Visalia City Council
July 20, 2026

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-106

Bicycle and Pedestrian Network
There are Class I and Class III bikeways in the vicinity of the proposed Project site. The Visalia ATP recommends that Class I, Class II, and Class III Bikeways be implemented adjacent to and in the vicinity of the Project site (JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc., 2026). In the vicinity of and adjacent to the Project site, Class I Bikeways are planned on Cameron Creek and K Avenue. Class II Bikeways are planned on Lovers Lane, Caldwell Avenue, and Walnut Avenue.

Class III Bikeways along Walnut Avenue. Therefore, it is recommended that the Project construct a Class II Bikeway along the Project’s frontage to Lovers Lane and a Class I Bikeway along the Project's frontage to Cameron Creek. As mentioned in Impact #3.4.16a, this bikeway segment is referred to as the Cameron Creek Segment 3 trail. Any trail construction or alterations would conform to design criteria in the City’s Waterways and Trails Master Plan and Municipal Code.

Roadway Network
Important roadways serving the Project are discussed below:
• Pinkham Street is an existing north-south two-lane undivided collector in the vicinity of the Project site. In this area, Pinkham Street exists between State Route 198 and Caldwell Avenue. The Visalia General Plan Circulation Element designates Pinkham Street as a collector between Avenue 320 and Avenue 272. • Lovers Lane is an existing north-south four-lane divided arterial adjacent to the Project site. In this area, Lovers Lane exists between the St. Johns River and Avenue 272. The Visalia General Plan Circulation Element designates Lovers Lane as an arterial between Avenue 320 and Avenue 272.
• Road 148 is an existing north-south two-lane undivided roadway in the vicinity of the Project site. In this area, Road 148 exists between Avenue 288 and Avenue 272. The Visalia General Plan Circulation Element designates Lovers Lane as a local roadway between Avenue 288 and Avenue 272.
• Walnut Avenue is an existing east-west two-lane undivided arterial in the vicinity of the Project site. In this area, Walnut Avenue exists between Road 86 and the eastern boundary of the City of Visalia. The Visalia General Plan Circulation Element designates Walnut Avenue as an arterial between Road 86 through the eastern boundary of the City of Visalia.
• K Avenue is an existing east-west two-lane undivided collector in the vicinity of the Project site. In this area, K Avenue exists between Santa Fe Street and Lovers Lane.

The Visalia General Plan Circulation Element designates K Avenue as a collector between Santa Fe Street and Road 148.
2230
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-107
• Sunnyside Avenue is an existing east-west two-lane undivided local roadway adjacent to the Project site. In this area, Sunnyside Avenue exists in segments throughout the City of Visalia SOI. The Visalia General Plan Circulation Element designates Sunnyside Avenue as a local roadway throughout the City of Visalia SOI. As part of this Project, Sunnyside Avenue will be extended east of Lovers Lane through the Project site. This Project reassigns Sunnyside Avenue as a collector.
• Caldwell Avenue is an existing east-west divided arterial in the vicinity of the Project site. In this area, Caldwell Avenue exists throughout the City of Visalia SOI. The Visalia General Plan Circulation Element designates Caldwell Avenue as an arterial throughout the City of Visalia SOI.

Project Traffic Analysis
Study intersections analyzed in the referenced TIA were performed under the jurisdiction of Caltrans, City of Visalia, and County of Tulare. Based on the comments received from these agencies, the TIA includes the study intersection of Road 148 at Caldwell Avenue, Project driveways along Sunnyside Avenue, Warrant 1 and Warrant 2 in all study scenarios, corner sight distance evaluations for all Project driveways, and a trip trace for the State Route 198 at Lovers Lane interchange.

The following intersections were studied:
• Lovers Lane/Walnut Avenue
• Pinkham Street/K Avenue
• Lovers Lane/K Avenue
• Lovers Lane/Project Driveway A
• Lovers Lane/Sunnyside Avenue
• Project Driveway B/Sunnyside Avenue
• Project Driveway C/Sunnyside Avenue
• Project Driveway D/Sunnyside Avenue
• Lovers Lane/Project Driveway E
• Pinkham Street/Caldwell Avenue
• Lovers Lane/Caldwell Avenue
• Road 148/Caldwell Avenue

LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) THRESHOLD
The potential traffic impacts of the proposed Project were evaluated in accordance with the standards set forth by the LOS policies of the City of Visalia, County of Tulare, and Caltrans.

While LOS is no longer the criterion of significance for traffic impacts under CEQA, the Visalia General Plan includes policies that utilize LOS to determine traffic-related improvements that are needed for a project. The Tulare County General Plan has established LOS D as the acceptable level of traffic congestion on county roads and streets that fall entirely outside the SOI of a city. The Visalia General Plan has established LOS D as the acceptable level of 2231
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-108
traffic congestion on most major streets that fall within the SOI of the City of Visalia. All but one study intersection falls completely within the City of Visalia SOI.

Project Trip Generation
The trip generation rates for the proposed Project were obtained from the 11th Edition of the Trip Generation Manual published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE).

Table 3.4.17-1 presents the trip generation for the proposed Project with trip generation rates for Single Family Detached Housing and Multi-family Housing (Low-Rise). At buildout, the proposed Project is estimated to generate approximately 5,248 daily trips, 352 AM peak hour trips, and 463 PM peak hour trips. Table 3.4.17-1 summarizes the Project trip generation.

Traffic Signal Warrants
The California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) indicates that an engineering study of traffic conditions, pedestrian characteristics, and physical features of an intersection shall be conducted to determine whether installation of traffic signal controls is justified. The CA MUTCD provides a total of nine warrants to evaluate the need for traffic signal controls. Signalization of an intersection may be appropriate if one or more of the signal warrants are satisfied. These warrants include:
• Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume
• Four-Hour Vehicular Volume
• Peak Hour
• Pedestrian Volume
• School Crossing
• Coordinated Signal System
• Crash Experience
• Roadway Network
• Intersection Near a Grade Crossing.

Existing Conditions
The existing intersection peak hour turning movement counts were conducted at the study facilities in September 2025 and October 2025, while schools in the vicinity of the Project site were in session. The intersection turning movement counts included pedestrian and bicycle volumes. Results of the existing conditions intersection analysis are shown in Table

3.4.17-2. At present, the study intersection of Lovers Lane at Walnut Avenue generates an LOS of E, which exceeds the LOS D threshold during the AM peak period. 2232
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-109
Table 3.4.17-1
Project Trip Generation Estimate
(JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc., 2026), d.u. = dwelling unit Land Use Size Unit
Daily A.M. Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Rate Total Trip
Rate
In % Out
%
In Out Total Trip
Rate
In % Out
%
In Out Total
Phases 1 & 2: SingleFamily Detached
Housing (210)
292 d.u. 9.43 2,754 0.70 26 74 53 151 204 0.94 63 37 173 101 274 Phase 3: Multifamily Housing
(Low-Rise)
375 d.u. 6.24 2,494 0.40 24 76 36 112 148 0.51 63 37 119 70 189 TOTAL 5,248 89 263 352 292 171 463
2233
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-110
Table 3.4.17-2
Existing Intersection LOS Results
S – Signalized, AWS- All-Way Stop, TWS – Two-Way Stop, LOS = Level of Service based on average delay on signalized intersections, and All-Way STOP Controls LOS for two-way and one-way STOP-controlled intersections are based on the worst approach/movement of the minor street.

Intersection – ID No. Intersection Control
A.M. (7-9) Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Av. Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec) LOS
Lovers Lane/Walnut Avenue – 1
S 60.3 E 44.6 D
S (Improved) 32.4 C 27.2 C
Pinkham Street/K Avenue – 2 AWS 12.5 B 9.4 A
Lovers Lane/K Avenue – 3 TWS 14.2 B 13.4 B
Lovers Lane/Driveway A – 4 Doesn’t Exist - - - -
Lovers Lane/Sunnyside Avenue – 5 TWS 19.4 C 17.9 C
Driveway B/Sunnyside Avenue – 6 Doesn’t Exist - - - -
Driveway C/Sunnyside Avenue – 7 Doesn’t Exist - - - -
Driveway D/Sunnyside Avenue – 8 Doesn’t Exist - - - -
Lovers Lane/Driveway E – 9 Doesn’t Exist - - - -
Pinkham Street/Caldwell Avenue – 10 TWS 12.6 B 11.8 B
Lovers Lane/Caldwell Avenue – 11 S 25.2 C 26.1 C
Road 148/Caldwell Avenue – 12 TWS 24.1 C 16.0 C
2234

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-111
Opening Year No Project Traffic Conditions
The Opening Year No Project traffic volumes were obtained by using a combination of a portion of the TCAG model (Base Year 2015 and Cumulative Year 2046), a portion of the near-term traffic, and existing traffic volumes. The opening year for this Project is anticipated to be 2028. The Opening Year No Project traffic conditions scenario assumes the same roadway geometrics and traffic controls as those assumed in the existing traffic conditions scenario. It is anticipated that the intersection of Lovers Lane at Walnut Avenue will be constructed with additional lanes in the Year 2028, but these additional lanes were not assumed to take place in this scenario as a conservative measure. Table 3.4.17-3 presents a summary of the Opening Year No Project peak hour LOS at the study intersections. Under this scenario, the study intersection of Lovers Lane at Walnut Avenue is projected to continue exceeding its LOS threshold during the AM peak period.

OPENING YEAR PLUS PHASES 1 & 2 TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
This scenario evaluates total traffic volumes and roadway conditions based on the opening year (2028), plus Phase 1 (292 single-family units) traffic conditions. The opening year plus Phase 1 traffic volumes were obtained by adding the Phase 1 Project only trips to the opening year no Project traffic volumes. The Phases 1 & 2 Project Only Trips to the study facilities were developed based on existing travel patterns, the Project Select Zone, the surrounding roadway network, engineering judgment, existing residential and commercial densities, and the Visalia General Plan Circulation Element in the vicinity of the Project site. Table 3.4.17-4 presents a summary of the Opening Year plus Phases 1 & 2 peak hour LOS at the study intersections. Under this scenario, the study intersections of Lovers Lane at Walnut Avenue and Lovers Lane at Sunnyside Avenue are projected to exceed their LOS threshold during one of the peak periods. With improvements, both intersections achieve an LOS less than the threshold, as reflected in Table 3.4.17-4.

CUMULATIVE 5-YEAR NO PROJECT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
The cumulative 5-year No Project traffic volumes were obtained by using a combination of a portion of the TCAG model (Base Year 2015 and Cumulative Year 2046), the near-term traffic, and existing traffic volumes. Under this scenario, the increment method was utilized to determine the growth in the area. Table 3.4.17-5 illustrates the summary of the Cumulative 5-Year No Project LOS at the study intersections. Under this scenario, the study intersection of Road 148 at Caldwell Avenue is projected to exceed its LOS threshold during the AM peak period. Cumulative 5-Year plus Phases 1 & 2 Project Traffic Conditions. 2235
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-112
Table 3.4.17-3
Opening Year No Project Intersection LOS Results
S – Signalized, AWS- All-Way Stop, TWS – Two-Way Stop, LOS = Level of Service based on average delay on signalized intersections, and All-Way STOP Controls LOS for two-way and one-way STOP-controlled intersections are based on the worst approach/movement of the minor street.

Intersection – ID No. Intersection Control
A.M. (7-9) Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Av. Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec) LOS
Lovers Lane/Walnut Avenue – 1
S 65.3 E 47.0 D
S (Improved) 34.8 C 28.4 C
Pinkham Street/K Avenue – 2 AWS 13.1 B 9.6 A
Lovers Lane/K Avenue – 3 TWS 14.7 B 13.9 B
Lovers Lane/Driveway A – 4 Doesn’t Exist - - - -
Lovers Lane/Sunnyside Avenue – 5 TWS 20.8 C 18.8 C
Driveway B/Sunnyside Avenue – 6 Doesn’t Exist - - - -
Driveway C/Sunnyside Avenue – 7 Doesn’t Exist - - - -
Driveway D/Sunnyside Avenue – 8 Doesn’t Exist - - - -
Lovers Lane/Driveway E – 9 Doesn’t Exist - - - -
Pinkham Street/Caldwell Avenue – 10 TWS 13.0 B 12.1 B
Lovers Lane/Caldwell Avenue – 11 S 25.9 C 26.7 C
Road 148/Caldwell Avenue – 12 TWS 31.6 D 18.6 C
2236
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-113
Table 3.4.17-4
Opening Year (2028) Plus Phases 1 & 2 LOS Intersection Results S – Signalized, AWS- All-Way Stop, TWS – Two-Way Stop, LOS = Level of Service based on average delay on signalized intersections, and All-Way STOP Controls LOS for two-way and one-way STOP-controlled intersections are based on the worst approach/movement of the minor street.

Intersection – ID No. Intersection Control
A.M. (7-9) Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Av. Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec) LOS
Lovers Lane/Walnut Avenue – 1
S 66.8 E 49.8 D
S (Improved) 35.8 D 30.0 C
Pinkham Street/K Avenue – 2 AWS 14.2 B 9.6 A
Lovers Lane/K Avenue – 3 TWS 16.6 C 15.9 C
Lovers Lane/Driveway A – 4 Doesn’t Exist - - - -
Lovers Lane/Sunnyside Avenue – 5 TWS 34.0 D 41.0 E
S (Improved) 16.0 B 16.1 B
Driveway B/Sunnyside Avenue – 6 Doesn’t Exist - - - -
Driveway C/Sunnyside Avenue – 7 TWS 8.9 A 8.7 A
Driveway D/Sunnyside Avenue – 8 TWS 9.3 A 10.2 B
Lovers Lane/Driveway E – 9 TWS 10.1 B 10.9 B
Pinkham Street/Caldwell Avenue – 10 TWS 13.5 B 12.5 B
Lovers Lane/Caldwell Avenue – 11 S 26.6 C 27.5 C
Road 148/Caldwell Avenue – 12 TWS 32.9 D 19.1 C
2237
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-114
Table 3.4.17-5
Cumulative 5-Year No Project Intersection LOS Results
S – Signalized, AWS- All-Way Stop, TWS – Two-Way Stop, LOS = Level of Service based on average delay on signalized intersections, and All-Way STOP Controls LOS for two-way and one-way STOP-controlled intersections are based on the worst approach/movement of the minor street.

Intersection – ID No. Intersection Control
A.M. (7-9) Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Av. Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec) LOS
Lovers Lane/Walnut Avenue – 1 S 27.2 C 24.6 C
Pinkham Street/K Avenue – 2 AWS 14.1 B 10.0 A
Lovers Lane/K Avenue – 3 TWS 15.9 C 14.9 B
Lovers Lane/Driveway A – 4 Doesn’t Exist - - - -
Lovers Lane/Sunnyside Avenue – 5 TWS 23.4 C 20.8 C
Driveway B/Sunnyside Avenue – 6 Doesn’t Exist - - - -
Driveway C/Sunnyside Avenue – 7 Doesn’t Exist - - - -
Driveway D/Sunnyside Avenue – 8 Doesn’t Exist - - - -
Lovers Lane/Driveway E – 9 Doesn’t Exist - - - -
Pinkham Street/Caldwell Avenue – 10 TWS 13.7 B 12.7 B
Lovers Lane/Caldwell Avenue – 11 S 27.2 C 26.8 D
Road 148/Caldwell Avenue – 12
TWS 65.2 F 26.3 D
TWS (Improved) 32.7 D 22.7 C
2238
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-115
This scenario evaluates total traffic volumes and roadway conditions based on the cumulative 5-year plus Phases 1 & 2 traffic conditions. The cumulative 5-year period for this Project is anticipated to be 2033. The cumulative 5-year plus Phases 1 & 2 traffic volumes were obtained by adding Phases 1 & 2 Project only trips to the cumulative 5-year no Project traffic volumes. The Phases 1 & 2 Project only trips to the study facilities were developed based on existing travel patterns, the Project Select Zone, the surrounding roadway network, engineering judgment, existing residential and commercial densities, and the Visalia General Plan Circulation Element in the vicinity of the Project site. Table 3.4.17-6 presents a summary of the cumulative 5-year-plus Phases 1 & 2 peak-hour LOS at the study intersections. Under this scenario, the study intersections of Lovers Lane at Sunnyside Avenue and Road 148 at Caldwell Avenue are projected to exceed their LOS threshold during one or both peak periods. With improvements, both intersections achieve an LOS less than the threshold, as reflected in Table 3.4.17-6.

CUMULATIVE 5-YEAR PLUS PROJECT BUILDOUT LOS
This scenario evaluates total traffic volumes and roadway conditions based on the cumulative 5-year plus buildout Project traffic conditions. The cumulative 5-year plus buildout traffic volumes were obtained by adding the Phase 3 Project only trips to the cumulative 5-year plus Phases 1 & 2 traffic volumes. The Phase 3 Project only trips to the study facilities were developed based on existing travel patterns, the Project Select Zone, the surrounding roadway network, engineering judgment, existing residential and commercial densities, and the Visalia General Plan Circulation Element in the vicinity of the Project site.

Table 3.4.17-7 illustrates a summary of the Cumulative 5-Year Plus Buildout LOS at the study intersections. Under this scenario, the study intersections of Lovers Lane at Sunnyside Avenue and Road 148 at Caldwell Avenue are projected to exceed their LOS threshold during one or both peak periods. With improvements, both intersections achieve an LOS less than the threshold, as reflected in Table 3.4.17-7.
2239
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-116
Table 3.4.17-6
Cumulative 5-Year Plus Phases 1 & 2 Intersection LOS Results S – Signalized, AWS- All-Way Stop, TWS – Two-Way Stop, LOS = Level of Service based on average delay on signalized intersections, and All-Way STOP Controls LOS for two-way and one-way STOP-controlled intersections are based on the worst approach/movement of the minor street.

Intersection – ID No. Intersection Control
A.M. (7-9) Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Av. Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec) LOS
Lovers Lane /Walnut Avenue – 1 S 28.4 C 25.4 C
Pinkham Street/K Avenue – 2 AWS 15.6 C 10.1 B
Lovers Lane/K Avenue – 3 TWS 18.3 C 17.3 C
Lovers Lane/Driveway A – 4 Doesn’t Exist - - - -
Lovers Lane/Sunnyside Avenue – 5
TWS 41.6 E 49.5 E
S (Improved) 16.0 B 17.1 B
Driveway B/Sunnyside Avenue – 6 Doesn’t Exist - - - -
Driveway C/Sunnyside Avenue – 7 TWS 8.9 A 8.7 A
Driveway D/Sunnyside Avenue – 8 TWS 9.3 A 10.2 B
Lovers Lane/Driveway E – 9 TWS 10.3 B 11.1 B
Pinkham Street/Caldwell Avenue – 10 TWS 14.4 B 13.2 B
Lovers Lane/Caldwell Avenue – 11 S 27.8 C 29.0 C
Road 148/Caldwell Avenue – 12
TWS 69.8 F 27.3 D
TWS (Improved) 33.8 D 23.2 C
2240
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-117
Table 3.4.17-7
Cumulative 5-Year Plus Project Buildout Intersection LOS Results S – Signalized, AWS- All-Way Stop, TWS – Two-Way Stop, LOS = Level of Service based on average delay on signalized intersections, and All-Way STOP Controls LOS for two-way and one-way STOP-controlled intersections are based on the worst approach/movement of the minor street.

Intersection – ID No. Intersection Control
A.M. (7-9) Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Av. Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec) LOS
Lovers Lane/Walnut Avenue – 1 S 30.3 C 26.2 C
Pinkham Street/K Avenue – 2 AWS 17.5 C 10.2 B
Lovers Lane/K Avenue – 3 TWS 22.1 C 20.1 C
Lovers Lane/Driveway A – 4 TWS 11.2 B 11.4 B
Lovers Lane/Sunnyside Avenue – 5
TWS 62.6 F >120.0 F
S (Improved) 15.8 B 21.6 C
Driveway B/Sunnyside Avenue – 6 TWS 9.5 A 9.0 A
Driveway C/Sunnyside Avenue – 7 TWS 8.9 A 8.7 A
Driveway D/Sunnyside Avenue – 8 TWS 9.3 A 10.2 B
Lovers Lane/Driveway E – 9 TWS 10.4 B 11.4 B
Pinkham Street/Caldwell Avenue – 10 TWS 15.0 C 13.6 B
Lovers Lane/Caldwell Avenue – 11 S 28.4 C 30.4 C
Road 148/Caldwell Avenue – 12
TWS 73.9 F 27.8 D
TWS (Improved) 34.8 D 23.5 C
2241
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-118
PROJECT’S PRO-RATA FAIR SHARE OF FUTURE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS The Project’s fair share percentage impact on study intersections projected to fall below their LOS threshold and which are not covered by an existing impact fee program is provided in Table 3.4.17-8 and Table 3.4.17-9. The pro-rata fair shares were calculated using the Existing, Project-Only Trips, and Cumulative 2046 Year plus Buildout volumes. Since the critical peak period for the study facilities was determined to be during the AM peak, the AM peak volumes are used to determine the Project’s pro-rata fair share.

It is recommended that the Project contribute its equitable fair share as listed in Table

3.4.17-8 and Table 3.4.17-9 for the future improvements necessary to maintain an acceptable LOS. However, fair share contributions should only be made for those facilities or portions thereof currently not funded by the responsible agencies' roadway impact fee program(s) or grant funding, as appropriate. For those improvements not presently covered by local and regional roadway impact fee programs or grant funding, it is recommended that the Project contribute its equitable fair share. Payment of the Project’s equitable fair share, in addition to the local and regional impact fee programs, would satisfy the Project’s traffic impacts.

Table 3.4.17-8
Single-Family Residential Fair Share of Future Roadway Improvements Note: Project’s Fair Share (%) = ((Project Only Trips) / (Cumulative 2046 Year + Buildout Traffic Volumes) – (Existing Traffic Volumes)) x 100
Table 3.4.17-9
Multi-Family Residential Fair Share of Future Roadway Improvements Multi-family development of this Project has been included in the Project for environmental analysis purposes only. Phases 1 & 2 (Single-Family Residential Development) will be constructed by the applicant, and Phase 3 (Multi-Family Residential Development) will be constructed by a different developer. Therefore, Table 3.4.17-8 demonstrates the Fair Share Intersection
Existing
Traffic
Volumes
(AM Peak)
Project Only Trips
(PM Peak)
Cumulative 5-Year
Plus Buildout Traffic
Volumes
(AM Peak)
Project’s Fair
Share (%)
Road 148/
Caldwell
Avenue
814 13 1,236 3.1
Intersection
Existing
Traffic
Volumes
(AM Peak)
Project Only Trips
(PM Peak)
Cumulative 5-Year
Plus Buildout Traffic
Volumes
(AM Peak)
Project’s Fair
Share (%)
Road 148/
Caldwell
Avenue
814 10 1,236 2.4
2242
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-119
percentage of improvement costs for Phases 1 & 2, and Table 3.4.17-9 demonstrates the Fair Share percentage of improvement costs for Phase 3.

To mitigate for the Project’s direct transportation impacts and off-site road improvements, MM TRA-1 and TRA-2 has been incorporated, which requires that the Project applicant/developer responsible for the construction of each phase will pay their pro-rata fair share percentage of 3.1 percent for Phases 1 & 2 (Single-Family Residential Development) and the 2.4 percent for Phase 3 (Multi-Family Residential Development), assuming a full buildout of 375 units per the TIA prepared for this Project, prior to the issuance of building permits. If at the time of development of Phase 3 (Multi-Family Residential Development), the unit count is less than 375, the developer may submit a revised TIA showing the appropriate pro-rate fair share percentage for the reduced number of units. With mitigation incorporated, impacts will be reduced to less than significant, and the proposed Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
MM TRA-1: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Project applicant/developer responsible for the construction of the Single-Family Residential Development will pay their pro-rate fair share percentage of 3.1 percent.

MM TRA-2: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Project applicant/developer responsible for the construction of the Multi-Family Residential Development will pay their pro-rata fair share percentage of 2.4 percent. If at the time of development of the MultiFamily phase, the unit count is less than 375, the developer may submit a revised TIA showing the appropriate pro-rate fair share percentage for the reduced number of units.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Impact #3.4.17b – Would the Project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, Subdivision (b)?
Under SB 743, VMT is a key measure used for gauging the environmental impacts of projects under CEQA. As part of the SB 375 land use/transportation integration process and the GHG goal setting, the State and Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPA) have agreed to reduce GHG through integrated land use and transportation planning by a statewide average of approximately 15 percent by 2035 (City of Visalia, 2025c). According to the City’s VMT Threshold and Implementation Guidelines, a proposed (residential) project exceeding a level of 15 percent below the existing regional average VMT per capita may indicate a significant transportation impact. The VMT per capita threshold for residential projects in Tulare County is 11.1.
2243
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-120
The Project site is located in traffic impact zone 1421 and does not qualify for screening out of a VMT analysis because the Project site is in an area of the City where there is currently no population. The VMT analysis used the average of adjacent traffic impact zones (1402, 1439, 1440, and 1478) to determine that the Project’s VMT per capita is 11.03, which is below the 11.1 VMT per capita threshold for residential projects in Tulare County (VRPA Technologies, Inc., 2026). Therefore, the Project would not conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 Subdivision (b) and would result in a less-thansignificant impact.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation measures are required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact #3.4.17c – 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)?
The Project does not propose any incompatible uses or include any design features that could increase traffic hazards. Future development of the site will be designed to meet current standards and safety regulations for transportation. All right-of-way and internal circulation improvements will be constructed to comply with the State and local regulations and design and safety standards of Chapter 33 of the CBC and Title 24 guidelines to create safe and accessible roadways.

Specific circulation patterns and roadway designs will incorporate all applicable safety measures to ensure that hazardous design features or inadequate emergency access to the site or other areas surrounding the Project area would not occur. The TIA prepared for this Project analyzed and recommended, “To ensure that motorists have the appropriate corner sight distance, the Project should ensure that it does not build any obstructions greater than two feet above street grade within the hatched triangular areas as depicted in the figures included in Appendix H of the TIA.”
Therefore, with the incorporated design features and compliance with all applicable rules and regulations, impacts would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.
2244
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-121
Impact #3.4.17d – Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access? See the discussion in Impact #3.4.9f, regarding emergency response plans.

State and City Fire Codes establish standards by which emergency access may be determined and designed. Furthermore, Visalia Municipal Code 16.36.120 (Water mains, fire hydrants, and Fire Department access) requires that subdividers provide fire department access, as required by the current Fire Code. A network of local roads within the proposed Project property provides full access to all buildings within the development.

As previously discussed, the Project includes a General Plan Amendment which would modify the existing General Plan designations to optimize the residential development on the parcel and amend the Visalia Circulation Element to remove the “K” Avenue new onemile-long, two-lane collector from Lovers Lane to Road 248, as referenced in Figure 4-1 Roadway Classifications and Table 4-5 Planned Circulation Improvements of the City’s General Plan. An SCE substation, approximately 0.50 miles east of the Project site, is directly in the planned pathway of “K” Avenue, which would not allow for the extension of “K” Avenue. A new Sunnyside Avenue, one-mile-long, two-lane collector from the Lovers Lane/Sunnyside Avenue intersection to Road 248, is to be added to Figure 4-1 and Table 4-

5. All roadway development and design will meet State and City requirements.

The proposed Project site would have adequate internal circulation capacity, including entrance and exit routes to provide adequate unobstructed space for fire trucks and other emergency vehicles to gain access and to turn around. The proposed Project would not inhibit the ability of local roadways to continue to accommodate emergency response and evacuation activities. Therefore, the impacts of the Project would be less than significant regarding emergency access.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.
2245
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-122

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less–thanSignificant
Impact

No
Impact

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

Discussion
Impact #3.4.18a(i) – 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 listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)?
See the discussion presented in Section 3.4.5 - Cultural Resources, Impacts #3.4.5a through

3.4.5c. SB 18/AB 52 early tribal consultation letters were prepared and distributed by the □ □ □
□ □ □
2246
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-123
City, on September 26, 2025, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1 and Government Code Section 65300 et seq, Senate Bill 18 and Assembly Bill 52, letters were sent to each of the Native American tribes within the geographic area as identified by the NAHC (see Appendix C). The letters included a Project description and location maps. Tribal consultation under AB 52 and SB 18 closed on December 31, 2025. To date, no response has been received. Should the City receive communication with a tribal group, they will work in good faith to address any potential cultural resources concerns.

Upon any ground-breaking activity, there is the possibility of uncovering an object of cultural value. Mitigation Measures MM CUL-1 and MM CUL-2 must be implemented if any artifacts or human remains are discovered. Therefore, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Implement MM CUL-1 and MM CUL-2.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Impact #3.4.18a(ii) – 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 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.

See discussion in Section 3.4.5, Cultural Resources and Impact #3.41.18(i) above.

With implemented mitigation measures CUL-1 and CUL-2, the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant with mitigation measures incorporated.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Implement MM CUL-1 and MM CUL-2

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. 2247
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-124

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less-thanSignificant
Impact

No
Impact

3.4.19 - UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the Project:
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 would
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 that 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?
The discussion below is based, in part, on the Water Supply Assessment (WSA) completed for the Project, attached as Appendix E (Woodard & Curran, 2026).

Discussion
Impact #3.4.19a – 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 would cause significant environmental effects?
The Project proposes a gated medium-density neighborhood and non-gated low-density and high-density residential neighborhoods. The gated community would have a Homeowners □ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
2248
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-125
Association (HOA), responsible for some services, such as road maintenance, open space maintenance, etc.

Sanitary Sewer System
Sewer services are provided to the Project site by the City. The Sewer System Master Plan for the City, completed in 1994, divided the system into eight service areas based on existing and proposed sewer trunklines, based on the growth pattern established by the previous General Plan. Visalia owns a Water Conservation Plant (WCP), located West of State Route 99 and South of State Route 198 (City of Visalia, 2014b). The General Plan Draft EIR concludes, based on the 2005 Sanitary Sewer Collection System Master Plan, the total load of the General Plan at full build-out would be 25,034,050 gallons per day (gpd), which would be below the total system capacity of 25,949,996 gpd.

The City uses the most current General Plan to aid in the development of its Capital Improvement Program for sanitary sewer facilities in subsequent years. This program is funded through the payment of Impact Fees associated with new development. The Project is in an area of the UGB that is planned for mixed-density residential growth and would pay development and connection fees. As previously mentioned, the Project is requesting a General Plan Amendment (GPA No. 2025-04) to modify existing General Plan designations to optimize the residential development on the parcel and amend the Circulation Element.

The residential land use designations are not changing in acreage value, only shifting in the location of the subject parcel. The Circulation Element amendment will not impact sanitary sewer systems. The Project’s land use designations were within the sanitary sewer system capacity analysis performed in the General Plan EIR, and the Project would contribute to the Capital Improvement Program through the payment of Impact Fees. The Project would not directly require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities. Therefore, the Project would generate a less-than-significant impact on City sanitary sewer systems.

Wastewater or Stormwater Drainage
In the Planning Area, storm and urban runoff drainage is provided by natural rivers and watercourses, irrigation ditches, storage reservoirs, and discharge locations (City of Visalia, 2014a). Components of the drainage system on private property, or within private drainage easements, are maintained by the underlying property owner. The City’s Storm Water Master Plan (SWMP), from 1994, identified seven waterways as well as the Goshen Drain that convey stormwater toward the southeast into a number of large basins on the west side of the City. The stormwater system is sufficient to accommodate the classifications and densities in the proposed General Plan without any substantial changes or additional improvements beyond those already identified in the SWMP (City of Visalia, 2014b).

The Project proposes to develop approximately 1.50 acres for a storm basin to accommodate runoff from impervious surfaces created as a result of the additional built environment the Project is proposing. The Project would be required to install City storm water drainage lines and street runoff that is consistent with the current SWMP. The Project’s land use 2249
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-126
designations were within the stormwater drainage system capacity analysis performed in the General Plan EIR, and the Project would contribute to the Capital Improvement Program through the payment of Impact Fees. Therefore, the Project’s impact on the City’s stormwater drainage system would be less than significant.

Water
As discussed in Impact #3.4.10b, the Visalia District of Cal Water would provide water to the Project site. The 2020 UWMP anticipates sufficient groundwater supply under all conditions for the District as a whole, given that the demands associated with the proposed Project were not included in the 2020 UWMP demand projections for the District, an analysis of the sufficiency of the groundwater supply to meet Project demands is required pursuant to CWC Section 10910(f)(5) and CGC Section 66473.7(a)(2)(E). This WSA concludes that sufficient water supply is available to the District to meet all future demands associated with current and planned development within its service area, including those of the proposed Project. As demonstrated in Tables 3.4.10-1 through 3.4.10-4, the District is projected to continue meeting future water demands under normal, single dry, and multiple dry year conditions, with inclusion of the proposed Project. The proper sizing and placement of water lines will be designed per the City and other utility development design standards.

Electricity, Natural Gas, and Telecommunications
Southern California Edison provides electric service to Visalia residents. The electrical facilities network includes both overhead and underground lines, with new development required to install underground service lines. The Project is not anticipated to use natural gas services, as all appliances will be electric. There are three major companies that provide communications services in Visalia: AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon. Comcast is the primary cable television and internet provider.

The Project is expected to connect to SCE utilities via infrastructure extensions and connections that are acceptable to both SCE and the City. All residential units will be equipped with 450-watt solar panels, utilize all electric appliances, and will be EV-ready (pre-wired during construction to allow for installation of an EV residential charger in the future). Therefore, the Project’s electricity use will be offset by the rooftop solar, and natural gas will not be utilized by residences. The Project is not anticipated to result in additional construction related to new or expanded electrical facilities.

Conclusion
The Project site area is within the City’s SOI and UDB – Tier II. Low-, medium-, and highdensity residential land uses are planned under the City’s General Plan and adopted Environmental Impact Report. Given the discussions above in various utility categories, the Project would not 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 would cause significant environmental effects, as utilities in the region have reasonable capacity to 2250
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-127
accommodate the proposed residential development. Therefore, the impacts would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation measures are required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact #3.4.19b – Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
As discussed in Impact 3.4.10b, Tables 3.4.10-2 through 3.4.10-4 demonstrate that the District’s projected normal year water, single dry year, and multiple dry year comparison of water supply and demand would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and District for the reasonable foreseeable future. Therefore, the impacts are considered to be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact #3.4.19c – Would the Project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that 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? See Impact #3.4.19a, subsection Wastewater.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact #3.4.19d – 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?
2251
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-128
Solid Waste
Project construction and operational activities that generate solid waste are handled, transported, and disposed of in accordance with applicable federal, State, and local regulations pertaining to municipal waste. The 1989 California Integrated Waste Management Act requires jurisdictions to attain specific waste diversion goals (AB 939, 2019). In addition, the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991, as amended, requires expanded or new development Projects to incorporate storage areas for recycling bins into the proposed Project design. Reuse and recycling of construction debris would reduce operating expenses and save valuable landfill space. With development in accordance with the General Plan, solid waste will continue to be handled, transported, and disposed of according to all applicable federal, State, and local regulations pertaining to municipal waste disposal. The City has a number of provisions that require or promote recycling and waste reduction, including the Construction and Demolition Recycling Ordinance that requires contractors to recycle construction and demolition debris. AB 939 requires the implementation of integrated waste management plans and mandates that local jurisdictions divert at least 50 percent of all solid waste. The recycling of construction and demolition materials is required for any City-issued building, relocation, or demolition permit that generates at least eight cubic yards of material by volume. The Project would generate solid waste during the construction and operation of the new residences. Common construction waste may include metals, masonry, plastic pipe, rocks, dirt, cardboard, or green waste related to land development.

The Consolidated Waste Management Authority (CWMA) is a joint powers authority that is recognized by the State and collectively manages the solid waste recycling and diversion activities for eight local area members, including Tulare County, Tulare, Visalia, Dinuba, Exeter, Farmersville, Lindsay, and Porterville (City of Visalia, 2014b). The CWMA has continued to improve its diversion rate as established by the State. The State recently changed its diversion calculation method from a percentage of waste diverted from the landfill to a calculation of pounds per person per day (PPD) that goes to the landfills. Most recent data shows that the CWMA has a base rate to achieve of 6.2 PPD, and the CWMA has been able to successfully achieve an annual PPD significantly lower than the benchmark established by the State. In 2008, the CWMA achieved a diversion rate of 5.2 PPD, and in 2009, it lowered it even further to 4.4PPD. Visalia waste collection efforts indicate that the city’s recycling rate calculated as PPD is consistently decreasing year to year and is consistently below the PPD calculated for the CWMA (note that there is no established benchmark for the City of Visalia so a determination cannot be made as to whether or not the City of Visalia is meeting State goals for diversion on its own).

Sunset Waste Systems provides solid waste collection in Visalia, and the County of Tulare Resource Management Agency provides disposal services at three landfills (the Visalia Disposal Site, northwest of Visalia; the Woodville Disposal Site, southeast of Tulare; and the Teapot Dome Disposal Site, southwest of Porterville). Solid Waste collection and disposal are in accordance with the Tulare County Integrated Waste Management Plan. Programs include household hazardous waste disposal, electronics recycling, tire recovery, yard waste recycling, metal recycling, and appliance recovery programs. According to the General Plan, 2252
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-129
the three County landfills receive approximately 300,000 tons of waste per year, which is equivalent to about five pounds per person per day or one ton per county resident per year.

The Teapot Dome Disposal Site was in the closure process and set to cease accepting municipal solid waste on July 11, 2025, according to CalRecycle (CalRecycle, 2025a). The Visalia Disposal Site and the Woodville Disposal Site have a combined total remaining capacity of 18,810,624 cubic yards, with a maximum capacity of 31,750,866 cubic yards (CalRecyle, 2025b).

The Project proposes to develop a maximum of 662 units, with an average of 2.94 persons per household and an average of one ton of solid waste produced per county resident per year, the Project would produce approximately 1,946.28 tons annually. Given the available capacity at the Visalia Disposal Site and the Woodville Disposal Site, which have a combined total remaining capacity of 18,810,624 cubic yards, the additional solid waste generated by the proposed Project is not anticipated to cause the facility to exceed capacity. The proposed Project would comply with Cal Green, the City’s Construction and Demolition (C&D) Waste Management Guide, and with waste management policies and recommendations from the General Plan. The Project does not propose any new or expanded uses and is therefore not anticipated to result in increased generation of solid waste beyond what has already been analyzed in the City’s General Plan EIR. Because the City’s existing infrastructure has the capacity to accommodate the solid waste currently planned for UDB Tier II growth, and given the calculation performed above, the existing solid waste infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed Project. The Project would comply with any applicable city and state requirements for waste collection and attainment of local State solid waste reduction goals. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact #3.4.19e – Would the Project comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
See Impact #3.4.19a, subsection Solid Waste and Impact #3.4.19d.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.
2253
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-130

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less-thanSignificant
Impact

No
Impact

3.4.20 - WILDFIRE
If located in or near state responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the Project:
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks and thereby
expose Project occupants to, pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c. Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power
lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate
fire risk or that may result in temporary or
ongoing impacts to the environment?
d. Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff,
post-fire slope instability, or drainage
changes?
Discussion
Impact #3.4.20a – Would the Project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
See Impact #3.4.9f regarding emergency response.

According to available data from Cal Fire, the Project site is within the Local Responsibility Area (LRA) of the Visalia Fire Department. The site is not within a Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) categorized as Very High, High or Moderate, as the area is either urban or agricultural with a low risk of wildfire (Cal Fire, 2023). The Project is within the Planning Area of the 2025 Safety Element Update and 2023 Tulare County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation.

The Project site is adjacent to an existing mixed density subdivision to the west. Access for emergency vehicles to the site would be maintained throughout the construction period and would comply with any applicable requirements, such as an encroachment permit. The □ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
2254
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-131
Project would not interfere with any local or regional emergency response or evacuation plans and would not result in a substantial alteration to the adjacent area circulation system.

The City has established emergency response and evacuation plans based on the 2023 Tulare County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation and any other applicable plans. Impacts related to fire hazards and emergency response plans would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact #3.4.20b – 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? See discussion in Impact #3.4.4g regarding wildland fire risk analysis. The Project site has relatively no slope or is historically known for prevailing winds. Therefore, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact on the pollutant concentrations from wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of wildfire.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact #3.4.20c – 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?
See discussion in Impact #3.4.20a-b.

The Project proposes to develop public and private roadways, emergency water sources, electrical connections, and other utilities commonly found in a residential subdivision, all of which will be developed to local and state regulations.

The design of all proposed utilities will be subject to the review and approval of the City. This will ensure the viability of the utility infrastructure's ability for fire protection and suppression activities. Therefore, the impact would be considered less than significant with adherence to all applicable local and State regulations. 2255
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-132

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact #3.4.20d – 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?
As discussed in Impact #3.4.7a(iii), the Project site is flat, and a small portion of the lower southwest area of the Project site is recognized by FEMA to be within the Zone AE for Special Flood Hazard Area (Figure 3-1).

Nevertheless, all structures within the Special Flood Hazard Area would be required to adhere to Visalia Municipal Code Chapter 15.60 (Floodplain Management Regulations) and California Building Code, which require compaction and soil tests, when applicable.

As discussed in Impact # 3.4.7b, erosion generated during construction would be controlled through implementation of a General Construction Permit from the State of California Central Valley RWQCB. Under the NPDES, the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP are required for construction activities that would disturb an area of one acre or more. A SWPPP must identify potential sources of erosion or sedimentation and identify and implement BMPs that ensure reduced erosion.

Given Project adherence to local and state regulations that govern Flood Hazard Areas and erosion control, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
No mitigation is required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant.
2256
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-133

Discussion
Impact #3.4.21a – Does the Project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, 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?
As evaluated in this IS/MND, the proposed Project would not substantially degrade the quality of the environment; substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less than
Significant
Impact

No
Impact

3.4.21 - MANDATORY FINDINGS OF

SIGNIFICANCE
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?
b. Does the Project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a
Project are significant when viewed in
connection with the effects of past Projects,
the effects of other current Projects and the
effects of probable future Projects.)
c. Does the Project have environmental effects
that would cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
2257
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-134
threatened species; or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. With implementation of the Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-9 and CUL-1 and CUL-2, the proposed Project would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, significantly impact biological resources, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California's history or prehistory. Therefore, with the following mitigation measures, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Implement MM BIO-1 through BIO-9 and MM CUL-1 and MM CUL-2.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Impact #3.4.21b - Does the Project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a Project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past Projects, the effects of other current Projects and the effects of probable future Projects.)? As described in the impact analyses in Impact Sections 3.4.1 through 3.4.21 of this IS/MND, any potentially significant impacts of the proposed Project would be reduced to a less-thansignificant level following the incorporation of the mitigation measures listed. The proposed Project would not otherwise combine with the impacts of related development to add considerably to any cumulative impacts in the region. With the implementation of MM AG-1 and AG-2, BIO-1 through BIO-9, CUL-1 and CUL-2, GEO-1, HAZ-1, TRA-1 and TRA-2, the proposed Project would not have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. Therefore, the Project would have a less than cumulatively considerable impact with mitigation incorporated.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Implement MM AG-1 and MM AG-2, MM BIO-1 through MM BIO-9, MM CUL-1 and MM CUL2, MM GEO-1, MM HAZ-1, MM TRA-1 and MM TRA-2.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Impact #3.4.21c - Does the Project have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? All of the Project’s impacts, both direct and indirect, that are attributable to the Project were identified and mitigated. Implementation of Project Mitigation Measures AG-1 and AG-2, BIO-1 through BIO-9, CUL-1 and CUL-2, GEO-1, HAZ-1, TRA-1 and TRA-2 will substantially reduce or eliminate the impacts of the Project. Therefore, the proposed Project would not either directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects on human beings because all 2258
Initial Study

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 3-135
potentially adverse direct impacts of the proposed Project are identified as having no impact, less-than-significant impact, or less-than-significant impact with mitigation.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Implement MM AG-1 and MM AG-2, MM BIO-1 through MM BIO-9, MM CUL-1 and MM CUL2, MM GEO-1, MM HAZ-1, MM TRA-1 and MM TRA-2.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. 2259
List of Preparers

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 4-1
SECTION 4 - LIST OF PREPARERS

4.1 - Lead Agency – City of Visalia
• Jarred Olsen, AICP – Principal Planner

4.2 - QK
• Jaymie Brauer – Project Manager/QAQC
• Bella Hedtke – Lead Author
2260
References

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 5-1
SECTION 5 - REFERENCES
Cal Fire. (2023, June 15). Tulare County State Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zones. Retrieved January 2025, from https://34c031f8-c9fd-4018-8c5a4159cdff6b0d-cdn-endpoint.azureedge.net/-/media/osfm-website/what-wedo/community-wildfire-preparedness-and-mitigation/fire-hazard-severityzones/fire-hazard-severity-zones-map-2022/fire-hazard-severity-zones-maps2022-file CalGEM. (2025). Well Finder. Retrieved June 2025, from
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/
California Department of Conservation. (2022). Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Retrieved from Important Farmland Finder:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/
California Department of Toxic Substances Control. (2025, August 25). California Department of Toxic Substances Control, Envirorstor. Retrieved January 2025, from California Department of Toxic Substances Control, Envirorstor:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/
CalRecycle. (2025a, July 7). SWIS Facility/Site Inspection Details Teapot Dome Disposal Site (54-AA-0004). Retrieved from
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteInspection/Details/387611?siteID =3834
CalRecyle. (2025b, August). CalRecycle. Retrieved from Solid Waste Information System (SWIS) >> Sites: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Search City of Visalia . (2010). Visalia Waterway & Trail Master Plan.

City of Visalia. (2013). Climate Action Plan.

City of Visalia. (2014a). Visalia General Plan Update.

City of Visalia. (2014b, January). General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. Retrieved from https://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=30499 City of Visalia. (2024). 2023-2031 Housing Element Update.

City of Visalia. (2025a, February 18). City of Visalia General Plan - Safety Element. Retrieved from https://www.visalia.city/depts/community_development/planning/gp.asp City of Visalia. (2025b). American Legal Publishing, Visalia, CA Municipal Code. Retrieved from https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/visalia/latest/visalia_ca/0-0-0-22201 City of Visalia. (2025c). VMT Threshold and Implementation Guidelines. 2261
References

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 5-2
County of Tulare. (2023). Tulare County Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.

ESRI, Mark Gilbert. (2021, July 13). Wildland Urban Interface. Retrieved from https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=a4985d64969743db8feddf01c96c94 35 JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc. (2026). Traffic Impact Analysis Clements Ranch.

QK. (2025a). Air Quality Impact Analysis (AQIA)- Clements Ranch TTM 5606.

QK. (2025b). Biological Resource Evaluation for Clements Ranch Project.

QK. (2025c). Cultural Resources Technical Memo- Clement Ranch Project. Techincal Memorandum.

Tulare County. (2012). Tulare County Airport Land Use Compatability Plan.

U.S. Fire Administration. (2022, June 8). What is the WUI? Retrieved from https://www.usfa.fema.gov/wui/what-is-thewui/#:~:text=Share%20on:,Institute%20of%20Standards%20and%20Technology United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2025, August 25). UST Finder: National Web Map of Underground Storage Tanks. Retrieved from
https://epa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=b03763d3f2754 461adf86f121345d7bc
United States Geological Survey. (2025, February 3). U.S. Landslide Inventory and Susceptibility Map . Retrieved from https://www.usgs.gov/tools/us-landslideinventory-and-susceptibility-map Visalia Police Department. (2023). 2023 Annual Report.

Visalia Unified School District. (2024, November 19). Visalia Unified School District Board Meetings. Retrieved from Agenda Item 11.1 Facilities Plan Short Term Options:
https://vusd.diligent.community/Portal/MeetingInformation.aspx?Org=Cal&Id=16 6 Visalia Unified School District. (2025, August 22). School Boundaries GIS Map. Retrieved from
https://visaliausd.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=ecffdf4f12 1045aca8f13dc0fc1d30dd
VRPA Technologies, Inc. (2026). Clements Ranch Vehicles Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis.

Woodard & Curran. (2026). Clements Ranch Water Supply Assessment. 2262
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 6-1
SECTION 6 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 2263
Draft Mitigation Measure and Reporting Program May 2026 Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 Page 1 of 18
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Impact Mitigation Measure Time Frame for
Implementation
Responsible
Monitoring Agency Date Initials
Aesthetics
No Mitigation required.

Agriculture and Forest Resources
#1 AG-1: Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the Project proponent shall mitigate impacts for loss of up to 78 acres of Prime Farmland on the Project site at a 1:1 ratio. The amount of land requiring mitigation shall correspond to the amount of land associated with the issuance of the grading or building permit, or for residential land associated with a subdivision map, the amount of land associated with the subdivision map. The Project proponent shall implement one or more of the following measures to mitigate the loss: Payment of in-lieu fees, mitigation banks, fee title acquisition, and/or conservation easements on land(s) within the Southern San Joaquin Valley of California, specifically within Kern County, Tulare County, Kings County, Fresno County, or Madera County. The City shall require, at a minimum, evidence that the preserved land has an adequate water supply, agricultural zoning, evidence of land encumbrance documentation, documentation that the
easement/regulations are permanent and monitored, and documentation that the mitigation strategy is appropriately endowed. This mitigation shall be verified by the City prior to issuance of grading or building permits. The Project proponent, at its election, may mitigate for the loss of agricultural land through compliance with the Agricultural Mitigation Program that is adopted by the City in lieu of mitigating on a 1:1 ratio.

Prior to the
issuance of
grading or
building
permits
Project developer and
Lead Agency
#2 AG-2: In order to reduce potential conflicts between urban and agricultural uses, the following measures shall be implemented:
a. Potential residents shall be notified about possible exposure to agricultural chemicals at the time of purchase/lease of property within the development.

Prior to Final
Map Approval
Project developer and
Lead Agency
2264
Draft Mitigation Measure and Reporting Program May 2026 Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 Page 2 of 18
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Impact Mitigation Measure Time Frame for
Implementation
Responsible
Monitoring Agency Date Initials
b. A Right-to-Farm Covenant shall be recorded on each residential tract map or be made a condition of each tract map to protect continued agricultural practices in the area.
c. Potential residents shall be informed of the Right-to-Farm Covenant at the time of purchase/lease of property within the development.

Air Quality
No Mitigation required.

Biological Resources
#3 BIO-1: Prior to the issuance of grading permits or ground disturbance, a preconstruction clearance survey of the Project footprint shall be conducted for special-status wildlife species and nesting migratory birds and raptors. The survey shall occur no less than 14 days prior to the start of construction activities. If construction is delayed beyond 30 days from the time of the survey or there is a lapse in construction of more than 30 days, then another survey shall be conducted. The survey shall be conducted by a biologist with adequate training and prior experience conducting surveys for special-status wildlife species. If no special-status species are observed, no further action is warranted.

If dens or burrows that could support special-status species and/or nesting birds and raptors are discovered during the pre-construction survey, appropriate avoidance buffers shall be established. If no special-status species are observed on or near the Project site, no further surveys are required. A report outlining the results of the preconstruction survey shall be submitted to the lead agency as evidence of compliance.
.

Within 14 days
prior to any
constructionrelated
activities.

Project developer and
Lead Agency
Steps to Compliance:

A. A qualified biologist shall be responsible for a
preconstruction survey.

B. If necessary, the qualified biologist shall contact
CDFW and USFWS to determine next steps.

C. If necessary, the qualified biologist shall implement next steps in consultation with the wildlife agencies.

Next steps may include implementing avoidance
buffers.

D. The qualified biologist shall prepare a brief report to be submitted to the wildlife agencies within 5 days of
completion of the preconstruction survey.

E. Lead Agency shall verify compliance.
2265
Draft Mitigation Measure and Reporting Program May 2026 Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 Page 3 of 18
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Impact Mitigation Measure Time Frame for
Implementation
Responsible
Monitoring Agency Date Initials
#4 BIO-2: If construction is planned during the nesting season for migratory birds (February 15 to August 31) and nesting birds are identified during the preconstruction survey, an active Swainson’s hawk nest shall be avoided by 0.5 miles, other raptor nests shall be avoided by 500 feet, and all other migratory bird nests shall be avoided by 250 feet. Avoidance buffers may be reduced if a qualified biological monitor determines that encroachment into the buffer area is not affecting nest building, the rearing of young, or otherwise affecting the breeding behaviors of the resident birds. Because nesting birds can establish new nests or produce a second or even third clutch at any time during the nesting season, nesting bird surveys shall be repeated every 30 days as construction activities are occurring throughout the nesting season. If no nesting birds are observed on or near the Project site, no further surveys are required.

Prior to and
during
construction
activities
occurring
between
February 15
and August 31
Project developer and
Lead Agency
Steps to Compliance:

A. If active nests are found during pre-construction
surveys required in MM BIO-1 or at any time
during construction of the Project, an avoidance
buffer range may be required. Active Swainson’s
hawk nests shall be avoided by 0.5 miles, other
raptor nests shall be avoided by 500 feet, and all
other migratory bird nests shall be avoided by 250
feet.

B. Nesting bird surveys shall be repeated every 30
days as construction activities are occurring
throughout the nesting season.

C. Work is to continue under the approval and
guidance of a qualified biologist.
#5 BIO-3: A Worker Environmental Awareness Program shall be developed and implemented for all personnel who could access the site prior to commencing any disturbance activities. The program shall consist of an on-site or center presentation that will describe the locations and types of sensitive plant, wildlife, and sensitive natural communities (collectively, “Biological Resources”) on and near the site, an overview of the laws and regulations Prior to
commencing
any disturbance
activities or
within one
week of being
Project developer and
Lead Agency

2266
Draft Mitigation Measure and Reporting Program May 2026 Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 Page 4 of 18
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Impact Mitigation Measure Time Frame for
Implementation
Responsible
Monitoring Agency Date Initials
governing the protection of Biological Resources, the reasons for protecting the Biological Resources, the specific protection and avoidance measures that are applicable to the site, and the identity of designated points of contact should questions or issues arise, including the qualified biologist. The program shall provide training to recognize, avoid, and report to applicable qualified biologists any Biological Resources on the site.
a. The Worker Environmental Awareness Program shall emphasize the need to avoid contact with on-site wildlife and avoid entry into areas where Biological Resources have been identified based on predisturbance field surveys, and to implement the buffer avoidance or other protection measures established by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) shall be identified by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or required by the Biological Resource mitigation measures. The training shall emphasize the importance of not feeding or domesticating wildlife and the need to avoid any trash, micro-trash, or potential food waste on-site, except in animalproof containers emptied daily, to avoid attracting or causing adverse impacts to special-status wildlife.
b. All on-site personnel must sign a statement verifying that they have completed the Worker Environmental Awareness Program and that they understand and agree to implement the biological requirements for the worksite. If signed employee statements are not available, documentation may be provided by Worker Environmental Awareness Program training records, which shall be kept by the applicant for a minimum of five years. Each applicant shall maintain a list of all persons who have completed the training program and shall provide the list to the County or to State and federal wildlife agency representatives upon request.
deployed to the
Project site
Steps to Compliance:

A. A Worker Environmental Awareness Training and
Education Program will be developed and
presented to all construction works prior to them
starting work on the site.

B. A sign-in sheet will be submitted to the lead
agency as evidence of compliance.

C. A copy of the training will be maintained on the
Project site throughout construction.
2267
Draft Mitigation Measure and Reporting Program May 2026 Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 Page 5 of 18
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Impact Mitigation Measure Time Frame for
Implementation
Responsible
Monitoring Agency Date Initials
#6 BIO-4: If protected or special-status species are identified on the Project site during pre-construction surveys, protective buffers shall be used, where effective in the opinion of the qualified biologist. These measures are created to avoid any unauthorized incidental take of these species and to minimize any incidental take. Protective buffers shall be delineated using brightly colored stakes and/or flagging or similar materials and remain until construction activities are complete, at which time of completion, the buffers must be removed. Protective buffers shall be established around active dens and/or burrows of special-status animal species or populations of special-status plant species to avoid unauthorized take of Protected Species as listed in the table below. The protective buffer distance shall be increased if required to avoid unauthorized incidental take of any Protected Species as determined by a qualified biologist. Protective buffer distances and other avoidance measures that may be implemented to avoid impacts to Protected Species or Sensitive Species must be consistent with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and/or the California Department of Fish and Wildlife requirements and shall be implemented and overseen by a qualified biologist.

Disturbance Buffers for Sensitive Resources
Sensitive Resource Buffer Zone from Disturbance (feet)
Potential San Joaquin kit fox
den 50
Known San Joaquin kit fox den 100
Natal San Joaquin kit fox den 500
Atypical San Joaquin kit fox den 50
Rodent burrows 50
Special-status bird species'
active nests
500 feet to 0.5 miles depending on species
and sight line
Prior to and
during
construction
Project developer and
Lead Agency

Steps to Compliance:

A. If protected or special-status species are found
during pre-construction surveys required in MM
BIO-1 or at any time during construction of the
Project, an avoidance buffer range may be
required. Protective buffers shall be established
around active dens and/or burrows of specialstatus animal species or populations of specialstatus plant species to avoid unauthorized take of Protected Species as listed in the table list in this
mitigation measure.

B. Work is to continue under approval and guidance
of qualified biologist.
2268
Draft Mitigation Measure and Reporting Program May 2026 Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 Page 6 of 18
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Impact Mitigation Measure Time Frame for
Implementation
Responsible
Monitoring Agency Date Initials
American badger: Nonmaternity dens 50
American badger: Maternity
dens 200
#7 BIO-5: If Project activities must occur during the Swainson’s hawk nesting season (February 15 to September 31), pre-activity surveys shall be conducted for Swainson’s hawk nests in accordance with the Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley (CDFG 2000). The surveys shall be conducted on the Project site plus a 0.5-mile buffer. To meet the minimum level of protection for the species, surveys shall be conducted during at least two survey periods prior to the start of construction.

The survey shall be conducted in accordance with the methodology outlined in existing protocols and should be phased with the construction of the Project.

If no Swainson’s hawk nests are found, no further action is required.

Prior to and
during
construction
activities
between
February 15
and September
31 Project developer and
Lead Agency
Steps to Compliance:

A. The preconstruction survey required in MM BIO-1
shall be performed in compliance with
methodologies and resources identified in this
mitigation measure for Swainson hawk nests.

B. If a Swainson’s hawk nest is discovered during the
preconstruction survey required in MM BIO-1, an
avoidance buffer range may be required, with the
avoidance buffer from any specific nest being
determined by a qualified biologist and existing
protocols.

C. Work is to continue under the approval and
guidance of a qualified biologist.
2269
Draft Mitigation Measure and Reporting Program May 2026 Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 Page 7 of 18
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Impact Mitigation Measure Time Frame for
Implementation
Responsible
Monitoring Agency Date Initials
#8 BIO-6: If an active Swainson’s hawk nest is discovered at any time within 0.5 miles of active construction, a qualified biologist shall complete an assessment of the potential for current construction activities to impact the nest. The assessment shall consider the type of construction activities, the location of construction relative to the nest, the visibility of construction activities from the nest location, and other existing disturbances in the area that are not related to construction activities of this Project. Based on this assessment, the biologist shall determine if construction activities can proceed and the level of nest monitoring required. Construction activities shall not occur within 500 feet of an active nest, but depending upon conditions at the site, this distance may be reduced. Full-time monitoring to evaluate the effects of construction activities on nesting Swainson’s hawks may be required. The qualified biologist shall have the authority to stop work if it is determined that Project construction is disturbing the nest. These buffers may need to be increased depending on the sensitivity of the nesting Swainson’s hawk to disturbances and at the discretion of the qualified biologist.

Prior to and
during
construction
Project developer and
Lead Agency
Steps to Compliance:

A. If an active Swainson’s hawk nest is found at any
time during construction of the Project, an
avoidance buffer range may be required, with the
avoidance buffer from any specific nest being
determined by a qualified biologist and existing
protocols. Construction activities shall not occur
within 500 feet of an active nest.

B. Work is to continue under the approval and
guidance of a qualified biologist.
#9 BIO-7: If burrows that could support the burrowing owl species are discovered during the pre-construction clearance survey conducted under Measure BIO-1, the avoidance buffers outlined below shall be established, and burrow monitoring shall be conducted in accordance with the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012).

No work would occur within these buffers. If occupied burrowing owl burrows cannot be avoided by the appropriate buffer below, an ITP issued by the CDFW under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) to authorize "take" that is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity, may be required before any work within the buffer.

Location Time of Year Level of Disturbance
Low Med High
Prior to and
during
construction
Project developer and
Lead Agency
Steps to Compliance:

A. If burrows that could support the burrowing owl
species are found during the preconstruction
survey required in BIO-1 or at any time during
construction of the Project, an avoidance buffer
range may be required, with the avoidance buffer
from any specific burrow being determined by a
qualified biologist and existing protocols.

I I
2270
Draft Mitigation Measure and Reporting Program May 2026 Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 Page 8 of 18
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Impact Mitigation Measure Time Frame for
Implementation
Responsible
Monitoring Agency Date Initials
Nesting sites April 1 -Aug 15 200 m* 500 m 500 m
Nesting sites Aug 16 – Oct 15 200 m 200 m 500 m
Nesting sites Oct 16- Mar 31 50 m 100 m 500 m
*Meters (m)
Protective buffers shall be established as listed in
the table in this mitigation measure.

B. Work is to continue under the approval and
guidance of a qualified biologist.
#10 BIO-8: Occupied American badger dens detected during pre-disturbance surveys shall be flagged, and ground-disturbing activities shall be avoided within 50 feet of the den. Maternity dens shall be avoided, and a minimum 200- foot buffer from disturbance shall be maintained during the pup-rearing season (February 15 through July 1). Maternity dens shall be avoided to the maximum extent feasible in the opinion of a qualified biologist. If an active maternity den is proposed to be disturbed, the qualified biologist shall consult with the CDFW to identify any appropriate additional minimization measures that the qualified biologist determines, with the wildlife agencies, can actually be implemented based on field conditions. All such measures shall be implemented for Project activities.

Prior to and
during
construction
Project developer and
Lead Agency

Steps to Compliance:

A. If dens that could support the American badger
species are found during the preconstruction
survey required in MM BIO-1 or at any time during
construction of the Project, an avoidance buffer
range may be required. Ground-disturbing
activities are avoided within 50 feet of the den.

Maternity dens shall be avoided, and a minimum
200-foot buffer from disturbance shall be
maintained during the pup-rearing season
(February 15 through July 1.

B. Work is to continue under the approval and
guidance of a qualified biologist.

2271
Draft Mitigation Measure and Reporting Program May 2026 Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 Page 9 of 18
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Impact Mitigation Measure Time Frame for
Implementation
Responsible
Monitoring Agency Date Initials
#11 BIO-9: The following additional measures shall be implemented during construction to avoid and minimize potential significant adverse impacts to Protected and Sensitive Species:
a. All vehicles shall observe a 15-mile-per-hour speed limit in all areas of disturbance and on unpaved roads unless otherwise posted. Off-road traffic outside of designated access routes is prohibited. Speed limit signs shall be posted in visible locations at the point of site entry and at regular intervals on all unpaved access roads.
b. All disturbance activities, except emergency situations or drilling that may require continuous operations, shall only occur during daylight hours. Nighttime disturbance activity for drilling purposes shall use directed lighting and shielding methods and comply with applicable lighting mitigation measures.
c. All food-related trash items and all forms of micro trash, such as wrappers, cans, bottles, bottle tops, and food scraps, shall be disposed of in closed, animal-proof containers and removed daily from the site. d. Excavations, spoil piles, access roadways, and parking and staging areas shall be subject to dust control as set forth in the dust control mitigation measures.
e. The use of herbicides for vegetation control shall be restricted to those approved by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. No rodenticides shall be used on any site unless approved by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and shall observe label and other restrictions mandated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, California Department of Food and Agriculture, and State and federal laws and regulations. For split estates, no herbicides for vegetation control may occur in Tier 2 areas without surface owner approval.

Prior to and
during
construction
Project developer and
Lead Agency
Steps to Compliance:

A. The Project proponent and/or developer shall
ensure compliance with applicable construction
rules and regulations, including but not limited to,
those set forth in the mitigation.
2272
Draft Mitigation Measure and Reporting Program May 2026 Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 Page 10 of 18
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Impact Mitigation Measure Time Frame for
Implementation
Responsible
Monitoring Agency Date Initials
f. No plants or wildlife shall be collected, taken, or removed from the site or any adjacent locations except as necessary for Project-related vegetation removal or wildlife relocation by a qualified biologist and subject to all applicable permits and authorizations.
g. All open trenches or excavations shall be covered at the end of each workday to prevent wildlife entrapment. If an excavation is too large to cover, escape ramps shall be installed at an incline ratio of no greater than 2:1. All trenches and pipes shall be inspected for the presence of wildlife each day prior to the commencement of work.
h. To enable San Joaquin kit foxes and other wildlife to pass through the Project site, any perimeter fencing shall include a four- to eight-inch opening between the fence mesh and the ground, or the fence shall be raised four inches above the ground except for blunt-nosed leopard lizard exclusion fencing. The bottom of the fence fabric shall be knuckled (wrapped back to form a smooth edge) to protect wildlife. i. All vertical tubes used in Project construction and chain link fencing poles shall be temporarily or permanently capped to avoid the entrapment and death of special-status wildlife and birds. All pipes 1.5 inches or greater in diameter stored overnight on a Project location must have end caps or other physical barriers that prevent wildlife from entering the pipe.
j. All dead or injured special-status wildlife shall be left in place and reported to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife within 48 hours of discovery for rescue or salvage. Discovery of State or federal listed species that are injured or dead shall also be managed consistent with regulatory requirements, including being reported immediately via telephone and within 24 hours in writing, and with a copy to the lead agency.
2273
Draft Mitigation Measure and Reporting Program May 2026 Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 Page 11 of 18
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Impact Mitigation Measure Time Frame for
Implementation
Responsible
Monitoring Agency Date Initials
k. During pre-construction surveys, the qualified biologist shall delineate previously disturbed areas to be used by the applicant to minimize the amount of new disturbance.
l. No vehicles or construction equipment shall be parked within a wetland or waterbody/dry wash.
m. Tracked vehicles and other construction equipment must be washed or maintained to be weed-free prior to entering and working within areas of a new disturbance.
n. All washing of trucks, paint, equipment, or similar activities should occur in areas where runoff is fully contained for collection and off-site disposal. Wash water may not be discharged from the site and shall be located at least 100 feet from any water body or sensitive Biological Resources.
o. Locate all extra work areas (such as staging areas and additional spoil storage areas) at least 50 feet away from wetland boundaries or waterbody, except where the adjacent upland consists of cultivated or rotated cropland or other disturbed land.
p. All areas that must be avoided as a result of the pre-disturbance surveys and areas where new disturbance will occur shall be clearly delineated by fencing or staking and flagging and/or rope or cord. q. No pets shall be allowed on any site.
r. No smoking may occur except in designated areas.

Biological Resources
#12 MM BIO-10: Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit, the Project proponent/developer shall conduct a delineation of the Tulare Irrigation Canal and prepare an Aquatic Resources Delineation Report (ARDR). The ARDR shall be submitted with a formal notification to the US Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). If no comments or requests for additional Prior to
issuance of
grading or
building
permits
Project developer and
Lead Agency
Steps to Compliance:
2274
Draft Mitigation Measure and Reporting Program May 2026 Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 Page 12 of 18
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Impact Mitigation Measure Time Frame for
Implementation
Responsible
Monitoring Agency Date Initials
permitting are received by the agencies, no further action is necessary. A copy of all correspondence shall be submitted to the lead agency.

If a regulatory agency comments or requests additional permitting, the following actions may be taken. A copy of all correspondence and subsequent permitting and/or reports shall be made available to the Lead Agency. The report shall include information as shown below, as a plan if necessary, and shall outline compliance with the following:
a. Delineation of all jurisdictional features at the project site. Potential jurisdictional features within the project boundary identified in the jurisdictional delineation report may be shown in plan form. b. If the Project has a potential to directly or indirectly impact jurisdictional aquatic resources, a formal aquatic resource delineation of these areas shall be performed by a qualified professional to determine the extent of agency jurisdiction and permits/authorizations from the appropriate regulating agencies (Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), CDFW and US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) shall be obtained prior to disturbance to jurisdictional features.

If it is determined that drainage is jurisdictional and cannot be avoided, the Project proponent shall obtain a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB, a Section 404 permit from USACE, and a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement under Section 1602 from the CDFW, if required, prior to impacting any waters.

As part of these authorizations, compensatory mitigation may be required by the regulating agencies to offset the loss of aquatic resources. If so, and as part of the permit application process, a qualified professional shall draft a Mitigation and Monitoring Plan to address implementation and monitoring requirements under the permit to ensure that the Project would result in no net loss of habitat functions and values. The Plan shall contain, at a minimum, mitigation goals and objectives, mitigation location, a discussion of actions to be • A delineation of the Tulare Irrigation Canal will be
conducted by a qualified biologist.
• An Aquatic Resources Delineation Report (ARDR)
will be prepared and submitted to the appropriate
regulatory agencies for comment.
• Implementation of the outlined requirements will
be completed.
2275
Draft Mitigation Measure and Reporting Program May 2026 Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 Page 13 of 18
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Impact Mitigation Measure Time Frame for
Implementation
Responsible
Monitoring Agency Date Initials
implemented to mitigate the impact, monitoring methods and performance criteria, extent of monitoring to be conducted, actions to be taken in the event that the mitigation is not successful, and reporting requirements. The Plan shall be approved by the appropriate regulating agencies, and compensatory mitigation shall take place either on-site or at an appropriate off-site location.
c. Any material/spoils generated from project activities containing hazardous materials shall be located away from jurisdictional areas or special-status habitat and protected from storm water run-off using temporary perimeter sediment barriers such as berms, silt fences, fiber rolls, covers, sand/gravel bags, and straw bale barriers, as appropriate.

Protection measures should follow project-specific criteria as developed in a Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Protection Plan (SWPPP). d. Equipment containing hazardous liquid materials shall be stored on impervious surfaces or plastic ground covers to prevent any spills or leakage from contaminating the ground and at least 50 feet outside the delineated boundary of jurisdictional water features.
e. Any spillage of material shall be stopped if it can be done safely. The contaminated area shall be cleaned, and any contaminated materials properly disposed. For all spills, the project foreman or designated environmental representative shall be notified.

Cultural Resources
#13 CUL-1: If prehistoric or historic-era cultural materials are encountered during construction activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall halt During
construction
Project developer and
Lead Agency
2276
Draft Mitigation Measure and Reporting Program May 2026 Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 Page 14 of 18
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Impact Mitigation Measure Time Frame for
Implementation
Responsible
Monitoring Agency Date Initials
until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the find and make recommendations.

Cultural resource materials may include prehistoric resources such as flaked and ground stone tools and debris, shell, bone, ceramics, and fire-affected rock, as well as historic resources such as glass, metal, wood, brick, or structural remnants. If the qualified archaeologist determines that the discovery represents a potentially significant cultural resource, additional investigations may be required to mitigate adverse impacts from Project implementation.

These additional studies may include avoidance, testing, and evaluation, or data recovery excavation.

Steps to Compliance:

A. If necessary, work shall cease and the project
proponent shall retain a qualified archaeologist to
assess finds and recommended procedures.

B. The qualified archaeologist and/or paleontologist
shall assess the significance of the find and determine next steps.

C. A copy of the additional studies shall be submitted to the Lead Agency to verify compliance.
#14 CUL-2: If human remains are discovered during construction or operational activities, further excavation or disturbance shall be prohibited pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. The specific protocol, guidelines, and channels of communication outlined by the Native American Heritage Commission, in accordance with Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code (Chapter 1492, Statutes of 1982, Senate Bill 297), and Senate Bill 447 (Chapter 44, Statutes of 1987), shall be followed. Section 7050.05(c) shall guide the potential Native American involvement, in the event of a discovery of human remains, at the direction of the county coroner.

During
construction
Project developer and
Lead Agency
Steps to Compliance:

A. If necessary, work shall cease and the project
proponent shall retain a qualified archaeologist to
assess finds and recommended procedures.

B. The qualified archaeologist and/or paleontologist
shall assess the significance of the find and
determine next steps.

C. The Lead Agency shall verify compliance.

Energy
No Mitigation required.

Geology and Soils
#15 GEO-1: If any paleontological resources are encountered during grounddisturbance activities, all work within 25 feet of the find shall halt until a qualified paleontologist, as defined by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology During
construction
Project developer and
Lead Agency
2277
Draft Mitigation Measure and Reporting Program May 2026 Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 Page 15 of 18
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Impact Mitigation Measure Time Frame for
Implementation
Responsible
Monitoring Agency Date Initials
Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources, can evaluate the find and make recommendations regarding treatment. Paleontological resource materials may include resources such as fossils, plant impressions, or animal tracks preserved in rock. The qualified paleontologist shall contact the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County or another appropriate facility regarding any discoveries of paleontological resources.

If the qualified paleontologist determines that the discovery represents a potentially significant paleontological resource, additional investigations and fossil recovery may be required to mitigate adverse impacts from Project implementation. If avoidance is not feasible, the paleontological resources shall be evaluated for their significance. If the resources are not significant, avoidance is not necessary. If the resources are significant, they shall be avoided to ensure no adverse effects, or such effects must be mitigated. Construction in that area shall not resume until the resource-appropriate measures are recommended or the materials are determined to be less than significant. If the resource is significant and fossil recovery is the identified form of treatment, then the fossil shall be deposited in an accredited and permanent scientific institution. Copies of all correspondence and reports shall be submitted to the Lead Agency.

Steps to Compliance:

A. In the event that paleontological resources are
encountered during ground disturbance activities, all
work within 25 feet shall halt.

B. If required, the project proponent shall contact the qualified paleontologist to assess the find.

C. The operator shall include a standard inadvertent
discovery clause in every construction contract to
inform contractors of this requirement.

D. The Lead Agency shall verify compliance with the
mitigation measure.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
No Mitigation required.

Hazardous Materials
#16 HAZ-1: In the event that unknown underground storage tank(s) or a septic system are uncovered or damaged during excavation or grading activities, all work in that area shall cease. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the Tulare County Environmental Health Division shall be contacted to determine what appropriate remediation may be required and to identify the During
construction
Project developer and
Lead Agency

2278
Draft Mitigation Measure and Reporting Program May 2026 Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 Page 16 of 18
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Impact Mitigation Measure Time Frame for
Implementation
Responsible
Monitoring Agency Date Initials
appropriate requirements and approvals. A report of all communication and the determination made by the SWRCB and the County Health Division shall be submitted to the City.

Steps to Compliance:

A. In the event unknown underground storage tank(s)
are uncovered or damaged during excavation or
grading activities, all work in that area shall cease.

B. The Lead Agency, State Water Resources Control
Board, and Tulare County Environmental Health
Division shall be contacted to determine appropriate
remediation and to identify necessary permits and
approvals.

C. All correspondence and determinations made by the
SWRCB and County Health Division shall be provided
to the Lead Agency to provide evidence of
compliance.

Hydrology and Water Quality
No mitigation required.

Land Use and Planning
No Mitigation required.

Mineral Resources
No Mitigation required.

Noise
No Mitigation required.

Population and Housing
No Mitigation required.
2279
Draft Mitigation Measure and Reporting Program May 2026 Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 Page 17 of 18
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Impact Mitigation Measure Time Frame for
Implementation
Responsible
Monitoring Agency Date Initials
Public Services
No Mitigation required.

Recreation
No Mitigation required.

Traffic and Transportation
#17 MM TRA-1: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Project applicant/developer responsible for the construction of the Single-Family Residential Development will pay their pro-rate fair share percentage of 3.1 percent.

Prior to
issuance of
building permit
Project
proponent/developer,
Lead agency
Steps to Compliance:

A. The Project proponent shall pay their fair share
cost for intersection improvements and roadway
segment improvements as indicated in the
Mitigation Measure prior to issuance of building
permits.
#18 MM TRA-2: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Project applicant/developer responsible for the construction of the Multi-Family Residential Development will pay their pro-rata fair share percentage of 2.4 percent. If at the time of development of the Multi-Family phase, the unit count is less than 375, the developer may submit a revised TIA showing the appropriate pro-rate fair share percentage for the reduced number of units.

Prior to
issuance of
building permit
Project
proponent/developer,
Lead agency

Steps to Compliance:

A. The Project proponent shall pay their fair share
cost for intersection improvements and roadway
segment improvements as indicated in the
Mitigation Measure prior to issuance of building
permits.

Tribal Cultural Resources
Implementation of MM CUL-1 and MM CUL-2.
2280
Draft Mitigation Measure and Reporting Program May 2026 Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 Page 18 of 18
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Impact Mitigation Measure Time Frame for
Implementation
Responsible
Monitoring Agency Date Initials
Utilities and Service Systems
No Mitigation required.

Wildfire
No Mitigation required.
2281

APPENDIX A

AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS (AQIA)
2282

AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS

CLEMENTS RANCH TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
NO. 5606

OCTOBER 2025

VISALIA
2283

AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS

CLEMENTS RANCH CLEMENTS RANCH
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 5606

PROJECT
Prepared for:

D.R. Horton
419 W. Murray Avenue
Visalia, CA 93291
Contact Person: Aman Narwal
Phone: (559) 636-9850
Consultant:
5080 California Avenue, Suite 220
Bakersfield, CA 93309
Contact: Jaymie Brauer
Phone: (661) 616-2600
October 2025
© Copyright by Quad Knopf, Inc.

Unauthorized use prohibited.

Project #240208
2284
Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 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 2285
Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 2025 Page ii

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

4.11 - Impacts to Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change..............................................................4-15 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 Tulare Council of Government’s Regional Conformity Analysis6-2 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) Appendix C – Ambient Air Quality Analysis 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 Tulare County Zoning 6-4
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 Bakerfield, 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 2286
Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 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) 4-15 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 Tulare County 2030 Projection – Tons per Year 5-2 Table 5-4 2030 Emissions Projections – Proposed Project, Tulare County and SJVAB 5-3

2287
Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 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
TulareCOG Tulare 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
2288
Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 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

2289
Executive Summary

Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 2025

SECTION 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Quad Knopf, Inc. (QK) has completed an Air Quality Impact Analysis (AQIA) for the Clements Ranch Residential Project (Project). The Project is generally bound by Union Pacific Railroad to the north, Road 148 to the east, East Caldwell Avenue to the South and South Lovers Lane to the west. The project is located in southeast Visalia, CA within the County of Tulare.

The project site is located on approximately 75-acres parcels (APN 127-020-20 & -21) to be developed as part of Tentative Tract Map No. 5606. The Project proposes to develop approximately 153 single-family medium density units,139 single-family low-density units and 375 multi-family units for a total of approximately 667 units. For purposes of environmental review, an additional 375 multi-family units that could be built in the future is included in the analysis.

The proposed Project’s construction and operations would include the following criteria pollutant emissions: reactive organic gases (ROG), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and suspended particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). Project operations would generate air pollutant emissions from mobile (vehicle activity from delivery trucks, consumers, and employees), energy sources (natural gas and electricity usage), and area sources (incidental activities related to architectural coating, consumer products, and landscape maintenance). Project construction and operational activities would also generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Criteria and GHG emissions were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2022.1.1.30 (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), 2025), which is the most current version of the model approved for use by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD).

Table 4-3 presents the Project’s construction emissions and provides substantial evidence to support a less-than-significant air quality impact on the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB).

Table 4-4 presents the Project’s operations emissions and provides substantial evidence to support a less-than-significant air quality impact on the SJVAB after mitigation.

SJVAPCD uses a single threshold for the determination of significance for both projectspecific and cumulative impacts. As such, a qualitative evaluation of the cumulative projects supports the finding that the Project’s contribution would not be cumulatively considerable because the proposed Project’s incremental emissions would be less than significant. 2290
Introduction

Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 2025

SECTION 2 - INTRODUCTION

2.1 - Purpose
This AQIA was prepared pursuant to the SJVAPCD Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI) (SJVAPCD, 2015) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statute and Guidelines (CEQA, 2025).

2.2 - General Project Description
The Project is generally bound by Union Pacific Railroad to the north, Road 148 to the east, East Caldwell Avenue to the South and South Lovers Lane to the west. The project is located in southeast Visalia, CA within the County of Tulare.

The project site is located on approximately 75-acres parcels (APN 127-020-20 & -21) to be developed as part of Tentative Tract Map No. 5606. The Project proposes to develop a mixed density residential subdivision on an approximately 78-acre site that would consist of approximately 153 single-family medium density units and 139 single-family low-density units, for a total of approximately 667 units. An additional 375 multi-family units that could be built in the future is included in the analysis.

All residential units will be equipped with 450-watt solar panels, utilize all electric appliances and will be EV-ready, pre-wired during construction to allow for installation of EV residential charger in the future.

Figure 2-1 depicts the regional location and Figure 2-2 depicts an aerial view of the Project location.

Figure 2-3 depicts the Project site’s topography. The Project site is located at an elevation of approximately 350 feet above mean sea level and is surrounded by residential, industrial, and empty parcels.
2291
Introduction

Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 2025

Figure 2-1
Regional Location
Medford
0 D State County Boundaries
~---: State Boundary
0 Miles 100
I
Dill
E Ca ldwell Ave

0.35 Mojave
Desert
Las Vegas 0
t. I"," -- __ _
2292
Introduction

Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 2025

Figure 2-2
Project Location
2293
Introduction

Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 2025

Figure 2-3
Project Site Topography
0 ~
,,,,,
lo Feet 990 1
I CJ Project Site I
2294
Setting

Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 2025

SECTION 3 - SETTING
Protection of public health is maintained through the attainment and maintenance of ambient air quality standards for various atmospheric compounds and the enforcement of emissions limits for individual stationary sources. The Federal Clean Air Act requires that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public. NAAQS have been established for ozone (O3), CO, NO2, SO2, PM10 and PM2.5, and lead (Pb). California has also adopted ambient air quality standards (CAAQS) for these "criteria" air pollutants. CAAQS are more stringent than the corresponding NAAQS and include standards for hydrogen sulfide (H2S), vinyl chloride (chloroethene), and visibility-reducing particles. The U.S. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 required each state to identify areas that were in non-attainment of the NAAQS and to develop State Implementation Plans (SIPs) containing strategies to bring these non-attainment areas into compliance. NAAQS and CAAQS designation/classification for Tulare County are presented in Section 3.1 below.

Responsibility for the regulation of air quality in California lies with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the 35 local air districts, with oversight responsibility held by the EPA. CARB is responsible for regulating mobile source emissions, establishing CAAQS, conducting research, managing regulation development, and providing oversight and coordination of the activities of the 35 air districts. The air districts are primarily responsible for regulating stationary source emissions and monitoring ambient pollutant concentrations. CARB also determines whether air basins, or portions thereof, are “unclassified,” in “attainment,” or in “non-attainment” for the NAAQS and CAAQS relying on statewide air quality monitoring data.

3.1 - Air Quality Standards
The Project area is located within Tulare County in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB or Basin). Tulare County is included among the eight counties that comprise the SJVAPCD.

The SJVAPCD acts as the regulatory agency for air pollution control in the Basin and is the local agency empowered to regulate air pollutant emissions for the Project area. Table 3-1 provides the NAAQS and CAAQS.
2295
Setting

Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 2025

Table 3-1
Federal and California Standards
Pollutant Averaging Time NAAQS CAAQS
Concentration
O3
8-hour 0.070 ppm (137 µg/m3)a 0.070 ppm (137 µg/m3)
1-hour 0.09 ppm (180 µg/m3)
CO
8-hour 9 ppm (10 µg/m3) 9 ppm (10 µg/m3)
1-hour 35 ppm (40 µg/m3) 20 ppm (23 µg/m3)
NO2
Annual Average 53 ppb (100 µg/m3) 0.030 ppm (57 µg/m3)
1-Hour 100 ppb (188.68 µg/m3) 0.18 ppm (339 µg/m3)
SO2
3-Hour 0.5 ppm (1,300 µg/m3)
24 Hour 0.14 ppm (365 µg/m3) 0.04 ppm (105 µg/m3)
1-Hour 75 ppb (196 µg/m3) 0.25 ppm (655 µg/m3)
Particulate Matter
(PM10)
Annual Arithmetic
Mean 20 µg/m3
24-Hour 150 µg/m3 50 µg/m3
Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
Annual Arithmetic
Mean 12 µg/m3 12 µg/m3
24-Hour 35 µg/m3
Sulfates 24-Hour 25 µg/m3
Pbd
Rolling Three-Month
Average 0.15 µg/m3
30 Day Average 1.5 µg/m3
H2S 1-Hour 0.03 ppm (42 µg/m3)
Vinyl Chloride
(chloroethene) 24-Hour 0.010 ppm (26 µg/m3)
Visibility Reducing
particles
8 Hour (1000 to 1800
PST)
b
ppm = parts per
million
ppb = parts per billion
mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic
meter
µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic
meter
Source: CARB 2024b
a. On October 1, 2015, the national 8-hour ozone primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075 to 0.070 ppm
b. In 1989, CARB converted both the general statewide 10-mile visibility standards and the Lake Tahoe 30-mile visibility standard to instrumental equivalents, which are “extinction of 0.23 per kilometer” and “extinction of 0.07 per kilometer” for the statewide and Lake Tahoe Air Basin standards, respectively.

Under the provisions of the U.S. Clean Air Act, the Tulare County portion of the SJVAB has been classified as non-attainment/extreme, non-attainment/severe, non-attainment, attainment/ unclassified, attainment, or unclassified under the established NAAQS and CAAQS for various criteria pollutants. Table 3-2 provides the SJVAB’s designation and classification based on the various criteria pollutants under both NAAQS and CAAQS. 2296
Setting

Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 2025

Table 3-2
SJVAB Attainment Status
Pollutant NAAQSa CAAQSb
Ozone – 1 Hour No Federal Standardf Non-attainment/Severe Ozone – 8 Hour8 Non-attainment/Extremee Non-attainment
PM10 Attainmentc Non-attainment
PM2.5 Non-attainmentd Non-attainment
Carbon Monoxide Attainment/Unclassified Attainment/Unclassified Nitrogen Dioxide Attainment/Unclassified Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide Attainment/Unclassified Attainment
Lead Particulates No Designation/Classification Attainment H2S No Federal Standard Unclassified
Sulfates No Federal Standard Attainment
Visibility Reducing Particulates No Federal Standard Unclassified Vinyl Chloride No Federal Standard Attainment
[Source: SJVAPCD 2025a
Notes:
a. See 40 CFR Part 81
b. See CCR Title 17 Sections 60200-60210
c. On September 25, 2008, EPA redesignated the San Joaquin Valley to attainment for the PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and approved the PM10 Maintenance Plan. d. The Valley is designated non-attainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA designated the Valley as non-attainment for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS on November 13, 2009 (effective December 14, 2009). e. Though the Valley was initially classified as serious non-attainment for the 1997 8-hour O3 standard, EPA approved Valley reclassification to extreme non-attainment in the Federal Register on May 5, 2010 (effective June 4, 2010). f. Effective June 15, 2005, the EPA revoked the federal 1-hour O3 standard, including associated designations and classifications. EPA had previously classified the SJVAB as extreme non-attainment for this standard. EPA approved the 2004 Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan on March 8, 2010 (effective April 7, 2010). Many applicable requirements for extreme 1-hour O3 non-attainment areas continue to apply to the SJVAB.

The SJVACPD, along with CARB, operates an air quality monitoring network that provides average concentrations of those pollutants for which State or federal agencies have established ambient air quality standards. Information from the various monitoring stations is available from the corresponding agency’s websites. A map of the monitoring stations in the SJVAB is provided in Figure 3-1 below.
2297
Setting

Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 2025

Figure 3-1
CARB Monitoring Network
Asof July 2021
San Joaquin Valley - AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY
• 1 Stockton•Ha~ehcn: G, M, P, F, T
• 2 Trxy-Aupon.G. P.f • 3 Manteca: P. F. M

STANISLAUS COUNTY
• 4 Modcsto-14thS G,M,P,F
• S Tutloc G,M,P,F
MERC£0 COUNTY
• 6 11.,rcc,d S ·P.F
• 7 Mer~~: G,F,M

MADERA COUNTY
• 8 Mlde~City-G.P.f.M
• 9 Madc~·PumpYard·G.M

FRESNO COUNTY
Oth" r':

Monache Tnbei1'oo!hl Yobn Indians
• 10 TlbleMount;,nAMS', G.F.P.
• 11 T~nquo hty. G. F, M
• 12 fresno-Skyl'm:G.M
• 13 CkMs:G.M.P.f • 14 fresno<;a,landG,M. P,F, T,
• 1 S Fresno-Pac.ilic F
• 16 Fresno-Drummond G. P. M
• 17 fresnc>f<lundry G. M. F
• 18Part 1.G.M
• 19 H ronf,M

MO ITOAI G DESIGNATIONS
f Fn, P"1lculotc (PMlS) P PartlCWle (PMIO)
G ~ N MIONIC<n
M Mo1<0<ologlcal T T

KINGS COUNTY
• 20 Hantord.G,F,M.P
• 21 Corcorat1: F, P
Othtr'
Tachl Yoblt T ~
• 22 Santa !Ima RanchenA G. M. P

TULARE COUNTY
• 23 Vrsa ia-Chu<ch S G, F, M. P
• 24 PorleMlle: G, f. M
Olhtr':
• 25 Lower~A.G.M
• 26 Ash Mouota • A. G, M. F

KERN COUNTY
• 27 Shafter. G. M
• 28 ()Ida G,M,P
• 29 Ba sfield-(;o!den/'M St F, P
• 30 Ba"'mfield•W~,nd G, M
• 31 Ba s6"1d<a forni.11. G, M. P. F. T
• 32 Ba1<1mfield•Muno G, M
• 33 Bakersfieid-AJrl)Oll (Planz): F
• 34 Ed-,on: G, M
• 35 AMn-O-Giorgo0: G,
• 36 Mancopa. G,
• 37 Leo«: F, M

MONITORING OPERATION
• S.t<!< op,ml!d by the Omrla • SolM optatl!d by I he, OlsuiCI &, CAR8 • Sacs - cd by CARS • 5'1Mo,x<acdbyothcf~
O!hc<'Tnbal
O!herN>UONIP 5ffltce
,., Monocorv,g Smoon (AMS}
2298
Setting

Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 2025

3.2 - Existing Air Quality
For the purposes of background data and this air quality assessment, this analysis relied on data collected in the last three years for the CARB monitoring stations that are located in closest proximity to the Project site. Table 3-3 provides the background concentrations for O3, particulate matter of 10 microns (PM10), particulate matter of less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5), CO, NO2, Pb and H2S as of 2023. Information is provided for the Visalia – W. Ashland Avenue, Porterville – Newcomb St., Hanford – S Irwin St, and Fresno - Garland monitoring stations for 2022 through 2024. No data is available for SO2, Vinyl Chloride, or other toxic air contaminants in the SJVAB.

Table 3-3
Existing Air Quality Monitoring Data in Project Area
Maximum Concentration Days Exceeding Standard
Pollutant and
Monitoring Station Location 2022 2023 2024 2022 2023 2024 O3 – 1-hour CAAQS (0.09 ppm)
Visalia – W. Ashland Ave 0.114 0.100 0.103 8 3 8
Porterville – Newcomb St 0.099 0.102 0.106 1 7 5
O3 – 8-hour CAAQS (0.07 ppm)
Visalia – W. Ashland Ave 0.099 0.087 0.094 64 30 63
Porterville – Newcomb St 0.085 0.089 0.094 25 22 27
O3 – 8-hour NAAQS (0.070 ppm)
Visalia – W. Ashland Ave 0.098 0.087 0.093 62 27 62
Porterville – Newcomb St 0.085 0.089 0.094 62 49 51
PM10 – 24-hour CAAQS (50 µg/m3)
Visalia – W. Ashland Ave 125.2 107.5 176.9 111 102 104
Hanford – S Irwin St. 251.6 159.3 169.0 141 114 112
PM10 – 24-hour NAAQS (150 µg/m3)
Visalia – W. Ashland Ave 132.7 108.8 173.0 0 0 1
Hanford – S Irwin St. 250.8 157.3 173.0 1 1 4
PM2.5 - 24-hour NAAQS (35 µg/m3)
Visalia – W. Ashland Ave 48.3 42.9 64.7 17 6 8
Hanford – S Irwin St. 62.9 54.4 53.7 27 11 8
CO - 8-Hour CAAQS & NAAQS (9.0 ppm)
No data collected * * * * * *
NO2 - 1-Hour CAAQS (0.18 ppm)
Visalia – W. Ashland Ave 0.049 0.039 0.042 0 0 0
Hanford – S Irwin St. 0.045 0.055 0.041 0 0 0
NO2 - 1-Hour NAAQS (0.10 ppm)
Visalia – W. Ashland Ave 0.0497 0.0399 0.0427 0 0 0
Hanford – S Irwin St. 0.0458 0.0552 0.0410 0 0 0
SO2 – 24-hour Concentration - CAAQS (0.04 ppm) & NAAQS (0.14 ppm) No data collected * * * * * *
Pb - Maximum 30-Day Concentration CAAQS (1500 ng/m3)
Fresno – Garland 42 6.5 6.5 * * *
Source: CARB 2025
Notes: ppm= parts per million
* There was insufficient (or no) data available to determine the value. 2299
Setting

Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 2025

The following describes criteria air pollutants, typical sources, health effects, and recently documented pollutant levels in the Project vicinity.

3.2.1 - OZONE (O3)
The SJVAB has high concentrations of O3, and these high levels are known to cause eye irritation and impair respiratory functions. High levels of O3 can also affect plants and materials. Grapes, lettuce, spinach, and many types of garden flowers and shrubs are particularly vulnerable to O3 damage. O3 is not directly emitted into the atmosphere; it is a secondary pollutant produced from a photochemical interaction between hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides (NOx). One to three hours of strong sunlight in a stable atmosphere creates O3. The “O3 season,” therefore, typically spans from April through October. O3 is a regional pollutant; wind transports and diffuses the precursors while activating the photochemical reaction process. The data presented in Table 3-3 shows that the Project area monitoring stations exceeded the 1-hour average ambient O3 CAAQS and the 8-hour average ambient O3 NAAQS and CAAQS between 2022 through 2024.

3.2.2 - SUSPENDED PARTICULATE MATTER (PM10 AND PM2.5)
Both NAAQS and CAAQS now apply to particulates under 10 microns (PM10). Since the smaller diameter fraction of total suspended particulates is documented to represent the greatest health hazard, EPA has established NAAQS for particulates under 2.5 microns (PM2.5). The Project area is classified as attainment for PM10 and non-attainment for PM2.5 for NAAQS.

Dust and fumes from industrial and agricultural operations generate particulate matter.

Natural activities, such as wind-raised dust, fires, and ocean spray, also increase the level of particulates in the atmosphere. The largest source of PM10 and PM2.5 in Tulare County is vehicle movement over paved and unpaved roads from demolition and construction activities and farming operations. PM10 and PM2.5 are considered regional pollutants, with elevated levels typically occurring over a wide geographic area. Concentrations tend to be highest in the winter, during periods of high atmospheric stability and low wind speed. Very small particulates may contain absorbed gases that produce injury to the respiratory tract.

Particulates of aerosol size suspended in the air can both scatter and absorb sunlight, producing haze and reducing visibility. They can also damage a wide range of materials.

Table 3-3 shows that PM10 levels exceeded the CAAQS, and both PM10 and PM2.5 exceeded the NAAQS in 2022 and 2024, respectively. Similar levels can be expected to occur in the vicinity of the Project site.

3.2.3 - CARBON MONOXIDE (CO)
Ambient CO concentrations normally correspond closely to the spatial and temporal distributions of vehicular traffic. Relatively high concentrations of CO would be expected along heavily traveled roads and near busy intersections. Wind speed and atmospheric mixing also influence CO concentrations.
2300
Setting

Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 2025

Internal combustion engines, principally in vehicles, produce CO due to incomplete fuel combustion. Various industrial processes also produce CO emissions through incomplete combustion. Gasoline-powered motor vehicles are typically the major source of this contaminant. CO does not irritate the respiratory tract but passes through the lungs directly into the bloodstream, and by interfering with the transfer of fresh oxygen to the blood, deprives sensitive tissues of oxygen, thereby aggravating cardiovascular disease, causing fatigue, headaches, and dizziness. CO is not known to have adverse effects on vegetation, visibility, or materials. Table 3-3 reports insufficient data for the CO monitoring at any monitoring stations during the three-year period from 2022 through 2024.

3.2.4 - NITROGEN DIOXIDE (NO2) AND HYDROCARBONS
Tulare County has been designated as an unclassified area for the NAAQS for NO2. NO2 is the "whiskey brown" colored gas readily visible during periods of heavy air pollution. Mobile sources account for nearly all the County's NOx emissions, most of which are emitted as NO2.

Combustion in motor vehicle engines, power plants, refineries, and other industrial operations are the primary sources in the air basin. Railroads and aircraft are other potentially significant sources of combustion air contaminants. Oxides of nitrogen are direct participants in photochemical smog reactions. The emitted compound, nitric oxide, combines with oxygen in the atmosphere in the presence of hydrocarbons and sunlight to form NO2 and O3. NO2, the most significant of these pollutants, can color the atmosphere at concentrations as low as 0.5 ppm on days of 10-mile visibility. NOx is an important air pollutant in the region because it is a primary receptor of ultraviolet light, which initiates the reactions producing photochemical smog. It also reacts in the air to form nitrate particulates.

Motor vehicles are the major source of reactive hydrocarbons in the basin. Other sources include evaporation of organic solvents and petroleum production and refining operations.

Certain hydrocarbons can damage plants by inhibiting growth and by causing flowers and leaves to fall. Levels of hydrocarbons currently measured in urban areas are not known to cause adverse effects in humans. However, certain members of this contaminant group are important components in the reactions which produce photochemical oxidants. Table 3-3 shows that the NO2 NAAQS and CAAQS were not exceeded over the three-year period of 2022 through 2024. Hydrocarbons are not currently monitored.

3.2.5 - SULFUR DIOXIDE
Tulare County has been designated as an unclassified area for the NAAQS for SO2. SO2 is the primary combustion product of sulfur or sulfur-containing fuels. Fuel combustion is the major source of this pollutant, while chemical plants, sulfur recovery plants, and metal processing facilities are minor contributors. Gaseous fuels (natural gas, propane, etc.) typically have lower percentages of sulfur-containing compounds than liquid fuels such as diesel or crude oil. SO2 levels are generally higher in the winter months. Decreasing levels of SO2 in the atmosphere reflect the use of natural gas in power plants and boilers.

At high concentrations, SO2 irritates the upper respiratory tract. At lower concentrations, when respirated in combination with particulates, SO2 can result in greater harm by injuring 2301
Setting

Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 2025

lung tissues. Sulfur oxides (SOx), in combination with moisture and oxygen, result in the formation of sulfuric acid, which can yellow the leaves of plants, dissolve marble, and oxidize iron and steel. SOx can also react to produce sulfates that reduce visibility and sunlight. Table 3-3 shows no data has been reported over the three-year period.

3.2.6 - LEAD (PB) AND SUSPENDED SULFATE
Ambient Pb levels have dropped dramatically due to the increase in the percentage of motor vehicles that run exclusively on unleaded fuel. Ambient Pb levels in Bakersfield (the closest monitoring station to the Project) are well below the ambient standard and are expected to continue to decline; the data reported in Table 3-3 only shows the highest concentration as the number of days exceeding standards is not reported. Suspended sulfate levels have stabilized to the point where no excesses of the State standard are expected in any given year.

3.3 - Climate
The most significant single control on the weather pattern of the San Joaquin Valley is the semi-permanent subtropical high-pressure cell, referred to as the "Pacific High." During the summer, the Pacific High is positioned off the coast of northern California, diverting oceanderived storms to the north. Hence, the summer months are virtually rainless. During the winter, the Pacific High moves southward, allowing storms to pass through the San Joaquin Valley. Almost all the precipitation expected during a given year occurs from December through April. During the summer, the predominant surface winds are out of the northwest.

Air enters the Valley through the Carquinez Strait and flows toward the Tehachapi Mountains. This up-valley (northwesterly) wind flow is interrupted in early fall by the emergence of nocturnal, down-valley (southeasterly) winds, which become progressively more predominant as winter approaches. Wind speeds are generally highest during the spring and lightest in fall and winter. The relatively cool air flowing through the Carquinez Strait is warmed on its journey south through the Valley. On reaching the southern end of the Valley, the average high temperature during the summer is nearly 100 degrees Fahrenheit (°F). Relative humidity during the summer is quite low, causing large diurnal temperature variations. Temperatures during the summer often drop into the upper 60s. In winter, the average high temperatures reach into the mid-50s, and the average low drops to the mid-30s. In addition, another high-pressure cell, known as the "Great Basin High," develops east of the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range during winter. When this cell is weak, a layer of cool, damp air becomes trapped in the basin, and extensive fog results. During inversions, vertical dispersion is restricted, and pollutant emissions are trapped beneath the inversion and pushed against the mountains, adversely affecting regional air quality.

Surface-based inversions, while shallow and typically short-lived, are present most mornings. Elevated inversions, while less frequent than ground-based inversions, are typically longer lasting and create more severe air stagnation problems. The winter season characteristically has the poorest conditions for vertical mixing of the entire year.

Meteorological data for various monitoring stations is maintained by the Western Regional Climate Center. Meteorological data for the Project site is expected to be similar to the data 2302
Setting

Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 2025

recorded at the Visalia monitoring station. This data is provided in Table 3-4, which contains average precipitation data recorded at the Visalia monitoring station. Over the 121-year period from February of 1895 through June of 2016 (the most recent data available), the average annual precipitation was 10.15 inches.

Table 3-4
Visalia, California Weather Data
Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary for the Period 02/01/1895 to 6/10/2016 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
Average Max.

Temperature (F) 56.0 62.6 68.0 74.6 82.6 91.1 97.5 96.2 90.1 80.2 67.3 56.8 76.9 Average Min.

Temperature (F) 36.9 40.8 43.7 47.5 53.1 59.0 63.5 61.6 57.3 50.2 41.6 36.8 49.3 Average Total
Precipitation (in.) 1.97 1.83 1.72 0.98 0.36 0.09 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.48 0.98 1.57 10.15 Average Total
SnowFall (in.) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Average Snow
Depth (in.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Percent of possible observations for period of record:

Max. Temp.: 97.4% Min. Temp.: 97.4% Precipitation: 99.3% Snowfall: 97% Snow Depth: 96.8% Source: Western Regional Climate Center, 2025.

3.4 - Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases

3.4.1 - GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
“Global climate change” refers to changes in average meteorological conditions on the earth with respect to temperature, precipitation, and storms, lasting for decades or longer. The term “global climate change” is often used interchangeably with the term “global warming,” but “global climate change” is preferred by some scientists and policymakers to “global warming” because it helps convey the notion that in addition to rising temperatures, other changes in global climate may occur. Climate change may result from the following influences:
• Natural factors, such as changes in the sun’s intensity or slow changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun.
• Natural processes within the climate system (e.g., changes in ocean circulation). • Human activities that change the atmosphere’s composition (e.g., through burning fossil fuels) and the land surface (e.g., deforestation, reforestation, urbanization, and desertification).

As determined from worldwide meteorological measurements between 1990 and 2005, the primary observed effect of global climate change has been a rise in the average global tropospheric temperature of 0.36 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) per decade. Climate change modeling shows that further warming could occur, which could induce additional changes in the global climate system during the current century. Changes to the global climate system, 2303
Setting

Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 2025

ecosystems, and the environment of California could include higher sea levels, drier or wetter weather, changes in ocean salinity, changes in wind patterns, or more energetic aspects of extreme weather (e.g., droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves, extreme cold, and increased intensity of tropical cyclones). Specific effects from climate change in California may include a decline in the Sierra Nevada snowpack, erosion of California’s coastline, and seawater intrusion in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.

Human activities, including fossil fuel combustion and land use changes, release carbon dioxide (CO2) and other compounds cumulatively termed greenhouse gases. GHGs are effective at trapping radiation that would otherwise escape the atmosphere. This trapped radiation warms the atmosphere, the oceans, and the earth’s surface (USGCRP, 2014). Many scientists believe most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities” (IPCC, 2014). The increased amount of CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere is the alleged primary result of human-induced warming.

GHGs are present in the atmosphere naturally, released by natural sources, or formed from secondary reactions taking place in the atmosphere. They include CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and O3. In the last 200 years, substantial quantities of GHGs have been released into the atmosphere, primarily from fossil fuel combustion. These human-induced emissions are increasing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere, therefore enhancing the natural greenhouse effect. The GHGs resulting from human activity are believed to be causing global climate change. While human-made GHGs include CO2, CH4, and N2O, some (like chlorofluorocarbons [CFCs]) are completely new to the atmosphere. GHGs vary considerably in terms of Global Warming Potential (GWP), the comparative ability of each GHG to trap heat in the atmosphere. The GWP is based on several factors, including the relative effectiveness of a gas to absorb infrared radiation and the length of time that the gas remains in the atmosphere (“atmospheric lifetime”). The GWP of each gas is measured relative to CO2, the most abundant GHG. The definition of GWP for a particular GHG is the ratio of heat trapped by one unit mass of the GHG to the ratio of heat trapped by one unit mass of CO2 over a specified time period. GHG emissions are typically measured in terms of pounds or tons of “CO2 equivalents” (CO2e).

Natural sources of CO2 include the respiration (breathing) of animals and plants and evaporation from the oceans. Together, these natural sources release approximately 150 billion metric tons of CO2 each year, far outweighing the seven billion metric tons of GHG emissions from fossil fuel burning, waste incineration, deforestation, cement manufacturing, and other human activity. Nevertheless, natural GHG removal processes such as photosynthesis cannot keep pace with the additional output of CO2 from human activities.

Consequently, GHGs are building up in the atmosphere (Enviropedia, 2019).

Methane is produced when organic matter decomposes in environments lacking sufficient oxygen. Natural sources of CH4 production include wetlands, termites, and oceans. Human activity accounts for the majority of the approximately 500 million metric tons of CH4 emitted annually. These anthropogenic sources include the mining and burning of fossil fuels, digestive processes in ruminant livestock such as cattle, rice cultivation, and the decomposition of waste in landfills. The major removal process for atmospheric CH4, the 2304
Setting

Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 2025

chemical breakdown in the atmosphere, cannot keep pace with source emissions; therefore, CH4 concentrations in the atmosphere are rising.

Worldwide emissions of GHGs in 2008 were 30.1 billion metric tons of CO2e and have increased considerably since that time (United Nations, 2011). Emissions from the top five emitting countries (China, the United States, India, the Russian Federation, and Japan) and the European Union accounted for approximately 70 percent of total global GHG emissions in 2014. The United States was the number two producer of GHG emissions, behind China.

The primary GHG emitted by human activities was CO2, representing approximately 80 percent of total GHG emissions (U.S. EPA, 2024).

In 2022, the United States emitted approximately 6,343.2 million metric tons of CO2e.

Between 1990 and 2022, CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion decreased by 1.1 percent; emissions decreased by 18.2 percent (1,044.7 MMT CO2e) from 2005 levels; and from 2021 to 2022, these emissions increased by 1.0 percent (45.1 MMT CO2e). (U.S. EPA, 2024).

Worldwide, energy-related CO2 emissions are expected to increase through 2050.

Projections indicate that resources, demand, and technology costs will drive the shift from fossil to non-fossil energy sources, but current policies are not enough to decrease global energy-sector emissions. This outcome is largely due to population growth, regional economic shifts toward more manufacturing, and increased energy consumption as living standards improve. Globally, we project increases in energy consumption to outpace efficiency improvements. China remains the primary source of energy-related CO2 emissions through 2050 across all cases, although its share of total global CO2 emissions declines.

Further, across all cases we project India to displace the United States and our Other AsiaPacific modeling region to displace Western Europe as the second- and third-highest emitters of energy-related CO2 emissions by 2050, respectively. (U.S. EIA, 2023).

CARB is responsible for developing and maintaining the California GHG emissions inventory.

This inventory estimates the amount of GHGs emitted into and removed from the atmosphere by human activities within California and supports the Assembly Bill (AB) 32 Climate Change Program. CARB’s current GHG emission inventory covers the years 2000 through 2017 and is based on fuel use, equipment activity, industrial processes, and other relevant data (e.g., housing, landfill activity, and agricultural lands).

In 2022, emissions from statewide emitting activities were 371.1 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MMT CO2e), which is 9.3 MMT CO2e lower than 2021 levels. 2022 emissions have decreased by 24 percent since peak levels in 2004 and are 59.9 MMT CO2e below the 1990 emissions level and the State’s 2020 GHG limit (CARB 2024a).

CARB estimates that transportation was the source of approximately 39 percent of California’s GHG emissions in 2022, followed by industrial sources at 23 percent. Other sources of GHG emissions were electricity sources at 16 percent, residential plus commercial activities at 14 percent, and agriculture at 8 percent (CARB, 2024a). 2305
Setting

Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 2025

3.4.2 - EFFECTS OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
Changes in the global climate are assessed using historical records of temperature changes that have occurred in the past. Climate change scientists use this temperature data to extrapolate a level of statistical significance, specifically focusing on temperature records from the last 150 years (the Industrial Age) that differ from past climate changes in rate and magnitude.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) constructed several emission trajectories of GHGs needed to stabilize global temperatures and climate change impacts. In its Fifth Assessment Report, the IPCC predicted that the global mean temperature change from 1990 to 2100, could range from 1.1 degree Celsius (°C) to 6.4°C (8 to 10.4°Fahrenheit) (IPCC, 2013). Global average temperatures and sea levels are expected to rise under all scenarios (IPCC, 2014). The IPCC concluded that global climate change was largely the result of human activity, mainly the burning of fossil fuels. However, the scientific literature is not consistent regarding many aspects of climate change, the actual temperature changes during the 20th century, and contributions from human versus non-human activities.

Effects from global climate change may arise from temperature increases, climate-sensitive diseases, extreme weather events, and degradation of air quality. There may be direct temperature effects through increases in average temperature leading to more extreme heat waves and less extreme cold spells. Those living in warmer climates are likely to experience more stress and heat-related problems. Heat-related problems include heat rash and heat stroke, drought, etc. In addition, climate-sensitive diseases may increase, such as those spread by mosquitoes and other disease-carrying insects. Such diseases include malaria, dengue fever, yellow fever, and encephalitis. Extreme events such as flooding and hurricanes can displace people and agriculture. Global warming may also contribute to air quality problems from increased frequency of smog and particulate air pollution.

According to the 2006 California Climate Action Team (CAT) Report, several climate change effects can be expected in California over the course of the next century (CalEPA, 2006).

These are based on trends established by the IPCC and are summarized below. • A diminishing Sierra snowpack declining by 70 percent to 90 percent, threatening the State’s water supply.
• A rise in sea levels, resulting in the displacement of coastal businesses and residences.

During the past century, sea levels along California’s coast have risen about seven inches. If emissions continue unabated and temperatures rise into the higher anticipated warming range, sea level is expected to rise an additional 22 to 35 inches by the end of the century. Sea level rises of this magnitude would inundate coastal areas with salt water, accelerate coastal erosion, threaten vital levees and inland water systems, and disrupt wetlands and natural habitats. (Note: This condition would not affect the proposed Project area, as it is a significant distance away from coastal areas.)
• An increase in temperature and extreme weather events. Climate change is expected to lead to increases in the frequency, intensity, and duration of extreme heat events 2306
Setting

Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 2025

and heat waves in California. More heat waves can exacerbate chronic disease or heatrelated illness. • Increased risk of large wildfires if rain increases as temperatures rise. Wildfires in the grasslands and chaparral ecosystems of southern California are estimated to increase by approximately 30 percent toward the end of the 21st century because more winter rain will stimulate the growth of more plant fuel available to burn in the fall. In contrast, a hotter, drier climate could promote up to 90 percent more northern California fires by the end of the century by drying out and increasing the flammability of forest vegetation.
• Increasing temperatures from 8 to 10.4°F under the higher emission scenarios, leading to a 25 percent to 35 percent increase in the number of days that ozone pollution levels are exceeded in most urban areas (see below). • Increased vulnerability of forests due to forest fires, pest infestation, and increased temperatures.
• Reductions in the quality and quantity of certain agricultural products. The crops and products likely to be adversely affected include wine grapes, fruit, nuts, and milk. • Exacerbation of air quality problems. If temperatures rise to the medium warming range, there could be 75 to 85 percent more days with weather conducive to ozone formation in Los Angeles and the San Joaquin Valley, relative to today’s conditions.

This is more than twice the increase expected if rising temperatures remain in the lower warming range. This increase in air quality problems could result in an increase in asthma and other health-related problems.
• A decrease in the health and productivity of California’s forests. Climate change can cause an increase in wildfires, an enhanced insect population, and the establishment of non-native species.
• Increased electricity demand, particularly in the hot summer months. • Increased ground-level ozone formation due to higher reaction rates of ozone precursors.

3.4.3 - GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE REGULATORY ISSUES
In 1988, the United Nations established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to evaluate the impacts of global warming and to develop strategies that nations could implement to curtail global climate change. In 1992, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change established an agreement with the goal of controlling GHG emissions, including methane. As a result, the Climate Change Action Plan was developed to address the reduction of GHGs in the United States. The plan consists of more than 50 voluntary programs. Additionally, the Montreal Protocol was originally signed in 1987 and substantially amended in 1990 and 1992. Pursuant to the Montreal Protocol, the production and consumption of compounds that deplete O3 in the stratosphere (chlorofluorocarbons [CFCs], halons, carbon tetrachloride, and methyl chloroform) were phased out by 2000 (methyl chloroform was phased out by 2005).

On September 27, 2006, Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (the Act), was enacted by the State of California. The legislature stated, “Global 2307
Setting

Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 2025

warming poses a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California.” The Act caps California’s GHG emissions at 1990 levels by 2020. The Act defines GHG emissions as all of the following gases: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. This agreement represents the first enforceable statewide program in the U.S. to cap all GHG emissions from major industries that include penalties for non-compliance. While acknowledging that national and international actions will be necessary to fully address the issue of global warming, AB 32 lays out a program to inventory and reduce GHG emissions in California and from power generation facilities located outside the State that serve California residents and businesses. According to CARB, California has met its 2020 GHG emission reduction target (CARB, 2021).

Subsequent legislation by the California legislature has included Senate Bill (SB) 32, which expanded on AB 32 to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below the 1990 levels by 2030; AB 197, which increased the legislative oversight of the CARB by adding two legislatively appointed non-voting members to the CARB Board and provided additional protection to disadvantaged communities; SB 350, which increased California’s renewable energy electricity procurement goal; and SB 100, which established a landmark policy requiring renewable energy and zero-carbon resources to supply 100 percent of electrical retail sales to end-use customers and 100 percent of electricity procured to serve State agencies by 2045.

Global warming and climate change have received substantial public attention for more than 20 years. For example, the United States Global Change Research Program was established by the Global Change Research Act of 1990 to enhance the understanding of natural and human-induced changes in the Earth’s global environmental system, to monitor, understand, and predict global change, and to provide a sound scientific basis for national and international decision-making. Even so, the analytical tools have not been developed to determine the effect on global warming from a particular increase in GHG emissions, or the resulting effects on climate change in a particular locale. The scientific tools needed to evaluate the impacts that a specific project may have on the environment are even further in the future.

The California Supreme Court’s most recent CEQA decision on the Newhall Ranch development case, Center for Biological v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (November 30, 2015, Case No. 217763), determined that the project’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR) did not substantiate the conclusion that the GHG cumulative impacts would be less than significant. The EIR determined that the Newhall Ranch development project would reduce GHG emissions by 31 percent from business as usual (BAU). This reduction was compared to California’s target of reducing GHG emissions statewide by 29 percent from business as usual. The Court determined that “the EIR’s deficiency stems from taking a quantitative comparison method developed by the Scoping Plan as a measure of the greenhouse gas reduction effort required by the State as a whole, and attempting to use that method, without adjustments, for a purpose very different from its original design.” In the Court’s final ruling, it offered suggestions that were deemed appropriate use of the BAU methodology:
2308
Setting

Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 2025

1. Lead agencies can use the comparison to BAU methodology if they determine what reduction a particular project must achieve in order to comply with statewide goals.

2. Project design features that comply with regulations to reduce emissions may demonstrate that those components of emissions are less than significant.

3. Lead agencies could also demonstrate compliance with locally adopted climate plans or apply specific numerical thresholds developed by some local agencies.

Neither the City of Visalia nor Tulare County have developed specific thresholds for GHGs.

As discussed in Section 4.1, the SJVAPCD, a CEQA Trustee Agency for this Project, has developed thresholds to determine the significance of a proposed project – either implement Best Performance Standards or achieve a 29 percent reduction from BAU (a specific numerical threshold). However, the SJVAPCD has established their BAU and baseline emissions based on the years 2002-2004 and 2020, respectively. The 2020 projected baseline has passed, and at this time, no new guidance has been approved for determining BAU and projected baseline for the next target year. Therefore, the 29 percent reduction from BAU cannot be applied to the subject Project in order to determine significance.

Additionally, a Best Performance Standards threshold has not been established. For this Project, compliance with locally adopted climate plans will be used to determine the level of significance of GHG. Therefore, the GHG analysis for this Project follows the suggestions from the Court’s ruling on the Newhall Ranch development project in order to determine the significance of using the Project design features.
2309
Impact Assessment

Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 2025

SECTION 4 - IMPACT ASSESSMENT

4.1 - Significance Criteria
To determine whether a proposed Project could create a potential CEQA impact, local, State, and federal agencies have developed various means by which a project’s impacts may be measured and evaluated. Such means can generally be categorized as follows:
• Thresholds of significance adopted by air quality agencies to guide lead agencies in their evaluation of air quality impacts under the CEQA. • Regulations established by air districts, CARB, and EPA for the evaluation of stationary sources when applying for Authorities to Construct, Permits to Operate, and other permit program requirements (e.g., New Source Review). • Thresholds utilized to determine if a project would cause or contribute significantly to violations of the ambient air quality standards or other concentration-based limits. • Regulations applied in areas where severe air quality problems exist.

Below are summary tables of these emission-based and concentration-based thresholds of significance for each pollutant, along with a discussion of their applicability.

4.1.1 - THRESHOLDS ADOPTED FOR THE EVALUATION OF AIR QUALITY IMPACTS UNDER CEQA In order to maintain consistency with CEQA, the SJVAPCD (2015) adopted guidelines to assist applicants in complying with the various requirements. According to the SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI, a project would have potentially significant air quality impacts when the project:
• Creates a conflict with or obstructs implementation of the applicable air quality plan. • Causes a violation of any air quality standard or generates substantial contribution towards exceeding an existing or projected air quality standard. • Results in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is designated non-attainment under a NAAQS and CAAQS (including emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for O3 precursors). • Exposes sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. • Creates objectionable odors that affect a substantial number of people.

The SJVAPCD GAMAQI thresholds are designed to implement the general criteria for air quality emissions as required in the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, Paragraph III (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations §15064.7) and CEQA (California Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et al.). SJVAPCD’s specific CEQA air quality thresholds are presented in Table 4-1.

2310
Impact Assessment

Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 2025

Table 4-1
SJVAPCD CEQA Thresholds of Significance
Criteria
Pollutant
Operational Emissions
Construction
Emissions
Permitted Equipment
and Activities
Non-Permitted
Equipment and Activities
NOx 10 tons/yr 10 tons/yr 10 tons/yr
ROG 10 tons/yr 10 tons/yr 10 tons/yr
SOx 27 tons/yr 27 tons/yr 27 tons/yr
PM10 15 tons/yr 15 tons/yr 15 tons/yr
PM2.5 15 tons/yr 15 tons/yr 15 tons/yr
CO 100 tons/yr 100 tons/yr 100 tons/yr
Source: SJVAPCD, 2015.

4.1.2 - THRESHOLD FOR AMBIENT AIR QUALITY IMPACTS
CEQA Guidelines – Appendix G (Environmental Checklist) states that a project that would “violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation” would be considered to create significant impacts on air quality. Therefore, an AQIA should determine whether the emissions from a project would cause or contribute significantly to violations of the NAAQS or CAAQS (presented above in Table 3-1) when added to existing ambient concentrations.

The EPA has established the federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program to determine what comprises “significant impact levels” (SIL) to NAAQS attainment areas. A project’s impacts are considered less than significant if emissions are below PSD SIL for a particular pollutant. When a SIL is exceeded, an additional “increment analysis” is required.

As the Project would not include modification to the stationary source under New Source Review (NSR), it would not be subject to either PSD or NSR review. The PSD SIL thresholds are used with ambient air quality modeling for a CEQA project to address whether the project would “violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.” Ambient air quality emissions estimates below the PSD SIL thresholds would result in less-than-significant ambient air quality impacts on both a project and cumulative CEQA impact analysis. The SJVAB is classified as non-attainment/marginal for the 8-hour O3 NAAQS and, as such, is subject to non-attainment NSR. PSD SILs and increments are more stringent than the CAAQS or NAAQS and represent the most stringent thresholds of significance.

4.1.3 - THRESHOLDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
The SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI states, “From a health risk perspective, there are basically two types of land use projects that have the potential to cause long-term public health risk impacts:
• Type A Projects: Land use projects that will place new toxic sources in the vicinity of existing receptors.
2311
Impact Assessment

Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 2025

• Type B Projects: Land use projects that will place new receptors in the vicinity of existing toxic sources” (SJVAPCD, 2015).

Table 4-2 presents the thresholds of significance used with toxic air contaminants when evaluating hazardous air pollutants (HAPs).

Table 4-2
Measures of Significance – Toxic Air Contaminants
Agency Level Description
Significance Thresholds Adopted for the Evaluation of Impacts Under CEQA

SJVAPCD
Carcinogens Maximally Exposed Individual risk equals or exceeds 20 in one million.

NonCarcinogens
Acute: Hazard Index equals or exceeds 1.0 for the
Maximally Exposed Individual.

Chronic: Hazard Index equals or exceeds 1.0 for
the Maximally Exposed Individual.

Source: EKAPCD, 1996

4.1.4 - GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE On December 17, 2009, SJVAPCD adopted Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA (SJVAPCD, 2009); which outlined the SJVAPCD’s methodology for assessing a project’s significance for GHGs under CEQA. The following criteria were outlined in the document to determine whether a project could have a significant impact:
• Projects determined to be exempt from the requirements of CEQA would be determined to have a less-than-significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG emissions and would not require further environmental review, including analysis of project-specific GHG emissions. Projects exempt under CEQA would be evaluated consistent with established rules and regulations governing project approval and would not be required to implement BPS.
• Projects complying with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or GHG mitigation program that avoids or substantially reduces GHG emissions within the geographic area in which the project is located would be determined to have a less-thansignificant individual and cumulative impact for GHG emissions. Such plans or programs must be specified in law or approved by the lead agency with jurisdiction over the affected resource and supported by a CEQA-compliant environmental review document adopted by the lead agency. Projects complying with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or GHG mitigation program would not be required to implement BPS.
• Projects implementing Best Performance Standards would not require quantification of project-specific GHG emissions. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines, such projects would be determined to have a less-than-significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG emissions.
2312
Impact Assessment

Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 2025

• Projects not implementing Best Performance Standards would require quantification of project-specific GHG emissions and demonstration that project-specific GHG emissions would be reduced or mitigated by at least 29 percent, compared to business as usual (BAU), including GHG emission reductions achieved since the 2002- 2004 baseline period. Projects achieving at least a 29 percent GHG emission reduction compared to BAU would be determined to have a less-than-significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG.
• Notwithstanding any of the above provisions, projects requiring the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for any other reason would require quantification of project-specific GHG emissions. Projects implementing BPS or achieving at least a 29 percent GHG emission reduction compared to BAU would be determined to have a less-than-significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG.

The SJVAPCD, a CEQA Trustee Agency for this Project, has developed thresholds to determine the significance of a proposed project – either implement Best Performance Standards or achieve a 29 percent reduction from BAU (a specific numerical threshold). However, the SJVAPCD has established their BAU and baseline emissions based on the years 2002-2004 and 2020, respectively. The 2020 projected baseline has passed, and at this time, no new guidance has been approved for determining BAU and projected baseline for the next target year. Therefore, the 29 percent reduction from BAU cannot be applied to the subject Project in order to determine significance. Additionally, a Best Performance Standards threshold has not been established. For this Project, compliance with locally adopted climate plans will be used to determine the level of significance for GHG. Therefore, the GHG analysis for this Project follows the suggestions from the Court’s ruling on the Newhall Ranch development project in order to determine the significance of using the project design features.

4.2 - Project Related Emissions
This document was prepared pursuant to the SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI. The GAMAQI identifies separate thresholds for a project’s short-term (construction) and long-term (operational) emissions.

Project emissions were estimated separately for each emission source. The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) was used to estimate emissions for both short-term, construction-related sources and long-term, operations-related sources.

Project emissions were estimated for the following development stages:
• Short-term (Construction and Demolition) – Construction emissions of the proposed Project were estimated in CalEEMod using the default construction schedule and construction equipment for the development based on the 24-month estimated timeline. (See Appendix A.)
• Long-term (Operations) – Long-term emissions were also estimated in CalEEMod using model defaults for operations of the aforementioned land use types. (See Appendix A.)
2313
Impact Assessment

Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 2025

4.2.1 - SHORT-TERM EMISSIONS
Short-term emissions from the construction phases of a project would have temporary impacts on air quality.

The construction emissions were based on the default CalEEMod equipment list for the proposed Project’s land use type and development intensity and applying model defaults as well as a conservative analysis approach. In order to be conservative construction emissions were estimated under the assumption that construction would begin in 2026. The dates entered into the CalEEMod program represent the earliest construction timeline, which would estimate the worst-case emissions as construction equipment technology and emissions improve over time; therefore, all estimated emission totals are conservative and reflect a reasonable and legally sufficient estimate of potential impacts. All construction equipment activity levels assumed were based on CalEEMod default values for type, number of equipment, hours per day and horsepower.

Adjustments to the CalEEMod default values were as follows:
• Land use lot acreage was adjusted to match the Project description. • Demolition construction phase was removed as the Project Location is open land. • Total construction period was changed to 24 months.

SJVAPCD’s required measures for all projects were also applied:
• Water exposed area three times per day.
• Reduce vehicle speed to less than 15 miles per hour on unpaved roads.

Table 4-3 presents the Project’s short-term emissions based on the anticipated construction period.

As calculated with CalEEMod, the estimated short-term construction-related emissions would not exceed SJVAPCD significance threshold levels during any given year and would, therefore, be less than significant.

2314
Impact Assessment

Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 2025

Table 4-3
Short-Term Project Emissions
Emissions Source Pollutant (tons/year)
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Construction - 2026 0.375 2.127 3.577 0.005 0.412 0.168 Construction – 2027 3.310 1.373 2.809 0.004 0.290 0.098 Significance Threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15
Is Threshold Exceeded for a Single
Year After Mitigation? No No No No No No
Source: QK 2025

4.2.2 - LONG-TERM OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Long-term emissions are caused by operational mobile sources and area source emissions from the on-site building.

Fugitive Dust Emissions
Operation of the Project site at full build-out is not expected to present a substantial source of fugitive dust (PM10) emissions. The main source of PM10 emissions would be from vehicular traffic associated with the Project site.

PM10, on its own as well as in combination with other pollutants, creates a health hazard.

SJVAPCD’s Regulation VIII establishes required controls to reduce and minimize fugitive dust emissions. The following SJVAPCD Rules and Regulations apply to the proposed Project (and all projects):
• Rule 4102 – Nuisance – prohibits a facility from posing as a nuisance to surrounding receptors and can impose penalties for nuisance issues such as dust, smoke, excess emissions, etc. Compliance with this rule ensures that the area around the Project site will not be adversely impacted by such issues.
• Regulation VIII – Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions – a series of regulations to reduce and/or eliminate the generation of particulate matter (PM) that can adversely impact visibility as well as the health and safety of people on-site or in the vicinity of the Project.
o Rule 8011 – General Requirements – this rule is to reduce ambient concentrations of fine particulate matter (PM10) by requiring actions to prevent, reduce, or mitigate anthropogenic (human-caused) fugitive dust emissions.
o Rule 8021 – Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities – restricts generation of airborne dust and visibility impacts from these activities. Places limits on opacity and equipment operation under certain adverse weather conditions.
o Rule 8041 – Carryout and Trackout – requires that equipment and vehicles leaving the construction site control the amount of dirt, soil, or mud that is 2315
Impact Assessment

Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 2025

tracked offsite and onto public roadways. This helps eliminate or minimize dust generation and opacity degradation.
o Rule 8051 – Open Areas – limits fugitive dust from open areas, i.e., areas on a construction site that are not actively being constructed upon but may generate wind-blown dust.

The Project would comply with applicable SJVAPCD Rules and Regulations, the local zoning codes, and additional emissions reduction measures recommended later in this analysis, in Section 7, Mitigation and Other Recommended Measures.

Exhaust Emissions
Project-related transportation activities from residents would generate mobile source ROG, NOx, SOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 exhaust emissions. Exhaust emissions would vary substantially from day to day but would average out over the course of an operational year. The variables factored into estimating total Project emissions include level of activity, site characteristics, weather conditions, and number of visitors. As the Project is not expected to generate an adverse change in current activity levels, substantial emissions are not anticipated. The default trip rates in CalEEMod were used along with an adjusted fleet mix to reflect SJVAPCD approved residential fleet mix for year 2026.

Projected Emissions
The proposed Project is expected to have long-term air quality impacts as shown in Table 4-

4. Emission calculations are available in Appendix A.

Table 4-4
Post-Project Max Year (Operational Emissions)
Emissions Source Pollutant (tons/year)
ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Operational Emissions 7.55 3.26 23.77 0.05 3.85 1.05
SJVAPCD Threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15
Is Threshold Exceeded After
Mitigation?
No No No No No No
As shown in Table 4-4, operations-related emissions, as calculated in Appendix A, would not exceed the SJVAPCD significant threshold levels. Therefore, the Project is less-thansignificant for operational emissions.

4.3 - Potential Impacts on Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive receptors are defined as locations where young children, chronically ill individuals, the elderly, or people who are more sensitive than the general population reside, such as schools, hospitals, nursing homes, and daycare centers. The nearest residential sensitive receptor to the proposed Project is located adjacent to portions of the Project’s sites. Table 2316
Impact Assessment

Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 2025

4-5 lists the known non-residential sensitive receptors within one mile of the Project site.

Discussion of health risks and risks to sensitive receptors is addressed in detail below in Section 4.6.

Table 4-5
Sensitive Receptors Located < 1 miles from Project
Receptor Type of Facility Distance from
Project (miles)
Direction
from Project
Blue Oak Academy School 0.71 E
Annie R Mitchell Elementary School School 0.46 NW
Janet’s Day Care Visalia Daycare 0.27 W
Little Rainbows Daycare Daycare 0.36 W

4.4 - Potential Impacts to Visibility to Nearby Class 1 Areas Visibility impact analyses are intended for stationary sources of emissions which are subject to the PSD requirements in 40 CFR Part 60; they are not usually conducted for area sources.

Under the PSD program, all international parks, national wilderness areas and national memorial parks that exceed 5,000 acres, and of national parks that exceed 6,000 acres are designated as mandatory federal Class I areas which are provided visibility protection under the Clean Air Act. Because the Project’s PM10 emissions increases are predicted to be less than the PSD threshold levels, an impact at any Class 1 area or military/airspace operation within 100 kilometers of the Project is extremely unlikely. Therefore, based on the Project’s predicted less-than significant PM10 emissions, the Project would be expected to have a less than significant impact to visibility at any Class 1 area or military/airspace operation.

4.5 - Potential Impacts from Carbon Monoxide
Ambient CO concentrations normally correspond closely to the spatial and temporal distributions of vehicular traffic. Relatively high concentrations of CO would be expected along heavily traveled roads and near busy intersections. CO concentrations are also influenced by wind speed and atmospheric mixing. CO concentrations may be more uniformly distributed when inversion conditions are prevalent in the valley. Under certain meteorological conditions, CO concentrations along a congested roadway or intersection may reach unhealthful levels for sensitive receptors, e.g., children, the elderly, hospital patients, etc. This localized impact can result in elevated levels of CO, or “hotspots,” even though concentrations at the closest air quality monitoring station may be below NAAQS and CAAQS.

The localized project impacts depend on whether ambient CO levels in the Project vicinity would be above or below NAAQS. If ambient levels are below the standards, a project is considered to have significant impacts if a project’s emissions would exceed one or more of these standards. If ambient levels already exceed a State standard, a project’s emissions are considered significant if they would increase 1-hour CO concentrations by 10 ppm or more 2317
Impact Assessment

Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 2025

or 8-hour CO concentrations by 0.45 ppm or more. There are two criteria established by the SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI by which CO “hotspot” modeling is required:

1. A traffic study for the project indicates that the Level of Service (LOS) on one or more streets or at one or more intersections in the project vicinity would be reduced to LOS E or F.

2. A traffic study indicates that the project would substantially worsen an already existing LOS F on one or more streets or at one or more intersections in the project vicinity.

Based on the size and location of the Project, the impacted intersections and roadway segments are anticipated to operate at a LOS of C or better. Therefore, CO “hotspot” modeling was not conducted for this Project, and no concentrated excessive CO emissions are expected to be caused once the proposed Project is completed. If a subsequent traffic study indicates LOS D or worse, a hotspot analysis will be conducted.

4.6 - Predicted Health Impacts
GAMAQI recommends that Lead Agencies consider situations wherein a new or modified source of HAPs is proposed for a location near an existing residential area or other sensitive receptors when evaluating potential impacts related to HAPs.

The proposed Project would result in emissions of HAPs from construction activities and would be located near existing residents; therefore, an assessment of the potential risk to the population attributable to emissions of hazardous air pollutants from the proposed Project is required.

To predict the potential health risk to the population attributable to emissions of HAPs from the proposed Project, ambient air concentrations were predicted with dispersion modeling to arrive at a conservative estimate of increased individual carcinogenic risk that might occur as a result of continuous exposure over the construction period for construction emissions.

Similarly, predicted concentrations were used to calculate non-cancer chronic and acute hazard indices, which are the ratio of expected exposure to acceptable exposure. The basis for evaluating potential health risks is the identification of sources with increased HAPs. HAP emissions from anticipated on-site construction activities were evaluated.

Health risk is determined using the Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP) software distributed by the CARB. HARP2 requires peak 1-hour emission rates and annualaveraged emission rates for all pollutants for each modeling source. The assumptions used to calculate the emission rates for the proposed Project are outlined below.

The most recent version of EPA’s AMS/EPA Regulatory Model – AERMOD (recompiled for the Lakes ISC-AERMOD View) was used to predict the dispersion of emissions from the proposed Project. The analysis employed all of the regulatory default AERMOD model keyword parameters, including elevated terrain options. 2318
Impact Assessment

Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 2025

Diesel combustion emissions from diesel on-site construction equipment were modeled as an area source for on-site construction activity on the property. Diesel particulate matter was calculated using CalEEMod for on-site construction. A unit emission rate of one gram/second (g/sec) was input to AERMOD for each source.

A fenceline discrete receptor grid was placed around the Project site in order to evaluate residences and businesses within close proximity of the Project site. A three-tier grid was used with 25-meter fenceline spacing. The first tier extended 100 meters with 25-meter tier spacing, the second tier extended an additional 200 meters with 50-meter tier spacing and the third tier extended another 400 meters with a tier spacing of 100 meters. A total of 1,925 discrete off-site receptors were analyzed. Elevated terrain options were employed even though there is not complex terrain in the Project area. The 7.5-minute DEM terrain data for Exeter and Visalia, CA was processed with AERMAP to identify elevations for the proposed Project.

SJVAPCD-provided AERMET processed meteorological datasets for the Visalia monitoring station, calendar years 2007 through 2010 were input to AERMOD (SJVAPCD, 2025d). This was the most recent available dataset available at the time the modeling was conducted.

Rural dispersion parameters were used because the operation and the majority of the land surrounding the facility are considered “rural” under the Auer land use classification method (Auer, 1978).

Plot files generated by AERMOD were uploaded to the Air Dispersion Modeling and Risk Assessment Tool (ADMRT) program in the Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program Version 2 (HARP2) (CARB, 2015). ADMRT post-processing was used to assess the potential for excess cancer risk and chronic and acute non-cancer effects using the most recent health effects data from the California EPA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) using the OEHHA Derived Method. HARP2 site parameters were set for the mandatory minimum pathways of inhalation, homegrown gardens, soil ingestion, dermal, and mother’s milk. The non-inhalation pathways used a deposition rate of 0.02 m/s along with all other default parameters. Risk reports were generated using the derived OEHHA analysis method for carcinogenic risk and non-carcinogenic chronic and acute risk. Site parameters are included in the HARP2 output files. Total cancer risk was predicted for the inhalation pathway at each receptor. A hazard index was computed for chronic non-cancer health effects for each applicable endpoint and each receptor. A hazard index for acute noncancer health effects was not computed since DPM does not have a risk exposure level for acute risk.

SJVAPCD has set the level of significance for carcinogenic risk at twenty in one million, which is understood as the possibility of causing 20 additional cancer cases in a population of one million people. The level of significance for chronic non-cancer risk is a hazard index of 1.0.

All receptors were modeled with a 2-year exposure for construction activities.

The carcinogenic risk and the health hazard index (HI) for chronic non-cancer risk at the point of maximum impact (PMI) do not exceed the significance levels of 20 in one million (20 x 10-6) and 1.0, respectively, for the proposed Project. The PMIs are identified by receptor 2319
Impact Assessment

Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 2025

location and risk and are provided in Table 4-6. The electronic AERMOD and HARP2 output files are provided in Appendix B.

Table 4-6
Potential Maximum Impacts Predicted by HARP
Cancer Risk Chronic Hazard
Index
Construction 4.12E-06 2.41E-03
SJVAPCD Threshold 20.0E-06 1.0
Exceedance? No No
Receptor # 1479 1479
UTM Easting (m) 297503.33 297503.33
UTM Northing (m) 4019827.45 4019827.45
Note: UTM = Universal Transverse Mercator
As shown above in Table 4-6, the maximum predicted cancer risk for the proposed Project is 4.12E-06. The maximum chronic non-cancer hazard index for the proposed Project is

2.41E-03. Since the PMI remained below the significance threshold for cancer and chronic risk, this Project would not have an adverse effect to any of the surrounding communities.

The potential health risk attributable to the proposed Project is determined to be less than significant based on the following conclusions:

1. Potential carcinogenic risk from the proposed Project is below the significance level of twenty in a million at each of the modeled receptors.

2. The hazard index for the potential chronic non-cancer risk from the proposed Project is below the significance level of 1.0 at each of the modeled receptors.

3. The hazard index for the potential acute non-cancer risk was not calculated since there is no acute risk associated with DPM emission; therefore, the proposed Project is considered below the significance level.

Therefore, potential risk to the population attributable to emissions of HAPs from the proposed Project would be less than significant.

4.7 - Potential Impacts from Valley Fever
The proposed project has the potential to generate fugitive dust and suspend Valley Fever spores with the dust that could then reach nearby sensitive receptors. It is possible that onsite workers could be exposed to Valley Fever spores as fugitive dust is generated during construction. In order to mitigate potential risk, the proposed Project would provide training and personal protective respiratory equipment to construction workers and provide information to all construction personnel and visitors about Valley Fever. Therefore, the exposure to Valley Fever would be minimized. With the implementation of the mitigation measures, dust from the construction of the proposed project would not add significantly to 2320
Impact Assessment

Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 2025

the existing exposure level of people to this fungus, including construction workers, and impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels.

4.8 - Potential Impacts from Asbestos
Naturally occurring asbestos can be released from serpentinite and ultramafic rocks when the rock is broken or crushed. At the point of release, the asbestos fibers may become airborne, causing air quality and human health hazards. These rocks have been commonly used for unpaved gravel roads, landscaping, fill projects, and other improvement projects in some localities. Asbestos may be released into the atmosphere due to vehicular traffic on unpaved roads, during the grading of development projects, and at mining operations.

Serpentinite and/or ultramafic rocks are known to be present in 44 of California's 58 counties. These rocks are particularly abundant in the counties associated with the Sierra Nevada foothills, the Klamath Mountains, and the Coast Ranges. However, according to information provided by the Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, the project site is not located in an area where naturally occurring asbestos is likely to be present (CDCDMG, 2000). Therefore, impacts associated with the exposure of construction workers and nearby sensitive receptors to asbestos would be less than significant.

4.9 - Odor Impacts and Mitigation
The SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI states, “An analysis of potential odor impacts should be conducted for both of the following two situations:

1. Generators – projects that would potentially generate odorous emissions proposed to locate near existing sensitive receptors or other land uses where people may congregate.

2. Receivers – residential or other sensitive receptor projects or other projects built for the intent of attracting people locating near existing odor sources” (SJVAPCD, 2015).

The GAMAQI also states, “The District has identified some common types of facilities that have been known to produce odors in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. These are presented in Table 6 (Screening Levels for Potential Odor Sources), along with a reasonable distance from the source within which the degree of odors could possibly be significant. [Table 6] can be used as a screening tool to qualitatively assess a project’s potential to adversely affect area receptors” (SJVAPCD, 2015). Because the Project’s anticipated land uses and activities are not listed in Table 6 of the GAMAQI as a source that would create objectionable odors, the Project is not expected to be a source of objectionable odors.

Based on the provisions of the SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI, the proposed Project would not exceed any screening trigger levels to be considered a source of objectionable odors or odorous compounds (SJVAPCD, 2015). Furthermore, there does not appear to be any significant source of objectionable odors in close proximity that may adversely impact the Project site when it is in operation. Additionally, the Project emissions estimates indicate that it would not be expected to adversely impact surrounding receptors. As such, the proposed Project 2321
Impact Assessment

Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 2025

would not be a source of any odorous compounds, nor would it likely be impacted by any odorous source.

4.10 - Impacts to Ambient Air Quality
An ambient air quality analysis was performed to determine if the proposed Project has the potential to impact ambient air quality through a violation of the ambient air quality standards or a substantial contribution to an existing or projected air quality standard. The basis for the analysis is dispersion modeling and the Project’s long-term air quality impacts shown in Table 4-4.

The maximum off-site ground level concentration of each pollutant for the 1-hour, 3-hour, 8- hour, 24-hour and annual periods was predicted using the most recent version of EPA’s AMS/EPA Regulatory Model (AERMOD) dispersion software under the Lakes Environmental ISC-AERMOD View interface. SJVAPCD-approved, Visalia meteorological datasets for calendar years 2007 through 2010 was input to AERMOD (SJVAPCD 2025d). This was the most recent available dataset available at the time the modeling runs were conducted. All of the regulatory default AERMOD model keyword parameters were employed. Rural dispersion parameters were used for this project, which differs from the urban setting used in the CalEEMod model. The CalEEMod selection criteria is based on trip distances to the project site while the AERMOD selection criteria is based on the majority of the land use surrounding the facility. The majority of the land surrounding the project site is considered "rural" under the Auer land use classification method (Auer 1978).

Emissions were evaluated for each pollutant on a short-term (correlating to pollutant averaging period) and long-term (annual) basis, with the exception of CO that was evaluated only for short-term exposures since there are no long term significance thresholds for CO.

The majority of mobile emissions predicted by CalEEMod will occur beyond the project boundary because of vehicle trips. In order to determine the on-site vehicle emissions an estimated on-site trip distance was determined to be 0.28 miles. The on-site estimated trip distance was then divided by the average trip length used in CalEEMod, 5.43 miles, in order to determine the on-site to off-site mobile emissions ratio, 5.15%. The total mobile emissions calculated by CalEEMod for the Project were then reduced by 94.85% to estimate the mobile on-site emissions used for ambient air quality modeling.

A fenceline discrete receptor grid was placed around the Project site in order to evaluate residences and businesses within close proximity of the Project site. A three-tier grid was used with 25-meter fenceline spacing. The first tier extended 100 meters with 25-meter tier spacing, the second tier extended an additional 200 meters with 50-meter tier spacing and the third tier extended another 400 meters with a tier spacing of 100 meters. A total of 1,925 discrete off-site receptors were analyzed. Elevated terrain options were employed even though there is not complex terrain in the Project area. The 7.5-minute DEM terrain data for Clovis, CA, was processed with AERMAP to identify elevations for the proposed Project. 2322
Impact Assessment

Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 2025

For each pollutant and averaging period modeled, a “total” concentration was estimated by adding the maximum measured background air concentration to the maximum predicted Project impacts. The maximum measured background air concentrations used in this analysis were calculated from measured concentrations at the nearest monitoring stations.

The results of the air dispersion modeling, presented in Table 4-7, demonstrate that the maximum impacts attributable to the Project, when considered in addition to the existing background concentrations, are below the applicable ambient air quality standard for NOx, SOx and CO. The electronic AERMOD output files are provided in Appendix C.

Table 4-7
Predicted Ambient Air Quality Impacts
Pollutant Averaging
Period
Background
(µg/m3)
Project
(µg/m3)
Project + Background
(µg/m3)
NAAQS
(µg/m3)
CAAQS
(µg/m3)
NO2 1-Hour 115.7 6.39 122.09 188.68 338
NO2 Annual 13.6 0.72 14.32 100 56
SO2 1-Hour 28.0 0.05 28.05 196 655
SO2 3-Hour 18.2 0.04 18.24 1,300 ---
SO2 24-Hour 5.8 0.02 5.82 365 105
CO 1-Hour 2,061 31.8 2,093 40,000 23,000
CO 8-Hour 1,718 22.3 1,740 10,000 10,000
PM10 24-Hour 172 0.73 172.7 150 50
PM10 Annual 25.8 0.19 25.99 --- 20
PM2.5 24-Hour 64.7 0.33 65.03 35 ---
PM2.5 Annual 12.9 0.09 12.99 12 12
Pre-Project concentrations of PM10 and PM2.5 exceed their respective ambient air quality standards. PM10 and PM2.5 are evaluated in accordance with the SJVAPCD recommended significant impact level (SIL) for fugitive PM10 and PM2.5 emissions. It is the SJVAPCD’s policy to use significant impact levels to determine whether a proposed new or modified source will cause or contribute significantly to an AAQS violation. If a project’s maximum impacts are below the District SIL, the project is judged to not cause or contribute significantly to an AAQS or PSD increment violation. A comparison of the proposed impact from the Project to the District SIL values is provided in Table 4-8.

Table 4-8
Comparison of Maximum Modeled Project Impact with Significant Thresholds Pollutant Averaging
Period
Predicted Concentration
(µg/m3)
SIL
(µg/m3)
PM10 24-Hour 0.73 10.4
PM10 Annual 0.19 2.08
PM2.5 24-Hour 0.33 2.5
PM2.5 Annual 0.09 0.63
2323
Impact Assessment

Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 2025

Because the Project’s modelled PM10 and PM2.5 are below the SJVAPCD’s significance levels for 24-hour and annual concentrations, the Project’s contribution to potential violations of ambient air quality standards would be less-than-significant.

4.11 - Impacts to Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change
The proposed Project’s construction and operational GHG emissions were estimated using the CalEEMod. The Project’s GHG emissions are primarily from mobile source activities. Not all GHGs exhibit the same ability to induce climate change; as a result, GHG contributions are commonly quantified as CO2e. Table 4-6 presents the Project’s annual GHG emissions.

Table 4-9
Estimated Annual GHG Emissions (MT/Year)
Source CO2e
Total Construction Emissions 1,297
Annualized Construction Emissions1 43
Total Operational Emissions 5,757
Total Project Emissions 5,800
1 Per South Coast AQMD’s Methodology
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, Senate Bill 32 requires that GHG emissions be 40 percent less than 1990 levels by 2030. More drastic still, Senate Bill 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, economywide 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, and it no longer makes sense to evaluate GHG emissions on a project level.

For these reasons, Project GHG emissions levels presented in Table 4-6 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.

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 2324
Impact Assessment

Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 2025

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-than-significant impact on applicable GHG reduction plans and the Project’s contribution to cumulative global climate change impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
2325
Cumulative Impacts

Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 2025

SECTION 5 - CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
By its very nature, air pollution has a cumulative impact. The District’s non-attainment status is a result of past and present development within the SJVAB. Furthermore, attainment of ambient air quality standards can be jeopardized by increasing emissions-generating activities in the region. No single project would be sufficient in size by itself to result in nonattainment of the regional air quality standards. Instead, a project’s emissions may be individually limited, but cumulatively considerable when taken in combination with past, present, and future development within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. When assessing whether there is a new significant cumulative effect, the Lead Agency shall consider whether the incremental effects of the project are cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects [CCR §15064(h)(1)]. Per CEQA Guidelines §15064(h)(3), a Lead Agency may determine that a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if the project will comply with the requirements in a previously approved plan or mitigation program, including, but not limited to an air quality attainment or maintenance plan that provides specific requirements that will avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem within the geographic area in which the project is located (SJVAPCD, 2015).

GAMAQI also states, “If a project is significant based on the thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants, then it is also cumulatively significant. This does not imply that if the project is below all such significance thresholds, it cannot be cumulatively significant.” (SJVAPCD, 2015). Based on the analysis conducted for this Project, it is individually less than significant. This AQIA, however, also considered the impacts of the proposed Project in conjunction with the impacts of other projects previously proposed in the area. The following cumulative impacts were considered:
• Cumulative O3 Impacts (ROG and NOx) from numerous sources within the region, including transport from outside the region. O3 is formed through chemical reactions of ROG and NOx in the presence of sunlight.
• Cumulative CO Impacts produced primarily by vehicular emissions. • Cumulative PM10 Impacts from within the region and locally from the various projects. Such projects may cumulatively produce a significant amount of PM10 if several projects conduct grading or earthmoving activities at the same time; and • Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) Impacts on sensitive receptors.

5.1 - Cumulative Regional Air Quality Impacts
The most recent, certified SJVAB Emission Inventory data available from the SJVAPCD is based on data gathered for the 2024 annual inventory. This data will be used to assist the SJVAPCD in demonstrating attainment of Federal 1-hour O3 Standards. Table 5-1 provides a comparative look at the impacts proposed by the proposed Project to the SJVAB Emissions Inventory.
2326
Cumulative Impacts

Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 2025

Table 5-1
Comparative Analysis Based on SJVAB 2024 Inventory
Emissions Inventory Source Pollutant (tons/year)
ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Tulare County – 20242 21,278.0 11,079.9 34,903.5 509.5 13,964.5 3,934.0 SJVAB – 20242 108,775.1 51,926.7 215,561.3 2,265.2 97,564.5 23,861.1 Proposed Project 7.55 3.26 23.77 0.05 3.85 1.05
Proposed Project’s % of Tulare1 0.0352% 0.0292% 0.0676% 0.0079% 0.0274% 0.0264% Proposed Project’s % of SJVAB1 0.0069% 0.0062% 0.0109% 0.0018% 0.0039% 0.0044% Source: CARB, 2025
Notes: 1) Percentages equaling 0.0000 could represent a percent <0.00005. 2) This is the latest inventory available as of June 2025, excluding Natural Sources.

As shown in Table 5-1 the proposed Project does not pose a substantial increase to basin emissions, as such basin emissions would be essentially the same if the Project is approved.

Table 5-2, Table 5-3, and Table 5-4 provide CARB Emissions Inventory projections for the year 2030 for both the SJVAB and the Tulare County portion of the air basin. Looking at the SJVAB Emissions predicted by the CARB year 2030 emissions inventory, the Tulare County portion of the air basin is a moderate source of the emissions. The proposed Project produces a small portion of the total emissions in both Tulare County and the entire SJVAB.

Table 5-2
Emission Inventory SJVAB 2030 Projection – Tons per Year ROG NOX CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Total Emissions 104,380.5 38,036.3 168,950.5 2,208.6 99,271.2 21,758.7 Percent Stationary Sources 29.98% 15.51% 4.43% 78.83% 4.30% 11.34% Percent Area-Wide Sources 55.76% 6.01% 27.47% 8.59% 91.44% 76.99% Percent Mobile Sources 14.26% 78.48% 74.09% 12.58% 4.26% 11.66% Total Stationary Source Emissions 31,297.7 5,897.7 7,489.8 1,741.1 4,266.9 2,468.5 Total Area-Wide Source Emissions 58,202.9 2,285.6 36,279.9 189.8 90,775.5 16,752.8 Total Mobile Source Emissions 14,880.3 29,852.6 125,181.1 277.8 4,228.9 2,537.5 Source: CARB, 2025
Note: Total may not add due to rounding.

Table 5-3
Emission Inventory Tulare County 2030 Projection –
Tons per Year
ROG NOX CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Total Emissions 20,325.0 8,346.1 27,851.3 449.0 14,756.6 3,626.6 Percent Stationary Sources 49.84% 22.40% 9.84% 84.63% 8.55% 27.48% Percent Area-Wide Sources 37.01% 4.55% 7.28% 3.58% 86.17% 61.36% Percent Mobile Sources 13.15% 73.04% 82.88% 11.79% 5.28% 11.16% Total Stationary Source Emissions 10,129.5 1,869.9 2,739.7 380.0 1,261.8 996.5 Total Area-Wide Source Emissions 7,522.7 380.0 2,028.3 16.1 12,715.1 2,225.4 Total Mobile Source Emissions 2,672.9 6,096.2 23,083.7 52.9 779.6 404.8 Source: CARB, 2025
Note: Total may not add due to rounding.
2327
Cumulative Impacts

Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 2025

Table 5-4
2030 Emissions Projections – Proposed Project, Tulare County and SJVAB ROG NOX PM10
Proposed Project 7.55 3.26 3.85
Tulare County 20,325.0 8,346.1 14,756.6
SJVAB 104,380.5 38,036.3 99,271.2
Proposed Project Percent of Tulare County 0.037% 0.039% 0.026% Proposed Project Percent of SJVAB 0.007% 0.009% 0.004%
Tulare County Percent of SJVAB 19.47% 21.94% 14.86%
As shown above, the proposed Project would pose an inconsequential impact on regional O3 and PM10 formation. Therefore, this Project would not be considered cumulatively considerable in its contribution to regional O3 and PM10 impacts.

5.2 - Cumulative Local Air Quality Impacts
SJVAPCD uses a single threshold for the determination of significance for both projectspecific and cumulative impacts. Air quality in SJVAB has improved over the past decades, as shown in Section 3.3, which indicates that the single threshold is sufficient for assessing cumulative impacts. The proposed Project would generate less-than-significant impacts to criteria air pollutants; therefore, the Project’s incremental contribution to cumulative air quality impacts would not be cumulatively considerable (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3); (SJVAPCD, 2015).

5.3 - Cumulative Hazardous Air Pollutants
The GAMAQI also states that when evaluating potential impacts related to HAPs, “impacts of local pollutants (CO, HAPs) are cumulatively significant when modeling shows that the combined emissions from the project and other existing and planned projects will exceed air quality standards.” Because the Project would not be a significant source of HAPs, the proposed Project would also not be expected to pose a significant cumulative CO or HAPs impact.

5.4 - Cumulative Carbon Monoxide (CO) – Mobile Sources
The SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI has identified CO impacts from impacted traffic intersections and roadway segments as being potentially cumulatively considerable. Traffic increases and added congestion caused by a project can combine to cause a violation of the SJVAPCD’s CO standard, also known as a “hotspot.” There are two criteria established by the GAMAQI by which CO “hotspot” modeling is required:

1. A traffic study for the project indicates that the Level of Service (LOS) on one or more streets or at one or more intersections in the project vicinity would be reduced to LOS E or F.
2328
Cumulative Impacts

Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 2025

2. A traffic study indicates that the project would substantially worsen an already existing LOS F on one or more streets or at one or more intersections in the project vicinity.

Based on the size and location of the Project, the impacted intersections and roadway segments are anticipated to operate at a LOS of C or better. Therefore, CO “hotspot” modeling was not conducted for this Project, and no concentrated excessive CO emissions are expected to be caused once the proposed Project is completed. If a subsequent traffic study indicates LOS D or worse, a hotspot analysis will be conducted.
2329
Consistency with the Air Quality Attainment Plan

Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 2025

SECTION 6 - CONSISTENCY WITH THE AIR QUALITY ATTAINMENT PLAN Air quality impacts from proposed projects within Tulare County are controlled through policies and provisions of the SJVAPCD and the Tulare County General Plan (2008). In order to demonstrate that a proposed project would not cause further air quality degradation in either the SJVAPCD’s plan to improve air quality within the air basin or the federal requirements to meet certain air quality compliance goals, each project should also demonstrate consistency with the SJVAPCD’s adopted Air Quality Attainment Plans (AQAP) for O3 and PM10. The SJVAPCD is required to submit a “Rate of Progress” document to CARB that demonstrates past and planned progress toward reaching attainment for all criteria pollutants. The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) requires air pollution control districts with severe or extreme air quality problems to provide for a five percent reduction in nonattainment emissions per year. The AQAP prepared for the San Joaquin Valley by the SJVAPCD complies with this requirement. CARB reviews, approves, or amends the document and forwards the plan to the EPA for final review and approval within the SIP.

Air pollution sources associated with stationary sources are regulated through the permitting authority of the SJVAPCD under the New and Modified Stationary Source Review Rule (SJVAPCD Rule 2201). Owners of any new or modified equipment that emits, reduces, or controls air contaminants, except those specifically exempted by the SJVAPCD, are required to apply for an Authority to Construct and Permit to Operate (SJVAPCD Rule 2010).

Additionally, best available control technology (BACT) is required on specific types of stationary equipment and is required to offset both stationary source emission increases along with increases in cargo carrier emissions if the specified threshold levels are exceeded (SJVAPCD Rule 2201, 4.7.1). Through this mechanism, the SJVAPCD would ensure that all stationary sources within the project area would be subject to the standards of the SJVAPCD to ensure that new developments do not result in net increases in stationary sources of criteria air pollutants.

6.1 - Required Evaluation Guidelines
CEQA Guidelines and the Federal Clean Air Act (Sections 176 and 316) contain specific references on the need to evaluate consistency between a proposed project and the applicable AQAP for the Project site. To accomplish this, CARB has developed a three-step approach to determine project conformity with the applicable AQAP:

1. Determination that an AQAP is being implemented in the area where the project is being proposed. The SJVAPCD has implemented the current, modified AQAP as approved by CARB.

2. The proposed project must be consistent with the growth assumptions of the applicable AQAP. The proposed Project is included in the employment increases projected in the Tulare County General Plan.

3. The project must contain in its design all reasonably available and feasible air quality control measures. The proposed Project incorporates various policy and rulerequired implementation measures that will reduce related emissions. 2330
Consistency with the Air Quality Attainment Plan

Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 2025

The CCAA and AQAP identify transportation control measures as methods to further reduce emissions from mobile sources. Strategies identified to reduce vehicular emissions such as reductions in vehicle trips, vehicle use, vehicle miles traveled, vehicle idling, and traffic congestion, in order to reduce vehicular emissions, can be implemented as control measures under the CCAA as well. Additional measures may also be implemented through the building process, such as providing electrical outlets on exterior walls of structures to encourage the use of electrical landscape maintenance equipment or measures such as electrical outlets for electrical systems on diesel trucks to reduce or eliminate idling time.

As the growth represented by the proposed Project was anticipated by the Tulare County General Plan and incorporated into the AQAP, conclusions may be drawn from the following criteria:

1. That, by definition, the proposed emissions from the Project are below the SJVAPCD’s established emissions impact thresholds.

2. That the primary source of emissions from the Project would be motor vehicles which would be licensed through the State of California and whose emissions are already incorporated into the CARB’s Tulare County’s Emissions Inventory.

Based on these factors, the Project is consistent with the AQAP.

6.2 - Consistency with the Tulare County Association of Government’s Final Conformity Analysis
The Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG) Final Conformity Analysis demonstrates that the regional transportation expenditure plans (2022 Regional Transportation Plan and 2025 Federal Transportation Improvement Program) in the Tulare County portion of the San Joaquin Valley air quality attainment areas would not hinder the efforts set out in the CARB’s SIP for each area’s non-attainment pollutants (CO, O3 and PM10).

The analysis uses the California Department of Finance (DOF) as the primary county-level forecasting reference for population growth and the California Employment Development Department (EDD), Info USA, and Woods & Poole for forecasting employment growth.

Housing forecasts are based on DOF data for the base year and projected using a Planning Center Study from 2012 conducted by the San Joaquin Valley.

The TCAG Conformity Analysis considers General Plan Amendments (GPA) and zone changes that were enacted at the time of the analysis as projected growth within the area based on land use designations incorporated within the Tulare County General Plan. Land use designations that are altered based on subsequent GPAs that were not included in the Conformity Analysis were not incorporated into the TCAG analysis. Consequently, if a proposed project is not included in the regional growth forecast using the latest planning assumptions, it may not be said to conform to the regional growth forecast. 2331
Consistency with the Air Quality Attainment Plan

Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 2025

Under the current City of Visalia General Plan, the Project site is designated as Residential Low, Residential Medium and Residential High Density and Conservation (see Figure 6-1).

As the Project site was Prezoned for residential land uses the Project’s growth was analyzed in the projected growth of the Final Conformity Analysis. Additionally, under currentpolicies, after a General Plan Amendment (GPA) is approved, housing and employment assumptions can be updated to reflect the capacity changes. The proposed development does require an approval of the Prezone; therefore, the existing growth forecast may be modified to reflect any necessary changes. Therefore, the Project will not be in conflict with the Final Conformity Analysis.
2332
Consistency with the Air Quality Attainment Plan

Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 2025

Figure 6-1
Existing Land Use Designations
/J£/J)
□ Project Site
D Commercial Mixed Use
(Ii)
- - ~~_-:..

D Parks/Recreation
D Public/Institutional
D Commercial Neighborhood - Residential High Density
D Conservation D Residential Low Density
D Office D Residential Medium Density
!~
~
!~
0 -- ( ::
' -
2333
Mitigation and Other Recommended Measures

Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 2025

SECTION 7 - MITIGATION AND OTHER RECOMMENDED MEASURES
The estimated construction and operational emissions from the proposed Project would be less than significant after the specific mitigation measures listed below. However, to ensure that the Project is in compliance with all applicable SJVAPCD rules and regulations and that emissions are further reduced, the applicant should implement and comply with a number of measures that are either recommended as a “good operating practice” for environmental stewardship, or they are required by regulation. Some of the listed measures are regulatory requirements or construction requirements that would result in further emission reductions through their inclusion in Project construction and long-term design. The following measures either have been applied to the Project through the CalEEMod model and would be incorporated into the Project by design or would be implemented in conjunction with SJVAPCD rules as conditions of approval.

7.1 - Applicable PM10 Reduction Measures
As the Project would be completed in compliance with SJVAPCD Regulation VIII, dust control measures would be taken to ensure compliance, specifically during the grading and construction phases. The required Regulation VIII measures are as follows:
• Water previously exposed surfaces (soil) whenever visible dust is capable of drifting from the site or approaches 20 percent opacity.
• Water all unpaved haul roads a minimum of three times/day or whenever visible dust from such roads is capable of drifting from the site or approaches 20 percent opacity. • Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 miles per hour. • Install and maintain a track-out control device that meets the specifications of SJVAPCD Rule 8041 if the site exceeds 150 vehicle trips per day or more than 20 vehicle trips per day by vehicles with three or more axles. • Stabilize all disturbed areas, including storage piles, which are not being actively utilized for production purposes using water, chemical stabilizers, or by covering with a tarp or other suitable cover.
• Control fugitive dust emissions during land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, leveling, grading, or cut and fill operations with application of water or by presoaking. • When transporting materials offsite, maintain a freeboard limit of at least 6 inches and cover or effectively wet to limit visible dust emissions. • Limit and remove the accumulation of mud and/or dirt from adjacent public roadways at the end of each workday. (Use of dry rotary brushes is prohibited except when preceded or accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit visible dust emissions, and use of blowers is expressly forbidden.)
• Stabilize the surface of storage piles following the addition or removal of materials using water or chemical stabilizer/suppressants.
• Remove visible track-out from the site at the end of each workday. • Cease grading or other activities that cause excessive (greater than 20 percent opacity) dust formation during periods of high winds (greater than 20 mph over a one-hour period).
2334
Mitigation and Other Recommended Measures

Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 2025

7.2 - Recommended Measures to Reduce Equipment Exhaust
In addition, the GAMAQI guidance document lists the following measures as approved and recommended for construction activities. These measures are recommended:
• Maintain all construction equipment as recommended by manufacturer manuals. • Shut down equipment when not in use for extended periods. • Construction equipment shall operate no longer than eight cumulative hours per day. • Use electric equipment for construction whenever possible in lieu of diesel or gasoline powered equipment.
• Curtail use of high-emitting construction equipment during periods of high or excessive ambient pollutant concentrations.
• All construction vehicles shall be equipped with proper emissions control equipment and kept in good and proper running order to substantially reduce NOx emissions. • On-road and Off-road diesel equipment shall use diesel particulate filters if permitted under the manufacturer’s guidelines.
• On-road and Off-road diesel equipment shall use cooled exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) if permitted under the manufacturer’s guidelines. • All construction workers shall be encouraged to shuttle (car-pool) to retail establishments or to remain on-site during lunch breaks.

7.3 - Recommended Measures to Reduce Equipment Exhaust
The following measures are recommended to further reduce the potential for long-term emissions from the Project. These measures are required as a matter of regulatory compliance:
• The Project design shall comply with applicable standards set forth in Title 24 of the Uniform Building Code to minimize total consumption of energy. • The developer shall comply with the provisions of SJVAPCD Rule 4601 - Architectural Coatings, during the construction of all buildings and facilities. Application of architectural coatings shall be completed in a manner that poses the least emissions impacts whenever such application is deemed proficient. • The applicant shall comply with the provisions of SJVAPCD Rule 4641 during the construction and pavement of all roads and parking areas within the project area.

Specifically, the applicant shall not allow the use of:
o Rapid cure cutback asphalt.
o Medium cure cutback asphalt.
o Slow cure cutback asphalt (as specified in SJVAPCD Rule 4641, Section 5.1.3); or Emulsified asphalt (as specified in SJVAPCD Rule 4641, Section 5.1.4). o The developer shall comply with applicable provisions of SJVAPCD Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review).
2335
Level of Significance After Mitigation

Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 2025

SECTION 8 - LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
The proposed Project would have short-term air quality impacts due to construction activities as well as vehicular emissions. Both of these impacts would be mitigated and were found to be less than significant before and after mitigation.

The proposed Project would result in long-term air quality impacts due to operational and related mobile source emissions. These impacts would be mitigated and were found to be less than significant before and after mitigation.

The proposed Project would result in impacts to greenhouse gases and climate change due to construction and operational emissions. These impacts were found to be less than significant.

The proposed Project, in conjunction with other past, present, and foreseeable future projects, would result in cumulative short-term and long-term impacts to air quality. The proposed Project’s incremental contribution to these impacts would be mitigated below thresholds of significance and would not be considered cumulatively considerable.

Therefore, the Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts was found to be less than significant.

The proposed Project, in conjunction with other past, present, and foreseeable future projects, would result in cumulative long-term impacts to global climate change. The proposed Project’s incremental contribution to these impacts will be mitigated to the extent feasible and are considered less than significant.
2336
References

Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 2025

SECTION 9 - REFERENCES
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2025. California Emissions Estimator Model tm (CalEEMod), version 2022.1.1.30, released August 2025.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2024. Background Emissions Data. https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/index.html. Accessed December 2024. --------. 2024a. California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2022: Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators. 2024. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2024- 09/nc-2000_2022_ghg_inventory_trends.pdf
--------. 2025. Almanac Emission Projection Data.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/applications/cepam2019v1-04-standard-emission-tool.

Accessed 2025.
--------. 2024b. “Ambient Air Quality Standards.” July 22, 2024. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2024-
08/AAQS%20Table_ADA_FINAL_07222024.pdf
California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). 2006. Climate Action Team (CAT) Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature.
http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reports/2006report/2006- 04-03_FINAL_CAT_REPORT.PDF
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statute and Guidelines. 2024. (Public Resources Code 21000 to 21177) and CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000 – 15387).

Enviropedia, 2019. Greenhouse Gas Emissions website, accessed December 2024. http://www.enviropedia.org.uk/Global_Warming/Emissions.php Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG). September 2024. Final Conformity Analysis
Tulare County Resource Management Agency (TCRMA). 2012. 2030 Update Tulare County General Plan.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2017. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/ ---------. Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report. 2014.
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessmentreport/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2025a. Ambient Air Quality Standards & Valley Attainment Status. https://ww2.valleyair.org/air-quality2337 References

Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 2025

information/ambient-air-quality-standards-valley-attainmnet-status/, accessed December 2024.
----------. 2024. Air Monitoring Location Map.
https://www.valleyair.org/media/3lkhl4ye/2024-network-plan-map.jpg, accessed December 2024.
----------. 2024a. 2024 Plan for the 2012 Annual PM2.5 Standard. June 20, 2024. https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/gw5bacvj/2024-pm25-plan.pdf ----------. 2025b. 2024 Annual Report to the Community. https://www.valleyair.org/newsoutreach-and-education/news/valley-air-district-releases-the-2024-annual-reportto-the-community/ ----------. 2025c. 2024 Annual Report on the District’s Indirect Source Review Program.

January 7, 2025. https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/vzuixb0n/item-12_2024-isrannual-report.pdf ----------. 2025d. Meteorological Data Zip Files for Visalia 2007-2010. https://www.valleyair.org/permitting/air-dispersion-modeling/meteorologicaldata-zip-files/ ----------. 2022. 2022 Plan for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone Standard. December 15, 2022. https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/q55posm0/0000-2022-plan-for-the-2015-8- hour-ozone-standard.pdf
----------. 2015. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. March 19, 2015. ----------. 2023. 2023 Maintenance Plan and Redesignation Request for the Revoked 1-Hour Ozone Standard. June 15, 2023. https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/itoegkch/03- adopted-2023-maintenance-plan-and-redesignation-request-for-the-revoked-1- hour-ozone-standard.pdf
United Nations, 2011. The Millennium Development Goals Report 2011. http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/(2011_E)%20MDG%20Report%202011_ Book%20LR.pdf
United States Energy Information Administration (U.S. EIA). 2023. International Energy Outlook 2023. https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/pdf/IEO2023_Narrative.pdf United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2024. Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990–2022.
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-04/us-ghg-inventory-2024- main-text_04-18-2024.pdf.
2338
References

Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 2025

United States Geological Survey’s (USGS) National Map. 2021. Bakersfield, CA. 7.5 minute. https://viewer.nationalmap.gov/basic/?basemap=b1&category=ustopo&title=US %20Topo%20Download
United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). 2014. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/.

Western Regional Climate Center, 2024. Bakersfield, California, Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary, 10/1/1937 to 6/09/2016. https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgibin/cliMAIN.pl?ca0442. Accessed December 2024. 2339

APPENDIX A

PROJECT EMISSION CALCULATIONS

2340
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
1 / 81
Clements Ranch Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Site Preparation (2026) - Unmitigated

3.2. Site Preparation (2026) - Mitigated

3.3. Grading (2026) - Unmitigated
2341
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
2 / 81

3.4. Grading (2026) - Mitigated

3.5. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated

3.6. Building Construction (2026) - Mitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated

3.8. Building Construction (2027) - Mitigated

3.9. Paving (2027) - Unmitigated

3.10. Paving (2027) - Mitigated

3.11. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated

3.12. Architectural Coating (2027) - Mitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.1.2. Mitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
2342
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
3 / 81

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.3.2. Mitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.4.2. Mitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.5.2. Mitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.6.2. Mitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.7.2. Mitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.8.2. Mitigated
2343
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
4 / 81

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.9.2. Mitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

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

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated

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

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.2.2. Mitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.3.2. Mitigated
2344
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
5 / 81

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.9.2. Mitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
2345
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
6 / 81

5.11.2. Mitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.12.2. Mitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.13.2. Mitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.14.2. Mitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.15.2. Mitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation
2346
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
7 / 81

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2.2. Mitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
2347
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
8 / 81

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data

8.1. Justifications

8.3. Land Use

8.4. Construction

8.4.1. Construction Phases

8.5. Operations

8.5.1. Mobile Sources

8.5.1.2. Fleet Mix

8.5.2. Area Sources

8.5.2.1. Hearths
2348
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
9 / 81

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Clements Ranch
Construction Start Date 1/1/2026
Operational Year 2027
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 1.90000
Precipitation (days) 24.4000
Location 36.3023975788099, -119.25860183463266
County Tulare
City Unincorporated
Air District San Joaquin Valley APCD
Air Basin San Joaquin Valley
TAZ 2779
EDFZ 9
Electric Utility Eastside Power Authority
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.37

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Single Family
Housing
293.000 Dwelling Unit 53.2000 571,350 3,431,867 — 990.000 — 2349
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
10 / 81
Apartments Low
Rise
375.000 Dwelling Unit 21.8000 397,500 0.00000 — 1,268.00 —

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title
Transportation T-14* Provide Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Energy E-10-B Establish Onsite Renewable Energy Systems: Solar Power * Qualitative or supporting measure. Emission reductions not included in the mitigated emissions results.

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.34990 3.01012 12.9268 30.2094 0.03410 0.40006 2.45005 2.85012 0.36977 0.59135 0.96112 — 6,121.16 6,121.16 0.26791 0.34300 11.5981 6,241.67 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 209.561 209.517 29.2243 29.4111 0.06093 1.24251 5.20603 6.44854 1.14311 2.64895 3.79206 — 6,703.12 6,703.12 0.29117 0.34300 0.30137 6,727.53 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 18.3398 18.1377 11.6571 19.6023 0.02797 0.40205 1.85718 2.25923 0.37085 0.54984 0.92068 — 4,307.46 4,307.46 0.19503 0.20116 2.84426 4,375.13 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.34701 3.31014 2.12742 3.57742 0.00511 0.07337 0.33894 0.41231 0.06768 0.10034 0.16802 — 713.149 713.149 0.03229 0.03330 0.47090 724.352 -------------------
2350
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
11 / 81

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 3.34990 3.01012 12.9268 30.2094 0.03410 0.40006 2.45005 2.85012 0.36977 0.59135 0.96112 — 6,121.16 6,121.16 0.26791 0.34300 11.5981 6,241.67 2027 3.17655 2.78778 12.2884 28.8328 0.03410 0.35798 2.45005 2.80804 0.33106 0.59135 0.92241 — 6,044.09 6,044.09 0.25963 0.34300 10.4465 6,163.24 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 3.82318 3.21771 29.2243 29.4111 0.06093 1.24251 5.20603 6.44854 1.14311 2.64895 3.79206 — 6,703.12 6,703.12 0.29117 0.34300 0.30137 6,727.53 2027 209.561 209.517 12.6567 25.5691 0.03410 0.35798 2.45005 2.80804 0.33106 0.59135 0.92241 — 5,796.68 5,796.68 0.21915 0.34300 0.27121 5,904.64 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 2.33840 2.05720 11.6571 19.6023 0.02797 0.40205 1.85718 2.25923 0.37085 0.54984 0.92068 — 4,307.46 4,307.46 0.19503 0.20116 2.84426 4,375.13 2027 18.3398 18.1377 7.52452 15.3939 0.02000 0.22206 1.36506 1.58712 0.20523 0.32902 0.53425 — 3,394.95 3,394.95 0.15439 0.19152 2.53759 3,458.42 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.42676 0.37544 2.12742 3.57742 0.00511 0.07337 0.33894 0.41231 0.06768 0.10034 0.16802 — 713.149 713.149 0.03229 0.03330 0.47090 724.352 2027 3.34701 3.31014 1.37322 2.80938 0.00365 0.04053 0.24912 0.28965 0.03746 0.06005 0.09750 — 562.072 562.072 0.02556 0.03171 0.42013 572.581

2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 3.34990 3.01012 12.9268 30.2094 0.03410 0.40006 2.45005 2.85012 0.36977 0.59135 0.96112 — 6,121.16 6,121.16 0.26791 0.34300 11.5981 6,241.67 2027 3.17655 2.78778 12.2884 28.8328 0.03410 0.35798 2.45005 2.80804 0.33106 0.59135 0.92241 — 6,044.09 6,044.09 0.25963 0.34300 10.4465 6,163.24 -------------------
-------------------
2351
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
12 / 81
Daily - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
2026 3.82318 3.21771 29.2243 29.4111 0.06093 1.24251 5.20603 6.44854 1.14311 2.64895 3.79206 — 6,703.12 6,703.12 0.29117 0.34300 0.30137 6,727.53 2027 209.561 209.517 12.6567 25.5691 0.03410 0.35798 2.45005 2.80804 0.33106 0.59135 0.92241 — 5,796.68 5,796.68 0.21915 0.34300 0.27121 5,904.64 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 2.33840 2.05720 11.6571 19.6023 0.02797 0.40205 1.85718 2.25923 0.37085 0.54984 0.92068 — 4,307.46 4,307.46 0.19503 0.20116 2.84426 4,375.13 2027 18.3398 18.1377 7.52452 15.3939 0.02000 0.22206 1.36506 1.58712 0.20523 0.32902 0.53425 — 3,394.95 3,394.95 0.15439 0.19152 2.53759 3,458.42 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.42676 0.37544 2.12742 3.57742 0.00511 0.07337 0.33894 0.41231 0.06768 0.10034 0.16802 — 713.149 713.149 0.03229 0.03330 0.47090 724.352 2027 3.34701 3.31014 1.37322 2.80938 0.00365 0.04053 0.24912 0.28965 0.03746 0.06005 0.09750 — 562.072 562.072 0.02556 0.03171 0.42013 572.581

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 48.2805 46.5880 17.8882 177.190 0.27895 0.54470 22.3739 22.9186 0.52880 5.66638 6.19518 363.239 36,941.9 37,305.1 38.8236 1.51779 87.1860 38,815.2 Mit. 48.2805 46.5880 17.8882 177.190 0.27895 0.54470 22.3739 22.9186 0.52880 5.66638 6.19518 363.239 36,340.9 36,704.2 38.7798 1.51249 87.1860 38,211.6 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — — 2% 2% < 0.5% < 0.5% — 2%
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 42.0764 40.4672 19.7015 119.659 0.25271 0.52695 22.3739 22.9008 0.51539 5.66638 6.18176 363.239 34,352.9 34,716.2 39.0873 1.63587 9.01939 36,189.9 Mit. 42.0764 40.4672 19.7015 119.659 0.25271 0.52695 22.3739 22.9008 0.51539 5.66638 6.18176 363.239 33,752.0 34,115.2 39.0435 1.63056 9.01939 35,586.2 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — — 2% 2% < 0.5% < 0.5% — 2%
-------------------
2352
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
13 / 81
Average — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily
(Max)
Unmit. 42.9189 41.3631 17.8405 130.254 0.24542 0.52454 20.5850 21.1095 0.51160 5.21439 5.72598 363.239 33,561.1 33,924.3 38.8455 1.48146 39.3274 35,376.3 Mit. 42.9189 41.3631 17.8405 130.254 0.24542 0.52454 20.5850 21.1095 0.51160 5.21439 5.72598 363.239 32,960.1 33,323.4 38.8018 1.47616 39.3274 34,772.6 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — — 2% 2% < 0.5% < 0.5% — 2%
Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 7.83270 7.54876 3.25588 23.7714 0.04479 0.09573 3.75675 3.85248 0.09337 0.95163 1.04499 60.1384 5,556.42 5,616.56 6.43132 0.24527 6.51110 5,856.94 Mit. 7.83270 7.54876 3.25588 23.7714 0.04479 0.09573 3.75675 3.85248 0.09337 0.95163 1.04499 60.1384 5,456.92 5,517.06 6.42408 0.24439 6.51110 5,757.00 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — — 2% 2% < 0.5% < 0.5% — 2%

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 21.8581 20.6089 13.1208 137.391 0.24918 0.17051 22.3739 22.5444 0.15896 5.66638 5.82533 — 25,548.4 25,548.4 1.46376 1.32338 80.2471 26,059.6 Area 25.9069 25.7213 0.36203 37.9242 0.00164 0.01801 — 0.01801 0.01367 — 0.01367 0.00000 101.327 101.327 0.00424 0.00084 — 101.684 Energy 0.51551 0.25776 4.40529 1.87459 0.02812 0.35617 — 0.35617 0.35617 — 0.35617 — 10,971.2 10,971.2 0.88657 0.05801 — 11,010.7 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 54.4821 320.940 375.422 5.60989 0.13557 — 556.068 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 308.757 0.00000 308.757 30.8592 0.00000 — 1,080.24 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 6.93891 6.93891 Total 48.2805 46.5880 17.8882 177.190 0.27895 0.54470 22.3739 22.9186 0.52880 5.66638 6.19518 363.239 36,941.9 37,305.1 38.8236 1.51779 87.1860 38,815.2 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 19.1661 17.8146 15.2962 117.784 0.22459 0.17078 22.3739 22.5447 0.15922 5.66638 5.82559 — 23,060.8 23,060.8 1.73166 1.44229 2.08048 23,535.9 -------------------
2353
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
14 / 81
Area 22.3948 22.3948 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 Energy 0.51551 0.25776 4.40529 1.87459 0.02812 0.35617 — 0.35617 0.35617 — 0.35617 — 10,971.2 10,971.2 0.88657 0.05801 — 11,010.7 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 54.4821 320.940 375.422 5.60989 0.13557 — 556.068 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 308.757 0.00000 308.757 30.8592 0.00000 — 1,080.24 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 6.93891 6.93891 Total 42.0764 40.4672 19.7015 119.659 0.25271 0.52695 22.3739 22.9008 0.51539 5.66638 6.18176 363.239 34,352.9 34,716.2 39.0873 1.63587 9.01939 36,189.9 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 18.2766 17.0701 13.2566 109.677 0.21649 0.15949 20.5850 20.7444 0.14869 5.21439 5.36307 — 22,218.9 22,218.9 1.48784 1.28747 32.3885 22,672.2 Area 24.1268 24.0352 0.17854 18.7023 0.00081 0.00888 — 0.00888 0.00674 — 0.00674 0.00000 49.9695 49.9695 0.00209 0.00041 — 50.1453 Energy 0.51551 0.25776 4.40529 1.87459 0.02812 0.35617 — 0.35617 0.35617 — 0.35617 — 10,971.2 10,971.2 0.88657 0.05801 — 11,010.7 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 54.4821 320.940 375.422 5.60989 0.13557 — 556.068 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 308.757 0.00000 308.757 30.8592 0.00000 — 1,080.24 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 6.93891 6.93891 Total 42.9189 41.3631 17.8405 130.254 0.24542 0.52454 20.5850 21.1095 0.51160 5.21439 5.72598 363.239 33,561.1 33,924.3 38.8455 1.48146 39.3274 35,376.3 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 3.33548 3.11529 2.41933 20.0161 0.03951 0.02911 3.75675 3.78586 0.02714 0.95163 0.97876 — 3,678.60 3,678.60 0.24633 0.21316 5.36228 3,753.64 Area 4.40314 4.38643 0.03258 3.41318 0.00015 0.00162 — 0.00162 0.00123 — 0.00123 0.00000 8.27302 8.27302 0.00035 0.00007 — 8.30213 Energy 0.09408 0.04704 0.80397 0.34211 0.00513 0.06500 — 0.06500 0.06500 — 0.06500 — 1,816.41 1,816.41 0.14678 0.00960 — 1,822.94 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 9.02014 53.1352 62.1554 0.92878 0.02244 — 92.0634 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 51.1182 0.00000 51.1182 5.10908 0.00000 — 178.845 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.14882 1.14882 Total 7.83270 7.54876 3.25588 23.7714 0.04479 0.09573 3.75675 3.85248 0.09337 0.95163 1.04499 60.1384 5,556.42 5,616.56 6.43132 0.24527 6.51110 5,856.94

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e -------------------
2354
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
15 / 81
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Mobile 21.8581 20.6089 13.1208 137.391 0.24918 0.17051 22.3739 22.5444 0.15896 5.66638 5.82533 — 25,548.4 25,548.4 1.46376 1.32338 80.2471 26,059.6 Area 25.9069 25.7213 0.36203 37.9242 0.00164 0.01801 — 0.01801 0.01367 — 0.01367 0.00000 101.327 101.327 0.00424 0.00084 — 101.684 Energy 0.51551 0.25776 4.40529 1.87459 0.02812 0.35617 — 0.35617 0.35617 — 0.35617 — 10,370.3 10,370.3 0.84281 0.05270 — 10,407.1 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 54.4821 320.940 375.422 5.60989 0.13557 — 556.068 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 308.757 0.00000 308.757 30.8592 0.00000 — 1,080.24 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 6.93891 6.93891 Total 48.2805 46.5880 17.8882 177.190 0.27895 0.54470 22.3739 22.9186 0.52880 5.66638 6.19518 363.239 36,340.9 36,704.2 38.7798 1.51249 87.1860 38,211.6 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 19.1661 17.8146 15.2962 117.784 0.22459 0.17078 22.3739 22.5447 0.15922 5.66638 5.82559 — 23,060.8 23,060.8 1.73166 1.44229 2.08048 23,535.9 Area 22.3948 22.3948 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 Energy 0.51551 0.25776 4.40529 1.87459 0.02812 0.35617 — 0.35617 0.35617 — 0.35617 — 10,370.3 10,370.3 0.84281 0.05270 — 10,407.1 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 54.4821 320.940 375.422 5.60989 0.13557 — 556.068 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 308.757 0.00000 308.757 30.8592 0.00000 — 1,080.24 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 6.93891 6.93891 Total 42.0764 40.4672 19.7015 119.659 0.25271 0.52695 22.3739 22.9008 0.51539 5.66638 6.18176 363.239 33,752.0 34,115.2 39.0435 1.63056 9.01939 35,586.2 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 18.2766 17.0701 13.2566 109.677 0.21649 0.15949 20.5850 20.7444 0.14869 5.21439 5.36307 — 22,218.9 22,218.9 1.48784 1.28747 32.3885 22,672.2 Area 24.1268 24.0352 0.17854 18.7023 0.00081 0.00888 — 0.00888 0.00674 — 0.00674 0.00000 49.9695 49.9695 0.00209 0.00041 — 50.1453 Energy 0.51551 0.25776 4.40529 1.87459 0.02812 0.35617 — 0.35617 0.35617 — 0.35617 — 10,370.3 10,370.3 0.84281 0.05270 — 10,407.1 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 54.4821 320.940 375.422 5.60989 0.13557 — 556.068 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 308.757 0.00000 308.757 30.8592 0.00000 — 1,080.24 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 6.93891 6.93891 Total 42.9189 41.3631 17.8405 130.254 0.24542 0.52454 20.5850 21.1095 0.51160 5.21439 5.72598 363.239 32,960.1 33,323.4 38.8018 1.47616 39.3274 34,772.6 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2355
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
16 / 81
Mobile 3.33548 3.11529 2.41933 20.0161 0.03951 0.02911 3.75675 3.78586 0.02714 0.95163 0.97876 — 3,678.60 3,678.60 0.24633 0.21316 5.36228 3,753.64 Area 4.40314 4.38643 0.03258 3.41318 0.00015 0.00162 — 0.00162 0.00123 — 0.00123 0.00000 8.27302 8.27302 0.00035 0.00007 — 8.30213 Energy 0.09408 0.04704 0.80397 0.34211 0.00513 0.06500 — 0.06500 0.06500 — 0.06500 — 1,716.92 1,716.92 0.13954 0.00873 — 1,723.01 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 9.02014 53.1352 62.1554 0.92878 0.02244 — 92.0634 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 51.1182 0.00000 51.1182 5.10908 0.00000 — 178.845 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.14882 1.14882 Total 7.83270 7.54876 3.25588 23.7714 0.04479 0.09573 3.75675 3.85248 0.09337 0.95163 1.04499 60.1384 5,456.92 5,517.06 6.42408 0.24439 6.51110 5,757.00

3. Construction Emissions Details

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

3.74146 3.14387 29.1635 28.8082 0.04890 1.24251 — 1.24251 1.14311 — 1.14311 — 5,297.94 5,297.94 0.21491 0.04298 — 5,316.12 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 5.11082 5.11082 — 2.62664 2.62664 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------
2356
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
17 / 81
Off-Roa
Equipment

0.16401 0.13781 1.27840 1.26282 0.00214 0.05447 — 0.05447 0.05011 — 0.05011 — 232.238 232.238 0.00942 0.00188 — 233.035 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.22404 0.22404 — 0.11514 0.11514 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.02993 0.02515 0.23331 0.23047 0.00039 0.00994 — 0.00994 0.00914 — 0.00914 — 38.4497 38.4497 0.00156 0.00031 — 38.5817 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.04089 0.04089 — 0.02101 0.02101 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08171 0.07384 0.06076 0.60294 0.00000 0.00000 0.09521 0.09521 0.00000 0.02232 0.02232 — 91.4772 91.4772 0.00760 0.00451 0.00956 93.0219 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00362 0.00342 0.00234 0.02727 0.00000 0.00000 0.00411 0.00411 0.00000 0.00096 0.00096 — 4.15878 4.15878 0.00030 0.00020 0.00696 4.23220 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —2357
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
18 / 81
Worker 0.00066 0.00062 0.00043 0.00498 0.00000 0.00000 0.00075 0.00075 0.00000 0.00018 0.00018 — 0.68853 0.68853 0.00005 0.00003 0.00115 0.70069 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

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

3.74146 3.14387 29.1635 28.8082 0.04890 1.24251 — 1.24251 1.14311 — 1.14311 — 5,297.94 5,297.94 0.21491 0.04298 — 5,316.12 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 5.11082 5.11082 — 2.62664 2.62664 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.16401 0.13781 1.27840 1.26282 0.00214 0.05447 — 0.05447 0.05011 — 0.05011 — 232.238 232.238 0.00942 0.00188 — 233.035 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.22404 0.22404 — 0.11514 0.11514 — — — — — — — -------------------
2358
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
19 / 81
Onsite 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 truck
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.02993 0.02515 0.23331 0.23047 0.00039 0.00994 — 0.00994 0.00914 — 0.00914 — 38.4497 38.4497 0.00156 0.00031 — 38.5817 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.04089 0.04089 — 0.02101 0.02101 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08171 0.07384 0.06076 0.60294 0.00000 0.00000 0.09521 0.09521 0.00000 0.02232 0.02232 — 91.4772 91.4772 0.00760 0.00451 0.00956 93.0219 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00362 0.00342 0.00234 0.02727 0.00000 0.00000 0.00411 0.00411 0.00000 0.00096 0.00096 — 4.15878 4.15878 0.00030 0.00020 0.00696 4.23220 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00066 0.00062 0.00043 0.00498 0.00000 0.00000 0.00075 0.00075 0.00000 0.00018 0.00018 — 0.68853 0.68853 0.00005 0.00003 0.00115 0.70069 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 2359
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
20 / 81

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

3.62261 3.04400 27.2253 27.5707 0.06093 1.12137 — 1.12137 1.03166 — 1.03166 — 6,598.58 6,598.58 0.26767 0.05353 — 6,621.22 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 2.39293 2.39293 — 0.94998 0.94998 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.39700 0.33359 2.98359 3.02144 0.00668 0.12289 — 0.12289 0.11306 — 0.11306 — 723.132 723.132 0.02933 0.00587 — 725.613 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.26224 0.26224 — 0.10411 0.10411 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------
2360
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
21 / 81
Off-Roa 0.07245 0.06088 0.54451 0.55141 0.00122 0.02243 — 0.02243 0.02063 — 0.02063 — 119.723 119.723 0.00486 0.00097 — 120.134 d
Equipm
ent
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.04786 0.04786 — 0.01900 0.01900 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09339 0.08439 0.06945 0.68908 0.00000 0.00000 0.10881 0.10881 0.00000 0.02550 0.02550 — 104.545 104.545 0.00869 0.00516 0.01092 106.311 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01033 0.00977 0.00667 0.07792 0.00000 0.00000 0.01174 0.01174 0.00000 0.00275 0.00275 — 11.8822 11.8822 0.00086 0.00057 0.01990 12.0920 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00189 0.00178 0.00122 0.01422 0.00000 0.00000 0.00214 0.00214 0.00000 0.00050 0.00050 — 1.96724 1.96724 0.00014 0.00009 0.00329 2.00197 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.4. Grading (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 2361
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
22 / 81
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

3.62261 3.04400 27.2253 27.5707 0.06093 1.12137 — 1.12137 1.03166 — 1.03166 — 6,598.58 6,598.58 0.26767 0.05353 — 6,621.22 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 2.39293 2.39293 — 0.94998 0.94998 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.39700 0.33359 2.98359 3.02144 0.00668 0.12289 — 0.12289 0.11306 — 0.11306 — 723.132 723.132 0.02933 0.00587 — 725.613 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.26224 0.26224 — 0.10411 0.10411 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.07245 0.06088 0.54451 0.55141 0.00122 0.02243 — 0.02243 0.02063 — 0.02063 — 119.723 119.723 0.00486 0.00097 — 120.134 -------------------
2362
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
23 / 81
Dust — — — — — — 0.04786 0.04786 — 0.01900 0.01900 — — — — — — — From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09339 0.08439 0.06945 0.68908 0.00000 0.00000 0.10881 0.10881 0.00000 0.02550 0.02550 — 104.545 104.545 0.00869 0.00516 0.01092 106.311 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01033 0.00977 0.00667 0.07792 0.00000 0.00000 0.01174 0.01174 0.00000 0.00275 0.00275 — 11.8822 11.8822 0.00086 0.00057 0.01990 12.0920 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00189 0.00178 0.00122 0.01422 0.00000 0.00000 0.00214 0.00214 0.00000 0.00050 0.00050 — 1.96724 1.96724 0.00014 0.00009 0.00329 2.00197 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.5. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e -------------------
Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2363
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
24 / 81
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

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

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

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

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.71887 0.60153 5.53444 7.28249 0.01314 0.21267 — 0.21267 0.19566 — 0.19566 — 1,346.40 1,346.40 0.05462 0.01092 — 1,351.02 Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.13119 0.10978 1.01004 1.32905 0.00240 0.03881 — 0.03881 0.03571 — 0.03571 — 222.911 222.911 0.00904 0.00181 — 223.676 Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2364
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
25 / 81
Worker 1.97677 1.87991 0.99914 16.4855 0.00000 0.00000 2.04274 2.04274 0.00000 0.47881 0.47881 — 2,217.63 2,217.63 0.13824 0.09685 7.89343 2,257.84 Vendor 0.09320 0.05919 2.07367 0.75755 0.01071 0.02141 0.40731 0.42872 0.02141 0.11253 0.13394 — 1,506.29 1,506.29 0.03243 0.22670 3.70466 1,578.36 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.75326 1.58439 1.30377 12.9367 0.00000 0.00000 2.04274 2.04274 0.00000 0.47881 0.47881 — 1,962.73 1,962.73 0.16307 0.09685 0.20508 1,995.88 Vendor 0.08848 0.05447 2.20780 0.78747 0.01071 0.02141 0.40731 0.42872 0.02141 0.11253 0.13394 — 1,507.92 1,507.92 0.03086 0.22670 0.09629 1,576.34 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.99401 0.93961 0.64206 7.49690 0.00000 0.00000 1.12931 1.12931 0.00000 0.26443 0.26443 — 1,143.27 1,143.27 0.08229 0.05440 1.91461 1,163.45 Vendor 0.05058 0.03148 1.20958 0.43343 0.00601 0.01203 0.22575 0.23777 0.01203 0.06245 0.07447 — 846.383 846.383 0.01821 0.12732 0.90278 885.684 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.18141 0.17148 0.11718 1.36818 0.00000 0.00000 0.20610 0.20610 0.00000 0.04826 0.04826 — 189.282 189.282 0.01362 0.00901 0.31699 192.623 Vendor 0.00923 0.00574 0.22075 0.07910 0.00110 0.00219 0.04120 0.04339 0.00219 0.01140 0.01359 — 140.128 140.128 0.00302 0.02108 0.14947 146.635 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

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

1.27993 1.07101 9.85401 12.9664 0.02340 0.37865 — 0.37865 0.34836 — 0.34836 — 2,397.24 2,397.24 0.09724 0.01945 — 2,405.47 -------------------
2365
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
26 / 81
Onsite 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 truck
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

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

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.71887 0.60153 5.53444 7.28249 0.01314 0.21267 — 0.21267 0.19566 — 0.19566 — 1,346.40 1,346.40 0.05462 0.01092 — 1,351.02 Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.13119 0.10978 1.01004 1.32905 0.00240 0.03881 — 0.03881 0.03571 — 0.03571 — 222.911 222.911 0.00904 0.00181 — 223.676 Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.97677 1.87991 0.99914 16.4855 0.00000 0.00000 2.04274 2.04274 0.00000 0.47881 0.47881 — 2,217.63 2,217.63 0.13824 0.09685 7.89343 2,257.84 Vendor 0.09320 0.05919 2.07367 0.75755 0.01071 0.02141 0.40731 0.42872 0.02141 0.11253 0.13394 — 1,506.29 1,506.29 0.03243 0.22670 3.70466 1,578.36 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2366
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
27 / 81
Worker 1.75326 1.58439 1.30377 12.9367 0.00000 0.00000 2.04274 2.04274 0.00000 0.47881 0.47881 — 1,962.73 1,962.73 0.16307 0.09685 0.20508 1,995.88 Vendor 0.08848 0.05447 2.20780 0.78747 0.01071 0.02141 0.40731 0.42872 0.02141 0.11253 0.13394 — 1,507.92 1,507.92 0.03086 0.22670 0.09629 1,576.34 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.99401 0.93961 0.64206 7.49690 0.00000 0.00000 1.12931 1.12931 0.00000 0.26443 0.26443 — 1,143.27 1,143.27 0.08229 0.05440 1.91461 1,163.45 Vendor 0.05058 0.03148 1.20958 0.43343 0.00601 0.01203 0.22575 0.23777 0.01203 0.06245 0.07447 — 846.383 846.383 0.01821 0.12732 0.90278 885.684 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.18141 0.17148 0.11718 1.36818 0.00000 0.00000 0.20610 0.20610 0.00000 0.04826 0.04826 — 189.282 189.282 0.01362 0.00901 0.31699 192.623 Vendor 0.00923 0.00574 0.22075 0.07910 0.00110 0.00219 0.04120 0.04339 0.00219 0.01140 0.01359 — 140.128 140.128 0.00302 0.02108 0.14947 146.635 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

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

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

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------
2367
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
28 / 81
Off-Roa 1.23076 1.02988 9.39093 12.9379 0.02340 0.33657 — 0.33657 0.30965 — 0.30965 — 2,397.08 2,397.08 0.09724 0.01945 — 2,405.30 d
Equipm
ent
Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.67680 0.56633 5.16409 7.11461 0.01287 0.18508 — 0.18508 0.17028 — 0.17028 — 1,318.16 1,318.16 0.05347 0.01069 — 1,322.68 Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.12352 0.10336 0.94245 1.29842 0.00235 0.03378 — 0.03378 0.03108 — 0.03108 — 218.236 218.236 0.00885 0.00177 — 218.985 Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.85260 1.70028 0.91885 15.1618 0.00000 0.00000 2.04274 2.04274 0.00000 0.47881 0.47881 — 2,172.25 2,172.25 0.12996 0.09685 7.15513 2,211.51 Vendor 0.09320 0.05762 1.97858 0.73300 0.01071 0.02141 0.40731 0.42872 0.02141 0.11253 0.13394 — 1,474.77 1,474.77 0.03243 0.22670 3.29133 1,546.42 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.59019 1.48506 1.15146 11.8714 0.00000 0.00000 2.04274 2.04274 0.00000 0.47881 0.47881 — 1,923.17 1,923.17 0.09106 0.09685 0.18594 1,954.49 Vendor 0.08690 0.05290 2.11429 0.75976 0.01071 0.02141 0.40731 0.42872 0.02141 0.11253 0.13394 — 1,476.43 1,476.43 0.03086 0.22670 0.08527 1,544.85 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 2368
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
29 / 81
Average — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily
Worker 0.88810 0.83029 0.58448 6.75569 0.00000 0.00000 1.10570 1.10570 0.00000 0.25890 0.25890 — 1,096.74 1,096.74 0.07602 0.05326 1.69915 1,116.21 Vendor 0.04952 0.03082 1.13789 0.40914 0.00589 0.01177 0.22103 0.23280 0.01177 0.06114 0.07292 — 811.358 811.358 0.01697 0.12466 0.77952 849.711 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.16208 0.15153 0.10667 1.23291 0.00000 0.00000 0.20179 0.20179 0.00000 0.04725 0.04725 — 181.578 181.578 0.01259 0.00882 0.28131 184.801 Vendor 0.00904 0.00562 0.20767 0.07467 0.00107 0.00215 0.04034 0.04249 0.00215 0.01116 0.01331 — 134.330 134.330 0.00281 0.02064 0.12906 140.679 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

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

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

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

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

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 -------------------
2369
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
30 / 81
Average — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.67680 0.56633 5.16409 7.11461 0.01287 0.18508 — 0.18508 0.17028 — 0.17028 — 1,318.16 1,318.16 0.05347 0.01069 — 1,322.68 Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.12352 0.10336 0.94245 1.29842 0.00235 0.03378 — 0.03378 0.03108 — 0.03108 — 218.236 218.236 0.00885 0.00177 — 218.985 Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.85260 1.70028 0.91885 15.1618 0.00000 0.00000 2.04274 2.04274 0.00000 0.47881 0.47881 — 2,172.25 2,172.25 0.12996 0.09685 7.15513 2,211.51 Vendor 0.09320 0.05762 1.97858 0.73300 0.01071 0.02141 0.40731 0.42872 0.02141 0.11253 0.13394 — 1,474.77 1,474.77 0.03243 0.22670 3.29133 1,546.42 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.59019 1.48506 1.15146 11.8714 0.00000 0.00000 2.04274 2.04274 0.00000 0.47881 0.47881 — 1,923.17 1,923.17 0.09106 0.09685 0.18594 1,954.49 Vendor 0.08690 0.05290 2.11429 0.75976 0.01071 0.02141 0.40731 0.42872 0.02141 0.11253 0.13394 — 1,476.43 1,476.43 0.03086 0.22670 0.08527 1,544.85 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.88810 0.83029 0.58448 6.75569 0.00000 0.00000 1.10570 1.10570 0.00000 0.25890 0.25890 — 1,096.74 1,096.74 0.07602 0.05326 1.69915 1,116.21 Vendor 0.04952 0.03082 1.13789 0.40914 0.00589 0.01177 0.22103 0.23280 0.01177 0.06114 0.07292 — 811.358 811.358 0.01697 0.12466 0.77952 849.711 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —2370
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
31 / 81
Worker 0.16208 0.15153 0.10667 1.23291 0.00000 0.00000 0.20179 0.20179 0.00000 0.04725 0.04725 — 181.578 181.578 0.01259 0.00882 0.28131 184.801 Vendor 0.00904 0.00562 0.20767 0.07467 0.00107 0.00215 0.04034 0.04249 0.00215 0.01116 0.01331 — 134.330 134.330 0.00281 0.02064 0.12906 140.679 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

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

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

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.06973 0.05859 0.55175 0.79080 0.00111 0.02369 — 0.02369 0.02179 — 0.02179 — 120.061 120.061 0.00487 0.00097 — 120.473 Paving 0.00000 0.00000 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------
2371
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
32 / 81
Off-Roa 0.01273 0.01069 0.10069 0.14432 0.00020 0.00432 — 0.00432 0.00398 — 0.00398 — 19.8774 19.8774 0.00081 0.00016 — 19.9456 d
Equipm
ent
Paving 0.00000 0.00000 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06353 0.05933 0.04600 0.47425 0.00000 0.00000 0.08161 0.08161 0.00000 0.01913 0.01913 — 76.8285 76.8285 0.00364 0.00387 0.00743 78.0798 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00513 0.00479 0.00337 0.03899 0.00000 0.00000 0.00638 0.00638 0.00000 0.00149 0.00149 — 6.33035 6.33035 0.00044 0.00031 0.00981 6.44274 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00094 0.00087 0.00062 0.00712 0.00000 0.00000 0.00116 0.00116 0.00000 0.00027 0.00027 — 1.04806 1.04806 0.00007 0.00005 0.00162 1.06667 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.10. Paving (2027) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e -------------------
Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2372
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
33 / 81
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

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

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.06973 0.05859 0.55175 0.79080 0.00111 0.02369 — 0.02369 0.02179 — 0.02179 — 120.061 120.061 0.00487 0.00097 — 120.473 Paving 0.00000 0.00000 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01273 0.01069 0.10069 0.14432 0.00020 0.00432 — 0.00432 0.00398 — 0.00398 — 19.8774 19.8774 0.00081 0.00016 — 19.9456 Paving 0.00000 0.00000 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2373
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
34 / 81
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Worker 0.06353 0.05933 0.04600 0.47425 0.00000 0.00000 0.08161 0.08161 0.00000 0.01913 0.01913 — 76.8285 76.8285 0.00364 0.00387 0.00743 78.0798 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00513 0.00479 0.00337 0.03899 0.00000 0.00000 0.00638 0.00638 0.00000 0.00149 0.00149 — 6.33035 6.33035 0.00044 0.00031 0.00981 6.44274 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00094 0.00087 0.00062 0.00712 0.00000 0.00000 0.00116 0.00116 0.00000 0.00027 0.00027 — 1.04806 1.04806 0.00007 0.00005 0.00162 1.06667 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

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

0.13715 0.11335 0.83116 1.12539 0.00173 0.01905 — 0.01905 0.01752 — 0.01752 — 133.513 133.513 0.00542 0.00108 — 133.971 -------------------
2374
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
35 / 81
Architect 209.106 209.106 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ural
Coating
Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01090 0.00901 0.06604 0.08941 0.00014 0.00151 — 0.00151 0.00139 — 0.00139 — 10.6079 10.6079 0.00043 0.00009 — 10.6443 Architect
ural
Coating
s

16.6139 16.6139 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.00199 0.00164 0.01205 0.01632 0.00003 0.00028 — 0.00028 0.00025 — 0.00025 — 1.75625 1.75625 0.00007 0.00001 — 1.76228 Architect
ural
Coating
s

3.03204 3.03204 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.31804 0.29701 0.23029 2.37427 0.00000 0.00000 0.40855 0.40855 0.00000 0.09576 0.09576 — 384.634 384.634 0.01821 0.01937 0.03719 390.899 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 2375 Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
36 / 81
Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02566 0.02399 0.01689 0.19522 0.00000 0.00000 0.03195 0.03195 0.00000 0.00748 0.00748 — 31.6923 31.6923 0.00220 0.00154 0.04910 32.2549 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00468 0.00438 0.00308 0.03563 0.00000 0.00000 0.00583 0.00583 0.00000 0.00137 0.00137 — 5.24702 5.24702 0.00036 0.00025 0.00813 5.34017 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

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

0.13715 0.11335 0.83116 1.12539 0.00173 0.01905 — 0.01905 0.01752 — 0.01752 — 133.513 133.513 0.00542 0.00108 — 133.971 Architect
ural
Coating
s
209.106 209.106 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------
2376
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
37 / 81
Off-Roa
Equipment

0.01090 0.00901 0.06604 0.08941 0.00014 0.00151 — 0.00151 0.00139 — 0.00139 — 10.6079 10.6079 0.00043 0.00009 — 10.6443 Architect
ural
Coating
s

16.6139 16.6139 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.00199 0.00164 0.01205 0.01632 0.00003 0.00028 — 0.00028 0.00025 — 0.00025 — 1.75625 1.75625 0.00007 0.00001 — 1.76228 Architect
ural
Coating
s

3.03204 3.03204 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.31804 0.29701 0.23029 2.37427 0.00000 0.00000 0.40855 0.40855 0.00000 0.09576 0.09576 — 384.634 384.634 0.01821 0.01937 0.03719 390.899 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02566 0.02399 0.01689 0.19522 0.00000 0.00000 0.03195 0.03195 0.00000 0.00748 0.00748 — 31.6923 31.6923 0.00220 0.00154 0.04910 32.2549 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —2377
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
38 / 81
Worker 0.00468 0.00438 0.00308 0.03563 0.00000 0.00000 0.00583 0.00583 0.00000 0.00137 0.00137 — 5.24702 5.24702 0.00036 0.00025 0.00813 5.34017 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

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

10.4482 9.85111 6.27178 65.6732 0.11911 0.08150 10.6948 10.7763 0.07598 2.70854 2.78452 — 12,212.2 12,212.2 0.69968 0.63258 38.3583 12,456.5 Apartme
nts
Low Rise

11.4099 10.7578 6.84906 71.7179 0.13007 0.08901 11.6791 11.7681 0.08298 2.95784 3.04081 — 13,336.2 13,336.2 0.76408 0.69080 41.8889 13,603.1 Total 21.8581 20.6089 13.1208 137.391 0.24918 0.17051 22.3739 22.5444 0.15896 5.66638 5.82533 — 25,548.4 25,548.4 1.46376 1.32338 80.2471 26,059.6 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

9.16143 8.51543 7.31162 56.3010 0.10735 0.08163 10.6948 10.7764 0.07611 2.70854 2.78464 — 11,023.1 11,023.1 0.82774 0.68942 0.99447 11,250.2 Apartme
nts
Low Rise

10.0047 9.29921 7.98461 61.4831 0.11723 0.08915 11.6791 11.7683 0.08311 2.95784 3.04095 — 12,037.7 12,037.7 0.90392 0.75287 1.08601 12,285.7 Total 19.1661 17.8146 15.2962 117.784 0.22459 0.17078 22.3739 22.5447 0.15922 5.66638 5.82559 — 23,060.8 23,060.8 1.73166 1.44229 2.08048 23,535.9 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2378
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
39 / 81
Single
Family
Housing

1.66763 1.55754 1.20959 10.0074 0.01975 0.01455 1.87825 1.89281 0.01357 0.47578 0.48935 — 1,839.18 1,839.18 0.12316 0.10657 2.68096 1,876.70 Apartme
nts
Low Rise

1.66785 1.55775 1.20975 10.0087 0.01976 0.01455 1.87850 1.89306 0.01357 0.47584 0.48941 — 1,839.42 1,839.42 0.12317 0.10658 2.68132 1,876.94 Total 3.33548 3.11529 2.41933 20.0161 0.03951 0.02911 3.75675 3.78586 0.02714 0.95163 0.97876 — 3,678.60 3,678.60 0.24633 0.21316 5.36228 3,753.64

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

10.4482 9.85111 6.27178 65.6732 0.11911 0.08150 10.6948 10.7763 0.07598 2.70854 2.78452 — 12,212.2 12,212.2 0.69968 0.63258 38.3583 12,456.5 Apartme
nts
Low Rise

11.4099 10.7578 6.84906 71.7179 0.13007 0.08901 11.6791 11.7681 0.08298 2.95784 3.04081 — 13,336.2 13,336.2 0.76408 0.69080 41.8889 13,603.1 Total 21.8581 20.6089 13.1208 137.391 0.24918 0.17051 22.3739 22.5444 0.15896 5.66638 5.82533 — 25,548.4 25,548.4 1.46376 1.32338 80.2471 26,059.6 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

9.16143 8.51543 7.31162 56.3010 0.10735 0.08163 10.6948 10.7764 0.07611 2.70854 2.78464 — 11,023.1 11,023.1 0.82774 0.68942 0.99447 11,250.2 Apartme
nts
Low Rise

10.0047 9.29921 7.98461 61.4831 0.11723 0.08915 11.6791 11.7683 0.08311 2.95784 3.04095 — 12,037.7 12,037.7 0.90392 0.75287 1.08601 12,285.7 Total 19.1661 17.8146 15.2962 117.784 0.22459 0.17078 22.3739 22.5447 0.15922 5.66638 5.82559 — 23,060.8 23,060.8 1.73166 1.44229 2.08048 23,535.9 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2379
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
40 / 81
Single 1.66763 1.55754 1.20959 10.0074 0.01975 0.01455 1.87825 1.89281 0.01357 0.47578 0.48935 — 1,839.18 1,839.18 0.12316 0.10657 2.68096 1,876.70 Family
Housing
Apartme
nts
Low Rise

1.66785 1.55775 1.20975 10.0087 0.01976 0.01455 1.87850 1.89306 0.01357 0.47584 0.48941 — 1,839.42 1,839.42 0.12317 0.10658 2.68132 1,876.94 Total 3.33548 3.11529 2.41933 20.0161 0.03951 0.02911 3.75675 3.78586 0.02714 0.95163 0.97876 — 3,678.60 3,678.60 0.24633 0.21316 5.36228 3,753.64

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 3,232.97 3,232.97 0.23541 0.02853 — 3,247.36 Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 2,146.51 2,146.51 0.15630 0.01894 — 2,156.06 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 5,379.48 5,379.48 0.39170 0.04748 — 5,403.42 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 3,232.97 3,232.97 0.23541 0.02853 — 3,247.36 Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 2,146.51 2,146.51 0.15630 0.01894 — 2,156.06 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 5,379.48 5,379.48 0.39170 0.04748 — 5,403.42 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2380
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
41 / 81
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 535.256 535.256 0.03897 0.00472 — 537.638 Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 355.379 355.379 0.02588 0.00314 — 356.960 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 890.634 890.634 0.06485 0.00786 — 894.598

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 2,967.39 2,967.39 0.21607 0.02619 — 2,980.60 Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,811.13 1,811.13 0.13188 0.01598 — 1,819.19 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 4,778.52 4,778.52 0.34794 0.04218 — 4,799.79 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 2,967.39 2,967.39 0.21607 0.02619 — 2,980.60 Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,811.13 1,811.13 0.13188 0.01598 — 1,819.19 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 4,778.52 4,778.52 0.34794 0.04218 — 4,799.79 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2381
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
42 / 81
Single — — — — — — — — — — — — 491.286 491.286 0.03577 0.00434 — 493.472 Family
Housing
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 299.854 299.854 0.02183 0.00265 — 301.188 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 791.139 791.139 0.05761 0.00698 — 794.660

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

0.31608 0.15804 2.70101 1.14937 0.01724 0.21838 — 0.21838 0.21838 — 0.21838 — 3,428.46 3,428.46 0.30342 0.00646 — 3,437.97 Apartme
nts
Low Rise

0.19944 0.09972 1.70428 0.72523 0.01088 0.13779 — 0.13779 0.13779 — 0.13779 — 2,163.29 2,163.29 0.19145 0.00407 — 2,169.29 Total 0.51551 0.25776 4.40529 1.87459 0.02812 0.35617 — 0.35617 0.35617 — 0.35617 — 5,591.75 5,591.75 0.49487 0.01053 — 5,607.26 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.31608 0.15804 2.70101 1.14937 0.01724 0.21838 — 0.21838 0.21838 — 0.21838 — 3,428.46 3,428.46 0.30342 0.00646 — 3,437.97 Apartme
nts
Low Rise

0.19944 0.09972 1.70428 0.72523 0.01088 0.13779 — 0.13779 0.13779 — 0.13779 — 2,163.29 2,163.29 0.19145 0.00407 — 2,169.29 Total 0.51551 0.25776 4.40529 1.87459 0.02812 0.35617 — 0.35617 0.35617 — 0.35617 — 5,591.75 5,591.75 0.49487 0.01053 — 5,607.26 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2382
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
43 / 81
Single 0.05768 0.02884 0.49293 0.20976 0.00315 0.03985 — 0.03985 0.03985 — 0.03985 — 567.621 567.621 0.05023 0.00107 — 569.196 Family
Housing
Apartme
nts
Low Rise

0.03640 0.01820 0.31103 0.13235 0.00199 0.02515 — 0.02515 0.02515 — 0.02515 — 358.157 358.157 0.03170 0.00067 — 359.150 Total 0.09408 0.04704 0.80397 0.34211 0.00513 0.06500 — 0.06500 0.06500 — 0.06500 — 925.778 925.778 0.08193 0.00174 — 928.346

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

0.31608 0.15804 2.70101 1.14937 0.01724 0.21838 — 0.21838 0.21838 — 0.21838 — 3,428.46 3,428.46 0.30342 0.00646 — 3,437.97 Apartme
nts
Low Rise

0.19944 0.09972 1.70428 0.72523 0.01088 0.13779 — 0.13779 0.13779 — 0.13779 — 2,163.29 2,163.29 0.19145 0.00407 — 2,169.29 Total 0.51551 0.25776 4.40529 1.87459 0.02812 0.35617 — 0.35617 0.35617 — 0.35617 — 5,591.75 5,591.75 0.49487 0.01053 — 5,607.26 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.31608 0.15804 2.70101 1.14937 0.01724 0.21838 — 0.21838 0.21838 — 0.21838 — 3,428.46 3,428.46 0.30342 0.00646 — 3,437.97 Apartme
nts
Low Rise

0.19944 0.09972 1.70428 0.72523 0.01088 0.13779 — 0.13779 0.13779 — 0.13779 — 2,163.29 2,163.29 0.19145 0.00407 — 2,169.29 Total 0.51551 0.25776 4.40529 1.87459 0.02812 0.35617 — 0.35617 0.35617 — 0.35617 — 5,591.75 5,591.75 0.49487 0.01053 — 5,607.26 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2383
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
44 / 81
Single 0.05768 0.02884 0.49293 0.20976 0.00315 0.03985 — 0.03985 0.03985 — 0.03985 — 567.621 567.621 0.05023 0.00107 — 569.196 Family
Housing
Apartme
nts
Low Rise

0.03640 0.01820 0.31103 0.13235 0.00199 0.02515 — 0.02515 0.02515 — 0.02515 — 358.157 358.157 0.03170 0.00067 — 359.150 Total 0.09408 0.04704 0.80397 0.34211 0.00513 0.06500 — 0.06500 0.06500 — 0.06500 — 925.778 925.778 0.08193 0.00174 — 928.346

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 Consum
er
Product
s

20.7334 20.7334 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

1.66139 1.66139 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

3.51211 3.32650 0.36203 37.9242 0.00164 0.01801 — 0.01801 0.01367 — 0.01367 — 101.327 101.327 0.00424 0.00084 — 101.684 Total 25.9069 25.7213 0.36203 37.9242 0.00164 0.01801 — 0.01801 0.01367 — 0.01367 0.00000 101.327 101.327 0.00424 0.00084 — 101.684 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 -------------------
2384
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
45 / 81
Consum 20.7334 20.7334 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
er
Architect
ural
Coating
s

1.66139 1.66139 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 22.3948 22.3948 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 Consum
er
Product
s

3.78384 3.78384 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.30320 0.30320 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

0.31609 0.29938 0.03258 3.41318 0.00015 0.00162 — 0.00162 0.00123 — 0.00123 — 8.27302 8.27302 0.00035 0.00007 — 8.30213 Total 4.40314 4.38643 0.03258 3.41318 0.00015 0.00162 — 0.00162 0.00123 — 0.00123 0.00000 8.27302 8.27302 0.00035 0.00007 — 8.30213

4.3.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 Consum
er
Product
s

20.7334 20.7334 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------
2385
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
46 / 81
Architect 1.66139 1.66139 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ural
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

3.51211 3.32650 0.36203 37.9242 0.00164 0.01801 — 0.01801 0.01367 — 0.01367 — 101.327 101.327 0.00424 0.00084 — 101.684 Total 25.9069 25.7213 0.36203 37.9242 0.00164 0.01801 — 0.01801 0.01367 — 0.01367 0.00000 101.327 101.327 0.00424 0.00084 — 101.684 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 Consum
er
Product
s

20.7334 20.7334 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

1.66139 1.66139 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 22.3948 22.3948 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 Consum
er
Product
s

3.78384 3.78384 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.30320 0.30320 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

0.31609 0.29938 0.03258 3.41318 0.00015 0.00162 — 0.00162 0.00123 — 0.00123 — 8.27302 8.27302 0.00035 0.00007 — 8.30213 Total 4.40314 4.38643 0.03258 3.41318 0.00015 0.00162 — 0.00162 0.00123 — 0.00123 0.00000 8.27302 8.27302 0.00035 0.00007 — 8.30213 2386
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
47 / 81

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 23.8971 242.874 266.771 2.46806 0.06036 — 346.461 Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 30.5850 78.0660 108.651 3.14183 0.07520 — 209.607 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 54.4821 320.940 375.422 5.60989 0.13557 — 556.068 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 23.8971 242.874 266.771 2.46806 0.06036 — 346.461 Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 30.5850 78.0660 108.651 3.14183 0.07520 — 209.607 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 54.4821 320.940 375.422 5.60989 0.13557 — 556.068 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 3.95644 40.2105 44.1670 0.40862 0.00999 — 57.3605 Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 5.06370 12.9247 17.9884 0.52017 0.01245 — 34.7029 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 9.02014 53.1352 62.1554 0.92878 0.02244 — 92.0634 2387
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
48 / 81

4.4.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 23.8971 242.874 266.771 2.46806 0.06036 — 346.461 Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 30.5850 78.0660 108.651 3.14183 0.07520 — 209.607 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 54.4821 320.940 375.422 5.60989 0.13557 — 556.068 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 23.8971 242.874 266.771 2.46806 0.06036 — 346.461 Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 30.5850 78.0660 108.651 3.14183 0.07520 — 209.607 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 54.4821 320.940 375.422 5.60989 0.13557 — 556.068 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 3.95644 40.2105 44.1670 0.40862 0.00999 — 57.3605 Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 5.06370 12.9247 17.9884 0.52017 0.01245 — 34.7029 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 9.02014 53.1352 62.1554 0.92878 0.02244 — 92.0634

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
2388
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
49 / 81

4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 159.254 0.00000 159.254 15.9168 0.00000 — 557.175 Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 149.503 0.00000 149.503 14.9423 0.00000 — 523.061 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 308.757 0.00000 308.757 30.8592 0.00000 — 1,080.24 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 159.254 0.00000 159.254 15.9168 0.00000 — 557.175 Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 149.503 0.00000 149.503 14.9423 0.00000 — 523.061 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 308.757 0.00000 308.757 30.8592 0.00000 — 1,080.24 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 26.3663 0.00000 26.3663 2.63521 0.00000 — 92.2466 Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 24.7520 0.00000 24.7520 2.47387 0.00000 — 86.5988 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 51.1182 0.00000 51.1182 5.10908 0.00000 — 178.845

4.5.2. Mitigated
2389
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
50 / 81
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 159.254 0.00000 159.254 15.9168 0.00000 — 557.175 Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 149.503 0.00000 149.503 14.9423 0.00000 — 523.061 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 308.757 0.00000 308.757 30.8592 0.00000 — 1,080.24 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 159.254 0.00000 159.254 15.9168 0.00000 — 557.175 Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 149.503 0.00000 149.503 14.9423 0.00000 — 523.061 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 308.757 0.00000 308.757 30.8592 0.00000 — 1,080.24 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 26.3663 0.00000 26.3663 2.63521 0.00000 — 92.2466 Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 24.7520 0.00000 24.7520 2.47387 0.00000 — 86.5988 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 51.1182 0.00000 51.1182 5.10908 0.00000 — 178.845

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
2390
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
51 / 81
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 4.09201 4.09201
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.84690 2.84690
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 6.93891 6.93891
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 4.09201 4.09201
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.84690 2.84690
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 6.93891 6.93891
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.67748 0.67748
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.47134 0.47134
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.14882 1.14882

4.6.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 2391
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
52 / 81
Land TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Use
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 4.09201 4.09201
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.84690 2.84690
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 6.93891 6.93891
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 4.09201 4.09201
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.84690 2.84690
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 6.93891 6.93891
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.67748 0.67748
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.47134 0.47134
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.14882 1.14882

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 2392 Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
53 / 81
Equipm
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.7.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated
2393
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
54 / 81
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
2394
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
55 / 81

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.9.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2395
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
56 / 81

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2396
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
57 / 81

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------
2397
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
58 / 81
Sequest — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ered
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2398
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
59 / 81
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------
2399
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
60 / 81
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/1/2026 1/22/2026 5.00000 16.0000 — Grading Grading 1/23/2026 3/19/2026 5.00000 40.0000 —
Building Construction Building Construction 3/20/2026 10/8/2027 5.00000 406.000 — Paving Paving 10/09/2027 11/18/2027 5.00000 29.0000 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 11/19/2027 12/29/2027 5.00000 29.0000 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00000 8.00000 367.000 0.40000 2400
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
61 / 81
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back Diesel Average 4.00000 8.00000 84.0000 0.37000 Grading Excavators Diesel Average 2.00000 8.00000 36.0000 0.38000 Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 148.000 0.41000 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 367.000 0.40000 Grading Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00000 8.00000 423.000 0.48000 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.00000 8.00000 84.0000 0.37000
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.000000 7.00000 367.000 0.29000 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00000 8.00000 82.0000 0.20000 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 14.0000 0.74000 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00000 7.00000 84.0000 0.37000
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 46.0000 0.45000 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00000 8.00000 81.0000 0.42000 Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00000 8.00000 89.0000 0.36000 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00000 8.00000 36.0000 0.38000 Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.000000 6.00000 37.0000 0.48000

5.2.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00000 8.00000 367.000 0.40000 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 4.00000 8.00000 84.0000 0.37000
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 2.00000 8.00000 36.0000 0.38000 Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 148.000 0.41000 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 367.000 0.40000 Grading Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00000 8.00000 423.000 0.48000 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.00000 8.00000 84.0000 0.37000
2401
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
62 / 81
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.000000 7.00000 367.000 0.29000 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00000 8.00000 82.0000 0.20000 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 14.0000 0.74000 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00000 7.00000 84.0000 0.37000
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 46.0000 0.45000 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00000 8.00000 81.0000 0.42000 Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00000 8.00000 89.0000 0.36000 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00000 8.00000 36.0000 0.38000 Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.000000 6.00000 37.0000 0.48000

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Site Preparation Worker 17.5000 7.70000 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 6.80000 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00000 20.0000 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading Worker 20.0000 7.70000 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 6.80000 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00000 20.0000 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction Worker 375.480 7.70000 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Building Construction Vendor 71.4092 6.80000 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00000 20.0000 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving Worker 15.0000 7.70000 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 6.80000 HHDT,MHDT 2402
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
63 / 81
Paving Hauling 0.00000 20.0000 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating Worker 75.0960 7.70000 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Architectural Coating Vendor — 6.80000 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00000 20.0000 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.3.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Site Preparation Worker 17.5000 7.70000 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 6.80000 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00000 20.0000 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading Worker 20.0000 7.70000 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 6.80000 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00000 20.0000 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction Worker 375.480 7.70000 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Building Construction Vendor 71.4092 6.80000 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00000 20.0000 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving Worker 15.0000 7.70000 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 6.80000 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00000 20.0000 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating Worker 75.0960 7.70000 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Architectural Coating Vendor — 6.80000 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00000 20.0000 HHDT
2403
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
64 / 81
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water unpaved roads twice daily 55% 55%
Limit vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 25 mph 44% 44%

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 1,961,921 653,974 0.00000 0.00000 —

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) Site Preparation — — 24.0000 0.00000 0.00000
Grading — — 120.000 0.00000 0.00000
Paving 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 3.22865

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

5.7. Construction Paving
2404
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
65 / 81
Phase Name Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Paving Single Family Housing 3.22865 0%
Paving Apartments Low Rise — 0%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2026 0.00000 453.209 0.03300 0.00400
2027 0.00000 453.209 0.03300 0.00400

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Single Family
Housing
2,765.92 2,795.22 2,505.15 997,491 15,023.2 15,182.4 13,606.9 5,417,925 Apartments Low
Rise
2,745.00 3,052.50 2,355.00 997,623 14,909.6 16,579.8 12,791.3 5,418,642

5.9.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Single Family
Housing
2,765.92 2,795.22 2,505.15 997,491 15,023.2 15,182.4 13,606.9 5,417,925 Apartments Low
Rise
2,745.00 3,052.50 2,355.00 997,623 14,909.6 16,579.8 12,791.3 5,418,642

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths
2405
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
66 / 81
Land Use Hearth Type Unmitigated (number) Mitigated (number) Single Family Housing Wood Fireplaces 0 0
Single Family Housing Gas Fireplaces 0 0
Single Family Housing Propane Fireplaces 0 0
Single Family Housing Electric Fireplaces 0 0
Single Family Housing No Fireplaces 293 293
Single Family Housing Conventional Wood Stoves 0 0
Single Family Housing Catalytic Wood Stoves 0 0
Single Family Housing Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0 0
Single Family Housing Pellet Wood Stoves 0 0
Apartments Low Rise Wood Fireplaces 0 0
Apartments Low Rise Gas Fireplaces 0 0
Apartments Low Rise Propane Fireplaces 0 0
Apartments Low Rise Electric Fireplaces 0 0
Apartments Low Rise No Fireplaces 370 370
Apartments Low Rise Conventional Wood Stoves 0 0
Apartments Low Rise Catalytic Wood Stoves 0 0
Apartments Low Rise Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0 0
Apartments Low Rise Pellet Wood Stoves 0 0

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
1,961,921 653,974 0.00000 0.00000 —

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00000
2406
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
67 / 81
Summer Days day/yr 180.000

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00000
Summer Days day/yr 180.000

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Single Family Housing 2,603,733 453.209 0.0330 0.0040 10,697,723 Apartments Low Rise 1,728,727 453.209 0.0330 0.0040 6,750,037

5.11.2. Mitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Single Family Housing 2,389,843 453.209 0.0330 0.0040 10,697,723 Apartments Low Rise 1,458,627 453.209 0.0330 0.0040 6,750,037

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Single Family Housing 12,470,856 60,535,089
Apartments Low Rise 15,960,994 0.00000
2407
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
68 / 81

5.12.2. Mitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Single Family Housing 12,470,856 60,535,089
Apartments Low Rise 15,960,994 0.00000

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Single Family Housing 295.495 0.00000
Apartments Low Rise 277.403 0.00000

5.13.2. Mitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Single Family Housing 295.495 0.00000
Apartments Low Rise 277.403 0.00000

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Single Family Housing Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088.00 0.00225 2.50000 2.50000 10.00000
Single Family Housing Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430.00 0.11538 0.60000 0.00000 1.000000
2408
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
69 / 81
Apartments Low Rise Average room A/C & R-410A 2,088.00 0.00225 2.50000 2.50000 10.00000 Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
Apartments Low Rise Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430.00 0.11538 0.60000 0.00000 1.000000

5.14.2. Mitigated
Land Use Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Single Family Housing Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088.00 0.00225 2.50000 2.50000 10.00000
Single Family Housing Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430.00 0.11538 0.60000 0.00000 1.000000
Apartments Low Rise Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088.00 0.00225 2.50000 2.50000 10.00000
Apartments Low Rise Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430.00 0.11538 0.60000 0.00000 1.000000

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.15.2. Mitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers
2409
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
70 / 81

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

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

5.18.2.2. Mitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year) 2410
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
71 / 81

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

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

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 35.8700 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 1.30000 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 0.00000 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

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

Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 5 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding 0 0 0 N/A
Drought 0 0 0 N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
2411
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
72 / 81
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 5 1 1 4
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding 1 1 1 2
Drought 1 1 1 2
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

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

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

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

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 91.0516
2412
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
73 / 81
AQ-PM 97.7847
AQ-DPM 22.4642
Drinking Water 69.1520
Lead Risk Housing 12.9301
Pesticides 79.1034
Toxic Releases 68.6547
Traffic 19.1250
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 0.00000
Groundwater 15.1420
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 26.6711
Impaired Water Bodies 12.4528
Solid Waste 59.1753
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 41.4506
Cardio-vascular 71.3485
Low Birth Weights 11.9451
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 51.2275
Housing 35.2725
Linguistic 33.9423
Poverty 42.6131
Unemployment 14.3935

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
2413
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
74 / 81
Above Poverty 50.64801745
Employed 49.30065443
Median HI 36.5199538
Education—
Bachelor's or higher 43.17977672
High school enrollment 15.95021173
Preschool enrollment 41.02399589
Transportation—
Auto Access 64.27563198
Active commuting 12.5882202
Social—
2-parent households 51.0714744
Voting 61.59373797
Neighborhood—
Alcohol availability 67.48363916
Park access 34.55665341
Retail density 6.813807263
Supermarket access 5.41511613
Tree canopy 44.98909278
Housing—
Homeownership 52.53432568
Housing habitability 58.27024253
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 58.3472347 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 52.59848582
Uncrowded housing 32.9013217
Health Outcomes—
Insured adults 57.69280123
Arthritis 49.4
2414
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
75 / 81
Asthma ER Admissions 48.9
High Blood Pressure 56.0
Cancer (excluding skin) 36.4
Asthma 46.1
Coronary Heart Disease 61.0
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 50.7
Diagnosed Diabetes 73.9
Life Expectancy at Birth 52.2
Cognitively Disabled 30.7
Physically Disabled 24.6
Heart Attack ER Admissions 21.4
Mental Health Not Good 51.7
Chronic Kidney Disease 64.9
Obesity 36.0
Pedestrian Injuries 79.3
Physical Health Not Good 59.3
Stroke 70.4
Health Risk Behaviors—
Binge Drinking 16.3
Current Smoker 57.8
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 62.4
Climate Change Exposures—
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 45.9
Elderly 61.9
English Speaking 54.3
Foreign-born 18.0
2415
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
76 / 81
Outdoor Workers 16.9
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 76.8
Traffic Density 26.4
Traffic Access 0.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 60.8
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 56.1

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 43.0000 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 41.0000 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

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

8. User Changes to Default Data
2416
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
77 / 81

8.1. Justifications
Screen Justification
Land Use Acreage based on actual project site
Construction: Construction Phases Estimated project construction schedule Operations: Fleet Mix SJVPCD Approved Residential Fleet Mix for Year 2026 Operations: Hearths No woodstoves or fireplaces

8.3. Land Use
Model Parameter Units Default Value New Value
Lot Area acre 95.1299 53.2000
Lot Area acre 23.4375 21.8000
Landscape Area sq. ft — 0.00000

8.4. Construction

8.4.1. Construction Phases
Phase Type Phase Name Model Parameter Default Value New Value Site Preparation Site Preparation Start Date 5/22/2026 1/1/2026 Site Preparation Site Preparation End Date 8/14/2026 1/22/2026 Site Preparation Site Preparation Work Days per Phase 60.0000 16.0000 Grading Grading Start Date 8/15/2026 1/23/2026
Grading Grading End Date 3/20/2027 3/19/2026
Grading Grading Work Days per Phase 155.000 40.0000
Building Construction Building Construction Start Date 3/21/2027 3/20/2026 Building Construction Building Construction End Date 2/27/2033 10/8/2027 Building Construction Building Construction Work Days per Phase 1,550.00 406.000 Paving Paving Start Date 2/28/2033 10/09/2027
2417
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
78 / 81
Paving Paving End Date 8/1/2033 11/18/2027
Paving Paving Work Days per Phase 110.000 29.0000
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating Start Date 8/2/2033 11/19/2027 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating End Date 1/3/2034 12/29/2027 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating Work Days per Phase 110.000 29.0000

8.5. Operations

8.5.1. Mobile Sources

8.5.1.2. Fleet Mix
Land Use Season Model Parameter Units Default Value New Value Single Family Housing A Heavy-Heavy-Duty Trucks % 2% 2% Single Family Housing A Passenger Cars % 46% 52%
Single Family Housing A Light-Duty Trucks 1 % 4% 21%
Single Family Housing A Light-Duty Trucks 2 % 20% 17%
Single Family Housing A Light Heavy-Duty Trucks 1 % 4% < 0.5% Single Family Housing A Light Heavy-Duty Trucks 2 % 1% < 0.5% Single Family Housing A Motorcycles % 2% < 0.5%
Single Family Housing A Medium-Duty Trucks % 20% 6%
Single Family Housing A Motor Homes % < 0.5% < 0.5%
Single Family Housing A Medium-Heavy-Duty Trucks % 1% 1% Single Family Housing A Other Buses % < 0.5% 0%
Single Family Housing A School Buses % < 0.5% < 0.5%
Single Family Housing A Urban Buses % < 0.5% < 0.5%
Single Family Housing S Heavy-Heavy-Duty Trucks % 2% 2% Single Family Housing S Passenger Cars % 46% 52%
Single Family Housing S Light-Duty Trucks 1 % 4% 21%
Single Family Housing S Light-Duty Trucks 2 % 20% 17% 2418 Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
79 / 81
Single Family HousingS Light Heavy-Duty Trucks 1% 4% < 0.5% Single Family HousingS Light Heavy-Duty Trucks 2% 1% < 0.5% Single Family HousingS Motorcycles% 2% < 0.5%
Single Family HousingS Medium-Duty Trucks% 20% 6%
Single Family HousingS Motor Homes% < 0.5% < 0.5%
Single Family HousingS Medium-Heavy-Duty Trucks% 1% 1%
Single Family HousingS Other Buses% < 0.5% 0%
Single Family HousingS School Buses% < 0.5% < 0.5%
Single Family HousingS Urban Buses% < 0.5% < 0.5%
Single Family HousingW Heavy-Heavy-Duty Trucks% 2% 2%
Single Family HousingW Passenger Cars% 46% 52%
Single Family HousingW Light-Duty Trucks 1% 4% 21%
Single Family HousingW Light-Duty Trucks 2% 20% 17%
Single Family HousingW Light Heavy-Duty Trucks 1% 4% < 0.5% Single Family HousingW Light Heavy-Duty Trucks 2% 1% < 0.5% Single Family HousingW Motorcycles% 2% < 0.5%
Single Family HousingW Medium-Duty Trucks% 20% 6%
Single Family HousingW Motor Homes% < 0.5% < 0.5%
Single Family HousingW Medium-Heavy-Duty Trucks% 1% 1%
Single Family HousingW Other Buses% < 0.5% 0%
Single Family HousingW School Buses% < 0.5% < 0.5%
Single Family HousingW Urban Buses% < 0.5% < 0.5%
Apartments Low RiseA Heavy-Heavy-Duty Trucks% 2% 2%
Apartments Low RiseA Passenger Cars% 46% 52%
Apartments Low RiseA Light-Duty Trucks 1% 4% 21%
Apartments Low RiseA Light-Duty Trucks 2% 20% 17%
Apartments Low RiseA Light Heavy-Duty Trucks 1% 4% < 0.5% Apartments Low RiseA Light Heavy-Duty Trucks 2% 1% < 0.5% 2419
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
80 / 81
Apartments Low RiseA Motorcycles% 2% < 0.5%
Apartments Low RiseA Medium-Duty Trucks% 20% 6%
Apartments Low RiseA Motor Homes% < 0.5% < 0.5%
Apartments Low RiseA Medium-Heavy-Duty Trucks% 1% 1%
Apartments Low RiseA Other Buses% < 0.5% 0%
Apartments Low RiseA School Buses% < 0.5% < 0.5%
Apartments Low RiseA Urban Buses% < 0.5% < 0.5%
Apartments Low RiseS Heavy-Heavy-Duty Trucks% 2% 2%
Apartments Low RiseS Passenger Cars% 46% 52%
Apartments Low RiseS Light-Duty Trucks 1% 4% 21%
Apartments Low RiseS Light-Duty Trucks 2% 20% 17%
Apartments Low RiseS Light Heavy-Duty Trucks 1% 4% < 0.5% Apartments Low RiseS Light Heavy-Duty Trucks 2% 1% < 0.5% Apartments Low RiseS Motorcycles% 2% < 0.5%
Apartments Low RiseS Medium-Duty Trucks% 20% 6%
Apartments Low RiseS Motor Homes% < 0.5% < 0.5%
Apartments Low RiseS Medium-Heavy-Duty Trucks% 1% 1%
Apartments Low RiseS Other Buses% < 0.5% 0%
Apartments Low RiseS School Buses% < 0.5% < 0.5%
Apartments Low RiseS Urban Buses% < 0.5% < 0.5%
Apartments Low RiseW Heavy-Heavy-Duty Trucks% 2% 2%
Apartments Low RiseW Passenger Cars% 46% 52%
Apartments Low RiseW Light-Duty Trucks 1% 4% 21%
Apartments Low RiseW Light-Duty Trucks 2% 20% 17%
Apartments Low RiseW Light Heavy-Duty Trucks 1% 4% < 0.5% Apartments Low RiseW Light Heavy-Duty Trucks 2% 1% < 0.5% Apartments Low RiseW Motorcycles% 2% < 0.5%
Apartments Low RiseW Medium-Duty Trucks% 20% 6%
2420
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
81 / 81
Apartments Low Rise W Motor Homes % < 0.5% < 0.5%
Apartments Low Rise W Medium-Heavy-Duty Trucks % 1% 1%
Apartments Low Rise W Other Buses % < 0.5% 0%
Apartments Low Rise W School Buses % < 0.5% < 0.5%
Apartments Low Rise W Urban Buses % < 0.5% < 0.5%

8.5.2. Area Sources

8.5.2.1. Hearths
Land Use Model Parameter Default Value New Value
Single Family Housing Gas Fireplaces 147 0
Single Family Housing No Fireplaces 147 293
Single Family Housing Catalytic Wood Stoves 15 0
Single Family Housing Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 15 0
Apartments Low Rise Gas Fireplaces 188 0
Apartments Low Rise No Fireplaces 188 370
Apartments Low Rise Catalytic Wood Stoves 19 0
Apartments Low Rise Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 19 0
2421

APPENDIX B

HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT MODELING FILES (ELECTRONIC)

2422

APPENDIX C

AMBIENT AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS MODELING FILES (ELECTRONIC)

2423

APPENDIX B

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE EVALUATION (BRE)

2424

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE EVALUATION

CITY OF VISALIA

CLEMENT RANCH PROJECT
JUNE 2025
2425

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE EVALUATION

CLEMENT RANCH PROJECT
Prepared for:

City of Visalia
Community Development Department
315 East Acequia Avenue
Visalia, CA 93291
Contact Person: Brandon Smith, AICP
Phone: (559) 713-4636
Consultant:
5080 California Avenue, Suite 220
Bakersfield, CA 93309
Contact: Jaymie Brauer
Phone: (661) 616-2600
June 2025
Unauthorized use prohibited.

Project #240208
2426

Clements Ranch Project June 2025
City of Visalia Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................................. i Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 1 SECTION 1 - Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 - Project Location.......................................................................................................................................1-1

1.2 - Project Description.................................................................................................................................1-1

1.3 - Purpose, Goals, and Objectives for this Report............................................................................1-1 SECTION 2 - Methods ................................................................................................................................ 2-3

2.1 - Definition of Biological Study Area ..................................................................................................2-3

2.2 - Literature Review and Database Analysis.....................................................................................2-3

2.3 - Reconnaissance-Level Field Surveys...............................................................................................2-5 SECTION 3 - Environmental Setting ..................................................................................................... 3-6

3.1 - Topography ...............................................................................................................................................3-6

3.2 - Climate.........................................................................................................................................................3-6

3.3 - Land Use .....................................................................................................................................................3-6

3.4 - Soils ..............................................................................................................................................................3-7

3.5 - Hydrology...................................................................................................................................................3-7

3.6 - General Biological Conditions ............................................................................................................3-9 SECTION 4 - Findings ................................................................................................................................ 4-9

4.1 - Sensitive Natural Communities .........................................................................................................4-9

4.1.1 - Results of Literature Review and Database Searches.............................................4-9

4.1.2 - Presence of Sensitive Natural Communities............................................................4-10

4.2 - Special-Status Plants...........................................................................................................................4-10

4.2.1 - Results of Literature Review and Database Searches..........................................4-10

4.2.2 - Presence of Special-Status Plants ................................................................................4-11

4.3 - Special-Status Wildlife .......................................................................................................................4-11

4.3.1 - Results of Literature Review and Database Searches..........................................4-11

4.3.2 - Presence of Special-Status Wildlife.............................................................................4-12

4.3.3 - Nesting Migratory Birds and Raptors ........................................................................4-17

4.4 - Critical Habitat, Movement Corridors, and Linkages .............................................................4-17

4.4.1 - Presence of Critical Habitat............................................................................................4-17

4.4.2 - Presence of Movement Corridors and Linkages ....................................................4-17

4.5 - Wetlands and Other Waters.............................................................................................................4-17 SECTION 5 - Potential Project Impacts .............................................................................................. 5-20

5.1 - Potential Impacts to Sensitive Vegetation Communities......................................................5-20 2427

Clements Ranch Project June 2025
City of Visalia Page ii

5.2 - Potential Impacts to Special-Status Plant Species...................................................................5-20

5.3 - Potential Impacts to Special-Status Wildlife Species .............................................................5-20

5.4 - Potential Impacts to Nesting Birds and Raptors......................................................................5-20 SECTION 6 - Avoidance and Minimization Measures ................................................................... 6-22 SECTION 7 - Summary and Conclusions ........................................................................................... 7-27 SECTION 8 - References ......................................................................................................................... 8-28 Appendices
Appendix A CNDDB, CNPS, and IPaC Database Results
Appendix B Representative Photographs
Appendix C Plants and Wildlife Species Observed On-Site List of Figures
Figure 1-1 Regional Map................................................................................................................................1-1 Figure 1-2 Project Location Map.................................................................................................................1-2 Figure 2-1 Biological Study Area.................................................................................................................2-4 Figure 4-1 Mapped Critical Habitat in the Project Vicinity............................................................4-19

List of Tables
Table 3-1 Field Survey Personnel and Timing.......................................................................................3-6 Table 4-1 Special-Status Plant Species Occurring in the Region of the BSA ...........................4-10 Table 4-2 Special-Status Wildlife Species Occurring in the Region of the BSA (Source: CNDDB 2025, and USFWS 2025) .............................................................................................................................4-11 2428
Biological Resource Evaluation Executive Summary

Clements Ranch Project June 2025
City of Visalia Page 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Biological Resource Evaluation (BRE) report provides the results of a biological survey conducted by QK for the Clement Ranch Project (Project). In order to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) a biological evaluation was conducted to identify the potential for sensitive biological resources to occur on or near the Project site.

The Project site is located northeast of the intersection of South Lovers Lane and East Caldwell Avenue within an area of unincorporated Tulare County, southeast of the City of Visalia (City) and adjacent to the city limits. The proposed project consists of a new residential development.

A review of available literature and agency databases was conducted to obtain information of the occurrences of natural communities, special-status plant and wildlife species known to occur in the vicinity of the Project site. QK conducted a biological reconnaissance survey on June 16th, 2025, to determine the locations and extent of land use, natural vegetation communities, determine the potential for occurrences of special-status plant and wildlife species, and verify the presence of wetlands and State and or federal jurisdictional waters.

The Biological Study Area (BSA) includes the Project site and a 250-foot survey buffer surrounding the Project disturbance footprint.

No observations of special-status plant species were documented during the site survey.

Diagnostic sign and observations of special-status wildlife species were observed near the Project site. No wetlands or other sensitive biological resources were observed on the Project site; however, two features are near the Project site.

Based on the literature and database search, and the results of the survey, there is a potential of special-status wildlife species to be impacted by construction site activities. American badger (Taxidea taxus), San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica), and Western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) could potentially reside within the dens and burrows in the BSA near the Project site and Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), could potentially nest in nearby resources (trees, power poles, etc.) near the Project site (within 0.5 miles). There is potential for nesting migratory birds and other raptors species, protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Species Act, to occur on or near the Project site and surrounding areas.

With the implementation of Best Management Practices and recommended avoidance measures, the Project will likely have limited impacts to special-status species, Swainson’s hawk, migratory birds, and raptors. There is expected to be no impact to special-status plant species, sensitive natural communities, wetlands or water features, or any other sensitive biological resources not mentioned above.
2429
Biological Resource Evaluation Introduction

Clements Ranch Project June 2025
City of Visalia Page 1-1
SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION
D.R. Horton (the Applicant) proposes to develop a 75-acre property of various density housing outside the city limits of Visalia. To comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a biological evaluation was conducted to identify the potential for sensitive biological resources to occur on or near the Project site. This Biological Resource Evaluation (BRE) provides the basic biological information needed for the permitting process.

1.1 - Project Location
The Project site is located northeast of the intersection of South Lovers Lane and East Caldwell Avenue in the City of Visalia, Tulare, CA. The Project site is identified by Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN) 127-020-20 and 127-020-21, within Section 3, Township 19, Range 25E, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian (MDB&M).

1.2 - Project Description
The Project proposes to develop a mixed-use residential subdivision (TTM 5606) on an approximately 75-acre site (APNs: 127-020-20 and -21) located on Lovers Lane and north of East Caldwell Avenue in the City of Visalia, California (Project). The two parcels are located outside of the City boundary and will be annexed as part of the Project. The client anticipates multiple phases for this project.

The Project will require approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map, General Plan Amendment (GPA), Annexation, Prezone and a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow for a Planned Unit Development (PUD).

Construction equipment will vary over the course of development and will include the following:
• Roller
• Loaded trucks
• Excavator
• Generator
• Service truck
• Air compressor
Construction of the Project is anticipated to begin in Q4 2024 and is expected to take a maximum of 24 months

1.3 - Purpose, Goals, and Objectives for this Report
This BRE report includes the results of a biological survey and available biological and natural resource database search conducted by QK biologists at the Project site. This report 2430
Biological Resource Evaluation Introduction

Clement Ranch Project June 2025
D.R. Horton Page 1-2
is consistent with the requirements for an analysis of impacts to biological resources needed of an Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration following guidelines established by CEQA.

The primary focus of this report is to provide information about the presence of sensitive biological resources on the Project and develop measures to avoid and minimize impacts of the Project on those resources. To accomplish that goal, this BRE provides information on the condition and sensitivity of the sensitive biological resources present and potentially present on and adjacent to the Project site and evaluates Project impacts to those resources.

This BRE focuses on providing information and sensitive natural communities, special-status species, wildlife movement corridors, and wetlands and waters by conducting a desktop analysis of site conditions and verifying those findings with an on-site biological survey. 2431
Biological Resource Evaluation Introduction

Clements Ranch Project June 2025
City of Visalia Page 1-1
Figure 1-1
Regional Map
Clement Ranch Project,
Tulare County, California
6 Project Location
0 Miles 100 0
7,5
I
I
J opos
2432
Biological Resource Evaluation Introduction

Clement Ranch Project June 2025
D.R. Horton Page 1-2
Figure 1-2
Project Location Map
Clement Ranch Project,
Tulare County, California
2433
Biological Resource Evaluation Methods

Clements Ranch Project June 2025
City of Visalia Page 2-3
SECTION 2 - METHODS

2.1 - Definition of Biological Study Area
The Biological Study Area (BSA) includes the Project site and a 250-foot survey buffer surrounding the Project disturbance footprint, where feasible (Figure 2-1).

2.2 - Literature Review and Database Analysis
The following online resources were reviewed for information on special-status biological resources in the Project vicinity:
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB; CDFW 2025a).
• CDFW’s Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS; CDFW 2025b). • CDFW’s Special Animals List (CDFW 2025c).
• CDFW’s California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) System (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988).
• California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2025).
• United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation System (IPaC; USFWS 2025a).
• USFWS Critical Habitat Mapper (USFWS 2025b).
• USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI; USFWS 2025c). • USGS National Hydrography Dataset (NHD; USGS 2025).
• Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood zone maps (FEMA 2025). • United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (NRCS 2025)
• Current and historical aerial imagery (Google LLC 2025, Esri 2025).

The CNDDB and CNPS queries focused on the Visalia USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle in which the Project is located, plus the surrounding eight quadrangles: Exeter, Cairns Corner, Tulare, Paige, Goshen, Traver, Monson, and Ivanhoe. To satisfy other standard search criteria, CNDDB records within a 10-mile radius of the Project site were queried separately from the broader database search.
2434
Biological Resource Evaluation Methods

Clement Ranch Project June 2025
D.R. Horton Page 2-4
Figure 2-1
Biological Study Area
Clement Ranch Project, Tulare County, California
D Biological Study Area (BSA, 250-Foot Buffer)
D Project Site
2435
Biological Resource Evaluation Methods

Clement Ranch Project June 2025
D.R. Horton Page 2-5
The CNDDB provides element-specific spatial information on individual documented occurrences of special-status species and sensitive natural vegetation communities. The CNPS database provides similar information, but at a much lower spatial resolution, for additional sensitive plant species tracked by the CNPS. The CDFW Special Animals List and USFWS IPaC provide no spatial data on wildlife occurrences and provide only lists of species potentially present. Wildlife species designated as “Fully Protected” by California Fish and Game Code Sections 5050 (Fully Protected reptiles and amphibians), 3511 (Fully Protected birds), and 4700 (Fully Protected mammals) are also included on the final list of evaluated species. The database search results can be found in Appendix A.

A review of the NWI was completed to identify whether wetlands have previously been documented on or adjacent to the Project site. The NWI, which is operated by the USFWS, is a collection of wetland and riparian maps that depicts graphic representations of the type, size, and location of wetland, deep water, and riparian habitats in the United States. In addition to the NWI, regional hydrologic information from the NHD was obtained from the USGS to evaluate the potential occurrence of blueline streams within or near the Project site.

Soils data were obtained from the USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey, climate information was obtained from the Western Regional Climate Center, and land use information was obtained from available aerial imagery (NRCS 2025; WRCC 2025; Google LLC 2025). Information about flood zones was obtained from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security (FEMA 2025).

The results of the database inquiries were reviewed to extract pertinent information on site conditions and evaluate the potential for sensitive biological resources to occur within or near the proposed Project site. Only those resources with the potential to be present and affected by the Project were included and considered in this document. The potential presence of natural communities and special-status species was based on distributional ranges overlapping the Project site and the presence of habitat and/or primary constituent habitat elements.

2.3 - Reconnaissance-Level Field Surveys
A biological reconnaissance survey of the BSA was conducted by QK Environmental Scientists Mattole Whitaker and Brittney Gummo on June 16, 2025. The survey consisted of meandering pedestrian transects spaced 50 to 100 feet apart throughout the BSA, where accessible. Areas with suitable habitat that could not be accessed, such as private residences or adjacent agricultural fields, were surveyed by use of high-power binoculars.

Tasks completed during the survey included determining and documenting current land use, developing an inventory of plant species, wildlife species, and wildlife sign (e.g., scat, burrows, nests, feathers, tracks, etc.), characterizing vegetation associations and habitat conditions within the BSA, assessing the potential for federal, State-listed and other specialstatus plant and wildlife species that may occur on and near the Project site based on existing conditions, and assessing the potential for migratory birds and raptors to nest on and near the Project site. In addition, all historical wetland and water features documented by NWI 2436
Biological Resource Evaluation Environmental Setting

Clement Ranch Project June 2025
D.R. Horton Page 3-6
and NHD were field verified. All spatial data were recorded using Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) Field Maps for ArcGIS software installed on an iPad. Site conditions were documented with representative photographs (Appendix B).

SECTION 3 - ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
This section identifies the regional and local environmental setting of the Project and describes existing baseline conditions. The environmental setting of the BSA was obtained from various sources of literature, databases, and aerial photographs. Site conditions were verified and updated during the site reconnaissance survey conducted by QK Environmental Scientists (Table 3-1).

Table 3-1
Field Survey Personnel and Timing
Date Personnel Time Weather Conditions Temperature
06/16/2025 Mattole Whitaker,
Brittney Gummo 0940 – 1342 Sunny 77 - 95F

3.1 - Topography
The Project site is on the floor of the San Joaquin Valley west of the Sierra Nevada foothills.

The topography on the site is relatively flat, with an elevation range of approximately 330 to 345 feet above mean sea level.

3.2 - Climate
The region in which the Project is located is characterized by a Mediterranean climate of hot summers and wet, mild winters. Average high temperatures range from 56.0°F in January to

97.5°F in July, and it is not uncommon for temperatures to exceed 100°F during the summer (WRCC, 2021). Average low temperatures range from 36.8°F in December to 63.5°F in July.

Precipitation occurs primarily as rain, most of which falls between November and April.

Precipitation may also occur as dense fog during the winter known as Tule Fog. Rain rarely falls during the summer months.

3.3 - Land Use
Land use surrounding the Project area consist of urban development, railroad tracks, fallow agriculture, orchards, non-native grassland, and barren land. Land use within the Project boundary consists of annual grassland, barren land, remnants of a building foundation, and deciduous orchards. It is bounded by Southern Pacific railroad tracks to the north, Lover Lane to the west, deciduous orchards to the east, and Cameron Creek to the south. 2437
Biological Resource Evaluation Environmental Setting

Clement Ranch Project June 2025
D.R. Horton Page 3-7

3.4 - Soils
The Project site is underlain by two soil types, Nord fine sandy loam and Grangeville sandy loam (NRCS 2025). These soil series are described by the NRCS and are listed below.

Nord fine sandy loam (0 to 2 percent slopes): The Nord soil series is characterized by very deep and well drained soils (NRCS 2025). This soil series has a negligible to low rate of runoff and moderate permeability; however, in saline-sodic phases the permeability is moderate.

They are formed of mixed alluvium from granitic and sedimentary rock. Nord can be found in alluvial fans and flood plains areas. Slopes range between 0 to 2 percent. This soil series can be used for irrigated crops including wheat (Triticum sp.), sugar beets (Beta vulgaris), corn (Zea mays), cotton (Gossypium sp.), alfalfa, walnuts (Juglans sp.), peaches and other fruit or nut trees. Natural vegetation that can grow on this soil type includes annual grasses and forbs and valley oak (Quercus lobata). Nord soil types that are found in Tulare County include Nord complex and Nord fine sandy loam. Nord fine sandy loam (0 to 2 percent slopes) is not a hydric soil (NRCS 2025).

Grangeville sandy loam (drained, 0 to 2 percent slopes): The Grangeville soil series is characterized by very deep and somewhat poorly drained soils (NRCS 2025). This soil series has a negligible to very low rate of runoff and moderate rapid permeability; however, in saline-sodic phases the permeability is moderate. They are formed of mixed alluvium from granitic and sedimentary rock. Grangeville soils can be found on alluvial fans and floodplains.

Slopes range between 0 to 2 percent. This soil series can be used for irrigated crops including grapes (Vitaceae sp), cotton (Gossypium sp.), alfalfa, truck crops, or general irrigated pasture. Natural vegetation that can grow on this soil type includes annual grasses and forbs and valley oak (Quercus lobata). Nord soil types that are found in Kings County include Nord complex and Nord fine sandy loam. Grangeville sandy loam (drained, 0 to 2 percent slopes) is a hydric soil (NRCS 2025).

3.5 - Hydrology
There are two water features within the BSA, as defined by the NHD and NWI and they were confirmed present during the survey (USGS 2025; USFWS 2025c). These water features, Tulare Irrigation Canal and Cameron Creek, are classified as a riverine intermittent streambed with seasonal flooding and excavated wetland (USGS 2025; USFWS 2025c). The Tulare Irrigation Canal bisects the Project site in the northwest corner, and Cameron Creek bounds the site along the southerly boundary.

According to FEMA, the BSA resides within a primarily 0.2% annual chance flood zone area, with a small portion along the southwest being in a 1% annual chance floodzone area (Figure 3-1).
2438
Biological Resource Evaluation Environmental Setting

Clement Ranch Project June 2025
D.R. Horton Page 3-8
Figure 3-1
FEMA Flood Zone Map
Clement Ranch Project, Tulare County, California
I
I" c..,,,..,,.. ...... I\ ""
I>
l 1 C
- ' r E Beech Ave ... • ~ J
:
~ v--
I ----1-:1-----~--,L~ ~c+:-?,~-n-y Ave
I
J1
- ~
' J
)
Flood Hazard Zones
1 % Annual Chance Flood Hazard

0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard
E Country Ave
E Orange Ave
D Biological Study Area (BSA, 250-Foot Buffer)
[:_ 1 Project Site
Vl
-
OJ
~ .0
:::,
<{
Vl
l
o
I Feet 1.000 I
I
2439
Biological Resource Evaluation Findings

Clements Ranch Project June 2025
City of Visalia Page 4-9

3.6 - General Biological Conditions
The Project site includes two separate parcels with over half of it being a recently mowed, irrigated agricultural field containing oats and a peach orchard.

There were no sensitive vegetative communities or special-status plant species observed.

The Project site consists of an irrigated agricultural field that was recently mowed containing grain. The urban development surrounding the Project site contains various ornamental shrubs and trees including pines (Pinus sp.), sycamore (Platanus sp.) and olive (Olea sp.) within the BSA.

There are several large trees within the BSA that could support nesting birds and/or raptors, but no nests were observed during the site visit. Smaller ornamental trees associated with the private residences surrounding the Project site could support nesting passerine bird species. Common migratory bird species observed during the survey included mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), and common raven (Corvus corax). A Swainson’s hawk (Buteo Swainsonii) pair was seen soaring within the BSA before flying out of view. A red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) was also observed soaring within the BSA.

Small mammal burrows were present within the BSA and Project site in the orchards, dirt berms along the mowed agricultural field, and both banks of Tulare Irrigation Canal and Cameron Creek. Dens suitable for special-status species such as San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis), American badger (Taxidea taxus), and western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) were present within the BSA along both banks of Tulare Irrigation Canal and a dirt berm adjacent to an orchard in the northwest of the Project site. Sign (den, burrow, scat, tracks, etc.) of domestic dog (Canis familiaris), domesticated cat (Felis catus), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi), pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae), deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), vole species (Microtus sp.), black copper marans (Gallus gallus domesticus), and large owl pellets (Strigiformes sp. or Tyto sp.) was observed in the mowed agricultural field on the Project site.

A complete list of plant and wildlife species observed within the BSA during the biological reconnaissance survey is included in Appendix C.

SECTION 4 - FINDINGS

4.1 - Sensitive Natural Communities

4.1.1 - RESULTS OF LITERATURE REVIEW AND DATABASE SEARCHES Literature results from the surrounding nine-quadrangle queries for the Project site identified four sensitive natural vegetation communities that may occur in the vicinity:

Valley Sacaton Grassland, Valley Hardpan Vernal Pool, Valley Claypan Vernal Pool, and Great Valley Valley Oak Riparian Forest.
2440
Biological Resource Evaluation Findings

Clement Ranch Project June 2025
D.R. Horton Page 4-10

4.1.2 - PRESENCE OF SENSITIVE NATURAL COMMUNITIES
Valley Sacaton Grassland, Valley Hardpan Vernal Pool, Valley Claypan Vernal Pool, and Great Valley Oak Riparian Forest communities were not present within the BSA. In addition, the BSA does not provide habitat that would support these communities.

4.2 - Special-Status Plants

4.2.1 - RESULTS OF LITERATURE REVIEW AND DATABASE SEARCHES There were eleven special-status plant species identified in the literature and database review that are known or have the potential to occur within the surrounding ninequadrangles centered on the Project site (Table 4-1). None of the special-status plant species have historical records occurring on or overlapping the BSA or were observed during the site survey.

Table 4-1
Special-Status Plant Species Occurring in the Region of the BSA (Source: CNDDB 2025, CNPS 2025, and USFWS 2025)
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Atriplex cordulata var. cordulata heartscale 1B.2
Atriplex cordulata var. erecticaulis Earlimart orache 1B.2 Atriplex depressa brittlescale 1B.2
Atriplex minuscula lesser saltscale 1B.1
Atriplex persistens vernal pool smallscale 1B.2
Atriplex subtilis subtle orache 1B.2
Caulanthus californicus California jewelflower 1B.1
Delphinium recurvatum recurved larkspur 1B.2
Eryngium spinosepalum spiny-sepaled button-celery 1B.2
Euphorbia hooveri Hoover's spurge 1B.2
Helianthus winteri Winter's sunflower 1B.2
Lasthenia chrysantha alkali-sink goldfields 1B.1
Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri Coulter's goldfields 1B.1 Orcuttia inaequalis San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass 1B.1 Pseudobahia peirsonii San Joaquin adobe sunburst 1B.1
Puccinellia simplex California alkali grass 1B.2
Sagittaria sanfordii Sanford's arrowhead 1B.2
CRPR (California Rare Plant Rank):
1B Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and elsewhere. 2B Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, but more common elsewhere.

CRPR Threat Code Extension:
.1 Seriously endangered in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat) .2 Fairly endangered in California (20-80% occurrences threatened) 2441
Biological Resource Evaluation Findings

Clement Ranch Project June 2025
D.R. Horton Page 4-11

4.2.2 - PRESENCE OF SPECIAL-STATUS PLANTS
No special-status plant species were present within the BSA. The survey coincided with some, but not all of the plant species’ optimal blooming periods; but none of the species identified in the CNDDB or IPaC database queries are expected to occur on-site due to the lack of suitable habitat conditions (previously disked agricultural field) and/or because the BSA is located outside of the species’ known range. The Project site is degraded from historical agricultural uses, and the adjacent lands have been equally disturbed for residential development and as transportation corridors.

A complete list of plant species observed during the biological reconnaissance survey is included in Appendix C.

4.3 - Special-Status Wildlife

4.3.1 - RESULTS OF LITERATURE REVIEW AND DATABASE SEARCHES There were 22 special-status wildlife species identified in the literature and database review that are known or have the potential to occur within the surrounding nine-quad search area centered on the Project (Table 4-2). Other than one historical record for San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) from 1972, CNDDB has no other records of any special-status wildlife species occur within the BSA.

Table 4-2
Special-Status Wildlife Species Occurring in the Region of the BSA (Source: CNDDB 2025, and USFWS 2025)
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Invertebrates
Andrena macswaini An andrenid bee - , SSC
Bombus crotchii Crotch's bumble bee - , SSC
Bombus pensylvanicus American bumble bee - , SSC
Danaus Plexippus monarch butterfly FC, SSC
Desmocerus californicus dimorphus valley elderberry longhorn beetle FT, SSC Lytta hoppingi Hopping's blister beetle FC, -
Aquatic Invertebrates
Branchinecta lynchi vernal pool fairy shrimp FT, SCC
Lepidurus packardi vernal pool tadpole shrimp FE, SCC
Linderiella occidentalis California linderiella - , SSC Amphibians
Ambystoma californiense pop 1 California tiger salamander

FT, ST/SSC
Lithobates pipiens northern leopard frog - , SSC
Spea hammondii western spadefoot FC , SSC
2442
Biological Resource Evaluation Findings

Clement Ranch Project June 2025
D.R. Horton Page 4-12
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Reptiles
Actinemys marmorata northwestern pond turtle - , SSC
Anniella pulchra Northern California legless lizard - , SSC Gambelia silus blunt-nosed leopard lizard FE, SSC
Birds
Agelaius tricolor tricolored blackbird - , ST/SSC
Athene cunicularia burrowing owl - , SSC
Buteo swainsoni Swainson's hawk - , ST/SSC
Coccyzus americanus occidentalis western yellow-billed cuckoo FT, SE/SSC Gymnogyps californianus California Condor FE, SSC
Lanius ludovicianus loggerhead shrike - , SSC
Mammals
Antrozous pallidus pallid bat FE, SE
Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides Tipton kangaroo rat FE, SE Eumops perotis californicus western mastiff bat - , SSC Sorex ornatus relictus Buena Vista Lake ornate shrew FE, SSC Taxidea taxus American badger FE, SSC
Vulpes macrotis mutica San Joaquin kit fox FE, ST
Abbreviations:

FC Federal Candidate
FE Federal Endangered Species
FT Federal Threatened Species
SFP Fully Protected Animal, CDFW
SE California Endangered Species
ST California Threatened Species
SSC California Department of Fish and Game Species of Special Concern SCS California Candidate

4.3.2 - PRESENCE OF SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE
Invertebrates:

There is suitable foraging habitat for An andrenid bee (Andrena macswaini), American bumble bee (Bombus pensylvanicus), and Hopping’s blister beetle (Lytta hoppingi) with numerous flowering trees within the orchards on the project site and within the BSA as well as residential landscaping containing flowering flora.

There is limited roosting habitat for monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) present within the BSA. Although no milkweed (Asclepias sp.), a required food source, for larval monarch butterflies is present within the BSA, individuals may travel through the BSA as a transient The BSA lacks suitable open grassland or scrub habitat for Crotch’s bumblebee (Bombus crotchii);there is a single CNDDB record (98758) from 1954. The BSA does not contain any elderberry shrubs to support the valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus). This species is expected to be absent from the site. 2443
Biological Resource Evaluation Findings

Clement Ranch Project June 2025
D.R. Horton Page 4-13
Aquatic Invertebrates:

The BSA has limited potential of pooled water features in Cameron Creek capable of supporting crustaceans such as vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi), and California linderiella (Linderiella occidentalis) But no records of these species have been documented within ten miles of the project site.

Neither of these species are likely to occur within the BSA.

Amphibians:

Cameron Creek and the Tulare Irrigation Canal may provide habitat for several species including: California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), western spadefoot (Spea hammondii), northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens) (Actinemys marmorata). However, these water features will not be impacted by the Project. The Project site has been cultivated and provides no suitable habitat to support these species.

No suitable nesting habitat exists to support and no CNDDB records exist within ten miles or the BSA for tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor) or suitable habitat for the Buena Vista Lake ornate shrew (Sorex ornatus relictus) or northern leopard frog Reptiles:

There are no native grasslands or native shrub habitats that would support blunt-nosed leopard lizard (Gambelia sila) within the BSA. There are no CNDDB records for this species within 10 miles of the BSA. This species is unlikely to occur within the BSA.

There is no suitable habitat for the Northern California legless lizard (Anniella pulchra) within the BSA. There is one CNDDB record (EONDX 107010) for this species 2.75 miles northwest of the BSA. It is a historic record from 1934 with one individual collected. This species is unlikely to occur within the BSA
Poor habitat and nesting areas for the northwestern pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata) exists within the BSA. There is a historic CNDDB record (EONDX 8143) 1.75 miles northwest, however the record is from 1879 with the population presumed to be extant. The historic record and because poor condition of the habitat and nesting areas for the species, it is unlikely to occur within the BSA.

Birds:

Tricolored blackbirds (Agelaius tricolor) lack suitable habitat for foraging and nesting within the BSA. There are also no CNDDB records within ten miles for the species.

Western burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia) inhabit grassland, open bare ground, and utilize existing small mammal burrows, typically created by California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi), for breeding and shelter. There was no diagnostic sign (e.g., whitewash, tracks, prey remains) of burrowing owl observed although appropriately sized small mammal burrows are present within the BSA. Burrowing owl may be present as 2444
Biological Resource Evaluation Findings

Clement Ranch Project June 2025
D.R. Horton Page 4-14
transient foragers and may inhabit appropriately sized burrows at any time. No CNDDB records of the western burrowing owl are recorded within 10 miles of the BSA.

The BSA provides suitable nesting and foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni). There are a few large trees located within the southwestern boundary of the BSA along Cameron Creek that could potentially support nesting raptors including Swainson’s hawk, but no nests were observed during the survey. The BSA provides suitable prey base along the boundaries where California ground squirrels are located. Agriculture within the BSA consists of a citrus orchard that is not considered foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk.

The small portion of agricultural field contains suitable foraging habitat, but of a very limited size. Agricultural fields located within 0.5 miles of the project site contain suitable foraging habitat. The nearest CNDDB record (EONDX 41944) for nesting Swainson’s hawk is located approximately 6.5 miles southeast the BSA in 2000. Two foraging Swainson’s hawks were observed in the BSA (Figure 4-1).

The BSA does not provide suitable nesting and foraging habitat for western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis). Though there is one historic CNDDB record (EONDX 97213) from 1919 located 1.80 miles northwest of the Project site. The population from the record is presumed extirpated.

The BSA does not provide suitable nesting and foraging habitat for California condor (Gymnogyps californianus). There is potential for a transient individual to fly overhead.

There are no CNDDB records within 10 miles of the BSA for this species. This species is unlikely to occur within the BSA.

The BSA provides suitable foraging and nesting habitat for the loggerheaded shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) in the fallow agricultural field and orchards. No CNDDB records occur within 10 miles for this species.

Mammals:

Suitable foraging and roosting habitat exist within the BSA, pallid bats (Antrozous pallidus) can potentially occur within it. There is one CNDDB record (EONDX 68476) 3.2 miles northeast of the BSA for this species. With this record from 2004 stating that a maternity colony of 15 adults and 15 juveniles were observed. This population from the record is considered extant by CDFW.

Due to the historic and ongoing disturbance of small mammal burrows and lack of any sign, the BSA does not support the Tipton kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides). No CNDDB records occur within 10 miles for this species. There is no connectivity between the BSA and habitat that would be considered suitable for kangaroo rat species.

Suitable foraging and roosting habitat exist within the BSA, mastiff bats (Eumops perotis) have the potential to occur within it. There is one CNDDB record (EONDX 61278) 3.37 miles west of the BSA. This record is from 2005 and states that individuals were recorded using ANABAT software
2445
Biological Resource Evaluation Findings

Clement Ranch Project June 2025
D.R. Horton Page 4-15
Though the BSA is within the historic range of the Buena Vista lake shrew (Sorex ornatus relictus) there are unlikely to occur within the BSA due to a lack of proper habitat. There are no CNDDB records within 10 miles of the BSA for this species.

The American badger (Taxidea taxus) may occur within the BSA. Several unoccupied burrows were observed with sign of badger digs in the BSA. The nearest CNDDB record (EONDX 56600), is 4 miles northeast of the BSA. This record is historical with observations occurring in 1994, however the records note that a small population is likely to still be surviving due to the large prey density. There were some potential dens that could have been dug by badgers as shown on Figure 4-1, however no other diagnostic sign (e.g., tracks, scat, prey remains) were observed.

The San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) is unlikely to be present within the BSA.

The nearest CNDDB record (EONDX 67933) is mapped generally within the southwest corner of the BSA and Project site. This record is historical, with the records of San Joaquin kit fox roadkill occurring between 1972-1975. The Project site lacks suitable habitat for the species due to the past and current level of disturbance and the surrounding BSA has been similarly degraded. No San Joaquin kit fox was observed during the survey though suitably sized burrows were observed during the field survey as shown on Figure 4-1. These burrows are likely enlarged California ground squirrel or badger digs. 2446
Biological Resource Evaluation Findings

Clement Ranch Project June 2025
D.R. Horton Page 4-16

Figure 4-1
Biological Resources Map
~ Swainson's Hawk Observation
◊ Dead House Mouse
♦ Dead California Vole
Swallow Nests
Potential Den
c::::J Biological Study Area (BSA, 250-Foot Buffer)
C Project Site
2447
Biological Resource Evaluation Findings

Clement Ranch Project June 2025
D.R. Horton Page 4-17

4.3.3 - NESTING MIGRATORY BIRDS AND RAPTORS
There are nine active clusters of swallow nests present within the BSA, three are located under the bridge for the Tulare Irrigation Canal and six under the bridge for Cameron Creek.

Habitat within the Project site with potential to support nesting migratory birds and raptors include large trees, orchards, utility poles, and residential landscaping. Due to periodic mowing and other agricultural activities, it is unlikely ground nesting species would nest within the Project site.

4.4 - Critical Habitat, Movement Corridors, and Linkages

4.4.1 - PRESENCE OF CRITICAL HABITAT
The BSA is not within any USFWS designated critical habitat. The closest critical habitat is located approximately 9.5 miles north of the BSA and is designated for San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass, Hoover’s spurge, vernal pool fairy shrimp, and vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Figure 4-1).

4.4.2 - PRESENCE OF MOVEMENT CORRIDORS AND LINKAGES
The BSA is not within any designated wildlife linkage or movement corridors. The nearest wildlife movement corridor is located approximately 9.01 miles north of the BSA and the nearest wildlife linkage area is approximately 20.13 miles to the southwest. The Project is situated within an area developed for urban and agricultural use and does not provide a linkage between suitable natural habitats for most wildlife species. Due to the disturbed condition of the Project and surrounding area, there is no substantial movement of wildlife onto or off the BSA.

4.5 - Wetlands and Other Waters
No wetland or non-wetland water features are known to exist on the Project site. The NHD and NWI identify two water features, the Tulare Irrigation Canal, which bisects the Project site and Cameron Creek, which runs along the southerly boundary of the site (Figure 4-1).

The Project is designed to completely avoid these waterways and neither will be impacted.

4.6 - Resources Protected by Local Policies and Ordinances The City of Visalia General Plan contains policies aimed at the preservation of biological resources and promotes coordination with federal and State resource agencies. These policies are listed in Appendix A. The General Plan outlines a work plan with implementation measure by which to uphold these policies, including biological resource review for proposed projects and development of mitigation measures for these projects. The City of Visalia Valley Oak Ordinance establishes policies for care, trimming, and removal of Valley Oaks.
2448
Biological Resource Evaluation Findings

Clement Ranch Project June 2025
D.R. Horton Page 4-18

4.7 - Habitat Conservation Plans
The Project is located within an area covered by the PG&E San Joaquin Valley Operation and Maintenance Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). That HCP only applies to maintenance and operations of PG&E facilities
2449
Biological Resource Evaluation Findings

Clement Ranch Project June 2025
D.R. Horton Page 4-19
Figure 4-2
Mapped Critical Habitat in the Project Vicinity
Clement Ranch Project, Tulare County, California
Project Location
- USFWS Critical Habitat
2450
Biological Resource Evaluation Potential Project Impacts

Clements Ranch Project June 2025
City of Visalia Page 5-20
SECTION 5 - POTENTIAL PROJECT IMPACTS
The purpose of this section is to present an evaluation of the potential for Project-related impacts to sensitive biological resources to occur resulting from Project construction activities. Although the potential for impacts of the Project is anticipated to be minor due to the current condition of the site, there are some risks of Project impacts. These are discussed below.

5.1 - Potential Impacts to Sensitive Vegetation Communities No sensitive vegetation communities occur within the BSA. The Project would not impact sensitive natural communities.

5.2 - Potential Impacts to Special-Status Plant Species No special-status plant species occur within the BSA and there is no suitable habitat for any special-status plant species on or near the BSA. The Project would not impact any specialstatus plant species.

5.3 - Potential Impacts to Special-Status Wildlife Species Four special-status wildlife species; Swainson’s hawk, western burrowing owl, American badger, and San Joaquin kit fox are determined to have potential to occur within the BSA as a transient. Nesting birds and raptors have the potential to occur on or near the Project site and surrounding the BSA during the nesting season. Several suitable dens are located in the BSA that can be utilized by burrowing owl, American badger, or San Joaquin kit fox and these species may be a transient forager at any time. Avoidance and minimization measures listed below will eliminate or reduce project impacts to special-status species to a less than significant level.

Any special-status species that use the Project as a movement corridor or use the multiple dens and burrows located on the Project site or vicinity may be directly or indirectly impacted by Project activities.

5.4 - Potential Impacts to Nesting Birds and Raptors
The active swallow nests under the bridges will not be directly impacted by the Project activities. Impacts by nearby construction activities will include noise, dust and other human disturbances may impact nesting behavior if the project occurs during the nesting season.

No other nests were observed within the BSA. There is potential for birds to nest outside of the Project site but nearby in the BSA in existing structures and trees in the future. If there are active nests present during Project activities, nests could be impacted by Project activities that interfere with normal breeding behaviors, which could discourage breeding or lead to nest abandonment or failure. Avoidance and minimization measures listed below will eliminate or reduce impacts to nesting birds to a less than significant level 2451
Biological Resource Evaluation Potential Project Impacts

Clement Ranch Project June 2025
D.R. Horton Page 5-21

5.5 - Potential Impacts to Critical Habitat, Movement Corridors and Linkages

5.5.1 - POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO CRITICAL HABITAT
There is no critical habitat identified in the area, and therefore, the Project would not have impact on any designated critical habitat.

5.5.2 - POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO MOVEMENT CORRIDORS AND LINKAGES Project activities would not impact any movement corridors or habitat linkages.

5.6 - Potential Impacts to Wetlands and Waters
No wetland or non-wetland water features are known to exist on the Project site. The NHD and NWI identify two water features, the Tulare Irrigation Canal, which bisects the Project site and Cameron Creek, which runs along the southerly boundary of the site (Figure 4-1).

The Project is designed to completely avoid these waterways and neither will be impacted.

5.7 - Resources Protected by Local Policies and Ordinances The Project does not conflict with the City of Visalia General Plan and is not subject to any local ordinances. Therefore, there are no impacts with respect to local policies and ordinances, and no measures are warranted.

5.8 - Habitat Conservation Plans
The Project is within the PG&E’s San Joaquin Valley O&M HCP plan. Because the Project is not a PG&E facility, the Project would not conflict with any adopted HCP and there will be no impacts, and no measures are warranted.
.
2452
Biological Resource Evaluation Avoidance and Minimization Measures

Clement Ranch Project June 2025
D.R. Horton Page 6-22
SECTION 6 - AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION MEASURES
Avoidance and minimization measures have been developed for the Project to reduce or eliminate impacts to a less than significant level. The Project is anticipated to have no impacts on sensitive natural communities, special-status plants, wetlands and non-wetland water features, Critical Habitat, or migratory corridors. There is potential for Project activities to result in impacts to one of the special-status wildlife species listed in Sections 4 and 5. While the potential for impacts to special-status wildlife species is low, we recommend that the following be implemented as Avoidance and Minimization Measures and Best Management Practices (BMPs) during Project activities:

BIO-1: Pre-Construction Survey: A pre-construction clearance survey of the Project footprint should be conducted for special-status wildlife species and nesting migratory birds and raptors. The survey should occur no less than 14 days prior to the start of construction activities. If construction is delayed beyond 30 days from the time of the survey, then another survey would need to be conducted. The survey should be conducted by a biologist with adequate training and prior experience conducting surveys for special-status wildlife species. If no special-status species are observed, no further action is warranted. If dens or burrows that could support special-status species and/or nesting birds and raptors are discovered during the pre-construction survey, appropriate avoidance buffers should be established. If no special-status species are observed on or near the Project site, no further surveys are required.

BIO-2: Nesting Bird Survey: If construction is planned during the nesting season for migratory birds (February 15 to August 31) and nesting birds are identified during the survey, active Swainson’s hawk nest shall be avoided by 0.5 miles, other raptor nests shall be avoided by 500 feet and all other migratory bird nests shall be avoided by 250 feet.

Avoidance buffers may be reduced if a qualified biological monitor determines that encroachment into the buffer area is not affecting nest building, the rearing of young, or otherwise affecting the breeding behaviors of the resident birds. Because nesting birds can establish new nests or produce a second or even third clutch at any time during the nesting season, nesting bird surveys shall be repeated every 30 days as construction activities are occurring throughout the nesting season. If no nesting birds are observed on or near the Project site, no further surveys are required.

BIO-3: Worker Environmental Awareness Program. A Worker Environmental Awareness Program shall be developed and implemented for all personnel that could access the site prior to commencing any disturbance activities. The program shall consist of an on-site or center presentation that will describe the locations and types of sensitive plant, wildlife, and sensitive natural communities (collectively, “Biological Resources”) on and near the site, an overview of the laws and regulations governing the protection of Biological Resources, the reasons for protecting the Biological Resources, the specific protection and avoidance measures that are applicable to the site, and the identity of designated points of contact should questions or issues arise, including the qualified biologist. The program shall provide 2453
Biological Resource Evaluation Avoidance and Minimization Measures

Clement Ranch Project June 2025
D.R. Horton Page 6-23
training to recognize, avoid, and report to applicable qualified biologists any Biological Resources on the site.
a. The Worker Environmental Awareness Program shall emphasize the need to avoid contact with on-site wildlife and avoid entry into areas where Biological Resources have been identified based on pre-disturbance field surveys and to implement the buffer avoidance or other protection measures established by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service shall be identified California Department of Fish and Wildlife or required by the Biological Resource mitigation measures. The training shall emphasize the importance of not feeding or domesticating wildlife and the need to avoid any trash, micro trash, or potential food disposal on-site except in animal-proof containers emptied daily to avoid attracting or causing adverse impacts to special status wildlife.
b. All on-site personnel must sign a statement verifying that they have completed the Worker Environmental Awareness Program and that they understand and agree to implement the biological requirements for the worksite. If signed employee statements are not available, documentation may be provided by Worker Environmental Awareness Program training records, which shall be kept by the applicant for a minimum of five years. Each applicant shall maintain a list of all persons who have completed the training program and shall provide the list to the County or to State and federal wildlife agency representatives upon request.

BIO-4: Disturbance Buffers for Sensitive Resources: If protected or special-status species are identified on the Project site during pre-construction surveys, protective buffers shall be used, where effective in the opinion of the qualified biologist. These measures are created to avoid any unauthorized incidental take of these species and to minimize any incidental take.

Protective buffers shall be delineated using brightly colored stakes and/or flagging or similar materials and remain until construction activities are complete, at which time of completion, the buffers must be removed. Protective buffers shall be established around active dens and/or burrows of special-status animal species or populations of special-status plant species to avoid unauthorized take of Protected Species as listed in the table below. The protective buffer distance shall be increased if required to avoid unauthorized incidental take of any Protected Species as determined by a qualified biologist. Protective buffer distances and other avoidance measures that may be implemented to avoid impacts to Protected Species or Sensitive Species must be consistent with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and/or the California Department of Fish and Wildlife requirements and shall be implemented and overseen by the qualified biologist.

Table 6-1
Disturbance Buffers for Sensitive Resources
Sensitive Resource Buffer Zone from Disturbance (feet)
Potential San Joaquin kit fox den 50
Known San Joaquin kit fox den 100
Natal San Joaquin kit fox den 500
Atypical San Joaquin kit fox den 50
2454
Biological Resource Evaluation Avoidance and Minimization Measures

Clement Ranch Project June 2025
D.R. Horton Page 6-24
Sensitive Resource Buffer Zone from Disturbance (feet)
Rodent burrows 50
Special-status bird species' active nests 500 feet to 0.5 miles depending on species and sight line
American badger: Non-maternity dens 50
American badger: Maternity dens 200
BIO-5: Avoidance and Minimization Measures for Swainson’s Hawk: If Project activities must occur during the Swainson’s hawk nesting season (February 15 to September 31), preactivity surveys should be conducted for Swainson’s hawk nests in accordance with the Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley (TAC, 2000). The surveys would be conducted on the Project site plus a 0.5-mile buffer. To meet the minimum level of protection for the species, surveys should be conducted during at least two survey periods prior to the start of construction.

The survey will be conducted in accordance with the methodology outlined in existing protocols and should be phased with the construction of the Project.

If no Swainson’s hawk nests are found, no further action is required.

BIO-6: Swainson’s Hawk Nest Avoidance: If an active Swainson’s hawk nest is discovered at any time within 0.5 miles of active construction, a qualified biologist should complete an assessment of the potential for current construction activities to impact the nest. The assessment would consider the type of construction activities, the location of construction relative to the nest, the visibility of construction activities from the nest location, and other existing disturbances in the area that are not related to construction activities of this Project.

Based on this assessment, the biologist will determine if construction activities can proceed and the level of nest monitoring required. Construction activities should not occur within 500 feet of an active nest, but depending upon conditions at the site, this distance may be reduced. Full-time monitoring to evaluate the effects of construction activities on nesting Swainson’s hawks may be required. The qualified biologist should have the authority to stop work if it is determined that Project construction is disturbing the nest. These buffers may need to increase depending on the sensitivity of the nesting Swainson’s hawk to disturbances and at the discretion of the qualified biologist.

BIO-7: Standard Avoidance and Minimization Measures for Western Burrowing Owl: If burrows that could support this species are discovered during the pre-construction clearance survey conducted under Measure BIO-1, the avoidance buffers outlined below should be established, and burrow monitoring will be conducted in accordance with the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012). No work would occur within these buffers. If occupied burrowing owl burrows cannot be avoided by the appropriate buffer below, an ITP issued by the CDFW under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) to authorize "take" that is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity, may be required before any work within the buffer.

Location Time of Year Level of Disturbance
2455
Biological Resource Evaluation Avoidance and Minimization Measures

Clement Ranch Project June 2025
D.R. Horton Page 6-25
Low Med High
Nesting sites April 1 -Aug 15 200 m* 500 m 500 m
Nesting sites Aug 16 – Oct 15 200 m 200 m 500 m
Nesting sites Oct 16- Mar 31 50 m 100 m 500 m
*Meters (m)
BIO-8: Avoidance and Minimization Measures for the Protection of American badger:

Occupied American badger dens detected during pre-disturbance surveys shall be flagged, and ground-disturbing activities avoided within 50 feet of the den. Maternity dens shall be avoided, and a minimum 200-foot buffer from disturbance shall be maintained during the pup-rearing season (February 15 through July 1). Maternity dens must be avoided to the maximum extent feasible in the opinion of a qualified biologist. If an active maternity den is proposed to be disturbed, the qualified biologist shall consult with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to identify any appropriate additional minimization measures which the qualified biologist determines, with the wildlife agencies, can actually be implemented based on field conditions. All such measures must be implemented for Project activities.

BIO-9: General Measures: The following additional measures shall be implemented to avoid and minimize potential significant adverse impacts to Protected and Sensitive Species:
a. All vehicles shall observe a 20-mile-per-hour speed limit in all areas of disturbance and on unpaved roads unless otherwise posted. Off-road traffic outside of designated access routes is prohibited. Speed limit signs shall be posted in visible locations at the point of site entry and at regular intervals on all unpaved access roads. b. All disturbance activities, except emergency situations or drilling that may require continuous operations, shall only occur during daylight hours. Nighttime disturbance activity for drilling purposes shall use directed lighting and shielding methods and comply with applicable lighting mitigation measures.
c. All food-related trash items and all forms of micro trash, such as wrappers, cans, bottles, bottle tops, and food scraps, shall be disposed of in closed, animal-proof containers and removed daily from the site.
d. Excavations, spoils piles, access roadways, and parking and staging areas shall be subject to dust control as set forth in the dust control mitigation measures. e. The use of herbicides for vegetation control shall be restricted to those approved by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. No rodenticides shall be used on any site unless approved by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and shall observe label and other restrictions mandated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, California Department of Food and Agriculture, and State and federal laws and regulations. For split estates, no herbicides for vegetation control may occur in Tier 2 areas without surface owner approval. f. No plants or wildlife shall be collected, taken, or removed from the site or any adjacent locations except as necessary for Project-related vegetation removal or wildlife relocation by a qualified biologist and subject to all applicable permits and authorizations.

I I I
2456
Biological Resource Evaluation Avoidance and Minimization Measures

Clement Ranch Project June 2025
D.R. Horton Page 6-26
g. All open trenches or excavations shall be covered at the end of each workday to prevent wildlife entrapment. If an excavation is too large to cover, escape ramps shall be installed at an incline ratio of no greater than 2:1. All trenches and pipes shall be inspected for the presence of wildlife each day prior to the commencement of work. h. To enable San Joaquin kit foxes and other wildlife to pass through the Project site, any perimeter fencing shall include a four- to eight-inch opening between the fence mesh and the ground, or the fence shall be raised four inches above the ground except blunt-nosed leopard lizard exclusion fencing. The bottom of the fence fabric shall be knuckled (wrapped back to form a smooth edge) to protect wildlife. i. All vertical tubes used in Project construction and chain link fencing poles shall be temporarily or permanently capped to avoid the entrapment and death of specialstatus wildlife and birds. All pipes 1.5 inches or greater in diameter stored overnight on a Project location must have end caps or other physical barriers that prevent wildlife from entering the pipe.
j. All dead or injured special-status wildlife shall be left in place and reported to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife within 48 hours of discovery for rescue or salvage. Discovery of State or federal listed species that are injured or dead shall also be managed consistent with regulatory requirements, including being reported immediately via telephone and within 24 hours in writing, and with a copy to the lead agency. k. During pre-construction surveys, the qualified biologist shall delineate previously disturbed areas to be used by the applicant to minimize the amount of new disturbance.
l. No vehicles or construction equipment shall be parked within a wetland or waterbody/dry wash.
m. Tracked vehicles and other construction equipment must be washed or maintained to be weed-free prior to entering and working within areas of a new disturbance. n. All washing of trucks, paint, equipment, or similar activities should occur in areas where runoff is fully contained for collection and off-site disposal. Wash water may not be discharged from the site and shall be located at least 100 feet from any water body or sensitive Biological Resources.
o. Locate all extra work areas (such as staging areas and additional spoil storage areas) at least 50 feet away from wetland boundaries or waterbody, except where the adjacent upland consists of cultivated or rotated cropland or other disturbed land. p. All areas that must be avoided as a result of the pre-disturbance surveys and areas where new disturbance will occur shall be clearly delineated by fencing or staking and flagging and/or rope or cord.
q. No pets shall be allowed on any site.
r. No smoking may occur except in designated areas.
2457
Biological Resource Evaluation Summary and Conclusions

Clement Ranch Project June 2025
D.R. Horton Page 7-27
SECTION 7 - SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Land within the Project site is disturbed by agriculture but does contain minimal amount of low quality habitat that may support special-status wildlife species and nesting birds. No special status plant species or sensitive natural communities were observed or have potential to occur within the Project site. There are no designated Critical Habitats or movement corridors that would be impacted by the Project. The Project has been designed to completely avoid the water features Tulare Irrigation Canal and Cameron Creek.

Therefore, impacts to these waterways will not occur as a result of the Project development.

Based on the literature and database searches and results of the site survey, there is potential for four special-status species to occur on the site, Swainson’s hawk, western burrowing owl, American badger and San Joaquin kit fox. Nesting birds and raptors have the potential for occurrence on or near the Project site. Implementation of the recommended BMPs and avoidance and minimization measures outlined in Section 6 would reduce or eliminate any Project impacts to these species.

This Biological Resource Evaluation report has been performed in accordance with professionally accepted biological investigation practices conducted at this time and in this geographic area. The findings and opinions conveyed in this report are based on findings derived from specified historical and literary sources and a biological survey of the Project site and surrounding area. The biological investigation was limited by the scope of work performed. The biological survey may not have been performed during blooming periods or periods of seasonal or daily wildlife activity that would provide positive identification if resources were present, and therefore the findings of this report might not be definitive. The biological survey was also limited by the environmental conditions present at the time of the survey. In addition, general biological (or protocol) surveys do not guarantee that the organisms are not present and will not be discovered in the future within the site. Mobile animal species could occupy the site on a transient basis or re-establish populations in the future. No other guarantees or warranties, expressed or implied, are provided. 2458
Biological Resource Evaluation References

Clements Ranch Project June 2025
City of Visalia Page 8-28
SECTION 8 - REFERENCES
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2025a. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), Accessed via: https://map.dfg.ca.gov/rarefind/view/RareFind.aspx.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2025b. Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS). Accessed via: www.wildlife.ca.gov/data/BIOS.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2025c. CDFW’s Special Animals List California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2025. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants.

Accessed via: www.rareplants.cnps.org.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 2025. On-line Map Service Center.

Google LLC. 2025. Google Earth Pro.

Mayer, K.E. and W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr. 1988. A guide to wildlife habitats of California. State of California. Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. 166 pp.

Accessed via: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CWHR/Wildlife-Habitats.

Netronline. 2025. Historic Aerials Viewer. Accessed via: www.historicaerials.com/viewer.

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2025. Web Soil Survey. Accessed via:
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2025a. Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) online project planning tool. Accessed via:
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2025b. Critical Habitat Portal. Accessed via:
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/table/critical-habitat.html.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2025c. National Wetlands Inventory Wetlands Mapper (NWI). U.S. Geological Survey.

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2025. National Hydrography Dataset (NHD).

Accessed via: https://www.usgs.gov/core-science-systems/ngp/nationalhydrography.

Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). 2025. Cooperative Climatological Data Summaries, NOAA Cooperative Station Hanford, California (043747). Accessed via:
https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca9367.
2459

APPENDIX A

SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES DATABASE SEARCH RESULTS

CLEMENTS RANCH PROJECT
2460

Clements Ranch Project June 2025
City of Visalia Appendix A - 1
United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Office
Federal Building
2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605
Sacramento, CA 95825-1846
Phone: (916) 414-6600 Fax: (916) 414-6713
l \ JIII,
thll4'1i11LJ,Ut't. Mlrt,-.1<
In Reply Refer To: 06/18/2025 18:31:06 UTC
Project Code: 2025-0111284
Project arne : Clement Ranch
Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern:

The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur withi n the bo undary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The spec ies list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to co ntact us if you need more curre nt informatio n or assistance rega rding the potential impacts to federally proposed, Listed, and candidate species and federal ly designated and proposed critical habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and in formation. An updated list may be requested through the IPaC system by completi ng the same process used to receive the enclosed list.

The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whe reby threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(l) and 7(a)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulatio ns (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and to determi ne whether projects may affect th reatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat.

A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects ( or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human enviro nment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) 2461

Clements Ranch Project June 2025
City of Visalia Appendix A - 2
Project code: 2025--0111284 06/18/2025 18:31:06 UTC
(c)). For projects other than major constmclion activities, the Service suggests that a biological evaluat ion similar to a Biologica l Assessment be prepared to detem1ine whether the project may affec t Listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critica l habita t. Recommended co ntents of a Biological Assessment are descri bed at 50 CFR 402.12.

If a Federal agency determi nes, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that Listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by lhe pro posed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed within the consultation. More informa tion on the regul atio ns and procedures for section 7 co nsultation, including the role of pem1i t or license ap plicants, can be fo und in the "Endangered Species Cons ultation Handbook" at:
https://www·. fws. gov/sites/ de faul t/f i I es/doc uments/ end angered-species-cons u I tati onha nd book. pd f Migratory Birds: ln addition to responsibilities to protect threatened and endange red species under the Endangered Spec ies Act (ESA), the re are additional responsi biLities under the Migratory Bird Trea ty Act (M BTA) and the Bald and Golden Eag le Protection Act (BG EPA) to protect native birds from project-related impacts. Any aclivity resulting in take of migratory birds, including eag les, is proh ibited unless otherwise pem1itted by the U.S. Fish and Wildli fe Service (50 C. F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)). For more informa tion regarding these Acts, see https://www.fws.gov/program/mi gratory-bird-perm it/what-we-do.

It is the respo nsi bility of the project proponen t to comply with these Acts by identifying pote ntial impacts to migratory birds and eagles within applicab le NEPA docu ments (when there is a fe deral nexus) or a Bird/Eagle Conservation Plan (when there is no fe deral nexus). Proponents should imp lement conservation measu res to avoid or minimize the production of project-re lated stressors or minimize the ex posure of birds and their resources to the project-re lated stressors.

For more informa tion on avian stressors and recommended conse rvation measures, see https:// wvvw. fws. gov/li bra ry/co LI ections/th reats-b i rds.

In addition to MBTA and BGEPA, Executive Order 13186: Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, obligates all Federal agencies that engage in or autho rize acti vities that might affect migrato ry birds, to minimize those effects and enco urage conservation measures that will improve bird pop ulations. Execu tive Order 13186 provides for the protection of both migratory birds and migratory bird habitat. For information regard ing the implementa tion of Executive Order 13186, please visit https://www.fws.gov/pa rtner/counc iJ-conservationmigratory-birds.

We appreciate your concern fo r threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages Federal agencies to incl ude conservation of threatened and endangered spec ies into their project plan ning to furthe r the purposes of the Act. Please incl ude the Co nsultatio n Code in the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office.
2 of 8
2462

Clements Ranch Project June 2025
City of Visalia Appendix A - 3
Project code: 2025--0111284 06/18/2025 18:31:06 UTC
Attachme nt(s):
• Offici al Species List

OFFICIAL SPECIES LIST
This list is provided purs uant to Section 7 o f the Endangered Spec ies Act, and fulfills the requirement fo r Federa l agencies to "request of the Secretary of the ln terior info rmation whether any species wh ich is listed or proposed to be listed may be presen t in the area of a proposed ac tion" .

This species list is prov ided by:

Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Office
Federal Buildi ng
2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605
Sacramento, CA 95825-1846
(916) 414-6600
3 of 8
2463

Clements Ranch Project June 2025
City of Visalia Appendix A - 4
Project code: 2025-0111284 06/18/2025 18:31:06 UTC

PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Code:

Project ame:

Project Type:

Project Description :

Project Location:
2025-0111284
Clement Ranc h
Residential Constrnction
The Project site is located southeast of the City of Visal ia (City), adjacent to the c ity lLmits (Urban Growth Boundary II). The site consists of two separate AP Ns, wh ich tota l roughly 75 acres. These parce ls will be developed by D.R. Horton into homes.

T he approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: htt s:// ~ gle.com/ma12s/@36.3031601,-119.25803373631454,14z
Counties: Tu lare Co un ty, Californ ia
4 of 8
2464

Clements Ranch Project June 2025
City of Visalia Appendix A - 5
Project code: 2025-0111284 06/18/2025 18:31:06 UTC

ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SPECIES
There is a total of 9 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this spec ies List.

Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis fo r yo ur project and could include species that exist in another geographic area . For example, certa.in fish may appear on the species List because a project could affect downstream species. lPaC does not disp lay Listed species or criti cal habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheriesl, as USFWS does not have the au thority to speal< on behalf of NOAA and the Departme nt of Commerce.

See the "Critical habitats" sec tion below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions.

1. NOAA Fisheries, also knO\vn as the National Marine Fisheries Service ( MFS), is an office of the National Ocean ic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.
5of 8
2465

Clements Ranch Project June 2025
City of Visalia Appendix A - 6
Project code: 2025--0111284 06/18/2025 18:31:06 UTC

MAMMALS
AME
Buena Vista Lake Ornate Shrew Sorex ornalus re/ictus
There is final a itical habitat for lhis species. Your location does not overlap the aitical habitat.

Species profiJ e: https:flecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1610 San Joaqufo Kit Fox Vu/pes macrotis mutica
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species proEiJe: htt s://ecos.C-,,vs. ov/ec s ecies/2873 Tipton Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys 11itratoides 11itratoides No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species proEUe: https:flecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7247
BIRDS
AME
California Condor Gymnogyps cali{orniarws
Population: Wherever found, except where listed as an experimental population There is final a •itical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.

Species profiJ e: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8193

REPTILES
AME
Blunt-nosed Leopard Liza rd Gambe/ia si/us
No cri tical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profiJ e: https:f/ecos.fws.gov/ecplspecies/625
Northwestern Pond Turtle Actinemys marmorata
No c1i tical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profiJe: https://ecos.C-,,,,s.gov/ecp/species/1111

AMPHIBIANS
AME
Western Spadefoot Spea hammondii
Population: Nmthem DPS
No cri tical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profiJe: lmps://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5425

INSECTS
AM E
Monarch Butterfl y Danaus plexippus
There is proposed a •itical habitat for tllis species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.

Species profiJ e: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/sped es/9743 STATUS
Enda ngered
Enda ngered
Enda ngered
STATUS
Enda ngered
STATUS
Enda ngered
Proposed
Threatened
STATUS
Proposed
Threatened
STATUS
Pro posed
Threatened
6018
2466

Clements Ranch Project June 2025
City of Visalia Appendix A - 7
Project code: 2025-0111284 06/18/2025 18:31:06 UTC

CRUSTACEANS
AME
Vernal Pool Falry Shrimp Branchinecta lynchi
STATUS
Threatened
There is final critical habitat for lhis species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.

Species pmEiJe: Im s://ecos.fws. ov/ec /s ecies/498

CRITICAL HABITATS
THERE ARE NO CRIT ICAL J-LABrrATS WITH[ YOUR PROJECT AREA U DER TH IS OFFICE'S JURISDICTION.

YOU ARE STILL REQUlREDTO DETERMINE IF YOUR PROJECT(S) MAY I-LAVE EFFECTS ON ALL ABOVE LISTID SPECIES.
7of8
2467

Clements Ranch Project June 2025
City of Visalia Appendix A - 8
Project code: 2025-0111284

IPAC USER CONTACT INFORMATION
Agency : QK
Name:

Add ress:

City :

State:

Zip:

Email
Phone:

Mattole Whitaker
601 E Pollasky Ave Suite 301
Clovis
CA
93612
mattole.whitaker@qk inc .com
5594492400
06/18/2025 18:31:06 UTC
8018
2468

Clements Ranch Project June 2025
City of Visalia Appendix A - 9
Print View
I of 6
https://apps.wildhfe.ca.gov/rarefindlview/QuickElementListView.html

CALIFORN IA DEPARTMENT OF
FISH and WILDLIFE Rarefind
Query Summary:

Quad IS (VisaOa (3611 933) OR Monson (3611943) OR Traver (3611944) OR Goshen (3611934) OR Paige (3611924) OR Tulore (3611 923) OR Cairns Corner (3611922) OR Exeter (3611932) OR Ivanhoe (3611942))
[ Print l [ Close I CNDDB Element Query Res ults
CA
Scientific Common Taxonomic Element Total Returned Federal State Global State Rare Other Habitats Name Name Group Code Occs Occs Status Status Rank Rank Plant Status Rank
BLM_SSensitive,
CDFW_SSCSpecies of
Actinemys northwestern Reptiles ARAAD02031 1160 1 Proposed None G2 SNR null Special nu ll marmorata pond turtle Threatened Concern, IUCN_VUVulnera ble,
USFS_SSensitive
BLM_SSensitive,
CDFW_SSCSpecies of Freshwater
Special marsh,
Agelaius tricolored B~ds ABPBXB0020 960 1 None Threatened G1G2 S2 null Concern, Marsh & tricolor blackbird IUCN_EN- swamp,
Endangered, Swamp,
USFWS_BCC- Welland
Birds of
Conservation
Concern
Cismonta ne
woodland,
canfomia Meadow &
tiger CDFW_WL- seep,
Ambysloma salamander Watch List, Ripa rian
c-.alifomiense • central Amphibians AAAAA01181 1329 7 Threatened Threatened G2G3T3 S3 null IUCN_VU- woodland, pop. 1 CaHfomia Vulnerable Valley &
DPS focthiD
grassland,
Vernal pool,
Welland
Andrena An andrenid Insects IIHYM35130 7 1 None None G2 S2 null null nu ll macswaini bee CDFW_SSC - Chaparral,
Northern Species of Coastal Annieaa California Reptiles ARACC01020 386 2 None None G3 S2S3 null Special dunes, pulchra legless lizard Concern, Coastal USFS_SSensitive scrub Antrozous pallid bat Mammals AMACC10010 425 1 None None G4 S3 null BLM_S- Chaparral, pall idus Sensitive, Coastal
CDFW_SSC - scrub,
Species of Desert
Special wash, Great
Concern, Basin
IUCN_LC- grassland,
Least Great Basin
Concern, scrub,
USFS_S- Mojavean
Sensitive desert
scrub,
Riparian
woodland,
Sonoran
desert
scrub,
6/ 18/2025. 11:16AM
2469

Clements Ranch Project June 2025
City of Visalia Appendix A - 10
Print View https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/rarefind/view/QuickElementLisiView.htrnl Upper
montane
con iferous
fores~
Valley &
foolhill
grassland
Coastal
prairie,
8 LM_S- Coastal
Sensitive, scrub, Great
CDFW_SSC- Basin
Species of grassland,
Special Great Basin
Athene burrowing Candidate Concern , scrub,
Birds ABN S81001 0 2133 10 None G4 S2 null IUCN_LC- Mojavean cunicularia owl Endangered Least desert Concern , scrub,
USFWS_8CC- Sonoran
Birds of desert
Conservation scrub,
Concern Valley &
foothill
grassland
Chenopod
Atriplex scrub,
cordulata var. heartscale Oicots PDCHE040 80 66 1 None None G3T2 S2 1B2 8LM_S- Meadow & cordulata Sensitive seep, Valley
& foothill
grassland
Atriplex Earlimart 8 LM_S- Valley &
cord ulata var. Oicots PDCHE042VO 23 4 None None G3T1 S1 1B.2 foothm erecticaulis orache Sensitive grassland
Alkali playa,
Chenopod
scrub,
Atriplex Meadow &
depressa brittlescale Oicots PDCHE042LO 60 2 None None G2 S2 18 .2 null seep, Valley & foothill
grassland,
VernaJ pool,
Wetland
SB_Cal8G/ Alkali playa,
RSA8G- Chenopod
Atriplex lesser Oicots PDCHE042MO 52 8 None None G2 S2 18.1 California/ scrub, minuscula saltsca le Rancho Santa Valley &
Ana Botanic foothm
Garden grassland
Atriplex verna l pool Oicots PDCHE042PO 4 1 2 None None G2 S2 1B.2 null Vernal pool, pemistens smallscale Wetland
Atriplex subtle 8LM S- Valley &
Oicots PDCHE042TO 24 2 None None G1 S1 1B.2 - foothm subti lis orache Sensitive grassland Bombus Crotch's Insects IIHYM24480 640 1 None Candidate G2 S2 null IUCN_EN- null crotchli bumble bee Endangered Endangered Coastal
prairie,
Bombus American IUCN_VU- Great Basin
Insects IIHYM24260 810 3 None None G3G4 S2 null grassland, pensylvanicus bumble bee Vu lnerable Valley & foothill
grassland
Valley &
Branchinecta verna l pool IUCN_VU- foothill
Crustacean s ICBRA03030 804 14 Threatened None G3 S3 null grassland, tynchi fairy shrimp Vu lnerable VernaJ pool, Wetland
Buteo Swainson's Birds A8NKC19070 2585 34 None Threatened GS S4 null 8 LM_S- Great Basin swa insoni hawk Sensitive, grassland,
IUCN_LC- Riparian
Least Con cern fores~
Riparian
woodland ,
Valley &
2 of 6 6/ 18/2025. 11:1 6 AM
2470

Clements Ranch Project June 2025
City of Visalia Appendix A - 11
Print View https://apps_wildlife_ca. gov/rarefindlview/QuickElementListView_html footllill
grassland
S8_Cal8G/
RSA8GCalifornia/
Rancho Santa Chenopod Ana Botanic
Garden, scrub, Pinon
Caulanthus Ca lifornia S8_SB8G- & juniper
ca lifomicus jewelftower Oicots PD8RA31010 67 1 Endangered Endangered G1 S1 18 .1 Santil Barbarn woodlands , Botanic Valley &
Garden, foothill
S8_UC8 G-UC grassland
Botanica l
Garden at
Berkeley
Coccyzus western BLM_Samericanus yellow-billed Birds A8 NR802022 165 1 Threatened En dangered G5T2T3 S1 null Sensitive, Riparian USFS_S- forest occidenta lis cuckoo Sensitive
BLM_S- Chenopod
Sensitive, scrub,
C ismontane Delphinium recurved Oicots PDRANOB1JO 119 4 None None G2? S2 1B.2 S8_SB8G- woodland, recurvatum larkspur Santa Barbara Botanic Valley &
Garden foothill
grassland
Oesmocerus valley
ca lifomicus eldert>eny Insects IICOL48011 271 1 Threatened None G3T3 S3 null null Riparian dimorphus longhorn scrub
beetle
Oipodomys Tipton IUCN_VU- Chenopod n itratoides kangaroo rat Mammals AMAFD03152 81 1 Endangered En dangered G2T1T2 S2 null Vulnerable scrub n itratoides BLM_S- Valley &
spiny- Sensitive, foothill Eryngium S8_SB8Gspinosepalum sepaled Oicots PDAPIOZOYO 108 7 None None G2 S2 1B.2 Santa Barbara grassland, button-celery Botanic Vernal pool,
Garden Wetland
Chaparra l,
BLM_S- C ismontane
Eumops Sensitive, woodland,
western CDFW_SSC- Coastal perotis mastiff bat Mammals AMACD020 11 296 2 None None G4G5T4 S3S4 null Species of scrub, califomicus Special Valley & Concern foothi l
grassland
Euphorbia Hoover's Oicots PDEUPOD150 29 5 Threatened None G1 S1 18 .2 null Vernal pool, hooveri spurge Wetland
Great Valley Great VaDey
Valley Oak Valley Oak Riparian CTT61430CA 33 1 None None G1 S1 .1 null null Riparian Riparian Riparian forest
Forest Forest
BLM_SSensitive, C ismontane S8_CalBGI woodland, Helianthus Winter's RSABGwinteri sunflower Oicots PDAST4N260 55 7 None None G2? S2? 1B.2 California/ Valley & Rancho Santa foothill
Ana Botanic grassland
Garden
S8_Ca lBGI Chaparra l, RSABGCaliforn ia/ Coastal
Rancho Santa scrub,
Ana Botanic Meadow &
lmperata Ca lifornia Garden, seep,
Monocots PMPOA30020 32 1 None None G3 S3 28 .1 Mojavean brevifolia satintail S8_SBBG- desert Santa Barbara scrub, Botanic Garden, Riparian
USFS_S- scrub,
Sensitive Wetland
3 of 6 6/ 18/2025. 11:16AM
2471

Clements Ranch Project June 2025
City of Visalia Appendix A - 12
Print View https://apps.wildlife.ca..gov/rarefindlview/QuickElementListView.html Broadleaved
upland
forest,
Desert
CDFW_SSC- wash,
Joshua tree Species of woodland ,
Lanius loggerhead Special Mojavean
ludovicianus shrike Birds ABPBR01030 110 1 None None G4 S4 nuD Concern, desert IUCN_NT- scrub, Pinon Near Threatened & juniper
woodlands,
Riparian
woodland ,
Sonoran
desert scrub
Lasthenia alkafi-sink Oicots PDASTSL030 55 6 None None G2 S2 18.1 null Vernal pool chrysantha gold fields BLM_SSensiti1-"e,
SB_Ca lBGI
RSA8G- Alkali playa '
Lasthenia California/ Marsh &
g la bra ta ssp_ Courter's Dicots PDASTSLOA1 109 1 None None G4T2 S2 18.1 Rancho Santa swam p, Salt coulteri gold fields Ana Botanic marsh,
Garden, Vernal pool,
SB_SBBG- Welland
Santa Barbara
Botanic
Garden
Valley &
l epidurus '1/emal pool IUCN_EN- foothill
packardi tadpole Crustaceans ICBRA10010 336 9 Endangered None G3 S3 nun Endangered grassland, shrimp Vernal pool,
Welland
l inderiella Ca lifornia IUCN_NToccidenta lis i nderiella Crustaceans ICBRA06010 508 4 None None G2G3 S2S3 nuD Near Vernal pool Threatened
Freshwater
marsh,
CDFW_SSC- Great Basin
Species of flowing
l ithobates northern Special waters,
pipiens leopard frog Amphibians AAABH01170 19 2 None None GS S2 null Concern , Great Basin IUCN_LC- standing
Least Concern waters,
Marsh &
swamp,
Wetland
Lytta hoppingi Hopping's Insects IICOL4C010 5 1 None None G1G2 S2 null null null blister beetle Northern Northern Vernal pool, Claypan Claypan Herbaceous CTT44120CA 21 1 None None G1 S1 .1 null null Vernal Pool Vernal Pool Welland
Northern Northern Vernal pool, Hardpan Hardpan Herbaceous CTT44110CA 126 3 None None G3 S3.1 nun null Vernal Pool Vernal Pool Welland
Orcuttia San Joaquin Verna I pool,
inaequalis Valley Orcutt Monocots PMPOA4G060 47 2 Threatened En dangered G1 S1 18.1 null Welland grass SB Ca lBGI Cismontane RSA8GPseudobahia San Joaquin California/ woodland , peirsoni1 adobe Oicots PDAST7P030 51 1 Threatened Endangered G1 S1 18.1 Rancho Santa Valley & sunburst foothill Ana Botanic grassland Garden
Chenopod
scrub,
Puccinellia Ca lifornia BLM_S- Meadow &
Monocots PMPOA53110 80 5 None None G2 S2 18.2 seep, Valley simplex alkafi grass Sensitive & foothill grassland,
Verna l pool
4 of 6 6/ 18/2025, 11 :16 AM
2472

Clements Ranch Project June 2025
City of Visalia Appendix A - 13
Print View https://apps.wilcllife.ca.gov/rarefind/view/QuickElementListView.html Sagittaria Sanford's BLM_S- Marsh &
sanfordii arrowhead Monocots PMALI040O0 143 2 None None G3 S3 1B.2 Sensitive swamp, Wetland
BLM_S- Cismontane
Sensitive, woodland,
CDFW_SSC- Coastal
Spea western Proposed Species of scrub,
hammondii spadefoot Amphibians AAABF02020 1445 30 Threatened None G2G3 S3S4 nun Special Valley & Concern , footh~I
IUCN_NT- grassland,
Near Vernal pool,
Th reatened Wetland
Talanites Moody's
moodyae gnaphosid Arachnids ILARA98020 6 3 None None G2G3 S2S3 nun null Ultramalic spider
Taxidea taxus American Mammals AMAJF04010 648 1 None None GS S3 nun CDFW_SSC- Alkali badger Species of marsh,
Special Alkali playa,
Concern , Alpine,
IUCN_LC- Alpine dwarf
Least Concern scrub, Bog
& fen,
Brackish
marsh,
Broadleaved
upland
fores~
Chaparral,
Chenopod
scrub,
Cismontane
woodland,
Closed-cone
coniferous
fores~
Coastal bl ufl
scrub,
Coastal
dunes.

Coastal
prairie,
Coastal
scrub,
Desert
dunes,
Desert
wash,
Freshwater
marsh,
Great Basin
grassland,
Great Basin
scrub,
Interior
dunes, lone
formation ,
Joshua tree
woodland,
Limestone,
Lower
montane
coniferous
forest,
Marsh &
swamp,
Meadow&
seep,
Mojavean
desert
scrub,
Montane
dwarf scrub,
North coast
coniferous
fores~
Oldgrowth,
Pavement
plain,
5 of6 6/ 18/2025, 11:16 AM
2473

Clements Ranch Project June 2025
City of Visalia Appendix A - 14
Print View https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/rarefind.lview/QuickElementListView.htlnl Redwood ,
Riparian
forest,
Riparian
scrub,
Riparian
wood land,
Salt marsh,
Sonoran
desert
scrub ,
Sonoran
thorn
wood land,
Ultramafic,
Upper
montane
con iferous
fores~
Upper
Sonoran
scrub, Va lley
& loothiD
grassland
Valley Valley Valley &
Sacaton Sacaton Herbaceous CTT42120CA 9 2 None None G1 S1 .1 null null foothm Grassland Grassland grassland
Chenopod
Vulpes San Joaquin scrub,
macrotis kit rox Mammals AMAJA03041 1020 21 Endangered Threatened G4T2 S3 nul null Valley & mutica roothm
grassland
6 of 6 6/ 18/2025. 11:16AM
2474

Clements Ranch Project June 2025
City of Visalia Appendix A - 15
CNPS Rare Plant Inventory I Search Results https://rareplants.cnps.org/Search/result?fnn=T &crpr=lk I B:2B&qsL.

I of3

CALIFORNIA

NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY
CNPS Rare Plant Inventory
Search Resu lts
18 matches found. Click on scientific name for details
Search Criteria: . CRPR is one of [1A:1 B:2B] . .2:Quad include [3611922:3611933:3611 923:3611 932:3611 943:3611942:3611924:3611934:3611 944) CA
RARE
.a. SCIENTIFIC COMMON BLOOM I NG FED STATE GLOBAL STATE PLANT CA DATE NAME
Atriplex
cordulata var.
cordulata

NAME FAMILY LI FEFORM PERIOD LIST LIST RANK RANK RANK ENDEMIC ADDED PHOTO heartscale Chenopodiaceae annual herb Apr-Oct None None G3T2 S2 Atriplex Earlimart
cordulata var. orache
erecticaulis
Chenopodiaceae annual herb Aug- None None G3T1
Sep(Nov}
Atriplex
depressa
brittlescale Chenopodiaceae annual herb Apr-Oct None None G2 Atriplex
minuscula
Atriplex
persistens
lesser
sa ltscale
Chenopodiaceae annual herb May-Oct None None G2
vernal pool Chenopodiaceae annual herb Jun-Oct None None G2 smallscale
S1
S2
S2
S2
1 B.2 Yes
1 B.2 Yes
1 B.2 Yes
1 B.1 Yes
1 B.2 Yes
1988-01-01
2001-01-01
1994-01-01
1994-01-01
2001-01-01
© 1994
Robert E.

Preston,
Ph.D.
© 2009
Robert E.

Preston,
Ph.D.
© 2009
Zoya
Akulova
© 2000
Robert E.

Preston,
Ph.D.

No Photo
Available
6/26/2025. 6:27 AM
2475

Clements Ranch Project June 2025
City of Visalia Appendix A - 16
CNPS Rare Plant Inventory I Search Results https://rareplants .cnps.org/Search/result?frm=T &crpr= I A : I B :2B&qsl. .

CA
RARE
• SCIENTIFIC COMMON BLOOMING FED STATE GLOBAL STATE PLANT CA DATE

NAME NAME FAMILY UFEFORM PERIOD LI ST LIST RANK RANK RAN K ENDEMIC ADDED PHOTO Atriplex subtle Chenopodiaceae annual herb (Apr)Jun- None None G1 S1 1B.2 Yes 1994-01--0 1 subtilis orache Sep(Oct)
@ 2000
Robert E.

Presto!\
Ph.D.

Caulonthus Ca lifornia Brassicaceae annual herb Feb-May FE CE G1 S1 1B.1 Yes 1984-01--0 1 cali{omicus jewelflower No Photo
Available
Delphinium recurved Ranunculaceae perennial Mar-Jun No ne None G2? S2 1B.2 Yes 1988-01--0 1 recurvotum larkspur herb No Photo
Available
&yngium spiny- Apiaceae annual/ Apr-Jun No ne None G2 S2 1B.2 Yes 1980-01--01 spinosepolum sepaled perennial No Photo
button- herb Available
celery
Euphorbio Hoover's Eu phorbiaceae annual herb (May- FT None G1 S1 1B.2 Yes 1974-01--0 1 hooveri spurge Jun)JulSep(Oct) @ 2020
Neal
Krame<
Helionthus Winter's Asteraceae perennial Jan-Dec None None G2? S2? 1B.2 Yes 2014- 10-15 winteri sunflower shru b @ 2014
Chris
Winchell
Imperato Ca lifornia Poaceae perennial Sep-May None None G3 S3 2B.1 2006-12-26 brevifolio satintail rh izomat ous
herb
@ 2020
Matt C.

Berger
l.asthenio alkali-sink Asteraceae annual herb Feb-Apr None None G2 S2 1B.1 Yes 2019-09-30 chrysontha goldfields
@ 2009
California
State
Universify,
stanislaus
2 of3 6/26/2025, 6:27 AM
2476

Clements Ranch Project June 2025
City of Visalia Appendix A - 17
CNPS RMe Plant Inventory I Search Results https://rareplants.cnps.org/Search/result?fnn=T &crpr= I A: I B :2B&qsl. .. 3 of3
CA
RARE
• SCIENTIFIC COMMON BLOOMING FED STATE GLOBAL STATE PLANT CA DATE

NAME NAME FAMILY LIFEFORM PERIOD LI ST LI ST RANK RANK RAN K ENDEMIC ADDED PHOTO Lasthenia Coulter's Asteraceae annual herb Feb-Jun None None G4T2 S2 1B.1 1994-01-01 glabrata ssp. goldfields
caulteri © 20 13
Keir
Mor.;e
Orcuttia San Poaceae annual herb Apr-Sep FT CE G1 S1 1B.1 Yes 1974-01-01 inaequalis Joaquin No Photo
Valley Available
Orcutt
grass
Pseudobahia San Asteraceae annual herb Feb-Apr FT CE G1 S1 1B.1 Yes 1974-01-01 peirsonii Joaquin No Photo
adobe Available
sunburst
Puccinellia Ca lifornia Poaceae annual herb Mar-May None None G2 S2 1B.2 2015-10-15 simplex alkali grass © 20 17
Chris
Wincl1ell
Sagittaria Sanford's Alismataceae perennial May- None None G3 S3 1B.2 Yes 1984-01-01 sanfordii arrowhead rhizomatous Oct(Nov)
herb
(emergent) ©2013
Debra L
Cook
Showing 1 to 18 of 18 entries
Suggested Citation:

California Native Plant Society, Rare Plant Program. 2025. Rare Plant Inventory (online editio n, v9.5.1). Websit e https://www.rareplants.cnps.org [accessed 26 June 2025).
}
6/26/2025. 6:27 AM
2477

APPENDIX B

REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPHS

CLEMENTS RANCH PROJECT
2478

Clements Ranch Project June 2025
City of Visalia Appendix B - 1
Photograph 1. Representative view of agriculture field that comprises approximately half of the project site.

Coordinates: 36.30258 °N, -119.26019 °W facing north.

Photograph taken by Mattole Whitaker on June 16, 2025.

Photograph 2. California ground squirrel burrows along north bank of Tulare irrigation canal.

Coordinates: 36.30564 °N, -119.25745 °W facing northwest.

Photograph taken by Mattole Whitaker on June 16, 2025
2479

Clements Ranch Project June 2025
City of Visalia Appendix B - 2
Photograph 3. Representative Photograph of Cameron Creek on southern edge of project site Coordinates: 36.29924 °N, -119.25904 °W facing southeast.

Photograph taken by Mattole Whitaker on June 16, 2025.

Photograph 4. Multiple swallow species mudnests under Tulare irrigation canal bridge.

Coordinates: 36.30417 °N, -119.26044 °W facing west.

Photograph taken by Mattole Whitaker on June 16, 2025.
2480

Clements Ranch Project June 2025
City of Visalia Appendix B - 3
Photograph 5. Unmaintained grassland habitat within BSA.

Coordinates: 36.30548 °N, -119.25999 °W facing east.

Photograph taken by Mattole Whitaker on June 16, 2025.

Photograph 6. American badger claw marks on potential den entrance.

Coordinates: 36.30504 °N, -119.25784 °W facing 199.16°.

Photograph taken by Mattole Whitaker on June 16, 2025.
2481

Clements Ranch Project June 2025
City of Visalia Appendix B - 4
Photograph 7. Northern orchard representative photograph.

Coordinates: 36.30417 °N, -119.26044 °W facing west.

Photograph taken by Mattole Whitaker on June 16, 2025.
.

Photograph 8. Southern orchards representative photograph.

Coordinates: 36.29981 °N, -119.25623 °W facing north.

Photograph taken by Mattole Whitaker on June 16, 2025.
2482

Clements Ranch Project June 2025
City of Visalia Appendix B - 5
Photograph 9. Suitable sized burrows for use by San Joaquin kit fox.

Coordinates: 36.30491 °N, -119.2581 °W facing 239.9°.

Photo taken by Mattole Whitaker on June 16, 2025.
2483

APPENDIX C

PLANT AND WILDLIFE SPECIES OBSERVED

CLEMENTS RANCH PROJECT
2484

Clements Ranch Project June 2025
City of Visalia Appendix C - 1
Table C - 1
Plant and Wildlife Species Observed within the BSA
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Plants
Alternanthera philoxeroides Alligatorweed None
Amaranthus blitoides mat amaranth None
Ambrosia bursage annual bursage None
Bromus diandrus ripgut brome None
Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens red brome None
Chenopodium album lamb's quarters None
Convolvulus arvensis field bindweed None
Cynodon dactylon Bermuda grass None
Datura wrightii jimsonweed None
Diplachne fusca brown beetle grass None
Erigeron canadensis horseweed None
Erythranthe guttata Seep monkey flower None
Juglans californica California black walnut None
Lactuca serriola prickly lettuce None
Malva neglecta common mallow None
Morus alba white mulberry None
Paspalum dilatatum Dallis grass None
Platanus racemosa western sycamore None
Polygonum aviculare prostrate knotweed None
Prunus persica Peach None
Quercus lobata valley oak None
Rumex crispus curly dock None
Salsola tragus Russian thistle None
Scirpoides holoschoenus bull rush None
Taeniatherum caput-medusae medusahead None
Tribulus terrestris puncture vine None
Trichostema lanceolatum vinegar weed None
Triticum aestivum common wheat None
Ornamental shrubs/trees None
Reptiles
Aspidoscelis tigris western whiptail None
Uta stansburiana common side-blotched lizard None
Birds
Aphelocoma californica California scrub jay None
Buteo swainsonii Swainson’s hawk SSC
Charadrius vociferus killdeer None
Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow None
Petrochelidon pyrrhonota cliff swallow None
2485

Clements Ranch Project June 2025
City of Visalia Appendix C - 2
Zenaida macroura mourning dove None
Mammals
Canis familiaris* domestic dog None
Didelphis virginiana* Virginia opossum None
Microtus californicus California vole None
Mus musculus house mouse None
Otospermophilus beecheyi California ground squirrel None Procyon lotor* northern racoon None
* Indicates that only sign (e.g., tracks, scat, burrows, dens, vocalizations) of the species was observed.

2486

APPENDIX C

CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

2487

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Date: August 13, 2025
Project: Cultural resources records search- Clements Ranch Project To: Jaymie Brauer, Principal Planner
From: Robert Parr, MS, RPA, Senior Archaeologist
Subject: Cultural Resources Records Search Results (RS#25-292) Background
A cultural resources records search (#25-292) was conducted for the Clements Ranch Project at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center at California State University, Bakersfield.

The purpose of the search was to determine whether any known cultural resources were located on or near the proposed project that might be impacted by project development and/or activities.

Project Location
The Project site is located within an area of unincorporated Tulare County, southeast of the City of Visalia (City), adjacent to the city limits. The site consists of two separate Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs), 127-020-20 and -21. The Project is within Section 3, Township 19S, Range 25E, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian (MDB&M), of the Visalia U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Quad Map (see Attachment A).

Project Description
Development of a residential subdivision that would consist of mixed density housing types (High, Medium and Low Density). On- and off-site improvements including rooftop solar panels, circulation roads, interior local streets, curb, gutter, sidewalk, walking trail, open space/parks, landscaping, water well site, and stormwater basin area. The Project site is located southeast of the City of Visalia (City), adjacent to the city limits. The site consists of two separate Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs), 127-020-21 and -20, totaling approximately 75 acres.

The site is generally bound by the Union Pacific Railroad to the north, Cameron Creek to the east and south, and Lovers Lane to the west. The Project proponent is requesting approval of the following land use entitlements: 1) Annexation to the City of Visalia; 2) Pre-zone from Tulare County AE to City of Visalia R-1-5 and R-M-3; 3) General Plan Amendment to rearrange the existing Low, Medium and High Density Residential, while keeping the Conservation designation as is; 4) Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development to deviate from development standards to allow for the development of single-family homes within the MediumDensity land use/R-M-2 designation; and 5) Tentative Tract Map Approval. Construction will take 18-24 months for full buildout.
2488

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Results
The records search covered an area within one-half mile of the project and included a review of the National Register of Historic Places, California Points of Historical Interest, California Registry of Historic Resources, California Historical Landmarks, California State Historic Resources Inventory, and a review of cultural resource reports on file.

The records search indicated that the project had never been surveyed for cultural resources. One historic cultural resource, the Tulare Irrigation Canal (primary no. P-54-005296), passes through the northwest corner of the project. The canal was constructed some time between 1889, when the Tulare Irrigation District was organized, and 1892 when it appeared on the 1892 Thompson County Atlas (Hattersley-Drayton 2022). However, this water feature is not identified as being a historic resource in the General Plan EIR. While it is historic in nature, the canal has been systematically altered over time, and lacks the integrity to warrant protection as a cultural resource under CEQA.

Five cultural resource studies have been conducted within a half mile of the project (Cantwell 1978; Villacorta 2002; Haley 2009a, 2009b; O’Brien 2009; Foglia et al. 2017; Carey et al. 2022; Sauls 2022).

Four historic and one prehistoric cultural resources have been recorded within one half mile of the project. The historic-era resources include two additional irrigation ditches (P-54-005289 & P-54-005667) the route of the Southern Pacific/San Joaquin Valley Railroad (P-54-004626), and an historic building (P-54-005067). The prehistoric resource was an isolated artifact (P-54-000107) described as a “spear point” that was reported and collected in 1959.

A Sacred Lands File request was also submitted to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). A response dated May 7, 2025, indicates negative results (see Attachment B).

Conclusions
Based on the results of cultural records search findings and the lack of significant historical or archaeological resources previously identified within a half mile radius of the proposed Project, the potential to encounter subsurface cultural resources is minimal. The potential to uncover subsurface historical or archaeological deposits would be considered unlikely.

However, there is still a possibility that historical or archaeological materials may be exposed during construction. Grading and trenching, as well as other ground-disturbing actions have the potential to damage or destroy these previously unidentified and potentially significant cultural resources within the project area, including historical or archaeological resources. Disturbance of any deposits that have the potential to provide significant cultural data would be considered a significant impact. To reduce the potential impacts of the Project on cultural resources, the following measures are recommended to be included as Conditions of Approval. With implementation of CUL-1 and CUL-2, the Project would have a less than significant impact related to cultural resources.

CUL-1: If prehistoric or historic-era cultural materials are encountered during construction activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall halt until a qualified archaeologist QIF
2489

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
can evaluate the find and make recommendations. Cultural resource materials may include prehistoric resources such as flaked and ground stone tools and debris, shell, bone, ceramics, and fire-affected rock as well as historic resources such as glass, metal, wood, brick, or structural remnants. If the qualified archaeologist determines that the discovery represents a potentially significant cultural resource, additional investigations may be required to mitigate adverse impacts from Project implementation. These additional studies may include avoidance, testing, and evaluation or data recovery excavation. Implementation of the mitigation measure below would ensure that the proposed Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

CUL-2: If human remains are discovered during construction or operational activities, further excavation or disturbance shall be prohibited pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. The specific protocol, guidelines, and channels of communication outlined by the Native American Heritage Commission, in accordance with Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code (Chapter 1492, Statutes of 1982, Senate Bill 297), and Senate Bill 447 (Chapter 44, Statutes of 1987), shall be followed. Section 7050.5(c) shall guide the potential Native American involvement, in the event of discovery of human remains, at the direction of the county coroner.

Robert E. Parr, MS, RPA
Senior Archaeologist
Attachment A- Figures
Attachment B- NAHC Response Letter
240208
2490

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
References
(Alpha-numeric designation in parentheses following citation refers to IC report reference number) Cantwell, R. J.
1978 Archaeological and Historical Survey Report for Road 137 (Pinkham) from D-136 (K Road) to Avenue 259, Tulare County, California. (TU-00214) Carey, Peter A., David S. Whitley, and Robert Azpitarte 2022 Phase I Survey, Pearl Woods Subdivision Project, Tulare County, California. ASM Affiliates, Inc. (TU-01966)
Foglia, Shannon E., Theodore G. Cooley, and Chandra Miller 2017 Cultural Resources Survey Report for the Proposed Southern California Edison North of Magunden Transmission Line Rating Remediation Project, Kern and Tulare Counties, California. AECOM (TU-01764)
Haley, Kathryn
2009a Historic Property Survey Report for Avenue 280 Road Widening Project, Tulare County, California. ICF Jones & Stokes. (TU-01659)
2009b Avenue 280 Road Widening Project Historic Resources Evaluation Report. ICF Jones & Stokes (TU-01659A)
Hattersley-Drayton, Karana
2022 Site Record Form for Site Primary no. P-54-005296 (trinomial: CA-TUL-3103H), dated 13 February, 2022.

O’Brien, Traci
2009 Avenue 280Road Widening Project Archaeological Survey Report. ICF Jones & Stokes (TU-01659B)
Sauls, Consuelo Y.
2022 Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Higgin’s Ranch Annexation and Tentative Subdivision Map Project, City of Visalia, Tulare County, California. Taylored Archaeology (TU-01936)
Villacorta, Estella
2002 Section 106 Review, GeoTek Project #0032SA2-017B Caldwell Avenue, Visalia, California. GeoTek, Inc. (TU-01167)
2491

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Attachment A -
Figures
2492
Figure 1
Regional Location
Medford
0 c::J Tulare County
D State County Boundaries
["_~-:.] State Boundary
0 Miles 100
I
California
Tulare 0

7.5 Visalia
0 Mojave
Desert
Exete 0
Las Vegas 0
,_
2493
Figure 2
Project Site
2494
Figure 3
PLSS/USGS Quad
Tulare Ave
N
C0
E
ro
33 c..

Cl..
c~
E Tulare Ave
185 25E
,,,
~= 0 n
)>
C
....
....
~ I~ Feet 2.~00 I
34 35
r ~r···-·-···-···-···-···-···-···-· ··-··-···-···-··~ert-M-~--··-···~- ~•~•-··-···-···-···-···-···-··· 195 25E E Laura Ave
EK Ave
5 ..,
Vl
E
.c "'
·"' C ,f
~ Monte Verd "' e Ave
·ell Ave
8 V
9 D Project Site
[.:::.1 PLSS Townships
PLSS Sub Sections
,_ ___ J PLSS Sections
D USGS Quads
E K Ave
USGS Quad:

Visalia
Avenue 272
E Cherry Ave
[ill]
0 ,t
1J N Lovers Ln 10
0 0::
;,:,
0 OJ
a.
3 10
USGS Quad:

Exeter
co
st
u
0 "' ,~
2 Avenue 2
11 Oscar Ave
a'lAour s: Public Land Survey System (P~~). USG
ESRI Cit of Vis lia Fresno Count De I. PWP California Stat 2495
Figure 4
Topo
•
• •
• I
I D Project Site I
2496
Attachment B -
NAHC Response Letter
2497
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION