Hanford City Council
October 3, 2023

Stonehaven Detailed Report, 4/18/2023
43 / 49

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 29.7 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 0.60 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise 0.00 meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 0.00 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical
data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

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

Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider different increments of
sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential inundation depth 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 50 meters (m) by 50 m, or about 164 feet (ft) by 164 ft.

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 3 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding 0 0 0 N/A
Drought 0 0 0 N/A

Stonehaven Detailed Report, 4/18/2023
44 / 49
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 3 1 1 3
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
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 adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest
ability to adapt.

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

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

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

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract

Stonehaven Detailed Report, 4/18/2023
45 / 49
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 82.5
AQ-PM 99.0
AQ-DPM 38.2
Drinking Water 60.8
Lead Risk Housing 35.5
Pesticides 71.3
Toxic Releases 41.2
Traffic 5.86
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 0.00
Groundwater 81.9
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 16.6
Impaired Water Bodies 0.00
Solid Waste 42.3
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 94.6
Cardio-vascular 98.6
Low Birth Weights 44.5
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 82.8
Housing 56.0
Linguistic 71.2
Poverty 81.8
Unemployment 98.5

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

Stonehaven Detailed Report, 4/18/2023
46 / 49
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 24.04722187
Employed 13.29398178
Median HI 47.9917875
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 17.50288721
High school enrollment 22.72552291
Preschool enrollment 40.52354677
Transportation —
Auto Access 53.75336841
Active commuting 5.402284101
Social —
2-parent households 60.6698319
Voting 10.40677531
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 68.07391249
Park access 2.194276915
Retail density 9.572693443
Supermarket access 33.77389965
Tree canopy 11.97228282
Housing —
Homeownership 61.88887463
Housing habitability 46.93956114
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 51.76440395 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 35.8013602
Uncrowded housing 25.1764404

Stonehaven Detailed Report, 4/18/2023
47 / 49
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 28.7950725
Arthritis 0.0
Asthma ER Admissions 1.9
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 5.1
Cognitively Disabled 44.8
Physically Disabled 37.2
Heart Attack ER Admissions 31.4
Mental Health Not Good 0.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0
Obesity 0.0
Pedestrian Injuries 19.6
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

Stonehaven Detailed Report, 4/18/2023
48 / 49
Children 37.8
Elderly 80.0
English Speaking 24.1
Foreign-born 46.5
Outdoor Workers 13.3
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 63.8
Traffic Density 6.0
Traffic Access 0.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 77.1
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 13.7

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 82.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 20.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) Y es 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

Stonehaven Detailed Report, 4/18/2023
49 / 49
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

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

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use Changes based on reductions needed to represent plans

HARP2 - HRACalc (dated 21081) 4/27/2023 4:39:51 PM - Output Log GLCs loaded successfully
Pollutants loaded successfully
Pathway receptors loaded successfully
**********************************

RISK SCENARIO SETTINGS
Receptor Type: Resident
Scenario: All
Calculation Method: Derived
**********************************

EXPOSURE DURATION PARAMETERS FOR CANCER
Start Age: -0.25
Total Exposure Duration: 2
Exposure Duration Bin Distribution
3rd Trimester Bin: 0.25
0<2 Years Bin: 2
2<9 Years Bin: 0
2<16 Years Bin: 0
16<30 Years Bin: 0
16 to 70 Years Bin: 0
**********************************

PATHWAYS ENABLED
NOTE: Inhalation is always enabled and used for all assessments. The remaining pathways are only used for cancer and noncancer chronic assessments.

Inhalation: True
Soil: True
Dermal: True
Mother's milk: True
Water: False
Fish: False
Homegrown crops: False
Beef: False
Dairy: False
Pig: False
Chicken: False
Egg: False
********************************** INHALATION
Daily breathing rate: LongTerm24HR
**Worker Adjustment Factors**
Worker adjustment factors enabled: NO
**Fraction at time at home**

3rd Trimester to 16 years: OFF
16 years to 70 years: ON
**********************************

SOIL & DERMAL PATHWAY SETTINGS
Deposition rate (m/s): 0.02
Soil mixing depth (m): 0.01
Dermal climate: Mixed
**********************************
TIER 2 SETTINGS
Tier2 adjustments were used in this assessment. Please see the input file for details.

Tier2 - What was changed: ED or start age changed|
Calculating cancer risk
Cancer risk breakdown by pollutant and receptor saved to: \\ppeng.com\pzdata\ clients\DR Horton - 1594\159422003-Stonehaven\200 Technical\215 Env Planning\ Appendices\Air Quality and GHG\STONEHAVEN\hra\STONE_CancerRisk.csv Cancer risk total by receptor saved to: \\ppeng.com\pzdata\clients\DR Horton - 1594\ 159422003-Stonehaven\200 Technical\215 Env Planning\Appendices\Air Quality and GHG\STONEHAVEN\hra\STONE_CancerRiskSumByRec.csv Calculating chronic risk Chronic risk breakdown by pollutant and receptor saved to: \\ppeng.com\ pzdata\clients\DR Horton - 1594\159422003-Stonehaven\200 Technical\215 Env Planning\Appendices\Air Quality and GHG\STONEHAVEN\hra\ STONE_NCChronicRisk.csv Chronic risk total by receptor saved to: \\ppeng.com\ pzdata\clients\DR Horton - 1594\159422003-Stonehaven\200 Technical\215 Env Planning\Appendices\Air Quality and GHG\STONEHAVEN\hra\ STONE_NCChronicRiskSumByRec.csv Calculating acute risk
Acute risk breakdown by pollutant and receptor saved to: \\ppeng.com\pzdata\ clients\DR Horton - 1594\159422003-Stonehaven\200 Technical\215 Env Planning\ Appendices\Air Quality and GHG\STONEHAVEN\hra\STONE_NCAcuteRisk.csv Acute risk total by receptor saved to: \\ppeng.com\pzdata\clients\DR Horton - 1594\ 159422003-Stonehaven\200 Technical\215 Env Planning\Appendices\Air Quality and GHG\STONEHAVEN\hra\STONE_NCAcuteRiskSumByRec.csv
HRA ran successfully

*HARP - HRACalc v21081 4/27/2023 4:39:51 PM - Cancer Risk - Input File: \\ppeng.com\pzdata\clients\DR Horton - 1594\159422003-Stonehaven\200 Technical\215 Env Planning\Appendices\Air Quality and GHG\STONEHAVEN\hra\STONE_HRAInput.hra REC GRP NETID X Y CONC POLID POLABBREVRISK_SUM SCENARIO DETAILS INH_RISK SOIL_RISK DERMAL_RISKMMILK_RISKWATER_RISKFISH_RISK CROP_RISK BEEF_RISK DAIRY_RISKPIG_RISK CHICKEN_RISKEGG_RISK 1ST_DRIVER2ND_DRIVER 1 SENSITIV 258967 4021556 0.027672 9901 DieselExhPM9.47E-06 2YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70* 9.47E-06 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 INHALATION 2 SENSITIV 258968 4021520 0.015806 9901 DieselExhPM5.41E-06 2YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70* 5.41E-06 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 INHALATION 3 SENSITIV 258982 4021967 0.003183 9901 DieselExhPM1.09E-06 2YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70* 1.09E-06 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 INHALATION 4 SENSITIV 258468 4021649 0.001999 9901 DieselExhPM6.84E-07 2YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70* 6.84E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 INHALATION 5 SENSITIV 259049 4022038 0.001495 9901 DieselExhPM5.11E-07 2YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70* 5.11E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 INHALATION 6 PROPERTY 259530 4022033 0.000293 9901 DieselExhPM1.00E-07 2YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70* 1.00E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 INHALATION 7 PROPERTY 259529.5 4022018 0.000297 9901 DieselExhPM1.02E-07 2YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70* 1.02E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 INHALATION 8 PROPERTY 259529 4022003 0.000302 9901 DieselExhPM1.03E-07 2YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70* 1.03E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 INHALATION 9 PROPERTY 259528.5 4021988 0.000308 9901 DieselExhPM1.05E-07 2YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70* 1.05E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 INHALATION 10 PROPERTY 259528 4021973 0.000314 9901 DieselExhPM1.07E-07 2YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70* 1.07E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 INHALATION 11 PROPERTY 259527.5 4021958 0.00032 9901 DieselExhPM1.10E-07 2YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70* 1.10E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 INHALATION 12 PROPERTY 259527 4021943 0.000327 9901 DieselExhPM1.12E-07 2YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70* 1.12E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 INHALATION 13 PROPERTY 259526.5 4021928 0.000335 9901 DieselExhPM1.15E-07 2YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70* 1.15E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 INHALATION 14 PROPERTY 259526 4021913 0.000343 9901 DieselExhPM1.17E-07 2YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70* 1.17E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 INHALATION 15 PROPERTY 259525.4 4021898 0.000351 9901 DieselExhPM1.20E-07 2YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70* 1.20E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 INHALATION 16 PROPERTY 259524.9 4021883 0.00036 9901 DieselExhPM1.23E-07 2YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70* 1.23E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 INHALATION 17 PROPERTY 259524.4 4021868 0.000369 9901 DieselExhPM1.26E-07 2YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70* 1.26E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 INHALATION 18 PROPERTY 259523.9 4021853 0.000378 9901 DieselExhPM1.29E-07 2YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70* 1.29E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 INHALATION 19 PROPERTY 259523.4 4021838 0.000388 9901 DieselExhPM1.33E-07 2YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70* 1.33E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 INHALATION 20 PROPERTY 259522.9 4021823 0.000398 9901 DieselExhPM1.36E-07 2YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70* 1.36E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 INHALATION 21 PROPERTY 259522.4 4021808 0.000408 9901 DieselExhPM1.40E-07 2YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70* 1.40E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 INHALATION 22 PROPERTY 259521.9 4021793 0.000418 9901 DieselExhPM1.43E-07 2YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70* 1.43E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 INHALATION 23 PROPERTY 259521.4 4021778 0.000428 9901 DieselExhPM1.46E-07 2YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70* 1.46E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 INHALATION 24 PROPERTY 259520.9 4021763 0.000437 9901 DieselExhPM1.50E-07 2YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70* 1.50E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 INHALATION 25 PROPERTY 259520.4 4021748 0.000446 9901 DieselExhPM1.53E-07 2YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70* 1.53E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 INHALATION 26 PROPERTY 259519.9 4021733 0.000456 9901 DieselExhPM1.56E-07 2YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70* 1.56E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 INHALATION 27 PROPERTY 259519.4 4021718 0.000467 9901 DieselExhPM1.60E-07 2YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70* 1.60E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 INHALATION 28 PROPERTY 259518.9 4021703 0.000479 9901 DieselExhPM1.64E-07 2YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70* 1.64E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 INHALATION 29 PROPERTY 259518.4 4021688 0.000493 9901 DieselExhPM1.69E-07 2YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70* 1.69E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 INHALATION 30 PROPERTY 259517.8 4021673 0.000509 9901 DieselExhPM1.74E-07 2YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70* 1.74E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 INHALATION 31 PROPERTY 259517.3 4021658 0.000528 9901 DieselExhPM1.80E-07 2YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70* 1.80E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 INHALATION 32 PROPERTY 259516.8 4021643 0.000548 9901 DieselExhPM1.87E-07 2YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70* 1.87E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 INHALATION 33 PROPERTY 259516.3 4021628 0.000569 9901 DieselExhPM1.95E-07 2YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70* 1.95E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 INHALATION 34 PROPERTY 259515.8 4021613 0.00059 9901 DieselExhPM2.02E-07 2YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70* 2.02E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 INHALATION 35 PROPERTY 259515.3 4021598 0.000611 9901 DieselExhPM2.09E-07 2YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70* 2.09E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 INHALATION 36 PROPERTY 259514.8 4021583 0.00063 9901 DieselExhPM2.16E-07 2YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70* 2.16E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 INHALATION 37 PROPERTY 259514.3 4021568 0.000649 9901 DieselExhPM2.22E-07 2YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70* 2.22E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 INHALATION 38 PROPERTY 259513.8 4021553 0.000668 9901 DieselExhPM2.28E-07 2YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70* 2.28E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 INHALATION 39 PROPERTY 259513.3 4021538 0.000686 9901 DieselExhPM2.35E-07 2YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70* 2.35E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 INHALATION 40 PROPERTY 259512.8 4021523 0.000705 9901 DieselExhPM2.41E-07 2YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70* 2.41E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 INHALATION 41 PROPERTY 259512.3 4021508 0.000723 9901 DieselExhPM2.47E-07 2YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70* 2.47E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 INHALATION 42 PROPERTY 259511.8 4021493 0.000742 9901 DieselExhPM2.54E-07 2YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70* 2.54E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 INHALATION 43 PROPERTY 259511.3 4021478 0.000761 9901 DieselExhPM2.60E-07 2YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70* 2.60E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 INHALATION 44 PROPERTY 259510.8 4021463 0.000778 9901 DieselExhPM2.66E-07 2YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70* 2.66E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 INHALATION 45 PROPERTY 259510.3 4021448 0.000795 9901 DieselExhPM2.72E-07 2YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70* 2.72E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 INHALATION 46 PROPERTY 259509.8 4021433 0.000811 9901 DieselExhPM2.77E-07 2YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70* 2.77E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 INHALATION 47 PROPERTY 259509.3 4021418 0.000825 9901 DieselExhPM2.82E-07 2YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70* 2.82E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 INHALATION 48 PROPERTY 259508.7 4021403 0.000839 9901 DieselExhPM2.87E-07 2YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70* 2.87E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 INHALATION 49 PROPERTY 259508.2 4021388 0.000852 9901 DieselExhPM2.91E-07 2YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70* 2.91E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 INHALATION 50 PROPERTY 259507.7 4021374 0.000864 9901 DieselExhPM2.95E-07 2YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70* 2.95E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 INHALATION 51 PROPERTY 259507.2 4021359 0.000877 9901 DieselExhPM3.00E-07 2YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70* 3.00E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 INHALATION 52 PROPERTY 259506.7 4021344 0.000891 9901 DieselExhPM3.05E-07 2YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70* 3.05E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 INHALATION 53 PROPERTY 259506.2 4021329 0.000904 9901 DieselExhPM3.09E-07 2YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70* 3.09E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 INHALATION 54 PROPERTY 259505.7 4021314 0.000917 9901 DieselExhPM3.14E-07 2YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70* 3.14E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 INHALATION 55 PROPERTY 259505.2 4021299 0.00093 9901 DieselExhPM3.18E-07 2YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70* 3.18E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 INHALATION 56 PROPERTY 259504.7 4021284 0.00094 9901 DieselExhPM3.22E-07 2YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70* 3.22E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 INHALATION 57 PROPERTY 259504.2 4021269 0.000949 9901 DieselExhPM3.25E-07 2YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70* 3.25E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 INHALATION 58 PROPERTY 259503.7 4021254 0.000955 9901 DieselExhPM3.27E-07 2YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70* 3.27E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 INHALATION 59 PROPERTY 259503.2 4021239 0.000959 9901 DieselExhPM3.28E-07 2YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70* 3.28E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 INHALATION 60 PROPERTY 259502.7 4021224 0.00096 9901 DieselExhPM3.28E-07 2YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70* 3.28E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 INHALATION 61 PROPERTY 259502.2 4021209 0.000958 9901 DieselExhPM3.28E-07 2YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70* 3.28E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 INHALATION 62 PROPERTY 259501.7 4021194 0.000953 9901 DieselExhPM3.26E-07 2YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70* 3.26E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 INHALATION 63 PROPERTY 259501.2 4021179 0.000947 9901 DieselExhPM3.24E-07 2YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70* 3.24E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 INHALATION

Appendices
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 B-1
Appendix B: Biological Evaluation

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group Page |
Shaylea Stark, Biologist
PROVOST & PRITCHARD CONSULTING GROUP | 455 W. FIR AVE, CLOVIS CA 93611 Biological Evaluation

DR HORTON

STONEHAVEN SU BDIVISION PROJECT
MARCH 2023

DR Horton
Stonehaven Subdivision Project Biological Evaluation
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group Page | i
Table of Contents
I. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................ 1 Project Description ........................................................................................................................................................ 1 Report Objectives ........................................................................................................................................................... 1 Study Methodology ........................................................................................................................................................ 5 II. Existing Conditions ................................................................................................................................................... 6 Regional Setting .............................................................................................................................................................. 6 Topography................................................................................................................................................................. 6 Climate ......................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Hydrology ................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Soils .............................................................................................................................................................................. 6 Biotic Habitats ................................................................................................................................................................ 7 Residential ................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Ruderal/Agricultural ................................................................................................................................................. 7 Riparian Habitat and Natural Communities of Special Concern............................................................................ 7 Designated Critical Habitat ........................................................................................................................................... 8 Wildlife Movement Corridors and Native Wildlife Nursery Sites .......................................................................... 8 Special Status Plants and Animals ............................................................................................................................... 8 III. Impacts and Mitigation ...................................................................................................................................... 14 Significance Criteria ..................................................................................................................................................... 14 CEQA ........................................................................................................................................................................ 14 Relevant Goals, Policies, and Laws ........................................................................................................................... 15 Kings County General Plan ................................................................................................................................... 15 City of Hanford General Plan ............................................................................................................................... 15 Threatened and Endangered Species .................................................................................................................... 16 Designated Critical Habitat .................................................................................................................................... 16 Migratory Birds ........................................................................................................................................................ 16 Birds of Prey ............................................................................................................................................................. 17 Nesting Birds ............................................................................................................................................................ 17 Wetlands and other “Jurisdictional Waters” .. ...................................................................................................... 17 Potentially Significant Project-Related Impacts and Mitigation ........................................................................... 18 Project-Related Mortality and/or Disturbance of Nesting Migratory Raptors and Birds, Including the Swainson’s Hawk ..................................................................................................................................................... 18

DR Horton
Stonehaven Subdivision Project Biological Evaluation
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group Page | ii
Project-Related Mortality and/or Disturbance of Roosting Bats, Including the Pallid Bat ........................ 19 Less Than Significant Project-Related Impacts ....................................................................................................... 20 Project-Related Impacts to Special Status Animal Species Absent From, or Unlikely to Occur on, the Project Site ................................................................................................................................................................ 20 Project-Related Impacts to Special Status Plant Species Absent From, or Unlikely to Occur on, the Project Site ................................................................................................................................................................ 20 Project-Related Impacts to Special Status Fishes Absent From, or Unlikely to Occur on, the Project Site .................................................................................................................................................................................... 20 Project-Related Impacts to Riparian Habitat and Natural Communities of Special Concern .................... 20 Project-Related Impacts to Regulated Waters, Wetlands, and Water Quality ............................................... 21 Project-Related Impacts to Wildlife Movement Corridors and Native Wildlife Nursery Sites .................. 21 Project-Related Impacts to Critical Habitat ......................................................................................................... 21 Local Policies or Habitat Conservation Plans ..................................................................................................... 21 IV. References ............................................................................................................................................................ 22 List of Figures
Figure 1. Regional Location Map ..................................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2. Topographic Quadrangle Map ......................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 3. Area of Potential Effect Map ........................................................................................................................... 4 List of Tables
Table 1. List of Soils Located Onsite and Their Basic Properties .............................................................................. 6 Table 2. List of Special Status Animals with Potential to Occur Onsite and/or in the Vicinity. .......................... 9 Table 3. List of Special Status Plants with Potential to Occur Onsite and/or in the Vicinity. ............................ 12 List of Appendices
Appendix A: Photos of the Project Area
Appendix B: NRCS Soils Report
Appendix C: CNDDB 9-Quad Search
Appendix D: IPaC Search

DR Horton
Stonehaven Subdivision Project Biological Evaluation
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group Page | 1
I. Introduction
The following technical report, prepared by Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group, in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , includes a description of the biological resources present or with potential to occur within the proposed Stonehaven Subdivision Project (Project) and surrounding areas, and evaluates potential Project-related impacts to those resources.

Project Description
We understand that DR Horton is in the process of acquiring a roughly 11.81-acre parcel (APN 011-040-030- 000) located South of Hanford-Armona Road between 12th Avenue and 13th Avenue, in Hanford, California (see Figure 1 and Figure 2). The Project is currently located in Unincorporated Kings County, within the San Joaquin Valley, but would be annexed into the City of Hanford , which is adjacent to the Project site . The Project’s Area of Potential Effect (APE) is approximately 16 acres, which includes the approximately 11.81 acre Project site and a 50-foot buffer surrounding the Project site (see Figure 3). The Project proposes to subdivide approximately 11.81 assessed acres of land currently used for residential and agricultural purposes into approximately 79 single-family residential lots. The sizes of the lots would range from 3,600 square feet and up.

Report Objectives
Construction activities such as that proposed by the Project could potentially damage biological resources or modify habitats that are crucial for sensitive plant and wildlife species. In cases such as these, development may be regulated by State or federal agencies, and/or addressed by local regulatory agencies.

This report addresses issues related to the following:

1. The presence of sensitive biological resources onsite, or with the potential to occur onsite.

2. The federal, state, and local regulations regarding these resources.

3. Mitigation measures that may be required to reduce the magnitude of anticipated impacts and/or comply with permit requirements of state and federal resource agencies.

Therefore, the objectives of this report are:

1. Summarize all site-specific information related to existing biological resources.

2. Make reasonable inferences about the biological resources that could occur onsite based on habitat suitability and the proximity of the site to a species’ known range.

3. Summarize all state and federal natural resource protection laws that may be relevant to the APE.

4. Identify and discuss Project impacts and effects to biological resources likely to occur onsite within the context of the CEQA, and/or state or federal laws.

5. Identify and publish a set of avoidance and mitigation measures that would reduce impacts to a less - than-significant level (as identified by CEQA) and are generally consistent with recomm endations of the resource agencies for sensitive biological resources.

DR Horton
Stonehaven Subdivision Project Biological Evaluation
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group Page | 2

Figure 1. Regional Location Map

DR Horton
Stonehaven Subdivision Project Biological Evaluation
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group Page | 3

Figure 2. Topographic Quadrangle Map

DR Horton
Stonehaven Subdivision Project Biological Evaluation
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group Page | 4

Figure 3. Area of Potential Effect Map

DR Horton
Stonehaven Subdivision Project Biological Evaluation
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group Page | 5
Study Methodology
A reconnaissance-level field survey of the APE (Figure 3) was conducted on February 14, 2023, by Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group biologist, Shaylea Stark. The survey consisted of walking throughout the Project site, and binoculars were used to survey the 50 -foot buffer while identifying and noting land uses, biological habitats and communities, plant and animal species encountered, and assessing suitable habitats that could be utilized by various special status plant and animal species . Representative photographs of the site were taken and are presented in Appendix A.

Ms. Stark conducted an analysis of potential Project -related impacts to biological resources based on the resources known to exist or with potential to exist within the APE. Sources of information used in preparation of this analysis included: the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) database; California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California; CalFlora’s online database of California native plants; Jepson Herbarium’s online database (i.e., Jepson eFlora); United States Fish and Wildlife Service ’s (USFWS) Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) system, and National Wetlands Inventory (NWI); iNaturalist; NatureServe Explorer’s online database; United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service’s (NRCS); the California Herps website; and various manuals, reports, and references related to plants and animals of the San Joaquin Valley region.

The field survey did not include focused surveys for special status species. The field survey conducted included the appropriate level of detail to assess the significance of potential impacts to sensitive biological resources resulting from implementing the Project. Furthermore, the field survey was sufficient to generally describe those features of the Project that could be subject to the jurisdiction of federal and/or s tate agencies, such as the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), CDFW, Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB).

DR Horton
Stonehaven Subdivision Project Biological Evaluation
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group Page | 6
II. Existing Conditions
Regional Setting
Topography
The APE is located in Kings County within the San Joaquin Valley, directly west of the City of Hanford and east of the City of Lemoore, California (see Figure 1 and Figure 2). The topography is relatively flat with elevations at approximately 243 feet above mean sea level.

Climate
Like most of California , the APE experiences a Mediterranean climate. Warm, dry summers are followed by cool, moist winters. Summer temperatures often reach above 90 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), and the humidity is generally low. Winter temperatures are often below 60 °F during the day and rarely exceed 70 °F. On average, the City of Hanford receives approximately 12 inches of precipitation in the form of rainfall yearly, most of which occurs between October and March (Weatherspark 2023), and the APE would be expected to receive similar amounts of precipitation.

Hydrology
Watersheds are made up of many smaller subwatersheds that drain into a particular stream, river, or lake. The APE lies within the Jacobs Slough -Frontal Tulare Lakebed watershed; Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC):
1803001220 and a single subwatershed: Jacobs Slough subwatershed; HUC: 180300122004. The Jacobs Slough- Frontal Tulare Lakebed watershed is fed by stormwater runoff and snowmelt collected in upland areas which flow down into the Middle Fork Kings River and the South Fork Kings River, which combine to become the Kings River. The Kings River then flows into an unnamed canal which flows into multiple unnamed canals before it reaches the Last Chance Ditch , which is 0.14 miles to the west of the APE. The Last Chance Ditch flows into other unnamed canals, which connects with the Tule River. The Tule River eventually terminates in the historic Tulare Lakebed (United States Environmental Protection Agency 2023). The APE is isolated from these waterways and Last Chance Ditch would not be impacted by Project activities.

Soils
Two soil mapping units representing two soil types were identified within the APE are listed in Table 1 (see Appendix B for the complete Web Soil Survey report). The soils are displayed with their core properties in the table below, according to the Major Land Resource Area of California (MLRA) 19 map area. Both soils are primarily used for cultivation and watershed areas.

Table 1. List of Soils Located Onsite and Their Basic Properties Soil Soil Map Unit Percent
of APE
Hydric
Unit
Hydric
Minor
Units
Drainage Permeability Runoff
Cajon sandy
loam
0 to 1 percent
slopes 57.7% No Yes
Somewhat
excessively
drained
Rapid
permeability
Very low
runoff
Nord
complex
0 to 2 percent
slopes 42.3% No Yes Well drained Moderate
permeability Low runoff

While none of the major soil mapping units were identified as hydric, some of the minor soil mapping units were identified as hydric , which means the soils of the APE are predominantly nonhydric. Hydric soils are defined as soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions such that under sufficiently wet conditions, hydrophytic vegetation can be supported.

DR Horton
Stonehaven Subdivision Project Biological Evaluation
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group Page | 7
Biotic Habitats
Residential
The APE contains a residential h ouse that has ornamental vegetation . Vegetation observed consisted of oleander (Nerium oleander), red pine (Pinus resinosa), olive trees (Olea europaea), an avocado tree (Persea americana), orange trees ( Citrus × sinensis), silver dollar gum eucalyptus ( Eucalyptus globulus ), and blue gum eucalyptus (Eucalyptus polyanthemos).

A domestic cat (Felis catus) was observed near the house/garage. Signs of species observed within the residential habitat included California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi) tracks.

The residential habitat within the APE was highly disturbed by anthropogenic activities but provides habitat for foraging birds, including raptors, during the day, as well as potentially bats, coyotes, and other nocturnal animals at night. The residential habitat contains suitable habitat for tree and ground nesting avian species.

Ruderal/Agricultural
The APE contains a ruderal agricultural field that is currently a grass cover crop with sparse herbaceous vegetation. Vegetation observed consisted of mustard (Brassica spp.), cheese weed mallow (Malva parviflora), wild radish, (Raphanus raphanistrum), common fiddleneck (Amsinckia intermedia), common pea (Pisum sativum), and big sheath mushroom (Volvopluteus gloiocephalus).

The survey of the ruderal habitat resulted in the identification of bird species including Killdeer ( Charadrius vociferus), White-crowned Sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys), and Common Raven (Corvus corax ). Signs of species observed within the APE included Botta’s pocket gopher burrows (Thomomys bottae), and other small mammal burrows. A nest box is located to the south of the APE near a residential house.

The ruderal habitat within the APE was highly disturbed by agricultural activities but provides habitat for foraging birds, including raptors, during the day, as well as potentially bats, coyotes, and other nocturnal animals at night. The ruderal habitat contains suitable habitat ground nesting avian species.

Representative photographs of the site at the time of the survey are available in Appendix A at the end of this document.

Riparian Habitat and Natural Communities of Special
Concern
Riparian habitat are lands that occur along the edges of rivers, streams, lakes, and other water bodies. Riparian habitats can be found within the NWI. Natural communities of special concern are those that are of limited distribution, distinguished by significant biological diversity, or home to special status species. CDFW is responsible for the classification and mapping of all-natural communities in California. Just as the special status plant and animal species, these natural communities of special concern can be found within the CNDDB.

Ri
parian habitat is absent from the APE and adjacent lands. According to CNDDB there are two recorded observations of natural communities within the vicinity of the APE: Valley Sacaton Grassland is located 10.5 miles northeast of the APE and Valley Sink Scrub is located 8 miles southwest of the APE. N o natural communities of special concern have been documented within the APE, and during the biological survey none were observed.

DR Horton
Stonehaven Subdivision Project Biological Evaluation
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group Page | 8
Designated Critical Habitat
The USFWS often designates areas of “Critical Habitat” when it lists species as threatened or endangered.

Critical Habitat is a specific geographic area that contains features essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species, which may require special management and protection. According to the CNDDB and IPaC, designated critical habitat is absent from the APE and vicinity.

Wildlife Movement Corridors and Native Wildlife Nursery Sites Wildlife movement corridors are routes that animals regularly and predictably follow during seasonal migration, dispersal from native ranges, daily travel within home ranges, and inter -population movements. Movement corridors in California are typically associated with valleys, ridgelines, and rivers and creeks supporting riparian vegetation. Native Wildlife Nursery Sites are important for the reproduction and young of wildlife species.

The A
PE does not contain features that would be likely to function as wildlife movement corridors. The APE is located in an area where it is possible to be used by species more tolerant of consistent human activities, such as some birds and gophers , but is not ideal due to the heavy disturbance caused by human and agricultural activities.

The APE has suitable features (buildings and trees) that could be used by maternity roosting bats, which are considered native wildlife nursery sites.

Special Status Plants and Animals
California contains several rare plant and animal species. In this context, “ rare” is defined as a species known to have low populations or limited distributions. As the human population grows, urban expansion encroaches on the already-limited suitable habitat for rare species. This results in sensitive species becoming increasingly more vulnerable to extirpation. State and federal regulations have provided the CDFW and the USFWS with a mechanism for conserving and protecting the diversity of plant and animal species native to California.

Numerous native plants and animals have been formally designated as “threatened” or “endangered” under State and federal endangered species legislation. Other formal designations include “candidate” for listing or “species of special concern” by CDFW. The CNPS has its list of native plants considered rare, threatened, or endangered. Collectively these plants and animals are referred to as “special status species.”

A query of the CNDDB for occurrences of special status plant and animal species was conducted for the Hanford 7.5-minute U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle that contains the APE in its entirety, an d for the eight surrounding USGS quadrangles : Burris Park, Guernsey, Laton, Lemoore, Remnoy, Riverdale, Stratford, and Waukena, These species, and their potential to occur within the APE, are listed in Table 2 and Table 3 on the following pages. Other species that have the potential to occur within the APE that did not show up in the CNDDB query are also included in Table 2. Species lists obtained from CNDDB and IPaC are available in Appendix C and Appendix D at the end of this document. All relevant sources of information, as discussed in the Study Methodology section of this report, as well as field observations, were used to determine if any special status species may occur within the APE.

DR Horton
Stonehaven Subdivision Project Biological Evaluation
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group Page | 9
Table 2. List of Special Status Animals with Potential to Occur Onsite and/or in the Vicinity.

Species Status* Habitat Occurrence within APE
Blunt-nosed leopard
lizard
(Gambelia sila )

FE, CE,
CFP
Inhabits semi-arid grasslands, alkali
flats, low foothills, canyon floors, large
washes, and arroyos, usually on sandy,
gravelly, or loamy substrate, sometimes
on hardpan. Often found where there
are abundant rodent burrows in dense
vegetation or tall grass. Cannot survive
on lands under cultivation. Known to
bask on kangaroo rat mounds and
often seeks shelter at the base of
shrubs, in small mammal burrows, or
in rock piles. Adults may excavate
shallow burrows but rely on deeper
pre-existing rodent burrows for
hibernation and reproduction.

Absent. Suitable habitat for this
species is absent within the APE and
surrounding lands. The APE and
surrounding areas are frequently
cultivated agricultural lands that are
unsuitable for this species. The only
recorded observation of this species
within the vicinity was approximately 7
miles south of the APE, in 1990.

Burrowing Owl
(Athene cunicularia ) CSC
Resides in open, dry annual or
perennial grasslands, deserts, and
scrublands with low growing
vegetation. Nests underground in
existing burrows created by mammals,
most often ground squirrels.

Unlikely. While California ground
squirrel burrows were observed in the
APE, the APE and surrounding areas
are frequently cultivated agricultural
lands that are generally unsuitable for
this species. No sign of this species was
observed during the field survey. The
nearest recorded observation of this
species was approximately 11 miles
northeast of the APE in 2017.

California glossy
snake
(Arizona elegans
occidentalis )
CSC
Inhabits arid scrub, rocky washes,
grasslands, and chaparral. Prefers open
areas with loose soil for easy
burrowing.

Unlikely. The APE and surrounding
areas are frequently cultivated
agricultural lands that are unsuitable for
this species. No sign of this species was
observed during the field survey. The
only recorded observation of this
species within the vicinity was
approximately 14 miles northwest of
the APE in 1939.

California tiger
salamander
(Ambystoma
californiense )

FT, CT,
CWL
Requires vernal pools or seasonal
ponds for breeding and small mammal
burrows for aestivation. Generally
found in grassland and oak savannah
plant communities in central California
from sea level to 1500 feet in elevation.

Has been known to migrate up to 1.3
miles to breed.

Absent. Vernal pools and seasonal
pools appear to be absent within the
APE and up to 1.3 miles from the
APE. Surrounding land consists of
agricultural fields and orchards which
are unsuitable for this species. The
nearest recorded observation of this
species was approximately 11 miles
northeast of the APE in 1999.

Delta smelt
(Hypomesus
transpacificus )
FT, CE
This pelagic and euryhaline species is
Endemic to the Sacramento-San
Joaquin River Delta, upstream through
Contra Costa, Sacramento, San
Joaquin, and Solano Counties.

Absent. The APE is outside the
known range for this species and
aquatic habitat required by this species
is absent from the APE.

Fresno kangaroo rat
(Dipodomys
nitratoides exili s)
FE, CE
An inhabitant of alkali sinks open
grassland environments in western
Fresno County. Prefers bare, alkaline,
clay-based soils subject to seasonal
inundation with more friable soil
Absent. Suitable habitats required by
this species are absent from the APE.

There are no recorded observations of
this species on CNDDB within the
regional vicinity of the Project.

DR Horton
Stonehaven Subdivision Project Biological Evaluation
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group Page | 10
Species Status* Habitat Occurrence within APE
mounds around shrubs and grasses.

The most recent recorded observation
of this species in California was in 1992
in Fresno County.

Monarch Butterfly
(Danaus plexippus ) FC
Roosts located in wind-protected tree
groves (eucalyptus, Monterey pine,
cypress), with nectar and water sources
nearby. Larval host plants consist of
milkweeds (Asclepias sp.). Winter roost
sites extend along the coast from
northern Mendocino to Baja
California, Mexico.

Absent. Foraging and roosting habitat
is absent within the APE. The APE
contained minimal vegetation with no
nectar, milkweeds or groves of trees
observed during the biological survey.

The most recent recorded observation
of this species was approximately 7
miles south of the APE in 2022.

Pallid bat
(Antrozous pallidus ) CSC
Found in grasslands, chaparral, and
woodlands, where it feeds on ground-
and vegetation-dwelling arthropods,
and occasionally takes insects in flight.

Prefers to roost in rock crevices, but
may also use tree cavities, caves,
bridges, and other man-made
structures.

Possible. While marginal, foraging,
and roosting habitat is present within
the APE. The APE contains buildings
where this species could roost. There
are no recorded observations of this
species on CNDDB within the vicinity
of the Project.

San Joaquin kit fox
(Vulpes macrotis
mutica )
FE, CT
Underground dens with multiple
entrances in alkali sink, valley
grassland, and woodland in valleys and
adjacent foothills.

Unlikely. There were no suitable dens,
tracks, or scat observed during the
biological survey. It is unlikely this
species would reside within the APE
due to agricultural disturbance. The
nearest recorded observation of this
species was approximately 1.5 mile
southeast of the APE in 2000.

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

Possible. There are eucalyptus trees
large enough to support nesting raptors
within the APE and surrounding area,
and this species could forage over the
agricultural habitat of the APE. The
nearest recorded observation of this
species was approximately 5 miles east
of the APE in 2016.

Tipton kangaroo rat
(Dipodomys
nitratoides
nitratoides )
FE, CE
Burrows in soil. Often found in
grassland and shrubland. Historical
range was in Tulare and Kern
Counties, generally east of where the
California aqueduct occurs today.

Absent. The APE is outside of the
historical range of this species.

Tricolored Blackbird
(Agelaius tricolor )
CT,
CSC
Nests colonially near fresh water in
dense cattails or tules, or in thickets of
riparian shrubs. Forages in grassland
and cropland. Large colonies are often
found on dairy farm forage fields.

Unlikely. No riparian vegetation or
nesting habitat was observed during
the biological survey. This species
could potentially fly through or forage
in the APE. The only recorded
observation of this species within the
vicinity was approximately 10.4 miles
southeast of the APE in 2014.

Valley elderberry
longhorn beetle
(Desmocerus
californicus
dimorphus )
FT
Lives in mature elderberry shrubs of
the Central Valley and foothills. Adults
are active from March to June.

Absent. No elderberry shrubs were
found within the APE or surrounding
areas. The only recorded observation
of this species within the vicinity was
approximately 7 miles northwest of the
APE in 1991.

DR Horton
Stonehaven Subdivision Project Biological Evaluation
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group Page | 11
Species Status* Habitat Occurrence within APE
Vernal pool fairy
shrimp
(Branchinecta
lynchi )
FT
Occupies vernal pools, clear to tea-
colored water, in grass or mud-
bottomed swales, and basalt depression
pools.

Absent. Vernal pool habitat is absent
from the APE and surrounding lands.

The nearest recorded observation of
this species was approximately 11 miles
northeast of the APE in 2017.

Vernal pool tadpole
shrimp
(Lepidurus
packardi )
FE
Occurs in vernal pools, clear to tea-
colored water, in grass or mud-
bottomed swales, and basalt depression
pools.

Absent. Vernal pool habitat is absent
from the APE and surrounding lands.

The nearest recorded observation of
this species was approximately 11 miles
northeast of the APE in 2017.

Western pond turtle
(Emys marmorata ) CSC
An aquatic turtle of ponds, marshes,
slow-moving rivers, streams, and
irrigation ditches with riparian
vegetation. Requires adequate basking
sites and sandy banks or grassy open
fields to deposit eggs.

Unlikely. Aquatic habitat is absent
within the APE. This species is often
found in agricultural ditches and canals.

Last Chance Ditch is 0.14 miles west of
the APE but the APE and surrounding
areas are frequently cultivated
agricultural lands that are unsuitable for
this species. The nearest recorded
observation of this species was
approximately 6 miles southwest of the
APE in 1998. The most recent
recorded observation of this species
was in the Kings River, approximately

6.5 miles north of the APE in 2022.

Western Snowy
Plover
(Charadrius
alexandrinus
nivosus )
FT,
CSC
Typically found on sandy beaches, salt
pond levees, and shores of large alkali
lakes.

Absent. The APE and surrounding
areas are frequently cultivated
agricultural lands that are unsuitable for
this species. The only recorded
observation of this species within the
vicinity was approximately 9 miles
southwest of the APE in 1987.

Western spadefoot
(Spea hammondii ) CSC
The majority of the time this species is
terrestrial and occurs in small mammal
burrows and soil cracks, sometimes in
the bottom of dried pools. Prefers
open areas with sandy or gravelly soils,
in a variety of habitats including mixed
woodlands, grasslands, coastal sage
scrub, chaparral, sandy washes,
lowlands, river floodplains, alluvial
fans, playas, alkali flats, foothills, and
mountains. Vernal pools or temporary
wetlands, lasting a minimum of three
weeks, which do not contain bullfrogs,
fish, or crayfish are necessary for
breeding.

Unlikely. Breeding habitat is absent
from the APE and surrounding areas.

The only recorded observation of this
species within the vicinity was
approximately 11 miles northeast of
the APE in 2017.

Yellow-headed
Blackbird
(Xanthocephalus
xanthocephalus )
CSC
Nests in freshwater emergent wetlands
with dense vegetation and deep water.

Often along borders of lakes or ponds.

Absent. Suitable habitats required by
this species are absent from the APE.

The only recorded observation of this
species within the vicinity was
approximately 12.5 miles southwest of
the APE in 2016.

DR Horton
Stonehaven Subdivision Project Biological Evaluation
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group Page | 12
Table 3. List of Special Status Plants with Potential to Occur Onsite and/or in the Vicinity.

Species Status Habitat Occurrence within APE
Alkali-sink goldfields
(Lasthenia
chrysantha )
CNPS
1B
Found in vernal pool and wet saline
flat habitats. Occurrences documented
in the San Joaquin and Sacramento
Valleys at elevations below 656 feet.

Blooms February - April.

Absent. Aquatic habitat is absent
within the APE and surrounding area.

The nearest recorded observation of
this species was approximately 6.5
miles east of the APE in 1958.

Brittlescale
(Atriplex depressa )
CNPS
1B
Found in the San Joaquin Valley and
Sacramento Valley in alkaline or clay
soils, typically in meadows or annual
grassland in at elevations below 1050
feet. Sometimes associated with vernal
pools. Blooms June–October.

Absent. Vernal pool habitat is absent
from within the APE and surrounding
areas. The only recorded observation
of this species within the vicinity was
approximately 7.5 miles north of the
APE in an unknown year.

California alkali
grass
(Puccinellia simplex )
CNPS
1B
Found in the San Joaquin Valley and
other parts of California in saline flats
and mineral springs within valley
grassland and wetland-riparian
communities at elevations below 3000
feet. Blooms March–May.

Absent. Suitable habitat is absent from
the APE and surrounding areas. The
nearest recorded observation of this
species was approximately 3 miles
south of the APE in 1942.

Earlimart orache
(Atriplex cordulata
var. erecticaulis )
CNPS
1B
Found in the San Joaquin Valley in
saline or alkaline soils, typically within
valley and foothill grassland at
elevations below 375 feet. Blooms
August–September.

Absent. Suitable habitat is absent from
the APE and surrounding areas. The
nearest recorded observation of this
species was approximately 9.5 miles
southeast of the APE in 2002.

Lesser saltscale
(Atriplex minuscula )
CNPS
1B
Found in the San Joaquin Valley in
sandy, alkaline soils in alkali scrub,
valley and foothill grassland, and alkali
sink communities at elevations below
750 feet. Blooms April–October.

Absent. Required habitat and alkaline
soils are absent within the APE and
surrounding lands. The nearest
recorded observation of this species
was approximately 11 miles northeast
of the APE in 2016.

Mud nama
(Nama stenocarpa )
CNPS
2B.2
Found in marshes, swamps, wetlands,
sometimes along lake shores,
riverbanks, and intermittently wet
areas. 15-815 m.

Absent. Aquatic habitat is absent from
the APE and surrounding lands. The
only recorded observation of this
species within the vicinity was
approximately 7 miles south of the
APE in 1999.

Panoche pepper-
grass
(Lepidium jaredii
ssp. album )
CNPS
1B
Found on steep slopes, washes,
alluvial-fans, and clay, sometimes
alkaline, within Valley and Foothill
Grassland communities in western
Fresno County at elevations between
600–2400 feet. Blooms February–June.

Absent. Required habitat and clay soils
are absent within the APE and
surrounding lands. The only recorded
observation of this species within the
vicinity was approximately 12.5 miles
northwest of the APE in 1893 and is
listed as possibly extirpated.

Recurved larkspur
(Delphinium
recurvatum )
CNPS
1B
Occurs in poorly drained, fine, alkaline
soils in grassland and alkali scrub
communities at elevations between 100
feet and 2600 feet. Blooms March–
June.

Absent. Suitable habitat is absent from
the APE and surrounding areas. The
only recorded observation of this
species within the vicinity was
approximately 6 miles south of the
APE in 1914.

Sanford’s arrowhead
(Sagittaria sanfordii )
CNPS
1B
Found in the San Joaquin Valley and
other parts of California in freshwater-
marsh, primarily ponds and ditches, at
elevations below 1000 feet. Blooms
May–October.

Absent. Required aquatic habitats are
absent within the APE and
surrounding lands. The only recorded
observation of this species within the
vicinity was approximately 6 miles
southeast of the APE in 1980.

DR Horton
Stonehaven Subdivision Project Biological Evaluation
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group Page | 13
Species Status Habitat Occurrence within APE
Subtle orache
(Atriplex subtilis )
CNPS
1B
Found in the San Joaquin Valley in
saline depressions in alkaline soils
within valley and foothill grassland
communities at elevations below 330
feet. Blooms June–October.

Absent. Suitable habitat is absent from
the APE and surrounding areas. The
most recent recorded observation of
this species was approximately 13 miles
southeast of the APE in 2011.

*EXPLANATION OF OCCURRENCE DESIGNATIONS AND STATUS CODES

Present: Species observed on the site at time of field surveys or during recent past.

Likely: Species not observed on the site, but it may reasonably be expected to occur there on a regular basis.

Possible: Species not observed on the site, but it could occur there from time to time.

Unlikely: Species not observed on the site, and would not be expected to occur there except, perhaps, as a transient.

Absent: Species not observed on the site and precluded from occurring there due to absence of suitable habitat.

STATUS CODES
FE Federally Endangered CE California Endangered
FT Federally Threatened CT California Threatened
FC Federal Candidate CFP California Fully Protected
CSC California Species of Concern
CWL California Watch List

CNPS LISTING
1B Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in 2B Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and elsewhere. California, but more common elsewhere.

DR Horton
Stonehaven Subdivision Project Biological Evaluation
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group Page | 14
III. Impacts and Mitigation
Significance Criteria
CEQA
General plans, area plans, and specific projects are subject to the provisions of CEQA. The purpose of CEQA is to assess the impacts of proposed projects on the environment prior to project implementation. Impacts to biological resources are just one type of environmental impact assessed under CEQA and vary from project to project in terms of scope and magnitude. Projects requiring removal of vegetation may result in th e mortality or displacement of animals associated with this vegetation. Animals adapted to humans, roads, buildings, and pets may replace those species formerly occurring on a site. Plants and animals that are State and/or federally listed as threatened or endangered may be destroyed or displaced. Sensitive habitats such as wetlands and riparian woodlands may be altered or destroyed. Such impacts may be considered either “significant” or “less than significant” under CEQA. According to CEQA, Statute and Gui delines (AEP 2022), “significant effect on the environment” means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambien t noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic interest. Specific project impacts to biological resources may be considered “significant” if they would:
• Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS;
• Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS; • Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means;

• Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
• Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; or
• Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan.

Furthermore, CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a) states that a project may trigger the requirement to make a “mandatory finding of significance” if the project has the potential to:

“Substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self -sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant o r animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.”

DR Horton
Stonehaven Subdivision Project Biological Evaluation
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group Page | 15
Relevant Goals, Policies, and Laws
Kings County General Plan
The Kings County General Plan Document (County of Kings 2010) contains the following goals and resource conservation policies (RC), related to the Project:

Water Resources
RC GOAL A1: Beneficially use, efficiently manage, and protect water resources while developing strategies to capture additional water sources that may become available to ensure long term sustainable water supplies for the region.

RC Policy A1.1.6: Support expansion of joint management of surface water and groundwater supplies that contributes to the protection, reliability, and sustainability of local and regional water supplies.

RC Policy A1.5.1: Cooperate with local agencies in the preservation and purchase of natural sloughs for use as water recharge and drainage basins.

Natural Plant and Animal Habitats
RC GOAL D1: Preserve land that contains important natural plant and animal habitats.

RC Policy D1.1.1: Evaluate all discretionary land use appl ications in accordance with the screening procedures contained in the Biological Resources Survey. If the results of the project screening indicates the potential for important biological resources to exist on the site a biological evaluation shall be performed by a qualified biologist. If the evaluation indicates that the project could have a significant adverse impact, mitigation shall be required, or the project will be redesigned to avoid such impacts. Mitigation shall be provided consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and applicable state and federal guidelines as appropriate. Mitigation may include habitat improvement or protection, acquisition of other habitat, or payment to an appropriate agency to purchase, improve, or protect such habitat.

RC Policy D1.1.2: Require project applicants to consult with the California Department of Fish and Game and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and to obtain appropriate authority for any such take pursuant to Endangered Species Act requirements if new development or other actions are likely to result in incidental take of any threatened or endangered species.

RC Policy D2.1.1: Follow state and federal guidelines for the protection of natural wetlands. Require developers to obtain authorization from the appropriate local, state, or federal agency prior to commencement of any wetland fill activities.

RC GOAL E1: Balance the protection of the County's diverse plant and animal communities with the County's economic needs.

RC Policy E1.1.2: Require as a primary objective in the review of development projects the preservation of healthy native oaks and other healthy native trees.

RC Policy E1.1.3: Maintain to the maximum extent practical the natural plant communities utilized as habitat by threatened and endangered species.

City of Hanford General Plan
The City of Hanford General Plan Document (City of Hanford 2017) contains the following goals and conservation policies, related to the Project:

DR Horton
Stonehaven Subdivision Project Biological Evaluation
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group Page | 16
Water Resources
GOAL 03: A reduced per capita use of water used by residential and non -residential uses through water conservation measures.

Policy 029: Water Conservation Measures for New Development. Encourage new development projects to include water conservation measures, including use of graywater, reclaimed, or recycled water for landscaping, water-conserving plumbing fixtures and appliances, and water-efficient landscapes.

Biological Resources
GOAL 04: Protection of natural habitat and other biological resources.

Policy 035: Impacts from Development. Ensure that potential impacts to biological resources and sensitive habitat are carefully evaluated when considering development projects.

Policy 037: Mature Trees. Promote the preservation of existing mature trees and encourage the planting of appropriate shade trees in new developments.

Policy 038: Native Tree Species and Drought Tolerant Vegetation. Encourage the planting of native tree species and drought-tolerant vegetation.

Policy 039: Endangered Wildlife and Habitat. Establish programs in connection with environmental review processes to protect endangered wildlife and their habitats Policy 040: Sensitive Wildlife. Work with state, federal, and local agencies on the preservation of sensitive wildlife species in the City.

Threatened and Endangered Species
Permits may be required from the USFWS and/or CDFW if activities associated with a project have the potential to result in the “take” of a species listed as threatened or endangered under the federal and/or state Endangered Species Acts. Take is defined by the State of California as “to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill” (California Fish and Game Code, Section 86). Take is more broadly defined by the federal Endangered Species Act to include “harm” (16 USC, Section 1532(19), 50 CFR, Section 17.3). CDFW and USFWS are responsible agencies under CEQA and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Both agencies review CEQA and NEPA documents in order to determine the adequacy of their treatment of endangered species issues and to make project-specific recommendations for their conservation.

Designated Critical Habitat
When species are listed as threatened or endangered, the USFWS often designates areas of “Critical Habitat” as defined by section 3(5)(A) of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). Critical Habitat is a term defined in the ESA as a specific geographic area that contains features essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species and that may require special management and protection. Critical Habitat is a tool that supports the continued conservation of imperiled species by guiding cooperation with the federal government.

Designations only affect federal agency actions or federally funded or permitted activities. Critical Habitat does not prevent activities that occur within the designated area. Only activities that involve a federal permit, license, or funding and are likely to destroy or adversely modify Critical Habitat will be affected.

Migratory Birds
The Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA: 16 USC 703 -712) prohibits killing, possessing, or trading in any bird species covered in one of four international conventions to which the United States is a party, except

DR Horton
Stonehaven Subdivision Project Biological Evaluation
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group Page | 17
in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. The name of the act is misleading, as it actually covers almost all bird’s native to the United States, even those that are non-migratory. The MBTA encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs. Additionally, the California Fish and Game Code makes it unlawful to take or possess any non-game bird covered by the MBTA (Section 3513), as well as any other native non-game bird (Section 3800).

Birds of Prey
Birds of prey are protected in California under provisions of Fish and Game Code (Section 3503.5), which states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order Falconiformes (hawks and eagles) or Strigiformes (owls), as well as their nests and eggs. The bald eagle and golden eagle are afforded additional protection under the federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC 668), which makes it unlawful to kill birds or their eggs.

Nesting Birds
In California, protection is afforded to the nests and eggs of all birds. California Fish and Game Code (Section 3503) states that it is “unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.” Breeding-season disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered a form of “take” by the CDFW.

Wetlands and other “Jurisdictional Waters”
Natural drainage channels and adjacent wetlands may be considered “w aters of the U nited States” or “jurisdictional waters” subject to the jurisdiction of the USACE. The extent of jurisdiction has been defined in the Code of Federal Regulations but has also been subject to interpretation of the federal courts. Jurisdictional waters generally include:
• All waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; • All interstate waters including interstate wetlands;
• All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation, or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce; • All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under the definition; • Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (a)(1)-(4) (i.e., the bulleted items above).

As determined by the United States Supreme Court in its 2001 Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (SWANCC) decision, channels and wetlands isolated from other jurisdictional waters cannot be considered jurisdictional on the basis of their use, hypothetical or observed, by migratory birds. Similarly, in its 2006 consolidated Carabell/Rapanos decision, the Supreme Court ruled that a significant nexus between a wetland and other navigable waters must exist for the wetland itself to be considered a navigable and therefore jurisdictional water. Furthermore, the Supreme Court clarified that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the USACE will not assert jurisdiction over ditches excavated wholly in and draining only uplands and that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water.

The USACE regulates the filling or grading of waters of the United States. under the authority of Section 404 of the CWA. The extent of jurisdiction within drainage channels is defined by “ordinary high-water marks” on opposing channel banks. All activities that involve the discharge of dredge or fill material into Waters of the United States are subject to the permit requirements of the USACE. Such permits are typically issued on the

DR Horton
Stonehaven Subdivision Project Biological Evaluation
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group Page | 18
condition that the applicant agrees to provide mitigation that results in no net loss of wetland func tions or values. No permit can be issued until the RWQCB issues a Section 401 Water Quality Certification (or waiver of such certification) verifying that the proposed activity will meet State water quality standards.

Under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1969, the SWRCB has regulatory authority to protect the water quality of all surface water and groundwater in the State of California (“Waters of the State”). Nine RWQCBs oversee water quality at the local and regional level. The RWQCB for a given region regulates discharges of fill or pollutants into Waters of the State through the issuance of various permits and orders.

Discharges into Waters of the State that are also Waters of the United States require a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB as a prerequisite to obtaining certain federal permits, such as a Section 404 Clean Water Act permit. Discharges into all Waters of the State, even those that are not also Waters of the United States., require Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs), or waivers of WDRs, from the RWQCB. The RWQCB also administers the Construction Storm Water Program and the federal National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Projects that disturb one acre or more of soil must obtain a Construction General Permit under the Construction Storm Water Program. A prerequisite for this permit is the development of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) by a certified Qualified SWPPP Developer. Projects that discharge wastewater, storm water, or other pollutants into a Water of the United States. may require an NPDES permit.

CDFW has jurisdiction over the bed and bank of natural drainages and lakes according to provisions of Section 1601 and 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code. Activities that may substantially modify such waters through the diversion or obstruction of their natural flow, change or use of any material from their bed or bank, or the deposition of debris require a notification of a Lake or Streambed Alteration. If CDFW determines that the activity may adversely affect fish and wildlife resources, a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement will be prepared. Such an agreement typically stipulates that certain measures will be implemented to protect the habitat values of the lake or drainage in question.

Potentially Significant Project-Related Impacts and Mitigation Species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status species by CDFW or USFWS that have the potential to be impacted by Project include Swainson’s Hawk and pallid bat. In addition, the project may impact nesting birds, raptors, and roosting bats. Corresponding mitigation measures can be found below.

Project-Related Mortality and/or Disturbance of Nesting Migratory Raptors and Birds, Including the Swainson’s Hawk
The APE contains suitable nesting and foraging habitat for a variety of bird species. It is anticipated that during the nesting bird season, birds could nest on the ground or in shrubs, trees, or structures within the APE and forage within the APE. Swainson’s Hawks could nest in the eucalyptus trees within the APE and forage over the agricultural field. Swainson’s hawks could also nest in trees within the vicinity of the APE. Migratory birds nesting within the APE during construction have the potential to be injured or killed by Project -related activities. In addition to the direct “take” of migratory nesting birds, nesting birds within the APE or adjacent areas could be disturbed by Project -related activities resulting in nest abandonment. Projects that adversely affect the nesting success of raptors and migratory birds or result in the mortality of individual birds are considered a violation of state and federal laws and are considered a potentially significant impact under CEQA.

In addition, projects that adversely affect the nesting success of Swainson’s hawk or result in the mortality of this species would violate the California Endangered Species Act.

While foraging habitat for migratory birds and raptors, inc luding Swainson’s hawk, is present on the site, suitable foraging habitat is located adjacent to the APE and within the vicinity of the APE and loss of the foraging habitat from implementation of the Project is not considered a significant impact.

DR Horton
Stonehaven Subdivision Project Biological Evaluation
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group Page | 19
Mitigation. Implementation of the following measures will reduce potential impacts to nesting migratory birds and raptors, including Swainson’s Hawk, to a less than significant level under CEQA and will ensure compliance with state and federal laws protecting these avian species:

Mitigation Measure BIO-1a (Avoidance ): The Project’s construction activities will occur, if feasible, between September 16 and January 31 (outside of the nesting bird season) to avoid impacts to nesting birds.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1b (Pre-construction Surveys ):

If activities must occur within the nesting bird season (February 1 to September 15), a qualified biologist will conduct a pre -construction survey for Swainson’s Hawk nests onsite and within a 0.5 - mile radius. This survey will be conducted in accordance with the Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson's Hawk Nesting Surveys in California's Central Valley (Swainson's Hawk Technical Advisory Committee 2000) , or current guidance. The pre -construction survey would also provide a presence/absence survey for all other nesting birds within the APE, no more than seven (7) days prior to the start of construction. All raptor nests would be considered “active” upon the nest-building stage.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1c (Establish Buffers ): On discovery of any active nests near work areas, the biologist will determine appropriate construction setback distances based on applicable CDFW and/or USFWS guidelines and/or the biology of the species in question. If necessary, c onstruction buffers will be identified with flagging, fencing, or other easily visible means, and will be maintained until the biologist has determined that the nestlings have fledged.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1d (Consultation with CDFW ): In the event an active Swainson’s Hawk nest, or other nest is detected during surveys and could be impacted by the Project, consultation with CDFW will be warranted to discuss how to implement the Project and avoid impacts to the nest.

Project-Related Mortality and/or Disturbance of Roosting Bats, Including the Pallid Bat
Pallid bats and other roosting bats have the potential to occur within the APE. Buildings and trees within the APE could be used for roosting sites and since they will be removed during Project activities these bats could be affected . R oosting habitat becomes especially sensitive to bat populations during the maternity season (approximately March 1 to August 31) while pups are maturing and when bats are overwintering (approximately December 1 to March 1). Impacts to roosting bats, including the pallid bat, would be considered a significant impact under CEQA.

Mitigation. Implementation of the following measures will reduce potential impacts to roosting bats, including the pallid bat, to a less than significant impact under CEQA, and will ensure compliance with state and federal laws protecting these species.

Mitigation Measure B IO-2a ( Pre-Construction Survey ): A pre -construction survey will be performed within five days of building and tree removal. A qualified biologist will inspect the buildings and trees for active roosts. If the building or trees are determined to be clear of bats, they will be removed within five days.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2b (Establish Buffers ): On discovery of any roosts in the APE, a qualified biologist will determine appropriate construction setback distances. Buffer will be removed once a qualified biologist had determined the bat roosts are no longer occupied.

DR Horton
Stonehaven Subdivision Project Biological Evaluation
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group Page | 20
Mitigation Measure BIO-2c (Passive Relocation ): On discovery of any bat roosts outside of the maternity roosting season or overwintering season (September 1 to November 30), bats may be passively relocated from the roosts by a qualified biologist in accordance with a bat relocation plan prepared for the Project site by a qualified biologist. The bat relocation plan shall include the methods to be used to safely exclude bats from the roost and prevent reentry.

Less Than Significant Project-Related Impacts
Project-Related Impacts to Special Status Animal Species Absent From, or Unlikely to Occur on, the Project Site
Of the 19 regionally occurring special status animal species, 17 are considered absent from or unlikely to occur within the APE due to past or ongoing disturbance and/or the absence of suitable habitat. These species include: blunt-nosed leopard lizard, Burrowing Owl, California glossy snake, California tiger salamander, Delta smelt, Fresno kangaroo rat, monarch butterfly, San Joaquin kit fox, Tipton kangaroo rat, Tricolored Blackbird, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, vernal pool fairy shrimp, vernal pool tadpole shrimp, western pond turtle, Western Snowy Plover, western spadefoot, and Yellow-headed Blackbird.

Since it is unlikely that these species would occur onsite, implementation of the Project should have no impact on these 17 special status species through construction mor tality, disturbance, or loss of habitat. Mitigation measures are not warranted.

Project-Related Impacts to Special Status Plant Species Absent From, or Unlikely to Occur on, the Project Site
Of the 10 regionally occurring special status plant species, all 10 are considered absent from or unlikely to occur within the APE due to past or ongoing disturbance and/or the absence of suitable habitat. These species include: alkali-sink goldfields, brittlescale, California alkali grass, Earlimart orache, lesser saltscale, mud nama, Panoche pepper-grass, recurved larkspur, Sanford’s arrowhead, and subtle orache.

Since it is unlikely that these species would occur onsite, implementation of the Project should have no impact on these 10 special status species through construction mortality, disturbance, or loss of habitat. Mitigation measures are not warranted.

Project-Related Impacts to Special Status Fishes Absent From, or Unlikely to Occur on, the Project Site
At the time of the survey, special status fishes are not considered present or likely to occur within the APE. No aquatic habitat is present within the APE or directly adjacent to the APE. Mitigation measures are not warranted.

Project-Related Impacts to Riparian Habitat and Natural Communities of Special Concern
Riparian habitat is absent from the APE and adjacent lands. There are no CNDDB -designated “natural communities of special concern” recorded within the APE (California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) 2023). In addition, no natural communities of special concern were observed within the APE during the biological survey. There are two natural communities of species concern in the region: Valley Sacaton Grassland and Valley Sink Scrub. None of these communities would be impacted as they are outside of the reach of the Project. Mitigation is not warranted.

DR Horton
Stonehaven Subdivision Project Biological Evaluation
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group Page | 21
Project-Related Impacts to Regulated Waters, Wetlands, and Water Quality Typical wetlands, vernal pools, and other waters were not observed onsite at the time of the biological survey.

The nearest water source is Last Chance Ditch, which would not be impacted by Project activities and no permits would be required.

Since construction would involve ground disturbance over an area greater than one acre, the Project would be required to obtain a Construction General Permit under the Construction Storm Water Program administered by the RWQCB. A prerequisite for this permit is the development of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to ensure construction activities do not adversely affect water quality.

Project-Related Impacts to Wildlife Movement Corridors and Native Wildlife Nursery Sites
The APE does not contain features that would be likely to function as wildlife movement corridors. The APE and surrounding lands are agricultural fields with sparse residential housing . The APE is located in an area regularly disturbed by humans which would discourage dispersal and migration. Therefore, the Project would have no impact on wildlife movement corridors.

The APE has suitable features (buildings and trees) that could be used by mater nity roosting bats, which are considered native wildlife nursery sites. The potential impacts to maternity roosting bats have been addressed in Mitigation Measures BIO -3a, BIO-3b, and BIO -3c. It is unlikely other native species would utilize any features of the APE as a wildlife nursery site. Further mitigation measures are not warranted.

Project-Related Impacts to Critical Habitat
Designated critical habitat is absent from the APE and surrounding lands. Therefore, there would be no impact to critical habitat, and mitigation is not warranted.

Local Policies or Habitat Conservation Plans
The Project appears to be consistent with the goals and policies of the Kings County General Plan. There are no known Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans in the Project vicinity.

Mitigation measures are not warranted.

DR Horton
Stonehaven Subdivision Project Biological Evaluation
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group Page | 22
IV. References
Association of Environmental Professionals. 2023. 2023 California Environmnetal Quality Act Statute & Guidelines. Accessed February 2023.

Baldwin, B.G., D. H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, T.J. Rosatti, and D.G. Wilken. 2012. The Jepson Manual; Vascular Plants of California, second edition. Berkeley: University of California Press. Accessed February 2023.

Calflora. 2023. Accessed 2023 February. http://www.calflora.org/.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2018. "Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensative Natural Communities." March. Accessed February 2023. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18959&inline.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2015. Staff Guidance Regarding Avoidance of Impacts to Tricolored Blackbird Breeding Colonies on Agricultural Fields. March. Accessed February 2023.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2012. "Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation." Accessed February 2023.

California Native Plant Society. 2023. Accessed February 2023. http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/.

California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). 2023. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). Accessed February 2023.

City of Hanford. 2017. "City of Hanford 2035 General Plan Update." Accessed March 2023. https://www.ci.hanford.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/383/2035-General-Plan-Policy-Document- PDF.

County of Kings. 2010. 2035 Kings County General Plan. January 26. Accessed February 2023. https://www.countyofkings.com/departments/community-development-agency/information/2035- general-plan.

Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2016. "Bulletin 118: California's Groundwater, Interim Update." Accessed February 2023.

Department of Water Resources. n.d. Accessed February 2023. http://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bbat/. eBird, Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 2023. Accessed February 2023. https://ebird.org/.

Jepson Flora Project (eds.). 2023. Accessed February 2023. http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/.

Karrigan Bork, Peter Moyle, John Durand, Tien-Chieh Hung and Andrew Rypel. n.d. Futures for Delta Smelt.

Accessed February 2023. https://californiawaterblog.com/2019/12/15/futures-for-delta-smelt/.

Nafis, G. 2023. Accessed February 2023. http://www.californiaherps.com/.

DR Horton
Stonehaven Subdivision Project Biological Evaluation
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group Page | 23
Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 2023. websoilsurvey. Accessed February 2023. http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx.

NatureServe Explorer. 2023. An Online Encyclopedia of Life. Accessed February 2023. http://explorer.natureserve.org/.

Shuford, W., and T. Gardali. 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1.

Camarillo and Sacramento, CA: Western Field Ornithologists and California Department of Fish and Game. Accessed February 2023.

State Water Resources Control Board. 2021. "State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State." April 6. Accessed February 2023.

Swainson's Hawk Technical Advisory Committee. 2000. "Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson's Hawk Nesting Surveys in California's Central Valley." CA: CDFW, May. Accessed February 2023.

The California Burrowing Owl Consortium. 1993. "Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines." Accessed February 2023.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Habitat Conservation. 2022. "Essential Fish Habitat Mapper." Accessed November 2022.
https://www.habitat.noaa.gov/apps/efhmapper/?page=page_5.

United States Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Department of the Army. Accessed February 2023.

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Recources Conservation Service. n.d. The Plants Database.

Accessed February 2023. http://plants.sc.egov.usda.gov/java/.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2023. Waters GeoViewer. Accessed February 2023. https://www.epa.gov/waterdata/waters-geoviewer.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley, California.

Accessed February 2023.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2017. Recovery Plan for the Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas).

Sacramento: United States Fish and Wlidlife Service, Pacific Southwest Region. Accessed February 2023.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2023. Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS). Accessed February 2023. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory. 2023. Accessed February 2023. https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. "Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp- 5 Year Review: Summary and Evaluation." Accessed February 2023.

DR Horton
Stonehaven Subdivision Project Biological Evaluation
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group Page | 24
United States Fish and Wildlife Service.. 2023. Information on Planning and Consultation (IPaC). Accessed February 2023. https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service... n.d. Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp. Accessed February 2023. https://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/recovery-planning/vernal- pool/documents/vp_tadpole_shrimp.pdf.

Weatherspark. 2023. Climate and Average Weather Year Round in Hanford California, United States. Accessed February 2023. https://weatherspark.com/y/1484/Average-Weather-in-Hanford-California-United- States-Year-Round.

Wilkerson, R.L., and R.B. Siegel. 2010. "Assessing changes in the distribution and abundance of burrowing owls in California, 1993-2007." Bird Populations 10:1-36. Accessed February 2023.

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group Page | 0

DR HORTON

STONEHAVEN SUBDIVISON PROJECT

Appendix A: Photos of the
Project Area

DR Horton
Stonehaven Subdivision Project Appendix A
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group A-1

Photograph 1
Overview of the ruderal hab-
itat within the APE.

Photograph 2
Another overview of the ru-
deral habitat within the APE.

DR Horton
Stonehaven Subdivision Project Appendix A
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group A-2

Photograph 3
Overview of the residential
house/structures located
within the APE. These struc-
tures will be removed.

Photograph 4
Overview of the residential
house/structures and pine
tree located within the APE.

The structures and tree will
be removed.

DR Horton
Stonehaven Subdivision Project Appendix A
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group A-3

Photograph 5
Overview of the garage locat-
ed within the APE. The gar-
age will be removed.

Photograph 6
Overview of the fencing lo-
cated within the APE. The
fencing will be removed.

DR Horton
Stonehaven Subdivision Project Appendix A
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group A-4

Photograph 7
Northern boundary of the
APE. The residential house
and a large eucalyptus tree
within the APE can be seen
near the northeast corner.

Photograph 8
Western boundary of the
APE.

DR Horton
Stonehaven Subdivision Project Appendix A
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group A-5

Photograph 9
Southern boundary of the
APE.

Photograph 10
Eastern boundary of the
APE.

DR Horton
Stonehaven Subdivision Project Appendix A
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group A-6

Photograph 11
Small burrows within the
APE.

Photograph 12
Ground squirrel tracks found
near the house within the
APE.

DR Horton
Stonehaven Subdivision Project Appendix A
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group A-7

Photograph 13
Surrounding land to the
north of the APE.

Photograph 14
Surrounding land to the west
of the APE. Large eucalyptus
trees can be seen in the back-
ground.

DR Horton
Stonehaven Subdivision Project Appendix A
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group A-8

Photograph 15
Another photo of surround-
ing land to the west of the
APE.

Photograph 16
Surrounding land to the
south of the APE. Large eu-
calyptus trees can be seen in
the background.

DR Horton
Stonehaven Subdivision Project Appendix A
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group A-9

Photograph 17
Surrounding land to the
south of the APE. A nest box
can be seen near the residen-
tial house which is located
outside of the Project site/
APE.

Photograph 18
Surrounding land to the east
of the APE.

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group Page | 1

DR HORTON

STONEHAVEN SUBDIVISON PROJECT

Appendix B: NRCS Soils
Report

United States
Department of
Agriculture
A product of the National
Cooperative Soil Survey,
a joint effort of the United
States Department of
Agriculture and other
Federal agencies, State
agencies including the
Agricultural Experiment
Stations, and local
participants
Custom Soil Resource
Report for
Kings County,
California
Stonehaven Subdivision Project
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
February 16, 2023

Preface
Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas.

They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many dif
ferent users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers.

Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment.

Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions.

The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations.

Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www .nrcs.usda.gov/wps/
portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nrcs142p2_053951).

Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations.

The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey.

Information about soils is updated periodically
. Updated information is available
through the NRCS Web Soil Survey
, the site for official soil survey information.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability ,
and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2

alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). T
o file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
3

Contents
Preface.................................................................................................................... 2 How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 Soil Map.................................................................................................................. 8 Soil Map................................................................................................................9 Legend................................................................................................................10 Map Unit Legend................................................................................................ 11 Map Unit Descriptions.........................................................................................11 Kings County, California..................................................................................13 104—Cajon sandy loam..............................................................................13 149—Nord complex.....................................................................................14 References............................................................................................................17 4

How Soil Surveys Are Made
Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity
.

Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology , climate, water
resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA.

The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape.

Commonly
, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however , soil
scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries.

Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units).

T
axonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil 5

scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research.

The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.

Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map.

The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded.

These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay
, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil
typically vary from one point to another across the landscape.

Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties.

While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in dif
ferent uses and under different levels of management.

Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil.

Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date.

After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and Custom Soil Resource Report
6

identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately.

Custom Soil Resource Report
7

Soil Map
The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 8

9 Custom Soil Resource Report
Soil Map
4021530 4021570 4021610 4021650 4021690 4021730 4021770 4021810 4021850 4021890 4021530 4021570 4021610 4021650 4021690 4021730 4021770 4021810 4021850 4021890 258770 258810 258850 258890 258930 258970 259010 259050 258770 258810 258850 258890 258930 258970 259010
36° 18' 43'' N
119° 41' 13'' W
36° 18' 43'' N
119° 41' 1'' W
36° 18' 30'' N
119° 41' 13'' W
36° 18' 30'' N
119° 41' 1'' WN
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 11N WGS84 0 50 100 200 300
Feet
0 25 50 100 150
Meters
Map Scale: 1:1,910 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet.

Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.

MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
Soil Map Unit Points
Special Point Features
Blowout
Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
Perennial Water
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
Sodic Spot
Spoil Area
Stony Spot
Very Stony Spot
Wet Spot
Other
Special Line Features
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:24,000.

Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.

Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.

Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.

Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:

Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required.

This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below.

Soil Survey Area: Kings County
, California
Survey Area Data: Version 18, Aug 31, 2022
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger.

Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Mar 16, 2022—May 30, 2022
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.

Custom Soil Resource Report
10

Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 104 Cajon sandy loam 9.1 57.7%
149 Nord complex 6.7 42.3%
Totals for Area of Interest 15.9 100.0%
Map Unit Descriptions
The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.

A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class.

Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely
, if ever, can be mapped without
including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils.

Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar
, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a
particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape.

The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, Custom Soil Resource Report
1 1

onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.

An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions.

Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities.

Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer
, all the soils of a series have major
horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement.

Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that af fect their use. On the
basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series.

Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas.

These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups.

A
complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps.

The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example.

An
association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar
. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.

An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.

Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example.

Custom Soil Resource Report
12

Kings County, California
104—Cajon sandy loam
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hhhn
Elevation: 320 to 400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 5 to 7 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 61 to 70 degrees F
Frost-free period: 240 to 300 days
Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition
Cajon and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Cajon
Setting
Landform: Alluvial fans
Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Talf
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Alluvium derived from igneous and sedimentary rock Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 11 inches: sandy loam
C - 11 to 60 inches: loamy sand
2C - 60 to 70 inches: stratified sand to loamy fine sand Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 1 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained
Runoff class: Very low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High (1.98 to 5.95 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 5.1 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 3s
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7s
Hydrologic Soil Group: A
Ecological site: R017XY906CA - Non-Alkali San Joaquin Valley Desert Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Cajon, calcareous
Percent of map unit: 4 percent
Custom Soil Resource Report
13

Hydric soil rating: No
Kimberlina
Percent of map unit: 4 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Nord
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Unnamed, rare flooding
Percent of map unit: 1 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Unnamed, rare flooding
Percent of map unit: 1 percent
Landform: Sloughs
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Lemoore
Percent of map unit: 1 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Wasco
Percent of map unit: 1 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
149—Nord complex
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hhk3
Elevation: 190 to 600 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 8 to 12 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 61 to 64 degrees F
Frost-free period: 250 to 275 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
Nord and similar soils: 50 percent
Nord and similar soils: 40 percent
Minor components: 10 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Nord
Setting
Landform: Alluvial fans
Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Custom Soil Resource Report
14

Parent material: Alluvium derived from igneous rock
Typical profile
A - 0 to 18 inches: fine sandy loam
C - 18 to 72 inches: stratified sandy loam to loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 5 percent
Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 7.6 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 2s
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4s
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Ecological site: R017XY906CA - Non-Alkali San Joaquin Valley Desert Hydric soil rating: No
Description of Nord
Setting
Landform: Alluvial fans
Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Alluvium derived from igneous rock
Typical profile
A - 0 to 18 inches: fine sandy loam
C - 18 to 72 inches: stratified sandy loam to loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Medium
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high (0.20 to 0.57 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 5 percent
Maximum salinity: Slightly saline to moderately saline (4.0 to 8.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 5.8 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 2s
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4s
Custom Soil Resource Report
15

Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Ecological site: R017XY906CA - Non-Alkali San Joaquin Valley Desert Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Grangeville
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans
Ecological site: R017XY907CA - Aridic Alkali Desert
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Lakeside
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Landform: Rims
Ecological site: R017XY907CA - Aridic Alkali Desert
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Kimberlina
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Ecological site: R017XY907CA - Aridic Alkali Desert
Hydric soil rating: No
Whitewolf
Percent of map unit: 1 percent
Ecological site: R017XY907CA - Aridic Alkali Desert
Hydric soil rating: No
Unnamed, rare flooding
Percent of map unit: 1 percent
Ecological site: R017XY907CA - Aridic Alkali Desert
Hydric soil rating: No
Cajon
Percent of map unit: 1 percent
Ecological site: R017XY907CA - Aridic Alkali Desert
Hydric soil rating: No
Unnamed, rare flooding
Percent of map unit: 1 percent
Landform: Sloughs
Ecological site: R017XY907CA - Aridic Alkali Desert
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Custom Soil Resource Report
16

References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition.

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00.

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31.

Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States.

Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States.

Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States.

National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries.

Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262
Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staf
f. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580 T
iner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section.

United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory . 1987. Corps of
Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station T echnical
Report Y-87-1.

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084 17

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/? cid=nrcs142p2_053624
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf Custom Soil Resource Report
18

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group Page | 2

DR HORTON

STONEHAVEN SUBDIVISON PROJECT

Appendix C: CNDDB 9-
Quad Search

Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
alkali-sink goldfields
Lasthenia chrysantha
PDAST5L030 None None G2 S2 1B.1
blunt-nosed leopard lizard
Gambelia sila
ARACF07010 Endangered Endangered G1 S1 FP
brittlescale
Atriplex depressa
PDCHE042L0 None None G2 S2 1B.2
burrowing owl
Athene cunicularia
ABNSB10010 None None G4 S3 SSC
California alkali grass
Puccinellia simplex
PMPOA53110 None None G2 S2 1B.2
California glossy snake
Arizona elegans occidentalis
ARADB01017 None None G5T2 S2 SSC
California linderiella
Linderiella occidentalis
ICBRA06010 None None G2G3 S2S3
California tiger salamander - central California DPS
Ambystoma californiense pop. 1
AAAAA01181 Threatened Threatened G2G3T3 S3 WL
Earlimart orache
Atriplex cordulata var. erecticaulis
PDCHE042V0 None None G3T1 S1 1B.2
hoary bat
Lasiurus cinereus
AMACC05032 None None G3G4 S4
lesser saltscale
Atriplex minuscula
PDCHE042M0 None None G2 S2 1B.1
mud nama
Nama stenocarpa
PDHYD0A0H0 None None G4G5 S1S2 2B.2
Panoche pepper-grass
Lepidium jaredii ssp. album
PDBRA1M0G2 None None G2G3T2T3 S2S3 1B.2
recurved larkspur
Delphinium recurvatum
PDRAN0B1J0 None None G2? S2? 1B.2
San Joaquin kit fox
Vulpes macrotis mutica
AMAJA03041 Endangered Threatened G4T2 S2
San Joaquin tiger beetle
Cicindela tranquebarica joaquinensis
IICOL0220E None None G5T1 S1
Sanford's arrowhead
Sagittaria sanfordii
PMALI040Q0 None None G3 S3 1B.2
subtle orache
Atriplex subtilis
PDCHE042T0 None None G1 S1 1B.2
Swainson's hawk
Buteo swainsoni
ABNKC19070 None Threatened G5 S3
Query Criteria: Quad<span style='color:Red'> IS </span>(Hanford (3611936)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Riverdale (3611947)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Laton (3611946)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Burris Park (3611945)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Waukena (3611925)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Remnoy (3611935)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Guernsey (3611926)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Stratford (3611927)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Lemoore (3611937)) Report Printed on Monday, February 06, 2023

Information Expires 7/1/2023
Selected Elements by Common Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
Tipton kangaroo rat
Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides
AMAFD03152 Endangered Endangered G3T1T2 S1S2
tricolored blackbird
Agelaius tricolor
ABPBXB0020 None Threatened G1G2 S1S2 SSC
valley elderberry longhorn beetle
Desmocerus californicus dimorphus
IICOL48011 Threatened None G3T2T3 S3
Valley Sacaton Grassland
Valley Sacaton Grassland
CTT42120CA None None G1 S1.1
Valley Sink Scrub
Valley Sink Scrub
CTT36210CA None None G1 S1.1
vernal pool fairy shrimp
Branchinecta lynchi
ICBRA03030 Threatened None G3 S3
vernal pool tadpole shrimp
Lepidurus packardi
ICBRA10010 Endangered None G4 S3
western pond turtle
Emys marmorata
ARAAD02030 None None G3G4 S3 SSC
western ridged mussel
Gonidea angulata
IMBIV19010 None None G3 S1S2
western snowy plover
Charadrius nivosus nivosus
ABNNB03031 Threatened None G3T3 S3 SSC
western spadefoot
Spea hammondii
AAABF02020 None None G2G3 S3S4 SSC
yellow-headed blackbird
Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus
ABPBXB3010 None None G5 S3 SSC
Record Count: 31
Report Printed on Monday, February 06, 2023

Information Expires 7/1/2023
Selected Elements by Common Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group Page | 3

DR HORTON

STONEHAVEN SUBDIVISON PROJECT

Appendix D: IPaC Search

February 16, 2023
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: 2022-0078501
Project Name: Stonehaven Subdivision 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 ECOS-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 ECOS-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)

02/16/2023   2

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

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

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/birds/policies-and-regulations/ executive-orders/e0-13186.php.

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.

02/16/2023   3

▪
Attachment(s):

Official Species List

02/16/2023   1

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

02/16/2023   2

Project Summary
Project Code: 2022-0078501
Project Name: Stonehaven Subdivision Project
Project Type: Residential Construction
Project Description: DR Horton is in the process of acquiring a roughly 11.81-acre parcel (APN 011-040-030-000) located South of Hanford-Armona Road between 12th Avenue and 13th Avenue, in Hanford, California. The Project is currently located in Unincorporated Kings County but would be annexed into the City of Hanford. The Project’s Area of Potential Effect (APE) includes approximately 11.81 acres with an additional a 50-foot buffer surrounding the APE. The Project proposes to subdivide approximately 11.81 assessed acres of land currently used for residential and agricultural purposes into approximately 79 single-family residential lots. The size of lots would range from 3,600 square feet and up.

Project Location:

Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps:
https://
www.google.com/maps/@36.31024935,-119.68531391202148,14z Counties: Kings County, California

02/16/2023   3

1. Endangered Species Act Species
There is a total of 7 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.

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

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

Species profile:
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2873
Endangered
Tipton Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile:
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7247
Endangered
Reptiles

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

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/625
Endangered
Insects

NAME STATUS
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
Candidate
1

02/16/2023   4

Crustaceans

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

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

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

02/16/2023   5

IPaC User Contact Information
Agency: Provost & Pritchard Consulting
Name: Shaylea Stark
Address: 455 W Fir Ave
City: Clovis
State: CA
Zip: 93612
Email [email protected]
Phone: 5594492700

Appendices
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 C-1
Appendix C: Phase I Cultural Resources Survey

PHASE I SURVEY,

STONEHAVEN DEVELOPMENT PROJECT,

KINGS COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

Prepared for:

Jarred Olsen
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
206 West Cromwell Avenue
Fresno, California 93711-2715

Prepared by:

Peter A. Carey, M.A., RPA

Robert Azpitarte, B.A.

and

K. Ross Way, A.A.

ASM Affiliates
4800 Stockdale Highway, Suite 405
Bakersfield, CA 93309

April 2023

PN 36510.33

Table of Contents
Stonehaven Development Project i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ........................................................................................ iii

1. INTRODUCTION AND REGULATORY CONTEXT ...................................... 1

1.1 PROJECT LOCATION ................................................................................................ 1

1.2 PROJECT AND STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION ....................................................... 1

1.3 REGULATORY CONTEXT ........................................................................................ 2

1.3.1 California Environmental Quality Act .................................................................. 2

2. ENVIRONMENTAL AND CULTURAL BACKGROUND .............................. 5

2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND AND GEOARCHAEOLOGICAL
SENSITIVITY .............................................................................................................. 5

2.2 ETHNOGRAPHIC BACKGROUND .......................................................................... 5

2.3 PRE-CONTACT ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND ........................................ 7

2.4 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND................................................................................ 10

3. ARCHIVAL RECORDS SEARCH AND TRIBAL CORRESPONDENCE .. 13

3.1 ARCHIVAL RECORDS SEARCH ............................................................................ 13

3.2 TRIBAL CORRESPONDENCE ................................................................................ 14

4. METHODS AND RESULTS ............................................................................... 15

4.1 FIELD METHODS ..................................................................................................... 15

4.2 SURVEY RESULTS .................................................................................................. 15

5. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................... 17

5.1 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................ 17 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 19 CONFIDENTIAL APPENDIX A .................................................................................. 23 Confidential Appendix A: Records Search and Native American Heritage Commission Outreach Materials

Table of Contents
ii Carleton Acres Specific Plan Project

LIST OF FIGURES

Page
Figure 1. Location of the Stonehaven Development Project, Kings County, California. ............................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2. Overview of Project area, looking southeast ........................................................ 16 Figure 3. Overview of Project area showing dirt road on the east boundary, looking north ...................................................................................................................... 16

LIST OF TABLES

Page
Table 1. Survey Reports within 0.5 Mi. of the Project Area............................................... 13 Table 2. Resources within 0.5 Mi. of the Project Area. ...................................................... 14

Management Summary
Stonehaven Development Project iii

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
A Phase I cultural resources survey was conducted for the Stonehaven Development Project (Project). The Project study area totals approximately 12-acres (ac) and consists of undeveloped agricultural land located on the western edge of Hanford, Kings County, California. Specifically, the proposed Project is located in Section 30, Township 19 South, Range 21 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian (MDBM). The Phase I survey included background research and an intensive pedestrian survey of the entire Project study area. ASM Affiliates (ASM) conducted this study, with Peter A. Carey, M.A., RPA, serving as Principal Investigator. The study was undertaken to assist with compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The lead agency for the proposed Project is Kings County.

A records search of site files and maps related to the Project study area and a 0.5-mile (mi) radius surrounding it was obtained by ASM on 14 February 2023, from the Southern San Joaquin Valley Archaeological Information Center (SSJVIC), California State University, Bakersfield. The search results indicated the study area had not been previously surveyed and no cultural resources had been previously documented within it. The search also indicated that eight previous studies had been conducted within the 0.5-mi records search radius and that two cultural resources had been documented within that search radius: an isolated prehistoric artifact (P-16-000310) and the Last Chance Ditch (P-16-000128), a historic water conveyance structure.

A Sacred Lands File (SLF) search from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was received in February 2023. The search was negative for sacred sites and tribal cultural resources.

ASM sent outreach letters to the tribes listed on the NAHC-provided contact list on 16 February 2023, with follow-up emails sent to any contacts who had not yet responded on 17 March 2023.

ASM received one response from the Santa Rosa Indian Community of the Santa Rosa Rancheria who expressed concerns regarding the Project and requested the results of the survey and that a curation agreement and a burial treatment plan be in place; and that a tribal monitor be present for all ground disturbance related to the Project.

The Phase I survey fieldwork was conducted on 15 February 2023. The entire 12-ac study area was surveyed in parallel transects spaced at 15-meter (m) intervals. No cultural resources of any kind were identified within the study area.

Based on these findings, the Stonehaven Development Project will not result in adverse impacts to known significant or unique cultural resources as defined by CEQA. No further archaeological work is recommended for the Project. It is recommended, however, that an archaeologist be contacted in the unlikely event that cultural resources are uncovered during the development or use of the property to evaluate the discovery.

1. Introduction and Regulatory Context
Stonehaven Development Project 1

1. INTRODUCTION AND REGULATORY CONTEXT
ASM Affiliates (ASM) was retained by Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group to conduct a Phase I cultural resources s tudy for the Stonehaven Development Project, located in Kings County, California (Figure 1). Peter A. Carey, M.A., RPA, served as Principal Investigator and ASM Assistant Archaeologist Maria Silva, B.A, conducted the fieldwork. The study was undertaken to assist with compliance with CEQA. The lead agency for the proposed Project is Kings County.

The investigation was conducted, specifically, to ensure that significant impacts or adverse effects to historical resources do not occur as a result of project construction.

This current study included:
• A background records search and literature review to determine if any known archaeological sites were present in the project zone and/or whether the study area had been previously and systematically studied by archaeologists; • A search of the NAHC SLF to determine if any traditional cultural places or cultural landscapes have been identified within the area;
• An on- foot, intensive inventory of the study area to identify and record previously undiscovered cultural resources and to examine known sites; and • A preliminary assessment of any such resources found within the subject property.

This document constitutes a report on the Phase I survey. Subsequent chapters provide background to the investigation including historic context studies, the findings of the archival records search, Native American correspondence, field methodology, and the fieldwork results. We conclude with management recommendations for CEQA.

1.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The Project is located outside the current city limits of Hanford, Kings County, California.

Specifically, the proposed Project is located in Section 30, Township 19 South, Range 21 East, MDBM, as illustrated on the USGS Hanford, California 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. This places the proposed Project on the open flats of the San Joaquin Valley. Elevation within the Project parcel, which is flat, ranges from 238- feet (ft) to 241- ft above mean sea level (amsl).

Currently t he parcel is mostly undeveloped and consists of active agricultural fields with an existing residence on the northeast corner of the property.

1.2 PROJECT AND STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION
The Project will involve the development of a single- family residential housing subdivision located on the south side of Hanford-Armona Road between 12th and 13th Avenues. The property is currently outside Hanford city limits; however, it will be annexed by the City of Hanford prior to construction. Various other infrastructur e improvements (water, stormwater and wastewater infrastructure, roadway improvements, and related improvements) will be required by the Project (CEQANET 2021). All staging, laydown, excavation, and construction will take place within the 12-ac Project footprint.

1. Introduction and Regulatory Context
2 Stonehaven Development Project

1.3 REGULATORY CONTEXT

1.3.1 California Environmental Quality Act

CEQA is applicable to discretionary actions by state or local lead agencies. Under CEQA, lead agencies must analyze impacts to cultural resources. Significant impacts under CEQA occur when “historically significant” or “unique” cultural resources are adversely affected, which occurs when such resources could be altered or destroyed through project implementation. Historically significant cultural resources are defined by eligibility for or by listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). In practice, the federal National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) criteria (below) for significance applied under Section 106 are generally (although not entirely) consistent with CRHR criteria (see PRC § 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852 and § 15064.5(a)(3)).

Significant cultural resources are those archaeological resources and historical properties that:
(A) Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; (B) Are associated with the lives of persons important in our past; (C) Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represent the work of an important creative individual, or possess high artistic values; or
(D) Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Unique resources under CEQA, in slight contrast, are those that represent:

An archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demons trated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:
(1) Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information. (2) Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type.
(3) Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person (PRC § 21083.2(g)).

Preservation in place is the preferred approach under CEQA to mitigating adverse impacts to significant or unique cultural resources.

1. Introduction and Regulatory Context
Stonehaven Development Project 3

Figure 1. Location of the Stonehaven Development Project, Kings County, California.

2. Environmental and Cultural Background
Stonehaven Development Project 5

2. ENVIRONMENTAL AND CULTURAL

BACKGROUND

2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND AND

GEOARCHAEOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY
The elevation of the Project area ranges between 238-ft and 241-ft amsl on the open flats of the San Joaquin Valley on the west side of Hanford, in Kings County, California. Currently this region can be characterized as a dry open valley bottom now utilized for agriculture. The study area itself has been experienced multiple periods of agricultural cultivation over at least the past four decades.

Prior to reclamation and channelization, the region would have been a low -lying, water-rich area characterized by streams, sloughs, marshes, and swamps. Occasionally inundated by floodwaters, in many years portions of this region would have been swampy during the winter rainy season and marsh land during other parts of the year. Historical and recent land-use has changed the vegetation that was once present within and near the Project area. The immediate Project location historically most likely fell within the Valley Grassland community, however, with Riparian Woodlands present along streams and freshwater marshes common in the area (see Schoenherr 1992).

A Caltrans geoarchaeological study that included the Project area classified this location as having Moderate sensitivity for subsurface sites (Meyer et al. 2010). This study involved first determining the location and ages of late Pleistocene (>25,000 years old) landforms in the southern San Joaquin Valley. These were identified by combining a synthesis of 2,400 published paleontological, soils, and archaeological chronometric dates with geoarchaeological field testing. The ages of surface landforms were then mapped to provide an assessment for the potential for buried archaeological deposits. These ages were derived primarily from the Soil Survey Geographic Database (SSURGO) and the State Soils Geographic (STATSGO) database. A series of maps were created from this information that ranked locations in seven ordinal classes for sensitivity for buried soils, from Very Low to Very High. Although the buried site sensitivity model indicates the study area has Moderate sensitivity for buried deposits, disturbance from agricultural use and the distance of the study area from known historic villages suggests the potential for buried sites is low.

2.2 ETHNOGRAPHIC BACKGROUND
Penutian-speaking Yokuts tribal groups occupied the southern San Joaquin Valley region and much of the nearby Sierra Nevada. Ethnographic information about the Yokuts was collected primarily by Powers (1971, 1976 [originally 1877]), Kroeber (1925), Gayton (1930, 1948), Driver (1937), Latta (1977), and Harrington (n.d.). For a variety of historical reasons, existing research information emphasizes the central Yokuts tribes who occupied both the va lley and particularly the foothills of the Sierra. The northernmost tribes suffered from the influx of Euro- Americans during the Gold Rush and their populations were in substantial decline by the time ethnographic studies began in the early twentieth century. In contrast, the southernmost tribes were partially removed by the Spanish to missions and eventually absorbed into multi-tribal communities on the Sebastian Indian Reservation (on Tejon Ranch), and later the Tule River Reservation and Santa Rosa Ranch eria to the north. The result is an unfortunate scarcity of ethnographic detail on

2. Environmental and Cultural Background
6 Stonehaven Development Project
southern Valley tribes, especially in relation to the rich information collected from the central foothills tribes where native speakers of the Yokuts dialects are still found. Regardless, the general details of indigenous life -ways were similar across the broad expanse of Yokuts territory, particularly in terms of environmentally influenced subsistence and adaptation and with regard to religion and belief, which were similar everywhere.

This scarcity of specific detail is particularly apparent in terms of southern valley tribal group distribution. Kroeber (1925), Gayton (1948) and Latta (1977) place the Project area in Nutunutu Yokut territory, with village locations concentrated to the east, in the foothills, or southwest, closer to the Tulare Lake shore. The Yokuts settlement pattern was largely c onsistent, regardless of specific tribe involved. Winter villages were typically located along lakeshores and major stream courses (as these existed circa AD 1800), with dispersal phase family camps located at elevated spots on the valley floor and near gathering areas in the foothills.

Most Yokuts groups, again regardless of specific tribal affiliation, were organized as a recognized and distinct tribelet; a circumstance that almost certainly pertained to the tribal groups noted above.

Tribelets were land -owning groups organized around a central village and linked by shared territory and descent from a common ancestor. The population of most tribelets ranged from about 150 to 500 peoples (Kroeber 1925).

Each tribelet was headed by a chief who was assisted by a variety of assistants, the most important of whom was the winatum, a herald or messenger and assistant chief. A shaman also served as religious officer. While shamans did not have any direct political authority, as Gayton (1930) has illustrated, they maintained substantial influence within their tribelet.

Shamanism is a religious system common to most Native American tribes. It involves a direct and personal relationship between the individual and the supernatural world enacted by entering a trance o r hallucinatory state (usually based on the ingestion of psychotropic plants, such as jimsonweed or more typically native tobacco). Shamans were considered individuals with an unusual degree of supernatural power, serving as healers or curers, diviners, and controllers of natural phenomena (such as rain or thunder). Shamans also produced the rock art of this region, depicting the visions they experienced in vision quests believed to represent their spirit helpers and events in the supernatural realm (Whitley 1992, 2000).

The centrality of shamanism to the religious and spiritual life of the Yokuts was demonstrated by the role of shamans in the yearly ceremonial round. The ritual round, performed the same each year, started in the spring with the jimsonweed ceremony, followed by rattlesnake dance and (where appropriate) first salmon ceremony. After returning from seed camps, fall rituals began in the late summer with the mourning ceremony, followed by first seed and acorn rites and then bear dance (Gayton 1930:379). In each case, shamans served as ceremonial officials responsible for specific dances involving a display of their supernatural powers (Kroeber 1925).

Subsistence practices varied from tribelet to tribelet based on the environment of residence.

Throughout Native California, and Yokuts territory in general, the acorn was a primary dietary component, along with a variety of gathered seeds. Valley tribes augmented this resource with lacustrine and riverine foods, especially fish and wildfowl. As with many Native California tribes,

2. Environmental and Cultural Background
Stonehaven Development Project 7
the settlement and subsistence rounds included the winter aggregation into a few large villages, where stored resources (like acorns) served as staples, followed by dispersal into smaller camps, often occupied by extended families, where seasonally available resources would be gathered and consumed.

Although population estimates vary and population size was greatly affected by the introduction of Euro -American diseases and social disruption, the Yokuts were one of the largest, most successful groups in Native California. Cook (1978) estimates that the Yokuts region contained 27 percent of the aboriginal population in the state at the time of contact; other estimates are even higher. Many Yokuts people continue to reside in the southern San Joaquin Valley today, including at the nearby Santa Rosa Rancheria.

2.3 PRE-CONTACT ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND
The southern San Joaquin Valley region has received minimal archaeological attention compared to other areas of the state. In part, t his is because the majority of California archaeological work has concentrated in the Sacramento Delta, Santa Barbara Channel, and central Mojave Desert areas (see Moratto 1984). Although knowledge of the region’s prehistory is limited, enough is known to determine that the archaeological record is broadly similar to south -central California as a whole (see Gifford and Schenk 1926; Hewes 1941; Wedel 1941; Fenenga 1952; Elsasser 1962; Fredrickson and Grossman 1977; Schiffman and Garfinkel 1981). Based on these sources, the general prehistory of the region can be outlined as follows.

Initial occupation of the region occurred at least as early as the Paleoindian Period, or prior to about 10,000 years before present (YBP). Evidence of early use of the region is indicated by characteristic fluted and stemmed points found around the margin of Tulare Lake, in the foothills of the Sierra, and in the Mojave Desert proper.

Both fluted and stemmed points are particularly common around lake margins, suggesting a terminal Pleistocene/early Holocene lakeshore adaptation similar to that found throughout the far west at the same time; little else is known about these earliest peoples. Over 250 fluted points have been recovered from the Witt Site (CA -KIN-32), located along t he western shoreline of ancient Tulare Lake west of the Project area, demonstrating the importance of this early occupation in the San Joaquin Valley specifically (see Fenenga 1993). Additional finds consist of a Clovis -like projectile point discovered in a flash- flood cut-bank near White Oak Lodge in 1953 on Tejon Ranch (Glennan 1987a, 1987b). More recently, a similar fluted point was found near Bakersfield (Zimmerman et al. 1989), and a number are known from the Edwards Air Force Base and Boron area of the western Mojave Desert. Although human occupation of the state is well-established during the Late Pleistocene, relatively little can be inferred about the nature and distribution of this occupation with a few exceptions. First, little evidence exists to support the idea that people at that time were big -game hunters, similar to those found on the Great Plains. Second, the western Mojave Desert evidence suggests small, very mobile populations that left a minimal archaeological signature. The evidence from the ancient Tulare Lake shore, in contrast, suggests much more substantial population and settlements which, instead of relying on big game hunting, were tied to the lacustrine lake edge. Variability in subsistence and settlement patterns is thus apparent in California, in contrast to the Great Plains.

2. Environmental and Cultural Background
8 Stonehaven Development Project

Substantial evidence for human occupation across California, however, first occurs during the middle Holocene, roughly 7500 to 4000 YBP. This period is known as the Early Horizon, or alternatively as the Early Millingstone along the Santa Barbara Channel. In the south, populations concentrated along the coast with minimal visible use of inland areas. Adaptation emphasized hard seeds and nuts with tool -kits dominated by mullers and grindstones (manos and metates).

Additionally, little evidence for Early Horizon occupation exists in most inland portions of the state, partly due to a severe cold and dry paleoclimatic period occurring at this time, although a site deposit dating to this age has been identified along the ancient Buena Vista shoreline in Kern County to the sout h (Rosenthal et al. 2007). Regardless of specifics, Early Horizon population density was low with a subsistence adaptation more likely tied to plant food gathering than hunting.

Environmental conditions improved dramatically after about 4000 YBP during the Middle Horizon (or Intermediate Period). This period is known climatically as the Holocene Maximum (circa 3,800 YBP) and was characterized by significantly warmer and wetter conditions than previously experienced. It was marked archaeologically by large population increase and radiation into new environments along coastal and interior south-central California and the Mojave Desert (Whitley 2000). In the Delta region to the north, this same period of favorable environmental conditions was characterized by the appearance of the Windmiller culture which exhibited a high degree of ritual elaboration (especially in burial practices) and perhaps even a rudimentary mound-building tradition (Meighan, personal communication, 1985). Along with ritual elaboration, Mi ddle Horizon times experienced increasing subsistence specialization, perhaps correlating with the appearance of acorn processing technology. Penutian speaking peoples (including the Yokuts) are also posited to have entered the state roughly at the beginning of this period and, perhaps to have brought this technology with them (cf. Moratto 1984). Likewise, it appears the so- called “Shoshonean Wedge ” in southern California, the Takic -speaking groups that include the Gabrielino/Fernandeño, Tataviam, and Kitanemuk, may have moved into the region at that time (Sutton 2009), rather than at about 1500 YBP as first suggested by Kroeber (1925).

Evidence for Middle Horizon occupation of interior south- central California is substantial. For example, in northern Los Angeles County along the upper Santa Clara River, to the south of the San Joaquin Valley, the Agua Dulce village complex indicates occupation extending back to the Intermediate Period, when the population of the village may have been 50 or more people (King et al. n.d.). Similarly, inhabitation of the Hathaway Ranch region near Lake Piru, and the Newhall Ranch near Valencia, appears to date to the Intermediate Period (W&S Consultants 1994). To the west, little or no evidence exists for pre -Middle Horizon occupation in the upper Sisquoc and Cuyama River drainages; populations first appear there at roughly 3500 YBP (Horne 1981). The Carrizo Plain, the valley immediately west of the San Joaquin, experienced a major population expansion during the Middle Horizon (W&S Consultants 2004; Whitley et al. 2007), and recently collected data indicates the Tehachapi Mountains region was first significantly occupied during the Middle Horizon (W&S Consultants 2006). A parallel can be drawn to the inland Ventura County region where a similar pattern has been identified (Whitley and Beaudry 1991), as well as the western Mojave Desert (Sutton 1988a, 1988b), the southern Sierra Nevada (W&S Consultants 1999), and the Coso Range region (Whitley et al. 1988). In all of these areas a major expansion in settlement, the establishment of large site complexes and an increase in the range of environments exploited appear to have occurred sometime roughly around 4,000 years ago. Although most

2. Environmental and Cultural Background
Stonehaven Development Project 9
efforts to explain this expansion have focused on local circumstances and events, it is increasingly apparent this was a major southern California -wide occurrence, and any explanation must be sought at a larger level of analysis (Whitley 2000). Additionally, evidence from the Carrizo Plain suggests the origins of the tribelet level of political organization developed during this period (W&S Consultants 2004; Whitley et al. 2007). Whether this same demographic process holds for the southern San Joaquin Valley, including the Project area, is yet to be determined.

The beginning of the Late Horizon is set variously at 1500 and 800 YBP, with a growing archaeological consensus for the shorter chronology. Increasing evidence suggests the importance of the Middle -Late Horizons transition (AD 800 to 1200) in the understanding of south- central California prehistory. This corresponds to the so-called Medieval Climatic Anomaly, followed by the Little Ice Age, and this general period of climatic instability extended to about A.D. 1860. It included major droughts matched by intermittent “mega -floods,” and resulted in demographic disturbances across much of the west (Jones et al. 1999). It is believed to have resulted in major population decline and abandonments across south- central California, involving as much as 90 percent of the interior populations in some regions, including the Carrizo Plain (Whitley et al. 2007). It is not clear whether site abandonment was accompanied by a true reduction in population or an agglomeration of the same numbers of peoples into fewer but larger villages in more favorable locations. Population along the Santa Barbara coast appears to have spiked at about the same time that it collapsed on the Carrizo Plain (Whitley et al. 2007). Along Buena Vista Lake, in Kern County, population appears to have been increasingly concentrated towards the later end of the Medieval Climatic Anomaly (Culleton 2006), and population intensification also appears to have occurred in the well -watered Tehachapi Mountains during this same period ( W&S Consultants 2006).

What is then clear is that Middle Period villages and settlements were widely dispersed across the south-central California landscape, including in the Sierras and the Mojave Desert. Many of these sites are found at locations that lack existing or known historical fresh water sources. Late Horizon sites, in contrast, are typically concentrated in areas where fresh water was available during the historical period, if not currently.

One extensively studied site that shows evidence of intensive occupation during the Middle-Late Horizons transition (~1500 to 500 YBP) is the Redtfeldt Mound (CA-KIN-66/H), located west of the current Project area, near the north shore of ancient Tulare Lake. There, Siefkin (1999) reported on human burials and a host of artifacts and ecofacts excavated from a modest -sized mound. He found that both Middle Horizon and Middle -Late Horizons transition occupations were more intensive than Late Horizon occupations, which were sporadic and less intensive (Siefkin 1999:110-111).

The Late Horizon can then be understood as a period of recovery from a major demographic collapse. One result is the development of regional archaeological cultures as the precursors to ethnographic Native California , suggesting that ethnographic life -ways recorded by anthropologists extend roughly 800 years into the past.

The position of southern San Joaquin Valley prehistory relative to patterns seen in surrounding areas is still somewhat unknown. The presence of large lake systems in the valley bottoms appears

2. Environmental and Cultural Background
10 Stonehaven Development Project
to have mediated some of the desiccation seen elsewhere. But, as the reconstruction of Soda Lake in the nearby Carrizo Plain demonstrates (see Whitley et al. 2007) , environmental perturbations had serious impacts on lake systems too. Identifying certain of the prehistoric demographic trends for the southern San Joaquin Valley and determining how these trends (if present) correlate with those seen elsewhere is a current important research objective.

2.4 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Spanish explorers first visited the San Joaquin Valley in 1772, but its lengthy distance from the missions and presidios along the Pacific Coast delayed permanent settlement for many years, including during the Mexican period of control over the Californian region. In the 1840s, Mexican rancho owners along the Pacific Coast allowed their cattle to wander and graze in the San Joaquin Valley (JRP Historical Consulting 2009). The Mexican government granted the first ranchos in the southern part of the San Joaquin Valley in the early 1840s, but these did not result in permanent settlement. It was not until the annexation of California in 1848 that the exploitation of the southern San Joaquin Valley began (Pacific Legacy 2006).

In the 1840s, Mexican rancho owners along the Pacific Coast allowed their cattle to wander and graze in the San Joaquin Valley (JRP Historical Consulting 2009). But t he Mexican government did not grant ranchos in the San Joaquin Valley until the early 1840s, and even then these did not result in significant permanent settlement. The Laguna de Tache Rancho was granted by Governor Pio Pico in 1846 to Manuel de Jesus Castro, a former captain in the Mexican army. The rancho extended for 26 mi. down the north bank of the Kings River from modern Kingsburg to approximately Riverdale. It was sometimes called the “River Ranch.” Castro’s ownership of the Laguna de Tache Rancho grant was confirmed by the U.S. Public Land Commission in 1866, at which point it was sold to Jeremiah Clark.

The discovery of gold in northern California in 1848 resulted in a dramatic increase of population, consisting in good part of fortune seekers and gold miners, who began to scour other parts of the state. After 1851, when gold was discovered in the Sierra Nevada Mountains in eastern Kern County, the population of the area grew rapidly. Some new immigrants began ranching in the San Joaquin Valley to supply the miners and mining towns. Ranchers grazed cattle and sheep, and farmers dry-farmed or used limited irrigation to grow grain crops, leading to the creation of small agricultural communities throughout the valley (JRP Historical Consulting 2009).

After the American annexation of California, the southern San Joaquin Valley became significant as a center of food production for this new influx of people in California. The expansive unfenced and principally public foothill spaces were well suited for grazing both sheep and cattle (Boyd 1997). As the Sierra Nevada gold rush presented extensive financial opportunit ies, ranchers introduced new breeds of livestock, consisting of cattle, sheep, and pigs (Boyd 1997).

With the increase of ranching in the southern San Joaquin came the dramatic change in the landscape, as non -native grasses more beneficial for grazing and pasture replaced native flora (Preston 1981). After the passing of the Arkansas Act in 1850, efforts were made to reclaim small tracts of land in order to create more usable spaces for ranching. Eventually, as farming supplanted

2. Environmental and Cultural Background
Stonehaven Development Project 11
ranching as a more profitable enterprise, large tracts of land began to be reclaimed for agricultural use, aided in part by the extension of the railroad in the 1870s (Pacific Legacy 2006).

Following the passage of statewide ‘No-Fence’ laws in 1874, ranching practices began to decline, while farming expanded in the San Joaquin Valley in both large land holdings and smaller, subdivided properties. As the farming population grew, so did the demand for irrigation. Settlers began reclamation of swampland in 1866, and built small dams across the Kern River to divert water into the fields. By 1880, 86 different groups were taking water from the Kern River. Ten years later, 15 major canals provided water to thousands of acres in Kern County.

During the period of reclaiming unproductive land in the southern San Joaquin Valley, grants were given to individuals who had both the resources and the finances to undertake the operation alone.

One small agricultural settlement, founded by Colonel Thomas Baker in 1861 after procuring one such grant, took advantage of reclaimed swampland along the Kern River. This settlement became the City of Bakersfield in 1869, and quickly became the center of activity in the southern San Joaquin Valley, and in the newly formed Kern County. Located on the main stage road through the San Joaquin Valley, the town became a primary market and transportation hub for stock and crops, as well as a popular stopping point for travelers on the Los Angeles and Stockton Road. The Southern Pacific Railroad (SPRR) reached the B akersfield area in 1873, connecting it with important market towns elsewhere in the state, dramatically impacting both agriculture and oil production (Pacific Legacy 2006).

Three competing partnerships developed during this period which had a great impact on control of water, land reclamation and ultimately agricultural development in the San Joaquin Valley:

Livermore and Chester, Haggin and Carr, and Miller and Lux, perhaps the most famous of the enterprises. Livermore and Chester were responsible, among other things, for developing the large Hollister plow ( 3 ft. wide by 2 ft. deep), pulled by a 40 -mule team, which was used for ditch digging. Haggin and Carr were largely responsible for reclaiming the beds of the Buena Vista and Kern lakes, and for creati ng the Calloway Canal, which drained through the Rosedale area in Bakersfield to Goose Lake (Morgan 1914). Miller and Lux ultimately became one of the biggest private property holders in the country, controlling the rights to over 22,000 square miles. Mill er and Lux’s impact extended beyond Kern County, however. They recognized early-on that control of water would have important economic implications, and they played a major role in the water development of the state. They controlled, for example, over 100 mi. of the San Joaquin River with the San Joaquin and Kings River Canal and Irrigation System. They were also embroiled for many years in litigation against Haggin and Carr over control of the water rights to the Kern River.

In 1877, what is now Kings County received its first SPRR stop in what would become the town of Hanford. This was named after James Madison Hanford, a rail executive, at what was originally a sheep camp. The rail -stop, with the SPRR tracks running east -west, quickly developed into a small community. A post office opened in 1887. That same year also marked the opening of Hanford’s and Kings County’s oldest business, the Lacey Milling Company. This was established by Horatio G. Lacey at the corner of West Fifth and Ridington Streets, acr oss the street from the original SPRR sidings, and thus at an important local trans -shipment point. The mill originally processed locally-grown wheat and other grains for flour and livestock feed. It transitioned over

2. Environmental and Cultural Background
12 Stonehaven Development Project
the decades so that, in 2016, it is now primarily producing flour for tortillas. It is still family owned and operated.

Due to a series of fires and the resulting need for fire protection, Hanford was incorporated in 1891. That same year H.G. Lacey built the first electrical generating plant in Hanford, providing electrical lights for the growing town. It was made the county seat when Kings County was separated from Tulare County in 1893. The town’s regional significance was emphasized a few years later, in 1897, when the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe rail company (now Burlington Northern and the Santa Fe) routed a second rail line north-south through Hanford.

Armona developed as a small agricultural community and rail stop at about this same time. John Yoakum laid out the town along the rail tracks for the Pacific Improvement Company in 1877, where a rail switch called “Armona” was located. Within a decade a small town had developed and was officially named Armona when the post office opened in 1887. MacGregor’s Hotel and Samuel Young’s Blacksmith Shop were two of the early prominent commercial concerns (Roberts 2008).

The San Joaquin Valley in general was dominated by agricultural pursuits until the oil boom of the early 1900s, which saw a shift in the region, as some reclaimed lands previously used for farming were leased to oil companies. Nonetheless, the shift of the San Joaquin Valley towards oil production did not halt the continued growth of agriculture (Pacific Legacy 2006). The Great Depression of the 1930s brought with it the arrival of great number of migrants from the drought- affected Dust Bowl region, looking for agricultural labor. These migrants established temporary camps in the valley, staying on long past the end of the drought and the Great Depression, eventually settling in local towns where their descendants live today (Boyd 1997). Hanford developed during the twentieth century as a governmental, market and services town closely tied to the agricultural development of the San Joaquin Valley.

3. Archival Records Search and Tribal Correspondence
Stonehaven Development Project 13

3. ARCHIVAL RECORDS SEARCH AND TRIBAL

CORRESPONDENCE

3.1 ARCHIVAL RECORDS SEARCH
The project began with an archival records search conducted by the staff of the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (IC), California State University Bakersfield, on February 14, 2023. The records search was completed to determine: (i) if prehistoric or historical archaeological sites had previously been recorded within the Project area; (ii) if the project area had been systematically surveyed by archaeologists prior to the initiation of this field study; and/or (iii) whether the general area within which the project lies was known to contain a rchaeological sites and to thereby be archaeologically sensitive. Records examined included archaeological site files and maps, the NRHP, Historic Property Data File, California Inventory of Historic Resources, and the California Points of Historic Interest.

According to the IC records search (Confidential Appendix A), no studies have previously been conducted within Project area, and no cultural resources of any kind are known to exist within it.

Eight previous studies have been conducted within 0.5- mi of the Project area (Table 1) and two cultural resources were recorded within the search radius (Table 2).

Table 1. Survey Reports within 0.5-Mile of the Project Area

Report No Year Author (s)/Affiliation Title
KI-00028 1995
Hatoff, Brian, Voss, Barb,
Waechter, Sharon, Benté, Vance,
and Wee, Stephen / Woodward-
Clyde Consultants
Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion Project
KI-00042 1981 O’Connor, Denise and Clayton,
A.B. / Caltrans
Archaeological Survey Report for an Interchange at 12th Avenue on Route 198, Kings County 06-KIN- 198,
R16.4/R17.4 06100-178200
KI-00192 2007
Lanner, David and Wohlgemuth,
Eric / Far Western
Anthropological Research Group,
Inc.

Archaeological Survey Report for the 12th Avenue
Interchange on State Route 198, Hanford, Kings County,
California
KI-00203 2011 Parr, Robert E. / Cal Heritage
Cultural Resource Assessment for the Replacement of Three Deteriorated Power Poles on the Southern California Edison Company Round Valley, Delta, and Lemoore 12kV Circuits, Kings and Tulare Counties, California.

KI-00310 2017 Jones, Jessica / Applied
EarthWorks, Inc.

Cultural Resources Contstraints Report Kingsburg -Lemoore Reconductor, Kings County, California
KI-00320 2018 Hudlow, Scott M. / Hudlow
Cultural Resource Associates
Phase I Cultural Resource Survey For Self -Help Enterprises, Hanford-Single Family Infill City of Hanford, California KI-00327 2019 Whitley, David S. and Azpitarte,
Robert / ASM Affiliates, Inc.

Phase I Survey/Class III Inventory, Armona CSD Water Meter Project, Armona, Kings County, California
KI-00338 2019 Hudlow, Scott M. / Hudlow
Cultural Resource Associates
A Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for Holloway
Construction Hanford, Kings County, California

3. Archival Records Search and Tribal Correspondence
14 Stonehaven Development Project
Table 2. Resources within 0.5-Mile of the Project Area

Primary # Type Description
P-16-000128 Structure Last Chance Ditch
P-16-000310 Other Isolate basalt flake

Historical maps that included the Project area were consulted to identify potential historical structures or resources. According to USGS topographic quadrangles, historical aerials, and Google Earth imagery, the Project area has undergone minimal development since at least the early twentieth century. The 1926 USGS Hanford 1:31,680 topographical quadrangle shows both a dirt road on the eastern Project boundary and one unknown structure on the south side of the Project area. Also in place by this time is Last Chance Ditch, appearing outside of the Project area to the west. The 1954 (HTMC, 1957 ed.) USGS Hanford 1:24,000 topographical quadrangle shows no changes to existing development in the immediate area . Historic aerials suggest that an unknown structure – at the location of an existing home on the northeast corner of the Project area - was in place by 1980; however, no historic components were observed during the current study. No additional development appears within the Project area.

3.2 TRIBAL CORRESPONDENCE
An SLF search from the NAHC was received in February 2023. The search was negative for sacred sites and tribal cultural resources. ASM sent outreach letters to the tribes provided on the NAHC contact list on February 16, 2023, with follow-up emails sent to the tribes on 17 March 2023. The only response received to date was from the Santa Rosa Indian Community of the Santa Rosa Rancheria and who requested the following:

• The results of the archaeological survey;
• To be retained for a Cultural Presentation;
• To have a monitor onsite for all ground disturbance related to the project; • To have a Burial Treatment Plan put in place; and,
• To have a Curation Agreement put in place.

4. Methods and Results
Stonehaven Development Project 15

4. METHODS AND RESULTS

4.1 FIELD METHODS
An intensive Phase I cultural resources survey for the Project study area was conducted by ASM Archaeologist Maria Silva, B.A . The Project area was examined by walking parallel transects spaced 15 meters (m) apart. The survey was conducted on 15 February, 2023.

The field methods employed included intensive pedestrian examination of the ground surfa ce for evidence of archaeological sites in the form of artifacts, surface features ( e.g., bedrock mortars, historical mining equipment), and archaeological indicators (e.g., organically enriched midden soil, burnt animal bone). Special attention was paid to any exposed ground surface areas, rodent burrow spoils piles, cut-banks, cleared edges of disturbed areas, and other spots with better ground surface visibility. The survey methodology was designed to include the identification and location of any discovered sites, should they have been present; tabulation and recording of surface diagnostic artifacts; site sketch mapping; preliminary evaluation of site integrity; and site recording, following the California Office of Historic Preservation Instructions for Recording Historic Resources, using DPR 523 forms.

4.2 SURVEY RESULTS
The approximately 12-ac Project area consists mostly of undeveloped land that previously served as an agricultural field (Figure 2). The Project study area is bordered and bisected by multiple dirt roads (Figure 3). An existing and occupied residential property at the northeast corner of the property also accommodates contemporary farming features (i.e., wind break, dilapidated corral).

Surface visibility within the Project area was excellent for Phase I survey. Soils consist of brown alluvium with dispersed Quaternary deposits.

No cultural resources were identified within the study area as a result of the intensive pedestrian survey.

4. Methods and Results
16 Stonehaven Development Project

Figure 2. Overview of Project area, looking southeast.

Figure 3. Overview of Project area showing dirt road on the east boundary, looking north.

5. Summary and Recommendations
Stonehaven Development Project 17

5. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
An intensive Phase I cultural resources survey was conducted for the Stonehaven Development Project, Kings County, California. A records search conducted by staff at the SSJVIC, California State University, Bakersfield in February 2023. The record search indicated that the study area had not been previously surveyed and that no cultural resources had been previously documented within it.

The intensive Phase I pedestrian survey was conducted on 15 February 2023, with parallel transects spaced at 15-m intervals walked across the entire study area. No cultural resources were identified within the study area.

5.1 RECOMMENDATIONS
No cultural resources of any kind were identified during a Phase I study of the study area. The proposed Stonehaven Development Project therefore does not have the potential to result in adverse impacts to know historical properties.

The Santa Rosa Rancheria – Tachi Yokuts, however, consider the study area to be potentially sensitive. The Santa Rosa Rancheria – Tachi Yokuts request the following:

• The results of the archaeological survey;
• To be retained for a Cultural Presentation;
• To have a monitor onsite for all ground disturbance related to the project; • To have a Burial Treatment Plan put in place; and,
• To have a Curation Agreement put in place.

No further archaeological work is recommended for the Project study area. It is further recommended that an archaeologist be contacted in the unlikely event that cultural resources are uncovered during the development or use of the property, to evaluate the discovery.

References
Stonehaven Development Project 19

REFERENCES
Boyd, W.H.
1997 Lower Kern River Country 1850- 1950: Wilderness to Empire . Kings River Press , Lemoore.

CEQANET
2021 State Clearinghouse Filings for Carleton Acres Specific Plan. Available online at:
https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2021050418; accessed November 15, 2021.

Cook, S.F.
1978 Historical Demography. In California, edited by R.F. Heizer, pp. 91-98. Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8. Smithsonian Institute, Washington, D.C.

Culleton, Brendan J.
2006 Implications of a freshwater radiocarbon reservoir correction for the timing of the late Holocene settlement of the Elk Hills, Kern County, California . Journal of Science 33:1331-1339.

Driver, H.E.
1937 Cultural Element Distributions: VI, Southern Sierra Nevada. University of California Anthropological Records 1(2):53-154. Berkeley

Elsasser, A.
1962 Indians of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks . Sequoia Natural History Association, Three Rivers.

Fenenga, F.
1952 The Archaeology of the Slick Rock Village, Tulare County, California. American Antiquity 17:339-347.

Fenenga, G.
1993 Test Excavations at the Witt Site (CA -KIN-32). In Finding the Evidence : The Quest for Tulare Lake’s Archaeological Past, edited by W.J. Wallace and F.A. Riddell, pp. 25-38. Contributions to Tulare Lake Archaeology II. Tulare Lake Archaeological Research Group, Redondo Beach.

Fredrickson, D.A., and J. Grossman
1977 A San Dieguito Component at Buena Vista Lake, California. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 4:173-190.

Gayton, A.H.
1930 Yokuts- Mono Chiefs and Shamans. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 24:361-420. Berkeley.

References
20 Stonehaven Development Project
1948 Yokuts and Western Mono Ethnography. University of California Anthropological Records 10:1-290. Berkeley.

Gifford, E.W., and W.E. Schenck
1926 Archaeology of the Southern San Joaquin Valley. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 23(1):1-122.

Glennan, W.S.
1987a Concave- Based Lanceolate Fluted Projectile Points from California. Prehistory of the Antelope Valley, California: An Overview, edited by R.W. Robinson. Antelope Valley Archaeological Society, Occasional Papers No. 1: 21-24. 1987b Evidence for Paleoeastern Culture Type in the Southwestern Great Basin. Prehistory of the Antelope Valley, California: An Overview, edited by R.W. Robinson. Antelope Valley Archaeological Society, Occasional Papers No. 1:11-20.

Harrington, John Peabody
n.d. Yokuts ethnographic notes. National Anthropological Archives.

Hewes, G.
1941 Archaeological reconnaissance of the central San Joaquin Valley. American Antiquity 7:123-133.

Horne, S.P.
1981 The Inland Chumash: Ethnography, Ethnohistory and Archaeology. Ph.D. dissertation, UCSB. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.

Jones, T.L., G.M. Brown, L.M. Raab, J.L. McVickar, W.G. Spaulding. D.J. Kennett, A. York, and P.L. Walker
1999 Demographic Crisis in Western North America during the Medieval Climatic Anomaly. Current Anthropology 40:137-170.

JRP Historical Consulting
2009 North Kern Water Storage District, Lateral Canal 8- 1: Inventory and Evaluations, Kern County, California. Prepared for North Kern Water Storage District.

King, C., C. Smith, and T. King
n.d. Archaeological Report Related to the Interpretation of Archaeological Resources Present at the Vasquez Rocks County Park. Report on file, SCCIC.

Kroeber, A.L.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 78 .

Washington, D.C.

Latta, F.F.
1977 Handbook of the Yokuts Indians. Bear State Books, Santa Cruz.

References
Stonehaven Development Project 21
Meyer, J., D. Craig Young, and Jeffrey S. Rosenthal
2010 Volume I: A Geoarchaeological Overview and Assessment of Caltrans Districts 6 and 9. Submitted to California Department of Transportation.

Moratto, M.
1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.

Morgan, W.A.
1914 History of Kern County, California with Biographical Sketches . Historic Record Company, Los Angeles.

Pacific Legacy, Inc.
2006 Southern San Joaquin Valley Oil Fields Comprehensive Study . Manuscript on file, BLM Bakersfield office.

Powers, Stephen
1971 The Yokuts Dance for the Dead. In The California Indians: A Source Book (second edition), edited by R.F. Heizer and M.A. Whipple, pp. 513-519. University of California Press, Berkeley (original 1877).
1976 Tribes of California. University of California Press, Berkeley (original 1877).

Preston, William L.
1981 Vanishing Landscapes: Land and Life in the Tulare Lake Basin. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Roberts, Robin M.
2008 Images of America: Kings County . Arcadia Publishing Library Editions, South Carolina.

Rosenthal, J.S., G.G. White, and M.Q. Sutton
2007 The Central Valley: A view from the catbird’s seat. In California Prehistory:

Colonization, Culture, and Complexity , edited by T.L. Jones and K.A. Klar, pp. 147- 163. AltaMira Press.

Schiffman, R.A., and A.P. Garfinkel
1981 Prehistory of Kern County: An Overview. Bakersfield College Publications in Archaeology, Number 1.

Schoenherr, A.A.
1992 A Natural History of California. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Siefkin, Nelson
1999 Archaeology of the Redfeldt Mound (CA -KIN-66), Tulare Basin, California. M.A. thesis, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, California State University, Bakersfield.

References
22 Stonehaven Development Project
Sutton, M.Q.
1988a An Introduction to the Archaeology of the Western Mojave Desert, California. Archives of California Prehistory, No. 14. Coyote Press, Salinas. 1988b On the Late Prehistory of the Western Mojave Desert. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 24(1):22-29.
2009 People and Language: Defining the Takic Expansion into the Southern California.

Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 40(2, 3):31-73.

W&S Consultants
1994 Phase II Test Excavations and Determinations of Significance at CA-LAN-2133, -2233, -2234, -2235, -2236, -2240, - 2241 and -2242, Los Angeles County, California.

Manuscript on file, SCCIC.
1999 Class III Inventory/Limited Archaeological Testing Program for the Ducor Telephone Project, Kennedy Meadows, Tulare County, California. Manuscript on file, SCCIC. 2004 Class II Inventory of the Carrizo Plain National Monument, San Luis Obispo County, California. Report on file, BLM Bakersfield office.
2006 Phase II Test Excavations and Determinations of Significance for the Tejon Mountain Village Project, Kern County, California. Report on file, Tejon Ranch Company.

Wedel, W.
1941 Archaeological Investigations at Buena Vista Lake, Kern County, California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 130.

Whitley, D.S.
1992 Shamanism and Rock Art in Far Western North America. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 2(1):89-113.
2000 The Art of the Shaman: Rock Art of California. University of Utah Press , Salt Lake City.

Whitley, D.S., and M.P. Beaudry
1991 Chiefs on the Coast: The Development of Complex Society in the Tiquisate Region in Ethnographic Perspective. The Development of Complex Civilizations in Southeastern Mesoamerica, edited by W. Fowler, pp. 101-120. CRC Press, Orlando.

Whitley, D.S., G. Gumerman IV, J. Simon, and E. Rose
1988 The Late Prehistoric Period in the Coso Range and Environs. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 24(1):2-10.

Whitley, D.S., J. Simon, and J.H.N. Loubser
2007 The Carrizo Collapse: Art and Politics in the Past. In A Festschrift Honoring the Contributions of California Archaeologist Jay von Werlhof, edited by R.L. Kaldenberg, pp. 199-208. Maturango Museum Publication 20, Ridgecrest.

Zimmerman, K.L., C.L. Pruett, and M.Q. Sutton
1989 A Clovis-Like Projectile Point from the Southern Sierra Nevada. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 11:89-91.

Appendices
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 D-1
Appendix D: Design Plans

11 1
15 14
10 29
8 23
28 32
12 27
16 34
33 9
17 26
2 30
7 4
25 31
5 24
50 43
35 36 37
49 44
38 45
39 46
40 47
41 48
42 52
65 5451
5966
58 60
57 61
56 62
55 63
8180797877767574737271706967
53 64
22 181921
68 82
3 6
20 13
SECTION 1 - MINOR COLLECTOR SECTION

NOT TO SCALE
12'

CMU BLOCK WALL

LANDSCAPING EASEMENT
9' 20'
46'
4'-6" 6"
5'
PL /
ROW
PER CITY STD ST-26

NOT TO SCALE
7' - 6"4' - 6"
60'
12'1818'
6"
SECTION 2 - TYPICAL RESIDENTIAL SECTION
PL PL
PER CITY STD ST-23
LICENSE NO:

DESIGN ENGINEER:

SHEET
DATE:

JOB NO:

DRAFTED BY: CHECKED BY:

OF

ORIGINAL SCALE SHOWN IS ONE
INCH. ADJUST SCALE FOR
REDUCED OR ENLARGED PLANS.
01"
PHASE:

PROJECT NO:

STONEHAVEN

TENTATIVE SUBDIVISON MAP

DR HORTON HOMES

HANFORD, CA
TTM

COVER SHEET

ADAM OJEDA
C79842
NJLAAO
5/9/2023
159422003
159422003
TTM1
1 2
5/11/2023 1:28 PM G:\DR Horton - 1594\159422003-Stonehaven\300 CAD\340 Sheet Sets\08_TTM\TTM1 COVER SHEET.dwg -Nic Lowell 030 60120

SCALE IN FEET

SITE MAP
1" = 60'

VICINITY MAP

NOT TO SCALE

PROJECT LOCATION

HOUSTON AVENUE
198

HANFORD
13TH AVENUE
12TH AVENUE

HANFOR ARMONA RD
DATENo. REVISION BY
COPYRIGHT 2022 by PROVOST & PRITCHARD ENGINEERING
GROUP, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
The firm of Provost & Pritchard Engineering Group, Inc. expressly reserves its common law copyright and other applicable property rights in these plans. These plans are not to be reproduced, changed, or copied in any form or manner whatsoever, nor are they to be assigned to a third party without first obtaining the written permission and consent of Provost & Pritchard Engineering Group, Inc. In the event of unauthorized reuse of these plans by a third party, the third party shall hold the firm of Provost & Pritchard Engineering Group, Inc. harmless, and shall bear the cost of Provost & Pritchard Engineering Group, Inc.'s legal fees associated with defending and enforcing these rights.

FORREVIEW
ONLY
455 W FIR AVENUE
CLOVIS, CALIFORNIA 93611
559/449-2700 FAX 559/449-2715
https://provostandpritchard.com/

PROPERTY DIVISION CERTIFICATE
"I HEREBY APPLY FOR APPROVAL OF THE DIVISION OF THE REAL PROPERTY

SHOWN IN THIS PLAT AND CERTIFY THAT I AM THE LEGAL OWNER (OR AUTHORIZED

AGENT OF THE LEGAL OWNER) OF THE PROPERTY AND THAT THE INFORMATION

SHOWN HEREON IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF".

SIGNATURE

ADDRESS

CAPACITY

GENERAL NOTES
·APN: 011-040-030
·SITE AREA: 12.17 AC
·SITE DRAINAGE: COLLECTED IN BILLINGSLEY BASIN VIA CURB INLETS ·TRASH COLLECTION: CITY OF HANFORD
·SEWERAGE: CITY OF HANFORD
·WATER: CITY OF HANFORD
·NATURAL GAS: THE GAS COMPANY
·TELEPHONE: SBC
·POWER: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
·CABLE TV: CHARTER
·FIRE PROTECTION: CITY OF HANFORD FIRE DEPARTMENT
·FLOOD ZONE: X
·ZONING SETBACKS FOR R-L-5:

FRONT: 12 FEET FOR LIVING SPACE, AND 18 FEET FOR GARAGES CORNER: 10 FEET
REAR:10 FEET TO FIRST STORY; 15 FEET TO UPPER STORIES
INTERIOR SIDE: 5 FEET

FLOOD ZONE INFORMATION

AS SHOWN ON THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY'S
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP, PANEL NUMBER 06031C0195C, FOR COMMUNITY NO. 060086, KINGS COUNTY UNINCORPORATED AREAS, EFFECTIVE JUNE 16, 2009. THE PROPERTY LIES IN THE ZONE X AREA (UNSHADED).

BASIS OF BEARING
THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 3 - 19/21, M.D.B.&M., TAKEN AS SOUTH 89°24'13" EAST, AS MEASURED BY RTK GPS OBSERVATIONS TIED TO LEICA SMARTNET REAL TIME NETWORK.

LEGAL DESCRIPTION
THE SOUTH 11.81 ACRES OF THE WEST 25.08 ACRES OF THE
NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 19 SOUTH, RANGE 21 EAST, MOUNT DIABLO BASE AND MERIDIAN.

PROJECT BENCHMARK
CITY OF HANFORD BENCHMARK #173, A BRASS CAP 1 FOOT EAST OF EAST

CURB RETURN AT SOUTHEAST RETURN OF THE INTERSECTION OF
HANFORD-ARMONA ROAD AND GREENBRIER DRIVE.

ELEVATION = 230.476' CITY OF HANFORD DATUM (2021)

SUBDIVIDER STATEMENT
·GENERAL PLAN: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
·CURRENT ZONING: AE-20 (KINGS COUNTY TO BE ANNEXED INTO HANFORD) ·PROPOSED ZONING: R-L-5
·EXISTING USE: AGRICULTURE
·PROPOSED USE: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
·TOTAL LOTS: 82
·LOT AREA: 3,600 MIN/ 7,330 MAX
·DENSITY: 6.73 UNITS/GROSS AC
·STREET LIGHTING TO BE INSTALLED PER CITY OF HANFORD STANDARDS ·GROSS AREA: 12.17 ACRES.

SURVEY NOTES
·TOPOGRAPHY SHOWN WAS COLLECTED BY PROVOST & PRITCHARD

CONSULTING GROUP DURING A FIELD SURVEY CONDUCTED IN
OCTOBER OF 2021.
·THE HISTORIC DEEDS FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND OTHER
PROPERTIES IN THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 3, T. 19 S., R. 21 E., M.D.B.&M., HAVE USED ACREAGE AND

DIMENSION TOGETHER AND INTERCHANGEABLY FOR THE
DESCRIPTION OF THE DIVISIONS OF THIS 1/4-1/4 SECTION, WITH

DIMENSIONS APPEARING TO ALIGN WITH USE AND OCCUPATION AND

REMAINING CONSISTENT IN DEEDS AND EASEMENTS BY AND BETWEEN

THE LANDOWNERS, WHILE ACREAGE OF PARCELS IN LEGAL
DESCRIPTIONS APPEAR TO BE APPROXIMATE ONLY.

DR HORTON HOMES

HANFORD, CA

STONEHAVEN

TENTATIVE SUBDIVISON MAP
1 TTM1
2 TTM1

W SPRING CREST DRIVE
3RD STREET
2ND STREET
1ST STREET

A STREET

B STREET

C STREET

OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE

IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR
T
W
EW
E
T
WE
E
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
W
WW
W
W
W
W
W
W
W

W W W W W W

SS SS SS SS SS SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
W
W
W
W
W
W

W W W W W W

SS SS SS SS SS SS

SD SD SD SD
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
W
W
W
W
WW
D
D

W W W W
W

W W W W
W

W W W W W W W W W
D
D
D
D
D
D
68 3,682 SF
82 4,426 SF

41.66'
707.68'

90.33'

40.00'

40.00'
750.35'

40.00'

40.00'

50.00'

40.00'

40.00'

40.00'

40.00'

40.00'

40.00'

40.00'

40.00'

40.00'

40.00'

30.00'
R=20'

70.17'

25.00'

25.00'
R=20'

63.00'63.00'
R=20'

25.00'

25.00'
R=20'

63.00' 63.00' R=20'

83.00' 83.00'

45.00'

43.50'

43.50'

43.50'

43.50'

43.50'

43.50'

45.00'

83.00' 83.00'

83.00' 83.00'

83.00' 83.00'

83.00' 83.00'

83.00' 83.00'

83.00' 83.00'
R=20'

25.00'

25.00'
R=20'

63.00' 63.00' R=20'

25.00'

25.00'
R=20'

63.00'63.00'

83.00' 83.00'

45.00'

43.50'

43.50'

43.50'

43.50'

43.50'

43.50'

45.00'

83.00' 83.00'

83.00' 83.00'

83.00' 83.00'

83.00' 83.00'

83.00' 83.00'

83.00' 83.00'
R=52'
L=30.00'
L=32.24'
L=30.00'
L=16.90'

25.67' 42.20' 42.20' 42.20' 42.20' 42.20' 42.20' 42.20' 25.54' R=20'

50.33'
R=20'

25.54'

90.33'

90.33'

90.33'

42.40'62.09'78.41'R=20'

95.97'

50.75'

90.33'90.33'90.33'90.33'90.33'90.33'90.33'83.33'109.46'

42.10'

44.28'

66.67'

76.38'

93.57'

90.33'90.33'90.33'90.33'90.33'90.33'90.33'

90.33'

90.33' 90.33'90.33'90.33'90.33'90.33'90.33'90.33'

70.33'
R=20'

25.00'40.00'40.00'40.00'

93.57'

88.24'88.68'

40.00'
129.11'

40.00'40.00'40.00'40.00'

1.61'
L=23.34'
L=30.00'
R=52'
L=30.00'
L=30.00'
L=9.53'
L=23.34'

85.55'
129.11'

88.68'

11.61'

90.27'

42.93'

42.80'

42.60'

42.50'

42.35'

42.20'

82.21'

33.24'
L=14.45'
L=25.14'

89.14'

88.85'

89.43'

89.71'

90.00'

90.29'

90.57'
81 3,616 SF
80 3,621 SF
79 3,626 SF
78 3,631 SF
77 3,636 SF
76 3,641 SF
75 3,646 SF
74 3,651 SF
73 3,656 SF
72 3,662 SF
71 3,667 SF
70 3,672 SF
69 3,677 SF
67 3,840 SF

92.25'

42.00'

90.45'

90.58'

90.71'

90.84'

90.97'

91.09'

91.22'

91.35'

91.48'

91.60'

91.73'

91.86'

91.99'

92.12'
11 6,888 SF
1 3,942 SF
15 3,816 SF
14 3,817 SF
10 4,240 SF
29 3,613 SF
8 3,812 SF
23 7,330 SF
28 3,613 SF
32 3,613 SF
12 6,032 SF
27 3,613 SF
16 3,818 SF
34 3,979 SF
33 3,613 SF
9 3,818 SF
17 3,819 SF
26 3,613 SF
2 3,812 SF
30 3,613 SF
7 3,812 SF
4 3,812 SF
25 3,659 SF
31 3,613 SF
5 3,812 SF
24 5,179 SF
50 3,649 SF
43 3,649 SF
35 3,649 SF
36 3,611 SF
37 3,610 SF
49 3,611 SF
44 3,611 SF
38 3,610 SF
45 3,610 SF
39 3,610 SF
46 3,610 SF
40 3,611 SF
47 3,611 SF
41 3,610 SF
48 3,611 SF
42 3,649 SF
52 3,610 SF
65 3,611 SF
54 3,611 SF
51 3,649 SF
59 3,649 SF66
3,649 SF
58 3,649 SF
60 3,610 SF
57 3,611 SF
61 3,611 SF
56 3,610 SF
62 3,611 SF
55 3,610 SF
63 3,611 SF
53 3,610 SF
64 3,611 SF
L=6.44'

45.00'
22 4,025 SF
18 3,816 SF
19 3,821 SF
21 3,822 SF
L=17.85'

88.07'44.51'
3 3,812 SF
6 3,812 SF
20 3,820 SF
13 3,853 SF
262728293031323334353637
D
LICENSE NO:

DESIGN ENGINEER:

SHEET
DATE:

JOB NO:

DRAFTED BY: CHECKED BY:

OF

ORIGINAL SCALE SHOWN IS ONE
INCH. ADJUST SCALE FOR
REDUCED OR ENLARGED PLANS.
01"
PHASE:

PROJECT NO:

STONEHAVEN

TENTATIVE SUBDIVISON MAP

DR HORTON HOMES

HANFORD, CA
TTM

TENTATIVE TRACT MAP

ADAM OJEDA
C79842
NJLAAO
5/9/2023
159422003
159422003
TTM2
2 2
5/12/2023 7:47 AM G:\DR Horton - 1594\159422003-Stonehaven\300 CAD\340 Sheet Sets\08_TTM\TTM2 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP.dwg -Nic Lowell 020 4080

SCALE IN FEET
DATENo. REVISION BY
COPYRIGHT 2022 by PROVOST & PRITCHARD ENGINEERING
GROUP, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
The firm of Provost & Pritchard Engineering Group, Inc. expressly reserves its common law copyright and other applicable property rights in these plans. These plans are not to be reproduced, changed, or copied in any form or manner whatsoever, nor are they to be assigned to a third party without first obtaining the written permission and consent of Provost & Pritchard Engineering Group, Inc. In the event of unauthorized reuse of these plans by a third party, the third party shall hold the firm of Provost & Pritchard Engineering Group, Inc. harmless, and shall bear the cost of Provost & Pritchard Engineering Group, Inc.'s legal fees associated with defending and enforcing these rights.

FORREVIEW
ONLY
455 W FIR AVENUE
CLOVIS, CALIFORNIA 93611
559/449-2700 FAX 559/449-2715
https://provostandpritchard.com/

W SPRING CREST DRIVE
3RD STREET
2ND STREET
1ST STREET

B STREET

C STREET

A STREET
TTM1
1 TTM1
2 TTM1
1 TTM1
2 TTM1
2 60'
30' 30' 60'
30' 30'
60'
30' 30'
60'
30'
30'
60'
30'
30'
56'
22'
34'
56'
34'22'
6' P.U.E.
6' P.U.E.
6' P.U.E.
6' P.U.E.
6' P.U.E.
5' L.S.E.
5' L.S.E.
5' L.S.E.

B. 505, P262 O.R.

APN: 011-040-004

BILLINGSLEY RANCH SUBDIVISION

BILLINGSLEY BOULEVARD

EXISTING IRRIGATION LINES,

WELLS, AND OVERHEAD
ELECTRICAL TO BE REMOVED.

EASEMENT TO BE VACATED.
6' P.U.E.
6' P.U.E.
6' P.U.E.

NO DIRECT ACCESS TO

LOT FROM SIDE YARD

Appendices
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 E-1
Appendix E: VMT Memo

400 E. Main Street, Suite 300
Visalia, CA 93291-6337
Tel: (559) 636-1166
Fax: (559) 636-1177
www.provostandpritchard.com

G:\DR Horton - 1594\159422003-Stonehaven\200 Technical\215 Env Planning\Appendices\VMT Memo\Stonehaven VMT Analysis.docx

Engineering  Surveying  Structural  Geostructural  Planning  Environmental  GIS  Construction Services  Hydrogeology  Consulting Clovis  Bakersfield  Visalia  Modesto  Los Banos  Chico  Sacramento  Sonora  San Luis Obispo  Boise, Idaho

April 5, 2023

Matthew Chavez
DR Horton
419 West Murray Avenue
Visalia, CA 93291

RE: Stonehaven Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Assessment

Dear Mr. Chavez,

The following Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) Assessment has been prepared for the Stonehaven single-family residential development located south of the south side of Hanford - Armona Road between 12th and 13th Avenues– Assessor’s Parcel Number 011-040-030.

BACKGROUND
In December 2018, modifications to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines were adopted by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), which requires all lead agencies to adopt VMT as a replacement for automobile delay -based level of service (LOS) as the new measure for identifying transportation impacts for land use projects. This statewide mandate, enacted by the State Legislature through Senate Bill 743, took effect July 1, 2020.

This analysis relies on the City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines , adopted on December 20, 2022 . If the guidelines do not apply, the analysis will rely on information prepared by OPR as part of their December 2018 publication e ntitled Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (Technical Advisory), which provides guidance for evaluating transportation impacts based on VMT.1

PROJECT SCREENING
The City of Hanford guidelines provide details on appropriate “screening thresholds” that can be used to identify when a proposed land use project is anticipated to result in a less -than- significant impact without conducting a more detailed VMT analysis. Screening thresholds include:

1. Residential and office projects within a Transit Priority Area

2. Locally serving retail projects up to 55,000 square feet

3. Residential, office, or mixed‐use projects within low‐VMT generating areas

4. 100 percent affordable housing projects

5. Projects that are consistent with the City’s General Plan and generating fewer than 1,000 daily trips.

6. Projects that are inconsistent with the City’s General Plan and generating fewer than 500 daily trips.

1 (Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) December 2018)

DR Horton April 5, 2023
Stonehaven Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Assessment Page 2 of 3 Job No.: 1594-22-003
G:\DR Horton - 1594\159422003-Stonehaven\200 Technical\215 Env Planning\Appendices\VMT Memo\Stonehaven VMT Analysis.docx A land use project need only meet one of the above screening thresholds to result in a less than significant impact.

1. Transit Priority Area Screening
The City of Hanford identified the Transit Priority Area as illustrated on Attachment A. The project is not located within the Transit Priority Area.

Transit Priority Area screening threshold is not met.

2. Retail Screening
As the project is residential, this screening is not applicable.

Retail screening threshold is not met.

3. Low VMT-generating Area Screening
The City of Hanford identified the Low VMT-generating Area as illustrated on Attachment A. The project is located within the Low VMT-generating Area.

Low VMT-generating Area screening threshold is met.

4. Affordable Housing Screening
The Technical Advisory asserts that “a project consisting of a high percentage of affordable housing may be a basis for the lead agency to find a less -than-significant impact on VMT.

Evidence supports a presumption of less than significant impact for a 100 percent affordable residential develop ment (or the residential component of a mixed -use development) in infill locations. Lead agencies may develop their own presumption of less than significant impact for residential projects (or residential portions of mixed-use projects) containing a particular amount of affordable housing, based on local circumstances and evidence.”

The Project would not meet Affordable Housing screening as the Project does not provide 100 percent affordable housing in an infill area.

Affordable Housing screening threshold is not met.

5. Trip Generation Screening
The project proposes 79 single-family dwelling units. Per trip generation rates taken from the Institute of Traffic Engineer’s Trip Generation, 11th Edition (9.30 average daily trips per dwelling unit), the project i s expected to generate 745 daily trips. As the project is consistent with the City’s General Plan, this trip generation is under the 1,000 daily trip threshold.

Trip Generation screening threshold is met.

CONCLUSION
Two of the five screening criteria were met, specifically No. 3 – Low VMT-generating Area and No. 5 – Trip Generation Screening . Because of this, the project is eligible to be screened out

DR Horton April 5, 2023
Stonehaven Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Assessment Page 3 of 3 Job No.: 1594-22-003
G:\DR Horton - 1594\159422003-Stonehaven\200 Technical\215 Env Planning\Appendices\VMT Memo\Stonehaven VMT Analysis.docx based on City of Hanford guidelines, would result in a less than signi ficant impact, and no further VMT analysis or potential mitigation measures are necessary.

Respectfully,

Jarred Olsen, AICP
Associate Planner
jo

Attachments: One

13 Figure 4: VMT per Capita Screening Map for City of Hanford

RESPONSE TO EARLY CONSULTATION
Early Consultation

Early consultation to agencies outside of the City of Hanford (pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15082) was conducted for the project.

Early consultation was received from:
• Pacific Gas and Electric Company – Received July 27, 2023, July 28, 2023 • AT&T – Received July 28, 2023
• Hanford Joint Union High School District – Received July 31, 2023 • Southern California Edison – Received July 31, 2023
• Department of Transportation, Caltrans – August 7, 2023

Responses to comments are as follows:

1. PG&E – Not in PG&E territory. Not applicable.

2. AT&T – Improvement plans will be submitted as required during the Final Map / Improvement Plan processing stage

3. HJUHSD – SB 50 (codified as GC 65996) provides that, despite CEQA, the payment of school development impact fees as the exclusive method “of considering and mitigating impacts on school facilities that occur or might occur as a result of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, by any state or local agency involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property or any change of governmental organization or reorganization”. As the Project would be required to pay development impact fees at time of building permit issuance or certificate of occupancy, the Project’s impact to schools is less than significant. This was stated as such in the IS/MND, thus no changes are necessary.

4. SCE – Standard requirements, no response required

5. CalTrans - The project is in a low VMT zone; no mitigation is warranted. Project will pay all applicable development impact fees as required by the City.

Plan Review Team
Land Management
[email protected]

PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 1
Public
July 27, 2023

Gabrielle Myers
City of Hanford
317 N Douty Street
Hanford, CA 93230

Ref: Gas and Electric Transmission and Distribution

Dear Gabrielle Myers,

Thank you for submitting the ANX0001-23 plans for our review. PG&E will review the submitted plans in relationship to any existing Gas and Electric facilities within the project area. If the proposed project is adjacent/or within PG&E owned property and/or easements, we will be working with you to ensure compatible uses and activities near our facilities.

Attached you will find information and requirements as it relates to Gas facilities (Attachment 1) and Electric facilities (Attachment 2). Please review these in detail, as it is critical to ensure your safety and to protect PG&E’s facilities and its existing rights.

Below is additional information for your review:

1. T his plan review process does not replace the application process for PG&E gas or electric service your project may require. For these requests, please continue to work with PG&E Service Planning: https://www.pge.com/en_US/business/services/building- and-renovation/overview/overview.page.

2. If the project being submitted is part of a larger project, please include the entire scope of your project, and not just a portion of it. PG&E’s facilities are to be incorporated within any CEQA document. PG&E needs to verify that the CEQA document will identify any required future PG&E services.

3. An engineering deposit may be required to review plans for a project depending on the size, scope, and location of the project and as it relates to any rearrangement or new installation of PG&E facilities.

Any proposed uses within the PG&E fee strip and/or easement, may include a California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) Section 851 filing. This requires the CPUC to render approval for a conveyance of rights for specific uses on PG&E’s fee strip or easement. PG&E will advise if the necessity to incorporate a CPUC Section 851filing is required.

This letter does not constitute PG&E’s consent to use any portion of its easement for any purpose not previously conveyed. PG&E will provide a project specific response as required.

Sincerely,

Plan Review Team
Land Management

PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 2
Public
Attachment 1 – Gas Facilities

There could be gas transmission pipelines in this area which would be considered critical facilities for PG&E and a high priority subsurface installation under California law. Care must be taken to ensure safety and accessibility. So, please ensure that if PG&E approves work near gas transmission pipelines it is done in adherence with the below stipulations. Additionally, the following link provides additional information regarding legal requirements under California excavation laws: https://www.usanorth811.org/images/pdfs/CA-LAW-2018.pdf

1. Standby Inspection: A PG&E Gas Transmission Standby Inspector must be present during any demolition or construction activity that comes within 10 feet of the gas pipeline. This includes all grading, trenching, substructure depth verifications (potholes), asphalt or concrete demolition/removal, removal of trees, signs, light poles, etc. This inspection can be coordinated through the Underground Service Alert (USA) service at 811. A minimum notice of 48 hours is required. Ensure the USA markings and notifications are maintained throughout the duration of your work.

2. Access: At any time, PG&E may need to access, excavate, and perform work on the gas pipeline. Any construction equipment, materials, or spoils may need to be removed upon notice.

Any temporary construction fencing installed within PG&E’s easement would also need to be capable of being removed at any time upon notice. Any plans to cut temporary slopes exceeding a 1:4 grade within 10 feet of a gas transmission pipeline need to be approved by PG&E Pipeline Services in writing PRIOR to performing the work.

3. Wheel Loads: To prevent damage to the buried gas pipeline, there are weight limits that must be enforced whenever any equipment gets within 10 feet of traversing the pipe.

Ensure a list of the axle weights of all equipment being used is available for PG&E’s Standby Inspector. To confirm the depth of cover, the pipeline may need to be potholed by hand in a few areas.

Due to the complex variability of tracked equipment, vibratory compaction equipment, and cranes, PG&E must evaluate those items on a case-by-case basis prior to use over the gas pipeline (provide a list of any proposed equipment of this type noting model numbers and specific attachments).

No equipment may be set up over the gas pipeline while operating. Ensure crane outriggers are at least 10 feet from the centerline of the gas pipeline. Transport trucks must not be parked over the gas pipeline while being loaded or unloaded.

4. Grading: PG&E requires a minimum of 36 inches of cover over gas pipelines (or existing grade if less) and a maximum of 7 feet of cover at all locations. The graded surface cannot exceed a cross slope of 1:4.

5. Excavating: Any digging within 2 feet of a gas pipeline must be dug by hand. Note that while the minimum clearance is only 24 inches, any excavation work within 24 inches of the edge of a pipeline must be done with hand tools. So to avoid having to dig a trench entirely with hand tools, the edge of the trench must be over 24 inches away. (Doing the math for a 24 inch

PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 3
Public
wide trench being dug along a 36 inch pipeline, the centerline of the trench would need to be at least 54 inches [24/2 + 24 + 36/2 = 54] away, or be entirely dug by hand.)

Water jetting to assist vacuum excavating must be limited to 1000 psig and directed at a 40° angle to the pipe. All pile driving must be kept a minimum of 3 feet away.

Any plans to expose and support a PG&E gas transmission pipeline across an open excavation need to be approved by PG&E Pipeline Services in writing PRIOR to performing the work.

6. Boring/Trenchless Installations: PG&E Pipeline Services must review and approve all plans to bore across or parallel to (within 10 feet) a gas transmission pipeline. There are stringent criteria to pothole the gas transmission facility at regular intervals for all parallel bore installations.

For bore paths that cross gas transmission pipelines perpendicularly, the pipeline must be potholed a minimum of 2 feet in the horizontal direction of the bore path and a minimum of 24 inches in the vertical direction from the bottom of the pipe with minimum clearances measured from the edge of the pipe in both directions. Standby personnel must watch the locator trace (and every ream pass) the path of the bore as it approaches the pipeline and visually monitor the pothole (with the exposed transmission pipe) as the bore traverses the pipeline to ensure adequate clearance with the pipeline. The pothole width must account for the inaccuracy of the locating equipment.

7. Substructures: All utility crossings of a gas pipeline should be made as close to perpendicular as feasible (90° +/- 15°). All utility lines crossing the gas pipeline must have a minimum of 24 inches of separation from the gas pipeline. Parallel utilities, pole bases, water line ‘kicker blocks’, storm drain inlets, water meters, valves, back pressure devices or other utility substructures are not allowed in the PG&E gas pipeline easement.

If previously retired PG&E facilities are in conflict with proposed substructures, PG&E must verify they are safe prior to removal. This includes verification testing of the contents of the facilities, as well as environmental testing of the coating and internal surfaces. Timelines for PG&E completion of this verification will vary depending on the type and location of facilities in conflict.

8. Structures: No structures are to be built within the PG&E gas pipeline easement. This includes buildings, retaining walls, fences, decks, patios, carports, septic tanks, storage sheds, tanks, loading ramps, or any structure that could limit PG&E’s ability to access its facilities.

9. Fencing: Permanent fencing is not allowed within PG&E easements except for perpendicular crossings which must include a 16 foot wide gate for vehicular access. Gates will be secured with PG&E corporation locks.

10. Landscaping: Landscaping must be designed to allow PG&E to access the pipeline for maintenance and not interfere with pipeline coatings or other cathodic protection systems. No trees, shrubs, brush, vines, and other vegetation may be planted within the easement area.

Only those plants, ground covers, grasses, flowers, and low-growing plants that grow unsupported to a maximum of four feet (4’) in height at maturity may be planted within the easement area.

PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 4
Public

11. Cathodic Protection: PG&E pipelines are protected from corrosion with an “Impressed Current” cathodic protection system. Any proposed facilities, such as metal conduit, pipes, service lines, ground rods, anodes, wires, etc. that might affect the pipeline cathodic protection system must be reviewed and approved by PG&E Corrosion Engineering.

12. Pipeline Marker Signs: PG&E needs to maintain pipeline marker signs for gas transmission pipelines in order to ensure public awareness of the presence of the pipelines.

With prior written approval from PG&E Pipeline Services, an existing PG&E pipeline marker sign that is in direct conflict with proposed developments may be temporarily relocated to accommodate construction work. The pipeline marker must be moved back once construction is complete.

13. PG&E is also the provider of distribution facilities throughout many of the areas within the state of California. Therefore, any plans that impact PG&E’s facilities must be reviewed and approved by PG&E to ensure that no impact occurs which may endanger the safe operation of its facilities.

PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 5
Public

Attachment 2 – Electric Facilities

It is PG&E’s policy to permit certain uses on a case by case basis within its electric transmission fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) provided such uses and manner in which they are exercised, will not interfere with PG&E’s rights or endanger its facilities. Some examples/restrictions are as follows:

1. Buildings and Other Structures: No buildings or other structures including the foot print and eave of any buildings, swimming pools, wells or similar structures will be permitted within fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) areas. PG&E’s transmission easement shall be designated on subdivision/parcel maps as “RESTRICTED USE AREA – NO BUILDING.”

2. Grading: Cuts, trenches or excavations may not be made within 25 feet of our towers.

Developers must submit grading plans and site development plans (including geotechnical reports if applicable), signed and dated, for PG&E’s review. PG&E engineers must review grade changes in the vicinity of our towers. No fills will be allowed which would impair ground-to- conductor clearances. Towers shall not be left on mounds without adequate road access to base of tower or structure.

3. Fences: Walls, fences, and other structures must be installed at locations that do not affect the safe operation of PG&’s facilities. Heavy equipment access to our facilities must be maintained at all times. Metal fences are to be grounded to PG&E specifications. No wall, fence or other like structure is to be installed within 10 feet of tower footings and unrestricted access must be maintained from a tower structure to the nearest street. Walls, fences and other structures proposed along or within the fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) will require PG&E review; submit plans to PG&E Centralized Review Team for review and comment.

4. Landscaping: Vegetation may be allowed; subject to review of plans. On overhead electric transmission fee strip(s) and/or easement(s), trees and shrubs are limited to those varieties that do not exceed 10 feet in height at maturity. PG&E must have access to its facilities at all times, including access by heavy equipment. No planting is to occur within the footprint of the tower legs. Greenbelts are encouraged.

5. Reservoirs, Sumps, Drainage Basins, and Ponds: Prohibited within PG&E’s fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) for electric transmission lines.

6. Automobile Parking: Short term parking of movable passenger vehicles and light trucks (pickups, vans, etc.) is allowed. The lighting within these parking areas will need to be reviewed by PG&E; approval will be on a case by case basis. Heavy equipment access to PG&E facilities is to be maintained at all times. Parking is to clear PG&E structures by at least 10 feet.

Protection of PG&E facilities from vehicular traffic is to be provided at developer’s expense AND to PG&E specifications. Blocked-up vehicles are not allowed. Carports, canopies, or awnings are not allowed.

7. Storage of Flammable, Explosive or Corrosive Materials: There shall be no storage of fuel or combustibles and no fueling of vehicles within PG&E’s easement. No trash bins or incinerators are allowed.

PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 6
Public

8. Streets and Roads: Access to facilities must be maintained at all times. Street lights may be allowed in the fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) but in all cases must be reviewed by PG&E for proper clearance. Roads and utilities should cross the transmission easement as nearly at right angles as possible. Road intersections will not be allowed within the transmission easement.

9. Pipelines: Pipelines may be allowed provided crossings are held to a minimum and to be as nearly perpendicular as possible. Pipelines within 25 feet of PG&E structures require review by PG&E. Sprinklers systems may be allowed; subject to review. Leach fields and septic tanks are not allowed. Construction plans must be submitted to PG&E for review and approval prior to the commencement of any construction.

10. Signs: Signs are not allowed except in rare cases subject to individual review by PG&E.

11. Recreation Areas: Playgrounds, parks, tennis courts, basketball courts, barbecue and light trucks (pickups, vans, etc.) may be allowed; subject to review of plans. Heavy equipment access to PG&E facilities is to be maintained at all times. Parking is to clear PG&E structures by at least 10 feet. Protection of PG&E facilities from vehicular traffic is to be provided at developer’s expense AND to PG&E specifications.

12. Construction Activity: Since construction activity will take place near PG&E’s overhead electric lines, please be advised it is the contractor’s responsibility to be aware of, and observe the minimum clearances for both workers and equipment operating near high voltage electric lines set out in the High-Voltage Electrical Safety Orders of the California Division of Industrial Safety (
https://www.dir.ca.gov/Title8/sb5g2.html), as well as any other safety regulations.

Contractors shall comply with California Public Utilities Commission General Order 95 (http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/gos/GO95/go_95_startup_page.html) and all other safety rules. No construction may occur within 25 feet of PG&E’s towers. All excavation activities may only commence after 811 protocols has been followed.

Contractor shall ensure the protection of PG&E’s towers and poles from vehicular damage by (installing protective barriers) Plans for protection barriers must be approved by PG&E prior to construction.

13. PG&E is also the owner of distribution facilities throughout many of the areas within the state of California. Therefore, any plans that impact PG&E’s facilities must be reviewed and approved by PG&E to ensure that no impact occurs that may endanger the safe and reliable operation of its facilities.

Plan Review Team
Land Management
[email protected]

Pacific Gas and Electric Company
P.O. Box 0000
City, State, Zip Code

PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 1
Public
July 28, 2023

Gabrielle Myers
City of Hanford
317 N Douty Street
Hanford, CA 93230

Re: Consultation Notice- ANX0001-23, PZ0001-23, TSM0002-23, CUP0012-23 Stonehaven Tentative Subdivision Map

Dear Gabrielle:

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to review the proposed Stonehaven Tentative Subdivision Map. The installation of new gas and electric facilities and/or relocation of existing PG&E facilities will be performed in accordance with common law or Rules and Tariffs as authorized by the California Public Utilities Commission.

Following our review, PG&E recommends the following language be expressly stated for the offer to dedicate Public Utility Easements (PUE):

I/We the undersigned, as Owner(s) of the land shown hereon, do hereby state that I/we am/are the only person(s) whose consent is necessary to pass clear title to said land and do hereby consent to the preparation and recordation of this map and offer for dedication and do hereby dedicate for public uses the Public Utility Easements (PUEs) shown on this map for public utility purpose s including electric, gas, communication facilities and all other public utility purposes; together with any and all appurtenances thereto, including the right from time to time to trim and to cut down and clear away or otherwise control any trees or brush . The PUEs hereby offered for dedication are to be kept open and free of buildings, st ructures and wells of any kind.

The final map must contain a statement setting forth dedications and offers to dedicate interests in real property for public utility purposes. If the offer of dedication has terminated, or the local agency declines to accept it, the applicant maybe required to provide an easement in gross satisfactory to PG&E. Please note that this is our preliminary review and PG&E reserves the right for future review as needed.

Please work with PG&E’s Service Planning department at www.pge.com/cco for additional services you may require, or for any modification and/or relocation requests.

Sincerely,

PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 2
Public

Justin Newell
Land Management
916-594-4068

Administration 559-585-2515 ♦ Personnel 559-585-2520 ♦ Facsimile: 559-585-2595

July 13, 2023

PROJECT REVIEW – Early Consultation Notice

For: Stonehaven – Annexation 162 (ANX0001-23), Prezone No. 0001-23, Tentative Tract 940 (TSM0002-23), and Planned Unit Development (CUP0012-23)

The Community Development Department of the City of Hanford is requesting your comments regarding the following:

Project Description:

• Annexation 162: A request to annex 12.17 acres into the City of Hanford from the Kings County jurisdiction.
• Prezone No. 0001-23: A request to prezone the land proposed to be annexed as R-L-5 Low-Density Residential, in accordance with the General Plan designation for the territory, Low-Density Residential.
• Tentative Tract 940: A request to subdivide the 12.17 acres proposed to be prezoned R-L-5 Low- Density Residential into 86 single-family residential lots. • Planned Unit Development No. 13 -23: A request to deviate from the standards of the Hanford Municipal Code, in order to utilize the small lot provisions of Section 17.10.100 to allow:
o Reduced lot sizes between 3,600 – 4,999 square feet
o Reduced lot widths
o Reduced lot depths
o Reduced setbacks
o Exception: No limitation on the width of the garage (standard regulation limits g arage
width to no more than 50% of the residence’s frontage)

Project Location
The project is located south of Hanford Armona Road, between 12th and 13th Avenues (APN011-040-030) See project location in Figure 1.

The proposal is being forwarded to the responsible and interested agencies and individuals for early consultation. The City is in the process of preparing an Initial Study to identi fy what, if any, significant impacts need to be analyzed in conjunction with this project. Any assistance you can give in this effort would be appreciated.

It is requested that your comments, if any, be transmitted to this office by Friday, August 4, 2023 at 5:00 p.m. Comments can be mailed to 317 N. Douty Street, Hanford, CA 93230 or emailed to [email protected]. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this project, please email Gabrielle
at the email address listed above.

Sinc
erely,

Gabrielle Myers

Gabrielle Myers

City of HANFORD
CALIFORNIA 93230
CITY OFFICES 317 NORTH DOUTY STREET

MAYOR
Travis Paden

VICE-MAYOR
Mark Kairis

COUNCIL MEMBERS
Lou Martinez
Kalish Morrow
Diane Sharp

CITY M ANAG ER
Mario Cifuentez II

C I TY ATTOR N EY
Robert M. Dowd

I do do not have comments regarding this Project

__________
__________________________________________________________________ Signature Agency Date

AT&T

7.28.23

From: Misael Ibarra
To: Manuel Sandoval Reynoso; Jason Waters; Gabrielle Myers; Steve Coodey Subject: RE: (External):SCE Jurisdiction Verification - Hanford Date: Monday, July 31, 2023 3:06:29 PM
Attachments: image002.png
image003.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Good Afternoon,
When SCE creates the required infrastructure design, we will also request an easement over the required infrastructure.

Please feel free to refer the developer over to me.

My contact information is below.

Thanks.

Misael Ibarra
Tract Project Management | Project Manager
Tulare Service Center / 2425 S Blackstone St / Tulare, CA 93274 Monday - Thursday: 559.684.3532 | C: 559.801.1272 | Pax: 73532

From: Manuel Sandoval Reynoso <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 31, 2023 2:34 PM
To: Misael Ibarra <[email protected]>
Cc: Jason Waters <[email protected]>; Gabrielle Myers <[email protected]>; Steve Coodey <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: (External):SCE Jurisdiction Verification - Hanford

Good Afternoon Jason.

That is correct. The proposed location is in Edison territory. I looped in Misael who is the project manager for new development tracts.

Thanks

http://www.sce.com/regulatory/distribution-manuals/electrical-service-requirements

From: Jason Waters <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2023 1:34 PM
To: Manuel Sandoval Reynoso <[email protected]> Cc: Gabrielle Myers <[email protected]>; Steve Coodey <[email protected]> Subject: (External):SCE Jurisdiction Verification - Hanford

Hi Manuel, There is a proposed residential development in Hanford at APN: 011-040-030 (https: //goo. gl/maps/rjnjrXrZTJANgeVs7). PGE supplied the attached letter indicating they would need PUEs to supply utilities. From what I can tell the project Hi Manuel,
There is a proposed residential development in Hanford at APN: 011-040-030 (https://goo.gl/maps/rjnjrXrZTJANgeVs7). PGE supplied the attached letter indicating they would need PUEs to supply utilities. From what I can tell the project might be in SCE territory and those PUEs would need to be dedicated to SCE. Can you confirm that is correct? Thanks!

Jason Waters
Deputy City Manager/Community Development Director
City of Hanford
317 N. Douty Street
Hanford, CA 93230
(559) 585-2500

From: Xiong, Christopher@DOT
To: Gabrielle Myers
Cc: Padilla, Dave@DOT
Subject: RE: Consultation Notice- ANX0001-23, PZ0001-23, TSM0002-23, CUP0012-23 Date: Friday, August 4, 2023 3:34:11 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Hi Gabrielle,

Thank you for the opportunity to review the project applications (ANX0001-23, PZ0001-23, TSM0002-23, CUP0012-23), we have no comments on the applications.

The project’s proposed use is generally consistent with the City’s General Plan, we do want to encourage the project proponents consider vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction strategies.

Noted in the City of Hanford’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan (2016), Hanford Armona Road, directly north of the project location, is planned to be a bikeway/walking corridor further extended west from 12th Avenue connecting the project to the existing network.

This presents opportunities
for VMT strategies to be coordinated for the project. The project is also recommended to pay into applicable development impact fee programs to contribute to any improvement needs on the local road infrastructure.

Best regards,

Christopher Xiong
Associate Transportation Planner
Caltrans District 6
1352 W. Olive Avenue
Fresno, CA 93778
[email protected]
(559) 908-7064

RESPONSE TO EARLY CONSULTATION
Early Consultation

Early consultation to agencies outside of the City of Hanford (pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15082) was conducted for the project.

Early consultation was received from:
• Pacific Gas and Electric Company – Received July 27, 2023, July 28, 2023 • AT&T – Received July 28, 2023
• Hanford Joint Union High School District – Received July 31, 2023 • Southern California Edison – Received July 31, 2023
• Department of Transportation, Caltrans – August 7, 2023

Responses to comments are as follows:

1. PG&E – Not in PG&E territory. Not applicable.

2. AT&T – Improvement plans will be submitted as required during the Final Map / Improvement Plan processing stage

3. HJUHSD – SB 50 (codified as GC 65996) provides that, despite CEQA, the payment of school development impact fees as the exclusive method “of considering and mitigating impacts on school facilities that occur or might occur as a result of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, by any state or local agency involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property or any change of governmental organization or reorganization”. As the Project would be required to pay development impact fees at time of building permit issuance or certificate of occupancy, the Project’s impact to schools is less than significant. This was stated as such in the IS/MND, thus no changes are necessary.

4. SCE – Standard requirements, no response required

5. CalTrans - The project is in a low VMT zone; no mitigation is warranted. Project will pay all applicable development impact fees as required by the City.

Plan Review Team
Land Management
[email protected]

PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 1
Public
July 27, 2023

Gabrielle Myers
City of Hanford
317 N Douty Street
Hanford, CA 93230

Ref: Gas and Electric Transmission and Distribution

Dear Gabrielle Myers,

Thank you for submitting the ANX0001-23 plans for our review. PG&E will review the submitted plans in relationship to any existing Gas and Electric facilities within the project area. If the proposed project is adjacent/or within PG&E owned property and/or easements, we will be working with you to ensure compatible uses and activities near our facilities.

Attached you will find information and requirements as it relates to Gas facilities (Attachment 1) and Electric facilities (Attachment 2). Please review these in detail, as it is critical to ensure your safety and to protect PG&E’s facilities and its existing rights.

Below is additional information for your review:

1. This plan review process does not replace the application process for PG&E gas or electric service your project may require. For these requests, please continue to work with PG&E Service Planning: https://www.pge.com/en_US/business/services/building- and-renovation/overview/overview.page.

2. If the project being submitted is part of a larger project, please include the entire scope of your project, and not just a portion of it. PG&E’s facilities are to be incorporated within any CEQA document. PG&E needs to verify that the CEQA document will identify any required future PG&E services.

3. An engineering deposit may be required to review plans for a project depending on the size, scope, and location of the project and as it relates to any rearrangement or new installation of PG&E facilities.

Any proposed uses within the PG&E fee strip and/or easement, may include a California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) Section 851 filing. This requires the CPUC to render approval for a conveyance of rights for specific uses on PG&E’s fee strip or easement. PG&E will advise if the necessity to incorporate a CPUC Section 851filing is required.

This letter does not constitute PG&E’s consent to use any portion of its easement for any purpose not previously conveyed. PG&E will provide a project specific response as required.

Sincerely,

Plan Review Team
Land Management

PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 2
Public
Attachment 1 – Gas Facilities

There could be gas transmission pipelines in this area which would be considered critical facilities for PG&E and a high priority subsurface installation under California law. Care must be taken to ensure safety and accessibility. So, please ensure that if PG&E approves work near gas transmission pipelines it is done in adherence with the below stipulations. Additionally, the following link provides additional information regarding legal requirements under California excavation laws: https://www.usanorth811.org/images/pdfs/CA-LAW-2018.pdf

1. Standby Inspection: A PG&E Gas Transmission Standby Inspector must be present during any demolition or construction activity that comes within 10 feet of the gas pipeline. This includes all grading, trenching, substructure depth verifications (potholes), asphalt or concrete demolition/removal, removal of trees, signs, light poles, etc. This inspection can be coordinated through the Underground Service Alert (USA) service at 811. A minimum notice of 48 hours is required. Ensure the USA markings and notifications are maintained throughout the duration of your work.

2. Access: At any time, PG&E may need to access, excavate, and perform work on the gas pipeline. Any construction equipment, materials, or spoils may need to be removed upon notice.

Any temporary construction fencing installed within PG&E’s easement would also need to be capable of being removed at any time upon notice. Any plans to cut temporary slopes exceeding a 1:4 grade within 10 feet of a gas transmission pipeline need to be approved by PG&E Pipeline Services in writing PRIOR to performing the work.

3. Wheel Loads: To prevent damage to the buried gas pipeline, there are weight limits that must be enforced whenever any equipment gets within 10 feet of traversing the pipe.

Ensure a list of the axle weights of all equipment being used is available for PG&E’s Standby Inspector. To confirm the depth of cover, the pipeline may need to be potholed by hand in a few areas.

Due to the complex variability of tracked equipment, vibratory compaction equipment, and cranes, PG&E must evaluate those items on a case-by-case basis prior to use over the gas pipeline (provide a list of any proposed equipment of this type noting model numbers and specific attachments).

No equipment may be set up over the gas pipeline while operating. Ensure crane outriggers are at least 10 feet from the centerline of the gas pipeline. Transport trucks must not be parked over the gas pipeline while being loaded or unloaded.

4. Grading: PG&E requires a minimum of 36 inches of cover over gas pipelines (or existing grade if less) and a maximum of 7 feet of cover at all locations. The graded surface cannot exceed a cross slope of 1:4.

5. Excavating: Any digging within 2 feet of a gas pipeline must be dug by hand. Note that while the minimum clearance is only 24 inches, any excavation work within 24 inches of the edge of a pipeline must be done with hand tools. So to avoid having to dig a trench entirely with hand tools, the edge of the trench must be over 24 inches away. (Doing the math for a 24 inch

PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 3
Public
wide trench being dug along a 36 inch pipeline, the centerline of the trench would need to be at least 54 inches [24/2 + 24 + 36/2 = 54] away, or be entirely dug by hand.)

Water jetting to assist vacuum excavating must be limited to 1000 psig and directed at a 40° angle to the pipe. All pile driving must be kept a minimum of 3 feet away.

Any plans to expose and support a PG&E gas transmission pipeline across an open excavation need to be approved by PG&E Pipeline Services in writing PRIOR to performing the work.

6. Boring/Trenchless Installations: PG&E Pipeline Services must review and approve all plans to bore across or parallel to (within 10 feet) a gas transmission pipeline. There are stringent criteria to pothole the gas transmission facility at regular intervals for all parallel bore installations.

For bore paths that cross gas transmission pipelines perpendicularly, the pipeline must be potholed a minimum of 2 feet in the horizontal direction of the bore path and a minimum of 24 inches in the vertical direction from the bottom of the pipe with minimum clearances measured from the edge of the pipe in both directions. Standby personnel must watch the locator trace (and every ream pass) the path of the bore as it approaches the pipeline and visually monitor the pothole (with the exposed transmission pipe) as the bore traverses the pipeline to ensure adequate clearance with the pipeline. The pothole width must account for the inaccuracy of the locating equipment.

7. Substructures: All utility crossings of a gas pipeline should be made as close to perpendicular as feasible (90° +/- 15°). All utility lines crossing the gas pipeline must have a minimum of 24 inches of separation from the gas pipeline. Parallel utilities, pole bases, water line ‘kicker blocks’, storm drain inlets, water meters, valves, back pressure devices or other utility substructures are not allowed in the PG&E gas pipeline easement.

If previously retired PG&E facilities are in conflict with proposed substructures, PG&E must verify they are safe prior to removal. This includes verification testing of the contents of the facilities, as well as environmental testing of the coating and internal surfaces. Timelines for PG&E completion of this verification will vary depending on the type and location of facilities in conflict.

8. Structures: No structures are to be built within the PG&E gas pipeline easement. This includes buildings, retaining walls, fences, decks, patios, carports, septic tanks, storage sheds, tanks, loading ramps, or any structure that could limit PG&E’s ability to access its facilities.

9. Fencing: Permanent fencing is not allowed within PG&E easements except for perpendicular crossings which must include a 16 foot wide gate for vehicular access. Gates will be secured with PG&E corporation locks.

10. Landscaping: Landscaping must be designed to allow PG&E to access the pipeline for maintenance and not interfere with pipeline coatings or other cathodic protection systems. No trees, shrubs, brush, vines, and other vegetation may be planted within the easement area.

Only those plants, ground covers, grasses, flowers, and low-growing plants that grow unsupported to a maximum of four feet (4’) in height at maturity may be planted within the easement area.

PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 4
Public

11. Cathodic Protection: PG&E pipelines are protected from corrosion with an “Impressed Current” cathodic protection system. Any proposed facilities, such as metal conduit, pipes, service lines, ground rods, anodes, wires, etc. that might affect the pipeline cathodic protection system must be reviewed and approved by PG&E Corrosion Engineering.

12. Pipeline Marker Signs: PG&E needs to maintain pipeline marker signs for gas transmission pipelines in order to ensure public awareness of the presence of the pipelines.

With prior written approval from PG&E Pipeline Services, an existing PG&E pipeline marker sign that is in direct conflict with proposed developments may be temporarily relocated to accommodate construction work. The pipeline marker must be moved back once construction is complete.

13. PG&E is also the provider of distribution facilities throughout many of the areas within the state of California. Therefore, any plans that impact PG&E’s facilities must be reviewed and approved by PG&E to ensure that no impact occurs which may endanger the safe operation of its facilities.

PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 5
Public

Attachment 2 – Electric Facilities

It is PG&E’s policy to permit certain uses on a case by case basis within its electric transmission fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) provided such uses and manner in which they are exercised, will not interfere with PG&E’s rights or endanger its facilities. Some examples/restrictions are as follows:

1. Buildings and Other Structures: No buildings or other structures including the foot print and eave of any buildings, swimming pools, wells or similar structures will be permitted within fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) areas. PG&E’s transmission easement shall be designated on subdivision/parcel maps as “RESTRICTED USE AREA – NO BUILDING.”

2. Grading: Cuts, trenches or excavations may not be made within 25 feet of our towers.

Developers must submit grading plans and site development plans (including geotechnical reports if applicable), signed and dated, for PG&E’s review. PG&E engineers must review grade changes in the vicinity of our towers. No fills will be allowed which would impair ground-to- conductor clearances. Towers shall not be left on mounds without adequate road access to base of tower or structure.

3. Fences: Walls, fences, and other structures must be installed at locations that do not affect the safe operation of PG&’s facilities. Heavy equipment access to our facilities must be maintained at all times. Metal fences are to be grounded to PG&E specifications. No wall, fence or other like structure is to be installed within 10 feet of tower footings and unrestricted access must be maintained from a tower structure to the nearest street. Walls, fences and other structures proposed along or within the fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) will require PG&E review; submit plans to PG&E Centralized Review Team for review and comment.

4. Landscaping: Vegetation may be allowed; subject to review of plans. On overhead electric transmission fee strip(s) and/or easement(s), trees and shrubs are limited to those varieties that do not exceed 10 feet in height at maturity. PG&E must have access to its facilities at all times, including access by heavy equipment. No planting is to occur within the footprint of the tower legs. Greenbelts are encouraged.

5. Reservoirs, Sumps, Drainage Basins, and Ponds: Prohibited within PG&E’s fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) for electric transmission lines.

6. Automobile Parking: Short term parking of movable passenger vehicles and light trucks (pickups, vans, etc.) is allowed. The lighting within these parking areas will need to be reviewed by PG&E; approval will be on a case by case basis. Heavy equipment access to PG&E facilities is to be maintained at all times. Parking is to clear PG&E structures by at least 10 feet.

Protection of PG&E facilities from vehicular traffic is to be provided at developer’s expense AND to PG&E specifications. Blocked-up vehicles are not allowed. Carports, canopies, or awnings are not allowed.

7. Storage of Flammable, Explosive or Corrosive Materials: There shall be no storage of fuel or combustibles and no fueling of vehicles within PG&E’s easement. No trash bins or incinerators are allowed.

PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 6
Public

8. Streets and Roads: Access to facilities must be maintained at all times. Street lights may be allowed in the fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) but in all cases must be reviewed by PG&E for proper clearance. Roads and utilities should cross the transmission easement as nearly at right angles as possible. Road intersections will not be allowed within the transmission easement.

9. Pipelines: Pipelines may be allowed provided crossings are held to a minimum and to be as nearly perpendicular as possible. Pipelines within 25 feet of PG&E structures require review by PG&E. Sprinklers systems may be allowed; subject to review. Leach fields and septic tanks are not allowed. Construction plans must be submitted to PG&E for review and approval prior to the commencement of any construction.

10. Signs: Signs are not allowed except in rare cases subject to individual review by PG&E.

11. Recreation Areas: Playgrounds, parks, tennis courts, basketball courts, barbecue and light trucks (pickups, vans, etc.) may be allowed; subject to review of plans. Heavy equipment access to PG&E facilities is to be maintained at all times. Parking is to clear PG&E structures by at least 10 feet. Protection of PG&E facilities from vehicular traffic is to be provided at developer’s expense AND to PG&E specifications.

12. Construction Activity: Since construction activity will take place near PG&E’s overhead electric lines, please be advised it is the contractor’s responsibility to be aware of, and observe the minimum clearances for both workers and equipment operating near high voltage electric lines set out in the High-Voltage Electrical Safety Orders of the California Division of Industrial Safety (
https://www.dir.ca.gov/Title8/sb5g2.html), as well as any other safety regulations.

Contractors shall comply with California Public Utilities Commission General Order 95 (http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/gos/GO95/go_95_startup_page.html) and all other safety rules. No construction may occur within 25 feet of PG&E’s towers. All excavation activities may only commence after 811 protocols has been followed.

Contractor shall ensure the protection of PG&E’s towers and poles from vehicular damage by (installing protective barriers) Plans for protection barriers must be approved by PG&E prior to construction.

13. PG&E is also the owner of distribution facilities throughout many of the areas within the state of California. Therefore, any plans that impact PG&E’s facilities must be reviewed and approved by PG&E to ensure that no impact occurs that may endanger the safe and reliable operation of its facilities.

Plan Review Team
Land Management
[email protected]

Pacific Gas and Electric Company
P.O. Box 0000
City, State, Zip Code

PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 1
Public
July 28, 2023

Gabrielle Myers
City of Hanford
317 N Douty Street
Hanford, CA 93230

Re: Consultation Notice- ANX0001-23, PZ0001-23, TSM0002-23, CUP0012-23 Stonehaven Tentative Subdivision Map

Dear Gabrielle:

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to review the proposed Stonehaven Tentative Subdivision Map. The installation of new gas and electric facilities and/or relocation of existing PG&E facilities will be performed in accordance with common law or Rules and Tariffs as authorized by the California Public Utilities Commission.

Following our review, PG&E recommends the following language be expressly stated for the offer to dedicate Public Utility Easements (PUE):

I/We the undersigned, as Owner(s) of the land shown hereon, do hereby state that I/we am/are the only person(s) whose consent is necessary to pass clear title to said land and do hereby consent to the preparation and recordation of this map and offer for dedication and do hereby dedicate for public uses the Public Utility Easements (PUEs) shown on this map for public utility purpose s including electric, gas, communication facilities and all other public utility purposes; together with any and all appurtenances thereto, including the right from time to time to trim and to cut down and clear away or otherwise control any trees or brush . The PUEs hereby offered for dedication are to be kept open and free of buildings, st ructures and wells of any kind.

The final map must contain a statement setting forth dedications and offers to dedicate interests in real property for public utility purposes. If the offer of dedication has terminated, or the local agency declines to accept it, the applicant maybe required to provide an easement in gross satisfactory to PG&E. Please note that this is our preliminary review and PG&E reserves the right for future review as needed.

Please work with PG&E’s Service Planning department at www.pge.com/cco for additional services you may require, or for any modification and/or relocation requests.

Sincerely,

PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 2
Public

Justin Newell
Land Management
916-594-4068

Administration 559-585-2515 ♦ Personnel 559-585-2520 ♦ Facsimile: 559-585-2595

July 13, 2023

PROJECT REVIEW – Early Consultation Notice

For: Stonehaven – Annexation 162 (ANX0001-23), Prezone No. 0001-23, Tentative Tract 940 (TSM0002-23), and Planned Unit Development (CUP0012-23)

The Community Development Department of the City of Hanford is requesting your comments regarding the following:

Project Description:

• Annexation 162: A request to annex 12.17 acres into the City of Hanford from the Kings County jurisdiction.
• Prezone No. 0001-23: A request to prezone the land proposed to be annexed as R-L-5 Low-Density Residential, in accordance with the General Plan designation for the territory, Low-Density Residential.
• Tentative Tract 940: A request to subdivide the 12.17 acres proposed to be prezoned R-L-5 Low- Density Residential into 86 single-family residential lots. • Planned Unit Development No. 13 -23: A request to deviate from the standards of the Hanford Municipal Code, in order to utilize the small lot provisions of Section 17.10.100 to allow:
o Reduced lot sizes between 3,600 – 4,999 square feet
o Reduced lot widths
o Reduced lot depths
o Reduced setbacks
o Exception: No limitation on the width of the garage (standard regulation limits garage width to no more than 50% of the residence’s frontage)

Project Location
The project is located south of Hanford Armona Road, between 12th and 13th Avenues (APN011-040-030) See project location in Figure 1.

The proposal is being forwarded to the responsible and interested agencies and individuals for early consultation. The City is in the process of preparing an Initial Study to identi fy what, if any, significant impacts need to be analyzed in conjunction with this project. Any assistance you can give in this effort would be appreciated.

It is requested that your comments, if any, be transmitted to this office by Friday, August 4, 2023 at 5:00 p.m. Comments can be mailed to 317 N. Douty Street, Hanford, CA 93230 or emailed to [email protected]
. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this project, please email Gabrielle at the email address listed above.

Sincerely,

Gabrielle Myers

Gabrielle Myers

City of HANFORD
CALIFORNIA 93230
CITY OFFICES 317 NORTH DOUTY STREET

MAYOR
Travis Paden

VICE-MAYOR
Mark Kairis

COUNCIL MEMBERS
Lou Martinez
Kalish Morrow
Diane Sharp

CITY M ANAG ER
Mario Cifuentez II

C I TY ATTOR N EY
Robert M. Dowd

I do do not have comments regarding this Project

____
________________________________________________________________________ Signature Agency Date

AT&T

7.28.23

From: Misael Ibarra
To: Manuel Sandoval Reynoso; Jason Waters; Gabrielle Myers; Steve Coodey Subject: RE: (External):SCE Jurisdiction Verification - Hanford Date: Monday, July 31, 2023 3:06:29 PM
Attachments: image002.png
image003.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Good Afternoon,
When SCE creates the required infrastructure design, we will also request an easement over the required infrastructure.

Please feel free to refer the developer over to me.

My contact information is below.

Thanks.

Misael Ibarra
Tract Project Management | Project Manager
Tulare Service Center / 2425 S Blackstone St / Tulare, CA 93274 Monday - Thursday: 559.684.3532 | C: 559.801.1272 | Pax: 73532

From: Manuel Sandoval Reynoso <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 31, 2023 2:34 PM
To: Misael Ibarra <[email protected]>
Cc: Jason Waters <[email protected]>; Gabrielle Myers <[email protected]>; Steve Coodey <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: (External):SCE Jurisdiction Verification - Hanford

Good Afternoon Jason.

That is correct. The proposed location is in Edison territory. I looped in Misael who is the project manager for new development tracts.

Thanks

http://www.sce.com/regulatory/distribution-manuals/electrical-service-requirements

From: Jason Waters <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2023 1:34 PM
To: Manuel Sandoval Reynoso <[email protected]> Cc: Gabrielle Myers <[email protected]>; Steve Coodey <[email protected]> Subject: (External):SCE Jurisdiction Verification - Hanford

Hi Manuel, There is a proposed residential development in Hanford at APN: 011-040-030 (https: //goo. gl/maps/rjnjrXrZTJANgeVs7). PGE supplied the attached letter indicating they would need PUEs to supply utilities. From what I can tell the project Hi Manuel,
There is a proposed residential development in Hanford at APN: 011-040-030 (https://goo.gl/maps/rjnjrXrZTJANgeVs7). PGE supplied the attached letter indicating they would need PUEs to supply utilities. From what I can tell the project might be in SCE territory and those PUEs would need to be dedicated to SCE. Can you confirm that is correct? Thanks!

Jason Waters
Deputy City Manager/Community Development Director
City of Hanford
317 N. Douty Street
Hanford, CA 93230
(559) 585-2500

From: Xiong, Christopher@DOT
To: Gabrielle Myers
Cc: Padilla, Dave@DOT
Subject: RE: Consultation Notice- ANX0001-23, PZ0001-23, TSM0002-23, CUP0012-23 Date: Friday, August 4, 2023 3:34:11 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Hi Gabrielle,

Thank you for the opportunity to review the project applications (ANX0001-23, PZ0001-23, TSM0002-23, CUP0012-23), we have no comments on the applications.

The project’s proposed use is generally consistent with the City’s General Plan, we do want to encourage the project proponents consider vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction strategies.

Noted in the City of Hanford’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan (2016), Hanford Armona Road, directly north of the project location, is planned to be a bikeway/walking corridor further extended west from 12th Avenue connecting the project to the existing network. This presents opportunities for VMT strategies to be coordinated for the project. The project is also recommended to pay into applicable development impact fee programs to contribute to any improvement needs on the local road infrastructure.

Best regards,

Christopher Xiong
Associate Transportation Planner
Caltrans District 6
1352 W. Olive Avenue
Fresno, CA 93778
[email protected]
(559) 908-7064

13.A.

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 10/3/2023 AGENDA SECTION: GENERAL BUSINESS

SUBJECT:

Approval of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Hanford and Kings County, pertaining to the annexation of the remaining "substantially surrounded islands" within the City of Hanford.

RECOMMENDATION:

Recommendation: Authorize the City to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with Kings County for the annexation of the remaining substantially surrounded islands.

Recommended Motion: I move to execute the MOU, as presented.

As part of the Reorganization project, underway by QK, the City has prepared a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), agreeing that the City will annex the remaining substantially surrounded islands (Island 9-14) from the Kings County jurisdiction within an 18-month period.

The MOU agrees to a timeline and transition of services upon annexation. The substantially surrounded islands are subject to streamlined proceedings, in accordance with State Law.

On August 23, 2023, Kings County LAFCo voted to direct County staff to work with the City to move forward with the execution of the proposed MOU. Following direction from the Kings County Executive Officer, Chuck Kinney, Island 14 was also included in the annexation efforts, since the property is substantially surrounded on 75% by the City limits.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Attachment 1 - LAFCo Staff Report

2. Memorandum of Understanding

Local Agency Formation Commission

OF KINGS COUNTY

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

MAILING ADDRESS: 1400 W. LACEY BLVD., HANFORD, CA 93230 OFFICES AT: ENGINEERING BUILDING # 6, KINGS COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, HANFORD (559) 852-2680 Website: www.kingslafco.com FAX: (559) 584-8989 Date: August 23, 2023

To: LAFCO Commissioners

From: Chuck Kinney, Executive Officer

Subject: City/County Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

Background
In 2015, Kings LAFCO conducted an island study to determine where unincorporated islands and substantially surrounded areas existed within each of the four incorporated Cities within Kings County. Resulting from that Study your Commission directed staff to begin a dialogue with the Cities to encourage annexation of said islands and substantially surrounded areas to help promote a more efficient way of providing services to those areas. In 2022 the City of Hanford annexed all but one remaining unincorporated island and that last unincorporated island is up for consideration on the August 23, 2023 LAFCO meeting.

In an effort to continue the work to clean up the Cities boundaries the City of Hanford has drafted a Memorandum of Understanding in which they desire to enter into with the County of Kings, which would establish parameters for the annexation of the five remaining unincorporated substantially surrounded areas. With these areas annexed the City of Hanford’s boundaries would no longer have any areas left which fall under the island and substantially surrounded lands as defined by the Cortese Knox Hertzberg Act.

The City of Hanford has requested that your Commission review the draft Memorandum of Understanding to provide any feedback concerning the terms listed within the MOU.

Recommend
The Executive Officer recommends that the LAFCO Commission review the draft Memorandum of Understanding and provide any feedback desired. Furthermore since the City is pursuing annexation of these last unincorporated areas which are surrounded by the City, in good faith of their efforts, direct staff to continue processing of all annexation applications submitted by the City in a timely manor provided that the conditions of the MOU are met.