Agenda — Gridley City Council, March 23, 2026

GRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA: Special Meeting of 3-23-2026 Page 1 of 2 “Our purpose isto continuously enhance our community’s vitality and overall quality of life. We are committed to providing high quality, cost-effective municipal services and forming productive partnerships with our residents and regional organizations. We collectively develop, share, and are guided by a clear vision, values, and meaningful objectives.” The Public is encouraged to attend and participate in person. Comments from the public on agenda items will be accepted until 1 pm on March 23rd, 2026, via email to [email protected] or via the payment/document drop box at Gridley City Hall and will be conveyed to the Council for consideration.

You may view using the following link, ID, and passcode:
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/84164735163?pwd=Ke7c43hcU11sfbJH7CaazVSSpZ05xh.1 Passcode:972717
CALL TO ORDER – Councilmember Sanchez

ROLL CALL
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION FORUM - Members of the public may address the City Council on matters not listed on the agenda. The City Council may not discuss nor take action on any community participation item brought forward by a member of the community. Comments are requested to be limited to three (3) minutes.

CONSENT AGENDA – None

PUBLIC HEARING

1. Public Hearing for Discussion of City Application to the State of California CDBG Program and 8-Step Decision-Making Process per Executive Orders 11988 and 13690 Recommended Action(s):
a. Hold a public hearing to receive comments on the City’s proposed application for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, and
b. Adopt Resolution 2026-R-009: a Resolution of the City of Gridley City Council approving an application for funding and the execution of a grant agreement and any amendments thereto from the 2025 funding year of the state CDBG program; and
c. Approve the Floodplain Management 8-Step Decision Making Process per Executive Orders 11988 and 13690; and
Gridley City Council – Special City Council Meeting Agenda Monday, March 23, 2026; 3:00 pm
Gridley City Hall, 685 Kentucky Street, Gridley, CA 95948 GRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA: Special Meeting of 3-23-2026 Page 2 of 2 d. Authorize City Administrator to execute necessary documents

ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION

2. Right-of-Way Acquisition Strategy – Laurel Street Extension Project (Informational) Recommended Action(s):
a. Receive information, no action is necessary
CLOSED SESSION - None
ADJOURNMENT – adjourning to a regular meeting on April 6th, 2026 NOTE 1: POSTING OF AGENDA- This agenda was posted on the public bulletin board at City Hall at or before 3:00 p.m., March 22nd, 2026. This agenda along with all attachments is available for public viewing online at www.gridley.ca.us and at the Administration Counter in City Hall, 685 Kentucky Street, Gridley, CA.

NOTE 2: REGARDING UNSCHEDULED MATTERS – In accordance with state law, it shall be the policy of this Council that no action shall be taken on any item presented during the public forum or on unscheduled matters unless the Council, by majority vote, determines that an emergency situation exists, or, unless the Council by a two-thirds vote finds that the need to take action arose subsequent to the posting of this agenda.

City Council Agenda Item #1
Staff Report
Date: March 23, 2026
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Elisa Arteaga, City Administrator
Subject: Public Hearing for Discussion of City Application to the State of California CDBG Program and 8-Step Decision-Making Process per Executive Orders 11988 and 13690
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council hold a public hearing to receive comments on the City’s proposed application for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, adopt the resolution authorizing the CDBG application, and approve the Floodplain Management 8-Step Decision Making Process per Executive Orders 11988 and 13690.

Background
On September 30, 2025, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) issued a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for FY 2025 CDBG funding. The NOFA was amended in December to move the due date for applications from January 30 to April 3, 2026.

California receives a CDBG award from the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development each year to subsequently solicit project proposals and award CDBG funds to small cities/towns and counties for eligible programs or activities.

Discussion
City staff have identified the Laurel Street Extension (the Project) as an eligible project type under the 2025 CDBG NOFA. The City of Gridley meets the CDBG eligibility requirement that at least 51% of project beneficiaries be low-moderate income; the City’s overall low-moderate income percentage at this time is 54.7%.

The purpose of the Project is to complete a planned segment of the City’s streets network by extending Laurel Street to provide permanent public access between approved developments within the City. The Project is intended to:
• Implement circulation improvements planned under the City’s General Plan and Circulation Element.
• Provide safe and efficient local access for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists. • Replace and modernize aging underground utility infrastructure within the roadway corridor.
• Formalize an existing disturbed access route into a permanent, safe, public street.

X Regular
Special
Closed
Emergency
The Project does not introduce new land use designations, expand the City’s urban growth boundary, or increase development density beyond what has already been authorized through existing approvals. A full project description is provided in Attachment A.

The CDBG application is submitted electronically in HCD’s online grant application portal. While it is not available in any format to download and attach to this report, the general outline/content of the CDBG application is as follows:
• A Main Application which consists of general administrative questions about the jurisdiction applying, threshold certifications and assurances, the Environmental Review Record, a breakdown of funding sources for the Project and how they will be used, a description of the public outreach process, and the resolution that is attached to this staff report;
• A Sub-Application for each specific project. Because the proposed Laurel Street Extension consists of four project types under CDBG (Street Improvements, Water/Sewer Improvements, Storm Drainage Improvements and Sidewalk Improvements), the City’s application will have four sub-applications. The SubApplication asks specific questions about the project scope, its eligibility under CDBG, performance metrics, milestones for completion, project budgets, and documentation demonstrating the project is “shovel ready”, including a certification regarding right-ofway, and bid-ready construction documents.

The complete application, with all required supporting documents, is due in HCD’s portal no later than April 3, 2026.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): Because CDBG funds originate at the federal level, HCD requires that the proposed Project has completed the appropriate level of NEPA review and analysis prior to the application submittal and that the Environmental Review Record produced in accordance with NEPA be submitted with the application. The City determined that the Project is Categorically Excluded Subject to Section 58.5 environmental review, pursuant to 24 CFR 58.35(a). The Attachment B: NEPA Part 58 CEST Form and Environmental Review Record (ERR) was completed to comply with this review process.

The environmental review determined that for the Floodplain Management statute found in 24 CFR Part 55, completion of an 8-Step Decision-Making Process is necessary to comply with Executive Orders 11988 and 13690. Below is a summary of the 8-Step Decision-Making Process that is being implemented for the Project.

1. Determine if the proposed action is in the FFRMS floodplain and if any exceptions found in Sections 55.12 or 55.13 apply. It was determined that the Project is in the 0.2 percent annual chance FFRMS floodplain, and that Sections 55.12 and 55.13 do not apply.

2. Publish a public notice in a newspaper or on a government website followed by a 15-day public comment period. A public notice announcing that the City had initiated an 8-Step Decision-Making Process was published in the Gridley Herald on March 6, 2026. To date, no public comments have been received in response to the notice.

3. Identify and evaluate alternatives to locating the project in the FFRMS floodplain. The City conducted an evaluation of alternatives as detailed on Attachment C: Floodplain Alternatives and Impacts Analysis.

4. Identify impacts of the proposed action. The City conducted an assessment of floodplain impacts of the Project in the Attachment C: Floodplain Alternatives and Impacts Analysis.

5. Minimize harm, restore, and preserve natural and beneficial values. The City identified Project mitigation measures in the Attachment C: Floodplain Alternatives and Impacts Analysis. These included:
a. Design the Project so that it does not result in a measurable reduction in flood storage capacity or alter regional flood conveyance patters. b. Implementation of Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) measures during construction in accordance with State Water Resources Control Board requirements, and Construction Best Management Practices to control erosion, sedimentation, and pollutant discharge.
c. Design roadway to incorporate stormwater drainage improvements. d. Limit construction activities to the minimum area necessary to complete improvements, and restore disturbed areas following construction. e. Implement natural landscape enhancements that maintain or restore natural hydrology, planting or restoring native plant species, and bioswales.

6. Reevaluate alternatives and approve the Project, approve with modifications, or cancel the Project. Based on the review described in the City’s Floodplain Alternatives and Impacts Analysis, City staff determined that the best course of action is to recommend City Council approval of the Project as planned and described in this staff report.

7. Publish Final Public Notice. A final public notice regarding the City’s proposed determination will be published in the Gridley Herald on April 3, 2026.

8. Implement proposed action. If the City staff’s recommendation with regard to the Project and the 8-Step Decision-Making Process is approved by City Council, the Project will be implemented with mitigation measures as described above.

Financial Impact
The CDBG application, if successfully funded, would provide the City with federal funding through a grant provided by State HCD. The 2025 NOFA caps the CDBG funding request for public facility construction projects to $3.3 million. The City Engineer’s preliminary cost estimate for the project is $3.6 million, but this is subject to change depending upon construction and materials costs in the future. To date, the City has committed $150,000 in General Fund for the Project design and development of bid-ready construction documents.

Given the construction cost estimate, the City is required to identify at least $300,000 in other funding sources in order to move the Project forward, should the CDBG grant be awarded at the requested level. For the CDBG application, HCD requires that the City identify all funding sources to be used. The City has estimated that it will have $300,000 in CDBG program income to contribute (resulting from the repayment of previous CDBG-funded loans and interest earned), which is shown in the resolution and the Sources and Uses chart.

Attachments
A—Laurel Street Extension Project Description
B—NEPA Part 58 CEST Form and Environmental Review Record (ERR) C— Floodplain Alternatives and Impacts Analysis
D—Resolution 2026-R-009: Approving An Application For Funding and The Execution of a Grant Agreement and Any Amendments Thereto From The 2025 Funding Year of The State CDBG Program
City of Gridley
Laurel Street Extension Project
February 24th, 2026
Prepared for:

City of Gridley
Prepared By:

Dave Harden, PE
Logan Howard, PE

1. Project Location and Setting
The Laurel Street Extension Project (Project) is located within the City of Gridley in Butte County, California. The Project extends Laurel Street west of Randolph Avenue, connecting to active developments west of Butte View Drive and tying into Jared Drive. The Project is located entirely within the City limits and within an area designated for urban development under the City’s adopted General Plan and approved subdivision maps.

The Project corridor lies within a planned public right-of-way approximately 60 feet in width. The alignment is currently used as a construction access road serving an adjacent development that is under construction. Existing public utilities, including sanitary sewer infrastructure, are located within the corridor, with components installed as early as 1979 and subsequent replacements occurring as recently as 2020.

2. Project Purpose and Objectives
The purpose of the Project is to complete a planned segment of the City’s streets network by extending Laurel Street to provide permanent public access between approved developments within the City. The Project is intended to:
• Implement circulation improvements planned under the City’s General Plan and Circulation Element.
• Provide safe and efficient local access for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists. • Replace and modernize aging underground utility infrastructure within the roadway corridor.
• Formalize an existing disturbed access route into a permanent, safe, public street.

The Project does not introduce new land use designations, expand the City’s urban growth boundary, or increase development density beyond what has already been authorized through existing approvals.

3. Project Description
The Project would construct approximately 1,200 linear feet of a minor collector street within the planned 60-foot right-of-way, consistent with City of Gridley standards. The typical roadway cross section includes:
• Approximately 46 feet of paved roadway.
• Curb and gutter on both sides of the roadway.
• ADA Compliant Five-foot sidewalks on each side, with required offsets behind curb and gutter.
• Pavement striping, traffic signage, and pavement markings. • Street lighting for safe use of sidewalks and roadways. • Full-access intersections at Randolph Avenue, Butte View Drive, and Jared Drive.

Roadway construction activities include clearing and grubbing, subgrade preparation, placement of aggregate base, and asphalt concrete paving. Based on the engineer’s cost estimate and quantity calculations, roadway work would involve:
• Earthwork, including excavation and grading.
• Import and placement of aggregate base material to construct the structural section of the roadway.
• Placement of asphalt concrete pavement across the roadway prism. • Construction of concrete curb, gutter, and sidewalk.

All roadway improvements would occur within the planned right-of-way and would not extend into undeveloped or unentitled areas.

4. Utility Installation
The Project includes installation, replacement, and modernization of public utilities within the roadway corridor. Utility improvements are intended to maintain system functionality, address aging infrastructure, and support already approved development.

Sanitary Sewer
Sanitary sewer work includes the removal and replacement of approximately 1,200 linear feet of existing 8-inch vitrified clay sewer pipe with 10-inch PVC pipe, along with associated manholes, cleanouts, and laterals. The replacement improves reliability and meets current standards while remaining within the existing service area.

Storm Drain
Storm drainage improvements include piping an existing open stormwater detention ditch within the corridor and integrating it into the existing underground storm drain system.

Improvements include installation of storm drainpipe, inlets, manholes, and associated appurtenances to manage surface runoff from the roadway. The proposed storm drain will maintain the function of the existing ditch by functioning as both storage and routing of runoff water.

Other Utilities
Additional utility work includes adjustment, protection, or relocation of existing utilities as necessary and installation of street lighting, including foundations, conduit, wiring, and light standards consistent with City requirements.

All utility work would occur within the roadway footprint and would not extend utility service to areas beyond those already planned and entitled under the existing City General Plan.

5. Grading and Earthwork
Grading and earthwork will occur within the planned right-of-way and would include areas currently used for construction access and staging. These areas are designated for roadway and urban infrastructure improvements under the existing City General Plan.

Earthwork activities include:
• Clearing and grubbing within the roadway corridor
• Excavation and embankment to establish roadway and utility grades • Import and export of fill material as necessary
• Compaction and finish grading
The grading footprint is limited to the roadway corridor and associated utility trenches and does not involve grading outside the approved roadway alignment.

6. Construction Activities and Equipment
Construction would occur over a defined construction period and would involve typical roadway and utility construction activities, including:
• Mobilization and site preparation
• Installation of traffic control measures
• Trenching and backfilling for utilities
• Placement of pipe, structures, and concrete improvements • Asphalt paving, striping, and signage
• Final cleanup and restoration within the right-of-way Construction equipment would include excavators, graders, rollers, pavers, haul trucks, concrete trucks, and support vehicles.

Construction staging, material storage, and equipment parking would primarily occur within the planned 60-foot right-of-way and in areas already disturbed by adjacent development activities. In addition, a temporary staging area may be located on the neighboring Gridley Unified School District (GUSD) property south of Laurel Street. Temporary staging areas may be used for stockpiling of aggregate base, pipe materials, and construction supplies; equipment parking; temporary construction trailers; and concrete washout containment. No other off-site staging areas are anticipated. All staging areas would be restored to their pre-construction condition or to the satisfaction of the property owner upon completion of construction.

Construction will include typical roadway and utility-related waste materials, including excavated soil, removed pipe, concrete debris, asphalt waste, and packaging materials. To the extent feasible, suitable excavated material will be reused on-site. Asphalt and concrete materials will be recycled at approved facilities, and remaining debris will be disposed of at licensed disposal facilities. Covered haul trucks will be used during material transport to minimize dust and material loss. Good housekeeping practices will be maintained throughout construction, including daily debris collection and proper containment of waste materials within approved staging areas and within the right-of-way.

7. Right-of-Way and Land Ownership
The Project is located within a 60-foot right-of-way identified through an approved tentative subdivision map. Portions of the right-of-way have been dedicated, and the City is in the process of acquiring remaining segments consistent with the approved subdivision framework. No right-of-way acquisition is required outside areas already designated for public roadway purposes.

8. Consistency with Planning and Environmental Review
The Project implements planned circulation improvements identified in the City’s General Plan and Circulation Element and supports developments that have already been approved and are under construction. Potential environmental effects associated with roadway extensions, infrastructure improvements, and urbanization of planned development areas have been evaluated at a programmatic level through the City’s certified General Plan EIR and through subdivision approvals. The Cities General Plan specifically covered the improvements to this roadway within the City boundary.

The Project does not introduce new growth-inducing infrastructure independent of approved development and does not result in changes to land use intensity or density.

9. Schedule
The Laurel Street Extension Project is currently in the design phase. Preparation of final construction documents is anticipated to be completed by end of March 2026.

Following completion of final design and City approval, the Project will proceed to bidding and construction if the grant funds are awarded in September 2026. Construction duration is anticipated to occur over an approximately 4–5-month period, depending on contractor scheduling, weather conditions, and utility coordination.

The anticipated project schedule:

1. Completion of 100% plans, specifications, and engineer’s estimate by 3/25/2026

2. Agency review and approval by 3/31/2026

3. Bid solicitation and contractor selection 1/1/2027-5/1/2027

4. Construction 5/1/2027-9/30/2027

5. Final inspection and project closeout 12/15/2027
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development
451 Seventh Street, SW
Washington, DC 20410
www.hud.gov
espanol.hud.gov
Environmental Review for Activity/Project that is Categorically Excluded Subject to Section 58.5
Pursuant to 24 CFR 58.35(a)
This is a suggested format that may be used by Responsible Entities to document completion of a Categorically Excluded Subject to Section 58.5 environmental review.

Project Information
Project Name: Laurel Street Expansion Project
Responsible Entity: City of Gridley
Grant Recipient (if different than Responsible Entity):

State/Local Identifier: 14.228
Preparer: James Coles, Housing Tools
Certifying Officer Name and Title: Elisa Arteaga, City Administrator Grant Recipient (if different than Responsible Entity):

Consultant (if applicable): Housing Tools
Direct Comments to: Christopher L. Smith, Planner, City of Gridley Project Location: Segment of Laurel Street between Randolph Avenue on the east and Jared Drive on the west, within the City of Gridley
Description of the Proposed Project [24 CFR 50.21 & 58.32]:

The purpose of the Project is to complete a planned segment of the City’s streets by extending Laurel Street to provide public access to new residential subdivisions. The Project would involve construction of a new street section that connects Randolph Avenue on the east to Jared Drive on the west, and Butte View Drive on the north. The street section would consist of 1,200 linear feet of a minor collector street with a 60-foot wide right-of-way that has been planned through an approved tentative subdivision map, consistent with City of Gridley standards. The roadway cross section includes:
• Approximately 46 feet of paved roadway;
• Curb and gutter on both sides of the roadway;
• ADA compliant 5-foot sidewalks on each side, with required offsets behind curb and gutter;
• Pavement striping, traffic signage, and pavement markings; • Street lighting; and
• Full-access intersections at Randolph Avenue, Butte View Drive, and Jared Drive.

Roadway construction activities include clearing and grubbing, subgrade preparation, placement of aggregate base, and asphalt concrete paving, as well as excavation and embankment to establish utility grades, import and export of fill material as necessary, and compaction and finish grading. All roadway improvements would occur within the planned right-of-way and would not extend into other adjacent parcels or undeveloped areas.

The Project includes installation, replacement, and modernization of public utilities within the roadway corridor. This includes removal and replacement of approximately 1,200 linear feet of existing 8-inch vitrified clay sewer pipe with 10-inch PVC pipe, along with associated manholes, cleanouts, and laterals. Storm drainage improvements include piping an existing open stormwater detention ditch within the corridor and integrating it into the existing underground storm drain system. This includes installation of storm drainpipe, inlets, manholes, and associated appurtenances to manage surface runoff from the roadway, functioning to provide storage and routing of runoff water. Additional utility work includes adjustment, protection, or relocation of existing utilities as necessary, and installation of street lighting, including foundations, conduit, wiring, and light standards consistent with City standards.

Construction staging, material storage, and equipment parking will primarily occur within the planned 60-foot right-of-way and in areas already disturbed by adjacent development activities.

In addition, a temporary staging area may be located on the neighboring Gridley Unified School District (GUSD) property south of Laurel Street. Temporary staging areas may be used for stockpiling of aggregate base, pipe materials, and construction supplies; equipment parking; temporary construction trailers; and concrete washout containment. No other off-site staging areas are anticipated. All staging areas would be restored to their pre-construction condition or to the satisfaction of the property owner upon completion of construction.

The Project is scheduled to begin construction May 1, 2027 and complete construction September 30, 2027, with final inspection and project closeout by December 15, 2027.

Level of Environmental Review Determination:

Categorically Excluded per 24 CFR 58.35(a), and subject to laws and authorities at §58.5:_ (1) Acquisition, repair, improvement, reconstruction, or rehabilitation of public facilities and improvements (other than buildings) when:
(A) The facilities and improvements are in place and will be retained in the same use without change in size or capacity of more than 20 percent; and (B) The activity does not involve a change in land use, such as from non-residential to residential, commercial to industrial, or from one industrial use to another.

The proposed Project is a portion of the City’s public street system, which was the subject of a CEQA Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that the City completed for its 2030 General Plan in November 2009. The scope of the EIR was the Gridley Plan Area that included the City’s current jurisdictional limits as well as areas with the City’s current Sphere of Influence, and areas outside the Sphere of Influence with proposed City General Plan land use designations. The General Plan included a Circulation Element with a policy framework for circulation and transportation within the City. A number of mitigation measures were established for Transportation and Circulation under Impact 4.4 of the EIR, including mitigation measures for Endangered Species that are present in the area.

The City Engineer determined that the Project scope, which includes 1,200 lineal feet of roadway with a 60-foot right-of-way, makes up an estimated 0.84% of the City’s street network, not including CalTrans roads.

Funding Information
Grant Number HUD Program Funding Amount
CDBG $3,300,000
Estimated Total HUD Funded Amount: $3,300,000
Estimated Total Project Cost (HUD and non-HUD funds) [24 CFR 58.32(d)]: $3,600,000 Compliance with 24 CFR 50.4, 58.5, and 58.6 Laws and Authorities Record below the compliance or conformance determinations for each statute, executive order, or regulation. Provide credible, traceable, and supportive source documentation for each authority. Where applicable, complete the necessary reviews or consultations and obtain or note applicable permits of approvals. Clearly note citations, dates/names/titles of contacts, and page references. Attach additional documentation as appropriate.

Compliance Factors:

Statutes, Executive Orders,
and Regulations listed at 24
CFR §58.5 and §58.6
Are formal
compliance
steps or
mitigation
required?
Compliance determinations
STATUTES, EXECUTIVE ORDERS, AND REGULATIONS LISTED AT 24 CFR 50.4 & 58.6
Airport Hazards
24 CFR Part 51 Subpart D
Yes No

The nearest airport, Sutter County Airport, is 17
miles from the Project site (see attached Airport
Hazards Worksheet and Map).

Coastal Barrier Resources
Coastal Barrier Resources Act, as
amended by the Coastal Barrier
Improvement Act of 1990 [16
USC 3501]
Yes No

The Project site is located in Gridley, California,
which is not in a Coastal Barrier Resources Unit
(see attached Coastal barrier Resources
Worksheet and Map).

Flood Insurance
Flood Disaster Protection Act of
1973 and National Flood
Insurance Reform Act of 1994
[42 USC 4001-4128 and 42 USC
5154a]
Yes No

The Project does not involve mortgage
insurance, refinance, acquisition, repairs,
construction, or rehabilitation of a structure,
mobile home, or insurable personal property. In
addition, the Project site is located in a Zone X
Area of Minimal Flood Hazard (see attached
Flood Insurance Worksheet, FEMA Flood
Insurance Panel 1125).

STATUTES, EXECUTIVE ORDERS, AND REGULATIONS LISTED AT 24 CFR 50.4 & 58.5
Clean Air
Clean Air Act, as amended,
particularly section 176(c) & (d);
40 CFR Parts 6, 51, 93
Yes No

The Project is located in Butte County,
California, which is designated as federal
Marginal Nonattainment for 2008 and 2015
Ozone standards and Moderate Maintenance for
2006 PM2.5 standard (EPA Green Book,
accessed February 2026). A screening-level
construction emissions estimate was prepared
using the California Emissions Estimator Model
(CalEEMod) and determined that the emissions
values will be substantially below the applicable
federal de minimis thresholds of 100 tons per
year for ozone precursors and PM2.5. Therefore,
the Project is presumed to conform to the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) pursuant to 40 CFR

93.153(b).

Coastal Zone Management
Coastal Zone Management Act,
sections 307(c) & (d)
Yes No

The site is located in Butte County and not in a
Coastal Zone as identified by the California
Coastal Commission (see attached Coastal Zone
Management Worksheet and
https://www.coastal.ca.gov/maps/czb/).

Contamination and Toxic
Substances
24 CFR Part 50.3(i) & 58.5(i)(2)
Yes No

There are no TRI Facilities within 10 miles of
the site (see attached screenshot from U.S. EPA
TRI Toxics Tracker). The nearest RCRA sites
are Grof’S Auto Repair at 1604 W. Biggs
Gridley Rd. (0.26 mile from the Project site),
Pacific Bell at Sycamore & Oregon Streets (0.37
mile from the Project site), Pacific Bell at Hazel
& California Streets (0.46 mile from the Project
site), Pacific Bell at Main and Spruce Streets
(0.53 mile from the Project site), and Sycamore
Middle School at 1125 Sycamore St. (0.67 mile
from the Project site). For these sites, there are
no reports of recent contamination,
contamination of nearby sites, or reports of
mismanagement or cleanup, in the U.S. EPA
databases. (See attached screenshot from U.S.

EPA EnviroMapper and description of research
on RCRA sites.)
Endangered Species
Endangered Species Act of 1973,
particularly section 7; 50 CFR
Part 402
Yes No

It was determined that the Project will have
no effect on federally Endangered or
Threatened Species. A site visit and
assessment conducted by a third-party
biologist determined that there is no habitat
on the Project site that would support
Endangered or Threatened Species listed on
the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office
Endangered Species list.

Explosive and Flammable
Hazards
24 CFR Part 51 Subpart C
Yes No

The Project will not involve construction of any
structures, including residential, retail, office, or
industrial. See attached Explosive and
Flammable Facilities Worksheet and Project
Description.

Farmlands Protection
Farmland Protection Policy Act
of 1981, particularly sections
1504(b) and 1541; 7 CFR Part
658
Yes No

The Project site does not currently have any
agricultural use. See attached Farmlands
Projection Worksheet, aerial photo and street
level photos of the site, and Project Description.

Floodplain Management
Executive Order 11988,
particularly section 2(a); 24 CFR
Part 55
Yes No

The Project site is located in a 0.2 PFA FFRMS
floodplain. The City conducted an 8-Step
Decision-Making Process pursuant to Executive
Orders 11088 and 13690 to determine whether to
relocate the project, approve the project as
planned, approve with modifications, or cancel
the project. The City’s 8-Step Decision-Making
Process documentation is attached.

Historic Preservation
National Historic Preservation
Act of 1966, particularly sections
106 and 110; 36 CFR Part 800
Yes No

The activities for executing the Project will not
have a potential to cause effects on historic
properties, per 36 CFR 800.3(a)(1). See attached
Historic Preservation Worksheet and Section 106
Memo.

Noise Abatement and Control
Noise Control Act of 1972, as
amended by the Quiet
Communities Act of 1978; 24
CFR Part 51 Subpart B
Yes No

The Project will consist of constructing a street
extension, and will not involve the construction
of residential improvements. See attached Noise
Abatement and Control Worksheet.

Sole Source Aquifers
Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974,
as amended, particularly section
1424(e); 40 CFR Part 149
Yes No

The Project site is not located on a Sole Source
Aquifer (see attached Sole Source Aquifers
Worksheet and EPA Sole Source Aquifers Map.
https://www.epa.gov/dwssa/map-sole-sourceaquifer-locations Wetlands Protection
Executive Order 11990,
particularly sections 2 and 5
Yes No

The Project site is not located in a wetlands (see
attached Wetlands Protection Worksheet and
National Wetlands Inventory map).

Wild and Scenic Rivers
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of
1968, particularly section 7(b)
and (c)
Yes No

The Project site is not located on or near a Wild
and Scenic River (see attached Wild and Scenic
Rivers Worksheet and National Wild and Scenic
Rivers System Map).

Field Inspection (Date and completed by): March 6, 2026; completed by Biologist Laura Burris Summary of Findings and Conclusions: This CEST Section 58.5 review concluded that no formal compliance steps or mitigation is required for any of the statutes, executive orders, or regulations listed at 24 CFR 50.4 & 58.6, except for Floodplain Management. For this statute and executive order, the City of Gridley conducted an 8-Step Decision-Making Process and determined that the best course of action is to construct the Project as planned with mitigation measures as described in the attached Floodplain Management section.

Mitigation Measures and Conditions
Summarize below all mitigation measures adopted by the Responsible Entity to reduce, avoid, or eliminate adverse environmental impacts and to avoid non-compliance or non-conformance with the above-listed authorities and factors. These measures/conditions must be incorporated into project contracts, development agreements, and other relevant documents. The staff responsible for implementing and monitoring mitigation measures should be clearly identified in the mitigation plan.

Law, Authority, or Factor Mitigation Measure
Floodplain Management: Executive
Order 11988, particularly section 2(a);
24 CFR Part 55
Incorporation of mitigation measures as described in the Floodplain Alternatives and Impacts Analysis report,
which is an attachment to the Floodplain Management
Worksheet in this ERR.

Determination:

This categorically excluded activity/project converts to Exempt, per 58.34(a)(12) because there are no circumstances which require compliance with any of the federal laws and authorities cited at §58.5. Funds may be committed and drawn down after certification of this part for this (now) EXEMPT project; OR
This categorically excluded activity/project cannot convert to Exempt because there are circumstances which require compliance with one or more federal laws and authorities cited at §58.5. Complete consultation/mitigation protocol requirements, publish NOI/RROF and obtain “Authority to Use Grant Funds” (HUD 7015.16) per Section 58.70 and 58.71 before committing or drawing down any funds; OR
This project is now subject to a full Environmental Assessment according to Part 58 Subpart E due to extraordinary circumstances (Section 58.35(c)).

Preparer Signature: __________________________________________Date: 3/17/26 Name/Title/Organization: Housing Tools
Responsible Entity Agency Official Signature:
____________________________________________________________Date:________ Name/Title: ______________________________________________________________ This original, signed document and related supporting material must be retained on file by the Responsible Entity in an Environmental Review Record (ERR) for the activity/project (ref: 24 CFR Part 58.38) and in accordance with recordkeeping requirements for the HUD program(s).

Airport Hazards (CEST and EA)
General policy Legislation Regulation
It is HUD’s policy to apply standards to
prevent incompatible development
around civil airports and military
airfields.
24 CFR Part 51 Subpart D
References
https://www.hudexchange.info/environmental-review/airport-hazards

1. To ensure compatible land use development, you must determine your site’s proximity to civil and military airports. Is your project within 15,000 feet of a military airport or 2,500 feet of a civilian airport?
☒No à Based on the response, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Provide a map showing that the site is not within the applicable distances to a military or civilian airport. ☐Yes à Continue to Question 2.

2. Is your project located within a Runway Potential Zone/Clear Zone (RPZ/CZ) or Accident Potential Zone (APZ)?
☐Yes, project is in an APZ à Continue to Question 3.
☐Yes, project is an RPZ/CZ à Project cannot proceed at this location. ☐No, project is not within an APZ or RPZ/CZ
à Based on the response, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Provide a map showing that the site is not within either zone.

3. Is the project in conformance with DOD guidelines for APZ? ☐Yes, project is consistent with DOD guidelines without further action.

Explain how you determined that the project is consistent:
à Based on the response, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Provide any documentation supporting this determination. ☐No, the project cannot be brought into conformance with DOD guidelines and has not been approved. à Project cannot proceed at this location. ☐Project is not consistent with DOD guidelines, but it has been approved by Certifying Officer or HUD Approving Official.

Explain approval process:

If mitigation measures have been or will be taken, explain in detail the proposed measures that must be implemented to mitigate for the impact or effect, including the timeline for implementation.
à Based on the response, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Provide any documentation supporting this determination.

Are formal compliance steps or mitigation required?
☐ Yes
☒ No
Airport Hazards Map
City of Gridley- Laurel Street Expansion Project
Project Site
Sutter County Airport
Coastal Barrier Resources (CEST and EA)
General requirements Legislation Regulation
HUD financial assistance may not be
used for most activities in units of
the Coastal Barrier Resources
System (CBRS). See 16 USC 3504 for
limitations on federal expenditures
affecting the CBRS.

Coastal Barrier Resources Act
(CBRA) of 1982, as amended
by the Coastal Barrier
Improvement Act of 1990 (16
USC 3501)
References
https://www.hudexchange.info/environmental-review/coastal-barrier-resources Projects located in the following states must complete this form.

Alabama Georgia Massachusetts New Jersey Puerto Rico Virgin Islands Connecticut Louisiana Michigan New York Rhode Island Virginia Delaware Maine Minnesota North Carolina South Carolina Wisconsin Florida Maryland Mississippi Ohio Texas

1. Is the project located in a CBRS Unit?
☒No à Based on the response, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Provide a map showing that the site is not within a CBRS Unit. ☐Yes à Continue to Question 2.

2. Indicate your selected course of action.
☐ After consultation with the FWS the project was given approval to continue à Based on the response, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Provide a map and documentation of a FWS approval. ☐ Project was not given approval
Project cannot proceed at this location.

Federal assistance for most activities may not be used at this location. You must either choose an alternate site or cancel the project. In very rare cases, federal monies can be spent within CBRS units for certain exempted activities (e.g., a nature trail), after consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) (see 16 USC 3505 for exceptions to limitations on expenditures).

Coastal Barrier Resources Map
City of Gridley- Laurel Street Extension Project
Project Site
Flood Insurance (CEST and EA)
General requirements Legislation Regulation
Certain types of federal financial assistance may
not be used in floodplains unless the community
participates in National Flood Insurance Program
and flood insurance is both obtained and
maintained.

Flood Disaster
Protection Act of
1973 as amended
(42 USC 4001-4128)
24 CFR 50.4(b)(1)
and 24 CFR

58.6(a) and (b);
24 CFR 55.1(b).

Reference
https://www.hudexchange.info/environmental-review/flood-insurance

1. Does this project involve mortgage insurance, refinance, acquisition, repairs, construction, or rehabilitation of a structure, mobile home, or insurable personal property? ☒No. This project does not require flood insurance or is excepted from flood insurance. à Continue to the Worksheet Summary.
☐Yes à Continue to Question 2.

2. Provide a FEMA/FIRM map showing the site.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) designates floodplains. The FEMA Map Service Center provides this information in the form of FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). For projects in areas not mapped by FEMA, use the best available information to determine floodplain information. Include documentation, including a discussion of why this is the best available information for the site. Provide FEMA/FIRM floodplain zone designation, panel number, and date within your documentation.

Is the structure, part of the structure, or insurable property located in a FEMA-designated Special Flood Hazard Area?
☐No à Continue to the Worksheet Summary.

☐Yes à Continue to Question 3.

3. Is the community participating in the National Flood Insurance Program or has less than one year passed since FEMA notification of Special Flood Hazards? ☐Yes, the community is participating in the National Flood Insurance Program.

For loans, loan insurance or loan guarantees, flood insurance coverage must be continued for the term of the loan. For grants and other non-loan forms of financial assistance, flood insurance coverage must be continued for the life of the building irrespective of the transfer of ownership. The amount of coverage must equal the total project cost or the maximum coverage limit of the National Flood Insurance Program, whichever is less Provide a copy of the flood insurance policy declaration or a paid receipt for the current annual flood insurance premium and a copy of the application for flood insurance. à Continue to the Worksheet Summary.

☐Yes, less than one year has passed since FEMA notification of Special Flood Hazards.

If less than one year has passed since notification of Special Flood Hazards, no flood Insurance is required.
à Continue to the Worksheet Summary.
☐No. The community is not participating, or its participation has been suspended.

Federal assistance may not be used at this location. Cancel the project at this location.

Flood Insurance Map
City of Gridley- Laurel Street Extension Project
Air Quality (CEST and EA)
General Requirements Legislation Regulation
The Clean Air Act is administered by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), which sets national standards on
ambient pollutants. In addition, the Clean
Air Act is administered by States, which
must develop State Implementation Plans
(SIPs) to regulate their state air quality.

Projects funded by HUD must
demonstrate that they conform to the
appropriate SIP.

Clean Air Act (42 USC
7401 et seq.) as
amended particularly
Section 176(c) and (d)
(42 USC 7506(c) and (d))
40 CFR Parts 6, 51
and 93
Reference
https://www.hudexchange.info/environmental-review/air-quality Scope of Work

1. Does your project include new construction or conversion of land use facilitating the development of public, commercial, or industrial facilities OR five or more dwelling units?
☒ Yes
à Continue to Question 2.
☐ No
Based on the response, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Provide any documents used to make your determination.

Air Quality Attainment Status of Project’s County or Air Quality Management District

2. Is your project’s air quality management district or county in non-attainment or maintenance status for any criteria pollutants?
Follow the link below to determine compliance status of project county or air quality management district:
http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/greenbk/
☐ No, project’s county or air quality management district is in attainment status for all criteria pollutants
à Based on the response, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Provide any documents used to make your determination. ☒ Yes, project’s management district or county is in non-attainment or maintenance status for one or more criteria pollutants.

Describe the findings:
à Continue to Question 3.

3. Determine the estimated emissions levels of your project for each of those criteria pollutants that are in non-attainment or maintenance status on your project area. Will your project exceed any of the de minimis or threshold emissions levels of nonattainment and maintenance level pollutants or exceed the screening levels established by the state or air quality management district?
☒ No, the project will not exceed de minimis or threshold emissions levels or screening levels
à Based on the response, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Explain how you determined that the project would not exceed de minimis or threshold emissions.
☐ Yes, the project exceeds de minimis emissions levels or screening levels. à Continue to Question 4. Explain how you determined that the project would not exceed de minimis or threshold emissions in the Worksheet Summary.

4. For the project to be brought into compliance with this section, all adverse impacts must be mitigated. Explain in detail the exact measures that must be implemented to mitigate for the impact or effect, including the timeline for implementation.

Federal Ozone (2008 and 2015 standards)- Nonattainment-Marginal Federal PM2.5 (2006 standard)- Maintenance-Moderate

Worksheet Summary
Compliance Determination
Provide a clear description of your determination and a synopsis of the information that it was based on:

The Project is located in Butte County, California, which is designated as Marginal Nonattainment for the 2008 and 2015 Ozone standards and Moderate Maintenance for the 2006 PM2.5 standard (EPA Green Book, accessed February 2026).

Pursuant to Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. §7506(c)) and the EPA General Conformity Rule (40 CFR Part 93, Subpart B), a conformity determination is required only if a federal action would result in emissions that equal or exceed the applicable de minimis thresholds identified in 40 CFR §93.153(b).

The Project consists of approximately 1,200 linear feet of roadway construction and associated utility improvements within an existing planned public right-of-way. The Project does not introduce new industrial, commercial, or residential land uses and does not create stationary sources of air emissions.

Emissions associated with the Project would be limited to short-term construction activities.

A screening-level construction emissions estimate was prepared using the linear construction module for new roadway projects in the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). Model output is provided as an attachment to this worksheet. Estimated annual construction emissions are approximately:

NOx: approximately 2.34 tons/year
VOC: approximately 0.29 tons/year
PM2.5: approximately 0.13 tons/year
These values are substantially below the applicable federal de minimis thresholds of 100 tons per year for ozone precursors (NOx and VOC) and PM2.5 in Marginal Ozone Nonattainment and Moderate PM2.5 Maintenance areas (40 CFR §93.153(b)).

The Butte County Air Quality Management District (District) has also established thresholds for ozone precursors of 137 pounds per day and 4.5 tons/year for construction activities (District CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Page 30, Table 4-2). The District’s handbook does not include a significance threshold for PM2.5. The District’s threshold of 80 pounds per day for PM10 emissions is applied to PM2.5 emissions in this analysis. As demonstrated above, emissions would not exceed the annual threshold of 4.5 tons/year. Estimated maximum daily construction emissions are approximately:

NOx: approximately 25.54 lbs/day
VOC: approximately 3.10 lbs/day
PM2.5: approximately 1.41 lbs/day
Because projected emissions are well below de minimis levels and would not exceed District thresholds, the Project is presumed to conform to the applicable State Implementation Plan (SIP) pursuant to 40 CFR §93.153(b), and a formal conformity determination is not required.

No formal mitigation measures are required under this section.

Are formal compliance steps or mitigation required?
☐ Yes
☒ No
CARB AAQS Screen Shot
City of Gridley- Laurel Street Extension Project
Laurel Street Detailed Report, 3/13/2026
1 / 30
Laurel Street Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year

2.2.1. Total Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

2.2.2. Onsite Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

2.2.3. Offsite Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing (2026)

3.1.1. Onsite - Unmitigated

3.1.2. Offsite - Unmitigated

3.2. Linear, Grading & Excavation (2026)
Laurel Street Detailed Report, 3/13/2026
2 / 30

3.2.1. Onsite - Unmitigated

3.2.2. Offsite - Unmitigated

3.3. Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade (2026)

3.3.1. Onsite - Unmitigated

3.3.2. Offsite - Unmitigated

3.4. Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade (2027)

3.4.1. Onsite - Unmitigated

3.4.2. Offsite - Unmitigated

3.5. Linear, Paving (2027)

3.5.1. Onsite - Unmitigated

3.5.2. Offsite - Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

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

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Laurel Street Detailed Report, 3/13/2026
3 / 30

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration
Laurel Street Detailed Report, 3/13/2026
4 / 30

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data
Laurel Street Detailed Report, 3/13/2026
5 / 30

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Laurel Street
Construction Start Date 4/1/2026
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.90000
Precipitation (days) 12.0000
Location 39.36082048860433, -121.7119467418059
County Butte
City Gridley
Air District Butte County AQMD
Air Basin Sacramento Valley
TAZ 226
EDFZ 3
Electric Utility Gridley Electric Utility
Gas Utility Pacific Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.39

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
Road Construction 0.23000 Mile 1.52000 0.00000 0.00000 — — — Laurel Street Detailed Report, 3/13/2026
6 / 30

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

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.12244 25.4997 30.8973 0.06119 1.08985 3.45166 4.54151 1.00293 0.40852 1.41145 — 6,919.40 6,919.40 0.27770 0.09065 1.26115 6,954.62 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.10227 25.5423 30.4691 0.06119 1.08985 3.45166 4.54151 1.00293 0.40852 1.41145 — 6,890.37 6,890.37 0.27963 0.09065 0.03273 6,924.40 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.37925 11.4772 13.5029 0.02797 0.47923 1.55673 2.03595 0.44102 0.18436 0.62538 — 3,120.27 3,120.27 0.12575 0.04183 0.25033 3,136.13 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.25171 2.09459 2.46428 0.00510 0.08746 0.28410 0.37156 0.08049 0.03365 0.11413 — 516.597 516.597 0.02082 0.00693 0.04145 519.223

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year

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

Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Laurel Street Detailed Report, 3/13/2026
7 / 30
Daily - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
2026 3.12244 25.4997 30.8973 0.06119 1.08985 3.45166 4.54151 1.00293 0.40852 1.41145 — 6,919.40 6,919.40 0.27770 0.09065 1.26115 6,954.62 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 3.10227 25.5423 30.4691 0.06119 1.08985 3.45166 4.54151 1.00293 0.40852 1.41145 — 6,890.37 6,890.37 0.27963 0.09065 0.03273 6,924.40 2027 2.42257 20.1595 24.2755 0.05569 0.76642 2.88828 3.65470 0.70542 0.34382 1.04924 — 6,060.73 6,060.73 0.24415 0.08421 0.02719 6,091.96 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 1.37925 11.4772 13.5029 0.02797 0.47923 1.55673 2.03595 0.44102 0.18436 0.62538 — 3,120.27 3,120.27 0.12575 0.04183 0.25033 3,136.13 2027 0.19005 1.56134 2.16472 0.00380 0.05980 0.13144 0.19123 0.05503 0.01711 0.07214 — 426.296 426.296 0.01746 0.00535 0.03890 428.367 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.25171 2.09459 2.46428 0.00510 0.08746 0.28410 0.37156 0.08049 0.03365 0.11413 — 516.597 516.597 0.02082 0.00693 0.04145 519.223 2027 0.03468 0.28494 0.39506 0.00069 0.01091 0.02399 0.03490 0.01004 0.00312 0.01317 — 70.5782 70.5782 0.00289 0.00089 0.00644 70.9210

2.2.2. Onsite Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 2.96125 25.1750 29.0994 0.05997 1.08644 3.18463 4.27108 0.99953 0.34400 1.34353 — 6,494.74 6,494.74 0.26346 0.05269 0.00000 6,517.03 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 2.96125 25.1750 29.0994 0.05997 1.08644 3.18463 4.27108 0.99953 0.34400 1.34353 — 6,494.74 6,494.74 0.26346 0.05269 0.00000 6,517.03 2027 2.31525 19.8106 23.2081 0.05435 0.76260 2.65273 3.41533 0.70159 0.28650 0.98809 — 5,691.76 5,691.76 0.23088 0.04618 0.00000 5,711.30 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 1.31435 11.3121 12.8768 0.02738 0.47757 1.43567 1.91324 0.43936 0.15507 0.59443 — 2,933.33 2,933.33 0.11899 0.02380 0.00000 2,943.40 Laurel Street Detailed Report, 3/13/2026
8 / 30
2027 0.17807 1.54193 2.04658 0.00375 0.05964 0.10902 0.16866 0.05487 0.01177 0.06664 — 398.076 398.076 0.01615 0.00323 0.00000 399.442 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.23987 2.06445 2.35001 0.00500 0.08716 0.26201 0.34917 0.08018 0.02830 0.10848 — 485.647 485.647 0.01970 0.00394 0.00000 487.313 2027 0.03250 0.28140 0.37350 0.00068 0.01088 0.01990 0.03078 0.01001 0.00215 0.01216 — 65.9061 65.9061 0.00267 0.00053 0.00000 66.1322

2.2.3. Offsite Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.16119 0.32465 1.79790 0.00122 0.00340 0.26702 0.27043 0.00340 0.06452 0.06792 — 424.661 424.661 0.01424 0.03796 1.26115 437.589 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.14102 0.36722 1.36968 0.00134 0.00383 0.26702 0.27043 0.00383 0.06452 0.06792 — 395.626 395.626 0.01617 0.03931 0.03273 407.374 2027 0.10733 0.34891 1.06741 0.00134 0.00383 0.23555 0.23937 0.00383 0.05732 0.06115 — 368.967 368.967 0.01327 0.03804 0.02719 380.661 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.06489 0.16514 0.62610 0.00059 0.00166 0.12106 0.12272 0.00166 0.02929 0.03095 — 186.941 186.941 0.00676 0.01804 0.25033 192.735 2027 0.01198 0.01941 0.11814 0.00006 0.00016 0.02242 0.02258 0.00016 0.00534 0.00550 — 28.2203 28.2203 0.00132 0.00212 0.03890 28.9246 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.01184 0.03014 0.11426 0.00011 0.00030 0.02209 0.02240 0.00030 0.00535 0.00565 — 30.9502 30.9502 0.00112 0.00299 0.04145 31.9095 2027 0.00219 0.00354 0.02156 0.00001 0.00003 0.00409 0.00412 0.00003 0.00097 0.00100 — 4.67219 4.67219 0.00022 0.00035 0.00644 4.78880

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing (2026)

3.1.1. Onsite - Unmitigated
Laurel Street Detailed Report, 3/13/2026
9 / 30
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.36774 3.21774 3.47584 0.00453 0.18920 — 0.18920 0.17407 — 0.17407 — 490.424 490.424 0.01989 0.00398 — 492.107 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.53025 0.53025 — 0.05725 0.05725 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02519 0.22039 0.23807 0.00031 0.01296 — 0.01296 0.01192 — 0.01192 — 33.5907 33.5907 0.00136 0.00027 — 33.7059 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.03632 0.03632 — 0.00392 0.00392 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.00460 0.04022 0.04345 0.00006 0.00237 — 0.00237 0.00218 — 0.00218 — 5.56132 5.56132 0.00023 0.00005 — 5.58040 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.00663 0.00663 — 0.00072 0.00072 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Laurel Street Detailed Report, 3/13/2026
10 / 30

3.1.2. Offsite - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02622 0.01646 0.29073 0.00000 0.00000 0.03639 0.03639 0.00000 0.00853 0.00853 — 40.7137 40.7137 0.00213 0.00158 0.14515 41.3818 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00160 0.00131 0.01522 0.00000 0.00000 0.00247 0.00247 0.00000 0.00058 0.00058 — 2.52931 2.52931 0.00015 0.00011 0.00429 2.56961 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00029 0.00024 0.00278 0.00000 0.00000 0.00045 0.00045 0.00000 0.00011 0.00011 — 0.41876 0.41876 0.00003 0.00002 0.00071 0.42543 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.2. Linear, Grading & Excavation (2026)

3.2.1. Onsite - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Laurel Street Detailed Report, 3/13/2026
11 / 30
Off-Road
Equipment

2.96125 25.1750 29.0994 0.05997 1.08644 — 1.08644 0.99953 — 0.99953 — 6,494.74 6,494.74 0.26346 0.05269 — 6,517.03 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 3.18463 3.18463 — 0.34400 0.34400 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.90054 7.65597 8.84940 0.01824 0.33040 — 0.33040 0.30397 — 0.30397 — 1,975.11 1,975.11 0.08012 0.01602 — 1,981.89 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.96848 0.96848 — 0.10461 0.10461 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.16435 1.39722 1.61502 0.00333 0.06030 — 0.06030 0.05547 — 0.05547 — 327.002 327.002 0.01326 0.00265 — 328.125 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.17675 0.17675 — 0.01909 0.01909 — — — — — — — Laurel Street Detailed Report, 3/13/2026
12 / 30
Onsite 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 truck

3.2.2. Offsite - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.15734 0.09875 1.74441 0.00000 0.00000 0.21832 0.21832 0.00000 0.05117 0.05117 — 244.282 244.282 0.01276 0.00946 0.87090 248.291 Vendor 0.00075 0.02320 0.00958 0.00010 0.00020 0.00377 0.00397 0.00020 0.00104 0.00124 — 14.4509 14.4509 0.00014 0.00216 0.03575 15.1341 Hauling 0.00310 0.20270 0.04392 0.00112 0.00321 0.04493 0.04814 0.00321 0.01230 0.01551 — 165.927 165.927 0.00134 0.02634 0.35450 174.165 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.13750 0.12447 1.31464 0.00000 0.00000 0.21832 0.21832 0.00000 0.05117 0.05117 — 215.120 215.120 0.01475 0.00946 0.02260 218.330 Vendor 0.00068 0.02487 0.01011 0.00010 0.00020 0.00377 0.00397 0.00020 0.00104 0.00124 — 14.4742 14.4742 0.00014 0.00216 0.00093 15.1225 Hauling 0.00283 0.21788 0.04493 0.00112 0.00321 0.04493 0.04814 0.00321 0.01230 0.01551 — 166.031 166.031 0.00128 0.02634 0.00920 173.922 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04262 0.03478 0.40539 0.00000 0.00000 0.06588 0.06588 0.00000 0.01543 0.01543 — 67.3809 67.3809 0.00408 0.00288 0.11435 68.4544 Vendor 0.00021 0.00738 0.00299 0.00003 0.00006 0.00114 0.00120 0.00006 0.00032 0.00038 — 4.39764 4.39764 0.00004 0.00066 0.00470 4.59923 Hauling 0.00091 0.06486 0.01349 0.00034 0.00097 0.01358 0.01456 0.00097 0.00372 0.00470 — 50.4734 50.4734 0.00041 0.00801 0.04647 52.9170 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00778 0.00635 0.07398 0.00000 0.00000 0.01202 0.01202 0.00000 0.00282 0.00282 — 11.1557 11.1557 0.00068 0.00048 0.01893 11.3334 Vendor 0.00004 0.00135 0.00055 0.00001 0.00001 0.00021 0.00022 0.00001 0.00006 0.00007 — 0.72808 0.72808 0.00001 0.00011 0.00078 0.76146 Hauling 0.00017 0.01184 0.00246 0.00006 0.00018 0.00248 0.00266 0.00018 0.00068 0.00086 — 8.35645 8.35645 0.00007 0.00133 0.00769 8.76102

3.3. Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade (2026)
Laurel Street Detailed Report, 3/13/2026
13 / 30

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

2.39261 21.1523 23.3293 0.05436 0.82629 — 0.82629 0.76019 — 0.76019 — 5,692.59 5,692.59 0.23092 0.04618 — 5,712.13 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 2.65273 2.65273 — 0.28650 0.28650 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.38862 3.43569 3.78931 0.00883 0.13421 — 0.13421 0.12348 — 0.12348 — 924.629 924.629 0.03751 0.00750 — 927.802 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.43087 0.43087 — 0.04653 0.04653 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.07092 0.62701 0.69155 0.00161 0.02449 — 0.02449 0.02253 — 0.02253 — 153.083 153.083 0.00621 0.00124 — 153.608 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.07863 0.07863 — 0.00849 0.00849 — — — — — — — Laurel Street Detailed Report, 3/13/2026
14 / 30
Onsite 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 truck

3.3.2. Offsite - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.11459 0.10373 1.09553 0.00000 0.00000 0.18193 0.18193 0.00000 0.04264 0.04264 — 179.267 179.267 0.01229 0.00788 0.01883 181.942 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00338 0.25999 0.05362 0.00134 0.00383 0.05362 0.05744 0.00383 0.01468 0.01850 — 198.127 198.127 0.00153 0.03143 0.01098 207.542 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01897 0.01548 0.18043 0.00000 0.00000 0.02932 0.02932 0.00000 0.00687 0.00687 — 29.9904 29.9904 0.00182 0.00128 0.05090 30.4682 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00058 0.04134 0.00860 0.00022 0.00062 0.00866 0.00928 0.00062 0.00237 0.00299 — 32.1694 32.1694 0.00026 0.00511 0.02962 33.7268 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00346 0.00282 0.03293 0.00000 0.00000 0.00535 0.00535 0.00000 0.00125 0.00125 — 4.96526 4.96526 0.00030 0.00021 0.00843 5.04436 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00011 0.00754 0.00157 0.00004 0.00011 0.00158 0.00169 0.00011 0.00043 0.00055 — 5.32600 5.32600 0.00004 0.00085 0.00490 5.58386

3.4. Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade (2027)

3.4.1. Onsite - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Laurel Street Detailed Report, 3/13/2026
15 / 30
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

2.31525 19.8106 23.2081 0.05435 0.76260 — 0.76260 0.70159 — 0.70159 — 5,691.76 5,691.76 0.23088 0.04618 — 5,711.30 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 2.65273 2.65273 — 0.28650 0.28650 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.09515 0.81413 0.95376 0.00223 0.03134 — 0.03134 0.02883 — 0.02883 — 233.908 233.908 0.00949 0.00190 — 234.711 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.10902 0.10902 — 0.01177 0.01177 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.01736 0.14858 0.17406 0.00041 0.00572 — 0.00572 0.00526 — 0.00526 — 38.7262 38.7262 0.00157 0.00031 — 38.8590 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.01990 0.01990 — 0.00215 0.00215 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

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

3.4.2. Offsite - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Laurel Street Detailed Report, 3/13/2026
16 / 30
Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.10395 0.09695 1.01506 0.00000 0.00000 0.18193 0.18193 0.00000 0.04264 0.04264 — 175.734 175.734 0.01174 0.00788 0.01713 178.394 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00338 0.25196 0.05234 0.00134 0.00383 0.05362 0.05744 0.00383 0.01468 0.01850 — 193.233 193.233 0.00153 0.03016 0.01007 202.268 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00434 0.00340 0.04255 0.00000 0.00000 0.00742 0.00742 0.00000 0.00174 0.00174 — 7.43845 7.43845 0.00046 0.00032 0.01174 7.55821 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00015 0.01013 0.00212 0.00006 0.00016 0.00219 0.00235 0.00016 0.00060 0.00076 — 7.93810 7.93810 0.00006 0.00124 0.00688 8.31587 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00079 0.00062 0.00777 0.00000 0.00000 0.00135 0.00135 0.00000 0.00032 0.00032 — 1.23152 1.23152 0.00008 0.00005 0.00194 1.25135 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00003 0.00185 0.00039 0.00001 0.00003 0.00040 0.00043 0.00003 0.00011 0.00014 — 1.31424 1.31424 0.00001 0.00021 0.00114 1.37679

3.5. Linear, Paving (2027)

3.5.1. Onsite - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Laurel Street Detailed Report, 3/13/2026
17 / 30
Off-Road 0.81805 7.17958 10.7806 0.01495 0.27917 — 0.27917 0.25684 — 0.25684 — 1,619.50 1,619.50 0.06569 0.01314 — 1,625.05 Equipment
Onsite
truck

0.08293 0.72779 1.09283 0.00152 0.02830 — 0.02830 0.02604 — 0.02604 — 164.168 164.168 0.00666 0.00133 — 164.731 Onsite
truck

0.01513 0.13282 0.19944 0.00028 0.00516 — 0.00516 0.00475 — 0.00475 — 27.1799 27.1799 0.00110 0.00022 — 27.2732 Onsite
truck

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

3.5.2. Offsite - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07276 0.06786 0.71054 0.00000 0.00000 0.12735 0.12735 0.00000 0.02985 0.02985 — 123.014 123.014 0.00822 0.00552 0.01199 124.876 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00749 0.00588 0.07347 0.00000 0.00000 0.01281 0.01281 0.00000 0.00300 0.00300 — 12.8437 12.8437 0.00079 0.00056 0.02028 13.0505 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Laurel Street Detailed Report, 3/13/2026
18 / 30
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00137 0.00107 0.01341 0.00000 0.00000 0.00234 0.00234 0.00000 0.00055 0.00055 — 2.12643 2.12643 0.00013 0.00009 0.00336 2.16066 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

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

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Laurel Street Detailed Report, 3/13/2026
19 / 30
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Laurel Street Detailed Report, 3/13/2026
20 / 30
Remove — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Linear, Grubbing & Land
Clearing
Linear, Grubbing & Land
Clearing
4/1/2026 5/6/2026 5.00000 25.0000 —
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
5/7/2026 10/9/2026 5.00000 111.000 —
Linear, Drainage, Utilities,
& Sub-Grade
Linear, Drainage, Utilities,
& Sub-Grade
10/10/2026 1/21/2027 5.00000 74.0000 —
Linear, Paving Linear, Paving 1/22/2027 3/14/2027 5.00000 37.0000 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Laurel Street Detailed Report, 3/13/2026
21 / 30
Linear, Grubbing &
Land Clearing
Signal Boards Electric Average 0.00000 8.00000 6.00000 0.82000 Linear, Grubbing &
Land Clearing
Crawler Tractors Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 87.0000 0.43000 Linear, Grubbing &
Land Clearing
Excavators Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 36.0000 0.38000 Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Excavators Diesel Average 3.00000 8.00000 36.0000 0.38000 Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Crawler Tractors Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 87.0000 0.43000 Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Graders Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 148.000 0.41000 Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Rollers Diesel Average 2.00000 8.00000 36.0000 0.38000
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Signal Boards Electric Average 0.00000 8.00000 6.00000 0.82000 Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00000 8.00000 423.000 0.48000 Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Rubber Tired Loaders Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 150.000 0.36000 Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.00000 8.00000 84.0000 0.37000
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub-Grade
Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.00000 8.00000 84.0000 0.37000
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub-Grade
Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00000 8.00000 423.000 0.48000 Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub-Grade
Signal Boards Electric Average 0.00000 8.00000 6.00000 0.82000 Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub-Grade
Rough Terrain Forklifts Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 96.0000 0.40000 Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub-Grade
Graders Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 148.000 0.41000 Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub-Grade
Plate Compactors Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 8.00000 0.43000 Laurel Street Detailed Report, 3/13/2026
22 / 30
Linear, Drainage, Pumps Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 11.0000 0.74000 Utilities, & Sub-Grade
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub-Grade
Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 37.0000 0.48000 Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub-Grade
Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 14.0000 0.74000 Linear, Paving Rollers Diesel Average 3.00000 8.00000 36.0000 0.38000 Linear, Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 89.0000 0.36000 Linear, Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 81.0000 0.42000 Linear, Paving Signal Boards Electric Average 0.00000 8.00000 6.00000 0.82000 Linear, Paving Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.00000 8.00000 84.0000 0.37000

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing Worker 5.00000 10.3000 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing Vendor 0.00000 4.50000 HHDT,MHDT Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing Hauling 0.00000 20.0000 HHDT Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing Onsite truck — — HHDT
Linear, Grading & Excavation Worker 30.0000 10.3000 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Linear, Grading & Excavation Vendor 1.000000 4.50000 HHDT,MHDT Linear, Grading & Excavation Hauling 2.42342 20.0000 HHDT Linear, Grading & Excavation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, &
Sub-Grade
Worker 25.0000 10.3000 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, &
Sub-Grade
Vendor 0.00000 4.50000 HHDT,MHDT
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, &
Sub-Grade
Hauling 2.89189 20.0000 HHDT
Laurel Street Detailed Report, 3/13/2026
23 / 30
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, &
Sub-Grade
Onsite truck — — HHDT
Linear, Paving Worker 17.5000 10.3000 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Linear, Paving Vendor 0.00000 4.50000 HHDT,MHDT
Linear, Paving Hauling 0.00000 20.0000 HHDT
Linear, Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

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

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (Cubic
Yards)
Material Exported (Cubic
Yards)
Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) Linear, Grubbing & Land
Clearing

0.00000 0.00000 1.52000 0.00000 0.00000
Linear, Grading & Excavation 1,808.00 912.000 1.52000 0.00000 0.00000 Linear, Drainage, Utilities, &
Sub-Grade
1,711.00 0.00000 1.52000 0.00000 0.00000

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Laurel Street Detailed Report, 3/13/2026
24 / 30
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2026 0.00000 453.209 0.03300 0.00400
2027 0.00000 453.209 0.03300 0.00400

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

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

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

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

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

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

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 28.4500 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 5.15000 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Laurel Street Detailed Report, 3/13/2026
25 / 30
Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 0.00000 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

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

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

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 5 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation 2 0 0 N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding 0 0 0 N/A
Drought 0 0 0 N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

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

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

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 5 1 1 4
Laurel Street Detailed Report, 3/13/2026
26 / 30
Extreme Precipitation 2 1 1 3
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding 1 1 1 2
Drought 1 1 1 2
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

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

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

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

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 70.2800
AQ-PM 28.2638
AQ-DPM 26.0734
Drinking Water 19.3581
Lead Risk Housing 70.6868
Pesticides 91.5172
Toxic Releases 7.16429
Traffic 3.71250
Effect Indicators —
Laurel Street Detailed Report, 3/13/2026
27 / 30
CleanUp Sites 0.00000
Groundwater 0.00000
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 30.1655
Impaired Water Bodies 23.8765
Solid Waste 38.9920
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 74.8255
Cardio-vascular 98.3674
Low Birth Weights 5.56839
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 58.9218
Housing 34.2459
Linguistic 74.4485
Poverty 53.2663
Unemployment 81.6892

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

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 53.38123957
Employed 25.29192865
Median HI 45.9386629
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 33.45309893
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 64.82740921
Transportation —
Laurel Street Detailed Report, 3/13/2026
28 / 30
Auto Access 61.56807391
Active commuting 40.88284358
Social —
2-parent households 50.99448223
Voting 69.31861927
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 75.36250481
Park access 19.58167586
Retail density 5.119979469
Supermarket access 31.43847042
Tree canopy 77.13332478
Housing —
Homeownership 66.77787758
Housing habitability 69.35711536
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 53.65071218 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 66.57256512
Uncrowded housing 80.21301168
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 73.78416528
Arthritis 0.0
Asthma ER Admissions 40.9
High Blood Pressure 0.0
Cancer (excluding skin) 0.0
Asthma 0.0
Coronary Heart Disease 0.0
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 17.0
Laurel Street Detailed Report, 3/13/2026
29 / 30
Cognitively Disabled 70.6
Physically Disabled 9.2
Heart Attack ER Admissions 12.5
Mental Health Not Good 0.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0
Obesity 0.0
Pedestrian Injuries 67.4
Physical Health Not Good 0.0
Stroke 0.0
Health Risk Behaviors—
Binge Drinking 0.0
Current Smoker 0.0
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0
Climate Change Exposures—
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 32.5
Elderly 18.5
English Speaking 56.7
Foreign-born 9.4
Outdoor Workers 43.4
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity—
Impervious Surface Cover 74.5
Traffic Density 2.3
Traffic Access 0.0
Other Indices—
Hardship 58.0
Other Decision Support—
Laurel Street Detailed Report, 3/13/2026
30 / 30
2016 Voting 61.1

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 48.0000 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 52.0000 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

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

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

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

8. User Changes to Default Data
Coastal Zone Management Act (CEST and EA)
General requirements Legislation Regulation
Federal assistance to applicant
agencies for activities affecting
any coastal use or resource is
granted only when such
activities are consistent with
federally approved State
Coastal Zone Management Act
Plans.

Coastal Zone Management
Act (16 USC 1451-1464),
particularly section 307(c)
and (d) (16 USC 1456(c) and
(d))
15 CFR Part 930
References
https://www.onecpd.info/environmental-review/coastal-zone-management Projects located in the following states must complete this form.

Alabama Florida Louisiana Mississippi Ohio Texas
Alaska Georgia Maine New Hampshire Oregon Virgin Islands American
Samona
Guam Maryland New Jersey Pennsylvania Virginia
California Hawaii Massachusetts New York Puerto Rico Washington Connecticut Illinois Michigan North Carolina Rhode Island Wisconsin Delaware Indiana Minnesota Northern
Mariana Islands
South Carolina

1. Is the project located in, or does it affect, a Coastal Zone as defined in your state Coastal Management Plan?
☐Yes à Continue to Question 2.
☒No à Based on the response, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Provide a map showing that the site is not within a Coastal Zone.

2. Does this project include activities that are subject to state review? ☐Yes à Continue to Question 3.
☐No à Based on the response, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Provide documentation used to make your determination.

3. Has this project been determined to be consistent with the State Coastal Management Program?
☐Yes, with mitigation. à Continue to Question 4.
☐Yes, without mitigation. à Based on the response, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Provide documentation used to make your determination.
☐No, project must be canceled.

Project cannot proceed at this location.

4. Explain in detail the proposed measures that must be implemented to mitigate for the impact or effect, including the timeline for implementation. à Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Provide documentation of the consultation (including the State Coastal Management Program letter of consistency) and any other documentation used to make your determination.

Contamination and Toxic Substances (Single Family Properties) General requirements Legislation Regulations
It is HUD policy that all properties that are being
proposed for use in HUD programs be free of
hazardous materials, contamination, toxic
chemicals and gases, and radioactive
substances, where a hazard could affect the
health and safety of the occupants or conflict
with the intended utilization of the property.
24 CFR 58.5(i)(2)
24 CFR 50.3(i)
Reference
https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/environmental-review/site-contamination

1. Evaluate the site for contamination. Were any on-site or nearby toxic, hazardous, or radioactive substances found that could affect the health and safety of project occupants or conflict with the intended use of the property? Provide a map or other documentation of absence or presence of contamination1 and explain evaluation of site contamination in the Worksheet below. ☒ No
Explain:
à Based on the response, the review is in compliance with this section.

Continue to the Worksheet Summary below.
☐ Yes
1 Utilize EPA’s Enviromapper and state/tribal databases to identify nearby dumps, junk yards, landfills, hazardous waste sites, and industrial sites, including EPA National Priorities List Sites (Superfund sites), CERCLA or stateequivalent sites, RCRA Corrective Action sites with release(s) or suspected release(s) requiring clean-up action and/or further investigation. Additional supporting documentation may include other inspections and reports.

There are no TRI Facilities within 10 miles of the site (see attached screenshot from U.S. EPA TRI Toxics Tracker). The nearest RCRA sites are Grof’S Auto Repair at 1604 W.

Biggs Gridley Rd. (0.26 mile from the Project site), Pacific Bell at Sycamore & Oregon Streets (0.37 mile from the Project site), Pacific Bell at Hazel & California Streets (0.46 mile from the Project site), Pacific Bell at Main and Spruce Streets (0.53 mile from the Project site), and Sycamore Middle School at 1125 Sycamore St. (0.67 mile from the Project site). For these sites, there are no reports of recent contamination, contamination of nearby sites, or reports of mismanagement or cleanup, in the U.S.

EPA databases. (See attached screenshot from U.S. EPA EnviroMapper and description of research on RCRA sites.)
à Describe the findings, including any recognized environmental conditions (RECs), in Worksheet Summary below. Continue to Question 2.

Check here if an ASTM Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) report was utilized. [Note: HUD regulations does not require an ASTM Phase I ESA report for single family homes]

2. Mitigation
Document the mitigation needed according to the requirements of the appropriate federal, state, tribal, or local oversight agency. If the adverse environmental mitigation cannot be mitigated, then HUD assistance may not be used for the project at this site.

Can adverse environmental impacts be mitigated?
☐ Adverse environmental impacts cannot feasibly be mitigated à Project cannot proceed at this location.
☐ Yes, adverse environmental impacts can be eliminated through mitigation. à Provide all mitigation requirements2 and documents. Continue to Question 3.

3. Describe how compliance was achieved. Include any of the following that apply: State Voluntary Clean-up Program, a No Further Action letter, use of engineering controls3, or use of institutional controls4.
2 Mitigation requirements include all clean-up actions required by applicable federal, state, tribal, or local law.

Additionally, provide, as applicable, the long-term operations and maintenance plan, Remedial Action Work Plan, and other equivalent documents.
3 Engineering controls are any physical mechanism used to contain or stabilize contamination or ensure the effectiveness of a remedial action. Engineering controls may include, without limitation, caps, covers, dikes, trenches, leachate collection systems, signs, fences, physical access controls, ground water monitoring systems and ground water containment systems including, without limitation, slurry walls and ground water pumping systems.
4 Institutional controls are mechanisms used to limit human activities at or near a contaminated site, or to ensure the effectiveness of the remedial action over time, when contaminants remain at a site at levels above the applicable remediation standard which would allow for unrestricted use of the property. Institutional controls may include structure, land, and natural resource use restrictions, well restriction areas, classification exception areas, deed notices, and declarations of environmental restrictions.

If a remediation plan or clean-up program was necessary, which standard does it follow?
☐ Complete removal
☐ Risk-based corrective action (RBCA)
☐ Other
à Continue to the Worksheet Summary.

Worksheet Summary
Compliance Determination
Provide a clear description of your determination and a synopsis of the information that it was based on, such as:
• Map panel numbers and dates
• Names of all consulted parties and relevant consultation dates • Names of plans or reports and relevant page numbers
• Any additional requirements specific to your region
Are formal compliance steps or mitigation required?
☐ Yes
☒ No
There are no TRI Facilities within 10 miles of the site (see attached screenshot from U.S. EPA TRI Toxics Tracker). The nearest RCRA sites are Grof’S Auto Repair at 1604 W. Biggs Gridley Rd. (0.26 mile from the Project site), Pacific Bell at Sycamore & Oregon Streets (0.37 mile from the Project site), Pacific Bell at Hazel & California Streets (0.46 mile from the Project site), Pacific Bell at Main and Spruce Streets (0.53 mile from the Project site), and Sycamore Middle School at 1125 Sycamore St. (0.67 mile from the Project site). For these sites, there are no reports of recent contamination, contamination of nearby sites, or reports of mismanagement or cleanup, in the U.S. EPA databases. (See attached screenshot from U.S. EPA EnviroMapper and description of research on RCRA sites.) To view data about an individual facility, click on the facility location and then the green checkmark button. Next, select "Facilities Summary" from the left menu to find basic facility information and population statistics.

Map of TRI Facilities - Reporting Year 2024
There are no facilities within 10 miles of your location. If you think this is a mistake, go to "New Search" to refresh the search and try again.There are no facilities within 10 miles of your location. If you think this is a mistake, go to "New Search" to refresh the search and try again.

Map Options
Dot size represents:

Releases (lb)
Potential Harm
Dot color represents:

Releases (lb)
Industry Sector
© U.S. Geological Survey
Most Recent Reporting
Year: 2024
2/17/26, 7:59 PM TRI Toxics Tracker
https://edap.epa.gov/public/extensions/TRIToxicsTracker_embedded/TRIToxicsTracker_embedded.html? 1/1 Investigation of RCRA Sites
City of Gridley- Laurel Street Extension Project
Investigation of RCRA Sites
Name: Grof’S Auto Repair
Address: 1604 W. Biggs Gridley Rd.

Distance from Project Site: 0.26 mile
Investigation: No reports found in the EPA Multisystem Summary Reports or RCRAInfo Search https://enviro.epa.gov/envirofacts/multisystem/summary-report?registryId=110065533514 Name: Pacific Bell
Address: Sycamore & Oregon Streets
Distance from Project Site: 0.37 mile
Investigation: No reports found in the EPA Multisystem Summary Reports or RCRAInfo Search https://enviro.epa.gov/envirofacts/multisystem/summary-report?registryId=110008291785 Name: Pacific Bell
Address: Hazel & California Streets
Distance from Project Site: 0.46 mile
Investigation: No reports found in the EPA Multisystem Summary Reports or RCRAInfo Search https://enviro.epa.gov/envirofacts/multisystem/summary-report?registryId=110008291794 Project Site
Name: Pacific Bell
Address: Main and Spruce Streets
Distance from Project Site: 0.53 mile
Investigation: No reports found in the EPA Multisystem Summary Reports or RCRAInfo Search https://enviro.epa.gov/envirofacts/multisystem/summary-report?registryId=110008293159 Name: Sycamore Middle School
Address: 1125 Sycamore St.

Distance from Project Site: 0.67 mile
Investigation: No reports found in the EPA Multisystem Summary Reports or RCRAInfo Search https://enviro.epa.gov/envirofacts/multisystem/summary-report?registryId=110065276123 In addition, a Multisystem Search was conducted on the EPA Envirofacts website for the Project site and no contamination issues were found.

Endangered Species Act (CEST and EA)
General requirements ESA Legislation Regulations
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
mandates that federal agencies ensure that
actions that they authorize, fund, or carry out
shall not jeopardize the continued existence of
federally listed plants and animals or result in
the adverse modification or destruction of
designated critical habitat. Where their actions
may affect resources protected by the ESA,
agencies must consult with the Fish and Wildlife
Service and/or the National Marine Fisheries
Service (“FWS” and “NMFS” or “the Services”).

The Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.);
particularly section 7
(16 USC 1536).
50 CFR Part
402
References
https://www.hudexchange.info/environmental-review/endangered-species

1. Does the project involve any activities that have the potential to affect species or habitats? ☐No, the project will have No Effect due to the nature of the activities involved in the project.  Based on the response, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Provide any documents used to make your determination. ☐No, the project will have No Effect based on a letter of understanding, memorandum of agreement, programmatic agreement, or checklist provided by local HUD office.

Explain your determination:
 Based on the response, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Provide any documents used to make your determination. ☒Yes, the activities involved in the project have the potential to affect species and/or habitats.  Continue to Question 2.

2. Are federally listed species or designated critical habitats present in the action area? Obtain a list of protected species from the Services. This information is available on the FWS Website or you may contact your local FWS and/or NMFS offices directly. ☐No, the project will have No Effect due to the absence of federally listed species and designated critical habitat.
 Based on the response, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Provide any documents used to make your determination. Documentation may include letters from the Services, species lists from the Services’ websites, surveys or other documents and analysis showing that there are no species in the action area. ☒Yes, there are federally listed species or designated critical habitats present in the action area.  Continue to Question 3.

3. What effects, if any, will your project have on federally listed species or designated critical habitat?
☒No Effect: Based on the specifics of both the project and any federally listed species in the action area, you have determined that the project will have absolutely no effect on listed species or critical habitat.
 Based on the response, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Provide any documents used to make your determination. Documentation should include a species list and explanation of your conclusion, and may require maps, photographs, and surveys as appropriate.
☐May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect: Any effects that the project may have on federally listed species or critical habitats would be beneficial, discountable, or insignificant.
 Continue to Question 4, Informal Consultation.
☐Likely to Adversely Affect: The project may have negative effects on one or more listed species or critical habitat.
 Continue to Question 5, Formal Consultation.

4. Informal Consultation is required
Section 7 of ESA (16 USC. 1536) mandates consultation to resolve potential impacts to endangered and threatened species and critical habitats. If a HUD-assisted project may affect any federally listed endangered or threatened species or critical habitat, then compliance is required with Section 7. See 50 CFR Part 402 Subpart B Consultation Procedures.

Did the Service(s) concur with the finding that the project is Not Likely to Adversely Affect? ☐Yes, the Service(s) concurred with the finding.
 Based on the response, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to Question 6 and provide the following:
(1) A biological evaluation or equivalent document
(2) Concurrence(s) from FWS and/or NMFS
(3) Any other documentation of informal consultation
Exception: If finding was made based on procedures provided by a letter of understanding, memorandum of agreement, programmatic agreement, or checklist provided by local HUD office, provide whatever documentation is mandated by that agreement. ☐No, the Service(s) did not concur with the finding.  Continue to Question 5.

5. Formal consultation is required
Section 7 of ESA (16 USC 1536) mandates consultation to resolve potential impacts to federally listed endangered and threatened species and critical habitats. If a HUD assisted project may affect any endangered or threatened species or critical habitat, then compliance is required with Section 7. See 50 CFR Part 402 Subpart B Consultation Procedures.  Once consultation is complete, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to Question 6 and provide the following:
(1) A biological assessment, evaluation, or equivalent document (2) Biological opinion(s) issued by FWS and/or NMFS
(3) Any other documentation of formal consultation

6. For the project to be brought into compliance with this section, all adverse impacts must be mitigated. Explain in detail the proposed measures that will be implemented to mitigate for the impact or effect, including the timeline for implementation. ☐Mitigation as follows will be implemented:
☐No mitigation is necessary.

Explain why mitigation will not be made here:

Worksheet Summary
Compliance Determination
Provide a clear description of your determination and a synopsis of the information that it was based on, such as:
• Map panel numbers and dates
• Names of all consulted parties and relevant consultation dates • Names of plans or reports and relevant page numbers
• Any additional requirements specific to your region
The Project will have no effect on federally Endangered or Threatened Species. The Project site consists of a dirt and gravel road and earthen-lined irrigation ditch. Trees within the Project site include valley oak (Quercus lobata) and cultivated black walnut (Juglans hindsii). The western portion of the Project site contains the remnants of a mature walnut (J. regia) orchard; however, the trees have not been irrigated and are dead. The remainder of vegetation in the Project area is comprised of California annual grassland, containing a mix of non-native grasses such as wild oats (Avena fatua and A. barbata) and bromes (Bromus diandrus and B. hordeaceus), as well as non-native and native forb species such as storksbill (Erodium cicutarium and E. moscatum) and rancher’s fiddleneck (Amsinckia menzesii). The grassland in the western portion of the Project area is associated with fallow agricultural fields and is primarily a monoculture of wild radish (Raphanus sativus). See photographic log of the Project site (Attachment 1).

The earthen-lined ditch begins at a partially buried culvert at the eastern end of the Project and channels rainwater runoff west then south through a series of ditches. The ditch in the Project site was largely dry, with some standing water in the deepest portions. A heavy layer of leaf litter covered the bottom of the ditch, and no emergent vegetation was present.

Prior to conducting fieldwork on March 6, 2026, biologist Laura Burris reviewed relevant databases and information on federally listed species and critical habitat, including the federal U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Information for Planning and Consultation (Attachment 2) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s California Natural Diversity Database. These searches returned four threatened or endangered species, and three proposed threatened species.

All but one of these species have no potential to occur in the Project site due to the degraded nature of the site and lack of suitable habitat. The Project site does not occur within critical habitat for any of these species.

One federally listed species has potential to occur in the Project region: giant garter snake (Thamnophis gigas). Giant garter snake is a federally threatened reptile found in waterways and other freshwater aquatic habitats in the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys of California. It is commonly associated with agricultural ditches in the Sacramento Valley that maintain sufficient hydroperiod to support prey species such as fish and amphibians.

Although the ditch within the Project site contained some standing water during the site visit, which was performed within two weeks of a major storm event, most of the ditch was dry and the ditch connecting to downstream aquatic habitats was dry with no standing water. Thus, the ditch onsite does not have surface water connectivity to potentially suitable habitat for giant garter snake and does not support the required habitat elements for this species. It is highly unlikely this species occurs within the Project site or vicinity.

Thus, there is no habitat on the Project site that is supporting or that would support the Endangered Species listed on the attached Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office Endangered Species list (Attachment 2).

Are formal compliance steps or mitigation required?
☐ Yes
☒ No
Attachment 1 – Photographic Log
Project Site
Attachment 1: Photographic Log March 2026
Laurel Street Extension Project
Photograph 1: West-facing view of the Project site, showing the mostly dry ditch and adjacent dirt road to the north and fallow field to the south.

Photograph 2: Southwest-facing view of the wetted portion of the ditch.

Attachment 1: Photographic Log March 2026
Laurel Street Extension Project
Photograph 3: South-facing view of the dry channel connecting onsite ditch to the network of channels south of the Project site.

Photograph 4: East-facing view showing general Project site conditions.

Attachment 1: Photographic Log March 2026
Laurel Street Extension Project
This page intentionally left blank.

Attachment 2 – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Endangered Species List Project Site
02/18/2026 22:58:52 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: 2026-0051820
Project Name: Laurel Street Expansion Project
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) Project code: 2026-0051820 02/18/2026 22:58:52 UTC
2 of 9
(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 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/what-we-do.

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.

Project code: 2026-0051820 02/18/2026 22:58:52 UTC
3 of 9
▪
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
Project code: 2026-0051820 02/18/2026 22:58:52 UTC
4 of 9

PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Code: 2026-0051820
Project Name: Laurel Street Expansion Project
Project Type: Road/Hwy - New Construction
Project Description: The purpose of the Project is to complete a planned segment of the City’s streets by extending Laurel Street to provide public access to new residential subdivisions. The Project would involve construction of a new street section that connects Randolph Avenue on the east to Jared Drive on the west, and Butte View Drive on the north. The street section would consist of 1,200 linear feet of a minor collector street with a 60-foot wide right-of-way that has been planned through an approved tentative subdivision map, consistent with City of Gridley standards. The roadway cross section includes:
• Approximately 46 feet of paved roadway;
• Curb and gutter on both sides of the roadway;
• ADA compliant 5-foot sidewalks on each side, with required offsets behind curb and gutter;
• Pavement striping, traffic signage, and pavement markings; • Street lighting; and
• Full-access intersections at Randolph Avenue, Butte View Drive, and Jared Drive.

All roadway improvements would occur within the planned right-of-way and would not extend into other adjacent parcels or undeveloped areas.

Project code: 2026-0051820 02/18/2026 22:58:52 UTC
5 of 9
The project will take approximately two months to complete, planned for Oct. 1 to Nov. 25, 2026.

Project Location:

The approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// www.google.com/maps/@39.3607973,-121.71187068966718,14z Counties: Butte County, California
Project code: 2026-0051820 02/18/2026 22:58:52 UTC
6 of 9

1. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SPECIES
There is a total of 8 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 Project code: 2026-0051820 02/18/2026 22:58:52 UTC
7 of 9
BIRDS

NAME STATUS
California Condor Gymnogyps californianus
Population: Pacific Northwest NEP
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8193
General project design guidelines:
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/6VJLXIN36JBFRIFGQVVF5RA52A/documents/ generated/11271.pdf
Experimental
Population,
NonEssential

REPTILES

NAME STATUS
Giant Garter Snake Thamnophis gigas
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4482
Threatened
Northwestern Pond Turtle Actinemys marmorata
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1111
General project design guidelines:
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/6VJLXIN36JBFRIFGQVVF5RA52A/documents/ generated/11271.pdf
Proposed
Threatened

AMPHIBIANS

NAME STATUS
Western Spadefoot Spea hammondii
Population: Northern DPS
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5425
General project design guidelines:
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/6VJLXIN36JBFRIFGQVVF5RA52A/documents/ generated/11271.pdf
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
General project design guidelines:
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/6VJLXIN36JBFRIFGQVVF5RA52A/documents/ generated/11271.pdf
Proposed
Threatened
Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Desmocerus californicus dimorphus There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.

Threatened
Project code: 2026-0051820 02/18/2026 22:58:52 UTC
8 of 9

NAME STATUS
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7850

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
General project design guidelines:
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/6VJLXIN36JBFRIFGQVVF5RA52A/documents/ generated/11271.pdf
Threatened
Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp Lepidurus packardi
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2246
General project design guidelines:
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/6VJLXIN36JBFRIFGQVVF5RA52A/documents/ generated/11271.pdf
Endangered

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.

Project code: 2026-0051820 02/18/2026 22:58:52 UTC
9 of 9

IPAC USER CONTACT INFORMATION
Agency: Gridley city
Name: James Coles
Address: 3400 Cottage Way, Suite F
City: Sacramento
State: CA
Zip: 95825
Email [email protected]
Phone: 5305133116

LEAD AGENCY CONTACT INFORMATION
Lead Agency: Gridley city
Name: Elisa Arteaga
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 5308463831
Explosive and Flammable Hazards (CEST and EA)
General requirements Legislation Regulation
HUD-assisted projects must meet
Acceptable Separation Distance (ASD)
requirements to protect them from
explosive and flammable hazards.

N/A 24 CFR Part 51
Subpart C
Reference
https://www.hudexchange.info/environmental-review/explosive-and-flammable-facilities

1. Is the proposed HUD-assisted project itself the development of a hazardous facility (a facility that mainly stores, handles or processes flammable or combustible chemicals such as bulk fuel storage facilities and refineries)?
☒ No
à Continue to Question 2.
☐ Yes
Explain:
à Go directly to Question 5.

2. Does this project include any of the following activities: development, construction, rehabilitation that will increase residential densities, or conversion? ☒ No
à Based on the response, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below.
☐ Yes
à Continue to Question 3.

3. Within 1 mile of the project site, are there any current or planned stationary aboveground storage containersthat are covered by 24 CFR 51C? Containers that are NOT covered under the regulation include:
• Containers 100 gallons or less in capacity, containing common liquid industrial fuels OR
• Containers of liquified petroleum gas (LPG) or propane with a water volume capacity of 1,000 gallons or less that meet the requirements of the 2017 version of National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Code 58.

If all containers within the search area fit the above criteria, answer “no.” For any other type of aboveground storage container within the search area that holds one of the flammable or explosive materials listed in Appendix I of 24 CFR part 51 subpart C, answer “yes.”
☐ No
à Based on the response, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Provide all documents used to make your determination.
☐ Yes
à Continue to Question 4.

4. Visit HUD’s website to identify the appropriate tank or tanks to assess and to calculate the required separation distance using the electronic assessment tool. To document this step in the analysis, please attach the following supporting documents to this screen:
• Map identifying the tank selected for assessment, and showing the distance from the tank to the proposed HUD-assisted project site; and • Electronic assessment tool calculation of the required separation distance.

Based on the analysis, is the proposed HUD-assisted project site located at or beyond the required separation distance from all covered tanks? ☐ Yes
à Based on the response, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below.
☐ No
à Go directly to Question 6.

5. Is the hazardous facility located at an acceptable separation distance from residences and any other facility or area where people may congregate or be present? Please visit HUD’s website for information on calculating Acceptable Separation Distance. ☐ Yes
à Based on the response, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Provide map(s) showing the location of the project site relative to residences and any other facility or area where people congregate or are present and your separation distance calculations. ☐ No
à Provide map(s) showing the location of the project site relative to residences and any other facility or area where people congregate or are present and your separation distance calculations.

Continue to Question 6.

6. For the project to be brought into compliance with this section, all adverse impacts must be mitigated. Mitigation measures may include both natural and manmade barriers, modification of the project design, burial or removal of the hazard, or other engineered solutions. Describe selected mitigation measures, including the timeline for implementation, and attach an implementation plan. If negative effects cannot be mitigated, cancel the project at this location.

Note that only licensed professional engineers should design and implement blast barriers. If a barrier will be used or the project will be modified to compensate for an unacceptable separation distance, provide approval from a licensed professional engineer.

Aerial of Project Site
City of Gridley- Laurel Street Extension Project
Project Area
City of Gridley
Laurel Street Extension Project
February 6th, 2026
Prepared for:

City of Gridley
Prepared By:

Dave Harden, PE
Logan Howard, PE

All roadway improvements would occur within the planned right-of-way and would not extend into undeveloped or unentitled areas.

Storm Drain
Storm drainage improvements include piping an existing open stormwater detention ditch within the corridor and integrating it into the existing underground storm drain system.

All utility work would occur within the roadway footprint and would not extend utility service to areas beyond those already planned and entitled under the existing City General Plan.

The Project does not introduce new growth-inducing infrastructure independent of approved development and does not result in changes to land use intensity or density.

EXHIBIT A
1082 Sunrise Avenue, Suite 100
Roseville, California 95661
916.783.4100

CL CL CL C CL L

LAUREL STREET BUTTE VIEW DRIVE RANDOLPH AVENUE
Farmlands Protection (CEST and EA)
General requirements Legislation Regulation
The Farmland Protection
Policy Act (FPPA) discourages
federal activities that would
convert farmland to
nonagricultural purposes.

Farmland Protection Policy
Act of 1981 (7 U.S.C. 4201
et seq.)
7 CFR Part 658
Reference
https://www.hudexchange.info/environmental-review/farmlands-protection

1. Does your project include any activities, including new construction, acquisition of undeveloped land or conversion, that could convert agricultural land to a non-agricultural use?
☐Yes à Continue to Question 2.
☒No
Explain how you determined that agricultural land would not be converted:
à Based on the response, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Provide any documentation supporting your determination.

2. Does “important farmland,” including prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide or local importance regulated under the Farmland Protection Policy Act, occur on the project site?
You may use the links below to determine important farmland occurs on the project site:
§ Utilize USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service’s (NRCS) Web Soil Survey http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm
§ Check with your city or county’s planning department and ask them to document if the project is on land regulated by the FPPA (zoning important farmland as non-agricultural does not exempt it from FPPA requirements)
§ Contact NRCS at the local USDA service center
http://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs or your NRCS state soil scientist http://soils.usda.gov/contact/state_offices/ for assistance ☐No à Based on the response, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Provide any documents used to make your determination. ☐Yes à Continue to Question 3.

The Project site is currently a dirt road and is not located on farmlands.

3. Consider alternatives to completing the project on important farmland and means of avoiding impacts to important farmland.
§ Complete form AD-1006, “Farmland Conversion Impact Rating” http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1045394.pdf and contact the state soil scientist before sending it to the local NRCS District Conservationist.
(NOTE: for corridor type projects, use instead form NRCS-CPA-106, "Farmland Conversion Impact Rating for Corridor Type Projects:
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1045395.pdf.) § Work with NRCS to minimize the impact of the project on the protected farmland.

When you have finished with your analysis, return a copy of form AD-1006 (or form NRCS-CPA-106 if applicable) to the USDA-NRCS State Soil Scientist or his/her designee informing them of your determination.

Document your conclusion:
☐Project will proceed with mitigation.

Explain in detail the proposed measures that must be implemented to mitigate for the impact or effect, including the timeline for implementation. à Based on the response, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Provide form AD-1006 and all other documents used to make your determination.
☐Project will proceed without mitigation.

Explain why mitigation will not be made here:
à Based on the response, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Provide form AD-1006 and all other documents used to make your determination.

Farmlands Protection- Site Photo and Project Description City of Gridley- Laurel Street Extension Project
Aerial Photo of the Project Site
Project Site
City of Gridley
Laurel Street Extension Project
February 6th, 2026
Prepared for:

City of Gridley
Prepared By:

Dave Harden, PE
Logan Howard, PE

All roadway improvements would occur within the planned right-of-way and would not extend into undeveloped or unentitled areas.

Storm Drain
Storm drainage improvements include piping an existing open stormwater detention ditch within the corridor and integrating it into the existing underground storm drain system.

All utility work would occur within the roadway footprint and would not extend utility service to areas beyond those already planned and entitled under the existing City General Plan.

The Project does not introduce new growth-inducing infrastructure independent of approved development and does not result in changes to land use intensity or density.

EXHIBIT A
1082 Sunrise Avenue, Suite 100
Roseville, California 95661
916.783.4100

CL CL CL C CL L

LAUREL STREET BUTTE VIEW DRIVE RANDOLPH AVENUE
Floodplain Management(CEST and EA)
General Requirements Legislation Regulation
Executive Order 11988,
Floodplain Management,
requires Federal activities to
avoid impacts to floodplains and
to avoid direct and indirect
support of floodplain
development to the extent
practicable.

Executive Order 11988
Executive Order 13690
42 USC 4001-4128
42 USC 5154a
24 CFR 55
Reference
https://www.hudexchange.info/environmental-review/floodplain-management

1. Does this project meet an exemption at 24 CFR 55.12 from compliance with HUD’s floodplain management regulations in Part 55 or utilize the delayed compliance date for certain Office of Housing programs?
☐ Yes
Select the applicable citation at 24 CFR 55.12 and provide supporting documentation for the determination if applicable.
a) ☐ HUD-assisted activities described in 24 CFR 58.34 and 58.35(b) b) ☐ HUD-assisted activities described in 24 CFR 50.19, except as otherwise indicated in §

50.19 c) ☐ The approval of financial assistance for restoring and preserving the natural and beneficial functions and values of floodplains and wetlands, including through acquisition of such floodplain and wetland property, where a permanent covenant or comparable restriction is place on the property’s continued use for flood control, wetland projection, open space, or park land, but only if:
(1) The property is cleared of all existing buildings and walled structures; and (2) The property is cleared of related improvements except those which:
(i) Are directly related to flood control, wetland protection, open space, or park land (including playgrounds and recreation areas); (ii) Do not modify existing wetland areas or involve fill, paving, or other ground disturbance beyond minimal trails or paths; and
(iii) Are designed to be compatible with the beneficial floodplain or wetland function of the property.
d) ☐ An action involving a repossession, receivership, foreclosure, or similar acquisition of property to protect or enforce HUD's financial interests under previously approved loans, grants, mortgage insurance, or other HUD assistance
e) ☐ Policy-level actions described at 24 CFR 50.16 that do not involve site-based decisions f) ☐ A minor amendment to a previously approved action with no additional adverse impact on or from a floodplain or wetland;
g) ☐ HUD's or the responsible entity's approval of a project site, an incidental portion of which is situated in the FFRMS floodplain (not including the floodway, LiMWA, or coastal high hazard area) but only if:
(1) The proposed project site does not include any existing or proposed buildings or improvements that modify or occupy the FFRMS floodplain except de minimis improvements such as recreation areas and trails; and
(2) the proposed project will not result in any new construction in or modifications of a wetland
h) ☐ Issuance or use of Housing Vouchers or other forms of rental subsidy where HUD, the awarding community, or the public housing agency that administers the contract awards rental subsidies that are not project-based (i.e., do not involve site-specific subsidies) i) ☐ Special projects directed to the removal of material and architectural barriers that restrict the mobility of and accessibility to elderly and persons with disabilities.

Based on the response, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below.
☐ Yes. Office of Housing programs utilizing the January 1, 2025 compliance date. These reviews must comply with the 2013 version of the Part 55 regulations. Continue to Worksheet Summary for 2013 version to upload supporting documentation.
☒ No. Continue to Question 2.

2. Does the project include a Critical Action?
☐ Yes. Describe the Critical Action. Examples of Critical Actions include projects involving hospitals, fire and police stations, nursing homes, hazardous chemical storage, storage of valuable records, and utility plants. Continue to Question 4.
x No. Continue to Question 3.

3. Determine the extent of the FFRMS floodplain and provide mapping documentation in support of that determination.

The extent of the FFRMS floodplain can be determined using a Climate Informed Science Approach (CISA), 0.2 percent flood approach (0.2 PFA), or freeboard value approach (FVA). For projects in areas without available CISA data or without FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), Flood Insurance Studies (FISs) or Advisory Base Flood Elevations (ABFEs), use the best available information to determine flood elevation. Include documentation and an explanation of why this is the best available information for the site. Note that newly constructed and substantially improved structures must be elevated to the FFRMS floodplain regardless of the approach chosen to determine the floodplain.

Select one of the following three options:
☐ CISA for non-critical actions. If using a local tool, data, or resources, ensure that the FFRMS elevation is higher than would have been determined using the 0.2 PFA or the FVA. ☒ 0.2-PFA. Where FEMA has defined the 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain, the FFRMS floodplain is the area that FEMA has designated as within the 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain.
☐ FVA. If neither CISA nor 0.2-PFA is available, for non-critical actions, the FFRMS floodplain is the area that results from adding two feet to the base flood elevation as established by the effective FIRM or FIS or—if available —a FEMA-provided preliminary or pending FIRM or FIS or advisory base flood elevations, whether regulatory or informational in nature. However, an interim or preliminary FEMA map cannot be used if it is lower than the current FIRM or FIS. a. Does your project occur in the FFRMS floodplain?
☒ Yes, continue to part b.
☐ No. Review for floodplain management is complete.
b. Is your project located in any of the floodplain categories below? Select all that apply. If none apply, continue to question 7.
☐ Floodway: Continue to Question 5. Floodways.
☐ Coastal High Hazard Area (V Zone) or Limit of Moderate Wave Action (LiMWA): Continue to Question 6. Coastal High Hazard Areas and LiMWAs.

4. Determine the extent of the FFRMS floodplain and provide mapping documentation in support of that determination.

The extent of the FFRMS floodplain can be determined using a Climate Informed Science Approach (CISA), or the higher of the 0.2 percent flood approach (0.2 PFA), or freeboard value approach (FVA). For projects in areas without available CISA data or without FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), Flood Insurance Studies (FISs) or Advisory Base Flood Elevations (ABFEs), use the best available information to determine flood elevation. Note that newly constructed and substantially improved structures must be elevated to the FFRMS floodplain regardless of the approach chosen to determine the floodplain.

Utilize CISA to determine the FFRMS floodplain for critical actions ☐ CISA for Critical Actions. If using a local tool, ensure that the FFRMS elevation provided is higher than the 0.2 PFA or 3’ above the base flood elevation.

OR;
Choose the higher of 0.2 PFA or FVA elevations
☐ 0.2-PFA. Where FEMA has defined the 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain, the FFRMS floodplain is the area that FEMA has designated as within the 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain.
☐ FVA. For critical actions, the FFRMS floodplain is the area that results from adding three feet to the base flood elevation as established by the effective FEMA FIRM or FIS or—if available —a FEMA-provided preliminary or pending FIRM or FIS or advisory base flood elevations, whether regulatory or informational in nature. However, an interim or preliminary FEMA map cannot be used if it is lower than the current FIRM or FIS.
a. Does your project occur in the FFRMS floodplain?
☐Yes, continue to part b.
☐No. Review for floodplain management is complete.
b. Is your project located in any of the floodplain categories below? Select all that apply. If none apply, continue to question 7.
☐ Floodway: Continue to Question 5. Floodways.
☐ Coastal High Hazard Area (V Zone) or LiMWA: Continue to Question 6. Coastal High Hazard Areas and LiMWAs.

5. Floodways
Do the floodway exemptions at 55.8 or 55.21 apply?
☐ Yes
The 8-Step Process is required. Document mitigation measures necessary to meet the requirements in 55.8 or 55.21. Provide a completed 8-Step Process, including the early public notice and the final notice.

Continue to Question 7. 8-Step Process.
☐ No
Federal assistance may not be used at this location. You must either choose an alternate site or cancel the project at this location.

6. Coastal High Hazard Area (V Zone) and LiMWAs
Do the exemptions at 55.8 or 55.21 apply?
☐ Yes
The 8-Step Process is required. Document mitigation measures necessary to mee the requirements in 55.8 or 55.21. Provide a completed 8-Step Process, including the early public notice and the final notice.

Continue to Question 7. 8-Step Process.
☐ No
Federal assistance may not be used at this location. You must either choose an alternate site or cancel the project at this location.

7. 8-Step Process.

Does the 8-Step Process apply? Select one of the following options:
☐ 8-Step Process is inapplicable per 55.13.

Select the applicable citation:
☐ (a) HUD's mortgage insurance actions and other financial assistance for the purchasing, mortgaging, or refinancing of existing one- to four-family properties in communities that are in the Regular Program of the NFIP and in good standing ( i.e., not suspended from program eligibility or placed on probation under 44 CFR 59.24), where the action is not a critical action and the property is not located in a floodway, coastal high hazard area, or LiMWA;
☐ (b) Financial assistance for minor repairs or improvements on one- to four-family properties that do not meet the thresholds for “substantial improvement” under § 55.2(b)(12);
☐ (c) HUD or a recipient's actions involving the disposition of individual HUD or recipient held, one- to four-family properties;
☐ (d) HUD guarantees under the Loan Guarantee Recovery Fund Program (24 CFR part 573), where any new construction or rehabilitation financed by the existing loan or mortgage has been completed prior to the filing of an application under the program, and the refinancing will not allow further construction or rehabilitation, nor result in any physical impacts or changes except for routine maintenance;
☐ (e) The approval of financial assistance to lease units within an existing structure located within the floodplain, but only if;
(1) The structure is located outside the floodway or coastal high hazard area, and is in a community that is in the Regular Program of the NFIP and in good standing ( i.e., not suspended from program eligibility or placed on probation under 44 CFR 59.24); and
(2) The project is not a critical action; and
(3) The entire structure is or will be fully insured or insured to the maximum extent available under the NFIP for at least the term of the lease. ☐ (f) Special projects for the purpose of improving efficiency of utilities or installing renewable energy that involve the repair, rehabilitation, modernization, weatherization, or improvement of existing structures or infrastructure, do not meet the thresholds for “substantial improvement” under § 55.2(b)(12), and do not include the installation of equipment below the FFRMS floodplain elevation.

Based on the response, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below.
☐ 5-Step Process is applicable per 55.14.

Provide documentation of 5-Step Process.

Select the applicable citation:
☐ (a) HUD actions involving the disposition of HUD-acquired multifamily housing projects or “bulk sales” of HUD-acquired one- to four-family properties in communities that are in the Regular Program of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and in good standing (i.e., not suspended from program eligibility or placed on probation under 44 CFR 59.24).
☐ (b)HUD's actions under the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1701) for the purchase or refinancing of existing multifamily housing projects, hospitals, nursing homes, assisted living facilities, board and care facilities, and intermediate care facilities, in communities that are in good standing under the NFIP.
☐ (c) HUD's or the recipient’s actions under any HUD program involving the repair, rehabilitation, modernization, weatherization, or improvement of existing multifamily housing projects, hospitals, nursing homes, assisted living facilities, board and care facilities, intermediate care facilities, and one- to four-family properties, in communities that are in the Regular Program of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and are in good standing, provided that the number of units is not increased more than 20 percent, the action does not involve a conversion from nonresidential to residential land use, the action does not meet the thresholds for “substantial improvement” under §

55.2(b)(10), and the footprint of the structure and paved areas is not increased by more than 20 percent.
☐ (d) HUD’s (or the recipient’s) actions under any HUD program involving the repair, rehabilitation, modernization, weatherization, or improvement of existing nonresidential buildings and structures, in communities that are in the Regular Program of the NFIP and are in good standing, provided that the action does not meet the thresholds for “substantial improvement” under § 55.2(b)(10) and that the footprint of the structure and paved areas is not increased by more than 20 percent ☐ (e) HUD's or the recipient's actions under any HUD program involving the repair, rehabilitation, or replacement of existing nonstructural improvements including streets, curbs and gutters, where any increase of the total impervious surface area of the facility is de minimis. This provision does not include critical actions, levee systems, chemical storage facilities (including any tanks), wastewater facilities, or sewer lagoons.

Continue to Question 8. Mitigation.
☒ 8-Step Process applies.

Provide a completed 8-Step Process, including the early public notice and the final notice.

Continue to Question 8. Mitigation.

8. Mitigation
For the project to comply with this section, all adverse impacts must be mitigated. Explain in detail the measures that must be implemented to mitigate the impact or effect, including the timeline for implementation. Note: newly constructed and substantially improved structures within the FFRMS floodplain must be elevated to the FFRMS floodplain elevation or floodproofed, if applicable.

Which of the following if any mitigation/minimization measures have been identified for this project in the 8-Step or 5-Step Process? Select all that apply. ☐ Buyout and demolition or other supported clearance of floodplain structures ☐ Insurance purchased in excess of statutory requirement under the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973
☐ Permeable surfaces
☒ Natural landscape enhancements that maintain or restore natural hydrology ☒ Planting or restoring native plant species
☒ Bioswales
☐ Stormwater capture and reuse
☐ Green or vegetative roofs with drainage provisions
☐ Natural Resources Conservation Service conservation easements or similar easements ☐ Floodproofing of structures as allowable (e.g. non-residential floors) ☐ Elevating structures (including freeboard above the required base flood elevations) ☐ Levee or structural protection from flooding
☐ Channelizing or redefining the floodway or floodplain through a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR)
The Laurel Street Extension Project has been designed to minimize impacts to the FFRMS floodplain to the maximum extent practicable. The project consists of roadway and utility improvements within an established 60-foot public right-of-way that is currently disturbed and designated for infrastructure development. No habitable structures or critical facilities will be constructed within the floodplain.

Grading activities are limited to the roadway prism and utility trenches. The project will not result in a measurable reduction in flood storage capacity or alter regional flood conveyance patterns. Storm drainage improvements are designed to maintain the hydraulic function of the existing drainage system and will not increase flood elevations on adjacent properties.

Construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be implemented to control erosion, sedimentation, and pollutant discharge. Temporary staging areas within the floodplain will be restored to pre-construction conditions upon completion. Disturbed areas not permanently paved will be stabilized to prevent erosion.

All mitigation measures will be incorporated into the final construction plans and implemented during the construction phase (anticipated May–September 2027), with site stabilization completed prior to project closeout.

Based on the response, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below.

Worksheet Summary
Compliance Determination
Provide a clear description of your determination and a synopsis of the information that it was based on, such as:
• FIRM panel numbers
• CISA data or maps
• Information on other data or tools used or accessed
• Names of all consulted parties and relevant consultation dates • Names of plans or reports and relevant page numbers
• Any additional requirements specific to your region
The Laurel Street Extension Project was evaluated in accordance with Executive Order 11988, Executive Order 13690, and HUD regulations at 24 CFR Part 55.

FEMA National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette Panel 06007C1125E, effective January 6, 2011, exported 2/18/26, for the City of Gridley (Community No. 060019), indicates that portions of the project corridor are located within the 0.2-percent annual chance flood hazard area (Zone X – Shaded). The 0.2-Percent Flood Approach (0.2-PFA) was used to determine the extent of the FFRMS floodplain. The project is not located within a regulatory floodway, Special Flood Hazard Area (1-percent annual chance floodplain), Coastal High Hazard Area, or LiMWA.

The project consists of construction of approximately 1,200 linear feet of planned minor collector roadway and associated utility improvements within an established 60-foot public right-of-way. The corridor is designated for roadway infrastructure under the City’s General Plan and does not introduce new land uses or increase approved development density.

The project does not qualify for exemption under 24 CFR 55.12 or reduced compliance under 24 CFR 55.13 or 55.14. Therefore, the 8-Step decision-making process pursuant to 24 CFR 55.20 was completed.

The 8-Step Process included public notice, evaluation of alternatives, assessment of floodplain impacts, identification of mitigation measures, and documentation in the Environmental Review Record. The project does not include habitable or critical structures within the floodplain. Improvements are confined to the planned right-of-way and are designed to maintain existing drainage patterns and avoid adverse impacts to flood storage capacity.

With completion of the 8-Step Process and implementation of mitigation measures, the project complies with Executive Order 11988 and 24 CFR Part 55. See the attached Floodplain Alternatives and Impacts Analysis for details about the 8-Step Process and mitigation measures.

National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette
0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
Feet
Ü

SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT

SPECIAL FLOOD

HAZARD AREAS
Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE)
Zone A, V, A99
With BFE or Depth Zone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR
Regulatory Floodway

0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas
of 1% annual chance flood with average
depth less than one foot or with drainage
areas of less than one square mile Zone X
Future Conditions 1% Annual
Chance Flood Hazard Zone X
Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to
Levee. See Notes. Zone X
Area with Flood Risk due to Levee Zone D
NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard Zone X
Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard Zone D
Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer
Levee, Dike, or Floodwall
Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance

17.5 Water Surface Elevation
Coastal Transect
Coastal Transect Baseline
Profile Baseline
Hydrographic Feature
Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE)
Effective LOMRs
Limit of Study
Jurisdiction Boundary
Digital Data Available
No Digital Data Available
Unmapped
This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of
digital flood maps if it is not void as described below.

The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap
accuracy standards
The flood hazard information is derived directly from the authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This map was exported on 2/18/2026 at 11:32 PM and does not
reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and time. The NFHL and effective information may change or
become superseded by new data over time.

This map image is void if the one or more of the following map elements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels, legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers, FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images for unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for
regulatory purposes.

Legend

OTHER AREAS OF

FLOOD HAZARD

OTHER AREAS

GENERAL

STRUCTURES
OTHER

FEATURES

MAP PANELS
8 B

20.2 The pin displayed on the map is an approximate
point selected by the user and does not represent
an authoritative property location.
1:6,000
121°42'57"W 39°21'54"N
121°42'19"W 39°21'26"N
Basemap Imagery Source: USGS National Map 2023
City of Gridley
Laurel Street Extension Project
Floodplain Alterna.ves and Impacts Analysis
March 9th, 2026
Prepared for:

City of Gridley
Prepared By:

Dave Harden, PE
Logan Howard, PE
Jessica Ginnever, EIT
Alternatives Analysis
The City of Gridley evaluated several project alternatives to determine the most appropriate method of achieving the project objectives while minimizing environmental impacts and complying with applicable federal regulations and state of California environmental compliance requirements. The purpose of the Laurel Street Extension project is to improve transportation circulation, extend essential public utilities, and provide safe access to planned residential development areas in accordance with the City of Gridley General Plan circulation and infrastructure planning policies.

The project will extend Laurel Street eastward from Butte View Drive to provide connectivity between existing and planned development areas. The project also includes installation of critical utility infrastructure necessary to support development and improve the reliability of the City’s water and wastewater systems. Several alternatives were considered during project planning, including a No Build Alternative, a Reduced Improvement Alternative, and the Proposed Project Alternative.

Alternative 1 – No Build Alternative
Under the No Build Alternative, the Laurel Street Extension would not be constructed and no infrastructure improvements would occur within the project corridor.

The existing undeveloped condition of the corridor and dirt access would remain unchanged, and the current discontinuity in the roadway network would persist.

While the No Build Alternative would avoid construction-related environmental impacts, it would not meet the fundamental purpose and need of the project. The absence of the roadway extension would limit connectivity within the City’s transportation network and would reduce the eSiciency of local circulation for residents, service providers, and emergency responders. Additionally, this alternative would prevent installation of water and sewer infrastructure necessary to serve planned residential development areas identified in the City’s General Plan.

Without the installation of the proposed 10-inch waterline extension, the City would not be able to complete the planned looping of the municipal water system between Butte View Drive and adjacent development areas. Water system looping is necessary to improve system redundancy, increase reliability, and maintain adequate water pressure for domestic service and fire protection.

Although the No Build Alternative would eliminate short-term construction impacts, it would also prevent the City from implementing infrastructure improvements that support planned community growth and safe multimodal transportation. Although the construction impacts may not be an issue with the No Build Alternative, this would not prevent construction vehicular traSic from continuing to occur along the alignment. Because this alternative fails to meet the purpose and need of the project and conflicts with long-term planning objectives identified in the City’s General Plan, it was determined to be infeasible.

Alternative 2 – Reduced Improvement Alternative (Pavement and Utilities Only) Under the Reduced Improvement Alternative, the project would construct the roadway extension and install underground utilities but would not include curb and gutter improvements or pedestrian facilities such as sidewalks. The roadway would consist of a basic paved section designed to provide vehicular access between Butte View Drive and adjacent development areas.

This alternative would partially meet the project purpose by improving roadway connectivity and installing the required water and sewer infrastructure. However, the absence of curb and gutter would reduce the project’s ability to manage stormwater runoS and maintain proper drainage within the roadway corridor. Without defined drainage improvements, stormwater could disperse unevenly across the roadway surface or adjacent properties, potentially resulting in localized flooding or long-term pavement deterioration.

In addition, the absence of sidewalks would limit pedestrian access and reduce safety for residents in the surrounding area. The project area is planned for residential development and will generate pedestrian activity associated with neighborhood circulation, access to schools, parks, and community services. Constructing a roadway without pedestrian facilities would be inconsistent with the City’s Complete Streets policies and modern roadway design standards that promote safe multimodal transportation and ADA compliant facilities.

While the Reduced Improvement Alternative would reduce initial construction costs and slightly decrease the area of ground disturbance, it would not provide the long-term infrastructure functionality required for a fully developed residential corridor. Over time, the City would likely need to reconstruct portions of the roadway to add missing improvements such as curb, gutter, and sidewalks. For these reasons, this alternative was determined to be less eSective and not the preferred approach.

Alternative 3 – Proposed Project (Preferred Alternative) The Proposed Project Alternative includes construction of the Laurel Street Extension with full roadway improvements and associated public utility infrastructure. The project includes installation of approximately 750 feet of sewer line replacement, installation of approximately 750 feet of a new 10-inch waterline to connect and loop the municipal water system between Butte View Drive and adjacent development areas, roadway paving, curb and gutter improvements, stormwater drainage features, street lighting, and sidewalk construction along the north side of the corridor.

This alternative provides the greatest long-term benefit to the City and surrounding community. The roadway extension improves circulation within the transportation network and provides safe vehicular access to planned development areas. The addition of sidewalks improves pedestrian safety and mobility by providing a dedicated pathway separated from vehicular traSic.

Although the Proposed Project Alternative includes the greatest level of construction activity, the environmental impacts are temporary and can be eSectively managed through implementation of standard construction best management practices, engineering design standards, and regulatory compliance measures. Because this alternative best meets the project purpose and provides the most comprehensive infrastructure improvements, it was selected as the preferred alternative.

Floodplain Impacts Assessment
The project area is located within an area identified as being subject to a 2 percent annual chance flood hazard (500-year floodplain) according to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). In accordance with Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management) and HUD regulations at 24 CFR Part 55, the potential impacts of the project on the floodplain were evaluated as part of the environmental review process.

The Laurel Street Extension project consists primarily of public infrastructure improvements within a planned public right-of-way corridor. Project activities include roadway construction, underground utility installation, storm drainage improvements, street lighting installation, and construction of pedestrian facilities. The project does not include construction of habitable structures or facilities intended for long-term human occupancy within the floodplain. Instead, the project consists of transportation and utility infrastructure that supports safe circulation and public services within the community.

The proposed improvements are not expected to significantly alter the physical characteristics of the floodplain or increase flood elevations. The roadway design will maintain existing drainage patterns and incorporate engineered stormwater conveyance features, including curb and gutter and drainage infrastructure, to direct runoS safely through the corridor. Construction activities within the floodplain will be temporary and limited to the duration of the construction period. During construction, erosion control and stormwater best management practices will be implemented to prevent sediment transport and protect water quality.

Upon completion of construction, the project will result in improved roadway drainage and stormwater management compared to existing undeveloped conditions.

Based on the nature of the project and implementation of standard engineering and stormwater management practices, the Laurel Street Extension project is not expected to result in significant adverse impacts to the floodplain.

Floodplain 8-Step Process Summary
Because portions of the project area may be located within a mapped flood hazard area, the City of Gridley considered floodplain management requirements in accordance with the HUD Eight-Step Decision Making Process under 24 CFR Part 55.

The City first determined whether the proposed project is located within a floodplain based on FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps. After identifying that portions of the project corridor may fall within a 2 percent annual chance flood hazard area, the City evaluated potential alternatives and assessed potential impacts associated with floodplain development. The alternatives analysis considered the No Build Alternative and reduced improvement options to determine whether a practicable alternative existed that would avoid the floodplain. Because the project is a linear infrastructure improvement within a planned public right-of-way corridor designed to serve surrounding development areas, complete avoidance of the floodplain was determined to be impracticable.

The City evaluated potential impacts associated with construction activities and identified measures to minimize potential eSects on floodplain functions and values.

These measures include maintaining natural drainage patterns, incorporating engineered stormwater drainage infrastructure, and implementing construction best management practices to control erosion and sedimentation.

Based on this evaluation, the City determined that the project represents the most practicable alternative and that implementation of mitigation measures will minimize potential impacts to the floodplain.

Determination of No Practicable Alternative to Floodplain Location The Laurel Street Extension project involves the construction of a planned public roadway and associated utility infrastructure within a designated right-of-way corridor identified in the City of Gridley General Plan circulation network. Because the project is a linear infrastructure improvement intended to connect existing roadways and serve adjacent development areas, relocation of the project outside of the mapped flood hazard area is not practicable. The roadway alignment is constrained by surrounding properties, existing roadway connections, and planned development patterns identified in the City’s long-range planning documents. Avoiding the floodplain entirely would require relocation of the roadway outside the planned circulation corridor, which would prevent the project from meeting its purpose of improving connectivity and providing access to adjacent development areas. Therefore, the City determined that there is no practicable alternative to constructing the roadway within the identified flood hazard area as the entire city is located within the flood zone. The project has been designed to minimize potential floodplain impacts through appropriate engineering design, stormwater management improvements, and implementation of construction best management practices.

Identification of Mitigation Measures
Several mitigation and compliance measures will be implemented to minimize potential environmental impacts associated with construction and operation of the Laurel Street Extension project.

During construction, the contractor will implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board Construction General Permit. The SWPPP will identify erosion and sediment control measures designed to prevent stormwater impacts and protect nearby drainage systems.

Typical best management practices for projects similar in size and utility include silt fencing, fiber rolls, stabilized construction entrances, and dust control measures.

Engineering design for the roadway will incorporate stormwater drainage improvements, including curb and gutter systems and stormwater conveyance infrastructure designed to maintain proper drainage patterns and reduce localized flooding. These improvements will ensure that stormwater runoS is properly routed through the corridor without increasing flood risk to surrounding properties.

Utility installation and roadway construction will be performed in accordance with applicable local, state, and federal engineering standards, including floodplain management considerations where applicable. Construction activities will be limited to the minimum area necessary to complete the improvements, and disturbed areas will be restored following construction.

Upon completion of construction, the City of Gridley will maintain project documentation within the Environmental Review Record and project files. Documentation will include record drawings, geotechnical reports, drainage studies, construction inspection records, SWPPP compliance documentation, and other supporting engineering documentation. These measures will ensure that potential environmental impacts associated with the project are minimized and that the project remains compliant with applicable federal, state, and local requirements.

Historic Preservation (CEST and EA)
General requirements Legislation Regulation
Regulations under Section 106 of
the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA) require
a consultative process to identify
historic properties, assess
project impacts on them, and
avoid, minimize, or mitigate
adverse effects
Section 106 of the
National Historic
Preservation Act
(16 U.S.C. 470f)
36 CFR 800 “Protection of
Historic Properties”
References
https://www.hudexchange.info/environmental-review/historic-preservation Threshold
Is Section 106 review required for your project?
☐ No, because the project consists solely of activities listed as exempt in a Programmatic Agreement (PA). (See the PA Database to find applicable PAs.) Either provide the PA itself or a link to it here. Mark the applicable exemptions or include the text here:
à Continue to the Worksheet Summary.
☒ No, because the project consists solely of activities included in a No Potential to Cause Effects memo or other determination [36 CFR 800.3(a)(1)].

Either provide the memo itself or a link to it here. Explain and justify the other determination here:
à Continue to the Worksheet Summary.

The Project will consist of construction of a road extension on vacant land without any improvements. Therefore, it has no potential to cause effects to historic properties. See attached memo.
☐Yes, because the project includes activities with potential to cause effects (direct or indirect). à Continue to Step 1.

The Section 106 Process
After determining the need to do a Section 106 review, initiate consultation with regulatory and other interested parties, identify and evaluate historic properties, assess effects of the project on properties listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, and resolve any adverse effects through project design modifications or mitigation.

Note that consultation continues through all phases of the review.

Step 1: Initiate consultation
Step 2: Identify and evaluate historic properties
Step 3: Assess effects of the project on historic properties Step 4: Resolve any adverse effects
Step 1 - Initiate Consultation
The following parties are entitled to participate in Section 106 reviews: Advisory Council on Historic Preservation; State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs); federally recognized Indian tribes/Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs); Native Hawaiian Organizations (NHOs); local governments; and project grantees. The general public and individuals and organizations with a demonstrated interest in a project may participate as consulting parties at the discretion of the RE or HUD official. Participation varies with the nature and scope of a project. Refer to HUD’s website for guidance on consultation, including the required timeframes for response.

Consultation should begin early to enable full consideration of preservation options.

Use the When To Consult With Tribes checklist within Notice CPD-12-006: Process for Tribal Consultation to determine if you should invite tribes to consult on a particular project. Use the Tribal Directory Assessment Tool (TDAT) to identify tribes that may have an interest in the area where the project is located. Note that consultants may not initiate consultation with Tribes.

Select all consulting parties below (check all that apply):
☐State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)
☐Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
☐Indian Tribes, including Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs) or Native ☐Hawaiian Organizations (NHOs)
List all tribes that were consulted here and their status of consultation:
☐Other Consulting Parties
List all consulting parties that were consulted here and their status of consultation:

Describe the process of selecting consulting parties and initiating consultation here:

Provide all correspondence, notices, and notes (including comments and objections received) and continue to Step 2.

Step 2 - Identify and Evaluate Historic Properties
Define the Area of Potential Effect (APE), either by entering the address(es) or providing a map depicting the APE. Attach an additional page if necessary.

Gather information about known historic properties in the APE. Historic buildings, districts and archeological sites may have been identified in local, state, and national surveys and registers, local historic districts, municipal plans, town and county histories, and local history websites. If not already listed on the National Register of Historic Places, identified properties are then evaluated to see if they are eligible for the National Register.

Refer to HUD’s website for guidance on identifying and evaluating historic properties.

In the space below, list historic properties identified and evaluated in the APE.

Every historic property that may be affected by the project should be listed. For each historic property or district, include the National Register status, whether the SHPO has concurred with the finding, and whether information on the site is sensitive. Attach an additional page if necessary.

Provide the documentation (survey forms, Register nominations, concurrence(s) and/or objection(s), notes, and photos) that justify your National Register Status determination.

Was a survey of historic buildings and/or archeological sites done as part of the project? If the APE contains previously unsurveyed buildings or structures over 50 years old, or there is a likely presence of previously unsurveyed archeological sites, a survey may be necessary. For Archeological surveys, refer to HP Fact Sheet #6, Guidance on Archeological Investigations in HUD Projects.
☐ Yes à Provide survey(s) and report(s) and continue to Step 3.

Additional notes:
☐ No à Continue to Step 3.

Step 3 - Assess Effects of the Project on Historic Properties Only properties that are listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places receive further consideration under Section 106. Assess the effect(s) of the project by applying the Criteria of Adverse Effect. (36 CFR 800.5)] Consider direct and indirect effects as applicable as per HUD guidance.

Choose one of the findings below - No Historic Properties Affected, No Adverse Effect, or Adverse Effect; and seek concurrence from consulting parties. ☐ No Historic Properties Affected
Document reason for finding:
☐ No historic properties present. à Provide concurrence(s) or objection(s) and continue to the Worksheet Summary.
☐ Historic properties present, but project will have no effect upon them. à Provide concurrence(s) or objection(s) and continue to the Worksheet Summary.

If consulting parties concur or fail to respond to user’s request for concurrence, project is in compliance with this section. No further review is required. If consulting parties object, refer to (36 CFR 800.4(d)(1)) and consult further to try to resolve objection(s).
☐ No Adverse Effect
Document reason for finding:

Does the No Adverse Effect finding contain conditions?
☐ Yes
Check all that apply: (check all that apply)
☐ Avoidance
☐ Modification of project
☐ Other
Describe conditions here:
à Monitor satisfactory implementation of conditions. Provide concurrence(s) or objection(s) and continue to the Worksheet Summary.
☐ No à Provide concurrence(s) or objection(s) and continue to the Worksheet Summary.

If consulting parties concur or fail to respond to user’s request for concurrence, project is in compliance with this section. No further review is required. If consulting parties object, refer to (36 CFR 800.5(c)(2)) and consult further to try to resolve objection(s).
☐ Adverse Effect
Document reason for finding:

Copy and paste applicable Criteria into text box with summary and justification.

Criteria of Adverse Effect: 36 CFR 800.5]
Notify the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation of the Adverse Effect and provide the documentation outlined in 36 CFR 800.11(e). The Council has 15 days to decide whether to enter the consultation (Not required for projects covered by a Programmatic Agreement).
à Continue to Step 4.

Step 4 - Resolve Adverse Effects
Work with consulting parties to try to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects. Refer to HUD guidance and 36 CFR 800.6 and 800.7.

Were the Adverse Effects resolved?
☐ Yes
Describe the resolution of Adverse Effects, including consultation efforts and participation by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation:

For the project to be brought into compliance with this section, all adverse impacts must be mitigated. Explain in detail the exact measures that must be implemented to mitigate for the impact or effect, including the timeline for implementation. à Provide signed Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) or Standard Mitigation Measures Agreement (SMMA). Continue to the Worksheet Summary. ☐ No
The project must be cancelled unless the “Head of Agency” approves it. Either provide approval from the “Head of Agency” or cancel the project at this location.

Describe the failure to resolve Adverse Effects, including consultation efforts and participation by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and “Head of the Agency”:

Explain in detail the exact conditions or measures that must be implemented to mitigate for the impact or effect, including the timeline for implementation. à Provide correspondence, comments, documentation of decision, and “Head of Agency” approval. Continue to the Worksheet Summary.

MEMORANDUM
Date: February 19, 2026
To: Elisa Arteaga, City Administrator, City of Gridley
From: James Coles, Principal, Housing Tools
RE: Historic property impacts of Laurel Street Expansion Project Housing Tools has conducted an assessment of impacts of the Laurel Street Expansion Project to historic properties. The Project will involve the construction of a street extension with associated curb, gutter, sidewalk, street lighting, and underground sewer, storm drain, and lighting conduit. It will be 1,200 in length with a 60-foot wide right-of-way in which all improvements would be located. The building area is vacant. It will not involve demolition or construction of any structures. We have determined that the Project has no potential to cause effects on historic properties. Therefore, the City has no further obligations under Section 106, per 36 CFR 800.3(a)(1).

Noise (CEST Level Reviews)
General requirements Legislation Regulation
HUD’s noise regulations protect
residential properties from
excessive noise exposure. HUD
encourages mitigation as
appropriate.

Noise Control Act of 1972
General Services Administration
Federal Management Circular
75-2: “Compatible Land Uses at
Federal Airfields”
Title 24 CFR 51
Subpart B
References
https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/environmental-review/noise-abatement-andcontrol

1. What activities does your project involve? Check all that apply:
☐ New construction for residential use
NOTE: HUD assistance to new construction projects is generally prohibited if they are located in an Unacceptable zone, and HUD discourages assistance for new construction projects in Normally Unacceptable zones. See 24 CFR

51.101(a)(3) for further details.
à Continue to Question 4.
☐ Rehabilitation of an existing residential property
NOTE: For modernization projects in all noise zones, HUD encourages mitigation to reduce levels to acceptable compliance standards. See 24 CFR 51 Subpart B for further details.
à Continue to Question 2.
☐ A research demonstration project which does not result in new construction or reconstruction, interstate, land sales registration, or any timely emergency assistance under disaster assistance provisions or appropriations which are provided to save lives, protect property, protect public health and safety, remove debris and wreckage, or assistance that has the effect of restoring facilities substantially as they existed prior to the disaster à Based on the response, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below.
☒ None of the above
à Based on the response, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below.

2. Do you have standardized noise attenuation measures that apply to all modernization and/or minor rehabilitation projects, such as the use of double glazed windows or extra insulation?
☐ Yes
Indicate the type of measures that will apply (check all that apply):
☐ Improved building envelope components (better windows and doors, strengthened sheathing, insulation, sealed gaps, etc.)
☐ Redesigned building envelope (more durable or substantial materials, increased air gap, resilient channels, staggered wall studs, etc.) ☐ Other
Explain:
à Based on the response, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below and provide any supporting documentation. ☐ No
à Continue to Question 3.

3. Complete the Preliminary Screening to identify potential noise generators in the vicinity (1000’ from a major road, 3000’ from a railroad, or 15 miles from an airport).

Describe findings of the Preliminary Screening:
à Continue to Question 6.

4. Complete the Preliminary Screening to identify potential noise generators in the vicinity (1000’ from a major road, 3000’ from a railroad, or 15 miles from an airport).

Indicate the findings of the Preliminary Screening below:
☐ There are no noise generators found within the threshold distances above.

à Based on the response, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Provide a map showing the location of the project relative to any noise generators.

☐ Noise generators were found within the threshold distances. à Continue to Question 5.

5. Complete the Noise Assessment Guidelines to quantify the noise exposure. Indicate the findings of the Noise Assessment below:
☐ Acceptable: (65 decibels or less; the ceiling may be shifted to 70 decibels in circumstances described in §24 CFR 51.105(a))
Indicate noise level here:
à Based on the response, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Provide noise analysis, including noise level and data used to complete the analysis.
☐ Normally Unacceptable: (Above 65 decibels but not exceeding 75 decibels; the floor may be shifted to 70 decibels in circumstances described in 24 CFR

51.105(a))
Indicate noise level here:

Is the project in a largely undeveloped area1?
☐ No
àYour project requires completion of an Environmental Assessment (EA) pursuant to 51.104(b)(1)(i). Elevate this review to an EA-level review.

Provide noise analysis, including noise level and data used to complete the analysis.

Continue to Question 6.
☐ Yes
àYour project requires completion of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to 51.104(b)(1)(i). Elevate this review to an EIS-level review.

Provide noise analysis, including noise level and data used to complete the analysis.

Continue to Question 6.
1 A largely undeveloped area means the area within 2 miles of the project site is less than 50 percent developed with urban uses or does not have water and sewer capacity to serve the project.

☐ Unacceptable: (Above 75 decibels)
Indicate noise level here:

Your project requires completion of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to 51.104(b)(1)(i). You may either complete an EIS or provide a waiver signed by the appropriate authority. Indicate your choice:
☐ Convert to an EIS
à Provide noise analysis, including noise level and data used to complete the analysis.

Continue to Question 6.
☐ Provide waiver
à Provide an Environmental Impact Statement waiver from the Certifying Officer or the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development per 24 CFR 51.104(b)(2) and noise analysis, including noise level and data used to complete the analysis.

Continue to Question 6.

6. HUD strongly encourages mitigation be used to eliminate adverse noise impacts.

Explain in detail the exact measures that must be implemented to mitigate for the impact or effect, including the timeline for implementation. This information will be automatically included in the Mitigation summary for the environmental review. ☐ Mitigation as follows will be implemented:
à Provide drawings, specifications, and other materials as needed to describe the project’s noise mitigation measures.

Continue to the Worksheet Summary.
☐ No mitigation is necessary.

Explain why mitigation will not be made here:

à Continue to the Worksheet Summary.

Sole Source Aquifers (CEST and EA)
General requirements Legislation Regulation
The Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974
protects drinking water systems
which are the sole or principal
drinking water source for an area and
which, if contaminated, would create
a significant hazard to public health.

Safe Drinking Water
Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C.
201, 300f et seq., and
21 U.S.C. 349)
40 CFR Part 149
Reference
https://www.hudexchange.info/environmental-review/sole-source-aquifers

1. Does your project consist solely of acquisition, leasing, or rehabilitation of an existing building(s)?
☐Yes à Based on the response, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below.
☒No à Continue to Question 2.

2. Is the project located on a sole source aquifer (SSA)1? ☒No à Based on the response, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Provide documentation used to make your determination, such as a map of your project (or jurisdiction, if appropriate) in relation to the nearest SSA and its source area.
☐Yes à Continue to Question 3.

3. Does your region have a memorandum of understanding (MOU) or other working agreement with EPA for HUD projects impacting a sole source aquifer? Contact your Field or Regional Environmental Officer or visit the HUD webpage at the link above to determine if an MOU or agreement exists in your area. ☐Yes à Provide the MOU or agreement as part of your supporting documentation. Continue to Question 4.
☐No à Continue to Question 5.

4. Does your MOU or working agreement exclude your project from further review? ☐Yes à Based on the response, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Provide documentation used to make your determination and document where your project fits within the MOU or agreement. 1 A sole source aquifer is defined as an aquifer that supplies at least 50 percent of the drinking water consumed in the area overlying the aquifer. This includes streamflow source areas, which are upstream areas of losing streams that flow into the recharge area.
☐No à Continue to Question 5.

5. Will the proposed project contaminate the aquifer and create a significant hazard to public health?
Consult with your Regional EPA Office. Your consultation request should include detailed information about your proposed project and its relationship to the aquifer and associated streamflow source area. EPA will also want to know about water, storm water and waste water at the proposed project. Follow your MOU or working agreement or contact your Regional EPA office for specific information you may need to provide. EPA may request additional information if impacts to the aquifer are questionable after this information is submitted for review.
☐No à Based on the response, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Provide your correspondence with the EPA and all documents used to make your determination.
☐Yes à Work with EPA to develop mitigation measures. If mitigation measures are approved, attach correspondence with EPA and include the mitigation measures in your environmental review documents and project contracts. If EPA determines that the project continues to pose a significant risk to the aquifer, federal financial assistance must be denied. Continue to Question 6.

6. In order to continue with the project, any threat must be mitigated, and all mitigation must be approved by the EPA. Explain in detail the proposed measures that can be implemented to mitigate for the impact or effect, including the timeline for implementation. à Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Provide documentation of the consultation (including the Managing Agency’s concurrence) and any other documentation used to make your determination.

Sole Source Aquifers Map
City of Gridley- Laurel Street Extension Project
Project Site
Wetlands (CEST and EA)
General requirements Legislation Regulation
Executive Order 11990 discourages that direct or
indirect support of new construction impacting
wetlands wherever there is a practicable
alternative. The Fish and Wildlife Service’s
National Wetlands Inventory can be used as a
primary screening tool, but observed or known
wetlands not indicated on NWI maps must also
be processed. Off-site impacts that result in
draining, impounding, or destroying wetlands
must also be processed.

Executive Order
11990
24 CFR 55.20 can
be used for
general guidance
regarding the 8
Step Process.

References
https://www.hudexchange.info/environmental-review/wetlands-protection

1. Does this project involve new construction as defined in Executive Order 11990, expansion of a building’s footprint, or ground disturbance? The term "new construction" shall include draining, dredging, channelizing, filling, diking, impounding, and related activities and any structures or facilities begun or authorized after the effective date of the Order.
☐ No à Based on the response, the review is in compliance with this section.

Continue to the Worksheet Summary below.
☒ Yes à Continue to Question 2.

2. Will the new construction or other ground disturbance impact an on- or off-site wetland?
The term "wetlands" means those areas that are inundated by surface or ground water with a frequency sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances does or would support, a prevalence of vegetative or aquatic life that requires saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth and reproduction. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas such as sloughs, potholes, wet meadows, river overflows, mud flats, and natural ponds. Wetlands under E.O. 11990 include isolated and non-jurisdictional wetlands.
☒ No, a wetland will not be impacted in terms of E.O. 11990’s definition of new construction.
à Based on the response, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Provide a map or any other relevant documentation to explain your determination.

☐ Yes, there is a wetland that be impacted in terms of E.O. 11990’s definition of new construction.
àYou must determine that there are no practicable alternatives to wetlands development by completing the 8-Step Process.

Provide a completed 8-Step Process as well as all documents used to make your determination, including a map. Be sure to include the early public notice and the final notice with your documentation.

Continue to Question 3.

3. For the project to be brought into compliance with this section, all adverse impacts must be mitigated. Explain in detail the exact measures that must be implemented to mitigate for the impact or effect, including the timeline for implementation.

Which of the following mitigation actions have been or will be taken? Select all that apply:
☐ Permeable surfaces
☐ Natural landscape enhancements that maintain or restore natural hydrology through infiltration
☐ Native plant species
☐ Bioswales
☐ Evapotranspiration
☐ Stormwater capture and reuse
☐ Green or vegetative roofs with drainage provisions
☐ Natural Resources Conservation Service conservation easements ☐ Compensatory mitigation
Worksheet Summary
Compliance Determination
Provide a clear description of your determination and a synopsis of the information that it was based on, such as:
• Map panel numbers and dates
• Names of all consulted parties and relevant consultation dates • Names of plans or reports and relevant page numbers
• Any additional requirements specific to your region
Are formal compliance steps or mitigation required?
☐ Yes
☒ No
The Project site is not located in a wetlands (see attached National Wetlands Inventory map).

National Wetlands Inventory Map
City of Gridley- Laurel Street Extension Project
Project Site
City of Gridley- Laurel Street Extension Pro
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Standards and Support Team, [email protected]
Wetlands
Estuarine and Marine Deepwater
Estuarine and Marine Wetland
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
Freshwater Pond
Lake
Other
Riverine
February 19, 2026
0 0.075 0.15 0.3 mi
0 0.125 0.25 0.5 km
1:10,030
This page was produced by the NWI mapper
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)
This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is not responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the base data shown on this map. All wetlands related data should be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on the Wetlands Mapper web site.

Wild and Scenic Rivers (CEST and EA)
General requirements Legislation Regulation
The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
provides federal protection for
certain free-flowing, wild, scenic
and recreational rivers
designated as components or
potential components of the
National Wild and Scenic Rivers
System (NWSRS) from the effects
of construction or development.

The Wild and Scenic Rivers
Act (16 U.S.C. 1271-1287),
particularly section 7(b) and
(c) (16 U.S.C. 1278(b) and (c))
36 CFR Part 297
References
https://www.hudexchange.info/environmental-review/wild-and-scenic-rivers

1. Is your project within proximity of a NWSRS river as defined below? Wild & Scenic Rivers: These rivers or river segments have been designated by Congress or by states (with the concurrence of the Secretary of the Interior) as wild, scenic, or recreational
Study Rivers: These rivers or river segments are being studied as a potential component of the Wild & Scenic River system.

Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI): The National Park Service has compiled and maintains the NRI, a register of river segments that potentially qualify as national wild, scenic, or recreational river areas
☒ No
à Based on the response, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Provide documentation used to make your determination, such as a map identifying the project site and its surrounding area or a list of rivers in your region in the Screen Summary at the conclusion of this screen.
☐ Yes, the project is in proximity of a Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI) River. à Continue to Question 2.

2. Could the project do any of the following?
§ Have a direct and adverse effect within Wild and Scenic River Boundaries, § Invade the area or unreasonably diminish the river outside Wild and Scenic River Boundaries, or
§ Have an adverse effect on the natural, cultural, and/or recreational values of a NRI segment.

Consultation with the appropriate federal/state/local/tribal Managing Agency(s) is required, pursuant to Section 7 of the Act, to determine if the proposed project may have an adverse effect on a Wild & Scenic River or a Study River and, if so, to determine the appropriate avoidance or mitigation measures.

Note: Concurrence may be assumed if the Managing Agency does not respond within 30 days; however, you are still obligated to avoid or mitigate adverse effects on the rivers identified in the NWSRS
☐ No, the Managing Agency has concurred that the proposed project will not alter, directly, or indirectly, any of the characteristics that qualifies or potentially qualifies the river for inclusion in the NWSRS.
à Based on the response, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Provide documentation of the consultation (including the Managing Agency’s concurrence) and any other documentation used to make your determination. ☐ Yes, the Managing Agency was consulted and the proposed project may alter, directly, or indirectly, any of the characteristics that qualifies or potentially qualifies the river for inclusion in the NWSRS.
à Continue to Question 3.

3. For the project to be brought into compliance with this section, all adverse impacts must be mitigated. Explain in detail the proposed measures that must be implemented to mitigate for the impact or effect, including the timeline for implementation. à Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Provide documentation of the consultation (including the Managing Agency’s concurrence) and any other documentation used to make your determination.

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System Map
City of Gridley- Laurel Street Extension Project
Project Site
City of Gridley
Laurel Street Extension Project
Floodplain Alterna.ves and Impacts Analysis
March 9th, 2026
Prepared for:

City of Gridley
Prepared By:

Alternative 1 – No Build Alternative
Under the No Build Alternative, the Laurel Street Extension would not be constructed and no infrastructure improvements would occur within the project corridor.

The existing undeveloped condition of the corridor and dirt access would remain unchanged, and the current discontinuity in the roadway network would persist.

Upon completion of construction, the project will result in improved roadway drainage and stormwater management compared to existing undeveloped conditions.

The City evaluated potential impacts associated with construction activities and identified measures to minimize potential eSects on floodplain functions and values.

Typical best management practices for projects similar in size and utility include silt fencing, fiber rolls, stabilized construction entrances, and dust control measures.

Resolution of the Governing Body
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-R-009

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR FUNDING AND THE

EXECUTION OF A GRANT AGREEMENT AND ANY AMENDMENTS
THERETO FROM THE 2025 FUNDING YEAR OF THE STATE CDBG

PROGRAM
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Gridley as follows:

SECTION 1:

The City Council has reviewed and hereby approves the submission to the State of California of one or more application(s) in the aggregate amount, not to exceed, of $3,300,000 for the following CDBG activities, pursuant to the and 2025 CDBG NOFA:

List activities and amounts
Activity (e.g. Public Services,
Infrastructure, etc.)
Dollar Amount Being Requested for the
Activity
Public Infrastructure (Street Improvements, Water/Sewer Improvements, Storm Drainage Improvements, Sidewalk
Improvements)
$ 3,300,000
$
$
$
$
SECTION 2:

The City Council hereby approves the use of Program Income in an amount not to exceed $300,000 for the CDBG activities described in Section 1.

SECTION 3:

The City Council acknowledges compliance with all state and federal public participation requirements in the development of its application(s).

SECTION 4:

The City Council hereby authorizes and directs the City Administrator or designee*, to execute and deliver all applications and act on the City’s behalf in all matters pertaining to all such applications.

SECTION 5:

If an application is approved, the Mayor or designee*, is authorized to enter into, execute and deliver the grant agreement (i.e., Standard Agreement), any recordable or nonrecordable contract documents, and any and all subsequent amendments thereto with the State of California for the purposes of the grant.

SECTION 6:

If an application is approved, the City Administrator or designee*, is authorized to sign and submit Funds Requests and all required reporting forms and other documentation as may be required by the State of California from time to time in connection with the grant.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Gridley held on 3/23/2026 by the following vote:

AYES: Enter # of votes or names
NOES: Enter # of votes or names
ABSENT: Enter # absentees or names
ABSTAIN: Enter # of abstains or names
Carmen Santana, Deputy City Clerk
City Council

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
City of Gridley
I, Carmen Santana, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Gridley, State of California, hereby certify the above and foregoing to be a full, true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by said City Council on this 23rd day of March, 2026and that said resolution has not been amended, modified, repealed, or rescinded since its date of adoption and is in full force and effect as of the date hereof.

Carmen Santana, City Clerk of the City of Gridley, State of California
______________________________________
By: Carmen Santana, Deputy City Clerk, City of Gridley
City Council Agenda Item #2
Staff Report
Date: March 23, 2026
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Dave Harden, City Engineer
Subject: Right-of-Way Acquisition Strategy – Laurel Street Extension Project Recommendation
This item is presented for informational purposes only. No action is requested of the City Council at this time.

Background
The City of Gridley is pursuing funding for the Laurel Street Extension Project, which will construct approximately 1,200 feet of roadway to connect existing and planned residential neighborhoods, including an affordable housing development currently under construction.

To support the project and demonstrate site control for grant funding, the City is implementing a rightof-way (ROW) acquisition strategy utilizing a combination of existing City-owned property and additional property interests from adjacent parcels.

The City currently owns a portion of the required right-of-way previously acquired from the Gridley Union School District using non-federal funds. The remaining right-of-way is located on privately owned property associated with the Pacific Flyway Subdivision.

Staff is coordinating with the property owner to obtain an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication (IOD) for public street purposes. The IOD will be executed by the property owner and recorded in the County records so that it runs with the property. Recording the IOD ensures that the offer of dedication remains in effect and binding on future property owners, while allowing the City to accept the dedication at a later date.

It is important to note that the City is not accepting the dedication at this time. Acceptance of the rightof-way will occur at a future date, following completion of environmental review and when the project is authorized to proceed to construction. At that time, the item will be brought back to the City Council for formal acceptance.

In addition, the City Attorney will provide a Letter of Opinion (LOO) confirming that the City has the legal authority and ability to obtain site control for the project. While the approved tentative subdivision map identifies future right-of-way dedication for the Laurel Street corridor and could support the legal opinion, the IOD provides additional assurance by documenting the property owner’s current intent to dedicate the right-of-way independent of future subdivision actions.

Regular
X Special
Closed
Emergency
This approach allows the City to demonstrate sufficient site control for grant funding purposes while remaining compliant with federal environmental review requirements, which restrict acceptance of property interests prior to completion of the environmental process.

Financial Impact
There is no immediate financial impact associated with this item. Costs associated with right-of-way acquisition and project construction are anticipated to be funded through grant funding and future project appropriations.

Compliance with City Council Strategic Plan or Budget Goals The Laurel Street Extension Project supports the City Council’s commitment to providing safe and efficient infrastructure, improving connectivity within the community, and supporting residential development, including affordable housing opportunities.

Attachments
• Irrevocable Offer of Dedication, with Right-of-Way Dedication Exhibit • City Attorney Letter of Opinion (Draft)

Gridley City CouncilMarch 23, 2026

Gridley City Council
March 23, 2026