46 0.23 4.21 3.53 0.03 0.32 — 0.32 0.32 — 0.32 — 5,018 5,018 0.44 0.01 — 5,031 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Industria
l
Park

0.46 0.23 4.21 3.53 0.03 0.32 — 0.32 0.32 — 0.32 — 5,018 5,018 0.44 0.01 — 5,031 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.46 0.23 4.21 3.53 0.03 0.32 — 0.32 0.32 — 0.32 — 5,018 5,018 0.44 0.01 — 5,031 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Industria
l
Park

0.08 0.04 0.77 0.64 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 831 831 0.07 < 0.005 — 833 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.08 0.04 0.77 0.64 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 831 831 0.07 < 0.005 — 833

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

0.46 0.23 4.21 3.53 0.03 0.32 — 0.32 0.32 — 0.32 — 5,018 5,018 0.44 0.01 — 5,031 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 185
Section 7, Item 7D
Clayton Avenue Tentative Map Custom Report, 12/2/2024
40 / 57
Total 0.46 0.23 4.21 3.53 0.03 0.32 — 0.32 0.32 — 0.32 — 5,018 5,018 0.44 0.01 — 5,031 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Industria
l
Park

0.46 0.23 4.21 3.53 0.03 0.32 — 0.32 0.32 — 0.32 — 5,018 5,018 0.44 0.01 — 5,031 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.46 0.23 4.21 3.53 0.03 0.32 — 0.32 0.32 — 0.32 — 5,018 5,018 0.44 0.01 — 5,031 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Industria
l
Park

0.08 0.04 0.77 0.64 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 831 831 0.07 < 0.005 — 833 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.08 0.04 0.77 0.64 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 831 831 0.07 < 0.005 — 833

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

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

8.46 8.46 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.57 0.57 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
186
Section 7, Item 7D
Clayton Avenue Tentative Map Custom Report, 12/2/2024
41 / 57
Landsca
Equipment

3.03 2.80 0.14 17.0 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.02 — 0.02 — 70.1 70.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 70.4 Total 12.1 11.8 0.14 17.0 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.02 — 0.02 — 70.1 70.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 70.4 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s

8.46 8.46 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.57 0.57 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 9.03 9.03 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s

1.54 1.54 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.10 0.10 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

0.27 0.25 0.01 1.53 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 5.72 5.72 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.74 Total 1.92 1.90 0.01 1.53 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 5.72 5.72 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.74

4.3.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
187
Section 7, Item 7D
Clayton Avenue Tentative Map Custom Report, 12/2/2024
42 / 57
Consum
Products

8.46 8.46 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.57 0.57 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

3.03 2.80 0.14 17.0 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.02 — 0.02 — 70.1 70.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 70.4 Total 12.1 11.8 0.14 17.0 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.02 — 0.02 — 70.1 70.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 70.4 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s

8.46 8.46 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.57 0.57 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 9.03 9.03 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s

1.54 1.54 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.10 0.10 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

0.27 0.25 0.01 1.53 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 5.72 5.72 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.74 Total 1.92 1.90 0.01 1.53 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 5.72 5.72 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.74 188
Section 7, Item 7D
Clayton Avenue Tentative Map Custom Report, 12/2/2024
43 / 57

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Industria
l
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 174 200 373 17.8 0.43 — 947
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 2.66 2.66 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.69 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 174 202 376 17.8 0.43 — 949 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Industria
l
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 174 200 373 17.8 0.43 — 947
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 2.66 2.66 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.69 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 174 202 376 17.8 0.43 — 949 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Industria
l
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 28.8 33.0 61.8 2.95 0.07 — 157
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.44 0.44 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.45 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 28.8 33.5 62.2 2.95 0.07 — 157

4.4.2. Mitigated
189
Section 7, Item 7D
Clayton Avenue Tentative Map Custom Report, 12/2/2024
44 / 57
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Industria
l
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 174 200 373 17.8 0.43 — 947
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 2.66 2.66 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.69 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 174 202 376 17.8 0.43 — 949 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Industria
l
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 174 200 373 17.8 0.43 — 947
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 2.66 2.66 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.69 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 174 202 376 17.8 0.43 — 949 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Industria
l
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 28.8 33.0 61.8 2.95 0.07 — 157
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.44 0.44 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.45 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 28.8 33.5 62.2 2.95 0.07 — 157

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) 190
Section 7, Item 7D
Clayton Avenue Tentative Map Custom Report, 12/2/2024
45 / 57
Land TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Use
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Industria
l
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 262 0.00 262 26.2 0.00 — 917
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 262 0.00 262 26.2 0.00 — 917 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Industria
l
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 262 0.00 262 26.2 0.00 — 917
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 262 0.00 262 26.2 0.00 — 917 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Industria
l
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 43.4 0.00 43.4 4.33 0.00 — 152
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 43.4 0.00 43.4 4.33 0.00 — 152

4.5.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 191
Section 7, Item 7D
Clayton Avenue Tentative Map Custom Report, 12/2/2024
46 / 57
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Industria
l
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 262 0.00 262 26.2 0.00 — 917
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 262 0.00 262 26.2 0.00 — 917 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Industria
l
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 262 0.00 262 26.2 0.00 — 917
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 262 0.00 262 26.2 0.00 — 917 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Industria
l
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 43.4 0.00 43.4 4.33 0.00 — 152
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 43.4 0.00 43.4 4.33 0.00 — 152

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 192
Section 7, Item 7D
Clayton Avenue Tentative Map Custom Report, 12/2/2024
47 / 57
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Industria
l
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 102 102
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 102 102
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Industria
l
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 102 102
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 102 102
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Industria
l
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 16.9 16.9
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 16.9 16.9

4.6.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Industria
l
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 102 102
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 102 102
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
193
Section 7, Item 7D
Clayton Avenue Tentative Map Custom Report, 12/2/2024
48 / 57
Industria
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 102 102
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 102 102
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Industria
l
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 16.9 16.9
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 16.9 16.9

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

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

4.7.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 194
Section 7, Item 7D
Clayton Avenue Tentative Map Custom Report, 12/2/2024
49 / 57
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

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 1/1/2025 1/14/2025 5.00 10.0 — Grading Grading 1/15/2025 3/4/2025 5.00 35.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 3/5/2025 8/4/2026 5.00 370 — Paving Paving 8/5/2026 9/1/2026 5.00 20.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 9/2/2026 9/29/2026 5.00 20.0 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
195
Section 7, Item 7D
Clayton Avenue Tentative Map Custom Report, 12/2/2024
50 / 57
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 423 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48

5.2.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 423 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 196
Section 7, Item 7D
Clayton Avenue Tentative Map Custom Report, 12/2/2024
51 / 57
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37 Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor 0.00 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 20.0 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor 0.00 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 165 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 64.2 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 197
Section 7, Item 7D
Clayton Avenue Tentative Map Custom Report, 12/2/2024
52 / 57
Paving Vendor 0.00 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 32.9 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor 0.00 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 HHDT

5.3.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor 0.00 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 20.0 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor 0.00 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 165 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 64.2 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 198
Section 7, Item 7D
Clayton Avenue Tentative Map Custom Report, 12/2/2024
53 / 57
Paving Vendor 0.00 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 32.9 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor 0.00 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

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

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 0.00 0.00 588,000 196,000 57,395

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 — — 15.0 0.00 —
Grading — — 105 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 22.0

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction 199 Section 7, Item 7D
Clayton Avenue Tentative Map Custom Report, 12/2/2024
54 / 57
Water Exposed Area 2 61% 61%

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Industrial Park 0.00 0%
Parking Lot 22.0 100%

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

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 Industrial Park 1,524 1,524 1,524 556,295 14,179 14,179 14,179 5,175,426 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5.9.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Industrial Park 1,524 1,524 1,524 556,295 14,179 14,179 14,179 5,175,426 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5.10. Operational Area Sources
200
Section 7, Item 7D
Clayton Avenue Tentative Map Custom Report, 12/2/2024
55 / 57

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.1.2. Mitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
0 0.00 588,000 196,000 57,395

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

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Industrial Park 9,190,981 204 0.0330 0.0040 15,656,123
Parking Lot 837,962 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
201
Section 7, Item 7D
Clayton Avenue Tentative Map Custom Report, 12/2/2024
56 / 57

5.11.2. Mitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Industrial Park 9,190,981 204 0.0330 0.0040 15,656,123
Parking Lot 837,962 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Industrial Park 90,650,000 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 1,969,671

5.12.2. Mitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Industrial Park 90,650,000 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 1,969,671

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Industrial Park 486 —
Parking Lot 0.00 —

5.13.2. Mitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year) 202
Section 7, Item 7D
Clayton Avenue Tentative Map Custom Report, 12/2/2024
57 / 57
Industrial Park 486 —
Parking Lot 0.00 —

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Industrial Park Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 0.30 4.00 4.00 18.0

5.14.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Industrial Park Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 0.30 4.00 4.00 18.0

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Construction: Construction Phases No demolition required.

Construction: Trips and VMT zero'd empty fields
Operations: Fleet Mix Assumes approximately 6% of trips are heavy duty trucks (per traffic study). Remaining trips split amongst light duty vehicles.

Operations: Vehicle Data Per Traffic Study
203
Section 7, Item 7D
Appendices
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 B-1
Appendix B: Biological Memorandum
204
Section 7, Item 7D
455 W Fir Ave • Clovis, CA 93611 • (559) 449-2700
www.provostandpritchard.com
Engineering • Structural • Geostructural • Surveying • Planning • Environmental • GIS • Construction Services • Hydrogeology • Consulting Clovis • Visalia • Bakersfield • Modesto • Los Banos • Chico • Sacramento • Sonora • San Luis Obispo • Boise, ID

BIOLOGICAL MEMORANDUM
To:

Dawn Marple, City Planner
City of Fowler
From: Kira McCall, Environmental Specialist
Subject: Clayton Avenue Industrial Subdivision Desktop Biological Review Date: February 14, 2025

PROJECT BACKGROUND
The City of Fowler (City) is proposing the Clayton Avenue Industrial Subdivision Project (Project) to annex approximately 83.04 acres of farmland into the City with plans to redevelop the area for future residential use and light industrial land uses. Streets would be constructed and designed to City standards. A stormwater retention basin, approximately 0.5 miles of sewer main, and approximately 1.3 miles of water main would also be constructed to connect to existing facility infrastructure. The Project would also include improvements to several intersections that would be developed when intersection delay exceeds established parameters.

The objective of this memo is to address the recommendations and comments included in the letter from California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received on January 28, 2025, with regards to the appropriate mitigation for potential Project impacts to biological resources. This memo will be used to identify biological resources within the Project site, describe the conditions of the site, and provide recommendations to mitigate and avoid potential impacts to protected species.

PROJECT LOCATION
The Project site is located adjacent to the current north boundary of the City of Fowler on the south side of Clayton Avenue and east of Golden State Boulevard (see Appendix A for Project maps). The parcel numbers affected by this Project are Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs): 340-120-05, -06, -28, and -29.

STUDY METHODOLOGY
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group environmental specialist, Kira McCall, conducted a desktop analysis of potential Project-related impacts to biological resources based on the resources known to occur, or with potential to occur, within the Project site. Sources of information used in preparation of this analysis included:

CDFW’s California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB; see

205
Section 7, Item 7D
City of Fowler
Clayton Avenue Industrial Subdivision Desktop Biological Review APPENDIX A for the species list) and California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) database; California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California; CalFlora’s online database of California native plants; Jepson Herbarium’s online database (i.e., Jepson eFlora); United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS), Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC; see Appendix C for the species list) system, and National Wetlands Inventory (NWI); iNaturalist; NatureServe Explorer’s online database; United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service’s (NRCS) Web Soil Survey, California Herps website; and various manuals, reports, and references related to plants and animals of the San Joaquin Valley region.

No field survey was conducted. The assessment of habitats within the site was completed utilizing satellite and historical imagery. Recommendations were then developed to avoid any potential impacts to protected resources that may occur on or near the site.

EXISTING CONDITIONS
As follows are details on the topography, climate, waters, soils and biotic habitats of the site.

TOPOGRAPHY
The Project site is located within the United States Geological Survey Malaga 7.5-minute quadrangle. The topography within the site is relatively flat with elevations of approximately 300 feet above mean sea level.

CLIMATE
Like most of California, the site experiences a Mediterranean climate. Warm, dry summers are followed by cool, moist winters. In the summer, average high temperatures range between 85- and 98-degrees Fahrenheit (°F), but do not often exceed 105 °F, and the humidity is generally low. Winter temperatures are often below 60°F during the day and rarely exceed 65°F. On average, the City of Fresno receives approximately 13 inches of precipitation in the form of rain yearly, most of which occurs between October and April, and the site would be expected to receive similar amounts of precipitation.

WATERS
The nearest surface water features are the basins located east of the site. The Malaga Canal and Biggs Canal are located approximately 2 miles northeast of the site.

SOILS
Four soil mapping units representing three soil types were identified within the site and are listed in Table 1 (see Attachment D for the Web Soil Survey Report). The soils are displayed with their core properties in the table below, according to the Major Land Resource Area of California. These soils are primarily used for growing a range of crops including grapes, peaches, truck crops, alfalfa and for homesites.

Table 1: List of Soils Located on the Site and Their Basic Properties Soil Soil Map Unit
Percent
of Site
Hydric Soil
Category
Drainage Permeability Runoff
Delhi
Loamy sand, 0 to 3
percent slopes
MLRA 17

0.1 %
Predominantly
nonhydric
Somewhat
excessively
drained
High to very high Very low
Hanford Sandy loam 6.8% Nonhydric Very well
drained High Very low
Hesperia
Sandy loam, very
deep 59.7% Nonhydric Well drained Moderately low Negligible Fine sandy loam,
very deep 33.4% Nonhydric Well drained Moderately low Negligible 206
Section 7, Item 7D
City of Fowler
Clayton Avenue Industrial Subdivision Desktop Biological Review Hydric soils are defined as soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions such that under sufficiently wet conditions, hydrophytic vegetation can be supported. None of the major units were identified as hydric, though one minor component of Delhi was noted as hydric.

BIOTIC HABITAT
The majority of the Project site appears to consist of a vineyard and a residential single-family home. It is expected that the vineyard onsite could be used as foraging and nesting area for tree-nesting and groundnesting species such as killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), or song sparrow (Melospiza melodia). The soil texture of most of the site is reported to be sandy loam, in general, and may be loose enough for burrowing by small mammals, such as California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi).

Discing is not anticipated frequently through the vineyard, so ground disturbance may be minimal. This may further allow for and encourage nesting activities. Large, non-agricultural trees are visible on aerial imagery near the residential homes within the site and in the surrounding area, which could serve as suitable nesting habitat for raptors.

The Project site is surrounded by existing agricultural fields to the west, north, and east. Abutting the west boundary is the Golden State Boulevard. To the south is an existing residential subdivision. Heavy traffic associated with the adjacent highway could deter more elusive species from traveling to or through the area.

Some species more habituated to human disturbance and activities, such as San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica), may be tolerant of the disturbances and could use the site for foraging.

SENSITIVE RESOURCES
As follows are details on the special status species, migratory birds, designated habitat and communities, and wildlife movement corridors and native wildlife nursery sites that could be impacted by Project-related activities.

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES
A query of the CNDDB for occurrences of special status plant and animal species was conducted for the Malaga USGS 7.5-Minute quadrangle and the eight surrounding quadrangles: Sanger, Selma, Conejo, Caruthers, Fresno North, Fresno South, Clovis, and Round Mountain. A query of the IPaC was also completed for the site. Species which were observed within two miles of the Project site were evaluated for their potential to occur within the Project site. These species are listed in Table 2 below.

Table 2: Special Status Plant and Animal Species with the Potential to Occur on the Project Site Species Status* Habitat Occurrence within the Site
Pallid bat
(Antrozous pallidus)
CSSC
Found in grasslands, chaparral,
and woodlands, where it feeds
on ground- and vegetationdwelling arthropods, and
occasionally takes insects in
flight. Prefers to roost in rock
crevices, but may also use tree
cavities, caves, bridges, and
other human-made structures.

Unlikely. The vineyard habitat could
provide foraging opportunities for
this species, but roosting habitat
appears to be absent from the
Project site and adjacent habitats.

Swainson’s hawk
(Buteo swainsoni)
CT
Nests in large trees in open
areas adjacent to grasslands,
grain or alfalfa fields, or livestock
pastures suitable for supporting
rodent populations.

Possible. The nearest recorded
observation of this species is
approximately four miles northwest
of the site in the 1980s. However,
trees large enough for nesting are 207
Section 7, Item 7D
City of Fowler
Clayton Avenue Industrial Subdivision Desktop Biological Review present within 0.5 miles of the
Project site. Additionally, this
species would be expected to
forage within the fallow field and
surrounding areas.

Western mastiff bat
(Eumops perotis
californicus)
CSSC
Found in open, arid to semi-arid
habitats, including dry desert
washes, flood plains, chaparral,
oak woodland, open ponderosa
pine forest, grassland, and
agricultural areas, where it feeds
on insects in flight. Roosts most
commonly in crevices in cliff
faces but may also use high
buildings and tunnels.

Unlikely. The vineyard habitat could
provide foraging opportunities for
this species, but there do not seem
to be any resources for roosting.

208
Section 7, Item 7D
City of Fowler
Clayton Avenue Industrial Subdivision Desktop Biological Review *EXPLANATION OF 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 due to absence of suitable habitat.

STATUS CODES
FE Federally Endangered CE California Endangered
FT Federally Threatened CSSC California Species of Special Concern FPT Federally Threatened (Proposed) CCE California Endangered (Candidate)

CNPS LISTING
1B Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in
California and elsewhere.
2B Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in
California, but more common elsewhere.

RECOMMENDATIONS
There were no recorded observations of any special status species within two miles of the Project site, and there were no plant species with potential to occur on or near the site. However, suitable habitat for nesting birds, Swainson’s Hawk, and San Joaquin kit fox appears to be present. These special status species could occur on the site prior to or during Project activities. In order to comply with state and federal laws protecting special status species, the following recommendations have been provided to reduce potential Project-related impacts to biological resources within and around the site.

Recommendation 1(a) Nesting Bird Avoidance: Project activities should occur, if feasible, between September 16 and January 31 (outside of the nesting bird season) to avoid impacts to nesting birds.

Recommendation 1(b) Migratory Nesting Bird Pre-Activity Survey: If Project activities must occur within the migratory bird nesting season (February 1 to September 15), a qualified biologist should complete a pre-activity survey for active nests within five (5) calendar days prior to the start of Project activities. The survey should be completed within the Project site, and all accessible lands up to 100 feet outside of the Project site for nesting migratory birds and up to 500 feet outside of the Project site for nesting raptors. Raptor nests would be considered “active” upon the nest-building stage. If no active nests are observed, the Project may proceed. The biologist should also conduct a one-time take avoidance pre-construction survey for Swainson’s hawk nests onsite and within a 0.5-mile radius. This one time take avoidance survey will be conducted in accordance with the Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson's Hawk Nesting Surveys in California's Central Valley (Swainson's Hawk Technical Advisory Committee 2000), or current guidance.

Recommendation 1(c) Nesting Bird Avoidance Buffers: On discovery of any active nests or breeding colonies near work areas, a qualified biologist should determine appropriate avoidance buffer distances based on applicable CDFW and/or USFWS guidelines, the biology of the species, conditions of the nest(s), and the level of Project disturbance. If needed, avoidance buffers should be identified with flagging, fencing, or other easily visible means, and should be maintained until the biologist has determined that the nestlings have fledged.

Implementation of Recommendations 1a-1c and Recommendations 2a-2c would avoid impacts to protected species. If you have any questions or need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me at (661) 616-5900 or [email protected].

Sincerely,
Kira McCall 209
Section 7, Item 7D
City of Fowler
Clayton Avenue Industrial Subdivision Desktop Biological Review APPENDICES:

Appendix A – Project Maps
Appendix B - CNDDB Species List
Appendix C - IPaC Species List
Appendix D - NRCS SOils Report
210
Section 7, Item 7D
Engineering • Structural • Geostructural • Surveying • Planning • Environmental • GIS • Construction Services • Hydrogeology • Consulting Clovis • Visalia • Bakersfield • Modesto • Los Banos • Chico • Sacramento • Sonora • San Luis Obispo • Boise, ID APPENDIX A – PROJECT MAPS
211
Section 7, Item 7D
N 6th St
S Stearns St
E Mariposa St
E Carter Ave
S Sunnyside Ave
S Fowler Ave
E Clayton Ave
te Blvd
?Î
0 250 500
Feet
Project Site (83 Acres)
Fowler City Limits
Fowler Sphere of Influence
1/22/2025 G:\Fowler_City of-2619\GIS\Map\FY2024_On-Going_GIS\Clayton_Ave_Ind_Subdivision\Clayton_Ave_Ind_Subdivision.aprx o
Prepared By
Aerial Map
City of Fowler - Clayton Ave Industrial Subdivision
NAIP 2022 Imagery
212
Section 7, Item 7D
?Î
?Î
?c
?c
?e
w?
w?
k?
Clovis
Selma
Sanger
Reedley
Fowler
Parlier
Kingsburg
Fresno
Hanford
Dinuba
Madera
Ranchos
Riverdale
Del Rey
Easton
Lanare
Laton
Raisin City
Monmouth
Hardwick
Goshen
London
Traver
Bowles
Malaga
Caruthers
West Park
Rolling
Hills
Centerville
Minkler
Delft Colony
Madera
C ount y
F r e s n o
C o u n t y
F r e s n o C o u n t y
T u l a r e C o u n t y
F r e s n o C o u n t y
K i n g s C o u n t y
T u l a r e
C o u n t y
K i n g s C o u n t y
Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA
Project Site
Census Place
City Limits (various colors)
County
0 2 4
Miles
Regional Vicinity Map o City of Fowler - Clayton Ave Industrial Subdivision ^_
!
Project Sites
Fresno Co.
12/9/2024 G:\Fowler_City of-2619\GIS\Map\FY2024_On-Going_GIS\Clayton_Ave_Ind_Subdivision\Clayton_Ave_Ind_Subdivision.aprx 213
Section 7, Item 7D

APPENDIX B - CNDDB SPECIES LIST
214
Section 7, Item 7D
Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
alkali-sink goldfields
Lasthenia chrysantha
PDAST5L030 None None G2 S2 1B.1
American badger
Taxidea taxus
AMAJF04010 None None G5 S3 SSC
American bumble bee
Bombus pensylvanicus
IIHYM24260 None None G3G4 S2
Antioch efferian robberfly
Efferia antiochi
IIDIP07010 None None G1G2 S1S2
black-crowned night heron
Nycticorax nycticorax
ABNGA11010 None None G5 S4
bristly sedge
Carex comosa
PMCYP032Y0 None None G5 S2 2B.1
burrowing owl
Athene cunicularia
ABNSB10010 None Candidate
Endangered
G4 S2 SSC
California glossy snake
Arizona elegans occidentalis
ARADB01017 None None G5T2 S2 SSC
California jewelflower
Caulanthus californicus
PDBRA31010 Endangered Endangered G1 S1 1B.1
California linderiella
Linderiella occidentalis
ICBRA06010 None None G2G3 S2S3
California satintail
Imperata brevifolia
PMPOA3D020 None None G3 S3 2B.1
California tiger salamander - central California DPS
Ambystoma californiense pop. 1
AAAAA01181 Threatened Threatened G2G3T3 S3 WL
coast horned lizard
Phrynosoma blainvillii
ARACF12100 None None G4 S4 SSC
Crotch's bumble bee
Bombus crotchii
IIHYM24480 None Candidate
Endangered
G2 S2
double-crested cormorant
Nannopterum auritum
ABNFD01020 None None G5 S4 WL
forked hare-leaf
Lagophylla dichotoma
PDAST5J070 None None G2 S2 1B.1
Fresno kangaroo rat
Dipodomys nitratoides exilis
AMAFD03151 Endangered Endangered G2TH SH
great egret
Ardea alba
ABNGA04040 None None G5 S4
Greene's tuctoria
Tuctoria greenei
PMPOA6N010 Endangered Rare G1 S1 1B.1
Query Criteria: Quad<span style='color:Red'> IS </span>(Malaga (3611966)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Sanger (3611965)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Selma (3611955)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Conejo (3611956)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Caruthers (3611957)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Fresno North (3611977)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Fresno South (3611967)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Clovis (3611976)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Round Mountain (3611975)) Report Printed on Friday, February 14, 2025
Commercial Version -- Dated February, 1 2025 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 1 of 3 Information Expires 8/1/2025
Selected Elements by Common Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
215
Section 7, Item 7D
Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
hoary bat
Lasiurus cinereus
AMACC05032 None None G3G4 S4
Hurd's metapogon robberfly
Metapogon hurdi
IIDIP08010 None None G1G2 S1S2
least Bell's vireo
Vireo bellii pusillus
ABPBW01114 Endangered Endangered G5T2 S3
Madera leptosiphon
Leptosiphon serrulatus
PDPLM09130 None None G3 S3 1B.2
midvalley fairy shrimp
Branchinecta mesovallensis
ICBRA03150 None None G2 S2S3
molestan blister beetle
Lytta molesta
IICOL4C030 None None G2 S2
Northern California legless lizard
Anniella pulchra
ARACC01020 None None G3 S2S3 SSC
Northern Claypan Vernal Pool
Northern Claypan Vernal Pool
CTT44120CA None None G1 S1.1
Northern Hardpan Vernal Pool
Northern Hardpan Vernal Pool
CTT44110CA None None G3 S3.1
northwestern pond turtle
Actinemys marmorata
ARAAD02031 Proposed
Threatened
None G2 SNR SSC
pallid bat
Antrozous pallidus
AMACC10010 None None G4 S3 SSC
San Joaquin adobe sunburst
Pseudobahia peirsonii
PDAST7P030 Threatened Endangered G1 S1 1B.1
San Joaquin kit fox
Vulpes macrotis mutica
AMAJA03041 Endangered Threatened G4T2 S3
San Joaquin pocket mouse
Perognathus inornatus
AMAFD01060 None None G2G3 S2S3
San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass
Orcuttia inaequalis
PMPOA4G060 Threatened Endangered G1 S1 1B.1
Sanford's arrowhead
Sagittaria sanfordii
PMALI040Q0 None None G3 S3 1B.2
snowy egret
Egretta thula
ABNGA06030 None None G5 S4
spiny-sepaled button-celery
Eryngium spinosepalum
PDAPI0Z0Y0 None None G2 S2 1B.2
succulent owl's-clover
Castilleja campestris var. succulenta
PDSCR0D3Z1 Threatened Endangered G4?T2T3 S2S3 1B.2
Swainson's hawk
Buteo swainsoni
ABNKC19070 None Threatened G5 S4
tricolored blackbird
Agelaius tricolor
ABPBXB0020 None Threatened G1G2 S2 SSC
Report Printed on Friday, February 14, 2025
Commercial Version -- Dated February, 1 2025 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 2 of 3 Information Expires 8/1/2025
Selected Elements by Common Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
216
Section 7, Item 7D
Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
valley elderberry longhorn beetle
Desmocerus californicus dimorphus
IICOL48011 Threatened None G3T3 S3
vernal pool fairy shrimp
Branchinecta lynchi
ICBRA03030 Threatened None G3 S3
western mastiff bat
Eumops perotis californicus
AMACD02011 None None G4G5T4 S3S4 SSC
western spadefoot
Spea hammondii
AAABF02020 Proposed
Threatened
None G2G3 S3S4 SSC
western yellow-billed cuckoo
Coccyzus americanus occidentalis
ABNRB02022 Threatened Endangered G5T2T3 S1
Record Count: 45
Report Printed on Friday, February 14, 2025
Commercial Version -- Dated February, 1 2025 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 3 of 3 Information Expires 8/1/2025
Selected Elements by Common Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
217
Section 7, Item 7D

APPENDIX C - IPAC SPECIES LIST
218
Section 7, Item 7D
02/14/2025 23:20:39 UTC
United States Department of the Interior

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

Project Code: 2025-0057192
Project Name: Clayton Avenue Industrial Subdivision
Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern:

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

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

The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat.

A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) 219
Section 7, Item 7D
Project code: 2025-0057192 02/14/2025 23:20:39 UTC
2 of 8
(c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12.

If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at:
https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/endangered-species-consultationhandbook.pdf Migratory Birds: In addition to responsibilities to protect threatened and endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), there are additional responsibilities under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) to protect native birds from project-related impacts. Any activity, intentional or unintentional, resulting in take of migratory birds, including eagles, is prohibited unless otherwise permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)). For more information regarding these Acts, see https://www.fws.gov/program/migratory-bird-permit/whatwe-do.

The MBTA has no provision for allowing take of migratory birds that may be unintentionally killed or injured by otherwise lawful activities. It is the responsibility of the project proponent to comply with these Acts by identifying potential impacts to migratory birds and eagles within applicable NEPA documents (when there is a federal nexus) or a Bird/Eagle Conservation Plan (when there is no federal nexus). Proponents should implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize the production of project-related stressors or minimize the exposure of birds and their resources to the project-related stressors. For more information on avian stressors and recommended conservation measures, see https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/threats-birds.

In addition to MBTA and BGEPA, Executive Order 13186: Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, obligates all Federal agencies that engage in or authorize activities that might affect migratory birds, to minimize those effects and encourage conservation measures that will improve bird populations. Executive Order 13186 provides for the protection of both migratory birds and migratory bird habitat. For information regarding the implementation of Executive Order 13186, please visit https://www.fws.gov/partner/council-conservationmigratory-birds.

We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Code in the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office.
220
Section 7, Item 7D
Project code: 2025-0057192 02/14/2025 23:20:39 UTC
3 of 8
▪
Attachment(s):

Official Species List

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

This species list is provided by:

Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Office
Federal Building
2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605
Sacramento, CA 95825-1846
(916) 414-6600
221
Section 7, Item 7D
Project code: 2025-0057192 02/14/2025 23:20:39 UTC
4 of 8

PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Code: 2025-0057192
Project Name: Clayton Avenue Industrial Subdivision
Project Type: Residential Construction
Project Description: Annexation and re-zoning for residential and industrial purposes.

Project Location:

The approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// www.google.com/maps/@36.6400021,-119.68718307859262,14z Counties: Fresno County, California
222
Section 7, Item 7D
Project code: 2025-0057192 02/14/2025 23:20:39 UTC
5 of 8

1. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SPECIES
There is a total of 9 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.

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

IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries , as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the Department of Commerce.

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

NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.
1 223
Section 7, Item 7D
Project code: 2025-0057192 02/14/2025 23:20:39 UTC
6 of 8

MAMMALS

NAME STATUS
Fresno Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys nitratoides exilis
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5150
Endangered
San Joaquin Kit Fox Vulpes macrotis mutica
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2873
Endangered
BIRDS

NAME STATUS
Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus
Population: Western U.S. DPS
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3911
Threatened

REPTILES

NAME STATUS
Blunt-nosed Leopard Lizard Gambelia silus
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/625
Endangered
Northwestern Pond Turtle Actinemys marmorata
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1111
Proposed
Threatened

AMPHIBIANS

NAME STATUS
California Tiger Salamander Ambystoma californiense
Population: U.S.A. (Central CA DPS)
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2076
Threatened
Western Spadefoot Spea hammondii
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5425
Proposed
Threatened

INSECTS

NAME STATUS
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus
There is proposed critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
Proposed
Threatened
224
Section 7, Item 7D
Project code: 2025-0057192 02/14/2025 23:20:39 UTC
7 of 8

CRUSTACEANS

NAME STATUS
Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp Branchinecta lynchi
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/498
Threatened

CRITICAL HABITATS

THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S JURISDICTION.

YOU ARE STILL REQUIRED TO DETERMINE IF YOUR PROJECT(S) MAY HAVE EFFECTS ON ALL ABOVE LISTED SPECIES.
225
Section 7, Item 7D
Project code: 2025-0057192 02/14/2025 23:20:39 UTC
8 of 8

IPAC USER CONTACT INFORMATION
Agency: Private Entity
Name: Kira McCall
Address: 1518 Mill Rock Way
Address Line 2: Ste 100
City: Bakersfield
State: CA
Zip: 93311
Email [email protected]
Phone: 6616165900
226
Section 7, Item 7D

APPENDIX D - NRCS SOILS REPORT
227
Section 7, Item 7D
United States
Department of
Agriculture
A product of the National
Cooperative Soil Survey,
a joint effort of the United
States Department of
Agriculture and other
Federal agencies, State
agencies including the
Agricultural Experiment
Stations, and local
participants
Custom Soil Resource
Report for
Eastern Fresno
Area, California Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
February 14, 2025228
Section 7, Item 7D
Preface
Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas.

They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers.

Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment.

Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions.

The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations.

Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nrcs142p2_053951).

Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations.

The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey.

Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 229
Section 7, Item 7D
alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
3 230
Section 7, Item 7D
Contents
Preface....................................................................................................................2 How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 Soil Map.................................................................................................................. 8 Soil Map................................................................................................................9 Legend................................................................................................................10 Map Unit Legend................................................................................................ 11 Map Unit Descriptions.........................................................................................11 Eastern Fresno Area, California......................................................................13 DhA—Delhi loamy sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes, MLRA 17..........................13 Hc—Hanford sandy loam............................................................................14 Hsd—Hesperia sandy loam, very deep.......................................................15 Hsr—Hesperia fine sandy loam, very deep.................................................16 References............................................................................................................19 4 231
Section 7, Item 7D
How Soil Surveys Are Made
Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity.

Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA.

The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape.

Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries.

Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units).

Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil 5 232
Section 7, Item 7D
scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research.

The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.

Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map.

The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded.

These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape.

Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties.

While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management.

Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil.

Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date.

After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and Custom Soil Resource Report
6 233
Section 7, Item 7D
identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately.

Custom Soil Resource Report
7 234
Section 7, Item 7D
Soil Map
The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 8 235
Section 7, Item 7D
9 Custom Soil Resource Report
Soil Map
4058080 4058160 4058240 4058320 4058400 4058480 4058560 4058080 4058160 4058240 4058320 4058400 4058480
259120 259200 259280 259360 259440 259520 259600 259680 259760 259840 259120 259200 259280 259360 259440 259520 259600 259680 259760 259840 36° 38' 31'' N
119° 41' 40'' W
36° 38' 31'' N
119° 41' 9'' W
36° 38' 15'' N
119° 41' 40'' W
36° 38' 15'' N N 119° 41' 9'' W
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 11N WGS84 0 150 300 600 900
Feet
0 50 100 200 300
Meters
Map Scale: 1:3,560 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.

Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
236
Section 7, Item 7D

MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
Soil Map Unit Points
Special Point Features
Blowout
Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
Perennial Water
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
Sodic Spot
Spoil Area
Stony Spot
Very Stony Spot
Wet Spot
Other
Special Line Features
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:24,000.

Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.

Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.

Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.

Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:

Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required.

This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below.

Soil Survey Area: Eastern Fresno Area, California
Survey Area Data: Version 17, Aug 30, 2024
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger.

Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Mar 16, 2022—May 30, 2022
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.

Custom Soil Resource Report
10 237
Section 7, Item 7D
Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI DhA Delhi loamy sand, 0 to 3
percent slopes, MLRA 17

0.0 0.1%
Hc Hanford sandy loam 3.2 6.8%
Hsd Hesperia sandy loam, very
deep

27.7 59.7%
Hsr Hesperia fine sandy loam, very
deep

15.5 33.4%
Totals for Area of Interest 46.4 100.0%
Map Unit Descriptions
The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.

A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class.

Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils.

Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape.

The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate Custom Soil Resource Report
11 238
Section 7, Item 7D
pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.

An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions.

Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities.

Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement.

Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series.

Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas.

These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups.

A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps.

The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example.

An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.

An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.

Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example.

Custom Soil Resource Report
12 239
Section 7, Item 7D
Eastern Fresno Area, California
DhA—Delhi loamy sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes, MLRA 17
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 2ss8r
Elevation: 30 to 430 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 9 to 16 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 64 degrees F
Frost-free period: 225 to 310 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
Delhi and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Delhi
Setting
Landform: Dunes on fan remnants
Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder, toeslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Eolian deposits derived from sandy alluvium derived from granite Typical profile
A - 0 to 7 inches: loamy sand
C1 - 7 to 25 inches: loamy sand
C2 - 25 to 60 inches: loamy sand
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 3 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained
Runoff class: Very low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High to very high (5.95 to 19.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Maximum salinity: Nonsaline (0.0 to 1.0 mmhos/cm)
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 4.2 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 3s
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e
Hydrologic Soil Group: A
Ecological site: R017XY906CA - Non-Alkali San Joaquin Valley Desert Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Hanford
Percent of map unit: 6 percent
Custom Soil Resource Report
13 240
Section 7, Item 7D
Landform: Depressions on fan remnants
Hydric soil rating: No
Dello
Percent of map unit: 6 percent
Landform: Depressions on fan remnants
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Grangeville
Percent of map unit: 1 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Hilmar
Percent of map unit: 1 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Dinuba
Percent of map unit: 1 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Hc—Hanford sandy loam
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hl5f
Elevation: 200 to 500 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 8 to 15 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 61 to 63 degrees F
Frost-free period: 250 to 275 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
Hanford and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Hanford
Setting
Landform: Flood plains, alluvial fans
Landform position (two-dimensional): Toeslope, footslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Base slope, rise Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Alluvium derived from granite
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 16 inches: sandy loam
C - 16 to 72 inches: sandy loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Custom Soil Resource Report
14 241
Section 7, Item 7D
Drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Very low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High (1.98 to 5.95 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 7.8 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 2s
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4s
Hydrologic Soil Group: A
Ecological site: R017XY904CA - Subirrigated Deep Alluvial Fans Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Unnamed
Percent of map unit: 10 percent
Landform: Flood plains, alluvial fans
Hydric soil rating: No
Unnamed, channeled
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Channels on alluvial fans
Hydric soil rating: No
Hsd—Hesperia sandy loam, very deep
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 2yc9k
Elevation: 210 to 310 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 9 to 11 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 63 to 64 degrees F
Frost-free period: 310 to 326 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
Hesperia and similar soils: 90 percent
Minor components: 10 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Hesperia
Setting
Landform: Alluvial fans
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Alluvium derived from granite
Custom Soil Resource Report
15 242
Section 7, Item 7D
Typical profile
Ap1 - 0 to 5 inches: sandy loam
Ap2 - 5 to 11 inches: sandy loam
Bt - 11 to 32 inches: sandy loam
Btk - 32 to 60 inches: sandy loam
2Bdk - 60 to 67 inches: stratified silt loam
2Cd - 67 to 79 inches: stratified silt loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 60 inches to densic material Drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Negligible
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low (0.01 to

0.14 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: Rare
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 5 percent
Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 2.0
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 6.0 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 2s
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4s
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Ecological site: R017XY906CA - Non-Alkali San Joaquin Valley Desert Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Unnamed
Percent of map unit: 10 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
Hsr—Hesperia fine sandy loam, very deep
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 2yc9f
Elevation: 240 to 320 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 10 to 12 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 63 to 64 degrees F
Frost-free period: 316 to 327 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Custom Soil Resource Report
16 243
Section 7, Item 7D
Map Unit Composition
Hesperia and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Hesperia
Setting
Landform: Alluvial fans
Landform position (three-dimensional): Talf
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Alluvium derived from granite
Typical profile
Ap1 - 0 to 5 inches: fine sandy loam
Ap2 - 5 to 11 inches: fine sandy loam
Bt - 11 to 32 inches: fine sandy loam
Btk - 32 to 60 inches: fine sandy loam
2Bdk - 60 to 67 inches: stratified silt loam
2Cd - 67 to 79 inches: stratified silt loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 60 inches to densic material Drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Negligible
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low (0.01 to

0.14 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: Rare
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 5 percent
Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 2.0
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 7.8 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 1
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4c
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Ecological site: R017XY905CA - Dry Alluvial Fans and Terraces Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Unnamed, loam surface
Percent of map unit: 10 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans
Hydric soil rating: No
Unnamed
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans
Hydric soil rating: No
Custom Soil Resource Report
17 244
Section 7, Item 7D
Custom Soil Resource Report
18 245
Section 7, Item 7D
References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition.

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00.

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31.

Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States.

Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States.

Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States.

National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries.

Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262
Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section.

United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1.

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084 19 246
Section 7, Item 7D
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/? cid=nrcs142p2_053624
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf Custom Soil Resource Report
20 247
Section 7, Item 7D
Appendices
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 C-1
Appendix C: Cultural Resources Information
248
Section 7, Item 7D
To: Jackie Lancaster Record Search 24-414
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
400 E. Main Street, Suite 300
Visalia, CA 93291
Date: September 24, 2024
Re: City of Fowler Clayton Industrial Tentative Map Project. Project No. 2619-22-023 Phase TTM County: Fresno
Map(s): Malaga 7.5’

CULTURAL RESOURCES RECORDS SEARCH
The California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) contracts with the California Historical Resources Information System’s (CHRIS) regional Information Centers (ICs) to maintain information in the CHRIS inventory and make it available to local, state, and federal agencies, cultural resource professionals, Native American tribes, researchers, and the public. Recommendations made by IC coordinators or their staff regarding the interpretation and application of this information are advisory only. Such recommendations do not necessarily represent the evaluation or opinion of the State Historic Preservation Officer in carrying out the OHP’s regulatory authority under federal and state law.

The following are the results of a search of the cultural resource files at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center. These files include known and recorded cultural resources sites, inventory and excavation reports filed with this office, and resources listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the OHP Built Environment Resources Directory, California State Historical Landmarks, California Register of Historical Resources, California Inventory of Historic Resources, and California Points of Historical Interest. Due to processing delays and other factors, not all of the historical resource reports and resource records that have been submitted to the OHP are available via this records search. Additional information may be available through the federal, state, and local agencies that produced or paid for historical resource management work in the search area.

PRIOR CULTURAL RESOURCE STUDIES CONDUCTED WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA AND THE ONE-HALF MILE RADIUS
According to the information in our files, there have been no previous cultural resource studies completed within the project area. There have been four cultural resource studies conducted within the onehalf mile radius: FR-00135, 02287, 02452, 02642. 249
Section 7, Item 7D
Record Search 24-414

KNOWN/RECORDED CULTURAL RESOURCES WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA AND THE ONE-HALF MILE RADIUS According to the information in our files, there are no recorded cultural resources within the project area. There are three recorded cultural resource within the one-half mile radius: P-10-002962, 003930, 004423.

These resources consist of historic era refuse scatter, a railroad, & park.

There are no recorded cultural resources within the project area or radius that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, the California Points of Historical Interest, California Inventory of Historic Resources, for the California State Historic Landmarks.

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
We understand this project intends to annex approximately 83.04 acres of farmland into the City of Fowler. Additionally, we understand this project would prezone approx. 30.65 acres to light industrial zone district and the remaining to future residential development, with future improvements to intersections when warranted. Further, we understand the existing project area is agricultural land. Please note that agriculture does not constitute previous development, as it does not destroy cultural resources, but merely moves them around within the plow zone. As such, there are no further cultural resource investigations needed to annex and prezone properties. However, prior to any future stages of this project that require ground disturbance, we recommend a qualified, professional consultant conduct a field survey to determine if cultural resources are present. A list of qualified consultants can be found at www.chrisinfo.org.

We also recommend that you contact the Native American Heritage Commission in Sacramento. They will provide you with a current list of Native American individuals/organizations that can assist you with information regarding cultural resources that may not be included in the CHRIS Inventory and that may be of concern to the Native groups in the area. The Commission can consult their "Sacred Lands Inventory" file to determine what sacred resources, if any, exist within this project area and the way in which these resources might be managed. Finally, please consult with the lead agency on this project to determine if any other cultural resource investigation is required. If you need any additional information or have any questions or concerns, please contact our office at (661) 654-2289.

By:

Jeremy E David, Assistant Coordinator Date: September 24, 2024 Please note that invoices for Information Center services will be sent under separate cover from the California State University, Bakersfield Accounting Office.
250
Section 7, Item 7D
Appendices
Tentative Map No. 6471
February 2025 D-1
Appendix D: Traffic Impact Study
251
Section 7, Item 7D
Clayton and Golden State Blvd. Property Prezone
Transportation Impact Study
September 2024
Prepared for:

City of Fowler
Prepared by:

VRPA Technologies, Inc.
4630 W. Jennifer, Suite 105
Fresno, CA 93722
In Association With:

Precision Engineering
Vrpa TECHNOIOGIES. INC.
252
Section 7, Item 7D
Clayton and Golden State Blvd Property Prezone
Transportation Impact Study
Study Team
 Georgiena Vivian, President, VRPA Technologies, Inc., [email protected], (559) 259-9257
 Erik Ruehr, Dir. of Traffic Engineering, VRPA Technologies, Inc., [email protected], (858) 566-1766
 Jeff Stine, Senior Transportation Planner, VRPA Technologies, Inc. [email protected], (858) 566-1766
 Nisha Pathak, Transportation Engineer, VRPA Technologies, Inc., [email protected], (559) 271-1200
253
Section 7, Item 7D
Table of Contents
Section Description Page

1.0 Introduction 1-1

1.1 Description of the Region/Project 1-1

1.1.1 Project Access 1-1

1.1.2 Study Area 1-1

1.1.3 Study Scenarios 1-2

1.2 Methodology 1-2

1.2.1 Intersection Analysis 1-2

1.2.2 Roadway Segment Analysis 1-3

1.2.3 Queuing Analysis 1-3

1.3 Policies to Maintain Level of Service 1-4

2.0 Existing Conditions 2-1

2.1 Existing Traffic Counts and Roadway Geometrics 2-1

2.2 Existing Functional Roadway Classification System 2-1

2.3 Affected Streets and Highways 2-2

2.4 Level of Service 2-6

2.4.1 Intersection Capacity Analysis 2-6

2.4.2 Queuing Analysis 2-6

2.4.3 Roadway Segment Analysis 2-7

2.5 Study Area Collision Analysis 2-7

3.0 Traffic Impacts 3-1

3.1 Trip Generation 3-1

3.2 Trip Distribution 3-1

3.3 Project Traffic 3-3

3.4 Existing Plus Project Conditions 3-3

3.5 Horizon Year Without Project Conditions 3-3

3.6 Horizon Year Plus Project Conditions 3-3

3.7 Impacts 3-3

3.7.1 Intersection Capacity Analysis 3-3

3.7.2 Queuing Analysis 3-4

3.7.3 Roadway Segment Analysis 3-4
254
Section 7, Item 7D

4.0 Roadway Improvements 4-1

4.1 Roadway Improvements 4-1

4.2 Equitable Share Responsibility 4-3

Appendices
Appendix A – Roadway Functional Class and Peak Hour
Level-of-Service Thresholds
Appendix B – Traffic Counts
Appendix C – Synchro Worksheets
Appendix D – Detailed Collision Data
Appendix E – Signal Warrant Worksheets

List of Tables
1-1 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions 1-8 1-2 Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions 1-9 1-3 Roadway Segment Level of Service Definitions 1-10
1-4 Peak Hour Two-Way Segment Volume Thresholds 1-11
2-1 Existing Intersection Operations 2-8
2-2 Existing Queuing Operations 2-9
2-3 Existing Roadway Segment Operations 2-10
3-1 Project Trip Generation 3-1
3-3 Intersection Operations 3-13
3-3 Queuing Operations 3-14
3-4 Roadway Segment Operations 3-15
4-1 Intersection Operations with Roadway Improvements 4-5 4-2 Left Turn and Right Turn Storage Requirements 4-6
4-3 Horizon Year Equitable Share Responsibility 4-7
List of Figures
1-1 Regional Location 1-5
1-2 Project Location 1-6
1-3 Project Site Plan 1-7
2-1 Existing Lane Geometry 2-3
2-2 Existing AM Peak Hour Traffic 2-4
2-3 Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic 2-5
2-4 Study Area Collision Map 2-11
3-1 Trip Distribution 3-2
3-2 Project AM Peak Hour Traffic 3-5
255
Section 7, Item 7D
3-3 Project PM Peak Hour Traffic 3-6
3-4 Existing Plus Project AM Peak Hour Traffic 3-7
3-5 Existing Plus Project PM Peak Hour Traffic 3-8
3-6 Horizon Year Without Project AM Peak Hour Traffic 3-9 3-7 Horizon Year Without Project PM Peak Hour Traffic 3-10 3-8 Horizon Year Plus Project AM Peak Hour Traffic 3-11 3-9 Horizon Year Plus Project PM Peak Hour Traffic 3-12 4-1 Proposed Lane Geometry 4-4

256
Section 7, Item 7D
1-1 Clayton and Golden State Blvd Property Prezone
Transportation Impact Study, Introduction

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Description of the Region/Project
This Transportation Impact Study (TIS) has been prepared for the purpose of analyzing traffic conditions related to the proposed Clayton and Golden State Boulevard Property Prezone (Project) in the County of Fresno. The Project site, currently outside of the City of Fowler limits but within the City of Fowler’s sphere of influence, proposes land uses of Light Industrial and Medium Low Residential. The Annexation/Prezone proposes a prezone to M-1 and R-1-7. The Project also proposes a 44-lot industrial subdivision on the area with a land use designation of Light Industrial, which is consistent with the General Plan. The Annexation/Prezone of the subject property would affect traffic operations that may trigger the need for improvements and/or other measures within the study area to address traffic operations. The Project will be located on approximately 45.04 acres of land, south of Clayton Avenue between Golden State Boulevard and North Fowler Avenue at 5469 East Clayton Avenue, Fowler, CA (APNs 340-120-05-28, and 340-120-05-29).

Figures 1-1 and 1-2 show the location of the Project along with major roadways in the Project area. The Project site plan is provided in Figure 1-3.

1.1.1 Project Access
Site access will be provided at two Project Driveways along Clayton Avenue between Golden State Boulevard and Fowler Avenue. At the south end of the Project, Lynn Avenue dead ends at the south property line.

1.1.2 Study Area
The following intersections and roadway segments included in this TIS were determined in consultation with County of Fresno and Caltrans staff that include:

Intersections

1. American Avenue and SR 99 SB Off Ramp

2. American Avenue and SR 99 NB On Ramp

3. Jefferson Avenue and Golden State Boulevard

4. Clovis Avenue and Jefferson Avenue

5. Clovis Avenue and Lincoln Avenue

6. Fowler Avenue and Lincoln Avenue

7. Clayton Avenue and Golden State Boulevard

8. Clayton Avenue and Fowler Avenue

9. Clovis Avenue and SR 99 NB Ramps

10. Clayton Avenue and SR 99 SB Off Ramp

11. Clovis Avenue and SR 99 SB Ramps

12. Adams Avenue and SR 99 SB Off Ramp

13. Adams Avenue and SR 99 NB On Ramp

14. Merced Street and Fowler Ave/SR 99 SB Off Ramp
mwm.
257
Section 7, Item 7D
1-2 Clayton and Golden State Blvd Property Prezone
Transportation Impact Study, Introduction

15. Merced Street and SR 99 NB Ramps
Roadway Segments
 Fowler Avenue between:
 Adam Avenue and Clayton Avenue
 Clayton Avenue and Lincoln Avenue
 Lincoln Avenue and Jefferson Avenue
 Clayton Avenue between:
 Golden State Boulevard and Fowler Avenue
 Lincoln Avenue between:
 Clovis Avenue and Fowler Avenue
 Jefferson Avenue between:
 Clovis Avenue and Fowler Avenue

1.1.3 Study Scenarios
This TIS includes level of service (LOS) analysis for the following traffic scenarios (Study Scenarios):
 Existing Conditions
 Existing Plus Project Conditions
 Horizon Year 2044 Without Project Conditions
 Horizon Year 2044 Plus Project Conditions

1.2 Methodology
When preparing this TIS, guidelines set by the City of Fowler were followed. In analyzing street and intersection capacities, LOS methodologies from the latest edition of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) were applied. The City of Fowler LOS standards were applied to quantitatively assess the performance of study area intersections and roadway segments. In addition, safety concerns were considered when determining the need for appropriate mitigation resulting from increased traffic near sensitive uses.

1.2.1 Intersection Analysis
Intersection LOS analysis was conducted using the Synchro 12 software program. Synchro 12 supports HCM 6th Edition methodologies and is an acceptable program by City of Fowler staff for assessment of traffic impacts. Levels of Service can be determined for both signalized and unsignalized intersections. All the study intersections are currently unsignalized except for two intersections (American Avenue at SR 99 NB On Ramp and Adams Avenue and SR 99 NB On Ramp) mwm.
258
Section 7, Item 7D
1-3 Clayton and Golden State Blvd Property Prezone
Transportation Impact Study, Introduction
which do not have any intersection controls.

Tables 1-1 and 1-2 indicate the ranges in the amounts of average delay for a vehicle at signalized and unsignalized intersections for the various levels of service ranging from LOS “A” to “F”.

When an unsignalized intersection does not meet acceptable LOS standards, the investigation of the need for a traffic signal shall be evaluated. The California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (California MUTCD) introduces standards for determining the need for traffic signals. The California MUTCD indicates that the satisfaction of one or more traffic signal warrants does not in itself require the installation of a traffic signal. In addition to the warrant analysis, an engineering study of the current or expected traffic conditions should be conducted to determine whether the installation of a traffic signal is justified. The California MUTCD Peak Hour Warrant (Warrant 3) was used to determine if a traffic signal is warranted at unsignalized intersections that fall below current LOS standards.

1.2.2 Roadway Segment Analysis
According to the HCM, LOS is categorized by two parameters of traffic: uninterrupted and interrupted flow. Uninterrupted flow facilities do not have fixed elements such as traffic signals that cause interruptions in traffic flow. Interrupted flow facilities do have fixed elements that cause an interruption in the flow of traffic, such as stop signs and signalized intersections along arterial roads. A roadway segment is defined as a stretch of roadway generally located between signalized or controlled intersections.

Segment LOS is important in order to understand whether the capacity of a roadway can accommodate future traffic volumes. Table 1-3 provides a definition of segment LOS. The performance criteria used for evaluating volumes and capacities on the road and highway system for this study were estimated using Table 5.14-2 (Roadway Functional Class and Peak Hour Levelof-Service Thresholds) from the City of Fresno General Plan and Development Code Update Master Environmental Impact Report. The tables consider the capacity of individual road and highway segments. Street segment capacity was determined using information shown in Table 1-4 based on the Level of Service Tables included in Appendix A.

1.2.3 Queuing Analysis
Queuing analysis was performed at study intersections utilizing the Synchro 12 software program. This software aligns with the methodologies outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 6th Edition. Synchro provides queuing results in feet for signalized intersections while the 95th percentile queue for unsignalized intersections are expressed in number of vehicles. A vehicle length of 25 feet was applied to estimate the queue length, in feet, for unsignalized intersections.
mwm.
259
Section 7, Item 7D
1-4 Clayton and Golden State Blvd Property Prezone
Transportation Impact Study, Introduction

1.3 Policies to Maintain Level of Service
An important goal is to maintain an acceptable level of service along the highway, street, and road network. To accomplish this, the City of Fowler adopted minimum levels of service to control congestion that may result as new development occurs.

The City of Fowler’s General Plan, adopted April 18, 2023, encourages a LOS ‘C’ throughout the local circulation network according to Policy MOB-5. In addition, Policy MOB-5 indicates that LOS ‘D’ may be allowed during peak hours at intersections of major streets, at SR 99 interchanges, and along street segments where additional improvements are not feasible. LOS ‘D’ may also be allowed along streets with the potential for a high level of pedestrian and bicyclist activity. LOS ‘E’ may be permitted during peak hour use of certain road intersections and segments where pedestrian and bicycle activity is prioritized. For purposes of this analysis, LOS ‘D’ was applied to intersections of major streets (American Avenue, Golden State Boulevard, Clovis Avenue, SR 99 Ramps) in the study area while LOS ‘C’ was applied to all other intersecting streets/roadways.

Fresno County’s 2000 General Plan, policy number TR-A.2, identifies a minimum LOS standard of ‘D’ on urban roadways within the spheres of influence of the cities of Fresno and Clovis and identifies a minimum LOS standard of ‘C’ on all other roadways in the county.

Based on guidance from Caltrans, the LOS for operating State highway facilities is based on Measures of Effectiveness (MOE) identified in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). Caltrans endeavors to maintain a target LOS at the transition between LOS “C” and LOS “D” on State highway facilities; however, Caltrans acknowledges that this may not always be feasible and recommends that the lead agency consult with Caltrans to determine the appropriate target LOS.

If an existing State highway facility is operating at less than this target LOS, the existing MOE should be maintained. In general, the region-wide goal for an acceptable LOS on all freeways, roadways segments, and intersections is “D”. For undeveloped or not densely developed locations, the goal may be to achieve LOS “C”.
mwm.
260
Section 7, Item 7D
1-5 Clayton and Golden State Blvd Property Prezone
Transportation Impact Study, Introduction
Clayton and Golden State Blvd Property Prezone
Regional Location
Figure
1-1
Manteca Yosemite National Park
Modesto 1
Turlock
395
■ •• ®
SierraNational Forest
'395
Dinuba Inyo National Forest
Hanford Visalia '395 Tulare
•101 Porterville
Coalinga
Sequoia National Forest 101
395* Delano
SL Ridgecrest o .

Obispo
A “
National Monument Santa Mana •395]
, I Lancaster
y Palmdale V
Lompoc
LEGEND
Project Location
i/rpa TECHNOIOGIES INC.
ircmwewn i*c
Clayton and Golden State Blvd Property Prezone
Regional Location
Figure
1-1
Manteca Yosemite National Park
Modesto 1
Turlock
395
■ •• ®
SierraNational Forest
'395
Dinuba Inyo National Forest
Hanford Visalia '395 Tulare
•101 Porterville
Coalinga
Sequoia National Forest 101
395* Delano
SL Ridgecrest o .

Obispo
A “
National Monument Santa Mana •395]
, I Lancaster
y Palmdale V
Lompoc
LEGEND
Project Location
i/rpa TECHNOIOGIES INC.
ircmwewn i*c
261
Section 7, Item 7D
1-6 Clayton and Golden State Blvd Property Prezone
Transportation Impact Study, Introduction
Clayton and Golden State Blvd Property Prezone
Project Location
Figure
1-2
American Ave
Sunnyside Ave
Fowler Ave
North
Jefferson Ave
Lincoln Ave
Clayton Aye
Minnewawa Ave
Jefferson Ave
Peach Ave
LEGEND
Project Site
O Study Intersection
------- Existing Roadway
------- Study Roadway Segment
Adams Ave
Sumner Ave
VrPA TECHNOLOGIES,INC
Kenneth Ave
Clovis Ave
Willow Ave
Villa Ave
Clayton and Golden State Blvd Property Prezone
Project Location
Figure
1-2
American Ave
Sunnyside Ave
Fowler Ave
North
Jefferson Ave
Lincoln Ave
Clayton Aye
Minnewawa Ave
Jefferson Ave
Peach Ave
LEGEND
Project Site
O Study Intersection
------- Existing Roadway
------- Study Roadway Segment
Adams Ave
Sumner Ave
VrPA TECHNOLOGIES,INC
Kenneth Ave
Clovis Ave
Willow Ave
Villa Ave
262
Section 7, Item 7D
1-7 Clayton and Golden State Blvd Property Prezone
Transportation Impact Study, Introduction
Clayton and Golden State Blvd Property Prezone
Project Site Plan
Figure
1-3
j4O-T00-*W

SAHA FARMWLLC
EXISDNG 60' PUBLIC RIGHT OF HAY AVENUE
0OGHOSANPHILIPTW E EXCEPTION #12 - 20' IRRIGADON RIGHT OF IMr-i EXCEPTION #8 - 20' PUBUC RIGHT OF HW-1 PROPOSED 20' RIGHT OF IVAV DEDICATION-] North EXISTING COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY- -EXISTING 40' PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY CTR 1/4 COR. SEC 9 15/21-, EAST EXISTING STAND PIPE- CLAYTON — ;if ", 657.51' 20.00' ............... 1305.03H- 99.00" ] cP. | 207.48’ 85.00'
'3>. 105.00' 105.00’ 100.10’ 119.00’ 119.00' 101.78' 2 §

0.46 2 ACRES
3 o

0.48 § ACRES 5
■ > 38 -o § 0.41 §
2 ACRES 2 4 §

0.48 S
ACRES "
10 g

0.49 o ACRES ~
6 8

0.49 g
ACRES
7 8

0.49 8
ACRES "
8 8

0.49 g
ACRES ~
9 0.49 ACRES
5 8 s

0.47 $ ACRES

85.00/b
LROAD
LIGHT, POLE 1.07 ACRES
L=53.62
L=57.96
-L=29.74

26.69'
I | 105.00' 105.00' 1 19.00' 119,00' | 119.00' 121.78' 12 CULVERT AND WALL ABANDONED 'WaILRWLll- EASL. 8 37 8 8 0.42 8
~ ACRES "
140.09' U 100.10 99.00’ IW

85.00'
'EP
119.00’ 119.00’ 119.00' 44

0.86 ACRES
121.78’ 14 8

0.55 g
ACRES
15 0.55 130.55 ACRES
12 0.55 ACRES
11 0.54 ACRES g
8 8 36 8
8 0-42 g
ACRES
ACRES S 8

73.63' 105.00' 119.00’ 1 19.00' 119.00’ 119.00' 388.63’ 60'
121.78' 40
35 g
8 0.42 g
- ACRES - 16 8

0.55 8
ACRES
18 8

0.55 g
ACRES
17 8

0.55 ACRES
20 0.54 ACRES
19 0.55 ACRES
ACRES g
257.24' 21.69’ --------- L=29.74 99.00' 121.78’ 119.00' 119.00' 119.00’ 8 34 g 8 0.42 g
- ACRES - 39

0.87 ACRES

51.79‘\ L=29.74
138.00' 138.00' 120.00' 100.00’ 22

0.44 ACRES
21 0.44 ACRES
EXCEPTION L=64.88 #5 & #7 - 100' RIGHT OF WAY FOR- RAILROAD PURPOSES 121.78' 25 8

0.58 ACRES
24 0.58 ACRES
23 0.58 ACRES s g
£ 8 33 8
8 0.42 g
ACRES "
SECDON LINE — k

PARCEL LINE
120.00' 120.00' 139.83' 138.00' 138.00' 229.83' 186.00' 27

0.43 g
ACRES g
L=33.04- L=29.74

61.69' |
28 0.44 ACRES
121.78' EXCEPTION f9 - 15' DITCH EASEMENT 26 $

0.67 ACRES
L=78.54
136.00'
■d b 32
§ n 8
0-56 § ACRES g
100.00'
L=71.34 OUTLOT A

1.44 ACRES

64.52' | L=29.74 121.78' L= 40.24 29 s

0.60 § ACRES
30 ■o 31

0.56 ACRES
I K

0.52 S
ACRES 2

54.45' 130.00' 116.52'
InnageSource: Precision Civil Engineering, Inc. \/rpa TCCHHOUmiEt INC WEST QUARTER CORNER SECTION 10 15/21- FOUND 1" IRON PIPE, L.S. 2484, DOWN 0.8’ PER RECORD OF SURVEY BK. 43, PG. 78 EXISTING MAILBOXES (3h &
-EXISTING STAND PIPE PROPANE TANKi. 65.4’ r&
-EXISTING HOUSE
APPROX. LOCATION OF SANITARY SEWER SEPTIC TANK'' 18.82' —EXISTING BARN

18.15' I 105.00’ 105.00' 1 H-26.69’ 1 =29.74 EXISTING STAND 43 8 42 8

0.48 g 0.48 g

M ACRES ACRES
105.00’ 105.00'
--EXISTING WATER TANK

GAS TANK- POWER POLE W/ELECTRICAL METER
ELECTRIC PANEL8' DIRT ROAD

EXISTING WATER FILTER- & WATER LINE

REMAINDER

14.39 ACRES
PROPOSED USE: RESIDENTIAL
1287.51'
5 i
34O- T20-0&
ftAZWWIPAULETTE
fowleravenue
10‘ DIRT ROAD
WATER CONNECTION- 150.00' 477,08'
-01 960.48'
EXISTING 6' BLOCK WALL'
\RPA
Clayton and Golden State Blvd Property Prezone
Project Site Plan
Figure
1-3
j4O-T00-*W

SAHA FARMWLLC
EXISDNG 60' PUBLIC RIGHT OF HAY AVENUE
0OGHOSANPHILIPTW E EXCEPTION #12 - 20' IRRIGADON RIGHT OF IMr-i EXCEPTION #8 - 20' PUBUC RIGHT OF HW-1 PROPOSED 20' RIGHT OF IVAV DEDICATION-] North EXISTING COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY- -EXISTING 40' PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY CTR 1/4 COR. SEC 9 15/21-, EAST EXISTING STAND PIPE- CLAYTON — ;if ", 657.51' 20.00' ............... 1305.03H- 99.00" ] cP. | 207.48’ 85.00'
'3>. 105.00' 105.00’ 100.10’ 119.00’ 119.00' 101.78' 2 §

0.46 2 ACRES
3 o

0.48 § ACRES 5
■ > 38 -o § 0.41 §
2 ACRES 2 4 §

0.48 S
ACRES "
10 g

0.49 o ACRES ~
6 8

0.49 g
ACRES
7 8

0.49 8
ACRES "
8 8

0.49 g
ACRES ~
9 0.49 ACRES
5 8 s

0.47 $ ACRES

85.00/b
LROAD
LIGHT, POLE 1.07 ACRES
L=53.62
L=57.96
-L=29.74

26.69'
I | 105.00' 105.00' 1 19.00' 119,00' | 119.00' 121.78' 12 CULVERT AND WALL ABANDONED 'WaILRWLll- EASL. 8 37 8 8 0.42 8
~ ACRES "
140.09' U 100.10 99.00’ IW

85.00'
'EP
119.00’ 119.00’ 119.00' 44

0.86 ACRES
121.78’ 14 8

0.55 g
ACRES
15 0.55 130.55 ACRES
12 0.55 ACRES
11 0.54 ACRES g
8 8 36 8
8 0-42 g
ACRES
ACRES S 8

73.63' 105.00' 119.00’ 1 19.00' 119.00’ 119.00' 388.63’ 60'
121.78' 40
35 g
8 0.42 g
- ACRES - 16 8

0.55 8
ACRES
18 8

0.55 g
ACRES
17 8

0.55 ACRES
20 0.54 ACRES
19 0.55 ACRES
ACRES g
257.24' 21.69’ --------- L=29.74 99.00' 121.78’ 119.00' 119.00' 119.00’ 8 34 g 8 0.42 g
- ACRES - 39

0.87 ACRES

51.79‘\ L=29.74
138.00' 138.00' 120.00' 100.00’ 22

0.44 ACRES
21 0.44 ACRES
EXCEPTION L=64.88 #5 & #7 - 100' RIGHT OF WAY FOR- RAILROAD PURPOSES 121.78' 25 8

0.58 ACRES
24 0.58 ACRES
23 0.58 ACRES s g
£ 8 33 8
8 0.42 g
ACRES "
SECDON LINE — k

PARCEL LINE
120.00' 120.00' 139.83' 138.00' 138.00' 229.83' 186.00' 27

0.43 g
ACRES g
L=33.04- L=29.74

61.69' |
28 0.44 ACRES
121.78' EXCEPTION f9 - 15' DITCH EASEMENT 26 $

0.67 ACRES
L=78.54
136.00'
■d b 32
§ n 8
0-56 § ACRES g
100.00'
L=71.34 OUTLOT A

1.44 ACRES

64.52' | L=29.74 121.78' L= 40.24 29 s

0.60 § ACRES
30 ■o 31

0.56 ACRES
I K

0.52 S
ACRES 2

54.45' 130.00' 116.52'
InnageSource: Precision Civil Engineering, Inc. \/rpa TCCHHOUmiEt INC WEST QUARTER CORNER SECTION 10 15/21- FOUND 1" IRON PIPE, L.S. 2484, DOWN 0.8’ PER RECORD OF SURVEY BK. 43, PG. 78 EXISTING MAILBOXES (3h &
-EXISTING STAND PIPE PROPANE TANKi. 65.4’ r&
-EXISTING HOUSE
APPROX. LOCATION OF SANITARY SEWER SEPTIC TANK'' 18.82' —EXISTING BARN

18.15' I 105.00’ 105.00' 1 H-26.69’ 1 =29.74 EXISTING STAND 43 8 42 8

0.48 g 0.48 g

M ACRES ACRES
105.00’ 105.00'
--EXISTING WATER TANK

GAS TANK- POWER POLE W/ELECTRICAL METER
ELECTRIC PANEL8' DIRT ROAD

EXISTING WATER FILTER- & WATER LINE

REMAINDER

14.39 ACRES
PROPOSED USE: RESIDENTIAL
1287.51'
5 i
34O- T20-0&
ftAZWWIPAULETTE
fowleravenue
10‘ DIRT ROAD
WATER CONNECTION- 150.00' 477,08'
-01 960.48'
EXISTING 6' BLOCK WALL'
\RPA
263
Section 7, Item 7D
1-8 Clayton and Golden State Blvd Property Prezone
Transportation Impact Study, Introduction
Table 1-1
Signalized Intersections Level of Service Definitions
(Highway Capacity Manual)
AVERAGE TOTAL DELAY (sec/veh) LEVELOF SERVICE DEFINITION Describes operations with very low delay. This level of service occurs whentherels no conflict!ng trafficfora minorstreet. A <10,0 Describes operations with moderately low delay. This level generally occurs with a small amount of conflicting traffic causing higher levels of averagedelay.
>10.0-20.0
Describes operations with average delays. Thesehigher delays may result from a moderate amount of minor street traffic. Queues begin to get longer.
>20.0-35.0
Describes a crowded operation, with below average delays. Atlevel D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from shorter gaps on the mainline and an increase of minor street D >35.0-55.0 Describes operations at or near capacity, This level is considered by many E agencies to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values >55.0-80.0 Describes operations that are at the failure point. This level, considered to be unacceptable to most drivers, often occurs with over- saturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceedthe capacity of the intersection. Insufficient gaps of suitable size exist to allow minor traffic to cross the intersection safely.

F >80.0
AVERAGE TOTAL DELAY (sec/veh) LEVELOF SERVICE DEFINITION Describes operations with very low delay. This level of service occurs whentherels no conflict!ng trafficfora minorstreet. A <10,0 Describes operations with moderately low delay. This level generally occurs with a small amount of conflicting traffic causing higher levels of averagedelay.
>10.0-20.0
Describes operations with average delays. Thesehigher delays may result from a moderate amount of minor street traffic. Queues begin to get longer.
>20.0-35.0
Describes a crowded operation, with below average delays. Atlevel D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from shorter gaps on the mainline and an increase of minor street D >35.0-55.0 Describes operations at or near capacity, This level is considered by many E agencies to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values >55.0-80.0 Describes operations that are at the failure point. This level, considered to be unacceptable to most drivers, often occurs with over- saturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceedthe capacity of the intersection. Insufficient gaps of suitable size exist to allow minor traffic to cross the intersection safely.

F >80.0
264
Section 7, Item 7D
1-9 Clayton and Golden State Blvd Property Prezone
Transportation Impact Study, Introduction
Table 1-2
Unsignalized Intersections Level of Service Definitions (Highway Capacity Manual)
AVERAGE TOTAL DELAY (seq/veh) LEVELOF SERVICE DEFINITION A No delay for stop-controlled approaches. 0 - 10.0
B Describes operations with minor delay,
©j
©
>10.0-15.0
C Describes operations with moderate delays.
©j
>15.0-25.0
D Describes operations with some delays.
©I
©
>25.0-35.0
E Describes operations with high delays and long queues. ©j
©
>35.0-50.0
F Describes operations with extreme congestion, with very high delays and long queuesunacceptable to most drivers.
©J
o
>50.0
VjRP4 rmnwewn i*c
AVERAGE TOTAL DELAY (seq/veh) LEVELOF SERVICE DEFINITION A No delay for stop-controlled approaches. 0 - 10.0
B Describes operations with minor delay,
©j
©
>10.0-15.0
C Describes operations with moderate delays.
©j
>15.0-25.0
D Describes operations with some delays.
©I
©
>25.0-35.0
E Describes operations with high delays and long queues. ©j
©
>35.0-50.0
F Describes operations with extreme congestion, with very high delays and long queuesunacceptable to most drivers.
©J
o
>50.0
VjRP4 rmnwewn i*c
265
Section 7, Item 7D
1-10 Clayton and Golden State Blvd Property Prezone
Transportation Impact Study, Introduction
Table 1-3
Roadway Segment
Level of Service Definitions
(Highway Capacity Manual)

LEVEL OF SERVICE l DEFINITION
A
st Represents free flow. Individual vehicles are virtually unaffected by the presenceof others in the traffic stream.

B
Is in the range of stable flow, but the presence of other vehicles in the = ta __ traffic stream begins to be noticeable. Freedomto select desired speedsis _ ' relatively unaffected, but there is a slight decline in the freedom to ' fcs ’ H maneuver. *
=
'
C
-UK OL
Is in the range of stable flow, but marks the beginning of therange of flow in which the operation of individual vehicles becomes significantly affected by interactions with other vehicles in the traffic stream, r D
Ha Is a crowded segment of roadway with a large number of vehicles restricting mobility and a stableflow. Speedand freedom to maneuver are „ r - : severely restricted, and the driver experiences a generally poor level of comfort and convenience.
a
E
r- 1
Representsoperating conditions at or near the level capacity. Alt speeds w , are reducedto a low, but relatively uniform value. Small increases in flow M will causebreakdowns in traffic movement.
*
Is used to define forced or breakdown flow (stop-and-go gridlock). This m condition exists when the amount of traffic approaches a point where the amount of traffic exceeds the amount that can travel to a destination. __i -7 r Operations within the queues are characterized by stop and go waves,and jgr they are extremely unstable. z? W
LEVEL OF SERVICE l DEFINITION
A
st Represents free flow. Individual vehicles are virtually unaffected by the presenceof others in the traffic stream.

B
Is in the range of stable flow, but the presence of other vehicles in the = ta __ traffic stream begins to be noticeable. Freedomto select desired speedsis _ ' relatively unaffected, but there is a slight decline in the freedom to ' fcs ’ H maneuver. *
=
'
C
-UK OL
Is in the range of stable flow, but marks the beginning of therange of flow in which the operation of individual vehicles becomes significantly affected by interactions with other vehicles in the traffic stream, r D
Ha Is a crowded segment of roadway with a large number of vehicles restricting mobility and a stableflow. Speedand freedom to maneuver are „ r - : severely restricted, and the driver experiences a generally poor level of comfort and convenience.
a
E
r- 1
Representsoperating conditions at or near the level capacity. Alt speeds w , are reducedto a low, but relatively uniform value. Small increases in flow M will causebreakdowns in traffic movement.
*
Is used to define forced or breakdown flow (stop-and-go gridlock). This m condition exists when the amount of traffic approaches a point where the amount of traffic exceeds the amount that can travel to a destination. __i -7 r Operations within the queues are characterized by stop and go waves,and jgr they are extremely unstable. z? W
266
Section 7, Item 7D
1-11 Clayton and Golden State Blvd Property Prezone
Transportation Impact Study, Introduction
Table 1-4
Peak Hour Two-Way Segment Volume Thresholds

Lanes Median A B C D E
2 Divided N/A N/A 440 1,640 1,860
4 Divided N/A N/A 1,000 3,470 3,730
2 TWTL N/A N/A 420 1,550 1,760
4 TWTL N/A N/A 940 3,290 3,550
2 Undivided N/A N/A 340 1,270 1,480
4 Undivided N/A N/A 770 2,740 2,980
2 TWTL N/A N/A 420 1,550 1,760
4 TWTL N/A N/A 940 3,290 3,550
2 Undivided N/A N/A 340 1,270 1,480
4 Undivided N/A N/A 770 2,740 2,980
2 Undivided N/A N/A 700 930 1,000
2 Divided N/A N/A 700 930 1,000
Level of Service

COLLECTORS
N/A- LOS is not achievable because of the type of facility LOCAL

ARTERIAL
VjRP4 rmnwewn i*c
267
Section 7, Item 7D
2-1 Clayton and Golden State Blvd Property Prezone
Transportation Impact Study, Existing Conditions

2.0 Existing Conditions

2.1 Existing Traffic Counts and Roadway Geometrics
The first step toward assessing Project traffic impacts is to assess existing traffic conditions.

Existing AM and PM peak hour turning movements were collected at each study intersection by National Data and Surveying Services. Intersection turning movement counts were conducted for the peak hour periods of 7:00-9:00 AM and 4:00-6:00 PM for study intersections on either Tuesday, November 14, 2023, or Thursday, February 22, 2024. Traffic count data worksheets are provided in Appendix B. The day on which counts were taken is representative of typical traffic volumes within the study area. Schools were in session and the weather was mild.

2.2 Existing Functional Roadway Classification System
Functional classification is the process by which streets and highways are grouped into classes, or systems, according to the type of service they are intended to provide. Fundamental to this process is the recognition that individual streets and highways do not serve travel independently in any major way. Rather, most travel involves movement through a network of roads.

The current hierarchical system of roadways consists of the following six (6) basic classifications:
 Freeways – Limited-access facilities designed for high-speed regional mobility. Freeways may include up to eight lanes (four lanes in each direction). SR 99, in the Project study area, is classified as a freeway.
 Expressways –High-speed, two- to six-lane divided roadways, primarily servicing through and cross-town traffic, with no direct access to abutting property and at-grade intersections located at approximately half-mile intervals. Golden State Boulevard is classified as an Expressway in the study area per the City of Fowler General Plan Circulation Diagram.  Arterial – Typically four- to six-lane divided roadways, with somewhat limited access to abutting properties, and with the primary purpose of moving traffic within and between community plan areas and to and from freeways and expressways. The portions of American Avenue and Clovis Avenue within the City of Fowler Planning Area are classified as Arterials.  Collectors – Two to four-lane undivided roadways, with the primary function of connecting local streets and arterials and neighborhood traffic generators and providing access to abutting properties. Lincoln Avenue, Fowler Avenue, Clayton Avenue, and Merced Street are classified as a Collector in the study area per the City of Fowler General Plan.

 Local Streets – Two- to three-lane public or private roadways designed to provide direct access to properties while discouraging traffic between major streets. They are intended to carry low volumes of traffic and support unrestricted on-street parking.

VlWM rrowowMnme
268
Section 7, Item 7D
2-2 Clayton and Golden State Blvd Property Prezone
Transportation Impact Study, Existing Conditions

2.3 Affected Streets and Highways
Street and highway intersections and segments near and adjacent to the Project site were analyzed to determine levels of service utilizing HCM-based methodologies described previously.

The study intersections and street and highway segments included in this TIS are listed below.

Intersections

1. American Avenue and SR 99 SB Off Ramp

2. American Avenue and SR 99 NB On Ramp

3. Jefferson Avenue and Golden State Boulevard

4. Clovis Avenue and Jefferson Avenue

5. Clovis Avenue and Lincoln Avenue

6. Fowler Avenue and Lincoln Avenue

7. Clayton Avenue and Golden State Boulevard

8. Clayton Avenue and Fowler Avenue

9. Clovis Avenue and SR 99 NB Ramps

10. Clayton Avenue and SR 99 SB Off Ramp

11. Clovis Avenue and SR 99 SB Ramps

12. Adams Avenue and SR 99 SB Off Ramp

13. Adams Avenue and SR 99 NB On Ramp

14. Merced Street and Fowler Ave/SR 99 SB Off Ramp

15. Merced Street and SR 99 NB Ramps
Roadway Segments
 Fowler Avenue between:
 Adam Avenue and Clayton Avenue
 Clayton Avenue and Lincoln Avenue
 Lincoln Avenue and Jefferson Avenue
 Clayton Avenue between:
 Golden State Boulevard and Fowler Avenue
 Lincoln Avenue between:
 Clovis Avenue and Fowler Avenue
 Jefferson Avenue between:
 Clovis Avenue and Fowler Avenue
The existing lane geometry at study area intersections is shown in Figure 2-1. All the study intersections are currently unsignalized except for two intersections (American Avenue at SR 99 NB On Ramp and Adams Avenue and SR 99 NB On Ramp) which do not have any intersection controls. Figures 2-2 and 2-3 show existing traffic volumes for the AM and PM peak hours in the study area.

VlWM rrowowMnme
269
Section 7, Item 7D
2-3 Clayton and Golden State Blvd Property Prezone
Transportation Impact Study, Existing Conditions
Clayton and Golden State Blvd Property Prezone Figure
Existing LaneGeometry
Jefferson Ave
Lincoln Ave

8. Clayton Ave and Fowler Ave
1 American Ave and SR 99 SB Off Ramp 2 Amenrarr Ave and SR 99 NB On Ramp 12 Adams Ave and SR 99 SB Off Ramp 13 Adams Ave and SR 99 NB On Ramp •1 Jefferson Ave and Clovis Ave 15 Merced Street and SR 99 NB Ramps v4?P4 TECHNOLOGIES.INC
5 Lincoln Ave and Clovis Ave ijJi 6 Lincoln Ave and Fowler Ave 7 Clayton Ave and Golden State Blvd RoI
10 Clayton Ave and SR 99 SB Off Ramp
Clovis Ave Frontage

9. Clovis Ave and SR 99 NB Ramps
1 1 SR 99 SB Ramps and Clovis Ave
*ittr
LEGEND
Project Site —•
Study Intersection
Existing Roadway
Stop Sign
r Lane Geometry
Study Roadway Segment
JU
4*
HIL
Private Dwv •
Clayton and Golden State Blvd Property Prezone Figure
Existing LaneGeometry
Jefferson Ave
Lincoln Ave

8. Clayton Ave and Fowler Ave
1 American Ave and SR 99 SB Off Ramp 2 Amenrarr Ave and SR 99 NB On Ramp 12 Adams Ave and SR 99 SB Off Ramp 13 Adams Ave and SR 99 NB On Ramp •1 Jefferson Ave and Clovis Ave 15 Merced Street and SR 99 NB Ramps v4?P4 TECHNOLOGIES.INC
5 Lincoln Ave and Clovis Ave ijJi 6 Lincoln Ave and Fowler Ave 7 Clayton Ave and Golden State Blvd RoI
10 Clayton Ave and SR 99 SB Off Ramp
Clovis Ave Frontage

9. Clovis Ave and SR 99 NB Ramps
1 1 SR 99 SB Ramps and Clovis Ave
*ittr
LEGEND
Project Site —•
Study Intersection
Existing Roadway
Stop Sign
r Lane Geometry
Study Roadway Segment
JU
4*
HIL
Private Dwv •
270
Section 7, Item 7D
2-4 Clayton and Golden State Blvd Property Prezone
Transportation Impact Study, Existing Conditions
Clayton and Golden State Blvd Property Prezone
Existing AM PeakHour Traffic
Figure
2-2
Lincoln Ave
10 Clayton Ave and SR 99 SB Off Ramp/
Aye F
8 Clayton Ave and Fowler Ave
1 American Ave and SR 99 SB Off Ramp 12 Adams Ave and SR 99 SB Off Ramp "T to CO — 279
75 82
124
122
46 175
102
226 119
v4?P4 TECHNOLOGIES.INC
5 Lincoln Ave and Clovis Ave 6 Lincoln Ave and Fowler Ave o o
cxi cn
IIL
t ___26 I 16
©
*111- o co m
in
7 Clayton Ave and Golden State Blvd
-

9. Clovis Ave and SR 99 NB Ramps <-A------- 19 « ---------702 x ~416
nr coco
r- CO
f — 29
CM
04 O'
JI
* ------- 42 •
37 ---i
11 SR 99 SB Ramps and Clovis Ave
t- -r- in
rr ID
v- in
25 t
17 ---------
58 1
ittr 04 o>
co
04 LEGEND
Project Site —•
Study Intersection
Existing Roadway
Stop Sign
r Lane Geometry
Study Roadway Segment ' letterson AV" and Golden Sialo Blvd CMO)
’T- m> JU
20 ___J nil
o co
r- coCM
•1 Joftenion Avn and Clovts AVe
r- OJTJ hL
Private Dwv
4~° ©
H
nil-CO r- cnin
ttcwotwcnu«
271
Section 7, Item 7D
2-5 Clayton and Golden State Blvd Property Prezone
Transportation Impact Study, Existing Conditions
Clayton and Golden State Blvd Property Prezone
Existing PM PeakHour Traffic
Figure
2-3
Incoln Av<
10 Clayton Ave and SR 99 SB Off Ramp/
Frcmlaoe
8 Clayton Ave and Fowler Ave
4 2
1 American Ave and SR 99 SB Off Ramp 11 SR 99 SB Ramps and Clovis Ave 12 Adams Ave and SR 99 SB Off Ramp T co <o r- 171
63 139
65 63 ■65
nlirCM O

O V- CN
116
203
247 65
24 170
336
■1 Jotfer on Ave and ClovtS Ave
0 0
$
Private Dwy
\/rpa TECHNOLOGIES.INC
5 Lincoln Ave and Clovis Ave 6 Lincoln Ave and Fowler Ave CM03
r- co
to
IIL co co nlF* O N LO
LO
7 Clayton Ave and Golden State Blvd

9. Clovis Ave and SR 99 NB Ramps
r- tn CXio
co 41 ' x 573
nil X' to tO 03
• r u
’T <D — CD
Ji
< -------33 •
62— I
LEGEND
Project Site —•
Study Intersection
Existing Roadway
Stop Sign
r Lane Geometry
Study Roadway Segment
125 ------->
*r co m- CM
' lefferson /W" and Golden Sialo Blvd
to 0) co
J II
40 J
31 I nil O
CXI
ttcwotwcnu«
Clayton and Golden State Blvd Property Prezone
Existing PM PeakHour Traffic
Figure
2-3
Incoln Av<
10 Clayton Ave and SR 99 SB Off Ramp/
Frcmlaoe
8 Clayton Ave and Fowler Ave
4 2
1 American Ave and SR 99 SB Off Ramp 11 SR 99 SB Ramps and Clovis Ave 12 Adams Ave and SR 99 SB Off Ramp T co <o r- 171
63 139
65 63 ■65
nlirCM O

O V- CN
116
203
247 65
24 170
336
■1 Jotfer on Ave and ClovtS Ave
0 0
$
Private Dwy
\/rpa TECHNOLOGIES.INC
5 Lincoln Ave and Clovis Ave 6 Lincoln Ave and Fowler Ave CM03
r- co
to
IIL co co nlF* O N LO
LO
7 Clayton Ave and Golden State Blvd

9. Clovis Ave and SR 99 NB Ramps
r- tn CXio
co 41 ' x 573
nil X' to tO 03
• r u
’T <D — CD
Ji
< -------33 •
62— I
LEGEND
Project Site —•
Study Intersection
Existing Roadway
Stop Sign
r Lane Geometry
Study Roadway Segment
125 ------->
*r co m- CM
' lefferson /W" and Golden Sialo Blvd
to 0) co
J II
40 J
31 I nil O
CXI
ttcwotwcnu«
272
Section 7, Item 7D
2-6 Clayton and Golden State Blvd Property Prezone
Transportation Impact Study, Existing Conditions

2.4 Level of Service

2.4.1 Intersection Capacity Analysis
All intersection LOS analyses were estimated using Synchro 12 Software. Various roadway geometrics, traffic volumes, and properties (peak hour factors, storage pocket length, etc) were input into the Synchro 12 Software program to accurately determine the travel delay and LOS for each study scenario. The intersection LOS and delays reported represent the HCM 6th Edition outputs. Synchro assumptions, listed below, show the various Synchro inputs and methodologies used in the analysis.
 Lane Geometry
 Storage lengths for turn lanes for existing intersections were obtained from aerial photos and rounded to the nearest 25 feet
 VRPA conducted a field study of the specified intersections and segments to verify lane geometry and intersection control as well as to obtain other pertinent data.  Traffic Conditions
 Peak hour factors (PHF) for each intersection approach were obtained from the traffic counts discussed in Section 2.1 and were utilized for Existing and Existing Plus Project conditions. For all future scenarios, a PHF of 0.92 was applied unless the existing PHF was greater than 0.92. The value of 0.92 was used because it is the default value recommended in the HCM.
 Heavy vehicle percentages were based on the field traffic counts.  Roadway link speed limits were observed in the field and input into the Synchro network to determine roadway link speeds
 Two of the study intersections function without a traffic control which prevents Synchro from generating a delay since synchro does not support intersections without a traffic control. As a result, a ‘dummy leg’ with a stop control and no volumes was input into the Synchro model at American Avenue at SR 99 NB On Ramp and Adams Avenue and SR 99 NB On Ramp.

Results of the analysis show that a majority of the study intersections currently operate at or better than the City of Fowler LOS criteria. Clovis Avenue at SR 99 SB On Ramp is currently operating at LOS F. Table 2-1 shows the intersection LOS for the existing conditions. Synchro 11 (HCM 6th Edition) Worksheets are provided in Appendix C.

2.4.2 Queuing Analysis
Table 2-2 provides a queue length summary for left and right turn lane approaches at study intersections. As shown in Table 2-2, existing traffic at the westbound left approach for the Merced Street and SR 99 SB Off Ramp-Fowler Avenue intersection exceeds the existing 50-foot storage pocket.

VlWM rrowowMnme
273
Section 7, Item 7D
2-7 Clayton and Golden State Blvd Property Prezone
Transportation Impact Study, Existing Conditions

2.4.3 Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis
Results of the AM and PM peak hour LOS segment analysis along the existing street and highway system are reflected in Table 2-3. The performance criteria used for evaluating volumes and capacities on the road and highway system for this study were estimated using Table 5.14-2 from the City of Fresno General Plan and Development Code Update Master Environmental Impact Report included in Appendix A. Results of the analysis show that all of the study roadway segments meet the City of Fowler’s minimum acceptable level of service criteria during both the AM and PM peak hour.

2.5 Study Area Collision Analysis
The Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) provided by University of California, Berkeley was used to evaluate traffic collisions in the study area. TIMS utilizes geocoded data provided by the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS). SWITRS is a tool used by California Highway Patrol (CHP) and other Allied Agencies throughout California and includes various types of statistical reports and data. The database serves as a means to collect and process data gathered from a collision scene. Information from the TIMS database shows that approximately 176 injury accidents and 9 fatal accidents have occurred throughout the study area during the 5- year period between January 1st, 2018, and December 31st, 2022. A graphical representation of traffic collisions throughout the study area for the 5-year period reflected above is provided in Figure 2-4. More detailed collision data is provided in Appendix D. The Fresno County region had approximately 15,033 injury accidents and 737 fatal accidents over the same timeframe referenced above. Injury and fatal accidents in the study area represent 1.2% of incidents that occurred in the Fresno County Region. Rear-End collisions represent 45% of the accidents in the study area while broadside collisions represent 23%. Unsafe Speed ranked as the highest primary crash factor at 44% of accidents in the study area. Automobile right-of-way was the second highest primary crash factor at 16%.

VlWM rrowowMnme
274
Section 7, Item 7D
2-8 Clayton and Golden State Blvd Property Prezone
Transportation Impact Study, Existing Conditions
Table 2-1
Existing Intersection Operations

DELAY LOS
AM 11.7 B
PM 12.0 B
AM 7.8 A
PM 7.7 A
AM 12.4 B
PM 13.7 B
AM 26.7 D
PM 27.2 D
AM 16.3 C
PM 24.1 C
AM 10.2 B
PM 10.1 B
AM 12.1 B
PM 15.3 C
AM 9.0 A
PM 9.2 A
AM 19.0 C
PM 16.6 C
AM 9.1 A
PM 10.7 B
AM >50.0 F
PM >50.0 F
AM 9.6 A
PM 10.3 B
AM 0.0 A
PM 0.0 A
AM 20.9 C
PM 15.2 C
AM 21.0 C
PM 17.5 C
DELAY is measured in seconds
LOS = Level of Service / BOLD denotes LOS standard has been exceeded Merced St a nd SR 99 NB Ra mps
D
D
D
All Way Stop
One Way Stop
Merced St a nd SR 99 SB Off Ramp-Fowler Ave
15 10
11 12
13 14
Adams Ave SR 99 NB On Ra mps No Control (1) D
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 D
Two Way Stop C
Adams Ave and SR 99 SB Off Ramp One Way Stop D
Two-way Stop D
One Way Stop
One Way Stop
Cla yton Ave and SR 99 SB Off Ramp
Clovis Ave and SR 99 SB On Ramp
D
Clovis Ave and Jeffers on Ave One Way Stop D
Clovis Ave and Lincoln Ave One Way Stop D
Golden State Blvd a nd Jeffers on Ave One Way Stop
Fowler Ave and Lincoln Ave

CONTROL TARGET
LOS
PEAK
HOUR

EXISTING
(1) Synchro does n’t generate a delay for inters ections without a traffic control. A ‘dummy leg’ with a stop control and no volumes wa s input into the Synchro model.

Clovis Ave and SR 99 NB Ramps One Way Stop D

INTERSECTION
For all-way s top controlled intersections , delay results show the average for the entire intersection. For two-way and one-way s top controlled intersections , delay results show the delay for the wors t movement.

Golden State Blvd a nd Clayton Ave Two Way Stop D
Fowler Ave and Cl ayton Ave One Way Stop C
American Ave and SR 99 NB On Ramp No Control (1) D
American Ave and SR 99 SB Off Ramp
VlWM rrowowMni«c
275
Section 7, Item 7D
2-9 Clayton and Golden State Blvd Property Prezone
Transportation Impact Study, Existing Conditions
Table 2-2
Existing Queuing Operations
AM
Queue
PM
Queue
SB Right 225 18 3
NB Left 150 3 0
SB Right 150 0 0
NB Left 150 0 0
SB Left 150 0 0
NB Left 75 0 0
SB Left 150 3 5
SB Right 125 0 0
NB Left 150 13 5
WB Left 50 10 5
SB Right 50 0 0
NB Left 50 0 0
SB Left 125 63 48
EB Left 75 83 203
EB Right 150 5 23
NB Right 100 13 28
WB Left 50 80 60
EB Left 50 15 15
Queue is measured in feet / BOLD denotes exceedance

INTERSECTION

EXISTING QUEUE
STORAGE LENGTH (ft)

EXISTING
Clovis Ave and Lincoln Ave
7 Golden State Blvd and Clayton Ave
1 American Ave and SR 99 SB Off Ramp
3 Golden State Blvd and Jefferson Ave
4 Clovis Ave and Jefferson Ave
5 9 Clovis Ave and SR 99 NB Ramps
15 Merced St and SR 99 NB Ramps
10 Clayton Ave and SR 99 SB Off Ramp
11 Clovis Ave and SR 99 SB On Ramp
12 Adams Ave and SR 99 SB Off Ramp
14 Merced St and SR 99 SB Off Ramp-Fowler Ave
VlWM rrowowMni«c
276
Section 7, Item 7D
2-10 Clayton and Golden State Blvd Property Prezone
Transportation Impact Study, Existing Conditions
Table 2-3
Existing Segment Operations
VOLUME LOS AM 125 C
PM 124 C AM 175 C
PM 144 C AM 93 C
PM 129 C AM 10 C
PM 11 C AM 88 C
PM 101 C AM 8 C
PM 3 C
LOS = Level of Se rvi ce / BOLD denotes LOS standard has been exceeded C
C
C
C
C
2 Lanes Divided C
2 Lanes Divided
2 Lanes Undivided
Jefferson Avenue
Lincon Avenue
Clayton Avenue
Adams Avenue and Clayton Avenue
Clayton Avenue and Lincoln Avenue
Clovis Avenue and Fowler Avenue
2 Lanes Divided
2 Lanes Undivided
Golden State Boulevard and Fowler Avenue
Collector
Collector
Local
Local
Collector
Local
Clovis Avenue and Fowler Avenue
Lincoln Avenue and Jefferson Avenue
2 Lanes Divided
Fowler Avenue

STREET SEGMENT

SEGMENT

DESCRIPTION

TARGET LOS PEAK HOUR

EXISTING ROADWAY

FUNCTIONAL

CLASSIFICATION
VlWM rrowowMni«c
277
Section 7, Item 7D
2-11 Clayton and Golden State Blvd Property Prezone
Transportation Impact Study, Existing Conditions
Clayton and Golden State Blvd Property Prezone
Study Area Collision Map (01/01/2018 - 12/31/2022)
Figure
2-4
1 Broadside
Accidents
North
Armstrong Ave
Fowler Ave
Jefferson Ave
Peach Ave
Lincoln Ave
Clayton Ave
LEGEND
til
ro
ro
£o
c=
§
Head-On
Sideswipe
Rear End
Adams Ave Broadside
Hit Object
Vehicle/Pedestrian 0) <
£CD
C
c
0)
txt
Overturned
S
o
o
Other
Sumner Ave I
>
1 3
Vrpa TECHNOLOGIES.INC.

Clayton and Golden State Blvd Property Prezone
Study Area Collision Map (01/01/2018 - 12/31/2022)
Figure
2-4
1 Broadside
Accidents
North
Armstrong Ave
Fowler Ave
Jefferson Ave
Peach Ave
Lincoln Ave
Clayton Ave
LEGEND
til
ro
ro
£o
c=
§
Head-On
Sideswipe
Rear End
Adams Ave Broadside
Hit Object
Vehicle/Pedestrian 0) <
£CD
C
c
0)
txt
Overturned
S
o
o
Other
Sumner Ave I
>
1 3
Vrpa TECHNOLOGIES.INC.
278
Section 7, Item 7D
3-1 Clayton and Golden State Blvd Property Prezone
Transportation Impact Study, Traffic Impacts

3.0 Traffic Impacts
This chapter provides an assessment of traffic and the impact on the surrounding street system.

3.1 Trip Generation
The Annexation/Prezone proposes a prezone to M-1 and R-1-7. The Project also proposes a 44- lot industrial subdivision on 45.04 acres of land. The trip generation was based on the highest level of trip generation of all feasible uses at the Project site as determined in discussions with City of Fowler staff. The result of these discussions were the assumption of use of the General Light Industrial trip generation category with a floor area ration of 0.20, resulting in 392,000 sq. ft. of development. There is an area shown on the project site that indicates a proposal for residential use, but this is not considered to be part of the project for trip generation purposes.

The considerations described above led to the recommended trip generation for weekday AM (7:00-9:00am) and PM (4:00-6:00pm) peak hours shown in Table 3-1. Any exceedance of the values shown in Table 3-1 would require consideration of a revised traffic study.

Table 3-1
Project Trip Generation

3.2 Trip Distribution
Project trip distribution percentages for the Existing Plus Project and Horizon Year scenarios is shown in Figure 3-1. These percentages are based upon knowledge of the study area, engineering judgement, prevailing traffic patterns in the study area, major routes, population centers, and other existing developments.

Site access will be provided at two Project Driveways along Clayton Avenue between Golden State Boulevard and Fowler Avenue. At the south end of the Project, Lynn Avenue dead ends at the south property line. Regional access to the site is provided via SR 99.

DAILY TRIP ENDS (ADT)
IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL General Light Industrial
(Auto Trips) 110 392 ksf 3.638 1,426 0.730 88:12 253 33 286 0.640 14:86 34 217 251 General Light Industrial
(Truck Trips) 110 392 ksf 0.250 98 0.010 50:50 2 2 4 0.010 50:50 2 2 4 1,524 255 35 290 36 219 255
1,720 259 39 298 40 223 263
Source: Generation factors from ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition.

Trip ends are one-way traffic movements, entering or leaving.

PCE = Passenger Car Equivalent
ITE Land Use Code

TOTAL TRIP GENERATION

TOTAL TRIP GENERATION (PCE)
LAND USE Size WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR RATE VOLUME RATE IN:OUT SPLIT VOLUME RATE IN:OUT SPLIT VOLUME l'X<P4 rnwwwi (*c 279
Section 7, Item 7D
3-2 Clayton and Golden State Blvd Property Prezone
Transportation Impact Study, Traffic Impacts
Clayton and Golden State Blvd Property Prezone
Trip Distribution
Figure
3-1
American Ave
0) <■O
to
>1
c
15%
<
o
cn
co
§
E
<
5% 5%
V)
Jefferson Ave Jefferson Ave Peach Ave
5% 5%
Lincoln Ave
5%
5%
Clayton Ave
<u
<
roS
ro
5 a>
5%
5% 5% Adams Ave
North
LEGEND
Project Site
O Study Intersection
------- Existing Roadway
Trip Distribution %
------- Study RoadwaySegment
Sumner Ave 15%
Vrpa TECHNOLOGIES.INC.

Kenneth Ave
Clovis Ave
Willow Ave
Villa Ave
V'frP4 OOPWtMM
Clayton and Golden State Blvd Property Prezone
Trip Distribution
Figure
3-1
American Ave
0) <■O
to
>1
c
15%
<
o
cn
co
§
E
<
5% 5%
V)
Jefferson Ave Jefferson Ave Peach Ave
5% 5%
Lincoln Ave
5%
5%
Clayton Ave
<u
<
roS
ro
5 a>
5%
5% 5% Adams Ave
North
LEGEND
Project Site
O Study Intersection
------- Existing Roadway
Trip Distribution %
------- Study RoadwaySegment
Sumner Ave 15%
Vrpa TECHNOLOGIES.INC.

Kenneth Ave
Clovis Ave
Willow Ave
Villa Ave
V'frP4 OOPWtMM 280
Section 7, Item 7D
3-3 Clayton and Golden State Blvd Property Prezone
Transportation Impact Study, Traffic Impacts

3.3 Project Traffic
Project traffic as shown in Table 3-1 was distributed to the roadway system using the trip distribution percentages shown in Figure 3-1. The graphical representation of the resulting AM and PM peak hour Project trips used is shown in Figures 3-2 and 3-3.

3.4 Existing Plus Project Conditions
An Existing Plus Project Scenario was analyzed to include existing traffic plus traffic generated by the Project. The peak hour trips for the Project were added to existing traffic volumes to analyze the impacts. The resulting traffic is shown in Figures 3-4 and 3-5.

3.5 Horizon Year Without Project Conditions
The impacts of the Project were analyzed considering future traffic conditions, approximately twenty (20) years in the future or the year 2044. The levels of traffic expected in the horizon year relate to the cumulative effect of traffic increases resulting from the implementation of the General Plans of local agencies, including the City of Fowler. Traffic conditions without the Project in the Horizon Year were estimated based upon the Fresno Council of Governments (Fresno COG) regional travel model. In cases where the model showed less than 2% growth per year, traffic conditions without the Project in the Horizon Year were estimated based upon a 2% per year growth factor. Traffic conditions resulting from this scenario are shown in Figures 3-6 and 3-7.

3.6 Horizon Year Plus Project Conditions
The addition of Project trips, which were distributed to the roadway system using the trip distribution percentages shown in Figure 3-1 (Section 3.3), were added to Horizon Year Without Project traffic volumes. Traffic conditions resulting from this scenario are shown in Figures 3-8 and 3-9.

3.7 Impacts

3.7.1 Intersection Capacity Analysis
Table 3-2 provides the intersection level of service analysis for the study intersections considering the study scenarios discussed above. Potential roadway improvement measures are discussed in Chapter 4 of this report. Results of the analysis show that the Project will contribute to an unacceptable LOS at eight (8) of the study intersections when comparing the Horizon Year scenarios.
l'X<P4 rnwwwi (*c 281
Section 7, Item 7D
3-4 Clayton and Golden State Blvd Property Prezone
Transportation Impact Study, Traffic Impacts

3.7.2 Queuing Analysis
Table 3-3 provides a queue length summary for left and right turn lane approaches at study intersections. The queue lengths presented in Table 3-3 represent the 95 percentile queue lengths for the respective lane movements based on the Synchro traffic signal timing program.

Results of the queuing analysis shows that existing queue storage will be adequate to serve expected peak hour queue lengths at most of the intersections. However, storage will be insufficient at two (2) of the study intersection considering the Horizon Year scenario.

3.7.3 Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis
Results of the AM and PM peak hour LOS segment analysis along the existing street and highway system are reflected in Table 3-4. Results of the analysis show that all of the study roadway segments meet the City of Fowler’s minimum acceptable level of service criteria during both the AM and PM peak hour.
l'X<P4 rnwwwi (*c 282
Section 7, Item 7D
3-5 Clayton and Golden State Blvd Property Prezone
Transportation Impact Study, Traffic Impacts
Clayton and Golden State Blvd Property Prezone
Project AM Peak Hour Traffic
Figure
3-2
J American Ave
Z£
1 I
I
|I
i I
I
I
I
1 2 Amenran Ave and SR 99 NB On Ramp 12 Adams Ave arid SR 99 SB Off Ramp 13 Adams Ave and SR 99 NB On Ramp 6 0
?
[stop] 0
39 ,'fl 0
0 ■1Jefferson Ave and Clovis Ave
0 , <o 0
0 <d
0□
Private Owy
o 0 o
0 0
0 - o e>
c
5 Lincoln Ave and Clovis Ave 6 Lincoln Ave and Fowler Ave ono t 0 *7----- 0
j 0
0 t 0 —
0 | O CXI o
7 Clayton Ave and Golden State Blvd
8 Clayton Ave and Fowler Ave 9. Clovis Ave and SR 99 NB Ramps I 10 Clayton Ave and SR 99 SB Off Ramp/ 52 LEGEND
Project Site
O Study Intersection
------ Existing Roadway
® Stop Sign
LaneGeometry
------- Study RoadwaySegment 3 lefferson AVf and Golden Sialo Blvd O CD
CO
Jll
O to
»•
H
0?P4 TECHNOLOGIES.INC
VfrP4 rwtwtMM t*c
Clayton and Golden State Blvd Property Prezone
Project AM Peak Hour Traffic
Figure
3-2
J American Ave
Z£
1 I
I
|I
i I
I
I
I
1 2 Amenran Ave and SR 99 NB On Ramp 12 Adams Ave arid SR 99 SB Off Ramp 13 Adams Ave and SR 99 NB On Ramp 6 0
?
[stop] 0
39 ,'fl 0
0 ■1Jefferson Ave and Clovis Ave
0 , <o 0
0 <d
0□
Private Owy
o 0 o
0 0
0 - o e>
c
5 Lincoln Ave and Clovis Ave 6 Lincoln Ave and Fowler Ave ono t 0 *7----- 0
j 0
0 t 0 —
0 | O CXI o
7 Clayton Ave and Golden State Blvd
8 Clayton Ave and Fowler Ave 9. Clovis Ave and SR 99 NB Ramps I 10 Clayton Ave and SR 99 SB Off Ramp/ 52 LEGEND
Project Site
O Study Intersection
------ Existing Roadway
® Stop Sign
LaneGeometry
------- Study RoadwaySegment 3 lefferson AVf and Golden Sialo Blvd O CD
CO
Jll
O to
»•
H
0?P4 TECHNOLOGIES.INC
VfrP4 rwtwtMM t*c 283
Section 7, Item 7D
3-6 Clayton and Golden State Blvd Property Prezone
Transportation Impact Study, Traffic Impacts
Clayton and Golden State Blvd Property Prezone Figure
Project PM Peak Hour Traffic 3-3
5 Lincoln Ave and Clovis Ave 6 Lincoln Ave and Fowler Ave 7 Clayton Ave and Golden State Blvd 0 0
0 0
0 0
■
1 American Ave end SR 99 SB Off Ramp 2 Amenran Ave and SR 99 NB On Ramp 12 Adams Ave and SR 99 SB Off Ramp 13 Adams Ave and SR 99 NB Un Ramp 33 0 O O ID < LEGEND
Study Intersection
12 0
0 Existing Roadway
Stop Sign
LaneGeometry
Study RoadwaySegment
u 0 ol/»P4 TECHNOLOGIES.INC
10 Clayton Ave and SR 99 SB Off Ramp/
Clovis Ave Frontage 8 Clayton Ave and Fowler Ave
4 i
CMO
11 J1

9. Clovis Ave and SR 99 NB Ramps
r-~ CO mrr
41 8 • . 0 ------ 12 ____*
o
MolsB
1 letferson AV"
■
and Goklen Slain Blvd

O CMO HIL
Private Dwy
-H
•
H O T~ O
V rwtwtMM t*c
Clayton and Golden State Blvd Property Prezone Figure
Project PM Peak Hour Traffic 3-3
5 Lincoln Ave and Clovis Ave 6 Lincoln Ave and Fowler Ave 7 Clayton Ave and Golden State Blvd 0 0
0 0
0 0
■
1 American Ave end SR 99 SB Off Ramp 2 Amenran Ave and SR 99 NB On Ramp 12 Adams Ave and SR 99 SB Off Ramp 13 Adams Ave and SR 99 NB Un Ramp 33 0 O O ID < LEGEND
Study Intersection
12 0
0 Existing Roadway
Stop Sign
LaneGeometry
Study RoadwaySegment
u 0 ol/»P4 TECHNOLOGIES.INC
10 Clayton Ave and SR 99 SB Off Ramp/
Clovis Ave Frontage 8 Clayton Ave and Fowler Ave
4 i
CMO
11 J1

9. Clovis Ave and SR 99 NB Ramps
r-~ CO mrr
41 8 • . 0 ------ 12 ____*
o
MolsB
1 letferson AV"
■
and Goklen Slain Blvd

O CMO HIL
Private Dwy
-H
•
H O T~ O
V rwtwtMM t*c 284
Section 7, Item 7D
3-7 Clayton and Golden State Blvd Property Prezone
Transportation Impact Study, Traffic Impacts
Clayton and Golden State Blvd Property Prezone Figure
Existing Plus Project AM Peak Hour Traffic
Clayton Avo A
i
5 1
5 Lincoln Ave and Clovis Avs 6. Lincoln Ave and Fowler Ave 7 Clayton Ave and Golden State Blvd COo
to co
ilL
t ___26
L 16 0
w- O CD
CO 9
------32
t ___ 2 ••------- 150
<-j— 18
f 29 •H
•
o ooin
in © 0 f 26 ■/ »
1/ ; EMn o
v COco
0 t 1 ------(a
o i •II* O CD CO
cp in CM A
North
10 Clayton Ave and SR 99 SB Off Ramp/
Clovis Ave Frontage 8 Clayton Ave and Fowler Ave 9. Clovis Ave and SR 99 NB Ramps «— '■--------- 31 « ------------- 710
A.4G8
111
co r -
*“ CM
• r — 29 10 r-•fl124
102
11 SR 99 SB Ramps and Clovis Ave

T- T-(O
rr m in
• 103 t 17 — 5*
58 1 *itbo~ CMCD
CO
CM
12 Adams Ave and SR 99 SB Off Ramp 13 Adams Ave and SR 99 NB On Ramp 279
75 74
132
LEGEND
Project Site
O Study Intersection
------ Existing Roadway
© Stop Sign
Lane Geometry
------- Study RoadwaySegment
241
Private Dwy
Vrpa TECHNOLOGIES.INC.

V'frP4 rwtwtMM
Clayton and Golden State Blvd Property Prezone Figure
Existing Plus Project AM Peak Hour Traffic
Clayton Avo A
i
5 1
5 Lincoln Ave and Clovis Avs 6. Lincoln Ave and Fowler Ave 7 Clayton Ave and Golden State Blvd COo
to co
ilL
t ___26
L 16 0
w- O CD
CO 9
------32
t ___ 2 ••------- 150
<-j— 18
f 29 •H
•
o ooin
in © 0 f 26 ■/ »
1/ ; EMn o
v COco
0 t 1 ------(a
o i •II* O CD CO
cp in CM A
North
10 Clayton Ave and SR 99 SB Off Ramp/
Clovis Ave Frontage 8 Clayton Ave and Fowler Ave 9. Clovis Ave and SR 99 NB Ramps «— '■--------- 31 « ------------- 710
A.4G8
111
co r -
*“ CM
• r — 29 10 r-•fl124
102
11 SR 99 SB Ramps and Clovis Ave

T- T-(O
rr m in
• 103 t 17 — 5*
58 1 *itbo~ CMCD
CO
CM
12 Adams Ave and SR 99 SB Off Ramp 13 Adams Ave and SR 99 NB On Ramp 279
75 74
132
LEGEND
Project Site
O Study Intersection
------ Existing Roadway
© Stop Sign
Lane Geometry
------- Study RoadwaySegment
241
Private Dwy
Vrpa TECHNOLOGIES.INC.

V'frP4 rwtwtMM 285
Section 7, Item 7D
3-8 Clayton and Golden State Blvd Property Prezone
Transportation Impact Study, Traffic Impacts
Clayton and Golden State Blvd Property Prezone
Existing Plus Project PM Peak Hour Traffic
Figure
3-5

5. Lincoln Ave and Clovis Ave 6 Lincoln Ave and Fowler Ave T Co
r- CO to
UL co co
o co1-0 (Ocxj
7 Clayton Ave and Golden State Blvd t_ o T~~ 39130
f 157 T~i
• e
0 f 3 ------V* 0 i 4b
s ”
8 Clayton Ave and Fowler Ave 9. Clovis Ave and SR 99 NB Ramps 10 Clayton Ave and SR 99 SB Off Ramp/ Clovis Ave Frontage
co■>-
4 i <Dbp
099 ---------•
f 6 ------
581
in <DOCM ® r'“
t ___ 14
« ------208
33 •
H
62 ----1
11 SR 99 SB R amps and Clovis Ave 12 AdamsAve and SR 99 SB Off Ramp 13 Adams Ave and SR 99 NB On Ramp »- CO CM
CO r- r- * ------ 74
t 171
63 77 t 24 ___
2 * 170 | 2------1
201 ~~~T
10 J/
127 ------* nrcor-<N
349 ------* 209
1 American Ave -and SR 99 SB Oft Ramp ----- 34
I--- 79
•
« ------65
247 ------»
1 letterscin 7W>and Golden stale Blvd
IOuo<n
co •Ml
40 J
31 I
nil
O’ K
V- CO
CXJ
LEGEND
Project Site
© Study Intersection
------ Existing Roadway
® Stop Sign
LaneGeometry
------- Study RoadwaySegment <1 Jefferson Ave and Clovis AV? o io cm
MIL
Private Dwy w O O
0 H
nlPCOb- O Vrpa TECHNOLOGIES.INC.

V'frP4 rwtwtMM
Clayton and Golden State Blvd Property Prezone
Existing Plus Project PM Peak Hour Traffic
Figure
3-5

5. Lincoln Ave and Clovis Ave 6 Lincoln Ave and Fowler Ave T Co
r- CO to
UL co co
o co1-0 (Ocxj
7 Clayton Ave and Golden State Blvd t_ o T~~ 39130
f 157 T~i
• e
0 f 3 ------V* 0 i 4b
s ”
8 Clayton Ave and Fowler Ave 9. Clovis Ave and SR 99 NB Ramps 10 Clayton Ave and SR 99 SB Off Ramp/ Clovis Ave Frontage
co■>-
4 i <Dbp
099 ---------•
f 6 ------
581
in <DOCM ® r'“
t ___ 14
« ------208
33 •
H
62 ----1
11 SR 99 SB R amps and Clovis Ave 12 AdamsAve and SR 99 SB Off Ramp 13 Adams Ave and SR 99 NB On Ramp »- CO CM
CO r- r- * ------ 74
t 171
63 77 t 24 ___
2 * 170 | 2------1
201 ~~~T
10 J/
127 ------* nrcor-<N
349 ------* 209
1 American Ave -and SR 99 SB Oft Ramp ----- 34
I--- 79
•
« ------65
247 ------»
1 letterscin 7W>and Golden stale Blvd
IOuo<n
co •Ml
40 J
31 I
nil
O’ K
V- CO
CXJ
LEGEND
Project Site
© Study Intersection
------ Existing Roadway
® Stop Sign
LaneGeometry
------- Study RoadwaySegment <1 Jefferson Ave and Clovis AV? o io cm
MIL
Private Dwy w O O
0 H
nlPCOb- O Vrpa TECHNOLOGIES.INC.

V'frP4 rwtwtMM 286
Section 7, Item 7D
3-9 Clayton and Golden State Blvd Property Prezone
Transportation Impact Study, Traffic Impacts
Clayton and Golden State Blvd Property Prezone
Horizon Year Without Project AM Peak Hour Traffic
Figure
3-6
5 Lincoln Ave and Clovis Ave
o tn <-■
5 IIL
t ____ 39 I M
•
1th
o cm to CM
6 Lincoln Ave and Fowler Ave
48 12 Jefferson Ave
0 39
25 CO(D CD
Iincoln Ave T CO

9. Clovis Ave and SR 99 NB Ramps
1 American Ave and SR 99 SB Off Ramp 12 Adams Ave and SR 99 SB Off Ramp 415
111 107
181
nib <jp tn ro
v152 37
25 336
l/RP4 TECHNOLOGIES.INC
7 Clayton Ave and Golden State Blvd
10 Clayton Ave and SR 99 SB Off Ramp/
Clovis Ave Frontage
8 Clayton Ave and Fowler Ave ------- 28
* ---------- 1043
•618
175 ------ 207 ___* — 43
68 f 260
_* ____122
184
4 Jefferson Ave and Clovis AV?
4K
Private Dwv o o tn
•
H
COTLEGEND
Project Site
O Study Intersection
------ Existing Roadway
® Stop Sign
*;s LaneGeometry
------- Study RoadwaySegment
26 « ____ 746
nil co ’M- COCO
co
t©
43 — ! 36 |
nrwwtMM t*c
Clayton and Golden State Blvd Property Prezone
Horizon Year Without Project AM Peak Hour Traffic
Figure
3-6
5 Lincoln Ave and Clovis Ave
o tn <-■
5 IIL
t ____ 39 I M
•
1th
o cm to CM
6 Lincoln Ave and Fowler Ave
48 12 Jefferson Ave
0 39
25 CO(D CD
Iincoln Ave T CO

9. Clovis Ave and SR 99 NB Ramps
1 American Ave and SR 99 SB Off Ramp 12 Adams Ave and SR 99 SB Off Ramp 415
111 107
181
nib <jp tn ro
v152 37
25 336
l/RP4 TECHNOLOGIES.INC
7 Clayton Ave and Golden State Blvd
10 Clayton Ave and SR 99 SB Off Ramp/
Clovis Ave Frontage
8 Clayton Ave and Fowler Ave ------- 28
* ---------- 1043
•618
175 ------ 207 ___* — 43
68 f 260
_* ____122
184
4 Jefferson Ave and Clovis AV?
4K
Private Dwv o o tn
•
H
COTLEGEND
Project Site
O Study Intersection
------ Existing Roadway
® Stop Sign
*;s LaneGeometry
------- Study RoadwaySegment
26 « ____ 746
nil co ’M- COCO
co
t©
43 — ! 36 |
nrwwtMM t*c 287
Section 7, Item 7D
3-10 Clayton and Golden State Blvd Property Prezone
Transportation Impact Study, Traffic Impacts
Clayton and Golden State Blvd Property Prezone
Horizon Year Without Project PM Peak Hour Traffic
Figure
3-7
J American Ave <
s
I
12 Adams Ave and SR 99 SB Off Ramp
254
94 207
97 94
niF* COO> D O 6i t- 172
302
367 97
36 253
499 186
15 Merced Street end SR 99 NB Ramps
o t- co hil
1 0
0 Private Owy
0 0
5 Lincoln Ave and Clovis Ave
* ------ 850* ------ 58
r NJ NJ
*ltb
ctnsCXIco
6 Lincoln Ave and Fowler Ave 7 Clayton Ave and Golden State Blvd Jefferson Ave Jefferson Ave
10 Clayton Ave and SR 99 SB Off Ramp/
Clovis Ave Frontage
8 Clayton Ave and Fowler Ave 9. Clovis Ave and SR 99 NB Ramps 851
36 Adams Ave
I
I
LEGEND
Project Site
O Study Intersection
------ Existing Roadway
® Stop Sign
LaneGeometry
------- Study RoadwaySegment 1 iatterspn 7\V" and Golden Slain Blvd 111 o co CMO) 61 i
l/RP4 TECHNOIOGIEI. INC
V'frP4 rwtwtMM t*c
Clayton and Golden State Blvd Property Prezone
Horizon Year Without Project PM Peak Hour Traffic
Figure
3-7
J American Ave <
s
I
12 Adams Ave and SR 99 SB Off Ramp
254
94 207
97 94
niF* COO> D O 6i t- 172
302
367 97
36 253
499 186
15 Merced Street end SR 99 NB Ramps
o t- co hil
1 0
0 Private Owy
0 0
5 Lincoln Ave and Clovis Ave
* ------ 850* ------ 58
r NJ NJ
*ltb
ctnsCXIco
6 Lincoln Ave and Fowler Ave 7 Clayton Ave and Golden State Blvd Jefferson Ave Jefferson Ave
10 Clayton Ave and SR 99 SB Off Ramp/
Clovis Ave Frontage
8 Clayton Ave and Fowler Ave 9. Clovis Ave and SR 99 NB Ramps 851
36 Adams Ave
I
I
LEGEND
Project Site
O Study Intersection
------ Existing Roadway
® Stop Sign
LaneGeometry
------- Study RoadwaySegment 1 iatterspn 7\V" and Golden Slain Blvd 111 o co CMO) 61 i
l/RP4 TECHNOIOGIEI. INC
V'frP4 rwtwtMM t*c 288
Section 7, Item 7D
3-11 Clayton and Golden State Blvd Property Prezone
Transportation Impact Study, Traffic Impacts
Clayton and Golden State Blvd Property Prezone
Horizon Year Plus Project AM Peak Hour Traffic
Figure
3-8
5 Lincoln Ave and Clovis Ave
co tn
co ■tr
k
t ____ 39
I 24
•
ItbO CT> CM
f?
6 Lincoln Ave and Fowler Ave ’ 7 Clayton Ave and Golden State Blvd ij 48 12
0 39
25 00 COCD
r- tr CO
8 Clayton Ave and Fowler Ave
3 8
1 American Ave and SR 99 SB Off Ramp 12 Adams Ave and SR 99 SB Off Ramp 415
111 128
184
• ------ 109
181
S8
299
152
351
l/RP4 TECHNOLOGIES.INC
10 Clayton Ave and SR 99 SB Off Ramp/
Clovis Ave Frontage 9. Clovis Ave and SR 99 NB Ramps ISOl ---------* OF nil tn
r- co
t- CM — 43
11 SR 99 SB Ramps and Clovis Ave
CO
CDCM — CMCO
•
115 t 25 -------
z -»
86 j
co co
xr v- co
LEGEND
Project Site
O Study Intersection
------ Existing Roadway
® Stop Sign
LaneGeometry
------- Study RoadwaySegment
190 — »
nr
t— CD
in
3 lefterson AVi- and Golden Stale Blvd
to in CMco
-J 1 1
nilco o COCD
CO
.© 43 — I
36 |
A
Private Dwv oom
e
g T- co
Clayton and Golden State Blvd Property Prezone
Horizon Year Plus Project AM Peak Hour Traffic
Figure
3-8
5 Lincoln Ave and Clovis Ave
co tn
co ■tr
k
t ____ 39
I 24
•
ItbO CT> CM
f?
6 Lincoln Ave and Fowler Ave ’ 7 Clayton Ave and Golden State Blvd ij 48 12
0 39
25 00 COCD
r- tr CO
8 Clayton Ave and Fowler Ave
3 8
1 American Ave and SR 99 SB Off Ramp 12 Adams Ave and SR 99 SB Off Ramp 415
111 128
184
• ------ 109
181
S8
299
152
351
l/RP4 TECHNOLOGIES.INC
10 Clayton Ave and SR 99 SB Off Ramp/
Clovis Ave Frontage 9. Clovis Ave and SR 99 NB Ramps ISOl ---------* OF nil tn
r- co
t- CM — 43
11 SR 99 SB Ramps and Clovis Ave
CO
CDCM — CMCO
•
115 t 25 -------
z -»
86 j
co co
xr v- co
LEGEND
Project Site
O Study Intersection
------ Existing Roadway
® Stop Sign
LaneGeometry
------- Study RoadwaySegment
190 — »
nr
t— CD
in
3 lefterson AVi- and Golden Stale Blvd
to in CMco
-J 1 1
nilco o COCD
CO
.© 43 — I
36 |
A
Private Dwv oom
e
g T- co
289
Section 7, Item 7D
3-12 Clayton and Golden State Blvd Property Prezone
Transportation Impact Study, Traffic Impacts
Clayton and Golden State Blvd Property Prezone
Horizon Year Plus Project PM Peak Hour Traffic
Figure
3-9