Agenda packet — Visalia City Council, July 20, 2026 (part 7 of 14)

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 1198
Impact Assessment

Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 2025

Page 4 ends

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 1199
Impact Assessment

Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 2025

Page 4 ends

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 1200
Impact Assessment

Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 2025

Page 4 ends

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. 1201
Impact Assessment

Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 2025

Page 4 ends

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
1202
Impact Assessment

Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 2025

Page 4 ends

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 1203
Impact Assessment

Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 2025

Page 4 ends

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.
1204
Cumulative Impacts

Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 2025

Page 5 ends

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.
1205
Cumulative Impacts

Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 2025

Page 5 ends

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.
1206
Cumulative Impacts

Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 2025

Page 5 ends

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.
1207
Cumulative Impacts

Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 2025

Page 5 ends

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.
1208
Consistency with the Air Quality Attainment Plan

Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 2025

Page 6 ends

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. 1209
Consistency with the Air Quality Attainment Plan

Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 2025

Page 6 ends

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. 1210
Consistency with the Air Quality Attainment Plan

Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 2025

Page 6 ends

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.
1211
Consistency with the Air Quality Attainment Plan

Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 2025

Page 6 ends

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 -- ( ::
' -
1212
Mitigation and Other Recommended Measures

Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 2025

Page 7 ends

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).
1213
Mitigation and Other Recommended Measures

Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 2025

Page 7 ends

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).
1214
Level of Significance After Mitigation

Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 2025

Page 8 ends

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.
1215
References

Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 2025

Page 9 ends

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-quality1216 References

Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 2025

Page 9 ends

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.
1217
References

Clements Ranch Residential Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis October 2025

Page 9 ends

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. 1218

APPENDIX A

PROJECT EMISSION CALCULATIONS

1219
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
1220
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
1221
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
1222
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
1223
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
1224
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
1225
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
1226
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
1227
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 — 1228
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 -------------------
1229
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 -------------------
-------------------
1230
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%
-------------------
1231
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 -------------------
1232
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 -------------------
1233
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1234
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
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------
1235
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
17 / 81
Off-Roa
Equipment

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —1236
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

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 — — — — — — — -------------------
1237
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

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 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 1238
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

0.39700 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------
1239
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) 1240
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

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 -------------------
1241
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1242
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

0.71887 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

0.13119 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1243
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 -------------------
1244
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

0.71887 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

0.13119 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1245
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------
1246
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

0.67680 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

0.12352 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 1247
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 -------------------
1248
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

0.12352 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —1249
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

0.06973 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------
1250
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1251
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
33 / 81
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1252
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 -------------------
1253
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
35 / 81
Architect 209.106 209.106 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ural
Coating
Onsite
truck

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

0.00199 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 1254 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
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------
1255
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

0.00199 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —1256
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1257
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

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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1258
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

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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1259
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1260
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 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1261
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 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1262
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

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 -------------------
1263
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------
1264
Clements Ranch Detailed Report, 1/13/2026
46 / 81
Architect 1.66139 1.66139 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ural
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

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

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

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

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 1266
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
1267
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
1268
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
1269
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) 1270
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) 1271 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
1272
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
1273
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1274
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1275
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------
1276
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1277
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
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------
1278
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 1279
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
1280
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 1281
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
1282
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
1283
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
1284
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
1285
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
1286
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
1287
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
1288
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) 1289
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
1290
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 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
1291
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 —
1292
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
1293
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
1294
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
1295
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
1296
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% 1297 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% 1298
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%
1299
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
1300

APPENDIX B

HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT MODELING FILES (ELECTRONIC)

1301

APPENDIX C

AMBIENT AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS MODELING FILES (ELECTRONIC)

1302

APPENDIX B

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE EVALUATION (BRE)

1303

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE EVALUATION

CITY OF VISALIA

CLEMENT RANCH PROJECT
JUNE 2025
1304

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
1305

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 1306

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 1307
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.
1308
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 1309
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. 1310
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
1311
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
1312
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.
1313
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
1314
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 1315
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. 1316
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).
1317
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
1318
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.
1319
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) 1320
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
1321
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. 1322
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 1323
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
1324
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. 1325
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
1326
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.
1327
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
1328
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
1329
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 1330
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.
.
1331
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 1332
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
1333
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
1334
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
1335
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.
1336
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. 1337
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.
1338

APPENDIX A

SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES DATABASE SEARCH RESULTS

CLEMENTS RANCH PROJECT
1339

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) 1340

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
1341

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
1342

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
1343

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
1344

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
1345

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
1346

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
1347

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
1348

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
1349

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
1350

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
1351

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
1352

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
1353

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
1354

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
1355

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
1356

APPENDIX B

REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPHS

CLEMENTS RANCH PROJECT
1357

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
1358

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.
1359

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.
1360

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.
1361

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.
1362

APPENDIX C

PLANT AND WILDLIFE SPECIES OBSERVED

CLEMENTS RANCH PROJECT
1363

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
1364

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.

1365

APPENDIX C

CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

1366

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.
1367

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
1368

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
1369

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)
1370

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Attachment A -
Figures
1371
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
,_
1372
Figure 2
Project Site
1373
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 1374
Figure 4
Topo
•
• •
• I
I D Project Site I
1375
Attachment B -
NAHC Response Letter
1376
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION

Page 1 of 2 ends

July 7, 2025
Jaymie Brauer
QK Inc.

Via Email to: [email protected]
Re: Native American Consultation, Pursuant to Senate Bill 18 (SB18), Government Codes §65352.3 and §65352.4, as well as Assembly Bill 52 (AB52), Public Resources Codes §21080.1, §21080.3.1 and §21080.3.2, Clements Ranch (240208) Project, Tulare County To Whom It May Concern:

Attached is a consultation list of tribes with traditional lands or cultural places located within the boundaries of the above referenced counties or projects.

Government Codes §65352.3 and §65352.4 require local governments to consult with California Native American tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for the purpose of avoiding, protecting, and/or mitigating impacts to cultural places when creating or amending General Plans, Specific Plans and Community Plans.

Public Resources Codes §21080.3.1 and §21080.3.2 requires public agencies to consult with California Native American tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for the purpose of avoiding, protecting, and/or mitigating impacts to tribal cultural resources as defined, for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) projects.

The law does not preclude local governments and agencies from initiating consultation with the tribes that are culturally and traditionally affiliated within your jurisdiction. The NAHC believes that this is the best practice to ensure that tribes are consulted commensurate with the intent of the law.

Best practice for the AB52 process and in accordance with Public Resources Code §21080.3.1(d), is to do the following:

Within 14 days of determining that an application for a project is complete or a decision by a public agency to undertake a project, the lead agency shall provide formal notification to the designated contact of, or a tribal representative of, traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes that have requested notice, which shall be accomplished by means of at least one written notification that includes a brief description of the proposed project and its location, the lead agency contact information, and a notification that the California Native American tribe has 30 days to request consultation pursuant to this section.

The NAHC also recommends, but does not require that lead agencies include in their notification letters, information regarding any cultural resources assessment that has been completed on the area of potential effect (APE), such as:

CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash

VICE-CHAIRPERSON
Buffy McQuillen
Yokayo Pomo, Yuki,
Nomlaki

SECRETARY
Sara Dutschke
Miwok

PARLIAMENTARIAN
Wayne Nelson
Luiseño

COMMISSIONER
Isaac Bojorquez
Ohlone-Costanoan

COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaay

COMMISSIONER
Reid Milanovich
Cahuilla

COMMISSIONER
Bennae Calac
Pauma-Yuima Band of
Luiseño Indians
Commissioner
Vacant

ACTING EXECUTIVE

SECRETARY

STEVEN QUINN

NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
1377

Page 2 of 2 ends

1. The results of any record search that may have been conducted at an Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), including, but not limited to:
• A listing of any and all known cultural resources have already been recorded on or adjacent to the APE, such as known archaeological sites;
• Copies of any and all cultural resource records and study reports that may have been provided by the Information Center as part of the records search response; • Whether the records search indicates a low, moderate or high probability that unrecorded cultural resources are located in the APE; and
• If a survey is recommended by the Information Center to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present.

2. The results of any archaeological inventory survey that was conducted, including:
• Any report that may contain site forms, site significance, and suggested mitigation measures.

All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum, and not be made available for public disclosure in accordance with Government Code Section 6254.10.

3. The result of the Sacred Lands File (SLF) check conducted through the Native American Heritage Commission was negative.

4. Any ethnographic studies conducted for any area including all or part of the potential APE; and

5. Any geotechnical reports regarding all or part of the potential APE.

Lead agencies should be aware that records maintained by the NAHC and CHRIS is not exhaustive, and a negative response to these searches does not preclude the existence of a tribal cultural resource. A tribe may be the only source of information regarding the existence of a tribal cultural resource.

This information will aid tribes in determining whether to request formal consultation. In the event that they do, having the information beforehand will help to facilitate the consultation process.

If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify the NAHC. With your assistance we can assure that our consultation list remains current.

If you have any questions, please contact me at my email address: [email protected] Sincerely,
Melina Carlos
Cultural Resources Analyst
Attachment
1378
315 E. Acequia Ave. • Visalia, CA 93291 P 559.713.4359 E [email protected] W visalia.gov

Planning & Community Preservation Department
Planning Division

October 22, 2025
Kitanemuk & Yowlumne Tejon Indians
Delia Dominguez, Chairperson
115 Radio Street
Bakersfield, CA 93305
Subject: Invitation For Early Consultation For A Pending Project Dear Representative:

This letter is provided in accordance with the procedures prescribed by Senate Bill 18 (CEQATribal Cultural Resources). The City of Visalia is initiating a project application whose description is provided below, and as shown on the attached area map. The City of Visalia respectfully requests your review of the project, and invites you to request a consultation if you desire. Senate Bill 18 allows for a 90-day early review period before the City may proceed further in the project entitlement process or an associated environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

General Plan Amendment No. 2025-04: A request to amend the location and acreage of General Plan land use designations within 75 acres, resulting in the redistribution of Residential Low Density, Residential Medium Density, and Residential High Density land use designations.

Clements Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5606 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2025- 04: A request to divide approximately 67.74 acres into a 292-unit single-family residential subdivision with a 21-acre Remainder parcel.

Annexation No. 2025-02: A request to annex the subject site.

Location: The project location is the east side of Lovers Lane between K Avenue and Caldwell Avenue. (APN: 127-020-020 and 127-020-021).

If you have any concerns or information regarding archaeological resources or traditional tribal cultural places in or near the Planning Area, or if you would like to be involved in the planning process, please let us know. We would appreciate receiving your response by December 31, 2025.

Thank you,
Brandon Smith, Principal Planner
City of Visalia Planning & Community Preservation Department 315 E. Acequia Avenue
Visalia, CA 93291
Phone: (559) 713-4636
Email: [email protected]
~ ±--.. V VISALIA
1379

APPENDIX D

TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS AND VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED ANALYSIS

1380
Traffic Impact Analysis
February 23, 2026
Clements Ranch
Located on the Northeast Quadrant of Lovers Lane
and Caldwell Avenue
In the City of Visalia, California
Prepared for
QK, Inc.
601 Pollasky Avenue, Suite 301
Clovis, CA 93612
Project No. 013-028
Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, & Parking Solutions 516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93710
Phone : (559) 570-8991
www.JLBtraffic.com
- - --- --- -
1381
Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, & Parking Solutions 516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704
Phone: (559) 570-8991
www.JLBtraffic.com
Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, & Parking Solutions Z:\01 Projects\013 Visalia\013-028 Clements Ranch TIA\Report\R20260223 Clements Ranch TIA.docx Traffic Impact Analysis
For the Clements Ranch located on the Northeast Quadrant of Lovers Lane and Caldwell Avenue
In the City of Visalia, California
February 23, 2026
This Traffic Impact Analysis Report has been prepared under the direction of a licensed Traffic Engineer. The licensed Traffic Engineer attests to the technical information contained therein and has judged the qualifications of any technical specialists providing engineering data from which recommendations, conclusions and decisions are based.

Prepared by:
_________________________________
Jose Luis Benavides, PE, TE
President

- _. - -
- - - - - -
1382
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | iii
(559) 570-8991
Clements Ranch – City of Visalia
Traffic Impact Analysis
February 23, 2026

Table of Contents
Introduction and Summary....................................................................................................................1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1 Summary ...................................................................................................................................................... 2 Existing Traffic Conditions........................................................................................................................ 2 Opening Year No Project Traffic Conditions............................................................................................ 2 Opening Year plus Phase 1 Traffic Conditions......................................................................................... 2 Cumulative 5-Year No Project Traffic Conditions.................................................................................... 3 Cumulative 5-Year plus Phase 1 Traffic Conditions................................................................................. 3 Cumulative 5-Year plus Buildout Traffic Conditions................................................................................ 3 Queuing Analysis...................................................................................................................................... 3 Project’s Equitable Fair Share .................................................................................................................. 3 Scope of Work ......................................................................................................................................4 Study Facilities ............................................................................................................................................. 4 Study Intersections.................................................................................................................................. 4 Study Scenarios............................................................................................................................................ 5 Existing Traffic Conditions........................................................................................................................ 5 Opening Year No Project Traffic Conditions............................................................................................ 5 Opening Year plus Phase 1 Traffic Conditions......................................................................................... 5 Cumulative 5-Year No Project Traffic Conditions.................................................................................... 5 Cumulative 5-Year plus Phase 1 Project Traffic Conditions..................................................................... 6 Cumulative 5-Year plus Buildout Project Traffic Conditions.................................................................... 6 LOS Methodology .................................................................................................................................7 LOS Thresholds.....................................................................................................................................7 Operational Analysis Assumptions and Defaults ....................................................................................8 Existing Traffic Conditions.....................................................................................................................9 Roadway Network........................................................................................................................................ 9 Collision Analysis........................................................................................................................................ 10 Traffic Signal Warrants............................................................................................................................... 11 Results of Existing Level of Service Analysis .............................................................................................. 11 Opening Year No Project Traffic Conditions............................................................................................15 Traffic Signal Warrants............................................................................................................................... 15 JlB!RAf.f.!f
-=-=-=-=-==-
1383
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | iv
(559) 570-8991
Clements Ranch – City of Visalia
Traffic Impact Analysis
February 23, 2026
Roadway Network...................................................................................................................................... 15 Results of Opening Year No Project Level of Service Analysis................................................................... 15 Opening Year plus Phase 1 Traffic Conditions.......................................................................................18 Project Description..................................................................................................................................... 18 Project Access ............................................................................................................................................ 18 Corner Sight Distance................................................................................................................................. 18 Trip Generation.......................................................................................................................................... 19 Trip Distribution......................................................................................................................................... 19 Bikeways..................................................................................................................................................... 19 Transit ........................................................................................................................................................ 19 Safe Routes to School ................................................................................................................................ 20 Traffic Signal Warrants............................................................................................................................... 21 Roadway Network...................................................................................................................................... 21 Results of Opening Year plus Phase 1 Level of Service Analysis................................................................ 21 Cumulative 5-Year No Project Traffic Conditions ....................................................................................26 Traffic Signal Warrants............................................................................................................................... 26 Roadway Network...................................................................................................................................... 26 Results of Cumulative 5-Year No Project Level of Service Analysis........................................................... 26 Cumulative 5-Year plus Phase 1 Traffic Conditions...............................................................................29 Traffic Signal Warrants............................................................................................................................... 29 Roadway Network...................................................................................................................................... 29 Results of Cumulative 5-Year plus Phase 1 Level of Service Analysis........................................................ 29 Cumulative 5-Year plus Buildout Traffic Conditions..............................................................................32 Trip Generation.......................................................................................................................................... 32 Trip Distribution......................................................................................................................................... 32 Traffic Signal Warrants............................................................................................................................... 32 Roadway Network...................................................................................................................................... 32 Results of Cumulative 5-Year plus Buildout Level of Service Analysis....................................................... 33 Project Only Trip Assignment to State Facilities........................................................................................ 34 Queuing Analysis ................................................................................................................................38 Project’s Pro-Rata Fair Share of Future Transportation Improvements..................................................44 Conclusions and Recommendations.....................................................................................................45 Existing Traffic Conditions...................................................................................................................... 45 Opening Year No Project Traffic Conditions.......................................................................................... 45 JlB!RAf.f.!f
-=-=-=-=-==-
1384
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | v
(559) 570-8991
Clements Ranch – City of Visalia
Traffic Impact Analysis
February 23, 2026
Opening Year plus Phase 1 Traffic Conditions....................................................................................... 45 Cumulative 5-Year No Project Traffic Conditions.................................................................................. 46 Cumulative 5-Year plus Phase 1 Traffic Conditions............................................................................... 47 Cumulative 5-Year plus Buildout Traffic Conditions.............................................................................. 47 Queuing Analysis.................................................................................................................................... 48 Project’s Equitable Fair Share ................................................................................................................ 48 Study Participants...............................................................................................................................49 References..........................................................................................................................................50

JlB!RAf.f.!f
-=-=-=-=-==-
1385
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | vi
(559) 570-8991
Clements Ranch – City of Visalia
Traffic Impact Analysis
February 23, 2026

List of Figures Figure 1: Vicinity Map ............................................................................................................................................. 13 Figure 2: Existing - Traffic Volumes, Geometrics and Controls................................................................................. 14 Figure 3: Opening Year No Project – Traffic Volumes, Geometrics and Controls..................................................... 17 Figure 4: Project Site Plan ....................................................................................................................................... 23 Figure 5: Project Only Trips – Phase 1 ..................................................................................................................... 24 Figure 6: Opening Year plus Phase 1 - Traffic Volumes, Geometrics and Controls................................................... 25 Figure 7: Cumulative 5-Year No Project - Traffic Volumes, Geometrics and Controls.............................................. 28 Figure 8: Cumulative 5-Year plus Phase 1 - Traffic Volumes, Geometrics and Controls ........................................... 31 Figure 9: Project Only Trips – Phase 2 ..................................................................................................................... 35 Figure 10: Cumulative 5-Year plus Buildout - Traffic Volumes, Geometrics and Controls........................................ 36 Figure 11: State Route 198 at Lovers Lane – Project Only Trips............................................................................... 37 List of Tables Table I: Three-Year (2022-2024) Intersection Collision Analysis.............................................................................. 10 Table II: Existing Intersection LOS Results............................................................................................................... 12 Table III: Opening Year No Project Intersection LOS Results ................................................................................... 16 Table IV: Phase 1 Trip Generation........................................................................................................................... 19 Table V: Opening Year plus Phase 1 Intersection LOS Results ................................................................................. 22 Table VI: Cumulative 5-Year No Project Intersection LOS Results ........................................................................... 27 Table VII: Cumulative 5-Year plus Phase 1 Intersection LOS Results........................................................................ 30 Table VIII: Phase 2 Trip Generation......................................................................................................................... 32 Table IX: Cumulative 5-Year plus Buildout Intersection LOS Results ....................................................................... 34 Table X: Queuing Analysis....................................................................................................................................... 39 Table XI: Queuing Analysis (AASHTO Calculated).................................................................................................... 42 Table XII: Single-Family Residential Fair Share of Future Roadway Improvements ................................................. 44 Table XIII: Multi-Family Residential Fair Share of Future Roadway Improvements................................................. 44 List of Appendices Appendix A: Scope of Work
Appendix B: Traffic Counts
Appendix C: Traffic Modeling
Appendix D: Methodology
Appendix E: Collision Data
Appendix F: Existing Traffic Conditions
Appendix G: Opening Year No Project Traffic Conditions
Appendix H: Corner Sight Distance
Appendix I: Opening Year plus Phase 1 Traffic Conditions Appendix J: Cumulative 5-Year No Project Traffic Conditions Appendix K: Cumulative 5-Year plus Phase 1 Traffic Conditions Appendix L: Cumulative 5-Year plus Buildout Traffic Conditions Appendix M: Traffic Signal Warrants
JlB!RAf.f.!f
-=-=-=-=-==-
1386
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 1
(559) 570-8991
Clements Ranch – City of Visalia
Traffic Impact Analysis
February 23, 2026

Introduction and Summary
Introduction
This Report describes a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc. (JLB) for the Clements Ranch (Project) located on the northeast quadrant of Lovers Lane at Caldwell Avenue in the City of Visalia. The Project proposes to develop the site with a mix of single-family (292 dwelling units) and multi-family residential (375 dwelling units) dwelling units. Based on information provided to JLB, the Project will require a General Plan Amendment to shift densities within the Project. Figure 1 shows the location of the proposed Project site relative to the surrounding roadway network.

The purpose of the TIA is to evaluate the potential on-site and off-site traffic impacts, identify short-term and long-term roadway needs, determine potential roadway improvement measures and identify any critical traffic issues that should be addressed in the on-going planning process. The TIA primarily focused on evaluating traffic conditions at study intersections that may potentially be impacted by the proposed Project. The Scope of Work was prepared via consultation with City of Visalia, County of Tulare and Caltrans staff.

JlB!RAf.f.!f
-=-=-=-=-==-
1387
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 2
(559) 570-8991
Clements Ranch – City of Visalia
Traffic Impact Analysis
February 23, 2026
Summary
The potential traffic impacts of the proposed Project were evaluated in accordance with the standards set forth by the Level of Service (LOS) policies of the City of Visalia, County of Tulare and Caltrans.

Opening Year No Project Traffic Conditions
• Under this scenario, the study intersection of Lovers Lane at Walnut Avenue is projected to exceed its LOS threshold during the AM peak period. Additional details as to the recommended improvements for this intersection are presented later in this Report.

Additional details as to the recommended improvements for these intersections are presented later in this Report.

JlB!RAf.f.!f
-=-=-=-=-==-
1388
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 3
(559) 570-8991
Clements Ranch – City of Visalia
Traffic Impact Analysis
February 23, 2026
Cumulative 5-Year No Project Traffic Conditions
• Under this scenario, the study intersection of Road 148 at Caldwell Avenue is projected to exceed its LOS threshold during the AM peak period. Additional details as to the recommended improvements for this intersection are presented later in this Report.

Cumulative 5-Year plus Phase 1 Traffic Conditions
• 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.

Additional details as to the recommended improvements for these intersections are presented later in this Report.

Cumulative 5-Year plus Buildout Traffic Conditions
• In Phase 2, the Project is estimated to generate approximately 2,329 daily trips, 154 AM peak hour trips and 195 PM peak hour trips.
• 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.

Additional details as to the recommended improvements for these intersections are presented later in this Report.

Queuing Analysis
• It is recommended that the City consider left-turn and right-turn lane storage lengths as indicated in the Queuing Analysis.

Project’s Equitable Fair Share
• It is recommended that the Project components contribute their equitable Fair Share as presented in Table XII and Table XIII for those future improvements which are currently not covered by an existing impact fee program, maintenance funds or grant funds.

JlB!RAf.f.!f
-=-=-=-=-==-
1389
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 4
(559) 570-8991
Clements Ranch – City of Visalia
Traffic Impact Analysis
February 23, 2026

Scope of Work
The TIA focused on evaluating traffic conditions at study intersections that may potentially be impacted by the proposed Project. On August 19, 2026, a Draft Scope of Work for the preparation of a TIA for this Project was provided to City of Visalia, County of Tulare and Caltrans staff for their review and comment.

The lead and responsible agencies had the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Scope of Work.

On August 20, 2025, the County of Tulare responded requesting for the intersection of Road 148 at Caldwell Avenue be included as a study intersection. On September 2, 2025 the City of Visalia responded requesting the inclusion any project driveway connection to Sunnyside Avenue as a study intersection, perform Warrants 1 and Warrant 2 in the opening years scenarios and corner sight distance evaluations for all project driveway intersections. On September 25, 2026, Caltrans requested that the Existing conditions without improvements be included and a trip trace for the State Route 198 at Lovers Lane interchange.

Based on the comments received, this 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 Existing conditions without improvements was originally included in the scope. The Draft Scope of Work and the comments received from the responsible agencies are included in Appendix A.

Study Facilities
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. The traffic counts for the existing study facilities are contained in Appendix B. The existing intersection turning movement volumes, intersection geometrics and traffic controls are illustrated in Figure 2.

Study Intersections

1. Lovers Lane / Walnut Avenue

2. Pinkham Street / K Avenue

3. Lovers Lane / K Avenue

4. Lovers Lane / Project Driveway A

5. Lovers Lane / Sunnyside Avenue

6. Project Driveway B / Sunnyside Avenue

7. Project Driveway C / Sunnyside Avenue

8. Project Driveway D / Sunnyside Avenue

9. Lovers Lane / Project Driveway E

10. Pinkham Street / Caldwell Avenue

11. Lovers Lane / Caldwell Avenue

12. Road 148 / Caldwell Avenue
JlB!RAf.f.!f
-=-=-=-=-==-
1390
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 5
(559) 570-8991
Clements Ranch – City of Visalia
Traffic Impact Analysis
February 23, 2026
Study Scenarios
Existing Traffic Conditions
This scenario evaluates the Existing Traffic Conditions based on existing traffic volumes and roadway conditions from field surveys and traffic counts conducted in September 2025 and October 2025.

Opening Year No Project Traffic Conditions
This scenario evaluates total traffic volumes and roadway conditions based on the Opening Year No Project Traffic Conditions. The opening year for this Project is anticipated to be 2028. 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. Under this scenario, the increment method was utilized to determine the growth in the area. The Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG) Project Select Zone results are contained in Appendix C.

Opening Year plus Phase 1 Traffic Conditions
This scenario evaluates total traffic volumes and roadway conditions based on the Opening Year plus Phase 1 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 Phase 1 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. The Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG) Project Select Zone results are contained in Appendix C.

Cumulative 5-Year No Project Traffic Conditions
This scenario evaluates total traffic volumes and roadway conditions based on the Cumulative 5-Year No Project Traffic Conditions. The cumulative 5-year for this Project is anticipated to be 2033. 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. The Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG) Project Select Zone results are contained in Appendix C.

JlB!RAf.f.!f
-=-=-=-=-==-
1391
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 6
(559) 570-8991
Clements Ranch – City of Visalia
Traffic Impact Analysis
February 23, 2026
Cumulative 5-Year plus Phase 1 Project Traffic Conditions This scenario evaluates total traffic volumes and roadway conditions based on the Cumulative 5-Year plus Phase 1 Traffic Conditions. The cumulative 5-year for this Project is anticipated to be 2033. The Cumulative 5-Year plus Phase 1 traffic volumes were obtained by adding the Phase 1 Project Only Trips to the Cumulative 5-Year No Project traffic volumes. The Phase 1 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. The Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG) Project Select Zone results are contained in Appendix C.

Cumulative 5-Year plus Buildout Project Traffic Conditions 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 2 Project Only Trips to the Cumulative 5-Year plus Phase 1 traffic volumes. The Phase 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. The Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG) Project Select Zone results are contained in Appendix C.

JlB!RAf.f.!f
-=-=-=-=-==-
1392
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 7
(559) 570-8991
Clements Ranch – City of Visalia
Traffic Impact Analysis
February 23, 2026

LOS Methodology
LOS is a qualitative index of the performance of an element of the transportation system. LOS is a rating scale running from “A” to “F”, with “A” indicating no congestion of any kind and “F” indicating unacceptable congestion and delays. LOS in this study describes the operating conditions for signalized and unsignalized intersections.

The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 6th Edition is the standard reference published by the Transportation Research Board and contains the specific criteria and methods to be used in assessing LOS.

Lane configurations not reflective of existing conditions are a result of software limitations and thus their LOS output represents a worst-case scenario. Synchro software was used to define LOS in this study.

Details regarding these calculations are included in Appendix D.

While LOS is no longer the criteria 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.

LOS Thresholds
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 Sphere of Influence (SOI) of a City. For those areas that fall within the sphere of influence (SOI) of a City, the LOS threshold of the city is used in this Report. In this TIA, the study intersection of Road 148 at Caldwell Avenue falls outside of the City of Visalia SOI.

Therefore, the County of Tulare LOS threshold of LOS D is utilized for this intersection.

The Visalia General Plan has established LOS D as the acceptable level of traffic congestion on most major streets that fall within the SOI of the City of Visalia. In this TIA, all but one study intersection fall completely within the City of Visalia SOI. Therefore, the City of Visalia LOS threshold of LOS D is utilized for all study intersections except for the intersection of Road 148 at Caldwell Avenue.

Caltrans no longer considers delay as a significant impact to the environment for land use projects and plans. According to the Caltrans document VMT Focused Transportation Impact Study Guidelines dated May 2020, Caltrans review of land use projects and plans is focused on a VMT metric consistent with CEQA. In this TIA, all study intersections fall within the City of Visalia or County of Tulare SOI.

JlB!RAf.f.!f
-=-=-=-=-==-
1393
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 8
(559) 570-8991
Clements Ranch – City of Visalia
Traffic Impact Analysis
February 23, 2026

Operational Analysis Assumptions and Defaults
The following operational analysis values, assumptions and defaults were used in this study to ensure a consistent analysis of LOS among the various scenarios. • Existing Caltrans traffic signals utilize the Signal Timing Plans. • Yellow time consistent with the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) based on approach speeds (Caltrans, 2026).
• Yellow time of 3.2 seconds for left-turn phases.
• All-red clearance intervals of 1.0 second for all phases. • Walk intervals of 7.0 seconds.
• Flashing Don’t Walk based on 3.5 feet/second walking speed with yellow plus all-red clearance subtracted.
• The number of observed pedestrians at existing intersections is utilized under all study scenarios. • An average of 10 pedestrian calls per hour is utilized at study intersections under traffic signal control with crosswalks.
• The existing HVF or a minimum of 3 percent are utilized under all study scenarios or a minimum of 3 percent.
• A HVF of 3 percent is utilized for all new study intersections. • The observed approach Peak Hour Factor (PHF) is utilized under all scenarios. • A PHF of 0.88 is utilized for all new study intersections.

JlB!RAf.f.!f
-=-=-=-=-==-
1394
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 9
(559) 570-8991
Clements Ranch – City of Visalia
Traffic Impact Analysis
February 23, 2026

Existing Traffic Conditions
Roadway Network
The Project site and surrounding study area are illustrated in Figure 1. 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 Saint 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 through 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.

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.

JlB!RAf.f.!f
-=-=-=-=-==-
1395
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 10
(559) 570-8991
Clements Ranch – City of Visalia
Traffic Impact Analysis
February 23, 2026
Collision Analysis
JLB conducted a search of the Statewide Integrated Traffic Reporting System (SWITRS) to obtain collision reports for the most recent complete three-year period (January 1st, 2022 to December 31st, 2024). The SWITRS “is a database that serves as a means to collect and process data gathered from a collision scene.

The internet SWITRS application is a tool by which the California Highway Patrol (CHP) staff and members of its Allied Agencies throughout California can request several types of statistical reports in an electronic format.” All collision summary reports between January 1st, 2022 and December 31st, 2024 were included in the collision analysis. In the three-year period, a total of 26 collisions were reported within the influence zone (assumed to be within 250 feet) of the study intersections. The SWITRS collision data are found in Appendix E.

Table I summarizes the type of collision, severity, violation, and identifies involvement with another vehicle, a pedestrian/bicyclist or a fixed object. Based on the three-year collision data contained within SWITRS, all study intersections have experienced a relatively low number of collisions per year. After thorough review of the data contained within the collision reports for the three-year analysis period, no additional changes are recommended to the study intersections as a result of collision activity.

Table I: Three-Year (2022-2024) Intersection Collision Analysis ID Intersection
Number of Collisions
Type of Collision Severity Type of Violation
Motor Vehicle
Involved
with…
Broadside
Rear End
Head-On
Hit Object
Sideswipe
Other
Fatal
Severe Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Property Damage Only
Traffic Signals & Signs
Right of Way
Unsafe Speed
Improper Turning
Driving Under Influence
Other
Pedestrian/Bicyclist
Other Motor Vehicle
Fixed Object
Other
1 Lovers Lane / Walnut Avenue 5 2 1 1 1 - - - - - 2 3 1 - - 1 3 - - 4 1 - 2 Pinkham Street / K Avenue 3 1 - 2 - - - - - - 2 1 1 - - 1 - 1 - 1 2 - 3 Lovers Lane / K Avenue 2 - - - - 2 - - - - - 2 1 - - 1 - 1 - 2 - - 5 Lovers Lane / Sunnyside Avenue 1 1 - - - - - - - - 1 - - 1 - - - - - 1 - - 10 Pinkham Street / Caldwell Avenue - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 11 Lovers Lane / Caldwell Avenue 9 4 3 - 1 1 - - - - 4 5 3 1 2 1 2 - - 8 1 - 12 Road 148 / Caldwell Avenue 6 3 2 - 1 - - - - 2 3 1 1 - 2 1 2 - - 5 1 - Totals 26 11 6 3 3 3 - - - 2 12 12 6 4 4 4 7 1 - 21 5 -

JlB!RAf.f.!f
-=-=-=-=-==-
1396
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 11
(559) 570-8991
Clements Ranch – City of Visalia
Traffic Impact Analysis
February 23, 2026
Traffic Signal Warrants
The 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 (9) warrants to evaluate the need for traffic signal controls. These warrants include 1) Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume, 2) Four-Hour Vehicular Volume, 3) Peak Hour, 4) Pedestrian Volume, 5) School Crossing, 6) Coordinated Signal System, 7) Crash Experience, 8) Roadway Network and 9) Intersection Near a Grade Crossing. Signalization of an intersection may be appropriate if one or more of the signal warrants are satisfied. However, the CA MUTCD also states that “[t]he satisfaction of a signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal” (Caltrans, 2026).

If traffic signal warrants are satisfied when a LOS threshold impact is identified at an unsignalized intersection, then installation of a traffic signal control may serve as an improvement measure. For instances where traffic signal warrants are satisfied, traffic signal control is not considered to be the default improvement measure. Since installation of a traffic signal control typically requires construction of additional lanes and increase delay to the major street, an attempt is made to improve the intersection approach lane geometrics in order to improve its LOS while maintaining the existing intersection controls.

If the additional lanes did not result in acceptable LOS at the intersection, then in those cases implementation of a traffic signal control would be considered.

Warrants 1, 2 and 3 were prepared for the unsignalized intersections under the Existing Traffic Conditions scenario. At present, Warrant 1 is not met for any study intersection. Warrant 2 is met for the study intersection of Lovers Lane at K Avenue. Warrant 3 is not met for any study intersection. Based on the operational analysis and engineering judgement, it is not recommended that any unsignalized intersection be signalized in this scenario. These warrants are contained in Appendix M.

Results of Existing Level of Service Analysis
Figure 2 illustrates the Existing Traffic Conditions turning movement volumes, intersection geometrics and traffic controls. LOS worksheets for the Existing Traffic Conditions scenario are provided in Appendix F.

Table II presents a summary of the Existing peak hour LOS at the study intersections.

At present, the study intersection of Lovers Lane at Walnut Avenue exceeds its LOS threshold during the AM peak period. It is recommended that the following be considered for implementation to improve the LOS at this intersection.
• Lovers Lane / Walnut Avenue
o Add an eastbound left-turn lane;
o Modify the eastbound left-through lane to a through lane; o Add a westbound left-turn lane;
o Modify the westbound left-through-right lane to a through-right lane; o Modify the phasing of the intersection to protective left-turn phasing in all directions; and o Modify the traffic signal to accommodate the modified geometrics.

JlB!RAf.f.!f
-=-=-=-=-==-
1397
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 12
(559) 570-8991
Clements Ranch – City of Visalia
Traffic Impact Analysis
February 23, 2026
Table II: Existing Intersection LOS Results
ID Intersection Intersection Control
AM (7 – 9) Peak Hour PM (4 – 6) Peak Hour
Average Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Average Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
1 Lovers Lane / Walnut Avenue Traffic Signal 60.3 E 44.6 D Traffic Signal (Improved) 32.4 C 27.2 C
2 Pinkham Street / K Avenue All-Way Stop 12.5 B 9.4 A
3 Lovers Lane / K Avenue Two-Way Stop 14.2 B 13.4 B
4 Lovers Lane / Driveway A Does not exist - - - -
5 Lovers Lane / Sunnyside Avenue Two-Way Stop 19.4 C 17.9 C 6 Driveway B / Sunnyside Avenue Does not exist - - - -
7 Driveway C / Sunnyside Avenue Does not exist - - - -
8 Driveway D / Sunnyside Avenue Does not exist - - - -
9 Lovers Lane / Driveway E Does not exist - - - -
10 Pinkham Street / Caldwell Avenue Two-Way Stop 12.6 B 11.8 B 11 Lovers Lane / Caldwell Avenue Traffic Signal 25.2 C 26.1 C 12 Road 148 / Caldwell Avenue Two-Way Stop 24.1 C 16.0 C Note: 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.

JlB!RAf.f.!f
-=-=-=-=-==-
1398
013-028 - 11/05/25 - DC
PHONE:(559) 570-8991, EMAIL: [email protected], www.JLBtraffic.com 516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103, Fresno, CA 93704
Clements Ranch - City of Visalia
Vicinity Map
Figure 1
N
Not To Scale

LEGEND LOVERS LANE
3 11
2 1
10 5
12 4
9 PINKHAM ST
K AVE

CALDWELL AVE
PROJECT SITE BEN MADDOX WAY McAULIFF ST ROAD 148
SJVRR
SUNNYSIDE AVE 6 7 8
# = STUDY INTERSECTION
= FUTURE ROADWAY

WALNUT AVE

MAIN ST
198 MINERAL KING AVE

TULARE AVE

GOSHEN AVE
JlBIRAf.f!f • ~
1399
013-028 - 11/06/25 - DCC
PHONE:(559) 570-8991, EMAIL: [email protected], www.JLBtraffic.com 516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103, Fresno, CA 93704
Clements Ranch - City of Visalia
Existing - Traffic Volumes, Geometrics, and Controls
Figure 2
N
Not To Scale
LEGEND

1. Lovers Ln &
Walnut Ave
87(76)
224(254)
97(62)
80(63)
297(230)
46(59)
157(78)
290(322)
49(83)
122(106)334(367)63(128) Lovers Ln Walnut Ave

2. Pinkham St &
K Ave
70(35)
67(74)
40(52)
5(14)
110(77)
26(16)
92(54)
145(73)
6(7)
51(27)59(93)25(23) Pinkham St
K Ave

3. Lovers Ln &
K Ave
28(22)
76(49)
57(48)
377(491)
26(51)518(394) Lovers Ln
K Ave

4. Lovers Ln &
Project Driveway A 434(543) 596(444)

5. Lovers Ln &
Sunnyside Ave
49(31)
23(4)
6(19)
382(508)
22(38)571(402) Lovers Ln
Sunnyside Ave

6. Project Driveway B &
Sunnyside Ave 7. Project Driveway C &Sunnyside Ave 8. Project Driveway D &Sunnyside Ave

9. Lovers Ln &
Project Driveway E 10. Pinkham St &Caldwell Ave
35(45)
206(326)
352(315)
36(33)
35(41)29(14) Pinkham St Caldwell Ave

11. Lovers Ln &
Caldwell Ave
34(88)
160(220)
59(41)
52(36)
278(236)
84(77)
51(57)
286(357)
37(36)
61(63)424(247)85(78) Lovers Ln Caldwell Ave

12. Road 148 &
Caldwell Ave
37(12)
232(302)
11(17)
9(15)
332(325)
15(19)
15(10)22(20)12(23)
74(32)26(20)29(15) Road 148 Caldwell Ave LOVERS LANE
3 11
2 1
10 5
12 4
9 PINKHAM ST
K AVE
CALDWELL AVE BEN MADDOX WAY McAULIFF ST ROAD 148
SJVRR

SUNNYSIDE AVE
#
XX
(XX)
= STUDY INTERSECTION
= FUTURE ROADWAY
= STOP SIGN
= TRAFFIC SIGNAL
= AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS
= PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS

WALNUT AVE

DOES NOT EXISTDOES NOT EXISTDOES NOT EXIST
DOES NOT EXIST 2(3) 11(12)
4(5)
1(4)
3(4)
1(1)
1(1)

DOES NOT EXIST

PROJECT SITE
6 7 8
L
- + + .... J
- + +
JlBIRAf.f!f • ~
..IL
1§1
1400
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 15
(559) 570-8991
Clements Ranch – City of Visalia
Traffic Impact Analysis
February 23, 2026

Opening Year No Project Traffic Conditions
Traffic Signal Warrants
Warrants 1, 2 and 3 were prepared for the unsignalized intersections under the Opening Year No Project Traffic Conditions scenario. Under this scenario, Warrant 1 is not met for any study intersection. Warrant 2 is projected to be met for the study intersection of Lovers Lane at K Avenue. Warrant 3 is not met for any study intersection. Based on the operational analysis and engineering judgement, it is not recommended that any unsignalized intersection be signalized in this scenario. These warrants are contained in Appendix M.

Roadway Network
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. Figure 3 illustrates the assumed intersection geometrics and traffic controls for these intersections under this scenario.

Results of Opening Year No Project Level of Service Analysis Figure 3 illustrates the Opening Year No Project turning movement volumes, intersection geometrics and traffic controls. LOS worksheets for the Year Opening Year No Project Traffic Conditions scenario are provided in Appendix G. Table III 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. It is recommended that the following be considered for implementation to improve the LOS at this intersection. • Lovers Lane / Walnut Avenue
o Add an eastbound left-turn lane;
o Modify the eastbound left-through lane to a through lane; o Add a westbound left-turn lane;
o Modify the westbound left-through-right lane to a through-right lane; o Modify the phasing of the intersection to protective left-turn phasing in all directions; and o Modify the traffic signal to accommodate the modified geometrics.

JlB!RAf.f.!f
-=-=-=-=-==-
1401
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 16
(559) 570-8991
Clements Ranch – City of Visalia
Traffic Impact Analysis
February 23, 2026
Table III: Opening Year No Project Intersection LOS Results ID Intersection Intersection Control
AM (7 – 9) Peak Hour PM (4 – 6) Peak Hour
Average Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Average Delay(sec/veh) LOS
1 Lovers Lane / Walnut Avenue Traffic Signal 65.3 E 47.0 D Traffic Signal (Improved) 34.8 C 28.4 C
2 Pinkham Street / K Avenue All-Way Stop 13.1 B 9.6 A
3 Lovers Lane / K Avenue Two-Way Stop 14.7 B 13.9 B
4 Lovers Lane / Driveway A Does not exist - - - -
5 Lovers Lane / Sunnyside Avenue Two-Way Stop 20.8 C 18.8 C 6 Driveway B / Sunnyside Avenue Does not exist - - - -
7 Driveway C / Sunnyside Avenue Does not exist - - - -
8 Driveway D / Sunnyside Avenue Does not exist - - - -
9 Lovers Lane / Driveway E Does not exist - - - -
10 Pinkham Street / Caldwell Avenue Two-Way Stop 13.0 B 12.1 B 11 Lovers Lane / Caldwell Avenue Traffic Signal 25.9 C 26.7 C 12 Road 148 / Caldwell Avenue Two-Way Stop 31.6 D 18.6 C Note: 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.

JlB!RAf.f.!f
-=-=-=-=-==-
1402
013-028 - 01/30/26 - DCC
PHONE:(559) 570-8991, EMAIL: [email protected], www.JLBtraffic.com 516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103, Fresno, CA 93704
Clements Ranch - City of Visalia
Opening Year No Project - Traffic Volumes, Geometrics, and Controls Figure 3

1. Lovers Ln &
Walnut Ave
89(77)
226(255)
102(69)
80(63)
302(238)
50(63)
167(88)
316(341)
49(83)
125(108)360(394)70(136) Lovers Ln Walnut Ave

2. Pinkham St &
K Ave
71(36)
68(75)
40(52)
5(14)
112(78)
26(16)
92(54)
156(85)
6(7)
52(28)69(104)25(23) Pinkham St
K Ave

3. Lovers Ln &
K Ave
28(22)
76(49)
57(48)
405(520)
26(51)546(419) Lovers Ln
K Ave

4. Lovers Ln &
Project Driveway A 434(543) 596(444)

5. Lovers Ln &
Sunnyside Ave
49(31)
23(5)
7(20)
410(537)
22(38)599(428) Lovers Ln
Sunnyside Ave

6. Project Driveway B &
Sunnyside Ave 7. Project Driveway C &Sunnyside Ave 8. Project Driveway D &Sunnyside Ave

9. Lovers Ln &
Project Driveway E 10. Pinkham St &Caldwell Ave
46(57)
226(356)
371(336)
36(33)
45(52)29(14) Pinkham St Caldwell Ave

11. Lovers Ln
Caldwell Ave
40(97)
175(239)
63(44)
58(42)
290(252)
88(82)
56(58)
311(371)
49(38)
69(71)446(267)91(84) Lovers Ln Caldwell Ave

12. Road 148 &
Caldwell Ave
49(15)
245(310)
15(20)
11(17)
344(338)
18(24)
15(11)22(39)12(25)
77(36)33(30)30(16) Road 148 Caldwell Ave LOVERS LANE
3 11
2 1
10 5
12 4
9 PINKHAM ST
K AVE
CALDWELL AVE BEN MADDOX WAY McAULIFF ST ROAD 148
SJVRR

SUNNYSIDE AVE

WALNUT AVE

DOES NOT EXISTDOES NOT EXISTDOES NOT EXIST
DOES NOT EXIST 16(19) 11(12)
4(5)
1(4)
3(4)
1(1)
1(1)

DOES NOT EXIST

PROJECT SITE
6 7 8
N
Not To Scale
LEGEND
#
XX
(XX)
= STUDY INTERSECTION
= FUTURE ROADWAY
= STOP SIGN
= TRAFFIC SIGNAL
= AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS
= PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS
L
- + + .... J
- + +
JlBIRAf.f!f • ~
..IL
1§1
1403
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 18
(559) 570-8991
Clements Ranch – City of Visalia
Traffic Impact Analysis
February 23, 2026

Opening Year plus Phase 1 Traffic Conditions
Project Description
Clements Ranch (Project) is located on the northeast quadrant of Lovers Lane at Caldwell Avenue in the City of Visalia. The Project proposes to develop the site with a mix of single-family (292 dwelling units) in Phase 1 and multi-family residential (375 dwelling units) in Phase 2. Based on information provided to JLB, the Project will require a General Plan Amendment to shift densities within the Project. Figure 4 illustrates the latest Project Site Plan.

Project Access
Access to and from the Project site will be from five (5) access points. Two (2) access points along Lovers Lane and three (3) access points along Sunnyside Avenue. The first access point (Driveway A) is located along the east side of Lovers Lane north of Sunnyside Avenue and serves the multifamily portion of the Project. This access is proposed to be limited to right-in and right-out access. The second access point (Driveway B) is located along the north side of Sunnyside Avenue east of Lovers Lane and serves the multifamily portion of the Project. This access is proposed to have full access. As the multifamily portion of this site plan has not been laid out, there is no exact location of these driveways. The third access point (Driveway C) is located along the north side of Sunnyside Avenue approximately 800’ east of Lovers Lane and serves the single-family portion of the Project. This access is proposed to have a full access. The fourth access point (Driveway D) is located along the north and south sides of Sunnyside Avenue approximately 1,100’ east of Lovers Lane and serves the single-family portion of the Project. This access is proposed to have a full access. The fifth access point (Driveway E) is located along the east side of Lovers Lane approximately 550’ south of Sunnyside Avenue and serves the single-family portion of the Project. This access is proposed to be limited to right-in and right-out access.

JLB analyzed the location of the existing and proposed roadways and access points relative to those in the vicinity of the Project site. A review of the existing and proposed roadways and access points indicated that they are located at points that minimize traffic operational impacts to existing and future roadway networks. A Project Site Plan can be found in Figure 4.

Corner Sight Distance
A Corner Sight Distance (CSD) Analysis was conducted by JLB pursuant to the guidelines within the Highway Design Manual (HDM). Based on HDM, at private driveways "the minimum Corner Sight Distance shall be equal to the stopping sight distance given in Table 201.1 . . .". The speed limit along Lovers Lane is 55 MPH and the speed limit of Sunnyside Avenue is assumed to be 30 MPH. Therefore, the CSD is 530’ for right-turns out of the driveways on Lovers Lane, 335’ for left-turns out of the driveways on Sunnyside Avenue and 290’ for right-turns out of the driveways on Sunnyside Avenue. Appendix H includes the CSD evaluations for the respective speeds on Lovers Lane and Sunnyside Avenue. These CSD figures display hatched areas where obstructions greater than two (2) feet above street grade should not be approved.

JlB!RAf.f.!f
-=-=-=-=-==-
1404
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 19
(559) 570-8991
Clements Ranch – City of Visalia
Traffic Impact Analysis
February 23, 2026
Trip Generation
Trip generation rates for the proposed Project were obtained from the 12th Edition of the Trip Generation Manual published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Table IV presents the trip generation for Phase 1 proposed Project with trip generation rates for Single-Family Detached Housing (210). In Phase 1, the Project is estimated to generate approximately 2,654 daily trips, 204 AM peak hour trips and 272 PM peak hour trips.

Table IV: Phase 1 Trip Generation
Land Use (ITE Code) Size Unit
Daily AM (7-9) Peak Hour PM (4-6) Peak Hour
Rate Total Trip
Rate
In Out
In Out Total Trip
Rate
In Out
In Out Total
% %
Single-Family Detached Housing (210) 292 d.u. 9.09 2,654 0.70 27 73 55 149 204 0.93 62 38 169 103 272 Total Driveway Trips 2,654 55 149 204 169 103 272
Note: d.u. = Dwelling Units
Trip Distribution
The Project Only Trips to the study intersections were developed based on existing travel patterns, the TCAG model output, the existing roadway network, engineering judgment, existing residential densities and the Visalia General Plan Circulation Element in the vicinity of the Project site. Figure 5 illustrates the trip distribution from Phase 1 (Single-Family Residential) to the study intersections.

Bikeways
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 (City of Visalia, 2017). 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 Projects frontage to Cameron Creek.

Transit
Visalia Transit and Tulare County Regional Transportation Agency (TCRTA) are the transit operators in this area of the City of Visalia. Visalia Transit has one transit route that operates in the vicinity of the proposed Project site. Route 9 operates on 45-minute intervals between 6:00 AM – 8:45 PM on weekdays and on 90-minute intervals between 8:00 AM – 6:15 PM on weekends. The nearest stop to the proposed Project site is located on the east side of Ben Maddox Way approximately 550’ north of Walnut Avenue. Retention of the existing and expansion of future transit routes is dependent on transit ridership demand and available funding.

JlB!RAf.f.!f
-=-=-=-=-==-
1405
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 20
(559) 570-8991
Clements Ranch – City of Visalia
Traffic Impact Analysis
February 23, 2026
Safe Routes to School
Kindergarten through 12th grade students from the Project will be served by the Visalia Unified School District (VUSD). VUSD provides transportation for students who live excess of an established direct walking distance. The direct walking distance is 1 mile for kindergarten through 6th grade and 2.5 miles for 7th through 12th grades.

Based on attendance area boundaries at the time of the preparation of this TIA, elementary school students would attend Annie R. Mitchell Elementary School located on the southeast quadrant of Pinkham Street at Walnut Avenue. Annie R. Mitchell Elementary School is located a walking distance of 0.75 and

1.25 miles from the nearest and farthest home in the Project. Therefore, it is anticipated that the majority of elementary school students will need to walk, bike or be driven from the Project to the elementary school campus.

The most direct path from the Project to the Annie R. Mitchell Elementary School campus can begin from the west most end of the Project nearest to the respective student’s home. Students would proceed west along Sunnyside Avenue until reaching the intersection of Lovers Lane at Sunnyside Avenue. The intersection of Sunnyside Avenue at Lovers Lane is projected to need signalization under this scenario.

Therefore, students would utilize the future traffic signal and crosswalk(s) to get to the northwest corner of Lovers Lane at Sunnyside Avenue. Students would then proceed north along the west side of Lovers Lane until reaching the intersection of Lovers Lane at K Avenue. The intersection of Lovers Lane at K Avenue is controlled by a two-way stop with a marked crosswalk on the west leg. Students would proceed west along the south side of K Avenue until reaching the intersection of Pinkham Street at K Avenue. The intersection of Pinkham Street at K Avenue is controlled by an all-way stop with marked crosswalks on all legs. Students would proceed to cross the east leg to reach the northeast corner of this intersection.

Students would proceed north along the east side Pinkham Street until reaching the nearest campus entrance.

Based on attendance area boundaries at the time of the preparation of this TIA, middle school students would attend Divisadero Middle School located on the southeast corner of Divisadero Street at Tulare Avenue. Divisadero Middle School is located a walking distance of 3.40 and 3.90 miles from the nearest and farthest home in the Project. Therefore, it is anticipated that the majority of middle school students will be bussed from the Project to the middle school campus.

Based on attendance at the time of the preparation of this TIA, high school students would attend Mount Whitney High School located on the northeast corner of Conyer Street at Tulare Avenue. Mount Whitney High School is located a walking distance of 3.00 and 3.50 miles from the nearest and farthest home in the Project. Therefore, it is anticipated that the majority of high school students will be bussed from the Project to the high school campus.

JlB!RAf.f.!f
-=-=-=-=-==-
1406
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 21
(559) 570-8991
Clements Ranch – City of Visalia
Traffic Impact Analysis
February 23, 2026
At present there is a lack of pedestrian walking surface along the south side of K Avenue for a stretch of approximately 1,000 feet between Pinkham Street and Lovers Lane. Therefore, it is recommended that the Project, City of Visalia and VUSD work together to implement a plan which completes a walkway surface along the south side of K Avenue on the missing stretch of sidewalk between Pinkham Street and Lovers Lane.

Traffic Signal Warrants
Warrants 1, 2 and 3 were prepared for the unsignalized intersections under the Opening Year plus Phase 1 Traffic Conditions scenario. Under this scenario, Warrant 1 is projected to be met for the intersection of Lovers Lane at Sunnyside Avenue. Warrant 2 is projected to be met for the study intersections of Lovers Lane at K Avenue and Lovers Lane at Sunnyside Avenue. Warrant 3 is projected to be met for the study intersections of Lovers Lane at K Avenue and Lovers Lane at Sunnyside Avenue during one or both peak periods. Based on the operational analysis and engineering judgement, it is recommended that the study intersection of Lovers lane at Sunnyside Avenue be signalized. However, signalization is not recommended for the rest of the unsignalized study intersections. These warrants are contained in Appendix M.

Roadway Network
The Opening Year plus Phase 1 Traffic Conditions scenario assumes that the existing roadway geometrics and traffic controls will remain in place with a few exceptions. This scenario assumes that the Project will build all driveways that serve the single-family residential portion of the Project (driveways A, B and C) and internal roads (including eastern extension of Sunnyside Avenue). Figure 6 illustrates the assumed intersection geometrics and traffic controls for these intersections under this scenario.

Results of Opening Year plus Phase 1 Level of Service Analysis Figure 6 illustrates the Opening Year plus Phase 1 turning movement volumes, intersection geometrics and traffic controls. LOS worksheets for the Opening Year plus Phase 1 Traffic Conditions scenario are provided in Appendix I. Table V presents a summary of the Opening Year plus Phase 1 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. It is recommended that the following be considered for implementation to improve the LOS at these intersections.
• Lovers Lane / Walnut Avenue
o Add an eastbound left-turn lane;
o Modify the eastbound left-through lane to a through lane; o Add a westbound left-turn lane;
o Modify the westbound left-through-right lane to a through-right lane; o Modify the phasing of the intersection to protective left-turn phasing in all directions; and o Modify the traffic signal to accommodate the modified geometrics.

JlB!RAf.f.!f
-=-=-=-=-==-
1407
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 22
(559) 570-8991
Clements Ranch – City of Visalia
Traffic Impact Analysis
February 23, 2026
• Lovers Lane / Sunnyside Avenue
o Stripe an eastbound left-turn lane;
o Modify the eastbound left-through-right lane to a through-right lane; o Add a westbound left-turn lane;
o Modify the westbound left-through-right lane to a through-right lane; o Add a northbound right-turn lane;
o Modify the northbound through-right lane to a through lane; and o Signalize the intersection with protective left-turn phasing in all directions.

Table V: Opening Year plus Phase 1 Intersection LOS Results ID Intersection Intersection Control
AM (7 – 9) Peak Hour PM (4 – 6) Peak Hour
Average Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Average Delay(sec/veh) LOS
1 Lovers Lane / Walnut Avenue Traffic Signal 66.8 E 49.8 D Traffic Signal (Improved) 35.8 D 30.0 C
2 Pinkham Street / K Avenue All-Way Stop 14.2 B 9.6 A
3 Lovers Lane / K Avenue Two-Way Stop 16.6 C 15.9 C
4 Lovers Lane / Driveway A Does not exist - - - -
5 Lovers Lane / Sunnyside Avenue
Two-Way Stop 34.0 D 41.0 E
Traffic Signal (Improved) 16.0 B 16.1 B
6 Driveway B / Sunnyside Avenue Does not exist - - - -
7 Driveway C / Sunnyside Avenue Two-Way Stop 8.9 A 8.7 A 8 Driveway D / Sunnyside Avenue Two-Way Stop 9.3 A 10.2 B 9 Lovers Lane / Driveway E Two-Way Stop 10.1 B 10.9 B
10 Pinkham Street / Caldwell Avenue Two-Way Stop 13.5 B 12.5 B 11 Lovers Lane / Caldwell Avenue Traffic Signal 26.6 C 27.5 C 12 Road 148 / Caldwell Avenue Two-Way Stop 32.9 D 19.1 C Note: 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.

JlB!RAf.f.!f
-=-=-=-=-==-
1408
013-028 - 11/05/25 - DC
PHONE:(559) 570-8991, EMAIL: [email protected], www.JLBtraffic.com 516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103, Fresno, CA 93704
Clements Ranch - City of Visalia
Project Site Plan
Figure 4
N
Not To Scale
SO. CAL. EDISON
2422 O.R. 693
APN
127-020-038 APN
127-020-034 APN
127-020-022 D.N. 2025-0024224
(PARCEL 2) LOVERS LANE

CALDWELL AVE

SUNNYSIDE AVE
"' "' TEMPORARY TIJRNAROUND EASEMENT 233 "" 26' (SEE NOTE) "' "' 295
,..

REMAINDER 229 ,.,, 263 ""
"' 26'
!
I
I
" " " " " " "
"' " " "' "' ., " ..
" " 92
.. 95 i " ' 6
• el
.,
" 59 123
39 92
ounor G
JlB~ IRAf.f!f
1409
013-028 - 01/16/26 - DC/DCC
PHONE:(559) 570-8991, EMAIL: [email protected], www.JLBtraffic.com 516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103, Fresno, CA 93704
Clements Ranch - City of Visalia
Project Only Trips - Phase 1
Figure 5

1. Lovers Ln &
Walnut Ave
7(0)
5(33)
2(7)
27(29)35(25)
5(4)
21(58) Lovers Ln Walnut Ave

2. Pinkham St &
K Ave
31(6)
12(2)3(1) Pinkham St
K Ave

3. Lovers Ln &
K Ave
3(1)
31(6)
67(58)
28(98) Lovers Ln
K Ave

4. Lovers Ln &
Project Driveway A 98(64) 31(99) Lovers Ln
Project Drwy

5. Lovers Ln &
Sunnyside Ave
51(39)
66(43) 32(21) 16(47)
31(99) Lovers Ln
Sunnyside Ave

6. Project Driveway B &
Sunnyside Ave
47(146)
117(82)
Project Drwy B
Sunnyside

7. Project Driveway C &
Sunnyside Ave
10(30)
37(116) 26(18)
91(64)
Project Drwy C
Sunnyside Ave

8. Project Driveway D &
Sunnyside Ave
19(59)
18(57)
39(28)
52(36)
Project Drwy D
Sunnyside Ave

9. Lovers Ln &
Project Driveway E
32(21) 16(47) 8(23)
51(39) Lovers Ln
Project Drwy E

10. Pinkham St &
Caldwell Ave
10(29) 6(1)
6(1)
21(19) Pinkham St Caldwell Ave

11. Lovers Ln
Caldwell Ave
10(29)
6(1)
4(8) 10(33)
21(19)21(15)9(5) Lovers Ln Caldwell Ave

12. Road 148 &
Caldwell Ave
8(5)
1(0)
4(7)
0(1) Road 148 Caldwell Ave LOVERS LANE
3 11
2 1
10 5
12 4
9 PINKHAM ST
K AVE
CALDWELL AVE BEN MADDOX WAY McAULIFF ST ROAD 148
SJVRR

SUNNYSIDE AVE

WALNUT AVE

PROJECT SITE
6 7 8

DOES NOT EXIST

DOES NOT EXIST
N
Not To Scale
LEGEND
#
XX
(XX)
= STUDY INTERSECTION
= FUTURE ROADWAY
= AM PROJECT ONLY TRIPS
= PM PROJECT ONLY TRIPS
L
L
l. '
ti
L
.J l. - ti
-
JlB~ IRAf.f!f
.J -
J
-
L
J t
'
•
J i
'
-
i
1410
013-028 - 01/30/26 - DCC
PHONE:(559) 570-8991, EMAIL: [email protected], www.JLBtraffic.com 516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103, Fresno, CA 93704
Clements Ranch - City of Visalia
Opening Year plus Phase 1 - Traffic Volumes, Geometrics, and Controls Figure 6
N
Not To Scale
LEGEND

1. Lovers Ln &
Walnut Ave
96(77)
226(255)
107(102)
82(70)
302(238)
50(63)
194(117)351(366)
54(87)
125(108)381(452)70(136) Lovers Ln Walnut Ave

2. Pinkham St &
K Ave
71(36)
68(75)
40(52)
5(14)
112(78)
57(22)
92(54)
156(85)
6(7)
52(28)81(106)28(24) Pinkham St
K Ave

3. Lovers Ln &
K Ave
28(22)
79(50)
88(54)
472(578)
26(51)574(517) Lovers Ln
K Ave

4. Lovers Ln &
Project Driveway A 434(543) 596(444)

5. Lovers Ln &
Sunnyside Ave
49(31)
0(0)
23(5)
51(39)
0(0)
66(43)
7(20)
442(558)
16(47)
22(38)599(428)31(99) Lovers Ln
Sunnyside Ave

6. Project Driveway B &
Sunnyside Ave 7. Project Driveway C &Sunnyside Ave
10(30)
37(116)
91(64)
0(0)
26(18)0(0)
Project Dwry C
SunnySide Ave

8. Project Driveway D &
Sunnyside Ave
19(59)
0(0)
18(57)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
39(28)
0(0)0(0)
52(36)0(0)0(0)

9. Lovers Ln &
Project Driveway E
32(21) 434(604) 8(23)
674(473)

10. Pinkham St &
Caldwell Ave
46(57)
236(385)
392(355)
36(33)
51(53)35(15) Pinkham St Caldwell Ave

11. Lovers Ln
Caldwell Ave
50(126)
175(239)
69(45)
58(42)
290(252)
92(90)
56(58)
321(404)
49(38)
90(90)467(282)100(89) Lovers Ln Caldwell Ave

12. Road 148 &
Caldwell Ave
49(15)
253(315)
16(20)
11(17)
348(345)
18(24)
15(12)22(39)12(25)
77(36)33(30)30(16) Road 148 Caldwell Ave LOVERS LANE
3 11
2 1
10 5
12 4
9 PINKHAM ST
K AVE
CALDWELL AVE BEN MADDOX WAY McAULIFF ST ROAD 148
SJVRR

SUNNYSIDE AVE
#
XX
(XX)
= STUDY INTERSECTION
= FUTURE ROADWAY
= STOP SIGN
= TRAFFIC SIGNAL
= AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS
= PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS

WALNUT AVE

DOES NOT EXIST
16(19)
11(12)
4(5)
1(4)
3(4)
1(1)
1(1)

DOES NOT EXIST

PROJECT SITE
6 7 8
~ + + .....
~ + +
L L
- + + .....

J
- + +
JlBIRAf.f!f • ~
.Jl.
1§1
1411
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 26
(559) 570-8991
Clements Ranch – City of Visalia
Traffic Impact Analysis
February 23, 2026

Cumulative 5-Year No Project Traffic Conditions
Traffic Signal Warrants
Warrants 1, 2 and 3 were prepared for the unsignalized intersections under the Cumulative 5-Year No Project Traffic Conditions scenario. Under this scenario, Warrant 1 is not met for any study intersection.

Warrant 2 is projected to be met for the study intersection of Lovers Lane at K Avenue. Warrant 3 is projected to be met for the study intersections of Lovers Lane at K Avenue and Road 148 at Caldwell Avenue during the AM peak periods. Based on the operational analysis and engineering judgement, it is not recommended that any unsignalized intersection be signalized in this scenario. These warrants are contained in Appendix M.

Roadway Network
The Cumulative 5-Year No Project scenario Traffic Conditions scenario assumes the same roadway geometrics and traffic controls as those assumed in the Opening Year No Project Traffic Conditions scenario with one exception. This scenario assumes that the intersection of Lovers Lane at Walnut Avenue will be constructed with additional lanes and a modified traffic signal as a result of a City of Visalia Capital Improvement project. Figure 7 illustrates the assumed intersection geometrics and traffic controls for these intersections under this scenario.

Results of Cumulative 5-Year No Project Level of Service Analysis Figure 7 illustrates the Cumulative 5-Year No Project turning movement volumes, intersection geometrics and traffic controls. LOS worksheets for the Cumulative 5-Year No Project Traffic Conditions scenario are provided in Appendix J. Table VI presents a summary of the Cumulative 5-Year No Project peak hour 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. It is recommended that the following be considered for implementation to improve the LOS at this intersection. • Road 148 / Caldwell Avenue
o Add a northbound left-turn lane;
o Modify the northbound left-through-right lane to a through-right lane; o Add a southbound left-turn lane; and
o Modify the southbound left-through-right lane to a through-right lane.

JlB!RAf.f.!f
-=-=-=-=-==-
1412
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 27
(559) 570-8991
Clements Ranch – City of Visalia
Traffic Impact Analysis
February 23, 2026
Table VI: Cumulative 5-Year No Project Intersection LOS Results ID Intersection Intersection Control
AM (7 – 9) Peak Hour PM (4 – 6) Peak Hour
Average Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Average Delay(sec/veh) LOS
1 Lovers Lane / Walnut Avenue Traffic Signal 27.2 C 24.6 C 2 Pinkham Street / K Avenue All-Way Stop 14.1 B 10.0 A
3 Lovers Lane / K Avenue Two-Way Stop 15.9 C 14.9 B
4 Lovers Lane / Driveway A Does not exist - - - -
5 Lovers Lane / Sunnyside Avenue Two-Way Stop 23.4 C 20.8 C 6 Driveway B / Sunnyside Avenue Does not exist - - - -
7 Driveway C / Sunnyside Avenue Does not exist - - - -
8 Driveway D / Sunnyside Avenue Does not exist - - - -
9 Lovers Lane / Driveway E Does not exist - - - -
10 Pinkham Street / Caldwell Avenue Two-Way Stop 13.7 B 12.7 B 11 Lovers Lane / Caldwell Avenue Traffic Signal 27.2 C 27.8 C 12 Road 148 / Caldwell Avenue
Two-Way Stop 65.2 F 26.3 D
Two-Way Stop (Improved) 32.7 D 22.7 C
Note: 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.

JlB!RAf.f.!f
-=-=-=-=-==-
1413
013-028 - 02/02/26 - DCC
PHONE:(559) 570-8991, EMAIL: [email protected], www.JLBtraffic.com 516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103, Fresno, CA 93704
Clements Ranch - City of Visalia
Cumulative 5-Year No Project - Traffic Volumes, Geometrics, and Controls Figure 7
N
Not To Scale
LEGEND

1. Lovers Ln &
Walnut Ave
92(78)
229(257)
110(80)
80(63)
310(251)
56(70)
183(104)359(372)
49(83)
129(111)403(440)81(150) Lovers Ln Walnut Ave

2. Pinkham St &
K Ave
72(38)
70(78)
40(52)
5(14)
114(79)
27(17)
93(54)
173(105)
6(7)
54(30)85(123)26(24) Pinkham St
K Ave

3. Lovers Ln &
K Ave
29(23)
77(50)
58(48)
452(567)
26(52)592(462) Lovers Ln
K Ave

4. Lovers Ln &
Project Driveway A 434(543) 596(444)

5. Lovers Ln &
Sunnyside Ave
49(32)
23(6)
8(22)
458(584)
22(39)646(471) Lovers Ln
Sunnyside Ave

6. Project Driveway B &
Sunnyside Ave 7. Project Driveway C &Sunnyside Ave 8. Project Driveway D &Sunnyside Ave

9. Lovers Ln &
Project Driveway E 10. Pinkham St &Caldwell Ave
63(77)
259(407)
403(371)
36(33)
61(71)29(14) Pinkham St Caldwell Ave

11. Lovers Ln
Caldwell Ave
50(113)
199(271)
69(50)
67(53)
310(278)
95(91)
63(60)
353(394)
68(42)
82(83)482(300)101(95) Lovers Ln Caldwell Ave

12. Road 148 &
Caldwell Ave
68(20)
268(323)
21(24)
14(21)
363(359)
24(32)
15(14)23(72)12(29)
82(42)45(46)33(18) Road 148 Caldwell Ave LOVERS LANE
3 11
2 1
10 5
12 4
9 PINKHAM ST
K AVE
CALDWELL AVE BEN MADDOX WAY McAULIFF ST ROAD 148
SJVRR

SUNNYSIDE AVE
#
XX
(XX)
= STUDY INTERSECTION
= FUTURE ROADWAY
= STOP SIGN
= TRAFFIC SIGNAL
= AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS
= PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS

WALNUT AVE

DOES NOT EXISTDOES NOT EXISTDOES NOT EXIST
DOES NOT EXIST 39(46) 11(12)
4(5)
1(4)
3(4)
1(1)
1(1)

DOES NOT EXIST

PROJECT SITE
6 7 8
L
- + + .... J
- + +
JlBIRAf.f!f • ~
.Jl.
1§1
1414
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 29
(559) 570-8991
Clements Ranch – City of Visalia
Traffic Impact Analysis
February 23, 2026

Cumulative 5-Year plus Phase 1 Traffic Conditions
Traffic Signal Warrants
Warrants 1, 2 and 3 were prepared for the unsignalized intersections under the Cumulative 5-Year plus Phase 1 Traffic Conditions scenario. Under this scenario, Warrant 1 is projected to be met for the intersection of Lovers Lane at Sunnyside Avenue. Warrant 2 is projected to be met for the study intersections of Lovers Lane at K Avenue and Lovers Lane at Sunnyside Avenue. Warrant 3 is projected to be met for the study intersections of Lovers Lane at K Avenue, Lovers Lane at Sunnyside Avenue, Pinkham Street at Caldwell Avenue and Road 148 at Caldwell Avenue during one or both peak periods. Based on the operational analysis and engineering judgement, it is recommended that the study intersection of Lovers Lane at Sunnyside Avenue get signalized in this scenario. However, signalization is not recommended for the rest of the unsignalized study intersections. These warrants are contained in Appendix M.

Roadway Network
The Cumulative 5-Year plus Phase 1 Traffic Conditions scenario assumes the same roadway geometrics and traffic controls as those assumed in the Opening Year plus Phase 1 Traffic Conditions scenario with one exception. This scenario assumes that the intersection of Lovers Lane at Walnut Avenue will be constructed with additional lanes and a modified traffic signal as a result of a City of Visalia Capital Improvement project. Figure 8 illustrates the assumed intersection geometrics and traffic controls for these intersections under this scenario.

Results of Cumulative 5-Year plus Phase 1 Level of Service Analysis Figure 8 illustrates the Cumulative 5-Year plus Phase 1 turning movement volumes, intersection geometrics and traffic controls. LOS worksheets for the Cumulative 5-Year plus Phase 1 Traffic Conditions scenario are provided in Appendix K. Table VII presents a summary of the Cumulative 5-Year plus Phase 1 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.

It is recommended that the following be considered for implementation to improve the LOS at the intersection of Lovers Lane at Sunnyside Avenue.
• Lovers Lane / Sunnyside Avenue
o Add an eastbound left-turn lane;
o Modify the eastbound left-through-right lane to a through-right lane; o Add a westbound left-turn lane;
o Modify the westbound left-through-right lane to a through-right lane; o Add a northbound right-turn lane;
o Modify the northbound through-right lane to a through lane; and o Signalize the intersection with protective left-turn phasing in all directions.

JlB!RAf.f.!f
-=-=-=-=-==-
1415
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 30
(559) 570-8991
Clements Ranch – City of Visalia
Traffic Impact Analysis
February 23, 2026
It is recommended that a fair share contribution be made by the Project for the following to improve the LOS at the intersection of Road 148 at Caldwell Avenue. • Road 148 / Caldwell Avenue
o Add a northbound left-turn lane;
o Modify the northbound left-through-right lane to a through-right lane; o Add a southbound left-turn lane; and
o Modify the southbound left-through-right lane to a through-right lane.

Table VII: Cumulative 5-Year plus Phase 1 Intersection LOS Results ID Intersection Intersection Control
AM (7 – 9) Peak Hour PM (4 – 6) Peak Hour
Average Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Average Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
1 Lovers Lane / Walnut Avenue Traffic Signal 28.4 C 25.4 C 2 Pinkham Street / K Avenue All-Way Stop 15.6 C 10.1 B
3 Lovers Lane / K Avenue Two-Way Stop 18.3 C 17.3 C
4 Lovers Lane / Driveway A Does not exist - - - -
5 Lovers Lane / Sunnyside Avenue
Two-Way Stop 41.6 E 49.5 E
Traffic Signal (Improved) 16.0 B 17.1 B
6 Driveway B / Sunnyside Avenue Does not exist - - - -
7 Driveway C / Sunnyside Avenue Two-Way Stop 8.9 A 8.7 A 8 Driveway D / Sunnyside Avenue Two-Way Stop 9.3 A 10.2 B 9 Lovers Lane / Driveway E Two-Way Stop 10.3 B 11.1 B
10 Pinkham Street / Caldwell Avenue Two-Way Stop 14.4 B 13.2 B 11 Lovers Lane / Caldwell Avenue Traffic Signal 27.8 C 29.0 C 12 Road 148 / Caldwell Avenue
Two-Way Stop 69.8 F 27.3 D
Two-Way Stop (Improved) 33.8 D 23.2 C
Note: 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.

JlB!RAf.f.!f
-=-=-=-=-==-
1416
013-028 - 02/02/26 - DCC
PHONE:(559) 570-8991, EMAIL: [email protected], www.JLBtraffic.com 516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103, Fresno, CA 93704
Clements Ranch - City of Visalia
Cumulative 5-Year plus Phase 1 - Traffic Volumes, Geometrics, and Controls Figure 8
N
Not To Scale
LEGEND

1. Lovers Ln &
Walnut Ave
99(78)
229(257)
115(113)
82(70)
310(251)
56(70)
210(133)394(397)
54(87)
129(111)424(498)81(150) Lovers Ln Walnut Ave

2. Pinkham St &
K Ave
72(38)
70(78)
40(52)
5(14)
114(79)
58(23)
93(54)
173(105)
6(7)
54(30)97(125)29(25) Pinkham St
K Ave

3. Lovers Ln &
K Ave
29(23)
80(51)
89(54)
519(625)
26(52)620(560) Lovers Ln
K Ave

4. Lovers Ln &
Project Driveway A 434(543) 596(444)

5. Lovers Ln &
Sunnyside Ave
49(32)
0(0)
23(6)
51(39)
0(0)
66(43)
8(22)
490(605)
16(47)
22(39)646(471)31(99) Lovers Ln
Sunnyside Ave

6. Project Driveway B &
Sunnyside Ave 7. Project Driveway C &Sunnyside Ave
10(30)
37(116)
91(64)
0(0)
26(18)0(0)
Project Drwy C
Sunnyside Ave

8. Project Driveway D &
Sunnyside Ave
19(59)
0(0)
18(57)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
39(28)
0(0)0(0)
52(36)0(0)0(0)
Project Drwy D
Sunnyside Ave

9. Lovers Ln &
Project Driveway E
32(21) 483(651) 8(23)
721(517) Lovers Ln
Project Drwy E

10. Pinkham St &
Caldwell Ave
63(77)
269(436)
424(390)
36(33)
67(72)35(15) Pinkham St Caldwell Ave

11. Lovers Ln
Caldwell Ave
60(142)
199(271)
75(51)
67(53)
310(278)
99(99)
63(60)
363(427)
68(42)
103(102)503(315)110(100) Lovers Ln Caldwell Ave

12. Road 148 &
Caldwell Ave
68(20)
276(328)
22(24)
14(21)
367(366)
24(32)
15(15)23(72)12(29)
82(42)45(46)33(18) Road 148 Caldwell Ave LOVERS LANE
3 11
2 1
10 5
12 4
9 PINKHAM ST
K AVE
CALDWELL AVE BEN MADDOX WAY McAULIFF ST ROAD 148
SJVRR

SUNNYSIDE AVE
#
XX
(XX)
= STUDY INTERSECTION
= FUTURE ROADWAY
= STOP SIGN
= TRAFFIC SIGNAL
= AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS
= PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS

WALNUT AVE

DOES NOT EXIST
39(46)
11(12)
4(5)
1(4)
3(4)
1(1)
1(1)

DOES NOT EXIST

PROJECT SITE
6 7 8
~ + + .....
+ +
L L
- + + .....

J
- + +
JlBIRAf.f!f • ~
.Jl.
1§1
1417
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 32
(559) 570-8991
Clements Ranch – City of Visalia
Traffic Impact Analysis
February 23, 2026

Cumulative 5-Year plus Buildout Traffic Conditions
Trip Generation
Trip generation rates for the proposed Project were obtained from the 12th Edition of the Trip Generation Manual published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Table VIII presents the trip generation for Phase 2 proposed Project with trip generation rates for Multifamily Housing (Low Rise) Not Close to Rail Transit (220). In Phase 2, the Project is estimated to generate approximately 2,329 daily trips, 154 AM peak hour trips and 195 PM peak hour trips.

Table VIII: Phase 2 Trip Generation
Land Use (ITE Code) Size Unit
Daily AM (7-9) Peak Hour PM (4-6) Peak Hour
Rate Total Trip
Rate
In Out
In Out Total Trip
Rate
In Out
In Out Total
% %
Multifamily Housing (Low Rise) Not
Close to Rail Transit (220) 375 d.u. 6.21 2,329 0.41 24 76 37 117 154 0.52 62 38 121 74 195 Total Driveway Trips 2,329 37 117 154 121 74 195
Note: d.u. = Dwelling Units
Trip Distribution
The Project Only Trips to the study intersections were developed based on existing travel patterns, the TCAG model output, the existing roadway network, engineering judgment, existing residential densities and the Visalia General Plan Circulation Element in the vicinity of the Project site. Figure 9 illustrates the trip distribution from Phase 2 (Multi-Family Residential) to the study intersections.

Traffic Signal Warrants
Warrants 1, 2 and 3 were prepared for the unsignalized intersections under the Cumulative 5-Year plus Buildout Traffic Conditions scenario. Under this scenario, Warrant 1 is projected to be met for the intersections of Lovers Lane at K Avenue and Lovers Lane at Sunnyside Avenue. Warrant 2 is projected to be met for the study intersections of Lovers Lane at K Avenue, Lovers Lane at Sunnyside Avenue and Pinkham Street at Caldwell Avenue. Warrant 3 is projected to be met for the study intersections of Lovers Lane at K Avenue, Lovers Lane at Sunnyside Avenue, Pinkham Street at Caldwell Avenue and Road 148 at Caldwell Avenue during one or both peak periods. Based on the operational analysis and engineering judgement, it is recommended that the study intersection of Lovers Lane at Sunnyside Avenue get signalized in this scenario. However, signalization is not recommended for the rest of the unsignalized study intersections. These warrants are contained in Appendix M.

Roadway Network
The Cumulative 5-Year plus Buildout Traffic Conditions scenario assumes the same roadway geometrics and traffic controls as those assumed in the Cumulative 5-Year plus Phase 1 Traffic Conditions scenario with one exception. This scenario assumes that the Project will build all driveways that serve the multifamily residential portion of the Project (driveways A and B). Figure 10 illustrates the assumed intersection geometrics and traffic controls for these intersections under this scenario.

JlB!RAf.f.!f
-=-=-=-=-==-
1418
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 33
(559) 570-8991
Clements Ranch – City of Visalia
Traffic Impact Analysis
February 23, 2026
Results of Cumulative 5-Year plus Buildout Level of Service Analysis Figure 10 illustrates the Cumulative 5-Year plus Buildout turning movement volumes, intersection geometrics and traffic controls. LOS worksheets for the Cumulative 5-Year plus Buildout Traffic Conditions scenario are provided in Appendix L. Table IX presents a summary of the Cumulative 5-Year plus Buildout 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 its LOS threshold during one or both peak periods.

It is recommended that the following improvements be considered for implementation to improve the LOS at the intersection of Lovers Lane at Sunnyside Avenue. • Lovers Lane / Sunnyside Avenue
o Add an eastbound left-turn lane;
o Modify the eastbound left-through-right lane to a through-right lane; o Add a westbound left-turn lane;
o Modify the westbound left-through-right lane to a through-right lane; o Add a northbound right-turn lane;
o Modify the northbound through-right lane to a through lane; and o Signalize the intersection with protective left-turn phasing in all directions.

It is recommended that a fair share contribution be made by the Project for the following to improve the LOS at the intersection of Road 148 at Caldwell Avenue. • Road 148 / Caldwell Avenue
o Add a northbound left-turn lane;
o Modify the northbound left-through-right lane to a through-right lane; o Add a southbound left-turn lane; and
o Modify the southbound left-through-right lane to a through-right lane.

JlB!RAf.f.!f
-=-=-=-=-==-
1419
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 34
(559) 570-8991
Clements Ranch – City of Visalia
Traffic Impact Analysis
February 23, 2026
Table IX: Cumulative 5-Year plus Buildout Intersection LOS Results ID Intersection Intersection Control
AM (7 – 9) Peak Hour PM (4 – 6) Peak Hour
Average Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Average Delay(sec/veh) LOS
1 Lovers Lane / Walnut Avenue Traffic Signal 30.3 C 26.2 C 2 Pinkham Street / K Avenue All-Way Stop 17.5 C 10.2 B
3 Lovers Lane / K Avenue Two-Way Stop 22.1 C 20.1 C
4 Lovers Lane / Driveway A Two-Way Stop 11.2 B 11.4 B
5 Lovers Lane / Sunnyside Avenue
Two-Way Stop 62.6 F >120.0 F
Traffic Signal (Improved) 15.8 B 21.6 C
6 Driveway B / Sunnyside Avenue Two-Way Stop 9.5 A 9.0 A 7 Driveway C / Sunnyside Avenue Two-Way Stop 8.9 A 8.7 A 8 Driveway D / Sunnyside Avenue Two-Way Stop 9.3 A 10.2 B 9 Lovers Lane / Driveway E Two-Way Stop 10.4 B 11.4 B
10 Pinkham Street / Caldwell Avenue Two-Way Stop 15.0 C 13.6 B 11 Lovers Lane / Caldwell Avenue Traffic Signal 28.4 C 30.4 C 12 Road 148 / Caldwell Avenue
Two-Way Stop 73.9 F 27.8 D
Two-Way Stop (Improved) 34.8 D 23.5 C
Note: 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.

Project Only Trip Assignment to State Facilities
Figure 11 illustrates the Project Only Trips to State Route 198 at Lovers Lane interchange as requested by Caltrans.

JlB!RAf.f.!f
-=-=-=-=-==-
1420
013-028 - 02/02/26 - DCC
PHONE:(559) 570-8991, EMAIL: [email protected], www.JLBtraffic.com 516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103, Fresno, CA 93704
Clements Ranch - City of Visalia
Project Only Trips - Phase 2
Figure 9
N
Not To Scale
LEGEND

1. Lovers Ln &
Walnut Ave
7(0)
3(22)
2(5)
17(19)25(18)
4(2)
13(43) Lovers Ln Walnut Ave

2. Pinkham St &
K Ave
36(7)
14(2)4(1) Pinkham St
K Ave

3. Lovers Ln &
K Ave
4(1)
36(7)
46(39)
18(70) Lovers Ln
K Ave

4. Lovers Ln &
Project Driveway A
24(15) 65(36) 7(24)
29(76) Lovers Ln
Project Drwy A

5. Lovers Ln &
Sunnyside Ave
28(23)
65(36) 3(10) 12(40)
7(5)18(57) Lovers Ln
Sunnyside Ave

6. Project Driveway B &
Sunnyside Ave
30(97) 93(59)
Project Drwy B
Sunnyside Ave

7. Project Driveway C &
Sunnyside Ave Project Drwy C
Sunnyside Ave

8. Project Driveway D &
Sunnyside Project Drwy D
Sunnyside Ave

9. Lovers Ln &
Project Driveway E 15(50) 35(28) Lovers Ln
Project Drwy E

10. Pinkham St &
Caldwell Ave
5(21) 7(1)
7(1)
14(14) Pinkham St Caldwell Ave

11. Lovers Ln
Caldwell Ave
5(21)
7(1)
3(5) 7(24)
14(14)14(11)7(3) Lovers Ln Caldwell Ave

12. Road 148 &
Caldwell Ave
7(3)
3(5) Road 148 Caldwell Ave LOVERS LANE
3 11
2 1
10 5
12 4
9 PINKHAM ST
K AVE
CALDWELL AVE BEN MADDOX WAY McAULIFF ST ROAD 148
SJVRR

SUNNYSIDE AVE
#
XX
(XX)
= STUDY INTERSECTION
= FUTURE ROADWAY
= AM PROJECT ONLY TRIPS
= PM PROJECT ONLY TRIPS

WALNUT AVE

PROJECT SITE
6 7 8 7(5)
4(14)
-'
ti J
-' l.
t -
JlB~ IRAf.f!f
L
- L
J t
'
•
L
-
-
1421
013-028 - 02/02/26 - DCC
PHONE:(559) 570-8991, EMAIL: [email protected], www.JLBtraffic.com 516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103, Fresno, CA 93704
Clements Ranch - City of Visalia
Cumulative 5-Year plus Buildout - Traffic Volumes, Geometrics, and Controls Figure 10
N
Not To Scale
LEGEND

1. Lovers Ln &
Walnut Ave
106(78)
229(257)
118(135)
84(75)
310(251)
56(70)
227(152)419(415)
58(89)
129(111)437(541)81(150) Lovers Ln Walnut Ave

2. Pinkham St &
K Ave
72(38)
70(78)
40(52)
5(14)
114(79)
94(30)
93(54)
173(105)
6(7)
54(30)111(127)33(26) Pinkham St
K Ave

3. Lovers Ln &
K Ave
29(23)
84(52)
125(61)
565(664)
26(52)638(630) Lovers Ln
K Ave

4. Lovers Ln &
Project Driveway A
24(15) 673(719) 7(24)
731(689) Lovers Ln
Project Drwy A

5. Lovers Ln &
Sunnyside Ave
49(32)
0(0)
23(6)
79(62)
0(0)
131(79)
8(22)
493(615)
28(87)
22(39)653(476)49(156) Lovers Ln
Sunnyside Ave

6. Project Driveway B &
Sunnyside Ave
30(97)
47(146)
117(82)
0(0)
93(59)0(0)
Project Drwy B
Sunnyside Ave

7. Project Driveway C &
Sunnyside Ave
10(30)
37(116)
91(64)
0(0)
26(18)0(0)
Project Drwy C
Sunnyside Ave

8. Project Driveway D &
Sunnyside Ave
19(59)
0(0)
18(57)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
39(28)
0(0)0(0)
52(36)0(0)0(0)
Project Drwy D
Sunnyside Ave

9. Lovers Ln &
Project Driveway E
32(21) 498(701) 8(23)
756(545) Lovers Ln
Project Drwy E

10. Pinkham St &
Caldwell Ave
63(77)
274(457)
438(404)
36(33)
74(73)42(16) Pinkham St Caldwell Ave

11. Lovers Ln
Caldwell Ave
65(163)
199(271)
82(52)
67(53)
310(278)
102(104)
63(60)
370(451)
68(42)
117(116)517(326)117(103) Lovers Ln Caldwell Ave

12. Road 148 &
Caldwell Ave
68(20)
283(331)
22(24)
14(21)
370(371)
24(32)
15(15)23(72)12(29)
82(42)45(46)33(18) Road 148 Caldwell Ave LOVERS LANE
3 11
2 1
10 5
12 4
9 PINKHAM ST
K AVE
CALDWELL AVE BEN MADDOX WAY McAULIFF ST ROAD 148
SJVRR

SUNNYSIDE AVE
#
XX
(XX)
= STUDY INTERSECTION
= FUTURE ROADWAY
= STOP SIGN
= TRAFFIC SIGNAL
= AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS
= PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS

WALNUT AVE
39(46)
11(12)
4(5)
8(9)
7(18)
1(1)
1(1)

PROJECT SITE
6 7 8
L
.i. ...
j_ j_ + + ...
+ +
L L
- + + ... J
- + +
JlBIRAf.f!f • ~
.Jl.
1§1
1422
013-028 - 02/06/26 - DCC
PHONE:(559) 570-8991, EMAIL: [email protected], www.JLBtraffic.com 516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103, Fresno, CA 93704
Clements Ranch - City of Visalia
State Route 198 at Lovers Lane
Figure 11
N
Not To Scale
LEGEND

LOVERS LANE
= AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS
= PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS
XX
(XX)
198

MAIN ST
67(37)
29(85)
24(14)
8(20)
1(2)
3(2)
1(2)
1(1) 1(1)
2(3) 25(12)
5(4) 3(6)
24(11)
12(44)
24(11) 12(44)
10(5) 4(12) 0(0) 0(0)
0(0)0(0)3(2)
57(32)
25(73)
0(0)

NOBLE AVE
54(30)
13(29)
JlB ~ !R~[.~!f
1423
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 38
(559) 570-8991
Clements Ranch – City of Visalia
Traffic Impact Analysis
February 23, 2026

Queuing Analysis
Table X provides a queue length summary for left-turn and right-turn lanes at the study intersections under all study scenarios. The queuing analyses for the study intersections are contained in the LOS worksheets for the respective scenarios. Appendix D contains the methodologies used to evaluate these intersections. Queuing analyses were completed using SimTraffic output information. Synchro provides both 50th and 95th percentile maximum queue lengths (in feet). According to the Synchro Studio 12 User Guide, “the 50th percentile maximum queue is the maximum back of queue on a typical cycle and the 95th percentile queue is the maximum back of queue with 95th percentile volumes” (Cubic ITS, Inc., 2019). The queues shown on Table X are the 95th percentile queue lengths for the respective lane movements.

The California Highway Design Manual (CA HDM) provides guidance for determining deceleration lengths for the left-turn and right-turn lanes based on design speeds. According to the CA HDM, tapers for rightturn lanes are “usually unnecessary since main line traffic need not be shifted laterally to provide space for the right-turn lane. If, in some rare instances, a lateral shift were needed, the approach taper would use the same formula as for a left-turn lane” (Caltrans, 2026). Therefore, a bay taper length pursuant to the CA HDM would need to be added, as necessary, to the recommended storage lengths presented in Table X.

The storage capacity for the Cumulative 5-Year plus Buildout Traffic Conditions shall be based on the SimTraffic output files and engineering judgement. The values in bold presented in Table X are the projected queue lengths that will likely need to be accommodated by the Cumulative 5-Year plus Buildout Traffic Conditions scenario. At the remaining approaches of the study intersections, the existing storage capacity will be sufficient to accommodate the maximum queue.

Table XI provides a queue length summary for left-turn and right-turn lanes at the study intersections using a manual calculation methodology. This methodology is consistent with the City of Visalia Procedures for Traffic Impact Analysis. The queues were calculated by rounding up to the nearest vehicle with the average vehicle requiring 25 feet of storage. The queues shown in Table XI are those calculated pursuant to the 7th Edition of the Green Book by American Association of State Highways and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) for the respective movement. The values in bold presented in Table XI are the projected queue lengths that will likely need to be accommodated by the Cumulative 5-Year plus Buildout Traffic Conditions scenario. At the remaining approaches of the study intersections, the existing storage capacity will be sufficient to accommodate the maximum queue.

JlB!RAf.f.!f
-=-=-=-=-==-
1424
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 39
(559) 570-8991
Clements Ranch – City of Visalia
Traffic Impact Analysis
February 23, 2026
Table X: Queuing Analysis
ID Intersection Existing Queue
Storage Length (ft.)
Existing
Opening
Year No
Project
Opening
Year plus
Phase 1
Cumulative
5-Year No
Project
Cumulative
5-Year plus
Phase 1
Cumulative
5-Year plus
Buildout

AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
1 Lovers
Lane
/
Walnut
Avenue
Eastbound Left * 130 115 133 100 129 90 103 92 80 106 124 93 Eastbound Left-Through >500 * * * * * * * * * * * *
Eastbound Through * 199 184 180 172 181 221 87 100 102 86 102 107 Eastbound Through * * * * * * * 82 120 89 85 89 101
Eastbound Right 150 60 59 64 51 64 59 59 44 51 65 64 67 Westbound Left * 103 93 108 85 142 98 99 94 113 75 106 84 Westbound Through * * * * * * * 126 108 128 127 113 81
Westbound Through * * * * * * * 102 79 93 85 93 47
Westbound Left-Through-Right >500 * * * * * * * * * * * * Westbound Through-Right * 247 230 287 203 248 269 * * * * * * Westbound Right * * * * * * * 34 39 32 32 45 34
Northbound Left 210 148 128 172 108 178 136 190 124 197 177 215 162 Northbound Through >500 97 146 116 123 134 188 110 120 118 170 124 156 Northbound Through * * * * * * * 121 148 122 178 138 163 Northbound Through-Right >500 117 167 131 161 131 210 * * * * * * Northbound Right * * * * * * * 30 64 34 83 45 55
Southbound Left 250 100 131 117 165 133 159 136 183 104 182 131 219 Southbound Through >500 170 180 176 165 187 180 166 152 148 162 155 203 Southbound Through * * * * * * * 138 127 126 144 138 199 Southbound Through-Right >500 158 174 163 155 190 186 * * * * * * Southbound Right * * * * * * * 56 35 59 57 85 89
2 Pinkham
Street
/
K Avenue
Eastbound Left 200 32 36 45 35 45 37 41 38 36 38 39 37
Eastbound Through-Right >500 46 45 36 44 39 46 51 46 50 55 51 49 Westbound Left 150 20 28 10 28 21 31 19 29 10 25 16 26
Westbound Through-Right >500 58 40 59 44 83 55 55 58 76 45 67 49 Northbound Left-Through-Right >500 85 55 83 57 89 59 127 75 108 65 84 77 Southbound Left-Through-Right >500 70 66 63 65 77 69 66 79 77 58 71 64 Note: * = Does not exist or is not projected to exist
JlB!RAf.f.!f
-=-=-=-=-==-
1425
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 40
(559) 570-8991
Clements Ranch – City of Visalia
Traffic Impact Analysis
February 23, 2026
Table X: Queuing Analysis (Continued)
ID Intersection Existing Queue
Storage Length (ft.)
Existing
Opening
Year No
Project
Opening
Year plus
Phase 1
Cumulative
5-Year No
Project
Cumulative
5-Year plus
Phase 1
Cumulative
5-Year plus
Buildout

AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
3 Lovers
Lane
/
K Avenue
Eastbound Left >300 46 41 46 41 42 33 46 45 49 45 50 51 Eastbound Right 115 50 42 63 47 46 63 50 46 56 54 55 44 Northbound Left 290 57 35 50 40 55 49 47 33 86 51 70 55 Northbound Through >500 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
Northbound Through >500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Southbound Left 100 12 17 11 11 12 11 14 8 8 8 14 11
Southbound Through >500 0 0 0 11 0 18 0 17 11 0 6 0
Southbound Through-Right >500 0 7 0 7 0 0 0 11 10 0 10 7 4 Lovers
Lane
/
Driveway A
Westbound Right * * * * * * * * * * * 53 32
Northbound Through * * * * * * * * * * * 12 0
Northbound Through-Right * * * * * * * * * * * 6 0
Southbound Through * * * * * * * * * * * 0 0
Southbound Through * * * * * * * * * * * 0 0
5 Lovers
Lane
/
Sunnyside
Avenue
Eastbound Left * * * * * 73 61 * * 64 50 58 62
Eastbound Left-Right >300 56 56 57 52 0 0 69 46 0 0 0 30 Eastbound Through-Right * * * * * 49 9 * * 44 31 48 0
Westbound Left * * * * * 59 41 * * 82 64 88 62
Westbound Through-Right * * * * * 40 35 * * 52 33 61 46 Northbound Left 80 12 19 0 21 33 27 14 34 37 39 30 39
Northbound Through >500 0 0 0 0 142 119 0 0 137 169 128 183 Northbound Through >500 0 0 0 0 120 136 0 0 121 163 105 179 Northbound Right * * * * * 22 35 * * 26 29 24 44
Southbound Left 300 9 8 0 12 50 101 11 8 54 101 62 200
Southbound Through >500 0 0 0 0 201 120 0 0 173 138 125 165 Southbound Through-Right >500 0 17 0 14 181 107 0 7 170 105 123 117 6 Driveway B
/
Sunnyside
Avenue
Eastbound Left-Through * * * * * * * * * * * 24 49
Westbound Through-Right * * * * * * * * * * * 0 0
Southbound left-Right * * * * * * * * * * * 59 48
7 Driveway C
/
Sunnyside
Avenue
Eastbound Left-Through * * * * * * 15 * * 0 21 16 14
Westbound Through-Right * * * * * 0 0 * * 0 0 0 0
Southbound left-Right * * * * * 49 38 * * 44 45 46 50
Note: * = Does not exist or is not projected to exist
JlB!RAf.f.!f
-=-=-=-=-==-
1426
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 41
(559) 570-8991
Clements Ranch – City of Visalia
Traffic Impact Analysis
February 23, 2026
Table X: Queuing Analysis (Continued)
ID Intersection Existing Queue
Storage Length (ft.)
Existing
Opening
Year No
Project
Opening
Year plus
Phase 1
Cumulative
5-Year No
Project
Cumulative
5-Year plus
Phase 1
Cumulative
5-Year plus
Buildout

AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
8 Driveway D
/
Sunnyside
Avenue
Eastbound Left-Through-Right * * * * * 0 0 * * 0 0 0 0
Westbound Left-Through-Right * * * * * 0 0 * * 0 0 0 0
Northbound Left-Through-Right * * * * * 49 47 * * 51 50 48 53 Southbound Left-Through-Right * * * * * 49 49 * * 56 48 53 46 9 Lovers
Lane
/
Driveway E
Westbound Right * * * * * 44 39 * * 43 44 42 41
Northbound Through * * * * * 0 0 * * 0 0 0 0
Northbound-Right * * * * * 0 0 * * 0 0 0 0
Southbound Through * * * * * 0 0 * * 0 0 0 0
Southbound Through * * * * * 0 0 * * 0 0 0 0
10 Pinkham
Street
/
Caldwell
Avenue
Eastbound Left 165 21 25 36 44 34 33 51 40 45 42 41 57
Eastbound Through >500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Westbound Through >500 0 18 0 0 0 0 15 16 25 12 0 0
Westbound Right >300 13 18 23 0 0 0 18 18 18 15 0 0
Southbound Left 200 35 27 57 34 46 33 51 32 45 31 45 29 Southbound Right >300 38 31 44 54 38 49 52 42 38 52 51 54 11 Lovers
Lane
/
Caldwell
Avenue
Eastbound Left 230 65 104 78 112 72 141 83 117 93 177 84 180 Eastbound Through >500 121 116 110 129 121 125 127 129 128 135 147 136 Eastbound Through-Right >500 62 89 89 107 96 91 108 101 102 103 110 99 Westbound Left 90 87 67 105 69 87 61 79 87 113 73 88 76 Westbound Through >500 119 122 168 139 124 129 138 129 163 123 144 127 Westbound Through-Right >500 115 109 147 130 147 134 138 127 161 131 154 145 Northbound Left 150 90 96 91 90 69 103 97 95 73 98 91 100 Northbound Through >500 123 136 114 121 100 159 124 142 146 141 144 147 Northbound Through-Right >500 127 107 77 121 78 156 130 124 131 137 132 153 Southbound Left 125 131 110 140 104 134 122 108 114 199 157 148 135 Southbound Through >500 208 124 181 135 212 148 172 156 305 156 252 163 Southbound Through-Right >500 139 79 145 88 182 110 160 112 278 120 218 142 Note: * = Does not exist or is not projected to exist
JlB!RAf.f.!f
-=-=-=-=-==-
1427
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 42
(559) 570-8991
Clements Ranch – City of Visalia
Traffic Impact Analysis
February 23, 2026
Table X: Queuing Analysis (Continued)
ID Intersection Existing Queue
Storage Length (ft.)
Existing
Opening
Year No
Project
Opening
Year plus
Phase 1
Cumulative
5-Year No
Project
Cumulative
5-Year plus
Phase 1
Cumulative
5-Year plus
Buildout

AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
12 Road 148
/
Caldwell
Avenue
Eastbound Left-Through-Right >500 24 19 44 20 35 18 69 37 60 40 56 44 Westbound Left-Through-Right >500 8 26 24 21 45 30 15 28 39 43 23 31 Northbound Left * * * * * * * 28 29 35 31 40 25
Northbound Left-Through-Right >500 43 52 44 50 48 51 * * * * * * Northbound Through-Right * * * * * * * 42 60 41 54 43 53 Southbound Left * * * * * * * 43 38 48 33 44 33
Southbound Left-Through-Right >500 64 50 81 62 71 46 * * * * * * Southbound Through-Right * * * * * * * 57 48 67 51 52 57 Table XI: Queuing Analysis (AASHTO Calculated)
ID Intersection Existing Queue
Storage Length (ft.)
Existing
Opening
Year No
Project
Opening
Year plus
Phase 1
Cumulative
5-Year No
Project
Cumulative
5-Year plus
Phase 1
Cumulative
5-Year plus
Buildout

AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
1 Lovers Lane
/
Walnut Avenue
Eastbound Left * 150 150 150 150 175 150 175 150 175 150 200 150 Eastbound Right 150 175 125 175 125 200 175 200 150 200 200 200 225 Westbound Left * 150 125 150 125 150 125 150 125 150 125 150 125 Westbound Right * * * * * * * 100 125 100 125 100 125
Northbound Left 210 300 150 300 175 350 225 325 200 375 250 400 275 Northbound Right * * * * * * * 100 150 100 150 100 150
Southbound Left 250 125 225 125 250 150 275 200 350 200 350 200 350 Southbound Right * * * * * * * 225 200 225 200 225 200
2 Pinkham Street
/
K Avenue
Eastbound Left 200 75 50 75 50 75 50 75 50 75 50 75 50
Westbound Left 150 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25
3 Lovers Lane
/
K Avenue
Eastbound Right 115 75 50 75 50 75 50 75 50 75 50 75 50 Northbound Left 290 50 50 50 50 75 50 50 50 75 50 125 75 Southbound Left 100 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 5 Caldwell Avenue
/
Sunnyside Avenue
Eastbound Left * * * * * 75 50 * * 75 50 75 50
Westbound Left * * * * * 75 50 * * 75 50 100 75
Northbound Left 80 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 50 25 50
Northbound Right * * * * * 25 75 * * 25 75 50 125
Southbound Left 300 25 25 25 25 50 125 25 25 50 125 75 225 Note: * = Does not exist or is not projected to exist
JlB!RAf.f.!f
-=-=-=-=-==-
1428
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 43
(559) 570-8991
Clements Ranch – City of Visalia
Traffic Impact Analysis
February 23, 2026
Table XI: Queuing Analysis (AASHTO Calculated) (Continued) ID Intersection Existing Queue
Storage Length (ft.)
Existing
Opening
Year No
Project
Opening
Year plus
Phase 1
Cumulative
5-Year No
Project
Cumulative
5-Year plus
Phase 1
Cumulative
5-Year plus
Buildout

AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
10 Caldwell Avenue
/
Pinkham Street
Eastbound Left 165 50 50 50 50 50 50 75 75 75 75 75 75
Southbound Left 200 25 25 25 25 50 25 25 25 50 25 50 25 11 Lovers Lane
/
Caldwell Avenue
Eastbound Left 230 50 125 75 150 75 175 75 175 100 200 100 250 Westbound Left 90 75 50 100 75 100 75 100 75 100 75 100 75 Northbound Left 150 75 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Southbound Left 125 125 125 150 125 150 125 150 150 175 150 175 150 12 Road 148
/
Caldwell Avenue
Northbound Left * * * * * * * 25 25 25 25 25 25
Southbound Left * * * * * * * 50 25 50 25 50 25
Note: * = Does not exist or is not projected to exist
JlB!RAf.f.!f
-=-=-=-=-==-
1429
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 44
(559) 570-8991
Clements Ranch – City of Visalia
Traffic Impact Analysis
February 23, 2026

Project’s Pro-Rata Fair Share of Future Transportation Improvements The Project component’s fair share percentage impact to study intersections projected to fall below their LOS threshold and which are not covered by an existing impact fee program is provided in Table XII and Table XIII. The pro-rata fair shares were calculated utilizing 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 utilized to determine the Project’s pro-rata fair share.

It is recommended that the Project components contribute their equitable fair share as listed in Table XII and Table XIII for the future improvements necessary to maintain an acceptable LOS. However, fair share contributions should only be made for those facilities or portion 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 cumulative impacts.

This study does not provide construction costs for the recommended improvement measures. Therefore, if the recommended improvement measures are implemented, it is recommended that the developer work with the City of Visalia, as appropriate, to develop the estimated construction cost(s).

Table XII: Single-Family Residential Fair Share of Future Roadway Improvements ID Intersection
Existing Traffic
Volumes
(AM Peak)
Project Only Trips
(AM Peak)
Cumulative 5-Year
plus Buildout Traffic
Volumes
(AM Peak)
Project's Fair
Share (%)
12 Road 148 / Caldwell Avenue 814 13 1,236 3.1
Note: Project’s Fair Share (%) = ((Project Only Trips) / (Cumulative 2046 Year + Buildout Traffic Volumes) – (Existing Traffic Volumes)) x 100 Table XIII: Multi-Family Residential Fair Share of Future Roadway Improvements ID Intersection
Existing Traffic
Volumes
(AM Peak)
Project Only Trips
(AM Peak)
Cumulative 5-Year
plus Buildout Traffic
Volumes
(AM Peak)
Project's Fair
Share (%)
12 Road 148 / Caldwell Avenue 814 10 1,236 2.4
Note: Project’s Fair Share (%) = ((Project Only Trips) / (Cumulative 2046 Year + Buildout Traffic Volumes) – (Existing Traffic Volumes)) x 100

JlB!RAf.f.!f
-=-=-=-=-==-
1430
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 45
(559) 570-8991
Clements Ranch – City of Visalia
Traffic Impact Analysis
February 23, 2026

Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusions and recommendations regarding the proposed Project are presented below.

Existing Traffic Conditions
• JLB conducted a search of the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) to obtain collision reports for the most recent three-year period. Based on a review of the collision reports, a total of 26 collisions were reported within the influence zone of the study intersections. All study intersections have experienced a relatively low number of collisions per year. After thorough review of the data contained within the collision reports for the three-year analysis period, no additional changes are recommended to the study intersections as a result of collision activity. • At present, the study intersection of Lovers Lane at Walnut Avenue exceeds its LOS threshold during the AM peak period. It is recommended that the following be considered for implementation to improve the LOS at this intersection.
o Lovers Lane / Walnut Avenue
 Add an eastbound left-turn lane;
 Modify the eastbound left-through lane to a through lane;  Add a westbound left-turn lane;
 Modify the westbound left-through-right lane to a through-right lane;  Modify the phasing of the intersection to protective left-turn phasing in all directions; and  Modify the traffic signal to accommodate the modified geometrics.

Opening Year No Project Traffic Conditions
• 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. It is recommended that the following be considered for implementation to improve the LOS at this intersection. o Lovers Lane / Walnut Avenue
 Add an eastbound left-turn lane;
 Modify the eastbound left-through lane to a through lane;  Add a westbound left-turn lane;
 Modify the westbound left-through-right lane to a through-right lane;  Modify the phasing of the intersection to protective left-turn phasing in all directions; and  Modify the traffic signal to accommodate the modified geometrics.

Opening Year plus Phase 1 Traffic Conditions
• To ensure that motorists have the appropriate corner sight distance, the Project should ensure that it does not build any obstructions greater than two (2) feet above street grade within the hatched triangular areas as depicted in the figures included in Appendix H. • In Phase 1, the Project is estimated to generate approximately 2,654 daily trips, 204 AM peak hour trips and 272 PM peak hour trips.
• JLB analyzed the location of the existing and proposed roadways and access points relative to those in the vicinity of the Project site. A review of the existing and proposed roadways and access points JlB!RAf.f.!f
-=-=-=-=-==-
1431
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 46
(559) 570-8991
Clements Ranch – City of Visalia
Traffic Impact Analysis
February 23, 2026
indicated that they are located at points that minimize traffic operational impacts to existing and future roadway networks.
• 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 Projects frontage to Cameron Creek. • It is recommended that the Project, City of Visalia and VUSD work together to implement a plan which completes a walkway surface along the south side of K Avenue on the missing stretch of sidewalk between Pinkham Street and Lovers Lane.
• 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. It is recommended that the following be considered for implementation to improve the LOS at these intersections.
o Lovers Lane / Walnut Avenue
 Add an eastbound left-turn lane;
 Modify the eastbound left-through lane to a through lane;  Add a westbound left-turn lane;
 Modify the westbound left-through-right lane to a through-right lane;  Modify the phasing of the intersection to protective left-turn phasing in all directions; and  Modify the traffic signal to accommodate the modified geometrics. o Lovers Lane / Sunnyside Avenue
 Stripe an eastbound left-turn lane;
 Modify the eastbound left-through-right lane to a through-right lane;  Add a westbound left-turn lane;
 Modify the westbound left-through-right lane to a through-right lane;  Add a northbound right-turn lane;
 Modify the northbound through-right lane to a through lane; and  Signalize the intersection with protective left-turn phasing in all directions.

Cumulative 5-Year No Project Traffic Conditions
• Under this scenario, the study intersection of Road 148 at Caldwell Avenue is projected to exceed its LOS threshold during the AM peak period. It is recommended that the following be considered for implementation to improve the LOS at this intersection. o Road 148 / Caldwell Avenue
 Add a northbound left-turn lane;
 Modify the northbound left-through-right lane to a through-right lane;  Add a southbound left-turn lane; and
 Modify the southbound left-through-right lane to a through-right lane.

JlB!RAf.f.!f
-=-=-=-=-==-
1432
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 47
(559) 570-8991
Clements Ranch – City of Visalia
Traffic Impact Analysis
February 23, 2026
Cumulative 5-Year plus Phase 1 Traffic Conditions
• 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. • It is recommended that the following be considered for implementation to improve the LOS at the intersection of Lovers Lane at Sunnyside Avenue.
o Lovers Lane / Sunnyside Avenue
 Add an eastbound left-turn lane;
 Modify the eastbound left-through-right lane to a through-right lane;  Add a westbound left-turn lane;
 Modify the westbound left-through-right lane to a through-right lane;  Add a northbound right-turn lane;
 Modify the northbound through-right lane to a through lane; and  Signalize the intersection with protective left-turn phasing in all directions. • It is recommended that a fair share contribution be made by the Project for the following to improve the LOS at the intersection of Road 148 at Caldwell Avenue. o Road 148 / Caldwell Avenue
 Add a northbound left-turn lane;
 Modify the northbound left-through-right lane to a through-right lane;  Add a southbound left-turn lane; and
 Modify the southbound left-through-right lane to a through-right lane.

Cumulative 5-Year plus Buildout Traffic Conditions
• In Phase 2, the Project is estimated to generate approximately 2,329 daily trips, 154 AM peak hour trips and 195 PM peak hour trips.
• It is recommended that the following be considered for implementation to improve the LOS at the intersection of Lovers Lane at Sunnyside Avenue.
o Lovers Lane / Sunnyside Avenue
 Add an eastbound left-turn lane;
 Modify the eastbound left-through-right lane to a through-right lane;  Add a westbound left-turn lane;
 Modify the westbound left-through-right lane to a through-right lane;  Add a northbound right-turn lane;
 Modify the northbound through-right lane to a through lane; and  Signalize the intersection with protective left-turn phasing in all directions. • It is recommended that a fair share contribution be made by the Project for the following to improve the LOS at the intersection of Road 148 at Caldwell Avenue. o Road 148 / Caldwell Avenue
 Add a northbound left-turn lane;
 Modify the northbound left-through-right lane to a through-right lane;  Add a southbound left-turn lane; and
 Modify the southbound left-through-right lane to a through-right lane.

JlB!RAf.f.!f
-=-=-=-=-==-
1433
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 48
(559) 570-8991
Clements Ranch – City of Visalia
Traffic Impact Analysis
February 23, 2026
Queuing Analysis
• It is recommended that the City consider left-turn and right-turn lane storage lengths as indicated in the Queuing Analysis.

JlB!RAf.f.!f
-=-=-=-=-==-
1434
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 49
(559) 570-8991
Clements Ranch – City of Visalia
Traffic Impact Analysis
February 23, 2026

Study Participants
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc. Personnel:

Jose Luis Benavides, PE, TE Project Manager
Matthew Arndt, EIT Project Engineer – Traffic Operations Christian Sanchez, EIT Project Engineer - Design
Adrian Benavides Engineer II
Derian Cervantes Engineer I
Diana Cortes Engineering Aide
Dennis Wynn Sr. Engineering Technician
Persons Consulted:

Jaymie Brauer QK, Inc.

Leslie Blair City of Visalia
Gary Mills County of Tulare
Elizabeth Yelton Caltrans
David Padilla, Caltrans
Kasia Poleszczuk Tulare County Association of Governments

JlB!RAf.f.!f
-=-=-=-=-==-
1435
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 50
(559) 570-8991
Clements Ranch – City of Visalia
Traffic Impact Analysis
February 23, 2026

References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2018. “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets: The Green Book”. Washington: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

Caltrans. 2026. "California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices". Sacramento: State of California.

Caltrans. 2020. “Vehicle Miles Traveled-Focused Transportation Impact Study Guide”. Sacramento: State of California.

Caltrans. 2019. "Highway Design Manual". Sacramento: State of California.

City of Visalia. 2014. "Visalia General Plan". Visalia: City of Visalia.

City of Visalia. 2016. "Procedures for Traffic Impact Analysis". Visalia: City of Visalia.

City of Visalia. 2017. “Active Transportation Plan”. Visalia: City of Visalia.

County of Tulare. 2012. "2020 Update Tulare County General Plan". Visalia: Tulare County.

Cubic ITS, Inc. 2019. “Synchro Studio 11 User Guide”. Sugar Land: Trafficware, LLC.

Institute of Transportation Engineers. 2021. "Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition". Washington: Institute of Transportation Engineers.

Transportation Research Board. 2016. "Highway Capacity Manual". Washington: The National Academy of Sciences.

JlB!RAf.f.!f
-=-=-=-=-==-
1436
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 App | A
(559) 570-8991
Appendix A: Scope of Work
JlB!RAf.f.!f
-=-=-=-=-==-
1437
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 1
(559) 570-8991
August 19, 2025
Leslie Blair
City of Visalia
315 East Acequia Avenue
Visalia, CA 93291
Via Email Only: [email protected]
Subject: Proposed Scope of Work for the Preparation of a Traffic Impact Analysis in Support of the Clements Ranch located at the northeast quadrant of Lovers Lane and Caldwell Avenue in the City of Visalia (JLB Project 013-028) Dear Mrs. Blair,
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc. (JLB) hereby submits this Draft Scope of Work for the preparation of a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for the above referenced Project located in the City of Visalia. The Project proposes to develop the site with a mix of single-family (292 dwelling units) and multi-family residential (370 dwelling units) dwelling units on the northeast quadrant of Lovers Lane at Caldwell Avenue in the City of Visalia. Based on information provided to JLB, the Project will require a General Plan Amendment to shift densities within the Project.

The purpose of the TIA is to evaluate the potential on-site and off-site traffic impacts, identify shortterm roadway and circulation needs, determine potential mitigation measures and identify any critical traffic issues that should be addressed in the ongoing planning process. To evaluate the on-site and offsite traffic impacts of the proposed Project, JLB proposes the following Scope of Work.

Scope of Work
• JLB will request from the Tulare County Association of Governments (Tulare CAG) traffic forecast model runs for the Base Year 2019 and Cumulative Five (5) Years plus Project scenarios. • JLB will obtain recent (less than 12 months) or schedule and conduct new traffic counts at the study facility(ies) as necessary. These counts will include pedestrians and vehicles. • JLB will perform a site visit to observe existing traffic conditions, especially during the AM and PM peak hours. Existing roadway conditions including intersection geometrics and traffic controls will be verified.
• JLB will evaluate on-site circulation and provide recommendations as necessary to improve circulation to and within the Project site.
• JLB will prepare California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) Warrant 1 "8- hour" for existing unsignalized intersections under the Existing Traffic Conditions scenario. • JLB will prepare CA MUTCD CA MUTCD Warrant 3 “Peak Hour” signal warrants for unsignalized study intersections under the Opening Year plus Project and Cumulative Five (5) Years No Project and plus Project scenarios.

JlB
~
!RAf.f.!f
1438
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 2
(559) 570-8991
Mrs. Blair
Clements Ranch TIA - Draft Scope of Work
August 19, 2025
• JLB will forecast trip distribution based on turn count information and knowledge of the existing and planned circulation network in the vicinity of the Project. • JLB will conduct a qualitative safe route to school evaluation from the Project site to the K-12 • school(s) which would most likely serve the Project on opening day. • JLB will conduct a qualitative transit evaluation in the vicinity to the Project. • JLB will conduct a qualitative bikeways evaluation in the vicinity to the Project. • JLB will evaluate existing and forecast future levels of service (LOS) at the study intersections. JLB will use HCM 6th or HCM 2000 methodologies (as appropriate) within Synchro to perform this analysis for the AM and PM peak hours. JLB will identify causes of poor LOS. • JLB will provide a table with the Project's pro-rata fair share allocation to improvement measures identified (if any) that are not currently funded by an existing funding source. • JLB will prepare a corner sight distance evaluation for each of the three (3) proposed project driveways listed as study intersections.
• JLB will prepare a three-year collision analysis based on the Statewide Integrated Traffic Reporting System (SWITRS) database for all existing study intersections.

Study Scenarios

1. Existing Traffic Conditions with proposed improvement measures (if any);

2. Opening Year plus Project Buildout traffic conditions with proposed mitigation measures (if any); and

3. Cumulative 5-Year No Project Traffic Conditions with proposed improvement measures (if any); and

4. Cumulative 5-Year plus Project Buildout Traffic Conditions with proposed improvement measures (if any).

Weekday peak hours to be analyzed (Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday only)

1. 7 - 9 AM peak hour

2. 4 - 6 PM peak hour
Study Intersections

1. Walnut Avenue / Lovers Lane

2. K Avenue / Pinkham Street

3. K Avenue / Lovers Lane

4. K Avenue / North-South Access Road (Future)

5. Northern East-West Access Road / Lovers Lane (Future)

6. Sunnyside Avenue / Lovers Lane

7. Southern East-West Access Road / Lovers Lane (Future)

8. Caldwell Avenue / Pinkham Street

9. Caldwell Avenue / Lovers Lane
Queuing analysis is included in the proposed Scope of Work for the study intersection(s) listed above under all study scenarios. This analysis will be utilized to recommend minimum storage lengths for leftturn and right-turn lanes at all study intersections.

JlB
~
!RAf.f.!f
1439
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 3
(559) 570-8991
Mrs. Blair
Clements Ranch TIA - Draft Scope of Work
August 19, 2025
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 I presents the trip generation for the proposed Project with trip generation rates for Single Family Detached Housing and Multifamily 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 I: Project Trip Generation
Note: d.u. = Dwelling Units
The Scope of Work is based on our understanding of this Project and our experience with similar TIAs. It is being assumed that comments will be received by September 9, 2025. If an extension to this date is required, please reach out with this request. It will be assumed that the Scope of Work is acceptable to the agency(ies) that have not reached out in any capacity by September 9, 2025. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me by phone at (559) 317-6234 or by e-mail at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Matthew Arndt
Project Engineer – Traffic Operations
cc: Hector Guerra, County of Tulare
Gary Mills, County of Tulare
Lorena Mendibles, Caltrans
Scott Lau, Caltrans
Jose Luis Benavides, JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.
\\SERVER23\data\01 Projects\013 Visalia\013-028 Clements Ranch TIA\Draft Scope of Work\L20250819 Draft Scope of Work.docx Land Use (ITE Code) Size Unit
Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Rate Total Trip
Rate
In Out
In Out Total Trip
Rate
In Out
In Out Total
% %
Single-Family Detached Housing
(210) 292 d.u 9.43 2,754 0.70 26 74 53 151 204 0.94 63 37 173 101 274 Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)
(220) 370 d.u. 6.24 2,494 0.40 24 76 36 112 148 0.51 63 37 119 70 189 Total Project Trips 5,248 89 263 352 292 171 463
JlB
~
!RAf.f.!f
1440
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 4
(559) 570-8991
Mrs. Blair
Clements Ranch TIA - Draft Scope of Work
August 19, 2025
Exhibit A – Aerial
JlB
~
!RAf.f.!f
1441
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 5
(559) 570-8991
Mrs. Blair
Clements Ranch TIA - Draft Scope of Work
August 19, 2025
Exhibit B – Project Site Plan
I I I
1 l : I a
I s
1t
I
I
I
I I
!~
i i
I
I
I
I
ii
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
I
---------
71;W'ORAR'Y ~ROU\ID~W;NT
(SU!,'KJT[J
E.tlllEEl'a
-- --------
---- ---
i ' I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,, «151 : I I 132
- -- =-------:_ ~ =:'.J t•PI-IME1 I
~'._--~:: ~ ' ,,, J-___J'---- - f-~
1:1'1-0l.'O,OIS """
J;'_.tlo00®'(81,}(; """ ,V.'IClfbl.13
OllnOTH , •
OVl'lOTG
I
..,m I ....,. ON l
L ___ - __ ,1 t,i -~ -_-_____ ___ __ -- --~ - _ -- -_ =1 _____ _ JlB
~
!RAf.f.!f
1442
1 Matt Arndt
From: Gary Mills <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2025 11:25 AM
To: Matt Arndt; Leslie Blair
Cc: Mendibles, Lorena@DOT; Lau, Scott@DOT; Jose Benavides Subject: RE: Clements Ranch TIA Draft Scope of Work
Hi Matt,
Please conduct peak hour analysis at Avenue 280 (Caldwell Avenue)/Road 148, just east of the Project. Make sure that school (Blue Oak Academy) is in session. The County would like to know Project traffic impacts at this location.

Thank you,
--
From: Matt Arndt <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 9:38 AM
To: Leslie Blair <[email protected]>
Cc: Hector Guerra <[email protected]>; Gary Mills <[email protected]>; Mendibles, Lorena@DOT <[email protected]>; Lau, Scott@DOT <[email protected]>; Jose Benavides <[email protected]> Subject: Clements Ranch TIA Draft Scope of Work
Hello, Attached to thi s email is the Dra ft Scope of Work for the Cle me nts Ranch TIA. Cleme nts Ra nch propose s to construct a mix of si ngle-family housi ng and multifa mily housing on the nort heast qua drant of Lovers Lane a nd Cal dwell Avenue in ZjQcmQRYFpfptBa nnerStart
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBa nnerE nd
Hello,
AƩached to this email is the DraŌ Scope of Work for the Clements Ranch TIA. Clements Ranch proposes to construct a mix of single-family housing and mulƟfamily housing on the northeast quadrant of Lovers Lane and Caldwell Avenue in the City of Visalia.

We kindly ask that you take a moment to review and comment on the proposed DraŌ Scope of Work. If you have any quesƟons or require addiƟonal informaƟon, please contact me by phone at (559)317-6243 or by responding to this email. We appreciate your Ɵme and aƩenƟon to this maƩer and look forward to hearing from you soon.

Sincerely,
Gary A. Mills
Chief Planner
5961 5. Mooney Blvd.

Tulare County RMA
Visalia, CA 93277
Direct - (559) 624-7199
1443
~±- v VISALIA
September 2, 2025
JLB Traffic Engineering, INC.
516 W Shaw Ave, Ste.103
Fresno, CA 9371 0
Re: Clements Ranch TIA - Draft Scope of Work
Dear Mr. Benavides,
Engineering & Building Department
Traffic Safety
The City is in receipt of the TIA Draft Scope of Work prepared by JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc., dated August 19, 2025, for the Clements Ranch Development located on the northeast quadrant of Lovers Lane and Caldwell in the City of Visalia. The City has reviewed the scope and has the following comments:

1. The project applicant in earlier discussions with the City requested reassignment of the collector status roadway from K Ave (roadway segment east of Lovers Lane) to Sunnyside Ave (roadway segment east of Lovers Lane). This request is a deviation in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. Please note any deviation from the Circulation Element must be supported by a traffic study and needs to be included in the Scope of Work.

2. Project Trip Generation - The project is projected to generate 352 AM peak hour trips and 463 PM peak hour trips. Per City of Visalia Traffic Impact Analysis Procedures, a project of this size requires a category II level of analysis.

3. Study Scenarios - For category II analysis, study horizons are opening year and 5 year.

Please include in the scope for opening year, the study scenario for both with and without project. The City is in agreement with the study scenarios listed.

4. Study Intersections - For a category II analysis, study area is to include all site access drives and all major intersections within ½-mile of the study site, either signalized or unsignalized. The City is in agreement with the study intersections listed in the Scope of Work, and requests additional intersections be included. Since Sunnyside Ave may change from a local road to a collector status roadway, the site's local road intersections with Sunnyside Ave need to be included in the scope, specifically for spacing, number and location.

5. For the arterial status roadways Lovers Lane and Caldwell Ave, an evaluation of median breaks (none, ¾ access and full opening), location and spacing needs to be included in the scope. Reference City of Visalia Design and Improvement Standard P-12 Typical Median Break Locations.

6. Signal Warrant Analysis - In addition to the analyses included in the Scope of Work, please include Warrant #1 8-Peak Hour Signal Warrant for the opening year scenarios. The City uses Warrant #1 8-Peak Hour Signal Warrant to consider an intersection for signalization.

Traffic data will need to be collected for the 8 peak hours to perform the analysis under 315 E. Acequia Ave. • Visal ia, CA 93291 P 559.713.4444 W visalia.gov 1444
~±- v VISALIA Engineering & Building Department
Traffic Safety
existing traffic conditions scenario. These turn movement counts may then be projected for the opening year scenarios, with and without project.

7. Corner sight distance evaluation - Scope includes 3 proposed project driveway intersections. Additional intersections may need to be included with the inclusion of additional study intersections. See item #4.

8. Phasing Plan - Will the development be phased? If yes, please include evaluation of the phasing plan in Scope Of Work.

9. TIA required to comply with all the requirements and guidelines set forth in the City of Visalia Procedures for Traffic Impact Analysis. Anything inadvertently left out of the scope of work but required as described in the City of Visalia Procedures for Traffic Impact Analysis shall be included in the study.

Should you require additional information or have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Leslie Blair, P.E.

Senior Civil Engineer
(559)713-4633
[email protected]
315 E. Acequia Ave. • Visalia, CA 93291 P 559. 713.4444 W visalia.gov 1445
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” DISTRICT 6 OFFICE
1352 WEST OLIVE AVENUE |P.O. BOX 12616 |FRESNO, CA 93778-2616 (559) 365-5140 | FAX (559) 488-4195 | TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov
September 25, 2025
TUL-198-12.04
Clements Ranch
GTS: 35322

AMENDED

SENT VIA EMAIL
Mr. Matthew Arndt
JLB Traffic Engineering
516 W. Shaw Ave, Suite 103
Fresno, CA 93704
Dear Mr. Arndt:

Caltrans has completed a review of the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) for the Proposed Scoping Document. The project is located at the southeast corner of East K Avenue and South Lovers Lane in Tulare County, approximately one mile south of State Route (SR) 198. The scoping document states that the project proposes to develop the site with a mix of single-family (292 dwelling units) and multi-family residential (370 dwelling units) dwelling units in two phases.

The mission of Caltrans is to provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment. To ensure a safe and efficient transportation system, we encourage early consultation and coordination with local jurisdictions and project proponents on all development projects that utilize the multimodal transportation network.

Caltrans provides the following comments consistent with the State’s smart mobility goals that support a vibrant economy and sustainable communities:

Traffic Operation Comments:

1. On page two, within the Study Scenarios section, please add:
• Existing condition without any improvement measures

2. On page two, within the Study Intersections section, please include trip a trace for:
• SR 198 onramp and offramp to Lovers Lane

3. On page two, within the Study Intersections section, although the queuing analysis is referenced as part of the proposed Scope of Work, it should be explicitly stated and clearly outlined within the Scope of Work section to ensure transparency and completeness.

CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR California Department of Transportation
• •
lizltrans•
1446
Mr. Matthew Arndt – Clements Ranch
September 25, 2025

Page 2 ends

Visalia City CouncilJuly 20, 2026

Visalia City Council
July 20, 2026