25-4 Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration — Fresno City Council, August 28, 2025 (part 1 of 7)

1 516832v1

APPENDIX G/INITIAL STUDY FOR A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist Form for:
937-943 F Street (Peacock Building Acquisition and Demolition)

1. Project Title:
937-943 F Street
(Peacock Building Acquisition, Demolition, and Construction of Housing)

2. Lead Agency Name and Address:

City of Fresno
Housing Production Division, Planning and Development
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721

3. Contact Person and Phone Number:

Danny Tohme, Projects Administrator
City of Fresno
Housing Production Division, Planning and Development
(559) 621-8055

4. Project Location:

The Project site consists of a 0.33 -acre developed lot located at 937- 943 F Street, Fresno, California 93706; Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 467-074-02 (Figure 1).

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:

City of Fresno
Housing Production Division, Planning and Development
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, California 93721

6. General and Community Plan Land Use Designation:

The Project site is within the Downtown Neighborhood (DTN) land use designation and is immediately surrounded by existing commercial uses within the DTN land use designation in all directions.

7. Zoning:

The Project site is zoned DTN and is immediately surrounded by existing commercial uses zoned DTN in all directions.
2 516832v1

8. Description of Project:

The 937-943 F Street Project (Project) includes the acquisition and demolition of an existing building located at 937- 945 F Street in the City of Fresno to allow for the construction of up to 100 new residential units and commercial space within a new four- story mixed-use building. The Project site consists of a 0.33-acre lot (APN 467-074-02) zoned DTN.

The proposed Project includes the acquisition and demolition of an existing 12,568-square-foot steel/masonry building that was originally constructed in 1940 and is in fair to poor condition. The building and ancillary structures are currently vacant but have been previously used for mixed-commercial land uses.

Following acquisition and demolition activities, the proposed Project would include the construction of a four-story mixed-use building consisting of up to 100 new residential units, which may consist of affordable and market -rate housing units and commercial uses. The first floor would consist of commercial uses and the second through fourth floors would consist of residential units. The specific commercial uses are currently not known but would be limited to small retail stores. The proposed Project would result in approximately 75 to 150 new residents depending on the final unit mix. The proposed Project is expected to result in approximately 665 daily vehicle trips.

Specific design
plans are currently not available; however, the proposed Project would be 60 feet in height and would include architecture and design materials consistent with the surrounding neighborhood.

Proposed construction activities would result in limited ground-disturbing activities over the 0.33-acre Project site. Ground-disturbing activities would have a maximum 10-foot excavation depth. Demolition activities are expected to occur over a 30- to 60 -day period beginning in mid- to late 2025. Demolition activities are expected to require the use of typical construction equipment for demolition and would result in a total of approximately 50 total truck trips. Construction of the new mixed- use building is expected to occur over a 2-year period beginning in early 2026. Construction activities are expected to require the use of typical construction equipment and would result in a total of approximately 500 total truck trips. The exact staging area for cons truction activities is currently not known; however, it would be located entirely within a nearby developed area.

9. Surrounding land uses and setting:

Planned Land Use Existing Zoning Existing Land Use
North DTN DTN DTN
East DTN DTN DTN
South DTN DTN DTN
West DTN DTN DTN

3 516832v1

10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement):

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Permit(s)

11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Pub lic Resources Code
(PRC) Section 21080.3.1? If so, has consultation begun? The State of California (State) requires lead agencies to consider the potential effects of proposed projects and consult with California Native American Tribes during the local planning process for the purpose of protecting Traditional Tribal Cultural Resources through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code (PRC) 21080.3.1, before public distribu tion of the document, the lead agency shall begin consultation with the California Native American Tribe
that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographical area of the proposed Project. Such significant cultural resources are either sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a T ribe that is either included in or eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historic al Resources (CRHR) or local historic register, or the lead agency, at its discretion, and supported by substantial evidence, chooses to treat the resources as a tribal cultural resource (PRC 21074(a)(1–2)). According to the most recent census data, California is home to 109 currently recognized Native American Tribes. Tribes in California currently have nearly 100 separate reservations or rancherias. Fresno County has a number of rancherias, including Table Mountain, Millerton, Big Sandy, Cold Springs, and Squaw Valley; these rancherias are not located within the City limits.

Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review; identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources ; and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process (see PRC 21083.3.2). Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) per PRC 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). Please also note that PRC 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.

Pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 52, Native American T ribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the P roject area were invited to consult regarding the proposed Project based on a list of contacts provided by the NAHC. The City mailed notices of the Project to each of these Tribes on July 30, 2024, and the required 30-day time period for Tribes to request consultation ended on September 3, 2024. One letter response was received from Robert Pennell, Tribal Cultural Resources Director for the Table Mountain Rancheria, in a letter dated August 16, 2024, stating that they “ . . . Decline participation at this time but would appreciate being notified in the unlikely event that cultural resources are identified.” All other Tribes that were contacted declined consultation.

4 516832v1

Figure 1. Project Location Map.

5 516832v1
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “ Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
☐ Aesthetics ☐ Agriculture and Forestry Resources
☐ Air Quality ☐ Biological Resources
☐ Cultural Resources ☐ Energy
☐ Geology/Soils ☐ Greenhouse Gas Emissions
☐ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ☐ Hydrology/Water Quality ☐ Land Use/Planning ☐ Mineral Resources
☐ Noise ☐ Population/Housing
☐ Public Services ☐ Recreation
☐ Transportation ☐ Tribal Cultural Resources
☐ Utilities/Service Systems ☐ Wildfire
☐ Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
___ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. _X_ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to
by the project proponent. A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
___ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) is required. ___ I find that the proposed project MAY have a “ potentially significant impact ” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheet s. An EIR is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. 6 516832v1
___ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

D
anny Tohme, Projects Administrator Da
te

EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

1. For purposes of this I nitial Study, the following answers have the corresponding meanings:
a. “No Impact ” means the specific impact category does not apply to the project, or that the record sufficiently demonstrates that project specific factors or general standards applicable to the project will result in no impact for the threshold under consideration.
b. “Less Than Significant Impact ” means there is an impact related to the threshold under consideration, but that impact is less than significant. c. “ Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation” means there is a potentially significant impact related to the threshold under consideration, however, with the mitigation incorporated into the project, the impact is less than significant. For purposes of this Initial Study “ mitigation incorporated into the project ” means mitigation developed specifically for an individual project.
d. “Potentially Significant Impact” means there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant related to the threshold under consideration.

2. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “ No Impact ” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “ No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis).

3. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
7/1/25
7 516832v1

4. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

5. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact ” to a “ Less Than Significant Impact. ” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from, “Earlier Analyses,” as described in (6) below, may be cross-referenced).

6. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursu ant t o the tiering or another CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in another earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

7. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances).

Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a ref erence to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

8. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

9. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a. The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b. The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.

8 516832v1

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. AESTHETICS – Except as provided in PRC Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse
effect on a scenic vista? X
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic
highway?
X
c) In non- urbanized areas,
substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality public
views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are
those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage point).

If the project is in an urbanized
area, would the project conflict
with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic
quality?
X
d) Create a new source of
substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
X

DISCUSSION
a) H
ave a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
A scenic vista is a viewpoint that provides expansive views of a highly valued landscape for the public’s benefit. The City -approved Fresno General Plan identifies six locations along the San Joaquin River bluffs as designated vista points from which views should be maintained. Scenic vistas within the City of Fresno Planning Area could provide distant views of features such as the San Joaquin River to the north and the foothills of the Sierra Nevada to the east.

The Project site is not located within any
of the scenic vista points identified in the City ’s General Plan; therefore, the construction of a new four -story mixed -use building would not alter views of any identified scenic vistas. Therefore, no impact related to scenic vistas would occur. 9 516832v1
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? According to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) State Scenic Highway Mapping System,1 there are no eligible or officially designated State Scenic Highways within the City of Fresno. Fresno County has three eligible State Scenic Highways; the nearest eligible highways include a portion of State Route 180, located approximately 7 miles east of the City, and a portion of State Route 168, located approximately 5 miles east of the City. The nearest officially designated State Scenic Highway is located more than 30 miles northeast of the City within Madera County.

Since there are no eligible or officially designated State Scenic Highways in close proximity to the Project site, the proposed Project would not damage scenic resources within a designated State scenic highway; therefore, no impact would occur. c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
The Project site is located in an urbanized area and consists entirely of an existing 12,568-square-foot building and associated developed areas. The Project site is within the DTN land use and zoning designation and is immediately surrounded by existing commercial uses within the DTN land use and zoning designation in all directions.

Surrounding buildings are approximately four stories tall. The Project site and surrounding area are characterized by relatively flat topography. There are scattered ornamental trees located along the P roject frontage. There are no surface water features located within or adjacent to the Project site.

The DTN land use and zoning designation allows for lively, walkable, mixed-use urban neighborhoods surrounding the Downtown Core and Downtown General areas. It allows new buildings to be up to six stories in height located at or near the sidewalk.

Ground floor spaces will have active frontages with commercial uses, retail uses, multi-family housing, and office activity to support active streetscapes and walking.

Upper floors and the floor area behind storefronts accommodate a wide variety of office, civic, lodging, housing, or additional commercial uses.

The proposed Project includes the acquisition and demolition of an existing building to allow for the construction of up to 100 new residential units and commercial space within a new mixed-use building. The proposed Project would be four stories tall and approximately 60 feet in height , which would be consistent with the height of surrounding buildings and the allowable height requirements of the DTN zone.

Specific design plans are currently not available; however, the proposed Project would be 60 feet in height and would include architecture and design materials consistent

1 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2024. Scenic Highways: California State Scenic Highways. Available at: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community- livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways. Accessed August 2024. 10 516832v1
with the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed Project would be consistent with the DTN zone and the visual character of the surrounding area and would not conflict with applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality . Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
The Project site is located in an urbanized area and existing sources of outdoor lighting include lighting from surrounding developments, streetlighting, and intermittent vehicle headlights. The proposed Project includes the acquisition and demolition of an existing building to allow for the construction of up to 100 new residential units and commercial space within a new four -story mixed -use building. Proposed demolition and construction activities would be limited to daytime hours (8:00 a.m. –5:00 p.m.) an d would not require the installation of temporary nighttime lighting. Following construction activities, t he proposed Project would result in a marginal increase in outdoor lighting within the P roject area. New outdoor lighting would be required to comply with Section 15- 2015 (Outdoor Lighting and Illumination) of the City’s Municipal Code, used for illumination purposes only, and pointed downward to avoid light spillover to surrounding land uses.

Based on compliance with the City’s Municipal
Code, the prop osed Project would not create a new source of light and glare, and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.
11 516832v1

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES – In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an op tional model to use in assessing impacts to agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Departm ent of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the State’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland,
Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farm -
land), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monito-
ring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract?
X
c) Conflict with existing zoning for,
or cause rezoning of, forest land
(as defined in Public Resources
Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or
timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by
Government Code section
51104(g))?
X
d) Result in the loss of forest land
or conversion of forest land to
non-forest use?
X
12 516832v1

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
e) Involve other changes in the
existing environment which, due
to their location or nature, could
result in conversion of Farmland,
to non- agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-
forest use?
X

DISCUSSION
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
The Project site and surrounding area are underlain by land designated by the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP)
2 as Urban and Built -Up Land . Therefore, the proposed Project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to a non-agricultural use, and no impact would occur.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? The Project site and surrounding parcels are located in the City’s DTN land use and zoning designation. The Project site is not within or adjacent to land within the Agriculture zoning district. Further, the Project site is not subject to a Williamson Act contract. The proposed Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract; therefore, no impact would occur. c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
The Project site and surrounding area consist of existing development and are located in an urbanized downtown area in the City of Fresno. The Project site and surrounding area are not within forest land, timberland, or timberland production land use or zoning designations; therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with the zoning, or cause rezoning of, designated forest land, timberland, or timberland production, and no impact would occur.

2 California Department of Conservation. 2022. California Important Farmland Finder. Available at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed August 2024. 13 516832v1
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Please refer to Impact Discussion II.c). The proposed Project would not result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forestland to non- forest uses because the Project site is not forested nor is it located near a forested area ; therefore, no impact would occur.
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non- agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Please refer to Impact Discussions II .a) and II.c). The P roject site is located in an existing urbanized area and would not result in the conversion of farmland to non- agricultural uses or forestland to non-forest uses; therefore, no impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
III. A IR QUALITY – Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable
air quality plan ( e.g., by having
potential emissions of regulated
criterion pollutants which exceed
the San Joaquin Valley Air
Pollution Control Districts
(SJVAPCD) adopted thresholds
for these pollutants)?
X
b) Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non -attainment
under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions
which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
X
14 516832v1

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations?
X
d) Result in other emissions (such
as those leading to odors)
adversely affecting a substantial
number of people?
X

DISCUSSION
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? CEQA requires that certain proposed projects be analyzed for consistency with the applicable air quality plan. An air quality plan describes air pollution control strategies to be implemented by a region, C ounty, or City that is classified as a non- attainment area. The main purpose of the air quality plan is to bring the area into compliance with the requirements of the federal and State air quality standards. Fresno is located within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB) and is under the jurisdiction of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD).

The SJVAB is
designated as Nonattainment-Extreme for the 8 -hour ozone standard, Maintenance- Serious for the particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter ( PM10) standard, and Nonattainment -Moderate for the particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter ( PM2.5) standard under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The SJVAB is designated Nonattainment for the 1- hour ozone standard, the 8-hour ozone standard, the PM 10 standards, and the PM 2.5 standards under the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS).

To bring the SJVAB into attainment, the SJVAPCD adopted the 2022 Plan for the 2015 8- Hour Ozone Standard (2022 Ozone Plan) 3 in to satisfy Clean Air Act requirements and ensure attainment of the 70 parts per billion (ppb) 8- hour ozone standard. To assure the SJVAB ’s continued attainment of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) respirable particulate matter (PM 10) standard, the SJVAPCD adopted the 2023 Maintenance Plan and Redesignation Request for the Revoked 1-Hour Ozone Standard (2023 Maintenance Plan) 4 SJVAPCD Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions) is designed to reduce PM 10 emissions generated by

3 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2022. 2022 Plan for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone Standard. Adopted December 15. Available at: https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/q55posm0/0000- 2022-plan-for-the-2015-8-hour-ozone-standard.pdf. Accessed August 2024. 4 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2023. 2023 Maintenance Plan and Redesignation Request for the Revoked 1-Hour Ozone Standard. June 15. Available at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/itoegkch/03-adopted-2023-maintenance-plan-and-redesignation- request-for-the-revoked-1-hour-ozone-standard.pdf. Accessed September 2024. 15 516832v1
human activity. Additionally, the SJVAPCD adopted the 2024 Plan for the 2012 PM2.5 Standard (2024 PM2.5 Plan)5 to address the USEPA federal annual PM2.5 standard of 12 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3), established in 2012.

The SJVAPCD has established project construction and operational emissions thresholds for criteria pollutants (Table 1). 6 For a project to be consistent with SJVAPCD attainment plans, the pollutants emitted from project operation should not exceed the SJVAPCD daily thresholds, the project should not cause a significant impact on air quality, or the project must already have been included in the attainment plans projection.

Table 1: SJVAPCD Project Construction and Operational
Emission Thresholds
CO NOX ROG SOX PM10 PM2.5
Annual Construction Emissions* 100.0 10.0 10.0 27.0 15.0 15.0 Annual Operational Emissions* 100.0 10.0 10.0 27.0 15.0 15.0 Source: SJVAPCD (2015)
Notes: CO = carbon monoxide; NOX = nitrogen oxides; ROG = reactive organic gas; SOX = sulfur oxides * Emission units = Tons per Year (tpy)
As discussed in Impact Discussion III.b), emissions associated with Project activities would not result in the generation of criteria air pollutants that would exceed SJVAPCD thresholds of significance. As discussed in Section XVII, Transportation, the proposed Project would not result in substantial or unplanned population growth or associated vehicle trips in a manner that could conflict with the SJVAPCD 2022 Ozone Plan and the 2024 PM 2.5 Plan. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of SJVAPCD air quality plans, and impacts would be less than significant.
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
As discussed in Impact Discussion III .a), the SJVAPCD establishes thresholds for carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NO
X), reactive organic gases (ROG), sulfur
oxides (SO X), PM 10, or PM 2.5. CEQA defines a cumulative impact as two or more individual effects that, when considered together, are considerable or that compound or increase other environmental impacts. Therefore, if annual emissions of

5 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2024. 2024 Plan for the 2012 PM2.5 Standards. June 20. Available at: https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/gw5bacvj/2024-pm25-plan.pdf.

Accessed September 2024.
6 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2015a. Air Quality Thresholds of Significance – Criteria Pollutants. Available at: http://www.valleyair.org/transportation/0714-GAMAQI- Criteria-Pollutant-Thresholds-of-Significance.pdf. Accessed August 2024. 16 516832v1
construction- or operational -related criteria air pollutants exceed any applicable thresholds established by the SJVAPCD, the proposed Project would result in a cumulatively significant impact.

To aid in evaluating potentially significant construction and operational impacts of a project, the SJVAPCD has prepared an advisory document, the Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI),7 which contains standard procedures for addressing air quality. The GAMAQI presents a three-tiered approach to air quality analysis. The Small Project Analysis Level (SPAL) is first used to screen the project for potentially significant impacts. A project that meets the screening criteria at this level requires no further analysis and air quality impacts of the project may be deemed less than significant. If a project does not meet all the criteria at this screening level, additional screening is recommended at the Cursory Analysis Level and, if warranted, the Full Analysis Level. The SPAL thresholds are provided by project type and by number of vehicle trips. For a mid-rise apartment building, the size threshold is 225 units, and the vehicle trip threshold is less than 800 trips per day. 8 The proposed Project would result in up to 100 residential units and is expected to generate 665 daily vehicle trips, which is less than 225 units and 800 vehicle trips per day. Therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with the SPAL screening thresholds for mid-rise apartment units and trip generation rates and would not require further air quality analysis as construction- related and operational emissions would fall below the thresholds established by the SJVAPCD. Therefore, impacts related to construction and operational air emissions would be less than significant The SPAL analysis covers the construction and operation of the proposed affordable housing development. In order to conservatively analyze the proposed Project’s potential air emissions, the air emissions associated with demolition of the existing building have been estimated separately . The proposed Project includes the acquisition and demolition of an existing 12,568- square-foot building. Proposed demolition activities have the potential to generate fugitive dust and combustion emissions that may have substantial temporary impacts to local air quality. Fugitive dust emissions would result from demolition and limited ground- disturbing activities and trip generation. Combustion emissions, such as NO
X and PM 10, are most
significant when using large diesel -fueled scrapers, loaders, bulldozers, haul trucks, compressors, generators, and other types of equipment.

Estimated demolition air emissions were calculated for the proposed Project using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). The CalEEMod results are

7 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2015b. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. March 19. Available at:
https://www.valleyair.org/media/g4nl3p0g/gamaqi.pdf. Accessed March 2024. 8 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2020. Small Project Analysis Levels (SPAL). November 13. Available at: https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/CEQA%20Rules/GAMAQI - SPAL.PDF. Accessed March 2024.
17 516832v1
included in Appendix A, and the results of the unmitigated estimated demolition emission calculations for the proposed Project are shown in Table 2.9 Table 2: Annual Demolition Emissions for the Proposed Project Source
Criteria Pollutant
(TPY)
ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Project Demolition 0.01 0.05 0.06 <0.005 0.01 <0.005
SJVAPCD Threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15
Exceed threshold? No No No No No No
Source: California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) (2024); Appendix A Note: TPY = tons per year
Based on the results shown in Table 2, demolition air emissions would be in compliance with the SJVAPCD thresholds for all pollutants; therefore, demolition- related impacts would be less than significant.

Conclusion
Based on the analysis provided above, the proposed Project would not exceed SJVAPCD established significance thresholds for CO, NO X, ROG, SO X, PM 10, or PM2.5 emissions during demolition, construction, or operation. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is in non-attainment, and impacts would be less than significant.
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Sensitive receptors are people that have an increased sensitivity to air pollution or environmental contaminants, such as the elderly, children, people with asthma or other respiratory illnesses, and others who are at a heightened risk of negative health outcomes due to exposure to air pollution. Some land uses are considered more sensitive to changes in air quality than others due to the population that occupies the uses and the activities involved. Sensitive receptor locations include schools, parks and playgrounds, day care centers, nursing homes, hospitals, and residences.

The nearest sensitive receptors to the P roject site include residential dwelling units , located approximately 900 feet northeast of the Project site. Due to this proximity , proposed demolition and construction activities associated with the proposed Project have the potential to expose nearby residents to short -term demolition and construction-related emissions. As discussed in Impact Discussion III.b), construction

9 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2024. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). Available at: https://www.caleemod.com/. Accessed July 2024. 18 516832v1
of the proposed Project would generate emissions, including diesel particulate matter (diesel PM) and fugitive dust. Construction and operational emissions would not exceed SJVAPCD thresholds; however, due to the close proximity of sensitive receptors, compliance with the SJVAPCD Standard Regulation VIII Control Measures and Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-3 would be required to reduce the potential for a nuisance and exposure to diesel PM and fugitive dust. Potential impacts related to the exposure of sensitive receptors to other emissions are included in Impact Discussion III.d). The proposed Project includes acquisition and demolition activities to allow for the construction of a residential and commercial mixed- use building.

Commercial uses would be limited to small retail stores , and no operational activities are proposed that could expose sensitive receptors to substantial long -term pollutant concentrations; t herefore, potential impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Construction activities generally have the potential to emit odors from diesel equipment, paints, solvents, fugitive dust, and adhesives. Any odors generated by construction activities would be intermittent and temporary, and generally would not extend beyond the construction area. Any construction odors would be temporary and limited to the construction phase of the proposed Project . The p roposed P roject includes acquisition and demolition activities to allow for the construction of a residential and commercial mixed-use building. Commercial uses would be limited to small retail stores; therefore, no operational activities are proposed that could produce any offensive odors, including land uses such as agricultural activities, feedlots, wastewater treatment facilities, landfills, or heavy manufacturing uses.

The proposed Project is not located in an area with known potential for naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) .
10 Therefore, construction activities would not have the potential to expose workers or surrounding land uses to harmful levels of NOA.

Asbestos-containing material (ACM) and lead- based paint (LBP) may be present in buildings built prior to 1978. The existing building was first developed in the early 1900s, with redevelopment occurring in 1918 and the 1930s; therefore, there is potential that ACM and LBP may be present. Mitigation Measures AQ-4 and AQ-5 have been included to require ACM and LBP testing and identify the proper protocol for the handling and removal of ACM and LBP if identified within materials proposed for demolition. With i mplementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-4 and AQ -5, the proposed Project would not result in odors or other emissions; therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

10 California Geological Survey (CGS). 2011. Reported Historic Asbestos Mines, Historic Asbestos Prospects, and Other Natural Occurrences of Asbestos in California. 19 516832v1
Mitigation Measures
AQ-1 Permit Requirements. Prior to ground disturbance and construction, the Construction Contractor shall obtain all required permits for dust control and the use of portable equipment, 50 horsepower or greater, from the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. Upon application for construction permits, all required mitigation measures shall be shown on all applicable grading or construction plans and implemented during all applicable grading and construction activities.

AQ-2 Dust Control Measures. No person shall perform any construction, demolition, excavation, extraction, or other earth- moving activities unless measures are sufficiently implemented to limit visible dust emissions (VDE) to 20% opacity and comply with the conditions for a stabilized surface area when applicable.

In addition to the requirements of this rule, a person shall comply with all other applicable requirements of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Regulation VIII. A person shall contr ol the fugitive dust emissions to meet the following requirements:

1. Pre-Activity:
a. Pre-water site sufficient to limit VDE to 20% opacity, and b. Phase work to reduce the amount of disturbed surface area at any one time.

2. During Active Operations:
a. Apply water or chemical/organic stabilizers/suppressants sufficient to limit VDE to 20% opacity; or
b. Construct and maintain wind barriers sufficient to limit VDE to 20% opacity. If utilizing wind barriers, control measure 2.a shall also be implemented.
c. Apply water or chemical/organic stabilizers/suppressants to unpaved haul/access roads and unpaved vehicle/equipment traffic areas sufficient to limit VDE to 20% opacity and meet the conditions of a stabilized unpaved road surface.

3. Temporary Stabilization During Periods of Inactivity:
a. Restrict vehicular access to the area; and
b. Apply water or chemical/organic stabilizers/suppressants, sufficient to comply with the conditions of a stabilized surface. If an area having 0.5 acre or more of disturbed surface area remains unused for 7 or more days, the area must comply with the conditions for a stabilized surface area as defined in S ection

3.58 of Rule 8011.

AQ-3 Construction Emissions. The Project shall utilize clean off-road construction equipment, including the latest tier equipment, where feasible. 20 516832v1
AQ-4 Asbestos-Containing Material. An asbestos -containing material (ACM) survey consisting of a visual inspection, sampling, testing, and reporting shall be performed by a Certified Asbestos Consultant to determine if building materials contain ACM and would require special handling and disposal during demolition. If ACM is detected, proposed construction activities shall be conducted in full compliance with the requirements stipulated in the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants ( NESHAP; 40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 61, Subpart M – National Emission Standard for Asbestos). These requirements include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. Written notification, within at least 10 business days of activities commencing, to the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District;

2. Preparation of an asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos Consultant; and

3. Implementation of applicable removal and disposal protocol and requirements for identified naturally occurring asbestos.

AQ-5 Lead-Based Paint. A lead -based paint (LBP) survey consisting of a visual inspection, sampling, testing, and reporting shall be performed to determine if building materials within the Project site contain LBP. If elevated concentrations of metals from LBP are detected, construction activities shall be conducted in full compliance with the requirements of Sections 402 and 406 of the Toxic Substances Control Act.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse
effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
X
21 516832v1

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Have a substantial adverse
effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by
the California Department of Fish
and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
X
c) Have a substantial adverse
effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section
404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other
means?
X
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
X
e) Conflict with any local policies
or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
X
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
X
22 516832v1

DISCUSSION
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Short-term construction activities would have the potential to result in direct (e.g., take) or indirect (e.g., light pollution, noise pollution, habitat loss, etc.) impacts to special - status plant and animal species if present within the P roject area during Project construction.

Special-Status Plants
Based on a nine- quadrangle query of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) ,
11 a query of the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC),12 and a query of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Rare Plant Inventory ,13 the following five special-status plant species have been previously documented in the Project vicinity (Appendix B):
• succulent owl ’s-clover ( Castilleja campestris var. succulenta) is a California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1B.2 species that typically occurs in vernal pool and wetland areas.

The nearest recorded occurrence is approximately 9.2 miles north of the Project site (CNDDB Occ. 7).
• California jewelflower ( Caulanthus californicus) is a CRPR 1B.1 species that typically occurs in chenopod scrub, pinyon and juniper woodlands, and valley and foothill grasslands.

The Project site is located within a 5-mile buffer area of the nearest recorded occurrence (CNDDB Occ. 38).
• San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass (Orcuttia inaequalis) is a CRPR 1B.1 species that typically occurs in vernal pool and wetland habitats. The nearest recorded occurrence is approximately 8 miles north of the Project site (CNDDB Occ. 21). • hairy Orcutt grass (Orcuttia pilosa) is a CRPR 1B.1 species that typically occurs in vernal pool and wetland habitats. The nearest recorded occurrence is approximately 11 miles northwest of the Project site (CNDDB Occ. 28). • Greene’s tuctoria ( Tuctoria greenei ) is a CRPR 1B.1 species that typically occurs in vernal pool and wetland habitats.

The nearest recorded occurrence
is approximately 13 miles east of the Project site (CNDDB Occ. 17).

11 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2024. California Natural Diversity Database.

Available at: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data. Accessed July 2024. 12 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2024a. Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC).

Available at: https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/. Accessed August 2024. 13 California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2024. Rare Plant Inventory. Available at:
https://rareplants.cnps.org/. Accessed August 2024.
23 516832v1
The Project site is entirely developed with an existing building, ancillary derelict structures, and other hardscapes. There are some ornamental trees scattered throughout the Project site and surrounding area, but there are no other natural features on or adjacent to the Project site that could provide suitable habitat for the special-status plant species listed above. Further, the Project site experiences frequent human and vehicle disturbance, which further reduces the potential for special-status plant species to occur within the Project area. Based on the lack of suitable habitat, developed condition of the Project site, and frequent human, vehicle, and equipment disturbance, special -status plant species are not expected to occur within the Project site; therefore, the proposed Project would not result in adverse effects to special-status plant species and impacts would be less than significant.

Special-Status Animals
Based on a query of the USFWS IPaC and a nine-quadrangle query of the CDFW CNDDB, the following 14 special-status animal species have been previously documented in the Project vicinity (see Appendix B):
• San Joaquin kit fox ( Vulpes macrotis mutica ) is a federally endangered and State threatened species that typically occurs in chenopod scrub and valley and foothill grasslands. The nearest recorded occurrence is approximately 8.7 miles northwest of the Project site (CNDDB Occ. 89).
• Fresno kangaroo rat ( Dipodomys nitratoides exilis ) is a federally and State endangered species that typically occurs in chenopod scrub habitat. The nearest recorded occurrence is approximately 3.4 miles northwest of the Project site (CNDDB Occ. 15).
• California tiger salamander – Central California Distinct Population Segment (DPS) (Ambystoma californiense pop. 1) is a federally and S tate threatened species that typically occurs in cismontane woodland, meadow and seep, riparian woodland, valley and foothill grassland, vernal pool, and wetland habitats.

The Project site is located within a 5-mile buffer area of the nearest recorded occurrence (CNDDB Occ. 478).
• blunt-nosed leopard lizard (Gambelia sila) is a federally and State endangered species that typically occurs in chenopod scrub habitats. The nearest recorded occurrence is approximately 21.2 miles west of the Project site (CNDDB Occ. 207).
• Crotch’s bumble bee ( Bombus crotchii ) is a S tate candidate endangered species that typically occurs in grassland habitats.

The Project site is located
within a 5- mile buffer area of the nearest recorded occurrence (CNDDB Occ. 53).
• valley elderberry longhorn beetle ( Desmocerus californicus dimorphus ) is a federally threatened species that typically occurs in chenopod scrub habitat.

The nearest recorded occurrence is approximately 9.9 miles north of the Project site (CNDDB Occ. 134).
24 516832v1
• vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) is a federally threatened species that typically occurs in valley and foothill grassland, vernal pool, and wetland habitats. The nearest recorded occurrence is approximately 9.9 miles northeast of the Project site (CNDDB Occ. 148).
• western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) is a federally threatened and State endangered species that typically occurs in riparian forest habitat. The nearest recorded occurrence is approximately 7.7 miles northeast of the Project site (CNDDB Occ. 87).
• Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni) is a State threatened species that typically occurs in grassland, riparian forest, riparian woodland, and valley and foothill grassland habitats. The Project site is located within a 5-mile buffer area of the nearest recorded occurrence (CNDDB Occ. 2,583).
• tricolored blackbird ( Agelaius tricolor ) is a State threatened species that typically occurs in freshwater marsh, marsh, swamp, and wetland habitats. The nearest recorded occurrence is approximately 5.7 miles northeast of the Project site (CNDDB Occ. 664).
• western spadefoot ( Spea hammondii ) is a federal ly proposed threatened species that typically occurs in cismontane woodland, coastal valley scrub, valley and foothill grassland, vernal pool, and wetland habitats.

The nearest
recorded occurrence is approximately 8 .9 miles north of the Project site (CNDDB Occ. 1,246).
• northwestern pond turtle ( Actinemys marmorata) is a federally proposed threatened species that typically occurs near aquatic habitat. The nearest recorded occurrence is approximately 22.7 miles east of the Project site (CNDDB Occ. 424).
• giant garter snake ( Thamnophis gigas ) is a federally and State threatened species that typically occurs in marsh, swamp, riparian scrub, and wetland habitats. The nearest recorded occurrence is approximately 25.4 miles west of the Project site (CNDDB Occ. 395).
• least Bell ’s vireo ( Vireo bellii pusillus ) is a federally and State endangered species that typically occurs in riparian forest, riparian scrub, and riparian woodland habitats. The nearest recorded occurrence is approximately

5.7 miles northeast of the Project site (CNDDB Occ. 505).

Special-status animal species known to occur in the region are not expected to occur within the Project area based on the developed condition of the Project site and lack of natural areas and suitable habitat, negligible connectivity to natural areas, and frequent site disturbance; however, there is some potential for migratory bird species to nest in the scattered ornamental trees in the Projec t area. The proposed Project does not require removal of any existing ornamental trees in the Project area; however, proposed construction activities have the potential to result in indirect disturbance to special-status and nesting migratory bird species if present within the Project area during construc tion. Mitigation Measure BIO -1 has been included to require a preconstruction nesting bird survey and identifies the proper protocol to be 25 516832v1
implemented if birds are found nesting in the Project area. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO -1 would avoid and/or minimize potential impacts related to nesting special -status and/or migratory birds during construction. Following construction, the Project site would continue to be covered in hardscapes and would not provide suitable habitat for special -status plants or animals. Project activities would be consistent with the scale of surrounding uses and would not introduce new activities that could result in adverse long- term effects to special -status species.

Therefore, impacts related to special -status animal species would be less than significant with mitigation.
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
According to the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Surface Waters and Wetlands Mapper ,
14 there are no mapped wetland areas within or adjacent to the Project area that could support riparian habitat. In addition, the Project area is entirely developed with existing buildings and other hardscapes, experiences frequent human and vehicle disturbance, and does not support suitable habitat for any sensitive natural communities. The Project site does not support riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities; therefore, the proposed Project would not result in a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community, and no impact would occur.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? The entire project site is developed and surrounded by other developed areas.

According to the USFWS NWI Surface Waters and Wetlands Mapper, there are no mapped wetland areas within or adjacent to the Project area. Based on the absence of wetlands within the Project area, the proposed Project would not result in a substantial adverse effect on a federally or S tate-protected wetland; therefore, no impact would occur.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Open space areas, undeveloped land, and agricultural land are mainly located along the boundaries of the City, particularly near the northern boundary along the San Joaquin River corridor. The San Joaquin River corridor functions as a wildlife movement corridor for a number of terrestrial and aquatic mammals and birds. The San Joaquin River corridor facilitates movement of wildlife species from the City to the

14 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2024b. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Surface Waters and Wetlands Mapper. Available at: https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper/.

Accessed July 2024.
26 516832v1
Sierra Nevada to the east and open agricultural land to the west. The Project site is located in a developed, urbanized area in the western portion of the C ity and is not located within a wildlife movement corridor.

The Project area is entirely developed with existing buildings and other hardscapes , including commercial uses, roadways, fencing, railroad tracks, and other ancillary features, which reduces terrestrial habitat connectivity within the area. There are no waterways in the Project area that could provide migratory fish or breeding habitat.

Since the Project area does not provide terrestrial or aquatic habitat connectivity, the proposed Project would not interfere with terrestrial or aquatic wildlife corridor s. As previously identified, there is low potential for migratory birds to utilize ornamental trees within the Project area for nesting habitat; however, the proposed Project does not include the removal of any trees that could result in the loss of nesting habitat within the Project area. Therefore, the proposed Project would not interfere substantially with the movement of migratory species, and no impact would occur. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Section 13-305 (Tree Preservation) of the City ’s Municipal Code requires the use of techniques, methods, and procedures to preserve, whenever feasible, all trees in the City, including, but not limited to, trees that are affecting surface improvements or underground facilities or are diseased or located where construction is being considered or will occur. The proposed Project does not include the removal of any trees that could conflict with the City ’s Tree Preservation Ordinance; therefore, no impact would occur.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
The Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) San Joaquin Valley Operation and Maintenance Habitat Conservation Plan ( O&M HCP)
15 was approved in 2007 and
covers portions of nine counties, including Fresno County. The O&M HCP covers PG&E activities that occur as a result of ongoing O&M that would have an adverse impact on any of the 65 covered species and provides incidental take coverage from the USFWS and CDFW. The Project site is not located within the covered area of any HCP, Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other adopted local, regional, or State HCP. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with the provisions of the PG&E O&M HCP, and no impact would occur.

15 Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). 2006. PG&E San Joaquin Valley Operation & Maintenance Habitat Conservation Plan. Available at: https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/plan_documents/thcp/thcp_838.pdf .

Accessed July 2024.
27 516832v1
Mitigation Measures
BIO-1 Preconstruction Nesting Bird Survey. Prior to initiation of any site preparation/construction activities, if work is planned to occur between February 1 and September 15, a qualified biologist shall survey the area for nesting birds within 1 week prior to initial project activity beginning, including ground disturbance and/or vegetation removal/trimming. If nesting birds are located on or near the P roject site, they shall be avoided until they have successfully fledged, or the nest is no longer deemed active, as detailed below:

1. A 50-foot exclusion zone shall be placed around non- listed, passerine species and a 250- foot exclusion zone shall be implemented for raptor species. Each exclusion zone shall encircle the nest and have a radius of 50 feet (non-listed passerine species) or 250 feet (raptor species). All project activities, including foot and vehicle traffic and storage of supplies and equipment, are prohibited inside exclusion zones.

Exclusion zones shall be maintained until all exterior construction activities have been ter minated for the current phase of work (e.g., if initial site improvements are completed, exclusion zones may be removed until initiation of site preparation for residence construction begins), or it has been determined by a qualified biologist that the young have fledged or that Project activities would not cause adverse impacts to the nest, adults, eggs, or young.

2. If special-status avian species are identified and nesting within the work area, no work shall begin until an appropriate exclusion zone is determined in consultation with the City of Fresno and any relevant resource agencies.

The results of the survey shall be provided to the City of Fresno prior to initiation of site preparation/construction activities. The results shall detail appropriate fencing or flagging of exclusion zones and include recommendations for additional monitoring requirements. A map of the Project site and nest locations shall be included with the results. The qualified biologist conducting the nesting survey shall have the authority to reduce or increase the recommended exclusion zone depending on site conditions and species (if non-listed).

If 2 weeks lapse between different phases of project activities (e.g., vegetation trimming, the start of grading), during which no or minimal work activity occurs, the nesting bird survey shall be repeated, and a separate survey report shall be prepared and submitted to the City of Fresno.
28 516832v1

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in
Section 15064.5?
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant
to Section 15064.5?
X
c) Disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
X

DISCUSSION
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
A historical resource, as defined by CEQA, includes one or more of the following criteria: 1) the resource is listed, or found eligible for listing in, the CRHR; 2) the resource is listed in a local register of historical resources as defined by PRC 5020.1(k); 3) the resource is identified as significant in a historical resources survey meeting the requirements of PRC 5024.1(g); or 4) determined to be a historical resource by the project’s lead agency (PRC 21084.1; State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(a)). Under CEQA, historical resources include built environment resources and archaeological sites.

A Cultural Resources Technical Report (CRTR) was prepared for the proposed Project to evaluate potential impacts to historical and cultural archaeological resources.
16 The CRTR evaluates all buildings and structures located at the Project site, including the building located at 937- 945 F Street and the associated structure located at 942 Fagan Alley. The CRTR includes findings based on a background review and a field survey of the Project site. The background review included a records search conducted at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (SSJVIC) located at California State University, Bakersfield, to identify previously recorded historic and cultural resources within the Project area. The background review also consisted of research of property -specific historical information and ethnographic literature focused on historical maps, aerial photographs, ethnographic reports, and

16 SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA). 2024. Cultural Resources Technical Report for the 937-945 F Street and 942 Fagan Alley Acquisition Project, Fresno, Fresno County, California. Prepared for City of Fresno.
29 516832v1
technical reports prepared for the property. A historical resources survey was conducted on July 22, 2024, to evaluate existing conditions at the Project site and in the surrounding area.

Based on the results of the records search, 67 previously recorded cultural resources are located within a 0.25- mile radius of the Project area and a total of three built environment resources are associated with the Project area, of which two are built environment properties (P -10-005862 and P -10-005874) and one is a district (P-10-004294). Resources P-10-005862 and P-10-005874 consist of the historic-era buildings within the Project area (937-945 F Street and 942 Fagan Alley, respectively), and resource P -10-004294 consists of the Fresno Nihonmachi/Fresno Chinatown area, which includes the Project area. In addition, one previously recorded resource is located adjacent to the Project area: P -10-004270, the former Bank of America/Bank of Italy building at 947-949 F Street.

The 2006 Chinatown Historic Resource Survey identified a concentration of buildings in the vicinity of F and Kern S treets that appeared to qualify as a local Chinatown historic district, 17 which was found eligible for the City’s Local Register of Historic Resources (LRHR) under Criterion i, as it is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. Based on the results of the historical research and historical resources survey, the potential LRHR -eligible Local Historic District has been heavily altered and diminished through alterations of individual buildings and complete loss of others , and it is unlikely that the Chinatown Historic District would continue to qualify as an eligible historic resource due to the loss of historic integrity. The built resources that comprise the Project site are identified in the 2006 Chinatown Historic Resource Survey as a contributor to the LRHR-eligible Chinatown Historic District. However, these resources have undergone extensive alterations in recent years, further compromising their overall historical integrity and status as an eligible resource.

Due to the lack of historic integrity associated with the potential historic district and associated built resources, proposed demolition and construction activities would not result in the adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. While the potential Chinatown Historic District is unlikely to qualify as a historic district within the current environmental and historic preservation frameworks, there is undoubtedly cultural sensitivity and significance related to this particular area of Fresno. Mitigation Measure CR -1 identifies design criteria for the future development to address the potential indirect impacts of the new cons truction on the adjacent historical resource at 947-951 F Street. In addition, Mitigation Measure CR-2 has been identified to develop interpretive materials to reduce cumulative impacts to historic resources in the Project area. With implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-1 and CR-2, new development at the subject property would be in scale with the overall neighborhood and would not severely detract from the character of the historic building at 947-951 F Street.

17 Architectural Resources Group (ARG). 2006. Chinatown Historic Resources Survey . Prepared for the City of Fresno Planning and Development Department. April 4. Available at: https://www.fresno.gov/wp - content/uploads/2023/03/HistoricSurvey_Chinatown_2006.pdf. Accessed September 2024. 30 516832v1
As previously identified, there is a historic resource located adjacent to the Project site (P-10-004270) at 947-949 F Street and there is potential for vibration associated with proposed demolition and construction activities to damage those adjacent historic building materials. Mitigation Measure CR-3 has been identified to reduce inadvertent impacts to adjacent historic resources through implementation of structural assessment and stabilization techniques and construction monitoring during demolition and construction activities. Based on implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-1 through CR-3, the proposed Project would not result in the adverse change in the significance of a historical resource; therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
According to the State CEQA Guidelines, “ When a project will impact an archaeological site, a lead agency shall first determine whether the site is an historical resource” (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(c)(1)). Those archaeological sites that do not qualify as historical resources shall be assessed to determine if these qualify as “unique archaeological resources” (PRC 21083.2).

A CRTR
18 was prepared for the proposed Project to evaluate potential impacts associated with historic and cultural archaeological resources. The CRTR includes findings based on background review and a field survey of the Project site. The background review included a records search conducted at the SSJVIC and the NAHC SLF, to identify previously recorded historic and cultural resources within the Project area. Based on the results of the records search, 67 previously recorded cultural resources are located within a 0.25- mile radius of the Project area, and three resources involve the Project area, of which two are built environment properties and one is a district. N o cultural archaeological resources have been previously documented within the Project area. No archaeological resources, artifacts, or features were observed during an archaeological resources survey of the Project site conducted on August 7, 2024.

Proposed construction activities would result in limited ground- disturbing activities associated with demolition of the existing building and the construction of the future mixed-use building. Ground- disturbing activities would have a maximum depth of excavation up to 10 feet for demolition of the basement associated with the building.

As previously identified, there are no previously recorded cultural resources within the Project site. In addition, the Project site has been entirely disturbed through gradi ng and various periods of development and improvements, which reduces the archaeological sensitivity of the Project site; however, the archaeological sensitivity of the surrounding Chinatown area remains high. As such, it is possible that unknown archaeological resources are extant within the Project area that have the potential to be impacted during demolition and construction activities . Mitigation Measure CR -4

18 SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA). 2024. Cultural Resources Technical Report for the 937-945 F Street and 942 Fagan Alley Acquisition Project, Fresno, Fresno County, California. Prepared for City of Fresno.
31 516832v1
requires an archaeological monitor to be present during demolition and removal of the basement. Further, Mitigation Measure CR-5 requires that, in the event that previously unidentified cultural resources are uncovered during proposed ground- disturbing activities, all work shall cease within the vicinity of the find until a qualified archaeologist is retained to evaluate the significance of the f ind and determine the need for further study. Based on implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-4 and CR-5, the proposed Project would not result in adverse impacts to known or unknown cultural resources, and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
There are no known human remains or cemeteries located within or in the immediate vicinity of the Project site and the Project area is considered to have low sensitivity for the presence of unidentified human remains. The proposed Project would be required to comply with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, which outlines the protocol for unanticipated discovery of human remains. Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the Fresno County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition of the human remains pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. The Fresno County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the human remains are determined to be Native American, the coroner will notify the NAHC, which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The MLD shall complete the inspection of the Project site within 48 hours of notification and may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. Based on required compliance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, the proposed Project would not result in disturbance to human remains; therefore, impacts related to disturbance of human remains would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
CR-1 Design Criteria for Future Development. To address potential indirect impacts of the new construction on the adjacent historical resource at 947-951 F Street, the following recommendations related to the design of the housing shall be implemented:
• Qualified Historic Preservation Consultant. The design team selected for the new construction project shall include a qualified historic preservation professional, such as a historic architect or architectural historian that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards in their respective fields, that has demonstrable experience in success working on infill construction projects within historic settings and spaces.
• Compatible Design Criteria. The overall design of the new construction shall be both differentiated from the surrounding historic context and character, meaning that it shall be reconstructionist or designed to appear historic in itself, while also being compatible with the historic 32 516832v1
character such that the new construction would not detract from the overall setting and sense of place for the adjacent historical resource at 947-951 F Street. The design shall utilize appropriate scale, massing, façade articulation, fenestration placement and rhythm, and the use of materials, details, and ornamentation to enhance compatibility and differentiation between the new construction and the adjacent historical resource.
• Historic Preservation Commission . At approximately the 60% stage of the conceptual and schematic design phases within the overall design process, the design team and the qualified historic preservation consultant shall present the proposed design of the new construction to the City of Fresno’s Historic Preservation Commission for review and comment to provide direction related to the compatible design. This will provide additional opportunities for the City ’s Historic Preservation Commission, as well as the general public, to provide feedback to the design team. As outlined in the City’s requirements, the final design will also go before the Historic Preservation Commission for approval.

CR-2
Interpretive Materials. The City of Fresno shall develop publicly accessible interpretive materials to educate the public on the historical significance of the Chinatown neighborhood. Interpretive materials shall consider a number of factors, including, but not limited to, the history of Chinatown, its evolution as a neighborhood, notable organizations and community leader s associated with Chinatown, and any historical themes no longer reflected in the built environment, as well as the intended audience, and the location of the display.

Although traditional interpretive materials, such as signage, are typically located at or near the location at which a project is occurring, off -site interpretive displays are appropriate in certain cases, such as buildings that are not open to the public for security or other reasons. As this is a public project administered by the City of Fresno, other public locations owned and/or managed by the City within the Chinatown neighborhood are acceptable, such as the placement of signage along sidewalks of the F Street corridor. This could also include the development of digitally based interpretive m aterials that are hosted by the City and easily accessed by the public. Interpretive materials shall be prepared by an architectural historian or historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards, in coordination with the City of Fresno. Development of these interpretive materials shall involve consultation with parties that have demonstrable interest in the history of Fresno and the cultural significance of the Chinatown neighborhood, and will be subject to approval by the City’s Historic Preservation Commission.

CR-3 Structural Assessment and Stabilization and Construction Monitoring.

To reduce the potential significant impacts to 947- 951 F , the following measures shall be implemented:

1. Structural Assessment and Stabilization: To address the potential indirect impacts to the historic resource (P -10-004270) located at 33 516832v1
947-951 F Street during demolition and construction activities, the City shall contract a qualified structural engineer with demonstrable experience assessing historic buildings to conduct a structural assessment of the brick masonry building located at 947-951 F Street.

This assessment shall outline any potential structural issues that may be affected by demolition and construction activities at the P roject property (937-945 F Street and 942 Fagan Alley) and provide any recommendations to reduce the potential impacts related to the demolition and construction activities at the historic resource (P -10- 004270) located at 947- 951 F Street . If structural d eficiencies are present, the City of Fresno shall be responsible for implementing any temporary shoring or stabilization approaches during demolition and
construction.

2. Construction Monitoring. Prior to demolition and construction activities, the City of Fresno shall use a qualified consultant that meet s the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards in architectural history and/or historic architecture to document the existing conditions and character-defining features at the exterior of the historic resource (P-10-004270) located at 947-951 F Street. Site protocols for the protection of the resource shall be developed and included as part of the Project specifications. This shall include identifying appropriate demolition and construction approaches and equipment at locations within 10 feet of the historic building, potential protection interventions (e.g., boarding up windows, temporary covering of character -defining features, etc.), vibration and conditions monitoring throughout the course of the demolition
and construction, and emer gency protocols in
the event that demolition and construction results in physical damage to the historic building at 947- 951 F Street. These emergency protocols shall include the following measures or comparable measures that achieve the same level of protection:
a. Stop-work protocols after damage to the historic building is sustained;
b. List of contacts and notification procedures;
c. List of qualified historic preservation professionals to investigate the condition of the historic resources in the immediate aftermath of the accidental damage;
d. Supplemental conditions assessment of the historical resource by a qualified historic architect and the structural engineer that completed the original assessment to assess the damage and immediate stabilization work; and
e. Preparation of a treatment plan to repair the damage portion of the building.

Following completion of the demolition and construction activities, a supplemental conditions assessment shall be conducted, which shall 34 516832v1
include a comparative analysis of the preconstruction conditions, a summary of the monitoring efforts or any emergency stop- work incidents, and the identification of any Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation-compliant treatment to repair or restore damaged character- defining features to at least the pre-construction condition.

CR-4 Archaeological Monitoring. Based on the overall sensitivity of the surrounding Chinatown area for cultural resources, a qualified archaeologist shall be retained to conduct archaeological monitoring during all ground- disturbing activities, including demolition and removal of the basement , to monitor activities and to identify any intact archaeological resources. The archaeological monitor shall maintain monitoring logs during all ground- disturbing demolition and construction activities . Following demolition and construction activities, the archaeological monitor shall prepare and submit an archaeological monitoring report to the City of Fresno and the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center with the results of the cultural monitoring program.

CR-5 Inadvertent Discovery. In the event that cultural resources are encountered during project activities, all ground- disturbing activities within a 50 -foot radius of the find shall cease ; however, disturbance activities may continue in other areas. Work shall not continue until a qualified archaeologist assesses the find and determines the need for further study. If the find includes Native American- affiliated materials, a local Native American tribal representative shall be contacted to work in conjunction with the approved archaeologist to determine the need for further study. If the discovery proves significant, additional work such as archaeological testing, data recovery, or consultation with stakeholders may be warranted. A standard inadvertent discovery clause shall be included in every grading and construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VI. ENERGY – Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
X
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state
or local plan for renewable energy
or energy efficiency?
X
35 516832v1

DISCUSSION
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
During construction activities, fossil fuels, electricity, and natural gas would be used by construction vehicles and equipment. The energy consumed during construction would be temporary in nature and typical of other similar construction activities in the City. Federal and State regulations in place require the use of fuel-efficient equipment and vehicles and that wasteful activities, such as diesel idling, be limited. Further, construction contractors, in an effort to ensure cost efficiency, would be exp ected to not engage in wasteful or unnecessary energy and fuel practices, such as diesel idling.

Energy consumption during construction would not conflict with a S tate or local plan for renewable energy and would not be wasteful, unnecessary, or inefficient.

Operational energy consumption would include electricity use for building operations and fossil fuel use for vehicle trips to and from the Project site. Electricity would be provided by PG&E, which consists of 38% renewable energy sources and 57% greenhouse gas (GHG) -free energy sources.
19 By using electricity from PG&E, the
proposed Project would reduce the long-term use of non-renewable energy resources.

As discussed in Section XVII, Transportation, the proposed Project would result in a VMT per capita of 4.8 , which would fall below the regional VMT per capita threshold of 14.0. Therefore, the p roposed P roject is not anticipated to generate VMT in a manner that could result in substantial consumption of fossil fuels. The proposed building would be required to comply with applicable California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen; 24 California Code of Regulations [CCR] Part 11) and California Energy Code (24 CCR Part 6) requirements to encourage energy efficient design. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, and impacts would be less than significant.
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
The Fresno General Plan Resource Conservation and Resilience Element 20 identifies
goals and policies to reduce the consumption of non-renewable energy resources by requiring and encouraging conservation measures and the use of alternative energy sources. Specifically, Objective RC- 2 includes a goal to promote land uses that conserve resources.

19 Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). 2022. Exploring Clean Energy Solutions. Available at:
https://www.pge.com/en_US/about-pge/environment/what-we-are-doing/clean-energy-solutions/clean- energy-solutions.page. Accessed March 2024.
20 City of Fresno. 2018. Fresno General Plan, Chapter 7: Resource Conservation and Resilience Element.

December. Available at: https://www.fresno.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/General-Plan-7- Resources-Conservation-and-Resilience-7-19.pdf. Accessed October 2024. 36 516832v1
As previously evaluated, proposed demolition and construction activities would require the use of energy in the form of diesel fuel and gasoline for worker and construction vehicles and equipment. The energy consumed during construction would be temporary and would not represent a significant or wasteful demand on available resources.

As previously mentioned, electricity would be provided by PG&E, which consists of 38% renewable energy sources and 57% GHG -free energy sources. 21 By using
electricity from PG&E, the proposed Project would reduce the long-term use of non- renewable energy resources, which is consistent with Objective RC -2. As discussed in Section XVII, Transportation, the proposed Project would result in a VMT per capita of 4.8. which would fall below the regional VMT per capita threshold of 14.0. Therefore, the proposed Project is not anticipated to generate VMT in a manner that could result in substantial consumption of fossil fuels. The proposed building would be required to comply with applicable CALGreen (24 CCR Part 11) and California Energy Code (24 CCR Part 6) requirements to encourage energy efficient design, which is
consistent with Objective RC-2. The use of renewable energy resources, reduction of fossil fuel consumption, and compliance with energy efficient building design would be consistent with the City’s General Plan goals related to the reduction of the consumption of non- renewable energy resources as well as promoting resource conservation. The proposed Project would be consistent with goals and policies of the Fresno General Plan Resource Conservation and Resilience Element ; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS – Would the project:
a) Directly or Indirectly cause
potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving:

21 Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). 2022. Exploring Clean Energy Solutions. Available at:
https://www.pge.com/en_US/about-pge/environment/what-we-are-doing/clean-energy-solutions/clean- energy-solutions.page. Accessed March 2024.
37 516832v1

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
i) Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist -Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer
to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.

X
ii) Strong seismic ground
shaking? X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction? X
iv) Landslides? X
b) Result in substantial soil
erosion or the loss of topsoil? X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or
soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of
the project, and potentially result
in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
X
d) Be located on expansive soil,
as defined in Table 18 -1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or
property?
X
e) Have soils incapable of
adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste
water disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
X
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature?
X
38 516832v1

DISCUSSION
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

Fault ruptures are generally expected to occur along active fault traces that have exhibited signs of recent geological movement (i.e., in the last 11,000 years).

Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones delineate areas around active faults with potential sur face fault rupture hazards that would require specific geological investigations prior to approval of certain kinds of development within the delineated area. The Project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. In addition, no k nown active or potentially active faults or fault traces are located in the Project vicinity. The nearest active fault is the Nunez Fault, approximately 50 miles southwest of the City . Therefore, the proposed Project would not expose people or structures to risk as a result of fault rupture, and no impact would occur.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
The City of Fresno is located in an area with a historically low-to-moderate level of seismicity. However, strong ground shaking could occur within the Project site during seismic events and occurrences have the possibility to result in significant impacts. Major seismic activity along the nearby Great Valley Fault Zone or the Nunez Fault, or other associated faults, could affect the Project site through strong seismic ground shaking. Strong seismic ground shaking could potentially cause structural damage to the proposed Project. However, based on the distance from known faults, hazards due to ground shaking would be minimal. In addition, the proposed Project would be required to be designed and constructed in accordance with the California Building Code (CBC) to reduce the risk associated with seismic groundshaking. Based on low potential for seismic groundshaking and required compliance with the CBC, the proposed Project would not result in the risk of loss, injury, or death as a result of seismic ground shaking; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Liquefaction takes place when loosely packed, water-logged sediments at or near the ground surface lose their strength in response to strong ground shaking. The predominant soils within the City consist of varying combinations of loose/very soft to very de nse/hard silts, clays, sands, and gravels. Groundwater has been encountered near the ground surface in close proximity to water ‐filled features such as canals, ditches, ponds, and lakes. Based on these characteristics, the potential for soil liquefaction within the City ranges from very low to moderate due to the variable density of the subsurface soils and the presence of shallow 39 516832v1
groundwater. In addition to liquefaction, the City could be susceptible to induced settlement of loose unconsolidated soils or lateral spread during seismic shaking events. Based on the nature of the subsurface materials and the relatively low to moderate seismicity of the region, seismic settlement and/or lateral spread are not anticipated to represent a substantial hazard within the City during seismic events.

Based on the nature of the subsurface materials and the relatively low-to-moderate seismicity of the region, potential for seismic related ground failure is low in Fresno.
22 In addition, the proposed Project would be required to be designed and constructed in accordance with the CBC to reduce the risk associated with liquefaction. Based on the low potential for liquefaction and required compliance with CBC requirements, the proposed Project would not result in the risk of loss, injury, or death as a result of liquefaction; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
iv. Landslides?
A landslide generally occurs on relatively steep slopes and/or on slopes underlain by weak materials. Fresno is located within an area that predominantly consists of flat topography within the Central Valley. Accordingly, there is no risk of large landslides in the majority of the City; however, there is potential for landslides and slumping along the steep banks of rivers, creeks, or drainage basins such as the San Joaquin River bluff and the many unlined basins and canals that trend throughout the City. The Project site is located in a relatively flat area and is not in the vicinity of the San Joaquin River bluff or other unlined basins or canals; therefore, the potential for landslides to occur within the Project site is negligible.

In addition, the proposed Project would be required to be designed and constructed in accordance with the CBC to reduce the risk associated with landslides. Based on the low potential for landslide and required compliance with CBC requirements, the proposed Project would not result in the risk of loss, injury, or death as a result of landslide; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Proposed demolition and construction activities would result in limited ground- disturbing activities associated with demolition of the existing building and construction of a new mixed-use development. As such, the potential for erosion and loss of topsoil is low. The proposed Project would be required to comply with City Municipal Code Chapter 6, Article 7 (Urban Storm Water Quality Management and Discharge Control), which requires the implementation of best management practices (BMPs) to reduce erosive runoff during demolition and construction activities. The proposed Project would disturb less than 1 acre of soil and would not be required to comply with Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) General Construction Permit requirements. Following demolition and construction activities, the Project site would

22 City of Fresno. 2020a. Fresno General Plan, 9: Noise and Safety Element, pgs. 9-33 and 9-34. May 21.

Available at: https://www.fresno.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/9-Noise-and-Safety-02-03-21.pdf.

Accessed July 2024.
40 516832v1
continue to be covered in hardscapes associated with paved areas , which would reduce the potential for long- term erosion to occur at the Project site. Based on required compliance with City requirements, impacts related to substantial erosion would be less than significant.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off- site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? As previously stated, soils at the Project site would not be subject to liquefaction, lateral spreading, or landslides , and the proposed P roject would be required to be designed and constructed in accordance with the CBC to reduce the risk associated with landslides. Based on the low potential for landslide and required compliance with CBC requirements, impacts would be less than significant. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994, as updated), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
The surface and near ‐surface soils observed throughout the City consist of varying combinations of clays, silts, sands, gravels, and cobbles. Expansive soils are characterized by the potential for shrinking and swelling as the moisture content of the soil decreases and increases, respectively. The clayey soils, which consist of very fine particles, are considered to be slightly to moderately expansive. Soils at the Project site include Delhi loamy sand, 3 to 9 percent slopes , and Hanford sandy loam. T he soils do not contain clay components and have negligible potential for expansion. 23 Further, the proposed Project would be required to be constructed in accordance with the CBC to further reduce the risk associated with development on expansive soils.

Based on the low potential for soil expansion and required compliance with applicable design standards, the proposed Project would not result in risk s associated with expansive soils; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
The Project site is within the jurisdiction of the City’s Wastewater Management Division (WMD), which maintains wastewater conveyance infrastructure throughout the City. Wastewater from the City’s collection system is treated at the Fresno/Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility (WRF). The proposed Project does not include the installation of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems .

Further, the Project site is located in an urbanized area where existing City-maintained sewer infrast ructure exists, and the installation of septic tanks or alternative

23 Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2024. Web Soil Survey. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Available at:
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed July 2024. 41 516832v1
wastewater disposal systems would not be necessary at this location. T herefore, no impact would occur.
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
The Project site is underlain by Pleistocene quaternary nonmarine terrace deposits from the early quaternary era (Q f), which has a low paleontological sensitivity due to its relatively young age. 24 In addition, the Project site consists entirely of developed areas; therefore, there is low potential for intact paleontological resources to be present within the proposed area of disturbance. Proposed demolition and construction activities would be limited to the existing developed footprint of the building and would require a maximum depth of excavation up to 10 feet for demolition of the basement. Proposed demolition and construction activities are not expected to disturb the underlying bedrock. Further, Mitigation Measure GEO -1 has been identified to address inadvertent discovery of paleontological resources if encountered during excavation activities. Based on implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO -1, the low paleontological sensitivity of the underlying geologic unit , and limited excavation activity, the proposed Project would not be expected to disturb paleontological resources; therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

Mitigation Measures
GEO-1 Inadvertent Discovery of Paleontological Resources. During excavation activities that reach or occur within the bedrock of the underlying geologic unit, if a paleontological resource is encountered, the Project contractor shall cease ground-disturbing activities within 50 feet of the find. A qualified paleontologist shall evaluate the significance of the resource(s) and recommend appropriate treatment measures. At each fossil locality, field data forms shall be used to record pertinent geologic data, stratigraphic sect ions shall be measured, and appropriate sediment samples shall be collected and submitted for analysis.

Any fossils encountered and recovered shall be catalogued and presented for donation to a public, non- profit institution with a research interest in the materials. Accompanying notes, maps, and photographs shall also be filed at the repository.

24 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1978. Fresno Sheet. Available at:
https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc_114520.htm. Accessed July 2024. 42 516832v1

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the
environment?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan,
policy or regulation adopted for
the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
X

DISCUSSION
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
The proposed Project includes the acquisition and demolition of an existing building to allow for the construction of up to 100 new residential units and commercial space within a new four -story mixed-use building. Estimated construction and operational GHG emissions were calculated for the proposed Project using CalEEMod (see Appendix A).25 The proposed Project is estimated to result in a total of 437.5 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent ( MTCO2e) during construction and 810 MTCO 2e during operation. The proposed Project would be consistent with state and local GHG reduction goals, described in detail below.

California’s Long Term Climate Goals
A project that would be consistent with meeting the State’s long- term climate goals can be found to have a less -than-significant impact on climate change under CEQA.

If a project would contribute its “fair share” of what will be required to achieve those long-term climate goals, then a reviewing agency can find that the impact will not be significant because the project will help to solve the problem of global climate change.

The State’s long-term climate goals are developed by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). CARB’s Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan Update),26 dated November 16, 2022, identifies a plan to reach carbon neutrality by 2045 or earlier. The 2022 Scoping Plan Update is the first plan that adds carbon

25 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2024. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). Available at: https://www.caleemod.com/. Accessed July 2024. 26 California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2022. 2022 Scoping Plan Documents. Available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/ab-32-climate-change-scoping-plan/2022-scoping-plan- documents. Accessed July 2024.
43 516832v1
neutrality as a science-based guide beyond established emission reduction targets. It identifies a feasible path to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045, or earlier, while also assessing the progress the State is making toward reducing its GHG emissions by at least 40% below 1990 levels by 2030, as called for in Senate Bill (SB) 32 and laid out in California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan (2017 Scoping Plan).

Lead agencies across the state have since adopted various approaches to assessing a project’s consistency with the above-described thresholds of significance for climate impacts. In 2022 the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) published the California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines (BAAQMD 2022 CEQA Guidelines)
27 for evaluating climate impacts from land use projects and plans.

Applying this approach, the BAAQMD has analyzed what will be required of new land use development projects to achieve California’s long- term climate goal of carbon neutrality by 2045. The BAAQMD has found, based on this analysis, that a new land use development project being built today needs to incorporate the following design elements (either A or B) to do its “fair share” of implementing the goal of carbon neutrality by 2045:

A. Projects must include, at a minimum, the following project design elements:

1. Buildings
a. The project will not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing (in both residential and nonresidential
development).
b. The project will not result in any wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy usage as determined by the analysis
required under CEQA Section 21100(b)(3) and Section
15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines.

2. Transportation
a. Achieve a reduction in project-generated vehicle miles traveled (VMT) below the regional average consistent with the current version of the California Climate Change Scoping Plan
(currently 15 percent) or meet a locally adopted Senate Bill 743 VMT target, reflecting the recommendations provided in the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research's Technical
Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA:
i. Residential projects: 15 percent below the existing VMT per capita
ii. Office projects: 15 percent below the existing VMT per employee

27 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2022. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. Available at: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and- research/ceqa/ceqa-guidelines-2022/ceqa-guidelines-chapter-0-cover-page- pdf.pdf?rev=f250e4ab435c491ba2afcbe299590a67&sc_lang=en. Accessed July 2024. 44 516832v1
iii. Retail projects: no net increase in existing VMT
b. Achieve compliance with off -street electric vehicle requirements in the most recently adopted version of CALGreen Tier 2.

B. Projects must be consistent with a local GHG reduction strategy that meets the criteria under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b) If a project is designed and built to incorporate these design elements, then it will contribute its portion of what is necessary to achieve California’s long- term climate goals—its “fair share” —and an agency reviewing the project under CEQA can conclude that the project will not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change. If the project does not incorporate these design elements, then it should be found to make a significant climate impact because it will hinder California’s efforts to address climate change.

Although the BAAQMD 2022 CEQA Guidelines were developed for application in the Bay Area, they are broadly applicable across the state since they rely on statewide standards for GHG emission thresholds. Impacts from the proposed Project have been analyzed using the BAAQMD 2022 CEQA Guidelines . Fresno does not have a local GHG reduction strategy that meets the criteria under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b), so the proposed Project was reviewed for consistency with the design elements described in Section A. The proposed Project’s consistency with the BAAQMD thresholds for land use is shown in Table 3.

Table 3: Project Consistency with the BAAQMD Thresholds for Land Use Projects
BAAQMD Design Element Evaluation of Project Consistency Buildings
The project will not include natural gas
appliances or natural gas plumbing (in
both residential and nonresidential
development).

The proposed building would be all
electric and would not require natural
gas appliances or natural gas plumbing .

The project will not result in any wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary energy usage
as determined by the analysis required
under CEQA Section 21100(b)(3) and
As discussed in Impact Discussion VI(a),
the energy consumed during
construction would be temporary in
nature and typical of other similar
construction activities in the City. Federal
45 516832v1
Table 3: Project Consistency with the BAAQMD Thresholds for Land Use Projects
BAAQMD Design Element Evaluation of Project Consistency Section 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA
Guidelines.
and State regulations in place require the
use of fuel -efficient equipment and
vehicles and that wasteful activities,
such as diesel idling, be limited.

Operational electricity would be provided
by PG&E, which consists of 38%
renewable energy sources and 57%
GHG-free energy sources. 28 By using
electricity from PG&E, the proposed
Project would reduce the long- term use
of nonrenewable energy resources.

Further, the proposed building would be
required to comply with applicable
CALGreen (24 CCR Part 11) and
California Energy Code (24 CCR Part 6)
requirements to encourage energy
efficient design. Based on required
compliance with existing regulations and
use of renewable energy resources , the
proposed P roject would not result in
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources ;
therefore, no additional miti gation is
necessary to reduce energy
consumption.

Transportation
Achieve a reduction in project-generated
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) below the
regional average consistent with the
current version of the California Climate
Change Scoping Plan (currently 15
percent) or meet a locally adopted
Senate Bill 743 VMT target, reflecting the
recommendations provided in the
Governor’s Office of Planning and
Research's Technical Advisory on
As discussed in Section XVII,
Transportation, the proposed Project
would result in a VMT per capita of 4.8,
which would fall below the regional and
local
VMT per capita threshold.

Therefore, the proposed P roject would
not generate VMT in a manner that
would exceed the BAAQMD threshold of
15% below the existing VMT per
employee.

28 Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). 2022. Exploring Clean Energy Solutions. Available at:
https://www.pge.com/en_US/about-pge/environment/what-we-are-doing/clean-energy-solutions/clean- energy-solutions.page. Accessed March 2024.
46 516832v1
Table 3: Project Consistency with the BAAQMD Thresholds for Land Use Projects
BAAQMD Design Element Evaluation of Project Consistency Evaluating Transportation Impacts in
CEQA:
i. Residential projects: 15 percent
below the existing VMT per capita
ii. Office projects: 15 percent below
the existing VMT per employee
iii. Retail projects: no net increase in
existing VMT
Achieve compliance with off -street
electric vehicle requirements in the most
recently
adopted version of CALGreen
Tier 2.

The proposed building would be required
to comply with applicable CALGreen
(24 CCR Part 11) and California Energy
Code (24 CCR Part 6) requirements to
encourage energy efficient design,
including regulations related to electric
vehicle (EV) parking requirements.

Source: BAAQMD (2022)
As shown in Table 3, the proposed Project would be consistent with the BAAQMD Thresholds for Land Use Projects and would contribute its “fair share” of implementing the goal of carbon neutrality by 2045. Therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with S tate goals related to the reduction of GHG emissions, and impacts would be less than significant.

Further, the proposed Project would be limited to acquisition and demolition and no operational activities that would result in GHG emissions would occur. The proposed Project would not result in significant GHG emissions; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
San Joaquin Valley Climate Change Action Plan
The proposed P roject is within the jurisdiction of the SJVAPCD, which released the San Joaquin Valley Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP)
29 in December 2009. The
CCAP identifies goals and policies to address reductions in GHGs and improvement

29 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2009. Guidance for Valley Land- use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA. December 17. Available at: https://www.valleyair.org/media/dnsnicdv/3-ccap-final-lu-guidance-dec-17-2009.pdf. Accessed October 2024.
47 516832v1
to regional air quality. The CCAP also includes a methodology for determining project- specific Best Performance Standards (BPSs), which are described as mitigation measures intended to accomplish GHG reductions. BPSs may include building design elements that reduce energy consumption, project designs that promote pedestrian access, and land use planning decisions that reduce VMT. As discussed in Impact Discussion VIII.a), the proposed Project would be required to comply with S tate and local requirements to reduce construction and operational GHG emissions, would utilize clean energy sources and building design, and would not generate a substantial increase in VMT and associated vehicle emissions; therefore, the proposed Project would not generate significant GHG emissions during construction or operation and would be consistent with the goals of the CCAP. According to the process for evaluating GHG significance described in the CCAP , projects that comply with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or GHG mit igation program, which avoids or substantially reduces GHG emissions within the geographic area in which the project is located, would be determined to have a less -than-significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG emissions. Such plans or programs must be specified in law or approved by the lead agency with jurisdiction over the affected resource and supported by a CEQA-compliant environmental review document adopted by the lead agency. Projects complying with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or GHG mitigation program would not be required to formally implement BPSs. As described in Table 3, the proposed Project would be consistent with the BAAQMD Thresholds of Significance for Land Use Initiatives; therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with an approved applicable GHG emission reduction plan or GHG mitigation program intended to avoid or substantially reduce GHG emissions and would not be required to formally implement project-specific BPSs as identified in the CCAP.

Additionally, the proposed Project would not conflict with plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, including State initiatives or BAAQMD Thresholds for Land Use Projects; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS – Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous
materials?
X
48 516832v1

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions
involving the release of
hazardous materials into the
environment?
X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or
handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within one- quarter mile
of an existing or proposed
school?
X
d) Be located on a site which is
included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
X
e) For a project located within an
airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
X
f) Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
X
g) Expose people or structures ,
either directly or indirectly, to a
significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires?
X
49 516832v1

DISCUSSION
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
The proposed Project would require limited quantities of hazardous substances, including gasoline, diesel fuel, hydraulic fluid, solvents, oils, paints, etc. during demolition and construction activities, which has the potential to result in an accidental spill or release. However, all materials used during construction would be contained, stored, and handled in compliance with applicable standards and regulations established by the USEPA, U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). All storage, handling, and disposal of hazardous materials during project activities would be required to comply with applicable local safety standards and regulations, including General Plan Policies NS -4-a, NS -4-e, and NS -4-f.
30 The proposed Project would
include operation of residential and commercial uses that would use limited quantities of common household substances and would not result in manufacturing, industrial, or other uses utilizing large amounts of hazardous materials. Therefore, impacts associated with the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
As described in Impact Discussion IX .a), the proposed Project would not result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the transport of hazardous materials through required compliance
with applicable standards and regulations
established by USEPA, OSHA, and DTSC.

A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared to determine if any on-site Recognized Environmental Concerns (RECs), including, but not limited to, soil staining, aboveground storage tanks (ASTs), signs of underground storage tanks, odors, hazardous debris, etc. Based on a review of relevant background information and a field inspection of the Project site, the Phase I ESA did not reveal any on- site RECs (Appendix C).
31 The proposed Project is not located in an area with known potential for NOA. 32 Therefore, construction activities would not have the potential to expose workers or surrounding land uses to harmful levels of NOA. ACM and LBP may be present in

30 City of Fresno. 2020a. Fresno General Plan, 9: Noise and Safety Element, pgs. 9-33 and 9-34. May 21.

Available at: https://www.fresno.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/9-Noise-and-Safety-02-03-21.pdf.

Accessed July 2024.
31 Krazan & Associates, Inc. 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, The Peacock Building, 937 - 943 F Street and 942 Fagan Alley, APN 467-074-02, Fresno, California 93706. Prepared for SWCA Environmental Consultants. August 29.
32 California Geological Survey (CGS). 2011. Reported Historic Asbestos Mines, Historic Asbestos Prospects, and Other Natural Occurrences of Asbestos in California. 50 516832v1
buildings built prior to 1978. The existing building was first developed in the early 1900s, with redevelopment occurring in 1918 and the 1930s; therefore, there is potential that ACM and LBP may be present and could be released during demolition activities. Mitigation Measures AQ-4 and AQ-5 have been included to require ACM and LBP testing and identify the proper protocol for the handling and removal of ACM and LBP if identified within materials proposed for demolition. The proposed Project would include operation of residential and commercial uses that would use limited quantities of common household substances and would not result in the use of large quantities of hazardous materials that could c reate a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions.

Based on implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-4 and AQ -5, and required compliance with existing regulations, the proposed Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment; therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
The nearest existing school is Lincoln Elementary School, located approximately

0.3 mile south of the Project site, and there are no proposed schools within 0.25 mile of the Project site. The Project site is not located within 0.25 mile of an existing school; therefore, the proposed P roject would not have the potential to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school, and no impact would occur. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? According to the DTSC EnviroStor database
33 and State Water Resources Control
Board (State Water Board) GeoTracker database, 34 the Project site is not located on a federal superfund site, S tate response site, voluntary cleanup site, school cleanup site, evaluation site, school investigation site, military evaluation site, tiered permit site, or corrective action site. Additionally, the Project site is not included on the list of hazardous waste sites compiled pursuant to California Government Code Section

33 California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2024. EnviroStor. Available at:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=fresno. Accessed August 2024. 34 State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board). 2024. GeoTracker. Available at:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/. Accessed August 2024. 51 516832v1
65962.5.35 As a result, no hazards to the public or environment are anticipated; therefore, no impact would occur.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
The nearest medical center helipad is at the Community Regional Medical Center, 36 located approximately 1 mile northeast of the Project site. The nearest airports include the Fresno Yosemite International Airport, located approximately 5 miles northeast of the Project site; Fresno Chandler Executive Airport, located approximately 1.1 miles west of the Project site; and Sierra Sky Airport, located approximately 8.4 miles northwest of the Project site. Each of these airports is considered under the Fresno County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), which guides local jurisdictions in determining appropriate compatible land uses with detailed findings and policies.

The Fresno County ALUCP includes airport safety zone maps that are based on the likelihood of aircraft accident adjacent to airports. Although the Project site is located within 2 miles of the helipad at the Community Regional Medical Center and Fresno Chandler Executive Airport, the Project site is located in Safety Zone 6 - Traffic Pattern Zone, which is an area of low aircraft accident risk.
37 Therefore, the proposed Project
would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area, and no impact would occur.
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Construction activities would be limited to a single, existing parcel and would not require the implementation of any traffic controls that could impede emergency response or evacuation efforts within the Project area.

The proposed Project includes
the acquisition and demolition of an existing building to allow for the construction of up to 100 new residential units and commercial space within a new four -story mixed- use building. The proposed Project would be located in an existing urban area, would be consistent with the existing zoning of the P roject site, and would not facilitate substantial or unplanned population growth in a manner that could generate a substantial number of new vehicle trips that could otherwise impede emergency response or evacuation efforts within the Project area; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

35 California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). 2018. California Government Code Section 65962.5(a) Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List. Available at:
https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/section-65962-5a/. Accessed August 2024. 36 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2019. Caltrans HeliPlates. Available at:
https://heliplates.dot.ca.gov/# . Accessed August 2024. 37 Fresno Council of Governments (FCOG). 2021. Fresno County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.

December 2018; Amended December 2021. Available at: https://fresnocog.wpenginepowered.com/wp- content/uploads/2022/09/Fresno-ALUCP-12-04-17-final-with-Amended-Table.pdf. Accessed August 2024.
52 516832v1
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
The Project site is located in an area mapped as Local Responsibility Area (LRA) Unzoned, indicating that the area is urbanized and not susceptible to wildland conflagrations. Additionally, the proposed Project is not located within a very high fire hazard severity zone (VHFHSZ).
38 The proposed Project would be constructed in
accordance with the California Fire Code (CFC) to reduce risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. Based on the Project location and required compliance with the CFC, the proposed Project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
Implement Mitigation Measures AQ-4 and AQ-5, included in Section III, Air Quality.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY – Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or
ground water quality?
X
b) Substantially decrease
groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project
may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the
basin?
X
c) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the
alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in
a manner which would:

38 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2024. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area. Available at: https://calfire- forestry.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=988d431a42b242b29d89597ab693d008.

Accessed August 2024.
53 516832v1

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
i) Result in a substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site; X
ii) Substantially increase the rate
or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site:

X
iii) create or contribute runoff
water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff; or
X
iv) impede or redirect flood flows? X
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or
seiche zones, risk release of
pollutants due to project
inundation?
X
e) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
X

DISCUSSION
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? The State Water Board and nine RWQCBs regulate the water quality of surface water and groundwater bodies throughout California. The proposed P roject is within the jurisdiction of the Central Valley RWQCB.

Pollutants of concern during construction include sediments, trash, petroleum products, concrete waste (dry and wet), sanitary waste, and chemicals. Ground disturbance and the use of construction equipment and vehicles during proposed construction activities have the potential to result in erosion and other pollutants that could run off to surrounding areas. There are no surface water resources located within or adjacent to the Project site.

The proposed Project would be required to
comply with City Municip al Code Chapter 6, Article 7 (Urban Storm Water Quality Management and Discharge Control), which requires the implementation of BMPs to reduce and/or eliminate pollutant discharge during construction. The proposed Project 54 516832v1
would disturb less than 1 acre of soil and would not be required to comply with RWQCB General Construction Permit requirements.

The proposed Project would result in the operation of a new mixed-use building, which would not result in a new source of substantial pollutant concentrations in the Project area due to the largely residential nature of the operation of the proposed Project.

Further, the proposed Project would be required to implement water quality and watershed protection measures in accordance with the City’s Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan (SDFCMP), which manages the City’s stormwater drainage systems and th e City’s participation in the Phase 1 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (Phase 1 MS4).

Based on required compliance with City requirements, the proposed Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface water or groundwater quality; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
The Project site is located in the Kings Subbasin of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin (California Department of Water Resources [ DWR] Groundwater Subbasin Number: 5 -22.08). The Kings Subbasin encompasses an area of approximately 976,000 acres (1,530 square miles) within Fresno, Kern, and Tulare Counties.
39 The proposed Project includes the acquisition and demolition of an existing building to allow for the construction of up to 100 new residential units and commercial space within a new four -story mixed -use building.

The Project site is
located entirely within the City limits and City’s Sphere of Influence ( SOI), and the proposed Project would be consistent with DTN uses as defined in the City’s General Plan; therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with the City’s planned buildout scenario and associated water use projections. The City’s Department of Public Utilities (DPU) was contacted to determine the proposed Project’s impacts on existing utilities. No response identifying potential impacts has been received to date.

During demolition and construction activities, water may be used for dust suppression; however, any water used during demolition and construction activities would be limited in volume and supplied from off -site sources. Following demolition and construction activities, the Project site would continue to be covered in hardscapes associated with paved areas; therefore, the amount of impervious surface area on- site would be generally the same as existing conditions. The proposed Project would not decrease

39 California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2006. San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin Kings Subbasin. Available at: https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/Groundwater- Management/Bulletin-118/Files/2003-Basin-Descriptions/5_022_08_KingsSubbasin.pdf. Accessed August 2024.
55 516832v1
groundwater supply or interfere with groundwater recharge, and impacts would be less than significant.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Proposed demolition and construction activities would result in limited ground - disturbing activities over the 0.33-acre Project site. The proposed Project would be required to comply with City Municipal Code Chapter 6, Article 7 (Urban Storm Water Quality Management and Discharge Control), which requires the implementation of BMPs to reduce erosive runoff during demolition and construction activities. The proposed Project would disturb less than 1 acre of soil and would not be required to comply with RWQCB General Construction Permit requirements. Following demolition and construction activities, the Project site would continue to be covered in hardscapes associated with paved areas, which would reduce the potential for long-term erosion to occur at the Project site. Based on required compliance with City requirements, impacts related to substantial erosion would be less than significant.
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
The proposed Project does not include alteration or other direct impacts to any surface water features. The proposed Project includes the acquisition and demolition of an existing building to allow for the construction of up to 100 new residential units and commercial space within a new four-story mixed-use building.

Following demolition and construction activities, the Project site would continue to be covered in hardscapes associated with paved areas; therefore, drainage conditions and the amount of impervious surface area on- site would be generally the same as existing conditions.

Further, the proposed Project would be subject to
Article 7 of the City’s Municipal Code and the SDFCMP for long- term drainage requirements. Based on required compliance with City stormwater requirements, the proposed Project would not increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
iii. Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
The proposed Project includes the acquisition and demolition of an existing building to allow for the construction of up to 100 new residential units and commercial space within a new four-story mixed-use building that could create or contribute runoff water . Following demolition and construction activities, the Project site would continue to be covered in hardscapes associated with paved areas; therefore, drainage conditions and the amount of impervious surface area 56 516832v1
on-site would be generally the same as existing conditions. The proposed Project would be subject to RWQCB requirements and Article 7 of the City’s Municipal Code, which requires the implementation of BMPs to reduce and/or eliminate pollutant discharge from entering the City’s storm drain system during construction and operation. Further, the proposed Project would be required to implement water quality and watershed protection measures in accordance with the City’s SDFCMP. Based on required compliance with RWQCB and City stormwater requirements, the proposed Project would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
Regulations in 44 CFR Part 9 and the City ’s Floodplain Ordinance require that placement of structures within a floodplain not result in a cumulative change in the floodplain water surface that exceeds 1 foot. In addition, the regulations in 44 CFR Part 9 do not allow placement of structures within a regulatory floodway unless that placement would not result in any increase in the floodplain water surface elevation, meaning that there is no displacement or redirection of the floodway. The City’s Floodplain Ordinance requires that a Civil Engineer registered in the State of California certify that no displacement of floodwater would result from the flood proofing of a structure within a floodplain or a regulatory floodway.

According to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) 06019C 2110H (effective date 2/18/2009), the Project site is located within shaded Zone X, an area with 0.2% annual chance of flooding or areas of 1% annual chance of flooding with average depth less than 1 foot or with drainage areas of less than 1 square mile. Shaded Zone X is not considered a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) by the City; therefore, the proposed Project would not be subject to the City ’s Floodplain Ordi nance (Article 6). Following demolition and construction activities, the Project site would continue to be covered in hardscapes associated with paved areas; therefore, drainage conditions and the amount of impervious surface area on-site would generally be the same as existing conditions and would not impede or redirect potential flood flows . T herefore, impacts would be less than significant.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
The Project site is not located in a tsunami or seiche zone and would not risk pollutant release as a result of inundation by a tsunami or seiche. According to FEMA FIRM 06019C2110H (effective date 2/18/2009), the Project site is located within shaded Zone X, an area with 0.2% annual chance of flooding or areas of 1 % annual chance of flooding with average depth less than 1 foot or with drainage areas of less than 1 square mile. Shaded Zone X is not considered an SFHA by the City; therefore, the proposed Project would not be subject to the City ’s Floodplain Ordinance (Article 6).

Following demolition and construction activities, the Project site would continue to be
57 516832v1
covered in hardscapes associated with paved areas; therefore, the proposed Project would not alter existing drainage conditions or the amount of impervious surface area on-site in a manner that could interfere with flood flows. The proposed Project would be subject to City Municipal Code Chapter 6, Article 7, which requires the implementation of BMPs to reduce and/or eliminate pollutant release at the Project site, which would reduce the potential to release pollutants in the event of on- site flooding. Further, the proposed Project would be required to implement water quality and watershed protection measures in accordance with the City’s SDFCMP , which would also reduce the potential to release pollutants in the event of on- site flooding.

Based on required compliance with RWQCB and City stormwater requirements , the proposed Project would not risk the release of pollutants due to project inundation, and impacts would be less than significant.
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
The Project site is located in the Kings Subbasin of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin (DWR Groundwater Subbasin Number: 5-22.08). As evaluated in Impact Discussion X.b), the proposed Project would not decrease groundwater supply or interfere with groundwater recharge in a manner that would impede sustainable management of the groundwater basin. The Project site is under the jurisdiction of the Central Valley RWQCB and would be subject to The Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region (Basin Plan),
40 which establishes water quality objectives for beneficial uses of water resources within the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. The proposed Project would disturb less than 1 acre of soil and would not be required to comply with RWQCB General Construction Permit requirements. The proposed Project would be required to comply with City Municipal Code Chapter 6, Article 7, which requires the implementation of BMPs to reduce and/or eliminate pollutant discharge during construction. Further, the proposed Project would be required to implement water quality and watershed protection measures in accordance with the City’s SDFCMP.

Based on required compliance with City requirements, the proposed Project would not violate any RWQCB water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The proposed Project would be consistent with sustainable management of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin and the Basin Plan; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.

40 Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). 2019. The Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region. Fifth Edition. Revised June 2019 (with Approved Amendments. Available at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/basin_plans/sacsjr_201902.pdf . Accessed August 2024.
58 516832v1

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING – Would the project:
a) Physically divide an
established community? X
b) Cause a significant
environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for
the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental
effect?
X

DISCUSSION
a) Physically divide an established community?
The physical division of an established community typically refers to the construction of a physical feature (such as an interstate highway or railroad tracks) or removal of a means of access (such as a local road or bridge) that would impair mobility within an existing community, or between a community and outlying areas. For instance, the construction of an interstate highway through an existing communi ty may constrain travel from one side of the community to another; similarly, such construction may also impair travel to areas outside of the community. The proposed Project includes the acquisition and demolition of an existing building to allow for the construction of a new four-story mixed -use building on an existing parcel and does not include new construction in an undeveloped area or other activities that could result in the removal or blockage of existing public roadways or other circulation paths or include any features that would physically divide an established community; therefore, no impact would occur.
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
As evaluated throughout this Initial Study, the proposed Project would be consistent with standards and policies set forth in the City’s General Plan, SJVAPCD 2022 Ozone Plan, and SJVAPCD 2024 PM

2.5 Plan. The proposed Project would be required to
implement Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-5, included in Section III, Air Quality; Mitigation Measure BIO -1, included in Section IV, Biological Resources ; Mitigation Measures CR-1 through CR -5, included in Section V, Cultural Resources ; and Mitigation Measure GEO -1, included in Section VII, Geology and Soils , to mitigate potential impacts associated with Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, and Hazards and Hazardous Materials, which 59 516832v1
is consistent with the identified plans and policies intended to avoid or mitigate adverse environmental effects. With implementation of the identified mitigation measures, the proposed Project would not conflict with other local policies or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects; therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

Mitigation Measures
Implement Mitigation Measures AQ -1 through AQ-5, included in Section III, Air Quality ; Mitigation Measure BIO -1, included in Section IV, Biological Resources ; Mitigation Measures CR-1 through CR-4, included in Section V, Cultural Resources; and Mitigation Measure GEO-1, included in Section VII, Geology and Soils.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability
of a known mineral resource that
would be of value to the region
and the residents of the state?
X
b) Result in the loss of availability
of a locally -important mineral
resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?
X

DISCUSSION
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
The principal area for mineral resources in the City is located along the San Joaquin River Corridor. The California Department of Mines and Geology classifies lands along the San Joaquin River Corridor as Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) -1, MRZ -2, and MRZ-3. The Project site is in an urbanized area and is not located in the vicinity of the San Joaquin River, is not an MRZ, and does not contain an MRZ. The proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource of value to the region or residents of the State; therefore, no impact would occur. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Please refer to Impact Discussion XII.a). The proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of any known locally important mineral resource recovery sites ; therefore, no impact would occur.
60 516832v1
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.

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

DISCUSSION
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in other applicable local, state, or federal standards?
Existing ambient noise levels in the Project area consist of noise from surrounding commercial land uses, vehicle noise along proximate roadways, and noise associated with railroad tracks . During P roject construction, noise from demolition and construction activities may intermittently dominate the noise environment in the immediate project area. The proposed Project would require the use of typical construction equipment (e.g., dozers, excavators, etc.). According to the Federal 61 516832v1
Highway Administration (FH WA),41 noise from standard construction equipment generally ranges between 80 and 85 A-weighted decibels (dBA) in equivalent sound level (Leq) at 50 feet from the source. The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project site include residential dwelling units located approximately 900 feet northeast of the Project site. According to City Municipal Code Section 10- 109, Noise Regulations Exceptions, construction-related noise is exempt from the City ’s noise standards between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on any day except Sunday.

Potential sources of operational noise would include stationary noise from mechanical equipment associated with heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment and mobile noise from vehicle trips generated by the proposed Project.

Noise generated by HVAC systems or other equipment would not result in a noticeable increase in ambient noise levels based on the density of surrounding development. In addition, the proposed Project would be located in an existing urban area, would be consistent with the existing zoning of the P roject site, and would not facilitate substantial or unplanned population growth in a manner that could generate a substantial number of new vehicle trips that could substantially increase long-term ambient noise levels in the Project area. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in a substantial increase in short- or long-term ambient noise levels, and impacts would be less than significant.
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? The proposed Project does not include pile driving or other high-impact activities that would generate substantial groundborne noise or vibration during construction.

Standard construction equipment would generate some groundborne noise and vibration during proposed ground-disturbing activities; however, these activities would be limited in duration and consistent with other standard construction activities. Any groundborne noise or vibration generated by short -term construction activities would be limited to the immediate work area and is not anticipated to disturb surrounding residential land uses. In addition, City Municipal Code Section 15 -2507, Vibration, exempts temporary construction activities from the City’s vibration standards. Further, the construction of new residential and commercial uses would not increase long-term vibration or groundborne noise levels in the Project area. Therefore, impacts related to groundborne vibration would be less than significant.

41 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2018. Construction Noise Handbook. Available at:
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1805/ML18059A141.pdf. Accessed June 2024. 62 516832v1
c) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
The nearest medical center helipad is at the Community Regional Medical Center, 42 located approximately 1 mile northeast of the Project site. The nearest airports include the Fresno Yosemite International Airport, located approximately 5 miles northeast of the Project site; Fresno Chandler Executive Airport, located approximately 1.1 miles west of the Project site; and Sierra Sky Airport, located approximately 8.4 miles northwest of the Project site. Each of these airports is considered under the Fresno County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), which guides local jurisdictions in determining appropriate compatible land uses with detailed findings and policies.

The City’s General Plan, other City land use plans, and all City land use decisions must be compatible with the adopted Fresno County ALUCP, which includes community noise equivalent level (CNEL) noise contours based on projected airport and aircraft operations. Although the Project site is located within 2 miles of the Community Regional Medical Center helipad and Fresno Chandler Executive Airport, the Project site is not located within the CNEL noise contours identified in the Fresno County ALUCP.
43 Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to the excessive noise levels from aircraft noise sources, and no impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING – Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned
population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
X

42 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2019. Caltrans HeliPlates. Available at:
https://heliplates.dot.ca.gov/#. Accessed June 2024.
43 Fresno Council of Governments (FCOG). 2021. Fresno County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Displace substantial numbers
of existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
X

DISCUSSION
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
The City’s Planning Area is defined as the geographic area for which the City’s General Plan establishes policies related to future urban growth and resource conservation and includes the area within the City Limits, the City’s SOI, and land immediately north and southwest of the SOI. The City’s General Plan identifies a “General Plan Horizon” and “General Plan Buildout” to categorize and predict future growth and buildout conditions. The General Plan Horizon is set to occur in 2035, and General Plan Buildout refers to complete development under the General Plan past the horizon year of 2050.

The General Plan Horizon is set to accommodate a population of approximately 226,000 new residents by 2035, resulting in a total population of 771,000. General Plan Buildout anticipates an additional 425,000 new residents over the existing population, resulting in a total population of 970,000. As of 2023, the population estimate was 545,716 for the City.
44 The General Plan Horizon is set to accommodate
an estimated 267,000 residential units by 2035, of which 32,000 residential units would be located in the existing city limits, including Downtown. General Plan Buildout anticipates complete buildout of approximately 336,000 residential units , of which 55,610 units would be located in the existing City limits, including Downtown.

The proposed Project includes the acquisition and demolition of an existing building to allow for the construction of up to 100 new residential units and commercial space within a new four -story mixed -use building. The proposed Project would result in approximately 75 to 150 new residents depending on the final unit mix. The Project site is in the City’s DTN zone and land use designation in the City’s Downtown Planning Area and is located entirely within the Fresno City Limits and SOI . The proposed Project would be consistent with the allowable uses of the DTN zone and land use designation; therefore, buildout of the Project site would be consistent with the City’s planned buildout scenario and would not result in unplanned growth.

Further, the proposed Project includes the construction of affordable housing units

44 U.S. Census Bureau. 2023. Quick Facts, Fresno city, California. Available at:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/fresnocitycalifornia/PST045223. Accessed July 2024. 64 516832v1
that would be consistent with the Fresno Council of Governments (FCOG) sixth cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation ( RHNA) Determination that calls for the creation of 58,298 new affordable units within the City between June 30, 2023, and December 31, 2031. Therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with local and regional housing projections and would not result in substantial or unplanned growth.

The proposed Project also includes the construction of commercial uses that would be consistent with the allowable uses of the DTN zone and land use designation ; therefore, any new long-term employment opportunities would be consistent with the City’s planned buildout scenario and would not result in unplanned growth.

Proposed demolition and construction activities have the potential to generate short - term employment opportunities; however, P roject construction is expected to use workers from the local employment force and would not require workers to relocate to the Project area. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in unplanned or substantial population growth, and impacts would be less than significant. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
The proposed Project includes the acquisition and demolition of an existing building to allow for the construction of up to 100 new residential units and commercial space within a new four-story mixed-use building. The building proposed for acquisition and demolition is currently vacant; therefore, the proposed Project would not result in the displacement of existing people or housing, and no impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES – Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for
any of the public services:

65 516832v1

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Fire protection? X
Police protection? X
Schools? X
Parks? X
Other public facilities? X

DISCUSSION
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause si gnificant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i. Fire protection?
The Fresno Fire Department (FFD) would provide fire protection services to the proposed Project. There are 20 FFD fire stations in the City , with the closest fire station, Fire Station 3, located approximately 0.2 mile northeast of the Project site.

The proposed Project includes the acquisition and demolition of an existing building to allow for the construction of up to 100 new residential units and commercial space within a new four -story mixed-use building, which would result in approximately 75 to 150 new residents. The proposed Project would result in an incremental increase on fire protection services in the City. The proposed Project would be consistent with the City’s DTN zoning and land use designation; therefore, buildout of the Project site would be consistent with the City’s planned buildout scenario and w ould not result in unplanned growth. The FFD was contacted to determine the proposed Project’s impact on existing fire protection services. No response identifying potential impacts has been received to date.

Further, the proposed Project would be subject to the payment of Development Impact Fees to offset the incremental increase in demand on fire protection services. Therefore, the proposed Project would not require new or physically altered governmental facilities for fire protection services , and impacts would be less than significant.
ii. Police protection?
The Fresno Police Department (FPD) provides police protection to the Project site.

The FPD Patrol Division is divided into five policing districts, with the Project site being within the Southwest District. The proposed Project includes the acquisition and demolition of an existing building to allow for the construction of up to 100 new 66 516832v1
residential units and commercial space within a new four-story mixed-use building, which would result in approximately 75 to 150 new residents. The proposed Project would result in an incremental increase on police protection services in the City.

The proposed Project would be consistent with the allowable uses of the City’s DTN zoning and land use designation; therefore, buildout of the Project site would be consistent with the City’s planned buildout scenario and would not result in unplanned growth. The FPD was contacted to determine the proposed Project’s impacts on existing police protection services . No response identifying potential impacts has been received to date. Further, the proposed Project would be subject to the payment of Development Impact Fees to offset the incremental increase in demand on police protection services. Therefore, the proposed Project would not require new or physically altered governmental facilities for police protection services, and impacts would be less than significant.
iii. Schools?
The Fresno Unified School District (FUSD) serves more than 74,000 students and operates 64 elementary schools, 15 middle schools, eight high schools, four alternative schools, and three special education schools. The proposed Project includes the construction of a new residential and commercial mixed-use building that would result in approximately 75 to 150 new residents , which may increase the number of school -aged children in the area. As discussed in Section XIV, Population and Housing, the proposed Project would not result in substantial or unplanned population growth in a manner that would exceed the City’s planned buildout scenario. The FUSD was contacted to determine the proposed Project ’s impacts on existing school facilities. No response identifying potential impacts has been received to date. Further, the proposed Project would be subject to the payment of State impact fees to offset the incremental demand on public schools.

Therefore, the proposed Project would not create an increased demand on local schools, and impacts would be less than significant.
iv. Parks?
The proposed Project includes the construction of a new residential and commercial mixed-use building that would result in approximately 75 to 150 new residents, which would result in an incremental increase in demand on existing recreational facilities. As discussed in Section XIV, Population and Housing, the proposed Project would not result in substantial or unplanned population growth in a manner that would exceed the City’s planned buildout scenario. The proposed Project would not result in a substantial or unplanned population increase that could result in deterioration of existing recreation or park facilities or require the expansion of new facilities . Therefore, the proposed Project would not create an increased demand on public recreation facilities, and impacts would be less than significant.
v. Other public facilities?
The proposed Project includes the construction of a new residential and commercial mixed-use building that would result in approximately 75 to 150 new 67 516832v1
residents, which would result in an incremental increase in demand on other existing public facilities. As discussed in Section XIV, Population and Housing, the proposed Project would not result in substantial or unplanned population growth in a manner that would exceed the City’s planned buildout scenario and substantially increase the demand on public facilities, such as libraries or post offices, or result in the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities . Therefore, the proposed Project would not create an increased demand on other public facilities, and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.

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

DISCUSSION
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
The proposed Project includes the acquisition and demolition of an existing building to allow for the construction of up to 100 new residential units and commercial space within a new four-story mixed-use building, which would result in approximately 75 to 150 new residents. The proposed Project would result in an incremental increase on existing recreational facilities in the City. As discussed in Section XIV, Population and Housing, the proposed Project would not result in substantial or unplanned population growth in a manner that would exceed the City’s planned buildout scenario, and the proposed Project would not result in a substantial or unplanned population increase that could rapidly increase the physical deterioration of existing recreation facilities . 68 516832v1
Therefore, the proposed Project would not create an increased demand on public recreation facilities, and impacts would be less than significant. b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
The proposed Project includes the acquisition and demolition of an existing building to allow for the construction of up to 100 new residential units and commercial space within a new four-story mixed-use building. Therefore, the proposed Project would not include or require the construction or expansion of public recreational facilities, and no impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVII. TRANSPORTATION – Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan,
ordinance or policy addressing the
circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
X
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
X
c) Substantially increase hazards
due to a geometric design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
X
d) Result in inadequate
emergency access? X
69 516832v1

DISCUSSION
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? The Fresno General Plan Mobility and Transportation Element,45 identifies goals and implementing policies related to promoting a city of healthy communities, improving the quality of life in established neighborhoods, planning for all modes of travel on local and major streets in Fresno, providing a well -maintained transportation system, and protecting and improving public health and safety. Additionally, the FCOG 2022 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)46 reflects transportation planning for Fresno County through 2046 and is intended to create a region of diverse, safe, resilient, and accessible transportation options that improve the quality of life for all residents by fostering sustainability, equity, a vibrant economy, clean air, and healthy communities.

The proposed Project includes the acquisition and demolition of an existing building to allow for the construction of up to 100 new residential units and commercial space within a new four-story mixed-use building. The proposed Project would be located in an existing urban area, would be consistent with the existing zoning of the Project site, and would not facilitate substantial or unplanned population growth in a manner that could generate a substantial number of new vehicle trips, which is consistent with the objectives of the City’s General Plan. Further, the Project site is located near existing transit stops that would allow for the use of alternative modes of transportation and allow residents to access other areas of the city, which would be consistent with the FCOG 2022 RTP. Therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with the City’s Mobility and Transportation Element and the FCOG 2022 RTP, and impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Per SB 743 , relevant CEQA analysis of transportation impacts is required to be conducted using a metric known as vehicle miles traveled (VMT) instead of level of service (LOS). VMT measures how much actual auto travel (additional miles driven) a proposed project would create on California roads. If a project adds excessive car travel onto roads, the project may cause a significant transportation impact.

The State CEQA Guidelines were amended to implement SB 743 by adding Section 15064.3. Among its provisions, Section 15064.3 confirms that, except with respect to transportation projects, a project ’s effect on automobile delay shall not constitute a significant environmental impact. Therefore, LOS measures of impacts to traffic facilities are no longer a relevant CEQA threshold for transportation impacts.

45 City of Fresno. 2021a. Fresno General Plan, Chapter 4: Mobility and Transportation Element.

September 30. Available at: https://www.fresno.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/upload_temp4- Mobility-and-Transportation-9-30-2021.pdf. Accessed June 2024. 46 Fresno Council of Governments (FCOG). 2022. 2022 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. Available at: https://www.planfresno.com/sustainable-communities-strategies- fall-outreach/. Accessed February 2024.
70 516832v1
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(4) states, “ A lead agency has discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project ’s vehicle miles traveled, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household or in any other measure. A lead agency may use models to estimate a project’s vehicle miles traveled and may revise those estimates to reflect professional judgment based on substantial evidence. Any assumptions used to estimate vehicle miles traveled and any revision to model outputs should be documented and explained in the environmental document prepared for the project. The standard of adequacy in Section 15151 shall apply to the analysis described in this section.” On June 25, 2020, the City adopted the CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds (Fresno VMT Thresholds), pursuant to SB 743 to be effective July 1, 2020.
47 The Fresno VMT Thresholds were prepared and adopted consistent with the requirements of State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.3 and 15064.7. In December 2018, the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) published the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA ,48 which was utilized as a reference and guidance document in the preparation of the Fresno VMT Thresholds.

The Fresno VMT Thresholds state that VMT exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact. Generally, projects with a high level of affordable housing units should be presumed to cause a less -than-significant transportation impact. The proposed Project includes the construction of a mixed-use building consisting of affordable housing units
Based on the FCOG Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis Tool Summary Report, 49 based
on the number of new market rate and affordable residential units, the proposed Project would result in a VMT per capita of 4.8, which would fall below the regional VMT per capita thresholds of 14.0 using 13% as the threshold and a threshold of 13.7 using 15% as the threshold and the local VMT per capita thresholds of 11.5 using 13% as the threshold and a threshold of 11.2 using 15% as the threshold. Therefore, the proposed Project is consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b), and impacts would be less than significant.

47 City of Fresno. 2020b. CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds. June 18. Available at:
https://fresno.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=8601948&GUID=9AEF1630-3BE3-45BF-9BB8- 3D4BB9DB1677. Accessed August 2024.
48 California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. December. Available at: https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20180416- 743_Technical_Advisory_4.16.18.pdf. Accessed August 2024. 49 Fresno Council of Governments (FCOG). 2025. Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis Tool Summary Report.

Version 1.38.
71 516832v1
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
The proposed Project includes the acquisition and demolition of an existing building to allow for the construction of up to 100 new residential units and commercial space within a new four-story mixed-use building. The proposed Project does not include the construction of new roadways or establishment of incompatible land uses that could result in new roadway hazards. The proposed Project would be located in an existing urban area, would be consistent with the existing zoning of the Project site, and would not facilitate substantial or unplanned population growth in a manner that could generate a substantial number of new vehicle trips that could increase congestion and associated hazards. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
The proposed Project includes the acquisition and demolition of an existing building to allow for the construction of up to 100 new residential units and commercial space within a new four -story mixed -use building. Demolition and construction activities would be limited to a single existing parcel and would not require the implementation of any traffic controls that could impede emergency response or evacuation efforts within the Project area. Further, the Project site would provide adequate long- term emergency vehicle access. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in inadequate emergency access, and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a
tribal cultural resource, defined in
PRC section 21074 as either a
site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically
defined in terms of the size and
scope of the landscape, sacred
place, or object with cultural value
to a C alifornia Nat
ive American
tribe, and that is:

72 516832v1

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in
PRC section 5020.1(k), or,
X
ii) A resource determined by the
lead agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of PRC section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of PRC
section 5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the significance of
the resource to a California Native
American tribe.

DISCUSSION
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
Pursuant to AB 52, Native American Tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the Project area were invited to consult regarding the proposed Project based on a list of contacts provided by the NAHC. The City mailed notices of the proposed Project to each of these T ribes on July 30, 2024, and the required 30- day time period for Tribes to request consultation ended on September 3, 2024. One letter response was received from Robert Pennell, Tribal Cultural Resources Director for the Table Mountain Rancheria, in a letter dated August 16, 2024, stating that they “Decline participation at this time but would appreciate being notified in the unlikely event that cultural resources are identified.” All other T ribes that were contacted declined consultation.

Based on the results of the cultural records search and AB 52 consultation, there are no built tribal historical resources located at the Project site. Therefore, the 73 516832v1
proposed Project would not result in an adverse change to the significance of a tribal historical resource, and no impacts would occur. ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

The State requires lead agencies to consider the potential effects of proposed projects and consult with California Native American T ribes during the local planning process for the purpose of protecting Traditional Tribal Cultural Resources through the State CEQA Guidelines. Pursuant to PRC 21080.3.1, the lead agency shall begin consultation with the California Native American Tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographical area of the proposed Project. Such significant cultural resources are either sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a T ribe that is either included in or eligible for inclusion in the CRHR or local historic register, or, the lead agency, at its discretion, and support by substantial evidence, chooses to treat the resources as a Tribal Cultural Resources (PRC 21074(a)(1–2)).

Additional information may also be available from the NAHC SLF per PRC 5097.96 and the CHRIS administered by the OHP. Please also note that PRC 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.

As previously identified, pursuant to AB 52, Native American T ribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the P roject area were invited to consult regarding the proposed Project based on a list of contacts provided by the NAHC. The City mailed notices of the proposed Project to each of these T ribes on July 30, 2024, and the required 30- day time period for Tribes to request consultation ended on September 3, 2024. One letter response was received from Robert Pennell, Tribal Cultural Resources Director for the Table Mountain Rancheria, in a letter dated August 16, 2024, stating that they “Decline participation at this time but would appreciate being notified in the unlikely event that cultural resources are identified.” All other Tribes that were contacted declined consultation.

As previously discussed in Section V, Cultural Resources, based on the SSJVIC records and NAHC SLF searches, there are no previously recorded archaeological resources within the Project area. Additionally, no archaeological resources or evidence of archaeological resources were observed during a field survey of the Project area. Based on the findings of the records search and pedestrian field survey, the Project site is considered to have low sensitivity for the presence of unidentified prehistoric or historic archaeological resources; however, the archaeological sensitivity of the surrounding Chinatown area remains high. As such, it is possible that unknown archaeological resources are extant within the Project area that have the potential to be impacted during demolition activities.

Mitigation Measure CR-4 requires an archaeological monitor to be present during 74 516832v1
demolition and removal of the basement. Further, Mitigation Measure CR -5 requires that, in the event that previously unidentified cultural resources are uncovered during proposed ground-disturbing activities, all work shall cease within the vicinity of the find until a qualified archaeologist is retained to evaluate the significance of the find and determine the need for further study. The proposed Project would also be required to comply with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, which outlines the protocol for unanticipated discovery of human remains. Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the Fresno County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to PRC 5097.98.

Based on the implementation of Mitigation Measure s
CR-4 and CR -5 as identified in Section V, Cultural Resources , the proposed Project would not result in disturbance to tribal cultural resources; therefore, impacts related to disturbance of tribal cultural resources would be less t han significant with mitigation.

Mitigation Measures
Implement Mitigation Measures CR -4 and CR-5, as included in Section V, Cultural Resources.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS – Would the project:
a) Require or result in the
relocation or construction of new
or expanded water, wastewater
treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural
gas, or telecommunications
facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause
significant environmental effect?
X
b) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry
and multiple dry years?
X
75 516832v1

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Result in a determination by the
waste water treatment provider,
which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project ’s
projected demand in addition to
the provider ’s existing
commitments?
X
d) Generate solid waste in excess
of state or local standards, or in
excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair
the attainment of solid waste
reduction goals?
X
e) Comply with federal, state, and
local management and reduction
statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
X

DISCUSSION
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
The proposed Project would require connection to existing utility infrastructure within the footprint of the proposed Project . The impacts of construction activities at the Project site has been analyzed throughout this Initial Study, and no new impacts would occur as a result of construction activities for utility extensions. The proposed Project would be served by existing energy and telecommunications services, and no new natural gas or telecommunications facilities would be required to support the proposed Project. Further, as discussed in Impact Discussions XIX.b) through XIX.d), the proposed Project would not increase demand on existing water, wastewater, or solid waste infrast ructure in a manner that would require the construction of new or expansion of existing City utility infrastructure elsewhere. T herefore, impacts would be less than significant.
76 516832v1
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? The City’s DPU would supply water to the Project site. Based on the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (2020 UWMP),50 the City has a water supply of 329,030 acre-feet per year (AFY) for the year 2025 and a projected water supply of 357,330 AFY for the year 2045. The City relies on groundwater from the North Kings Subbasin, surface water from the Central Valley Project through a contract with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Kings River water through a contract with Fresno Irrigation District , and recycled water. Water supply in the City was entirely made up of groundwater prior to the commissioning of the City’s first Surface Water Treatment Facility (SWTF) in 2004. Since 2004, the City has invested in expanding its surface water treatment capabilities and now has three SWTFs that provide approximately half of all potable water demands in the service area. Based on the 2020 UWMP, the projected potable water demand for 2025 is 136,504 AFY and the projected potable water demand for 2045 is 167,947 AFY. Further, the projected non-potable water demand for 2025 is 62,700 AFY and the projected non -potable water demand for 2045 is 73,500 AFY.

The City’s DPU was contacted to determine the proposed Project ’s impacts on existing utilities. No response identifying potential impacts has been received to date.

Therefore, the City has ample water supply to serve the existing and projected water consumption within the City’s service area.

The proposed Project includes the acquisition and demolition of an existing building to allow for the construction of up to 100 new residential units and commercial space within a new four -story mixed -use building, which would result in an incremental increase in water use. The 2020 UWMP identifies objectives for the City’s future water supply and to balance groundwater operations through a host of strategies. The City has designed a comprehensive plan to accomplish this objective by increasing surface water supplies and surface water treatment facilities, intentional recharge, and conservation, in order to reduce groundwater pumping. The City continually monitors impacts of land use changes and development project proposals on water supply facilities by assigning fixed demand allocations to each parcel by land use as currently zoned or proposed to be rezoned. The City has indicated that groundwater wells, pump stations, recharge facilities, and water treatment and distribution systems shall be expanded incrementally to mitigate increased water demands. The City’s General Plan requires the City to maintain a comprehensive conservation program to help reduce per capita water usage, and includes conservation programs such as landscaping standards for drought tolerance, irrigation control devices, leak detection and retrofits, water audits, public education, and implementing U.S. Bureau of Reclamation BMPs for water conservation to maintain surface water entitlements.

The Project site is located entirely within the Fresno City l imits and SOI , and the
proposed Project would be consistent with DTN uses as defined in the City’s General Plan; therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with the City’s planned

50 City of Fresno. 2021b. Final 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. City of Fresno Department of Public Utilities. Available at: https://www.fresno.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Fresno-2020- UWMP_Final_2021-07-21.pdf. Accessed September 2024.
77 516832v1
buildout scenario. Implementation of policies identified in the City’s General Plan and 2020 UWMP would address the issues of providing an adequate, reliable, and sustainable water supply for the proposed Project. The proposed Project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the proposed Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years, and impacts would be less than significant.

c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project ’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? The City owns and operates two wastewater treatment facilities: the Fresno/Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility (WRF) and the North Fresno WRF. The Fresno/Clovis Regional WRF currently has a capacity of 91.5 million gallons per day (MGD) and the North Fresno WRF has a capacity of 0.71 MGD. The proposed Project would result in the construction of up to 100 new residential units and commercial space within a new four -story mixed-use building that would result in an incremental increase in wastewater generation. The Project site is located entirely within the Fresno City limits and SOI, and the proposed Project would be consistent with DTN uses as defined in the City’s General Plan; therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with the City’s planned buildout scenario and would not result in unplanned growth that could result in a substantial increase in wastewater generation. The City’s DPU was contacted to determine the proposed Project ’s impacts on existing utilities.

No response identifying potential impacts has been received to date. Therefore, the proposed Project would not generate wastewater in excess of existing wastewater treatment infrastructure, and impacts would be less than significant. d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Garbage disposed of in the City is taken to the Cedar Avenue Recycling and Transfer Station. Once trash has been off ‐loaded at the transfer station, it is sorted, and non‐ recyclable solid waste is loaded onto large trucks and taken to the American Avenue Landfill, located approximately 6 miles southwest of Kerman.

The American Avenue Landfill (American Avenue Disposal Site 10‐ AA‐0009) 51 has a
maximum permitted capacity of 32,700,000 cubic yards (CY) and a remaining capacity of 29,358,535 CY, with an estimated closure date of August 31, 2031. The maximum permitted throughput is 2,200 tons per day. Other landfills within Fresno County include the Clovis Landfill (City of Clovis Landfill 10- AA-0004)52 with a maximum

51 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2024 a. SWIS Facility/Site Summary: American Avenue Disposal Site (10-AA-0009). Available online at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Summary/352. Accessed September 2024. 52 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2024 b. SWIS Facility/Site Summary: City of Clovis Landfill (10-AA-0004). Available online at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Summary/347. Accessed September 2024. 78 516832v1
remaining permitted capacity of 7,740,000 CY, a maximum permitted throughput of 2,000 tons per day, and an estimated closure date of 2047.

Construction of the proposed Project may result in a temporary increase in solid waste, which would be disposed of in accordance with applicable State and local laws and regulations, such as CALGreen Sections 4.408 and 5.408, which require diversion of at least 75% of construction waste. The proposed Project would also be required to comply with the City’s Construction and Demolition Approved Disposal Facilities guide for proper disposal methods. Based on required compliance with CALGreen and City regulations, construction of the proposed Project would not generate solid waste in excess of local infrastructure capacity.

According to the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates,
53 operation of seven
residential units would result in approximately 85.61 pounds of solid waste per day.

Proposed solid waste calculations are shown in Table 4.

Table 4: Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates
Waste
Generation
Source
Generation
Rate
Unit of
Measure
Proposed
Development Total
Residential 12.23 lb/household/day 100 units 1,223 lbs
Commercial 13 lb/1000 sq ft/day 15,000 sq ft* 195 lbs
Total 1,418 lbs
Source: CalRecycle Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates (2019) Note: lb = pound; sq ft = square foot
* The estimation is using a conservative estimate of 15,000 sf of commercial space based on parcel size.

As shown in Table 4, the proposed Project would result in an incremental increase in solid waste of approximately 1,418 pounds per day. The Project site is located entirely within the Fresno City limits and SOI, and the proposed Project would be consistent with DTN uses as defined in the City’s General Plan; therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with the City’s planned buildout scenario and would not result in unplanned growth that could result in a substantial increase in solid waste generation.

Solid waste generated by the proposed Project would be disposed of at the American Avenue Landfill, which has adequate capacity to dispose of the marginal amount of solid waste generated by construction activities , and the additional projected 1,418 pounds of waste per day during operation. Operation of the proposed Project would result in a marginal increase in solid waste and would not generate waste in excess

53 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2019. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. Available at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates. Accessed September 2024. 79 516832v1
of State or local standards or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
The proposed Project would result in a marginal increase in solid waste and would not result in a substantial increase in solid waste that could interfere with solid waste reduction statutes and regulations, including, but not limited to, policies identified in the Fresno General Plan Public Utilities and Services Element . 54 The proposed
Project would be required to comply with CALGreen and City requirements to ensure proper diversion and disposal of short - and long- term solid waste. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste, and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XX. WILDFIRE – If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
X
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds,
and other factors, exacerbate
wildfire risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire?
X

54 City of Fresno. 2014. Fresno General Plan, Chapter 6: Public Utilities and Services Element. Adopted December 18. Available at: https://www.fresno.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/General-Plan-6-Public- Utilities-and-Services-7-19.pdf. Accessed September 2024. 80 516832v1

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Require the installation or
maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines or other
utilities) that may exacerbate fire
risk or that may result in temporary
or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
X
d) Expose people or structures to
significant risks, including
downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result
of runoff, post-fire slope instability,
or drainage changes?
X

DISCUSSION
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The Project site is in an urban area and is not located within a VHFHSZ. 55 The proposed Project includes the acquisition and demolition of an existing building to allow for the construction of up to 100 new residential units and commercial space within a new four-story mixed-use building. Construction activities would be limited to an existing parcel and would not require the closure of any public roadways that could impede emergency response or evacuation efforts. The proposed Project would not require the alteration of any existing roadways that could interfere with any emergency evacuation routes within the city or an adopted emergency response plan. Therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with the Fresno General Plan Noise and

55 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2024. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area. Available at: https://calfire- forestry.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=988d431a42b242b29d89597ab693d008.

Accessed August 2024.
81 516832v1
Safety Element56 and the Fresno County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan,57 and impacts would be less than significant.
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
The Project site is in an urban area and is not located within a VHFHSZ. The proposed Project includes the acquisition and demolition of an existing building to allow for the construction of up to 100 new residential units and commercial space within a new four-story mixed-use building. The proposed Project would be required to comply with the CFC to reduce risk associated with wildfire ignition at the Project site. Therefore, the proposed Project would not expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire, and impacts would be less than significant.
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
The proposed Project would require the expansion of utility infrastructure to serve the proposed mixed-use building. However, the proposed Project would be required to comply with the CFC to reduce risk associated with wildfire ignition at the Project site.

Therefore, the proposed Project would not exacerbate wildfire risk, and impacts would be less than significant.
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
The Project site is in an urban area and is not located within a VHFHSZ. Based on the low risk of wildfire within the Project area, hazards associated with wildfire, including post-fire instability or drainage changes, have a low potential to occur. In addition, the Project site is located in a developed portion of the City in an area with flat topography and a low risk of landslide and other ground- failure events. Further, the proposed Project would be required to comply with applicable CFC and CBC requirements to avoid risk associated with post -fire hazards. Therefore, the proposed Project would not expose people or structures to significant post -fire risks, and impacts would be less than significant.

56 City of Fresno. 2020a. Fresno General Plan, 9: Noise and Safety Element, pgs. 9-33 and 9-34. May 21.

Available at: https://www.fresno.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/9-Noise-and-Safety-02-03-21.pdf.

Accessed July 2024.
57 County of Fresno. 2018. Fresno County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. May. Available at:
https://www.fresnocountyca.gov/files/sharedassets/county/v/1/public-health/fresno-county-hmp- final.pdf. Accessed March 2024.
82 516832v1
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIX. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the
potential to degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
X
b) Does the project have impacts
that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental
effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
X
c) Does the project have
environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly
or indirectly?
X
83 516832v1

DISCUSSION
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self -sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? The proposed Project includes the acquisition and demolition of an existing building to allow for the construction of up to 100 new residential units and commercial space within a new four-story mixed-use building in a developed portion of the City and does not include development in a rural or previously undeveloped area that could lead to a substantial reduction in habitat, plant and animal species, or significant resources of the major periods of California history or prehistory . Further, Mitigation Meas ure
BIO-1, included in Section IV, Biological Resources , has been identified to reduce impacts to migratory birds and Mitigation Measures CR -1 through CR-5, included in Section V, Cultural Resources , have been identified to reduce impacts to cultural resources. Therefore, the proposed Project would not have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal co mmunity, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory, and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
When project impacts are considered along or in combination with other impacts, the project-related impacts may be significant. Construction and operation of the proposed Project would contribute to cumulative impacts related to Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, and Hazards and Hazardous Materials . Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the proposed Project to reduce project -related impacts to a less -than-significant level.

Based on implem entation of Mitigation Measures AQ -1 through AQ -5, included in Section III, Air Quality ; Mitigation Measure BIO -1, included in Section IV, Biological Resources; Mitigation Measures CR-1 through CR-5, included in Section V, Cultural Resources; and Mitigation Measure GEO -1, included in Section VII, Geology and Soils, the cumulative effects of the proposed Project would be less than significant. c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? The proposed Project would result in air emissions and may disturb hazardous substances during demolition and construction activities. Mitigation M easures AQ-1 84 516832v1
through AQ -5, included in Section III, Air Quality , have been identified that would reduce these project -specific impacts to a less -than-significant level . However, no substantial adverse effects on human beings are expected to occur as a result of the operation of the anticipated 100 residential units and limited commercial operations on the first floor. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in substantial, adverse environmental effects to human beings, either directly or indirectly , and impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measures
Implement Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-5, included in Section III, Air Quality ; Mitigation Measure BIO -1, included in Section IV, Biological Resources ; Mitigation Measures CR-1 through CR-5, included in Section V, Cultural Resources; and Mitigation Measure GEO-1, included in Section VII, Geology and Soils.

85 516832v1

SOURCES CITED
Architectural Resources Group (ARG). 2006. Chinatown Historic Resources Survey .

Prepared for the City of Fresno Planning and Development Department. April 4.

Available at: https://www.fresno.gov/wp -
content/uploads/2023/03/HistoricSurvey_Chinatown_2006.pdf. Accessed September 2024.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) . 2022. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines . Available at:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa- guidelines-2022/ceqa-guidelines-chapter-0-cover-page-
pdf.pdf?rev=f250e4ab435c491ba2afcbe299590a67&sc_lang=en. Accessed July 2024.

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2024. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). Available at:
https://www.caleemod.com/. Accessed July 2024.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2022. 2022 Scoping Plan Documents. Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/ab-32-climate-change-scoping- plan/2022-scoping-plan-documents. Accessed July 2024.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2024. Scenic Highways : California State Scenic Highways . Available at: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap- landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways.

Accessed August 2024.

California Department of Conservation. 2022. California Important Farmland Finder.

Available at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ . Accessed August 2024.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) . 2024. California Natural Diversity Database. Available at: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps -and-Data.

Accessed July 2024.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) . 2024. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area. Available at: https://calfire- forestry.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=988d431a42b242b 29d89597ab693d008. Accessed August 2024.

California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2019.

Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates . Available at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates. Accessed September 2024.
86 516832v1
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2024a. SWIS Facility/Site Summary: American Avenue Disposal Site (10- AA-0009). Available online at: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Summary/352.

Accessed September 2024.

California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2024b. SWIS Facility/Site Summary: City of Clovis Landfill (10 -AA-0004). Available online at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Summary/347. Accessed September 2024.

California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2024. EnviroStor. Available at: https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=fresno. Accessed August 2024.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2019. Caltrans HeliPlates. Available at: https://heliplates.dot.ca.gov/# . Accessed August 2024.

California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2006. San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin Kings Subbasin. Available at: https://water.ca.gov/- /media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/Groundwater-
Management/Bulletin-118/Files/2003-Basin-
Descriptions/5_022_08_KingsSubbasin.pdf. Accessed August 2024.

California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). 2018. California Government Code Section 65962.5(a) Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List. Available at: https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/section-65962-5a/. Accessed August 2024.

California Governor ’s Office of Planning and Research . 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA . December. Available at:
https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20180416-743_Technical_Advisory_4.16.18.pdf.

Accessed August 2024.

California Geological Survey (CGS). 2011. Reported Historic Asbestos Mines, Historic Asbestos Prospects, and Other Natural Occurrences of Asbestos in California.

California Native Plant Society (CNPS) . 2024. Rare Plant Inventory . Available at:
https://rareplants.cnps.org/. Accessed August 2024.

City of Fresno. 2014. Fresno General Plan , Chapter 6: P ublic Utilities and Services Element. Adopted December 18. Available at: https://www.fresno.gov/wp- content/uploads/2023/03/General-Plan-6-Public-Utilities-and-Services-7-19.pdf.

Accessed September 2024.

City of Fresno. 2018. Fresno General Plan , Chapter 7: Resource Conservation and Resilience Element . December. Available at : https://www.fresno.gov/wp- content/uploads/2023/03/General-Plan-7-Resources-Conservation-and- Resilience-7-19.pdf. Accessed October 2024.
87 516832v1
City of Fresno. 2020a . Fresno General Plan, 9: Noise and Safety Element . May 21.

Available at: https://www.fresno.gov/wp -content/uploads/2023/03/9-Noise-and- Safety-02-03-21.pdf. Accessed July 2024.

City of Fresno. 2020b. CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds. June 18.

Available at:
https://fresno.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=8601948&GUID=9AEF1630- 3BE3-45BF-9BB8-3D4BB9DB1677. Accessed August 2024.

City of Fresno. 2021 a. Fresno General Plan, Chapter 4: Mobility and Transportation Element. September 30. Available at: https://www.fresno.gov/wp- content/uploads/2023/03/upload_temp4-Mobility-and-Transportation-9-30- 2021.pdf. Accessed June 2024.

City of Fresno. 2021b. Final 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. City of Fresno Department of Public Utilities. Available at: https://www.fresno.gov/wp - content/uploads/2023/03/Fresno-2020-UWMP_Final_2021-07-21.pdf. Accessed September 2024.

County of Fresno. 2018. Fresno County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. May.

Available at:
https://www.fresnocountyca.gov/files/sharedassets/county/v/1/public- health/fresno-county-hmp-final.pdf. Accessed March 2024.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2018. Construction Noise Handbook. Available at: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1805/ML18059A141.pdf. Accessed June 2024.

Fresno Council of Governments (FCOG). 2021. Fresno County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan . December 2018; Amended December 2021. Available at:
https://fresnocog.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Fresno- ALUCP-12-04-17-final-with-Amended-Table.pdf. Accessed August 2024.

Fresno Council of Governments (FCOG) . 2022. 2022 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy . Available at:
https://www.planfresno.com/sustainable-communities-strategies-fall-outreach/.

Accessed February 2024.

Fresno Council of Governments (FCOG). 2025. Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis Tool Summary Report. Version 1.38.

Krazan & Associates, Inc. 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, The Peacock Building, 937 - 943 F Street and 942 Fagan Alley, APN 467- 074-02, Fresno, California 93706. Prepared for SWCA Environmental Consultants. August 29.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2024. Web Soil Survey. U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Available at:
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. A ccessed July 2024.
88 516832v1
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). 2006. PG&E San Joaquin Valley Operation & Maintenance Habitat Conservation Plan. Available at:
https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/plan_documents/thcp/thcp_838.pdf. A ccessed July 2024.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). 2022. Exploring Clean Energy Solutions.

Available at: https://www.pge.com/en_US/about-pge/environment/what-we-are- doing/clean-energy-solutions/clean-energy-solutions.page. Accessed March 2024.

Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). 2019. The Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region. Fifth Edition. Revised June 2019 (with Approved Amendments.

Available at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/basin_plans/sacsjr_ 201902.pdf. Accessed August 2024.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2009. Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA. December 17. Available at: https://www.valleyair.org/media/dnsnicdv/3- ccap-final-lu-guidance-dec-17-2009.pdf. Accessed October 2024.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2015a. Air Quality Thresholds of Significance – Criteria Pollutants . Available at:
http://www.valleyair.org/transportation/0714-GAMAQI-Criteria-Pollutant- Thresholds-of-Significance.pdf. Accessed August 2024.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) . 20 15b. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts . March 19. Available at:
https://www.valleyair.org/media/g4nl3p0g/gamaqi.pdf. Accessed March 2024.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2020. Small Project Analysis Levels (SPAL) . November 13. Available at:
https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/CEQA%20Rules/GAMAQI-SPAL.PDF.

Accessed March 2024.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2022. 2022 Plan for the 2015 8- Hour Ozone Standard. Adopted December 15. Available at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/q55posm0/0000-2022-plan-for-the-2015-8-hour- ozone-standard.pdf. Accessed August 2024.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 202 3. 2023 Maintenance Plan and Redesignation Request for the Revoked 1-Hour Ozone Standard. June

15. Available at: https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/itoegkch/03- adopted-2023- maintenance-plan-and-redesignation-request-for-the-revoked-1-hour-ozone- standard.pdf. Accessed September 2024.
89 516832v1
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2024. 2024 Plan for the 2012 PM 2.5 Standards. June 20. Available at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/gw5bacvj/2024-pm25-plan.pdf. Accessed September 2024.

State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board). 2024. GeoTracker. Available at: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/. Accessed August 2024.

SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA). 2024. Cultural Resources Technical Report for the 937-945 F Street and 942 Fagan Alley Acquisition Project, Fresno, Fresno County, California. Prepared for City of Fresno.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2023. Quick Facts, Fresno city, California. Available at:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/fresnocitycalifornia/PST045223.

Accessed July 2024.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) . 2024a. Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC). Available at: https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/ . Accessed August 2024.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) . 2024b. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Surface Waters and Wetlands Mapper . Available at:
https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper/. Accessed July 2024.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1978. Fresno Sheet. Available at:
https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc_114520.htm. Accessed July 2024.

516832v1

APPENDIX A

CalEEMod Results
Peacock Building Acquisition and Demolition Custom Report, 4/24/2025 1 / 42
Peacock Building Acquisition and Demolition Custom 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 Y ear, Unmitigated

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2025) - Unmitigated

3.3. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated

3.5. Grading (2026) - Unmitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated

3.9. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated
Peacock Building Acquisition and Demolition Custom Report, 4/24/2025 2 / 42

3.11. Paving (2027) - Unmitigated

3.13. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
Peacock Building Acquisition and Demolition Custom Report, 4/24/2025 3 / 42

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

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

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation
Peacock Building Acquisition and Demolition Custom Report, 4/24/2025 4 / 42

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

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment Peacock Building Acquisition and Demolition Custom Report, 4/24/2025 5 / 42

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

8. User Changes to Default Data
Peacock Building Acquisition and Demolition Custom Report, 4/24/2025 6 / 42

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Peacock Building Acquisition and Demolition Construction Start Date 9/1/2025
Operational Y ear 2028
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.70
Precipitation (days) 22.6
Location 939 F St, Fresno, CA 93706, USA
County Fresno
City Fresno
Air District San Joaquin Valley APCD
Air Basin San Joaquin Valley
TAZ 2478
EDFZ 5
Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Gas Utility Pacific Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.29

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
Apartments Mid
Rise
100 Dwelling Unit 0.33 96,000 0.00 — 320 —
Peacock Building Acquisition and Demolition Custom Report, 4/24/2025 7 / 42
General Office
Building

15.0 1000sqft 0.33 15,000 0.00 — — —

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

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.81 5.23 9.66 0.01 0.19 0.57 0.73 0.18 0.11 0.29 — 1,930 1,930 0.07 0.08 1.98 1,950 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 29.3 10.4 10.2 0.02 0.44 2.37 2.81 0.40 1.08 1.49 — 2,706 2,706 0.09 0.17 0.06 2,758 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.32 3.81 6.46 0.01 0.14 0.37 0.51 0.13 0.10 0.23 — 1,345 1,345 0.05 0.04 0.60 1,360 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.42 0.69 1.18 < 0.005 0.03 0.07 0.09 0.02 0.02 0.04 — 223 223 0.01 0.01 0.10 225

2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Y ear ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Peacock Building Acquisition and Demolition Custom Report, 4/24/2025 8 / 42
—————————————————Daily -
Summer
(Max)
2025 0.52 4.93 6.16 0.01 0.17 0.57 0.73 0.15 0.11 0.26 — 1,396 1,396 0.05 0.08 1.40 1,423 2026 0.81 5.23 9.66 0.01 0.19 0.46 0.65 0.18 0.11 0.29 — 1,930 1,930 0.07 0.06 1.98 1,950 2027 0.77 4.96 9.45 0.01 0.17 0.46 0.63 0.16 0.11 0.27 — 1,917 1,917 0.07 0.05 1.78 1,936 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.49 4.17 5.72 0.01 0.21 0.23 0.45 0.20 0.03 0.22 — 886 886 0.04 0.01 < 0.005 889 2026 1.07 10.4 10.2 0.02 0.44 2.37 2.81 0.40 1.08 1.49 — 2,706 2,706 0.09 0.17 0.06 2,758 2027 29.3 5.01 8.99 0.01 0.17 0.46 0.63 0.16 0.11 0.27 — 1,867 1,867 0.07 0.05 0.05 1,885 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.04 0.34 0.43 < 0.005 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 — 92.2 92.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 93.8 2026 0.55 3.81 6.46 0.01 0.14 0.37 0.51 0.13 0.10 0.23 — 1,345 1,345 0.05 0.04 0.60 1,360 2027 2.32 3.24 5.75 0.01 0.11 0.28 0.39 0.10 0.07 0.17 — 1,176 1,176 0.04 0.03 0.47 1,187 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.01 0.06 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.3 15.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 15.5 2026 0.10 0.69 1.18 < 0.005 0.03 0.07 0.09 0.02 0.02 0.04 — 223 223 0.01 0.01 0.10 225 2027 0.42 0.59 1.05 < 0.005 0.02 0.05 0.07 0.02 0.01 0.03 — 195 195 0.01 0.01 0.08 197

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. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 5.50 2.60 21.5 0.04 0.09 3.02 3.12 0.09 0.77 0.86 60.2 5,145 5,205 6.37 0.22 11.0 5,442 Peacock Building Acquisition and Demolition Custom Report, 4/24/2025 9 / 42
—————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Unmit. 4.64 2.78 13.6 0.04 0.09 3.02 3.11 0.09 0.77 0.85 60.2 4,827 4,888 6.40 0.24 0.99 5,119 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 4.78 2.52 15.3 0.04 0.09 2.71 2.79 0.09 0.69 0.77 60.2 4,606 4,666 6.37 0.21 4.75 4,893 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.87 0.46 2.80 0.01 0.02 0.49 0.51 0.02 0.13 0.14 9.97 763 773 1.05 0.04 0.79 810

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 ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 2.30 1.75 14.8 0.04 0.03 3.02 3.05 0.02 0.77 0.79 — 3,642 3,642 0.15 0.18 10.3 3,710 Area 3.16 0.06 6.34 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 17.9 17.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 17.9 Energy 0.05 0.80 0.41 0.01 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 1,470 1,470 0.16 0.01 — 1,477 Water — — — — — — — — — — 12.8 14.7 27.6 1.32 0.03 — 69.9 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 47.4 0.00 47.4 4.73 0.00 — 166 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.72 0.72
Total 5.50 2.60 21.5 0.04 0.09 3.02 3.12 0.09 0.77 0.86 60.2 5,145 5,205 6.37 0.22 11.0 5,442 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 2.04 1.99 13.1 0.03 0.03 3.02 3.05 0.02 0.77 0.79 — 3,343 3,343 0.18 0.19 0.27 3,405 Area 2.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.05 0.80 0.41 0.01 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 1,470 1,470 0.16 0.01 — 1,477 Peacock Building Acquisition and Demolition Custom Report, 4/24/2025 10 / 42
Water — — — — — — — — — — 12.8 14.7 27.6 1.32 0.03 — 69.9 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 47.4 0.00 47.4 4.73 0.00 — 166 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.72 0.72
Total 4.64 2.78 13.6 0.04 0.09 3.02 3.11 0.09 0.77 0.85 60.2 4,827 4,888 6.40 0.24 0.99 5,119 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.88 1.70 11.8 0.03 0.02 2.71 2.73 0.02 0.69 0.71 — 3,113 3,113 0.15 0.17 4.03 3,171 Area 2.86 0.03 3.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 8.80 8.80 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.83 Energy 0.05 0.80 0.41 0.01 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 1,470 1,470 0.16 0.01 — 1,477 Water — — — — — — — — — — 12.8 14.7 27.6 1.32 0.03 — 69.9 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 47.4 0.00 47.4 4.73 0.00 — 166 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.72 0.72
Total 4.78 2.52 15.3 0.04 0.09 2.71 2.79 0.09 0.69 0.77 60.2 4,606 4,666 6.37 0.21 4.75 4,893 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.34 0.31 2.16 0.01 < 0.005 0.49 0.50 < 0.005 0.13 0.13 — 515 515 0.02 0.03 0.67 525 Area 0.52 0.01 0.57 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 1.46 1.46 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.46 Energy 0.01 0.15 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 243 243 0.03 < 0.005 — 245 Water — — — — — — — — — — 2.12 2.44 4.56 0.22 0.01 — 11.6 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 7.84 0.00 7.84 0.78 0.00 — 27.4 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.12 0.12
Total 0.87 0.46 2.80 0.01 0.02 0.49 0.51 0.02 0.13 0.14 9.97 763 773 1.05 0.04 0.79 810

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Peacock Building Acquisition and Demolition Custom Report, 4/24/2025 11 / 42
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.47 4.33 5.65 0.01 0.16 — 0.16 0.14 — 0.14 — 852 852 0.03 0.01 — 855 Demoliti
on
— — — — — 0.38 0.38 — 0.06 0.06 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.03 0.25 0.33 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 49.0 49.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 49.2 Demoliti
on
— — — — — 0.02 0.02 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 8.12 8.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.15 Demoliti
on
— — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.02 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 60.6 60.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.23 61.7 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 0.58 0.14 < 0.005 0.01 0.13 0.14 0.01 0.04 0.04 — 483 483 0.01 0.08 1.17 507 Peacock Building Acquisition and Demolition Custom Report, 4/24/2025 12 / 42
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.21 3.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.26 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.8 27.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 29.1 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.53 0.53 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.54 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.60 4.60 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.82

3.3. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location 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-Road
Equipment

0.47 4.16 5.57 0.01 0.21 — 0.21 0.20 — 0.20 — 859 859 0.03 0.01 — 862 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.21 0.21 — 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Peacock Building Acquisition and Demolition Custom Report, 4/24/2025 13 / 42
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.06 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 11.8 11.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.8 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.95 1.95 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.95 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.01 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 26.9 26.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 27.3 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.38 0.38 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.39 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 Peacock Building Acquisition and Demolition Custom Report, 4/24/2025 14 / 42
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.5. Grading (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location 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-Road
Equipment

1.02 9.19 9.69 0.02 0.42 — 0.42 0.39 — 0.39 — 1,714 1,714 0.07 0.01 — 1,720 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 2.07 2.07 — 1.00 1.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.03 0.23 0.24 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 42.3 42.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 42.4 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.05 0.05 — 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.00 7.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.02 Peacock Building Acquisition and Demolition Custom Report, 4/24/2025 15 / 42
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.02 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 39.5 39.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 40.1 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.02 1.20 0.28 0.01 0.02 0.26 0.28 0.02 0.07 0.09 — 952 952 0.02 0.15 0.06 997 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.01 1.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.03 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 23.5 23.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 24.6 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.17 0.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.17 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.88 3.88 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.07

3.7. 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 ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Peacock Building Acquisition and Demolition Custom Report, 4/24/2025 16 / 42
—————————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Off-Road
Equipment

0.49 4.81 6.91 0.01 0.19 — 0.19 0.17 — 0.17 — 1,304 1,304 0.05 0.01 — 1,309 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.49 4.81 6.91 0.01 0.19 — 0.19 0.17 — 0.17 — 1,304 1,304 0.05 0.01 — 1,309 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.33 3.24 4.66 0.01 0.13 — 0.13 0.12 — 0.12 — 881 881 0.04 0.01 — 884 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.06 0.59 0.85 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 146 146 0.01 < 0.005 — 146 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.31 0.16 2.63 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.42 0.00 0.10 0.10 — 456 456 0.01 0.02 1.58 464 Vendor 0.01 0.27 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 170 170 < 0.005 0.03 0.40 178 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Peacock Building Acquisition and Demolition Custom Report, 4/24/2025 17 / 42
Worker 0.27 0.19 2.13 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.42 0.00 0.10 0.10 — 405 405 0.02 0.02 0.04 411 Vendor 0.01 0.29 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 170 170 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 178 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.19 0.12 1.46 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.28 0.00 0.07 0.07 — 283 283 0.01 0.01 0.46 288 Vendor 0.01 0.19 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 115 115 < 0.005 0.02 0.12 120 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.02 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 46.9 46.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 47.6 Vendor < 0.005 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 19.0 19.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 19.9 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.9. 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 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-Road
Equipment

0.48 4.56 6.90 0.01 0.17 — 0.17 0.15 — 0.15 — 1,304 1,304 0.05 0.01 — 1,309 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.48 4.56 6.90 0.01 0.17 — 0.17 0.15 — 0.15 — 1,304 1,304 0.05 0.01 — 1,309 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Peacock Building Acquisition and Demolition Custom Report, 4/24/2025 18 / 42
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.28 2.67 4.05 0.01 0.10 — 0.10 0.09 — 0.09 — 766 766 0.03 0.01 — 768 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.05 0.49 0.74 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 127 127 0.01 < 0.005 — 127 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.29 0.14 2.43 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.42 0.00 0.10 0.10 — 446 446 0.01 0.02 1.43 454 Vendor 0.01 0.26 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 166 166 < 0.005 0.02 0.35 174 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.24 0.18 1.97 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.42 0.00 0.10 0.10 — 396 396 0.02 0.02 0.04 403 Vendor 0.01 0.28 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 166 166 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 174 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.15 0.09 1.17 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 241 241 0.01 0.01 0.36 245 Vendor 0.01 0.16 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 97.6 97.6 < 0.005 0.01 0.09 102 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.02 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 39.9 39.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 40.6 Vendor < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.2 16.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 16.9 Peacock Building Acquisition and Demolition Custom Report, 4/24/2025 19 / 42
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.11. Paving (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location 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-Road
Equipment

0.48 4.15 5.31 0.01 0.17 — 0.17 0.15 — 0.15 — 823 823 0.03 0.01 — 826 Paving 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.03 0.26 0.33 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 51.9 51.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 52.0 Paving 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 8.59 8.59 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.62 Paving 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Peacock Building Acquisition and Demolition Custom Report, 4/24/2025 20 / 42
—————————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.04 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 90.3 90.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 91.8 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.90 5.90 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.99 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.98 0.98 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.99 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.13. 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 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-Road
Equipment

0.11 0.83 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Peacock Building Acquisition and Demolition Custom Report, 4/24/2025 21 / 42
————————————————29.1Architect
ural
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.05 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 8.41 8.41 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.44 Architect
ural
Coatings

1.84 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.39 1.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.40 Architect
ural
Coatings

0.34 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.04 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 79.3 79.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 80.6 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.17 5.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.26 Peacock Building Acquisition and Demolition Custom Report, 4/24/2025 22 / 42
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.86 0.86 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.87 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

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
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

1.81 1.37 11.6 0.03 0.02 2.36 2.38 0.02 0.60 0.62 — 2,844 2,844 0.12 0.14 8.02 2,897 General
Office
Building

0.49 0.38 3.22 0.01 0.01 0.66 0.67 0.01 0.17 0.17 — 799 799 0.03 0.04 2.25 813 Total 2.30 1.75 14.8 0.04 0.03 3.02 3.05 0.02 0.77 0.79 — 3,642 3,642 0.15 0.18 10.3 3,710 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

1.60 1.56 10.3 0.03 0.02 2.36 2.38 0.02 0.60 0.62 — 2,610 2,610 0.14 0.15 0.21 2,659 Peacock Building Acquisition and Demolition Custom Report, 4/24/2025 23 / 42
7460.060.040.04733733—0.170.170.010.670.660.010.012.840.430.43General Office
Building
Total 2.04 1.99 13.1 0.03 0.03 3.02 3.05 0.02 0.77 0.79 — 3,343 3,343 0.18 0.19 0.27 3,405 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

0.28 0.25 1.77 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.40 0.41 < 0.005 0.10 0.11 — 421 421 0.02 0.02 0.54 429 General
Office
Building

0.06 0.06 0.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.09 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 94.2 94.2 < 0.005 0.01 0.12 95.9 Total 0.34 0.31 2.16 0.01 < 0.005 0.49 0.50 < 0.005 0.13 0.13 — 515 515 0.02 0.03 0.67 525

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
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 275 275 0.04 0.01 — 278
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 197 197 0.03 < 0.005 — 198
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 471 471 0.08 0.01 — 476
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 275 275 0.04 0.01 — 278
Peacock Building Acquisition and Demolition Custom Report, 4/24/2025 24 / 42
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 197 197 0.03 < 0.005 — 198
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 471 471 0.08 0.01 — 476
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 45.5 45.5 0.01 < 0.005 — 46.0
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 32.5 32.5 0.01 < 0.005 — 32.9
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 78.1 78.1 0.01 < 0.005 — 78.8

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
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

0.04 0.64 0.27 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 806 806 0.07 < 0.005 — 808 General
Office
Building

0.01 0.16 0.14 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 192 192 0.02 < 0.005 — 193 Total 0.05 0.80 0.41 0.01 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 998 998 0.09 < 0.005 — 1,001 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

0.04 0.64 0.27 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 806 806 0.07 < 0.005 — 808 Peacock Building Acquisition and Demolition Custom Report, 4/24/2025 25 / 42
193—< 0.0050.02192192—0.01—0.010.01—0.01< 0.0050.140.160.01General Office
Building
Total 0.05 0.80 0.41 0.01 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 998 998 0.09 < 0.005 — 1,001 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

0.01 0.12 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 133 133 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 General
Office
Building
< 0.005 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 31.8 31.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 31.9 Total 0.01 0.15 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 165 165 0.01 < 0.005 — 166

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 ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Products

2.38 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings

0.18 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

0.60 0.06 6.34 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 17.9 17.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 17.9 Total 3.16 0.06 6.34 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 17.9 17.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 17.9 Peacock Building Acquisition and Demolition Custom Report, 4/24/2025 26 / 42
—————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Products

2.38 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings

0.18 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 2.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Products

0.43 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings

0.03 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

0.05 0.01 0.57 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.46 1.46 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.46 Total 0.52 0.01 0.57 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 1.46 1.46 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.46

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
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Peacock Building Acquisition and Demolition Custom Report, 4/24/2025 27 / 42
Apartme
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 7.72 8.87 16.6 0.79 0.02 — 42.1
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — 5.11 5.87 11.0 0.52 0.01 — 27.8
Total — — — — — — — — — — 12.8 14.7 27.6 1.32 0.03 — 69.9 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 7.72 8.87 16.6 0.79 0.02 — 42.1
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — 5.11 5.87 11.0 0.52 0.01 — 27.8
Total — — — — — — — — — — 12.8 14.7 27.6 1.32 0.03 — 69.9 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 1.28 1.47 2.75 0.13 < 0.005 — 6.97
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — 0.85 0.97 1.82 0.09 < 0.005 — 4.61
Total — — — — — — — — — — 2.12 2.44 4.56 0.22 0.01 — 11.6

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Peacock Building Acquisition and Demolition Custom Report, 4/24/2025 28 / 42
Apartme
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 39.9 0.00 39.9 3.98 0.00 — 139
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — 7.52 0.00 7.52 0.75 0.00 — 26.3
Total — — — — — — — — — — 47.4 0.00 47.4 4.73 0.00 — 166 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 39.9 0.00 39.9 3.98 0.00 — 139
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — 7.52 0.00 7.52 0.75 0.00 — 26.3
Total — — — — — — — — — — 47.4 0.00 47.4 4.73 0.00 — 166 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 6.60 0.00 6.60 0.66 0.00 — 23.1
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — 1.24 0.00 1.24 0.12 0.00 — 4.35
Total — — — — — — — — — — 7.84 0.00 7.84 0.78 0.00 — 27.4

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Peacock Building Acquisition and Demolition Custom Report, 4/24/2025 29 / 42
Apartme
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.69 0.69
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.04 0.04
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.72 0.72
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.69 0.69
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.04 0.04
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.72 0.72
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.11 0.11
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.01
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.12 0.12

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) Equipme
nt
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Peacock Building Acquisition and Demolition Custom Report, 4/24/2025 30 / 42
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

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

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Peacock Building Acquisition and Demolition Custom Report, 4/24/2025 31 / 42
CO2eRN2OCH4CO2TNBCO2BCO2PM2.5TPM2.5DPM2.5EPM10TPM10DPM10ESO2CONOxROGEquipme nt
Type
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
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 Peacock Building Acquisition and Demolition Custom Report, 4/24/2025 32 / 42
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Peacock Building Acquisition and Demolition Custom Report, 4/24/2025 33 / 42
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demolition Demolition 9/1/2025 9/29/2025 5.00 21.0 —
Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/1/2025 1/7/2025 5.00 5.00 — Grading Grading 1/8/2026 1/20/2026 5.00 9.00 —
Building Construction Building Construction 1/21/2026 10/27/2027 5.00 461 — Paving Paving 10/28/2027 11/29/2027 5.00 23.0 —
Peacock Building Acquisition and Demolition Custom Report, 4/24/2025 34 / 42
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 11/30/2027 12/30/2027 5.00 23.0 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 1.00 367 0.40 Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.00 6.00 84.0 0.37
Site Preparation Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 367 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 4.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 2.00 6.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Paving Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 4.00 6.00 10.0 0.56
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Rollers Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 36.0 0.38
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48 Peacock Building Acquisition and Demolition Custom Report, 4/24/2025 35 / 42

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 10.0 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 6.90 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 5.00 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 7.50 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 13.9 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 76.8 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 13.1 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 17.5 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Peacock Building Acquisition and Demolition Custom Report, 4/24/2025 36 / 42
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 15.4 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.5. Architectural Coatings
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 194,400 64,800 22,500 7,500 —

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (Cubic
Y ards)
Material Exported (Cubic
Y ards)
Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (Building
Square Footage)
Acres Paved (acres)
Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 12,568 —
Site Preparation — — 0.50 0.00 —
Grading 1,000 — 1.50 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Peacock Building Acquisition and Demolition Custom Report, 4/24/2025 37 / 42
Water Exposed Area 2 61% 61%
Water Demolished Area 2 36% 36%

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Apartments Mid Rise — 0%
General Office Building 0.00 0%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Y ear and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Y ear kWh per Y ear CO2 CH4 N2O
2025 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2026 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2027 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Y ear VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Y ear Apartments Mid
Rise
544 491 409 188,757 3,337 3,012 2,509 1,157,837
General Office
Building
146 33.2 10.5 40,366 939 213 67.5 259,318

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths
Peacock Building Acquisition and Demolition Custom Report, 4/24/2025 38 / 42

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Apartments Mid Rise —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 0
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 100
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
194400 64,800 22,500 7,500 —

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Peacock Building Acquisition and Demolition Custom Report, 4/24/2025 39 / 42
Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Apartments Mid Rise 491,880 204 0.0330 0.0040 2,515,672 General Office Building 351,696 204 0.0330 0.0040 599,086

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Apartments Mid Rise 4,029,600 0.00
General Office Building 2,666,006 0.00

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Apartments Mid Rise 73.9 —
General Office Building 14.0 —

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Apartments Mid Rise Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Apartments Mid Rise Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
Peacock Building Acquisition and Demolition Custom Report, 4/24/2025 40 / 42

1.000.000.600.021,430R-134aGeneral Office
Building
Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
General Office
Building
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Y ear Horsepower Load Factor

5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres Peacock Building Acquisition and Demolition Custom Report, 4/24/2025 41 / 42

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

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

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 82.5
AQ-PM 97.4
AQ-DPM 95.2
Drinking Water 84.4
Lead Risk Housing 91.1
Pesticides 73.4
Toxic Releases 81.9
Traffic 31.5
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 74.9
Groundwater 71.7
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 47.4
Peacock Building Acquisition and Demolition Custom Report, 4/24/2025 42 / 42
Impaired Water Bodies 0.00
Solid Waste 35.7
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 98.2
Cardio-vascular 94.6
Low Birth Weights 96.7
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 88.7
Housing 57.9
Linguistic 75.2
Poverty 97.4
Unemployment —

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use 100 dwelling units and 15,000-sf of commercial space on a 0.33-acre site.

Construction: Construction Phases Demolition activities are expected to occur over a 30- to 60-day period beginning in mid to late 2025. Construction of the new mixed-use building is expected to occur over a 2-year period beginning in early 2026.

Construction: Dust From Material Movement Estimated Import of 1,000 CY to fill basement area Construction: Trips and VMT Construction activities would result in a total of approximately 500 total truck trips.

Operations: Hearths No natural gas appliances or wood stoves.

516832v1

APPENDIX B

USFWS IPaC, CDFW CNDDB, and CNPS Query Results
IPaC U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
IPaC resource list
This report is an automatically generated list of species and other resources such as critical habitat (collectively referred to as trust resources) under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) jurisdiction that are known or expected to be on or near the project area referenced below. The list may also include trust resources that occur outside of the project area, but that could potentially be directly or indirectly affected by activities in the project area.

However, determining the likelihood and extent of effects a project may have on trust resources typically requires gathering additional site-specific (¢.g., vegetation/species surveys) and project-specific (e.g., magnitude and timing of proposed activities) information.

Below is a summary of the project information you provided and contact.information for the USFWS office(s) with jurisdiction in the defined project area. Please read the introduction to each section that follows (Endangered Species, Migratory Birds, USFWS Facilities, and NWI Wetlands) for additional information applicable to the trust resources addressed in that section.

Location
Fresno County, California
Local office
Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Office
& (916) 414-6600
ta (916) 414-6713
Federal Building
2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605
Sacramento, CA 95825-1846
Endangered species
This resource list is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an analysis of project level impacts.

The primary information used to generate this list is the known or expected range of each species. Additional areas of influence (AOI) for species are also considered. An AOI includes areas outside of the species range if the species could be indirectly affected by activities in that area (e.g., placing a dam upstream of a fish population even if that fish does not occur at the dam site, may indirectly impact the species by reducing or eliminating water flow downstream). Because species can move, and site conditions can change, the species on this list are not guaranteed to be found on or near the project area. To fully determine any potential effects to species, additional site-specific and project-specific information is.often required.

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of such proposed action" for any project that is conducted, permitted, funded, or licensed by any Federal agency. A letter from. the local office and a species list which fulfills this requirement can only be obtained by requesting an official species list from either the Regulatory Review section in IPaC (see directions below) or from the local field office directly.

For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to the IPaC website and request an official species list by doing the following:

1. Draw.the project location and click CONTINUE.

2. Click DEFINE PROJECT.

3. Log in (if directed to do so).

4. Provide a name and description for your project.

5. Click REQUEST SPECIES LIST.

Listed species and their critical habitats are managed by the Ecological Services Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the fisheries division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA Fisheries?).

Species and critical habitats under the sole responsibility of NOAA Fisheries are not shown on this list. Please contact NOAA Fisheries for species under their jurisdiction.

1. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are threatened or endangered; IPaC also shows species that are candidates, or proposed, for listing. See the listing status page for more information. I|PaC only shows species that are regulated by USFWS (see FAQ).

2. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.

The following species are potentially affected by activities in this location:

Mammals
NAME
Fresno Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys nitratoides exilis
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5150
San Joaquin Kit Fox Vulpes macrotis mutica
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2873
Reptiles
NAME
Blunt-nosed Leopard Lizard Gambelia silus
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/625
Northwestern Pond Turtle Actinemys marmorata
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Amphibians
NAME
California Tiger Salamander Ambystoma californiense
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.

STATUS
Endangered
Endangered
STATUS
Endangered
Proposed Threatened
STATUS
Threatened
Western Spadefoot Spea hammondii Proposed Threatened
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Insects

NAME STATUS
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus Candidate
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Crustaceans

NAME STATUS
Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp Branchinecta lynchi Threatened Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.

Critical habitats
Potential effects to critical habitat(s) in this location must be analyzed along with the endangered species themselves.

There are no critical habitats at this location.

You are still required to determine if your project(s) may have effects on all above listed species.

Bald & Golden Eagles
There are no documented cases of eagles being present at this location. However, if you believe eagles may be using your site, please reach out to the local Fish and Wildlife Service office.

Additional information can be found using the following links:
e Eagle Management https://Awww.fws.gov/program/eagle-management e Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-take- migratory-birds
e Nationwide conservation measures for birds
https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/nationwide-standard-conservation- measures.pdf
e Supplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in IPaC golden-eagles-may-occur-project-action
What does IPaC use to generate the potential presence of bald and golden eagles in my specified location?
The potential for eagle presence is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN), The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply). To see a.list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the Rapid Avian Information Locator (RAIL) Tool.

What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs of bald and golden eagles in my specified location?
The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location.

The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore activities or development.

Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area. It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the Rapid Avian Information Locator (RAIL) Tool.

What if | have eagles on my list?
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur. Please contact your local Fish and Wildlife Service Field Office if you have questions.

Migratory birds
Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act’ and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act?.

Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats? should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described in the links below.

Specifically, please review the "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles".

1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.

2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.

Additional information can be found using the following links:
e Eagle Management https://www.fws.gov/program/eagle-management e Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds https:/Awww.fws.gov/library/collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-take- migratory-birds
e Nationwide conservation measures for birds https:/Awww.fws.gov/sites/default/files/ documents/nationwide-standard-conservation-measures.pdf e Supplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in IPaC https:/Avwww.fws.gov/media/supplemental-information-migratory-birds-and-bald-and- golden-eagles-may-occur-project-action
The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your project location. To learn more about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how this list is generated, see the FAQ below. This is not a list of every bird you may find in this location, nor a guarantee that every bird on this list will be found in your project area. To see exact locations of where birders and the general public have sighted birds in and around your project area, visit the E-bird data mapping tool (Tip: enter your location, desired date range and a species on your list). For projects that occur off the Atlantic Coast, additional maps and models detailing the relative occurrence and abundance of bird species on your list are available. Links to additional information about Atlantic Coast birds, and other important information about your migratory bird list, including how to properly interpret and use your migratory bird report, can be found below.

For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, see the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY below to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area.

NAME BREEDING SEASON
Belding's Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis
beldingi
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8
Bullock's Oriole Icterus bullockii
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA California Gull Larus californicus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.

Northern Harrier Circus hudsonius
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA Nuttall's Woodpecker Dryobates nuttallii
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9410
Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range inthe continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3914
Santa Barbara Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia graminea
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5513
Western Screech-owl Megascops kennicottii cardonensis
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA Probability of Presence Summary
Breeds Apr 1 to Aug 15
Breeds Mar 21 to Jul 25
Breeds Mar 1 to Jul 31
Breeds Apr 1 to Sep 15
Breeds Apr 1 to Jul 20
Breeds May 20 to Aug 31
Breeds Mar 1 to Sep 5
Breeds Mar 1 to Jun 30
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles", specifically the FAQ section titled "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report.

Probability of Presence (™)
Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4- week months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort (see below) can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One can have higher confidence in the presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also high.

How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:

1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25.

2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence across all weeks, For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2.

3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of presence score.

To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.

Breeding Season (~)
Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area.

Survey Effort (()
Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys.

To see a bar's survey effort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.

No Data (-)
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.

Survey Timeframe
Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse.

M probability of presence breeding season | survey effort -—no data

SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Belding’
seemen WY M+ BPEY BARE BREE BEE BE +00 OO +B B-—- Sparrow

BCC - BCR
som sen BBE BEBE HI EE 2 soe one me BCC - BCR
California Gull Fi aln ; a aff. : : a. 4 fl
eco, aan GBGE ERHE EERE HEE HE +> al (CON)
ren tees ette oes EET ED MAE HEED SS -—- Harrier :

BCC - BCR
Nuttall's 7 j ; +++ + + +-+-+3) + fi + Le 1 = tog bee G+ — +--+) -—— Ot Woodpecker ‘+i +H thet ahah cul al -

BCC - BCR
Olive-sided }------- ++-++ oe Si ches sel apts SO ee ee ae Os SS Serene Se ete Flycatcher
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
ogee e+ CAREY ATED ATE HH E-~ Song Sparrow

BCC - BCR
Western A+ B44 HH HH [e+ HEE ones ghesem dhesdses aecfebes diese aber Screech-owl =

BCC - BCR
Tell me more about conservation measures | can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds.

Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly important when birds are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very helpful impact minimization measure.

To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures or permits may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of infrastructure or bird species present on your project site.

What does IPaC use to generate the list of migratory birds that potentially occur in my specified location?
The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location.

What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location?
The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN), This data is derived from a growing collection of survey,_banding, and citizen science datasets.

Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information becomes available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and how to interpret them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on. the "Tell meabout these graphs" link.

How do | know if a bird is breeding, wintering or. migrating in my area? To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering, migrating or year-round), you may query your location using the RAIL Tool and look at the range maps provided for birds in your area at the bottom of the profiles provided for each bird in your results. If a bird on your migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur in your project area, there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specified. If "Breeds elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area.

What are the levels of concern for migratory birds?
Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern:

1."BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern throughout their range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacific Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands);

2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA; and

3. "Non-BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either because of the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non-eagles) potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities (e.g. offshore energy development or longline fishing).

Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts should be made, in particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC species of rangewide concern. For more information on conservation measures you can implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles, please see the FAQs for these topics.

Details about birds that are potentially affected by offshore projects For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and groups of bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be helpful to you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird model results files underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf project webpage.

Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use throughout the year, including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this information. For additional information on marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study and the nanotag studies or contact Caleb Spiegel or Pam Loring.

What if | have eagles on my list?
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur.

Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of birds of priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for identifying what other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does |PaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location". Please be aware this report provides the "probability of presence" of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that overlap your project; not your exact project footprint.

On the graphs provided, please also look carefully atthe survey effort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the "no data" indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high survey effort is the key component. If the survey effortis high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you know what to look for to confirm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project activities, should presence be confirmed. To learn more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ "Tell me about conservation measures | can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds" at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page.

Facilities
National Wildlife Refuge lands
Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a 'Compatibility Determination’ conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns.

There are no refuge lands at this location.

Fish hatcheries
There are no fish hatcheries at this location.

Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory
(NWI)
Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes.

For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District.

This location did not intersect any wetlands mapped by NWI.

NOTE: This initial screening does not replace an on-site delineation to determine whether wetlands occur. Additional information on the NWI data is provided below.

Data limitations
The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level information on the location, type and size of these resources. The maps are prepared from the analysis of high-altitude imagery. Wetlands are identified based on vegetation, visible hydrology and geography. A margin of error is inherent in the use of imagery; thus, detailed on-the-ground inspection of any particular site may result in revision of the wetland boundaries or classification established through image analysis.

The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the image analysts, the amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth verification work conducted. Metadata should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any mapping problems.

Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or field work. There may be occasional differences in polygon boundaries or classifications between the information depicted on the map and the actual conditions on site.

Data exclusions
Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of aerial imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or submerged aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and nearshore coastal waters. Some deepwater reef communities (coral or tuberficid worm reefs) have also been excluded from the inventory. These habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery.

Data precautions
Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may define and describe wetlands in a different manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in either the design or products of this inventory, to define the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local government or to establish the geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies.

Persons intending to engage in activities involving modifications within or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate Federal, state, or local agencies concerning specified agency regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may affect such activities.

CAUfOR: NIA D PARTMENT Of
FISH and WILD IFE Rarefind
Query Summary:

Quad IS (Fresno North (3611977) OR Fresno South (3611967) OR Caruthers (3611957) OR Herndon (3611978) OR Kearney Park (3611968) OR Raisin (3611958) OR Clovis (3611976) OR Malaga (3611966) OR Conejo (3611956)) Print 1 1 Close
CNDDB Element Querv Results
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_S-Sensitive,

CDFW SSC-
Actinemys northwestern Proposed Species of Special
marmorata pond turtle Reptiles ARAAD02031 1082 1 Threatened None G2 SNR null Concern, null

IUCN VU-
Vulnerable,
USFS _ S-Sensitive
BLM_S-Sensitive,
CDFW SSC- Freshwater Species of Special marsh,
Agelaius tricolored Concern, Marsh & Birds ABPBXB0020 960 3 None Threatened G1G2 S2 null IUCN EN-tricolor blackbird Endangered, swamp, USFWS BCC-Birds Swamp,
of Conservation Wetland
Concern
Cismontane
woodland,
California Meadow&
tiger seep,
Ambystoma salamander CDFW WL-Watch Riparian
californiense - central Amphibians AAAAA01181 1328 4 Threatened Threatened G2G3T3 S3 null List, IUCN_VU- woodland, pop. 1 California Vulnerable Valley&
foothill DPS grassland,
Vernal pool,
Wetland
CDFW SSC- Chaparral,
Anniella Northern Species of Special Coastal
California Reptiles ARACC01020 386 1 None None G3 S2S3 null dunes, pulchra legless lizard Concern, USFS_S- Coastal Sensitive scrub Chaparral,
Coastal
scrub,
Desert
wash, Great
Basin
grassland,
Great Basin
scrub,
BLM _ S-Sensitive, Mojavean
CDFW SSC- desert
Antrozous pallid bat Mammals AMACC10010 420 1 None None G4 S3 null Species of Special scrub, pallidus Concern, IUCN_LC- Riparian
Least Concern, woodland,
USFS _ S-Sensitive Sonoran
desert
scrub,
Upper
montane
coniferous
forest,
Valley&
foothill
grassland
Brackish
marsh,
Estuary,
CDF _S-Sensitive , Freshwater
Ardea alba great egret Birds ABNGA04040 43 1 None None G5 S4 null IUCN LC-Least marsh, Concern Marsh &
swamp,
Riparian
forest,
Wetland
Arizona California CDFW SSC-
elegans Reptiles ARADB01017 260 2 None None G5T2 S2 null Species of Special null occidentalis glossy snake Concern
Coastal
prairie,
Coastal
scrub, Great
BLM_S-Sensitive, Basin
CDFW SSC- grassland,
Species of Special Great Basin
scrub, Athene burrowing Birds ABNSB10010 2057 6 None None G4 S2 null Concern, IUCN_LC- Mojavean cunicularia owl Least Concern, desert USFWS BCC-Birds scrub, of Conservation Sonoran Concern desert scrub,
Valley&
foothill
grassland
Alkali playa,
SB CalBG/RSABG- Chenopod
Atriplex lesser Dicots PDCHE042M0 52 1 None None G2 S2 1B.1 Caiffornia/Rancho scrub, minuscula saltscale Santa Ana Botanic Valley&
Garden foothill
grassland
Bombus Crotch's Insects IIHYM24480 441 2 None Candidate G2 S2 null IUCN_EN- null crotchii bumble bee Endangered Endangered Coastal
prairie,
Bombus American IUCN VU- Great Basin
pensylvanicus bumble bee Insects IIHYM24260 500 1 None None G3G4 S2 null Vulnerable grassland, Valley&
foothill
grassland
Valley&
Branchinecta vernal pool IUCN VU- foothill
lynchi fairy shrimp Crustaceans ICBRA03030 804 2 Threatened None G3 S3 null Vulnerable grassland, Vernal pool,
Wetland
Great Basin
grassland,
Riparian
Buteo Swainson's BLM_S-Sensitive, forest,
Birds ABNKC19070 2577 6 None Threatened G5 S4 null IUCN LC-Least Riparian swainsoni hawk Concern woodland, Valley&
foothill
grassland
Castilleja
campestris succulent Dicots PDSCR0D3Z1 99 1 Threatened Endangered G4? S2S3 1B.2 null Vernal pool, var. owl's-clover T2T3 Wetland
succulenta
SB CalBG/RSABG-
Caiffornia/Rancho Chenopod
Santa Ana Botanic scrub, Pinon
Caulanthus California Garden, SB_SBBG- &juniper
californicus jewelflower Dicots PDBRA31010 67 1 Endangered Endangered G1 S1 1B.1 Santa Barbara woodlands , Botanic Garden, Valley&
SB UCBG-UC foothill
Boianical Garden at grassland
Berkeley
Coccyzus western BLM_S-Sensitive, Riparian americanus yellow-billed Birds ABNRB02022 165 2 Threatened Endangered G5T2T3 S1 null occidentalis cuckoo USFS _ S-Sensitive forest
Desmocerus valley
californicus elderberry Insects IICOL48011 271 1 Threatened None G3T3 S3 null null Riparian dimorphus longhorn scrub
beetle
Dipodomys Fresno IUCN VU- Chenopod nitratoides kangaroo rat Mammals AMAFD03151 12 3 Endangered Endangered G3TH SH null Vulnerable scrub exilis Efferia Antioch Interior
antiochi efferian Insects IIDIP07010 4 2 None None G1G2 S1S2 null null dunes robberfly Egretta !hula snowy egret Birds ABNGA06030 20 1 None None G5 S4 null IUCN LC-Least Marsh & Concern swamp,
Meadow&
seep,
Riparian
forest,
Riparian
woodland,
Wetland
Chenopod
SB CalBG/RSABG- scrub, Pinon
Eriastrum Hoover's Caiffornia/Rancho &juniper
hooveri eriastrum Dicots PDPLM03070 47 1 Delisted None G3 S3 4.2 Santa Ana Botanic woodlands, Garden Valley&
foothill
grassland
Chaparral,
Cismontane
Eumops BLM_S-Sensitive, woodland,
western CDFW SSC- Coastal perotis mastiff bat Mammals AMACD02011 296 4 None None G4G5T4 S3S4 null Species of Special scrub, californicus Concern Valley& foothill
grassland
Chaparral,
Coastal
SB CalBG/RSABG- scrub,
Caiffornia/Rancho Meadow&
lmperata California Santa Ana Botanic seep,
Monocots PMPOA3D020 32 1 None None G3 S3 2B.1 Garden, SB_SBBG- Mojavean brevifolia satintail Santa Barbara desert Botanic Garden, scrub,
USFS _ S-Sensitive Riparian
scrub,
Wetland
Broadleaved
upland
forest,
Cismontane
woodland,
Lasiurus hoary bat Mammals AMACC05032 238 1 None None G3G4 S4 null IUCN LC-Least Lower cinereus Concern montane
coniferous
forest, North
coast
coniferous
forest
Lasthenia alkali-sink Dicots PDAST5L030 55 1 None None G2 S2 1B.1 null Vernal pool chrysantha goldfields
BLM_S-Sensitive, Cismontane
SB SBBG-Santa woodland,
Leptosiphon Madera Dicots PDPLM09130 26 1 None None G3 S3 1B.2 Barbara Botanic Lower serrulatus leptosiphon Garden, USFS_S- montane
Sensitive coniferous
forest
Linderiella California Crustaceans ICBRA06010 508 1 None None G2G3 S2S3 null IUCN NT-Near Vernal pool occidentalis linderiella Threatened Lytta molesta molestan Insects IICOL4C030 17 2 None None G2 S2 null null Vernal pool, blister beetle Wetland
Metapogon Hurd's Interior metapogon Insects IIDIP08010 3 1 None None G1G2 S1S2 null null hurdi robberfly dunes Riparian
double- CDFW WL-Watch forest,
Nannopterum crested Birds ABNFD01020 39 1 None None G5 S4 null List, IUCN_LC- Riparian auritum cormorant Least Concern scrub,
Riparian
woodland
Northern Northern Vernal pool, Claypan Claypan Herbaceous CTT44120CA 21 1 None None G1 S1 .1 null null Wetland Vernal Pool Vernal Pool Marsh &
swamp,
Nycticorax black- IUCN LC-Least Riparian
nycticorax crowned Birds ABNGA11010 37 1 None None G5 S4 null Concern forest, night heron Riparian
woodland,
Wetland
Orcuttia San Joaquin Vernal pool,
inaequalis Valley Orcutt Monocots PMPOA4G060 47 1 Threatened Endangered G1 S1 1B.1 null Wetland grass SB_ CalBG/RSABG-
Orcuttia hairy Orcutt Monocots PMPOA4G040 35 1 Endangered Endangered G1 S1 1B.1 California/Rancho Vernal pool, pilosa grass Santa Ana Botanic Wetland
Garden
Cismontane
woodland,
San Joaquin BLM_S-Sensitive, Mojavean
Perognathus pocket Mammals AMAFD01060 140 3 None None G2G3 S2S3 null IUCN LC-Least desert inornatus Concern scrub, mouse Valley&
foothill
grassland
Chaparral,
Cismontane
woodland,
Coastal bluff
scrub,
Coastal
BLM_S-Sensitive, scrub,
Desert
Phrynosoma coast horned CDFW_SSC- wash, Pinon
blainvillii lizard Reptiles ARACF12100 841 1 None None G4 S4 null Species of Special &juniper Concern, IUCN_LC- woodlands, Least Concern Riparian scrub,
Riparian
woodland,
Valley&
foothill
grassland
Sagittaria Sanford's Marsh &
Monocots PMALI040Q0 143 9 None None G3 S3 1B.2 BLM_S-Sensitive swamp, sanfordii arrowhead Wetland Cismontane
woodland,
BLM _ S-Sensitive, Coastal
Spea western Proposed CDFW SSC- scrub,
hammondii spadefoot Amphibians AAABF02020 1443 2 Threatened None G2G3 S3S4 null Species of Special Valley& Concern, IUCN_NT- foothill
Near Threatened grassland,
Vernal pool,
Wetland
Taxidea taxus American Mammals AMAJF04010 647 2 None None G5 S3 null CDFW SSC- Alkali badger Species of Special marsh,
Concern, IUCN_LC- Alkali playa,
Least Concern Alpine,
Alpine dwarf
scrub, Bog
& fen,
Brackish
marsh,
Broadleaved
upland
forest,
Chaparral,
Chenopod
scrub,
Cismontane
woodland,
Closed-cone
coniferous
forest,
Coastal bluff
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
forest,
Oldgrowth,
Pavement
plain,
Redwood,
Riparian
forest,
Riparian
scrub,
Riparian
woodland,
Salt marsh,
Sonoran
desert
scrub,
Sonoran
thorn
woodland,
Ultramafic,
Upper
montane
coniferous
forest,
Upper
Sonoran
scrub,
Valley&
foothill
grassland
Marsh &
Thamnophis giant IUCN VU- swamp,
Reptiles ARADB36150 381 1 Threatened Threatened G2 S2 null Riparian gigas gartersnake Vulnerable scrub, Wetland
Tuctoria Greene's Monocots PMPOA6N010 50 1 Endangered Rare G1 S1 1B.1 null Vernal pool, greenei tuctoria Wetland
Riparian
forest,
Vireo bellii least Bell's Birds ABPBW01114 505 2 Endangered Endangered G5T2 S3 null null Riparian pusillus vireo scrub,
Riparian
woodland
Chenopod
Vulpes San Joaquin scrub,
macrotis kit fox Mammals AMAJA03041 1020 2 Endangered Threatened G4T2 S3 null null Valley& mutica foothill
grassland

516832v1

APPENDIX C

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
& A S S O C I A T E S, I N C.

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING  ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING

CONSTRUCTION TESTING & INSPECTION
215 West Dakota Avenue Clovis, California 93612 (559) 348-2200 FAX (559) 348-2190 With Offices Serving the Western United States
014-23080 Peacock Building Phase I Report Final.docx
August 29, 2023 Project No. 014-23080
Ms. Jacqueline Anne Markley
SWCA Environmental Consultants
6355 Riverside Boulevard, Suite C
Sacramento, California 95831
[email protected]
RE: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
The Peacock Building
937 - 943 F Street and 942 Fagan Alley
APN 467-074-02
Fresno, California 93706
Dear Ms. Markley:

Krazan & Associates, Inc., (Krazan) has completed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) at the above-referenced site summarized in a report dated August 29, 2023. Please note that the earliest date of source review was on June 23, 2023. This report is considered viable within 180 days of that date. We appreciate the opportunity to serve your environmental due diligence needs.

During the course of this assessment, Krazan identified no evidence of recognized environmental condition (RECs), controlled RECs (CRECs) or historical RECs (HRECs) in connection with the subject site as defined by ASTM E 1527-21; however, ASTM non-scope considerations were identified.

ASTM Non-Scope Considerations
The structures on the subject site were constructed in the early 1900s and 1930s. Neither an asbestos containing materials (ACMs) survey nor a lead-based paint (LBP) survey, including sampling of materials at the on-site structures, was included within the scope of this assessment; therefore, it is unknown whether the buildings contain ACMs or LBP. Prior to the disturbance of any suspect ACMs or LBP at the subject site via renovation or demolition, a comprehensive asbestos and LBP survey is recommended.

The U.S. EPA has set the safety standard for radon gas in homes to be 4.0 pico Curies per liter (pCi/L).

Review of the EPA Map of Radon Zones places the Property in Zone 2, where average predicted radon levels are equal to or above 2.0 pCi/L and equal to or below 4.0 pCi/L. While the available data suggests that the potential for radon to adversely impact the subject site appears to be low, based on the proposed future residential usage of the subject site, a radon survey may be warranted.

The Peacock Building Project No. 014-23080
Fresno, California Page No. 2
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.

With Offices Serving the Western United States
014-23080 Peacock Building Phase I Report Final.docx
If you have any questions regarding the information presented in this report, please call me at (559) 348- 2200.

Respectfully submitted,
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Remington R. Alexander, PE
Environmental Regional Manager
RRA/mlt

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT

THE PEACOCK BUILDING
937 - 943 F STREET AND 942 FAGAN ALLEY
APN 467-074-02
FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93706
Project No. 014-23080
August 29, 2023
Prepared for:

Ms. Jacqueline Anne Markley
SWCA Environmental Consultants
6355 Riverside Boulevard, Suite C
Sacramento, California 95831
Prepared by:

Krazan & Associates, Inc.
215 West Dakota Avenue
Clovis, California 93612
(559) 348-2200

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................................................................................................... i

1.0 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT ............................................................................ 2

2.1 Purpose ..................................................................................................................................... 2

2.2 Scope of Work........................................................................................................................... 2

3.0 SUBJECT SITE SETTING ........................................................................................................ 3

3.1 Geology and Hydrogeology ....................................................................................................... 4

4.0 SITE BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................... 5

4.1 Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps..................................................................................................... 5

4.2 USGS Topographic Quadrangle Maps ....................................................................................... 7

4.3 City Cross Reference Directories ............................................................................................... 8

4.4 Aerial Photograph Interpretation .............................................................................................. 10

4.5 Municipal Records .................................................................................................................. 11

4.6 Previous Environmental Assessments ...................................................................................... 12

4.7 Agricultural Chemicals ............................................................................................................ 12

5.0 USER-PROVIDED INFORMATION ...................................................................................... 13

5.1 Environmental Liens/Activity and Use Limitations Report ....................................................... 13

5.2 Title Report ............................................................................................................................. 13

5.3 Interviews................................................................................................................................ 14

5.4 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment User Questionnaire .................................................... 14

6.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE ...................................................................................................... 16

6.1 Observations ........................................................................................................................... 16

6.2 Adjacent Streets and Property Usage ....................................................................................... 18

6.3 ASTM Non-Scope Considerations ........................................................................................... 19

6.4 Regulatory Agency Records Review ........................................................................................ 21

7.0 DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS .................................................................................................. 34

7.1 Evaluation of Data Gaps/Data Failure ...................................................................................... 34

8.0 CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................... 36

9.0 RELIANCE ............................................................................................................................... 37

10.0 LIMITATIONS ..................................................................................................................... 37

11.0 QUALIFICATIONS .............................................................................................................. 38 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................... 40 GLOSSARY OF TERMS .................................................................................................................... 41 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

FIGURES
Figure No. 1 Vicinity Map
Figure No. 2 Parcel Map
Figure No. 3 Site Map

PHOTOGRAPHS

APPENDICES
Appendix A EDR – Certified Sanborn ® Map Report
EDR – Historical Topo Map Report
EDR – City Directory Image Report
EDR – Aerial Photo Decade Package
Appendix B Municipal Records
Preliminary Title Report
Phase I ESA Questionnaires
Appendix C EDR – Radius Map Report
Regulatory Records
i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Krazan & Associates, Inc. (Krazan) has conducted a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the

0.33-acre property identified as Fresno County Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 467-074-002 located along the southwestern side of F Street in Fresno, California (subject site). The subject site is addressed 937 and 943 F Street and 942 Fagan Alley, and is located within the historic Chinatown District, which was denoted on Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps as early as 1885.

The subject site was developed with dwellings as early as 1885 and was redeveloped as a boarding house as of 1898. The F Street building was constructed in the early 1900s, with the oldest permit noted on file with the City of Fresno to be dated April 1910. The northeastern portion of the property was redeveloped for commercial use by 1918 while the existing lodging/residential building has been present since the 1930s.

The adjacent and vicinity properties have been a mix of commercial and residential uses since the 1880s.

The subject site is currently developed with two buildings, the Peacock Building and a residential/dwelling structure. The Peacock Building is a vacant two-story retail and residential building. The single-story residential/dwelling structure consists of a total of five studio-type residential units.

The City of Fresno plans to redevelop the subject site for use as permanent affordable housing. At this time, the existing structures are to be demolished as part of the redevelopment.

The subject site was not identified on any Federal, State or local regulatory database indicating that a release of hazardous materials has impacted the subject site.

The U.S. EPA has set the safety standard for radon gas in homes to be 4.0 pico Curies per liter (pCi/L).

The Peacock Building Project No. 014-23080
Fresno, California Page No. 1
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.

With Offices Serving the Western United States
014-23080 Peacock Building Phase I Report Final.docx

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The subject site is addressed 937 and 943 F Street and 942 Fagan Alley in Fresno, California 93702. The subject site is 0.33 acres in area and is identified as Fresno County Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 467- 074-002. The subject site was developed with dwellings as early as 1885 and was redeveloped as a boarding house as of 1898. The F Street building was constructed in the early 1900s was redeveloped for commercial use by 1918 and with the lodging/residential building since the 1930s. The subject site is located in the historic Chinatown District of Fresno. The subject site is currently a vacant two-story retail and residential building, and a separate studio-apartments building.

Krazan conducted the Phase I ESA of the subject site in conformance with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) E 1527-21 Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. This Phase I ESA constitutes all appropriate inquiry (AAI) designed to identify recognized environmental conditions (RECs) in connection with the previous ownership and uses of the subject site as defined by ASTM E 1527-21.

ASTM E 1527-21 Section 1.1.1 Recognized Environmental Conditions – In defining a standard of good commercial and customary practice for conducting an environmental site assessment of a parcel of property, the goal of the processes established by this practice is to identify recognized environmental conditions.

The term recognized environmental conditions means: 1) the presence of hazardous substances or petroleum due to a release to the environment; 2) the likely presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products due to a likely release to the environment; or 3) the presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. De minimis conditions are not recognized environmental conditions.

It is incumbent upon the user to read this Phase I ESA report in its entirety. If not otherwise defined within the text of this report, please refer to the Glossary of Terms Section following the References Section for definitions of terms and acronyms utilized within this Phase I ESA report.

Previous Environmental Assessments
No previous environmental assessments were provided to Krazan by SWCA for review as part of this Phase I ESA.

The Peacock Building Project No. 014-23080
Fresno, California Page No. 2
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.

With Offices Serving the Western United States
014-23080 Peacock Building Phase I Report Final.docx

2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT

2.1 Purpose
According to ASTM E 1527-21, the purpose of this practice is to define good commercial and customary practice in the United States of America for conducting an environmental site assessment of a parcel of commercial real estate with respect to the range of contaminants within the scope of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) (42 U.S.C. §9601) and petroleum products. As such, this practice is intended to permit a user to satisfy one of the requirements to qualify for the innocent landowner, contiguous property owner, or bona fide prospective purchaser limitation on CERCLA liability (hereinafter, the landowner liability protections, or LLPs): that is, the practice that constitutes all appropriate inquiries into the previous ownership and uses of the property consistent with good commercial and customary practice as defined at 42 U.S.C. §9601(35)(B).

2.2 Scope of Work
The scope of work for this Phase I ESA conforms to ASTM E 1527-21. The Phase I ESA includes the following scope of work: a) a site reconnaissance of existing on-site conditions and observations of adjacent property uses, b) a review of user-provided documents and search of available current land title records compiled by AFX Corp., Inc., c) a review of historical aerial photographs, a review of pertinent building permit records, cross-reference directories, historical Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps (SFIMs), and interview(s) with person(s) knowledgeable of the previous and current ownership and uses of the subject site, d) a review of local regulatory agency records, and e) a review of local, state, and federal regulatory agency lists compiled by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR).

Krazan was provided written authorization to conduct the Phase I ESA by Jacqueline Anne Markley, Senior Environmental Planner, with SWCA on June 23, 2023 in response to Krazan’s June 12, 2023 Proposal/Cost Estimate No. P23-275.

The Peacock Building Project No. 014-23080
Fresno, California Page No. 3
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.

With Offices Serving the Western United States
014-23080 Peacock Building Phase I Report Final.docx

3.0 SUBJECT SITE SETTING
The subject site is located approximately 60 feet south of the intersection of F Street and Tulare Street in Fresno, California. The subject site is a rectangular-shaped parcel measuring 0.33 acres in area and is addressed 937 and 943 F Street, and 942 Fagan Alley. The subject site is located within the Historic Chinatown District of Fresno. General property information and property use are summarized in the following table. Refer to Figures No. 1 – 3 for subject site details.

Subject Site Information Summary
Current Owner: Wilson Wong and Yolanda Wong
Assessor’s Parcel Numbers: 467-074-002
Addresses: 937 and 943 F Street
942 Fagan Alley
Historical Addresses: 2 and 3 F Street (1885 – two dwellings) 3 and 6 F Street (1888 – two dwellings)
1041 through 1057 F Street (1898 – boarding houses)
941 through 957 F Street ( 1906 – boarding houses)
1432½ and 1434½ Tulare Street (1906 – portions of two
boarding houses)
937, 939, 941, 943 and 945 F Street (1918)
945½ F Street Alley (1918 – rooms)
General Location: Historic Chinatown District of Fresno South of the intersection of F Street and Tulare Street Acreage: 0.33 acres
Zoning: DTN – Downtown Neighborhood
Existing Use: 937 and 943 F Street – Vacant two-story building 942 Fagan Alley - Residential
Number of Buildings: 2
Original Construction Date: Previous structures - prior to 1885 Existing structures – 1910s thru 1930s
Proposed Use: Permanent Affordable Housing
Electricity: Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E)
Natural Gas: PG&E
Potable Water: City of Fresno
Sanitary Sewer: City of Fresno
Latitude / Longitude: 36.729982 / –119.794939
Topographic Map: U.S. Geological Survey, 7.5-minute Fresno South, California
Topographic Map Location: Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 09, Township 14 South, Range 20 East, Mount Diablo
Principle Meridian
Topography: Approximately 288 feet above mean sea level Approximate Depth to Groundwater: 105 feet below ground surface (bgs)* Regional Groundwater Flow Direction: North*
Note: * State of California, Department of Water Resources, Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) Data Viewer, Fall 2022
The Peacock Building Project No. 014-23080
Fresno, California Page No. 4
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.

With Offices Serving the Western United States
014-23080 Peacock Building Phase I Report Final.docx

3.1 Geology and Hydrogeology
The subject site is located within the San Joaquin Valley, a broad structural trough bound by the Sierra Nevada and Coast Ranges of California. The San Joaquin Valley, which comprises the southern portion of the Great Valley of California, has been filled with several thousand feet of sedimentary deposits.

Sediments in the eastern valley, derived from the erosion of the Sierra Nevada, have been deposited by major to minor west-flowing drainages and their tributaries. Near-surface sediments are dominated by sands and silty sands with lesser silts, minor clays, and gravel. The sedimentary deposits in the region form large coalescing alluvial fans with gentle slopes. According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Web Soil Survey, soil types at the subject site and vicinity include Hanford sandy loam and Delhi loamy sand. Groundwater is present at approximately 105 bgs and regionally it is flowing generally north according to the State of California Department of Water Resources, SGMA Data Viewer dated Fall 2022.

The Peacock Building Project No. 014-23080
Fresno, California Page No. 5
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.

With Offices Serving the Western United States
014-23080 Peacock Building Phase I Report Final.docx

4.0 SITE BACKGROUND
A review of historical Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps (SFIMs), historic USGS topographic maps, reasonably ascertainable city cross-reference directories, historical aerial photographs, local agency records and previous environmental reports, as made available to Krazan, were utilized to assess the history of the subject site.

4.1 Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps
Krazan reviews Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps (SFIMs) to evaluate prior land use of the subject site and the adjacent properties. SFIMs typically exist for cities with populations of 2,000 or more, the coverage dependent on the location of the subject site within the city limits. Krazan contracted with Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) to provide copies of available SFIMs for the subject site and the adjacent properties. Refer to Appendix A – EDR – Certified Sanborn® Map Report dated June 25, 2023 for details.

Sanborn Fire Insurance Map Summary
Year Site Usage Adjacent Property Usage
1885 The subject site is developed with two
dwellings.

A saloon is present to the adjacent
northwest of the subject site. Two dwellings
and two saloons (one including a dance
hall) are present to the adjacent northeast of
the subject site. Dwellings, laundry
facilities, and restaurants are present in the
subject site vicinity.
1888 The two aforementioned dwellings have
been redeveloped and have larger
footprints than in the 1885 map.

The adjacent dwellings and saloons to the
north and northeast are no longer depicted.

A female boarding house is present to the
northeast along Tulare Street. The subject
site vicinity is depicted as stores, dwellings,
and saloons.
1898 The subject site has been redeveloped
with a female boarding house adjacent
along F Street. The lodgings appear to
be addressed 1041 through 1057 F
Street. The remainder of the property is
undeveloped.

The northwestern, western, and southeastern
adjacent properties have been developed as
female boarding houses. The northeastern
adjacent property is vacant; however, the
region is labeled “Chinatown”. The subject
site vicinity is depicted as saloons, female
boarding houses and restaurants.

The Peacock Building Project No. 014-23080
Fresno, California Page No. 6
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.

With Offices Serving the Western United States
014-23080 Peacock Building Phase I Report Final.docx
Sanborn Fire Insurance Map Summary (continued)
Year Site Usage Adjacent Property Usage
1906 The lodgings along F Street have been
reassigned new addresses of 941 through
957 F Street. Two additional female
boarding houses are located on the
northwestern subject site boundary and
extend partially onto the adjacent
property to the northwest. These are
addressed 1432½ and 1434½ Tulare
Street.

Additional female boarding houses have
been developed adjacent to the northwest
and southeast, with numerous similar
developments, restaurants and stores to the
east across F Street. A structure adjacent to
the east across F Street is labeled “Lunch”.
1918 The female boarding house has been
demolished and a new structure is
located along the northeastern property
boundary, fronting F Street. The new
two-story building includes stores, a
restaurant, and a shooting gallery. The
building is addressed 937 through 945 F
Street.

Three lodging structures are present in
the southwestern portion of the subject
site adjacent to the alley. The structures
are addressed 935 and 945½ F Street
Alley.

The adjacent property to the northwest
consists of several buildings with various
uses including a bank, clothing cleaners, a
restaurant and stores. The property to the
southeast has been expanded to include a
photo gallery, stores and bathing. The
adjacent property to the west has been
redeveloped for use as a dwelling and a
carpentry store.
1948, 1950 The building along F Street is relatively
unchanged. The three lodging structures
in the southwestern portion are no longer
present. One new structure labeled
“lodgings” is present along the
southeastern property boundary. The
structure is addressed 942 Fagan Alley.

The adjacent property to the east has been
redeveloped with one or more adjoining
buildings occupied by stores and restaurants
on the ground floor and lodgings on the
second floor. The buildings are addressed
938 through 952 F Street.

Vicinity properties are developed for
commercial use as stores, theatres,
pharmacies, lodges, and restaurants.
1970 The subject site is unchanged from the
1950 map with the exception of a shed or
garage depicted in the southwestern
portion of the property.

Surrounding uses are relatively unchanged;
however, numerous buildings in the site
vicinity have been demolished and appear to
be vacant lots.

EDR’s search of Sanborn Insurance maps indicate the subject site was developed with two dwellings as early as 1885. The subject site was redeveloped as a boarding house as of 1898. The northeastern portion of the property was redeveloped for commercial use by 1918, with boarding/rooms still located in the southwestern portion of the subject site. The subject site has been occupied by the existing commercial since the late 1910s and a lodging building since the 1930s. Surrounding properties were a mix of boarding houses, saloons, restaurants and stores from 1885 to 1918. As of 1948, the majority of the adjacent and The Peacock Building Project No. 014-23080
Fresno, California Page No. 7
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.

With Offices Serving the Western United States
014-23080 Peacock Building Phase I Report Final.docx
vicinity properties were developed for commercial use. As of 1970, many buildings in the site vicinity were demolished leaving numerous vacant lots.

4.2 USGS Topographic Quadrangle Map
Krazan reviewed the 7.5-minute Fresno North, Fresno South, Fresno, and Bullard topographic maps between the years 1923 and 2018. According to review of the historical topographic quadrangle maps, the subject site and adjacent/vicinity properties were developed in or before 1923. Refer to Appendix A –EDR - Historical Topo Map Report dated June 22, 2023 for details.

Topographic Maps Summary
Year Site Usage Adjacent Property Usage
1923, 1942 A portion of a rectangular structure is
present on the subject site. The subject
site is depicted as approximately 285 feet
above mean sea level.

The northeastern subject site boundary is
bound by a southeast to northwest extending
light duty road (F Street). The subject site is
surrounded by relatively large structure of
unknown use. These relatively larger
structures are present in the great vicinity to
the northeast. Relatively smaller structures
are present in the greater vicinity to the
northwest, southwest, and southeast of the
subject site. Highways 41 and 180 are
labeled to the west and southwest of the
subject site. A Southern Pacific railroad
spur is present to the northeast of the subject
site.
1946, 1947,
1963, 1972,
1981
The subject site is depicted within a
densely developed and urban area within
the city limits. Individual structures are
no longer depicted in this portion of the
map. The subject is depicted as “Urban
Development”.

The surrounding properties are depicted
within a densely developed and urban area
within the city limits. The adjacent
properties are depicted as “Urban
Development”.
2012, 2015,
2018
The subject site is depicted within a
densely developed and urban area within
the city limits. Map details include
streets, highways and freeways,
waterways, and surface elevation
contours; however, subject site features
such as structures are not denoted.

The surrounding properties are depicted
within a densely developed and urban area
within the city limits. Map details include
streets, highways and freeways, waterways,
and surface elevation contours. Property
features such as structures are not denoted.

Review of topographic maps indicate the subject site was occupied by a structure along F Street in the 1923 and 1942 maps and was depicted within a densely developed/urban area of the City of Fresno in the 1946 through 2018 maps. Information obtained from the review of topographic maps is consistent with that obtained from other historical sources during the course of this assessment.

The Peacock Building Project No. 014-23080
Fresno, California Page No. 8
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.

With Offices Serving the Western United States
014-23080 Peacock Building Phase I Report Final.docx

4.3 City Cross-Reference Directories
EDR provided available cross-reference directories dated between 1922 and 2020 for the subject site address and adjoining properties. A summary of cross-reference directory information is presented in the following table. Refer to Appendix A –EDR - City Directory Image Report, dated June 26, 2023 for details.

Cross-Reference Directories Summary
Address Owner / Occupant Years
Subject Site
937 F Street Oriental
Nakai Grocery
Wah Young Liquors
Mexicali Liquors
Vacant
Cardenas Barber Shop
1927
1932
1937-1952
1958
1965
1970-1996
943 F Street Oriental
Mukai Furnished Rooms
Kimora Furnished Rooms
Mar Wm Furnished Rooms
Cheong Kei Wong, Burnett Shoe Shine
Life Change House Inc.
1927
1932
1937
1942-1958
2005
2020
942 Fagan Alley Various residential listings 1932-2005
Historical Addresses
939 F Street Oriental
M Tamura - restaurant
N Hamaguchi - restaurant
Harry Sekimoto - restaurant
1927
1932
1937
1942
941 F Street Oriental
S Yamada - barber
Sam Yuen Co. (Oriental)
1922-1927
1932
1937
945 F Street Oriental
M Mitsuhara - billards
A C Mar Dry Goods, Cooley Shoe Shining
Peacock Department Store, Classy Shine
Peacock Department Store
Centro La Familia Medi Cal Outreach
East West Fragrance
1927
1932
1937-1952
1958-1980
1986-1995
2000
2005
Adjacent Properties
Adjacent to the Northwest
947 F Street Bicycle Shop
Photography Studio
1927-1942
1947-1995
949 F Street Various Commercial Office Space
(including Optometry and Dentist Offices)
1927-2020
951 F Street Bank of America
Chinatown Print, Studio 951
1942-1947
2020
The Peacock Building Project No. 014-23080
Fresno, California Page No. 9
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.

K Yamamura – drugs
Y C Huey – women’s clothing
May Wah – women’s clothing
Als Money Place – used clothing
1927
1932
1937 – 1942
1947
1952 – 1962
1965
1428 Tulare Street Oriental
M Takemoto – barber
Alma Sakamoto – beauty operator
Mrs. Alma Collier – beauty
Mrs. N K Wong – beauty shop
Enrique Francis – barber
Penjamo Barber Shop
Nelles Beauty Shoppe
Villanurvas Barber Shop
Vacant
1927
1932
1937
1942
1947 - 1952
1947 - 1952
1958
1958 – 1965
1965
1970
1430 Tulare Street Oriental
Various Commercial Beauty
1927
1932-1970
1434 Tulare Street Various Restaurant and Bar 1927-1970 1436 Tulare Street Okamura Dry Cleaning 1932-1937
1502 Tulare Street Oriental (General Merchandise)
Commercial Dry Goods
Commercial Tile
Olivia’s Place
1927
1937-1995
2005
2020
Adjacent to the Southwest
1418-1424 Tulare Street (Evens
Only)
Various Commercial 1927-1975
940 E Street Oriental
Single-Family Residential
Rosita’s Restaurant
1927-1937
1942
1958-1965
942 E Street Oriental 1927-1937
946 E Street Oriental
Single Family Residential
1922-1937
2014
935 E Street Fresno Sanitarium
Medical Office
Clothing Cleaners
1922
1927-1947
1952-1980
Adjacent to the Southeast
933 F Street Lew Chong
Vacant
1965
1970 - 1990
935 F Street Oriental
Various Restaurant
1922-1927
1932-2000
The Peacock Building Project No. 014-23080
Fresno, California Page No. 10
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.

With Offices Serving the Western United States
014-23080 Peacock Building Phase I Report Final.docx
Cross-Reference Directories Summary (continued)
Address Owner / Occupant Years
Adjacent to the Northeast
944 F Street Oriental
Cigar Shop
Billiards Hall
Alcoholic Anonymous
1927
1932
1932-1975
1990
946 F Street Oriental
Hotel
Commercial Men’s Wear
1922
1927
1990
948 F Street Various Hotel/Lodging 1932-1995
950 F Street Shoe Store
Sudden Service Cleaners
1927-1932
1958
952 F Street
1502 Tulare Street Co – general merchandise
Oriental Dry Goods
Mar Oak - dry goods
According to the review of city directories, the subject site has been used as commercial/retail building since at least 1927. Businesses included restaurants, beauty shops, liquor/cigar/fragrance stores, medical offices, and a shoe shining operation. The building adjacent to Fagan Alley has been residential since at least 1932. In 2020, a portion of the on-site commercial structure was used as a non-profit public benefit business operating as Life Change House, Inc. Information obtained from the review of cross-reference directories is consistent with that obtained from other historical sources during the course of this assessment.

4.4 Aerial Photograph Interpretation
Historical aerial photographs were obtained from EDR and reviewed to assess the history of the subject site. According to review of the historical aerial photographs, the subject site was developed for commercial/residential use in or before 1937. The on-site structures have been present on the subject site since at least 1937 to the current day. The adjacent and vicinity properties were developed for use as a commercial/residential downtown area in or before 1937. Refer to Appendix A – Aerial Photo Decade Package dated June 22, 2023 for details.

The Peacock Building Project No. 014-23080
Fresno, California Page No. 11
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.

With Offices Serving the Western United States
014-23080 Peacock Building Phase I Report Final.docx
Aerial Photograph Review Summary
Year Site Use Adjacent Properties
1937, 1942,
1946, 1950
Mixed: Commercial/Residential
Three structures are present on the
subject site. The eastern structure is
parallel to F Street. The southern
structure (rectangular) is perpendicular
to the alley that bounds the
southwestern subject site boundary
(Fagan Alley). The smallest of the
three structures (square) is located in
the western portion of the subject site.

Residential, Commercial
The adjacent and vicinity properties are part of
the greater downtown Fresno area. The
adjacent properties are developed with
numerous structures, of unknown usage.

Structures appear to be single-story or multiple
story. F Street is present as a northwest to
southeast extending improved road. An alley is
visible along the southwestern property
boundary. The Southern Pacific Railroad is
visible to the northeast.
1957 The subject site is unchanged from the
1950 photo.

Surrounding and site vicinity properties are
relatively unchanged. Highway 99 to the
southwest has been constructed as of the 1957
photo.
1962, 1967,
1973, 1979,
1984
The smallest of the three structures
(square) in the southwestern portion of
the subject site is not visible as of the
1962 photo. Remaining photos are
unchanged after the 1962 photo.

Surrounding and site vicinity properties are
relatively unchanged from the 1957 photo. As
of the 1967 photo, numerous buildings in the
site vicinity have been demolished, some
appear to be used as vehicle parking lots.
1987, 1998,
2006, 2009,
2012, 2016,
2020
The subject site appears relatively
unchanged from the previous aerial
photograph.

The western adjacent structure is no longer
visible. Other adjacent and site vicinity
properties are relatively unchanged from the
1984 photo.

Information obtained from the review of aerial photographs are consistent with that obtained from other historical sources during the course of this assessment.

4.5 Municipal Records
City of Fresno Public Records Center
On June 30, 2023, a public records request was submitted using the Public Records Center online document portal for obtaining public records pertaining to buildings in the provided by the City of Fresno (City). The request included information pertaining to building permits, historical underground storage tank (UST) or aboveground storage tank (AST) permits, and fire incident reports.

On August 1, 2023, the City of Fresno Public Records Center provided a copy of numerous permits, including plumbing, electrical, roofing, remodeling, renovations and alterations associated with the subject site building. The oldest permit noted for the building was dated April 1910. A memo dated January 8, 1963 from Mr. John Easterly, Building Inspector, stated the building was constructed in approximately 1900 with some alterations having been conducted in 1958. The address of 937 F Street was for a store The Peacock Building Project No. 014-23080
Fresno, California Page No. 12
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.

With Offices Serving the Western United States
014-23080 Peacock Building Phase I Report Final.docx
that was vacant at the time. The address of 943 F Street was assigned to the hotel and rooms on the second floor of the building and the address of 945 F Street was assigned to the Peacock Department store. A municipal code violation was issued in October 2004 for putting merchandise for sale on the public sidewalk/easement/right-of-way causing an obstruction. Review of the permit copies provided did not identify evidence of the usage or storage of hazardous materials or hazardous waste in association at the subject site. For brevity, only copies of the earliest permit cards for the F Street and Fagan Alley buildings are included in Appendix B.

Fresno Fire Department
Formerly, local fire departments were responsible for maintaining UST and select other environmental records. However, the fire departments have transferred this responsibility to the local Fresno County Department of Public Health, Environmental Health Division (FCDEH) as the lead regulatory agency or Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). The Fresno Fire Department has stated that environmental record management for the City and County of Fresno is under the jurisdiction of the FCDEH.

4.6 Previous Environmental Assessments
No previous environmental reports were provided to Krazan by SWCA for review and inclusion into this report.

4.7 Agricultural Chemicals
Review of Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps and historical aerial photographs indicates that the subject site has not been utilized for agricultural proposes since at least 1888. No material evidence of the use of environmentally persistent pesticides/herbicides was obtained during the course of this assessment.

Therefore, agricultural chemicals are not an environmental concern in connection with historic or current subject site usage.

The Peacock Building Project No. 014-23080
Fresno, California Page No. 13
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.

With Offices Serving the Western United States
014-23080 Peacock Building Phase I Report Final.docx

5.0 USER-PROVIDED INFORMATION
A review of user-provided information was conducted in order to help identify pertinent information regarding potential environmental impacts associated with the subject site.

5.1 Environmental Liens/Activity and Use Limitations Report An Environmental Lien/Activity and Use Limitations (EL/AUL) Report provides results from a search of available land title records for environmental cleanup liens institutional controls (ICs), environmental land use controls (LUCs), environmental activity and use limitations (AULs), or declaration of environmental use restrictions (DEULs) which may have been filed against the subject site or exist in connection with the subject site as indicated by the subject site EL/AUL Reports.

An Environmental Lien/Activity and Use Limitations (EL/AUL) Report for the subject site APN was not provided to Krazan, nor requested to be obtained by Krazan, for inclusion with this Phase I ESA. The absence of an environmental lien/activity use report represents a data gap.

5.2 Title Report
A title report is reviewed to identify potential environmental deed restrictions, environmental liens, or environmental activity and use limitations (AULs) which may have occurred on or exist in connection with the subject site.

A Preliminary Title Report for the subject site dated May 4, 2023 was provided to Krazan by SWCA.

Krazan’s review of the PTR indicated no environmental deed restrictions, environmental liens, or environmental AULs for the subject site. The PTR noted the subject site is within The Community Redevelopment Plan for The Chinatown Expanded Area and that redevelopment has been instituted under the Redevelopment Law with redevelopment to proceed only after the adoption of the redevelopment plan.

As quoted in the PTR, “It is important to note that this preliminary report is not a written representation as to the condition of title and may not list all liens, defects and encumbrances affecting title to the land.” The absence of a final title report represents a data gap. Refer to Appendix B – Preliminary Title Report for details.

The Peacock Building Project No. 014-23080
Fresno, California Page No. 14
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.

With Offices Serving the Western United States
014-23080 Peacock Building Phase I Report Final.docx

5.3 Interviews
Krazan conducts interviews with the owner of the subject site, a key site manager, subject site occupant(s), and/or the previous owner/occupant(s) of the subject site. The interview(s) is/are designed to provide pertinent information regarding potential environmental impacts associated with the subject site.

Subject Site Owner
A Phase I ESA Owner questionnaire was provided by Krazan to SWCA with the request that the questionnaire be forwarded to the property owner, or their representative, for completion. On July 25, 2023, the Owner questionnaire was completed by Ms. Yolanda Wong, property owner. According to questionnaire responses, Ms. Wong indicated that she has been associated with the subject site since 2004.

Ms. Wong indicated that the subject site consists of two structures; however, the site is currently not in use.

According to Ms. Wong, to the best of their knowledge, there are no existing or former ASTs or USTs; no specific chemicals, hazardous materials, or persistent pesticides/herbicides; no vehicle repair-related features, no buried materials; no septic or water well systems; no drainage or disposal ponds; no spills or other chemical releases; and no domestic or irrigation wells are on the subject site. Ms. Wong indicated that the subject site is connected to municipal water and sewer systems. Ms. Wong indicated that they are not aware of any obvious indications pointing to the presence or likely presence of contamination of the subject property. Ms. Wong stated they have no concerns about adjacent property usage. According to Ms. Wong, to the best of their knowledge, no environmental liens, AULs, engineering or institutional controls, or any items of environmental concern are associated with the subject site. Lastly, Ms. Wong indicated that the reason for preparation of this Phase I ESA is related to the owners living too far away to manage the property and that the purchase price for the subject site reasonably reflects fair market value.

Refer to Appendix B – Phase I ESA Questionnaires for details.

Previous Subject Site Owner Interview
A Phase I ESA interview with a previous owner of the subject site was not conducted as no contact information for the previous owner was provided or easily attainable. The absence of an interview with the previous owner of the subject site represents a data gap.

5.4 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment User Questionnaire In order to qualify for one of the Landowner Liability Protections (LLPs) offered by the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act of 2001 (the Brownfields Amendments), the user must provide the following information (if available) to the environmental professional. Failure to provide this The Peacock Building Project No. 014-23080
Fresno, California Page No. 15
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.

With Offices Serving the Western United States
014-23080 Peacock Building Phase I Report Final.docx
information could result in a determination that all appropriate inquiry is not complete. The user is asked to provide information or knowledge of the following:

1. Environmental cleanup liens that are filed or recorded against the site.

2. Activity and land use limitations that are in place on the site or that have been filed or recorded in a registry.

3. Specialized knowledge or experience of the person seeking to qualify for the LLPs.

4. Relationship of the purchase price to the fair market value of the property if it were not contaminated.

5. Commonly known or reasonably ascertainable information about the property.

6. The degree of obviousness of the presence or likely presence of contamination at theproperty, and the ability to detect the contamination by appropriate investigation.

7. The reason for preparation of this Phase I ESA.

A Phase I ESA User questionnaire was provided by Krazan to SWCA with the request that the questionnaire be forwarded to the City of Fresno, the Phase I ESA user, for completion. On July 25, 2023, a completed questionnaire was received by Krazan from SWCA on behalf of the City of Fresno. The questionnaire was completed by Mr. Keng Lee, City of Fresno representative. Mr. Lee was unaware of any environmental cleanup liens, activity use limitations (AULs) such as engineering controls, land use restrictions, or institutional controls that have been filed or recorded under federal, tribal, state, or local law against the subject site. Mr. Lee has no specialized knowledge or experience related to the subject site or nearby properties. Mr. Lee is unaware of conditions indicative of releases or threatened releases at the subject site such as past uses of the subject site, specific chemicals present or once present, spills or other chemical releases or environmental cleanups that have taken place at the subject site. Mr. Lee stated that they do not know of or have any experience with obvious indicators that point to the presence or likely presence of contamination at the subject site or adjoining properties. Lastly, Mr. Lee stated that the reason for the preparation of the Phase I was in order to purchase the property, demolish the existing building and construct permanent affordable housing. In addition, the purchase price reasonably reflects the fair market value of the subject site. Refer to Appendix B – Phase I ESA Questionnaires for details.

The Peacock Building Project No. 014-23080
Fresno, California Page No. 16
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.

With Offices Serving the Western United States
014-23080 Peacock Building Phase I Report Final.docx

6.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE
A site reconnaissance, which included a visual observation of the subject site and surrounding properties, was conducted by Ms. Laurie Blakeman, Krazan’s Environmental Assessor, on August 16, 2023. Krazan was escorted by Mr. Greg Nasol, representative for the property owner and John (last name withheld), a part-time overseer of the property. In addition, Mr. Danny Tohme and Mr. Keng Lee, representatives with the City of Fresno, were present for the site reconnaissance. The objective of the site reconnaissance is to obtain information indicating the likelihood of identifying recognized environmental conditions, including hazardous substances and petroleum products, in connection with the property (including soils, surface waters, and groundwater).

6.1 Observations
The following table summarizes the subject site features encountered during our site reconnaissance.

Observed features are noted in the table below and described in detail below the table. Refer to Figure No. 3 - Site Map and Photographs for locations and details pertaining to site-specific features discussed in this section of the report.

Site Reconnaissance Summary
Features Observed Not
Observed
Structures (existing) X
Evidence of Past Uses (foundations, debris) X
Hazardous Substances and/or Petroleum Products (including containers) Aboveground Storage Tanks (ASTs) X
Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) or evidence of USTs X
Evidence of Underground Pipelines (non-irrigation) X
Strong, Pungent, or Noxious Odors
Pools of Liquid likely to be Hazardous Materials or Petroleum Products X Drums X
Unidentified Substance Containers X
Potential Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB)-Containing Equipment X Subsurface Hydraulic Equipment X
Heating/Ventilation/Air Conditioning (HVAC) X
Stains or Corrosion on Floors, Walls or Ceilings X
Floor Drains, Sumps, or Oil/Water Clarifiers X
Storm Drains
Pits, Ponds, or Lagoons X
Stained Soil and/or Pavement X
Soil/Debris Piles X
The Peacock Building Project No. 014-23080
Fresno, California Page No. 17
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.

With Offices Serving the Western United States
014-23080 Peacock Building Phase I Report Final.docx
Site Reconnaissance Summary (continued)
Features Observed Not
Observed
Stressed Vegetation X
Waste or Wastewater (including stormwater) Discharges to Surface/Surface Waters X
Wells (Irrigation, Domestic, Dry, Injection, Abandoned, Monitoring Wells) X Septic Systems X
High-voltage, tower-mounted transmission lines X
The subject site is developed with two buildings, the two-story Peacock Building and a single-story residential/dwelling structure.

The two-story Peacock Building fronts along F Street and was formerly occupied by a retail store on the ground floor and a hotel, formerly known as the Peacock Hotel, on the second floor. Exterior walls are constructed of brick and mortar and interior structural walls and flooring are wood. There is reportedly no basement beneath the building. The roof was not accessible at the time of the site reconnaissance. The ground floor of the Peacock Building consists of the former retail sales floor area and numerous storage rooms. Several storage areas were not accessible during the site visit. Access to the second floor was historically from a stairwell located within the southern portion of the building; however, it had been closed off at the ground level and current access to the second floor was from an exterior staircase located on the western side of the building. The second floor consisted of former hotel/dwelling rooms, several shared bathrooms and a kitchen area. According to John, the second floor currently contains eighteen (18) rooms.

John stated that six of the eighteen rooms were recently occupied with tenants; however, all were vacant at the time of the site reconnaissance. Interior finishes throughout the building consisted of wooden sub- floors, overlain with various layers of plywood, hardwood, vinyl floor tile and some ceramic tiles, sheet vinyl flooring (linoleum), drywall walls and/or drywall ceilings and drop acoustical panel ceilings. Ducting and venting for HVAC equipment was observed throughout the building; however, the main units were not observed.

The single-story residential/dwelling structure is located in the southeastern portion of the subject site and consists of four studio apartment units within the main portion of the building, and an additional attached unit. At the time of the site reconnaissance, access was provided to three of the four units in the main portion of the building and to the attached unit. Only one of the units was occupied and access to the interior of that unit was not provided. Three of the four units appeared to have been recently updated with new paint, flooring, kitchenettes and some bathroom fixtures. The roof was not accessible at the time of The Peacock Building Project No. 014-23080
Fresno, California Page No. 18
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.

With Offices Serving the Western United States
014-23080 Peacock Building Phase I Report Final.docx
the site reconnaissance; however, it could be viewed from the second floor of the Peacock Building. The main building has a flat composite roof with brick parapet, while the attached unit was observed to have a sloped composite roof.

An asphalt-paved parking area is located adjacent to the buildings and can only be accessed from Fagan Alley through a gated entrance. Public parking is located along F Street, adjacent to the pedestrian sidewalk.

Staining observed throughout the Peacock Building appeared to be water damage from various plumbing or roof leak incidents. The staining did not appear to be from storage or usage of hazardous materials, or from the storage of hazardous waste.

Exposed surface soils were limited to a 4-foot by 4-foot planters along F Street and a 5-foot by 8-foot area in the southeast corner of the property. Magnolia trees were planted in each of the planters within the pedestrian sidewalk along F Street. Trees were also planted in the area adjacent to the residential/dwelling structure. No obvious signs of surface soil discoloration were observed. No noxious odors or stressed vegetation were noted. During the visual observations of the subject site, no hazardous materials/wastes were observed. No obvious evidence of USTs (vent pipes, fill pipes, dispensers, etc.) were noted within the areas observed. No standing water or major depressions were observed on the subject site. No indications of former structures, such as foundations, were observed on the subject site. No pole- or pad- mounted transformers were observed on the subject site.

6.2 Adjacent Streets and Property Usage
The following table summarizes the current adjacent streets and adjacent property uses observed during the site reconnaissance:

The Peacock Building Project No. 014-23080
Fresno, California Page No. 19
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.

With Offices Serving the Western United States
014-23080 Peacock Building Phase I Report Final.docx
Adjacent Streets and Property Usage
Direction Adjacent Street Adjacent Property Usage
Northeast F Street Two-story building - Ground Floor
938 F Street – Brother’s Bakery
944 F Street - Vacant
948 F Street – Vacant (former entrance to Lincoln Hotel on Second Floor of building)
950 F Street – Vacant
952 F Street – Chef Paul’s Cafe
Southeast None 935 F Street – Yosemite Banquet Hall
Southwest Fagan Alley Vacant
Northwest None 947 F Street - Vacant
951 F Street – Chinatown Smoke Shop
Based on the observed uses of the properties located immediately adjacent to the subject site, it is unlikely that significant quantities of hazardous materials currently are stored at these properties.

6.3 ASTM Non-Scope Considerations
According to ASTM E 1527-21, there may be environmental issues or conditions at assessed properties that are outside the scope of the Phase I ESA practice (non-scope considerations). Some substances may be present in quantities and under conditions that may lead to contamination of the subject site or of nearby properties but are not included in CERCLA’s definition of hazardous substances (42 U.S.C. §9601[14]).

ASTM Non-scope considerations appropriate for the subject site are discussed below.

Asbestos-Containing Materials
Asbestos is a group of naturally occurring mineral fibers that have been used commonly in a variety of building construction materials for insulation and as a fire-retardant. Because of its fiber strength and heat resistant properties, asbestos has been used for a wide range of manufactured goods, mostly in building materials, vehicle brakes, and heat-resistant fabrics, packaging, gaskets, and coatings. When asbestos- containing materials (ACMs) are damaged or disturbed by repair, remodeling, or demolition activities, microscopic asbestos fibers may become airborne and can be inhaled into the lungs, where they can cause significant health problems.

The structures located on the subject site were originally constructed in the early 1900s and 1930s. Based on the date of construction, ACMs may be present at the subject site. An asbestos survey and sampling of the on-site structures was not included within the scope of this assessment. Prior to the disturbance of any suspect ACMs at the subject site via renovation or demolition, a comprehensive asbestos survey designed to determine if the suspect asbestos is a regulated material is recommended.

The Peacock Building Project No. 014-23080
Fresno, California Page No. 20
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.

With Offices Serving the Western United States
014-23080 Peacock Building Phase I Report Final.docx
Lead-Based Paint
Although lead-based paint (LBP) was banned in 1978,many buildings constructed prior to 1978 have paint that contains lead. Lead from paint, chips, and dust can pose serious health hazards if not addressed properly.

The structures located on the subject site were originally constructed in the early 1900s and 1930s. Based on the date of construction, lead-based paint may be present at the subject site. A lead-based paint survey and sampling of the on-site structures was not included within the scope of this assessment. Prior to the disturbance of any of the suspect LBP at this facility via renovation or demolition, a comprehensive LBP survey designed to determine if the suspect LBP is a regulated material is recommended.

Radon
Radon is a radioactive gas that is found in certain geologic environments and is formed by the natural breakdown of radium, which is found in the earth’s crust. A radon survey was not included within the scope of this investigation; however, the State of California Department of Public Health (CDPH) maintains a statewide database of radon results in designated geographic areas. Radon detection devices are placed in homes throughout the study region to determine geographic regions with elevated radon concentrations.

The U.S. EPA has set the safety standard for radon gas in homes to be 4.0 pico Curies per liter (pCi/L).

The US EPA has prepared a map to assist National, State and local organizations to target their resources and to implement radon-resistant building codes. The map divides the country into three Radon Zones, Zone 1 being those areas with the average predicted indoor radon concentration in residential dwellings exceeding the EPA Action Limit of 4.0 pCi/L. It is important to note that the EPA has found homes with elevated levels of radon in all three zones, and the EPA recommends site-specific testing in order to determine radon levels at a specific location. However, the map does give a valuable indication of the propensity of radon gas accumulation in structures. Review of the EPA Map of Radon Zones places the Property in Zone 2, where average predicted radon levels are equal to or above 2.0 pCi/L or equal to or below 4.0 pCi/L. Therefore, the available data suggests that the potential for radon to adversely impact the subject site appears to be low. While the available data suggests that the potential for radon to adversely impact the subject site appears to be low, based on the proposed future residential usage of the subject site, a radon survey may be warranted.

The Peacock Building Project No. 014-23080
Fresno, California Page No. 21
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.

With Offices Serving the Western United States
014-23080 Peacock Building Phase I Report Final.docx
Mold and Moisture Intrusion
A class of fungi, molds have been found to cause a variety of health problems in humans, including allergic, toxicological, and infectious responses. Molds are decomposers of organic materials, and thrive in humid environments, and produce spores to reproduce, just as plants produce seeds. When mold spores land on a damp spot indoors, they may begin growing and digesting whatever they are growing on in order to survive.

When excessive moisture or water accumulates indoors, mold growth will often occur, particularly if the moisture problem remains undiscovered or unaddressed. As such, interior areas of buildings characterized by poor ventilation and high humidity are the most common locations of mold growth. Building materials including drywall, wallpaper, baseboards, wood framing, insulation and carpeting often play host to such growth. Moisture control is the key to mold control. Molds need both food and water to survive; since molds can digest most things, water is the factor that limits mold growth. No indication of mold intrusion was observed in accessible areas during the site reconnaissance.

Environmental Non-Compliance Issues
No material non-compliance issues were identified in connection with the subject site in the process of preparing this report.

Activity and Use Limitations
No activity and use limitations were identified in connection with the subject site in the process of preparing this report.

6.4 Regulatory Agency Records Review
A review of Federal and State regulatory databases was conducted to help determine if hazardous materials have been handled, stored, or generated on the subject site and/or the adjacent properties and businesses.

The Federal and State environmental databases consulted in the course of this assessment were compiled by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) and identified facilities within the search distances specified in ASTM 1527-21. Krazan did not verify the locations and distances of every property listed by the EDR Radius Map Report. Krazan verified the location and distances of the properties Krazan deemed as having the potential to adversely impact the subject site. The actual location of the listed properties may differ from the EDR listing. No EDR-listed unmapped (non-geocoded) sites identified were determined to be located on or adjacent to the subject site. Refer to Appendix C – EDR Radius Map Report dated June 25, 2023 for details.

The Peacock Building Project No. 014-23080
Fresno, California Page No. 22
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.

With Offices Serving the Western United States
014-23080 Peacock Building Phase I Report Final.docx
Regulatory records are reviewed based on the following criteria: 1) properties with known soils and/or groundwater releases considered to represent the potential for impact to the subject site that are located within 1,760 feet of the subject site for constituents of concern impacts or 528 feet of the subject site for petroleum hydrocarbon impacts; 2) properties that are adjacent or in proximity to the subject site included within the EDR regulatory database report or noted during the site reconnaissance to possibly handle, store, or generate hazardous materials. Applicable property records are discussed below.

No Federal Superfund – National Priorities List (NPL) sites were determined to be located within a one- mile radius of the subject site.

State of California Environmental Protection Agency
Krazan’s June 30, 2023 review of the State of California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) – Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Envirostor database available via the DTSC’s Internet Website indicated that no records of cleanup sites including State response sites or military or school evaluation sites listed for the subject site, the adjacent properties, or properties located within 500 feet of the subject site. However, the following Voluntary Cleanup Site (VCS) and Corrective Action Site was identified.
 The Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) Fresno 2 (Former Manufactured Gas Plant Site) (60001247), an Active VCS site, is listed with an address of Mariposa Street between F and G Streets, the nearest portion of which is approximately 400 feet north-northwest of the subject site.

The facility consists of four properties, 1042, 1056, 1102, and 1136 F Street. The former facility is also known as PG&E Gas Plant Fresno 325 3A and PG&E Manufactured Gas Plant SQ-FK-FRS- 2 (10490095) which is listed as an Inactive Evaluation site since the case was transferred to the VCS program.

The Voluntary Cleanup Agreement was entered into on August 25, 2010 between the DTSC and PG&E. According to the Final Remedial Investigation Workplan prepared by Parsons in January 2011, the facility operated as a coal-gas facility from 1881 to 1891 and as an oil-gas facility from 1892 to 1919. The Fresno-2 MGP was established by the Fresno Gaslight Company in 1881, expanding between 1885 and 1917. During this time, the Fresno Gaslight Company became known as the Fresno Gas and Electric Light Company and included the generation and distribution of electricity in 1898. The company was acquired by the California Gas and Electric Company in 1903 and by PG&E in 1905. In 1919, the gas works were closed and dismantled and replaced by the Fresno-1 MGP located approximately 1.25 miles away from the facility. Since 1919, the former MGP parcels have been occupied by various automotive, light industrial and retail uses. A used car dealership, a gas station, the Basque Hotel and restaurant and feed warehouse have occupied the parcels since the 1930s.

No previous investigations had been conducted for the former facility prior to the implementation of the Remedial Investigation Workplan in 2011. Based on past site usage as a MGP facility and other operations, contaminants of potential concern (COPCs) were identified as poly-aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline, diesel and motor oil (TPH-g, The Peacock Building Project No. 014-23080
Fresno, California Page No. 23
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.

With Offices Serving the Western United States
014-23080 Peacock Building Phase I Report Final.docx
TPH-D and TPH-mo), heavy metals, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and cyanide. Numerous investigations and various types of remedial action were conduct between 2011 and 2022.

With finalization of the Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA), PG&E did not anticipate any further soil vapor sampling and requested the DTSC’s approval of the Soil Vapor Investigation Summary Report submitted on June 23, 2022 and sought approval from DTSC to properly abandon the soil vapor probes remaining at the facility. The HHRA presented the post remediation risk assessment for the facility and included information to support a risk management decision for closure of the facility. Remedial excavation was completed to remove soil impacts by past operations and the final HHRA was approved. On December 22, 2022 the Final Post-remedial HHRA for the PG&E Fresno-2 Former MGP Site was submitted to the DTSC by Jacobs. On February 9, 2023, the DTSC issued the Approval of Final Post Remediation HHRA.

Based on review of documents provided on the DTSC Envirostor database, the former PG&E Fresno 2 MGP facility does not represent an environmental concern in connection with this assessment.
 PG&E G Street Substation (10490101), 1131 G Street, is listed as a Certified VCS site, the nearest portion of which is approximately 800 feet north-northwest of the subject site. The 0.25-acre site was first developed as early as early as 1898 and used as an electrical substation beginning in 1937.

The site was deactivated in 1983 and has been vacant since. The 2007 Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) identified petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline, diesel, and motor oil, and lead, arsenic, and benzo(a)pyrene (BaP) as constituents of concern (highest in shallow soils and attenuate rapidly with depth) at the site contributing to excess cancer risk above the 1 x 10-6 threshold for unrestricted use. Site-wide excavation of soils to 1.5 feet below grade and targeted excavation to approximately 2 feet below grade would reduce the residual risk to below 1 x 10-6, allowing the site to be reused and/or redeveloped with no use restrictions. Between May 13 and June 5, 2009, Stantec oversaw the removal of 1,248 cubic yards (yd3) of soil. Post-excavation confirmation soil samples were collected and additional over-excavation activities were conducted. Final confirmation soil sample results were below cleanup goals. Based on the results, the remedial action objectives of reducing the site-wide excess cancer risk (ECR) to 1 x 10-6 or less, and ensuring soils left in-place contain chemicals of concern (COCs) at concentrations less than cleanup goals, were achieved and the site was deemed suitable for unrestricted use. The Site was Certified that no further removal/remedial action was necessary on January 19, 2010.

Based on review of documents provided on the DTSC Envirostor database, the former PG&E Substation does not represent an environmental concern in connection with this assessment.  The Univar Solutions (Univar USA, Inc.) (CAD047384185) and (80001397), 1152 G Street, is an open Corrective Action/Cleanup Program Site located at the intersections of Fresno and G Streets and is approximately 1,000 feet north of the subject site. No details pertaining to investigations were provided on the Envirostor database; however, review of the facility on the State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) GeoTracker database indicated that the facility was used from 1965 to 1986 to store bulk tetrachloroethene (PCE) in an AST in the northern portion of the property. In 1996, soil and soil vapor surveys identified the presence of PCE at the facility and several groundwater monitoring wells installed identified PCE in groundwater. In 1998, a vapor extraction system was installed and was in operation until 2004. Additional off-site soil vapor extraction wells were installed in 2008. As of the first half of 2020, the SVE system remained in operation and had extracted 133 pounds of PCE with approximately 870 pounds of PCE removed in 2019. The SVE system was decommissioned and several monitoring wells destroyed in August 2022. During this time, plans to install monitoring well MMW-12R were in progress. The most The Peacock Building Project No. 014-23080
Fresno, California Page No. 24
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.

With Offices Serving the Western United States
014-23080 Peacock Building Phase I Report Final.docx
recent document available in the GeoTracker database was dated June 12, 2023 indicating the approval by the RWQCB to reduce the groundwater monitoring and sampling reporting frequency from semi-annual to annual. Groundwater monitoring and sampling activities would continue on a semi-annual basis with only the reporting frequency change. The approval email indicated the next annual report would need to be submitted by February 1, 2024 and on February 1 for subsequent years.

Based on review of documents provided on the DTSC Envirostor and GeoTracker databases, the former Univar Solutions facility does not represent an environmental concern in connection with this assessment.

For further discussion of the PG&E Fresno 2 MGP and Univar Solutions properties, refer below to the Regulatory Database Review portion of this Section.

State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board - GeoTracker Krazan’s June 30, 2023 review of the State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) GeoTracker database available via the RWQCB Internet Website did not identify any military cleanup sites on the subject site or the adjacent properties. However, the following Cleanup Program and Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) sites were identified.

Franks Exxon (1060 E Street), Del Monte (1625 and 1626 Tulare Street), and Felix Auto Mechanic (804 F Street) are LUST sites that are approximately within the 528-foot search radius for petroleum hydrocarbon concerns surrounding the subject site. According to GeoTracker, the LUST sites were impacted by TPHs and VOCs prior to being issued site closure in 1996, 2019, and 2001, respectively. Refer to the DTSC section above for details pertaining to the PG&E – G Street facility and the Univar facility. Based on review of information contained in the GeoTracker database, these facilities do not represent an environmental concern in connection with this assessment.

California Department of Conservation, California Geologic Energy Management Division Krazan’s June 30, 2023 review of the State of California Department of Conservation, California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) Online Mapping System indicated that no plugged and abandoned or producing oil wells are located on or adjacent to the subject site.

Fresno County Department of Environmental Health
The Fresno County Department of Environmental Health (FCDEH) is the lead regulatory agency or Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) for hazardous materials handling facilities located in Fresno County. A public records search was conducted via the FCDEH’s Environmental Health Document Portal The Peacock Building Project No. 014-23080
Fresno, California Page No. 25
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.

With Offices Serving the Western United States
014-23080 Peacock Building Phase I Report Final.docx
for the subject site addresses 937, 939, 941, 943, 945 F Street and 942 Fagan Alley in Fresno, California on June 30, 2023. No records were yielded by the query.

Local Area Tribal Records
No Indian reservations, USTs on Indian land, or LUSTs on Indian land were reported on the subject site, adjacent properties, or vicinity properties in the EDR-provided database report.

Regulatory Database Review
Several agencies have published documents that list businesses or properties which have handled hazardous materials or waste or may have experienced site contamination. The lists consulted in the course of our assessment were compiled by EDR and Krazan and represent reasonably ascertainable current listings.

Krazan did not verify the locations and distances of every property listed by EDR. Krazan verified the location and distances of the properties Krazan deemed as having the potential to adversely impact the subject site. The actual location of the listed properties may differ from the EDR listing. No EDR-listed unmapped (non-geocoded) sites identified were determined to be located on or adjacent to the subject site.

Subject Site
The subject site was not listed in the EDR Radius Map Report or on any regulatory database reviewed.

Adjacent/Vicinity Properties
Service Cleaners
935 E Street
EDR Hist Cleaner
Approximately 250 feet southwest
This facility is listed in EDR, Inc’s proprietary database of potential historic dry cleaners identified through a review of cross city directories. The facility is listed within the database as operating between 1958 and 1980. The facility is not listed on the DTSC database, the GeoTracker database or the FCEHS database indicating a release has impacted the facility. Based on the length of time since the noted facility was in operation (in excess of 40 years) and the database information reviewed, there is no evidence to suggest that this former facility represents an environmental concern in connection with this assessment.

The Peacock Building Project No. 014-23080
Fresno, California Page No. 26
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.

With Offices Serving the Western United States
014-23080 Peacock Building Phase I Report Final.docx
Kurata Union 76 Service Station, Kim’s Auto Repair
1413 Kern Street
CUPA, EDR Hist Auto
Approximately 230 feet south
This facility is listed in EDR, Inc’s proprietary database of potential historic service station and CUPA listing of cross city directories. The facility is listed within the database of fueling station between 1969 to 1998 and an automotive repair shop between 1990 to at least 2015. According to FCDEH records, the facility removed two 10,000-gallon USTs and one 550-gallon UST in 1989.

The analytical results showed “none detected” for TPH and BTEX; and showed a detection of 38 mg/kg (PPM) for Oil & Grease. The FCDEH issued a no further action letter on June 23, 1989.

Kim’s Auto Repair Business Plan stated no USTs or ASTs are in use and is a generator of hazardous waste. An inspection in 2015 of the facility stated hazardous waste generation was under 27 kgs.

Based on the above cited reports, this facility does not represent an environmental concern in connection with this assessment.

Rudy’s Cleaners
961 E Street, Fresno, California
EDR Hist Cleaner
Approximately 250 feet southwest
This facility is listed in EDR, Inc’s proprietary database of potential historic dry cleaners identified through a review of cross city directories. The facility is listed within the database as operating between 1958 and 1965. The facility is not listed on the DTSC database, the GeoTracker database or the FCEHS database indicating a release has impacted the facility. Based on the length of time since the noted facility was in operation (in excess of 50 years) and the database information reviewed, there is no evidence to suggest that this former facility represents an environmental concern in connection with this assessment.

J E Uribe
949 E Street, Fresno, California
EDR Hist Cleaner
Approximately 250 feet southwest
This facility is listed in EDR, Inc’s proprietary database of potential historic dry cleaners identified through a review of cross city directories. The facility is listed within the database as operating between 1937 and 1958. The facility is not listed on the DTSC database, the GeoTracker database or the FCEHS database indicating a release has impacted the facility. Based on the length of time since the noted facility was in operation (in excess of 60 years) and the database information reviewed, there is no evidence to suggest that this former facility represents an environmental concern in connection with this assessment.

The Peacock Building Project No. 014-23080
Fresno, California Page No. 27
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.

With Offices Serving the Western United States
014-23080 Peacock Building Phase I Report Final.docx
M Matsudi
925 G Street, Fresno, California
EDR Hist Cleaner
Approximately 310 feet northeast
This facility is listed in EDR, Inc’s proprietary database of potential historic dry cleaners identified through a review of cross city directories. The facility is listed within the database as operating between 1922 and 1962. The facility is not listed on the DTSC database, the GeoTracker database or the FCEHS database indicating a release has impacted the facility. Based on the length of time since the noted facility was in operation (in excess of 60 years) and the database information reviewed, there is no evidence to suggest that this former facility represents an environmental concern in connection with this assessment.

PG&E Former Manufactured Gas Site
1042, 1056, 1102, 1136 F Street and 1131 G Street
Envirostor, VCP, RCRA, CUPA, Hist-Cal Sites, Hist Cortese, CERS, CPS-SLIC, EDR MGP Approximately 400 feet north
This facility is listed as a site of a release of hazardous materials in various federal, state and local environmental databases.

Parsons (consultant) conducted a Remedial Investigation (RI) on the former manufactured gas plant (MGP) and documented their findings in a summary report dated July 2012 which was retrieved from Envirostor. The former manufactured gas plant operated at 1042, 1056, 1102, and 1136 F Street between the years 1881-1919 after which the facility was relocated approximately 1.25 miles away from the site.

As a part of the RI, a total of over 400 soil samples were collected on the site through soil borings advanced to a maximum depth of at least 70 feet bgs. In addition, 67 soil gas samples were collected from five- and 15-foot bgs soil gas wells throughout the site. Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHs) were identified as impacting soils to a maximum depth of 70 feet bgs. CAM17-Metals, most significantly lead, were identified as impacting soils to a maximum depth of 10 feet bgs. Naphthalene was identified in soil gas above regulatory screening levels in both the 5- and 15-foot soil gas samples. Benzene was identified in soil gas above regulatory screening levels in the 15-foot soil gas samples. Parsons recommended remediating the impacts identified following discussions with the DTSC.

Following discussion with the DTSC, Jacobs (consultant) conducted remediation activities at the site and documented their findings in a January 2022 Final Remediation Action Completion Report which was retrieved from Envirostor. Over 4,000 cubic yards of soil was excavated at the site, with final excavation depths ranging from two to ten feet bgs depending on the extent of impact identified in the RI. Additionally, Jacobs removed two petroleum containing five-gallon underground storage tanks (USTs) and their associated piping/dispensers. The UST system was reported to not have displayed indications of a release.

Following the remediation action, Jacobs conducted soil gas sampling of 18 dual nested 5- and 15- foot bgs soil gas wells and documented their findings in a summary report dated January 2022 which was retrieved from Envirostor. Naphthalene, Benzene, and Ethyl-benzene were detected at concentrations that exceed regulatory screening levels in soil gas at the site. Jacobs recommended assessing the human health risk of the impacted soil gas as a result of the assessment.

The Peacock Building Project No. 014-23080
Fresno, California Page No. 28
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.

With Offices Serving the Western United States
014-23080 Peacock Building Phase I Report Final.docx
Jacobs prepared a Human Health Risk Assessment for the remaining impacts at the former MGP plant and summarized their findings in a report dated December 2022. Soil expected lifetime cancer risks and non-cancer risk (ELCR & NCR) levels were below their respective action thresholds for commercial and construction worker scenarios. The ELCR for residential scenarios was either below or within the USEPA management range and did not exceed the NCR action level. NCR for soil gas constituents at 5 feet bgs did not exceed the action level for commercial workers or residential scenarios. The residential scenario ELCR was either below or within the USEPA management range for soil gas constituents at 5 feet bgs.

A Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) was conducted on a portion of the former MGP site by SECOR International Inc. (SECOR) (consultant) in 2007 and was documented in a summary report retrieved from Envirostor.

Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) operated an electric substation (1131 G Street) adjacent to a manufactured gas plant at the site from 1938 to 1983 according to the 2007 PEA. The site was assessed several times between 1986 and 2007 according to the PEA. In 1986 a Preliminary Assessment (PA) was conducted by PG&E to assess the presence of Manufactured Gas Plant (MGP) constituents of concern such as lampblack. Elevated Lead (120 - 1,100 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg)), polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) (0.2 – 3.2 mg/kg), and Arsenic (2.6 – 9.1 mg/kg) were identified in surface soil samples collected in 1986. Additionally, lampblack was reportedly identified at the site.

In 1991, IT (consultant) advanced four soil borings to a depth of 77 feet bgs collecting a total of 23 soil samples at varying intervals and 16 surface soil samples. The assessment concluded that the lampblack-like substance reported at the site contained concentrations of constituents of concern consistent with background samples. The assessment also concluded that no MGP infrastructure was located on this portion of the greater site as previously reported. This assessment did identify elevated concentration of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) and mercury adjacent to a stained concrete pad that formerly housed electrical transformers. A total of 10 cubic yards of impacted soils were excavated from this area and removed from the site.

In August 2007, twenty soil borings were advanced to a maximum of three feet throughout the former substation site with samples collected at 0.5, 1, and 2-foot bgs intervals. The soil samples collected were analyzed for semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), TPH, and CAM-17 metals.

Analysis revealed significant lead impacts in shallow soils with lesser TPH impacts. No SVOCs were detected in shallow soils. SECOR recommend excavating the top 1.5 feet of soils throughout the site to remediate the site for unrestricted future use.

According to a January 19, 2010 site removal action certification letter prepared by the DTSC, approximately 1,248 cubic yards of impacted soils were removed from the site. 238 cubic yards of which was disposed as Class I waste while the remaining soils were disposed of as Class II waste.

The top 1.5 feet of soils at the site were removed and specified areas were over excavated to a depth less than three feet as a result of confirmation sampling. The certification letter stated the site was issued No Further Action Status.

This facility is listed in the U.S. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act database as a non- generating handler of hazardous materials. In 2013 this facility filed with the federal agency and is described as a natural gas distribution site. No indication of a release of hazardous materials post- 2013 has been identified in any database reviewed.

The Peacock Building Project No. 014-23080
Fresno, California Page No. 29
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.

With Offices Serving the Western United States
014-23080 Peacock Building Phase I Report Final.docx
Based on the above cited reports, this facility does not represent an environmental concern in connection with this assessment.

Frank’s Exxon, M&S Service, Kurata’s Automotive
1060 E Street
RCRA, LUST, CERS, CUPA, CA FID UST, Cortese, Hist Cortese, ER Hist Auto, HIST UST Approximately 450 feet northwest
This facility is listed in EDR’s proprietary database of potential former historic auto shops identified through city cross reference directories. The facility operated as a gasoline station from 1958 through 1990 and as an automobile service station from 1958 through 1993 according to the listing.

This facility is listed in the California EPA’s Facility Inventory Database (FID), SWRCB’s Hazardous substance storage container (Hist UST), and Statewide Environmental Evaluation and Planning System (Sweeps UST) databases for facilities that operated a UST gathered by local agencies. The facility operated four USTs: one 250-gallon waste oil UST, one 6,000-gallon unleaded motor vehicle fuel UST, one 6,000-gallon regular motor vehicle fuel, and one 6,000- gallon premium motor vehicle fuel UST according to a hazardous substance storage container information sheet retrieved from GeoTracker.

This facility is listed in the Fresno County CUPA database as a UST Closure site with four USTs.

Additionally, this facility is listed in the SWRCB’s LUST, California EPA’s Cortese, CalEPA Regulated Sites (CERS), and the DTSC’s Hist Cortese databases as a leaking underground storage tank (LUST) site. The site’s soils were impacted by gasoline only according to the SWRCB’s LUST database. No information regarding the extent of the impact was recovered from any database reviewed. However, a Closure Letter dated November 21, 1996 prepared by the County of Fresno awards the site no further action status.

This facility is listed in the Fresno County CUPA database as an Auto Repair Model Plan and Small Quantity Hazardous Waste Generator. Additionally, the facility is listed in the US EPA’s Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) database for facilities who handled but did not qualify as a generator of hazardous materials as of 2022. These listing describe an active auto repair facility.

Based on the above cited documents and listings this facility does not represent an environmental concern in connection with this assessment.

PG&E Environmental Remediation Department, New China Service Garage 1056 F street
EDR Hist Auto, CUPA
Approximately 450 feet northwest
This facility is listed in EDR, Inc’s proprietary database of potential historic service station identified through a review of cross city directories. The facility is listed within the database as operating between 1942 and 1962. According to FCDEH, a UST was removed in January 2021.

On May 12, 2021, FCDEH issued a permanent closure of underground storage tank and the site investigation.

The Peacock Building Project No. 014-23080
Fresno, California Page No. 30
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Hollywood Tailors & Cleaners
1416 Kern Street
EDR Hist Cleaner
Approximately 450 feet southeast
This facility is listed in EDR, Inc’s proprietary database of potential historic dry cleaners identified through a review of cross city directories. The facility is listed within the database as operating in 1962. The facility is not listed on the DTSC database, the GeoTracker database or the FCEHS database indicating a release has impacted the facility. Based on the length of time since the noted facility was in operation (in excess of 60 years) and the database information reviewed, there is no evidence to suggest that this former facility represents an environmental concern in connection with this assessment.

Del Monte Foods/Yorkshire Dried Fruit and Nuts
1625 and 1626 Tulare Street, Fresno, California
LUST, Cortese, Hist Cortese, CERS, CUPA, EMI, NPDES, CIWQS, RCRA, Finds, Echo, WDS Approximately 460 feet west by northwest
This facility is listed in the US EPA’s Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) database for facilities who handled and generated small quantities of hazardous materials (SQG). The listing is dated 1995 and does not describe wastes handled or generated.

This facility is also listed in the EPA’s Facility Index System (FINDS) and Enforcement and Compliance History Information (ECHO) databases. These databases are considered ‘pointer’ databases included to provide a second layer of documentation for any given facilities regulated activities to ensure its record and that it would be identifiable. The Finds and Echo listings ‘point’ to the RCRA listing.

This facility is also listed in the SWRCB’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and California Integrated Water Quality System (WDS) databases for water-related regulatory action. The listings are related to industrial storm water management at the facility according to CIWQS. This facility is also listed in the SWRCB’s Waste Discharge System (WDS) for sites that have been issued waste discharge permits. A review of Google Earth imagery suggested the facility was disassembled sometime around late 2014. As no indication of a release from these systems was documented in any database reviewed no environmental conditions are anticipated to impact the subject site based on former waste water and industrial stormwater management systems.

This facility is listed in the California Air Resources Board’s Emissions Inventory Data (EMI) for emitters of airborne pollutants. The facility is listed to have emitted two tons of nitrogen oxides annually between 1995-2000. No soil or groundwater impacts are anticipated to impact the subject site as a result of nitrogen oxide emissions of a vicinity property.

This facility is listed in several federal, state, and local environmental database as a LUST site.

The Peacock Building Project No. 014-23080
Fresno, California Page No. 31
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.

With Offices Serving the Western United States
014-23080 Peacock Building Phase I Report Final.docx
Three petroleum hydrocarbon (fuel oil and bunker fuel) USTs operated at the former Del Monte Foods facility according to a Case Closure Summary Memorandum prepared by the SWRCB dated March 2019. It was determined that all three USTs had leaked their contents affecting soil and groundwater. Blackburn Consulting and Kleinfelder (consultants) delineated the lateral and vertical extent of the TPH plume at the facility in assessments conducted in 2017 and 1999 respectively.

Over the course of the investigation period the 95-foot bgs groundwater monitoring wells went dry.

As no domestic, municipal, or agricultural wells were located in the vicinity of the plume, groundwater was considered as non-concern after this point.

The area of the former facility is located in the recently established California Highspeed Rail project right-of-way. As the release does not represent an immediate concern to the health of the public the site was issued Low-Threat closure in 2019 by the SWRCB as discussed in the Memorandum. As part of the closure process Blackburn collected five-foot bgs soil gas samples and analyzed them for volatile TPH fuel additives according to a October 2017 Final Environmental Site Assessment report retrieved from Envirostor. The most recent sampling event of the soil gas well closest to the subject site (approximately 510 feet west by northwest) resulted in non-detects for constituents of concern.

Based on the information presented above this facility does not represent environmental concern in connection with this assessment.

Univar Solutions USA Inc.
1152 G Street
CPS-SLIC, CERS, Envirostor, Hist UST, CUPA, Sweeps UST, Hist UST, CA FID UST, RCRA, HWP, Haznet, HWTS, PFAS Echo
Approximately 1100 feet north by northwest
This facility is listed in the US’s RCRA database as a handler, large quantity generator and disposer of hazardous materials. The facility was first listed in 1986 and last updated in 2021. However, operations appear to have suspended in 2019 based on hazardous waste disposal records. The facility is described as an industrial chemical supplier in the RCRA database. The facility handled several volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that the US and California EPAs consider hazardous including carbon tetrachloride and tetrachloroethylene (PCE).

This facility is also listed in the DTSC’s Hazardous Waste Tracking System (HWTS) and the CA EPA’s Haznet databases for facilities that disposed of hazardous materials gathered from waste manifests. This facility disposed of various quantities of unspecified aqueous solutions, other organic soils, and organic solids with halogens in quantities that did not exceed 11.75 tons per disposal event between 2010 and 2019 according to Haznet.

The facility is also listed in the US EPA’s PFAS Echo database as a facility that may have handled polyfluoroalkyl containing substances (PFAS). Based on the wastes listed in the RCRA and Haznet databases PFAS do not appear to have been handled at this facility. In addition, the subject site will use municipally supplied water and therefore human health risk from PFAS, if present at this facility, would be low.

This facility is listed in the SWEEPS UST, HIST UST, and CA FID UST database as an operator of a UST. This facility operated one 1,000-gallon diesel UST according to SWEEPS UST. No indication of a release originating from this UST was identified in any database reviewed.

Furthermore, this facility is out of the radius of concern for petroleum hydrocarbon concerns.

The Peacock Building Project No. 014-23080
Fresno, California Page No. 32
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.

With Offices Serving the Western United States
014-23080 Peacock Building Phase I Report Final.docx
This facility is listed in various federal, state, and local environmental databases as a site of a release of hazardous materials.

In 1994 PCE was discovered in soil and groundwater during a routine property transaction during diligence assessment according to a groundwater monitoring report for the site prepared by ERM West Inc. (ERM) (consultant) dated July 2022. The impacts are presumed to be the result of a PCE AST leak that occurred between 1965-1986 according to the report.

Following several additional assessments Univar Solutions USA Inc (Univar) (responsible party (RP)) installed a soil gas extraction system (SGE) that consisted of dual nested, 20-50 ft bgs and 70-90 ft bgs, soil gas wells to remediate soil impacts. The system was run between 1998-2004, 2009-2020, and March-May 2021. For groundwater remediation Univar conducted in-situ chemical oxidation events in 2017 and 2018. Both remediation efforts significantly reduced levels of PCE in groundwater and soil according to ERM.

The former Univar facility is located in the recently established California High Speed Rail right- of-way. No further remediation is proposed at this time as a vicinity dry cleaner is also assessing their contributions to the PCE plume. Following the dry cleaner’s assessment Univar proposes to work with the California High-Speed Rail Authority to close and develop the site. Based on Isopleths of the groundwater plume included in the groundwater monitoring report the plume extends west by northwest from the point source of the facility located at the corner of G and Fresno Streets. Based on this environmental risk to the subject site is considered to be low.

Based on the above cited reports and listings this facility does not represent an environmental concern in connection with this assessment.

Hazardous Materials Migration in Soils and/or Groundwater The remaining properties within the specified search radius of the subject site which appeared on local, state, or federally published lists of sites that use or have had releases of hazardous materials or petroleum products are of sufficient distance and/or situated hydraulically cross- or downgradient from the subject site such that impact to the subject site via groundwater migration is unlikely.In general, potentially hazardous materials released from facilities located generally hydraulically upgradient within subject site vicinity, or in a hydraulically cross-gradient direction in proximity to the site, may have a reasonable potential of migrating to the subject site via groundwater flow. This opinion is based on the assumption that non- vaporous hazardous materials generally do not migrate large distances laterally within the soil, but rather tend to migrate with groundwater in the general direction of groundwater flow. However, the potential for migration of volatile hazardous materials may include movement within soils, groundwater flow or potentially omni-directionally if present in a vaporous state.

The Peacock Building Project No. 014-23080
Fresno, California Page No. 33
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.

With Offices Serving the Western United States
014-23080 Peacock Building Phase I Report Final.docx
Hazardous Materials Migration in Vapor
Hazardous materials or petroleum product vapors which may have the potential to migrate into the subsurface of the subject site may be caused by the release of vapors from contaminated soil or groundwater either on or in the vicinity of the subject site from current or historical uses of the subject site and/or adjacent or vicinity properties. Current or past land uses such as gasoline stations (using petroleum hydrocarbons), dry cleaning establishments (using chlorinated volatile organic compounds), former manufactured gas plant sites (using volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds), and former industrial sites such as those that had vapor degreasing or other parts-cleaning operations (using chlorinated volatile organic compounds) are of particular concern. Constituent of concern vapors are capable of migrating great distances omni- directionally along subsurface conduits such as pipelines, utility lines, sewer and stormwater lines, and building foundations.

Based on Krazan’s research and review of State and local regulatory agency records and the EDR regulatory database report, no listings of concern related to potential vapor migration were determined to be associated with adjacent properties or properties located within the subject site vicinity. The rationale supporting this opinion includes the following:
 Relevant sites had undergone investigation and remediation sufficient to receive regulatory agency closure.
 Sites with reported releases of minor quantities of constituents of potential concern (COPCs) or COPCs of limited volatility impacting soil only were considered of minimal concern.  Sites with reported releases of COCs including volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were either of sufficient distance or hydraulically down- or cross-gradient from the subject site such that they do not appear to represent a significant potential for vapor migration on to the subject site.

No engineering control sites, sites with institutional controls, or sites with deed restrictions were listed for the subject site, adjacent sites or vicinity properties in the EDR Report.

The Peacock Building Project No. 014-23080
Fresno, California Page No. 34
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.

With Offices Serving the Western United States
014-23080 Peacock Building Phase I Report Final.docx

7.0 DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
Summary of Conclusions
Apparent Evidence of RECs/CRECs or PAOCs From Not Noted Noted Historical Uses X
Current Uses X
Adjacent of Vicinity Property Uses X
Historical Uses
Based on Krazan’s review of historical aerial photographs, historical topographic maps, and historical cross-reference directories, a site reconnaissance, contacts with the local regulatory agencies, and an interview with a representative of the owner of the subject site, there is no material evidence that RECs exists in connection with the historical uses of the subject site.

Current Uses
Based on Krazan’s site reconnaissance, contacts with local regulatory agencies, and an interview with a representative of the owner of the subject site, there is no material evidence that RECs exist in connection with the current uses of the subject site.

Adjacent or Vicinity Property Uses
Based on Krazan’s field observations, review of the EDR government database report, and consultation with local regulatory agencies, there is no material evidence that recognized environmental conditions exist in connection with the subject site from adjacent or vicinity property uses.

7.1 Evaluation of Data Gaps/Data Failure
In accordance with ASTM E 1527-21 guidance, data gaps represent a lack of or inability to obtain information required by this practice despite good faith efforts by the environmental professional to gather such information. Data gaps may result from incompleteness in any of the activities required by this practice. Data failure represents the failure to achieve the historical research objectives of this practice even after reviewing the standard historical sources that are reasonably ascertainable and likely to be useful.

Data failure is one type of data gap.

The following is a summary of data gaps encountered in the process of preparing this report including an observation as to the presumed significance of that data gap to the conclusions of this assessment:

The Peacock Building Project No. 014-23080
Fresno, California Page No. 35
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.

With Offices Serving the Western United States
014-23080 Peacock Building Phase I Report Final.docx
 Absence of an Environmental Lien Search or Final Title Report (Sections 5.1 and 5.2) A Final Title Report or Environmental Lien Search was not provided by the Phase I ESA User; therefore, a data gap exists. Taken in consideration with the available information obtained in the course of preparing this report in conjunction with professional experience, there is no evidence to suggest that this data gap might alter the conclusions of this assessment. However, the content of an environmental lien search or final title report is unknown.  Absence of Interview with Previous Property Owner/Occupant (Section 5.3) A Phase I ESA interview with the previous owner of the subject site was not reasonably ascertainable. Consequently, information regarding the history and historical uses of the subject site obtained from an interview of the previous owner of the subject site constitutes a data gap.

Taken in consideration with the available information obtained in the course of preparing this report in connection with professional experience, there is no evidence to suggest that thisdata gap might alter the conclusions of this assessment. However, the content of an interview with the previous property owner is unknown.

The Peacock Building Project No. 014-23080
Fresno, California Page No. 36
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.

With Offices Serving the Western United States
014-23080 Peacock Building Phase I Report Final.docx

8.0 CONCLUSIONS
We have conducted a Phase I ESA of the subject site in conformance with the scope and limitations of the ASTM E 1527-21 Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process guidance documents. Any deviations from this practice were previously described in this report. During the course of this assessment, Krazan identified no evidence of RECs, CRECs or HRECs in connection with the subject site as defined by ASTM E 1527-21; however, ASTM non-scope considerations were identified.

ASTM Non-Scope Considerations
The structures on the subject site were constructed in the early 1900s and 1930s. Neither an ACM survey nor a LBP survey, including sampling of materials at the on-site structures, was included within the scope of this assessment; therefore, it is unknown whether the buildings contain ACMs or LBP. Prior to the disturbance of any suspect ACMs or LBP at the subject site via renovation or demolition, a comprehensive asbestos and LBP survey is recommended.

The U.S. EPA has set the safety standard for radon gas in homes to be 4.0 pCi/L. Review of the EPA Map of Radon Zones places the Property in Zone 2, where average predicted radon levels are equal to or above

2.0 pCi/L and equal to or below 4.0 pCi/L. While the available data suggests that the potential for radon to adversely impact the subject site appears to be low, based on the proposed future residential usage of the subject site, a radon survey may be warranted.

The Peacock Building Project No. 014-23080
Fresno, California Page No. 37
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.

With Offices Serving the Western United States
014-23080 Peacock Building Phase I Report Final.docx

9.0 RELIANCE
This report was prepared solely for use by Client and should not be provided to any other person or entity without Krazan & Associates’ prior written consent. No party other than Client may rely on this report without Krazan & Associates’ express prior written consent. Reliance rights for third parties will only be in effect once requested by Client and authorized by Krazan & Associates with authorization granted by way of a Reliance Letter. The Reliance Letter will require that the relying party(ies) agree to be bound to the terms and conditions of the agreement between Client and Krazan & Associates as if originally issued to the relying party(ies), or as so stipulated in the Reliance Letter.

10.0 LIMITATIONS
The site reconnaissance and research of the subject site has been limited in scope. This type of assessment is undertaken with the calculated risk that the presence, full nature, and extent of contamination would not be revealed by visual observation alone. Although a thorough site reconnaissance was conducted in accordance with ASTM Guidelines and employing a professional standard of care, no warranty is given, either expressed or implied, that hazardous material contamination or buried structures, which would not have been disclosed through this investigation, do not exist at the subject site. Therefore, the data obtained are clear and accurate only to the degree implied by the sources and methods used.

The findings presented in this report were based upon field observations during a single property visit, review of available data, and discussions with local regulatory and advisory agencies. Observations describe only the conditions present at the time of this investigation. The data reviewed and observations made are limited to accessible areas and currently available records searched. Krazan cannot guarantee the completeness or accuracy of the regulatory agency records reviewed. Additionally, in evaluating the property, Krazan has relied in good faith upon representations and information provided by individuals noted in the report with respect to present operations and existing property conditions, and the historical uses of the property. It must also be understood that changing circumstances in the property usage, proposed property usage, subject site zoning, and changes in the environmental status of the other nearby properties can alter the validity of conclusions and information contained in this report. Therefore, the data obtained are clear and accurate only to the degree implied by the sources and methods used.

The Peacock Building Project No. 014-23080
Fresno, California Page No. 38
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.

With Offices Serving the Western United States
014-23080 Peacock Building Phase I Report Final.docx
This report is provided for the exclusive use of the client noted on the cover page and shall be subject to the terms and conditions in the applicable contract between the client and Krazan. Any third-party use of this report, including use by Client’s lender, shall also be subject to the terms and conditions governing the work in the contract between the client and Krazan. The unauthorized use of, reliance on, or release of the information contained in this report without the express written consent of Krazan is strictly prohibited and will be without risk or liability to Krazan.

Conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on the evaluation of information made available during the course of this assessment. It is not warranted that such data cannot be superseded by future environmental, legal, geotechnical or technical developments. Consequently, given the possibility for unanticipated hazardous conditions to exist on a subject site which may not have been discovered, this Phase I ESA is not intended as the basis for a buyer or developer of real property to waive their rights of recovery based upon environmental unknowns. Parties that choose to waive rights of recovery prior to site development do so at their own risk.

Parties who seek to rely upon Phase I Environmental Site Assessment reports dated more than 180 days prior to the date of reliance do so at their own risk. This limitation in reliance is based on the potential for physical changes at the site, changes in circumstances, technological and professional advances, and guidance related to the continued viability of Environmental Site Assessment reports, user’s responsibilities, and requirements for updating of components of the inquiry as stated in the ASTM Standard E 1527-21.

11.0 QUALIFICATIONS
This Phase I ESA was conducted under the supervision or responsible charge of Krazan’s undersigned environmental assessor with oversight from the undersigned environmental professional. The work was conducted in accordance with ASTM E 1527-21 guidance, generally accepted industry standards for environmental due diligence in place at the time of the preparation of this report, and Krazan’s quality- control policies.

The Peacock Building Project No. 014-23080
Fresno, California Page No. 39
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.

With Offices Serving the Western United States
014-23080 Peacock Building Phase I Report Final.docx
We declare that, to the best of our professional knowledge and belief, we meet the definition of environmental professional as defined in §312.10 of 40 CFR 312 and we have the specific qualifications based on education, training, and experience to assess a property of the nature, history, and setting of the subject property.

We have developed and performed the all appropriate inquiries in conformance with the standards and practices set forth in 40 CFR Part 312.

Respectfully submitted,
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Laurie K. Blakeman
Sr. Environmental Project Manager
Remington R. Alexander, PE
Environmental Regional Manager
LKB/RRA/mlt
The Peacock Building Project No. 014-23080
Fresno, California Page No. 40
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.

With Offices Serving the Western United States
014-23080 Peacock Building Phase I Report Final.docx

REFERENCES
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) Process, ASTM Designation: E 1527-21.

ASTM, Standard Guide for Vapor Encroachment Screening on Property Involved in Real Estate Transactions, ASTM Designation E 2600-10.

City of Fresno, Public Records Center
County of Fresno, Public Health Department, Environmental Health Division Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR), Aerial photographs, Microsoft® Research Maps.

Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR), Certified Sanborn Map Report.

Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR), City Directory Abstract.

Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR), Regulatory Database Report.

Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR), Topographic Map Report.

John (last name withheld), on-site representative
Lee, Keng, City of Fresno representative
Nasol, Greg, representative for the Property Owner,
State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control, Envirostor Website:
http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public
State of California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) Maps Website:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/calgem/Pages/WellFinder.aspx State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Geotracker Website:
http://geotracker.swrcb.ca.gov
State of California, Department of Water Resources, Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) Data Viewer, Fall 2022, https://sgma.water.ca.gov/webgis/?appid=SGMADataViewer#gwlevels Tohme, Danny, City of Fresno representative
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Map of Radon Zones.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory Wetlands Mapper:
http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html
Wong, Yolanda, Property Owner
The Peacock Building Project No. 014-23080
Fresno, California Page No. 41
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.

With Offices Serving the Western United States
014-23080 Peacock Building Phase I Report Final.docx

GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Subject Site: The real property being investigated under this Phase I ESA.

Adjacent Properties: Properties which are contiguous with the subject site, or would be contiguous except for a street, road, or other public thoroughfare.

Subject Site Vicinity: Properties located within a 500-foot radius of the subject site.

Environmental Professional: A person meeting the education, training, and experience requirements as set forth in 40 CFR §312.10(b). The EP may be an independent contractor or an employee of the user.

User: The party seeking to use Practice E 1527 to complete an environmental site assessment of the subject site. A user may include, without limitation, a potential purchaser of the subject site, a potential tenant of the subject site, an owner of the subject site, a lender, or a property manager.

Recognized Environmental Condition (REC): In defining a standard of good commercial and customary practice for conducting an environmental site assessment of a parcel of property, the goal of the processes established by this practice is to identify recognized environmental conditions. The term recognized environmental conditions means the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: (1) due to any release to the environment; (2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or (3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. De minimis conditions are not recognized environmental conditions.

Controlled Recognized Environmental Condition (CREC): A recognized environmental condition resulting from a past release of hazardous substances or petroleum products that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority (for example, as evidenced by the issuance of a no further action letter or equivalent, or meeting risk-based criteria established by regulatory authority), with hazardous substances or petroleum products allowed to remain in place subject to the implementation of required controls (for example, property use restrictions, activity and use limitations, institutional controls, or engineering controls). For example, if a leaking underground storage tank has been cleaned up to a commercial use standard, but does not meet unrestricted residential cleanup criteria, this would be considered a CREC. The “control” is represented by the restriction that the property use remain commercial. A condition considered by the environmental professional to be a CREC shall be listed in the findings section of the Phase I ESA report and as an REC in the conclusions section. A condition identified as a CREC does not imply that the environmental professional has evaluated or confirmed the adequacy, implementation, or continued effectiveness of the required control that has been, or is intended to be, implemented.

Historical Recognized Environmental Condition (HREC): A past release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products that has occurred in connection with the property and has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority or meeting unrestricted use criteria established by a regulatory authority, without subjecting the property to any required controls (for example, property use restrictions, activity and use limitations, institutional controls, or engineering controls). Before calling the past release an HREC, the environmental professional must determine whether the past release is an REC at the time the Phase I ESA is conducted (for example, if there has been change in the regulatory criteria).

If the EP considers the past release to be an REC at the time the Phase I ESA is conducted, the condition shall be included in the conclusions section of the report as an REC.

The Peacock Building Project No. 014-23080
Fresno, California Page No. 42
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.

With Offices Serving the Western United States
014-23080 Peacock Building Phase I Report Final.docx
GLOSSARY OF TERMS (continued)
Potential Area of Concern (PAOC): A term adopted to provide an alternative designation to the REC and HREC for a range of environmental issues related to current subject site uses, historical subject site uses, or from adjacent and/or vicinity property uses. The PAOC is utilized to emphasize full disclosure and provide the User with conclusions and recommendations related to potential environmental issues in connection with the subject site based on Krazan’s professional experience in cases where official documentation or other evidence may be absent in order to identify an REC or HREC, thereby aiding the User’s considerations of environmental due diligence risk tolerance.

Migrate/migration: For the purposes of this practice, “migrate” and “migration” refer to the movement of hazardous substances or petroleum products in any form, including, for example, solid and liquid at the surface or subsurface, and vapor in the subsurface. Vapor migration in the subsurface is described in ASTM E 2600-10 guidance; however, nothing in the E 1527-21 practice should be construed to require application of the E 2600-10 standard to achieve compliance with AAI.

De minimis condition: A condition that generally does not present a threat to human health or the environment and that generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies. Condition determined to be de minimis conditions are not RECS or CRECs.

Data Gap: A lack of or inability to obtain information required by this practice despite good faith efforts by the Environmental Professional to gather such information. Data gaps may result from incompleteness in any of the activities required by this practice, including, but not limited to the site reconnaissance and interviews.

Data Failure: A failure to achieve the historical research objectives even after reviewing the standard historical sources that are reasonably ascertainable and likely to be useful. Data failure is one type of data gap.

Vicinity Map
937, 939, 941, 943 F Street
and 942 Fagan Alley
APN: 467-074-002
Fresno, California 93706
Scale:

Drawn By:

Project No:

Date:

Approved By:

Figure No.:
1" = 500'
DN
014-23080
July 2023
LB
1 The Peacock Building
UnionPacific
China Aly
ChinaAly
G
St
Fagan Aly
E
St
FSt
Merced St
Fresno St
CA-99N
Stanislaus St
Tuolumne St
E
St
CA-99 S
FSt
Grainger
A
St
Kern St
Inyo St
C
St
B
St
Collins Ave
E
St
Tulare St
132A
132B
Frank H Ball
Playground
UnionPacific
ChinaAly
Mariposa St
Broadway Plz
HomerunAly
G
St
Van Ness Ave
Fresno St
H
St
FSt
Helm Building
Mattei Building
Hotel Californian
Bank of Italy
Club One
Casino
Fresno Superior
Court
Chukchansi
Park
Santa Clara St
Kern St
E
St
G
St
FaganAly
FSt
Mono St
H
St
99 Los Californios
Winery
Legend
Subject Site Boundary
0 500 1,000250
US Feet

Date:

July 2023
Approved By:

LB
Figure No:
2 Scale:

NTS
Drawn By:

DN
Project No:
014-23080
Parcel Map
Project Name
937, 939, 941, 943 F Street and 942 Fagan Alley
APN: 467-074-002
Fresno, California 93706

Site Map
937, 939, 941, 943 F Street
and 942 Fagan Alley
APN: 467-074-002
Fresno, California 93706
Scale:

Drawn By:

Project No:

Date:

Approved By:

Figure No.:
1" = 50'
DN
014-23080
July 2023
LB
3 The Peacock Building
Legend
Subject Site Boundary
0 50 10025
US Feet
F Street
Tulare Street
Fagan Alley
Photo 1: View south across F Street of the Peacock Building.

Photo 2: View northeast of the rear of the Peacock Building and asphalt parking area.

The Peacock Building
937 and 943 F Street and 942 Fagan Alley
APN 467-074-002
Fresno, California 93706
Project No. 014-23080
Date: August 2023
Approved by: LB SITE DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERS
Offices Serving the Western United States

Photo 3: View southeast of the residential/dwelling structure addressed 942 Fagan Alley.

Photo 4: View east of the residential/dwelling structure adjoining 942 Fagan Alley. The exterior staircase providing access to the second floor of the Peacock Building is visible.

Photo 5: View south of the rooftops of the residential/dwelling structure (942 Fagan Alley).

Photo 6: View southwest of the parking lot and vacant parcel to the southwest beyond Fagan Alley. Tulare Street is at right in the photo.

Photo 7: Interior view of the main retail space on the ground floor of the Peacock Building.

Photo 8: Interior view of the main retail space on the ground floor of the Peacock Building.

Note ceiling damage.

Photo 9: View of the main hallway on the second floor of the Peacock Building.

Photo 10: View of the interior stairwell from the ground floor up to the second floor.

Photo 11: Interior view of a typical room on the second floor. The windows face F Street.

Photo 12: Interior view of a bathroom located on the second floor.

Photo 13: View of the kitchen located on the second floor.

Photo 14: View of a storage room on the ground floor of the Peacock Building.

Photo 15: Interior view of a recently updated room within the 942 Fagan Alley building.

Photo 16: Interior view of a recently updated kitchen and bathroom within the 942 Fagan Alley building.

Certified Sanborn® Map Report
Inquiry Number:
6 Armstrong Road, 4th floor
Shelton, CT 06484
Toll Free: 800.352.0050
www.edrnet.com
Peacock Building
937-945 F Street
Fresno, CA 93706
June 25, 2023
7372118.3
Certified Sanborn® Map Report
Certified Sanborn Results:

Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice
EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, LLC or its affiliates. All other trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners.
page-
The Sanborn Library includes more than 1.2 million
fire insurance maps from Sanborn, Bromley, Perris &
Browne, Hopkins, Barlow and others which track
historical property usage in approximately 12,000
American cities and towns. Collections searched:

Library of Congress
University Publications of America
EDR Private Collection
The Sanborn Library LLC Since 1866™
Limited Permission To Make Copies
Sanborn® Library search results
Contact:EDR Inquiry #
Site Name: Client Name:

Certification #
PO #
Project
1970
1950
1948
1918
1906
1898
1888
1885
06/25/23
937-945 F Street
Peacock Building
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
215 West Dakota
Fresno, CA 93706
7372118.3
Clovis, CA 93612
David Nava
The Sanborn Library has been searched by EDR and maps covering the target property location as provided by Krazan & Associates, Inc. were identified for the years listed below. The Sanborn Library is the largest, most complete collection of fire insurance maps. The collection includes maps from Sanborn, Bromley, Perris & Browne, Hopkins, Barlow, and others. Only Environmental Data Resources Inc. (EDR) is authorized to grant rights for commercial reproduction of maps by the Sanborn Library LLC, the copyright holder for the collection. Results can be authenticated by visiting www.edrnet.com/sanborn.

The Sanborn Library is continually enhanced with newly identified map archives. This report accesses all maps in the collection as of the day this report was generated.
75BF-45E9-8CF5
014-23080
Maps Provided:

Peacock Building
Certification #: 75BF-45E9-8CF5
Krazan & Associates, Inc. (the client) is permitted to make up to FIVE photocopies of this Sanborn Map transmittal and each fire insurance map accompanying this report solely for the limited use of its customer. No one other than the client is authorized to make copies. Upon request made directly to an EDR Account Executive, the client may be permitted to make a limited number of additional photocopies. This permission is conditioned upon compliance by the client, its customer and their agents with EDR's copyright policy; a copy of which is available upon request.

This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data Resources, LLC. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from other sources. This Report is provided on an “AS IS”, “AS AVAILABLE” basis. NO WARRANTY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT.

ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, LLC AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES, AFFILIATES AND THIRD PARTY SUPPLIERS DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, OF ANY

KIND OR NATURE, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ARISING OUT OF OR RELATED TO THIS REPORT OR ANY OF THE DATA AND INFORMATION PROVIDED IN

THIS REPORT, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES REGARDING ACCURACY, QUALITY, CORRECTNESS, COMPLETENESS,

COMPREHENSIVENESS, SUITABILITY, MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MISAPPROPRIATION, OR OTHERWISE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, LLC OR ITS

SUBSIDIARIES, AFFILIATES OR THIRD PARTY SUPPLIERS BE LIABLE TO ANYONE FOR ANY DIRECT, INCIDENTAL, INDIRECT, SPECIAL,

CONSEQUENTIAL OR OTHER DAMAGES OF ANY TYPE OR KIND (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF PROFITS, LOSS OF USE, OR LOSS OF DATA), ARISING OUT OF OR IN ANY WAY CONNECTED WITH THIS REPORT OR ANY OF THE DATA AND INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS REPORT.

Any analyses, estimates, ratings, environmental risk levels, or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only an assessment performed by a qualified environmental professional can provide findings, opinions or conclusions regarding the environmental risk or conditions in, on or at any property.

Copyright 2023 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission. 7372118
3 2
page-
Sanborn Sheet Key
This Certified Sanborn Map Report is based upon the following Sanborn Fire Insurance map sheets.
1970 Source Sheets
1970
Volume 1, Sheet 72
1970
Volume 1, Sheet 62
1970
Volume 1, Sheet 71
1970
Volume 1, Sheet 61
1950 Source Sheets
1950
Volume 1, Sheet 62
1950
Volume 1, Sheet 61
1950
Volume 1, Sheet 71
1950
Volume 1, Sheet 72
1948 Source Sheets
1948
Volume 1, Sheet 72
1948
Volume 1, Sheet 62
1948
Volume 1, Sheet 71
1948
Volume 1, Sheet 61
1918 Source Sheets
1918
Volume 1, Sheet 62
1918
Volume 1, Sheet 61
1918
Volume 1, Sheet 71
1918
Volume 1, Sheet 72
7372118
3 3
page-
Sanborn Sheet Key
This Certified Sanborn Map Report is based upon the following Sanborn Fire Insurance map sheets.
1906 Source Sheets
1906
Volume 1, Sheet 14
1906
Volume 1, Sheet 13
1906
Volume 1, Sheet 25
1906
Volume 1, Sheet 26
1898 Source Sheets
1898
Volume 1, Sheet 24
1898
Volume 1, Sheet 15
1898
Volume 1, Sheet 25
1898
Volume 1, Sheet 16
1888 Source Sheets
1888
Volume 1, Sheet 16
1888
Volume 1, Sheet 17
1888
Volume 1, Sheet 15
1885 Source Sheets
1885-Jul
Volume 1, Sheet 5
7372118
3 4
page-
Sanborn Sheet Key
This Certified Sanborn Map Report is based upon the following Sanborn Fire Insurance map sheets.
1885 Source Sheets
1885-Jan
Volume 1, Sheet 5
7372118
3 5
This Certified Sanborn Map combines the following sheets.

Outlined areas indicate map sheets within the collection. 0 Feet 150 300 600
- page
Certified Sanborn® Map
75BF-45E9-8CF5
75BF-45E9-8CF5
1970
1970
Order Date:
06/25/2023
Certification #
Site Name:

Address:

Peacock Building
937-945 F Street
City, ST, ZIP:

Fresno, CA 93706
EDR Inquiry:
7372118.3
Client:

Krazan & Associates, Inc.

This Certified Sanborn Map combines the following sheets.

Outlined areas indicate map sheets within the collection. 0 Feet 150 300 600
- page
Certified Sanborn® Map
75BF-45E9-8CF5
75BF-45E9-8CF5
1950
1950
Order Date:
06/25/2023
Certification #
Site Name:

Address:

Peacock Building
937-945 F Street
City, ST, ZIP:

Fresno, CA 93706
EDR Inquiry:
7372118.3
Client:

Krazan & Associates, Inc.

This Certified Sanborn Map combines the following sheets.

Outlined areas indicate map sheets within the collection. 0 Feet 150 300 600
- page
Certified Sanborn® Map
75BF-45E9-8CF5
75BF-45E9-8CF5
1948
1948
Order Date:
06/25/2023
Certification #
Site Name:

Address:

Peacock Building
937-945 F Street
City, ST, ZIP:

Fresno, CA 93706
EDR Inquiry:
7372118.3
Client:

Krazan & Associates, Inc.

This Certified Sanborn Map combines the following sheets.

Outlined areas indicate map sheets within the collection. 0 Feet 150 300 600
- page
Certified Sanborn® Map
75BF-45E9-8CF5
75BF-45E9-8CF5
1918
1918
Order Date:
06/25/2023
Certification #
Site Name:

Address:

Peacock Building
937-945 F Street
City, ST, ZIP:

Fresno, CA 93706
EDR Inquiry:
7372118.3
Client:

Krazan & Associates, Inc.

This Certified Sanborn Map combines the following sheets.

Outlined areas indicate map sheets within the collection. 0 Feet 150 300 600
- page
Certified Sanborn® Map
75BF-45E9-8CF5
75BF-45E9-8CF5
1906
1906
Order Date:
06/25/2023
Certification #
Site Name:

Address:

Peacock Building
937-945 F Street
City, ST, ZIP:

Fresno, CA 93706
EDR Inquiry:
7372118.3
Client:

Krazan & Associates, Inc.

This Certified Sanborn Map combines the following sheets.

Outlined areas indicate map sheets within the collection. 0 Feet 150 300 600
- page
Certified Sanborn® Map
75BF-45E9-8CF5
75BF-45E9-8CF5
1898
1898
Order Date:
06/25/2023
Certification #
Site Name:

Address:

Peacock Building
937-945 F Street
City, ST, ZIP:

Fresno, CA 93706
EDR Inquiry:
7372118.3
Client:

Krazan & Associates, Inc.

This Certified Sanborn Map combines the following sheets.

Outlined areas indicate map sheets within the collection. 0 Feet 150 300 600
- page
Certified Sanborn® Map
75BF-45E9-8CF5
75BF-45E9-8CF5
1888
1888
Order Date:
06/25/2023
Certification #
Site Name:

Address:

Peacock Building
937-945 F Street
City, ST, ZIP:

Fresno, CA 93706
EDR Inquiry:
7372118.3
Client:

Krazan & Associates, Inc.

This Certified Sanborn Map combines the following sheets.

Outlined areas indicate map sheets within the collection. 0 Feet 150 300 600
- page
Certified Sanborn® Map
75BF-45E9-8CF5
75BF-45E9-8CF5
1885
1885
Order Date:
06/25/2023
Certification #
Site Name:

Address:

Peacock Building
937-945 F Street
City, ST, ZIP:

Fresno, CA 93706
EDR Inquiry:
7372118.3
Client:

Krazan & Associates, Inc.

EDR Historical Topo Map Report
Inquiry Number:
6 Armstrong Road, 4th floor
Shelton, CT 06484
Toll Free: 800.352.0050
www.edrnet.com
with QuadMatch™
Peacock Building
937-945 F Street
Fresno, CA 93706
June 22, 2023
7372118.4
EDR Historical Topo Map Report
EDR Inquiry #
Search Results:

P.O.#
Project:

Maps Provided:

Latitude:

Longitude:

UTM Zone:

UTM X Meters:

UTM Y Meters:

Elevation:

Contact:

Site Name: Client Name:
2018
2015
2012
1981
1972
1963
1947
1946
1942
1923
06/22/23
Peacock Building
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
937-945 F Street
215 West Dakota
Fresno, CA 93706
Clovis, CA 93612
7372118.4
David Nava
EDR Topographic Map Library has been searched by EDR and maps covering the target property location as provided by Krazan & Associates, Inc. were identified for the years listed below. EDR’s Historical Topo Map Report is designed to assist professionals in evaluating potential liability on a target property resulting from past activities. EDRs Historical Topo Map Report includes a search of a collection of public and private color historical topographic maps, dating back to the late 1800s.
014-23080

36.729982 36° 43' 48" North
Peacock Building
-119.794939 -119° 47' 42" West
Zone 11 North
250412.30
4068561.37
288.13' above sea level
This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data Resources, LLC. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from other sources. This Report is provided on an “AS IS”, “AS AVAILABLE” basis. NO WARRANTY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT.

ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, LLC AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES, AFFILIATES AND THIRD PARTY SUPPLIERS DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, OF ANY

KIND OR NATURE, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ARISING OUT OF OR RELATED TO THIS REPORT OR ANY OF THE DATA AND INFORMATION PROVIDED IN

THIS REPORT, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES REGARDING ACCURACY, QUALITY, CORRECTNESS, COMPLETENESS,

SUBSIDIARIES, AFFILIATES OR THIRD PARTY SUPPLIERS BE LIABLE TO ANYONE FOR ANY DIRECT, INCIDENTAL, INDIRECT, SPECIAL,

7.5-minute, 24000
2018
Fresno North

7.5-minute, 24000
2015 Source Sheets
2015
Fresno South

7.5-minute, 24000
2015
Fresno North

7.5-minute, 24000
2012 Source Sheets
2012
Fresno South

7.5-minute, 24000
2012
Fresno North

7.5-minute, 24000
1981 Source Sheets
1981
Fresno North

7.5-minute, 24000
Aerial Photo Revised 1978
1981
Fresno South

7.5-minute, 24000
Aerial Photo Revised 1978
7372118
4 3
page
Topo Sheet Key
This EDR Topo Map Report is based upon the following USGS topographic map sheets. -
1972 Source Sheets
1972
Fresno North

7.5-minute, 24000
Aerial Photo Revised 1972
1972
Fresno South

7.5-minute, 24000
Aerial Photo Revised 1972
1963 Source Sheets
1963
Fresno South

7.5-minute, 24000
Aerial Photo Revised 1962
1947 Source Sheets
1947
Fresno South

7.5-minute, 24000
1947
Fresno North

7.5-minute, 24000
1946 Source Sheets
1946
Fresno North

7.5-minute, 24000
1946
Fresno South

7.5-minute, 24000
7372118
4 4
page
Topo Sheet Key
This EDR Topo Map Report is based upon the following USGS topographic map sheets. -
1942 Source Sheets
1942
FRESNO

7.5-minute, 31680
1923 Source Sheets
1923
Fresno

7.5-minute, 31680
1923
Bullard

7.5-minute, 31680
7372118
4 5
Historical Topo Map
page
SITE NAME:

ADDRESS:

CLIENT:

This report includes information from the
following map sheet(s).
-
EW

SW S SE

NW N NE
2018
0 Miles

0.25 0.5
1 1.5
Peacock Building
937-945 F Street
Fresno, CA 93706
Krazan & Associates, Inc.

TP, Fresno South, 2018, 7.5-minute
N, Fresno North, 2018, 7.5-minute
7372118
4 6

Historical Topo Map
page
SITE NAME:

ADDRESS:

CLIENT:

This report includes information from the
following map sheet(s).
-
EW

SW S SE

NW N NE
2015
0 Miles

0.25 0.5
1 1.5
Peacock Building
937-945 F Street
Fresno, CA 93706
Krazan & Associates, Inc.

TP, Fresno South, 2015, 7.5-minute
N, Fresno North, 2015, 7.5-minute
7372118
4 7

Historical Topo Map
page
SITE NAME:

ADDRESS:

CLIENT:

This report includes information from the
following map sheet(s).
-
EW

SW S SE

NW N NE
2012
0 Miles

0.25 0.5
1 1.5
Peacock Building
937-945 F Street
Fresno, CA 93706
Krazan & Associates, Inc.

TP, Fresno South, 2012, 7.5-minute
N, Fresno North, 2012, 7.5-minute
7372118
4 8

Historical Topo Map
page
SITE NAME:

ADDRESS:

CLIENT:

This report includes information from the
following map sheet(s).
-
EW

SW S SE

NW N NE
1981
0 Miles

0.25 0.5
1 1.5
Peacock Building
937-945 F Street
Fresno, CA 93706
Krazan & Associates, Inc.

TP, Fresno South, 1981, 7.5-minute
N, Fresno North, 1981, 7.5-minute
7372118
4 9

Historical Topo Map
page
SITE NAME:

ADDRESS:

CLIENT:

This report includes information from the
following map sheet(s).
-
EW

SW S SE

NW N NE
1972
0 Miles

0.25 0.5
1 1.5
Peacock Building
937-945 F Street
Fresno, CA 93706
Krazan & Associates, Inc.

TP, Fresno South, 1972, 7.5-minute
N, Fresno North, 1972, 7.5-minute
7372118
4 10

Historical Topo Map
page
SITE NAME:

ADDRESS:

CLIENT:

This report includes information from the
following map sheet(s).
-
EW

SW S SE

NW N NE
1963
0 Miles

0.25 0.5
1 1.5
Peacock Building
937-945 F Street
Fresno, CA 93706
Krazan & Associates, Inc.

TP, Fresno South, 1963, 7.5-minute
7372118
4 11

Historical Topo Map
page
SITE NAME:

ADDRESS:

CLIENT:

This report includes information from the
following map sheet(s).
-
EW

SW S SE

NW N NE
1947
0 Miles

0.25 0.5
1 1.5
Peacock Building
937-945 F Street
Fresno, CA 93706
Krazan & Associates, Inc.

TP, Fresno South, 1947, 7.5-minute
N, Fresno North, 1947, 7.5-minute
7372118
4 12

Historical Topo Map
page
SITE NAME:

ADDRESS:

CLIENT:

This report includes information from the
following map sheet(s).
-
EW

SW S SE

NW N NE
1946
0 Miles

0.25 0.5
1 1.5
Peacock Building
937-945 F Street
Fresno, CA 93706
Krazan & Associates, Inc.

TP, Fresno South, 1946, 7.5-minute
N, Fresno North, 1946, 7.5-minute
7372118
4 13

Historical Topo Map
page
SITE NAME:

ADDRESS:

CLIENT:

This report includes information from the
following map sheet(s).
-
EW

SW S SE

NW N NE
1942
0 Miles

0.25 0.5
1 1.5
Peacock Building
937-945 F Street
Fresno, CA 93706
Krazan & Associates, Inc.

TP, FRESNO, 1942, 7.5-minute
7372118
4 14

Historical Topo Map
page
SITE NAME:

ADDRESS:

CLIENT:

This report includes information from the
following map sheet(s).
-
EW

SW S SE

NW N NE
1923
0 Miles

0.25 0.5
1 1.5
Peacock Building
937-945 F Street
Fresno, CA 93706
Krazan & Associates, Inc.

TP, Fresno, 1923, 7.5-minute
N, Bullard, 1923, 7.5-minute
7372118
4 15

Peacock Building
937-945 F Street
Fresno, CA 93706
Inquiry Number: 7372118.5
June 26, 2023
The EDR-City Directory Abstract
6 Armstrong Road
Shelton, CT 06484
800.352.0050
www.edrnet.comEnvironmental Data Resources IncEnvironmental Data Resources IncEnvironmental Data Resources IncEnvironmental Data Resources Inc

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION
Executive Summary
Findings
City Directory Images
Thank you for your business.

Please contact EDR at 1-800-352-0050
with any questions or comments.

Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice
This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data Resources, LLC. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from other sources. This Report is provided on an “AS IS”, “AS AVAILABLE” basis. NO WARRANTY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA

RESOURCES, LLC AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES, AFFILIATES AND THIRD PARTY SUPPLIERS DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, OF

ANY KIND OR NATURE, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ARISING OUT OF OR RELATED TO THIS REPORT OR ANY OF THE DATA AND

INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS REPORT, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES REGARDING

ACCURACY, QUALITY, CORRECTNESS, COMPLETENESS, COMPREHENSIVENESS, SUITABILITY, MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MISAPPROPRIATION, OR OTHERWISE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, LLC OR ITS SUBSIDIARIES,

AFFILIATES OR THIRD PARTY SUPPLIERS BE LIABLE TO ANYONE FOR ANY DIRECT, INCIDENTAL, INDIRECT, SPECIAL,

CONSEQUENTIAL OR OTHER DAMAGES OF ANY TYPE OR KIND (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF PROFITS,

LOSS OF USE, OR LOSS OF DATA), ARISING OUT OF OR IN ANY WAY CONNECTED WITH THIS REPORT OR ANY OF THE DATA AND INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS REPORT. Any analyses, estimates, ratings, environmental risk levels, or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only an assessment performed by a qualified environmental professional can provide findings, opinions or conclusions regarding the environmental risk or conditions in, on or at any property.

Copyright 2023 by Environmental Data Resources, LLC. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, LLC, or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission.

EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, LLC or its affiliates.

All other trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

DESCRIPTION
Environmental Data Resources, Inc.’s (EDR) City Directory Abstract is a screening tool designed to assist environmental professionals in evaluating potential liability on a target property resulting from past activities.

EDR’s City Directory Abstract includes a search and abstract of available city directory data. For each address, the directory lists the name of the corresponding occupant at approximately five year intervals.

Business directories including city, cross reference and telephone directories were reviewed, if available, at approximately five year intervals for the years spanning 1922 through current. This report compiles information gathered in this review by geocoding the latitude and longitude of properties identified and g athering information about properties within 1320 feet of the target property.

Summary information obtained is provided in the text of this report.

RECORD SOURCES
The EDR City Directory Report accesses a variety of business directory sources, including Haines, InfoUSA, Po lk,Cole, Bresser, and Stewart. Listings marked as EDR Digital Archive access Cole and InfoUSA records.

The various directory sources enhance and complement each other to provide a more thorough and accurate report.

EDR is licensed to reproduce certain City Directory works by the copyright holders of those works. The purchaser of this EDR City Directory Report may include it in report(s) delivered to a customer.

RESEARCH SUMMARY
The following research sources were consulted in the preparation of this report. An "X" indicates where information was identified in the source and provided in this report.

Source TPYear Adjoining Text Abstract Source Image
2020 EDR Digital Archive - X X -
EDR Digital Archive X X X -
2017 Cole Information - X X -
2014 Cole Information - X X -
2010 Cole Information - X X -
2005 Cole Information - X X -
Cole Information X X X -
2002 R.L. Polk & Co Publishers - X X -
2000 Cole Information - X X -
Cole Information X X X -
1996 R.L. Polk & Co Publishers - X X -
R.L. Polk & Co Publishers X X X -
1995 Cole Information - X X -
Cole Information X X X -
1992 Cole Information - X X -
Cole Information X X X -
73721 18-5 Page 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Source TPYear Adjoining Text Abstract Source Image
1990 R.L. Polk & Co Publishers - X X -
1986 R.L. Polk & Co Publishers - X X -
R.L. Polk & Co Publishers X X X -
1980 R.L. Polk & Co Publishers - X X -
R.L. Polk & Co Publishers X X X -
1975 R.L. Polk & Co Publishers - X X -
R.L. Polk & Co Publishers X X X -
1970 R.L. Polk & Co Publisher - X X -
R.L. Polk & Co Publisher X X X -
1965 R.L. Polk & Co Publisher - X X -
R.L. Polk & Co Publisher X X X -
1962 Pacific Telephone - X X -
1958 R.L. Polk & Co Publishers - X X -
R.L. Polk & Co Publishers X X X -
1952 R.L. Polk & Co Publishers - X X -
R.L. Polk & Co Publishers X X X -
1947 R.L. Polk & Co Publishers - X X -
R.L. Polk & Co Publishers X X X -
1942 R.L. Polk & Co Publishers - X X -
R.L. Polk & Co Publishers X X X -
1937 R.L. Polk & Co Publishers - X X -
R.L. Polk & Co Publishers X X X -
1932 R.L. Polk & Co Publishers - X X -
R.L. Polk & Co Publishers X X X -
1927 R.L. Polk & Co Publishers - X X -
R.L. Polk & Co Publishers X X X -
1922 Polk: Husted Directory Co. - X X -
Polk: Husted Directory Co. X X X -
73721 18-5 Page 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

SELECTED ADDRESSES
The following addresses were selected by the client, for EDR to research. An "X" indicates where information was identified.

Address Type Findings
941 G Street Client Entered
1507 Tulare Street Client Entered
943 E Street Client Entered
1458 Kern Street Client Entered
1319 Mariposa Street Client Entered

FINDINGS

TARGET PROPERTY INFORMATION

ADDRESS
937-945 F Street
Fresno, CA 93706

FINDINGS DETAIL
T arget Property research detail.

F
937 F
Year Uses Source
1958 Mexicali Liquors R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1952 Wah Young liquors R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Wah Young liquors R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Wah Young liquors R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1937 Wah Young liquors R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
939 F
Year Uses Source
1942 Sekimoto Harry restr R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1937 Hamaguchi N restr R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
941 F
Year Uses Source
1937 Sam Yuen Co oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1922 Oriental Polk: Husted Directory Co.
943 F
Year Uses Source
1958 Mar Wm R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1952 Mar Wm R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Mar Wm furn rms R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
73721 18-5 Page 2
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
Year Uses Source
1942 Mar Wm furn rms R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1937 Kimora K furn rms R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
945 F
Year Uses Source
1958 Peacock Dept Store R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1952 Cooley Wm shoe shiner R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Mar A C dry gds R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Cooley W L shoe shiner R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Mar A C dry gds R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Cooley Hobert shoe R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Mar A C dry gds R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
shiner R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1937 Mar A C dry gds R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
F ST
937 F ST
Year Uses Source
1996 CARDENAS BARBER SHOP R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1995 CARDENAS BARBER SHOP Cole Information
1992 CARDENAS BARBER SHO Cole Information
1986 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1980 Cardenas Barber Shop R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1975 Cardenas Barber Shop R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1970 Cardenas Barber Shop R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1965 VACANT R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1932 Nakai K gro R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
941 F ST
Year Uses Source
1932 Yamada S barber R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
73721 18-5 Page 3
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
943 F ST
Year Uses Source
2020 LIFE CHANGE HOUSE INC EDR Digital Archive
2005 BURNETT SHOE SHINE Cole Information
CHEONG KEI WONG Cole Information
1932 Mukai Y furn rms R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
945 F ST
Year Uses Source
2005 EAST WEST FRAGRANCE Cole Information
2000 CENTRO LAFAMILIA MEDI CAL OUTREACHCole Information 1995 PEACOCK MENS WEAR Cole Information
1992 PEACOCK MENS WEAR Cole Information
1986 Peacock Department Store R.L. Polk & Co Publishers 1980 Peacock Department Store R.L. Polk & Co Publishers 1975 / Classy Shine R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Peacock Department Store R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1970 Classy Shine R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
Peacock Department Store R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1965 PEACOCK DEPARTMENT STORE R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
S 45 X COOLEYS CLASSY SHINE SHOESR.L. Polk & Co Publisher 1932 Mitsuhara M billiards R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
73721 18-5 Page 4

FINDINGS

ADJOINING PROPERTY DETAIL
The following Adjoining Property addresses were researched for this report. Detailed findings are provided for each address.

BROADWAY
1001 BROADWAY
Year Uses Source
1952 Barkers Furniture Co R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Kahn Mendes mens do R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1002 BROADWAY
Year Uses Source
1952 Dermer H M mens clo R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Dermer H M clo R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Mollring & Martin auto R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1005 BROADWAY
Year Uses Source
1947 Kahn Mendes mens clo R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1937 Kahn Mendes mens do R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Hub The do R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1009 BROADWAY
Year Uses Source
1952 Davis E W barber R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 McCarthy D L w atch repr R.L. Polk & Co Publishers McCarthy D L jr imptr R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
McCarthy D W real est R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Sousa E J real est R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Eddys Black & White R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Eddys Cigar Store R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1937 Lew is H C real est R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Lew is H C real est R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
73721 18-5 Page 5
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
1010 BROADWAY
Year Uses Source
1952 Elsies Ladies Apparel R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Schiffer Jim elec appliances R.L. Polk & Co Publishers 1015 BROADWAY
Year Uses Source
1952 Pleasanton Cafe R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Pleasanton Cafe R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Pleasanton Cafe R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1937 Pleasanton Cafe R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Pleasanton Cafe R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1016 BROADWAY
Year Uses Source
1927 Yale Rooms R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Kirby A J R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Simard E E dentist R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1017 BROADWAY
Year Uses Source
1952 Globe Rooms R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Blackw ell M L Mrs R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Blackw ell M L Mrs R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Globe Rooms R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Hollesen Andw R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Globe Rooms R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Blackw ell Maude Mrs R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1937 Globe Rooms R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Wright Grace Mrs R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Orangedale Rooms R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Mc Farland C Mrs R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1018 BROADWAY
Year Uses Source
1942 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
73721 18-5 Page 6
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
Year Uses Source
1937 Crescent Rooms R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Scott Dee R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Del Monte Rooms R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Allen Alice R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1019 BROADWAY
Year Uses Source
1927 Falotico Bartholomeo R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
barber R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1020 BROADWAY
Year Uses Source
1952 Rex Drug Store R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Tashjian K K drugs R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Tashijian K K drugs R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1937 Tashjian K K drugs R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Rex Drug Co R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1021 BROADWAY
Year Uses Source
1952 Ambrose Bros restr R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Ambrose Bros restr R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Ambrose Bros restr R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1937 Ambrose Bros restr R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Ambrose Bros bil R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
liarcis R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1022 BROADWAY
Year Uses Source
1952 Broadw ay Liquor Co R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Meyers Wm liquors R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Meyers Wm liquors R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1937 Meyers Wm liquors R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Alchian H V jw lr R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Poole W H optom R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
73721 18-5 Page 7
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
1023 BROADWAY
Year Uses Source
1927 Barrett Hicks Co R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1026 BROADWAY
Year Uses Source
1952 Voenes Geo restr R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Voenes Geo restr R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Voenes Geo restr R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1937 Voenes Geo restr R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1027 BROADWAY
Year Uses Source
1952 Sun Maid Furn Co R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Markarian Arpiar furn R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Barrett Hicks Co hdw R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1937 Barrett Hicks Co hdw R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1030 BROADWAY
Year Uses Source
1942 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1937 M & M Store mens furngs R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1034 BROADWAY
Year Uses Source
1952 Tinys Waffle Shop R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Tinys Waffle Shop R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Tinys Waffle Shops R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1937 Tinys Waffle Shop R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Voenes Geo restr R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1035 BROADWAY
Year Uses Source
1947 Fresno Bldg & Constr Trades Council R.L. Polk & Co Publishers 73721 18-5 Page 8
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
Year Uses Source
1942 Fresno Bldg & Constr R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Trades Council R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Rosenthals S ales R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Stores genl mdse R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1037 BROADWAY
Year Uses Source
1947 Dedeian Vartan rugs R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Weiss Wm restr R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1937 Weiss Wm restr R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1038 BROADWAY
Year Uses Source
1952 Booch Jack mens clo R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Booch Jack mens clo R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Ibanez Jos photog R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1937 Kaprielian M G liquors R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1040 BROADWAY
Year Uses Source
1927 Fern Hotel R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
La Burteau Dorothy R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1041 BROADWAY
Year Uses Source
1952 Markarian Senekerim cigars R.L. Polk & Co Publishers 1947 Sw ing Club liquors R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Booch Jack mens do R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1937 Cleinman Jos office R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Marymont Jack mens do R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1043 BROADWAY
Year Uses Source
1947 Gardner J W liquors R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Gardner J W liquors R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
73721 18-5 Page 9
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
Year Uses Source
1927 Oak Barber Shop R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1044 BROADWAY
Year Uses Source
1952 Cal Jew elry & Loan Co paw n brokersR.L. Polk & Co Publishers Chooljian Deran w atch repr R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Rose L L paw n broker R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Rose Lorraine Mrs paw n R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
broker R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1937 Harrison Abr furn R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Akers G W gunsmith R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Slocum Arms Co R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1045 BROADWAY
Year Uses Source
1952 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Gardner J W restr R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Vlasis Nicholas restr R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1046 BROADWAY
Year Uses Source
1952 Lamarr H A tavern R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Club Argentine R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Schilling G A musical R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
instr R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1937 Schilling Music Co R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Nishkians P h o n o R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
graph Shop R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1047 BROADWAY
Year Uses Source
1952 Jacobs Julius shoe shiner R.L. Polk & Co Publishers Rumpus Room billiards R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Tong F G cigars R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
73721 18-5 Page 10
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
Year Uses Source
1942 Tong Frank billiards R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Valley Meat Mkt R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1048 BROADWAY
Year Uses Source
1927 ture Co R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1049 BROADWAY
Year Uses Source
1952 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Tow n Talk Barber Shop R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Tow n Talk Barber Shop R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1937 Tow n Talk Barber Shop R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1050 BROADWAY
Year Uses Source
1952 D & R Waffle Shop R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Fresno Butcher & Barber R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Supp Co R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1937 Fresno Butcher & Barber R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Supp Co R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1051 BROADWAY
Year Uses Source
1952 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Dadian N G restr R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Zotter Jos shooting gallery R.L. Polk & Co Publishers 1937 Zotter Joe shooting gallery R.L. Polk & Co Publishers 1927 Rose Harry jw lr R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1052 BROADWAY
Year Uses Source
1952 Nedler Louis paw n broker R.L. Polk & Co Publishers 1947 Nedler Saml paw n broker R.L. Polk & Co Publishers 1942 Rose Harry paw nbroker R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
73721 18-5 Page 11
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
Year Uses Source
1937 Rose A J paw n broker R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1053 BROADWAY
Year Uses Source
1952 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Home Cigar Store R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Home Cigar Store R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1937 De Luxe Tailors & Hatters R.L. Polk & Co Publishers 1927 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1055 BROADWAY
Year Uses Source
1952 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Miktarian Harry liquors R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Rozis Mary Mrs liquors R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1937 Rozis Mary liquors R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Fabbrini J B cigars R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
V Karastathis J n o R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
shoe shiner R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1057 BROADWAY
Year Uses Source
1952 Allen J E w atch repr R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Corbetts Cafe R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Voutsas Jas restr R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1937 Alexander Arch restr R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Esgandarian A & Co food R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Acme Rooms R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Mull Orlando R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1058 BROADWAY
Year Uses Source
1952 Stiers J H gas sta R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Shell Oil Co gas sta R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Bow man E P gas sta R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
73721 18-5 Page 12
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
1065 BROADWAY
Year Uses Source
1952 Daloian Harry tavern R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Giordano R D liquors R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Corbett Ralph liquors R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Mariposa intersects R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
il Ol Goodmans Inc mens do R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1937 Rasmussen Ernest restr R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Mariposa intersects R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Kahn Mendes dos R.L. Polk & Co Publishers

BROADWAY PLZ
803 BROADWAY PLZ
Year Uses Source
2002 Not Verified 5 Apts R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
814 BROADWAY PLZ
Year Uses Source
2002 Not Verified 3 Apts R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
817 BROADWAY PLZ
Year Uses Source
2002 Chan Caroline M B R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
818 BROADWAY PLZ
Year Uses Source
2002 Not Verified 2 Apts R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
820 BROADWAY PLZ
Year Uses Source
2002 Adams Johnnie T BI R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
BROADWAY PLZ R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
821 BROADWAY PLZ
Year Uses Source
2002 Purio Irene B+ R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
73721 18-5 Page 13
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
822 BROADWAY PLZ
Year Uses Source
2002 Not Verified R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
824 BROADWAY PLZ
Year Uses Source
2002 Waler Lloyd J ffl R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
901 BROADWAY PLZ
Year Uses Source
2002 Not Verified 5 Apts R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
907 BROADWAY PLZ
Year Uses Source
2002 Sosa Alfred Sr B R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
910 BROADWAY PLZ
Year Uses Source
2002 Not Verified R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
912 BROADWAY PLZ
Year Uses Source
2002 b Rivera Larry R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
915 BROADWAY PLZ
Year Uses Source
2002 Not Verified R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
916 BROADWAY PLZ
Year Uses Source
2002 Chester J L R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
917 BROADWAY PLZ
Year Uses Source
2002 Not Verified 3 Apts R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
920 BROADWAY PLZ
Year Uses Source
2002 Atanasio Ralph H R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
73721 18-5 Page 14
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS

BROADWAY ST
801 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1990 Stevens Florence R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 Stevens Florence R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1962 Lucky Auto Sup Pacific Telephone
1958 Lucky Auto Sup R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
802 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1990 Pellegrino Ermin R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 Pelligrino Erminia R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1962 National Radiator Wks reprs Pacific Telephone
1958 National Radiator Wks R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
803 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1990 Kirkpatrick Lorraine R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 AKirkpatrick Lorraine R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1965 PRATT CARL H R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
804 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
2005 MICHA RHODES Cole Information
1990 Root Robt R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 Root Robt W R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1965 GREY FRED M R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
805 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1990 Aaron Jo Ann R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 Aaron Jo Ann R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
806 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1990 Tan Ks Nal R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
73721 18-5 Page 15
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
Year Uses Source
1986 Ka Nai Tan R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1962 Angelos Brake Serv Pacific Telephone
Fresno Speedometer & Elec Shop reprs AMPacific Telephone Schw arz Garage auto repr AD Pacific Telephone
Shahbozian John S auto trmr Pacific Telephone
1958 Angelos Brake Serv R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Fresno Speedometer & Elec Shop 4 AM R.L. Polk & Co Publishers Shahbasizn John S auto R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
trimmer R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Schw arz Garage auto repr R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
807 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1990 Tootle E dith R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 Tootle E dith R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
808 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1990 Whalen Mabel R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
BROADWAY ST Cosatd R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 Whalen Mabel R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
809 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1962 Steves Saddle Shop Pacific Telephone
1958 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
810 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1990 Fleck Bernice R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 Ybarra Jose R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
812 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
2010 RUDOLF AGUILAR Cole Information
2005 THOMAS FARNAN Cole Information
73721 18-5 Page 16
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
Year Uses Source
1990 Siders August R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 Siders August R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1965 GOOTEE RUFF R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
VACANT R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
GAHURAS JEAN MRS R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1962 Vacant Pacific Telephone
1958 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
813 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1962 Phillips Furn Co w hse Pacific Telephone
1958 Philips Furn Co w hse R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
814 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1990 Kittridge Irene R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 Knight Eunice R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1962 Broadw ay Liquor Store Pacific Telephone
1958 Broadw ay Liquor Store R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
815 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1990 Harris Virgin R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 Harris Virgin R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
816 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1990 Amirjan Suren R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 Amirjan Suren R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1962 Vacant Pacific Telephone
1958 Loma Rooms lodgings R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Moore Doris Mrs R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
817 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1990 Hancox Susan R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
73721 18-5 Page 17
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
Year Uses Source
1986 Hancox Susan R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1965 WELLS ROBT C R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1962 Phillips Furn Co Pacific Telephone
1958 Phillips Furn Co R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
818 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1990 Birkhead George R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 Davis William R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1962 Vacant Pacific Telephone
1958 Fresno Carbonic Gas Co fire R.L. Polk & Co Publishers extinguishers R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Jorgensen HP&CO fire R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
extinguishers am R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Kidde Walter Co fire R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
extinguishers am R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Notifier Automatic Fire Alarms am R.L. Polk & Co Publishers 819 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1990 Shibata Mesaichi R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 Mnaz Suren R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
820 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1990 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 Shibata Mosashi R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
821 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1990 Purio Irene R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 Markopulis Donnie R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1980 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
73721 18-5 Page 18
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
822 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1990 Mellin Stanley R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 Gonzales Merced R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1980 Soby Auta R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
823 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1980 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
824 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1990 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 AChaparro Amparo R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
825 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1962 Broadw ay Cyclery w hse Pacific Telephone
1958 Broadw ay Cyclery w hse R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
826 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1990 Gomez Mar R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 Gomez Mar R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
833 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1962 Broadw ay Cyclery Pacific Telephone
1958 Broadw ay Cyclery R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
836 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1962 Central City Garage auto repr Pacific Telephone
BROADWAY FROM Contd Pacific Telephone
1958 Central City Garage auto repr R.L. Polk & Co Publishers 73721 18-5 Page 19
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
837 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1962 Home Furn Co Pacific Telephone
1958 Home Furn Co R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
840 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1922 Hotel Vartan Polk: Husted Directory Co.

Elder D H Polk: Husted Directory Co.

Ganeses Mrs Gertrude Polk: Husted Directory Co.
842 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1962 Fresno Furn Co Pacific Telephone
1958 Fresno Furn Co R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
843 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1962 Chester Hotel lodgings Pacific Telephone
Sew ard Sylvia Mrs Pacific Telephone
1958 Chester Hotel R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
La Grange Ben R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1922 Chester Hotel Polk: Husted Directory Co.

Bonitz Bruno Polk: Husted Directory Co.
844 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1996 AUDIO NETWORK R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
BROADWAY R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
AUTO SVC INC R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1995 BROADWAY AUTO SVC Cole Information
1992 FRESNO AUTO SALES Cole Information
HINO AUTO REPAIR Cole Information
1990 Seven Day Car Care repr R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 T & H Auto Service repr R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1980 Avis Rent A Car R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
73721 18-5 Page 20
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
Year Uses Source
1975 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1962 Model Hotel Pacific Telephone
Canet Joaquin Pacific Telephone
1958 Model Rooms R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Rogers Jean J Mrs R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1922 Aguilar Frank Polk: Husted Directory Co.
847 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1965 CALE HOTEL LODGINGS R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
NEGRETE LUZ R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1962 Dale Hotel lodgings Pacific Telephone
Ow en Marguerite Mrs Pacific Telephone
1958 Dale Hotel R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Ow en Marguerite Mrs R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1922 Palace The Polk: Husted Directory Co.

Dow ney Helen F Polk: Husted Directory Co.
848 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1962 V&Ms Am Furn Co AM Pacific Telephone
1958 V&Ms Am Furn Co R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
849 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1965 ACME FURNITURE CO WHSE R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1962 Acme Furn Co Pacific Telephone
1958 Acme Furn Co 4 AD 3 144 Y R.L. Polk & Co Publishers 851 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1958 Acme Furn Co w hse R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
852 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1962 White Hotel lodgings Pacific Telephone
73721 18-5 Page 21
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
Year Uses Source
1962 Jermaglan Vartez Pacific Telephone
1958 White Hotel R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Jermagian Vartez R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1922 Hotel White Polk: Husted Directory Co.

Huron C H Polk: Husted Directory Co.
853 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1965 SIMON & SON CLO CLNS R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1962 Simon & Son cinam Pacific Telephone
1958 Simon & Son do cins R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
854 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1922 Cosmopolitan Rooms Polk: Husted Directory Co.

Partin H Polk: Husted Directory Co.
856 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1962 Vacant Pacific Telephone
1958 Reliable Furn Co used R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
858 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1962 Home Mkt gro Pacific Telephone
1958 Home Mkt gro R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
862 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1962 Victory Bargain Store gent mdse Pacific Telephone
1958 Victory Bargain Store geni mdse R.L. Polk & Co Publishers 863 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1965 ANDERSONS FURNITURE CO R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
WHSE R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
73721 18-5 Page 22
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
Year Uses Source
1962 Unfted Furn Co Pacific Telephone
1958 United Furn Co R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
866 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1996 AUNTIE EMS R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1995 AUNTIE EMS Cole Information
1992 AUNTIE EMS Cole Information
1990 Auntie E ms Restaurant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 Auntie E ms Restaurant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1980 Colony Kitchen Inc restr R.L. Polk & Co Publishers 1975 Colony Kitchen Inc reatr R.L. Polk & Co Publishers 888 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
2002 Bavaria Keshavlal K R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1996 MOTEL 7 R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1995 MOTEL 7 Cole Information
BAVARIA, K Cole Information
1992 MOTEL ORLEANS Cole Information
1990 Motel Orleans R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 Travelodge motel R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1980 Dow ntow n Travelodge Motel R.L. Polk & Co Publishers 1975 Travelodge Motel R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1970 Travelodge Motel R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
Hardy C Glennon R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
901 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1986 Albright Maybelie R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1980 Albright Maybelle R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1962 Vacant Pacific Telephone
1958 Palace Sandw ich Shop R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
73721 18-5 Page 23
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
902 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1990 Mc Alister Constance R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 Mc Alister Constance K R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1980 Mc Alister Constance R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1958 Flamingo Club cocktail lounge R.L. Polk & Co Publishers 903 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1990 Bruland Helen R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 Bruland Helen 2 C R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1980 Bruland Helen R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
904 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1990 Whealan Wm R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 Mc Cluskey Bonnie R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1980 Gaylord Lets R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
905 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1990 Hernandez Lucy R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 Hernandez Lucy R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1980 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
906 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1990 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 Mikailian Michi R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1980 Anderson James R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1958 Belmont Hotel R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Joseph Sophie D Mrs R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1922 Belmont Hotel Polk: Husted Directory Co.

Barr J W Polk: Husted Directory Co.

Day Mrs Clara Polk: Husted Directory Co.

Ew ing Mrs E J Polk: Husted Directory Co.
73721 18-5 Page 24
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
Year Uses Source
1922 Helvey G D Polk: Husted Directory Co.

York J E Polk: Husted Directory Co.
907 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1990 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 Harold Jean R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1980 Divine Robt R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
908 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1990 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 AStamps Louise R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1980 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1958 Valley Clothing Store R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
909 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1980 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
910 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1990 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 Fisher Roy R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1980 Hollinger Jean R R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
911 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1980 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
912 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1990 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 Acosta E ugenia R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
73721 18-5 Page 25
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
913 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1980 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
914 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1990 Wiedenhoefer Els R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 Wiedenhoefer Els R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1980 Gillespie Wilma C R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1958 Broadw ay Mkt meats R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
915 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1990 Forgey Fern R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 Sikes Forgey R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1980 Forgey G Fern R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1962 Vacant Pacific Telephone
1958 Arthurs Toy Shop R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
916 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1990 Sikes Robt R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 Sikes Robt R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1980 Booker Minnie R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1958 Modern Shoes R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
917 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1990 Campos Paula R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 Snyder Katie R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1980 Snyder Kate R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1962 Vacant Pacific Telephone
1958 Gery Rooms R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Hansen Joan R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1922 Ara Rooms Polk: Husted Directory Co.

Riley C H Polk: Husted Directory Co.
73721 18-5 Page 26
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
918 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1990 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 Hankel Frid R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1980 Hankel Frida R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
919 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1990 Vidal Pete R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 Paschke Grace R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1980 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
920 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1990 Thomas Denzil R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 Zimmerman Edith R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1980 Boyajian Ruth R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
921 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1990 Higgins Mabel R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 Didnatco Mary Mrs R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1980 Didonato E rnest R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1962 Daniels Columbia Furn Co Pacific Telephone
1958 Daniels Columbia Furn Co R.L. Polk & Co Publishers 922 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1990 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 OHara Willard R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1980 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
923 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1980 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
73721 18-5 Page 27
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
924 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1990 Anderson Marie F R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 Anderson Marie R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1980 Anderson Marie R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1958 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
925 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1980 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1962 Dow ntow n Day NNite Garage auto reprsPacific Telephone 1958 Dow ntow n Day NNite Garage R.L. Polk & Co Publishers auto reprs R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
926 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1990 Gray Ruth R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 Gray Ruth R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1980 Gray Ruth R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1958 New Collins Bar tavern R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
New Collins Cafe R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
927 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1965 ROUPE GILBERT N R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1962 Highes Barber Shop Pacific Telephone
1958 Hughes Barber Shop R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
928 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1958 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
930 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1958 White Faw n The restr R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
73721 18-5 Page 28
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
931 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1962 Broadw ay Lunch restr Pacific Telephone
1958 Broadw ay Lunch R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
933 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1965 TRAVELODGE MOTEL R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
RINGGBNBERG C ESTER R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1962 Travelodge Motel Pacific Telephone
Lang Harold Pacific Telephone
1958 Travelodge Motel R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Hardy C Glenn R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
936 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1958 Teds Cafe R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Teds Club tavern R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
940 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1958 Moler Barber Shop R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
942 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1958 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
945 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1922 Hughes Hotel Polk: Husted Directory Co.

Williams F M Polk: Husted Directory Co.
946 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1958 Moler Barber College R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
73721 18-5 Page 29
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
948 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1958 Kenilw orth Hotel R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
953 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1970 Parking Lot R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1965 STANDARD STATICNS INC GAS STA R.L. Polk & Co Publisher 1962 Standard Sta Inc Pacific Telephone
Tulare Intersects Pacific Telephone
1958 Standard Sta Inc R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
958 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1922 Hotel Kenilw orth Polk: Husted Directory Co.

Albin R V Polk: Husted Directory Co.

Brow n J E Polk: Husted Directory Co.
960 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1965 HORTON RODVER C R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
967 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1965 BREFELD HENRIETTA E a R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
968 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
2017 CLUB BRAZIL Cole Information
2014 CLUB BRAZIL Cole Information
2010 CLUB BRAZIL Cole Information
2002 CLUB BRAZIL bars R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
2000 CLUB BRAZIL Cole Information
1996 CLUB BRAZIL R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1995 CLUB BRAZIL Cole Information
1992 CLUB BRAZIL Cole Information
73721 18-5 Page 30
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
Year Uses Source
1992 CLUB, BRAZIL Cole Information
1990 Club Brazil cocktail lounge R.L. Polk & Co Publishers 1986 Club Brazil cocktail lounge R.L. Polk & Co Publishers 1980 Club Brazil cocktail lounge R.L. Polk & Co Publishers 1975 Club Brazil cocktail lounge R.L. Polk & Co Publishers 1965 CLUB BRAZIL TAVERN R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
970 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1965 BENNEYAN HALGANCOSH MRS R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
974 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1965 JONES MAX R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
975 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1965 POLK ANDREW R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
976 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
2014 VALARIE KUWATANI Cole Information
1965 HARRIS FLORENCE MRS R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
978 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1965 CANNON GEO H R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
980 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1965 KOSKELA ERNO R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
985 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1965 EVANS HAROLD F R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
73721 18-5 Page 31
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
986 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1965 OLANDA JAIDEV S R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
996 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1965 MCLLER HERMAN E R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1001 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1990 Gallow ay Dorothy R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 Callow ay Dorothy R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1980 Sikes Robt M R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1970 Neelys Jew elry paw n shop R.L. Polk & Co Publisher 1965 GRAND CENTRAL TOYS TOYS RET R.L. Polk & Co Publisher 1962 Grand Central Toys Pacific Telephone
1958 Barkers Fresno furn R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1002 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1990 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1980 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1970 Camerons Toy Store Inc R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1965 J BS CLOTHING STORE MENS CLO R.L. Polk & Co Publisher 1962 Dermers Suit Hse mens do Pacific Telephone
1003 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1990 White Sally R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 White Sally R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1980 Lubilatich Lillian R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1004 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1990 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
73721 18-5 Page 32
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
Year Uses Source
1986 Purio Irene R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1980 Raymond M E R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1005 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1990 Henderson Deborah R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 AVought Imogene R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1980 ONeal Maud R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1970 Munce Tillie C R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1965 MUNCE TILLIE C R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1006 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1990 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 Goolsby Hubert R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1980 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1007 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1990 Vaughn Gary R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 Blackw ood Bobbie R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1980 Cunningham Geo R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1008 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1990 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 Quisenberry Chas M R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1980 Montoya Lenora R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1970 Westfall Carroll W R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1965 WESTFALL CARRCLL W a R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1009 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1980 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1970 Tow n Talk Barber Shop R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1965 LOVELL ODIS SHOE SHINER R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
73721 18-5 Page 33
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
Year Uses Source
1965 TOWN TALK BARBER SHOP R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1962 Tow n Talk Barber Shop Pacific Telephone
Lovell Otis shoe shiner Pacific Telephone
1958 Tow n Talk Barber Shop R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1010 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1990 Brandt Joseph R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 Charmn Beth R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1980 Todd Meta R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1970 Foley Janice Mrs R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
United Loan & Jew elery R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1965 UNITED LOAN & JEWELERY LOANS R.L. Polk & Co Publisher GILLENWATER LE E S R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1962 Vacant Pacific Telephone
1958 Federal Jw lry & Loan Co R.L. Polk & Co Publishers paw nbroker ad R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1011 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1980 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1012 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1990 Creekbaum Mattie R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 Sparks Inez R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1980 Mc Rae Louetta R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1013 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1980 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1014 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1990 Anderson Emm R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 Anderson Emma C R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
73721 18-5 Page 34
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
Year Uses Source
1980 Reazin N R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1015 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1990 Momian Sarah R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 Mamion Sarah R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1980 Mramion Sarah R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
BROADWAY ST Contd R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1970 Haze James D R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1965 HAZE JAMES D R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1962 Vacant Pacific Telephone
1958 Pleasanton Cafe R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1016 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1990 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 Wood Rilfe V R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1980 Wood E lfie V R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1922 Yale Rooms Polk: Husted Directory Co.

Lamb R E Polk: Husted Directory Co.

Oran gedale The Polk: Husted Directory Co.

Barrett R S Polk: Husted Directory Co.

Del Monte The Polk: Husted Directory Co.

Berg Mrs Celia Polk: Husted Directory Co.
1017 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1990 Cunningham Berthen R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 Cunningham Berthenia F R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1980 Cunningham Berthen R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1962 Globe Rooms lodgings Pacific Telephone
Blackw ell Maud L Mrs Pacific Telephone
1958 Globe Rooms lodgings R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Blackw ell Maud L Mrs ad R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
73721 18-5 Page 35
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
1018 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1990 Arnest Mike R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 Roy Douglas R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1980 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1970 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1965 VACANT R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1962 Vacant Pacific Telephone
1958 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1019 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1990 Fitch E milee R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 Fitch E milee M R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1980 Mehaffey Stella R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1020 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1990 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 Dicks Sidney R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1980 Lalibirte Noella R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1970 Rex Drug Co R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1965 REX DRUG CO R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1962 Rex Drug Store Pacific Telephone
1958 Rex Drug Store R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1021 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1990 Hoff Margaret R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 Hoff Margareta R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1980 Hoff Margareta R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1970 Stout John B R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1965 STOUT JOHN B R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1962 Ambrose Bros tavern Pacific Telephone
1958 Ambrose Bros tavern R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
73721 18-5 Page 36
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
1022 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1990 Wong Tom L R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 Wong Tom L R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1980 Gibba Hazel R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1962 Vacant Pacific Telephone
1958 Karp Sis Co geni mdse R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1024 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1990 Mathew s Olive R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 Mathew s Olive R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1980 Mathew s Olive R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1970 Russell Cath Mrs piano tchr R.L. Polk & Co Publisher 1965 RUSSELL CATH MRS PIANO TCHR R.L. Polk & Co Publisher 1026 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1990 Bustos Alice R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 Bustos Alice R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1980 Bustos R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1970 Duncan Nathaniel E R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1965 WILLIAMS SUNS HINE F R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1962 Club Brazil tavern Pacific Telephone
1958 Club Brazil tavern R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1027 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1970 Sun Maid Furniture Co R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1965 SUN MAID FURNITURE CO R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1962 Sun Maid Furn Co Pacific Telephone
1958 Sun Maid Furn Co R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1028 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1970 Jackson Ida Mrs R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
73721 18-5 Page 37
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
Year Uses Source
1965 JACKSON IDA K MRS R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1030 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1990 City Pub Parking R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 City Pub Parking R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1980 City Pub Parking R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1975 City Pub Parking R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1970 Soliz Angie Mrs R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
City Pub Parking R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1965 CURTIS GLADYS MRS R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1962 Vacant Pacific Telephone
1031 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1970 Dillman Elton R R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1965 DILLMAN ELTON R R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1032 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1970 Sears Maudie E Mrs R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1965 SEARS MAUDIE E MRS a R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1033 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
2020 GREYHOUND LINES EDR Digital Archive
2017 FRESNO TRANSPORTATION CENTER INCCole Information
GREYHOUND PACKAGEXPRESS Cole Information
2014 FRESNO TRANSPORTATION CENTER INCCole Information
GREYHOUND BUS LINES Cole Information
GREYHOUND PACKAGEXPRESS Cole Information
2010 FRESNO TRANSPORTATION CTR INCCole Information
GREYHOUND LINES Cole Information
2005 FRESNO TRANSPORTATION CENTER INCCole Information
GREYHOUND BUS LINES Cole Information
73721 18-5 Page 38
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
Year Uses Source
2002 FRESNO TRANSPORTATION CTR INC bus
lines
R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
GREYHOUND BUS LINES bus lines I R.L. Polk & Co Publishers GREYHOUND PACKAGE EXPRESS delivery
serv
R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
2000 FRESNO TRANSPORTATION CENTER

INCORPORATED
Cole Information

GREYHOUND BUS LINES PACKAGE

EXPRESS
Cole Information
WESTERN UNION FRESNO Cole Information
GREYHOUND BUS LINES BAGGAGE Cole Information
GREYHOUND BUS LINES Cole Information
1996 FRESNO R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
TRANSPORTATION CTR R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
GREYHOUND BUS LINES R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1995 FRESNO TRANSPORTATION CTR INCCole Information
GREYHOUND BUS LINES Cole Information
1992 FRESNO TRANS CT INC Cole Information
1990 Greyhound Bus Lines R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Greyhound Bus Lines Package E xpressR.L. Polk & Co Publishers Greyhound Bus Lines Customer Serv &
Baggage
R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1034 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1962 Vacant Pacific Telephone
1958 Tinys Waffle Shop restr R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1035 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1990 City Pub Parking R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 City Pub Parking R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1980 City Pub Parking R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1975 City Pub Parking R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1970 City Pub Parking R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
73721 18-5 Page 39
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
1038 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1962 J Bs Clo Store mens do Pacific Telephone
1958 J Bs Clo Store mens do R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1040 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1922 Fern The Polk: Husted Directory Co.

Youngblood Wm Polk: Husted Directory Co.
1041 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1970 Bond Bertha Mrs R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1965 BOND CLARENCE C R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1043 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
2017 GREYHOUND FOOD SERVICE Cole Information
2014 GREYHOUND FOOD SERVICE Cole Information
2005 GREYHOUND FOOD SERVICE Cole Information
2002 GREYHOUND FOOD SVC restaurants R.L. Polk & Co Publishers 1996 BURGER KING R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1990 Burger King restr R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1044 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1962 Calif Jw lry & Loan Co paw n broker Pacific Telephone 1958 Calif Jw lry & Loan Co paw n broker R.L. Polk & Co Publishers Chooljian Deran w atch repr R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1046 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1962 Cats Paw tavern Pacific Telephone
1958 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
73721 18-5 Page 40
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
1050 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1962 Dans Club tavern Pacific Telephone
1958 Dans Club tavern R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1052 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1962 United Loan &Jw lrs paw n brokers Pacific Telephone 1958 United Loan & Jw lrs paw n brokers R.L. Polk & Co Publishers 1053 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1990 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1057 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1922 Acme Rooms Polk: Husted Directory Co.

Mull Orlando Polk: Husted Directory Co.
1058 BROADWAY ST
Year Uses Source
1962 Stiers Shell Serv Pacific Telephone
Mariposa Intersects Pacific Telephone
1958 Stiers Shell Serv R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
C
807 C
Year Uses Source
1958 Vulich John P B AAM R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1952 Vulich J T R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Taylor Virginia Mrs R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Willis C F R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Ambers Wm R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Acosta Tereso R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Duarte Andreas R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
73721 18-5 Page 41
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
815 C
Year Uses Source
1958 Silva Jose A R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1952 Barisich V J R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Berisich K M Mrs R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Berisich K M Mrs R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Barasich G V R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Kovacevich Flora R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1922 Barisich G V Polk: Husted Directory Co.

Kovacevich Mrs Flora Polk: Husted Directory Co.
820 C
Year Uses Source
1958 Natividad E milio T LAAi M R.L. Polk & Co Publishers 1952 Natividad E milio R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Kalasich Marine R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Kalasich Barbara Mrs R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Kalasich Tony R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1922 Kalasich Antone Polk: Husted Directory Co.
825 C
Year Uses Source
1958 Mora Candelario R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1952 Mora C L R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Acosta E dw R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Verdugo Atancia R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1922 Carsanegri John Polk: Husted Directory Co.

Evosevich Sami Polk: Husted Directory Co.
828 C
Year Uses Source
1958 Facio Rudy R R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1952 Bourbon E dilia Mrs R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Bourbon John R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
73721 18-5 Page 42
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
Year Uses Source
1947 Verdugo Anatacia R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Espitallier Frank R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1922 Espitallier Frank Polk: Husted Directory Co.
830 C
Year Uses Source
1958 Ortiz Luis L R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1952 Felix G F R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Bogunovich Michl R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Bog unovich Michi R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
831 C
Year Uses Source
1958 Michael Mike R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1952 Lopez Carmen R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Lopez Carmen R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Romero Enedina Mrs R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Sua Bartolome R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Espinosa Ferdinand R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Fontano Frank R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1922 Dominico Frank Polk: Husted Directory Co.

Abramovich Andrew Polk: Husted Directory Co.
rear Polk: Husted Directory Co.
833 C
Year Uses Source
1958 Dolantizo P eter M R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1952 Doljanica P M R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Dolanitzu P M R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Dolanitza P M R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Zivanovick Stella Mrs R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1922 Zivanocich Mrs Stella Polk: Husted Directory Co.
73721 18-5 Page 43
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
835 C
Year Uses Source
1958 Doi Richd R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1952 Begovich O R R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Begovich O R R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Yamasaki Sam R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Korach Geo R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1922 Korach Geo Polk: Husted Directory Co.
837 C
Year Uses Source
1958 Nishio Jiro R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
838 C
Year Uses Source
1958 Marquez Phillip R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1952 Quintero R V R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Mora Ciraco R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Verdugo Jos R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Valesquez Lucy Mrs R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Bogunovich Helen R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Dominico Frank R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Orosco Augustino R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1922 Bogunovich Michel Polk: Husted Directory Co.

Catich Geo Polk: Husted Directory Co.

Aragon Ynais rear Polk: Husted Directory Co.

Cecenca Jose rear Polk: Husted Directory Co.
842 C
Year Uses Source
1958 Gomez Benj R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1952 Gomez Benj R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Gomez Beni R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Masuda Vioka R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Millasich P irma Mrs R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
73721 18-5 Page 44
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
Year Uses Source
1922 Millasich Geo Polk: Husted Directory Co.
855 C
Year Uses Source
1958 Takemoto Mataichi R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1952 Takamoto Mataichi R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Cassinelli Henrietta Mrs R.L. Polk & Co Publishers 1942 Cassinelli Henrietta Mrs R.L. Polk & Co Publishers Kern intersects R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Cassinelli Jno R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1922 Cassinelli John Polk: Husted Directory Co.
905 C
Year Uses Source
1958 Vargas Florentine E Mrs B R.L. Polk & Co Publishers 1952 Vargas F J R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Vargas Florentino R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Cortez Rose Mrs R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1922 Oriental Polk: Husted Directory Co.
915 C
Year Uses Source
1958 Gomez Andy R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
921 C
Year Uses Source
1958 Salinas Frances Mrs R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
927 C
Year Uses Source
1958 Bilbo Roy H R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1952 Shinizu Izumi R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Kaw ahara Takuma R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Tashima Henry R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
73721 18-5 Page 45
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
Year Uses Source
1922 Oriental Polk: Husted Directory Co.
935 C
Year Uses Source
1958 Nagata Mac N B R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1952 Fujiw ara Mitsugi R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Mitsugi Fujiw ara R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Fugioto Misuto R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1922 Oriental Polk: Husted Directory Co.
936 C
Year Uses Source
1958 Ortiz Lillian Mrs B R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1952 Ortiz F F Mrs R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Ortiz Felipa Mrs R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Ortiz Felipa Mrs R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
939 C
Year Uses Source
1958 Nagahama Zenkichi R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1952 Nagahama Genkichi R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Nagahama Genkichi R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Wong Foo R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Sutton Rufus R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1922 Oriental Polk: Husted Directory Co.
940 C
Year Uses Source
1958 Facio Librada Mrs B R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1952 Facio E meterio R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Facio E meterio R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Facio L R R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Facio Demetrio R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Facio E meterio R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
73721 18-5 Page 46
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
Year Uses Source
1922 Facio Joaquin Polk: Husted Directory Co.
945 C
Year Uses Source
1958 Komatsu Sannosuke B R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1952 Komatsu Sannosuke R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Komatsu Sannosuke R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Michel Vincento R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Nick Carl R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1922 Oriental Polk: Husted Directory Co.
951 C
Year Uses Source
1958 Brow nlee Mary Mrs R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1952 Martin W L R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Craw ford M L Mrs R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Wotton Pearle R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Monriques Geo R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1922 Oriental Polk: Husted Directory Co.
952 C
Year Uses Source
1927 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1922 Santos Natividad Polk: Husted Directory Co.
954 C
Year Uses Source
1947 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Harris Geo R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Tulare intersects R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Espinosa Jos R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Lopez Quon R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1922 Espinosa Jose Polk: Husted Directory Co.
73721 18-5 Page 47
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
1000 C
Year Uses Source
1947 Wong Jack prod R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1008 C
Year Uses Source
1958 Liberty Auto Service R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1027 C
Year Uses Source
1958 Tsuda Seichi J B R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1952 Tsuda S J R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Chavez Pedro R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Michell Vicente R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Boyer Aug R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1922 Boyer Aug Polk: Husted Directory Co.
1028 C
Year Uses Source
1927 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1034 C
Year Uses Source
1958 S & J Citrus Co w hol fruit R.L. Polk & Co Publishers 1952 S & J Citrus Co R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 S & J Citrus Co R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1037 C
Year Uses Source
1958 Vincent Mamie Mrs B R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1952 Vincent Mamie Mrs R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Vincent Jos R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Yincent Jos R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Cobos Saulo R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Ito Anna Mrs R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Juarez Jos R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
73721 18-5 Page 48
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
Year Uses Source
1927 Vincent Jos R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Aragon Foubia Mrs R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Carcia Carlota Mrs R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Hernandez Jos R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Pow ell W W R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1922 Vincent Jos Polk: Husted Directory Co.

Black Jos rear Polk: Husted Directory Co.

Ferback Ernest rear Polk: Husted Directory Co.

Mathew s M C rear Polk: Husted Directory Co.

Pow ell W W rear Polk: Husted Directory Co.
1040 C
Year Uses Source
1958 V & V Whol Prod R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1952 Vartikian V M prod R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Vartikian Vartan w hol produce R.L. Polk & Co Publishers 1045 C
Year Uses Source
1952 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Toy New ton R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Toy New ton R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1922 Oriental Polk: Husted Directory Co.
1050 C
Year Uses Source
1947 Chow David w hol prod R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Chow David w hol prod R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1051 C
Year Uses Source
1942 Wong Jack & Co w hol R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Mariposa intersects R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
73721 18-5 Page 49
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
C ST
807 C ST
Year Uses Source
2020 LAI FONG EDR Digital Archive
DON JEW EDR Digital Archive
2017 PAMELA LE E Cole Information
ARVELIA WHIGHAM Cole Information
DELLA WILSON Cole Information
NATASHA RICKS Cole Information
DONNA SMITH Cole Information
2014 SALINA BROWN Cole Information
DONNA KAUTZMAN Cole Information
P JERONIMO Cole Information
NATASHA RICKS Cole Information
2010 LUIS QUESADA Cole Information
CASSIE MORALES Cole Information
CONCEPCION ALVAREZ Cole Information
PASHARA WILLIAMS Cole Information
YADIRA GARAY Cole Information
CHRISTINA ANCHONDO Cole Information
LINNICIA ROSS Cole Information
JUAN LARA Cole Information
STEPHANIE WALLACE Cole Information
2005 DENISE GUZMAN Cole Information
JUAN MARTINEZ Cole Information
LINDA LIAS Cole Information
JOVITA ALONSO Cole Information
GENARO GUZMAN Cole Information
LINNICIA ROSS Cole Information
S CROUCH Cole Information
KAREN ROGERS Cole Information
2002 Valdovino Dioselina R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
2000 V SALAZAR Cole Information
73721 18-5 Page 50
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
Year Uses Source
2000 KWONG LAM Cole Information
1996 Chu Hoi C R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Lam Cuong Q R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Sithong Chanday R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Vo Long T R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1995 LAM, ANH Cole Information
CHU, HOI C Cole Information
SYHARAJ, S Cole Information
VO, LONG T Cole Information
1990 Apartments R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Chu Hoi Chung R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Syharaj Sengaroun R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Va Long V R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Duong Lane R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Do Mul L R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Lam Anh T R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 Apartments R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Chu Hoi Chung R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Jew Don Yen R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Vo Lang R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Gee W B R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Gee You Soo R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Lam Anh T R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1970 Vulich E liz Mrs R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1965 VULICH ELIZ MRS R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1932 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
810 C ST
Year Uses Source
2000 TAXES & ACCOUNTING XCLUSIVE SERVICECole Information 815 C ST
Year Uses Source
2020 JOSE SANCHEZ EDR Digital Archive
73721 18-5 Page 51
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
Year Uses Source
2017 ALFRED GARCIA Cole Information
2014 ALFRED GARCIA Cole Information
2010 SALLY AMES Cole Information
2005 FRANCISCO BAUTISTA Cole Information
2002 Not Verified 2 Hses R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
2000 ANITA GARCIA Cole Information
1996 Hemandez Tomes R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1995 HERNANDEZ, THOMAS A Cole Information
1992 HERNANDEZ, TOMAS Cole Information
1990 Hernandez Tomas R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 Hernandez Tomas R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1980 Hernandez Isabel Mrs R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1975 Hernandez Isabel Mrs R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1970 Hernandez Thos R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1965 MANGE RUBEN P R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1932 Barisich G V R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Kovacevich Flora Mrs R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
817 C ST
Year Uses Source
1980 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
820 C ST
Year Uses Source
2020 CONSTANTE TACATA EDR Digital Archive
JANET TACATA EDR Digital Archive
2014 VICTORIA SERVANTES Cole Information
2010 BRAD VAUGHAN Cole Information
2005 NORMA MORA Cole Information
1990 KDalion Juan R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 Romias John R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1980 Madrid Frank M R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1975 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1965 VACANT R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
73721 18-5 Page 52
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
Year Uses Source
1932 Kalasich Anthony o R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
824 C ST
Year Uses Source
2020 SHERANN CLAY EDR Digital Archive
2017 TONY WHITE Cole Information
CHRISTINA FAIN Cole Information
SHERRY MOORE Cole Information
SHAY CLAY Cole Information
2014 ESTHER SERRANO Cole Information
HUMBERTO TOLENTINO Cole Information
GERALDO MARTINEZ Cole Information
SHERRY MOORE Cole Information
REBECCA SALCEDO Cole Information
2010 ESTHER SERRANO Cole Information
R GUERRA Cole Information
B WILLIAMS Cole Information
K CAPOZZI Cole Information
2005 FRANCISCO BAUTISTA Cole Information
JARMAL TACKARD Cole Information
LAURIE PACARD Cole Information
REBECCA SALCEDO Cole Information
KIM HARDAMAN Cole Information
2002 101 Brow n Charlotte M R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
2000 C BROWN Cole Information
LINDA HILL Cole Information
1986 a Hall Frances R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
b Rogers Ester R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
c Banlao Demetrio R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
825 C ST
Year Uses Source
2020 MARIA CASTREJON EDR Digital Archive
CLEMENTE AQUINO EDR Digital Archive
73721 18-5 Page 53
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
Year Uses Source
2017 CATALINA CORTEZ Cole Information
OSCAR AQUINO Cole Information
2014 CATALINA CORTEZ Cole Information
OSCAR AQUINO Cole Information
CATALINA BARAJAS Cole Information
2010 CATALINA CORTEZ Cole Information
OSCAR AQUINO Cole Information
DAVID HOVANNISIAN Cole Information
RAMIRO ANGIANO Cole Information
2005 OSCAR AQUINO Cole Information
DAVID HOVANNISIAN Cole Information
CATALINA BARAJAS Cole Information
2002 Aquino Oscar 6 S R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
2000 OSCAR AQUINO Cole Information
1996 Rivera Francis R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1995 MENDOZA, ANDRES S Cole Information
1990 Apartments R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
No Return R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Psuda Manuel R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Calderon Juan R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Alonso Apolinar R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 Apartments R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Morris Gw endolyn R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Martin Betty R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Wilson Rosie R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Morris Barbar R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1970 Martinez Mack R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1965 ESPANA MANUEL R R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1932 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
826 C ST
Year Uses Source
2020 RODRIGUEZ RODERICO EDR Digital Archive
73721 18-5 Page 54
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
Year Uses Source
2014 REYNALDA TRUJILLO Cole Information
2010 RODERICO RODRIGUEZ Cole Information
2005 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN Cole Information
2002 Sanchez Domitilo C 61 A R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
2000 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN Cole Information
1995 ADAMS, MAXINE Cole Information
1992 ADAMS, MAXINE Cole Information
828 C ST
Year Uses Source
1932 Espatallier Frank o R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
830 C ST
Year Uses Source
1965 ORTIZ LUCY MRS MRS R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1932 Bogunovich Michi o R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
831 C ST
Year Uses Source
1970 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
Rear Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1965 VACANT R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
REAR VACANT R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1932 Fontano Frank R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
833 C ST
Year Uses Source
2020 JUAN MELENDEZ EDR Digital Archive
MERCEDES MELENDEZ EDR Digital Archive
MARTIN MELENDEZ EDR Digital Archive
MICHEAL MELENDEZ EDR Digital Archive
GUADALUPE MELENDEZ EDR Digital Archive
JESUS MELENDEZ EDR Digital Archive
2017 MERCEDES MELENDEZ Cole Information
2014 MERCEDES MELENDEZ Cole Information
73721 18-5 Page 55
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
Year Uses Source
2010 M VALENZUELA Cole Information
2005 JUAN MELENDEZ Cole Information
2002 Melendez Guillermo J R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Melendez Maria S 61+ A R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
2000 JUAN MELENDEZ Cole Information
1995 OCCUPANT UNKNOWNN Cole Information
1990 Mc Lendez Santiago R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 Garcia Vilet R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1980 Montez Jose C R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1975 Liera Robt R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1970 Gomez Antonio R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1965 SIERRA HELENO R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1932 Dolanitza P M o R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
835 C ST
Year Uses Source
2010 HEATHER ESTRELLA Cole Information
2005 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN Cole Information
2002 Not Verified R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
2000 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN Cole Information
1995 PALACIOS, DAVID Cole Information
1990 No Return R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 r Diaz Louise R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1980 Liera Isabel Mrs R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1975 Liera Isabel Mrs R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1970 Liera Isabel Mrs R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1965 LIERA ISABEL R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1932 Torres Francisco R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
837 C ST
Year Uses Source
2014 RALPH HOVANNISIAN Cole Information
2010 RALPH HOVANNISIAN Cole Information
2005 RALPH HOVANNISIAN Cole Information
73721 18-5 Page 56
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
Year Uses Source
2000 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN Cole Information
1970 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1965 GARCIA VICENTA MRS R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
838 C ST
Year Uses Source
2020 ROBERTO SANTIAGO EDR Digital Archive
FAUSTINO SANTIAGO EDR Digital Archive
JAVIER SANTIAGO EDR Digital Archive
2017 JAVIER SANTIAGO Cole Information
2010 ROBERTO SANTIAGO Cole Information
2005 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN Cole Information
2002 1 Lopez Jay R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
2000 ANTONIO EGGERT Cole Information
1996 Madrigal Salud R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1995 MADRIGAL, SALUD Cole Information
1992 MADRIGAL, SALUD Cole Information
1990 Diaz Francisco R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Rearl Diaz Jose R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 Rodriguez Anthony R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Rear Contreras Miguel R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1980 Zavala Manuel R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Rear Compos Cleopilda R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1975 Zavala Manuel R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Rear Garcia Antonio R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1970 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
Rear Flores Joel R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1965 MARTINEZ LORENZO R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
REAR VACANT R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1932 Costales Jos R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
842 C ST
Year Uses Source
2017 LOUIS GOMEZ Cole Information
73721 18-5 Page 57
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
Year Uses Source
2014 LOUIS GOMEZ Cole Information
2010 JOSE SERREYRA Cole Information
2002 Gomez Merlin M 61+ A R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
2000 OLGA SUAREZ Cole Information
1995 GOMEZ, CARLOS Cole Information
1990 Gomez Merlin R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 No Return R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1980 Gomez Eduarda Mrs R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1975 Gomez Eduarda Mrs R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1970 Gomez Benj R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1965 GOMEZ BENJ R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1932 Millusich P earl Mrs R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
855 C ST
Year Uses Source
2020 MICHAEL MORALES EDR Digital Archive
CARLOS VELASQUEZ EDR Digital Archive
2005 RAUL RIQUENO Cole Information
2002 Olvera Martha E CD R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1995 OCCUPANT UNKNOWNN Cole Information
1992 TAKEMOTO, M Cole Information
1990 Takemoto Mataichi R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 Takemoto Mataichi R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1980 Takemoto Mataichi R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1975 Takemoto Mataichi R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1970 Takemoto Mataichi R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1965 m KMm UTO YOSHIMI MRS R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1932 Cassinelli John o R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Kern intersects R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
900 C ST
Year Uses Source
2000 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN Cole Information
73721 18-5 Page 58
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
905 C ST
Year Uses Source
1965 VARGAS FLORENTINE E MRS R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1932 Oge H H R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
915 C ST
Year Uses Source
2020 O DIMERY-LEVINE EDR Digital Archive
RUBY LE VINE EDR Digital Archive
RUBY DIMERY EDR Digital Archive
2017 RUBY DIMERY-LEVINE Cole Information
2014 RUBY DIMERY-LEVINE Cole Information
2010 RUBY DIMERY-LEVINE Cole Information
2005 RUBY DIMERY Cole Information
1970 Inouye Masaoysi R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1965 INOUYE MASAOYSI R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
921 C ST
Year Uses Source
2017 HERNANDEZ MIGUEL Cole Information
2014 HERNANDEZ MIGUEL Cole Information
2010 IRA AGUIRRE Cole Information
2002 Herrera Mercedes F R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1995 OCCUPANT UNKNOWNN Cole Information
1990 Wang Chung R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 Wong Chung R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1980 Wong Cheung Tsun R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1975 Wong Cheung Taun R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1970 Wong Cheung Tsun R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1965 VACANT R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
927 C ST
Year Uses Source
2020 MARCELINO LOPEZ EDR Digital Archive
ROSA RIVERA EDR Digital Archive
73721 18-5 Page 59
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
Year Uses Source
2020 ROSALBA LUCATERO EDR Digital Archive
MARCELINO SANCHEZ EDR Digital Archive
DAVID RIVERA EDR Digital Archive
GABRIEL LUCATERO EDR Digital Archive
2017 MARCELINO SANCHEZ Cole Information
2014 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN Cole Information
2010 LUIS ROJAS Cole Information
2005 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN Cole Information
2002 b Nunez Raquel R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
2000 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN Cole Information
1995 OCCUPANT UNKNOWNN Cole Information
1990 Gonzales Santos R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 Gonsalez Santos R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1980 Juarez Antonio R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1975 Juarez Antonio R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1970 Juarez Antonio R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1965 JUAREZ ANTONIO R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1932 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
935 C ST
Year Uses Source
2020 MAUDE REYES EDR Digital Archive
RAQUEL NUNES EDR Digital Archive
2017 RACHEL NUNEZ Cole Information
2014 RACHEL NUNEZ Cole Information
2010 RAQUEL NUNEZ Cole Information
2005 FRANCISCA GARATE Cole Information
2002 Reyes Maude G R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Reyes Sampos R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
2000 MAUDE REYES Cole Information
1995 OCCUPANT UNKNOWNN Cole Information
1990 Reyes Santos R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 Reyes Maude R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
73721 18-5 Page 60
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
Year Uses Source
1980 Wade Rai Mrs R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1975 Wada Rai Mrs R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1970 Wada Rai Mrs R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1965 NAGATA MAC N R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1932 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
936 C ST
Year Uses Source
2020 EFRAIN GONZALES EDR Digital Archive
SOLOMON GONZALES EDR Digital Archive
2017 MARIA LALUZ Cole Information
2014 MARIA LALUZ Cole Information
2010 MARIA LALUZ Cole Information
2005 MARIA GONZALEZ Cole Information
2002 Not Verified 2 Hses R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
2000 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN Cole Information
1996 Leon Jesus V R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1995 LEON, JESUS V Cole Information
1992 LEON, JESUS V Cole Information
1990 Leon Jesus V R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 Leon Jesus V R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1970 Jenkins Marvin R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1965 VACANT R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
939 C ST
Year Uses Source
2017 WINIFRED BECKER Cole Information
2014 ALFREDO LOPEZ Cole Information
2010 ALFREDO LOPEZ Cole Information
2005 BERNABE MARTINEZ Cole Information
2000 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN Cole Information
1995 MEHR, TED Cole Information
1990 Still Janet R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 Mehr Ted R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
73721 18-5 Page 61
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
Year Uses Source
1980 Nagahama Yoshi K R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1975 Nagahama Yoshi K R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1970 Nagahama Yoshi K R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1965 NAGAHAMA SUENO MRS R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1932 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
940 C ST
Year Uses Source
2017 DAVID HOVANNISIAN Cole Information
2014 DAVID HOVANNISIAN Cole Information
2010 DAVID HOVANNISIAN Cole Information
2005 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN Cole Information
2002 Facio Beatrice R 61+ A R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
2000 F FACIO Cole Information
1995 FACIO, F Cole Information
1990 Phonu Felix R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 No Return R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1980 Facio Beatrice R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1975 Facio Beatrice R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1970 Facio Beatrice R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1965 FACIO BEATRICE R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1932 Facao Demeterio o R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
945 C ST
Year Uses Source
2020 THOMAS AQUINO EDR Digital Archive
2017 MARIBEL ROMERO Cole Information
2014 MAIRA CISNEROS Cole Information
2010 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN Cole Information
2005 AMANDA GARCIA Cole Information
2002 Not Verified R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
2000 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN Cole Information
1995 OCCUPANT UNKNOWNN Cole Information
1992 LANGOC, T Cole Information
73721 18-5 Page 62
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
Year Uses Source
1990 La Ngoc T R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 La Ngoc T R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1980 Woo Mary R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1975 Ekinaka Tom R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1970 Komatsu Itona Mrs R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1965 KOMATSU SANNOSUKE R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1932 Rose Birdie Mrs R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
951 C ST
Year Uses Source
2005 MELVIN COOPER Cole Information
2002 Cooper Melvin 61 A R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1980 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1975 Candia Jose R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1970 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1965 CONEDY AUDREY T MRS R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1932 Montenegro Remigio R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
952 C ST
Year Uses Source
1932 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
954 C ST
Year Uses Source
1932 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Tulare intersects R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1008 C ST
Year Uses Source
2020 LIBERTY AUTO SVC EDR Digital Archive
2017 LIBERTY AUTO SERVICE Cole Information
2014 LIBERTY AUTO SERVICE Cole Information
2010 LIBERTY AUTO SVC Cole Information
2005 LIBERTY AUTO SERVICE Cole Information
2002 LIBERTY AUTO SVC auto rpr & serv R.L. Polk & Co Publishers 73721 18-5 Page 63
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
Year Uses Source
2000 MACS LIBERTY AUTO SERVICE Cole Information
LIBERTY AUTO SERVICE Cole Information
1996 LIBERTY AUTO SVC R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1995 LIBERTY AUTO SVC Cole Information
1992 MACS LIBERTY AUTO Cole Information
1990 Liberty Auto Service R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 Liberty Auto Service R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1980 Liberty Auto Service auto repr & gas sta R.L. Polk & Co Publishers 1975 Liberty Auto Service auto repr & gas st R.L. Polk & Co Publishers 1970 Liberty Auto Service repr R.L. Polk & Co Publisher Liberty Gulf Service R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1965 LIBERTY AUTO SERVICE REPR R.L. Polk & Co Publisher 1020 C ST
Year Uses Source
1990 rozco Mauro R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1027 C ST
Year Uses Source
2002 Not Verified R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1995 OCCUPANT UNKNOWNN Cole Information
1992 CISNEROS, MANUEL Cole Information
1990 Cisneros Manuel R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 Corpuz Eugenio D R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1980 Labuguen Martin R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1975 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Corpuz Eugenio D R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1970 Arondozo E milio B R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
Rear Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1965 ARVIZU JUAN M R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
REAR EDENFRONDO EMILIO R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1932 Boyer Sophia Mrs o R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
73721 18-5 Page 64
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
1034 C ST
Year Uses Source
1986 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1980 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1975 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1970 Layarus Nick R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1965 S & J CITRUS CO WHOL FRUIT R.L. Polk & Co Publisher LAZARUSNICK R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1037 C ST
Year Uses Source
1970 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1965 VINCENT MAMIE MRS R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1932 Vincent Jos o R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1040 C ST
Year Uses Source
2020 DONALD SIMS EDR Digital Archive
OSCAR AQUINO EDR Digital Archive
2017 NATURAL HEALTH REMEDIES Cole Information
2014 NATURAL HEALTH REMEDIES Cole Information
2005 SIMS DEVOLOPMENT CO Cole Information
SIMS DEVELOPMENT CO Cole Information
1045 C ST
Year Uses Source
1932 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1051 C ST
Year Uses Source
1965 VACANT R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1932 Lee Jang & Co w hol R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Mariposa intersects R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
73721 18-5 Page 65
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
1052 C ST
Year Uses Source
2020 VALLEY ADULT DAY HEALTH CARE EDR Digital Archive
2017 VALLEY ADULT DAY HEALTH CARE
CENTER
Cole Information
2014 VALLEY ADULT DAY HEALTH CARE
CENTER
Cole Information
2010 HAIRADOWEST Cole Information
US SOCIAL SECURITY ADMIN Cole Information
OFF THE HOOK Cole Information
2005 HAIR A DO WEST Cole Information
BRAIDS EXTRENDLY Cole Information
OFF THE HOOK HAIR DESIGN Cole Information
2002 HAIR A DO WEST beauty salons R.L. Polk & Co Publishers PAGER OUTLET radio paging/signaling equip
s I
R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
US SOCIAL SECURITY ADM R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
2000 SCL SEC ADMNON GEN INFORMATION &

SERVICES
Cole Information
ROBERT PERRY Cole Information
1970 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1965 VACANT R.L. Polk & Co Publisher

CHINA ALLEY
925 CHINA ALLEY
Year Uses Source
1992 BING KONG ASSN Cole Information
BING, KONG A Cole Information
956 CHINA ALLEY
Year Uses Source
1995 EGO, HELEN Cole Information
1992 EGO, HELEN Cole Information
73721 18-5 Page 66
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS

CHINA ALY
826 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1937 Komoto Kanichi R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
829 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1942 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Kern intersects R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1937 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Kern intersects R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
832 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1986 Apartments R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
A Richardson Raymond R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
B Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
C Turner James W R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
DAVelasquez Mario R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
E Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
F Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
G Jinks Lucy R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1980 Apartments R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
A Patina Jesus R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
BNgynen Habid R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
CGonzalez Ephram DPerez Louis R.L. Polk & Co Publishers EKraf Kyle R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
F Georgio Alice R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
GRomero Alf R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1975 Apartments R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
APatina Jesus R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
B Perez David R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
C Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
DMorales Joe R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
73721 18-5 Page 67
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
Year Uses Source
1975 EGarcia P edro R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
F Morales Pablo R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
GMc Donald Ollie R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1970 Apartments R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
A Gonzalez Jose M R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
B Velasco David R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
C Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
D Sims Hector R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
E Joh ison Alva R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
F Meriado Juana R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
G Lee Wong R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1965 APARTMENTS R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
A GONZALEZ JOSE M R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
B PEREZ DAVID R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
C ORTEGA JOE R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
D SIMS HECTOR R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
E SMITH M C R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
F DADE JOHN R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
834 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1986 Apartments R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
H Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1980 Apartments R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
H Wentw orth Robinosn R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
IHo Ling R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
J Wong Hee Toy R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
KGee Lum R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
LSalazar Jesus R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
MUribe Vince R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
N Kamaya P aul R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1975 Apartments R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
H Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
73721 18-5 Page 68
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
Year Uses Source
1975 IAllen Oliver R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
JNutt C R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
K Sanchez Manuel R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
LWong N T M Perez Luis D R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
N Serano Fredrico R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1970 Apartments R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
H Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
I Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
J Wong Nee T R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
M Lum Tom N Daniel Charles R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1965 APARTMENTS R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
H VACANT R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
I TAVARES ALF R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
J VACANT R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
K LUCKY EARL R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
L HEWITT ALEX R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
M LUM TOM R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
N VACANT R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1962 Vacant Pacific Telephone
1958 Velez Ophilia Mrs R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
835 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1958 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
840 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1986 Apartments R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
P Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Q Cavazo Daidro S R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
R Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
S Valdez Hidalgo T Delapaz Noe R.L. Polk & Co Publishers U Williams Robt R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
73721 18-5 Page 69
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
Year Uses Source
1980 Apartments R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
OLopez David R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
P Ortiz Michl R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Q Andilar Nicholas R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
RKing Harold R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
S Valdez Hidalgo T De La P az Noel R.L. Polk & Co Publishers U Ho Han S R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1975 Apartments R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Tobar Alf R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
POrtiz Michl R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
QDe Vores Abbott R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
R Smartt Alf R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
SSaez Robustia R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
T Diaz Antonia R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
U Alvarez Martin R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1970 Apartments R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
Tavares Alf R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
P Sanchez Manuel R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
Q Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
R Smart Alf R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1965 APARTMENTS R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
DECKER VIOLA MRS R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
P JOHNSON HENRY R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
r ARMER GENTRY R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
R JOHNSON ALBERT R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
S SIMMS ALLEN R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
T BRITTON GEO L R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
U GONZALEZ HECTOR R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
901 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1952 Kostouros Wm shoe shiner R.L. Polk & Co Publishers 1947 Kostouros Wm shoe shiner R.L. Polk & Co Publishers 73721 18-5 Page 70
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
Year Uses Source
1942 Kostouras Wm shoe shiner R.L. Polk & Co Publishers 1937 Kostouros Wm shoe shiner R.L. Polk & Co Publishers 1932 Kostouros Wm shoe R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
shiner R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Kostonros Wm shoe R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
shiner R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
905 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1965 VACANT R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1962 Vacant Pacific Telephone
1958 Imperial Hotel side entr R.L. Polk & Co Publishers 1952 Yee Mah Yee R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Gee Sam R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Shiba K Mrs R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
907 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1962 Vacant Pacific Telephone
CHINA ALLEY FROM Contd Pacific Telephone
1958 Bills Shine Stand R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1952 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Tong Chong & Co oriental gds R.L. Polk & Co Publishers 908 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1947 Tong Chong & Co oriental gds R.L. Polk & Co Publishers 909 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1947 Tong Chong & Co oriental gds R.L. Polk & Co Publishers 910 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1947 Tong Chong & Co oriental gds R.L. Polk & Co Publishers 73721 18-5 Page 71
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
911 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1965 VACANT R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1962 Vacant Pacific Telephone
1958 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Tong Chong & Co oriental gds R.L. Polk & Co Publishers 1942 Tong Chong & Co oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers 1937 Tong Chung & Co oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers 1932 Tong Chong & Co ori R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
iental gds R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
912 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1962 Vacant Pacific Telephone
1958 Fresno Rescue Mission Annex R.L. Polk & Co Publishers 1952 Mar Look R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Tong Chong R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Suey Sang Co herbs R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1937 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1932 Suey Sang Co oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
914 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1952 Ow l Tung Assn R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Ow l Tung Assn R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Ow l Tung Assn R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1937 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1932 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
73721 18-5 Page 72
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
915 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1932 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
917 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1932 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
920 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1958 Oriental Laborers Club Inc R.L. Polk & Co Publishers 1952 Oriental Laborers Club Inc R.L. Polk & Co Publishers 1947 Oriental Laborers Club Inc R.L. Polk & Co Publishers 1942 Oriental Laborers Club R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1937 Oriental Laborers Club R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1932 Oriental Laborers Club R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Oriental Laborers R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
921 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1980 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1975 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1970 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1965 VACANT R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1962 Vacant Pacific Telephone
1958 Bing Kong Assn R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1952 Bing Kong Assn R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Bing Kong Assn R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Bing Kong Assn R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1937 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1932 Choy L M Mrs R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Tong Hing Jan Co gro R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
73721 18-5 Page 73
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
922 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1952 Low King Co furn rms R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Low King Co furn rms R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Low K C furn rms R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1937 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1932 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
923 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1937 Bing Kong Assn R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
924 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1932 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
925 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
2002 BING KONG ASSN associations R.L. Polk & Co Publishers 2000 BING KONG ASSOCIATION Cole Information
1996 BING KONG ASSN R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1990 Bing Kong Asan social club R.L. Polk & Co Publishers 1986 Bing Kong Assn social club R.L. Polk & Co Publishers 1980 Bing Kong Asan social club R.L. Polk & Co Publishers 1975 Bing Kong Assn social club R.L. Polk & Co Publishers 1970 Fong Wai Club R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1965 FONG WAI CLUB SOCIAL R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1962 Fong Wai Club Pacific Telephone
1958 Chong Wai Club AAD R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1952 Chong Wai Club R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1937 Murakami M restr R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1932 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
73721 18-5 Page 74
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
928 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1962 Kum Shing Assn Pacific Telephone
1958 Kum Shing Assn R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1952 Kum Shing R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Kum Sing Club R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Asia Club oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1937 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1932 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
929 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1990 Wong Leo Rev R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 Bing Kong Assn R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1980 Yet Ling Y R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1975 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1970 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1952 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1932 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
930 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1932 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
931 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1975 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1970 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1965 VACANT R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1932 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
73721 18-5 Page 75
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
933 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1947 Chong Wai Fong Assn R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Chong Wai Fong Assn R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
934 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1962 Vacant Pacific Telephone
1958 Lew Elmer photog R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1952 Tin Yen Cafe R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Tin Yen Cafe R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Yen Ten restr R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1937 Tin Yen restr R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1932 Tin Yen restr R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
935 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1962 Vacant Pacific Telephone
1952 Leon Chas R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Leong Chas R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Leong Chas R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1937 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1932 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
937 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1990 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1975 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1970 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1965 VACANT R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1962 Vacant Pacific Telephone
1958 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1952 Woo Ling R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
73721 18-5 Page 76
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
Year Uses Source
1947 Woo Ling R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Woo Ling R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1937 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1932 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
938 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1962 Ning Young Benevolent Assn Pacific Telephone
1958 Ning Young Benevolent Assn R.L. Polk & Co Publishers 1952 Ning Young Benevolent Assn R.L. Polk & Co Publishers 1947 Ning Young Benevolent Assn R.L. Polk & Co Publishers 1942 Ning Yung Benevolent R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1937 Ning Yung Benevolent R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1932 Ning Yung Benevolent R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
939 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1962 Vacant Pacific Telephone
1958 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1952 Wong T H R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Wong T H R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Wong T H R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1937 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1932 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
940 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1962 Vacant Pacific Telephone
1958 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1952 Sing Harry R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Sing Harry R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
73721 18-5 Page 77
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
Year Uses Source
1942 Sing Harry R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1937 Lem You R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1932 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
944 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1962 Vacant Pacific Telephone
1958 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1952 El Groove Cafe R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 El Groove Cafe R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1937 Sil Sai Woo restr R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1932 Sam Chor restr R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
945 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1962 Vacant Pacific Telephone
1958 Oriental Pool Hall R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1952 Oriental Pool Hall R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Quong Jan & Co oriental gds R.L. Polk & Co Publishers 1942 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1937 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1932 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
949 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1947 Way Louie R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1937 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1932 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
73721 18-5 Page 78
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
950 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1962 El Grove Dormitory Club Pacific Telephone
1958 El Grove Dormitory Club R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1937 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1932 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
951 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1965 VACANT R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
S 56 EGO TORAYO MRS 237 458 E R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1962 Ho Yuen Tong Pacific Telephone
1958 Ho Yuen Tong R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1952 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Sing Co oriental gds R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Sing Co oriental gds R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1937 Sing Co oriental gds R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1932 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
952 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1958 Oriental Am Farmers Assn R.L. Polk & Co Publishers 1952 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Po Wung Kum R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Horn Fook Co loans R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1937 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1932 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
956 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
2014 HELEN EGO Cole Information
2010 TERUO EGO Cole Information
73721 18-5 Page 79
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
Year Uses Source
2005 TERUO EGO Cole Information
2002 Ego Helen Y 1g R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
BUSINESSES 1 HOUSEHOLDS R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
2000 HELEN EGO Cole Information
1996 Ego Helen R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1990 Ego H Y R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1986 Ego Helen Y R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1980 Ego Helen Y R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1975 Ego Helen Y R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1962 Ego Torayo Mrs Pacific Telephone
1958 Ego Torayo Mrs R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1952 Ego Torayo Mrs R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Ego Torayo Mrs R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1937 Ego H G restr R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Tulare intersects R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1932 Ego H G restr R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
958 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1927 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
961 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1947 Logan David shoe shiner R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Oberti Michl shoe shiner R.L. Polk & Co Publishers Tulare intersects R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1932 Voulgaris Louis shoe R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
shiner R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Tulare intersects R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Voulgaris Louis shoe R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
shiner R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
73721 18-5 Page 80
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
1007 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1932 Yet Far Low restr R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1008 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1962 Vacant Pacific Telephone
1958 Mar Ong R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1952 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Nightingale Cafe R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Wing Lum restr R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1937 Sui King Lam R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Shanghai Cafe R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Yick Willie R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1932 Sui King Lam Cafe R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1009 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1932 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1010 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1962 Vacant Pacific Telephone
1958 Wong J e R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1952 Gee Sing R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Aguilar P C liquors R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1937 Contreras Carmen Mrs R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
restr R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1932 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Conejo Louis restr R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
73721 18-5 Page 81
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
1011 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1942 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1012 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1962 Vacant Pacific Telephone
1958 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1932 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1013 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1927 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1015 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1962 Vacant Pacific Telephone
1958 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1937 Fee Chy Tong Co herbs R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1932 Fee Chy Tong Co herbs R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1016 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1962 Vacant Pacific Telephone
1958 Sam Harold W R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1952 Wong Jas R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Wong Jas R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1932 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1017 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1932 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
73721 18-5 Page 82
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
Year Uses Source
1927 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1018 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1962 Vacant Pacific Telephone
1958 Bow Tsee Hong & Co herbs R.L. Polk & Co Publishers 1952 Bow Tsee Hong & Co herbs R.L. Polk & Co Publishers 1947 Bow Tsee Hong & Co herbs R.L. Polk & Co Publishers Huey Ching Fay herbs R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Bow Tsee Hong Co herbs R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1937 Bow e Tsee Hong Co herbs R.L. Polk & Co Publishers 1932 Bow e Tsee Hong Co R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
herbs R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1019 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1962 Vacant Pacific Telephone
1958 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Wong Gee cigars R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1937 Lew is F H R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1932 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1021 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1962 Vacant Pacific Telephone
1958 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1952 Martin Jas restr R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Martin Jas restr R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Lee Jim R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1937 Sunshine Mission R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1932 Gon Kee bakery R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
73721 18-5 Page 83
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
Year Uses Source
1927 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1022 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1932 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1023 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1970 Sam Yup Church R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1965 SAM YUP CHURCH R.L. Polk & Co Publisher
1962 Vacant Pacific Telephone
1958 Sum Yap Assn R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1952 Sam Yap Assn R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Sam Yap Assn R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Sam Yap Assn R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1932 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Chinese Club R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1025 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1962 Vacant Pacific Telephone
1958 Lung Jim R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1932 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1026 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1958 Chung Jean R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1952 Lee J R R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Lee Jas R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1932 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
73721 18-5 Page 84
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
1027 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1962 Vacant Pacific Telephone
1958 Young Ring Mrs R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1932 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1028 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1932 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1029 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1962 Vacant Pacific Telephone
1947 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1937 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1932 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1031 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1962 Yut Chow C Pacific Telephone
1958 Yut Chow C R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1952 Chung J L R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Chong J L R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Chong J L R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1937 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1932 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1032 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1962 Vacant Pacific Telephone
1958 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
73721 18-5 Page 85
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
Year Uses Source
1952 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Lee Sing R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1932 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1033 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1962 Vacant Pacific Telephone
1958 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1952 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Bell J D R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1932 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1034 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1958 Luna Maurice R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1035 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1952 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1932 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1035 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1962 Vacant Pacific Telephone
1942 Hong Tsee R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1937 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1932 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1036 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1962 Sierra Isabell Mrs Pacific Telephone
1958 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1952 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
73721 18-5 Page 86
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
Year Uses Source
1947 Ellison John R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Cho G R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1937 Wing Chong Indy R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1932 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1037 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1942 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1937 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1932 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1038 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1962 Vacant Pacific Telephone
1958 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1952 Zomo Disko R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Zomo Hotel R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Disko Zomo R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Disko Zomo R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1937 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1932 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1039 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1962 Guck Lee Pacific Telephone
1958 Young Wo Assn R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1952 Young Wo Assn R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Young Wo Assn R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Young Wo Assn R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1937 Young Wo Assn R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1932 Yeong Wo Assn R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
73721 18-5 Page 87
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
1040 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1952 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Baines D C R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Meritts Barney R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1937 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1932 Chick Yuen oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1042 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1952 Luna Mauricio R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Finbres Ramon R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1044 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1952 Garcia Ramon R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Santana Hilaria Mrs R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1937 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1932 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1046 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1962 Vacant Pacific Telephone
1958 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1952 Campbell Danl R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Campbell Danl R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Wong Henry R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1937 Wong Henry R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1932 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1048 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1962 Vacant Pacific Telephone
73721 18-5 Page 88
Year Uses Source

FINDINGS
Year Uses Source
1952 Barrens F M Mrs R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1937 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1932 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1050 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1962 Vacant Pacific Telephone
1952 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Uloa Blanche Mrs R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Mariposa intersects R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1937 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1932 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
Mariposa intersects R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Oriental R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1054 CHINA ALY
Year Uses Source
1952 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Lew Elmer cigars R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
E
661 E
Year Uses Source
1958 Jitsumyo Akira dentist R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1952 Jitsumo Akira dentist R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1947 Cobarrubias Refugio R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1942 Takata Gunichi R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1927 Vacant R.L. Polk & Co Publishers
1922 Oriental Polk: Husted Directory Co.
73721 18-5 Page 89
Year Uses Source

Fresno City CouncilAugust 28, 2025

Fresno City Council
August 28, 2025