Hanford City Council
March 18, 2025

City of Hanford Environmental Impact Analyses

Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2024
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Tract No. 943) Project Page 4-39 Goals and Policies Consistency Determination Project Consistency new growth identified in the land use
element.
in size and meets the 3.5 acre per 1,000
resident performance goal of the General Plan
and Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master
Plan.

Policy O57 Neighborhood Parks:

Establish neighborhood parks
generally between 2 and 5 acres in size
at locations easily accessed by
residents of the neighborhood.

Consistent The Project proposes a neighborhood park
approximately 3.58 acres in size and provides
internal circulation that provides access for
the entirety of the subdivision and
surrounding neighborhoods.

Policy O58 Neighborhood Parks Service
Area: Neighborhood parks shall have a
general service area of approximately
½ mile radius, and situated to avoid
patrons having to cross arterial streets,
railroad lines, and major waterways.

Consistent The proposed neighborhood park provides
access to the entirety of the subdivision
through internal right-of-way circulation.

Proposed roads also connect with existing and
proposed subdivisions to the east, west, and
south where access to the park is available.

Policy O64 Park Visibility: Parks shall
be designed to promote a safe and
clean environment for recreation. New
neighborhoods shall be designed so
that common side and rear residential
property lines with parks are
minimized and the visibility of parks
from public streets is maximized.

Consistent The proposed park is located internally within the neighborhood and is not directly adjacent
to residential property lines.

Policy O65 Development Impact Fee for
Parks: Adopt and periodically update a
park development impact fee to fund
Consistent The Project proponent will pay the Parks
Impact Fee as part of their permitting process.

City of Hanford Environmental Impact Analyses

Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2024
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Tract No. 943) Project Page 4-40 Goals and Policies Consistency Determination Project Consistency new neighborhood and community
parks needed to serve new growth.

Chapter 6: Public Facilities and Services
Goal P1: Adequate water quality and
quantity to meet existing and planned
needs.

Consistent The prepared Water Supply Assessment
(WSA) included with the IS/NOP determined
that the City of Hanford has the capacity to
service the Project.

Goal P2: Adequate wastewater
collection and treatment to meet both
existing and planned needs.

Consistent The City of Hanford Sewer System Master Plan accounts for future development within their
service area and planned area boundary. As
the Project site is located within the planned
area boundary, wastewater needs for the
development are accounted for in the General
Plan buildout. Costs related to future sewer
extensions where the Project would be built
are addressed through the use of impact fees
that are to be paid by the Project proponent
for their fair share of costs associated with
extending service.

Goal P3: Adequate and effective
stormwater collection and disposal to
meet both existing and planned needs.

Consistent The City of Hanford Storm Drainage System
Master Plan accounts for future development
within their service area and planned area
boundary. As the Project site is located within
the planned area boundary, stormwater
drainage needs for the development are
accounted for in the General Plan buildout. The
Project proposes the use of a stormwater
drainage basin within the neighborhood to
address stormwater collection, however,

City of Hanford Environmental Impact Analyses

Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2024
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Tract No. 943) Project Page 4-41 Goals and Policies Consistency Determination Project Consistency should the extension of City services be
necessary, costs related to future stormwater
drainage extensions where the Project would
be built are addressed through the use of
impact fees that are to be paid by the Project
proponent for their fair share of costs
associated with extending service.

Goal P5: Adequate solid waste disposal
capacity to meet existing and future
demands.

Consistent Solid waste disposal is managed by the Kings County Waste Management Authority and
licensed waste haulers. Solid waste would be
sent to the Kettleman Hills Landfill which has a
remaining capacity of 17.4 million cubic yards.

The IS/NOP determined that construction and
operation-related solid waste would have a
less than significant impact on solid waste
disposal capacity for existing and future
demands.

Goal P12: Adequate provision of school
facilities to serve projected growth.

Consistent The City of Hanford has six elementary school districts and one high school district within the
Planning Area. The Project site would be
located within the Sierra Pacific High School
area and the Armona Union Elementary School
per the General Plan Background Report. The
siting of a new school site is determined by the
school district; however, the Project proponent
is required to pay development impact fees for
the school district to account for impacts
related to new residential development and

City of Hanford Environmental Impact Analyses

Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2024
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Tract No. 943) Project Page 4-42 Goals and Policies Consistency Determination Project Consistency the subsequent new population that would
utilize school facilities.

Policy P1 Adequate Water Services:

Provide adequate water services to
support the level of development
identified in the land use element.

Consistent The prepared Water Supply Assessment
(WSA) included with the IS/NOP determined
that the City of Hanford has the capacity to
service the Project. The Project site is located
within the planning area boundary and is
accounted for in the General Plan buildout.

Development impact fees for the fair share
costs of service extensions will be assessed
and paid for by the Project proponent at the
time of construction.

Policy P3 Water Supply and Fire Flow
Availability: Condition approval of new
development projects and water
service extensions on the availability of
adequate water supply and the ability
to meet domestic and fire flow needs of
the area.

Consistent The prepared Water Supply Assessment
(WSA) included with the IS/NOP determined
that the City of Hanford has the capacity to
service the Project.

Policy P7 New Water Infrastructure:

Require developers to fund and install
new water distribution facilities to
service their new developments.

Consistent The Project proponent will be required to
install internal water distribution
infrastructure and facilities that will connect
with City infrastructure. These improvements
will be subject to City development standards.

Policy P8 Impact Fees for Water
Facilities: Adopt and periodically
update a water impact fee to fund
community-wide water supply,
Consistent The Project proponent will be subject to
development impact fees associated with
water service.

City of Hanford Environmental Impact Analyses

Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2024
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Tract No. 943) Project Page 4-43 Goals and Policies Consistency Determination Project Consistency treatment, and distribution
infrastructure needed to serve new
growth.

Policy P9 Sufficient Collection and
Treatment: Ensure provision of
sufficient wastewater collection and
treatment facilities to support the
existing and new growth identified in
the land use element.

Consistent See Consistency Finding Goal P2.

Policy P13 New Wastewater
Infrastructure: Require developers to
fund and install new wastewater
collection facilities to service their new
development.

Consistent See Consistency Finding Goal P2.

Policy P14 Impact Fees for Wastewater
Facilities: Adopt and periodically
update a wastewater impact fee to fund
community-wide wastewater collection
and treatment needed to serve new
growth.

Consistent See Consistency Finding Goal P2.

Policy P15 Adequate Storm Water
Services: Provide adequate stormwater
drainage infrastructure to support the
level of development identified in the
land use element.

Consistent See Consistency Finding Goal P3. The proposed stormwater basin and internal infrastructure
of the subdivision will be built to City
development standards.

City of Hanford Environmental Impact Analyses

Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2024
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Tract No. 943) Project Page 4-44 Goals and Policies Consistency Determination Project Consistency Policy P17 Adequate Storm Water
Drainage Improvements Availability:

Condition approval of development
projects on the provision of adequate
stormwater drainage improvements.

Consistent See Consistency Finding Goal P3 and Policy
P15.

Policy P21 New Stormwater Drainage
Infrastructure: Require developers to
fund and install new stormwater
drainage facilities to service their new
developments.

Consistent See Consistency Finding Goal P3 and Policy
P15.

Policy P22 Impact Fees for Wastewater
Facilities: Adopt and periodically
update a wastewater drainage impact
fee to fund area-wide stormwater
drainage needed to serve new growth.

Consistent The Project proponent will be subject to
development impact fees associated with
wastewater service.

Policy P24 New Development Run-Off
Volumes: Require new development to
discharge stormwater runoff at
volumes no greater than the capacity of
any portion of the existing downstream
system by utilizing detention or
retention or other approved methods,
unless the project is providing drainage
infrastructure in accordance with an
adopted drainage plan.

Consistent See Consistency Finding Goal P3 and Policy
P15.

City of Hanford Environmental Impact Analyses

Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2024
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Tract No. 943) Project Page 4-45 Goals and Policies Consistency Determination Project Consistency Policy P37 Impact Fees for Police
Facilities: Require new development to
provide funding to meet the cost of
providing vehicles, equipment, and
structures, to meet the needs for new
population growth.

Consistent The Project proponent will be subject to
development impact fees associated with City
police services.

Policy P46 Building Design for Safety:

Encourage building designs that help to
reduce crime and improve resident
safety.

Consistent The Project will be built pursuant to municipal code standards adopted by the City of Hanford.

Policy P47 Lighting for Safety:

Facilitate public safety through the
placement and design of outdoor
lighting, while respecting the privacy of
surrounding properties.

Consistent The Project will be built pursuant to the
development code and zoning ordinance
standards adopted by the City of Hanford. This
includes exterior lighting standards under
Section 17.50.140 of the Municipal Code.

Policy P52 Impact Fees for Fire
Facilities: Require developers to
contribute impact fees to fund the cost
of providing fire facilities needed to
support new population growth and
development.

Consistent The Project proponent will be subject to
development impact fees associated with City
fire services.

Policy P59 Fire and Building Codes:

Continue to enforce the California Fire
Code, California Building Code, and
Hanford Municipal Code to mitigate
threats to safety and property.

Consistent The Project will be constructed in compliance with City adopted development standards
including the California Building Code,
California Fire Code, and Hanford Municipal
Code.

City of Hanford Environmental Impact Analyses

Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2024
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Tract No. 943) Project Page 4-46 Goals and Policies Consistency Determination Project Consistency Policy P79 Impact Fees for General
Government Facilities: Require
developers to contribute impact fees to
fund the cost of providing expanded
general government facilities needed to
support new population growth and
development.

Consistent The Project proponent will be subject to
development impact fees associated with City
services.

Chapter 7: Health, Safety, and Noise
Goal H1: Reduced impacts to human
life, property, the local economy, and
the environment resulting from natural
hazards, human-trade hazards, and
noise.

Consistent As determined in the IS/NOP, the Project has been determined to be less than significantly
impacted by natural hazards, hazardous
materials, and noise.

Goal H5: Protection from the harmful
effects of hazardous materials.

Consistent As reported in the IS/NOP, the Project site
does not contain a hazardous waste facility, a
cleanup site, or oil extraction well site. The
potential use of limited amounts of hazardous
materials related to construction would not
create a significant impact. Hazardous
materials are required to be handled in
accordance with federal, State, and local
statutes and regulations. The Project does not
create a significant hazard to the public or
environment as there is minimal use of
hazardous materials related to the operation
of the Project.

Goal H7: Protection from the harmful
and annoying effects of excessive noise.

Consistent Project construction and operation are subject to the provisions of the adopted City of
Hanford Noise Ordinance. Construction

City of Hanford Environmental Impact Analyses

Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2024
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Tract No. 943) Project Page 4-47 Goals and Policies Consistency Determination Project Consistency activities would occur between the hours of
7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. consistent with the
Noise Ordinance. Residents of the subdivision
are subject to and protected by the Noise
Ordinance for excessive noise.

Goal H8: Protection of the City’s
economical base by preventing
incompatible land uses from
encroaching upon existing or planned
noise-producing uses.

Consistent The proposed development of a single-family
residential subdivision and prezoning of the
site to R-L-5 is consistent with the City General
Plan designation of low density residential.

Surrounding land uses under the City General
Plan include low density residential, medium
density residential, and conservation. The
Project does not result in an encroachment of
incompatible land uses.

Policy H15 Building Codes and
Standards for Earthquakes: Maintain
and enforce current building codes and
standards to reduce the potential for
structural failure caused by ground
shaking and other geologic hazards.

Consistent Project construction is subject to the standards of the adopted Municipal Code which includes
compliance with the California Building Code.

Policy H17 Geologic and Soils Studies:

Require geologic and soils studies to
identify potential hazards as part of the
approval process for all new
development prior to grading activities
where questionable conditions exist.

Consistent Prior to development of the Project, geologic and soil studies of the site would be conducted
to determine site conditions and applicable
development methods. No geologic or soilrelated hazard has been identified on the site and has been confirmed in a prepared Phase I
Site Assessment (Appendix A).

City of Hanford Environmental Impact Analyses

Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2024
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Tract No. 943) Project Page 4-48 Goals and Policies Consistency Determination Project Consistency Policy H20 New Development
Requirements for Flood Protection:

Require new development to provide
onsite drainage or contribute towards
their fair share cost of off-site drainage
facilities to handle surface runoff.

Consistent The Project site is not located or near a special flood hazard zone. Construction activities will
be subject to the conditions of approval for the
approved NPDES permit and SWPPP. Drainage
improvements including the drainage basin
will be developed in accordance to adopted
City development standards.

Policy H27 Fire Code: Ensure that all
new buildings are constructed to
current Fire Code Standards.

Consistent Project construction is subject to the Fire Code development standards and would be
reviewed and approved by City Fire
Department Staff prior to issuance of permits.

Policy H34 Sensitive Receptors: Avoid
siting uses with new sensitive
receptors near existing industrial
facilities that use or produce hazardous
materials or may emit toxic air
contaminants.

Consistent The Project site is located approximately 1.4 miles west of the nearest industrial zoned area
and is not subject to hazardous materials or
toxic air contaminants.

Policy H39 Aircraft Noise: Evaluate
proposed development proposals
against the land use policies of the
Kings County Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan.

Consistent The Project site is located approximately 2.7 miles west of the Hanford Municipal Airport
and is outside of the Airport Overlay District
and buffer established by the Kings County
Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.

Policy H41 Interior Noise Exposure:

Adopt State Noise Insulation Standards
(California Code of Regulations, Title
24) and Chapter 35 of the Uniform
Building Code concerning interior noise
Consistent The Project will comply with the Municipal
Code and California Building Code standards
for noise insulation and development of singlefamily housing.

City of Hanford Environmental Impact Analyses

Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2024
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Tract No. 943) Project Page 4-49 Goals and Policies Consistency Determination Project Consistency exposure for new single, multi-family
housing. Hotels, and motels.

Policy H42 Noise Evaluation for New
Development: Evaluate proposed
development proposals against existing
and future noise levels from ground
transportation noise sources.

Consistent The IS/NOP determined that design of the
Project including the use of a six-foot block
wall would reduce noise emanating from the
proposed residences and protect residences
from noise generated from Hanford Armona
Road.

Policy H50 Sound Walls: Utilize sound
walls at the perimeter of new
residential developments to protect
from noise generated by transportation
corridors.

Consistent See Consistency Finding Policy H50.

Policy H53 Land Use Zones that
Encourage Health Food Sales:

Designate land use zones that allow for
convenience stores, supermarkets, and
neighborhood markets that stock
nutritional food choices in every
existing and planned neighborhood.

Consistent The Project site is located along Hanford
Armona Road and is in proximity to various
commercial designated areas to the north,
east, and west. A large Regional Commercial
area exists to the north, smaller Neighborhood
Commercial and Neighborhood Mixed Use
exists east of the site, and planned Highway
Commercial, and Corridor Mixed Use are
present west of the site. These commercial
areas will provide a variety of commercial
opportunities for the proposed Project.

Policy H60 Health and Land Use
Decisions: Consider environmental
justice issues as they are related to
potential health impacts associated
Consistent The Project site is located towards the
southwestern portion of the City where
established residential and commercial uses
exist. Industrial activities are located towards

City of Hanford Environmental Impact Analyses

Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2024
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Tract No. 943) Project Page 4-50 Goals and Policies Consistency Determination Project Consistency with land use decisions, including
enforcement actions, to reduce the
adverse health effects of hazardous
materials, industrial activities, and
other undesirable land uses on
residents regardless of age, culture,
ethnicity, gender, race, socioeconomic
status, or geographic location.
the central and extreme southern portions of
the city which are located more than a mile
from the Project site and would not provide
undesirable land uses or significant impacts to
future and existing residents.

Policy H61 Public Amenities: Consider
environmental justice issues as they
are related to the equitable provisions
of desirable public amenities such as
parks, recreational facilities, and other
beneficial uses that improve the quality
of life.

Consistent The Project proposes the development of a
neighborhood park to be utilized by residents
of the proposed subdivision and existing
adjacent residents. Additionally, the Project
site is in proximity where access to additional
recreational facilities is available.

Policy H65 Comfortable Walking and
Biking Environments: Provide
comfortable environments and
destinations for walking and bicycling
to integrate physical activity into daily
routines.

Consistent The Project would develop pedestrian facilities in accordance with adopted Municipal Code
development standards. The Project would not
conflict with the 2016 City adopted Pedestrian
and Bicycle Master Plan.

Policy H66 Non-Vehicular Access:

Improve, bicycle, pedestrian, and public
transportation access to residential
areas, education and childcare facilities,
employment centers, commercial
centers, recreational areas, and other
destination points.

Consistent The Project would develop internal circulation and pedestrian facilities in accordance with
adopted Municipal Code development
standards. The Project would not conflict with
the 2016 City adopted Pedestrian and Bicycle
Master Plan or the Kings Area Regional Transit
route access.

City of Hanford Environmental Impact Analyses

Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2024
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Tract No. 943) Project Page 4-51 Goals and Policies Consistency Determination Project Consistency Policy H68 New Growth Areas:

Encourage land use pattern, density,
and mix of uses in new growth areas
that minimize the number of vehicle
miles traveled and support viable
choices for public transit, bicycling, and
walking.

Consistent The Project proposed development of internal circulation and pedestrian facilities in
accordance with City Municipal Code
requirements. The site is located adjacent to
Hanford Armona Road where access to bicycle
lanes and public transit is within walking
distance to reduce potential vehicle miles
traveled. The nearest public transit station is
located at the intersection of Hanford Armona
Road and 12th Avenue located approximately a
half-mile east of the Project site.

Policy H69 Separation between
Incompatible Land Uses and
Residential Neighborhoods: Maintain a
separation between uses that are
incompatible with residential
neighborhoods.

Consistent The Project site is located towards the
southwestern portion of the City where
established residential and commercial uses
exist. Industrial activities are located towards
the central and extreme southern portions of
the city which are located more than a mile
from the Project site. The Project is being
proposed, consistent with the City General
Plan and Zoning Map.

City of Hanford Environmental Impact Analyses

Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2024
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Tract No. 943) Project Page 4-52

4.2 - Transportation

4.2.1 - INTRODUCTION
This section describes the potential impacts to the transportation system associated with the proposed Silicon Valley Ranch Project (Project). The impact analysis examines the roadway, transit, bicycle, pedestrian, rail, and aviation components of the transportation system in the City of Hanford. To provide a context for the impact analysis, this section begins with the environmental setting, which describes the existing physical and operational conditions of the transportation system. Followed by the relevant regulatory framework, which influences the transportation system and provides the basis for impact significance thresholds that are used in the impact analysis findings and recommended mitigation measures.

4.2.2 - ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Roadway Network
The roadway network in the City is a traditional grid‐based network of north/south and east/west streets, except for portions of the downtown area, whose grid‐based network of streets is angled, consistent with the northeast/southwest railroad alignment. Almost all of the major streets in the City are regularly spaced at half‐mile intervals. The grid system provides high levels of accessibility (i.e., travel choices) for residents. The road network is divided into five categories: State Highways, Arterial Streets, Collector Streets, Local Streets, and Alleys (see Tables 4.2-1 and 4.2-2). Hanford has five north/south arterials, 14 east/west arterials, 12 north/south collectors, seven east/west collectors, and numerous local and alleyway streets. Freeways are under the jurisdiction of the State and are outside of City control, but have been assessed for the purposes of this EIR section due to their location within the Project area.

Table 4.2-1
Existing Arterial Streets
North/South Arterial Streets
Street Name Limits
13th Avenue Houston Avenue to Fargo Avenue
12th Avenue Idaho Avenue to Flint Avenue
11th Avenue Jackson Avenue to Flint Avenue
10th Avenue Jackson Avenue to Hwy 43
9th Avenue Houston Avenue to Lacey Boulevard
East/West Arterial Streets
Street Name Limits
Jackson Avenue 11th Avenue to 10th Avenue
Idaho Avenue 12th Avenue to 10th Avenue
Iona Avenue 12th Avenue to 10th Avenue

City of Hanford Environmental Impact Analyses

Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2024
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Tract No. 943) Project Page 4-53 Street Name Limits
Houston Avenue 13th Avenue to SR 43
Hanford-Armona Road 13th Avenue to 10th Avenue, 9th Avenue to SR 43 3rd Street (one way) 11th Avenue to 10th Avenue
4th Street (one way) 11th Avenue to 10th Avenue
6th Street 11th Avenue to 10th Avenue
7th Street Mall Drive to 10th Avenue
E. Lacey Boulevard 10th Avenue to SR 43
W. Lacey Boulevard 13th Avenue to Irwin Street
Grangeville Boulevard 13th Avenue to SR 43
Fargo Avenue 13th Avenue to SR 43
Flint Avenue 12th Avenue to SR 43
Table 4.2-2
Existing Collector Streets
North/South Collector Streets
Street Name Limits
Campus University 6th Street to Grangeville Boulevard
Greenfield Street Lacey Boulevard to Centennial Drive
Rodgers Street 11th Avenue to Mallard Way (potentially to Cortner Street) Redington Street 4th Street to Grangeville Boulevard
Irwin Street 4th Street to Grangeville Boulevard
Harris Street 6th Street to Grangeville Boulevard
Fitzgerald Lane Grangeville Boulevard to Fargo Avenue
Douty Street Hanford-Armona Road to Flint Avenue
Kensington Street Grangeville Boulevard to Fargo Avenue 9 ¼ Avenue Lacey Boulevard to Leland Way
Centennial Drive Lacey Boulevard to Heather Lane
Glacier Way Fargo Avenue to Flint Avenue
East/West Collector Streets
Street Name Limits
Hume Street 12th Avenue to 11th Avenue
3rd Street 10th Avenue to 9th Avenue
Garner Street Lacey Boulevard to 11th Avenue
Ivy Street 10th Avenue to 11th Avenue
Florinda Street 11th Avenue to 9 ¼ Avenue
Malone Street Douty Street to 10th Avenue
McCreary Street 11th Avenue to Douty Street
State Facilities
The State facilities in the City of Hanford are listed below and are operated and maintained by Caltrans.

City of Hanford Environmental Impact Analyses

Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2024
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Tract No. 943) Project Page 4-54 • State Route (SR) 198 is an east-west State highway that begins at U.S. Route 101 (US 101) south of King City and ends in Sequoia National Park. It connects the California Central Coast to the San Joaquin Valley, running through Hanford and Visalia. SR 198 intersects the major north-south routes in the Central Valley, including Interstate 5 (I-5) and SR 41, 43, 33, and 99. The portion of SR 198 through Hanford was upgraded to a four-lane freeway in the 1960s. In 2012, the portion from Hanford to SR 99 was upgraded to a four-lane expressway. Interchanges within the Planning Area are located at Highway 43, 10th Avenue, 11th Avenue, 12th Avenue, and 13th Avenue. • SR 43 is a north-south State highway running roughly parallel to SR 99, connecting Shafter, Wasco, Corcoran, Hanford, and Selma. Arterial access is limited within the Planning Area to intersections at Flint Avenue, Fargo Avenue, 10th Avenue, Grangeville Boulevard, Lacey Boulevard, Hanford-Armona Road, and Houston Avenue.

Public Transportation
The largest provider of public transit services within Kings County is the Kings County Area Public Transit Agency (KCAPTA). KCAPTA is an intra-governmental agency with representatives from Avenal, Kings County, Hanford, and Lemoore and is responsible for the operation of the Kings Area Rural Transit (KART). KART offers a scheduled daily bus service from Hanford to Armona, Lemoore, the Lemoore Naval Air Station, Visalia, Corcoran, Stratford, Kettleman City, and Avenal.

There are currently eight fixed routes that circulate throughout the City and operate as early as 6:30 a.m. until as late as 9:00 p.m. The Fresno route, with service every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, includes stops at Children’s Hospital, Veterans Hospital, Community Regional Medical Center, St. Agnes Medical Center, and Kaiser Permanente Medical Center, as well as access to the downtown area with a stop at Fulton Mall. KART also offers limited service on Saturdays. In addition, KART provides regular transportation service to Visalia Monday through Friday.

KART began a scheduled fixed-route bus service for Hanford in July of 1991. The scheduled bus service operates Monday through Friday from 7:30 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Expansion of the service is planned as new retail developments are built. West Hills College in Lemoore is served by the system, as are educational institutions in Visalia, including the College of Sequoias, Galen College, San Joaquin Business College, and Chapman College.

Dial-A-Ride is an origin-to-destination service available to eligible residents of Hanford, Lemoore, Armona, and Avenal. The KART dial-a-ride operates from 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.

Monday through Friday and, on Saturday, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

Park-and-Ride lots provide a meeting place where drivers can safely park and join carpools or vanpools or utilize existing public transit. Park-and-Ride lots are generally located near community entrances, major highways, or local arterials where conveniently scheduled transit service is provided. Lots are designed exclusively for commuters, or they can consist

City of Hanford Environmental Impact Analyses

Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2024
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Tract No. 943) Project Page 4-55 of an area of parking spaces in complementary land uses such as shopping centers and churches. Hanford has one Park-and-Ride facility located at the northeastern entrance of the City at 10th Avenue and SR 43. There are a number of informal Park and Ride lots located in various communities throughout Kings County and served by KCAPTA vanpools. One of the largest is the old Wal-Mart parking lot located on the northwest corner of 12th Avenue and Lacey Avenue in Hanford.

The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) provides funding for public transportation kiosks and the construction of Park-and-Ride lots. The purpose of this program is to encourage commuter rideshare activities as an alternative to single-occupant vehicle (SOV) commutes. Funds are available for eligible projects that meet specific program criteria on a first-come, first-served basis until the program funds are exhausted.

KART defines vanpooling as 7 to 15 persons who commute together in a van-type vehicle and who share the operating expenses. The KART vanpool program provides passengers with reliable transportation to and from work. The vanpool program is not only to provide safe travel to work but to provide alternative transportation options, which would ultimately reduce the number of vehicles on the road. Vanpooling is somewhat different from carpooling, though it is based upon the same principle: reducing single-occupant commuting.

KART established a vanpool program for riders to the Corcoran and Avenal State prisons in 2001 and has purchased additional vans to implement new vanpools. The program has become very successful with 180 vans in service in 2009 and extends to the areas of Tulare, Kings, Kern, Madera, Ventura, Monterey, and Fresno counties. CalVans has grown to include more than 200 vanpools tailored to meet the needs of commuters, plus nearly 150 vans specially designed for farm workers. The SJVAPCD offers Vanpool Voucher Incentive Programs. The program is meant to encourage commuter rideshare practices among frequent long-distance riders in the San Joaquin Valley.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Circulation
Nearly all arterials in the city limits have been designated as bikeways except 13th Avenue, Houston Avenue, and Lacey Boulevard. Some collector streets have been identified as bikeways, including Pepper Drive, Glacier Way, Irwin Street, and Rodgers Street. Encore Drive, Nell Way, Leland Way, Fitzgerald Lane, Centennial Drive, Florinda Street, McCreary Avenue, Mall Drive, Liberty Street, Sangiovese Street, University Avenue, Greenfield Avenue, and Hume Drive.

The San Joaquin Valley Railroad has also been designated as a location for an east-west bike path. The railway corridor is not abandoned, and currently, there are no plans to abandon it. Any possible bike path will need to be located within an easement adjacent to the railroad line but not in the railway easement.

Rail/Highway Freight
Almost 87 percent of the total freight tonnage is moved out of the Valley by truck, while rail accounts for 11 percent. BNSF and SJVR railroads provide freight service to the Hanford

City of Hanford Environmental Impact Analyses

Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2024
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Tract No. 943) Project Page 4-56 area. The BNSF mainline is double tracked through the entire Planning Area. Over time, it is expected that the number of trains using the system will increase as demand for rail service increases. The BNSF Railroad currently operates between 25 and 30 trains per day on the system. SJVR has a limited schedule of one train per day. The development of new industry along the SJVR right-of-way has prompted renewed investment in the east/west service.

SJVR anticipates an increase to three round trips per week and in the speed of trains using this route. Planning for improvements must include identifying future surface crossings that are needed to implement the City’s circulation system. In the process of improving the SJVR trackage, existing street crossings need to be modernized to ensure safety and adequate operational standards for both rail and vehicular traffic.

Amtrak Passenger Service
Amtrak provides passenger rail service from Hanford to the San Francisco Bay Area and Sacramento and service to Southern California by a combination of rail and bus. Freight service is available from both the BNSF Railway and the San Joaquin Valley Railroad. The Amtrak San Joaquin passenger train provides regularly scheduled intercity passenger rail service to Kings County. Stops are made daily at the Hanford and Corcoran stations for each northbound and southbound train. Stops along the San Joaquin line also include Bakersfield, Wasco, Fresno, Madera, Merced, Turlock, Modesto, Stockton, Antioch, Martinez, Richmond, Emeryville, and Oakland, with connecting bus service to Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Francisco, and many other points in Northern and Southern California. Passengers can transfer to the Amtrak Coast Starlight, which continues north to Portland and Seattle. Trains are accessible to the disabled and provide onboard bicycle racks, checked baggage, and food services.

High-Speed Train
In addition to the airport, train, and bus travel mentioned above, the California High-Speed Rail (HSR) will also serve as a regional transportation system for Fresno and surrounding communities. The proposed HSR line, if approved and funded, would ultimately extend through the San Joaquin Valley, linking San Francisco with Los Angeles. The initial construction section is planned to start in Madera County just north of Bakersfield, with a station located in Fresno’s downtown, aligned with Mariposa Street. In November 2013, the California High-Speed Rail Commission identified the preferred route through the Planning Area. The selected route, which runs along the eastern edge of Hanford, roughly follows a north-south route near the high-voltage power lines between 7th and Avenue 8th Avenue.

Aviation
Hanford Municipal Airport (HJO) is the only public aviation facility in Kings County. The airport does not offer commercial flights. The airport is located on the southeast edge of Hanford and is owned and operated by the City of Hanford. The airport enforces City, State, and federal aviation regulations and administers airport leases, tie-downs, hangars, shelters, fueling, and their overall maintenance.

City of Hanford Environmental Impact Analyses

Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2024
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Tract No. 943) Project Page 4-57 At present, airport property totals approximately 295 acres. Airport acreage consists of a runway and full-length parallel taxiway, transient and based tie-down aprons, and aircraft storage areas. The runway’s current length is 5,180 feet, 75 feet wide, and oriented roughly north/south. The runway is designed to accommodate aircraft with wingspans of up to 79 feet and speeds of up to 121 knots. The runway can accommodate larger aircraft on an occasional basis. Currently, the aircraft parking capacity totals 116 spaces and includes 37 hangar units, 30 shade hangar units, and 49 tie-downs.

Hanford Municipal Airport also serves as a base for the National Weather Service (NWS).

The primary function of the NWS is to provide current and forecasted weather conditions in the area (e.g., humidity, wind speed, barometer, dewpoint, temperature, and visibility).

4.2.3 - REGULATORY SETTING
This section summarizes the transportation policies, laws, and regulations that apply to the proposed Project. This information provides context for the impact discussion related to the Project’s consistency with applicable regulatory conditions.

Federal
No federal plans, policies, regulations, or laws pertaining to transportation are applicable.

State

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is responsible for operating and maintaining the State highway system. In the Project vicinity, State Routes 43 and 198, along with all the freeway ramp terminal intersections, fall under Caltrans jurisdiction. Caltrans provides administrative support for transportation programming decisions made by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) for State funding programs. The State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) is a multi‐year capital improvement program that sets priorities and funds transportation projects envisioned in long‐range transportation plans.

SENATE BILL 743
Senate Bill 743, passed in 2013, required the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop new CEQA Guidelines that address traffic metrics under CEQA.

As stated in the legislation, upon adoption of the new guidelines, “automobile delay, as described solely by the level of service (LOS) or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment pursuant to this division, except in locations specifically identified in the guidelines, if any.” In December 2018, OPR and the State Natural Resources Agency submitted the updated CEQA Guidelines to the Office of Administrative Law for final approval to implement SB 743.

City of Hanford Environmental Impact Analyses

Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2024
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Tract No. 943) Project Page 4-58 The Office of Administrative Law subsequently approved the updated CEQA Guidelines, thus, implementing SB 743 and making vehicle miles traveled (VMT) the primary metric used to analyze transportation impacts.

COMPLETE STREETS
The California Complete Streets Act (Act) requires general plans updated after January 30, 2011, to develop a plan for a multi-modal transportation system. The goal of the Act is to encourage cities to rethink policies that emphasize automobile circulation and prioritize motor vehicle improvements and come up with creative solutions that emphasize all modes of transportation. Complete Streets design has many advantages. When people have more transportation options, there are fewer traffic jams, and the overall capacity of the transportation network increases. Additionally, increased transit ridership, walking, and biking can reduce air pollution, energy consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions while improving the overall travel experience for road users. Providing more transportation options will allow the City to meet its future travel demands without solely relying on motorized vehicles.

While there is no standard design template for a Complete Street, it generally includes one or more of the following features: bicycle lanes, wide shoulders, well-designed and wellplaced crosswalks, crossing islands in appropriate midblock locations, bus pullouts or special bus lanes, audible and accessible pedestrian signals, sidewalk bulb-outs, center medians, street trees, planter strips, and ground cover. Complete Streets create a sense of place and improve public safety due to their emphasis on comprehensively encouraging pedestrian activity. The Act is implemented through the City’s Active Transportation Plan and General Plan.

Regional

KINGS COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (KCAG)
The KCAG is the State-designated Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) recognized by the State’s Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency. KCAG is responsible for:
• Administering the Regional Transportation Plan.
• Preparing a Regional Transportation Improvement Program and the Federal Transportation Improvement Program.
• Reviewing the State Transportation Improvement Program and other State transportation programs.
• Monitoring local public transit operations.
• Overseeing federal transportation grant proposals.
• Administering the Local Transportation Fund and State Transit Assistance funds.

Other objectives of KCAG include facilitating planning on a regional scale with an emphasis on transportation, finding and researching problems in urban growth, and considering

City of Hanford Environmental Impact Analyses

Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2024
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Tract No. 943) Project Page 4-59 common concerns of its constituent agencies. KCAG aims to tackle the issues that the members have in common but could not otherwise handle individually. 2018 KINGS COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN
The 2018 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) is a comprehensive assessment of all forms of transportation available in Kings County and the needs for travel and goods movement through the year 2042. The 2018 RTP update was accomplished within the framework of the KCAG, with assistance from Avenal, Corcoran, Hanford, Lemoore, and Kings County. The Santa Rosa Tachi-Yokut Tribe was also consulted during the development of the RTP.

Caltrans District 6 and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District staff provided invaluable service by furnishing helpful information, comments, and general support (KCAG, 2022).
2022 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (2022 RTIP) The Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) is a list of transportation projects and programs to be funded and implemented over the next three years. KCAG submits this document to Caltrans and amends the program on a quarterly cycle (KCAG, 2022).

Local

CITY OF HANFORD GENERAL PLAN
The Hanford General Plan serves as the community’s guide for the continued development, enhancement, and revitalization of the City of Hanford. The General Plan includes the following policies related to transportation and circulation that are relevant to this analysis:

Policy T1 Coordination of Circulation and Land Use
Develop a circulation network that reinforces the desired land use pattern for Hanford, as identified in the Land Use Element.

Policy T2 Street Classification System
Designate a functional street classification system that includes Highways, Major Arterials, Arterials, Collectors, Minor Collectors, and Local streets.

Policy T3 Circulation Map
Identify the locations of existing and future Highways, Major Arterials, Arterials, Collectors, and Minor Collectors with the Planned Area Boundary on the Circulation Map. Locations shown shall be fixed, with allowance for slight variation from the depicted alignments of new Collectors and Minor Collectors.

City of Hanford Environmental Impact Analyses

Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2024
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Tract No. 943) Project Page 4-60 Policy T4 Regional System Improvements
Identify and support improvements to regional transportation system improvements both within and outside the Planning Area that will improve mobility to and from Hanford. Policy T5 Funding Sources and Improvements coordinate with Caltrans and KCAG for funding and timely construction of programmed State highway and interchange improvements.

Policy T6 Highway Improvements
Coordinate with Caltrans to identify needed improvements to highway facilities in the City.

Policy T7 Highway 198 and 9th Avenue
Identify any program improvements necessary to maintain LOS standards at the intersection of SR 198 and 9th Avenue.

Policy T8 Highway 43 Access Limitations
Limit new direct access to Highway 43, and require building setbacks and offers of dedication to accommodate future widening.

Policy T9 Highway 43 Intersection Limitations
Limit roadway intersections with Highway 43 to Flint Avenue, 10th Avenue, Fargo Avenue, future 9th Avenue, Grangeville Boulevard, Lacey Boulevard, Hanford-Armona Road, Houston Avenue, Iona Avenue, Idaho Avenue, and Jackson Avenue.

Policy T10 Purpose of Major Arterials
Major Arterials shall provide through traffic movement around the edge of Hanford on continuous routes with very limited access to abutting property and local streets.

Policy T11 Designation of Major Arterials
Major Arterials shall be designated on Flint Avenue between 13th Avenue and SR 43, on 13th Avenue between Flint Avenue and Houston Avenue, and Houston Avenue between 13th Avenue and SR 43.

Policy T12 Access to Major Arterials
New access to Major Arterials shall be limited to new intersections with Arterials and Collectors, and where the Major Arterial is a property’s only legal access to a public right of way.

Policy T13 Purpose of Arterials
Arterials shall provide for through traffic movement on continuous routes through Hanford with limited access to abutting property.

City of Hanford Environmental Impact Analyses

Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2024
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Tract No. 943) Project Page 4-61 Policy T14 Designation of Arterials
Arterials shall be designated generally on the one-mile grid of streets within the Planned Area Boundary. The specific streets designated are Flint Avenue, Fargo Avenue, Grangeville Boulevard, Lacey Boulevard, Hanford-Armona Road, Houston Avenue, Iona Avenue, Idaho Avenue, 7th Avenue, 9th Avenue, 10th Avenue, 11th Avenue, 12th Avenue, and 13th Avenue.

Policy T15 Access to Major Arterials
New access to Arterials from new local streets and new driveways shall be limited to maximize through traffic movements.

Policy T16 Consolidation of Arterial Access Points
Encourage the consolidation or elimination of driveways, access points, and curb cuts along existing Arterials.

Policy T17 Purpose of Collectors
Collectors shall provide traffic movement within a limited area and connect local roads to the Arterial street system.

Policy T18 Designation of Collectors
Collectors shall be designated generally at half-mile intervals between Arterials in new growth areas and on selected existing through streets that connect to two or more Arterials.

Policy T19 Access to Collectors
New access to Collectors from new local streets and abutting property is generally permitted but may be limited in some cases depending on planned roadway capacity and adjacent land use development patterns.

Policy T20 Purpose of Minor Collectors
Minor Collectors shall provide internal traffic movement within a neighborhood and connect local roads to Collectors and/or Arterials.

Policy T21 Designation of Collectors
Minor Collectors shall be designated in developed areas without a half-mile Collector interval and/or where the street is not wide enough to be designated a Collector.

Policy T22 Access to Collectors
Minor Collectors shall have no access limitations.

City of Hanford Environmental Impact Analyses

Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2024
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Tract No. 943) Project Page 4-62 Policy T23 Purpose of Local Streets
Local streets shall provide internal traffic movement within a neighborhood and direct access to abutting property.

Policy T24 Block Lengths
Adopt standards for block lengths for new local streets to promote ease of movement and connectivity.

Policy T25 Cul-de-sacs
Construct cul-de-sacs on all permanent dead-end streets. New cul-de-sacs shall be discouraged in commercial and industrial developments. Adopt maximum lengths of new local streets with cul-de-sacs.

Policy T26 Cul-de-sac
Non-motorized connectivity encourages sidewalks and breaks in perimeter walls to allow pedestrian, bicycle, and visual access from cul-de-sac streets to other nearby streets.

Policy T27 Maintenance of Local Streets
Adopt policies that incorporate the use of maintenance districts to fund local street maintenance.

Policy T28 Alleys
Generally discourage new alleys, but allow in limited cases when effectively incorporated into the overall neighborhood design. Fund the maintenance of new alleys with maintenance districts.

Policy T29 Maximum Level of Service
Maintain a peak hour LOS E on streets and intersections within the area bounded by Highway 198, 10th Avenue, 11th Avenue, and Florinda Avenue, inclusive of these streets. Maintain a peak hour LOS D on all other streets and intersections with the Planned Growth Boundary.

Policy T30 Capital Improvement Program
Include the acquisition of right-of-way and the construction and maintenance of streets in the City Capital Improvement Program.

Policy T31 Coordination with Development Approvals
Coordinate additions and modifications to the roadway system with land development approvals.

City of Hanford Environmental Impact Analyses

Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2024
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Tract No. 943) Project Page 4-63 Policy T32 Ultimate Rights-of-Way
Acquire control of land within ultimate right-of-way of Arterial and Collector streets during early stages of development.

Policy T33 Street Improvements and Priorities
Prioritize street improvements with emphasis on current and forecasted service levels.

Policy T34 Kings County Regional Transportation Plan
Local circulation system improvements shall be consistent with the goals and objectives stated in the Kings County Regional Transportation Plan.

Policy T35 Caltrans Coordination
Coordinate with Caltrans to identify needed improvements to its highway facilities in the City and implement necessary programs to assist in improving State Route 43 and 198 and its interchanges/intersections with local roadways.

Policy T36 Traffic Impact Fees
Periodically review and update the traffic impact fee program to ensure new development contributes its fair share of funding for new streets, intersections, and highway improvements.

Policy T37 Shade Trees in Planter Strips
Where adequate space permits, include street trees planted in planter strips between the curb and sidewalk to shade paved street surfaces.

Policy T38 Operational Improvements First
Maximize operational improvements before widening existing streets even when they do not meet current width standards.

Policy T39 Accommodating All Modes of Traffic
Plan, design, and construct new transportation improvement projects to safely accommodate the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, motorists, and persons of all abilities.

Policy T40 Pedestrian and Bicycle Placemaking
Promote pedestrian and bicycle improvements that improve connectivity between neighborhoods, provide opportunities for distinctive neighborhood features, and foster a greater sense of community.

City of Hanford Environmental Impact Analyses

Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2024
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Tract No. 943) Project Page 4-64 Policy T41 Streetscape Enhancements
Strive to improve the visual character of roadway corridors by improving streetscapes with amenities such as street trees, pedestrian-scaled lighting, underground utilities, waterefficient landscaping, and streetscape furniture.

Policy T42 Existing Sound Walls and Fences
Encourage landscaping improvements along walls and fences adjacent to major streets to discourage graffiti and enhance visual character.

Policy T43 Safe Routes to Schools Programs
Promote Safe Routes to Schools Programs for all schools serving the City.

Policy T44 Funding
Seek outside funding for Safe Routes to Schools projects.

Policy T45 Truck Routes
Minimize the adverse impact of truck traffic on the community by designating, maintaining, and enforcing a system of designated truck routes.

Policy T46 Good Movement Strategies
Coordinate with regional transportation agencies to plan and implement goods movement strategies, including those that improve mobility, deliver goods efficiently, and minimize negative environmental impacts.

Policy T47 Truck Parking
Identify locations where heavy truck parking is acceptable and where it is prohibited based upon adjacent land use designations.

Policy T48 Traffic Calming
Consider the use of traffic-calming designs such as roundabouts, bulb-outs, and other trafficcalming designs, which will improve the operation or LOS of a street.

Policy T49 Subdivision Connectivity
Design subdivisions to maximize connectivity both internally and with other surrounding development.

Policy T50 Carpool Programs
Encourage the use of carpooling, vanpooling, and flexible employment hours.

City of Hanford Environmental Impact Analyses

Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2024
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Tract No. 943) Project Page 4-65 Policy T51 Alternative Design Standards
Consider alternative roadway design standards for new residential and mixed use development for future streets that may include:
• Narrower street widths on local roadways.
• Smaller turning radii geometrics on street intersections to improve safety for pedestrians.
• Tree-lined streets in parkways between the curb and sidewalk. • Roundabouts in lieu of traffic signals where appropriate conditions exist to maximize intersection efficiency, maintain continuous traffic flow, and reduce accident severity.

Policy T65 Bicycle Network Master Planning
Maintain a Bicycle Master Plan to coordinate existing and planned infrastructure to support, encourage, and promote bicycle transportation, with effective connections to downtown, major shopping areas, mixed use neighborhoods, community facilities, schools, parks, and employment areas.

Policy T70 Pedestrian Connections
Increase connectivity through direct and safe pedestrian connections to public amenities, neighborhoods, village centers, and other destinations throughout the city.

CITY OF HANFORD VMT THRESHOLDS AND IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES The City of Hanford adopted a set of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) thresholds to support the shift from a delay-based analysis (LOS) to VMT. The adopted VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines. The City VMT Guidelines provide implementation of CEQA VMT metrics as applicable to the City of Hanford through the establishment of VMT screening criteria and VMT analysis thresholds.

City VMT Guidelines provide a list of screening criteria for projects and activities that may result in a reduction of VMT and GHG emissions. If a project meets one or more of the following screening factors, the project may be presumed to produce a less than significant VMT impact:
• The project is within 0.5 miles (mi) of a transit priority area or a high‐quality transit area and is consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)/ Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), has a floor area ratio (FAR) equal or greater than 0.75, does not provide more parking than what is required by the City’s Municipal Code, or does not reduce the number of affordable residential units. In accordance with SB 743, “transit priority areas” are defined as “an area within one‐half mile of a major transit stop that is existing or planned, if the planned stop is scheduled to be completed within the planning horizon included in a Transportation Improvement Program. A “major transit stop” means: “a site containing an existing rail transit

City of Hanford Environmental Impact Analyses

Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2024
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Tract No. 943) Project Page 4-66 station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.” A high‐ quality transit area or corridor is a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21099, subds. (a)(7), (b)(1).)
• The project includes local‐serving retail with a combined area of less than 55,000 square feet (sf). Whether a retail project is local‐serving or not will be determined at the discretion of the City. As included in Appendix A, a list of recently completed local serving retail projects (as identified by the City) demonstrates that retail projects up to 55,000 sf could be considered as local serving. Additionally, as shown in Table B, retail projects up to 125,000 sf would not have a significant GHG impact. As explained in section 3.1.1, projects not having a significant GHG impact would not also have a significant VMT impact. However, based on substantial evidence for justifying local serving retail, as included in Appendix A, the City establishes retail projects less than 55,000 sf to be screened out.
• Redevelopment projects that result in an equal or net reduction in VMT can be considered to have less than significant VMT impact. A net reduction in VMT would occur if the land use proposed by the project would generate less VMT than the existing land use.
• The project includes 100 percent affordable housing units. Affordable housing units consists of low‐income households and research has shown that low‐income households produce lower VMT compared to a market‐rate housing unit. • A project consistent with the City’s General Plan can be successfully screened if the project would generate fewer than 1,000 average daily trips (ADT), while a project not consistent with the City’s General Plan can be screened if the project would generate fewer than 500 ADT. Consistency with the General Plan is required because the GHG and therefore VMT reduction targets for MPOs were established by CARB and are included in the RTPs. The RTP utilizes the latest version of City’s General Plan for analyzing GHG emissions.
• Institutional/government and public service uses that support community health, safety and welfare may also be screened from subsequent CEQA VMT analysis. These facilities (e.g., police stations, fire stations, government offices, utilities, public libraries, community centers, and refuse stations) would be a part of the community and, as public services, the VMT would be accounted for within the community. A decision whether a particular project can be categorized as a public service facility will be determined at the discretion of the City. Similarly, any other similar use not included in the list can be approved on a case‐by‐case basis by the City as applicable.

As such, these uses would result in reduction in total VMT due to the proximity of these services within the community. Additionally, many of these facilities would generate fewer than 1,000 ADT and/or use vehicles other than passenger‐cars or

City of Hanford Environmental Impact Analyses

Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2024
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Tract No. 943) Project Page 4-67 light‐duty trucks. These other vehicle fleets are subject to regulation outside of CEQA, such as the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.
• Local parks, daycare centers, student housing projects on or adjacent to a college campus, local‐serving gas stations, banks, and K–12 public schools. • Projects located in areas with low VMT may be screened out from further CEQA analysis. The TA acknowledges that residential and office projects located in areas having a low VMT, (which incorporate features such as density, mix of uses, transit accessibility), tend to exhibit similarly low VMT. Also, areas that are mapped as low VMT areas do not need to prepare any additional VMT analysis. Therefore, residential, office, industrial, or mixed‐use projects that are consistent with the City’s General Plan and located within low VMT areas (using the City of Hanford VMT Screening Tool2 and applying appropriate thresholds) can be presumed to have similar low VMT profiles and could be screened out from the need for further VMT analysis. It should be noted that if a project constitutes a General Plan Amendment or Zone Change, such projects will be evaluated on a case‐by‐case basis. Figures 4, 5, and 6 illustrate the VMT per capita, VMT per employee, and VMT per service population screening maps for the City.
• The 2022 State CEQA Guidelines Section 15007 (c) states that “if a document meets the content requirements in effect when the document is sent out for public review, the document shall not need to be revised to conform to any new content requirements in Guideline amendments taking effect before the document is finally approved.” Therefore, if a development/land use plan/transportation project is already cleared by a certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or an adopted Negative Declaration/Mitigated Negative Declaration, then subsequent projects that are consistent with the approved project will not require a new VMT analysis unless mandated by another section of the CEQA Guidelines.

If the project meets any one of the screening criteria, it may be presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact. No further VMT analysis would then be necessary, The CEQA document shall enumerate the screening criteria and how the project meets or exceeds that applicable VMT threshold. If project screening does not apply, a VMT analysis will be required. The extent of this analysis may be a simple algebraic demonstration or a more sophisticated traffic modeling exercise. For all projects that require a VMT analysis, use of the KCAG TDM is required unless the project includes a special land use that is difficult to analyze using a travel demand model. For the latter, the City may require a qualitative analysis or an analysis using empirical data as applicable to the project. Next, the projectgenerated VMT (per capita, per employee, per service population, or total) is compared to the appropriate significance threshold. If the project VMT metric is less than the significance threshold, the project is presumed to create a less-than-significant impact. No further VMT analysis for CEQA purposes would be required.

City of Hanford Environmental Impact Analyses

Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2024
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Tract No. 943) Project Page 4-68 Table 4.2-3
City of Hanford VMT Thresholds
VMT Metric Threshold Regional Average
VMT per Capita 8.99 10.33
VMT per Employee 16.95 19.48
VMT per Service Population 21.84 25.10
Source: City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines Should project VMT metrics exceed the significance threshold stated in Table 4.2-3, mitigation measures will be required.

4.2.4 - IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Methodology
As stated above, SB 743 requires all CEQA analyses relating to transportation impacts to be conducted using the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) metric. As the City of Hanford and KCAG have adopted guidelines and thresholds for VMT, the screening and thresholds from their guidelines are utilized to determine if an impact occurs as a result of the Project. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Report was prepared for this Project (see Appendix B) (Ruettgers and Schuler Civil Engineers, 2024).

Thresholds of Significance
The following criteria, as established in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, will be utilized to determine if a project could potentially have a significant impact:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, Subdivision (b)? Project Impacts
Impact 4.2-1 - Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? The first step to determining Project trip generation is to assess the impacts that the Project may have on the surrounding roadway network in the City of Hanford. The trip generation rates for the proposed Project were obtained from the 11th Edition of the Trip Generation Manual published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). At build-out, the Project is estimated to generate a maximum of 2,993 daily trips, 219 AM peak hour trips, and 302 PM peak hour trips.

As noted in the regulatory section above, the Hanford General Plan has policies related to traffic systems. The General Plan has established LOS E as the acceptable level on streets and

City of Hanford Environmental Impact Analyses

Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2024
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Tract No. 943) Project Page 4-69 intersections within the area bounded by State Route 198, 10th Avenue, 11th Avenue, and Florinda Avenue, and a peak hour LOS D on all other streets and intersections within the Planned Growth Boundary. The County of Kings has established LOS D as the acceptable level of traffic congestion on County roads. Since the study facilities for this Project lie outside of the SR 198, 10th Avenue, 11th Avenue, and Florinda Avenue boundary, the LOS D threshold was utilized to evaluate the potential significance of LOS impacts to the City of Hanford roadway facilities and the County of Kings facilities.

Existing Level of Service Analysis
The following roadways and corresponding intersections were analyzed in the TIA:
• 11th Avenue
• 12th Avenue
• 13th Avenue
• Hanford-Armona Road
• Hume Avenue
• State Route 198
As noted in the TIA for this Project (Appendix B), all study intersections currently operate at an acceptable LOS during both AM and PM peak periods.

Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions
Access to and from the Project site will be from four main access points and two internal access points connecting to the existing easterly adjacent subdivision. One access point will be from Hanford-Armona Road. Three access points will be located along the south side of the site providing access to Hume Avenue.

The TIA analyzed the location of the existing and proposed roadways and access points relative to those in the vicinity of the Project site. Based on this review, all proposed roadways and access points are proposed in locations that minimize traffic-operational impacts to existing and future roadway networks.

A capacity analysis of the study intersections was conducted utilizing the Transportation Research Board’s Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) and produced estimates for the following traffic scenarios:
• Existing Year (2024)
• Existing Year (2024) + Project
• Opening Year (2026)
• Opening Year (2026) +Project
• Future Year (2044)
• Future Year (2044) + Project

City of Hanford Environmental Impact Analyses

Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2024
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Tract No. 943) Project Page 4-70 LOS criteria for unsignalized and signalized intersections as defined in HCM are presented in Tables 4.2-4 and 4.2-5 below.

Table 4.2-4
Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Criteria
Level of Service Average Control Delay
(sec/veh)
Expected Delay to Minor
Street Traffic
A ≤ 10 Little or no delay
B > 10 and ≤ 15 Short delays
C > 15 and ≤ 25 Average delays
D > 25 and ≤ 35 Long delays
E > 35 and ≤ 50 Very long delays
F > 50 Extreme delays
Source: Appendix B
Table 4.2-5
Signalized Intersection Level of Service Criteria
Level of Service Average Control Delay
(sec/veh)
Volume-to-Capacity Ratio
A ≤ 10 < 0.60
B > 10 and ≤ 20 0.61 - 0.70
C > 20 and ≤ 35 0.71 - 0.80
D > 35 and ≤ 55 0.81 - 0.90
E > 55 and ≤ 80 0.91 - 1.00
F > 80 > 1.00
Source: Appendix B
Tables 4.2-6 and 4.2-7 summarize the Weekday AM and PM Peak Hour LOS for study area intersections. Based on the analysis prepared, two intersections are projected to operate at below the acceptable LOS in the 2044 and 2044 + Project scenarios.

Table 4.2-6
Intersection Level of Service Weekday AM Peak Hour
ID# Intersection
Control
Type
2024 2024+Project 2026 2026+Project 2044 2044+Project
2044+Project
w/Mitigation
1 12th Ave &
SR 198 WB
Ramps
Signal B B B B B B -
2 12th Ave &
SR
198 EB
Ramps
Signal B B B B B B -
3 SR 198 WB
Ramps &
Hanford
Armona Rd
Roundabout A A A A B C -
4 SR 198 EB
Ramps NB B B B B C C -

City of Hanford Environmental Impact Analyses

Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2024
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Tract No. 943) Project Page 4-71 ID# Intersection
Control
Type
2024 2024+Project 2026 2026+Project 2044 2044+Project
2044+Project
w/Mitigation
& Hanford
Armona Rd
5 13th Ave &
Hanford
Armona
Rd
NB
SB
B
A
B
A
B
A
C
A
D
(31.4)
A
F
(35.0)
A
-
-
Signal - - - - - - A
6 12th Ave &
Hanford
Armona
Rd
Signal C C C C C C C
7 11th Ave &
Hanford
Armona
Rd
Signal B B B B C C -
8 12th Ave &
Hume
Ave

WB B B B B C C -
Source: Appendix B
Table 4.2-7
Intersection Level of Service Weekday PM Peak Hour
ID# Intersection
Control
Type
2024 2024+Project 2026 2026+Project 2044 2044+Project
2044+Project
w/Mitigation
1 12th Ave & SR
198 WB
Ramps
Signal B B C B C C -
2 12th Ave & SR
198 EB Ramps Signal A A A B B B -
3 SR 198 WB
Ramps &
Hanford
Armona Rd
Roundabout A A A A B B -
4 SR 198 EB
Ramps
& Hanford
Armona Rd

NB B B B B C C -
5 13th Ave &
Hanford
Armona
Rd
NB
SB
C
A
C
A
C
A
C
A
F
(>300)
A
F
(>300)
A
-
-
Signal - - - - - - B
6 12th Ave &
Hanford
Armona
Rd
Signal C C C C
D
(40.9)
D
(42.1) C
7 11th Ave &
Hanford
Armona
Rd
Signal B B C C C C -
8 12th Ave &
Hume
Ave

WB B B B B C C -
Source: Appendix B
Annual growth rates ranging between 1.10 and 5.03 percent were applied to the existing peak hour volumes to estimate future volumes for the years 2026 (opening year) and 2044 (horizon year). These growth rates were estimated based on the TIA’s review of data from the KCAG travel demand model. The KCAG travel demand model takes into account inconstruction and anticipated to-be-constructed projects, which includes 11 out of the 12

City of Hanford Environmental Impact Analyses

Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2024
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Tract No. 943) Project Page 4-72 projects identified by the City within a 1.5-mile radius of the Project site. The remaining project (Grangeville Mixed Use Project) is currently under environmental review and the scope of intersections does not overlap with the proposed Project, therefore little to no influence on traffic from the Grangeville Project would occur on the proposed Project. Future peak hour volumes for the years 2026 and 2044 both without and with project traffic include peak hour trip estimates for two tracts of the Live Oak development, a master planned community located northwest, southwest, and southeast quadrants of 12th Avenue and Hume Avenue which are under construction. As found in the TIA, there are two intersections that will need improvements by the 2044 year to maintain or improve the operational level of service of the street system in the vicinity of the Project.

Signal warrant criteria was met for the 13th Avenue and Hanford Armona Road intersection; however, it is important to note that a signal warrant defines the minimum condition under which signalization of an intersection might be warranted. Meeting this threshold does not suggest traffic signals are required, but rather, that other traffic factors and conditions be considered to determine whether signals are truly justified. Pursuant to General Plan Policy T36, the Project proponent will be required to pay traffic development impact fees. The provision of an intersection signalization would be determined by the City of Hanford.

Improvement costs for signalization are within the purview of traffic development impact fees as required in Policy T36, therefore eventual signalization of the intersection by the City would address the LOS deficiency caused by General Plan buildout (2044) and Project development (2044+Project).

For the 12th Avenue and Hanford Armona Road intersection, the TIA recommends improvements be made to the eastbound roadway to include changing the existing eastbound right turn lane (EBR) to an eastbound through and right turn lane (EBTR). The Project proponent would be required to pay their fair share cost for the needed improvement to ensure that the intersection by the year 2044, operates at an acceptable LOS. The inclusion of fair share cost payment is recommended as a Mitigation Measure and is included as MM

4.2-1.

Implementation of MM 4.2-1 would allow the studied intersection to operate at an acceptable LOS under City LOS standards and reduce impacts to less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
MM 4.2-1: The Project proponent or developer shall be required to pay their fair share of costs for the needed improvements. This includes changing the 12th Avenue and Hanford Armona Road intersection eastbound right turn lane to an eastbound through lane and a right turn lane.

The fair share cost for the improvement is calculated at 18.94% and shall be collected by the City of Hanford at the appropriate time.

City of Hanford Environmental Impact Analyses

Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2024
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Tract No. 943) Project Page 4-73

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures.

Impact 4.2-2 - Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, Subdivision (b)
The VMT Analysis prepared for this Project (Appendix B) follows the guide of the City of Hanford VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines, dated November 2022 (VMT Guidelines) to analyze the Project's VMT and compare them to the established VMT threshold.

Land use developments meeting one or more of the screening criteria contained in the VMT Guidelines are presumed to create a less than significant transportation impact and no further VMT analysis is required. These criteria relate to project type, size, location, proximity to transit, and trip-making potential. The project does not meet any of the screening criteria. Therefore, a detailed VMT analysis is required and is included as Appendix B.

For projects that are not screened out, a quantitative analysis of VMT impacts must be prepared and compared against the adopted VMT thresholds of significance. According to the VMT Guidelines, residential developments that generate more than 8.99 daily VMT for residential VMT per capita would be considered to have a significant transportation impact.

Baseline VMT
The first step in a VMT analysis is to establish the baseline average VMT, which requires the definition of a region. The established region for the Project is Kings County, which is modeled by the KCAG.

Based on the VMT analysis, the Project would result in 9.61 VMT per capita and exceed the

8.99 VMT per capita threshold. As a result, it is recommended that the Project implement VMT mitigation measures for the residential component to reduce VMT per Capita. In order to reduce VMTs, a project must decrease the number of vehicle miles travels to and from the Project site. For land development projects, VMT mitigation focuses on measures that reduce the number and/or length of single-occupant vehicle trips generated by the project.

According to the VMT Guidelines, proposed mitigation to reduce project VMT “must be supported by substantial evidence illustrating that the measure(s) will mitigate VMT impacts to less than significant.” The VMT Guidelines cite the Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health Equity: Designed for Local Governments, Communities, and Project Developers, California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, December 2021 (CAPCOA Handbook) as a source for mitigation measures with quantitative methods for estimating VMT reduction. These measures included increasing residential density and providing easy access to high-quality public transit within 0.5 miles of a high frequency transit station. However, the TIA found that no applicable and feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce

City of Hanford Environmental Impact Analyses

Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2024
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Tract No. 943) Project Page 4-74 VMT below the adopted City threshold. Therefore, the Project is expected to result in a significant transportation impact under CEQA.

MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Cumulative Setting Impacts and Mitigation Measures

CUMULATIVE SETTING
The study area for the analysis of cumulative impacts is the City of Hanford and unincorporated portions of Kings County located adjacent to the city limits. Cumulative impacts are assessed with the proposed Project and the 12 projects located within a one-half mile of the Project site as identified by the City of Hanford. Eleven of the 12 projects are entitled and either under construction or are anticipated to be under construction in the future. The projects that are entitled are included in and are consistent with the General Plan. Therefore, those projects are included in the KCAG travel demand model. The growth rates used to determine future traffic volumes would therefore reflect traffic from these projects. One of the projects is currently under environmental review, the Grangeville Mixed Use Project. A review of the scope of intersections in the Grangeville traffic study did not overlap with any of the intersections included in the Silicon Valley Ranch study. Therefore, there would be little to no influence of traffic from the Grangeville project on the Silicon Valley Ranch project.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
As noted above, use of the KCAG travel demand model and estimates provided in the TIA (Appendix B), impacts related to LOS would be less than significant with mitigation measures incorporated for the proposed Project and for the cumulative year 2044. Based on the analysis in the TIA, cumulative impacts for LOS would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

As for VMT, Project impacts are considered significant and unavoidable. This is in large part due to the lack of applicable and feasible VMT mitigation measures. The cumulative impacts for the City of Hanford would be considered significant and unavoidable.

MITIGATION MEASURES
Implementation of MM 4.17-1.

City of Hanford Environmental Impact Analyses

Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2024
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Tract No. 943) Project Page 4-75

CUMULATIVE LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Cumulative impacts for LOS would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Cumulative impacts for VMT would be significant and unavoidable.

4.3 - Approach to Environmental Analysis
Section 4.1 of this Draft EIR contains discussions of the environmental setting, regulatory setting, thresholds of significance, and potential environmental impacts related to the construction and operation of the proposed Project. These sections also include a discussion of mitigation measures and the level of significance after the implementation of mitigation measures.

Section 15125(a) of the CEQA Guidelines identifies that an EIR includes a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the Project. This environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a Lead Agency determines whether an impact is significant.

The study area for the analysis of the Project and cumulative impacts is the Hanford city limits, the portions of Kings County located adjacent to the City. The applicable cumulative projections include growth projections from the Hanford General Plan and the Kings County General Plan.

The regulatory setting includes a discussion of the regulatory environment as it existed prior to the implementation of the Project. There is federal, State, regional, and local regulations identified within each environmental issue discussion, where appropriate. It is acknowledged that although the existing City of Hanford development codes currently guide development within the City.

The impact analysis contains a discussion of Project‐specific impacts as well as cumulative impacts. The Project that is evaluated is the construction of 326 single-family residences, internal roads, a 2.86-acre drainage retention basin, and a 3.58-acre park on an approximately 88.9-acre site (Project). Lots will range between 5,000 and 7,000 square feet.

Associated utility and right-of-way infrastructure would be developed in accordance with City standards and regulations. Specific components of the Project are not separately evaluated; however, the Project, as a whole, is evaluated. The Project, as a whole, is referred to as the proposed Project or Project, throughout this EIR.

The impacts within the impact analysis section are identified as no impact, less-thansignificant impact, potentially significant impact, or significant impact. The project‐specific impacts address the potential environmental impacts that could occur under the development activity anticipated to occur with the proposed Project.

City of Hanford Environmental Impact Analyses

Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2024
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Tract No. 943) Project Page 4-76

4.4 - Environmental Topics
The potential environmental effects associated with the implementation of the proposed Project are analyzed in the following topical environmental issue areas:
• Land Use Planning
• Transportation
• Mandatory Findings of Significance

4.5 - Organization of Issue Areas
Each environmental issue section contains the following components:
• Introduction - includes a brief discussion of the information used for the analysis. • Environmental Setting - identifies and describes the existing physical environmental conditions of the Project area associated with each of the impact sections. • Regulatory Setting - provides an understanding of the regulatory environment that exists prior to the implementation of the Project. This discussion includes the applicable goals, objectives, and policies from the City of Hanford 2035 General Plan as well as other regulations that currently exist.
• Methodology – identifies which criteria, technical documents, or formulas were used to analyze specific environmental impacts.
• Thresholds of Significance - identifies thresholds from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines that assist in determining the significance of an impact. Some thresholds include a more detailed discussion to address the City of Hanford’s or other local agency’s specific significance criteria for the Project area. • Project Impacts - describes environmental changes to the existing physical conditions that may occur if the proposed Project is implemented and evaluates these changes with respect to the CEQA thresholds of significance. This section includes a Project‐ specific impact analysis and a cumulative impact analysis. Mitigation measures are identified for the potentially significant project and cumulative impacts, if determined feasible. The mitigation measures are those measures that could avoid, minimize, or reduce an environmental impact. This section also includes a discussion of the level of significance after mitigation that describes the level of impact significance remaining after mitigation measures are implemented.

4.6 - Level of Significance
Determining the severity of the project and cumulative impacts is fundamental to achieving the objectives of CEQA. CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 requires that decision-makers mitigate, as completely as is feasible, the significant impacts identified in Project EIR. If the

City of Hanford Environmental Impact Analyses

Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2024
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Tract No. 943) Project Page 4-77 Project EIR identifies any significant unmitigated impacts, CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 requires decision-makers in approving a project to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations that explains why the benefits of the project outweigh the adverse environmental consequences identified in the EIR.

The level of significance for each impact examined in this EIR is determined by considering the predicted magnitude of the impact against the applicable threshold. Thresholds are developed using criteria from the CEQA Guidelines and checklist; federal, State, and local regulatory schemes; local/regional plans and ordinances; accepted practice; consultation with agencies and recognized experts; and other professional opinions. When adopting or using thresholds of significance, a Lead Agency may consider thresholds of significance previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies or recommended by experts, provided the decision of the lead agency to adopt such thresholds is supported by substantial evidence.

4.7 - Format Used for Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures The format adopted in this EIR to present the evaluation of impacts is described and illustrated below.

Summary Heading of Impact
Impact 4.1-1: An impact summary heading appears immediately preceding the impact description (Summary Heading of Impact in this example). The impact number correlates to the section of the report (4.1 for Aesthetics in this example) and the sequential order of the impact (1 in this example) within that section. To the right of the impact number is the impact statement, which identifies the potential impact, corresponding to CEQA thresholds.

Project Impact Analysis
A narrative analysis follows the impact statement. The analysis identifies the significant environmental effects of the proposed Project on the environment, based on an examination of the changes in the existing physical conditions in the affected area as they exist at the time the Notice of Preparation is published. Direct and indirect significant effects of the Project on the environment are identified and described for both the short-term and long-term effects. The analysis includes relevant specifics of the area, the resources involved, physical changes, alterations to ecological systems, and changes induced in population distribution, population concentration, the human use of the land (including commercial and residential development), health and safety problems caused by the physical changes, and other aspects of the resource base such as water, historical resources, scenic quality, and public services.

Cumulative Impact Analysis
A narrative analysis of cumulative impacts follows the project impacts section. The cumulative impacts analysis includes a discussion of the level of impact that would occur if the proposed Project, in combination with cumulative development, as described in Chapter

City of Hanford Environmental Impact Analyses

Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2024
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Tract No. 943) Project Page 4-78 1 - Executive Summary of this EIR, are implemented. If the combined level of impact is no impact or less-than-significant impact, the Project’s incremental effect would be less than cumulatively considerable. If the combined level of impact is significant, the Project’s incremental effect is determined to be cumulatively considerable. The discussion of cumulative impacts is guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness and should focus on the cumulative impact to which the identified other projects contribute rather than the attributes of other projects which do not contribute to the cumulative impact.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures to reduce potential project‐specific and cumulative impacts include a summary heading and description using the format presented below:

MM 4.4-1: Project‐specific or cumulative mitigation is identified that would reduce the impact to the lowest degree feasible. The mitigation number links the particular mitigation to the impact section with which it is associated (Impact 4.4‐1 in this example).

Level of Significance After Mitigation
This section identifies the resulting level of significance of the project‐specific or cumulative impact following mitigation.

City of Hanford Consequences of Project Implementation

Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2024
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Tract No. 943) Project Page 5-1 CHAPTER 5 - CONSEQUENCES OF PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

5.1 - Environmental Effects Found to be Less than Significant Section 15128 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) “contain a statement briefly indicating the reasons that various possible significant effects of a project were determined not to be significant and were therefore not discussed in detail in the EIR.” The City of Hanford has engaged the public in the scoping of the environmental document.

Comments received during scoping have been considered in the process of identifying issue areas that should receive attention in the EIR. The contents of this EIR were established based on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) prepared in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines and on public and agency input received during the scoping process.

After further study and environmental review in this EIR, direct and indirect impacts of the proposed Project (not including cumulative impacts) would be less than significant or could be reduced to less-than-significant levels with mitigation measures for the resource areas listed below.

5.1.1 - POTENTIAL FOR LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS TO OCCUR Aesthetics
• Impact 4.1-3: 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
• Impact 4.1-4: Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
• Impact 4.2-1: 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 nonagricultural use • Impact 4.2-5: 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

City of Hanford Consequences of Project Implementation

Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2024
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Tract No. 943) Project Page 5-2 Air Quality
• Impact 4.3-1: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan
• Impact 4.3-2: 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
• Impact 4.3-3: Expose sensitive receptor to substantial pollutant concentrations • Impact 4.3-4: Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people
Biological Resources
• Impact 4.4-1: Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service • Impact 4.4-2: Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service • Impact 4.4-3: 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 • Impact 4.4-4: 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 Cultural Resources
• Impact 4.5-1: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5
• Impact 4.5-2: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 • Impact 4.5-3: Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries

City of Hanford Consequences of Project Implementation

Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2024
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Tract No. 943) Project Page 5-3 Energy
• Impact 4.6-1: Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during Project construction or operation
• Impact 4.6-2: Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency
Geology and Soils
• Impact 4.7-1: Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving the rupture of a known earthquake fault
• Impact 4.7-2: Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking • Impact 4.7-3: Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction
• Impact 4.7-4: Directly or indirectly cause potentially substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides • Impact 4.7-5: Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil • Impact 4.7-6: 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 offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse • Impact 4.7-7: Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property • Impact 4.7-9: Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Impact 4.8-1: Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment
• Impact 4.8-2: Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases

City of Hanford Consequences of Project Implementation

Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2024
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Tract No. 943) Project Page 5-4 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Impact 4.9-1: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials • Impact 4.9-2: 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
• Impact 4.9-3: Emit hazardous emissions or involve handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school
• Impact 4.9-4: Be located on a site that 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 • Impact 4.9-5: For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area
• Impact 4.9-6: Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan
Hydrology and Water Quality
• Impact 4.10-1: Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality • Impact 4.10-2: Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin
• Impact 4.10-3(i): 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 result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site
• Impact 4.10-3(ii): Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site

City of Hanford Consequences of Project Implementation

Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2024
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Tract No. 943) Project Page 5-5 • Impact 4.10-3(iii): 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
• Impact 4.10-3(iv): Impede or redirect flood flows
• Impact 4.10-5: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan
Land Use and Planning
• Impact 4.1-2 (Impact 4.11-2 of Appendix G): 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 Noise
• Impact 4.13-1: 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 • Impact 4.13-2: Generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels
Population and Housing
• Impact 4.14-1: Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly
Public Services
• Impact 4.15-1: 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 to other performance objectives for any of the public services for fire protection services
• Impact 4.15-2: 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 police protection services • Impact 4.15-3: 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

City of Hanford Consequences of Project Implementation

Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2024
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Tract No. 943) Project Page 5-6 significant environmental impacts in order to maintain acceptable service Ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for school services • Impact 4.15-4: 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 park services • Impact 4.15-5: 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 other public facilities Recreation
• Impact 4.16-1: 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
Transportation and Traffic
• Impact 4.17-3: Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) • Impact 4.17-4: Result in inadequate emergency access
Tribal Cultural Resources
• Impact 4.18-1(i): Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is 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) • Impact 4.18-1(ii): Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is a resource determined by the Lead Agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code

City of Hanford Consequences of Project Implementation

Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2024
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Tract No. 943) Project Page 5-7 Section 5024.1, the Lead Agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe
Utilities and Service Systems
• Impact 4.19-1: Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which would cause significant environmental effects
• Impact 4.19-2: Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed • Impact 4.19-3: Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments • Impact 4.19-4: 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
• Impact 4.19-5: Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste
Wildfire
• Impact 4.20-1: Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan
• Impact 4.20-2: 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
• Impact 4.20-3: 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
• Impact 4.20-4: 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

City of Hanford Consequences of Project Implementation

Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2024
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Tract No. 943) Project Page 5-8

5.1.2 - POTENTIAL FOR LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS TO OCCUR WITH INCORPORATION OF

MITIGATION MEASURES
Potential environmental effects of the Project and mitigation measures are discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of this EIR. After a full analysis, the following effects were determined to be less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation measures.

Transportation
• Impact 4.2-1 (Impact 4.17-1 of Appendix G): Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities

5.2 - Significant Environmental Effects that Cannot be Avoided Section 15126.2(b) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that the EIR describe any significant impacts, including those that can be mitigated but not reduced to less-than-significant levels.

Potential environmental effects of the project and proposed mitigation measures are discussed in detail in Chapter 4, Environmental Analysis, of this EIR.

The environmental impacts determined to be significant and unavoidable are described in Table 5-1, Summary of Significant Impacts of the Proposed Project.

Table 5-1
Summary of Significant Impacts of the Proposed Project
Resources Project Impacts Cumulative Impacts
Transportation
and Traffic
Impact 4.2-2
(Impact 4.17-2
of Appendix G)
VMT associated with the Project is
estimated to be at 9.61 VMT per
Capita and would exceed City of
Hanford adopted VMT per Capita
thresholds of 8.99. Since the
Project exceeds the City VMT
threshold and no feasible
mitigation has been identified to
reduce impacts, permanent
(operation) impacts are
considered significant and
unavoidable.

No feasible mitigation measure
has been identified that would be
feasible and reduce Project
impacts to a less than significant
impact. For these reasons, the
proposed Project would have a
significant and unavoidable
cumulatively considerable
contribution to VMT generation.

City of Hanford Consequences of Project Implementation

Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2024
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Tract No. 943) Project Page 5-9

5.3 - Growth Inducing Impacts
Growth inducement can be a result of new development that requires an increase in dwelling units or an increase in employment, removes barriers to development, or provides resources that lead to secondary growth. The Project would add new residential uses and is projected in the City General Plan. As determined in the prepared IS/NOP, the population of the City is expected to grow by more than 50 percent over the next twenty years. The 6th Cycle RHNA states that the City of Hanford will need to provide an additional 5,547 dwelling units by 2035. The proposed Project will help the city work toward attaining a sufficient housing supply while also complying with the General Plan buildout.

The Project is situated in a growing urbanized area, where substantial employment and housing opportunities will continue to grow. The Project would accordingly accommodate planned growth and not induce unplanned growth.

With respect to removing barriers to development, such as by providing access to previously undeveloped areas, the Project is not anticipated to result in significant growth inducement.

The Project does not include the construction of infrastructure that could provide for future residential development; it does not remove barriers to off-site development.

Although the Project accommodates planned economic growth at suitable locations, the net increase in population on the Project site would be less than significant.

5.4 - Significant Irreversible Changes
As stated in the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR must address any significant irreversible environmental change that would result from project implementation. According to Section 15126.2(c) of the CEQA Guidelines, such a change would occur if one of the following scenarios occurs:
• The Project would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources. • Irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents associated with the Project.
• The proposed consumption of resources is not justified (e.g., the Project would result in the wasteful use of energy).

The environmental effects of the proposed Project are thoroughly discussed in Chapter 4, Environmental Impact Analysis, of this EIR and summarized in the Executive Summary. Implementation of the proposed Project would commit nonrenewable resources during any construction activities and future cannabis-related facility operations. Future cannabis-related operations, oil, gas, and other nonrenewable resources would be consumed for the cultivation, manufacturing, distribution, and retail sales of cannabis products.

Therefore, an irreversible commitment of nonrenewable resources would occur as a result of the proposed Project. However, assuming that those commitments occur in accordance with the adopted goals, policies, and implementation measures of the Hanford General Plan, as a matter of public policy, those commitments have been determined to be acceptable. The

City of Hanford Consequences of Project Implementation

Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2024
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Tract No. 943) Project Page 5-10 policies of the Hanford General Plan ensure that any irreversible environmental changes associated with those commitments will be minimized.

City of Hanford Alternatives

Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2024
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Tract No. 943) Project Page 6-1 CHAPTER 6 - ALTERNATIVES

6.1 - Introduction
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the Project or to the location of the Project site that could feasibly avoid or lessen any significant environmental impacts of the Project while attaining most of the Project’s basic objectives. An EIR also must compare and evaluate the environmental effects and comparative merits of the alternatives. This chapter describes alternatives considered but eliminated from further consideration, including the reasons for elimination, and compares the environmental impacts of several alternatives retained with those of the Project.

The following are key provisions of the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6):
• The discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the Project or its location that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the Project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the Project objectives or would be costlier.
• The No Project Alternative shall be evaluated, along with its impacts. The no project analysis shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the Notice of Preparation was published, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the Project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services.
• The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a “rule of reason;” therefore, the EIR must evaluate only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project. • For alternative locations, only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project need to be considered for inclusion in the EIR. • An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effects cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative.

The range of feasible alternatives is selected and discussed in a manner to foster meaningful public participation and informed decision-making. Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives, as described in Section 15126.6(f)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, are environmental impacts, site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the Project proponent could reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to an alternative site. An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effects could not be reasonably identified, whose implementation is remote or speculative, and that would not achieve the basic project objectives.

City of Hanford Alternatives

Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2024
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Tract No. 943) Project Page 6-2 Under case law and CEQA Section 15126.6(f), the discussion of alternatives need not be exhaustive and is subject to a rule of reason. CEQA Section 15126.6(d) states that “if an alternative would cause one or more significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the project as proposed, the significant effects of the alternatives shall be discussed, but in less detail than the significant effects of the project as proposed.” Determining factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are (a) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, (b) infeasibility, or (c) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts. CEQA Section 15364 defines “feasibility” as "Capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors.”
The Project has the potential to have significant adverse effects, at either a project level or cumulative level, on aesthetics, agriculture, air quality, biological resources, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, population, and housing at the Project site. Even with the mitigation measures described in Chapter 4, Environmental Analysis, of this EIR, impacts in these issue areas would be significant and unavoidable. Therefore, per the CEQA Guidelines, this section discusses alternatives that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening the effects on these resources. Significant, unavoidable impacts of the Project are summarized below.

Following these summaries, Section 6.2, Project Objectives, restates the Project proponent’s objectives. Section 6.3, Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration, presents alternatives to the Project that were considered but eliminated for further analysis. Section

6.4, Alternatives Analyzed in This EIR, presents alternatives fully analyzed in this EIR, provides a comparison of alternatives, and makes a determination about the environmentally superior alternative.

6.1.1 - SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT
The implementation of the proposed Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts and significant impacts prior to mitigation incorporated. These potential significant and unavoidable impacts and less-than-significant impacts with mitigation incorporated are evaluated for each of the alternatives that are considered and evaluated as discussed below.

No Potential for Impacts to Occur
Potential environmental effects of the Project and mitigation measures are discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of this EIR. After a full analysis, the following effects were determined to have no potential for impacts to occur:

Aesthetics
• Impact 4.1-1: Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista • Impact 4.1-2: Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway

City of Hanford Alternatives

Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2024
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Tract No. 943) Project Page 6-3 Agriculture and Forest Resources
• Impact 4.2-2: Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract
• Impact 4.2-3: Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), or timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Productions (as defined in Government Code Section 51104(g))
• Impact 4.2-4: Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use
Biological Resources
• Impact 4.4-5: Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance • Impact 4.4-6: Conflict with provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural communities conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan
Geology and Soils
• Impact 4.7-8: Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Impact 4.9-7: Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires Hydrology and Water Quality
• Impact 4.10-4: In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to Project inundation
Land Use and Planning
• Impact 4.11-1: Physically divide an established community Mineral Resources
• Impact 4.12-1: 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

City of Hanford Alternatives

Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2024
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Tract No. 943) Project Page 6-4 • Impact 4.12-2: 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 Noise
• Impact 4.13-3: 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
Population and Housing
• Impact 4.14-2: Displace substantial number of existing people or housing necessitating the construction
Recreation
• Impact 4.16-2: Include recreational facilities or require construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment Potential for Less than Significant Impacts
Potential environmental effects of the Project and mitigation measures are discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of this EIR. After a full analysis, the following effects were determined to have less than significant impacts to occur:

Aesthetics
• Impact 4.1-3: 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 a 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
• Impact 4.1-4: Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area
Agriculture and Forest Resources
• Impact 4.2-1: 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 nonagricultural use • Impact 4.2-5: Involve other changes in the existing environment which, because of their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use

City of Hanford Alternatives

Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2024
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Tract No. 943) Project Page 6-5 Air Quality
• Impact 4.3-1: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan
• Impact 4.3-2: 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
• Impact 4.3-3: Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations • Impact 4.3-4: Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people
Biological Resources
• Impact 4.4-1: Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service • Impact 4.4-2: Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service • Impact 4.4-3: 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 • Impact 4.4-4: 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 Cultural Resources
• Impact 4.5-1: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5
• Impact 4.5-2: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5
• Impact 4.5-3: Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries

City of Hanford Alternatives

Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2024
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Tract No. 943) Project Page 6-6 Energy
• Impact 4.6-1: Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during Project construction or operation
• Impact 4.6-2: Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency
Geology and Soils
• Impact 4.7-1: Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving the rupture of a known earthquake fault
• Impact 4.7-2: Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking • Impact 4.7-3: Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction
• Impact 4.7-4: Directly or indirectly cause potentially substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides • Impact 4.7-5: Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil • Impact 4.7-6: 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 offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse • Impact 4.7-7: Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property • Impact 4.7-9: Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Impact 4.8.1: Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment
• Impact 4.8.2: Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases

City of Hanford Alternatives

Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2024
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Tract No. 943) Project Page 6-7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Impact 4.9-1: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials • Impact 4.9-2: 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
• Impact 4.9-3: Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school
• Impact 4.9-4: Create a hazard to the public or the environment as a result of being located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5
• Impact 4.9-5: For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area
• Impact 4.9-6: Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan
Hydrology and Water Quality
• Impact 4.10-1: Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality • Impact 4.10-2: Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin
• Impact 4.10-3(i): 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 result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site
• Impact 4.10-3(ii): Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site • Impact 4.10-3(iii): 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

City of Hanford Alternatives

Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2024
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Tract No. 943) Project Page 6-8 addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantially additional sources of polluted runoff • Impact 4.10-3(iv): 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 impede or redirect flood flows
• Impact 4.10-5: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan
Land Use and Planning
• Impact 4.1-2 (Impact 4.11-2 of CEQA Appendix G): 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 Noise
• Impact 4.13-1: 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 • Impact 4.13-2: Generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels
Population and Housing
• Impact 4.14-1: Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly
Public Services
• Impact 4.15-1: 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 fire protection • Impact 4.15-2: 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 police protection services

City of Hanford Alternatives

Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2024
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Tract No. 943) Project Page 6-9 • Impact 4.15-3: 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 school services • Impact 4.15-4: 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 park services • Impact 4.15-5: 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 other public facilities Recreation
• Impact 4.16-1: Result in increased use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration would occur or be accelerated
Transportation
• Impact 4.17-3: Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses
• Impact 4.17-4: Result in inadequate emergency access
Tribal Cultural Resources
• Impact 4.18-1: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is listed or eligible for listing in the California register of historical resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)
• Impact 4.18-2: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its

City of Hanford Alternatives

Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2024
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Tract No. 943) Project Page 6-10 discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in Subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 Utilities and Service Systems
• Impact 4.19-1: Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects
• Impact 4.19-2: Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed • Impact 4.19-3: 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 • Impact 4.19-4: 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
• Impact 4.19-5: Comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste
Wildfire
• Impact 4.20-1: Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan
• Impact 4.20-2: 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
• Impact 4.20-3: 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
• Impact 4.20-4: 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

City of Hanford Alternatives

Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2024
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Tract No. 943) Project Page 6-11 Potential for Less than Significant Impacts to Occur with Incorporation of Mitigation Measures
Potential environmental effects of the Project and mitigation measures are discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of this EIR. After a full analysis, the following effect was determined to be less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation measures.

Transportation
• Impact 4.2-1 (Impact 4.17-1 of CEQA Appendix G): Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities
Potential for Significant and Unavoidable Impacts to Occur Potential environmental effects of the Project and mitigation measures are discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of this EIR. After a full analysis, the following effects were determined to have potential for significant and unavoidable impacts to occur:

Transportation
• Impact 4.2-2 (Impact 4.17-2 of CEQA Appendix G): Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines 15064.3, Subdivision (b)

6.1.2 - OTHER IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT
Impacts of the Project on the other resources evaluated in this EIR were found to be either less than significant or less than significant after mitigation. Therefore, consideration of alternatives that would further reduce impacts on these resources is not required by CEQA.

Only alternatives that reduce or substantially lessen the Project’s impacts on aesthetics, agriculture, air quality, biological resources, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, or population and housing are considered in this EIR. If one of the alternatives would cause a greater adverse impact on another resource, these impacts are disclosed in Section 6.4, Alternatives Analyzed in this EIR. Otherwise, impacts to the remaining resources evaluated in this EIR are not discussed further in this section.

6.2 - Project Objectives
The Project has the following objectives:

1. Provide a variety of housing opportunities with a range of styles, sizes, and values that will be designed to satisfy existing and future demand for quality housing in the area.

City of Hanford Alternatives

Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2024
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Tract No. 943) Project Page 6-12

2. Provide a sense of community and walkability within the development through the use of street patterns, parks/open space areas, landscaping, and other Project amenities.

3. Create a successful and financially feasible Project by meeting the housing needs of the area.

4. Provide a residential development that assists the City in meeting its General Plan and Housing Element requirements and objectives.

CEQA requires that an EIR describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project, or to the location of the Project, that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project and that would feasibly attain most of the basic Project objectives (Title 14, Section 15126.6). Attainment of the Project objectives is discussed for each retained alternative in Section 6.4.

6.3 - Alternatives Considered but Rejected
There are no Project alternatives that were considered and rejected.

6.4 - Alternatives Considered and Evaluated
An evaluation of three alternatives that were considered and evaluated is provided below. These alternatives represent a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed Project. This analysis includes alternatives that could feasibly accomplish some of the basic objectives of the proposed Project and could potentially avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects. The following is an evaluation of each of the alternatives to the proposed Project that were further considered for analysis. Table 6-1, below, provides a summary of the impacts comparison between the proposed Project and the Project alternatives.

6.4.1 - ALTERNATIVE A - NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
Under the No Project Alternative, the Project area would remain unchanged and there would be no residential units or parks constructed. The No Project Alternative would keep the site as agriculture and remain under the jurisdiction of Kings County. As no change would occur, the Project site would continue to be consistent with the Kings County General Plan land use designation and zoning of Limited Agriculture, 10 acres (AL10). The City is also required to meet the State Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for new housing in the City under the Housing Element of the City General Plan. The No Project Alternative would not fulfill the objectives of the Project or assist the City in meeting RHNA. With regard to transportation impacts, the No Project Alternative would result in no new trips generated. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would reduce the less than significant impact associated with LOS thresholds and significant and unavoidable impact relating to VMT. However, the City is required to meet the State Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for new housing in

City of Hanford Alternatives

Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2024
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Tract No. 943) Project Page 6-13 the City. The No Project Alternative would not fulfill the objectives of the Project or assist the City in meeting RHNA.

6.4.2 - ALTERNATIVE B - REDUCED PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
This alternative would decrease the number of single-family residential houses from 326 to 242. As described in this draft EIR, the proposal to approve the tentative tract map, annex the site into the City, and prezoning the site to R-L-5 would remain the same. With Alternative B a similar outcome to the proposed Project would occur with regard to County and City General Plan consistency. The annexation would meet County and LAFCo objectives in addition to providing planned City expansion within their SOI. This alternative will meet all Project objectives but would have a reduced positive effect of assisting the City in meeting regional housing needs. Under Alternative B, overall VMT for the Project would decrease; however, per capita VMT impacts of significant and unavoidable would remain the same as the proposed Project. With regard to City LOS thresholds, overall trip generation would be reduced, resulting in lessened impacts on studied intersections. However, this reduction is still likely to exceed LOS thresholds cumulatively, and require mitigation as indicated in this draft EIR to improve the impacted intersection of 12th Avenue and Hanford Armona Road.

Impacts regarding LOS would continue to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

6.4.3 - ALTERNATIVE C – MULTI-FAMILY ALTERNATIVE
This alternative would replace the proposed single-family residential with multi-family apartments at a density of at least 14.5 dwelling units per gross acre (1,088 units). The Project site is currently designated by the General Plan for low-density residential and prezoned R-L-5. The proposed Project request would be modified to include a General Plan Amendment and a Zone Change to Medium Density Residential (R-M) to allow multi-family apartments. With regard to the addition of a General Plan Amendment, consistency findings with General Plan goals and policies would be necessary to determine if the proposed Medium Density Residential land use would comply. However, due to its proximity to designated Medium Density Residential land northerly adjacent to the Project site, consistency findings can likely be made as availability of City services, implementation of pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle standards, and payment of impact fees would still be applicable to the development.

Under Alternative C, the overall density increase would result in higher trips generated. This would, in turn, cause impacts to LOS and VMT. For LOS, a rise in vehicle trips generated due to an increased number of residents originating from the Project site would result in higher utilization of intersections in the vicinity of the site. Based on this assumption, the higher utilization could negatively impact LOS for the studied intersections and would potentially require additional mitigation/improvements to intersections to meet LOS standards.

Therefore, Alternative C could result in an increased impact with regard to City LOS standards. In regard to VMT, the City of Hanford has adopted VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines, which was utilized for the proposed Project to determine

City of Hanford Alternatives

Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2024
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Tract No. 943) Project Page 6-14 impacts. With regard to the adopted screening criteria and VMT thresholds, Alternative C does not meet the screening criteria and would likely generate more than 1,000 average daily trips, is not located within 0.5 miles of a transit priority area and is not located within an area where existing VMT per capita is low. The City’s VMT Guidelines cite the Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health Equity: Designed for Local Governments, Communities, and Project Developers, California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, December 2021 (CAPCOA Handbook) as a source for measures with quantitative methods for estimating VMT reduction. It was found that the in CAPCOA Handbook, that an increase in density over the national average (9.1 dwelling units per acre) can result in a VMT reduction. Assuming no change in the amount of developable land, the project would need at least 455 dwelling units to reach the national average and be credited for any reduction in project VMT. Moreover, the project would require a total of 590 dwelling units to mitigate the impact of project VMT to a less-than-significant level. (Ruettgers and Schuler Civil Engineers, 2024). As Alternative C proposes a density larger than the national average, it can be seen that a reduction in Project VMT would occur. Therefore, VMT under Alternative C would result in a less than significant impact.

6.4.4 - ALTERNATIVE D – DIFFERENT SITE ALTERNATIVE
This alternative would relocate the Project to a different site in order to be located nearer to corridor mixed use where a mix of commercial and office uses would be available in addition to being located closer to major transit corridors. This alternative would locate the Project on the east side of the City, bounded by Lacey Boulevard to the south, 9 1/4 Avenue to the west, State Route 43 to the east, and Grangeville Boulevard to the north. This alternative will meet all Project objectives and would assist the City in meeting its regional housing needs.

Additionally, Alternative D would result in similar conditions as the proposed Project, consistency findings with Kings County and LAFCo for annexation, and General Plan conformity with the City can be made. With regard to LOS standards, the alternative site would require an analysis of intersections in the vicinity of the site and the comparisons of future conditions at the chosen intersections. It can be determined that under Alternative D, impacts to LOS at intersections could occur similar to the proposed Project. Dependent on the LOS grade found as a result of Project implementation, mitigation measures for intersection improvements and the use of transportation impact fees per General Plan policy would be applicable to Alternative D and therefore result in similar impacts as the proposed Project.

Under Alternative D, overall VMT per capita for the Project would still exceed City VMT thresholds as the majority of the site is located within a high VMT area (Kings County Council of Governments, 2020) in addition to no changes made to the Project lot count. Therefore, per capita, VMT would remain similar to the proposed Project as there are no other factors including proximity to high-quality transit corridors that could provide VMT reductions.

Impacts would continue to be significant and unavoidable. In addition, the applicant does not currently own either of these properties and it is not known if the current owners are willing to sell these properties.

City of Hanford Alternatives

Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2024
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Tract No. 943) Project Page 6-15

6.5 - Environmentally Superior Alternative
CEQA requires that the City identify an Environmentally Superior Alternative. If the No Project Alternative is the Environmentally Superior Alternative, the City must identify an Environmentally Superior Alternative among the other alternatives considered in the EIR (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6). This alternatives analysis includes three other Project alternatives –Alternative B - Reduced Project, Alternative C - Multi-Family, and Alternative D - Different Site. Based on the evaluation of the three alternatives, Alternative C – MultiFamily would reduce significant and unavoidable environmental impacts relating to VMT while fulfilling most of the objectives of the proposed Project and is therefore the Environmentally Superior Alternative.

City of Hanford Alternatives

Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2024
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Tract No. 943) Project Page 6-16 Table 6-1
Summary of Alternatives Impacts
Environmental Resource Project Alternative
A
Alternative
B
Alternative
C
Alternative
D
Land Use and Planning: 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
Less than
significant
Similar Similar Similar Similar
Land Use and Planning: Cumulative Impacts
associated with land use plan, policy, or
regulation
Less than
significant
Similar Similar Similar Similar
Transportation and Traffic: Conflict with a
program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing
the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities
Less than
significant with
mitigation
incorporated
Fewer Fewer Similar Similar
Transportation and Traffic: Cumulative
Impacts associated with LOS
Less than
significant with
mitigation
incorporated
Fewer Fewer Similar Similar
Transportation and Traffic: Conflict or be
Inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.3, Subdivision (b)
Significant /
Unavoidable Fewer Similar Fewer Similar
Transportation and Traffic: Cumulative
Impacts associated with VMT
Significant /
Unavoidable Fewer Similar Fewer Similar
Meet Project Objectives Yes No Yes Yes Yes
Reduce Any Significant and Unavoidable
Impacts to No Impact or Less than Significant No Yes No Yes No

City of Hanford Response to Comments
Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2024
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Tract No. 943) Project Page 7-1 CHAPTER 7 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
This chapter is being reserved for and will be included as the Final EIR.

City of Hanford Organizations and Persons Consulted

Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2024
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Tract No. 943) Project Page 8-1 CHAPTER 8 - ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED
Note: All of the below entities were either notified or contacted directly to ask for or directly receive consultation on their applicable area of expertise with respect to this proposed Project. This may not be an all-inclusive list.

Federal Agencies
• U.S. Department of Agriculture/Natural Resources Conservation Service • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Region IX
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
State Agencies
• California Air Resources Board
• California Highway Patrol
• California Department of Conservation
• California Department of Toxic Substances Control
• California Department of Parks and Recreation
• California State Department of Water Resources
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife
• California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection • California Department of Health Services
• Native American Heritage Commission
• California Department of Transportation District 6
• Regional Water Quality Control Board/Central Valley Region • State Clearinghouse Office of Planning and Research
Regional and Local
• Kings County Public Works Department
• Kings County Sheriff's Department
• City of Hanford Public Works Department
• City of Hanford Community Development Department
• City of Hanford Parks & Recreation Department
• City of Hanford Police Department
• City of Hanford Airport Department
• Hanford Elementary School District
• Hanford Joint Union High School District
• Pacific Gas & Electric Company
• San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District • Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center
• Southern California Gas Company
• Southern California Edison

City of Hanford Organizations and Persons Consulted

Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2024
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Tract No. 943) Project Page 8-2 Native American Consultation
In accordance with Assembly Bill 52 and the California Tribal Consultation guidelines, the appropriate native groups were consulted with respect to the Project’s potential impacts on Native American places, features, and objects. As of the writing of this report, staff have not received any comments from consulted tribes regarding the department's AB 52 request.

Staff notes consultation with appropriate Native American groups per AB 52 requirements has occurred.

City of Hanford List of Preparers

Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2024
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Tract No. 943) Project Page 9-1 CHAPTER 9 - LIST OF PREPARERS
Lead Agency

CITY OF HANFORD
Jason Waters – Deputy City Manager, Director of Community Development Gabrielle Myers – Senior Planner, Community Development Department Technical Assistance
QK
Jaymie L. Brauer, Principal Planner
Thomas Kobayashi, Senior Associate Planner

RUETTGERS & SCHULER, CIVIL ENGINEERS
Ian Parks, RCE

GEO TECK, INC
Kyle R. McHargue, CEG, Project Geologist
Anna M. Scott, Project Geologist

City of Hanford

Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2024
Silicon Valley Ranch Residential (Tract No. 943) Project Page 10-1

CHAPTER 10 - REFERENCES
California Department of Conservation. (2022). California Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Retrieved from California Important Farmland Finder:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/
GeoTeck, Inc. (2024). Phase I and Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, Westing Tentative Subdivision Map No. 943.

KCAG. (2022). KCAG 2018 RTP. Retrieved from https://www.kingscog.org/rtp_adopted KCAG. (2022). KCAG RTIP. Retrieved from https://www.kingscog.org/rtip Kings County. (2010). County of Kings 2035 General Plan.

Kings County Council of Governments. (2020). KCAG VMT and Parcels. Retrieved from ArcGIS:
https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=e62d55a0d03841a0aa41f3655c5f47 70 Ruettgers and Schuler Civil Engineers. (2024). Traffic Study, Silicon Valley Ranch.

PHASE I AND LIMITED PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP NO. 943
APNS 011-040-008, 011-040-010, AND 011-040-027
HANFORD, KINGS COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 93230
July 1, 2024
Project No. 3951-CR
Prepared For:

K. Hovnanian California Region, Inc.
1260 Corona Pointe Court, Suite 301
Corona, California 92879
GEOTEK

GEOTECHNICAL | ENVIRONMENTAL | MATERIALS
July 1, 2024
Project No. 3951-CR
K. Hovnanian California Region, Inc.
1260 Corona Pointe Court, Suite 301
Corona, California 92879
Attention: Mr. Isaac Vazquez
Subject: Phase I and Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 943
APNs 011-040-008, 011-040-010, and 011-040-027
Hanford, Kings County, California 93230
Dear Mr. Vazquez:

GEOTEK, INC. (GEOTEK) is pleased to present this Phase I and Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment for the above-referenced subject Site. Services were conducted in substantial conformance with the scope and limitations of the American Society of Testing and Materials E 1527-21, “Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process,” which is approved to meet the requirements of the federal All Appropriate Inquiries (AAI) standards as set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Section 312 (40 CFR 312), and GEOTEK’S Proposal No. P-0401724-CR dated April 4, 2024.

Based on the investigation, this Phase I and Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment has not revealed evidence of a recognized environmental condition in connection with the subject Site. No further investigation is recommended at this time.

GeoTek, Inc.

I 548 North Maple Street, Corona, California 92878
(95 I) 710-1 160 Office (95 I) 710-1 167 Fax www.geotekusa.com

K. Hovnanian California Region, Inc. Project No. 3951-CR Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 943 July 1, 2024
Hanford, Kings County, California Page 2
GEOTEK appreciates this opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions, or if GEOTEK can be of further service, please contact the office at (951) 710-1160.

Sincerely,
GEOTEK, INC.

Kyle R. McHargue Anna M. Scott
Project Geologist, CEG 2790 Project Geologist
Expires 02/28/2026

K. Hovnanian California Region, Inc. Project No. 3951-CR Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 943 July 1, 2024
Hanford, Kings County, California Page ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
GEOTEK, INC. (GEOTEK) has performed a Phase I and Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 943 (the “Site”), located in the City of Hanford, Kings County, California. GEOTEK’S services were conducted in substantial conformance with the scope and limitations of the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) E 1527-21, “Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process”, which is approved to meet the requirements of the federal All Appropriate Inquiries (AAI) standards as set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Section 312 (40 CFR 312), and GEOTEK Proposal No. P-0401724-CR, dated April 4, 2024. Any additions or deletions from the scope of services are discussed in the appropriate sections of this assessment.

A representative of GEOTEK conducted a Site reconnaissance on June 11, 2024. The weather was warm, and the sky was clear. The irregular shaped Site is currently comprised of three (3) parcels of land (Kings County Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 011-040-008, 011-040-010, and 011-040-027). The parcels encompass a total of approximately 88.91 acres. The Site can generally be accessed from Hanford Armona Drive to the north.

The Site is currently vacant land being utilized for agricultural operations. Visual evidence of hazardous substances and wastes was not observed during the Site reconnaissance. No visual indication of spills or leaks were observed. No pungent or acrid odors were observed emanating from the Site.

The Site is in an area largely characterized by residential development, vacant land or agricultural land. The Site is bound to the north by Hanford Armona Road, followed by residences (12358-12458 Hanford Armona Road) and agricultural land. The Site is bound to the east by residential development (1983 and 1984 West Idlewood Way; 1986 West Concord Way; 1100-1198, 1224-1380, 1400-1490 Greenbrier Drive; and 1978 West Summer Blossom Way). Agricultural land bounds the Site to the south. Agricultural land and residences (12645 and 12633 Hanford Armona Road) bound the Site to the west. None of the adjoining properties appear to represent a recognized environmental condition or environmental concern to the Site.

The Site does not appear on the environmental database report obtained for this assessment.

There are two (2) facilities listed in the database report within the various search distances specified by ASTM E 1527-21. Due to facility status; distance; lack of violations, spills or leaks; investigations or clean-ups; and/or locations hydro-geologically down- or cross-gradient, it is

K. Hovnanian California Region, Inc. Project No. 3951-CR Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 943 July 1, 2024
Hanford, Kings County, California Page ES-2
GEOTEK’S opinion that these facilities have not created a recognized environmental condition to the Site.

Based on readily available historical information, the Site appears to have been primarily utilized for agricultural purposes with a structure in the northwest portion of the Site in an aerial photograph dated 1934. The structure appears to be razed in a 1937 aerial photograph. The Site appears to be entirely utilized for agricultural operations from at least 1950 to the present.

The surrounding areas appear to be generally utilized for agricultural operations and/or vacant land with scattered residences from at least 1934 until at least 1950. Residential tract development is first visible to the east of the Site in an aerial photograph dated 1974.

Additional residences are visible to the east of the Site in an aerial photograph dated 1976.

There are no significant changes in the surrounding areas visible in the 1984 and 1994 aerial photographs. A residential tract development and religious building are visible to the north of the Site in an aerial photograph dated 2006. Additional residences are visible to the east of the Site in aerial photographs dated 2009 and 2016, 2020 and 2024.

Historically, some agricultural sites have utilized pesticides that are currently considered a health risk and no longer used. This particular environmental concern was investigated by GEOTEK as part of this assessment. Near surface soil samples were collected from the Site and were analyzed for organo-chlorinated pesticides (EPA Method 8081) and arsenic (EPA Method 6010B). The laboratory testing concluded that organo-chlorinated pesticides and arsenic were not detected above regional screening levels for residential soils in the soil samples tested.

Based on this laboratory testing, it is GEOTEK’S opinion that the historical agricultural use on the subject Site is not considered an environmental concern.

Based on the investigation, this Phase I and Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment has not revealed evidence of a recognized environmental condition in connection with the subject Site. No further investigation is recommended at this time.

This executive summary does not contain all the information that is found in the full report.

The report should be read in its entirety to obtain a more complete understanding of the information provided and to aid in any decisions made or actions taken based on this information.

K. Hovnanian California Region, Inc. Project No. 3951-CR Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 943 July 1, 2024
Hanford, Kings County, California Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................................................................................ES-1

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

1.1 PURPOSE .............................................................................................................................................1

1.2 SCOPE OF WORK...............................................................................................................................1

1.3 SIGNIFICANT ASSUMPTIONS..............................................................................................................2

1.4 LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS .......................................................................................................3

1.5 SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS ..................................................................................................3

1.6 RELIANCE............................................................................................................................................4

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA...........................................................5

2.1 SITE LOCATION AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION.....................................................................................5

2.2 SITE AND VICINITY GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS ...........................................................................5

2.3 CURRENT PROPERTY USE .................................................................................................................5

2.4 SITE IMPROVEMENTS...........................................................................................................................6

2.4.1 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES ......................................................................................................6

2.4.2 STORAGE TANKS ......................................................................................................................6

2.4.3 POLY-CHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBS)...............................................................................6

2.4.4 CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES.....................................................................................................6

2.4.5 INDICATIONS OF SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ............................................................................7

2.4.6 UTILITY SUPPLY.........................................................................................................................7

2.4.7 DRAINAGE.................................................................................................................................7

2.4.8 OTHER CONDITIONS OF CONCERN......................................................................................7

2.4.9 INTERVIEWS ...............................................................................................................................7

2.5 CURRENT ADJOINING PROPERTY USE.............................................................................................7

3.0 CLIENT PROVIDED INFORMATION...........................................................................................9

3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL CLEAN UP LIENS .................................................................................................9

3.2 ACTIVITY AND USE LIMITATIONS .....................................................................................................9

3.3 SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE ...............................................................................................................9

3.4 PURCHASE PRICE................................................................................................................................9

3.5 COMMONLY KNOWN INFORMATION.............................................................................................9

3.6 OBVIOUS INDICATORS OF CONTAMINATION ................................................................................9

4.0 OWNER, PROPERTY MANAGER AND OCCUPANT INFORMATION......................... 10

4.1 OWNER, PROPERTY MANAGER AND OCCUPANT INFORMATION............................................. 10

4.2 INTERVIEWS ..................................................................................................................................... 10

4.3 REASON FOR PERFORMING PHASE I AND LIMITED PHASE II ESA ............................................... 11

4.4 OTHER USER PROVIDED INFORMATION....................................................................................... 11

5.0 PROPERTY PHYSICAL SETTING................................................................................................ 12

5.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY..................................................................................................................... 12

K. Hovnanian California Region, Inc. Project No. 3951-CR Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 943 July 1, 2024
Hanford, Kings County, California Page ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

5.2 LOCAL GEOLOGIC SETTING .......................................................................................................... 12

5.3 TOPOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................................. 12

5.4 VICINITY SURFACE DRAINAGE....................................................................................................... 13

5.5 HYDROGEOLOGY ........................................................................................................................... 13

6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY RECORDS REVIEW .................................................... 14

6.1 ENVIRONMENTAL DATABASE RECORDS SEARCH ........................................................................ 14

6.2 DISCUSSION OF REGULATORY RECORDS ..................................................................................... 15

6.2.1 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.................................................................................................... 15

6.2.2 NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST................................................................................................... 16

6.2.3 SUPERFUND ENTERPRISE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM................................................................ 16

6.2.4 RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT ............................................................ 16

6.2.5 FEDERAL INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL/ENGINEERING CONTROL REGISTRIES.................... 17

6.2.6 EMERGENCY RESPONSE NOTIFICATION SYSTEM................................................................. 17

6.2.7 STATE RESPONSE SITES .......................................................................................................... 17

6.2.8 ENVIROSTOR DATABASE....................................................................................................... 18

6.2.9 CALIFORNIA HAZARDOUS MATERIAL INCIDENT REPORT SYSTEM ................................... 18

6.2.10 CLEANUP PROGRAM SITES .................................................................................................... 18

6.2.11 SOLID WASTE FACILITIES LIST .............................................................................................. 19

6.2.12 LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS LIST.............................................................. 19

6.2.13 UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS LIST.............................................................................. 19

6.2.14 STATE INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL/ENGINEERING CONTROL REGISTRIES ........................ 20

6.2.15 FEDERAL AND/OR STATE VOLUNTARY CLEANUP PROGRAM ............................................ 20

6.2.16 BROWNFIELD SITES................................................................................................................ 20

6.2.17 LOCAL AND/OR TRIBAL DATABASES ................................................................................... 20

6.2.18 DRYCLEANERS........................................................................................................................ 21

6.2.19 OTHER DATABASES ............................................................................................................... 21

6.2.20 UNMAPPABLE FACILITIES ....................................................................................................... 22

6.3 LOCAL REGULATORY AGENCY RECORDS.................................................................................... 22

6.4 OUT OF SCOPE CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................................... 22

7.0 VAPOR ENCROACHMENT SCREENING................................................................................ 24

8.0 SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA HISTORY......................................................................... 25

8.1 HISTORICAL SITE USAGE ................................................................................................................ 25

8.1.1 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH REVIEW............................................................................................. 25

8.1.2 ASSESSOR’S INFORMATION ................................................................................................... 25

8.1.3 BUILDING DEPARTMENT RECORDS...................................................................................... 25

8.1.4 CHAIN OF TITLE..................................................................................................................... 26

8.1.5 CITY DIRECTORY REVIEW..................................................................................................... 26

K. Hovnanian California Region, Inc. Project No. 3951-CR Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 943 July 1, 2024
Hanford, Kings County, California Page iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

8.1.6 INTERVIEWS ............................................................................................................................ 26

8.1.7 RECORDER’S INFORMATION ................................................................................................. 27

8.1.8 SANBORN MAP REVIEW ........................................................................................................ 27

8.1.9 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP REVIEW................................................................................................ 27

8.2 HISTORICAL IMMEDIATELY SURROUNDING PROPERTY USAGE................................................... 28

8.2.1 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH REVIEW............................................................................................. 28

8.2.2 CITY DIRECTORIES................................................................................................................. 29

8.2.3 SANBORN MAP REVIEW ........................................................................................................ 29

8.2.4 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP REVIEW................................................................................................ 29

8.3 HISTORICAL USE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 30

9.0 SUMMARY OF LIMITED SOIL ANALYSIS................................................................................. 31

10.0 SIGNIFICANT DATA GAPS.......................................................................................................... 33

11.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................... 34

12.0 CERTIFICATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 35

13.0 REFERENCES..................................................................................................................................... 36

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: Figures
Appendix B: Documents Obtained from EDR
Appendix C: Questionnaire(s) and Site Documents from Other Sources Appendix D: Photographs
Appendix E: Environmental Database Report
Appendix F: Vapor Encroachment Screening
Appendix G: Laboratory Test Results
Appendix H: Project Team Qualifications

K. Hovnanian California Region, Inc. Project No. 3951-CR Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 943 July 1, 2024
Hanford, Kings County, California Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION
GEOTEK, INC. (GEOTEK) has performed a Phase I and Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 943 (the “Site”), located in the City of Hanford, Kings County, California.

1.1 PURPOSE
The purpose of this Phase I and Limited Phase II ESA was to identify and evaluate actual and potential environmental conditions involving the subject Site. It was not the purpose of this assessment to determine the degree or extent of contamination, if any, but rather the potential for contamination.

1.2 SCOPE OF WORK
The Phase I and Limited Phase II ESA is a general characterization of environmental concerns based on reasonably ascertainable information and observations. GEOTEK performed the Phase I and Limited Phase II ESA in substantial accordance with ASTM Standard E 1527-21. The following services were provided for the assessment:
▪ A reconnaissance of the Site and surrounding properties to visually assess current utilization and indications of potential surface contamination. This was accomplished by driving the Site boundaries, and then traversing the Site until the entire Site had been surveyed.
▪ A reconnaissance of the surrounding area for approximately one-half mile was conducted, without entering the properties, making observations concerning property uses, conditions, and housekeeping.
▪ Interviews were conducted, either in person, via telephone, or via a written questionnaire(s) with the client representative, the seller’s representative, and/or appropriate regulatory agency personnel.
▪ A review of the geologic and hydro-geologic settings was conducted using reasonably ascertainable public records and documents.
▪ An environmental database report was obtained from a data service provider. This database report compiles and locates documented “hazardous waste” facilities within specific minimum search distances as defined by ASTM E 1527-21. If necessary,

K. Hovnanian California Region, Inc. Project No. 3951-CR Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 943 July 1, 2024
Hanford, Kings County, California Page 2
additional information on identified facilities was gathered by a file review at the appropriate federal, state, local, and/or tribal regulatory agency. ▪ A review of reasonably ascertainable historical records (including aerial photographs, topographic maps, building records, and city directories) was conducted to assess the historical land utilization and indications of potential contamination or sources of contamination for the Site.
▪ Collection of twelve (12) soil samples collected from specific locations on the Site and laboratory testing of the soil samples for arsenic and organo-chlorinated pesticides. ▪ This report was prepared, which relates the findings of this study and presents the conclusions and recommendations.

Specific items not included in this Scope of Services are additional soil analysis, water analysis, asbestos containing materials analysis, radon analysis, lead-based paint analysis, lead in drinking water, wetlands, regulatory compliance, cultural and historic resources, industrial hygiene, health and safety, ecological resources, endangered species, indoor air quality, vapor intrusion testing, high voltage power lines, and other items not within the scope of ASTM E 1527-21.

1.3 SIGNIFICANT ASSUMPTIONS
Specific assumptions by GEOTEK for this assessment include:
▪ GEOTEK had permission to access the Site grounds;
▪ The client has provided GEOTEK with available geotechnical or environmental reports for the Site;
▪ The client has provided GEOTEK with known current or historic uses of hazardous materials at the Site, or with other specialized knowledge of the environmental history of the Site and surrounding area;
▪ The client is not the sole and absolute source of information; ▪ The seller has provided proper and complete access to their knowledge, both written and verbal, and GEOTEK can rely on the information.

K. Hovnanian California Region, Inc. Project No. 3951-CR Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 943 July 1, 2024
Hanford, Kings County, California Page 3

1.4 LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS
GEOTEK conducted a Phase I and Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment in substantial accordance with ASTM E 1527-21 and as authorized by K. HOVNANIAN CALIFORNIA REGION, INC. This study does not include sampling of groundwater and/or materials on-site for environmental testing. This report is intended for the use of K. HOVNANIAN CALIFORNIA REGION, INC. The contents should not be relied upon by any party other than the aforementioned without the express written consent of GEOTEK.

The findings, conclusions, and recommendations made in this report are based on the information that was made available to GEOTEK, in most instances from public records. The information is relevant to the date of the sitework and should not be relied on to represent conditions at any later date. The opinions and conclusions expressed herein are based on information obtained during the assessment and on experience and current standards of technical practice. GEOTEK makes no other warranties, either express or implied, concerning the completeness of the data furnished to us. GEOTEK cannot be responsible for conditions or consequences arising from relevant facts that were concealed, withheld, or not fully disclosed at the time the assessment was undertaken. GEOTEK is not responsible, nor liable for work, testing or recommendations performed or provided by others. This Phase I and Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment is not and should not be construed as a warranty or guarantee about the presence or absence of environmental hazards or contaminants which may affect the subject Site. Facts, conditions, and acceptable risk factors change with time; accordingly, this report should be viewed within this context.

Specific limitations to the scope of ASTM E 1527-21 due to contract limitations, availability of resources, and/or encountered Site conditions are discussed in the appropriate sections of this report.

1.5 SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
This assessment report is presented as fulfilling the standard requirements of most financial institutions, governmental regulatory agencies, ASTM, and generally accepted industry standards and practices. Please refer to GEOTEK Proposal No. P-0401724-CR for complete terms and conditions for this assessment.

K. Hovnanian California Region, Inc. Project No. 3951-CR Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 943 July 1, 2024
Hanford, Kings County, California Page 4

1.6 RELIANCE
This assessment has been prepared for its exclusive use, and may be relied upon by K.

HOVNANIAN CALIFORNIA REGION, INC., their successors and assignees. Third party reliance letters may be issued upon request and upon the payment of the, then current, fee for such letters. All third parties relying on this report, by such reliance, agree to be bound by the General Conditions and Limitations agreed by K. HOVNANIAN CALIFORNIA REGION, INC.

No reliance by any party is permitted without such agreement, regardless of the content of the reliance letter itself.

K. Hovnanian California Region, Inc. Project No. 3951-CR Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 943 July 1, 2024
Hanford, Kings County, California Page 5

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA
The objective of describing the Site and surrounding area is to document current conditions as observed and to obtain information which would indicate the likelihood of a recognized environmental condition in connection with the Site. A representative of GEOTEK conducted a Site reconnaissance on June 11, 2024. The weather was warm, and the sky was clear. The Site can generally be accessed from Hanford Armona Drive to the north.

2.1 SITE LOCATION AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION
The Site is located southeasterly of the intersection of Hanford Armona Drive and Turner Drive, in the City of Hanford, Kings County, California. According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Hanford quadrangle topographic map sheet (7.5-minute series), the Site is located in Section 3 Township 19 South, Range 21 East, Mount Diablo Principal Meridian (see Figure 1 in Appendix A and documents in Appendix B). The Site is known as Kings County Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 011-040-008, 011-040-010, and 011-040-027 and is also known as the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 943. Additional legal descriptions for the Site are included in the Environmental Lien and AUL Search as obtained from Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) included in Appendix B. A Property Tax Map Report as obtained from EDR is also included in Appendix B. However, no APN maps were supplied in the Property Tax Map Report. Additionally, no APN maps were available in numerous website searches with the City of Hanford and the County of Kings. The Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map is included in Appendix C.

2.2 SITE AND VICINITY GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS
The Site is currently vacant land being utilized for agricultural operations.

The Site is in an area largely characterized by residential development, vacant land and/or agricultural land.

The Site is currently zoned as “R-1-5” (Single Family: 5,000 SF min.) on the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map dated March 21, 2024.

2.3 CURRENT PROPERTY USE
The Site is currently vacant land being utilized for agricultural operations.

K. Hovnanian California Region, Inc. Project No. 3951-CR Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 943 July 1, 2024
Hanford, Kings County, California Page 6

2.4 SITE IMPROVEMENTS
The Site is currently vacant land being utilized for agricultural operations.

Photographs of the Site are included in Appendix D and locations of the photographs are shown on Figure 3 in Appendix A.

2.4.1 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Visual evidence of hazardous substances and wastes was not observed during the Site reconnaissance. No visual indication of spills or leaks were observed. No pungent or acrid odors were observed emanating from the Site.

2.4.2 STORAGE TANKS
GEOTEK did not observe evidence of underground or above-ground fuel storage tanks (such as vent pipes, fill pipes, regular-shaped depressions, etc.) on the Site.

2.4.3 POLY-CHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBS)
GEOTEK did not observe suspect equipment (transformers, elevators, hydraulic lift mechanisms, trash compactors, etc.) which may contain PCBs on the Site.

2.4.4 CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES
GEOTEK consulted the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) website (Clandestine Drug Labs in the United States | DEA.gov) to cross-check the Site address and adjoining properties against published facilities subject to DEA enforcement. The Site nor any adjoining facilities appeared on the list of published facilities for the last five (5) years.

GEOTEK consulted with the Hanford City Fire and Police Departments regarding controlled substances in association with the Site or adjoining facilities. Neither agency had information regarding the Site.

GEOTEK did not observe evidence of illegal or controlled substances being used or manufactured at the Site.

K. Hovnanian California Region, Inc. Project No. 3951-CR Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 943 July 1, 2024
Hanford, Kings County, California Page 7

2.4.5 INDICATIONS OF SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
Waste disposal for the Site and Site area is provided by the City of Hanford. Scattered household items and landscaping debris were observed during the Site reconnaissance. These materials are considered a de minimis condition and should be removed and disposed of at a proper facility prior to any future land development.

2.4.6 UTILITY SUPPLY
Sewer and water services for the Site and area are provided by the City of Hanford. Electric services for the Site and area are provided by Southern California Edison. Gas services for the Site and area are provided by The Gas Company.

2.4.7 DRAINAGE
Natural drainage at the Site is generally interpreted to be toward the north, conforming to the natural topography in the area. Ponded water was not observed during the Site reconnaissance.

2.4.8 OTHER CONDITIONS OF CONCERN
No visual indication of conditions of concern (drywells, cesspools, etc.) that would indicate a recognized environmental condition was observed during the Site reconnaissance.

2.4.9 INTERVIEWS
GEOTEK interviewed the following individuals while performing this assessment:
▪ Mr. Isaac Vazquez, a representative of the future Site owner, completed a User Questionnaire, dated June 6, 2024.
▪ Mr. Marc R. Frelier, a representative of the current Site owner, completed a Property Owner Questionnaire, dated May 27, 2024.

Information from these interviews is incorporated into the appropriate sections of this report.

2.5 CURRENT ADJOINING PROPERTY USE
The Site is in an area largely characterized by residential development, vacant land or agricultural land. The Site is bound to the north by Hanford Armona Road, followed by

K. Hovnanian California Region, Inc. Project No. 3951-CR Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 943 July 1, 2024
Hanford, Kings County, California Page 8
residences (12358-12458 Hanford Armona Road) and agricultural land. The Site is bound to the east by residential development (1983 and 1984 West Idlewood Way; 1986 West Concord Way; 1100-1198, 1224-1380, 1400-1490 Greenbrier Drive; and 1978 West Summer Blossom Way). Agricultural land bounds the Site to the south. Agricultural land and residences (12645 and 12633 Hanford Armona Road) bound the Site to the west. None of the adjoining properties appear to represent a recognized environmental condition or environmental concern to the Site.

K. Hovnanian California Region, Inc. Project No. 3951-CR Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 943 July 1, 2024
Hanford, Kings County, California Page 9

3.0 CLIENT PROVIDED INFORMATION
As a form of interview, Mr. Isaac Vazquez, a representative of the future Site owner, completed a “User Questionnaire” for the Site, in accordance with ASTM E 1527-21. A copy of the completed questionnaire is included in Appendix C.

3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL CLEAN UP LIENS
Mr. Isaac Vazquez is not aware of any environmental clean-up liens at the Site.

3.2 ACTIVITY AND USE LIMITATIONS
Mr. Isaac Vazquez is not aware of any activity use limitations at the Site.

3.3 SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE
Mr. Isaac Vazquez is not aware of any specialized knowledge of the Site or nearby properties.

3.4 PURCHASE PRICE
Mr. Isaac Vazquez states that the purchase price being paid for the property reflects the fair market value.

3.5 COMMONLY KNOWN INFORMATION
Mr. Isaac Vazquez states that he is not aware of commonly known or reasonably ascertainable information for the Site.

3.6 OBVIOUS INDICATORS OF CONTAMINATION
Mr. Isaac Vazquez states that he is not aware of obvious indicators of a likely environmental impact at the Site.

K. Hovnanian California Region, Inc. Project No. 3951-CR Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 943 July 1, 2024
Hanford, Kings County, California Page 10

4.0 OWNER, PROPERTY MANAGER AND OCCUPANT INFORMATION
This section contains other relevant information regarding this assessment in accordance with ASTM 1527-21.

4.1 OWNER, PROPERTY MANAGER AND OCCUPANT INFORMATION
It is GEOTEK’S understanding that Middlefield Manor LLC currently owns and manages the Site.

The Site is currently unoccupied.

4.2 INTERVIEWS
GEOTEK interviewed the following individuals while performing this assessment:
▪ Mr. Isaac Vazquez, a representative of the future Site owner, completed a User Questionnaire, dated June 6, 2024.
▪ Mr. Marc R. Frelier, a representative of the current Site owner, completed a Property Owner Questionnaire, dated May 27, 2024.

Information from these interviews is incorporated into the appropriate sections of this report.

As a form of interview, Mr. Marc R. Frelier, a representative of the current Site owner, completed a “Property Owner Questionnaire” for the Site in accordance with ASTM E 1527-

21. A copy of the completed questionnaire is included in Appendix C.

Mr. Marc R. Frelier answered “yes” to questions 10b, 11a, and 11b.

In question 10a Mr. Frelier states, “small diesel tanks servicing ag well”. GEOTEK did not observe these diesel tanks during the Site reconnaissance.

In question 10b, Mr. Frelier states, “for ag irrigation”.

In question 11b Mr. Frelier states, “irrigation pipeline”.

Mr. Marc R. Frelier answered “no”, “unknown” or “not applicable” to the remaining questions.

In question 4a, Mr. Frelier clarifies, “fields have been laser leveled in past and benched”.

In question 5b, Mr. Frelier clarifies, “only chemicals or material for farming”.

K. Hovnanian California Region, Inc. Project No. 3951-CR Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 943 July 1, 2024
Hanford, Kings County, California Page 11
In question 8a, Mr. Frelier clarifies, “only temporary ditches and drains for farming”.

In question 18a, Mr. Frelier clarifies, “may have been historical drainage at south end”.

Mr. Marc R. Frelier answered “no”, “unknown” or “not applicable” to the remaining questions.

GEOTEK’S Site reconnaissance and research did not discover substantially contradictory information from the Property Owner Questionnaire that would change the recommendations and conclusions of this report.

4.3 REASON FOR PERFORMING PHASE I AND LIMITED PHASE II ESA This Phase I and Limited Phase II ESA was performed at the request of K. HOVNANIAN CALIFORNIA REGION, INC. in order to qualify for one of the Landowner Liability Protections offered by the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act of 2001.

4.4 OTHER USER PROVIDED INFORMATION
GEOTEK was not provided with any other information of an environmental nature by K.

HOVNANIAN CALIFORNIA REGION, INC. for the Site.

K. Hovnanian California Region, Inc. Project No. 3951-CR Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 943 July 1, 2024
Hanford, Kings County, California Page 12

5.0 PROPERTY PHYSICAL SETTING
Surface and subsurface environments are of interest because they control the movement of water-born contaminants, which could be transported to and from the subject Site. GEOTEK reviewed information regarding the physical setting of the subject Site and immediate surrounding area.

5.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY
The property is situated in the Great Valley geomorphic province. The Great Valley province is one of the largest geomorphic units in western North America. It extends approximately 440 miles from the Sacramento Valley drained by the Sacramento River to the San Joaquin Valley drained by the San Joaquin River to the southeasterly adjacent Sierra Nevada province.

This province varies in width from about 30 to 80 miles. The Great Valley is a trough in which sediments have been deposited since the Jurassic (about 160 million years ago). Great oil fields have been found in southernmost San Joaquin Valley and along anticlinal uplifts on its southwestern margin. In the Sacramento Valley, the Sutter Buttes, the remnants of an isolated Pliocene volcano rise above the valley floor. It is bounded on the west, northwest and southwest by the Coast Ranges province and on the east, northeast and southeast by the Sierra Nevada province.

The San Joaquin Fault borders the northwestern portion of the Great Central Valley province, adjacent to the Coast Ranges province, while the White Wolf Fault borders the southeastern portion adjacent to the Sierra Nevada province.

5.2 LOCAL GEOLOGIC SETTING
The Site and Site area are understood to be underlain by alluvial fan deposits (Matthews, R.A., and Burnett, J.L., 1965). Additional data regarding soil survey information for the Site and Site area is also included in Appendix B.

5.3 TOPOGRAPHY
The Site and Site area can be considered as having relatively flat terrain. Based on the USGS topographic map for the area and other documents reviewed for this report, the elevation of the Site is approximately 225 feet above mean sea level.

K. Hovnanian California Region, Inc. Project No. 3951-CR Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 943 July 1, 2024
Hanford, Kings County, California Page 13

5.4 VICINITY SURFACE DRAINAGE
Natural drainage at the Site is interpreted to be dominantly directed toward the north, conforming to the natural topography in the area.

According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Site is in an area of “0.2 percent annual chance flood hazard” (Community Panel Number 06031C-0185C and 06031C0195C, both dated June 16, 2009). A copy of the FEMA map is included in Appendix C.

5.5 HYDROGEOLOGY
According to a review of historical groundwater data (California Department of Water Resources and California State Water Resources Control Board groundwater well data [http://wdl.water.ca.gov and http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov]) and in-house information, groundwater is greater than 50 feet below ground surface with a flow estimated to be directed to the north.

K. Hovnanian California Region, Inc. Project No. 3951-CR Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 943 July 1, 2024
Hanford, Kings County, California Page 14

6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY RECORDS REVIEW
The records review is conducted to help identify known recognized environmental conditions at the Site and/or on adjoining or nearby properties which may have impacted the subject Site.

6.1 ENVIRONMENTAL DATABASE RECORDS SEARCH
GEOTEK obtained and reviewed an environmental database report of the federal and state environmental records specified by ASTM E 1527-21. The database report was provided by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) of Shelton, Connecticut. Additionally, orphan or unmappable sites listed by EDR were reviewed for the approximate minimum search distances noted and included in the discussion, if applicable. Refer to Appendix E for a copy of the database report.

ENVIRONMENTAL DATABASE

MINIMUM
SEARCH

DISTANCE

SITE ADJOINING TOTAL
LISTED
U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) facilities and
Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS)

1.0 Mile No 0 0
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) - National
Priorities List (NPL), including delisted NPL

1.0 Mile No 0 0
EPA – Superfund Enterprise Management System
(SEMS), including archived sites (formerly CERCLIS)

0.5 Mile No 0 0
EPA – Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), Corrective Action Facilities (CORRACTS)

1.0 Mile No 0 0
EPA – RCRA, Transportation, Storage, and Disposal
facilities (TSD)

0.5 Mile No 0 0
EPA - RCRA Generators Site and
Adjoining No 0 0
EPA – Emergency Response Notification System
(ERNS) Site No N/A 0
Federal institutional control/engineering control
registries Site No N/A 0
California Environmental Protection Agency (CEPA)
– State Response Sites (Response, formerly Annual
Work Plan and Bond Expenditure Plan)

1.0 Mile No 0 0

K. Hovnanian California Region, Inc. Project No. 3951-CR Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 943 July 1, 2024
Hanford, Kings County, California Page 15

ENVIRONMENTAL DATABASE

MINIMUM
SEARCH

DISTANCE

SITE ADJOINING TOTAL
LISTED
CEPA – EnviroStor Database (ENVIROSTOR,
formerly CALSITES)

0.5 Mile No 0 1
CEPA – California Hazardous Materials Information
Reporting System (CHMIRS)
Site and
Adjoining No 0 0
CEPA – Cleanup Program Sites (CPS, formerly
SLIC)i

0.5 Mile No 0 0
Department of Resources, Recycling, and Recovery
(DRRR) and CEPA - Solid Waste Fill/Landfill
(SWF/LF), Solid Waste Assessment Test
(SWAT)/Waste Management Unit Database System
(WMUDS) and Recycling Facilities (SWRCY)

0.5 Mile No 0 0
CEPA – Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
(LUST), including historic and archive databases

0.5 Mile No 0 1
CEPA – Underground Storage Tanks (UST),
including historic and archive databases
Site and
Adjoining No 0 0
State institutional control/engineering control
registries Site No N/A 0
Federal and/or state Voluntary Cleanup Program
(VCP) sites

0.5 Mile No 0 0
Federal and/or state Brownfield Sites (BFS) 0.5
Mile No 0 0
Local and/or Tribal databases Up To

1.0 Mile No 0 0
Drycleaners 0.25
Mile No 0 0
Other databases Up to

1.0 Mile No 0 0
Unmappable facilities Up to

1.0 Mile No 0 1
N/A – Not Applicable
i Spills, Leaks, Investigations, and Cleanups (SLIC) facilities.

6.2 DISCUSSION OF REGULATORY RECORDS

6.2.1 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
The Department of Defense (DOD) facility database includes federal facilities operated by the DOD which encompasses greater than 640 acres. Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) are properties where the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is actively working or will take necessary cleanup actions. Environmental impacts from the operations of such facilities have been

K. Hovnanian California Region, Inc. Project No. 3951-CR Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 943 July 1, 2024
Hanford, Kings County, California Page 16
documented across the continental United States. The DOD and FUDS databases are searched for a 1.0-mile distance.

The Site does not appear on the DOD or FUDS databases. There are no facilities listed on the DOD or FUDS databases within 1.0-mile of the Site.

6.2.2 NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST
The National Priorities List (NPL) is the EPA's list of confirmed or proposed Superfund sites.

GEOTEK’S review of this data includes sites which have been delisted from the NPL. The NPL is searched for a 1.0-mile distance.

The Site does not appear on the NPL. There are no NPL facilities located within 1.0-mile of the Site.

6.2.3 SUPERFUND ENTERPRISE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
The Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS, formerly CERCLIS) is a compilation of sites that the EPA has investigated or is currently investigating for a release or threatened release of hazardous substances. GEOTEK’S review of SEMS sites includes archive (no further remedial action planned) facilities. The SEMS list is searched for a 0.5-mile distance.

The Site does not appear on the SEMS list. There are no SEMS facilities located within 0.5-mile of the Site.

The Site does not appear on the SEMS-ARCHIVE list. There are no facilities on the SEMSARCHIVE list within 0.5-mile of the Site.

6.2.4 RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) compile selective information on facilities which generate, transport, store, treat and or dispose of hazardous waste. RCRA facilities can be listed on one of three databases:
▪ Corrective Action Facilities (CORRACTS) are facilities undergoing corrective action. A corrective action order is issued pursuant to RCRA Section 3008(h) when there has been a release of hazardous waste or constituents into the environment from a RCRA facility. The CORRACTS list is searched for a 1.0-mile distance.

K. Hovnanian California Region, Inc. Project No. 3951-CR Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 943 July 1, 2024
Hanford, Kings County, California Page 17
The Site does not appear on the CORRACTS list. There are no CORRACTS facilities located within 1.0-mile of the site.
▪ Transportation, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSD) includes facilities that transport, store or dispose of hazardous waste and are not listed on the RCRA Generators list. The TSD is searched for a 0.5-mile distance.

The Site does not appear on the RCRA TSD list. There are no RCRA TSD facilities located within 0.5-mile of the site.
▪ Generators List identifies and tracks hazardous waste from the point of generation to the point of disposal. The RCRA Generators database is a compilation by the EPA of reporting facilities that generate hazardous waste. The RCRA generators list is searched for the Site and adjoining properties.

The Site does not appear on the RCRA Generators list. There are no facilities listed on the RCRA Generators list that adjoin the Site.

6.2.5 FEDERAL INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL/ENGINEERING CONTROL REGISTRIES The EPA maintains three (3) databases which list sites that have institutional and/or engineering controls in place as part of their operations. These databases are searched for the Site.

The Site does not appear on these databases.

6.2.6 EMERGENCY RESPONSE NOTIFICATION SYSTEM
The Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) is a national database used to collect information on reported releases of oil or hazardous substances. The ERNS list is searched for the Site.

The Site does not appear on the ERNS list.

6.2.7 STATE RESPONSE SITES
The State Response Sites (RESPONSE) records are the state equivalent to the federal National Priorities List (NPL) database. The RESPONSE database is searched for a 1.0-mile distance.

K. Hovnanian California Region, Inc. Project No. 3951-CR Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 943 July 1, 2024
Hanford, Kings County, California Page 18
The Site does not appear on the RESPONSE database. There are no RESPONSE facilities located within 1.0-mile of the site.

6.2.8 ENVIROSTOR DATABASE
The EnviroStor Database (EnviroStor, formerly CALSITES) records are the state equivalent to the federal SEMS database. EnviroStor is searched for a 0.5-mile distance.

The Site does not appear on the EnviroStor database.

There is one (1) EnviroStor facility located within 0.5-mile of the Site. The facility is listed as Ben Cornelius and is addressed as 11801 12th Avenue. The facility is located approximately 2,362 feet (0.447 mile) southeast of the Site. The site type is listed as “historical” and the facility status is listed as “refer:RWQCB” and dated June 26, 1995. Comments explain it was discovered on March 23, 1987 and that waste was being stored in an unlined pond. Due to the facility status, distance, and being located hydrogeologically down-gradient, it is GEOTEK’S opinion that this facility has not not created a recognized environmental condition to the Site.

6.2.9 CALIFORNIA HAZARDOUS MATERIAL INCIDENT REPORT SYSTEM The California Hazardous Material Incident Report Systems (CHMIRS) is a state database used to collect information on reported hazardous materials incidents (accidental leaks and spills). The CHMIRS list is searched for a 0.25-mile distance.

The Site does not appear on the CHMIRS database. There are no CHMIRS facilities located within 0.25-mile of the Site.

6.2.10 CLEANUP PROGRAM SITES
The California Cleanup Program Sites (CPS) database (formerly the SLIC database) is compiled by the CEPA State Water Resources Control Board through its Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB). It is designed to protect and restore water quality from spills, leaks, and similar discharges. The CPS is searched for a 0.5-mile distance.

The Site does not appear on the CPS database. There are no CPS facilities located within 0.5- mile of the Site.

K. Hovnanian California Region, Inc. Project No. 3951-CR Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 943 July 1, 2024
Hanford, Kings County, California Page 19

6.2.11 SOLID WASTE FACILITIES LIST
Department of Resources, Recycling, and Recovery (DRRR) and CEPA maintain multiple databases identifying and tracking landfill facilities. The Solid Waste Fill/Landfill (SWF/LF), Waste Management Unit Database System (WMUDS)/Solid Waste Assessment Test (SWAT), and Solid Waste Recycling Facilities (SWRCY) databases includes information pertaining to closed and open solid waste facilities operating in the state of California (collectively the “SWLF”). The SWLF databases are searched for a 0.5-mile distance.

The Site does not appear on the WMUDS/SWAT, SWF/LF or SWRCY lists. There are no facilities on the WMUDS/SWAT, SWF/LF or SWRCY lists within 0.5-mile of the Site.

6.2.12 LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS LIST
The California Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) list is a compilation of petroleum storage tank sites that have reported a release. GEOTEK’S review includes historic, archived and tribal LUST databases. The LUST list is searched for a 0.5-mile distance.

The Site does not appear on the LUST list.

There is one (1) facility identified on the LUST databases withing 0.5-mile of the Site. The facility is listed as Highway Patrol Headquarters and is addressed as 11050 13th Avenue. The facility is located 2,462 feet (0.466 mile) west-northwest of the Site. The status is listed as “completed-case closed” as of May 19, 2016. Due to the facility status, distances, and/or location hydrogeologically down-gradient, it is GEOTEK’S opinion that this facility has not created a recognized environmental condition to the Site.

6.2.13 UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS LIST
The California Underground Storage Tank (UST) list is a compilation of petroleum storage tank sites that are registered with the state of California. GEOTEK’S review included historic, archived, and tribal UST databases. The UST list is searched for the Site and adjoining properties.

The Site does not appear on the UST list. There are no facilities adjoining to the Site on the UST list.

K. Hovnanian California Region, Inc. Project No. 3951-CR Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 943 July 1, 2024
Hanford, Kings County, California Page 20
The Site does not appear on the HIST UST list. There are no facilities adjoining to the Site on the HIST UST list.

6.2.14 STATE INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL/ENGINEERING CONTROL REGISTRIES The State of California maintains institutional and engineering control databases or registries.

This lists sites with engineering or institutional controls in place. Institutional controls include administrative measures intended to prevent exposure to contaminants remaining on site.

Engineering controls include various forms of caps, building foundations, liners, and treatment methods. The State Institutional Control/Engineering Control Registries is searched for the Site.

The Site does not appear on the State Institutional Control/Engineering Control Registries.

6.2.15 FEDERAL AND/OR STATE VOLUNTARY CLEANUP PROGRAM
Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP) facilities are those where the current or past owner of which has entered into an agreement with EPA or the state to utilize their own resources to remediate a site or facility. The VCP databases are searched for 0.5-mile.

The Site does not appear on the VCP databases. No facilities were identified on the VCP databases withing 0.5-mile of the Site.

6.2.16 BROWNFIELDS SITES
Brownfields sites (BFSs) are real property, the expansion, redevelopment or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant or contaminant. Federal brownfields are listed by EPA. State brownfields in California are listed by CEPA. BFSs are searched for 0.5-mile.

The Site does not appear on the federal or stated BFS database. There are no BFS facilities within

0.5-mile of the Site.

6.2.17 LOCAL AND/OR TRIBAL DATABASES
The Site does not appear on the local databases reviewed.

K. Hovnanian California Region, Inc. Project No. 3951-CR Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 943 July 1, 2024
Hanford, Kings County, California Page 21
Tribal governments are under the jurisdiction of the EPA for environmental concerns.

Currently, the EPA Region 9 publishes LUST and UST information for tribes in Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, and the Pacific Territories. The LUST database is searched for 0.5 mile, and the UST database is searched for 0.25 mile.

The Site does not appear on the Tribal LUST or UST databases. No facilities were identified on the Tribal LUST or UST databases within 0.5 mile of the Site.

6.2.18 DRYCLEANERS
The DRYCLEANERS list is compiled and provided by CEPA. The DRYCLEANER database is searched for a 0.25-mile distance.

The Site does not appear on the DRYCLEANER list. There are no DRYCLEANER facilities listed within 0.25-mile of the Site.

6.2.19 OTHER DATABASES
EDR compiles information from multiple federal, state, local, and proprietary databases. Most are secondary or tertiary or redundant. Facilities compiled on these other databases are evaluated based on the severity of the listing, distance, and location.

The Site does not appear on the environmental database report obtained for this assessment.

There are no other facilities listed in the environmental database report.

6.2.19.1 HISTORIC AUTOMOTIVE FACILITIES
EDR provides a proprietary database including the names, locations, and dates of known historic automotive repair and service facilities. This database is searched for 0.25-mile.

The Site does not appear on the historic automotive facilities database. There are no listed facilities within 0.25-mile.

6.2.19.2 HISTORICAL DRYCLEANERS
EDR provides a proprietary database including the names, locations, and dates active of known dry-cleaning facilities. The state and certain local regulatory agencies also provide information on dry-cleaning facilities. These databases are searched for 0.25-mile.

K. Hovnanian California Region, Inc. Project No. 3951-CR Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 943 July 1, 2024
Hanford, Kings County, California Page 22
The Site does not appear on the Historical Drycleaners database. There are no listed facilities within 0.25-mile.

6.2.19.3 MANUFACTURED GAS PLANTS
EDR provides a proprietary database including the names, locations, and dates active of known manufactured gas plants (MGP). This database is searched for 1.0-mile.

The Site does not appear on the MGP database. There are no listed facilities within 0.25-mile.

6.2.20 UNMAPPABLE FACILITIES
GEOTEK reviewed the listing of “orphan” or unmappable facilities in the database report. There is one (1) unmapped listing in the database report. However, this listing is approximately five (5) miles from the Site and therefore is not considered a recognized environmental condition to the Site.

6.3 LOCAL REGULATORY AGENCY RECORDS
GEOTEK reviewed the CEPA (State Water Resources Control Board) “GeoTracker” database (GeoTracker (ca.gov)) and the CEPA (Department of Toxic Substances Control) “EnviroStor” database (EnviroStor (ca.gov)) for information on the Site.

The Site does not appear on the “GeoTracker” or “EnviroStor” databases.

GEOTEK consulted with the City of Hanford Police and Fire Departments regarding aboveground and underground storage tanks, emergency responses, hazardous material permits, spills, leaks, inspections, controlled substances, or other information of an environmental or hazardous nature in association with the Site or adjoining facilities. Neither agency had information regarding the Site.

6.4 OUT OF SCOPE CONSIDERATIONS
Per- and Poly-Fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a group of over 9,000 synthetic chemicals that have been used for over 70 years. Due to the very stable carbon-fluorine bonds, perfluoroalkyls are resistant to biodegradation, photooxidation, direct photolysis, and hydrolysis. Atmospheric deposition can lead to contamination of soils and leaching into groundwater away from point sources. Health effects in humans may include cancer, cardiovascular, immunological, endocrine, reproductive, and hepatic harm.

K. Hovnanian California Region, Inc. Project No. 3951-CR Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 943 July 1, 2024
Hanford, Kings County, California Page 23
At the time of the adoption of ASTM 1527-21 standard, PFAS chemicals were considered to be “emerging contaminants” and therefore technically are considered to be non-scope considerations, per the ASTM-1527-21 standards. However, as of April 19, 2024, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) officially designated the regulatory status of two (2) commonly utilized PFAS chemicals as hazardous substances under CERCLA. The two (2) chemicals are perfluoro octane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA).

Furthermore, it is likely that numerous additional chemicals within the PFAS family will become officially designated as hazardous substances in the near future.

Although still technically considered an emerging contaminant per the governing ASTM 1527-21 standards, GEOTEK conservatively has elected to currently consider PFAS chemicals to be hazardous substances and thus potentially may represent a recognized environmental condition.

Generally, high-risk PFAS sites include airports, landfills, wastewater-treatment plants, government and military sites, petroleum plants, fire suppression/firefighting sites with aqueous film forming foam (AFFF), PFAS treated material and food packaging facilities, plating facilities, some biosolid farming sites, and most chemical production and manufacturing facilities, among others.

The Site does not appear on the PFAS database within the EDR Radius Report. The Site does not appear on the GeoTracker PFAS Map website (GeoTracker PFAS Map (ca.gov)). The Site does not appear on the USEPA PFAS Analytic Tools website (PFAS Analytic Tools (epa.gov)).

Based on the lack of high-risk facilities and no obvious signs of substantial PFAS contamination at the Site, it is GEOTEK’S opinion that PFAS chemicals do not represent a recognized environmental condition to the Site.

K. Hovnanian California Region, Inc. Project No. 3951-CR Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 943 July 1, 2024
Hanford, Kings County, California Page 24

7.0 VAPOR ENCROACHMENT SCREENING
The purpose of a Vapor Encroachment Screen (VES) is to identify, to the extent feasible, if a Vapor Encroachment Condition (VEC) exists at the Site.

A Vapor Encroachment Screen Report was generated for the Site and Site area utilizing EDR’s Vapor Encroachment Worksheet (see Appendix F).

It was determined that there are no historical dry cleaners, former manufactured gas plants, former industrial sites or historical gas stations located within 600 feet and/or up gradient from the Site. It was also determined that no other conditions that would indicate a VEC exists at the Site.

It is GEOTEK’S opinion that a VEC is not likely to exist at the subject Site. The Vapor Encroachment Screen report is included in Appendix F.

K. Hovnanian California Region, Inc. Project No. 3951-CR Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 943 July 1, 2024
Hanford, Kings County, California Page 25

8.0 SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA HISTORY
In order to construct the history of the Site and the surrounding area, GEOTEK reviewed reasonably ascertainable public documents, including aerial photographs, topographic maps, building records, city directories, fire insurance maps, environmental liens and activity use limitations (AULs) and county assessor history records.

8.1 HISTORICAL SITE USAGE

8.1.1 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH REVIEW
GEOTEK reviewed aerial photographs dated 1934, 1937, 1950, 1974, 1976, 1984, 1994, 2006, 2009, 2012, 2016, 2020 and 2024 (see Appendix A and B).

The Site appears to have been primarily utilized for agricultural purposes with a structure in the northwest portion of the Site in an aerial photograph dated 1934.

The structure appears to be razed in a 1937 aerial photograph.

The Site appears to be entirely utilized for agricultural operations from at least 1950 to the present.

A 2024 aerial photograph is utilized for Figure 2 (Appendix A).

8.1.2 ASSESSOR’S INFORMATION
The Site is known as Kings County Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 011-040-008, 011-040- 010, and 011-040-027 and is also known as the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 943.

Additional legal descriptions for the Site are included in the Environmental Lien and AUL Search as obtained from Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) included in Appendix B. A Property Tax Map Report as obtained from EDR is also included in Appendix B. However, no APN maps were supplied in the Property Tax Map Report. Additionally, no APN maps were available in numerous website searches with the City of Hanford and the County of Kings. The Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map is included in Appendix C.

8.1.3 BUILDING DEPARTMENT RECORDS
A Building Permit Report, as obtained from and provided by EDR, is included in Appendix B.

No permits were provided for the Site as an address was not provided/is not available.

K. Hovnanian California Region, Inc. Project No. 3951-CR Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 943 July 1, 2024
Hanford, Kings County, California Page 26

8.1.4 CHAIN OF TITLE
GEOTEK has not received nor been authorized to obtain Chain-of-Title documents for the Site.

8.1.5 CITY DIRECTORY REVIEW
GEOTEK obtained The EDR – City Directory Image Report, as obtained from and provided by EDR, and included in Appendix B. No listings were provided for the Site as an address was not provided/is not available.

8.1.6 INTERVIEWS
GEOTEK interviewed the following individuals while performing this assessment:
▪ Mr. Isaac Vazquez, a representative of the future Site owner, completed a User Questionnaire, dated June 6, 2024.
▪ Mr. Marc R. Frelier, a representative of the current Site owner, completed a Property Owner Questionnaire, dated May 27, 2024.

Information from these interviews is incorporated into the appropriate sections of this report.

As a form of interview, Mr. Marc R. Frelier, a representative of the current Site owner, completed a “Property Owner Questionnaire” for the Site in accordance with ASTM E 1527-

21. A copy of the completed questionnaire is included in Appendix C.

Mr. Marc R. Frelier answered “yes” to questions 10b, 11a, and 11b.

In question 10a Mr. Frelier states, “small diesel tanks servicing ag well”. GEOTEK did not observe these diesel tanks during the Site reconnaissance.

In question 10b, Mr. Frelier states, “for ag irrigation”.

In question 11b Mr. Frelier states, “irrigation pipeline”.

In question 4a, Mr. Frelier clarifies, “fields have been laser leveled in past and benched”.

In question 5b, Mr. Frelier clarifies, “only chemicals or material for farming”.

K. Hovnanian California Region, Inc. Project No. 3951-CR Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 943 July 1, 2024
Hanford, Kings County, California Page 27
In question 8a, Mr. Frelier clarifies, “only temporary ditches and drains for farming”.

In question 18a, Mr. Frelier clarifies, “may have been historical drainage at south end”.

Mr. Marc R. Frelier answered “no”, “unknown” or “not applicable” to the remaining questions.

GEOTEK’S Site reconnaissance and research did not discover contradictory information from the Property Owner Questionnaire.

8.1.7 RECORDER’S INFORMATION
According to information provided by the EDR Environmental Lien and AUL Search, the Site is currently owned by Middlefield Manor LLC. No record of environmental liens nor activity and use limitations (AULs) was revealed in the documents reviewed. A copy of this report is included in Appendix B.

8.1.8 SANBORN MAP REVIEW
Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps for the Site were requested from EDR-Sanborn, which owns and maintains the largest and most complete collection of maps. No source sheets were provided in the Sanborn Map Report as the Site is an “unmapped property”. The Sanborn Map Report is included in Appendix B.

8.1.9 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP REVIEW
GEOTEK reviewed the following topographic map sheets:
▪ Hanford Quadrangle (7.5-minute series), dated 1926
▪ Hanford Quadrangle (7.5-minute series), dated 1954
▪ Hanford Quadrangle (15-minute series), dated 1976
▪ Hanford Quadrangle (7.5-minute series), dated 2012
▪ Hanford Quadrangle (7.5-minute series), dated 2015
▪ Hanford Quadrangle (7.5-minute series), dated 2018
▪ Hanford Quadrangle (7.5-minute series), dated 2021
The Topo Map Report, as obtained from EDR, is included in Appendix B.

K. Hovnanian California Region, Inc. Project No. 3951-CR Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 943 July 1, 2024
Hanford, Kings County, California Page 28
The Site appears to be vacant land on the topographic map sheets dated 1926 and 1954 topographic map sheets.

The 1976 topographic map sheet is an aerial photograph. The Site appears to be used for agricultural operations in this photograph.

Agricultural land is depicted in the southwest portion of the Site on the topographic map sheet dated 2012.

The 2015 2018 and 2021 topographic map sheets show little detail other than streets in the vicinity.

A 2021 topographic map sheet is utilized for Figure 1 (Appendix A).

8.2 HISTORICAL IMMEDIATELY SURROUNDING PROPERTY USAGE

8.2.1 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH REVIEW
GEOTEK reviewed aerial photographs dated 1934, 1937, 1950, 1974, 1976, 1984, 1994, 2006, 2009, 2012, 2016, 2020 and 2024 (see Appendix A and B).

The surrounding areas appear to be generally utilized for agricultural operations and/or vacant land with scattered residences from at least 1934 until at least 1950.

Residential tract development is first visible to the east of the Site in an aerial photograph dated 1974.

Additional residences are visible to the east of the Site in an aerial photograph dated 1976.

There are no significant changes in the surrounding areas visible in the 1984 and 1994 aerial photographs.

A residential tract development and industrial/commercial building are visible to the north of the Site in an aerial photograph dated 2006.

Additional residences are visible to the east of the Site in aerial photographs dated 2009 and 2016, 2020 and 2024.

K. Hovnanian California Region, Inc. Project No. 3951-CR Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 943 July 1, 2024
Hanford, Kings County, California Page 29
A 2024 aerial photograph is utilized for Figure 2 (Appendix A)

8.2.2 CITY DIRECTORIES
GEOTEK has reviewed a City Directory Image report obtained from and provided by EDR for the Site and surrounding property addresses. The City Directory Image report provides information on several nearby property addresses. The listings appear to primarily be residential in nature and are not considered a recognized environmental concern to the Site.

8.2.3 SANBORN MAP REVIEW
Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps for the Site were requested from EDR-Sanborn, which owns and maintains the largest and most complete collection of maps. No source sheets were provided in the Sanborn Map Report as the Site and surrounding area are “unmapped property”. The Sanborn Map Report is included in Appendix B.

8.2.4 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP REVIEW
GEOTEK reviewed the following topographic map sheets:
▪ Hanford Quadrangle (7.5-minute series), dated 1926
▪ Hanford Quadrangle (7.5-minute series), dated 1954
▪ Hanford Quadrangle (15-minute series), dated 1976
▪ Hanford Quadrangle (7.5-minute series), dated 2012
▪ Hanford Quadrangle (7.5-minute series), dated 2015
▪ Hanford Quadrangle (7.5-minute series), dated 2018
▪ Hanford Quadrangle (7.5-minute series), dated 2021
The Topo Map Report, as obtained from EDR, is included in Appendix B.

The surrounding properties appear to be vacant land with sporadic structures on the topographic map sheet dated 1926. Additionally, the Southern Pacific Railroad is depicted to the north of the Site.

The surrounding properties appear to be vacant land and/or agricultural operations with sporadic residences on the topographic map sheet dated 1954. Additionally, there is a well depicted on the adjoining property to the west.

K. Hovnanian California Region, Inc. Project No. 3951-CR Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 943 July 1, 2024
Hanford, Kings County, California Page 30
The 1976 topographic map sheet is an aerial photograph. The surrounding properties appear to primarily be used for agricultural operations with residential developments expanding to the east of the Site.

The 2012, 2015, 2018 and 2021 topographic map sheets show little detail other than streets in the vicinity.

A 2021 topographic map sheet is utilized for Figure 1 (Appendix A).

8.3 HISTORICAL USE SUMMARY
Based on readily available historical information, the Site appears to have been primarily utilized for agricultural purposes with a structure in the northwest portion of the Site in an aerial photograph dated 1934. The structure appears to be razed in a 1937 aerial photograph. The Site appears to be entirely utilized for agricultural operations from at least 1950 to the present.

The surrounding areas appear to be generally utilized for agricultural operations and/or vacant land with scattered residences from at least 1934 until at least 1950. Residential tract development is first visible to the east of the Site in an aerial photograph dated 1974.

Additional residences are visible to the east of the Site in an aerial photograph dated 1976.

There are no significant changes in the surrounding areas visible in the 1984 and 1994 aerial photographs. A residential tract development and religious building are visible to the north of the Site in an aerial photograph dated 2006. Additional residences are visible to the east of the Site in aerial photographs dated 2009 and 2016, 2020 and 2024.

Data gaps exist from 1926 to 1934, 1950 to 1974, 1976 to 1984, 1984 to 1994, and 1994 to 2006, due to the limited records which are reasonably ascertainable in the local area.

However, it is GEOTEK’S opinion that additional historical information, if it were to become available, is not likely to change the conclusions or recommendations of this assessment.

K. Hovnanian California Region, Inc. Project No. 3951-CR Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 943 July 1, 2024
Hanford, Kings County, California Page 31

9.0 SUMMARY OF LIMITED SOIL ANALYSIS
As the Site was historically utilized for agriculture, GEOTEK obtained soil samples from the Site for chemical analysis. Twelve (12) soil samples were obtained from selected areas of the Site from a depth of up to approximately six (6) inches below the existing ground surface and submitted to a state certified laboratory for analysis of organo-chlorinated pesticides (OCPs) in accordance with US EPA Test Method 8081A and arsenic in accordance with US EPA Test Method 6010B. The locations of the samples are shown on Figure 4 in Appendix A.

Analysis of the soil samples had detectable concentrations of OCPs in five (5) of the samples (Samples #1, #4, #6, #7 and #8). The results are summarized in the following table:

OCP SUMMARY ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Sample Name 4,4’-DDE
(ug/kg)
#1 35
#2 <20
#3 <20
#4 35
#5 <20
#6 38
#7 43
#8 27
#9 <20
#10 <20
#11 <20
#12 <20
Screening Level 2,000*
ug/kg = micrograms per kilogram
* = EPA Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) for residential soil (May 2024) The concentration of the organo-chlorinated pesticide (OCP) compound 4,4’-DDE was not above screening levels for residential soils in the samples tested, as determined by EPA Regional Screening Level (RSL) for residential soil, May 2024 (TR=1E-06, HQ=1.0).

Analysis of the soil sample detected measurable quantities of arsenic in all 12 of the soil samples tested (Samples #1 through #12). The applicable results of the laboratory analysis are summarized in the following table:

K. Hovnanian California Region, Inc. Project No. 3951-CR Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 943 July 1, 2024
Hanford, Kings County, California Page 32

ARSENIC SUMMARY ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Sample Name Arsenic
(mg/kg)
#1 9.9
#2 7.6
#3 7.2
#4 6.9
#5 6.9
#6 6.4
#7 7.1
#8 6.3
#9 6.1
#10 5.7
#11 6.4
#12 7.5
Screening Level 0.11*
mg/kg = micrograms per kilogram
* = DTSC Recommended Screening Levels (RSLs) for residential soil (May 2022) The concentration of the metal arsenic in all of the soil samples was above screening levels for residential soils, as determined by the Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC).

However, the EPA and the DTSC have acknowledged that naturally occurring arsenic in southern California typically exceeds the maximum screening level, with levels recorded up to 12 mg/kg in many areas (Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) Note Number 11 - Southern California Ambient Arsenic Screening Level). The test results for all of the soil samples are below the typically detected levels of arsenic in the southern California area.

A copy of the laboratory report and Chain-of-Custody documentation are included in Appendix G.

Based on the investigation, GEOTEK is of the opinion that possible previous pesticide usage has not created a recognized environmental condition or concern to the Site. Additional investigation is not considered necessary at the Site.

K. Hovnanian California Region, Inc. Project No. 3951-CR Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 943 July 1, 2024
Hanford, Kings County, California Page 33

10.0 SIGNIFICANT DATA GAPS
No significant data gaps were discovered while performing this Phase I and Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment. Therefore, it is GEOTEK’S opinion that sufficient information was obtained to identify current Site conditions and past Site usage.

Minor data gaps include:
▪ Gaps in the historic records from 1926 to 1934, 1950 to 1974, 1976 to 1984, 1984 to 1994, and 1994 to 2006 due to the limited resources readily available and reasonably ascertainable in the local area or through online resources. ▪ GEOTEK has not received nor reviewed Chain-of-Title documents for the Site.

It is GEOTEK’S opinion that additional information, if it were to become available, is not likely to change the conclusions or recommendations of this assessment.

K. Hovnanian California Region, Inc. Project No. 3951-CR Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 943 July 1, 2024
Hanford, Kings County, California Page 34

11.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
GEOTEK has performed a Phase I and Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for the subject Site in substantial conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM E 1527-21 and GEOTEK Proposal No. P-0401724-CR, dated April 4, 2024. Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in the appropriate sections of this report.

Based on this investigation, this Phase I and Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment has not revealed evidence of a recognized environmental condition in connection with the subject Site. No further investigation is recommended at this time.

K. Hovnanian California Region, Inc. Project No. 3951-CR Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 943 July 1, 2024
Hanford, Kings County, California Page 35

12.0 CERTIFICATIONS
I declare that, to the best of my professional knowledge and belief, I meet the definition of Environmental Professional as defined in 40 CFR 312. I have the specific qualifications based on education, training, and experience to assess a property of the nature, history, and setting of the subject Site. I have developed and performed all the appropriate inquiries in conformance with the standards and practices set forth in 40 CFR 312.

The qualifications of the Project Team are included in Appendix H.

GEOTEK appreciates this opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions, or if GEOTEK can be of further service, please contact the office at (951) 710-1160.

Sincerely,
GEOTEK, INC.

Kyle R. McHargue Anna M. Scott
Project Geologist, CEG 2790 Project Geologist
Expires 02/28/2026
\\geotekfs1\Riverside\Projects\3901 to 3950\3943CR K. Hovnanian California Region, Inc Cottonwood Phase 3 Hanford\Phase I ESA\3951-CR K Hovnanian Cottonwood Phase 3 - Phase I and Limited Phase II ESA.doc

K. Hovnanian California Region, Inc. Project No. 3951-CR Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 943 July 1, 2024
Hanford, Kings County, California Page 36

13.0 REFERENCES

CALIFORNIA, STATE OF
▪ EnviroStor, Records Inquiry, https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/ ▪ Geotracker, Records Inquiry, https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ ▪ Matthews, R.A., and Burnett, J.L., 1965, “Geologic Map of California” Fresno Sheet, California Division of Mines and Geology, Geologic Atlas of California GAM-05, scale 1:250,000
▪ Water Resources, Department of Hydrologic Data
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC.
▪ Aerial Photo Decade Package, Inquiry No. 7674781.11, dated June 7, 2024 ▪ Building Permit Report, Inquiry No. 7674781.8, dated June 6, 2024 ▪ Certified Sanborn Map Report, Inquiry No. 7674781.3, dated June 6, 2024 ▪ City Directory Abstract Report, Inquiry No. 7674781.5, dated June 7, 2024 ▪ Environmental Lien and AUL Search Report, Inquiry No. 7674781.7, dated June 10, 2024 ▪ Historical Topo Map Report, Inquiry No. 7674781.4, dated June 6, 2024 ▪ Property Tax Map Report, Inquiry No. 7674781.6, dated June 6, 2024 ▪ Radius Map Report, Inquiry No. 7674781.2s, dated June 6, 2024 ▪ Vapor Encroachment Screen Report, Inquiry No. 7674781.2s, dated June 27, 2024

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
▪ Flood Insurance Map, Community Panel Number 06031C-0185C and 06031C-0195C, dated June 16, 2009, accessed on June 6, 2024

HANFORD, CITY OF
▪ Fire Department, Records Inquiry
▪ Police Department, Records Inquiry

KINGS, COUNTY OF
▪ Assessor’s Office, Records Inquiry
U.S. GOVERNMENT
▪ Drug Enforcement Agency
▪ Records inquiry, http://www.dea.gov/seizures

K. HOVNANIAN CALIFORNIA REGION, INC. PROJECT NO. 3951-CR VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP NO. 943 JULY 1, 2024

HANFORD, KINGS COUNTY, CALIFORNIA APPENDIX A

APPENDIX A

FIGURES
GEOTEK

K. Hovnanian California Region, Inc.

Tentative Tract Map No. 943
APN 184-100-008
Hanford, King County, California
Project No. 3951-CR
Figure 1
Site Location
and
Topography
Map

APPROXIMATE

SITE AREA
Modified from the Hanford 2021 7.5-Minute
Topographic Map Sheets

K. Hovnanian California Region, Inc.

Tentative Tract Map No. 943
APN 184-100-008
Hanford, King County, California
GeoTek Project No. 3951-CR
Figure 2
General
Site Layout Map
Legend
Site Boundary
Single-Family Residence
(12645 Hanford Armona Road)
Aerial Photograph dated May 6, 2024
Site
Single-Family Development
(1400-1490 Greenbrier Drive)
Single-Family Residences
(12358-12458 Hanford Armona Road)
Debris
Vacant Land
Agricultural Land
Single-Family Residence
(12633 Hanford Armona Road)
Agricultural Land
Single-Family Development
(1224-1380 Greenbrier Drive)
Single-Family Development
(1978 West Summer Blossom Way)
Single-Family Development
(1100-1198 Greenbrier Drive)
Single-Family Development
(1986 West Concord Way)
Single-Family Development
(1983 and 1984 West Idlewood Way)
Debris
Debris

K. Hovnanian California Region, Inc.

Tentative Tract Map No. 943
APN 184-100-008
Hanford, King County, California
GeoTek Project No. 3951-CR
Figure 3
Photo Location
Map
Legend
Site Boundary
Photo Locations
22 16-18
9-10
1-3
8 7
19-20 15 11-14
21-22
4-6
23-26
27-29
Aerial Photograph dated May 6, 2024

K. Hovnanian California Region, Inc.

Tentative Tract Map No. 943
APN 184-100-008
Hanford, King County, California
GeoTek Project No. 3951-CR
Figure 4
Sample Location
Map
Legend

10 OCP and Arsenic
Sample Location
Site Boundary
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
Aerial Photograph dated May 6, 2024

K. HOVNANIAN CALIFORNIA REGION, INC. PROJECT NO. 3951-CR VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP NO. 943 JULY 1, 2024

HANFORD, KINGS COUNTY, CALIFORNIA APPENDIX B

APPENDIX B

DOCUMENTS OBTAINED FROM EDR
GEOTEK

The EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package
VTTM 943 Hanford Armona Road Hanford, CA 93230 Inquiry Number: June 07, 2024 7674781.11 6 Armstrong Road, 4th floor
Shelton, CT 06484
Toll Free: 800.352.0050
www.edrnet.com

2020 1"=500' Flight Year: 2020 USDA/NAIP
2016 1"=500' Flight Year: 2016 USDA/NAIP
2012 1"=500' Flight Year: 2012 USDA/NAIP
2009 1"=500' Flight Year: 2009 USDA/NAIP
2006 1"=500' Flight Year: 2006 USDA/NAIP
1994 1"=500' Acquisition Date: January 01, 1994 USGS/DOQQ 1984 1"=500' Flight Date: June 09, 1984 USDA
1976 1"=500' Flight Date: July 01, 1976 USGS
1974 1"=500' Flight Date: August 01, 1974 USGS
1950 1"=500' Flight Date: January 25, 1950 USDA
1937 1"=500' Flight Date: September 03, 1937 USDA
1934 1"=500' Flight Date: January 01, 1934 USGS
EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package 06/07/24 VTTM 943 Site Name: Client Name: Geotek Hanford Armona Road 1548 North Maple Street Hanford, CA 93230 Corona, CA 92880 EDR Inquiry # 7674781.11 Contact: Kyle Richard Mchargue Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) Aerial Photo Decade Package is a screening tool designed to assist environmental professionals in evaluating potential liability on a target property resulting from past activities. EDR’s professional researchers provide digitally reproduced historical aerial photographs, and when available, provide one photo per decade. Search Results: Year Scale Details Source
When delivered electronically by EDR, the aerial photo images included with this report are for ONE TIME USE ONLY. Further reproduction of these aerial photo images is prohibited without permission from EDR. For more information contact your EDR Account Executive. Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice Copyright 2024 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.

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. 7674781 - 11 page 2 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. Page 867 of 1543
7674781.11 2020 = 500'
INQUIRY#:
-----
YEAR: ir N --------
~EDR'

7674781.11 2016 = 500'
INQUIRY#: ____ _
YEAR: _____ _ ir N
~EDR'

7674781.11 2012 = 500'
INQUIRY#:
--------
YE AR: ______ _ ir N
~EDR'

7674781.11 2009 = 500' Page 871 of 1543
7674781.11 2006 = 500'
YEAR: ir N
~EDR'

7674781.11 1994 = 500' Page 873 of 1543
7674781.11 1984 = 500'
INQUIRY#: ____ _
YEAR: _____ _

7674781.11 1976 = 500'
YEAR: ______ _

7674781.11 1974 = 500' Page 876 of 1543
7674781.11 1950 = 500' Page 877 of 1543
7674781.11 1937 = 500'
INQUIRY#: ____ _
YEAR: _____ _ ir N
~EDR'

7674781.11 1934 = 500'
·•
..

YEAR:
.. . ,. .
-------
•
ir N
~EDR'
·: ~
...
.. , .. .. •f• •••• • ••
:!:::g!r J!a: ::
·:
11=!!/(f~l1:·-:::.. ':!W
::-:.::::·. •:::: .. ;, :;::

VTTM 943
Hanford Armona Road
Hanford, CA 93230
Inquiry Number: 7674781.8
June 06, 2024
EDR Building Permit Report
Target Property and Adjoining Properties
6 Armstrong Road
Shelton, CT 06484
800.352.0050
Environmental Data Resources Inc www.edrnet.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION
About This Report
Executive Summary
Findings
Glossary
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.

EDR BUILDING PERMIT REPORT
About This Report
The EDR Building Permit Report provides a practical and efficient method to search building department records for indications of environmental conditions. Generated via a search of municipal building permit records gathered from more than 1,600 cities nationwide, this report will assist you in meeting the search requirements of EPA’s Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (40 CFR Part 312), the ASTM Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments (E1527 - 21), or custom requirements developed for the evaluation of environmental risk associated with a parcel of real estate.

Building permit data can be used to identify current and/or former operations and structures/features of environmental concern. The data can provide information on a target property and adjoining properties such as the presence of underground storage tanks, pump islands, sumps, drywells, etc., as well as information regarding water, sewer, natural gas, electrical connection dates, and current/former septic tanks.

Methodology
EDR has developed the EDR Building Permit Report through our partnership with BuildFax, the nation’s largest repository of building department records. BuildFax collects, updates, and manages building department records from local municipal governments. The database now includes 30 million permits, on more than 10 million properties across 1,600 cities in the United States.

The EDR Building Permit Report comprises local municipal building permit records, gathered directly from local jurisdictions, including both target property and adjoining properties. Years of coverage vary by municipality. Data reported includes (where available): date of permit, permit type, permit number, status, valuation, contractor company, contractor name, and description.

Incoming permit data is checked at seven stages in a regimented quality control process, from initial data source interview, to data preparation, through final auditing. To ensure the building department is accurate, each of the seven quality control stages contains, on average, 15 additional quality checks, resulting in a process of approximately 105 quality control “touch points.”
For more information about the EDR Building Permit Report, please contact your EDR Account Executive at (800) 352-0050.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: SEARCH DOCUMENTATION
A search of building department records was conducted by Environmental Data Resources, Inc (EDR) on behalf of Geotek on Jun 06, 2024.

TARGET PROPERTY
Hanford Armona Road
Hanford, CA 93230

SEARCH METHODS
EDR searches available lists for both the Target Property and Surrounding Properties.

RESEARCH SUMMARY
Building permits identified: YES
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.

Hanford
Year Source TP Adjoining
2024 City of Hanford, Building Division
2023 City of Hanford, Building Division
2022 City of Hanford, Building Division
2021 City of Hanford, Building Division
2020 City of Hanford, Building Division
2019 City of Hanford, Building Division
2018 City of Hanford, Building Division
2017 City of Hanford, Building Division
2016 City of Hanford, Building Division
2015 City of Hanford, Building Division
2014 City of Hanford, Building Division X
2013 City of Hanford, Building Division
2012 City of Hanford, Building Division
2011 City of Hanford, Building Division
2010 City of Hanford, Building Division
2009 City of Hanford, Building Division
2008 City of Hanford, Building Division
2007 City of Hanford, Building Division
2006 City of Hanford, Building Division
2005 City of Hanford, Building Division
2004 City of Hanford, Building Division
2003 City of Hanford, Building Division
2002 City of Hanford, Building Division
2001 City of Hanford, Building Division
2000 City of Hanford, Building Division
1999 City of Hanford, Building Division
1998 City of Hanford, Building Division
1997 City of Hanford, Building Division
7674781- 8 Page 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: SEARCH DOCUMENTATION
Year Source TP Adjoining
1996 City of Hanford, Building Division
1995 City of Hanford, Building Division
1994 City of Hanford, Building Division
1993 City of Hanford, Building Division
1992 City of Hanford, Building Division
1991 City of Hanford, Building Division
1990 City of Hanford, Building Division
1989 City of Hanford, Building Division
1988 City of Hanford, Building Division
1987 City of Hanford, Building Division
1986 City of Hanford, Building Division
1985 City of Hanford, Building Division
1984 City of Hanford, Building Division
1983 City of Hanford, Building Division
1982 City of Hanford, Building Division
1981 City of Hanford, Building Division
1980 City of Hanford, Building Division
1979 City of Hanford, Building Division
1978 City of Hanford, Building Division
1977 City of Hanford, Building Division
1976 City of Hanford, Building Division
1975 City of Hanford, Building Division
1974 City of Hanford, Building Division
1973 City of Hanford, Building Division
1972 City of Hanford, Building Division
1971 City of Hanford, Building Division
1970 City of Hanford, Building Division
Name: JurisdictionName
Years: Years
Source: Source
Phone: Phone
7674781- 8 Page 2

BUILDING DEPARTMENT RECORDS SEARCHED
Name: Hanford
Years: 1970-2024
Source: City of Hanford, Building Division, Hanford, CA Phone: (559) 585-2581
Name: Tulare County
Years: 1985-2024
Source: Tulare County, Community and Development Services Branch, TULARE, CA Phone: (559) 624-7100
Name: Kings County Unincorporated Area
Years: 2000-2024
Source: County of Kings, Community Development Agency, Hanford, CA Phone:

TARGET PROPERTY FINDINGS

TARGET PROPERTY DETAIL
Hanford Armona Road
Hanford, CA 93230
No Permits Found
7674781- 8 Page 2

ADJOINING PROPERTY FINDINGS

ADJOINING PROPERTY DETAIL
The following Adjoining Property addresses were researched for this report. Detailed findings are provided for each address.

Hanford Armona Road
Hanford Armona Road
Date: 4/14/2014
Permit Type:

Description: 3 ax trac/ 2ax trlr
Permit Description:

Work Class:

Proposed Use:

Permit Number: TP14-0038
Status: APPROVED
Valuation: $0.00
Contractor Company:

Contractor Name:
7674781- 8 Page 3

GLOSSARY
General Building Department concepts
. ICC: The International Code Council. The governing body for the building/development codes used by all jurisdictions who’ve adopted the ICC guidelines. MOST of the US has done this. Canada, Mexico, and other countries use ICC codes books and guides as well. There are a few states who have added guidelines to the ICC codes to better fit their needs. For example, California has added seismic retrofit requirements for most commercial structures.
. Building Department (Permitting Authority, Building Codes, Inspections Department, Building and Inspections): This is the department in a jurisdiction where an owner or contractor goes to obtain permits and inspections for building, tearing down, remodeling, adding to, re-roofing, moving or otherwise making changes to any structure, Residential or Commercial.
. Jurisdiction: This is the geographic area representing the properties over which a Permitting Authority has responsibility.
. GC: General Contractor. Usually the primary contractor hired for any Residential or Commercial construction work.
. Sub: Subordinate contracting companies or subcontractors. Usually a “trades” contractor working for the GC. These contractors generally have an area of expertise in which they are licensed like Plumbing, Electrical, Heating and Air systems, Gas Systems, Pools etc. (called “trades”). . Journeymen: Sub contractors who have their own personal licenses in one or more trades and work for different contracting companies, wherever they are needed or there is work. .
.

HVAC (Mechanical, Heating & Air companies): HVAC = Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning.

ELEC (Electrical, TempPole, TPole, TPower, Temporary Power, Panel, AMP Change, Power Release):

Electrical permits can be pulled for many reasons. The most common reason is to increase the AMPs of power in an electrical power panel. This requires a permit in almost every jurisdiction. Other commons reason for Electrical permits is to insert a temporary power pole at a new construction site. Construction requires electricity, and in a new development, power has yet to be run to the lot. The temporary power pole is usually the very first permit pulled for new development. The power is released to the home owner when construction is complete and this sometimes takes the form of a Power Release permit or inspection. .
.
“Pull” a permit: To obtain and pay for a building permit. .

CBO: Chief Building Official
Planning Department: The department in the development process where the building /structural plans are reviewed for their completeness and compliance with building codes . Zoning Department: The department in the development process where the site plans are reviewed for their compliance with the regulations associated with the zoning district in which they are situated. . Zoning District: A pre-determined geographic boundary within a jurisdiction where certain types of structures are permitted / prohibited. Examples are Residential structure, Commercial/Retail structures, Industrial/Manufacturing structures etc. Each zoning district has regulations associated with it like the sizes of the lots, the density of the structures on the lots, the number of parking spaces required for certain types of structures on the lots etc.
.
.

PIN (TMS, GIS ID, Parcel#): Property Identification Number and Tax Map System number. .

State Card (Business license): A license card issued to a contractor to conduct business.

Building Inspector (Inspector): The inspector is a building department employee that inspects building construction for compliance to codes.
. C.O.: Certificate of Occupancy. This is the end of the construction process and designates that the owners now have permission to occupy a structure after its building is complete. Sometimes also referred to as a Certificate of Compliance.

GLOSSARY
Permit Content Definitions
. Permit Number: The alphanumerical designation assigned to a permit for tracking within the building department system. Sometimes the permit number gives clues to its role, e.g. a "PL" prefix may designate a plumbing permit.
. Description: A field on the permit form that allows the building department to give a brief description of the work being done. More often than not, this is the most important field for EP’s to find clues to the prior use (s) of the property.
. Permit Type: Generally a brief designation of the type of job being done. For example BLDG-RES, BLDGCOM, ELEC, MECH etc.

Sample Building Permit Data
Date: Nov 09, 2000
Permit Type: Bldg -
New Permit Number: 101000000405
Status: Valuation: $1,000,000.00
Contractor Company: OWNER-BUILDER
Contractor Name:

Description: New one store retail (SAV-ON) with drive-thru pharmacy. Certificate of Occupancy.

VTTM 943
Hanford Armona Road
Hanford, CA 93230
Inquiry Number: 7674781.5
June 07, 2024
The EDR-City Directory Image Report
6 Armstrong Road
Shelton, CT 06484
800.352.0050
Environmental Data Resources Inc www.edrnet.com

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 Report 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 Report includes a search of available business directory data at approximately five year intervals.

RECORD SOURCES
The EDR City Directory Report accesses a variety of business directory sources, including Haines, InfoUSA, Polk,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. A check mark indicates where information was identified in the source and provided in this report.

Year Target Street Cross Street Source
2020 þ ¨ EDR Digital Archive
2017 þ ¨ Cole Information
2014 þ ¨ Cole Information
2010 þ ¨ Cole Information
2005 þ ¨ Cole Information
2000 þ ¨ Cole Information
1995 þ ¨ Cole Information
1992 þ ¨ Cole Information
1990 þ ¨ Haines Criss-Cross Directory
1985 þ ¨ Haines Criss-Cross Directory
1980 þ ¨ Haines Criss-Cross Directory
1975 þ ¨ Haines Criss-Cross Directory
1973 þ ¨ Haines Criss-Cross Directory
7674781- 5 Page 1

FINDINGS

TARGET PROPERTY STREET
Hanford Armona Road
Hanford, CA 93230
Year CD Image Source

HANFORD ARMONA RD
2020 pg A2 EDR Digital Archive
2017 pg A7 Cole Information
2014 pg A12 Cole Information
2010 pg A18 Cole Information
2005 pg A24 Cole Information
2000 pg A31 Cole Information
1995 pg A36 Cole Information
1992 pg A40 Cole Information
1990 pg A43 Haines Criss-Cross Directory
1990 pg A44 Haines Criss-Cross Directory
1990 pg A45 Haines Criss-Cross Directory
1985 pg A46 Haines Criss-Cross Directory
1985 pg A47 Haines Criss-Cross Directory
1980 pg A48 Haines Criss-Cross Directory
1980 pg A49 Haines Criss-Cross Directory
1975 pg A50 Haines Criss-Cross Directory
1975 pg A51 Haines Criss-Cross Directory
1973 pg A52 Haines Criss-Cross Directory
1973 pg A53 Haines Criss-Cross Directory
1973 pg A54 Haines Criss-Cross Directory
7674781- 5 Page 2

FINDINGS

CROSS STREETS
No Cross Streets Identified
7674781- 5 Page 3

City Directory Images

-

HANFORD ARMONA RD
EDR Digital Archive
7674781.5 Page: A2
Target Street Cross Street Source
2020
1433 ALBERT GRAAF

ALBERT VANDERGRAAF

DER VAN

MARINUS VANDERGRAAF

RIEKIE VANDERGRAAF
1580 ATM
1660 ATM
2911 B & R TEVELDE

B T V SENIOR HOUSING LLC

LONE OAK ENERGY LLC

SANTA FE FARMS INC
6025 PATRICIA CARDOZA
6160 BELLE LEAL

DANIEL LEAL

JULIAN AGUAYO
6236 BELLE ACQUISTAPACE

BELMIRA LEAL

DANIEL LEAL
6380 EARL IRBY
6431 MANUEL TOSTE
6585 SUSIE NORWOOD

TILDE NORWOOD
6624 CARLOS BORGES

LUZIA BORGES
6672 IRENE CORREIA

JASON CORREIA

KRISTI CLOWER

WYATT BUTTLE
6714 CHERYL DUTRA

EDDIE DUTRA
6749 DAVID CLACHER

KARA CLACHER

SANTIAGO RODRIGUEZ
6750 ANDREW JAMES
6780 DAVID KELLENBERGER

TAMMI KELLENBERGER
6812 LYNNE ELLIS
6850 ELAINE MEYER

FRANK MEYER
6894 IGNACIO GARZA
6976 DIANE TAMEZ

GLORIA TAMEZ

PEDRO TAMEZ

RICARDO TAMEZ
7140 DAVID GONZALEZ
7184 WILLIAM COX
7216 ELUTERIO CORONADO

FLORIBERTA CORONADO
7252 CATALINA QUIRINO

FLORITA ALCARAZ

(Cont'd)
-

HANFORD ARMONA RD
EDR Digital Archive
7674781.5 Page: A3
Target Street Cross Street Source
2020
7480 BAKER COMMODITIES INC

DOUGLAS FLETCHER
7533 THRESHER INDUSTRIES INC
7761 SOUTH VALLEY MATERIALS INC

VALLEY READY MIX
7803 KINGS WASTE & RECYCLING
8038 PATRICK BRASIL
8076 BRIAN SOUSA

JENNIFER SOUSA
8211 DAVID DANELL

DEZERAYE DANELL
8265 BILL DANELL

CLAIRE DANELL

JR LAND CO LLC
8395 JOSE TEIXEIRA

LIZUARTE TEIXEIRA

MARIA TEIXEIRA
8415 JOHN TEIXEIRA

MARIA TEIXEIRA
8471 CECELIA PEREZ

LUPE PEREZ
8945 LEONARD MATTOS
9102 LONNIE CLEMENT
9144 MARGARET BORBOLLA

RALPH BORBOLLA
9184 ADRIANNA LUNA

ANGEL LUNA

HAROLD PRIETO

KELLY LUNA
9248 GENEVIEVE MAGNIA

GUADALUPE MAGNIA

LUPE MAGNIA
9513 GLORIA DURAN

JOHNNY DURAN
9539 GUS LOPEZ

OTILIA LOPEZ
9615 YVONNE GARZA
9839 R-N-R WELDING

SAN JOSE MOTOSPORTS INC
10519 ANTHONY SANTOS

BUFFY SANTOS
10556 ADDIE BURKETT

SANDRA BURKETT
10700 HANFORD COMMODITIES LLC
10833 CRICKET WIRELESS AUTH RETAILER

EL REY SUPERMERCADO
10870 JERRY WOOD
10874 VERA DIETRICH

WILLIAM DIETRICH
10890 BRENDA JONES

(Cont'd)
-

HANFORD ARMONA RD
EDR Digital Archive
7674781.5 Page: A4
Target Street Cross Street Source
2020
10898 JOSE AMARAL

JOSE PALOMERA
10904 DONALD GILBERT
10912 MALVIN GIPSON
10914 PAULA ROBINSON
10915 DHARAM MANAGEMENT LLC

STOP ZONE INC
10918 CHERYL WARMERDAM
10926 WILFRIDO VALENTINE
10928 KATHY FLORES
10936 JOSE CAJERO

MARIA CAJERO
10937 AUGIE JAURIGUI

EMMA JAURIGUI

LEROY JAURIGUI

SAMANTHA JAURIGUI
10938 ARNOLD ALCALA
10942 RONDA SILVA
10946 OLIVE MCHANEY
10948 BEATRICE MARTIN
10954 BELAIR MOBILE HOME PARK

JUDITH GRIFFITHS

LEROY GRIFFITH

LESTER HAUGHT
10992 GLENN JAMES
10994 SUSAN EAST
10998 CLARENCE STROUP

DEBRA DODD

SANDRA STROUP
11130 MARISSA NUNES
11151 ANGELO NATALI

CAIN SANCHEZ
11212 JARRED CORDEIRO

MARIO CORDEIRO
11274 CALVARY CHRISTIAN CTR
11303 BRIAN MARTINEZ

LOUIS MARTINEZ

MARTINEZ MARINA
11356 FUKUKO HAAS

WALTER HAAS
11386 DEBORAH MINCHUE

DICKIE MINCHUE

JC MINCHUE

VICKIE MINCHUE
11400 ETHAN VELACRUZ

RUSSELL CHISM
11402 MARLENE MACEDO

WILLIAM MACEDO
11454 CYNTHIA LONG

GALEN LONG

(Cont'd)
-

HANFORD ARMONA RD
EDR Digital Archive
7674781.5 Page: A5
Target Street Cross Street Source
2020
11454 KENNETH LONG
11474 IAN TREADWELL

IRENE TREADWELL

JONATHAN TREADWELL
11526 JOEL CASTILLO
11540 FRANCISCO SIGALA
12150 NORMA MARTINEZ
12168 JERRY KENNEDY

SUSAN KENNEDY
12182 MELVIN EVANS
12184 CASA DEL SOL
12188 ADRIANA QUINONES

ANESSA AGREDANO

IVAN AGREDANO
12192 ANDREW YBARRA

KAREN GARCIA

TAMMY JACKSON
12196 KIMBERLY BURCH
12202 ROSEANNE DELGADO
12204 PAULINE MOZ
12208 VINCENT INGELLIS
12358 ADOLFO MENDOZA-SOSA

AMPARO MENDOZA-SOSA
12536 KOINONIA CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP
12591 GINA CATTUZZO

RICK WILLIAMS
12628 KINGS PANTRY
12629 DONNA THOMAS
12642 ALLEGIANCE COLLISION

J N NELSON PROPERTIES LLC
12645 ERIK ROCHA

LEONARD DUTRA

MARGARET DUTRA

MELANIE DUTRA

NADINE DUTRA
12659 ANGIE DUTRA

HENRY DUTRA

JUSTIN DUTRA
12918 MORGAN & SLATES MFG & SUPLS
12939 JOSE AGUILAR
13180 BARBER STORAGE

HANFORD PURELY STORAGE

LISA BANKY

RUSSELL BANKY
13225 D D N K INC
G2 AUTO LOCATORS

GTWO PARTNERS
13235 AUTOMOTIVE PERFORMANCE
13321 HANFORD TOWING SVC
13375 QUALITY MACHINERY CTR

(Cont'd)
-

HANFORD ARMONA RD
EDR Digital Archive
7674781.5 Page: A6
Target Street Cross Street Source
2020
13400 LAYNE

MMIM INC
13405 JIM MACIEL

KATHRYN MACIEL
13488 ALEX LARSON

AMERICAN TRAVELING SHOWS

JACQUELINE LARSON
13520 JESUS RODRIQUEZ
13529 ALFONSO ORTEGA

JOE SILVEIRA

MARY ORTEGA

SILVEIRA'S AIR CONDITIONING
13539 MICHAEL YATTY
13549 KINGS COMMUNITY ACTION ORG-OPR
13594 MITCHELL'S AIR CONDITIONING

SUSAN MITCHELL
13704 AQUA AZUL

CANNERY INDUSTRIAL PARK

CENTRAL VALLEY HEALTH TRNSPRT

COLLINS AIR

GMT GAME

WINDTAMER TARPS
14514 JOHN LABANDEIRA
14552 LAURA KILNER
14570 CHARLES YOUNG
14670 KINGS COUNTY AIR COND INC
14992 DAVID BOWMAN

-

HANFORD ARMONA RD
Cole Information
7674781.5 Page: A7
Target Street Cross Street Source
2017
1318 HANFORD ARMONA SELFSTORAGE
1365 STUHAAN, EVERETT
6236 LEAL, KURT A
6255 RODRIGUEZ, ZENAIDA N
6380 IRBY, EARL B
6431 TOSTE, MANUEL B
6435 KELI, NANCY
6585 NORWOOD, RICHARD
6624 BORGES, CARLOS A
6672 CORREIA, JASON M
6713 TORRES, ADRIANA A
6749 CLACHER, AARON M

D C ELECTRIC
6780 KELLENBERGER, DAVID W
6812 ELLIS, JOHN C
6850 MEYER, FRANK F
6976 TAMEZ, RICARDO R
7184 COX, WILLIAM F
7216 CORONADO, FRANCIS V
7479 AGUILAR, JOSE B
7480 BAKER COMMODITIES INCKERMAN DIVISIO

BAKER COMMODITIES INCKINGS TULARE

FLETCHER, DOUGLAS D
7761 SOUTH VALLEY MATERIALS INC

VALLEY READY MIX
7767 KENNIES INDOOR COMFORT SPECIALISTS
7803 KINGS WASTE & RECYCLING AUTH
7818 PEREIRRA, JOSEPH B
8038 BRASIL, PATRICK D
8211 DANELL, DAVID M
8265 DANELL BROS CUSTOM CHOPPING
8395 TEIXEIRA, MARIA J
8471 PEREZ, ALEXANDER M
9144 BORBOLLA, RALPH R
9184 LUNA, ANGEL D
9539 LOPEZ, CARLOS
9615 GARZA, YVONNE M
9617 DUTRA, TONY
9619 TRUJILLO, LAWRENCE L
9839 RNR WELDING
9845 CENTRAL VALLEY COOPERATIVE
10355 IMMACULATE HEART
10435 IMMACULATE HEART OF MARY CHURCH

ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP THE
10443 BRISTOL, ROBERT
10519 ESCOBAR, MARISELA
10531 AGUILAR, ANGELICA
10556 BURKETT, SANDRA L
10569 CERON, LUIS
10623 RANGEL, CHRISTOPHER

(Cont'd)
-

HANFORD ARMONA RD
Cole Information
7674781.5 Page: A8
Target Street Cross Street Source
2017
10626 SAENZ, LYNDA
10700 HANFORD COMMODITIES LLC

HANFORD COMMODITIES TRANSPORT
10833 DOLLAR RENT A CAR

RN MARKET
10862 LEON, HILARIO
10864 GUECHO, RONALD J
10870 WOOD, JERRY E
10872 IVINGS, RICHARD
10874 DIETRISH, VERA B
10876 GONZALEZ, ADRIANA
10878 SHEPHERD, RONALD L
10880 SHERWOOD, LESLIE W
10882 LICON, DIXIE L
10886 MALDONADO, MARIA T
10888 ABLES, SHIRLEY
10890 CIBRIAN, MARIA G
10892 ACOSTA, LOIS L
10894 SANCHEZ, GEMA
10896 ANA, ZAZUETA
10898 PALOMERA, JOSE
10900 CANTORIANO-ANDRACA, ELIO
10904 GILBERT, DONALD
10910 ALVES, TIMOTHY A
10912 KNAUER, KATHRYN
10914 ROBINSON, JOHNNY G
10915 STOP ZONE INC
10916 ALVAREZ, FRANCISCO
10918 WARMERDAM, CHERYL L
10920 CORONADO, HENRY
10924 WILLIAMS, JACKIE
10926 VALENTINE, WILFRED C
10930 DENISON, SHERYL
10934 POTTER, LEROY
10936 CAJERO, JOSE
10937 JAURIGUI, LEROY P
10940 TAJUM, MATTHEW
10942 SILVA, RONDA N
10946 MCHANEY, BILLY F
10948 MARTIN, BEATRICE
10950 LUGO, JEANNINE R
10954 BEL AIR MOBILE HOME PARK

GRIFFITH, LEROY L
10958 RAMIREZ, EVELYN
10960 HAMMOND, JAY
10992 JAMES, GLEN E
10994 QUAIR, ELEANOR
10998 STROUP, CLARENCE C
11122 VENTURA, JOSE
11124 DUONG, PHUONG V

(Cont'd)
-

HANFORD ARMONA RD
Cole Information
7674781.5 Page: A9
Target Street Cross Street Source
2017
11126 BLAZQUEZ, VENANCIO
11132 SOLARIO, HELEN
11134 LEWIS, DAVID L
11151 SANCHEZ, CAIN
11212 CORDEIRO, MARIO D
11274 CALVARY CHRISTIAN CENTER
11303 MANITAS DEAMOR

MARTINEZ, BRIAN I
11356 HAAS, WALTER G
11386 SPOLINI, GARY L
11400 CHISM, RUSSELL J
11402 MACEDO, WILLIAM E
11454 LONG, DAVID L
11474 TREADWELL, JONATHAN D
11526 CASTILLO, JOEL R
11540 SIGALA, FRANCISCO
12168 KENNEDY, JERRY A
12182 REEVES, TERRI L
12184 CASA DEL SOL
12186 GARCIA, SHARON R

HAMILTON, RENAE

MORAN, LUIS D

PEREZ, BAUDELIO

WRIGHT, RODERICK N
12188 AGREDANO, ANESSA M

QUINONES, EUGENI

SAUCEDO, SANDRA
12190 JOHNSON, MARILYN L

RANGEL, MARIA D
12192 CHAVEZ, JOSEFA

GARCIA, PHILLIP E

RANGEL, JOSE N
12194 ANGELA, CORONA
12198 CARRANZA, ALICIA

GARCIA, ANACCA

HIGINIA, RAMIRIZ Z

NUNO, JOSE A

SALAZAR, MARIA D

SERNA, HELEN R
12200 CERVANTEZ, TINO

FULLER, JODI L

ROSSEL, ROSALINDA C

STARR, CHARLES R

WILSON, SONIA
12202 FERNANDEZ, R

RODRIGUEZ, ANTONETTE

ULLOA, MARIBETH
12204 DAUENHAUER, DAVID R

GARCIA, JENNIFER

GARCIA, LILIANA

(Cont'd)
-

HANFORD ARMONA RD
Cole Information
7674781.5 Page: A10
Target Street Cross Street Source
2017
12204 MEDEIROS, ELIZABETH

MOZ, PAULINE D

VALDERIA, SANDRA
12206 JOHN, CANO

PUGA, MIGUEL
12208 GUILLEN, LISA

PIZANO, LUZ M

RAMOS, ANA M
12358 MAGANA, ADOLFO M
12536 FUTURE HOPE PRESCHOOL

KOINONIA CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP
12589 LARA-SITIZ, ANDY
12591 WILLIAMS, RICK B
12628 KINGS PANTRY
12629 THOMAS, DONNA L
12642 PREMIERE COLLISION CENTER

PRO TOW
12659 DUTRA, LEONARD A
12918 MORGAN & SLATES INC
12939 AGUILAR, JOSE A
13069 SD ATV SERVICE
13159 VETERINARY PHARMACEUTICALS INC
13180 HANFORD ARMONA SELFSTORAGE
13225 PEDDLERS MALL
UHAUL
13235 AUTOMOTIVE PERFORMANCE
13291 HUFFENBERGER RESTORATIONS

M C TRUCK & TRAILER PARTS
13321 HANFORD TOWING SERVICE
13375 GRANGER WATER SPECIALTIES

QUALITY MACHINERY CENTER
13400 KIDS BARN LLC
LAYNE
13405 MACIEL, JIM K
13488 LARSON, RICK L
13508 FIVE STAR MINI STORAGE
13520 RODRIQUEZ, JESUS
13529 SILVEIR, JOE M

SILVEIRAS AIR CONDITIONING & HEATIN
13539 YATTY, MICHAEL M
13549 KINGS COMMUNITY ACTION ORGANIZATION
13594 MITCHELL, SUSAN L

MITCHELLS AIR CONDITIONING & HEATIN
13704 CENTRAL VALLEY HEALTH TRANSPORT

COLLINS AIR

G M T GAMES

HOUR OF TRUTH MINISTRIES INC

WINDTAMER TARPS
13738 J & D JOSHUAS TOWING
13784 FRANKS ARMONA AUTO BODY

(Cont'd)
-

HANFORD ARMONA RD
Cole Information
7674781.5 Page: A11
Target Street Cross Street Source
2017
14514 LABANDEIRA, JANENE M
14570 YOUNG, CECELIA
14666 LIU, CYNTHIA M
14670 KINGS COUNTY AIR CONDITIONING INC
14724 CENTRAL VALLEY ROD & RESTORATIONS
14992 MARVIN, LINDA D

-

HANFORD ARMONA RD
Cole Information
7674781.5 Page: A12
Target Street Cross Street Source
2014
1058 JACQUILLARD, PAMELA
1115 NATALL, ANGELO
1433 VANDER, GRAAF A
2511 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN,
2911 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN,
6160 HOOPER, JAMES R
6236 LEAL, DANNY J
6255 RODRIGUEZ, NIKE
6380 IRBY, EARL B
6431 TOSTE, MANUEL B
6435 KELI, NANCY
6509 COELHO, TELMO
6585 NORWOOD, SUSIE M
6624 BORGES, CARLOS A
6672 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN,
6713 TORRES, ADRIANA A
6714 DIAS, JACLYN
6749 CLACHER, AARON M

D C ELECTRIC
6750 DUTRA, EDDIE S
6780 KELLENBERGER, DAVID W
6812 ELLIS, JOHN C
6850 MEYER, FRANK F
6894 GARZA, IGNACIO G
6976 TAMEZ, RICARDO R
7140 CORONADO, JESUS
7184 COX, WILLIAM F
7216 CORONADO, FRANCIS V
7252 VRYHOF, KIMBERLY L
7257 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN,
7441 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN,
7479 AGUILAR, JOSE B
7480 BAKER COMMODITIES INCKERMAN DIVISIO

BAKER COMMODITIES INCKINGS TULARE

FLETCHER, DOUGLAS D

KINGS TULARE TALLOW DIVISION OF BAKE
7761 SOUTH VALLEY MATERIALS

SOUTH VALLEY MATERIALS INC

VALLEY READY MIX
7767 KENNIES INDOOR COMFORT SPECIALISTS I
7803 KINGS WASTE & RECYCLING AUTH
7818 PEREIRRA, JOSEPH B
8038 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN,
8076 GOMES, MICHAEL T

PROLITE SIGNS
8211 DANELL, DAVID M
8263 DANELL, CLAIRE L
8265 DANELL BROS CUSTOM CHOPPING
8395 TEIXEIRA, JOSE L
8415 HOLLAR, PAUL R

(Cont'd)
-

HANFORD ARMONA RD
Cole Information
7674781.5 Page: A13
Target Street Cross Street Source
2014
8471 PEREZ, ALEXANDER M
9102 CLEMENT, LONNIE
9144 BORBOLLA, RALPH R
9184 COTTA, CYNTHIA
9248 MAGNIA, LUPE
9513 DURAN, GREGORY V
9539 LOPEZ, CARLOS
9615 WULFFENSTEIN, BESSIE
9617 DUTRA, TONY
9619 TRUJILLO, LAWRENCE L
9839 R NR WELDING
9842 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN,
9845 CENTRAL VALLEY COOPERATIVE
10355 IMMACULATE HEART
10435 IMMACULATE HEART OF MARY CHURCH
10443 ASPEITIA, PIERRE
10519 ESCOBAR, MARISELA
10531 BASS, ANTHONY
10556 BURKETT, SANDRA L
10569 CERON, LUIS
10595 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN,
10623 DELACRUZ, STEVE D
10626 SAENZ, LYNDA
10628 WHARRY, WILLIAN
10630 FRANKLIN, ARETHA E
10632 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN,
10636 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN,
10700 HANFORD COMMODITIES LLC

HANFORD COMMODITIES TRANSPORT
10833 DOLEX

JOYERIA FB

RN MARKET
10862 LEON, HILARIO
10864 GUECHO, RONALD J
10868 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN,
10870 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN,
10872 DENISON, SHERYL
10874 DIETRICH, WILLIAM E

DIETRISH, VERA B
10876 GONZALEZ, ADRIANA
10878 SHEPHERD, RONALD L
10880 SHERWOOD, M W
10882 LICON, DIXIE L
10886 MALDONADO, MARIA T
10888 ABLES, SHIRLEY
10890 CIBRIAN, GUADALUPE
10894 SANCHEZ, GEMA
10896 ANA, ZAZUETA
10898 HENDRICKSON, RICHARD M

PALOMERA, JOSE

(Cont'd)
-

HANFORD ARMONA RD
Cole Information
7674781.5 Page: A14
Target Street Cross Street Source
2014
10900 CANTORIANO-ANDRACA, ELIO

ENSALDO, IRENE
10902 LIMA, MAYRA
10904 GILBERT, DONALD
10906 BETTENCOURT, LEONARD M
10908 DUTRA, MANUEL
10910 ALVES, TIMOTHY A
10912 TAYLOR, LORA E
10914 JENSEN, SHELLY M
10915 STOP ZONE INC
10916 ALVAREZ, FRANCISCO
10918 MCDONALD, CYRENA A

WARMERDAM, CHERYL L
10920 ROMERO, MAYRA
10924 WILLIAMS, JACKIE
10926 VALENTINE, WILFRED C
10928 HAMMOND, JAY
10930 WOOD, BOBBY
10932 BOYCE, MARTHA L
10934 POTTER, LEROY
10936 CAJERO, MARIA L
10937 JAURIGUI, LEROY P
10940 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN,
10942 SILVA, RONDA N
10946 MCHANEY, BILLY F
10948 MARTIN, BEATRICE
10950 LUGO, HILARIO
10952 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN,
10954 BEL AIR MOBILE HOME PARK

GRIFFITH, LEROY L
10958 CRANFORD, MARALYN J

DAVIS, ALFRED L
10960 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN,
10962 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN,
10964 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN,
10970 BERRY, SARAH
10972 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN,
10974 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN,
10975 SILVA, RICHARD
10976 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN,
10986 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN,
10990 WILES, AMANDA E
10992 ABLES, JIMMY L
10994 EAST, JOHN
10998 STROUP, CLARENCE C
11122 CELAYA, JOSE O
11124 DUONG, PHUONG V
11126 BLAZQUEZ, VENANCIO
11130 FERNANDEZ, EFREN
11132 SOLARIO, HELEN

(Cont'd)
-

HANFORD ARMONA RD
Cole Information
7674781.5 Page: A15
Target Street Cross Street Source
2014
11134 LEWIS, DAVID L
11136 ALNAGAR, G
11151 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN,
11212 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN,
11274 CALVARY CHRISTIAN CENTER
11303 MANITAS DE AMOR PRESCHOOL & CHILDCAR

MARTINEZ, LOUIS M
11356 HAAS, WALTER G
11386 MINCHUE, DICKIE L
11400 CHISM, RUSSELL J
11402 MACEDO, WILLIAM E
11454 LONG, DAVID L
11464 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN,
11474 TREADWELL, JON D
11526 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN,
11540 SIGALA, FRANCISCO
11580 MARTINEZ, PAULINE
12150 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN,
12168 KENNEDY, JERRY A
12182 CHAVEZ, SYLVIA

MEDEIROS, RICKEY
12184 CASA DEL SOL
12186 CASTRO, MOISES

ESPINOZA, YESENIA

FOSTER, CRYSTAL

GARCIA, SHARON R

HOLMES, CHARLOTT L

LAVARES, YOSSI

MONCADA, MARITZA

RODRIGUEZ, NORMA

SOLIS, MAXINE I
12188 AGREDANO, ANESSA M

PRIGGETT, TERRY

SAUCEDO, SANDRA

TAMAYO, VIRGINIA
12190 BOTELLO, ALEJANDRA

JOHNSON, MARILYN L

SMITH, GUADALUPE
12192 DELACRUZ, MIKE M

GARCIA, PHILLIP T

VALDEZ, ORTIZ C
12194 JARAMILLO, DORA M
12196 GRANADOS, AMILCAR
12198 GARCIA, ANGELA

GONZALEZ, ANNA

HIGINIA, RAMIRIZ Z

MEDINA, FELICIANO

ORELLANA, SANDRA

SERNA, HELEN R

ZARAGOZA, MARIA O

(Cont'd)
-

HANFORD ARMONA RD
Cole Information
7674781.5 Page: A16
Target Street Cross Street Source
2014
12200 FULLER, JODI L

GARZIA, ISABEL

RONQUILLO, JOHN A

ROSSEL, ROSALINDA C
12202 FERNANDEZ, R

MONTOYA, DANIELL

RODRIGUEZ, MARCI

ULLOA, MARIBETH
12204 GARCIA, LILIANA

MOZ, PAULINE D

RODRIGUEZ, NORMA G
12206 AGUAYO, R

BESOUGLOFF, PETER I

LISA, DESOTO

MORENO, GLORIA

TORRES, AMY E
12208 FAGUNDES, ASHLEY

GIRON, KIMBERLY

LOPEZ, R

MACIEL, MEELENA

PIZANO, LUZ M

RAMOS, ANA M

SNOW, KARI
12246 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN,
12358 PENSIERO, GENE
12406 WINTERBERG, WILLIAM L
12458 SILKWOOD, FRANK L
12536 KOINONIA CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP
12589 LARA-SITIZ, ANDY
12591 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN,
12628 KINGS PANTRY

OCCUPANT UNKNOWN,
12629 THOMAS, RICK R
12631 GIBSON, JOE D
12633 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN,
12642 PREMIERE COLLISION CENTER

PRO TOW
12645 DUTRA, LEONARD A
12659 DUTRA, HENRY J
12784 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN,
12918 MORGAN & SLATES MANUFACTURING & SUPP
12939 AGUILAR, MARCUS A
13069 SD ATV SERVICE
13180 HANFORD ARMONA SELFSTORAGE
13225 PEDDLERS MALL
13235 AUTOMOTIVE PERFORMANCE
13291 HUFFENBERGER RESTORATIONS
13321 HANFORD TOWING SERVICE
13331 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN,
13405 MACIEL, JIM K