Agenda packet — Mendota City Council, October 6, 2026 (part 2 of 5)

4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Table 4-8: 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 Projectsite is located just west of the city limits, in Fresno County. The site is bordered by similar vacant land to the north, west, and south of the Project site, and also a residential subdivision to the east. No surface water is located on or within the immediate vicinity of the site. The San Joaquin River and Fresno Slough are the principle natural drainages in the region, passing approximately two miles north east and east of the Project site, respectively.

4.4 BIOLOGICALRESOURCES
Table 4—8:Biol icalResourceslm cts
8) 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, El '2 D D or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or US. Fishand Wildlife
Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional El El El IE
plans, policies, regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
or US. Fish and Wildlife Service?
C) Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as defined
by Section 404 of the CleanWater Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, El El El IXI
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interferesubstantiallywith the movement
of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native El El El IXI resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
6) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation D D D IXI
policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisionsof anadopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other El El El IXI
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?

4.4.1 BASELINECONDITIONS
TheProject site is located just west ofthe city limits, in FresnoCounty.The site is bordered by similar vacant land to the north, west, and south of the Project site, and also a residential subdivision to the east. No surface water is located on or within the immediate vicinity of the site. The SanJoaquin River and Fresno Slough are the principle natural drainages in the region, passing approximately two miles north east and east of the Project site, respectively.

LiveOakAssociates,Inc. (LOA)conducted an investigation of the Project site on October 7, 2025,for biotic habitats, plants and animals occurring in those habitats, and significant habitat values that may be protected by State and federal law. Habitat types within the Project site include ruderal and disturbed \MMNprovostondpritchard.com 4—12
City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-13
vegetation and are dominated by non-native grasses and forbs. LOA also conducted database searches to determine the likelihood of special status species at the Project site. Table 4-9 and Table 4-10 below summarize the results of the database searches. A Biological Evaluation describing the database searches in more detail is contained in Appendix B.

Table 4-9. List of Special Status Plant Species with Potential to Occur on the site and/or in the Vicinity Species Status Habitat Occurrence within
the Site
Palmate-bracted salty bird’sbeak (Chloropyron
palmatum)
FE, CE, CRPR 1B.1
Occurs in chenopod scrub
and valley and foothill
grasslands; alkaline soil;
elevations up to 500 ft.

Blooms May-October.

Absent. The intensively
maintained habitats of the
Project site are unsuitable
for this species.

San Joaquin woolly threads
(Monolopia congdonii)
FT, CRPR 1B.2
Occurs in chenopod scrub
and valley and foothill
grassland at elevations
between 200 and 2,600 feet.

Frequently occurs on sand
dunes and sandy ridges, and
along the high-water line of
washes and on adjacent
terraces. Blooms FebruaryMay.

Absent. The intensively
maintained habitats of the
Project site are unsuitable
for this species, and the site
is situated below its
elevational distribution.

Heartscale (Artiplex
cordulata var. cordulata)
CRPR 1B.2
Occurs in cismontane
woodland and valley and
foothill grasslands; saline or
alkaline soils; blooms AprilOctober; elevations up to
1,850 ft.

Absent. The intensively
maintained habitats of the
Project site are unsuitable
for this species.

Lost Hills crownscale
(atriplex coronata var.
vallicola)
CRPR 1B.2
Found in chenopod scrub
and valley and foothill
grasslands; alkaline soils;
blooms April-August;
elevations up to 2,000 ft.

Absent. An occurrence of
this species was generally
mapped to Mendota in 1938
(CDFW 2025). However, any
habitat that may have once
been present on site or in
the immediate vicinity has
been eliminated through
intensive agriculture, urban
development, and other
anthropogenic uses.

Brittlescale (Atriplex
depressa)
CRPR 1B.2
Occurs in alkali soils in
barren areas within alkali
grassland, meadow and
scrub. Occasionally found
around vernal pools.

Elevations up to 1,000 ft.

Blooms April-October.

Absent. The intensively
maintained habitats of the
Project site are unsuitable
for this species.

Lesser saltscale (Atriplex
miniscula)
CRPR 1B.1
Occurs in cismontane
woodland and valley and
foothill grasslands of the San
Joaquin Valley;
alkaline/sandy soils; blooms
May-October; elevations
below 700 ft.

Absent. The intensively
maintained habitats of the
Project site are unsuitable
for this species.

Subtle orache (Atriplex
subtilis)
CRPR 1B.2
Occurs in valley and foothill
grasslands of the San Joaquin
Valley; blooms AugustAbsent. The intensively
maintained habitats of the
Project site are unsuitable
for this species.

City of Mendota
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis August 2026
vegetation and are dominated by non—nativegrassesand forbs. LOA also conducted database searches to determine the likelihood of special status species at the Project site. Table 4—9 and Table 4—10below summarize the results of the database searches.A Biological Evaluation describing the database searches in more detail is contained in Appendix B.

Table 4-9.List of S
Palmate-bracted salty bird’sbeak (Chloropyron
palmatum)
SanJoaquin woolly threads
(Monolopia congdonii)
Heartscale (Artiplex
cordulata var. cordulata)
Lost Hills crownscale
(atriplex coronata var. vallicola)
Brittlescale (Atriplex
depressa)
Lesser saltscale (Atriplex
miniscula)
Subtle orache (Atriplex
subtilis)
vwwv.provostondpritchardcom
ial Status Plant
FE,CE,CRPR18.1
FT,CRPR18.2
CRPR18.2
CRPR18.2
CRPR18.2
CRPR18.1
CRPR18.2
Occurs in chenopod scrub
and valley and foothill
grasslands; alkaline soil;
elevations up to 500 ft.

Blooms May—October.

Occurs in chenopod scrub
and valley and foothill
grassland at elevations
between 200 and 2,600 feet.

Frequently occurs on sand
dunes and sandy ridges, and
along the high—waterline of
washes and on adjacent
terraces. Blooms February—
May.

Occurs in cismontane
woodland and valley and
foothill grasslands; saline or alkaline soils; blooms April— October; elevations up to
1,850ft.

Found in chenopod scrub
and valley and foothill
grasslands; alkaline soils;
blooms April—August;
elevations up to 2,000ft.

Occurs in alkali soils in
barren areas within alkali
grassland, meadow and
scrub. Occasionally found
around vernal pools.

Elevations up to 1,000ft.

Blooms April—October.

Occurs in cismontane
woodland and valley and
foothill grasslandsof the San
Joaquin Valley;
alkaline/sandy soils; blooms
May—October;elevations
below 700 ft.

Occurs in valley and foothill
grasslands of the SanJoaquin
Valley; blooms August—
ies with Potential to Occur on the site and/or in the Vicin Absent. The intensively
maintained habitats of the
Project site are unsuitable
for this species.

Absent. The intensively
maintained habitats of the
Project site are unsuitable
for this species,and the site
is situated below its
elevational distribution.

Absent. The intensively
maintained habitats of the
Project site are unsuitable
for this species.

Absent. An occurrence of
this specieswas generally
mapped to Mendota in 1938
(CDFW2025). However, any
habitat that may have once
been present on site or in
the immediate vicinity has
been eliminated through
intensive agriculture, urban
development, and other
anthropogenic uses.

Absent. The intensively
maintained habitats of the
Project site are unsuitable
for this species.

Absent. The intensively
maintained habitats of the
Project site are unsuitable
for this species. 4—13
City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-14
October; elevation 130-330
ft.

Recurved larkspur
(Delphinium recurvatum)
CRPR 1B.2
Occurs in cismontane
woodland and valley and
foothill grasslands; blooms
March-June; alkaline soils;
elevations below 2,500 ft.

Absent. The intensively
maintained habitats of the
Project site are unsuitable
for this species.

Alkali-sink goldfields
(Lasthenia chrysantha)
CRPR 1B.1
Found in alkaline vernal
pools below approximately
650 feet in elevation.

Blooms February-April.

Absent. The project site
experiences intensive
vegetation management
activities and does not
contain vernal pools. As
such, it is unsuitable for this
species.

Munz’s Tidy-Tips (Layia
munzii)
CRPR 1B.2
Occurs on hillsides, in whitegray alkaline clay soils
between 500 and 2,300 feet
in elevation. Blooms MarchApril.

Absent. The Project site is
situated below the
elevational distribution of
this species, lacks sloping
topography, and experiences
intensive vegetation
management activities that
would preclude this species.

Panoche pepper-grass
(lepidium jaredii spp. album)
CRPR 1B.2
Occurs in washes and on
alluvial fans in valley
grassland habitats; blooms
February-June; elevation up
to 900 feet
Absent. The intensively
maintained habitats of the
Project site are unsuitable
for this species.

California alkali grass
(Puccinellia simplex)
CRPR 1B.2
Occurs in alkali sinks and
flats within grassland and
chenopod scrub habitats of
the Central Valley, San
Francisco Bay area and
western Mojave Desert;
elevations below 3,000 feet.

Blooms March-May.

Absent. The intensively
maintained habitats of the
Project site are unsuitable
for this species.

Sanford’s aarowhead
(sagittaria sanfordii)
CRPR 1B.2
Occurs in freshwater
marshes, swamps, and
ditches of the Central Valley;
blooms May-October;
elevations up to 2000 ft.

Absent. The site’s drainage
ditch does not have an
inundation regime that
would support this species.

Rocky mountain bulrush
(schoenoplectiella
saximontana)
CRPR 2B.1
This obligate wetland species
is found at the margins of
ponds, ditches, marshes,
vernal pools, and other
freshwater environments, at
elevations below 2,400 ft.

Blooms June-September.

Absent. The site’s drainage
ditch does not have an
inundation regime that
would support this species.

Table 4-10. List of Special Status Animal Species with Potential to Occur on the site and/or in the Vicinity Species Status Habitat Occurrence within
the Site
Longhorn fairy shrimp
(branchinecta longiantenna)
FE
Inhabits vernal pools in
grassland and rock
outcrops. Known from
four populations in
Merced, San Luis Obispo,
Alameda, and Contra
Costa Counties
Absent. Vernal pool habitat is
absent from the Project site.

City of Mendota
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis Recurved Iarkspur
(Delphinium recurvatum)
Alkali-sink goldfields
(Lasthenia chrysantha)
Munz’s Tidy-Tips (Layia
munzii)
Panoche pepper-grass
(Iepidium jaredii spp. album)
California alkali grass
(Puccinellia simplex)
Sanford’s aarowhead
(sagittaria sanfordii)
Rocky mountain bulrush
(schoenoplectiel/a
saximontana)
Table 4-10. List of S
Longhorn fairy shrimp
(branchinecta Iongiantenna)
WANprovostondpritchard.com
CRPR18.2
CRPR18.1
CRPR18.2
CRPR18.2
CRPR18.2
CRPR18.2
CRPR ZB.1
ial Status Animal S
FE
October; elevation 130—330
ft.

Occurs in cismontane
woodland and valley and
foothill grasslands; blooms
March—June;alkaline soils;
elevations below 2,500ft.

Found in alkaline vernal
pools below approximately
650 feet in elevation.

Blooms February-April.

Occurs on hillsides, in white—
gray alkaline clay soils
between 500 and 2,300feet
in elevation. Blooms March—
April.

Occurs in washes and on
alluvial fans in valley
grassland habitats; blooms
February—June;elevation up
to 900 feet
Occurs in alkali sinks and
flats within grassland and
chenopod scrub habitats of
the Central Valley, San
Francisco Bay area and
western Mojave Desert;
elevations below 3,000 feet.

Blooms March—May.

Occurs in freshwater
marshes, swamps, and
ditches of the Central Valley;
blooms May—October;
elevations up to 2000 ft.

This obligate wetland species
is found at the margins of
ponds, ditches, marshes,
vernal pools, and other
freshwater environments, at
elevations below 2,400 ft.

Blooms June—September.

Inhabits vernal pools in
grassland and rock
outcrops. Known from
four populations in
Merced, SanLuisObispo,
Alameda, and Contra
Costa Counties
August 2026
Absent. The intensively
maintained habitats of the
Project site are unsuitable
for this species.

Absent. The project site
experiences intensive
vegetation management
activities and does not
contain vernal pools. As
such, it is unsuitable for this
species.

Absent. The intensively
maintained habitats of the
Project site are unsuitable
for this species.

Absent. The site’s drainage
ditch does not have an
inundation regime that
would support this species.

Absent. The site’s drainage
ditch does not have an
inundation regime that
would support this species.
ies with Potential to Occur on the site and/or in the Vicin Absent. Vernal pool habitat is
absent from the Project site.
4—14
City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-15
Vernal pool fairy shrimp
(branchinecta lynchi)
FT
Occurs in vernal pools,
clear to tea-colored water
in grass or mud-bottomed
swales, and basalt
depression pools.

Absent. Vernal pool habitat is
absent from the Project site.

Crotch’s bumble bee (bombus
crotchii)
CCE
A species of open
grassland and scrub
habitats, the Crotch’s
bumble bee historically
ranged throughout central
and southern California.

Widespread conversion of
grassland to agricultural
and urban uses has led to
its near extirpation from
the Central Valley. Where
present, it is associated
with remnant grassland
and scrub supporting food
plants of the Asclepias,
Chaenactis, Lupinus,
Medicago, Phacelia, and
Salvia genera (Williams et
al. 2014).

Absent. The intensively
maintained habitats of the
Project site are unsuitable for
this species.

Central Valley steelhead
(Oncorhynchus mykissirideus)

FT, CSC
The anadromous form of
the rainbow trout, native
to Pacific streams from
Alaska to Mexico. Needs
cool, clear, oxygenated
streams and gravel beds
for spawning. Found in
deep pools, under bubble
curtains, and underwater
ledges.

Absent. Suitable aquatic
habitat is absent from the site.

Western spadefoot (Spea
hammondii)

FPT, CSC
Occurs in grasslands of
San Joaquin Valley, where
it breeds in vernal pools or
other seasonal wetlands
and aestivates in
underground refugia such
as rodent burrows.

Baumberger et al. (2019)
recorded a maximum
distance of around 860
feet between breeding
and aestivation sites.

Absent. Suitable breeding
habitat is absent from the
Project site and surrounding
lands, and the site is situated
within a matrix of agricultural,
urban, and other intensive
uses within which this species
would not have been able to
persist. The closest known
occurrence is a 1942 record
mapped generally to the
Mendota Wildlife Area,
approximately 2 miles east of
Project boundaries (CDFW
2025).

Blunt-nosed leopard lizard
(Gambelia silus)

FE, CE, CFP
Frequents grasslands,
alkali meadows and
chenopod scrub of the San
Joaquin Valley. Prefers flat
areas with open space for
running. Takes cover
under large shrubs and in
small mammal burrows.

Absent. This species was
historically known from the
vicinity; a 1979 occurrence is
mapped generally to an area
about one mile east of Project
boundaries (CDFW 2025).

However, any BNLL habitat
that may have once been
present on site or in the
immediate vicinity has been
eliminated through intensive
agriculture, urban
City of Mendota
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis Vernal pool fairy shrimp
(branchinecta Iynchi)
Crotch’sbumble bee (bombus
crotchii)
Central Valley steelhead
(Oncorhynchusmykissirideus)
Western spadefoot (Spea
hammondii)
Blunt-nosedleopard lizard
(Gambelia silus)
WANprovostondpritchard.com
FT
CCE
FT,CSC

FPT,CSC

FE,CE,CFP
Occurs in vernal pools,
clear to tea—coloredwater
in grassor mud—bottomed
swales, and basalt
depression pools.

A species of open
grassland and scrub
habitats, the Crotch’s
bumble bee historically
ranged throughout central
and southern California.

The anadromous form of
the rainbow trout, native
to Pacific streams from
Alaskato Mexico. Needs
cool, clear, oxygenated
streams and gravel beds
for spawning. Found in
deep pools, under bubble
curtains, and underwater
ledges.

Occurs in grasslandsof
SanJoaquin Valley, where
it breeds in vernal pools or other seasonal wetlands
and aestivates in
underground refugia such
as rodent burrows.

Baumberger et al. (2019)
recorded a maximum
distance of around 860
feet between breeding
and aestivation sites.

Frequents grasslands,
alkali meadows and
chenopod scrub ofthe San
Joaquin Valley. Prefers flat areas with open space for
running. Takes cover under large shrubs and in
small mammal burrows.

August 2026
Absent. Vernal pool habitat is
absent from the Project site.

Absent. The intensively
maintained habitats of the
Project site are unsuitable for
this species.

Absent. Suitable aquatic
habitat is absent from the site.

However, any BNLLhabitat
that may have once been
present on site or in the
immediate vicinity has been
eliminated through intensive
agriculture, urban
4—15
City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-16
development, and other
anthropogenic uses.

Giant garter snake
(Thamnophis gigas)
FT, CT
Occurs in marshes,
sloughs, drainage canals,
irrigation ditches, rice
fields, and adjacent
uplands. Prefers locations
with emergent vegetation
for cover and open areas
for basking. GGS use small
mammal burrows and soil
crevices adjacent to
aquatic habitats for
overwintering and, in the
summer, to escape
excessive heat.

Absent. This species is known
from the wetlands east of
Mendota (CDFW 2025). It
does not have the potential to
occur on the site itself
because suitable aquatic
habitat is absent.

Western pond turtle (Emys
marmorata)

FPT, CSC
Found in open slowmoving water or ponds
with rocks and logs for
basking. Nesting occurs in
open areas, on a variety of
soil types, and up to ¼
mile away from water.

Overwintering and
summertime aestivation
includes use of upland
habitat, generally with leaf
litter or other loose
substrate for burying
themselves.

Unlikely. Suitable aquatic
habitat is absent from the site
and adjacent lands, and the
intensively maintained
habitats of the Project site
would not support upland use
by this species.

Swainson’s hawk (Buteo
swainsoni) CT
This breeding migrant to
California nests in mature
trees in riparian areas and
oak savannah, and
occasionally in lone trees
at the margins of
agricultural fields. requires
adjacent suitable foraging
areas such as grasslands
or alfalfa fields supporting
rodent populations.

Possible. Swainson’s hawks
are regularly sighted in the
Project vicinity (eBird 2025),
and several active nests have
been documented 1 to 3 miles
from Project boundaries
(eBird 2025, CDFW 2025).

Nesting habitat is absent from
the Project site itself, and the
site experiences intensive
maintenance practices that
would presumably limit its
prey base and associated
foraging suitability. However,
given the species’ presence in
the vicinity, Swainson’s hawk
individuals are likely to fly
over and/or attempt foraging
on the site from time to time.

Burrowing owl (Athene
cunicularia) CCE
Frequents open, dry
annual or perennial
grasslands, deserts, and
scrublands characterized
by low growing
vegetation. Dependent
upon burrowing
mammals, most notably
the California ground
squirrel, for nest burrows.

Unlikely. The intensively
maintained habitats of the site
are unsuitable for the
burrowing owl, and the site is
situated in a matrix of
intensive agriculture, urban
development, and other
anthropogenic uses
incompatible with this
species’ ecology. No California
ground squirrel burrows or
other suitable refugia were
City of Mendota
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis Giant garter snake
(Thamnophis gigas)
Western pond turtle (Emys
marmorata)
Swainson’shawk (Buteo
swainsoni)
Burrowing owl (Athene
cunicularia)
WANprovostondpritchard.com
FT,CT

FPT,CSC
CT
CCE
Occurs in marshes,
sloughs, drainage canals,
irrigation ditches, rice
fields, and adjacent
uplands. Prefers locations
with emergent vegetation
for cover and open areas
for basking. GGSuse small
mammal burrows and soil
crevices adjacent to
aquatic habitats for
overwintering and, in the
summer, to escape
excessiveheat.

Found in open slow—
moving water or ponds
with rocks and logs for
basking. Nesting occurs in
open areas, on a variety of
soil types, and up to 11; mile away from water.

Overwintering and
summertime aestivation
includes use of upland
habitat, generally with leaf
litter or other loose
substrate for burying
themselves.

This breeding migrant to
California nests in mature
trees in riparian areas and
oak savannah, and
occasionally in lone trees
at the margins of
agricultural fields. requires
adjacent suitable foraging
areas such as grasslands or alfalfa fields supporting
rodent populations.

Frequents open, dry
annual or perennial
grasslands, deserts, and
scrublands characterized
by low growing
vegetation. Dependent
upon burrowing
mammals, most notably
the California ground
squirrel, for nest burrows.

August 2026
development, and other
anthropogenic uses.

Absent. This species is known
from the wetlands east of
Mendota (CDFW 2025). It
does not have the potential to
occur on the site itself
because suitable aquatic
habitat is absent.

Unlikely. Suitable aquatic
habitat is absent from the site
and adjacent lands, and the
intensively maintained
habitats of the Project site
would not support upland use
by this species.

Possible. Swainson’s hawks are regularly sighted in the Project vicinity (eBird 2025),
and several active nests have
been documented 1 to 3 miles
from Project boundaries
(eBird 2025,CDFW 2025).

Nesting habitat is absent from
the Project site itself, and the
site experiences intensive
maintenance practices that
would presumably limit its
prey base and associated
foraging suitability. However,
given the species’ presence in
the vicinity, Swainson’s hawk
individuals are likely to fly over and/or attempt foraging on the site from time to time.

Unlikely. The intensively
maintained habitats ofthe site
are unsuitable for the
burrowing owl, and the site is
situated in a matrix of
intensive agriculture, urban
development, and other
anthropogenic uses
incompatible with this
species’ ecology. No California
ground squirrel burrows or other suitable refugia were
4—16
City of Mendota
August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis www.
provost
and
pritchard.com
4 -17
observed on site at the time of LOA’s survey. There are several burrowing owl occurrences in the Mendota area; however, all are
associated with grassland
and/or wetland habitats east
and south of city limits (CDFW 2025, eBird 2025). LOA is not aware of any
burrowing owl
occurrences in the agricultural
matrix west of Mendota, where the Project site is located.

Bank swallow (
Riparia riparia
) CT
This breeding migrant
nests in banks and bluffs
along rivers, lakes, and ocean coastlines of northern and central California. Requires friable soils for digging nest burrows.

Absent.

This species was
historically known from the wetlands around Mendota, including a 1980 observation at Mendota Pool,
approximately 1.5 miles from Project boundaries (CDFW 2025, eBird 2025). Bank swallows do not have the potential to occur on site because aquatic and riparian habitat is absent from the site and adjacent lands.

Western yellow
-
billed cuckoo
(
Coccyzus americanus
occidentalis
)
FT, CE
Once a common breeding species in riparian habitats of lowland California, the western yellow-billed cuckoo today breeds consistently in only two California localities: along the Sacramento and South Fork Kern Rivers.

Absent.

This species is
believed to have been
extirpated from the
Project
vicinity. The last known
sighting in the vicinity was at
Mendota Pool in 1950 (CDFW 2025). Suitable habitat for the western yellow-billed cuckoo is absent from the site and adjacent lands.

Tricolored blackbird (
A
gelaius
tricolor
)
CT
Nests colonially near fresh water in dense cattails or tules, in thickets of willows or shrubs, and increasingly in grain fields. Forages in grassland and cropland areas.

Possible.

Tricolored blackbirds
are occasionally sighted in the
Mendota area (eBird 2025,
CDFW 2025) and may fly over or forage on the site from time to time. Nesting habitat is absent from the site and adjacent areas.

Nelson
’
s antelope squirrel
(A
mnospermophilus nelsoni
)
CT
Found in arid upland scrub communities, and to a lesser extent grasslands, along the western margin of the San Joaquin Valley
and in the adjoining hills
and plains. Occupies
modified kangaroo rat burrows or selfconstructed burrows. Not usually found on steep slopes or in areas prone to flooding.

Absent.

Past and ongoing land
uses would have eliminated
any Nelson’s antelope squirrel populations that may have occurred in the Project vicinity. There is one historical record of this species in the
Mendota area, recorded
approximately 2 miles east of the project site in 1918 (CDFW 2025).

Fresno kangaroo rat
(Dipodomys nitratoides exilis
)
FE, CE Inhabits grasslands on gentle slopes with friable, sandy-loam soils in the Absent.

The intensively
maintained habitats of the site
are unsuitable for the giant
City of Mendota
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis Bank swallow (Riparia riparia)
Western yellow-billed cuckoo
(Coccyzusamericanus
occidentalis)
Tricolored blackbird(Agelaius
tricolor)
Nelson’s antelope squirrel
(Amnospermophilusnelsoni)
Fresno kangaroo rat
(Dipodomysnitratoides exilis)
vwwv.provosiondpritchardcom
CT
FT,CE
CT
CT
FE,CE
This breeding migrant
nests in banks and bluffs
along rivers, lakes, and
ocean coastlines of
northern and central
California. Requires friable
soils for digging nest
burrows.

Once a common breeding
species in riparian habitats
of lowland California, the
western yellow—billed
cuckoo today breeds
consistently in only two
California localities: along
the Sacramento and South
Fork Kern Rivers.

Nests colonially near fresh
water in dense cattails or
tules, in thickets of willows or shrubs, and increasingly in grain fields. Forages in
grassland and cropland
areas. Found in arid upland scrub
communities, and to a
lesser extent grasslands,
along the western margin
of the SanJoaquin Valley
and in the adjoining hills
and plains. Occupies
modified kangaroo rat
burrows or self—
constructed burrows. Not
usually found on steep
slopes or in areas prone to
flooding.

Inhabits grasslandson
gentle slopes with friable,
sandy—loamsoils in the
August 2026
observed on site at the time
of LOA’s survey. There are
several burrowing owl occurrences in the Mendota
area; however, all are
associated with grassland
and/or wetland habitats east
and south of city limits (CDFW
2025,eBird 2025).LOAis not aware of any burrowing owl occurrences in the agricultural matrix west of Mendota,
where the Project site is
located.

Absent. This specieswas historically known from the
wetlands around Mendota,
including a 1980 observation
at Mendota Pool,
approximately 1.5 miles from
Project boundaries (CDFW
2025,eBird 2025). Bank
swallows do not have the
potential to occur on site
because aquatic and riparian
habitat is absent from the site
and adjacent lands.

Absent. This species is
believed to have been
extirpated from the Project
vicinity. The last known
sighting in the vicinity was at
Mendota Pool in 1950 (CDFW
2025). Suitable habitat for the
western yellow—billedcuckoo
is absent from the site and
adjacent lands.

Possible.Tricolored blackbirds are occasionally sighted in the Mendota area (eBird 2025,
CDFW2025) and may fly over or forage on the site from
time to time. Nesting habitat
is absent from the site and
adjacent areas. Absent. Past and ongoing land
uses would have eliminated
any Nelson’s antelope squirrel
populations that may have
occurred in the Project
vicinity. There is one historical
record ofthis species in the
Mendota area, recorded
approximately 2 miles east of
the project site in 1918
(CDFW2025).

Absent. The intensively
maintained habitats of the site
are unsuitable for the giant
4—17
City of Mendota
August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis www.
provost
and
pritchard.com
4 -18
west side of the southern San Joaquin Valley and
adjacent coastal foothills.
kangaroo rat. The closest known populations of this species are more than 15 miles west of
P
roject
boundaries.

Giant kangaroo rat (Dipodomys ingens)
FE, CE Inhabits grasslands on gentle slopes with friable, sandy-loam soils in the west side of the southern San Joaquin Valley and adjacent coastal foothills.

Absent.

The intensively
maintained habitats of the site
are unsuitable for the giant kangaroo rat. The closest known populations of this species are more than 15 miles west of
P
roject
boundaries.

San Joaquin kit fox (
Vulpes
macrotis muttica)
FE, CT
Frequents desert alkali scrub and annual
grasslands and may forage in adjacent agricultural habitats. Utilizes enlarged (6 to 10 inches in diameter) ground squirrel burrows as denning habitat. May become adapted to urban areas, as has occurred in Bakersfield, Coalinga, and Taft (Cypher et al. 2012).

Unlikely.

The SJKF was
historically known from the
vicinity, with 6 CNDDB records in a 10-mile radius from Project boundaries. The closest of these has a spatial margin of error that overlaps the Project site; however, this record is from 1934 and all others in the 10-mile vicinity are from over 30 years ago. The site’s intensively
maintained habitats are
unsuitable for the SJKF, and
the site is situated in a matrix of intensive agriculture, urban development, and other anthropogenic uses generally incompatible with this species’ ecology. Mendota does not contain any urbanadapted SJKF populations.

San Joaquin coachwhip (Masticophis flagellum ruddocki)
CSC
Occurs in open, dry areas including grassland and saltbush scrub. Takes refuge in rodent burrows
and under shaded vegetation.

Two
-
striped garter snake
(
Thamnophis hammondii
)
CSC
Occurs in woodland,
chaparral, brushland, and coniferous forest in and
around permanent water sources such as pools, creeks, and cattle tanks. Often found in rocky areas.

Absent.

The intensively
maintained habitats of the site
are unsuitable for the two
-
striped garter snake, and
permanent water sources are
absent from the site and
adjacent areas.

Northern California legless lizard (Anniella pulchra)
CSC
Occurs in sparsely
vegetated areas of beach
Unlikely.

The intensively
maintained habitats of the site
City of Mendota
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis Giant kangaroo rat (Dipodomys
ingens)
San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes
macrotis muttica)
San Joaquincoachwhip
(Masticophis flagellum
ruddocki)
Two-striped garter snake
(Thamnophis hammondii)
Northern California legless
lizard (Anniella pulchra)
vwwv.provostondpritchardcom
FE,CE
FE,CT
CSC
CSC
CSC
west side of the southern
SanJoaquin Valley and
adjacent coastal foothills.

Inhabits grasslandson
gentle slopes with friable,
sandy—loamsoils in the
west side of the southern
SanJoaquin Valley and
adjacent coastal foothills.

Frequents desert alkali
scrub and annual
grasslands and may forage
in adjacent agricultural
habitats. Utilizes enlarged
(6 to 10 inches in
diameter) ground squirrel
burrows as denning
habitat. May become
adapted to urban areas, as
has occurred in
Bakersfield, Coalinga, and
Taft (Cypher et al. 2012).

Occurs in open, dry areas
including grassland and
saltbush scrub. Takes
refuge in rodent burrows
and under shaded
vegetation.

Occurs in woodland,
Chaparral, brushland, and
coniferous forest in and
around permanent water
sources such as pools,
creeks, and cattle tanks.

Often found in rocky areas. Occurs in sparsely
vegetated areas of beach
August 2026
kangaroo rat. The closest
known populations of this
species are more than 15
miles west of Project
boundafleg
Absent. The intensively
maintained habitats of the site
are unsuitable for the giant
kangaroo rat. The closest
known populations of this
species are more than 15
miles west of Project
boundafles Unlikely. The SJKF was historically known from the vicinity, with 6 CNDDBrecords
in a 10—mileradius from
Project boundaries. The
closest of these hasa spatial
margin of error that overlaps
the Project site; however, this
record is from 1934 and all
others in the 10—mile vicinity are from over 30 years ago.

The site’s intensively
maintained habitats are
unsuitable for the SJKF,and
the site is situated in a matrix
of intensive agriculture, urban
development, and other
anthropogenic uses generally
incompatible with this
species’ ecology. Mendota
does not contain any urban—
adapted SJKFpopulations.

Unlikely. The intensively
maintained habitats ofthe site
are unsuitable for the San
Joaquin coachwhip, and the
site is situated in a matrix of
intensive agriculture, urban
development, and other
anthropogenic useswithin
which this species is unlikely
to have persisted. The only
known occurrence in the
general vicinity is a 2004
record at the Alkali Sink
Ecological Reserve,some 5
miles east of the site (CDFW
2025)
Absent. The intensively
maintained habitats of the site
are unsuitable for the two—
striped garter snake, and
permanent water sources are
absent from the site and
adjacent areas. Unlikely. The intensively
maintained habitats of the site
4—18
City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-19
dunes, chaparral, pine-oak
woodlands, desert scrub,
sandy washes, and stream
terraces with sycamores,
cottonwoods, or oaks.

Requires moist soils.
are unsuitable for the
northern California legless
lizard, and the site is situated
in a matrix of intensive
agriculture, urban
development, and other
anthropogenic uses within
which this species, if once
present, is unlikely to have
persisted. The only known
occurrence in the general
vicinity is a 2000 sighting
made in riparian habitat along
the San Joaquin River,
approximately 6 miles east of
the site (CDFW 2025).

Coast horned lizard
(Phrynosoma blainvillii)
CSC
Ranges from the central
and southern California
coast inland through the
western Sierra Nevada,
where it is found in
grassland and open areas
within woodland and
forest habitats. Often
found in sandy areas
including washes and
floodplains.

Unlikely. The intensively
maintained habitats of the site
are unsuitable for the coast
horned lizard, and the site is
situated in a matrix of
intensive agriculture, urban
development, and other
anthropogenic uses within
which this species is unlikely
to have persisted. The only
known occurrences in the
general vicinity are associated
with the Alkali Sink Ecological
Reserve, some 5 miles east of
the site (CDFW 2025).

Mountain plover (Charadrius
montanus)
CSC
Forages in short
grasslands and freshly
plowed fields of the
Central Valley.

Possible. There are several
recorded sightings of the
mountain plover in the
general Mendota area,
between 1.5 and 4.5 miles
from Project boundaries
(eBird 2025). Mountain
plovers may forage on the site
from time to time.

Northern harrier (Circus
cyaneus)
CSC
Frequents meadows,
grasslands, open
rangelands, freshwater
emergent wetlands;
uncommon in wooded
habitats. Nests on the
ground in high vegetation.

Possible. Suitable breeding
habitat for the northern
harrier is absent from the
Project site, and the site’s
intensively maintained
habitats would be of low
foraging value for this species.

However, harriers are
frequently sighted in the
Mendota area (eBird 2025)
and have some potential to fly
over or attempt foraging on
the site from time to time.

Yellow-headed blackbird
(Xanthocephalus
xanthocephalus)
CSC
Forages and breeds in
wetlands. Also forages in
cropland and grassland
several miles from
wetlands.

Possible. Yellow-headed
blackbirds are occasionally
sighted in the Mendota area
(eBird 2025) and may fly over
or forage on the site from
time to time. Nesting habitat
is absent from the site and
adjacent areas.

City of Mendota
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis Coasthorned lizard
(Phrynosoma blainvillii)
Mountain plover (Charadrius
montanus)
Northern harrier (Circus
cyaneus)
Yellow-headed blackbird
(Xanthocephalus
xanthocephalus)
WANprovostondpritchard.com
CSC
CSC
CSC
CSC
August 2026
dunes, Chaparral, pine—oak are unsuitable for the
woodlands, desert scrub, northern California legless
sandy washes, and stream lizard, and the site is situated terraces with sycamores, in a matrix of intensive
cottonwoods, or oaks. agriculture, urban
Requires moist soils. development, and other
anthropogenic useswithin
which this species, if once
present, is unlikely to have
persisted. The only known
occurrence in the general
vicinity is a 2000 sighting
made in riparian habitat along
the SanJoaquin River,
approximately 6 miles east of
the site (CDFW 2025).

Unlikely. The intensively
maintained habitats of the site
are unsuitable for the coast
horned lizard, and the site is
situated in a matrix of
Ranges from the central
and southern California
coast inland through the
western Sierra Nevada, intensive agriculture, urban
where it is found in development, and other
grassland and open areas anthropogenic useswithin
within woodland and which this species is unlikely
forest habitats. Often to have persisted. The only
found in sandy areas known occurrences in the
including washes and general vicinity are associated
floodplains. with the Alkali SinkEcological
Reserve, some 5 miles east of
the site (CDFW 2025).

Possible.There are several
recorded sightings of the
mountain plover in the
general Mendota area,
between 1.5 and 4.5 miles
from Project boundaries
(eBird 2025). Mountain
plovers may forage on the site
from time to time.

Possible. Suitable breeding
habitat for the northern
harrier is absent from the
Project site, and the site’s
intensively maintained
habitats would be of low
foraging value for this species. uncommon in wooded However, harriers are habitats. Nests on the frequently sighted in the
ground in high vegetation. Mendota area (eBird 2025)
and have some potential to fly over or attempt foraging on the site from time to time.

Possible. Yellow—headed
blackbirds are occasionally
sighted in the Mendota area
(eBird 2025) and may fly over or forage on the site from time to time. Nesting habitat
is absent from the site and
adjacent areas.

Forages in short
grasslands and freshly
plowed fields ofthe
Central Valley.

Frequents meadows,
grasslands, open
rangelands, freshwater
emergent wetlands;
Foragesand breeds in
wetlands. Also forages in
cropland and grassland
several miles from
wetlands.
4—19
City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-20
Western mastiff bat (Eumops
perotis ssp. californicus)
CSC
Found in western lowlands
and coastal regions, where
it roosts in the foliage of
large trees and forages
over woodlands,
grasslands, orchards, and
agricultural fields.

Possible. This species may
forage over the Project site,
but roosting habitat is absent.

American badger (Taxidea
taxus) CSC
Found in drier open stages
of most shrub, forest, and
herbaceous habitats with
friable soils. Utilize
subterranean burrows,
usually self-dug, for rest
and reproduction.

Unlikely. The site’s intensively
maintained habitats are
unsuitable for the American
badger, and the site is
situated in a matrix of
intensive agriculture, urban
development, and other
anthropogenic uses generally
incompatible with this
species’ ecology. The closest
known occurrence is a 1985
sighting at the Alkali Sink
Ecological Reserve, some 6
miles east of the site.

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. There are no special status plant species with the potential to occur within the Project site due to the absence of suitable habitat. Within the Project site, several special status animal species have the potential to occur including migratory birds, nesting raptors, and Swainson’s hawk, a California threatened species. If Project construction occurs during the nesting season, nesting birds could be injured or killed by construction activities. Additionally, birds nesting near the site could be disturbed and abandon their nests. Construction-related mortality of nesting birds and disturbance leading to nest abandonment would violate State and federal laws and constitute a significant impact of the Project. In order to minimize the potential impacts, mitigation measures BIO-1, BIO-2, and BIO-3 would be implemented. These measures include construction taking place outside of nesting bird season, preconstruction surveys, and avoidance of active nests. Through implementation of these mitigation measures, impacts would be lowered to a less than significant level.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. The site includes vacant land which has been previously utilized for agriculture. There is no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural habitat under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) found within the Project site.

Therefore, there would be no impact.

City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis Found in western lowlands
and coastal regions, where
. it roosts in the folia e of Possible.This s ecies ma Western mastlff bat (Eumops g p . . y . . . CSC large trees and forages forage over the PrOJectSlte, perotls ssp.callformcus) . . . over woodlands, but roosting habitat ISabsent. grasslands, orchards, and
agricultural fields.

Found in drier open stages
of most shrub, forest, and
herbaceous habitats with
CSC friable soils. Utilize
subterranean burrows,
usually self—dug,for rest
and reproduction.

American badger (Taxidea
taxus)

4.4.2 IMPACTANALYSIS
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?
Lessthan Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. There are no special status plant specieswith the potential to occur within the Project site due to the absence of suitable habitat. Within the Project site, several special status animal specieshave the potential to occur including migratory birds, nesting raptors, and Swainson’shawk, a California threatened species.If Project construction occurs during the nesting season, nesting birds could be injured or killed by construction activities. Additionally, birds nesting near the site could be disturbed and abandon their nests. Construction-related mortality of nesting birds and disturbance leading to nest abandonment would violate State and federal laws and constitute a significant impact of the Project. In order to minimize the potential impacts, mitigation measures BIO-1, BIO-2, and BIO-3 would be implemented. These measures include construction taking place outside of nesting bird season, preconstruction surveys, and avoidance of active nests. Through implementation of these mitigation measures,impacts would be lowered to a less than significant level.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. The site includes vacant land which has been previously utilized for agriculture. There is no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural habitat under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Fishand Wildlife (CDFW)or United StatesFishand Wildlife Service(USFWS)found within the Project site.

Therefore, there would be no impact.
\MMNprovostondpritchard.com 4—20
City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-21
c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. According to USFWS, the Project site would not be located on or in the immediate vicinity of a federally protected wetland. The nearest wetland to the Project site is a Freshwater Emergency Wetland located approximately 1.7 miles southeast.14 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?
No Impact. While the site is vacant and undeveloped, it has experienced prior disturbances that would discourage the movement of wildlife through the Project site. Disturbances include the use of farm equipment and machinery to the north, west, and south, and proximity to urban development such as the subdivision located to the east. As the Project site has been largely disturbed and located adjacent to developed land, the Project site does not contain a wildlife movement corridor. Therefore, there would be no impact.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No Impact. The Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. There would be no tree removal as a part of the Project. The Project would be required to comply with all local policies and regulations protecting biological resources. Therefore, there would be no impact. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. The Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. The Project site is located adjacent to the City and would be annexed to the City as a part of the Project. The site is not currently located within a habitat conservation plan or other type of conservation area. Therefore, there would be no impact.

4.4.3 MITIGATION
BIO-1 If feasible, future construction activities will take place entirely outside of the avian nesting season, defined as February 1 to August 31.

BIO-2 If construction must occur between February 1 and August 31, a qualified biologist will conduct surveys for active bird nests within 7 days prior to the start of work during this period. The survey area will encompass the site and surrounding lands within ½ mile for the Swainson’s hawk, 500 feet for other nesting raptors, and 250 feet for other nesting birds.

BIO-3 Should any active nests be discovered in or near proposed construction zones, the biologist will identify a suitable construction-free buffer around the nest. This buffer will 14 (United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 2025)
City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. According to USFWS,the Project site would not be located on or in the immediate vicinity of a federally protected wetland. The nearest wetland to the Project site is a Freshwater Emergency Wetland located approximately 1.7 miles southeast.14Therefore, there would be no impact. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife speciesor with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
No Impact. While the site is vacant and undeveloped, it has experienced prior disturbances that would discourage the movement of wildlife through the Project site. Disturbances include the use of farm equipment and machinery to the north, west, and south, and proximity to urban development such as the subdivision located to the east. Asthe Project site has been largely disturbed and located adjacent to developed land, the Project site does not contain a wildlife movement corridor. Therefore, there would be no impact.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such asa tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No Impact. The Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. There would be no tree removal as a part of the Project. The Project would be required to comply with all local policies and regulations protecting biological resources.Therefore, there would be no impact. 1‘)Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. The Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. The Project site is located adjacent to the City and would be annexed to the City as a part of the Project. The site is not currently located within a habitat conservation plan or other type of conservation area. Therefore, there would be no impact.

4.4.3 MITIGATION
BIO-1 If feasible, future construction activities will take place entirely outside of the avian nesting season,defined asFebruary 1 to August 31.

BIO-2 If construction must occur between February 1 and August 31, a qualified biologist will conduct surveys for active bird nests within 7 days prior to the start of work during this period. The survey area will encompass the site and surrounding lands within 1/2 mile for the Swainson’shawk, 500 feet for other nesting raptors, and 250 feet for other nesting birds.

BIO-3 Should any active nests be discovered in or near proposed construction zones, the biologist will identify a suitable construction—freebuffer around the nest. This buffer will 14(UnitedStatesFishandWildlifeService,2025)
\MMNprovostondpritchard.com 4—21
City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-22
be identified on the ground with flagging or fencing and will be maintained until the biologist has determined that the young have fledged and are capable of foraging independently.

City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis be identified on the ground with flagging or fencing and will be maintained until the biologist has determined that the young have fledged and are capable of foraging independenfly.
\MMNprovostondpritchard.com 4-22
City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-23

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 Southern Pacific Railroad established a storage facility and switching company in 1891 at the site of present-day Mendota; the City was incorporated in 1942. The City is located in the San Joaquin Valley of California, about 32 miles west of Fresno. The railway heavily contributed to the expansion of agriculture within the City. The City has historically grown alfalfa, wheat, barley, oats, cantaloupe, pomegranates, cotton, sugar beets, and tomatoes. The Project site is located outside of the City of Mendota city limits and while it has previously been used for agricultural production, is currently vacant.

4.5.1.1 NATIVE AMERICAN OUTREACH
The NAHC identifies, catalogs, and protects Native American cultural resources - ancient places of special religious or social significance to Native Americans and known ancient graves and cemeteries of Native Americans on private and public lands in California. The NAHC is also charged with ensuring California Native American tribes’ accessibility to ancient Native American cultural resources on public lands, overseeing the treatment and disposition of inadvertently discovered Native American human remains and burial items, and administering the California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (CalNAGPRA), among many other powers and duties. NAHC provides a current list of Native American Tribal contacts to notify of projects pursuant to SB 18. Tribal letters pursuant to AB 52 and SB 18, including a description of the Project, the proposed TSM, and a map of the Project site were sent to a list of tribes and are contained in Appendix C. The tribes notified are listed in Section Error! Reference source not found.

Tribal Cultural Resources.

4.5 CULTURALRESOURCES
Table 4—11:Cultural Resources Im
O ‘ O O O ‘ O
O O ‘ O O ‘ O O O O O O O

O O O O O O O
O O O ‘ a) Causea substantial adverse change in |_. |_| |_| the significance of a historical resource
pursuant to in § 15064.5?
b) Causea substantial adverse change in El El El IE
the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? C) Disturb any human remains, including El El El IE
those interred outside of dedicated
cemeteries?

4.5.1 BASELINECONDITIONS
The Southern Pacific Railroad established a storage facility and switching company in 1891 at the site of present-day Mendota; the City was incorporated in 1942. The City is located in the SanJoaquin Valley of California, about 32 miles west of Fresno.The railway heavily contributed to the expansion of agriculture within the City. The City has historically grown alfalfa, wheat, barley, oats, cantaloupe, pomegranates, cotton, sugar beets, and tomatoes. The Project site is located outside ofthe City of Mendota city limits and while it has previously been used for agricultural production, is currently vacant.

4.5.1 .1 NATIVEAMERICAN OUTREACH
The NAHCidentifies, catalogs, and protects Native American cultural resources - ancient places of special religious or social significance to Native Americans and known ancient graves and cemeteries of Native Americans on private and public lands in California. The NAHCis also charged with ensuring California Native American tribes’ accessibility to ancient Native American cultural resources on public lands, overseeing the treatment and disposition of inadvertently discovered Native American human remains and burial items, and administering the California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (CaINAGPRA),among many other powers and duties. NAHCprovides a current list of Native American Tribal contacts to notify of projects pursuant to SB18. Tribal letters pursuant to AB 52 and SB18, including a description of the Project, the proposed TSIVI,and a map of the Project site were sent to a list of tribes and are contained in Appendix C. The tribes notified are listed in Section Error! Reference source not found.

Tribal Cultural Resources.

4.5.2 IMPACTANALYSIS
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to in § 15064.5?
b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
a) - b) No Impact. According to the City of Mendota General Plan, there are no prehistoric or historic sites within the City’s Planning Area listed as State Historic Landmarks or California Points of Historical \MMNprovostondpritchard.com 4—23
City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-24
Interest or on the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources.15 According to a Cultural Resource Records Search completed for the Project site in October of 2025, the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System found that there are no known cultural resources on the Project site, with three having been found within a half mile of the site (see Appendix C). As a result, the Project is not expected to result in significant impacts or adverse effects to cultural or historical resources, including archaeological remains, artifacts, or historic properties. Therefore, there would be no impact. c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
No Impact. There is no evidence that the Project site has the potential to be an unknown burial site, or the site of buried human remains. In the unlikely event that humans remains are uncovered during construction, the Fresno County Coroner will 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 within 24 hours of discovery. The NAHC will then identify the Most Likely Descendent who will be afforded an opportunity to make recommendations regarding the treatment and disposition of the remains.

Therefore, there would be no impact.
15 (City of Mendota General Plan - Open Space and Conservation Element, 2009) City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis Interest or on the National Register of Historic Placesor the California Register of Historical Resources.15 According to a Cultural ResourceRecordsSearchcompleted for the Project site in October of 2025,the Southern SanJoaquinValleyInformation Center ofthe California Historical ResourcesInformation System found that there are no known cultural resources on the Project site, with three having been found within a hahcmile of the site (see Appendix C). As a result, the Project is not expected to result in significant impacts or adverse effects to cultural or historical resources, including archaeological remains, artifacts, or historic properties. Therefore, there would be no impact. c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
No Impact. There is no evidence that the Project site has the potential to be an unknown burial site, or the site of buried human remains. In the unlikely event that humans remains are uncovered during construction, the Fresno County Coroner will 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 ResourcesCode 5097.98 require that the coroner notify the NAHC within 24 hours of discovery. The NAHC will then identify the Most Likely Descendent who will be afforded an opportunity to make recommendations regarding the treatment and disposition of the remains.

Therefore, there would be no impact.
15(City of Mendota General Plan — Open Spaceand Conservation Element, 2009) \MMNprovostondpritchard.com 4-24
City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-25

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 County of Fresno and would be annexed to the City of Mendota as a part of the Project. The Project site 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.

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.

City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis

4.6 ENERGY
Table4—12:Ene Im cts
a) Resultin potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption El El IE CI
of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local
plan for renewable energy or energy El El El '2
efficiency?

4.6.1 BASELINECONDITIONS
The Project site is located within the County of Fresnoand would be annexed to the City of Mendota as a part of the Project. The Project site is served by PacificGasand Electric Company (PG&E)for its electricity and natural gasneeds.

4.6.2 IMPACTANALYSIS
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 CaIEEModmodel. 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 (CalEEModdefault values), (2) default averagetrip distance by land use in CaIEEMod,and (3) fuel efficiencies estimated in the ARB2017 EmissionsFactors model (EMFAC2017)mobile source emission model.

California Code of RegulationsTitle 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 2,532,924 kilowatt-hours and 10,545.24 therms of natural gas(seeAppendix A). Energyconsumption of residential usesiscurrently governed by the 2025 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—consumingequipment reaches its end-of-Iife and necessitates replacement. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. \MMNprovostondpritchard.com 4—25
City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-26
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 Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis 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 RegulationsTitle 24, Part 6 — EnergyEfficiencyStandards;and California Codeof RegulationsTitle 24, Parts6 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. \MMNprovostondpritchard.com 4-26
City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-27

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

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

4.7.1 BASELINE CONDITIONS

4.7.1.1 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The Project is located in Fresno County, in the southern section of California’s Great Valley Geomorphic Province, or Central Valley. 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 Mountain Range, with smaller tributaries flowing east from the Coastal Mountain Ranges. Most of the surface of the Central Valley is covered by Quaternary (present day to 1.6 million years ago) alluvium. The sedimentary formations are steeply upturned along the western margin City of Mendota
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis

4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Table 4—13:Geol
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—PrioloEarthquake 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—relatedground 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—sitelandslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or coHapse?
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?
6) 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) Directlyor indirectlydestroyaunique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geological feature?

4.7.1 BASELINECONDITIONS

4.7.1.1 GEOLOGY AND SOILS DUDE III
and Soils lmDUDE III
El
August 2026
Dfififi III
The Project is located in Fresno County, in the southern section of California’s Great Valley Geomorphic Province, or Central Valley.TheSacramento Valley makesup the northern third and the SanJoaquinValley makes up the southern two—thirdsof the geomorphic province. Both valleys are watered by large rivers flowing west from the SierraNevadaMountain Range,with smaller tributaries flowing east from the Coastal Mountain Ranges.Most of the surface of the Central Valley is covered by Quaternary (present day to 1.6 million years ago) alluvium. The sedimentary formations are steeply upturned along the western margin WANprovostondpritchard.com 4—27
City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-28
due to the uplifted Sierra Nevada Range.
16 From the time the Central Valley first began to form, sediments derived from erosion of igneous and metamorphic rocks and consolidated marine sediments in the surrounding mountains have been transported into the Central Valley by streams.

According to the Natural Resource Conservation Service’s Web Soil Survey, the Project site is composed of Calflax clay loam, saline-sodic, wet, 0 to 1 percent slopes, MLRA 17. This soil has a low to moderate shrinkswell potential.17

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, the San Joaquin Fault, is located approximately 21 miles west of the Project site. The San Andreas Fault is located approximately 42 miles west of the Project site.18

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.19

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. The Project site is located in a portion of the Central Valley of California that is known as an area that has experienced soil subsidence due to groundwater overdraft.
20 4.7.1.5 DAM AND LEVEE FAILURE
According to the California Department of Water Resources Dam Breach Inundation Map, the Project site is not in an area that would be susceptible to flooding as a result of dam or levee failure.21

4.7.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS
a) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
16 Harden, D.R. 1998, California Geology, Prentice Hall, 479 pages 17 (Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2025)
18 (California Department of Conservation, 2015)
19 (California Department of Conservation, 2026)
20 (United States Geological Survey, n.d.)
21 (California Department of Water Resources, 2015)
City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis due to the uplifted Sierra NevadaRange.16From the time the Central Valley first began to form, sediments derived from erosion of igneous and metamorphic rocks and consolidated marine sediments in the surrounding mountains have been transported into the Central Valley by streams.

According to the Natural ResourceConservation Service’sWeb SoilSurvey,the Project site is composed of Calflax clay loam, saline-sodic, wet, Oto 1 percent slopes, MLRA 17. This soil has a low to moderate shrinkswell potential.17

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, the SanJoaquin Fault, is located approximately 21 miles west of the Project site. The SanAndreas Fault is located approximately 42 miles westof the Project site.18

4.7.1.3 LIQUEFACTION
Liquefaction is a seismicphenomenon 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.19

4.7.1.5 DAM AND LEVEEFAILURE
According to the California Department of Water ResourcesDam Breach Inundation Map, the Project site is not in an area that would be susceptible to flooding asa result of dam or levee failure.21

4.7.2 IMPACTANALYSIS
a) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
16Harden, DR. 1998,California Geology, Prentice Hall, 479 pages 17(Natural ResourcesConservation Service,2025)
California Department of Conservation, 2015)
California Department of Conservation, 2026)
United StatesGeological Survey, n.d.)
California Department of Water Resources,2015)
\MMNprovostondpritchard.com 4—28
18(
19(
20(
21(
City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-29
i-ii) 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 271 new 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 San Joaquin Fault, approximately 21 miles west of the Project site. As such, the Project would not cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death as a result in a rupture of a known earthquake fault, nor would it result in strong seismic activity from Project inundations. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? No Impact. The Project would result in the construction of 271 new single-family residences, associated development of new roadways, a new permanent runoff basin, and a one half mile of sewer main improvements. According to the DOC Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation Map, the Project site is not located in an area susceptible to liquefaction. The new construction would not increase the likelihood for liquefaction to occur within the Project site. 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.

Moreover, the Project site is not located near any known fault or fault zone — the nearest active fault is the SanJoaquin Fault, approximately 21 miles west of the Project site. As such, the Project would not cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death as a result in a rupture of a known earthquake fault, nor would it result in strong seismic activity from Project inundations. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? No Impact.The Project would result in the construction of 271 new single-family residences, associated development of new roadways, a new permanent runoff basin, and a one half mile of sewer main improvements. According to the DOCEarthquake Zonesof Required Investigation Map, the Project site is not located in an area susceptible to liquefaction. The new construction would not increase the likelihood for liquefaction to occur within the Project site. 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? Lessthan Significant Impact.Earthmoving activities associatedwith the Project would include excavation, trenching, grading, and construction. These activities could expose soils to erosion processes;however, the extent of erosion would vary depending on slope steepness/stability, vegetation/cover, concentration of runoff, and weather conditions. In addition, dischargers whose projects disturb one 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 a SWPPPand comply with the State Water ResourcesControl 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?
d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B ofthe Uniform Building Code (1994),creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? \MMNprovostondpritchard.com 4-29
City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-30
c-d) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed above, the Project site is located in a relatively flat area not susceptible to landslide or liquefaction. The Project site contains a single soil mapping unit: Calfax clay loam, saline-sodic, wet, 0 to 1 percent slopes. The Project site is located in an area with low to moderate shrink-swell potential. However, the Project site and surrounding areas do not contain substantial grade changes and the risk of lateral spreading or subsidence is minimal. The Project would not propose significant alteration of the topography of the site, and the subdivision would be designed in compliance with California Building Code requirements. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
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. Paleontological resources are fossilized remains of flora and fauna and associated deposits. Most fossils are found in sedimentary rocks. Sedimentary rock is formed by dirt (sand, silt, or clay) and debris that settles to the bottom of an ocean or lake and compresses for such a long time that it becomes hard as a rock. CEQA requires that a determination be made as to whether a project would directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature. If an impact is significant, CEQA requires feasible measures to minimize the impact (CCR Title 14(3) Section 15126.4(a)(1)).

City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis c-d) LessThan Significant Impact.As discussedabove, the Project site is located in a relatively flat area not susceptible to landslide or liquefaction. The Project site contains a single soil mapping unit: Calfax clay loam, saline-sodic, wet, O to 1 percent slopes. The Project site is located in an area with low to moderate shrink-swell potential. However, the Project site and surrounding areas do not contain substantial grade changes and the risk of lateral spreading or subsidence is minimal. The Project would not propose significant alteration of the topography of the site, and the subdivision would be designed in compliance with California Building Code requirements. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
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.
1‘)Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature?
Less than Significant Impact. Paleontological resources are fossilized remains of flora and fauna and associated deposits. Most fossils are found in sedimentary rocks. Sedimentary rock is formed by dirt (sand, silt, or clay) and debris that settles to the bottom of an ocean or lake and compresses for such a long time that it becomes hard as a rock. CEQArequires that a determination be made as to whether a project would directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature. If an impact is significant, CEQArequires feasible measures to minimize the impact (CCR Title 14(3) Section 15126.4(a)(1)).

The Project would require grading and excavation activities. In the unlikely event that a unique paleontological resource or unique geological feature is discovered, the Project would be subject to comply with California Public Resources Code Section 5097.5 which pertains to the protection of paleontological resources.With compliance with said regulation, impacts would be less than significant. \MMNprovostondpritchard.com 4-30
City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-31

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.

City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis

4.8 GREENHOUSEGAS EMISSIONS
8)
Table 4—14:Greenhouse Gas Emissions lm
Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the D D IE El
environment?
Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse D D El '2
gases?

4.8.1 BASELINECONDITIONS
Commonly identified GHGemissionsand sources include the following:

Carbon dioxide (C02)is an odorless, colorless natural greenhouse gas. C02is 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 sourcesinclude 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 (N20), also known as laughing gas, is a colorless greenhouse gas. Nitrous oxide is produced by microbial processesin 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 (03) 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. 03 isnot emitted directly into the atmosphere but is formed by a complex seriesof chemical reactions between volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, and sunlight.

Aerosols are suspensionsof particulate matter in a gas emitted into the air through burning biomass (plant material) and fossil fuels. Aerosolscan 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. \MMNprovostondpritc hard.com 4—31
City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-32
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 Projects, proposed projects complying with Best Performance Standards (BPS) would be determined to have a less-thansignificant impact.22 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-as-usual (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.

Project Related Emissions
Short-term construction emissions associated with the Project were calculated using CalEEMod, Version 2022.1.1.43. 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 4.5 years. 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 4-16Error! Reference source not found.. 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 Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)are synthetic chemicals that are used as a substitute for CFCs.Of all the greenhouse gases,HFCsare one of three groups (the other two are perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride) with the highest global warming potential. HFCsare human-made for applications such asair conditioners and refrigerants.

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

Sulfur hexafluoride (SF5)is an inorganic, odorless, colorless, nontoxic, nonflammable gas.It hasthe highest global warming potential of any gasevaluated. 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 also uncertainties associatedwith the magnitude and timing of other consequencesof 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 consequenceofthese effects on the economy.

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

About three-quarters of human emissions of C02 to the global atmosphere during the past 20 years are due to fossil fuel burning. Atmospheric concentrations of C02,CH4,and N20 have increased by at least 40 percent, 150 percent, and 20 percent respectively since the year 1750. GHG emissions are typically expressedin carbon dioxide—equivalents(C026),basedon the GHG’sGlobal Warming Potential (GWP).The GWPis dependent on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. For example, one ton of CH4has the same contribution to the greenhouse effect as approximately 25 tons of C02.

Therefore, CH4is a much more potent GHGthan C02.In accordance with SJVAPCD’sCEQAGreenhouseGas Guidancefor Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHGEmissionImpacts for New Projects, 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 GHGemissions would be reduced or mitigated by a minimum of 29 percent, in comparison to business-as-usual(year 2004) conditions. In addition, project—generatedemissions complying with an approved plan or mitigation program would also be determined to have a less-than-significant impact.

Project Related Emissions
Short-term construction emissions associated with the Project were calculated using CalEElVIod,Version 2022.1.1.43.The emissionsmodeling includes emissionsgenerated by off-road equipment, haul trucks, and worker commute trips. Emissions were quantified based on an anticipated construction schedule of approximately 4.5 years. 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 emissionsare summarized in Table 4-15,and Table 4-16Error! Referencesource not found.. GHGsimpact the environment over time as they increase and contribute to climate change.
22(SanJoaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, 2009) \MMNprovostondpritchard.com 4-32
City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-33

Table 4-15: Short Term Construction Related GHG Emissions Emissions (MT CO2e) in Tons per
Year
Maximum Annual Construction CO2e Emissions 638
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 7/15/2026.

Table 4-16: Long Term Operational Related GHG Emissions Emissions (MT CO2e) in Tons per
Year
Annual Operational CO2e Emissions 5,071
AB 32 Consistency Threshold for Land-Use Development Projects* 1,100 AB 32 Consistency Threshold for Stationary Source Projects* 10,000 Threshold Exceeded? Yes
* 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 7/15/2026.

4.8.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS
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. In the decade after SJVAPCD adopted their Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA, several new laws and executive orders were adopted that require additional reductions in years after 2020. For instance, SB 32 requires that GHG emissions be 40 percent less than 1990 levels by 2030. More drastic still, SB 100, which was signed by the Governor recently, requires 100 percent zero-carbon electricity by 2045. On the day SB 100 was signed into law, the Governor also signed Executive Order B-55-18, which commits California to total, economy-wide carbon neutrality by 2045. Clearly, the 2009 Guidance may be somewhat inadequate in producing a meaningful comparison by today’s standards, which propose a grand vision that, if achieved, would fundamentally change how business is conducted and citizens live in the State.

Thus, as discussed in the most recent updates to the Scoping Plan, the objectives of the Scoping Plan affect entire sectors of the economy.

For these reasons, Project GHG emissions levels presented in

Table 4-15 and Table 4-16 are primarily for disclosure purposes. The Project’s largest contributors to GHG emissions are from electricity and exhaust from transportation fuels. Electricity and transportation fuels are, in effect, regulated by requiring providers and importers of electricity and fuel to participate in the GHG Cap-and-Trade Program and other programs (e.g., low carbon fuel standard, renewable portfolio standard, etc.). Each such sector-wide program exists within the framework of AB 32 and its descendant laws, the purpose of which is to achieve GHG emissions reductions consistent with the AB 32 Scoping Plan.

City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis Table 4-15: Short Term Construction Related GHG Emissions Maximum Annual Construction COZe Emissions 638
AB32 ConsistencyThreshold for Land-UseDevelopment Projects* 1,100 AB32 ConsistencyThreshold for Stationary SourceProjects* 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.baaqmdgov/N/media/files/planning—and—research/ceqa/ceqa guidelines mav2017—pdf.pdf?la=enAccessed7/15/2026.

Table 4—16:Lon Term 0 rational Related GHG Emissions
Annual Operational COZeEmissions 5,071
AB32 ConsistencyThreshold for Land-UseDevelopment Projects* 1,100 AB32 ConsistencyThreshold for Stationary SourceProjects* 10,000 Threshold Exceeded? Yes
* 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 mav2017—pdf.pdf?la=enAccessed7/15/2026.

4.8.2 IMPACTANALYSIS
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. In the decade after SJVAPCDadopted their Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA,several new laws and executive orders were adopted that require additional reductions in yearsafter 2020.For instance, SB32 requires that GHGemissionsbe 40 percent lessthan 1990 levelsby 2030. More drastic still, SB100,which was signed by the Governor recently, requires 100 percent zero-carbon electricity by 2045. On the day SB100 was signed into law, the Governor also signed ExecutiveOrder 8-55-18,which commits California to total, economy—widecarbon neutrality by 2045. Clearly, the 2009 Guidance may be somewhat inadequate in producing a meaningful comparison by today’s standards, which propose a grand vision that, if achieved, would fundamentally change how businessis conducted and citizens live in the State.

Thus, as discussedin the most recent updates to the Scoping Plan, the objectives of the Scoping Plan affect entire sectors of the economy.

For these reasons, Project GHGemissionslevels presented in Table 4-15 andTable 4—16are primarily for disclosure purposes.The Project’s largest contributors to GHG emissions are from electricity and exhaust from transportation fuels. Electricity and transportation fuels are, in effect, regulated by requiring providers and importers of electricity and fuel to participate in the GHGCap-and-TradeProgram and other programs (e.g.,low carbon fuel standard, renewable portfolio standard, etc.). Eachsuch sector—wideprogram exists within the framework of AB32 and its descendant laws, the purpose of which is to achieve GHGemissions reductions consistent with the AB 32 Scoping Plan.
\MMNprovostondpritchard.com 4—33
City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-34
The Project would generate GHGs from electricity use and combustion of gasoline/diesel fuels, each of which is regulated near the top of the supply chain. As such, each citizen of California (including those creating emissions of this Project) will have no choice but to purchase electricity and fuels produced in a way that is acceptable to the California market. Thus, Project GHG emissions will be consistent with the relevant plan (i.e., AB 32 Scoping Plan). The Project would meet its fair share of the cost to mitigate the cumulative impact of global climate change because energy purchases are from the California market.

Thus, consumers of electricity and transportation fuels are, in effect, regulated by higher-level emissions restrictions on the producers of these energy sources. Therefore, the Project would have a less-thansignificant impact on applicable GHG reduction plans and the Project’s contribution to cumulative global climate change impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. 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. As described above, 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 the AB 32 Scoping Plan and would not exceed an applicable threshold for GHG emissions. Therefore, there would be no impact.

City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis The Project would generate GHGs from electricity use and combustion of gasoline/diesel fuels, each of which is regulated near the top of the supply chain. As such, each citizen of California (including those creating emissionsof this Project) will have no choice but to purchase electricity and fuels produced in a way that is acceptable to the California market. Thus, Project GHGemissions will be consistent with the relevant plan (i.e., AB32 Scoping Plan).The Project would meet its fair share of the cost to mitigate the cumulative impact of global climate change because energy purchases are from the California market.

Thus,consumers of electricity and transportation fuels are, in effect, regulated by higher-level emissions restrictions on the producers of these energy sources. Therefore, the Project would have a less—thansignificant impact on applicable GHGreduction plans and the Project’s contribution to cumulative global climate change impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. 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. As described above, 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 SJVAPCDpolicies and regulations and the AB32 Scoping Plan and would not exceed an applicable threshold for GHGemissions.Therefore, there would be no impact. \MMNprovostondpritchard.com 4-34
City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-35

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 HAZARDSAND HAZARDOUSMATERIALS
Table 4-17: Hazards and Hazardous Materials lm
Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
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?
Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one—quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
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? 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? Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
Exposepeople or structures, either
directly or indirectly to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involving wildland
fires?

4.9.1 BASELINECONDITIONS

4.9.1.1 HAZARDOUSMATERIALS
The HazardousWaste and SubstancesSites (Cortese) List is a planning document used by the State, local agencies,and developers to comply with CEQArequirements 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 SubstancesControl (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 releaseinformation for the CorteseList.DTSC’sEnviroStordatabaseprovides DTSC’scomponent of Cortese List data. In addition to the EnviroStor database,the SWRCBGeoTracker database provides information on WANprovostondpritchard.com
CtS
August 2026
4—35
City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-36
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 April 29, 2026, 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 nearest operational airport, Firebaugh Airport, is located approximately 7.4 miles northwest of the Project site. The Project is not located within the boundaries of an adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.

4.9.1.3 EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN
The County of Fresno has a Hazard Mitigation Plan that was adopted in 2024.25 The purpose of the plan is to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and property from hazards.

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 receptor to the area would include the residential development located immediately adjacent to the Project site to the east.

4.9.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS
a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
a-b) Less than Significant Impact. The Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The Project would result in the construction of 271 single family residences, a new permanent runoff basin, and a one half mile sewer main extension connecting the proposed subdivision to existing City sewer infrastructure.

During construction, equipment would be used that could result in the spill of hazardous materials, such as diesel fuel, lubricants, and solvents. However, the contractor would comply with all California Department of Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations regarding regular maintenance and inspection of equipment, spill prevention, and spill remediation in order to reduce the potential for incidental release of pollutants or hazardous substances onsite. Furthermore, any potential accidental hazardous materials spills during construction are the responsibility of the contractor to remediate in accordance with industry best management practices (BMPs) and State and local regulations. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 23 (State Water Resources Control Board, 2026)
24 (Department of Toxic Substances Control, 2026)
25 (Fresno County, 2024)
City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis regulated hazardouswaste facilities in California, including underground storage tank (UST) casesand nonUSTcleanup programs, including Spills—Leaks—Investigations—Cleanups sites, Department of Defense sites, and Land Disposal program. A search of the DTSCEnviroStor database and the SWRCBGeoTracker performed on April 29, 2026, determined that there are no known active hazardous waste generators or hazardousmaterialspillsiteswithin the Project siteor immediatesurroundingvicinity.23 24

4.9.1.3 EMERGENCYRESPONSEPLAN
The County of Fresnohas 3 Hazard Mitigation Planthat was adopted in 2024.25The purpose of the plan is to reduce or eliminate long—termrisk to people and property from hazards.

4.9.1.4 SENSITIVERECEPTORS
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 receptor to the area would include the residential development located immediately adjacent to the Project site to the east.

4.9.2 IMPACTANALYSIS
a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
a-b) Less than Significant Impact. The Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The Project would result in the construction of 271 single family residences,a new permanent runoff basin, and a one half mile sewer main extension connecting the proposed subdivision to existing City sewer infrastructure.

During construction, equipment would be used that could result in the spill of hazardousmaterials, 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 releaseof pollutants or hazardous substancesonsite. Furthermore, any potential accidental hazardous materials spills during construction are the responsibility of the contractor to remediate in accordance with industry best management practices (BMPs) and State and local regulations. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 23 (StateWater ResourcesControlBoard,2026)
24(Department of ToxicSubstancesControl, 2026)
25 (FresnoCounty,2024)
\MMNprovostondpritchard.com 4-36
City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-37
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. The nearest school, McCabe Elementary School, is located approximately

0.4 miles east of the Project 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 has not been identified to contain a known hazardous material spill. Therefore, there would be no impact. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The Project would not be located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan, or within two miles of a public or private airport where such a plan has not been adopted. The Projectsite is located approximately 7.4 miles southeast of the nearest operational airport, the Firebaugh 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?
Less than Significant Impact. The County of Fresno has a Hazard Mitigation Plan that was adopted in 2024.26 The Project would not impair or physically interfere with the adopted Hazard Mitigation Plan.

During construction, there may be a temporary increase in deliveries on the roadways adjacent to the Project site; however, no detours or road closures are anticipated. If any work within the roadways is required, it would need to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
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 site is located adjacent to the City and would be annexed to the City as a result of the Project. The Project is surrounded by urbanized land to the east and agricultural land with little to no vegetation to the north, west, and south. According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire), the Project site is not located in a State Responsibility Area (SRA) or a very high fire hazard severity zone.27 Therefore, there would be no impact. 26 (County of Fresno, 2024)
27 (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, 2025) City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis 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. The nearest school, IVICCabeElementary School, is located approximately

0.4 miles east of the Project 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 has not been identified to contain a known hazardousmaterial 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 site is located approximately 7.4 miles southeast ofthe nearest operational airport, the Firebaugh Airport, and is not located within an adopted airport land use compatibility plan. Therefore, there would be no impact.
1‘) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less than Significant Impact. The County of Fresno has a Hazard Mitigation Plan that was adopted in 2024.26 The Project would not impair or physically interfere with the adopted Hazard Mitigation Plan.

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 site is located within the San Joaquin Valley Basin and more specifically the San Joaquin Valley Westside Subbasin. The Project site is also located within the boundaries of the Westlands Water District Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) and is located within the Mowry Lake-Fresno Slough Subwatershed Hydrologic Unit Code 180300091003. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Flood Hazard Layer Flood Map, the Project site is partially located in Zone X, which represents an annual flood risk of between 0.2% and 1%. The Project site is not located within a 100 Year Flood Zone.
28 28 (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2024)
City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis

4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Table 4-18: rol and Water Qual Im cts
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface D D IXI D or ground water quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the El El IE El
project may impede sustainable
groundwater management ofthe basin?
C) Substantiallyalterthe existingdrainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration ofthe 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; D El '2 El ii. substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a mannerwhich would result in D D IXI El 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 D D IE El
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
I iv. impede or redirect flood flows? D
D
gD
I
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
risk release of pollutants due to project El El El IXI
inundan?
6) Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of a water quality control plan or sustainablegroundwatermanagement D D D IXI plan?

4.10.1 BASELINE CONDITIONS
The Project site is located within the SanJoaquin Valley Basinand more specifically the SanJoaquin Valley Westside Subbasin.The Project site is also located within the boundaries of the Westlands Water District Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) and is located within the Mowry Lake-Fresno Slough Subwatershed Hydrologic Unit Code 180300091003. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEIVIA)National Flood HazardLayerFlood Map, the Project site is partially located in ZoneX,which represents an annual flood risk of between 0.2% and 1%. The Project site is not located within a 100 Year FloodZone.28
28(Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2024)
\MMNprovostondpritchard.com 4-38
City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-39

4.10.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Less than Significant Impact. In compliance with State regulations, all development within the Project site would be required to comply with State regulations adopted to reduce groundwater degradation. The SWRCB requires the preparation of a SWPPP for projects that exceed specified size limits. The Project would be required to obtain SWRCB approval of its SWPPP prior to construction. Additionally, the Project would include a new permanent runoff basin, approximately 4.21 acres in size located immediately north of the subdivision to accommodate storm water runoff. Through implementation of planned Project design features,such as the new stormwater runoff basin, and through compliance with adopted SWPPP regulations, impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project would include the development of 271 single-family residential lots. As a part of the Project, the site would be annexed into the City. As a result, the City would be the sole water provider for the development. The City’s current water supply system is currently comprised of three primary production wells and two emergency back up wells. According to the General Plan, as of 2008 two additional well sites have been identified in the area and have been determined to be adequate for future development. According to the City’s Water Master Plan the current water system has the capacity to serve an additional 600 single-family residential homes.29 With 271 single family homes proposed by this Project, enough water supply exists to serve the Project. 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. There are no surface waterways, such as a stream or river, located within the Project site or within its immediate vicinity. The Project would require grading and soil exposure during construction; however, the Project would be required to comply with all State General Construction Permit and SWPPP requirements. Compliance with these requirements would minimize impacts related to erosion or siltation on or off-site. Therefore, impacts 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;
Less than Significant Impact. Although the Project would result in an increase in impervious surface, which in turn would increase the rate of surface runoff, runoff would be directed to the new permanent runoff basin which would be constructed as part of the Project. The new permanent runoff basin would be adequately sized to handle the increase rate and amount of surface runoff. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
29 (City of Mendota, 2019)
City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis

4.10.2 IMPACTANALYSIS
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Lessthan Significant Impact.In compliance with State regulations, all development within the Project site would be required to comply with State regulations adopted to reduce groundwater degradation. The SWRCBrequires the preparation of a SWPPPfor projects that exceed specified size limits. The Project would be required to obtain SWRCBapproval of its SWPPPprior to construction. Additionally, the Project would include a new permanent runoff basin,approximately 4.21 acresin sizelocated immediately north of the subdivision to accommodate storm water runoff. Through implementation of planned Project design features, suchasthe new stormwater runoff basin,and through compliance with adopted SWPPP regulations, impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Lessthan Significant Impact.The Project would include the development of 271 single-family residential lots. As a part of the Project, the site would be annexed into the City. As a result, the City would be the sole water provider for the development. The City’s current water supply system is currently comprised of three primary production wells and two emergency back up wells. According to the General Plan, as of 2008 two additional well sites have been identified in the area and have been determined to be adequate for future development. According to the City’s Water Master Plan the current water system has the capacity to servean additional600 single—family residentialhomes.29With 271 single family homes proposed by this Project, enough water supply exists to serve the Project. 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. There are no surface waterways, such as a stream or river, located within the Project site or within its immediate vicinity. The Project would require grading and soil exposure during construction; however, the Project would be required to comply with all State General Construction Permit and SWPPPrequirements. Compliance with these requirements would minimize impacts related to erosion or siltation on or off—site.Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. ii. substantially increasethe rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site;
Less than Significant Impact. Although the Project would result in an increase in impervious surface, which in turn would increase the rate of surface runoff, runoff would be directed to the new permanent runoff basin which would be constructed as part of the Project. The new permanent runoff basin would be adequately sizedto handle the increase rate and amount of surface runoff. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
29(City of Mendota, 2019)
\MMNprovostondpritchard.com 4-39
City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-40
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
Less than Significant Impact. As stated above, the Project would include a new permanent runoff basin, approximately 4.21 acres in size located immediately north of the subdivision to accommodate storm water runoff. With construction of the new runoff basin, the Project would not contribute to runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
iv. impede or redirect flood flows?
Less than Significant Impact. According to the FEMA Flood Map the Project is partially located in Zone X, and is not within a 100 Year Flood Zone.
30 Impacts to existing flood flows would be minimal and the Project would include a storm water runoff basin that could adequately store anticipated runoff within the Project site. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. d) Would the project in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundations?
No Impact. The Project is not located within 100 Year Flood Zone, a tsunami zone, or a seiche zone.

Therefore, there would be no impact.
e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
No Impact. The Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. The Project site would be located within the boundaries of the Westlands Water District GSA.31 However, the City is located within the boundaries of the City of Mendota GSA. Subsequent to annexation of the Project site to the City, the California Department of Water Resources and the two aforementioned GSA’s could agree upon a boundary realignment which would result in the Project site being moved into the City of Mendota GSA. Both of the two GSA’s have completed their Groundwater Sustainability Plan. The Project would not be in conflict with either plan.

Position of the Project site in one GSA or the other could result in a difference in fees due, but would not have a physical impact on the environment. Therefore, there would be no impact. 30 (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2024)
31 (Department of Water Resources, 2018)
City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis 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
Lessthan Significant Impact. As stated above, the Project would include a new permanent runoff basin, approximately 4.21 acres in size located immediately north of the subdivision to accommodate storm water runoff. With construction ofthe new runoff basin,the Project would not contribute to runoff water which would exceedthe capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems.Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
iv. impede or redirect flood flows?
Lessthan Significant Impact.According to the FEMAFlood Map the Project is partially located in Zone X, and is not within a 100 Year Flood Zone?‘OImpacts to existing flood flows would be minimal and the Project would include a storm water runoff basin that could adequately store anticipated runoff within the Project site. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. d) Would the project in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundations?
No Impact. The Project is not located within 100 Year Flood Zone, a tsunami zone, or a 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.TheProject would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. The Project site would be located within the boundaries of the Westlands Water District GSA.31However, the City is located within the boundaries of the City of Mendota GSA.Subsequent to annexation of the Project site to the City, the California Department of Water Resourcesand the two aforementioned GSA’s could agree upon a boundary realignment which would result in the Project site being moved into the City of Mendota GSA.Both of the two GSA’shave completed their Groundwater Sustainability Plan.The Project would not be in conflict with either plan.

K,- . ’ ' L :32; -. b 4 " ‘ '_ (.4; 2%. r’ .. . . -— l ‘ 2:12.;2099' L .—-_’ ,4-
a?
. I}, $.39":
l'.' E 32317;”.." 35"
. “?! ; __,._ . 5 ‘l , I 'l U ,
. l‘ ' 3 *
. g fi-Lg'.’ . "3'7-
r .9; ti fiBIackTAv
.t' ‘ ‘ 0 2 I. * - - n q l ' _.. V. ._ l ___ _ __. Ff"- g I fin . , r I J.' ; E. - . mm;
.3 1|“; “Oxnard‘St “‘ Ir K‘s” u
l‘ ~1#P*'1F'h’1 .II
' I
I a! n
1 I
l1 ' ,g
‘ “3*“..45' a
J l. I Ping I’ii'
.F
l-' n.) .3. L‘: - 1‘ * ‘- _-.. . E11. 4'15, J ~
5’3:- £3.91; '1 I “ E Project Site ' 1:: :] Mendota City Limit -_‘ 1-15}..- f ' "I - - .. MendotaCitySOl i
ii, | 2:13:2009 r . FloodZane . ‘ 4 l
: D-FIRMPanelNumber/Date "1 "-i ' ‘-
- 100YearFloodZone(FEMADFIRM)
0 500 1,000 FEMA FIOOdMap —:l
Feet City of Mendota - Vesting Tentative Map No. 6541
imam}k\Egny1eDrive\Cllcnts\Menduta_Cityuf-333m336Dru-GoingPlanningmmxarsuozapnaomgxwuu 554nm _6541.apm Figure 4-2: FEMAFlood Map WANprovostondpritchard.com
August 2026

PROVOST&

PRITCHARD
4—41
City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-42

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

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

4.11.1 BASELINE CONDITIONS
The Project site is located within the County, adjacent to the City of Mendota. As a part of the Project, the City’s SOI would be amended to include the Project site and the site would be annexed to the City. The Project site is currently designated as Low Density Residential and Public Facilities by the City of Mendota General Plan and is currently zoned as Exclusive Agriculture (20 acres) by the County of Fresno. 32 33 As a
part of the Project, the General Plan land use designation of APN 012-190-25ST would be amended from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. APN 012-190-25ST would also be prezoned R-1 and APN 012-160-25ST would be prezoned P-F.

4.11.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS
a) Would the project physically divide an established community? No Impact. The Project would not physically divide an existing community. As mentioned above, the subject parcels would be annexed to the City from the County. As the Project site is located adjacent to the current city limits, annexation of this parcel would be done in a contiguous manner. The City would connect the site to development adjacent to the Project and extend Amador Avenue to Belmont Avenue with one lane in each direction. In order for the Project to be approved, Fresno LAFCo would be required to approve an application for an SOI amendment and annexation. Therefore, there would be no impact. b) Would the project cause a significant environmental conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No Impact. The Project would result in the construction of 271 single-family residential lot TSM, a new permanent runoff basin, and one half mile of sewer main improvements. Additionally, the Project proposes to amend the existing Low Density Residential land use designation for APN 012-190-25ST to Medium Density Residential while concurrently amending the City’s Official Zoning Map to prezone APN 012-190-25ST to the R-1 zone district, which is consistent with the proposed Medium Density Residential General Plan land use designation. APN 012-160-25ST would also be prezoned to the P-F zone district, consistent with it’s Public Facilities land use designation. The application also requests the Project be 32 (City of Mendota, 2009)
33 (County of Fresno, 2025)
City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis

4.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Table 4-19: Land Use and Plannin Im
O ‘ O C O ‘ O
C O ‘ C O ‘ O O C C O O O

O O C O O O O
O O C ‘ a) Physically divideanestablished El El El IXI
community?
b) Cause a significant environmental impact
due to a conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for the El El I:| IXI
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?

4.11.1 BASELINECONDITIONS
The Project site is located within the County, adjacent to the City of Mendota. Asa part of the Project, the City’s SOIwould be amended to include the Project site and the site would be annexed to the City. The Project site is currently designated as Low Density Residential and Public Facilities by the City of Mendota GeneralPlanandis currently zonedasExclusive Agriculture(20acres)by the County of Fresno.3233 Asa part of the Project, the General Plan land use designation of APN012-190-ZSST would be amended from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. APN012-190-ZSST would also be prezoned R-1 and APN012—160—253T would be prezoned P—F.

4.11.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS
a) Would the project physically divide an established community? No Impact. The Project would not physically divide an existing community. As mentioned above, the subject parcels would be annexed to the City from the County. As the Project site is located adjacent to the current city limits, annexation of this parcel would be done in a contiguous manner. The City would connect the site to development adjacent to the Project and extend Amador Avenue to Belmont Avenue with one lane in each direction. In order for the Project to be approved, FresnoLAFCo would be required to approve an application for an SOIamendment and annexation. Therefore, there would be no impact. b) Would the project cause a significant environmental conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No Impact.The Project would result in the construction of 271 single-family residential lot TSIVI,a new permanent runoff basin, and one half mile of sewer main improvements. Additionally, the Project proposes to amend the existing Low Density Residential land use designation for APN012-190—255T to Medium Density Residential while concurrently amending the City’s Official Zoning Map to prezone APN 012-190-255Tto the R—l zone district, which is consistent with the proposed Medium Density Residential General Plan land use designation. APN012—160—ZSST would also be prezoned to the P-Fzone district, consistent with it’s Public Facilities land use designation. The application also requests the Project be 32(City of Mendota, 2009)
33(County of Fresno, 2025)
\MMNprovostondpritchard.com 4-42
City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-43
processed as a planned development. Upon approval of the Project the City of Mendota City Council, the SOI amendment and annexation of the Project site would be initiated with Fresno LAFCo. 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 (residential development occurring in residentially planned areas). The Project would be required to meet all applicable City land use policies and regulations. Therefore, there would be no impact.

City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis processedasa planned development. Upon approval ofthe Project the City of Mendota City Council,the SOIamendment and annexation of the Project site would be initiated with Fresno LAFCo.Theseactions further the objectives of the City’s General Planby providing development in the areasin the City where they are planned for (residential development occurring in residentially planned areas). The Project would be required to meet all applicable City land use policies and regulations. Therefore, there would be no impact.
\MMNprovostondpritchard.com 4-43
City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-44

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.

According to the CGS Mineral Land Classification map, while Fresno County is known to produce aggregate materials, the Project site and the surrounding area are not.34 The City’s General Plan and the Fresno County General Plan Background Report have not identified the Project site or land in its vicinity as containing mineral resources. The nearest known mineral producing site (sand and gravel) is located approximately 2.6 miles northeast of the Project site along the San Joaquin River.35

4.12.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS
a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
No Impact. The Project site is not known to contain any mineral deposits that would be of value to the region and State. The Project would not result in the loss of availability of a mineral resource which would be of value to the region or the State. Therefore, there would be no impact. b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? 34 (California Geological Survey, n.d.)
35 (California Department of Conservation, 2016)
City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis

4.12 MINERALRESOURCES
Table 4—20:Mineral Resources Im
a) Resultin the lossof availabilityof a
known mineral resource that would be of El El El IXI
value to the region and the residents of
the state?
b) Resultin the lossof availabilityof a
locally important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local El El El IX
general plan, specific plan or other land
use plan?

4.12.1 BASELINECONDITIONS
The California GeologicalSurvey (CGS)is responsible for the classification and designation of areas within California containing or potentially containing significant mineral resources. The CGSclassifieslands into Aggregateand Mineral ResourceZones(IVIRZs)based on guidelines adopted by the California State Mining and GeologicBoard, asmandated by the SurfaceMining and ReclamationAct of 1975. TheseIVIRZsidentify whether known or inferred significant mineral resourcesare presented in areas.Leadagenciesare required to incorporate identified IVIRZsresource areas delineated by the State into their general plans.

According to the CGSMineral LandClassificationmap, while FresnoCounty is known to produce aggregate materials, the Project site and the surrounding area are not.34The City’s General Plan and the Fresno County General Plan Background Report have not identified the Project site or land in its vicinity as containing mineral resources. The nearest known mineral producing site (sand and gravel) is located approximately 2.6 miles northeast of the Project site along the SanJoaquin River.35

4.12.2 IMPACTANALYSIS
a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
No Impact. The Project site is not known to contain any mineral deposits that would be of value to the region and State.TheProject would not result in the lossof availability ofa mineral resource which would be of value to the region or the State. Therefore, there would be no impact. b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? 34 (CaliforniaGeologicalSurvey,n.d.)
35 (CaliforniaDepartment of Conservation,2016)
WANprovostondpritchard.com 4-44
City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-45
No Impact. The Project site has not been identified as containing a locally important mineral resource by the City of Mendota General Plan, a specific plan, or any other land use plan. The Project would not result in the loss of any locally important mineral resource. Therefore, there would be no impact.

City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis No Impact.The Project site has not been identified ascontaining a locally important mineral resource by the City of Mendota General Plan,a specific plan, or any other land useplan. TheProject would not result in the lossof any locally important mineral resource. Therefore, there would be no impact. \MMNprovostondpritchard.com 4-45
City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-46

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

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

4.13.1 BASELINE CONDITIONS
The Project site is located within the County of Fresno and would be annexed into the City as a part of the Project. According to the City’s General Plan, the City requires that daytime noise sources within single family residential areas remain below 55 decibels during the day.

4.13.2 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
City of Mendota Noise Ordinance: In addition to General Plan requirements, the City has established a Noise Ordinance in its municipal code. Noise ordinances establish noise limits for which penalties may be imposed or enforcement action may be taken. Therefore, while General Plan limits are to be taken into consideration during the development of a project and may or may not be strictly applied depending on the particular circumstances of the project, a noise ordinance generally must not be exceeded. In preparing a noise element, a city or county must identify local noise sources and analyze and quantify, to the extent practicable, current and projected noise levels for various sources, including highways and freeways; passenger and freight railroad operations; ground rapid transit systems; commercial, general, and military aviation and airport operations; and other ground stationary noise sources.

The Project is subject to the City of Mendota Noise Control Ordinance, which is covered in Title 9, Chapter

9.05 of the Mendota Municipal Code. It prohibits continued loud noise or noise which disturbs others by placing time constraints on noise producing activities and volume limits on noise amplification devices.

Construction is specifically addressed in Title 9, Chapter 9.05, Section 9.05.070(A):

A. Construction.

City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis

4.13 NOISE
Table 4-21: Noise Im cts
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 D D IE El
local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Generation of excessiveground borne El El '2 El
vibration or ground borne noise levels?
C) For a projectlocatedwithinthe vicinityof a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public El El El [Z
airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

4.13.1 BASELINECONDITIONS
The Project site is located within the County of Fresno and would be annexed into the City as a part of the Project. According to the City’s General Plan, the City requires that daytime noise sources within single family residential areasremain below 55 decibels during the day.

4.13.2 APPLICABLEREGULATIONS
CityofMendota NoiseOrdinance:In addition to GeneralPlanrequirements, the City hasestablished a Noise Ordinance in its municipal code. Noiseordinances establishnoise limits for which penalties may be imposed or enforcement action may be taken. Therefore, while General Planlimits are to be taken into consideration during the development of a project and may or may not be strictly applied depending on the particular circumstances of the project, a noise ordinance generally must not be exceeded. In preparing a noise element, a city or county must identify local noise sources and analyze and quantify, to the extent practicable, current and projected noise levels for various sources, including highways and freeways; passenger and freight railroad operations; ground rapid transit systems; commercial, general, and military aviation and airport operations; and other ground stationary noise sources.

The Project is subject to the City of Mendota Noise Control Ordinance, which is covered in Title 9, Chapter

Construction is specifically addressed in Title 9, Chapter 9.05,Section 9.05.070(A):

A. Construction.
\MMNprovostondpritchard.com 4-46
City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-47

1. Construction and delivery are exempt from the basic noise regulation during the times and on the days when construction activities are allowed pursuant to the terms and provisions of the Mendota Municipal Code.

2. Residents/property owners when personally operating equipment are exempt from the basic noise regulation when they are personally undertaking construction activities to maintain or improve their property between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Such activities are restricted to the use of hand and power tools only.

3. At all times loud and raucous noise emanating from any construction or delivery site, whether in the form of broadcast or amplified music or any other form, which is audible on any property other than the property from which it emanates, is prohibited.

Furthermore, noise level standards by receiving land use category have been established by the City of Mendota Municipal Code, as illustrated in Table 4-22, below.

Table 4-22: Noise Level Standards
Sound Level Limits
Daytime 7:00 a.m.—7:00 p.m. 55 dBA
Evening 7:00 p.m.—10:00 p.m. 50 dBA
Nighttime 10:00 p.m.—7:00 a.m. 45 dBA

4.13.3 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 result in the construction of a 271-lot single family residential subdivision. After completion of the Project expected noise levels would be similar to that of the adjacent development to the east. Any potential increase in noise levels would not be significant or obtrusive. Temporary noise would occur during construction and cease upon completion of the Project.

1. Construction and delivery are exempt from the basic noise regulation during the times and on the dayswhen construction activities are allowed pursuant to the terms and provisions ofthe Mendota Municipal Code.

2. Residents/property owners when personally operating equipment are exempt from the basicnoise regulation when they are personally undertaking construction activities to maintain or improve their property between the hours of 10:00 am. and 5:00pm. Such activities are restricted to the use of hand and power tools only.

Furthermore, noise level standards by receiving land use category have been established by the City of Mendota Municipal Code, as illustrated in Table 4-22, below.

Table 4-22: Noise Level Standards
Sound Level Limits
Daytime 7:00 a.m.—7:OOpm. 55 dBA
Evening 7:00 p.m.—10:OOpm. 50 dBA
Nighttime 10:00 p.m.—7:OOam. 45 dBA

4.13.3 IMPACTANALYSIS
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 result in the construction of a 271-Iot single family residential subdivision. After completion of the Project expected noise levels would be similar to that of the adjacent development to the east. Any potential increase in noise levels would not be significant or obtrusive. Temporary noise would occur during construction and ceaseupon completion of the Project.

Noise levels generated by the equipment during construction would range from 76 to 88 dBA (decibel) at a distance of 50 feet from the noise source; at 100 feet, the noise levels would range from 70 to 82 dBA.36The City of Mendota does have a Noise Control Ordinance as mentioned above. The City’s ordinance states that construction and deliveries are exempt from the basic noise regulation during the times and on the days when construction activities are allowed pursuant to the terms and provisions of the Mendota Municipal Code.37Due to the nature of construction noise and the proximity of the site to existing residential areas, hours of construction shall be limited to 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM. 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. Construction equipment generates vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in amplitude with distance from the source. Construction activities can result in 36(United States Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, 2017) 37 (City of Mendota, 2026)
WANprovostondpritchard.com 4-47
City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-48
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 construction, it is not anticipated that the Project would generate excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels. In addition, vibration levels subside with increased distance from the source, diminishing the effect the Project would have. 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 site is located approximately 7.4 miles southeast of the nearest operational airport, the Firebaugh Airport, and is not located within an adopted airport land use compatibility plan. Therefore, there would be no impact.

City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis 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 soundsand perceptible vibrations at moderate levels,to slight damage at the highest levels. Given the type of construction, it is not anticipated that the Project would generate excessiveground—borne vibration or ground—bornenoise levels. In addition, vibration levels subside with increased distance from the source, diminishing the effect the Project would have. 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 site is located approximately 7.4 miles southeast ofthe nearest operational airport, the Firebaugh Airport, and is not located within an adopted airport land use compatibility plan. Therefore, there would be no impact.
\MMNprovostondpritchard.com 4-48
City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-49

4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Table 4-23: Population and Housing Impacts
Would the project:

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

4.14.1 BASELINE CONDITIONS
The Project site is located in Fresno County, within the planning area of the City of Mendota. In 2024, the City adopted its 6th Cycle Housing Element update, which included population and housing data generated by the Fresno Council of Governments (COG). The 6
th Cycle Housing Element reported that the City of
Mendota had a total population of 12,424 in 2020 and an annual growth rate each year of 2.6% since the year 2000.38 Additionally, the Housing Element reported that in 2020, Mendota had a total of 2,888 built homes and had a population per household of 4.3.

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 unplanned increase in population in the area either directly or indirectly. The Project includes the development of a 271-lot single family residential subdivision. The Project is intended to support housing needs within the City and would not induce substantial unplanned growth. The Project proposes to amend the site’s General Plan land use designation from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and amend the City of Mendota Official Zoning Map to designate the project site as R-1, consistent with the proposed Medium Density Residential land use designation. While the overall potential density allowed on the site would be increased as a result of the proposed General Plan Amendment, this increase is modest in size and would not change the type of development planned for on the site (single family 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?
38 (Fresno Council of Governments, 2023)
City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis

4.14 POPULATIONAND HOUSING
Table 4—23:Po ulation and Housin Im cts
a) Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and
businesses)or indirectly (for example, D D IE El
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing D D El '2
elsewhere?

4.14.1 BASELINECONDITIONS
The Project site is located in Fresno County, within the planning area of the City of Mendota. In 2024, the City adopted its 6thCycleHousing Element update, which included population and housing data generated by the Fresno Council of Governments (COG).The 6thCycle Housing Element reported that the City of Mendota had a total population of 12,424 in 2020 and an annual growth rate each year of 2.6%since the year 2000.38Additionally, the Housing Element reported that in 2020, Mendota had a total of 2,888 built homes and had a population per household of 4.3.

4.14.2 IMPACTANALYSIS
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)?
Lessthan Significant Impact. The Project would not create a substantial unplanned increasein population in the area either directly or indirectly. The Project includes the development of a 271-Iot single family residential subdivision. The Project is intended to support housing needs within the City and would not induce substantial unplanned growth. The Project proposes to amend the site’s General Plan land use designation from Low Density Residentialto Medium Density Residentialand amend the City of Mendota Official Zoning Map to designate the project site as R—l,consistent with the proposed Medium Density Residential land use designation. While the overall potential density allowed on the site would be increased asa result ofthe proposed General PlanAmendment, this increaseis modest in sizeand would not changethe type of development planned for on the site (singlefamily 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?
38 (FresnoCouncilof Governments,2023)
\MMNprovostondpritchard.com 4—49
City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-50
No Impact. The Project would result in the construction of a 271-lot single family residential subdivision on land that would be annexed to the City. The Project is located on vacant land and would not displace any people or housing. Therefore, there would be no impact.

City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis No Impact.The Project would result in the construction of a 271—Iot single family residential subdivision on land that would be annexed to the City. The Project is located on vacant land and would not displace any people or housing. Therefore, there would be no impact. \MMNprovostondpritchard.com 4-50
City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-51

4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
Table 4-24: 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
Currently, the City and surrounding unincorporated area is served by the Fresno County Fire Protection District. The nearest Fresno County Fire District fire station is located approximately 0.5 mile east of the Project site.

4.15.1.2 POLICE PROTECTION
The Project would be served by the Mendota Police Department located approximately 1.3 miles southeast of the Project site.

4.15.1.3 SCHOOLS
Mendota Unified School District operates several schools within the City. The nearest school, McCabe Elementary School, is located approximately 0.4 miles east of the Project site.

4.15.1.4 PARKS
The City has three public parks as well as State administered parklands. The nearest park, Rojas Pierce Park is located approximately 0.3 miles southeast of the Project site.

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

City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis

4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
Table 4-24: Public Services
0 ‘ O O O ‘ O
O O ‘ O O ‘ O O O O O O O

O O O O O O O
O O O ‘ 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? D D IE I:I
ii. Police protection? D D IE I:I
iii. Schools? D D IE I:I
iv. Parks? D D IE D
V. Other public facilities? D D IE I:|

4.15.1 BASELINECONDITIONS

4.15.1.1 FIREPROTECTION
Currently, the City and surrounding unincorporated area is served by the Fresno County Fire Protection District. The nearest Fresno County Fire District fire station is located approximately 0.5 mile east of the Project site.

4.15.1.2 POLICEPROTECTION
TheProject would be served by the Mendota PoliceDepartment located approximately 1.3 miles southeast of the Project site.

4.15.1.3 SCHOOLS
Mendota Unified School District operates several schools within the City. The nearest school, McCabe Elementary School, is located approximately 0.4 miles east of the Project site.

4.15.1.4 PARKS
The City hasthree public parks aswell asState administered parklands.The nearest park, RojasPiercePark is located approximately 0.3 miles southeast of the Project site.

4.15.1.5 LANDFILLS
The City provides garbage, recycling and green waste disposal through Mid Valley Disposal. \MMNprovostondpritchard.com 4-51
City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-52

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 nearest Fresno County Fire District fire station is located approximately

0.5 miles east of the Project site. The Fresno County Fire District already serves the Project area, and construction of the Project would not substantially increase the service area for the Fire Department.

Impacts would be less than significant.
ii. Police Protection:

Less than Significant Impact. The Project would be served by the Mendota Police Department, located approximately 1.3 miles southeast of the Project site. The Mendota Police Department already serves the Project area, and construction of the Project would not substantially increase the service area for the Police Department. Impacts would be less than significant. iii. Schools:

Less than Significant Impact. The Project would result in the construction of 271 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. 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 would result in the construction of 271 single-family residences.

Additional parks and recreational facilities are not included as a part of the Project design. However, the City requires subdivisions to dedicate land or pay an in lieu fee for neighborhood and community open space, park and recreational purposes. According to the City’s General Plan, the City requires the construction and maintenance of five acres of parks per 1,000 residents. Recreational facility fees are approximately $1,365 per unit for low density residential and medium density residential. The Project would be required to pay all applicable fees. With compliance with City requirements, impacts would be less than significant.
v. Other public facilities:

4.15.2 IMPACTANALYSIS
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:

Lessthan Significant Impact.The nearest FresnoCounty Fire District fire station is located approximately

Impacts would be less than significant.
ii. Police Protection:

Less than Significant Impact. The Project would be served by the Mendota Police Department, located approximately 1.3 miles southeast of the Project site. The Mendota Police Department already serves the Project area, and construction of the Project would not substantially increasethe servicearea for the Police Department. Impacts would be less than significant. iii. Schools:

Lessthan Significant Impact. TheProject would result in the construction of 271single-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—generatedstudents, reducing impacts to a lessthan significant level. Aspayment ofthese fees is required prior to issuanceof building permits, impacts would be less than significant.
iv. Parks:

Lessthan Significant Impact. TheProject would result in the construction of 271single-family residences.

Additional parks and recreational facilities are not included as a part of the Project design. However, the City requires subdivisions to dedicate land or pay an in lieu fee for neighborhood and community open space, park and recreational purposes. According to the City’s General Plan, the City requires the construction and maintenance of five acres of parks per 1,000 residents. Recreational facility fees are approximately $1,365per unit for low density residential and medium density residential. The Project would be required to pay all applicable fees. With compliance with City requirements, impacts would be less than significant.
v. Other public facilities:

Less than Significant Impact. The Project would also result in the generation of solid waste during construction and operational activities. During construction, waste produced would be the responsibility of the contractor to dispose of. Subsequent to the construction of the single-family residences, operations would result in the generation of solid waste, recyclables, and organics. The City contracts with Mid Valley Disposalfor trash collection services.Refusecollected from the site would be disposed \MMNprovostondpritchard.com 4-52
City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-53
of at the American Avenue Landfill, approximately 16 miles to the southeast of the site. According to CalRecycle, the American Avenue Landfill is projected to have capacity through the year 2031.39 Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
39 (CalRecycle, 2026)
City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis of at the American Avenue Landfill, approximately 16 miles to the southeast of the site. According to CaIRecycle,the American Avenue Landfill is projected to have capacity through the year 2031.39 Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
39(CalRecycle,2026)
\MMNprovostondpritchard.com 4-53
City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-54

4.16 RECREATION
Table 4-25: 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 has a total of three City maintained parks including Veterans Park, Jess Gill Park, and Rojas Pierce Park. The nearest City maintained park, Rojas Pierce Park, is located approximately 0.6 miles southeast of the Project site. Additionally, the City offers other community areas such as Mendota Pool Park, the Community Center, and Mendota City Hall. Mendota has a total of approximately 19.89 acres of dedicated park space. While not maintained by the City, the Mendota Wildlife Area, Alkali Sink Ecological Reserve, and Kerman Ecological Reserve are also all within 10 miles of the Project site.

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 271-lot single family subdivision. New parks and recreational facilities are not included as a part of the Project design.

However, the City requires subdivisions to dedicate land or pay an in lieu fee for neighborhood and community open space, park and recreational purposes. According to the City’s General Plan, the City requires the construction and maintenance of five acres of parks per 1,000 residents. Recreational facility fees are approximately $1,365 per unit for medium density residential. The Project would be required to pay all applicable fees. With compliance with City requirements, 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? No Impact. The Project would not include the construction or expansion of any parks or recreational facilities. Therefore, there would be no impact.

City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis

4.16 RECREATION
Table 4-25: Recreation Im
8) Increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that Cl El IE |:| 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 El El El IXl might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?

4.16.1 BASELINECONDITIONS
The City has a total of three City maintained parks including Veterans Park,JessGill Park,and RojasPierce Park.The nearest City maintained park, RojasPierce Park,is located approximately 0.6 miles southeast of the Project site. Additionally, the City offers other community areas such as Mendota Pool Park, the Community Center, and Mendota City Hall. Mendota hasa total of approximately 19.89 acresof dedicated park space. While not maintained by the City, the Mendota Wildlife Area, Alkali Sink Ecological Reserve, and Kerman EcologicalReserveare also all within 10 miles of the Project site.

4.16.2 IMPACTANALYSIS
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 271-Iot single family subdivision. New parks and recreational facilities are not included as a part of the Project design.

However, the City requires subdivisions to dedicate land or pay an in lieu fee for neighborhood and community open space,park and recreational purposes. According to the City’s General Plan, the City requires the construction and maintenance of five acresof parks per 1,000residents. Recreationalfacility fees are approximately $1,365per unit for medium density residential. The Project would be required to pay all applicable fees. With compliance with City requirements, 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? No Impact. The Project would not include the construction or expansion of any parks or recreational facilities. Therefore, there would be no impact.
\MMNprovostondpritchard.com 4-54
City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-55

4.17 TRANSPORTATION
Table 4-26: Transportation Impacts
Would the project:

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

4.17.1 BASELINE CONDITIONS
The Project would result in the annexation of the Project site to the City of Mendota. Major transportation routes within the City include SR 33 and SR 180. The Project site is abutted by Amador Avenue which runs parallel to the Project site along the existing subdivision directly to the east.

In December 2018, modifications to the CEQA Guidelines were adopted by the Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (formerly known as the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research [OPR]), which requires all lead agencies to adopt vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as a replacement for automobile delay-based level of service (LOS) as the new measure for identifying transportation impacts for land use projects. This statewide mandate, enacted by the State Legislature through Senate Bill 743, took effect July 1, 2020. Analysis for the Project relies on the Fresno County SB 743 Implementation Regional Guidelines, most recently updated in January 2025.
40 If the guidelines do not apply, the analysis will rely on information prepared by OPR as part of their December 2018 publication entitled Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (Technical Advisory), which provides guidance for evaluating transportation impacts based on VMT.41

4.17 TRANSPORTATION
Table 4-26: Trans rtation lm cts
8) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance
or policy addressing the circulation
system,includingtransit,roadway, D D IXI El
bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
b) Conflict or beinconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision El El IE El
(b)?
C) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or Cl El El IX
incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? El El El IXl

4.17.1 BASELINECONDITIONS
The Project would result in the annexation of the Project site to the City of Mendota. Major transportation routes within the City include SR 33 and SR180. The Project site is abutted by Amador Avenue which runs parallel to the Project site along the existing subdivision directly to the east.

In December 2018,modifications to the CEQAGuidelines were adopted by the Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (formerly known as the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research [OPR]), which requires all lead agencies to adopt vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as a replacement for automobile delay-based level of service (LOS)as the new measure for identifying transportation impacts for land use projects. This statewide mandate, enacted by the State Legislaturethrough SenateBill 743, took effect July 1, 2020.Analysis for the Project relies on the FresnoCounty SB743 Implementation RegionalGuidelines, mostrecentlyupdatedinJanuary2025.40Ifthe guidelinesdonot apply,the analysiswillrelyoninformation prepared by OPR as part of their December 2018 publication entitled Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (Technical Advisory), which provides guidance for evaluating transportation impacts based on V|\/|T.41

4.17.2 IMPACTANALYSIS
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 include the extension of Amador Avenue to Belmont Avenue which is included in the Fresno COG2022 RegionalTransportation Plan (RTP).Additionally, the Project would extend local roads in the existing subdivision adjacent to the Project site to the new subdivision. While the Project would result in the extension of neighborhood roadways to serve the 40 (FresnoCouncilof Governments,2025)
41(Governor'sOfficeof PlanningandResearch,2017)
\MMNprovostondpritchard.com 4-55
City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-56
subdivision, the Project would be consistent with all adopted ordinances, policies, and plans regarding circulation and transit facilities within the City. 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. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 subdivision (b) VMT was analyzed as a part of the Traffic Study prepared for the Project (see Appendix D). As mentioned above, Fresno COG prepared a document entitled the Fresno County SB 743 Implementation Regional Guidelines to assist local agencies with VMT analyses. According to the Fresno COG Guidelines, “…Fresno County member jurisdictions may establish a threshold for land use development, specifically residential and office, of exceeding 13 percent below the existing regional VMT per capita as indicative of a significant environmental impact.” This guidance finds that any project that generates more than 15.34 VMT per capita creates a significant transportation impact. According to the Traffic Study, the Project site is projected to have a Project VMT per capita at approximately 10.8. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact related to VMT.
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 271 single-family residences on the Project site and the extension of existing roadways following existing transportation patterns and consistent with the RTP and the City’s General Plan. 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 required as a part of the Project. The Project would be required to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to approval, ensuring that adequate access would be maintained. In addition, construction of the Project would not create a conflict with designated emergency routes. Therefore, there would be no impact.

City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis subdivision, the Project would be consistent with all adopted ordinances, policies, and plans regarding circulation and transit facilities within the City. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQAGuidelines section 15064.3 subdivision (b)? Less than Significant Impact. Consistent with CEQAGuidelines section 15064.3 subdivision (b) VMT was analyzed as a part of the Traffic Study prepared for the Project (see Appendix D). As mentioned above, Fresno COG prepared a document entitled the Fresno County SB 743 Implementation Regional Guidelines to assistlocal agencieswith VMT analyses.According to the FresnoCOGGuidelines, ”...Fresno County member jurisdictions may establish a threshold for land use development, specifically residential and office, of exceeding13 percent below the existing regional VMTper capita asindicative of a significant environmental impact.” This guidance finds that any project that generates more than 15.34 VMT per capita creates a significant transportation impact. According to the Traffic Study, the Project site is projected to have a Project VMT per capita at approximately 10.8. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact related to VMT.
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 271 single-family residences on the Project site and the extension of existing roadways following existing transportation patterns and consistent with the RTPand the City’s General Plan.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 required asa part ofthe Project. The Project would be required to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineerprior to approval, ensuring that adequate accesswould be maintained. In addition, construction of the Project would not create a conflict with designated emergency routes. Therefore, there would be no impact.
\MMNprovostondpritchard.com 4-56
City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-57

4.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Table 4-27: 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 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. Additionally, Government Code Section 65352.3 (SB 18) requires that a lead agency notify Tribes that the lead agency is undertaking a General Plan Amendment and provide the Tribes 90 days to request formal consultation. The Tribes, which are determined based on a list provided by the NAHC, have 90 days from the date on which they were contacted by the lead agency to request formal consultation.

City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis

4.18 TRIBALCULTURALRESOURCES
Table 4-27: Tribal Cultural Resources Im cts
a) Causea substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource,
defined in Public ResourcesCode 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 D D D IE
Public ResourcesCode 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
ResourcesCodeSection 5024.1. In
applying the criteria set forth in D D D IXI
subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the
significance ofthe resource to a California Native American tribe.

4.18.1 BASELINECONDITIONS
Public ResourcesCode 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 daysfrom 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. Additionally, Government CodeSection 65352.3 (SB18) requires that a lead agencynotify Tribes that the lead agencyis undertaking a General Plan Amendment and provide the Tribes 90 days to request formal consultation. The Tribes, which are determined based on a list provided by the NAHC, have 90 days from the date on which they were contacted by the lead agency to request formal consultation.

WANprovostondpritchard.com 4-57
City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-58
The City of Mendota has received written correspondence from the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe requesting notification of projects pursuant to AB 52, resulting in an AB 52 letter being sent to this Tribe.

Additionally, the City notified a list of Tribes provided by NAHC pursuant to SB 18 due to the proposed General Plan Amendment. AB 52 and SB 18 letters were sent to Tribes, as applicable, on April 13, 2026 (see Appendix C).

4.18.1.1 NATIVE AMERICAN OUTREACH
A tribal consultation outreach letter pursuant to SB 18 and AB 52 (as applicable), including a description of the Project, the Project site plan, and a map of the Project site was sent to the following Native American organizations/individuals from a list provided by NAHC below:

1. Chairperson Leo Sisco of the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe

2. Stan Alec of the Kings River Choinumni Farm Tribe

3. Chairperson Neil Peyron of the Tule River Indian Tribe

4. Chairperson David Alvarez of the Traditional Choinumni Tribe

5. Timothey Perez of the North Valley Yokuts Tribe

6. Chairperson Carol Bill of the Cold Springs Rancheria of Mono Indians

7. Chairperson Kenneth Woodrow of the Wuksachi Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band

8. Chairperson Katherine Perez of the North Valley Yokuts Tribe

9. Chairperson Robert Leder of the Dumna Wo-Wah Tribal Government

10. Chairperson Elaine Fink of the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians

11. Chairperson Elizabeth D. Kippa of the Big Sandy Rancheria of Western Mono Indians

12. Chairperson Brenda Lavell of the Table Mountain Rancheria The outreach letters were sent via certified mail to each individual on the contact list provided by NAHC on April 13, 2026 (Appendix C). As of the date of this report, only two responses were received from the Table Mountain Rancheria Tribe and the Kings River Choinumni Farm Tribe declining participation in the proposed Project.

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:
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.

No Impact. No requests for tribal consultation for the Project have been received. In the unlikely event that an archaeological resource is uncovered during construction, tribal in relation or not, all construction would cease, and a qualified archaeologist would be contacted to assess the resource. The Project would City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis The City of Mendota has received written correspondence from the SantaRosaRancheriaTachiYokutTribe requesting notification of projects pursuant to AB52, resulting in an AB52 letter being sent to this Tribe.

Additionally, the City notified a list of Tribes provided by NAHCpursuant to SB18 due to the proposed General PlanAmendment. AB52 and SB18 letters were sent to Tribes, asapplicable, on April 13, 2026 (see Appendix C).

4.18.1.1 NATIVEAMERICAN OUTREACH
A tribal consultation outreach letter pursuant to SB18 and AB52 (asapplicable), including a description of the Project, the Project site plan, and a map of the Project site was sent to the following Native American organizations/individuals from a list provided by NAHCbelow:

Chairperson LeoSiscoof the SantaRosaRancheria TachiYokut Tribe Stan Alec of the KingsRiverChoinumni Farm Tribe
Chairperson Neil Peyron of the Tule RiverIndian Tribe
Chairperson David Alvarez of the Traditional Choinumni Tribe Timothey Perez of the North Valley YokutsTribe
Chairperson Carol Bill of the Cold Springs Rancheria of Mono Indians Chairperson Kenneth Woodrow of the Wuksachi Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band Chairperson Katherine Perez of the North ValleyYokutsTribe Chairperson Robert Leder of the Dumna Wo—Wah Tribal Government

10. Chairperson ElaineFink of the North Fork Rancheriaof Mono Indians

11. Chairperson Elizabeth D. Kippaof the BigSandyRancheriaof Western Mono Indians

12. Chairperson Brenda Lavellof the Table Mountain Rancheria “OWNQP‘FWNP The outreach letters were sent via certified mail to each individual on the contact list provided by NAHCon April 13, 2026 (Appendix C).Asof the date of this report, only two responseswere received from the Table Mountain Rancheria Tribe and the Kings River Choinumni Farm Tribe declining participation in the proposed Project.

4.18.2 IMPACTASESSMENT
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources,or in 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 ResourcesCodeSection 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.

No Impact. No requests for tribal consultation for the Project have been received. In the unlikely event that an archaeologicalresource is uncovered during construction, tribal in relation or not, all construction would cease,and a qualified archaeologist would be contacted to assessthe resource. The Project would \MMNprovostondpritchard.com 4-58
City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-59
adhere to all applicable federal, State, and local requirements in regard to tribal cultural resources.

Therefore, would be no impact.

4.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Table 4-28: Utilities and Service Systems Impacts
Would the project:

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

4.19.1 BASELINE CONDITIONS
The Project site would be annexed to the City as a part of the Project. PG&E provides electricity and natural gas for the Project site. The City provides water to the community though three primary production wells and two back up wells and the City operates a wastewater treatment facility, located northeast of the former Mendota Municipal Airport, which treats domestic wastewater generated by customers within the City. The City also contracts Mid Valley Disposal for solid waste pickup services.

Therefore, would be no impact.

4.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICESYSTEMS
Table 4-28: Utilities and Service S ems lm cts
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 Cl IE I:I I:I
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 El El '2 El
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 El '2 D D
project’s projected demand in addition
to the provider’s existing commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excessof State
or local standards, or in excessof the
capacity of local infrastructure, or D D IE I:I
otherwise impair the attainment of solid
waste reduction goals?
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and El I:I I:I IXI
regulations related to solid waste?

4.19.1 BASELINECONDITIONS
The Project site would be annexed to the City asa part ofthe Project. PG&Eprovides electricity and natural gas for the Project site. The City provides water to the community though three primary production wells and two back up wells and the City operates a wastewater treatment facility, located northeast of the former Mendota Municipal Airport, which treats domestic wastewater generated by customers within the City. The City also contracts Mid Valley Disposalfor solid waste pickup services.

4.19.2 IMPACTANALYSIS
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 with Mitigation Incorporated. Subsequent to annexation to the City, the Project would connect to City infrastructure for water and wastewater (sewer) services. The Project \MMNprovostondpritchard.com 4-59
City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-60
would connect to City water mains existing in the residential development to the east. The Project would include a new stormwater retention basin and piping to connect the drain inlets within the development to the basin. Approximately one-half mile of new sewer main piping and manholes will extend the existing Westside Sewer Interceptor trunk line from its current terminus on the northside of the existing residential subdivision along Amador Avenue to the southern end of the development. Likewise, the Project would connect to existing PG&E and telecommunications facilities existing in the aforementioned development. Utility connections are available within the vicinity of the Project site, and no substantial extension of any utility service would be required of the Project. The Project would not require the expansion of existing water supply or treatment facilities based on current well production rates and capacity at the water treatment plant. The wastewater treatment facility has the capacity to treat the additional wastewater produced by the Project; however, the facility relies on evaporation for disposal of the secondary treated effluent and the evaporation capacity is at the average daily flow of wastewater at the facility (between 1.11 and 1.12 MGD). At 53.43 acres of Medium Density Residential, this Project is estimated to produce approximately 0.074 MGD. Therefore, the Project would require improvements to provide additional disposal capacity. In order to minimize the potential impacts, mitigation measure UTIL-1 would be implemented to treat additional wastewater produced by the Project. Mitigation measure UTIL-1 would require the building of berms to create a new formal disposal pond (Pond 12) or the use of mechanical evaporators. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
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 Water Master Plan, the current water system has the capacity to serve an additional 600 single-family residential homes.42 With 271 single family homes proposed by this Project, enough water supply exists to serve the Project. 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 with Mitigation Incorporated. The City operates the existing wastewater treatment facility. The Project would be required to connect to these existing facilities after annexation.

Additionally, a half mile of new sewer main would also be constructed, connecting the proposed subdivision to existing Westside Sewer Interceptor infrastructure. The proposed sewer main segment would extent from the northeast corner of the proposed subdivision east to the Castro Street alignment and south past Silva Street. As described in response above, the wastewater treatment facility has the capacity to treat the additional wastewater produced by the Project; however, the facility relies on evaporation for disposal of the secondary treated effluent. The Project would require improvements to provide additional disposal capacity. In order to minimize the potential impacts, mitigation measure UTIL1 would be implemented to treat additional wastewater produced by the Project. This would be completed by building berms to create a new formal disposal pond (Pond 12) or the use of mechanical evaporators. Additionally, the Project would be required to file all necessary applications and pay development impact fees to the City. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 42 (City of Mendota, 2019)
City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis would connect to City water mains existing in the residential development to the east.The Project would include a new stormwater retention basin and piping to connect the drain inlets within the development to the basin. Approximately one—half mile of new sewer main piping and manholes will extend the existing Westside Sewer Interceptor trunk line from its current terminus on the northside of the existing residential subdivision along Amador Avenue to the southern end of the development. Likewise, the Project would connect to existing PG&Eand telecommunications facilities existing in the aforementioned development. Utility connections are available within the vicinity of the Project site, and no substantial extension of any utility service would be required of the Project. The Project would not require the expansion of existing water supply or treatment facilities based on current well production rates and capacity at the water treatment plant. The wastewater treatment facility has the capacity to treat the additional wastewater produced by the Project; however, the facility relies on evaporation for disposal of the secondarytreated effluent and the evaporation capacity is at the averagedaily flow of wastewater at the facility (between 1.11 and 1.12 MGD). At 53.43 acres of Medium Density Residential, this Project is estimated to produce approximately 0.074 MGD. Therefore, the Project would require improvements to provide additional disposal capacity. In order to minimize the potential impacts, mitigation measure UTIL-1 would be implemented to treat additional wastewater produced by the Project. Mitigation measure UTlL-1 would require the building of berms to create a new formal disposal pond (Pond 12) or the use of mechanical evaporators. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
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? Lessthan Significant Impact.According to the City’sWater Master Plan,the current water system hasthe capacity to serve an additional 600 single—family residential homes.42With 271 single family homes proposed by this Project, enough water supply exists to serve the Project. 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 with Mitigation Incorporated. The City operates the existing wastewater treatment facility. The Project would be required to connect to these existing facilities after annexation.

4.19.3 MITIGATION
UTL-1 In order to accommodate for the capture of wastewater volumes associated with the Project in excess of the current disposal capacity at the City’s wastewater facility, construction of a formal disposal pond or the installation of mechanical evaporators shall be required. These improvements are in addition to the new sewer main piping and manholes that will extend the existing Westside Sewer Interceptor. Construction of the new sewer main piping and manholes extending the Westside Sewer Interceptor shall be completed prior to any portion of the Project being granted occupancy.

Construction of improvements to increase the disposal capacity at the City’s wastewater facility may be deferred to allow 25% of the proposed units to be granted occupancy before completion of the improvements. The remaining 75% of the proposed units shall be granted occupancy only after completion of the required improvements at the City’s wastewater facility.
43 (California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, 2025) City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis 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? Lessthan Significant Impact.TheProject 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 271 single—family residences, operations would result in the generation of solid waste, recyclables,and organics.The City contracts Mid ValleyDisposalfor trash collection services.Refusecollected from the site would be disposed of at the nearest landfill, American Avenue Landfill, approximately 16 miles to the southeast of the site. According to CalRecycIe,the American Avenue Landfill is projected to have capacity through the year 2031.43Therefore, 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.

4.19.3 MITIGATION
UTL-1 In order to accommodate for the capture of wastewater volumes associatedwith the Project in excessof the current disposal capacity at the City’s wastewater facility, construction of a formal disposal pond or the installation of mechanical evaporators shall be required. Theseimprovements are in addition to the new sewer main piping and manholes that will extend the existing Westside Sewer Interceptor. Construction of the new sewer main piping and manholes extending the Westside SewerInterceptor shall be completed prior to any portion of the Project being granted occupancy.

4.20 WILDFIRE
Table 4-29: 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, which would be annexed to the City of Mendota as part of the Project, is undeveloped, and is comprised of natural vegetation. Historically, the site has been zoned by the County of Fresno for agricultural purposes and has been used as such. Currently, the Project site is located within the jurisdiction of the County of Fresno and receives fire protection from the Fresno County Fire Department. There is a total of one fire station in the City, which is located at Fresno County Fire District, 101 McCabe Ave, Mendota, CA 93640. The fire station is approximately 0.5 miles east from the Project site.

According to CalFire, the Project site is not located within a SRA, meaning CalFire does not assume responsibility for wildfire prevention and protection, but rather, the site is managed at the local level.44 The nearest SRA is located approximately 16 miles west of the Project Site. Furthermore, according to CalFire, the Project site is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). The nearest VHFHSZ is located approximately 25 miles west of the Project Site. 45 44 (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, 2024) 45 (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, 2026) City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis

4.20 WILDFIRE
Table 4—29:Wildfire Im cts
a) Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency |:| El El IXI
evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and
thereby expose project occupants to D D D IXI
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) I:I I:I I:I IXI that may exacerbate fire risk or that may
result in temporary or ongoing impacts
to the environment?
d) Exposepeople or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a D D D IXI result of runoff, post—fireslope instability, or drainage changes?

4.20.1 BASELINECONDITIONS
The Project site, which would be annexed to the City of Mendota as part of the Project, is undeveloped, and is comprised of natural vegetation. Historically, the site has been zoned by the County of Fresno for agricultural purposes and hasbeen used assuch.Currently, the Project site is located within thejurisdiction of the County of Fresno and receives fire protection from the Fresno County Fire Department. There is a total of one fire station in the City, which is located at Fresno County Fire District, 101 McCabe Ave, Mendota, CA93640. The fire station is approximately 0.5 miles east from the Project site.

According to CalFire, the Project site is not located within a SRA, meaning CalFire does not assume responsibility for wildfire prevention and protection, but rather, the site is managedat the local level.44The nearest SRAis located approximately 16 miles west of the Project Site. Furthermore, according to CalFire, the Project site is not located within a Very High Fire HazardSeverity Zone (VHFHSZ).The nearest VHFHSZ islocatedapproximately 25mileswestof the ProjectSite.45 44(California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, 2024) 45(California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, 2026) \MMNprovostondpritchard.com 4—62
City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-63

4.20.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS
a) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? a) – d) No Impact. The Project site is not located within a VHFHSZ or an SRA. The nearest SRA is located approximately 16 miles west of the Project site, and the nearest very high fire hazard severity zone is approximately 25 miles west of the Project site. The site is located on a relatively flat, vacant, and undeveloped site that is surrounded by residential and agricultural uses, making wildfire unlikely to occur at the site. Therefore, there would be no impact.

City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis

4.20.2 IMPACTANALYSIS
a) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified asvery high fire hazard severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? a) — d) No Impact.The Project site is not located within a VHFHSZor an SRA.The nearest SRAis located approximately 16 miles west of the Project site, and the nearest very high fire hazard severity zone is approximately 25 miles west of the Project site. The site is located on a relatively flat, vacant, and undeveloped site that is surrounded by residential and agricultural uses,making wildfire unlikely to occur at the site. Therefore, there would be no impact.
\MMNprovostondpritchard.com 4—63
City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-64

4.21 CEQA MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Table 4-30: 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 from the implementation of the Project would be less than significant with the incorporation of the mitigation measures identified in this analysis. Accordingly, the Project would involve no potential for significant impacts through the degradation of the quality of the environment, the reduction in the habitat or population of fish or wildlife, including endangered plants or animals, the elimination of a plant or animal community or elimination of examples of a major period of California history or prehistory. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis

4.21 CEQA MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Table 4-30: CEQA Mandato Findin of Si nificance
8) 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 I: '2 El |:|
animal community, substantially reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples ofthe major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Haveimpactsthat areindividually limited,
but cumulatively considerable?
(”Cumulatively considerable” means that
the incremental effects of a project are I: I: IE |:| 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 I: IXI El |:| beings, either directly or indirectly?

4.21.1 STATEMENTOF 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,causea 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/IVINDresults 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 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 ofa 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)?
\MMNprovostondpritchard.com 4-64
City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-65
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 development of a 271 single-family residential subdivision, 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 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 utilities and service systems from the implementation of the Project would be less than significant with the incorporation of the mitigation measures identified in this analysis. The proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. With implementation of mitigation measures, BMPs, and general safety protocols during construction and maintenance of the proposed Project, impacts will be less than significant.

City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis Less than Significant Impact CEQAGuidelines Section 15064(i) States that a LeadAgency shall consider whether the cumulative impact of a project is significant and whether the effects of the project are cumulatively considerable.The assessmentofthe significanceofthe 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 development of a 271 single-family residential subdivision, the effects of which would not result in significant cumulatively considerable impacts.

Implementation ofthe 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 deflgn
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Lessthan Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The analysisconducted 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 utilities and service systems from the implementation of the Project would be less than significant with the incorporation of the mitigation measures identified in this ana|ysis.The proposed Project would not result in substantial adverseeffects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. With implementation of mitigation measures, BMPs,and general safety protocols during construction and maintenance of the proposed Project, impacts will be less than significant.
\MMNprovostondpritchard.com 4-65
City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541
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 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Project in the City of Mendota. 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 Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541 Chapter 5: Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program

CHAPTERS MITIGATION, MONITORING, AND REPORTING

PROGRAM
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been formulated based upon the findings of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/IVIND)for the Project in the City of Mendota. The MMRPlists mitigation measuresrecommended in the IS/IVINDfor the Project and identifies monitoring and reporting requirements.

Table 5-1:Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program presents the mitigation measures identified for the Project. Eachmitigation 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 analysisof the IS/IVIND.

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 Leadand ResponsibleAgenciesto ensure that individual mitigation measureshave been complied with and monitored
\MMNprovostondpritchard.com 5-1
City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541
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
If feasible, future construction activities will take
place entirely outside of the avian nesting season,
defined as February 1 to August 31.

Prior to construction Prior to
construction
City of Mendota
and/or construction
contractor
Construction
scheduling by
contractor
BIO-2
If construction must occur between February 1 and
August 31, a qualified biologist will conduct surveys
for active bird nests within 7 days prior to the start
of work during this period. The survey area will
encompass the site and surrounding lands within ½
mile for the Swainson’s hawk, 500 feet for other
nesting raptors, and 250 feet for other nesting
birds.

Prior to construction Prior to
construction
City of Mendota
and/or construction
contractor
Memo from
qualified
biologist
reported
findings from
survey
BIO-3
Should any active nests be discovered in or near
proposed construction zones, the biologist will
identify a suitable construction-free buffer around
the nest. This buffer will be identified on the
ground with flagging or fencing and will be
maintained until the biologist has determined that
the young have fledged and are capable of foraging
independently.

During construction
activities
Daily City of Mendota
and/or construction
contractor
Verification
by qualified
biologist and
by memo
from qualified
biologist
Utilities and Service Systems
UTIL-1
In order to accommodate for the capture of
wastewater volumes associated with the Project in
excess of the current disposal capacity at the City’s
wastewater facility, construction of a formal
disposal pond or the installation of mechanical
evaporators shall be required. These improvements
are in addition to the new sewer main piping and
manholes that will extend the existing Westside
Sewer Interceptor. Construction of the new sewer
main piping and manholes extending the Westside
Sewer Interceptor shall be completed prior to any
portion of the Project being granted occupancy.

Construction of improvements to increase the
disposal capacity at the City’s wastewater facility
may be deferred to allow 25% of the proposed
Prior to occupancy Prior to occupancy City of Mendota
and/or construction
contractor
Acceptance of
improvement
s
City of Mendota
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541 Chapter 5: Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Table 5-1:M ation, Monitori and Re rtin P
o o o o o o o ' ‘ o ' o 0
Biological Resources
If feasible, future construction activities will take Prior to construction Prior to BIO-1 place entirely outside of the avian nesting season, construction defined asFebruary 1 to August 31.

If construction must occur between February 1 and
August 31, a qualified biologist will conduct surveys
for active bird nests within 7 days prior to the start
of work during this period. The survey area will
encompass the site and surrounding lands within 1/2 mile for the Swainson’s hawk, 500 feet for other nesting raptors, and 250 feet for other nesting
birds.

Should any active nests be discovered in or near proposed construction zones, the biologist will identify a suitable construction—freebuffer around
the nest. This buffer will be identified on the
ground with flagging or fencing and will be
maintained until the biologist has determined that
the young have fledged and are capable of foraging
independenfly.

Prior to constructionPrior to construction
BIO-2
During construction Daily
activities
BIO-3
Utilities and ServiceSystems
In order to accommodate for the capture of Prior to occupancy Prior to occupancy wastewater volumes associated with the Project in
excessof the current disposal capacity at the City’s
wastewater facility, construction of a formal
disposal pond or the installation of mechanical
evaporators shall be required. These improvements are in addition to the new sewer main piping and manholes that will extend the existing Westside
Sewer Interceptor. Construction ofthe new sewer main piping and manholes extending the Westside Sewer Interceptor shall be completed prior to any
portion of the Project being granted occupancy.

Construction of improvements to increase the
disposal capacity at the City’s wastewater facility
may be deferred to allow 25%ofthe proposed
UTIL-1
vwwv.provostondpritchardcom
August 2026
m
City of Mendota
and/or construction
contractor
City of Mendota
and/or construction
contractor
City of Mendota
and/or construction
contractor
City of Mendota
and/or construction
contractor
5—2
Construction
scheduling by
contractor
Memo from
quahfied
biologist
reported
findings from
survey
Verification
by qualified
biologist and
by memo
from qualified
biologist
Acceptance of
improvement
5 City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541
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
units to be granted occupancy before completion
of the improvements. The remaining 75% of the
proposed units shall be granted occupancy only
after completion of the required improvements at
the City’s wastewater facility.

City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541 Chapter 5: Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program units to be granted occupancy before completion
of the improvements. The remaining 75% of the
proposed units shall be granted occupancy only
after completion ofthe required improvements at
the City’s wastewater facility.
\MMNprovostondpritchardsom 5—3
City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541
Chapter 6: References
www.provostandpritchard.com 6-1
CHAPTER 6 REFERENCES
California Department of Conservation. (2015). Fault Activity Map of California . Retrieved 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 April 13, 2025, from https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/
California Department of Conservation. (2022). Important Farmland Categories. Retrieved April 13, 2026, from https://conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Important-Farmland-Categories.aspx California Department of Conservation. (2025). Williamson Act Enrollment Finder. Retrieved April 13, 2026, from https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/WilliamsonAct/ California Department of Conservation. (2026). Earthquake Zones of Required Investigations Map.

Retrieved from https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/regulatorymaps/ California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. (2024). California State Responsibility Areas.

Retrieved April 2026, from
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?layers=5ac1dae3cb2544629a845d9a19e83 991
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. (2025). Retrieved from Fire Hazard Severity Zones:
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what-we-do/community-wildfire-preparedness-and-mitigation/firehazard-severity-zones California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. (2026). Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Retrieved April 2026, from https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/5065c998b4b0462f9ec3c6c226c610a9 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. (2025). RDRS Report 1: Overall Jurisdiction Tons for Disposal and Disposal Related Uses. Retrieved from https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/RecyclingDisposalReporting/Reports/OverallJurisdictionTonsForD isposal
California Department of Transportation. (2024). Statewide Scenic Highway. Retrieved from https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/47e2009986264718a5a13a2c81382774 California Department of Water Resources. (2015). Dam Breach Inundation Map . Retrieved from https://fmds.water.ca.gov/webgis/?appid=dam_prototype_v2 California Geological Survey. (n.d.). Mineral Land Classification. Retrieved from https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/minerals/
CalRecycle. (2026). American Avenue Disposal Site. Retrieved February 05, 2026, from https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/4535?siteID=352 City of Mendota. (2009). CIty of Mendota General Plan Update 2005-2025.

City of Mendota. (2019). Water Master Plan.

City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541 Chapter 6: References CHAPTER6 REFERENCES
California Department of Conservation. (2015). Fault Activity Map of California . Retrieved from https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/
California Department of Conservation. (2016). Mines Online. Retrieved from https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/moI/index.htm|
California Department of Conservation. (2022). California Important Farm/and Finder. Retrieved April 13, 2025,from https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/C|FF/
California Department of Conservation. (2022). Important Farm/and Categories. Retrieved April 13, 2026, from https://conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Important-Farmland-Categories.aspx California Department of Conservation. (2025). Williamson Act Enrollment Finder. Retrieved April 13, 2026, from https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/d|rp/WilliamsonAct/ California Department of Conservation. (2026). Earthquake Zones of Required Investigations Map.

Retrieved from https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/regulatorymaps/ California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. (2024). California State Responsibility Areas.

Retrieved April 2026, from
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.htm|?|ayers=5ac1dae3cb2544629a845d9a19e83 991
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. (2025). Retrieved from Fire HazardSeverity Zones:
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what—we—do/community—wildfire—preparedness—and—mitigation/fire— hazard-severity—zones
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. (2026). Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Retrieved April 2026, from https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/5065c998b4b0462f9ec3c6c226c610a9 California Department of ResourcesRecycling and Recovery. (2025). RDRS Report 1: Overall jurisdiction Tons for Disposal and Disposal Related Uses. Retrieved from https://www2.ca|recyc|e.ca.gov/RecyclingDisposaIReporting/ReportS/OveraIIJurisdictionTonsForD isposal
California Department of Transportation. (2024). Statewide Scenic Highway. Retrieved from https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/47e2009986264718a5a13a2c81382774 California Department of Water Resources. (2015). Dam Breach Inundation Map . Retrieved from https://fmds.water.ca.gov/webgis/?appid=dam_prototype_v2 California Geological Survey. (n.d.). Mineral Land Classification. Retrieved from https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/minerals/
CaIRecycle. (2026). American Avenue Disposal Site. Retrieved February 05, 2026, from https://www2.ca|recycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/4535?site|D=352 City of Mendota. (2009). City of Mendota General Plan Update 2005—2025.

City of Mendota. (2019). Water Master Plan.
\MMNprovostondpritchard.com 6-1
City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541
Chapter 6: References
www.provostandpritchard.com 6-2
City of Mendota. (2026, March). Title 9 - Public Peace and Welfare. Retrieved April 2026, from Mendota Municipal Code:
https://library.municode.com/ca/mendota/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT9PUPEWE_CH

9.05NOCO
City of Mendota General Plan - Open Space and Conservation Element. (2009). Archeological, Historic and Cultural Resources. Retrieved July 31, 2026, from https://www.cityofmendota.com/wpcontent/uploads/2023/07/City-of-Mendota-General-Plan-2011-Update.pdf County of Fresno. (2024). Fresno County General Plan.

County of Fresno. (2024). Hazard Mitigation Plan.

County of Fresno. (2025). County of Fresno - Zoning.

Department of Toxic Substances Control. (2026). EnviroStor. Retrieved from https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map
Department of Water Resources. (2018). Groundwater Basin Boundary Assessment Tool.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2024). Flood Map Service Center. Retrieved from https://www.fema.gov/flood-maps
Fresno Council of Governments. (2023). Fresno Multi-Jurisdictional 2023-2031 Housing Element. Retrieved April 2026
Fresno Council of Governments. (2025). Fresno County SB 743 Implementation Regional Guidelines.

Fresno County. (2024). Hazard Mitigation Plan.

Governor's Office of Planning and Research. (2017). Technical Advisory on Evaluation Transportation Impacts in CEQA.

Natural Resources Conservation Service. (2025). Web Soil Survey. Retrieved from https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. (2015). Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. Retrieved July 15, 2026, from https://www.valleyair.org/media/g4nl3p0g/gamaqi.pdf San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. (2009). CEQA Greenhouse Gas Guidance for Valley Landuse Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects. Retrieved July 15, 2026 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. (2026). Air Quality Attainment Plans. Retrieved April 2026, from https://www.valleyair.org/rules-and-planning/air-quality-plans/ State Water Resources Control Board. (2026). GeoTracker. Retrieved from https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=Sacramento# United States Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. (2017, August 24). Noise.

9.05NOCO
City of Mendota General Plan — Open Spaceand Conservation Element. (2009). Archeological, Historic and Cultural Resources. Retrieved July 31, 2026, from https://www.cityofmendota.com/wpcontent/uploads/2023/O7/City—of—Mendota—Genera|—P|an-2011-Update.pdf County of Fresno. (2024). FresnoCountyGeneral Plan.

County of Fresno. (2024). Hazard Mitigation Plan.

County of Fresno. (2025). County of Fresno- Zoning.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2024). Flood Map Service Center. Retrieved from https://www.fema.gov/flood—maps
FresnoCouncil of Governments. (2023). FresnoMulti-Jurisdictional 2023—2031HousingElement. Retrieved Apfl|2026
FresnoCouncil of Governments. (2025).FresnoCounty SB743 Implementation RegionalGuidelines.

FresnoCounty. (2024). Hazard Mitigation Plan.

Governor's Office of Planning and Research. (2017). Technical Advisory on Evaluation Transportation Impacts in CEQA.

Natural Resources Conservation Service. (2025). Web Soil Survey. Retrieved from https://websoi|survey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoiISurvey.aspx SanJoaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. (2015). Guidancefor Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. Retrieved July15, 2026, from https://www.va||eyair.org/media/g4n|3pOg/gamaqi.pdf SanJoaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. (2009). CEQAGreenhouseGasGuidancefor Valley LanduseAgencies in AddressingGHGEmissionImpactsfor New Projects. Retrieved July15, 2026 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. (2026). Air Quality Attainment Plans. Retrieved April 2026, from https://www.va||eyair.org/rules—and—planning/air—quaIity—plans/ State Water Resources Control Board. (2026). GeoTracker. Retrieved from https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=Sacramento# United States Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. (2017,August 24). Noise.

Retrieved April 2026, from
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/handbook/handbook09.cfm United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2026, April 30). Current Nonattainment for All Criteria Pollutants. Retrieved April 2026, from https://www3.epa.gov/airqua|ity/greenbook/anc|.htm| \MMNprovostondpritchard.com 6-2
City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541
Chapter 6: References
www.provostandpritchard.com 6-3
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (2025). National Wetlands Inventory. Retrieved from https://www.fws.gov/program/national-wetlands-inventory United States Geological Survey. (n.d.). Areas of Land Subsidence in California. Retrieved from https://ca.water.usgs.gov/land_subsidence/california-subsidence-areas.html City of Mendota August 2026
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6541 Chapter 6: References United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (2025). National Wetlands Inventory. Retrieved from https://www.fws.gov/program/nationaI—wetlands—inventory United States Geological Survey. (n.d.). Areas of Land Subsidence in California. Retrieved from https://ca.water.usgs.gov/land_subsidence/california—subsidence—areas.htm| \MMNprovostondpritchard.com 6-3
Appendix

APPENDICES
Appendix

APPENDICES
Appendix
Appendix A - Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Model Appendix
Appendix A - Air Quality and Greenhouse GasEmissionsModel

AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS
MENDOTA 271-LOT RESIDENTIAL

PROJECT
DECEMBER 2025

AIR QUALITYIMPACTANALYSIS
MENDOTA 271-LOTRESIDENTIAL
CONCEPT3 DATE: 2025- 06-30 AREA: 49.99 AC
LOTS: 71 DENSITY:5.42 DU/AC

PROJECT

3.73Acres H“ : Basin)_ 1I l I
_ 1243J ——————— J — — :—|— _ _ _ _ — —
255 m W: ' L4___
(SO-ft wide
1W5: STREET Residential MADOR AVENUE
231250229u3227226225224mm221
“I an M 207 m 209 210 211212 215 214 215 218
195 I“ 193 192 19! 190 159 135 13? 155 185
“I ”I a was 166 m m m I70 m '72 :15 m 173 we I77 173 119 180 41::— fi _ a! 131 150 14° m 147 no 146 m 143 m 141 no 139 133 137 m C 3661.821: _ F [ MI E 50— ft wide mum 5139:?Residential Emma”: m ”I no 117 118 119 120 121 122123 12¢ 125 133 12, m rm 130 131 132 1 new: kl . l
2' ii
115 114 m 112 an no 109 I03 107 106 105 104 :5m1
106 lo: 101 100 89 93
- __.
1‘“ g 15 ' g t ,5;5 T 1.:.1—l'T —
mi 1!: 7a 77"” 15-1'4_?3 $2 11 10 t; as 57—66 63 9‘ 63—62% 175 EL m M no“ We use a! . l E —|: 50— ft Wide i ,3; 3 - SIM S—TREEL Residential 53 59 m a1__|_—
:9 S; f (— 4ufiw—Ua?awm5152w54555957 .1"?Hrli’klfi:111:“liU If 2313 :7“ m m;#4 DECEMBER 2025
OK’/

AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS
MENDOTA 271-LOT RESIDENTIAL

PROJECT
Prepared for:

Joseph Crown Construction and Development, Inc.
5320 East Pine Street
Fresno, CA 93727
Contact Person: Joseph D. Crown
Phone: 559-275-5200
Consultant:
5080 California Avenue, Suite 220
Bakersfield, CA 93309
Contact: Jaymie Brauer
Phone: ሺ661ሻ 616-2600
Fax: ሺ559ሻ 733-7821
December 2025
ሺRevised May 2026ሻ
© Copyright by Quad Knopf, Inc.

Unauthorized use prohibited.

Project #250217

AIR QUALITYIMPACT ANALYSIS
MENDOTA 271-L0T RESIDENTIAL

PROJECT
Prepared for:

Joseph Crown Construction and Development, Inc.
5320 East Pine Street
Fresno, CA 93727
Contact Person: Joseph D. Crown
Phone:559-275-5200
Consultant:

Q|(’////
5080 California Avenue, Suite 220
Bakersfield, CA 93309
Contact: Iaymie Brauer
Phone: (661) 616-2600
Fax: (559) 733-7821
December 2025
(Revised May 2026)
© Copyright by Quad Knopf, Inc.

Unauthorized use prohibited.

Project #250217
Mendota Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025 Page i
Table of Contents
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ....................................................................................................... iv SECTION 1 - Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... 1-1 SECTION 2 - Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 2-1

2.1 - Purpose ....................................................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 - General Project Description................................................................................................................ 2-1 SECTION 3 - Setting ................................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 - Air Quality Standards ............................................................................................................................ 3-1

3.2 - Existing Air Quality................................................................................................................................. 3-5

3.2.1 - Ozone (O3) ............................................................................................................................... 3-6

3.2.2 - Suspended Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5) ...................................................... 3-6

3.2.3 - Carbon Monoxide (CO) ....................................................................................................... 3-6

3.2.4 - Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) and Hydrocarbons................................................................ 3-7

3.2.5 - Sulfur Dioxide ......................................................................................................................... 3-7

3.2.6 - Lead (Pb) and Suspended Sulfate................................................................................... 3-8

3.3 - Climate......................................................................................................................................................... 3-8

3.4 - Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases.......................................................................................... 3-9

3.4.1 - Global Climate Change......................................................................................................... 3-9

3.4.2 - Effects of Global Climate Change.................................................................................. 3-12

3.4.3 - Global Climate Change Regulatory Issues ................................................................ 3-13 SECTION 4 - Impact Assessment ........................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 - Significance Criteria ............................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.1 - Thresholds Adopted for the Evaluation of Air Quality Impacts under CEQA 4-1

4.1.2 - Threshold for Ambient Air Quality Impacts ............................................................... 4-2

4.1.3 - Thresholds for Hazardous Air Pollutants .................................................................... 4-2

4.1.4 - Global Climate Change Thresholds of Significance .................................................. 4-3

4.2 - Project Related Emissions ................................................................................................................... 4-4

4.2.1 - Short-Term Emissions......................................................................................................... 4-5

4.2.2 - Long-Term Operational Emissions................................................................................. 4-6

4.3 - Potential Impacts on Sensitive Receptors ..................................................................................... 4-7

4.4 - Potential Impacts to Visibility to Nearby Class 1 Areas ........................................................... 4-8

4.5 - Potential Impacts from Carbon Monoxide .................................................................................... 4-8

4.6 - Predicted Health Impacts..................................................................................................................... 4-9

4.7 - Potential Impacts from Valley Fever ............................................................................................ 4-11

4.8 - Potential Impacts from Asbestos ................................................................................................... 4-12

4.9 - Odor Impacts and Mitigation........................................................................................................... 4-12 Table of Contents
List ofAcron yms and Abbreviations ['17
SECTION 1 -Executive Summaly 1-1
SECTION 2 -Introduction 2-1

2.1 - Purpose .......................................................................................................................................................2-1

2.2 - General Project Description................................................................................................................2-1 SECTION3 - Setting 3-1

3.1 - Air Quality Standards ............................................................................................................................3-1

3.2 - Existing Air Quality.................................................................................................................................3-5

3.2.1 - Ozone (03) ...............................................................................................................................3-6

3.2.2 - Suspended Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5)......................................................3-6

3.2.3 - Carbon Monoxide (CO) .......................................................................................................3-6

3.2.4 - Nitrogen Dioxide (N02) and Hydrocarbons................................................................3-7

3.2.5 - Sulfur Dioxide .........................................................................................................................3-7

3.2.6 - Lead (Pb) and Suspended Sulfate...................................................................................3-8

3.3 - Climate.........................................................................................................................................................3-8

3.4 - Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases..........................................................................................3-9

3.4.1 - Global Climate Change.........................................................................................................3-9

3.4.2 - Effects of Global Climate Change..................................................................................3-12

3.4.3 - Global Climate Change Regulatory Issues ................................................................3-13 SECTION 4 -lmpactAssessment 4-1

4.1 - Significance Criteria ...............................................................................................................................4-1

4.1.1 - Thresholds Adopted for the Evaluation of Air Quality Impacts under CEQA4-1

4.1.2 - Threshold for Ambient Air Quality Impacts ...............................................................4-2

4.1.3 - Thresholds for Hazardous Air Pollutants ....................................................................4-2

4.1.4 - Global Climate Change Thresholds of Significance ..................................................4-3

4.2 - Project Related Emissions...................................................................................................................4-4

4.2.1 - Short-Term Emissions.........................................................................................................4-5

4.2.2 - Long-Term Operational Emissions.................................................................................4-6

4.3 - Potential Impacts on Sensitive Receptors.....................................................................................4-7

4.4 - Potential Impacts to Visibility to Nearby Class 1 Areas...........................................................4-8

4.5 - Potential Impacts from Carbon Monoxide ....................................................................................4-8

4.6 - Predicted Health Impacts.....................................................................................................................4-9

4.7 - Potential Impacts from Valley Fever ............................................................................................4-11

4.8 - Potential Impacts from Asbestos ...................................................................................................4-12

4.9 - Odor Impacts and Mitigation...........................................................................................................4-12 Mendota Residential Project — Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025 Page i
Mendota Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025 Page ii

4.10 - Impacts to Ambient Air Quality ................................................................................................... 4-13

4.11 - Impacts to Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change.............................................................. 4-13 SECTION 5 - Cumulative Impacts .......................................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 - Cumulative Regional Air Quality Impacts...................................................................................... 5-1

5.2 - Cumulative Local Air Quality Impacts............................................................................................. 5-3

5.3 - Cumulative Hazardous Air Pollutants............................................................................................. 5-3

5.4 - Cumulative Carbon Monoxide (CO) – Mobile Sources.............................................................. 5-3 SECTION 6 - Consistency with the Air Quality Attainment Plan ................................................. 6-1

6.1 - Required Evaluation Guidelines........................................................................................................ 6-1

6.2- Consistency with the Fresno County Transportation Commission Regional Conformity Analysis................................................................................................................................................................. 6-2 SECTION 7 - Mitigation and Other Recommended Measures ...................................................... 7-1

7.1 - Applicable PM10 Reduction Measures............................................................................................. 7-1

7.2 - Recommended Measures to Reduce Equipment Exhaust....................................................... 7-2

7.3 - Recommended Measures to Reduce Equipment Exhaust....................................................... 7-2 SECTION 8 - Level of Significance After Mitigation ......................................................................... 8-1 SECTION 9 - References ........................................................................................................................... 9-1 Appendices
Appendix A – Project Emission Calculations
Appendix B – Health Risk Assessment Modeling Files (Electronic) List of Figures
Figure 2-1 Regional Location 2-2
Figure 2-2 Project Location 2-3
Figure 2-3 Project Site Topography 2-4
Figure 3-1 CARB Monitoring Network 3-4
Figure 6-1 Fresno County Zoning 6-3
List of Tables
Table 3-1 Federal and California Standards 3-2
Table 3-2 SJVAB Attainment Status 3-3
Table 3-3 Existing Air Quality Monitoring Data in Project Area 3-5 Table 3-4 Fresno, California Weather Data 3-9
Table 4-1 SJVAPCD CEQA Thresholds of Significance 4-2
Table 4-2 Measures of Significance – Toxic Air Contaminants 4-3

4.10 - Impacts to Ambient Air Quality ...................................................................................................4-13

4.11 - Impacts to Greenhouse Gasesand Climate Change..............................................................4-13 SECTION 5 - Cumulative Impacts 5-1

5.1 - Cumulative Regional Air Quality Impacts......................................................................................5-1

5.2 - Cumulative Local Air Quality Impacts.............................................................................................5-3

5.3 - Cumulative Hazardous Air Pollutants.............................................................................................5-3

5.4 - Cumulative Carbon Monoxide (CO) — Mobile Sources..............................................................5-3 SECTION 6 - Consistency With the Air Qualig/A ttainmentPlan 6-1

6.1 - Required Evaluation Guidelines........................................................................................................6-1

6.2- Consistency with the Fresno County Transportation Commission Regional Conformity Analysis.................................................................................................................................................................6-2 SECTION 7 - Mitlgation and Other Recommended Measures 7-1

7.1 - Applicable PM1oReduction Measures.............................................................................................7-1

7.2 - Recommended Measures to Reduce Equipment Exhaust.......................................................7-2

7.3 - Recommended Measures to Reduce Equipment Exhaust.......................................................7-2 SECTION 8 - Level of Slgnificance Afier Mitlgation 8-1
SECTION 9 -References 9-1
Appendices
Appendix A — Project Emission Calculations
Appendix B — Health Risk Assessment Modeling Files (Electronic) List of Figures
Figure 2-1 Regional Location 2—2
Figure 2-2 Project Location 2-3
Figure 2-3 Project Site Topography 2-4
Figure 3-1 CARBMonitoring Network 3-4
Figure 6-1 Fresno County Zoning 6-3
List of Tables
Table 3—1Federal and California Standards 3-2
Table 3—2SJVABAttainment Status 3-3
Table 3-3 Existing Air Quality Monitoring Data in Project Area 3-5 Table 3-4 Fresno, California Weather Data 3-9
Table 4—1SJVAPCDCEQA Thresholds of Significance 4-2
Table 4—2Measures of Significance — Toxic Air Contaminants 4-3 Mendota Residential Project — Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025 Page ii
Mendota Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025 Page iii
Table 4-3 Short-Term Project Emissions 4-6
Table 4-4 Post-Project Max Year (Operational Emissions) 4-7 Table 4-5 Sensitive Receptors Located < 1 miles from Project 4-8 Table 4-5 Potential Maximum Impacts Predicted by HARP 4-11 Table 4-6 Estimated Annual GHG Emissions (MT/Year) 4-13 Table 5-1 Comparative Analysis Based on SJVAB 2024 Inventory 5-2 Table 5-2 Emission Inventory SJVAB 2030 Projection – Tons per Year 5-2 Table 5-3 Emission Inventory Fresno County 2030 Projection – Tons per Year 5-2 Table 5-4 2030 Emissions Projections – Proposed Project, Fresno County and SJVAB 5-3

Table 4—3Short—TermProject Emissions 4-6
Table 4—4Post-Project Max Year (Operational Emissions) 4-7 Table 4—5Sensitive Receptors Located < 1 miles from Project 4-8 Table 4-5 Potential Maximum Impacts Predicted by HARP 4—11 Table 4-6 Estimated Annual GHG Emissions (MT/Year) 4-13 Table 5-1 Comparative Analysis Based on SJVAB2024 Inventory 5-2 Table 5-2 Emission Inventory SJVAB2030 Projection — Tons per Year 5-2 Table 5—3Emission Inventory Fresno County 2030 Projection — Tons per Year 5-2 Table 5—4 2030 Emissions Projections —Proposed Project, Fresno County and SJVAB 5-3 Mendota Residential Project — Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025 Pageiii
Mendota Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025 Page iv

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
°C degrees Celsius
°F degrees Fahrenheit
AAQA Ambient Air Quality Analysis
AB Assembly Bill
AERMOD Air Dispersion Modeling and Risk Assessment Tool AQAP Air Quality Attainment Plans
AQIA Air Quality Impact Analysis
BACT best available control technology
BAU business as usual
BMCM Bulk Material Control Measures
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CARB California Air Resources Board
CAT Climate Action Team
CCAA California Clean Air Act
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFCs chlorofluorocarbons
CH4 Methane
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e CO2 equivalents
EGR exhaust gas recirculation
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
GAMAQI Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts GHG greenhouse gas
GPA General Plan Amendments
GWP Global Warming Potential
H2S hydrogen sulfide
HAPs hazardous air pollutants
HARP Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program
HI hazard index
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
FresnoCOG Fresno Council of Governments
LOS Level of Service
M-1 Light Manufacturing
M-2 General Manufacturing
M-3 Heavy Industrial
MMT CO2e million metric tons of CO2 equivalent
N2O nitrous oxide
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

LIST OF ACRONYMSAND ABBREVIATIONS
°C
°F
AAQA
AB
AERMOD
AQAP
AQIA
BACT
BAU
BMCM
CAAQS
CalEEMod
CalEPA
CAPCOA
CARB
CAT
CCAA
CEQA
CFCS
CH4
C0
C02
COze
EGR
EIR
EPA
GAMAQI
GHG
GPA
GWP
H25
HAPs
HARP
HI
IPCC
FresnoCOG
LOS
M-1
M-2
M-3
MMT COze
N20
NAAQS
Mendota Residential Project — Air Quality Impact Analysis degrees Celsius
degrees Fahrenheit
Ambient Air Quality Analysis
Assembly Bill
Air Dispersion Modeling and Risk Assessment Tool
Air Quality Attainment Plans
Air Quality Impact Analysis
best available control technology
business as usual
Bulk Material Control Measures
California Ambient Air Quality Standards
California Emissions Estimator Model
California Environmental Protection Agency
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association
California Air ResourcesBoard
Climate Action Team
California Clean Air Act
California Environmental Quality Act
Chlorofluorocarbons
Methane
carbon monoxide
carbon dioxide
C02 equivalents
exhaustgas recirculation
Environmental Impact Report
Environmental Protection Agency
Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts greenhouse gas
General Plan Amendments
Global Warming Potential
hydrogen sulfide
hazardous air pollutants
HotspotsAnalysis and Reporting Program
hazard index
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Fresno Council of Governments
Level of Service
Light Manufacturing
General Manufacturing
Heavy Industrial
million metric tonsof C02 equivalent
nitrous oxide
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
December 2025
Page iv
Mendota Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025 Page v
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOx nitrogen oxides
NSR New Source Review
O3 ozone
OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Pb lead
PM particulate matter
PM10 particulate matter 10 micrometers
PM2.5 particulate matter 2.5 micrometers
PMI point of maximum impact
PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration
RACM Reasonably Available Control Measures
ROG reactive organic gases
RPS Renewables Portfolio Standard
SB Senate Bill
SIL significant impact levels
SIPs State Implementation Plans
SJVAB San Joaquin Valley Air Basin
SJVAPCD San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District SO2 sulfur dioxide
SOx sulfur oxides
USGCRP United States Global Change Research Program
USGS United States Geological Survey
VDE visible dust emissions
VERA Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement

N02
NOX
NSR
03 OEHHA
Pb
PM
PM10
PM2.5
PMI
PSD
RACM
ROG
RPS
SB
SIL
SIPS
SIVAB

SIVAPCD
SOz
SOX
USGCRP
USGS
VDE
VERA
Mendota Residential Project — Air Quality Impact Analysis nitrogen dioxide
nitrogen oxides
New Source Review
ozone
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
lead
particulate matter
particulate matter 10 micrometers
particulate matter 2.5 micrometers
point of maximum impact
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
Reasonably Available Control Measures
reactive organic gases
Renewables Portfolio Standard
Senate Bill
significant impact levels
State Implementation Plans
San Joaquin Valley Air Basin
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
sulfur dioxide
sulfur oxides
United States Global Change Research Program
United States Geological Survey
Visible dust emissions
Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement
December 2025
Page v
Executive Summary

Mendota Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis December 2025

Page 1 ends

Mendota City CouncilOctober 6, 2026

Mendota City Council
October 6, 2026