Kingsburg City Council
December 3, 2025

3.38 2.84
NEW!
't.73
NEW!

2.59 2.59
NEW!

8.47 NEW!

3.21 NEW!

1.27 0.39
3-90

1.81 1.82

5.48 4.49
NEW!

2.72 NEW!

3.80 3.80
NEW!12.25NEW!

4.60 NEW!

2.46 0.587.57

4.03 2.77

4.36 3.37
NEW!

2.O2
NEW!

3.13 3.13
NEW!

9.73 NEW!

3.71 NEW!

1.63 o.44

4.63 2.15

2.21 4.95

3.79 NEW!

2.30 NEW!

3.13 3.13
NEW!

10.69 NEW!

3.99 NEW!

1.63 0.445.78

2.72 2.21

4.44 3.32
NEW!

2.05 NEW!

3.13 3.13
NEW!

9.73 NEW!

3.64 NEW!

1.63 0.44

4.992.20

2.21 5.043.79
NEW!

2.30 NEW!

3.13 3.13
NEW!10.85NEW!

4.O9
NEW!

1.63 o.445.89

2.752.21

4.80 3.69
NEW!

2.20 NEW!

3.13 3.'r3
NEW!'r0.28NEW!

3.81 NEW!

1.63 o.44s.57

2.60 2.21

4.633.32
NEW!

2.09 NEW!

3.13 3.13
NEW!

9.75 NEW!

3.55 NEW!

1.63 o.44

5.30 2.47

2.21 4.833.49
NEW!

2.22 NEW!

3.13 3.13
NEW!

10.18 NEW!

3.83 NEW!
't.63
o.44

5.89 2.63

2.21 4.24

3.04 NEW!

1.94 NEW!

3.'l 3

3.13 NEW!
9:t1
NEW!

3.45 NEW!

1.63 0.44

4.64 1.982.21

4.05 2.74
NEW!

1.87 NEW!

3.13 3.13
NEW!

8.73 NEW!

3.27 NEW!

1.53 0.44

4.29 1.842.21

3.77 2.48
NEW!

1.69 NEW!

2.59 2.59
NEW!

8.21 NEW!

3.05 NEW!
't.27

0.39 3.72

1.60 1.82

4.323.25
NEW!

1.97 NEW!

3.13 3.13
NEW!

9.55 NEW!

3.61 NEW!

1.63 o.44

4.522.O3

2.21 3.562.59
NEW!

1.56 NEW!

2.59 2.59
NEW!

8.16 NEW!

3.01 NEW!

1.27 0.39

3.491.54

1.82 4.283.23
NEW!

1.90 NEW!

3.13 3.13
NEW!

9.32 NEW!

3.49 NEW!

1.63 0.44

4.65 1.972.2'l

3.44 0.391.59
NEW!

2.59 2.59
NEW!

8.55 NEW!

3.14 NEW!
't.27

0.39 4.25

2.47 1.82
Events and Exhibitsi
LibraryHotel/Motel
Office, Financial lnstitution,
Unleased Tenant Space
Medical Office Building, ClinicRestaurants
Retail, Grocery
School
Warehouse
Religious Worshipl
Sports and Recreationr
Multifamily > 3 stories
Building Type czz cz3 cz4 czs cz6 cz7 czB czg cz10 cz11 cz12 cz13 cz14 cz15 cz16 QrnergyndeAce
li
ITI]
Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS)
@
r Prescriptiver Section 140.10(b), Table 140.10-B
2025 Energy Code 5140.10(b) updates the Prescriptive battery energy storage system (BESS) requirements for new nonresidential and hotel/motel buildings. As in the 2022 Ener gy Code, all nonresidential and hotel/motel buildings that must have a PV system per 5140.10(a) must also have a BESS that meets the minimum qualification requirements of Reference Joint Appendix )A12.

The 2025 Energy Code defines new equations to calculate the minimum rated usable energy capacity and minimum power capacity for the BESS.

The minimum rated energy capacity must be calculated using either Equation 140.10-B or Equation 140.10-C if the SARA method was used to determine PV capacity. Both of those equations use the new BESS capacity factors from the updated Table 140,10-B, excerpted in this fact sheet inTable 20. The minimum rated power capacity must be calculated using Equation 140.'10-D.Equation 140.10-B Battery Energy Storage System Minimum RatedUsable Energy Capacity:
kWhu",. =((CFAx B)/('1,000*Co's))
OR
Equation 140.10-C Battery Energy Storage System Minimum RatedUsable Energy Capacity, SARA-adjusted:
kwhu",. = (cFA x B)/(1,000 x co's)) x (kwpvo., so*o / kwpuo.) WHERE:
kWho".. = Minimum Rated Usable Energy Capacity of the BESS in kWh kWrua. = Minimum Rated PV Capacity in kW from Equation 140.10-AkWpy4c,sARA = Minimum Rated PV Capacity in kW from the SARA calculation
CFA = Conditioned floor area (ft2) subject to the PV system requirements of 5140.1 0(a)
B = BESS Capacity Factor (Wh/ft'z) from Table 140.10-B for the building type (see Table 20 in this fact sheet))
C - Rated single charge-discharge cycle AC to AC (round-trip) efficiency of the BESS
Equation 140.10-D Battery Energy Storage System Minimum RatedPower Capacity:

KW =kWh. . /4 batt NATI
WHERE:
kWb".. = Minimum Rated Power Capacity of the BESS in kWdc kWhu".. = Minimum Rated Usable Energy Capacity of the BESS in kWh rIl! rrl t'
2025 Title 24, Part 6 | Nonresidential Buildings: Whafs New

Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) (continued)
'!Ig!.e!!ys. € > Section 140.10(b), Table 140.10-B
ln mixed occupancy buildings, calculate the minimum rated usable energy capacity for each of the project's listed building types from Table 20 basedon their conditioned floor areas. The total battery system capacity for the building must be the sum of the minimum rated usable energy capacities for each of the listed building types.

Per exceptions 1 and 2 to 5140.10(b), no BESS is required if:
* The building's total installed PV capacity is less than 1570 of the capacity calculated using Equation 140.10-A, or
* The rated usable energy capacity calculated using Equation 140.10-B or '140.10-C is less than 10 kWh.

Exception 3 to s140.10(b) clarifies that there are CFA limits associated withBESS requirements:
* For multitenant buildings, the energy capacity of the BESS must be based on the tenant spaces with more than 5,000 ft2 of CFA, and * No BESS is required for single-tenant buildings with less than 5,000 ft, of cFA.

Table 20: BESS Capacity Factors in Wh/ft2 of Conditioned Floor Area (Excerpted from Table 140.10-B) CZ = Climate Zone, NR = Not required, Wh/ftz = Watt-hours per square foot rlll I .D.
2025 Title 24, Part 6 | Nonresidential Buildings: Whafs New

1.89 6.40

0.85 4.35

4.11 1.91

2.38 3.22

7.93'1.49

6.39 6.232.66

4.60 2.686.81

1.18 5.26

5.24 2.293.05

2.646.88

1.18 5.265.05

2.16 3.05

2.16 6.93

0.96 5.26

4.43 1.95

3.05 2.62

7.17 1.14

5.26 5.05

2.223.05

2.47 7.56
1,11

5.26 4.82

2.05 3.05
L36

7.'.t3

1.00 5.26

4.47 1.97

3.05 2.30

7.13 1.01

5.26 4.49

1.92 3.05

2.24 6.19

0.905.26

4.11 1.76

3.05 2.13

6.08 0.895.26

4.O2

1.80 3.05

1.91 5.640.81

4.35 3.89

1.72 2.38

2.12 6.75
o.92

5.26 4.37

1.82 3.05

1.74 5.97
o.77

4.35 3.782.70

2.38 1.95

7.17 0.845.26

4.11 1.82

3.05 1.82
o.370.86
NR

4.36 1.89
NR
Events and ExhibitsLibrary
Hotel/Motel
Office, Financial lnstitution,
Unleased Tenant Space, Medical
Office Buildins or Clinic
Restaurants
Retail, Grocery
School
Building Type cz1 cz2 cz3 cz4 czs cz6 cz7 cz8 czg cz10 cz11 cz12 cz13 cz14 cz15 cz't6 QnergyCodeAce
ll
Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) (continued)
r Prescriptive
r Section 140.10(b), Table 140.10-B
CZ = Climate Zone, NR = Not required, Wh/ftz = Watt-hours per square foot @

0.372.37

1.13 1.88

4.89 3.02

2.85 o.41 0.543.21

1.57 2.27 2.27

0.413.62

1.86 2.72

1.27 2.27

0.41 0.41

3.58 1.83

2.27 2.27

0.41 3.37

1.65 3.17

1.53 2.27

0.41 0.41

3.37 1.57

2.27 2.27

0.41 2.94

1.23 2.75

1.20 2.27
o.37 0.41

2.08 0.85

1.88 0.412.42

1.14 2.27

0.76 1.88
o.37

1.74 0.41

2.25 0.982.27
o.37

2.21 1.261.88
Religious WorshlpSports and Recreation
Multifamily > 3 stories
Warehouse
Building Type cz1 czz cz3 cz4 czs cz6 cz7 cza czg cz10 cz11 czlz cz13 cz14 cz15 cz16 ,-
2025 Title 24, Part 6 | Nonresidential Buildings: Whafs New

lr
For More lnformation
QnusyCodeAce
Your "one-stop-shop" for no-cost tools, training, and resources to help you comply with California's Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6) and Appliance Efficiency Standards (Title 20).

Create an account on the EnergyCodeAce.com website and select an industry role for your profile in order to receive our newsletterand messages about all our offerings! Ace' lioinin$-
energycod eace.co m/tra i n i ngOn-demand, live in-person, and online training alternatives are tailored to a variety
of industry professionals and address keymeasures.

Of special interest:
+ 2025 Title 24. Part 6 Essentials - Did you know you can get your questions answered by an industry expert? Use our "Submit a Question" option on our website to connect with our team or scroll through Q&Ace to find answers to commonly asked questions. ?a energvcodeace.com ++ Ace *Iools'- Ace Resources" -t
energycodeace.com/tools
Explore this suite of interactive tools to
understand the compliance process,required forms, installation techniques, and efficiency regulations in California.
* Reference Ace: Navigate fitle 24, Part 6
using an index, keyword search, andhyperlinked text.
* Q&Ace: Search our online knowledge
base or submit your question toEnergy Code Ace experts. * Product Finder: Find Title 24,Part6
compliant products.
* Virtual Compliance Assistant:

Get interactive help to fill in NRCC or
LMCC Forms.

Nonresidential Standards: What's New
en ergycodeace.com/resou rces
Downloadable materials provide practical
and concise guidance on how and when tocomply with Title 24, Part 6 and Title 20.Of special interest:
+ Fact Sheets for Buildings
> Coming soon - search for
"nonresidential buildings" on ourwebsite for new 2025 resources * Fact Sheets for Aooliances
> MAE)bS 101
HU[m-.,,:
2025 Title 24, Part 6 | Nonresidential Buildings: Whafs New

ffftf
-r-r:ilr.,
QnergyCodeAce'
mr
@ CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
California Energy Commission (CEC)enersv.ca.gov
Learn more about the CEC and its programs.
+ 2025 Buildinp Enersv Efficiencv Standards:

Explore the main CEC web portal for the2025 Energy Code, including information, documents, and historical information.
* 2025 California Energy Code Fact Sheet:

Download this brief summary of the Title 24,Part 6 purpose, current changes, and impact. * California Aooliance Efficiencv Standards Site:

Visit this site for information on California'sTitle 20 Appliance Efficiency Regulations. + Energy Code Hotline
> Call: 1-800-772-3300 (Free)
> Submission Form
+ Enersv Code Suooort Center: Use these
online resources developed for building andenforcement communities to learn more about Title 24, Part 6.
+ Modernized Appliance Efficiency Database
Svstem (MAEDbS): Search this database to find
products that comply with Title 24, Part 6 and
Tirle 20.

Additional Resources
Title 24 Stakeholders
title24sta keholders.comThe Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) initiative presents recommendations to support
the CEC's efforts to update Title 24, Part 6 to
include new requirements or to upgrade existingrequirements for various technologies. ThreeCalifornia investor-owned utilities sponsor thiseffort. The Statewide CASE Team encourages theopen exchange of comments and concerns fromall stakeholders engaged in the Title 24, Part6 code change process. Contact them and they will
put you in touch with the appropriate CASE Team
members.Reach Codeslocalenergvcodes.comCollaborating with cities, counties, andstakeholders to drive reach code development and adoption for long-term climate and energy
efficiency benefits. View a list of adoptedordinances at the link provided.

CALGreencalsreeninfo.com
CALGreen is a mandatory green building code
with additional voluntary provisions. CALGreen is
Part 11 of the California Building Standards Code,
Title24 of the California Code of Regulations.

Codes are updated and adopted on an 1S-monthcycle, triennial and intervening. The current code is effective through December 31,2025. - nl n
QnusyCodeAce flsoee" J tnisoru TJ Pacific Gas aild Electric Con,pany' I f.r tl r! iliii l:,rri.: ,!Edison Company (SCE) under the auspices of the California Public Utilities Commission.does not constitute or imply its endorsemen! recommendation or favoring.o4.o1.2025 Page47 of 47 2025 Title 24,Port 6 Foct Sheet
Ace,, Resources'-
What's New in 2O2S?
-.t
rlll
-,
Using this Fact SheetUse this fact sheet for highlights on the ways in which California's 2025 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Energy Code or fiile 24, Part 6) has changed in2025 for multifamily buildings. For details about the EnergyCode changes, refer to the What's Changed in 2025: Multifamily Buildings Fact Sheet.Highlights and details about the code changes for other building types are given in the following fact sheets:
* Single-family Buildings:What's New in 2025?* Single-family Buildings: What's Changed in 2025?+ Nonresidential Buildings:What's New in 2025? * Nonresidential Buildings: What's Changed in 2025?
Table of Contents\A/l.rrfi'c I^-l' riai
Evolvine Enersv Code Comoliance Metrics
Definine Multifamilv Soaces ....................2Buildins Occuoancies Subiect to the Enersv Code: Mu|tifami|v.......................3 Whv Did the Enersv Code Chanse?
Key Terms...Additions...

Torminnlnorr f h:noc' "HtrRq" l< lrlnrnr "FfC"
Envelope Highlights
Key Envelope TermsNew Construction.
_
Alterations ........................ 12
MechanicalSystem Highlights. ..............JA
New Construction ..........14
)4
5 .6.7.8
,8.9
Lighting System Highlights.

New Construction
Battery Energy Storage System and Solar PV System Highlights New Construction
For More lnformation
.n
2025 Title 24, Paft 6 | Multifamily Buildings: Whafs New

.27.28.28
30 30
.35
lll Itr trl rrll llrl \}r'2
QnergyndeAce'
What's Included:

The 2025 Energy Code updatedthe2022 Energy Code.The 2025 Energy Code is effective as of January 1,2026. Any projects that apply for a permit on or after this date will be subject to the 2025 EnergyCode. lnformation and documents are available on the California EnergyCommission (CEC) website.

This fact sheet highlights the key changes to the Energy Code that apply to multifamily buildings. All measures apply to all multifamily buildings unless otherwise noted. There are separate requirements for dwelling units andcommon use areas.

Defining Multifamilv Spaces
Dwelling Unit: A single unit providing complete, independent living facilities for one or more persons including access and permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation
Common Use Areas: Occupancy "R" spaces that do NOT include dwelling units, such as community rooms, corridrrs, laundry rooms serving multiple units, lobbies, lounges, and storage spaces that only serve a multifamily "R" occupancy. Common use areas do NOT include any of these spaces serving a nonresidential bu ilding occupancy.

Generally, multifamily buildings in the Energy Code are buildings with three or more dwelling units, excluding townhouses, which are defined as singlefamily. The 2025 Energy code defines a multifamily building as a building in one of the following groups:
f Occupancy Group R-2, other than a hotel or motel building or timeshare property
* Occupancy Group R-3 that is a non-transient congregate residence, other than boarding houses with more than six guests and alcoholor drug abuse recovery homes with more than six guests * Occupancy Group 4
Residential Occupancy Groups R-2, R-3, and R-4 are set by the California Building Code (Title 24, Part 2) independently of the Energy Code (Title 24,Part 6):
* R-2 includes buildings with sleeping units or three or more dwelling units with primarily permanent residents.
+ R-3 overall includes single-family and duplex residences, but R-3 also includes some multifamily congregate residences with primarily permanent residents, such as dormitories.
+ R-4 covers supervised residential environments for more than six ambulatory clients and up to 16 t3tal residents, excluding staff. R-4 includes assisted living facilities such as residential care facilities and group homes and social rehabilitation residences such as halfway houses and drug treatment facilities.
i-lt r #iln
2025 Title 24, Part 6 | Multifamily Buildings: Whafs New

t sra [rr,l
QhergyCodeA ce
I
Buildins Occupancies Subiect to the Enersv Code: Multifamilv The following Energy Code building types, and their Occupancy class per the California Building Code, are subject to the Energy Code.

Multifamily Groups
Referred to as "Multifamily Buildings" in the Energy CodeOccupancy Class: R2 - Residential Buildings with three or more dwelling units for permanent residents, excluding townhouses.

Occupancy Class: R3 - Residential
M ultifamily congregate residences with primari ly permanent residents.

This can include Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) on a multifamily property.Occupancy Class: R4 - ResidentialSupervised residential environments for more than six ambulatory clientsand up to 16 total residents, that is not considered a "Healthcare Facility." Occupancy Class: U - Miscellaneous
Accessory buildings and structures, and miscellaneous structures not classified in any specific occupancy and on a multifamily property. l- l&dJ+'Lrlbe#.-
Note: See the "Trigger Tables" in our fact sheets for specific scopes of work that trigger the Energy Code, and review the Triggering Energy Code Requirements fact sheets for more information on building occupancies. lr ..-
2025 Title 24,Part 5 | Multifamily Buildings: Whafs New QnergyndeAce^ Page 3 of 36
I
Decorbonizotion Gools
california aims to reduce its GHG emissions while creating an energysystem that is resilient to climate risks, spurring innovation and a low-carbontransitionbothnationallyandinternationally.PertheCEC Energy Assessment, California has some of the most ambitious climateand energY goals in the world' GHG Emission Reduction Gools

1. Assembly Bill32: 1990levels by2O2A2. Senate Bill 32: 40%o below 1990 levels by 2030

3.Executiveorder5.3-05:809obelow1990levelsby2050
This can be achieved through a variety of measures' such as incremental StepStoward,,carbonneutral',buildings,andtimelybalancingofonsite energyproductionandconsumptioninSupportofahealthy,stablegrid'rfre inergy Code supports reaching these goals' Learn more from the
The2025EnergyCodeisanimportantpartofCalifornia'sworktoreduce carbon emissions and fight ciimate change. The Energy code is updated everythreeyearswiththemandatetoincreasebuildingenergyefficiency while stayin! cost-effective for building owners over the lifespan of a Did the Ener Code Cha aa
building.

Expected Benefits of the 2025 Enerry Code Across All Building Types:
* Save $4.8 billion in energY costs
* Drive 500,000 heat pump installations in the first three years + Save enough water to fill 100 Olympic-sized swimming pools annuallY
* Reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by four million metric tons e
QnugyCodeAce
2025 Title 24, Part6 | Multifamily Buildings: Whafs New Page 4 of 36 Evolvins
E Code Com tiance
Metrics
The 2025 Energy Code updates the energy compliance metrics that are the basis ofine Performance Approach from those used in the 2022 Energy Code (see Table 1). tn the 2022 Energy Code, multifamily New Construction
had to show compliance with Source Energy (Source), Time Dependent Valuation (TDV) energy budgets for energy efficiency (TDVe), and
a total(TDVt) that combined energyefficiency with photovoltaics (pV or solar electricity) and flexibility measures. Additions ana ntterailons were also required to meet TDV energy budgets.

The terminology and units in the 2025 Energy Code have changed to Source Energy (source), Long-term System Cost (LSC) tor energy efficiency (LSCe) and for a toral f f_SCtl ihat includes energy efficiency measures plus pV and flexibility measures. ln the 2025 Energy Code, Additions and Alterations show .orp'iln." using LSCe alone. See Table 2 and the definitions ofSource Energyand Long_term System Costs under Key Terms for more details.

This change to assessing multifamily buildings using LSC is intended to give an idei of how the energy and carbon efficiency of current building construction will impact California,s energy systems over the next 30 years. trtote thJ ISC does not predict individual utility bilts.

Table 1: Evolving EConstruction nergy Code Compliance Metrics for Multifamily 2O22:Source = Total Annual Source En
TDVI = TOTAI TDV
2025: Source = Total Annual Source
Table 2: Source Ene
ergy; TDV = Time De pendent Valuation; TDVe = Efficiency TDV; Energy; LSCe = Efficiency LSC; tSCt = Total LSC
rgy and Long-term System Cost as Compliance Metrics
PV = Solar photovoltaics, HVAG = Heati ng, ventilation, and ai n
r conditioning, DHW = Domestic hot water
lmportant Note: For New Construction, a build all three compliance scores are met, which mea equal to the Standard Design score. ing complies with the performance Approach ONLy if ns that each proposed Design score is lower than or rEll I2025 Title 24. part6 | Multifamily Buildings: What,s New TDV
LSCe
TDV
LSCe
Source, TDVe, TDVI
Source, LSCe, LSCt
2022
2025
New Construction Energy Code Additions Alterations
score representing the building ng-term system costs for energy efficiency while also
factoring in pV and flexibility.

Total LSC includes;
* Efficiency measures
+PV
+ Batteries
+ Precooling
A
lo
A score representing the buildingenergy efficiency expressed aslong-term system costs.

Efficiency LSC includes:
* Envelope
* lndoor fans
+ HVAC
+ DHW
* Other loads, including selfutilization credit and indoor lighting when applicable
expressed as an hourly source_ carbon metric.

Source Energy includes:
* Envelope
* lndoor fans
+ HVAC
+ DHW
+PV
+ Batteries
* Other loads
lng
n
b Uitd
use
ustio
e
b
rh
nergy
com
e
it fue
resenting
source
rep
foss
run
to
score
long
A
due
Source Energy (Source)
System Costs (LSCe)
Efficiency Long-Term Total Long-term
costs (Lsct)
QfnergyndeAre

Key Terms
Mandatory Requirements: The Energy Code includes Mandatory requirements for multifamily building features and systems that must be met regardless of the out'"llcompliance approach (55160'0 through 160'9)' Prescriptive Approach: The Prescriptive Approach - a set of prescribed performance levels for various building components' where each component must meet or exceed specific requirements - is.c-onsidered the most direct path to Energy Code compliance' There are different multifamily erescriptJe ,"qJr"nlunts for different climate Zones (CZs) and for New Construction (5f ZO'Z) or Additions (5180'1(a)) versus Alterations (5180.2(b)). The Performance Approach allows for more flexibility than the PrescriPtive requirements'
Performance Approach: The Performance Approach (5170'1 for New Construction, Sreo'r([l for Additions' and 5180'2(c) for Alterations) builds on the er"r.,.'piiu" Approach by allowing energy allotments to be traded between b,i;;;;t;tems for multifamily buildings' There can be proposed energy use tride-offs between features of the building envelope' domestic water-heating, space-heating' and space-cooling equipment'A building complies wiift tfre Performance Approach if the energy consumption calculated for the Proposed Design building is less than or equal to the energy bulget calculated for the standard Design building using energy analysis 'oit*"" that has been approved by the CEC' Performance APProach Terms
+ Long-term System Cost (LSC): CEC-projected presentvalue of costs to california's energy systems over a period of 30 years in units of dollars f ercqu"" toot of conditioned floor area ($/ft'z)' Note that "u"n though the units are in $/ftz' LSC does not predict individual utility bills' Using the LSC metric ensures that all modeled building features are specified on a one-forone equivalent "n"'gy 'i'" ot equivalent energy cost basis' LSC consists of t"gJ;"' sets that convert electricity' gas' and propane to f-sC en"ergy' The rate of conversion varies for each hour of the year, cz, eneriitype (electricity' natural gas' and propane)' and building type (low-rise residential including multifamily' highrise residential, nonresidential' and hoteland motel)' + Self'utilization credit: The limited ifficiency LSC energy budget compliance credit available for combined PV and battery energy storage systems for single-family buildings' as specifie! nVlne ResidentialACM Refere-nce Manual' and low-rise multifamily' asspecified by the Nonresidential and Multifamily ACM Reference Manual.
+ Source Energy (Source): The long run marginal source energy of fossil fuels that are combusted as a result of building energy consumed either directly at the building site or to meet the electrical demand of tfre UuitOing' The source energy metric considers the long-term marginal hourly resources of
CEC-projected electric system resource procurement' For a given hour, the value in that htur for each forecasted year is averaged toget a lifetime average source energy measured in kBtu/ftz-yr' }TimeDependentValuation(TDV):,,TDVEnergy,,isthetime
varying energy used by the building to provide space conditioning' water heating, ,nJ specified building lighting' lt accounts for the energy used at the building site and consumed in producing and delivering energy to a site, including' but not limited to' power generation, transmission' and distribution losses'
Photovoltaics (PV): A system that generates electricity from solar energy fl
,-ll
5 QtnergyCodeAce'
lL
2025 Title 24, Part6 | Multifamily Buildings: Whafs New Page 5 of 36 Terminolosv Chanee: "HERS" ls Now "ECC"
California's Energy Code requires that third-partyspecial inspectors perform field verification anddiagnostic testing of certain installed building features and systems. Through Ihe2022 Energy
Code cycle, these special inspectors were called
Home Energy Rating System (HERS) Raters,
and HERS program requirements were covered
in California's Title 20 Appliance Efficiency
Regulations.For the 2025 code cycle, the HERS program hasbeen renamed the Energy Code Compliance (ECC) program, and the ECC program
requirements have been moved from Title 20
to Title 24,Part 1, 510-103.3. HERS Raters will
now be known as ECC-Raters. See Table 3 for a
summary of the new terminology with updated
definitions,
"-
Table 3: Home Energy Rating System (HERS) Renamed "Energy Code Compliance (ECC)" Program - 2025 Title 24, Part 6 | Multifamily Buildings: Whafs New

* A person trained, tested, and certified by an ECC
Provider
* Performs ECC fleld verification and diagnostic
testing
* An organization certified by an ECC-Provider* Offers field verification and diagnostic testing services by the ECC Rater Company's ECC Raters
+ Building feature installations that must
demonstrate compliance with Energy Code via
field verification and diagnostic testing
+ ECC = Energy Code Compliance Program* Confirms compliance with Energy Code via field verification and diagnostic testing as applicable in
Residential construction:
>> New Construction> Additions>r Alterations
* Program requirements moved from Title 20 to
Title 24, Part 1
* An organization approved bythe CECto
administer the ECC program per Energy Code
s10-103.3
ECC-Rater Company
ECC Measures
ECC-Provider
ECC-Rater
ECC
N/A
HERS Measures
HERS Provider
HERS Rater
HERS
Through 2022
Energy Code Cycle
Starting 2025
Energy Code Cycle Definition
QnersyAdeAce'.

Envelope Hiehlights
Key Envelope Terms
Relative Solar Heat Gain Coefficient (RSHGC): The ratio of solar heat gain through a fenestration product (corrected for external shading) to the incident solar radiation. Solar heat gain includes directly transmitted solarheat and absorbed solar radiation, which is then reradiated, conducted, or convected into the space.

Solar Reflectance: The ratio (expressed as a decimal) of solar heat that is reflected compared to the incident solar radiation. The higher the solarreflectance rating, the more solar heat is reflected.

Solar Reflectance lndex (SRl): A measure of the roof's ability to rejectsolar heat which includes both reflectance and emittance. The higher theSRl, the more solar heat is rejected.

Thermal Emittance: Material that reflects the sun's energy will still absorbsome of that energy as heat. That absorbed heat is given off (emitted) to the environment in varying amounts depending on the materials and surface types. This emittance is given a value between 0 and 1, and this value represents a comparison (ratio) between what a given material or surface emits and what a perfect blackbody emitter would emit at the same temperature. A higher emittance value means more energy is released fromthe material or surface. Emittance is a measure of the relative efficiencywith which a material, surface, or body can cool itself by radiation.

U-factor: The overall coefficient of thermal transmittance of a fenestration, wall, floor, or roof and ceiling component, in Btu/(hr x ftz x oF), including air film resistance at both surfaces.

Visible Transmittance (VT): The ratio (expressed as a decimal) of visible light that is transmitted through a glazing fenestration. The higher the VTrating, the more light is allowed through a window. ,nlr .n T
2025 Title 24, Part 5 | Multifamily Buildings: Whafs New

rlt llrlrr TITI rltl
QrnergyCodeAce
lr
New Construction
Wall U-factor and lnsulation
Mandatory Maximum Fenestration U-factor
r Mandatory $ $ r Mandatory r Section 160.1(b)
The 2025 Energy Code tightens maximum overall assembly U-factor requirements for 2x4 and 2x6 wood framed walls that separate conditioned space from either enclosed unconditioned space or outdoor air:

Wood framed walls:
* 2x4 framed walls must have a maximum area-weighted assembly U-factor less than or equalto 0.095, reduced from 0.102. + 2x6 framed walls must have a maximum assembly U-factor less than or equal to 0.069, reduced from 0.071.
* Wood-framed walls with 16 inch on center framing can meet these new U-factor requirements by installing at least R-15 insulation in 2x4 assemblies or R-21 insulation in 2x6 assemblies.

Metalframed walls:
+ Metal framed walls must have a maximum area-weighted average assembly U-factor of 0.151, increased from 0.148.

Note that the Mandatory maximum assembly U-factors have not changed for metal buildings, light mass walls, heavy mass walls, spandrel panels and curtain walls, demising walls, or for other wall assemblies notspecifically included in 51 60.1 (b). -.
r Section 160.1(e)
The Mandatory maximum area-weighted average U-factor for fenestration products, including skylights, which separate conditioned space fromunconditioned space or outdoors remains at 0.58, but there are some updated exceptions to the requirement.

The Mandatory maximum 0.58 U-factor is NOT required for the following:
* A fenestration area up to 0.5 percent of conditioned floor area+ Up to 30 ft2 of dual-glazed greenhouse or garden windows per dwelling unit
* New for the 2025 Energy Code: Fenestration installed to meet Part 7 of the California Building Code in buildings located in Fire HazardSeverity Zones or Wildland-Urban lnterface (WUl) Fire Areas gdm
2025 Title 24,Part 6 | Multifamily Buildings: Whafs New

-l! QnergyndeAce' -t
Prescriptive Cool Roof Updates
> Prescriptive
Prescriptive Fenestration Updates
r Section 17O.2(al1A, Table 17O.2-A
Table 170.2-4 of the 2025 Energy Code increases Prescriptive cool roof requirements in some CZsfor steep-sloped roofs over Option B highperformance vented attics and for low-sloped roofs for Option D non-attic roof assemblies.

For the 2025 Energy Code, Option B steep-sloped roof requirements in CZs 10,11,13. and 15 increase:
* Minimum aged solar reflectance from 0.20 to 0.25
* Minimum solar reflectance index from 16 to 23
Option D low-sloped roofs in CZs 2,4,6,7, 8, and 12 did not require cool roofs in the2022 Energy Code. For the 2025 Energy Code those roofs musthave:
+ Aged solar reflectance > 0.63* Thermal emittance > 0.75 * Solar reflectance index > 75
Prescriptive Slab Floor lnsulation
r Prescriptive
r Prescriptive
> Section 17O.2(a)3, Table 17O.2-A
The 2025 Energy code removes some separate prescriptive fenestration requirements for new buildings with three stories or less versus four stories or more. ln the 2025 Energr Code, the same prescriptivefenestration U-factor, RSHGC, and VT requirements for differentfenestration types apply to multifamily buildings with any number of habitable stories (see Table 4. excerpted from Table 170.2-A). ln another change, the 2025 Energy Code clarifies that VT requirements apply to common use areas but not to dwelling units.
€
@
€
> Section 170.2(a)58, Table 17O.2-A
5170.2(a)5B and Table 170.2-A of the 2025 Energy Code expand CZ 16 slabon-grade perimeter insulation requirements to multifamily buildings with any number of habitable stories. The Prescriptive insulation requirementchanged from a U-factor of 0.58 to an F-factor of 0.58.

The slab insulation requirement can still be met with R-7 perimeter insulation with 16" depth or the depth of the building footing, whichever is less. See Joint Reference Appendix JA4, Table 4.4.7, for other slab perimeterinsulation R-value and depth options that meet the 0.58 F-factor. i-tt T - 2025 Title 24, Part 6 | Multifamily Buildings: Whafs New

III: ITII IIIT ITII TIII :II: IIII IIII IIII rlrr
QnergyCodeAce'
lr

0.28 NEW!
NR

0.38 NR

0.46 0.38
NR

0.37 o.46

0.40 0.240.37

0.28 NEW!

0.23 o.41o.26

0.23 0.410.25

0.46 0.40

0.240.37

0.28 NEW!
o.24o.37

0.28 NEW!

0.23 0.410.26o.46

0.40 0.46

0.40 o.24
o.37

0.30 0.23
o.410.26

0.23 0.410.26o.46

0.40 o.240.37

0.28 NEW!
o.24

0.37 0.30

0.23 a.41o.260.46

0.40 0.460.40
o.24

0.370.30

0.23 0.41

0.26 0.30
NEW!

0.23 0.410.260.46

0.40o.24

0.37 0.40
o.24

0.37 0.34

0.23 o.41a.26
o.46 o.46

0.40o.24

0.37 o.34

0.23 0.41
o.26

0.28 NEW!
NR

0.41 NR

0.46 0.40
NR

0.37 0.37

0.28 NTW!

0.23 a.41o.260.46

0.40 0.24

0.40 NR
o.37

0.28 NEW!
NR

4.41 NR
o.46
o.26o.46

0.40 0.24

0.37 0.30

0.23 4.41

0.28 NEW!
NR

0.38 NR

0.46 0.38
NR

0.37 Curtain Wall, Storefrontr:

Minimum VT, Common Use Areas
NEW!
NAFS 2017 Performance Class AW2:

Maximum U-factorNAFS 2017 Performance Class AWz:Maximum RSHGCNAFS 2017 Performance Class AW2:

Minimum VT, Common Use AreasNEW!
All Other Fenestration:

Maximum U-factor
All other Fenestration:

Maximum RSHGC
Curtain Wall, Storefrontr:

Maximum U-factor
Curtain Wall, Storefrontl:

Maximum RSHGC
Fenestration Type and Feature czz I czt I cz+ | czs I cze I czz I cza czg cz'to czt'l cz12 cz13 cz14 czt5 cz16 Table 4: Multifamily Prescriptive Fenestration Maximum Area-weighted Average U-factor, Relative Solar Heat Gain Coefficient, and Visible Transmittance by Fenestration Type and CZ (Adapted from Table 170.2-A) 1 Requirements also apply to doors included in the curtainwall or storefront construction assembly. 2 Product must be certified to meet the North American Fenestration Standard/Specification for an Architectural Window (AW).

CZ = Climate Zone, NEW! = Updated for 2025 Energy Code, NR = Not required rltl Ii l' n
2025 Title 24, Part 6 | Multifamily Buildings: Whafs New QnergyndeAce'' Page 11 of36
Alterations
Fenestration Alterations
r Prescriptive> Section 180.2(b)1C, Table 180.2-8
The 2025 Energy Code removes RSHGC requirements for vertical fenestration alterations in CZs 1,3,5, and 16. The 2025 Energy Code also removes SHGC requirements for skylight alterations in CZs '1,3,5, and 16 (see Table 5 adapted from Table 180.2-8).

Table 5 also shows that the same Prescriptive fenestration U-factor and RSHGC requirements for skylights apply to multifamily buildings with any number of habitable stories, rather than having separate requirements forbuildings with three stories or less versus four stories or more.ln another change, the 2025 Energy Code clarifies that visible transmittance (VT) requirements for skylights apply to common use areas but not to dwelling units.
€
2025 Title Z4,Part 5 | Multifamily Buildings: Whafs New QEnusyCodeA Page 12 of35 ce
Table 5: Multifamily prescriptive Fenestration Alteration Requirements (Adapted from Table 1 80.2-B)

0.38 NR
NEW!

0.46 0.38
NR
NEW!

0.37 0.43
NR
NEW!

0.37 0.28
NEW!
NR
NEW!

0.46 NR
NEW!

0.49 0.41

0.26 0.46

0.38 0.25

0.37 0.43

0.24 0.37

0.30 0.23

0.46 0.25

0.49 4.41

0.26 0.46

0.38 0.25

0.37 0.43

0.24 0.37
o.28
NEW!

0.23 0.46

0.25 0.49

0.41 0.26

0.46 0.38

0.25 0.37

0.43 0.24

0.37 0.28
NEW!

0.23 0.46

0.25 0.49

0.41 4.26

0.46 0.38

0.25 0.37

0.43 0.24

0.37 0.30

0.23 0.46

0.25 0.49

0.41 0.26

0.46 0.38

0.25 0.37

0.43 0.24

0.37 0.28
NEW!

0.23 0.46

0.25 0.49

0.4'l

0.26 0.46

0.38 0.25

0.37 0.43

0.24 0.37

0.30 0.23

0.46 0.25

0.49 0.41

0.26 0.46

0.41 0.25

0.37 0.43

0.24 0.37

0.30 0.23

0.46 0.25

0.49 o.41

0.26 0.45

0.41 0.26

0.37 0.43
o.24

0.37 0.30
o.23

0.46 0.25

0.49 0.41

0.25 0.46

0.47 0.31

0.37 0.43

0.31 0.37

0.34 0.23

0.46 0.25

0.49 0.41

0.26 0.46

0.47 0.31

0.37 0.43

0.3i

0.37 0.30

0.23 0.46

0.25 0.49

0.41 NR
NEW!

0.46 0.38
NR
NEWl

0.37 0.43
NR
NEW!

0.37 0.28
NEW!
NR
NEW!

0.46 NR
NEW!

0.49 0.41

0.26 0.46

0.38 0.25

0.37 0.43

0.24 0.37

0.28 NEW!

0.23 0.46

0.25 0.49

0.41 NR
NEW!

0.46 0.38
NR
NEW!

0.37 o.43
NR
NEW!

0.37 0.28
NEW!
NR
NEW!

0.46 NR
NEW!

0.49 0.41

0.26 Q.46

0.38 o.2s

0.37 0.43
o.24

0.37 0.30

0.23 0.46

0.25 0.49

0.38 NR
NEW!

0.45 0.38
NR
NEW!

0.37 0.43
NR
NEW!

0.37 o.28
NEW!
NR
NEW!
o.46
NR
NEW!

0.49 Curtain Wall, Storefrontr:Maximum U-factor
Curtain Wall, Storefront, Window
Wallr: Maximum RSHcC
Wall, Storefront, Window
WalF: Minimum VT2
Curtain
2017 Performance Class AW
Fixed: Maximum U-factor
NAFS
NAFS 2017 performance Class AW - Fixed: Maximum RSHGC
NAFS 201 7 Performance Class AW _ Fixed: Minimum VT2
Class AW- NAFS 2017 performance
le: Maximum U-factor
NAFS 2017 performance Class AW _ Operable: Maximum RSHGC 17 Performance Class AW NAFS 20 _ Minimum VT2
All Other Windows and Glazed
Doors: Maximum U-factor
All Other Windows and Glazed
Doors: Maximum RSHGC
Skylights: Maximum U-factor
Skylights: Maximum SHGC
Skylights: Minimum VT2, CommonUseAreas NEWI
Fenestration Type and Feature cz2 cz3 cz4 czs cz6 cz7 cz8 czg cz10 cz11 cz12 cz13 cz14 cz15 cz16 lRequirements also apply to doors included in the
2Minimum VT requirements for fenestration other
CZ = Climate Zone, NEW| = Updated for 2025 E
curtainwall or storefront cons
than skylights do not apply to
nergy Code, NR = Not requi
truction assembly.
multifamily buildings with three habitable stories or fewer red
;Eh
- ffila: ErsF?b.-k_r_
2025 Title 24, part6 | Multifamily Buildings: What,s New page 13 of36
QrnergyCodeAce
Mechanical em Hi hl hts
New Construction
Mechanical Ventilation: Dwelling Units
Mechanical Ventilation: Common Use Areas
s : :::P[",*.2(c)3, Equation 160.2-H, rabre 150.2-8
The 2025 Energy Code changes Equation 160'2-H which is a formula to calculatetheminimumcruofoutdoorairforventilationforoccupiable Spaces.Thenewequationcombinesthetwocalculationsrequiredinthe 2022 EnergY Code.

Equation 150.2-H: Minimum Outdoor Airflow Rate (V.)
The outdoor airflow rate in CFM (Vz) equals the larger of an occupantbased calculation (Ro x P, ; and anirea-based calculation (Ru x A' ):

V, = The larger of (Ro x P, ) or (Ra x Az )
$
The2025EnergyCodenolongerallowscontinuously-operatingexhaustfans for ventilation in newt-constr-ucted multifamily dwelling units. Each dwelling unit must have either a balanced or a supply ventilation system to provide required outside air'
ln addition, the air leakage rate for each dwelling unit must not exceed 0'3cFM/ft, of enverope surf-ace area as tested and verified by an ECC-rater using compartmentalization (blower door) testing (see Residential Reference Appendix RA3.8 or Nonresidential Reference Appendix NA2'3)' This ECC testing was only required for non-balanced systems in the 2022 Energy code, but for 2o25it is required for both suppry and balanced. Note that in multifamilybuildingswithfourStoriesormore,thisairleakagetestingand verification may also be done by a certified Mechanical Acceptance Test Technician (ATT) per Nonresidential Reference Appendix NA1'9' Asinthe2022EnergyCode,alldwellingunitsinamultifamilybuildingmust use the same type of whole-dwelling-unit ventilation'
'@r Section 150.2(b)2Aivb
t
WHERE:

V
z
R
p
P
z
R
a
A,
= Minimum required outdoor airflow rate in CFM
= 15 CFM of outdoor airflow per person
= The expected number of occuPants
= Area-based minimum ventilation airflow rate in Table 160'2-B = The net occupiable floor area of the ventilation zone' in ft2 Tabre 160.2-8 (see Tabre 6) has been revised for the 2025 Energy code' The space types are now ti"J in alphabetical order for easier access' and thetable includes the expected minimum occupant density for the different space types, as well as the area-based minimum ventilation rate R"' air class, and notes'
lf rrn , t'
2025 Title 24, Part6 I Multifamily Buildings: Whafs New

ifllt
QtnergyCodeAce"
Table 6: Minimum Occupant Load Density and Ventilation Rates for Multifamily Common Use Areas (Adapted from Table 160.2-8)
E
N/AN/A
N/A
FF
N/A
F
N/A
N/A
F
E
N/A
N/A
FF
FF
1 112
2 1
2 2
22 1
11 1
22 2
2 1

0.15 0.15

0.15 0.150,15

0.15 0.150.15

0.15 0.15

0.150.15

0.15 0.150.15
n

0.2 0.15

0.15 33
2 2
10 10
3 5
33 5
5 14
33 100
0 45
3333
3333
Multiuse Assembly
Occupiable Storage Rooms for
Dry MaterialsOccupiable Storage Rooms for
tiquids or Gels
Freezer and Refrigerated Spaces
(< 50'F)
Game ArcadesGym, Sports Arena (play area)
Health Club. Aerobics Room,
Weight Rooms
Kitchen (cooking)Laundry Rooms, Central
Lobbles, Pre-function
Conference, Meeting
Corridors
computer (not printing)
Daycare (through age four)Dining Rooms
Disco, Dance Floors
Bars, Cocktail LoungesBreak Rooms
Coffee Stations
Minimum Occupant Load Density
(p/1000 ft2)1
Area-based Minimum Ventilation Rate Ra
(cFM/ft'z) Space Type Air Class2 Notes
.rG*itfi**"nfqtrd, l. .- llr .-JU",_.-.
2025 Title 24, Part 6 | Multifamily Buildings: Whafs New

Table 6: Minimuq 9clgpqnt Load Density and Ventilation Rates for Multifamily Common Use Areas (Adapted from Table 160.2-8) (continued) General Notes:lThe minimum occupant density is one half of the maximum occupant load assumed for egress purposes in the California Building Code (CBC). 2Air class represents expected air contam ina nt concentration levels on a sca le of 1 to 4 with Class 1 Air being the clea nest. See 5120.i (g) fo r mo re information.

Specific Notes:

B Rate may not be sufficient where stored materials include those having potentially harmful emissions.

C Rate does not allow for humidity control. "Deck area" refers to the area surrounding the pool that is capable of getting wet during pool use or when the pool is occupied Deck area that is not expected to get wet will be designated as an occupancy category.

E Where combustion equipment is intended to be used on the playing surface or in the space, additional dilution ventilation, source control, or both shall be provided.F Ventilation air for this occupancy category shall be permitted to_be reduced to zero when the space is in occupied-standby mode. ,-tr n I
2025 Title 24, Part 6 | Multifamily Buildings: Whafs New

FF
B
F
cc
F
N/A
1 1
2 1
2 2
1 2

0.150.15

0.150.150.15

0.150-15

0.15 5
5 2
3333
10 33
5 Offfce SpaceReception Areas
Shlpping, ReceivingSpectator Areas
Swimmlng(deck)Swimming(pool)
Telephone, Data Entry
All Others
Minimum Occupant Load Density
(p/1000 ft,)1
Area-based Minimum Ventilation Rate R
(cFM/ft )
Space Type a Air Class2 Notes
QtnersyndeArc'
ll
€
Prescriptive Mechanical Ventilation: Dwelling Units
' 3Is:sI!!!!E
r Section 170.2(c)3Biv
55170.2(c)3Biva and b set new Prescriptive requirements that, in CZs 1,2, 4, 11 through 14, and '16 balanced ventilation systems with either a heat recovery ventilator (HRV) or energy recovery ventilator (ERV) must be used instead of supply ventilation systems to comply with 5160.2(b)2Aivb1.

These systems must meet separate requirements depending on whether they serve individual dwelling units or multiple dwelling units, as follows:

Balanced ventilation systems serving individual dwelling units in CZ 1, 2, 4,11through 14, and 16 must have:
+ ERV oT HRV* Sensible recovery efficiency greater than or equal to 67 percent rated at 32'F
t Fan efficacy less than or equal to 0.6 WCFM
These measures must be field verified per Residential Reference Appendix RA3.7.4.4 for buildings with three or fewer habitable stories or perNonresidential Reference Appendix NA2.2.4.1.5 for buildings with four or more habitable stories.

Balanced ventilation systems serving multiple dwelling units inbuildings with four or more habitable stories or more in C21,2, 4,11 through 14, and 15 must have:
+ ERV oT HRV
f Sensible recovery efficiency greater than or equal to 67 percent rated at 32'F
* Fan power meeting 5170.2(c)4A* Recovery bypass or control to directly economize with ventilation air per outdoor air temperature limits in Table 170.2-G These measures must be field verified per Nonresidential Reference Appendix NA7.18.4.
5170.2(c)3Bivc gives separate requirements for dwelling units in multifamily buildings with three habitable stories or less in CZ 5 through 10, and 15. When heat pumps are installed to meet 5170.2(c)3Ai, balanced ventilation systems without ERV or HRV must have fan efficacy less than or equal to 0.4 WCFM.
,-l! n I f,ffitik
2025 Title 24, Part 5 | Multifamily Buildings: Whafs New

@ ' Prescriptive ) Section 170.2(c)3Bv
5170.2(c)3Bv includes a new Prescriptive requirement to provide a ventilation system fault indicator display (FlD) for all HRV and ERV systems serving individual dwelling units. An ECC-Rater must field verify these FID systems perJoint Reference AppendixJAIT. FID field verification involves confirming that the proposed syste m is in the CEC's "Residential Fault lndicator Certification List", meaning that the manufacturer of the proposed FID system has certified to the CEC that the system meets therequirements of JA17.2 through )A17.4.

Prescriptive Dwelling Unit Fault lndicator Display (FtD) for HRV ANd ERV
Foult Indicotor Disploy Devices
M a nufactu rer-certified JA1 7-com p I ia nt Fl Ds i n d icate if systems maintain rated airflow and fan efficacy for the life of the equipment. To comply withJoint Reference AppendixJAlZ FlDs must have instrumentation that measures system airflow and fan power and notifies dwelling unit occupants if the system is not working properly. FlDs must provide information using one or more of the following:
f A visual display that is readily accessible to occupants of the dwelling unit
* An electronic application
* An audible alarm accompanied by a visual display
Manufacturers of FID systems must certify to the CEC that theirFID systems meet the requirements of JA17.2 through )At7.4.The CEC maintains the "Residential Fault lndicator Certification List"of FID products that are available for residential Energy Code compliance.
&qFffitrft
-
i,'Ll1: dtD$.ffire
2025 Title 24, Part 6 | Multifamily Buildings: What's New

,flIillft r($fl4Jei4!
-
t .Imaliir!|"1iffiili1{f@tllxt
Qtne,gyCodeAce'
Cooling Tower Cycles of Concentration
r Mandatory s r Section 110.2(e)
The 2025 Energy Code 5'110.2(e) updates the2O22 Mandatory regulationsto control and document open- and closed-circuit cooling tower cycles of concentration.

The 2025 Energy Code requires cooling towers to have conductivity controls that maximize cycles of concentration based on local water quality conditions. While the 2022 Energy Code also allowed flow-based controls, the 2025 Energy Code only allows conductivity controls.The 2025 Energy Code also changes cycles of concentration documentation requirements for building owners from maximum "cycles of concentrationneeded" to maximum "cycles of concentration achievable" based onlocal water supply conditions as reported by the local water supplier.See 5110.2(e)2 for details on the new calculations required to determine maximum achievable cycles of concentration.
:ml ,ffiteffih-'.[.. mffi.t
2025 Title 24, Part 6 | Multifamily Buildings: What's New

Cycles of concentration represents the number of times
the concentration of total dissolved solids (TDS) in coolingtower water is multiplied relative to the TDS in the makeup water. Because evaporation of pure water leaves dissolved solids behind in the system water, TDS increases over timeas the tower operates. The number of times the dissolved minerals are concentrated is relative to the TDS in themakeup water. For example, five cycles of concentration represents five times the concentration of solids in the cooling tower system water relative to the TDS in the
makeup water entering the tower.

QnergyndeAce"
Prescriptive Cooling Tower Efficiency
@ r Prescriptive > Section 17O.2(c)4Fv, Table 17O.2-l9170.2(c)4Fv provides new Prescriptive minimum rated efficiencyrequirements for axial vane, open-circuit cooling towers serving condenser water loops for chilled water plants with a total of 900 gallons per minute(GPM) or greater. lnthe2022 Energy Code, this equipment had to have minimum Prescriptive efficiency greater than or equal to 60 GPM/hp in CZ2through 15 but had no Prescriptive efficiency requirements in CZ 1 and16. The 2025 Energy Code introduces new Table 170.2-l which lists separate Prescriptive minimum efficiency requirements for every CZ (see Table 7).

Table 7: Minimum Efficien cy tor Propeller or Axial Fan Open-circuit Cooling Towers (Adapted from Table 170.2-l)CZ = Climate Zone, GPM/hp = Gallons per minute per horsepower rlll I I
2025 Title 24, Pafi.5 | Multifamily Buildings: Whafs New

70 60 70 70 80 80 80 80 80 60 70 80 60 80 42.1 GPM/hp 42.1 Minimum Rated Fan Efficiency cz1 czz c23 cz+ czs cz6 cz7 czB cz9 cz10 cz11 cz12 c213 cz14 czt5 cz16 QnergyCodeArc
lr
Domestic Hot Water (DHW) Pipe lnsulation
r Mandatory
r Section 150.4(e)
2025 Energy Code 5160.4(e)1 adds new detailed requirements for where and how to install pipe insulation for multifamily domestic hot water (DHW) systems. The goal of these regulations is to make sure that insulation works well to limit wasteful heat loss from hot water pipes.

These new measures require installers to pay special attention to sealing insulation seams and potentialgaps in the insulation around all accessorycomponents of the piping system such as pipe elbows, valves, and faucets.

These accessory components are also known as plumbing appurtenances. lnsulation on the piping and DHW appurtenances must be continuous without interfering with valve functions. See 5160.4(e)1 for. more details. 2025 Energy Code 5160.4(e)2 expands on the multifamily pipe insulation thickness requirements from the 2022 Energy Code, As in the 2022 Energy Code, pipe insulation for systems within the parameters listed in Table 160.4-A (see Excerpt 1 in this fact sheet) must have the minimum insulation thickness or R-value as listed in Table 160.4-4 (see Excerpt 2 in this fact sheet).

New for the 2025 Energy Code, if the proposed pipe insulation conductivity falls outside of the conductivity range in Table 160.4-A (see Excerpt 1),then the insulation must meet the minimum R-value in Table 160.4-4 (see Excerpt 2), or it can meet the minimum thickness calculated using thenew Equation 160.4-A (see next page). lnsulation conductivity must be determined per ASTM C335 at the 100'F mean rating temperature from Table 160.4-4 (see Excerpt 1).

I
Excerpt 1 from Table 160.4-A: DHW Pipe lnsulation
System Parameters
Excerpt 2 from Table 160.4-4: DHW Pipe lnsulation
Thickness or R-value Based on Pipe Diameter
lUse pipe insulation values from 2025 Energy Code Table 120.3-4 for multifamily DHW systems with water temperature greater than 140"F.
$
rfll n
2025 Title 24, Part 6 | Multifamily Buildings: Whafs New

105"F to 140"F1

0.22to 0.28 Btu inch/hr-ft2-"F
100"F
Fluid Operating Temperature Range
('F)
lnsulation Conductivity Range
(Btu inch/hr-ft2-oF)
lnsulation Conductivity Mean Rating
Temperature (oF)
System Parameters Values
R-16
R-12.5
R-11
R-7.7
R-12.5

2.O

2.0 2.O1.01.5

1.5to<44to<8
8 or larger
<1
1 to <'1,5
Nominal Pipe
Diameter
(i nches)
Pipe lnsulation
Thickness
(i nches)
Pipe lnsulation
(minimum R-value)
QnergyCadeAce'
Domestic Hot Water (DHW) Pipe lnsulation (continued) $ > Mandatory r Section 160.4(e) The 2025 Energy Code 5160.4(e)3 about pipe insulation protection has not changed from the 2022 Energy Code except to say that DHW piping appurtenance insulation exposed to the weather must also be protected with covers. Appurtenance insulation covers must be removable and ableto be reinstalled.

Equation 160.4-A
= Minimum insulation thickness for material with conductivity K, inches= Pipe actual outside radius, inches. = lnsulation thickness from Table 160.4-A, inches.= Conductivity of alternate material at the mean rating temperature indicated in Table 160.4-A for the applicable fluid temperature range, in Btu-inch per hour per square foot per "F. = The lower value of the conductivity range listed in Table 160.4-A for the applicable fluid temperature range, Btu-inch per hour per square foot per oF.
ffi ni
-ltCiglrrf,:
2025 Title 24, Part 6 | Multifamily Buildings: Whafs New Page22 of 36
K
k
T t+jPR -l
WHERE
T
PR
t
K
k
;-l! lr
QtnersyhdeA ce
s
Individual Heat Pump Water Heater Ready Requirements
'@r r Section 160.9(e)
lf new multifamily dwelling units use individual gas or propane waterheaters, they must also install components that make it easier to install future individual electric heat pump water heaters (HPWHs) at the same locations. fhe 2022 Energy Code included multifamily HPWH-ready requirements in 5160.4(a), but the 2025 Energy Code expands individual HPWH-ready requirements and moves them to 5160.9(e).

Requirements to installa dedicated 125-volt, 20 amp electrical receptacle and a condensate drain have not changed from the 2022 Energy Code.

However, there are new space and ventilation requirements for individualHPWH readiness.

The 2025 Energy Code requires that a space large enough to accommodate a future HPWH must be shown in the construction documents. The space must be at least 39" wide by 39" deep by 96" tall.
r.

The 2025 Energy Code also requires one of the following ventilation options for individual HPWH readiness:

1. The reserved HPWH space must be at least 700 cubic feet in volume; or

2. lf designed to vent indoors, the designated space must vent to a communicating space in the same pressure boun'dary. The volume of the two spaces together must be at least 700 cubic feet and vent to the interior using:
a. Fully louvered doors with one layer of fixed slats and a minimum total net free area (NFA) of 250 square inches; or
b. Two permanent, equal size openings with minimum total NFA of 250 square inches located within 12" of the enclosure top and bottom; or
c. Two 8" ducts to a communicating space.

3. lf the future HPWH space is designed to vent to the outdoors, it must vent through:
a. Fully louvered doors with one layer of fixed slats and a minimum total NFA of 250 square inches; or
b. Two permanent, equal size openings with minimum total NFA of 250 square inches located within 12" of the enclosure top and bottom; or
c. TWo S" capped ducts. All ducts that cross the pressure boundary must have at least R-6 insulation, and the ducts, connections, andbuilding penetrations must be sealed. ;-l! li ffi"
2025 Title 24, Part 6 | Multifamily Buildings: What's New

$
Central Heat Pump Water Heater Ready Requirements
> Mandatory
Condensate drainage piping: Either an approved condensate drainagereceptacle must be installed within three feet of the reserved centralHPWH location, or piping must be installed to drain condensate to an approved discharge location starting within three feet of the future heat pump system location (as allowed by the California Plumbing Code).

The condensate drainage must be sized to serve a HpWH system that meets the building's total hot water demand, based on calculations and documentation provided by the project's responsible person, oralternatively, it must be sized perJoint Reference Appendix JA1S.Z.4.

Etectrical: Reserve enough physical space on the bus system ofthe main switchboard or distribution board to provide adequate power to the future HPWH system, including the heat pump and temperature maintenance tanks. The electrical power needs must either be calculated and documented bythe project's responsible person or perJoint Reference Appendix JA15.2.5.
2025 Title 24, Part 6 | Multifamily Buildings: Whafs New

> Section 150.9(f), Joint Reference AppendixJAl5
Central water-heating systems that use gas or propane to heat water formultiple new dwelling units must also meet 2025 Energy Code 5160.9(f)requirements to prepare for future central electric HPWH systems to serve those dwelling units. These requirements include the following:

Reserve space for a future central HPWH: Design a space that can support a future central HPWH system that can meet the total system load of the installed natural gas or propane system. This space must include enough area for condensers and tanks and for all required clearances. See Joint Reference Appendix )A15.2 for details.

Plan for ventilation: Central HPWHs must be adequately ventilated to work properly. The 2025 Energy Code requires one of the following ventilation strategies, based on the planned future central HPWH system location:
+ Outside: The responsible person associated with the project must reserve physical outdoor space for a future HPWH system, or f lnside: The responsible person associated with the project must reserve a pathway designed for future supply and exhaust ductwork, including penetrations to the outside. The reserved pathway and penetrations must be sized to serve a HPWH system that meets the total building hot water demand. The sizing can be done per calculations and documentation from the project'sresponsible person or else usingJoint Reference AppendixJ41s.2.3. i-ll n
QtnergyndeAce
lr
Domestic Water-heating Systems for New lndividual
Dwelling Units
r Prescriptive
€ r Section 170.2(dr1One notable change for the 2025 Energy Code is that gas tankless water heaters serving individual dwelling units are no longer allowed as a Prescriptive option for new low-rise multifamily buildings (three stories or fewer). A new exception to 5170.2(d)1 allows individual gas tankless '
water heaters with an input of 200,000 Btuh or less in high-rise multifamily buildings (four stories or more).

The other 2025 Prescriptive water-heating options and exceptions for individual dwelling units remain the same as in the past Energy Code cycle.

These options are:
+ Per 5170.2(d)1A, a single 240-volt heat pump water heater with compact distribution in C71 and 16 and a drain water heat recovery system in CZ 16, or
* Per 5170.2(d)18, a single 240-volt heat pump water heater with a NEEA Tier 3 rating or higher and a drain water heat recovery system in CZ 16, or
+ Per the exception to S170.2(d)1, new dwelling units with one bedroom or less may use a single 12O-volt HPWH instead of a single 240-volt HPWH.

Hot Woter
Supply
Gold Woter
Supply
<r
t-lr I
Figure 1: Hedt Pump Water Heoter Grophic
IT
2025 Title 24, Part 6 | Multifamily Buildings: Whafs New

D-rID-ID--ID------r- (F
Qf nergyCodeAcri^
l!
Central Domestic Water-heating Systems
> Prescriptive
r Section 170.2(dl2
There are several changes to the 2025 Energy Code Prescriptive requirements for central water-heating systems serving multiplemultifamily dwelling units. Here are the updated Prescriptive options.

There are three central water-heating system types allowed:
+ HPWH systems meeting NEEA Tier 2 or higher, or
* A single-pass* HPWH system as the primary HPWH (see Figure 2) (must meet additional design criteria that have not changed from 2022), or
* Gas or propane water-heating served by a solar thermal system (no change from2O22)
*A single-pass water heater is a water heater in which the cold water passes throughonce and is heated to the intended use temperature (See Figure 2).

There are also some 2025 Energy Code changes related to hot water piping and recirculation systems:
* New for the 2025 Energy Code, all hot water piping must be sized according to Appendix M of California Plumbing Code,
f Recirculation systems serving nine or more dwelling units must have a mechanical or digital thermostatic master mixing valve on each distribution supply and return loop, and they must meet the requirements of Residential Reference Appendix RA4.4.19. * lnsulation for hot water pipes and plumbing appurtenances must be field verified per Residential Reference Appendix RA3.6.3. r-l},'.-'ti.i.L
€
Air Source Heqt PuDp
Outgoirg Hot
Woter
1400F
IucoDirg Cold
Woter
StoFqge Tork
Figure 2: Single-poss Woter Hedting Graphic
n
2025 Title 24, Part 6 | Multifamily Buildings: Whafs New

500F
QnergyndeAce
ll
Additions
Mechanical Ventilation: Dwelling Units€
r Prescriptive
r Section 180.1(a)2, Exception to Section 180.1(a)2, Exception to Section 180.1(a)2Aii Additions to multifamily dwelling units less than or equal to 1,000 ft2 or junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs) may comply with mechanical ventilation using balanced, supply, or exhaust ventilation systems to provide outside air.

Additions that increase conditioned floor area by more than 1,000 ft2 must generally provide outside air using balanced or supply ventilation systems.

However, the exception in 5180.1(a)2Aii also allows these Additions to use the same type of ventilation system as the existing building, which may include continuous exhaust ventilation if it is already in place.

Per the exception to 5180.1(a)2, a dwelling unit air leakage test is notrequired for Additions. rIli. .,....e, lr
-' 2025 Title 24, Part 6 | Multifamily Buildings: Whafs New Page27 of36
IIIII
IIITI IIIII rtrll
lrl:ttlll
E- I -- QEnergyhdeA CE
Lighting mH lights
New Construction
lndoor Lighting: Common Use Areas
@ r Prescriptive r Section 17O.2(e)
Tailored Lighting Method Removed
The 2025 Energy Code removes the Tailored Method as a compliance option for indoor lighting in common use areas. Previously, the Tailored Method supported extra wattage allowances for display lighting in common use areas, but this provision has now been incorporated into theupdated Area Category Method.

Area Category Method UpdatesThe 2025 Energy Code adds some of the Tailored Method display lighting options to the Area Category Method (see Table 8).
rEll I I
2025 Title 24, Part 6 | Multifamily Buildings: Whafs New QnergyAdeAce* Page 28 of 36 lr
1-11
Table 8: Area Category Method Lighting Power Density Values lncluding New Display Lighting (Excerpted from Table 170.2-M) MH = Luminaire mounting height of the qualified lighting systems, Wftz = Watts per square foot, Wft = Watts per foot n n'
2025 Title 24, Paft 6 | Multifamily Buildings: Whafs New Page29 of 36
3 W/fr

3.5 W/ft
4Wtft

1.5 W/ft

1.7 Wlft

0.45 0.52

0.50 o.250.25

2.35W/ft2.66Wlft

0.30 0.350.40

0.35 1.25Wtft

0.25 2Wtft
General Lighting in enclosed space of
ceiling height > '10'
Display
Wall Display MH < 10'6"
Wall Display MH 1O'7" to 14'
Wall Display MH > 14'
Display
Wall Display MH < 10'6"
Wall Display MH 1O'7" to 14'
Wall Display MH > 14'
Floor Display MH <'10'6"
Floor Display MH 10'7" to 14'
Floor Display MH > 14'
Display
Wall Display MH < 10'6"
Wall Display MH '10'7" to 14'
Wall Display MH > 14'
Floor Display MH < 10'6"
Floor Display MH 10'7" to 14'
Floor Display MH > 14'

0.70 0.45

0.75 Lobby, Main Entry
Dining Area: Bar, Lounge, and
Fine Dining
Conference, Multlpurpose, and
MeetingArea
Allowed Lighting Power Density
for General Lighting
(wft'z)
Additional Lighting Power
Qualifi ed Lighting Systems
Additional Lighting Power
Additional Allowance
(Wftz unless noted otherwise)
Primary Function Area
QnergyndeAce''
li
Batterv Ene rHV Storage Svstem and Sol
New Construction
Solar PV System Sizing for Multifamily Buildings with Three or Fewer Habitable Stories
ar PV System Hiehliehts
@ r Prescriptive > Section 17O.2(t)
The Prescriptive solar PV kWdc (kW direct current) requirement for multifamily buildings with three or fewer habitable stories is determined as the smaller result from two different calculations, and one of those calculation options has changed in the 2025 Energy Code. * One option is to calculate the required kWdc using Equation 17O.2-C, and that has not changed for the 2025 Energy Code. * The updated calculation option is to multiply the total Solar Access Roof Area (SARA, measured in ftr) by certain Wft2 allowances. For the 2O25 Energy Code those allowances have changed to 18 Wft2 for steep-sloped roofs and 14\Nlftz for low-sloped roofs. ln another 2025 update, there is no PV system requirement when thePrescriptive minimum PV system size is less than 4 kWdc. This is increased from 1.8 kWdc in the2022 Energy Code.

The 2025 Energy Code also clarifies that the SARA always excludes roof areas unavailable due to compliance with other California state buildingcodes. The SARA may also exclude areas needed to meet local building codes, but the Energy Code only allows those exclusions if confirmed by the Executive Director.
,nl' T li m
2025 Title 24,Part 6 | Multifamily Buildings: What's New QtnergyndeAce Page 30 of 36 I €
Solar Photovoltaic System Sizing for Multifamily Buildings with More Than Three Habitable Stories
r Prescriptive
ln mixed occupancy buildings, use Equation 170.2-D to calculate theminimum rated PV system capacity for each of the project's listed building types based on their conditioned floor area. The sum of the PV capacitiesfor all the different occupancies is the total PV capacity requirement for the building using Equation 170.2-D.Calculate PV Capacity Based on Solar Access Roof Area The other PV capacity calculation option is to multiply the total SolarAccess Roof Area (SARA, measured in ft2) by certain Wftz allowances.

For the 2025 Energy Code those allowances have changed to '18 Wft2 for steep-sloped roofs and 14 Wft2 for low-sloped roofs.

The 2025 Energy Code also clarifies that the SARA always excludes roof areas unavailable due to compliance with other California state building codes. The SARA may also exclude areas needed to meet local buildingcodes, but the Energy Code only allows those exclusions if confirmed by the Executive Director.- 2025 Title 24, Part 5 | Multifamily Buildings: Whafs New

r Section 17O.2(g)
The Prescriptive solar PV kWdc requirement for multifamily buildings withfour or more habitable stories is determined as the smaller result from thetwo following calculation options:

Calculate PV Capacity Using Equation 170.2-DOne option is to calculate the required kWdc using Equation 170.2-D:
kWrud. =(CFAx4)/1000
WHERE:
kwrud.

CFA
A
= Minimum rated PV system capacity in kW= Conditioned floor area in ft2 = PV capacity factor in Wft2 as specified in Table 9 for thebuilding type (copied from Table 170.2-U) .-
ln the 2025 Energy Code, this equation remains the same as in the 2022 Energy Code. However, Table 9 includes new building and space types with PV requirements, plus updated PV capacity factors for most of the remaining building types from 2022.

Multifamily buildings are often designed as mixed-use facilities. The "Multifamily > 3 Stories" category applies to both multifamily dwelling units and common use areas. The other building types in Table 9 cover any separate nonresidential space types that are part of the larger facility. The updated PV capacity factors reflect the estimated electrical loads that the PV system needs to cover for the different space types. i-lt
QnergyndeAcd
ll
Table 9: PV Capacity Factors in Wft2 of Conditioned Floor Area (Copied from Table 17O.2-U) CZ = Climate Zone, Wftz = Watts per square foot
i-lt I T
2025 Title 24, Part 6 | Multifamily Buildings: Whafs New

3.382.84

1.73 2.59

8.473.21

1.27 0.393.90

1.81 1.82

5.48 4.49

2.72 3.80

12.25 4.602.460.58

7.57 4.03

2.77 4.36

3.37 2.02

3.13 9.733.71

1.63 0.44

4.63 2.15

2.21 4.953.79

2.30 3.13

10.69 3.99

1.63 o.44

5.78 2.72

2.21 4.44

3.322.05

3.13 9.73

3.64 1.63

0.444.99

2.20 2.21

5.043.79

2.30 3.13

10.85 4.09

1.63 0.445.892.752.21

4.80 3.69

2.20 3.13

10.28 3.81

1.63 0.44

5.57 2.502.21,

4.53 3.322.09

3.13 9.75

3.65 1.53

0.44 5.302.47

2.21 4.83

3.49 2.22

3.13 10.18

3.83 1.63

0.44 5.89

2.632.21

4.28 3.04

1.943.139.11

3.45 1.63

0.44 4.64

1.98 2.21

4.05 2.741.873.13

8.733.27

1.63 o.44

4.29 1.84

2.21 3.77

2.48 1.69

2.59 8.213.05

1.27 0.39

3.72 1.60

1.82 4.32

3.25 1.97

3.13 9.65

3.61 1.63

0.44 4.52

2.032.21

3.552.59

1.66 2.59

8.16 3.01

1.27 0.39

3.49 1.541.82

4.28 3.23

1.903.13

9.323.49

1.53 0.44

4.65 1.97

2.21 3.48

0.39 't.69

2.59 8.55

3.141.27

0.39 4.25

2.47 1.82
Events and Exhibits
Hotel, MotelLibrary
Office, Financial lnstitution,
Unleased Tenant Space, Medical
Office Building, ClinicRestaurantsRetail, Grocery
School
Warehouse
Religious Worship
Sports and Recreation
Multifamily > 3 stories
Building Type cz1 czz cz3 cz4 czs cz6 cz7 cz8 czg cz10 cz11 czlz cz't3 cz14 cz15 cz16 QnergyCodeAcd'
Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS)
> Prescriptive
r Section 170.2(h), Table 17O.2-V
The 2025 Energy Code 5'170.2(h) updates the Prescriptive battery energy storage system (BESS) requirements for new multifamily buildings with four or more habitable stories. As in the 2022 Energy Code, all multifamily buildings with four or more stories that must have a PV system per5170.2(g) must also have a BESS.

The 2025 Energy Code defines new equations to calculate the minimum rated usable energy capacity and minimum power capacity for BESS. Theminimum rated energy capacity must be calculated using either Equation 170.2-E or Equation 170.2-F, if the SARA method was used to determine PV capacity. Both of those equations use the new BESS capacity factors from the updated Table 170.2-V (excerpted in this fact sheet in Table 10). The minimum rated power capacity must be calculated using Equation 170.2-G Equation 17O.2-E Battery Energy Storage System Minimum RatedUsable Energy Capacity:
kWhu".. = (CFAx B)/(1,000 xCo's))
OR
Equation 170.2-F Battery Energy Storage System Minimum Rated Usable Energy Capacity, SARA-adjusted:
kwho".. = (cFA x B)/(1,000 x co's)) * (kWpvo., ,o*o / kwouu.) WHERE:
kWho".. = Minimum Rated Usable Energy Capacity of the BESS in kwh kWruo. = Minimum Rated PV Capacity in kW from Equation 17o.2-DMrud.,** = Minimum Rated PV Capacity in kW from the SARA ca lculation
CFA = Conditioned floor area (ftz) subject to the PV system requirements of 5170.2(g)
B - BESS Capacity Factor (Wh/ftl from Table 170.2-V for the building tvpe (see Table 10 in this fact sheet)
C - Rated single charge-discharge cycle AC to AC (round-trip) efficiency of the BESS
Equation 170.2-G Battery Energy Storage System Minimum RatedPower Capacity:
kwb".. =kwhou,, /4
WHERE:
€
kwb"..
kwh.Daff,
= Minimum Rated Power Capacity of the BESS in kWdc
= Minimum Rated Usable Energy Capacity of the BESS in kWh i-lt I
ln mixed occupancy buildings, calculate the minimum rated usable energy capacity for each of the project's listed building types from Table 10 based on their conditioned floor areas. The total battery system capacity for the building must be the sum of the minimum rated usable energy capacities for each of the listed building types added together.

No BESS is required if:
* The installed PV capacity is less that 15 percent of the capacity calculated using Equation 170.2-D, or
* Buildings have BESS requirements with less than 10 kwh minimum rated usable energy capacity
-.2025 Title 24,Part 6 | Multifamily Buildings: Whafs New

lr
Tabf e 10: BESS Capacity Factors in Wh/ft2 of Conditioned Floor Area (Excerpted from Table 170.2-V) CZ = Climate Zone, NR = Not required, Wh/ftz = Watt-hours per square foot rEll n It n
2025 Title 24, Part 6 | Multifamily Buildings: Whafs New

1.89 6.40

0.85 4.35

4.11 1.91

2.380.372.37
1 .13

1.88 3.22

7.93 1.49

6.39 6.232.66

4.60 0.54

4.A9

3.02 2.85

2.68 6.81
't.1 8

5.26 5.24

2.293.05o.41

3.21 1.57

2.27 2.64

5.88 1.18

5.26s.05
216

3.05 0.41

3.62 1.85

2.27 2.15

6.93 0.955.26

4.43 1.95

3.050.412.72

1.27 2.27

2.6 7.171.14

5.26 5.05

2.223.05

0.41 3.58

1.83 2.27

2.47 7.56

1.11 5.26

4.82 2.O53.05o.41

3.37 1.65

2.27 2.35

7.18 1.00

5.26 4.47

1.97 3.05
o.41

3.17 1.53

2.27 2.30
7j3

1.01 5.26

4.49 1.92

3.05 o.41

3.37 1.57

2.27 2.24

6.19 0.905.26

4.11 1.76

3.05 0.41

2.94 1.23

2.27 2.13

6.08 0.89

5.26 4.O2

1.80 3.050.41

2.75 1.20

2.27 1.91

5.64 0.81

4.353.89

1.72 2.380.37

2.080.86

1.88 2.12

6.75 0.92

5.26 4.37

1.82 3.050.41

2.42 1.14

2.27 1.74

5.97 o.77

4.353.78

1.71 2.38o.37

1.74 0.761.88

1.95 7.17

0.84 5.26

4.111.82

3.050.41

2.25 0.98

2.27 1.82

0.37 0.85
NR

4.36 1.89
NR

0.372.21

1.26 1.88
Events and ExhibitsLibrary
Hotel or Motel
Office, Financial lnstitution,Unleased Tenant Space, Medical Office Building or ClinicRestaurantsRetail, Grocery
School
Warehouse
Religious Worship
Sports and RecreationMultifamily > 3 stories
Building Type cz'l czz cz3 cz4 czs cz6 cz7 cz8 czg cz10 cztl cz12 cz't3 cz14 cz15 cz|6 QnergyCodeAce'
For More lnformation
Qrrt,syCadeAce
Ace ','Tools'*
I f/l Your "one-stop-shop" for no-cost tools, training, and resources to help you comply with California's Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6) and Appliance Efficiency Standards (Title 20).

Create an account on the EnergyCodeAce.com website and selectan industry role for your profile in order to receive our newsletterand messages about all our offerings! Ace "Troinin$'
enersvcodeace.com/trai nins
On-demand, live in-person, and online
training alternatives are tailored to a variety
of industry professionals and address key
meaSures.

Of special interest:

Did you know you can get your questions
answered by an industry expert?
Use our "Submit a Ouestion" option on
our website to connect with our team orscroll through Q&Ace to find answers tocommonly asked questions. ?
a
enersvcodeace.com
++
Ace Resources"
energvcod eace.co m/tools
Explore this suite of interactive tools to
understand the compliance process,required forms, installation techniques, and efficiency regulations in California.
* Reference Ace: Navigate Title 24, Part 6
using an index, keyword search, and
hyperlinked text.
+ Q&Ace:Search our online knowledge
base or submit your question to
Energy Code Ace experts.
* Product Finder: Find Title 24, Part 6
compliant products.
+ Virtual Comoliance Assistant:

Get interactive help to fill in NRCC or
LMCC Forms.
?f11tr Tifla )A D;rf 6 Fccanfirlc - Residential Standards: What's New?O?( Titlo )A. trarl 6 FccAnti:lq - Nonresidential Standards: What's New energvcodeace.com/resou rces
Downloadable materials provide practical
and concise guidance on how and when to
comply with Title 24, Part 6 and Title 20.Of special interest:
* Fact Sheets for Buildings
>> Coming soon - search for
"multifamily buildings" on ourwebsite for new 2025 resources * Fact Sheets for Appliances
> MAEDbS 101
rsffiffi-!tir!,fl,r .-sffi
2025 Title 24, Part 6 | Multifamily Buildings: Whafs New

+
+
,-l?
QnergyndeAce"
@ CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
California Energy Commission (CEC)
enersv.ca.sov
Learn more about the CEC and its programs.
+ 2025 Buildins Enersv Efficiencv Standards:

Explore the main CEC web portal for the
2025 Energy Code, including information,
documents, and historical information.
+ 2025 California Energy Code Fact Sheet:

Download this brief summary of the Title 24,Part 6 purpose, current changes, and impact. + California Appliance Efficiencv Standards Site:

Visit this site for information on California's
Title 20 Appliance Efficiency Regulations.
+ Energy Code Hotline
> Call: 1-800-772-3300 (Free)> Submission Form
+ Enersv Code Suooort Center: Use these
online resources developed for building and
enforcement communities to learn more about
filde 24, Part 6.
* Modernized Apoliance Efficiencv Database
System (MAEDbS): Search this database to find
products that comply with Title 24, Part6 and
Title 20.

Additional ResourcesTitae24 stakeholderstitle24stakeholders.com The Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE)
initiative presents recommendations to support
the CEC's efforts to update Title 24, Part 6 to
include new requirements or to upgrade existingrequirements for various technologies. Three California investor-owned utilities sponsor this
effort. The Statewide CASE Team encourages theopen exchange of comments and concerns fromall stakeholders engaged in the Title 24, PartScode change process. Contact them and they will put you in touch with the appropriate CASE Teammembers.Reach Codes localenersvcodes.com
Collaborating with cities, counties, andstakeholders to drive reach code development and adoption for long-term climate and energyefficiency benefits. View a list of adoptedordinances at the link provided.

CALGreen
calgreeninfo.comCALGreen is a mandatory green building code with additional voluntary provisions. CALGreen is
Part 11 of the California Building Standards Code,
fitle 24 of the California Code of Regulations.

Codes are updated and adopted on an 18-monthcycle, triennial and intervening. The current code is effective through December 31,2025.
-t
m, ffi
QrnusyCodeAce'' vSDGE- sl FDISON Pacific Gas and t[ Electric Conpany' i rr 'y r\r, tln l'! r'iii'r.'rl Edison Company (SCE) under the auspices of the California Public Utilities Commission. does not constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation or favoring.

02.04.2025 Page 36 of 36
2OZS Title Z4,Port 6 Foct Sheet
Using this Fact SheetUse this fact sheet to to get a detailed overview of how California's Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Energy Code or Title 24, Part 6) have changedin2O25 for single-family buildings. For more information about the Energy Code changes, refer to the Single-family Buildings: What's Changed in 2O25 Fact Sheet.Highlights and details about the code changes for other building types are given in the following fact sheets:
+ Multifamily Buildings:What's New in 2025?* Multifamily Buildings: What's Changed in 2025?* Nonresidential Buildings: What's New in 2025? * Nonresidential Buildings: What's Changed in 2025?
What's lncluded:

The 2025 Energy Code updated the 2022 Energy Code.The 2025 Energy Code has an effective date ofJanuary 1,2O26. Any projects that apply for a permit on or after this date will be subject to the 2025 Energy Code. lnformation and documents related to the 2025 Energy Code are available on the California Energy Commission (CEC) website.

This fact sheet highlights key changes to the Energy Code that apply to single-family buildings, including single-family homes, accessory dwelling units(ADUs), duplexes, and townhomes of any height. These building types are all classified under California Building Code Occupancy Group R3 (see page 2).

A
Table of ContentsWhv Did the Enerev Code Chanse?
Evolvine Enersv Code Comoliance Metrics
Terminoloev Chanse: "HERS" ls Now "ECC"
Envelooe Hishlishts
New Construction
Additions and Alterations
Kev Terms 6
ce Resources'-
Whct's Newin 2O2S?
-rl
rlll
.3
4 8
qo
New Construction
Mechanical Svstem Hishlishts
Additions and Alterations . Batterv Enersv Storase and Solar Photovoltaic (PV) Svstem Hishliehts Neur Cnnqtn ration
For More lnformation
..
.11.12
.12
.17
20 29
.2L
s{i{p
n n,
2025 Title 24,Part 6 | Single-fami[ Buildings: Whafs New Pagel of22 QEnergyCodeA ce
ll
Building Occupancies Subiect to the Ene
The following Energy Code building types, and their Occupancy class per the California Building Code, are subject to the Energy Code.

Single-family Groups
Referred to as "Single-family Buildings" in the Energy Code Occupancy Class: R3 - Residential
Multifamily congregate residences with primarily permanent residents.

This can include Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) on a multifamily property.

Occupancy Class: U - Miscellaneous
Accessory buildings and structures, and miscellaneous structures not classified in any specific occupancy and on a multifamily property.

The following occupancy is nof subject to the Energy Code.

Occupancy Class: C - Camps
An organized camp is a site with programs and facilities established forthe primary purpose of providing an outdoor group living experience with social, spiritual, educational, or recreational objectives for five days or more during one or more seasons of the year.
rsy Code: Sinsle-familv
Note: See the "Trigger Tables" in our fact sheets for specific scopes of work that trigger the Energy Code. and review the Triggering Energy Code Requirements fact sheets for more information on building occupancies. v
rlll n n
2025 Title 24, Part 6 | Single-family Buildings: Whafs New QnergyAdeAce Page 2 of 22 rir lr
W Did the Ener Code Cha a
The 2025 Energy Code is an important part of California's work to reduce carbon emissions and fight climate change. The Energy Code is updated every three years with the mandate to increase building energy efficiency while staying cost-effective for building owners over the lifespan of a building.Expected Benefits of the 2025 Energy Code Across All Building Types:
* Save $4.8 billion in energy costs+ Drive 500,000 heat pump installations in the first three years * Save enough water to fill 100 Olympic-sized swimming pools annually
* Reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by four million metric tons I
Decorbonizotion Gools
California aims to reduce its GHG emissions while creating an energysystem that is resilient to climate risks, spurring innovation and a low-carbon transition both nationally and internationally. Per the CEC Energy Assessment, California has some of the most ambitious climate and energy goals in the world.GHG Emission Reduction Gools

1. Assemblv Bill 32: 1990 levels bv 2O2O

2. Senate Bill 32: 40% below 1990 levels by 20303. Executive Order 5-3-05: 8070 below 1990 levels by 2050 This can be achieved through a variety of measures, such as incremental steps toward "carbon neutral" buildings, and timely balancing of onsiteenergy production and consumption in support of a healthy, stable grid.

The Energy Code supports reaching these goals.

Learn more from the
-"I
a n'
2025 Title 24, Part 5 | Single-family Buildings: Whafs New Page3 of 22 QnergyCodeAcdr
inll
-"
Evolving Energy Code Compliance Metrics
The 2025 Energy Code updates the energy
compliance metrics that are the basis of the
Performance Approach from those used in the
2022 Energy Code (see Table 1). ln the 2022
Energy Code, single-family New Construction
had to comply with Energy Design Ratings (EDR)
for source energy (EDRs), energy efficiency
(EDRe), and a total(EDRt)that combined energy
efficiency with solar photovoltaics (PV) and
flexibility measures, while building Additions
and Alterations had to meet Time Dependent
Valuation (TDV) energy budgets.The terminology and units in the 2025 Energy Code have changed to Source Energy (Source)and Long-term System Cost (LSC) for energyefficiency (LSCe) and for a total that includesenergy efficiency measures plus PV and flexibilitymeasures (LSCI). ln the 2025 Energy Code, Additions and Alterations show compliance using
LSCe alone. See Table 2 and the definitions of
Source Energy and LSC under Key Terms for
more details.

Table 1: Evolving Energy code compliance Metrics for single-family Construction
2022: EDRs = Source EDR; EDRe = Efficiency EDR; EDRI = Total EDR; TDV = Time Dependent Valuation2025: Source = Total Annual Source Energy; LSCe = Efficiency LSC; LSCt = Total LSC T
2025 Title 24, Put 6 | Single-family Buildings: Whafs New

TDV
LSCe
TDV
LSCe
EDRs, EDRe, EDRI
Source, LSCe, LSCI
20222025
Energy Code New Construction Additions Alterations
QnergyndeAcd"
lr
This change to assessing single-family buildings
using LSC is intended to give an idea of how theenergy and carbon efficiency of current building construction will impact California's energysystems over the next 30 years. Note that LSCdoes not predict individual utility bills.

New Peak Cooling Energy Metric
The 2025 Single-fam ily Residential Alternative
Calculation Method (ACM) Reference Manual
introduces a Peak Cooling Energy compliancemetric to the Performance Approach for single-family buildings. To comply using the
Performance Approach in Climate Zones (CZs)
4 and 8 through 15, the Peak Cooling Energy
calculated for the proposed design must not be
greater than 12070 ofthe Peak Cooling Energy
for the standard design (see definition of Peak
Cooling Energy under Key Terms for more
details). This is in addition to complying with
the Source and LSC energy metrics described
above. This cap on Peak Cooling Energy supports
California's goal to reduce demand on the state'selectrical grid during peak cooling hours.

Table 2: Source Energy and Long-term System Cost as Compliance Metrics PV = Solar photovoltaics, HVAC = Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning, DHW = Domestic hot waterlmportant Note: For New Construction, a building complies with the Performance Approach ONLY if all three compliance scores are met, which means that each Proposed Design score is lower than orequal to the Standard Design score. inlt n
-.2025 Title 24, Part 6 | Single-family Buildings: Whafs New

A score representing the building
long-term system costs for
energy efficiency while alsofactoring in photovoltaics (PV) and flexibility.

Total LSC includes:
* Efficiency measures+PV
+ Batteries* Precooling
A score representing the building
energy efficiency expressed as
long-term system costs.

Efficiency LSC includes:
* Envelope* lndoor fans+ HVAC
+ DHW* Other loads, including selfutilization credit when applicable
A score representing the building
long run source energy usedue to fossil fuel combustionexpressed as an hourly sourcecarbon metric.

Source Energy includes:
* Envelope
i lndoor fans
+ HVAC
+ DHW+PV
+ Batteries* Other loads
Source Energy (Source) Efficiency Long-Term System Costs (LSCe) Total Long-term System Costs (LSCt) QnergyndeAce.
ll
Key Terms
Mandatory Requirements: The Energy Code includes Mandatoryrequirements for single-family building features and systems that must bemet regardless of the overall compliance approach (5150.0).

Prescriptive Approach: The Prescriptive Approach - a set of prescribed performance levels for various building components, where each component must meet or exceed specific requirements - is considered the most direct path to Energy Code compliance. There are different singlefamily Prescriptive requirements for different Climate Zones (CZs) and for New Construction (5150.1(c)) or Additions versus Alterations (5150.2). ThePerformance Approach allows for more flexibility than the Prescriptive requirements.Performance Approach: The Performance Approach builds on thePrescriptive Approach by allowing energy allotments to be traded between building systems for single-family buildings (5150.1(b)). There can be proposed energy use tradeofls between features of the buildingenvelope, domestic water-heating, space-heating, and space-coolingequipment. A building complies with the Performance Approach if the energy consumption calculated for the Proposed Design building is less than or equal to the energy budget calculated for the Standard Design building using energy analysis software approved by the California Energy Commission (CEC).Performance Approach Terms: 2O22Energy Code + Energy Design Rating (EDR): An alternate way to express the energy performance of a home using a scoring system where 100 represents the energy performance of a reference design building meeting the envelope requirements of the2006 lnternational Energy Conservation Code (IECC). Zero (0) represents a building that has zero net energy consumption. + Source Energy Design Rating (EDRs): EDRs is a separate EDR metric based on "hourly source energy," which establishes a "carbon-proxy" analysis of the building in kBtu/ft2-yr units tosupport decarbonization and electrification policy goals. * Time Dependent Valuation (TDV): "TDV Energy" is the time varying energy used by the building to provide space conditioning,water heating, and specified building lighting. tt accounts for the energy used at the building site and consumed in producing anddelivering energy to a site, including, but not limited to, power generation, transmission, and distribution losses.

Performance Approach Terms: 2025 Energy Code
+ Long-term System Cost (LSC): LSC is the CEC-projected present value of costs to California's energy systems over a period of 30 years in units of dollars per squa:e foot of conditioned floor area ($/ft,). Note that even though the units are in $/ftr, LSC does not predict individual utility bills. Using the LSC metricensures that all modeled building features are specified on aone-for-one equivalent energy use or equivalent energy costbasis. LSC consists of large data sets that convert electricity, gas, and propane to LSC energy. The rate of conversion varies for each hour of the year, Climate Zone, energy type (electricity, natural gas, or propane), and building type (low-rise residential, including single-family, high-rise residential, nonresidential, andhotel or motel). + Peak Cooling Energy: Peak cooling energy in the Performance Approach is the total annual mechanical cooling site energy in kwh that occurs at peak hours between 4:00 pm and 9:00 pm. * Site Energy: Site energy is the energy consumed in a building as reflected on utility bills, such as electricity kWh or natural gas therms.
,-ll lru il n
2025 Title 24. Part 6 | Single-family Buildings: Whafs New QnergyCodeAce Page 6 of 22
+ Source Energy (Source): The long run marginal source energy of fossil fuels that are combusted as a result of building energy consumed either directly at the building site or to meet theelectrical demand of the building. The source energy metricconsiders the long-term marginal hourly resources of CEC-projected electric system resource procurement. For a given hour, the value in that hour for each forecasted year is averaged to get a lifetime average source energy measured in kBtu/ft'?-yr. + Photovoltaics (PV): A system that generates electricity from solar energy.
-<4-q g
q
lmportant Note: Long-term system cost (LSC) does not predict individual utility bills. i-!r.....n
-"2025 Title 24, Part 6 | Single-family Buildings: Whafs New PageT of22
h
QnergyCodeAce"
Terminolo
California's Energy Code requires that third-partyspecial inspectors perform field verification anddiagnostic testing of certain installed building features and systems. Through the2022 Energy
Code cycle, these special inspectors were called
Home Energy Rating System (HERS) Raters,
and HERS program requirements were coveredin California's Title 20 Appliance Efficiency Regulations.

For the 2025 code cycle, the HERS program hasbeen renamed the Energy Code Compliance (ECC) program, and the ECC program
requirements have been moved from Title 20
to Title 24,Part 1, 510-103.3. HERS Raters will
now be known as ECC-Raters. See Table 3 for a
summary of the new terminology with updateddefinitions. i-lt.,rl..: [.
gy Change: "HERS" Is Now ',ECC"
Table 3: "Home Energy Rating System (HERS)" Renamed "Energy Code Compliance (ECC)" Program
n
2025 Title 24, Part 5 | Single-family Buildings: Wha(s New

+ ECC = Energy Code Compliance Program
+ Confirms compliance with Energy Code via field
verification and diagnostic testing as applicable in
Residential construction:
r> New C0nstruction> Addi:ions> Alterations
i Program requirements moved from Title 20 to
Title 24, Part 1
* An organization approved bythe CEC to
administer the ECC program per Energy Code510-103.3
+ A person trained, tested, and certified by an ECCProvider * Performs ECC field verification and diagnostic
testing
* An organization certified by an ECC-Provider+ Ofters field verification and diagnostic testing services by the ECC-Rater Company's ECC-Raters
+ Building feature installations that must
demonstrate compliance with Energy Code via
field verification and diagnostic testing
ECC
ECC-Provider
ECC-Rater
ECC-Rater Company
ECC Measures
HERS
HERS Provider
HERS Rater
N/A
HERS Measures
Through 2022
Energy Code Cycle
Starting 2025
Code Cycle Definition
QtnergyCodeAce
lr
Envelo IteHiehlights
New Construction
Wall U-factor and lnsulation
r Mandatory
r Section 150.0(c)
The 2025 Energy Code tightens maximum overall assembly U-factor requirements for 2x4 and 2x6 framed walls that separate conditioned space from either enclosed unconditioned space or outdoor air:
+ 2x4 framed walls must have a maximum assembly U-factor of

0.095, reduced from 0.102. Existing 2x4 walls with a U-factor less than or equal to 0.110 or with at least R-11 insulation installed between framing members do not have to meet the new 0.095 U-factor requirement.
* 2x6 framed walls must have a maximum assembly U-factor of

0.069, reduced from 0.071.
* Wood-framed walls can meet these new U-factor requirements by installing the following insulation with 16 inch on centerspacing:
> R-15 in2x4 assemblies, increased from R-l3
> R-21 in 2x6 assemblies, increased from R-20
Mandatory Maximum Fenestration U-factor ,i@r
r Section 150.0(q)
The Mandatory maximum U-factor is NOT required for the following:
* Afenestration area up to 10 ft2 or 0.50/o of conditioned floor area, whichever is greater
f Up to 30 ft2 of dual-glazed greenhouse or garden windows * New for the 2025 Energy Code: Fenestration installed to meet PartT of the California Building Code in buildings located in FireHazard Severity Zones or Wildland-Urban lnterface (WUl) Fire Areas
Roof Deck lnsulation for Cathedral Ceilings
$
$
€
r Prescriptive Requirementsr Section 150.1(cXAiii, Table 150.1-A 5150.1(c)lAiiiand Table 150.1-A of the 2025 Energy Code expand Prescriptive Option C to include insulated non-attic cathedral ceilings and ventilated attics with only ceiling insulation. The new Prescriptive cathedral ceiling option requires R-38 roof deck insulation in all 16 California Climate Zones.

Fenestration products which separate conditioned space from unconditioned space or outdoors, including skylights, must meet a new maximum U-factor of 0.40. This is reduced from the 2022 Energy Codemaximum U-factor of 0.45. .-h tmEr:::llr:

Figure 1
ml
Prescriptive R-38 Roof Deck lnsuldtion for Cathedrol Ceilings ;:.lH!!rf,+_*l_
-l
I ll"le5:*FLri-9iffi
2025 Title 24,Part 5 | Single-family Buildings: Whafs New

R-38 lnsulation
"- orynen
vsted Eave Blodirq
Exterior Wall
Tile R@ting
Plywood She$irq
Wmd Rafters
QnergyCadeAce'
Prescriptive Fenestration Updates
@ r Prescriptive r Section 150.1(c)3A, Table 150.1-A
The 2025 Energy Code updates Prescriptive maximum area-weighted average U-factors for fenestration from 0.30 to 0.27 in Climate Zones (CZs) 1 through 5,'11 through'14, and 16. Fenestration U-values remainat 0.30 for CZs 5 through 10 and 15 (see Table 4). New dwelling units with conditioned floor area of 500 ft2 or less in CZ 5 may comply with afenestration maximum U-factor of 0.30.

The Prescriptive maximum area-weighted average fenestration solar heatgain coefficient (sHGc) changed from 0.23 to 0.20 in CZ 15 only (see Table 4). ln addition, the Prescriptive maximum U-factor allowed for up to 16 ft2 of new skylight area per dwelling unit changed from 0.55 to 0.40 to match the new Mandatory maximum fenestration U-factor (see Exception 3 to 5150.1(c)3A).
,-.
2025 Title 24, Part 6 | Single-family Buildings: Whafs New

Table 4: Prescriptive Fenestration Maximum Area-weighted Average U-factors and SHGCs by Climate Zone (Adapted from Table 150.1-A) 1 New dwelling units with a conditioned floor area < 500 fl2 in CZ 5 may comply with a maximum U-factor of 0.30NEW! = Updated for 2025 Energy Code, NR = No requirement rlll ,-

0.27 NEW!
NR

0.30 0.20
NEW!
o.27
NEW!

0.23 o.27
NEW!
o.23
o.27
NEW!

0.23 o.27
NEW!

0.23 0.300.23

0.300.23

0.300.23

0.30 0.23

0.30 0.23
o.27
NEW!
NR
o.27
NEW!

0.23 o.27
NEW!
NR
o.27
NEW!

0.23 o.27
NEW!
NR
Maximum U-factor by Climate ZonerMaximum SHGC by Climate Zone Fenestration Feature cz2 c23 cz4 cz5 cz6 cz7 czg czg cz10 cz11 cz12 czt3 cz|4 cz15 czl6 QtnergyCodeAce'
ll
Additions and Alterations
Fenestration Additions and Alterations
> Prescriptive @ > Sections 150.2(a)1A and 150.2(bXA
There are several adjustments to Prescriptive fenestration Addition and Alteration requirements in the 2025 Energy Code, as follows:

Additions:
f ForAdditions largerthan 700 fl2inCZ 15, anyfenestration area added as an Alteration to the existing residence must have a maximum SHGC of 0,23.

Alterations:
f Alterations that increase fenestration area must have a maximum SHGC of 0.23 in CZ 15.
* The 2025 Energy Code removes the 2O22Energy Code exception from Prescriptive total and west-facing fenestration area restrictions for up to 75 ft2 of added fenestration.
* The 75 ft'zadded fenestration exception is replaced by an updated version of the simila r 2022 Prescriptive exception forup to 16 ft2 of added skylights. For 2025, the exception for 16 ft2of added skylights is modified to include other fenestration as well as skylights. This reduces the combined area of skylights and other fenestration that can be added as part of an Alteration without having to account for the existing total and west-facing fenestration areas.
,-u ,n li ."-.
2025 Title 24, Part 6 | Single-family Buildings: Whafs New Page11 of22 QtnergyndeAce
Mechanical tem H hl hts
New Construction
Limits on Space Conditioning Equipment Selections
Heat Pump Setback Thermostats
s s
$
> Mandatory> Section 150.0(h)5
The new 5150.0(h)5 emphasizes that space heating and cooling equipment must be sized and selected based on the heating and cooling loads calculated per 55150.0(h)1 and 2.
5150.0(h)5 states that systems must be sized based on Air ConditioningContractors of America (ACCA) Manual 5-2023 to meet new output capacitylimits, as follows:
* Cooling equipment has no limit on minimum cooling capacity.* Furnace heating capacity must be sized based on ACCA Manual 5-2023, Table N2.5.
+ Heat pumps must have a minimum heating capacity that meets the minimum California Building Code (CBC) requirementswithout including the capacity of any supplementary heating.

Heat pumps have no limit on maximum heating capacity.

Sizing Limit on Heat Pump Supplemental Electric Strip Heat > Mandatorv
> Section 150.0(i)
5150.0(i)2 updates existing setback thermostat regulations with new requirements for thermostats controlling heat pumps that have either electric resistance or gas furnace supplemental heating.

These thermostats must be setback thermostats per 5150.0(i)1, and they must:

A Receive outdoor air temperature from an outdoor air sensor or an internet weather service
+ Display outdoor air temperature1 Lock out supplementary heat when the outdoor air temperature is over 35'F, except during defrost or when the user selects emergency heating
* Have an indicator to notify when supplementary or emergency heat is in use
ln addition, the installer must certify on the Certificate of lnstallation (CF2R) that the system has been tested according to the required procedure found in the CF2R.Note that these measures are not required when:
* Supplementary heat is already locked out above 35'F by another control device per 5150.0(h)7.
+ Systems comply with Exception 1 to 5150.0(h)7 which may apply to buildings that have conditioned floor area less than 500 ft2 andto buildings of any size in CZsT and 15. * Room air-conditioner heat pumps are installed.

Er,
2025 Title 24, Part 6 | Single-family Buildings: Whafs New

> Mandatorvr Section 150.0(h)8
Heat pumps sometimes have supplemental electric resistance heating installed to help meet peak loads. 5150.0(h)8 adds the requirement that supplemental electric resistance heating capacity must not exceedthe heat pump's nominal cooling capacity (at 95"F ambient conditions) multiplied by 2.7 kW per ton, rounded up to the closest kW. ,-U - QnergyCodeAce ! ml
$
Balanced and Supply-only Ventilation System Service
Accessibility
> Mandatory
Fault lndicator Display Devices (FlDs)
Manufacturer-certified JA1 7-compliant Fl Ds i ndicate if systems mainta i nrated airflow and fan efficacy for the life of the equipment. To comply with Joint Reference Appendix JA17, FlDs must have instrumentationthat measures system airflow and fan power and notifies dwelling unit occupants if the system is not working properly. FlDs must provide information using one or more of the following:
* A visual display that is readily accessible to occupants of the dwelling unit
* An electronic application
* An audible alarm accompanied by a visual display
Manufacturers of FID systems must certify to the CEC that their FID systems meet the requirements of )A17.2 through )A17.4. The CEC maintains the "Residential Fault lndicator Certification List" of FID products that are available for residential Energy Code compliance. r Section 150.0(o)1Civ
There are new Mandatory service accessibility requirements for indoor air quality (lAQ) filters and heat recovery ventilator (HRV) and energy recovery ventilator (ERV) components of balanced and supply-only ventilation systems.System air filters, HRV cores, and ERV cores must be located so that they can be serviced from occupiable spaces, basements, garages, balconies,and mechanical closets. lf any of these components are within these areas but located behind access panels, access doors, or grilles, they comply with the service accessibility requirement as long as they are no more than 10feet above a walking surface (see Figure 2). ln an exception to 5150.0(o)1Civa, the Energy Code sets different accessibility requirements for systems that need to be serviced from inside an attic. Those systems must have:
* A fault indicator display (FlD) that meets the requirements of Joint Reference Appendix JAl 7
+ An attic access door located in a wall, or, for ceiling access, an attic access hatch with an integrated ladder
* A walkway from the attic access door to the HRV or ERV Per 55150.0(o)1Civb, c, and d, these systems must also meet California Mechanical Code (CMC) requirements for IAQ system service accessibility (CMC 9304.0), outdoor air intake design (CMC 9402.4.1), and outdoor air intake location and accessibility (CMC 5304.3.1). Outdoor air intakes servingsystems with JA17-compliant FlDs are exempt from the CMC location and accessibility requirements.

System Service Access ffi$r 10' or less
Figure 2: lmoge of on ERV or HRV Core Accessible through o Ceiling Access Panel Less Thon or Equal to 10' Abave the Floor
"mt :r;E:]{*d'!!i;rir- l. l]ir.rtft.*i:l:Ls:,rc
2025 Title 24, Part 6 | Single-family Buildings: Wha(s New

Prescriptive Fault lndicator Display for HRV and ERV Refrigera nt C harge Ve rification @ > Prescriptive > Section 150.1(cX5, Table 150.1-A
5150.1(c)15 and Table 150.1-A include a new Prescriptive requirement toprovide a ventilation system FID for all HRV and ERV systems servingindividual dwelling units. These FID systems must be field-verified by an ECC-Rater perJoint Reference AppendixJA1T. FID field verification involves confirming that the proposed system is in the CEC's "Residential Fault lndicator Certification List." This means that the manufacturer of the proposed FID system has certified to the CEC that the system meetsthe requirements ofjA17.2 through )A17.4. This new Prescriptive FID requirement applies to projects in all California Climate Zones. > Prescriptive> Section 150.1(c)7A, Table 150.1-A
The 2025 Energy Code includes some changes to the prescriptive refrigerant charge verification (RCV) requirements for air conditioners and air-source heat pumps.
ln the 2022 Energy Code, Table 150.1-A, which outlines prescriptive single-family requirements by Climate Zone (CZ), included a single row showing space cooling RCV requirements in CZs 2 and 8 through 15. These requirements applied to space cooling for both air conditioners and airsource heat pumps. Table 150.1-A in the 2025 Energy Code renames the cooling RCV row to show it only applies to air conditioners and adds a new RCV row for heat pumps. The 2025 Energy Code requires RCV for heat pumps in all CZs.

Another change for both air conditioners and heat pumps is that it is no longer an option to install FlDs instead of verifying the refrigerant charge.

Also note that RCV involves the newly renamed Energy Code compliance raters (ECC-Raters, previously called HERS Raters).Prescriptive Refrigerant Cha rge Verification Requ irements from Table 150.1-A
Air Conditioners
+ Required in Climate Zones 2,8-15
+ Not Required in Climate Zones 1,3-7, 16
Heat Pumps
* Required in all Climate Zones
€
@
Prescriptive Space Heating Changes to Heat Pumps
'@r Section 150.1(c)5, Table 150.1-A
ln a major change for the 2025 Energy Code, only heat pump space heatingis allowed for single-family Prescriptive compliance in all Climate Zones.

Gas space heating is not allowed under the 2025 Prescriptive Approach.

The Performance Approach must be used to assess single-family Energy Code compliance for new homes with gas furnaces, including propane. The Performance Approach continues to be the only Energy Code compliance option for electric resistance space heating.

Note that efficiency ratings for heat pumps are now all changed from Heating Seasonal Performance Factor (HSPF) to HSPF2 and from SeasonalEnergy Efficiency Rating (SEER) to SEER2.

Figure 3: Heot Pump for Space Conditioning: Ducted split system Diogrdm {ffi-: 1..

Figure 4: Heot Pump for Space Conditioning: Ductless Mini-split System Diogrom -H;::l!dge |-. L n:ttiitdrli'**lh1iire2025 Title 24,Part 6 | Single-family Buildings: Whafs New

.-l
Blower
Refrigeront Piping
Coil
Outdoor
Condensote
Electricol
Fon Motor
Outdoor
Compressor
Coil
Outdoor Return
Plenum
Indoor
coil
Air Hondling
Unit for
Heot Pump
Blower
Fon
wheel
Duct itrcluding stort collm, Ys, etc. Supply Plenum
Fon & Motor
Refrigeront Piping
Register R€gist€r
Return
Ducts
Qne,gyCodeAce
iti
Domestic Water-heating Systems
B > Prescriptive > Section 150.1(c)8, Table 150.1-A
One notable change for the 2025 Energy Code is that gas tankless waterheaters are no longer allowed as a Prescriptive water heating option for New Construction in any Climate Zone (CZ), regardless of the type of space-heating equipment. This means that the 2025 Prescriptive Approach does not allow any kind of gas or propane water heating.

The Performance Approach must be used to assess single-family Energy Code compliance for new homes with gas or propane water heaters.

Additionally, new dwelling units with conditioned floor area less than or equal to 500 ft, may comply using any electric water heater in combination with point of use distribution, instead of meeting one of the other Prescriptive options. ln the past Energy Code cycle, this exception required an instantaneous electric water heater plus point of use distribution.

The other 2025 Prescriptive water-heating options and exceptions for new single-family homes remain the same as in the past Energy Code cycle.

These options are:
+ Per 5150.1(c)8A, a single 240-volt heat pump water heater with compactdistribution in CZs 1 and 16 and a drain water heat recovery system in CZ 16, or
* Per 5150.1(c)8B, a single 240-volt heat pump water heater with a Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) Tier 3 rating or higher and a drain water heat recovery system in CZ 16, or * Per 5150.1(c)8C, a solar water-heating system with electric backup and a minim um 700/o solar savings fraction (SSF)
* Per the exception to 95150.1(c)8A and B, new dwellings with one bedroom or less may use a single '120-volt heat pump water heater instead of a single 240-volt heat pump water heater.

Hot Wo
Suppl
terv
<r
Cold Woter
Supply
rr>
,.\rt4!ffiqff1!* I t:-:.j;;;--l --. I :.11..:r.::i,1r",":j: l.

Figure 5: Heot Pump Wdter Heater Graphic
2025 Title 24, Part 6 | Single-family Buildings: Whafs New

ffi._
!D{FD <TD -<t- <FrF-<!- 3- {araa C' <ts -€r:-
QtneryCodeAce - t r .... -.

Additions and Alterations
Domestic Water-heating Systems Additions with New HVAC@ r Prescriptive r Section 150.2(aXD There are several changes to the 2025 Prescriptive domestic water-heating requirements for single-family Additions. First, the regulations now apply to installing any additional water heater as part of an Addition, not just whenadding a second water heater.

A second notable change is that instantaneous gas or propane water heaters are no longer allowed as a Prescriptive water-heating option for Additions.

This means that the 2025 Prescriptive Approach does not allow any NEW gas or propane water heating for Additions. Note, however, that the Energy Code allows existing gas or propane water-heating systems to remain. The Performance Approach must be used to determine singlefamily Energy Code compliance for Additions with new gas or propane water heaters.

Further, Additions less than or equal to 500 ft2 may comply using any electric water heater in combination with point of use distribution. ln the past Energy Code cycle, this option required an instantaneous electric waterheater plus point of use distribution.

The other 2025 Prescriptive water-heating options for additional water heaters in Additions remain the same as in the past Energy Code cycle.

These options are:
* A single heat pump water heater with the storage tank installed indoors and placed on a rigid, incompressible surface with an R-value greater than or equal to R-10. The water heater must also have a communication interface that meets either the requirements of 110j2(a) or has an ANSI/CTA-2O45-B
communication port (5150.2(a)1Di), or
* A single 240-volt heat pump water heater with a NEEA Tier 3 rating or higher (5150.2(a)1Dii), or
* A water-heating system that the Executive Director determines uses no more energy than any of the other options in 5150.2(a)1D r Prescriptive
r Section 150.2(a)
For 2025 Prescriptive compliance, any new or replacement HVAC system that also serves an Addition must use heat pump space heating. The 2025 Prescriptive Approach does not allow NEW gas or propane space heating for Additions. However, the 2025 Energy Code allows existing gas or propane space-heating systems to remain. The Performance Approach must be used to determine Energy Code compliance for singlefamily Additions using new gas or propane space heating.

HVAC System Sizing for Additions
€
€
i-tr
n
r Prescriptive> Section 150.2(aXE
There are new 2025 Prescriptive requirements for HVAC system sizing for Additions. The initial requirement is to meet the Mandatory minimum capacity limits and supplemental heating requirements from S150.0(h). ln addition to that, Prescriptive maximum heating and cooling capacities are based on the relative sizes of the calculated heating design load and cooling design load (i.e., is the heating load larger than the cooling loador vice versa), the type of space-conditioning system, and the duct sizing.

Note that ductless HVAC systems do not have to meet 5150.2(a)1E.

The Prescriptive maximum capacities for Additions also factor in the airflow of the proposed HVAC system. lf the airflow is field verified by an ECC-Rater to be at least 350 CFM/ton, then there is no maximum capacitylimit. lf the airflow is NOT field verified by an ECC-Rater to be at least 350 CFM/ton, then the maximum heating capacity is calculated using Table 5 (adapted from Table 150.2-A), and the maximum cooling capacity is calculated using Table 6 (adapted from Table 150.2-B). These tables include some other instances where there are no maximum capacity requirements for particular system types.

See 5150.2(a)1E for more details on exceptions and load calculations. r-r:
2025 Title 24,Part 6 | Single-family Buildings: Whafs New 6*ur PaEe 17 of 22 yCodeAce' li
No Maximum
No MaximumNo Maximum
Heating Load + 12 kBtuh
Heating Load + 12 kBtuh
No Maximum
No Maximum
No Maximum
8070 of Heating Load
HeatingLoad+6kBtuh
HeatingLoad+6kBtuh
80%o of Heating Load
Single Speed System:Output Capaclty
Variable or Multi Speed System:

Maximum Capacity
Variable or Multi Speed System:

Capacity at Lowest Speed
Maximum Heating
Capacity for Heating
Only Systems
Heat Pump Maximum
Heating Capacity
When Heating Load >
Heat Pump Maximum
Heating Capacity
When Cooling Load > Heating
Load by Less Than 12 kBtuh
Heat Pump Maximum
Heating Capacity
When Cooling Load > Heating
Cooli Load Load by 12 kBtuh or more
System Types
at Different Settings
Table 5: Maximum Heating Capacity (adapted from Table 150.2-A)3 Table 6: Maximum Cooling Capacity (adapted from Table 150.2-8)3 3Heating load and cooling load refer to the design heating load and design cooling load respectively -t,
r$ftHe nh,:'l,:,: ffit|ln
-.:,t}.ii.t
2025 Title 24, Parl6 | Single-family Buildings: Whafs New

CoolingLoad+6kBtuh
CoolingLoad+6kBtuh
8070 of Cooling Load
CoolingLoad+6kBtuh
CoolingLoad+6kBtuh
800/o of Cooling Load
No MaximumNo Maximum
No Maximum
CoolingLoad+6kBtuhCoolingLoad+6kBtuh
8070 of Cooling Load
Single Speed System:

Output Capacity
Variable or Multi Speed System:

Maximum Capacity
Variable or Multi Speed System:

Capacity at Lowest Speed
Maximum Heating
Capacity for Cooling
Only Systems
Heat Pump Maximum
Cooling Capacity
When Heating Load >
Heat Pump Maximum
Cooling Capacity
When Cooling Load > Heating
Heat Pump Maximum
Cooling Capacity
When Cooling Load > Heating
Cooli Load Load Less Than 12 kBtuh Load 12 kBtuh or more System Types
at Different Settings
QnergyCodeAce'
nlrt
New Construction
Pool and Spa Heating Systems
r Mandatory> Sections 110.4(c) and 150.0(p)
Mandatory 5110.4(c) of the 2025 Energy Code adds five new heat source sizing options for newly-constructed swimming pools and for newlyinstalled pool heaters for existing pools.

To comply with the Energy Code, pool heaters must meet one of the following:
'1. A solar pool heating system with solar collector surface area greater than or equal to 60% ofthe pool surface area

2. A heat pump pool heater as the primary heating system that meets sizing requirements in Reference Joint Appendix JA1 6.3; the supplementary heating system can be any energy source

3. A heating system that derives greater than or equal to 600/o annual heating energy from on-site renewable or recoveredenergy

4. A combination of a solar pool heating system and a heat pump pool heater without a supplementary heater

5. A pool-heating system that the Executive Director determines uses no more energy than the systems above
ln Ft:$t:uii..;tiI
There are five exceptions to the requirements of 5110.4(c):

Exception 1: Portable electric spas compliant with 20 CCR 51605.3(gX7) of the Appliance Efficiency Regulations
Exception 2: Alterations to existing pools, spas, and combined pools and spas with existing heating systems or equipment
Exception 3: A pool, spa, or combined pool and spa that is only heated by a solar pool heating system without any backup heater
Exception 4: Heating systems which are used exclusively for permanent spa applications in existing buildings with gas availability Exception 5: Heating systems which are used exclusively for permanent spa applications where there is not enough Solar Access Roof Area (SARA) per 5150.1(c)14for a solar pool heating system to be installed It":-i:J!*-.il--
2025 Title 24,Part 5 | Single-family Buildings: Whafs New

s
QnusyCodeAcd'
Battery
New Construction
Battery Energy Storage System Ready
) Mandatory
Energy Storage and Solar PhotovoItaic (PV) System Highlishts Solar Photovoltaic (PV) System Sizing
r Section 150.0(s)
The Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) ready requirements apply to all new single-family residences with one or two dwelling units, includingsingle-family homes, duplexes, and single-family homes with an accessorydwelling unit (ADU).

The BESS ready requirements have not changed significantly for the 2025 Energy Code. However, there are two new exceptions to the requirements:BESS readiness is not required (1) if the electrical service for the dwelling unit is 125 amps or less, or (2) if the building already has a BESS installed. r Prescriptive> Section 150.1(c)14
The Prescriptive single-family solar PV kW DC (direct current) requirement is determined as the smaller result from two calculation options, one of which has changed in the 2025 Energy Code.
f One option is to calculate the required kW DC using Equation 150.1-C, and that has not changed for the 2025 Energy Code. * The updated calculation option is to multiply the total Solar Access Roof Area (SARA, measured in ftr), by certain Wft2 allowances. For the 2025 Energy Code those allowances havechanged to 18 Wft2 for steep-sloped roofs and 14 Wftz for lowsloped roofs, The 2025 Energy Code also clarifies that the SARA always excludes roof areas unavailable due to compliance with other California state buildingcodes. The SARA may also exclude areas needed to meet local buildingcodes, but the Energy Code only allows those exclusions if the Executive Director confirms them.
ms2025 Title 24, Part 6 | Single-family Buildings: Whafs New Page2o of 22
€ $
,-l! nr
'lr
QtnergyCodeAce
QhugyCadeAce''' I:il;::Tffil:i;:TtT,:,,,Tli;jl",li,?,":$nX".T::l,ll",o, (Titre 24, part 6) and Appriance Efficiency st"norro, (Titre 20). ?o energvcodeace.com +^ fl:T::!iiii:Til#,",?i:f :x:ff :f:IJff ff ::ffi[:: f anO messages aboui all our offerings! For More lnformation
Ace,'Iools'*
energycodeace.co m/tools
Explore this suite of interactive tools to
understand the compliance process,
required forms, installation techniques, and
efficiency regulations in California.
* Reference Ace: Navigate Title 24, part 6
using an index, keyword search, and
hyperlinked text.
* Q&Ace: Search our online knowledge
base or submit your question to
Energy Code Ace experts.
* Product Finder: Find Title 24, part 6
compliant products.

Did you know you can get your questions answered by an industry expert? Use our "submit a euestion,,option on
our website to connect with our team or scroll through e&Ace to find answers to commonly asked questions.

Ace 'Troining'-
energycodeace.com/tra i n i ng
On-demand, live in_person, and online
training alternatives are tailored to a variety of industry professionals and address key measureS.

Of special interest:* 2025 Title 24. part 6 Essentials _ Residential Standards: What,s New Ace Resources"
energvcodeace.com/resou rces
Downloadable materials provide practical and concise guidance on how and when to comply with Title 24, part6 and Title 20.

Of special interest:
* Fact Sheets for Buildings
> Coming soon _ search for,,single_
family buildings,, on our website fornew 2025 resources * Fact Sheets for Apoliances
> MAEDbS 101
ffi.-,yr$"
2025 Title 24, part 6 | Single_family Buildings: What,s New + 2025 Ti e24 6 enf ie lsiEll fn
QnergyndeAce''
Page21 of22
documents, and historical information'
* 2025 California Energy Code Fact Shee-t:
. oownload this brief summary of the rille24'
Part 6 purpose, current changes' and impact
@ Efrt53.I$'Mrs'oN
California Energy Commission (cEC)
energy.ca.gov
Learn more about the CEC and its programs
+
Additional Resources
Title 24 Stakeholders
title24stakeho lders.co
m
The Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE)
initiative presents recommendations to supportthe CEC's efforts to update Title 24' Part 6 to include new requirements or to upgrade existing
requirements for various technologies' Three
California investor-owned utilities sponsor this
effort. The Statewide CASE Team encourages the
open exchange of comments and concerns from
"il
strt "holders engaged in the Title 24' Part 6 code change process' Contact them and they will put you iniouch with the appropriate CASE Team
members.

Reach Codes
localenergycodes'com
Collaborating with cities, counties' and
stakeholders to drive reach code development
and adoption for long-term climate and energy
efficienry benefits' View a list of adopted
ordinances at the link Provided'

CALGTEEN
calgreeninfo.com
CALGreen is a mandatory green building codewith additional voluntary provisions' CALGreen is Part 11 of the California Building Standards Code'
Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations'
Codes are updated and adopted on an 18-month
cycle, triennial and intervening' The current code
Explore the main is effective through December 31'2025'2025 EnergY Cod Title 20
CEC web Portal for the
e, including information'
+
Visit this site for information on California's
Title 20 Appliance Efficiency Regulations'
+ Energy Code Hotline
>r Call: 1-800-772-3300 (Free)
> Submission Form
* Energy Code Support Center: Use these
""|rn"
resources developed for building and
enforcement communities to learn more about
Title 24, Part 6'
+
System (MAEDbS): Search th
products that comPlY with
T
is database to find
itle24, Part 6 and
ffi

CITY COUNCIL MEETING STAFF REPORT
REPORT TO: Mayor Pursell & City Council
REPORT FROM: Holly Owen, AICP – Community Development Director REVIEWED BY: AJH AGENDA ITEM: Awarding of Competitive Housing Unit Allocations for Residential Development for 2026
ACTION REQUESTED: ___Ordinance ___Resolution ____Motion ____Receive/File

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Kingsburg Growth Management System (Attachment A) was enacted in November 2004 as Measure N, Charter Amendment to the City of Kingsburg Charter. The Growth Management System was brought about by concerns regarding unplanned and uncoordinated growth in the City. The Growth Management System allows for 115 annual housing unit allocations to be made available at the beginning of each calendar year, with a potential two rounds of applications for allocation units per year. With the downturn in the housing market, allocations for housing units continued to accrue, and certain projects received allocations from the unused units. In recent years, supply of allocation units has met demand. There are currently 115 single family allocation units available for 2026 allocations, 80 single family residential units and 35 multifamily units.

RECOMMENDED ACTION BY CITY COUNCIL

1. Adopt Resolution 2025-065, affirming the recommendation of the Planning Commission to award 88 housing unit allocations to San Joaquin Valley Homes by phasing the award of housing unit allocations according to

16.09.080 of the Kingsburg Growth Management System.

POLICY ALTERNATIVE(S)

1. Council could choose not to award housing unit allocations for 2026.

STRATEGIC GOAL(S)

1. Preserve the Kingsburg Experience

FINANCIAL INFORMATION

PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW
The applicant has had a number of meetings with City staff, starting in September 2024 with Site Plan Review.

Several meetings followed, with the finalization of their submittal for allocations in September of 2025.

On November 13, 2025, at a regularly scheduled meeting, the Kingsburg Planning Commission held a public hearing Meeting Date: 12/03/2025
Agenda Item: 12
FISCAL IMPACT:

1. Is There A Fiscal Impact? No

2. Is it Currently Budgeted? No

3. If Budgeted, Which Line? N/A

and adopted Resolution 2025-06, recommending the award of housing allocation units for the proposed project identified in Attachment C. Several residents spoke against the project at that meeting.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The residential development as proposed is to develop single family residential lots for custom home construction for a total of 88 single family residential housing units. The residential development under consideration is on 29.65 acres located at APNs 395-030-05, 395-030-06 and 395-030-011, located southwest of Kern Street and 6th Avenue Drive. A map of the location is attached to this staff report as Exhibit 1.

As described in Section 16.09.070 of the Kingsburg Municipal Code, rating and ranking criteria is applied to each proposed housing project with the use of a 100-point scoring system. A number of criteria are considered, including suitability of location, the availability of utility services, architectural design and aesthetic considerations. Council is required to review the rating and ranking recommendations prepared by the City Planning Staff. Attachment E is the Staff’s recommendation for rating and ranking for the allocation of housing units for the proposed residential housing projects identified above. The rating and ranking is based upon the project as identified in the application for allocation of housing units. Any changes in the project after housing units are awarded will be subject to the provisions of Section 16.09.020 (C) of the Kingsburg Municipal Code.

The proposed development project will be processed as a Planned Unit Development and is subject to the design standards and other requirements set forth in the development standards. Additionally, the land upon which this project will be constructed must be annexed to the City of Kingsburg through Fresno LAFCo process. The allocation of housing units to this project does not constitute approval of the project or lessen the need to obtain all required land use entitlements for the project.

The Planned Unit Development and Tentative Map as well as other requirements for the annexation and development will be coming to Planning Commission and Council for later consideration should allocations for this project be granted by Council. No review of the map or approvals occur at this time beyond the consideration of allocation units as requested by the applicant.

This application for allocations was submitted for consideration during the required timeframe. Only one application was received in the specified timeframe. The application for housing units is attached for Council’s information as Attachment D.

COUNCIL OPTIONS
In the past, there have been years when Council chose to select units from previous years to be awarded. More recently, in 2024, there was one project that requested 105 allocation units. Council chose to allocate 80 units in one year and 25 the following year, which was a phased approach.

Council could consider granting a portion of the request this year and phase the balance over either 2027 or 2028.

For instance, the action could allow for 80 units in 2026 with 8 to be drawn from 2027, or another number of units could be granted, such as 50 for 2026 and 38 for 2027.

Per the Municipal Code, the phasing allocation action, including timing of construction. will be enforced as conditions of approval for the tentative map.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This action, the allocation of housing units, is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b(5)), as the award of housing units is an organizational or administrative activity of government that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes to the environment and therefore is not considered a project.

All projects as they are submitted to the City for land use entitlements will be subject to separate environmental assessments.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Kingsburg Municipal Code Chapter 16.09, Growth Management System

2. 16.09.080, Phased Projects

3. Planning Commission Resolution 2025-06, recommending to Council the awarding of allocation units for the 2026 calendar year

4. Allocation application submittal by San Joaquin Valley Homes

5. Staff rating and ranking of allocation applications submittals for 2026

6. Location map of proposed project

7. 2026 Allocation Chart

8. Conceptual Tract Map

9. Resolution 2026-065

10. Informational PowerPoint on Allocations
1 2
t
J
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 1l
t2
13 t4
15 I6
I7
18 I9
20 2l
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 ORDINANCE NO. 2023 . OOI

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF KINGSBURG
AMENDING CHAPTER 16.09 OF
TITLE 6 OF THE KINGSBURG MUNICIPAL CODE

REGARDING THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
The City Council of the City of Kingsburg does hereby ordain as follows:

Section L. Chapter 16.09 of Title 16 of the Kingsburg Municipal Code is amended as follows

16.09.010 Purpose.

A. This chapter implements a growth management system that will manage regulating residential development so that it is compatible with the character and service capabilities of the city and other service providers within the city. This chapter implements the growth management amendment to the city charter passed by the voters of the city in the election of November 2,2004.

B. This chapter establishes a growth management system to limit the rate of residential growth in the city to a level compatible with the size, financial limitations, resource constraints, and services capabilities of the city and service providers within the city. This chapter also seeks to maintain aesthetic goals of the city. This chapter implements fundamental policies of the general plan including particular provisions of the land use and housing elements of the general plan. The growth management system will assist the city in addressing its responsibility to share in the provision of housing for households of various income levels as determined by the regional housing needs allocation plan prepared by the council of Fresno County governments and approved by the State Department of Housing and Community Development.
1 2
J
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
t2
13 t4
15 I6
17 18
I9
20 2t
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 16.09.020 Allocations for housing units.

A. One hundred fifteen (115) new allocations of housing units will become available at the beginning of each calendar year. Allocation is defined as the right to apply for a building permit to construct one single-family residence or one multi-family residential housing unit. The allocations are divided between two categories of housing: multiple-family housing units with thirty-five (35) allocations (less any allocations issued to multi-family small projects as defined in Section 16.09.050 of this chapter) per year (thirty percent (30%)) and single-family housing units, with eighty (80) allocations per year (seventy-percent (70%)). Of the eighty (80) allocations per year of single-family housing units, twenty (20) allocations shall be reserved for large lot development on parcels of at least ten thousand (10,000) square feet.

B. Allocations which are issued pursuant to the provisions of this chapter are issued to the specific residential development project identified and described in the application for allocations. Allocations are not issued to any person or entity. Allocations cannot be assigned, transferred or conveyed to another residential development project C. Except as otherwise set forth in this subsection, if after allocations are awarded, a residential housing project receiving allocations is modified or changed in any way, the allocations awarded to that residential housing project shall automatically terminate and become unused allocations subject to reallocation as provided in Section 16.09.060. The modified or changed residential housing project may apply again for allocations as a new residential housing project. Except that, aresidential housing project may file a request with the city, using the applicable city request form, requesting that the issued allocations not terminate but remain with the changed or modified residential housing project. The city council may grant such request only if the city council makes all of the following findings:

1. Any modification or change in the type (i.e., single-family, multi-family, senior, etc.) of residential housing; or the modification or change in any other aspect of the residential housing project satisfies a specific housing need in the city which was not a housing need in the city at the time the 2 I
2 J
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
t2
13 t4
15 t6
t7
18 t9
20 2l
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 original application for allocations for the residential housing project was initially filed with the city;

2. Any modification or change in the number of residential housing units; or any modification or other change in any aspect of the residential housing project does not result in a need to increase the allocations initially issued to the residential housing project identified in the original application;

3. City staffs reevaluation of the modified or changed residential housing project pursuant to the rating and ranking criteria set forth in Section

16.09.070 of this chapter, does not result in a competitive points ranking different from the competitive points ranking received by the residential housing project for its original application for allocations and does not affect the competitive points ranking of any other residential housing project that originally competed for allocations with the residential housing project seeking to retain its awarded allocations;

4. No land use entitlements identified in this Section 16.09.020 have been approved or issued for the residential housing project prior to its application seeking to retain the awarded allocations.

The provisions of this Section 16.09.020 C. shall not apply to a modification or change to a residential housing project which results in a reduction of the awarded allocations needed to construct the residential housing project.

D. An application for competitive allocations identihed in Section 16.09.060, shall specifically identiff the type of residential development (e.g. single family, multi-family, mixed density, etc.) that will be developed should allocations be awarded to the applicant. Based upon the type of residential development identified in the application, the city's community development department shall determine the final land use entitlement approval (e.g. final subdivision map, site plan review approval, planned use development ("PUD") approval, etc.) 3 I
2 J
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
t2
13 14
15 t6
t7
l8
t9
20 2l
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 ("Final Entitlement") needed by the applicant in order to develop the residential development identified in the application (grading permits, building permits and similar or related permits are not included in the definition of Final Entitlement). The award of allocations by the city council as provided in Section 16.09.060 shall: (i) specifically identiff the Final Entitlement for the residential development receiving the award of allocations; (ii) state the allocations awarded will automatically expire and be of no further force or effect if the Final Entitlement for the residential development receiving the award of allocations is not approved by city or other applicable agency by a specified date which date shall be 12 months (or if annexation is required 24 months) after the date of award of the allocations by the city council ("Entitlement Deadline"); and (iii) state the allocations awarded will automatically expire and be of no further force or effect if construction of all off-site improvements (collectively "Offsite Improvements") for the residential development receiving the award of allocations including, without limitation, installation of utilities and construction and installation of streets is not completed by a specified date which date shall be forty-eight (4S) months after the date of award of allocations by the city council ("Construction Deadline"). No fees paid by an applicant to the city prior to the Entitlement Deadline or the Construction Deadline will be reimbursed by the city should the applicant fail to satisfr the requirements of this chapter.

E. An applicant may request an extension of the Entitlement Deadline or Construction Deadline by submitting a written application for such extension on the form required by the city. In order to grant an extension request, the city council must find that the failure of the applicant to obtain approval of the Final Entitlement on or before the last day of the Entitlement Deadline or complete construction of all Off-site Improvements on or before the last day of the Construction Deadline, was beyond the reasonable control of the applicant. An application for extension of the Entitlement Deadline or the Construction Deadline must be filed with the city at least ninety (90) days prior to the expiration of the Entitlement Deadline or Construction Deadline, as applicable. An applicant that obtains an extension of the Entitlement Deadline may not request and extension of the Construction Deadline. 4 1
2 a
J
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 l1
12 13
t4
15 t6
I7
18 t9
20 2l
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 F. The city council, may, in its discretion, allow unused allocations (collectively "Unused Allocations") to be carried over for a period not to exceed three years ("Unused Allocation Period") and allocated as part of a first allocation andlor a second allocation or both (as those terms are defined in Section 16.09.060 of this chapter). Unused Allocations are allocations: (i) which were never issued; or (ii) previously issued and expired as provided in this Section 16.09.020. An Unused Allocation Period selected by the city council shall commence on the date the Unused Allocations were first available for award by the city council pursuant to Section 16.09.060. Unused Allocations shall only be issued on the dates identified in Section

16.09.060 D and E.

G. In order to meet the housing needs of persons who will reside in mobilehome parks or multi-family housing developments, an applicant seeking to develop a mobilehome park with more than fifteen (15) spaces andlor multi-family housing development with more than fifteen (15) units may request issuance of allocations which would otherwise be issued over a three-year period. The purpose of this three-year allocation is to satisfu the housing needs of persons who wish to reside in mobilehomes or multi-family developments, through the development of a project which is larger than would otherwise be allowed with only one year of allocations. An applicant may request a three-year allocation by submitting a written application to the city on the form required by the city. After the award of a three-year allocation as provided in this Section 16.09.020 G., the mobile home park development or the multi-family housing development shall not be modified or changed in any way. Any attempt to modifu or change the mobile home park development or the multi-family housing development shall result in the automatic termination of the allocations awarded to the mobile home park development or multifamily housing development and the allocations shall become Unused Allocations.

16.09.030 Senior housing allocations.

Demand for senior housing in the city exceeds the supply of senior housing within the city. As a result, and in order to address this need for more senior housing, allocations for a senior housing project shall be issued on the basis of one-half of one allocation for each senior 5 I
2 a
J
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
t2
13 t4
15 I6
I7
18 I9
20 2l
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 housing unit to be constructed. Senior housing is defined as residential housing which requires that atleast one person in residence in each dwelling unit be fifty-five (55) years of age or older The residential dwelling units must include each of the following elements:

A. Entryways, walkways, and hallways in the interior common areas of the development, and doorways and paths of access to and within the housing units, shall be as wide as required by current laws applicable to new multi-family housing construction for provision of access to persons using a standard-width wheelchair.

B. Walkways and hallways in the common areas of the development shall be equipped with standard height railings or grab bars to assist persons who have difficulty with walking.

C. Walkways and hallways in the common areas shall have lighting conditions which are of sufficient brightness to assist persons who have difficulty seeing.

D. Access to all common areas and housing units within the development shall be provided without use of stairs, either by means of an elevator or sloped walking ramps.

E. The development shall be designed to encourage social contact by providing at least some common open space.

F. Refuse collection shall be provided in a manner that requires a minimum of physical exertion by residents.

G. The development shall comply with all other applicable requirements for access and design imposed by law, including, but not limited to, the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C.

Section 3601 et seq.), the Americans with Disabilities Act(42 U.S.C. Section l2l0l et seq.), and the regulations promulgated at Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations that relate to access for persons with disabilities or handicaps. If a senior housing project includes the seven elements listed previously in this section and one of the three enhancements listed in subsection (GXl) through (3) which follow in this section, allocations for that senior housing project shall be issued on the basis of one-third of one allocation for each senior housing unit to be constructed. 6 1
2 J
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
t4
15 r6
l7
l8
r9
20 2t
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 If a senior housing project includes the seven elements listed previously in this section and two of the three enhancements listed in subsections (G)(1) through (3) which follow in this section, allocations for that senior housing project shall be issued on the basis of one-fourth of one allocation for each senior housing unit to be constructed. If a senior housing project includes the seven elements listed previously in this section and all three of the enhancements listed in subsections (G)(1) through (3) which follow in this section, allocations for that senior housing project shall be issued on the basis of one-fifth of one allocation for each senior housing unit to be constructed. Enhancements are:

1. Development of congregate housing at a density that would meet the medium or high density residential standard in the general plan. at least seven dwelling units per net acre.

2. Provision of support services that would enable senior citizens who are otherwise able to live independently to remain in their homes for a longer time. Examples of such services are provision of community meals, transportation, laundry services and cleaning services.

3. Meeting the housing element inclusionary housing goal by making at least fifteen percent (15%) of the housing units affordable to households of low or very low income (less than eighty percent (80%) of the local median income for households of the same size).

16.09.040 Exemption to allocation requirements.

The following types of residential housing may be constructed without the issuance of allocations:

A. Residential housing units constructed upon parcels that were previously fully developed and which have adequate infrastructure to service the new residential development as determined by the city.
7 1
2 a
J
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
t2
13 I4
15 T6
t7
18 19
20 2l
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 B. Second housing units added to lots with single-family homes in conformance with the city zoning ordinance and applicable California law.

C. Residential housing projects which received all required development entitlements prior to enactment of this chapter.

16.09.050 Small projects.

New multi-family or single-family residential developments of four or fewer dwelling units ("small projects") will automatically receive allocations and will not be required to participate in the competitive allocation process identified in Section 16.09.060 of this chapter.

16.09.060 Competitive allocations.

A. Allocations for residential projects consisting of five or more dwelling units will compete for allocations in accordance with the process identified in this section. Each calendar year, the maximum number of allocations that can be issued through the competitive process for any one application for development entitlements to construct residential housing units is twentyfive (25) allocations for single-family housing or multiple-family housing, or thirty-five (35) allocations for mixed-density projects which include at least ten (10) single-family homes and at least ten (10) multiple-family dwelling units.

B. Applications for competitive allocations must be filed with the planning and development department on or before four o'clock p.m. on September 30th of each calendar year.

If September 30th falls on a Saturday, Sunday or holiday when the city offices are closed, the ]
time fbr filing applications for competitive allocations shall be extended to four o'clock p.m. on I I
the next business day. All applications for allocations for single family residential projects must I
I
include a tentative subdivision tractmap in a form ready to submit to the city for approval. The I development proposals identified in the applications shall be rated and ranked in accordan.. *itl I
the rating and ranking criteria identified in this chapter by planning staff during the month of ,I I October and the planning staff shall make its recommendations for competitive allocations to the I
I
planning commission.

I
I
I
I
'l
I
I
I
I
2 a
J
4 5
6 7
8 9
l0
11 l2
l3
t4
15 I6
t7
18 I9
20 2l
22 z3
24 25
26 27
28 of special-needs populations. Points will be awarded for projects that provide housing for populations that are underserved or have special needs that are not generally met in other projects. Examples include, without limitation, handicapped-accessible units or housing for senior citizens or large families. Points will be awarded to projects that:
l. Provide housing for populations that are underserved or have special needs that are not generally met in other projects, such as handicappedaccessible units or housing for senior citizens or large families;

2. Expand the range of housing choices available in the community by offering configurations, densities and/or price ranges that are not otherwise readily available ;

3. Satisff demonstrated market demands (e.g., large lots, senior housing); and

4. Utilize properties that have been bypassed because they are challenging to evelop.

Documentation may include descriptions of existing housing inventory and market conditions, demographics, explanations of challenges confronted by the developers, description or drawings of proposed housing features, etc.

D. Infrastructure and Services (Twenty-five (25) Points). Preference will be given to projects that have the most positive impacts andlor the least negative impacts on infrastructure and services provided by the city and other service entities that operate within or provide services to the city. Scoring shall be based on the following criteria:
l Proximity to existing infrastructure systems;

2. The extent of extension or expansion needed to increase the capacity of existing infrastructure to serve the proposed development and, if appropriate, future development;
12 1
2 J
4 5
6 7
8 9
l0
11 t2
13 t4
15 t6
l7
18 I9
20 2l
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 3. The willingness of the developer to enter into a reimbursement agreement if the project involves construction of master-planned facilities and such an agreement is appropriate;

4. Agreement to construct and install new oversized infrastructure and/or construct and install new infrastructure that extends beyond the developer's project in order to service future growth, with reimbursement to developer pursuant to a reimbursement agreement providing for reimbursement by future development connecting to the oversized and/or extended infrastructure;

5. Dedication of real property to the city to improve systems and services, including, without limitation, rights-of-way for streets, alleys or green belts, or sites for water wells, lift stations, drainage basins, parks, and schools sites, etc;

6. Incorporation of resource conservation features, including, without limitation, active or passive solar systems, water conservation features, drought-tolerant landscaping and energy -efficient appliances.

Documentation of infrastructure considerations and property dedications can take the form of written descriptions and commitments, maps and diagrams. Conservation features can also be documented with industry or manufacturer data and literature.

E,. Architectural Design and Aesthetic Considerations (Fifteen (15) Points).

Kingsburg continues to project an image as "the Swedish Village" which gives the city aunique identity. Residential housing should include distinctive design, quality construction and accompanying amenities. Features that will receive points through the scoring system include:

1. Custom homes or customized features on tract homes that prevent houses in the same development from appearing repetitious;

2. Fostering of neighborhood characte4
l3
I
2 a
J
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
t2
13 t4
15 t6
t7
18 t9
20 2l
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 3. Compatibility with neighboring developments (e.g., lot sizes and square footage of homes);

4. Utilization of alleys for garage access from the rear;

5. Variable front yard setbacks;

6. Landscaping of street medians and parkways;

7. Green belts with pathways for pedestrians, skaters and bicyclists;

8. Pedestrian-friendly design;

9. Bicycle lanes in appropriate locations;

10. Preservation of existing trees;
1 1. Open space and recreation facilities.

In addition to written descriptions, diagrams and maps, such documentation as elevations, renderings, floor plans and photographs of similar developments may help to illustrate the proposed project.

In the case of walled and gated communities, aesthetics and amenities that are generally viewed by and available to residents and selected guests exclusively will not be considered in scoring in this architectural design and aesthetic considerations category. Only those features that are visible to the general citizenry outside of the walled and gated community will be evaluated.

16.09.080 Phased projects.

Projects having more residential units than the maximum allocation allowable or available in a single allocation period may be phased. Allocations awarded for phased projects may include allocations awarded for the calendar year and Unused Allocations for up to two years. Approval of allocations for a phased project shall identiff the number of allocations that will be awarded by the city and used by the applicant during each phase of the project. A separate final map is not required for each phase of a residential subdivision project. Phasing requirements, including, without limitation, number of allocations available for use in each phase, numbers of units that can be constructed and timing of construction, will be enforced as conditions of approval of the tentative tract map and final tract map and as provisions of the 14 1
2 J
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
t2
13 t4
l5
r6
t7
l8
t9
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 subdivision agreement. If a multiple-family residential project includes phasing, phasing requirements including those identified in this section will be enforced through conditions of approval of the site plan or planned unit development and as provisions of the development agreement if one is required by the city. After the award of allocations for a phased project, if phased project is modified or changed in any way the provisions of Section 16.09.020c. shall apply to such modification or change.

16.09.090 Exceptions and changes.

A. The provisions of Chapter t6.40 of this title shall not apply to this chapter.

B. The city council shall have the power to increase, decrease, change or reallocate allocations by resolution of the city council.

Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its passage and shall be published in the Kingsburg Recorder within fifteen (15) days after its passage. lThe remainder of this page left blank intentionallyf
t5
I
2 a
J
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
I2
13 t4
l5
t6
t7
18 t9
20 2l
22 z)
24 25
26 27
28 NOES:

ABSTAIN
ABSENT:

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kingsburg duly called and held on the 16th day of August, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES: Council Member
Council Member
Council Member
Council Member

APPROVED
Vince P
ATTEST:

City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF FRESNO )ss

CITY OF KINGSBURG )
I, ABIGAIL PALSGAARD, City Clerk of the City of Kingsburg, do hereby certifu the foregoing ordinance was duly introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kingsburg on the August 2,2023, and duly passed and adopted at aregular meeting of said City Council held on August 16,2023.

Silva
Pursell, Jr.

North
Smith
Mayor Palomar
None
None
None
DATED: August 16,2023
t6
CT,
RESOLUTION NO. 2013-38

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KINGSBIJRG

APPROVING THE UNIT ALLOCATIONS TO ACCUMULATE FOR A PERIOD OF

THREE YEARS AND TO ALLOW EXTENDED ISSUED ALLOCATIONS FOR THE LIFE OF A TENTATIVE MAP.

WHEREAS, on November 2, 2004 the citizens of the City of Kingsburg did approve Measure N, Charter Amendment No. 2004-1 amending the City Charter to state that the City shall establish growth control regulations to place a limit on the number of residential permits which may be issued annually; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance 2005-05 adding Chapter 16.09 Growth Management System to the City Municipal Code; and,
WHEREAS, Section 16.09.020F allows the City Council to allow unused allocations to be carried over for a period of up to three years; and, WHEREAS, the unused allocations for the past three years total is 298 units; and, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Kingsburg City Council affirms that the following findings can be made:

1. That economic conditions have impacted residential growth in the City of Kingsburg

2. That economic conditions that resulted in minimal development may result in a shortage of housing units in the future.

3. That allowing unit allocations to accumulate will allow the City of Kingsburg greater flexibility to meet the pent up demand for housing that may occur in the future.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Kingsburg City Council approves the accumulation of unused allocations for a rolling period of three years.

I, Sue Bauch, City Clerk of the City of Kingsburg, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Kingsburg City Council held on the 6th day of November, 2013 by the following vote:

Ayes: Council Member(s): Creighton, Karstetter, Blayney, Roman, and Mayor Reilly Noes: Council Member(s): None

Absent: Council Member(s) None
Abstain: Council Member(s) None
Sue Much, City lerl
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-06

RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF KINGSBURG

RECOMMENDING TO THE

CITY COUNCIL THE ANNUAL AWARD OF ALLOCATIONS FOR HOUSING UNITS UNDER CHAPTER 16.09 OF THE KINGSBURG MUNICIPAL CODE

GROWTH MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
WHEREAS, on November 2, 2004 the citizens of the City of Kingsburg approved Measure N, Charter Amendment 2004-0I, amending the City Charter to state that the City shall establish growth control measures to place annual limits on the number of residential building permits which may be issued in any given year; and,
WHEREAS, in accordance with Charter Amendment2004-01, the City Council adopted Ordinance 2005-05, adding Chapter 16.09 Growth Management System to the Kingsburg Municipal Code; and,
WHEREAS, one application for 2026 housing unit allocations was received by the City in accordance with the provisions of Section 16.09.060 of the Kingsburg Municipal Code, and WHEREAS, City Staff rated and ranked the application and the development proposal identified in the application in accordance with the rating and ranking criteria set forth in Section

16.09.070 of the Kingsburg Municipal Code, and
WHEREAS, on November 13, 2025, the Planning Commission's held a duly and lawfully noticed public hearing to review City Staff s rating and ranking recommendations forthe application for competitive allocation of housing units for 2026; and WHEREAS, the award of housing units is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b(5)), as the award of housing units is an organizational or administrative activity of government that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes to the environment and therefore the award of housing units not considered a project.

NOW, THEREFORE' BE IT RESOLVED the Kingsburg Planning Commission adopts this Resolution2025-06, and recommends the Kingsburg City Council award 88 housing units as the 2026 housing unit allocations as follows:

An application (San Joaquin Valley Homes, applicant) on 29.65 acres, to develop single-family residential lots for custom home construction for a total of 88 single family residential units. The residential development under consideration for this allocation period is on 29.65 acres located at APNs 395- 030-05, 395-030-06, and 395-030-011, located southwest of Kern Street and 6th Avenue Drive.
1 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of November 2025, at a regular meeting of the Kingsburg Planning Commission of the City of Kingsburg by the following vote:

AYES: Kruper, Blayney, Brock, Gonzales, and Arceo
NOES: Taylor
ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

Kary Bartel, Planning Commission Secretary
City of Kingsburg
2 CITY OF KINGSBURG

SUBMITTAL FOR ALLOCATIONS
1 APPLICANT: DATE
ADDRESS: START DATE
TRACT #
TELEPHONE: PROJECT NAME:

E-MAIL: ________________________________________
LOCATION OF PROJECT:

APN: ______________________
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:

TOTAL ACREAGE: TOTAL UNITS: MODEL HOMES: ________
SINGLE FAMILY: MULTI-FAMILY: SENIOR: MOBILE HOME:

OWNER’S NAME:

ADDRESS:

TELEPHONE: E-MAIL:

DO YOU OWN ADJACENT PARCELS: YES NO
LOCATION: __________________________________________________________________ DEVELOPER:

ADDRESS:

TELEPHONE: E-MAIL:

Rating and ranking will be based on information submitted by the applicants in their application materials. Backup documentation and other documents and information provided by applicants which the City deems relevant to each respective project should also be included. Applicants are encouraged to submit any other materials that are relevant in supporting their applications.

2 The scoring system will be based on the following criteria:

SUITABILITY OF LOCATION UP TO 25 POINTS
The City promotes compact and efficient development. Concentric patterns of growth are preferred. Infill development within the Urban Limit Boundary is encouraged. Leapfrog development and irregular boundaries are discouraged. Islands or corridors of unincorporated territory are to be avoided. Projects will not be considered if the property identified in the application is not sufficiently contiguous to the City limits to allow for a logical and reasonable extension of the City limits as determined by the City. Using this information give details of your project. (Documentation may include a map and verbal description of location) 25 POINTS Property is within City limits
20 POINTS Infill project and is substantially surrounded by urban development 15 POINTS Property is bordered by the City on more than one side 10 POINTS Property is adjacent to the City, within the Urban Limit Boundary, allowing for logical growth
5 POINTS Property is adjacent to the City but outside the Urban Limit Boundary 0 POINTS Property is outside the Sphere of Influence and annexation is required ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ INCLUSIONARY HOUSING UP TO 15 POINTS
The adopted Housing Element of the Kingsburg General Plan has an inclusionary housing policy calling for at least 15 percent of the housing units provided by each project to be affordable to low-income or very low-income households. If the affordable units are not incorporated into the project, the developer may be able to comply with the policy by assisting the City in providing an equal number of affordable housing units elsewhere in the City by dedicating appropriate land or paying an in-lieu fee amount acceptable to the City. For each percentage point of affordable housing included in or provided for by a project, one scoring system point will be awarded up to a maximum of 15 points. (Documentation must include a detailed written commitment to provide the affordable housing described in the application. It must include calculation of the probable rental or mortgage costs of the housing units in the project proposed; calculation of the housing costs a low-income household can afford (which can be based on 80 percent of the median household incomes for Fresno County for the current year as provided by the California Department of Housing and Community Development); and an explanation of how any “gap” is the basis for determining an appropriate in-lieu fee, or an appropriate value for land to be dedicated for affordable housing purposes. If third-party subsidies are proposed through use of governmental grant funds or partnership with non-profit affordable housing organizations, the commitment on the part of any third-party entity must be documented in writing.)
3 ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

MEETING SPECIAL NEEDS, DEMONSTRATED MARKET DEMANDS AND
COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES UP TO 20 POINTS
The City’s adopted Housing Element emphasizes the accommodation of special-needs populations. Points will be awarded for projects that provide housing for populations that are underserved or have special needs that are not generally met in other projects. Examples include, without limitation, handicapped-accessible units or housing for senior citizens or large families. (Documentation may include descriptions of existing housing inventory and market conditions, demographics, explanations of challenges confronted by the developers, description or drawings of proposed housing features, etc.) Points will be awarded to projects that:

1. Provide housing for populations that are underserved or have special needs that are not generally met in other projects, such as handicapped-accessible units or housing for senior citizens or large families.

2. Expand the range of housing choices available in the community by offering configurations, densities and/or price ranges that are not otherwise readily available.

3. Satisfy demonstrated market demands (e.g. large lots, or senior housing).

4. Utilize properties that have been bypassed because they are challenging to develop.

Check any appropriate category and provide details
_______ Handicapped accessible units Senior citizen housing _______ Large family housing ______ Difficult property to develop ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 4 INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES UP TO 25 POINTS
Preference will be given to projects that have the most positive impacts and/or the least negative impacts on infrastructure and services provided by the City and other service entities that operate within or provide services to the City. (Documentation of infrastructure considerations and property dedications can take the form of written descriptions and commitments, maps and diagrams. Conservation features can also be documented with industry or manufacturer data and literature.)
Scoring shall be based on the following criteria:

1. Proximity to existing infrastructure systems.

2. The extent of extension or expansion needed to increase the capacity of existing infrastructure to serve the proposed development and, if appropriate, future development.

3. The willingness of the developer to enter into a reimbursement agreement if the project involves construction of master-planned facilities and such an agreement is appropriate.

4. Agreement to construct and install new oversized infrastructure and/or construct and install new infrastructure that extends beyond the developer’s project in order to service future growth, with reimbursement to developer pursuant to a reimbursement agreement providing for reimbursement by future development connecting to the oversized and/or extended infrastructure.

5. Dedication of real property to the City to improve systems and services, including, without limitation, rights-of-way for streets, alleys or green belts, or sites for water wells, lift stations, drainage basins, (in accordance with the Storm Drain Master Plan) parks, and schools sites, etc.

6. Incorporation of resource conservation features, including, without limitation, active or passive solar systems, water conservation features, drought-tolerant landscaping and energy-efficient appliances.

Check the appropriate category and provide details
_______ Existing infrastructure ______ Some infrastructure needed _______ Reimbursement agreement ______ Resource conservation features _______ Dedication of property for systems and services ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN AND AESTHETIC CONSIDERATIONS UP TO 15 POINTS Kingsburg continues to project an image as “The Swedish Village” which gives the City a unique identity. Residential housing should include distinctive design, quality construction and accompanying amenities. (In addition to written descriptions, diagrams and maps, such documentation as elevations, renderings, floor plans and photographs of similar developments 5 may help to illustrate the proposed project. In the case of walled and gated communities, aesthetics and amenities that are generally viewed by and available to residents and selected guests exclusively will not be considered in scoring in this Architectural Design and Aesthetic Considerations category. Only those features that are visible to the general citizenry outside of the walled and gated community will be evaluated.)
Features that will receive points through the scoring system include:

1. Custom homes or customized features on tract homes that prevent houses in the same development from appearing repetitious.

2. Fostering of neighborhood character.

3. Compatibility with neighboring developments (for example lot sizes and square footage of homes).

4. Utilization of alleys for garage access from the rear.

5. Variable front yard setbacks.

6. Landscaping of street medians and parkways.

7. Green belts with pathways for pedestrians, skaters and bicyclists.

8. Pedestrian-friendly design.

9. Bicycle lanes in appropriate locations.

10. Preservation of existing trees.

11. Open space and recreation facilities.

Check the appropriate categories and provide details.
____ Custom homes or features on tract homes that keep them from appearing repetitious ____ Landscaping of medians and parkways
____ Fostering of neighborhood character
____ Compatibility with neighboring developments
____ Utilization of alleys for rear access
____ Variable front yard setbacks
____ Greenbelts with pathways for pedestrians, skaters, and bicyclists ____ Bicycle lanes in appropriate locations
____ Preservation of existing trees
____ Open space and recreation facilities
____ Pedestrian-friendly design
__________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ 6 Projects having more residential units than the maximum allocation allowable or available in a single allocation period may be phased. Allocations for phased projects may include allocations for the calendar year and allocations for up to two years thereafter. Approval of allocations for a phased project shall identify the number of allocations that will be issued by the City and used by the applicant during each phase of the project.

A separate final map is not required for each phase of a residential subdivision project. Phasing requirements, including, without limitation, number of allocations available for use in each phase, numbers of units that can be constructed and timing of construction, will be enforced as conditions of approval of the tentative tract map and final tract map and as provisions of the subdivision agreement.

If a multiple-family residential project includes phasing, phasing requirements including those identified in this paragraph will be enforced through conditions of approval of the site plan or Planned Unit Development and as provisions of the development agreement if one is required by the City.

PHASING REQUIRED: YES NO
Please allow time for each submittal to be thoroughly reviewed. A letter of acceptance will be sent to each applicant when submittal is deemed complete. City Staff can only rate applications based on information received therefore please include all supporting documents.

ACCEPTANCE OF THIS PACKET DOES NOT DEEM AN APPLICATION COMPLETE. 7 *********************************************************************************

TYPE OF SUBMITTAL DATE
CONCEPTUAL_____________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ TENTATIVE_______________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ FINAL____________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ COMMENTS_______________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ LOCATION ________________
LOW-INCOME ________________
SPECIAL NEEDS ________________
INFRASTRUCTURE ________________
ARCHITECTURE ________________
TOTAL POINTS____________________
ALLOCATIONS AWARDED_________________________________________________________

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Date: ______________________
Reviewed by: Comments:
_________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ __________________ _________________________
__________________ _________________________
__________________ _________________________
__________________ _________________________
YourLocalHomebuilder sjvhomes.com
YourLocalHomebuilder sjvhomes.com
YourLocalHomebuilder sjvhomes.com

YourLocalHomebuilder sjvhomes.com
YourLocalHomebuilder sjvhomes.com
APN Last Name Address CID Acres
Registered
Voters City Water
Zillow
Value Yes Unknown No
395 - 030 - 05 Bains 240 Kern 15 0 X $669 X
395 - 030 - 06 Hurtado 340 Kern 4.5 2 $480 X
395 - 030 - 07 Bejarano 334 Kern 0.5 3 X $316 X
395 - 030 - 11 King 863 6th 10 1 $551 X
395 - 030 - 80 Nelson 896 6th 1.29 3 $596 X
395 - 030 - 81 Corasco 915 6th 2 $394 X
395 - 030 - 82 Vultaggio 931 6th 2.06 0 $616 X
395 - 030 - 78 Silva 981 6th 3 $468 X
395 - 030 - 40 Crnr Church 0 X
395 - 030 - 55 Reynolds 991 6th 2 $286 X
395 - 030 - 71 430 Kern 1 $395 X
395 - 030 - 72 Morton 520 Kern 1.33 1 $306 X
395-120-21 Lopez 2.5 acres potential CID impact, not in annexation New owner Derrick Lawton advised he is not interested in CID CID 16' easement potential impact, not in annexation. We believe it is not proposed track alignment. ?Î
Fresno County
?Î Tulare County

SAGINAW AVE

EIGHTEENTH AVE

SIERRA ST

BETHEL AVE

TENTH AVE

SIXTH AVE

MEHLERT ST

CONEJO AVE

MAGNOLIA
AVE

MADSEN AVE

ACADEMY AVE

DRAPER ST

TWELFTH AVE

NEVADA ST

KAMM AVE

MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE

CLARKSON AVE

TWENTIETH AVE

GOLDEN STATE BLVD

VAN HORN AVE

VENTURA ST

TULARE ST

MENDOCINO AVE

STROUD AVE NELSON AVE

DEL REY AVE
RAFER

JOHNSON DR

SAGINAW AVE

AMBER AVE

SWANSON AVE

INDIANOLA AVE

CARUTHERS AVE

BETHEL AVE

MADSEN AVE

STROUD ST

KAMM AVE

KLEPPER ST
0 0.25 0.5
Miles
General Plan Land Use
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
CH-Highway Commercial
Central Commercial
Professional Office - High Density
Light Industrial
Heavy Industrial
Semi Public
Agriculture
Open Space
Urban Reserve
Boundaries
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
General Plan Land Use Map
City of Kingsburg
6/2/2025 G:\Kingsburg_City of - 1345\134524003-OnGoing GIS Services\400 GIS\Map\Kingsburg_2025_Tasks\Kingsburg_2025_Tasks.aprx o
Prepared By
As of June 2025
?Î
Fresno County
?Î Tulare County

SAGINAW AVE

EIGHTEENTH AVE

SIERRA ST

BETHEL AVE

TENTH AVE

SIXTH AVE

MEHLERT ST

CONEJO AVE

MAGNOLIA
AVE

MADSEN AVE

ACADEMY AVE

DRAPER ST

TWELFTH AVE

NEVADA ST

KAMM AVE

MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE

CLARKSON AVE

TWENTIETH AVE

GOLDEN STATE BLVD

VAN HORN AVE

VENTURA ST

TULARE ST

MENDOCINO AVE

STROUD AVE NELSON AVE

DEL REY AVE
RAFER

JOHNSON DR

SAGINAW AVE

AMBER AVE

SWANSON AVE

INDIANOLA AVE

CARUTHERS AVE

BETHEL AVE

MADSEN AVE

STROUD ST

KAMM AVE

KLEPPER ST
0 0.25 0.5
Miles
City of Kingsburg Zoning
R-1-7 Single Family
R-1-10 Single Family
R-1-20 Single Family
RM2/PO Multifamily
RM-3 Multifamily
RM-5.5 Multifamily
RM-MH Mobile Home
CH Highway Commercial
CC Central Commercial
PO Professional Office
IL Light Industrial
IH Heavy Industrial
RCO Open Space
Need Designation
Boundaries
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Zoning Map
City of Kingsburg
6/2/2025 G:\Kingsburg_City of - 1345\134524003-OnGoing GIS Services\400 GIS\Map\Kingsburg_2025_Tasks\Kingsburg_2025_Tasks.aprx o
Prepared By
As of June 2025
YourLocalHomebuilder sjvhomes.com
YourLocalHomebuilder sjvhomes.com
YourLocalHomebuilder sjvhomes.com

YourLocalHomebuilder sjvhomes.com
YourLocalHomebuilder sjvhomes.com

Willow Glen Master Schedule
Exported on September 9, 2025 1:02:54 PM PDT Page 1 of
1 YourLocalHomebuilder sjvhomes.com

ENGINEERING

BEDROCK
A solid foundation for your next project
Land Surveying ● Civil Engineering ● Utility Locating
YourLocalHomebuilder sjvhomes.com

ENGINEERING

BEDROCK
Land Surveying ● Civil Engineering ● Utility Locating
A solid foundation for your next project
YourLocalHomebuilder sjvhomes.com
SJVH - Kingsburg 1875 CONCEPT

PLAN DETAILS
• 2 CAR GARAGE (3 CAR OPTION)
• FRONT LOAD
• WRAP-AROUND PORCH
• 2 STORY
SJVH - Kingsburg 2076 CONCEPT

PLAN DETAILS
• 2 CAR GARAGE (3 CAR OPTION)
• FRONT LOAD
• WRAP-AROUND PORCH
• 2 STORY
Elevation A
Elevation B
Elevation C

EQUAL HOUSING

OPPORTUNITY
San Joaquin Valley Homes reserves the right to change prices, financing, plans, specifications, features, square footage, product availability and other terms without prior notice.

Any such changes may not be reflected in the models as built. Floorplans and elevations are an artist’s rendering, are not to scale, and are not intended to be an actual depiction of the home, fencing, walls, driveways or landscaping. This plan has a copyright © by San Joaquin Valley Homes and may not be reproduced without written consent.

CalDRE Corporation 02249463. REV AND 071625
Carmel
1735 sq ft • Single Story
3 Bedroom • 2 Bath
The Valley is Our Home • sjvhomes.com

PRELIMINARY
W D

LAUNDRY

WALK-IN

WALK-IN
LINEN
COAT

WALK-IN
PORCH
PORCH
ENTRY

COVERED PATIO
DINING
DW
REF

KITCHEN SNACK BAR
BATH
2 HALL
HALL

GREAT ROOM
OWNER’S
BATH
OWNER’S SUITE
2-CAR GARAGE
BEDROOM 3
BEDROOM 2

TUB/ SHOWER
WH
LINEN

OPTONAL FRENCH DOOR

DOOR OPTION

CABS & SINK

OPTIONS

PANTRY BENCH
OPTION

ELEVATIONS A & C

ELEVATION B
OWNER’S

SPLIT TUB/SHOWER
OPTION
TUB

TUB/ SHOWER
LINEN
Elevation A
Elevation B
Elevation C

EQUAL HOUSING

OPPORTUNITY
San Joaquin Valley Homes reserves the right to change prices, financing, plans, specifications, features, square footage, product availability and other terms without prior notice.

Any such changes may not be reflected in the models as built. Floorplans and elevations are an artist’s rendering, are not to scale, and are not intended to be an actual depiction of the home, fencing, walls, driveways or landscaping. This plan has a copyright © by San Joaquin Valley Homes and may not be reproduced without written consent.

CalDRE Corporation 02249463. REV AND 071625
Sydney
1930 sq ft • Single Story
3-4 Bedroom • 2-3 Bath
The Valley is Our Home • sjvhomes.com

PRELIMINARY
W D

OPTIONAL

FRENCH DOORS

CABINET
OPTION

OPTIONAL

FRENCH DOOR

OPTIONAL

DUAL SINKS

OPTIONAL

FRENCH DOORS

LAUNDRY

WALK-IN
PORCH
ENTRY

COVERED PATIO
DINING
REF

KITCHEN

PANTRY COAT/LINEN
BATH
2 BATH
2 HALL
HALL

GREAT ROOM
OWNER’S
BATH
OWNER’S SUITE
2-CAR GARAGE
BEDROOM 3
(GUEST SUITE OPTION)
BEDROOM 2
(OFFICE OPTION)
BEDROOM 2
BEDROOM 4
(GUEST SUITE OPTION)
TUB/
SHOWER
LINEN
LINEN
DOOR
OPTION
WH
CAB
OPTION

SITTING AREA
BATH 3

GUEST SUITE
GUEST SUITE & BATH 3 OPTION
(BEDROOMS 3 & 4)
OWNER’S

SPLIT TUB/SHOWER
OPTION
TUB
OFFICE OPTION (BEDROOM 2)
DW

SNACK BAR
TUB

TUB/ SHOWER
LINEN
BATH
2 BEDROOM 2
LINEN

SITTING AREA
BATH 3

GUEST SUITE

OPTIONAL OPT ON L

DUAL SINKS D AL S K
BATH
2 HALL
BEDROOM 3 (GUEST SUITE OPTION) BEDROOM 4 (GUEST SUITE OPTION) Elevation A
Elevation B
Elevation C

EQUAL HOUSING

OPPORTUNITY
San Joaquin Valley Homes reserves the right to change prices, financing, plans, specifications, features, square footage, product availability and other terms without prior notice.

Any such changes may not be reflected in the models as built. Floorplans and elevations are an artist’s rendering, are not to scale, and are not intended to be an actual depiction of the home, fencing, walls, driveways or landscaping. This plan has a copyright © by San Joaquin Valley Homes and may not be reproduced without written consent.

CalDRE Corporation 02249463. REV AND 071625
Naples
2105 sq ft • Single Story
3-4 Bedroom • 2.5-3.5 Bath
The Valley is Our Home • sjvhomes.com

PRELIMINARY
D
WH
W
OWNER’S BATH OPTION

WITH SPLIT TUB/SHOWER
OWNER’S
BATH

LAUNDRY
PORCH
ENTRY

COVERED PATIO
DINING
DW
REF

KITCHEN

PANTRYSNACK BAR
BATH 2
HALL
HALL

GREAT ROOM
OWNER’S SUITE
3-CAR GARAGE
BEDROOM 2
BEDROOM 4
(GUEST SUITE/

DEN OPTION)
BEDROOM 3
(GUEST SUITE/

OFFICE OPTION)

DEN OPTION
(BED 4)
HALL

GUEST BED
(BED 4)

GUEST LIVING
(BED 3)
GUEST SUITE & BATH 3
OPTION
(BED 3 & 4)
BATH 3
TUB/
SHOWER

WALK-IN
POWDER
COAT
LINEN
TUB

OPTIONAL

FRENCH DOORS

OPTIONAL

FRENCH DOORS

DOOR OPTION

OPTIONAL

FRENCH DOORS

OPTIONAL

DUAL SINKS STORAGE
LINEN
LINEN
OPTION

OPTIONAL

BASE CAB
SINK &

CAB OPTIONS
LINEN
OPTION

ELEVATION A
PORCH

ELEVATION C
PORCH

ELEVATION B

OFFICE OPTION
(BED 3)
HALL
BEDROOM 4 (GUEST SUITE/

DEN OPTION)
BEDROOM 3 (GUEST SUITE/

OFFICE OPTION)

STORAGE
HALL

GUEST BED
(BED 4)

GUEST LIVING
(BED 3)
BATH 3
LINEN
OPTION

OPTIONAL

BASE CAB

DEN OPTION
(BED 4)

OPTIONAL

FRENCH DOORS

OFFICE OPTION
(BED 3)
TUB
Elevation A
Elevation B
Elevation C

ELEVATION A
CABS
& SINK
OPTION
BENCH
OPTION
UPPER
CABS
OPTION

OPTIONAL FRENCH DOORS

OPTIONAL FRENCH DOORS

OPTIONAL

FRENCH DOOR

DOOR OPTION
W
D
WH

EQUAL HOUSING

OPPORTUNITY
San Joaquin Valley Homes reserves the right to change prices, financing, plans, specifications, features, square footage, product availability and other terms without prior notice.

Any such changes may not be reflected in the models as built. Floorplans and elevations are an artist’s rendering, are not to scale, and are not intended to be an actual depiction of the home, fencing, walls, driveways or landscaping. This plan has a copyright © by San Joaquin Valley Homes and may not be reproduced without written consent.

CalDRE Corporation 02249463. REV ANDP 071625
Aspen
2266 sq ft • Single Story
3-4 Bedroom • 2.5 Bath
The Valley is Our Home • sjvhomes.com

PRELIMINARY
PORCH

OPTIONAL

DUAL SINKS

LAUNDRY

WALK-IN

WALK-IN

WALK-IN

MUD COAT
ROOM
ENTRY
PORCH

COVERED PATIO DINING
DW
REF

KITCHEN

PANTRY SNACK BAR
BATH 2
HALL
HALL

GALLERY

GREAT ROOM
OWNER’S
BATH
OWNER’S SUITE
3-CAR GARAGE
BEDROOM 4
BEDROOM 3
BEDROOM 2
(OFFICE OPTION)
LINEN

OFFICE OPTION
(BED 2)

TUB/ SHOWER LINEN
POWDER

ELEVATION B ELEVATION C
PORCH

OPTIONAL FRENCH DOORS
LINEN
OFFICE OPTION (BED 2)

SPLIT TUB/
SHOWER
TUB
TILED

DRY AREA
TILED

DRY AREA
OWNER’S BATH OPTIONS
LOW
WALL

EXTENDED

WALK-IN
SHOWER

EXTENDED

WALK-IN
SHOWER
WITH

LOW WALL
TILED

DRY AREA
TILED

DRY AREA
Elevation A
Elevation B
Elevation C

EQUAL HOUSING

OPPORTUNITY
San Joaquin Valley Homes reserves the right to change prices, financing, plans, specifications, features, square footage, product availability and other terms without prior notice.

Any such changes may not be reflected in the models as built. Floorplans and elevations are an artist’s rendering, are not to scale, and are not intended to be an actual depiction of the home, fencing, walls, driveways or landscaping. This plan has a copyright © by San Joaquin Valley Homes and may not be reproduced without written consent.

CalDRE Corporation 02249463. REV AND 070125
Carlton II
2350 sq ft • Single Story
3-4 Bedroom • 2.5-3.5 Bath
The Valley is Our Home • sjvhomes.com

PRELIMINARY
D W
WH

OPTIONAL

FRENCH DOORS

OPTIONAL

FRENCH DOOR
TILED

DRY AREA
LOW
WALL

EXTENDED

WALK-IN
SHOWER

EXTENDED

WALK-IN SHOWER

WITH LOW WALL
TILED

DRY AREA

WALK-IN

WALK-IN

ELEVATIONS A & B
OWNER’S
BATH
3-CAR GARAGE
BEDROOM 4
(CASITA/GUEST/

DEN OPTIONS)

TUB/ SHOWER

COVERED PATIO DINING
DW
REF

KITCHEN
PANTRY

SNACK BAR

GREAT ROOM
OWNER’S SUITE
DOOR
OPTION

OPTIONAL

FRENCH DOOR

HALF WALL
LINEN
LINEN
CAB
POWDER

SPLIT TUB/
SHOWER
OPTION

LAUNDRY PORCH

COURTYARD
ENTRY
BATH 2
HALL
HALL
BEDROOM 2
BEDROOM 3
BENCH
OPTION

OPTIONAL

DUAL SINKS

SINK & CAB

OPTIONS

DRAWER/SHELVES
OPTION

COAT/LINEN

DEN OPTION
(BED 4)

ELEVATION C
PORCH
ARCH
ARCH

LOW WALL
TUB
OWNER’S BATH OPTIONS

TUB/ SHOWER
LIN
TILED

DRY AREA
TILED

DRY AREA
TUB

WALK-IN
BEDROOM 4 (CASITA/GUEST/

DEN OPTIONS)
BATH 2
HALL

OPTIONAL O TION L DUAL SINKS DUAL I KS

COAT/LINEN

OPTIONAL

FRENCH DOOR

DEN OPTION
(BED 4)

EQUAL HOUSING

OPPORTUNITY
San Joaquin Valley Homes reserves the right to change prices, financing, plans, specifications, features, square footage, product availability and other terms without prior notice.

Any such changes may not be reflected in the models as built. Floorplans and elevations are an artist’s rendering, are not to scale, and are not intended to be an actual depiction of the home, fencing, walls, driveways or landscaping. This plan has a copyright © by San Joaquin Valley Homes and may not be reproduced without written consent.

CalDRE Corporation 02249463. REV AND 070125
Carlton II
2350 sq ft • Single Story
Guest and Casita Options
The Valley is Our Home • sjvhomes.com

PRELIMINARY
WD

OPTIONAL

WET BAR

OPTIONAL

FRENCH DOOR

CASITA OPTION
(BED 4)

GUEST OPTION
(BED 4)
BATH 2
BATH 3

WALK-IN
CASITA/BATH 2/BATH 3
OPTION
GUEST/BATH 2/BATH 3
OPTION
BATH 3
BATH 2
HALL

OPTIONAL

FRENCH DOOR

GUEST OPTION
(BED 4)
BATH 3
BATH 2
HALL
WD

OPTIONAL

WET BAR

CASITA OPTION
(BED 4)
BATH 2
BATH 3

WALK-IN
Elevation A
Elevation B
Elevation C

EQUAL HOUSING

OPPORTUNITY
San Joaquin Valley Homes reserves the right to change prices, financing, plans, specifications, features, square footage, product availability and other terms without prior notice.

Any such changes may not be reflected in the models as built. Floorplans and elevations are an artist’s rendering, are not to scale, and are not intended to be an actual depiction of the home, fencing, walls, driveways or landscaping. This plan has a copyright © by San Joaquin Valley Homes and may not be reproduced without written consent.

CalDRE Corporation 02249463. AND REV 071725
Aspen with Loft
2855 sq ft • Two Story
3-5 Bedroom • 2.5-3.5 Bath
The Valley is Our Home • sjvhomes.com

PRELIMINARY DESK OPTION

DESK OPTION
W
D
LOFT
(BED 5 AND BATH 3 OPTION)

ELEVATION A

OPTIONAL

FRENCH DOORS

OPTIONAL

FRENCH DOOR

OPTIONAL FRENCH DOORS

DOOR OPTION
POWDER

WALK-IN

WALK-IN

WALK-IN
WH
ENTRY
HALL
HALL

LAUNDRY GALLERY
DINING
DW
REF

KITCHEN
PANTRY
LINEN
COAT
SNACK BAR BATH 2

GREAT ROOM

COVERED PATIO
OWNER’S
BATH
OWNER’S SUITE
BEDROOM 2
(OFFICE OPTION)
OFFICE OPTION (BED 2)
3-CAR GARAGE
BEDROOM 3
BEDROOM 4
UP

TUB SHOWER
LOFT BED 5
BATH
3 DOWN

TUB/ SHOWER

OPTIONAL
CABS
& SINK

OPTIONAL

DUAL SINKS

OPTIONAL OPENINGS
LINEN
PORCH
TUB
TILED

DRY AREA
TILED

DRY AREA
TILED

DRY AREA
TILED

DRY AREA

SPLIT TUB/
SHOWER
LOW
WALL

EXTENDED

WALK-IN
SHOWER

EXTENDED

WALK-IN SHOWER

WITH LOW WALL
OWNER’S
BATH

OPTIONS

PORCH PORCH

ELEVATION B ELEVATION C LINEN TUB/ SHOWER

OPTIONAL FRENCH DOORS
OFFICE OPTION (BED 2)
LINEN
COAT BEDROOM 2
(OFFICE OPTION)

DESK OPTION

TUB SHOWER
LOFT BED 5
BATH
3 DOWN

OPTIONAL OPENINGS
W
D
POWDER
HALL

LAUNDRY GALLERY
REF
KITCH

PANTRYSN

OPTIONAL O I NAL
CABS
& SINK

WALK-IN

COAT BEDRO
YourLocalHomebuilder sjvhomes.com
YourLocalHomebuilder sjvhomes.com
YourLocalHomebuilder sjvhomes.com
YourLocalHomebuilder sjvhomes.com
ATTACHMENT 5
Discussion:

One project was submitted for the 2026 allocation process. Due to the preliminary nature of the submissions, Staff is scoring the applications based on information submitted by the applicant with the knowledge that given the requirements of the development standards for master planning, and with the need for annexation for this submittal,, the proposed project will contain more of the required details needed for approval at the time that they submit for entitlements.

SUITABILITY OF LOCATION (25 points possible)
Criteria from the allocation application form: The City promotes compact and efficient development. Concentric patterns of growth are preferred. Infill development within the Urban Limit Boundary is encouraged. Leapfrog development and irregular boundaries are discouraged. Islands or corridors of unincorporated territory are to be avoided.

Projects will not be considered if the property identified in the application is not sufficiently contiguous to the City limits to allow for a logical and reasonable extension of the City limits as determined by the City. Using this information give details of your project. (Documentation may include a map and verbal description of location.) 25 POINTS Property is within City limits.
20 POINTS Infill project sufficiently surrounded by urban development. 15 POINTS Property is bordered by the City on more than one side. 10 POINTS Property is adjacent to the City within the Urban Limit Boundary. 5 POINTS Property is adjacent to the City but outside the Urban Limit Boundary. 0 POINTS Property is outside the Sphere of Influence and annexation is required.

Analysis:

The points system places emphasis on concentric and infill development and minimization of negative impacts to infrastructure and services. The San Joaquin Valley Homes project is bordered on two sides by the City (North and East), adjacent to the City, but outside the City Limits. It is in the Kingsburg Sphere of Influence. The project will need annexation, which is a separate action and set of entitlements.

San Joaquin Valley Homes= 20 points
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING (15 points possible)
Criteria from the allocation application form: The adopted Housing Element of the Kingsburg General Plan has an inclusionary housing policy calling for at least 15 percent of the housing units provided by each project to be affordable to low-income or very lowincome households. If the affordable units are not incorporated into the project, the developer may be able to comply with the policy by assisting the City in providing an equal number of affordable housing units elsewhere in the City by dedicating appropriate land or paying an in-lieu fee amount acceptable to the City. For each percentage point of affordable housing included in or provided for by a project, one scoring system point will be awarded up to a maximum of 15 points.

Analysis: The proposed project contains no affordable housing units. Responses from applicants to this allocation item over time are that they are supportive of inclusionary housing but do not include inclusionary products. The City is aware of the challenges in meeting this criteria.

In the context of housing, there is a difference between having a wide range of housing affordability, driven by size of the lot, house and pricing, and what is termed inclusionary housing. Currently inclusionary housing is driven by complex tax credits and is a specialty of certain developers, often those who have many similar regional projects . A suggestion would be to alter this criteria for a future allocation period to award points based on a wide range of housing options (multifamily, large lot, etc) rather than use the term ‘inclusionary’ or ‘affordable housing,’ terms that mean, for the time being, the involvement of a particular type of specialized financing.

Primary planning documents (the recently adopted Housing Element, the recent General Plan Update, and the North Kingsburg Specific Plan) encourage the approval of a variety of housing types and styles. The reality is that builders tend to specialize in a certain type of housing, so the City would benefit from further analysis as to how that goal can be accomplished.

This has been a consistent zero points scoring for most of the allocation applications that the City has reviewed over the years. It may be time to alter the criteria to reflect what might be more achievable with current building and financing practices. This would require an ordinance amendment to give guidance to project developers and staff to change this criteria in this rating and ranking template, as it is in the Municipal Code.

San Joaquin Valley Homes=0 points
MEETING NEEDS, DEMANDS AND OBJECTIVES (20 points possible) Criteria from the allocation application form: The City’s adopted Housing Element emphasizes the accommodation of special-needs populations. Points will be awarded for projects that provide housing for populations that are underserved or have special needs that are not generally met in other projects. Examples include, without limitation, handicapped-accessible units or housing for senior citizens or large families. (Documentation may include descriptions of existing housing inventory and market conditions, demographics, explanations of challenges confronted by the developers, descriptions or drawings of proposed housing features, etc.) Points will be awarded to projects that:

1. Provide housing for populations that are underserved or have special needs that are not generally met in other projects, such as handicapped-accessible units or housing for senior citizens or large families.

2. Expand the range of housing choices available in the community by offering configurations, densities and/or price ranges that are not otherwise readily available.

3. Satisfy demonstrated market demands (e.g. large lots, senior housing).

4. Utilize properties that have been bypassed because they are challenging to develop.

Analysis:

Four specific criteria are cited. If all are weighted equally, five points are available for each category.

The proposed project by San Joaquin Valley Homes has a variety of plans that have a greater variety of offerings, from plans that allow for larger families to empty nesters and senior citizens for their smaller floor plans. They also say that they will accommodate residents who are handicapped. Ten points were credited to this part of the ranking process.

Finally, the narrative offered by the applicant attested to challenges developing the property. This has been demonstrated in discussions with SKF, which have been resolved. The annexation process will be lengthy and resource-intensive, as is typical with that process.

San Joaquin Valley Homes= 15 points
INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES (25 points possible)
Criteria from the allocation application form: Preference will be given to projects that have the most positive impacts and/or the least negative impacts on infrastructure and services provided by the City and other service entities that operate within or provide services to the City. Documentation of infrastructure considerations and property dedications can take the form of written descriptions and commitments, maps and diagrams. Conservation features can also be documented with industry or manufacturer data and literature.

Scoring shall be based on the following criteria:

1. Proximity to existing infrastructure systems.

2. The extent of extension or expansion needed to increase the capacity of existing infrastructure to serve the proposed development and, if appropriate, future development.

3. The willingness of the developer to enter into a reimbursement agreement if the project involves construction of master-planned facilities and such an agreement is appropriate.

4. Agreement to construct and install new oversized infrastructure and/or construct and install new infrastructure that extends beyond the developer’s project in order to service future growth, with reimbursement to the developer pursuant to a reimbursement agreement providing for reimbursement by future development connecting to the oversized and/or extended infrastructure.

5. Dedication of real property to the City to improve systems and services, including, without limitation, rights-of-way for streets, alleys or green belts, or sites for water wells, lift stations, drainage basins (in accordance with the Storm Drain Master Plan), parks, and schools sites, etc.

6. Incorporation of resource conservation features, including, without limitation, active or passive solar systems, water conservation features, drought-tolerant landscaping and energy-efficient appliances.

Analysis:

This application indicates a willingness to dedicate property for systems and services, and will work with the City on any necessary reimbursement agreements and oversized improvements that benefit future growth. Dedications of real property for rights of way and public utilities were mentioned in their analysis. The project will have water-efficient landscaping, energy-efficient appliances and will include the required solar capability.

San Joaquin Valley Homes= 20
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN AND AESTHETIC CONSIDERATIONS (15 points possible)
Criteria from the allocation application form: Kingsburg continues to project an image as “The Swedish Village” which gives the City a unique identity. Residential housing should include distinctive design, quality construction and accompanying amenities. In addition to written descriptions, diagrams and maps, such documentation as elevations, renderings, floor plans and photographs of similar developments may help to illustrate the proposed project. In the case of walled and gated communities, aesthetics and amenities that are generally viewed by and available to residents and selected guests exclusively will not be considered in scoring in this Architectural Design and Aesthetic Considerations category. Only those features that are visible to the general citizenry outside of the walled and gated community will be evaluated.

Features that will receive points through the scoring system include:

1. Custom homes or customized features on tract homes that prevent houses in the same development from appearing repetitious.

2. Fostering of neighborhood character.

3. Compatibility with neighboring developments (for example lot sizes and square footage of homes).

4. Utilization of alleys for garage access from the rear.

5. Variable front yard setbacks.

6. Landscaping of street medians and parkways.

7. Green belts with pathways for pedestrians, skaters and bicyclists.

8. Pedestrian-friendly design.

9. Bicycle lanes in appropriate locations.

10. Preservation of existing trees.

11. Open space and recreation facilities.
(Specific examples are cited: custom homes or features on tract homes that keep them from appearing repetitious; fostering of neighborhood character; compatibility with neighboring developments; utilization of alleys for rear access; variable front yard setbacks; landscaping of medians and parkways; greenbelts with pathways for pedestrians, skaters and bicyclists; open space and recreation facilities; and pedestrianfriendly design.) Analysis:

The project will be held to development standards under current planning documents for single family residential projects. These standards include all the above requirements, and the project description indicates an understanding of those design standards, the required amenities and a willingness to comply with them. The project has proposed a gated community surrounded by a 6 foot decorative block wall which will include a HOA governance structure. Although no alleys have been proposed, some design features are proposed, such as opposite frontage garage and front door entries on corner lots, the staggering of models and setbacks and a proposed .88 acre park which shall be built within the subdivision. The project will agree to install a beacon-protected crosswalk at the intersection of Kern Street and Rafer Johnson Drive to serve pedestrian traffic generated by this development. This application included elevations and renderings.

San Joaquin Valley Homes= 15 points

RECOMMENDED
POINTS

SUMMARY
Points
Available/Category
Total
Residential
Possible
Points
San
Joaquin
Valley
Homes
25 Location 25 20
15 Inclusionary housing 150
20 Needs, demands,
objectives
2015
25 Infrastructure and
services
25 20
15 Design and aesthetics 15 15
100 TOTAL 100 70
ATTACHMENT 6
Year Project Single
Family MF SF MF SF MF SF MF
2012
Chelsea (3) - Now Linnaea
(units expired) 48
2015 Lennar - 6094 34
Crinklaw - 6122 (phase 1) 60
Crinklaw - 6167 (phase 3/4) 121
Erickson - 6151 (CC) 64
2017 Kingsburg Housing LLC
(Tract 6141) - Crown 44
2018 Linnaea Villas 60
2018 Sohal (2*) 21
2018 Crinklaw - 6242 (phase 2) 59
2018 Summerlyn 24
2024 Crinklaw - Phase V 105 80(1) 25(1)
2024 AMG 99 25
2025 Crown 44 44
2026 San Joaquin Valley Homes 88 88
Allocations Applied for 532 108 105 25 69 0 88 0
Annual Allocations 80 35 80 35 80 35
UNUSED ALLOCATIONS 240 80 11 0 35
Notes
• Each year, 115 units are allocated. Of those, 70% are reserved for Single Family dwellings (80 units) and 30% for Multi Family dwellings (35 units) • Of the 80 single family units, 20 should be reserved for lots over 10,000 sf in size. (1) Units assigned over multiple years
(2) Allocation expired - project not built
(3) As an incentive, senior housing projects are assessed at 1/2 a "normal" unit *2025 Allocation availability is dependent upon Council action on current request 2026
2026
2025
2025
2016
Total Unit Requests 2024
2024

1 RESOLUTION 2025-065

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KINGSBURG

APPROVING THE AWARD OF ALLOCATION FOR HOUSING UNITS UNDER CHAPTER 16.09, OF THE KINGSBURG MUNICIPAL CODE

GROWTH MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
WHEREAS, on November 2, 2004 the citizens of the City of Kingsburg approved Measure N, Charter Amendment 2004-01, amending the City Charter to state that the City shall establish growth control regulations to place a limit on the number of residential permits which may be issued annually; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance 2005-05, adding Chapter 16.09 Growth Management System to the City Municipal Code; and,
WHEREAS, an application for the allocation of housing units wasreceived from San Joaquin Valley Homes, which met the requirements for the competitive allocation process per Section 16.09.060 of the Kingsburg Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, Staff evaluated the housing project according to the Rating and Ranking Criteria per

16.09.070 of the Kingsburg Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS a public hearing for the City Council’s consideration of issuance of allocations for housing units was properly noticed in accordance with applicable law by posting the notice of public hearing at the City of Kingsburg City Hall Bulletin Board, placing the notice of public hearing on the City of Kingsburg website and publishing the notice of public hearing in the Business Journal; and
WHEREAS, the allocation of housing units under 16.09.060 of the Kingsburg Municipal Code is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5), and is not considered a project. The issuance of allocations for housing units is a government administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment; and
WHEREAS, the Kingsburg Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the issuance of allocation of 88 housing units requested by San Joaquin Valley Homes at their November 13, 2025 meeting; received public testimony, and reviewed the staff report on this matter; and WHEREAS, upon completion of the public hearing the Kingsburg Planning Commission recommended to the Kingsburg City Council approval of the award of the allocation of 88 housing units to San Joaquin Valley Homes.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Kingsburg City Council affirms the recommendation of the Kingsburg Planning Commission and approves the award of the allocation of 88 housing units to San Joaquin Valley Homes for the 2026 calendar year. 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kingsburg duly called and held on the 3rd day of December 2025, by the following vote:

AYES: Council Member(s):

NOES: Council Member(s):

ABSENT: Council Member(s):

ABSTAIN: Council Member(s):

ATTEST:

Abigail Palsgaard, City Clerk
Growth
Management
Ordinance and
Allocation Process
DECEMBER 3, 2025
Background
o Early 2000s saw a residential growth boom in Central Valley o Kingsburg community had concern over rapid growth, namely:
o Losing the small-town feel
o Overtaxing city resources
o Traffic and school impacts
Growth Management Ordinance
o 2004 Ballot Measure N is proposed (Resolution 2004-52, Special Election; Approved 81.47%)
o Implemented voter-approved Growth Management System,
unique to Central Valley cities
o Goal was to ensure that growth matched city size, resources and service capabilities
o Implementation process details were needed, not included in original ordinance
What Are Allocations?
• “Allocation” is the right to apply for a building permit to construct one single family residence or one multifamily residential housing unit. • Applications are due annually by September 30th seeking approvals for the upcoming year.
• Council will choose to either open or not to open a second round of allocations at 1st February meeting to consider award of any unused allocations from previous application period.

Implementation of Ordinance
115 housing units (allocations) are available each year • 80 are for single family residential units; 35 are for multifamily residential units • Projects of 4 or fewer units do not need allocations
• Multifamily or mobile home parks can pull from a three-year allocation upon request
• Senior Housing projects are calculated at ½ of one allocation unit • Phasing allowed for large projects exceeding yearly allocations. • Phased projects may use allocations for current + 2 additional years.

Ordinance Changes Allocation Process
Consequence of economic downturn; backlog of Allocation Units Ordinance amended with the following items:
◦ Unused allocations may be carried over up to 3 years (2007). ◦ Unused allocations issued only on designated dates.
◦ Timelines associated with entitlements added (2023); meant to force developers to meet certain deadlines or allocations are forfeited.

Additional Notes on Process
• Allocation application is free to applicant, involves significant investment in staff time and public hearings (explanation of process, application evaluation, PC & CC presentations) • Housing and Community Development (HCD) has accepted the process for current Housing Element Cycle, not viewed as constraint to housing approval
• Phasing can involve up to 5-years of allocations (3 years of carryovers plus 2 forward years); has not been used and is based upon council’s approval of total allocations for specific years.

Population Change in Kingsburg 2000-2025
2000-2010 Avg. 2.14%
2010-2020 Avg. 0.84%
2020-2025 Avg. 1.57%
2000-2025 Avg. 1.48%
Based upon population estimates from CA Dept. of Finance: https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/ Allocation application for 2026
Applicant: San Joaquin Valley Homes (developer of Summerlyn Subdivision) 88-lot subdivision on 29.65 acres
Gated community concept
Minimum 7,000 SF Lots; Avg. lot size is 8,154 SF (map is conceptual only) Internal Park
Will pay into Community Facilities District (CFD); New Tax Zone Required Will be Homeowner’s Association model
Project Conceptual Map
What is needed for Review/Approval?

1. Allocations awarded

2. Environmental Document 10-12 weeks for preparation, additional studies may add 2 months

3. Tentative Map and Planned Unit Development and request for Annexation submittal, review and hearing by Planning
Commission & City Council

4. Application to Fresno LAFCo (County) to consider annexation

5. Back to City for Final map and Development Agreement approval by Council
Week: Site Plan Review
approx 8 weeks Week 9-18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52-55 Task
City of Kingsburg
Site Plan Review
Submission and
Allocation Process
Environmental analysis,
including studies
Report preparation
Response to comments
Site Plan Review
Conditions
Preparation of report to
Planning Comm.

Preparation of report to
City Council
City Council
hearing (2)
LAFCo
LAFCO Pre-Application
Meeting
Prepare LAFCo
application
Submit LAFCo
application (3)
LAFCo reviews
application
LAFCo public
hearing
Record annexation
Final Map to
Council
Notes:

1. Planning Commission makes a recommendation on the General Plan Amendment, Zoning PUD, CUP, Anexxation, Map

2. City Council takes action on the annexation, General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Map

3. Signed CC Reso needed for the Environmental, Map, Annexation, PUD. Ordinance for the GPA, Prezone RED = Public Input
Opportunities
Public review of Environmental
Planning Commission hearing (1)
Next Steps
• Allocation is the first step in the process.
• Typical project of this complexity takes 1.5-2 years to complete. • Much depends on quality of submittal.
• Next step is this Council hearing, then preparation and public review of environmental document.

Questions? Questions?
City Contact:

Holly Owen, Community Development Director
[email protected]

CITY COUNCIL MEETING STAFF REPORT
REPORT TO: Mayor Pursell & Kingsburg City Council
REPORT FROM: Holly Owen, AICP- Community Development Director REVIEWED BY: AJH AGENDA ITEM: Planned Unit Development 2025-01 and Mitigated Negative Declaration for 44 Single-family Residential Lots in the City of Kingsburg
ACTION REQUESTED: Ordinance  Resolution  Motion ___ Receive/File

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The applicant, Crown Construction and Development, Inc., 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. Adopt Resolution 2025-066, approving the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project, and

2. Review and approve the action of Planning Commission regarding the Planned Unit Development for the project comprising 15.03 acres as recommended by the Planning Commission at its meeting of November 13, 2025.

Staff has determined that the project 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 project is in the City Limits, so no annexation is required.

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 2025-066, approving the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring Program for a 44 lot single-family residential project on APN 394-021-42.

2. Adopt Resolution 2025-067 affirming the Planning Commission approval of the Planned Unit Development (PUD 2025-01) for the project, which involves single-family residential uses and Meeting Date:

Agenda Item:
12/03/2025
13 associated open space features.

FINANCIAL INFORMATION

PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW
Prior to obtaining land use entitlements, the applicant received an “award allocations” of 44 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 housing allocations for 44 single family residential units for the subject property in 2024.

The project was previously entitled as a subdivision a number of years ago, but the entitlements lapsed and the new owner was required to renew all entitlements. The new owner (Joseph Crown) attended Site Plan Review on April 22, 2025, and agreed to all conditions of approval for the project.

At their regularly scheduled meeting on November 13, 2025, the Planning Commission approved the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Planned Unit Development and Tentative Subdivision Map No. 6499.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The subject property is located on the between Kamm and Klepper Avenues in Kingsburg, west of the current Century Communities subdivision. The APN is 394-021-42. Maps for the project are below and as Attachment

1. Aerial Overlay Aerial Overlay of Proposed Map
Detailed information on each planning application is as follows:

FISCAL IMPACT:

1. Is There A Fiscal Impact?

2. Is it Currently Budgeted?

3. If Budgeted, Which Line?
Yes
Yes
Varies

Tentative Tract Map (Informational only, no action at this time by Council until final subdivision map approval): The Crown Construction and Development Inc. Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM) on APN 394- 021-42, a parcel of approximately 15.03 acres in size approved by the Planning Commission at its meeting on November 13, 2025 subdivides the project property into 44 single family residential lots, meeting the density of the Low-Density Residential Land Use and conforms with the R-1-7 Single Family zone district standards for which the project property is planned and zoned by the City of Kingsburg General Plan and Official Zoning Map. Additionally, the project will develop an approximately 0.40 neighborhood park, utilizing an approximately 0.20-acre portion of APN 394-021-43 for the development of the park. No other portions of APN 394-021-43 will be developed.

The TSM will result in the subdivision of the site into 44 single-family residential lots, ranging from 7,000 square feet (SF) in size, to 12,800 SF in size. Floor plans within the subdivision would range from 1,900 SF to 2,500 SF in size, and all models are single story. The project has several alley-loaded models and plans to include them in the project. Regarding overall design, Staff has requested that there be an effort to limit repetitious patterns of the same home models within proximity to each other.

The TSM has vehicular connection points to Kamm Avenue to the north, as well as 6th Avenue to the south.

Internally, the TSM includes streets of 60 feet in width and an alleyway of 16 feet in width. Additionally, three outlots are proposed for dedication to the City. Outlots A and B will be dedicated for open space and landscaping purposes, while Outlot C is being offered for dedication for a potential future City well site.

Planned Unit Development: The project must be approved as a Planned Unit Development (PUD), 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 was 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.

The City Council’s role in the PUDprocess is to review and, if satisfactory, approve the Planning Commission’s recommendation of approval of the PUD for the project.

The subdivision can be served by the city' s sewer, water and storm drainage infrastructure, according to city Staff analysis. Furthermore, the subdivision 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 subdivision 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.

Under the NKSP the subject property is designated "Residential Single Family" and is contained within Neighborhood “A" of the NKSP. 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.

ANNEXATION OF PROJECT INTO THE COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT As a condition of approval for Tentative Map No. 6499, the owner of Tract 6499 has consented to annexation of the subdivision 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

properties. Annexation into the CFD will come before Council when legal descriptions and maps for the subdivision are complete.

Environmental Review
An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the project and was available for public comment during the circulation period (October 22-November 11, 2025). Two comment letters were received during the circulation period. One was from the State Department of Toxic Substances Control and the other was from the State Water Board. The comments are addressed in Attachment 5.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Approved Subdivision Tract No. 6499 Map

2. Planning Commission Resolution 2025-04

3. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project

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

5. Response to Comments Document

6. Mitigated Monitoring Program for Tract No. 6499

7. Resolution 2025-066 approving the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring Program for a 44-lot single-family residential project on APN 394-021-42.

8. Resolution 2025-067 affirming the Planning Commission approval of the Planned Unit Development (PUD 2025-01) for the project, which involves single-family residential uses and associated open space features.

9. PowerPoint Presentation
9 00ft
N➤
RESOLUTION NO. 2025.04

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF KINGSBURG PLANNING COMMISSIONO APPROVING THE PLANNED UNrT DEVELOPMENT 202s-0t (cRowN CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT,INC.) FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND

ASSOCIATED OPEN SPACE USES, LOCATED BETWEEN KAMM AND KLEPPER NORTHWEST OF 6TH STREET IN KINGSBURG.

WHEREAS, the Kingsburg Planning Commission did consider during its regular meeting on November 13,2025,the application of Crown Construction and Development, Inc., for a Planned Unit Development to allow 44 single-family residential lots and associated open space uses on 15.03 acres located on a single parcel; and
WHEREAS, the APN for the subject site is 394-021-42; and WHEREAS, the Kingsburg Planning Commission did conduct a duly-noticed public hearing, accepting written and oral testimony both for and against the approval of Planned Unit Development 2025-0T for Crown Construction and Development, Inc., on November 13, 2025; and WHEREAS, property owners within 300 feet of the subject territories 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 November 13, 2025; and WHEREAS' the Kingsburg Planning Commission finds that PUD 2025-01, subject to conditions, is in accordance with and satisfies the requirements of Chapter 17.68 of the Municipal Code of the City of Kingsburg and is consistent with the procedures and design guidelines of the North Kingsburg Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission also finds that the conditions for PUD 2025-01 will protect and preserve the public health, safety and welfare in the surrounding neighborhood and the community as a whole; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the project and on the proposed project; and
WHEREAS the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the planned unit development, reviewed the staff report and Initial StudyiMitigated Negative Declaration and the accompanying Mitigation Monitoring Program, and accepted public testimony both for and against.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Kingsburg Planning Commission makes the following findings as required by Section 17.68.070 of the Kingsburg Municipal Code:

A. That the circumstances or conditions applicable to the land, structure or use which makes the approval of a planned unit development (PUD) necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a private property right. The residential dwellings and their associated streetscape will be constructed on the subject site consistent with the design guidelines of the North Kingsburg Specific Plan.

B. That the proposed location of the PUD is in accordance with the purpose and intent of the North Kingsburg Specific Plan, which encourages residential development that embraces innovation in design.

C. That the proposed PUD will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Kingsburg Planning Commission hereby recommends approval to Planned Unit Development 2025-U subject to the following conditions:

1. Residential dwellings constructed within the project arca shall comply with the North Kingsburg Specific Plan's Design Guidelines - V-13 to V-19.

2. Landscaping within the project area and on individual lots shall conform to the North Kingsburg Specific Plan's Design Guidelines -V-27 to V-35'

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

4. Applicant agrees to and shall defend, indemnifr, and hold harmless the City of Kingsburg ("City"), and it's officials, city council members, planning commission members, officers, employees, representatives, agents, contractors and legal counsel (collectivelY,"CiW Parties") from and against all claims,losses, judgements, liabilities, causes of action, expenses and other costs, including litigation and court costs and attorney's fees, and damage of any nature whatsoever made against or incurred by the City Parties including, without limitation, an award of attorney fees and costs to the person, organization or entity or their respective officers, agents, employees, representatives, legal counsel, arising out of, resulting from, or in any way in connection with, the City's act or acts leading up to and including approval of any environmental document and/or granting of any land use entitlements or any other approvals relating to PUD 2025-0I, Crown Construction and Development, Inc. ("PUD"). Applicant's obligation to defend, indemnifu and hold harmless specifically includes, without limitation, any suit or challenge by any third party against the City which challenges or seeks to set aside, void or annul the legality or adequacy of any environmental document ore determination, including, without limitation, any environmental document or determination prepared by the City or at the direction of the City and approved by the City for the approval of any land use entitlements or other approvals related to the PUD.

5. Applicant agrees to obligations to defend, indemniff and hold the City, and the City Parties harmless shall include, without limitation, the cost of preparation of any administrative record by the City, City staff time, copying costs, court costs, the costs of any judgements or awards against the City Parties for damages, losses, litigation costs, or attomey's fees arising out of a suit or challenge contesting the adequacy of any City act or acts leading up to and including any approval of any environmental document or determination, land use entitlements or any other approvals related to the PUD, and the costs of any settlement representing damages, litigation costs and attorney's fees to be paid to other parties arising out of a suit or challenge contesting the adequacy of any City act or acts leading up to and including any approval of the environmental document ore determination, land use entitlements or any other approvals related to the PUD.

6. Applicant agrees to the City may, at any time, require the Applicant to reimburse the City for attomey fees, costs that have been, or which the City reasonably anticipates will be, incurred by the City during the course of any suit or challenge. Such attomey fees shall include any and all attorney fees incurred by the City from its legal counsel, Kahn, Soares & Conway, LLP and any special legal counsel retained by the City. Applicant shall reimburse City within thirty (30) days of receipt of an itemized written invoice from City. Failure of the Applicant to timely reimburse the City shall be considered a material of breach of the conditions of approval for the PUD.

7. Applicant shall comply with and shall require all contractors to comply with all prevailing wage laws, rules and regulations applicable to any work to be performed as a result of approval of the PUD (collectively "PUD Work"). Applicant shall be solely responsible for making any and all decisions regarding whether any portion or aspect of the PUD Work, including, without limitation, any form of reimbursement by the City to the Applicant or any contractor, will require the payment of prevailing wages. Further, Applicant will be solely responsible for the payment of any claims, fines, penalties, reimbursements, payments and the defense of y actions that may be initiated against Applicant or any contractor as a result of failure to pay prevailing wages.

8. The Applicant shall defend, indemniff, and hold harmless the City Parties, from and against any and all claims, damages,losses, judgements,liabilities, cause of action, expenses and other costs, including, without limitation, litigation costs and journey's fees, arising out of, resulting from, or in any way in connection with any violation or claim of violation of any prevailing wage law, rule or regulation applicable to any portion or aspect of the PUD Work. Applicant's obligation to defend, indemnifu and hold the City Parties harmless specifically includes, but not limited to, any suit or administrative action against the City Parties which claims a violation of any prevailing wage law, rule or regulation applicable to any portion or aspect of the PUD Work.
g. The Applicant agrees its obligations to defend, indemnifr and hold the City Parties harmless, shall include without limitation, City staff time, copying costs, court costs, the costs of any judgements or awards against the City Parties for damages, losses, litigation costs, or attorney fees arising out of any violation or claim of violation of any prevailing wage law, rule or regulation applicable to any portion or aspect of the Subdivision Work and costs of any settlement representing damages, litigation costs and attorney's fees to be paid to other parties arising out of any such proceeding or suit.

10. Applicant agrees the City may, atany time, require the Applicant to reimburse the City for costs that have been, or which the City reasonably anticipates will be, incurred by the City during the course of any suit proceeding regarding violation of any prevailing wage law, rule or regulation.

Such attorney fees incurred by the City from its legal counsel, Kahn, Soares & Conway, LLP and any special legal counsel retained by the City. Applicant shall reimburse the City within thirty (30) days of receipt of an itemized written invoice from the City. Failure of the Applicant to timely reimburse the City shall be considered a material violation of the conditions of approval of the PUD.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this l3th day ofNovember 2025, ata regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Kingsburg by the following vote:

AYES: Kruper, Blayney, Brock, Gonzales, Taylor, and Arceo NOES:

ABSTAIN
ABSENT:

Bartel, Planning Commission Secretary
City of Kingsburg

CITY OF KINGSBURG
TRACT NO. 6499

DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION
OCTOBER 2025
PREPARED FOR:

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

PROVOST & PRITCHARD CONSULTING GROUP
455 W. Fir Avenue, Clovis, CALIFORNIA 93611

PROVOST&

PRITCHARD

PROVOST&

PRITCHARD
COPYRIGHT 2025 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, AICP, Community Development Director
(559) 897-5328 ext. 1103
Report Prepared by:

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
Wyatt Czeshinski, AICP, Project Manager/QAQC
Alejandra Lopez Gonzalez, Technical Writer
Amy Giacomini, Technical Writer
Mitchell Moore, Technical Writer
Olivia Arredondo, Biologist
Benjamin Toews, GIS
Morganne Colvard, Administrative Support
Contact:

Wyatt Czeshinski, AICP
(559) 449-2700
City of Kingsburg October 2025
Tract No. 6499
Job No.:01345-25-002
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 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 Description of the Project........................................................................................2-1

2.1.7 Site and Surrounding Land Uses and Settings .........................................................2-2

2.1.8 Other Public Agencies Whose Approval May be Required......................................2-2

2.1.9 Consultation with California Native American Tribes..............................................2-2 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........................................................................................................4-4

4.3 Air Quality.................................................................................................................................4-7

4.3.1 Baseline Conditions.................................................................................................4-7

4.3.2 Impact Analysis......................................................................................................4-10

4.4 Biological Resources...............................................................................................................4-12

4.4.1 Baseline Conditions...............................................................................................4-12

4.4.2 Impact Analysis......................................................................................................4-14

4.4.3 Mitigation ..................................................................................................................4-15

4.5 Cultural Resources..................................................................................................................4-17

4.5.1 Baseline Conditions...............................................................................................4-17

4.5.2 Impact Analysis......................................................................................................4-17

4.5.3 Mitigation ..................................................................................................................4-18

4.6 Energy ....................................................................................................................................4-19

4.6.1 Baseline Conditions...............................................................................................4-19

4.6.2 Impact Analysis......................................................................................................4-19

4.7 Geology and Soils ...................................................................................................................4-21 City of Kingsburg October 2025
Tract No. 6499
Job No.:01345-25-002
www.provostandpritchard.com Page ii

4.7.1 Baseline Conditions...............................................................................................4-21

4.7.2 Impact Analysis......................................................................................................4-22

4.7.3 Mitigation ..............................................................................................................4-24

4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.....................................................................................................4-25

4.8.1 Baseline Conditions...............................................................................................4-25

4.8.2 Impact Analysis......................................................................................................4-26

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials..........................................................................................4-28

4.9.1 Baseline Conditions...............................................................................................4-28

4.9.2 Impact Analysis......................................................................................................4-29

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality .................................................................................................4-31

4.10.1 Baseline Conditions...............................................................................................4-31

4.10.2 Impact Analysis......................................................................................................4-32

4.11 Land Use and Planning ...........................................................................................................4-35

4.11.1 Baseline Conditions...............................................................................................4-35

4.11.2 Impact Analysis......................................................................................................4-35

4.12 Mineral Resources..................................................................................................................4-36

4.12.1 Baseline Conditions...............................................................................................4-36

4.12.2 Impact Analysis......................................................................................................4-36

4.13 Noise ......................................................................................................................................4-38

4.13.1 Baseline Conditions...............................................................................................4-38

4.13.2 Impact Analysis......................................................................................................4-38

4.14 Population and Housing .........................................................................................................4-40

4.14.1 Baseline Conditions...............................................................................................4-40

4.14.2 Impact Analysis......................................................................................................4-40

4.15 Public Services........................................................................................................................4-41

4.15.1 Baseline Conditions...............................................................................................4-41

4.15.2 Impact Analysis......................................................................................................4-42

4.16 Recreation ..............................................................................................................................4-44

4.16.1 Baseline Conditions...............................................................................................4-44

4.16.2 Impact Analysis......................................................................................................4-44

4.17 Transportation........................................................................................................................4-45

4.17.1 Baseline Conditions...............................................................................................4-45

4.17.2 Impact Analysis......................................................................................................4-45

4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources........................................................................................................4-47

4.18.1 Baseline Conditions...............................................................................................4-47

4.18.2 Impact Asessment .................................................................................................4-48

4.18.3 Mitigation ..............................................................................................................4-48

4.19 Utilities and Service Systems..................................................................................................4-49 City of Kingsburg October 2025
Tract No. 6499
Job No.:01345-25-002
www.provostandpritchard.com Page iii

4.19.1 Baseline Conditions...............................................................................................4-49

4.19.2 Impact Analysis......................................................................................................4-49

4.20 Wildfire...................................................................................................................................4-51

4.20.1 Baseline Conditions...............................................................................................4-51

4.20.2 Impact Analysis......................................................................................................4-51

4.21 CEQA Mandatory Findings of Significance..............................................................................4-53

4.21.1 Statement of Findings............................................................................................4-53 Chapter 5 Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program ........................................................... 5-1 Chapter 6 References .................................................................................................................. 6-1 City of Kingsburg October 2025
Tract No. 6499
Job No.:01345-25-002
www.provostandpritchard.com Page iv

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1: Regional Location Map.............................................................................................................2-4 Figure 2-2: Aerial Site 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: Zone District Map.....................................................................................................................2-8 Figure 4-1: Farmland Designation Map ......................................................................................................4-6 Figure 4-2: FEMA Flood Map....................................................................................................................4-34

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1: Existing Uses, General Plan Designation, & Zone Districts of Surrounding Properties..............2-2 Table 4-1: Aesthetics Impacts.....................................................................................................................4-1 Table 4-2: Agriculture and Forest Impacts .................................................................................................4-3 Table 4-3: Air Quality Impacts....................................................................................................................4-7 Table 4-4: Summary of Ambient Air Quality Standards and Attainment Designation ................................4-8 Table 4-5: Project-Level Air Quality CEQA Thresholds of Significance........................................................4-9 Table 4-6:Unmitigated Short-Term Construction Generated Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants...........4-10 Table 4-7: Unmitigated Long-Term Operational Generated Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants.............4-10 Table 4-8: Maximum Daily Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants................................................................4-10 Table 4-9: Biological Resources Impacts...................................................................................................4-12 Table 4-10: List of Special Status Species with Potential to Occur Onsite and/or in the Vicinity..............4-13 Table 4-11: Cultural Resources Impacts...................................................................................................4-17 Table 4-12: Energy Impacts......................................................................................................................4-19 Table 4-13: Geology and Soils Impacts.....................................................................................................4-21 Table 4-14: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts......................................................................................4-25 Table 4-15: Short Term Construction Related GHG Emissions.................................................................4-27 Table 4-16: Long Term Operational Related GHG Emissions....................................................................4-27 Table 4-17: Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts............................................................................4-28 Table 4-18: Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts...................................................................................4-31 Table 4-19: Land Use and Planning Impacts.............................................................................................4-35 Table 4-20: Mineral Resources Impacts ...................................................................................................4-36 Table 4-21: Noise Impacts........................................................................................................................4-38 Table 4-22: Population and Housing Impacts...........................................................................................4-40 Table 4-23: Public Services.......................................................................................................................4-41 Table 4-24: Recreation Impacts................................................................................................................4-44 Table 4-25: Transportation Impacts.........................................................................................................4-45 Table 4-26: Tribal Cultural Resources Impacts.........................................................................................4-47 Table 4-27: Utilities and Service Systems Impacts....................................................................................4-49 Table 4-28: Wildfire Impacts....................................................................................................................4-51 Table 4-29: CEQA Mandatory Findings of Significance.............................................................................4-53 Table 5-1: Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program.......................................................................5-2

APPENDICES
Appendix A: CalEEMod Output Files
Appendix B: Biological Resources Memo
Appendix C: Cultural Resources
City of Kingsburg October 2025
Tract No. 6499
Job No.:01345-25-002
www.provostandpritchard.com Page v

ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS
AB --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assembly Bill ADT------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Average Daily Trips Advanced Life Support --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ALS APN -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assessor’s Parcel Number BPS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Best Performance Standards CalEEMod---------------------------------------------------------- California Emissions Estimator Modeling (software) CARB --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------California Air Resources Board CCAA----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- California Clean Air Act CEQA------------------------------------------------------------------------------------California Environmental Quality Act CFCs--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cholorfluorocarbons CGS--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- California Geologic Survey City --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- City of Kingsburg CH4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Methane CHRIS ----------------------------------------------------------------California Historical Resources Information System CNDDB--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- California Natural Diversity Database CO ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carbone Monoxide CO2 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carbon dioxide CO2e-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Carbon Dioxide Equivalent County-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fresno County 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 GHG---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Greenhouse Gas GWP ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Global Warming Potential HFCs----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Hydrofluorocarbons IPaC -------------------------- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Information for Planning and Consultation system IS-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Initial Study IS/MND-----------------------------------------------------------------------Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration km------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ kilometers LUCI --------------------------------------------------------------Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation MMRP ---------------------------------------------------------------------Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MND ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mitigated Negative Declaration MRZ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Mineral Resource Zone MT-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Metric Tons NAHC --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Native American Heritage Commission ND-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Negative Declaration N2O------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nitrous Oxide 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 City of Kingsburg October 2025
Tract No. 6499
Job No.:01345-25-002
www.provostandpritchard.com Page vi
ppb -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------parts per billion ppm ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------parts per million Project----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Tract No. 6499 Project R-1-7 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- R-1-7 Single Family Zone District ROG ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Reactive Organic Gases SF6 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sulfur Hexafluoride SJVAB ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- San Joaquin Valley Air Basin SJVAPCD------------------------------------------------------------------San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District SKFCSD ---------------------------------------------------------------Selma Kingsburg Fowler County Sanitation District SO2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sulfur Dioxide sqft----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Square Feet SSJVIC------------------------------------------------------------------- Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center SR------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ State Route SRA -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------State Responsibility Area SWPPP------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan SWRCB ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- State Water Resources Control Board TAC------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Toxic Air Contaminants TPY --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------tons per year TSM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Tentative Subdivision Map USEPA -------------------------------------------------------------------United States Environmental Protection Agency UST --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Underground Storage Tank UWMP--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Urban Water Management Plan VHFHSZ--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone VMT-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Vehicle Miles Traveled μg/m3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- micrograms per cubic meter City of Kingsburg October 2025
Tract No. 6499
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 Tract No. 6499 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 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 are 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, 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 References details the documents and any reports this document relies upon to provide its analysis.

City of Kingsburg October 2025
Tract No. 6499
Chapter 1: Introduction
www.provostandpritchard.com 1-2
The Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Model, Biological Resources Information, and Cultural Resources Information, are provided as technical Appendix A, Appendix B, Appendix C and, respectively, at the end of this document.

City of Kingsburg October 2025
Tract No. 6499
Chapter 2: Project Description
www.provostandpritchard.com 2-1
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND

2.1.1 PROJECT TITLE
Tract No. 6499

2.1.2 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, AICP
Community Development Director
(559) 897-5328, ext. 1103

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

2.1.5 PROJECT LOCATION
The Project is located in 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 located approximately on Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 394-021-42, and -43. The centroid of the Project site is 36°31'54.1"N 119°33'38.7"W.

2.1.6 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT

2.1.6.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Crown Construction and Development Inc. has proposed a Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM) on APN 394-021-42, a parcel of approximately 15.03 acres in size. The proposed TSM would subdivide the subject property into 44 single family residential lots, meeting the density of the Low Density Residential Land Use and conforming with the R-1-7 Single Family zone district standards for which the subject property is planned and zoned by the City of Kingsburg General Plan and Official Zoning Map.

Additionally, the Project would develop an approximately 0.40 neighborhood park, utilizing an approximately 0.20-acre portion of APN 394-021-43 for the development of the park (see Figure 2-2). No other portions of APN 394-021-43 would be developed.

2.1.6.2 TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
The proposed TSM would result in the subdivision of the site into 44 single family residential lots, ranging from 7,000 square feet (sqft) in size, to 12,800 sqft in size. Floor plans within the subdivision would range from 1,900 sqft to 2,500 sqft in size. The TSM proposes vehicular connection points to Kamm Avenue to the north, as well as 6th Avenue to the south. Internally, the proposed subdivision would include streets of City of Kingsburg October 2025
Tract No. 6499
Chapter 2: Project Description
www.provostandpritchard.com 2-2
60 feet in width and an alleyway of 16 feet in width. Additionally, three outlots are proposed for dedication to the City. Outlots A and B would be dedicated for open space and landscaping purposes, while Outlot C is being offered for dedication for a future City well site. The site is located on land designated as Low Density Residential by the City of Kingsburg General Plan and the TSM would be developed meeting the density requirements of the Low Density Residential land use.

2.1.6.3 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 stray 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 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
Designation1
Zone District2
NORTH Agricultural and vacant land Open Space AE-20 (Exclusive Agriculture, County)
EAST Residential neighborhood Low Density Residential R-1-7 SOUTH Agricultural and vacant land Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential
R-1-7
AE-20 (County)
WEST Agricultural, Storm Drain
Basin
Low Density Residential
Open Space
R-1-7
AE-20 (County)

2.1.8 OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL MAY BE REQUIRED • San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District

2.1.9 CONSULTATION WITH CALIFORNIA NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES 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 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. 1 (City of Kingsburg, 2025)
2 (City of Kingsburg, 2025)
City of Kingsburg October 2025
Tract No. 6499
Chapter 2: Project Description
www.provostandpritchard.com 2-3
The City has not received any written correspondence from a Tribe pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1 requesting notification of proposed projects.

City of Kingsburg October 2025
Tract No. 6499
Chapter 2: Project Description
www.provostandpritchard.com 2-4
Figure 2-1: Regional Location Map

?Î
AªE
EA¢
EAc
EAe
«?
w?
?Î
EAc
k?
Clovis
Selma
Sanger
Orange
Cove
Reedley
Fowler
Parlier
Kingsburg
Fresno
Dinuba
Visalia Lemoore
Hanford
F r e s n o C o u n t y
K i n g s C o u n t y
F r e s n o C o u n t y
T u l a r e C o u n t y
Home
Del Rey
Easton
Laton
Yokuts Valley
Monmouth
El Monte
Mobile
Village
Sultana
Grangeville
Hardwick
Armona
Garden
Cutler
Goshen
Orosi
London
Traver
Bowles
Malaga
Caruthers
Centerville  Minkler
West Goshen
West Goshen
Delft Colony
Monson
Patterson
Tract
Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA
Project Site
Census Place
City Limits (various colors)
County
0 2 4
Miles
Regional Vicinity Map
o
City of Kingsburg - Tract 6499
^_
!
Project Site
Fresno Co.
1/7/2022 G:\Kingsburg_City of - 1345\134525002-Tract No. 6499 CEQA\400 GIS\Map\CityOfKingsburg_Tract_6499\CityOfKingsburg_Tract_6499.aprx 1111
CJ
0 (]
D
Q

PROVOST&

PRITCHARD

PROVOST&

PRITCHARD
City of Kingsburg October 2025
Tract No. 6499
Chapter 2: Project Description
www.provostandpritchard.com 2-5
Figure 2-2: Aerial Site Map

7th Ave Dr
Skansen
Howard
Silverbrooke
St
Lingonberry St
Silverbrooke St
Harold St
Stroud Ave
Kamm Ave
Academy Ave
0 250 500
Feet
Project Site (14.2 Acres)
City Limit
Neighborhood Park
Aerial Map o
Prepared By
City of Kingsburg - Tract 6499
1/7/2022 G:\Kingsburg_City of - 1345\134525002-Tract No. 6499 CEQA\400 GIS\Map\CityOfKingsburg_Tract_6499\CityOfKingsburg_Tract_6499.aprx Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community I -·-·· •
·-. -. '
1111

PROVOST&
PRITCHARD ,»a

PROVOST&

PRITCHARD
City of Kingsburg October 2025
Tract No. 6499
Chapter 2: Project Description
www.provostandpritchard.com 2-6
Figure 2-3: Topo Quad Map
T16S R22E
09 10 11 12
16 15 14 13
23 24 21 22
27 26 25 28
SELMA
Project Site
USGS Topo Maps (1:24k)
Quad Name
Township/Range
Section
0 750 1,500
Feet
Topographic Map o City of Kingsburg - Tract 6499
USGS National Map.

Project Elevation is approximately 300 feet above MSL.
1/7/2022 G:\Kingsburg_City of - 1345\134525002-Tract No. 6499 CEQA\400 GIS\Map\CityOfKingsburg_Tract_6499\CityOfKingsburg_Tract_6499.aprx Prepared By

E SAGINAW AVE

E CARUTHERS AVE
...
' '
~

E STROUD AVE

KERN ST
CJ
,- -,
CJ a
'

HOWARD ST
Kingsburg
zo

E SAGINAW AVE
co·~ 'ilo

KLEPPER ST
AVE
.,.

AVE 396

PROVOST&

PRITCHARD
a
i*
I
• §>
u>
£ SAGINAW AVE
Wineland

E CARUTHERS AVE
%

AZALEA ST
.0 'F KAMM AVE
12TH AVE
14TH AVE
f STROUD AVE
Kingsburg

SIERRA ST
t;
KERN ST g
i
!
s
§
S
1 KLEPPER ST

HOWARD ST
19TH AVt
§
' I
I
AVE A
AVE 396
Cole Slough Canal

PROVOST&

PRITCHARD
City of Kingsburg October 2025
Tract No. 6499
Chapter 2: Project Description
www.provostandpritchard.com 2-7
Figure 2-4: General Plan Land Use Designation Map

7th Ave Dr
Skansen
Howard
Silverbrooke
St
Lingonberry St
Silverbrooke St
Harold St
Stroud Ave
Kamm Ave
Academy Ave
0 250 500
Feet
Project Site
Neighborhood Park
City Limit
City of Kingsburg Land Use
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Light Industrial
Semi Public
Open Space
Land Use Map o
Prepared By
City of Kingsburg - Tract 6499
1/7/2022 G:\Kingsburg_City of - 1345\134525002-Tract No. 6499 CEQA\400 GIS\Map\CityOfKingsburg_Tract_6499\CityOfKingsburg_Tract_6499.aprx Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community ---. I
I
5 5
I
I
I
I
CJ
~ ---· .. I •
·-. -. '
1111
1111
1111
1111
1111
I
I
I
I
I
...._ __________ 7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'---------1

PROVOST&

PRITCHARD
I 7
H t
1 J
s
s
J
J
1223

PROVOST&

PRITCHARD
City of Kingsburg October 2025
Tract No. 6499
Chapter 2: Project Description
www.provostandpritchard.com 2-8
Figure 2-5: Zone District Map
7th Ave Dr
Skansen
Howard
Silverbrooke
St
Lingonberry St
Silverbrooke St
Harold St
Stroud Ave
Kamm Ave
Academy Ave
AE20
AL20
AL20
0 250 500
Feet
Project Site
Neighborhood Park
City Limit
City of Kingsburg Zoning
R-1-7
RM-3 Multifamily
RM2/PO Multifamily
Light Industrial
RCO Open Space
Fresno County Zoning
AE20 - Exclusive Agricultural
AL20 - Limited Agricultural
Zoning Map o
Prepared By
City of Kingsburg - Tract 6499
1/7/2022 G:\Kingsburg_City of - 1345\134525002-Tract No. 6499 CEQA\400 GIS\Map\CityOfKingsburg_Tract_6499\CityOfKingsburg_Tract_6499.aprx Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community CJ
~ ----.. I •
·-. -. '
1111
1111
1111
1111
1111
1111
CJ
---------------- c......_____._~ --- _.,-~--
LL-- ----7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

PROVOST&

PRITCHARD

PROVOST&

PRITCHARD
City of Kingsburg October 2025
Tract No. 6499
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 Environmental 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). □
~
□
□
□
□
□
BKI □□□□
*,fo*ffi
!
n
I
a
Ct^^n b
City of Kingsburg October 2025
Tract.No. 6499
Chapter 3: Determination

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.
[x] 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 ENVIRONMENTALIMPACT REPORTis required.

Q 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 REPORTis 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 NEGATIVEDECLARATIONpursuant 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. :un
Printed Nante/Posifton
Date
www.provostandpritchard.com 3-2
_________ QCT 2*
0 -fyuyl £
/G>M/hw/r/'i ttfpfl
’ i
City of Kingsburg October 2025
Tract No. 6499
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 currently located in the City of Kingsburg, surrounded by residential development to the east, as well as agricultural and vacant land to the north, south, and west. The Kingsburg General Plan does not list any specific scenic vistas.
3 However, the General Plan does list State Route (SR) 99 as an important viewshed in the city.
4 Agriculture and views of the Sierra Nevada Mountains are also generally regarded as scenic resources within Fresno County (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 San Joaquin Valley. The Project would result in the construction of 44 single-family residences on a parcel that is presently vacant. As mentioned above, the City does not have a designated scenic vista on or in the immediate vicinity of the Project site. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
3 (City of Kingsburg, 1992)
4 Ibid.
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ IXI □
□ □ □ ixi
□ □ IXI □
□ □ □
City of Kingsburg October 2025
Tract No. 6499
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-2
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No Impact. The Project would not be located on or in the vicinity of a State scenic highway. SR 99 is not a scenic highway but is listed as an important visual viewshed by the City. SR 99 is located approximately

0.75 miles west of the Project site and is not visible from the site. The nearest officially designated State scenic highway is SR 180, located approximately 14 miles to the northeast of the Project site.5 As such,
SR 180 is not visible from the site, nor would it be impacted in any way by 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 points). 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 site is currently located within the City of Kingsburg and is bordered by urban uses to the east and south. The architectural renderings, elevations, and color schemes of the 44 single-family homes would be developed in a manner not to degrade the existing visual character. The implementation of the Project would not degrade the existing 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 development. 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. 5 (California Department of Transportation, 2025)
City of Kingsburg October 2025
Tract No. 6499
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 located in the City of Kingsburg. The City of Kingsburg, Fresno County, and the larger San Joaquin Valley as a whole are one of the largest producers of agricultural products in the state. Although the site is zoned as single-family housing, the Project site likely has been used for agricultural production in the past.

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 other three categories are of urban and built-up Land, other land, and water.
6 • 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 6 (California Department of Conservation, 2022)
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ IXI □
□ □ □ KI
□ □ □ KI
□ □ □ K
□ □ K □
City of Kingsburg October 2025
Tract No. 6499
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 Farmland of Local Importance.7 No Williamson Act contract parcels exist on the site.8

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 discussed above, the Project site is designated as Farmland of Local Importance. The Project would result in the conversion of this land to a non-agricultural use, however the site is planned and zoned for residential uses by the City of Kingsburg. No land designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance would be impacted by the Project and the conversion of the land use on the site. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The Project site is zoned R-1-7 by the City. Additionally, the Project site is not under a Williamson Act contract.9 The Project is consistentwith the site’s General Plan designation of Low-Density Residential. Therefore, there would be no impact.
7 Ibid.
8 (California Department of Conservation, 2025)
9 Ibid.

City of Kingsburg October 2025
Tract No. 6499
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-5
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 Project site is zoned R-1-7 by the City of Kingsburg, which allows single family residential land uses. 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 non-forest use, as forest land does not exist within the Project site. The site consists of vacant and undeveloped property, which is adjacent to urban uses to the east and south. The site is planned and zoned for residential use by the City of Kingsburg. Therefore, there would be no impact. e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Less than Significant Impact. The Project 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 Farmland of Local Importance, but would not result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. The Project would be consistent with the underlying General Plan land use designation and zoning designation for the Project site, both of which allow for single family residential use of the property. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

City of Kingsburg October 2025
Tract No. 6499
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-6
Figure 4-1: Farmland Designation Map

7th Ave Dr
Skansen
Howard
Silverbrooke
St
Lingonberry St
Silverbrooke St
Harold St
Stroud Ave
Kamm Ave
Academy Ave
Project Site
Neighborhood Park
City Limit
Williamson Act
Farmland Designation
Prime Farmland
Farmland of Statewide Importance
Farmland of Local Importance
Unique Farmland
Rural Residential
Urban and Built-Up Land
0 250 500
Feet
Farmland Map o City of Kingsburg - Tract 6499
1/7/2022 G:\Kingsburg_City of - 1345\134525002-Tract No. 6499 CEQA\400 GIS\Map\CityOfKingsburg_Tract_6499\CityOfKingsburg_Tract_6499.aprx Prepared By Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community --... I
I
~ - • - • 11
I •
·-·-·'
1111
1111
1111
1111
1111
1111

PROVOST&

PRITCHARD
*
s
J

PROVOST&

PRITCHARD
City of Kingsburg October 2025
Tract No. 6499
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-7

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 10 (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, 2025) □ □ □
□ □ [8J □
□ □ [8J □
□ □ □
□ □ IXI □
□ □ □
□ □ IXI □
City of Kingsburg October 2025
Tract No. 6499
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-8
subcategories for nonattainment status: serious, severe, and extreme. In 1991, USEPA assigned new 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 August 12, 2025.
11 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://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2024-08/AAQS%20Table_ADA_FINAL_07222024.pdf. ** No Federal 1-hour standard. Reclassified extreme nonattainment for the Federal 8-hour standard 8/12/2025. ***Secondary Standard
Source: Ambient Air Quality Standards & Valley Attainmnet Status | Valley Air District. Accessed 8/12/2025. 11 (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2025) City of Kingsburg October 2025
Tract No. 6499
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-9
Construction Generated Emissions
Construction of the Project is assumed to be completed over approximately 24 months. Emissions associated with the Project were calculated using the CalEEMod Air Quality Model, Version 2022.1.1.30 (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/media/g4nl3p0g/gamaqi.pdf . Accessed August 12, 2025.

City of Kingsburg October 2025
Tract No. 6499
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-10

4.3.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS
Short-Term Construction Generation Emissions
Estimated construction-generation 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

0.28 0.83 0.90 <0.005 0.09 0.05
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
Maximum Annual Project
Operational Emissions

0.66 0.30 2.07 0.01 0.39 0.15
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 0.42 3.21 4.28 0.01 0.18 0.14
Construction – Winter 27.0 37.8 37.9 0.11 6.45 3.79
Operational – Summer 4.73 2.03 21.7 0.06 3.31 1.90
Operational – Winter 4.36 2.15 18.2 0.06 3.31 1.90
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 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, Table 4-7, City of Kingsburg October 2025
Tract No. 6499
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-11
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 neighborhoods 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 0.021124 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

0.00001235 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 risk. 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 in the City of Kingsburg’s northern City limit 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 2025
Tract No. 6499
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-12

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 approximately 15.23 acres in size and located in Fresno County within the city limits of the City of Kingsburg. The site is vacant and was previously used for agricultural purposes. The site is relatively level and contains ruderal/disturbed habitat comprised of non-native and scrubby vegetation.

The nearest surface water is the Kingsburg Branch Canal, approximately 0.25 miles west of the site and wetlands are absent from the site.
12 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. 12 (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2025) □ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ |X| □ □
□ □ □ KI
□ □ □ IXI
□ □ IX □
□ □ □ IXI
□ □ □ K
City of Kingsburg October 2025
Tract No. 6499
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-13
A biological resources memo describing these database searches in more detail is contained in Appendix B.

There are no regional recorded observations of special status plants within five miles of the site. There are regional recorded observations of nine special status animal species within five miles of the site which are listed in Table 4-10, below.

Table 4-10: 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.

Absent. The site appeared to lack
suitable aquatic habitat for this species
and CNDDB lists this species as
“extirpated” from the region.

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. Vegetation onsite is unlikely to
sustain a population of this species. The
nearest recorded observation of this
species within the vicinity was
approximately 3 miles northwest of the
site in 1912.

Pallid bat
(Antrozous pallidus) CSSC
Found in grasslands, chaparral, and
woodlands, where it feeds on
ground- and vegetation-dwelling
arthropods, and occasionally takes
insects in flight. Prefers to roost in
rock crevices, but may also use tree
cavities, caves, bridges, and other
human-made structures.

Unlikely. While the open, disturbed
scrubland habitat could provide foraging
opportunities for this species, the site
appeared to lack suitable roosting
habitat. The nearest recorded
observation of this species within the
vicinity was approximately 4.2 miles east
of the site in 2001.

Monarch butterfly
(Danaus plexippus) FPT
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.

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 1.1 miles
southeast of the site in 2023.

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.

Absent. The site appeared to lack
suitable aquatic habitat for this species.

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.

Absent. The site appeared to lack
suitable vernal pool habitat for this
species.

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,
the open disturbed scrubland habitat
onsite offers foraging habitat for this
species. Trees within 0.5 miles of the
site appear to provide nesting habitat.

The nearest recorded observation
overlaps the site and is a historical
observation from 1926.

City of Kingsburg October 2025
Tract No. 6499
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-14
Species Status* Habitat Occurrence within the Site
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.

Absent. The site appeared to lack
suitable aquatic habitat for this species.

Western yellow-billed
cuckoo
(Coccyzus americanus
occidentalis)
FT, CE
Suitable nesting habitat in California
includes dense riparian willowcottonwood 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.

Absent. The site appeared to lack
suitable habitat for this species and
CNDDB lists this species as “possibly
extirpated” from the region.

*EXPLANATION OF OCCURRENCE DESIGNATIONS AND STATUS CODES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 has the potential to impact a number of sensitive resources including Swainson’s hawk and or migratory birds that use the ground to nest. In particular Swainson’s hawk could nest within the vicinity of the site and be disturbed by Projectrelated activities when they are nesting. In order to reduce the potential for impact to potential sensitive resources mitigation measures BIO-1, BIO-2, BIO-3, would be implemented. The mitigation measures include avoidance of nesting bird season, preconstruction surveys (during nesting bird season, and use of avoidance buffers. Incorporation of mitigation measures would reduce the potential for impacts to less of significant.

City of Kingsburg October 2025
Tract No. 6499
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-15
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. According to California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and Information for Planning and Consultation searches (IPAC) (see Appendix B), designated critical habitat is absent from the site and vicinity. The site is vacant and surrounded by residential and agricultural uses. As sensitive and riparian habitat are absent from the site there would be no impact. c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. The Project site lacks riparian habitats, wetlands, and other wetland features as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The nearest water body is the Kingsburg Branch Canal, located approximately half a mile west of the Project site. The Project would not impact the Canal, 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?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is located within city limits of the City of Kingsburg and is surrounded by residential neighborhoods to the east and south and agricultural land to the north and west.

The area is highly urbanized and experiences constant disturbance from traffic and use of farm equipment from the surrounding agricultural lands. The frequency of disturbances from farm machinery and traffic could deter wildlife from using the site as a corridor, 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 site is vacant and does not contain any trees. Additionally, 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 site is located within city limits and is not part of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. The Project would be required to comply with all local policies and regulations protecting biological resources. 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 City of Kingsburg October 2025
Tract No. 6499
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-16
(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 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. If construction is delayed or halted for more than ten (10) days, another pre-construction survey for nesting birds will be conducted.

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, 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.

City of Kingsburg October 2025
Tract No. 6499
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-17

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 within the City of Kingsburg within Fresno County. The Project site is relatively flat and has a history of agricultural use. Residential neighborhoods border the site to the east and south.

Mass agricultural development has heavily disturbed and altered the landscape of the San Joaquin Valley, including the Project site and areas to the west of the site.

4.5.1.1 RECORDS SEARCH
On September 2, 2025, 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 four recorded cultural resources (P-10-002966, P-10- 003930, P-10- 005812, P-10-006242) have been recorded within a 0.5-mile radius of the Project site. The recorded resources consist of three historic era canals and one historic era railroad. 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?
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ |X| □ □
City of Kingsburg October 2025
Tract No. 6499
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-18
a-b) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As previously mentioned, a cultural resources database search was conducted in September of 2025. This search identified that no cultural resources were previously recorded within the Project site but that there have been four identified within a half mile of the site. 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) Should archeological remains or artifacts be unearthed during any stage of project activities, work in the area of the discovery shall cease until the area is evaluated by a qualified archaeologist. If mitigation is warranted, the Project proponent shall abide by recommendations of the archaeologist.

CUL-2 (Human Remains) In the event that human remains are discovered on the Project site, the Fresno County Coroner must be notified of that discovery (Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5) and all activities in the immediate area if the find or in any nearby area reasonably suspected of overlie adjacent human remains must cease until appropriate and lawful measures have been implemented. If the Coroner determines that the remains are not recent, but rather of Native American origin, the Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) in Sacramento within 24 hours to permit the NAHC to determine the most likely descendent of the deceased Native American.

City of Kingsburg October 2025
Tract No. 6499
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-19

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 the City of Kingsburg City limits. The Project area is served by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) for its electricity and natural gas 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 19,416.7 gallons of diesel fuel and 2,057.97 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 411,250 kilowatt-hours and 1,712.14 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. □ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ KI □
□ □ □ K
City of Kingsburg October 2025
Tract No. 6499
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-20
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 2025
Tract No. 6499
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-21

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
The Project is located in southcentral 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 □ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □ ~
□ □ □ ~
□ □ ~ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ KI □
□ □ □ K
□ □ □ K
□ □ □ KI
□ □ KI □
□ □ □ K
□ □ □ K
□ □ □ K
□ IXI □ □
City of Kingsburg October 2025
Tract No. 6499
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-22
formations are steeply upturned along the western margin due to the uplifted Sierra Nevada Range.13 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.

4.7.1.1 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
According to the Natural Resource Conservation Service’s Web Soil Survey, the 15.23-acre site is comprised of two main soil types. The Project site is comprised of three varieties of Delhi sand and loamy sand (approximately 72 %) and Hanford sandy loam (approximately 28%).14 These soils are deemed to be either well drained or somewhat excessively drained.

4.7.1.2 FAULTS AND SEISMICITY
The Project site 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 56 miles to the east of the Project site. The San Andreas Fault is located more than 65 miles to the west of the Project site.15

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.16

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.17

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.18

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.
13 Harden, D.R. 1998, California Geology, Prentice Hall, 479 pages 14 (United States Department of Agriculture, 2025) 15 (California Department of Conservation, 2015) 16 (County of Fresno, 2000) 17 (United States Geological Survey, 2025) 18 (California Department of Water Resources, 2025) City of Kingsburg October 2025
Tract No. 6499
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-23
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 44 single-family residences that would meet California Building Code requirements governing potential structural damage due to earthquakes.

Moreover, the Project site is not located near any known fault or fault zone – the nearest active fault is the Kern Canyon Fault, approximately 56 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. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
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.
19 Therefore, there would be no impact.
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 44 new single-family residences. 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 building 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 Project site has relatively flat terrain with a low potential for soil erosion, and the Project would develop 19 (United States Geological Survey, 2025)
City of Kingsburg October 2025
Tract No. 6499
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-24
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 site 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.20 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.21 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 Projectsite; 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.
20 (United States Geological Survey, 2025) 21 (United States Department of Agriculture, 2025) City of Kingsburg October 2025
Tract No. 6499
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-25

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. □ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ IXI □
□ □ □ ixi
City of Kingsburg October 2025
Tract No. 6499
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-26
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 Projects22, 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 2022.1.1.30. 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 24 months. Remaining assumptions were based on the default parameters contained in the model. Modeling assumptions and output files are included in Appendix A. Estimated constructiongenerated 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. 22 (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, 2009) City of Kingsburg October 2025
Tract No. 6499
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-27
Table 4-15: Short Term Construction Related GHG Emissions Emissions (MT CO2e) in Tons per
Year
Maximum Annual Construction CO2e Emissions 217
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 8/13/2025.

Table 4-16: Long Term Operational Related GHG Emissions Emissions (MT CO2e) in Tons per
Year
Annual Operational CO2e Emissions 512
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 8/13/2025.

Construction related generation of GHGs would be a maximum of 217 Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (MT CO2e) per year, while operational emissions are expected to be 512 MTCO2e 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 impact.

City of Kingsburg October 2025
Tract No. 6499
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-28

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 □ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ IXI □
□ □ KI □
□ □ □ K
□ □ □ K
□ □ □ K
□ □ □ K
□ □ □ K
City of Kingsburg October 2025
Tract No. 6499
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-29
List data. In addition to the EnviroStor database, the SWRCB GeoTracker database provides information on 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 7, 2025, determined that there are no known active hazardous waste generators or hazardous material spill sites within the Project site or immediate surrounding vicinity. 23 24

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 seven and a half miles to the northwest of the Project site.

4.9.1.3 EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN
The City of Kingsburg has an Emergency Services Plan that was adopted in 2024. 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 east and 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) and 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 44 single-family residences, and an approximately 0.40-acre park.

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 material 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.
23 (California Department of Toxic Substances Control, 2025) 24 (State Water Resources Control Board, 2025) City of Kingsburg October 2025
Tract No. 6499
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-30
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 site and its vicinity have 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 seven and a half 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 in the City of Kingsburg. This area is characterized by urban development to the immediate east and 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 2025
Tract No. 6499
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-31

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 City of Kingsburg is, for the most part, located within the boundaries of the South Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency.

There is no surface water present on the site, however the site is located within the boundaries of the Fresno County Sole Source Aquifer.25 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 25 (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2025) □ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □ [8J
□ □ □ [8J
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ IXI □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □ |X|
□ □ □ |XI
□ □ □
City of Kingsburg October 2025
Tract No. 6499
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-32
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Project site is located approximately one and half miles from the nearest flood zone (see Figure 4-2).26

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 with Mitigation Incorporated. 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 one acre in size. 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 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 44 residential lots on the Project site. As the site in within city limits the City would be the sole water provider for the development.

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.27 From 2000 to 2020, the actual growth rate for the City was well below the projected growth rate, 1.9% versus 3%, respectively.28 As such, the City has planned for population growth that would be historically higher than actual growth rates for its future water demand. 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 26 (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2025) 27 (City of Kingsburg, 2020) 28 Ibid.

City of Kingsburg October 2025
Tract No. 6499
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-33
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, existing City storm water facilities are adequately sized to handle the increased rate and amount of surface runoff.

Impacts would be less than significant.
iv. impede or redirect flood flows?
No 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 Projectsite 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 City of Kingsburg is primarily located within the South Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency.
29 The South King Groundwater Sustainability Agency has completed a Groundwater Sustainability Plan, and the Project would not be in conflict with the plan.

Therefore, there would be no impact.

29 (South Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency, 2018) City of Kingsburg October 2025
Tract No. 6499
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-34
Figure 4-2: FEMA Flood Map

1.25 Miles ±
06019C2675H
2/18/2009
06107C0293E
6/16/2009
Caruthers Ave
10th Ave
Stroud Ave
Madse
n Av
e
Simpson St
Conejo Ave
Sierra St
Golden State Blvd
Madsen Ave
18th Ave Mendocino Ave
Stroud Ave
Academy Ave
Kamm Ave
Mountain ViewAve
EAÎ
A«E
Fresno County
Tulare County
Project Site
City Limit
County
Flood Zone
DFIRM Panel Number/Date
100 Year Flood Zone (FEMA DFIRM)
0 0.25 0.5
Miles
FEMA Flood Map o
Prepared By
City of Kingsburg - Tract 6499
1/7/2022 G:\Kingsburg_City of - 1345\134525002-Tract No. 6499 CEQA\400 GIS\Map\CityOfKingsburg_Tract_6499\CityOfKingsburg_Tract_6499.aprx Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community .
-·-·-. '·-·-·'
1111

PROVOST&

PRITCHARD

PROVOST&

PRITCHARD
City of Kingsburg October 2025
Tract No. 6499
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-35

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 City of Kingsburg city limits. The Project site is currently zoned as R-1- 7 by the City and has a General Plan designation of Low Density Residential.

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. The Project proposes vehicular connection points to Kamm Avenue to the north, as well as 6th Avenue to the south. Internally, the proposed Project would include streets of 60 feet in width and an alleyway of 16 feet in width. The construction of the Project would not result in the physical division of an established community.

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 proposed TSM would subdivide the subject property into 44 single family residential lots, meeting the density of the Low Density Residential Land Use and conforming with the R-1-7 Single Family zone district standards for which the subject property is planned and zoned by the City of Kingsburg General Plan and Official Zoning Map. 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.
□ □ □
□ □ □ IXI
□ □ □ IXI
City of Kingsburg October 2025
Tract No. 6499
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-36

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. 30 According to the California Department of Conservation’s Division of Mine Reclamation, there are no operational mines within the City of Kingsburg.
31 The Project site is planned and zoned for residential use by the City’s General Plan and Official Zoning Map and has not been identified as an area reserved for mineral resource conservation.

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 has no known mineral deposit that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State. There would be no loss of any known mineral resources as a result of the Project and 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? No impact. The Project site has not been identified as having mineral resources by the Kingsburg General Plan, a specific plan, or other land use plan. The Project site is not known to possess locally important 30 Public Resources Code, Section 2762(a)(1) 31 (California Department of Conservation, 2016) □ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □ IXI
City of Kingsburg October 2025
Tract No. 6499
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-37
mineral resources. There would be no loss of any known mineral resources and therefore, there would be no impact.

City of Kingsburg October 2025
Tract No. 6499
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-38

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
According to the City’s General Plan, the City requires that daytime noise sources within single-family residential areas remain below 55 decibels during the day.32 The site is located adjacent to lands used for agricultural purposes and which are accustomed to heavy machinery use. The land to the east and south of the Project site is developed with single-family houses and is accustomed to typical urban neighborhood noise levels.

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, 32 (City of Kingsburg, 1992)
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □ IXI
City of Kingsburg October 2025
Tract No. 6499
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-39
and air conditioning [HVAC] units). Due to the distances and low noise levels associated with general site 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 seven and a half 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 2025
Tract No. 6499
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-40

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 comprises 15.23 acres of land within northern Kingsburg. The Project site, excluding the park site, is designated as Low-Density Residential land by the City’s General Plan. According to the United States Census Bureau, the City of Kingsburg had an estimated population of 13,013 people in 2022.

Additionally it is estimated that in 2022 the City had a rate of 2.91 people per household. 33 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 44 single-family residential lots. At 2.91 residents per household, the Project would add approximately 128.4 new residents to the City’s population. While the Project would result in population growth through the construction of 44 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 existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The Project would result in the construction of 44 new homes. There would be no demolition of any existing homes, as none currently exist on the Project site. Therefore, there would be no impact.
33 (United States Census Bureau, 2022)
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ KI □
□ □ □ ixi
City of Kingsburg October 2025
Tract No. 6499
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-41

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.34 The Kingsburg Fire Department operates out of two stations, and the nearest station (access-wise) is located at 1460 Marion St, approximately 1.1 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 1.25 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 Rafer Johnson Junior High School, approximately 2,000 feet southeast of the site, and Kingsburg Elementary School, approximately 2,800 feet to the southeast. The nearest private school facility to the Project site is Happy Days School, located approximately 2,600 feet to the southeast of the site.

4.15.1.4 PARKS:

The City of Kingsburg hosts eight parks managed by the City’s Parks and Recreation department.35 The closest park is Erling Park, situated approximately 4,500 feet east of the Project site. 34 (Kingsburg Fire Department, 2025) 35 (City of Kingsburg, 2025) □
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
181
181
181
181
181
□
□
□
□
□
□ □ KI □
□ □ KI □
□ □ K □
□ □ K □
□ □ K □
City of Kingsburg October 2025
Tract No. 6499
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-42

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 1.1 miles from the nearest City of Kingsburg Fire Department station (access-wise). 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 as well as Community Facilities District fees, are a requirement prior to issuance of building permits. With the payment of impact fees, impacts would be less than significant. ii. Police Protection:

Less than Significant Impact. The Kingsburg Police Department, located approximately 1.25 miles from the site, currently provides police protection for the Project site. 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 impact fees, impacts would be less than significant.
iii. Schools:

Less than Significant Impact. The Project would result in the construction of 44 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 44 single-family residences, which would increase the population of the City, although unsubstantially. This may increase usage and demand for park facilities. However, the Project also includes the development of an approximately 0.40-acre neighborhood park. The City of Kingsburg General Plan uses a standard of 2.7 acres per 1,000 people for its neighborhood park and playground development, which is equivalent to approximately 370 people City of Kingsburg October 2025
Tract No. 6499
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-43
per acre of parkland.36 At 2.91 residents per household37, the Project would add approximately 128 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 would 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 37 miles to the northwest of the site. According to CalRecycle, the American Avenue Landfill is projected to have capacity through the year 2031.38 Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
36 (City of Kingsburg, 1992) 37 (United States Census Bureau, 2023) 38 (California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, 2025) City of Kingsburg October 2025
Tract No. 6499
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-44

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 City of Kingsburg provides parks and open space for the residents of the City, with 28.5 acres of parkland currently developed for use by City residents. 39 The City presently has a total of eight City parks,
with the three nearest to the Project site being Historical Park (approximately 1.35 miles southeast), Memorial Park (approximately 5,000 feet southeast), and Erling Park (approximately 4,500 feet east).

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 44-lot residential subdivision. As a part of the Project, an approximately 0.4-acre neighborhood park would be constructed to serve the Project. As discussed above, the Project would result in the increase of the City’s population by approximately 128 people, and while these new residents may use existing City parks, the increase in usage would be minor in nature. Therefore, impacts would be 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 0.4 acres in size. Any adverse physical effect on the environment as a result of the construction of this neighborhood park is discussed in the appropriate impact topic throughout this document. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 39 (City of Kingsburg, 2024)
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ KI □
□ □ K □
City of Kingsburg October 2025
Tract No. 6499
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-45

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 site is within the northwest region of the City of Kingsburg’s city limits. Major transportation routes within the City include SR 99 and SR 201. The Project site is abutted by Kamm Ave to the north and 6th Avenue to the southeast. Kamm Avenue is an arterial street, while 6th Avenue is a local street.

In December 2018, modifications to the CEQA Guidelines were adopted by the Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (LUCI) (formerly the Office of Planning and Research), which requires all lead agencies to adopt Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as a replacement for automobile delay-based level of service 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 LUCI 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.40

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. 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 Fresno Council of Government’s 2022 Regional Transportation Plan.41 While the Project would result in the extension of neighborhood roadways to serve the subdivision, the Project 40 (Governor's Office of Planning and Research, 2018) 41 (Fresno Council of Governments, 2022) □ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ IXI □
□ □ KI □
□ □ □ K
□ □ □ K
City of Kingsburg October 2025
Tract No. 6499
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-46
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. b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 subdivision (b)? Less than Significant Impact. The Fresno Council of Governments released Senate Bill 743 Implementation Regional Guidelinesrecognizing that certain conditions, such as a project's size, location, proximity to transit, or trip-making potential, may indicate that a land use development project would have a less than significant impact. Projects meeting any of these criteria may be presumed to result in minimal impacts. One such criterion is that the project generates fewer than 500 average daily trips (ADT).42 The proposed Project is expected to generate approximately 415 ADT, with 31 AM peak hour and 41 PM peak hour trips generated. As this ADT amount generated is less than 500, it would not meet the criteria for further analysis and would be screened out of this requirement. Therefore, impacts would be considered 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 44 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.
42 (Fresno Council of Governments, 2021)
City of Kingsburg October 2025
Tract No. 6499
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-47

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 September 2025. 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 □ □ □
□ □ □
□ |X| □ □
□ El □ □
City of Kingsburg October 2025
Tract No. 6499
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-48
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 (see Appendix C).

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.
vi-vii) Less than Significant Impact. 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 2025
Tract No. 6499
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-49

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 is located within city limits of the City of Kingsburg. The City provides water and stormwater services for residents of the City with solid waste services provided by Mid Valley Disposal. 43 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 vacant and surrounded by residential units to the south and east and agricultural land to the north and west.

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. As the Project site is located within existing city limits, utility connections, existing water and wastewater infrastructure are available. The Project would connect to City water services existing in the residential development to the east and south of the site. For sewer services, the 43 (Kingsburg, 2025)
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ |X| □
□ □ E □
□ □ □
□ □ |X| □
□ □ □ El
City of Kingsburg October 2025
Tract No. 6499
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-50
Project would connect to existing SKFCSD infrastructure and connect to existing PG&E and telecommunications facilities. 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.
44 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 require a new sewer connection 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 Project.

In addition, 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 44 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 37 miles to the northwest of the site. According to CalRecycle, the American Avenue Landfill is projected to have capacity through the year 2031.45 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.
44 (City of Kingsburg, 2020) 45 (California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, 2025) City of Kingsburg October 2025
Tract No. 6499
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-51

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 an undeveloped lot with naturally occurring vegetation that has historically been routinely disked. The site is surrounded by single-family low-density residential neighborhoods to the east and south, as well as agricultural and rural residential lands to the west and north. Kingsburg is not located in or near an SRA (State Responsibility Area) and is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ).
46 47 The nearest SRA is located approximately 18 miles to the east of the site, while the nearest VHFHSZ is located about 32 miles southeast. The City operates two fire stations, located approximately 1.1 and 1.05 miles from the Project site, respectively.

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 46 (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, 2025) 47 (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, 2025) □ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □ IXI
□ □ □ IXI
□ □ □ IXI
□ □ □ IXI
City of Kingsburg October 2025
Tract No. 6499
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-52
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 site is not located within an SRA or VHFHSZ. The nearest SRA is located approximately 18 miles away from the Project Site to the east. The nearest VHFHSZ is approximately 32 miles to the southeast of the Project site. The site is located on a relatively flat, vacant, and undeveloped site that is bordered by urban uses, making wildfire unlikely to occur at the site. Therefore, there would be no impact.

City of Kingsburg October 2025
Tract No. 6499
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-53

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 IS/MND 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)?
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
IXI
City of Kingsburg October 2025
Tract No. 6499
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-54
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 construction of a 44 single-family residential lots and a neighborhood park on 15.23 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 IS/MND 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 2025
Tract No. 6499
Chapter 5: Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program www.provostandpritchard.com 5-1
CHAPTER 5 MITIGATION, MONITORING, AND REPORTING

PROGRAM
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been formulated based upon the findings of the 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 2025
Tract No. 6499
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,
avoidance buffers will be identified with flagging,
During Construction
Activities Daily
City of Kingsburg
and/or construction
contractor
City of
Kingsburg
with
assistance of
a qualified
biologist
City of Kingsburg October 2025
Tract No. 6499
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
fencing, or other easily visible means, and will be
maintained until the biologist has determined that
the nestlings have fledged.

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
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
During Construction
Activities Daily
City of Kingsburg
and/or construction
contractor
City of
Kingsburg
with
assistance of
County
Coroner
City of Kingsburg October 2025
Tract No. 6499
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
regarding the treatment and disposition of the
remains.

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

City of Kingsburg October 2025
Tract No. 6499
Chapter 6: References
www.provostandpritchard.com 6-1
CHAPTER 6 REFERENCES
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. (2016). Mines Online. Retrieved from https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/mol/index.html
California Department of Conservation. (2022). California Important Farmland Finder. Retrieved from https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/
California Department of Conservation. (2025). California Williamson Act Enrollment Finder. Retrieved from https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/WilliamsonAct/App/index.html California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. (2025, September 25). Fire Hazard Severity Zones.

Retrieved from https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what-we-do/community-wildfire-preparedness-andmitigation/fire-hazard-severity-zones California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. (2025, September 25). State Responsability Area (SRA) Viewer. Retrieved from https://calfireforestry.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=468717e399fa4238ad8686163876 5ce1
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. (2025, August 11). Solid Waste Information System. Retrieved August 11, 2025, from American Avenue Disposal Site:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/4535?siteID=352 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. (2025, September 17). 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. (2025). EnviroStor. Retrieved August 07, 2025, from https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=kingsburg California Department of Transportation. (2025, October 19). State Scenic Highway. Retrieved from https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/47e2009986264718a5a13a2c81382774 California Department of Water Resources. (2025). Dam Breach Inundation Map Web Publisher. Retrieved October 19, 2023, from https://fmds.water.ca.gov/webgis/?appid=dam_prototype_v2 City of Kingsburg. (1992). Comprehensive General Plan & Environmental Impact Report for the Swedish Village of Kingsburg. Retrieved August 08, 2025
City of Kingsburg. (2020). City of Kingsburg Urban Water Management Plan.

City of Kingsburg. (2024). Focused General Plan Update Legislative Review and Assessments Report.

Retrieved from https://kingsburg-gp-update.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/KingsburgLegislative-Review-and-Assessments-Report_F.pdf City of Kingsburg. (2025, September 22). City of Kingsburg Zoning Map. Retrieved from http://cityofkingsburg-ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3004/Zoning-Map-2025?bidId= City of Kingsburg October 2025
Tract No. 6499
Chapter 6: References
www.provostandpritchard.com 6-2
City of Kingsburg. (2025, September 22). General Plan Land Use Map. Retrieved from http://cityofkingsburg-ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3003/General-Plan-Land-Use-Map2025?bidId= City of Kingsburg. (2025). Parks and Murals. Retrieved August 11, 2025, from City of Kingsburg:
https://www.cityofkingsburg-ca.gov/168/Parks-Murals
County of Fresno. (2000). General Plan Background Report. Fresno.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2025). 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
Fresno Council of Governments. (2021). Fresno County SB 743 Implementation Regional Guidelines.

Retrieved August 15, 2025
Fresno Council of Governments. (2022). Plan Fresno. Retrieved from Fresno COG's 2022 Regional Transportation Plan: https://www.planfresno.com/sustainable-communities-strategies-falloutreach/ Governor's Office of Planning and Research. (2018, April). Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. Retrieved August 11, 2025, from https://lci.ca.gov/docs/20180416- 743_Technical_Advisory_4.16.18.pdf
Kingsburg Fire Department. (2025). Department Overview. Retrieved August 11, 2025, from Kingsburg Fire Department: https://www.cityofkingsburg-ca.gov/436/Department-Overview Kingsburg, C. o. (2025, September 16). City of Kingsburg. Retrieved from https://cityofkingsburgca.gov/211/Utilities San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. (2009). Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA. Retrieved August 13, 2025 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. (2025). Air Quality Attainment Plans. Retrieved August 12, 2025, from https://www.valleyair.org/rules-and-planning/air-quality-plans/ 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. (2025). GeoTracker. Retrieved August 07, 2025, from https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=mendota# United 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 United States Census Bureau. (2023). ACS 5-Year Estimates Subject Tables: Households and Families.

Retrieved August 11, 2025, from United States Census Bureau:
https://data.census.gov/table/ACSST5Y2023.S1101?q=kingsburg+household&moe=false United States Department of Agriculture. (2025). Web Soil Survey. Retrieved from Natural Resources Conservation Service: https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx City of Kingsburg October 2025
Tract No. 6499
Chapter 6: References
www.provostandpritchard.com 6-3
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2025, August 6). Current Nonattainment Counties for All Criteria Pollutants. Retrieved August 6, 2025, from
https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/ancl.html
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2025). 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. (2025, September 17). Waters GeoViewer 2.0. Retrieved from https://epa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?i United States Geological Survey. (2025). 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. (2025). Areas of Land Subsidence in California. Retrieved from https://ca.water.usgs.gov/land_subsidence/california-subsidence-areas.html United States Geological Survey. (2025). Areas of Land Subsidence in California. Retrieved from https://ca.water.usgs.gov/land_subsidence/california-subsidence-areas.html Appendix

APPENDICES
Appendix
Appendix A: CalEEMod Output Files
Tract 6499 Detailed Report, 9/22/2025
1 / 45
Tract 6499 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

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Site Preparation (2026) - Unmitigated

3.3. Grading (2026) - Unmitigated

3.5. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated

3.9. Paving (2027) - Unmitigated
Tract 6499 Detailed Report, 9/22/2025
2 / 45

3.11. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
Tract 6499 Detailed Report, 9/22/2025
3 / 45

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

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

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Tract 6499 Detailed Report, 9/22/2025
4 / 45

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

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Tract 6499 Detailed Report, 9/22/2025
5 / 45

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

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. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
Tract 6499 Detailed Report, 9/22/2025
6 / 45

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
Tract 6499 Detailed Report, 9/22/2025
7 / 45

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Tract 6499
Construction Start Date 2/2/2026
Operational Year 2028
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.40
Precipitation (days) 23.2
Location 36.53155284075525, -119.56118974046609
County Fresno
City Kingsburg
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 2022.1.1.30

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

44.0 Dwelling Unit 15.2 85,800 515,366 0.40 128 —
Tract 6499 Detailed Report, 9/22/2025
8 / 45

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

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. 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. 0.50 0.42 3.21 4.28 0.01 0.14 0.10 0.18 0.13 0.02 0.14 — 642 642 0.03 0.01 0.47 645 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 27.0 27.0 37.8 37.9 0.11 1.48 5.21 6.45 1.36 2.65 3.79 — 11,777 11,777 0.48 0.10 0.01 11,818 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.53 1.53 4.54 4.95 0.01 0.19 0.31 0.49 0.17 0.10 0.27 — 1,305 1,305 0.05 0.02 0.13 1,312 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.28 0.28 0.83 0.90 < 0.005 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.03 0.02 0.05 — 216 216 0.01 < 0.005 0.02 217

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.11 0.10 1.16 1.98 < 0.005 0.06 0.10 0.16 0.06 0.02 0.08 — 353 353 0.01 0.01 0.47 359 -------------------
-------------------
Tract 6499 Detailed Report, 9/22/2025
9 / 45
2027 0.50 0.42 3.21 4.28 0.01 0.14 0.10 0.18 0.13 0.02 0.14 — 642 642 0.03 0.01 0.42 645 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 5.02 4.22 37.8 37.9 0.11 1.48 5.21 6.45 1.36 2.65 3.79 — 11,777 11,777 0.48 0.10 0.01 11,818 2027 27.0 27.0 3.21 4.24 0.01 0.14 0.10 0.18 0.13 0.02 0.14 — 638 638 0.03 0.01 0.01 640 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.57 0.49 4.54 4.95 0.01 0.19 0.31 0.49 0.17 0.10 0.27 — 1,305 1,305 0.05 0.02 0.13 1,312 2027 1.53 1.53 0.69 1.08 < 0.005 0.03 0.05 0.09 0.03 0.01 0.05 — 195 195 0.01 0.01 0.10 198 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.10 0.09 0.83 0.90 < 0.005 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.03 0.02 0.05 — 216 216 0.01 < 0.005 0.02 217 2027 0.28 0.28 0.13 0.20 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 — 32.3 32.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 32.8

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. 5.99 4.73 2.03 21.7 0.06 1.50 1.81 3.31 1.45 0.46 1.90 262 3,444 3,706 3.57 0.12 6.76 3,839 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 5.61 4.36 2.15 18.2 0.06 1.50 1.81 3.31 1.44 0.46 1.90 262 3,259 3,520 3.59 0.13 0.77 3,650 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.96 3.59 1.66 11.3 0.03 0.38 1.74 2.12 0.36 0.44 0.80 76.3 2,908 2,984 2.70 0.12 3.21 3,091 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.72 0.66 0.30 2.07 0.01 0.07 0.32 0.39 0.07 0.08 0.15 12.6 481 494 0.45 0.02 0.53 512 -------------------
Tract 6499 Detailed Report, 9/22/2025
10 / 45

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 1.47 1.39 1.05 8.88 0.02 0.02 1.81 1.82 0.01 0.46 0.47 — 2,180 2,180 0.09 0.11 6.14 2,221 Area 4.47 3.32 0.55 12.6 0.03 1.45 — 1.45 1.40 — 1.40 239 470 709 1.13 < 0.005 — 737 Energy 0.05 0.03 0.43 0.18 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 779 779 0.09 0.01 — 782 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 3.40 15.6 19.0 0.35 0.01 — 30.3 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 19.2 0.00 19.2 1.91 0.00 — 67.0 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.61 0.61
Total 5.99 4.73 2.03 21.7 0.06 1.50 1.81 3.31 1.45 0.46 1.90 262 3,444 3,706 3.57 0.12 6.76 3,839 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.33 1.24 1.19 7.92 0.02 0.02 1.81 1.82 0.01 0.46 0.47 — 2,001 2,001 0.11 0.12 0.16 2,039 Area 4.24 3.10 0.53 10.1 0.03 1.45 — 1.45 1.39 — 1.39 239 463 702 1.13 < 0.005 — 731 Energy 0.05 0.03 0.43 0.18 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 779 779 0.09 0.01 — 782 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 3.40 15.6 19.0 0.35 0.01 — 30.3 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 19.2 0.00 19.2 1.91 0.00 — 67.0 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.61 0.61
Total 5.61 4.36 2.15 18.2 0.06 1.50 1.81 3.31 1.44 0.46 1.90 262 3,259 3,520 3.59 0.13 0.77 3,650 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.31 1.23 1.10 7.65 0.02 0.02 1.74 1.76 0.01 0.44 0.46 — 2,006 2,006 0.10 0.11 2.59 2,044 Area 2.60 2.34 0.13 3.50 0.01 0.33 — 0.33 0.31 — 0.31 53.7 107 161 0.25 < 0.005 — 167 Energy 0.05 0.03 0.43 0.18 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 779 779 0.09 0.01 — 782 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 3.40 15.6 19.0 0.35 0.01 — 30.3 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 19.2 0.00 19.2 1.91 0.00 — 67.0 -------------------
Tract 6499 Detailed Report, 9/22/2025
11 / 45
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.61 0.61
Total 3.96 3.59 1.66 11.3 0.03 0.38 1.74 2.12 0.36 0.44 0.80 76.3 2,908 2,984 2.70 0.12 3.21 3,091 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.24 0.22 0.20 1.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.32 0.32 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 — 332 332 0.02 0.02 0.43 338 Area 0.48 0.43 0.02 0.64 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 8.89 17.8 26.7 0.04 < 0.005 — 27.7 Energy 0.01 < 0.005 0.08 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 129 129 0.01 < 0.005 — 130 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.56 2.58 3.14 0.06 < 0.005 — 5.02 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 3.17 0.00 3.17 0.32 0.00 — 11.1 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.10 0.10
Total 0.72 0.66 0.30 2.07 0.01 0.07 0.32 0.39 0.07 0.08 0.15 12.6 481 494 0.45 0.02 0.53 512

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Site Preparation (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

3.74 3.14 29.2 28.8 0.05 1.24 — 1.24 1.14 — 1.14 — 5,298 5,298 0.21 0.04 — 5,316 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 5.11 5.11 — 2.63 2.63 — — — — — — —
-------------------
Tract 6499 Detailed Report, 9/22/2025
12 / 45
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
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.10 0.09 0.80 0.79 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 145 145 0.01 < 0.005 — 146 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.14 0.14 — 0.07 0.07 — — — — — — —
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 0.02 0.15 0.14 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 24.0 24.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 24.1 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.03 0.03 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —
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 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 92.2 92.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 93.7 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 Tract 6499 Detailed Report, 9/22/2025
13 / 45
Average — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.62 2.62 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.66 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.43 0.43 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.44 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.3. Grading (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

4.94 4.15 37.7 37.4 0.11 1.48 — 1.48 1.36 — 1.36 — 11,671 11,671 0.47 0.09 — 11,711 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 1.21 1.21 — 0.13 0.13 — — — — — — —
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
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------
Tract 6499 Detailed Report, 9/22/2025
14 / 45
Off-Roa 0.41 0.34 3.10 3.07 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.11 — 0.11 — 959 959 0.04 0.01 — 963 d
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.10 0.10 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.07 0.06 0.57 0.56 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 159 159 0.01 < 0.005 — 159 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.02 0.02 — < 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 105 105 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 107 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 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.97 8.97 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 9.12 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Tract 6499 Detailed Report, 9/22/2025
15 / 45
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.49 1.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.51 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.5. Building Construction (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

0.03 0.03 1.03 1.39 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 199 199 0.01 < 0.005 — 199 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

0.03 0.03 1.03 1.39 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 199 199 0.01 < 0.005 — 199 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

0.02 0.02 0.56 0.76 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 108 108 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 109 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 -------------------
Tract 6499 Detailed Report, 9/22/2025
16 / 45
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.10 0.14 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 18.0 18.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 18.0 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 0.06 0.03 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 94.0 94.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.33 95.6 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.10 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 60.7 60.7 < 0.005 0.01 0.14 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 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 83.5 83.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 84.8 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.10 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 60.8 60.8 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 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 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 47.2 47.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 48.0 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 33.2 33.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 34.7 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 — 7.82 7.82 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.95 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.49 5.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.75 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 (2027) - Unmitigated
Tract 6499 Detailed Report, 9/22/2025
17 / 45
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

0.03 0.03 1.03 1.39 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 199 199 0.01 < 0.005 — 199 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

0.03 0.03 1.03 1.39 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 199 199 0.01 < 0.005 — 199 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

0.02 0.02 0.55 0.74 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 105 105 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 106 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.10 0.13 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 17.4 17.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 17.5 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 -------------------
Tract 6499 Detailed Report, 9/22/2025
18 / 45
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.03 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 92.1 92.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.29 93.5 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 59.4 59.4 < 0.005 0.01 0.12 62.2 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 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 81.8 81.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 83.1 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.10 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 59.5 59.5 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 62.2 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 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 44.9 44.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 45.7 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 31.5 31.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 33.0 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 — 7.44 7.44 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.56 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.22 5.22 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.46 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. Paving (2027) - 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)
------------------- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Tract 6499 Detailed Report, 9/22/2025
19 / 45
Off-Roa 0.47 0.39 3.20 4.04 0.01 0.14 — 0.14 0.13 — 0.13 — 599 599 0.02 < 0.005 — 601 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 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.47 0.39 3.20 4.04 0.01 0.14 — 0.14 0.13 — 0.13 — 599 599 0.02 < 0.005 — 601 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
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 4.92 4.92 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.94 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
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.81 0.81 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.82 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Tract 6499 Detailed Report, 9/22/2025
20 / 45
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 43.6 43.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.14 44.3 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 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 — 38.7 38.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 39.3 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 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.33 0.33 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.34 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 — 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.11. Architectural Coating (2027) - 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)
------------------- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Tract 6499 Detailed Report, 9/22/2025
21 / 45
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.14 0.11 0.83 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coating
s

26.9 26.9 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.32 7.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.34 Architect
ural
Coating
s

1.47 1.47 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.27 0.27 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Tract 6499 Detailed Report, 9/22/2025
22 / 45
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.4 16.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 16.6 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.93 0.93 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.94 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 — 0.15 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.16 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

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Tract 6499 Detailed Report, 9/22/2025
23 / 45
Single 1.47 1.39 1.05 8.88 0.02 0.02 1.81 1.82 0.01 0.46 0.47 — 2,180 2,180 0.09 0.11 6.14 2,221 Family
Housing
Total 1.47 1.39 1.05 8.88 0.02 0.02 1.81 1.82 0.01 0.46 0.47 — 2,180 2,180 0.09 0.11 6.14 2,221 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

1.33 1.24 1.19 7.92 0.02 0.02 1.81 1.82 0.01 0.46 0.47 — 2,001 2,001 0.11 0.12 0.16 2,039 Total 1.33 1.24 1.19 7.92 0.02 0.02 1.81 1.82 0.01 0.46 0.47 — 2,001 2,001 0.11 0.12 0.16 2,039 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.24 0.22 0.20 1.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.32 0.32 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 — 332 332 0.02 0.02 0.43 338 Total 0.24 0.22 0.20 1.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.32 0.32 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 — 332 332 0.02 0.02 0.43 338

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
— — — — — — — — — — — — 230 230 0.04 < 0.005 — 232
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 230 230 0.04 < 0.005 — 232 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Tract 6499 Detailed Report, 9/22/2025
24 / 45
Single — — — — — — — — — — — — 230 230 0.04 < 0.005 — 232 Family
Housing
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 230 230 0.04 < 0.005 — 232 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 38.1 38.1 0.01 < 0.005 — 38.4
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 38.1 38.1 0.01 < 0.005 — 38.4

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

0.05 0.03 0.43 0.18 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 549 549 0.05 < 0.005 — 550 Total 0.05 0.03 0.43 0.18 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 549 549 0.05 < 0.005 — 550 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.05 0.03 0.43 0.18 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 549 549 0.05 < 0.005 — 550 Total 0.05 0.03 0.43 0.18 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 549 549 0.05 < 0.005 — 550 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.01 < 0.005 0.08 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 90.8 90.8 0.01 < 0.005 — 91.1 Total 0.01 < 0.005 0.08 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 90.8 90.8 0.01 < 0.005 — 91.1 Tract 6499 Detailed Report, 9/22/2025
25 / 45

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 2.25 1.11 0.53 10.1 0.03 1.45 — 1.45 1.39 — 1.39 239 463 702 1.13 < 0.005 — 731 Consum
er
Product
s

1.84 1.84 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.15 0.15 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

0.23 0.22 0.02 2.50 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 6.67 6.67 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.70 Total 4.47 3.32 0.55 12.6 0.03 1.45 — 1.45 1.40 — 1.40 239 470 709 1.13 < 0.005 — 737 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 2.25 1.11 0.53 10.1 0.03 1.45 — 1.45 1.39 — 1.39 239 463 702 1.13 < 0.005 — 731 Consum
er
Product
s

1.84 1.84 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.15 0.15 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 4.24 3.10 0.53 10.1 0.03 1.45 — 1.45 1.39 — 1.39 239 463 702 1.13 < 0.005 — 731 -------------------
Tract 6499 Detailed Report, 9/22/2025
26 / 45
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.09 0.05 0.02 0.41 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 8.89 17.2 26.1 0.04 < 0.005 — 27.2 Consum
er
Product
s

0.34 0.34 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.03 0.03 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.23 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.54 0.54 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.55 Total 0.48 0.43 0.02 0.64 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 8.89 17.8 26.7 0.04 < 0.005 — 27.7

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
— — — — — — — — — — — 3.40 15.6 19.0 0.35 0.01 — 30.3
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 3.40 15.6 19.0 0.35 0.01 — 30.3 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 3.40 15.6 19.0 0.35 0.01 — 30.3
Tract 6499 Detailed Report, 9/22/2025
27 / 45
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 3.40 15.6 19.0 0.35 0.01 — 30.3 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.56 2.58 3.14 0.06 < 0.005 — 5.02 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.56 2.58 3.14 0.06 < 0.005 — 5.02

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
— — — — — — — — — — — 19.2 0.00 19.2 1.91 0.00 — 67.0
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 19.2 0.00 19.2 1.91 0.00 — 67.0 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 19.2 0.00 19.2 1.91 0.00 — 67.0
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 19.2 0.00 19.2 1.91 0.00 — 67.0 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 3.17 0.00 3.17 0.32 0.00 — 11.1
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 3.17 0.00 3.17 0.32 0.00 — 11.1 Tract 6499 Detailed Report, 9/22/2025
28 / 45

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
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.61 0.61
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.61 0.61
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.61 0.61
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.61 0.61
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.10 0.10
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.10 0.10

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 Tract 6499 Detailed Report, 9/22/2025
29 / 45
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Tract 6499 Detailed Report, 9/22/2025
30 / 45
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) 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Tract 6499 Detailed Report, 9/22/2025
31 / 45

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 Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------
Tract 6499 Detailed Report, 9/22/2025
32 / 45
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Site Preparation Site Preparation 2/2/2026 2/13/2026 5.00 10.0 — Grading Grading 2/14/2026 3/27/2026 5.00 30.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 3/28/2026 9/28/2027 5.00 392 — Tract 6499 Detailed Report, 9/22/2025
33 / 45
Paving Paving 9/29/2027 10/1/2027 5.00 3.00 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 10/2/2027 10/29/2027 5.00 20.0 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 10.0 148 0.41
Grading Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 10.0 367 0.40
Grading Scrapers Diesel Average 3.00 10.0 423 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.00 6.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Tier 3 1.00 4.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Tier 3 1.00 4.00 71.0 0.37 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Tract 6499 Detailed Report, 9/22/2025
34 / 45
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 15.8 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 4.70 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 7.50 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 3.17 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.

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Tract 6499 Detailed Report, 9/22/2025
35 / 45
Phase Name Residential Interior Area Parking Area Coated (sq ft) Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 173,745 57,915 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 (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) Site Preparation — — 15.0 0.00 —
Grading — — 131 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.48

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 3 74% 74%

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Single Family Housing 0.48 0%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2026 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2027 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
Tract 6499 Detailed Report, 9/22/2025
36 / 45

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
415 420 376 149,794 2,531 2,558 2,292 912,754

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Single Family Housing —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 22
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 22
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 2
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 2
Pellet Wood Stoves 0

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)
173745 57,915 0.00 0.00 —

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Tract 6499 Detailed Report, 9/22/2025
37 / 45
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 411,250 204 0.0330 0.0040 1,712,142

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Single Family Housing 1,773,024 8,646,663

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Single Family Housing 35.5 —

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 Tract 6499 Detailed Report, 9/22/2025
38 / 45
Single Family Housing Average room A/C & R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0 Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
Single Family Housing Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00

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

5.16. 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 Tract 6499 Detailed Report, 9/22/2025
39 / 45

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

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

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

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

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 34.2 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 1.10 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm 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.

Tract 6499 Detailed Report, 9/22/2025
40 / 45

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
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.

Tract 6499 Detailed Report, 9/22/2025
41 / 45
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 —
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
Tract 6499 Detailed Report, 9/22/2025
42 / 45
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 —
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
Tract 6499 Detailed Report, 9/22/2025
43 / 45
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
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
Tract 6499 Detailed Report, 9/22/2025
44 / 45
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 —
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 Tract 6499 Detailed Report, 9/22/2025
45 / 45
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
Characteristics: Project Details Schedule
Land Use Added details from project description, adjusted population based on 44 units x 2.91 persons per household
Construction: Construction Phases Construction schedule Construction: Off-Road Equipment Construction equipment based on information from developer/contractor **HARP - Air Dispersion Modeling and Risk Tool v22118
**9/23/2025
**Exported Risk Results
REC GRP NETID X Y RISK_SUM SCENARIO INHAL_RISKSOIL_RISK 1 SENSITIV 270700 4045746 1.5283E-082YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70 1.5283E-08 0 2 SENSITIV 270863 4045950 2.1124E-082YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70 2.1124E-08 0 3 SENSITIV 270878 4046081 2.9601E-092YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70 2.9601E-09 0 4 SENSITIV 270641 4046086 8.2702E-092YrCancerDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk_FAH16to70 8.2702E-09 0 DERMAL_RISKMMILK_RISKWATER_RISKFISH_RISK CROP_RISKBEEF_RISK DAIRY_RISKPIG_RISK CHICKEN_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
EGG_RISK
0 0
0 0
**HARP - Air Dispersion Modeling and Risk Tool v22118
**9/23/2025
**Exported Risk Results

REC GRP NETID X Y SCENARIO CV CNS IMMUN
1 SENSITIV 270700 4045746 NonCancerChronicDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk 0 0 0 2 SENSITIV 270863 4045950 NonCancerChronicDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk 0 0 0 3 SENSITIV 270878 4046081 NonCancerChronicDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk 0 0 0 4 SENSITIV 270641 4046086 NonCancerChronicDerived_InhSoilDermMMilk 0 0 0

KIDNEY GILV REPRO/DEVEL RESP SKIN EYE BONE/TEETHENDO BLOOD 0 0 0 8.9349E-06 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1.235E-05 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1.7306E-06 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 4.8351E-06 0 0 0 0 0

ODOR GENERAL MAXHI
0 0 8.9349E-06
0 0 1.235E-05
0 0 1.7306E-06
0 0 4.8351E-06
**HARP - Air Dispersion Modeling and Risk Tool v22118
**9/23/2025
**Exported Risk Results

REC GRP NETID X Y SCENARIO CV CNS IMMUN
1 SENSITIV 270700 4045746 NonCancerAcute 0 0 0
2 SENSITIV 270863 4045950 NonCancerAcute 0 0 0
3 SENSITIV 270878 4046081 NonCancerAcute 0 0 0
4 SENSITIV 270641 4046086 NonCancerAcute 0 0 0

KIDNEY GILV REPRO/DEVEL RESP SKIN EYE BONE/TEETHENDO BLOOD 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

ODOR GENERAL MAXHI
0 0 0
0 0 0
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: Olivia Arredondo, Biologist
Subject: Biological Evaluation of the Tract No. 6499 CEQA Project Date: September 17, 2025

BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION
Crown Construction and Development Inc has proposed the Tract No. 6499 Project (project), which would subdivide Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 394-021-42, a parcel of approximately 15.03 acres in size, into 44 single family residential lots, meeting the density of the Low Density Residential Land Use and conforming with the R-1-7 Single Family zone district standards for which the subject property is planned and zoned by the City of Kingsburg General Plan and Official Zoning Map. Additionally, the Project would develop a neighborhood park serving the new subdivision called Crown Park. The project site (site) is located to the south of East Kamm Avenue and adjacent to the northern border of the City of Kingsburg (see Figure 1 and Figure 2).

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 northeast corner of Section 22, Township 16 South, Range 22 East (see Figure 3), and the topography within the site is relatively flat with elevations at approximately 300 to 312 feet above mean sea level.

PROVOST & PRITCHARD

CONSUL TING GROUP

PROVOST&PRITCHARD

CONSULTING GROUP
7th Ave Dr
Skansen
Howard
Silverbrooke
St
Lingonberry St
Silverbrooke St
Harold St
Stroud Ave
Kamm Ave
Academy Ave
Project Site
Crown Park
City Limit 0 250 500
Feet
8/13/2025 G:\Kingsburg_City of - 1345\134525002-Tract No. 6499 CEQA\400 GIS\Map\CityOfKingsburg_Tract_6499\CityOfKingsburg_Tract_6499.aprx o Prepared By
Aerial Map
City of Kingsburg - Tract 6499 Figure
1 Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community D -
I -·-·· •
•- • - • I
PROVOS

PRITCHARD
Inefl
t 41
vfj ‘il

PROVOST&

PRITCHARD
?Î
AªE
EA¢
EAc
EAe
«?
w?
?Î
EAc
k?
Clovis
Selma
Sanger
Orange
Cove
Reedley
Fowler
Parlier
Kingsburg
Fresno
Dinuba
Visalia Lemoore
Hanford
F r e s n o C o u n t y
K i n g s C o u n t y
F r e s n o C o u n t y
T u l a r e C o u n t y
Home
Del Rey
Easton
Laton
Yokuts Valley
Monmouth
El Monte
Mobile
Village
Sultana
Grangeville
Hardwick
Armona
Garden
Cutler
Goshen
Orosi
London
Traver
Bowles
Malaga
Caruthers
Centerville  Minkler
West Goshen
West Goshen
Delft Colony
Monson
Patterson
Tract
Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA
Project Site
Census Place
City Limits (various colors)
County
0 2 4
Miles
Regional Vicinity Map
o
City of Kingsburg - Tract 6499
_^
!
Project Site
Fresno Co.
9/9/2025 G:\Kingsburg_City of - 1345\134525002-Tract No. 6499 CEQA\400 GIS\Map\CityOfKingsburg_Tract_6499\CityOfKingsburg_Tract_6499.aprx Figure 2
-
D
D
D
(]
..

Q

PROVOST&

PRITCHARD

PROVOST&

PRITCHARD
T16S R22E
09 10 11 12
16 15 14 13
23 24 21 22
27 26 25 28
SELMA
Project Site
Crown Park
USGS Topo Maps (1:24k)
Township/Range
Section
Quad Name
0 750 1,500 o Feet
Project Elevation is approximately 300 feet above mean sea level. 8/13/2025 G:\Kingsburg_City of - 1345\134525002-Tract No. 6499 CEQA\400 GIS\Map\CityOfKingsburg_Tract_6499\CityOfKingsburg_Tract_6499.aprx Prepared By Topographic Map
City of Kingsburg - Tract 6499
USGS National Map.

Figure 3
...

E SAGINAW AVE
~<l'Y Ditc~
r.Y
</'o ,/>
!:ti
.- -1
D
D
"' 8
....
::,.
i =o
"' .;:
~ .... "' ~
Iii ~%

E CARUTHERS AVE
AVE
....
::,.
"' ,_
~ 0
i5
"'
\ ~I
r
\
\
\
Kingsburg

KERN ST
a

HOWARD ST

E SAGINAW AVE

AZALEA ST
Co"· ~l01