Hanford City Council
October 6, 2026

CITY OF HANFORD | Crawford & Bowen Planning, 64
Bonadelle Lacey Ave Residential Project | Initial Study by existing utilities and
essential public services (e.g.,
transit, streets, water, sewer)
Project screens out of VMT
analysis due to its small size
and consistency with the
General Plan Land Use
Designation. Additionally, a
transit stop is approximately

0.19 miles to the west of the
site.

Does not result in the loss or
conversion of natural and
working lands.

Consistent. The proposed
Project site is fallowed
agricultural land and a rural
residence. The site has been
designated for residential
development by the City of
Hanford General Plan and is
zoned for residential
development by the Zoning
Ordinance. As such, any
impacts resulting from
agricultural conversion were
assessed at the time the land
was designated for residential
development. No new
conversion impacts would
result with Project
implementation and the
Project is consistent with this
key project attribute.

Consists of transit-supportive
densities (minimum of 20
residential dwelling units per
acre) or is in proximity to
existing transit stops (within a
half mile) or satisfies more
detailed and stringent criteria
specified in the region’s SCS
Consistent. The Project site is
located within 0.5 miles of
two transit stops. The
Centennial at Target stop is
approximately 0.41 miles to
the east while the Lacey at
Four Seasons stop is 0.2 miles
to the west. The Project is
consistent with this key
project attribute.

Reduces parking
requirements by eliminating
parking requirements or
including maximum
Consistent. The proposed
Project would consist of 78
single family residential units
and would be consistent with

CITY OF HANFORD | Crawford & Bowen Planning, 65
Bonadelle Lacey Ave Residential Project | Initial Study allowable parking ratios (i.e,.
the ratio of parking spaces to
residential units or square
feet); or providing residential
parking supply at a ratio of
less than one parking space
per dwelling unit; or for
multifamily residential
development, requiring
parking costs to be
unbundled from costs to rent
or own a residential unit.
the City’s parking
requirements for single family
homes. Thus, the Project
would be consistent with the
intent of this key project
attribute.

At least 20% of units included
are affordable to lowerincome residents.

Consistent. While the Project
does not include affordable
housing units, the median
household income in 2023 in
California was $96,334.11 The
median household income in
2023 in the City of Hanford is
$73,544, which is
approximately 23% less than
the state average.

Comparatively speaking,
residents in the Hanford area
have a lower income than
the State median. The Project
would be consistent with the
intent of this key project
attribute.

Results in no net loss of
existing affordable units.

Consistent. No affordable
housing units would be lost as
a result of Project
implementation. The Project
would be consistent with this
key project attribute.

Building Decarbonization Uses all-electric appliances
without any natural gas
connections and does not
use propane or other fossil
Consistent. The proposed
Project would be all electric,
11 United States Census Bureau. QuickFacts. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/hanfordcitycalifornia,CA. Accessed December 2025.

CITY OF HANFORD | Crawford & Bowen Planning, 66
Bonadelle Lacey Ave Residential Project | Initial Study fuels for space heating, water
heating, or indoor cooling.
which is consistent with this
key project attribute.

Residential projects that have all of the key project attributes as outlined in Table 7 would be considered to accommodate growth in a manner consistent with State GHG reduction and equity prioritization goals as outlined in the 2022 Scoping Plan. As demonstrated in Table 7, the proposed Project would be consistent with the 2022 Scoping Plan key residential project attributes. As such, the Project’s generation of GHG emissions would result in a less than significant impact on the environment.

Mitigation: None are Required.
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Hanford adopted a Regional Climate Action Plan (CAP) in coordination with Kings County. The CAP includes a GHG inventory, a benchmarking/goal setting project and identified a reduction target for 2020. Although the CAP does not include a target for reduction in 2030, the measures in the plan will continue to provide reductions and help demonstrate continued progress in achieving the SB32 target for 2030.

The Regional CAP included policies that support emission reductions from new development. The Project contains features that been evaluated for consistency with policies in the CAP and found consistent as summarized below in Table 8.

Table 8
Consistency with the Regional Climate Action Plan Policies E-4.1 Encourage local homebuilders to participate in the New Solar Homes Partnership to install solar PV systems on qualifying new homes.

Consistent. The proposed Project will comply with the latest CALGreen solar readiness and installation requirements.

E-4.2 Work with the building industry to incorporate designs improving solar readiness into building plans through voluntary green building guidelines.

Consistent. The proposed Project will comply with the latest CALGreen solar readiness and installation requirements.

CITY OF HANFORD | Crawford & Bowen Planning, 67
Bonadelle Lacey Ave Residential Project | Initial Study E-5.2 Provide project applicants with green building resources, including the SJVAPCD’s Best Performance Standards list for GHG reductions, and promote workshops offered by community organizations
Consistent. The proposed Project would include sustainability features in the project design in accordance with SJVAPCD requirements, CALGreen, and City of Hanford standards.

TL-1.1 Support and encourage mixed-use and medium- and high-density land use categories located within 0.25 miles of a transit stop, park and ride facility, or existing developed areas, by allowing flexible zoning and/or density bonuses for applicable projects.

Consistent. The Project is located within 0.19 miles of a transit stop. The development and the area surrounding the development provide a range of residential densities.

TL-1.3 Allow live/work developments that permit residents to live at their place of work and thereby reduce VMT and associated GHG emissions.

Consistent. The proposed Project includes residential uses within close proximity of commercial facilities that will potentially allow employees of the commercial areas to live within walking distance.

TL-2.3 Establish minimum design criteria for bicycle and pedestrian circulation and implement through the design review process.

Consistent. The proposed Project would provide pedestrian infrastructure connecting to neighboring uses.

TL-2.5 Support land use planning that will promote pedestrian and bicyclist access to and from new development by encouraging land use and subdivision designs that provide safe bicycle and pedestrian circulation, including bicycle parking facilities and internal bicycle and pedestrian routes, where feasible.

Consistent. The proposed Project would comply with all applicable City design standards related to safe bicycle and pedestrian circulation.

TL-3.4 Support and encourage new development that provides safe routes to adjacent transit stops, where applicable. (Community)
Consistent. The proposed Project would comply with City design standards that provide a safe route to a nearby transit stop.

Source: King County Association of Governments Regional Climate Action Plan The proposed Project would incorporate features that would minimize GHG emissions, as summarized above. These feature are consistent with the Regional CAP. As such, the Project will not conflict with plans, policies and regulations pertaining to GHG’s, therefore impacts would be considered less than significant.

CITY OF HANFORD | Crawford & Bowen Planning, 68
Bonadelle Lacey Ave Residential Project | Initial Study Mitigation: None are Required.

CITY OF HANFORD | Crawford & Bowen Planning, 69
Bonadelle Lacey Ave Residential Project | Initial Study IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS

MATERIALS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
d. Be located on a site which is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e. For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would
the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project
area?
f. Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency

CITY OF HANFORD | Crawford & Bowen Planning, 70
Bonadelle Lacey Ave Residential Project | Initial Study response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
g. Expose people or structures either directly
or indirectly to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires?

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The proposed Project site is located adjacent to the western City of Hanford City limit in an area that is designated for urban development. in the western portion of the City of Hanford. The site currently supports fallow agricultural land and a rural residence.

RESPONSES
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. The 16.65-acre proposed Project site will be annexed into the City of Hanford with Project approval. A 13.88 portion of the site is proposed to be developed with 78 single family residential units and a stormwater basin, internal access roads and other related residential improvements.

Lands surrounding the proposed Project are fallow agricultural land, rural residences, single family residential developments and active agriculture.

A Phase I was prepared for the Project site and recognized that there could be potential for agriculturally related chemicals such as pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers, may have been used onsite. A Phase II was prepared in October of 2025 and included an investigation of agricultural cultivation soil sampling and followed the 2008 Interim Guidance for Sampling Agricultural Properties. The arsenic concentrations reported for six of the 24 soil samples exceeded the Residential Environmental Screening Levels (ESL) for arsenic. However, the arsenic concentrations were reported below 12 mg/kg, the arsenic concentration that the California Department of Toxic Substances Control considers the natural background concentration for arsenic in California. Although the laboratory results for arsenic are above

CITY OF HANFORD | Crawford & Bowen Planning, 71
Bonadelle Lacey Ave Residential Project | Initial Study the Residential ESLs, the arsenic results are below the accepted background level for arsenic in California.

Thus, the arsenic in these samples is not expected to pose a significant environmental concern.

As the Project development includes residential uses, there is no reasonably foreseeable condition or incident involving the Project that could result in release of hazardous materials into the environment, other than any potential accidental releases of standard fuels, solvents, or chemicals encountered during typical construction of a residential subdivision. Should an accidental hazardous release occur or should the Project encounter hazardous soils, existing regulations for handling hazardous materials require coordination with the California Department of Toxic Substances Control for an appropriate plan of action, which can include studies or testing to determine the nature and extent of contamination, as well as handling and proper disposal. Therefore, potential impacts are less than significant.

The operational phase of the proposed Project would occur after construction is completed and residents move in to occupy the residential structures. The proposed Project will include land uses that are considered compatible with the surrounding uses. None of these land uses routinely transport, use, or dispose of hazardous materials, or present a reasonably foreseeable release of hazardous materials, with the exception of common residential grade hazardous materials such as household and commercial cleaners, paint, etc. The proposed Project would not create a significant hazard through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, nor would a significant hazard to the public or to the environment through the reasonably foreseeable upset and accidental conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment occur. Therefore, the proposed Project will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment and any impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less Than Significant Impact. There are no schools located within the 0.25-mile radius of the proposed Project site. The Hanford Agriculture School Farm is approximately 0.56 miles to the north while the Future Hope Preschool is approximately 0.63 miles to the south. As the proposed Project includes the development of single-family residences, it is not reasonably foreseeable that the proposed Project will cause a significant impact by emitting hazardous waste or bringing hazardous materials within onequarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Residential land uses do not generate, store, or dispose of significant quantities of hazardous materials. See also Responses a. and b. above regarding hazardous material handling. There would be a less than significant impact.

CITY OF HANFORD | Crawford & Bowen Planning, 72
Bonadelle Lacey Ave Residential Project | Initial Study Mitigation Measures: None are required.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No Impact. A database search was conducted to identify recorded hazardous materials incidents in the Project area. The search included cleanup sites under Federal Superfund (National Priorities List), State Response, and other federal, state, and local agency lists. The proposed Project site is not located on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (Geotracker12 and Envirostor13 databases). There is no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
Less Than Significant Impact. There are no private or public airstrips in the Project vicinity. The Hanford Municipal Airport is located approximately 4.5 miles to the southeast of the proposed Project site. Thus, any impacts are less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project has been designed for adequate emergency access and has been reviewed by the City. The internal roadways will be designed with sufficient clearances for emergency vehicles to access the entire site. Therefore, the Project will not impair or physically interfere 12 Geotracker Database, California State Water Resources Control Board. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=Hanford. Accessed December 2025.. 13 EnviroStor Database, California Department of Toxic Control Substances. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=Hanford. Accessed December 2025.

CITY OF HANFORD | Crawford & Bowen Planning, 73
Bonadelle Lacey Ave Residential Project | Initial Study with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Any impacts are less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
g) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
No Impact. The site is completely surrounded by actively managed agricultural land or residential development and the site itself is developed with fallow agricultural land and a rural residence.. There are no wildlands on or near the Project site. There is no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

CITY OF HANFORD | Crawford & Bowen Planning, 74
Bonadelle Lacey Ave Residential Project | Initial Study X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER

QUALITY
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade surface or
ground water quality?
b. Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off- site;
ii. substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or
offsite;
iii. create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff; or
iv. impede or redirect flood flows?

CITY OF HANFORD | Crawford & Bowen Planning, 75
Bonadelle Lacey Ave Residential Project | Initial Study X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER

QUALITY
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation?
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management
plan?

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The City of Hanford is located in the Tulare Lake hydrologic region, specifically within the Kings Subbasin of the San Joaquin Valley groundwater basin. 14 The Kings Subbasin encompasses approximately
1,530 square miles within Fresno, Tulare and Kings counties. The Kings Subbasin is designated as a critically over-drafted high priority basin by the Department of Water Resources. The existence of overdraft in the Kings Subbasin is documented by historical decline in ground water levels and is confirmed by the historical water budgets presented by the Mid-Kings River Groundwater Sustainability Agency and the Alta Irrigation District.15 Hanford has a groundwater depth of up to 300 feet below the surface.16

RESPONSES
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
14 City of Hanford, General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report, December 2006. Page 3 – 74. 15 City of Hanford 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. October 2021. https://www.cityofhanfordca.com/DocumentCenter/View/567/2020- Urban-Water-Management-Plan-PDF. Accessed December 2025. 16 Ibid.

CITY OF HANFORD | Crawford & Bowen Planning, 76
Bonadelle Lacey Ave Residential Project | Initial Study Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project site is currently comprised of fallow agriculture and a rural residence. Grading, excavation and loading activities associated with construction activities could temporarily increase runoff, erosion, and sedimentation. Construction activities also could result in soil compaction and wind erosion effects that could adversely affect soils and reduce the revegetation potential at construction sites and staging areas.

Three general sources of potential short-term construction-related stormwater pollution associated with the proposed Project are: 1) the handling, storage, and disposal of construction materials containing pollutants; 2) the maintenance and operation of construction equipment; and 3) earth moving activities which, when not controlled, may generate soil erosion and transportation, via storm runoff or mechanical equipment. Generally, routine safety precautions for handling and storing construction materials may effectively reduce the potential pollution of stormwater by these materials. These same types of common sense, “good housekeeping” procedures can be extended to non-hazardous stormwater pollutants such as sawdust and other solid wastes.

Poorly maintained vehicles and heavy equipment leaking fuel, oil, antifreeze, or other fluids on the construction site are also common sources of stormwater pollution and soil contamination. In addition, grading activities can greatly increase erosion processes. Two general strategies are recommended to prevent construction silt from entering local storm drains. First, erosion control procedures should be implemented for those areas that must be exposed. Secondly, the area should be secured to control offsite migration of pollutants. These Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be required in theStormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to be prepared priorto commencement of Project construction. When properly designed and implemented, these “good-housekeeping” practices are expected to reduce shortterm construction-related impacts to less than significant.

In accordance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Program, the Project will be required to comply with existing regulatory requirements to prepare a SWPPP designed to control erosion and the loss of topsoil to the extent practicable using BMPs that the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has deemed effective in controlling erosion, sedimentation, runoff during construction activities. The specific controls are subject to the review and approval by the RWQCB and are an existing regulatory requirement.

The City of Hanford will provide water to the Project site and the Project will be required to tie into the City’s existing water service infrastructure. The Project will comply with all City ordinances and standards to assure proper grading and drainage. Compliance with all local, state, and federalregulations will prevent violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The Project will be required to prepare a grading and drainage plan for review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to issuance of building permits. Therefore, any impacts will be less than significant.

CITY OF HANFORD | Crawford & Bowen Planning, 77
Bonadelle Lacey Ave Residential Project | Initial Study Mitigation Measures: None are required.
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Less Than Significant Impact. Site development will result in an increased demand for water. The City of Hanford relies on groundwater as its sole water supply source. The City currently operates 15 water supply wells, 3.5 million gallons of storage tanks, and over 15,600 individual connections to the City system.17
The City of Hanford is part of the Mid-Kings River Groundwater Sustainability Agency (MKRGSA) which prepared a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) of which the City of Hanford is a participant.

The City adopted its latest Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) in December 2021. The UWMP states that with implementation of the projects and management actions identified in the KREGSA GSP, the City’s groundwater supplies are anticipated to be sustainable and available to meet the projected demands of its Public Water System service area.18 To continue this trajectory, development within the MKRGSA, including the proposed Project, are required to adhere to the provisions of the MKRGSA GSP.

The Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. According to the City of Hanford 2020 UWMP the demand for water in 2020 was 11,714 acre feet.

In 2020, single family uses used 6,903 AF, which accounted for 59 percent of the total water used. The proposed Project consists of 78 dwelling units and the average household size in Hanford is 3.08 people; therefore, the Project would house approximately 240 people. According to the UWMP, the amount of groundwater predicted to be pumped in 2020 was 11,714 acre feet or 10.4 million gallons per day. The 78-lot subdivision would be expected to use approximately 41,040 gallons of water per day (people (240) x 2020 average gallons per day per person (171)) under normal operation, including domestic and landscape irrigation. This equates to approximately 0.13 acre feet per year. Although the Project would utilize groundwater for domestic purposes, the amount of water used is not considered significant and would not substantially lower the groundwater table of the aquifer or interfere substantially with the recharge of the underground aquifer.
17 City of Hanford. Water System. https://www.ci.hanford.ca.us/1564/Utility-Division. Accessed January 2026. 18 Ibid.

CITY OF HANFORD | Crawford & Bowen Planning, 78
Bonadelle Lacey Ave Residential Project | Initial Study Additionally, the site has been planned for residential development in the General Plan and as such, has been accounted for in the City’s infrastructure planning documents, including the 2020 UWMP. Thus, the Project demands for groundwater resources have been planned for. Proposed Project implementation would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies and/or otherwise interfere with groundwater recharge efforts being implemented by the City of Hanford. Future demand can be met with continued groundwater pumping and conservation measures. Additionally, compliance with existing State regulations will ensure that impacts to groundwater supply will be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite; ii. substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
iii. create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or iv. impede or redirect flood flows?
Less Than Significant Impact. Lands surrounding the proposed Project are agricultural row crops, rural residences and single-family developments.

The proposed Project will change drainage patterns of the site through the installation of impervious surfaces and structures (houses, driveways, streets, etc.) and will be required by the City to be graded to facilitate proper stormwater drainage into the storm basin included in the development. Storm water during construction will be managed as part of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). A copy of the SWPPP will be retained on-site during construction.

The proposed Project site is located outside of any Special Flood Hazard Areas or Other Areas of Flood Hazard, as indicated by FEMA flood hazard map 06031C0185C, effective 6/16/2009. The proposed development will be built in accordance with the current City ordinances and California Building Code regarding construction in flood zones. The Project will be designed for adequate storm drainage.

CITY OF HANFORD | Crawford & Bowen Planning, 79
Bonadelle Lacey Ave Residential Project | Initial Study Accordingly, the chance of flooding (and therefore the release of pollutants due to flooding) at the site is remote. Impacts are less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Impact X(c), the proposed Project site is located outside of any Special Flood Hazard Areas or Other Areas of Flood Hazard. The Project includes development of adequate storm drainage with the construction of a 0.88-acre stormwater basin on-site. The proposed development will be required to prepare and submit a water quality control plan to be implemented during construction, as required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. This plan will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the start of construction.

There are no inland water bodies that could be potentially susceptible to a seiche in the Project vicinity.

This precludes the possibility of a seiche inundating the Project site. The Project site is more than 100 miles from the Pacific Ocean, a condition that precludes the possibility of inundation by tsunami. There are no steep slopes that would be susceptible to a mudflow in the Project vicinity, nor are there any volcanically active features that could produce a mudflow in the City of Hanford. This precludes the possibility of a mudflow inundating the Project site. Any impacts are less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
No Impact. The Project will not conflict with any water quality control plans or sustainable groundwater management plan. However, as mentioned in Section c., all new development within the City of Hanford Planning Area must conform to standards and plans contained in the Hanford Stormwater Drainage Master Plan. By conforming to all standards and policies as outlined, there will be no impacts associated with the Project.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

CITY OF HANFORD | Crawford & Bowen Planning, 80
Bonadelle Lacey Ave Residential Project | Initial Study XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Physically divide an established
community?
b. Cause a significant environmental impact
due to a conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The proposed Project site is adjacent to the City limit boundary and within the Hanford Sphere of Influence. The City of Hanford lies in the Central San Joaquin Valley region, in the northwestern portion of Kings County. State Route (SR) 198 runs east-west through the southern portion of the City and SR 43 runs north-south around the eastern boundary. The site is currently designated for low- and mediumdensity residential with a floating future open space designation by the City of Hanford General Plan.

RESPONSES
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the General Plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project includes annexation of 16.65-acres and development of 78 single-family residential units on a 13.88-acre portion. No development is proposed on the remaining 2.77-acres. The site is adjacent to the western City limit boundary and is within the Sphere of Influence. Lands surrounding the proposed Project are agricultural row crops, rural residences and single-family residential developments.

The proposed Project site has a current land use designation of Low and Medium Density Residential in the General Plan and is proposed to be prezoned R-L-5 Single Family Residential, and R-M Medium

CITY OF HANFORD | Crawford & Bowen Planning, 81
Bonadelle Lacey Ave Residential Project | Initial Study Density Residential, in accordance with the General Plan designation. The Project includes an application for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow greater garage width. The Project will create 78 units on

13.88 acres, which is a density of 5.04 units per acre. As demonstrated below, the proposed density falls within the density allowable under the Land Use Element of the General Plan.

Color General Plan Designation Acreage Density
Range/gross
acre
Minimum
Units
Maximum
Units
Yellow Low-Density Residential 5.08 2-10 10.16 50.8
Orange Medium-Density Residential 8.38 7-20 58.66 167.6 Total Number of Residential Units 68.82 (min) 218.4 (max) The Project would provide housing opportunities for the residents of Hanford and improve access to existing surrounding areas. The proposed development has no characteristics that would physically divide the City of Hanford. Any impacts will be less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

CITY OF HANFORD | Crawford & Bowen Planning, 82
Bonadelle Lacey Ave Residential Project | Initial Study XII. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of
the state?
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
According to the Hanford 2035 General Plan Background Report, the only significant mineral commodities that have been found within the Hanford Planning Area are sand and gravel for road and building construction. At this time there are no known significant deposits, and no active mines.

RESPONSES
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact. There are no known mineral resources in the proposed Project area and the site is not included in a State classified mineral resource zones. No mineral resource locations are within the vicinity of the City of Hanford.
19 Therefore, there is no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
19 City of Hanford General Plan Update Background Report, October 2006. Page 9-12.

CITY OF HANFORD | Crawford & Bowen Planning, 83
Bonadelle Lacey Ave Residential Project | Initial Study XIII. NOISE
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the vicinity of the project in
excess of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
b. Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c. For a project located within the vicinity of
a private airstrip or an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise
levels?

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Noise is often described as unwanted sound. Although sound can be easily measured, the perception of noise and the physical response to sound complicate the analysis of its impact on people. The City of Hanford is impacted by a multitude of noise sources. Principal noise sources include traffic on roadways, agricultural noise and industrial noise. Mobile sources of noise, especially cars and trucks, are the most common and significant sources of noise in most communities, and they are predominant sources of noise in the City. The Project site is located in an area with a mix of uses. The predominant noise sources in the Project area include traffic on local roadways, residential noise (lawn mowers, audio equipment, voices, etc.), and potential noise from the nearby agricultural land uses.

RESPONSES

CITY OF HANFORD | Crawford & Bowen Planning, 84
Bonadelle Lacey Ave Residential Project | Initial Study a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Less Than Significant Impact.

Short‐term (Construction) Noise Impacts
Proposed Project construction related activities will involve temporary noise sources. Typical construction related equipment include graders, trenchers, small tractors and excavators. During the proposed Project construction, noise from construction related activities will contribute to the noise environment in the immediate vicinity. Table 9 indicates the anticipated noise levels of the typical construction-related equipment (i.e., graders, trenchers, tractors) based on a distance of 50-feet between the equipment and the sensitive noise receptor.20
Table 9
Typical Construction Noise Levels
Equipment Typical Noise Level
(dBA) 50 ft from Source
Air Compressor 80
Backhoe 80
Compactor 82
Concrete Mixer 85
Dozer 85
Generator 82
Grader 85
Jack Hammer 88
Loader 85
Paver 85
Truck 84
The closest noise sensitive receptors are the residents of the single-family residential properties adjacent to the east. The Hanford Municipal Code (HMC) Section 9.10.060(A)(10) does limit construction noise to 20 The Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. September 2018. https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessmentmanual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf. Table 7-1. Accessed December 2025.

CITY OF HANFORD | Crawford & Bowen Planning, 85
Bonadelle Lacey Ave Residential Project | Initial Study between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. The Project construction will be required to limit construction noise to these hours.

The distinction between short-term construction noise impacts and long-term operational noise impacts is a typical one in both CEQA documents and local noise ordinances, which generally recognize the reality that short-term noise from construction is inevitable and cannot be mitigated beyond a certain level. Thus, local agencies frequently tolerate short-term noise at levels that they would not accept for permanent noise sources. A more severe approach would be impractical and might preclude the kind of construction activities that are to be expected from time to time in urban environments. Most residents of urban areas recognize this reality and expect to hear construction activities on occasion.

Long‐term (Operational) Noise Impacts
The primary source of on-going noise from the Project will be from vehicles traveling on internal access roads and from traffic traveling along Lacey Blvd. The Project will result in an increase in traffic on some roadways in the Project area. However, the relatively low number of new trips associated with the Project is not likely to increase the ambient noise levels by a significant amount. The area is active with vehicles, residential housing, and agricultural land uses, so the proposed Project will not introduce a new significant source of noise that isn’t already occurring in the area. The City Municipal Code does not contain specific noise standards for motor vehicles and other noise sources; however, the General Plan contains guidelines that limit exterior noise levels for residential and schools to 60 – 70 dBA CNEL.

Because noise generated from construction would be temporary and operational noise from the residential will be required to comply with HMC Section 9.10, impacts are determined to be less than significant.
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. Typical outdoor sources of perceptible ground borne vibration are construction equipment, steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads. Construction vibrations can be transient, random, or continuous. Construction associated with the proposed Project includes construction of 78 single-family residences. The site construction will also include a park, internal access roads, street lighting, site landscaping and additional related improvements.

CITY OF HANFORD | Crawford & Bowen Planning, 86
Bonadelle Lacey Ave Residential Project | Initial Study The approximate threshold of vibration perception is 65 VdB, while 85 VdB is acceptable only if there are an infrequent number of events per day. Table 10 describes the typical construction equipment vibration levels.21
Table 10
Typical Construction Vibration Levels
Equipment VdB at 25 ft
Small Bulldozer 58
Jackhammer 79
The primary vibration-generating activities associated with the proposed Project would occur when grading of the site is conducted, and when infrastructure such as utilities, and foundations are constructed. Operating cycles for the types of construction equipment used during construction may involve one or two minutes of full power operation followed by three or four minutes at lower power settings. Other primary sources of acoustical disturbance would be due to random incidents, which would last less than one minute (such as dropping large pieces of equipment or the hydraulic movement of machinery lifts).

While there are residences to the east of the proposed Project, vibratory compactors/rollers would be used only on a limited and interval basis during compaction, and would be moving throughout the site, instead of stationary or operated long-term in the same location to the extent it would damage buildings due to longer-term extended use.

Vibration from construction activities will be temporary and not exceed the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) threshold for the nearest rural residences to the Project site. Therefore, the impact is considered less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan, or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 21 The Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. September 2018. https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessmentmanual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf. Table 7-1. Accessed December 2025.

CITY OF HANFORD | Crawford & Bowen Planning, 87
Bonadelle Lacey Ave Residential Project | Initial Study No Impact. According to the Kings County Airport Land Use Plan, the Project is not located in an airport land use plan. The Project is approximately four and one-half miles from the Hanford public airport. The Project is outside the anticipated noise contours as shown on the Airport Compatibility Zone Map in the General Plan Background Report. Therefore, there is no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

CITY OF HANFORD | Crawford & Bowen Planning, 88
Bonadelle Lacey Ave Residential Project | Initial Study XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Induce substantial population growth in
an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The California Department of Finance determined that as of January 1, 2025, the Hanford population is 61,238.
22 The average household size, as determined in the U.S. Census Bureau was 3.08 persons.23

RESPONSES
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
22 California Department of Finance. Report: 108,000 More Californians in 2024: Total State Population Tops 39.5 Million. chromeextension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://dof.ca.gov/media/docs/forecasting/Demographics/estimates/E1_2025_Press_Release.pdf. Accessed December 2025. 23 Ibid.

CITY OF HANFORD | Crawford & Bowen Planning, 89
Bonadelle Lacey Ave Residential Project | Initial Study Less Than Significant Impacts. The site is currently in agricultural production and contains one rural residence which will be demolished with Project implementation. The Project proposes the construction of 78 new homes, which would provide additional housing for approximately 240 people. The site is currently adjacent to the western City limits of Hanford and is within the Sphere of Influence. The site is designated and zoned for residential development. As such, the increase in population has been accounted for in the City’s General Plan and associated General Plan Environmental Impact Report.

Entitlements needed to accommodate the proposed Project include Annexation, Prezoning, a Planned Unit Development and a Tentative Subdivision Map.

The City of Hanford’s primary industry is agriculture, but there is a sufficient labor force in the area to support many other types of industries, as the regional unemployment rate in August 2025 was 8.9%.

The proposed Project will alleviate some overcrowding in the regional population by contributing reliable housing and will additionally provide temporary construction jobs to the local workforce.

In conclusion, the Project implementation will not displace a substantial amount people and instead provide needed housing. Any impacts are considered less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

CITY OF HANFORD | Crawford & Bowen Planning, 90
Bonadelle Lacey Ave Residential Project | Initial Study XV. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities,
the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the
public services:

Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Hanford Fire Department Station 3 is located at 1070 S. 12th Avenue, approximately 1.15 miles southeast of the Project site. The Hanford Fire Department offers a full range of services including fire/rescue, emergency medical treatment and transport, fire prevention, and hazardous materials first response.

Police protection services are provided by the Hanford Police Department, which is approximately 1.95 miles northeast of the Project site at 425 N. Irwin Street, Hanford. The Hanford Police Department provides a full range of police services.

CITY OF HANFORD | Crawford & Bowen Planning, 91
Bonadelle Lacey Ave Residential Project | Initial Study Educational services are provided by the Hanford Elementary School District (HESD) and the Hanford Joint Union Hish School District (HJUHSD). Hanford Elementary District operates twelve schools within the planning area while HJUHSD operates seven schools.

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

Fire protection?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The Hanford Fire Department (HFD) Station 3, located approximately 1.15 miles to the southeast will provide fire protection services to the proposed development.

The HFD follows the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) Yearbook for guidelines. The Yearbook recommends 1.02 firefighters per 1,000 residents. In 2013, the department had 27 fire suppression personnel for 55,470 residents, a ratio of .49. The station would currently need 58 fire suppression personnel to meet the standard. The addition of 240 residential units proposed with Project development will increase the demand for fire protection services. The existing fire stations are placed to provide optimum service; however, new stations will be needed to support the expanding city. The demand for additional personnel and equipment will be compensated for by the development impact fee of $546.39 per unit of Low-Density Housing. To support the expansion of fire services, the total development impact fee is $42,618.42. The timing of when new fire service facilities would be required or details about size and location cannot be known until such facilities are planned and proposed, and any attempt to analyze impacts on a potential future facility would be speculative. As new or expanded fire service facilities become necessary, construction or expansion would be subject to their own separate CEQA review to identify and mitigate any potential environmental impacts. However, payment of Fire Impact Fees, as described in mitigation measure PUB-1 will ensure impacts associated with new and altered governmental facilities remain less than significant.

Police Protection?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The Hanford Police Department (HPD) will provide services to the proposed development. The HPD headquarters are located approximately 2.5 miles northeast of the proposed Project site. The development would increase the demand for police service

CITY OF HANFORD | Crawford & Bowen Planning, 92
Bonadelle Lacey Ave Residential Project | Initial Study with the addition of 240 residential units. The HPD seeks a service standard of 1.1 to 1.2 sworn officers per 1,000 residents. In 2013, the Department had 55 sworn officers for 55,470 residents, a ratio of .99. The Department seeks at least 10 new officers for the growing city. The demand for additional officers and equipment will be compensated by the development impact fee of $296.50 per unit of Low-Density Housing. The total development impact fee for police protection services would be $23,127. The timing of when new police service facilities would be required or details about size and location cannot be known until such facilities are planned and proposed, and any attempt to analyze impacts on a potential future facility would be speculative. As new or expanded police service facilities become necessary, construction or expansion Projects would be subject to their own separate CEQA review to identify and mitigate any potential environmental impacts. Additionally, the impact will be reduced by paying Police Impact Fees to account for the increased demand for police services caused by the Project. Therefore, the impact is less than significant with the incorporation mitigation measure PUB-2.

Schools?
Less Than Significant Impact Mitigation. The proposed Project is within the Hanford Elementary School District (HESD) and the Hanford Joint Union High School District (HJUHSD) and residents of the proposed Project are within the Simas Elementary, Woodrow Wilson Junior High and Sierra Pacific High School. According to the AUESD, HESD, and HJUHSD Development Fee Justification Study, the residential student generation rates24 are as follows:

HESD – Grades TK-8 Total: 0.406
HJUHSD – Grades 9-12: 0.180
Since the proposed Project includes the addition of 78 single-family homes, the number of Tk-8 grade students will increase by approximately 32 while the number of 9-12 grade students will increase by approximately 14, for a total of 46 students. The proposed Project site is located within the City’s Sphere of Influence and is designated and zoned for residential development. Growth associated with the Project has been planned and expected. In addition to the goals and policies of the City’s General Plan, future development is required to pay development impact fees to the school districts at the time of building permit issuance. The City of Hanford charges $4.08 per square foot of residential development. The exact 24 AUESD, HESD, and HJUHSD Development Fee Justification Study. Odell Planning & Research, Inc. Table B-3. chromeextension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://resources.finalsite.net/images/v1652275949/hesdk12caus/ruavlzeog3pxdhfpyqjt/FeeStu dy2022-
HJUHSDHESDAUESDFinal.pdf#:~:text=Based%20upon%20past%20development%20activity%20and%20reasonable,in%20the%20next%20ten %20years%20in%20HESD. Accessed January 2026.

CITY OF HANFORD | Crawford & Bowen Planning, 93
Bonadelle Lacey Ave Residential Project | Initial Study square footage for the housing has yet to be determined, however, the Project will pay its fair share in fees for schools, as outlined in mitigation measure PUB-3. Therefore, the impact is less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Parks?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The proposed Project includes the construction of a 78 single family residential development. The closest park to the proposed Project is Rotary Park, approximately 1.05 miles to the northeast. The Project will be required to pay City Park facility impact fees to compensate for any service demand increase on existing parks within the Hanford area as described in Mitigation Measure PUB-4. The Project applicant would be required to comply with the Municipal Code and Ordinances. Impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Other public facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project is within the land use and growth projections identified in the City’s General Plan and other infrastructure studies. The Project, therefore, would not result in increased demand for, or impacts on, other public facilities such as library services. Any impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures:

PUB-1 The Project developer shall be required to pay the Fire Protection Development Impact Fee as detailed by Chapter 15.45 of the Hanford Municipal Code prior to issuance of occupancy permits.

PUB-2 The Project developer shall be required to pay the Police Protection Development Impact Fee as detailed by Chapter 15.46.020 of the Hanford Municipal Code prior to issuance of occupancy permits.

PUB-3 The Project developer shall be required to pay the Hanford Joint Union High School District Development Impact Fee prior to issuance of occupancy permits.

PUB-4 The Project developer shall be required to pay the Park Facilities Impact Fee as detailed by Chapter 15.44.010 of the Hanford Municipal Code prior to issuance of occupancy permits.

CITY OF HANFORD | Crawford & Bowen Planning, 94
Bonadelle Lacey Ave Residential Project | Initial Study XVI. RECREATION
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b. Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The City has a total of twenty-one parks available for use. These include neighborhood parks, such as Coe Park, community parks, such as Hidden Valley Park, and special use parks, such as the Harris Street Ball Park. These parks are managed by the City of Hanford’s Parks and Community Services Department. This department also supervises and coordinates a wide variety of community programs and activities.

RESPONSES
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The Project Applicant intends to develop 78 singlefamily residential units on an approximately 13.88-acre site. No park is proposed with the development and as such, the proposed Project will be subject to pay the park impact fees which will offset the parkland not provided in the development, as detailed in Mitigation Measure PUB-3. The future park

CITY OF HANFORD | Crawford & Bowen Planning, 95
Bonadelle Lacey Ave Residential Project | Initial Study construction will undergo separate environmental review at the time it is developed. Impacts are considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measures: See PUB-3.

CITY OF HANFORD | Crawford & Bowen Planning, 96
Bonadelle Lacey Ave Residential Project | Initial Study XVII. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent
with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d. Result in inadequate emergency access?

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The proposed Project includes the annexation of 16.65 acres and development of 78 residential units on a 13.88-acre portion. Lacey Blvd is to the north of the Project site while Aquifer Drive (currently called Avenue 12 ½ ) is to the east. State Route 198 is located approximately 0.5 miles to the south.

Lacey Boulevard is an east-west arterial that intersects 11th and 12th Avenues approximately one mile south of Grangeville Boulevard. It operates primarily as a divided four-lane roadway and is classified as an arterial west of 11th Avenue and as a collector east of 11th Avenue. Lacey Boulevard provides access to commercial, residential, and agricultural land uses.

State Route 198 is an east-west state highway that extends from the California Central Coast, through the Central Valley to Sequoia National Park. It functions as a major regional and interregional corridor and operates within the study area as a four-lane expressway.

CITY OF HANFORD | Crawford & Bowen Planning, 97
Bonadelle Lacey Ave Residential Project | Initial Study

REGULATORY SETTING
Federal
Federal Transit Administration.

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is an authority that provides financial and technical assistance to local public transit systems, including buses, subways, light rail, commuter rail, trolleys, and ferries.

The FTA is funded by Title 49 of the United States Code, which states the FTA’s interest in fostering the development and revitalization of public transportation.

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

Titles I, II, III, IV, and V of the ADA have been codified in Title 42 of the United States Code, beginning at Section 12101. Title III prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in “places of public accommodation” (businesses and nonprofit agencies that serve the public) and “commercial facilities” (other businesses). The regulation includes Standards for Accessible Design, which establish minimum standards for ensuring accessibility when designing and constructing a new facility or altering an existing facility.

State
Senate Bill (SB) 743.

On September 27, 2013, Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 743 into law and codified a process that changed transportation impact analysis as part of CEQA compliance. SB 743 directs the California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to administer new CEQA guidance for jurisdictions that removes automobile vehicle delay and LOS or other similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestions from CEQA transportation analysis. Rather, it requires the analysis of VMT or other measures that “promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multi‐modal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses,” to be used as a basis for determining significant impacts to circulation in California. The goal of SB 743 is to appropriately balance the needs of congestion management with statewide goals related to reducing GHG emissions, encourage infill development, and promote public health through active transportation.

Local
City of Hanford Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Guidelines The City of Hanford has adopted the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines (VMT Guidelines) to address the issue VMT in accordance with CEQA Guidelines. The City VMT Guidelines contains thresholds that can be used to identify when a proposed land use project is

CITY OF HANFORD | Crawford & Bowen Planning, 98
Bonadelle Lacey Ave Residential Project | Initial Study 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 with a combined area of up to 55,000 square feet

3. Redevelopment projects that result in equal or net reduction in VMT.

4. 100 percent affordable housing projects

5. Projects that are consistent with the General Plan and generate fewer than 1,000 average daily trips
A development project meeting one or more of the above attributes may be presumed to produce a less than significant VMT impact.

RESPONSES
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project consists of the construction of 78 single family residential units as well as on-site circulation-related infrastructure improvements, including new local residential streets.

Vehicular Access: Vehicular access to the Project will be from Aquifer Drive (currently called 12 ½ Avenue) and via the residential development immediately to the south, which is currently undergoing the entitlement process. The Project has been designed to provide future connections to the south of the Project.

LOS Analysis: A traffic study was prepared by VRPA Technologies, Inc., dated March 30, 2026 and is provided in full as Appendix D. The City of Hanford’s Transportation Element Policy T29 sets the maximum Level of Service at “E” on streets and intersections within the area bounded by Highway 198, 10th Avenue, 11th Avenue, and Florinda Avenue, inclusive of these streets. The City has set a peak hour Level of Service of “D” on all other streets and intersections with the Planned Growth Boundary.

New trips generated by the residential development were estimated using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition). The resulting Project trip generation is 871 daily trips with 56 AM peak hour trips and 74 PM peak hour trips.

CITY OF HANFORD | Crawford & Bowen Planning, 99
Bonadelle Lacey Ave Residential Project | Initial Study The intersection at 12 ½ Avenue at Lacey Blvd was studied as part of the traffic study under the following scenarios:
• Existing (2026) Conditions
• Opening Year 2027 Without Project
• Opening Year 2027 With Project
• Horizon (Future) Year 2046 Without Project
• Horizon (Future) Year 2046 With Project
Table 11 provides the existing and opening year (with and without the Project) intersection operations.

Table 11
Existing and Opening Year Intersection Operations
Horizon Year traffic conditions with and without the Project in the year 2046 (20 years from Opening Year conditions) were estimated by taking the larger of the traffic volumes and applying a growth rate of 2% per year to the existing traffic volumes. Table 12 presents the Horizon Year With and Without Project scenario.

Table 12
Horizon Year Intersection Operations

CITY OF HANFORD | Crawford & Bowen Planning, 100
Bonadelle Lacey Ave Residential Project | Initial Study As demonstrated in Tables 11 and 12, the intersection is calculated to operate at or above the City’s LOS minimum of “D” therefore no mitigations are required.

Pedestrian and Cyclist Connectivity: The Hanford Active Transportation Plan Update 2024 (ATP) establishes a long-term vision for improving walking and bicycling in Hanford.25 The ATP shows that there is a plan for a Class II Bike Lane to be installed on Lacey Blvd, along the proposed Project boundary.

It also shows a Tier 3 Pedestrian Priority Corridor along Lacey Blvd, just east of the proposed Project boundary. The Project will install sidewalks along all perimeter streets as well internal local streets in accordance with City development standards as part of the Project design to increase the walkability of the development.

Transit: There are multiple modes of public transportation in and around the City of Hanford. The Amtrak Station is located at 200 Sante Fe Avenue, approximately 1.8 miles to the east of the Project site.

Amtrak connects the City of Hanford to over 100 destinations. The Kings Area Rural Transit (KART) provides public transit service to the Cities of Armona, Avenal, Corcoran, Grangeville, Hardwick, Hanford, Kettleman City, Laton, Lemoore, and Stratford. The Project site is located within 0.5 miles of two transit stops. The Centennial at Target stop is approximately 0.41 miles to the east while the Lacey at Four Seasons stop is 0.2 miles to the west. Additionally, the planning for the Kings-Tulare High-Speed Rail Station Transit Oriented Development Project is almost complete and the Final Plan and Report is anticipated in early 2026.

Proposed Project development will not conflict with a program plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle or pedestrian facilities. Any impacts are less than significant.
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? No Impact. The City of Hanford has adopted the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines (VMT Guidelines) to address the issue VMT in accordance with CEQA Guidelines. The City VMT Guidelines contains 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:
25 Hanford Active Transportation Plan. February 2025. chromeextension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.cityofhanfordca.com/DocumentCenter/View/2071/Hanford-ActiveTransportation-Plan-Final-PDF?bidId=. Accessed January 2026.

CITY OF HANFORD | Crawford & Bowen Planning, 101
Bonadelle Lacey Ave Residential Project | Initial Study

1. Residential and office projects within a Transit Priority Area

2. Locally serving retail projects with a combined area of up to 55,000 square feet

3. Redevelopment projects that result in equal or net reduction in VMT.

4. 100 percent affordable housing projects

5. Projects that are consistent with the General Plan and generate fewer than 1,000 average daily trips A development project meeting one or more of the above attributes may be presumed to produce a less than significant VMT impact.

The City of Hanford VMT Guidelines were used to evaluate consistency with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3. According to the guidelines, the Project is screened out from further review because will generate fewer than 1,000 daily trips and it is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation.

As the residential units proposed with the Project are estimated to generate a maximum of 736 daily trips and the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation, the Project can be screened out, therefore it will not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines 15064.3. There is no impact.
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project has been designed for ease of access, adequate circulation/movement, and is typical of residential developments in the City of Hanford. On-site circulation patterns do not involve high speeds, sharp curves or dangerous intersections. Although there will be an increase in the volume of vehicles accessing the site and surrounding areas, the proposed Project will not present a substantial increase in hazards. Any impacts are considered less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?

CITY OF HANFORD | Crawford & Bowen Planning, 102
Bonadelle Lacey Ave Residential Project | Initial Study Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project does not involve a change to any emergency response plan. The site will remain accessible to emergency vehicles of all sizes. As such, potential impacts are less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

CITY OF HANFORD | Crawford & Bowen Planning, 103
Bonadelle Lacey Ave Residential Project | Initial Study XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

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

CITY OF HANFORD | Crawford & Bowen Planning, 104
Bonadelle Lacey Ave Residential Project | Initial Study

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

Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation. In accordance with Assembly Bill (AB) 52 and Senate Bill (SB) 18, potentially affected Tribes were formally notified of this Project and were given the opportunity to request consultation on the Project. Crawford and Bowen Planning, Inc., on behalf of the City contacted the Native American Heritage Commission, requesting a contact list of applicable Native American Tribes, which was provided. Then Crawford and Bowen Planning, Inc., on behalf of the City, provided letters to the listed Tribes on December 19, 2025, notifying them of the Project and requesting consultation, if desired.

A Cultural Resources Assessment was prepared by Hudlow Cultural Resources Associates dated November 2025 and is provided in Appendix C. As stated in the assessment, the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, nor is it listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources. As part of the assessment, a records search was completed by the Southern San Joaquin Valley information Center. Based on the results of the records search, no previously recorded tribal cultural resources are located within the Project. Although no protected historical resources were identified and the presence of remains are not anticipated, cultural resources under the ground surface is possible. The Cultural Resources Assessment included a recommendation for two mitigations previously listed under Cultural Resources, CUL 1 and CUL 2. The City and the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe have also agreed to an additional mitigation measure that requires the developer/owner to agree to a burial treatment plan prior to any ground disturbing activities, which is included as Mitigation Measure CUL-3. Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUL-2 and CUL 3 will ensure that impacts will be less than significant with mitigation.

CITY OF HANFORD | Crawford & Bowen Planning, 105
Bonadelle Lacey Ave Residential Project | Initial Study Mitigation Measures:

CUL – 3
A burial treatment plan shall be entered into by the Project applicant/property owner prior to any ground disturbing activities.

CITY OF HANFORD | Crawford & Bowen Planning, 106
Bonadelle Lacey Ave Residential Project | Initial Study XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years?
c. Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or
local standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the attainment of solid
waste reduction goals?
e. Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?

CITY OF HANFORD | Crawford & Bowen Planning, 107
Bonadelle Lacey Ave Residential Project | Initial Study

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The proposed Project will be required to connect to water, sewer, stormwater and wastewater services provided by the City of Hanford and may be subject to water use fees and/or development fees to be provided such service. In addition, the Project will require solid waste disposal services.

Water
The City of Hanford’s water supply system is a groundwater system. The city is located within the Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region is within the Tulare Lake Groundwater Subbasin which transmits, filters, and stores water from the main San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin. The system consists of 15 groundwater wells, three storage reservoirs, distribution mains, and fire hydrants. The system does not use surface water.

Solid Waste
Solid waste in the city is collected by a private contractor, Kings Waste Recycling Authority (KWRA).

Refuse is sorted at the KWRA facility to recover recyclable materials before being hauled to the landfills in Kettleman Hills. For single-family residential customers, the City has instituted a green waste collection mixed recycle collection program.

Wastewater
The City of Hanford wastewater system provides for the treatment, disposal, and reuse of effluent, which meets all of the state’s discharge requirements for the city. The wastewater system consists of a treatment plant and 21 sanitary sewer lift stations located throughout the city. The treatment facility has a capacity of 8 million gallons per day and is located south of Houston Avenue and East of 11th Avenue. The City’s wastewater system also pursues water conservation strategies to ensure the long-term reuse of treated disinfected wastewater to reduce the need for groundwater.

RESPONSES
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project site is within the City of Hanford Sphere of Influence. Upon Annexation, the Project site will be located within the service territory of the City of Hanford and is currently designated for residential development in the City of Hanford General Plan. Operational discharge flows treated at the City’s wastewater treatment facility would be required to comply with applicable water discharge requirements issued by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board

CITY OF HANFORD | Crawford & Bowen Planning, 108
Bonadelle Lacey Ave Residential Project | Initial Study (RWQCB). Compliance with conditions or permit requirements established by the City as well as water discharge requirements outlined by the Central Valley RWQCB would ensure that wastewater discharges coming from the proposed Project site and treated by the WWTF system would not exceed applicable Central Valley RWQCB wastewater treatment requirements.

As discussed in Section IX, Hydrology and Water Quality, with an increase in the area of impervious surfaces on the Project site, an increase in the amount of storm water runoff is anticipated. The site will be designed so that storm water is collected and deposited in the on-site 0.88-acre stormwater basin. Any additional runoff infrastructure will tie into the City’s existing storm drain system. The storm water collection system design will be subject to review and approval by the City Public Works Department.

Storm water during construction will be managed as part of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). A copy of the SWPPP is retained on-site during construction.

Additionally, as the site is designated for residential development, water usage, electricity and natural gas usage and the use of telecommunications facilities has been accounted for is the City’s and utility providers long-range planning documents.

Thus, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Less Than Significant Impact. Water service would be provided to the Project by the City of Hanford, which relies on groundwater as its sole water supply source. The City is a member of the Kings River East Groundwater Sustainability Agency (MKRGSA). The most recent MKRGSA GSP Annual Report indicates that groundwater levels at Representative Monitoring Sites near the City are above their designated Minimum Thresholds and on track to meet the forecast groundwater level projections and Interim Milestones established for these wells.26 To continue this trajectory, development within the MKRGSA, including the proposed Project, are required to adhere to the provisions of the MKRGSA groundwater sustainability plan.

Additionally, the City anticipates that its sources of supplies will be available to meet demands on a consistent basis for all year types throughout the planning horizon of the UWMP, as the site is planned 26 Ibid. Pg 1-3.

CITY OF HANFORD | Crawford & Bowen Planning, 109
Bonadelle Lacey Ave Residential Project | Initial Study for residential development and has been included in the City’s infrastructure planning documentation.

The proposed development will be required to follow the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinances which include land use goals, policies, and implementation measures for developments regarding water use. The Project developer will also be required to pay the City of Hanford’s water system impact fees.

Funds accrued under this fee are used to make capital improvements to the City’s water system, including conservation improvements. Impacts are less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project will result in wastewater from residential units that will be discharged into the City’s existing wastewater treatment system. The wastewater will be typical of other residential developments consisting of bathrooms, kitchen drains, and other similar features.

The Project will not discharge any unusual or atypical wastewater that would violate the City’s waste discharge requirements. Therefore, assuming compliance with applicable standards and payment of required impact fees and connection charges, the Project would not result in a significant impact related to construction or expansions of existing wastewater treatment facilities. The impact of the Project on wastewater treatment is less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? e) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Hanford, provides weekly curbside solid waste collection services to all households, businesses, and industries within City limits. The Project will result in the generation of additional solid waste typical of residential uses. Because the City’s existing infrastructure has the capacity to accommodate the solid waste currently planned in the General Plan for expanded population, it can be inferred that the existing solid waste infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed Project.

CITY OF HANFORD | Crawford & Bowen Planning, 110
Bonadelle Lacey Ave Residential Project | Initial Study The proposed Project conforms to all applicable statues and regulations related to solid waste disposal and will comply with the adopted policies related to solid waste. The Project would not generate solid waste in excess of State or Local Standards and as such, impacts are less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

CITY OF HANFORD | Crawford & Bowen Planning, 111
Bonadelle Lacey Ave Residential Project | Initial Study XX. WILDFIRE
If located in or near state responsibility
areas or lands classified as very high fire
hazard severity zones, would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and
thereby expose project occupants to,
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c. Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power
lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate
fire risk or that may result in temporary or
ongoing impacts to the environment?
d. Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff,
post-fire slope instability, or drainage
changes?

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The City of Hanford’s planning area is composed of urbanized portions of land and the surrounding agricultural fields. The Project site has ensured fire protection by the Hanford Fire Department, located at 350 W. Grangeville Boulevard, approximately two miles northeast of the site. Given the location of the nearest fire station, approximately one mile to the southeast, response time is expected to be extremely quick in the rare event of a fire event.

CITY OF HANFORD | Crawford & Bowen Planning, 112
Bonadelle Lacey Ave Residential Project | Initial Study

RESPONSES
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project is located in an area developed with rural residential, residential and agricultural uses, which precludes the risk of wildfire. The area is flat in nature which would limit the risk of downslope flooding and landslides, and limit any wildfire spread.

According to the Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, the City of Hanford is not at high risk for Wildfires and the City is not in a State responsibility area or classified as a Fire Hazard Severity Zone, as shown on the Kings County Federal, State, and Local Responsibility Severity Zones Map for Kings County.

The proposed Project does not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure that would increase wildfire risk or result in impacts to the environment. To receive building permits, the proposed Project would be required to be in compliance with the adopted emergency response plan. As such, any wildfire risk to the project structures or people would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

CITY OF HANFORD | Crawford & Bowen Planning, 113
Bonadelle Lacey Ave Residential Project | Initial Study XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF

SIGNIFICANCE
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)?
c. Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?

RESPONSES
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the

CITY OF HANFORD | Crawford & Bowen Planning, 114
Bonadelle Lacey Ave Residential Project | Initial Study number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed Project site is currently undeveloped and surrounded by agricultural and residential land uses. The Project includes an annexation and the development of 78 residential units. As evaluated in this IS/MND, the proposed Project would not substantially degrade the quality of the environment; substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; 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. Mitigation measures have been included to lessen the significance of potential impacts. Similar mitigation measures would be expected of other projects in the surrounding area, most of which share a similar cultural paleontological and biological resources. Consequently, the incremental effects of the proposed Project, after mitigation, would not contribute to an adverse cumulative impact on these resources. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Less Than Significant Impact. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(i) states that a Lead Agency shall consider whether the cumulative impact of a project is significant and whether the effects of the project are cumulatively considerable. The assessment of the significance of the cumulative effects of a project must, therefore, be conducted in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects. Due to the nature of the Project and consistency with environmental policies, incremental contributions to impacts are considered less than cumulatively considerable. All Project- related impacts were determined to be either less than significant, or less than significant after mitigation. The proposed Project would not contribute substantially to adverse cumulative conditions, or create any substantial indirect impacts (i.e., increase in population could lead to an increase need for housing, increase in traffic, air pollutants, etc.). Due to buildout of the area and existing land constraints, it is not anticipated that further unplanned substantial residential development will occur in the area in the foreseeable future. As such, Project impacts are not considered to be cumulatively considerable given the lack

CITY OF HANFORD | Crawford & Bowen Planning, 115
Bonadelle Lacey Ave Residential Project | Initial Study of proposed new development in the area and the insignificance of Project-induced impacts. The impact is therefore less than significant.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less Than Significant Impact. The analyses of environmental issues contained in this Initial Study indicate that the project may have substantial impact on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Mitigation measures have been incorporated as described in each specific impact area which will reduce all potentially significant impacts to less than significant.

CITY OF HANFORD | Crawford & Bowen Planning, 116
Bonadelle Lacey Ave Residential Project | Initial Study

LIST OF PREPARERS
Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.
• Emily Bowen, LEED AP, Principal Environmental Planner • Travis Crawford, AICP, Principal Environmental Planner • Caroline Gibbons, Associate Environmental Planner
Colibri Ecological Consultants
Hudlow Cultural Resource Associates
Persons and Agencies Consulted
City of Hanford
• Gabrielle Myers, City Planner

Bonadelle Lacey Ave Residential Project
CITY OF HANFORD | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 1

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING

PROGRAM
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been formulated based upon the findings of the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Bonadelle Lacey Ave Residential Project. The MMRP lists mitigation measures recommended in the IS/MND for the proposed Project and identifies monitoring and reporting requirements as well as conditions recommended by responsible agencies who commented on the Project.

The first column of the Table identifies the mitigation measure. The second column, entitled “Party Responsible for Implementing Mitigation,” names the party responsible for carrying out the required action. The third column, “Implementation Timing,” identifies the time the mitigation measure should be initiated. The fourth column, “Party Responsible for Monitoring,” names the party ultimately responsible for ensuring that the mitigation measure is implemented. The last column will be used by the Lead Agency to ensure that individual mitigation measures have been monitored.

Bonadelle Lacey Ave Residential Project
CITY OF HANFORD | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 2
Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Implementation
Timing
Party
responsible
for Monitoring
Verification
(name/date)
Biological Resources
BIO – 1
A pre-construction take avoidance survey shall be
conducted by a qualified biologist in accordance with
the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG
2012) to ensure that no burrowing owl will be
disturbed during the implementation of the Project. A
pre-construction take avoidance survey shall be
conducted no more than 14 days prior to the initiation
of construction activities. During this survey, the
qualified biologist shall inspect all potential
burrowing owl habitat in and within 500 feet of the
impact areas. If a burrowing owl or sign of burrowing
owl use (e.g., feathers, excrement, pellets) is detected, a no-disturbance buffer, as outlined in the 2012 Staff
Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation shall be erected.

If a BUOW or known BUOW den (active or inactive)
is detected during pre-construction surveys or Project
activities, and the no-disturbance buffers outlined in
the 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation
are not feasible, consultation with CDFW is warranted
to discuss how to implement the Project and avoid
take. If take cannot be avoided, take authorization
through the acquisition of an ITP, pursuant to Fish
and Game Code section 2081 subdivision (b) shall be
obtained to comply with CESA.

Project
Applicant/
Developer
Prior to and
during
construction
City of
Hanford

Bonadelle Lacey Ave Residential Project
CITY OF HANFORD | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3
Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Implementation
Timing
Party
responsible
for Monitoring
Verification
(name/date)
BIO-2
A qualified biologist shall conduct surveys for nesting SWHA following the entire survey methodology
developed by the SWHA Technical Advisory
Committee (SWHA TAC 2000). The survey shall occur
immediately prior to the start of Project development
or ground-disturbing activities.

Project
Applicant/
Developer
Prior to
construction
City of
Hanford
BIO-3
If any active SWHA nest is detected during preconstruction surveys or Project activities, a minimum ½-mile no-disturbance buffer around each nest shall
be maintained prior to and during any development
or ground-disturbing activities. To prevent nest
abandonment and other take of SWHA as a result of
Project activities, that these no-disturbance buffers
shall remain in place until the breeding season (March
1 through September 15) has ended or until a
qualified biologist has determined that the birds have
fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or
parental care for survival.

Project
Applicant/
Developer
Prior to and
during
construction
City of
Hanford
BIO-4
If any active SWHA nest is detected during preconstruction surveys or Project activities, and a ½- mile no-disturbance buffer is not feasible, consultation Project
Applicant/
Developer
Prior to and
during
construction
City of
Hanford

Bonadelle Lacey Ave Residential Project
CITY OF HANFORD | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 4
Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Implementation
Timing
Party
responsible
for Monitoring
Verification
(name/date)
with CDFW shall happen to discuss how to
implement the Project and avoid take. If take cannot
be avoided, take authorization through the acquisition
of an Incidental Take Permit (ITP), pursuant to Fish
and Game Code section 2081 subdivision (b) shall be
obtained to comply with CESA.

BIO-5
A qualified biologist shall conduct a habitat
assessment following the Survey Considerations for
California Endangered Species Act Bumble Bee
Species (CDFW 2023), during the survey season
immediately prior to the start of Project development
or ground-disturbing activities.

Project
Applicant/
Developer
Prior to
construction
City of
Hanford
BIO-6
If potentially suitable habitat is identified, a qualified biologist shall conduct focused surveys for CBB, and
their requisite habitat features, following the
methodology outlined in the Survey Considerations
for California Endangered Species Act Candidate
Bumble Bee Species (CDFW 2023) immediately prior
to any development or ground-disturbing activities.

Project
Applicant/
Developer
Prior to
construction
City of
Hanford
BIO-7
If CBB is detected, that all small mammal burrows,
thatched/bunch grasses, and any other potential
Project
Applicant/
Developer
Prior to and
during
construction
City of
Hanford

Bonadelle Lacey Ave Residential Project
CITY OF HANFORD | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 5
Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Implementation
Timing
Party
responsible
for Monitoring
Verification
(name/date)
nesting resources shall be avoided by a minimum of
50 feet to avoid take. If ground-disturbing activities
would occur during the overwintering period
(October through February), consultation with CDFW
shall occur to discuss how to implement Project
activities and avoid take. If any detection of CBB prior to or during Project implementation occurs,
consultation with CDFW shall take place to discuss
how to avoid take. If take cannot be avoided, take
authorization through the acquisition of an ITP,
pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2081
subdivision (b) shall be obtained to comply with
CESA.

BIO-8
To the extent practicable, construction shall be
scheduled to avoid the nesting season, which extends
from February through August. If it is not possible to
schedule construction between September and
January, pre-construction surveys for nesting birds
shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to ensure
that no active nests will be disturbed during the
implementation of the Project. A pre-construction
survey shall be conducted no more than 10 days prior
to the initiation of construction activities. During this survey, the qualified biologist shall inspect all
Project
Applicant/
Developer
Prior to and
during
construction
City of
Hanford

Bonadelle Lacey Ave Residential Project
CITY OF HANFORD | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 6
Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Implementation
Timing
Party
responsible
for Monitoring
Verification
(name/date)
potential nest substrates in and immediately adjacent
to the impact areas. If an active nest is found close
enough to the construction area to be disturbed by
these activities, the qualified biologist shall determine the extent of a construction-free buffer to be
established around the nest. If work cannot proceed
without disturbing the nesting birds, work may need
to be halted or redirected to other areas until nesting and fledging are completed or the nest has otherwise
failed for non-construction related reasons.

Cultural Resources
CUL – 1
Should evidence of prehistoric archeological resources
be discovered during construction, the contractor
shall halt all work within 25 feet of the find and the
resource shall be evaluated by a qualified
archaeologist. If evidence of any archaeological,
cultural, and/or historical deposits is found, hand
excavation and/or mechanical excavation shall
proceed to evaluate the deposits for determination of
significance as defined by the CEQA guidelines. The
archaeologist shall submit reports, to the satisfaction of the City of Hanford, describing the testing program
and subsequent results. These reports shall identify
any program mitigation that the project proponent
Project
Applicant/
Developer
Prior to and
during
construction
City of
Hanford

Bonadelle Lacey Ave Residential Project
CITY OF HANFORD | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 7
Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Implementation
Timing
Party
responsible
for Monitoring
Verification
(name/date)
shall complete in order to mitigate archaeological
impacts (including resource recovery and/or
avoidance testing and analysis, removal, reburial, and
curation of archaeological resources).

CUL-2
In order to ensure that the proposed project does not
impact buried human remains during construction,
the project proponent shall be responsible for ongoing monitoring of project construction. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the project proponent
shall provide the City of Hanford with documentation
identifying construction personnel that will be
responsible for on-site monitoring. If buried human
remains are encountered during construction, further
excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby
area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains
shall be halted until the Kings County coroner is
contacted and the coroner has made the
determinations and notifications required pursuant to
Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. If the coroner
determines that Health and Safety Code Section
7050.5(c) require that he give notice to the Native
American Heritage Commission, then such notice
shall be given within 24 hours, as required by Health
and Safety Code Section 7050.5(c). In that event, the
Project
Applicant/
Developer
Prior to and
during
construction
City of
Hanford

Bonadelle Lacey Ave Residential Project
CITY OF HANFORD | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 8
Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Implementation
Timing
Party
responsible
for Monitoring
Verification
(name/date)
NAHC will conduct the notifications required by
Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. Until the
consultations described below have been completed,
the landowner shall further ensure that the immediate
vicinity, according to generally accepted cultural or
archaeological standards or practices where Native
American human remains are located, is not disturbed
by further development activity until the landowner
has discussed and conferred with the Most Likely
Descendants on all reasonable options regarding the
descendants' preferences and treatments, as
prescribed by Public Resources Code Section
5097.98(b). The NAHC will mediate any disputes
regarding treatment of remains in accordance with
Public Resources Code Section 5097.94(k). The
landowner shall be entitled to exercise rights
established by Public Resources Code Section
5097.98(e) if any of the circumstances established by
that provision become applicable.

Tribal Resources
CUL-3
A burial treatment plan shall be entered into by
the Project applicant/property owner prior to any
ground disturbing activities.

Project
Applicant
Prior to any
ground
disturbing
City of
Hanford

Bonadelle Lacey Ave Residential Project
CITY OF HANFORD | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 9
Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Implementation
Timing
Party
responsible
for Monitoring
Verification
(name/date)
activities
PUB-1
The Project developer shall be required to pay the
Fire Protection Development Impact Fee as
detailed by Chapter 15.45 of the Hanford
Municipal Code prior to issuance of occupancy
permits.

Project
Applicant
Prior to the
issuance of
occupancy
permits
City of
Hanford
PUB-2
The Project developer shall be required to pay the
Police Protection Development Impact Fee as
detailed by Chapter 15.46.020 of the Hanford
Municipal Code prior to issuance of occupancy
permits.

Project
Applicant
Prior to the
issuance of
occupancy
permits
City of
Hanford
PUB-3
The Project developer shall be required to pay the
Hanford Joint Union High School District
Development Impact Fee prior to issuance of
occupancy permits.

Project
Applicant
Prior to the
issuance of
occupancy
permits
City of
Hanford
PUB-4
The Project developer shall be required to pay the
Park Facilities Impact Fee as detailed by Chapter

15.44.010 of the Hanford Municipal Code prior to
issuance of occupancy permits.

Project
Applicant
Prior to the
issuance of
occupancy
permits
City of
Hanford

CITY OF HANFORD | Crawford & Bowen Planning, 117
Bonadelle Lacey Ave Residential Project | Initial Study Appendix A
CalEEMod Output Files

Bonadelle Lacey Residential Project Detailed Report, 1/14/2026 1 / 46
Bonadelle Lacey Residential Project Detailed Report
Table of Contents1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information1.2. Land Use Types1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2026) - Unmitigated3.3. Site Preparation (2026) - Unmitigated3.5. Grading (2026) - Unmitigated3.7. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated3.9. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated

Bonadelle Lacey Residential Project Detailed Report, 1/14/2026 2 / 46

3.11. Paving (2027) - Unmitigated3.13. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated

Bonadelle Lacey Residential Project Detailed Report, 1/14/2026 3 / 46

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings5.6. Dust Mitigation

Bonadelle Lacey Residential Project Detailed Report, 1/14/2026 4 / 46

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths5.10.2. Architectural Coatings5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

Bonadelle Lacey Residential Project Detailed Report, 1/14/2026 5 / 46

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

Bonadelle Lacey Residential Project Detailed Report, 1/14/2026 6 / 46

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores7.4. Health & Equity Measures7.5. Evaluation Scorecard7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data

8.1. Justifications8.3. Land Use

Bonadelle Lacey Residential Project Detailed Report, 1/14/2026 7 / 46

1. Basic Project Information1.1. Basic Project Information Data Field ValueProject Name Bonadelle Lacey Residential ProjectConstruction Start Date 6/1/2026Operational Year 2027Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/siteAnalysis Level for Defaults CountyWindspeed (m/s) 2.40000Precipitation (days) 23.0000Location 36.32573183807162, -119.68410459282347County KingsCity UnincorporatedAir District San Joaquin Valley APCDAir Basin San Joaquin ValleyTAZ 2627EDFZ 9Electric Utility Southern California EdisonGas Utility Southern California GasApp Version 2022.1.1.37

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special LandscapeArea (sq ft)
Population Description
Single FamilyHousing

78.0000 Dwelling Unit 13.8800 152,100 913,603 — 242.000 —

Bonadelle Lacey Residential Project Detailed Report, 1/14/2026 8 / 46

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions SectorNo measures selected2. Emissions Summary2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against ThresholdsCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,Summer(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit. 3.82163 3.21879 29.2127 29.6246 0.06093 1.24251 19.7840 21.0265 1.14311 10.1332 11.2763 — 6,766.32 6,766.32 0.27587 0.05953 1.01057 6,791.51Daily,Winter(Max) ——————————————————
Unmit. 47.7591 47.7334 10.1294 14.0469 0.02404 0.37994 0.22822 0.60816 0.34965 0.05606 0.40571 — 2,701.94 2,701.94 0.10580 0.04218 0.02618 2,717.18AverageDaily(Max) ——————————————————
Unmit. 3.44446 3.31312 6.69205 8.68857 0.01469 0.26683 1.37192 1.63876 0.24551 0.59590 0.84141 — 1,653.74 1,653.74 0.06393 0.02498 0.23989 1,663.03Annual(Max) ——————————————————
Unmit. 0.62861 0.60464 1.22130 1.58566 0.00268 0.04870 0.25038 0.29907 0.04481 0.10875 0.15356 — 273.796 273.796 0.01058 0.00414 0.03972 275.333

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily -Summer(Max)
——————————————————
2026 3.82163 3.21879 29.2127 29.6246 0.06093 1.24251 19.7840 21.0265 1.14311 10.1332 11.2763 — 6,766.32 6,766.32 0.27587 0.05953 1.01057 6,791.51

Bonadelle Lacey Residential Project Detailed Report, 1/14/2026 9 / 46
2027 1.36040 1.14917 9.61926 14.2229 0.02404 0.33786 0.22822 0.56608 0.31094 0.05606 0.36699 — 2,721.55 2,721.55 0.10313 0.04156 0.91798 2,737.44 Daily -Winter(Max)
——————————————————
2026 1.40240 1.18189 10.1294 14.0469 0.02404 0.37994 0.22822 0.60816 0.34965 0.05606 0.40571 — 2,701.94 2,701.94 0.10580 0.04218 0.02618 2,717.182027 47.7591 47.7334 9.65252 13.9390 0.02404 0.33786 0.22822 0.56608 0.31094 0.05606 0.36699 — 2,695.51 2,695.51 0.10499 0.04218 0.02379 2,710.73AverageDaily ——————————————————
2026 0.91092 0.76716 6.69205 7.70768 0.01411 0.26683 1.37192 1.63876 0.24551 0.59590 0.84141 — 1,571.35 1,571.35 0.06203 0.01853 0.14334 1,578.572027 3.44446 3.31312 5.97535 8.68857 0.01469 0.21177 0.13741 0.34918 0.19488 0.03371 0.22860 — 1,653.74 1,653.74 0.06393 0.02498 0.23989 1,663.03Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —2026 0.16624 0.14001 1.22130 1.40665 0.00257 0.04870 0.25038 0.29907 0.04481 0.10875 0.15356 — 260.155 260.155 0.01027 0.00307 0.02373 261.3492027 0.62861 0.60464 1.09050 1.58566 0.00268 0.03865 0.02508 0.06372 0.03557 0.00615 0.04172 — 273.796 273.796 0.01058 0.00414 0.03972 275.333

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against ThresholdsCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,Summer(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit. 10.8107 8.57902 3.94852 38.0161 0.10485 2.65901 2.98553 5.64454 2.56324 0.75675 3.32000 465.400 6,771.28 7,236.69 6.47326 0.24120 12.7768 7,483.17Daily,Winter(Max) ——————————————————
Unmit. 10.0950 7.87230 4.20384 32.3023 0.10162 2.65695 2.98553 5.64248 2.56169 0.75675 3.31844 465.400 6,452.00 6,917.40 6.50396 0.25533 1.39240 7,157.48AverageDaily(Max) ——————————————————
Unmit. 7.17816 6.52173 3.30054 19.9463 0.05403 0.66828 2.87583 3.54411 0.64518 0.72910 1.37427 136.736 5,825.65 5,962.38 4.93476 0.24134 6.02331 6,163.69Annual(Max) ——————————————————
Unmit. 1.31001 1.19022 0.60235 3.64019 0.00986 0.12196 0.52484 0.64680 0.11774 0.13306 0.25080 22.6382 964.502 987.140 0.81701 0.03996 0.99723 1,020.47

Bonadelle Lacey Residential Project Detailed Report, 1/14/2026 10 / 46

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,Summer(Max)
——————————————————
Mobile 2.80479 2.65636 2.25308 15.4017 0.03850 0.03353 2.98553 3.01907 0.03161 0.75675 0.78837 — 3,934.71 3,934.71 0.16390 0.21542 11.6875 4,014.69Area 7.92174 5.88059 0.97641 22.3085 0.06176 2.56734 — 2.56734 2.47350 — 2.47350 423.896 833.011 1,256.91 1.99758 0.00164 — 1,307.34Energy 0.08414 0.04207 0.71904 0.30597 0.00459 0.05814 — 0.05814 0.05814 — 0.05814 — 1,922.95 1,922.95 0.14344 0.00931 — 1,929.31Water — — — — — — — — — — — 5.83468 80.6178 86.4525 0.60328 0.01482 — 105.951Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 35.6697 0.00000 35.6697 3.56506 0.00000 — 124.796Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.08934 1.08934Total 10.8107 8.57902 3.94852 38.0161 0.10485 2.65901 2.98553 5.64454 2.56324 0.75675 3.32000 465.400 6,771.28 7,236.69 6.47326 0.24120 12.7768 7,483.17Daily,Winter(Max) ——————————————————
Mobile 2.49919 2.33806 2.55067 14.1162 0.03546 0.03358 2.98553 3.01911 0.03165 0.75675 0.78841 — 3,627.26 3,627.26 0.19509 0.22965 0.30306 3,700.87Area 7.51164 5.49216 0.93413 17.8802 0.06157 2.56524 — 2.56524 2.47190 — 2.47190 423.896 821.180 1,245.08 1.99709 0.00155 — 1,295.46Energy 0.08414 0.04207 0.71904 0.30597 0.00459 0.05814 — 0.05814 0.05814 — 0.05814 — 1,922.95 1,922.95 0.14344 0.00931 — 1,929.31Water — — — — — — — — — — — 5.83468 80.6178 86.4525 0.60328 0.01482 — 105.951Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 35.6697 0.00000 35.6697 3.56506 0.00000 — 124.796Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.08934 1.08934Total 10.0950 7.87230 4.20384 32.3023 0.10162 2.65695 2.98553 5.64248 2.56169 0.75675 3.31844 465.400 6,452.00 6,917.40 6.50396 0.25533 1.39240 7,157.48AverageDaily ——————————————————
Mobile 2.47831 2.32833 2.35079 13.4396 0.03551 0.03280 2.87583 2.90863 0.03092 0.72910 0.76002 — 3,631.76 3,631.76 0.17408 0.21680 4.93397 3,705.66Area 4.61571 4.15133 0.23071 6.20072 0.01393 0.57734 — 0.57734 0.55612 — 0.55612 95.2314 190.319 285.550 0.44890 0.00040 — 296.891Energy 0.08414 0.04207 0.71904 0.30597 0.00459 0.05814 — 0.05814 0.05814 — 0.05814 — 1,922.95 1,922.95 0.14344 0.00931 — 1,929.31Water — — — — — — — — — — — 5.83468 80.6178 86.4525 0.60328 0.01482 — 105.951Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 35.6697 0.00000 35.6697 3.56506 0.00000 — 124.796

Bonadelle Lacey Residential Project Detailed Report, 1/14/2026 11 / 46
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.08934 1.08934 Total 7.17816 6.52173 3.30054 19.9463 0.05403 0.66828 2.87583 3.54411 0.64518 0.72910 1.37427 136.736 5,825.65 5,962.38 4.93476 0.24134 6.02331 6,163.69Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Mobile 0.45229 0.42492 0.42902 2.45272 0.00648 0.00599 0.52484 0.53083 0.00564 0.13306 0.13870 — 601.280 601.280 0.02882 0.03589 0.81688 613.514Area 0.84237 0.75762 0.04210 1.13163 0.00254 0.10536 — 0.10536 0.10149 — 0.10149 15.7666 31.5095 47.2761 0.07432 0.00007 — 49.1537Energy 0.01536 0.00768 0.13122 0.05584 0.00084 0.01061 — 0.01061 0.01061 — 0.01061 — 318.366 318.366 0.02375 0.00154 — 319.419Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.96600 13.3472 14.3132 0.09988 0.00245 — 17.5414Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 5.90553 0.00000 5.90553 0.59024 0.00000 — 20.6615Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.18035 0.18035Total 1.31001 1.19022 0.60235 3.64019 0.00986 0.12196 0.52484 0.64680 0.11774 0.13306 0.25080 22.6382 964.502 987.140 0.81701 0.03996 0.99723 1,020.47

3. Construction Emissions Details3.1. Demolition (2026) - UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) ——————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

2.72490 2.28674 20.6515 19.0056 0.03253 0.84309 — 0.84309 0.77564 — 0.77564 — 3,426.59 3,426.59 0.13900 0.02780 — 3,438.35 Demolition
— — — — — — 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 ———————
Onsitetruck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Daily,Winter(Max)
——————————————————

Bonadelle Lacey Residential Project Detailed Report, 1/14/2026 12 / 46
AverageDaily
——————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

0.14931 0.12530 1.13159 1.04140 0.00178 0.04620 — 0.04620 0.04250 — 0.04250 — 187.759 187.759 0.00762 0.00152 — 188.403 Demolition
— — — — — — 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 ———————
Onsitetruck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Off-RoadEquipment

0.02725 0.02287 0.20652 0.19006 0.00033 0.00843 — 0.00843 0.00776 — 0.00776 — 31.0856 31.0856 0.00126 0.00025 — 31.1922 Demolition
— — — — — — 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 ———————
Onsitetruck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Offsite ——————————————————Daily,Summer(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.06872 0.06422 0.04213 0.69975 0.00000 0.00000 0.10883 0.10883 0.00000 0.02633 0.02633 — 125.809 125.809 0.00615 0.00450 0.41254 127.715Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000Daily,Winter(Max) ——————————————————
AverageDaily
——————————————————
Worker 0.00342 0.00314 0.00273 0.03050 0.00000 0.00000 0.00587 0.00587 0.00000 0.00142 0.00142 — 6.33237 6.33237 0.00016 0.00026 0.00975 6.42504Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

Bonadelle Lacey Residential Project Detailed Report, 1/14/2026 13 / 46
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00062 0.00057 0.00050 0.00557 0.00000 0.00000 0.00107 0.00107 0.00000 0.00026 0.00026 — 1.04840 1.04840 0.00003 0.00004 0.00161 1.06374Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.3. Site Preparation (2026) - UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) ——————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

3.74146 3.14387 29.1635 28.8082 0.04890 1.24251 — 1.24251 1.14311 — 1.14311 — 5,297.94 5,297.94 0.21491 0.04298 — 5,316.12 DustFromMaterialMovement
— — — — — — 19.6570 19.6570 — 10.1024 10.1024 ———————
Onsitetruck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Daily,Winter(Max)
——————————————————
AverageDaily
——————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

0.10251 0.08613 0.79900 0.78927 0.00134 0.03404 — 0.03404 0.03132 — 0.03132 — 145.149 145.149 0.00589 0.00118 — 145.647 DustFromMaterialMovement
— — — — — — 0.53855 0.53855 — 0.27678 0.27678 ———————

Bonadelle Lacey Residential Project Detailed Report, 1/14/2026 14 / 46
Onsitetruck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Off-RoadEquipment

0.01871 0.01572 0.14582 0.14404 0.00024 0.00621 — 0.00621 0.00572 — 0.00572 — 24.0311 24.0311 0.00097 0.00019 — 24.1135 DustFromMaterialMovement
— — — — — — 0.09829 0.09829 — 0.05051 0.05051 ———————
Onsitetruck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Offsite ——————————————————Daily,Summer(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.08017 0.07492 0.04915 0.81637 0.00000 0.00000 0.12697 0.12697 0.00000 0.03072 0.03072 — 146.777 146.777 0.00718 0.00525 0.48130 149.001Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000Daily,Winter(Max) ——————————————————
AverageDaily
——————————————————
Worker 0.00200 0.00183 0.00159 0.01779 0.00000 0.00000 0.00343 0.00343 0.00000 0.00083 0.00083 — 3.69389 3.69389 0.00010 0.00015 0.00569 3.74794Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Worker 0.00036 0.00033 0.00029 0.00325 0.00000 0.00000 0.00063 0.00063 0.00000 0.00015 0.00015 — 0.61156 0.61156 0.00002 0.00003 0.00094 0.62051Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

Bonadelle Lacey Residential Project Detailed Report, 1/14/2026 15 / 46

3.5. Grading (2026) - UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) ——————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

3.62261 3.04400 27.2253 27.5707 0.06093 1.12137 — 1.12137 1.03166 — 1.03166 — 6,598.58 6,598.58 0.26767 0.05353 — 6,621.22 DustFromMaterialMovement
— — — — — — 9.20359 9.20359 — 3.65375 3.65375 ———————
Onsitetruck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Daily,Winter(Max)
——————————————————
AverageDaily
——————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

0.29775 0.25019 2.23769 2.26608 0.00501 0.09217 — 0.09217 0.08479 — 0.08479 — 542.349 542.349 0.02200 0.00440 — 544.210 DustFromMaterialMovement
— — — — — — 0.75646 0.75646 — 0.30031 0.30031 ———————
Onsitetruck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Bonadelle Lacey Residential Project Detailed Report, 1/14/2026 16 / 46
Off-Roa 0.05434 0.04566 0.40838 0.41356 0.00091 0.01682 — 0.01682 0.01547
— 0.01547
— 89.7920 89.7920 0.00364 0.00073
— 90.1002
dEquipment
DustFromMaterialMovement
— — — — — — 0.13805 0.13805 — 0.05481 0.05481 ———————
Onsitetruck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Offsite ——————————————————Daily,Summer(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.09162 0.08563 0.05617 0.93300 0.00000 0.00000 0.14511 0.14511 0.00000 0.03511 0.03511 — 167.745 167.745 0.00820 0.00600 0.55005 170.287Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000Daily,Winter(Max) ——————————————————
AverageDaily
——————————————————
Worker 0.00684 0.00628 0.00546 0.06100 0.00000 0.00000 0.01175 0.01175 0.00000 0.00284 0.00284 — 12.6647 12.6647 0.00033 0.00053 0.01950 12.8501Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Worker 0.00125 0.00115 0.00100 0.01113 0.00000 0.00000 0.00214 0.00214 0.00000 0.00052 0.00052 — 2.09679 2.09679 0.00005 0.00009 0.00323 2.12748Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.7. Building Construction (2026) - UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)

Bonadelle Lacey Residential Project Detailed Report, 1/14/2026 17 / 46
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) ——————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

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

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Daily,Winter(Max)
——————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

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

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 AverageDaily
——————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

0.31810 0.26618 2.44904 3.22256 0.00581 0.09411 — 0.09411 0.08658 — 0.08658 — 595.792 595.792 0.02417 0.00483 — 597.836 Onsitetruck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Off-RoadEquipment

0.05805 0.04858 0.44695 0.58812 0.00106 0.01717 — 0.01717 0.01580 — 0.01580 — 98.6401 98.6401 0.00400 0.00080 — 98.9786 Onsitetruck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Offsite ——————————————————

Bonadelle Lacey Residential Project Detailed Report, 1/14/2026 18 / 46
Daily,Summer(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.12864 0.12022 0.07887 1.30993 0.00000 0.00000 0.20374 0.20374 0.00000 0.04929 0.04929 — 235.514 235.514 0.01151 0.00842 0.77228 239.083Vendor 0.00818 0.00588 0.16223 0.07905 0.00064 0.00129 0.02448 0.02577 0.00129 0.00676 0.00805 — 95.8361 95.8361 0.00156 0.01370 0.23829 100.195Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000Daily,Winter(Max) ——————————————————
Worker 0.11502 0.10536 0.10227 0.99792 0.00000 0.00000 0.20374 0.20374 0.00000 0.04929 0.04929 — 208.636 208.636 0.00681 0.00904 0.01999 211.519Vendor 0.00744 0.00551 0.17316 0.08263 0.00064 0.00129 0.02448 0.02577 0.00129 0.00676 0.00805 — 96.0656 96.0656 0.00175 0.01370 0.00619 100.197Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000AverageDaily ——————————————————
Worker 0.02905 0.02665 0.02317 0.25897 0.00000 0.00000 0.04986 0.04986 0.00000 0.01206 0.01206 — 53.7673 53.7673 0.00138 0.00225 0.08279 54.5541Vendor 0.00194 0.00146 0.04178 0.02010 0.00016 0.00032 0.00601 0.00633 0.00032 0.00166 0.00198 — 23.8424 23.8424 0.00039 0.00340 0.02561 24.8920Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Worker 0.00530 0.00486 0.00423 0.04726 0.00000 0.00000 0.00910 0.00910 0.00000 0.00220 0.00220 — 8.90179 8.90179 0.00023 0.00037 0.01371 9.03205Vendor 0.00035 0.00027 0.00762 0.00367 0.00003 0.00006 0.00110 0.00115 0.00006 0.00030 0.00036 — 3.94737 3.94737 0.00006 0.00056 0.00424 4.12115Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.9. Building Construction (2027) - UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) ——————————————————

Bonadelle Lacey Residential Project Detailed Report, 1/14/2026 19 / 46
Off-Roa 1.23076 1.02988 9.39093 12.9379 0.02340 0.33657 — 0.33657 0.30965
— 0.30965
— 2,397.08 2,397.08 0.09724 0.01945
— 2,405.30
dEquipm
Onsitetruck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Daily,Winter(Max)
——————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

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

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 AverageDaily
——————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

0.70811 0.59253 5.40300 7.44375 0.01346 0.19365 — 0.19365 0.17815 — 0.17815 — 1,379.14 1,379.14 0.05594 0.01119 — 1,383.87 Onsitetruck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Off-RoadEquipment

0.12923 0.10814 0.98605 1.35848 0.00246 0.03534 — 0.03534 0.03251 — 0.03251 — 228.332 228.332 0.00926 0.00185 — 229.116 Onsitetruck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Offsite ——————————————————Daily,Summer(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.12183 0.11341 0.07107 1.20853 0.00000 0.00000 0.20374 0.20374 0.00000 0.04929 0.04929 — 230.683 230.683 0.00433 0.00842 0.69533 233.996Vendor 0.00781 0.00588 0.15726 0.07638 0.00064 0.00129 0.02448 0.02577 0.00129 0.00676 0.00805 — 93.7941 93.7941 0.00156 0.01370 0.22265 98.1369Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

Bonadelle Lacey Residential Project Detailed Report, 1/14/2026 20 / 46
Daily,Winter(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.10945 0.09979 0.09385 0.92066 0.00000 0.00000 0.20374 0.20374 0.00000 0.04929 0.04929 — 204.405 204.405 0.00619 0.00904 0.01802 207.271Vendor 0.00744 0.00551 0.16774 0.08042 0.00064 0.00129 0.02448 0.02577 0.00129 0.00676 0.00805 — 94.0262 94.0262 0.00156 0.01370 0.00578 98.1521Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000AverageDaily ——————————————————
Worker 0.06368 0.05848 0.04915 0.55413 0.00000 0.00000 0.11543 0.11543 0.00000 0.02791 0.02791 — 121.942 121.942 0.00321 0.00484 0.17276 123.638Vendor 0.00439 0.00317 0.09371 0.04490 0.00037 0.00074 0.01391 0.01465 0.00074 0.00385 0.00459 — 54.0195 54.0195 0.00090 0.00788 0.05505 56.4451Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Worker 0.01162 0.01067 0.00897 0.10113 0.00000 0.00000 0.02107 0.02107 0.00000 0.00509 0.00509 — 20.1889 20.1889 0.00053 0.00080 0.02860 20.4697Vendor 0.00080 0.00058 0.01710 0.00819 0.00007 0.00014 0.00254 0.00267 0.00014 0.00070 0.00084 — 8.94355 8.94355 0.00015 0.00130 0.00911 9.34513Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.11. Paving (2027) - UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) ——————————————————
Daily,Winter(Max)
——————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

0.87761 0.73744 6.94439 9.95313 0.01395 0.29813 — 0.29813 0.27428 — 0.27428 — 1,511.11 1,511.11 0.06130 0.01226 — 1,516.29 Paving 0.00000 0.00000 ————————————————

Bonadelle Lacey Residential Project Detailed Report, 1/14/2026 21 / 46
Onsite 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
truck
AverageDaily
——————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

0.04809 0.04041 0.38051 0.54538 0.00076 0.01634 — 0.01634 0.01503 — 0.01503 — 82.8004 82.8004 0.00336 0.00067 — 83.0845 Paving 0.00000 0.00000 ————————————————Onsitetruck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Off-RoadEquipment

0.00878 0.00737 0.06944 0.09953 0.00014 0.00298 — 0.00298 0.00274 — 0.00274 — 13.7085 13.7085 0.00056 0.00011 — 13.7556 Paving 0.00000 0.00000 ————————————————Onsitetruck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Offsite ——————————————————Daily,Summer(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,Winter(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.05847 0.05331 0.05013 0.49181 0.00000 0.00000 0.10883 0.10883 0.00000 0.02633 0.02633 — 109.190 109.190 0.00331 0.00483 0.00962 110.722Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000AverageDaily ——————————————————
Worker 0.00324 0.00298 0.00250 0.02819 0.00000 0.00000 0.00587 0.00587 0.00000 0.00142 0.00142 — 6.20380 6.20380 0.00016 0.00025 0.00879 6.29010Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

Bonadelle Lacey Residential Project Detailed Report, 1/14/2026 22 / 46
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00059 0.00054 0.00046 0.00514 0.00000 0.00000 0.00107 0.00107 0.00000 0.00026 0.00026 — 1.02711 1.02711 0.00003 0.00004 0.00146 1.04140Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.13. Architectural Coating (2027) - UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) ——————————————————
Daily,Winter(Max)
——————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

0.13715 0.11335 0.83116 1.12539 0.00173 0.01905 — 0.01905 0.01752 — 0.01752 — 133.513 133.513 0.00542 0.00108 — 133.971 ArchitecturalCoatings

47.6001 47.6001 ————————————————
Onsitetruck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 AverageDaily
——————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

0.00752 0.00621 0.04554 0.06167 0.00009 0.00104 — 0.00104 0.00096 — 0.00096 — 7.31577 7.31577 0.00030 0.00006 — 7.34087 ArchitecturalCoatings

2.60822 2.60822 ————————————————

Bonadelle Lacey Residential Project Detailed Report, 1/14/2026 23 / 46
Onsitetruck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Off-RoadEquipment

0.00137 0.00113 0.00831 0.01125 0.00002 0.00019 — 0.00019 0.00018 — 0.00018 — 1.21121 1.21121 0.00005 0.00001 — 1.21537 ArchitecturalCoatings

0.47600 0.47600 ————————————————
Onsitetruck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Offsite ——————————————————Daily,Summer(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,Winter(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.02189 0.01996 0.01877 0.18413 0.00000 0.00000 0.04075 0.04075 0.00000 0.00986 0.00986 — 40.8809 40.8809 0.00124 0.00181 0.00360 41.4541Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000AverageDaily ——————————————————
Worker 0.00121 0.00111 0.00094 0.01055 0.00000 0.00000 0.00220 0.00220 0.00000 0.00053 0.00053 — 2.32270 2.32270 0.00006 0.00009 0.00329 2.35502Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Worker 0.00022 0.00020 0.00017 0.00193 0.00000 0.00000 0.00040 0.00040 0.00000 0.00010 0.00010 — 0.38455 0.38455 0.00001 0.00002 0.00054 0.38990Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

Bonadelle Lacey Residential Project Detailed Report, 1/14/2026 24 / 46

4. Operations Emissions Details4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use4.1.1. UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) LandUse
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,Summer(Max)
——————————————————
SingleFamilyHousing

2.80479 2.65636 2.25308 15.4017 0.03850 0.03353 2.98553 3.01907 0.03161 0.75675 0.78837 — 3,934.71 3,934.71 0.16390 0.21542 11.6875 4,014.69 Total 2.80479 2.65636 2.25308 15.4017 0.03850 0.03353 2.98553 3.01907 0.03161 0.75675 0.78837 — 3,934.71 3,934.71 0.16390 0.21542 11.6875 4,014.69Daily,Winter(Max) ——————————————————
SingleFamilyHousing

2.49919 2.33806 2.55067 14.1162 0.03546 0.03358 2.98553 3.01911 0.03165 0.75675 0.78841 — 3,627.26 3,627.26 0.19509 0.22965 0.30306 3,700.87 Total 2.49919 2.33806 2.55067 14.1162 0.03546 0.03358 2.98553 3.01911 0.03165 0.75675 0.78841 — 3,627.26 3,627.26 0.19509 0.22965 0.30306 3,700.87Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —SingleFamilyHousing

0.45229 0.42492 0.42902 2.45272 0.00648 0.00599 0.52484 0.53083 0.00564 0.13306 0.13870 — 601.280 601.280 0.02882 0.03589 0.81688 613.514 Total 0.45229 0.42492 0.42902 2.45272 0.00648 0.00599 0.52484 0.53083 0.00564 0.13306 0.13870 — 601.280 601.280 0.02882 0.03589 0.81688 613.514

4.2. Energy4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)

Bonadelle Lacey Residential Project Detailed Report, 1/14/2026 25 / 46
LandUse
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,Summer(Max)
——————————————————
SingleFamilyHousing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,010.25 1,010.25 0.06267 0.00760 — 1,014.08 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,010.25 1,010.25 0.06267 0.00760 — 1,014.08Daily,Winter(Max) ——————————————————
SingleFamilyHousing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,010.25 1,010.25 0.06267 0.00760 — 1,014.08 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,010.25 1,010.25 0.06267 0.00760 — 1,014.08Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —SingleFamilyHousing — — — — — — — — — — — — 167.258 167.258 0.01038 0.00126 — 167.892 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 167.258 167.258 0.01038 0.00126 — 167.892

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

0.08414 0.04207 0.71904 0.30597 0.00459 0.05814 — 0.05814 0.05814 — 0.05814 — 912.697 912.697 0.08077 0.00172 — 915.228 Total 0.08414 0.04207 0.71904 0.30597 0.00459 0.05814 — 0.05814 0.05814 — 0.05814 — 912.697 912.697 0.08077 0.00172 — 915.228

Bonadelle Lacey Residential Project Detailed Report, 1/14/2026 26 / 46
Daily,
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Winter(Max)
SingleFamilyHousing

0.08414 0.04207 0.71904 0.30597 0.00459 0.05814 — 0.05814 0.05814 — 0.05814 — 912.697 912.697 0.08077 0.00172 — 915.228 Total 0.08414 0.04207 0.71904 0.30597 0.00459 0.05814 — 0.05814 0.05814 — 0.05814 — 912.697 912.697 0.08077 0.00172 — 915.228Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —SingleFamilyHousing

0.01536 0.00768 0.13122 0.05584 0.00084 0.01061 — 0.01061 0.01061 — 0.01061 — 151.107 151.107 0.01337 0.00028 — 151.526 Total 0.01536 0.00768 0.13122 0.05584 0.00084 0.01061 — 0.01061 0.01061 — 0.01061 — 151.107 151.107 0.01337 0.00028 — 151.526

4.3. Area Emissions by Source4.3.1. UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,Summer(Max)
——————————————————
Hearths 3.99588 1.97640 0.93413 17.8802 0.06157 2.56524 — 2.56524 2.47190 — 2.47190 423.896 821.180 1,245.08 1.99709 0.00155 — 1,295.46ConsumerProducts

3.25494 3.25494 ————————————————
ArchitecturalCoatings

0.26082 0.26082 ————————————————
LandscapeEquipment

0.41010 0.38842 0.04227 4.42828 0.00019 0.00210 — 0.00210 0.00160 — 0.00160 — 11.8316 11.8316 0.00049 0.00010 — 11.8732 Total 7.92174 5.88059 0.97641 22.3085 0.06176 2.56734 — 2.56734 2.47350 — 2.47350 423.896 833.011 1,256.91 1.99758 0.00164 — 1,307.34

Bonadelle Lacey Residential Project Detailed Report, 1/14/2026 27 / 46
Daily,Winter(Max)
——————————————————
Hearths 3.99588 1.97640 0.93413 17.8802 0.06157 2.56524 — 2.56524 2.47190 — 2.47190 423.896 821.180 1,245.08 1.99709 0.00155 — 1,295.46ConsumerProducts

3.25494 3.25494 ————————————————
ArchitecturalCoatings

0.26082 0.26082 ————————————————
Total 7.51164 5.49216 0.93413 17.8802 0.06157 2.56524 — 2.56524 2.47190 — 2.47190 423.896 821.180 1,245.08 1.99709 0.00155 — 1,295.46Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Hearths 0.16383 0.08103 0.03830 0.73309 0.00252 0.10517 — 0.10517 0.10135 — 0.10135 15.7666 30.5435 46.3101 0.07428 0.00006 — 48.1843ConsumerProducts

0.59403 0.59403 ————————————————
ArchitecturalCoatings

0.04760 0.04760 ————————————————
LandscapeEquipment

0.03691 0.03496 0.00380 0.39854 0.00002 0.00019 — 0.00019 0.00014 — 0.00014 — 0.96601 0.96601 0.00004 0.00001 — 0.96941 Total 0.84237 0.75762 0.04210 1.13163 0.00254 0.10536 — 0.10536 0.10149 — 0.10149 15.7666 31.5095 47.2761 0.07432 0.00007 — 49.1537

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use4.4.1. UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) LandUse
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e

Bonadelle Lacey Residential Project Detailed Report, 1/14/2026 28 / 46
Daily,Summer(Max)
——————————————————
SingleFamilyHousing
— — — — — — — — — — — 5.83468 80.6178 86.4525 0.60328 0.01482 — 105.951 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 5.83468 80.6178 86.4525 0.60328 0.01482 — 105.951Daily,Winter(Max) ——————————————————
SingleFamilyHousing
— — — — — — — — — — — 5.83468 80.6178 86.4525 0.60328 0.01482 — 105.951 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 5.83468 80.6178 86.4525 0.60328 0.01482 — 105.951Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —SingleFamilyHousing — — — — — — — — — — — 0.96600 13.3472 14.3132 0.09988 0.00245 — 17.5414 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.96600 13.3472 14.3132 0.09988 0.00245 — 17.5414

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use4.5.1. UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) LandUse
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,Summer(Max)
——————————————————
SingleFamilyHousing
— — — — — — — — — — — 35.6697 0.00000 35.6697 3.56506 0.00000 — 124.796 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 35.6697 0.00000 35.6697 3.56506 0.00000 — 124.796

Bonadelle Lacey Residential Project Detailed Report, 1/14/2026 29 / 46
Daily,
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Winter(Max)
SingleFamilyHousing
— — — — — — — — — — — 35.6697 0.00000 35.6697 3.56506 0.00000 — 124.796 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 35.6697 0.00000 35.6697 3.56506 0.00000 — 124.796Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —SingleFamilyHousing — — — — — — — — — — — 5.90553 0.00000 5.90553 0.59024 0.00000 — 20.6615 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 5.90553 0.00000 5.90553 0.59024 0.00000 — 20.6615

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use4.6.1. UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) LandUse
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,Summer(Max)
——————————————————
SingleFamilyHousing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.08934 1.08934
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.08934 1.08934Daily,Winter(Max) ——————————————————
SingleFamilyHousing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.08934 1.08934
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.08934 1.08934Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Bonadelle Lacey Residential Project Detailed Report, 1/14/2026 30 / 46
SingleFamilyHousing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.18035 0.18035
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.18035 0.18035

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type4.7.1. UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) EquipmentType
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,Summer(Max)
——————————————————
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Winter(Max) ——————————————————
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type4.8.1. UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) EquipmentType
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,Summer(Max)
——————————————————

Bonadelle Lacey Residential Project Detailed Report, 1/14/2026 31 / 46
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,Winter(Max)
——————————————————
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type4.9.1. UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) EquipmentType
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,Summer(Max)
——————————————————
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Winter(Max) ——————————————————
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetation
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e

Bonadelle Lacey Residential Project Detailed Report, 1/14/2026 32 / 46
Daily,Summer(Max)
——————————————————
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Winter(Max) ——————————————————
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

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

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,Summer(Max)
——————————————————

Bonadelle Lacey Residential Project Detailed Report, 1/14/2026 33 / 46
Avoided ——————————————————
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Sequestered ——————————————————
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Removed
——————————————————
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ————————————————————Daily,Winter(Max) ——————————————————
Avoided ——————————————————Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Sequestered ——————————————————
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Removed
——————————————————
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ————————————————————Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Avoided ——————————————————Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Sequestered ——————————————————
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Removed
——————————————————
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ————————————————————

Bonadelle Lacey Residential Project Detailed Report, 1/14/2026 34 / 46

5. Activity Data5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase DescriptionDemolition Demolition 6/1/2026 6/29/2026 5.00000 20.0000 —Site Preparation Site Preparation 6/30/2026 7/14/2026 5.00000 10.00000 —Grading Grading 7/15/2026 8/26/2026 5.00000 30.0000 —Building Construction Building Construction 8/27/2026 10/21/2027 5.00000 300.000 —Paving Paving 10/22/2027 11/19/2027 5.00000 20.0000 —Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 11/20/2027 12/18/2027 5.00000 20.0000 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load FactorDemolition Concrete/Industrial Saws
Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 33.0000 0.73000
Demolition Excavators Diesel Average 3.00000 8.00000 36.0000 0.38000Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 2.00000 8.00000 367.000 0.40000Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00000 8.00000 367.000 0.40000Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back hoes
Diesel Average 4.00000 8.00000 84.0000 0.37000
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 2.00000 8.00000 36.0000 0.38000Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 148.000 0.41000Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 367.000 0.40000Grading Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00000 8.00000 423.000 0.48000Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back hoes
Diesel Average 2.00000 8.00000 84.0000 0.37000
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.000000 7.00000 367.000 0.29000

Bonadelle Lacey Residential Project Detailed Report, 1/14/2026 35 / 46
Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00000 8.00000 82.0000 0.20000 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 14.0000 0.74000Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back hoes
Diesel Average 3.00000 7.00000 84.0000 0.37000
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 46.0000 0.45000Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00000 8.00000 81.0000 0.42000Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00000 8.00000 89.0000 0.36000Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00000 8.00000 36.0000 0.38000Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.000000 6.00000 37.0000 0.48000

5.3. Construction Vehicles5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle MixDemolition Worker 15.0000 10.6000 LDA,LDT1,LDT2Demolition Vendor — 3.50000 HHDT,MHDTDemolition Hauling 0.00000 20.0000 HHDTDemolition Onsite truck — — HHDTSite Preparation Worker 17.5000 10.6000 LDA,LDT1,LDT2Site Preparation Vendor — 3.50000 HHDT,MHDTSite Preparation Hauling 0.00000 20.0000 HHDTSite Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDTGrading Worker 20.0000 10.6000 LDA,LDT1,LDT2Grading Vendor — 3.50000 HHDT,MHDTGrading Hauling 0.00000 20.0000 HHDTGrading Onsite truck — — HHDTBuilding Construction Worker 28.0800 10.6000 LDA,LDT1,LDT2Building Construction Vendor 8.33820 3.50000 HHDT,MHDTBuilding Construction Hauling 0.00000 20.0000 HHDT

Bonadelle Lacey Residential Project Detailed Report, 1/14/2026 36 / 46
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving Worker 15.0000 10.6000 LDA,LDT1,LDT2Paving Vendor — 3.50000 HHDT,MHDTPaving Hauling 0.00000 20.0000 HHDTPaving Onsite truck — — HHDTArchitectural Coating Worker 5.61600 10.6000 LDA,LDT1,LDT2Architectural Coating Vendor — 3.50000 HHDT,MHDTArchitectural Coating Hauling 0.00000 20.0000 HHDTArchitectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control StrategiesNon-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.5.5. Architectural Coatings Phase Name Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior AreaCoated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior AreaCoated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior AreaCoated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 308,003 102,668 0.00000 0.00000 —

5.6. Dust Mitigation5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres)Demolition 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000Site Preparation — — 15.0000 0.00000 0.00000Grading — — 90.0000 0.00000 0.00000Paving 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.85950

Bonadelle Lacey Residential Project Detailed Report, 1/14/2026 37 / 46

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control StrategiesNon-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.5.7. Construction Paving Phase Name Land Use Area Paved (acres) % AsphaltPaving Single Family Housing 0.85950 0%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions FactorskWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh) Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O2026 0.00000 531.983 0.03300 0.004002027 0.00000 531.983 0.03300 0.00400

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/YearSingle FamilyHousing 736.320 744.120 666.900 265,544 4,179.00 4,223.27 3,785.00 1,507,098

5.10. Operational Area Sources5.10.1. Hearths
Land Use Hearth Type Unmitigated (number) Mitigated (number)Single Family Housing Wood Fireplaces 0 0Single Family Housing Gas Fireplaces 39 39Single Family Housing Propane Fireplaces 0 0Single Family Housing Electric Fireplaces 0 0

Bonadelle Lacey Residential Project Detailed Report, 1/14/2026 38 / 46
Single Family Housing No Fireplaces 39 39
Single Family Housing Conventional Wood Stoves 0 0Single Family Housing Catalytic Wood Stoves 4 4Single Family Housing Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 4 4Single Family Housing Pellet Wood Stoves 0 0

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sqft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated (sqft)
Non-Residential Interior Area Coated(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior AreaCoated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
308,003 102,668 0.00000 0.00000 —

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

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption5.11.1. UnmitigatedElectricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr)Single Family Housing 693,144 531.983 0.0330 0.0040 2,847,858

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption5.12.1. Unmitigated Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year)Single Family Housing 3,044,867 17,902,302

Bonadelle Lacey Residential Project Detailed Report, 1/14/2026 39 / 46

5.13. Operational Waste Generation5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)Single Family Housing 66.1851 0.00000

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment5.14.1. Unmitigated Land Use Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times ServicedSingle Family Housing Average room A/C & Other residential A/Cand heat pumps
R-410A 2,088.00 0.00225 2.50000 2.50000 10.00000
Single Family Housing Household
refrigerators and/orfreezers
R-134a 1,430.00 0.11538 0.60000 0.00000 1.000000

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment5.15.1. Unmitigated5.16. Stationary Sources5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps5.16.2. Process Boilers5.17. User Defined5.18. Vegetation

Bonadelle Lacey Residential Project Detailed Report, 1/14/2026 40 / 46

5.18.1. Land Use Change5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report6.1. Climate Risk SummaryCal-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 whichassumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location UnitTemperature and Extreme Heat 31.1600 annual days of extreme heatExtreme Precipitation 0.65000 annual days with precipitation above 20 mmSea Level Rise — meters of inundation depthWildfire 0.00000 annual hectares burned Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures fromobserved 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 ifreceived 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.

Bonadelle Lacey Residential Project Detailed Report, 1/14/2026 41 / 46
Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), andconsider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled withextreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 metersWildfire 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 dataof 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. Thefour simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range ofdifferent 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 ScoreTemperature and Extreme Heat 4 0 0 N/AExtreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/ASea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/AWildfire N/A N/A N/A N/AFlooding 0 0 0 N/ADrought 0 0 0 N/ASnowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/AAir 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 thegreatest 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 5representing 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 reductionmeasures.6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability ScoreTemperature and Extreme Heat 4114Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/ASea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/AWildfire N/A N/A N/A N/AFlooding 1112Drought 1112

Bonadelle Lacey Residential Project Detailed Report, 1/14/2026 42 / 46
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1112
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 thegreatest 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 5representing 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 reductionmeasures.6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures7. Health and Equity Details7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 ScoresThe 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 TractExposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 82.4767AQ-PM 98.8426AQ-DPM 53.6279Drinking Water 61.9833Lead Risk Housing 16.9502Pesticides 74.0345Toxic Releases 39.5099Traffic 26.8625Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 17.0773Groundwater 75.5604Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 53.5142Impaired Water Bodies 0.00000Solid Waste 0.00000

Bonadelle Lacey Residential Project Detailed Report, 1/14/2026 43 / 46
Sensitive Population
—
Asthma 94.5040Cardio-vascular 98.4048Low Birth Weights 18.1678Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —Education 46.2288Housing 36.6540Linguistic 19.8674Poverty 43.3291Unemployment 59.3831

7.2. Healthy Places Index ScoresThe 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 TractEconomic
—
Above Poverty 61.72205826Employed 20.45425382Median HI 54.07416913Education —
Bachelor's or higher 41.57577313High school enrollment 100Preschool enrollment 3.836776594Transportation —
Auto Access 29.34684974Active commuting 43.06428846Social —
2-parent households 54.43346593Voting 51.52059541

Bonadelle Lacey Residential Project Detailed Report, 1/14/2026 44 / 46
Neighborhood
—
Alcohol availability 81.47055049Park access 27.33222122Retail density 48.68471705Supermarket access 56.69190299Tree canopy 8.571795201Housing —
Homeownership 58.27024253Housing habitability 83.40818683Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 81.80418324Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 71.24342359Uncrowded housing 73.51469267Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 78.05723085Arthritis 0.0Asthma ER Admissions 1.9High Blood Pressure 0.0Cancer (excluding skin) 0.0Asthma 0.0Coronary Heart Disease 0.0Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0Life Expectancy at Birth 30.6Cognitively Disabled 41.3Physically Disabled 3.3Heart Attack ER Admissions 31.4Mental Health Not Good 0.0Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0

Bonadelle Lacey Residential Project Detailed Report, 1/14/2026 45 / 46
Obesity 0.0
Pedestrian Injuries 51.0Physical Health Not Good 0.0Stroke 0.0Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 0.0Current Smoker 0.0No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0Climate Change Exposures —Wildfire Risk 0.0SLR Inundation Area 0.0Children 19.0Elderly 15.4English Speaking 84.4Foreign-born 15.1Outdoor Workers 21.9Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —Impervious Surface Cover 54.6Traffic Density 31.4Traffic Access 0.0Other Indices —
Hardship 44.7Other Decision Support
—
2016 Voting 48.1

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census TractCalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 65.0000

Bonadelle Lacey Residential Project Detailed Report, 1/14/2026 46 / 46
Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 41.0000 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) NoProject Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) NoProject 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 MeasuresNo Health & Equity Measures selected.7.5. Evaluation ScorecardHealth & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.7.6. Health & Equity Custom MeasuresNo Health & Equity Custom Measures created.8. User Changes to Default Data8.1. Justifications Screen JustificationLand Use The project includes the development of 78 single family residential units over 13.88 acres of land.

8.3. Land Use
Model Parameter Units Default Value New ValueLot Area acre 25.3247 13.8800

CITY OF HANFORD | Crawford & Bowen Planning, 118
Bonadelle Lacey Ave Residential Project | Initial Study Appendix B
Biological Resource Evaluation

Prepared for:

Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.
113 N. Church Street, Suite 310
Visalia, CA 93291
Prepared by:

Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC
9493 N Fort Washington Road, Suite 108
Fresno, CA 93730
colibri-ecology.com
Biological Resource Evaluation
November 2025
Hanford Residential Project
Kings County, CA

Biological Resource Evaluation | Hanford Residential Project Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC November 2025
2 Executive Summary
The project applicant is seeking approval for a residential development immediately west of the City of Hanford limits in Kings County, California. The residential development project (Project) will involve constructing 74 singlefamily residences and a stormwater basin on approximately 13.5 acres that currently support a single-family residence and fallowed agricultural land.

To evaluate whether the Project may affect biological resources under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) purview, we (1) obtained lists of special-status species from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the California Native Plant Society; (2) reviewed other relevant background information such as aerial imagery and topographic maps; and (3) conducted a field reconnaissance survey at the Project site.

This biological resource evaluation summarizes (1) existing biological conditions on the Project site, (2) the potential for special-status species and regulated habitats to occur on or near the Project site, (3) the potential impacts of the proposed Project on biological resources and regulated habitats, and (4) measures to reduce those potential impacts to less-than-significant levels under CEQA.

We concluded the Project could affect nesting migratory birds and the state candidate for listing as endangered burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia). However, effects can be reduced to less-than-significant levels with mitigation.

Biological Resource Evaluation | Hanford Residential Project Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC November 2025
3 Contents
Abbreviations ................................................................................................................................... 5

1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 6

1.1 Background ....................................................................................................................... 6

1.2 Project Description ........................................................................................................ 6

1.4 Regulatory Framework .................................................................................................. 9

1.4.1 State Requirements ............................................................................................... 9

1.4.2 Federal Requirements ........................................................................................... 11

2.0 Methods ................................................................................................................................ 13

2.1 Desktop Review .............................................................................................................. 13

2.2 Reconnaissance Survey .............................................................................................. 13

2.3 Significance Criteria .................................................................................................... 14

3.0 Results .................................................................................................................................. 16

3.1 Desktop Review .............................................................................................................. 16

3.2 Reconnaissance Survey ............................................................................................. 24

3.2.1 Land Use and Habitats ...................................................................................... 24

3.2.3 Nesting Birds ........................................................................................................... 31

3.2.4 Regulated Habitats ............................................................................................... 31

3.3 Special-Status Species ............................................................................................... 31

3.3.1 Burrowing Owl ......................................................................................................... 31

4.0 Environmental Impacts ................................................................................................... 33

4.1 Significance Determinations ..................................................................................... 33

4.1.1 Direct and Indirect Effects ............................................................................... 34

5.0 Literature Cited ................................................................................................................. 36

Biological Resource Evaluation | Hanford Residential Project Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC November 2025
4 Figures
Figure 1. Project site vicinity map. ...................................................................................... 7 Figure 2. Project site map. ...................................................................................................... 8 Figure 3. Reconnaissance survey area map. ................................................................... 15 Figure 4. CNDDB occurrence map. ..................................................................................... 23 Figure 5. Photograph of the Project site, looking northwest from the southeast corner, showing ruderal vegetation and ornamental trees. .................. 25 Figure 6. Photograph of the Project site, looking north from the southern boundary, showing fallowed agricultural land and adjacent residential development. ........................................................................................................... 25 Figure 7. Photograph of the central portion of the Project site, looking south, showing an irrigation ditch lined with ruderal vegetation. .................... 26 Figure 8. Photograph of the Project site, looking northeast from the western boundary, showing abandoned buildings and ornamental trees. ........ 26 Figure 9. Photograph of the Project site, looking west from Avenue 12 ½, showing a single-family residence and ornamental trees. .................... 27 Figure 10. Photograph showing ground squirrel burrows in the central portion of the Project site, looking north. ......................................................................... 27 Tables
Table 1. Special-status species, their listing status, habitats, and potential to occur on or near the Project site. ........................................................................ 17 Table 2. Plant and animal species observed during the reconnaissance survey. .......................................................................................................................................... 28 Appendices
Appendix A. USFWS list of threatened and endangered species……….......................38 Appendix B. CNDDB occurrence records…………………………………………………...............47 Appendix C. CNPS plant list……………………………………………………………………………….50

Biological Resource Evaluation | Hanford Residential Project Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC November 2025
5 Abbreviations
Abbreviation Definition
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFG California Department of Fish and Game
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFGC California Fish and Game Code
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Data Base
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CRPR California Rare Plant Rank
FE Federally listed as Endangered
FESA Federal Endangered Species Act
FP State Fully Protected
FPT Federally Proposed as Threatened
FT Federally listed as Threatened
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
SC State Candidate for listing under the CESA
SE State listed as Endangered
SSSC State Species of Special Concern
ST State listed as Threatened
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USC United States Code
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey

Biological Resource Evaluation | Hanford Residential Project Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC November 2025
6 1.0 Introduction

1.1 Background
The project applicant is seeking approval for a residential development (the Project) on approximately 13.5 acres immediately west of the City of Hanford in Kings County, California. The Project site currently supports a single-family residence and fallowed agricultural land.

The purpose of this biological resource evaluation is to assess whether the Project will affect protected biological resources pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines. Such resources include species of plants or animals listed or proposed for listing under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) or the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) as well as those covered under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), the California Native Plant Protection Act, and various other sections of California Fish and Game Code (CFGC). This biological resource evaluation also addresses Projectrelated impacts to regulated habitats, which are those under the jurisdiction of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), or California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).

1.2 Project Description
The proposed Project will involve constructing a residential development on approximately 13.5 acres. The Project will include construction of 74 singlefamily residences and a 0.82-acre stormwater basin.

1.3 Project Location
The approximately 13.5-acre Project site is at the southwest corner of West Lacey Boulevard and Avenue 12 ½, immediately west of the City of Hanford in northern Kings County, California (Figures 1 and 2).

Biological Resource Evaluation | Hanford Residential Project Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC November 2025
7 Figure 1. Project site vicinity map.

Biological Resource Evaluation | Hanford Residential Project Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC November 2025
8 Figure 2. Project site map.

Biological Resource Evaluation | Hanford Residential Project Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC November 2025
9 1.4 Regulatory Framework
The relevant regulatory requirements and policies that guide the impact analysis of the Project are summarized below.

1.4.1 State Requirements
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Jurisdiction. The CDFW has regulatory jurisdiction over lakes and streams in California. Activities that divert or obstruct the natural flow of a stream; substantially change its bed, channel, or bank; or use any materials (including vegetation) from the streambed may require that the project applicant enter into a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement with the CDFW in accordance with California Fish and Game Code [CFGC] Section 1602.

California Endangered Species Act. The CESA of 1970 (CFGC Section 2050 et seq. and California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 14, Subsections 670.2 and 670.51) prohibits the take of species listed under CESA (14 CCR Subsections 670.2 and 670.5). Take is defined as hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill. Under CESA, state agencies are required to consult with the CDFW when preparing CEQA documents.

Consultation ensures that proposed projects or actions do not adversely affect state listed species. During consultation, CDFW determines whether take would occur and identifies “reasonable and prudent alternatives” for the project and conservation of special-status species. CDFW can authorize take of state listed species under Sections 2080.1 and 2081(b) of the CFGC in those cases where it is demonstrated the impacts are minimized and mitigated. Take authorized under section 2081(b) must be minimized and fully mitigated. A CESA permit must be obtained if a project will result in take of listed species, either during construction or over the life of the project. Under CESA, CDFW is responsible for maintaining a list of threatened and endangered species designated under state law (CFGC Section 2070). CDFW also maintains lists of species of special concern, which serve as “watch lists.” Pursuant to the requirements of CESA, a state or local agency reviewing a proposed project within its jurisdiction must determine whether the proposed project will have a potentially significant impact upon such species. Project-related impacts to species on the CESA list would be considered significant and would require mitigation. Impacts to species of concern or fully protected species would be considered significant under certain circumstances.

California Environmental Quality Act. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970 (Subsections 21000–21178) requires that CDFW be consulted

Biological Resource Evaluation | Hanford Residential Project Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC November 2025
10 during the CEQA review process regarding impacts of proposed projects on special-status species. Special-status species are defined under CEQA Guidelines subsection 15380(b) and (d) as those listed under FESA and CESA and species that are not currently protected by statute or regulation but would be considered rare, threatened, or endangered under these criteria or by the scientific community. Therefore, species considered rare or endangered are addressed in this biological resource evaluation regardless of whether they are afforded protection through any other statute or regulation. The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) inventories the native flora of California and ranks species according to rarity (CNPS 2025). Plants with Rare Plant Ranks 1A, 1B, 2A, or 2B are considered special-status species under CEQA.

Although threatened and endangered species are protected by specific federal and state statutes, CEQA Guidelines Section 15380(d) provides that a species not listed on the federal or state list of protected species may be considered rare or endangered if it can be shown to meet certain specified criteria. These criteria have been modeled after the definition in the FESA and the section of the CFGC dealing with rare and endangered plants and animals. Section 15380(d) allows a public agency to undertake a review to determine if a significant effect on species that have not yet been listed by either the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or CDFW (i.e., candidate species) would occur. Thus, CEQA provides an agency with the ability to protect a species from the potential impacts of a project until the respective government agency has an opportunity to designate the species as protected, if warranted.

California Native Plant Protection Act. The California Native Plant Protection Act of 1977 (CFGC Sections 1900–1913) requires all state agencies to use their authority to carry out programs to conserve endangered and otherwise rare species of native plants. Provisions of the act prohibit the taking of listed plants from the wild and require the project proponent to notify CDFW at least 10 days in advance of any change in land use, which allows CDFW to salvage listed plants that would otherwise be destroyed.

Nesting birds. CFGC Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3800 prohibit the possession, incidental take, or needless destruction of birds, their nests, and eggs. CFGC Section 3511 lists birds that are “Fully Protected” as those that may not be taken or possessed except under specific permit.

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (California Water Code Section 13000 et. sec.) was established in 1969 and entrusts the SWRCB and nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (collectively Water Boards) with the responsibility to preserve and enhance all

Biological Resource Evaluation | Hanford Residential Project Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC November 2025
11 beneficial uses of California’s diverse waters. The Act grants the Water Boards authority to establish water quality objectives and regulate point- and nonpointsource pollution discharge to the state’s surface and ground waters. Under the auspices of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the Water Boards are responsible for certifying, under Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act, that activities affecting waters of the United States comply with California water quality standards. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act addresses all “waters of the State,” which are more broadly defined than waters of the Unites States. Waters of the State include any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state. They include artificial as well as natural water bodies and federally jurisdictional and federally non-jurisdictional waters. The Water Boards may issue a Waste Discharge Requirement permit for projects that will affect only federally nonjurisdictional waters of the State.

1.4.2 Federal Requirements
Federal Endangered Species Act. The USFWS and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service enforce the provisions stipulated in the FESA of 1973 (FESA, 16 United States Code [USC] Section 1531 et seq.). Threatened and endangered species on the federal list (50 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 17.11 and 17.12) are protected from take unless a Section 10 permit is granted to an entity other than a federal agency or a Biological Opinion with incidental take provisions is rendered to a federal lead agency via a Section 7 consultation. Take is defined as harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect or attempt to engage in any such conduct. Pursuant to the requirements of the FESA, an agency reviewing a proposed action within its jurisdiction must determine whether any federally listed species may be present in the proposed action area and determine whether the proposed action may affect such species. Under the FESA, habitat loss is considered an effect to a species. In addition, the agency is required to determine whether the proposed action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species that is listed or proposed for listing under the FESA (16 USC Section 1536[3], [4]). Therefore, proposed action-related effects to these species or their habitats would be considered significant and would require mitigation.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The federal MBTA (16 USC Section 703, Supp. I, 1989) prohibits killing, possessing, trading, or other forms of take of migratory birds except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. “Take” is defined as the pursuing, hunting, shooting, capturing, collecting, or killing of birds, their nests, eggs, or young (16 USC Section 703 and Section 715n).

Biological Resource Evaluation | Hanford Residential Project Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC November 2025
12 This act encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs. The MBTA specifically protects migratory bird nests from possession, sale, purchase, barter transport, import, and export, and take. For nests, the definition of take per 50 CFR 10.12 is to collect. The MBTA does not include a definition of an “active nest.” However, the “Migratory Bird Permit Memorandum” issued by the USFWS in 2003 and updated in 2018 clarifies the MBTA in that regard and states that the removal of nests, without eggs or birds, is legal under the MBTA, provided no possession (which is interpreted as holding the nest with the intent of retaining it) occurs during the destruction (USFWS 2018).

United States Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdiction. Areas meeting the regulatory definition of “waters of the United States” (jurisdictional waters) are subject to the jurisdiction of the USACE under provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (1972) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (1899).

These waters may include all waters used, or potentially used, for interstate commerce, including all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, the territorial seas, all interstate waters, all impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States, tributaries of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States that are relatively permanent, standing, or continuously flowing bodies of water, and relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water with a continuous surface connection to waters of the United States (33 CFR part 328.3). Waters of the United States do not include prior converted cropland, waste treatment systems, ditches, artificially irrigated areas, artificial lakes or ponds, artificial reflecting pools or swimming pools, waterfilled depressions, and swales and erosional features.

Under the 2006 Supreme Court ruling Rapanos v. United States, waters of the United States include non-navigable tributaries of traditional navigable waters that are relatively permanent. The 2023 Supreme Court ruling Sackett v.

Environmental Protection Agency removed the significant nexus standard for tributaries and adjacent waters of the United States and requires tributaries and adjacent waters to have a continuous surface connection to a water of the United States. Wetlands on non-agricultural lands are identified using the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and related Regional Supplement (USACE 1987 and 2008). Construction activities, including direct removal, filling, hydrologic disruption, or other means in jurisdictional waters are regulated by the USACE. The placement of dredged or fill material into such waters must comply with permit requirements of the USACE. No USACE permit will be effective in the absence of state water quality certification pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The State Water Resources Control Board is the state agency, together with the Regional Water Quality Control Boards, charged with implementing water quality certification in California.

Biological Resource Evaluation | Hanford Residential Project Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC November 2025
13 2.0 Methods

2.1 Desktop Review
As a framework for the evaluation and reconnaissance survey, we obtained a USFWS species list for the Project (USFWS 2025a, Appendix A). In addition, we searched the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB, CDFW 2025, Appendix B) and the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (CNPS 2025, Appendix C) for records of special-status plant and animal species from the vicinity of the Project site. Regional lists of special-status species were compiled using CNDDB and CNPS database searches confined to the Hanford 7.5- minute United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic quadrangle, which encompasses the Project site, and the eight surrounding quadrangles (Burris Park, Guernsey, Laton, Lemoore, Remnoy, Riverdale, Stratford, and Waukena). A local list of special-status species was compiled using CNDDB records from within 5 miles of the Project site. Species that lacked a CEQA-recognized special-status designation by state or federal regulatory agencies or public interest groups were omitted from the final list. Species for which the Project site does not provide habitat were eliminated from further consideration. We also reviewed aerial imagery from Google Earth (Google 2025) and other sources, USGS topographic maps, the Web Soil Survey (NRCS 2025), the National Wetlands Inventory (USFWS 2025b), and relevant literature.

2.2 Reconnaissance Survey
Colibri Senior Scientist Amy Hernandez conducted a field reconnaissance survey at the Project site on 27 October 2025. The Project site and a 50-foot buffer (Figure 3) surrounding the Project site were walked and thoroughly inspected to evaluate and document the potential for the area to support state or federally protected resources. All plants except those under cultivation or planted in residential areas and all vertebrate wildlife species observed within the survey area were identified and documented. The survey area was evaluated for the presence of regulated habitats, including lakes, streams, and other waters as defined by the USACE, CDFW, and under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. An additional buffer of 0.5 miles around the Project site (Figure 3) was inspected for potential nesting habitat for special-status raptors. The 0.5- mile buffer was surveyed by driving public roads and identifying the presence of large trees or other potentially suitable substrates for nesting raptors as well as open areas that could provide foraging habitat.

Biological Resource Evaluation | Hanford Residential Project Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC November 2025
14 2.3 Significance Criteria
CEQA defines “significant effect on the environment” as “a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment” (California Public Resource Code § 21068). Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15065, a Project’s effects on biological resources are deemed significant where the Project would do the following:
a) Substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, b) Cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, c) Threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or d) Substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal.

In addition to the Section 15065 criteria, Appendix G within the CEQA Guidelines includes six additional impacts to consider when analyzing the effects of a project. Under Appendix G, a project’s effects on biological resources are deemed significant where the project would do any of the following:
e) 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;
f) 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;
g) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means; h) 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;
i) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; or j) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

These criteria were used to determine whether the potential effects of the Project on biological resources qualify as significant.

Biological Resource Evaluation | Hanford Residential Project Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC November 2025
15 Figure 3. Reconnaissance survey area map.

Biological Resource Evaluation | Hanford Residential Project Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC November 2025
16 3.0 Results

3.1 Desktop Review
The USFWS species list for the Project included 10 species listed as threatened or endangered or proposed for listing under the FESA (USFWS 2025a, Table 1, Appendix A). None of those species could occur on or near the Project site due to the lack of habitat or because the Project site is outside the known range of the species (Table 1). As identified in the species list, the Project site is not within any proposed or designated USFWS critical habitat (USFWS 2025a, Appendix A).

Searching the CNDDB for records of special-status species from the Hanford

7.5-minute USGS topographic quadrangle and the eight surrounding quadrangles produced 93 records of 30 species (Table 1, Appendix B) and two sensitive natural communities. Of the 30 species, three were not considered further because they are not CEQA-recognized as special-status species by state or federal regulatory agencies or public interest groups or are considered extirpated in California (Appendix B). Of the remaining 27 species, three are known from within 5 miles of the Project site (Table 1, Figure 4). None of the species known from within 5 miles could occur on or near the Project site due to lack of habitat. However, one species identified in the nine-quad search has potential to occur on or near the Project site—the state candidate for listing as endangered burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia). None of the additional species or sensitive natural communities identified in the nine-quad search could occur on or near the Project site due to lack of habitat (Table 1).

Searching the CNPS inventory of rare and endangered plants of California yielded 11 species (CNPS 2025, Appendix C), 10 of which have a CRPR of 1 or 2 and none of which are also state or federally listed (Table 1). Of those 10 plant species, none could occur on or near the Project site due to the lack of habitat (Table 1).

The Project site is underlain by Nord complex (59.2%) and Nord fine sandy loam (40.8%) (NCRS 2025). The Project site has little topographic relief and is at an elevation of 222–226 feet above mean sea level (Google 2025).

Biological Resource Evaluation | Hanford Residential Project Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC November 2025
17 Table 1. Special-status species, their listing status, habitats, and potential to occur on or near the Project site.

Species Status1 Habitat Potential to Occur2
Federally and State Listed Endangered or Threatened Species Monarch California
overwintering
population
(Danaus plexippus)
FPT Groves of trees within 1.5
miles of the ocean that
produce suitable microclimates for
overwintering such as
high humidity, dappled
sunlight, access to water
and nectar, and
protection from wind.

None. Habitat lacking;
the Project site is not
within 1.5 miles of the
ocean.

Valley elderberry
longhorn beetle
FT Elderberry (Sambucus
sp.) plants having basal
stem diameter greater
than 1” at ground level.

None. No elderberry
shrubs were found in
the survey area, and
the Project site is
outside the currently
recognized range of
this species.

Vernal pool fairy
shrimp
(Branchinecta lynchi)
FT Vernal pools; some
artificial depressions,
stock ponds, vernal
swales, ephemeral
drainages, and seasonal
wetlands.

None. Habitat lacking;
the Project site lacked
vernal pools or other
potential habitat for
this species.

Vernal pool tadpole
shrimp
(Lepidurus packardi)
FE Vernal pools, clay flats,
alkaline pools, and
ephemeral stock tanks.

None. Habitat lacking;
the Project site lacked
vernal pools or other
potential habitat for
this species.

Biological Resource Evaluation | Hanford Residential Project Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC November 2025
18 Species Status1 Habitat Potential to Occur2
California tiger
salamander
(Ambystoma
californiense) –
Central Valley
Distinct Population
Segment
FT, ST Vernal pools or seasonal
ponds for breeding; small
mammal burrows for
upland refugia in natural
grasslands.

None. Habitat lacking;
no vernal pools or
seasonal ponds were
within the 1.24-mile
dispersal distance of
this species. Aerial
imagery (Google 2025)
shows the detention
basins in the dispersal
range are not regularly
inundated during the
breeding season for
this species.

Western spadefoot
(Spea hammondii)
FPT,
SSSC
Open areas with sandy or
gravelly soils and rain
pools for breeding.

None. Habitat lacking;
the Project site has
been routinely disked
and lacked suitable
rain pools for breeding.

Blunt-nosed leopard
lizard
(Gambelia sila)

FE, SE,
FP
Upland scrub and
sparsely vegetated
grassland with small
mammal burrows.

None. Habitat lacking;
the Project site has
been routinely disked
and was in an urban
environment.

Northwestern pond
turtle
(Actinemys
marmorata)
FPT,
SSSC
Perennial or nearly
perennial ponds, rivers,
marshes, streams, and
irrigation ditches, usually
with aquatic vegetation
with basking sites and
suitable upland areas for
egg laying.

None. Habitat lacking;
the Project site and
surrounding areas
lacked the aquatic
habitat this species
requires.

Burrowing owl
(Athene cunicularia)
SC Grasslands and upland
scrub with friable soil;
some agricultural or
other developed and
disturbed areas with
ground squirrel burrows
or burrow surrogates.

Low. The Project site
contained fallowed
agricultural land for
foraging and ground
squirrel burrows for
refugia.

Biological Resource Evaluation | Hanford Residential Project Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC November 2025
19 Species Status1 Habitat Potential to Occur2
Swainson’s hawk3
(Buteo swainsoni)
ST Large trees for nesting
with adjacent grasslands,
alfalfa fields, or grain
fields for foraging.

None. While the Project
site contains limited
foraging habitat for the
species, large trees in
the survey area are
associated with
residential
development.

Tricolored blackbird
(Agelaius tricolor)
ST,
SSSC
Vast, open areas with
flooded, thorny, or spiny
vegetation for nesting;
grasslands, seasonal
wetlands, weedy
agricultural fields, cattle
feedlots, or dairies for
foraging.

None. Habitat lacking;
no potential nesting
habitat was present in
the survey area, and
the Project site is too
far from any nesting
areas to support
foraging.

Western snowy plover
(Charadrius nivosus
nivosus)
FT,
SSSC
Sandy beaches, salt pond
levees, and shores of large
alkali lakes.

None. Habitat lacking;
the Project site and
surrounding areas
lacked the types of
aquatic-adjacent
habitats this species
requires.

Buena Vista Lake
ornate shrew
(Sorex ornatus
relictus)
FE,
SSSC
Moist riparian, wetlands,
grasslands, and upland
scrub with abundant leaf
litter and dense
herbaceous cover.

None. Habitat lacking;
the Project site has
been routinely disked.

Fresno kangaroo rat
(Dipodomys
nitratoides exilis)
FE, SE Sandy, alkaline, saline,
and clay-based soils in
upland scrub and
grassland.

None. Habitat lacking;
the Project site has
been routinely disked.

Biological Resource Evaluation | Hanford Residential Project Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC November 2025
20 Species Status1 Habitat Potential to Occur2
San Joaquin kit fox3
(Vulpes macrotis
mutica)
FE, ST Grassland, upland scrub,
and some fallowed
agricultural lands
adjacent to natural
grassland or upland
scrub with a small
mammal prey base and
ground squirrel burrows
or burrow surrogates for
denning.

None. Habitat lacking;
the Project site is not
adjacent to natural
grassland or upland
scrub.

Tipton kangaroo rat
(Dipodomys
nitratoides
nitratoides)
FE, SE Grassland and upland
scrub with sparse to
moderate shrub cover and
saline soils; also fallowed
agricultural fields
adjacent to natural
grasslands or upland
scrub.

None. Habitat lacking;
the Project site has
been routinely disked
and is not adjacent to
natural grassland or
upland scrub.

State Species of Special Concern
California glossy
snake
(Arizona elegans
occidentalis)
SSSC Arid scrub, rocky washes,
grasslands, chapparal.

None. Habitat lacking;
the Project site lacked
arid scrub, rocky
washes, grasslands,
and chapparal.

Yellow-headed
blackbird
(Xanthocephalus
xanthocephalus)
SSSC Nests in freshwater
emergent wetlands with
dense vegetation and
deep water; often along
borders of lakes or ponds.

None. Habitat lacking;
the Project site lacked
the freshwater
emergent wetlands
this species requires.

California Rare Plants
Alkali-sink goldfields
(Lasthenia
chrysantha)
1B.1 Vernal pools and wet
saline flats below 320
feet elevation.

None. Habitat lacking;
the Project site lacked
vernal pools or wet
saline flats.

Biological Resource Evaluation | Hanford Residential Project Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC November 2025
21 Species Status1 Habitat Potential to Occur2
Brittlescale
(Atriplex depressa)
1B.2 Alkaline clay soils in
valley and foothill
grassland, meadows,
seeps, playas and in
Chenopod scrub below
1050 feet.

None. Habitat lacking;
the Project site lacks
alkaline clay soils.

California alkali
grass3
(Puccinellia simplex)
1B.2 Scrub, meadows, seeps,
grassland, vernal pools,
saline flats, and mineral
springs below 3000 feet
elevation.

None. Habitat lacking;
the Project site lacked
scrub, meadows, seeps,
grassland, vernal
pools, saline flats, and
mineral springs.

Earlimart orache
(Atriplex cordulata
var. erecticaulis
1B.2 Saline or alkaline soils in
valley and foothill
grassland below 230 feet
elevation.

None. Habitat lacking;
the Project site lacked
saline or alkaline soils.

Heartscale
(Atriplex cordulata
var. cordulata)
1B.2 Sandy, saline soils in
valley and foothill
grassland, meadows,
seeps and in Chenopod
scrub below 1835 feet
elevation.

None. Habitat lacking;
the Project site lacked
saline soils.

Lesser saltscale
(Atriplex minuscula)
1B.1 Sandy alkaline soils in
chenopod scrub, playa,
and grassland in the San
Joaquin Valley below
328 feet elevation.

None. Habitat lacking;
the Project site lacked
alkaline soils.

Mud nama
(Nama stenocarpa)
2B.2 Intermittently wet areas
below 2700 feet
elevation.

None. Habitat lacking;
the Project site lacked
intermittently wet
areas.

Panoche peppergrass
(Lepidium jaredii ssp.
album)
1B.2 Clay, steep slopes and
alkaline soils in valley
and foothill grassland
from 605-2450 feet
elevation.

None. Habitat lacking;
the Project site is
below the elevational
range of this species.

Biological Resource Evaluation | Hanford Residential Project Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC November 2025
22 Species Status1 Habitat Potential to Occur2
Recurved larkspur
(Delphinium
recurvatum)
1B.2 Grasslands and upland
scrub with poorly
drained, fine, alkaline
soils at 98–1969 feet
elevation.

None. Habitat lacking;
the Project site lacked
alkaline soils.

Sanford's arrowhead
(Sagittaria sanfordii)
1B.2 Ponds, sloughs, and
ditches at sea level to
650 feet elevation.

None. Habitat lacking;
no ponds, sloughs, or
ditches were on or near
the Project site.

Subtle orache
(Atriplex subtilis)
1B.2 Saline depressions below
230 feet elevation.

None. Habitat lacking;
the Project site lacked
saline deopressions.

CDFW (2025), CNPS (2025), USFWS (2025a).

Status1 Potential to Occur2
FC = Federal Candidate for listing None: Species or sign not observed; conditions unsuitable for occurrence.

FE = Federally listed as Endangered Low: Neither species nor sign observed; conditions marginal for occurrence.

FT = Federally listed as Threatened Moderate: Neither species nor sign observed; conditions suitable for occurrence.

FPT = Federally Proposed Threatened High: Neither species nor sign observed; conditions highly suitable for occurrence.

FP = State Fully Protected Present: Species or sign observed; conditions suitable for occurrence.

SC = State Candidate for listing
SE = State listed as Endangered
ST = State listed as Threatened
SSSC = State Species of Special Concern
CNPS California Rare Plant Rank1: Threat Ranks1:
1B – plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere.

0.1 – seriously threatened in California (> 80% of
occurrences).
2B – plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere.

0.2 – moderately threatened in California (20-80% of
occurrences).
3 – plants about which more information is needed. 0.3 – not very threatened in California (<20% of occurrences).
4 – plants have limited distribution in California.
3Record from within 5 miles of the Project site.

Biological Resource Evaluation | Hanford Residential Project Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC November 2025
23 Figure 4. CNDDB occurrence map.

Biological Resource Evaluation | Hanford Residential Project Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC November 2025
24 3.2 Reconnaissance Survey

3.2.1 Land Use and Habitats
The Project site consisted of developed and ruderal land cover and fallowed agricultural land (Figures 5 and 6). Ruderal herbaceous vegetation dominated by nonnative grasses and forbs was distributed throughout the Project site (Figures 5 and 7). The southern portion of the Project site consisted of fallowed agricultural land with an alfalfa (Medicago sativa) cover crop (Figure 6). The agricultural portion of the Project site was bordered to the east and north by a shallow irrigation ditch (Figure 7). Ornamental trees were distributed in the northern portion of the Project site and along the northern and eastern survey area boundaries (Figures 5, 8, and 9). A single-family residence with a gravel driveway and abandoned accessory buildings were also in the northern portion of the parcel (Figures 8 and 9). California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi) burrows (Figure 10) were sparsely distributed throughout the Project site.

The site was bordered to the north by residential development (Figures 2 and 6), to the south by a residential development and fallowed agricultural land, to the west by idle agricultural land, and to the east by commercial development, residential development, and idle agricultural land (Figure 2). Aerial imagery indicates the southern portion of the Project site has been used for agricultural production since at least 1994 (Google 2025).

Biological Resource Evaluation | Hanford Residential Project Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC November 2025
25 Figure 5. Photograph of the Project site, looking northwest from the southeast corner, showing ruderal vegetation and ornamental trees.

Figure 6. Photograph of the Project site, looking north from the southern boundary, showing fallowed agricultural land and adjacent residential development.

Biological Resource Evaluation | Hanford Residential Project Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC November 2025
26 Figure 7. Photograph of the central portion of the Project site, looking south, showing an irrigation ditch lined with ruderal vegetation.

Figure 8. Photograph of the Project site, looking northeast from the western boundary, showing abandoned buildings and ornamental trees.

Biological Resource Evaluation | Hanford Residential Project Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC November 2025
27 Figure 9. Photograph of the Project site, looking west from Avenue 12 ½, showing a single-family residence and ornamental trees.

Figure 10. Photograph showing ground squirrel burrows in the central portion of the Project site, looking north.

Biological Resource Evaluation | Hanford Residential Project Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC November 2025
28 3.2.2 Plant and Animal Species Observed
A total of 31 plant species (nine native and 22 nonnative), 14 bird species, and one mammal species were observed during the survey (Table 2).

Table 2. Plant and animal species observed during the reconnaissance survey.

Common Name Scientific Name Status
Plants
Family Amaranthaceae
Palmer’s amaranth Amaranthus palmeri Native
Prostrate pigweed Amaranthus blitoides Native
Family Asteraceae
Canada horseweed Erigeron canadensis Native
Common sunflower Helianthus annuus Native
Prickly lettuce Lactuca serriola Nonnative
Family Boraginaceae
Common fiddleneck Amsinckia menziesii Native
Family Brassicaceae
London rocket Sysimbrium irio Nonnative
Family Caryophyllaceae
Common chickweed Stellaria neglecta Nonnative
Family Chenopodiaceae
Lamb’s quarters Chenopodium album Nonnative
Nettle leaf goosefoot Chenopodium murale Nonnative
Russian thistle Salsola tragus Nonnative
Family Fabaceae
Alfalfa Medicago sativa Nonnative
Family Geraniaceae
Musky stork's bill Erodium moschatum Nonnative
Red-stemmed stork's bill Erodium cicutarium Nonnative
Family Junglandaceae

Biological Resource Evaluation | Hanford Residential Project Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC November 2025
29 Common Name Scientific Name Status
Northern California black
walnut Juglans californica Native
Family Malvaceae
Alkali mallow Malvella leprosa Native
Cheeseweed mallow Malva parviflora Nonnative
Family Poaceae
Barnyard grass Echinochloa crus-galli Nonnative
Bermuda grass Cynodon dactylon Nonnative
Common wheat Triticum aestivum Nonnative
Foxtail barley Hordeum murinum Nonnative
Johnsongrass Sorghum halepense Nonnative
Ripgut brome Bromus diandrus Nonnative
Sprangletop Leptochloa sp. Native
Family Polygonaceae
Fiddle dock Rumex pulcher Nonnative
Prostrate knotweed Polygonum aviculare Nonnative
Family Portulacaceae
Common purslane Portulaca oleracea Nonnative
Family Solanaceae
Black nightshade Solanum nigrum Nonnative
Sacred datura Datura wrightii Native
Tree tobacco Nicotiana glauca Nonnative
Family Zygophyllaceae
Puncturevine Tribulus terrestris Nonnative
Birds
Family Accipitridae
Cooper’s hawk Astur cooperii MBTA, CFGC
Family Charadriidae
Killdeer Charadrius vociferus MBTA, CFGC

Biological Resource Evaluation | Hanford Residential Project Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC November 2025
30 Common Name Scientific Name Status
Family Columbidae
Mourning dove Zenaida macroura MBTA, CFGC
Rock pigeon Columbia livia Nonnative
Family Corvidae
American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos MBTA, CFGC
Family Falconidae
American kestrel Falco sparverius MBTA, CFGC
Family Fringillidae
Lesser goldfinch Spinus psaltria MBTA, CFGC
House finch Haemorhous mexicanus MBTA, CFGC
Family Parulidae
Yellow-rumped warbler Setophaga coronata MBTA, CFGC
Family Passerellidae
Savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis MBTA, CFGC
White-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys MBTA, CFGC Family Sturnidae
European starling Sturnus vulgaris Nonnative
Family Turdidae
American robin Turdus migratorius MBTA, CFGC
Family Tyrannidae
Black phoebe Sayornis nigricans MBTA, CFGC
Mammals
Birds
Birds
Family Sciuridae
California ground squirrel Otospermophilus beecheyi --
MBTA = Protected under the MBTA (16 USC § 703 et seq.); CFGC = Protected under CFGC §§ 3503 and 3513

Biological Resource Evaluation | Hanford Residential Project Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC November 2025
31 3.2.3 Nesting Birds
Migratory birds could nest on or near the Project site. Bird species that may nest on or near the property include, but are not limited to, American robin (Turdus migratorius) and house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus). Large trees within 0.5 miles of the Project site could provide nesting substrates for raptors.

3.2.4 Regulated Habitats
A shallow, earthen ditch lined the southern portion of the Project site (Figure 7).

The ditch was likely created for intra-field irrigation, as it was not connected to a wetland, waterway, or irrigation infrastructure. The ditch is not listed in the National Wetlands Inventory (USFWS 2025b). Aerial imagery (Google 2025) shows the ditch has been subject to ongoing maintenance since it was constructed until at least March 2025. Therefore, the ditch is not likely regulated by the SWRCB. As the feature is not a lake or stream, it is likely not regulated by the CDFW under California Fish and Game Code Section 1600 et sec. As this feature is not a tributaty or adjacent water of a water of the United States, it would not fall under the regulatory jurisdiction of the USACE.

3.3 Special-Status Species

3.3.1 Burrowing Owl
Burrowing owl is a member of the family Strigidae recognized as a Species of Special Concern by the CDFW (CDFW 2025). It occurs primarily in grasslands but can persist and even thrive in agricultural or other developed and disturbed areas (Shuford and Gardali 2008, Rosenberg and Haley 2004). Burrowing owl depends on burrow systems excavated by other species such as California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi) and American badger (Taxidea taxus) (Poulin et al. 2020). Burrowing owl uses burrows for protection from predators, weather, as roosting sites, and dwellings to raise young (Poulin et al. 2020). It commonly perches outside burrows on mounds of soil or nearby fence posts. Prey types include insects, especially grasshoppers and crickets, small mammals, frogs, toads, and lizards (Poulin et al. 2020). The nesting season begins in March, and incubation lasts 28–30 days. The female incubates the eggs while the male forages and delivers food items to the burrow-nest; young then fledge between 44 and 53 days after hatching (Poulin et al. 2020). Adults can live up to 8 years in the wild.

Biological Resource Evaluation | Hanford Residential Project Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC November 2025
32 There are no CNDDB occurrence records of burrowing owl from within 5 miles of the Project site (CDFW 2025); however, there are four CNDDB occurrence records from the nine-quad search. Ground squirrel burrows scattered throughout the Project site could support the species. The agricultural field on the Project site and the adjacent idle agricultural lands provide potential foraging habitat.

However, the habitat is routinely disturbed, and no sign of burrowing owl was detected during the 27 October 2025 reconnaissance survey. Therefore, the potential for this species to occur on the Project site is low.

Biological Resource Evaluation | Hanford Residential Project Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC November 2025
33 4.0 Environmental Impacts

4.1 Significance Determinations
This Project, which will result in permanent impacts to an almond orchard, will not: (1) substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species (criterion a) as no such habitat is present on the Project site; (2) cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels (criterion b) as no such potentially vulnerable population is known from the area; (3) threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community (criterion c) as no such potentially vulnerable communities are known from the area; (4) substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal (criterion d) as no such potentially vulnerable species are known from the area; (5) 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 (criterion f) as no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community was present in the survey area; (6) have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means (criterion g) as no impacts to wetlands will occur; (7) conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance (criterion i) as no such ordinances are pertinent to the project; or (8) conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Communities Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan (criterion j) as no such plan has been adopted. Thus, these significance criteria are not analyzed further.

The remaining statutorily defined criteria provide the framework for Criterion BIO1 and Criterion BIO2 below. These criteria are used to assess the impacts to biological resources stemming from the Project and provide the basis for determinations of significance:
§ Criterion BIO1: 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 (significance criterion e).
§ Criterion BIO2: 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 (significance criterion h).

Biological Resource Evaluation | Hanford Residential Project Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC November 2025
34 4.1.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

4.1.1.1 Potential Effect #1: Have a Substantial Effect on Any SpecialStatus Species (Criterion BIO1) The Project could adversely affect, either directly or through habitat modifications, two special-status animal species that occur or may occur on or near the Project site. Construction activities such as excavating, trenching, or using other heavy equipment that disturbs or harms a special-status species or substantially modifies its habitat could constitute a significant impact. We recommend that Mitigation Measure BIO1 (below) be included in the conditions of approval to reduce the potential impacts to less-than-significant levels.

Mitigation Measure BIO1. Protect burrowing owl.

1. A pre-construction take avoidance survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist in accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012) to ensure that no burrowing owl will be disturbed during the implementation of the Project. A pre-construction take avoidance survey shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the initiation of construction activities. During this survey, the qualified biologist shall inspect all potential burrowing owl habitat in and within 500 feet of the impact areas.

2. If a burrowing owl or sign of burrowing owl use (e.g., feathers, excrement, pellets) is detected on or within 500 feet of the Project site, and the qualified biologist determines that Project activities would disrupt the owl(s), a construction-free buffer, limited operating period, or other measures shall be implemented in consultation with the CDFW.

4.1.1.2 Potential Effect #2: Interfere Substantially with Native Wildlife Movements, Corridors, or Nursery Sites (Criterion BIO3) The Project has the potential to impede the use of nursery sites for native birds protected under the MBTA and CFGC. Migratory birds are expected to nest on and near the Project site. Construction disturbance during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment or loss of reproductive effort can be considered take under the MBTA and CFGC. Loss of fertile eggs or nesting birds, or any

Biological Resource Evaluation | Hanford Residential Project Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC November 2025
35 activities resulting in nest abandonment, could constitute a significant effect if the species is particularly rare in the region. Construction activities such as excavating, trenching, and grading that disturb a nesting bird on the Project site or immediately adjacent to the construction zone could constitute a significant effect. We recommend the Mitigation Measure BIO2 (below) be included in the conditions of approval to reduce the potential effects to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation Measure BIO2. Protect nesting birds.

1. To the extent practicable, construction shall be scheduled to avoid the nesting season, which extends from February through August.

2. If it is not possible to schedule construction between September and January, pre-construction surveys for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to ensure that no active nests will be disturbed during the implementation of the Project. A pre-construction survey shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the initiation of construction activities. During this survey, the qualified biologist shall inspect all potential nest substrates in and immediately adjacent to the impact areas. If an active nest is found close enough to the construction area to be disturbed by these activities, the qualified biologist shall determine the extent of a construction-free buffer to be established around the nest. If work cannot proceed without disturbing the nesting birds, work may need to be halted or redirected to other areas until nesting and fledging are completed or the nest has otherwise failed for non-construction related reasons.

Biological Resource Evaluation | Hanford Residential Project Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC November 2025
36 5.0 Literature Cited
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, State of California Natural Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. 36 pages.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2025. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) RareFind 5. https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov.

Accessed October 2025.

California Native Plant Society, Rare Plant Program (CNPS). 2025. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v9.5). California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. http://www.rareplants.cnps.org. Accessed October 2025.

Google. 2025. Google Earth Pro. Version 7.3.6.10441
(https://www.google.com/earth/download/gep/agree.html). Accessed October and November 2025.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2025. Web Soil Survey, National Cooperative Soil Survey:
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed October 2025.

Poulin, R. G., L. D. Todd, E. A. Haug, B. A. Millsap, and M. S. Martell. 2020.

Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia), version 1.0. In Birds of the World (A. F.

Poole, Editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.burowl.01.

Rosenberg, D. K., and Haley, K. L. 2004. The ecology of Burrowing Owls in the agroecosystem of the Imperial Valley, California. Studies in Avian Biology 27:120–135.

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

Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.

United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Wetland Research Program Technical Report Y-87-1.

Biological Resource Evaluation | Hanford Residential Project Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC November 2025
37 ________. 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0). ERDC/EL TR-08-28. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb10464

89.pdf. Accessed October 2025.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2018. Migratory Bird Permit Memorandum: Destruction and Relocation of Migratory Bird Nest Contents.

FWS/DMBM/AMB/068029, 4 pages.
________. 2025a. IPaC: Information for Planning and Conservation. https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Accessed October 2025.
________. 2025b. National Wetlands Inventory website. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.
http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/. Accessed October 2025.

Biological Resource Evaluation | Hanford Residential Project Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC November 2025
38 Appendix A. USFWS list of threatened and endangered
species.

IPaC resource list
This report is an automatically generated list of species and other resources such as critical habitat (collectively referred to as trust resources) under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) jurisdiction that are known or expected to be on or near the project area referenced below. The list may also include trust resources that occur outside of the project area, but that could potentially be directly or indirectly affected by activities in the project area. However, determining the likelihood and extent of effects a project may have on trust resources typically requires gathering additional site-specific (e.g., vegetation/species surveys) and project-specific (e.g., magnitude and timing of proposed activities) information.

Below is a summary of the project information you provided and contact information for the USFWS office(s) with jurisdiction in the defined project area. Please read the introduction to each section that follows (Endangered Species, Migratory Birds, USFWS Facilities, and NWI Wetlands) for additional information applicable to the trust resources addressed in that section.

Location
Kings County, California
Local office
Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Office
 (916) 414-6600
 (916) 414-6713
Federal Building
2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605
Sacramento, CA 95825-1846
IPaC U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
10/24/25, 2:52 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/4YYQZEWYCVGSVFMMC7UTO5GW4I/resources 1/8

Endangered species
This resource list is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an analysis of project level impacts.

The primary information used to generate this list is the known or expected range of each species. Additional areas of influence (AOI) for species are also considered. An AOI includes areas outside of the species range if the species could be indirectly affected by activities in that area (e.g., placing a dam upstream of a fish population even if that fish does not occur at the dam site, may indirectly impact the species by reducing or eliminating water flow downstream). Because species can move, and site conditions can change, the species on this list are not guaranteed to be found on or near the project area. To fully determine any potential effects to species, additional site-specific and project-specific information is often required.

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of such proposed action" for any project that is conducted, permitted, funded, or licensed by any Federal agency. A letter from the local office and a species list which fulfills this requirement can only be obtained by requesting an official species list from either the Regulatory Review section in IPaC (see directions below) or from the local field office directly.

For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to the IPaC website and request an official species list by doing the following:

1. Draw the project location and click CONTINUE.

2. Click DEFINE PROJECT.

3. Log in (if directed to do so).

4. Provide a name and description for your project.

5. Click REQUEST SPECIES LIST.

Listed species and their critical habitats are managed by the Ecological Services Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the fisheries division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA Fisheries ).

Species and critical habitats under the sole responsibility of NOAA Fisheries are not shown on this list. Please contact NOAA Fisheries for species under their jurisdiction.

1. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are threatened or endangered; IPaC also shows species that are candidates, or proposed, for listing. See the listing status page for more information. IPaC only shows species that are regulated by USFWS (see FAQ).

2. 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.

The following species are potentially affected by activities in this location:

Mammals
1 2

NAME STATUS
Buena Vista Lake Shrew Sorex ornatus relictus
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1610
Endangered
Fresno Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys nitratoides exilis
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5150
Endangered
San Joaquin Kit Fox Vulpes macrotis mutica
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2873
Endangered
Tipton Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7247
Endangered
10/24/25, 2:52 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/4YYQZEWYCVGSVFMMC7UTO5GW4I/resources 2/8

Reptiles
Amphibians
Insects
Crustaceans
Critical habitats
Potential effects to critical habitat(s) in this location must be analyzed along with the endangered species themselves.

There are no critical habitats at this location.

You are still required to determine if your project(s) may have effects on all above listed species.

Bald & Golden Eagles

NAME STATUS
Blunt-nosed Leopard Lizard Gambelia silus
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/625
Endangered
Northwestern Pond Turtle Actinemys marmorata
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1111
Proposed Threatened

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

Proposed Threatened

NAME STATUS
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus
Wherever found
There is proposed critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
Proposed Threatened

NAME STATUS
Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp Branchinecta lynchi
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/498
Threatened
Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp Lepidurus packardi
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2246
Endangered
Bald and Golden Eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) .

Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to Bald or Golden Eagles, or their nests, should follow appropriate regulations and implement required avoidance and minimization measures, as described in the various links on this page.

The data in this location indicates that no eagles have been observed in this area. This does not mean eagles are not present in your project area, especially if the area is difficult to survey. Please review the 'Steps to Take When No Results Are Returned' section of the Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles document to determine if your project is in a poorly surveyed area. If it is, you may need to rely on other resources to determine if eagles may be present (e.g. your local FWS field office, state surveys, your own surveys).
2 1
10/24/25, 2:52 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/4YYQZEWYCVGSVFMMC7UTO5GW4I/resources 3/8

Bald & Golden Eagles FAQs
What does IPaC use to generate the potential presence of bald and golden eagles in my specified location? The potential for eagle presence is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because they are an eagle (Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act requirements may apply).

Proper interpretation and use of your eagle report
On the graphs provided, please look carefully at the survey effort (indicated by the black vertical line) and for the existence of the "no data" indicator (a red horizontal line). A high survey effort is the key component. If the survey effort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In contrast, a low survey effort line or no data line (red horizontal) means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for identifying what birds have the potential to be in your project area, when they might be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list and associated information help you know what to look for to confirm presence and helps guide you in knowing when to implement avoidance and minimization measures to eliminate or reduce potential impacts from your project activities or get the appropriate permits should presence be confirmed.

How do I know if eagles are breeding, wintering, or migrating in my area? To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering, migrating, or resident), you may query your location using the RAIL Tool and view the range maps provided for birds in your area at the bottom of the profiles provided for each bird in your results. If an eagle on your IPaC migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it (indicated by yellow vertical bars on the phenology graph in your “IPaC PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY” at the top of your results list), there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specified. If "Breeds elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area.

Interpreting the Probability of Presence Graphs
Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score.

How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:

The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25.

To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2.

The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of presence score.

Breeding Season ()
Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area.

Survey Effort ()
Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps.

No Data ()
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.

Survey Timeframe
Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse.

Migratory birds
Additional information can be found using the following links:

Eagle Management https://www.fws.gov/program/eagle-management Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidentaltake-migratory-birds Nationwide avoidance and minimization measures for birds https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/nationwide-standardconservation-measures.pdf Supplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in IPaC https://www.fws.gov/media/supplemental-information-migratorybirds-and-bald-and-golden-eagles-may-occur-project-action The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits the take (including killing, capturing, selling, trading, and transport) of protected migratory bird species without prior authorization by the Department of Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service).

1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.

2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
1 10/24/25, 2:52 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/4YYQZEWYCVGSVFMMC7UTO5GW4I/resources 4/8

Measures for Proactively Minimizing Migratory Bird Impacts Your IPaC Migratory Bird list showcases birds of concern, including Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC), in your project location. This is not a comprehensive list of all birds found in your project area. However, you can help proactively minimize significant impacts to all birds at your project location by implementing the measures in the Nationwide avoidance and minimization measures for birds document, and any other project-specific avoidance and minimization measures suggested at the link Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds for the birds of concern on your list below.

Ensure Your Migratory Bird List is Accurate and Complete If your project area is in a poorly surveyed area, your list may not be complete and you may need to rely on other resources to determine what species may be present (e.g. your local FWS field office, state surveys, your own surveys). Please review the Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles document, to help you properly interpret the report for your specified location, including determining if there is sufficient data to ensure your list is accurate.

For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, see the "Probability of Presence Summary" below to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area.

Review the FAQs
The FAQs below provide important additional information and resources.

BREEDING SEASON
Probability of Presence Summary
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles", specifically the FAQ section titled "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report.

Probability of Presence ( )
Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4-week months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort (see below) can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One can have higher confidence in the presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also high.

How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:

Additional information can be found using the following links:

Eagle Management https://www.fws.gov/program/eagle-management Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidentaltake-migratory-birds Nationwide avoidance and minimization measures for birds Supplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in IPaC https://www.fws.gov/media/supplemental-information-migratorybirds-and-bald-and-golden-eagles-may-occur-project-action NAME
Belding's Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8
Breeds Apr 1 to Aug 15
Bullock's Oriole Icterus bullockii
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA
Breeds Mar 21 to Jul 25
California Gull Larus californicus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.

Breeds Mar 1 to Jul 31
Northern Harrier Circus hudsonius
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8350
Breeds Apr 1 to Sep 15
Nuttall's Woodpecker Dryobates nuttallii
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9410
Breeds Apr 1 to Jul 20
10/24/25, 2:52 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/4YYQZEWYCVGSVFMMC7UTO5GW4I/resources 5/8

probability of presence  breeding season  survey effort  no data

1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25.

2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2.

3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of presence score.

To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.

Breeding Season ( )
Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area.

Survey Effort ( )
Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys.

To see a bar's survey effort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.

No Data ( )
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.

Survey Timeframe
Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse.

SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Belding's Savannah
Sparrow

BCC - BCR
Bullock's Oriole

BCC - BCR
California Gull
BCC Rangewide (CON)
Northern Harrier

BCC - BCR
Nuttall's Woodpecker

BCC - BCR
Migratory Bird FAQs
Tell me more about avoidance and minimization measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds.

Nationwide Avoidance & Minimization Measures for Birds describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all birds at any location yearround. When birds may be breeding in the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is one of the most effective ways to minimize impacts. To see when birds are most likely to occur and breed in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures or permits may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of infrastructure or bird species present on your project site.

What does IPaC use to generate the list of migratory birds that potentially occur in my specified location? The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location, such as those listed under the Endangered Species Act or the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and those species marked as “Vulnerable”.

See the FAQ “What are the levels of concern for migratory birds?” for more information on the levels of concern covered in the IPaC migratory bird species list.

The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) with which your project intersects. These species have been identified as warranting special attention because they are BCC species in that area, an eagle (Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore activities or development.

Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area. It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, and to verify survey effort when no results present, please visit the Rapid Avian Information Locator (RAIL) Tool.

Why are subspecies showing up on my list?
10/24/25, 2:52 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/4YYQZEWYCVGSVFMMC7UTO5GW4I/resources 6/8

Subspecies profiles are included on the list of species present in your project area because observations in the AKN for the species are being detected. If the species are present, that means that the subspecies may also be present. If a subspecies shows up on your list, you may need to rely on other resources to determine if that subspecies may be present (e.g. your local FWS field office, state surveys, your own surveys).

What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location? The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets.

Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information becomes available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and how to interpret them, go to the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me about these graphs" link.

How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering, or migrating in my area? To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering, migrating, or resident), you may query your location using the RAIL Tool and view the range maps provided for birds in your area at the bottom of the profiles provided for each bird in your results. If a bird on your IPaC migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it (indicated by yellow vertical bars on the phenology graph in your “IPaC PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY” at the top of your results list), there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specified. If "Breeds elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area.

What are the levels of concern for migratory birds?
Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern:

1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern throughout their range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacific Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands);

2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA; and

3. "Non-BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either because of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non-eagles) potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities (e.g. offshore energy development or longline fishing).

Although it is important to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts should be made, in particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially BCC species. For more information on avoidance and minimization measures you can implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts, please see the FAQ “Tell me more about avoidance and minimization measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds”.

Details about birds that are potentially affected by offshore projects For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and groups of bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be helpful to you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird model results files underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf project webpage.

Proper interpretation and use of your migratory bird report The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of birds of priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated and see options for identifying what other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location". Please be aware this report provides the "probability of presence" of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please look carefully at the survey effort (indicated by the black vertical line) and for the existence of the "no data" indicator (a red horizontal line). A high survey effort is the key component. If the survey effort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of certainty about presence of the species. This list does not represent all birds present in your project area. It is simply a starting point for identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list and associated information help you know what to look for to confirm presence and helps guide implementation of avoidance and minimization measures to eliminate or reduce potential impacts from your project activities, should presence be confirmed. To learn more about avoidance and minimization measures, visit the FAQ "Tell me about avoidance and minimization measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds".

Interpreting the Probability of Presence Graphs
Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score.

How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:

The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25.

To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2.

The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of presence score.

Breeding Season ()
Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area.

Survey Effort ()
10/24/25, 2:52 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/4YYQZEWYCVGSVFMMC7UTO5GW4I/resources 7/8

Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps.

No Data ()
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.

Survey Timeframe
Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse.

Facilities
National Wildlife Refuge lands
Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a 'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns.

There are no refuge lands at this location.

Fish hatcheries
There are no fish hatcheries at this location.

Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)
Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes.

For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District.

This location did not intersect any wetlands mapped by NWI.

NOTE: This initial screening does not replace an on-site delineation to determine whether wetlands occur. Additional information on the NWI data is provided below.

Data limitations
The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level information on the location, type and size of these resources. The maps are prepared from the analysis of high altitude imagery. Wetlands are identified based on vegetation, visible hydrology and geography.

A margin of error is inherent in the use of imagery; thus, detailed on-the-ground inspection of any particular site may result in revision of the wetland boundaries or classification established through image analysis.

The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the image analysts, the amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth verification work conducted. Metadata should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any mapping problems.

Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or field work. There may be occasional differences in polygon boundaries or classifications between the information depicted on the map and the actual conditions on site.

Data exclusions
Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of aerial imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or submerged aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and nearshore coastal waters. Some deepwater reef communities (coral or tuberficid worm reefs) have also been excluded from the inventory. These habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery.

Data precautions
Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may define and describe wetlands in a different manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in either the design or products of this inventory, to define the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local government or to establish the geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies. Persons intending to engage in activities involving modifications within or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate Federal, state, or local agencies concerning specified agency regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may affect such activities. 10/24/25, 2:52 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/4YYQZEWYCVGSVFMMC7UTO5GW4I/resources 8/8

Biological Resource Evaluation | Hanford Residential Project Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC November 2025
47 Appendix B. CNDDB occurrence records.

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 S2 FP
brittlescale
Atriplex depressa
PDCHE042L0 None None G2 S2 1B.2
burrowing owl
Athene cunicularia
ABNSB10010 None Candidate
Endangered
G4 S2 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 G3T3 S3 WL
Crotch's bumble bee
Bombus crotchii
IIHYM24480 None Candidate
Endangered
G2 S2
Earlimart orache
Atriplex cordulata var. erecticaulis
PDCHE042V0 None None GNRT1 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
northwestern pond turtle
Actinemys marmorata
ARAAD02031 Proposed
Threatened
None G2 SNR SSC
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 S3
San Joaquin tiger beetle
Cicindela tranquebarica joaquinensis
IICOL0220E None None G5T1 S1
Sanford's arrowhead
Sagittaria sanfordii
PMALI040Q0 None None G3 S3 1B.2
Query Criteria: Quad<span style='color:Red'> IS </span>(Hanford (3611936)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Burris Park (3611945)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Laton (3611946)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Guernsey (3611926)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Lemoore (3611937)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Remnoy (3611935)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Riverdale (3611947)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Stratford (3611927)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Waukena (3611925)) Report Printed on Friday, October 24, 2025
Commercial Version -- Dated October, 4 2025 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 1 of 2 Information Expires 4/4/2026
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
subtle orache
Atriplex subtilis
PDCHE042T0 None None G1 S1 1B.2
Swainson's hawk
Buteo swainsoni
ABNKC19070 None Threatened G5 S4
Tipton kangaroo rat
Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides
AMAFD03152 Endangered Endangered G2T1T2 S2
tricolored blackbird
Agelaius tricolor
ABPBXB0020 None Threatened G1G2 S2 SSC
valley elderberry longhorn beetle
Desmocerus californicus dimorphus
IICOL48011 Threatened None G3T3 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 G3 S3
western ridged mussel
Gonidea angulata
IMBIV19010 None None G3 S2
western snowy plover
Anarhynchus nivosus nivosus
ABNNB03031 Threatened None G3T3 S3 SSC
western spadefoot
Spea hammondii
AAABF02020 Proposed
Threatened
None G2G3 S3S4 SSC
yellow-headed blackbird
Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus
ABPBXB3010 None None G5 S3 SSC
Record Count: 32
Report Printed on Friday, October 24, 2025
Commercial Version -- Dated October, 4 2025 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 2 of 2 Information Expires 4/4/2026
Selected Elements by Common Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

Biological Resource Evaluation | Hanford Residential Project Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC November 2025
50 Appendix C. CNPS plant list.

Search Results
11 matches found. Click on scientific name for details
Search Criteria: , 9-Quad include [3611935:3611926:3611925:3611945:3611936:3611937:3611947:3611946:3611927] ▲

SCIENTIFIC
NAME
COMMON

NAME FAMILY LIFEFORM

BLOOMING
PERIOD
FED
LIST
STATE
LIST
GLOBAL
RANK
STATE
RANK
CA
RARE
PLANT
RANK
CA

ENDEMIC
DATE

ADDED PHOTO
Atriplex
cordulata
var.
erecticaulis
Earlimart
orache
Chenopodiaceae annual herb AugSep(Nov)None None GNRT1 S1 1B.2 Yes 2001- 01-01
© 2009
Robert E.

Preston,
Ph.D.

Atriplex
depressa
brittlescale Chenopodiaceae annual herb Apr-Oct None None G2 S2 1B.2 Yes 1994- 01-01
© 2009
Zoya
Akulova
Atriplex
minuscula
lesser
saltscale
Chenopodiaceae annual herb May-Oct None None G2 S2 1B.1 Yes 1994- 01-01
© 2000
Robert E.

Preston,
Ph.D.

Atriplex
subtilis
subtle
orache
Chenopodiaceae annual herb (Apr)JunSep(Oct)None None G1 S1 1B.2 Yes 1994- 01-01
© 2000
Robert E.

Preston,
Ph.D.

Delphinium
recurvatum
recurved
larkspur
Ranunculaceae perennial herb Mar-Jun None None G2? S2 1B.2 Yes 1988- 01-01 No Photo
Available
CNPS Rare Plant Inventory
10/24/25, 3:11 PM CNPS Rare Plant Inventory | Search Results https://rareplants.cnps.org/Search/result?frm=T&qsl=9&quad=3611935:3611926:3611925:3611945:3611936:3611937:3611947:3611946:3611927:&elev=:m:o 1/2

}
Lasthenia
chrysantha
alkali-sink
goldfields
Asteraceae annual herb Feb-Apr None None G2 S2 1B.1 Yes 2019- 09-30
© 2009
California
State
University,
Stanislaus
Lasthenia
ferrisiae
Ferris'
goldfields
Asteraceae annual herb Feb-May None None G3 S3 4.2 Yes 2001- 01-01
© 2009
Zoya
Akulova
Lepidium
jaredii ssp.
album
Panoche
peppergrass
Brassicaceae annual herb Feb-Jun None None G2G3T2T3 S2S3 1B.2 Yes 1994- 01-01
© 2015
Debra L.

Cook
Nama
stenocarpa
mud nama Namaceae annual/perennial
herb
Jan-Jul None None G4G5 S1S2 2B.2 1994-
01-01 No Photo
Available
Puccinellia
simplex
California
alkali grass
Poaceae annual herb Mar-May None None G2 S2 1B.2 2015-
10-15
© 2017
Chris
Winchell
Sagittaria
sanfordii
Sanford's
arrowhead
Alismataceae perennial
rhizomatous
herb (emergent)
MayOct(Nov)None None G3 S3 1B.2 Yes 1984-
01-01
©2013
Debra L.

Cook
Showing 1 to 11 of 11 entries
Go to top
Suggested Citation:

California Native Plant Society, Rare Plant Program. 2025. Rare Plant Inventory (online edition, v9.5.1). Website https://www.rareplants.cnps.org [accessed 24 October 2025].
10/24/25, 3:11 PM CNPS Rare Plant Inventory | Search Results https://rareplants.cnps.org/Search/result?frm=T&qsl=9&quad=3611935:3611926:3611925:3611945:3611936:3611937:3611947:3611946:3611927:&elev=:m:o 2/2

CITY OF HANFORD | Crawford & Bowen Planning, 119
Bonadelle Lacey Ave Residential Project | Initial Study Appendix C
Cultural Study

A

PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT LACEY BOULEVARD AND 12 1/2 AVENUE,

CITY OF HANFORD, CALIFORNIA
Submitted to:

Crawford and Bowen Planning, Inc.
113 N. Church Street, Suite #302
Visalia, California 93291
Keywords:

Hanford 7.5' Quadrangle, City of Hanford,
California Environmental Quality Act
Submitted by:

Hudlow Cultural Resource Associates
1405 Sutter Lane
Bakersfield, California 93309
Author:

Scott M. Hudlow
November 2025

2 Management Summary
At the request of Crawford and Bowen Planning, Inc., a Phase I Cultural Resource Survey was conducted on an approximate 14-acre parcel, located at the southwest corner of Lacey Boulevard and 12 ½ Avenue in the City of Hanford, California. The Phase I Cultural Resource Survey consisted of an archaeological survey and a cultural resource record search.

One cultural resource was identified, C&B-6. The farmhouse pre-dates 1926.

Bonadelle Neighborhoods is proposing to demolish the two-story farmhouse which fronts Lacey Boulevard, and build a single-family residential tract.

C&B-6 has several large additions to the south and east elevations of the house and a deteriorating set of outbuidlings located to the west of the main house, and is not eligible for nomination to the California Register of Historic Resources.

C&B-6 is not associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. Criterion 1 of the California Register of Historical Resources does not apply.

C&B-6 is not associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history. As such, Criterion 2 of the California Register of Historical Resources does not apply.

C&B-6 does not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction or represent the work of a master or possess high artistic values. C&B-6 is typical, vernacular farmhouse from the early twentiethcentury. Criterion 3 of the California Register of Historical Resources does not apply.

C&B-6 will not yield, and does not have the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation.

Criterion 4 of the California Register of Historical Resources does not apply, since this Criterion is largely set aside for important resources whose historic or cultural significance is prehistoric in nature or whose value can not be ascertained without archaeological excavation.

No further work is required. If archaeological resources are encountered during the course of construction, a buffer zone of at least 50 feet in diameter should be established surrounding any cultural resources that are encountered during the course of construction and a qualified archaeologist should be consulted for further evaluation, before ground disturbance activities continue in the area surrounding the inadvertent discovery.

If human remains or potential human remains are observed during construction, work in the vicinity of the remains will cease, and they will be treated in accordance with the provisions of State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5.

3 The protection of human remains follows California Public Resources Codes, Sections 5097.94, 5097.98, and 5097.99.

4 Table of Contents
Management Summary............................................................................................... 2 Table of Contents......................................................................................................... 4 List of Figures ................................................................................................................. 4

1.0 Introduction....................................................................................................... 6

2.0 Project Location................................................................................................ 7

3.0 Record Search .................................................................................................. 7

4.0 Environmental Background.............................................................................. 8

5.0 Prehistoric Archaeological Context ................................................................ 8

6.0 Ethnographic Background............................................................................. 10

7.0 Historic Context............................................................................................... 13

8.0 Field Procedures and Methods...................................................................... 15

9.0 Report of Archaeological Findings................................................................ 15

10.0 Management Recommendations ................................................................ 19

11.0 References ...................................................................................................... 21 Appendix I................................................................................................................... 23 Appendix II.................................................................................................................. 27 List of Figures
1 Project Area Location Map ............................................................................. 9 2 Project Area, View to the Southwest............................................................. 11 3 Project Area, View to the Northeast ............................................................. 12 4 1926 USGS Hanford Quadrangle Map.......................................................... 16 5 C&B-6, View to the Southeast........................................................................ 17 6 C&B-6, View to the Southeast, West Elevation............................................. 17