Kingsburg City Council
January 15, 2025

AGENDA

KINGSBURG CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 15, 2025 at 6:00pm
Meeting held in the Council Chamber, 1401 Draper Street, Kingsburg, CA 93631 (559)897-5821
www.cityofkingsburg-ca.gov
The Council Chamber is accessible to the physically disabled. Requests for additional accommodations for the disabled should be made 48 hours prior to the meeting by contacting the City Clerk at 559-897-6520.

Any document that is a public record and provided to a majority of the City Council regarding an open session item on the agenda will be made available for public inspection at City Hall, in the City Clerk's office, during normal business hours. In addition, such documents may be posted on the City's website.

Unless otherwise required by law to be accepted by the City at or prior to a Council meeting or hearing, no documents shall be accepted for Council review unless they are first submitted to the City Clerk by the close of business one day prior to said Council meeting/hearing at which the Council will consider the item to which the documents relate.

The meeting will be held in person. Public comment may be made in person or submitted in writing.

Members of the public who wish to provide written comments are encouraged to submit their comments to the City Clerk at [email protected] by the close of business one day prior to the start of the meeting to ensure that the comments will be available to the City Council. Please indicate the agenda item number to which the comment pertains. Written comments that do not specify a particular agenda item will be marked for the general public comment portion of the meeting. A copy of any written comment will be provided to the City Council at the meeting. Please note that written comments received will not be read aloud during the meeting but will be included with the meeting minutes.

Brandon Pursell, Mayor
Vince Palomar, Mayor Pro Tem Staci Smith, Council Member Laura North, Council Member David M. Silva, Council Member Kingsburg City Council Agenda
January 15, 2025
Invocation to be given by Police Chaplain Cathleen Lawler, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Mayor Brandon Pursell.

CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
APPROVE AGENDA - To better accommodate members of the public or inconvenience in the order of presentation, items on the agenda may not be presented or acted upon in the order listed.

Additions to Agenda may be added only pursuant to California Government Code Section 54954.2 (b).

PRESENTATIONS AND INFORMATIONAL REPORTS:

Swearing in of Fire Chief Rodnie Roberts- Presentation by City Manager Alexander Henderson PUBLIC COMMENT - Provides an opportunity for members of the public to address the City Council on items of interest to the public within the Council's jurisdiction and which are not already on the agenda this evening. It is the policy of the Council not to answer questions impromptu. Speakers should limit their comments to not more than THREE (3) minutes. For items which are on the agenda this evening, members of the public will be provided an opportunity to address the Council as each item is brought up for discussion.

CONSENT CALENDAR - Items on the Consent Calendar are considered routine and include a recommended action from Staff and shall be acted on by one motion of the Council. If a Council member requests additional information or would like to pull an item for discussion, that item shall be pulled from the Consent Calendar and acted upon separately. A motion to approve the Consent Calendar is deemed to include a motion to waive the full reading of any ordinance or resolution on the Consent Calendar.

1. Approval of City Council Minutes: Approve the minutes from the December 4, 2024 and December 18, 2024 Regular Council Meetings as prepared by City Clerk Abigail Palsgaard.

Sponsor: City Clerk’s Office

2. Check Register: Ratify/approve payment of bills listed on the check register for the period December 10, 2024 through January 6, 2025 as prepared by Accounts Payable Clerk Marsha Alves.

Sponsor: Finance Department

3. Adopt Resolution 2025-001 A resolution stating the designation of the city’s agents for nonstate agencies for FEMA/Cal OES funding – Staff Report by Assistant City Manager Christina Windover
Sponsor: Assistant City Manager’s Office

REGULAR CALENDAR

4. PUBLIC HEARING – POTENTIAL PREZONE AND ANNEXATION (2024-02) FOR 4 PARCELS ON 42.52 ACRES ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MENDOCINO AND

CARUTHERS AVENUES IN KINGSBURG, AND REVIEW OF THE KINGSBURG Kingsburg City Council Agenda
January 15, 2025
PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF PUD 2024-01 FOR A 97 LOT SUBDIVISION ON 33.27 ACRES– Presentation by Community Development Director Holly Owen
Sponsor: Community Development Department

5. Kingsburg Fire Department Strategic and Master Plan- Staff Report by Interim Fire Chief John Binaski.

Sponsor: Fire Department

6. Amendments to the City of Kingsburg Building, Fire, Existing Building, and Property Maintenance Codes- Staff Report by Fire Chief John Binaski & Building Official AJ O’Connell
Sponsor: Community Development and Fire Department

7. Development Impact Fee Report for FY 2023-24- Staff Report by Finance Director Alma Colado
Sponsor: Finance Department

8. 2024 Crime Stats and General Police Update – Presentation by Police Chief Neil Dadian Sponsor: Police Department

FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Council requests for future agenda items. Items require a consensus.

CITY MANAGER’S REPORT

COUNCIL REPORTS/COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
Brief report by Council members on City related functions as authorized by the Brown Act.

ADJOURN REGULAR KINGSBURG CITY COUNCIL MEETING INTO CLOSED SESSION:

Public Employment: California Government Code Section 54957 Title: City Manager

ADJOURN OUT OF CLOSE SESSION INTO REGULAR KINGSBURG CITY COUNCIL MEETING AND REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION.

ADJOURN REGULAR KINGSBURG CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides that no person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.

Kingsburg City Council Agenda
January 15, 2025
I hereby certify, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing Agenda was posted at the front entrance of City Hall not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting. Dated this 10th day of January 2025.
____________________________________
Abigail Palsgaard, City Clerk

KINGSBURG CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING Minutes
December 4, 2024
Invocation was given by Pastor Clayton Paull, Hope Kingsburg, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Mayor Brandon Pursell, Jr.

CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Mayor Pursell, Jr. called the regular meeting of the Kingsburg City Council to order at 6:01pm.

COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: David Silva, Vince Palomar, Laura North, Staci Smith, and Mayor Brandon Pursell Jr.

COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: None.

APPROVE AGENDA: A motion was made by Council Member Palomar, seconded by Council Member North, to approve the agenda, as published. The motion carried by a unanimous voice vote.

PRESENTATIONS AND INFORMATIONAL REPORTS: None.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Jason Chambers, resident, discussed bad traffic and speeding on his street.

CJ Brock, resident and business owner, wanted to thank Chief Dadian & the Police Department for their hard work in solving crime.

CONSENT CALENDAR
Council Member North pulled item 4.

A motion was made by Council Member Smith, seconded by Council Member Silva, to approve the items 1- 3 appearing on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by an unanimous voice vote.

1. Approval of City Council Minutes: Approve the minutes from the November 20, 2024, Regular Council Meeting as prepared by City Clerk Abigail Palsgaard.

Sponsor: City Clerk’s Office

2. Check Register: Ratify/approve payment of bills listed on the check register for the period November 12, 2024, through November 25, 2024, as prepared by Accounts Payable Clerk Marsha Alves.

Sponsor: Finance Department

3. Approve the side letter agreement between the City of Kingsburg and the Kingsburg Professional Firefighters Association.

Sponsor: Fire Department
Pulled Item:4
Council Member North pulled item 4 to approve it with changing the City Council meeting date Wednesday, June 4, 2025, to Tuesday June 3, 2025.

Kingsburg City Council Minutes
December 4, 2024

4. Approve the 2025 Master Calendar of City Council and all other committees and commissions.- Staff Report prepared by City Clerk Abigail Palsgaard.

Sponsor: City Clerk
A motion was made by Council Member North, seconded by Council Member Smith , to approve the item 4 on the Consent Calendar with the 6/4/2025 City Council Meeting date changed to 6/3/2025. The motion carried by an unanimous voice vote.

REGULAR CALENDAR
PUBLIC HEARING - Award of Competitive Housing Unit Allocations for Single Family Residential Development for 2025- Presentation by Community Development Director Holly Owen.

Sponsor: Community Development Department
Open Public Hearing: 6:09 PM.

Community Development Director Holly Owen presented the staff report regarding an application for 44 single family residential units for proposed development by Thomas Crown located west of 10th between Kamm and Klepper Avenues. Director Owens reviewed the process in previous years noting where approval was given and noted this project was the only application for allocations submitted for consideration during the required timeframe. Regarding the environmental review, because the allocation of housing units is not a project, it is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act.

Council Discussion: 6:15PM.

Council Member Smith clarified if it is a gated community and asked if there is a park space or in-lieu of fee? Director Owens confirmed it is not a gated community, and staff will work with the applicant.

Council Member North asked to confirm if the elevation wording in the packet is the square footage of each of the houses. She also wanted to know how long he has owned the land and what time frame to build.

Mr. Thomas Crown has owned the land for 3 years and was ready to go building semi-custom homes.

Council Member Palomar asked about some of the elevations, if the garage will be in the alley.

Thomas Crown answered yes. Council Member Silva asked about the bike path in the alleys.

Director Owens said they are still working on the final map and she will keep the comments.

Mayor Pursell Jr. thanked him for coming because it shows builders care about the community they are building in.

Open Public Comment: 6:23 PM.

Open Public Comment: 6:23 PM.

Kingsburg City Council Minutes
December 4, 2024
Close Public Hearing:6:24 PM.

Council Member Smith asked if this is it for the allocations. Director Owens answered it would be council’s discretion to open it for the 11 units in the spring.

Close Public Hearing: 6:25 PM.

A motion was made by Council Member North, seconded by Council Member Palomar, to approve the environmental determination that the award of housing units is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guideline to 15378 (b(5)). The motion carried by an unanimous voice vote.

A motion was made by Council Member Silva, seconded by Council Member Smith, to adopt Resolution 2024-064 approving the allocation of 44 single family residential units for the proposed development identified above for the 2025 calendar year pursuant to the Kingsburg’s Growth Allocation Program.. The motion carried by an unanimous voice vote.

PUBLIC HEARING - Title 17 (Zoning) Amendments and Creation of the Housing Element Implementation Overlay on Specific Parcels for Compliance with the 2023-2031 Kingsburg Housing Element. – Presentation by Community Development Director Holly Owen Sponsor: Community Development Department
Open Public Hearing: 6:27 PM.

Community Development Director Holly Owen presented her staff report. The Housing element process started in 2022 in a joint effort with 13 cities. The State mandates that the housing element has an 8 year plan. The one we are working on is the 2023-2031 housing element. The Kingsburg 2023-2031 Housing Element was reviewed by Planning Commission on May 9, 2024, and by Council on July 17, 2024, where it was adopted. After adoption, the notice of adoption was sent to the State Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) on July 18, 2024. A letter stating that Kingsburg’s submitted Housing Element was in substantial compliance was sent to the City on September 16, 2024. Part of the requirements for certification of the Housing Element are for cities to act to ensure that the Housing Element remains in compliance in accordance with its programs. Most cities are required to include updates and changes to their zoning ordinance to reflect current State law.

With the HCD’s approval, we need to adopt the zoning changes. This is not a mandate for building, it is removing the barriers of being able to build it. Without adoption we can lose state funding and developers can propose and build projects that are against our municipal code using the “Builders Remedy”.

City Manager Henderson presented regarding the timeline, clarifications and three possible actions. Option 1 is moving forward with the rezone as presented. Option 2 would be amending the proposed sites (technical correction) that would still require some rezoning. Option 3 would be to direct staff to reexamine the entire site inventory and add newly annexed territory by amendment. Option 3 would take us out of compliance as we would miss the 12/31/2024 deadline.

Kingsburg City Council Minutes
December 4, 2024
Council Discussion: 6:52 PM.

Mayor Pursell Jr. asked if we currently have any projects for section 8 housing at any of these sites.

City Manager Henderson said the only housing projects in the pipeline are the just approved Crown and 5th phase of West Star. If you want to build in Kingsburg, you have to receive housing allocations. It has to go before the Planning Commission and City Council for approval.

Mayor Pursell Jr. wanted to clear up the section 8 housing comments. There are none. Also, about that this just springing up- when did this start? City Manager Henderson said it was first presented in 2022 with public meetings.

Council Member Silva asked about the 20 to 30 units per acre; would that translate to going up as 2nd story. City Manager Henderson yes, it would have to go up. We do have height restrictions.

Council Member North said our deadline this month, it is difficult to be up here and have the deadline upon us. Thie has already approved by the planning commission. Council found inaccuracies and it had to be re-worked and it put us behind by about 30 days. Option #3 if we decide to take this and look at our newly annexed area- it will likely take 6 months, and it could be longer if HCD find additional comments with our element. City Manager Henderson said they have 60 days to review- and then we would have to address their comments and there are many of them. The lawsuit the City of Clovis had was discussed.

Council discussed if we have an approved Housing Element. City Manager Henderson said we do, but we have a certain amount of time to perform the actions listed in the approved Housing Element. Council Member North said if we are 6 months past the deadline and a developer came in, could the state take control of our local zoning. City Manager Henderson said they could decertify us, it is hard to know.

Council discussed Option #2 and removing sites 47 & 102. It was clarified that the site must be

0.5 acres to 10 acres.

Council Member Silva asked if we build on one of these sites, what will happen 8 years from now. City Manager Henderson said it is hypothetical, we do not know what housing laws will look like in 8 years.

Council Member Silva spoke about new representatives in the state government most list housing and homeless as top priority. He feels that our low income housing has been thoughtful with senior living. He wants to know if we pull some of these properties and we are not compliant, what can it potentially look like in the future. We can control our own destiny and not fight the state.

Council Member Palomar said the City Manager had an insightful presentation and answered many questions that he has been asked over the last month. He would not like loss of control of local building or zoning.

Kingsburg City Council Minutes
December 4, 2024
Council Member Smith asked if the City Manager is comfortable with Option . He said if we reopen it, it gives the State an opportunity to ask more questions. Can we do this rezoning and then change it back.

City Manager Henderson said the State has made it illegal to downzone.

Community Development Director Owen said the units can be shifted, but not lost. Mayor Pursell, Jr. said we wouldn’t choose to have this issue before us, it is because it is from the State.

We could have done a better job, and he is tired of Sacramento telling us how to run our town.

The safest thing is to push through. The reality is that we can’t afford to push back from the State. He is not comfortable with site 102 on Sierra Street. He does not like to be pushed up against the clock. If we bring in the newly annexed property does it get rid of one of the listed properties. City Manager Henderson said potentially yes, we should just look at all the sites if we do amend it. Mayor Pursell, Jr. clarified that we are asking for reasonable accommodation because we have a newly annexed property. He wanted to recognize the risk.

Council Member North said the safest option is Option #1. It is safest from getting reprimanded from the State, but it is not the safest for the city. The density and traffic are also a safety concern.

Council Member Silva would like to control our own destiny. He is for the safe Option 1 which is not ideal. Option 1 wouldn’t open it up for new eyes, new housing laws.

Council Member Palomar asked about Option 2- is it in compliance? City Manager Henderson said the HCD sees it as a technical change not an amendment. Council Member Palomar asked if Option 3 is out of compliance. Mr. Henderson said technically, yes.

Open Public Comment: 7:29 PM.

Rick Jackson, non-resident, against the housing element.

John Johnston, resident, against the housing element.

Pricilla Fuller, against the housing element.

Chris Peterson, resident, would like residents and council to contact our state government about these mandates.

Sherman Dix, resident, against the housing element.

Council Member North asked about the Housing Element being re-opened and the growth management ordinance.

City Manager Henderson said we are always careful when discussing the growth management ordinance with the State. We have told them it has not been a hinderance and they have been ok with it.

Melissa McCook, Summerlyn resident, is against the housing element.

Kingsburg City Council Minutes
December 4, 2024
Barbara Taylor, resident, against amending the Housing Element. She is for Option 1.

Mayor Pursell Jr. asked why at the Planning Commission she voted to not adopt it. Barbara Taylor said she feels differently low.

Dr. Travino, business owner by site 102, is against the housing element.

Blaine Towe, Summerlyn resident, is against the housing element.

Close Public Comment: 8:15PM.

Continued Council Discussion: 8:15PM.

Council Member North wanted to clarify that we are down in enrollment for our schools. We are down 50 students this year, that amounts to over a million dollars. When we are down, it impacts classroom size, teachers, etc. A lot of interdistrict transfers can’t afford to live in Kingsburg, and a lot of families starting out can't afford to live here. We do need affordable housing so we can continue to be a generational community. She doesn’t feel like this is the way to do this.

Council Member Palomar would like to go with Option 2. We changed some of it, but will still be complying, even if it is partially compliant.

Council Member Smith has a hard time with two parcels. She is worried about the traffic in the neighborhoods. She doesn’t have an issue with high density, she is concerned that some of these parcels are not best suited for the traffic. Would prefer to go with Option 3. If we are told we are going to be de-certified, then we can move forward.

Council Member Silva appreciates the public coming in and the comments. It is not an easy decision. Option 1 is the safe option. Staff and the Planning Commission has done a good job, and we should trust them. He likes Option 1, but he understands Option 2 & 3.

Council Member Palomar likes Option 2, we can take some parcels out. He would like to pull 102. He doesn’t like high density, but every city needs it.

Council Member North said the sites 47, 48 and 103 are already around apartments and soon to be built apartments. Putting that many people in the same area does not make sense.

Council Member Palomar asked if we pass Option 1 or 2, could we make an amendment to the locations tonight.

City Manager Henderson said these properties are the only ones that are open and already high density. If we can find enough sites, we don’t have to upzone. He just doesn’t know if that exists.

Council Member North asked if the City’s newly annexed property would qualify and the City would have control of what would be built there. Mr. Henderson said it is zoned highway commercial that does currently allow for mixed use.

Mayor Pursell, Jr. said site 102 is a no for him. He has been a cop for 24 years and high density not done correctly can cause problems. He feels like this is being done in a rush. Site 103 and the Kingsburg City Council Minutes
December 4, 2024
annexed property does make sense to him. He doesn’t agree with site 48. He is willing to take a risk for Option 3.

It was discussed that the text amendments are separate of the overlay that lists the re-zoning sites in the ordinance. One option is that Council can accept the text amendments but not the rezoning sites, and it will show a good faith effort.

City Attorney Noland confirmed that we can pull the overlay out.

A motion was made by Council Member Palomar, seconded by Council Member Silva, to adopt Resolution 2024-065 approving the CEQA determination for the Amendment to Title 17 of the Municipal Code and the Housing Element Implementation Overlay. The motion carried by an unanimous voice vote.

Council Member Silva asked does that put us out of compliance? City Attorney Noland said potentially, yes
Council Member Silva does not feel comfortable going out of compliance with the State. He is against having Sacramento come in and tell us what to do. After listening to the people who live there, he is willing to take that risk. He is for Option 3 Council Member Palomar said that is why he likes Option 2. He doesn’t want to be out of compliance with the State. We are showing good faith.

Council Member North is for Option 3. She sees the same issues at the other site.

Council Member Smith is for Option 3. It is a risk, has no problem taking it for Kingsburg.

Mayor Pursell, Jr. is for Option 3. It is the most logical for our town. He is willing to take that risk. Council adopting the text update does show good faith on our part.

Mayor Pursell Jr. motioned, seconded by Council Member North, to wave the first reading and Introduce Ordinance 2024-07 an ordinance of the City of Kingsburg amending various sections of Title 17 of the Kingsburg Municipal Code for the purpose of compliance with the requirements of the adopted Kingsburg Sixth (6th) Cycle Housing Element with the withdrawal of the overlay (17.48.050) from the amendment and pass the Ordinance to a second reading and adoption at the City Council meeting on December 18, 2024, with the following recital constituting reading the title of the Ordinance:
“AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF KINGSBURG AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF TITLE 17 OF THE KINGSBURG MUNICIPAL CODE FOR THE

PURPOSE OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ADOPTED KINGSBURG SIXTH (6th) CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT”
The motion passed by an unanimous voice vote.

Planning Commissioner Applicant Interviews - Continued from the November 20, 2024, Council Meeting - Presentation by Mayor Pursell, Jr.

Kingsburg City Council Minutes
December 4, 2024
Sponsor: Mayor Pursell, Jr.

Applicants, Robert Gonzales, Barbra Taylor, Bryan Arcreo introduced themselves.

Mayor Pursell Jr. thanks the applicants for coming to the council meeting to get an understanding of how this all works because we take these applications seriously. Advised each on the work ahead. Council thanked them for their applications before interviewing the applicants.

A motion was made by Mayor Pursell Jr., seconded by Council Member Smith, to appoint Robert Gonzales, Barbara Taylor and Bryan Arcreo to the Planning Commission with terms to expire on 11/2028. The motion carried by an unanimous voice vote.

Consideration Of Extraterritorial Water Service Connection by The City of Kingsburg to C.H Warlow Safety Roadside Rest Area Located Outside The City Limits Of The City Of Kingsburg - Presentation by Public Works Director Daniel Galvez Sponsor: Public Works Department
Public Works Director Daniel Galvez presented his report regarding a request from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to connect to the City’s municipal water system. The state has indicated that at this time, indoor commercial use is not included in the conservation methods. Director Galvez discussed the issues and setbacks regarding the issue and noted that Caltrans has asked for a three-year period from the termination notice.

Council Member Silva asked why it will be a three year notice for the termination notice.

Jefferson Burrow, Caltrans, clarified that it takes 3 years to start and finish a project. One year is not long enough, they would have to close the rest stop down.

The water pressure was discussed. Discussed if commercial is included for state mandated water conservation, we would he held not liable.

A motion was made by Council Member Smith, seconded by Council Member Palomar, to adopt Resolution 2024-066 approving the agreement with Caltrans authorizing the connection to the City’s municipal water system to the C.H. Warlow Safety Roadside Rest Area (SRRA) located outside the city limits. The motion carried by an unanimous voice vote.

FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
None.

CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
None.

COUNCIL REPORTS/COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
Council Member Silva reminded council that South Kings GSA will meet on December 16, 2024. The Chamber Car show committee is meeting on December 17, 2024. Kingsburg Health Care is meeting December 10, 2024. Council Member Silva also gave updates on projects and new businesses.

Kingsburg City Council Minutes
December 4, 2024
Council Member Palomar listed upcoming meetings. Public Safety meets on December 12, 2024.

Planning Commission meeting the following week, December 12, 2024. SKF is scheduled to meet on December 11, 2024.

Council Member North noted the BID met, December 3, 2024, in the council chamber, where members were sworn in. Chamber of Commerce will meet on December 10, 2024. Santa Lucia is this weekend.

Council Member Smith noted the Finance and Community Services Committees will be meeting in January 2025.

Mayor Pursell Jr. noted COG has not met. He attended the City of Mendota ribbon cutting for their new City Hall.

Mayor Pursell Jr. adjourned the Regular Kingsburg City Council Meeting into Closed Session at 9:18pm.

Public Employment: California Government Code Section 54957 Title: City Manager
Mayor Pursell Jr. adjourned out of Close Session into Regular Kingsburg City Council Meeting at 9:35 PM.

Attorney Michael Noland – Nothing to report.

Mayor Pursell Jr. adjourned the Regular Kingsburg City Council Meeting at 9:35 PM.

Submitted by:
____________________________________
Abigail Palsgaard, City Clerk

KINGSBURG CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING Minutes
December 18, 2024
Invocation was given by Pastor Ricky Chambers, Kingsburg Community Church, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Mayor Brandon Pursell, Jr.

CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Mayor Pursell, Jr. called the regular meeting of the Kingsburg City Council to order at 6:02 PM.

COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Vince Palomar, Staci Smith, David Silva and Mayor Brandon Pursell Jr.

COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Laura North.

CITY CLERK’S DECLARATION OF ELECTION RESULTS & SWEARING IN OF

COUNCIL MEMBER(S)
City Clerk Palsgaard announced the results of the November 5, 2024 Kingsburg City Council Election.

Council Member Palomar motioned, seconded by Council Member Smith, to adopt Resolution No. 2024-067 declaring result of the November 5, 2024 City Council Election. The motion passed by an unanimous voice vote of those members present.

City Clerk Palsgaard administered the Oath of Office to incoming Kingsburg City Council Member Brandon Pursell, Jr. Council Member North was not be able to attend but was sworn in on December 19, 2024.

APPROVE AGENDA: A motion was made by Council Member Smith, seconded by Council Member Silva, to approve the agenda, as published. The motion carried by a unanimous voice vote of those members present.

PRESENTATIONS AND INFORMATIONAL REPORTS: None.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Cameron Hayes, resident, is against annexation and development.

Roxanne Serna, Senator Hurtado, congratulated Council Member Laura North and Mayor Brandon Pursell Jr. on being re-elected.

Chris Peterson, resident, is against housing growth and expansion.

CONSENT CALENDAR – A motion was made by Council Member Palomar, seconded by Council Member Silva, to approve the items appearing on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by a unanimous voice vote of those members present.

1. Check Register: Ratify/approve payment of bills listed on the check register for the period November 26, 2024, through December 9, 2024, as prepared by Finance Director Alma Colado.

Kingsburg City Council Minutes
December 18, 2024
Sponsor: Finance Department

2. Approve the proposed Salary Chart Effective 1/1/2025 – Staff Report by Assistant City Manager Christina Windover
Sponsor: Assistant City Manager’s Department

3. Approve the proposed Kingsburg Police Officers Association MOU 2025-2027 – Staff Report by Assistant City Manager Christina Windover
Sponsor: Assistant City Manager’s Department

4. Approve the Kingsburg Public Service Employees Association MOU 2025-2027– Staff Report by Assistant City Manager Christina Windover
Sponsor: Assistant City Manager’s Department

5. Approve executing the Property Damage Release for Angela Tuttle and Gloria Metzler and accept their insurance settlement of $2,590.22. – Staff Report by City Clerk Abigail Palsgaard
Sponsor: City Clerk’s Department

6. Approve purchasing a used ambulance and necessary items to place it into service by authorizing funding from the city’s equipment reserve fund not to exceed $25,000. – Staff Report by Chief John Binaski
Sponsor: Fire Department

7. Waive the second reading and adopt Ordinance 2024-07 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF KINGSBURG AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF TITLE 17 OF THE

KINGSBURG MUNICIPAL CODE FOR THE PUR-POSE OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ADOPTED KINGS-BURG SIXTH (6th) CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT with the following recital constituting reading the title of the Ordinance:
“AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF KINGSBURG AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF TITLE 17 OF THE KINGSBURG MUNICIPAL CODE FOR THE PURPOSE

OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ADOPTED KINGSBURG SIXTH (6th) CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT”
Sponsor: Community Development Department

REGULAR CALENDAR
None.

FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
None.

CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
Reminder that the 1/1/2025 is cancelled. Spoke about city closure. Dog park is nearing the end of construction, will open in the Spring.

COUNCIL REPORTS/COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
Kingsburg City Council Minutes
December 18, 2024
Council Member Silva the Kingsburg Health Care District swore their new members. Chamber mixer last night was well attended.

Council Member Smith noted the Finance will meet 1/22 & community service 1/24. Kingsburg High S band received 5th place in state for division 2.

Council Member Palomar noted the Public Safety will meet February 12, 2025. Discussed how the Planning Commission met and approved a Planned Unit Development & Annexation to come to council in January. Also thanked council for allowing citizens to be able to ride the trolley, it meant a lot to him.

Mayor Pursell Jr. thanked the chamber for a great parade, the Dala Trolley received 2nd place. He attended the South Kings Groundwater JPA meeting and will provide technical amendments to council.

Mayor Pursell Jr. adjourned the Regular Kingsburg City Council Meeting into Closed Session at 6:19 PM.

Public Employment: California Government Code Section 54957 Title: City Manager
Mayor Pursell Jr. adjourned out of Close Session into Regular Kingsburg City Council Meeting at 6:31 PM.

Attorney Michael Noland reported out that the Council decided to approve City Manager Alexander Henderson’s 7% bonus for the year.

Mayor Pursell Jr. adjourned the Regular Kingsburg City Council Meeting at 6:32 PM.

Submitted by:
____________________________________
Abigail Palsgaard, City Clerk
Accounts Payable
User:

Printed:
marshaa
1/7/2025 3:47 PM
Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date
Check No Vendor No Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount
Invoice No Description Reference
ACH 3231 ICMA RETIREMENT CORP - WIRE 457 12/13/2024
PR Batch 00001.12.2024 457 Percent - Mission Square PR Batch 00001.12.2024 457 Percent - Mission Square 895.42 PR Batch 00001.12.2024 457 Mission Square PR Batch 00001.12.2024 457 Mission Square 6,366.92 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 3231: 7,262.34
ACH 3470 Internal Revenue Service - ACH 12/13/2024
PR Batch 00001.12.2024 FICA Employer Portion PR Batch 00001.12.2024 FICA Employer Portion 22,422.03 PR Batch 00001.12.2024 Medicare Employer Portion PR Batch 00001.12.2024 Medicare Employer Portion 5,396.41 PR Batch 00001.12.2024 Federal Income Tax PR Batch 00001.12.2024 Federal Income Tax 34,654.73 PR Batch 00001.12.2024 Medicare Employee Portion PR Batch 00001.12.2024 Medicare Employee Portion 5,472.97 PR Batch 00001.12.2024 FICA Employee Portion PR Batch 00001.12.2024 FICA Employee Portion 22,422.03 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 3470: 90,368.17
ACH 3471 Employment Development Department - ACH12/13/2024 PR Batch 00001.12.2024 CA SDI PR Batch 00001.12.2024 CA SDI 3,737.91 PR Batch 00001.12.2024 State Income Tax PR Batch 00001.12.2024 State Income Tax 14,806.54 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 3471: 18,544.45
ACH 3472 CalPERS - ACH 12/13/2024
PR Batch 00001.12.2024 PERS Safety Police PEPRAPR Batch 00001.12.2024 PERS Safety Police PEPRA 8,764.12 PR Batch 00001.12.2024 PERS Misc. PEPRA PR Batch 00001.12.2024 PERS Misc. PEPRA 3,881.51 PR Batch 00001.12.2024 PERS Safety Fire ER PR Batch 00001.12.2024 PERS Safety Fire ER 3,610.20 PR Batch 00001.12.2024 PERS Misc. PEPRA ER PR Batch 00001.12.2024 PERS Misc. PEPRA ER 3,941.61 PR Batch 00001.12.2024 PERS Safety Police PR Batch 00001.12.2024 PERS Safety Police 1,398.93 PR Batch 00001.12.2024 PERS Safety Fire PEPRA ER PR Batch 00001.12.2024 PERS Safety Fire PEPRA ER 6,367.30 PR Batch 00001.12.2024 PERS Reported FLSA PR Batch 00001.12.2024 PERS Reported FLSA 1,781.61 PR Batch 00001.12.2024 PERS Safety Police PEPRPR Batch 00001.12.2024 PERS Safety Police PEPR A ER A ER 8,328.73 PR Batch 00001.12.2024 PERS Safety Police ER PR Batch 00001.12.2024 PERS Safety Police ER 3,631.65 PR Batch 00001.12.2024 PERS Misc. Classic PR Batch 00001.12.2024 PERS Misc. Classic 2,601.16 PR Batch 00001.12.2024 PERS Misc. Classic ER PR Batch 00001.12.2024 PERS Misc. Classic ER 4,494.95 PR Batch 00001.12.2024 PERS Safety Fire PEPRAPR Batch 00001.12.2024 PERS Safety Fire PEPRA 5,921.26 PR Batch 00001.12.2024 PERS Safety Fire -ClassicPR Batch 00001.12.2024 PERS Safety Fire -Classic 1,390.53 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 3472: 56,113.56
ACH 4707 ICMA-WIRE 401(A) 12/13/2024
PR Batch 00001.12.2024 Def Comp 401(a) ICMAPR Batch 00001.12.2024 Def Comp 401(a) ICMA 250.00 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 4707: 250.00
86787 3660 KPFA 12/13/2024
PR Batch 00001.12.2024 Professional Firefighters Asc. PR Batch 00001.12.2024 Professional Firefighters Asc. 720.00 Total for Check Number 86787: 720.00
86788 3525 Kingsburg Police KPOA 12/13/2024
PR Batch 00001.12.2024 KPOA Union Dues PR Batch 00001.12.2024 KPOA Union Dues 1,110.00 AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (1/7/2025 3:47 PM) Page 1 Check No Vendor No Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount
Invoice No Description Reference
Total for Check Number 86788: 1,110.00
Total for 12/13/2024: 174,368.52
ACH 4789 US BANKCORP SERVICE CENTER 12/20/2024
Beasley 12/6/24 Tow-Ambulance FD#502 -11/26 1,732.50
Castneda12/6/24 Comm Services vehicle fuel 73.59
Colado12/6/24 Amazon-Calender K.Hernandez 9.63
Colado12/6/24 Amazon-Calender K.Hernandez 9.62
Galvez 12/6/24 City Hall-Christmas Supplies 151.66
Hrnandz12/6/24 Print Theory-engraving/Chief Roberts mugs 54.49 Hrnandz12/6/24 Port of Subs-lunch crew ambulance accident 120.00 Hrnandz12/6/24 Paypal-CPR classes pyt online 25.10
Hrnandz12/6/24 Walgreens-hand warmers 10.89
Hrnandz12/6/24 Walmart-lights, decorations Santa/parade 95.42 Hrnandz12/6/24 Career success subscription-Ro 19.00
Hrnandz12/6/24 Save Mart-sodas, lunch crew accident 67.54 Owen 12/6/24 Amazon-(Comm. Dev) Sticking message cube 14.11 Owen 12/6/24 Amazon-Ballpoint pens, thermal laminating pouches 38.79 Ploszaj12/6/24 Police & Sheriffs ID (KES Jimenez) 20.37 Ploszaj12/6/24 KFD-Fire&Life Safety Inspection 11/20/24 123.60 Ploszaj12/6/24 Police & Sheriffs ID (3) 61.11
Ploszaj12/6/24 Police & Sheriffs ID (11) 224.10
Ploszaj12/6/24 Recoynx (NOV 2024) 21.80
Ploszaj12/6/24 SaveMart-Refreshments KB Taskforce Meeting 13.98 Ploszaj12/6/24 Police & Sheriffs ID (KES Arevalo) 20.37 Ploszaj12/6/24 Savemart-Refreshments/supplies-KPD hosted training 146.40 Ploszaj12/6/24 CVS-Thermal cups 24.61
Plsgaard12/6/24 Parking in Fresno Fee 5.49
Stephens12/6/24 J's Taco Shop Appetizers-KPD Situational Awareness Training 263.77 Stephens12/6/24 Amazon-SureF ire batteries & Brass key tags 160.16 Wndover12/6/24 LCW-Training 75.00
Wndover12/6/24 Toms Doughnuts-457 meeting 36.75
Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 4789: 3,619.85
86789 3565 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 12/20/2024
11K1-CDTL-JRDR Dept. supplies degreaser, fresheners 21.17 11ND-QWM1-Y47K Ice tea & Coffee maker 37.21
13Y1-X79F-HK4Q Exterior Car Detailing, TP, Laundry Soap, Restroom Cleaners 256.75 14R4-QDYJ-43QJ Sewing kit,Olive Oil, Facial Tissues 89.69 17QF-CPHY-K4G9 Chainsaw guide engine 75.14
1CDR-916G-X3KH Frames 64.86
1D46-9WFC-YJMM Scale, USB drives, lanyard 48.15
1F6W-XCWP-TJ6N Scale gym 21.78
1LLR-THPX-CYNK Halloween canty 75.98
1PLC-HKKW-Y1JV hooks, pens, tree 39.77
1VN4-MJCF-PHN9 Locking connector supply 23.82
1XVV-P7N7-TDLK First aid supplies, food, stuffed bears, door stopper 180.96 Total for Check Number 86789: 935.28
86790 4545 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC. 12/20/2024
11LK-WCH7-YY3F Paper Towels, TBl freshener, TP , Feather duster, trash bags, 10.64 13MF-GJ7P-VM1X 9x12 Self Seal Brown Envelopes (3) 61.71 14T6-9XN7-YW79 Reli 45 gal trash bags 288.91
1CVL-QT3M-HH9X Reli heavy duty trash bags 118.60
1HV1-Y4WR-3FCG Glass Desk Whiteboard (Burrola) 24.02
AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (1/7/2025 3:47 PM) Page 2 Check No Vendor No Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount
Invoice No Description Reference
1HV1-Y4WR-3FCG Glass Desk Whiteboard (Padilla) 24.02
1K6X-3PNF-6PK1 Dab-n-seal envelope moistener/inter-dept envelopes 39.43 1WL9-69N9-LVW4 Reli 45 gal trash bags 170.37
1YT7-49HW-GPV3 Sandisk 2 TB External Drive (Salinas) 152.55 Total for Check Number 86790: 890.25
86791 3891 AMERICAN BUSINESS MACHINES 12/20/2024
778811 Waste Toner (#15929) 15.00
Total for Check Number 86791: 15.00
86792 4307 AT & T MOBILITY 12/20/2024
2185X12102024 SRO MDT/Body Cam (Arevalo) H 40.24
2185X12102024 GF MDT/Body Cam 724.35
2185X12102024 SRO MDT/Body Cam (Jimenez) E 40.24
2185X12102024 ME MDT/Body Cam (Stephens,Salinas, Forlines,Padavick, Ruiz) 241.44 2185X12102024 ACT MDT/Body Cam (Gomez) 40.24
7602X12102024 ACT Cell ( Gomez) 45.09
7602X12102024 GF Cell 851.86
7602X12102024 ME Cell (Stephens, Salinas, Forlines, Padavick, Ruiz) 310.97 7602X12102024 SRO Cell (Arevalo) H 50.13
7602X12102024 SRO Cell (Jimenez) E 50.13
Total for Check Number 86792: 2,394.69
86793 3029 AT&T CALNET 3 12/20/2024
22688346 MN PHONE SVC CHARGES 11/2/24-12/1/24 559-897-5568 38.04 22688348 MN PHONE SVC CHARGES 11/2/24-12/1/24 559-897-6561 39.32 22688348 MN PHONE SVC CHARGES 11/2/24-12/1/24 559-897-2265 42.12 22688348 MN PHONE SVC CHARGES 11/2/24-12/1/24 559-897-8942 28.94 Total for Check Number 86793: 148.42
86794 3035 BAUER COMPRESSORS, INC. 12/20/2024
329765 Annual flow testing on SCBA harness 24 & Masks 34 2,690.00 Total for Check Number 86794: 2,690.00
86795 3054 BSK ASSOCIATES 12/20/2024
AH28432 Bact11/12 119.12
AH28901 Bact 11/18 208.46
AH28906 Bact 11/18 119.12
AH29005 EPA 504.1 DBCP 11/6 226.12
AH29010 Hex Chrom EPA 11/6 489.58
AH29651 Bact 11/25 119.12
AH30114 Bact 12/2 119.12
AH30288 TCP 11/18 684.40
Total for Check Number 86795: 2,085.04
86796 3056 CAL STATE TERMITE AND PEST 12/20/2024
0466179 Fire Pest Control 35.00
0466179 City Buildings Pest Control 168.50
0466179 Police Pest Control 35.00
0466179 Memorial/Down town Pest Control 95.00
0466179 Senior Ctr Pest Control 35.00
0466179 Pool Pest Control 56.50
0466179 Amb Pest Control 35.00
Total for Check Number 86796: 460.00
AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (1/7/2025 3:47 PM) Page 3 Check No Vendor No Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount
Invoice No Description Reference
86797 5060 CALIBER COLLISION 12/20/2024
1818000324 Swap push bumper from wrecked unit PD unit 2146 676.00 Total for Check Number 86797: 676.00
86798 4429 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC 12/20/2024
37012924 PW copier 10/1/24-12/31/24 427.30
37012926 Building contract 12/1/24-12/31/24 224.93
37012926 Building copier 11/1/24-11/30/24 182.87
37012928 Senior Center printer charges 126.23
Total for Check Number 86798: 961.33
86799 3991 JOSH CAREY 12/20/2024
12012024 Per Diem-ICAC Cellebrite Operator/ Analyst training 12/01-12/06 473.00 Total for Check Number 86799: 473.00
86800 3831 ADAM CASTANEDA 12/20/2024
Dec 2024 MN Cell Ph Allow-Dec 2024 75.00
Total for Check Number 86800: 75.00
86801 4998 CENTER POINT DISTRICT 12/20/2024
Q2 2024-2025 Center Point District Q2 Oct 2024-Dec 2024 978.52 Total for Check Number 86801: 978.52
86802 3822 ALMA COLADO 12/20/2024
Dec 2024 MN Cell Ph Allow-Dec 2024 75.00
Total for Check Number 86802: 75.00
86803 4082 JENNIFER COLEGIO 12/20/2024
12012024 Per Diem - ICAC Cellebrite Operator/Analyst training 12/01-12/06 473.00 Total for Check Number 86803: 473.00
86804 3134 CSJVRMA 12/20/2024
INV0175 2024/25 3rd Qtr Worker's Comp Program 139,902.00 INV0175 2024/25 3rd Qtr Liability Program 100,620.00
Total for Check Number 86804: 240,522.00
86805 3152 E C N POLYGRAPH & INVEST 12/20/2024
KINGPD-DEC19-24 Pre-Employment Polygraph (Bustillos) 250.00 Total for Check Number 86805: 250.00
86806 4229 EBA&M CORPORATION 12/20/2024
Dec 2024 Monthly Premium for medical cards 12/1/2024-12/31/2024 510.00 Dec 2024 Monthly Premium for medical cards 12/1/2024-12/31/2024 40.00 Dec 2024 Monthly Premium for medical cards 12/1/2024-12/31/2024 13.60 Dec 2024 Monthly Premium for medical cards 12/1/2024-12/31/2024 68.00 Dec 2024 Monthly Premium for medical cards 12/1/2024-12/31/2024 30.00 Dec 2024 Monthly Premium for medical cards 12/1/2024-12/31/2024 51.20 Dec 2024 Monthly Premium for medical cards 12/1/2024-12/31/2024 30.00 Dec 2024 Monthly Premium for medical cards 12/1/2024-12/31/2024 330.40 Dec 2024 Monthly Premium for medical cards 12/1/2024-12/31/2024 100.00 Dec 2024 Monthly Premium for medical cards 12/1/2024-12/31/2024 329.60 Dec 2024 Monthly Premium for medical cards 12/1/2024-12/31/2024 10.00 Dec 2024 Monthly Premium for medical cards 12/1/2024-12/31/2024 60.00 AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (1/7/2025 3:47 PM) Page 4 Check No Vendor No Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount
Invoice No Description Reference
Dec 2024 Monthly Premium for medical cards 12/1/2024-12/31/2024 26.80 Dec 2024 Monthly Premium for medical cards 12/1/2024-12/31/2024 89.60 Dec 2024 Monthly Premium for medical cards 12/1/2024-12/31/2024 40.00 Dec 2024 Monthly Premium for medical cards 12/1/2024-12/31/2024 92.00 Dec 2024 Monthly Premium for medical cards 12/1/2024-12/31/2024 105.20 Dec 2024 Monthly Premium for medical cards 12/1/2024-12/31/2024 396.80 Dec 2024 Monthly Premium for medical cards 12/1/2024-12/31/2024 40.00 Dec 2024 Monthly Premium for medical cards 12/1/2024-12/31/2024 146.80 Dec 2024 Monthly Premium for medical cards 12/1/2024-12/31/2024 40.00 Total for Check Number 86806: 2,550.00
86807 5046 EQUITY GROUP-PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 12/20/2024
12/10/24 customer overpaid on water bill acct#011225-000 1555 Lincoln Ave 34.58 12/10/24 customer overpaid on water bill acct#011225-000 1555 Lincoln Ave 4.64 12/10/24 customer overpaid on water bill acct#011225-000 1555 Lincoln Ave 3.42 12/10/24 customer overpaid on water bill acct#011225-000 1555 Lincoln Ave 72.47 Total for Check Number 86807: 115.11
86808 3199 FMAAA 12/20/2024
002825 7/24 Non-Qualified Meals 576.84
002834 8/24 Non-Qualified Meals 300.96
Total for Check Number 86808: 877.80
86809 3188 FRESNO COUNTY SHERIFF 12/20/2024
SO22260 Dispatch Contract Services (Dec) 17,528.57
SO22260 RMS/JMS Access Fees (Dec) 150.10
Total for Check Number 86809: 17,678.67
86810 4960 FRESNO LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION 12/20/2024 SBE10-2024 Tax Area Service Section-Single Area Transaction Matoian Annex 800.00 Total for Check Number 86810: 800.00
86811 4932 FRESNO OXYGEN/BARNES WELDING 12/20/2024
63471560 CO2 Bulk Pool 415.29
91670480 CO2 Bulk Pool 229.88
91674028 CO2 Bulk Pool 240.78
91677532 CO2 Bulk Pool 240.78
Total for Check Number 86811: 1,126.73
86812 5001 G&H DIESEL SERVICE, INC. 12/20/2024
48318 A501-Check radio,keyless entry, Scene lighs 90day BIT inspection 915.11 Total for Check Number 86812: 915.11
86813 3994 GUARDIAN 12/20/2024
12/16/24 Monthly Insurance Premium 1/2025 Vol Ins. Plans 1,727.94 12/16/24 Monthly Insurance Premium 1/2025 Life-Employee 208.19 12/16/24 Monthly Insurance Premium 1/2025 VSP vision 1,289.65 12/16/24 Monthly Insurance Premium 1/2025 Guardian Dental 7,395.23 12/16/24 Monthly Insurance Premium 1/2025 Vol Life Ins. 1,496.29 Total for Check Number 86813: 12,117.30
86814 4472 MIGUEL GUZMAN 12/20/2024
12012024 Per Diem-ICAC Cellebrite Operator/ Analyst training 12/01-12/06 473.00 AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (1/7/2025 3:47 PM) Page 5 Check No Vendor No Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount
Invoice No Description Reference
Total for Check Number 86814: 473.00
86815 3219 HEALTHWISE SERVICES 12/20/2024
192552 Kiosk Lease Fee-Pharm Site Charges 0004930002 347.50 Total for Check Number 86815: 347.50
86816 3225 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 12/20/2024
66403 Lumber float 283.91
75552 Irrigation Supplies PD 227.26
75586 Downtown Lights 972.45
Total for Check Number 86816: 1,483.62
86817 3534 JACK'S REFRIGERATION, INC. 12/20/2024
70097 Fire #2 motor caps 407.97
70455 INV#70455 Fire Station #2 Ecobee 1/11/24 2,371.68 73445 Pool maintenance/repair 623.58
76022 Fire Station1-Heater repair 349.54
Total for Check Number 86817: 3,752.77
86818 5065 JOSHUA JACKSON 12/20/2024
BC-24-0506 2480 Kamm Ave-Pool Bond Refund 1,000.00
Total for Check Number 86818: 1,000.00
86819 3860 JAS PACIFIC 12/20/2024
PC 7290 Billing Period 11/01/2024 - 11/30/2024 1,050.00 Total for Check Number 86819: 1,050.00
86820 3244 JORGENSEN & CO. 12/20/2024
6141243 Inspection & repair Fire Station 1 250.84
Total for Check Number 86820: 250.84
86821 3686 KINGSBURG AUTO CARE 12/20/2024
18708 Battery on PD#2040 272.43
Total for Check Number 86821: 272.43
86822 3253 KINGSBURG CHAMBER OF COMMERCE12/20/2024
Dec 2024 Monthly Budget Allowance Dec 2024 2,500.00
Total for Check Number 86822: 2,500.00
86823 3254 KINGSBURG CHEVRON 12/20/2024
9263 GF Car Washes (51x5) 150.00
9263 ACT (1 X $5) Gomez 5.00
9263 SRO (Jimenez) (1 X $5) 5.00
9263 Measure E Car Washes (16 X $5) 45.00
9263 SRO (Arevalo) (1 X $5) 5.00
Total for Check Number 86823: 210.00
86824 4648 KINGSBURG EXPRESS LUBE INC. 12/20/2024
60023 Service on PD#2041 85.04
60306 Service on PW#741 76.87
60344 Service on PW#611 168.74
AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (1/7/2025 3:47 PM) Page 6 Check No Vendor No Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount
Invoice No Description Reference
Total for Check Number 86824: 330.65
86825 3267 KULOW BROS. 12/20/2024
8908 UB envelopes 4,531.65
8908 UB envelopes 4,531.65
Total for Check Number 86825: 9,063.30
86826 3269 LAW & ASSOCIATES INVESTIGATION 12/20/2024
24-205 Rodnie Roberts - Background Investigation 700.00 24-220 Andrea Azevedo - Background Investigation 700.00 Total for Check Number 86826: 1,400.00
86827 3997 MID VALLEY DISPOSAL RECYCLING & TRANSFER STATION 12/20/2024 3106620 Street Sweeping Refuse 1,573.00
Total for Check Number 86827: 1,573.00
86828 3466 NAPA AUTO PARTS 12/20/2024
689217 5/16 Lynch pin 14.45
690287 2020 Ford Explorer 3.3 L passanger& driver beam 25.04 690332 2 1/2 gallon mix x 6 32.63
690850 Adapter 13.45
691021 Fittings for PW Forklift 2.07
691029 Fittings for PW Forklift 7.24
691036 Windshield wiper blade replacements (Unit 2040) 25.04 Total for Check Number 86828: 119.92
86829 3307 NELSON'S ACE HARDWARE-SELMA 12/20/2024
155282 Street Supplies-Sprayer 32.53
155355 Landscape Supplies-Erlings park 201.30
155401 Street Supplies-Downtown 6.82
155433 Landscape Supplies -Erling Park 66.09
155481 Street Supplies-Graffit Memorial Restoom 37.09
155579 Street Supplies-Graffit 18.53
155611 Street Supplies-equipment 78.08
155775 Street Supplies-downtown 15.61
155844 Lights 12/4 12.14
155845 Rake 12/4 29.28
155875 Water Dept Supplies-Compression Couplers 23.41
155999 Chain-Saw 12/7/24 36.99
156064 Water Dept Supplies 28.25
156128 Light 12/10/24 32.21
156220 Tools 12/13/24 51.35
156230 irrigation 12/13/24 2.72
838903 Clips lights12/4 27.31
Total for Check Number 86829: 699.71
86830 3611 HOLLY OWEN 12/20/2024
Dec 2024 MN Cell Ph Allow-Dec 2024 75.00
Total for Check Number 86830: 75.00
86831 3315 P G & E 12/20/2024
10/24-11/21/24 Solar 10/16/24-11/15/24 account# 7545561216 9.86 10/24-11/21/24 Electricity 10/24/24-11/21/24 account# 7543447781-8 207.65 10/24-11/21/24 Electricity 10/24/24-11/21/24 account# 7543447781-8 3,003.36 10/24-11/21/24 Electricity 10/24/24-11/21/24 account# 7543447781-8 722.76 AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (1/7/2025 3:47 PM) Page 7 Check No Vendor No Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount
Invoice No Description Reference
10/24-11/21/24 Electricity 10/24/24-11/21/24 account# 7543447781-8 9.53 10/24-11/21/24 Electricity 10/24/24-11/21/24 account# 7543447781-8 843.71 10/24-11/21/24 Electricity 10/24/24-11/21/24 account# 7543447781-8 467.08 10/24-11/21/24 Electricity 10/24/24-11/21/24 account# 7543447781-8 1,063.94 10/24-11/21/24 Electricity 10/24/24-11/21/24 account# 7543447781-8 30.15 10/24-11/21/24 Electricity 10/24/24-11/21/24 account# 7543447781-8 9.86 10/24-11/21/24 Electricity 10/24/24-11/21/24 account# 7543447781-8 918.57 10/24-11/21/24 Electricity 10/24/24-11/21/24 account# 7543447781-8 184.59 10/24-11/21/24 Electricity 10/24/24-11/21/24 account# 7543447781-8 2,827.38 10/24-11/21/24 Electricity 10/24/24-11/21/24 account# 7543447781-8 32,378.18 11/14-12/13/24 Electricity 11/14/24-12/13/24 account# 2493668675-7 60.51 Total for Check Number 86831: 42,737.13
86832 3450 ABIGAIL PALSGAARD 12/20/2024
Dec 2024 MN Cell Ph Allow-Dec 2024 75.00
Total for Check Number 86832: 75.00
86833 4669 PITNEY BOWES BANK INC 12/20/2024
12042024 Purchase Power- Meter Refill 161.96
Total for Check Number 86833: 161.96
86834 3333 PRICE PAIGE&COMPANY, CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT 12/20/2024 34792 Work in Progress year end June 30, 2024 5,549.60
34792 Work in Progress year end June 30, 2024 4,360.40
34792 Work in Progress year end June 30, 2024 9,910.00
Total for Check Number 86834: 19,820.00
86835 3334 PROFESSIONAL PRINT & MAIL, INC 12/20/2024
123572 Statements-Monthly UB-Dec2024 Qty 3,705 577.80
123572 Statements-Monthly UB-Dec2024 Qty 3,705 577.79
Total for Check Number 86835: 1,155.59
86836 3335 PROFORCE LAW ENFORCEMENT 12/20/2024
558178 Sig P365 PST MNT LGT 127.58
Total for Check Number 86836: 127.58
86837 3337 PROVOST & PRITCHARD 12/20/2024
114554 Kings Estates II CEQA Oct-24 1,651.00
114559 Ongoing GIS Services Oct-24 282.60
114565 Housing Element Implementation 2,005.00
114834 G.P. Update Oct-24 14,850.00
115376 Kings Estates II CEQA Nov-24 394.00
115377 Housing Element Implementation 8,420.10
Total for Check Number 86837: 27,602.70
86838 5017 RT NELSON COMPANY INC 12/20/2024
#2 Water main Water Main Project Payment #2 -2,657.99
#2 Water main Water Main Project Payment #2 42,544.98
Total for Check Number 86838: 39,886.99
86839 3361 SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR 12/20/2024
C368682 Permit C-7090 Annual Permit fee 25/26-1880 Bethel Stn2 143.00 AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (1/7/2025 3:47 PM) Page 8 Check No Vendor No Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount
Invoice No Description Reference
Total for Check Number 86839: 143.00
86840 3363 SAVE MART SUPERMARKETS 12/20/2024
TRD-8002 Refreshments for Police Officer interview panel members 32.72 Total for Check Number 86840: 32.72
86841 3961 SHARP AMBULANCE BILLING 12/20/2024
53164 Ambulance Billing Service Nov 2024 5,820.90
Total for Check Number 86841: 5,820.90
86842 3368 SIGN RANCH BY ROD'S CUSTOM SIGNS12/20/2024
15684 KPD Vehicle signs units 2431,2443 658.68
Total for Check Number 86842: 658.68
86843 3369 SILVAS OIL COMPANY, INC. 12/20/2024
195774CT Water Gas Card Chrgs 12/1/24-12/15/24 312.14
195774CT Diesel equipt Chrgs 12/1/24-12/15/24 453.50
195774CT Streets Gas Card Chrgs 12/1/24-12/15/24 175.52 195774CT PW & CH Gas Card Chrgs 12/1/24-12/15/24 292.20 195774CT PW & CH Gas Card Chrgs 12/1/24-12/15/24 134.33 195774CT Bdlg. Inspector Chrgs 12/1/24-12/15/24 86.68
195774CT Diesel equipt Chrgs 12/1/24-12/15/24 32.75
195774CT Diesel equipt Chrgs 12/1/24-12/15/24 32.75
195775CT ACT Fuels (Gomez) 425.11
195775CT KES Fuel (Jimenez) 113.11
195775CT KHS Fuels (Arevalo) 68.04
195775CT Measure E Fuels (Stephens,Salinas,Forlines, Ruiz, Padavick) 775.24 195775CT GF Fuels 2,285.30
Total for Check Number 86843: 5,186.67
86844 4887 SOCIAL VOCATIONAL SERVICES INC. 12/20/2024
46K2403-IN Landscape Services 928.57
46K2403-IN Landscape Hash 929.03
Total for Check Number 86844: 1,857.60
86845 3380 STATE OF CALIFORNIA-D O J 12/20/2024
766957 Fingerprint Apps 160.00
766957 Fingerprint FBI 34.00
766957 Fed LVL Volteer - Billed 15.00
772375 Blood Alcohol Analysis (Sept 2024) 105.00
780983 Blood Alcohol Analysis (NOV 2024) 516.00
Total for Check Number 86845: 830.00
86846 3746 SWANSON-FAHRNEY FORD 12/20/2024
248353 Repairs on PD#2201 600.00
Total for Check Number 86846: 600.00
86847 3389 STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD SWRCB - DWOCP 12/20/2024 SW-0306022 INV# SW-0306022 Annual Permit MS4 10/1/24- 9/30/25 10,920.00 Total for Check Number 86847: 10,920.00
86848 3397 THE GAS COMPANY 12/20/2024
11/6/24-12/9/24 Gas Services for City Date 11/6/24-12/9/24 4,196.67 AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (1/7/2025 3:47 PM) Page 9 Check No Vendor No Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount
Invoice No Description Reference
11/6/24-12/9/24 Gas Services for City Date 11/6/24-12/9/24 127.85 11/6/24-12/9/24 Gas Services for City Date 11/6/24-12/9/24 96.23 11/6/24-12/9/24 Gas Services for City Date 11/6/24-12/9/24 622.69 11/6/24-12/9/24 Gas Services for City Date 11/6/24-12/9/24 35.36 11/6/24-12/9/24 Gas Services for City Date 11/6/24-12/9/24 197.16 11/6/24-12/9/24 Gas Services for City Date 11/6/24-12/9/24 113.13 11/6/24-12/9/24 Gas Services for City Date 11/6/24-12/9/24 127.85 11/6/24-12/9/24 Gas Services for City Date 11/6/24-12/9/24 190.39 Total for Check Number 86848: 5,707.33
86849 5052 TILMOR, LLC 12/20/2024
Inv#12374363- Compost Spreader SB1383 Grant 8,859.00
Total for Check Number 86849: 8,859.00
86850 3419 VIKING CLEANING SERVICE 12/20/2024
Janitorial Services-Dec 2024 3,714.23
Total for Check Number 86850: 3,714.23
86851 3493 VILLAGE TIRE SALES INC 12/20/2024
26165 4 tires on PW#391 1,110.09
26179 4 Tires PD #2218 839.88
Total for Check Number 86851: 1,949.97
86852 3448 CHRISTINA WINDOVER 12/20/2024
Dec 2024 MN Cell Ph Allow-Dec 2024 75.00
Total for Check Number 86852: 75.00
86853 3430 BETTY WONG, 12/20/2024
Dec 2024 Wong Bldg. Lease Dec 2024 3,000.00
Total for Check Number 86853: 3,000.00
Total for 12/20/2024: 499,426.89
86854 3660 KPFA 12/27/2024
PR Batch 00002.12.2024 Professional Firefighters Asc. PR Batch 00002.12.2024 Professional Firefighters Asc. 720.00 Total for Check Number 86854: 720.00
86855 3525 Kingsburg Police KPOA 12/27/2024
PR Batch 00002.12.2024 KPOA Union Dues PR Batch 00002.12.2024 KPOA Union Dues 1,110.00 Total for Check Number 86855: 1,110.00
Total for 12/27/2024: 1,830.00
ACH 3231 ICMA RETIREMENT CORP - WIRE 457 01/03/2025
PR Batch 00002.12.2024 457 Mission Square PR Batch 00002.12.2024 457 Mission Square 5,866.80 PR Batch 00002.12.2024 457 Percent - Mission Square PR Batch 00002.12.2024 457 Percent - Mission Square 558.49 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 3231: 6,425.29
ACH 3470 Internal Revenue Service - ACH 01/03/2025
PR Batch 00002.12.2024 Medicare Employer Portion PR Batch 00002.12.2024 Medicare Employer Portion 4,019.19 AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (1/7/2025 3:47 PM) Page 10 Check No Vendor No Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount
Invoice No Description Reference
PR Batch 00002.12.2024 Medicare Employee Portion PR Batch 00002.12.2024 Medicare Employee Portion 4,095.75 PR Batch 00002.12.2024 FICA Employee Portion PR Batch 00002.12.2024 FICA Employee Portion 15,847.04 PR Batch 00002.12.2024 Federal Income Tax PR Batch 00002.12.2024 Federal Income Tax 25,544.35 PR Batch 00002.12.2024 FICA Employer Portion PR Batch 00002.12.2024 FICA Employer Portion 15,847.04 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 3470: 65,353.37
ACH 3471 Employment Development Department - ACH01/03/2025 PR Batch 00002.12.2024 State Income Tax PR Batch 00002.12.2024 State Income Tax 10,431.63 PR Batch 00002.12.2024 CA SDI PR Batch 00002.12.2024 CA SDI 2,707.65 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 3471: 13,139.28
ACH 3472 CalPERS - ACH 01/03/2025
PR Batch 00002.12.2024 PERS Misc. Classic ER PR Batch 00002.12.2024 PERS Misc. Classic ER 4,494.95 PR Batch 00002.12.2024 PERS Safety Fire PEPRAPR Batch 00002.12.2024 PERS Safety Fire PEPRA 6,219.82 PR Batch 00002.12.2024 PERS Safety Police ER PR Batch 00002.12.2024 PERS Safety Police ER 3,631.65 PR Batch 00002.12.2024 PERS Safety Police PEPRPR Batch 00002.12.2024 PERS Safety Police PEPR A ER A ER 8,359.02 PR Batch 00002.12.2024 PERS Reported FLSA PR Batch 00002.12.2024 PERS Reported FLSA 1,781.61 PR Batch 00002.12.2024 PERS Safety Police PR Batch 00002.12.2024 PERS Safety Police 1,398.93 PR Batch 00002.12.2024 PERS Safety Fire -ClassicPR Batch 00002.12.2024 PERS Safety Fire -Classic 1,390.53 PR Batch 00002.12.2024 PERS Safety Fire ER PR Batch 00002.12.2024 PERS Safety Fire ER 3,610.19 PR Batch 00002.12.2024 PERS Misc. PEPRA ER PR Batch 00002.12.2024 PERS Misc. PEPRA ER 3,116.67 PR Batch 00002.12.2024 PERS Safety Fire PEPRA ER PR Batch 00002.12.2024 PERS Safety Fire PEPRA ER 6,666.08 PR Batch 00002.12.2024 PERS Safety Police PEPRAPR Batch 00002.12.2024 PERS Safety Police PEPRA 8,794.36 PR Batch 00002.12.2024 PERS Misc. PEPRA PR Batch 00002.12.2024 PERS Misc. PEPRA 3,069.15 PR Batch 00002.12.2024 PERS Misc. Classic PR Batch 00002.12.2024 PERS Misc. Classic 2,601.16 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 3472: 55,134.12
ACH 4707 ICMA-WIRE 401(A) 01/03/2025
PR Batch 00002.12.2024 Def Comp 401(a) ICMAPR Batch 00002.12.2024 Def Comp 401(a) ICMA 250.00 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 4707: 250.00
86856 5070 ADVENTIST HEALTH 01/03/2025
12/16/2024 Ambulance Overpayment:R.Abendano Garcia-Service Date:8/3/2023 201.37 Total for Check Number 86856: 201.37
86857 4532 ALTA LANGUAGE SERVICES, INC 01/03/2025
IS692148 Language Test- J Salinas 66.00
Total for Check Number 86857: 66.00
86858 3565 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 01/03/2025
1997-9PXC-4YV7 X-mas toy bag X3, ink X4 313.44
1PVP-CWP7-XLVX Extension cord ends replacements 17.17
1PVV-QTNT-YFK6 Extension cord ends replacements X2 37.06 1XF1-PK4L-6N9L Kenwood speaker mic W/ earpiece 79.55
1YF3-CDMP-VLRW Pic frame X2, xmas toy bags X4 56.60
1YHG-VLT9-YG67 San disks X2, tote bag 83.88
Total for Check Number 86858: 587.70
86859 3035 BAUER COMPRESSORS, INC. 01/03/2025
307569 11/4/24: Repair to SCBA Mask Lens 201.60
Total for Check Number 86859: 201.60
86860 4801 BLUE CROSS OF CA-OVERPAYMENT RECOVERY 01/03/2025 12/16/2024 Ambulance Overpayment: A. Larin Service Date: 9/21/23 250.95 AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (1/7/2025 3:47 PM) Page 11 Check No Vendor No Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount
Invoice No Description Reference
Total for Check Number 86860: 250.95
86861 4875 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC 01/03/2025
85606762 12/30/24 Medical Supplies 22.77
85608888 12/31/24 Medical Supplies 82.81
Total for Check Number 86861: 105.58
86862 3054 BSK ASSOCIATES 01/03/2025
AH30943 BACT 12/13 119.12
AH30947 Well Treatment BACT 12/9 208.46
AH31794 Well Treatment BACT 12/16 119.12
AH32421 Well Treatment TCP 12/9/24 273.76
AH32734 Well Treatment BACT 12/23 119.12
Total for Check Number 86862: 839.58
86863 4429 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC 01/03/2025
34501971 July 2024 BW/CL Usage 64.19
34501971 Aug. 2024 Contract charges 252.08
35871311 Oct. 2024 Contract Charges 252.08
35871311 Sept 2024 BW/CL Usage 64.84
36871688 Nov. 2024 BW/CL usage 64.08
36871688 Dec. 2024 Contract Charges 252.08
Total for Check Number 86863: 949.35
86864 3069 CASCADE FIRE EQUIPMENT 01/03/2025
INV16220 Name panel-Madison Heredia- PPE turnouts 98.81 Total for Check Number 86864: 98.81
86865 3831 ADAM CASTANEDA 01/03/2025
Jan 2025 Reimb. for monthly cell phone usage-Jan 2025 75.00 Total for Check Number 86865: 75.00
86866 4159 CENTRAL VALLEY FORENSIC NURSING SPECIALIST 01/03/2025 1777 Victim Exam 24-1864 1,000.00
Total for Check Number 86866: 1,000.00
86867 5071 CITY OF REDMOND 01/03/2025
24-11 Inv 24-11 Used ambulance purchase. 2010 GMAC 4500 92,000 miles a 10,000.00 Total for Check Number 86867: 10,000.00
86868 3102 CITY OF SELMA 01/03/2025
3376 Animal Control Services Oct 2024 5,000.00
3377 Animal Control Services Nov 2024 5,000.00
Total for Check Number 86868: 10,000.00
86869 3822 ALMA COLADO 01/03/2025
Jan 2025 Reimb. for monthly cell phone usage- Jan 2025 75.00 Total for Check Number 86869: 75.00
86870 3119 COOK'S COMMUNICATIONS CORP. 01/03/2025
159260 Patrol Vehicle Upfit - Unit 2443 29,341.88
AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (1/7/2025 3:47 PM) Page 12 Check No Vendor No Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount
Invoice No Description Reference
Total for Check Number 86870: 29,341.88
86871 5002 DATA TICKET, INC 01/03/2025
1658 Citation Processing services (Nov 2024) 211.16
Total for Check Number 86871: 211.16
86872 3146 DINUBA FIRE 01/03/2025
30 FireMed Enrollment (mailer, brochures, postage, postcards, env 5,835.66 Total for Check Number 86872: 5,835.66
86873 3148 DON BERRY CONSTRUCTION INC 01/03/2025
Payment #3 Retention FY 23/24 Streets Project Dates 6/10/24-8/8/24 34,224.45 Payment #3 Retention TOD Phase-1 Dates: 08/09/2024 - 09/20/2024 29,555.47 Payment #3 Retention FY 23/24 Streets Project Dates 6/10/24-8/8/24 8,393.34 Total for Check Number 86873: 72,173.26
86874 3158 ENER POWER 01/03/2025
73300 Electric Energy charges for:9/25/24-10/23/24 SID:7543447066 1,995.00 73301 Electric Energy charges for:9/25/24-10/23/24 SID:7543447336 527.00 73302 Electric Energy charges for:9/25/24-10/23/24 SID:7543447613 287.00 73303 Electric Energy charges for:9/25/24-10/23/24 SID:7547167697 855.00 Total for Check Number 86874: 3,664.00
86875 5069 LARRY FORD 01/03/2025
12/16/2024 Ambulance Overpayment Service Date:5/6/2024 250.00 Total for Check Number 86875: 250.00
86876 3179 LEE FORLINES 01/03/2025
2/9/25-2/12/25 Per Diem-SLI Course/POST Plan IV 2/10-2/12/25 322.50 Total for Check Number 86876: 322.50
86877 3434 HEALTH NET 01/03/2025
12/16/2024 Ambulance Overpayment J Munoz Service Date: 2/8/24 120.58 Total for Check Number 86877: 120.58
86878 UB*00075 JEFF HEREDIA 01/03/2025
Refund Check 009888-000, 536 WEST SUNSET 21.49
Total for Check Number 86878: 21.49
86879 4650 INTERWEST 01/03/2025
1002436 Inspection Services Nov.1-Nov.30,2024 484.50
Total for Check Number 86879: 484.50
86880 3999 IRON MOUNTAIN 01/03/2025
JZHY095 Shred Admin Fee 11-26-24-12-24-24 11.95
Total for Check Number 86880: 11.95
86881 3534 JACK'S REFRIGERATION, INC. 01/03/2025
57678 City Hall VV bulbs HVAC 865.48
Total for Check Number 86881: 865.48
AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (1/7/2025 3:47 PM) Page 13 Check No Vendor No Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount
Invoice No Description Reference
86882 3248 KAHN, SOARES & CONWAY, LLP 01/03/2025
19856 Professional Services-10th Ave&Owens Abatement 989.90 19864 Professional Services-General Retainer 6,375.00
19864 Professional Services-General Retainer 600.00
19864 Professional Services-General Retainer 525.00
Total for Check Number 86882: 8,489.90
86883 4987 KAISER PERMANENTE- RELIANCE 01/03/2025
12/16/24 Ambulance Overpayment J. Smith Service Date: 11/14/23 816.80 Total for Check Number 86883: 816.80
86884 3887 KINGS INDUSTRIAL OCC. MED CTR., INC. 01/03/2025 243184 Pre-Employment Physical-Ronaldo Meza 688.00
243184 Caleb Johnson-Kings Industrial 27.00
263780 D. Bustamente Pre Employement 822.93
263780 R. Roberts Pre Employement 171.00
263780 A Azevedo Pre Employement 722.93
Total for Check Number 86884: 2,431.86
86885 3253 KINGSBURG CHAMBER OF COMMERCE01/03/2025
Jan. 2025 Monthly Budget allowance Jan 2025 2,500.00
Total for Check Number 86885: 2,500.00
86886 4648 KINGSBURG EXPRESS LUBE INC. 01/03/2025
60141 11/4/2024:Oil Change F550 144.80
Total for Check Number 86886: 144.80
86887 3625 KINGSBURG MEDIA FOUNDATION 01/03/2025
CWM12168 Service Agreement Dec. 2024 69.55
CWM12168 Service Agreement Dec. 2024 165.79
CWM12168 Service Agreement Dec. 2024 70.83
CWM12168 Service Agreement Dec. 2024 400.00
CWM12168 Service Agreement Dec. 2024 208.33
CWM12168 Service Agreement Dec. 2024 325.00
CWM12168 Service Agreement Dec. 2024 115.00
CWM12168 Service Agreement Dec. 2024 94.09
CWM12168 Service Agreement Dec. 2024 115.00
CWM12168 Service Agreement Dec. 2024 1,186.46
CWM12168 Service Agreement Dec. 2024 298.10
CWM12168 Service Agreement Dec. 2024 13.91
CWM12168 Service Agreement Dec. 2024 270.08
CWM12168 Service Agreement Dec. 2024 147.20
CWM12168 Service Agreement Dec. 2024 663.16
CWM12168 Service Agreement Dec. 2024 27.41
CWM12168 Service Agreement Dec. 2024 75.00
CWM12168 Service Agreement Dec. 2024 115.00
CWM12168 Service Agreement Dec. 2024 520.33
CWM12168 Service Agreement Dec. 2024 519.76
CWM12196 Phones Dec. 2024 48.50
CWM12196 Phones Dec. 2024 48.50
CWM12196 Phones Dec. 2024 29.06
CWM12196 Phones Dec. 2024 112.50
CWM12196 Phones Dec. 2024 324.53
CWM12196 Phones Dec. 2024 23.00
CWM12196 Phones Dec. 2024 240.00
CWM12196 Phones Dec. 2024 48.50
AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (1/7/2025 3:47 PM) Page 14 Check No Vendor No Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount
Invoice No Description Reference
CWM12196 Phones Dec. 2024 17.00
CWM12196 Phones Dec. 2024 153.59
CWM12196 Phones Dec. 2024 6.70
CWM12196 Phones Dec. 2024 19.37
CWM12196 Phones Dec. 2024 3.40
CWM12196 Phones Dec. 2024 60.00
CWM12196 Phones Dec. 2024 181.69
CWM12196 Phones Dec. 2024 120.83
CWM12196 Phones Dec. 2024 62.08
CWM12196 Phones Dec. 2024 114.81
CWM12196 Phones Dec. 2024 125.94
CWM12197 Internet Dec. 2024 189.46
CWM12197 Internet Dec. 2024 279.17
CWM12197 Internet Dec. 2024 76.56
CWM12197 Internet Dec. 2024 162.50
CWM12197 Internet Dec. 2024 20.00
CWM12197 Internet Dec. 2024 47.36
CWM12197 Internet Dec. 2024 213.83
CWM12197 Internet Dec. 2024 117.57
CWM12197 Internet Dec. 2024 20.00
CWM12197 Internet Dec. 2024 67.95
CWM12197 Internet Dec. 2024 50.75
CWM12197 Internet Dec. 2024 50.23
CWM12197 Internet Dec. 2024 19.80
CWM12197 Internet Dec. 2024 20.00
CWM12197 Internet Dec. 2024 25.60
CWM12197 Internet Dec. 2024 10.05
CWM12197 Internet Dec. 2024 16.67
CWM12197 Internet Dec. 2024 37.50
CWM12198 Email Dec. 2024 6.98
CWM12198 Email Dec. 2024 193.96
CWM12198 Email Dec. 2024 17.25
CWM12198 Email Dec. 2024 74.75
CWM12198 Email Dec. 2024 89.00
CWM12198 Email Dec. 2024 79.57
CWM12198 Email Dec. 2024 32.35
CWM12198 Email Dec. 2024 0.42
CWM12198 Email Dec. 2024 76.67
CWM12198 Email Dec. 2024 44.40
CWM12198 Email Dec. 2024 103.52
CWM12198 Email Dec. 2024 9.81
CWM12198 Email Dec. 2024 318.32
CWM12198 Email Dec. 2024 33.66
CWM12198 Email Dec. 2024 56.83
CWM12198 Email Dec. 2024 4.98
CWM12198 Email Dec. 2024 44.40
CWM12198 Email Dec. 2024 135.85
CWM12198 Email Dec. 2024 44.40
CWM12198 Email Dec. 2024 24.88
Total for Check Number 86887: 9,957.00
86888 4081 L.N. CURTIS & SONS 01/03/2025
INV864739 Structure Boots-Madison size 7 646.85
INV898622 structure boots-Chief Roberts size 10 647.84
RMA 864739 Credit on structure Boots-Madison size 7 -632.06 Total for Check Number 86888: 662.63
86889 3269 LAW & ASSOCIATES INVESTIGATION 01/03/2025
AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (1/7/2025 3:47 PM) Page 15 Check No Vendor No Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount
Invoice No Description Reference
24-225 Background Investigation (Bustillos) 700.00
Total for Check Number 86889: 700.00
86890 4977 LEHR 01/03/2025
S110573 Sales tax wasn't paid on CK 86750 12/9/24 138.20 Total for Check Number 86890: 138.20
86891 3275 LIEBERT, CASSIDY, WHITMORE 01/03/2025
282272 Attorney Services Invoice#2282272 126.00
Total for Check Number 86891: 126.00
86892 4329 MCI COMM SERVICES 01/03/2025
Dec 2024 Acct#7DL61514 Fax long Distance Only Dec.2024 559-897-5568 35.77 Total for Check Number 86892: 35.77
86893 3293 MID VALLEY DISPOSAL 01/03/2025
Nov 2024 Nov 2024 Residential 103,350.69
Nov 2024 Nov 2024 Multi- 2-4 less FF's (3,582.48) 20,300.76 Nov 2024 Nov 2024 comm-less FF's (9,213.72) 52,211.04
Nov 2024 Franchise Fees Nov 2024 12,796.20
Nov 2024 Franchise Fees Nov 2024 -12,796.20
Total for Check Number 86893: 175,862.49
86894 5066 MODIVCARE SOLUTIONS, LLC 01/03/2025
12/16/2024 Ambulance Overpayment Y Gomez Garcia Service Date: 12/7/21 363.85 Total for Check Number 86894: 363.85
86895 4876 OAT & OAK LLC 01/03/2025
72263 BID Social Media Manager Nov. 2024 2,500.00
Total for Check Number 86895: 2,500.00
86896 3611 HOLLY OWEN 01/03/2025
Jan 2025 Cell Phone Monthly Allowance Jan 2025 75.00
Total for Check Number 86896: 75.00
86897 3315 P G & E 01/03/2025
11/14-12/13/24 Electricity-11/14/24-12/13/24 Acct#7502184272-1 9,339.27 11/14-12/13/24 Electricity-11/14/24-12/13/24 Acct#7502184272-1 9,339.26 Total for Check Number 86897: 18,678.53
86898 3450 ABIGAIL PALSGAARD 01/03/2025
Jan 2025 MN Cell Phone Allowance- Jan 2025 75.00
Total for Check Number 86898: 75.00
86899 5068 NATHAN PAXTON 01/03/2025
12/16/2024 Ambulance Overpayment Service Date:6/30/2024 50.00 Total for Check Number 86899: 50.00
86900 3334 PROFESSIONAL PRINT & MAIL, INC 01/03/2025
123700 Imprints-Utility Bill Shell 391.53
123700 Imprints-Utility Bill Shell 391.52
123826 Statements-Delinquent Notices-December 2024; Qty 418 117.33 AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (1/7/2025 3:47 PM) Page 16 Check No Vendor No Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount
Invoice No Description Reference
123826 Statements-Delinquent Notices-December 2024; Qty 418 117.32 Total for Check Number 86900: 1,017.70
86901 3337 PROVOST & PRITCHARD 01/03/2025
115507 Ongoing GIS Services Nov. 1- 30, 2024 1,099.00
115628 GP Update Nov 1-30, 2024 3,709.00
Total for Check Number 86901: 4,808.00
86902 3654 R. J. BERRY, JR.,INC 01/03/2025
Pymt 3 Retention Mariposa Street Reconstruction 6/24/24-8/15/24 16,521.45 Total for Check Number 86902: 16,521.45
86903 5067 CAROL REMMER 01/03/2025
12/16/2024 Ambulance Overpayment Service Date:8/16/2024 290.00 Total for Check Number 86903: 290.00
86904 3775 SCOTT'S PPE RECON., INC. 01/03/2025
39883 12/9/24: Gemicidal disinfectant for Extractor at Stn. 1 278.29 Total for Check Number 86904: 278.29
86905 3368 SIGN RANCH BY ROD'S CUSTOM SIGNS01/03/2025
SR-15685 12 planter sponsor signs 301.32
Total for Check Number 86905: 301.32
86906 4262 SILVERFOX ELECTRIC, INC. 01/03/2025
3505 Roundabout Electrical 11/25/24 80.00
3506 Streetlights PD 12/12/24 671.54
Total for Check Number 86906: 751.54
86907 4887 SOCIAL VOCATIONAL SERVICES INC. 01/03/2025
46H2403-IN Landscape Services 928.57
46H2403-IN Landscape HASH 929.03
46S2403-IN Landscape Services 928.57
46S2403-IN Landscape HASH 929.03
Total for Check Number 86907: 3,715.20
86908 3690 SOLV Business Solutions - Safeguard-23343901/03/2025 443704 50% of 1099's & W-2's 2023 153.45
443704 50% of 1099's & W-2's 2023 153.45
Total for Check Number 86908: 306.90
86909 3380 STATE OF CALIFORNIA-D O J 01/03/2025
785882 Blood Alcohol Analysis (Nov 2024) 70.00
Total for Check Number 86909: 70.00
86910 3403 TODD COMPANIES 01/03/2025
Pymt 3 Ret 2024 City Wide Park Imp Heritage 6/27/24-10/2/24 12,084.99 Pymt 3 Ret 2024 City Wide Park Imp Memorial & Athwal 6/27/24-10/2/24 6,891.39 Total for Check Number 86910: 18,976.38
86911 5034 TOSTED ASPHALT INC 01/03/2025
Payment #2 Retention-Frontage Road Drainage 8/26/24-9/10/24 1,662.25 AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (1/7/2025 3:47 PM) Page 17 Check No Vendor No Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount
Invoice No Description Reference
Total for Check Number 86911: 1,662.25
86912 4338 UNITEDHEALTHCARE 01/03/2025
12/16/24 Ambulance Overpayment A. Olson Service Date: 12/31/23 1,995.20 Total for Check Number 86912: 1,995.20
86913 3416 VERIZONWIRELESS 01/03/2025
6101217783 Cellular Svc.11/16/24-12/15/24 26.20
6101217783 Cellular Svc.11/16/24-12/15/24 87.26
6101217783 Cellular Svc.11/16/24-12/15/24 52.19
6101217783 Cellular Svc.11/16/24-12/15/24 104.24
6101217783 Cellular Svc.11/16/24-12/15/24 78.87
6101217783 Cellular Svc.11/16/24-12/15/24 95.59
6101217783 Cellular Svc.11/16/24-12/15/24 20.81
6101217783 Cellular Svc.11/16/24-12/15/24 20.25
6101217783 Cellular Svc.11/16/24-12/15/24 29.50
6101217784 12/15/24 Wireless bill for fire/ambulance Nov 16-Dec. 15, 2024 1,148.44 Total for Check Number 86913: 1,663.35
86914 3419 VIKING CLEANING SERVICE 01/03/2025
Jan 2025 Janitorial Services - Jan. 2025 3,714.23
Total for Check Number 86914: 3,714.23
86915 3421 VINCENT COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 01/03/2025
89406 Reprogramming kenwood radios&BKR900 A502/503 125.00 Total for Check Number 86915: 125.00
86916 3448 CHRISTINA WINDOVER 01/03/2025
1/29/25-1/31/25 Per Diem-LCW Employment&Labor Relations Conference1/29-1/31/25 215.00 Jan 2025 Cell Phone Reimb.Monthly-Jan 2025 75.00
Total for Check Number 86916: 290.00
86917 3430 BETTY WONG, 01/03/2025
Jan 2025 Wong Bldg Jan. 2025 3,000.00
Total for Check Number 86917: 3,000.00
86918 3321 PETERS ENGINEERING GROUP 01/03/2025
11414 Mariposa St CDBG 22391 7,600.00
Total for Check Number 86918: 7,600.00
Total for 1/3/2025: 568,750.10
Report Total (143 checks): 1,244,375.51
AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (1/7/2025 3:47 PM) Page 18

CITY COUNCIL MEETING STAFF REPORT
REPORT TO: Mayor Pursell & City Council
REPORT FROM: Christina Windover, Assistant City Manager REVIEWED BY: AJH AGENDA ITEM: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) Grant funding approval.

ACTION REQUESTED: ___Ordinance __√__Resolution Motion ______Receive/File

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In order for the City to receive funding from the State of California, California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (“CalOES”), for the purpose of obtaining federal financial assistance for any existing or future grant programs, we must have authorized agents. Included in the packet is an updated Resolution to name the City of Kingsburg’s authorized agents by position title for all open and future disasters/grants declared up to three years following the date of approval by Council.

RECOMMENDED ACTION BY CITY COUNCIL

1. Adopt Resolution 2025-001 A resolution stating the designation of the city’s agents for non-state agencies for FEMA/Cal OES funding.

POLICY ALTERNATIVE(S)

1. Council could choose to not adopt the resolution; however, this would limit the city’s ability to receive federal financial assistance.

REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION/KEY METRIC

1. Preserve the Kingsburg Experience

2. Financial Stability

3. Community Safety

FINANCIAL INFORMATION

PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW
Council approved Resolution No. 2023-035 on September 6, 2023, designating our authorized agents.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION
These agreements are usual and customary with FEMA funds.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution 2025-001 - OES FPD 130 form
Meeting Date: 01/15/2025
Agenda Item: 3
FISCAL IMPACT:

1. Is There A Fiscal Impact? Yes

2. Is it Currently Budgeted? N/A

3. If Budgeted, Which Line? N/A
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-001

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KINGSBURG APPROVING CAL-OES’ DESIGNATION OF APPLICANT’S AGENT RESOLUTION FOR

NON-STATE AGENCIES
*****THIS HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY*****

DESIGNATION OF APPLICANT'S AGENT RESOLUTION FOR
- Federally declared Disaster (DR), Fire Mitigation Assistance Grant (FMAG), California State Only Disaster (CDAA), Immediate Services Program (ISP), Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC), Legislative Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program (LPDM), - - Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (FMA)
- National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) - California Early Earthquake Warning (CEEW)
Rev. 2022 OESCity Council City of Kingsburg
City Manager
Finance Director
City of Kingsburg
City of Kingsburg
019-38562
Public Works Director
Please check the appropriate box below

CERTIFICATION
Rev. 2022 OES- -
15th January 25
Brandon Pursell, Jr., Mayor
Vince Palomar, Mayor Pro Tem
Laura North, Council Member
Abigail Palsgaard City Clerk
City of Kingsburg
City Council
City of Kingsburg 15th January 25
City Clerk
Cal OES Form 130 Instructions
A Designation of Applicant’s Agent Resolution for Non-State Agencies is required of all Applicants to be eligible to receive funding. A new resolution must be submitted if a previously submitted resolution is older than three (3) years from the last date of approval, is invalid, or has not been submitted.

Resolution Section:

Governing Body
Name of Applicant
Authorized Agent
and
Rev. 2022 OES- -
Checking Universal or Disaster-Specific Box:

Governing Body Representative
cannot
Certification Section:

Name and Title
cannot
Rev. 2022 OES- -
*****THIS HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY*****
I, Abigail Palsgaard, City Clerk of the City of Kingsburg, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution 2025-001 was duly adopted and passed by the Kingsburg City Council at a regular meeting of said Council on the 15th day of January, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmember(s):

NOES: Councilmember(s):

ABSENT: Councilmember(s):

ABSTAIN: Councilmember(s):
_____________________________
Abigail Palsgaard, City Clerk
City of Kingsburg

CITY COUNCIL MEETING STAFF REPORT
REPORT TO: Mayor Pursell & Kingsburg City Council
REPORT FROM: Holly Owen – Community Development Director REVIEWED BY:

AGENDA ITEM: Prezone and Annexation for 4 Parcels of Real Property to the City of Kingsburg ACTION REQUESTED: Ordinance  Resolution  Motion ___ Receive/File

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The applicant, West Star Construction, is seeking approval of several planning applications as well as an annexation into the City of Kingsburg Community Facilities District. Together, these planning applications constitute a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The applications and review by Council are as follows:

1. Reorganization (Annexation 2024-02) of 42.52 acres to the City of Kingsburg and the Selma-KingsburgFowler Sanitation District and detachment of same from the Kings River Conservation District, Fresno County Fire Protection District and the Consolidated Irrigation District;

2. Prezone 42.52 acres of land from the county’s AE-20 zone to Kingsburg’s R-1-7 zone;

3. A Planned Unit Development approved by the Planning Commission at their meeting of December 12, 2024;

Staff has determined that the subject property is within the City’s Sphere of Influence, the planning area of the Kingsburg General Plan and the planning area of the North Kingsburg Specific Plan (NKSP). The proposed project is consistent with the land use designations of each plan.

The NKSP, which is similar to a detailed general plan, sets forth certain processing and design requirements for development occurring within the NKSP planning area. Pursuant to the requirements of the NKSP, each tentative subdivision map must be processed as a PUD (planned unit development). The NKSP requires the PUD be processed in a manner consistent with Kingsburg’s conditional use permit process detailed in the Kingsburg Municipal Code.

The NKSP requires that the design of the subdivision and the individual homes proposed for lots within this subdivision are consistent with the design guidelines of the NKSP.

RECOMMENDED ACTION BY CITY COUNCIL

1. Adopt Resolution 2025-002, approving the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Annexation, Prezone, and Planned Unit Development.

2. Adopt Resolution 2025-003, accepting the Kingsburg Planning Commission’s recommendation to initiate Annexation 2024-02of 42.54 acres from the County of Fresno into the City of Kingsburg and the SelmaKingsburg-Fowler Sanitation District and detachment ofsame from the Kings River Conservation District, Fresno County Fire Protection District and the Consolidated Irrigation District and Prezone the annexation territory of

42.52 acres from Fresno County’s AE-20 (Exclusive Agriculture, 20 acre minimum) to Kingsburg’s R-1-7 district and forward to Fresno LAFCo;

3. Adopt Resolution 2025-004 affirming the Planning Commission approval of planned unit development (PUD 2024-01) for 33.27 acres, which involves single-family residential uses and associated open space features.

Meeting Date:

Agenda Item:
01/15/2025
4 FINANCIAL INFORMATION

PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW
Prior to the consideration of planning entitlements, the applicant requested an “award allocation” of 105 single family residential housing units from the City consistent with Chapter 16.09, Growth Management System in the Municipal Code. The Planning Commission and City Council awarded the allocation for 105 single family residential units for the subject property in 2024.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The subject territory are located on the southwest corner of Mendocino and Caruthers Avenues in Fresno County. The APNs are 393-121-37, -42, -43, & -46. (42.52 acres).

Detailed information on each planning application is as follows:

Annexation of 42.52 acres into the City
The applicant wishes to annex approximately 42.52 acres into the City of Kingsburg (and detach 42.52 acres from the Kings River Conservation District, Fresno County Fire Protection District and the Consolidated Irrigation District). Three of the parcels are included as the Vesting Tentative Map and PUD, totaling 33.27 acres. The fourth parcel (APN 393-121-46, 9.25 acres in size, Northeast corner of map, below) is part of the annexation requirement from Fresno LAFCo but not part of the applicant’s Vesting Tentative Map and PUD. LAFCo policies encourage annexation of adjacent parcels when doing so promotes an orderly pattern of growth FISCAL IMPACT:

1. Is There A Fiscal Impact?

2. Is it Currently Budgeted?

3. If Budgeted, Which Line?
Yes
Yes
Varies
Thesubject territory canbeserved bythecity' s sewer,waterandstorm drainage infrastructure, according to city Staff analysis. Furthermore, the subject territory is already within the general service area of Kingsburg police and fire services as well as Mid-Valley solid waste collection. From a fiscal perspective, the development impact fees collected from the construction of the future homes within the subject territory will enhance Kingsburg' s storm water, sewer and water fund accounts as well as park, public safety and general government accounts. In addition, the subdivision will be annexed into the City of Kingsburg Community Facilities District (CFD). The CFD provides additional funding for services to the subdivision such as police, fire, ambulance, emergency response, park and open space, and lighting and landscaping services and facilities.

Prezoning, AE-20 to R-1-7
In accordance with the policies of the Fresno County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo), the City of Kingsburg is required to prezone territory that is requested for annexation. The R-1-7 zone is proposed for the subject territory. This zone is consistent with the "residential single family" designation provided by the NKSP and has been identified as low density residential by the Kingsburg General Plan.

The City of Kingsburg Municipal Code Section 17.88.070 requires that the Planning Commission make findings as to whether the Prezone will achieve the objectives set forth in Section 17.04.020 of the Kingsburg Municipal Code as follows:

A. To provide a zone plan to guide the physical development of the city in such a manner as to achieve progressively the general arrangement of land uses described and depicted in the general plan.

B. To foster a wholesome, serviceable and attractive living environment, the beneficial development of areas, which exhibit conform to objectives, policies, principles and standards of the general plan.

C. To prevent excessive population densities and overcrowding of land with structures.

D. To promote safe, effective traffic circulation system, the provision of adequate off-street parking and truck loading facilities, and the appropriate location of community facilities.

E. To protect and promote appropriately located commercial and industrial activities in order to preserve and strengthen the city’s economic base.

F. To protect and enhance real property values and the city’s natural assets.

G. To ensure unimpeded development of such new urban expansion that is logical, desirable and in conformance with objectives and policies of the general plan.

H. To provide and protect open space in accordance with the policies of the open space element of the general plan, including avoiding the premature development of prime agricultural lands.

At the Planning Commission meeting of December 12, 2024, the Planning Commission found that the proposed Prezone satisfied all the objectives identified in Section 17.04.020 of the Kingsburg Municipal Code. The proposed prezoning is also consistent with the City of Kingsburg' s General Plan and North Kingsburg Specific Plan.

Upon annexation, the subject territory will be classified from the county' s AE-20 zone to Kingsburg' s R-1-7 district.

The R-1-7 district is proposed because all the lots in the proposed subdivision exceed 7,000 square feet.

PUDs (Planned Unit Development) and Tentative Map Information for the Project All development occurring within the NKSP planning area is required to be processed as a planned unit development (PUD). A PUD shall be processed consistent with Chapter 17.76 of the Kingsburg Zoning Ordinance, which is subject to a public hearing before the Planning Commission and notification of surrounding property owners. The Planning Commission decision on the PUD must also be reviewed and approved by the City Council. The purpose of a PUD is described in the Kingsburg Municipal Code, Section 17.76.010 as follows:

17.76.010 - Purposes. Planned Unit Developments (PUDs), involving the careful application of design, are encouraged to achieve a more functional, aesthetically pleasing and harmonious living and working environment within the city which otherwise might not be possible by strict adherence to the regulations of this title. In certain instances, the objectives of the general plan and zoning title may be achieved by the development of planned units which do not conform in all respects with the land use pattern designated on the zone plan or the district regulations prescribed by this title. A planned unit development may include a combination of different dwelling types and/or a variety of land uses, which are made to complement each other and harmonize with existing and proposed land, uses in the vicinity, by design. In order to provide locations for such well-planned developments, the planning commission is empowered to grant use permits for planned unit developments, provided that such developments comply with the regulations prescribed in this article. The commission is also empowered to zone lands for PUD under the provisions of Chapter 17.48 of this title. The approval of a PUD that is not designated by the General Plan is intended to be discretionary in the part of the City rather than an entitlement of a landowner.

Under the NKSP the subject property is designated "Residential Single Family" and is contained within Neighborhood “B" of the Plan. Under the design guidelines of the NKSP, low-density residential development is required to achieve certain general design standards, some required and some permissive. Further, the NKSP Plan indicates that lots between 7,000 and 10,000 square feet will account for the majority of North Kingsburg's residential product type, with 25 percent of the lots required to exceed 10,000 square feet.

The NKSP provides a number of illustrations for proposed typical lot design and building placements. They are not intended to be exhaustive, however, and other building placements may be acceptable, subject to the review and approval by the Planning Commission. The NKSP recognizes that in order to embrace innovation in design, conventional designusedinKingsburg in the pastmaynot be the appropriate designphilosophy going forward. Some of these innovations are described below.
• Require access from 16-foot alleys along arterial streets as an alternative to back-on design; • Eliminate alleys in favor of landscaped pedestrian corridors that are aligned separately from the street;
• Allow an intermingling of various lot sizes to appeal to the full range of age groups being attracted to Kingsburg.

Elevation drawings have been submitted for residential units within the pending subdivision, and most will be from previous West Star subdivisions. Staff has encouraged the developer to continue to offer a variety of models and styles of homes, including alley-loaded housing plans. One concern over time is that the developer’s sales program involves the purchase of the lot before selecting the house plan, encouraging a ‘custom home’ experience. While this is an effective approach, it can lead to buyers picking the same popular model of home adjacent to another. Staff has requested that there be an effort to limit repetitious patterns of the same home within proximity to each other.

The tract map for Tract No. 6480 which is subject to the PUD, identifies 97 single-family residential lots is consistent with Kingsburg's Subdivision Ordinance. Tract No. 6480 is a westerly extension of Tract No. 6421 and a northerly extension of Tract No. 6421 (Kings Estates IV). The average lot size exceeds 9,000 square feet with the largest being over 13,000 square feet. The larger lots in Tract No. 6480 are in the Northwestern quadrant of the Tract. There are 13 corner lots in Tract 6480, which should receive special design treatment under the NKSP. Also under the NKSP, 25 percent of the lots within the NKSP planning area are required to exceed 10,000 square feet. Twenty-five percent of Tract No. 6480 lot sizes exceed 10,000 square feet. A small neighborhood park will occupy a location to the front of the subdivision along 18th Avenue, making it available to all residents within the subdivision. Connectivity to the neighborhood to the south is available along 14th Avenue.

The street width of the interior streets is 60 feet with a curb-to-curb width of 36 feet. Within the street right-of-way the subdivider is proposing 5-foot sidewalks and 7-foot parkways, which will be planted with street trees, which is consistent with NKSP's design philosophy. At the rear of all 97 lots, the subdivider is proposing a standard alley, which has a width of 16 feet.

Tract 6480 will be provided with water by the city. According to the City Engineer, the City has ample water capacity to serve Tract 6480.

The SFK wastewater treatment facility has capacity to treat the effluent generated by the Tract. The type of effluent - residential wastewater - will not create treatment issues for the plant, unlike certain types of industrial users.

Storm water runoff will be conveyed to the onsite proposed drainage basin of 1.34 acres. A grading and drainage plan that will be submitted by the developer will determine how and where the storm water will be managed.

ANNEXATION OF PROJECT INTO THE COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT After completion of the annexation, the following properties (APNs 393-121-37, -42, -43) within Tract 6480 will be added to the Community Facilities District (CFD) No. 2017-01 for Public Services.

As a condition of approval, the vesting Tentative Map No. 6480, and the annexation of the subject territory to the City of Kingsburg, the owners of Tract 6480 has consented to annexation of the properties in Tract 6480 into the CFD. Resolution No. 2017-023 adopted by City Council on June 7, 2017 authorizes the City to annex to CFD 2017-01 properties which will be assessed only for eligible public services, without further public hearings or formal elections upon receipt of written consent from the owner of such property.

CONCLUSIONS:

Annexation
The subject territory is bounded on two sides by land inside the Kingsburg city limits. This annexation essentially takes in an unincorporated island into the city ofKingsburg, with proposed development that is compatible with the surrounding community.

Prezoning
Upon annexation of the subject territory, the territory will be zoned consistent with the land use designation of the NKSP. The NKSP designates the subject territory as low density residential. Kingsburg' s R-1-7 (single family residential, one unit per 7,000 square feet) which is consistent with the low-density residential designation of the NKSP.

Planned Unit Development
The NKSP has developed design standards for development within the NKSP planning area. The NKSP requires all residential development be processed as a planned unit development (PUD). Some of these design standards are mandatory and some are permissive but in general the purpose of the design guidelines is to promote a residential development that is attractive, appreciates in value and enhances the quality of life for residents living within the subdivision.

Staff has reviewed conceptual elevation drawings of homes proposed for lots in Tract No. 6480. When the homebuilder submits house plans to the City, planning staff and the building official will continue to confirm that the house plans are consistent with the design guidelines of the NKSP. Staff is recommending that 25% of the lots contain plans which include alley-loaded garages. This type of residential design is promoted in the NKSP. These lots will be scattered throughout the subdivision and will provide for a more attractive streetscape and break up the design lines within each block.

The applicant is proposing parkways (7-foot) that will be planted with street trees. Staff is not recommending the installation of turf but rather using mulch to cover the parkways thereby reducing the use of water and the cost of mowing the lawn.

Under the NKSP, each subdivision is required to provide pedestrian access to surrounding streets thereby minimizing the use of cars and making for a healthier living environment. Tract No. 6480 meets this policy requirement, by connectivity to the subdivision on the South and future development to the West.

Tract No. 6480 has a .99 acre park located on the Northeast corner, adjacent to Mendocino Avenue, which will provide passive recreation opportunities for the neighborhood. Applicant shall develop the proposed park, which shall be developed as an adaptive park and shall include: Picnic tables, drinking fountain, park sign, play structures (2-5yr and 5-12yr) equipment with shade structures and poured-in-place rubber, benches, iron fencing, one shade gazebo (approximately 500 square foot) with concrete foundation, and landscaping (including turf, shrubs, bushes, and large trees) and other amenities identified by City Staff.

Environmental Review
The "project" encompasses four planning applications - annexation, pre-zoning, planned unit development and tentative subdivision map. An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment 5) was prepared for the project and was available for public comment during the circulation period (October 29-November 27th, 2024). The Planning Commission approved the Initial Study and the accompanying Mitigation Monitoring Program at their meeting of December 12, 2024. One comment letter was received dated November 5, 2024, from the State Department of Toxic Substances Control. All concerns raised in the letter (Attachment 6) are addressed by either existing state and federal law or mitigations in the Mitigation Monitoring Program, Attachment 7.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Tract No. 6480 Map

2. Annexation Resolution 2025-002

3. Prezone Resolution 2025-003

4. Planned Unit Development Resolution 2025-004

5. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project

6. Comment Letter dated November 5, 2025, State Department of Toxic Substances Control

7. Mitigated Monitoring Program for Tract No. 6480

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-002

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF KINGSBURG CITY COUNCIL, INITIATING

PROCEEDINGS FOR THE
ANNEXATION OF 42.52 ACRES TO THE CITY OF KINGSBURG AND SELMAKINGSBURG-FOWLER SANITATION DISTRICT, AND DETACHMENT FROM THE KINGS

RIVER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, FRESNO COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND THE CONSOLIDATED IRRIGATION DISTRICT.

WHEREAS, the Kingsburg City Council did conduct a duly-noticed public hearing at their regularly scheduled meeting of January 15, 2025, accepting written and oral testimony both for and against the initiation of proceedings for the annexation of 42.52 acres into the City of Kingsburg; and WHEREAS, the subject territory is contained in the following APNs: APNs 393-37, -42, -43 and -46 (42.52 acres); and
WHEREAS, the City of Kingsburg desires to initiate proceedings pursuant to the Cortese-KnoxHertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, Division 3, commencing with Section 56000 of the California Government Code, for the proposed change of organization; and WHEREAS, the specific changes or organization requested consists of annexation to the City of Kingsburg and detachment from the Kings River Conservation District, Fresno County Fire Protection District and Consolidated Irrigation District; and
WHEREAS, the territory proposed to be changed is uninhabited according to information received from the Elections Officer; and
WHEREAS, a written description and map of the boundaries of the territory is set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein; and WHEREAS, this proposal is consistent with the sphere of influence (SOI) of the City of Kingsburg; and
WHEREAS, the reasons for this proposed change are as follows:

1. The subject territory is within the SOI of the city of Kingsburg.

2. The subject territory is bounded on two sides by urban development that is within the Kingsburg city limits.

3. Sewer, water and storm drainage infrastructure is available to the subject territory.

4. The subject territory is within the service area of Kingsburg police and fire services.

5. The subject territory is within the Kingsburg General Plan and North Kingsburg Specific Plan planning areas.

6. The subject territory will be developed consistent with the land use designations outlined in the North Kingsburg Specific Plan.

WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the proposed changes of organization in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration has identified mandatory findings of significance which identify less than significant impacts on the environment with mitigations incorporated as part of a mitigation, monitoring and reporting program.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Kingsburg hereby initiates the annexation of land generally located on the southwest corner of Mendocino and Caruthers Avenues, containing approximately 42.25 acres for the change of organization of territory as described in Exhibit A to this Resolution in the manner provided by the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, and approves the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and accompanying Mitigation Monitoring Program for the annexation.

BE IT RESOLVED FURTHER: The annexation of the subject territory into the City is conditioned upon the portion of the subject territory identified on Vesting Tentative Map No. 6480 (“Tentative Map Property”) being annexed into and becoming part of Community Facilities District 2017-01 (“CFD 2017-01”) created by City Council Resolution No. 2017-023 adopted by the City Council on June 7, 2017. CFD 2017-01 authorizes the City to annex the Tentative Map Property into CFD 2017- 01, which property will be assessed only for eligible public services, without further public hearings or formal elections upon receipt of written consent from the owner of the Tentative Map Property. The owner of the Tentative Map Property has executed a written consent, consenting to the annexation of all the Tentative Map Property into CFD 2017-01 and any tax imposed upon the Tentative Map Property used to fund and finance authorized services eligible to be funded and financed by CFD 2017-01.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of January 2025, at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kingsburg by the following vote:
******************************
I, Abigail Palsgaard, City Clerk of the City of Kingsburg, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution 2025-001 was duly adopted and passed by the Kingsburg City Council at a regular meeting of said Council on the 15th day of January, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmember(s):

NOES: Councilmember(s):

ABSENT: Councilmember(s):

ABSTAIN: Councilmember(s):
_____________________________
Abigail Palsgaard, City Clerk
City of Kingsburg
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-003

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF KINGSBURG CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE PREZONE OF 42.52 ACRES, LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MENDOCINO AND CARUTHERS AVENUES IN KINGSBURG.

WHEREAS, West Star Construction is requesting a prezoning of approximately 42.52 acres totaling four parcels (APNs 393-121-37, -42, -43, -46) of land currently located in the County of Fresno, but proposed for annexation into the City of Kingsburg; and WHEREAS, as part of a concurrent request for annexation of said 42.52 acres into the City of Kingsburg, the applicants are requesting a prezoning of the subject territory from Fresno County’s AE20 (exclusive agriculture, 20-acre minimum) district to Kingsburg’s R-1-7 (single family residential, one unit per 7,000 square feet) district; and
WHEREAS, the subject territory is currently vacant but was farmed in years past; and WHEREAS, the subject territory is surrounded on two sides by land that is inside city limits of Kingsburg and developed with residential uses; and
WHEREAS, property owners within 300 feet of the subject territory were notified of the meeting and a public hearing notice was published in The Business Journal December 27, 2024, which is fifteen (15) days prior to the City Council meeting of January 15, 2025; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the proposed prezone; and
WHEREAS, the Kingsburg City Council held a public hearing on the prezone at their regularly scheduled meeting of January 15, 2025, reviewed the staff report and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and the accompanying Mitigation Monitoring Program, and accepted public testimony on the proposed prezone.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Kingsburg City Council, after considering all the evidence presented, made the following findings in evaluating this prezone request:

1. The subject territory is inside Kingsburg’s sphere of influence (SOI) and within the planning area of the North Kingsburg Specific Plan.

2. The proposed prezoning to the R-1-7 district is consistent with the land use designations of the Kingsburg Land Use Element and the North Kingsburg Specific Plan.

3. An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the prezone, including the said prezone request, and a Mitigation Monitoring Program has been prepared.

4. The prezone will not have an adverse impact on the public’s health, safety or welfare.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Kingsburg City Council approves the prezone of the subject territory acres from the county’s AE-20 district to Kingsburg’s R-1-7 district for four properties (42.52 acres) located on the southwest corner of Mendocino and Caruthers Avenues to the City of Kingsburg as shown on Exhibit A, attached.
******************************
I, Abigail Palsgaard, City Clerk of the City of Kingsburg, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution 2025-001 was duly adopted and passed by the Kingsburg City Council at a regular meeting of said Council on the 15th day of January, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmember(s):

NOES: Councilmember(s):

ABSENT: Councilmember(s):

ABSTAIN: Councilmember(s):
_____________________________
Abigail Palsgaard, City Clerk
City of Kingsburg

EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-004

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF KINGSBURG CITY COUNCIL AFFIRMING THE CITY OF KINGSBURG PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 2024-01 FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND

ASSOCIATED OPEN SPACE USES, LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MENDOCINO AND CARUTHERS AVENUES IN KINGSBURG.

WHEREAS, THE Kingsburg Planning Commission did consider during its regular meeting on December 12, 2024, the application of West Star Construction, for a Planned Unit Development for 97 single-family residential lots and associated open space uses on 33.27 acres located on three parcels on the southwest corner of Mendocino and Caruthers Avenues in Kingsburg; and WHEREAS, property owners within 300 feet of the properties subject to the Planned Unit Development were notified of the meeting and a public hearing notice was published in The Business Journal fifteen (15) days prior to the Planning Commission’s meeting of December 12, 2024; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the Planned Unit Development 2024-01; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Planned Unit Development 2024-01, reviewed the staff report and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and the accompanying Mitigation Monitoring Program, and accepted public testimony both for and against approval of Planned Unit Development 2024-01.

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after considering all the evidence presented, made the following findings, below, as required by Section 17.76.070 (E) of the Kingsburg Municipal Code in evaluating the Planned Unit Development request:

1. That the proposed location of the PUD is in accordance with the objectives of the zoning title.

The subject territory is inside Kingsburg’s sphere of influence (SOI) and within the planning area of the North Kingsburg Specific Plan and is consistent with the land use designations of the Kingsburg Land Use Element and the North Kingsburg Specific Plan.

2. That the proposed location of the PUD and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to public health, safety and welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.

3. That the proposed PUD will comply with each of the applicable provisions of Section

17.76.070.

4. That the standards of housing density, site area and dimensions, site coverage, yard spaces, height of structures, distance between structures, off-street parking and off-street loading facilities, landscaped areas and street design will produce an environment of stable and desirable character consistent with the objectives of the zoning ordinance, and will not generate more traffic than the streets in the vicinity can carry without congestion and will not overload utilities.

Public improvements within the project area, including gateways, streetscapes, parks, walls, fences and off street pedestrian corridors shall conform to the North Kingsburg Specific Plan’s Design Guidelines-V-27 to V-35.

5. That the combination of different dwelling types and/or variety of land uses in the development will complement each other and will harmonize with existing and proposed land uses in the vicinity. Residential dwellings constructed within the project area shall comply with the North Kingsburg Specific Plan’s Design Guidelines V-13 to V-19.

6. That the proposed PUD will satisfactorily mitigate potential environmental impacts in accordance with the provisions of Section 17.72.080 of the Kingsburg Municipal Code by the approval of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and the accompanying Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project.

7. The project will not have an adverse impact on the public’s health, safety or welfare.

WHEREAS Section 17.76.080 of the Municipal Code provides the City Council the right to affirm, revise or modify the Planning Commission’s decision on the Planned Unit Development 2024-01.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Kingsburg City Council hereby affirms the decision of the Kingsburg Planning Commission approving Planned Unit Development 2024-01. ******************************
I, Abigail Palsgaard, City Clerk of the City of Kingsburg, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution 2025-001 was duly adopted and passed by the Kingsburg City Council at a regular meeting of said Council on the 15th day of January, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmember(s):

NOES: Councilmember(s):

ABSENT: Councilmember(s):

ABSTAIN: Councilmember(s):
_____________________________
Abigail Palsgaard, City Clerk
City of Kingsburg

CITY OF KINGSBURG

KINGS ESTATES V

DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION
OCTOBER 2024
PREPARED FOR:

City of Kingsburg
1401 Draper Street
Kingsburg, CA 93631
PREPARED BY:

PROVOST & PRITCHARD CONSULTING GROUP
COPYRIGHT 2024 BY PROVOST & PRITCHARD CONSULTING GROUP ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group expressly reserves its common law copyright and other applicable property rights to this document. This document is not to be reproduced, changed, or copied in any form or manner whatsoever, nor are they to be assigned to a third party without first obtaining the written permission and consent of Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group In the event of unauthorized reuse of the information contained herein by a third party, the third party shall hold the firm of Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group harmless, and shall bear the cost of Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group's legal fees associated with defending and enforcing these rights.

Report Prepared for:

City of Kingsburg
1401 Draper Street
Kingsburg, CA 93631
Contact:

Holly Owen, Community Development Director
(559) 897-5328 ext. 1103
Report Prepared by:

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
Project Manager: Wyatt Czeshinski
QA/QC: Amy Wilson
Lead Writer: Kyler Dill
Writer: Alejandra Lopez Gonzalez
Biologist: Shaylea Stark
VMT Analysis: Jarred Olsen
GIS: Benjamin Toews
Administrative Support: Morganne Colvard
Contact:

Wyatt Czeshinski
(559) 449-2700
City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
www.provostandpritchard.com Page i

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

1.1 Regulatory information ............................................................................................................1-1

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

2.1 Project Background ..................................................................................................................2-1

2.1.1 Project Title .............................................................................................................2-1

2.1.2 Lead Agency Name and Address .............................................................................2-1

2.1.3 Contact Person and Phone Number........................................................................2-1

2.1.4 CEQA Consultant .....................................................................................................2-1

2.1.5 Project Location.......................................................................................................2-1

2.1.6 General Plan Designation and Zoning......................................................................2-1

2.1.7 Description of the Project........................................................................................2-1

2.1.8 Site and Surrounding Land Uses and Settings .........................................................2-3

2.1.9 Other Public Agencies Whose Approval May be Required ......................................2-3

2.1.10 Consultation with California Native American Tribes..............................................2-3 Chapter 3 Determination ............................................................................................................. 3-1

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

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

4.1 Aesthetics.................................................................................................................................4-1

4.1.1 Baseline Conditions .................................................................................................4-1

4.1.2 Impact Analysis........................................................................................................4-1

4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources .........................................................................................4-3

4.2.1 Baseline Conditions .................................................................................................4-3

4.2.2 Impact Analysis........................................................................................................4-6

4.3 Air Quality.................................................................................................................................4-8

4.3.1 Baseline Conditions .................................................................................................4-8

4.3.2 Impact Analysis......................................................................................................4-12

4.4 Biological Resources...............................................................................................................4-14

4.4.1 Baseline Conditions ...............................................................................................4-14

4.4.2 Impact Analysis......................................................................................................4-17

4.4.3 Mitigation ..................................................................................................................4-18

4.5 Cultural Resources..................................................................................................................4-20

4.5.1 Baseline Conditions ...............................................................................................4-20

4.5.2 Impact Analysis......................................................................................................4-20

4.5.3 Mitigation ..................................................................................................................4-21

4.6 Energy ....................................................................................................................................4-22

4.6.1 Baseline Conditions...............................................................................................4-22

4.6.2 Impact Analysis......................................................................................................4-22

4.7 Geology and Soils ...................................................................................................................4-24 City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
www.provostandpritchard.com Page ii

4.7.1 Baseline Conditions ...............................................................................................4-24

4.7.2 Impact Analysis......................................................................................................4-27

4.7.3 Mitigation ..............................................................................................................4-28

4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.....................................................................................................4-29

4.8.1 Baseline Conditions ...............................................................................................4-29

4.8.2 Impact Analysis......................................................................................................4-30

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials..........................................................................................4-32

4.9.1 Baseline Conditions ...............................................................................................4-32

4.9.2 Impact Analysis......................................................................................................4-33

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality .................................................................................................4-35

4.10.1 Baseline Conditions ...............................................................................................4-35

4.10.2 Impact Analysis......................................................................................................4-38

4.11 Land Use and Planning ...........................................................................................................4-40

4.11.1 Baseline Conditions ...............................................................................................4-40

4.11.2 Impact Analysis......................................................................................................4-40

4.12 Mineral Resources..................................................................................................................4-41

4.12.1 Baseline Conditions ...............................................................................................4-41

4.12.2 Impact Analysis......................................................................................................4-41

4.13 Noise ......................................................................................................................................4-43

4.13.1 Baseline Conditions ...............................................................................................4-43

4.13.2 Impact Analysis......................................................................................................4-43

4.14 Population and Housing .........................................................................................................4-45

4.14.1 Baseline Conditions ...............................................................................................4-45

4.14.2 Impact Analysis......................................................................................................4-45

4.15 Public Services........................................................................................................................4-47

4.15.1 Baseline Conditions ...............................................................................................4-47

4.15.2 Impact Analysis......................................................................................................4-48

4.16 Recreation ..............................................................................................................................4-50

4.16.1 Baseline Conditions ...............................................................................................4-50

4.16.2 Impact Analysis......................................................................................................4-50

4.17 Transportation........................................................................................................................4-51

4.17.1 Baseline Conditions ...............................................................................................4-51

4.17.2 Impact Analysis......................................................................................................4-51

4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources........................................................................................................4-53

4.18.1 Baseline Conditions ...............................................................................................4-53

4.18.2 Impact Asessment .................................................................................................4-54

4.18.3 Mitigation ..............................................................................................................4-54

4.19 Utilities and Service Systems..................................................................................................4-55

4.19.1 Baseline Conditions ...............................................................................................4-55 City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
www.provostandpritchard.com Page iii

4.19.2 Impact Analysis......................................................................................................4-55

4.20 Wildfire...................................................................................................................................4-57

4.20.1 Baseline Conditions ...............................................................................................4-57

4.20.2 Impact Analysis......................................................................................................4-58

4.21 CEQA Mandatory Findings of Significance..............................................................................4-59

4.21.1 Statement of Findings............................................................................................4-59 Chapter 5 Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program ........................................................... 5-1 Chapter 6 References .................................................................................................................. 6-1 City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
www.provostandpritchard.com Page iv

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1: Regional Location Map.............................................................................................................2-4 Figure 2-2: Aerial Map................................................................................................................................2-5 Figure 2-3: Topo Quad Map .......................................................................................................................2-6 Figure 2-4: General Plan Land Use Designation Map .................................................................................2-7 Figure 2-5: Current Zone District Map........................................................................................................2-8 Figure 2-6: Prezoning Map .........................................................................................................................2-9 Figure 4-1: Farmland Map..........................................................................................................................4-5 Figure 4-2: Soil Map .................................................................................................................................4-26 Figure 4-3: FEMA Flood Map....................................................................................................................4-37

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1: Existing Uses, General Plan Designation, & Zone Districts of Surrounding Properties ..............2-3 Table 4-1: Aesthetics Impacts.....................................................................................................................4-1 Table 4-2: Agriculture and Forest Impacts .................................................................................................4-3 Table 4-3: Air Quality Impacts....................................................................................................................4-8 Table 4-4: Summary of Ambient Air Quality Standards and Attainment Designation ..............................4-10 Table 4-5: Project-Level Air Quality CEQA Thresholds of Significance......................................................4-11 Table 4-6: Unmitigated Short-Term Construction Generated Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants..........4-12 Table 4-7: Unmitigated Long-Term Operational Generated Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants.............4-12 Table 4-8: Maximum Daily Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants................................................................4-12 Table 4-9: Biological Resources Impacts...................................................................................................4-14 Table 4-10: List of Special Status Species with Potential to Occur on the site and/or in the Vicinity .......4-15 Table 4-11: Cultural Resources Impacts...................................................................................................4-20 Table 4-12: Energy Impacts......................................................................................................................4-22 Table 4-13: Geology and Soils Impacts.....................................................................................................4-24 Table 4-14: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts......................................................................................4-29 Table 4-15: Short Term Construction Related GHG Emissions.................................................................4-31 Table 4-16: Long Term Operational Related GHG Emissions....................................................................4-31 Table 4-17: Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts............................................................................4-32 Table 4-18: Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts...................................................................................4-35 Table 4-19: Land Use and Planning Impacts.............................................................................................4-40 Table 4-20: Mineral Resources Impacts ...................................................................................................4-41 Table 4-21: Noise Impacts........................................................................................................................4-43 Table 4-22: Population and Housing Impacts...........................................................................................4-45 Table 4-23: Public Services.......................................................................................................................4-47 Table 4-24: Recreation Impacts................................................................................................................4-50 Table 4-25: Transportation Impacts.........................................................................................................4-51 Table 4-26: Tribal Cultural Resources Impacts .........................................................................................4-53 Table 4-27: Utilities and Service Systems Impacts....................................................................................4-55 Table 4-28: Wildfire Impacts ....................................................................................................................4-57 Table 4-29: CEQA Mandatory Findings of Significance.............................................................................4-59 Table 5-1: Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program.......................................................................5-2 City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
www.provostandpritchard.com Page v

APPENDICES
Appendix A: CalEEMod Output Files
Appendix B: Biological Resources Memo
Appendix C: Cultural Resources
Appendix D: Vehicle Miles Traveled Memo
City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
www.provostandpritchard.com Page vi

ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS
AB --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assembly Bill ALS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Advanced Life Support APN -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assessor’s Parcel Number BPS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Best Performance Standards CalEEMod---------------------------------------------------------- California Emissions Estimator Modeling (software) CalFire ----------------------------------------------------------- California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CARB --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------California Air Resources Board CCAA----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- California Clean Air Act CEQA------------------------------------------------------------------------------------California Environmental Quality Act CFCs--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cholorfluorocarbons CFD------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Community Facilities District CGS---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------California Geologic Survey CH4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Methane CHRIS ----------------------------------------------------------------California Historical Resources Information System City --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- City of Kingsburg CO ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carbone Monoxide CO2 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carbon dioxide CO2e--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Carbon dioxide equivalent County-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------County of Fresno DOC -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Department of Conservation DTSC ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Department of Toxic Substances Control EIR----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Environmental Impact Report FEMA ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Federal Emergency Management Agency FMMP ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program Fresno LAFCo -------------------------------------------------------------- Fresno Local Agency Formation Commission GHG---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Greenhouse Gas GSA--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Groundwater Sustainability Agency GWP ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Global Warming Potential HFCs----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Hydrofluorocarbons IS-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Initial Study IS/MND-----------------------------------------------------------------------Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration km------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ kilometers MMRP ---------------------------------------------------------------------Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MND ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mitigated Negative Declaration MRZ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Mineral Resource Zone MT-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Metric Tons N2O------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nitrous Oxide NAHC --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Native American Heritage Commission ND-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Negative Declaration NO2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nitrogen dioxide NOx ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Oxides of nitrogen O3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Ozone Pb--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lead PFCs------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Perfluorocarbons PG&E------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pacific Gas& Electric Company PM10------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ particulate matter 10 microns in size PM2.5 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- particulate matter 2.5 microns in size ppb -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------parts per billion City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
www.provostandpritchard.com Page vii
ppm ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------parts per million Project--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Kings Estates V R-1-7 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- R-1-7 Single Family Zone District ROG ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Reactive Organic Gases RTP ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Regional Transportation Plan SJVAB ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- San Joaquin Valley Air Basin SJVAPCD------------------------------------------------------------------San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District SKFCSD ---------------------------------------------------------------Selma Kingsburg Fowler County Sanitation District SO2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sulfur Dioxide SSJVIC------------------------------------------------------------------- Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center SR------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------State Route SRA -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------State Responsibility Area SWPPP------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan SWRCB ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- State Water Resources Control Board TSM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Tentative Subdivision Map USEPA -------------------------------------------------------------------United States Environmental Protection Agency UST ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------underground storage tank UWMP--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Urban Water Management Plan μg/m3 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------micrograms per cubic meter City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 1: Introduction
www.provostandpritchard.com 1-1
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group (Provost & Pritchard) has prepared this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) on behalf of the City of Kingsburg (City) to address the environmental effects of the Kings Estates V Project (Project). This document has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. The City is the CEQA lead agency for this Project.

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

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

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

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

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

City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 1: Introduction
www.provostandpritchard.com 1-2
The Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Model, Biological Resources Information, Cultural Resources Information, and Vehicle Miles Traveled Memo are provided as technical Appendix A, Appendix B, Appendix C, and Appendix D respectively at the end of this document.

City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 2: Project Description
www.provostandpritchard.com 2-1
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND

2.1.1 PROJECT TITLE
Kings Estates V

2.1.2 LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
City of Kingsburg
1401 Draper Street
Kingsburg, CA, 93631

2.1.3 CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER
Holly Owen
Community Development Director
(559) 897-5328

2.1.4 CEQA CONSULTANT
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
Wyatt Czeshinski, Environmental Project Manager
(559) 449-2700

2.1.5 PROJECT LOCATION
The Project is located immediately north of the city limits of Kingsburg, California, approximately 19 miles southeast of Fresno and 20 miles northwest of Visalia (see Figure 2-1 and Figure 2-2). The Project site is comprised of Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APN) 393-121-37, -42, -43, and -46. The centroid of the Project site is 36° 32’ 16.04” N, 119° 33’ 08.27” W.

2.1.6 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND ZONING
The Project site is designated Low Density Residential by the City’s General Plan and is currently zoned Exclusive Agriculture (20 acres) by the County of Fresno (County).1 2

2.1.7 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
West Star Construction Company, Inc. has proposed a new Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM) on a site to the north of the current Kingsburg city limits, comprising of three parcels, approximately 33.27 acres in size (APNs 393-121-37, -42, & -43). In order for the Project to be developed within the City of Kingsburg, each of the aforementioned parcels would be required to be annexed into the City of Kingsburg. Additionally, a fourth parcel, APN 393-121-46 (9.25 acres in size), would be annexed into the Kingsburg city limits as a part of the Project, however this parcel has not been proposed for development at this time. The parcels that would be developed have historically been used for agricultural use. Currently the site contains one singlefamily residence that would be demolished as a part of the Project. APN 393-121-37 is comprised of natural vegetation, APN 393-121-42 currently contains vineyards that would be removed as a part of the Project, and APN 393-121-43 contains a single-family residence that would be demolished, along with any trees and 1 (City of Kingsburg, 2014)
2 (County of Fresno, 2024)
City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 2: Project Description
www.provostandpritchard.com 2-2
other vegetation surrounding it. The Project involves several approvals, each described in more detail below.

2.1.7.1 TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
The proposed TSM would result in the subdivision of the site into 97 single-family residential lots, ranging from approximately 7,360 square feet (sqft) in size, to approximately 13,256 sqft in size. The proposed subdivision would be made up of a mix of one- and two-story homes. Additionally, the TSM proposes an approximately 43,477 sqft park (0.99 acres) and an approximately 58,411 sqft basin (1.34 acres) that would serve the residential Project. The proposed stormwater basin would connect to an existing basin immediately south of the site. The TSM proposes vehicular connection points to South Mendocino Avenue at two locations to the east, as well as connection to 14th Avenue and 17th Avenue at two locations to the south. Internally, the proposed subdivision would include streets of 60 feet in width and alleyways of 16 feet in width. Additionally, land is proposed for right of way dedication along South Mendocino Avenue at a width of 48 feet. The site is located on land designated as Low Density Residential by the City of Kingsburg General Plan. The TSM would be developed meeting the density requirements of the Low Density Residential land use.

2.1.7.2 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Planned Unit Developments allow for flexibility when it comes to zoning standards in order to produce a more aesthetically pleasing, functional, and harmonious living environment. The Project would be approved as a Planned Unit Development, allowing it to be developed in a manner which allows for design to deviate from the strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance, however it will provide a finished product that enhances the character of the site more so than if the Project were developed strictly following the zone district requirements. With approval of a Planned Unit Development, the TSM may be developed to standards that differ the base zone district standards for site area, dimensions, coverage, yard space, setbacks, and parking.

2.1.7.3 PREZONING
As previously mentioned, the Project site is not currently located within the Kingsburg City limits. As a result, in tandem with being annexed to the City of Kingsburg, the Project site must be prezoned to a City zoning district. Each of the four parcels that would be annexed into the City are designated as Low Density Residential land uses by the City’s General Plan. As a result, the Project would Prezone these four parcels to the R-1-7 zone district from their existing County of Fresno Exclusive Agricultural designation. The R-1-7 zone district is consistent with the site’s Low Density Residential land use designation.

2.1.7.4 ANNEXATION
Upon approval of the Project by the City of Kingsburg City Council, the annexation of the Project site would be initiated with the Fresno County Local Agency Formation Commission (Fresno LAFCo). The entire four parcel, 42.52-acre site would be annexed into the City of Kingsburg. Additionally, the Project site would detach from the Kings River Conservation District, Fresno County Fire Protection District, and the Consolidated Irrigation District. With annexation to the City of Kingsburg, the Project site would also be annexed into the City of Kingsburg Community Facilities District (CFD), providing public services to the site.

The CFD provides police, fire, ambulance, emergency response, park and open space, lighting and landscaping services and facilities.

City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 2: Project Description
www.provostandpritchard.com 2-3

2.1.8 SITE AND SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTINGS
Table 2-1: Existing Uses, General Plan Designation, & Zone Districts of Surrounding Properties Direction from
Project Site Existing Use General Plan Designation Zone District NORTH Agriculture and vacant Agriculture (County) AE-20 - Exclusive Agriculture (County)
EAST Agriculture and vacant Low Density Residential AE-20 - Exclusive Agriculture (County) and R-1-7
SOUTH Residential neighborhood
and open space
Low Density Residential and
Open Space RCO Open Space and R-1-7
WEST Agriculture and vacant Low Density Residential and Semi Public
AE-20 - Exclusive Agriculture
(County)

2.1.9 OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL MAY BE REQUIRED • County of Fresno
• Fresno Local Agency Formation Commission
• San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District

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

The City of Kingsburg has not received any written correspondence from a Tribe pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1 requesting notification of proposed Project.

City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 2: Project Description
www.provostandpritchard.com 2-4
Figure 2-1: Regional Location Map
City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 2: Project Description
www.provostandpritchard.com 2-5
Figure 2-2: Aerial Map
City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 2: Project Description
www.provostandpritchard.com 2-6
Figure 2-3: Topo Quad Map
City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 2: Project Description
www.provostandpritchard.com 2-7
Figure 2-4: General Plan Land Use Designation Map
City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 2: Project Description
www.provostandpritchard.com 2-8
Figure 2-5: Current Zone District Map
City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 2: Project Description
www.provostandpritchard.com 2-9
Figure 2-6: Prezoning Map
City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 3: Determination
www.provostandpritchard.com 3-1
CHAPTER 3 DETERMINATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 3: Determination
www.provostandpritchard.com 3-2

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

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

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

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

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

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

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. _______________________________________ _____________________________ Signature Date
October 24, 2024
_______________________________________ Holly R Owen
Printed Name/Position
City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-1
CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

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

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Have substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those
that are experienced from publicly
accessible vantage point). If the project
is in an urbanized area, would the
project conflict with applicable zoning
and other regulations governing scenic
quality?
d) Create a new source of substantial light
or glare which would adversely affect
day or nighttime views in the area?

4.1.1 BASELINE CONDITIONS
The Project site is located adjacent to the City of Kingsburg within Fresno County. The site is surrounded by residential development to the south and southeast, as well as agricultural and vacant land to the west, east, and north. The Kingsburg General Plan does not list any specific scenic vistas, nor does the Fresno County General Plan Background Report identify one within the vicinity of the Project site.3 Agriculture and views of the Sierra Nevada Mountains are generally regarded as a scenic resource within Fresno County.

4.1.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS
a) Have substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.

Agriculture and views of the Sierra Nevada Mountains are generally regarded as resources of aesthetic value within the County. The Project would result in the construction of 97 single-family residences on a parcel that is presently vacant, in agricultural use, and includes one residence that would be demolished as part of the Project. As mentioned above, neither the City nor the County have designated any scenic vistas on or in the immediate vicinity of the Project site. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
3 (County of Fresno 2000)
City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-2
No Impact. The Project would not be located on or in the vicinity of a State scenic highway. The nearest officially designated State scenic highway is State Route (SR) 180, located approximately 13.8 miles to the northeast of the Project site.4 As such, SR 180 is not visible from the site, nor would it be impacted in any way from the Project. Therefore, there would be no impact. c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project would result in the annexation and prezoning of four parcels to the City of Kingsburg. Subsequent to these actions, construction of the proposed residences, park, basin, landscaping, and roadways would be required to meet all applicable City development standards. The architectural renderings, elevations, and color schemes of the 97 single-family residences would be developed in a manner not to degrade the existing visual character. The implementation of the Project would not degrade the setting; it would provide development intended to be consistent with the character of the neighboring residential development. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less than Significant Impact. Development of the site would not create a new source of substantial light or glare within the area. The Project would result in the development of a residential subdivision on land that abuts similar existing developments. Further, the site is planned for residential development by the City’s General Plan. Prior to construction a lighting plan would be required to be reviewed and approved by the city Engineer. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 4 (California Department of Transportation, 2018)
City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-3

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

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland
(as defined by Public Resources Code section
4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code
section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion
of forest land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

4.2.1 BASELINE CONDITIONS
The Project site is currently located in Fresno County, northwest of the City of Kingsburg. Fresno County and the larger San Joaquin Valley as a whole is one of the largest producers of agricultural products in the world and relies on its agricultural industry to support the regional economy. The Project site has historically been used for agricultural production, and currently contains some vineyards that would be removed as a part of the Project but is primarily vacant.

The California Department of Conservation’s (DOC) 2012 Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) is a non-regulatory program that produces "Important Farmland" maps and statistical data used for analyzing impacts on California’s agricultural resources. The Important Farmland maps identify eight land use categories, five of which are agriculture related: prime farmland, farmland of Statewide importance, unique farmland, farmland of local importance, and grazing land – rated according to soil quality and irrigation status. The eight categories are summarized below5:
• PRIME FARMLAND (P): Farmland with the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain long term agricultural production. This land has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date. • FARMLAND OF STATEWIDE IMPORTANCE (S): Farmland similar to Prime Farmland but with minor shortcomings, such as greater slopes or less ability to store soil moisture. Land must have been 5 (California Department of Conservation, 2022)
City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-4
used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.
• UNIQUE FARMLAND (U): Farmland of lesser quality soils used for the production of the State's leading agricultural crops. This land is usually irrigated but may include non- irrigated orchards or vineyards as found in some climatic zones in California. Land must have been cropped at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.
• FARMLAND OF LOCAL IMPORTANCE (L): Land of importance to the local agricultural economy as determined by each county's board of supervisors and a local advisory committee. • GRAZING LAND (G): Land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of livestock. The minimum mapping unit for Grazing Land is 40 acres.
• URBAN AND BUILT-UP LAND (D): Land occupied by structures with a building density of at least 1 unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately 6 structures to a 10-acre parcel. This land is used for residential, industrial, commercial, institutional, public administrative purposes, railroad and other transportation yards, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment, water control structures, and other developed purposes.
• OTHER LAND (X): Land not included in any other mapping category. Common examples include low density rural developments; brush, timber, wetland, and riparian areas not suitable for livestock grazing; confined livestock, poultry or aquaculture facilities; strip mines, borrow pits; and water bodies smaller than 40 acres. Vacant and nonagricultural land surrounded on all sides by urban development and greater than 40 acres is mapped as Other Land. • WATER (W): Perennial water bodies with an extent of at least 40 acres.

The DOC identifies the site as consisting of land that is Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Farmland of Local Potential.6 No Williamson Act contract parcels exist on the site.7
6 (California Department of Conservation, 2022)
7 (California Department of Conservation, 2024)
City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-5
Figure 4-1: Farmland Map
City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-6

4.2.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
Less than Significant Impact. As mentioned above, the Project site is designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Farmland of Local Potential (see Figure 4-1).

The Project would result in the conversion of this land to a non-agricultural use which would constitute a significant environmental impact under CEQA. However, while the Project would result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance, the City of Kingsburg General Plan and EIR acknowledges that significant environmental impacts would result from the buildout of the General Plan and the conversion of agricultural lands to urban uses. Within this acknowledgement, the General Plan and EIR states that if approved, the approving body would be required to make a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093.8 The General Plan and EIR was adopted in July of 1992, at which time a Statement of Overriding Considerations would have been adopted, identifying that buildout of the General Plan would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to agricultural resources due to future development under the General Plan, but that the benefits of the future buildout of the site outweigh the impacts to agricultural resources on-site. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is zoned AE20 - Exclusive Agriculture by the County of Fresno. The Project site is not under a Williamson Act contract.9 While the Project would result in the conversion of land zoned for agriculture to R-1-7, the prezoning of the site to R-1-7 promotes consistency with the site’s General Plan designation of Low Density Residential. As a result, the City’s previously conducted analysis has already contemplated the conversion of the site from an agricultural use within the County to a residential use within the City. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? No Impact. The Project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. The site is currently zoned AE20 - Exclusive Agriculture by the County and would be prezoned R-1-7 as a part of the Project. Additionally, no forest or timberland exists on the site. Therefore, there would be no impact. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. The Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to nonforest use as forest land does not exist within the Project site. The site consists of vacant and agricultural property, which is adjacent to urban uses to the south, and one single-family residence. The site is planned for residential use by the Kingsburg General Plan. Therefore, there would be no impact. 8 (City of Kingsburg, 1992)
9 (California Department of Conservation, 2024)
City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-7
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Less than Significant Impact. The Project would not involve other changes in the existing environment, which due to their location or nature, would result in the conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. As discussed above, the Project would result in the loss of Prime Farmland and the conversion of the site from a County agricultural zoning designation to a City residential zoning designation. Due to its consistency with the adopted General Plan and EIR, these would not be considered significant for this Project. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-8

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

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of the applicable air quality plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?

4.3.1 BASELINE CONDITIONS
The Project site is located within the boundaries of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) and the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB). The SJVAB is positioned within the San Joaquin Valley of California. The San Joaquin Valley is bounded by the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range to the east and the Coastal Mountain Range to the west. Wind within the SJVAB typically channels south-southwest during the summer months, while wind flows to the north-northwest during the winter months. Wind velocity for the region is considered low for an area of such size.10 Due to a lack of strong wind and the natural confinement of the mountain ranges surrounding the SJVAB, the region experiences some of the worst air quality in the world.

Regulatory Attainment Designations
Under the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), the California Air Resources Board (CARB) is required to designate areas of the State as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassified with respect to applicable standards. An “attainment” designation for an area signifies that pollutant concentrations did not violate the applicable standard in that area. A “nonattainment” designation indicates that a pollutant concentration violated the applicable standard at least once, excluding those occasions when a violation was caused by an exceptional event, as defined in the criteria. Depending on the frequency and severity of pollutants exceeding applicable standards, the nonattainment designation can be further classified as serious nonattainment, severe nonattainment, or extreme nonattainment, with extreme nonattainment being the most severe of the classifications. An “unclassified” designation signifies that the data does not support either an attainment or nonattainment designation. The CCAA divides districts into moderate, serious, and severe air pollution categories, with increasingly stringent control requirements mandated for each category.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) designates areas for ozone, CO, and NO2 as “does not meet the primary standards,” “cannot be classified,” or “better than national standards.” For SO2, areas are designated as “does not meet the primary standards,” “does not meet the secondary standards,” “cannot be classified,” or “better than national standards.” However, the CARB terminology of attainment, nonattainment, and unclassified is more frequently used. The USEPA uses the same subcategories for nonattainment status: serious, severe, and extreme. In 1991, USEPA assigned new 10 (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 2012) City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-9
nonattainment designations to areas that had previously been classified as Group I, II, or III for PM10 based on the likelihood that they would violate national PM10 standards. All other areas are designated “unclassified.”
According to the USEPA, Fresno County was in non-attainment for two pollutant concentrations, with PM2.5 (2012) being classified as in serious non-attainment, and 8-hour Ozone (2015) classified as being in extreme non-attainment as of September 6th, 2024.11
11 (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2024) City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-10
Table 4-4: Summary of Ambient Air Quality Standards and Attainment Designation Pollutant Averaging
Time
State
Standard
Federal
Standard
State
Attainment
Status
Federal
Attainment
Status
O3 1 hour 0.09 ppm N/A Nonattainment/
Severe
N/A
O3 8 hours 0.070 ppm 0.070 ppm
(4th highest in 3 years)
Nonattainment Nonattainment/
Extreme
CO 1 hour 20 ppm 35 ppm Attainment/
Unclassified
Attainment/
Unclassified
CO 8 hours 9.0 ppm 9 ppm Attainment/
Unclassified
Attainment/
Unclassified
PM10 24 hours 50 μg/m3 150 μg/m3
(expected number of
days above standard
< or equal to 1)
Nonattainment Attainment
PM10 Annual 20 μg/m3 N/A Nonattainment N/A
PM2.5 24 hours N/A 35 μg/m3 N/A Nonattainment
PM2.5 Annual 12 μg/m3 12.0 μg/m3 Nonattainment Nonattainment NO2 1 hour 0.18 ppm 0.100 ppm Attainment Attainment/
Unclassified
NO2 Annual 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm Attainment Attainment/
Unclassified
SO2 1 hour 0.25 ppm 0.075 ppm
(99th percentile over 3
years)
Attainment Attainment/
Unclassified
SO2 3 hours N/A 0.5 ppm N/A Attainment/
Unclassified
SO2 24 hours 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm Attainment Attainment/
Unclassified
SO2 Annual N/A 0.030 ppm N/A Attainment/
Unclassified
Pb Monthly 1.5 μg/m3 N/A Attainment N/A
Pb Rolling 3-month
average
N/A 0.15 μg/m3 N/A Attainment/
Unclassified
Sulfates 24 hours 25 μg/m3 N/A Attainment N/A
H2S 1 hour 0.03 ppm N/A Unclassified N/A
Visibility
Reducing
Particles (VRP)
8 hours Visibility of 10 miles
or more at relative
humidity less than 70
%
N/A Unclassified N/A
Vinyl Chloride 24 hours 0.01 ppm N/A Attainment N/A
* For more information on standards visit: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf ** No Federal 1-hour standard. Reclassified extreme nonattainment for the Federal 8-hour standard [9/6/2024]. ***Secondary Standard
Source: http://www.valleyair.org/aqinfo/attainment.htm. Accessed 9/6/2024.

City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-11
Construction Generated Emissions
Construction of the Project is assumed to be completed over approximately thirty-one months. Emissions associated with the Project were calculated using the CalEEMod Air Quality Model, Version 2022.1.1.26 (California Emissions Estimator Modeling). The emissions modeling includes emissions generated by offroad equipment, haul trucks, and worker commute trips. Emissions were quantified based on anticipated construction schedules and the default parameters contained in the model. Localized air quality impacts associated with the Project would be minor and were qualitatively assessed. Modeling assumptions and output files are included in Appendix A.

Thresholds of Significance
Air pollutant emissions have regional effects and localized effects. This analysis assesses the regional effects of the Project’s criteria pollutant emissions in comparison to SJVAPCD thresholds of significance for shortterm construction activities and long-term operation of the Project. Localized emissions from Project construction and operation are also assessed using concentration-based thresholds that determine if the Project would result in a localized exceedance of any ambient air quality standards or would make a cumulatively considerable contribution to an existing exceedance.

The primary pollutants of concern during Project construction and operation are ROG (reactive organic gases), NOX, PM10, and PM2.5. The SJVAPCD Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts, adopted in 2015, contains thresholds for ROG and Nitrogen Oxides (NOX); Sulfur Oxides (SOX), CO, PM10, and PM2.5.

Ozone is a secondary pollutant that can be formed miles away from the source of emissions through reactions of ROG and NOX emissions in the presence of sunlight. Therefore, ROG and NOx are termed ozone precursors. The SJVAB often exceeds the state and national ozone standards. Therefore, if the Project emits a substantial quantity of ozone precursors, the Project may contribute to an exceedance of the ozone standard. The SJVAB also exceeds air quality standards for PM10, and PM2.5; therefore, substantial Project emissions may contribute to an exceedance for these pollutants.

The SJVAPCD adopted significance thresholds for construction-related and operational ROG, NOX, PM, CO, and SOX, these thresholds are included in Table 4-5.

Table 4-5: Project-Level Air Quality CEQA Thresholds of Significance Pollutant
Significance Threshold
Construction Emissions
(tons/year)
Operational Emissions
(tons/year)
CO 100 100
NOx 10 10
ROG 10 10
SOx 27 27
PM10 15 15
PM2.5 15 15
Source: SJVAPCD. 2015. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. Website:
https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI-2015/FINAL-DRAFT-GAMAQI.PDF. Accessed September 6, 2024.

City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-12

4.3.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS
Short-Term Construction Generated Emissions
Estimated construction-generated emissions are summarized in Table 4-6.

Table 4-6: Unmitigated Short-Term Construction Generated Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants Source Annual Emissions (Tons per Year)
ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Annual Project
Construction Emissions

0.71 1.94 1.90 <0.005 0.50 0.26
SJVAPCD Threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Long-Term Operational Generated Emissions
Estimated operational-generated emissions are summarized in Table 4-7.

Table 4-7: Unmitigated Long-Term Operational Generated Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants Source Annual Emissions (Tons per Year)
ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Total Annual Project
Operational Emissions

1.37 0.51 4.01 0.01 0.80 0.21
SJVAPCD Threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Maximum Daily Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants
Daily construction and operational emissions generated by the Project are summarized in Table 4-8.

Table 4-8: Maximum Daily Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants Source Daily Emissions Maximum (in pounds)
ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Construction – Summer 3.73 36 33.6 0.06 21.4 11.6
Construction – Winter 34 11.6 14.4 0.02 0.72 0.51
Operational – Summer 8.15 2.71 28.1 0.05 4.54 1.18
Operational – Winter 7.29 3.03 19.8 0.05 4.53 1.18
SJVAPCD Threshold 100 100 100 100 100 100
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of any applicable air quality plan. The proposed Project would not exceed any threshold for air quality emissions that has been set by the SJVAPCD. Therefore, there would be no impact.
b) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is in non-attainment. As shown in Table 4-6, City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-13
Table 4-7, and Table 4-8, the Project would not exceed an emissions threshold which has been set by the SJVAPCD for construction or operational related emissions. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant Impact. As discussed above, the proposed Project would not result in significant long-term operational emissions. Constructed related emissions, shown in Table 4-6 and Table 4-8, would be temporary in nature and would cease upon Project construction. Short-term construction activities, however, could result in temporary increases in pollutant concentrations that could impact nearby sensitive receptors. Sensitive Receptors are groups that would be more affected by air, noise, and light pollution, pesticides, and other toxic chemicals than others. This includes infants, children under 16, elderly over 65, athletes, and people with cardiovascular and respiratory diseases. High concentrations of these groups would include daycares, residential areas, hospitals, elder care facilities, schools and parks. While the Project would be located in an area near sensitive receptors, such as the residential surrounding the site, the Project would not exceed the daily emission thresholds set by the SJVAPCD.

Additionally, the HARP2 air dispersion model was run for the Project site to show the health risk the Project would have on sensitive receptors in the area. The model run, which can be viewed in Appendix A, indicates that the Project would result in a cancer risk of 0.044284 in one million, which is less than the SJVAPCD’s threshold of 20 in one million. The Project would also present a chronic risk of

0.0000246856 in one million and an acute risk of 0 in one million, which would be less than the SJVAPCD’s threshold of one in one million for both chronic and acute. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less than Significant Impact. During construction activities, construction equipment exhaust and application of asphalt, structural coating and other construction applications would temporarily emit odors. Construction would be completed on land currently abutting the City of Kingsburg’s northern city limits and could have an effect on some residences that would be located near the construction area of the Project. Construction of the Project would be temporary, and odors would not remain after Project completion. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-14

4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Table 4-9: Biological Resources Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as defined
by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption,
or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement
of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?

4.4.1 BASELINE CONDITIONS
The Project site is comprised of four parcels located in Fresno County, adjacent to the City of Kingsburg.

Three of the four parcels being annexed into the City as a part of the Project would be developed as a part of the Project. The three parcels proposed for development have primarily been used for agriculture in the past, with two rural residential homes having been located on them as well. Currently these three parcels are vacant, except for naturally occurring vegetation and one rural residential home that would be demolished as a part of the Project. The site is regularly tilled in order to ensure that naturally occurring weeds do not become a blight. No surface water or canal is located on or within the immediate vicinity of the site. The site is also not located on or near a wetland, according to the United States Fish and Wildlife City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-15
Service.12 According to the City’s General Plan and EIR the City’s planning area has not been identified to contain any special status species.13 Database searches were completed to determine the likelihood of special status species on the Project site. Table 4-10 below summarize the results of the database searches.

A biological resources memo describing these database searches in more detail is contained in Appendix B.

Table 4-10: List of Special Status Species with Potential to Occur on the site and/or in the Vicinity Species Status* Habitat Occurrence within the Site
California tiger
salamander – central
California DPS
(Ambystoma
californiense)
FT, CT
Requires vernal pools or
seasonal ponds for breeding and
small mammal burrows for
aestivation. Generally found in
grassland and oak savannah
plant communities in central
California from sea level to 1,500
feet in elevation. Can migrate up
to 1.3 miles to breed.

Unlikely. The site appeared to lack
suitable habitats for this species.

The nearest recorded observation
of this species within the vicinity
was approximately 3 miles south of
the site at an unknown date but is
listed as extirpated.

Crotch’s bumble bee
(Bombus crotchii)
CCE
Occurs throughout coastal
California, as well as east to the
Sierra Nevada-Cascade crest,
and south into Mexico. Food
plant genera include
snapdragons, scorpionweeds,
primroses, poppies, and
buckwheats.

Unlikely. The site appeared to lack
suitable vegetation and habitats for
this species. The nearest recorded
observation of this species within
the vicinity was approximately 3
miles northwest of the site in 1912.

Fresno kangaroo rat
(Dipodomys
nitratoides exilis)
FE, CE
An inhabitant of alkali sinks and
open grassland habitats in
Merced, Kings, Fresno, and
Madera counties. Prefers bare,
alkaline, clay-based soils subject
to seasonal inundation with
more friable soil mounds around
shrubs and grasses. The most
recent recorded observation of
this species in California was in
1992 in Fresno County.

Unlikely. The site appeared to lack
suitable habitats for this species.

There are no recorded observations
of this species on the California
Natural Diversity Database within
the regional vicinity of the project.

Monarch butterfly
(Danaus plexippus)
FC
Roosts in wind-protected tree
groves (eucalyptus, Monterey
pine, cypress), with nectar and
water sources nearby. Larval
host plants consist of milkweeds.

Winter roost sites extend along
the Pacific Coast from northern
Mendocino to Baja California,
Mexico.

Absent. The site appeared to lack
suitable habitats for this species.

Northwestern pond
turtle
(Actinemys
marmorata)

FPT, CSSC
An aquatic turtle of ponds,
marshes, slow-moving rivers,
streams, and irrigation ditches
with riparian vegetation.

Requires adequate basking sites
and sandy banks or grassy open
fields to deposit eggs.

Unlikely. The site appeared to lack
suitable aquatic and upland habitat
for this species. The nearest
recorded observation of this species
within the vicinity was
approximately 15.5 miles northeast
of the site at an unknown date.
12 (United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 2024)
13 (City of Kingsburg, 1992)
City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-16
Species Status* Habitat Occurrence within the Site
Pallid bat
(Antrozous pallidus)
CSSC
Found in grasslands, chaparral,
and woodlands, where it feeds
on ground- and vegetationdwelling arthropods, and
occasionally takes insects in
flight. Prefers to roost in rock
crevices, but may also use tree
cavities, caves, bridges, and
other human-made structures.

Possible. The site appeared to
contain a residential house and barn
where this species could roost. The
nearest recorded observation of this
species within the vicinity was
approximately 3.5 miles east of the
site in 2001.

San Joaquin kit fox
(Vulpes macrotis
mutica)
FE, CT
Opportunistically forages in a
variety of habitats. Dens in
burrows within alkali sink, valley
grassland, and woodland
habitats in valleys and adjacent
foothills and in human-made
structures in cities, rangeland,
and agricultural areas.

Unlikely. The site appeared to lack
suitable habitats for this species.

The nearest recorded observation
of this species within the vicinity
was approximately 9.5 miles
southwest of the site in 1975.

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

Possible. While the site appeared to
lack suitable trees for this species to
nest, trees in the surrounding areas
appear to provide nesting habitat
and the nearest recorded
observation of this species within
the vicinity was approximately 0.3
miles south of the site in 1926.

Vernal pool fairy
shrimp
(Branchinecta lynchi)
FT
Occupies vernal and seasonal
pools, with clear to tea-colored
water, in grass or mud-bottomed
swales, and basalt depression
pools.

Unlikely. The site appeared to lack
suitable habitats for this species.

The nearest recorded observation
of this species within the vicinity
was approximately 10 miles
southeast of the site in 1993.

Western spadefoot
(Spea hammondii)

FPT, CSSC
The majority of the time this
species is terrestrial and occurs
in small mammal burrows and
soil cracks, sometimes in the
bottom of dried pools. Prefers
open areas with sandy or
gravelly soils, in a variety of
habitats including mixed
woodlands, grasslands, coastal
sage scrub, chaparral, sandy
washes, lowlands, river
floodplains, alluvial fans, playas,
alkali flats, foothills, and
mountains. Vernal or seasonal
pools, that hold water for a
minimum of three weeks, are
necessary for breeding.

Unlikely. The site appeared to lack
suitable aquatic and upland habitats
for this species. The nearest
recorded observation of this species
within the vicinity was
approximately 9.5 miles southeast
of the site in 2011.

Western yellow-billed
cuckoo
(Coccyzus americanus
occidentalis)
FT, CE
Suitable nesting habitat in
California includes dense
riparian willow-cottonwood and
mesquite habitats along a
perennial river. Once common in
Unlikely. The site appeared to lack
suitable nesting habitats for this
species. The nearest recorded
observation of this species within
City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-17
Species Status* Habitat Occurrence within the Site
the California Central Valley, as
well as coastal valleys and
riparian habitats east of the
Sierra Nevada, habitat loss now
constrains the California
breeding population to small
numbers of birds.
the vicinity was approximately 3
miles northwest of the site in 1898.

4.4.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The Project site has the potential for several special status species to occur, including migratory birds, Swainson’s Hawk, and Pallid bats. The Project could result in adverse impacts to these species or their habitat. In order to minimize the potential of the Project to significantly impact these species, mitigation measures BIO-1, BIO-2, BIO-3, BIO-4, BIO-5, BIO6, and BIO-7 be implemented. These mitigation measures include surveys, avoidance, use of buffers, and exclusion. Through implementation of these mitigation measures, impacts would be lowered to a less than significant level. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. The Project site has not been identified as containing riparian habitat or other sensitive natural habitat by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service or within local or regional plans policies and regulations.14 15 The site is a vacant and primarily undeveloped parcel which has previously been utilized for agriculture. The site contains a dirt field with naturally occurring weeds as the only vegetation present.

The site is routinely tilled in order to control the growth of naturally occurring weeds. Therefore, there would be no impact.
c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. According to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the Project site would not be located on or in the immediate vicinity of a federally protected wetland.16 As a result, the Project does not have the potential to impact any federally protected wetlands. Therefore, there would be no impact. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
14 (United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 2024)
15 (City of Kingsburg, 1992)
16 (United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 2024)
City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-18
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is located adjacent to the City of Kingsburg city limits, abutting an existing residential subdivision. As a part of the Project the site would be annexed into the City. While the site is vacant and largely undeveloped, it has experienced prior disturbances that would have discouraged the movement of wildlife through the Project site. Such disturbances include the use of the farm equipment and machinery on the site, proximity to urban uses located immediately south of the Project site, and the location of the Project site in proximity to South Mendocino Avenue, which is designated as an arterial street from the Fresno/Tulare County line to the northern city limits. This roadway produces traffic that generates relatively high levels of noise, making it unlikely that a natural wildlife movement corridor would exist in proximity to South Mendocino Avenue. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No Impact. The Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. The City also does not have a tree preservation ordinance. The Project would be required to comply with all local policies and regulations protecting biological resources. Therefore, there would be no impact. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. The Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. The Project site is located adjacent to the City of Kingsburg and would be annexed to the City as a part of the Project. The site is not currently located within a habitat conservation plan or other type of conservation area. Therefore, there would be no impact.

4.4.3 MITIGATION
BIO-1 (Swainson’s Hawk and Nesting Bird Avoidance) The project’s construction activities will occur, if feasible, between September 16 and January 31 (outside of the nesting bird season) to avoid impacts to nesting birds.

BIO-2 (Swainson’s Hawk and Nesting Bird Pre-construction Surveys) If activities must occur within the nesting bird season (February 1 to September 15), a qualified biologist (someone familiar with these species and nesting birds) will conduct a single preconstruction take-avoidance survey for Swainson’s hawk nests on the site and within a

0.5-mile radius outside of the site within seven (7) calendar days prior to the start of construction. The Swainson’s hawk survey must not be completed between April 21 to June 10 due to the difficulty of identifying nests during this time of year. The survey shall also include inspecting for nesting migratory birds within the site and up to 100 feet outside of the site and for nesting raptors within the site and up to 500 feet outside of the site. All raptor nests shall be considered “active” upon the nest-building stage. If no active nests are observed, no further mitigation is required.

BIO-3 (Swainson’s Hawk and Nesting Bird Avoidance Buffers) On discovery of any active nests or breeding colonies near work areas, a qualified biologist will determine appropriate avoidance buffer distances based on applicable California Department of Fish and Wildlife and/or United States Fish and Wildlife Service guidelines, the biology of the species, conditions of the nest(s), and the level of project disturbance. If necessary, City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-19
avoidance buffers will be identified with flagging, fencing, or other easily visible means, and will be maintained until the biologist has determined that the nestlings have fledged.

BIO-4 (Maternity Bat Roost Pre-Construction Survey) If construction activities fall between March 1 and September 30 (bat maternity season) a pre-construction survey will be performed within seven (7) days prior to construction to identify active maternity bat roost locations in the existing house and barn onsite or trees within up to 100 feet of the site prior to the start of construction. A qualified biologist (someone familiar with bat roosts and their sign) will conduct a daytime roost survey and an emergence survey at potential roost locations.

BIO-5 (Bat Roost Pre-Demolition Survey) A pre-demolition survey will be performed within five (5) days prior to demolition of the existing house and barn onsite to identify any active bat roosts that could be used by pallid bats. A qualified biologist (someone familiar with bat roosts and their sign) will conduct a daytime roost survey and an emergence survey at potential roost locations. Should any roosting bats be observed, they shall be identified by species using ultrasonic recording equipment and software.

BIO-6 (Bat Avoidance Buffers) On discovery of any active maternity season bat roosts or pallid bat roosts, a qualified biologist will determine appropriate avoidance buffers based on the biology of the species, conditions of the roost(s), and the level of project disturbance, if appropriate. If necessary, construction buffers will be identified with flagging, fencing, or other easily visible means, and will be maintained until the biologist has determined that the roost will no longer be impacted by construction. Lighting is not to be used near roosts where it would shine on or into the roost entrance. Combustion equipment, such as generators, pumps, and vehicles are not to be parked, operated, under or within 100 feet of the roost.

BIO-7 (Bat Exclusion) On discovery of any active bat roosts within the existing house or barn outside of the bat maternity season (October 1 to February 28), a qualified biologist will prepare an exclusion plan that would detail the methods to be used. It will include the tools to exclude the bat from the structure/roost (i.e., one-way doors or other devices) and the house and barn would be removed within two days. Following completion of exclusion, a report will be prepared that documents the methods and results of these efforts.

City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-20

4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Table 4-11: Cultural Resources Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resource
pursuant to in § 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of dedicated
cemeteries?

4.5.1 BASELINE CONDITIONS
The Project site is located adjacent to the City within Fresno County. Lands surrounding the Project consist of relatively flat, irrigated farmland and retired farmland, vacant land, and low density residential neighborhoods. Mass agricultural development has heavily disturbed and altered the landscape of the Southern San Joaquin Valley, including the Project site.

4.5.1.1 RECORDS SEARCH
On August 9, 2024, Provost & Pritchard requested a cultural resource records search from the Southern San Joaquin Information Center (SSJVIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) at California State University in Bakersfield, California. The purpose of this request was to identify and review prior cultural resource investigations completed in or near the Project site and identify any prehistoric or historical resources that had been previously recorded within the Project site and a 0.5-mile radius of the surrounding area. SSJVIC staff researched historical United States Geological Survey topographic maps, reports of previous cultural resource investigations, archaeological site and survey base maps, cultural resource records, as well as listings of the Historic Properties Directory of the Office of Historic Preservation, General Land Office Maps, Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility, and the California Inventory of Historic Resources.

According to the Information Center results, no cultural resources were previously recorded within the Project site, and one cultural resource (P-10-005812) was recorded within a 0.5-mile radius of the Project site (a historic era canal). The SSJVIC did not identify any cultural resource studies within the Project site.

Results of the records search are also provided and discussed further in Appendix C.

4.5.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to in § 15064.5?
b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
a-b) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As previously mentioned, a cultural resources database search was conducted in August of 2024. This search identified that no cultural resources were previously recorded within the Project site but that there was one identified within a half City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-21
mile. In the unlikely event that unidentified historical or archaeological resources are encountered during Project construction, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would be implemented to reduce any impacts to less than significant.
c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. There is no evidence or record that indicates the Project site has the potential to be an unknown burial site or the site of buried human remains. In the unlikely event human remains are discovered in the Project area, mitigation shall be implemented.

Mitigation measure CUL-2 outlined below would be implemented and any impacts resulting from the discovery of remains would be reduced to less than significant.

4.5.3 MITIGATION
CUL-1 (Archaeological Remains) In the event that previously unidentified archaeological remains are encountered during development or ground-moving activities in the Project site, all work should be halted until a qualified archaeologist can identify the discovery and assess its significance. In the event of accidental discovery of unidentified archaeological remains during development or ground-moving activities in the Project site, all work shall be halted in the immediate vicinity (within a 100-foot radius) until a qualified archaeologist can identify the discovery and assess its significance.

CUL-2 (Human Remains) If human remains are uncovered during construction, the Fresno County Coroner is to be notified to investigate the remains and arrange proper treatment and disposition. If the remains are identified on the basis of archaeological context, age, cultural associations, or biological traits to be those of a Native American, California Health and Safety Code 7050.5 and Public Resources Code 5097.98 require that the coroner notify the NAHC (Native American Heritage Commission) within 24 hours of discovery. The NAHC will then identify the Most Likely Descendent who will be afforded an opportunity to make recommendations regarding the treatment and disposition of the remains.

City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-22

4.6 ENERGY
Table 4-12: Energy Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption
of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local
plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency?

4.6.1 BASELINE CONDITIONS
The Project site is located within Fresno County, adjacent to the City of Kingsburg. The Project area is served by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) for its natural gas and electricity needs.

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

Construction is estimated to consume a total of 88,847.88 gallons of diesel fuel and 5,744.58 gallons of gasoline fuel (See Appendix A). California Code of Regulations Title 13, Motor Vehicles, Section 2449(d)(2), Idling, limits idling times of construction vehicles to no more than 5 minutes, thereby precluding unnecessary and wasteful consumption of fuel because of unproductive idling of construction equipment. In addition, the energy consumption for construction activities would not be ongoing as they would be limited to the duration of Project construction.

The development’s anticipated annual energy consumption is approximately 893,145 kilowatt-hours and 0 therms of natural gas (see Appendix A). Energy consumption of residential uses is currently governed by the 2022 California Building Code, Part 6 for structures, and Title 20 of the California Code of Regulations for appliances. Energy consumption is anticipated to decrease over time as more energy efficient standards take effect and energy-consuming equipment reaches its end-of-life and necessitates replacement. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-23
b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
No Impact. State and local authorities regulate energy use and consumption. These regulations at the State level are intended to reduce energy use and GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions. These include, among others, AB 1493 – Light-Duty Vehicle Standards; California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 6 – Energy Efficiency Standards; and California Code of Regulations Title 24, Parts 6 and 11 – California Energy Code and Green Building Standards. The Project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Therefore, there would be no impact.

City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-24

4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Table 4-13: Geology and Soils Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable
as a result of the project, and potentially
result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994) creating substantial direct or
indirect risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geological feature?

4.7.1 BASELINE CONDITIONS

4.7.1.1 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The Project is located in central Fresno County, in the southern section of California’s Great Valley Geomorphic Province, or Central Valley, directly adjacent to the south of a portion of the San Joaquin River.

The Sacramento Valley makes up the northern third and the San Joaquin Valley makes up the southern two-thirds of the geomorphic province. Both valleys are watered by large rivers flowing west from the Sierra Nevada Range, with smaller tributaries flowing east from the Coast Ranges. Most of the surface of the Central Valley is covered by Quaternary (present day to 1.6 million years ago) alluvium. The sedimentary City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-25
formations are steeply upturned along the western margin due to the uplifted Sierra Nevada Range. 17 From
the time the Central Valley first began to form, sediments derived from erosion of igneous and metamorphic rocks and consolidated marine sediments in the surrounding mountains have been transported into the Central Valley by streams.

According to the Natural Resource Conservation Service’s Web Soil Survey, the Project site is comprised of primarily Delhi sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes (approximately 48%), and Hanford fine sandy loam (approximately 41%), as well as a smaller portion comprised of Tujunga loamy sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes (approximately 11%).18 These soils are deemed to be either well drained or somewhat excessively drained.

4.7.1.2 FAULTS AND SEISMICITY
The Project area is not located on any known fault or fault zone, but it could experience seismic activity as a result of fault activity in other parts of the state. The nearest active fault is the Kern Canyon Fault, approximately 55 miles to the east of the Project site. The San Andreas Fault is located approximately 85 miles to the west of the Project site.19

4.7.1.3 LIQUEFACTION
Liquefaction is a seismic phenomenon in which loose, saturated granular and non-plastic, fine-grained soils lose their structure or strength when subjected to high-intensity ground shaking. Soil liquefaction causes ground failure that can damage roads, pipelines, underground cables, and buildings with shallow foundations. Liquefaction more commonly occurs in loose, saturated materials. The Project site is not known to be an area that experiences liquefaction.
20 4.7.1.4 SOIL SUBSIDENCE
Subsidence occurs below the surface when subsurface pressure is reduced by the withdrawal of fluids (e.g., groundwater, natural gas, oil) resulting in sinking of the ground. While the Central Valley of California is known as an area that has experienced soil subsidence due to groundwater overdraft, the Project is not located in the immediate vicinity of an area that has been subject to subsidence.21

4.7.1.5 DAM AND LEVEE FAILURE
According to the California Department of Water Resources Dam Breach Inundation Map, the Project is not in an area that would be susceptible to flooding as a result of dam or levee failure.22 17 Harden, D.R. 1998, California Geology, Prentice Hall, 479 pages 18 (United States Department of Agriculture, 2024)
19 (California Department of Conservation 2015)
20 (County of Fresno, 2000)
21 (United States Geological Survey, 2024)
22 (California Department of Water Resources, 2024)
City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-26
Figure 4-2: Soil Map
City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-27

4.7.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS
a) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less than Significant Impact. Ground shaking intensity is a function of distance from an earthquake’s epicenter and underlying geology. The most common impact associated with ground shaking is damage to structures. The Project would result in the construction of 97 single-family residences that would meet California Building Code requirements governing potential structural damage due to earthquakes.

Moreover, the Project area is not located near any known fault or fault zone – the nearest active fault is the Kern Canyon Fault, approximately 55 miles to the east of the Project site. As such, the Project would not cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death as a result in a rupture of a known earthquake fault, nor would it result in strong seismic activity from Project inundations. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? No Impact. The Project would not be located in an area that is known to experience liquefaction. The Project would result in the construction of 97 new single-family residences, associated development roadways, an approximately 0.99-acre park, and an approximately 1.34-acre basin. The new construction would not increase the likelihood for liquefaction to occur within the Project area. Therefore, there would be no impact.
iv. Landslides?
No Impact. The Project is located in a relatively flat area with little to no potential for landslides to occur.

Construction of the Project would not increase the likelihood for landslides to occur at the Project site.

Therefore, there would be no impact.
b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than Significant Impact. Earthmoving activities associated with the Project would include excavation, trenching, grading, and construction. These activities could expose soils to erosion processes; however, the extent of erosion would vary depending on slope steepness/stability, vegetation/cover, concentration of runoff, and weather conditions. In addition, dischargers whose projects disturb one (1) or more acres of soil or whose projects disturb less than one acre but are part of a larger common plan of development that in total disturbs one or more acres, are required to obtain coverage under the Statewide General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ). Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground such as stockpiling or excavation, and construction of linear underground or overhead facilities associated with residential construction but does not include regular maintenance activities performed to restore the original lines, grade, or capacity of the overhead or underground facilities. The Construction General Permit requires the development of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) by a certified Qualified SWPPP Developer. Since the City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-28
Project site has relatively flat terrain with a low potential for soil erosion, and the Project would develop a SWPPP and comply with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) requirements, the Project’s impacts would be less than significant.
c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
No Impact. Due to the relatively flat topography of the Project and greater surrounding area and distance from active faults, landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse are not considered a potentially significant geologic hazard. The Project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or would become unstable during seismic activity, nor would the Project be located on land known for subsidence.
23 Therefore, there would be no impact.
d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? No Impact. The Project would not be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building code, creating substantial direct or indirect risks to property or life. The Project site is comprised of loamy sands, sandy loams, and sand that is not expansive in nature.24 Therefore, there would be no impact.
e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact. The Project would not result in the use of septic tanks or any alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, there would be no impact.
f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. There are no known unique paleontological resources or geological features on the Project site; however, during construction unique paleontological or geological resources could be unearthed. In this event, all construction would be required to stop, the City would be notified, and a qualified geologist and/or paleontologist would be consulted. Employment of mitigation measure GEO-1 would lower any potential significant impacts to a less than significant level.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

4.7.3 MITIGATION
GEO-1 Should a unique paleontological resource, site, or unique geological feature be unearthed during any stage of Project activities, work in the area of discovery will cease until the area is evaluated by a qualified geologist and/or paleontologist. If discoveries are uncovered, the Project proponent will abide by recommendations of the geologist or paleontologist.
23 (United States Geological Survey, 2024)
24 (United States Department of Agriculture, 2024)
City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-29

4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Table 4-14: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the
environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases?

4.8.1 BASELINE CONDITIONS
Commonly identified GHG emissions and sources include the following:

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an odorless, colorless natural greenhouse gas. CO2 is emitted from natural and anthropogenic sources. Natural sources include the following: decomposition of dead organic matter; respiration of bacteria, plants, animals, and fungus; evaporation from oceans; and volcanic out gassing. Anthropogenic sources include the burning of coal, oil, natural gas, and wood.

Methane (CH4) is a flammable greenhouse gas. A natural source of methane is the anaerobic decay of organic matter. Geological deposits, known as natural gas fields, also contain methane, which is extracted for fuel. Other sources are from landfills, fermentation of manure, and ruminants such as cattle.

Nitrous oxide (N2O), also known as laughing gas, is a colorless greenhouse gas. Nitrous oxide is produced by microbial processes in soil and water, including those reactions that occur in fertilizer containing nitrogen. In addition to agricultural sources, some industrial processes (fossil fuel-fired power plants, nylon production, nitric acid production, and vehicle emissions) also contribute to its atmospheric load.

Water vapor is the most abundant, and variable greenhouse gas. It is not considered a pollutant; in the atmosphere, it maintains a climate necessary for life.

Ozone (O3) is known as a photochemical pollutant and is a greenhouse gas; however, unlike other greenhouse gases, ozone in the troposphere is relatively short-lived and, therefore, is not global in nature. O3 is not emitted directly into the atmosphere but is formed by a complex series of chemical reactions between volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, and sunlight.

Aerosols are suspensions of particulate matter in a gas emitted into the air through burning biomass (plant material) and fossil fuels. Aerosols can warm the atmosphere by absorbing and emitting heat and can cool the atmosphere by reflecting light.

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are nontoxic, nonflammable, insoluble, and chemically unreactive in the troposphere (the level of air at the earth’s surface). CFCs were first synthesized in 1928 for use as refrigerants, aerosol propellants, and cleaning solvents. CFCs destroy stratospheric ozone; therefore, their production was stopped as required by the Montreal Protocol in 1987.

City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-30
Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are synthetic chemicals that are used as a substitute for CFCs. Of all the greenhouse gases, HFCs are one of three groups (the other two are perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride) with the highest global warming potential. HFCs are human-made for applications such as air conditioners and refrigerants.

Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) have stable molecular structures and do not break down through the chemical processes in the lower atmosphere; therefore, PFCs have long atmospheric lifetimes, between 10,000 and 50,000 years. The two main sources of PFCs are primary aluminum production and semiconductor manufacture.

Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) is an inorganic, odorless, colorless, nontoxic, nonflammable gas. It has the highest global warming potential of any gas evaluated. Sulfur hexafluoride is used for insulation in electric power transmission and distribution equipment, in the magnesium industry, in semiconductor manufacturing, and as a tracer gas for leak detection.

There are uncertainties as to exactly what the climate changes will be in various local areas of the earth, and what the effects of clouds will be in determining the rate at which the mean temperature will increase.

There are also uncertainties associated with the magnitude and timing of other consequences of a warmer planet: sea level rise, spread of certain diseases out of their usual geographic range, the effect on agricultural production, water supply, sustainability of ecosystems, increased strength and frequency of storms, extreme heat events, air pollution episodes, and the consequence of these effects on the economy.

Emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change are largely attributable to human activities associated with the industrial/manufacturing, utility, transportation, residential, and agricultural sectors.

About three-quarters of human emissions of CO2 to the global atmosphere during the past 20 years are due to fossil fuel burning. Atmospheric concentrations of CO2, CH4, and N2O have increased by at least 40 percent, 150 percent, and 20 percent respectively since the year 1750. GHG emissions are typically expressed in carbon dioxide-equivalents (CO2e), based on the GHG’s Global Warming Potential (GWP). The GWP is dependent on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. For example, one ton of CH4 has the same contribution to the greenhouse effect as approximately 25 tons of CO2.

Therefore, CH4 is a much more potent GHG than CO2. In accordance with SJVAPCD’s CEQA Greenhouse Gas Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects25, proposed projects complying with Best Performance Standards (BPS) would be determined to have a less-thansignificant impact. Projects not complying with BPS would be considered less than significant if operational GHG emissions would be reduced or mitigated by a minimum of 29 percent, in comparison to business-asusual (year 2004) conditions. In addition, project-generated emissions complying with an approved plan or mitigation program would also be determined to have a less-than-significant impact.

4.8.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS
Project Related Emissions
Short-term construction emissions associated with the Project were calculated using CalEEMod, Version 2022.1.1.26. The emissions modeling includes emissions generated by off-road equipment, haul trucks, and worker commute trips. Emissions were quantified based on an anticipated construction schedule of approximately thirty-one months. Remaining assumptions were based on the default parameters contained in the model. Modeling assumptions and output files are included in Appendix A. Estimated construction-generated and operational related emissions are summarized in Table 4-15 and Table 4-16.

GHGs impact the environment over time as they increase and contribute to climate change. 25 (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 2009) City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-31
Table 4-15: Short Term Construction Related GHG Emissions Emissions (MT CO2e) in Tons
per Year
Maximum Annual Construction CO2e Emissions 329
AB 32 Consistency Threshold for Land-Use Development Projects* 1,100 AB 32 Consistency Threshold for Stationary Source Projects* 10,000 Threshold Exceeded? No
* As published in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. Available online at http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en Accessed 9/5/2024.

Table 4-16: Long Term Operational Related GHG Emissions Emissions (MT CO2e) in Tons
per Year
Annual Operational CO2e Emissions 1,074
AB 32 Consistency Threshold for Land-Use Development Projects* 1,100 AB 32 Consistency Threshold for Stationary Source Projects* 10,000 Threshold Exceeded? No
* As published in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. Available online at http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en Accessed 9/5/2024.

Construction related generation of GHGs would be a maximum of 329 Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (MT CO2e) per year, while operational emissions are expected to be 1,074 MT CO2e per year.

The Project would not exceed the AB 32 consistency threshold for land use projects for both short term construction emissions and long-term operational emissions as a result. a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. As shown in Table 4-15 and Table 4-16, the Project is not expected to result in the generation of GHG emissions that would exceed the AB 32 consistency threshold of 1,100 MT CO2e annually during both construction and operational activities.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
No Impact. The Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. The Project would be in compliance with all SJVAPCD policies and regulations and would not exceed an applicable threshold for GHG emissions. Therefore, there would be no impacts.

City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-32

4.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Table 4-17: Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts
Would the project:

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

4.9.1 BASELINE CONDITIONS

4.9.1.1 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese) List is a planning document used by the State, local agencies, and developers to comply with CEQA requirements in providing information about the location of hazardous materials release sites. Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the California Environmental Protection Agency to develop at least annually an updated Cortese List. The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is responsible for a portion of the information contained in the Cortese List. Other State and local government agencies are required to provide additional hazardous material release information for the Cortese List. DTSC’s EnviroStor database provides DTSC’s component of Cortese List data. In addition to the EnviroStor database, the SWRCB GeoTracker database provides information on City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-33
regulated hazardous waste facilities in California, including underground storage tank (UST) cases and nonUST cleanup programs, including Spills-Leaks-Investigations-Cleanups sites, Department of Defense sites, and Land Disposal program. A search of the DTSC EnviroStor database and the SWRCB GeoTracker performed on August 8, 2024, determined that there are no known active hazardous waste generators or hazardous material spill sites within the Project site or immediate surrounding vicinity.26 27

4.9.1.2 AIRPORTS
The Project is not located within the boundaries of an adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. The nearest airport or air strip to the Project is the Selma Airport located approximately six miles to the northwest.

4.9.1.3 EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN
The City of Kingsburg has an Emergency Services Plan that was adopted in 2010 and is currently undergoing an update.
28 The Plan addresses risks to the community such as fire, law enforcement, public health threats, and other risks.

4.9.1.4 SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
Sensitive Receptors are groups that would be more affected by air, noise, and light pollution, pesticides, and other toxic chemicals than others. This includes infants, children under 16, elderly over 65, athletes, and people with cardiovascular and respiratory diseases. High concentrations of these groups would include daycares, residential areas, hospitals, elder care facilities, schools and parks. The nearest sensitive receptors to the area would include the residential development immediately adjacent to the site on the south side of the site.

4.9.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS
a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
a-b) Less than Significant Impact. The Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The Project would result in the construction of 97 single-family residences, an approximately 0.99-acre park, and an approximately 1.34-acre basin on land that would be annexed into the City of Kingsburg. During construction, equipment would be used that could result in the spill of hazardous materials, such as diesel fuel, lubricants, and solvents. However, the contractor would comply with all California Department of Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations regarding regular maintenance and inspection of equipment, spill prevention, and spill remediation in order to reduce the potential for incidental release of pollutants or hazardous substances onsite. Furthermore, any potential accidental hazardous materials spills during construction are the responsibility of the contractor to remediate in accordance with industry best management practices and State and local regulations. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
26 (California Department of Toxic Substances Control, 2024) 27 (State Water Resources Control Board, 2024)
28 (City of Kingsburg 2010)
City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-34
c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. The Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. No school, public or private, exists within one quarter mile of the Project site, nor is one currently proposed within one quarter mile of the site. Therefore, there would be no impact. d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No Impact. The Project would not be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. As discussed above, a search of the EnviroStor and GeoTracker databases was conducted, and the Project area has not been identified to contain a known hazardous material spill. Therefore, there would be no impact. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The Project would not be located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan, or within two miles of a public or private airport where such a plan has not been adopted. The Project is located approximately six miles southeast of the nearest airport, the Selma Airport, and is not located within an adopted airport land use compatibility plan. Therefore, there would be no impact. f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact. The Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The Project, during construction, would result in truck deliveries; however, no detours or road closures are expected to occur as a result of construction activities. In addition, any potential work within existing roadways would be required to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. Therefore, there would be no impact. g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
No Impact. The Project is located adjacent to the City of Kingsburg and would be annexed to the City as a result of the Project. This area is characterized by urban development to the immediate south, where wildland fires are unlikely to occur. In addition, the Project is not located within the vicinity of a State Responsibility Area (SRA) or a very high fire hazard severity zone (see Section 4.20). Therefore, there would be no impact.

City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-35

4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Table 4-18: Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts
Would the project:

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

4.10.1 BASELINE CONDITIONS
The Project is located within the San Joaquin Valley Basin and the Kings Subbasin. The site is located within the boundaries of the of the Central Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA).29 The City of Kingsburg is, for the most part, located within the boundaries of the South Kings GSA. While the Project site is not located in the vicinity of a surface body of water, the site is located within the boundaries of the Fresno County Sole Source Aquifer.30 This aquifer provides for the majority of drinking water for the area, making water quality protection increasingly important in the Project area. According to the Federal Emergency 29 (California Department of Water Resources, 2024)
30 (United States Environmental Protection Agency 2023) City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-36
Management Agency (FEMA), the Project site is located approximately one mile from the nearest flood zone (see Figure 4-3).31
31 (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2024)
City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-37
Figure 4-3: FEMA Flood Map
City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-38

4.10.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Less than Significant Impact. In compliance with State regulations, all development within the Project site would be required to comply with State regulations adopted to reduce groundwater degradation. The SWRCB requires the preparation of a SWPPP for projects that exceed specified size limits. The Project would be required to obtain SWRCB approval of its SWPPP prior to construction. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact through implementation of planned Project design features (such as a stormwater basin) and through compliance with adopted SWPPP regulations. Impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project would include the development of 97 residential lots on the Project site. As a part of the Project, the site would be annexed into the City. As a result, the City would be the sole water provider for the development. Groundwater is supplied for residential use by the City in residential developments.32 The City is within the Kings Basin, which is not adjudicated; therefore, there are presently no limitations placed on groundwater pumping volumes. According to the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), current and projected residential water demand is based on the Fresno Council of Governments Census population projections.33 From 2000 to 2020, the actual growth rate for the City was well below the projected growth rate, 1.9% versus 3%, respectively.34 As such, the City has planned for population growth that would be historically higher than actual growth rates for its future water demand. As discussed in Section 4.14, it is anticipated that the Project would add approximately 282 residents to the City’s population. This increase is less than a quarter of the projected population growth for the City and its UWMP over the five years from 2025 to 2030, and the UWMP anticipates water demand to nearly double from 2020 to 2045.35 Because the Project would result in a use that aligns with the site’s General Plan land use designation, the Project would be in line with the analysis provided within the City’s UWMP. The additional demand for groundwater as a result of the Project would be within the City’s expected capacity. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; Less than Significant Impact. The Project site does not contain any waterways and, as such, implementation of the Project would not alter the course of a stream or river. However, the Project would require grading and soil exposure during construction. If not controlled, the transport of these materials via local stormwater systems into local waterways could temporarily increase sediment concentrations.

To minimize this impact, the proposed Project would be required to comply with all of the requirements of the State General Construction Permit and would be required to submit a SWPPP to the SWRCB prior 32 (City of Kingsburg, 2020)
33 Ibid.
34 Ibid.
35 Ibid.

City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-39
to start of construction activities. Mandatory compliance with State regulations would ensure that impacts from erosion and siltation would be less than significant. ii. substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site;
iii. create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
ii-iii) Less than Significant Impact. Although the Project would increase the rate of surface runoff, runoff would be directed to an on-site stormwater basin (constructed as part of the Project), adequately sized to handle the increased rate and amount of surface runoff. Impacts would be less than significant. iv. impede or redirect flood flows?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is not located in a flood plain; therefore, it would not impede or redirect flood flows. There would be no impact.
d) Would the project in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundations?
No Impact. The Project site is not located within a flood zone, and it is not within a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zone. Therefore, there would be no impact.
e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
No Impact. The Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. The Project would be located within the boundaries of the Central Kings GSA.36 The City of Kingsburg is primarily located within the South Kings GSA.37 Subsequent to annexation of the Project site to the City, the California Department of Water Resources and the two aforementioned GSA’s could agree upon a boundary realignment which would result in the Project site being moved into the South Kings GSA. Both of the two GSA’s have completed their Groundwater Sustainability Plan. The Project would not be in conflict with either plan. Position of the Project site in one GSA or the other could result in a difference in fees due, but would not have a physical impact on the environment. Therefore, there would be no impact. 36 (Central Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency, 2024) 37 (South Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency, 2018) City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-40

4.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Table 4-19: Land Use and Planning Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
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?

4.11.1 BASELINE CONDITIONS
The Project site is located within the County, adjacent to the City of Kingsburg. The site is within the City’s sphere of influence. Additionally, the site is zoned AE20 - Exclusive Agriculture by the County and is designated as Low Density Residential by the City’s General Plan.

4.11.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS
a) Would the project physically divide an established community? No Impact. The Project would not physically divide an existing community. As mentioned above, the subject parcels would be annexed to the City from the County. As the Project site is located adjacent to the current city limits, annexation of this parcel would be done in a contiguous manner. The City would connect the site to development south of the Project via extensions of 14th Avenue and 17th Avenue, and with access points from South Mendocino Avenue. In order for the Project to be approved, Fresno LAFCo would be required to approve an application for annexation. Therefore, there would be no impact. b) Would the project cause a significant environmental conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No Impact. The Project would result in the construction of 97 single-family residences, an approximately

0.99-acre park, an approximately 1.34-acre basin, and roadways in an area planned for Low Density Residential use. As a part of the Project, the site would be annexed into the City and prezoned as R-1-7.

The R-1-7 zone district is consistent with the existing Low Density Residential land use designated for the site by the City’s General Plan. The TSM would be developed meeting the density requirements of the Low Density Residential land use. These actions further the objectives of the City’s General Plan by providing development in the areas in the City where they are planned for. The Project would be required to meet all applicable City of Kingsburg land use policies and regulations. Therefore, there would be no impact.

City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-41

4.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Table 4-20: Mineral Resources Impacts
Would the project:

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

4.12.1 BASELINE CONDITIONS
The California Geological Survey (CGS) is responsible for the classification and designation of areas within California containing or potentially containing significant mineral resources. The CGS classifies lands into Aggregate and Mineral Resource Zones (MRZs) based on guidelines adopted by the California State Mining and Geologic Board, as mandated by the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975. These MRZs identify whether known or inferred significant mineral resources are presented in areas. Lead agencies are required to incorporate identified MRZs resource areas delineated by the State into their general plans. 38 According to the CGS Mineral Land Classification map, the Fresno County area, including the Project site, is known to produce aggregate materials.39 The City of Kingsburg General Plan and the Fresno County General Plan Background Report have not identified the Project site or land in its vicinity as containing mineral resources. The nearest known mineral producing site (sand and gravel) is along the Kings River, approximately 8.2 miles to the northeast.
40 4.12.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS
a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
No impact. The Project site is not known to contain any mineral deposits that would be of value to the region and the State. The Project would not result in the loss of availability of a mineral resource which would be of value to the region or the State. Therefore, there would be no impact. b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? 38 Public Resources Code, Section 2762(a)(1)
39 (Unitied States Geological Survey, 2022)
40 (County of Fresno, 2000)
City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-42
No impact. The Project site has not been identified as containing a locally important mineral resource by the Kingsburg General Plan, a specific plan, or any other land use plan. The Project would not result in the loss of any locally important mineral resource. Therefore, there would be no impact.

City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-43

4.13 NOISE
Table 4-21: Noise Impacts
Would the project result in:

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

4.13.1 BASELINE CONDITIONS
The Project site is located within the County of Fresno and would be annexed into the City as a part of the Project. According to the City’s General Plan, the City requires that daytime noise sources within singlefamily residential areas remain below 55 decibels during the day.41 The site is located adjacent to lands used for agricultural purposes and accustomed to heavy machinery use.

4.13.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS
a) Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less than Significant Impact. The Project would not result in the 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. During construction, the Project would temporarily utilize equipment that would exceed 55 decibels. While noise levels may temporarily be exceeded during such activities, construction noise would diminish with distance from the source. Construction noise would also be temporary and cease upon completion. As a result, construction noise is not an anticipated event which would result in a significant impact.

Noise sources associated with operation of the Project would consist of low speed on-site vehicular noise, landscaping maintenance, general conversations, and mechanical equipment (e.g., heating, ventilation, and air conditioning [HVAC] units). Due to the distances and low noise levels associated with general site 41 (City of Kingsburg, 1992)
City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-44
activities, on-site traffic, and landscape maintenance, these sources are not considered substantial and are not analyzed further. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project result in generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project would not result in generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels. Like ordinary noise levels, ground borne noise levels diminish in amplitude with distance from the source. Construction activities can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods used, distance to the affected structures, and soil type. The generation of vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at moderate levels, to slight damage at the highest levels.

Given the type of improvements, it is not anticipated the Project would generate excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels. The Project would be required to adhere to all applicable City policies and regulations governing ground borne vibration. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The Project would not be located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan, or within two miles of a public or private airport where such a plan has not been adopted. The Project is located approximately six miles southeast of the nearest airport, the Selma Airport, and is not located within an adopted airport land use compatibility plan. Therefore, there would be no impact.

City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-45

4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Table 4-22: Population and Housing Impacts
Would the project:

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

4.14.1 BASELINE CONDITIONS
The Project site is located on approximately 42.52 acres of land (four parcels), directly north of the City of Kingsburg. Each of the four parcels is designated as Low Density Residential land uses by the City’s General Plan. Currently the parcels are under the jurisdiction of the County of Fresno and planned for Agriculture by the County’s General Plan.

According to the United States Census Bureau, the County of Fresno had an estimated population of 1,017,162 in 2023, while the City of Kingsburg had an estimated population of 13,013 people in 2022. The United States Census Bureau estimated that in 2022 the City had a rate of 2.91 people per household. 42 4.14.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS
a) Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project would not create a substantial increase in population in the area, either directly or indirectly. The Project would result in the construction of 97 single-family residential lots on land that would be annexed into the City as a part of the Project. At 2.91 residents per household, the Project would add approximately 282 new residents to the City’s population. While the Project would result in population growth through the construction of 97 homes, the new development is consistent with the City’s General Plan Land Use designation of Low Density Residential. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. The Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The Project would result in the construction of 97 homes on land that would be annexed into the City of Kingsburg. Land being developed 42 (Unitied States Census Bureau, 2022)
City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-46
as part of the project has historically been used for agricultural purposes, containing one single-family residence that would be demolished. The demolition of one residence as part of the Project is considered to have no significant impact on population and housing, as the Project proponent has acquired the property proposed for development. Therefore, there would be no impact.

City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-47

4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
Table 4-23: Public Services
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the
public services:
i. Fire protection?
ii. Police protection?
iii. Schools?
iv. Parks?
v. Other public facilities?

4.15.1 BASELINE CONDITIONS

4.15.1.1 FIRE PROTECTION:

The Project would be served by the Kingsburg Fire Department, which responds to all hazards incidents, including fire, rescue, hazmat, advanced life support (ALS) transport, and ALS first response.43 The Kingsburg Fire Department operates out of two stations, and the nearest station is located approximately

1.5 miles to the south of the Project.

4.15.1.2 POLICE PROTECTION:

The Project would be served by the Kingsburg Police Department, located approximately 1.6 miles to the south of the Project site.

4.15.1.3 SCHOOLS:

Kingsburg Unified School District operates several schools within the City. The nearest public schools to the site are Kingsburg Elementary School, approximately 4,000 feet to the south of the site, and Rafer Johnson Junior High School, approximately 4,100 feet to the south. The nearest private school facility to the Project site is Happy Days School, located approximately 3,700 feet to the south of the site.

4.15.1.4 PARKS
The City of Kingsburg hosts nine parks managed by the City’s Parks and Recreation department.44 The closest park is Nelson Park, situated approximately 3,000 feet southeast of the Project site. 43 (Kingsburg Fire Department, 2024)
44 (City of Kingsburg, 2024)
City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-48

4.15.1.5 LANDFILLS
The City of Kingsburg provides garbage, recycling, and green waste disposal services through Mid Valley Disposal.

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

Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is located approximately 1.5 miles from the nearest City of Kingsburg Fire Department station. While the site would have been under County jurisdiction prior to annexation, the Kingsburg Fire Department would have already responded to calls to the site, as it is the nearest fire entity. The Project would be served by the City’s Fire Department subsequent to annexation.

Construction of the Project would not substantially increase the service area for the Fire Department, nor would it require the hiring of additional personnel. In addition, payment of impact fees to fire facilities, included in the “Public Safety” fees, is a requirement prior to issuance of building permits. With the payment of impacts fees, impacts would be less than significant. ii. Police Protection:

Less than Significant Impact. The Kingsburg Police Department, located approximately 1.6 miles from the site, would provide police protection for the Project once it is annexed to the City. Currently, the site is served by the Fresno County Sheriff’s Office. Construction of the Project would not substantially increase the service area for the Police Department, nor would it require the hiring of additional personnel. In addition, payment of impact fees to police facilities, included in the “Public Safety” fees, is a requirement prior to issuance of building permits. With the payment of impacts fees, impacts would be less than significant.
iii. Schools:

Less than Significant Impact. The Project would result in the construction of 97 single-family residences.

Payment of fees to a school district is considered full mitigation for project impacts on school facilities (Government Code Section 65996(a)). Therefore, the Project applicant would be required to pay the statutory fees to accommodate the impact of Project-generated students, reducing impacts to a less than significant level. Senate Bill 50 deems payment of the fees “to provide full and complete school facilities mitigation.” As payment of these fees is required prior to issuance of building permits, impacts would be less than significant.
iv. Parks:

Less than Significant Impact. The Project proposes to construct 97 single-family residences, which would encourage population growth as a direct result. However, the Project also includes the development of an approximately 0.99-acre neighborhood park in the northeastern portion of the Project site. The City of Kingsburg General Plan uses a standard of 2.7 acres per 1,000 people for its neighborhood park and City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-49
playground development, which is equivalent to approximately 370 people per acre of parkland. 45 At 2.91
residents per household, the Project would add approximately 282 new residents to the City’s population.

As such, the Project would add more acreage of parkland per population than designated by the General Plan. In addition, payment of impact fees for parks and recreation would be required for the Project. As such, impacts would be less than significant.
v. Other public facilities:

Less than Significant Impact. The Project site would detach from the Kings River Conservation District and the Consolidated Irrigation District. With annexation to the City of Kingsburg, the Project site would also be annexed into the City of Kingsburg CFD, providing public services to the site. The Project would also result in the generation of solid waste during construction and operational activities. During construction, waste produced would be the responsibility of the contractor to dispose of. Subsequent to the construction of the single-family residences, operations would result in the generation of solid waste, recyclables, and organics. The City contracts with Mid Valley Disposal for trash collection services. Refuse collected from the site would be disposed of at the American Avenue Landfill, approximately 33 miles to the northwest of the site. According to CalRecycle, the American Avenue Landfill is projected to have capacity through the year 2031.46 Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 45 (City of Kingsburg, 1992)
46 (California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, 2024) City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-50

4.16 RECREATION
Table 4-24: Recreation Impacts
Would the project:

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

4.16.1 BASELINE CONDITIONS
The Project site would be annexed into the City of Kingsburg as a result of the Project. The City of Kingsburg provides parks and open space for the residents of the City. The nearest City owned and operated parks are Nelson Park, located approximately 3,000 feet southeast of the site, Memorial Park, located approximately 1.5 miles south of the Project site, Veterans Park, located approximately 1.3 miles to the southwest, and Erling Park, approximately 1.3 miles to the southeast.

4.16.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Less than Significant Impact. The Project would result in the construction of a 97-lot residential subdivision. As a part of the Project, an approximately 43,499 sqft park (0.99 acres) would be constructed to serve the Project. As discussed above, the Project would result in the increase of the City’s population by approximately 282 people, and while these new residents may use existing City parks the increase in usage would be minor. Therefore, the impacts are less than significant. 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. As discussed above, the Project would include a neighborhood park of approximately 43,499 sqft in size. Any adverse physical effect on the environment because of this Project is discussed in the appropriate impact topic throughout this document. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-51

4.17 TRANSPORTATION
Table 4-25: Transportation Impacts
Would the project:

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

4.17.1 BASELINE CONDITIONS
The Project would result in the annexation of the Project site to the City of Kingsburg. Major transportation routes within the City include SR 99 and SR 201. The Project site is abutted by South Mendocino Avenue, an arterial street, to its east.

In December 2018, modifications to the CEQA Guidelines were adopted by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), which requires all lead agencies to adopt VMT as a replacement for automobile delay-based level of service (LOS) as the new measure for identifying transportation impacts for land use projects. This statewide mandate, enacted by the State Legislature through Senate Bill 743, took effect July 1, 2020. This analysis relies on the Fresno County SB 743 Implementation Regional Guidelines, prepared in January 2021. If the guidelines do not apply, the analysis will rely on information prepared by OPR as part of their December 2018 publication entitled Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (Technical Advisory), which provides guidance for evaluating transportation impacts based on VMT.47

4.17.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS
a) Would the project conflict with a plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Less than Significant Impact. As described in Appendix D, the Project would not conflict with a plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. The Project would be consistent with the 2022 Regional Transportation Plan. While the Project would result in the extension of neighborhood roadways to serve the subdivision, the Project would be required to adhere to all applicable laws, policies, and plans regarding circulation and transit facilities within the City of Kingsburg. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 47 (Governor's Office of Planning and Research, 2018)
City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-52
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 subdivision (b)? Less than Significant Impact. As described in Appendix D and in Impact Analysis "a" above, the Project would be consistent with the 2022 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The RTP was adopted by a Program EIR which found that VMT impacts from each respective jurisdiction would result in a significant and unavoidable impact, while also adopting mitigation measures for subsequent projects. As this Project proposes to develop consistent with the Kingsburg General Plan, this Project would be considered a subsequent project. Further described in Appendix D, all feasible mitigation measures adopted by the Program EIR were incorporated into the Project either by Project feature or are standard requirements of subdivision projects. This Project would create no new additional impacts that were not analyzed in the 2022 RTP EIR. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact. The Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses. The Project would result in the construction of 97 single-family residences on the Project site. The Project does not propose the construction of a hazardous geometric design feature, nor does it propose an incompatible use for the site. Therefore, there would be no impact. d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. The Project would not result in inadequate emergency access. No road closures would be necessary in order for the Project to be developed. The Project would be required to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to approval, ensuring that access would be maintained. In addition, construction of the Project would not create a conflict with designated emergency routes. Therefore, there would be no impact.

City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-53

4.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Table 4-26: Tribal Cultural Resources Impacts
Would the project:

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

4.18.1 BASELINE CONDITIONS
Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1, et seq. (codification of AB 52, 2013-14) requires that a lead agency, within 14 days of determining that it would undertake a project, must notify in writing any California Native American Tribe traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project if that Tribe has previously requested notification about projects in that geographic area. The notice must briefly describe the project and inquire whether the Tribe wishes to initiate request formal consultation. Tribes have 30 days from receipt of notification to request formal consultation. The lead agency then has 30 days to initiate the consultation, which then continues until the parties come to an agreement regarding necessary mitigation or agree that no mitigation is needed, or one or both parties determine that negotiation occurred in good faith, but no agreement would be made. The City of Kingsburg has not received letters from any tribe requesting notification.

4.18.1.1 RECORDS SEARCH
A records search from the SSJVIC of the CHRIS, located at California State University, Bakersfield, was conducted in August of 2024. The SSJVIC records search includes a review of all recorded archaeological and built-environment resources as well as a review of cultural resource reports on file. In addition, the City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-54
California Points of Historical Interest, the California Historical Landmarks, the California Register of Historical Resources, the National Register of Historic Places, and the California State Built Environment Resources Directory listings were reviewed for the Project site as well as an additional one-half mile radius.

Due to the sensitive nature of cultural resources, archaeological site locations are not released. Additional sources included the State Historic Preservation Office Historic Properties Directory, Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility, and the California Inventory of Historic Resources. The records search of the Project site indicated that there were no known tribal cultural resources on-site.

4.18.2 IMPACT ASESSMENT
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:
vi. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in the local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or vii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The City, as the lead agency, has not received any tribal letters pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1, et seq. (AB 52) officially requesting notification of any projects. Additionally, a records search of the Project site indicated that there were no known tribal cultural resources on-site. In the unlikely event of a discovery, mitigation will be implemented. With incorporation of mitigation measure CUL-1 and CUL-2 described above in Section

4.5, impacts resulting from the discovery of remains interred on the Project site or the discovery of another tribal cultural resource would be less than significant.

4.18.3 MITIGATION
See CUL-1 and CUL-2 outlined above in Section 4.5.3.

City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-55

4.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Table 4-27: Utilities and Service Systems Impacts
Would the project:

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

4.19.1 BASELINE CONDITIONS
The Project site would be annexed to the City as a part of the Project. The City is the water and storm drainage provider for residents of the City. The City also contracts with Mid Valley Disposal for solid waste pickup services. The Selma Kingsburg Fowler County Sanitation District (SKFCSD) is the sewer facilities provider for the City. PG&E is the natural gas and electricity provider for the area. The Project site is primarily vacant and undeveloped or in agricultural use, but one residence would be demolished as a part of the Project.

4.19.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS
a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less than Significant Impact. Subsequent to annexation to the City, the Project would connect to City infrastructure for water and storm drainage services. The Project would connect to City water services existing in the residential development to the south. Additionally, the Project would connect to the existing City storm drain basin also abutting the Project site to the southwest. For sewer services, the Project would connect to existing SKFCSD infrastructure located in the residential development to the City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-56
south of the Project site. Likewise, the Project would connect to existing PG&E and telecommunications facilities existing in the aforementioned development. Utility connections are available within the vicinity of the Project site, and no substantial extension of any utility service would be required of the Project.

Additionally, the Project would not require the expansion of other existing facilities for water and wastewater based on current capacity for both. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Less than Significant Impact. According to the City’s UWMP, the City is expected to be in balance of its water budget through the year 2040.48 The UWMP was developed taking into account planned land uses contained in the City’s General Plan. Due to the fact that the Project would result in a use that aligns with the site’s existing General Plan land use designation, the Project would align with the UWMP. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
c) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project would be required to connect to existing SKFCSD facilities. While the Project would include a new sewer connection to serve the residential development, the Project site is situated within the SKFCSD’s sphere of influence. The Project has received a Will Serve letter from the SKFCSD noting that there is capacity in the City’s wastewater system to serve the portion of the Project on APNs 393-121-37, 393-121-42, and 393-121-43. The Project would also be required to file all necessary applications and pay fees to the SKFCSD. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. d) Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Less than Significant Impact. The Project would result in the generation of solid waste during construction and operational activities. During construction, the contractor would be responsible for any solid waste produced. Subsequent to the construction of the 97 single-family residences, operations would result in the generation of solid waste, recyclables, and organics. The City contracts with Mid Valley Disposal for trash collection services. Refuse collected from the site would be disposed of at the American Avenue Landfill, approximately 33 miles to the northwest of the site. According to CalRecycle, the American Avenue Landfill is projected to have capacity through the year 2031.49 Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No Impact. The Project would be required to comply with all applicable federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, there would be no impact.
48 (City of Kingsburg, 2020)
49 (California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, 2024) City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-57

4.20 WILDFIRE
Table 4-28: Wildfire Impacts
If located in or near state
responsibility areas or lands
classified as very high fire
hazard severity zones, would
the project:

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

4.20.1 BASELINE CONDITIONS
The Project site is comprised of natural vegetation with one single-family residence and vineyards on the property. There are four parcels that would be annexed to the City of Kingsburg as part of the Project.

Traditionally the land has been used for agricultural purposes. The Project site is located within the jurisdiction of the County of Fresno and receives fire protection from the Fresno County Fire Department, with additional support from the City of Kingsburg Fire Department. As mentioned in Section 4.15, the closest Kingsburg Fire Station to the Project is located at 1460 Marion St., approximately 1.5 miles south of the site and the nearest Fresno County Fire Station is located at 11500 E Mountain View, approximately 2.6 miles northwest of the site.

According to California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire), the Project site is not located within an SRA50, meaning CalFire does not assume responsibility for wildfire prevention and protection but, rather, the site is managed at the local level. The nearest SRA is located approximately 19 miles East of the Project Site. Furthermore, according to CalFire, the Project site is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone51. The nearest Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone is located approximately 28 miles east of the Project Site.
50 ( CAL FIRE, 2024)
51 (CAL FIRE, 2024)
City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-58

4.20.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS
a) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? a-d) No Impact. The Project is not located within a very high fire hazard severity zone or an SRA. The nearest SRA is located approximately 19 miles east of the Project site and the nearest very high fire hazard severity zone is approximately 28 miles east of the Project site. The site is located on a relatively flat, vacant, and undeveloped site that is surrounded by urban uses, making wildfire unlikely to occur at the site. After annexation the Project site would be served by the Kingsburg Fire Department station located approximately 1.5 miles to the south of the site. Therefore, there would be no impact.

City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-59

4.21 CEQA MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Table 4-29: CEQA Mandatory Findings of Significance
Does the project:

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

4.21.1 STATEMENT OF FINDINGS
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The analysis conducted in this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration results in a determination that the Project, with incorporation of mitigation measures, would have a less than significant effect on the environment. The potential for impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, and tribal cultural resources from the implementation of the Project would be less than significant with the incorporation of the mitigation measures identified in this analysis. Accordingly, the Project would involve no potential for significant impacts through the degradation of the quality of the environment, the reduction in the habitat or population of fish or wildlife, including endangered plants or animals, the elimination of a plant or animal community or elimination of examples of a major period of California history or prehistory. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-60
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. The Project involves the annexation of four parcels into the City and the construction of a 97-lot residential subdivision of approximately 33.27 acres, the effects of which would not result in significant cumulatively considerable impacts. Implementation of the Project would not result in significant cumulative impacts and all potential impacts would be less than significant through the implementation of basic regulatory requirements and Project design. 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 analysis conducted in this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration results in a determination that the Project would have a less than significant effect on the environment.

All potential impacts to human beings have found to be unsubstantial and would be considered less than significant.

City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 5: Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program www.provostandpritchard.com 5-1
CHAPTER 5 MITIGATION, MONITORING, AND REPORTING

PROGRAM
This MMRP has been formulated based upon the findings of the IS/MND for the Project in the City of Kingsburg. The MMRP lists mitigation measures recommended in the IS/MND for the Project and identifies monitoring and reporting requirements.

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

The first column of Table 5-1: Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program identifies the mitigation measure. The second column, entitled “When Monitoring is to Occur,” identifies the time the mitigation measure should be initiated. The third column, “Frequency of Monitoring,” identifies the frequency of the monitoring of the mitigation measure. The fourth column, “Agency Responsible for Monitoring,” names the party ultimately responsible for ensuring that the mitigation measure is implemented. The last columns will be used by the Lead and Responsible Agencies to ensure that individual mitigation measures have been complied with and monitored.

City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 5: Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program www.provostandpritchard.com 5-2
Table 5-1: Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program
Item Mitigation Measure When Monitoring is
to Occur
Frequency of
Monitoring
Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring
Method to
Verify
Compliance
Verification of
Compliance
Biological Resources
BIO-1
(Swainson’s Hawk and Nesting Bird Avoidance)
The project’s construction activities will occur, if
feasible, between September 16 and January 31
(outside of the nesting bird season) to avoid
impacts to nesting birds.

During Construction
Activities Daily
City of Kingsburg
and/or construction
contractor
City of
Kingsburg
with
assistance of
a qualified
biologist
BIO-2
(Swainson’s Hawk and Nesting Bird Preconstruction Surveys) If activities must occur within the nesting bird season (February 1 to
September 15), a qualified biologist (someone
familiar with these species and nesting birds) will
conduct a single pre-construction take-avoidance
survey for Swainson’s hawk nests on the site and
within a 0.5-mile radius outside of the site within
seven (7) calendar days prior to the start of
construction. The Swainson’s hawk survey must
not be completed between April 21 to June 10
due to the difficulty of identifying nests during this
time of year. The survey shall also include
inspecting for nesting migratory birds within the
site and up to 100 feet outside of the site and for
nesting raptors within the site and up to 500 feet
outside of the site. All raptor nests shall be
considered “active” upon the nest-building stage.

If no active nests are observed, no further
mitigation is required.

Prior to Construction
Activities Daily
City of Kingsburg
and/or construction
contractor
City of
Kingsburg
with
assistance of
a qualified
biologist
BIO-3
(Swainson’s Hawk and Nesting Bird Avoidance
Buffers) On discovery of any active nests or
breeding colonies near work areas, a qualified
biologist will determine appropriate avoidance
buffer distances based on applicable California
Department of Fish and Wildlife and/or United
States Fish and Wildlife Service guidelines, the
biology of the species, conditions of the nest(s),
and the level of project disturbance. If necessary,
During Construction
Activities Daily
City of Kingsburg
and/or construction
contractor
City of
Kingsburg
with
assistance of
a qualified
biologist
City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 5: Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program www.provostandpritchard.com 5-3
Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program
Item Mitigation Measure When Monitoring is
to Occur
Frequency of
Monitoring
Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring
Method to
Verify
Compliance
Verification of
Compliance
avoidance buffers will be identified with flagging,
fencing, or other easily visible means, and will be
maintained until the biologist has determined that
the nestlings have fledged.

BIO-4
(Maternity Bat Roost Pre-Construction Survey) If
construction activities fall between March 1 and
September 30 (bat maternity season) a preconstruction survey will be performed within seven (7) days prior to construction to identify
active maternity bat roost locations in the existing
house and barn onsite or trees within up to 100
feet of the site prior to the start of construction. A
qualified biologist (someone familiar with bat
roosts and their sign) will conduct a daytime roost
survey and an emergence survey at potential
roost locations.

Prior to Construction
Activities Daily
City of Kingsburg
and/or construction
contractor
City of
Kingsburg
with
assistance of
a qualified
biologist
BIO-5
(Bat Roost Pre-Demolition Survey) A predemolition survey will be performed within five (5) days prior to demolition of the existing house and
barn onsite to identify any active bat roosts that
could be used by pallid bats. A qualified biologist
(someone familiar with bat roosts and their sign)
will conduct a daytime roost survey and an
emergence survey at potential roost locations.

Should any roosting bats be observed, they shall
be identified by species using ultrasonic recording
equipment and software.

Prior to Demolition
Activities Daily
City of Kingsburg
and/or construction
contractor
City of
Kingsburg
with
assistance of
a qualified
biologist
BIO-6
(Bat Avoidance Buffers) On discovery of any active
maternity season bat roosts or pallid bat roosts, a
qualified biologist will determine appropriate
avoidance buffers based on the biology of the
species, conditions of the roost(s), and the level of
project disturbance, if appropriate. If necessary,
construction buffers will be identified with
flagging, fencing, or other easily visible means,
and will be maintained until the biologist has
determined that the roost will no longer be
During Construction
Activities Daily
City of Kingsburg
and/or construction
contractor
City of
Kingsburg
with
assistance of
a qualified
biologist
City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 5: Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program www.provostandpritchard.com 5-4
Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program
Item Mitigation Measure When Monitoring is
to Occur
Frequency of
Monitoring
Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring
Method to
Verify
Compliance
Verification of
Compliance
impacted by construction. Lighting is not to be
used near roosts where it would shine on or into
the roost entrance. Combustion equipment, such
as generators, pumps, and vehicles are not to be
parked, operated, under or within 100 feet of the
roost.

BIO-7
(Bat Exclusion) On discovery of any active bat
roosts within the existing house or barn outside of
the bat maternity season (October 1 to February
28), a qualified biologist will prepare an exclusion
plan that would detail the methods to be used. It
will include the tools to exclude the bat from the
structure/roost (i.e., one-way doors or other
devices) and the house and barn would be
removed within two days. Following completion of
exclusion, a report will be prepared that
documents the methods and results of these
efforts.

During Construction
Activities Daily
City of Kingsburg
and/or construction
contractor
City of
Kingsburg
with
assistance of
a qualified
biologist
Cultural Resources
CUL-1
(Archaeological Remains) In the event that
previously unidentified archaeological
remains are encountered during
development or ground-moving activities in
the Project site, all work should be halted
until a qualified archaeologist can identify the
discovery and assess its significance. In the
event of accidental discovery of unidentified
archaeological remains during development
or ground-moving activities in the Project
site, all work shall be halted in the immediate
vicinity (within a 100-foot radius) until a
qualified archaeologist can identify the
discovery and assess its significance.

During Construction
Activities Daily
City of Kingsburg
and/or construction
contractor
City of
Kingsburg
with
assistance of
a qualified
archaeologist
City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 5: Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program www.provostandpritchard.com 5-5
Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program
Item Mitigation Measure When Monitoring is
to Occur
Frequency of
Monitoring
Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring
Method to
Verify
Compliance
Verification of
Compliance
CUL-2
(Human Remains) If human remains are
uncovered during construction, the Fresno
County Coroner is to be notified to
investigate the remains and arrange proper
treatment and disposition. If the remains are
identified on the basis of archaeological
context, age, cultural associations, or
biological traits to be those of a Native
American, California Health and Safety Code
7050.5 and Public Resources Code 5097.98
require that the coroner notify the NAHC
(Native American Heritage Commission)
within 24 hours of discovery. The NAHC will
then identify the Most Likely Descendent
who will be afforded an opportunity to make
recommendations regarding the treatment
and disposition of the remains.

During Construction
Activities Daily
City of Kingsburg
and/or construction
contractor
City of
Kingsburg
with
assistance of
County
Coroner
Geology and Soils
GEO-1
Should a unique paleontological resource,
site, or unique geological feature be
unearthed during any stage of Project
activities, work in the area of discovery will
cease until the area is evaluated by a
qualified geologist and/or paleontologist. If
discoveries are uncovered, the Project
proponent will abide by recommendations of
the geologist or paleontologist.

During Construction
Activities Daily
City of Kingsburg
and/or construction
contractor
City of
Kingsburg
with
assistance of
a qualified
geologist
and/or
paleontologist
Transportation

Tribal Cultural Resources
See CUL-1 and CUL-2.

City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 6: References
www.provostandpritchard.com 6-1
CHAPTER 6 REFERENCES
CAL FIRE. (2024, 04 01). Fire Hazard Severity Zones. Retrieved from https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what-wedo/community-wildfire-preparedness-and-mitigation/fire-hazard-severity-zones CAL FIRE. (2008). LRA Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps. Retrieved from https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what-wedo/community-wildfire-preparedness-and-mitigation/fire-hazard-severity-zones/fire-hazardseverity-zones-maps (2023). California Code, Public Resources Code - PRC § 2762. Retrieved from https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/public-resources-code/prc-sect-2762/ California Department of Conservation. (2015). Fault Activity Map of California. Retrieved October 19, 2023, from https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/
California Department of Conservation. (2022). California Important Farmland Finder. Retrieved October 18, 2023, from https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/ California Department of Conservation. (2024). California Williamson Act Enrollment Finder. Retrieved from https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/WilliamsonAct/App/index.html California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. (2024, September 24). Solid Waste Information System. Retrieved from American Avenue Disposal Site:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/4535?siteID=352 California Department of Toxic Substances Control. (2024). EnviroStor. Retrieved October 18, 2023, from https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?global_id=37750009 California Department of Transportation. (2018). California State Scenic Highway System Map. Retrieved from
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057 116f1aacaa
California Department of Water Resources. (2024). Dam Breach Inundation Map Web Publisher. Retrieved October 19, 2023, from https://fmds.water.ca.gov/webgis/?appid=dam_prototype_v2 California Department of Water Resources. (2024). GSA Map Viewer. Retrieved October 18, 2023, from https://sgma.water.ca.gov/webgis/index.jsp?appid=gasmaster&rz=true Central Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency. (2024). Maps. Retrieved from Central Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency: https://ckgsa.org/maps/
City of Kingsburg. (1992). Comprehensive General Plan & Environmental Impact Report for the Swedish Village of Kingsburg. Retrieved October 16, 2023, from http://www.cityofkingsburgca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1815/City-of-Kingsburg-General-Plan City of Kingsburg. (2010). City of Kingsburg Emergency Operations Plan.

City of Kingsburg. (2014). Kingsburg General Plan Land Use Designations. Retrieved October 16, 2023, from http://www.cityofkingsburg-ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/185/Kingsburg-Official-General-PlanMap-PDF City of Kingsburg. (2020). City of Kingsburg Urban Water Management Plan.

City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 6: References
www.provostandpritchard.com 6-2
City of Kingsburg. (2024). Parks & Murals. Retrieved from City of Kingsburg: https://www.cityofkingsburgca.gov/168/Parks-Murals County of Fresno. (2000). General Plan Background Report. Fresno.

County of Fresno. (2000). General Plan County of Fresno. Retrieved from https://www.fresnocountyca.gov/files/sharedassets/county/v/1/vision-files/files/18117-2000- general-plan-policy-document.pdf
County of Fresno. (2024, September 10). County of Fresno Zoning. Retrieved October 16, 2023, from https://gisportal.co.fresno.ca.us/portal/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=b921843d343d4df99 8b5b3c6a301756a
Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2024). FEMA's National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) Viewer.

Retrieved October 18, 2023, from https://hazardsfema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b5529aa9 cd
Governor's Office of Planning and Research. (2018, April). Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. Retrieved from https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20180416- 743_Technical_Advisory_4.16.18.pdf
Kingsburg Fire Department. (2024). Department Overview. Retrieved from Kingsburg Fire Department:
https://www.cityofkingsburg-ca.gov/436/Department-Overview San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. (2009). Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emissions Impacts for New Projects under CEQA.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. (2012). Air Quality Attainment Plans. Retrieved August 5, 2024, from http://valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/air-quality-plans.htm South Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency. (2018). Boundary . Retrieved from South Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency: https://www.southkingsgsa.org/assets/boundary.pdf State Water Resources Control Board. (2024). GeoTracker. Retrieved October 18, 2023, from https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=Sacramento United States Department of Agriculture. (2024). Web Soil Survey. Retrieved from Natural Resources Conservation Service: https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2023). Map of Sole Source Aquifer Locations. Retrieved October 18, 2023, from
https://epa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=9ebb047ba3ec41ada1877155fe 31356b
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2024, September 6). Current Nonattainment Counties for All Criteria Pollutants. Retrieved August 5, 2024, from https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/ancl.html
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (2024, September 9). National Wetlands Inventory. Retrieved October 20, 2023, from https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper/ City of Kingsburg October 2024
Kings Estates V
Chapter 6: References
www.provostandpritchard.com 6-3
United States Geological Survey. (2024). Areas of Land Subsidence in California. Retrieved October 19, 2023, from https://ca.water.usgs.gov/land_subsidence/california-subsidence-areas.html United States Geological Survey. (2024). Areas of Land Subsidence in California. Retrieved from https://ca.water.usgs.gov/land_subsidence/california-subsidence-areas.html Unitied States Census Bureau. (2022). Quickfacts, City of Kingsburg. (Unitied States Chamber of Commerce) Retrieved 07 26, 2024, from
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/kingsburgcitycalifornia,US/PST045223 Unitied States Geological Survey. (2022). DOC Maps: Mines and Mineral Resources. Retrieved 07 26, 2024, from https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/mineralresources/ Appendix

APPENDICES
Appendix
Appendix A: CalEEMod Output Files
Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
1 / 81
Kings Estates V Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2024) - Unmitigated

3.2. Demolition (2024) - Mitigated

3.3. Site Preparation (2024) - Unmitigated
Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
2 / 81

3.4. Site Preparation (2024) - Mitigated

3.5. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated

3.6. Grading (2024) - Mitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated

3.8. Building Construction (2024) - Mitigated

3.9. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated

3.10. Building Construction (2025) - Mitigated

3.11. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated

3.12. Building Construction (2026) - Mitigated

3.13. Paving (2026) - Unmitigated

3.14. Paving (2026) - Mitigated

3.15. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated

3.16. Architectural Coating (2026) - Mitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.1.2. Mitigated

4.2. Energy
Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
3 / 81

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.3.2. Mitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.4.2. Mitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.5.2. Mitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.6.2. Mitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
4 / 81

4.7.2. Mitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.8.2. Mitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.9.2. Mitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

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

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated

4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
5 / 81

5.2.2. Mitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.3.2. Mitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.9.2. Mitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
6 / 81

5.10.1.2. Mitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.11.2. Mitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.12.2. Mitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.13.2. Mitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.14.2. Mitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated
Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
7 / 81

5.15.2. Mitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2.2. Mitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
8 / 81

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data
Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
9 / 81

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Kings Estates V
Construction Start Date 5/6/2024
Operational Year 2027
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.40
Precipitation (days) 23.2
Location 36.53745446062767, -119.54987057540413
County Fresno
City Unincorporated
Air District San Joaquin Valley APCD
Air Basin San Joaquin Valley
TAZ 2542
EDFZ 5
Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.28

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

97.0 Dwelling Unit 33.3 189,150 1,136,147 — 310 —
Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
10 / 81

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title
Energy E-10-B Establish Onsite Renewable Energy Systems: Solar Power Energy E-12-A Install Alternative Type of Water Heater in Place of Gas Storage Tank Heater in Residences
Energy E-12-B Install Electric Space Heater in Place of Natural Gas Heaters in Residences
Energy E-13 Install Electric Ranges in Place of Gas Ranges

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 4.42 3.73 36.0 33.6 0.06 1.60 19.8 21.4 1.47 10.1 11.6 — 6,722 6,722 0.28 0.06 1.22 6,747 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 34.0 34.0 11.6 14.4 0.02 0.50 0.22 0.72 0.46 0.05 0.51 — 2,729 2,729 0.11 0.05 0.03 2,746 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 4.00 3.88 10.6 10.4 0.02 0.46 2.29 2.75 0.42 1.02 1.44 — 1,975 1,975 0.08 0.03 0.35 1,985 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.73 0.71 1.94 1.90 < 0.005 0.08 0.42 0.50 0.08 0.19 0.26 — 327 327 0.01 0.01 0.06 329 Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
11 / 81

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 4.42 3.73 36.0 33.6 0.06 1.60 19.8 21.4 1.47 10.1 11.6 — 6,722 6,722 0.28 0.06 1.22 6,747 2025 1.52 1.28 10.7 14.4 0.02 0.43 0.22 0.66 0.40 0.05 0.45 — 2,746 2,746 0.11 0.05 1.15 2,764 2026 1.44 1.22 10.1 14.3 0.02 0.38 0.22 0.61 0.35 0.05 0.40 — 2,738 2,738 0.11 0.05 1.03 2,757 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 1.60 1.35 11.6 14.4 0.02 0.50 0.22 0.72 0.46 0.05 0.51 — 2,729 2,729 0.11 0.05 0.03 2,746 2025 1.50 1.26 10.8 14.2 0.02 0.43 0.22 0.66 0.40 0.05 0.45 — 2,722 2,722 0.11 0.05 0.03 2,739 2026 34.0 34.0 10.2 14.0 0.02 0.38 0.22 0.61 0.35 0.05 0.40 — 2,715 2,715 0.11 0.05 0.03 2,733 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 1.36 1.14 10.6 10.4 0.02 0.46 2.29 2.75 0.42 1.02 1.44 — 1,975 1,975 0.08 0.02 0.16 1,985 2025 1.07 0.91 7.68 10.2 0.02 0.31 0.16 0.47 0.29 0.04 0.32 — 1,949 1,949 0.08 0.03 0.35 1,962 2026 4.00 3.88 5.38 7.50 0.01 0.21 0.11 0.32 0.19 0.03 0.22 — 1,405 1,405 0.06 0.02 0.22 1,414 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.25 0.21 1.94 1.90 < 0.005 0.08 0.42 0.50 0.08 0.19 0.26 — 327 327 0.01 < 0.005 0.03 329 2025 0.20 0.17 1.40 1.85 < 0.005 0.06 0.03 0.09 0.05 0.01 0.06 — 323 323 0.01 0.01 0.06 325 2026 0.73 0.71 0.98 1.37 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 0.06 0.03 < 0.005 0.04 — 233 233 0.01 < 0.005 0.04 234

2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
12 / 81
Daily - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
2024 4.42 3.73 36.0 33.6 0.06 1.60 19.8 21.4 1.47 10.1 11.6 — 6,722 6,722 0.28 0.06 1.22 6,747 2025 1.52 1.28 10.7 14.4 0.02 0.43 0.22 0.66 0.40 0.05 0.45 — 2,746 2,746 0.11 0.05 1.15 2,764 2026 1.44 1.22 10.1 14.3 0.02 0.38 0.22 0.61 0.35 0.05 0.40 — 2,738 2,738 0.11 0.05 1.03 2,757 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 1.60 1.35 11.6 14.4 0.02 0.50 0.22 0.72 0.46 0.05 0.51 — 2,729 2,729 0.11 0.05 0.03 2,746 2025 1.50 1.26 10.8 14.2 0.02 0.43 0.22 0.66 0.40 0.05 0.45 — 2,722 2,722 0.11 0.05 0.03 2,739 2026 34.0 34.0 10.2 14.0 0.02 0.38 0.22 0.61 0.35 0.05 0.40 — 2,715 2,715 0.11 0.05 0.03 2,733 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 1.36 1.14 10.6 10.4 0.02 0.46 2.29 2.75 0.42 1.02 1.44 — 1,975 1,975 0.08 0.02 0.16 1,985 2025 1.07 0.91 7.68 10.2 0.02 0.31 0.16 0.47 0.29 0.04 0.32 — 1,949 1,949 0.08 0.03 0.35 1,962 2026 4.00 3.88 5.38 7.50 0.01 0.21 0.11 0.32 0.19 0.03 0.22 — 1,405 1,405 0.06 0.02 0.22 1,414 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.25 0.21 1.94 1.90 < 0.005 0.08 0.42 0.50 0.08 0.19 0.26 — 327 327 0.01 < 0.005 0.03 329 2025 0.20 0.17 1.40 1.85 < 0.005 0.06 0.03 0.09 0.05 0.01 0.06 — 323 323 0.01 0.01 0.06 325 2026 0.73 0.71 0.98 1.37 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 0.06 0.03 < 0.005 0.04 — 233 233 0.01 < 0.005 0.04 234

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 8.38 8.15 2.71 28.1 0.05 0.04 4.49 4.54 0.04 1.14 1.18 53.9 6,635 6,689 5.81 0.31 18.5 6,945 Mit. 8.38 8.15 2.70 28.1 0.05 0.04 4.49 4.54 0.04 1.14 1.18 53.9 6,028 6,082 5.71 0.30 18.5 6,332 Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
13 / 81
% < 0.5% — < 0.5% < 0.5% — — — — — — — — 9% 9% 2% 4% — 9% Reduced
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 7.52 7.29 3.03 19.8 0.05 0.04 4.49 4.53 0.04 1.14 1.18 53.9 6,165 6,219 5.85 0.33 1.80 6,465 Mit. 7.52 7.29 3.02 19.8 0.05 0.04 4.49 4.53 0.04 1.14 1.18 53.9 5,558 5,612 5.75 0.32 1.80 5,851 %
Reduced
< 0.5% — < 0.5% < 0.5% — — — — — — — — 10% 10% 2% 4% — 9% Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 7.74 7.51 2.81 21.9 0.05 0.04 4.33 4.37 0.04 1.10 1.14 53.9 6,185 6,239 5.82 0.31 8.59 6,486 Mit. 7.73 7.51 2.80 21.9 0.05 0.04 4.33 4.37 0.04 1.10 1.14 53.9 5,578 5,632 5.72 0.30 8.59 5,873 %
Reduced
< 0.5% — < 0.5% < 0.5% — — — — — — — — 10% 10% 2% 4% — 9% Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.41 1.37 0.51 4.01 0.01 0.01 0.79 0.80 0.01 0.20 0.21 8.92 1,024 1,033 0.96 0.05 1.42 1,074 Mit. 1.41 1.37 0.51 4.00 0.01 0.01 0.79 0.80 0.01 0.20 0.21 8.92 923 932 0.95 0.05 1.42 972 %
Reduced
< 0.5% < 0.5% < 0.5% < 0.5% < 0.5% 2% — < 0.5% 2% — < 0.5% — 10% 10% 2% 4% — 9%

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 3.50 3.29 2.65 22.6 0.05 0.04 4.49 4.53 0.04 1.14 1.18 — 5,511 5,511 0.23 0.27 17.1 5,614 Area 4.88 4.86 0.05 5.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 14.7 14.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.8 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 1,094 1,094 0.18 0.02 — 1,105 Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
14 / 81
Water — — — — — — — — — — — 7.49 15.3 22.8 0.77 0.02 — 47.6 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 46.4 0.00 46.4 4.64 0.00 — 162 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.35 1.35
Total 8.38 8.15 2.71 28.1 0.05 0.04 4.49 4.54 0.04 1.14 1.18 53.9 6,635 6,689 5.81 0.31 18.5 6,945 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 3.14 2.92 3.03 19.8 0.05 0.04 4.49 4.53 0.04 1.14 1.18 — 5,055 5,055 0.26 0.29 0.44 5,148 Area 4.37 4.37 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 1,094 1,094 0.18 0.02 — 1,105 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 7.49 15.3 22.8 0.77 0.02 — 47.6 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 46.4 0.00 46.4 4.64 0.00 — 162 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.35 1.35
Total 7.52 7.29 3.03 19.8 0.05 0.04 4.49 4.53 0.04 1.14 1.18 53.9 6,165 6,219 5.85 0.33 1.80 6,465 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 3.11 2.90 2.79 19.2 0.05 0.04 4.33 4.37 0.04 1.10 1.14 — 5,068 5,068 0.24 0.27 7.23 5,162 Area 4.62 4.61 0.03 2.72 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.26 7.26 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.28 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 1,094 1,094 0.18 0.02 — 1,105 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 7.49 15.3 22.8 0.77 0.02 — 47.6 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 46.4 0.00 46.4 4.64 0.00 — 162 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.35 1.35
Total 7.74 7.51 2.81 21.9 0.05 0.04 4.33 4.37 0.04 1.10 1.14 53.9 6,185 6,239 5.82 0.31 8.59 6,486 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.57 0.53 0.51 3.51 0.01 0.01 0.79 0.80 0.01 0.20 0.21 — 839 839 0.04 0.05 1.20 855 Area 0.84 0.84 < 0.005 0.50 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.20 1.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.21 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 181 181 0.03 < 0.005 — 183 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 1.24 2.54 3.78 0.13 < 0.005 — 7.89 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 7.68 0.00 7.68 0.77 0.00 — 26.9 Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
15 / 81
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.22 0.22
Total 1.41 1.37 0.51 4.01 0.01 0.01 0.79 0.80 0.01 0.20 0.21 8.92 1,024 1,033 0.96 0.05 1.42 1,074

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 3.50 3.29 2.65 22.6 0.05 0.04 4.49 4.53 0.04 1.14 1.18 — 5,511 5,511 0.23 0.27 17.1 5,614 Area 4.88 4.86 0.05 5.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 14.7 14.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.8 Energy > -0.005 > -0.005 -0.01 > -0.005 > -0.005 > -0.005 — > -0.005 > -0.005 — > -0.005 — 487 487 0.08 0.01 — 492 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 7.49 15.3 22.8 0.77 0.02 — 47.6 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 46.4 0.00 46.4 4.64 0.00 — 162 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.35 1.35
Total 8.38 8.15 2.70 28.1 0.05 0.04 4.49 4.54 0.04 1.14 1.18 53.9 6,028 6,082 5.71 0.30 18.5 6,332 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 3.14 2.92 3.03 19.8 0.05 0.04 4.49 4.53 0.04 1.14 1.18 — 5,055 5,055 0.26 0.29 0.44 5,148 Area 4.37 4.37 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy > -0.005 > -0.005 -0.01 > -0.005 > -0.005 > -0.005 — > -0.005 > -0.005 — > -0.005 — 487 487 0.08 0.01 — 492 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 7.49 15.3 22.8 0.77 0.02 — 47.6 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 46.4 0.00 46.4 4.64 0.00 — 162 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.35 1.35
Total 7.52 7.29 3.02 19.8 0.05 0.04 4.49 4.53 0.04 1.14 1.18 53.9 5,558 5,612 5.75 0.32 1.80 5,851 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 3.11 2.90 2.79 19.2 0.05 0.04 4.33 4.37 0.04 1.10 1.14 — 5,068 5,068 0.24 0.27 7.23 5,162 Area 4.62 4.61 0.03 2.72 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.26 7.26 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.28 Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
16 / 81
Energy > -0.005 > -0.005 -0.01 > -0.005 > -0.005 > -0.005 — > -0.005 > -0.005 — > -0.005 — 487 487 0.08 0.01 — 492 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 7.49 15.3 22.8 0.77 0.02 — 47.6 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 46.4 0.00 46.4 4.64 0.00 — 162 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.35 1.35
Total 7.73 7.51 2.80 21.9 0.05 0.04 4.33 4.37 0.04 1.10 1.14 53.9 5,578 5,632 5.72 0.30 8.59 5,873 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.57 0.53 0.51 3.51 0.01 0.01 0.79 0.80 0.01 0.20 0.21 — 839 839 0.04 0.05 1.20 855 Area 0.84 0.84 < 0.005 0.50 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.20 1.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.21 Energy > -0.005 > -0.005 > -0.005 > -0.005 > -0.005 > -0.005 — > -0.005 > -0.005 — > -0.005 — 80.6 80.6 0.01 < 0.005 — 81.4 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 1.24 2.54 3.78 0.13 < 0.005 — 7.89 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 7.68 0.00 7.68 0.77 0.00 — 26.9 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.22 0.22
Total 1.41 1.37 0.51 4.00 0.01 0.01 0.79 0.80 0.01 0.20 0.21 8.92 923 932 0.95 0.05 1.42 972

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

3.12 2.62 24.9 21.7 0.03 1.06 — 1.06 0.98 — 0.98 — 3,425 3,425 0.14 0.03 — 3,437 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.10 0.10 — 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
17 / 81
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.26 0.22 2.05 1.79 < 0.005 0.09 — 0.09 0.08 — 0.08 — 282 282 0.01 < 0.005 — 282 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.05 0.04 0.37 0.33 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.01 — 0.01 — 46.6 46.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 46.8 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.07 0.04 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 92.9 92.9 0.01 < 0.005 0.37 94.6 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.10 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 85.6 85.6 < 0.005 0.01 0.21 89.9 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.02 7.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.14 Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
18 / 81
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.04 7.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.38 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.16 1.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.18 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.16 1.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.22

3.2. Demolition (2024) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

3.12 2.62 24.9 21.7 0.03 1.06 — 1.06 0.98 — 0.98 — 3,425 3,425 0.14 0.03 — 3,437 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.10 0.10 — 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.26 0.22 2.05 1.79 < 0.005 0.09 — 0.09 0.08 — 0.08 — 282 282 0.01 < 0.005 — 282 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
19 / 81
Onsite
truck

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

0.05 0.04 0.37 0.33 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.01 — 0.01 — 46.6 46.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 46.8 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.07 0.04 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 92.9 92.9 0.01 < 0.005 0.37 94.6 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.10 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 85.6 85.6 < 0.005 0.01 0.21 89.9 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.02 7.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.14 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.04 7.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.38 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.16 1.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.18 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.16 1.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.22

3.3. Site Preparation (2024) - Unmitigated
Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
20 / 81
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

4.34 3.65 36.0 32.9 0.05 1.60 — 1.60 1.47 — 1.47 — 5,296 5,296 0.21 0.04 — 5,314 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 19.7 19.7 — 10.1 10.1 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.24 0.20 1.97 1.80 < 0.005 0.09 — 0.09 0.08 — 0.08 — 290 290 0.01 < 0.005 — 291 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 1.08 1.08 — 0.55 0.55 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.04 0.04 0.36 0.33 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.01 — 0.01 — 48.0 48.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 48.2 Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
21 / 81
Dust — — — — — — 0.20 0.20 — 0.10 0.10 — — — — — — —
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.08 0.04 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 108 108 0.01 < 0.005 0.43 110 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.46 5.46 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.55 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.90 0.90 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.92 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.4. Site Preparation (2024) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
22 / 81
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

4.34 3.65 36.0 32.9 0.05 1.60 — 1.60 1.47 — 1.47 — 5,296 5,296 0.21 0.04 — 5,314 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 19.7 19.7 — 10.1 10.1 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.24 0.20 1.97 1.80 < 0.005 0.09 — 0.09 0.08 — 0.08 — 290 290 0.01 < 0.005 — 291 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 1.08 1.08 — 0.55 0.55 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.04 0.04 0.36 0.33 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.01 — 0.01 — 48.0 48.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 48.2 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.20 0.20 — 0.10 0.10 — — — — — — —
Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
23 / 81
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.08 0.04 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 108 108 0.01 < 0.005 0.43 110 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.46 5.46 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.55 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.90 0.90 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.92 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.5. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
24 / 81
Off-Roa 4.19 3.52 34.3 30.2 0.06 1.45 — 1.45 1.33 — 1.33 — 6,598 6,598 0.27 0.05 — 6,621 d
Equipm
ent
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 9.20 9.20 — 3.65 3.65 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.52 0.43 4.23 3.72 0.01 0.18 — 0.18 0.16 — 0.16 — 813 813 0.03 0.01 — 816 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 1.13 1.13 — 0.45 0.45 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.09 0.08 0.77 0.68 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 135 135 0.01 < 0.005 — 135 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.21 0.21 — 0.08 0.08 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
25 / 81
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.10 0.09 0.05 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 124 124 0.01 0.01 0.50 126 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.0 14.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 14.3 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.32 2.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.36 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.6. Grading (2024) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

4.19 3.52 34.3 30.2 0.06 1.45 — 1.45 1.33 — 1.33 — 6,598 6,598 0.27 0.05 — 6,621 Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
26 / 81
Dust—————— 9.20 9.20— 3.65 3.65———————
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck

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

0.52 0.43 4.23 3.72 0.01 0.18— 0.18 0.16— 0.16— 813 813 0.03 0.01— 816 Dust
From
Material
Movement—
————— 1.13 1.13— 0.45 0.45———————
Onsite
truck

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

0.09 0.08 0.77 0.68 < 0.005 0.03— 0.03 0.03— 0.03— 135 135 0.01 < 0.005— 135 Dust
From
Material
Movement—
————— 0.21 0.21— 0.08 0.08———————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.10 0.09 0.05 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03— 124 124 0.01 0.01 0.50 126 Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
27 / 81
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.0 14.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 14.3 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.32 2.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.36 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.7. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.44 1.20 11.2 13.1 0.02 0.50 — 0.50 0.46 — 0.46 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
28 / 81
Off-Roa 1.44 1.20 11.2 13.1 0.02 0.50 — 0.50 0.46 — 0.46 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 d
Onsite
truck

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

0.29 0.24 2.28 2.67 < 0.005 0.10 — 0.10 0.09 — 0.09 — 488 488 0.02 < 0.005 — 490 Onsite
truck

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

0.05 0.04 0.42 0.49 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 80.8 80.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 81.1 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.17 0.16 0.09 1.42 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 216 216 0.01 0.01 0.86 220 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.23 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 139 139 < 0.005 0.02 0.36 145 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.15 0.14 0.11 1.15 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 192 192 0.01 0.01 0.02 195 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.24 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 139 139 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 145 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
29 / 81
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 40.5 40.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 41.2 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 28.3 28.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 29.6 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.70 6.70 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.81 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.68 4.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.89 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.8. Building Construction (2024) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.44 1.20 11.2 13.1 0.02 0.50 — 0.50 0.46 — 0.46 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck

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

1.44 1.20 11.2 13.1 0.02 0.50 — 0.50 0.46 — 0.46 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
30 / 81
Off-Roa 0.29 0.24 2.28 2.67 < 0.005 0.10 — 0.10 0.09 — 0.09 — 488 488 0.02 < 0.005 — 490 d
Onsite
truck

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

0.05 0.04 0.42 0.49 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 80.8 80.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 81.1 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.17 0.16 0.09 1.42 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 216 216 0.01 0.01 0.86 220 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.23 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 139 139 < 0.005 0.02 0.36 145 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.15 0.14 0.11 1.15 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 192 192 0.01 0.01 0.02 195 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.24 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 139 139 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 145 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 40.5 40.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 41.2 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 28.3 28.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 29.6 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.70 6.70 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.81 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.68 4.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.89 Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
31 / 81
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

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

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

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

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

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

0.96 0.80 7.46 9.31 0.02 0.31 — 0.31 0.28 — 0.28 — 1,713 1,713 0.07 0.01 — 1,719 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
32 / 81
Off-Roa 0.18 0.15 1.36 1.70 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.05 — 0.05 — 284 284 0.01 < 0.005 — 285 d
Equipm
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.16 0.15 0.08 1.30 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 212 212 0.01 0.01 0.79 215 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.22 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 136 136 < 0.005 0.02 0.35 143 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.14 0.13 0.10 1.05 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 188 188 0.01 0.01 0.02 191 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.23 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 137 137 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 143 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.10 0.10 0.06 0.76 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 139 139 0.01 0.01 0.24 141 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.16 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 97.5 97.5 < 0.005 0.01 0.11 102 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 23.0 23.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 23.4 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.1 16.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 16.9 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.10. Building Construction (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
33 / 81
Onsite——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Roa d
Equipm
ent

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

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

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

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

0.96 0.80 7.46 9.31 0.02 0.31— 0.31 0.28— 0.28— 1,713 1,713 0.07 0.01— 1,719 Onsite
truck

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

0.18 0.15 1.36 1.70 < 0.005 0.06— 0.06 0.05— 0.05— 284 284 0.01 < 0.005— 285 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite——————————————————
Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
34 / 81
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Worker 0.16 0.15 0.08 1.30 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 212 212 0.01 0.01 0.79 215 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.22 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 136 136 < 0.005 0.02 0.35 143 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.14 0.13 0.10 1.05 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 188 188 0.01 0.01 0.02 191 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.23 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 137 137 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 143 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.10 0.10 0.06 0.76 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 139 139 0.01 0.01 0.24 141 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.16 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 97.5 97.5 < 0.005 0.01 0.11 102 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 23.0 23.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 23.4 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.1 16.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 16.9 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.11. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
35 / 81
Off-Roa 1.28 1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38 — 0.38 0.35 — 0.35 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 d
Equipm
Onsite
truck

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

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

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

0.58 0.49 4.47 5.89 0.01 0.17 — 0.17 0.16 — 0.16 — 1,088 1,088 0.04 0.01 — 1,092 Onsite
truck

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

0.11 0.09 0.82 1.07 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 180 180 0.01 < 0.005 — 181 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.15 0.14 0.07 1.20 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 207 207 0.01 0.01 0.72 211 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.21 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 134 134 < 0.005 0.02 0.31 140 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
36 / 81
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.13 0.12 0.09 0.97 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 184 184 0.01 0.01 0.02 187 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.23 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 134 134 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 140 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 86.5 86.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.14 88.0 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.10 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 60.8 60.8 < 0.005 0.01 0.06 63.6 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.3 14.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 14.6 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.1 10.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 10.5 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

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

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

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
37 / 81
Off-Roa
Equipment

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

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

0.58 0.49 4.47 5.89 0.01 0.17 — 0.17 0.16 — 0.16 — 1,088 1,088 0.04 0.01 — 1,092 Onsite
truck

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

0.11 0.09 0.82 1.07 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 180 180 0.01 < 0.005 — 181 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.15 0.14 0.07 1.20 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 207 207 0.01 0.01 0.72 211 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.21 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 134 134 < 0.005 0.02 0.31 140 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.13 0.12 0.09 0.97 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 184 184 0.01 0.01 0.02 187 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.23 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 134 134 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 140 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
38 / 81
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 86.5 86.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.14 88.0 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.10 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 60.8 60.8 < 0.005 0.01 0.06 63.6 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.3 14.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 14.6 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.1 10.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 10.5 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

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

0.91 0.76 7.12 9.94 0.01 0.32 — 0.32 0.29 — 0.29 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,516 Paving 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.91 0.76 7.12 9.94 0.01 0.32 — 0.32 0.29 — 0.29 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,516 Paving 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
39 / 81
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.09 0.07 0.68 0.95 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 145 145 0.01 < 0.005 — 145 Paving 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.02 0.01 0.12 0.17 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 24.0 24.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 24.1 Paving 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.03 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 89.0 89.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.31 90.6 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 79.1 79.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 80.3 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.85 7.85 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.98 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
40 / 81
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.30 1.30 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.32 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

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

0.91 0.76 7.12 9.94 0.01 0.32 — 0.32 0.29 — 0.29 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,516 Paving 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.91 0.76 7.12 9.94 0.01 0.32 — 0.32 0.29 — 0.29 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,516 Paving 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
41 / 81
Off-Roa 0.09 0.07 0.68 0.95 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 145 145 0.01 < 0.005 — 145 d
Paving 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.02 0.01 0.12 0.17 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 24.0 24.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 24.1 Paving 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.03 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 89.0 89.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.31 90.6 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 79.1 79.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 80.3 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.85 7.85 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.98 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
42 / 81
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.30 1.30 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.32 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

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

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

33.8 33.8 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.01 0.01 0.08 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 12.8 12.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12.8 Architect
ural
Coating
s

3.24 3.24 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
43 / 81
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.12 2.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.13 Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.59 0.59 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 36.8 36.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 37.4 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.66 3.66 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.72 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.61 0.61 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.62 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
44 / 81

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

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

33.8 33.8 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.01 0.01 0.08 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 12.8 12.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12.8 Architect
ural
Coating
s

3.24 3.24 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
45 / 81
Off-Roa < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.12 2.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.13 d
Equipm
ent
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.59 0.59 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 36.8 36.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 37.4 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.66 3.66 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.72 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.61 0.61 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.62 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4. Operations Emissions Details
Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
46 / 81

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

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

3.50 3.29 2.65 22.6 0.05 0.04 4.49 4.53 0.04 1.14 1.18 — 5,511 5,511 0.23 0.27 17.1 5,614 Total 3.50 3.29 2.65 22.6 0.05 0.04 4.49 4.53 0.04 1.14 1.18 — 5,511 5,511 0.23 0.27 17.1 5,614 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

3.14 2.92 3.03 19.8 0.05 0.04 4.49 4.53 0.04 1.14 1.18 — 5,055 5,055 0.26 0.29 0.44 5,148 Total 3.14 2.92 3.03 19.8 0.05 0.04 4.49 4.53 0.04 1.14 1.18 — 5,055 5,055 0.26 0.29 0.44 5,148 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.57 0.53 0.51 3.51 0.01 0.01 0.79 0.80 0.01 0.20 0.21 — 839 839 0.04 0.05 1.20 855 Total 0.57 0.53 0.51 3.51 0.01 0.01 0.79 0.80 0.01 0.20 0.21 — 839 839 0.04 0.05 1.20 855

4.1.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
47 / 81
Single
Family
Housing

3.50 3.29 2.65 22.6 0.05 0.04 4.49 4.53 0.04 1.14 1.18 — 5,511 5,511 0.23 0.27 17.1 5,614 Total 3.50 3.29 2.65 22.6 0.05 0.04 4.49 4.53 0.04 1.14 1.18 — 5,511 5,511 0.23 0.27 17.1 5,614 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

3.14 2.92 3.03 19.8 0.05 0.04 4.49 4.53 0.04 1.14 1.18 — 5,055 5,055 0.26 0.29 0.44 5,148 Total 3.14 2.92 3.03 19.8 0.05 0.04 4.49 4.53 0.04 1.14 1.18 — 5,055 5,055 0.26 0.29 0.44 5,148 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.57 0.53 0.51 3.51 0.01 0.01 0.79 0.80 0.01 0.20 0.21 — 839 839 0.04 0.05 1.20 855 Total 0.57 0.53 0.51 3.51 0.01 0.01 0.79 0.80 0.01 0.20 0.21 — 839 839 0.04 0.05 1.20 855

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,094 1,094 0.18 0.02 — 1,105
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,094 1,094 0.18 0.02 — 1,105 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
48 / 81
Single — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,094 1,094 0.18 0.02 — 1,105 Family
Housing
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,094 1,094 0.18 0.02 — 1,105 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 181 181 0.03 < 0.005 — 183
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 181 181 0.03 < 0.005 — 183

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 499 499 0.08 0.01 — 504
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 499 499 0.08 0.01 — 504
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 499 499 0.08 0.01 — 504
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 499 499 0.08 0.01 — 504
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 82.6 82.6 0.01 < 0.005 — 83.5
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 82.6 82.6 0.01 < 0.005 — 83.5 Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
49 / 81

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

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00

4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
> -0.005 > -0.005 -0.01 > -0.005 > -0.005 > -0.005 — > -0.005 > -0.005 — > -0.005 — -12.1 -12.1 > -0.005 > -0.005 — -12.1 Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
50 / 81
Total > -0.005 > -0.005 -0.01 > -0.005 > -0.005 > -0.005 — > -0.005 > -0.005 — > -0.005 — -12.1 -12.1 > -0.005 > -0.005 — -12.1 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
> -0.005 > -0.005 -0.01 > -0.005 > -0.005 > -0.005 — > -0.005 > -0.005 — > -0.005 — -12.1 -12.1 > -0.005 > -0.005 — -12.1 Total > -0.005 > -0.005 -0.01 > -0.005 > -0.005 > -0.005 — > -0.005 > -0.005 — > -0.005 — -12.1 -12.1 > -0.005 > -0.005 — -12.1 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
> -0.005 > -0.005 > -0.005 > -0.005 > -0.005 > -0.005 — > -0.005 > -0.005 — > -0.005 — -2.00 -2.00 > -0.005 > -0.005 — -2.01 Total > -0.005 > -0.005 > -0.005 > -0.005 > -0.005 > -0.005 — > -0.005 > -0.005 — > -0.005 — -2.00 -2.00 > -0.005 > -0.005 — -2.01

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

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

4.05 4.05 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.32 0.32 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

0.51 0.48 0.05 5.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 14.7 14.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.8 Total 4.88 4.86 0.05 5.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 14.7 14.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.8 Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
51 / 81
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s

4.05 4.05 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.32 0.32 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 4.37 4.37 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s

0.74 0.74 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.06 0.06 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

0.05 0.04 < 0.005 0.50 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.20 1.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.21 Total 0.84 0.84 < 0.005 0.50 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.20 1.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.21

4.3.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
52 / 81
Consum 4.05 4.05 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
er
Product
s
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.32 0.32 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

0.51 0.48 0.05 5.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 14.7 14.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.8 Total 4.88 4.86 0.05 5.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 14.7 14.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.8 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s

4.05 4.05 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.32 0.32 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 4.37 4.37 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s

0.74 0.74 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.06 0.06 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

0.05 0.04 < 0.005 0.50 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.20 1.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.21 Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
53 / 81
Total 0.84 0.84 < 0.005 0.50 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.20 1.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.21

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 7.49 15.3 22.8 0.77 0.02 — 47.6
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 7.49 15.3 22.8 0.77 0.02 — 47.6 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 7.49 15.3 22.8 0.77 0.02 — 47.6
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 7.49 15.3 22.8 0.77 0.02 — 47.6 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 1.24 2.54 3.78 0.13 < 0.005 — 7.89 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 1.24 2.54 3.78 0.13 < 0.005 — 7.89

4.4.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
54 / 81
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 7.49 15.3 22.8 0.77 0.02 — 47.6
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 7.49 15.3 22.8 0.77 0.02 — 47.6 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 7.49 15.3 22.8 0.77 0.02 — 47.6
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 7.49 15.3 22.8 0.77 0.02 — 47.6 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 1.24 2.54 3.78 0.13 < 0.005 — 7.89 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 1.24 2.54 3.78 0.13 < 0.005 — 7.89

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 46.4 0.00 46.4 4.64 0.00 — 162
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 46.4 0.00 46.4 4.64 0.00 — 162 Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
55 / 81
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 46.4 0.00 46.4 4.64 0.00 — 162
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 46.4 0.00 46.4 4.64 0.00 — 162 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 7.68 0.00 7.68 0.77 0.00 — 26.9
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 7.68 0.00 7.68 0.77 0.00 — 26.9

4.5.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 46.4 0.00 46.4 4.64 0.00 — 162
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 46.4 0.00 46.4 4.64 0.00 — 162 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 46.4 0.00 46.4 4.64 0.00 — 162
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 46.4 0.00 46.4 4.64 0.00 — 162 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
56 / 81
Single — — — — — — — — — — — 7.68 0.00 7.68 0.77 0.00 — 26.9 Family
Housing
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 7.68 0.00 7.68 0.77 0.00 — 26.9

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.35 1.35
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.35 1.35
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.35 1.35
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.35 1.35
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.22 0.22
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.22 0.22

4.6.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
57 / 81
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.35 1.35
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.35 1.35
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.35 1.35
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.35 1.35
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.22 0.22
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.22 0.22

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
58 / 81
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

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

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
59 / 81
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

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

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
60 / 81
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

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

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
61 / 81
Vegetati TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e on
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

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

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
62 / 81
Daily,——————————————————
Summer
(Max)
Avoided——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Remove d——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
———————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Avoided——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Remove d——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
———————————————————
Annual——————————————————
Avoided——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Remove d——————————————————
Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
63 / 81
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

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

4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
64 / 81

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
65 / 81
Sequest — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ered
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demolition Demolition 5/6/2024 6/17/2024 5.00 30.0 —
Site Preparation Site Preparation 6/18/2024 7/16/2024 5.00 20.0 — Grading Grading 7/17/2024 9/18/2024 5.00 45.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 9/19/2024 8/20/2026 5.00 500 — Paving Paving 8/21/2026 10/9/2026 5.00 35.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 10/10/2026 11/28/2026 5.00 35.0 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 367 0.40 Demolition Excavators Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
66 / 81
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37 hoes
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 423 0.48
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48

5.2.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 367 0.40 Demolition Excavators Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
67 / 81
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37 Grading Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 423 0.48
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 15.0 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 1.20 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
68 / 81
Grading Worker 20.0 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 34.9 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 10.4 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 6.98 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.3.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 15.0 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 1.20 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation — — — —
Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
69 / 81
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 20.0 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 34.9 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 10.4 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 6.98 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

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

Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
70 / 81

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 383,029 127,676 0.00 0.00 —

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (Building Square Footage)
Acres Paved (acres)
Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,100 —
Site Preparation — — 30.0 0.00 —
Grading — — 135 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.07

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

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Single Family Housing 1.07 0%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2024 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2025 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2026 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
71 / 81

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Single Family
Housing
916 925 829 330,227 6,287 6,354 5,695 2,267,435

5.9.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Single Family
Housing
916 925 829 330,227 6,287 6,354 5,695 2,267,435

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.1.2. Mitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
383028.75 127,676 0.00 0.00 —

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180
Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
72 / 81

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

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Single Family Housing 1,957,934 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.11.2. Mitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Single Family Housing 893,145 204 0.0330 0.0040 -37,755

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Single Family Housing 3,908,712 19,061,936

5.12.2. Mitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Single Family Housing 3,908,712 19,061,936
Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
73 / 81

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Single Family Housing 86.1 —

5.13.2. Mitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Single Family Housing 86.1 —

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Single Family Housing Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Single Family Housing Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00

5.14.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Single Family Housing Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Single Family Housing Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
74 / 81

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.15.2. Mitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor

5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
75 / 81

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

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

5.18.2.2. Mitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

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

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 34.2 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 1.10 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
76 / 81
Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 0.00 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

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

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

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

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

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

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 5 1 1 4
Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
77 / 81
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding 1 1 1 2
Drought 1 1 1 2
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

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

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

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

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

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 88.7
AQ-PM 95.7
AQ-DPM 48.1
Drinking Water 97.8
Lead Risk Housing 46.3
Pesticides 96.8
Toxic Releases 50.9
Traffic 24.1
Effect Indicators —
Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
78 / 81
CleanUp Sites 50.3
Groundwater 64.5
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 53.5
Impaired Water Bodies 23.9
Solid Waste 64.4
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 77.4
Cardio-vascular 64.4
Low Birth Weights 12.1
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 49.4
Housing 30.6
Linguistic 45.4
Poverty 50.9
Unemployment 29.4

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

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 53.93301681
Employed 56.93571154
Median HI 49.37764661
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 58.65520339
High school enrollment 20.46708585
Preschool enrollment 38.90671115
Transportation —
Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
79 / 81
Auto Access 66.18760426
Active commuting 62.15834723
Social —
2-parent households 88.02771718
Voting 64.55793661
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 73.63018093
Park access 33.18362633
Retail density 13.67894264
Supermarket access 38.97087129
Tree canopy 33.31194662
Housing —
Homeownership 58.4370589
Housing habitability 63.33889388
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 98.08802772 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 63.24906968
Uncrowded housing 37.66200436
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 44.70678814
Arthritis 0.0
Asthma ER Admissions 28.6
High Blood Pressure 0.0
Cancer (excluding skin) 0.0
Asthma 0.0
Coronary Heart Disease 0.0
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 64.6
Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
80 / 81
Cognitively Disabled 48.3
Physically Disabled 39.7
Heart Attack ER Admissions 41.4
Mental Health Not Good 0.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0
Obesity 0.0
Pedestrian Injuries 79.9
Physical Health Not Good 0.0
Stroke 0.0
Health Risk Behaviors—
Binge Drinking 0.0
Current Smoker 0.0
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0
Climate Change Exposures—
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 59.5
Elderly 49.5
English Speaking 67.2
Foreign-born 17.6
Outdoor Workers 17.9
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity—
Impervious Surface Cover 70.5
Traffic Density 12.0
Traffic Access 0.0
Other Indices—
Hardship 49.7
Other Decision Support—
Kings Estates V Detailed Report, 9/6/2024
81 / 81
2016 Voting 62.1

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 70.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 54.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

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

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

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

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use lot acreage
Operations: Hearths No hearths
Operations: Water and Waste Water Per 2020 UWMP
Operations: Energy Use All electric development

**HARP - Air Dispersion Modeling and Risk Tool v22118
**9/5/2024
**Exported Risk Results
REC GRP NETID X Y RISK_SUM SCENARIO INHAL_RISKSOIL_RISK DERMAL_RISK 1 SENSITIV 271638 4046404 3.3063E-082.6YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70 3.3063E-08 0 0 2 SENSITIV 271803 4046403 3.9918E-082.6YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70 3.9918E-08 0 0 3 SENSITIV 271938 4046436 2.0881E-082.6YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70 2.0881E-08 0 0 4 SENSITIV 271982 4046715 4.678E-09 2.6YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70 4.678E-09 0 0 5 SENSITIV 271872 4046800 6.8548E-092.6YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70 6.8548E-09 0 0 6 SENSITIV 271217 4046629 4.9519E-092.6YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70 4.9519E-09 0 0 MMILK_RISKWATER_RISKFISH_RISK CROP_RISKBEEF_RISK DAIRY_RISKPIG_RISK CHICKEN_RISK EGG_RISK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

**HARP - Air Dispersion Modeling and Risk Tool v22118
**9/5/2024
**Exported Risk Results

REC GRP NETID X Y SCENARIO CV CNS IMMUN KIDNEY
1 SENSITIV 271638 4046404 NonCancerChronicDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk 0 0 0 0 2 SENSITIV 271803 4046403 NonCancerChronicDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk 0 0 0 0 3 SENSITIV 271938 4046436 NonCancerChronicDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk 0 0 0 0 4 SENSITIV 271982 4046715 NonCancerChronicDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk 0 0 0 0 5 SENSITIV 271872 4046800 NonCancerChronicDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk 0 0 0 0 6 SENSITIV 271217 4046629 NonCancerChronicDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk 0 0 0 0

GILV REPRO/DEVEL RESP SKIN EYE BONE/TEETHENDO BLOOD ODOR GENERAL 0 0 1.8095E-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 2.1846E-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1.1428E-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 2.5601E-06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 3.7515E-06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 2.71E-06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
MAXHI

1.8095E-05

2.1846E-05

1.1428E-05

2.5601E-06

3.7515E-06

2.71E-06

**HARP - Air Dispersion Modeling and Risk Tool v22118
**9/5/2024
**Exported Risk Results

REC GRP NETID X Y SCENARIO CV CNS IMMUN KIDNEY
1 SENSITIV 271638 4046404 NonCancerAcute 0 0 0 0
2 SENSITIV 271803 4046403 NonCancerAcute 0 0 0 0
3 SENSITIV 271938 4046436 NonCancerAcute 0 0 0 0
4 SENSITIV 271982 4046715 NonCancerAcute 0 0 0 0
5 SENSITIV 271872 4046800 NonCancerAcute 0 0 0 0
6 SENSITIV 271217 4046629 NonCancerAcute 0 0 0 0

GILV REPRO/DEVEL RESP SKIN EYE BONE/TEETHENDO BLOOD ODOR GENERAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
MAXHI
0 0
0 0
0 0

**HARP - Air Dispersion Modeling and Risk Tool v22118
**9/6/2024
**Exported Risk Results
REC GRP NETID X Y RISK_SUM SCENARIO INHAL_RISKSOIL_RISK DERMAL_RISK 1 SENSITIV 271638 4046404 3.6166E-092.6YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70 3.6166E-09 0 0 2 SENSITIV 271803 4046403 4.3664E-092.6YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70 4.3664E-09 0 0 3 SENSITIV 271938 4046436 2.2841E-092.6YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70 2.2841E-09 0 0 4 SENSITIV 271982 4046715 5.117E-10 2.6YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70 5.117E-10 0 0 5 SENSITIV 271872 4046800 7.4981E-102.6YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70 7.4981E-10 0 0 6 SENSITIV 271217 4046629 5.4166E-102.6YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70 5.4166E-10 0 0 MMILK_RISKWATER_RISKFISH_RISK CROP_RISKBEEF_RISK DAIRY_RISKPIG_RISK CHICKEN_RISK EGG_RISK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

**HARP - Air Dispersion Modeling and Risk Tool v22118
**9/6/2024
**Exported Risk Results

REC GRP NETID X Y SCENARIO CV CNS IMMUN KIDNEY
1 SENSITIV 271638 4046404 NonCancerChronicDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk 0 0 0 0 2 SENSITIV 271803 4046403 NonCancerChronicDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk 0 0 0 0 3 SENSITIV 271938 4046436 NonCancerChronicDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk 0 0 0 0 4 SENSITIV 271982 4046715 NonCancerChronicDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk 0 0 0 0 5 SENSITIV 271872 4046800 NonCancerChronicDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk 0 0 0 0 6 SENSITIV 271217 4046629 NonCancerChronicDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk 0 0 0 0

GILV REPRO/DEVEL RESP SKIN EYE BONE/TEETHENDO BLOOD ODOR GENERAL 0 0 1.9793E-06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 2.3896E-06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1.25E-06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 2.8004E-07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 4.1035E-07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 2.9644E-07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
MAXHI

1.9793E-06

2.3896E-06

1.25E-06

2.8004E-07

4.1035E-07

2.9644E-07

**HARP - Air Dispersion Modeling and Risk Tool v22118
**9/6/2024
**Exported Risk Results

REC GRP NETID X Y SCENARIO CV CNS IMMUN KIDNEY
1 SENSITIV 271638 4046404 NonCancerAcute 0 0 0 0
2 SENSITIV 271803 4046403 NonCancerAcute 0 0 0 0
3 SENSITIV 271938 4046436 NonCancerAcute 0 0 0 0
4 SENSITIV 271982 4046715 NonCancerAcute 0 0 0 0
5 SENSITIV 271872 4046800 NonCancerAcute 0 0 0 0
6 SENSITIV 271217 4046629 NonCancerAcute 0 0 0 0

GILV REPRO/DEVEL RESP SKIN EYE BONE/TEETHENDO BLOOD ODOR GENERAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
MAXHI
0 0
0 0
0 0
Appendix
Appendix B: Biological Resources Memo
455 W Fir Ave • Clovis, CA 93611 • (559) 449-2700
www.provostandpritchard.com
Engineering • Structural • Geostructural • Surveying • Planning • Environmental • GIS • Construction Services • Hydrogeology • Consulting Clovis • Visalia • Bakersfield • Modesto • Los Banos • Chico • Sacramento • Sonora • San Luis Obispo • Boise, ID

MEMORANDUM
To:

Holly Owen, Community Development Director
City of Kingsburg
From: Shaylea Stark, Biologist, and Geoff Cline, Principal Biologist Subject: Biological Evaluation of the Kings Estates V Project Date: August 27, 2024
Biological Evaluation
West Star Construction Company, Inc. has proposed the Kings Estates V Project (project), which would annex four parcels into the City of Kingsburg city limits and develop three of the parcels into a residential subdivision.

The 42.52 acres project site (site) is located to the west of South Mendocino Avenue and adjacent to the northern border of the City of Kingsburg (see Figure 1). The three parcels that would be developed into the residential subdivision (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APN) 393-121-37, -42, & -43) are 33.27 acres in size, and have historically been used for agricultural and rural residential use. The fourth parcel (APN 393-121-46) that has been included in the project’s annexation but has not been proposed for development at this time is 9.25 acres in size. The residential subdivision would construct 97 single family residential lots, an approximately

0.99-acre park, and an approximately 1.34-acre stormwater basin, which would connect to an existing stormwater basin immediately south of the site.

This biological evaluation describes the existing conditions of the site, sensitive resources that may be impacted by project-related activities, and proposed mitigation measures to reduce the level of impacts as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The existing conditions were determined by investigating various online sources, such as the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s(CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC), iNaturalist, California Herps, California Native Plant Society (CNPS), Google Earth, United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Web Soil Survey. Sensitive resources that may potentially be impacted by the project were determined by conducting a search of the CNDDB for special status species within five miles of the site (see Attachment C), a search of the IPaC for the site (Attachment D), and using the results of these investigations and searches, as well as professional knowledge of the preferred habitats for special status species to determine potential impacts to sensitive resources. Mitigation measures were then proposed to avoid or minimize potential impacts to the sensitive resources with the potential to be impacted by the project. As follows are details on the existing conditions, sensitive resources, and proposed mitigation measures.

Existing Conditions
The section describes the details on the topography, climate, waters, soils, and biotic habitats of the site.

Topography
Within the United States Geological Survey Selma 7.5 minute quadrangle, the site is located in the southwest portion of Section 14, Township 16 South, Range 22 East (see Figure 2), and the topography within the site is relatively flat with elevations at approximately 308 feet above mean sea level.

City of Kingsburg August 27, 2024
Biological Evaluation of the Kings Estates V Project Page 2 of 15 Figure 1: Project Site Map
City of Kingsburg August 27, 2024
Biological Evaluation of the Kings Estates V Project Page 3 of 15 Figure 2: Topographic Map
City of Kingsburg August 27, 2024
Biological Evaluation of the Kings Estates V Project Page 4 of 15 Climate
Like most of California, the site experiences a Mediterranean climate. Warm, dry summers are followed by cool, moist winters. In the summer, average high temperatures range between 90- and 99-degrees Fahrenheit (°F), but do not often exceed 104 °F, and the humidity is generally low. Winter temperatures are often below 60°F during the day and rarely exceed 65°F. On average, the City of Kingsburg receives approximately 8 inches of precipitation in the form of rain yearly, most of which occurs between October and May (WeatherSpark, 2024), and the site would be expected to receive similar amounts of precipitation.

Waters
The nearest surface water is the Kingsburg Branch Canal, approximately 0.4 miles directly west of the site. This canal would not be impacted by the project.

Soils
Three soil mapping units representing three soil types were identified within the site and are listed in Table 1 (see Attachment B for the Web Soil Survey Report). The soils are displayed with their core properties in the table below, according to the Major Land Resource Area of California. These soils are primarily used for urban residential or commercial development, and growing a range of fruits, vegetables, and general farm crops.

Table 1: List of Soils Located on the Site and Their Basic Properties Soil Soil Map Unit
Percent
of Site
Hydric Soil
Category
Drainage Permeability Runoff
Delhi Sand, 0 to 3
percent slopes 29.6 %
Predominantly
nonhydric
Somewhat
excessively
drained
Rapid Very low
Hanford Fine sandy loam 54.4%
Predominantly
nonhydric Well drained Moderately rapid Very low
Tujunga
Loamy sand, 0 to 3
percent slopes 16.0% Predominantly nonhydric
Somewhat
excessively
drained
Moderately rapid Very low
Hydric soils are defined as soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions such that under sufficiently wet conditions, hydrophytic vegetation can be supported. None of the major or minor soils units were identified as hydric.

Biotic Habitat
The site appears to contain ruderal/agricultural habitat. APN 393-121-37 appears to be comprised of ruderal vegetation, APN 393-121-42 appears to be comprised of vineyards, and APN 393-121-43 appears to be comprised of a single-family residence and ruderal vegetation that would all be removed during project activities (see Attachment A for Google Earth photos). The site is surrounded by residential neighborhoods to the south and east, and agricultural areas to the north and west.

Sensitive Resources
This section describes the details on the special status species, migratory birds, designated habitat and communities, and wildlife movement corridors and native wildlife nursery sites that could be impacted by project-related activities.

Special Status Species
No special status plants were found to occur within five miles of the site. Eleven special status animal species have occurred or may occur within five miles of the site and are listed in Table 2, below.

City of Kingsburg August 27, 2024
Biological Evaluation of the Kings Estates V Project Page 5 of 15 Table 2: List of Special Status Species with Potential to Occur Onsite and/or in the Vicinity Species Status* Habitat Occurrence within the Site
California tiger
salamander – central
California DPS
(Ambystoma
californiense)
FT, CT
Requires vernal pools or
seasonal ponds for breeding and
small mammal burrows for
aestivation. Generally found in
grassland and oak savannah
plant communities in central
California from sea level to 1,500
feet in elevation. Can migrate up
to 1.3 miles to breed.

Unlikely. The site appeared to lack
suitable habitats for this species.

The nearest recorded observation
of this species within the vicinity
was approximately 3 miles south of
the site at an unknown date but is
listed as extirpated.

Crotch’s bumble bee
(Bombus crotchii)
CCE
Occurs throughout coastal
California, as well as east to the
Sierra Nevada-Cascade crest,
and south into Mexico. Food
plant genera include
snapdragons, scorpionweeds,
primroses, poppies, and
buckwheats.

Unlikely. The site appeared to lack
suitable vegetation and habitats for
this species. The nearest recorded
observation of this species within
the vicinity was approximately 3
miles northwest of the site in 1912.

Fresno kangaroo rat
(Dipodomys
nitratoides exilis)
FE, CE
An inhabitant of alkali sinks and
open grassland habitats in
Merced, Kings, Fresno, and
Madera counties. Prefers bare,
alkaline, clay-based soils subject
to seasonal inundation with
more friable soil mounds around
shrubs and grasses. The most
recent recorded observation of
this species in California was in
1992 in Fresno County.

Unlikely. The site appeared to lack
suitable habitats for this species.

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

Monarch butterfly
(Danaus plexippus)
FC
Roosts in wind-protected tree
groves (eucalyptus, Monterey
pine, cypress), with nectar and
water sources nearby. Larval
host plants consist of milkweeds.

Winter roost sites extend along
the Pacific Coast from northern
Mendocino to Baja California,
Mexico.

Absent. The site appeared to lack
suitable habitats for this species.

Northwestern pond
turtle
(Actinemys
marmorata)

FPT, CSSC
An aquatic turtle of ponds,
marshes, slow-moving rivers,
streams, and irrigation ditches
with riparian vegetation.

Requires adequate basking sites
and sandy banks or grassy open
fields to deposit eggs.

Unlikely. The site appeared to lack
suitable aquatic and upland habitat
for this species. The nearest
recorded observation of this species
within the vicinity was
approximately 15.5 miles northeast
of the site at an unknown date.

Pallid bat
(Antrozous pallidus)
CSSC
Found in grasslands, chaparral,
and woodlands, where it feeds
on ground- and vegetationdwelling arthropods, and
occasionally takes insects in
flight. Prefers to roost in rock
crevices, but may also use tree
cavities, caves, bridges, and
other human-made structures.

Possible. The site appeared to
contain a residential house and barn
where this species could roost. The
nearest recorded observation of this
species within the vicinity was
approximately 3.5 miles east of the
site in 2001.

City of Kingsburg August 27, 2024
Biological Evaluation of the Kings Estates V Project Page 6 of 15 Species Status* Habitat Occurrence within the Site
San Joaquin kit fox
(Vulpes macrotis
mutica)
FE, CT
Opportunistically forages in a
variety of habitats. Dens in
burrows within alkali sink, valley
grassland, and woodland
habitats in valleys and adjacent
foothills and in human-made
structures in cities, rangeland,
and agricultural areas.

Unlikely. The site appeared to lack
suitable habitats for this species.

The nearest recorded observation
of this species within the vicinity
was approximately 9.5 miles
southwest of the site in 1975.

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

Possible. While the site appeared to
lack suitable trees for this species to
nest, trees in the surrounding areas
appear to provide nesting habitat
and the nearest recorded
observation of this species within
the vicinity was approximately 0.3
miles south of the site in 1926.

Vernal pool fairy
shrimp
(Branchinecta lynchi)
FT
Occupies vernal and seasonal
pools, with clear to tea-colored
water, in grass or mud-bottomed
swales, and basalt depression
pools.

Unlikely. The site appeared to lack
suitable habitats for this species.

The nearest recorded observation
of this species within the vicinity
was approximately 10 miles
southeast of the site in 1993.

Western spadefoot
(Spea hammondii)

FPT, CSSC
The majority of the time this
species is terrestrial and occurs
in small mammal burrows and
soil cracks, sometimes in the
bottom of dried pools. Prefers
open areas with sandy or
gravelly soils, in a variety of
habitats including mixed
woodlands, grasslands, coastal
sage scrub, chaparral, sandy
washes, lowlands, river
floodplains, alluvial fans, playas,
alkali flats, foothills, and
mountains. Vernal or seasonal
pools, that hold water for a
minimum of three weeks, are
necessary for breeding.

Unlikely. The site appeared to lack
suitable aquatic and upland habitats
for this species. The nearest
recorded observation of this species
within the vicinity was
approximately 9.5 miles southeast
of the site in 2011.

Western yellow-billed
cuckoo
(Coccyzus americanus
occidentalis)
FT, CE
Suitable nesting habitat in
California includes dense
riparian willow-cottonwood and
mesquite habitats along a
perennial river. Once common in
the California Central Valley, as
well as coastal valleys and
riparian habitats east of the
Sierra Nevada, habitat loss now
constrains the California
breeding population to small
numbers of birds.

Unlikely. The site appeared to lack
suitable nesting habitats for this
species. The nearest recorded
observation of this species within
the vicinity was approximately 3
miles northwest of the site in 1898.

*EXPLANATION OF OCCURRENCE DESIGNATIONS AND STATUS CODES

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

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

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

City of Kingsburg August 27, 2024
Biological Evaluation of the Kings Estates V Project Page 7 of 15 Unlikely: Species not observed on the site, and would not be expected to occur there except, perhaps, as a transient.

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

STATUS CODES
FE Federally Endangered CE California Endangered
FT Federally Threatened CCE California Endangered (Candidate) FPT Federally Threatened (Proposed) CT California Threatened FC Federal Candidate CSSC California Species of Special Concern Migratory Birds
Migratory birds are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game code. There are numerous regulations with each law, but generally, most negative impacts to a migratory bird are illegal.

Birds are more vulnerable during the nesting season, and they can nest on the ground, and in shrubs, trees, and other natural and unnatural structures. At the site, birds could nest on the ground or within the existing residence and could be impacted by project activities.

Designated Habitats and Communities
The USFWS often designates areas of “Critical Habitat” when it lists species as threatened or endangered.

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

The CDFW also designates “natural communities of special concern” and has jurisdiction over most riparian habitat. Natural communities of special concern are defined by distinguished, significant biological diversity, or a home to special status species. Riparian habitat is composed of plant communities that occur along the banks, and sometimes over the banks, of most waterways and is an important habitat for numerous wildlife species. According to CNDDB and Google Earth, the site does not appear to contain any natural communities of special concern or riparian habitat.

Wildlife Movement Corridors and Native Wildlife Nursery Sites Wildlife movement corridors are routes that animals regularly and predictably follow during seasonal migration, dispersal from native ranges, daily travel within home ranges, and inter-population movements.

Movement corridors in California are typically associated with valleys, ridgelines, and rivers and creeks supporting riparian vegetation. No features within the site would be expected to serve as a wildlife movement corridor.

Native wildlife nursery sites are areas where a species or group of similar species raise their young in a concentrated place, such as maternity bat roosts. The site contained a residential house and a barn where bat species could roost, which would be considered a native wildlife nursery site.

Proposed Mitigation Measures
Based on the investigations and searches completed, the project has the potential to impact a number of sensitive resources. While the site does not appear to provide nesting habitat for Swainson’s hawk, they could nest within the vicinity of the site and be disturbed by project-related activities when they are nesting.

Additionally, the site appears to provide potential roosting habitat for pallid bat within the residential house and barn. The site also appears to provide nesting habitat for various migratory birds that could nest on the ground or in the barn, and maternity roosting bats may utilize the house and barn as a wildlife nursery site.

Projects that adversely impact these sensitive resources would be considered a potentially significant impact under CEQA and may violate any State and/or federal laws that protect these resources. The following mitigation measures are proposed to protect these resources.

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

City of Kingsburg August 27, 2024
Biological Evaluation of the Kings Estates V Project Page 8 of 15 Mitigation Measure BIO-2 (Swainson’s Hawk and Nesting Bird Pre-construction Surveys): If activities must occur within the nesting bird season (February 1 to September 15), a qualified biologist (someone familiar with these species and nesting birds) will conduct a single pre-construction takeavoidance survey for Swainson’s hawk nests on the site and within a 0.5-mile radius outside of the site within seven (7) calendar days prior to the start of construction. The Swainson’s hawk survey must not be completed between April 21 to June 10 due to the difficulty of identifying nests during this time of year. The survey shall also include inspecting for nesting migratory birds within the site and up to 100 feet outside of the site and for nesting raptors within the site and up to 500 feet outside of the site.

All raptor nests shall be considered “active” upon the nest-building stage. If no active nests are observed, no further mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measure BIO-3 (Swainson’s Hawk and Nesting Bird Avoidance Buffers): On discovery of any active nests or breeding colonies near work areas, a qualified biologist will determine appropriate avoidance buffer distances based on applicable CDFW and/or USFWS guidelines, the biology of the species, conditions of the nest(s), and the level of project disturbance. If necessary, avoidance buffers will be identified with flagging, fencing, or other easily visible means, and will be maintained until the biologist has determined that the nestlings have fledged.

Mitigation Measure BIO-4 (Maternity Bat Roost Pre-Construction Survey): If construction activities fall between March 1 and September 30 (bat maternity season) a pre-construction survey will be performed within seven (7) days prior to construction to identify active maternity bat roost locations in the existing house and barn onsite or trees within up to 100 feet of the site prior to the start of construction. A qualified biologist (someone familiar with bat roosts and their sign) will conduct a daytime roost survey and an emergence survey at potential roost locations.

Mitigation Measure BIO-5 (Bat Roost Pre-Demolition Survey): A pre-demolition survey will be performed within five (5) days prior to demolition of the existing house and barn onsite to identify any active bat roosts that could be used by pallid bats. A qualified biologist (someone familiar with bat roosts and their sign) will conduct a daytime roost survey and an emergence survey at potential roost locations. Should any roosting bats be observed, they shall be identified by species using ultrasonic recording equipment and software.

Mitigation Measure BIO-6 (Bat Avoidance Buffers): On discovery of any active maternity season bat roosts or pallid bat roosts, a qualified biologist will determine appropriate avoidance buffers based on the biology of the species, conditions of the roost(s), and the level of project disturbance, if appropriate. If necessary, construction buffers will be identified with flagging, fencing, or other easily visible means, and will be maintained until the biologist has determined that the roost will no longer be impacted by construction. Lighting is not to be used near roosts where it would shine on or into the roost entrance. Combustion equipment, such as generators, pumps, and vehicles are not to be parked, operated, under or within 100 feet of the roost.

Mitigation Measure BIO-7 (Bat Exclusion): On discovery of any active bat roosts within the existing house or barn outside of the bat maternity season (October 1 to February 28), a qualified biologist will prepare an exclusion plan that would detail the methods to be used. It will include the tools to exclude the bat from the structure/roost (i.e., one-way doors or other devices) and the house and barn would be removed within two days. Following completion of exclusion, a report will be prepared that documents the methods and results of these efforts.

City of Kingsburg August 27, 2024
Biological Evaluation of the Kings Estates V Project Page 9 of 15

REFERENCES
Animal Diversity Web. (2024). Spea Hammondii, Western Spadefoot. Retrieved August 2024, from https://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Spea_hammondii/
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. (2024a, August). California natural communities and sensitive natural communities. Retrieved August 2024, from
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=153609&inline California Department of Fish and Wildlife. (2024b). California Natural Diversity Database. Retrieved August 2024, from California Department of Conservation Fish and Wildlife:
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB
iNaturalist. (2024). Observations of Special Status Species. Retrieved August 2024, from iNaturalist:
https://www.inaturalist.org/
Los Padres ForestWatch, Inc. (2013). Crotch's Bumble Bee. Retrieved August 2024, from https://lpfw.org/ourregion/wildlife/crotchs-bumblebee/ Natural Resource Conservation Service. (2024). NRCS Hydric Soils List. Retrieved August 2024, from https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/publications/Lists%20of%20Hydric%20Soils%20- %20Query%20by%20Soil%20Survey%20Area%20Map%20Unit%20Rating.html Swainson's Hawk Technical Advisory Committee. (2000). Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson's Hawk Nesting Surveys in California's Central Valley. CA: CDFW. Retrieved August 2024 United States Department of Agriculture. (2024). Custom Soil Resources Report for Eastern Fresno County.

Retrieved August 2024, from Natural Resources Conservation Service:
http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2024). WATERS GeoViewer. Retrieved August 2024, from United States Environmental Protection Agency:
https://epa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=074cfede236341b6a1e03779c2bd 0692
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (1998). Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley, California. Retrieved August 2024
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (2003, October). Interim Guidance on Site Assessment and Field Surveys for Determining Presence or a Negative Finding of the California Tiger Salamander. Retrieved August 2024, from https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=83915&inline United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (2020a, September). Monarch Butterfly Species Status Assessment Report. Retrieved August 2024, from https://www.fws.gov/media/monarch-butterfly-species-statusassessment-ssa-report United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (2020b, September 11). San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) 5 Year Review. Retrieved August 2024
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (2020c, September). Western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) 5 Year Review. Retrieved August 2024, from https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/tess/species_nonpublish/3098.pdf United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (2023, August). California Tiger Salamander Central California Distinct Population Segment (Ambystoma californiense) 5 Year Review. Retrieved August 2024, from https://ecosphere-documents-productionpublic.s3.amazonaws.com/sams/public_docs/species_nonpublish/5721.pdf United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (2024a). Fresno Kangaroo Rat. Retrieved August 2024, from https://www.fws.gov/species/fresno-kangaroo-rat-dipodomys-nitratoides-exilis United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (2024b). National Wetlands Inventory. Retrieved August 2024, from National Wetlands Inventory: https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (2024c). Western Pond Turtle. Retrieved August 2024, from https://www.fws.gov/species/western-pond-turtle-actinemys-marmorata United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (2024d). Information on Planning and Consultation. Retrieved August 2024, from https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/
City of Kingsburg August 27, 2024
Biological Evaluation of the Kings Estates V Project Page 10 of 15 United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (2024e, May). Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp- 5 Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Retrieved June 2024, from https://ecosphere-documents-productionpublic.s3.amazonaws.com/sams/public_docs/species_nonpublish/13113.pdf WeatherSpark. (2024). Climate and Average Weather Year Round in Kingsburg, California, United States.

Retrieved August 2024, from https://weatherspark.com/y/1488/Average-Weather-in-KingsburgCalifornia-United-States-Year-Round

City of Kingsburg August 27, 2024
Biological Evaluation of the Kings Estates V Project Page 11 of 15 Attachment A- Aerial Photos of Project Area
Overview of project site from South Mendocino Avenue. Imagery date 3/2024.

Overview of project site from 14th Avenue. Imagery date 3/2024.

City of Kingsburg August 27, 2024
Biological Evaluation of the Kings Estates V Project Page 12 of 15 Overview of project site from South Mendocino Avenue showing the vineyards, house, and barn to be removed. Imagery dated 3/2024.

Overview of project site from South Mendocino Avenue showing ruderal habitat and the house and barn to be removed. Imagery date 3/2024.

United States
Department of
Agriculture
A product of the National
Cooperative Soil Survey,
a joint effort of the United
States Department of
Agriculture and other
Federal agencies, State
agencies including the
Agricultural Experiment
Stations, and local
participants
Custom Soil Resource
Report for
Eastern Fresno
Area, California
Kings Estates V Project
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
August 21, 2024
Preface
Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
3 Contents
Preface....................................................................................................................2 How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 Soil Map.................................................................................................................. 8 Soil Map................................................................................................................9 Legend................................................................................................................10 Map Unit Legend................................................................................................ 11 Map Unit Descriptions.........................................................................................11 Eastern Fresno Area, California......................................................................13 DeA—Delhi sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes, MLRA 17.................................... 13 Hm—Hanford fine sandy loam....................................................................14 TzbA—Tujunga loamy sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes.....................................15 References............................................................................................................17 4 How Soil Surveys Are Made
Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity.

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

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

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

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

Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil 5 scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and Custom Soil Resource Report
6 identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately.

Custom Soil Resource Report
7 Soil Map
The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 8 9
Custom Soil Resource Report
Soil Map
4046400 4046480 4046560 4046640 4046720 4046800 4046880 4046400 4046480 4046560 4046640 4046720 4046800
271250 271330 271410 271490 271570 271650 271730 271810 271890 271970 271250 271330 271410 271490 271570 271650 271730 271810 271890 271970 36° 32' 23'' N
119° 33' 19'' W
36° 32' 23'' N
119° 32' 49'' W
36° 32' 8'' N
119° 33' 19'' W
36° 32' 8'' N
119° 32' 49'' W
N
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 11N WGS84 0 150 300 600 900
Feet
0 50 100 200 300
Meters
Map Scale: 1:3,430 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.

Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Soil Survey Area: Eastern Fresno Area, California
Survey Area Data: Version 16, Aug 31, 2023
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger.

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

Custom Soil Resource Report
10 Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI DeA Delhi sand, 0 to 3 percent
slopes, MLRA 17

12.5 29.6%
Hm Hanford fine sandy loam 23.1 54.4%
TzbA Tujunga loamy sand, 0 to 3
percent slopes

6.8 16.0%
Totals for Area of Interest 42.4 100.0%
Map Unit Descriptions
The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Custom Soil Resource Report
12 Eastern Fresno Area, California
DeA—Delhi sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes, MLRA 17
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 2ss8n
Elevation: 30 to 1,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 9 to 16 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 64 degrees F
Frost-free period: 225 to 310 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Delhi and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Delhi
Setting
Landform: Dunes on valleys
Landform position (two-dimensional): Toeslope, backslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Rise
Microfeatures of landform position: Hummocks
Down-slope shape: Convex, linear
Across-slope shape: Convex, linear
Parent material: Wind modified sandy alluvium derived from granitoid Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 8 inches: sand
C1 - 8 to 40 inches: sand
C2 - 40 to 60 inches: sand
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 3 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained
Runoff class: Negligible
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High to very high (5.95 to 19.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Maximum salinity: Nonsaline (0.0 to 1.0 mmhos/cm)
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 4.2 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 3s
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e
Hydrologic Soil Group: A
Ecological site: R017XY906CA - Non-Alkali San Joaquin Valley Desert Hydric soil rating: No
Custom Soil Resource Report
13 Minor Components
Hanford
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Grangeville
Percent of map unit: 4 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Dello
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Landform: Depressions
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Tujunga
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Hm—Hanford fine sandy loam
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hl5p
Elevation: 200 to 500 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 8 to 15 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 61 to 63 degrees F
Frost-free period: 250 to 275 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
Hanford and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Hanford
Setting
Landform: Flood plains, alluvial fans
Landform position (two-dimensional): Toeslope, footslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Base slope, rise Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Alluvium derived from granite
Typical profile
A - 0 to 16 inches: fine sandy loam
C - 16 to 72 inches: fine sandy loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Custom Soil Resource Report
14 Drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Very low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High (1.98 to 5.95 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 7.8 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 1
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4c
Hydrologic Soil Group: A
Ecological site: R017XY904CA - Subirrigated Deep Alluvial Fans Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Unnamed, loam
Percent of map unit: 10 percent
Landform: Flood plains
Hydric soil rating: No
Unnamed, steeper slopes
Percent of map unit: 4 percent
Landform: Benches
Hydric soil rating: No
Unnamed
Percent of map unit: 1 percent
Landform: Drainageways on flood plains
Hydric soil rating: Yes
TzbA—Tujunga loamy sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hlc1
Elevation: 180 to 400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 8 to 12 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 62 to 64 degrees F
Frost-free period: 225 to 275 days
Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition
Tujunga and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Custom Soil Resource Report
15 Description of Tujunga
Setting
Landform: Alluvial fans, flood plains
Landform position (two-dimensional): Toeslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Base slope
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Alluvium derived from granite
Typical profile
A - 0 to 4 inches: loamy sand
C - 4 to 60 inches: stratified sand to loamy sand
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 3 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained
Runoff class: Very low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High to very high (5.95 to 19.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: Occasional
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 4.2 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 4s
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4s
Hydrologic Soil Group: A
Ecological site: R017XY906CA - Non-Alkali San Joaquin Valley Desert Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Unnamed, loamy coarse sand
Percent of map unit: 12 percent
Landform: Flood plains, alluvial fans
Hydric soil rating: No
Unnamed, compact substratum
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Landform: Flood plains, alluvial fans
Hydric soil rating: No
Unnamed, flooded
Percent of map unit: 1 percent
Landform: Flood plains
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Custom Soil Resource Report
16 References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

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

National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084 17 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/? cid=nrcs142p2_053624
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf Custom Soil Resource Report
18 Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
alkali-sink goldfields
Lasthenia chrysantha
PDAST5L030 None None G2 S2 1B.1
American bumble bee
Bombus pensylvanicus
IIHYM24260 None None G3G4 S2
Antioch efferian robberfly
Efferia antiochi
IIDIP07010 None None G1G2 S1S2
bristly sedge
Carex comosa
PMCYP032Y0 None None G5 S2 2B.1
brittlescale
Atriplex depressa
PDCHE042L0 None None G2 S2 1B.2
burrowing owl
Athene cunicularia
ABNSB10010 None None 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 jewelflower
Caulanthus californicus
PDBRA31010 Endangered Endangered G1 S1 1B.1
California linderiella
Linderiella occidentalis
ICBRA06010 None None G2G3 S2S3
California satintail
Imperata brevifolia
PMPOA3D020 None None G3 S3 2B.1
California tiger salamander - central California DPS
Ambystoma californiense pop. 1
AAAAA01181 Threatened Threatened G2G3T3 S3 WL
coast horned lizard
Phrynosoma blainvillii
ARACF12100 None None G4 S4 SSC
Crotch's bumble bee
Bombus crotchii
IIHYM24480 None Candidate
Endangered
G2 S2
Earlimart orache
Atriplex cordulata var. erecticaulis
PDCHE042V0 None None G3T1 S1 1B.2
foothill yellow-legged frog - south Sierra DPS
Rana boylii pop. 5
AAABH01055 Endangered Endangered G3T2 S2
Great Valley Mixed Riparian Forest
Great Valley Mixed Riparian Forest
CTT61420CA None None G2 S2.2
Greene's tuctoria
Tuctoria greenei
PMPOA6N010 Endangered Rare G1 S1 1B.1
hoary bat
Lasiurus cinereus
AMACC05032 None None G3G4 S4
Query Criteria: Quad<span style='color:Red'> IS </span>(Malaga (3611966)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Sanger (3611965)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Wahtoke (3611964)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Conejo (3611956)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Selma (3611955)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Reedley (3611954)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Traver (3611944)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Burris Park (3611945)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Laton (3611946)) Report Printed on Thursday, August 15, 2024
Commercial Version -- Dated August, 2 2024 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 1 of 3 Information Expires 2/2/2025
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
Hurd's metapogon robberfly
Metapogon hurdi
IIDIP08010 None None G1G2 S1S2
lesser saltscale
Atriplex minuscula
PDCHE042M0 None None G2 S2 1B.1
loggerhead shrike
Lanius ludovicianus
ABPBR01030 None None G4 S4 SSC
Madera leptosiphon
Leptosiphon serrulatus
PDPLM09130 None None G3 S3 1B.2
molestan blister beetle
Lytta molesta
IICOL4C030 None None G2 S2
Morrison bumble bee
Bombus morrisoni
IIHYM24460 None None G3 S1S2
Northern California legless lizard
Anniella pulchra
ARACC01020 None None G3 S2S3 SSC
Northern Claypan Vernal Pool
Northern Claypan Vernal Pool
CTT44120CA None None G1 S1.1
northwestern pond turtle
Actinemys marmorata
ARAAD02031 Proposed
Threatened
None G2 SNR SSC
pallid bat
Antrozous pallidus
AMACC10010 None None G4 S3 SSC
San Joaquin adobe sunburst
Pseudobahia peirsonii
PDAST7P030 Threatened Endangered G1 S1 1B.1
San Joaquin kit fox
Vulpes macrotis mutica
AMAJA03041 Endangered Threatened G4T2 S3
San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass
Orcuttia inaequalis
PMPOA4G060 Threatened Endangered G1 S1 1B.1
Sanford's arrowhead
Sagittaria sanfordii
PMALI040Q0 None None G3 S3 1B.2
spiny-sepaled button-celery
Eryngium spinosepalum
PDAPI0Z0Y0 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Swainson's hawk
Buteo swainsoni
ABNKC19070 None Threatened G5 S4
valley elderberry longhorn beetle
Desmocerus californicus dimorphus
IICOL48011 Threatened None G3T3 S3
Valley Sacaton Grassland
Valley Sacaton Grassland
CTT42120CA 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 mastiff bat
Eumops perotis californicus
AMACD02011 None None G4G5T4 S3S4 SSC
Report Printed on Thursday, August 15, 2024
Commercial Version -- Dated August, 2 2024 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 2 of 3 Information Expires 2/2/2025
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
western spadefoot
Spea hammondii
AAABF02020 Proposed
Threatened
None G2G3 S3S4 SSC
western yellow-billed cuckoo
Coccyzus americanus occidentalis
ABNRB02022 Threatened Endangered G5T2T3 S1
Winter's sunflower
Helianthus winteri
PDAST4N260 None None G2? S2? 1B.2
Record Count: 43
Report Printed on Thursday, August 15, 2024
Commercial Version -- Dated August, 2 2024 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 3 of 3 Information Expires 2/2/2025
Selected Elements by Common Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
08/21/2024 15:02:41 UTC
United States Department of the Interior

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

Project Code: 2024-0133252
Project Name: Kings Estate V
Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern:

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

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

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

A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) Project code: 2024-0133252 08/21/2024 15:02:41 UTC
2 of 8
(c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12.

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

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

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

We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Code in the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office.

Project code: 2024-0133252 08/21/2024 15:02:41 UTC
3 of 8
▪
Attachment(s):

Official Species List

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

This species list is provided by:

Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Office
Federal Building
2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605
Sacramento, CA 95825-1846
(916) 414-6600
Project code: 2024-0133252 08/21/2024 15:02:41 UTC
4 of 8

PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Code: 2024-0133252
Project Name: Kings Estate V
Project Type: Residential Construction
Project Description: The Kings Estate V Project (project) is proposed to annex four parcels into the City of Kingsburg and build residential housing on three of the parcels. The project site (site) is approximately 42.5 acres and includes three parcels, approximately 33.27 acres in size (Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 393-121-37, -42, & -43) where West Star Construction Company, Inc. would build residential housing, and a fourth parcel, APN 393-121-46 (9.25 acres in size), however this parcel has not been proposed for development at this time. The parcels that would be developed have historically been used for agricultural use. Currently the site contains one single family residence that would be demolished as a part of the project. The project would involve constructing 97 single family residential lots, an approximately 0.99-acre park, and an approximately 1.34-acre stormwater basin that would connect to an existing basin immediately south of the site and serve the residential project.

Project Location:

The approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// www.google.com/maps/@36.5374058,-119.55015050213674,14z Counties: Fresno County, California
Project code: 2024-0133252 08/21/2024 15:02:41 UTC
5 of 8

1. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SPECIES
There is a total of 7 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.

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

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

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

NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.
1 Project code: 2024-0133252 08/21/2024 15:02:41 UTC
6 of 8

MAMMALS

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

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

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

REPTILES

NAME STATUS
Northwestern Pond Turtle Actinemys marmorata
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

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

AMPHIBIANS

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

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

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

INSECTS

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

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

CRUSTACEANS

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

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

CRITICAL HABITATS

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

Project code: 2024-0133252 08/21/2024 15:02:41 UTC
7 of 8

YOU ARE STILL REQUIRED TO DETERMINE IF YOUR PROJECT(S) MAY HAVE EFFECTS ON ALL ABOVE LISTED SPECIES.

Project code: 2024-0133252 08/21/2024 15:02:41 UTC
8 of 8

IPAC USER CONTACT INFORMATION
Agency: Private Entity
Name: Shaylea Stark
Address: 455 W Fir Ave
City: Clovis
State: CA
Zip: 93612
Email [email protected]
Phone: 5594492700
Appendix
Appendix C: Cultural Resources

To: Kyler Dill Record Search 24-367
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
3387 Bodero Lane
Chico, CA 95973
Date: August 20, 2024
Re: City of Kingsburg – Kings Estates V Project
County: Fresno
Map(s): Selma 7.5’

CULTURAL RESOURCES RECORDS SEARCH
The California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) contracts with the California Historical Resources Information System’s (CHRIS) regional Information Centers (ICs) to maintain information in the CHRIS inventory and make it available to local, state, and federal agencies, cultural resource professionals, Native American tribes, researchers, and the public. Recommendations made by IC coordinators or their staff regarding the interpretation and application of this information are advisory only. Such recommendations do not necessarily represent the evaluation or opinion of the State Historic Preservation Officer in carrying out the OHP’s regulatory authority under federal and state law.

The following are the results of a search of the cultural resource files at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center. These files include known and recorded cultural resources sites, inventory and excavation reports filed with this office, and resources listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the OHP Built Environment Resources Directory, California State Historical Landmarks, California Register of Historical Resources, California Inventory of Historic Resources, and California Points of Historical Interest. Due to processing delays and other factors, not all of the historical resource reports and resource records that have been submitted to the OHP are available via this records search. Additional information may be available through the federal, state, and local agencies that produced or paid for historical resource management work in the search area.

PRIOR CULTURAL RESOURCE STUDIES CONDUCTED WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA AND THE ONE-HALF MILE RADIUS
According to the information in our files, there have been no previous cultural resource studies completed within the project area or within the one-half mile radius.

Record Search 24-367

KNOWN/RECORDED CULTURAL RESOURCES WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA AND THE ONE-HALF MILE RADIUS According to the information in our files, there are no recorded resources within the project area, and it is unknown if any exist there. There is one recorded resource within the one-half mile radius, P-10-005812, an historic era canal.

There are no recorded cultural resources within the project area or radius that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, the California Points of Historical Interest, California Inventory of Historic Resources, for the California State Historic Landmarks.

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
We understand this project consists of construction of 97 single family residences, a park, a basin, and new roadways. Further, we understand portions of the project area are vacant, potions are used for agriculture, and one single family residence of unknown age is present. Please note that farming does not constitute previous development, as it does not destroy cultural resources, but merely moves them around within the plow zone. Because a cultural resources study has not been previously conducted on this property, it is unknown if any cultural resources exist there. Therefore, prior to ground disturbance activities, we recommend a qualified, professional consultant conduct a field survey to determine if cultural resources are present. Additionally, according to our files, the existing building has never been recorded or evaluated for historical significance. If this structure is more than 45 years old, prior to alteration or demolition, we recommend a qualified, professional consultants record and evaluate it for historical significance. A referral list is available at www.chrisinfo.org.

We also recommend that you contact the Native American Heritage Commission in Sacramento. They will provide you with a current list of Native American individuals/organizations that can assist you with information regarding cultural resources that may not be included in the CHRIS Inventory and that may be of concern to the Native groups in the area. The Commission can consult their "Sacred Lands Inventory" file to determine what sacred resources, if any, exist within this project area and the way in which these resources might be managed. Finally, please consult with the lead agency on this project to determine if any other cultural resource investigation is required. If you need any additional information or have any questions or concerns, please contact our office at (661) 654-2289.

By:

Celeste M. Thomson, Coordinator Date: August 20, 2024
Please note that invoices for Information Center services will be sent under separate cover from the California State University, Bakersfield Accounting Office.

Appendix

Appendix D: Vehicle Miles Traveled Memo
400 E. Main Street, Suite 300
Visalia, CA 93291-6337
Tel: (559) 636-1166
Fax: (559) 636-1177
www.provostandpritchard.com
\\EgnyteDrive\Clients\Kingsburg_City of - 1345\134524002-Kings Estates V CEQA\200 Technical\215 Env Planning\Appendices\VMT Memorandum.docx Engineering  Surveying  Structural  Geostructural  Planning  Environmental  GIS  Construction Services  Hydrogeology  Consulting Clovis  Bakersfield  Visalia  Modesto  Los Banos  Chico  Sacramento  Sonora  San Luis Obispo  Boise, Idaho Memorandum
To: Holly Owen, Community Development Director, City of Kingsburg From: Jarred Olsen, Senior Planner
Subject: Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis of the Kings Estates V Subdivision Date: September 24, 2024
The Kings Estates V Subdivision, located immediately north of the city limits of Kingsburg on Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 393-121-37, -42, and -43, proposes to subdivide 33.27-acres into 97 lots for the eventual development of 97 dwelling units, at a density of 2.92 dwelling units per acre.

For purposes of this analysis, we include the two (2) dwelling units that are existing and/or proposed to be demolished. To this end, the analysis below assumes there are 95 additional dwelling units proposed.

Background
In December 2018, modifications to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines were adopted by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), which requires all lead agencies to adopt VMT as a replacement for automobile delay-based level of service (LOS) as the new measure for identifying transportation impacts for land use projects. This statewide mandate, enacted by the State Legislature through Senate Bill 743, took effect July 1, 2020. This analysis relies on the Fresno County SB 743 Implementation Regional Guidelines, prepared in January 2021. If the guidelines do not apply, the analysis will rely on information prepared by OPR as part of their December 2018 publication entitled Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (Technical Advisory), which provides guidance for evaluating transportation impacts based on VMT.1
Project Screening
The Fresno COG guidelines provide details on appropriate “screening thresholds” that can be used to identify when a proposed land use project is anticipated to result in a less-than-significant impact without conducting a more detailed VMT analysis. Screening thresholds include:

1. Residential and office projects within a Transit Priority Area

2. Locally serving retail projects up to 50,000 square feet

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

4. 100 percent affordable housing projects

5. Projects that generate fewer than 500 daily trips

6. Public service facilities
A land use project need only meet one of the above screening thresholds to result in a less than significant impact.
1 (Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) December 2018) City of Kingsburg September 17, 2024
Kings Estates V Subdivision Page 2 of 12
\\EgnyteDrive\Clients\Kingsburg_City of - 1345\134524002-Kings Estates V CEQA\200 Technical\215 Env Planning\Appendices\VMT Memorandum.docx Transit Priority Area Screening
Transit priority areas are defined as “an area within one-half mile of a major transit stop that is existing or planned, if the planned stop is scheduled to be completed within the planning horizon included in a Transportation Improvement Program.”
A Major transit stop means: “a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.” A high‐quality transit area or corridor is a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours.

No transit line in the City of Kingsburg meets the above criteria.

Transit Priority Area screening threshold is not met.

Retail Screening
As the Project is not a retail use, this screening is not applicable.

Retail screening threshold is not met.

Low VMT-generating Area Screening
Fresno COG identified the Low VMT-generating Area as illustrated on Attachment A. The Project is not located within the Low VMT-generating Area.

Low VMT-generating Area screening threshold not met.

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

Evidence supports a presumption of less than significant impact for a 100 percent affordable residential development (or the residential component of a mixed-use development) in infill locations. Lead agencies may develop their own presumption of less than significant impact for residential projects (or residential portions of mixed-use projects) containing a particular amount of affordable housing, based on local circumstances and evidence.” The Project would not meet Affordable Housing screening as the Project does not provide 100 percent affordable housing in an infill area.

Affordable Housing screening threshold is not met.

Trip Generation Screening
The Project proposes to construct 95 additional dwelling units. Per trip generation rates taken from Trip Generation, 11th Edition – Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE), the Project is expected to generate 884 net average daily trips. This trip generation exceeds the 500-daily-trip threshold.

Trip Generation screening threshold is not met.

City of Kingsburg September 17, 2024
Kings Estates V Subdivision Page 3 of 12
\\EgnyteDrive\Clients\Kingsburg_City of - 1345\134524002-Kings Estates V CEQA\200 Technical\215 Env Planning\Appendices\VMT Memorandum.docx Public Services Screening
Fresno COG identifies that the development of institutional/government and public service uses that support community health, safety and welfare may be screened out as these uses are already part of the community and, as a public service, the VMT is accounted for in the existing regional average. The Project does not propose to construct a public services facility.

Public Services screening threshold is not met.

Conclusion
The proposed Project does not meet any of the aforementioned screening criteria. Therefore, a more thorough VMT analysis is required.

VMT Analysis
As this Project does not seek to amend the General Plan, we reviewed the Program EIR for the Fresno COG 2022 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (“RTP/SCS”). This EIR reviewed the vehicle miles traveled impacts of its member jurisdictions as it relates to SB 743. This EIR found that the impacts to VMT were a significant and unavoidable impact, in which a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted, while also identifying all feasible mitigation measures. These measures are analyzed below for applicability:

Mitigation Measure Analysis
TT 3.17.2-1 Measures intended to reduce
VMT are part of the RTP/SCS. These include
increasing rideshare and work-at-home
opportunities to reduce demand on the
transportation system, investments in nonmotorized transportation, maximizing the benefits of the land use/transportation
connection through increased densities and
mixed uses, other Travel Demand
Management measures described in the RTP
and in local agency General Plans.

This measure is technically not a mitigation
measure and discusses in detail, as described
below, what these measures include.

TT 3.17.2-2 Fresno COG will continue to
secure funding programs considering a
project’s ability to enhance complete streets
objectives where it is feasible.

Not applicable. This measure is addressed to
FresnoCOG.

TT 3.17.2-3 Beyond the currently financially
and institutionally feasible measures included
in the 2022 RTP/SCS, Fresno COG will
identify further reduction in VMT, and fuel
consumption that could be obtained through
land-use strategies, additional car-sharing
programs, additional vanpools, and additional
bicycle/pedestrian programs.

Not applicable. This measure is addressed to
FresnoCOG.

TT 3.17.2-4 Transportation Planning: Fresno
COG will assist local jurisdictions to
encourage new developments to incorporate
both local and regional transit measures into
the project design that promote the use of
alternative modes of transportation.

Not applicable. This measure is addressed to
FresnoCOG.

City of Kingsburg September 17, 2024
Kings Estates V Subdivision Page 4 of 12
\\EgnyteDrive\Clients\Kingsburg_City of - 1345\134524002-Kings Estates V CEQA\200 Technical\215 Env Planning\Appendices\VMT Memorandum.docx Mitigation Measure Analysis
TT 3.17.2-5 Local jurisdictions are
encouraged to promote ride sharing programs
e.g., by designating a certain percentage of
parking spaces for high-occupancy vehicles,
providing larger parking spaces to
accommodate vans used for ridesharing, and
designating adequate passenger loading and
unloading and waiting areas.

Not applicable. Ridesharing programs are
more appropriate for commercial land uses.

TT 3.17.2-6 Local jurisdictions are
encouraged to support the use of public transit
systems by enhancing safety and cleanliness
on vehicles and in and around stations,
providing shuttle service to public transit,
offering public transit incentives, and providing
public education and publicity about public
transportation services.

Not applicable. The City of Kingsburg does
not provide transit services.

TT 3.17.2-7 Local jurisdictions are
encouraged to support bicycling and walking
by incorporating bicycle lanes into street
systems in regional transportation plans, new
subdivisions, and large developments,
creating bicycle lanes and walking paths
directed to the location of schools and other
logical points of destination and provide
adequate bicycle parking, and encouraging
commercial projects to include facilities on-site
to encourage employees to bicycle or walk to
work.

Consistent. The Project proposes to develop
along a major street. Construction of the major
street to its fair share of ultimate right-of-way
will include all applicable bicycle lanes and
other active transportation elements, in
addition to walking paths to other parts of the
City.

TT 3.17.2-8 Transit agencies are encouraged
to support bicycling to transit facilities by
providing additional bicycle parking, locker
facilities, and bike lane access to transit
facilities when feasible.

Not applicable. The City of Kingsburg nor the
Developer is a transit agency.

TT 3.17.2-9 Project sponsors are encouraged
to build or fund a major transit stop within or
near the development.

Not applicable. The City of Kingsburg does
not possess 15-minute transit service.

Therefore, extending such service would be
prohibitively expensive and would exceed the
development’s fair share of transportation
impacts.

TT 3.17.2-10 Local jurisdictions and transit
agencies are encouraged to provide public
transit incentives such as free or low-cost
monthly transit passes to employees, or free
ride areas to residents and customers.

Not applicable. The City is not proposing to
develop the residential subdivision.

TT 3.17.2-11 Local jurisdictions and project
sponsors are encouraged to incorporate
bicycle lanes, routes and facilities into street
systems, new subdivisions, and large
developments.

Consistent. The Project proposes to develop
along a major street. Construction of the major
street to its fair share of ultimate right-of-way
will include all applicable bicycle lanes and
other active transportation elements, in
addition to walking paths to other parts of the
City.

City of Kingsburg September 17, 2024
Kings Estates V Subdivision Page 5 of 12
\\EgnyteDrive\Clients\Kingsburg_City of - 1345\134524002-Kings Estates V CEQA\200 Technical\215 Env Planning\Appendices\VMT Memorandum.docx Mitigation Measure Analysis
TT 3.17.2-12 Local jurisdictions are
encouraged to require amenities for nonmotorized transportation, such as secure and convenient bicycle parking.

Consistent. Residences would be
constructed that could securely store bicycles.

TT 3.17.2-13 Local jurisdictions are
encouraged to ensure that the project
enhances, and does not disrupt or create
barriers to, non-motorized transportation.

Consistent. Development of the Project
would continue to extend transportation
infrastructure, including sidewalks and bicycle
lanes as applicable, to further promote nonmotorized transportation.

TT 3.17.2-14 Local jurisdictions are
encouraged to connect parks and open space
through shared pedestrian/bike paths and
trails to encourage walking and bicycling.

Consistent. Construction of the Project would
extend pedestrian and bicycle paths which
would eventually connect to parks and open
space.

TT 3.17.2-15 Local jurisdictions are
encouraged to create bicycle lanes and
walking paths directed to the location of
schools, parks, and other destination points.

Consistent. Construction of the Project would
extend pedestrian and bicycle paths which
would eventually connect to parks and open
space.

TT 3.17.2-16 Local jurisdictions are
encouraged to work with the school districts to
improve pedestrian and bike access to
schools and to restore or expand school bus
service using lower-emitting vehicles.

Not applicable. The Project proponent is
neither the City nor a school district.

TT 3.17.2-17 Local jurisdictions and transit
agencies are encouraged to provide
information on alternative transportation
options for consumers, residents, tenants, and
employees to reduce transportation-related
emissions.

Not applicable. The Project proponent is
neither the City nor a transit agency.

TT 3.17.2-18 Local jurisdictions are
encouraged to educate consumers, residents,
tenants, and the public about options for
reducing motor vehicle-related greenhouse
gas emissions. Include information on trip
reduction; trip linking; vehicle performance
and efficiency (e.g., keeping tires inflated); and
low or zero-emission vehicles.

Not applicable. This information is commonly
conveyed by the San Joaquin Valley Air
Pollution Control District.

TT 3.17.2-19 Project Selection: Local
jurisdictions are encouraged to give priority to
transportation projects that would contribute to
a reduction in vehicle miles traveled per
capita, while maintaining economic vitality and
sustainability.

Not applicable. The Project does not propose
to construct a major transportation
infrastructure project.

TT 3.17.2-20 System Interconnectivity: Local
jurisdictions are encouraged to create an
interconnected transportation system that
allows a shift in travel from private passenger
vehicles to alternative modes, including public
transit, ride sharing, car sharing, bicycling, and
walking, by incorporating the following:

Consistent. The City of Kingsburg provides
existing and planned bicycle lanes that
connect most of the City to parks, schools,
Downtown, and major employment centers.

Transit services are provided by a separate
transit agency.

City of Kingsburg September 17, 2024
Kings Estates V Subdivision Page 6 of 12
\\EgnyteDrive\Clients\Kingsburg_City of - 1345\134524002-Kings Estates V CEQA\200 Technical\215 Env Planning\Appendices\VMT Memorandum.docx Mitigation Measure Analysis
• Provide transportation centers that are
multi-modal to allow transportation
modes to intersect;
• Provide adequate and affordable
public transportation choices, including
expanded bus routes and service, as
well as other transit choices such as
shuttles;
• To the extent feasible, extend service
and hours of operation to underserved
arterials and population centers or
destinations such as colleges;
• Focus transit resources on highvolume corridors and high-boarding destinations such as colleges,
employment centers and regional
destinations;
• Coordinate schedules and routes
across service lines with neighboring
transit authorities;
• Support programs to provide “station
cars” for short trips to and from transit
nodes (e.g., neighborhood electric
vehicles);
• Employ transit-preferential measures,
such as signal priority and bypass
lanes. Where compatible with adjacent
land use designations, right-of-way
acquisition or parking removal may
occur to accommodate transitpreferential measures or improve access to transit. The use of access
management should be considered
where needed to reduce conflicts
between transit vehicles and other
vehicles;
• Provide safe and convenient access
for pedestrians and bicyclists to,
across, and along major transit priority
streets;
• Use park-and-ride facilities to access
transit stations only at ends of regional
transitways or where adequate feeder
bus service is not feasible.

TT 3.17.2-21 Transit System Infrastructure:

Local jurisdictions are encouraged to upgrade
and maintain transit system infrastructure to
enhance public use, including:
• Provide transit stops and bus lanes
that are safe, convenient, clean, and
efficient;
Not applicable. The Project proponent is not
a transit agency.

City of Kingsburg September 17, 2024
Kings Estates V Subdivision Page 7 of 12
\\EgnyteDrive\Clients\Kingsburg_City of - 1345\134524002-Kings Estates V CEQA\200 Technical\215 Env Planning\Appendices\VMT Memorandum.docx Mitigation Measure Analysis
• Provide transit stops that have clearly
marked street-level designation, and
are accessible;
• Provide transit stops that are safe,
sheltered, benches are clean, and
lighting is adequate;
• Place transit stations along transit
corridors within mixed-use or transitoriented development areas at intervals of three to four blocks, or no
less than one-half mile
TT 3.17.2-22 Customer Service: Transit
agencies are encouraged to enhance
customer service and system ease-of-use,
including:
• Develop a Regional Pass system to
reduce the number of different passes
and tickets required of system users;
• Implement “Smart Bus” technology,
using GPS and electronic displays at
transit stops to provide customers with
“real-time” arrival and departure time
information (and to allow the system
operator to respond more quickly and
effectively to disruptions in service);
• Investigate the feasibility of an on-line
trip-planning program.
• Before funding transportation
improvements that increase roadway
capacity and VMT, evaluate the
feasibility and effectiveness of funding
projects that support alternative modes
of transportation and reduce VMT,
including transit, and bicycle and
pedestrian access.

Not applicable. The Project proponent is not
a transit agency.

TT 3.17.2-23 System Monitoring: Local
jurisdictions are encouraged to monitor traffic
and congestion to determine when and where
new transportation facilities are needed in
order to increase access and efficiency.

Not applicable. The City of Kingsburg already
conducts this activity.

TT 3.17.2-24 Arterial Traffic Management:

Local jurisdictions are encouraged to modify
arterial roadways to allow more efficient bus
operation, including bus lanes and signal
priority/preemption where necessary.

Not applicable. While the adjacent major
street, Mendocino Avenue, is a designated
Arterial, existing transit service does not utilize
this street.

TT 3.17.2-25 HOV Lanes: Local jurisdictions
are encouraged to support the construction of
high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes or similar
mechanisms whenever necessary to relieve
congestion and reduce emissions.

Not applicable. Kingsburg lacks the severity
of congestion that would warrant HOV lanes.

City of Kingsburg September 17, 2024
Kings Estates V Subdivision Page 8 of 12
\\EgnyteDrive\Clients\Kingsburg_City of - 1345\134524002-Kings Estates V CEQA\200 Technical\215 Env Planning\Appendices\VMT Memorandum.docx Mitigation Measure Analysis
TT 3.17.2-26 Ride-Share Programs: Fresno
COG will, and local jurisdictions are
encouraged to promote ride sharing
programs, including:
• Designate a certain percentage of
parking spaces for ride-sharing
vehicles;
• Designate adequate passenger
loading, unloading, and waiting areas
for ride-sharing vehicles;
• Provide a web site or message board
for coordinating shared rides;
• Encourage private, for-profit
community car-sharing, including
parking spaces for car share vehicles
at convenient locations accessible by
public transit;
• Hire or designate a rideshare
coordinator to develop and implement
ridesharing programs.

Consistent. Fresno COG currently subsidizes
the CalVans program, of which all Kingsburg
residents are eligible to participate.

TT 3.17.2-27 Employer-based Trip Reduction:

Local jurisdictions are encouraged to support
voluntary, employer-based trip reduction
programs, including:
• Provide assistance to regional and
local ridesharing organizations;
• Advocate for legislation to maintain
and expand incentives for employer
ridesharing programs;
• Require the development of
Transportation Management
Associations for large employers and
commercial/ industrial complexes;
• Provide public recognition of effective
programs through awards, top ten lists,
and other mechanisms.

Not applicable. The Project proponent does
not propose employee-based uses.

TT 3.17.2-28 Ride Home Programs: Local
jurisdictions are encouraged to implement a
“guaranteed ride home” program for those
who commute by public transit, ride-sharing,
or other modes of transportation, and
encourage employers to subscribe to or
support the program.

Not applicable. The Project proponent does
not propose employee-based uses.

TT 3.17.2-29 Local Area Shuttles: Transit
agencies are encouraged to utilize shuttles to
serve neighborhoods, employment centers
and major destinations.

Not applicable. The Project proponent does
not propose employee-based uses.

TT 3.17.2-30 Local jurisdictions and transit
agencies are encouraged to create a free or
low-cost local area shuttle system that
includes a fixed route to popular tourist
Not applicable. The Project proponent is not
the City of Kingsburg or a transit agency.

City of Kingsburg September 17, 2024
Kings Estates V Subdivision Page 9 of 12
\\EgnyteDrive\Clients\Kingsburg_City of - 1345\134524002-Kings Estates V CEQA\200 Technical\215 Env Planning\Appendices\VMT Memorandum.docx Mitigation Measure Analysis
destinations or shopping and business
centers.

TT 3.17.2-31 Local jurisdictions are
encouraged to work with existing shuttle
service providers to coordinate their services.

Not applicable. The City of Kingsburg does
not provide transit services that would conflict
or otherwise would be benefit from such
coordination.

TT 3.17.2-32 Low- and No-Travel
Employment Opportunities: Local jurisdictions
are encouraged to facilitate employment
opportunities that minimize the need for
private vehicle trips, including:
• Amend zoning ordinances and the
Development Code to include
live/work sites and satellite work
centers in appropriate locations;
• Encourage telecommuting options with
new and existing employers, through
project review and incentives, as
appropriate.

Not applicable. The Project site is currently
zoned Residential and no proposal for
live/work is proposed. Despite this, homebased employment is permitted in the proposed zone district.

TT 3.17.2-33 Local jurisdictions are
encouraged to support bicycle use as a mode
of transportation by enhancing infrastructure
to accommodate bicycles and riders and
providing incentives.

Consistent. The City promotes bicycle use by
maintaining and constructing bicycle lanes
along popular destination routes within the
City.

TT 3.17.2-34 Development Standards for
Bicycles: Local jurisdictions are encouraged to
establish standards for new development and
redevelopment projects to support bicycle
use, including:
• Amending the Development Code to
include standards for safe pedestrian
and bicyclist accommodations, by
incorporating the following:
• “Complete Streets” policies that foster
equal access by all users in the
roadway design, wherever feasible;
• Bicycle and pedestrian access
internally and in connection to other
areas through easements;
• Safe access to public transportation
and other non-motorized uses through
construction of dedicated paths;
• Safe road crossings at major
intersections, especially for school
children and seniors;
• Adequate, convenient, and secure
bike parking at public and private
facilities and destinations in all urban
areas;
Consistent. The Project proposes to
construct local streets with street-facing
residences, which would promote the use of
bicycles. Additionally, the adjacent roadway is
planned for Class II bikeways, which would
connect to Downtown, parks, and schools.

City of Kingsburg September 17, 2024
Kings Estates V Subdivision Page 10 of 12
\\EgnyteDrive\Clients\Kingsburg_City of - 1345\134524002-Kings Estates V CEQA\200 Technical\215 Env Planning\Appendices\VMT Memorandum.docx Mitigation Measure Analysis
• Street standards will include provisions
for bicycle parking within the public
right of way.

TT 3.17.2-35 Local jurisdictions are
encouraged to incorporate bicycle facilities, as
appropriate in the new land use, including:
• Construction of weatherproof bicycle
facilities where feasible, and at a
minimum, bicycle racks or covered,
secure parking near the building
entrances;
• Provision and maintenance of
changing rooms, lockers, and showers
at large employers or employment
centers.
• Prohibit projects that impede bicycle
and pedestrian access, such as large
parking areas that cannot be safely
crossed by non-motorized vehicles,
and developments that block through
access on existing or potential bicycle
and pedestrian routes;
• Encourage the development of bicycle
stations at intermodal hubs, with
attended or “valet” bicycle parking, and
other amenities such as bicycle rental
and repair, and changing areas with
lockers and showers;
• Conduct a connectivity analysis of the
existing bikeway network to identify
gaps and prioritize bikeway
development where gaps exist.

Consistent. The Project will be required to
construct Class II bicycle lanes and will
connect to existing adjacent subdivisions.

TT 3.17.2-36 Bicycle and Pedestrian Trails:

Local jurisdictions are encouraged to establish
a network of multi-use trails to facilitate safe
and direct off-street bicycle and pedestrian
travel and will provide bike racks along these
trails at secure, lighted locations.

Consistent. The Project will be required to
construct Class II bicycle lanes.

TT 3.17.2-37 Bicycle Safety Program: Local
jurisdictions are encouraged to develop and
implement a bicycle safety educational
program to teach drivers and riders the laws,
riding protocols, routes, safety tips, and
emergency maneuvers.

Not applicable. The Project proponent is not
the City of Kingsburg.

TT 3.17.2-38 Bicycle and Pedestrian Project
Funding: Local jurisdictions are encouraged to
pursue and provide enhanced funding for
bicycle and pedestrian facilities and access
projects, including, as appropriate:

Not applicable. The Project proponent is not
the City of Kingsburg. Despite this, the City of
Kingsburg does pursue funding for bicycle and
pedestrian projects.

City of Kingsburg September 17, 2024
Kings Estates V Subdivision Page 11 of 12
\\EgnyteDrive\Clients\Kingsburg_City of - 1345\134524002-Kings Estates V CEQA\200 Technical\215 Env Planning\Appendices\VMT Memorandum.docx Mitigation Measure Analysis
• Apply for regional, State, and federal
grants for bicycle and pedestrian
infrastructure projects;
• Establish development exactions and
impact fees to fund bicycle and
pedestrian facilities;
• Use existing revenues, such as State
gas tax subventions, sales tax funds,
and general fund monies for projects to
enhance bicycle use and walking for
transportation.

TT 3.17.2-39 Bicycle Parking: Local
jurisdictions are encouraged to adopt bicycle
parking standards that ensure bicycle parking
sufficient to accommodate 5 to 10 percent of
projected use at all public and commercial
facilities, and at a rate of at least one per
residential unit in multiple-family
developments.

Not applicable. The Project is not a
commercial or multiple-family development.

TT 3.17.2-40 Local jurisdictions are
encouraged to implement measures to reduce
employee vehicle trips and to mitigate
emissions impacts from municipal travel.

Not applicable. The Project does not propose
municipal vehicle-generating uses.

TT 3.17.2-41 Pedestrian and Bicycle
Promotion: Local jurisdictions are encouraged
to work with local community groups and
downtown business associations to organize
and publicize walking tours and bicycle
events, and to encourage pedestrian and
bicycle modes of transportation.

Not applicable. While the City does
encourage pedestrian modes of transportation
as described above, the City is not the Project
proponent.

TT 3.17.2-42 Trip Reduction Program: Local
jurisdictions are encouraged to implement a
program to reduce vehicle trips by employees,
including:
• Providing incentives and infrastructure
for vanpooling and carpooling, such as
pool vehicles, preferred parking, and a
website or bulletin board to facilitate
ridesharing;
• Providing subsidized passes for mass
transit;
• Offering compressed work hours, offpeak work hours, and telecommuting, where appropriate;
• Offer a guaranteed ride home for
employees who use alternative modes
of transportation to commute.

Not applicable. The Project does not propose
employment uses.

TT 3.17.2-43 Bicycle Transportation Support:

Local jurisdictions are encouraged to promote
and support the use of bicycles as
transportation, including:

Consistent. The City of Kingsburg provides
bicycle facilities throughout the City, and the
Project proponent is required to construct
City of Kingsburg September 17, 2024
Kings Estates V Subdivision Page 12 of 12
\\EgnyteDrive\Clients\Kingsburg_City of - 1345\134524002-Kings Estates V CEQA\200 Technical\215 Env Planning\Appendices\VMT Memorandum.docx Mitigation Measure Analysis
• Providing bicycle stations with secure,
covered parking, changing areas with
storage lockers and showers, as well
as a central facility where minor repairs
can be made;
• Providing bicycles, including electric
bikes, for employees to use for short
trips during business hours;
• Implementing a police-on-bicycles
program;
• Providing a bicycle safety program,
and information about safe routes to
work.

Class II bicycle facilities along its Project
frontage.

TT 3.17.2-44 Transit Access to Municipal
Facilities: Local jurisdiction and agency
facilities are encouraged to be located on
major transit corridors, unless their use is
plainly incompatible with other uses located
along major transit corridors.

Consistent. Existing transit service stops in
Downtown at Marion and Lewis.

TT 3.17.2-45 Local jurisdictions are
encouraged to implement Intelligent
Transportation Systems improvements, where
feasible, that will:
• Use technology to improve traffic
signal timing in order to optimize traffic
flow and transit service
• Involve new equipment to improve ontime transit performance and provide real-time transit information at stops
and stations.

Consistent. The City uses traffic signal timing
to optimize traffic flow and consequently
transit service.

In summary, the Project would not conflict and incorporates by design or by City requirement all applicable measures from the Fresno COG 2022 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Program EIR.

VMT Conclusion
While no Fresno COG thresholds were met, the project is considered to be consistent with both the Fresno COG 2022 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy and the Program EIR adopted with it. As this Project would comply with all applicable mitigation measures, as they are incorporated by City requirement, this Project’s impact to VMT would have a less than significant impact that was already analyzed in the Program EIR. If you have any questions or need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Jarred Olsen
Senior Planner
Ã99
Ã180
Ã168
§¨¦5
Ã41
I5
Manning
SR 180
Mark
S
s
R 145
Elm
SR 168
Russell
SR 99
SR 41
Cedar
McCall
Auberry
Jensen
Shaw
Jayne
Mt.Whitney
Elkhorn
SR 33
SR 63
Alta
San Diego
Rose
Nees/SR 180
Piedra SR 269
American
SR 198
Kamm
Ll Panoche
Dinky Creek
SR 33/198
Friant
Herndon
Fairfax
Millerton
Napa
Harlan
Jameson
SR 245
West
Mt.Whitney
SR 168
Kamm
SOURCE: Fresno COG Activity Based Travel Demand Model (2019) R:\FCG1901 FresnoCOG VMT\GIS\VMT_Maps_12-2-2020\fig18_County_All.mxd (1/8/2021) FIGURE 7
Fresno County SB 743 Implementation Regional Guidelines VMT per Capita Screening Map for Fresno County
S
!!
N
VMT per Capita
No Population
Less than 14.0

14.0 - 18.2
Greater than 18.2
Cities Including Sphere of Influence
Fresno County Average VMT per Capita: 16.1
Threshold: 13%
dtsc.ca.gov

SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
November 5, 2024
Holly Owen
Community Development Director
City of Kingsburg
1401 Draper Street
Kingsburg, CA 93631
[email protected]
RE: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE KINGS ESTATES V DATED OCTOBER 29, 2024, STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER 2024101271 Dear Holly Owen,
The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) reviewed the Kings Estates V project (project). The West Star Construction Company, Inc. has proposed a new Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM) on a site to the north of the current Kingsburg city limits, comprising of three parcels, approximately 33.27 acres in size. In order for the project to be developed within the City of Kingsburg, each of the aforementioned parcels would be required to be annexed into the City of Kingsburg. The parcels that would be developed have historically been used for agricultural purposes. Currently the site contains two single-family residences that would be demolished as a part of the project. The site is also comprised of natural vegetation, vineyards and trees that would be removed as a part of the project. The project involves several approvals, each described in more detail below.

The proposed TSM would result in the subdivision of the site into 97 single-family residential lots, ranging from approximately 7,360 square feet in size, to approximately 13,256 square feet in size. Additionally, the TSM proposes an approximately 43,477 square feet park and an approximately 58,411 square feet basin that would serve the Holly Owen
November 5, 2024